13th Age pros and cons?

[Evenglare]

Specific questions in no particular order, if I may:

1) Realistic time for one combat = ?.

Background: I played 4E and some people posted that combat was allegedly quick if you knew what you were doing. That is an outrageous lie Well, maybe for them it went well, but really, 4E combat was very long for most groups. Our group of experienced players NEVER got any combat done in less than 1.5 hours; and it usually took about 2.5 to 3 hours per combat. Sometimes 4 hours, for particular big battles. Sure, we're a laid-back group that role-plays during battle, but still, I never got how some groups managed to end all their 4E battles within 1 hour, according to their posts.

Combat rarely lasts for more than 30 minutes for a full on battle for us and that's thanks to the escalation die. The die advances every round and you add that number to your attack. So when the second round comes about all your characters will be adding +1 to their attack, 3rd round +2, etc etc all the way to +6. It simply speeds up combat and enemies like dragons get to use it as well, it's by far one of the best things about the game in my opinion. I use escalation die in all d20 games now. I haven't played 4e with escalation die but I bet it solves most of the long combat problems.

2) Monster and NPC creation time = ?. I'm thinking about possibly using 13A to DM. As always, I'm going to create my campaign. 4E had GREAT monster creation rules. But it takes 30 minutes to get a flavorful and balanced monster created from the ground up. Again, can't have that.

I'd say it's a bit faster than 4e, and EXTREMELY faster than 3.x/pathfinder. Here's a monster improv toolkit I use a lot, it's great. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5k1Bo0pV5ilVFFvY2VsQ0JiVjg/edit

3) I've read a review of the core book. It says there is no art for the monsters. True? If so, bummer.

It's true, but they have icon pictures that they are associated with... it's kind of hard to explain. Anyway, the bestiary is coming out soon, and THAT has monster pics in it.

4) What is 13 True Ways about? Why is this supplement eagerly awaited? How many books do I need to buy to run a campaign in this setting? How many am I likely to want to buy once I buy the core rulebook?

13th True ways basically is adding Monk,Druid, Necro, Commander (warlord), and a couple of other classes. It's generally just going to expand the game like the Advanced PHB did for Pathfinder.

5) Spells: what do they look like? 4E did away with spells (in my humble opinion). Are they back to 3.5-ish? I'm not sure I understand the above posts about spells. Do you have examples of known spells and how they work, so I may understand a bit better?

Here is the classic MM spell.
Magic Missile
Ranged spell
At-Will
Target: One nearby or far away enemy.
Attack: Automatic hit
Effect: 2d4 force damage.
3rd level spell: 2d8 damage.
5th level spell: 4d6 damage.
7th level spell: 6d6 damage.
9th level spell: 10d6 damage.

Adventurer Feat
You can choose two targets; roll half the damage dice for one missile and half the damage
dice for the other, then assign one set of damage dice to each of the two targets.

Champion Feat
Roll a d20 when you use the spell; if you roll a natural 20, the magic missile crits and deals
double damage. (Rolling a 1 is not a fumble; this roll checks only to see if you can crit.)

Epic Feat
The 7th and 9th level versions of the spell now use d8s as damage dice.

6) Classes: fun options for all? DCC spoiled us with really nice options for all classes, be that the fun warrior Mighty Deeds of Arms, the luck use by thieves, the incrementally powerful spellcasting results for clerics and wizards, spellburn, disapproval, ... Each class really gets a specific mechanic that is fun to use and opens up some interesting in-game moments. If I compare to D&D 3.5: a lot of stuff in 3.5 was passive bonuses or other elements that didn't open up in-game opportunities for players. Your fighter is a fighter because he gets greater bonuses to hit (passive stat), he's allowed to wear better armor that, in turn, provides a better AC value (passive stat), he has more HPs (passive stat) and he can wield a weapon that deals more damage (passive stat). That's why he's a fighter. What of 13 A?

yes, most every class has their own niche and mechanic that separates them from others. It's one of the great thing about 13th age. You can take a look at the SRD here. http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13316

 

[Dungeoneer]

1) Realistic time for one combat = ?.

Background: I played 4E and some people posted that combat was allegedly quick if you knew what you were doing. That is an outrageous lie Well, maybe for them it went well, but really, 4E combat was very long for most groups. Our group of experienced players NEVER got any combat done in less than 1.5 hours; and it usually took about 2.5 to 3 hours per combat. Sometimes 4 hours, for particular big battles. Sure, we're a laid-back group that role-plays during battle, but still, I never got how some groups managed to end all their 4E battles within 1 hour, according to their posts.

