13th Age Help me 4e-ify my 13th Age game

[ve4grm]

DOUBLE POST - whoops

 

[Garthanos]

That's the other way to go about it, for sure.

The advancing die that makes things work better later in the fight I thought was interesting

 

[Tony Vargas]

... Fighters could keep up with wizards, save-or-die was gone, healing surges gave everyone a modicum of self-healing, ...

... Combat length made it hard to feel like progress was being made, classes within a given role felt too same-y....

...I miss tactical fights - marking, flanking, cover, fights where positioning, terrain, and strategy matter.
...I miss PCs being able to set up combos - part of tactical fights, but meaning those situations where multiple party members contribute to one amazing outcome....


Some of these wouldn't be easy to reintroduce. True combo-creation would require a complete overhaul of the classes, for example.

4e's elaborate, tactical, set-piece combats and intra-party combos are possible precisely because the class designs were so consistent and used Roles. I never bought the 'samey' characterization of that, each class seemed plenty unique both in flavor and how they played, but 13A went the other way and has classes that are mechanically- & resource- differentiated and used the full-heal up as a sledgehammer to balance them. That sacrificed some of the things you want back, and you prettymuch can't have them without gutting 13A classes and re-imposing built-in (rather than DM-enforced) class balance, and, particularly, Roles.

OTOH, lots of other stuff you can just port straight. The 4e handling of movement/positioning and forced movement and OAs, for instance, should just pop into place.

The advancing die that makes things work better later in the fight I thought was interesting

The Escalation Die, yes, so easy to simply add to any d20 game to make combats less front-loaded and wrap up a little quicker. It'd've been a nice addition to 4e, especially if added /instead/ of feat taxes.

 

[Garthanos]

The Escalation Die, yes, so easy to simply add to any d20 game to make combats less front-loaded and wrap up a little quicker. It'd've been a nice addition to 4e, especially if added /instead/ of feat taxes.

Yeh... I have been considering having powers that work better later in a fight as a power by power effect... but

 

[ve4grm]

4e's elaborate, tactical, set-piece combats and intra-party combos are possible precisely because the class designs were so consistent and used Roles. I never bought the 'samey' characterization of that, each class seemed plenty unique both in flavor and how they played, but 13A went the other way and has classes that are mechanically- & resource- differentiated and used the full-heal up as a sledgehammer to balance them. That sacrificed some of the things you want back, and you prettymuch can't have them without gutting 13A classes and re-imposing built-in (rather than DM-enforced) class balance, and, particularly, Roles.

OTOH, lots of other stuff you can just port straight. The 4e handling of movement/positioning and forced movement and OAs, for instance, should just pop into place.

Honestly, I was always pretty happy with the differentiation between classes, but I feel the criticism has merit.

It's mainly the movement/positioning part of tactics that I'm gunning for, so I'm hoping you're right. Any thoughts on my initial suggestions above?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, I was always pretty happy with the differentiation between classes, but I feel the criticism has merit.

There was a genuine issue hidden behind that criticism - abhorrence of class balance in any form. That it had to be obfuscated speaks to the pathology of the edition war. Which is over, so it doesn't matter.

It's mainly the movement/positioning part of tactics that I'm gunning for, so I'm hoping you're right.

I see no major obstacles to just adopting the 4e grid & movement rules - 13A conveniently gives movement/range/area in feat as well as it's default/abstract TotM terminology. Just divide by 5, anything 'close' not obviously an omni-directional burst becomes a blast.

Any thoughts on my initial suggestions above?

Oh, not the in OP...., I'd missed that, initially...

Here's the ideas I've been tossing around so far.


Tactical Combats

In most fights, use 13th Age rules as written. During big or set-piece battles, do the following:

• Give everyone Speed 6.
• Add in Flanking/Combat Advantage.

• Just fine.
  

  [*]Moving around someone (from a threatened square to another threatened square) required a disengage check just as moving away does, or else provokes an OA.

  I'd just take the 4e movement/OA rules whole-cloth. Disengage checks are a convenient-for-TotM abstraction.
  

  [*]Give basic cover rules (basically as 4e or 5e, minor defensive bonus, can block line of sight).
  [*](EDITED) Nearby becomes 6 squares. Far away becomes 12 squares. Close Nearby becomes a Blast (originates from you).

  I really thought 13A gave us numbers to work with?
  

  [*]Multi-target spells become "X by X area" where X is the die type. Targets include allies if they're in the area.

