5e vs 13th age?

I know little of 13th age so I can only ask questions on some topics.  But since the wonderful stuff 5e has been talking about isn't going to be around at least till august now I thought I would take the time to learn more of the competition.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Backgrounds and Skills
Which method do you prefer here?  Catch all skill grouping like 13th age or very specific skills like DnD?  I'm not real sure how improving backgrounds in 13th age works yet I only know they don't have specific skills.

Level Advancement
How do the two compare here?  13th age still improves the old fashioned way in regards to attack bonuses.  5e uses bounded accuracy.  Which do people prefer?

Races
Which system is on the right track here in your opinion?  What do you like about each method?  how easy is it to make new races in 13th age?

Classes
Again who's on the right track?  Does 13th age still use multiple attacks like 3e or are they more like 4e with powers that hit more than one target?  Are the classes rich with flavor and options?  Do we see the same vast ammounts of dead levels or are they filled with goodies?

Multiclassing
Well another unanswered topic in 5e.  How does 13th age handle it?
Backgrounds and Skills
Which method do you prefer here?  Catch all skill grouping like 13th age or very specific skills like DnD?  I'm not real sure how improving backgrounds in 13th age works yet I only know they don't have specific skills.

Backgrounds if I want a game where I don't care about the details of whether or not "doing stuff" is super balanced or if one player is too good at everything. Skills if I want sharp control over that stuff and put more emphasis on the tension created when skills come into play. (Like climbing something or crossing a bad river.) They're both cool.


Level Advancement
How do the two compare here?  13th age still improves the old fashioned way in regards to attack bonuses.  5e uses bounded accuracy.  Which do people prefer?

Usually bounded accuracy. The exception is if the adventure is specifically about the PCs becoming so godly good they can crush all the peon NPCs in the palm of their hands… So yea, almost always bounded accuracy.


Races
Which system is on the right track here in your opinion?  What do you like about each method?  how easy is it to make new races in 13th age?

I actually have not looked at races in 13th Age, I have only GMed that system. However, I really like how sub races work in D&DN and hope it is done well enough to where I could swap around sub races to create things like a half-dwarf elf or a half-goblin halfling.

Classes
Again who's on the right track?  Does 13th age still use multiple attacks like 3e or are they more like 4e with powers that hit more than one target?  Are the classes rich with flavor and options?  Do we see the same vast ammounts of dead levels or are they filled with goodies?

Can't tell until I see more of D&DN's class options, especially how the feat fighter works. Although I am not overly impressed with what I've seen of D&DN, I'm not too impressed by what I've seen in 13th Age either. Too combat focused for my tastes.

Multiclassing
Well another unanswered topic in 5e.  How does 13th age handle it?

What multiclassing?... In either of them. I think 13th Age will get MCing later, but I know nothing of it. I have a little more faith in D&DN's unknown MCing, but not much more.
Without interjecting too much opinion, I can explain how some of the mechanics work in 13A.

- 13A does not have bounded accuracy. However, because the game is compressed down to ten levels, things don't spread out quite as fast as they do in 3.5 or 4e, relative to the length of the game. Like 3.5, a level 5 fighter has +4 to hit compared to a level 1 fighter, but level 5 in 13A is equivalent to level 10 in 3.5 (sorta), so the spread is secretly a bit tighter.

- 13A races are very lightweight mechanically. They're +2 to one stat -- your choice out of two options, and it has to be different from the bump you took from a class. Since every class gets mainstat as a bump choice, these bumps don't matter that much. They also have one or two other abilities, one of which is usually activated or triggered. That's all. If you want your race to have a giant mechanical impact, that's not really there. You can, of course, frame some of your class abilities and backgrounds as being related to your race, but the actual race selection doesn't have a huge impact on your character.

- 13A uses different mechanics for different classes, although no class uses 3.5's system of giving you a bonus attack every five BAB. As far as structured (non-improvised) attacks go, Barbarians and Paladins primarily use basic attacks, sometimes augmented by rage or smite, but can learn some other tricks. Rangers can also attempt to double-strike with either two-weapon-fighting or a rapid-shot equivalent. Fighters and bards also mostly use standard attacks, but can get bonus effects based on certain die rolls, representing special openings. Bards also have spells and songs (which work a lot like spells.) Rogues can attempt a variety of specific maneuvers (all at-will), but also have a talent you can take that basically says "improvised combat stuff works out way better for you than for other people."

