[Legend] What would make you try it? II

[Doc Roc]

What would be the big selling point for you? We've got a shiny new version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197886), with a good bit more content, and I was wondering if people felt like it better covered their bases.


Beta test want ad is up:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199095


{table]

This looks pretty cool. What would make me try it is a convincing description of what's new and awesome about it. I did a quick flip through of the book, and I can see soem stuff is different, but I'm too lazy to figure out what really makes it tick.


Some of the big, easy to explain, features

Calibrated damage. We have strong metrics for expected Damage Per Turn, and we've mapped that to health. If you change health numbers, and you don't need to, mind, you can thus reason about how long a fight will last, and recoverability during that fight.

Track System. Each class is made of three tracks, and you can trade up to two of those away in exchange for tracks from other classes. For example, you can have a Paladin with Rage, or a Sage with Smiting, or a Rogue with casting.

Monster Factory. These same tracks form the basis for monsters, and as a result you can rely on balance when assembling monsters out of tracks. As evidenced earlier in the thread, this can be done in about 15 minutes for a 1-20 progression.

Skill System. Skills are revised, compressed, and rewired. They need less book-keeping and deliver considerably more fun. Crucially, we have a system for handling mission-critical social interactions.

Feats. Feats have been rewritten to be considerably more powerful, and to offer a wider array of options including serious out-of-combat effects.

Classes. Classes primarily represent your combat role, so you can be a well-spoken barbarian, if you want, or you can be a stereotypical rogue. The choice is up to you, and you make that choice with feats, items, and skills. This means that cleanly delineated combat roles don't result in typecasting players who enjoy a certain style of play wrt. fighting. If that's the milieu players want, they can play to role, but we're not going to enforce that.
[/table]

[Akal Saris]

I think it would take an interesting Legend-based campaign setting to get me to try it out. I've already converted from 3.5 to PF for half my games, so I don't need a third variant of 3.5 confusing me even more unless it comes with an awesome storyline.

[Doc Roc]

I think it would take an interesting Legend-based campaign setting to get me to try it out. I've already converted from 3.5 to PF for half my games, so I don't need a third variant of 3.5 confusing me even more unless it comes with an awesome storyline.

Oh, this I can do for you. Send me a PM.

[Esser-Z]

Well, I'm totally sold on Legend. 'Tis a very fun and awesome looking game.

[Flickerdart]

Truenamers. :smalltongue:

[subject42]

Anything other than that creepy picture staring at me from the first post, mostly...


More seriously, a short adventure that uses most of the core changes would be nice, kind of like how WotC did for the 3.0 conversion.

[Geigan]

A module would probably help. A basic adventure for a starting party would do wonders to convince a DM as it's even easier to do out-of-the-box. To convince me specifically, link me to a Pbp game that you both found interesting, and felt was demonstrative of mechanics. I felt the urge to first play D&D by watching and I've provoked interest the same way in others. A Pbp isn't quite the same as a RL example but it would certainly be helpful.

Also, yes please change that pic, that guy is creeping me out.

[Doc Roc]

We have a couple modules, but the last time I put them up, they got few comments. I'll endeavor to polish them up some, across the next month, and make them available. I can also start writing up another, if you guys have a particular adventure you'd like to pursue.

[Eldan]

Well, I have still the same problems I've bitched about for ages now:

.No fluff beyond short blurbs.
-Nothing that really immediately stands out as new and cool to me. (Which I know is a supremely unhelpful comment, but even after years of thinking about it, I haven't found any good way of quantifying what I find cool).
-I'm still too lazy to attempt and convert a setting to your system, which would probably take me weeks to months. Time I don't have at the moment. So I couldn't use it anyway.

[Pentachoron]

Legend looks interesting enough. To be honest, though, what it would take to get me to switch over to Legend is about the same as what it would take to get me to switch over to Pathfinder or any of your other 3.5-esque competitors: A group of people I was playing with actually wanting to play it.

[Eldan]

That too, of course. I haven't played at an actual table in at least five years.

[Doc Roc]

Well, I have still the same problems I've bitched about for ages now:

.No fluff beyond short blurbs.
-Nothing that really immediately stands out as new and cool to me. (Which I know is a supremely unhelpful comment, but even after years of thinking about it, I haven't found any good way of quantifying what I find cool).
-I'm still too lazy to attempt and convert a setting to your system, which would probably take me weeks to months. Time I don't have at the moment. So I couldn't use it anyway.

Sure, we only have a completely new multi-classing system, a clever way of building monsters, an economy system that isn't inherently broken, CR that's reliable, monks that are cool, and paladins that aren't whiny.

This is a beta. Adding fluff is a strange idea when the thing you just burned ten hours writing for might be torn out due to terrible crunch issues in the next revision. Let me give you an example. Right before we went to public beta, we had another class in there, one with a solid bit of fluff associated with it. Unfortunately, we had to pull it, and scrap it almost completely, ruining somewhere between 70 and 120 hours of work.

[Esser-Z]

I argue 'switch' is a bad word. It's more of 'play', because there's nothing keeping you from other games, too.

Anyway, I just built a balanced melee guy who can also shoot lightning, and be effective with both. And it wasn't even hard. :smalltongue:

As for fluff, it's a beta. I do believe fluff is on the worklist.

[Eldan]

Sure, we only have a completely new multi-classing system, a clever way of building monsters, an economy system that isn't inherently broken, CR that's reliable, monks that are cool, and paladins that aren't whiny.

Problem is, I don't really care about any of that. Well. The multiclassing system is nice. Problem is, there aren't really any classes I want to try, so multiclassing wouldn't do much. But I don't care much about a monster building system or the economy (except in how it influences gameworld politics), and I mostly use homebrew classes anyway.

