Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JiffyPopTart" data-source="post: 6287623" data-attributes="member: 4881">I am currently playing in a 13th Age campaign, and in my personal experience combat is extremely untactical.The main culprit is the strange "no map, relative range" design.  Basically there are only 4 distances in combat:  engaged, nearby, far away, and so-far-you-arent-in-combat.  Because of this there is no maneuvering, flanking, sniping, or any other positional tactics.It takes one move to go from one range band to another and if you give up an attack you can move twice in a round...so you can never be more than one round of movement away from a creature and still shoot it with a bow or spell.  There are rule for having other party members intercept, however that requires they not be engaged  with another combatant, a state that all your fighters and defenders will be in after the first round.The secondary culprit is there are NO written combat maneuvers and options.  Want to trip, disarm, blind, or do anything other than attack or a power listed on your sheet?  GMs perogative.  Once the argument is made "well, the GM can always house-rule you doing that" then you are basically admitting that 13th Age itself doesn't allow it.I am currently playing a 2nd level human cleric.  Every combat consists of using one or two of my 5 daily low-level buffs and then standing around toe-to-toe rolling attack rolls versus whatever opponent is threatening a party member.  Thats it.  Doesn't matter the terrain, the circumstances, the opponents, or anything.  Wait for your turn.  Roll to-hit.  Do some damage.It feels like a throwback to 2e combat days...which is not a step forward for me.I'm not saying 13th Age is a bad game....but it IS a bad game if you like your combats to be tactical in nature.</blockquote>

Verification