13th Age vs 4th Edition

[Theodoxus]

I'm curious about the apparent love for 13th Age vs the visceral hatred of 4th Ed, when both games use pretty much the same engine and are very similar in their "video game/WoW clone" feel (which has always been the criticism most cited for the lack of love for 4th Ed).

[Morty]

I've never seen anyone who hated 4E but loved 13th Age. People who hate 4E are generally unlikely to give 13th Age enough of a second glance to dislike it, so that might be the source of your impression.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's actually some significant differences between 4e and 13th Age, particularly the more narrative slant and the variable class complexity. However if you disliked 4e for being videogamey* then you probably wouldn't like 13th Age.

If your issue was that every class used the same chassis of AEDU or the use of explicit roles then it might be a different story because it abandons the explicit roles and has multiple different styles of powers from spells to flexible attacks to whatever the Rogue does right in the core book.

* It always struck me as more 'Tactical RPG' than MMO though

[Morty]

There's actually some significant differences between 4e and 13th Age, particularly the more narrative slant and the variable class complexity. However if you disliked 4e for being videogamey* then you probably wouldn't like 13th Age.

If your issue was that every class used the same chassis of AEDU or the use of explicit roles then it might be a different story because it abandons the explicit roles and has multiple different styles of powers from spells to flexible attacks to whatever the Rogue does right in the core book.

* It always struck me as more 'Tactical RPG' than MMO though

Unfortunately, from what I remember, in doing so it restores the fighters' status as "the simple class".

[RandomPeasant]

Much of the negative reaction to 4e was people who thought (not unjustifiably) that it "wasn't D&D". It's not necessarily surprising that something that isn't trying to be D&D would be more popular. People like Shadowrun, but if you marketed Shadowrun as a new edition of Exalted, people would probably be pissed off about it.

[Morty]

Once again, is it actually more popular than 4E? It's got some traction compared to other third-party D&D-alikes, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

Unfortunately, from what I remember, in doing so it restores the fighters' status as "the simple class".

Barbarians and Paladins actually. Let me just get my book...

Okay, the official ranking for the complexity of the core classes is:
-Barbarian
-Ranger
-Paladin
-Fighter (because Flexible Attacks)
-Cleric
-Sorcerer
-Rogue
-Bard
-Wizard

So yeah Fighters were designed to be in the middle, it's Barbarians who are 'the simple class'.

[Eric Diaz]

I disagree on both accounts - there are plenty of people that like both, AND they are very different games.

For example, 4e is know for being extremely depend on grid and miniatures, while 13A is full on "theater of the mind". Also, skills work differently, levels are different,. 4e is big on making all classes work similarly while 13th Age makes some classes simpler than others, etc.

However, they are both "epic" versions of D&D with minions, interesting monsters, etc.

I prefer 5e to both (with its "minis are optional", etc., approach), but I can see liking both 13a and 4e, for similar reasons or for different (even opposite) reasons.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.co...versus-4e.html

4e:
"Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters";
* Position is everything. With a battle grid, you can easily determine whether your character can see a monster, whether the monster has cover, and whether you flank the monster.

13A:
"Combat is dynamic and fluid, so miniatures can’t really represent where a character ‘really is"

[Telwar]

I, personally, like both, and my opinion on 5e is, ahem, extraordinarily negative; I'm aware I'm in the minority on this board with that.


I'd love to play both 4e and 13th Age again. The problem with 4e is it requires a character builder, with the plethora of options published in Dragon, adventures, errata, etc. I'm aware there are offline character builders. 13th Age, because it doesn't have NEARLY the volume of releases as 4e, doesn't have that issue, and does still have more mechanical options in character building than 5e does.

13th Age isn't perfect, of course; if you want anything more for a character class than has been published, you're going to have to homebrew it (this might be a feature to some). The Icons, also, are a little strange, and several published classes depend far too heavily on them to be usable if you're not using the published setting. The relationship dice being rolled at the beginning of the session suggests that the GM is supposed to improvise stuff as they go along, and while I am aware that does happen, depending on the GM's improvisational ability is a terrible, terrible idea; I hear a common tack is to roll them at the end of the session to give the DM thinking time.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, they are both "epic" versions of D&D with minions, interesting monsters, etc.

Part of 13 Age's appeal to me.

