5e AKA D&DNext.

That is part of it... but more along the ines of what we have already for instance if a power works better on a Prone target its still useable. But me or an ally can both exploit that proned condition.

For the action economy picture this... I can rush the effect and have an after math of 2 rounds where I am too offbalance or mentally defragged (insert appropriate flavor text) to do anything but at-will effects or I can spend 1 round doing a setup (it may not require anything but the time).
Also picture spells where my mage armor or mirror image collapes and you have to spend an action to renew them (they can be at-will)

Chris24601 wrote:

I don't anything wrong with daily powers if you're playing a narrativist style of gaming. If I had to go with something else in a 4E successor my preference would be for resource points that only partially recharge over time (ex. a mage might have 60 mana points that recharge 15 points between each encounter). This allows the character to go deep into their resources when needed (like dailies allow), but still leaves them some resources for the next encounter no matter how deep you went (like encounter powers allow).

One metric is certainly better than many so in that regards I do like a "fatigue" or point system.

However I see some overlaps between action pints and dailies and healing surges.

I could see a real value in a "Heroic Reserves" that merged some of that.

By combos, do you mean (sorry to use this word; but it actually is in context) synergies? 4e has a lot of that going already, in a party. But it could use more.
For example, a monk has a level 1 at-will that does d6+dex damage, and knocks prone. And a psion has a level one at-will that keeps someone from moving (can't remember what either are called, exactly...my PHB3 is on loan). So...A monk and an psion can, quite comically, keep an enemy in the same square, and falling down every round, all while picking away at its HP with d6+ their highest ability score damage.

I like a fatigue point system too. And, the word 'fatigue' could apply to everyone. That'd be better than trying to explain or deal with 'mana' for arcane characters, 'action' for martial characters, 'holy' for divine characters, etc. And the idea of them recovering during short rests, but NOT recovering all the way is cool too. It means you will, eventually, be spent for the day. But, you won't be forced into that 5-minute work day thing that I hate so much.

seti wrote:

By combos, do you mean (sorry to use this word; but it actually is in context) synergies? 4e has a lot of that going already, in a party. But it could use more.  .

Synergies is a good word - and I guess either could be applied within a single characters action or in a group.

One of the mild annoyances I sometimes have is that the game is so much better at team work that the classic Hero and  Sidekick seems underfed.

Garthanos wrote:

One metric is certainly better than many so in that regards I do like a "fatigue" or point system.  

However I see some overlaps between action pints and dailies and healing surges.

I could see a real value in a "Heroic Reserves" that merged some of that.

In a system I've been mucking around with I've combined the concept of daily powers, action points and healing surges (although in the system its more akin to burning off points to mitigate damage instead of restoring lost health points) into something I call "Edge" (as in having an edge). It's a pool of points that can be spent to use bigger powers, improve rolls or reduce damage (different archetypes/roles do some of these better than other... tanks tend to be better at reducing damage, skill-monkeys are better at improving rolls and offensive characters tend to have better attack powers for the Edge cost).

This pool recovers at a rate of one-fourth of its total value between each scene/encounter so if you limit your expenditure to less than its recovery rate you could go all day, if you have to spend about half your Edge each scene you could get through three encounters at that rate and your fourth or later encounters would only have the amount that recovers between scenes. Alternately, after blowing through a lot of Edge in one scene you could hold back in later scenes to build your pool back up.

The idea is that the system self-regulates how much each character dominates things so that everyone gets at least some chance to shine. People who do slow and steady are able to have a decent impact every scene while those who blow it all get to really have a huge impact in some scenes while they have minimal impact in other scenes. The only people this wouldn't work with are the point hoarders who never spend much of anything, but this is true of any system... a 4E character who uses only their at-wills would be in the same boat compared to those who use all their encounter powers every battle.

I have allowed using an AP to recharge a daily power, but I like combining it with surges.

Bringing this topic back somewhat to the OP, the one thing that really bugs me about Next the most is the disjointed mechanics. In 4e, when a character takes an action it's always d20+mods vs a target. Swing a sword - d20 + mods vs AC, cast spell - d20 + mods vs defense, buff your way past the guards - d20 + mods vs DC, knowledge check - d20 +mods vs DC, swing from a chandelier - d20 + mods vs DC
The one taking the action rolls for success. The only time someone else rolls on someones turn is through some kind of interrupt or granted action, otherwise only the player acting rolls.
I don't like mixed mechanics, particularly save vs spells, in Next. It seems so disjointed and in-elegant.

And, while I can understand the appeal of additional dice on advantage or disadvantage, I prefer a straight + or -. The two dice things seems swingy and imbalanced.

