And... the Cleric!

[obryn]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1710-See-the-Cleric-Character-Sheet-from-the-D-D-5E-Starter-Set!#.U6izE_ldVy0

Looks a lot like the preview, but it seems non-humans might get a +2 to one stat and a +1 to another? Also, the number of cantrips increases with stat bumps, it seems.

[Kurald Galain]

Ok, that's more or less what we expected. The cleric is a spontaneous caster now (that can switch its spells known every day, if desired) and still has channel div. I note that destroy undead only destroys creatures that aren't a threat to you in the first place, and there should have been a keyword for "proficient but add twice your bonus instead of once your bonus", or indeed for "short or long rest" (I suggest the term "rest"). And why is everyone proficient with playing cards these days?

The people who thought that WOTC would hand out ad/disad only sporadically can see on this sheet that WOTC instead hands them out frequently for common effects.

[da_chicken]

Also, the number of cantrips increases with stat bumps, it seems.

I don't think so. If it were tied to ability bonus, it would be listed among the other effects of increasing Wisdom, not under a separate heading.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok, that's more or less what we expected. The cleric is a spontaneous caster now (that can switch its spells known every day, if desired) and still has channel div. I note that destroy undead only destroys creatures that aren't a threat to you in the first place, and there should have been a keyword for "proficient but add twice your bonus instead of once your bonus", or indeed for "short or long rest" (I suggest the term "rest"). And why is everyone proficient with playing cards these days?

The people who thought that WOTC would hand out ad/disad only sporadically can see on this sheet that WOTC instead hands them out frequently for common effects.

Everyone is proficient with playing cards for 1 of 2 reasons.

1: They want to make MtG a mini game within D&D like the card games from FF 8 and 9... Or...

2: They are afraid people will spout the " 5e killed roleplaying" like they did with 4e (totally untrue) and this is a way doe them to say "see! You can roleplay, you totally get a worthless background proficiency to roleplay!".

[obryn]

I note that destroy undead only destroys creatures that aren't a threat to you in the first place
Yeah, at least in earlier editions, that's standard. It was useful because back then - and in 5e - you will probably still see those skeletons and zombies.


And why is everyone proficient with playing cards these days?
Probably a coincidence. It's based on Background.

e: :smallcool:

They just mentioned in one their opening of the starter box set live podcast that DMG will have options for this.. including a wounds vitality type system from D20 Star Wars

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356053-Should-the-Fighter-s-quot-Second-Wind-quot-ability-grant-temporary-HP-instead-of-regular-HP/page11#ixzz35VnzG3IR


Just hopping in here while I edit that live footage. Those kinds of options will be in the DMG. That's where you'll find a lot of the optional stuff that alters the base game.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356053-Should-the-Fighter-s-quot-Second-Wind-quot-ability-grant-temporary-HP-instead-of-regular-HP/page11#ixzz35Vo3zOz1

[archaeo]

Gosh, or 3. Judging by the way they've constructed these pre-gens to have a lot of baked-in roleplaying hooks, it's likely that some part(s) of the adventure will feature some NPCs who play cards.

Or maybe 4. The DM guidelines for the adventure will suggest several ways to get your characters roleplaying with one another instead of just roleplaying at NPCs, and an ad-hoc card game works beautifully. You don't even really need rules; the Starter Set will be teaching DMs to use the proper checks to abstract a card game in D&D terms.

I think it's important to remember the Starter Set is intrinsically didactic. Presumably, everything in the set is aimed toward teaching a newbie what it means to play/DM D&D. Ideally, the Starter Set prepares you for Basic, which prepares you to use the "advanced books" (PHB/MM/DMG), which prepares you for whatever crazy wild west of content WotC is planning for their non-TPP licenses.

[obryn]

Gotta say, if Next has better hooks and mechanics for interaction and non-combat activities than previous editions, it will be a major plus in its favor. So far I'm really digging that part of the characters.

[Felhammer]

I note that destroy undead only destroys creatures that aren't a threat to you in the first place

Every creature will be a threat to you, 1-20. The gradation of difficulty will depend on how many of the monsters you are fighting.




The people who thought that WOTC would hand out ad/disad only sporadically can see on this sheet that WOTC instead hands them out frequently for common effects.

Which feels very in line with the way the devs have been playing in their videos and what they have been saying in their videos/podcasts.


