General Purpose 13th Age Thread

[Kiero]

The classes are one of the major flaws in 13A for me, because I disagree with a lot of the underlying philosophies. The whole "martial=simple, magical=complex" split is just silly. And I really dislike dice tricks determining what you can do - I'm looking at "flexible attacks" here.

Fortunately, it's really easy to make up your own classes, which is what our GM did for our upcoming game. I don't think it's a surprise that out of five PCs, three of us have chosen custom classes.

Of the existing, I don't mind the Ranger, it's pretty close to what I like to do with one anyway. Really dislike the Fighter, which is a shame because in 4e it's a class I love.

[DawnRaven]

I don't really think there's a split between martial = complex at all. The flexible attacks from fighter or the powers of the rogue aren't less simple than say the bard or cleric's stuff.

The sorcerer with chain and breath spells is somewhat complex as is the wizard with the utility spell ability though. I'm hoping the next round of classes come out with more complex martial classes and concepts. The Monk seems pretty complex from the playtest.

[AvianMalkavian]

Having played the Barbarian, I'm fairly confident that it doesn't require any boosting and/or nerfing. Our GM ran through several encounters and my Half-Orc Barbarian was laying waste to everything in sight. Doing 2d12 with a Greataxe, I crit and wiped out an entire mob of mooks before they even got a turn before killing the boss monster nearly single-handedly. Believe me, the Barbarian is plenty awesome at what it does already.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

And I really dislike dice tricks determining what you can do - I'm looking at "flexible attacks" here.

If it helps, think of it as this: the battlefield and the combat is a bit chaotic, and you're never going to have the opportunity to do whatever you want. It's not as though your opponent is standing around like a punching bag, waiting for you to unleash your abilities.

Flexible attacks mean that when you make an attack roll, you see the opportunities available to you, and you pick one of those opportunities.

[Kiero]

If it helps, think of it as this: the battlefield and the combat is a bit chaotic, and you're never going to have the opportunity to do whatever you want. It's not as though your opponent is standing around like a punching bag, waiting for you to unleash your abilities.

Flexible attacks mean that when you make an attack roll, you see the opportunities available to you, and you pick one of those opportunities.

It doesn't help, it's a design choice that simply doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. I choose what my character does, I don't have the particular roll determine what options are available to me. As written, the Fighter is of no use to me.

[Shyftir]

Weird. I love flexible attacks. Where an ability that gives you bonus AC, must be balanced against other attacks (usually by dealing less damage) in a game like 4e. A flexible attack doesn't need to be directly balanced in the same way.

The Defensive Fighting flexible also helps make a sword and board fighter not just viable but actually good! I really enjoy the flexible attacks. Keeps the fight from just being. "I use this. roll. I use this (the same thing). Roll. (repeat)"

[Kiero]

Weird. I love flexible attacks. Where an ability that gives you bonus AC, must be balanced against other attacks (usually by dealing less damage) in a game like 4e. A flexible attack doesn't need to be directly balanced in the same way.

The Defensive Fighting flexible also helps make a sword and board fighter not just viable but actually good! I really enjoy the flexible attacks. Keeps the fight from just being. "I use this. roll. I use this (the same thing). Roll. (repeat)"

When I played a Fighter in 4e, I most definitely did not use the same thing over and again. There are better ways of preventing people spamming the same attack/combo repeatedly than removing your choice of maneuver.

Funny that flexible attacks weren't applied to any magical class in their usage of spells.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think that's mainly because flex attacks aren't for casters. Design decision, again. Fighters are the opportunists (flexible attacks), while casters use rote knowledge.

[DawnRaven]

Flexible attacks for a sorcerer-type would be a lot of fun..

[Kiero]

I think that's mainly because flex attacks aren't for casters. Design decision, again. Fighters are the opportunists (flexible attacks), while casters use rote knowledge.

That's precisely my point, though. Yes, it's a design decision. But it's one I disagree with.

Our GM came up with an alternative Fighter class that's all-choice, all the time. It also has some potential Warlord flavour to it, if you take the right powers and Talents. It's cool, and I'd play that in a heartbeat, had I not already chosen something for our upcoming game (and one of the other players has snapped it up).

