OgreBattle wrote:Simon Rogers wrote:
These questions dive straight into the matter of taste and it depends on your view of 4e.
Why would someone who hates 4e because
'It doesn't feel like D&D', 'Fighters cast spells', 'it breaks versimilittude', 'It is a tabletop MMO','It neuters imagination, want to try 13th age?
Why would someone who enjoys 4e, because
'Fighters can pull their weight' 'Casters are reeled in' 'combat is tactically satisfying', 'i can make effective characters without heavy optimizing' want to try 13th age?
What problems of 4e,
'hit point bloat', 'padded sumo', 'too many classes with little differentiation', 'feat tax', 'skill challenges don't work', 'everyones powers feel the same' does 13th age fix?
It's been a while and I'm still a publisher not particularly familiar with 4e, but here are my attempts at an answer based on the latest version.
It doesn’t “feel” like D&D?
My D&D is AD&D. It feels more like D&D to me than 4e, because it’s less like an MMO, and more like D&D to me than 3e because it includes narrative elements of a type which I’ve informally included in my AD&D campaign for years. It doesn’t feel more like D&D than AD&D to me though for obvious reasons.
Fighters don’t have anything which look or feel like a spell.
Talents: Armor, Cleave, Comeback Strike, Counter Attack, Deadeye Archer, Power Attack, Skilled Intercept, Tough as Iron
Maneuvres: Brace for It, Carve an Opening, Deadly Assault, Defensive Fighting, Heavy Blows, Precision Attack, Second Shot, Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Pressure, Hack & Slash, Make ’em Flinch, Never Surrender, Punish Them, Steady Now, Strong Guard, A Dozen Cuts, Hero’s Skill, Sword Master’s Anticipation, Spinning Charge, Sword of Destiny, Combat Mastery, Set ’em Up
It breaks verisimilitude
You mean, do the mechanics drop you out of character immersion? I don’t think so. Combat (I’d guess) is the most likely culprit for this, but even combat allows me to incorporate the kind of narrative and character-based elements which let me stay in character. You could mean, is the setting and background coherent? I think so. If you mean does it model physics? No, fi anything it models fiction.
It neuters imagination
Encouraging imaginative play and engagement with the setting is where 13th Age excels (in my opinion over 3e and 4e). The icon relationships, backgrounds, and One Unique things bear this burden lightly. It’s amazing to see how quickly, given characters with these elements missing, people get into the game and setting. Rob and Jonathan have written extensively about the icons and OUT in v5 of the Escalation Edition.
Why would someone who enjoys 4e, because 'Fighters can pull their weight'
In terms of dishing out damage, fighters are right up there and they get flexibility – different rolls trigger different tactical options. The fight is a relatively simple character class to play, though. You can specialise in being the tank, the archer, or the two-handed damage dealer.
It’s like an MMO
I didn’t get this feeling, which I did in 4e. 13th Age allows narrative elements even in combat which an MMO couldn’t handle, and there are no weird spell-like effects which trigger for non-magicians (something which makes a game a bit more MMO’ey to me.)
‘Casters are reeled in’
I don’t know enough about 4e to answer this. I only know that the fighter/barbarian/ranger didn’t feel hard done by in combat, and out of combat everyone uses their backgrounds to interact with the setting with equal aplomb. However, different classes optionally get different
‘combat is tactically satisfying’,
I played the rogue, which is second in complexity only to the wizard, and for that character whether you have momentum is important, you are constantly disengaging, and trying to use your sneak attack damage effectively. In contrast, the barbarian and ranger have fewer tactical options but are easy to play. We found that as a team we had tactical options, and it wasn’t obvious which the best choice to make was. I can imagine that to people who like definite ranges, a fixed grid, side stepping and so on might find it restrictive, though that hasn’t been reported in playtest. It’s very quick compared with 3e or 4e, and this is from the point of view of a relative novice playing one of the most complex characters.
I can make effective characters without heavy optimizing want to try 13th age?
I’ve no doubt that there are choices which will produce better characters than others, so this could potentially be a problem, but it’s not been flagged up as an issue in playtesting. Perhaps in six months when people have been hacking at it, we might find optimal builds. But building and rebuilding characters is a very straightforward process, so if you mean “spend a lot of time on min-maxing” I’d say not noticeably.
What [things you identify as] problems of 4e does it fix:
'hit point bloat'
I don’t know what hit point bloat is, really. Do you mean, everything has more hit points for harder arithmetic but more granularity? Well, levels don’t scale so I won’t compare PCs. Here are a couple of example monster hit points, though
Warrior Skeleton: 3e 18 , 4e 45, 13th Age 40
Owlbear 3e 52, 4e 212, 13th Age 101
So, if you don’t like high levels of HPs, 13th Age doesn’t do much for you.
I’m happy to do no damage when I miss, but I know the new kids like to get something, so having lots of hit points allows you to offer a bit of damage on a miss for those classes which do that, without it unbalancing things, I’d guess
“padded sumo”
With the escalation die, powers get more effective as time goes on, rather than less. Some powers don’t trigger until the escalation die triggers, and there aren’t many powers which move enemies around. Combat is pacey.
'too many classes with little differentiation' 'everyones powers feel the same'
All the classes are mechanically distinct very distinct, and listed in order of complexity, which I’ll reproduce here for convenience:
• The barbarian is designed for the player who wants to roll dice and slay without worrying too much about the rules.
• Like the barbarian, the ranger relies on base attacks augmented by class talents instead of a power list.
• The paladin also relies on a short list of class talents instead of powers. Like the ranger, it can be slightly more complex if you choose its more involved talents.
• The fighter is simple to play but asks you to make interesting choices between flexible attacks before and during combat.
• The cleric is probably the easiest of the spellcasters. It requires a touch of patience.
• The sorcerer is probably more complex than the cleric because of variant spells and the option to cast spells for double the effect in two rounds. Not a decision that new players may feel comfortable with.
• The rogue can be more complex than other classes because you are tracking whether or not you have momentum, constantly disengaging, and trying to use your sneak attack damage effectively.
• The bard has a variety of options that include commands, spells, and songs. Figuring out how to best use those options both in combat and during roleplaying is probably best for a confident player.
• The wizard is the most complex class if you choose all the options that allow improvisation and ad-libbing; without those freeform talents it’s no more difficult than the sorcerer.
'feat tax'
I don’t know exactly what this is, so I can’t give a certain answer.. Feats you have to take? if you have certain talents and powers and spells you will definitely want to take feats associated with them.
'skill challenges don't work',
Skill challenges don’t exist in 13th Age. Backgrounds and icon dice do this work.