  I don't know about die type. But 4e really doesn't have a huge variety of AE sizes. Almost all are either 3x3 (blast 3/burst 1) or 5x5 (blast 5/burst 2). There's the occassional burst 3, but everything bigger is usually an ally-only buff, an environmental effect, or a single-target-in-the-AE if it's actually an attack.
  
  

  So Denial's 1d4 nearby enemies in a group becomes a 4x4 area within range 6.
  [*]Color Spray's 1d4 nearby enemies in a group becomes a Blast 4, since it's a Close spell.
  [*]Fireball's reckless cast (2d3 enemies but also allies) becomes a 6x6 area, plus any allies engaged with targets (so no hitting with just the edge of the fireball).
  [*]Other weird spells on a case by case basis.

  Strikes me as trying too hard. If power has a reckless option, it affects creatures, otherwise enemies, for instance, would seem a fine rule of thumb.
  
  

  [*]Remove "Pop Free".
  [*]Replace with "Slide X"

  Well, shift X.

 

[ve4grm]

Woo, lots of feedback! Thanks!

There was a genuine issue hidden behind that criticism - abhorrence of class balance in any form. That it had to be obfuscated speaks to the pathology of the edition war. Which is over, so it doesn't matter.

Not entirely just that. My wife, for example, will list 4e as her favourite official D&D version, but also felt that they took balance a bit too far to the point where things felt same-y to her. She really liked the Battlemind when it came out, because the power points felt different from the existing classes, for instance.

While I don't agree completely, the "different but balanced" options of 13th Age really appeal to her.

I see no major obstacles to just adopting the 4e grid & movement rules - 13A conveniently gives movement/range/area in feat as well as it's default/abstract TotM terminology. Just divide by 5, anything 'close' not obviously an omni-directional burst becomes a blast.

...

I really thought 13A gave us numbers to work with?

Nope. No numbers. Just vague positioning. See the SRD link below, it's the same in the core book.
http://www.13thagesrd.com/combat-rules/#Position

I'd just take the 4e movement/OA rules whole-cloth. Disengage checks are a convenient-for-TotM abstraction.

Fair option. There aren't many powers that rely on disengage checks. But without a solid marking mechanic, I think the 4e system makes it too easy to move away. Will need to consider this.

I don't know about die type. But 4e really doesn't have a huge variety of AE sizes. Almost all are either 3x3 (blast 3/burst 1) or 5x5 (blast 5/burst 2). There's the occassional burst 3, but everything bigger is usually an ally-only buff, an environmental effect, or a single-target-in-the-AE if it's actually an attack.

Fair point. 13th Age area powers typically target 1d3 or 1d4 enemies, so this ends up making them 3x3 or 4x4 typically. Every so often you get a 1d3+1 (probably 4x4) or 2d3 for the reckless fireball (6 sounds good here).

Strikes me as trying too hard. If power has a reckless option, it affects creatures, otherwise enemies, for instance, would seem a fine rule of thumb.

Only one spell has a reckless option, I think. All I was really trying to do was make it so that Reckless couldn't do the precision edge-targeting that you can see sometimes, or else it wouldn't be very reckless.

I think I'd rather keep Creatures as the default target, again so positioning tends to matter. But I'm not quite sure how to handle this yet.

Well, shift X.

Eh, same thing. Forced movement without OAs in any direction. Shift just tends to be when it's targeted at yourself, while slide is at others, right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

**double post **

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not entirely just that. My wife, for example, will list 4e as her favourite official D&D version, but also felt that they took balance a bit too far...

Abhorrence, mild distaste, 'OK to a point,' whatever. ;P

Eh, same thing. Forced movement without OAs in any direction. Shift just tends to be when it's targeted at yourself, while slide is at others, right?

Shift is voluntary. So Slide can be used to free an ally from a grab or on an immobilized ally, for instance, and the ally can't decline it. For example, the Skirmishing Warlord has a feature that lets an ally shift as a free action, while the Bard has a feature that slides an ally... (Because, y'know, they're not the same... )

 

[Garthanos]

Abhorrence, mild distaste, 'OK to a point,' whatever. ;P

Shift is voluntary. So Slide can be used to free an ally from a grab or on an immobilized ally, for instance, and the ally can't decline it. For example, the Skirmishing Warlord has a feature that lets an ally shift as a free action, while the Bard has a feature that slides an ally... (Because, y'know, they're not the same... )

Well the bard is magic...