And bounded accuracy is something I'm not sold on. Even the monster math in 4e means the progression in the numbers is a treadmill, there is something psychological about it. I don't like HP as being the major measure of character progression, especially when HP is variable. Ugh.

I the lost of surges and martial healing and everyone being able to self heal... they really took a giant leap backwards. Thanks grognards...

I am aware that many of my issues can be fixed with house rules. I just don't feel like I should have the house rule the stuff out of a game to make it work at all. 4e is the only D&D that works RAW out of the box. Whether you use errata or not for the most part.

TjD

Chris24601 wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

One metric is certainly better than many so in that regards I do like a "fatigue" or point system.  

However I see some overlaps between action pints and dailies and healing surges.

I could see a real value in a "Heroic Reserves" that merged some of that.

In a system I've been mucking around with I've combined the concept of daily powers, action points and healing surges (although in the system its more akin to burning off points to mitigate damage instead of restoring lost health points) into something I call "Edge" (as in having an edge). It's a pool of points that can be spent to use bigger powers, improve rolls or reduce damage (different archetypes/roles do some of these better than other... tanks tend to be better at reducing damage, skill-monkeys are better at improving rolls and offensive characters tend to have better attack powers for the Edge cost).

This pool recovers at a rate of one-fourth of its total value between each scene/encounter so if you limit your expenditure to less than its recovery rate you could go all day, if you have to spend about half your Edge each scene you could get through three encounters at that rate and your fourth or later encounters would only have the amount that recovers between scenes. Alternately, after blowing through a lot of Edge in one scene you could hold back in later scenes to build your pool back up.

The idea is that the system self-regulates how much each character dominates things so that everyone gets at least some chance to shine. People who do slow and steady are able to have a decent impact every scene while those who blow it all get to really have a huge impact in some scenes while they have minimal impact in other scenes. The only people this wouldn't work with are the point hoarders who never spend much of anything, but this is true of any system... a 4E character who uses only their at-wills would be in the same boat compared to those who use all their encounter powers every battle.

some good bits in there you have encounter powers and dailies and most of the martial practices (and maybe action points) all encompassed in an overarching mechanic.

Durriken wrote:

Bringing this topic back somewhat to the OP, the one thing that really bugs me about Next the most is the disjointed mechanics.

TjD

OK I admit it I am currently finding anything good in 5e to be depressing because its mired in all the goo. So the main topic is meh.

Everything I heard about Next when it was first announced was that it would be the edition that everyone would want to play because you could play it however you wanted. If you liked 1e, you could play it like 1e. If you liked 4E, you could play it like that.

Since then, everything I've heard in the podcasts, in the posts on the WotC site, and on various forum boards is that it is nothing like any of the previous editions.

My thoughts were that if you made an edition that attempted to make everyone happy it would only end up making no one happy. And that is my impression from everything that I've heard/read about it.

I said to my group at the time that Next was announced that I still had plenty of stories to tell and encounters to explore with 4E and I had no intention of switching at all. And we're all very happy with that. I'm getting my tools moved to an offline format and I've incorporated a (very) few house rules to improve the (very) few mechanics that I don't like in 4E. And we're chugging along having a great time.

I think that Next is over simplifying the D&D game and trying to head off in a new direction with ttRPG mechanics. It makes me sad to see that the game that has been my #1 source of entertainment since 1981 is not going somewhere that I don't want to follow.

Frankly, I'm an adult with all sorts of responsibilities. Unless a game system truly wows me and the people I game with there are just so many better things I could be doing with my money than buying a game system that only does part of what I want.

Heck, I just spent the better part of a year completely rewriting the Mage the Ascension system (with my players as the testers) into a game that does everything I want it to in the way that I want it to* so, unless its awesome off the bat I'd probably just save my money and design another game system that does exactly what I want it to myself (such as the above one that currently looks to be using Edge, opposed d20+stat scores for task resolution, and a class & level-based talent tree advancement system).

*I do think I'm going to have to eventually (before the next campaign anyway) go back and wipe out a bunch of the story-based flaws; those with no true mechanics to enforce them like infamy or enemies; and replace them with a Mutants & Masterminds style Complication system. my position on non-mechanical flaws has really tightened up between when I wrote the flaws section and when I finished the project.

skwyd42 wrote:

My thoughts were that if you made an edition that attempted to make everyone happy it would only end up making no one happy. And that is my impression from everything that I've heard/read about it.

Yeah, if anyone on the 5e team actually thinks that 5e can unite fans of all editions, they're laughably naive.

Some gamers are liking the particular hodge podge of D&Disms that 5e is becoming, but mostly the fans of particular editions hate it. We 4e fans say "D&D is devolving into 3e!" 3e fans say "Get those 4e mistakes out of my D&D!" And fans of earlier editions say "Ho hum, more new school WotC crap."

