Why did they scrap Orcus?

[DSMatticus]

Straight forward question: how many special cases and exclusions do you think you need? So far, we have the buffer/combo problem, where the buffer shouldn't be able to buff himself (I actually fail to see the problem of letting most buffer characters buff themself anyway, so this may not even be necessarily), but the combo artist needs to be able to put a status on an enemy for the next turn all by himself. If you are consistent in buffer ability design, and none of his abilities work on himself, then that really is a trivial thing to remember. Neither cure light wounds nor cure medium wounds work on chairs, and no one gets confused and has to look that up because one does and the other doesn't. That sort of thing really does take zero time. It's just something you know about being the buffer after reading the intro blurb; "your abilities don't work on you, target someone else." Having two upkeep phases, though, is always work.

You're trying to imply that having those special cases and exceptions will be equally burdensome and ultimately the two options are just two sides of the same coin. And I don't actually buy that, and I won't buy it until I have an actual example that requires some particularly burdensome exception clause that could reasonably show up in the game.

[Simon Rogers]

Straight forward question: how many special cases and exclusions do you think you need?

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that.

So far, we have the buffer/combo problem, where the buffer shouldn't be able to buff himself (I actually fail to see the problem of letting most buffer characters buff themself anyway, so this may not even be necessarily), but the combo artist needs to be able to put a status on an enemy for the next turn all by himself. If you are consistent in buffer ability design, and none of his abilities work on himself, then that really is a trivial thing to remember. Neither cure light wounds nor cure medium wounds work on chairs, and no one gets confused and has to look that up because one does and the other doesn't. That sort of thing really does take zero time. It's just something you know about being the buffer after reading the intro blurb; "your abilities don't work on you, target someone else." Having two upkeep phases, though, is always work.

Personally, if I had a buffing ability and I couldn't use it on myself, I'd want that on the info on my ability card. I don't think "can't use on self" is a big difficult exception. But then I don't think bookkeeping your own characters' start and end of turn is a big issue either.

You're trying to imply that having those special cases and exceptions will be equally burdensome and ultimately the two options are just two sides of the same coin. And I don't actually buy that, and I won't buy it until I have an actual example that requires some particularly burdensome exception clause that could reasonably show up in the game.

Please, please read charitably. I'm not trying to imply that, you are inferring it. I am absolutely trying to understand what this issue is, and whether it's of consequence. I'd like to have something solid to chat to Rob about.

[Wrathzog]

Mr. Rogers, you are a hero, dude. Please continue to keep us informed on 13th Age Developments as they pertain to our insanity.

Also, I'm glad that DSM is back to calmly and clearly saying the things I was thinking and not jerk-face DSM with the twirly moustache and the foulest mouth.

[ishy]

Hi Simon,
can you explain what you mean here a little better? Because honestly it looks like you're contradicting yourself here:

Negative relationship with villainous icon (max 2 points)
The icon is out to get you, at least in the abstract or by implication. (...)

I hope it's clear from this that "the icon is personally out to get your first level character" is not really something that emerges as an obvious choice from the rules.

[DSMatticus]

Please, please read charitably. I'm not trying to imply that, you are inferring it. I am absolutely trying to understand what this issue is, and whether it's of consequence. I'd like to have something solid to chat to Rob about.

I'll concede that. But anyway: it's not going to be the thing that makes or breaks the game. It is something that could be changed and would likely reduce bookkeeping, but it will not turn a terrible game into a good one and unless 13th age is truly, truly awful at it a la 4e style, it will not turn a good game into a terrible one (not that 4e was a good game except for its bookkeeping, it wasn't). It's not a breaking point, even if the intense discussion surrounding it would suggest so. The actual effect it will have on the game varies a lot based on how many abilities you have that do each, what their effects are, and how much other crap you have going on at strange times (interrupts are another thing that can cause problems, but interrupts add noticeable value to the game so saying that they are flat-out bad is harder to do).