- Spellcasters are complicated enough that I'll give them their own bullet. Basically, you have a bunch of different spell slots (although not that many). Your spell slots level with you, so you don't have any level one spell slots left by the time you're level 6 or so. That's okay, because every spell can be prepared in a higher level slot for a better effect. For example, if you prepare fireball as a level 9 spell, it does way more damage. All types of spells are prepared in the same slots, including at-will spells, so you can prepare, say, Ray of Frost (at-will) in one of your level 1 slots, and then Color Spray (Encounter-ish) in another, and then Acid Arrow (Daily) in a third, and you'll have a daily spell, an encounter spell, and an at-will spell. If for some reason you really wanted to, you could prepare a bunch of at-will spells and then you'd have a lot of at-will options, but limited ability to make a huge impact with a daily spell, or you could do it the other way around. Offensive, defensive, non-combat, and utility spells are all mashed together, so you have a fair amount of flexibility in what you want your loadout to be.

- Rituals are improvised, for the most part. You expend a prepared spell to do something related to the spell's effect outside of combat.

- 13th Age doesn't have rules for multiclassing as of current. The rules say that if you want stuff from multiple different classes, you can talk to your DM about just trading things.

- If it sounds like 13th Age is improvise-y or hand-wavey in a lot of areas, it's because it is. It's not a game that tries to codify everything in the least.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I know little of 13th age so I can only ask questions on some topics.  But since the wonderful stuff 5e has been talking about isn't going to be around at least till august now I thought I would take the time to learn more of the competition.



First, let's try not to make this into a fight between 13th Age and D&DN.  While 13th Age is described as "a love-letter to D&D" and is co-designed by two former (lead?) designers of D&D, 13th Age is NOT D&D.  It is 13th Age.  I'm not saying this is what you are doing.  I'm just laying it out there so other people keep this in mind when they post their own responses.


Backgrounds and Skills
Which method do you prefer here?  Catch all skill grouping like 13th age or very specific skills like DnD?  I'm not real sure how improving backgrounds in 13th age works yet I only know they don't have specific skills.


They both are very adequate.  13A doesn't really have "catch all skill groupings".  It has narrative backgrounds that give you bonuses to areas related to your background.  At one extreme, you could have "Adventurer +5" that could conceivably be applied to almost any check a player might make.  It really comes down to DM adjudication.  It is subtly encouraged that players pick background skills that are somewhat granular (former barkeep, imperial guard, charming dunce), and then apply those backgrounds logically and appropriately.

It requires a whole lot more DM adjudication (not to imply D&DN's system doesn't; it clearly does), but it neatly sidesteps issues related to skill resource access (how many skill points should be granted) and skill vs skill balance (is climb as good as use rope? Is perception as good as move silently?).

Level Advancement
How do the two compare here?  13th age still improves the old fashioned way in regards to attack bonuses.  5e uses bounded accuracy.  Which do people prefer?


If you're talking about leveling up, the two games do things in massively different ways.  First, 13A does away with EXP.  The DM is encouraged to level up the PCs when it feels appropriate.  Vastly different from D&DN.

As far as levels go, PCs go only to level 10 in 13A, so the fact that they get much more per level compared to D&DN should be compared against a 2-3 level gains in D&DN.  Also, there is a recommendation for the DM to stagger the level up benefits of 13A.  So maybe at first you get the bonus to hit, then later you get the extra feat, then later you get a new ability, etc.  It softens the jump from level to level.

As far as the +1 to everything per level, vs +0 to everything per level...I dunno.  It's different.  Generally, I'm in favor of bounded accuracy, because that means a low level creature can fight at full effectiveness against high level PCs (and vice versa).  That full effectiveness might still be ineffective, but at least a low level monster can hit a high level creature.  At least 13A does a +1 per level compared to 4e's +1 per every other level (which is fiddly).

Races
Which system is on the right track here in your opinion?  What do you like about each method?  how easy is it to make new races in 13th age?


Honestly, they are very similar.  A race get's a bonus to a stat (as do classes), and each race has a unique feature.  While the exact design differs, the overall structure is very similar.  I'd say once you understand how a race is designed in either system, it is very easy to create your own race (if that race is any good will be up to your own design sensibilities, of course).

Classes
Again who's on the right track?  Does 13th age still use multiple attacks like 3e or are they more like 4e with powers that hit more than one target?  Are the classes rich with flavor and options?  Do we see the same vast ammounts of dead levels or are they filled with goodies?


It's kinda unfair to compare right now, since 13A is more or less done, whereas D&DN looks to be going back to the drawing board, especially in regards to martial classes.

What I can say is that both systems have classes that have assymetrical design.  As much as 13A is touted as being 4e's Pathfinder, it really isn't.  The structure of the classes bears little resemblance to 4e's AEDU design.  If anything, you can say that 13A has more explicit encounter powers, whereas D&DN sticks to a X per day powers, where a sufficiently large value for X is tantamount to an encounter power.

13A does make active use of recharge mechanics, as well as conditional triggers (roll a 16+ and you can use this better power, for one example).