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

skwyd42 wrote:

My thoughts were that if you made an edition that attempted to make everyone happy it would only end up making no one happy. And that is my impression from everything that I've heard/read about it.

Yeah, if anyone on the 5e team actually thinks that 5e can unite fans of all editions, they're laughably naive.

Some gamers are liking the particular hodge podge of D&Disms that 5e is becoming, but mostly the fans of particular editions hate it. We 4e fans say "D&D is devolving into 3e!" 3e fans say "Get those 4e mistakes out of my D&D!" And fans of earlier editions say "Ho hum, more new school WotC crap."

5e is never going to satisfy the x edition purist. I like it because I like a lot of different editions and i like the idea of mixing and matching stuff from different edition and having it all fit together seamlessly.

The question is how many people are closer my preferences vs how many are edition purists.

It doesn't take a purist to respond negatively to backtracking of solutions which work. I wont claim everything in 4e counts as WORKED in all caps but honestly even things which still needed some work deserved to get it and those that did very much work really aren't getting respected

edit: Terrible terrible sentence or whatever it is...

There are definitely other reasons to dislike 5e. I was just addressing one of them.

Garthanos wrote:

OK according to just a quick perusal of web stuff.... 13th age lacks dailies for martial characters...

The following martial classes in 13th Age do in fact have dailies (not including the daily abilities granted by feats related to the listed class talents):

• Barbarians
  
  
  
  • Barbarian Rage
    
  • Building Frenzy
    
  • Natural Will
    
  • Ancestral Warband (though this can be considered supernatural to near-magical already)
    
• Paladins
  
  
  
  • Smite Evil (1/battle + CHA/day)
    
  • Cleric Training (pilfering a daily from the Cleric class)
    
  • Divine Domain (pilfering a class talent from the Cleric class that grants a daily ability)
    
  • Lay on Hands (2/day)
    
• Rangers
  
  
  • Fey Queen's Enchantments (pilfering a daily from the Sorcerer class)
    
  • Ranger Ex Cathedral (pilfering a daily from the Cleric class)
    
  
  
• Rogues
  
  
  
  • Smooth Talk
    
  • Spiky Bastard

To add to this, the design of 13th Age makes Dailies roughly 4x as powerful as at-wills and only 2x as powerful as encounter powers -- and even then, basic attacks with the bigger weapons (that casters can't wield very well) often pack quite the punch -- which means the Fighter isn't really missing out that much on the output.

Finally, feats (especially class talent feats for non-casters) grant daily abilities, so even if the Fighter doesn't have a daily maneuver, he still gets to do daily-level stuff.

Garthanos wrote:

hides rituals under the need to have dailies

Compared to the at-will spamming of rituals whose limitations (components and time) are eventually rendered moot through mechanical options available to you, and the fact that people often forget the very existence of rituals due to their complete separation from the classes as if they were merely tacked on at the last minute, I would gladly prefer the "turns even at-wills into dailies in order to create a powerful non-combat effect that becomes harder to reproduce the more often the effect has been created" approach of 13th Age.

Garthanos wrote:

and many things that really dont at all make it seem to have been guided by 4e sensibilities.

Care to elaborate on what these "4E sensibilities" are? Because personally when I run 13th Age I still get the same vibes I had when running D&D 4E, so I'm really in the dark when you state this.

Garthanos wrote:

Significantly speaking I think all characters independent of class getting or having the potential for Climactic Peak Performances is absolutely vital to the 4e experience.

Expanding on the versatility of non-casters is another element

Emphasizing team play is another.

1. Thanks to Icon Relationships, Unique Things, and Backgrounds (which, unlike D&D 4E, isn't tied to class and is tied directly to a character's background), I'd say the non-combat potential for *any* character in 13th Age would have "Climactic Peak Performances"; some classes have certain advantages (like how the Bard and the Rogue can change their Icon Relationships temporarily, and how the Sorcerer has magic that can temporarily make them more attractive [if successful]), but overall the out of combat aspect of each character is roughly the same.

The funny part about the characters' combat options is that when you actually calculate the average damage per round for basic attacks, all classes are surprisingly consistent, but because of the way each class is designed, you don't feel that they're "same-y". And then there's the Escalation Die, which gives as much as a +6 to hit, which means even the worst character built via point buy has a chance to actually contribute to a fight eventually (I can't say the same for those who got 3-7 from rolling poorly for their stats).

2. Character backgrounds, unique things and Icon relationships greatly expand non-caster versatility, as "Former captain of the Blues Brigade" could be used for just about any ability check, so long as the action being done can be argued to be related to your background; e.g. ordering others and strong-arming opponents in arm wrestling could easily be a thing for the former captain, but haggling for prices or serving as diplomatic face of the party might need a storytelling explanation from the character in question to establish why a former captain of the Blues Brigade would know the subtleties of trade or etiquette.

