[Legend] New Beta: Spring Cleaning!

[Doc Roc]

Achilles would be proud. Hercules would weep joyously. Persephone would merrily consume our delicious fruit. Odin would stab me for this over-extended metaphor. The Clockwork Demiurge continues uncaring. Anyway, a new Legend release is available, incorporating absolutely tons of bug fixes, and a new ranger who is more mundane in inclination.


Here it is! (http://tinyurl.com/LegendSC2)

[Doc Roc]

Soon To Be Core

Iron Magi: Ranger's New Favorite Combo-Meal (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE-GUMoJUWwoxq5pqpPHCnzog5RJasoU-NpK-eccHnI/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLrIkP8D#)

[Cieyrin]

Now... With... working link.

Wait, it wasn't working? I got to the page just fine, downloaded and saved over my previous Beta file. :smallconfused:

[9mm]

Wait, it wasn't working? I got to the page just fine, downloaded and saved over my previous Beta file. :smallconfused:

No, like most things Doc touches, it broke and then he had to hit it a few times before it'd behave itself.

[Khyber]

Seems you changed the names of the ranger tracks, without changing the names listed in the table for the ranger tracks.

Also, not a big fan of the Ranger changes, we kinda liked the slightly mystical aspect of the ranger at the higher levels (most games give rangers some type of magic at some point in their skill tree). Also, the new ranger seems more specialized in ranged combat, in fact nearly everything they get now only works at ranged, as opposed to the old ranger who had the one track requiring range but the other tracks that could be used with both. Making it possible to make a very good melee combatant (which was what the ranger in our group was, he had a bow, but preferred the dex based melee route). I do like the trap concept though, was kind of hoping when yall said you were going to make changes to ranger to make them less mystical it came in the form of a forth track, that they could choose, sort of like how rogues get a track choice.

Anyway, that's my first gut reaction.

[Doc Roc]

Seems you changed the names of the ranger tracks, without changing the names listed in the table for the ranger tracks.

Also, not a big fan of the Ranger changes, we kinda liked the slightly mystical aspect of the ranger at the higher levels (most games give rangers some type of magic at some point in their skill tree). Also, the new ranger seems more specialized in ranged combat, in fact nearly everything they get now only works at ranged, as opposed to the old ranger who had the one track requiring range but the other tracks that could be used with both. Making it possible to make a very good melee combatant (which was what the ranger in our group was, he had a bow, but preferred the dex based melee route). I do like the trap concept though, was kind of hoping when yall said you were going to make changes to ranger to make them less mystical it came in the form of a forth track, that they could choose, sort of like how rogues get a track choice.

Anyway, that's my first gut reaction.

I think we may end up pulling together a fourth track for ranger, out of the um... cutting room floor shards. :)

At the moment, it should be possible to play a quite good melee ranger by swapping the ranged track for one of the Rogue's tracks. I may go ahead and add an option for that.

[IthilanorStPete]

First part of my notes from looking through the classes:

Barbarian
-Powerful Rage should have a line clarifying that these bonuses are in addition to the normal Rage bonuses, and possibly a pointer to where all the consequences of changing size are. like, just a "see page x"
- Heart of Fury has the oddness of the demoralizing component being downgraded from a free to a swift
-It feels odd that Disrupting Presence doesn't have a save, but Deadly Presence does.
-overall, the Barbarian seems mostly good. the Path of Rage is fine, Path of Destruction is pretty good, and Path of the Ancestors is a little blah, but I think that can be fixed with some fluff and flavor.

Monk
-This may be a holdover from my preconceptions from 3.5, but I feel like Flurry should advance, perhaps with some sort of Greater Flurry higher up the track that either decreases the penalty further or gives an additional attack. Additionally, I don't think the 1st level ability differentiates Monks enough from the crowd, being as how it's only a +1 bonus.
-Overall, monk looks pretty good! The one thing that seems off is that neither Discipline of the Crane or Discipline of the Dragon has basically anything in offensive ability, except for the increase in movement.

[Doc Roc]

Dear Khyber,
I hope this is a nice apology (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE-GUMoJUWwoxq5pqpPHCnzog5RJasoU-NpK-eccHnI/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLrIkP8D#).
Cordially,
Jake

[Khyber]

That is a wonderful apology :smallbiggrin: Hope it makes it in.

[Doc Roc]

That is a wonderful apology :smallbiggrin: Hope it makes it in.

It's been re-edited and approved for Core, pending testing. Please welcome home Don Stabs to his ancestral villa Casa De Ranger.

