|
Also, take it from me. A high initiative doesn't guarantee you'll be going quickly. 
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Could just take Improved Initiative, but then you'd just be good at initiative, not good at everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
moths posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Could just take Improved Initiative, but then you'd just be good at initiative, not good at everything. I have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
How though? What exactly did you want? Why don't you just talk to the DM and change the rules? Edit: may the dice treat you better in the future, man
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not asking for help, I'm offering criticism. I've got a sorcerer I'm happy with, it's just not the one I originally wanted to play because Thirteenth Age's supposed narrative flexibility is directly undercut by Thirteenth Age's archaic and cumbersome ability score rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not asking for help, I'm offering criticism. I've got a sorcerer I'm happy with, it's just not the one I originally wanted to play because Thirteenth Age's supposed narrative flexibility is directly undercut by Thirteenth Age's archaic and cumbersome ability score rules. Well that's kind of why you're coming across so confusing. Who is the sorcerer you wanted to play, and what's specifically stopping you from playing him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
lenoon posted:How though? What exactly did you want? Why don't you just talk to the DM and change the rules? I don't like 13A enough to put work into improving its rules rather than shrugging my shoulders and going with the flow, and I'd be doing no favors for my DM by turning up to the first game of 13A played at our table with a spiral notebook full of recommended houserules regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not asking for help, I'm offering criticism. I've got a sorcerer I'm happy with, it's just not the one I originally wanted to play because Thirteenth Age's supposed narrative flexibility is directly undercut by Thirteenth Age's archaic and cumbersome ability score rules. It must have been quite narrative oriented of you to calculate out all the stat array possibilities and their affect on defenses instead of just building the character you wanted. Initiative aside your choice came down to a +2 AC or a better OA (from what you’ve said). If you think that’s categorically better to where you cant stand to live without it then min/max away. Its still a choice you had and you seem mad you didn’t get both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't like 13A enough to put work into improving its rules rather than shrugging my shoulders and going with the flow, and I'd be doing no favors for my DM by turning up to the first game of 13A played at our table with a spiral notebook full of recommended houserules regardless. Don't do it at the first game then - just play and then slowly suggest how you want your character to develop. Wouldn't that work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't like 13A enough to put work into improving its rules rather than shrugging my shoulders and going with the flow, and I'd be doing no favors for my DM by turning up to the first game of 13A played at our table with a spiral notebook full of recommended houserules regardless. Wait, just to be sure of this, have you played 13A before? You're not complaining about something you don't even have actual play experience with are you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:It must have been quite narrative oriented of you to calculate out all the stat array possibilities and their affect on defenses instead of just building the character you wanted. Three points of initiative and two points of armor are unquestionably superior to three points of melee accuracy on a sorcerer. Notably, if sorcerers cast with wisdom instead of charisma you COULD trade your init and RBA for an MBA instead - would that be overpowered, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Quibbling aside, the way 13A character creation works does make both Str and Int the most likely dump scores. Most classes have options to get around this but it is strange and kinda annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
What the hell is going on in here? Since when did a story based game care so much about this poo poo? This isn't a game where you want a charop elfmans. That would leave you with no story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Mustache Ride posted:Since when did a story based game care so much about this poo poo? This isn't a game where you want a charop elfmans. That would leave you with no story. Why does this "story based game" have so many involved, derived mechanics, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
I am the DM in Ferrinus's game, and while at first I was just going to ignore the rules problems, this thread has convinced me I need to do something about it, with so many smug shits going "heh, you want your character that you intend to invest in to be good? Maybe this game just isn't for you". I think someone in the thread suggested using your 2nd/3rd/4th highest stats and sort of allocating them among defenses and that sounds like a reasonable solution to me. The only concern I have is that it might let heavy armor + shield guys have some mega AC. quote:What the hell is going on in here? Seriously, what is this? A game with mechanics means that you want to use those mechanics to make the kind of character you want to play. How is using the mechanics built into the game to make the kind of character you want going to just ruin the story? Zarick fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
If some ability scores are inherently inferior to others, what houserules would one use to make all of this go away?