Gotta say, if Next has better hooks and mechanics for interaction and non-combat activities than previous editions, it will be a major plus in its favor. So far I'm really digging that part of the characters.

Agreed. This will do wonders for really pulling players into the game and get them into the minds of their characters.

[Townopolis]

:smallannoyed: I am not loving this implementation of stonecunning. It isn't super-complicated, but it's a special rule for something that doesn't warrant a special rule, and I find that discomforting.

[Felhammer]

:smallannoyed: I am not loving this implementation of stonecunning. It isn't super-complicated, but it's a special rule for something that doesn't warrant a special rule, and I find that discomforting.

Dwarves have always been good at knowing stuff about stonework, even back in 1st edition. Makes sense WotC would include it here.

[Morty]

The stonecunning ability does sound like it'll never actually come up, but including things because they've always been there is what D&D Next is all about. Other than that, not much to say about the sheet - it just confirms that the basic 5e system is extremely simple and bare-bones. It's even more visible on the Fighter sheet.

[Townopolis]

Allow me to clarify. I know stonecunning has always been part of the dwarf package. Of course it will and should be concluded. What I have misgivings about is that they made it approximately twice as complicated as it needed to be. In the last packet, it was advantage on relevant checks and you can't get lost underground. On this sheet, it's a bonus proficiency plus expertise that isn't really a bonus proficiency and also we've decided to not use the word expertise anymore because reasons.

And again, this particular change isn't grievous, but it's indicative of an inability to curb rules bloat. Specifically, it indicates that the inability is much more severe than I had expected.

[Joe the Rat]

Well, they could have said something like "You are considered to have Proficiency and Expertise in all Int (History) checks related to stonework", but that would require explaining what Expertise is on the sheet... which is exactly what they've said here. Makes me curious as to how they word this in Basic. As to Expertise vs. Advantage... I am curious why they changed it. A more consistent bonus, perhaps?

Spells prepared as level + spellcasting ability modifier, but apparently no increase to number of slots. I'm good with that.

As to playing card proficiency... I'm voting #1.

[DeltaEmil]

Interesting to see that proficiency bonuses start at +2 now. A pity that 5th edition doesn't have a new or better skill system than 3.x and 4e.

[Person_Man]

Can someone Spoiler the image?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Interesting to see that proficiency bonuses start at +2 now. A pity that 5th edition doesn't have a new or better skill system than 3.x and 4e.

Well skills xcome from backgrounds so that's something in the right dire tion.

[pwykersotz]

Can someone Spoiler the image?

http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/60gQQ.jpg
http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/60gS9.jpg

[Kurald Galain]

Interesting to see that proficiency bonuses start at +2 now. A pity that 5th edition doesn't have a new or better skill system than 3.x and 4e.

Yes. The skill system appears to be the weakest part of 5E so far. By the looks of it, characters never learn new skills after level 1 (except if they spend one of their few feats on it, which wasn't a good trade in 3E and 4E either), and characters increase their skills by only two or three points total over their entire career. It's weird how having a solid skill system is one of the top priorities for basically every RPG on the market, except for D&D.

[obryn]

It's weird how having a solid skill system is one of the top priorities for basically every RPG on the market, except for D&D.
Honestly, I don't find that very weird at all, especially with the resurgence of the OSR. D&D started without a skill system, and there's a not-altogether-unpersuasive argument that it may have been better off without one. You already have classes, races, and backgrounds, so precise skills are pretty much filler after that, as far as I'm concerned.

My ideal D&D skill system is one that's unobtrusive and nearly invisible, and 5e is doing fine here, it seems. As long as the DCs were fixed - and I'm really hoping they were - it may just turn out workable. Additionally, it looks like Proficiency is now a +2 at 1st level instead of +1, and Expertise doubles your Proficiency bonus. +4 on a d20 is nothing to sneeze at.

Now, if we get the PHB and it's still almost impossible for a 20th-level Ranger to climb a slippery rope ... well, I'll complain then.

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, I don't find that very weird at all, especially with the resurgence of the OSR. D&D started without a skill system, and there's a not-altogether-unpersuasive argument that it may have been better off without one. You already have classes, races, and backgrounds, so precise skills are pretty much filler after that, as far as I'm concerned.

