Why did they scrap Orcus?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:57 am

There's a guy posting here who knows the 4e guys that made 13th Age right? Maybe he could ask them why Orcus was scrapped

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:14 am

Okay, good. Then I'll keep talking.

Worth noting: wizards get access to flight at level 7. No other PC does ever. So melee no longer works on wizards at level 7, for at least one battle per day. Scry is in, teleport is in, rope trick is in, but fighters are still just fighters and barbarians are still just barbarians; wizards are very good at dictating the terms of high level encounters. They don't have the ridiculous uber versatility of 3.5 wizards that lets them solve every problem ever, but they are also the only ones who really get that sort of utility that I've seen so far.

Anyway, back to piddliness: in 13th age, an always on buff seems to usually be +1. A single battle buff seems to usually be +2. A single use or highly conditional buff seems to be +4. Every single one of these numbers should be shifted up one, except possibly the first. But more important than that: some of them aren't even that large, and that's basically the bare minimum.

This is a currently existing bard ability: if you roll even on an attack, an ally can attempt to disengage from combat. You can spend a feat to improve this ability (this is just sort of how 13th age works; abilities have feat-purchasable improvements in their description). Spending a feat gets you a +2 bonus to the check to disengage. Seriously. That's it. That needs to be at least a +5, and even then it seems like a slightly weak use for a feat (but not a bad ability; getting people to occasionally disengage for free on your attacks could be useful). But spending your feat to get a +10% chance to a check for an ability that triggers on only half of your melee attacks (when you are a bard, and you don't always even make melee attacks)? What-the-fuck-ever.

The size of the bonuses in these abilities really needs gone through and looked at. Especially on the "spend feats to improve part." A lot of them just suck. But some are actually okay, if rather conservative. I know why they're conservative; they're obviously afraid of buff stacking, which has been a problem in every edition of D&D ever. But the proper solution to buff stacking is to put a cap on the number of temporary buffs you can have, or to put a cap on the total bonus you can enjoy from them (or to just have less of them in your system, but that's hard to do). 4e tried and failed the "small numbers nobody cares about" fix; 4e is won by accumulating as many of those tiny little numbers as you can in what is a really boring way. I'd rather have big numbers I actually care about and limited stacking.

But just getting things up to the +1 permanent, +2 single battle/half the time, and +4 highly conditional standard would be a vast improvement. I'm seeing "+2's for this one roll" in entirely too many places.

Edit: I know I've said basically nothing but bad things about this game, but that's because I am intentionally looking for things which need to be improved. The game is not pure awful from top to bottom. So far, I'd rather play it than 4e. Of course, I would rather beat myself in the face with a brick than play 4e, but I would also rather play 13th Age. As a matter of fact, I would even rather play 13th age than beat myself in the face with a brick. So that is two terrible, terrible things that 13th Age is not as terrible as.

I'm going to look at combat next (damage vs hitpoints, accuracy rates, things of that sort), and if those are promising, there will be a lot more terrible things that I know 13th Age is better than. And if the non-combat skill systems are passingly decent, 13th Age might be an okay thing. But I'm suspecting that it has runaway hitpoint bloat issues and will play out slowly and grindy like 4e.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:33 pm

DSMatticus wrote: 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.

I'm interested. If the character sheets we were going off of weren't actually part of the playtest I'm curious what the real rules are.

By the way, since you just read the barbarian, is that Intimidating Flex ability actually in the rules? The fake-pregen barbarian had it.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:02 pm

ModelCitizen wrote: By the way, since you just read the barbarian, is that Intimidating Flex ability actually in the rules? The fake-pregen barbarian had it.

There was no barbarian in the 'fake-pregens', the half-orc cleric has it.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:21 pm

DSMatticus wrote: 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.