Jackard fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Well, it wouldn't be too hard to just dump ability scores completely. Backgrounds are already more interesting in the skills area (just bump up their power), and your ability scores are mostly going to be determined by your class anyway, so the class writeups could just calculate those in. You could even have different build options for each class if you wanted that sort of choice (for the more tank-y fighter, or a striker fighter, or what have you).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:Well, it wouldn't be too hard to just dump ability scores completely. Backgrounds are already more interesting in the skills area (just bump up their power), and your ability scores are mostly going to be determined by your class anyway, so the class writeups could just calculate those in. You could even have different build options for each class if you wanted that sort of choice (for the more tank-y fighter, or a striker fighter, or what have you). It does feel a bit like 13th Age is in some respects more weighed down by the D&D millstone than 4e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:Just giving players 2 'good' defences, one 'ok', one 'poor' and letting them assign them how they'd like (then maybe tradeoff 1-2 points between them) would be a good solution. Given that's basically how 4e monsters work it seems like that would have been the obvious choice but... But there's only three defenses?  Edit: vvv I wasn't. I was confused. djw175 fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
djw175 posted:But there's only three defenses? Please don't be a pedant. Talkie Toaster posted:It does feel a bit like 13th Age is in some respects more weighed down by the D&D millstone than 4e. This is the thing that really frustrates me about 13th Age. In its desire to be a D&D-alike it took a lot of stuff that wasn't terribly good and tried to shove newer, much more interesting mechanics in. I really think it would've been better served by throwing off those shackles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
djw175 posted:But there's only three defenses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Zarick posted:I am the DM in Ferrinus's game, and while at first I was just going to ignore the rules problems, this thread has convinced me I need to do something about it, with so many smug shits going "heh, you want your character that you intend to invest in to be good? Maybe this game just isn't for you". I'm not sure it's worth it. Like I said, I'm quite happy with the more "normal" character I cooked up as a replacement and at this point I'd probably play her instead of a rules-supported version of my original. I was just using my first character concept as an illustration of the problems that 13A's ability scores create for character generation. If you wanted to house rule things, I'd either create an abstract array of attributes like Power, Finesse, Resistance or Fortitude, Reflex, Will or w/e and have their narrative meaning change with your character class (a wizard uses Power for background checks involving intellect, for instance), or preferably go with Flaky Biscuit's idea where each class just stops being coy and tells you straight up what your attack bonus and defenses are, and offers you a few options for a tough fighter, a brave fighter, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Just give yourself 18s down the board who loving cares at this point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Your defenses and hit points would end up too high, and then you'd have to worry about giving monsters attack bonuses or something. Well, I mean. I've just committed an act of faith up there and assumed that monsters are somehow calibrated for "expected" values for PC HP/defenses, but it could be that the whole thing's an """old school""" crapshoot and it doesn't matter a whit. Who can say? EDIT: Here's my actual house rule suggestion: Everyone is a "ritual caster", even if they don't cast spells. You can use any listed power on your character sheet as the focus of a thematically-related ritual using the normal rules, whether or not your "ritual" involves actual magic or just effort and expertise. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Speaking of odd rules things, I noticed last night that Rangers get to use Str or Dex for MBA attack rolls but can only use Str for MBA damage rolls. I'd been thinking of making a high-dex melee focused ranger until I noticed that. I guess maybe they just want to let ranged rangers have an MBA that can hit in a pinch, but it seems so odd to give them an MBA that's accurate but not as damaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Man, this pile-on is pretty dumb. I really like 13th age, but D&D ability scores are pretty categorically lovely. I think it's interesting how 13th age encourages more middle of the road ability scores - decent scores in your non-attack stats, rather than just 20/14/11/10/10/8 or whatever, but it's building on top of a legacy system that just doesn't work that well. There's a few different DTAS-type solutions that can fix the problem, depending on how deeply you want to houserule it. The first and easiest is to unlink noncombat effectiveness from it completely, which is pretty easy with Backgrounds already being right there. The second is to switch up how the defenses are calculated; with the base 13th age