Rogues in particular are the poster people for martial versatility thanks to Smooth Talk and Swashbuckle (a 1/battle auto-success on improv), though Rangers also have their Tracking (and Terrain Stunt), while other characters can still influence the story through Relationship die rolls and background checks.

( 13th Age subscribes to the more "indie" concept of failing forward, wherein failing checks don't mean "you're not good enough", but rather "it doesn't happen exactly how you want it," so I doubt versatility would be a major concern, especially when compared to the mainstream D&D approach of "no it doesn't happen". )

3. While 13th Age does not list classes based on roles as done in D&D 4E, each character's design immediately screams

• Striker. Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Paladin, Wizard, Fighter
  
• Defender. Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger
  
• Controller. Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Rogue, Ranger
  
• Leader. Paladin, Cleric, Bard
  

Which isn't that different from D&D 4E when you actually put the equivalent classes side to side (4E Fighters and Wizards can be striker-level in damage output, 4E Paladins easily work as leaders, etc.).

Not to mention the fact that Bards and Clerics explicitly can't benefit from most of their spells or domain abilities without at least buffing their allies alongside them, which shows that they're really meant to fill the 4E leader role, while Fighters and Paladins have their own abilities that discourage enemies from harming their allies (Paladins have Paladin's Challenge [which has its obvious roots in D&D 4E's marking mechanic], while Fighters have their Threatening that makes it a *lot* harder to get away from them without getting attacked), easily making them the party's defenders.

chaosfang wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

OK according to just a quick perusal of web stuff.... 13th age lacks dailies for martial characters...

The following martial classes in 13th Age do in fact have dailies (not including the daily abilities granted by feats related to the listed class talents):

So my fighter gets none (I don't find that copacetic) - and the others get it in amounts completely non-comparable with the amount allowed by the spell casters... like that rogue with his 2 compared to how many the casters get? and how encounter defining are those uses?  

In some sense I trust 13 Age fairness and balance (even if they do try to obfuscate - does the fighter get more feats so he can purchase more dailies for instance? isn't that the technique attempted in 3e? did that really work?) more than 5e as i question the motives of the 5e team more - they seem willing in their urge to seduce people who prefer lack of balance. In fact right now trust is a big issue in general for WOTC.

chaosfang wrote:

To add to this, the design of 13th Age makes Dailies roughly 4x as powerful as at-wills and only 2x as powerful as encounter powers -- and even then, basic attacks with the bigger weapons (that casters can't wield very well) often pack quite the punch -- which means the Fighter isn't really missing out that much on the output.

We are talking about the peaks of performance you know the stuff that makes people go wow, not the clean up duty.
steady goes it fade in the background when its really a big event cause the caster gets to save his and show everyone how its done.  I kind of like those numbers btw just from grokkability stand point.

chaosfang wrote:

Finally, feats (especially class talent feats for non-casters) grant daily abilities, so even if the Fighter doesn't have a daily maneuver, he still gets to do daily-level stuff.

In completely haphazard measure see that worries me a bit. While the fighter spends his feats on that -- the Wizard spends his feats on what? getting even more awesome dailies?

Though Actually as long as the fighter has choices that enable him to access those peaks its actually ok...However is it trustworthy?

chaosfang wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

hides rituals under the need to have dailies

Compared to the at-will spamming of rituals whose limitations (components and time) are eventually rendered moot through mechanical options available to you, and the fact that people often forget the very existence of rituals due to their complete separation from the classes as if they were merely tacked on at the last minute, I would gladly prefer the "turns even at-wills into dailies in order to create a powerful non-combat effect that becomes harder to reproduce the more often the effect has been created" approach of 13th Age.

Rituals in 4e needed work (esp in terms of pricing - they needed to scale better if there value was the same at all levels)  but basically 13 age and 5e both removed a fair number of character designs from the table by saying you can't be a ritualist without being a spell caster (must be a battlemage to be a utility caster have to spend the I am a "class" coin to get access even if I can choose all utility spells - I have those design resources spent on spells and so pretty much spells must be the tool I used for battle... a bit all or nothing)

chaosfang wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

and many things that really dont at all make it seem to have been guided by 4e sensibilities.

Care to elaborate on what these "4E sensibilities" are?  

I probably exaggerated the possibility of others not already mentioned... perhaps at minimum I should have said (ie.) instead of "and." - chock it up to hyperbole.

Garthanos wrote:

Significantly speaking I think all characters independent of class getting or having the potential for Climactic Peak Performances is absolutely vital to the 4e experience.

Expanding on the versatility of non-casters is another element

Emphasizing team play is another.