Now, we'll remain the laid-back group that we are, and I'm most certainly not going to use a chess timer at my table. We're just out of a DCC campaign where combat never took more than 30 minutes, often only 10 or 15...

So, what of 13A? Do people say that it doesn't take long because they like the game? Because nobody talks during combat and they use a chess timer to quickly end any player's turn? Or because it's really quick? At least one poster here says that it's 2 hours per combat. To me, that's way too long. I like interesting battles, but in a 4-5 hour session, I can't systematically have half of the session spent on a single battle. Consider us slow players in getting battles done, if 4E is any indication. 2 hours + for each combat is a deal-breaker for me, so please be frank and not optimistic

I don't think that poster was saying that two hours was typical. I don't have a large enough sample to put a number to avg. combat length, but the fact is that 13A combat is just a lot less complex than 4e, so it's going to be shorter. How much shorter is the hard question. But most players have fewer options, position and movement are greatly simplified and monsters have fewer moving parts. No reason that shouldn't translate to a substantial time savings.

2) Monster and NPC creation time = ?. I'm thinking about possibly using 13A to DM. As always, I'm going to create my campaign. 4E had GREAT monster creation rules. But it takes 30 minutes to get a flavorful and balanced monster created from the ground up. Again, can't have that.

I can't speak to from-scratch creation, but you can reflavor a monster a monster basically on the fly. Steal a power from another monster, change the energy type and you're done. Monsters tend to have about three powers at most, at least in the core rules. 1-2 is far more common. Pretty simple.

3) I've read a review of the core book. It says there is no art for the monsters. True? If so, bummer. (No deal-breaker or course.)

Instead of portraits of the monsters you get colorful icons representing them. It didn't bother me too much. Honestly, by now I know what a goblin looks like. The book may feel a little light on original art by the standards of Wizards of the Coast, but by the standards of indie games it has an astonishing amount.

4) What is 13 True Ways about? Why is this supplement eagerly awaited? How many books do I need to buy to run a campaign in this setting? How many am I likely to want to buy once I buy the core rulebook?

13 True Ways is basically 'Unearthed Arcana' for 13A. It will have a grab bag of things, including a handful of new classes (Monk, Commander and Chaos Shaman). However the core rule book has everything you need to run a full campaign. And since it's the only book out right now (the 'Bestiary' is immanent) that's a good thing!

I personally feel an urgent need to buy more books, but in a 'shut up and take my money' sort of way, not in a 'this game is incomplete' sort of way.

5) Spells: what do they look like? 4E did away with spells (in my humble opinion). Are they back to 3.5-ish? I'm not sure I understand the above posts about spells. Do you have examples of known spells and how they work, so I may understand a bit better?

Spells are definitely more free-form than they were in 13A. Also, out of combat spells may be cast as 'rituals', which allows them to be much more expansive and basically limited only by the player's imagination and the DM's comfort level. That said, hoping for more spells for all spellcasting classes in a future book.

6) Classes: fun options for all? DCC spoiled us with really nice options for all classes, be that the fun warrior Mighty Deeds of Arms, the luck use by thieves, the incrementally powerful spellcasting results for clerics and wizards, spellburn, disapproval, ... Each class really gets a specific mechanic that is fun to use and opens up some interesting in-game moments. If I compare to D&D 3.5: a lot of stuff in 3.5 was passive bonuses or other elements that didn't open up in-game opportunities for players. Your fighter is a fighter because he gets greater bonuses to hit (passive stat), he's allowed to wear better armor that, in turn, provides a better AC value (passive stat), he has more HPs (passive stat) and he can wield a weapon that deals more damage (passive stat). That's why he's a fighter. What of 13 A?

Yeah, they did a great job with this IMHO. The classes all have interesting mechanics that make them feel special (without creating elaborate new systems to confound the DM). For instance, the Fighter can roll first and decide what power he's using afterward. The Rogue has 'momentum' which allows her to pull off cool stunts and backstabs. The Sorcerer can spend a turn charging up his spells. And so on.

The only caveat is that a couple of the classes are intentionally built to be simple. This is great for n00bs but an experienced player may find the Barbarian and the Paladin to be disappointingly basic.