arrays, +2 is the highest boost you'll see for your defenses. Just pick which two defenses from among AC, PD and MD get +2 and which one gets +1, and call it a day. E: quote:Speaking of odd rules things, I noticed last night that Rangers get to use Str or Dex for MBA attack rolls but can only use Str for MBA damage rolls. I'd been thinking of making a high-dex melee focused ranger until I noticed that. I guess maybe they just want to let ranged rangers have an MBA that can hit in a pinch, but it seems so odd to give them an MBA that's accurate but not as damaging. This is a 3.5-ism, specifically Weapon Finesse. It's less bad than how 3.5 did it because most of your damage comes from the weapon dice as you level, rather than the flat modifiers, but it's still weird. RPZip fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I love 13th Age, but I agree that it sometimes adheres to its inspiration to a detrimental degree. I know this game is supposed to be a "love letter" to D&D, but it could still benefit from removing some of the baggage. It's nice that the defense system encourages trying to get some middle-of-the-road scores, but it feels really fiddly to me and doesn't actually add anything to the good parts of the game... it doesn't make combat faster and it would only enhance the narrative aspect if I really gave a poo poo about how my 14 Dexterity did or did not contribute to my success. The backgrounds are so much more interesting that the -2 to +4 bonus from the ability scores are meangingless to me except as mechanical contrivances that I have to beat into submission or sigh and accept. I think the idea of just picking a "Good defense" and a "bad defense" and calling it a day is a great idea. Come up with a standard score for your attack stat and I think you're mostly set. I think this does remove the usefulness of some feats that are meant to compensate for the jinkiness of ability scores, though. I don't know if you start to remove too many options and opportunities for customization if you do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Zarick posted:I am the DM in Ferrinus's game, and while at first I was just going to ignore the rules problems, this thread has convinced me I need to do something about it, with so many smug shits going "heh, you want your character that you intend to invest in to be good? Maybe this game just isn't for you".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
So I've got an idea. See how this grabs you (plural). Toss out ability scores. You don't need them. Nothing in the game references the raw 3-18 score except rolling stats and leveling up. Take 12 Background points total. Use one Background for HP, one for AC/attack, one for PD and one for MD. If you only have three Backgrounds, one of those defaults to 0. Allow two Backgrounds for skill checks or drop all skill DCs by about 3. Never look back. Eh? I might do a Page XX or blog about this...
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I love 13th Age, but I agree that it sometimes adheres to its inspiration to a detrimental degree. I know this game is supposed to be a "love letter" to D&D, but it could still benefit from removing some of the baggage. It's nice that the defense system encourages trying to get some middle-of-the-road scores, but it feels really fiddly to me and doesn't actually add anything to the good parts of the game... it doesn't make combat faster and it would only enhance the narrative aspect if I really gave a poo poo about how my 14 Dexterity did or did not contribute to my success. The backgrounds are so much more interesting that the -2 to +4 bonus from the ability scores are meangingless to me except as mechanical contrivances that I have to beat into submission or sigh and accept. I really like the idea of the "pick the middle score" thing and it does some cool things like not penalize you horridly for dumping certain non-dex/non-con stats, it just has some warts when two of the stats affect two defenses and also do other things on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
RPZip posted:
I'd actually find it a little less weird if it wasn't only the ranger, but rogues automatically use dex for attack and damage on MBAs and bards have the option of using dex for attack and damage on MBAs; it's only the ranger that gets to choose a different attack stat without the damage also following. When sorcerers have different attack and damage stats from taking Spell Fist it's called out as a potential disadvantage, so it seems like they know that's an issue, it's just they didn't care for they ranger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:So I've got an idea. See how this grabs you (plural). A more thorough writeup would be nice. I've already thrown out racial ability scores in favor of the Human approach because the default choices were awful - I wouldn't be opposed to throwing out a little more. Jackard fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Sounds plausible, but how would you determine Initiative? OK better idea - so HP is one, AC/Init is another, PD is a third and MD is a fourth. Attack mod is best of all (for to-hit and damage), off-stat attack mod is second-best of all. Doesn't matter if the Background actually matches the stat you're using it for. It's just to keep characters near each other in terms of efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