As rogue is now stable, the rick roll will soon be removed. Any naming ideas, guys?

[IthilanorStPete]

More comments:

Paladin
-You've got some proofing issues - for Judgment, the table lists the first ability as The Many, while the text refers to it as The Knowing. Furthermore, the "Seven Circles of Knowing" have eight abilities.
-The Knowing and The Few need some clarification and examples. It'd be good to better define what counts as general predilections. Also, for The Few, does "being aware" mean just being aware of their presence, or being aware of their exact position?
-the Protection strand seems very strong, what with the sharing of buffs. Even with the limits on range...well, you know how good War Weaver is.
-The Ready probably needs an example as to why a DM would allow the refreshing of points early.
-The Strong's first sentence reads oddly - I think I'd rephrase it with something as "When an ally would be dealt lethal damage, they gain a one round grace period before actually dying."
-The Quick and the Dead is odd and disjointed, with two quite different abilities depending on whether your partner is a Palain or not.
-Virtue needs to say whether the Font takes up a space, whether it can be attacked, etc.
-Rebirth should probably note whether they heal 50 from the point of death, whether they come back with 50 HP, whatever it's supposed to do.

Ranger
-I don't see how to determine the save DCs of the traps.
-typo in A Personal Touch - it says "at Xth level"
-Missile Barrage has the odd effect of getting worse as you get higher in level and gets more attacks. I'm not sure how to fix that, though.
-Storm Bolt should specify that it's in addition to the normal damage.
-Rather Quick than Dead seems strong for a first circle ability. Giving every class the ability to rearrange that ability that easily seems pretty extreme.

[IthilanorStPete]

Lots of comments on Rogue, which is more just because there's a lot of content for it.

Rogue
-When to Cheat seems weird to have as a 4th circle ability, compared to Scales of Gems as a 7th circle. Similarly, When to Fold as 3rd circle ability compares pretty ridiculously favorably to the Monk ability Gust of Action.
-If there are feats or anything that increase the effects of criticals, it'd be good to include a note in An Ace to Keep on how they interact. Probably "...into a critical hit, inflicting double damage, or any other superseding effects of a critical hit". If that's the design intent, I mean.
-This came up when looking at Sneak Attack, but is there a reason flanking isn't a bracketed condition?
-Felling strike seems kind of odd with the indicated fluff...I think a save versus battered or stun might be more appropriate?
-why does Sweeping Scythe not allow criticals?
-Once More! has an odd name for an ability that most naturally lends itself to attacking multiple enemies.
-Never Gonna Give You Up has some odd synergy, namely that you don't get bonus damage on the attacks that batter people. Maybe some better sentence structure would make that better, just adding a "Furthermore," in front of the "You do bonus damage" sentence
-Is the intention of Never Gonna Let You Down to allow you to endlessly chain attacks as long as you keep hitting?
-the Flash Missile part of Flash-bang seems extremely powerful against a single target - the rogue just needs to keep hitting the enemy to keep them basically locked down.
-Goo Bomb should mention if it needs to be prepared before firing, or what
-I have a feeling that Da Big 'Un is going to be remarkably ineffective for its level, what with the fairly low damage.
-Supersonic Man is weird for being a primarily offensive ability in one of the Defensive tracks, in a track with entirely defensive abilities
-Improvisation seems like it should have some limit on how often it can be used per encounter. Especially with the generally decreased numeric modifiers in Legend, getting +2 to everything at the cost of a swift action is a heck of an ability at low levels.
-Again, Gift of Gab seems quite powerful, what with the constant +3 to AC and Reflex.
-Better Lucky And Good needs clarification that you can still use it even when affected by a condition that prevents you from taking actions. See: Iron Heart Surge.
-Changing the Odds should clarify whether it counts itself for an ability to get uses. Overall, Fortune's Friend seems like a very powerful defensive track.

Sage
-Just one comment on it from looking at it - the weird structure of the class features make it stand out. It really doesn't feel like it fits well into Legend's pattern for classes.

[Doc Roc]

Man, I owe you big ups for this, Ith.

[faceroll]

Brief mention on character sheets:
Because many skill checks are resolved as check vs. flat DC, there needs to be boxes for whatever that DC is. For instance, a character has both an Acrobatics check, and an Acrobatics DC.

[faceroll]

Are there any mechanics for monsters out? 4 PCs vs 1 monster NPC doesn't seem like a very challenging fight.