1. Thanks to Icon Relationships, Unique Things, and Backgrounds (which, unlike D&D 4E, isn't tied to class and is tied directly to a character's background), I'd say the non-combat potential for *any* character in 13th Age would have "Climactic Peak Performances"; some classes have certain advantages (like how the Bard and the Rogue can change their Icon Relationships temporarily, and how the Sorcerer has magic that can temporarily make them more attractive [if successful]), but overall the out of combat aspect of each character is roughly the same.[/quote]Mostly "Climactic Peak Performances" - is traditionally "Dailies" in D&D.

Good yes, I was considering that buried rituals to be a bad sign (rather than a causal-connection) in out of combat arena because traditionally that means spell casters are overwhelmingly more potent in out of combat arenas wrt mechanical elements its not a causal thing because really once you made the character a ritualist you were transforming your character in to a different archetype. The ability of Skills to apply versatility in emergency circumstances (where largely neither rituals and tightly defined spells can) is to me the 4e benefit for non-casters. Making rituals cast-able from a slot... as though that were really limiting can be worrisome. (could be I am just not trusting slots as a balancing mechanism for historical reasons) == I am making assumptions here and this is pretty much how they are doing it in 5e I believe.

chaosfang wrote:

The funny part about the characters' combat options is that when you actually calculate the average damage per round for basic attacks, all classes are surprisingly consistent, but because of the way each class is designed, you don't feel that they're "same-y".

To me roles and different approaches to achieving those roles mean classes aren't ever really samey and are in fact vastly less samey than the full attack spammers of the previous edition. From what I heard you might have 2 or at most 3 effective classes One trick ponies(OTPs), FAS(Full attack Spammers) and CASTER - I will take my roles any day.

Averages are less obvious and less actually felt than Peaks by most people, which is why I mention it... and its an arena spell casters traditional get by virtue of there actions having daily limits... the fighter is relegated to a steady state of perceptual mediocrity.

chaosfang wrote:

And then there's the Escalation Die, which gives as much as a +6 to hit, which means even the worst character built via point buy has a chance to actually contribute to a fight eventually (I can't say the same for those who got 3-7 from rolling poorly for their stats).

Escalation die I see as a promising concept in terms of making the pacing more Fantastical and more Cinematic. It hadn't occurred to me that it allowed contribution by less competent team members I like that = is there anything like it for out of combat conflict resolution?

chaosfang wrote:

2. Character backgrounds, unique things and Icon relationships greatly expand non-caster versatility, as "Former captain of the Blues Brigade" could be used for just about any ability check, so long as the action being done can be argued to be related to your background; e.g. ordering others and strong-arming opponents in arm wrestling could easily be a thing for the former captain, but haggling for prices or serving as diplomatic face of the party might need a storytelling explanation from the character in question to establish why a former captain of the Blues Brigade would know the subtleties of trade or etiquette.

Rogues in particular are the poster people for martial versatility thanks to Smooth Talk and Swashbuckle (a 1/battle auto-success on improv), though Rangers also have their Tracking (and Terrain Stunt), while other characters can still influence the story through Relationship die rolls and background checks.

( 13th Age subscribes to the more "indie" concept of failing forward, wherein failing checks don't mean "you're not good enough", but rather "it doesn't happen exactly how you want it," so I doubt versatility would be a major concern, especially when compared to the mainstream D&D approach of "no it doesn't happen". )

If out of combat arenas are strong enough that the casters uber-not-really limited - versatility significance fades that is good...  4e made skills more potent and versatile esp in emergency - which is why the criticism of leaving the default state of some classes as under-fed in skills kind of hit home as a failure.

chaosfang wrote:

3. While 13th Age does not list classes based on roles as done in D&D 4E, each character's design immediately screams

Cool really the presentation of roles to the players in 4e is saying yes we designed the classes with team membership in mind and we are up front about it and we arent hiding from new players optimisation of the classes and teams capabilities (and classes do have different capabilities along these lines). As a design paradigm it can reduce the amount of poorly designed classes and characters that really don't have a function backing their concept.

Thanks for elaborating on 13 Age some as I said my impressions are from a quick look at fairly hinted at information not even a reasonable read of the actual game.

My latter comments

me wrote:

Expanding on the versatility of non-casters is another element

Emphasizing team play is another.

(as small as it was ) were just generalized this is a feature of 4e not actually related to whether it was included in 13Age. But you basically said team play is has been considered and non-combat balance may have been developed in some ways better than 4e.

I really feel like 5e may be the last edition of D&D before Hasbro shelves the game. I just feel like they are failing on all the main points they tried to say the game would cover, and they aren't bringing the fans back together at all. Most 4e fans hate the game because it goes in the opposite direction of 4e, most AD&D players just say meh and don't care, and most 3e players won't/don't enjoy it because it's seemingly lack of complexity (from what I've gathered anyway).

