My Review of 13th Age

[Balesir]

I think this would definitely be one of those things where the personality of the player (as well as the dynamic of the player with the other individuals in the group) will affect the outcome greatly, another concern is what if some think his suggestion, for whatever reason is good enough but others don't... would it then fall on the GM to judge?

Assuming the players were happy with that, sure, it might. I don't see the GM deciding being inherently superior to the other possibilities, though - I have similar and about as many concerns with that as I have with the other possibilities. But, as with the other possibilities, there are definitely circumstances where it could be the best option to use.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick question for everyone. I know 13 True Ways is coming out in a wee bit to give us Monk, Druid, Warlock, Battle Captain, Necro, Shaman. Would people be interested in participating in a thread that serves as a theorycraft depo for the creation of other famed D&D archetypes that 13 True Ways isn't covering? I've already composed a Fighter/Mage that one of my players will want to be playing but there are tons more and when we will officially see them remains to be seen.

 

[Dragonblade]

I know 13 True Ways is coming out in a wee bit to give us Monk, Druid, Warlock, Battle Captain, Necro, Shaman. Would people be interested in participating in a thread that serves as a theorycraft depo for the creation of other famed D&D archetypes that 13 True Ways isn't covering? I've already composed a Fighter/Mage that one of my players will want to be playing but there are tons more and when we will officially see them remains to be seen.

13 True Ways will have the Monk, Druid, Battle Captain, Necromancer, Occultist, Chaos Shaman. You mentioned "Warlock". Did you mean "Occultist"? Or was there a name change somewhere that I missed?

Also, there is a Fighter/Mage "gish" class on the Pelgrane site called the Eldritch Knight. It was released by Pelgrane but written by a community member. Not by Heinsoo. Its a cool class, and I've already allowed it in my game, but I'm thinking of tweaking a few things.

For example, I'm generally not a big fan of class design that handicaps certain features of the class and then makes you buy off those limitations with feats and Talents. And this class has some of that.

For example, most of the sigils are "ranged" but target engaged opponents, meaning you draw OAs to cast the class's spells. Sure that makes sense for a wizard or sorcerer who isn't expected to be in melee, but for a warrior mage class? There is a talent you can take to buy off that limitation, but again, I don't like that sort of class design. I'd house rule it to "nearby" opponents instead of "engaged" opponents, or maybe even make all the sigils act as close quarter spells instead. I'd have to re-evaluate the entire class to make sure I'm not breaking anything by doing that, but that's my inclination.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hey @Dragonblade. Yup, I was referring to the Occultist as "Warlock" as the terms are often interchangable. Whether it will be what we're used to as Warlock or strictly a demon-summoner/binder remains to be seen, but I was just speculating.

I haven't seen the Eldritch Knight on their website. I'll have to take a look. To be honest though, I agree with you that the way it is constructed sounds problematic for play.

A Fighter/Mage needs to have a few functional moving parts:

1 - It needs to have its "Fighteriness" and its "Maginess" manifest synergetically; conjoined such that the two work together as one rather than two incoherent parts siloed away from each other.

2 - The class needs to be a functional melee combatant; eg, it needs to be able to inflict martial damage and deploy spell damage while engaged in melee and it needs to be durable enough to stand up to the threat of melee foes.

If it fails on either of those grounds, then it hasn't passed its litmus test. Given the mechanics already available in 13th age, creating such a class would be simple:

1) The Sorceror already has a feature that (a) buffs AC/defense, (b) allows a "F/M" to cast spells while in melee without provoking OAs.

2) The Ranger has a "dual strike" feature that lets it attack using its offhand on even rolls while stepping down the damage dice of main-hand/off-hand. This feature is precisely what a functional F/M needs except sub stepped down main-hand and off-hand attack for stepped down main-hand attack and attack spell. Easily enough done. You can use that with the cycle based Wizard spells to create some fun play and dynamic interchanges with d20 rolls and the escalation die.

3) Shield/Blur etc are all in the game to buff active defense in place of a Fighter's stout, passive AC.

