13th Age RPG: D&D with Modern Design

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > 13th Age RPG: D&D with Modern Design

«‹›2 »

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Vanadium posted:

Rude.

Outside of the offensively stupid name the thread is just obscure RPGs.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2012 22:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:20

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

fosborb posted:

feats are tied to powers

Honestly I tended to find that one of the more annoying implementations of a feat mechanic in 4th edition. Are they tied into specific powers like the Martial School Feats or just specific classes of powers like the White Lotus Academy feats?

# ¿ Apr 30, 2012 23:26

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Red_Mage posted:

This is a picture from a cookbook, it is not even a particularly well laid out cookbook, but it is still better than 99% of RPGs. You will note it has a big picture and some important information as the first thing you see when you turn to the page. Below you will notice it has an ingredients list and then some steps to use said ingredients to prepare the dish. There are even helpful pictures to illustrate the step. This format would make for a beautiful monster manual that is more useful than any I've ever seen.

I generally agree with what you wrote but you are really stretching it by suggesting that there is information in a Monster Manual that can be conveyed in a cook book format. The cook book format and most of your other examples work because there is information that can be conveyed easier using pictures. What information is in a monster manual that can be communicated easier using pictures?
EDIT:
Nice example with the history book. That generally is one of the more annoying aspects of setting books.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 14, 2012

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 20:32

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

angry_keebler posted:

I totally agree. My main gripe with 4e ph1(well all frpg player books) is you get variations on the same 10 pictures in every book. Buff man swinging bigsmasher, pretty girl in leather thigh boots, and top down sketches showing us what a spear, net, and sword look like.

Generally speaking that art is just white space that makes it easier to read which I appreciate greatly. 3.5E and Pathfinder's layout generally makes Tim Buckley look succinct by comparison. Sure they don't contribute anything in conveying information but in general even the most densest of engineering textbooks that I have tend to break up the text with fluffy images of little to no intellectual value.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 14, 2012

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 20:36

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Unhappy Meal posted:

I don't know about you, but I certainly want all my monster manuals in cookbook format now.

Lich
Serves: 4
The lich is a delicate dish, best served with an accompaniment of minions. We would recommend skeletons, zombies, wraiths, or any other undead that suits you or your players tastes. We must however recommend against making them too spicy, as being undead they are prone to easily burning.

Actually 4th edition did do this with the recommended encounter set up for monsters.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 20:56

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Evil Mastermind posted:

Personally, I don't think the Icons need to be stated up mechanically because they're not intended to be interacted with that way. They're not people who you're supposed to go beat up, they're the major movers and shakers in the world and as such adventurers can go their whole lives working for the Archmage or whoever and never actually meet him face-to-face.

13th Age doesn't seem to be setting itself up as a game where after a certain point you're kicking demon lords in the face and taking their lunch money; that's not to say it couldn't be set up to work that way (people'd probably want to defeat the Crusader once and for all), but it's not the default assumption or setup.

I just bought the game and the word Icons really is a horrible weird term compared to what the mechanic really is which is more faction orientated.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 14:12

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Gomi posted:

How do you figure?

Because it keeps on reminding me of the 3.5E/Pathfinder Iconics when in reality its largely different. In fact I really understand why the leaders aren't stated out because they really are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things because if you kill one off another will take its place.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jul 10, 2012

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 17:40

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Gomi posted:

Also, killing off an Icon is in no way inconsequential. Not even in the grand scheme of things. First off, the post might be vacant for an arbitrary length of time (Orc Lord, Emperor, Archmage), and that vacancy has significant game-world effects.

Inconsequential is a bad word to use because it would shake up the status quo regardless of whether or not chaos breaks loose. I was actually going to compare it to World of Warcraft which does a pretty good job of changing the game world in response to changes in factions.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jul 10, 2012

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 18:51

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Mystic Mongol posted:

I don't see how players trying to come up with a stunt every round of combat is a problem.

