Why did they scrap Orcus?

[Simon Rogers]

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.

I think you are looking at a playtest version.

They have a basic melee attack, which is boosted up by Smite Evil to give +d12 damage, at +4 to hit, half if it misses. This increases to +2d12 then +4d12 at higher levels.

Way of Evil Bastards - if you call a kill, choose whether you want to use a recovery as a free action OR increase your critical hit range for the rest of the day by 1 point (usually to a 19+). It gives increased relationship dice/rolls with evil or ambiguous icons, and is designed for paladins devoted to the Crusader.

If anyone has an actual legitimate copy of the rules (ie you bought or were given a legal copy) please do read the intro which solicits feedback, and send feedback. If you are reading a playtest version (which should have been deleted by now) and I'll be honest, I'm not sure your feedback is a great deal of use to anyone.

[ishy]

Does 13th Age support good / evil players or are your players supposed to be good like in 4th and if you're evil figure something out yourself?

[Simon Rogers]

Does 13th Age support good / evil players or are your players supposed to be good like in 4th and if you're evil figure something out yourself?

While the default in the text is heroic, yes, you can play an evil PC.

"Evil clerics gain power through the Lich King."

"Evil adventurers gain access to secret knowledge, training, or magic by allying themselves with the Three. "

You don't have to be a good paladin

"But paladins don’t have to be good. The Crusader inspires many evil paladins—they share hatred of demons with the paladins of the Great Gold Wyrm without any of the compassion for the demons’ victims. Even worse, from the Wyrm’s perspective, the Blue’s hold on Drakkenhall has given it a stable base to inspire and train paladins devoted to the Three. Paladins inordinately devoted to evil should consider the way of evil bastards talent."

This note is appended to "Way of Evil Bastard"

"Gamemaster: You’re under no obligation to allow truly evil player characters. Many tables can’t handle the dysfunction. But some players can handle subtle or situational evil that allows them to function as a non-destructive part of a campaign."

[Mask_De_H]

I'm using the Escalation Edition 1 pip version, Simon. That's what I was given for my game. Unless y'all sent out a two pips+ version or the SRD/actual completed game is out, that's the game to me.

Way of Evil Bastards Crit spec is still a vaguely unimportant bonus unless you're critfishing and stack it with Invocation of Strength (crit x3).

And about the "onus on the GM" narrative powers; the Sorc level 5 invocation of the Icons and the Wizard's "I Can't Believe It's Not Vancian Casting" class talent specifically say the GM comes up with what happens off the top of my head. At least the Wizard one you can cajole the GM into playing along later, but it's written in a very adversarial manner. The Lich King blood Sorcerer's Epic Feat specifically tells the GM to severely punish a player being clever and finding a way around the ritualistic scarring (which is purely cosmetic). Fast Talker and Stunting are also heavily regulated by the GM; that hurts people who are new to storygaming and can stifle creativity if the GM doesn't play along.

[Simon Rogers]

I'm using the Escalation Edition 1 pip version, Simon. That's what I was given for my game. Unless y'all sent out a two pips+ version or the SRD/actual completed game is out, that's the game to me.

...

And about the "onus on the GM" narrative powers; the Sorc level 5 invocation of the Icons and the Wizard's "I Can't Believe It's Not Vancian Casting" class talent specifically say the GM comes up with what happens off the top of my head. At least the Wizard one you can cajole the GM into playing along later, but it's written in a very adversarial manner. The Lich King blood Sorcerer's Epic Feat specifically tells the GM to severely punish a player being clever and finding a way around the ritualistic scarring (which is purely cosmetic). Fast Talker and Stunting are also heavily regulated by the GM; that hurts people who are new to storygaming and can stifle creativity if the GM doesn't play along.

Ah, OK, I'll check those sections out - I was considering only the Icon and standard background rules.

I'm hoping we'll have an updated version mid next week.

[Mask_De_H]

I'm using the Escalation Edition 1 pip version, Simon. That's what I was given for my game. Unless y'all sent out a two pips+ version or the SRD/actual completed game is out, that's the game to me.

...

And about the "onus on the GM" narrative powers; the Sorc level 5 invocation of the Icons and the Wizard's "I Can't Believe It's Not Vancian Casting" class talent specifically say the GM comes up with what happens off the top of my head. At least the Wizard one you can cajole the GM into playing along later, but it's written in a very adversarial manner. The Lich King blood Sorcerer's Epic Feat specifically tells the GM to severely punish a player being clever and finding a way around the ritualistic scarring (which is purely cosmetic). Fast Talker and Stunting are also heavily regulated by the GM; that hurts people who are new to storygaming and can stifle creativity if the GM doesn't play along.

