|
I'm Fish's DM - thanks for the interest in my Stunt mechanic. I hope you folks try it out and enjoy it. I figured someone would ask why I set it up off the Escalation die as opposed to say, sighnoceros' idea with the skill check. Some of it is a matter of taste, I suppose. Skill check option is totally viable. The important thematic concept for me when thinking about it was how 13th Age handles resource management.. or rather, doesn't handle resource management. You don't pay for your awesome (such as with healing surges or carefully rationed powers); you trigger it. Almost every class has "encounter powers" (to use the 4E vernacular) that are encoded into the class' attack probabilites. They're mostly even/odd or 16+ as per the playtest document. It seemed more natural to use the game's inherent language of triggers to regulate the use of Stunts. Making the trigger number (16 - Escalation) is a little weird but I wanted to make Stunts easier as the combat progressed. Maybe there's a better way to do it but this seems to work well enough. Oh! One last important thing fish left out - Stunts do not disappear until they're triggered. A defined Stunt sticks around until someone gets to use it.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
@fosborb Some ideas that I've either described or have seen in use: "Dark Water" - a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water that maximizes the damage of any cold spells "Jailbait" - the target is tangled up in the bars of a prison cell (save ends); the target can not move or use ranged weapons (though could theoretically kick or cast a spell.. maybe) "Blizzard Breath" - against a yochlol in gaseous form, the target is "condensed" (save ends) effectively negating the gasesous form. This shows off how the DM can do really obnoxious mechanical things with a monster (invisibility, gaseous form, duplication) but the PCs are really only one good roll and an interesting bit of flavor away from negating it. Makes up for the lack of a dedicated Gust of Wind spell. "Blood Blade" - invoking Tempus (god of War) with a blood-stained weapon turns the blood to acid, maximizing damage (as if it were eating through armor, etc) "Table Flip" - + (relevant Background) to AC against next attack, using the table as a shield Though we haven't actually done it yet, I don't see why you couldn't do things like create difficult or dangerous terrain (the map itself Intercepts the character or deals impromptu level-appropriate damage on a failed save while moving "HERE") as well. It's just another iteration of a high roll validating narrative input (like an attack or skill roll). I'd love to see what other people do with the concept. @zachol Exactly. Defining the Stunt merely creates it or "primes" as you put it. One of my few niggling complaints with 13th Age was the lack of terrain features. Then again, I certainly didn't want to go back to a full grid setup. This way, the DM and all PCs get to set up terrain features (using an action they probably didn't have a use for anyway) and allowing the dice to (approximately) balance the use of said terrain features. By the end of a fight, there should be Stunts lying around all over the place, numbering maybe even more than the bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
I'm reserving this spot for a later edit (probably over lunch). Counter-proposal to keep the elegant single die roll but bring in some of the flexibility of the skill check (seems most people want both): Have two Stunt targets at (16- Escalation) and (11 - Escalation) that the DM can assign when the Stunt is described. Further reasoning to be added. EDIT 1: My rationale for this new proposal assumes a few things. First, if players know a DC will be set for an action, they will attempt to leverage their best numerical values in the attempt. Second, the rolled value that is required for a well-prepared character (+5 Background, +4 modifier, +2 level vs. 25) to take on a Ridiculously Hard task in the lowest tier is 14 ± 1. This value increases by about 2-3 for each tier. The Hard tasks start at 9 ± 1 and follow the same progression. Thus as a skill check shortcut, a 16 is a fairly accurate 'naked' roll (within about 10% or so) at just about any point in the campaign lifepan to require for a well-trained character to do something crazy. An 11 is also then a good estimation to do something slightly less crazy. I can only speak for myself here, but I pretty much only think in terms of "crazy" and "less crazy" for Stunt difficulties. If the character is less skilled, the 16 then becomes something "less crazy" and the 11 "relatively normal." Sure, there's some loss of granularity. If we really like the simple one-roll Stunt interpretation, we need to accept some granularity loss. I try to make it up by adding the Background value itself back in for whatever action the Stunt is going to bolster, but that's just me. Point being, if you're interested in trying to get the best of both worlds from the skill check option and the original single-roll option, I believe this is a fair compromise. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
sighnoceros posted:I also like being able to make two separate rolls, because there may be situations where the stunt can succeed where the attack itself fails to "hit", possibly helping to mitigate the effects of a botched attack roll. This could still happen in your system, but is less likely where both effects are tied to the same roll, and a particularly low roll still results in a miss for both.. I've done something like this for monsters and would consider it if the PCs ever asked - I give some monsters "6-" abilities, such that if they miss, they salvage their attack as a parry or as energy to be tapped into for the next action, etc. My players just do so much damage on missed attacks that I haven't bothered bringing it up. I too have played a little Dungeon World and FATE but I feel more of my inspiration is coming from the newest iteration of Margaret Weis' Marvel RPG.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