Honestly one of the people I play with actually brought up a good point in regards to this sort of thing. If you try and force it the end result is going to be fairly stilted and unnatural. If you let it come naturally it generally is going to be a heck of lot more interesting and fun. This resulting from an Encounters session where a series of weird events pretty much resulted in our group going off the rails and narrating a large proportion of the combat.

quote:

There are areas where grids do things way, way better than non-gridded systems. One of them is forced movement - compare Tide of Iron (level 1 Fighter Power in 4e) to Shield Bash (level 1 flexible fighter maneuver from 13A). Tide of Iron is one of my favorite powers from 4e, and it's where it 'clicked' for me that Fighters get to do cool stuff in combat too. Bashing monsters all over the place, pushing them off cliffs and into fires - it's a fantastic power, and it really sells the Fighter as a fun, engaging class in combat.

The 13A version lets you disengage freely from a monster. If you spend a feat, you can force it to disengage from an ally instead. That's not even in the same realm of cool.

Honestly that isn't a problem with griddless combat more that it is a problem with the power.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jul 17, 2012

# ¿ Jul 17, 2012 14:17

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Is AC Con/Dex/Wis or Con/Dex/Int? The pdf lists both at one point.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2012 04:57

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

moths posted:

There's no quickstart abbreviated version, but there's enough live games, reviews, and previews out there that you should be able to cobble together an impression of what it's all about. It's essentially an unfucked 3e that borrows the class balance, good math, and fun combat from 4e, while simultaneously incorporating cool story elements from the smaller indie games nobody ever runs.

Honestly, 3E's class design philosophy is still pretty wonky for multiple reasons and I have no clue why anyone would pick the method of making classes boring and making some more cooler especially if you start including trappings of storygames. I think that is where a lot of the disappointment comes from. Not because people were expecting 4.5E but people weren't expecting a lot of the annoying trappings of D&D to show back up the worst of which is dumb fighter complex wizard.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jan 4, 2013

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 14:39

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

moths posted:

Some classes have complexity knobs.

This is the one that sticks out the most because from a narrative control and ease of improvising route I generally find it easier to use the more "complex" classes because they have a more solidified base that I can use for a character than the ones which entail hitting it with a sword.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 21:08

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

What is up with the AC values for the Eldrich Knight? The preview shows two conflicting sets of values.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2013 00:22

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

waderockett posted:

The first set are the base AC values for the class; the second set are the AC values at 1st level. (Same format as the classes in the core rule book.)

I'm going to point this out but the formatting isn't exactly the same between books which his why I didn't pick up on it. In the Eldrich Knight the level bonus in is added in while in the core rule book you just list it as +level.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2013 15:01

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

So I have another question about the Monk now. How is the damage dice for the fist, backhand, and kick supposed to progress? With the way its worded it actually sounds like the damage dice progresses one to an additional die every time you level.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2013 17:01

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Flavivirus posted:

That would put it in line with every other weapon, any reason you think that's odd?

I knew I was missing something as I'm relatively new to this system and was trying to figure out what it was.

waderockett posted:

It's a playtest draft, so if it doesn't make sense it would help us a lot if you reported back that it doesn't make sense. If you get help on the forums, it's less useful to the designers (and potentially leads to a worse design.)

Don't worry I'll start giving feedback once I start playing. This question felt more like I was missing a basic mechanic that was in the base game.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Aug 11, 2013

# ¿ Aug 11, 2013 17:53

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

quote:

On offense, fighters rely on Flexible Attacks, where rather than picking an attack power and rolling, you roll, and based on whether your roll was odd, even, a hit, or a miss, you pick a corresponding Flexible Attack. So, every round your choice is "basic attack". One of the first you learn is called Deadly Assault. On a Natural Even Hit, you can reroll any 1s on damage. Oh, that doesn't sound so bad, right? Well, if you're a two handed fighter, you'll be using a d10 weapon. At first level, your damage roll will look like 1d10+5, so you'll get to reroll a 1 once every ten times. And once every ten times, you're going to reroll that 1 as another one. So 91 times out of 100, you activate this ability and it doesn't do poo poo. It has a 9% success rate at boosting your damage by at least a single point.

Someone didn't read the weapons scaling rules. The ability gets more effective as you level up to the point where at end game the power statistically will activate every attack roll.

quote:

Then there's the "enemies you're threatening take a penalty equal to your secondary stat to try and escape". Okay, except, again, there are going to be multiple enemies, and unless they're targeting you already, you can only engage one at a time.