[Doc Roc]

Legend looks interesting enough. To be honest, though, what it would take to get me to switch over to Legend is about the same as what it would take to get me to switch over to Pathfinder or any of your other 3.5-esque competitors: A group of people I was playing with actually wanting to play it.

This I can do. I have a game on Maptool this sunday with an open slot. Level 13th, setting is Hallow which is the base setting... Currently not available for public consumption pending editing, typesetting, expansion, and art, but I can definitely walk you through it.



Problem is, I don't really care about any of that. Well. The multiclassing system is nice. Problem is, there aren't really any classes I want to try, so multiclassing wouldn't do much. But I don't care much about a monster building system or the economy (except in how it influences gameworld politics), and I mostly use homebrew classes anyway.


So, you use homebrew classes, in homebrew worlds, paying attention only to how things might affect the politics thereof.... How are we supposed to build something for you? Why don't you tell me what you want and we can try to work from there?

[Eldan]

What I want? Eh, I'm mostly sticking around to see the adventures you'll post and what I can steal from them. The setting you wrote about looks very similar to my own anyway, and if the adventures don't turn out to be useful for that, I can put anything into Planescape. Perhaps there'll be a class feature or item I can grab, too.
I also generally just like looking at other people's ideas, and building worlds and ecologies from there. You have a feat that allows people to blow stuff up. How would that affect a primitive society, when it's warriors have three options: pointy stick, jagged rock, oh-my-god-lightning-from-my-fingertips? How would the economy develop with your item system? How would international trade routes change? That stuff is interesting.

[Doc Roc]

What I want? Eh, I'm mostly sticking around to see the adventures you'll post and what I can steal from them. The setting you wrote about looks very similar to my own anyway, and if the adventures don't turn out to be useful for that, I can put anything into Planescape. Perhaps there'll be a class feature or item I can grab, too.

So we can never win. Lovely.

[Eldan]

Yeah, sorry. I'll probably stop posting, then.

[Doc Roc]

Yeah, sorry. I'll probably stop posting, then.

I don't mind the posts, but couching them in slightly different language might be good unless you actively want to drive me insane trying to make something you'll like.

[Draz74]

What would be the big selling point for you? We've got a shiny new version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197886), with a good bit more content, and I was wondering if people felt like it better covered their bases.
Obviously the main thing that would make me try it out is if I had a lot more free time in my life and was caught up on my grad school coursework. Can you help me with that? :smallwink:


A module would probably help. A basic adventure for a starting party would do wonders to convince a DM as it's even easier to do out-of-the-box.
I actually was quite impressed with the Dreadfuls' diligence in getting a Module (or two) published and offered to the public early in the Legend Beta. I thought it was a great way to launch. Too bad it apparently didn't get noticed as much as it could have.

I agree with you that a good, fun campaign journal would be a strong selling point. If I really really wanted to recruit "Jim" to play 3.5e, but despite being an experienced RPGer, "Jim" is convinced that 3.5e is a terrible system and he never wants to try it, I can think of no stronger argument to persuade him than having him read the SilverClawShift Archives.


We have a couple modules, but the last time I put them up, they got few comments.
Eh, well, the downside to working through publishing modules is that, even when it works, it's a slow process. If someone wants to try your module, they've got to recruit a group of players, convince those players to try beta-testing a new system, have the whole group learn the system, actually play it out, then have at least one person get around to writing up feedback. I won't be surprised if you still get feedback on those modules two months from now.


I can also start writing up another, if you guys have a particular adventure you'd like to pursue.

I don't think this is what you meant, but I'll throw it out there anyway: depending on how sticky the legal issues get, I was considering eventually advertising my own CRE8 system by offering a converted form of The Red Hand of Doom to the public (or at least, as a free supplement to anyone who already owns the original Red Hand of Doom). You could consider doing something like that, with a module that's already popular.

P.S. I did finally get around to starting to comb through the Legend rules in general and write up detailed commentary/feedback. I'm on page 35 after two days, since I don't have much time to dedicate to this endeavor; so it may be a long while before I finish, and many of my comments are probably the type of thing that's way too late to change now, and would have been better suited to the early Alpha stage. But c'est la vie.

[Eldan]

I don't mind the posts, but couching them in slightly different language might be good unless you actively want to drive me insane trying to make something you'll like.

That's the problem, really: I don't know what I like. Sometimes, I'll just look at a monster or prestige class and say "that's cool!" So far, this hasn't happened with Legend. I can't really say why.
Problem is, you can probably overhaul the underlying math and balance all you want, and I'll care little. Three good sentences of fluff, and I'll love it forever.

Also, currently, there are overwhelming amounts of 3.5 homebrew I'd love to include in a game sometime, and every piece of it is a reason to stay with it a bit longer. If you could get people like Krimm or TDO or Djinn or Tribble to change to your system...

[Doc Roc]

Obviously the main thing that would make me try it out is if I had a lot more free time in my life and was caught up on my grad school coursework. Can you help me with that? :smallwink:


We're not big believers in too late to change. As for spare time, depends, what are you in grad-school for?


That's the problem, really: I don't know what I like. Sometimes, I'll just look at a monster or prestige class and say "that's cool!" So far, this hasn't happened with Legend. I can't really say why.
Problem is, you can probably overhaul the underlying math and balance all you want, and I'll care little. Three good sentences of fluff, and I'll love it forever.

Have you looked at Chapter 10? There's a rather charming track called Runesong Summoner, that's easily backported to 3.x, and has a rather interesting core conceit. It also fills a really cool role, and with a bit of punch-up could really alter what a class can do in 3.x.

Edit: If you'd like, I can sketch up a backport engine. :)

[Draz74]

We're not big believers in too late to change.
True, that's why I decided to start gradually cranking out some feedback anyway. Well, that, and I hope that when I send you a big pile of feedback, out of gratitude you'll offer similar help for CRE8. :smallbiggrin:


As for spare time, depends, what are you in grad-school for?