It's also entirely possible that, depending on your development schedule and how hard it would be to change up your abilities like that, it may not even be worth the developer time required to change it at this point. But I do think basically regardless of any other factors it belongs on the potential improvements list, even if it ends up below the cut-off point. If you find turns getting slow or complicated with lots of different things happening at different times (especially at mid to high-levels, assuming more abilities come online, or on characters with lots of abilities, or whatever), this would be one of the places you could go to cut out some extraneous complexity and you'd bump it up the list.

My actual opinion on 13th age at this point is basically nothing at all. I have seen things that cause me concern, and I've seen a few things that I thought were interesting, but I don't actually have a big enough picture of any it to figure out the things I actually care about.

Also, I'm glad that DSM is back to calmly and clearly saying the things I was thinking and not jerk-face DSM with the twirly moustache and the foulest mouth.

Hey, fuck you. If I want to put on a twirly mustache and bitch at people, that is my god-given right as a denizen of the intertubes. But anyway: the only time I got assholish at Rogers was for the Tunnels and Trolls shit. Otherwise, while I sometimes get the feeling Rogers is entirely too diplomatically nonconfrontational to actually be genuine about it given the context (professional restraint? he is sort of here as a publisher), he's been easy enough to talk to as a result, so why would I yell at him?

[Simon Rogers]

Hi Simon,
can you explain what you mean here a little better? Because honestly it looks like you're contradicting yourself here:

Negative relationship with villainous icon (max 2 points)
The icon is out to get you, at least in the abstract or by implication. (...)

I hope it's clear from this that "the icon is personally out to get your first level character" is not really something that emerges as an obvious choice from the rules.

"in the abstract or by implication" is the key phrase here.

Here is another way he expresses it in the table.

"You are a special foe of this icon, perhaps because of your virtue or possibly for less happy motives. Your enmity wins you allies among right-thinking people, but some of the villainous icon's forces are out to get you in some way."

[Simon Rogers]

I'll concede that. But anyway: it's not going to be the thing that makes or breaks the game. It is something that could be changed and would likely reduce bookkeeping, but it will not turn a terrible game into a good one and unless 13th age is truly, truly awful at it a la 4e style, it will not turn a good game into a terrible one (not that 4e was a good game except for its bookkeeping, it wasn't). It's not a breaking point, even if the intense discussion surrounding it would suggest so. The actual effect it will have on the game varies a lot based on how many abilities you have that do each, what their effects are, and how much other crap you have going on at strange times (interrupts are another thing that can cause problems, but interrupts add noticeable value to the game so saying that they are flat-out bad is harder to do).

This is altogether reasonable.

And now that I know that you are a bunch of whiny little muppets with an over-inflated sense of entitlement, this ridiculous and uneemly overreaction makes a great more sense. (Is that better?)

Anyway, I have sent you a PM.

[erik]

And now that I know that you are a bunch of whiny little muppets with an over-inflated sense of entitlement, this ridiculous and uneemly overreaction makes a great more sense. (Is that better?)

Yeah, that's a closer understanding.



Game design is srs bzns here, or so we'd like to think. Seeing bad design principles in action, even if it is mostly benign is an irritant we'll cuss at like a stubbed toe. What drives some, including myself at times, into a rabid rage is when even worse arguments (either illogical or blatantly anti-factual) are employed to try and justify said bad design.

[John Magnum]

Right. Basically, the turn accounting stuff, you can react several different ways. You can go "Oh, hey, this DOES make it a little harder to figure out what's actually happening with the Bard without actually making it any more complex. Let's change that around." Which appears to be what Heinsoo et al. actually did while we weren't looking! So, okay, fine.

You can go "Well, maybe it's not optimal, but it's not that huge a deal. Does it really matter?" and the answer really is "No", especially if characters in 13A really just don't end up with very many powers total. (Which is a thing that concerns me, but independently of the duration endphase accounting.)