The relationship dice being rolled at the beginning of the session suggests that the GM is supposed to improvise stuff as they go along, and while I am aware that does happen, depending on the GM's improvisational ability is a terrible, terrible idea; I hear a common tack is to roll them at the end of the session to give the DM thinking time.

13th Age is made for people who already know how to play D&D; it isn't for beginners. I disagree with your point on the relationship and the DMs improvisation to fit things to what's going on between the players and the world/adventure. That's a good thing. You don't need a rule for everything.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh yeah, 13th Age zigged pretty much everywhere D&D5e zagged. Starting characters are competent and hardy, you'll quickly scale out of lower level enemies being a significant threat (but I'm sure more experienced GMs know how to get around that), what your character is skilled in is very loose outside of combat and therefore broadly applicable, and every single PC is special in some way.

Of course your One Unique Thing could be 'I stink worst than a skunk farm' if you wanted.

[Morty]

Barbarians and Paladins actually. Let me just get my book...

Okay, the official ranking for the complexity of the core classes is:
-Barbarian
-Ranger
-Paladin
-Fighter (because Flexible Attacks)
-Cleric
-Sorcerer
-Rogue
-Bard
-Wizard

So yeah Fighters were designed to be in the middle, it's Barbarians who are 'the simple class'.

That might be true. I just remember being unimpressed with the 13A fighter. Part of it is that it's very much a heavily-armored defender, which applies to the 4E fighter too. But that's just my general dissatisfaction with D&D classes, I guess.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of course your One Unique Thing could be 'I stink worst than a skunk farm' if you wanted.

I worked with my GM on that bit; kinda bummed that the campaign died for RL scheduling reasons.

[Theodoxus]

I've never seen anyone who hated 4E but loved 13th Age. People who hate 4E are generally unlikely to give 13th Age enough of a second glance to dislike it, so that might be the source of your impression.

The 5E boards are full of folks positively mentioning 13th Age, usually an aspect (like One Unique Thing or even a mechanical advantage that they wish to import) and most 5E folks on these boards have a range of feeling for 4E that's something between visceral hatred to ennui at best.

I just happened to do a deep dive into the core book this weekend and was bemused by how much of the rules were cribbed from 4E, and then polished - as evidenced by most replies to this thread, much as Paiso did for 3rd Ed.

Hence my curiosity about how much actual love for the mechanics of 13th Age there are, vs the fact that it's similar, yet sufficiently different from 4E to dodge the general stink of that edition.

[Anonymouswizard]

The 5E boards are full of folks positively mentioning 13th Age, usually an aspect (like One Unique Thing or even a mechanical advantage that they wish to import) and most 5E folks on these boards have a range of feeling for 4E that's something between visceral hatred to ennui at best.

I just happened to do a deep dive into the core book this weekend and was bemused by how much of the rules were cribbed from 4E, and then polished - as evidenced by most replies to this thread, much as Paiso did for 3rd Ed.

Hence my curiosity about how much actual love for the mechanics of 13th Age there are, vs the fact that it's similar, yet sufficiently different from 4E to dodge the general stink of that edition.

4e was a five game! It was also absolutely nothing people playing D&D wanted. Thankfully there were enough who enjoyed it for what it was too give it a player base.

But yeah, 13th Age is pretty much D&D 4e 2e. A lot of the mechanics people live are the additions, I believe especially the One Unique Thing and Escalation Die. I personally think it's much better than 5e despite being more complex, because it also seems to have a better grasp of what it wants to be.

Plus I love that the descriptions of the Icons treats 'what will they be delegating to the PCs' as an important consideration. There's a lot of stress from the start that these massively powerful brings are so busy they've built entire organisations in other to help them.

[Telok]

Of course your One Unique Thing could be 'I stink worst than a skunk farm' if you wanted.

Now that is an ability you can leverage into world-wide fame & fortune just by showing up to parties.

My biggest issues with 4e were tedium and trying to track a dozen different conditions/modifiers across a combat. Gameplay during combat was so simple, yet slow slow, with such a limited slate of hard-limit abilities that my character's combat decisions were basically a simple 4 step flow chart that never changed even when the powers changed. [snip rest]

I regret though that 99% of my local area gaming community basically only knows the top 2 or 3 mass marketed games at any time. Anything else I have to run myself and never get to play. I'd be happy to play 13th Age, but not in the market to run another game.