[Shyftir]

Actually, the sorcerer has a lot of chaos involved: Whether or not the lightning chains, which effect goes off because of Gather Power, etc. I actually feel that bits of chaos are all over this game.

I think that the random elements give combat a very exciting aspect that is more interesting than being in complete control, but diff'rent strokes for different folks.

[Kiero]

Actually, the sorcerer has a lot of chaos involved: Whether or not the lightning chains, which effect goes off because of Gather Power, etc. I actually feel that bits of chaos are all over this game.

I think that the random elements give combat a very exciting aspect that is more interesting than being in complete control, but diff'rent strokes for different folks.

The randomness fetish is one of the elements of 13A that really annoys me. Random Recoveries is stupid (though thankfully optional); random chargen has no place in a game that is so dependent on virtually every attribute, not just a few; the Recharge mechanic was annoying when monsters in 4e used it and I don't see it adding anything that making things either once per battle or once per day did.

[Garimeth]

I like flexible attacks personally. And yeah the sorc is definitely the "flexible attack" caster. I even like the flexible attacks on bard. Also I wouldn't say that rogue is necessarily simple compared to casters. I actually like the classes in this game, but do wish there was more "general" feats to customize your character outside of class options.

@Kiero, why do you prefer ranger since you dislike the split you refer to? Ranger is the simplest class!

[DawnRaven]

Hopefully the new book will add some more options via feats, talents and powers to all of the classes. Or, if not that, at least provide new ways of doing things with the new classes.

Has anyone gotten the new Bestiary? If you have, and haven't read all of it, go look at the Redcaps.

I've found my new favorite monster!

[Shyftir]

I'm waiting on the bestiary until it exists in dead-tree format. Then purchasing from my FLGS. Sigh. I want it NOW!

[Kiero]

Talking of monsters, our GM has come up with a host of Mephits.

@Kiero, why do you prefer ranger since you dislike the split you refer to? Ranger is the simplest class!

The Ranger is my favourite class in anything D&D-like, and I don't mind simple in and of itself (I'm playing a Scout in 4e right now). What I don't like is having no option to play a martial class that's more complicated (because I generally play only martial). I don't like the 13A Fighter, when I love the 4e Fighter.

I don't think I'm alone in disliking the default classes, either, in my group three out of four players so far have opted for homebrew classes rather than those in the book (I went with the Elemental Knight).

[DawnRaven]

So it looks like the necromancer is going to be more of a multi-class only sort of thing. This makes me think multiclassing will be a pretty interesting system in 13th Age. Unlike a lot of people, I was a huge fan of hybrid-classing in 4e.

They also announced adventures for the system! Hopefully they have the same quality that I've come to enjoy with Paizo's stuff.

[Kiero]

We have our group-gen session for this long-awaited game next week. We all pretty much know what classes we want to play, and have a basic handle on concepts, but it all needs to be fitted together. Plus we need a starting premise, we don't really know what the party is yet.

[Kiero]

Our game is underway, our wiki has the PCs and scads of setting information.

Does 13A not bother with morale, like 3.x and 4e before did? I wonder how easy it would be to port in something, perhaps that from ACKS so that combats don't go to the death or til the GM decides someone has had enough.

[DawnRaven]

Like earlier editions of D&D, morale is covered-ish under hit points. If an enemy goes down from damage on a miss or from certain spells/abilities, it would make sense for them to simply surrender as opposed to die at 0 hit points.

So if you want something more concrete than DM-fiat, you'll have to look into adding a system in place.

[Kiero]

Like earlier editions of D&D, morale is covered-ish under hit points. If an enemy goes down from damage on a miss or from certain spells/abilities, it would make sense for them to simply surrender as opposed to die at 0 hit points.

So if you want something more concrete than DM-fiat, you'll have to look into adding a system in place.

Depends what you mean by "earlier"; everything from AD&D2e back has a morale stat and checks that are made under a range of circumstances. It's just 3.x and 4e that dropped it entirely.

Hit points are not a measure of morale, and they make a poor one since it implies everything fights to the death/incapacity.

[DawnRaven]

Well, at least in 4e they were. That's how warlord's were able to heal, its what a lot of bard/warlord temporary hit points were flavored as, etc.

