13th Age explained for 3e/Pathfinder fans

[Dungeoneer]

One of the two designers of 13th Age is Jonathan Tweet, lead designer on 3E. Jonathan recently posted an essay on his blog explaining 13th Age for 3E/PF players:

When we revised the D&D system for 3E, we dropped a lot of particular rules and prohibitions in favor of a more streamlined, open-ended system. We took out percentile 18-Strength scores, different bonus tables for each ability score, ability minimums for races and classes, level caps by race and class, prohibitions on most race/class combinations, limits on multiclassing, weapon speeds, different weapon damage for large monsters, and spellcasting times.

With 13th Age, Rob and I went further, streamlining class features, spell descriptions, monster descriptions, and combat. You might not want to play as fast and loose as we do, but you might find some of our shortcuts attractive.

In 3rd Ed, we changed initiative from rolling once per round to rolling once per battle. It was controversial, but it overcame the objections of the critics because it made combat faster. With that example in mind, Rob and I have streamlined the combat system to make it faster. In particular, we handle movement and position abstractly, without a grid. Like the switch to cyclic initiative, it’s a big change that makes combat go faster.

We also don’t bother with numerous, small bonuses, which have the effect of slowing combat down in order to provide a small increase to tactics and realism. The flanking rules in 3E were a simple abstraction compared to worrying about which direction an enemy was actually facing. As much as I like the 3E flanking rule, we just dropped it in 13th Age, and honestly I haven’t missed it. Rogues can still sneak attack an enemy in battle, provided the enemy is engaged with an ally of the rogue to provide a distraction. Again, even if you don’t want to streamline combat as much as we do, some of the tricks we use to keep combat moving would fit into most 3.5 or Pathfinder campaigns.

If you're a 3E/PF player who is curious about 13th Age, read on.

 

[doghead]

I have recently been looking around for a more streamlined game that simpler play and plays faster. Ideally I am looking for something with 3rd edition roots to ease transition and maintain compatibility with much of the material I have.

The description of 13th Age seems to suggest it was a good candidate. I particularly like the following from Jonathan's essay:

With 13th Age, Rob and I went further, streamlining class features, spell descriptions, monster descriptions, and combat. You might not want to play as fast and loose as we do, but you might find some of our shortcuts attractive.

Fast and loose is good.

We also don’t bother with numerous, small bonuses, which have the effect of slowing combat down in order to provide a small increase to tactics and realism.

Yeah!

While rules like the escalation die are designed to make combat more exciting, 13th Age also brings a suite of features that help you bring your character to life, with an emphasis on character development and storytelling.

An interesting mechanic. As someone who likes to see a in game reason for the mechanics, a little problematic maybe. But I can work with it. I like the intention.

In 13th Age, your barbarian can wield a stone-headed ax, no problem. As game designers, Rob and I want the barbarian’s two-handed weapon to deal more damage than the wizard’s staff, but we don’t really care what the two-handed weapon looks like. For us, that’s a personal decision on the player’s part, one that helps the player define their character the way they want. This detail-agnostic approach offers more personalization for groups where mechanical details are secondary to character concepts.

Exactly. The Weapons as Qualities thread here is an excellent houserule that makes the wielder more important than the weapon.

We have skill checks but no skill list. Skill checks tie into your character’s backgrounds, which you invent. ... You assign it 4 points, and you get +4 on all skill checks when you’re doing anything a Deepwoods Ranger would be expected to do.

Already thinking of porting this into my PF game.

So, so far so good. I decided to wonder over to the SRD and have a look.

I am not so keen on the explosion of HP's. A starting base of 18 for a 1st level character, Personally, I would have gone the other way with something like Ken Hoods Grim and Gritty system - fewer hit points, but a separation of AC into Defence (avoiding getting hit) and Soak (ability to absorb hits). But the 13th Age system at least provides some counterbalance through mechanisms like DoaM, allowing melee character to wear an opponents hp down even if not carving chunks out of them. I can work with this.

Then I wondered over to the character generation. It was all looking pretty interesting until I got to the feats. A forest of small conditional bonuses (as opposed to bonus that always apply, like +1 to hit, or +1 Reflex Save). It was worse when I got to the Ranger, with 1001 ways to get a +1 to critical threat range; the first time you strike, if you roll an odd number, if the opponent is wearing a pointy hat, +2 if wearing a pointy hat and odd socks. OK, I might not be nailing the details, my eyes were glazing over at this point.

So, perhaps not what I was looking for. Or am I missing something? Is the total less than the sum of its lots of little parts?

thotd

 

[Dungeoneer]

I am not so keen on the explosion of HP's. A starting base of 18 for a 1st level character, Personally, I would have gone the other way with something like Ken Hoods Grim and Gritty system - fewer hit points, but a separation of AC into Defence (avoiding getting hit) and Soak (ability to absorb hits). But the 13th Age system at least provides some counterbalance through mechanisms like DoaM, allowing melee character to wear an opponents hp down even if not carving chunks out of them. I can work with this.