My ideal D&D skill system is one that's unobtrusive and nearly invisible, and 5e is doing fine here, it seems. As long as the DCs were fixed - and I'm really hoping they were - it may just turn out workable. Additionally, it looks like Proficiency is now a +2 at 1st level instead of +1, and Expertise doubles your Proficiency bonus. +4 on a d20 is nothing to sneeze at.

Now, if we get the PHB and it's still almost impossible for a 20th-level Ranger to climb a slippery rope ... well, I'll complain then.

I'm confused...an unknotted, slippery rope in 3.5 is a Climb DC 20, easily made by a 20th level ranger. Or were you referring to other editions?

[DeltaEmil]

I'm confused...an unknotted, slippery rope in 3.5 is a Climb DC 20, easily made by a 20th level ranger. Or were you referring to other editions?obryn's referring to 5th edition.

[pwykersotz]

obryn's referring to 5th edition.

Ah, makes more sense now. The word 'still' threw me back to all the comparisons with previous editions that have been going on. Carry on.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, I don't find that very weird at all, especially with the resurgence of the OSR. D&D started without a skill system, and there's a not-altogether-unpersuasive argument that it may have been better off without one. You already have classes, races, and backgrounds, so precise skills are pretty much filler after that, as far as I'm concerned.
I disagree; I prefer having a good resolution system for out-of-combat tasks.


I'm confused...an unknotted, slippery rope in 3.5 is a Climb DC 20, easily made by a 20th level ranger. Or were you referring to other editions?
Well, in the latest playtest, a 20th level ranger would have about +9 to his climb check, so he could not reliably climb this slippery rope. Furthermore, the latest playtest had DCs in the 30s for difficult tasks like forcing open a door, ensuring that even giants or dragons would generally fail to open them. So we're hoping that they've improved that since the last playtest :smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

Ah, makes more sense now. The word 'still' threw me back to all the comparisons with previous editions that have been going on. Carry on.
Yeah, it was something like DC 25 in an earlier playtest, with the Ranger's bonus capping out at something like +11.

The DCs were completely whacked, is what I'm saying.

[Lokiare]

Well skills come from backgrounds so that's something in the right direction.

I like 13th Ages take on skills. Its an ability check + level and you get a bonus based on which backgrounds you picked. So if the DM asks you for a hide check you don't say 'my hide skill is +3' you say "I'm a cat burglar so I get a +5 bonus". It fixes nearly all the problems I've even seen on skills.

You can use any ability score. So if the DM has you investigating the theft of a statue, you can do an Intelligence check and add your cat burglar background ranks onto the check. Its awesome!:smallsmile:

[obryn]

I like 13th Ages take on skills. Its an ability check + level and you get a bonus based on which backgrounds you picked. So if the DM asks you for a hide check you don't say 'my hide skill is +3' you say "I'm a cat burglar so I get a +5 bonus". It fixes nearly all the problems I've even seen on skills.

You can use any ability score. So if the DM has you investigating the theft of a statue, you can do an Intelligence check and add your cat burglar background ranks onto the check. Its awesome!:smallsmile:
OMG. I agree 100% with Lokiare on something. :smalleek:

[pwykersotz]

OMG. I agree 100% with Lokiare on something. :smalleek:

Yeah, me too. :smalltongue: That seems like an incredibly lightweight and efficient system.

[1337 b4k4]

I like 13th Ages take on skills. Its an ability check + level and you get a bonus based on which backgrounds you picked. So if the DM asks you for a hide check you don't say 'my hide skill is +3' you say "I'm a cat burglar so I get a +5 bonus". It fixes nearly all the problems I've even seen on skills.

You can use any ability score. So if the DM has you investigating the theft of a statue, you can do an Intelligence check and add your cat burglar background ranks onto the check. Its awesome!:smallsmile:

I have yet to get to 13th age, so pardon the ignorance, but how does the game handle (or does it handle) the situation where whether or not "cat burglar" applies to this check is less than clear? One of the common criticisms of such loose systems is the reliance of DM fiat.

[Kurald Galain]

I have yet to get to 13th age, so pardon the ignorance, but how does the game handle (or does it handle) the situation where whether or not "cat burglar" applies to this check is less than clear? One of the common criticisms of such loose systems is the reliance of DM fiat.

