|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Changing the racial bonus to +2 to any stat really doesn't change anything (And is really how it should have been handled in the first place). Let your lore and the racial powers differentiate the races. I kinda fudge this for my players too. Most of them are perfectly content to just build their characters along traditional lines, so it's not too big a problem. But I have a player who built a dwarf who is all about toughness, and he wants his character flavored as being psychic. He's playing a Stalwart, and I decided to let him key all his abilities off Constitution, so he doesn't have to worry about the abilities not matching up to his vision for the character. In a one-shot, I had a player who wanted to play a fighter, but wanted her to be really smart. So we keyed her abilities off of Intelligence and flavored it as her being able to identify weak spots and target those rather than just being really strong. Worked out fine. So I guess even if ability scores aren't totally dead yet, you can at least make them work for your concept by talking it over with the DM. I'm totally game for altering the flavor of a class to suit the player's concept.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Had a companion NPC in my previous campaign that would have been a dex based fighter if she'd been statted up. She mostly existed to spread around healing and make potions since I only had 2 players and life if rough when you're just a pure tank Paladin and a really squishy Dilettante.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
I really do love this system. Tonight I had my first proper session with my regular group, and it was pretty magical. The party was investigating a possible demon incursion in a small town, and they had noticed the Captain of the Watch acting strangely when they talked to him, and they decided to go to his house to question him further. I had them make rolls outside his door, and a few of them detected a smell of brimstone around the place. The party then began to make a plan about how to capture one of the demons for interrogation. I told them that if a demon dies, it just reappears on its home plane. So, two of my players, the Wizard and the Alchemist, collaborated on building a techno-magic trap of some sort. They made their rolls after scrounging some gear together, and had a crude Ghostbusters-style trap that I ruled they could use once the demon was weakened. The dwarf promptly jumped through the window and the rest of the group burst in on three demons menacing the Captain. I had two level 2 fast demons and a level 4 tough one. Well, the dwarf walked up to the level 4 and promptly rolled a crit that brought it down to 2 HP, setting it up to be captured by the Alchemist. All on round 1. Combat is definitely faster than 4E. After the fight, the party's Ranger interrogated the demon about their plan. I informed the party that if the demon died while in the trap, which was already beginning to fail, it would die for real. The Ranger used this as leverage, pumping the demon for more information that it would have normally given. And when they were done, they just walked away, letting the demon die in the trap. I think we're gonna have a lot of fun with this campaign. I'm not quite sure where it's going, since my group tends to just do whatever they feel like, but even if there is no big arc we should have a good time in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Between 4e and 13th Age, which system do you think is more friendly for folks that have never played a tabletop RPG? I have a group that I've slowly hooked on designer board games over the past year and some of them have expressed interest in trying "D&D," knowing that I used to play years ago. My experience is mostly with GMing 3.5e, and a single game of 4e that I ran before my group dissolved and went separate ways. I feel 4e is the better choice for newbies compared to 3.5e, but what about 13th Age? I have the 13th Age sourcebook and have skimmed it, but wanted to get some opinions from those that have played it. For reference, my group will require a little bit of coaxing to play and their level of initial buy-in will likely be minimal (i.e. they probably won't go out and get the sourcebooks, spend hours making characters, learning about the setting, etc). Again, they have never roleplayed before, ever. Before ~1 year ago, they didn't even play board games. From a newbie-friendly perspective, it seems that: 4e: + Would be easier to pre-roll characters for everyone and tell everyone to pick one that looks interesting. + Less required character-building/role-playing (good for those not totally comfortable with "getting into character" just yet) + Tactical combat is sort of boardgame-like, which is something they are familiar with - Combat gets super bloated and fiddly, which can make them lose interest if it drags 13th Age: + For all intents and purposes looks like a better system, especially for hooking characters into the setting + Combat is quick, which will help since one of my potential players is a little ADD What do you guys think? I'd also like to hear if anyone has a good third option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Normally I WOULD say 13th Age, as it is an easy to understand system. It moves quickly, it doesn't overwhelm the players with a gazillion skills, it reinforces into them the concept of working with your Gm to tell a story, it has a lot of simple, albeit cool narrative mechanics... However, the book does not assume you are a new player. It does not assume you have never touched D&D. It has the assumption you know all these terms that...well, you just might not. Now, if you are the one teaching them, if you are the one running the game, if you are the one that needs to know the rules when you have that first session, then hell yeah! 13th Age would be great! If not...well you better brush up a lexicon, because you are gonna need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
