As I realize more and more that my gaming group will not be putting down Pathfinder in favor of Next, I decided that if I want to DM ever again, I’ll have to start twisting and shaping PF to what I want to play.
I’ve always been in favor of low magic worlds, and hate games that follow Dancy’s character advancement scale of gritty-fantasy hero-wuxa-super hero. I decided to check out E6 and the more I read about halting character advancement at 6th level… the more I realized that E6 really is what I want to be running… but a problem… so far no game is really giving me the cinematic/tactical combat that I enjoy even at higher levels.
Once you start asking people about low magic E6… inevitably they start talking about Iron Heroes. I was completely unfamiliar with the game but once I heard that it was designed by both Mearls and Cook I really started taking an interest.
I can’t say I love the game, it’s entirely too crunchy, there is little balance between classes magic classes are interesting but greatly flawed… It isn’t really a finished game as far as I’m concerned but I did like some aspects of the combat and resolution systems… in particular…
Iron Heroes has a wonderful stunt and challenge system, similar to what I have seen in other story telling systems where you can use skills to delay or effect combats. I also liked the synergy of some of the classes… just the way that doing what they were designed to do leads to bigger and bigger combat advantages (tokens).
All of this led me to wonder…
Monte Cook left D&D Next due to disagreements with the company but not the other designers… (I still wanna know what all that was about) and was a complete surprise to Mearls… what would have happened if Cook didn’t leave?
Might D&D Next have looked a little more like Iron Heroes? Would we have the stunt/challenge system included?
I heard that now Cook is working on Numenera, (new men era?) the follow up to planescape. I went to the website and read a little news… the art is pretty amazing, they claim they have been playtesting for several months (Hummm… disagreements or better offers including a way in to the MMO market?) I think when Next comes out, I'll get it and see who did a better job... Cook with his design team of two or Next with all of WotC's resources... should be and interesting comparison...
numenera.com
As I realize more and more that my gaming group will not be putting down Pathfinder in favor of Next, I decided that if I want to DM ever again, I’ll have to start twisting and shaping PF to what I want to play. I’ve always been in favo
From everything that I have seen and heard of, if you want "The DDN that should have been" check out 13th Age.
If you don't like gritty-low-level adventuring to turn into high-level-wuxia style, but you still want martial to balance with magical, yet you still really appreciate tactical, cinematic gameplay, have any systems at all presented something relevant to your interests?
From everything that I have seen and heard of, if you want "The DDN that should have been" check out 13th Age.If you don't like gritty-low-level adventuring to turn into high-level-wuxia style, but you still want martial to balance with magical, yet
Oh, and I've heard it whispered that Monte left because the art department refused his repeated requests for more leather straps and buckles. Seriously, whoever said that needs to raise their hand and be recognized.
Um, but seriously... I think Cook left due to better offers from another corner. Sad in some respects, a boon in others. While Cook is very much one of my favorite idea men in the industry (he comes up with great, great setting material), his actual work on system design can be, at times, a little... sketchy.
At this point in the game, I think D&DN needs guys that know how to build systems, not worlds. Mathematicians, not story tellers.
EDIT: Also, Numenera looks like a really, really cool concept.
Pretty much sums it up, yup.Oh, and I've heard it whispered that Monte left because the art department refused his repeated requests for more leather straps and buckles. Seriously, whoever said that needs to raise their hand and be recognized. Um, bu
From everything that I have seen and heard of, if you want "The DDN that should have been" check out 13th Age.
Yes, if you are after a game with a D&D feel for running cinematic fantasy action 13th Age may be worth checking. It's from the lead designer of 3e and the lead designer of 4e, hence it has a lot of D&D DNA going for it. It plays like a streamlined 4e mechanically, but the feel is more akin to 2e, with some 'modern style' features on top. Playtest is over and not available to the public, but the game should release in April. Some resources are available here to get an idea about the product.
Yes, if you are after a game with a D&D feel for running cinematic fantasy action 13th Age may be worth checking. It's from the lead designer of 3e and the lead designer of 4e, hence it has a lot of D&D DNA going for it. It plays like a streamlined 4
I will definately check out 13th Age, so yeah for tatical combat with a slider on the WUXA scale, it was hero games for me, but again.... the core books alone weigh like 25lbs, thats a lot o reading and new gamers really have trouble with it... its like game overload for most folks.
reciently checked into Runequest, I really like the way they handle combat with the combat manuvers and I plan to implement something like that into any game I play... if your not familiar, there are attack and defense rolls, if there is a great difference between the two your character will get extra defensive manuvers or offensive manuvers like an attempt to disarm a foe... I plan to work this out for a d20 system based on the difference between your last attack roll, and your oponents attack roll (so if you hit by a lot and they nearly fumble you get the same sort of chance at a bonus attack.) just kind of in the early stages now, will also incorporate some kind of combination between top half of hp and endurance/martial skill I figure this will allow a kind of snowball effect, if a peon gets lucky and stays lucky he may be able to take out or at least hurt a higher skilled/leveled foe, something I'm not seeing in PF now.
I will definately check out 13th Age, so yeah for tatical combat with a slider on the WUXA scale, it was hero games for me, but again.... the core books alone weigh like 25lbs, thats a lot o reading and new gamers really have trouble with it... its l
From everything that I have seen and heard of, if you want "The DDN that should have been" check out 13th Age.
If you don't like gritty-low-level adventuring to turn into high-level-wuxia style, but you still want martial to balance with magical, yet you still really appreciate tactical, cinematic gameplay, have any systems at all presented something relevant to your interests?
Thats the way it felt to me, every class had magical powers, we had d-dooring fey/tieflings at 1st level. I was playing a paladin who was almost pathetic in comparison with a spellsword who seemed to be a jedi using a light saber that fired 31 flavors of magic crap. no thank you, thats not heroic fantasy, thats super-hero fantasy.
I want low magic, steel on steel with the occasional nuke em spell caster. by cinematic combat I dont mean "I use power no 7 because he is using power no 6", I want the players to actually have to think tatically about what their opponents have done, what they can do, and how they can use the environment, etc. and preferably not something that must be written on a card or an abilities list to be possible. (what do you mean I cant try and throw sand in his eyes because thats a 4th level rogue ability? are you saying I have to be a rogue to fling sand?)
Thats the way it felt to me, every class had magical powers, we had d-dooring fey/tieflings at 1st level. I was playing a paladin who was almost pathetic in comparison with a spellsword who seemed to be a jedi using a light saber that fired 31 flavor
I played a lot of 1e and didnt like the flavor/art/feel of the world... I know thats sort of a cop out on judgement of a system but kind of hard to divorce warhammer fantasy from the world its in... and yeah I'd say d20 is a must more so because of the players in my group as opposed to personal preference.
I played a lot of 1e and didnt like the flavor/art/feel of the world... I know thats sort of a cop out on judgement of a system but kind of hard to divorce warhammer fantasy from the world its in... and yeah I'd say d20 is a must more so because of t
Actually we liked 13th Ages position mechanics so much that we decided to import it in our 4E game. We still put down tokens for relative positions and sketch out the scene on the mat as a reference. Anyway if you are big on grid combat that you may want to look into Savage Worlds.
Actually we liked 13th Ages position mechanics so much that we decided to import it in our 4E game. We still put down tokens for relative positions and sketch out the scene on the mat as a reference. Anyway if you are big on grid combat that you may
not at all, but thats the way it felt to me, every class had magical powers, we had d-dooring fey/tieflings at 1st level. I was playing a paladin who was almost pathetic in comparison with a spellsword who seemed to be a jedi using a light saber that fired 31 flavors of magic crap. no thank you, thats not heroic fantasy, thats super-hero fantasy.
