|
I'm in America's mitten and got the book yesterday. I hadn't looked at the bestiary since the hatchling edition, so I hadn't seen any of the art until I cracked the pages. This art is loving amazing. It's evocative and stylish. You can tell Rich Longmore had some fun drawing this stuff, just look at the Haunted Skull illustration. This book is awesome, and I'm even more thankful for being introduced to Longmore's art. I really dig his style. Hey Wade, pass along some compliments from me, this poo poo's top notch.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Hey, the monster spreadsheet I made is up on Pelgrane's site for basic online use and download! That's pretty cool!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Hey, the monster spreadsheet I made is up on Pelgrane's site for basic online use and download! That's pretty cool! This is super handy. Good work and thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
waderockett posted:Dear EVIL MASTERMIND, The BOX OF SOME DOPE-rear end poo poo arrived at my crib today, consider my face appropriately melted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
But did you remember to put a tarp down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Well, there goes my security deposit...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Any update on when the dead tree 13 True Ways is shipping? I know it is probably still at the printer but I'm wondering if this is going to be out to us before the end of August.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Speaking of 13th True Ways, someone in my group just noticed something weird — druids get a +0 AC bonus when using a shield. Is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I think Warrior Druids get a bonus and normal Druids don'T E: NOPE, warrior Druids lose the penalty to attacks for using a shield but gain no benefit! The default for shields is +1 AC so it's an easy fix. Captain Walker fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
I sincerely cannot get over the fact that they made the monk worse after everyone complained it was already weak. Tweet what did monks do to you. How can we help this healing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Not everyone complained the monk was weak, only the people who flip out at the mere sight of a class that's MAD. The people who actually played it said they enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
HomegrownHydra posted:Not everyone complained the monk was weak, only the people who flip out at the mere sight of a class that's MAD. The people who actually played it said they enjoyed it. EDIT: On top of that the reason why they made it MAD was completely and utterly pointless and kind of stupid. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
HomegrownHydra posted:Not everyone complained the monk was weak, only the people who flip out at the mere sight of a class that's MAD. The people who actually played it said they enjoyed it. I have been complaining about the monk being weak since Escalation Edition 2. (I bought the core book on pre-order because of the tremendously fun experience I had playing a monk, and backed the Ways kickstarter when monk got bounced back to it. Still waitin' on Ways, slowly getting more bitter)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
i'm starting a 13th age campaign shortly, having previously participated in the playtests. those were fun, and the more i look through these finished books the more excited i am for it! i'll report back if we find any particularly cool or problematic parts of the rules (using mostly as-written, to start) or the game themes (setting modified, of course).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I sincerely cannot get over the fact that they made the monk worse after everyone complained it was already weak. Some GMs can only get an erection by stipping their PCs of their weapons and hurling them into bondage. Monks dick with that by being impossible to disarm, for that, they must be punished. That or they are getting all anime in teh elf game, not sure. I dunno what monks did wrong but some people hate them for proof reference every edition of d20.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
So, what's everyone's thoughts on the best/worst designed 13A classes (official and 3rd party) then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Illvillainy posted:So, what's everyone's thoughts on the best/worst designed 13A classes (official and 3rd party) then? Worst: Monk. Best: most of the others are pretty great. Bards are rad I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:Worst: Monk. If you include 3rd Party classes, the Alchemist stands out as being incomprehensible. As for the best, it's the Chaos Mage. It's always the chaos mage. Edit: Hell, the ranger stands out as being worse than the monk. Monks get to make choices on their turn. Just Burgs fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Old Dirty Cumburgs posted:If you include 3rd Party classes, the Alchemist stands out as being incomprehensible. Counterpoint: the Ranger is probably the best chassis for multiclassing out there right now. Also, Terrain Stunts are basically Swashbuckle Light for players that want that without the other complexities that a rogue adds. (Although why you'd want to do stunts, but be afraid of tracking momentum is beyond me.