4E would probably be overwhelming. I can't even make a character without their builder program. 13A has some irritations but it's the safer bet. Jackard fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Implementor posted:Between 4e and 13th Age, which system do you think is more friendly for folks that have never played a tabletop RPG? I've recently had some experience with introducing new players to tabletop rpg's and my anecdotal evidence points to 4th ed being the safer bet. All 3 of the new people have expressed liking the crunchy bits of 4e combat and preferring it to 13th age's more free form stuff because they just aren't quite comfortable with roleplaying as a concept yet. But they get the roll dice > kill mans bit because they love boardgames. My recommendation would be a heavily limited 4e game. I.E. PHB 1 only, maybe PHB 2 as well. This keeps the frankly absurd bloat down to a manageable level for new players. Get a bit more lenient as the game progresses or if someone seems really excited about something in particular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Seconding Jackard. There are simply too many loving choices in 4e. Choose your race, there's about sixty. Choose your class, there's thirty unless you want to hybrid in which case there's thirty and twenty-nine. Generate your ability scores. Buy your equipment. Choose your theme, there's a fuckton. Now choose your at-wills, there's between forty if you're (fighter/wizard/warlock) and six if you're anything else. Choose your encounter power, about the same thing goes on here as the at-wills. Now the daily. Now choose from the list of hundreds of feats available to a level one character. Backgrounds are optional. Remember all this and use this information to make viable tactical decisions. Roleplay however you want. 13th Age is way more loving streamlined. Pick a race. There's like eight. Pick a class. There's like eight. Pick three things out of probably eight or nine options. Pick three more things out of thirteen. Pick a few spells if you're a wizard, fighter, or wizardfighter. Your feats are all listed next to the things you've chosen. Come up with cool poo poo about why your character is a special snowflake who can set things on fire by doing math too close to pinewood furniture. Throw some numbers on these. Done. Backgrounds are mandatory. In summary 4e chargen is a goddamn chore and is to be dreaded. 13th Age chargen is as fun as actually playing the game with the right group. Edit: Or go with Failboattootoot's advice, heavily limiting the choices in 4e curtails a lot of the complexity. Chargen is still not much fun. Edit Again: If you're not tied to D20 games I'd recommend Marvel Heroic if you can find a copy. Mechanics are easy to pick up and they can take familiar and beloved characters for a ride. -Fish- fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
-Fish- posted:Or go with Failboattootoot's advice, heavily limiting the choices in 4e curtails a lot of the complexity. Chargen is still not much fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
What are you guys doing, I just built a 4E character with an only slightly experienced player just yesterday and was in and out of the builder in 5 minutes tops, and that's without even limiting ourselves to the PHB or knowing exactly what we wanted in advance. If someone's never played an RPG in your life character creation is going to take a while either way because you have to stop and explain basic concepts and interactions. I'd actually say they're both good introductions, though. Just depends on your crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Making characters in 4e can be quick if you don't really give a crap about optimization. Or you make an Essentials class. Sometimes those are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Alternately you're really good at optimization and already know what the good poo poo and bad poo poo is! Ideally that's what the handbooks are there for. I like the handbooks. I despise their need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Go with option three and just play Dungeon World.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Alternately you're really good at optimization and already know what the good poo poo and bad poo poo is! My beef is that (as a dude who exclusively plays melee characters) you end up always jumping through the same hoops in chargen. You basically have to spec for frostcheese or charge-spamming, otherwise it feels like you just aren't doing enough damage. I should look into that radiant mafia stuff sometime. I think the crux of the issue is that 13th Age isn't a bloated game yet; 4e is, yet people feel like restricting books is some sort of blasphemy (probably because it "doesn't work" in 3.5)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
A big part of the problem is that 4e has been out nearly 7 years. When 13th Age gets that old, I'm sure it'll have some bloat to it, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Holy poo poo has it been that long?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Looking at it, it was released in 2008, so it's much closer to 6 years. Oops. Still pretty long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
I seem to remember them saying they were actively avoiding bloat. Before they announced two more books. But actually a product line that's three books total is pretty drat concise these days. And one's basically a director's cut and the other is a monster book. I just hope they can hold their ground at three. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
