Incline 13th Age

[Mother Russia]

So, the complete game is out. What do you think of it?

IMO I am still reading it (PDF version, it's pretty) and though it has the same old tired classes, their abilities are more interesting (except for the Paladin, which is boring as hell sadly) Best of all, the max level is level 10, which is awesome because that is to me where all RPGs should ma out at.

 

[felipepepe]

I'm curious about this as well, Forbes' bro Erik Kain seems to really like it... any Kodexian Konsensus?

There's also a big review on RPG.net: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15892.phtml

 

[tuluse]

Things I don't like: linear damage increases, millions of healing surges, lack of balance in feats

Things that sound cool: fighter's flexible attack roles, one unique thing, and relationships to icons (in fact I think I'll steal this idea the next time I GM)

I also would have liked alternate grid based combat rules (or specific ranges at least). Solving tactical challenges can be quite fun. Cool maps is basically *the* reason to have dungeons. They've basically ripped that out of the game.

 

[tuluse]

I don't understand escalation dice as explained in the rpg.net review. You're adding a die roll to your attack roll and it's an additional die every round? How do the pcs only gain an advantage on turn 3 or later in this case?

 

[felipepepe]

You add +1 to all rolls each turn, but the enemies start with +1 in all defenses (that do not go up). So you are at disvantage in the frist turn, equal on the second and at advantage from m there on...

 

[L'ennui]

Looking over the rules now, seems quite interesting and it's nice that most of the original components could be easily adapted to Pathfinder, which is the system I/the people I PnP with play most often.

After our current PF campaign, think I'll try to drum up support for a 13th Age tryout.

 

[tuluse]

You add +1 to all rolls each turn, but the enemies start with +1 in all defenses (that do not go up). So you are at disvantage in the frist turn, equal on the second and at advantage from m there on...

I don't know why he explained it in such a confusing way. It sounded like you would roll multiple dice.

Well, I'd add this as a thing I don't like, but I think a tweak could make it very cool. I would have a die roll to determine if your dice escalate or not. Then I would tie the DC to a character attribute, I would probably do it on a class by class basis, to give incentive to put points in stat they would normally avoid.

 

[felipepepe]

I find it weird... I would understand if everyone got +1 per round, to make the game faster and more deadly as time goes on, but giving the bonus only to PC is kind of bullshit.

 

[Mother Russia]

@felipepepe

Remember, just reading a game is not the same thing as playing. I have heard nothing but good things about the escalation dice mechanic, it is deeply implemented into the games mechanics. Not only are all encounters/monsters balanced around it, so are many abilities of character classes. One of the designers of this game is Johnathan Tweet, after all.

(note I myself have not played the game, not even read most of it yet. But just saying it's getting rave reviews everywhere from people that played the playtest versions)

 

[Telengard]

Regardless if the monsters are balanced around the concept, implementing it will have several effects:

1) Because the monsters effectively become weaker as time goes on, the monsters that hit hard and fast but inaccarutely become far superior to those that hit slow and steady.
2) Careful tactics on the monsters' part is out the window. Rushing in and hacking becomes THE best strategy, since you've got to score your damage ASAP.
3) One of the few advantages that the warrior classes have over the others is their better to-hit chart. Now, with every class getting a +1 every round, the longer a fight last, the more meaningless the warriors' to-hit advantage becomes.
4) The longer the fight lasts, the more awesome the party becomes. Which is great, I suppose, if your goal is trying to make the players feel *awesome*

 

[Alex]

I took a looksee, but it looked like some weird mix of both 3e and 4e. Neither of which I care for very much, so not really my thing. The "you have a unique characteristic, but it can't really affect combat" thing is pretty crappy too. They did something like that in Everway, but didn't shy away from making the uniqueness of the PC relevant to the system. So, I guess they should have made Everway 2e instead, maybe?

 

[L'ennui]

@Alex : If they had allowed the "One unique thing" to be combat-related, it would always be combat-related and would probably not have as much bearing on the character's story and his relation to the world around him, which is the stated goal of having a One unique thing.