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:Counterpoint: the Ranger is probably the best chassis for multiclassing out there right now. Also, Terrain Stunts are basically Swashbuckle Light for players that want that without the other complexities that a rogue adds. (Although why you'd want to do stunts, but be afraid of tracking momentum is beyond me.) Oh yeah, I agree that it's a decent multi class. I just wish it had a little love. I guess the Druid addresses a lot of the lack of 'cool nature-y' things that I wished the Ranger had. It's the only class that gets no inherent bonus for being itself, and that's an odd hole. No class features. And while it makes for a good beginner class, it never expands in complexity, which I feel a good beginner class does. Contrast with the 'simple option' Barbarian who gains more interesting choices as they ascend in tiers. Terrain stunts would have made a good class feature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Why do people care about Monks so much. The only time I see people flip their poo poo about classes is the Monk. I mean, people complain about other things ... but when Monk drops it's like someone slapped your kid or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:Why do people care about Monks so much. The only time I see people flip their poo poo about classes is the Monk. The monk has had a long and storied history as a class we wish was good and fun to play. This Monk has a lot of things that seem designed to turn you off from playing it, while still being decently fun, and a lot of people are upset because it had the potential to be more. If I have a player who sees the Monk, and says "Yeah! I'm going to be an ancient Tiefling Sensei who got into a Fistfight with the Orc Lord and lived!", I don't want mechanics to get in the way of that dream. I want him to feel as kickass as the Fighter or the Wizard or any other class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Frankly, I wish they'd gone through with their plan to make "necromancy" a series of wizard (and maybe sorcerer/bard) talents + new spells rather than Necromancer being its own class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Frankly, I wish they'd gone through with their plan to make "necromancy" a series of wizard (and maybe sorcerer/bard) talents + new spells rather than Necromancer being its own class. I find it hard to feel that way after seeing how cool the necromancer class ended up being, though. I know it's not the same, but you can always multiclass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I remember you were having trouble building the necromancer you wanted in the "20 dex or 18 str" thread. I'm not a character optimizer, but people who frequent thread might be able to help you build the character you were looking for as they are likely charops who are fans of this game. I should mention that I don't exactly remember the issue you were having.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:I find it hard to feel that way after seeing how cool the necromancer class ended up being, though. I know it's not the same, but you can always multiclass. It would've been just as cool if you had all the same talents and features to choose from but a considerably larger spell list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
I feel like Monk as a series of fight-man options like the proto-necromancer might have been a happier outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:Why do people care about Monks so much. The only time I see people flip their poo poo about classes is the Monk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Is there any reliable word on whether sorcerers should be able to prepare the generic utility spell through either Arcane Heritage or the wizardry class feature? I can't tell for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Is there any reliable word on whether sorcerers should be able to prepare the generic utility spell through either Arcane Heritage or the wizardry class feature? I can't tell for sure. I can't see any reason why you couldn't. Utility Spell is still a wizard spell, it's just listed outside of the normal lists because of its weird behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:Why do people care about Monks so much. The only time I see people flip their poo poo about classes is the Monk. They had several opportunities to make monk good, or at least on par with the rest - I mean the second playtest version was pretty much fine, minus the consistently bizarre str/dex split and drunken master not being up to par - and those opportunities were actively avoided. It's just really confusing to see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