[Glorthindel]

One thing you have to remember is the value of first impressions, and 4th ed suffered from atrocious first impressions. I say this as someone who had the 'visceral hatred' but have mellowed over the years, and now realise that 4th ed had a place, but that place wasn't "the new edition of D&D".

There is power in names, and 4th ed played that game wrong. I have said for years now, that 4th ed would have probably been a success if they had only named it "Dungeons and Dragons: Tactics" - just that small degree of seperation would have excused many of its sins. Other games companies have realised the danger (There is a reason "Edge of the Empire" is called that and not "Star Wars RPG", because it creates enough of a seperation for fans of previous Star Wars RPG's that they know before opening the book that 'this will be something different').

[Morty]

The 5E boards are full of folks positively mentioning 13th Age, usually an aspect (like One Unique Thing or even a mechanical advantage that they wish to import) and most 5E folks on these boards have a range of feeling for 4E that's something between visceral hatred to ennui at best.

I just happened to do a deep dive into the core book this weekend and was bemused by how much of the rules were cribbed from 4E, and then polished - as evidenced by most replies to this thread, much as Paiso did for 3rd Ed.

Hence my curiosity about how much actual love for the mechanics of 13th Age there are, vs the fact that it's similar, yet sufficiently different from 4E to dodge the general stink of that edition.

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B, I imagine. It is different from 4E despite being similar and 4E's bad reputation is self-perpetuating - people say it's bad because what's what everyone else is saying. Also, the 5E forum isn't really a very representative sample. That's not where you'll find people who still like 4E, for the most part.

[Anonymouswizard]

One thing you have to remember is the value of first impressions, and 4th ed suffered from atrocious first impressions. I say this as someone who had the 'visceral hatred' but have mellowed over the years, and now realise that 4th ed had a place, but that place wasn't "the new edition of D&D".

There is power in names, and 4th ed played that game wrong. I have said for years now, that 4th ed would have probably been a success if they had only named it "Dungeons and Dragons: Tactics" - just that small degree of seperation would have excused many of its sins. Other games companies have realised the danger (There is a reason "Edge of the Empire" is called that and not "Star Wars RPG", because it creates enough of a seperation for fans of previous Star Wars RPG's that they know before opening the book that 'this will be something different').

Honestly, I think WotC thought they could make the jump because 3.X was itself a massive change compared to BD&D or AD&D2e. The differences seen to be that 2e wasn't as widely discussed on the internet, and that most of the 3e changes bright the game around to using the same die for almost everything.

But yeah, if after 4e had been marketed as a crunchy tactics game alongside something more like 3.5 or 5e I think that it would have done better.

On the flip side, I think 5e got a lot of initial love sue to dropping almost everything good about 4e to present something that looks closer to older editions. There were some really good ideas on 4e that were just dropped.

But on the name differentiation thing, yeah. I believe it's also why the Traveller version of the Babylon 5 RPG presented itself as a sourcebook rather than a full game, and why Wrath and Glory doesn't use the name of any of the previous 40k RPGs.

[RandomPeasant]

One thing you have to remember is the value of first impressions, and 4th ed suffered from atrocious first impressions.

That's a really charitable way of phrasing things. 4e didn't suffer from a bad first impression so much as it was genuinely bad at release. Say what you will about the value of the system overall, or the quality of the game now, but as-released 4e suffered from having one of it's core systems being nonfunctional (skill challenges) and having combat become extremely boring in boss encounters. It also offered a much smaller range of characters than even core 3e did, which made people hesitant to switch over, amplifying the impact of bad word of mouth. I think you're probably right that "D&D: Tactics" could have been successful, but it would've had to make different design choices. For starters, it should've launched with twenty classes that went to 10th level instead of eight classes that went to 30th level. The number one issue that stopped 4e from taking off was the huge reduction in available character options (and you'll note that this is something 5e corrected, having as many classes in the PHB as any edition has).

[Anonymouswizard]

That's a really charitable way of phrasing things. 4e didn't suffer from a bad first impression so much as it was genuinely bad at release. Say what you will about the value of the system overall, or the quality of the game now, but as-released 4e suffered from having one of it's core systems being nonfunctional (skill challenges) and having combat become extremely boring in boss encounters. It also offered a much smaller range of characters than even core 3e did, which made people hesitant to switch over, amplifying the impact of bad word of mouth. I think you're probably right that "D&D: Tactics" could have been successful, but it would've had to make different design choices. For starters, it should've launched with twenty classes that went to 10th level instead of eight classes that went to 30th level. The number one issue that stopped 4e from taking off was the huge reduction in available character options (and you'll note that this is something 5e corrected, having as many classes in the PHB as any edition has).