Physics. Well, technically biophysics, but until I pass enough classes that they'll let me actually start doing medical imaging research, it's essentially just physics.

[Doc Roc]

True, that's why I decided to start gradually cranking out some feedback anyway. Well, that, and I hope that when I send you a big pile of feedback, out of gratitude you'll offer similar help for CRE8. :smallbiggrin:


Naturally, but you'll pardon me if I prefer feedback upfront. :) Duck into chat sometime and we'll hash some stuff out.

[AlterForm]

Looking through the current Beta, I already want to try it. Without going into detail at the moment (I haven't looked too deeply), chargen looks straightforward, classes all get cool things, ability tracks and multiclassing looks elegant and effective, and you obviously have a sense of system balance in your mind and on the page. I just hope it doesn't fall into the same trap 3.5 did in that I had more fun making a character than playing them more often than not. (Actions look like they matter in combat, if that makes sense, so I'm reasonably confident in the problem not being that bad)

That said, like many others, a group to play it with is really my main obstacle at this point. You mentioned a Maptool game above; this would be really great way to go I think if you (or other people willing to run) could offer several shorter (2-4 hour) demo games to show off what the system can do. Hell, a full campaign file (1.3 is already in feature freeze, I think, so such a file should be stable for a while) would be really great to have: rig up a framework, stitch together some monster tokens, provide some pregens or default player tokens, add in a companion pdf describing the scenario for the DM and you have a really low barrier of entry for a real-time, short-investment, long-distance trial of the system. Scheduling allowing, I'd play (and maybe run...maybe).

[Doc Roc]

Looking through the current Beta, I already want to try it. Without going into detail at the moment (I haven't looked too deeply), chargen looks straightforward, classes all get cool things, ability tracks and multiclassing looks elegant and effective, and you obviously have a sense of system balance in your mind and on the page. I just hope it doesn't fall into the same trap 3.5 did in that I had more fun making a character than playing them more often than not. (Actions look like they matter in combat, if that makes sense, so I'm reasonably confident in the problem not being that bad)

That said, like many others, a group to play it with is really my main obstacle at this point. You mentioned a Maptool game above; this would be really great way to go I think if you (or other people willing to run) could offer several shorter (2-4 hour) demo games to show off what the system can do. Hell, a full campaign file (1.3 is already in feature freeze, I think, so such a file should be stable for a while) would be really great to have: rig up a framework, stitch together some monster tokens, provide some pregens or default player tokens, add in a companion pdf describing the scenario for the DM and you have a really low barrier of entry for a real-time, short-investment, long-distance trial of the system. Scheduling allowing, I'd play (and maybe run...maybe).

Hop in chat, and we'll sketch out a list of things you'd need for a campaign file. Basically RPGA style?

Can we call it Living Legends?

[Rei_Jin]

Just having a look over the updated beta now, I might see if my homegroup wants to play a campaign with these rules. I've been considering starting another game anyway, and this would make it something different.

Just a nit-pick, I noticed that the second ranger track is named in the text, but the table only has numbers. Probably need to update that :smallwink:

[Doc Roc]

Just having a look over the updated beta now, I might see if my homegroup wants to play a campaign with these rules. I've been considering starting another game anyway, and this would make it something different.

Just a nit-pick, I noticed that the second ranger track is named in the text, but the table only has numbers. Probably need to update that :smallwink:

There are actually two track options there, Iron Magi and Reign of Arrows [sic]. We're trying to settle on a better system for displaying this though, so it's a thing worth discussing.

[Rei_Jin]

I did notice that, are they both supposed to be the same track, or does Ranger have four track options?

EDIT: Nevermind, just read it. Not used to reading walls of text without pictures.

[Doc Roc]

I did notice that, are they both supposed to be the same track, or does Ranger have four track options?

EDIT: Nevermind, just read it. Not used to reading walls of text without pictures.

We are also working on that. :)

[Rei_Jin]

The Shaman class seems a little... confusing to me.

It gets a track of its own (incantation) then it gets to pick another classes track on top of that, and then gets spells.

Doesn't this make it inherantly more powerful than the other classes are?

[Doc Roc]

The Shaman class seems a little... confusing to me.

It gets a track of its own (incantation) then it gets to pick another classes track on top of that, and then gets spells.

Doesn't this make it inherantly more powerful than the other classes are?

Spells are actually just another track, though we have a couple of spells that are currently on the rewrite list. It's an ongoing topic of discussion, due to list size concerns, and versatility, but you could just as easily multiclass for shaman casting as a barbarian.

Suggest reading through spells before making a decision, but I do want to hear what you think.

[Rei_Jin]

*Nods*

Alrighty then, I'll have a poke of the spells.

In regards to formatting, it might be useful when you're working on the next version, to put in some info after each class table saying something along the lines of "Insert class name here has to choose one of (number) tracks from those listed below and these are treated as their class features from hereon." People are used to how D&D books are written, which means that when a class is listed, all the info under it is clearly for it, unless it says "Pick this OR this, not both"

[Doc Roc]

*Nods*

Alrighty then, I'll have a poke of the spells.

In regards to formatting, it might be useful when you're working on the next version, to put in some info after each class table saying something along the lines of "Insert class name here has to choose one of (number) tracks from those listed below and these are treated as their class features from hereon." People are used to how D&D books are written, which means that when a class is listed, all the info under it is clearly for it, unless it says "Pick this OR this, not both"

True story. I'll pass that along to the Hivemind.

[Rei_Jin]

Okay, had a thorough read of the rules, and I like it. To me, it's exactly what I'd want from a game system... all it needs is to be completed.

Have you completed more items than are listed at the end of the PDF? If not, do you have mechanical guidelines for the DM/GM to follow to create some of his own? If not, that's definitely something to be considered.

[Tael]

More multiclassing options than just switching tracks around.