I want to add one more thing - even if you don't use this game as written, the book is full of great ideas that you can pillage for your favorite system. It's worth picking up as a sourcebook for ideas, even if it's not ultimately what you want to run going forward.

 

[demoss]

1) Realistic time for one combat = ?.

I really suspect my group is an outlier (combats being longer than typical), because my impression is that people going through 2-4 combats per sessions is common, with plenty of time left over for other stuff.

...but because I'm the one who said that I'm not really quite happy with the combat duration, let me break our last combat down.

Opponents came in three waves. (Or rather: characters penetrated across two defended positions and a boss appeared.) There are 5 players, and there were 14 opponents in total, though 9 of them were mooks in the first wave.

The encounter was technically a bit over double-strength one, but the opponents didn't have any defensive powers of note, nor ridiculous HP pools. Their AC *was* a bit high for the PCs, though -- and sadly the front-line PC's AC was a bit high for the mooks.

Everyone was present at 18:30. I'm not sure how long it took before we got down to gaming, but let's say we started really at 19:00-19:30. The combat was finished maybe around 21:30. So call it 2 - 2.5 hours.

It *very* definitely wasn't "roll, announce hit, roll damage". It was: describe what the character does, discover if it needs a roll or if I let it pass, laugh, roll, check rules for the spell being used because this is the first time that spell has been used, make a joke, roll damage, clarify fictional positioning, applaud at the characters being awesome, laugh hysterically at the enemy fumbles (I swear my dice have perfect comedic timing), make more tea, remind the next player about their turn, etc...

Definitely not optimized for efficiency.

I'm not a complete novice in running d20 combats: I ran a weekly OSR game two years ago for three months (ACKS) and our combats were 10 - 30min once we got the rules down. (The last time before that is probably in the 1990s.) They weren't cut and dry and boring either, but they weren't *quite* as engaged in the fiction as our 13th Age combats have been so far.

I would hazard the guess that the ACKS combat with a similar level of engagement would have taken maybe twice as long -- but it's been two years, so it's hard to be sure.

It is clear to me some of the longness of the combats comes from not having all the rules quite down yet, but it's much harder to say how much. A fixed 30 min tax per combat? A 50% slowdown? No idea really.

The second major inefficiency is there being occasional "Whoops, whose turn is it now?" -moments. Ie. when the combat isn't progressing because someone (me) forgot to call the turn while laughing. I had this trouble in first few ACKS sessions as well, before I got it under control, at which point our combats became notably faster -- but again, it's been two years so I won't hazard a guess if we're talking about an hour of lost time or 10 minutes.

I would hazard the guess that with rules down and making sure the combat is progressing all the time it would have been an 60-90 minutes without cutting down on the description and fun.

I like interesting battles, but in a 4-5 hour session, I can't systematically have half of the session spent on a single battle. Consider us slow players in getting battles done, if 4E is any indication. 2 hours + for each combat is a deal-breaker for me, so please be frank and not optimistic

You could be describing our group here.

We're playing again this week, and I sincerely hope that we can manage to get a normal-size combat down to under an hour without having to stress about it.

I'm keeping an eye on this, and if the combats don't get clearly faster over the next few sessions I'm considering drastic measures (reducing HP, increasing damage, etc.)

2) Monster and NPC creation time = ?. I'm thinking about possibly using 13A to DM. As always, I'm going to create my campaign. 4E had GREAT monster creation rules. But it takes 30 minutes to get a flavorful and balanced monster created from the ground up. Again, can't have that.

Can't really comment on this -- particularly since "flavorful" is a pretty personal call IMO.

I will say that just before last session was the first time I cracked that part of the book to check the numbers on that encounter, because I was afraid it was going to be a TPK (and it might have been!), and trimmed it down a bit. Checking and tweaking numbers for for different opponent types took me maybe an hour or two, including reading that part of the book properly.

3) I've read a review of the core book. It says there is no art for the monsters. True? If so, bummer. (No deal-breaker or course.)

Let's say virtually no art. There are these "monster icon" things.

4) What is 13 True Ways about? Why is this supplement eagerly awaited? How many books do I need to buy to run a campaign in this setting? How many am I likely to want to buy once I buy the core rulebook?