Yes D&D4e needed a lot more playtesting when it came out. But then again 3.X's biggest balance issues were in the Player's Handbook, so it's not like 4e launched in s uniquely broken state. I tend to hear the anti-3.X advertising as a reason more than its balance issues.

In terms of character options it's not like 3.5's core book was any leader in the number of options or provided. But I think the two issue was holding off the subclass until 11th level, reducing the PhB from 32 character types to 8 in the Heroic tier (which also happened to be the most popular). Plus even with all it's subclasses 5e comes nowhere near the breadth of most point buy systems.

13th Age does only have a small number of classes in the PhB as well, but giving the three class specific Talents certainly helps.

[KorvinStarmast]

The number one issue that stopped 4e from taking off was the huge reduction in available character options (and you'll note that this is something 5e corrected, having as many classes in the PHB as any edition has).

And yet you only need 4 classes to play the game. Another thing 5e did well (the WM sorcerer and 4e monk excepted) was that between the 12 classes you had a variety of sub classes that gave a bit of variation to a basic theme.
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. It's almost a kid in a candy store situation for a new player.

One thing I like a lot about 13th Age is that it's built to go to level 10, and the capability growth in level has a good feel.

[Cluedrew]

I think you're probably right that "D&D: Tactics" could have been successful,

But that's all of the editions of Dungeons & Dragons! D&D is feels like* a combat/dungeon exploration mini-game with flavour text to encourage freeform role-playing between battles. Why were skill challenges broken? Because that was the bleeding edge of D&D non-combat (non-spell-casting) support at the time. Actually maybe there is more of a story to it, I wasn't there.

* As compared to some of the other systems out there at least. Especially ones that fold combat into their skill system and develop there skills a bit more.

[Anonymouswizard]

One thing I like a lot about 13th Age is that it's built to go to level 10, and the capability growth in level has a good feel.

13th Age realised that power is relative. We can declare that 'Epic levels start' at whatever, and it's legitimate as long as we have the epic threats ready for characters.

But that's all of the editions of Dungeons & Dragons! D&D is feels like* a combat/dungeon exploration mini-game with flavour text to encourage freeform role-playing between battles. Why were skill challenges broken? Because that was the bleeding edge of D&D non-combat (non-spell-casting) support at the time.

* As compared to some of the other systems out there at least. Especially ones that fold combat into their skill system and develop there skills a bit more.

Don't let the D&D 5e crowd hear that, they get very upset when it's pinned out that their systems noncombatant mechanics are vestigial.

Also noncombat magic rules tend to be asking the lines of 'if you have the spell you pass the challenge', out of said spell just gives a big bonus 'if you have the spell you can attempt the challenge'.

But honestly? I believe that 0e and 1e had more rules for situations that weren't combat. They were just all focused on the idea that you were robbing incredibly elaborate tombs, and this needed rules for how much searching or movement you could do in a turn

[RandomPeasant]

But then again 3.X's biggest balance issues were in the Player's Handbook, so it's not like 4e launched in s uniquely broken state.

3e's biggest balance issues were not things that came up in actual play. planar binding was broken, but that A) didn't happen until 11th level and B) had to be actively abused. Conversely, at release 4e broke down if you tried to use the rules for non-combat encounters or have a boss fight. It's really not the same.

In terms of character options it's not like 3.5's core book was any leader in the number of options or provided.

It absolutely was, for one very simple reason: open multiclassing. It's true that it's not as much as a full point-buy system, and that a lot of those options were completely unplayable past the first half-dozen levels, but in principle 3.0 launched with 11^20 possible builds before considering things like spell selection or feats. I would not be surprised if there are, by raw numbers, more ways to build a character in the 3.0 PHB than in any edition of D&D other than 3e or 5e.

But that's all of the editions of Dungeons & Dragons!

People say this, but it's just not true. D&D has always had the idea that you will eventually progress to grander things than just tactical challenges. It's worked or not worked to varying degrees, and certainly the game with an entire book of combat challenges is combat-focused, but even as early as BECMI, the idea was that you would eventually become a King and then a God.