More/better thought out and balanced spells. The last version's magic didn't really grab me. Any major revisions I should know about?

Oh, and more/better fluff. Crunch is the most important part of any game, but Fluff is really important for attracting new players.

[Doc Roc]

More multiclassing options than just switching tracks around.

More/better thought out and balanced spells. The last version's magic didn't really grab me. Any major revisions I should know about?

Oh, and more/better fluff. Crunch is the most important part of any game, but Fluff is really important for attracting new players.

Better... balanced spells.... I mean, there are two broken ones we know of in this release but.... Unfold this a bit for me, tell me what you mean?


Further, what other kind of multiclassing could we introduce without incurring an enormous amount of rewrite work and possibly an equivalent or larger testing burden?

[Claudius Maximus]

I think the track multiclassing is one of the slickest features of the whole system. What else is there even to do? It would be very hard indeed to be able to swap features circle-by-circle at least.

[Draz74]

Yeah, the Track system (including multiclassing) is sort of the flagship feature of the whole system. If people don't like that, this just isn't the system for them. No point trying to change that.

[Doc Roc]

Yeah, the Track system (including multiclassing) is sort of the flagship feature of the whole system. If people don't like that, this just isn't the system for them. No point trying to change that.

Summary: I think that there's more to it than this. That Legend isn't just one excellent thing.

I was under the impression that our flagship feature was Being Awesome. The track system is as much for us as for our players. What it does is give us something intelligent and finite to test against and test with, which is frankly phenomenal. We keep lists of what kind of abilities exist, organized by track, and when we think there might be inadvertent synergy, we just compare seven abilities to another seven abilities, in the context of these interactions.

In short, it's a silver bullet for the problem of balancing and whitebox testing an RPG because it creates a knowable set of expectations and a large but finite phase space of interactions given appropriate grouping and analysis heuristics. We have a tool for building this game that no one else seems to have stumbled on, and it's really phenomenally powerful.

This then trickles down to players. Classes aren't just static blocks of abilities, they're a way of organizing how tracks work in your head. You can say "Ranger has tracks that fit this role." And this lets you think about how you chose to build your character. Amazingly, people tend to completely internalize this. People reach for starting points, mix-ins, and the like. It's natural, as far as we can tell. Interpolation is a really natural thing for people.

In other words, the track system is notable as a feature, sure, but it's also notable for the quality of the game it let us build. I genuinely think that it's easier to reason about Legend than almost any other P&P game. This is useful, because the act of running or playing a P&P game is the act of reasoning about the game. Legend is knowable, learnable, teachable. This is our flagship feature, that we have something good enough to just play.

[Curious]

What would be the big selling point for you? We've got a shiny new version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197886), with a good bit more content, and I was wondering if people felt like it better covered their bases.

A reason to switch from Pathfinder after having already bought several of the books. Since that seems a bit unlikely, seeing as the store doesn't give refunds, I'll just ask for a basic rundown of what your design purpose for this game was, and how you think it has been improved over 3.5/Pathfinder.

[Doc Roc]

A reason to switch from Pathfinder after having already bought several of the books. Since that seems a bit unlikely, seeing as the store doesn't give refunds, I'll just ask for a basic rundown of what your design purpose for this game was, and how you think it has been improved over 3.5/Pathfinder.

Do you want the extremely short summary?

I'll edit the longer version into the first post, but for now:


Legend presents a way for the GM to generate content that works, rapidly.

Legend can be used in this role without switching away from pathfinder.


The same cannot be said for Pathfinder.

[Curious]

How does the system accomplish this? Can you describe it quickly, or do you recommend that I simply read the rules for myself?

[Doc Roc]

How does the system accomplish this? Can you describe it quickly, or do you recommend that I simply read the rules for myself?

By letting you reliably assemble a CR appropriate monster with 14 quick choices. I suspect you'd need to tweak them a little to get them to port cleanly, numerically, but since I know nothing about your party's optimization level, I can't give any advice there.

For all I know, you're rolling around with bound solars. How'sabout you pick a monster, and time how long it takes me to emulate it?

[Curious]

Okay, that definitely sounds like something I should read for myself, or I just won't get how it fits together. So you think this quick and easy method of monster generation is enough to distinguish it from 3.5? How is class balance and spells, etc.? Has melee been given nice things? Besides monster generation- which I haven't really had much trouble with in the past anyways - how would you say you have improved things? Those are the general sorts of questions I would like answered. Sorry if it seems a bit much to ask, summing up an entire game system in one go.

EDIT: Uh, sure. Chuul. Tell me when you're ready.

[Doc Roc]

Okay, that definitely sounds like something I should read for myself, or I just won't get how it fits together. So you think this quick and easy method of monster generation is enough to distinguish it from 3.5? How is class balance and spells, etc.? Has melee been given nice things? Besides monster generation- which I haven't really had much trouble with in the past anyways - how would you say you have improved things? Those are the general sorts of questions I would like answered. Sorry if it seems a bit much to ask, summing up an entire game system in one go.

EDIT: Uh, sure. Chuul. Tell me when you're ready.

let me look up chuuls!

Okay, aberrations are an interesting one, but the tentacles are easy.

8HP + Con Per level
16 Con
14 Str
14 Dex
12 Wis
10 Int
8 Cha
Let's start with Full BAB, and strong Will\Fort saves.
Next up is tracks, we're going full buy-in, so we'll get four.

Esoterica Radica, Path of the Ancestors, Tactical Insight, Discipline Of The Serpent

Feats and items:
You can probably do without a coldfire ingot, we've got a lot of good bonus damage. Let's go with the ever-easy Small Totem for the aberration darkvision, and our greater will be Vanguard. We've intentionally avoided getting flight.

So we have 2 feats at first, and then the usual...

Unlike most monsters, let's give this one an iconic. It's not part of the normal Chuul, but it fits there fluff.

