|
Just got done with my first Session. All my players had fun, and I really had fun. Out of combat It was rather slow paced, but I think it was because of me.
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Pangalin posted:So is the NDA loose enough yet for anybody to explain why the hell everybody is so excited about this thing? I'm curious, but all I've managed to dredge from the thread is the escalation die and these "Icons" which so far as I can tell are just really important NPCs that are baked into the system, which seems like a silly idea to me. Am I supposed to be excited about this purely based on the names attached to it? Somebody give me some bullet points so I can Vicariously Enjoy This Playtest. The main reason that I am excited for 13th age is because it's a really nice hybrid between the heavy tactical wargameyness of D&D and the more rp-centric stuff offered by Fate and Burning Wheel. While the combat isn't as tactically rich as 4th edition D&D (though it also isn't as bullshit laden either), and the RP stuff isn't quite as in depth as Fate, you get a much better total package from 13th age, in my opinion. I am not currently enjoying this playtest. I just do not have the equipment required to make running off a word document or pdf or whatever a good experience. However I will be enjoying the poo poo out of this game once I can buy a book. I'm glad that my 4th edition game is pretty close to it's conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Remember where he said Fighters were the "I attack class" and nothing more? Defenders, defending - nope, doesn't exist. As much as I hate the playtest material, this is not actually true, unless for some reason the Guardian theme and/or its components are restricted to clerics. They apparently stuck all the "guard your buddies" stuff in a theme and called it a day.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:As much as I hate the playtest material, this is not actually true, unless for some reason the Guardian theme and/or its components are restricted to clerics. They apparently stuck all the "guard your buddies" stuff in a theme and called it a day. You are right, I had not looked at the Dwarven Cleric at all. It does seem like any shield-wielder can defend via theme rather then class feature.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:You are right, I had not looked at the Dwarven Cleric at all. It does seem like any shield-wielder can defend via theme rather then class feature.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:Except reactions are only once per round, so you can't really defend against more than 1 enemy. And you have to stand next to whoever you're defending.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
5e has turned into a cancerous growth spreading over all of TG.  God, just looking at the first post of this thread makes me think this is far better than 5e will ever be. I'm remarkably psyched for something I know next to nothing about. Can't wait for the open beta (if that's what you want to call it, that's what I'm calling it). 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:everyone's unhappy with the NDA but struggling to obey it anyway because we all respect Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo even when we disagree with them And I really can't express how much we appreciate that. You guys are the best. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
This game sounds awesome, from everything I've seen here. I even got the 2nd round email, right after half my group ran out of free time, due to wedding planning. No playtest for me, then. So, since I'm not clear on how strict the NDA is, could you guys tell me anything about the paladin in this round? Holy warriors have always been one of my favorite archetypes when they're done well (which is very rare in D&D and offshoots), but it sounded like they were a bit simple/boring in the last round. Did that change at all?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:This game sounds awesome, from everything I've seen here. I even got the 2nd round email, right after half my group ran out of free time, due to wedding planning. No playtest for me, then. I think not much has changed, but they do have the option of taking some of the cleric features (some spells or some domains), if you want a more complex character. On top of that, you have options to turn into a sort of Defender, or a minor healer role. And I'm pretty sure there are still going to be a bunch of more options in the finished product. It's stated somewhere that the disparity in complexity between classes is intentional; but I'm pretty sure they are all equally effective at the end of the kobold murdering day. And it's not like complexity is just caster sided, the Rogue and the Monk are pretty complex too for example.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Markovnikov posted:I think not much has changed, but they do have the option of taking some of the cleric features (some spells or some domains), if you want a more complex character. On top of that, you have options to turn into a sort of Defender, or a minor healer role. And I'm pretty sure there are still going to be a bunch of more options in the finished product. OK, thanks! I'm fine with a simpler class, but I was worried about the "boring" part. Sounds like they'll have enough options that I'll find something that catches my interest. They're not... alignment restricted, are they? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:OK, thanks! I'm fine with a simpler class, but I was worried about the "boring" part. Sounds like they'll have enough options that I'll find something that catches my interest. They're not... alignment restricted, are they? Alignment isn't a game mechanic, it says that you can use it if you want as a guide for role playing, but it doesn't affect anything rules-wise. The Paladin has a class feature that they are required to take if they are playing as an unholy warrior, though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