@Telengard and others re: the Escalation die concept. It's not a one-way ticket to pwnage, though it does give the party an advantage of up to +6 attacks after 6 rounds. I believe it's a good idea, as it probably (haven't playtested it) gives battles a more fluid and dynamic feel. It's also worth noting that this can encourage wizards to not cast annoying (to everyone else at the table, that is, including the GM) encounter-ending or encounter-avoiding spells right off the bat. The system encourages them to keep their biggest fireworks and tricks for a bit later, when the momentum is just right for them to hit.

Also, I've not seen anyone mention that the rules explicitly mention the possibility of decreasing the escalation counter, whether by a party acting defensively or retreating, or by virtue of the enemy's tactics or abilities :

De-escalation: The escalation die represents increasing
momentum in the battle. If the GM judges that the characters are
avoiding conflict rather than bringing the fight to the bad guys,
the escalation die doesn’t advance. If combat virtually ceases,
the escalation die resets to 0. Some monsters might lower the
escalation die when they appear, or by using a power.

Page 162.

For that reason, I would say that contrary to what Telengard assumes, many types of monsters will be more reliant on proper tactics to offset their almost immediate disadvantage if they try to stay in the party's face too long. Ambushes that surprise the party, monsters that RETREAT and come back the next day (wtf has anyone ever seen that happen in DnD?), possibly with more friends, use of terrain that could hamper or prevent the party from outright slugging the monsters (remember, if the party is not actively attacking the enemy, the escalation doesn't... uhm, escalate), etc. I think that might spice things up a whole lot more and encourages the GM to think more flexibly in order to truly challenge the adventurers.

Lastly, regarding the warrior's to-hit advantage, he maintains his relative superiority over everyone else, no matter what the escalation is at. For lowly mooks, this may not mean much, but for that armored troll that just sucker-punched the wizard's brains out his skull, maybe the fighter/barbarian/paladin will be the party's one best shot at taking the beast down with an epic strike(tm)?

Anyways, looking forward to seeing this system in action.

 

[Telengard]

Yes, it encourages the party to make every fight last until the 8th round, since that is when they are at their highest competitive advantage. It also encourages the monsters to finish the fight in the first round, since that is when they are at their highest competitive advantage. Which favors the monsters making an aggressive, all-out assault, while favoring the party using delaying tactics. Essentially, it favors every battle playing out a certain way, rather than having battles flow organically from the monsters' relative intelligence, level of organization, and expertise.

The monsters do not want to hamper the party from combat with terrain or anything else. They want the combat to occur in the 1st round and finish in the 1st round. Anything that prevents that from happening is detrimental to their competitive advantage. It is the party who want to use ground to hamper the monsters, since they are the ones who want the fight to last 8 rounds. Anything that prevents the monsters from getting in as many attacks as they can during the first round is woefully bad for the monsters.

On the to-hit ratios. From the base values, the warriors have a fractional advantage over every other type of class. That fractional advantage stays constant throughout all character levels. Pathfinder and 3rd Ed already weakened that advantage by raising the to-hit charts of the other classes. Then after that, every + granted to the entire party is effectively a boost at the 1/1 ratio that the warriors get, thus narrowing the gap between the warriors and the other types of classes. To illustrate, at level 6 a fighter has +6, while a wizard has +3. A 2x advantage factor. That advantage stays constant no matter what their levels. Add +6 to all those, though, and the fighter has a +12 while the wizard has a +9. No longer a 2x advantage.

 

[L'ennui]

Ah, but I beg to differ.

Again, the escalation dice doest not go up each round automatically. It is entirely dependent on the party and the monsters' actions, as well as the GM's interpretation thereof.

Of course, the monsters will try to make the most of their first round (who wouldn't?), but in addition to all-out attacking, that could just as well mean maneuvering into better positions or activating certain abilities. After that, their battle plan can vary substantially from one encounter to the next depending on how the GM presents the terrain or layout of the battle, the makeup of the party and the enemies, their abilities if any, etc. And the party is not necessarily going to want to resort to delaying tactics, because acting too conservatively will not bring up the escalation level; conversely, the monsters will indeed often try to slow or prevent the party from acting offensively in the first few rounds, because again, that means the escalation dice will not be brought into play and the monsters will keep their advantage. This all depends, again, on what type of monsters, how many, what context is the battle happening in, etc. Of course there are battles where the monsters will try to zerg-rush the party, but not every encounter needs to be like this. Intelligent monsters will have other tactics as well, and abilities that decrease escalation.