So your attack/damage bonus is generally 4, your defenses 2/2/1, your health/recovery 2 or 3. Your favorite stats will probably increase by 2 over your career, but maybe your attack goes up by 2 and two or three other values go up by 1. Your initiative is either 4, 3, or 2 depending on your class. So like, one 4pt background that defaults to the name of your class (but you can spruce it up), eight more points of backgrounds contributing to hp, ac, pd, and md that can't go higher than 3 each, plus one to your main background and two others per new tier, your initiative bonus is class based? I feel like the AC background should be limited somehow.. E: Maybe make it six or seven points of backgrounds. Class talents and feats that add backgrounds would actually add "specialties" that apply to skill checks but not combat. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:So I've got an idea. See how this grabs you (plural). RyvenCedrylle posted:OK better idea - so HP is one, AC/Init is another, PD is a third and MD is a fourth. Attack mod is best of all (for to-hit and damage), off-stat attack mod is second-best of all. Doesn't matter if the Background actually matches the stat you're using it for. It's just to keep characters near each other in terms of efficiency. Doesn't sound too bad if you're trying to eliminate them entirely (a worthy goal, DTAS and all). If you still wanted to keep ability scores but use a more even-handed approach, what you might do is: -Keep PD/MD as is(str/dex/con and int/wis/cha), take those median stats as normal -Take the 4 unused stats and take the two median stats of that bunch -Use one of those two for AC+init, the other for HP+recovery Not entirely sure how this actually pans out math-wise, this is just spitballing. 01011001 fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So your attack/damage bonus is generally 4, your defenses 2/2/1, your health/recovery 2 or 3. Your favorite stats will probably increase by 2 over your career, but maybe your attack goes up by 2 and two or three other values go up by 1. Your initiative is either 4, 3, or 2 depending on your class. Backgrounds cap at 5, stats (effectively) cap at 5. I don't think you'd need to limit the AC background. If you don't like Init with AC, put it with MD instead to make the choice more interesting. Class-based init would be ok, but feels unnecessary. By your spread there (assuming 4/3/2/2/1) you could have attack +4, off-attack +3, AC +4, HP +3, Defenses +2/+2, Init +4 or (+2 if with MD) Maybe switch a defense with HP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
I feel like the done thing in 13A is starting with a 19 attack srat that eventuall grows to 22, which is why I think it'd make sense to make your Attack Background default to 4 and auto-grow twice. The other background categories would have to include secondary attack, you're right, although I kind of detest the way that e.g. monks randomly have to attack with Wis instead of Dex and would prefer a single unified hitstat even with a secondary stat for ki points, layings of hands, etc. So, list: Power: attack/damage Finesse: init/secondary effects Health: hp Armor: ac PD: pd MD: md Power starts at four. You have eight (nine? ten?) points to distribute but can't bring anything over three. At levels 5 and 8, add 1 to power and to two other backgrounds - maybe no secondaries can be more than three apart or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Was also planning to reskin HP as Fate - someone wrote this a few years back for 4E, but I can't seem to find the post anymore. It probably works better with 13A terminology anyways - Staggered/Recoveries sound more fitting than Bloodied/Surges. Fate is an immediate and tangible force in the world, where characters gain levels by pursuing greatness and carving out their own destinies. Hit points represent the fact that you are simply not destined to die today; normally lethal attacks will go slightly wide, narrowly graze you, or just happen not to strike major organs - but even destiny has its limits, and each near miss taxes that uncanny luck. When your hit points reach zero, your luck has finally run out, and an attack has struck true. Minions are those who are not destined for greatness - they might be quite dangerous due to their experience and strength, but due to pettiness, lack of drive, or some other cause, destiny has passed them over and they cannot rely on fate or fortune to save them from serious harm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I feel like the done thing in 13A is starting with a 19 attack srat that eventuall grows to 22, which is why I think it'd make sense to make your Attack Background default to 4 and auto-grow twice. The other background categories would have to include secondary attack, you're right, although I kind of detest the way that e.g. monks randomly have to attack with Wis instead of Dex and would prefer a single unified hitstat even with a secondary stat for ki points, layings of hands, etc. So, list: Remember, each one of these is ALSO a Background and I think 5 or more Backgrounds is asking a lot for a character. Personally I'd stop at 4 and have a couple run double-duty but generally, that's the idea. Also, I've never seen a 13th Age character with a 19 attack stat. So there you go, ability scores gone, not a ton of houserules. And yeah, I'm totally going to do a Page XX on this. I want to play this character setup now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:21
|
|