Ah, OK, I'll check those sections out - I was considering only the Icon and standard background rules.

I'm hoping we'll have an updated version mid next week.

That'd be awesome. I really want to see this game succeed, so I'm gonna be harsh on it. It's how I show affection.

[Simon Rogers]

@Mask_De_H

The "calling the blood" icon power, I can see absolutely why it's in the GMs hands:

You gain some surprising or bizarre magical effect associated with the power of that icon to assist you. The effect is entirely up to the GM, though the immediate impact of the spell should always be favorable for you. The long-term consequences of randomly invoking the power of an icon that may be an enemy might not be favorable for you, and should be played for narrative interest by the GM, particularly if the impact of the spell was huge for you. Since this is a daily spell, sizeable impact is fine, but don’t award any extra effect for empowered casting, especially since the spell can be cast effectively out of

You are effectively calling upon an Icon for help, and the GM's job is to play the Icon. So, personally, I think this fits.

With the Vancean casting, I can see places where the language looks a little difficult. The idea is the GM decides to start with, then the player - but at the end it says:

Getting the most out of this class talent requires collaboration between GM and player. And perhaps some tolerance from the other players. Let us know how it goes.

I'll just quote what is says about the Undead Remnant Heritage, because I agree with this bad-ass approach. It's supposed to be a sacrifice to the Lich King.

Epic Feat: If you put out one of your eyes and cut off one of your hands, you gain a +1 bonus to all attacks.

Gamemaster: Severely punish a character who thinks it’s OK to then regrow the eye and restore the hand.
If your campaign doesn’t include a Lich King like ours, figure out another penalty flag your player will evidently be happy to fly.

[ishy]

Wow, +1 to attacks if you cut off one of your hands and put out an eye as an epic feat?
That is really some low level stuff -

[erik]

Yeah that makes me feel sad and not want to use "feat" to describe anything that matters ever again. Feat has truly become the urinal cake of roleplaying terminology.

And of course the...


*sigh*

What's up with punishing severely? The most severe punishment is just taking it in the first place. Losing depth perception might not have mechanical penalties, but not being able to use your hand surely does. Not to mention the waste of an epic feat... assuming there is anything else you could possibly take. Taking an Epic Feat to get a +4 endurance bonus to eating tacos would be a better choice than that feat.

Anywho, you really should just not receive the epic bonus if healed. Taking the feat alone is dues paid in the extreme already.


[edit: just cuz I luv you guys]

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'll just quote what is says about the Undead Remnant Heritage, because I agree with this bad-ass approach. It's supposed to be a sacrifice to the Lich King.

Epic Feat: If you put out one of your eyes and cut off one of your hands, you gain a +1 bonus to all attacks.

Gamemaster: Severely punish a character who thinks it’s OK to then regrow the eye and restore the hand.
If your campaign doesn’t include a Lich King like ours, figure out another penalty flag your player will evidently be happy to fly.

Boy will they feel stupid when they find out what Odin got for his eye.

[Simon Rogers]

I agree that +1 to hit is a little weak for an Epic Sorcerer feat, particularly when the Adventurer and Champion feat are much cooler. Love the call-out to Vecna though

Anyway, I'm going to go through the updated document with a fine-toothed comb early next week, and I'm happy to throw in a few comments based on stuff here if you are not providing responses directly yourselves.

[Username17]

+1 to-hit is weak, period. You can get +1 to-hit just by delaying combat for a round. Any "wall of foo" ability defaults to being +1 to-hit for the entire party, over and above what the players can do gather power wise with a turn to waste.

-Username17

[ishy]

And what is more important to me at least, a +1 to hit is really really boring.
I'd expect something interesting if I have to cut off my hand and lose an eye.

[fectin]

Simon,

There is no +x which will make that ability cool. If you're in doubt, think about how cool it would sound to someone who didn't know the game, and who you were trying to convince to play: "I put out my eye and cut off my hand for power" is cool; "and I got a 5% boost to my chance to hit things" is not. Something like constant non-magical true seeing and mage hand effects makes it better ("and now I can see invisible things and have telekinesis"). You can go even better than that if you (for example) can replace your eye with an enemy's to see what he's seen, or have crazy reanimating touch abilities with your non-existent hand.

At its root, the issue isn't that the bonus is too small. The issue is that you're paying a steep (and cool!) cost for an ability which is uninspiring.

[Simon Rogers]

I've got the picture!

When I said it's a bit weak - and I didn't mean it should be + more. It's a Britishism which means "not very impressive."