If I was going to put together a blog post to talk about the first round playtest in more detail, what element would you really like to read about?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
fosborb posted:If I was going to put together a blog post to talk about the first round playtest in more detail, what element would you really like to read about? Oh, awesome, let's see. Are the simpler classes still fun? How easy/interesting is encounter balancing/design? Did it tend toward five-minute adventuring days, or no need to rest before finishing, or a balance? How do the Icons end up working during actual play? Really, pretty much anything that jumps out at you as interesting would be great to read.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
If you can, please answer one thing I've been unclear on: 13th Age is to 4e as Pathfinder is to 3.5 -- a extension/rebalance of the existing rules, only better than PF because 4e isn't inherently mindbogglingly complex. True/false? I just want to know if stuff's backwards compatible.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
fosborb posted:If I was going to put together a blog post to talk about the first round playtest in more detail, what element would you really like to read about? Is "all of them" an option?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Captain Walker posted:If you can, please answer one thing I've been unclear on: 13th Age is to 4e as Pathfinder is to 3.5 -- a extension/rebalance of the existing rules, only better than PF because 4e isn't inherently mindbogglingly complex. True/false? I just want to know if stuff's backwards compatible. From what I understand, they're not really related at all.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Captain Walker posted:If you can, please answer one thing I've been unclear on: 13th Age is to 4e as Pathfinder is to 3.5 -- a extension/rebalance of the existing rules, only better than PF because 4e isn't inherently mindbogglingly complex. True/false? I just want to know if stuff's backwards compatible. I was told it was by quite a few people, but having played it, not in the slightest. The closest thing is that they both have dwarves and bards.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Yeah that's false. Pathfinder is the SRD with pretty art and a couple of patches. 13th Age works in fundamentally different ways than 4e. It shares a lot of 4e design goals, but feats are redesigned, damage progression is different, skills are completely hacked out and replaced, ability scores are deemphasized, combat positioning is rethought and not grid based, on and on... Our 4e players easily gasped the new system, are excited by its strengths, and see where it improves on fantasy d&d over 4e, granted. But unlike Pathfinder, people aren't playing it because it's the game closest to their favorite edition. People are playing it for the ways in which it's better. Edit: elements are backwards compatible. The setting. Uh... that'd be about it. That said, I've run 3e and basic modules with minimal work, and easily emulated my 4e pacing. I've even had GUMSHOE investigation scenes. It's very flexible. I'll go into details why in an off site post soon and link it here. fosborb fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
It uses some of the same terms as prior d20 content, but no, they're very, very different.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Since the first playtest is now open season, I'd like, like, the characters that were run and a summary of your playtest session, if you're up for that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Icon system works in any system quite neatly, and the skill system (if you bring out the DCs as well) can be used to replace skill systems in other systems as well. I've been working on a Pathfinder game for a few months (why did I ever agree to run that loving system, 3.x requires so much stupid prepwork for monsters arrrgh) and my players are, at the very least, allowing me to replace that skill system with this one. My players thoroughly enjoyed last week's playtest, and they've been begging for more that I'll be running tomorrow, so I hope to convince them to switch systems entirely. I am enjoying this playtest!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Namagem posted:Since the first playtest is now open season, I'd like, like, the characters that were run and a summary of your playtest session, if you're up for that. Can we dooooooo this I love talking about how great I am. And my players, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
As much as I love character building in this game, I really, really wish it was grid-based. e: I understand why it isn't but I've been spoiled.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
It's weird to say, but if 3/4e had been distilled directly from Basic you'd have something that looks very much like 13A. I'm OK with it being gridless. I've counted enough squares for one lifetime, and now I'm drawing maps on construction paper with markers.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
I have now Enjoyed This Playtest.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