I like what 13A is doing, but part of that is due to the overall design philosophy being more coherent.  D&DN still looks like crap hurled at the wall to see what sticks (as is expected given its still early state).

Multiclassing
Well another unanswered topic in 5e.  How does 13th age handle it?


Pick two classes.  Get one thing from one, and another thing from the other.  Compared against getting three things from one class.  Single-classed characters have more abilities, but multiclassed characters can pull from a much larger pool.  In theory, having less overall abilities is balanced against breadth of ability and perhaps efficient synergy unavailable to single classes.

I really like how 13A does things, and is reminiscent of 4e's hybrid system.

******

Anyway, I'm really digging 13A, but it really is trying to do things differently from D&DN.  13A really embraces some indy/story game ideas that frankly D&DN seems to be staying far away from (for better or worse).  It really has a different philosophy.  13A does what it claims it is trying to do very well.  We'll see if D&DN can do the same (meaning achieve its own stated goals). 
I should note that the mulitclassing rules were in the playtest but are being dropped from the initial release.  They'll come later.
I wouldn't buy 13th Age if it were D&D 5e.   I did buy it though since it is 13th Age.   It's not trying to change D&D.  It is it's own game.   I bought it for resource material though and won't play it.

I think D&D 5e's approach to skills is best.   Use attributes but let skills modify that.   Nice compromise.

I like bounded accuracy.  

I don't care about races.

Classes I like 5e better.

Multiclassing is unknown in both systems I believe.  It definitely is in 13th Age. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

To my mind, 13th Age is not trying to be some version of "D&D". It's not even trying to be "the continuation of 4th", as many here seem to think. It's evidently influenced by 4th's design, but not exactly trying to be a continuation of it...

I think no matter how badly 5e may tank, it will still beat 13th Age :P.

This isn't exactly a "vs." match! ^^

That being said, I'd probably have more interest on DMing 13th Age than DMing Next as it's currently written .
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
 13th age may be comparable to DCC on a good day, I doubt it will get within sniffing distance of PF or D&D. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Heinsoo, co-designer of 4th edition. Heinsoo, co-designer of 13th age. Heinsoo equals awesome. 4th D&D equals awesome. 13th age equals awesome. Enuff said.
Heinsoo, co-designer of 4th edition. Heinsoo, co-designer of 13th age. Heinsoo equals awesome. 4th D&D equals awesome. 13th age equals awesome. Enuff said.



Just reverse what you said politely and thats me.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

To my mind, 13th Age is not trying to be some version of "D&D". It's not even trying to be "the continuation of 4th", as many here seem to think. It's evidently influenced by 4th's design, but not exactly trying to be a continuation of it...

Which is odd, because I see it as a continuation of D&D, even if it's official stance is quite the opposite. It takes lessons learned from previous editions, finds the good aspects, and moves forward with that and (quite) a few new ideas.

If there was a new edition of D&D that was trying to actually advance the hobby, I wouldn't mind it looking like 13th Age.

Instead, it seems we are getting D&DN which is...an appeal to nostalgia.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

To my mind, 13th Age is not trying to be some version of "D&D". It's not even trying to be "the continuation of 4th", as many here seem to think. It's evidently influenced by 4th's design, but not exactly trying to be a continuation of it...

Which is odd, because I see it as a continuation of D&D, even if it's official stance is quite the opposite. It takes lessons learned from previous editions, finds the good aspects, and moves forward with that and (quite) a few new ideas.

If there was a new edition of D&D that was trying to actually advance the hobby, I wouldn't mind it looking like 13th Age.

Instead, it seems we are getting D&DN which is...an appeal to nostalgia.



The problem is that 13th Age wouldn't capture very many more people than 4e.   Can't you see they want the full D&D market?   Some change is bad.   Some is good.   A lot of 4e change was bad for a lot of people.   

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

That is a problem with D&D overall and any its deriviatives, so you see flashes in the pan, and then the players will go back to their preferred game to maintain the status quo. There needs to be a game changer to move D&D overall in a new direction or to capture a significant portion of players.
To my mind, 13th Age is not trying to be some version of "D&D". It's not even trying to be "the continuation of 4th", as many here seem to think. It's evidently influenced by 4th's design, but not exactly trying to be a continuation of it...

Which is odd, because I see it as a continuation of D&D, even if it's official stance is quite the opposite. It takes lessons learned from previous editions, finds the good aspects, and moves forward with that and (quite) a few new ideas.

If there was a new edition of D&D that was trying to actually advance the hobby, I wouldn't mind it looking like 13th Age.

Instead, it seems we are getting D&DN which is...an appeal to nostalgia.