I really like 13th Age so far. I haven't got to play the system yet but have read most of the Core book. I'm also running an online game using the setting.

I really feel like 13th Age carries the 4e design philosophies in its heart. I mean, after all, Rob Heinsoo was a lead designer for 4e. And he designed the majority of the class stuff anyway for both games.

Feeling like the Fighting mans tactics are at the whims of chance is one of those elements I don't find myself liking that much from what I have heard of 13th Ages mechanics...

Garthanos wrote:

So my fighter gets none

Fighters do have daily abilities through feats.

• Comeback Strike's champion feat
  
• Heavy Armor's adventurer feat
  
• Heavy Armor's epic feat
  
• Power Attack's champion feat
  
• Tough as Iron adventurer feat
  

Garthanos wrote:

and the others get it in amounts completely non-comparable with the amount allowed by the spell casters... like that rogue with his 2 compared to how many the casters get? and how encounter defining are those uses?  

• Cleric dailies are almost exclusively party-beneficial, requiring them to buff allies if they want to benefit from the spells themselves... and most of the time those buffs come in the form of +1 for up to 3 allies (including self) or +2 to one ally (cannot target self).
  
• Sorcerer dailies are high damage that look impressive on the damage scale (especially when stacked up with Gather Power), but the main if not only lasting impact that they have is damage. For a quick comparison, the Sorcerer's Lightning Fork (arguably the best power a Sorcerer has in his arsenal ) does 2d8 x 10 + (CHA x 3) at level 9, doubled with Gather Power, so the maximum output is 88 ~ 368 damage per hit; by comparison, a level 9 Rogue can pull off 9d8 + 5d6 + (DEX x3), doubled with Shadow Walk, giving use a maximum output of 76 ~ 252 damage per hit, or 15% ~ 46% (an average of 30.5%) difference. That's a daily versus a basic attack mind you, which means that the Rogue can cover that difference very quickly in a very short time... and the Rogue still gets to do his "hide in plain sight" on top of that.
  
• The only Wizard spells that last for an entire encounter are the following:
  
  
  
  • Blur
    
  • Teleport Shield
    
  • Blink
    
  • Flight
    
  • Invisibility (until the invisible creature attacks)
    
  • Overcome Resistance
    
  
  

Of the Rogue's two daily abilities:

• Smooth Talk lasts for the whole adventuring day, and
  
• Spiky Bastard is a battle-long auto-counter-damage aura
  

And I'd say the dailies that martial classes get are just as encounter-defining as the dailies that casters get (if not more so), given how Barbarian Rage not only amps up Barbarian accuracy, but also effectively makes him crit almost at-will, or how Smite Evil or even the at-will Two-Weapon Fighting make even missing a very painful experience for the enemy, etc.

Garthanos wrote:

does the fighter get more feats so he can purchase more dailies for instance?

No.

Garthanos wrote:

We are talking about the peaks of performance you know the stuff that makes people go wow, not the clean up duty.
steady goes it fade in the background when its really a big event cause the caster gets to save his and show everyone how its done.  I kind of like those numbers btw just from grokkability stand point.

Based on the testimonies of other GMs as well as myself, I would say the wow factor of martial classes is definitely there. Fighters being able to build up their attacks until they crit, Paladins Smiting enemies to kingdom come, Rangers barraging enemies with basic attacks, Rogues sneaking up to enemies and just shoving that damage in there, and Barbarians POUNDING their way through the fight is definitely something to note.

Plus, improvisation damage is actually higher than normal attacks (though the abstract nature of weaponry means that improvised weapons don't net you the same benefit as improvised actions), and because martial classes have better combat improv-related stats, they also have better utilization of the environment.

Garthanos wrote:

While the fighter spends his feats on that -- the Wizard spends his feats on what? getting even more awesome dailies?

They spend their feats on tweaking their non-daily spells, and non-daily class features and talents; they have no daily feats at all.

Garthanos wrote:

Though Actually as long as the fighter has choices that enable him to access those peaks its actually ok...However is it trustworthy?

what do you mean, "is it trustworthy?"

Garthanos wrote:

Rituals in 4e needed work (esp in terms of pricing - they needed to scale better if there value was the same at all levels)  but basically 13 age and 5e both removed a fair number of character designs from the table by saying you can't be a ritualist without being a spell caster (must be a battlemage to be a utility caster have to spend the I am a "class" coin to get access even if I can choose all utility spells - I have those design resources spent on spells and so pretty much spells must be the tool I used for battle... a bit all or nothing)

Ah, you're talking about the "can take up ritual casting with a feat". And I agree, it is a bit of a shortcoming on the part of both 13th Age and 5E.