moths posted:I seem to remember them saying they were actively avoiding bloat. Before they announced two more books. Considering the game is open license, even if they keep to 3 books, there is no guarantee more won't be made by third party publishers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Not to mention the classes and races in Page XX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I've been eyeing 13th Age warily, as I like te Pelgrane dudes and know some players who like their RPGs crunchier than Dungeon World. Now, after leafing through it I can't help the feeling that while Icons themselves are a cool loose-setting thing, the whole relationship dice rolling gives me a somewhat clumsy and awkward vibe. Could you guys link me to some examples of people using it in a cool way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I've been eyeing 13th Age warily, as I like te Pelgrane dudes and know some players who like their RPGs crunchier than Dungeon World. Now, after leafing through it I can't help the feeling that while Icons themselves are a cool loose-setting thing, the whole relationship dice rolling gives me a somewhat clumsy and awkward vibe. Could you guys link me to some examples of people using it in a cool way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I found them sort of useful when the campaign didn't have as much of a set direction, but trying to shoehorn them in (except when they supported what was already happening) quickly became too annoying to bother with. Now I just leave them in the hands of the players as an expendable resource to try and influence things beyond what their character alone is normally capable of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
I honestly can't remember the last time my character rolled an Icon relationship. It's just a resource I really don't care to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Part of it is probably that all the adventure is happening out on the edges of civilization, where none of the Icons really hold much sway (in my campaign). If the party had stayed in Glitterhaegen they'd probably be more important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Jackard posted:You know, I've been looking forward to seeing Relationships in play, but have yet to see a GM that uses these as described (or at all) I actually remembered to use them to decent effect in the goon game yesterday! It just happened to be the one you missed. But yeah, I find them useful to sprinkle in (when I remember to) but never use all the rolls in one session. I strongly encourage my players to mention them when they feel it's appropriate which I think is probably their best use case. Edit to add: The two best uses we had in the last game was a 6 with the orc lord let one player recognize that the burned out town they came across was attacked by the orc lord, since he was familiar with how they tend to operate. A 5 with the emperor meant another character had a pre-existing with the guard arresting them. And it wasn't a friendly one. CaptCommy fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Rip Josef, executed by the empire (maybe)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I've been eyeing 13th Age warily, as I like te Pelgrane dudes and know some players who like their RPGs crunchier than Dungeon World. Now, after leafing through it I can't help the feeling that while Icons themselves are a cool loose-setting thing, the whole relationship dice rolling gives me a somewhat clumsy and awkward vibe. Could you guys link me to some examples of people using it in a cool way? Well, in our first session, we had some interesting things happen with the relationship dice. Our Ranger rolled a +6 with the Thieves Guild (More like a loose group that encompasses the entire criminal underground in the city). During the game, the Ranger was kinda the leader of the group, and he was always the first to talk and most forceful with the investigation into the local Duke, especially with the Watch NPCs. I decided that the local criminal group had pulled off a robbery while he was inadvertently distracting the guards. Since he had a positive relationship with them, a thug dropped in during their time at the tavern and gave the Ranger his "cut" of a minor magical item and some cash. He also told him that there might be some work available if he wanted it. Our Dwarf also rolled a +-5 with the Trashpickers (homeless, urchins, resourceful folks who are basically everywhere). So when looking for possible routes into the Duke's castle, I had an urchin offer to show him an unguarded sewer grate. But only if he would steal something the urchin wanted, and since our Dwarf is a wanted man, he had to put himself at risk to get what he wanted. And for our next game, our Wizard rolled a -6 with the Seekers (truth-seekers, dealing with everything from investigative journalism to talk radio) that I intend to use. I want him to hear about an old rival from his radio show host days who's been talking poo poo about him. If he confronts the rival, the guy will accidentally let slip some information about the artifact his group is out here hunting, which will hopefully lead to conflict and intrigue as my players get treasure fever. I guess it helps that my game takes place entirely inside one city, so the various Factions are easy to put into play. I'm also thinking of allowing the players to roll the Faction dice whenever they come across one that they have a relationship with, to see if they can get anything out of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember that Psion I was working on a while ago? Well I never finished it.  But I did just finish my first full draft of The Scholar and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on it. The numbers almost certainly need tweaking and some of the options are probably hideously overpowered, and I'm worried some of might just be kind of lame in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Rob's blog has a new update for 13 True Ways: http://robheinsoo.blogspot.com/2014/01/horizon-commanders-mummies-13-true-ways.html The major points are that the Commander that's out there was the weakest draft version, and the next version will increase the power. The Necromancer is no longer its own class, but a multiclass option that bolts onto existing classes that has more synergy with some than others. The next Monk will respond to the complaints about the last few but without specifics we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Rob Heinso posted:...that's kind of the way 13th Age multiclassing tends to work: some combinations are deliberately more fun than others. Something about that line is a bit off putting to me. I hope by "fun" he doesn't mean mechanical effectiveness or else multiclassing might have some pitfalls new players might fall into. It also makes me think multiclassing in 13th Age might be done like 4th Edition or atleast in a similar vein. Not that that's a problem. Rob Heinso posted:... It features interesting solutions to the demand for multiple high ability scores,... Also, have to wonder what he means by "interesting" here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Straight up admitting that some of your options were built to be more enjoyable than others is certainly one way to head off criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