I want low magic, steel on steel with the occasional nuke em spell caster. by cinematic combat I dont mean "I use power no 7 because he is using power no 6", I want the players to actually have to think tatically about what their opponents have done, what they can do, and how they can use the environment, etc. and preferably not something that must be written on a card or an abilities list to be possible. (what do you mean I cant try and throw sand in his eyes because thats a 4th level rogue ability? are you saying I have to be a rogue to fling sand?)
the key here is to use less inflammatory language. You felt they were too magical. Fine, calling 4th edition 'magical crap' is going to get you reported.
Also, you can try anything in 4th edition. See page 42 of the DMG.
the key here is to use less inflammatory language. You felt they were too magical. Fine, calling 4th edition 'magical crap' is going to get you reported.Also, you can try anything in 4th edition. See page 42 of the DMG.
far as "least powerful across the board" uh... I sort of remember in our group getting a 1-4 hp magic user with his awesome 10 AC from first to fifth was an achievement worthy of putting on a job application, especially when every caster's playstlye seemed to be launching all his spells within three rounds and fleeing for the next 4 levels...
far as "least powerful across the board" uh... I sort of remember in our group getting a 1-4 hp magic user with his awesome 10 AC from first to fifth was an achievement worthy of putting on a job application, especially when every caster's playstlye
far as "least powerful across the board" uh... I sort of remember in our group getting a 1-4 hp magic user with his awesome 10 AC from first to fifth was an achievement worthy of putting on a job application, especially when every caster's playstlye seemed to be launching all his spells within three rounds and fleeing for the next 4 levels...
but it beggs a big question... I'll make it my next topic...
I said 'across the board' meaning the whole level progression span. 4e characters start definitely tougher but never get even near the level of power of other editions upon progressing. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
I don't know what a Spellsword class is in 4E. If you are referring to the Swordmage or the Hexblade then they are indeed arcane classes, so yes, they use magic as their power source. But they are not overpowered for that compared to martial classes like the fighter or rogue.
I said 'across the board' meaning the whole level progression span. 4e characters start definitely tougher but never get even near the level of power of other editions upon progressing. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just stating a fact.I don't
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
Thats the way it felt to me, every class had magical powers, we had d-dooring fey/tieflings at 1st level. I was playing a paladin who was almost pathetic in comparison with a spellsword who seemed to be a jedi using a light saber that fired 31 flavors of magic crap. no thank you, thats not heroic fantasy, thats super-hero fantasy.
I want low magic, steel on steel with the occasional nuke em spell caster. by cinematic combat I dont mean "I use power no 7 because he is using power no 6", I want the players to actually have to think tatically about what their opponents have done, what they can do, and how they can use the environment, etc. and preferably not something that must be written on a card or an abilities list to be possible. (what do you mean I cant try and throw sand in his eyes because thats a 4th level rogue ability? are you saying I have to be a rogue to fling sand?)
Well if you look at a banana and see a carrot it's hard to communicate effectively.
Well if you look at a banana and see a carrot it's hard to communicate effectively.
and verse visa, how do you compare an average laborer NPC to a PC in 4e? what about a city guard? what chance would someone like this have against a higher level PC? course we played mostly in a low magic setting where if the mage got one new spell from a session he would be very pleased, and one character death every five sessions was fairly common...
but all in all I disagree with the assessment that "across the board" PC's were weaker in 4e tha they were in previous editions, heck healing surges alone made 4e PC death an extremely rare thing that didnt happen once in our 2yr campaign...
and verse visa, how do you compare an average laborer NPC to a PC in 4e? what about a city guard? what chance would someone like this have against a higher level PC? course we played mostly in a low magic setting where if the mage got one new spell
I have basically one question for you Baalbamoth: If you do all this research that you are doing into other games where your group is emphatic that they are going to stick with Path Finder, what guarantee do you have that your players will be on board to play a game in that system?
It sounds like you are stuck one way or the other with Pathfinder because that is the people you play with.
If you are having to try and "sell" the idea of a new system to your group then you will need to come up with some convincing arguments as to why you want to use a particular system so make sure you have a game plan on that.
I have basically one question for you Baalbamoth: If you do all this research that you are doing into other games where your group is emphatic that they are going to stick with Path Finder, what guarantee do you have that your players will be on boar
and verse visa, how do you compare an average laborer NPC to a PC in 4e? what about a city guard? what chance would someone like this have against a higher level PC? course we played mostly in a low magic setting where if the mage got one new spell from a session he would be very pleased, and one character death every five sessions was fairly common...
but all in all I disagree with the assessment that "across the board" PC's were weaker in 4e tha they were in previous editions, heck healing surges alone made 4e PC death an extremely rare thing that didnt happen once in our 2yr campaign...
4e works with levels, as any other edition of D&D. If you pit someone with 10 levels difference against each other there is no match. But that's always been the case.
That said, in 4e if you throw 2x opponents their level to the party you get a very tough fight, potentially deadly. If you get to fight a dragon there is no way they can one-shot it in the first round.
What I agree upon however is that 4e is less swingy, both on the party and the enemy side. I personally like using MM3/MV monsters for greater damage output and 2x crits, and that makes things definitely more spicy (love it when the rogue goes bloodied in one hit from a brute crit!).
4e works with levels, as any other edition of D&D. If you pit someone with 10 levels difference against each other there is no match. But that's always been the case.That said, in 4e if you throw 2x opponents their level to the party you get a very t
Funny you should mention Iron Heroes, I was just discussing it in another thread. You are correct in saying that it has its flaws, but there were aspects of the system that I really wish WotC (or someone) would pick up and run with. There was going to be a 2nd edition of IH, but it seems that may have fallen by the wayside.
When I found out Mearls was heading up R&D for 4e, I was excited and hopeful for some IH influence. I was disappointed by how little there was, but I tried the game out nonetheless, and enjoyed it (though combat can be a chore and I'm looking forward to 5e's streamlining). One thing that bears pointing out... you can play low-magic in 4e. I have done so, repeatedly, as that's exactly what I like to play. One of the boons of 4e is that everything is so easily reflavorable. If you stumble on verisimilitude, I can understand that, but whether 4e is high magic or low magic relies purely on setting and how you cast the flavor of powers.
D&DN actually seems to be taking things more in the IH direction than 4e did, which is a good thing in my book. Maneuver dice, for one thing, are a bit like tokens, and also a bit like stunts/challenges (you are effectively taking a penalty -- dealing less damage -- in order to cause some additional effect with your action).
Funny you should mention Iron Heroes, I was just discussing it in another thread. You are correct in saying that it has its flaws, but there were aspects of the system that I really wish WotC (or someone) would pick up and run with. There was going
drag- yes, I dont know if it was this thread but I mentioned that I wont be able to break them away from pathfinder, but I dont think they'd have a problem with me adding some house rules over time, so thats why I'm reading these other systems... to look into which ones have the features I want and how to mod say a percentage system I like (runequest) to PF d20 AND keep it ballenced.. its gonna take a while and some playtesting but who knows one day it may be perfect.
btw I did run a few short savage worlds games, I like the system but still a little basic and for some reason I have trouble getting people interested in it... maybe just not enough fluff?