Well HP is just a number. I believe it is possible for a tough monster that rolls a crit to kill a 1st level PC in one hit. PCs are by no means walking tanks. To address your overall point, though, no this isn't the kind of gritty, grim and unforgiving game you may be after. But that's okay because of what I'll explain below.

Then I wondered over to the character generation. It was all looking pretty interesting until I got to the feats. A forest of small conditional bonuses (as opposed to bonus that always apply, like +1 to hit, or +1 Reflex Save). It was worse when I got to the Ranger, with 1001 ways to get a +1 to critical threat range; the first time you strike, if you roll an odd number, if the opponent is wearing a pointy hat, +2 if wearing a pointy hat and odd socks. OK, I might not be nailing the details, my eyes were glazing over at this point.

Feats do indeed confer conditional bonuses. That's pretty much what they are about. But PCs only get one per level (and it's a 10 level game) so it really shouldn't be problematic. Feats are limited, situational bonuses. Low level characters only get a couple. It shouldn't slow your game down.

You mention rolling an odd number - 13A keys a lot of stuff off the attack roll. That means you only have to roll once and you'll know whether you can do a second attack or whatever it is. It's an elegant mechanic that really speeds up the game.

So, perhaps not what I was looking for. Or am I missing something? Is the total less than the sum of its lots of little parts?

Maybe it's not what you're looking for, but those little parts are handy! This is really one of the most modable games I've ever laid eyes on. The core rulebook encourages you to steal rules, change them, swap out class abilities, things like that. Alternate rule systems are suggested and fought over by the devs (really!). I always encourage people to buy the book EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF RUNNING THE GAME. Because it's basically a grab bag of cool rules you can add to your existing game.

My players have decided they want to stick to 4e, but we're bringing over several rules from 13a. They specifically like the background system and the escalation die. No reason you can't do the same for your game if you decide you don't want to try 13A as is.

 

[WhatGravitas]

An interesting mechanic. As someone who likes to see a in game reason for the mechanics, a little problematic maybe. But I can work with it. I like the intention.

A decent way to rationalise it is: the longer the encounter goes, the better the characters get an idea of the ebb and flow of movements and enemy tactics. It's the PCs sizing up the enemy. Why it's one-sided? Because the PCs are the main characters, of course, but also because they are well-trained and... well, they're adventurers. After all, important monsters and NPC get it as well.

I saw a neat explanation for it on reddit as well (though campaign-specific): it's equivalent to Skyrim's Dragonborn. People (and monsters) that benefit from the escalation dices have draconic souls or are otherwise chosen by fate.

A forest of small conditional bonuses (as opposed to bonus that always apply, like +1 to hit, or +1 Reflex Save)

In addition to Dungeoneer's point: they are all strongly themed. You don't pick feats to increase your crit range or get a small situational bonus. You take it to make your magic missile better than anybody else's, you take a feat to become better at ambushes, you take a feat to heal better.

They're situational, but they improve already existing abilities, meaning they are rarely extra fiddliness (as in extra abilities you have to track), instead you track them as part of the abilities you already have. Not all of them, but most of them work like that.

 

[doghead]

A decent way to rationalise it is: the longer the encounter goes, the better the characters get an idea of the ebb and flow of movements and enemy tactics.

That works for me. I also can see it as reflecting the PC's ability to pressure their opponents, tiring them, forcing them to make poor decisions. I understand that not all rules need a "rationalisation", but it helps me visualise/describe the action.

They're situational, but they improve already existing abilities, meaning they are rarely extra fiddliness (as in extra abilities you have to track), instead you track them as part of the abilities you already have. Not all of them, but most of them work like that.

OK. That makes sense give Jonathan essay. Perhaps I should draft up a few characters to see how it plays out.

14th Age has 10 levels, 3rd Edition has 20. Is a 10th level 13th Age character the equivalent of a 10th level 3rd Edition character, or a 20th? Alternatively would the Epic6 equivalent be E3 or E6?

thotd

 

[Agamon]

That works for me. I also can see it as reflecting the PC's ability to pressure their opponents, tiring them, forcing them to make poor decisions. I understand that not all rules need a "rationalisation", but it helps me visualise/describe the action.



OK. That makes sense give Jonathan essay. Perhaps I should draft up a few characters to see how it plays out.

14th Age has 10 levels, 3rd Edition has 20. Is a 10th level 13th Age character the equivalent of a 10th level 3rd Edition character, or a 20th?

More like a 20th. All classes increase quadratically. The first 4 levels are like low level in 3e, the next 3 are like the mid levels of 3e, the final 3 are like the high levels (without a lot of the problems with high level 3e).