-Fish- posted:ONE player does a lot of damage on a miss. The rest of us do level damage on a miss. YOU do level damage on a miss. Reese took a feat or two; his miss damage is frequently nearly as good as his hit damage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Wade - Any idea when the OGL license will be available for 3rd party folks? I know some of us are itchin' to get to work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
waderockett posted:
Nope, just didn't see that was there. Thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
If you are coming to the Escapist Expo in Durham, NC this weekend I will be available to run 13th Age at the Indie Games on Demand booth. I'll be there all day today and then on and off the next two days.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
@TestPattern Glad you enjoyed it! If your DM was beardless, that was me. If bearded, either Fish or Doctor Epitaph. @animaCartographer Your group was one of the top 3 highlights of my weekend, so I'm glad to see the full tale recounted here. There are few things I enjoy more than being completely sideswiped by my players, despite what the color rapidly draining out of my face might seem to indicate. You'd be interested to know, btw, that my very last group ran the bank heist top to bottom and managed to avoid all combat encounters while both still thoroughly enjoying themselves and engaging a ton of mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
If you're looking for more Icon options, may I suggest The Muse, the Steam King and/or the Prisoner? (More forthcoming.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
I think the rationale behind Toughness is that you're getting functionally 12 HP in Heroic, 28 in Champion and 56 in Epic (bonus HP x the number of times you spend Recoveries to heal up between full heals, assumed 4) and so it's not quite as bad as it looks. Sort of. It only kinda pays out if you do a lot of short rests and even then I'd point my players toward Strong Recovery instead to maximize the efficiency of each recovery. edit: using Kenderama's handy chart there and average strike damage per level from the rulebook: Level 1 21HP / 24HP. 5 Strike damage is 5 hits either way. Level 2 28HP / 31HP. 7 Strike damage is 4 hits without, 5 with. Level 3 35HP / 38HP. 10 Strike damage is 4 hits either way. Level 4 42HP / 45HP. 14 Strike damage is 3 hits without, 4 with. Level 5 56HP / 63HP. 18 Strike damage is 4 hits either way. Level 6 70HP / 77HP. 21 Strike damage is 4 hits either way. Level 7 84HP / 91HP. 28 Strike damage is 3 hits without, 4 hits with. Level 8 112HP / 126HP. 38 Strike damage is 3 hits without, 4 hits with. Level 9 140HP / 156HP. 50 Strike damage is 3 hits without, 4 hits with. Level 10 168HP / 182HP. 58 Strike damage is 3 hits without, 4 hits with. So maybe I need to take that original thought back? It does keep you up for another round at several levels by bumping you JUST over the line of average strike damage. Stacking it with a +3 CON modifier (which Toughness roughly mimicks) would give you an extra hit at level 3 only. I guess it's not a bad option if you can't hit a decent CON and your DM largely sticks to the average damage expressions. Something to think about. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Rhinoceraptor - Fish and I run alternating-week 13th Age games. Mine has been going for several years now and was ported over from a 4E game so admittedly there's a ton of past-stuff to deal with. If you don't mind that, we only have three players. Adding in a fourth is pretty easy and I'm sure we could find a place to fit you in. I also suspect Fish would be ok bringing you in on his but we'll let him state that for himself if I'm correct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
The draft of the Bestiary is up! I have some... shall we say... vested interest in seeing how the thread reacts.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Roach Warehouse posted:"Dependent No. Please, for the love of the Diabolist, no. There so many better ways to do this. Here's three that spring to mind immediately. 1) Make the dependency a Background. You have (Relationship Name) +4. That's a huge bonus. Heck, it's half your skill pool! When the skill checks start showing up, you will be DESPERATE to find some way to link those skill checks back into that relationship all the ever-lovin' time. 2) Move one or more of your Icon dice to that person. On a 6, that relationship is helping you. On a 5, the person is manipulating you or the 'negative opinion' causes you grief. This will also make the people on whom you are Dependent recurring NPCs by necessity. 3) Use a running Fear effect. If the person on whom you are Dependent is angry at you and you're under (level x 10)(?) HP, you are dazed and lose access to the Escalation die. (3) is not nearly as good as (1) or (2) in my opinion but if your DM really feels the need to penalize, that's a better option than what was previously suggested. And Mr/Mrs Roach Warehouse's DM - if you're reading this, remember: The carrot is always better than the stick.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Fellis - Steal away!