Or, like some weirdos have, you can go "Well actually it's WAY BETTER and more deeper and tactical this way, and if you want a retarded game of tic-tac-toe for babies maybe you can play your stupid shallow bullshit". Simon hasn't actually done this.

[Username17]

Straight forward question: how many special cases and exclusions do you think you need? So far, we have the buffer/combo problem, where the buffer shouldn't be able to buff himself (I actually fail to see the problem of letting most buffer characters buff themself anyway, so this may not even be necessarily), but the combo artist needs to be able to put a status on an enemy for the next turn all by himself.

The "No Self Buffs" thing in 4th edition worked extremely poorly and led to things getting super broken in several ways. We had a whole thread on it.

The 3e Cleric and Druid had problems where if they simply directed their buffs to themselves they could produce way more output than the characters who didn't have buffs. I regard that as mainly a "Fighters" issue, but whatever. It was a thing. The 4e response was to make it so that a bunch of "Leader" abilities worked on everyone but the leader. And that created an "I'll scratch your back..." scenario in which if you just made a party out of mostly leaders, you could break the RNG in half.

But if for some reason you really want to hand out one-turn buffs that could not be effectively used by the person activating them, and you had a single effect termination phase at the end of the turn, you'd just have the effect terminate for the player on the turn it was activated instead of letting them use it next turn. You really shouldn't do that, because it was a long walk off a short pier for efforts to keep the numbers in a row for 4th edition, but if you wanted to keep that paradigm it is in no way inconsistent with having a single upkeep phase.

-Username17

[Emerald]

Question for Simon:

How is your playtest structured regarding level range, starting at higher levels, etc.? I ask because 3e works fairly well up to about 10th level (for a given value of "fairly well") but breaks down after that because, as far as we can tell, the playtest ended at or before 10th and every single playtest started at 1st and went up from there, so the first 3 or 4 levels are the most-tested and the others got correspondingly less attention. (The fact that WotC designers can't playtest their way out of a paper bag and took 6+ years to understand their own system passingly well didn't help.)

If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest having players create characters at varying levels above 1st, up to and including the maximum, and have them play for a certain level range not including the maximum before stopping. Without having seen the game I can't say if you have any "capstone" abilities or abilities most effective during a certain level range or the like, but if you have some abilities that are "rewards" for slogging through the early levels or similar, you might not notice that by doing 1-10 playtests every time and then you'd have some in-play disparities if people start higher than 1st or end before 10th. It's essentially the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards problem for a smaller level range and lower effects ceiling, and addressing that without turning every ability into bullshit, boring combat stuff like 4e did would further differentiate 13th Age from 4e as it seems you'd like to do. (And if the team has already done that, congratulations, they've done at least one thing right!)


And don't get frustrated with the Den hammering the single-resolution-phase point home; most of the vitriol is likely left over from the last time 4e fans invaded and argued repeatedly that the multiple-resolution-phase method worked in 4e (which it most definitely does not) alongside their other terrible arguments. If you raise an issue that's already been discussed several times and basically settled, and are on the opposite side from the consensus, the fact that you weren't around for the last discussion or that your case is slightly different from the last one (i.e. being in a different game) won't mitigate the barrage of criticism coming your way.

[ishy]

But if for some reason you really want to hand out one-turn buffs that could not be effectively used by the person activating them, and you had a single effect termination phase at the end of the turn, you'd just have the effect terminate for the player on the turn it was activated instead of letting them use it next turn. You really shouldn't do that, because it was a long walk off a short pier for efforts to keep the numbers in a row for 4th edition, but if you wanted to keep that paradigm it is in no way inconsistent with having a single upkeep phase.

-Username17

I don't really understand what you mean here Frank. Are you saying you want buffs that take an action to end right as you 'cast' them? That makes no sense whatsoever to me, because then nobody else benefits. (Edit: so it is probably not what you mean)
Or do you mean that the buff duration is different for everyone, as in ends separately at everyones turn?
Wouldn't that mean that you'd prefer to go latest since things like AoO's etc (if your system has those) would suffer as well?