USK- I think thats why no 2e game EVER played the same no matter where I went in the 90's, every DM had their volumes of house rules to deal with all the issues people here regularly complain about as gaping errors in the system... for crits we used a modified rolemaster table with every 1 you made on the back up roll by a 10% increase to the serverly killy rolemaster crit tables... (roll over 60% and we also cut HP in half at 5th level (for everything) to quicken up the combats, all in all it worked very well for a very lethal semi-cinematic very fast paced combat system, we also added some combat manuvers from champions (sweep etc) really, I still havent exactly found a system that has improved our 2e houserules system but try advertising "2e with major changes to house rules" on pen and paper.com and you sure wont see many replys from players at least in my area. where as PATHFINDER RISE OF THE RUNE LORDS will get many.
Soul- I agree with the wonderings about a IH/D&D next, but I dont think their going there or anywhere near there even with the dice pools. funny thing... that 13th Age game is using "stunts" in an almost identical way to IH it seems. RE: 4e, na not for me everything was too controlled, which was good for the DM but bad I think for creativitiy and the players, I tended to agree with some others that at least for me it was more small unit tactics wargaming than what I liked about more a freestyle RPG.
drag- yes, I dont know if it was this thread but I mentioned that I wont be able to break them away from pathfinder, but I dont think they'd have a problem with me adding some house rules over time, so thats why I'm reading these other systems... to
I have basically one question for you Baalbamoth: If you do all this research that you are doing into other games where your group is emphatic that they are going to stick with Path Finder, what guarantee do you have that your players will be on board to play a game in that system?
It sounds like you are stuck one way or the other with Pathfinder because that is the people you play with.
If you are having to try and "sell" the idea of a new system to your group then you will need to come up with some convincing arguments as to why you want to use a particular system so make sure you have a game plan on that.
lol@ you telling him to stick with Pathfinder. He always seemed like an AD&D guy to me.
lol@ you telling him to stick with Pathfinder. He always seemed like an AD&D guy to me.
I think this fellow is looking for a game that simply doesn't exist (and honestly, I can't see quite how it could exist).
He wants d20-based; gritty with plentiful individual character death BUT cinematic and tactical combat; non-magical martial characters (perhaps open to super-human feats of strength, but nothing else?) BUT they need to be balanced with magical casters.
Any system he runs will have to be house-ruled to hell and back, so the starting point doesn't even matter all that much.
I think this fellow is looking for a game that simply doesn't exist (and honestly, I can't see quite how it could exist).He wants d20-based; gritty with plentiful individual character death BUT cinematic and tactical combat; non-magical martial chara
rory yeah pretty much, ad&d/2e skills and powers, were my primary games, followed by champions, car wars, gurps, torg, twilight 2000, morro project, top secret, james bond, oh god and every game that came out from the late 80's -2000 (name something old and I probably played it)+ one 2 yr game of 4e which was honestly my worst gaming expirence except for maybe the origional conan game with its flip a coin heads you crush your enemies tails you die combat system.
blacksheep- ya but its not so much that the system does not exist (mutants and masterminds had one... I think wizards and warlords) but more that no system has exactly what I'm looking for and if I must start with pathfinder, I need something I can port in without too much trouble or radical changes to the character generation systems (which is what the players care most about...) but like the Cylons... I have a plan...
rory yeah pretty much, ad&d/2e skills and powers, were my primary games, followed by champions, car wars, gurps, torg, twilight 2000, morro project, top secret, james bond, oh god and every game that came out from the late 80's -2000 (name something
One of my groups has been having a great time with The Dresden Files, so I went out and picked up Legend of Anglerre to see if the Fate system can scratch my low fantasy itch. I'm only part way into it but it looks quite servicable.
One of my groups has been having a great time with The Dresden Files, so I went out and picked up Legend of Anglerre to see if the Fate system can scratch my low fantasy itch. I'm only part way into it but it looks quite servicable.
Ooh, no, no, no, that would be the last thing 5th Ed wants to do.
I was operating under the assumption that "the DDN that should have been" was a new game that did things in a new and interesting way; a game that is innovative and offered a new way of doing things.
If you want "D&D: the same thing, again, but slightly different" then yes, 13th Age looks like a poor choice.
I was operating under the assumption that "the DDN that should have been" was a new game that did things in a new and interesting way; a game that is innovative and offered a new way of doing things.If you want "D&D: the same thing, again, but slight
I was operating under the assumption that "the DDN that should have been" was a new game that did things in a new and interesting way; a game that is innovative and offered a new way of doing things.
You mean a derivative of 4th Ed; yeah, operate under another assumption
You mean a derivative of 4th Ed; yeah, operate under another assumption
At this point in the game, I think D&DN needs guys that know how to build systems, not worlds. Mathematicians, not story tellers.
There is no way I can express how much I disagree, but whatever blows your skirt up.
Meh. Look, I'm a D&D cosmology guy. I'm all about the fluff and history, but I'm not about to say, "Hey, who cares about having a workable system! Just make sure that you include the 2e planar model and I'll be happy, bro! Oh, and don't forget to retcon the 4E Forgotten Realms, 'kay? All of my hate!"
If you've got a weak base, you've got nothing, especially when you consider the number of excellent systems out there. Just "being D&D" isn't going to be enough to sustain the new edition's sales, especially when you consider the number of customers interested in Dungeons & Dragons as a more universal engine around which they can build settings and stories. As important as I believe D&D's universal history to be (there aren't many around that can outshine me with regards to that topic), I understand that the history can be found in setting books.
You want a strong game? Well, nowadays especially... you've got to have a strong system to back it up. It's not enough to have one without the other.
Edit: And stop imagining me in women's clothing, ya friggin' perv. Trust me, it wouldn't be a pretty picture. Skirts, sheesh. Indeed!
There is no way I can express how much I disagree, but whatever blows your skirt up.[/quote]Meh. Look, I'm a D&D cosmology guy. I'm all about the fluff and history, but I'm not about to say, "Hey, who cares about having a workable system! Just make s
You mean a derivative of 4th Ed; yeah, operate under another assumption
So, DDN should have absolutely no inspiration or qualities of 4th edition, either bad or good? Because the game I'm seeing in 13th edition has certain things from 4E that were good, but is so greatly different from 4E that referring to it as some sort of 4.5 is ridiculous in the extreme.
So, DDN should have absolutely no inspiration or qualities of 4th edition, either bad or good? Because the game I'm seeing in 13th edition has certain things from 4E that were good, but is so greatly different from 4E that referring to it as some sor
I was operating under the assumption that "the DDN that should have been" was a new game that did things in a new and interesting way; a game that is innovative and offered a new way of doing things.
You mean a derivative of 4th Ed; yeah, operate under another assumption
13th Age shouldn't be called a derivitive of 4e at all. It does contain some 4e-inspired elements (as does Next, although Next's are not as elegantly applied), but it's generally wrong to think of 13th age that way. I think that the extent to which that's the case gets overstated, because a lot of people are too quick to make the 3.5:Pathfinder::4e:13th Age analogy, which isn't very apropos. 13th Age is a new system. It's overall D&D enough that it feels like it could be an edition of D&D, but it's not a repackaging of any existing system. That's very far off the mark. In fact, "The DDN that should have been" is a pretty good way to describe it. It combines what I see as the strongest elements of every D&D edition into a cleaner, simpler and more coherant whole than I would have thought possible. It does differ from Next in that it does not try to be everything to everybody. It's happy to decide that things work some way or another, although the rules are naturally somewhat modular. I wouldn't expect every last human to like 13th Age, but it's hard for me to imagine someone who enjoyed any edition of D&D (and isn't absurdly closed-minded about the very idea of 13th Age) to find it pretty exciting.