So. If you take the Ranger chassis, bump down his AC by 2, give him the Sorceror Feature that bumps AC by 2 and prevents OAs for spellcasting, give him the Ranger dual strike feature but use Cycle spells as the offhand, give him a few Wizard spells like Shield/Blur, etc...you're there. Maybe another feature that lets you teleport on recharge or with the escalation die maybe. Just make sure the math works and you're in gish heaven.

 

[Dragonblade]

Here a link to the Eldritch Knight class:

http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=11922

Like I said, I like the foundation and the Sigil mechanic in general but I think it needs some tweaking.

 

[NinjaPaladin]

Manbearcat:

The only caveat I would add is that it cannot be so good at either Fighteriness or Maginess that it obviates the need for a pure class.

I'd have to play around with the build you're describing, but my concern is that right now, it's too powerful. Rangers don't get access to Shield or Blur. Neither do Sorcerers -- even those with the Spell Fist talent. Shield and Blur are there as an "Oh, crap" feature for Wizards, not a means to make a viable close-quarters arcane combatant, and a Wizard putting Blur on a Fighter or Barbarian is making a VERY powerful person at the cost of spending one of his Dailies on buffing someone else.

I can see dropping the Ranger AC by 2, and then replacing one of the Ranger Talents with Spell Fist to make up for it, so you've got close-quarters casting (including Con for spell damage). I can see making a Talent that gives the Ranger access to a single sorcerer or wizard At-Will (Burning Hands, Chaos Bolt, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, or Shocking Grasp). I can see also adding in that said at-will can be used with either Double Melee or Double Ranged. Add in the existing Fey Enchantment for a Daily, and you should be good to go.

1st Level Ranger: Can cast spells and use weapons reasonably well
Spell Fist
At-Will Spell
Fey Queen's Enchantment

1st Level Ranger: Less magical but with dual-wielding
Spell Fist
At-Will Spell
Double Melee Attack


Like I said, I would not add in teleporting or using the escalation die in any way beyond the existing benefits a ranger gets for it, nor would I add Shield/Blur. A Ranger who wants to be more defensively focused can give up the Fey Enchantment talent for the Ex Cathedra talent (and take Shield of Faith), and then add in Fey Enchantment at 5th level.

Like I said, I'd have to play around with it to see how it felt, though. YMMV.

EDIT: To be fair, a sorcerer with the talent that lets you get a same-level Wizard spell does give you access to Shield and Blur, among other things, and I could see a very specific build combining Spell Fist and the Arcane Heritage talent to make a close-combat sorcerer... but I still wouldn't give that to a Ranger.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here a link to the Eldritch Knight class:

http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=11922

Like I said, I like the foundation and the Sigil mechanic in general but I think it needs some tweaking.

Thanks Dragonblade. Its a decent start with several of the flavor elements in play. However, as happens a lot with attempts to put together a solid "hybrid" character, the mechanics are too fiddly and, quite frankly, the incoherency in the basic class structure is rife. No Opportunity attacks for a melee wizard should be a fundamental class feature, not a buy-in option...it doesn't even provide any mechanical heft - it just lets the archetype play to its theme. Without it, it would be akin to a straight melee character suffering OAs for doing its fundamental shtick; melee attacks. Many of these builds silo away martial combat and spellcasting, thinking the breadth of options makes up for lack of focused potency. It never does. I think most of that comes from a process-based class design ethos rather than an outcome-based one. I would point to the 4e Bladesinger for a great iteration of a functional, non-fiddly, F/M gish.

Manbearcat:

The only caveat I would add is that it cannot be so good at either Fighteriness or Maginess that it obviates the need for a pure class.

I'd have to play around with the build you're describing, but my concern is that right now, it's too powerful. Rangers don't get access to Shield or Blur. Neither do Sorcerers -- even those with the Spell Fist talent. Shield and Blur are there as an "Oh, crap" feature for Wizards, not a means to make a viable close-quarters arcane combatant, and a Wizard putting Blur on a Fighter or Barbarian is making a VERY powerful person at the cost of spending one of his Dailies on buffing someone else.