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Just wanted to throw a quick congrats out there to this whole thread. If you have the core book PDF, on page 3, the Credits under Aid From Others is a nod to "The Something Awful Forums." Way to go Goons! Also, the new Page XX is up.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:To steer the conversation away from self-promotion, I'm trying to put together a real 'solo'. Here's my first attempt: There's some really good stuff going on here. The Raging mechanic at the end is a solid fit for the concept as is the multi-part nature. The Stomp attack is dangerous but not unfair. I'd bet you could run this as is and it would rock. Since you're asking for critique, a few things to think about tweaking: 1) Rather than have the Escalation die increase each round, have it increase as each component is destroyed. That will really push home the 'it's falling apart' feel. 2) I feel like the Alive and Dead attacks on the Head should reverse. Biting and chewing feels more "alive" than a commander shouting orders. Also, it makes Commander's Strike all that more powerful. 3) 1d4+1 attacks for 4 damage each from two shoulders is not an insignificant potential amount of damage. Yikes. At the same time, it averages out to an overall damage output very similar to the Smash attack. I'm not sure this is going to feel like much of a victory to the players. You've already got a Commander's Strike (or Bite/Chew) and an AoE Stomp going until the end of the encounter. Maybe consider doing something quasi-passive with the shoulders once they're destroyed - maybe anyone who attacks the creature in melee after the shoulders are destroyed takes 3 damage unless the attack is made from on the arms themselves? (with some kind of skill check to mount and stay on the arms, of course. also, ALL solos need a save bonus or the ability to remove action-denying conditions by spending HP. That's a fundamental rule of good solo design in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
waderockett posted:Hm. Interesting -- I'm encountering a version of this in my game. The cleric keeps trying to use his backgrounds to sense demonic presence in places and people. I'm not against it, but I also don't want him sniffing out every secret diabolist in town with a die roll. I'm still figuring out when to allow that as an option. I actually like the way Pathfinder handles this, despite not being a huge Pathfinder fan in general: the "sniff" DC is inversely proportional to the power of the thing being sniffed. That is, the demon masquerading as human might as well be wearing a "Smite Me" sign on its back for the paladin. On the other hand the dozens of generic cultists just aren't demon-ey enough to pick up on, so their DCs are high if they're even allowed. To me, this is internally consistent, helps move the PCs right to the fun parts (i.e. Horrible Things With Claws And Fire) and lets you promote the minions that slip by the cleric's Detect-Ray-Vision (TM) to higher positions within Team Evil later on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
I was rather surprised to see the choice of systems for Primeval Thule. Pathfinder makes a ton of sense given its popularity and 13th Age I'm biased toward, so that's cool, but 4E? Really? I know most of the authors worked on 4E and all, but do you really want to fight through the OGL to make material in a system for whom a huge quantity of its base is going to jump to Next? I think Pathfinder -- 13th Age -- Dungeon World (maybe even some kind of OSR retroclone?) would have made more sense. Maybe it's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Mikan posted:This is crazy. 4e fans are absolutely not going to jump to Next in any appreciable quantity, much less "huge". I can't quite nail down why I think this, but I stand by my statement. Part of it is the character builder tools, part is the blog community, part is the increase of other good d20 games like 13th Age.. I just don't think it will hold up. I am, however, totally willing to be proven wrong and you can have a friendly "Told you!" if and when that happens. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:So the Eidolon from the Playtest Bestiary the 13 True Ways KS thing. Has anyone actually run this? I've really taken a liking to it but I think the whole "Swapping Alt. dimensions, teleporting people, changing initiative " might get a bit crazy round after round after round. Anyone have any experience with it? There were no less than three monsters in the first several drafts among the Bestiary writers that did this in some way or another. Only one was let through and it wasn't mine though mine was similar enough to the Eidolon to be comparable. It worked well in playtest. It's not a thing I would suggest doing any more than once or twice in a campaign, but for the oddball boss encounter it's a fun mindscrew. PublicOpinion posted:In the Next thread I said it would be neat to have a giant list of monster traits that you could pull from when doing on-the-fly monsters, so I wrote one. There is another Improv Monster Toolkit out there that Pelgrane added to their Resources Page and was then translated into an automated Excel sheet. You've got some pretty interesting stuff on yours. Mind if I steal a few for the next Toolkit version?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Ah, forgot about the resources page when I was writing up mine. Copy what you want, though I'd appreciate it if you threw on a "PublicOpinion" credit. Absolutely. Should have said that the first time. My fault.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