Yeah, ye can also count me in as an interested party, eagerly awaiting more of your "review" on this matter. In fact I'm wondering if Skills do things actually, and how "low power fantasy" this game truly is, as that rather concerns me (unlike the reviewer, I hold opposite view about high level play, unsure on "balance" bit, but does need an overhaul).

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:56 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:By the way, since you just read the barbarian, is that Intimidating Flex ability actually in the rules? The fake-pregen barbarian had it.

It looks remarkably similar to the much less retardedly named Javelin of Faith. In general, yeah; I can look at the half-orc cleric and see how to mostly build him using the current materials. But the names are totally different. I think those pregens are outdated and have the silliness turned up to 11, but are somewhat representative. And there have been changes: combat tactician, for example, has a higher bonus (thank god). It is actually called Shield of Faith.

Also, I thought I had said something about the bard's one round duration thing a long time ago, because I looked at the bard. But I can't find the things I thought I said and am beginning to suspect it is because I did not say them.

Anyway, the bard does have abilities which end on the start of his turn, and abilities which end on the end of his turn. Not many. And it's pretty much unnecessary, there would be no functionality or balance changes necessary to extend things from start to end or end to start. But there is some consistency to it as far as I can tell: buffs end at the start of your turn, meaning the caster cannot benefit from them. Debuffs end at the end of your turn, meaning the caster can benefit from them. I can't tell if that will stay true through to the rest of the classes, but it's better than having no consistency at all. Regardless, like I said; standardizing the bard to a single phase (either one) is not hard at all. Change a few words and be done with it, it's not a mechanics or balance problem.

Aryxbez wrote:In fact I'm wondering if Skills do things actually

You will be disappointed. There isn't really a list of skills (LE GASP) and are just those backgrounds like on the pregen character sheet that you make up. And you choose from 1 to 5 in them, and then roll an ability check with those and that's your skill result. GM decides when they apply, there's no big list of useful DC's I can find, just a "if you're this level, this is what an easy, normal, and hard challenge should look like." It's got a definite 4e tinge to it, and then some rules-lite on top of that. And definitely no jump checks leading to crouching tiger hidden dragon fights, if that's what you're asking. I'm hoping the skill bit will be fleshed out more; I'd really like a list of things and associated DC's. I suppose I'll tolerate the strange "make your own skills."

Aryxbez wrote:and how "low power fantasy" this game truly is, as that rather concerns me (unlike the reviewer, I hold opposite view about high level play, unsure on "balance" bit, but does need an overhaul).

You will be disappointed twice. This is the sort of thing epic level characters get up to in 13th age:

Barbarian: (mentioned already) one battle per day, you roll a d6; if you tie or fall beneath the escalation die, you get an extra melee attack at range. The fluff is that the spirits of your ancestor show up on the battlefield and occasionally they will beat the shit out of someone, otherwise I guess they buzz around the battle looking spirity. The fluff is actually, in my humble opinion, pretty cool. The effect... well, given the power-level of most effects in the game it's actually probably good. Note: the escalation die is 0 on the first round of combat, 1 on the second, 2 on the third, and etc, etc. Meaning it's actually slightly weaker than I described before.

Fighter: On an even hit, once per battle, you increase the escalation die by one. This might be mechanically decent; that's essentially a +1 to everyone's attacks, and it synergizes with other abilities that interact with the escalation die. A feat lets you use it twice per battle.

Wizard: As a wizard, your high-level once-a-days are disintegrate, meteor swarm, and teleport. Disintegrate is a big pile of damage to one dude. Meteor swarm is interesting; it summons one meteor per turn for... unclear number of turns (1d3? 1d3+2?) which each hit 1d4 enemies and do a not so large pile of damage. Wizards look like they are major damage dealers, by the way. I suspect it may be slightly imbalanced. But again, that's a meteor swarm which hits an average of 10 dudes. It's all very small scale.