Hey Ninjapaladin. While I, of course, agree that you don't want an F/M outdoing either base class, what you must accomplish is a functional melee combatant that adequately performs the role it sets out to fill while differentiating itself via its archetypical flavor. If F and M each equal 4, you also want an F/M that equals 4 in a mechanically synergistic, thematically recognizable way. Half an F and half an M never equals 4 in terms of what is mechanically actualized during play and it never conjures the coherent archetype of an arcane warrior dueling enemies while enacting wards and deploying blasts of force/fire, etc. The same dysfunctional design ethos is what typically dooms the Monk to irrelevance.

Further, I'm not sure that just giving a Ranger access to a Daily of Blur and a recharge of Shield would be overpowered. Consider, in its place, its stock feature of Animal Companion. This one feature provides the Ranger (i) the utility of another creature to control for the considerations of positioning, melee control, damage absorption, (ii) 2 extra recoveries, and (iii) a secondary full suite of actions for his Animal Companion (sans quick....which is irrelevant in this case) on the Ranger's initiative. This one feature turns the Ranger into a DPR, melee control, damage absorbing machine. A 1st level Ranger with double attack (ranged or melee) and an Animal Companion will be a monster, I'm sure. If you took that same Ranger (even with AC 14 as base), gave him Spell Fist, gave him a recharge attack spell in place of his second attack (for double attack) and gave him Blur as a Daily and Shield as a Recharge...he would be very, very, very, very hard pressed to compete with a Double Attacking Ranger with an Animal Companion. He will get crushed in DPR (moreso in the aggregate as # of combats/day proliferates) and given the damage absorption and melee control of the Animal Companion, may only achieve parity in survivability/control. At 1st level, sans feats, you're basically talking about a secondary pool of 27 HPs (with a good AC of 17), a 3rd melee attack every single round (with a solid rider to boot), and the melee control of being another creature engaging enemies...that scales well in all respects. That is potent.

 

[NinjaPaladin]

Hey Ninjapaladin. While I, of course, agree that you don't want an F/M outdoing either base class, what you must accomplish is a functional melee combatant that adequately performs the role it sets out to fill while differentiating itself via its archetypical flavor. If F and M each equal 4, you also want an F/M that equals 4 in a mechanically synergistic, thematically recognizable way. Half an F and half an M never equals 4 in terms of what is mechanically actualized during play and it never conjures the coherent archetype of an arcane warrior dueling enemies while enacting wards and deploying blasts of force/fire, etc. The same dysfunctional design ethos is what typically dooms the Monk to irrelevance.

Agreed in theory, although in 13th Age, having weapon damage scale up means that 2F and 2M is much closer to 4 at any given time. However, in the interest of fun for the player, I lean toward builds that are either 3F and 2M (existing Ranger with both Cleric and Sorcerer spell slots), or 2F and 3M (existing Sorcerer with Spell Fist, an elven race with the sword-using feat, and Good Dex/Con for a high AC).

But that's getting fiddly. Fundamentally, yes, you want something that can be ALMOST as good as some type of Sorcerer/Wizard in places where you want magic, and ALMOST as good as some type of Striker (specifically NOT saying a tank, although ability to not die immediately when fighting is nice) in places where you want melee damage.

Further, I'm not sure that just giving a Ranger access to a Daily of Blur and a recharge of Shield would be overpowered. Consider, in its place, its stock feature of Animal Companion. This one feature provides the Ranger (i) the utility of another creature to control for the considerations of positioning, melee control, damage absorption, (ii) 2 extra recoveries, and (iii) a secondary full suite of actions for his Animal Companion (sans quick....which is irrelevant in this case) on the Ranger's initiative.

I'd be on the fence about a "Ranger ex Archmage" talent, given again that, much like Kobolds get to avoid Miss damage, but nobody else does, nobody else gets Blur, and if the designers thought it'd be balanced to let the Ranger have it, they'd have just made a single Ranger talent like the Bard's Spelljack. Shield is effectively "Add Halfling Racial Power to Whatever You Already Have" on top of that.