I'm considering starting up a goon 13th Age Organized Play league, probably as a Google+ Community. I'm not sure I'll be able to commit to going to my FLGS to run stuff for very long plus my wife and I plan on moving next year, so I'd rather plant flag somewhere digital. I'll post in the recruitment megathread as well, but wanted to see who - if anyone - would be interested in joining up before I do so. First week of OP starts at the beginning of August. Games are approximately two hours each.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Alright, folks, sorry for the delay. My lab got bought out and then I ate a bad burger at a picnic this last weekend. Anyway, Awful Tales of the 13th Age is available now as a Community. Here's the link. You will need an invite to get in. Send me an email (my name at Gmail), send me a PM, add me on G+, send a Tweet, do whatever - I need your forum handle and whatever email address you use for G+ so I can get you that invite. I'll be running one game (day and time TBD shortly), others are welcome to as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
RPZip posted:This sounds fun! I'd like to participate. A couple of people have pointed out to me that I don't have PMs. My bad. Email is just ryvencedrylle@gmail.com.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:words A few perspective points that I think are worth mentioning. 13th Age doesn't balance on DPR in the same way something like 4E does. It balances on what I might call "perceived spike moments". Look at Carve An Opening, for example. Every time you roll an odd number, you crit range expands by 1 until you get the crit. It recognizes that when the game is over, you're not going to remember or care much about the 3 rounds of normal fighting. Now when you finally crit the orc and send its head rolling into the feet of its compatriot, you'll remember that and talk about it for weeks to come. Compare that to the Rogue's Shadow Walk where you sit out for a round and then come in and do double damage. The DPR isn't any different but the move feels more satisfying. Pop in - surprise! - shiv. On the same note, I would argue with your Defensive Fighting math. Fighters will get hit about 50% of the time or so with an attack by a same-level creature against AC. Therefore at +2 AC bonus - 10% of the entire die - deflects 20% of the incoming shots that would have otherwise hit you. The experience is not quite the same thing as the raw math. (See also Mad Scientist's refutations above.) As for the spells, it's difficult to get away from the linear fighter/quadratic wizard (heh heh) deal. Spells are like that. I would however, point you to Grim Intent, which does in fact (at certain levels) give you about half damage on a miss. Also, don't forget your talents. Cleave, Comeback Strike and Counterattack push the attack economy pretty hard in your favor. You might not deal that crazy Hammer of Faith damage (which I agree might be OP) in one hit, but you can easily do it in the two or three hits you could pick up per round with a good selection of talents, feats and flexible attacks. I would again point out that missing with Hammer of Faith, while maybe mechanically more useful, is for a lot of people not nearly as satisfying as a good solid Cleave. If the math and tactics are your thing - and it sounds like they are - maybe 13th Age just isn't your game, and if so that's cool. I hope you find something you like better. I also hope you give it another two or three sessions and see what 13th Age has to offer that's a little different than the rest of its d20 kin. Maybe don't play a fighter?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Wow. I had no idea the engagement rules could be so controversial! The combat encounters in my games end up looking like ballet or square dances as the characters circle around each other. There's a lot of "ok, I'm not going to disengage this kobold, but I'll swing around over to this side of it so I can also catch these other two kobolds." You don't need to disengage one enemy if being close enough from a different angle also puts you in reach of other enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
So I've got an idea. See how this grabs you (plural). Toss out ability scores. You don't need them. Nothing in the game references the raw 3-18 score except rolling stats and leveling up. Take 12 Background points total. Use one Background for HP, one for AC/attack, one for PD and one for MD. If you only have three Backgrounds, one of those defaults to 0. Allow two Backgrounds for skill checks or drop all skill DCs by about 3. Never look back. Eh? I might do a Page XX or blog about this...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Sounds plausible, but how would you determine Initiative? OK better idea - so HP is one, AC/Init is another, PD is a third and MD is a fourth. Attack mod is best of all (for to-hit and damage), off-stat attack mod is second-best of all. Doesn't matter if the Background actually matches the stat you're using it for. It's just to keep characters near each other in terms of efficiency.