[imperialspectre]

It's not. In our encounter advice, we suggest running 2 same-level monsters against a 4-character party for fights that might test the PCs but will favor them enough that the PCs can do several such fights in a day without any real trouble. Once you get past the first couple levels, you can also do things like 4-6 monsters that are a couple levels lower, which may give the monsters a slight action advantage but will still favor the PCs.

[Waargh!]

Comments
Social Encounters
Excellent job. Very good idea using tokens.
One comment though: do you keep the tokens in general? This for me is unnecessary. You can reduce it by saying "you gain 1 free token if you have previously won a social encounter against that person". This will also apply to the PCs.
This will also impose a better penalty on walking away from someone. If you encounter them again they are more confident already, so 1 token to them.

I would also add an Undercover Encounter. This can be an assassination attempt or passing unnoticed. The thing is that you don't always die in the heat of the battle. If somebody actually just kills you that's it for you. Assassination played a major role in warfare and characters like Assassins, Ninjas, Rogues relay on these encounters.
It also enables a more solid system on running away while undercover to escape. Or passing from enemy territory.

Tweaking the Combat System
Have not read everything. I like the changes you made, especially allowing something like Power Attack to be standard actions.

A personal idea is to apply these changes to any d20 system:
Attack of Opportunity: if it hits it negates the action it was provoked from
5-foot step: provokes AoO
Tumble: Gives you a +2 AC against AoO
Provoking AoO: You don't provoke an AoO if the enemy stays in your threaten area (as a fix for the above).
+some additional small tweaks

What you have is a better melee-locking. If a creature turns the back on you they simply might not be able to actually move. If you hit them you disrupt their fleeing. It also solves the "freezing effect" where a creature moves away from you and shoots an arrow on you. In real time both would move the same time so this would never happen. Having the opportunity to stop them is a good solution.
It also gives a more strategical melee vs range fighting as well as making the initial position matter. So an ambush for example has more effect now. If you ambush the caster and range-based fighter it is more hard for them to escape and just re-assemble. Where usually they can just take a 5-foot step and the melee characters enter the fight making the ambush just a 1 round advantage.

[ArcanistSupreme]

First: This is amazing. I support this project 100%

Second: The Sun Grows Dim feat doesn't describe the type of action required to craft something.

Third: I'll make more comments when I do a more thorough reading.

[Doc Roc]

Really grateful for the feedback guys, most of it has made it on into the upcoming beta revision. Particularly, Ranger is now feature complete, and we are entering an informal content freeze. We'll have the new doc and thread up shortly.

[Nohwl]

when you charge, how come you are limited to only one attack?

[DGB]

in paragraph 6.5 it seems that there is some Text missing. The Description is right Cut off..

[Cieyrin]

when you charge, how come you are limited to only one attack?

Why would you otherwise? Multiple attacks on a charge has been the exception to the rule, as opposed to the rule, for a while now. Plus, we'd fall back into Uberchargers again, which may not necessarily be valuable.

[Nohwl]

Why would you otherwise? Multiple attacks on a charge has been the exception to the rule, as opposed to the rule, for a while now. Plus, we'd fall back into Uberchargers again, which may not necessarily be valuable.

full attacking is a standard action now, so you can move and get a full attack, but if you charge, you are limited to only one attack.

[Radar]

full attacking is a standard action now, so you can move and get a full attack, but if you charge, you are limited to only one attack.
For a standard action you can get either full attack or a move action with a single attack (with a bonus to boot). It's fairly balanced IMO.

[Nohwl]

you get a +2 to hit and a -2 ac from charging, and you lose 3 attacks at higher levels. how is a +2 bonus worth losing 3 attacks?

[Radar]

you get a +2 to hit and a -2 ac from charging, and you lose 3 attacks at higher levels. how is a +2 bonus worth losing 3 attacks?
Sigh... you also gain additional move with the charge. If you full attack, you only have one move action left. If you really need to cover vast distance to your enemy, you can move with your move action and then use your standard action to charge, which gives you additional move.
In short, you get those options for your standard action (among others):
1. Full attack.
2. Charge: move + single attack with a bonus.

[Nohwl]

are the racial tracks supposed to get con to hp? it doesn't look like any of them do.

[Doc Roc]

are the racial tracks supposed to get con to hp? it doesn't look like any of them do.

Yep, they are! Bit of a mistake!

[Sucrose]

After looking through your system over the course of an afternoon, I have to admit that it's a great deal better than the base system for D&D 3.5, and I may well even prefer it to 3.5's full library when the rulebook is fully written.