13th Age is not trying to be some version of D&D, that is correct.  It is, however, a game made by the lead designers for both 3E and 4E, Jonathon Tweet and Rob Heinsoo.  Both left WotC, and both "just want to make this RPG".  They KNOW that it's not D&D, or trying to be, because they understand what WotC does that they have a calling to make Next all it should be.  The best for D&D is not 13th Age, as said by Tweet and Heinsoo.
That is a problem with D&D overall and any its deriviatives, so you see flashes in the pan, and then the players will go back to their preferred game to maintain the status quo. There needs to be a game changer to move D&D overall in a new direction or to capture a significant portion of players.



I am sure that is what Next will do.  With respect to the bad impressions WotC has made on many people, I'm sure they'd be very regretful so I actually doubt they even know.  I don't see why they don't re-assure people about making the game as customizable as they promised, for instance explaining the absence of content like that in playtests to date.  It can take a lot of time for them to know what they want to release, and they're trying several new things because they want to make a giant impact with the game.
The problem is that 13th Age wouldn't capture very many more people than 4e.   Can't you see they want the full D&D market?   Some change is bad.   Some is good.   A lot of 4e change was bad for a lot of people.  

Perhaps I worded that poorly.

If there was a singular non-modular new edition of D&D (that would yet again fracture the fanbase), that was trying to advanced the hobby and not appeal to nostalgia, that was not a 4.5, I think it would look a lot like 13th Age.

That's not what I want, or what I think will be the most successful - I think a modular everybody-can-play-and-enjoy version of D&D would be the best way to capture the largest fanbase.

But instead we get D&DN. Hopefully 5e will be radically different.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.
The problem is that 13th Age wouldn't capture very many more people than 4e.   Can't you see they want the full D&D market?   Some change is bad.   Some is good.   A lot of 4e change was bad for a lot of people.  

Perhaps I worded that poorly.

If there was a singular non-modular new edition of D&D (that would yet again fracture the fanbase), that was trying to advanced the hobby and not appeal to nostalgia, that was not a 4.5, I think it would look a lot like 13th Age.

That's not what I want, or what I think will be the most successful - I think a modular everybody-can-play-and-enjoy version of D&D would be the best way to capture the largest fanbase.

But instead we get D&DN. Hopefully 5e will be radically different.



 I wouldn't buy 13th age if it had the D&D label on it and I'm guessing all those who bailed for retroclones and pathfinder would not either. 4th ed was the reason they left, 13th age with powers I do not see it luring them back. They did not like 4th ed and they left very simple concept and I'm guessing there were a lot of them as well. I did see an ad for 13th age in Gygax Magazine so someone there is at least letting the grogs know it exists.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I wouldn't buy 13th age if it had the D&D label on it and I'm guessing all those who bailed for retroclones and pathfinder would not either. 4th ed was the reason they left, 13th age with powers I do not see it luring them back. They did not like 4th ed and they left very simple concept and I'm guessing there were a lot of them as well. I did see an ad for 13th age in Gygax Magazine so someone there is at least letting the grogs know it exists.

A new edition of D&D that only appeals to fans of any one certain edition is probably going to fail regardless.

That's probably why there is/was a (failed) focus on getting several different playstyles to fit in D&DN.

I'll never say that 13th Age is for everyone, but it does a marvelous job at being a great game that learns from previous editions of D&D; it's a natural progression.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I wouldn't buy 13th age if it had the D&D label on it and I'm guessing all those who bailed for retroclones and pathfinder would not either. 4th ed was the reason they left, 13th age with powers I do not see it luring them back. They did not like 4th ed and they left very simple concept and I'm guessing there were a lot of them as well. I did see an ad for 13th age in Gygax Magazine so someone there is at least letting the grogs know it exists.

A new edition of D&D that only appeals to fans of any one certain edition is probably going to fail regardless.

That's probably why there is/was a (failed) focus on getting several different playstyles to fit in D&DN.

I'll never say that 13th Age is for everyone, but it does a marvelous job at being a great game that learns from previous editions of D&D; it's a natural progression.




 Its a natural progression from 4th ed not from D&D. I like multiple editions of D&D from BECMI-3rd ed, never played OD&D so IDK about that one. Today I bought 2 BECMI adventures and the Temple of Elemental Evil for conversion to retroclones/D&DN and maybe Pathfinder or my own system. Probably helps as I have 400 odd D&D related products on my shelf from all editions except OD&D PF and retroclones.

 A natural progression would be a true 3.75, an AD&D/3rd ed hybrid or AD&D 3rd ed d20.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.



I think you go too far when you say usually but I do think that since tastes are subjective sometimes you are in the minority.   I love level drain and rust monsters and I totally get that the majority do not.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Heinsoo, co-designer of 4th edition. Heinsoo, co-designer of 13th age. Heinsoo equals awesome. 4th D&D equals awesome. 13th age equals awesome. Enuff said.



