New 13th Age 'Escalation Edition' Coming Next Year!

There's a new version of 13th Age coming! Pelgrane Press announced at Gen Con that the 13th Age 'Escalated Edition' will be coming to Kickstarter next year. It will be backwards compatible with the current game. They'll be starting a playtest program very soon, which they are inviting game groups to join.

13th Age was released in 2013, designed by Rob Heinsoo (D&D 4E) and Jonathan Tweet (D&D 3E), and is a 'variant' of D&D.

 

[Joshua Randall]

The solution to "I'm slow at subtracting / adding" (for monster HP tracking) is not "get better at it / use a calculator", it's make the arithmetic SO EASY a caveman troglodyte could do it.

"But Joshua, HOW?" I hear you cry out.

Simple:

• Before combat, round all monster HP to the nearest 5 HP (lower levels) or 10 HP (mid and up).
• At low levels, round all incoming damage to the nearest 5 HP.
• At mid-to-high levels, to the nearest 10 HP.
• At very high levels, you can round to the nearest 20 HP, although typically rounding to the nearest 10 HP still works fine.

What this does is mean you are only ever adding/subtracting by 5s or 10s, which, when the monster HP are already a multiple of 5s or 10s, is super easy and fast.

"But Joshua, doesn't this punish piddly amounts of miss damage and splash damage?" Yes it does, and I am entirely fine with that "drawback".

 

[SteveC]

This is very exciting news. I was fortunate enough to play sessions with both Jonathan and Rob (back to back!) and they were some of the best GMs I've ever had. They really helped my with the Icon mechanics by having them have real, tangible effects in play.

Two of the best game sessions I've been in at a Con, and I've been in some exceptionally good ones. Really excited for this as an option!

 

[Joshua Randall]

I was fortunate enough to play sessions with both Jonathan and Rob [...] They really helped my with the Icon mechanics by having them have real, tangible effects in play.

How did they handle the icon mechanics?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The solution to "I'm slow at subtracting / adding" (for monster HP tracking) is not "get better at it / use a calculator", it's make the arithmetic SO EASY a caveman troglodyte could do it.

"But Joshua, HOW?" I hear you cry out.

Simple:

• Before combat, round all monster HP to the nearest 5 HP (lower levels) or 10 HP (mid and up).
• At low levels, round all incoming damage to the nearest 5 HP.
• At mid-to-high levels, to the nearest 10 HP.
• At very high levels, you can round to the nearest 20 HP, although typically rounding to the nearest 10 HP still works fine.

What this does is mean you are only ever adding/subtracting by 5s or 10s, which, when the monster HP are already a multiple of 5s or 10s, is super easy and fast.

"But Joshua, doesn't this punish piddly amounts of miss damage and splash damage?" Yes it does, and I am entirely fine with that "drawback".

Personally, I'd fix that last problem by just saying the minimum damage is 5 (or whatever.) That way, miss and splash damage still matter, but not a ton. If rounding to the nearest 10 is already fine, then a floor of 5 can't be THAT much of a pain, and it's easy math at that point.

 

[SteveC]

How did they handle the icon mechanics?

They did it on a scene basis and you rolled it like Blades in the Dark, so 6 = total success, big impact, 4-5= more modest effect. There was a dragon battle and my character had a relationship with the three. I rolled a 6 and ended up stopping the dragon's breath weapon and initiating a parley with them. It turned the combat encounter into a social one that was really memorable.

 

[Iamoutofhere]

I like 13th Age. Might grab this.

 

[Jer]

They did it on a scene basis and you rolled it like Blades in the Dark, so 6 = total success, big impact, 4-5= more modest effect. There was a dragon battle and my character had a relationship with the three. I rolled a 6 and ended up stopping the dragon's breath weapon and initiating a parley with them. It turned the combat encounter into a social one that was really memorable.

That's a really interesting idea actually - turning it from a resource you get at the beginning of a scenario and have to keep track of until you use it (or forget you have it) into something that you just check when it's relevant. Less to track, less to juggle, more immediate impact when it hits. I'm going to have to think about trying that out. (I sometimes just use the existence of a relationship as a way to further the story, but I hadn't thought of moving the rolls to be scene-by-scene instead of tracking them through the scenario).

Was it player initiated to roll the icon relationship ("Can I see if my icon relationship with the Three can help me here?") or was it something the GM called for (at the start of the scene asking everyone to make icon rolls to see if they have some kind of advantage)? I could see either being used, though I'd be more inclined to try the former.

 

[SteveC]

Was it player initiated to roll the icon relationship ("Can I see if my icon relationship with the Three can help me here?") or was it something the GM called for (at the start of the scene asking everyone to make icon rolls to see if they have some kind of advantage)? I could see either being used, though I'd be more inclined to try the former.

Different styles for different people. I am a very social person so I said, "I need to call upon my relationship with the three here since I'm out in the open and about to be roasted. The three has plans for me that being a charred husk won't let them do."

Another player was quiet and they asked them "you have a relationship with the Emperor, do you think that could affect how those soldiers are treating the group?"

 

[GreyLord]

i'm sure there's a very interesting essay you can write about the different kinds of racism

I don't know about him, but I have read about some interesting items that have occurred in the medical field. It isn't so much about race, but about genetics and geneology (Which some could interpret as racial). There are many various genetic diseases or other things that seem to affect people of certain heritages far more than others. For example, sickle cell may affect those with a background from certain areas of the world far more than those from other parts of the world. It is caused by a genetic connection, not some random chance.

In many instances, being able to identify individuals by a quick method that lets the doctor know WHERE that person's geneology lies can help understand some of the medical things that may be occurring or that they should probably double check to see if they are occurring or not.

This tends to reference things such as race at times, and as such medical scientists are identifying times when looking at a genetic component that is a general item to a broad swath of people can be useful.

This type of medical science MIGHT be looked at as racist by others today I suppose, as many times they DO reference things such as race (and sometimes it is quite specific in how it references that in relation to a certain tribe or group of people in a specific part of the world, far more specific at times than what is generally used to describe race).

It is an interesting dilemma, because calling those who are performing the research as well as doctors who use that research to save lives as racist because they are using that medical knowledge puts one at a quandry of how to talk or reference such items among everyone else.

Verifiable government and medical sources on the topic

Medicineplus gov on the subject

PBS Genetic research has a white bias and it may be hurting everyone else

 

[Morrus]

I don't know about him, but I have read about some interesting items that have occurred in the medical field. It isn't so much about race, but about genetics and geneology (Which some could interpret as racial). There are many various genetic diseases or other things that seem to affect people of certain heritages far more than others. For example, sickle cell may affect those with a background from certain areas of the world far more than those from other parts of the world. It is caused by a genetic connection, not some random chance.

In many instances, being able to identify individuals by a quick method that lets the doctor know WHERE that person's geneology lies can help understand some of the medical things that may be occurring or that they should probably double check to see if they are occurring or not.

This tends to reference things such as race at times, and as such medical scientists are identifying times when looking at a genetic component that is a general item to a broad swath of people can be useful.

This type of medical science MIGHT be looked at as racist by others today I suppose, as many times they DO reference things such as race (and sometimes it is quite specific in how it references that in relation to a certain tribe or group of people in a specific part of the world, far more specific at times than what is generally used to describe race).

It is an interesting dilemma, because calling those who are performing the research as well as doctors who use that research to save lives as racist because they are using that medical knowledge puts one at a quandry of how to talk or reference such items among everyone else.

Wow, THIS isn't a debate which belongs on EN World. Drop it, please.