Now, level adds to defenses and attacks and other mumbo jumbo. Level 1 characters are at a -4 d20 roll penalty when fighting champions (level 5), and a -7 penalty when fighting epic characters (level 8). Damage and hitpoints increase in some weird, not entirely linear ways as you level up. So high-level characters can still beat up lots and lots of little guys, but they do it a handful of guys at a non-time, and not by turning city blocks into hellscapes with every action. I'm personally okay with that.

Anyway, if there's anything anybody else wants to ask specifically, ask away. Otherwise, I will continue to browse classes and see what's going on with the cleric and rogue more in-depth wise. I should probably design some characters and run a sample combat against some encounters, see what it feels like, too. Hitpoint bloat may be less of a problem than I thought, as damage goes up pretty reliably with level.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:20 pm

I'm curious regarding any other information that strikes you. So far, I'm not seeing any reason to play 13th age as opposed to, say, Legend, if I were in the mood for a D&D-derivative. But that could always change.

What do highlevel monsters feel/look like? Are they like 4E ones, in that their flavortext and fluff is all hardcore and shit, but they do piddlyshit damage like everything else? Or is the fluff more consistent with the mechanics?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:29 pm

If people are doing piddly shit damage every turn and an attack that targets more than one enemy in a turn is something we're supposed to care about, how does the Escalation Die not get stupid in a battle against a large number of Orcs? If the enemy is (gasp) 20 Orcs, how does the battle not drag out to the point where the escalation die by itself renders the entire RNG meaningless?

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:00 pm

Well, presumably the escalation die is an actual die, probably a d6. So the bonus would cap at +6?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:09 pm

Blicero wrote:So far, I'm not seeing any reason to play 13th age as opposed to, say, Legend, if I were in the mood for a D&D-derivative. But that could always change.

13th age is closer to a polished, probably more interesting 4e. Legend is more of a 3.5 D&D clone, isn't it? Not sure which Legend we're talking about, I have the feeling there are two floating around that could be referring to.

Blicero wrote:What do highlevel monsters feel/look like? Are they like 4E ones, in that their flavortext and fluff is all hardcore and shit, but they do piddlyshit damage like everything else? Or is the fluff more consistent with the mechanics?

Simon posted an incomplete Glabrezu stat block. It teleports, mirror images, interrupts, and, checking the math... does respectable damage. He's supposed to represent fighting two dudes, but his damage seems to be mostly about single level 9 character level. His hitpoints and defenses seem good though.

Orion wrote:Well, presumably the escalation die is an actual die, probably a d6. So the bonus would cap at +6?

It is. Monster defenses are statically one higher, and the center point seems to be hitting yourself half the time at. So, +6 is enough to go from 12+ hits to 6+ hits. It's pretty big. A 7-round combat is one in which the PC's miss chance drops to like 10-15% with moderate buffing. +6 is huge.

So far, though, looking at mirror matches, combats tend to last 3-5 hits (fair to say 6-10 rounds or less) without the escalation die. I honestly think you could cut out or half the escalation die bonuses to attack rolls, get better performance out of long-term combats like the one Frank mentioned, and not affect short-term combats at all. I suspect marathon fights are just not something they're trying to cover.

FrankTrollman wrote:If people are doing piddly shit damage every turn and an attack that targets more than one enemy in a turn is something we're supposed to care about

Damage is actually way higher than in 4e. Basic 13th age attacks have higher damage than level appropriate 4e dailies. Like I said, we're talking 3-5 hits for tanks to kill yourself. Hitpoints increase slightly faster at high levels, so it ends up being an upside down bell where level 5 is the fastest, most brutal combats and you get slower moving to either end (that's based on some really preliminary math, not test combats).

So, comment on the maths: to murder his level 1 self in a single hit, a fighter has to be level 6 (of 10). The game depends on minion mook rules to simulate beating up little guys you don't care about with a single swing. I personally don't like that, but... whatever. Not a big deal.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:52 am

Any necromancers?