Well, the designers of 5E have stated that reliance on DM fiat is an intentional design feature, so that goes for both systems.

I think my main issue with the 13th Age bg system (which I haven't read yet, so correct me if I'm wrong) would be that they never improve as you level up.

Of course, certain backgrounds are going to be better than others, but in a "fixed skill" system like 3E, 4E, or 5E it's also true that certain skills are better than others, so that's not a big deal either way. As I recall, 2E and On The Edge employ a similar system as this 13th Age method.

[Lokiare]

Well, the designers of 5E have stated that reliance on DM fiat is an intentional design feature, so that goes for both systems.

I think my main issue with the 13th Age bg system (which I haven't read yet, so correct me if I'm wrong) would be that they never improve as you level up.

Of course, certain backgrounds are going to be better than others, but in a "fixed skill" system like 3E, 4E, or 5E it's also true that certain skills are better than others, so that's not a big deal either way. As I recall, 2E and On The Edge employ a similar system as this 13th Age method.

They don't automatically level, but you get a feat every level and can spend a feat to gain additional background points, plus you add your level to the roll so they do go up just uniformly.

In 13th Age you have 10 levels, but you can get partial levels if you advance the plot of the adventure (at the DM's discretion), but each level you gain 1 feat, a possible ability score increase, a talent, a class feature, one or more new powers/spells, the occasional icon points, hit point increase, weapon damage increase, background check (skills) increase (+ level), etc...etc... Its like they crammed 30 levels into 10 with the option of leveling up 50 times to reach 10th level or just 10 times. There is some DM fiat involved in skills, but that's present in every edition of D&D (4E included).

Edit: They also have powers/spells that fall into different recovery patterns:
at-will: use all you want.
encounter: Once per encounter
recharge: have a chance of recharging after an encounter is over.
cyclic: if used on an even escalation die it recovers automatically (so you can use it every other round).
escalation requirement: Its not called that but some powers/spells can only be used when the escalation die is at a specific number or higher.

The escalation die is an attack bonus the players get that starts at 0 and goes up by 1 at the end of each round until it hits 6.

You get to pick these powers/spells however you want. So you can make a pure vancian caster with all dailies, an AEDU caster with a mix, or an at-will/cyclic caster with spells you can use often.

[obryn]

I have yet to get to 13th age, so pardon the ignorance, but how does the game handle (or does it handle) the situation where whether or not "cat burglar" applies to this check is less than clear? One of the common criticisms of such loose systems is the reliance of DM fiat.
There's advice about this in the game, and it largely comes down to style. The GM is encouraged to be basically benevolent about application. There's generally a benefit, however, to taking 5 in something relatively broad rather than a 3, a 3, and a 2 in narrow things, but there's also a default "fail forward" assumption for skill use since 13A is a very narrative-focused game.

Some classes - like Bards and Rogues - increase in Backgrounds, IIRC, but everyone adds their level (which goes up to 10) to all skill rolls.

[Morty]

I like the idea of a descriptive skill system that defines what you can attempt and how easily, while keeping modifiers low. I think FATE uses such a method, but I've never read it.

[Person_Man]

Yes. The skill system appears to be the weakest part of 5E so far. By the looks of it, characters never learn new skills after level 1 (except if they spend one of their few feats on it, which wasn't a good trade in 3E and 4E either), and characters increase their skills by only two or three points total over their entire career. It's weird how having a solid skill system is one of the top priorities for basically every RPG on the market, except for D&D.

I'm guessing that boosting Skills will be a big class ability for the Rogue and Bard. This would be similar to 1st and 2nd edition, where they were the only classes that could Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Disarm Traps, Hide, and Move Silently. It preserves their exploration niche much more strongly. (I'm not saying that it's a good idea. It's just my guess about what will happen).

[obryn]

I'm guessing that boosting Skills will be a big class ability for the Rogue and Bard. This would be similar to 1st and 2nd edition, where they were the only classes that could Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Disarm Traps, Hide, and Move Silently. It preserves their exploration niche much more strongly. (I'm not saying that it's a good idea. It's just my guess about what will happen).
Currently, Expertise (like Rogues have for thiefy stuff) doubles your Proficiency bonus. So, +2->+4, +3->+6, etc. And 1st level characters have +2 Proficiency.

