My Review of 13th Age

[Imaro]

That sounds reasonable. My concern would be letting a fighter make all his flexible attacks on top of a ranger's dual-wielding attacks. At that point, he's a better ranger than the ranger. Same for a raging barbarian. ("Hey, turns out that rage bonus applies to both primary and secondary attacks!")

Well the Barbarian Rage class feature specifically calls out that it only works for barbarian melee and ranged attacks, so I wouldn't let that work if the character was using a ranger feature, but yeah something like the fighter's maneuvers doesn't state one way or another (I may be wrong about this but I'm going off memory)so it would definitely be up to the DM to watch out for wonky combos... which of course is why my general rule (until I master the rules) would be to keep them silo-ed.

I'd still be worried that it adds enough damage or core ability to another class to be stealing the coolest part of the ranger for a very low price, but I'm old now, and I don't care enough to go through average damage per round calculations. I also figure that this is a game to be played with friends, not competitively, and if someone came to me with an awesome character concept that required dual-wielding as a rogue or barbarian or whatever, I'd probably allow it.

Understandable, I guess my biggest issue is that the dual-weapon wielder is so iconic in fantasy and not necessarily as a ranger that I could see players wanting it for other melee characters (This was one of the issues I had with 4e basically making this a ranger only ability until the tempest fighter and whirling frenzy barbarian were released). It really is one of those things I personally feel shouldn't necessarily be attached to one particular class.

 

[Manbearcat]

I wonder if this is also meant to be the way that non-spellcasters get spells for rituals as well...

Yup, that is what I inferred from that. I don't have the book in front of me but I don't recall any other martial/mundane class getting access to spells.

 

[NinjaPaladin]

Yup, that is what I inferred from that. I don't have the book in front of me but I don't recall any other martial/mundane class getting access to spells.

The paladin has something almost identical that opens up access to cleric spells.

 

[Manbearcat]

The paladin has something almost identical that opens up access to cleric spells.

Yup, quite true. I wasn't including Paladin there as, although it has a martial pedigree, its primary source of power and theme is Divine-infusion.

 

[Imaro]

One thing I haven't seen discussed yet, that I really enjoy is how 13th Age handles "true" magic items by default. I think the game does alot to bring back the mystery and wonder of magic items that has been (IMO) missing in the D&D editions where they are for all practical purposes PC build tools. I like that the default answer is that true magic items are not sold and that magic shops don't exist. This is more in line with most fantasy fiction.

The other thing I really like is that all true magic items are sentient and have both a personality and a quirk, furthermore, while a hero is not outright banned from having more than his level in equal tier magic items (with epic tier item counting as 3 each unless the character is also epic tier)... taking more than this allows the DM to impose the quirks and personalities of the magic items upon the hero's actions and behavior, if he carries too many magic items. I also like that the option for the DM to let the player manage it (not my preferred choice but still a viable option for different play styles) or a combination of the DM and the other players at the table handle it (I think this would be my preferred method as it takes some of the onus off the DM without the player whose affected having control) is presented. While I could see the inspiration for these coming from Tolkien and the One ring... IMO, these rules are also very reminiscent of Moorcockian magic items and that definitely resonate with me.

 

[Balesir]

One thing I haven't seen discussed yet, that I really enjoy is how 13th Age handles "true" magic items by default. I think the game does alot to bring back the mystery and wonder of magic items that has been (IMO) missing in the D&D editions where they are for all practical purposes PC build tools. I like that the default answer is that true magic items are not sold and that magic shops don't exist. This is more in line with most fantasy fiction.

I like the way magic items work in 13A, too. I actually like the fact that a party (as opposed to character) build resource exists in 3/4E, but 13A isn't that big on "builds" so the lack fits well, here.

One aspect of 4E I like in this regard is the way Artifacts are split from magic items, with the latter being a "communal build resource" and the former more of a GM resource. 13th Age takes this further, it seems to me, with only consumables being party resources (and tactical/scenario resources, at that) and "true magic" being more of a GM maguffin/tool to dangle before the party.

I agree that the shared "policing" of the "magic overburden" between GM and (other) players would be the way I would probably go. Alternatively, I could stand to see some sort of dice system - similar to that used for Icon relationships - to help manage this. It could work similarly to the way Fiasco handles "bad scene outcomes". Roll dice for each item if you are "over the limit"; for each 5 or 6 (say), the player of the overburdened character must come up with some expression of that item's "quirk" that satisfies the rest of the table. This places the onus for coming up with acceptably inconvenient effects on the player who has chosen to overburden their character, while everybody else gets the fun of saying "No, dude - we're not buying it. You need to try harder!" <evil grin>

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4

 

[Imaro]

I like the way magic items work in 13A, too. I actually like the fact that a party (as opposed to character) build resource exists in 3/4E, but 13A isn't that big on "builds" so the lack fits well, here.