You are right that as a ratio, the warriors' advantage in to-hit is proportionnally lessened the furter escalation climbs, but they do keep that advantage nonetheless. And I'm not too certain, but do the wizards use that to-hit in any way when casting spells? Because if not, I wager they won't benefit from the boost all that much since they never use weapons (well, some do, but they are not par for the course and use them very rarely). This also ignores that although a wizard using his to-hit to attack with a weapon will simply strike for some negligible damage, a fighter or barbariann can use of his many "maneuvers" to do fancy and deadly things, so I don't think the martial classes get the shaft anywhere close to as much as in 3.5, Pathfinder, etc. This system definitely gives them better ways to stay competitive throughout the campaign.

 

[Ulminati]

And I'm not too certain, but do the wizards use that to-hit in any way when casting spells?

If they use standard d20 spells, then there are plenty which require a (ranged) touch attack.

 

[felipepepe]

And I'm not too certain, but do the wizards use that to-hit in any way when casting spells?

If they use standard d20 spells, then there are plenty which require a (ranged) touch attack.

I suspect is even more than that... the RPG.net reviewer talks about Wizards/Sorcerers holding Fireball until round 6 for maximum efficiency... AFAIK, fireball is simply 1d6 per caster level, with reflex roll for half, so the escalation die must affect many other thing as well besides just to-hit bonus... perhaps it adds to damage as well?

 

[TigerKnee]

Yes, it encourages the party to make every fight last until the 8th round, since that is when they are at their highest competitive advantage.

Eh... hold on. Sure, the players have the biggest bonuses at the 8th round (assuming that math is right), but that means the enemies have 8 rounds to swing at you, and they might get lucky even with a growing numerical disadvantage.

Is building up those huge numbers worth taking 8 rounds worth of swings and thus depleted resources? If you can end the battle in... let's say, 2-3 rounds, why wouldn't you?

 

[lightbane]

The escalation dice mechanic remind me of the system used by GGG (Giant Guardian Generation). Long story short, it's a mecha game in which the longer the combat lasts, the more dangerous it becomes, as EVERYONE (enemies included) get a small bonus to accuracy that increases every round.

 

[Ulminati]

In every d20-like I've tried it's ALWAYS in the players interest to end the combat as quickly as possible. A 1hp enemy is as dangerous on offense as a 100 hp enemy, whereas dead monsters do no damage. Focusing enemies down one at a time with your highest-damage attacks and healing after combat is concluded is always the best course of action unless special objectives are introduced. In contrast, a system like Shadowrun or Burning Wheel where characters get (fairly harsh) penalties to their actions once wounds accrue, you can go for a suppression strategy first to minimize damage output.

Escalation dice seem to be more of a way to avoid the punching bag scenario. If d&d encounters include tanky enemies with high AC, you often end with a situation in which neither side is able to reliably hit the other. Players basically dogpile onto the last enemy and you spend 4-5 rounds with everyone rolling basic attacks, trying to wear the last straggler down. Escalation dice are a handy way to wrap up those encounters quicker while still allowing the enemies a chance to get a solid wallop or two in to drain PC resources.

 

[Telengard]

So, let me play it out in a scenario.

In the first round of combat, when the monsters are at their greatest competitive advantage, the two groups are too far apart for them to use their full attacks (which will not be the case for the party). Awesome Button +1. The monsters rush forwards while the party prepare.

In the second round, if the encounter started at distance, the monsters will have another round of advancing, while the party has a second round to prepare (of course doing the absolute minimum to keep the escalation meter running). If the monster were closer, then the party will have retreated in the first round, and will use the terrain and tools to limit their exposure to the enemy, and will then use their preparation to begin the escalation - because the longer the party can prevent actual full engagement while escalating the meter, the better for them. If the monsters were farther away, they will begin retreating now, having used their first round of preparation to maximize their delaying possibilities while maintaining the escalation meter.

Then, once they have done all that they can to escalate the meter without full engagement, that's when they enter full engagement. With the meter nicely propped in their favor.