We'll go with Big Damn Heroes and By Will Sustained for our other first level feat.
Next we're going to grab To Iron Married, Then Batter Down, You Will Falter, You Will Fail, By Steel Beholden, In Mithril Reborn.

[Curious]

EDIT: Confusing Technobabble is confusing. :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

[Doc Roc]

That's not technobabble. That's my notes for a full 1-20 progression of the Chuul. Looks done to me.
We'll use stunning fist for the tentacles. It's a nasty crit-fisher, but I intentionally skimped on mobility. We'll go with 5 Deadly Venoms for our Way of the Hydra Ability.

Due to the Iconic, this is probably a bit stronger than most monsters I would generate. Sorry, I was using the edit-time as a clock for how long it took me to finish. Would you like an explanation of that thing?

I'm ashamed to say I left out artifacts because we have none yet in the beta.

[Claudius Maximus]

I think the point is that he doesn't know what any of that stuff means.

Anyway I though full buy-in meant you got no items? I can't seem to find the info on it in the doc though.

[Doc Roc]

I think the point is that he doesn't know what any of that stuff means.

Anyway I though full buy-in meant you got no items? I can't seem to find the info on it in the doc though.

You get a minor, a major, and an artifact. It's under guilds in econ. I know he doesn't but I'm not sure where to start clarifying, since all I got was "confusing technobabble."

[CTrees]

A group of people I was playing with actually wanting to play it.


This. Exactly, one hundred percent this.

Well, 90%. Because the fluff is actually really important to me, too. I've bought books from several different systems which I've never gone on to actually play, just because I loved the fluff.

[Ernir]

We will also be reorganizing the document to make it much more readable, along with turning it over to professional typesetters.
I eagerly await this one.

[Geigan]

You get a minor, a major, and an artifact. It's under guilds in econ. I know he doesn't but I'm not sure where to start clarifying, since all I got was "confusing technobabble."

Well it has no meaning to him since he doesn't know anything about the system. A bunch of talk about game mechanics is wasted, but the time it took you to prepare is less so. Point out the time stamp difference between his post and yours. 1 minute, that's seriously fast. Faster than it would take me to look up something in the MM for 3.5, but you're the designer so I wouldn't be that convinced since you're naturally able to navigate it that quickly(Not that I'd expect some designers to be able to navigate that fast). We'd need a more objective time test I suppose.

[Veyr]

Actually, the time difference we're interested in is the one between the original post (which was "I'm starting now!") and the Edit time, when he was done. That's a 15 minute difference. Which is pretty awesome, since he generated stats for a Chuul of any level 1-20.

[DGB]

Because you can do stuff d&d cannot.
A musketeer Monk adding His unarmed damage to His shots? (monks in Legend do Not suck, mind you!) - Even a barbarian/spellcaster is possible using the System...

What I would like is more support for hunted Paladins!


Also a List of what artifacts (or examples) are appropriate for the Players. (if there isn't such a Thing already:smalltongue:)

My2cents

[Curious]

You get a minor, a major, and an artifact. It's under guilds in econ. I know he doesn't but I'm not sure where to start clarifying, since all I got was "confusing technobabble."

Oh yeah, sorry, I didn't have time to continue the conversation last night. I don't have time now either actually, but I appreciate the effort you put into creating a stat block as an example. I'll check out Legend and see how I like it.

[Master_Rahl22]

I'd be interested in a PbP game run here. I attempted to get into the tiny encounter thing you guys ran a while back but I somehow fell through the cracks. Perhaps plan somehow to run it for a while at level 1, then maybe fast forward in time to play at a slightly higher level, say 6 or 7. Level 1 is important, but right around 6 or 7 is when most builds and character really start to come together. You have more than one or two tricks, you have some magic items, feat chains have progressed, etc.

[Doc Roc]

I'd be interested in a PbP game run here. I attempted to get into the tiny encounter thing you guys ran a while back but I somehow fell through the cracks. Perhaps plan somehow to run it for a while at level 1, then maybe fast forward in time to play at a slightly higher level, say 6 or 7. Level 1 is important, but right around 6 or 7 is when most builds and character really start to come together. You have more than one or two tricks, you have some magic items, feat chains have progressed, etc.

Let me know what resources you need to get set up!


This. Exactly, one hundred percent this.

Well, 90%. Because the fluff is actually really important to me, too. I've bought books from several different systems which I've never gone on to actually play, just because I loved the fluff.

Looks like M. Rahl will be maybe starting one up? :)

@DGB: Artifacts will be added soon. It takes us a long while to generate them, and they're content that's out of reach for most play groups, so we opted to focus on doing the most good.

[Aharon]

Your social encounter system looks cool, but I can't really wrap my head around it without the examples. Adding them would be a helpful step for me, it looks like you're onto something there.

A warning though: If it is really cool, I might end up doing the same thing as Eldan and just port the awesome in my 3.5 game :smallredface:

[Doc Roc]

Your social encounter system looks cool, but I can't really wrap my head around it without the examples. Adding them would be a helpful step for me, it looks like you're onto something there.

A warning though: If it is really cool, I might end up doing the same thing as Eldan and just port the awesome in my 3.5 game :smallredface:

When it goes on sale, the book is likely to be ~5$. I can't stop you from backporting, nor do I want to. That's one reason we left a lot of legacy elements in place, even though we explicitly broke back compat, is so that people who couldn't play Legend could still get 5 bucks worth of use out of us.

I do think Legend is better and more learnable, but if you have an ongoing campaign, switching isn't trivial or necessarily even a good plan. It's one more reason why making an RPG is a stupid idea.

[Master_Rahl22]

Let me know what resources you need to get set up!