Am I correct in assuming that the cap for skills per level is just one's character level by default?

Regardless, if you put together a playtesting game at any point, I'd love to get a chance to try the game out.

[imperialspectre]

We're leaning towards making it explicit that you pick "trained" skills, and those skills simply gain a bonus equal to your level. We don't have a mechanism for putting less than 1 skill point per level in a skill, and it does cap at your level.

Check out the Legend chat (in Doc Roc's signature). He's been thinking about running a game online on Tuesdays. I also run a game, but it happens IRL, so unless you live in Northern California you're probably out of luck.

[Sucrose]

We're leaning towards making it explicit that you pick "trained" skills, and those skills simply gain a bonus equal to your level. We don't have a mechanism for putting less than 1 skill point per level in a skill, and it does cap at your level.

Check out the Legend chat (in Doc Roc's signature). He's been thinking about running a game online on Tuesdays. I also run a game, but it happens IRL, so unless you live in Northern California you're probably out of luck.

Is the lack of granularity there for simplicity, or is there a more balance-related reason? If the former, then couldn't you just implement 3.5's system of spending skill points on whatever you want (so long as you don't exceed your cap) as an option for advanced players, or something?

I'll stick around on the chat while I can. If it's permitted, I might observe a session tomorrow, or even start a character if there's the space for one.

[imperialspectre]

We did the math, and putting only some points in a skill is just not acceptable. Doing so puts characters in a position where they can't actually hit level-appropriate DCs, so they have the opportunity to suck at more things instead of being good at a few things.

Additionally, outside of combat, one party member hitting a skill DC is enough for the whole party (even in combat, one Perception check is usually good enough if you can communicate with your allies). So it's much more optimal to do what the rules are designed to make you do. A 3-person party can have all of the skills trained, if they minimize/eliminate overlap; a 4-person party can safely duplicate skills if they choose.

[Sucrose]

We did the math, and putting only some points in a skill is just not acceptable. Doing so puts characters in a position where they can't actually hit level-appropriate DCs, so they have the opportunity to suck at more things instead of being good at a few things.

Additionally, outside of combat, one party member hitting a skill DC is enough for the whole party (even in combat, one Perception check is usually good enough if you can communicate with your allies). So it's much more optimal to do what the rules are designed to make you do. A 3-person party can have all of the skills trained, if they minimize/eliminate overlap; a 4-person party can safely duplicate skills if they choose.

Ah; I suppose that makes sense.

[Eldan]

Still... sometimes, I think, you want a character with just enough climb to get up an easy wall, no? Or enough Perform to be able to pretend to be a travelling musician. I mean, there's not only "level appropriate DCs" in the world. In fact, that's rarely a thing I think about at all.

[Bucky]

My Shadow Grows Long is supposed to allow using melee abilities such as Cleave at a distance. However, the current wording doesn't work because it turns the attack into a ranged attack.

[Doc Roc]

Still... sometimes, I think, you want a character with just enough climb to get up an easy wall, no? Or enough Perform to be able to pretend to be a travelling musician. I mean, there's not only "level appropriate DCs" in the world. In fact, that's rarely a thing I think about at all.

Sure, mostly, for that, you can get by on your attribute bonuses and an untrained roll. Funny how well things work when someone who can do math is writing the game.


Issue:
The Sky Empties does 3 damage. Instead of 3/Character Level.

Ooops.

[IthilanorStPete]

Longbow and Shortbow have the same range right now (Medium), which doesn't work well with balancing the power Scattering Wind gives to shortbows.

Also, [bleeding] isn't defined in the condition summary.

[Bucky]

As written, non-Paladins with the Heroica track (e.g. Shamans) who are partners with someone else with the Heroica track get both the 'partner is not a Paladin' and 'partner has this ability' bonuses. In a few cases, the ability text seems to assume this situation won't happen. For example, the Just and the Unjust lets them share 2 items and also one more item each.

[Eldan]

Sure, mostly, for that, you can get by on your attribute bonuses and an untrained roll. Funny how well things work when someone who can do math is writing the game.


Perhaps. But this isn't about math. Sometimes I just want a tangible representation of my character having trained in something.

[Doc Roc]

Perhaps. But this isn't about math. Sometimes I just want a tangible representation of my character having trained in something.

All I can tell you is that your good has been weighed against the good of the many, here. You have the ability to make these checks that you care about reliably, you have a way to represent a jack of many trades, and now you want... What? The old system back to the last letter?

[Eldan]

How do you represent a jack of all trades, then?