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:00 am

Or abilities like enchantment, illusions, interesting divinations, or weird utility spells?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:29 am

I have seen zero necromancy/minion-crafting powers. Looking at the skeleton entry, I see no creation rules.

Charm is in. It uses current HP total to decide if it affects the target (as well as requiring an attack roll), but simply does not work in combat. They sound like they will attack their friends, but it gives them a normal save each round (so 50/50 chance of it breaking, I think), so... not gonna last. Sort of underwhelming, like everything else.

Divinations seem to start and end at scrying. Illusions are prestidigitation/ghost sound level effects. Oh, and disguise self. Invisibility is in, lasting up to an hour with a certain talent out of combat, but you can't attack without ending it. Feather fall and hold portal are in. I saw knock somewhere, and most of the 3.5 cantrips are in as cantrips. But I do want to say that this is a part of the game that seems very much incomplete. There's a "more coming" note written right into the playtest document. But minion-crafting/necromancer dealios? Probably not going to make it.

But yeah, you won't see a lot of game-changing utility spells unless they have various 'this is non-combat' restrictions, my bet. Combat is balanced around the idea of beating down piles of hitpoints at a slightly faster than 4e rate, so things that can be used in really obvious ways to circumvent that have to be kept out.

13th age is very, very, very much like 4e with a better default campaign setting, some interesting gimmicks, better class differentiaton, and probably faster combat (even before the escalation die). And it has a lot of 4e problems, though is generally less bad about them. The most annoying of which is that the balance point for abilities is below the point where you care that you have the ability at all. The second most annoying of which is that every combat problem has to be solved by attacking piles of hitpoints, and even monsters 4 levels below you have big enough piles that you're stuck caring about them. The game has mooks (minions) and expects you to pull that sleight of hand to confuse the issue, so there are things like horde demons you're fighting at epic that are supposed to 'feel' more powerful than, say, a bugbear troop you were fighting at adventurer, despite the fact that the bugbear troop has maybe five times as many hitpoints and can one-shot the horde demon with a lucky hit. As someone who enjoys exercises in coherent world crafting, that's a problem for me. It doesn't feel real, and you can tell it's an element that's been grafted on to fulfill something you need PC's to be able to do without being a part of the world. High-level mooks are not actually mooks to low-level troops; they're only high-level mooks to PC's because the PC's need them to be weak enough to beat up quickly and satisfyingly.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:34 am

Can I be a guy who throws ninja stars in a useful manner?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:50 am

OgreBattle wrote:Can I be a guy who throws ninja stars in a useful manner?

Ranger can hurl out two attacks per turn (melee or ranged, talent choice for each) half ot the turns he attacks (+50% damage output), which is one of the best abilities I've seen and is available at level 1. Can combine that with some other mumbo jumbo to do a crit build and get some rerolls. Take a poisonous snake as an animal companion. Or fuck it, take a bear; who's going to fuck with a ninja and his bear?

Rogue is basically a non-starter for this, because rogues do not have ranged sneak attacks. You could get your GM to say ninja stars count as a small blade, and then there's an at-will power where you throw a small blade against an engaged enemy and deal sneak attack damage.

The first seems like it would be fairly powerful, relative to everything else. The second does not. The more I look, the more I realize balance has definitely not been attained. Barbarian and ranger ultimately have very similar class mechanics, but ranger is much, much better.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:57 am

What kinds of things do feats do other than boost abilities (I've never played 4e)?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:24 am

The vast majority of feats are for modifying your abilities. There are some racial feats, it seems, and some general ones, but all in all general feats add up to 10, and racial feats add up to 10. The racial feats seem to modify racial abilities, so are basically the same as the ones that modify class abilities. The general ones are things like more backgrounds, improved initiative, precise shot, quick reload, toughness (+1/level version), two-weapon fighting that increases your miss damage. Constantly on bonuses and features. They're worth taking for the most part, though some seem like a shitty, boring thing to take. Precise shot, for example, is just an archer tax (won't hit allies when they're fighting your target). It'd be more interesting if it also gave some ability you could use, so you didn't feel like you were just paying to be an archer. Quick reload is the same way; it's a feat tax for crossbowers.