It's the first supplement, so it's interesting to see how it turns out. Some new classes there, including the Druid, the Monk, and the Battle Captain, which I think some people are looking forward to.

I would personally be happy running the game with just the core book -- but I will probably spring for 13 True Ways, and I've already preordered the Bestiary because *that* has gorgeous art and the previews were actually fascinating. (It's on the Pelgrane site, go take a look.)

5) Spells: what do they look like? 4E did away with spells (in my humble opinion). Are they back to 3.5-ish? I'm not sure I understand the above posts about spells. Do you have examples of known spells and how they work, so I may understand a bit better?

There's spell memorization, but spells you memorize are at-will / per battle / or daily. Check the SRD for known spells.

6) Classes: fun options for all?

There are classes that are more simple and classes that are more complex. Ie. classes where you have more or less mechanical options to use during combat, etc. Some people seem to think the simple classes are dull, but others seem to like them just that way.

...read the SRD.

 

[GameOgre]

I think our average fight lasts 15 min. Huge battles can be as long as 30 min and long multi-wave type boss fights are as long as I design them. Like any game the more monsters you throw at the party the longer the fight. Also the make up of the party can have a huge effect.

 

[cavalier973]

5) Spells: what do they look like? 4E did away with spells (in my humble opinion). Are they back to 3.5-ish? I'm not sure I understand the above posts about spells. Do you have examples of known spells and how they work, so I may understand a bit better?

Spells are written to be a lot more loosey-goosey than one might be used to. With the right Feat (Cantrip Mastery), the wizard can cast a daily attack spell that he has memorized as a cantrip for some lesser effect. The same feat allows the wizard to cast cantrips as at-will spells, so, for example, Zorloc the Warlock can memorize "Fireball", then use a cantrip version of it at-will to send up flares, light a fire, etc. until he actually casts "Fireball", which expends the spell.

The Vance's Polysyllabic Vocalization Feat allows the player to make up ridiculous names for his spells, and the GM is supposed to add some small extra benefit. The example uses the "Charm Person" spell twice. The first VPV Charm Person causes an NPC to chatter incessantly (with the hopes that he will spill some important information), while the second VPV Charm Person guilts the target into confessing something he'd rather the player's character not know. So, even with a relatively limited spell list, there is potentially a lot of variety based on player/GM creativity.

Wizards can also use up a memory slot for the Utility Spell, which encompasses a variety of useful tricks like Feather Fall and Hold Portal. The wizard doesn't designate which spell he is memorizing; he just memorizes "Utility Spell", and then if he finds himself falling, he can cast it as "Feather Fall", or if he needs to slip past the guards, he can cast it as "Disguise Self".

 

[Rel]

I love this game and it has excited me more than any system since Savage Worlds (which I still also love). Most of the upsides have been addressed in detail and you can barely fill a teaspoon with stuff I don't care for about 13th Age. I'll take a second to talk about combat length though.

I'd say our combats typically run about an hour. Sometimes a bit longer. However that is probably a lot due to the fact that it's rare for me to throw something "level appropriate" at them. I tend to make most of my combats rather hard for their level, which makes them tougher, scarier, more memorable, and longer. I don't necessarily recommend doing it this way but I can't seem to shake myself of the habit and the players enjoy the challenge.

On the occasions when I've run stuff that is a "normal" encounter for their level, the PC's typically mop it up in 15-20 minutes. Since the Wizard took the Evocation talent, these encounters are sometimes over in the first round.

I think that there is so much great about this system that combat length shouldn't be a reason you don't try it. Chances are you can find a method of encounter design that works for your group and time frame.

 

[Skyscraper]

Groovy stuff here. At the risk of repeating myself, thank you to everyone for writing this down. A few posts got me thinking or even smiling (I like the detailed combat description - this is indeed just like my group).

I've taken a look at the SRD - didn't realize they had opened up the rules in that way. Cool.

I'm probably going to buy the book now anyway, if only because of the good ideas that seem to be presented therein (don't know if I'll play that system yet), but for the sake of discussion, here are additional thoughts/questions.