Just reverse what you said politely and thats me.



As long as the dude brings his pet peeves to games that are not D&D or Pathfinder I am fine with it.  I'll add traveller to that list as well.





CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I wouldn't buy 13th age if it had the D&D label on it and I'm guessing all those who bailed for retroclones and pathfinder would not either. 4th ed was the reason they left, 13th age with powers I do not see it luring them back. They did not like 4th ed and they left very simple concept and I'm guessing there were a lot of them as well. I did see an ad for 13th age in Gygax Magazine so someone there is at least letting the grogs know it exists.

A new edition of D&D that only appeals to fans of any one certain edition is probably going to fail regardless.

That's probably why there is/was a (failed) focus on getting several different playstyles to fit in D&DN.

I'll never say that 13th Age is for everyone, but it does a marvelous job at being a great game that learns from previous editions of D&D; it's a natural progression.




 Its a natural progression from 4th ed not from D&D. I like multiple editions of D&D from BECMI-3rd ed, never played OD&D so IDK about that one. Today I bought 2 BECMI adventures and the Temple of Elemental Evil for conversion to retroclones/D&DN and maybe Pathfinder or my own system. Probably helps as I have 400 odd D&D related products on my shelf from all editions except OD&D PF and retroclones.

 A natural progression would be a true 3.75, an AD&D/3rd ed hybrid or AD&D 3rd ed d20.  



Something like Star Wars Saga even.  That seemed to be the logical progression, and I think it would have preserved the fanbase in a much better fashion.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.



I think you go too far when you say usually but I do think that since tastes are subjective sometimes you are in the minority.   I love level drain and rust monsters and I totally get that the majority do not.

 



I was at my LARP Laire this weekend, and my SILVER weapon got eaten by a rust monster.  My plea of "but it is not a FERROUS METAL" did not sway the marshal.


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I would put SWSE in the true 3.75 if they made a D&D Saga game. Hell my pet version of D&D is kind of a AD&D/SWSE hybrid. Spellcasters are similar to 2nd ed ones, Rogues and Fighters use talents and I lifted the SWSE round strucure. Fighters just get BAB and an extra attack at level 6,12,18 and have AD&D levels of fort/ref/will against spell DCs capped at 20 along with ability scores. Main difference is multiple attacks will be a standard action at no penalty and dex to damage will cost you feats/talents.  

 Block and deflect from the Jedi are shield talents that impose disadvanatage on the relevent attacks. I have 3 classes done atm through to level 5 just have to convert a wizard or use the Pathfinder ones IDK. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.




At this poit the hype around 13th age is bigger then the hype about Dnd next in my area

whe i asked the 21 players out playtest comunity started with  if they are going to buy 13th age and/or DnD next.

17 said they will buy 13th age to give it a try and find out what it is and how it plays.
10 said they will buy DnD next based on what they saw in the playtest progress so far.
 

 
13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.




At this poit the hype around 13th age is bigger then the hype about Dnd next in my area

whe i asked the 21 players out playtest comunity started with  if they are going to buy 13th age and/or DnD next.

17 said they will buy 13th age to give it a try and find out what it is and how it plays.
10 said they will buy DnD next based on what they saw in the playtest progress so far.
 

 



 It helps that 13th Age is in print vs a playtest. They'll dress it up with art, make nice books, probably launch with an adventure or two and start up the hype machine from August probably. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Completely ignoring the battle royale going on in the thread, since even if Emerikol considers Rob Heinsoo as a bad designer that ruined the D&D experience (for him), it's not like 13th Age was designed by him alone, and I'm guessing that the reason why there's a lot of similarity between 4E and 13th Age is because even Jonathan Tweet (you know, the guy who made 3E alongside Monte Cook?) thought that a lot of the philosophies behind 4E design — simplified attack vs. defense resolution, differentiated monster vs. player creature generation (also seen in pre-3E D&D) — simply made sense.


Backgrounds and Skills
Which method do you prefer here?  Catch all skill grouping like 13th age or very specific skills like DnD?  I'm not real sure how improving backgrounds in 13th age works yet I only know they don't have specific skills.

Technically, 13th Age "skills" are very specific, it's just that they are
A) designed by players, and
B) based on the character's backstory (hence, backgrounds)

Remember one of the D&D Next playtest packets where skills were divorced from ability scores and you could apply a given skill to any ability check, so long as the background applied?  Now remove the barriers that distinguish skill, trait and background, assign a value to the background, and simply state that whenever something comes up that is related to your background, apply the background's value to the applicable ability check.  THAT is how 13th Age's backgrounds work.