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So your attack/damage bonus is generally 4, your defenses 2/2/1, your health/recovery 2 or 3. Your favorite stats will probably increase by 2 over your career, but maybe your attack goes up by 2 and two or three other values go up by 1. Your initiative is either 4, 3, or 2 depending on your class. Backgrounds cap at 5, stats (effectively) cap at 5. I don't think you'd need to limit the AC background. If you don't like Init with AC, put it with MD instead to make the choice more interesting. Class-based init would be ok, but feels unnecessary. By your spread there (assuming 4/3/2/2/1) you could have attack +4, off-attack +3, AC +4, HP +3, Defenses +2/+2, Init +4 or (+2 if with MD) Maybe switch a defense with HP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I feel like the done thing in 13A is starting with a 19 attack srat that eventuall grows to 22, which is why I think it'd make sense to make your Attack Background default to 4 and auto-grow twice. The other background categories would have to include secondary attack, you're right, although I kind of detest the way that e.g. monks randomly have to attack with Wis instead of Dex and would prefer a single unified hitstat even with a secondary stat for ki points, layings of hands, etc. So, list: Remember, each one of these is ALSO a Background and I think 5 or more Backgrounds is asking a lot for a character. Personally I'd stop at 4 and have a couple run double-duty but generally, that's the idea. Also, I've never seen a 13th Age character with a 19 attack stat. So there you go, ability scores gone, not a ton of houserules. And yeah, I'm totally going to do a Page XX on this. I want to play this character setup now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Would you still be able to swap points between backgrounds? Technically I think you'd be swapping Backgrounds between point spreads, but sure. You'd have to throw out the extra Backgrounding feat also, come to think of it. Jackard posted:Do that and I'll make a character sheet for it Deal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
My first Patreon product came out yesterday and I'm looking to line one up for 13th Age. If you've got a minute filling out this very short questionnaire (2 entries) would help. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There's no default initiative bonus but maybe you can buy one for a feat? You certainly don't have to buy feats or talents any more to swap which ability score you use to attack or cast with, sooo. Upon overnight reflection, I think you need to put MD with Initiative. You just don't get hit in the MD that often. It would be the obvious dump if left on its own. Also, you should go read Quinn's post on typed backgrounds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Is that so? I haven't really read all the monsters so I don't know how often each defense crops up. It seems to me that even if MD doesn't currently get much traction, it's SUPPOSED to, so if it's a known problem you could expect GMs to make up monsters with MD attacks, future monster manuals to contain not-mindflayers and so on. Maybe init could be the average of your Ds or something but it shouldn't be premised on the defenses themselves being poorly balanced. Even without looking at monster writeups, psychic and enchantment attacks just aren't as common in the genre. More things want to hit you anywhere with a sword, claw or bite than specifically want to hit you in the brain with their brains. Your point is not without merit though, so let's say you always use your middle Background for Initiative. Also, I'm ok shortcutting AC and PD together. The likelihood that the middle of your Con/Dex/Wis is the same as Con/Dex/Str is pretty darn high, especially if you're working the system. Looking at the point baseline, I want a character setup that's efficient but not obviously abusive of the system. A 28 pt. 10/18/18/10/10/10 Rogue (after race/class) has +4 hit/damage, +4 HP, +4 init, +4 AC, +4 PD and +0 MD. Rules-legal? Yes. Poking the rules in the eyes repeatedly while asking "u mad bro?" Also yes. Change that array to 10/16/16/10/14/14 and you have +3 hit/damage, +3 HP, +3 init, +3 AC, +3 PD and +2 MD with a broad range of stats from which to use skills. It's effective, efficient and no one's going to so much as bat an eye at it. A standard 8-pt Background split into +3, +3, +2 using this version of the arrangement now has +3 hit/damage, +3 HP, +3 AC/PD, +2 MD and +3 Init - a perfect replication of our Rogue standard. The only mechanical wrinkle I've found has to do with armor. Letting heavy armor users take their highest Background for AC gives you AC 21 and 22 characters at level 1. Letting them use their highest Background for HP also goes wonky. Not so good. Therefore if you wear heavy armor, you must use your highest Background (or one tied for highest) for MD. So let's say you want to be the guy or gal who writes out a 5pt Background to get +5 hit, damage, AC, PD and skill checks (in light armor). You know what? Go for it. At least I've likely got you beat on initiative and Priestess help you when I do manage to hit you (which I still will about 40-ish% of the time on AC and 55-ish% on PD) because I'm