You mean a derivative of 4th Ed; yeah, operate under another assumption[/quote]13th Age shouldn't be called a derivitive of 4e at all. It does contain some 4e-inspired elements (as does Next, although Next's are not as elegantly applied), but it's ge
Soul- I agree with the wonderings about a IH/D&D next, but I dont think their going there or anywhere near there even with the dice pools. funny thing... that 13th Age game is using "stunts" in an almost identical way to IH it seems.
I'm hoping the Advanced game and/or modules/houserules will get me where I want to go with DDN. I'll have to take a closer look at 13th Age though, if they're using "stunts" like in IH.
RE: 4e, na not for me everything was too controlled, which was good for the DM but bad I think for creativitiy and the players, I tended to agree with some others that at least for me it was more small unit tactics wargaming than what I liked about more a freestyle RPG.
I've grown tired of 4e's shortcomings myself, so I'm not arguing with you; my point was not on the style of gameplay but the fact that high magic vs. low magic isn't baked into the game, because it's so eminently reflavorable.
I'm hoping the Advanced game and/or modules/houserules will get me where I want to go with DDN. I'll have to take a closer look at 13th Age though, if they're using "stunts" like in IH.I've grown tired of 4e's shortcomings myself, so I'm not arguing
As someone who loves both D&D 4E and 13th Age (as well as a bit of 3.5E), here's what I have to say on the matter: 13th Age is NOT D&D 4E. At all.
4E is supposedly tied to a grid, 13th Age uses zones.
4E is strictly AEDU up to Player's Handbook 3 -- and even then there isn't much diversity, as Power Points effectively serve as encounter abilities, while Essentials trade off martial dailies for empowered basic attacks -- whil 13th Age classes are each built differently but the power of their abilities are restricted by a combination of level availability + frequency of use (for example, it is completely possible to build a Sorcerer that's 100% daily spell-centric, while most non-casters heavily use basic attacks even though they can take up a per-battle or even a per-day ability depending on build and class).
4E class features are barely customizable (I'm guessing no one ever dared try swapping, let's say, Hunter's Quarry with Combat Challenge), 13th Age class features are expected to be swappable if it fits the character's story.
4E has detailed equipment complete with feat support, 13th Age equipment are played up for laughs more or less (utilizing Gamma World 7E's weapon/armor list, and encouraging DMs to not be so serious on the price lists, since each town would likely have a different price list, not only on a per-town basis, but also on a per-event basis [e.g. a world-famous event would likely jack up prices like crazy]).
4E magic items were part of the system math, 13th Age (like D&D Next) does not take magic items into mathematical consideration and expects them to make you REALLY powerful but at a price (mostly in the form of roleplaying quirks).
The only things I can find as common to 4E and 13th Age would be
Difference in monster/PC design (made obvious with mooks and Large/Huge enemies, as Huge enemies take 3x longer to kill than normal enemies and hit 3x as hard, while mooks are designed to be run in swarms and die fast, much like 4E minions)
Unification of the attack/save roll
saves are, like in 4E, restricted to save ends effects, like death saving throws [which are deadlier in 13th Age on account of needing a 16 to succeed, although unlike in 4E rolling a 16 on your death saving throw in 13th Age lets you heal up; either way, you're not going to be rolling death saving throws for more than 3 rounds]
following the footsteps of 3E's simplification of saves and 4E's unification of the rolls, 13th Age further simplifies defenses from AC/Fort/Ref/Will to AC/Physical/Mental
Recoveries/healing surges
except healing in 13th Age is MUCH more limited than in D&D 4E; for one, everyone gets only 8 recoveries [unless the DM says so, and/or they take class features that increase their number of recoveries]
Similarity in character creation algorithm
ability scores, ability modifiers, and a bunch of other math-related stuff
- - - - - Aside from "a love letter to D&D", 13th Age is often cited as "a book of every houserule you didn't know you wanted" (or something to that degree, memory fails me on that one). So I think this is the part about 13th Age that Baalmoth would like: most of 13th Age's features are so modular in design he can, as desired, take most of the system and houserule them into his Pathfinder game with little to no changes.
One Unique Thing
Icons and Icon Relationships
Magic Items and the Karma system
Rituals (only similar to 4E's Ritual in the fact that it's an out-of-combat resource; otherwise it's more like Ars Magica's freeform magic at least)
The background system (which is basically the same as FATE's Aspects, but without being tied to Fate Points) requires quite an amount of hammering to get it to fit Pathfinder / 3.5E design since it's tied to 13th Age's character progression system, but it's still possible Also, specific class features might catch his fancy if he likes 'em.
As someone who loves both D&D 4E and 13th Age (as well as a bit of 3.5E), here's what I have to say on the matter: 13th Age is NOT D&D 4E. At all. 4E is supposedly tied to a grid, 13th Age uses zones. 4E is strictly AEDU up to Player's Handbook 3 --
Oh, and I've heard it whispered that Monte left because the art department refused his repeated requests for more leather straps and buckles. Seriously, whoever said that needs to raise their hand and be recognized.
Um, but seriously... I think Cook left due to better offers from another corner. Sad in some respects, a boon in others. While Cook is very much one of my favorite idea men in the industry (he comes up with great, great setting material), his actual work on system design can be, at times, a little... sketchy.
At this point in the game, I think D&DN needs guys that know how to build systems, not worlds. Mathematicians, not story tellers.
EDIT: Also, Numenera looks like a really, really cool concept.
Actually, the rumours I've heard is that Mr. Cook didn't really want to work under a former 'employee'. Especially one he thought didn't have a chance to go anywhere without his own name on the products this employee made.
That employee? Mike Mearls.
Actually, the rumours I've heard is that Mr. Cook didn't really want to work under a former 'employee'. Especially one he thought didn't have a chance to go anywhere without his own name on the products this employee made.That employee? Mike Mearls
Oh, and I've heard it whispered that Monte left because the art department refused his repeated requests for more leather straps and buckles. Seriously, whoever said that needs to raise their hand and be recognized.
Um, but seriously... I think Cook left due to better offers from another corner. Sad in some respects, a boon in others. While Cook is very much one of my favorite idea men in the industry (he comes up with great, great setting material), his actual work on system design can be, at times, a little... sketchy.
At this point in the game, I think D&DN needs guys that know how to build systems, not worlds. Mathematicians, not story tellers.
EDIT: Also, Numenera looks like a really, really cool concept.
Actually, the rumours I've heard is that Mr. Cook didn't really want to work under a former 'employee'. Especially one he thought didn't have a chance to go anywhere without his own name on the products this employee made.
That employee? Mike Mearls.
Interesting.
I'm still puttin' my money on the lack of leather straps and buckles in the artwork, however!
Actually, the rumours I've heard is that Mr. Cook didn't really want to work under a former 'employee'. Especially one he thought didn't have a chance to go anywhere without his own name on the products this employee made.That employee? Mike Mearls
Having largely bailed on 3e, my primary familiarity with Cook is from Labyrinth of Madness. If that's indicative of his usual work, I'd say DDN dodged a bullet.
Having largely bailed on 3e, my primary familiarity with Cook is from Labyrinth of Madness. If that's indicative of his usual work, I'd say DDN dodged a bullet.
As I realize more and more that my gaming group will not be putting down Pathfinder in favor of Next, I decided that if I want to DM ever again, I’ll have to start twisting and shaping PF to what I want to play.
I’ve always been in favor of low magic worlds, and hate games that follow Dancy’s character advancement scale of gritty-fantasy hero-wuxa-super hero. I decided to check out E6 and the more I read about halting character advancement at 6th level… the more I realized that E6 really is what I want to be running… but a problem… so far no game is really giving me the cinematic/tactical combat that I enjoy even at higher levels.