Opening locks and the like require Proficiency in Thieves' Tools. Rogues get this automatically, and a few backgrounds provided it last playtest.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Well, the designers of 5E have stated that reliance on DM fiat is an intentional design feature, so that goes for both systems.

I think my main issue with the 13th Age bg system (which I haven't read yet, so correct me if I'm wrong) would be that they never improve as you level up.

Of course, certain backgrounds are going to be better than others, but in a "fixed skill" system like 3E, 4E, or 5E it's also true that certain skills are better than others, so that's not a big deal either way. As I recall, 2E and On The Edge employ a similar system as this 13th Age method.I believe the expectation in 13th Age is that the scaling comes from your Level + Ability Mod, and that ability mods increase roughly at the same speed as 4E. But I've only read the system and it's been a while, so I may be mistaken.

Really though, 13th Age's skill/background system is only fiat-y filtered through the lens of D&D. It's still a pre-defined skill list, rolling D20+Mod vs. pre-defined DC when the player undertakes the action described by the skill. The player has a chance to justify his background's relevance as part of the check, but the setup is still the same. Important though, is that the DM probes to expand the PC's backstory or come up with hooks for later. E.g. "Oh, really? Your Dragon Sorcerer's Apprentice background can help negotiate the terms of your release with the Duke of Perth? I thought the Dragon Sorcerer was a recluse -- when did that come up?" If the player can't come up with anything, he doesn't get the bonus, and if he does, you (and the other PCs!) get valuable ideas for future events.

The biggest difference is that the DM has a lot of room for interpretation in terms of what failure means. Take something like 3E's Climb (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm) as counterpoint. If you fail by less than 4, you stay still, and if you fail by 5 or more, you fall. Period. In contrast, 13th Age's emphasis on failing forward means that that isn't necessarily the case. Failing your Climb check might mean that your allies make it to the top of the cliff by the time you're two-thirds of the way, and suddenly you notice a Roc flying by and realize he wants you to be his lunch. You're still on the wall and are even implied to have made progress, but the situation has taken a turn for the worse in a way that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the act of climbing.

If you want to look at stuff more in the realm of DM fiat systems -- and I encourage you to because there's a lot of value to trying it -- I will always plug Dungeon World & Dread (where what constitutes a check varies wildly by circumstance and character). I'm less familiar with FATE but it sounds like a strong candidate as well.

But yes back on point, the 13th Age system is pretty rad in terms of addressing D&D's issues with skill overspecialization and the general irrelevance of roleplaying to the system as a whole.

[Kurald Galain]

Really though, 13th Age's skill/background system is only fiat-y filtered through the lens of D&D. It's still a pre-defined skill list, rolling D20+Mod vs. pre-defined DC when the player undertakes the action described by the skill. The player has a chance to justify his background's relevance as part of the check, but the setup is still the same. Important though, is that the DM probes to expand the PC's backstory or come up with hooks for later. E.g. "Oh, really? Your Dragon Sorcerer's Apprentice background can help negotiate the terms of your release with the Duke of Perth? I thought the Dragon Sorcerer was a recluse -- when did that come up?" If the player can't come up with anything, he doesn't get the bonus, and if he does, you (and the other PCs!) get valuable ideas for future events.

The biggest difference is that the DM has a lot of room for interpretation in terms of what failure means. Take something like 3E's Climb (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm) as counterpoint. If you fail by less than 4, you stay still, and if you fail by 5 or more, you fall. Period. In contrast, 13th Age's emphasis on failing forward means that that isn't necessarily the case. Failing your Climb check might mean that your allies make it to the top of the cliff by the time you're two-thirds of the way, and suddenly you notice a Roc flying by and realize he wants you to be his lunch. You're still on the wall and are even implied to have made progress, but the situation has taken a turn for the worse in a way that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the act of climbing.

That's pretty cool. I think 13A just made its spot on my "games to check out" list, and it might just be ahead of 5E :smallcool:

[pwykersotz]

I'm interested in the fact that CR matters instead of HD for Destroy Undead. On the one hand, it means that if I make a custom monster, I'll need to bother to calculate the CR. Not a fan of that. On the other hand, monsters that have extensive hit dice bloat without increase to the overall CR are now valid targets, which is nice. I guess I'll have to see how it plays.