You don't have to do that. But it is to your competitive advantage to do so. Because once momentum is taken out of the nature flow of the combat itself and placed on a meter, it becomes the goal of the party to maximize the meter as much as possible, instead of you know, something gauche like paying attention to the fight.

 

[L'ennui]

@Telengard :Your scenario is very dependent on the GM playing it out (well, I guess all scenarios are).

First round : unless we're talking of a mob composed exclusively of very low-level and simple or unintelligent monsters, there's no reason the monsters can't have any tricks of their own that they can use during the first round instead of just rushing towards the party. Also, considering the following :

Nearby: Generally, all the heroes and their enemies in a
battle are nearby. That means they can reach each other with
a single move action. Sometimes, as an exception, heroes or
enemies can be far away (see below).

P. 162

It could be argued that the party will not have many rounds to prepare in this way. Now, personnally I don't think that every encounter must start at this range simply because the rules suggest it as default; I think that's entirely variable on the encounter's context. Still, the luxury of having one or two rounds to prepare and delay while escalating, for the two reasons I've suggested (simply preparing for the battle should not count towards escalation AND if they choose to, the monsters can probably reach you in one round and attack), shouldn't be taken for granted by the players or given away nilly willy by the GM.

In the same train of thought, the party "preparing" for an engagement in the first rounds, if I were the GM, would not be cause for escalation. The "absolute minimum" for escalation that you refer to would, in my opinion, necessarily include some kind of clearly offensive action on the players' part. Simply buffing oneself produces no momentum, it simply sets things up for what's to follow for when the "clash" occurs, at which point escalation may come into play.

So, I guess I'm saying that in my humble opinion, you CAN'T escalate without full engagement. The assumption that you CAN seems to be what's screwing up the system on your end. Now, I know that part of PnP is that each group plays it's own interpretation of any given set of rules, but I think that you'd remove a major hurdle and "gamey" element if you started putting responsability for the escalation dice's progression squarely on the players instead of having them assume that pretty much no matter what they do, it'll go up automatically and they can just hold back until they become unstoppable.

In closing, thank you for taking the time to advance your arguments in a thorough and thought-out manner. Your exchanges are truly worthy of a monocled Codex gentleman.

@felipepepe : The escalation only affects attack rolls and not damage, apparently :

Each PC gains a bonus
to attack rolls equal to the current value on the escalation die.

(from the section Escalation die, again on p. 162)

 

[tuluse]

I'm fialing to see how escalation makes things more interesting or encourages roleplaying. It seems like a house rule a GM might use to help out players who are bad at the combat in 3E, but applied equally to everyone.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Telengard the escalation die only escalates when the fighting does, so in a round where nothing really happens the GM is supposed to go "sry no dice"

 

[felipepepe]

@felipepepe : The escalation only affects attack rolls and not damage, apparently :

Each PC gains a bonus to attack rolls equal to the current value on the escalation die.

(from the section Escalation die, again on p. 162)

Humm, but you yourself said this earlier:

It's also worth noting that this can encourage wizards to not cast annoying (to everyone else at the table, that is, including the GM) encounter-ending or encounter-avoiding spells right off the bat.

So they changed the rules of Fireball and other spells, so they are affected by the escalation die?

 

[TigerKnee]

For people who are saying "it's BS that the enemy doesn't get the bonus"... well, maybe from a "simulation" pov... which I don't care about so I can't address that.

But it seems to me that the mechanic has the purpose of smoothing out combat length.
1) It discourages "rocket tag" and encourages you to hold back resources (e.g spells) for later in the battle rather than going supernova on round 1.
2) Also prevents combat from dragging out too long in case you're ever in a situation where you have really bad luck and somehow miss all your control spells or something.

If I'm not wrong, an escalation dice that also affects enemies would basically make the game even more rocket tag by the nature of how PC tend to be more valuable than enemy mooks. The PC would be encouraged to finish battles super quickly in order to prevent enemies from swatting them with a +6 bonus, but that's already inherent to the system so why would they add it? With player escalation dice, holding back a little so that you can get a bit more reliability is at least a choice vs "bumrush enemy"