I have no interest in DM'ing. You were asking what would make me try it, and I said an opportunity to play would probably do it. :smallwink: The whole level 1 and level 6 thing was just that D&D tends to be almost a seperate game at level 1 from the other levels. Playing only at level 1 or possibly 2 if we go long enough wouldn't give much of a snapshot of the game as a whole.

[Doc Roc]

I have no interest in DM'ing. You were asking what would make me try it, and I said an opportunity to play would probably do it. :smallwink: The whole level 1 and level 6 thing was just that D&D tends to be almost a seperate game at level 1 from the other levels. Playing only at level 1 or possibly 2 if we go long enough wouldn't give much of a snapshot of the game as a whole.

True. I'll find a game for you, and Ctrees.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'll echo the "moar fluff" sentiment. Also, my group tends to like story-style mechanics like fate points, aspects, traits, etc. Might be a useful variant to bring up in later supplements.

If I spot typos, should I send a PM?

[CTrees]

You know, I've never actually participated in a forum RPG before, but I do have a long history of sucessfully getting myself roped into things on forums, so... I think that means "count me in."

[subject42]

Based on the interest from Master_Rahl22 and CTrees, if you can post a link to one of your old modules, I might be willing to DM a PbP runthrough.

This is assuming you don't mind me picking things up as I go and possible screwing up here and there.

[Doc Roc]

I'll echo the "moar fluff" sentiment. Also, my group tends to like story-style mechanics like fate points, aspects, traits, etc. Might be a useful variant to bring up in later supplements.

If I spot typos, should I send a PM?

Nope, just post it in the linked thread. :) Or on my formspring.



Based on the interest from Master_Rahl22 and CTrees, if you can post a link to one of your old modules, I might be willing to DM a PbP runthrough.

This is assuming you don't mind me picking things up as I go and possible screwing up here and there.

I don't mind at all. :) I'll link you to a module or two if you tell me what you want to run, and I think we have a third one in the pipeline.

[Claudius Maximus]

I think the narrative cards from A Very Long Trip are a neat example of a story mechanic, though I don't think they are standard in Legend play.

I would not be averse to playing in an AVLT pbp. I'm afraid I couldn't run it though, with everything else on my plate.

[Veyr]

Hmm, I'd be willing to try to throw something together for that. I've been reading (well, skimming) through the rules, and they look pretty cool, so I'd be game to try.

[Goober4473]

This looks pretty cool. What would make me try it is a convincing description of what's new and awesome about it. I did a quick flip through of the book, and I can see soem stuff is different, but I'm too lazy to figure out what really makes it tick.

[Doc Roc]

This looks pretty cool. What would make me try it is a convincing description of what's new and awesome about it. I did a quick flip through of the book, and I can see soem stuff is different, but I'm too lazy to figure out what really makes it tick.

Some of the big, easy to explain, features:

Calibrated damage. We have strong metrics for expected DPT, and we've mapped that to health. If you change health numbers, and you don't need to, mind, you can thus reason about how long a fight will last, and recoverability during that fight.

Track System. Each class is made of three tracks, and you can trade up to two of those away in exchange for tracks from other classes. For example, you can have a Paladin with Rage, or a Sage with Smiting, or a Rogue with casting.

Monster Factory. These same tracks form the basis for monsters, and as a result you can rely on balance when assembling monsters out of tracks. As evidenced earlier in the thread, this can be done in about 15 minutes for a 1-20 progression.

Skill System. Skills are revised, compressed, and rewired. They need less book-keeping and deliver considerably more fun. Crucially, we have a system for handling mission-critical social interactions.

Feats. Feats have been rewritten to be considerably more powerful, and to offer a wider array of options including serious out-of-combat effects.

Classes. Classes primarily represent your combat role, so you can be a well-spoken barbarian, if you want, or you can be a stereotypical rogue. The choice is up to you, and you make that choice with feats, items, and skills. This means that cleanly delineated combat roles don't result in typecasting players who enjoy a certain style of play wrt. fighting. If that's the milieu players want, they can play to role, but we're not going to enforce that.

[true_shinken]

Wait, you can get tracks from other classes just like that, no requirements? I thought it was different.

[Doc Roc]

Wait, you can get tracks from other classes just like that, no requirements? I thought it was different.

First one's free, second one costs a feat but may come with some additional small bennies and some social opportunities and costs. 'S some of what's new in this revision.

[Epsilon Rose]

Right, here are my thoughts:
I like how tracks let you customize classes, but I don't lie the fact that you can't take part of a track and then switch to another midway, I can see some cases where immight want to take the beginning of something like a spell casting track to get a few basic spells I might want and then switch to a more marshal track ( yes I'm aware that's a bad example, I don't have the required mastery of your system to come up with a good one). I also don't like that if you switch in a new track a latter point it completely replaces your old one. It makes the earlier levels feel less valid.

I actualy hate the way the guild feet is used. I don't have a problem with he feet it self, intact I like it. The problem is that it's providing a basic and fairly generic function (changing tracks) but forcing fluff that may not be welcome.

The lack of utility spells disappoints me a little.

The rune track seems like a waste. Both the name and the function are cool but they don't match up and as long as they're there you can't make use of what they could be. The track it self has something of a steampunk/mechanist feel and I'd rename it to show that. On the other hand runes have a very strong connection to magic, I'd repurpose the name for a verb, noun (,adj?) system or a word magic system. Of course I'm the type of person who like lots of different resource systems, so that part of the suggestion might need a grain of salt (it might also work better as a full class).

I don't recall seeing rules for grappling, and there absence disappoints me. As does the lack of duel-wielding.

You need to include some rules for porting stuff from 3.5/PF to legend, especially homebrew and classes with different resource systems (binder, xenotheurge, ozadrin [the second two are homebrew]). the cross compatibility and glut of content for 3.5 and PF are advantages I don't think you can beat and while you as a designer can easily port stuff I'm not sure I as a player or dm could.

I wish a character could have more levels of expertise with smile than trained/untrained.

Some way to use Prcs would be nice.

I still think you'd do better if you stopped comparing your self to dnd.

[subject42]

I don't mind at all. :) I'll link you to a module or two if you tell me what you want to run, and I think we have a third one in the pipeline.

We have two people confirmed for a test run, and I'd rather not go over four people.

Based on that, a module that starts at 1st level with a party of 2 - 4 people would probably be ideal. Do you have anything that works?

[Urpriest]

Two questions:

How much does the system define or encourage particular setting themes?

How much does optimization level change how the game plays?

[imperialspectre]

Two questions:

How much does the system define or encourage particular setting themes?

How much does optimization level change how the game plays?

The system is incredibly flexible with regard to setting themes. Our default setting has a bit of magitech and steampunk, a lot of high fantasy, and a little bit of postapocalyptic awesomeness. But if you switch some tracks around and don't use some feats, you can get medieval fantasy warfare, D&D-style high-magic fantasy, or a half decent game involving space cowboys.

Optimization comes at a somewhat higher cost in Legend, because there is very little available in the way of "traps" for people who don't have system mastery. If you're trying to get unusually good numbers, the best thing you can do is focus your character around two ability scores, get some defenses that cover the "weak" ability scores, and build around a single really good combat option and a couple tactical tricks and secondary combat options. That won't make you steamroll everything at your level; at most, it'll give you around a 10 or 15% edge on an unoptimized character of your level. Maybe 20% if you really work at it, but then chances are that you'll be very bad at something else.

[dark9174]

The system seems fun, I would gladly join the test run of the game.

[Mystic Muse]

Are monsters playable and worth playing? Such as Dragons or Pegasi?

[imperialspectre]

Yes.

One of the huge advantages of track-based classes is that you can set up tracks that exemplify monstrous traits, or just swap in appropriate ones, and get to play monsters that are balanced as PCs. Jake demonstrated this with the Chuul post.

[Claudius Maximus]

Since everything runs off the same track mechanics, so they're already built in as player options by the looks of it.

Last I checked there was an actual dragon track, and for the other two you could do Elementalist (elemental blasting options) and either a fierce melee track (some of which can be freely fluffed to involve claws and the like), or maybe a spellcasting track if you're going for the kind of spellcasting dragons common in D&D.

Not as sure about the unicorn but there are several tracks with healing abilities at least.

I'm not too sure about the exact mechanics of playing a monster, since most monsters look more like 3-track combos instead of classes. It doesn't look like it would be too far off though. I know the system is supposed to do things like half-dragon by allowing you to take your rogue or whatever and multiclass into the dragon track, but not too clear on playing from-scratch monsters.

Hopefully Doc Roc or another designer can clarify, but I hope I helped explain this.

[Eldan]

I'm honestly still not sure how you are supposed to port a monster with anything other than basic, generic abilities. I mean, how would you do, say, an Aboleth, with it's Illusions, mind-control, and poisonous slime that made people water dependent, all of which are important story tools? How do you make some of the truly epic monsters that are able to affect things at the landscape scale (and please don't tell me that would just be part of the adventure, not the monster)? How do I build a Devourer truly able to eat an opponent's essence? Heck, how do you model silly things like a Vargouille's kiss?

[Aricandor]

To answer the thread question, "if my players had not suddenly decided that D&D and any derivatives of it suck." (Goddamn ingrates, all my hard work on class-tuning for nothing... :smallfurious:)

Ahem. Anyway, having looked over the classes (which is the most important crunch part of any D&D-like to me) I got to say I'm quite impressed with the whole underlying thought. Putting casters at 6-7 spell levels is something I've contemplated too, so now I'm of course feeling mandated to ask how that's been working out during playtests for you. Of course I realise the spell lists are very small and focused on top of that, but as a general idea.
Also, have you more spellcasters in the works with different little cutouts of spell lists? :smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

The system is incredibly flexible with regard to setting themes. Our default setting has a bit of magitech and steampunk, a lot of high fantasy, and a little bit of postapocalyptic awesomeness. But if you switch some tracks around and don't use some feats, you can get medieval fantasy warfare, D&D-style high-magic fantasy, or a half decent game involving space cowboys.

Optimization comes at a somewhat higher cost in Legend, because there is very little available in the way of "traps" for people who don't have system mastery. If you're trying to get unusually good numbers, the best thing you can do is focus your character around two ability scores, get some defenses that cover the "weak" ability scores, and build around a single really good combat option and a couple tactical tricks and secondary combat options. That won't make you steamroll everything at your level; at most, it'll give you around a 10 or 15% edge on an unoptimized character of your level. Maybe 20% if you really work at it, but then chances are that you'll be very bad at something else.

So then is optimization purely about numerical differences? Optimized combat won't be qualitatively different from unoptimized combat?

[Esser-Z]

I'm honestly still not sure how you are supposed to port a monster with anything other than basic, generic abilities. I mean, how would you do, say, an Aboleth, with it's Illusions, mind-control, and poisonous slime that made people water dependent, all of which are important story tools? How do you make some of the truly epic monsters that are able to affect things at the landscape scale (and please don't tell me that would just be part of the adventure, not the monster)? How do I build a Devourer truly able to eat an opponent's essence? Heck, how do you model silly things like a Vargouille's kiss?

The key is often going to be combining tracks to get the effects you want. There're a lot of monster-based tracks still to be done, too. Some of the iconics that are hard to make with others may well get their own dedicated track.

[Eldan]

Yes, that's what I thought. It does, however, mean that there is no easy way for a DM for porting interesting monsters over.

[Draz74]

Yes, that's what I thought. It does, however, mean that there is no easy way for a DM for porting interesting monsters over.

Almost seems like your very definition of "interesting" includes "hard to port over." :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

It more or less means "unique abilities". I mean, ogres would be easy to do in pretty much any system. Doesn't mean they are remotely interesting, mechanically.