[ImperiousLeader]

That's pretty cool. I think 13A just made its spot on my "games to check out" list, and it might just be ahead of 5E :smallcool:

The SRD is online (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13316). That said, the book is worth getting, it's really pretty and has a nice, conversational style that works.

I really like it. It's got a bunch of interesting ideas, the One Unique Thing, and general backgrounds are cool. I also really like the way spellcasters and fighter types are balanced. Spellcasters have a "hollow" spell progression, as in they lose low level spell slots as they gain higher level spell slots. But every spell scales up, so you're still casting magic missile ... it's just that it's the 7th level version of Magic Missile. Weapon damage scales by level, so a Fighter wielding a 1d10 weapon is hitting for 3d10+STR at third level.

Oh, and Bards are badass.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm interested in the fact that CR matters instead of HD for Destroy Undead. On the one hand, it means that if I make a custom monster, I'll need to bother to calculate the CR. Not a fan of that. On the other hand, monsters that have extensive hit dice bloat without increase to the overall CR are now valid targets, which is nice. I guess I'll have to see how it plays.

I guess the CR and HD divide could allow a DM to make a HIGH CR creature with low HD. Thus making a 4e minion at HIGH level. Or if you want to pump the HD but not the CR you can have that pesky goblin be really hard to kill at all levels...

But they will need to actually explain these things in the DMG.

[Person_Man]

Observations:
Proficiency in Cards, again: "You all meet in a casino" instead of "You all meet at the inn" perhaps? Still, it's BS.

Dwarves have slower movement speed. But Darkvision, resistance against poison, +1 hit point per level, and the cruddy Stonecunning don't really seem to be worth the trade, unless there's also a large hidden attribute bonus I'm missing.

Stonecunning is a really situational and rare, and even when it does come up it doesn't seem like it would be useful. Which is a shame, because I can think of a dozen cool "big" dwarf abilities they could have used, including something like "Stonecunning: Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability or Skill check related to stones, earth, gems, metals, or similar materials. This includes such tasks such as building a wall, identifying a gem, guessing your depth underground, appraising a statue, climbing stone or earth, etc."

Wisdom modifier adds additional spells per day, in addition to determining passive Perception and the effectiveness of most Cleric abilities and spells. So I would say that every Cleric is going to max out Wisdom before they ever take a Feat.

On the same note, if there is an offensive at-will cantrip, then the Cleric can be Wisdom SAD.

Healing seems a bit odd. It seems like you can spam Preserve Life/Short Rest after every combat until everyone in your party is brought up to 50% hit points. But then you have very limited spells per day which can be used to bring allies up to 100%. Unless there's a cantrip that heals, which would make healing unlimited. It'll be interesting to see exactly how they define a Long Rest, and whether or not taking a Long Rest automatically triggers a chance of a random monster encounter or not when outside of town, or if you can even take one outside of town.

[thatSeniorGuy]

That's pretty cool. I think 13A just made its spot on my "games to check out" list, and it might just be ahead of 5E :smallcool:


The SRD is online (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13316). That said, the book is worth getting, it's really pretty and has a nice, conversational style that works.

I really like it. It's got a bunch of interesting ideas, the One Unique Thing, and general backgrounds are cool. I also really like the way spellcasters and fighter types are balanced. Spellcasters have a "hollow" spell progression, as in they lose low level spell slots as they gain higher level spell slots. But every spell scales up, so you're still casting magic missile ... it's just that it's the 7th level version of Magic Missile. Weapon damage scales by level, so a Fighter wielding a 1d10 weapon is hitting for 3d10+STR at third level.

Oh, and Bards are badass.

My group was experimenting with the 5e playtest when it came out, and for a while it looked like we'd stay with that. Then my DM heard of 13th Age, we tried it with a couple of one-shots ... and we converted all our games to it and haven't looked back.

The feat system just makes so much sense (you [usually] apply them to class talents, to make the things you like to do even better).
The spellcasting system (as ImperiousLeader pointed out) is great.
The fighter is actually fairly interesting, with various affect triggering off of your natural attack roll.
Backgrounds, as stated, make a fantastic skill system.
Icons ... are a bit different, but definitely spice the game up.

One of the few things I don't like about it is the fact that some classes are designed to be simple. I like my characters to have a decent amount of complexity, so I doubt I'll be playing a barbarian or a paladin anytime soon.

But I highly recommend you check it out Kurald.