Incline 13th Age

[L'ennui]

@felipepepe : The escalation only affects attack rolls and not damage, apparently :

Each PC gains a bonus to attack rolls equal to the current value on the escalation die.

(from the section Escalation die, again on p. 162)

Humm, but you yourself said this earlier:

It's also worth noting that this can encourage wizards to not cast annoying (to everyone else at the table, that is, including the GM) encounter-ending or encounter-avoiding spells right off the bat.

So they changed the rules of Fireball and other spells, so they are affected by the escalation die?

Not sure I see what the issue is here. As I previously stated, the Escalation die only affects attack rolls, not damage. This still encourages wizards to cast their better spells a bit later on, since they're more likely to hit. They didn't "change the rules for Fireball" or any other spell as far as I know, they receive the same escalation modifier as every other attack.

 

[tuluse]

Fireball doesn't have an attack roll in 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder.

 

[felipepepe]

Fireball doesn't have an attack roll in 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Thank you @tuluse, I was starting to doubt myself...

 

[L'ennui]

Aaah, well then I suppose I should have said that Escalation only affects attacks (instead of attack rolls) and not damage.

In this system, calculating the attack of a Fireball works as such :

Attack: Intelligence + Level vs. PD

P. 156

Presumably, the escalation die is then added on top of these modifiers, since it says it affects all attacks and there are no sections (from what I've seen) in the rules that specify that spells are excluded from this.

 

[Telengard]

Telengard the escalation die only escalates when the fighting does, so in a round where nothing really happens the GM is supposed to go "sry no dice"

The trick isn't to not do anything, but to use ranged, traps, tools, and terrain while retreating in order to deny the enemy the use of their potency bar (let's call it for what it is) while it is full, and then to begin filling up your potency bar.

The enemies' potency bar starts filled, so giving them full engagement at that point is to hand an advantage to the enemy. But, the enemies' potency bar is far smaller than the party's (because you're so awesome) theirs being maxed at +1, so it won't take but a round to get them to expend it and bring the fight to 0/0.

After that, the party can begin filling up their potency bar. With any such bar removed from gameplay like this, there will a list of tasks that can be checked off that can fill your potency bar with your jizz. You will want to do those tasks to try to max your potency as much as possible before full engagement occurs. You don't have to, bu the longer you wait, the more damage you will do, the faster the enemies will die, and the less resources you will expend in killing them. All to your advantage.

Should the gamemaster deny the use of ranged, traps, and tools in filling the bar, then it becomes a system that encourages only melee combat and not ranged, stealth, tactics, or intelligence (and is therefore shit).

So, then, once you have filled your potency up as much as you can, that is when you release. You never want to fight at full engagement first round (unless you can clean up), as then the enemy will use their filled potency bar on you. Lucky for the party, if the fight starts at any kind of range, the enemy will be denied the use of their full potency anyway.

To reduce all this to it's simplest, if all the party has to do is attack in order to fill the bar, then they retreat one rank each round and fire arrows at the enemy until their potency is maxed or until something blocks them from doing the same thing another round. Then they lay into the enemy. Because, to look at the numbers listed above another way, if a 6th lvl wizard normally needed a 19 to hit a creature and a fighter a 16, the fighter would hit roughly 1/4 times while the wizard 1/10. Slap on a +6, and the fighter hits 1/2 and the wizard 1/3. With even the wizard hitting more often than the fighter normally would, the party can seriously clean up.

 

[L'ennui]

We should run a Codex playtest to see just how shit/excellent the new system is.

 

[tuluse]

@Telengard, most of your criticisms don't work because positioning, distance, and obstacles don't really exist. It's all abstracted. Read the rpg.net review.

 

[Telengard]

@Telengard, most of your criticisms don't work because positioning, distance, and obstacles don't really exist. It's all abstracted. Read the rpg.net review.

Joy. A game where the two sides always start right on top of each other and wale on each other until someone falls over. Next thing you'll be telling me everyone has heal surges and auto-heal on combat exit. Oh wait...

However, you can be Far Away (within 2 moves). I don't know how they handle a party who wants to stay Far Away and archer the enemy. I don't know how they handle traps, or if they just got rid of them. Nor if tools such as nets and marbles are still in existence or have any effect. But you can be Far Away and attack. And if it lets you build potency from Far Away, and it lets you stay Far Away if someone advances, then the criticism still works (minus terrain). And if it doesn't let you build potency like that, then - as stated - the potency system becomes solely a measure of melee engagement.

 

[Ulminati]

@Telengard, most of your criticisms don't work because positioning, distance, and obstacles don't really exist. It's all abstracted. Read the rpg.net review.

Joy. A game where the two sides always start right on top of each other and wale on each other until someone falls over.

Don't ever read the positioning rules of burning wheel. You'll have an aneurysm, then die. And nothing of value would be lost.

Abstracted positioning has worked very well in several other systems and usually speeds up combat considerably. This, in turn, means more time in a session is spent roleplaying instead of roll-playing as it were.

 

[Merlkir]

For you 13th Age players here, this is something. (something I'll be working on, ehm)

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/416625372/13th-age-in-glorantha

 

[udm]

13th Age Bundle of Holding. Pay $20 to get the core rulebook, 13 True Ways and 13th Age Soundtrack; for $35, you get the Bestiary and a whole lot of extra sourcebooks.