General Ironicus posted:Rob's blog has a new update for 13 True Ways: http://robheinsoo.blogspot.com/2014/01/horizon-commanders-mummies-13-true-ways.html loving hell Come ON! Welp can't wait for Druid to also be taken out an made into not-a-class. It super sucks that they just up and cut a class and turn it into what will assuredly just be more class options for wizards. If it works well for some and not well with others than it's just extra options for the First Set with no added benefits for the second and that's just bad (EDIT: Oh WOW he straight up says it's Only Really 'Cool' for Wiz/Sor/Cle. You know, the three classes that REALLY needed more interesting options. Not like those Barbarians and Rangers with all their cool 'Hit Harder''s and their 'Hit More Often's). Are they doing this poo poo for the Demonoligist since it was originally sold as a reflavored Necro with different powers/spells? quote:... It features interesting solutions to the demand for multiple high ability scores,... WHO THE gently caress DEMANDED THIS BESIDES THE IDIOT WHO DESIGNED IT? It's not loving fun. It literally means you're required to have Beyond Good stats to be adequate in what you're supposed to be able to do. Hell, in 3.X even with Better stats the monk was still explicitly worse at everything a front line punch needed to do than a mildly competent fighter. Hopefully it won't be interesting in the same way the last monk packet was. Wait, SolutionS? Well this surely won't be a clusterfuck of mechanics. ZenMasterBullshit fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
So it's a prestige class. And the 3x roots are starting to show. Goddamnit. I absolutely love the idea of a Necro-Paladin or Commander, leading the spirits of the righteous departed on a holy mission that didn't end in death. Or a Necro-Druid wielding and weaving life and death together. Or a Necro-Fighter who curses his enemies and imbues raw death into his weapons. Necro-Ranger and his deceased animal companion that he just couldn't let go. Even a Necrogue has great potential, hiding in the shadows of the afterlife and wresting secrets from the graves he's robbing. About the only thing I give no fucks about is a Necromancer Wizard or Sorcerer. So what classes are Necromancer going to pair with again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
quote:It features interesting solutions to the demand for multiple high ability scores
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
moths posted:So it's a prestige class. And the 3x roots are starting to show. Goddamnit. Well Necromancers are basically Wizards so Wiz/Sor/Cle, just like the man said. gently caress where's my Paladin leading a small band of Ghost Martyrs of his order? At the very least Why not just let necro be it's own thing? Like you could do a lot more than just make him a Not-Wizard. gently caress video games have been doing Necromancers as unique and interesting poo poo forever! Why can't you guys? Why would you not only take the most boring possible design space for the idea but ALSO demote the entire idea to nothing but a 'Totes-Not-A-Prestige-Class'? The sad thing is that you can't even fix/fluff it away like you can with everything else in the system because the Necromancer Prestige Class/Multiclass is going to be a set of hard wired mechanical rules so there's no real room to nudge it which seems super weird considering the themes and rules of literally the entire rest of the game. ZenMasterBullshit fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Jackard posted:What? No. Who is demanding this bullshit other than the designer himself? The players that would be interested in it who already have Pathfinder. Interesting solutions to the class's demand for multiple ability scores, I'm willing to bet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Why did they even pitch the idea of a Necromancer class if they didn't know what to do with it? I mean, yeah, no poo poo a Necromancer is just a Wizard, but was it really that hard to design a class that was minion based whose abilities were all based around sacrificing minions? I don't think anyone expected all the classes to be perfectly balanced with each other, especially since Wizards exist, but I have (had?) confidence they could at least make fun classes, instead of just giving Wizards more options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Why did they even pitch the idea of a Necromancer class if they didn't know what to do with it? I mean, yeah, no poo poo a Necromancer is just a Wizard, but was it really that hard to design a class that was minion based whose abilities were all based around sacrificing minions? I don't think anyone expected all the classes to be perfectly balanced with each other, especially since Wizards exist, but I have (had?) confidence they could at least make fun classes, instead of just giving Wizards more options. Or make it just ONE Minion that you're constantly building up and changing and fighting along side. Like An Undead Animal Companion but all your class features get boosted by/focus on it. That way the necro can be a decent melee combatant and not just a different Wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Or make it just ONE Minion that you're constantly building up and changing and fighting along side. Like An Undead Animal Companion but all your class features get boosted by/focus on it. That way the necro can be a decent melee combatant and not just a different Wizard. Well they were going to do a demonologist, which I sorta assumed could have been the "one powerful, potentially treacherous minion" guy, whereas the necromancer would be the "holy poo poo why is a graveyard attacking me" guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:07
|
|