The biggest concern often brought up is how generic backgrounds can easily allow certain backgrounds to apply across the board (e.g. Athlete, or Acrobat).  Thing is, it's actually the worst and least efficient way to use backgrounds, because generic backgrounds apply to only basic, limited situations; athletes can only use it for athletic (STR/CON/DEX) checks, same with acrobats... but a Triathlon Winner in the 5th Annual Inter-City Championships could use that very background for more types of ability checks AND different situations as well (a means to gloat and make people recognize the character, for instance).  Plus, it gives the DM inspiration so that it'd be easier for him to set up either the campaign or (at the very least) the plot hook of his campaign so that it'll be easy to get you into the action.

Level Advancement
How do the two compare here?  13th age still improves the old fashioned way in regards to attack bonuses.  5e uses bounded accuracy.  Which do people prefer?

There are a few things about 13th Age's level advancement that you missed out on that have to be mentioned:


  • EXP is ditched. Instead of being a houserule in almost every TRPG, leveling in 13th Age is explicitly and exclusively DM-controlled.  Now the DM doesn't have to adjust to the system, since he can say that the group levels up whenever he says they level up; the "every 4-5 sessions" is merely a base guideline.

  • No need to give levels wholesale. There are alternative level advancement methods provided in the book, including the ability to give a portion of a level instead of an entire level, which allows for a more organic feel to a character.


I prefer 13th Age's system for the same, very simple reason why I prefer 4E's system: levels are VERY meaningful.  At first it'll feel intimidating how each level gives you a plethora of bonuses, but considering how much easier it is to modify the benefits than to homebrew new benefits, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.


Races
Which system is on the right track here in your opinion?  What do you like about each method?  how easy is it to make new races in 13th age?

Personally I prefer 13th Age because there aren't many fiddly bits to track.  Race allows race-related stuff, if you want to track more, spend a feat.

Classes
Again who's on the right track?  Does 13th age still use multiple attacks like 3e or are they more like 4e with powers that hit more than one target?  Are the classes rich with flavor and options?  Do we see the same vast ammounts of dead levels or are they filled with goodies?

In 13th Age, attacks are VERY limited; the Ranger is the only class that can attack twice, and only if he takes a class feature AND rolls even on the attack roll to do so... and the class feature explicitly states that he'll do less damage per attack (e.g. d8 per level to d6 per level) whenever he wants to double attack.  If the Ranger wants a more reliable 2nd attack (or a 3rd attack, if he took the aforementioned class feature), he needs to take an Animal Companion (which costs him 2 class features instead of just 1).

Barbarians get to roll twice with their attacks while raging (and crit whenever both rolls are 11+) but are restricted to basic attacks + class features, and certain classes have powers as well as class features, but even with the simplest of classes you get a plethora of goodies, since every level you gain a feat, and for the "simple" classes they gain additional class features at levels 5 and 8 (the Fighter is the only "complex" class that gains an additional class feature at higher levels [level 6]).

Multiclassing
Well another unanswered topic in 5e.  How does 13th age handle it?

The official rules on multiclassing will be released in the first official expansion, 13 True Ways, and it's supposed to follow a sort of AD&D style of multiclassing.  Until then, 13th Age has it as simply, "feel free to swap one class feature from your class with another class feature from another class, so long as the DM is cool with it; if you want a power instead of a class feature, just swap one class feature from your class with a power from another class, again so long as the DM is cool with it."
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Heisoo and Tweet are very good game designers they just made a bad version of D&D. Even then you can't blame them 100% and was it Bill Slaviksek who was the man in charge for 4th ed design? 13th age is not D&D so they can do anything they like and it looks like a good game.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Here is a snippet from the 13th Age rule book page 10.   Boldface is my own.

It used to be that if you wanted to play a game that
intentionally engaged the players at the level of character and
story, you had to play a non-d20 game. Other games had vampire
clans or heroic cults to connect the characters to the campaign.
Other games redefined dice rolling as not merely simulation but
also as drama. Other games gave GMs the tools to customize
their campaigns. They gave players creative flexibility and
dramatic authority. With 13th Age, you can play an OGL d20-
rolling campaign that uses story-oriented tricks that other games
have used for years.


Basically a narrativist game.   They believe in the narrativist style of roleplaying.  They introduced it in a mild form in 4e and continued further in 13th Age.   It is a style.   They believe that D&D by rejecting that style is "behind the times" which is a common 4e attack when they use terms like modern etc...

In reality it is a playstyle.   One thats been around for a long time.  When you played make believe as a kid you were playing a narrativist game.   The simulationist style is one thats also been around for a long time.   And D&D has always been a flagship for that model.   When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.   

Despite these criticisms, I like the world flavor as a creative jumpstarter for my own campaign.  I won't use their Icons directly but I might build that sort of information into my world so that players can associate with them.   I won't be as mechanically heavy handed about it (narrativist).

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.