 

[udm]

I finally had the chance to run and complete an adventure with 13th Age using the Quickstart, Make Your Own Luck. I like it a lot, and will probably use it as my go-to system for fantasy games. Some thoughts on the game, if anyone cares:

What I don't like

The official character sheet. It is terrible.

What I like

Backgrounds replace the traditional skills system. Although I am more of a "Skills" list kind of person, backgrounds work really well here, especially because a session could go through much improvisation along the way. One concern I had initially was on backgrounds being a catch-all, but then it is up to the GM to arbitrate: a) creation of the background in the beginning; b) usage of the background. Besides backgrounds only work up till +5, so one can't be too OP in that degree.

One Unique Thing is awesome, period. It's a phrase that describes what makes your character different from everyone else in the world, adding no mechanical advantage but a ton of fluff - and all at the GM's discretion.

The Escalation Die may seem kind of gimmicky, but it works really well in play, and not just because of the attack bonus it confers. The Escalation Die also affects the environment and gives the GM a benchmark on altering the terrain or scenery to reflect the increasing tension of the battle. Some monsters are also affected by the Escalation Die (dragons, for example). Even special powers may or may not work depending on its number, so it's not just a matter of "running away and popping moles with arrows".

The Movement system is great and works well even with miniatures (we used tokens in our game). You can only be Engaged, Close or Far Away. This abstracts combat a bit and may reduce the tactical options, but that's where terrain comes into play (ramparts, gates, high ground, cover, etc).

I like the Powers system. I heard that it was an unpopular feature of 4e, but I'm unfamiliar with 4e so I can't compare. However, the powers felt sufficiently diverse. The Barbarian was raging at opportune moments to synergise with other moves; the Bard was holding his own, both attacking and supporting; the Paladin focused on smiting the undead; the Wizard was setting up rituals to shake things up a bit for the enemy, who outnumbered and overpowered the players; finally the Rogue was leaping all over the place, slashing wildly while remaining unseen. And the roles would keep changing. At one point all the lights went out and the PCs had to fight blind - except for the Barbarian, who was held by stone but, having "Dwarven Miner" in his background, could see in the dark and was basically being the PC's "eyes".

I also like the list of Feats, although I haven't yet experimented with character builds.

There are 3 kinds of defenses: AC, PD (Physical Defense, for protection against acid or fire) and MD (Mental Defense, for protection against mind attacks). All 3 are calculated from median ability scores, which is pretty neat.

The book encourages a variety of house-rules or just winging it if players don't like certain aspects. Why even have a proper set of rules then? Honestly, I think the answer lies in how balanced the game feels overall, that it's possible to house-rule a few mechanics here and there without breaking anything. But this is just my opinion after a few sessions so I could be wrong. One of the house-rules that I really like was to have players roll Icons at the end of a session, rather than at the start. This gives the GM ample time to prep for the next session.

Neutral

The Icons subsystem is a double-edged sword. It creates mprov-heavy encounters that branch from (or into) the main plot, and as such this rests more on the GM's shoulders than the players'. Players have to roll a d6 for each relationship that they share with an Icon (the movers and shakers of the Dragon Empire) - it can be Positive, Negative or Conflicted. The problem with this is that the GM has to record down all 5s and 6s. On a 6, players get a benefit with no strings attached; on a 5, there is a complication. The GM has to wing an encounter on the spot that can confer these benefits, taking into account the Icons involved. This can get hairy especially when players have various Icons with differing relationships. However, there are house rules to change this around and make it easier on the GM. On the flip side, what I like about is that it substantially changes the feel of the game depending on which Icons players are aligned with. For example, NPCs and encounters could change depending on what Icons players are aligned with, so trolls could sprout wings if players are aligned with the Diabolist, or wear heavy armour if aligned with the Orc Lord. In fact, the very objective of the adventure could change if more players are positively aligned with the Archmage versus the Emperor.

I don't mind running a one-shot Codexian game, but I'm undecided as to whether it should be done PbP or over Roll20. PbP seems straightforward enough but will take an ass of a long time; Roll20 could be done in one sitting but I'm not familiar with running games on it (only ever played one game there, and that was a board game). If there's enough interest....

 

[HatTrick]

For Icons, I usually have them roll them at the end of every session rather than the beginning, so I can have time to implement what they rolled in the next one.

 

[udm]

For Icons, I usually have them roll them at the end of every session rather than the beginning, so I can have time to implement what they rolled in the next one.

Do you weave in the subplots at the start of the next session, or spread them out across the course of the session?

 

[HatTrick]

A bit of both, really, with occasional improv when the player wants to take the reigns and, say, use their 6 with the Archmage to jury-rig a crate full of alchemical reagents to blow up a prison's gate.

 

[FuriousGamer87]

It's pretty good for Skype play and you should consider it for that since the tempo is fast and it worked out pretty well for me there. The other that I use for online is Savage Worlds.

For tabletop play, 13th Age is lacking in tactical play compared to 4th DnD, which it is supposed to be a successor to, considering the designers in charge. I am still using 4th for tabletop.

 

[udm]

Their latest bestiary is on pre-order now (but the window to get the exclusive art print is over): http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/lions-tigers-owlbears-the-13th-age-bestiary-2/

Also, /necro