I really don't want to get into some pedantic argument here but how are magic items a "party" build item as opposed to a "character" build item? If you are speaking about consumables... well 13th Age has those as well but if you're speaking to actual magic items in 4e and 3e I'm unclear as to why they are party build items...

One aspect of 4E I like in this regard is the way Artifacts are split from magic items, with the latter being a "communal build resource" and the former more of a GM resource. 13th Age takes this further, it seems to me, with only consumables being party resources (and tactical/scenario resources, at that) and "true magic" being more of a GM maguffin/tool to dangle before the party.

Hmm, again with the caveat that I don't believe these items to be "communal" build resources... I didn't really favor this aspect of 4e that much because I have always felt that, for the most part, magic items should be under the purview of the person running the game (of course this doesn't stop a player from having his character do in-game info gathering and seeking to find an item he is interested in). It's just my particular play style preference of course but I think even with artifacts, 4e went a step to far for me in placing magic items in the PHB and promoting a wish list and magic shop mentality (and no I am not claiming 3e didn't also promote some of this but you were speaking to 4e specifically).

I also think you're mistaken in characterizing the "true" magic items as MacGuffins since the definition of a MacGuffin is only a plot device with no further purpose, but "true" magic items mechanically benefit characters that have them... in fact once the player has a true magic item the only reason for the DM (and possibly the other players) to get involved is when the character decides to carry more true magic items than his level. Until that point I would have no problem with a player role playing out the minor actions and indicators of his items quirks and personalities that may arise since he is still in control of himself and his items. However, IMO, when he chooses to go overboard on the magic stuff... then it's time for the items to exert their quirks and personalities through the GM/other players on the PC's behavior and I like the sense of real loss of control that would come from others deciding the actions.

I agree that the shared "policing" of the "magic overburden" between GM and (other) players would be the way I would probably go. Alternatively, I could stand to see some sort of dice system - similar to that used for Icon relationships - to help manage this. It could work similarly to the way Fiasco handles "bad scene outcomes". Roll dice for each item if you are "over the limit"; for each 5 or 6 (say), the player of the overburdened character must come up with some expression of that item's "quirk" that satisfies the rest of the table. This places the onus for coming up with acceptably inconvenient effects on the player who has chosen to overburden their character, while everybody else gets the fun of saying "No, dude - we're not buying it. You need to try harder!" <evil grin>

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4

I can understand the desire for mechanical determination...and I might even consider using it, but I also feel like the player knew what he was getting into when he decided to take on so much power and that depending on the rolls he may not be inconvenienced often enough to make up for the added power of the extra magic item(s)...(I honestly don't know if this is or isn't the case but it's something I would be concerned about).

The only reason I don't favor the player himself coming up with the effects is because I think most players will try to find an expression that inconveniences them the least, I mean they are the type of player who went for more magic items in the first place right? IMO, it's too much of a conflict of interest for me to feel comfortable leaving up to the player... especially because the extra magic item(s) are actually giving them increased power. I also don't want to spend 15-20 mins of game time with back and forth between the DM/other players and the overburdened player to determine an appropriate action. I think it makes it more interesting and again more mysterious when part of the inherent danger of too many magic items is in not knowing what the exact effect will be once you put one too many on. But that's just me and I could totally see a game where the players and DM are comfortable with the player deciding, I think whichever option you go with probably gives a different feel and play dynamic to magic items.

 

[Pog]

Regarding dual wielding, any PC of any class can wield two melee weapons with no penalty and get a small bonus, they just can't make two hits (though their attack could certainly be narrated as one). I go a lot with the option of re-fluffing weapons - just keep to the max dam as per chart for class.

 

[Balesir]

I didn't really favor this aspect of 4e that much because I have always felt that, for the most part, magic items should be under the purview of the person running the game (of course this doesn't stop a player from having his character do in-game info gathering and seeking to find an item he is interested in). It's just my particular play style preference of course but I think even with artifacts, 4e went a step to far for me in placing magic items in the PHB and promoting a wish list and magic shop mentality (and no I am not claiming 3e didn't also promote some of this but you were speaking to 4e specifically).

Sure - I was just expressing that I came to broadly similar views about 13th Age as you did despite us having quite disparate views on previous editions' systems. The other points about 4E items are getting really off topic so I'll take that elsewhere.