So yes, being able to see weird shit with your absent eye, having weaker undead ignore you or treat you as one of them, be immune to necrotic damage, take over another combatant's hand temporarily, pluck out an enemy's eye and insert it into the socket (dead or alive) to see what she was looking at in the last hour, have an invisible hand that is immune to damage (plunge it in fire for example), are all cooler, though I make no claims they are balanced.

[Josh_Kablack]

Feat has truly become the urinal cake of roleplaying terminology.

Win.

"Are you guys done selecting the urinal cakes for your characters yet?"

"Ooooh, next level I qualify for the ____ urinal cake, which lets me ____"

[Aryxbez]

Although I know the discussion on 4th editions effects ending at odd times has finished discussion, still wanted to share something around that time. That, couple weeks ago, playing in a 4th edition campaign I partake in, finally noticed what people been talking about. That powers and abilities all, have these weird ending turn times on status effects, that at the time I could see added little to the experience, but was inconveniencing the game. Sure, it didn't grind the game to a halt for an hour, but it certainly would feed into a minute or few of time. Given how easy of a solution such a design flaw is, and how Saving Throw phase works, it's pretty silly to NOT simply just change the rule when in design phase of things. So yeah, I am someone that plays 4th edition semi-reguraly, and even I'm starting to notice these inconveniences. As no matter how big or small, an inconvenience is still just that, and it's made worse to keep when the solution is easy as spending a minute or two writing up the sentence on a condition phase.

It's funny Aryxbez that you're trying to tell Simon how to do his job.

No, it's funny because you're just wrong, but quite nice about it. In fact, it's worthy of applause that you keep to a reasonable tone in this den of fuckery.

Just because an idea is good does not mean Simon should bring it up to the designers, as the idea might not work within the game system, or it might run counter intuitive to the feel of the game.

For the record, the way you portray and your interests, and your signature, make me think the game has something to offer you and/or your DM.

I've been seeking to avoid this post, as first thing I read about it had me wondering: "What the Hell?!?" Nevermind what I was saying is a given, common sense even, if it's a good idea, it'll stand on its own merit, no matter who's job it is (shakes head).

I will thank you at least for the compliment however, albeit this "den of effery" is quite the Bastion, in the realm of RPG forums, it's nice to see desire for progress in this hobby isn't filled with brain dead paste eaters, or otherwise sheer ignorance (whether or not ye are among them, I cannot say, but I'd certainly hope not). Sure they got an aggressive tone, but when deal with as many belligerent posters over the years as they have, I don't blame their cynicism.

I feel the notion that you may've missed a part of my post, most particularly:

Simon Rogers (others of 13th it applies to) Opinion or not, even if someone isn't going to necessarily buy your product, if they propose good ideas that would improve your product, especially if it's an easy solution, I'd find it unwise of you to ignore it.

As Bolded for emphasis, in this case, the lethal HP variants or what have you would not be a "good idea" nor "Improvement to the product" then. So when a good idea actually does go around, especially if it improving upon a current design appropriate for the game..then yeah, I would think it's definitely worth hearing some thoughts on it.

Lastly for the record, know not if ye misread my post, or text too clumped together, but the signature quote is in regards to whats WRONG with 4th edition, as in, I DON'T want people having ability to bearly jump 5ft in the air, somehow cutting something with the thickness of a fortress wall, while missing out on awesome abilities. Now Pardon, ye might find my tone bit less friendly, but ye didn't exactly open up with being respectful to my response either.

[Maxus]

And what is more important to me at least, a +1 to hit is really really boring.
I'd expect something interesting if I have to cut off my hand and lose an eye.

Truly.

Although most of the really cool bonuses for maiming yourself involve the eyes.

(Although I suppose you could have something about amputating an arm but leaving a sort of ghost-of-your-arm there so you can reach through physical matter and attack ghosts? Not to mention prosthetic arms with nice bonuses.)

I mean, a staple of the who "blind guy who kicks ass" is they're the business at the other senses. Daredevil, Blind Fury, that blind guy in Rurouni Kenshin (superhearing also gave him Super Sense Motive, thanks to listening to heartrate and breathing changes) from Rurouni Kenshin, the old assassin in Flying Guillotine, Toph from Avatar. Blindsight, possible tremorsense. If a player decides he's going to have a blind character, that's more than likely what he'd like to play.

On the magic side, blind seers turn up often. Or people who gave up their physical sight for greater magical powers/perception. I think Digger (webcomic, good one) had seers who'd voluntarily had their eyelids sewn shut to be able to see more clearly. Paul from Dune got around blindness for a while by setting his psychic channel tuner to "Here" and "Now".