I can't find that in the rules though.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Aug 13, 2013

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 12:59

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Quadratic_Wizard posted:

If you're engaged with an enemy, you can't then walk over to a second enemy and engage him, without first Disengaging from the first enemy.

Yeah but there isn't anything in the rules saying that you can't just engage two enemies at once.

Quadratic_Wizard posted:

I know. And at level 10, with 22 strength, you'll roll 10d10+18 damage, which is a really solid chunk. Using that flexible attack ups the average damage from 73 to...77.

I don't think you are actually supposed to optimize the game like you are in conventional Dungeons and Dragons namely because with the way the game is designed you will effectively be dumping your defenses.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 13, 2013

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 14:13

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

PantsOptional posted:

If you couldn't be engaged with more than one enemy at once, disengaging from or popping off of multiple enemies wouldn't work at all. As written, if two orcs flank your wizard you're engaged with both of them and you take a -1 to your disengage check to escape both of them.

I'm trying to figure out whether or not you can actively engage with more than one enemy at once.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 14:58

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Ferrinus posted:

I've been fixing to make a character for a 13A game and good lord are ability scores obtrusive. The system's somehow managed to achieve the maximally annoying mixture of encouraging you to flavor stuff however you like and giving individual ability scores largely irreplaceable functions. Why are these stupid things still in the game.

Stop trying to optimize like you would a regular D&D game and just dump 14's in as many stats as you can and then up two that your class uses.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 17:50

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Ferrinus posted:

That IS how you optimize, yes, but you can only have two dump stats and Dex and Con are inherently superior irrespective of your class and there's no real way to guarantee that your low ability scores won't come up on a background check so you have no real way of getting away with being e.g. a buff sorcerer. It's so stupid.

Except for the fact that Dexterity is not that useful outside of a few cases where it you can use it as a main attack.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 18:20

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Ferrinus posted:

It determines your initiative and is one of the attributes that factors into armor class.

That really is an incredibly dumb thing to be whining about. I really thought there was something incredibly special about that stat that I missed but apparently not.
EDIT:
The only reason why I'm really confused is that the character I have a character with the stat array which your actually complaining about being unoptimized but I have no clue why.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 13, 2013

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 18:44

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

01011001 posted:

It doesn't negate his point that ability scores as they are are fairly obtrusive and don't add a whole lot to make up for it.

Actually in this case they are pretty much completely unobtrusive and unless you're the type of dedicated min maxer the book overtly makes fun of you really aren't loosing all that much as long as your using the primary.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 19:33

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Zandar posted:

The point of rules, though, is to make the fun course of action the optimal one.

Actually from my experience more often than not the fun course of action is typically the most overtly suboptimal choice while still having an underlying level of competency. Its kind of why I don't really care at all about the whole ability score issue because even if that problem didn't existed my choices probably still would end up being incredibly bad.

Ferrinus posted:

EDIT: I think QM has a solid point that, unlike a spellcaster, the fighter can't decide executively that it's time to pull out all the stops and Unleash. They're hope-based.

Not really because the sorcerer has to actually spend a round doing squat diddly to pull out all the stops. Its the worst class ability in the entire game.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Aug 13, 2013

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 23:10

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

pospysyl posted:

Ability scores are presented as a spread of equal categories of activities your character is good at, but being bad at Dexterity is fundamentally worse than being bad at Charisma, no matter what class you're playing.

Its not really though. As I said before I was really amazed being able to go first is why it supposedly is a better.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2013 14:53

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Ferrinus posted:

I'm not asking for help, I'm offering criticism. I've got a sorcerer I'm happy with, it's just not the one I originally wanted to play because Thirteenth Age's supposed narrative flexibility is directly undercut by Thirteenth Age's archaic and cumbersome ability score rules.

Its only cumbersome because you choose to minmax your character which the creators of the game emphatically go out of the way to make fun of.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2013 15:23

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Flaky Biscuit posted:

I really think it would've been better served by throwing off those shackles.