certain you don't have the HP to deal with it. Also, as you said before, any concept can be optimized, or at least not-penalized. I can't rock at EVERYTHING but I can rock at ANYTHING without weird mechanical side-effects. If I want to be the smart Paladin, it's easier in 13th Age with the use of Backgrounds instead of INT-tied Skills. I'm still facing some mechanical penalty just for INT even being there because I need STR and CHA (and maybe CON) to stay combat-effective, meaning I can't jump my INT the way I'd like. If there are no ability scores, problem solved. In conclusion, let me simply quip that some people are mad as hell about being MAD as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Hang on, what's the background assignment breakdown you're looking at, there? Is it: It's AC/PD -- MD -- Health. If light armor, do whatever you want. If heavy armor, you have to prioritize MD. Primary attack is your best Background, init/secondary attack is your middle Background. First off, +5 to attack and damage doesn't bother me. The Escalation die already shoots attack bonuses through the ceiling over the course of a fight and 13th Age doesn't have the modifier tricks for damage that 4E did. Also, they will never go past 5. For me, at least, it's a non-issue. Is going +5 the big obvious thing to do? Maybe. In heavy armor, definitely not because that big 5 is stuck in MD. You want to diversify so that you can have 2s and 3s in AC/PD and Health. Sure you could run a 4/4/0 to maximize either Health or AC/PD but then if something goes wrong, the other won't save you. In light armor, your base level adjusted AC tends to be about 13 versus the monster's level-adjusted attack of +5. That's a hit on 9 or better with no stat bonus. If you really want to chuck 5 points into AC to make it a 14, I'm cool with that. You're still probably not as tough as the heavies, walking around with 19 or 20. That leaves the issues of PD and Health. I could deal with a +5 AC/PD on a lightly armored character. I'm still hitting your PD on a 12 or so and enough attacks target PD for it to be worthwhile. +3 to Health is pretty wild in combo, though. The thing is I'm trying to minimize the number of points to spread around. 10 points among four categories to me says "fine, +5 AC, +5 Health and I'll just ride out whatever PD and MD hit for." Hmm.. ok. Next proposition: 8 pts: AC, PD and MD/Init. Health is the lowest of the three (can be 0), can't take AC highest in heavy armor. edit: OR Health, PD, and MD/Init. AC is middle of three. That might even be better. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Would this be without the heavy armor complication? Yep, at that point it doesn't matter. edit: no, that doesn't work. 4/4/0 gives you a crazy AC. Light Armor: AC is middle Background. Heavy Armor: AC is lowest Background. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Alright, we can shelve this but before we do, I'm curious about something.Ferrinus posted:So that means possible arrays go: The Escalation die hands you ever-increasing attack bonuses for free. I won't get more defense as the battle goes on (and if my enemy uses the Escalation die also, they'll actually get worse!) but I will continue to pick up attack bonus. Combine that with the lack of reliable ways to alpha-strike or deliver absurd damage and abilities that become more efficient with higher Escalation dice and it seems to me that attack bonus may not be quite so much better than defenses?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Any good tips on converting quick 4e monsters over to 13th age and keeping it working right? Or advice on hiding the bodies that will be borne out of my profound irritation. Either/or. The short answer is that you can't really convert them. 4E monsters often have push/pull/slide effects that just don't translate over well, the math scales very differently and 13th Age monsters usually only have one or two attacks compared to 4E's 3-4. On the upside, 13th Age monsters are a snap to create so rebuilding from "scratch" isn't a big deal. You can use this toolkit document to guide you or this Excel-based monster builder. Also, I love building 13th Age monsters and would be happy to help.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:Well yeah, but apples and oranges. I guess the question to be asked is "what does the forced movement create opportunities for you to do?" And then how do you build a power that represents those opportunities in 13th Age? Specific things you would want to do with forced movement in 4E... ok: 1) Throw enemy into difficult/damaging terrain. 13th Age doesn't care much for terrain and subsequently doesn't handle it well. An 'enemy is forced into a different Nearby position and makes a save. If the save fails, take x damage' power could cover that. Describe what you pushed them into after you see whether it succeeded or not. 2) Get enemy away from the squishy. 'Enemy pops free.' Simple enough. 3) Pin enemy against the Fighter (see also Warden or Battlemind). 'The targeted enemy is now engaged with an ally of your choice?' 4) Generate opportunity attacks (via stuff like Kulkor Arms Master or Agile Opportunist). 'All allies engaged with the enemy get a free basic attack?' Others people can think of?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2013 21:25
|
|