Once you start asking people about low magic E6… inevitably they start talking about Iron Heroes. I was completely unfamiliar with the game but once I heard that it was designed by both Mearls and Cook I really started taking an interest.
I can’t say I love the game, it’s entirely too crunchy, there is little balance between classes magic classes are interesting but greatly flawed… It isn’t really a finished game as far as I’m concerned but I did like some aspects of the combat and resolution systems… in particular…
Iron Heroes has a wonderful stunt and challenge system, similar to what I have seen in other story telling systems where you can use skills to delay or effect combats. I also liked the synergy of some of the classes… just the way that doing what they were designed to do leads to bigger and bigger combat advantages (tokens).
All of this led me to wonder…
Monte Cook left D&D Next due to disagreements with the company but not the other designers… (I still wanna know what all that was about) and was a complete surprise to Mearls… what would have happened if Cook didn’t leave?
Might D&D Next have looked a little more like Iron Heroes? Would we have the stunt/challenge system included?
I heard that now Cook is working on Numenera, (new men era?) the follow up to planescape. I went to the website and read a little news… the art is pretty amazing, they claim they have been playtesting for several months (Hummm… disagreements or better offers including a way in to the MMO market?) I think when Next comes out, I'll get it and see who did a better job... Cook with his design team of two or Next with all of WotC's resources... should be and interesting comparison...
numenera.com
I don't know if these points have been cleared up yet but...
1) Numenara is not a followup to planescape. The original developers of Planescape: Torment wanted to make a new planescape game, but the Torment setting is currently owned by WotC. So they had to use a new backdrop and Numenara just happened to fit the bill. The two are completely different things.
2) Monte Cook has never outright said it, but we've heard enough talk from fellow employees with similar issues that he probably left due to creative rights. Wizards claims creative rights over anything created by its employees in certain departments. This includes any non D&D related projects, such as Numenara. Once he was sure that the company wasn't going to let him publish Numenara outside of WotC, he decided to leave. Another employee had the exact same situation happen to him and he left because of it too. I'll try and dig up the article if I can find it.
Just a couple of things I wanted to clear up.
I don't know if these points have been cleared up yet but...1) Numenara is not a followup to planescape. The original developers of Planescape: Torment wanted to make a new planescape game, but the Torment setting is currently owned by WotC. So they
what do you mean I cant try and throw sand in his eyes because thats a 4th level rogue ability? are you saying I have to be a rogue to fling sand?
If that's the way you think 4e worked, then you either had a poor DM or haven't actually played it. You could do plenty of things outside the abilities explicitly granted by your class, you just had to have a DM that actually read the DMG.
If that's the way you think 4e worked, then you either had a poor DM or haven't actually played it. You could do plenty of things outside the abilities explicitly granted by your class, you just had to have a DM that actually read the DMG.
Most complaints made against 4e are made from people who have no clue how 4e actually worked. It is generally pretty amusing to listen to them.
P.S. for everyone who thinks level 1 PCs are superheroes in 4e. Run them against 4 orcs from the MM1 and watch your superhero PCs get pounded to a pulp. Then run the same battle in any other edition of D&D and watch the PCs wipe the board with those Orcs. (3e and below Sleep spell could take the Orcs out singlehandedly).
Most complaints made against 4e are made from people who have no clue how 4e actually worked. It is generally pretty amusing to listen to them. P.S. for everyone who thinks level 1 PCs are superheroes in 4e. Run them against 4 orcs from the MM1 and w
P.S. for everyone who thinks level 1 PCs are superheroes in 4e. Run them against 4 orcs from the MM1 and watch your superhero PCs get pounded to a pulp.
That's true, the superhero comparison really falls apart when you compare the 4e PCs to 4e monsters/encounters instead of monsters or PCs of past editions. And, given that a stiff wind could kill a 2e or 3e 1st level wizard (exaggeration, I know, but a housecat can which is just . . . wow), it's hard for 4e PCs not to look like superheroes by comparison.
That's true, the superhero comparison really falls apart when you compare the 4e PCs to 4e monsters/encounters instead of monsters or PCs of past editions. And, given that a stiff wind could kill a 2e or 3e 1st level wizard (exaggeration, I know, bu
Most complaints made against 4e are made from people who have no clue how 4e actually worked. It is generally pretty amusing to listen to them.
P.S. for everyone who thinks level 1 PCs are superheroes in 4e. Run them against 4 orcs from the MM1 and watch your superhero PCs get pounded to a pulp. Then run the same battle in any other edition of D&D and watch the PCs wipe the board with those Orcs. (3e and below Sleep spell could take the Orcs out singlehandedly).
No joke. I can take a level 1 fighter in 1st through 3.5 and wax 4 orcs by myself. In 4th, not so much.
No joke. I can take a level 1 fighter in 1st through 3.5 and wax 4 orcs by myself. In 4th, not so much.
the fling sand situation actually happened in our 4e game, we had a very good dm, but the issue was that there was already a rogue ability to do exactly what I wanted to do, the DM didnt want to piss off the rogue saying "now anyone can do that expensive feat you just paid for" but at the same time didnt want to tell me no. so on the fly the very good DM made up some rules so my flinging sand would be much less effective (when it wasnt too effective to begin with) and have a very slim chance of success... so now both of us should be happy right? wrong. It was a great dissapointment, a reasonable request for an action being altered to slim and worrthless because of rules.
regarding the superhero issue, again it wasnt so much that combat was not ballanced, mostly it was, it was more the list of superheroic like abilities and options that most characters had available to them, including a glut of magic items that each added even more options. IE more teleporting/d-door like abilities, more invisible or obscuring abilities, more movement options, more "this is the perfect power to use for this exact situation" type abilities.
It was extremely difficult to get a PC or NPC in a situation they could not escape from, a PC death was essentially impossible assuming the PC knew when to get out of combat.
Options were carefully controlled so optimization was not as much an issue (which to 4e's credit is pretty amazing, generally more options means a greater environment for rule breakage due to one trick ponydom.)
but all in all, it felt way too controlled and PC's seemed superpowered even at 1st level, all grittyness seemed to be lost, the necessity for planning and strategy really wernt as much of issues (because real threats were rare and escape was always possible) and outcomes were generally predictable. The whole thing reminded me more of WoW than the gritty and suprising game I such nostalgic feelings for.
I understand for some people it was the first game they really had great expirences with, and maybe the good old days always seem better wearing the nostalgia glasses, but really even with a DM that was incredible at plot and subplot formation, role playing, etc.. the rules themselves were killing my fun at every session, and for that reason I cant ever get on teh 4e bandwaggon, and really would prefer less rather than more 4e type rules making it into the 5th edition.
PS. the wonderful description of 13th age a few postings ago... I wont be playing it, too close to a game I feel was pretty terrible and the whole thing sounds too wacky-whimsyish to me, but I will take a look at the rules. Tthere are a few things I find worthy of theft already... I'll likely steal the escalation die mechanic and for the short encounters I might employ the threat range simulation for when i run off the grid (I already do similar things for when I run persuits and chases... I'm a big believer in trying to include as many chace and race situations in a game as it really worked for Star Wars, Willow etc.)
the fling sand situation actually happened in our 4e game, we had a very good dm, but the issue was that there was already a rogue ability to do exactly what I wanted to do, the DM didnt want to piss off the rogue saying "now anyone can do that expen
regarding the superhero issue, again it wasnt so much that combat was not ballanced, mostly it was, it was more the list of superheroic like abilities and options that most characters had available to them, including a glut of magic items that each added even more options.
Superheroic-like abilities like Flinging Sand in People's Eyes, for instance? Or Hitting Them Really Hard, to take one of the superheroic abilities a 1st level Fighter might be able to use, hitting someone and moving away before they can retaliate (Ranger), creating an illusion of treasure which they'll step towards (Wizard). Those superhero like abilities.
Superheroic-like abilities like Flinging Sand in People's Eyes, for instance? Or Hitting Them Really Hard, to take one of the superheroic abilities a 1st level Fighter might be able to use, hitting someone and moving away before they can retaliate (R
To OP: Iron Heroes was written by Mike Mearls (designer on 4e), not Monte Cook. It was originally published by Monte Cook's company, Malhavoc Press.
Iron Heroes was an innovative system. It made martial classes fun to play, rather than being pack-mules for wizards/clerics as in 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder.
To OP: Iron Heroes was written by Mike Mearls (designer on 4e), not Monte Cook. It was originally published by Monte Cook's company, Malhavoc Press.Iron Heroes was an innovative system. It made martial classes fun to play, rather than being pack-mule
To OP: Iron Heroes was written by Mike Mearls (designer on 4e), not Monte Cook. It was originally published by Monte Cook's company, Malhavoc Press.
Iron Heroes was an innovative system. It made martial classes fun to play, rather than being pack-mules for wizards/clerics as in 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder.
Martial Characters are pack mules? If you insisted on playing martial characters that way in the older editions I guess it could have happened. I have yet to see it.
Martial Characters are pack mules? If you insisted on playing martial characters that way in the older editions I guess it could have happened. I have yet to see it.
Here is how we run many generic improvised actions in 4e (like sand in the eyes, taunting, cutting a "Z" in someones shirt, etc).
Make an appropriate attack roll, skill check, or ability check vs the targets defense (F/R/W). A success means you daze the target.
This dazing can represent a number of things:
Sand in the Eyes: It is silly to assume throwing sand in someones eyes blinds them for 6 seconds straight. A second or two maybe. Enough to prevent them from making opportunity attacks, to slow them down while they wipe the sand from their eyes (can only take 1 action), and to make them grant combat advantage though.
Disarmed: In a real swordfight a disarmed foe is dead. But in cinematic hollywood swordfights the disarmed warrior leaps to his weapon and picks it up in a matter of seconds. Well, dazed works perfectly here too. Warrior spends time picking up his weapon and cannot parry or make opportunity attacks without it.
Taunted/Intimidated/Acrobatic Tricked/etc: The target is briefly stunned by your intimidating presence, angered by what you said about his momma, or confused as you tumble about. Dazed works great for all of these situations.
P.S. Baal, the rogue has no "throw sand in the eyes" power. The closest thing to it is blinding barrage which creates a hail of weaponry in a large area that damage and distract the foes blinding them for a round. Your example of the DM not letting you throw sand in the eyes is clearly made up, or at the best highly misinformed. I mean the DM could have easily said your "Sand in the eyes" attack does no damage and can only target 1 creature which would have been fine without taking anything away from the rogue.
Here is how we run many generic improvised actions in 4e (like sand in the eyes, taunting, cutting a "Z" in someones shirt, etc).Make an appropriate attack roll, skill check, or ability check vs the targets defense (F/R/W). A success means you daze t
the fling sand situation actually happened in our 4e game
If you give a player an inch, he will take a mile. "Yes, you can do this single-action thing that will in most situations render a monster very helpless for a significant period of time; it requires no investment in character skill and can be used any time" is a terrible, terrible thing for any DM to do - even if it matches well with what you see as how reality would work. This is because a player will see it work once, work well, and will then exploit that to use it whenever possible - buying a bag of sand to carry around just for that express purpose, because that is how the rules work. That this is against the sentiment of the game does not enter into the equation, and if "your group wouldn't do this", that's great - you obviously have a gentleman's agreement that not all groups have to not exploit the DM.
What should have happened was a dex-based attack vs the enemy's reflex; depending upon if you use inherent bonuses or not this would have a greater or lesser chance of success. If successful, it should have been "target is blinded until the end of your next turn". This puts it about on-par with, say, the Feint action. If you think this as "a reasonable request for an action being altered to slim and worrthless because of rules" then you're just being greedy.
regarding the superhero issue
If you feel that the players should be much more meek, afraid of all the things they meet to fight, and always worried that the next door they open may very well kill them instantly, then no, 4e is not the right game for you - not as a fault of the game, but because you'd be trying to cut carrots with a spoon. Right tool, right job.
a PC death was essentially impossible assuming the PC knew when to get out of combat.
Yes it is surprisingly hard to kill somebody when they run away whenever they feel threatened. That is the difference between "a hero that will stay and fight, sacrificing himself in order to maybe save the town from the demon prince" and "some guy that just wants to kill things and take it's stuff to get rich".
I'm going to chalk this one up to an ineffective DM and overall poor group understanding on how to play to the strengths of the game. Yes, 4e has it's faults, but no, these aren't it.
If you give a player an inch, he will take a mile. "Yes, you can do this single-action thing that will in most situations render a monster very helpless for a significant period of time; it requires no investment in character skill and can be used an
the fling sand situation actually happened in our 4e game, we had a very good dm, but the issue was that there was already a rogue ability to do exactly what I wanted to do, the DM didnt want to piss off the rogue saying "now anyone can do that expensive feat you just paid for" but at the same time didnt want to tell me no. so on the fly the very good DM made up some rules so my flinging sand would be much less effective (when it wasnt too effective to begin with) and have a very slim chance of success... so now both of us should be happy right? wrong. It was a great dissapointment, a reasonable request for an action being altered to slim and worrthless because of rules.
Because of the rules that your DM made up. Like I said, poor DM.
There is nothing stopping anyone in 4e from emulating the class abilities of a martial class. Sure, the amrtial class should always be better at it, but what does that mean? Does the emulator get a -2 to hit? Do they do less damage? None of these things sound like the action has been rendered worthless, and yet they also keep the person with the class ability as being the best at the ability in question.
Because of the rules that your DM made up. Like I said, poor DM.There is nothing stopping anyone in 4e from emulating the class abilities of a martial class. Sure, the amrtial class should always be better at it, but what does that mean? Does the
There is nothing stopping anyone in 4e from emulating the class abilities of a martial class. Sure, the martial class should always be better at it, but what does that mean? Does the emulator get a -2 to hit? Do they do less damage? None of these things sound like the action has been rendered worthless, and yet they also keep the person with the class ability as being the best at the ability in question.
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version"; it's not something that I'd want to put on the DM to adjudicate on the fly.
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version"; it's not so
There is nothing stopping anyone in 4e from emulating the class abilities of a martial class. Sure, the martial class should always be better at it, but what does that mean? Does the emulator get a -2 to hit? Do they do less damage? None of these things sound like the action has been rendered worthless, and yet they also keep the person with the class ability as being the best at the ability in question.
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version."
I agree, it is a fine line. But it's also easy to get right.
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version."[/quote]I ag
It was extremely difficult to get a PC or NPC in a situation they could not escape from, a PC death was essentially impossible assuming the PC knew when to get out of combat.
I think that was the point regarding PCs in 4E: PC death and defeat shouldn't just be JUST the result of an accidental roll or an "average" fight, due to the fact that the players are the centerpiece(s) of the campaign (without the PCs, the DM's campaign world still works yes... but only in his mind, and perhaps in a book or a blog or two).