Why were skill challenges broken? Because that was the bleeding edge of D&D non-combat (non-spell-casting) support at the time.

No, skill challenges were broken because they weren't math-hammered properly. Fixing skill challenges is actually very easy. Step one: fix the DCs. Step two: end the challenge after a fixed number of rounds instead of a fixed number of failures. Step three: done. The idea that skill challenges were the best that could be done is an incredibly low standard of performance to have for game designers (though perhaps not an inaccurately low one).

[Glorthindel]

I know this is risking turning the thread into the next edition of "where did 4th ed go wrong", but I don't buy that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the rules on the base level. I will admit that there were definitely rule things wrong (I hated how much monsters became massive bags of hit points), but you can point to any version of D&D and see horrible rules and implementations. For good or ill, part of the hobby is making the rules work for your table.

Why this is sorta relevant to the thread, is I firmly believe 4th ed's mistakes were entirely in how they presented the edition.

My go to line is "Magic rings go on fingers, they don't go in hand slots" because it is emblematic of how the edition raised my personal hackles right from the start. That line is only half joking, the terminology is just wrong for a RPG: while the rules are fundamentally the same (since you can't wear multiple magical rings on one hand) the term "slot" makes you think of Diablo or WoW, not D&D.

And that sort of perception mistake ran throughout the books. Take Eladrin. While completely fine as a new race, they arranged races in the book in alphabetical order, so people reading the book read the Eladrin entry before they saw the Elf entry (especially because they used a generic elf picture for the Eladrin), and likely thought "what the f***, Elves don't teleport". Just putting the entries in the book in the different order (and maybe using a different picture for the Eladrin - more like the heavy-fey 5th ed ones) would have helped.

Sure, I am talking minor things, that have nothing to do with how the game actually plays, but they would have rubbed people the wrong way, and there were a lot of these minor things. To throw out some other examples - "spell-like" abilities for Fighters, missing core classes (like the Bard), magic items presented like a shopping list in the PHB (with a note telling players to tell DM's what magic items to give them - ouch, that's a miss-step). Again, all minor, but after a point, these minor things are going to push people to a tipping point.

Regardless of how good the game was (and again, I don't disagree that there were some bad rule implementations), the presentation matters, and sets the tone for how the meat of the product is received. By filing off the serial numbers, 13th Age gives itself room to breath and be judged on its own merits, where 4th ed set itself up for failure.

[Anonymouswizard]

To be fair, the Eladrin were basically a replacement for high elves that made them more 'magical'. 13th Age just changed their name back to High Elf, which it probably should have been in the first place.

But most of the issues with 4e had simpler solutions than 'Fighters are made redundant by the Druid's pet'. Most monsters needed +damage output -hit points, Skill Challenges needed to be operated two or three more times, and alternative resource systems probably needed to appear in the PhB2 rather than a year later (although psionics had their own issues). I also think Rituals needed to be a little bit more central, but that's personal taste.

[Theoboldi]

Don't let the D&D 5e crowd hear that, they get very upset when it's pinned out that their systems noncombatant mechanics are vestigial.

It's almost as if comments like that were commonly used to dismiss people who enjoy D&D as not playing 'Real Roleplaying Games', or to declare that they should use different systems if they want to do anything other than dungeon crawling.

Just saying. It tends to get folks defensive.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's almost as if comments like that were commonly used to dismiss people who enjoy D&D as not playing 'Real Roleplaying Games', or to declare that they should use different systems if they want to do anything other than dungeon crawling.

The first is elitism. The second kind of has a vague point, although if they wanted dungeon crawling I'd recommend an earlier editions of maybe The Fantasy Trip. But there's a lot of other ways to have a combat heavy game that are suitable to D&D.

Just saying. It tends to get folks defensive.

They can stop hearing it when they stop insisting that a game needs pages of mechanics for combat.

It's not that I don't get their position. It's that I'm just as tired of having my position dismissed as they are.

[Theoboldi]

They can stop hearing it when they stop insisting that a game needs pages of mechanics for combat.

It's not that I don't get their position. It's that I'm just as tired of having my position dismissed as they are.

Absolutely fair enough. And I do agree as well on the matter of combat rules. I just have a particular distaste for the way a lot of modern rpg discussion tends to go, so it's something of a pet peeve.