Though I'm not sure what the problem would be if the person could benefit from the buff as well in the next round, just before it ends.

[Simon Rogers]

Question for Simon:

How is your playtest structured regarding level range, starting at higher levels, etc.? I ask because 3e works fairly well up to about 10th level (for a given value of "fairly well") but breaks down after that because, as far as we can tell, the playtest ended at or before 10th and every single playtest started at 1st and went up from there, so the first 3 or 4 levels are the most-tested and the others got correspondingly less attention. (The fact that WotC designers can't playtest their way out of a paper bag and took 6+ years to understand their own system passingly well didn't help.)

I haven't read all the playtest reports, but we asked people to run through the special 10 session campaign (up one level a session) and got a decent number of reports, and asked others to start at higher levels. 13th Age levels don't scale exactly to DnD ones - currently they go up to 10th level (9th being Epic), and you get little boosts between levels. It's something else I'll chat to Rob about, as he has a clearer picture and did a massive do-over of the classes last pass.

And don't get frustrated with the Den hammering the single-resolution-phase point home; most of the vitriol is likely left over from the last time 4e fans invaded and argued repeatedly that the multiple-resolution-phase method worked in 4e (which it most definitely does not) alongside their other terrible arguments. If you raise an issue that's already been discussed several times and basically settled, and are on the opposite side from the consensus, the fact that you weren't around for the last discussion or that your case is slightly different from the last one (i.e. being in a different game) won't mitigate the barrage of criticism coming your way.

I was more puzzled than frustrated, at why people should become so over-excited based on limited information, but I understand the context a lot better now.

The state we are in at the moment, is that the Escalation Edition is the first post second playtest draft, and we are soliciting specific feedback from those customers. You can read about what Rob wants testing here.

You guys should so have volunteered to playtest.

[Username17]

But if for some reason you really want to hand out one-turn buffs that could not be effectively used by the person activating them, and you had a single effect termination phase at the end of the turn, you'd just have the effect terminate for the player on the turn it was activated instead of letting them use it next turn. You really shouldn't do that, because it was a long walk off a short pier for efforts to keep the numbers in a row for 4th edition, but if you wanted to keep that paradigm it is in no way inconsistent with having a single upkeep phase.

-Username17

I don't really understand what you mean here Frank. Are you saying you want buffs that take an action to end right as you 'cast' them? That makes no sense whatsoever to me, because then nobody else benefits. (Edit: so it is probably not what you mean)
Though I'm not sure what the problem would be if the person could benefit from the buff as well in the next round, just before it ends.

Well, things would probably come in the following order:

• Your Action on Turn1: Use Inspirational Dance Step.
• Your Upkeep on Turn1.
• Other People who act after you on Turn1.
• Other People who act before you on Turn2.
• Your Action on Turn2: Stab a fool in the face.
• Your Upkeep on Turn2.

Now the general assumption for the "self buffs are possible" crowd is that if you target yourself with Inspirational Dance Step on Turn1, that it ends during Upkeep on Turn2. But if you wanted to switch to a "self buffs are not possible", you could have Inspirational Dance Step expire during the Upkeep on Turn1 instead.

Whether you want self-buffs to happen or not, the Upkeep Phase is still a good idea.

Of course, the whole "one turn buffs that are too small to care about" paradigm from 4e was really terrible, even without the accounting nightmare that was having three mechanically distinct ways they could end during your turn. I was immediately and horrendously annoyed when I looked at those character sheets and saw a bunch of pathetic one-turn +2s to AC or damage or whatever the fuck.

-Username17

[Voss]

Of course, the whole "one turn buffs that are too small to care about" paradigm from 4e was really terrible, even without the accounting nightmare that was having three mechanically distinct ways they could end during your turn. I was immediately and horrendously annoyed when I looked at those character sheets and saw a bunch of pathetic one-turn +2s to AC or damage or whatever the fuck.