However, at least 13th Age makes it very easy to fix this problem with just one houserule (that doesn't even require any mechanical tweaking): Fighters treat all maneuvers as spells, and Rogues treat all powers as spells. That's all that's needed.

Alternative houserule: let the non-casters swap one class talent for a spell (as what the Bard, Paladin and Ranger already do with their class talents).

Reason: 13th Age already has an adventurer tier Ritual Caster feat that turns any spell you know into rituals. So even by the rules, only the Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian get the short end of the stick, but because of the way the system is designed, it is very easy to fix.

Garthanos wrote:

Mostly "Climactic Peak Performances" - is traditionally "Dailies" in D&D.

Good yes, I was considering that buried rituals to be a bad sign (rather than a causal-connection) in out of combat arena because traditionally that means spell casters are overwhelmingly more potent in out of combat arenas wrt mechanical elements its not a causal thing because really once you made the character a ritualist you were transforming your character in to a different archetype. The ability of Skills to apply versatility in emergency circumstances (where largely neither rituals and tightly defined spells can) is to me the 4e benefit for non-casters. Making rituals cast-able from a slot... as though that were really limiting can be worrisome. (could be I am just not trusting slots as a balancing mechanism for historical reasons) == I am making assumptions here and this is pretty much how they are doing it in 5e I believe.

Thankfully rituals aren't being balanced in 13th Age through slots, but rather by the fact that the GM determines what the prerequisites and even the possible maximum benefit for ritual casting are, including possibly rare components, magical items, great personal sacrifices on the part of the adventurers, and most of all a time factor. Combine this with the fact that they turn your already-limited number of spells into dailies regardless if they're daily or not, and I think the versatility of skills wins out against rituals in most emergency purposes.

Garthanos wrote:

To me roles and different approaches to achieving those roles mean classes aren't ever really samey and are in fact vastly less samey than the full attack spammers of the previous edition. From what I heard you might have 2 or at most 3 effective classes One trick ponies(OTPs), FAS(Full attack Spammers) and CASTER - I will take my roles any day.

Like I said, the four roles of D&D 4E are still there in 13th Age, they're just not as obvious and they're not so inherently hammered into the classes that you're psychologically forced to stick to the roles.

Plus, any character can be a defender thanks to the Intercept ability that allows you to block enemies trying to get to your allies. Fighters and Paladins are definitely better at it than others though, due to their defenses and available abilities.

Garthanos wrote:

Averages are less obvious and less actually felt than Peaks by most people, which is why I mention it... and its an arena spell casters traditional get by virtue of there actions having daily limits... the fighter is relegated to a steady state of perceptual mediocrity.

The funny part is, the Fighter is the least "mediocre" of the group (the Ranger or the non-raging Barbarian might qualify, but the Fighter? Certainly not).

Garthanos wrote:

Escalation die I see as a promising concept in terms of making the pacing more Fantastical and more Cinematic. It hadn't occurred to me that it allowed contribution by less competent team members I like that = is there anything like it for out of combat conflict resolution?

Failing Forward, plus there's a feat that lets characters benefit from the Escalation Die with skill checks 2/day. Since all the checks done outside of combat are "it happens (and/but)...", the fantastic and cinematic flow is maintained even though the roll failed to reach the target number.

Garthanos wrote:

Thanks for elaborating on 13 Age some as I said my impressions are from a quick look at fairly hinted at information not even a reasonable read of the actual game.

You're welcome

Garthanos wrote:

(as small as it was ) were just generalized this is a feature of 4e not actually related to whether it was included in 13Age. But you basically said team play is has been considered and non-combat balance may have been developed in some ways better than 4e.

Overall yes I'd say team play is heavily encouraged in 13th Age (but not as forced I suppose, given that there's no mention of roles even though they're heavily hinted at if you analyze the powers, spells, class talents and class features), and non-combat balance is definitely improved even though rituals aren't as structured as D&D 4E.

Garthanos wrote:

Feeling like the Fighting mans tactics are at the whims of chance is one of those elements I don't find myself liking that much from what I have heard of 13th Ages mechanics...

Thankfully the mechanic you mention isn't really that bad; you can set up your abilities so that you're always triggering a flexible attack, it's just that, as Forrest Gump would say, "you never know what you'd get." At least until the d20 has been rolled. So one moment you're raising your crit rate, another moment you're boosting your defenses, and another moment you're bashing hard at your opponent.

If you're the type of player who plays his character by
A) choosing power
B) executing that power
C) hoping to hit

Then you'll probably be disappointed with the Fighter's maneuvers, because Fighters in 13th Age are played by
A) making a basic attack as part of a flexible attack
B) looking at the d20 result
C) adding the maneuver that best works in the given scenario

He still has his limited class talents though

Garthanos wrote:

Feeling like the Fighting mans tactics are at the whims of chance is one of those elements I don't find myself liking that much from what I have heard of 13th Ages mechanics...