At this poit the hype around 13th age is bigger then the hype about Dnd next in my area

whe i asked the 21 players out playtest comunity started with  if they are going to buy 13th age and/or DnD next.

17 said they will buy 13th age to give it a try and find out what it is and how it plays.
10 said they will buy DnD next based on what they saw in the playtest progress so far.
 

 



 It helps that 13th Age is in print vs a playtest. They'll dress it up with art, make nice books, probably launch with an adventure or two and start up the hype machine from August probably. 



13 True Ways cover art

There already is an adventure as part of the original book, and right now Ash Law is finishing up with the Organized Play for 13th Age.  The unusual thing about 13th Age Organized Play however, is that for something that's supposed to be "organized play", there's a lot more freedom given to DMs than normal; all I can probably say for now is that the adventures follow the same format as Rob Heinsoo's demo game as found in Pelgrane Press' site.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
13th Age is a pretty cool little indie game, but its kind of stupid to try to put it in competition with D&D. D&D is such a well-known name that unless 13th Age outright copied and plagiarized D&D (like Pathfinder did), it will never stand a chance of competing with it sales-wise. And thats perfectly fine. 13th Age is already a success for what it is, and I personally could care less what game is most popular. If I cared that much about what is most popular then I would have Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift cds. What is most popular is usually not what is best. For some reason people forget this when it comes to RPGs (especially on this forum), I guess bc they have to feel like they are number 1 in some stupid pissing contest rather than just playing what they like and having fun.




At this poit the hype around 13th age is bigger then the hype about Dnd next in my area

whe i asked the 21 players out playtest comunity started with  if they are going to buy 13th age and/or DnD next.

17 said they will buy 13th age to give it a try and find out what it is and how it plays.
10 said they will buy DnD next based on what they saw in the playtest progress so far.
 

 



 It helps that 13th Age is in print vs a playtest. They'll dress it up with art, make nice books, probably launch with an adventure or two and start up the hype machine from August probably. 



13 True Ways cover art

There already is an adventure as part of the original book, and right now Ash Law is finishing up with the Organized Play for 13th Age.  The unusual thing about 13th Age Organized Play however, is that for something that's supposed to be "organized play", there's a lot more freedom given to DMs than normal; all I can probably say for now is that the adventures follow the same format as Rob Heinsoo's demo game as found in Pelgrane Press' site.



 Better cover than 3rd ed, 4th ed and PF. Nice looking Dragons as well.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Better cover than 3rd ed, 4th ed and PF. Nice looking Dragons as well.

Agreed  Aaron McConnell & Lee Moyer are really talented IMHO.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Minor quibble of to much clutter on the cover. When you nail a Dragon minimise the writing like Lockwoods 3.5 Draconomicon. If you beef it banner away like the Draconomicon 2 in 4th ed. Those Dragons bring back memories of Lake Geneva and I have never been there. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.

Oh...kay... I don't understand how (meta)game rules = (in-world?) physics, and why (meta)game rules = actor-only mechanics, when all TRPGs have rules as player-enabling mechanics and it's virtually as easy to have simulationism within the narrativist context and a narrative within the simulationist context.  But that's for another thread, I believe.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.

Oh...kay... I don't understand how (meta)game rules = (in-world?) physics, and why (meta)game rules = actor-only mechanics, when all TRPGs have rules as player-enabling mechanics and it's virtually as easy to have simulationism within the narrativist context and a narrative within the simulationist context.  But that's for another thread, I believe.



These names came out of the GNS papers and I don't necessarily think they apply from an english language perspective.

I just know based on the full description that I am of the simulationist philosophy.  

The guy posits and I kind of agree that the G's and N's and S's often conflict at the table and it's far more likely the game will fail due to interpersonal conflicts.   I find' G's often though are more compatible in general than the N's and S's are.    So you can have GN or GS but SN is usually a recipe for a battle.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.



Basically a narrativist game.   They believe in the narrativist style of roleplaying.  They introduced it in a mild form in 4e and continued further in 13th Age.   It is a style.   They believe that D&D by rejecting that style is "behind the times" which is a common 4e attack when they use terms like modern etc...

In reality it is a playstyle.   One thats been around for a long time.  When you played make believe as a kid you were playing a narrativist game.   The simulationist style is one thats also been around for a long time.   And D&D has always been a flagship for that model.   When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.   

Despite these criticisms, I like the world flavor as a creative jumpstarter for my own campaign.  I won't use their Icons directly but I might build that sort of information into my world so that players can associate with them.   I won't be as mechanically heavy handed about it (narrativist).

 



I think this is where our main difrence in opionon lies.
I never saw DnD as a flagship for simulationist gaming, yes it is a style you could try to play with DnD but with things like how HP work it isen't a very good system for it. 
Minor quibble of to much clutter on the cover. When you nail a Dragon minimise the writing like Lockwoods 3.5 Draconomicon. If you beef it banner away like the Draconomicon 2 in 4th ed. Those Dragons bring back memories of Lake Geneva and I have never been there. 