But again, that's just me.

This one feature turns the Ranger into a DPR, melee control, damage absorbing machine. A 1st level Ranger with double attack (ranged or melee) and an Animal Companion will be a monster, I'm sure. If you took that same Ranger (even with AC 14 as base), gave him Spell Fist, gave him a recharge attack spell in place of his second attack (for double attack) and gave him Blur as a Daily and Shield as a Recharge...he would be very, very, very, very hard pressed to compete with a Double Attacking Ranger with an Animal Companion. He will get crushed in DPR (moreso in the aggregate as # of combats/day proliferates) and given the damage absorption and melee control of the Animal Companion, may only achieve parity in survivability/control. At 1st level, sans feats, you're basically talking about a secondary pool of 27 HPs (with a good AC of 17), a 3rd melee attack every single round (with a solid rider to boot), and the melee control of being another creature engaging enemies...that scales well in all respects. That is potent.

Also bear in mind -- the comparison that you're making is with Animal Companion, which uses TWO talent slots.

Also also, I've run a game where one player had an animal companion, and while it was indeed useful, the lower to-hit bonus, lack of use of the escalation die, and low damage meant that it was good for crowd control, but not exactly a game changer. I think it's as useful as Double Melee Attack and Two-Weapon Mastery (to compare two talents to a talent that costs you two talents to get), but it's not overpowered.

As this is all hypothetical, I doubt we'll convince each other fully one way or the other, and I'm by no means certain you're wrong. I've just gone too far in the past toward making custom classes to make my players happy and accidentally made a class that was far cooler than either the fighter or the wizard, so I'm leery.

Personally, I've made something that FEELS like a decent swordmage with the as-written bard. Battle Skald, Loremaster, and Spelljack (Wizard) give me some fun flexible attacks, as well as magical heavy-hitting when need be (Acid Arrow if I intended to stay back, Shield if I intended to wade into the fray, Battle Chant and either Soundburst or Befuddle as Bard spells). I don't even need to sing!

 

[tomjscott]

Nice review. I'm glad that people are interested in 13th Age. I found this game when I was doing initial beta testing for D&D Next. I abandoned D&D Next and jumped on board the 13th Age bandwagon and have been riding it ever since.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd be on the fence about a "Ranger ex Archmage" talent, given again that, much like Kobolds get to avoid Miss damage, but nobody else does, nobody else gets Blur, and if the designers thought it'd be balanced to let the Ranger have it, they'd have just made a single Ranger talent like the Bard's Spelljack. Shield is effectively "Add Halfling Racial Power to Whatever You Already Have" on top of that.

But again, that's just me.

Well, I'm not sure they made the decision here based on power, but rather based on flavor as Sorceror and Cleric are much in line with the "natural", "organic" spellcasting one would expect to be part of a Ranger's traditional woodsman/survivalist archetype, rather than the studious wizard, locked in his tower, thumbing through pages of ancient tomes to learn obscure, arcane formulas.

Further, I don't think an examination of the comparison from a balance perspective bears it out that Blur is an objectively more potent spell.

1st level Ranger with Cure Wounds Daily:

- Quick Action to cast so no loss in Action Economy with respect to deployment of their high damage with Double Attack.
- Assuming a + 2 Con (and thus a mean of ~ 7 Recovery value), you're actively mitigating 7 HP worth of HP ablation in one fight per day.
- This spell has the utility of being active in its payload; eg you are in control of when you deploy it rather than being at the mercy of a low % check.

1st level Ranger with Blur Daily:

- Action to cast so a net loss in Action Economy of 1 Double Attack to deploy this defensive spell. For a 1st level elf (Heritage of the Sword feat and 18 dex), dual-wielding short swords, that would be a net loss of 6.6ish damage; or about 1/3 of a level 0 enemy's HP.
- A level 0 enemy does slightly more than 1/2 of a +2 Con Ranger's average Recovery (7) on a successful hit, or 4. Blur negates 1 in every 5 succesful hits. Therefore, it would take 10 successful hits against a Ranger for Blur to mitigate more HP ablation than Cure does; 8 versus 7. A Light Armor, 1st level Ranger with + 2 middle attribute will have an AC of 17. At + 5 to hit, level 0 enemies are only hitting 45 %, and thus checking against Blur's effect, of the time. As such, its going to take an extremely large number of total attacks against that Ranger for the mitigatory effects of Blur to outdo the restorative effect of Cure Wounds.