That's pretty much my feeling as well.

As I've said before I HATE* that type of design element. That type of design element works great if you're trying to pull off a simulation-style game where you're not guaranteed an opening to pull off some of your tactical tricks at the precise time you want it. But 13th Age is supposed to be a cooperative story-game and, if that's the type of game you're trying to build then the player of the fighting man should have just as much ability to influence the narrative at the time of their choice as the spellcaster's spell selection does... and being able to say "I get an opening that lets me attempt this maneuver at this point in the story" is the type of narrative influence they need to compete in that arena.

Quote :

Thankfully the mechanic you mention isn't really that bad; you can set up your abilities so that you're always triggering a flexible attack, it's just that, as Forrest Gump would say, "you never know what you'd get." At least until the d20 has been rolled. So one moment you're raising your crit rate, another moment you're boosting your defenses, and another moment you're bashing hard at your opponent.

No. It's THAT BAD. Why does the spellcaster get to pick precisely how he influences the narrative in a story-game, but the fighter has to contend with the whims of a random die to determine what he can do on a given turn? Not fair. Not fun.

* some may feel I'm using hyperbole to describe my dislike. I am not. Just thinking about the 'flexible attack mechanics' and having to use them in play fills me with thoughts of violence and reading posts trying to convince me how awesome flexible attacks are sends my teeth clenching and grinding to the point I should probably wear a retainer. The degree of ill-will I have for this mechanic is neither rational nor healthy, but its there all the same. Others may like them, and that's fine for them, but I'd play the most basic "I hit it with my sword" Fighter in an OSR game before I'll ever play a character with flexible attacks in 13th Age.

I understand both arguments but what I don't understand is how is 1 fighter attack effecting the entire narrative of the game, or one spell for that matter?  

I get why some people dislike the idea behind Flexible Attacks though. They do go against some of 4e's design philosophy. But not quite to the extent of the full attack spam. I personally think they are fine. But I could have dealt with a few more that were a little less "flexible" (aka normal at-will stances like those found in Essentials), or perhaps a power attack or so.

Though I will say I like the amount of damage martial classes can pull off at-will. 1|W| per level.

Chris24601 wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

Feeling like the Fighting mans tactics are at the whims of chance is one of those elements I don't find myself liking that much from what I have heard of 13th Ages mechanics...

That's pretty much my feeling as well.

As I've said before I HATE* that type of design element. That type of design element works great if you're trying to pull off a simulation-style game where you're not guaranteed an opening to pull off some of your tactical tricks at the precise time you want it. But 13th Age is supposed to be a cooperative story-game and, if that's the type of game you're trying to build then the player of the fighting man should have just as much ability to influence the narrative at the time of their choice as the spellcaster's spell selection does... and being able to say "I get an opening that lets me attempt this maneuver at this point in the story" is the type of narrative influence they need to compete in that arena.

Quote :

Thankfully the mechanic you mention isn't really that bad; you can set up your abilities so that you're always triggering a flexible attack, it's just that, as Forrest Gump would say, "you never know what you'd get." At least until the d20 has been rolled. So one moment you're raising your crit rate, another moment you're boosting your defenses, and another moment you're bashing hard at your opponent.

No. It's THAT BAD. Why does the spellcaster get to pick precisely how he influences the narrative in a story-game, but the fighter has to contend with the whims of a random die to determine what he can do on a given turn? Not fair. Not fun.

* some may feel I'm using hyperbole to describe my dislike. I am not. Just thinking about the 'flexible attack mechanics' and having to use them in play fills me with thoughts of violence and reading posts trying to convince me how awesome flexible attacks are sends my teeth clenching and grinding to the point I should probably wear a retainer. The degree of ill-will I have for this mechanic is neither rational nor healthy, but its there all the same. Others may like them, and that's fine for them, but I'd play the most basic "I hit it with my sword" Fighter in an OSR game before I'll ever play a character with flexible attacks in 13th Age.

The sense that those who specialize in well.. war, are those least able to decide how they influence it is utterly contrary. I almost feel like I might need to have twice as many available no matter which way the dice roll I have real choices(like twice as many at-wills?). --- HOWEVER lets look at it a different way for a moment.
In 5e for the Weapon Master there is a secondary roll which is in effect a saving throw - though not presented that way.. it is an odd one where the save could be interpreted as the enemy deciding to take damage instead of the secondary effect. (I almost find that appealing) - now given that context perhaps one might see the 13 Age choice in flexible attacks as being between the odd effect or the even effect... both of which are chosen by the player.