I don't really have the experience to weigh in on the monk question, but I'll ask my players to try it out for a session, have an all-monks all te time side adventure or something. My group pissed me right off today, all arrived hungover, wouldn't focus, wouldn't really play, so I flung an over levelled double strength wrecker at them in a fit of pique. I was absolutely brutal. Limbs were snapped off by the beak of the barnacle panther, it's feathered tentacles were feeding off their blood, it's sharp silica claws crushed magic items, swarms of holy-magic-filter feeders got them stuck, vulnerable an started welding them to the air-coral that covers the upper reaches of the cathedral, to be a breeding substrate for sky plankton. The bastards loving loved it. They pulled out all the loving stops and role played the living poo poo out of it. Amazing improvisation, world building, icons invoked, constant critical hits, buddy attacks that were described so well that I couldn't help but grant them bonuses, an minutes later they were standing triumphant, sans a few hands and feet over the body of their slain foe. Mother fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Here's my personal (as though you cared) 13th age design tier list, from best to worst. Bard I feel like bard is the best-designed 13th Age class there is. It has a ton of options, incredible flexibility, and none of its talents make me think "why would anyone ever take this" except my own personal bias because I love other talents even more. This is the one class where flexible attacks actually sort of work the way they're intended because they're a bonus on top of a bunch of other options. Even its stat choices are pretty easy to get along with, which is rare among 13a classes. The song mechanic is also pretty cool, and is a really neat way to represent the old tradition of "tiny bonus you sustain forever" bard songs. Cleric It's pretty neat how they took what could be a really simplistic and boring way to pick your class talents and made it really neat. The passive effect + daily effect spells and the daily nature of pretty much all the cleric powers really, to me, capture the flavor of someone who calls down miracles. You don't call down miracles constantly, and if you need to go big, you can, at the cost of just whacking stuff with your mace the rest of the day. I feel like the spells could use a bit more flavor than standard holy warrior stuff, but keeping it that way lets them keep the spell list trimmed down. I also really like the way Resurrection works. Sorcerer I really like the Sorcerer's several unique mechanics; including the ability to power up to unleash big spells, breath spells that recharge periodically over the course of the battle, and the wild-jumping chain spells. The class talents are nothing too adventurous, but Spell Frenzy is a cool spin on demonic sorcery. It works well, and unlike in 3e (and even 4e, in my opinion) the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard can be easily felt in play (and not just because one is better than the other). Commander While this definitely isn't personally my cup of tea, it seems well-designed to me, and the Command points work well, especially since most of the talents modify them and let the Commander build up his commands in different and interesting ways depending on which talents he's picked. It also has a nice mix of buffing and interrupt actions that seems like it'd be really active (but don't let the guy who doesn't pay attention to the table play it). Occultist This is definitely a unique class, and while I sort of understand its class feature where you're The Occultist (to discourage having more than one of these, because I imagine that would be a headache in play), it does sort of make it weird that you get two Unique Things. I like the Focus mechanic, though, and they even made it so you're not hosed if your triggers don't pop up. I'm not sure how damaging it is, but it definitely has presence in play with a bunch of bonuses and such, so I think even if it did a bit less it'd still be a good class. Necromancer This is definitely one where they got the flavor 100% right, in my opinion, but the mechanics are a little weird. It seems almost impossible to get anything resembling decent defenses besides Mental as a Necromancer, which is bad considering they will always have bad HP and recoveries, even if they have some tricks to get around this. The talents are all really cool, but some of them don't mesh very well (largely due to quick action hunger), and their spell selection is pretty limited. Their at-wills in particular could use some work: they've got one that you can't choose the target of, and one that an enemy can cancel with its action, cutting off your ability to use it until the end of your next turn. While this is a good enemy action waster in theory, it means you can't take it as your only at-will because you'll have rounds where you can't use it if they break it. Chaos Mage Surprisingly, I actually rather like this one. All the wackiness is unnecessary, but this is sort of like a barbarian analogue for casters: the dice make most of your decisions for you. You'd definitely want to have the book open or print out some of those charts, but otherwise it seems pretty good for someone who doesn't want to make a lot of decisions. The main thing that bugs me is the goofy High Weirdness table, their acknowledgement of "hey other players might get annoyed with this" and their solution of a feat, something precious in 13th Age, that turns it off... for one round. Wizard The wizard is the middle of the pack. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's no real new things here, either. It's the wizard you know and were totally expecting it to be, which is as good or bad as you want it to be. The utility spell thing is neat but not really adventurous either. It's just... a wizard. You know. A wizard. Rogue The rogue seems pretty solid. While it doesn't even approach the complexity of some of the spellcasters, he's definitely got some tricks up his sleeve, and momentum is a pretty neat mechanic that lets a rogue become a pretty solid duelist/swashbuckler archetype, because even when he's lacking his Sneak Attack, he can still take less damage from enemies and deal more. Like the wizard though, this is pretty much what you were expecting to see here. Barbarian The barbarian is probably a lot higher on this list than almost everyone would expect, but truthfully, I don't mind the presence of 'simple' classes in RPGs, even if I dislike the fact that they're all the sword-fighter classes. However, in this case, the barbarian does exactly what it says: get mad, hit guys with swords, and their talents build on that. It doesn't pretend at complexity (this is a thing I'll rant about below, definitely). It's a good class for the guy who really does show up to a tabletop game and goes "uh... what's easy to play? Can I just hit guys with swords?" Paladin Another "fighting classes have to be simple" victim, the Paladin nevertheless gets some cool things, but sadly, its most effective talents are probably the things that let it steal cleric stuff. Truthfully I almost feel like Paladin and Cleric don't need to both exist, since they fill pretty much the same niche. Just add more domains to the cleric that let it become tougher, or add spells to the paladin and let it be a caster/melee holy warrior hybrid, like both of these sort of try to be. Still, at least it mostly accomplishes what it tries to do and doesn't have much in the way of trap options. I just wished for more out of it, or failing that, to just get rid of it in favor of the Cleric. Monk This one is definitely going to be higher than most would think, but not having touched it in play yet, I think the monk looks reasonable. They don't get damage that's quite as reliable as some of the other martial classes, and the MAD is definitely a problem that has no real reason for existing, but the core is solid I think. The form concept is cool and it gives you a ton of options, a ki pool as your form of daily power is neat, and most of their talents seem pretty cool. Basically what I need to figure out is how it actually stacks up against others in play, but I think it could be alright with some tweaking. My main complaint is that in the playtest there were some ways to regain ki by fulfilling conditions, which I feel like could have made more interesting gameplay, but it was cut for whatever reason. Ranger This would probably be worse than the Fighter if it weren't for the fact that a lot of their options (Dual x Attack, Animal Companion) weren't so strong, but the Ranger has a lot of trap options (Favored Enemy is just terrible) and a lot of options that should have been class features, like Tracking and its Terrain Stunt. Speaking of class features, it's the only class that doesn't get any, and it doesn't get a lot of talent choices to make up for that. It's simple and reasonably powerful, but it seems pretty boring. Having more than one of these classes is probably not worth doing, and the Barbarian does it better without a bunch of trap options to ensnare the kind of player who would want a simpler class. Fighter Despite not being quite the bottom of the list, this one really pisses me off, because I'm tired of fighters getting the short end of the stick. While a few of its class features are pretty cool (Skilled Intercept works well to model a fighter's stickiness, even in a TotM system), mostly it's the flexible attacks that kill it. I really like them in theory because it's neat to use the die for something other than the totaled attack roll, but in practice, it takes options away from the fighter. They pick some things they might want to do, and maybe they'll get to do them. This is the false complexity I was referencing in the Barbarian above. The fighter pretends at complexity and choice, but really, in play you will just roll with whatever the dice give you. Some really bizarre choices (Counter-Attack might have needed balancing, but its current trigger conditions are nuts; a champion feat to daze someone once a battle if they're staggered) just sort of seal the fate of the Fighter. Druid If you're surprised to see this at the bottom of the list, then like me, you were probably suckered by some of the really awesome spells that Druids get, and the way some of their talents in theory really capture the druid feel, no matter whether your idea of a druid is a "turns into animals" druid, a "heals with nature" druid, or my personal favorite "a burly forest dude who hits people with a big stick and occasionally shoots lightning" druid. There are just so many things wrong with Druid it's hard to list them in a concise way. A lot of the talents are incredibly mediocre at Initiate level, and even Adept of a lot of them is not particularly impressive. The warrior druid's flexible