Given the above, I'd say Cure Wounds is objectively a more effective spell than Blur across the board. Ranger's currently have access to this spell.

Also bear in mind -- the comparison that you're making is with Animal Companion, which uses TWO talent slots.

For clarity's sake, the comparison I was making wasn't with respect to Animal Companion versus any other feature. It was the comparative balance of two separate builds which was in dispute; one of which encapsulated Animal Companion + Double Melee Attack while the other encapsulated a variation on Double Attack with an attack spell in the stead of a melee offhand (perhaps with Magic Missile or Color Spray, which would probably only get deployed once per fight given the double check for even attack roll and even number on escalation dice, instead of the secondary attack) + Spell Fist (which in this scenario would really provide only a + 0 or + 1 AC benefit depending on where the default AC for Light Armor would be set) and Shield and Blur. The Double Attack variation would basically be a wash (ish) so the question would be is + 1 AC (assuming the class starts at AC 13 so gets a default 15 with Spell Fist) and access to Shield and Blur as powerful as an Animal Companion.

Also also, I've run a game where one player had an animal companion, and while it was indeed useful, the lower to-hit bonus, lack of use of the escalation die, and low damage meant that it was good for crowd control, but not exactly a game changer. I think it's as useful as Double Melee Attack and Two-Weapon Mastery (to compare two talents to a talent that costs you two talents to get), but it's not overpowered.

Gotcha. I'd have to see it in play but I've got a pretty good handle on extrapolating its effects I think.

1) Incidentally, I had the stats for a level 1 companion above, where it should be a level 0 companion for a level 1 Ranger. This would basically be a net gain for the Ranger of (against level 0 monsters) (i) ~ 2.5 DPR with a nice rider (survivability or damage boost), (ii) a pool of 20 extra HPs to ablate, (iii) another PC for positioning and melee control, (iv) 2 extra Recoveries/day. This creature is also healed when you Rally or spend a recovery while adjacent to it.

2) We already know about what Blur brings to the table. Depending on the total number of enemy attacks against the Ranger in the combat where it is deployed, somewhere between .5 to 1.25 Recovery value in HPs 1/day at the cost of approximately 1/3 a level - 1 creatures HPs due to action economy loss. So, for the 1st level Ranger, maybe 7ish "damage-in" mitigated daily at the cost of pretty close to that same 7 in "damage-out."

3) Personally, I would say Shield is flat-out objectively the better spell between the two; its actively deployable (therefore on-demand) with no action economy loss and on an 11 + recharge schedule rather than Daily. For that 1st level Ranger, you could probably safely average it out to turning 4 damage into 1.8 damage on a per encounter basis so a mean net mitigation of ~ 2.2 HP/encounter.

In terms of overall net gain in power and utility, is option # 1 better than, worse than or equal to # 2 + # 3 + a passive + 1 AC. Take your pick I suppose. I think a heady player with a tactical mind would get more mileage out of 1.

As this is all hypothetical, I doubt we'll convince each other fully one way or the other, and I'm by no means certain you're wrong. I've just gone too far in the past toward making custom classes to make my players happy and accidentally made a class that was far cooler than either the fighter or the wizard, so I'm leery.

Gotcha!

Personally, I've made something that FEELS like a decent swordmage with the as-written bard. Battle Skald, Loremaster, and Spelljack (Wizard) give me some fun flexible attacks, as well as magical heavy-hitting when need be (Acid Arrow if I intended to stay back, Shield if I intended to wade into the fray, Battle Chant and either Soundburst or Befuddle as Bard spells). I don't even need to sing!

I'd be curious to see it!