It wouldn't look anything like a Dungeons and Dragons game though as some of the problems Ferrinus talked about have multiple systemic issues with them that aren't just related to ability scores.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2013 15:46

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Doublehex posted:

What? The book says you can only pick the Advances once. But now that I think about it...why would I give my players an advance after every session? They'd have all the advances by the time they're level 3!

You can't pick certain advances until you hit specific levels.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2013 15:32

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Wait does the Monk playtest say what I think it does and that the crappy design of previous editions Monk's were preserved?

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 22:26

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

-Fish- posted:

Did you download the Monk Playtest or the 13 True Ways Monk and Commander Playtest?

13 True Ways Monk and Commander Playtest is the one I just received. Tweet literally calls out one of the worst decision decisions of the 3E monk as an core mechanic for the 13th Age Monk.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 22:52

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

ProfessorCirno posted:

So the question is, DO their ki powers or maneuvers or whatever they are make up for it? Or is it D&D monk where none of their powers have any synergy and it's just a mish mash of unrelated things?

The answer is kind of surprising in that the Ki powers are virtually nonexistent which if he really wanted to truly make the class have multiple attribute dependency then he would have had more reasons not to drop Wisdom.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2013 14:51

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

waderockett posted:

Jonathan said that if a monk is punching or kicking someone, it makes sense for the damage to be based on how strong the monk is rather than how dextrous the monk is. That was the reasoning behind how it was done in 3e, and unless Rob had a compelling reason to make it Dex-based instead, why go that route? Jonathan didn't say, "The monk has to use Str because that's how we did it in the old days." It was, is there a good justification for changing this aspect of the class?

As someone who actually did martial arts and actually knows the underlying mechanics of a punch and a kick you are making Tweet look even worst. The best justification is that its not how martial arts work.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Dec 1, 2013

# ¿ Dec 1, 2013 05:51

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

CaptCommy posted:

Not that I disagree with this from a mechanical perspective, but strength does affect how hard you can punch someone. Technique matters most; speed and power will always follow after proper technique. But given equal skill, a stronger martial artist will do more damage than one not as fit. And, if we're providing creds, this comes from 8 years of various martial arts training.

In general if you are pretty knowledgeable with technique it tends to override strength which sounds weird but is actually the intended purpose of a few martial arts. That is why I find the rational kind of inane because the short answer is that it really depends on what martial art you are talking about. And 8 years of various martial arts training sounds right for me too.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2013 03:31

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

ZenMasterBullshit posted:

Because you have to have classes that are always simple for beginner players!!!

No seriously it's just some more dumb legacy garbage. It's why the simple classes are all the fighty men and a 'simple' (In the same way the barbarian is 'simple') caster wasn't an option in the base game.

Sorry still a bit bitter about some of the recent design decisions and why they were made, but a lot of the bad and or stupid poo poo in 13A can be traced back to the fact that they're wanting to preserve some weird d20 history. It's why originally each class had a different amount of background points (Spoilers: Rogue had the most even though Rogue was already one of the most mechanically interesting classes because of COURSE the Rogue is the skill monkey). Someone on the design team has a real big boner for bad d20 mechanics/rules/reasoning solely because they were in d20.

I figure this is relevant to answering which person has a big boner for bad d20 mechanics and reasoning.

Tweet posted:

My 13th Age sorcerer casts empowered spells, which are a new way to embody the original approach to spellcasting. In D&D in 1974, a magic-user�s spells were special. They were more powerful than a fighting-man�s attacks, but the magic-user cast fewer spells than the fighter made sword attacks. This original formulation�spellcasters with one-use spells and fighters with infinite-use attacks�survived all the way through 3rd Edition and on into Pathfinder. The problem is that high-level spellcasters not only get more spells but the average power level of their spells also goes up, creating a multiplier effect. High-level spellcasters deal more damage than the fighter, round after round after round. Fourth Edition solved this problem by normalizing all the classes, so that they all have comparable access to limited-use, high-power attacks. For the first time ever, D&D classes were really balanced, but they were also too similar to each other. The dichotomy from 1974 was gone. Fighters had limited-use, high-power attacks just like the wizards did. Magic wasn�t special any more. Rob and I brought this dichotomy back in 13th Age, where spellcasters have more limited-use, high-power attacks than fighters do. If we did our work right, the classes are still balanced even though their power profiles are different. The sorcerer in particular embodies this dichotomy with its �Gather Power� class feature. A sorcerer can spend one turn �powering up,� and then cast a double-strength spell next turn. It means that my sorcerer casts two or three bigs spells per battle, while the ranger makes five to ten attacks in the same number of rounds. The classes are balanced, but magic is still special.