1) It seems like 13A = a simplified version of D&D 4E. The hight hit points for PCs and monsters alike (except mooks), the powers both for PCs and monsters, the mook (minion)/normal/large (elite)/huge (solo) monster classification, it all smells of 4E. But, they cut down on some complex stuff. Away with they keywords, simplify the powers, get the grid system out of the way for combat and use the nearby/far away abstraction, concatenate the FORT and REFL defenses into the "physical defense", but otherwise, it seems like it's pretty much 4E. I enjoyed 4E, but in the end it was too mechanical for me, I prefer more freeform RPG-ing. I don't really care for complex/precise combat mechanics, I want something that runs quick and dirty. Although people seem to say "yes" to that last, I can't really bring myself to see it when I read all these posts or the SRD.

2) I'm concerned about the spells in particular. 4E toned down the spells such that a wizard ended up doing essentially the same effect as some other martial ranged weapon attacks. For example, the fire burst spell could do 1d6 + MOD damage in a 3x3 square area; while the archer could do a rain of arrows attack that dealt 1W + MOD damage in a 3x3 square area. Different description, same result. In a quick look-through of the classes in the SRD, it seems that the only spells that diverge from the "deal X damage in a Y area" concept, are the handfull of wizard utility spells.

3) I get the complex vs simple class thing. Fair enough. Do the "complex" classes, such as the fighter, work like the 4E fighter? Seems like it.

4) Do you use minis on a battle map to play? Does the game expect it? Do you think it works better that way?

 

[Agamon]

1) It seems like 13A = a simplified version of D&D 4E.

Pretty much. With narrative tools to make it more story game-like, that's how I'd describe it. Some say there's 3e or AD&D in it. Not sure I see that, mechanically.

2) I'm concerned about the spells in particular.

In our group, we have a wizard, fighter, cleric and rogue (lol, I didn't realize until I wrote that out how "iconic" our group was, 3 of the players actually chose their classes randomly). They all feel different mechanically. The fighter defends the others, the rogue runs around stabbing things, the wizard deals with groups and zapping the big guys and the cleric assists anyone in trouble, whether with buffs, healing or melee. If the wizard doesn't feel incredibly different when casting a spell, it might be because the others are doing more than swing and hit or miss, but they do have a flavor all their own.

3) I get the complex vs simple class thing. Fair enough. Do the "complex" classes, such as the fighter, work like the 4E fighter? Seems like it.

Kinda, just in a different way. They don't mark, but they're good at intercepting and reducing damage they take.

4) Do you use minis on a battle map to play? Does the game expect it? Do you think it works better that way?

We use minis for relative position, but the "battle mat" is the blank side of the world map I got printed out. Set up time is negligible and there's freedom to describe what your doing with the environment if it's more generalized.

 

[Skyscraper]

In our group, we have a wizard, fighter, cleric and rogue (lol, I didn't realize until I wrote that out how "iconic" our group was, 3 of the players actually chose their classes randomly). They all feel different mechanically. The fighter defends the others, the rogue runs around stabbing things, the wizard deals with groups and zapping the big guys and the cleric assists anyone in trouble, whether with buffs, healing or melee. If the wizard doesn't feel incredibly different when casting a spell, it might be because the others are doing more than swing and hit or miss, but they do have a flavor all their own.

Hmm, this sounds a lot like 4E to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 4E power system. It's great. A wonderful innovation (as far as i know) and a great addition to the RPG scene. It brought excellent combat options for all classes. But there was a price to pay: spells disappeared, and wizards and clerics and other "spellcaster" used powers like any other class. Consequently, spellcasters are not special anymore in 4E. Or, worded differently, wizards are as special as any other class, since they could do just about the same thing. Classes are balanced. And monsters are balanced too, no super powerful breath weapon or gaze that turns to stone or disintegrate ray.

Is that the same in 13A? Is the dragon breath just another low-damage area of effect attack, do the spell casters just have different variations of low-damage area of effect attacks (one that deals acid damage, the other cold damage, the other fire damage; and some with a condition that can be removed easily), or do monsters or characters have access to effects that are truly dangerous, are some spells open-ended and open to interpretation, are character and monsters feats somethign beyond X damage in Y area or against one target?

 

[Agamon]

I understand the problem. One of my players didn't like 4e for the same reason. All I can say is that an ability that lets a rogue stab someone and run away or a fighter cut the damage for a hit he just took in half feels different to me than when the wizard casts Color Spray, Charm Person, Hold Monster or Levitate. Yes, they are all powers, as I mentioned, this is a 4e-like game. But it's also a story game, and the in-game flavor of what the PCs do makes them seem pretty different to me.