I don't mean to go around violating NDAs here but this game goes great with alcohol.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Captain Walker posted:If you can, please answer one thing I've been unclear on: 13th Age is to 4e as Pathfinder is to 3.5 -- a extension/rebalance of the existing rules, only better than PF because 4e isn't inherently mindbogglingly complex. True/false? I just want to know if stuff's backwards compatible. From what I've been hearing seem more in line of 13th Age is to 4E as Legend is to 3.5E. Both started with similar mechanics, but departed away to be their own thing and weren't afraid to change it up.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:As much as I love character building in this game, I really, really wish it was grid-based. Same. Non-grid based combat just feels more nebulous and annoying to me.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
I don't mind non-grid combat because there's still a concrete, tactical movement system in the form of engaging amd disengaging. It reminds me of WFRP 3e. As far as 13th Age being 4e Mk2, nah. It's more like a mix of design concepts from all the D&D editions (does a better job than 5e) mixed with non-D&D stuff like FATE.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
I'm curious how easy/hard it'll be to add/remove stuff without breaking balance. Will it be easier than 4e to add classes, for instance? E: Also, I just want to say that this rough sketch of The Priestess:  is Amano as gently caress! I'd love to see more of this, because it's just
QuantaStarFire fucked around with this message at 18:15 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
QuantaStarFire posted:I'm curious how easy/hard it'll be to add/remove stuff without breaking balance. Will it be easier than 4e to add classes, for instance? You have to design and balance a class to add it, but I'd go so far as to say it is simpler in that you do not need to make 1-30 levels of various powers. There is a slider of complexity; if you want to make a generalist with a lot of options, you are going to have to make a complex class. You can also make a simple class - these are both expressed in the current document.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
tekz posted:Same. Non-grid based combat just feels more nebulous and annoying to me. It's really not hard at all to just add a grid to 13a if you miss it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
 Solving The Mystery of of Agrimancy Station 7. Lady DuPris fights Technical Wizard 2nd Class Forscythe (Agricultist) aided by the bardic magics of Jubal the Voice. Also pictured: One deceased gristle golem. We are enjoying this playtest. e: click for HUUUUGGGEEE moths fucked around with this message at 01:58 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:you do not need to make 1-30 levels of various powers. That's basically the thing that I was wondering about. I'm thinking the best design approach for a class would be to start with the simplified version and then start incorporating more complex elements and choices from there. I just want to make technomages. And kung-fu bears. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Hey there guys, I love playing 4e and I have heard a lot of good things about 13e. My question is if there is a website or an irc channel where I could get more information.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Hey there guys, I love playing 4e and I have heard a lot of good things about 13e. My question is if there is a website or an irc channel where I could get more information. As another person who Can't Enjoy this Playtest, honestly this thread is the best info source I've found. There just isn't too too much out there in the way of specifics, due to the NDA. But there are lots of posters here who know what they're talking about and want an excuse to tell people what they can, not to mention that there's a Pelgrane rep who pops in from time to time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
QuantaStarFire posted:Will it be easier than 4e to add classes, for instance? I think so. There's support for really simple classes (like the Ranger or Barbarian), really complex classes (like the Sorcerer) or variable complexity (most of them). I could probably write up a class and feel comfortable about its balance without too much problem/taking too long. Especially if I got paid for it  The math isn't quite as transparent as 4e, but it's a lot more obvious than say 3e. With the existing neat mechanical gimmicks (flexible maneuvers, recharge, breath, etc) there's some design space to play around with without too much problem already. Yo speaking of creating 13th Age material the deadline for creating your own Icon is June 1st. Mikan fucked around with this message at 03:06 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
What is this sorcery? A d20 based game that actually seems cool an interesting? This sounds awesome, I'll definitely have to keep an ear and eye out for this thing's eventual release (no timeframe on that?). The Escalation die and Icons especially sound awesome and interesting. If it really is the "middleground between D&D and FATE/Burning Wheel" a few people have mentioned I think I'd love it. Too bad all my local RPG players are mostly die-hard, xenophobic pathfinders.  Still, I love collecting interesting RPG books and reading them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
I have now enjoyed this playtest, and so did 3/4 of my players. The other one just didn't quite seem to get the whole story-based thing, and was like "so I can just imagine things and they happen, right? I pull out a gun and shoot the ogre. It dies, right?"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 05:35
|
|