attacks are even worse than the fighter's for "I might not even get to use this at all, if the dice don't cooperate", and a lot of them depend on being an Adept of something else or heavy feat investment. Starting at level 4 as a Terrain Caster Adept it's really easy to go a day without being able to use all your spell slots unless your party jumps around a lot, since you can't use any spell twice, and I believe the same is true of Elemental Caster. And a certain friend from my group would murder me in my sleep if I didn't mention the fact that if you want any of the spell at-wills, you have to spend a feat for it, and that one at-will is all you get. It's a real shame, because some of the druid spells are really cool (I really like how they did Call Lightning, and the Ruins spell that lets you just dumpster a building is awesome), but the pieces just don't fit together right at all, here. These are of course my personal opinions and I'm not a game designer. I really like 13th Age and what it tries to do, and the game itself has some really cool mechanics. It just seems like every time it stumbles, it's because it tries to look back over its shoulder longingly at 3e, so I wish it'd just keep its eyes on the road ahead and give us more classes like the 13th age take on Bard and Sorcerer. They're too classes that were pretty well-defined, but 13th Age took a new surprising tack with them that I really enjoyed, and I wish they could do that with more of the old classes. Sorry, I know this is a lot of words. Feel free to skip it if you don't care about my rambling opinions!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Also, saying this as someone who has tried all flavors of Bard, I think the bard might be the best in every category if you're built for it except maybe support where the Cleric beats it. Being able to use Dex for its attacks means you can make an Dex/Con bard which is a really good frontliner from my eyes. Someone else in the group I'm in could probably comment on it from a watcher's perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Now I want to see how merged classes would turn out. Cleric+Paladin, maybe Ranger+Fighter (why is ranger even its own thing, other than to meet a quota?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
As the sorta primary whiner of monks I thought I'd list my issues. 1) The damage isn't really that great. 1d6 -> 1d8 ->1d10 puts you ad a 1d8 average assuming you nail all finishers, but that's about it. To top that, you have all the issues MAD induces. Now you can add either +1d6 to that halfway through the battle, ensure a hit once per battle (bad option), or add some damage to the first time you punch a dude, but even with those it falls far behind rogues and barbarians, the other two big "lightly armored damage dealers." 2) Combos are anemic. Every turn you just use the best opener/flow/finisher you have for the situation. There's no actual combo going on, it's just a set of mini-gates to each ability. 3) Some of the gimmicks are kinda dumb! Like one of your AWESOME EPIC TALENTS is "literally twice in the entire game, you can, if your teammates make a hard save, get one free 'rest' in." That's really dumb! 4) There's simply one and only one type of monk. Dex/Strength/Wis. One talent lets you SORTA go Dex/Strength/Cha, but then gives you abilities that still requires wisdom. In a game built entirely on customization, having one class club you over the head and scream at you for trying to customize it is really loving stupid. No character personifies "death to ability scores" better then the monk does. The first two aren't actually too hard to fix, and mostly came from an idea I had the other night. Namely: make combos more interesting. My idea was simple: each opener and each flow adds something to your finisher. So one opener might additionally have "your finisher hits one additional enemy" and the subsequent flow gives extra damage for each enemy in a group. Meanwhile that poison one might be simplified to "Any enemy hit by your finisher is hampered so long as it's poisoned" and the flow could be "add +4 ongoing poison damage to your finisher." This could be a good way to boost monk damage through their combos, and to make the combos ACTUAL COMBOS. The second one is just "replace the dumb." The third is of course "kill ability scores," but failing that, CHOOSE TWO STATS. Like every other class. Why do monks have to be extra lovely about this? Abloobloobloo 3.x, nobody loving liked that monk, jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Not even the 3.X monk was forced to split strength/dexterity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:One talent lets you SORTA go Dex/Strength/Cha, but then gives you abilities that still requires wisdom. okay seriously. I'm ignoring everything else to comment on this because this part is literally directly false just by reading versus opinion or math. the Talent you are Referencing, Overworld Lineage, Lets you change your Wisdom to your Cha. There is literally no reason that wouldn't include the Overworld Lineage's own power. So why is it still listed as Wis, you ask? Because Overword Lineage has more effects then JUST 'use your Cha instead of Wis'. Someone MIGHT want to take it without the forced Charisma swap, in which case if the power of Overworld Lineage forced Charisma, it would be worse for someone like that. It's an attempt to allow someone go to 'I want to play a Wisdom Monk but I still want Overworld Lineage'