The main thing I like about the cover is that unlike the 4E and post-4E artwork, there's actual action going on; instead of the "maybe there's a fight going on", or "maybe they're exploring the dungeon", or "maybe they're just making silly heroic poses", you have several dragons fighting a flying spellcaster that just launched an energy blast at it.

The 3E approach of ancient tome-style is timeless, true, but I dunno... it's probably just the fact that it still looks like an old book.  Well-preserved, mysterious-looking old book perhaps, but what other clue does it have aside from the D&D logo that says "ADVENTURE LIES WITHIN"?
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging


Basically a narrativist game.   They believe in the narrativist style of roleplaying.  They introduced it in a mild form in 4e and continued further in 13th Age.   It is a style.   They believe that D&D by rejecting that style is "behind the times" which is a common 4e attack when they use terms like modern etc...

In reality it is a playstyle.   One thats been around for a long time.  When you played make believe as a kid you were playing a narrativist game.   The simulationist style is one thats also been around for a long time.   And D&D has always been a flagship for that model.   When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.   

Despite these criticisms, I like the world flavor as a creative jumpstarter for my own campaign.  I won't use their Icons directly but I might build that sort of information into my world so that players can associate with them.   I won't be as mechanically heavy handed about it (narrativist).

 



I think this is where our main difrence in opionon lies.
I never saw DnD as a flagship for simulationist gaming, yes it is a style you could try to play with DnD but with things like how HP work it isen't a very good system for it. 



Maybe you missed the bolded part.   It's not about accurately simulating something.  HP's are fine as an abstract mechanic.   Abstraction is another axis of debate but GNS I don't think addresses it.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.



Basically a narrativist game.   They believe in the narrativist style of roleplaying.  They introduced it in a mild form in 4e and continued further in 13th Age.   It is a style.   They believe that D&D by rejecting that style is "behind the times" which is a common 4e attack when they use terms like modern etc...

In reality it is a playstyle.   One thats been around for a long time.  When you played make believe as a kid you were playing a narrativist game.   The simulationist style is one thats also been around for a long time.   And D&D has always been a flagship for that model.   When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.   

Despite these criticisms, I like the world flavor as a creative jumpstarter for my own campaign.  I won't use their Icons directly but I might build that sort of information into my world so that players can associate with them.   I won't be as mechanically heavy handed about it (narrativist).

 



I think this is where our main difrence in opionon lies.
I never saw DnD as a flagship for simulationist gaming, yes it is a style you could try to play with DnD but with things like how HP work it isen't a very good system for it. 



Maybe you missed the bolded part.   It's not about accurately simulating something.  HP's are fine as an abstract mechanic.   Abstraction is another axis of debate but GNS I don't think addresses it.




You do know that in the book Role-playing Mastery by gary gygax.
He describes one of the main reasons to develop DnD was to get away from simulation type games and move into the realm of cooperative story telling right ? 


Basically a narrativist game.   They believe in the narrativist style of roleplaying.  They introduced it in a mild form in 4e and continued further in 13th Age.   It is a style.   They believe that D&D by rejecting that style is "behind the times" which is a common 4e attack when they use terms like modern etc...

In reality it is a playstyle.   One thats been around for a long time.  When you played make believe as a kid you were playing a narrativist game.   The simulationist style is one thats also been around for a long time.   And D&D has always been a flagship for that model.   When I say simulationist, I don't mean simulates reality.   I mean the rules as physics and actor only mechanics.   

Despite these criticisms, I like the world flavor as a creative jumpstarter for my own campaign.  I won't use their Icons directly but I might build that sort of information into my world so that players can associate with them.   I won't be as mechanically heavy handed about it (narrativist).

 



I think this is where our main difrence in opionon lies.
I never saw DnD as a flagship for simulationist gaming, yes it is a style you could try to play with DnD but with things like how HP work it isen't a very good system for it. 



Maybe you missed the bolded part.   It's not about accurately simulating something.  HP's are fine as an abstract mechanic.   Abstraction is another axis of debate but GNS I don't think addresses it.




You do know that in the book Role-playing Mastery by gary gygax.
He describes one of the main reasons to develop DnD was to get away from simulation type games and move into the realm of cooperative story telling right ? 



D&D creates bizzare realities where a cure light wounds will heal a lower skillled person entirely from the ground up to full capabilies and cant bare touch the highly skilled, yes he can accept that as a simulation????

But cant accept that heros can daily dig deep into limited heroic energy reserves to pull off extraordinary exploits...

So I still think the simulation claim is a load of pachuachua.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments