Note: The people named in this article have a history of harassing their critics. As such I have chosen to keep my sources and any traceable information they have given me anonymous to protect them.
This at the top of a article already sets the tone pretty bleakly.
Edit: Wow. I know nothing about the two people he is talking about, but they sure do sound like stand up guys. Is all that accurate?
am0n on
0
Options
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
Note: The people named in this article have a history of harassing their critics. As such I have chosen to keep my sources and any traceable information they have given me anonymous to protect them.
This at the top of a article already sets the tone pretty bleakly.
Edit: Wow. I know nothing about the two people he is talking about, but they sure do sound like stand up guys. Is all that accurate?
I know more about Zak S than 'The Pundit', and yeah, it's pretty accurate.
He's the guy that had a series of videos of him playing D&D with random porn stars, and he tried to hide his objectification of women and sexism behind a 'sex positive' facade.
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
On the one hand, I want to applaud the direction they took in some of the roleplaying guidelines, and the general ideas behind it, but I just can NOT get behind old-school rules, the zero-to-hero in play, and the massive step backwards to 'everyone uses basic attacks'.
At least they kept 3/3.5's 'Finesse' stuff so that Thieves can actually hit people in combat.
On one hand, I kind of want to link it to the guys in my group whom have interest in 5E. On the other hand, they're the type to not give a shit about such things, so really it'd just be picking a fight with people I dislike arguing with in the first place. It's nicer when their intolerance isn't proudly held up for display.
btw, some people were talking earlier in the thread about 'spiritual successors to 4E', anyone mind refreshing my memory on what those games were? Or at least, non-Pathfinder advances to dungeons and the crawling thereof.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Rule of Cool's Legend springs to mind as well as 13th Age also has some of 4th editions sensibilities imported into something more like 3rd with some story game sensibilities.
I've heard good things about Dungeon World but I'm not sure that's really in the mold of 4th.
13th Age has cool new story elements, everyone should shamelessly rip off their "One Unique Thing" and the system to tie you to archtypical forces in the world.
But the mechanics are hopelessly backwards, they didn't take the best bits of 4th, they took a major step back from 4th. They try to sell shitty 3.5esque melee classes as a feature, saying that the classes are designed so that Fighter is for novices and Wizard is for experts. In an attempt at balance they nerf the hell out of spellcasting in the most boring "I hope you weren't looking for battlefield control, buffs or debuffs, because spells are for damage" way.
13th Age has a lot of cool roleplay features that you should absolutely try to talk a 3.5 DM into adding if you're somehow forced into a 3.5 game. But the game is basically an attempt to drag Grognards kicking and screaming into accepting some measure of progress and mechanically wholly inferior to 4E.
I love me some 4E, am tempted to run the group through a short quest some time, it was more just a moment of "hey, didn't we discuss this at some point?" realization while having a conversation with others.
We've got a tentative Pathfinder game firing up in the coming months, so I've been catching up a little on that. Played 3E years ago, but never picked up 3.5, so "3.75" is familiar enough, but there's a ton of shit to go over all the same.
Might just bite the $30 bullet, snag Hero Labs' character builder and go from there. Leaning towards a Druid. I believe flat druids are considered some hot shit, but I kind of want to specialize as a Shifter, though I see the PF prestige class lacks the "shift as many times as you like" top tier benefit that was in the 3E 'splatbook' I have at home.
Decisions, decisions...
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
13th Age has cool new story elements, everyone should shamelessly rip off their "One Unique Thing" and the system to tie you to archtypical forces in the world.
But the mechanics are hopelessly backwards, they didn't take the best bits of 4th, they took a major step back from 4th. They try to sell shitty 3.5esque melee classes as a feature, saying that the classes are designed so that Fighter is for novices and Wizard is for experts. In an attempt at balance they nerf the hell out of spellcasting in the most boring "I hope you weren't looking for battlefield control, buffs or debuffs, because spells are for damage" way.
13th Age has a lot of cool roleplay features that you should absolutely try to talk a 3.5 DM into adding if you're somehow forced into a 3.5 game. But the game is basically an attempt to drag Grognards kicking and screaming into accepting some measure of progress and mechanically wholly inferior to 4E.
I'd say there are a couple of 'simple' classes, but fighter ain't one of them. Plus, you know, rituals and utility spells keep magic interesting. I take it as a massive plus that they got rid off most of the buffs and control elements - those tended to slow things down massively, adding dozens of tokens to battlefield and there was far too much to keep track of. That was a major complaint about 4e in my group.
It's not a tactical game on the same level as 4e, but it doesn't claim to be. It's 4e sped up so combat doesn't take hours, whilst also cutting down on the absurd amount of stuff higher level characters had to worry about (both in terms of power choice, and things going on in on the table, like conditions and ongoing damage). I'd say it's absolutely superior.
It's not a tactical game on the same level as 4e, but it doesn't claim to be. It's 4e sped up so combat doesn't take hours, whilst also cutting down on the absurd amount of stuff higher level characters had to worry about (both in terms of power choice, and things going on in on the table, like conditions and ongoing damage). I'd say it's absolutely superior.
Very much this. Some of the story game sensibilities I mentioned was greatly reducing the game time spent on combat. This pretty much has to simplify combat but I don't think that's inherently a bad thing. Nor do I think it's inherently a good thing, they're just different games with different foci.
The article led me to cancel my D&D 5th pre-order.
I never pre-ordered it to begin with, but it's really killed my interest in even trying it, because if I did enjoy any aspect of it I'm not sure I could support a company that so blithely ignores the behavior of people it puts front cover spotlight on.
Unless that article is just completely wrong and exaggarated, but I remember at one point someone here mentioning those two names in the kudos section and the general consensus was something wrong with that.
Other games have faster resolving combat, gridless, tokenless combat, the whole nine yards, without removing complexity. IMO it's not complexity that bog down combat but bookkeeping, and you don't need to gut the tactics of your games to get there.
With respect to Fighters, IIRC, 13th Age's Fighter mechanic is "I attack, then flip a coin to see if I get a bonus." Not substantively different from "I attack" each round IMO. Their ritual system and a lot of other class' storyish out of combat elements are much too "Mother, may I?" for my tastes.
Anyway I don't disagree with you guys that they're different games with a different focus, but I guess I just strongly disagree with the statement that 13th Age takes the best bits of 4E - because IMO 4E D&D's greatest success is finally balancing combat. In a 3.5 game I'd feel bad for playing a Wizard, in a 4E game I'm coordinating with the Fighter as equals to be more badass than either of us could be alone.
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
Other games have faster resolving combat, gridless, tokenless combat, the whole nine yards, without removing complexity. IMO it's not complexity that bog down combat but bookkeeping, and you don't need to gut the tactics of your games to get there.
With respect to Fighters, IIRC, 13th Age's Fighter mechanic is "I attack, then flip a coin to see if I get a bonus." Not substantively different from "I attack" each round IMO. Their ritual system and a lot of other class' storyish out of combat elements are much too "Mother, may I?" for my tastes.
Anyway I don't disagree with you guys that they're different games with a different focus, but I guess I just strongly disagree with the statement that 13th Age takes the best bits of 4E - because IMO 4E D&D's greatest success is finally balancing combat. In a 3.5 game I'd feel bad for playing a Wizard, in a 4E game I'm coordinating with the Fighter as equals to be more badass than either of us could be alone.
Fair enough; in my experience, 13th Age classes do roughly the same raw damage, but as a group we're not so fussed about balance. Not that we want any one class to absolutely dominate, but we just don't notice it as much. It's never really been a complaint, in any game we've played.
'Mother, may I?' is absolutely the taste of my group, so for us that's a plus. We gave 4e a fair shake (four years or so! We did like it!) but now we want something less tactical, less crunchy, more freeform. 13th Age fills that niche for us.
In general, the less focus your game has on tactical combat the less fun it is to be tactical stabby guy. 13th Age puts basically zero focus on tactical decisions in combat, especially if you're the Fighter.
I can definitely see why people might like 13th Age, but there's a lot of backsliding there for my taste.
So are there any resources for someone wanting to learn how to play DnD play by post?
@silence1186 Maybe if you did a Google search you'd locate something, but it's basically like table top except that you post instead. They obviously tend to be slower (people may only post 1-3 times a day), but otherwise pretty similar. Outside of combat it's a first-come first-serve thing (but typically nice not to try and hog the interaction). Inside combat you have turns just like normal. So far my experience with them is they are hit or miss as to whether or not they keep going. I've seen two that have run longer than a few months and about a dozen that have lasted a few weeks at best before fizzling out.
Scanning CF, there seems to be a BOATLOAD of different games, are there just not DnD games running right now because a new edition is coming out this month?
I'd say "Sort of." We were running Denada's playtest 5e game, but I'm thinking it died due to all of us just not enjoying 5e so much. Used to be tons of 4e games going on here, but they've died off due to the break in editions and no new content to gin up interest.
Other games have faster resolving combat, gridless, tokenless combat, the whole nine yards, without removing complexity. IMO it's not complexity that bog down combat but bookkeeping, and you don't need to gut the tactics of your games to get there.
With respect to Fighters, IIRC, 13th Age's Fighter mechanic is "I attack, then flip a coin to see if I get a bonus." Not substantively different from "I attack" each round IMO. Their ritual system and a lot of other class' storyish out of combat elements are much too "Mother, may I?" for my tastes.
Anyway I don't disagree with you guys that they're different games with a different focus, but I guess I just strongly disagree with the statement that 13th Age takes the best bits of 4E - because IMO 4E D&D's greatest success is finally balancing combat. In a 3.5 game I'd feel bad for playing a Wizard, in a 4E game I'm coordinating with the Fighter as equals to be more badass than either of us could be alone.
Could you name those games? Like, I'm honestly curious about it.
You're also mischaracterizing the fighter attack. It's generate a number and then choose which of your abilities is available. The abilities that you knew the triggering conditions of when you were selecting them. Do you leverage ones that require high rolls to win quickly or do you make sure to grab some that trigger only on low rolls so you can always do things? The fighter system is rife with decisions, some at the strategic level and some at the tactical while being fairly quick in actual play.
I also think you're a assuming a style of DMing that the book heartily discourages with regards to story abilities. If you're the DM and you're trying to rigidly force the players to your plot in 13th Age you have seriously missed the point.
So are there any resources for someone wanting to learn how to play DnD play by post?
@silence1186 Maybe if you did a Google search you'd locate something, but it's basically like table top except that you post instead. They obviously tend to be slower (people may only post 1-3 times a day), but otherwise pretty similar. Outside of combat it's a first-come first-serve thing (but typically nice not to try and hog the interaction). Inside combat you have turns just like normal. So far my experience with them is they are hit or miss as to whether or not they keep going. I've seen two that have run longer than a few months and about a dozen that have lasted a few weeks at best before fizzling out.
Scanning CF, there seems to be a BOATLOAD of different games, are there just not DnD games running right now because a new edition is coming out this month?
Finding a D&D game isn't always easy because of all the editions and new systems. If you really want to get into PbP, you may need to look outside of just the PA forums. My longest running games I've had in the PbP arena weren't on the PA forums. Even then, finding a D&D game isn't always easy, unless you are literally okay with any edition.
You can also try online but real time games. Roll20 is pretty good about that and seems pretty active. I tried out a Pathfinder game yesterday on roll20. Highly doubt I'll continue because the lack of class balance even in one session got me (I played a Lvl 7 Rogue, pre-gen mind you so I'm sure someone with system mastery could have done better, and compared to the Level 7 Ranger with 4 attacks and a pet that also attacked twice, my one attack per round and 50/50 chance at applying Sneak Attack damage just felt... underwhelming), but I just basically found someone who was doing a one shot that night and joined up. I'd say if you go that route, stay open to one shots instead of necessarily always doing long running games. It may not be as satisfying, but it'll get you experience, the chance to meet some people who might be part of or running longer campaigns, and still be fun.
In general, the less focus your game has on tactical combat the less fun it is to be tactical stabby guy. 13th Age puts basically zero focus on tactical decisions in combat, especially if you're the Fighter.
I can definitely see why people might like 13th Age, but there's a lot of backsliding there for my taste.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least when looking at the fighter. I think you'd have a stronger case when looking at the barbarian or the paladin.
The fighter makes tactical choices all the time, just after the attack is rolled instead of before. If you roll a 16 to hit a monster, you can choose to use any of your even roll maneuvers, on hit maneuvers or 16+ maneuvers, all which have different tactical benefits. Not to mention the quasi-encounter powers you can choose as class features.
13th Age looks to me like it puts plenty of value on tactical combat. As someone who gets plenty of crunchy combat from 4e and is looking for something more freeform like DW, that emphasis on combat isn't necessarily a boon for me, but I can definitely see how it's an evolution from 4e.
Edit: basically ninja'd by DevoutlyApathetic. That's what I get for typing on a phone.
So are there any resources for someone wanting to learn how to play DnD play by post?
I don't know if you want to play 5E specifically, but I started running a 5E playtest PbP (link in my sig) that went for a bit and then fizzled out because the rules kind of sucked and then the Basic Rules came out and they still kind of sucked and I'm just uninspired. Also I don't have monsters.
For D&D PbP in general, take a look through some of the games that have been run here. Look at the ones that have run for years and the ones that ran for months (or less). Take note of the things you like and the things you don't like.
There are lots of other PbP threads and they're pretty much all good.
If you're playing, I have one piece of advice: Post. Don't be afraid to clutter the thread. Don't be afraid to make decisions for the group. Just post.
If you're thinking about running:
It will take a long time. Don't start a PbP when you're two months away from going to college. A PbP often takes years to finish. Really consider whether you'll be able to stick with it.
Cut out the filler. Things take a lot longer in a PbP than they do at a table. An interaction that might take 5 minutes in person could take 5 days on the forum. It's good to cut out some of the filler (random encounters, side quests, most things that don't advance the plot) so that you're not spending months doing something that ultimately doesn't matter that much.
Avoid sandboxes. It might seem like a fun idea to present your players with lots of choices and just let them go, but in my experience this kills momentum (and PbPs are all about momentum). Generally, the problem seems to be that no one wants to "hog the spotlight" and so everyone just waits for someone else to say something. Then three days later the GM is wondering if his game sucks and everyone wants to quit.
Keep it moving. Related to the point above, you've got to keep the game moving. @Glazius's excellent Dungeon World PbP seemed like it might die a few times because I'm a horrible player sometimes and don't follow my own advice, but he put in the effort to get us back on track and keep things going. I'm glad for that because it's a really fun game and sometimes the players just need a little nudge to get posting again.
Ask questions. If you want advice or input from someone, just ask them. I think most of us here are happy to help others enjoy the hobby, so if you want to ask someone how they do something or what they think of something, PM them. Same goes for your players. If you want to know what they think of something, just ask.
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Thanks so much @denada and @am0n. This is excellent food for thought. And to answer your question, I'm basically just looking to get into DnD in general. I owned all the 3.0 books when I was in grade school, and it seemed neat enough, but no one I knew was really into games like that. Now as an adult, equipped with the internet no less, I think I can more easily make the plunge.
In general, the less focus your game has on tactical combat the less fun it is to be tactical stabby guy. 13th Age puts basically zero focus on tactical decisions in combat, especially if you're the Fighter.
I can definitely see why people might like 13th Age, but there's a lot of backsliding there for my taste.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least when looking at the fighter. I think you'd have a stronger case when looking at the barbarian or the paladin.
The fighter makes tactical choices all the time, just after the attack is rolled instead of before. If you roll a 16 to hit a monster, you can choose to use any of your even roll maneuvers, on hit maneuvers or 16+ maneuvers, all which have different tactical benefits. Not to mention the quasi-encounter powers you can choose as class features.
13th Age looks to me like it puts plenty of value on tactical combat. As someone who gets plenty of crunchy combat from 4e and is looking for something more freeform like DW, that emphasis on combat isn't necessarily a boon for me, but I can definitely see how it's an evolution from 4e.
Edit: basically ninja'd by DevoutlyApathetic. That's what I get for typing on a phone.
The problem with all this is that the Fighter is going to have roughly 4 turns to leverage any of it during any given fight. So encounter powers are basically just openers that you use until you run out (not so unlike 4E, admittedly) and then you hope you roll well, depending on how you've previously defined that for yourself. That doesn't feel like tactical combat to me, that feels like yahtzee.
I can see your point, but there's still an issue with a system that is largely combat-secondary that has classes with no out-of-combat utility. Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
Leaving aside the discussion about whether the Fighter mechanics in 13th age actually constitute tactical combat (I don't really feel they do) for a moment, we're having that discussion in relation to a game where combats are designed to be short and infrequent. That remains an issue for Fighters, Barbarians and such that don't have a lot of non-combat options outside of their backgrounds.
In general, the less focus your game has on tactical combat the less fun it is to be tactical stabby guy. 13th Age puts basically zero focus on tactical decisions in combat, especially if you're the Fighter.
I can definitely see why people might like 13th Age, but there's a lot of backsliding there for my taste.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least when looking at the fighter. I think you'd have a stronger case when looking at the barbarian or the paladin.
The fighter makes tactical choices all the time, just after the attack is rolled instead of before. If you roll a 16 to hit a monster, you can choose to use any of your even roll maneuvers, on hit maneuvers or 16+ maneuvers, all which have different tactical benefits. Not to mention the quasi-encounter powers you can choose as class features.
13th Age looks to me like it puts plenty of value on tactical combat. As someone who gets plenty of crunchy combat from 4e and is looking for something more freeform like DW, that emphasis on combat isn't necessarily a boon for me, but I can definitely see how it's an evolution from 4e.
Edit: basically ninja'd by DevoutlyApathetic. That's what I get for typing on a phone.
The problem with all this is that the Fighter is going to have roughly 4 turns to leverage any of it during any given fight. So encounter powers are basically just openers that you use until you run out (not so unlike 4E, admittedly) and then you hope you roll well, depending on how you've previously defined that for yourself. That doesn't feel like tactical combat to me, that feels like yahtzee.
I can see your point, but there's still an issue with a system that is largely combat-secondary that has classes with no out-of-combat utility. Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
Leaving aside the discussion about whether the Fighter mechanics in 13th age actually constitute tactical combat (I don't really feel they do) for a moment, we're having that discussion in relation to a game where combats are designed to be short and infrequent. That remains an issue for Fighters, Barbarians and such that don't have a lot of non-combat options outside of their backgrounds.
You know, this actually brings up a question I have had for a while: Some RPG classes by their default have things they can do outside of combat, but what are the out-of-combat abilities of a Fighter, Barbarian, etc, or more specifically, in an ideal world, what would they be?
To add to the track above, Druids commune with nature and animals, Bards finesse their way through life with a song. But I have trouble thinking of iconic heroes that were fighter-like that did out-of-combat things. Mainly they use their strength to open doors and chests in game terms. Perhaps this is the problem at the heart of the RPG class mechanics; too often the only one who is characterized as "not the thinker" is the athletic one. Like having muscles and a sword precludes a warrior of any stripe from doing anything other than bashing things cro-magnon style.
Which seems to leaves some folks out in the cold when they want to be a fighter. This is even present in 4th edition, which balanced combat, but failed to balance things out of combat. So, have there been any fighter/barbarian classes with out-of-combat abilities that made sense?
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
I'd think the fighters would be "leading," basically. Experience with coordinating things, i.e. helping a town build/rebuild something, coordinating/training troops before an attack, other things that require organization and coordination/teamwork. I typically view a fighter as having some kind of military training, meaning they are used to working with others to complete something bigger than just themselves. And once that fighter makes it beyond grunt rank to adventuring rank, they've likely picked up enough that they can use that experience to aid others.
Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
I only fact checked the first one but Rangers in 13th Age only track if they choose it and the competing choices are rife with combat only options. It isn't really a valid comparison except to say that the Ranger has the option of exchanging non-combat power for combat....which everybody does. The fighter could spend his feats on Linguistics or smashing things. The classes do have unequal opportunities here but I don't think that is a design choice so much as a fulfilling archetypes choice.
I'd think the fighters would be "leading," basically. Experience with coordinating things, i.e. helping a town build/rebuild something, coordinating/training troops before an attack, other things that require organization and coordination/teamwork. I typically view a fighter as having some kind of military training, meaning they are used to working with others to complete something bigger than just themselves. And once that fighter makes it beyond grunt rank to adventuring rank, they've likely picked up enough that they can use that experience to aid others.
So, like constructing the palisades that's coordinated by the vikings in The 13th Warrior? The preparation leading up to the siege of Helm's Deep?
What about Conan setting up traps for his battlefields in all the Conan movies (including the new movie)? I mean, usually that is the province of the Rogue, but it seems like fighter types commonly do this too.
I'd venture that "aid" and "battlefield/tactics preparation" would be some options for their out of combat talents. But what about the Barbarian?
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
I only fact checked the first one but Rangers in 13th Age only track if they choose it and the competing choices are rife with combat only options. It isn't really a valid comparison except to say that the Ranger has the option of exchanging non-combat power for combat....which everybody does. The fighter could spend his feats on Linguistics or smashing things. The classes do have unequal opportunities here but I don't think that is a design choice so much as a fulfilling archetypes choice.
But that choice exists for the Ranger, while it doesn't for the Fighter. Rangers can also grab some spellcasting if they want, which can turn into non-combat utility very quickly.
I would agree that it's partly an issue with the archetype, but that doesn't mean that the blame doesn't fall at least in part on the designers that perpetuate that sort of thinking. Why can't the Fighter give rousing speeches, negotiate the terms of mercenary employment, climb unscalable cliffs in the rain or call in favors from old war buddies when they'd be useful? Granted, each of those can be roleplayed, but so could a Bard's performance powers or a Ranger's tracking abilities, but they got mechanical representation.
Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
I only fact checked the first one but Rangers in 13th Age only track if they choose it and the competing choices are rife with combat only options. It isn't really a valid comparison except to say that the Ranger has the option of exchanging non-combat power for combat....which everybody does. The fighter could spend his feats on Linguistics or smashing things. The classes do have unequal opportunities here but I don't think that is a design choice so much as a fulfilling archetypes choice.
But that choice exists for the Ranger, while it doesn't for the Fighter. Rangers can also grab some spellcasting if they want, which can turn into non-combat utility very quickly.
I would agree that it's partly an issue with the archetype, but that doesn't mean that the blame doesn't fall at least in part on the designers that perpetuate that sort of thinking. Why can't the Fighter give rousing speeches, negotiate the terms of mercenary employment, climb unscalable cliffs in the rain or call in favors from old war buddies when they'd be useful? Granted, each of those can be roleplayed, but so could a Bard's performance powers or a Ranger's tracking abilities, but they got mechanical representation.
I think this is why the Warlord came into existence, honestly. The inability to let go of "Fighter is dumb" along with the desire to create "the smart Fighter".
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
I'd think the fighters would be "leading," basically. Experience with coordinating things, i.e. helping a town build/rebuild something, coordinating/training troops before an attack, other things that require organization and coordination/teamwork. I typically view a fighter as having some kind of military training, meaning they are used to working with others to complete something bigger than just themselves. And once that fighter makes it beyond grunt rank to adventuring rank, they've likely picked up enough that they can use that experience to aid others.
So, like constructing the palisades that's coordinated by the vikings in The 13th Warrior? The preparation leading up to the siege of Helm's Deep?
What about Conan setting up traps for his battlefields in all the Conan movies (including the new movie)? I mean, usually that is the province of the Rogue, but it seems like fighter types commonly do this too.
I'd venture that "aid" and "battlefield/tactics preparation" would be some options for their out of combat talents. But what about the Barbarian?
I don't typically view the Rogue as the trap setter. I view them as the trap defeater. But even if the Rogue does set traps, why can't the Fighter? However, the Rogue might tend to do things alone, so while he is a better recon person, the fighter trumps him in coordinating.
Barbarian I think is a bit of column A and a bit of Column B. It has to be, because if you say they are animal types, then what is the ranger? And what would make the Shaman different than the Druid? How is a Rogue's out of combat skillset different than an Assassin? To me, Barbarian is the fighter equivalent to the primal world as fighter is to the civilized world. And I think there is going to be overlap with every class, just because there are so many.
Edit: I should add, my opinions are for the classes in general. It may be that 5E doesn't provide these options, by my arguement is that Fighter/Barbarians/Etc. don't have to be restricted to only combat. And that it's not a far stretch to think of ways their training could be used outside of combat. Whether or not Wizards gives us these options as rules/power is an entirely different thing, though.
Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
I only fact checked the first one but Rangers in 13th Age only track if they choose it and the competing choices are rife with combat only options. It isn't really a valid comparison except to say that the Ranger has the option of exchanging non-combat power for combat....which everybody does. The fighter could spend his feats on Linguistics or smashing things. The classes do have unequal opportunities here but I don't think that is a design choice so much as a fulfilling archetypes choice.
But that choice exists for the Ranger, while it doesn't for the Fighter. Rangers can also grab some spellcasting if they want, which can turn into non-combat utility very quickly.
I would agree that it's partly an issue with the archetype, but that doesn't mean that the blame doesn't fall at least in part on the designers that perpetuate that sort of thinking. Why can't the Fighter give rousing speeches, negotiate the terms of mercenary employment, climb unscalable cliffs in the rain or call in favors from old war buddies when they'd be useful? Granted, each of those can be roleplayed, but so could a Bard's performance powers or a Ranger's tracking abilities, but they got mechanical representation.
The ranger's mechanical representation of tracking was....here's some extra background points. That would be very easy to mimic for the Fighter. "You have the Veteran background at +5. Blah blah blah". I do admit I look at this the other way around, why is there a tracking option for rangers? Because gronards would bitch if their wasn't. The Fighter, unfairly, doesn't have a such a tradition so it doesn't get that added in. (So yeah, "Just change it!" isn't really a defense of the system so much.)
The bard thing is really kinda complicated. The stuff you're talking about is all about it's metanarrative abilities which...yeah, the fighter or anybody else have anything to compare with that. I'd be more displeased with them if I didn't think the concept is awesome.
Barbarian I think is a bit of column A and a bit of Column B. It has to be, because if you say they are animal types, then what is the ranger? And what would make the Shaman different than the Druid? How is a Rogue's out of combat skillset different than an Assassin? To me, Barbarian is the fighter equivalent to the primal world as fighter is to the civilized world. And I think there is going to be overlap with every class, just because there are so many.
It should be noted, I think, that the Barbarian as it's own class is only two editions old. Before that it was a Fighter kit. Shaman, likewise, is rather recent and previously would have just been a different flavor of Druid, which was itself a variant Cleric. Assassin used to be a Rogue kit, trading thieve's cant and decipher script for deathblow and poison use.
Most of the "mixed bag" classes used to be minor tweaks on the core 4, but then they gained a life of their own as D&D became more character-option heavy. There's no real reason they couldn't go back to being subclasses.
I mean, here's an example. Your party comes across a town, perhaps it was there intention, perhaps they just were passing on the way to where ever. Flames gripping it. You explore, to find it under attack and being burnt my orcs. Your party fights the orcs off, perhaps some escape. Now you set to the non-combat. The Cleric does their best to help heal the wounded, but likely only gets noticed by those who need it. The Rogue is... twiddling his thumbs? Nothing needs trapped. Nothing needs disarmed. Sneaking isn't doing much for you. Perhaps he can explore, try to find where the attackers came from, where they fled to, or if there are any more. The Ranger could help out... or roll around on the ground with his pet wolf. But you know whose going to be seen by all, especially the big shots? The Fighter that jumped to duty, located the well, barked orders for buckets, directed people to douse flames or to the healers or to get blankets or bandages or any number of other things. When the local LE shows up, or the Mayor, you know whose going to be seen in the middle of this non-combat event?
Mind you, I'm sure I am exaggerating. I'm sure anyone could jump at this situation. But this is exactly the situation the Fighter can excel at and if the game system is done well, the fighter should be given the chance to excel at. I know in 13th Age, since you can make your skills a bit more open ended, this is exactly where a Fighter would probably want to put some emphasis if they cared about out of combat stuff.
Barbarian I think is a bit of column A and a bit of Column B. It has to be, because if you say they are animal types, then what is the ranger? And what would make the Shaman different than the Druid? How is a Rogue's out of combat skillset different than an Assassin? To me, Barbarian is the fighter equivalent to the primal world as fighter is to the civilized world. And I think there is going to be overlap with every class, just because there are so many.
It should be noted, I think, that the Barbarian as it's own class is only two editions old. Before that it was a Fighter kit. Shaman, likewise, is rather recent and previously would have just been a different flavor of Druid, which was itself a variant Cleric. Assassin used to be a Rogue kit, trading thieve's cant and decipher script for deathblow and poison use.
Most of the "mixed bag" classes used to be minor tweaks on the core 4, but then they gained a life of their own as D&D became more character-option heavy. There's no real reason they couldn't go back to being subclasses.
Barb was in the first UA. Though it existed as a class pretty much exclusively because of Conan.
Posts
Any chance someone can copy+paste in a spoiler? Work hates 'gaming' websites.
Also, of note: the original blog post has been updated with a link to an apology by Fred Hicks of Evil Hat.
This at the top of a article already sets the tone pretty bleakly.
Edit: Wow. I know nothing about the two people he is talking about, but they sure do sound like stand up guys. Is all that accurate?
He's the guy that had a series of videos of him playing D&D with random porn stars, and he tried to hide his objectification of women and sexism behind a 'sex positive' facade.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
At least they kept 3/3.5's 'Finesse' stuff so that Thieves can actually hit people in combat.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
On one hand, I kind of want to link it to the guys in my group whom have interest in 5E. On the other hand, they're the type to not give a shit about such things, so really it'd just be picking a fight with people I dislike arguing with in the first place. It's nicer when their intolerance isn't proudly held up for display.
btw, some people were talking earlier in the thread about 'spiritual successors to 4E', anyone mind refreshing my memory on what those games were? Or at least, non-Pathfinder advances to dungeons and the crawling thereof.
I've heard good things about Dungeon World but I'm not sure that's really in the mold of 4th.
Got a game on Sunday to attend. Gooooo Stormheart Wardens!
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
Thoughts of a Part-Time Hobbyist - A Wargaming and RPG Blog
But the mechanics are hopelessly backwards, they didn't take the best bits of 4th, they took a major step back from 4th. They try to sell shitty 3.5esque melee classes as a feature, saying that the classes are designed so that Fighter is for novices and Wizard is for experts. In an attempt at balance they nerf the hell out of spellcasting in the most boring "I hope you weren't looking for battlefield control, buffs or debuffs, because spells are for damage" way.
13th Age has a lot of cool roleplay features that you should absolutely try to talk a 3.5 DM into adding if you're somehow forced into a 3.5 game. But the game is basically an attempt to drag Grognards kicking and screaming into accepting some measure of progress and mechanically wholly inferior to 4E.
We've got a tentative Pathfinder game firing up in the coming months, so I've been catching up a little on that. Played 3E years ago, but never picked up 3.5, so "3.75" is familiar enough, but there's a ton of shit to go over all the same.
Might just bite the $30 bullet, snag Hero Labs' character builder and go from there. Leaning towards a Druid. I believe flat druids are considered some hot shit, but I kind of want to specialize as a Shifter, though I see the PF prestige class lacks the "shift as many times as you like" top tier benefit that was in the 3E 'splatbook' I have at home.
Decisions, decisions...
I'd say there are a couple of 'simple' classes, but fighter ain't one of them. Plus, you know, rituals and utility spells keep magic interesting. I take it as a massive plus that they got rid off most of the buffs and control elements - those tended to slow things down massively, adding dozens of tokens to battlefield and there was far too much to keep track of. That was a major complaint about 4e in my group.
It's not a tactical game on the same level as 4e, but it doesn't claim to be. It's 4e sped up so combat doesn't take hours, whilst also cutting down on the absurd amount of stuff higher level characters had to worry about (both in terms of power choice, and things going on in on the table, like conditions and ongoing damage). I'd say it's absolutely superior.
Thoughts of a Part-Time Hobbyist - A Wargaming and RPG Blog
Very much this. Some of the story game sensibilities I mentioned was greatly reducing the game time spent on combat. This pretty much has to simplify combat but I don't think that's inherently a bad thing. Nor do I think it's inherently a good thing, they're just different games with different foci.
I never pre-ordered it to begin with, but it's really killed my interest in even trying it, because if I did enjoy any aspect of it I'm not sure I could support a company that so blithely ignores the behavior of people it puts front cover spotlight on.
Unless that article is just completely wrong and exaggarated, but I remember at one point someone here mentioning those two names in the kudos section and the general consensus was something wrong with that.
With respect to Fighters, IIRC, 13th Age's Fighter mechanic is "I attack, then flip a coin to see if I get a bonus." Not substantively different from "I attack" each round IMO. Their ritual system and a lot of other class' storyish out of combat elements are much too "Mother, may I?" for my tastes.
Anyway I don't disagree with you guys that they're different games with a different focus, but I guess I just strongly disagree with the statement that 13th Age takes the best bits of 4E - because IMO 4E D&D's greatest success is finally balancing combat. In a 3.5 game I'd feel bad for playing a Wizard, in a 4E game I'm coordinating with the Fighter as equals to be more badass than either of us could be alone.
Wow, that's . . . not endearing.
You know, Mike Mearls is not helping his tone-deaf track record . . .
Fair enough; in my experience, 13th Age classes do roughly the same raw damage, but as a group we're not so fussed about balance. Not that we want any one class to absolutely dominate, but we just don't notice it as much. It's never really been a complaint, in any game we've played.
'Mother, may I?' is absolutely the taste of my group, so for us that's a plus. We gave 4e a fair shake (four years or so! We did like it!) but now we want something less tactical, less crunchy, more freeform. 13th Age fills that niche for us.
Thoughts of a Part-Time Hobbyist - A Wargaming and RPG Blog
I can definitely see why people might like 13th Age, but there's a lot of backsliding there for my taste.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Scanning CF, there seems to be a BOATLOAD of different games, are there just not DnD games running right now because a new edition is coming out this month?
Could you name those games? Like, I'm honestly curious about it.
You're also mischaracterizing the fighter attack. It's generate a number and then choose which of your abilities is available. The abilities that you knew the triggering conditions of when you were selecting them. Do you leverage ones that require high rolls to win quickly or do you make sure to grab some that trigger only on low rolls so you can always do things? The fighter system is rife with decisions, some at the strategic level and some at the tactical while being fairly quick in actual play.
I also think you're a assuming a style of DMing that the book heartily discourages with regards to story abilities. If you're the DM and you're trying to rigidly force the players to your plot in 13th Age you have seriously missed the point.
Finding a D&D game isn't always easy because of all the editions and new systems. If you really want to get into PbP, you may need to look outside of just the PA forums. My longest running games I've had in the PbP arena weren't on the PA forums. Even then, finding a D&D game isn't always easy, unless you are literally okay with any edition.
You can also try online but real time games. Roll20 is pretty good about that and seems pretty active. I tried out a Pathfinder game yesterday on roll20. Highly doubt I'll continue because the lack of class balance even in one session got me (I played a Lvl 7 Rogue, pre-gen mind you so I'm sure someone with system mastery could have done better, and compared to the Level 7 Ranger with 4 attacks and a pet that also attacked twice, my one attack per round and 50/50 chance at applying Sneak Attack damage just felt... underwhelming), but I just basically found someone who was doing a one shot that night and joined up. I'd say if you go that route, stay open to one shots instead of necessarily always doing long running games. It may not be as satisfying, but it'll get you experience, the chance to meet some people who might be part of or running longer campaigns, and still be fun.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least when looking at the fighter. I think you'd have a stronger case when looking at the barbarian or the paladin.
The fighter makes tactical choices all the time, just after the attack is rolled instead of before. If you roll a 16 to hit a monster, you can choose to use any of your even roll maneuvers, on hit maneuvers or 16+ maneuvers, all which have different tactical benefits. Not to mention the quasi-encounter powers you can choose as class features.
13th Age looks to me like it puts plenty of value on tactical combat. As someone who gets plenty of crunchy combat from 4e and is looking for something more freeform like DW, that emphasis on combat isn't necessarily a boon for me, but I can definitely see how it's an evolution from 4e.
Edit: basically ninja'd by DevoutlyApathetic. That's what I get for typing on a phone.
I don't know if you want to play 5E specifically, but I started running a 5E playtest PbP (link in my sig) that went for a bit and then fizzled out because the rules kind of sucked and then the Basic Rules came out and they still kind of sucked and I'm just uninspired. Also I don't have monsters.
For D&D PbP in general, take a look through some of the games that have been run here. Look at the ones that have run for years and the ones that ran for months (or less). Take note of the things you like and the things you don't like.
These are some of mine (you'll note that some finished and some didn't): The Extraordinaries, The Hunters, Broken Chains, The Floating Grave (which finished as Dragondeep, because it was three adventures).
There are lots of other PbP threads and they're pretty much all good.
If you're playing, I have one piece of advice: Post. Don't be afraid to clutter the thread. Don't be afraid to make decisions for the group. Just post.
If you're thinking about running:
That's all I can think of at the moment.
I can see your point, but there's still an issue with a system that is largely combat-secondary that has classes with no out-of-combat utility. Rangers track, Rogues sneak, Wizards cast spells, but the Fighter just fights.
Leaving aside the discussion about whether the Fighter mechanics in 13th age actually constitute tactical combat (I don't really feel they do) for a moment, we're having that discussion in relation to a game where combats are designed to be short and infrequent. That remains an issue for Fighters, Barbarians and such that don't have a lot of non-combat options outside of their backgrounds.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You know, this actually brings up a question I have had for a while: Some RPG classes by their default have things they can do outside of combat, but what are the out-of-combat abilities of a Fighter, Barbarian, etc, or more specifically, in an ideal world, what would they be?
To add to the track above, Druids commune with nature and animals, Bards finesse their way through life with a song. But I have trouble thinking of iconic heroes that were fighter-like that did out-of-combat things. Mainly they use their strength to open doors and chests in game terms. Perhaps this is the problem at the heart of the RPG class mechanics; too often the only one who is characterized as "not the thinker" is the athletic one. Like having muscles and a sword precludes a warrior of any stripe from doing anything other than bashing things cro-magnon style.
Which seems to leaves some folks out in the cold when they want to be a fighter. This is even present in 4th edition, which balanced combat, but failed to balance things out of combat. So, have there been any fighter/barbarian classes with out-of-combat abilities that made sense?
I only fact checked the first one but Rangers in 13th Age only track if they choose it and the competing choices are rife with combat only options. It isn't really a valid comparison except to say that the Ranger has the option of exchanging non-combat power for combat....which everybody does. The fighter could spend his feats on Linguistics or smashing things. The classes do have unequal opportunities here but I don't think that is a design choice so much as a fulfilling archetypes choice.
So, like constructing the palisades that's coordinated by the vikings in The 13th Warrior? The preparation leading up to the siege of Helm's Deep?
What about Conan setting up traps for his battlefields in all the Conan movies (including the new movie)? I mean, usually that is the province of the Rogue, but it seems like fighter types commonly do this too.
I'd venture that "aid" and "battlefield/tactics preparation" would be some options for their out of combat talents. But what about the Barbarian?
I would agree that it's partly an issue with the archetype, but that doesn't mean that the blame doesn't fall at least in part on the designers that perpetuate that sort of thinking. Why can't the Fighter give rousing speeches, negotiate the terms of mercenary employment, climb unscalable cliffs in the rain or call in favors from old war buddies when they'd be useful? Granted, each of those can be roleplayed, but so could a Bard's performance powers or a Ranger's tracking abilities, but they got mechanical representation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think this is why the Warlord came into existence, honestly. The inability to let go of "Fighter is dumb" along with the desire to create "the smart Fighter".
I don't typically view the Rogue as the trap setter. I view them as the trap defeater. But even if the Rogue does set traps, why can't the Fighter? However, the Rogue might tend to do things alone, so while he is a better recon person, the fighter trumps him in coordinating.
Barbarian I think is a bit of column A and a bit of Column B. It has to be, because if you say they are animal types, then what is the ranger? And what would make the Shaman different than the Druid? How is a Rogue's out of combat skillset different than an Assassin? To me, Barbarian is the fighter equivalent to the primal world as fighter is to the civilized world. And I think there is going to be overlap with every class, just because there are so many.
Edit: I should add, my opinions are for the classes in general. It may be that 5E doesn't provide these options, by my arguement is that Fighter/Barbarians/Etc. don't have to be restricted to only combat. And that it's not a far stretch to think of ways their training could be used outside of combat. Whether or not Wizards gives us these options as rules/power is an entirely different thing, though.
The ranger's mechanical representation of tracking was....here's some extra background points. That would be very easy to mimic for the Fighter. "You have the Veteran background at +5. Blah blah blah". I do admit I look at this the other way around, why is there a tracking option for rangers? Because gronards would bitch if their wasn't. The Fighter, unfairly, doesn't have a such a tradition so it doesn't get that added in. (So yeah, "Just change it!" isn't really a defense of the system so much.)
The bard thing is really kinda complicated. The stuff you're talking about is all about it's metanarrative abilities which...yeah, the fighter or anybody else have anything to compare with that. I'd be more displeased with them if I didn't think the concept is awesome.
Most of the "mixed bag" classes used to be minor tweaks on the core 4, but then they gained a life of their own as D&D became more character-option heavy. There's no real reason they couldn't go back to being subclasses.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Mind you, I'm sure I am exaggerating. I'm sure anyone could jump at this situation. But this is exactly the situation the Fighter can excel at and if the game system is done well, the fighter should be given the chance to excel at. I know in 13th Age, since you can make your skills a bit more open ended, this is exactly where a Fighter would probably want to put some emphasis if they cared about out of combat stuff.
Barb was in the first UA. Though it existed as a class pretty much exclusively because of Conan.