EDIT:
Just as a side note is there an actual mechanic in terms of how falling damage works? I know the wizard gets feather fall but outside of that I couldn't find any rules in the book.

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 10, 2014

# ¿ Jan 10, 2014 22:25

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Is it actually possible to do less damage on a hit than on a miss in this game? I've been slowly working on converting over to 13th Age for my game and I was looking over someone's character sheet and realized that he does 1d6-1 damage on a hit.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2014 16:07

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

TheDemon posted:

if you're talking about me I fully intend to play your entire campaign without ever rolling a damage die

I'm talking about Talk's character who is also designed not to roll a damage die ever. Though since you did respond to this you might want to look at the Witch as it does a lot of things that are utility based without doing damage. The weirdest thing being that it has a direct 1 to 1 translation to at least one of your Fate moves.

My Lovely Horse posted:

At every level your miss damage and minimum possible result on weapon damage dice, without modifiers, are both exactly your level. So for that to happen you'd need to roll minimum damage and have a negative ability modifier, but then it's entirely possible, and you'll do 1 more damage on a miss. The higher level you are the less likely it becomes, although from certain levels on your modifier gets multiplied by 2 or 3 so you can afford having a single 2 or 3 in with all the 1s on the damage roll.

There was just a debate going on as to whether or not there was a rule that dictated the floor in terms of damage. I was just curious as we all found it amusing and kind of appropriate.
EDIT:
Also, this brings up an important question. How much adjustment will I have to do if I have two PCs that are not damage based?

MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jan 16, 2014

# ¿ Jan 16, 2014 17:02

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

RyvenCedrylle posted:

What's interesting about it is the pact repercussions not so much its fighting style - which is what you really need to make a class sing. I think the Necromancer would be more supportive of its own class than a Warlock but also splitting it off from the Wizard starts begging for Pyromancers and Geomancers and so on.

The D&D Wizard was a dam glutton and ate all the other spellcaster archetypes. The thing should be dissected and have all the different archetypes given their own class.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2014 04:36

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

ZenMasterBullshit posted:

Plots are hard. I want to run a decent length 13A game in the base setting before I get too far into designing my 22nd age stuff, but I'm having difficulty coming up with a plot that would require going to a lot of locations in the setting that's not just a "Go collect all the [X]". But then again, maybe that's all I really need?

Been writing too many short game/one-shot plots and lost my touch on the big picture.

One of the most insane D&D adventures that wouldn't require "Go collect all the [x]" I have ever seen was fantasy Cannonball Run. The scary fact is that it would work in your setting too as the Cannonball Run was an actual event.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 23:20

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Majuju posted:

Are you referring perhaps to Owlbear Run?

Yes. I don't even know how good the adventure is but the premise alone is great.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 00:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:20

MadScientistWorking: Jun 23, 2010; "I was going through a time period where I was looking up weird stories involving necrophilia..."

Majuju posted:

I tried running it for my 4E group but it's sort of bare-bones-y and I should've put more work into it in advance to facilitate more in-depth encounters. Also the mechanics for moving the owlbear are pretty trite and repetitive (skill checks over and over), and it's entirely possible to create an 'unwinnable' race state with a few botched rolls, which isn't that fun. Using it as a framework and running things in a more holistic manner would be the ideal way to do it, as well as beefing up some of the conflicts.

If I were to run it I would run it as having the race be ancillary to the actual adventure which is why I would run it as a straight one to one analog of the The Cannonball Run/Rally Racing as that can actually have plots involving industrial espionage.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 00:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > 13th Age RPG: D&D with Modern Design

«‹›2 »