The feat set-up is actually fairly different than 4e, so having played 4e wouldn't help you. So I'll kind of give the overview of his this works, probably should have done that a long time ago. I've been mostly discussing things as I read them, so I was a little unclear at the start anyway.

13th age has feats, talents, and abilities.

Everyone gets feats, and they get one per level; the feats they get at levels 1-4 are called adventurer feats, at levels 5-7 champion feats, and levels 8-10 epic feats. This is important, because abilities have champion and epic upgrades which can only be bought with champion and epic feats.

Everyone also gets talents, and basically all talents are upgradeable as I described above: upgrade them with adventurer, champion, and epic feats for bigger and better benefits. Some classes get more talents as they level up, and some classes which get more talents as they level up have special champion tier and epic tier talents they can only take when they're champion or epic level. Some classes get nothing but talents and have no abilities at all.

But most classes get abilities, and how abilities activate and function is different from class to class. Wizards are basically vancian, for example, with some at-wills. Sorcerers and clerics are similar. Fighters, on the other hand, have a list of maneuvers they know, and their natural die roll triggers those abilities; they select one ability they can trigger and just use it. Rogues have mostly at-will, some daily, attacks they just activate. Bards are a combination of fighter, with battle cries which trigger on natural die rolls, and wizards, with their own spells. And on top of that, they have bardic songs that usually take a quick action, so they can do their song and action at the same time. Abilities are also upgradeable as talents are. Abilities have levels like 3.5 spells, and the level gets it number of the level you unlock them, so there are 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th level maneuvers/spells/songs/strikes. Many lower level abilities have upgraded versions, so when you prepare them as a higher-level character they get more powerful and stay relevant (or are intended to, I can't speak to the balance of that because I don't exactly have the time to verify everything).

Edit: I'm fairly satisfied with those ideas. They're not bad ones. Bards are fighter/casters with a background buff. Fighters are randomized opportunists. Spellcaster dailiness... well, thankfully there are at-wills and they aren't 4e pathetic. At-wills are competitive and effective. Though, when you look at how much damage a wizard's dailies do, and compare that to the really minor abilities fighters, barbarians, and rangers are looking at... Wizards probably rule. I keep promising I'll sit down and run sample combats, but I've been busy.

But the implementation here is seriously lacking. The balance point for most character's abilities is well shy of the things you would ever get excited about, and things aren't even particularly well-balanced to that point. Which is probably good, because the obviously overpowered options are at least exciting. They need to make everything that powerful.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:42 pm

I really feel the need to amend: yes, the game has balance issues. But at least some of the classes look like they would actually play quite interestingly and have abilities you will notice. (casters of course

, but the ranger seems on the good side too). Some need touch ups or across the board buffs (barbarian, I'm looking at you). I specifically know there's going to be more work on the abilities and there are going to be tweaks, and I may not even have the 100% latest version, I'm slightly confused about that. So, yes, I'm being hard on it, but depending on what the future work on the powers does, all of my complaints about that could magically go away. Or they could not. Or all the good classes could get weaker. I dunno what they're planning to do.

But it is ultimately a work in progress I'm looking at and my condemnations of balance are not permanently damning. If they bring the weaker classes up to the stronger classes, abilities will feel a hell of a lot more significant than they do in 4e. So some of it is turning out to be totally right, if conservatively low-power.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:02 pm

The Mook rules pretty much confirm that Rob Heinsoo was responsible for the atrocity that was the Minion rules in 4e. We always suspected as much, because they are pretty much the same as the Mook rules in Feng Shui. It works in Feng shui because there is no leveling in that game. Sorta sad that 4 years and 4 million bad reviews later he's still trying to fit the same square peg in the same round hole trying to relive his square hole glory days.