More importantly, from the 13th age core book: "Hit points measure more than your physical capacity to suffer wounds; they also represent intangibles like your will to fight." (Page 311)

So, as I said, it sort of has a morale thing baked in, but if that's not a good enough indicator for you and DM-fiat on surrendering isn't your preference, you'll have to add rules to it. 13th Age is fairly (compared to say, 3.5 D&D) rules-light both inside and outside of combat.

[Kiero]

We're four sessions into Acrozatarim, our 13th Age game with entirely custom setting, and it's been fun so far. I'm liking how the characters and world are shaping up, and we've got an interesting first outing for the characters working for one of the Icons. All that side of things is cool, the exploration, the weirdness, the characterisations.

I'm not enjoying playing a 1st level character in combat. I understand the reasons we're doing it, and have accommodated that, but I can't wait to get to 2nd level and leave the dummy step. The fragility of 1st level characters is really being driven home. We've had three combats so far and the Vanguard has been dropped, making death saves, in two of those. The last fight ended with almost everyone battered and low on Recoveries, we still have one more fight to go before we can get a proper refresh. Anyone who says characters in 13A are too tough and can't really die obviously hasn't played it, or failed their reading comprehension on how Rallies work.

I should be clear I don't blame the GM for this state of affairs, he's trying to get a gauge on what we can do, what is an "easy" and "hard" fight, and we've gotten into each for valid reasons knowing the risks. Hell, we've already avoided one major battle with another party looking for the same things as us through negotiation, and have found a way to allow them to get what they want in spite of the NPC concerned basically giving them the finger.

But fundamentally, I don't like the craven, hesitant way you have to play when you're 1st level. We'll need to finish this story arc before we level up, I'd guess there's still 2-3 sessions before that happens, so I'll just have to hang on a little bit longer.

[DawnRaven]

I haven't experienced the same thing with combats. Even when making fights that include Level 2 or, sometimes, level 3 enemies hasn't ended with more than a few really difficult fights. The difficult fights were ones where there was nothing but level 2 and level 4 monsters against a part of level 1's.

Did you get really unlucky in some of those? I've seen most fights start off in favour of the enemy but by round 3, it turns the other way.

[Kiero]

I haven't experienced the same thing with combats. Even when making fights that include Level 2 or, sometimes, level 3 enemies hasn't ended with more than a few really difficult fights. The difficult fights were ones where there was nothing but level 2 and level 4 monsters against a part of level 1's.

Did you get really unlucky in some of those? I've seen most fights start off in favour of the enemy but by round 3, it turns the other way.

We've had some spectacularly bad luck, especially the Vanguard's player, who in the first two combats didn't roll higher than 8 to hit. Not even in round 4 was he managing to hit, and the most recent one he started off that way too.

[Garimeth]

Hey guys, been a while, moved from OC to DC.

I still play with my Cali group over Roll20, but now we only get to play about once every 3 weeks.

My players have had some tough times at level 1 also, and are definitely ready to level up - but in much the same way I am trying to have them finish this story arc first, which due to our play schedule is taking longer than I expected.

[Garimeth]

I haven't experienced the same thing with combats. Even when making fights that include Level 2 or, sometimes, level 3 enemies hasn't ended with more than a few really difficult fights. The difficult fights were ones where there was nothing but level 2 and level 4 monsters against a part of level 1's.

Did you get really unlucky in some of those? I've seen most fights start off in favour of the enemy but by round 3, it turns the other way.

I just got done catching up with your PbP game Kingmaker on here, and actual am really impressed. Are you making the mobs yourself? Also, if so would you be willing to share them?

[RayneSummers]

Hi guys,
Just a quick question, where would I go to propose a home brew class idea or get some help in creating it myself while ensuring it is balanced?

[S.R.Suied]

Hi guys,
Just a quick question, where would I go to propose a home brew class idea or get some help in creating it myself while ensuring it is balanced?

Pelgrane Press forums, but they're pretty dead. Here probably works as well

[Garimeth]

Hi guys,
Just a quick question, where would I go to propose a home brew class idea or get some help in creating it myself while ensuring it is balanced?

There is a pretty good Google+ community page. Not sure how active it is, but there is alot of homebrew on it. You can always post it here too, it'd be nice to get more activity on 13th Age stuff here.