I guess for me it's a case of don't fix what's not broken. I never really saw many problems with the skill system, except for the borked as-written diplomacy.

Seems your system just isn't for me. But somehow, I keep reading these threads and don't really know why. All other 3.X system-rewrites bored me a few pages in.

[Doc Roc]

How do you represent a jack of all trades, then?

I guess for me it's a case of don't fix what's not broken. I never really saw many problems with the skill system, except for the borked as-written diplomacy.

Seems your system just isn't for me. But somehow, I keep reading these threads and don't really know why. All other 3.X system-rewrites bored me a few pages in.

I think it's my dapper repartee.

You'd push two attribs high, play a high-skills base class, go with rogue probably for radica, and then skill into the stuff that isn't linked to your high attribs. This'll give you good-but-not-great coverage. It's not something I'd necessarily recommend, and you'll note that it's not an obvious option. This is because it is a weaker choice that some people might find more flavorful.

[Bucky]

You'd push two attribs high, play a high-skills base class, go with rogue probably for radica, and then skill into the stuff that isn't linked to your high attribs. This'll give you good-but-not-great coverage. It's not something I'd necessarily recommend, and you'll note that it's not an obvious option. This is because it is a weaker choice that some people might find more flavorful.

With the right items, this strategy should be able to get you +5 on everything by level 5 even without Worry Beads. All but two skills are Int, Dex or Cha-based.

[Doc Roc]

With the right items, this strategy should be able to get you +5 on everything by level 5 even without Worry Beads. All but two skills are Int, Dex or Cha-based.

This is correct. I'm a little worried about strength, honestly. We should talk about that sometime.

[Glimbur]

How do you represent a jack of all trades, then?

I guess for me it's a case of don't fix what's not broken. I never really saw many problems with the skill system, except for the borked as-written diplomacy.

Seems your system just isn't for me. But somehow, I keep reading these threads and don't really know why. All other 3.X system-rewrites bored me a few pages in.

Part of the issue with skills in 3.5 is how useless most of them were. Combat useful skills: Tumble, Concentration, UMD, Balance (5 ranks or flatfoot), Bluff + Sense Motive (feinting),Spot and Listen maybe, and that's it. Search/Spot/Listen/Sense Motive were useful out of combat to get clues from the DM. Gather Information, despite what I tell my players, can be hired out. Use Rope is almost never necessary.

Worse, skills did not scale well. A 10th level rogue could open a lock that the DM expected a 10th level rogue to open... but Knock exists. A tenth level swashbuckler could balance on an inch wide beam... but Fly exists. Gather Information is less accurate than Scrying. And so on. Part of what Legend does is make spells less versatile and powerful, and another part of what they do is make skills produce level-effective results. This does mean that a jack of all trades character, who in 3.5 could be a rogue with 5 points in every skill at about fifth level, is not supported because they cannot do what they are expected to do at their level. Unfortunate but an acceptable loss.

[Bucky]

Due to a number of possible abuses (e.g. pure runaway, Sanctuary, Into the Trees), I strongly suggest modifying I'm Not Left Handed so that it only gives focus after rounds in which you attempt at least one attack roll.

EDIT:Also, Sanctuary should end on any offensive action, not just those that require attack rolls.

[Doc Roc]

DC Formula at start of track?

[Flickerdart]

The Paladin table lists "The Many" as the 1st circle, but it's "The Knowing" in the text.

The Standard action rules make mention of Two-Weapon Fighting and "the Flurry feat".

[Bucky]

From the Tactician class:

To learn or cast a spell, you must have an Intelligence modifier equal to or greater than 10 + the level of the spell.


I think this sentence shouldn't be there period. According to the introduction, "the number of crippling mistakes you can make during character creation should be zero" and not being able to cast spells, ever, in a primary caster class is a crippling mistake.

[imperialspectre]

Technically you're still pretty crippled if you're dependent on an ability score you dumped. We should probably explain that a little more clearly.

[Nohwl]

that line says intelligence modifier, not intelligence. i don't know if anyone pointed that out yet. it looks like shaman has the same problem.

[Caphi]

I really like the Iron Magi concept of a combo-based swordsman, but the current version has a lot of bookkeeping. The end of the progression contains four /enc abilities, two stackable combo artes, and like three different durational status effects spread over several enemies in addition to tracking combo length.

[Amphetryon]

Failed my Spot check, most likely: where is the Dominate feat that Vampires get as a bonus feat located?

[imperialspectre]

Skill feats.