(Note: Don't you even dare bring up the "roleplaying not rollplay" angle. This is specifically about D&D. Someone playing a blind character who can't pull their own weight in a fight isn't conducive to a long-running and enjoyable game of D&D, as that puts every fight into "escort mission, except with a PC as the football to be lugged around", or forcing the other players to generally aid, abet, and pander to said blind character to keep the game going. That's really sort of selfish, defining the rest of the party in how they handle/respond to your character.)

[Simon Rogers]

I thought it might amuse you note that in the latest version (coming out later today) "for your favorite gang of internet brawlers..."

Rob says: We put this epic feat into the game to make fun of the people we know and/or play with who will do just about anything to get a +1 attack bonus. If your group is less obsessed with math and more interested in story, you’ll want to load this feat with all manner of “I see dead people” storylines, Lich King complications, and obligatory quests into the over and under-world realm of the ghost dragons.

Also, this made me laugh:

... clarification that the Great Gold Wyrm isn’t literally plugging the hole in the Abyss with his own dragon-scaled butt.

[Username17]

Wow. That's incredibly dickish and immature. You don't troll the audience in a closed playtest, because the audience is your playtesters. You're trying to get them to play straight with you, you have to play straight with them. No wonder the playtest crew went so far off the reservation with their bird people and "Turbo Dracula" horse shit. The authors of the game were trolling them, why wouldn't they troll the game right back?

If you have bullshit options, you either save them for the end, or you mark them as bullshit options in the playtest documents. You don't ask your playtesters to playtest your "Unglued" material as if it was for real.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

You should add the feat "Eunuch Sorcerer: Cut off your balls, add +1 to your caster level." Everyone on the Den will only play eunuchs.

[virgil]

In reference to some of the various things I've seen on this thread, which seems relevant. Interestingly, I'm certain people will get all Rorschach on it.

[Voss]

You should add the feat "Eunuch Sorcerer: Cut off your balls, add +1 to your caster level." Everyone on the Den will only play eunuchs.

Doesn't that exist in the 3rd edition 'Oriental Adventures' book?

I thought it might amuse you note that in the latest version (coming out later today) "for your favorite gang of internet brawlers..."

Rob says: We put this epic feat into the game to make fun of the people we know and/or play with who will do just about anything to get a +1 attack bonus. If your group is less obsessed with math and more interested in story, you’ll want to load this feat with all manner of “I see dead people” storylines, Lich King complications, and obligatory quests into the over and under-world realm of the ghost dragons.

But... it only makes sense for stupid people who are _bad_ at math.

Also, I'm a little puzzled by the idea that feats have invisible riders that do a bunch of other stuff that aren't covered by what the feat actually does. That weird disassociation between mechanics and things that are just part of the story and background is rearing its head again. Why would you make a bad feat a requirement just to tell an underworld/ghost story? And if it isn't a requirement, why have it at all?

And, yeah, being a jerk and trolling your players probably doesn't help your playtest any.

[FatR]

In reference to some of the various things I've seen on this thread, which seems relevant. Interestingly, I'm certain people will get all Rorschach on it.

See, the core plot for at least half of fantasy CRPGs is "Saving the world". If you, as a GM, think that playing at such stakes is worthy of mockery, I, as a player, will just go to play said CRPGs, which are most likely better written anyway.

[Avoraciopoctules]

You should add the feat "Eunuch Sorcerer: Cut off your balls, add +1 to your caster level." Everyone on the Den will only play eunuchs.

Doesn't that exist in the 3rd edition 'Oriental Adventures' book?

I thought it might amuse you note that in the latest version (coming out later today) "for your favorite gang of internet brawlers..."

Rob says: We put this epic feat into the game to make fun of the people we know and/or play with who will do just about anything to get a +1 attack bonus. If your group is less obsessed with math and more interested in story, you’ll want to load this feat with all manner of “I see dead people” storylines, Lich King complications, and obligatory quests into the over and under-world realm of the ghost dragons.

But... it only makes sense for stupid people who are _bad_ at math.

Also, I'm a little puzzled by the idea that feats have invisible riders that do a bunch of other stuff that aren't covered by what the feat actually does. That weird disassociation between mechanics and things that are just part of the story and background is rearing its head again. Why would you make a bad feat a requirement just to tell an underworld/ghost story? And if it isn't a requirement, why have it at all?

And, yeah, being a jerk and trolling your players probably doesn't help your playtest any.

Maybe their target audience just includes the people who'll read the feat description and go "Huh huh. Powergaming swine. Now I gotta buy this."

Then again, the only people seeing the feat will have already forked over preorder money. Seems like all that really has the potential to do is alienate paying customers.