Options were carefully controlled so optimization was not as much an issue (which to 4e's credit is pretty amazing, generally more options means a greater environment for rule breakage due to one trick ponydom.)
but all in all, it felt way too controlled and PC's seemed superpowered even at 1st level, all grittyness seemed to be lost, the necessity for planning and strategy really wernt as much of issues (because real threats were rare and escape was always possible) and outcomes were generally predictable. The whole thing reminded me more of WoW than the gritty and suprising game I such nostalgic feelings for.
DM campaign design combined with intra-group dynamics apparently.
I understand for some people it was the first game they really had great expirences with, and maybe the good old days always seem better wearing the nostalgia glasses, but really even with a DM that was incredible at plot and subplot formation, role playing, etc.. the rules themselves were killing my fun at every session, and for that reason I cant ever get on teh 4e bandwaggon, and really would prefer less rather than more 4e type rules making it into the 5th edition.
What happened to "rules were only guidelines" then? What happened to pages 42 and 189 of the DMG, which could easily be combined into rule 0?
PS. the wonderful description of 13th age a few postings ago... I wont be playing it, too close to a game I feel was pretty terrible and the whole thing sounds too wacky-whimsyish to me, but I will take a look at the rules. Tthere are a few things I find worthy of theft already... I'll likely steal the escalation die mechanic and for the short encounters I might employ the threat range simulation for when i run off the grid (I already do similar things for when I run persuits and chases... I'm a big believer in trying to include as many chace and race situations in a game as it really worked for Star Wars, Willow etc.)
Escalation die helps reduce or remove the need for buffs, relationship dice helps define a lot of stuff in the world -- not only in terms of helping the DM organize his campaign to determine who or what influences where, but how the PCs relate to, and interact with, the world -- and the zone-based approach helps me run sessions board-free at times.
System-wise it's only as wacky-whimsyish as you make it, just like any TRPG -- in one of my groups we play up the whole game in a very wacky-whimsyish way that immediately throws the PCs and players into the whole muck of political and world instability (in a recent session one player plunged the entire empire into utter chaos and somehow killed one of the most powerful dragons in the world), while in another group we play the whole game in a more serious and RP-heavy manner, and I'm planning to setup a campaign where gritty realism and GUMSHOE-style investigative work is utilized (wherein they never really get past level 1, but instead I'd give them partial levels in the form of new powers (if applicable) and maybe extra skills, or whatever is applicable at the time) -- and as far as I can tell it actually favors player-DM talks on the campaign.
For example, regarding number of recoveries the book states that each class gets "usually 8", which for me implies that it's the DM who sets the amount, not the rulebook itself. So I plan to have the gritty realism campaign without recoveries at all (stuff that utilize recoveries would heal for half [in the absence of recoveries]), all magic is removed [magical classes must be reflavored into mundane, no ritual magic], and focus more on both surviving and investigative work.
I think that was the point regarding PCs in 4E: PC death and defeat shouldn't just be JUST the result of an accidental roll or an "average" fight, due to the fact that the players are the centerpiece(s) of the campaign (without the PCs, the DM's camp
There is nothing stopping anyone in 4e from emulating the class abilities of a martial class. Sure, the martial class should always be better at it, but what does that mean? Does the emulator get a -2 to hit? Do they do less damage? None of these things sound like the action has been rendered worthless, and yet they also keep the person with the class ability as being the best at the ability in question.
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version."
I agree, it is a fine line. But it's also easy to get right.
I think the problem also involves classes themselves. Think about it: Why is it that the Barbarian gets bonuses when angry, but not the Fighter? Why does the character have to multiclass to Barbarian to get bonuses when angry?
[ At least 4E seriously attempted to answer that with "because he channels the spirits of the ancients into his rage", which is class-specific. Though I can't answer the same for Ranger vs. Fighter vs. Barbarian in terms of dual wielding. Sadly. ]
As far as I can tell, there have been only 3 distinct classes: the mundane (fighting men), the magical (magic users), and the hybrid (clerics); from what I can tell, this is what Numenera has acknowledged with its 3-class design. All other classes could be considered as thematic and mechanical alterations to these three base classes -- thieves being sneaky + training-centric fighting men, barbarians being rage-fueled fighting men, paladins being divine-blessed fighting men, druids being nature-centric clerics, etc. -- with no real exceptions (heck, to this day rangers have quite the identity crisis, same with paladins vs. battle clerics; plus, there's the fighter vs. rogue stepping-on-shoes issue as well).
Add rules vs. rulings vs. story, and we have quite the logistics nightmare.
It's actually why I like 13th Age's approach: classes are clearly defined, but it's perfectly fine to swap stuff to keep within a character's story, and feats are almost exclusively enhancements to the class/race-specific things a character can do (unlike just about every edition of D&D, generic feats are very hard to come by in 13th Age). That way, duplication as seen in 4E is completely avoided, and with the rules encouraging rulings to support the story, it's a very, very nice design layout, at least IMHO. So no, in 13th Age there is no sand-throwing feat, so everyone is free to throw sand in their enemy's eyes equally (at least while there aren't characters who have sand-throwing expertise as a background, since they're likely more skilled at it than others).
It's a very fine line between "don't bother learning it as a power because anyone can do it well-enough anyway," and "don't bother doing it if you don't have a power because it's a waste of an action unless you have the advanced version."[/quote]I ag
I think the problem also involves classes themselves. Think about it: Why is it that the Barbarian gets bonuses when angry, but not the Fighter? Why does the character have to multiclass to Barbarian to get bonuses when angry?
[ At least 4E seriously attempted to answer that with "because he channels the spirits of the ancients into his rage", which is class-specific. Though I can't answer the same for Ranger vs. Fighter vs. Barbarian in terms of dual wielding. Sadly. ]
As far as I can tell, there have been only 3 distinct classes: the mundane (fighting men), the magical (magic users), and the hybrid (clerics); from what I can tell, this is what Numenera has acknowledged with its 3-class design. All other classes could be considered as thematic and mechanical alterations to these three base classes -- thieves being sneaky + training-centric fighting men, barbarians being rage-fueled fighting men, paladins being divine-blessed fighting men, druids being nature-centric clerics, etc. -- with no real exceptions (heck, to this day rangers have quite the identity crisis, same with paladins vs. battle clerics; plus, there's the fighter vs. rogue stepping-on-shoes issue as well).
I don't think that we should fusion most of the classes. One of the cool things about classes is to have a lot of them.
I don't think that we should fusion most of the classes. One of the cool things about classes is to have a lot of them.
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did j
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
Monte Cook left D&D Next due to disagreements with the company but not the other designers… (I still wanna know what all that was about) and was a complete surprise to Mearls… what would have happened if Cook didn’t leave?
Might D&D Next have looked a little more like Iron Heroes? Would we have the stunt/challenge system included?
Actually, as someone pointed out, Mike Mearls made Iron Heroes, which Monte Cook didn't believe wouldn't sell if he didn't put his imprint on it (Monte Cook Presents.) It was a rushed product, which never really got the attention it deserved because Mr. Mearls got hired by WoTC to work on 4e. Which truly is a pity, and I mean that. I loved me some Iron Heroes.
As for what D&DNext would look like if Monte were still at the helm, go dig out your 3e books. Not, 3.5, the Third Edition books. That's Monte Cook's D&D. Where feats were full of 'traps' (Mr. Cook once mentioned that he loved Magic The GAthering's Trap/Timmy Cards and wanted to put that into D&D) and magic in the core book reigned supreme. Mr. Cook LOVES his Vancian Magic, and doesn't really care about the 'Mundanes'. All his source books that he put for 3.x were full of magic users in some fashion. I once read an article of his about his $120 flop Ptolus, about how he had a group of players wandering around the city and when one guy was flipping out at a Polymorphed Minotaur was rampaging, another player calmly reply, "Nah, It's Ptolus, man." And Mr. Cook praised Mr. Calm Gamer as 'getting the setting'. To me, that's a huge indication (and I admit I could be wrong on it) that he would rather have his settings full of magic and magic users.
In MY D&D I want Wizards and Warriors (Which were a fun series of books, if a tad brutal) to play together without having one side dominate the other, ever.
Actually, as someone pointed out, Mike Mearls made Iron Heroes, which Monte Cook didn't believe wouldn't sell if he didn't put his imprint on it (Monte Cook Presents.) It was a rushed product, which never really got the attention it deserved because
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
I think what was hinted in 4E and what 13th Age brings out into the open is that you're supposed to throw unfair fights at PCs. 13th Age brings this better to light by outright removing EXP values for monsters and instead emphasizing the relevance of their levels. Since story is the greater emphasis in 13th Age, the DM is no longer required to make players level up based on the amount of EXP they get, and the DM is only presented fair fights to show what a baseline "fair" combat encounter would be like, where PCs are threatened without actual risk of TPK.
Seems like a design vs. development conflict occurred in 4E's development, hence minions getting EXP and what not, even though several monsters later presented themselves as being able to produce high level 0 EXP minions.
Personally I'd try to find some other use for EXP rather than as an incentive for killing monsters rather than defeating or avoiding them. Sadly though, the abuse and misuse of EXP for leveling in CRPGs (including MMORPGs) will likely stay with us for decades to come, since it's a simple, straightforward and mechanically efficient means of keeping tabs on our progress as PCs without having to resort to DM intervention (as far as I can tell), even though it's part of the problem involving grinding, treadmill play and ignoring of objectives and story. After all, which is more rewarding when you defeat a dragon: the fact that you defeated the dragon, gold, magic items or EXP? (I'd more likely hear the last three as an answer, more than the first one... which I really think is kinda disappointing).
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs. [/quote]I think what was hinted in
I once read an article of his about his $120 flop Ptolus, about how he had a group of players wandering around the city and when one guy was flipping out at a Polymorphed Minotaur was rampaging, another player calmly reply, "Nah, It's Ptolus, man." And Mr. Cook praised Mr. Calm Gamer as 'getting the setting'. To me, that's a huge indication (and I admit I could be wrong on it) that he would rather have his settings full of magic and magic users.
oh those, and fey step, (I think that was what it was called) and fight, and the seemingly endless mini magic missile type spells the mage was throwing out, the sword mage's insane amount of variable abilities... I dont really remember all they did just remember I was shocked that half the party had some means of "instant escape" that really couldent be countered, and some means doing everything.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs.
While I completely agree that statistically 4e creatures were just as strong comparitively with 4e adventurers, there is a "feel" to 4e adventurers and their "listed" powers that make them feel more heroic. I think that's what they were going for when creating 4e. They did a good job at it too. So much so, it fooled many into thinking the characters they were playing were much stronger than their 2e character.
One thing though. In AD&D and 2e, the combat was much more swingy at lower levels. It wasn't as stable as 4e. That made those low level characters seem a lot more helpless than 4e characters.
Play 4th with the rules as written and the majority of parties are relatively easy to beat down in a 4-6 (which was the intent) encounter adventure day. Yes players are a bit tougher but monsters were no push overs. [/quote]While I completely agree t
I dont know about that pen, our 4e combats could last forever, an entire gaming session just to resolve one single combat was nuts, it wasnt so swingy (less back and forth) but it did take a very very long time (how many healing surges to you have left... um... 10 or so I think...ugg...)
did it seem heroic to you? it didnt to me, here I was playing what should have been the most "heroic" character class (paladin) and I felt like the bumbling idiot compared to the swordmage and the tiefling witch/rogue. I also hated the "challenge" mechanic, it seemed retarded to me that that a peon low level paladin can challenge some BBEG and if he didnt attack you he would take some severe negitives for being a coward...
and there were so many abilities that drove me nuts like that... not to mention the brooding "twilight" movie esque witch abilities which all sounded like a self loathing emo kid's poetry book... everything about 4e was off to me, the setting, high magic, character creation, the way the abilities were written and worked, the severly constrained and always controlled mechanics, the great deviation from previous editions which seemed to twist and pervert all of what was once good, understood, and rational... (what do you mean if I'm wearing boots of spider climbing the effect will run out and I'll fall in a minute or two and cant use them again till tomorrow) for me it was E v e r y t h i n g.
all of that added up to me as one big gigantic tremendous two year long fail I still feel severely bitter and betrayed about. Thats why it's so important to me that Next does not go down that same road.
then I get on here and people want to tell me the DM didnt understand the 4e rules or he sucked, (he was like a math professor or expert attorney with those rules and he would make an awesome DM using almost any system) or find some other nitpicky reason to justify my hatred of what they feel was a good set of rules.
its an exercise in pointlessness, I hate 4e where as you aparently love it, were never going to agree what was good or bad in it. The best we can do is push that Next have what both of us want as a rules module. That I can pay for and play the game I want, and you can do the same.
but the biggest fail that could happen for Next would be that in attempting to please both of us, they actually dont give either of us what we want in which case I guess you'd be playing 13th age and I'd enter a dark room and come out in a year or so with some alternate rules for pathfinder making it into the game I want to run.
it all comes down to the actual modularity of the rules and the only way to see how that plays out will be giving the designers the time to make it happen (while I suspect Hasbro is pounding on the door warning that the rent needs to be paid "or else!")
I dont know about that pen, our 4e combats could last forever, an entire gaming session just to resolve one single combat was nuts, it wasnt so swingy (less back and forth) but it did take a very very long time (how many healing surges to you have le
There originally was the want for a gritty, low magic, d20 game?
One of the ideas might be to "buy"(because we're not allowed to support piracy here) a copy of the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, d20 Past, and Urban Arcana (plus any others that sound good, really if you're going for it just get all of 'em). The compatibility with other d20 games (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder) can let you house-rule in things from those other systems more or less at will, the Action Points system can create moderately dynamic combat, and the low thresholds for death from massive damage make PCs and badass monsters a lot more kill-able. I can't say it will be perfect, but I can say that it should be a decent fit to what you're looking for.
Having played it there are a few key points:
1) This IS a variation on modern, there WILL be guns pushed at you. It is worth noting however that gun's aren't a game-breaker to melee combat that they could be, anything without repeating rifles (IE anything you might look at and say "It COULD be D&D...") is going to quickly go into melee combat anyway. 2) You are running action movie heroes. Character's won't kick through walls, but they can survive being thrown through one (with a little luck). 3) Balance between characters is a joke as the rules are written; Dex is king in a gunfight. Non-combat roles, subtly, and the 3.0 damage reduction system even this out surprisingly well in practice. 4) Having played it, Action Points were well loved by my D&D 3.5 group. It let them put skin in the game to do the things they wanted. 5) Magic is IN the game. Despite being "Real World" it clings heavily to magic for it's plots and stuff. For a Low-Magic game, that shouldn't be a problem though. 6) It's the use of Death from Massive Damage that makes the system "gritty" as I understand the term. Don't forget it during play or you'll be disappointed.
There originally was the want for a gritty, low magic, d20 game? One of the ideas might be to "buy"(because we're not allowed to support piracy here) a copy of the d20 Modern Core Rulebook, d20 Past, and Urban Arcana (plus any others that sound good,
Also, specific class features might catch his fancy if he likes 'em.