-Username17

Which is also why it immediately looks like a 4e clone, despite some claims to the contrary. Well, and none of the pregen powers do anything interesting at all.

[Stubbazubba]

That said, this is one forum of many, and I would not wish to impose upon in when I'm not welcome, so ask me to leave and I'll toddle off. If not, I'll keep replying where I can and seeking out answers where I can't.

That was not, in any way, my intention, or my implication. You're welcome here as long as you want to be here. You've proved that you can withstand a tongue-lashing from Frank (something we've all been through), and can find meaningful avenues to continue the discourse. You're beginning to argue the merits of a given idea, instead of assuring us it's OK and that all of our zeitgeist is based on misinformation or relying on the justification of "the playtesters liked it."

Now, I have another question for you regarding Icons, and if you spelled this out previously just say so and I'll go hunt it down: From an RP standpoint, I think I see what having a relationship with an Icon is supposed to do, and I actually think that's great, albeit only with the caveat that the DM and players use it responsibly (but that's characteristic of many narrative-oriented mechanics, so not a deal-breaker). So what does it do mechanically? There are numbers attached, so I assume they do something very tangible.

[Stubbazubba]

Hi Simon,
can you explain what you mean here a little better? Because honestly it looks like you're contradicting yourself here:

I hope it's clear from this that "the icon is personally out to get your first level character" is not really something that emerges as an obvious choice from the rules.

"in the abstract or by implication" is the key phrase here.

There's also an "at least" in the front there, so that sort of implies that there's an "at most" on the other end where you have chopped off the Icon's hand and fed it to a crocodile, so now he is obsessed with finding you personally and destroying you. Maybe that's reading too much into the semantics, but it is a perfectly valid interpretation of the RAW.

Here is another way he expresses it in the table.

"You are a special foe of this icon, perhaps because of your virtue or possibly for less happy motives. Your enmity wins you allies among right-thinking people, but some of the villainous icon's forces are out to get you in some way."

That's better; it confines the active agent in your enmity to some of the Icon's forces, instead of leaving it up to your poor DM how the evil Necromancer, with all his personal ability to seek and destroy, is somehow evaded by you, the 11-year-old Boy Who Lived, or something.

[Simon Rogers]

That said, this is one forum of many, and I would not wish to impose upon in when I'm not welcome, so ask me to leave and I'll toddle off. If not, I'll keep replying where I can and seeking out answers where I can't.

Now, I have another question for you regarding Icons, and if you spelled this out previously just say so and I'll go hunt it down: From an RP standpoint, I think I see what having a relationship with an Icon is supposed to do, and I actually think that's great, albeit only with the caveat that the DM and players use it responsibly (but that's characteristic of many narrative-oriented mechanics, so not a deal-breaker). So what does it do mechanically? There are numbers attached, so I assume they do something very tangible.

Last post for a while:

If you like, roleplay or suggest how you might make a connection: You won’t be stuck with the suggestion, but the idea should make sense in the flow of the story and give the GM something to work with. If you or the GM would rather roll first and then interpret the roll with roleplaying flavor, that also works.
 Roll d6s equal to your relationship points with the icon: You roll 1, 2, or 3 (or 4 at epic level) six-sided dice, the same number of dice as the points you spent for the relationship with that icon.
 Hope for 6s: If any die is a 6, you get some meaningful advantage from the relationship without having any complications. If two or three dice come up 6, that’s even better.
 Look out for 5s: If any die is you’re your connection to the icon is going to work out as well as a 6 would, but with some unexpected complication. If it’s a good icon, you might be drawn into some obligation. If it’s an evil icon, you might attract unwanted attention.
 Both 5s and 6s: Rolling 5s when you also rolled 6s should make life both interesting and profitable!

[Simon Rogers]

There's also an "at least" in the front there, so that sort of implies that there's an "at most" on the other end where you have chopped off the Icon's hand and fed it to a crocodile, so now he is obsessed with finding you personally and destroying you. Maybe that's reading too much into the semantics, but it is a perfectly valid interpretation of the RAW.

Yes, removing the 'at least' or changing it to 'usually' might work better. Rob is looking at this text in any case, and I've raised it with him. I wouldn't personally exclude the possibilty of personal enmity from the text altogether, if the GM wants it. Wouldn't do it myself. Anyway, Rob's call.

[ModelCitizen]

Well, things would probably come in the following order:

• Your Action on Turn1: Use Inspirational Dance Step.
• Your Upkeep on Turn1.
• Other People who act after you on Turn1.
• Other People who act before you on Turn2.
• Your Action on Turn2: Stab a fool in the face.
• Your Upkeep on Turn2.

Now the general assumption for the "self buffs are possible" crowd is that if you target yourself with Inspirational Dance Step on Turn1, that it ends during Upkeep on Turn2. But if you wanted to switch to a "self buffs are not possible", you could have Inspirational Dance Step expire during the Upkeep on Turn1 instead.

Whether you want self-buffs to happen or not, the Upkeep Phase is still a good idea.

If you need an ability to exclude the caster, why do that through duration at all? You can just say "allies other than you" in the ability's targeting line. That targeting line has to be there anyway so it's not like you're adding any additional complexity.

[deaddmwalking]

I think some people have trouble imagining what people are talking about without a specific example - could be wrong, but I figured I'd put out an example - probably not something in the game, but there's probably something like this.

Defensive Stance You can initiate a defensive stance and gain a +4 AC bonus until the beginning of your next turn

Okay. Let's say that's the ability we're talking about.

If you can 'activate it' at the beginning of your turn in round 1, you'll get the benefit in Round 1 against everyone that attacks you in Round 1 after your turn, and everyone that attacks you before your turn in Round 2.

If you make the ability last until the end of your next turn, you might get the benefit on your turn in round 1 and your turn in round 2. Obviously, that's more 'benefit time', but is it more benefit? It isn't if people can't attack you on your turn.

If nobody can attack you on your turn, there's absolutely no reason NOT to make it last until the end of your next turn.

If people CAN attack you on your turn (such as by AoO), the designer has to consider how best to resolve it.

1) Leave the action as 'beginning of next turn' - it means that you very well may have some abilities that come off at different points in your turn, and it is an annoying pain in the ass as everyone here will tell you. But that's an option.

2) Accept that you can get the benefit on your turn in round 1 (say, if you were moving through threatened areas and provoking) and in round 2 (say, if you kept moving through threatened areas and kept provoking). If it isn't particularly game breaking to have that effect possibly last through two sets of actions, this would also be a possible solution.

3) Ensure that the design of the ability works for a single round only. In this case, if it is designed to apply to the attacks AFTER your turn but before your next turn, you can really just let the effect BEGIN at the end of your turn (upkeep phase) and last until the end of your next turn (upkeep phase). Thus, if you move in round 1 and provoke AoO, you don't get the benefit of this ability. But in Round 2, you would. If it's more important that it apply DURING your turn, you activate it at the start of your turn in Round 1, but it expires at the end of your turn in Round 1. Thus, it would apply to the AoO you provoke for your movement, but it wouldn't provide any benefit for people attacking you after your turn in Round 1 or before your turn in Round 2.

4) Finally, you can just make it a 'thing' that lasts long enough so it doesn't matter. Ie, it could last 5 minutes. If combat is usually 1 minute in game time, it pretty much lasts for the entire combat. Usually, an ability that you're giving a 'single round' is too good to make this an option, but it is possible that some of the abilities referred to second hand wouldn't qualify as 'too good' to not be a full-combat buff.

[DSMatticus]

So, I've got my hands on the 13th age rulebook (legitimately, legitimately!), and while I'm probably not the best to rend it viciously with my insightful criticism, I can comment on some things and provide the missing info.

Icons[/b]
So, the icons are ~13 different dudes in the campaign setting who are supposed to have specific enough details about that icon and how he interacts with other icons that you can use them as is for campaign plot hooks, and they've all got organizations and followers and some descriptions of what those organizations do or are like (these organizations could be fleshed out a little more fluff-wise, because their purpose is to provide plot ideas to GM's and examples of that would be super nice, maybe it's somewhere else in the book I haven't got to yet, or just not in yet). Now, these icons are unstatted. And they are as unstatted as it is possible to be; they don't even recommend a level range or classes (though, the classes could be pretty obvious). I would change that. Even if you don't provide the stat block, saying that the archmage is a level X wizard is a big step towards helping the GM use these characters at high-levels, because eventually the PC's will be on the personal radar of the icons and may even personally interact with them, and having the GM arbitrarily resolve those interactions with PLOT is disempowering to say, 'well, the archmage is a level 22 wizard, which would give him ____, so your attempt to ____ results in ____," whatever.

Now, the text frequently uses the word icon to describe your relationship. "You have a relationship with the icon..." "in the icon's eyes, you're a..." "as far as this icon is concerned, you're..." So when you read it, it totally sounds like it is describing a personal relationship with that icon. But when you get into the actual mechanics and results of the system, it's basically a contacts background. "Authorities often help you, and civilians often trust you. On the down side, you may be called on to serve representatives of the icon even when you have other plans. You might also be a target of villainous icons or this heroic icon's rivals." Basically, it looks like icon simultaneously refers to the icon personally and the faction that surrounds that icon, so when they talk about your relationship with the icon what they mean is your relationship with the faction that supports that icon. Whether or not the icon is even aware that you have a relationship with their faction at all is a different story entirely. And they say that in a sort of round-about way in a few places: "RPGs abvout vampires have clans, RPGs about pagan highlanders have cults, and 13th age has icons." So they are trying to treat icon as a word for faction, too. They could afford to make it more explicit that icons are supposed to work like factions in the rules, and just because the word icon is dropped you should not immediately assume they are referring to the head honcho himself.

Positive, 'conflicted,' and negative relationships all cost points. But that's because they all give you contact dice to roll; having a negative relationship with someone doesn't mean "they hate you and nothing good happens." It means you have knowledge about that icon from your antagonism with them ("I've had a run in with these types before, I know what they'll do next..." or "I've got a buddy who has a beef with them, he'll help us out"). All of the relationships come with either the icon('s faction) liking you and his enemies hating you or the icon('s faction) hating you and his enemies liking you. So no matter what relationships you take, you've made a similar amount of potential friends and enemies. The important thing from having relationships is those rolls, and even negative relationships give those.

Summary: I'd like to see suggested levels/classes/special mechanic notes for icons that tell GM's how to run personal encounters with them without having to wing it. I'd like to see an explicit acknowledgement that the rules use the word icon to refer both simultaneously to personal icons and the factions that surround those icons.

Next, I'm going to look at some duration mechanics and try to get a feel for class balance (at first glance, the fighter was fairly underwhelming to me, but that's in a vacuum; I haven't actually compared it to anything). Any other concerns anybody really wants me to peek at? I don't really know how much I can say, but I'm operating on the assumption I can paint the broad strokes without making Simon's life hard.

Edit:

Of course, most of the time that you’re interacting with an icon, you’re actually interacting with his or her lower-level functionaries, acolytes, disciples, bureaucrats, lieutenants, barons, or priests. Functionaries are the GM’s best friends, and they can be your worst enemies.

Found something relevant: it's kind of sort of there, but fairly small, hidden away, at the end, and totally noncommital. I would take this part, make it more prominent and make the specific assertion that for low-levels this should be the case.

[DSMatticus]

So, I've looked at the barbarian, and it's... kind of underwhelming. Here, I'll go through and make a sample level 5 barbarian (levels go up to 10), making what I think are fairly optimum choices, and list the things he can do in an adventuring day.

---

Always On
1) All melee misses deal 5 (class level) damage.

2) Killstealing bastard (my name): anytime I attack a wounded enemy I wasn't engaged with at the start of my turn, I add 5d6 (1d6 per level) damage. This is pretty build deciding, but it's also the biggest pile of flat damage I can find, so this barbarian is going to play like a ball in a pinball machine, always bouncing to hit a new target. If that can't be done in a single turn, don't take slayer, but I'm assuming it can if you eat some sort of penalty or take feats or something. It's always active, powerful if you can pull it off in one round, otherwise use it for a round 1 charge against someone who's been nicked already.

Once per battle
3) Once per battle, I can use 3.5 cleave. Which means in a typical 5-round combat, that's a whopping +20% damage output, and ONLY if I happen to deliver the final blow to someone during that combat.

4) Once per battle, I can add +1d3 to an attack roll after finding out it missed. Yeah. For real. This is a champion ability, and supposed to be better than 3 of the others here.

For one battle once per day
5) Rage: 1/day for one battle, when I do I roll 2d20 to attack and use best. if both >11, critical. Ability recharges 25% of time at end of battle, so effectively 1.25/day.

6) For one battle per day, I add 1d4 damage to all attacks, accumulating 1d4 for every miss up to 3d4. Yeah, that's fairly weak. For a five round combat, I have to miss two attacks in order to get a best case scenario of 22.5 extra damage. Whatever, I can't find anything else. It's underwhelming and powers up from sucking, something you don't want to do.

---

Those are all really unexciting, except for slayer (wrong reasons: it's highly conditional and relatively very powerful, so it becomes the sort of thing you build around) and rage, which isn't too bad. Damage on miss is also nice.

I should also note that the epic level barbarian ablities are effectively +14% HP while raging (it's more complicated than that; 25% of attacks do 50% damage) and +2.5 extra melee attacks in a 5-round combat or +5.5 extra melee attacks in an 8-round combat, except they're at range and of course only for one battle per day (again, way more complicated than that, but that's the math). That last one's not terrible.

So, two things I want to note:
1) 13th age is low power fantasy when it comes to martial characters (at cursory glance, fighter seems similar, but probably more powerful). It has 4e's sense of scale, which is to say that your combat actions are always tactical scale, and are around the level of "I hit that guy over there." I am actually totally okay with that (would actually prefer it, I hate high-level 3.5 on a conceptual and balance level), on two conditions: that it doesn't pretend to still have 3.5's scale, which 4e did and pissed me off, and casters have the same scale, which I still have to look at.

2) 13th age has a lot of piddly abilities you're expected to give a shit about but don't impress you or even feel cool and are mechanically underwhelming. That I'm not okay with. The "once per battle you can cleave" shit is not interesting. Why not just, "once per battle, two attacks against separate targets?" Why can't +1d3 be a number someone cares about, or a freaking reroll?

P.S., is anyone actually interested in my little write-ups, or has the Den moved on? Cause I'm gonna give fighter a deeper glance next, then wizards, then look for duration wonkiness (no sign of any yet), then whatever I feel like. And probably continue to provide semi-relevant information here. But if no one's reading and I'm just rambling to myself, I'll pass.

[WatsonA]

P.S., is anyone actually interested in my little write-ups, or has the Den moved on? Cause I'm gonna give fighter a deeper glance next, then wizards, then look for duration wonkiness (no sign of any yet), then whatever I feel like. And probably continue to provide semi-relevant information here. But if no one's reading and I'm just rambling to myself, I'll pass.

Strangely enough, I am actually interested to hear more.

[John Magnum]

Yeah. It's interesting to see that level 5 seems to have much the same relative piddliness as level 1. Not super encouraging, but also not super hard to work around.