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Change that to "A talent that allows you to go Dex/Str/Cha, but doing so cripples your character because MAD." Going Charisma gives you literally no benefit, and even if it fits your character more it makes it so that you will die swiftly and mercilessly because you will have poo poo HP and AC on a frntline fighter. The reliance on three scores means that you can get a passable Con at best if you actually want to do monk-y things, so you HAVE to go Str/Dex/Wis if you want enough AC to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Best to worst, eh? OK. Barbarian No iteration of the barbarian make me feel like a raging, frothing lion of battle more than this one. It's not complex, but it's a barbarian for crying out loud. It shouldn't. I want Hulk Smash and it gives me Hulk Smash. Bard I don't really like the bard that much, but it's hard to argue that it's not well-designed. The Bard supports the widest array of coherent concepts with its spells, flex attacks and songs. You'd be really hard-pressed to make a boring or ineffective bard. Rogue They made a rogue that feels like a rogue without needing a grid. That deserves some credit. I've seen Swashbuckle, Shadow Walk and Momentum copied and reworked for 3PP classes more than any other features or talents which is also pretty high praise. Commander Look, I'm as surprised as you that so many martial classes are at the top here. This is the last one, though. It doesn't read well, yet I find the ability to not have to use my standard action to attack to activate my class features oddly freeing. It's still a little bit too focused on the micromanaging for my taste but I'll let it slide. Wizard It's a wizard. It does wizard things. It also has utility spells and Polysyllabic Verbalizations which neatly wrap up all the stuff you're looking forward to doing wizard when you sit down to create one and tend to not happen in previous editions. Also I'm kind of obsessed with rituals. Chaos Mage I think I'd get really bored with this after about six sessions, but for those six sessions, it would be GLORIOUS. This one appeals to me more as a GM since I can grab the High Weirdnesses and wreak havoc with them. Necromancer I have serious problems with Wasting Away and a couple of the spells like Circle of Death. If you play one of these at my table, expect to see me drop a few houserules on it. It remains, however, one of the best necromancers I've seen in an F20 product to date. Cleric and Sorcerer These do pretty much exactly what they say on the box. I didn't find anything particularly great about them, but they're OK. They draw the baseline of "your class must be at least this good" to curry my favor. Fighter I really do like flex attacks. They hit the middle ground well between "I hit it with a sword" and resource-management. This doesn't execute as well as the bard and that hurts it. Should the fighter ever pick up, say, a grappling option or maybe some new flex attacks or something, it's a prime candidate for Most Improved along with the Ranger. Occultist I haven't played this class yet but being in the party with one, it's kinda grating on my nerves. 4E had problems with interrupt actions and "oh wait, I should have gotten a +2" and "hold on, I have an interrupt for that." This is that issue finely distilled and aged in a bitter oak barrel. Monk MAD doesn't make me mad exactly, but still frustrated. I'm playing one of these in Fish's game right now. A Werebeast (Fish's homebrew) venture capitalist Monk dual-wielding hand-crossbows who, when he's sure no one else is looking, will occasionally shift into his werebeast form... a comically oversized raccoon. Think Rocket Raccoon meets Christian Bale from Equilibrium with a dash of Wolf of Wall Street. It's a fun character despite the class. I have two rounds of mediocre followed by one round that looks like something out of God of War. I have yet to kill less than 4 enemies each time escalation 2 comes up and generally that includes at least two enemies that are not mooks. Is the one round of I Own You All worth the two of Epic Meh? Kinda. Paladin Why is this a class? Seriously. OK, legacy, I get it, but still. There's a reason this thing was a subclass of fighter for the early editions. It gets a few points for attempting to expand the envelope a bit and actually makes a serviceable barbarian if you file the serial numbers off. Still, the iffy concept and lackluster execution leave me a unimpressed. Ranger There's nothing interesting here. It does double attacks and tracks things. Truth be told when I run demos of this at conventions I'll probably bringer a Seeker character sheet instead (assuming I'm not at an official 13th Age booth). Druid The components are fine, but trying to put them all together into one class is a train wreck. It's like a bard gone wrong. I mostly blame the F20 tradition for not being able to separate this into better subcategories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:36
|
|