I also think you're mistaken in characterizing the "true" magic items as MacGuffins since the definition of a MacGuffin is only a plot device with no further purpose, but "true" magic items mechanically benefit characters that have them...

This is a valid point, but I did say maguffins/tools, and in the sense that they are a way for the GM to give the characters specific capabilities and "toys to play with" and see what their responses are, I would stand by this expanded description. To be clear, I don't regard it as any sort of bad thing to have such an artefact (as opposed to artifact!) in the game.

in fact once the player has a true magic item the only reason for the DM (and possibly the other players) to get involved is when the character decides to carry more true magic items than his level. Until that point I would have no problem with a player role playing out the minor actions and indicators of his items quirks and personalities that may arise since he is still in control of himself and his items.

Sure - I may not have been clear enough, but I assume that the player will be wholly responsible for expressing their character's items' quirks as long as they are within the "chakra limit" (horrible terminology, IMO, but I'll survive it ).

I can understand the desire for mechanical determination...and I might even consider using it, but I also feel like the player knew what he was getting into when he decided to take on so much power and that depending on the rolls he may not be inconvenienced often enough to make up for the added power of the extra magic item(s)...(I honestly don't know if this is or isn't the case but it's something I would be concerned about).

Yeah, I can see this concern as totally reasonable. It would be something to find out through play, I think.

The only reason I don't favor the player himself coming up with the effects is because I think most players will try to find an expression that inconveniences them the least, I mean they are the type of player who went for more magic items in the first place right? IMO, it's too much of a conflict of interest for me to feel comfortable leaving up to the player... especially because the extra magic item(s) are actually giving them increased power. I also don't want to spend 15-20 mins of game time with back and forth between the DM/other players and the overburdened player to determine an appropriate action.

My experience with Fiasco is that these determinations actually happen pretty quickly, but maybe that would work differently in 13th Age - I don't know. Fiasco has a similar system where a player leading the narration of a scene can have a "bad outcome" die imposed on them; they are then expected to lead the scene to a bad outcome for their character. If they offer an outcome that the other players, collectively, don't think is bad enough they just get an array of shaking heads/thumbs down to say "not bad enough, dude - make it worse!" If it worked that way with item influence in 13th Age I could see it working well and being fun; if for some reason it doesn't work out that way then I'd look for some other way to handle it.

I think it makes it more interesting and again more mysterious when part of the inherent danger of too many magic items is in not knowing what the exact effect will be once you put one too many on. But that's just me and I could totally see a game where the players and DM are comfortable with the player deciding, I think whichever option you go with probably gives a different feel and play dynamic to magic items.

Well, I would think/hope that players overburdening their characters with magic items will be relatively uncommon, but I guess we'll see when we start playing in earnest!

 

[Imaro]

This is a valid point, but I did say maguffins/tools, and in the sense that they are a way for the GM to give the characters specific capabilities and "toys to play with" and see what their responses are, I would stand by this expanded description. To be clear, I don't regard it as any sort of bad thing to have such an artefact (as opposed to artifact!) in the game.

Yeah now that you've gone into more detail I pretty much agree with what you are saying, it was just the use of the word Macguffin that threw me.

Yeah, I can see this concern as totally reasonable. It would be something to find out through play, I think.

The other thing I worry about with the die rolling method is that the random determiner leads to weird circumstances where either the items quirks and personality may be forced to come through even though the situation may not warrant it... or the reverse where the die says it won't happen in this adventure but then a perfect situation arises and it is ignored.

My experience with Fiasco is that these determinations actually happen pretty quickly, but maybe that would work differently in 13th Age - I don't know. Fiasco has a similar system where a player leading the narration of a scene can have a "bad outcome" die imposed on them; they are then expected to lead the scene to a bad outcome for their character. If they offer an outcome that the other players, collectively, don't think is bad enough they just get an array of shaking heads/thumbs down to say "not bad enough, dude - make it worse!" If it worked that way with item influence in 13th Age I could see it working well and being fun; if for some reason it doesn't work out that way then I'd look for some other way to handle it.

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?

Well, I would think/hope that players overburdening their characters with magic items will be relatively uncommon, but I guess we'll see when we start playing in earnest!

Well for the most part since the DM is controlling distribution, I don't think it will arise often. The one scenario I think might happen (and still not often) is where one or more party members are killed and the others grab their magic weapons... but for the most part I agree with you... I don't think it will tend to be a common occurrence in the game unless the DM wants it to be.