-Username17

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:15 pm

DSMatticus wrote: 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.

I'm actually making a character for 13th Age too, so I can chime in if you need me. I can confirm the melee classes are kind of assy, and there are a few narrative abilities that the onus is on the GM instead of the player, instead of being on the player with veto power coming from the GM/other players.

It's definitely unfinished, so it's hard to be too damning. And Intimidating Flex is indeed Javelin of Faith with a Goony rename.

DSMatticus wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:Can I be a guy who throws ninja stars in a useful manner?
Ranger can hurl out two attacks per turn (melee or ranged, talent choice for each) half ot the turns he attacks (+50% damage output), which is one of the best abilities I've seen and is available at level 1. Can combine that with some other mumbo jumbo to do a crit build and get some rerolls. Take a poisonous snake as an animal companion. Or fuck it, take a bear; who's going to fuck with a ninja and his bear?

Rangers have a 32.5% chance of doubling up given them hitting a target on an 8 (I think). There's an animal companion adventurer feat that allows their pet to double up for free once a day. Since weapon damage scales with level and they're the only martial characters that get meaningful multiattacks, they kick the shit out of everybody but a very lucky Chain Lighting Sorcerer, as far as I can tell. By level 4 or 5, they can poach Hammer of Faith from the Cleric with a Talent and do Xd12 with every shot once a day.

Rogue is basically a non-starter for this, because rogues do not have ranged sneak attacks. You could get your GM to say ninja stars count as a small blade, and then there's an at-will power where you throw a small blade against an engaged enemy and deal sneak attack damage.

Flying Blade's the only way they can get SA damage at range, yeah. They do get Shadow Walk, which straight removes them from play on a success. Everything else is kind of lame; one of their third level abilities is Combat Looting's +1 with a roll. Momentum seems like a cool system (and it was cool when Koumei used it for the Sohei) but Rogues just don't get interesting or powerful abilities except for two: Fast Talker and Shadow Walk. Fast Talker can give you epic Icon dice totals if you make your check and Shadow Walk is "fuck you, I'm not here".

The first seems like it would be fairly powerful, relative to everything else. The second does not. The more I look, the more I realize balance has definitely not been attained. Barbarian and ranger ultimately have very similar class mechanics, but ranger is much, much better.

The Barbarian is supposed to be a "simpler" version of the fighting man chassis, just like the Sorcerer is supposed to be the "simpler" version of the magic-user. Rangers are advanced classes, so they're better. Wizards are more advanced than Sorcerers, so they get more toys. It's...really bad.

If you'd like, I could do some of the other classes, DSMatticus.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:28 am

Mask_De_H wrote:Rangers have a 32.5% chance of doubling up given them hitting a target on an 8 (I think).

I thought that ability triggered on an even roll, not strictly an even hit. There are abilities which only trigger on even misses, or even hits, but they say so.

Mask_De_H wrote:The Barbarian is supposed to be a "simpler" version of the fighting man chassis

The ranger is only one step below the barbarian on their 'ease of play' list, and the ranger is considerably powerful. I'll admit I haven't looked too much at paladin, sorcerer, monk (monk is noticeably incomplete), or rogue. I could afford to give fighter a deeper look, but my initial conclusion was not great.

Mask_De_H wrote:If you'd like, I could do some of the other classes, DSMatticus.

You're welcome to chime in however you like. I've just been posting whatever struck me, not really doing class-by-class breakdowns. I'm still fighting to muster up the free-time and interest to do a sample combat with a handful of different classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard, at level 4, probably) and see how they feel, take notes, and post it here.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:54 am

Does every class have its own power list, or do they share them like 'Parry' being a move for rangers/barbarians/fighters, while "big fireball" is for all arcane casters, that kind of thing.

How do they differentiate different weapons and fighting styles like shield, polearms, two weapons, greatweapon?

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:17 am

DSMatticus wrote:
Mask_De_H wrote:Rangers have a 32.5% chance of doubling up given them hitting a target on an 8 (I think).
I thought that ability triggered on an even roll, not strictly an even hit. There are abilities which only trigger on even misses, or even hits, but they say so.

You're actually right, which makes it better. It's a 32.5% chance to hit twice, but you're essentially getting a reroll every other attack. Rangers are probably straight up the best melee attacking class then.

Mask_De_H wrote:The Barbarian is supposed to be a "simpler" version of the fighting man chassis
The ranger is only one step below the barbarian on their 'ease of play' list, and the ranger is considerably powerful. I'll admit I haven't looked too much at paladin, sorcerer, monk (monk is noticeably incomplete), or rogue. I could afford to give fighter a deeper look, but my initial conclusion was not great.
Mask_De_H wrote:If you'd like, I could do some of the other classes, DSMatticus.
You're welcome to chime in however you like. I've just been posting whatever struck me, not really doing class-by-class breakdowns. I'm still fighting to muster up the free-time and interest to do a sample combat with a handful of different classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard, at level 4, probably) and see how they feel, take notes, and post it here.

They're not balanced at all. The Pally has a bullshit Smite Evil that doesn't actually work (requires a Paladin melee attack; there are no Paladin melee attacks). They also get a 75% chance of pulling off surgeless healing twice a day, with a 50% chance of it being a No Action. Even if they blow the roll, they get to pick who burns the surge unless they're healing themselves. Way of Evil Bastards is pissant bonuses on a called kill versus a -4 to attacks against a nearby enemy whenever you drop a non-mook.

Sorcs have a wild magic roll ability which either does piddly damage or gives a piddly bonus to AC. You don't care about that; what you do care about is locking and loading a Gather Power before the fight starts then smoking enemies with Lightning Fork + Infernal Blood re-roll + Adventurer Tier feat reroll so you can fish for evens. It's your best scaling Chain spell and with max damage you can one-shot level 2 monsters at level 1. On average you can one-shot a level 0 monster a hit and put a severe dent in beasties several levels higher than you. For attacks in general, your ability score to damage becomes laughably meaningless very quickly, as far as I can tell. It's like inverse 4e, where your weapon die are kind of meaningless as long as you have enough bullshit bonuses.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:42 am

Mask_De_H wrote: The Barbarian is supposed to be a "simpler" version of the fighting man chassis, just like the Sorcerer is supposed to be the "simpler" version of the magic-user. Rangers are advanced classes, so they're better. Wizards are more advanced than Sorcerers, so they get more toys. It's...really bad.

What annoys me the most about such things is that oftentimes what beginning players really need is not a character that is stripped down to the bare bones but rather one that is forgiving. And of course, margin for error and the ability to correct mistakes is an area where a lot of "simplified" classes totally blow goats. Take 3x, for example. Between domain choices and their spells known mechanic clerics certainly do end up making more choices than sorcerers do. But for the most part I'd still rather hand Joe Newbie a cleric, since it's a character that can do a lot of different stuff and if the player decides he doesn't enjoy being a heal bot or otherwise dislikes the spells he selected he can jolly well just prepare new ones at the next full rest. Meanwhile by the RAW Joe Newbie Sorcerer is just supposed to get used to the flavor of shit if he blew his load on traditional but crappy spells like Magic Missile and Acid Arrow.

Simon Rogers · Post by **Simon Rogers** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:22 am

Mask_De_H wrote:
I'm actually making a character for 13th Age too, so I can chime in if you need me. I can confirm the melee classes are kind of assy, and there are a few narrative abilities that the onus is on the GM instead of the player, instead of being on the player with veto power coming from the GM/other players.

I don't see this in the text. In fact, it's pretty much standard - player suggests an ability, GM makes sure it's not a "cheesy ploy," and maybe suggests another one. Which bit are you reading?