[Veyr]

Designing an Iconic feat or a unique track based around a unique ability does not seem like a particularly large amount of work, to me. I mean, that's the least of what you'd have to do for any system transition, I'd think.

[Doc Roc]

It more or less means "unique abilities". I mean, ogres would be easy to do in pretty much any system. Doesn't mean they are remotely interesting, mechanically.

As veyr says, iconic feat would be the way to go. How about this? List three of these unique monsters and I'll roll them in. I'll do a step by step, too!


So then is optimization purely about numerical differences? Optimized combat won't be qualitatively different from unoptimized combat?

Combat's pretty diverse so tends to produce interesting tactical deviations, but not a different game. This is worth discussing in more detail. What else/more can I tell you?

[Eldan]

Well, let's start with the Aboleth for now. I'll go look around for a few others first, instead of just naming the first silly bunch I can think off.

[Doc Roc]

Well, let's start with the Aboleth for now. I'll go look around for a few others first, instead of just naming the first silly bunch I can think off.

Aboleth? Really?

Just blade+arcane secret, iconic of something of a traditionalist(tentacles)
We'll want charm as well. That covers their iconics, and leaves us with some space for variation. Let's take two monk tracks, definitely serpent and maybe... Crane?

Summon mote for a little psionic servitor. The rest is pretty whatever. Dominate's good too. We could instead roll a custom iconic feat for Mindslavin'

[Eldan]

That doesn't seem to cover Mirage Arcana, though. Or the ability to turn people into thralls for two weeks. Or the poisonous slime that makes people unable to leave the water.

[Doc Roc]

That doesn't seem to cover Mirage Arcana, though. Or the ability to turn people into thralls for two weeks. Or the poisonous slime that makes people unable to leave the water.

Mirage arcana will be our endless deadly mirror images, charm will do up the thrallin' which really wasn't for PC interaction anyway. We can model it with a guild if you feel it is critical, and the poison slime we might let slip or make an item. This is a 1-20 prog, so not all abilities come on at the same time.

If we need to, I can add an aberration track, and we'll get full coverage that way. I don't think aboleths are really all that special.

[Eldan]

Mirage arcana isn't for attacking people, and it shares nothing in common with mirror image. It changes a landscape of several hundred feet in all directions, hitting all senses. That's quite a bit more useful than just illusory copies that hit people. The poison slime is a great story tool and has to be in there. I mean, we had great fun with PCs being hit with that. Or as quest reasons, to find a counter for some NPC.

[Epsilon Rose]

Were none of my comments worth mentioning?

[Doc Roc]

Mirage arcana isn't for attacking people, and it shares nothing in common with mirror image. It changes a landscape of several hundred feet in all directions, hitting all senses. That's quite a bit more useful than just illusory copies that hit people. The poison slime is a great story tool and has to be in there. I mean, we had great fun with PCs being hit with that. Or as quest reasons, to find a counter for some NPC.

Mirage arcana is probably a L9 feat. I can bodge it up. The poison slime is, again, likely a relic. Some things do need to be written, but aboleths are I believe closed content wrt to their extended fluff anyway. We can get in trouble for emulating their fluff too closely.

Also as written the slime is a save or die. It does not appear to grant waterbreathing.


Were none of my comments worth mentioning?

You want me to remove the ability for players to undo mistakes, constrain their ability to alter their character based on life changes, and marry them to their build. You further think a track is wasted because it does not conform exactingly to your expectations. I do not think I can make you happy.

Guild feat is an issue worth discussing though.

[Eldan]

I never interpreted it as a save or die. Just as "you have to keep moist". Mostly, that involved people dragging around waterskins and sitting in tubs all day, diving once a minute or so.

[Epsilon Rose]

You want me to remove the ability for players to undo mistakes, constrain their ability to alter their character base on life changes, and marry them to their build. You further think a track is wasted because it does not conform exactingly to your expectations. I do not think I can make you happy.

Huh, Is that what you got? It's not what I meant for most of it, let me try rephrasing.

Having an option to somehow rebuild or undo early mistakes is good, but so is the ability to move to a different path without declaring the original a mistake. You have the former, not the latter, but there's no reason not to have both.
Also I don't think the track is wasted (though that does seem to be what I said, not the best wording on my part, sorry). I do think part of it's potential is, because it ties three interesting but unrelated concepts together, to the detriment of runes, when it could easily be it's own entity. Actually, the entire track seems to suffer from an odd naming scheme. I have to ask, was the track originally named or part of something else, because in trust in steam you refer to Summoners and the transition from automaton to totem seems odd since the two aren't generally related (though totem does do a better job describing them.

[Doc Roc]

I never interpreted it as a save or die. Just as "you have to keep moist". Mostly, that involved people dragging around waterskins and sitting in tubs all day, diving once a minute or so.

That's fine and good but not technically what the slime does.

[Eldan]

An afflicted creature must remain moistened with cool, fresh water or take 1d12 points of damage every 10 minutes.

Sounds exactly like that.

[Doc Roc]

Sounds exactly like that.

Sorry, I meant the mucus, which can lead to a grapple being SoD.

Let me roll up a feat, I think, so we can get a better mapping on the aboleth.

EDIT: I am informed by Chris that Dominate's absence from the doc is just an error. I'll add hallucinatory terrain as a SLA via a Feat I think, and that'll get us effectively full coverage.

[Urpriest]

Combat's pretty diverse so tends to produce interesting tactical deviations, but not a different game. This is worth discussing in more detail. What else/more can I tell you?

Well, for example, 3.5 can vary from "kick in the door, walk up to monsters, deal damage until they drop" to "get as much info as you can with magic, bypass every obstacle you can with magic, check which side has more immunities and contingencies, get what you need" to "let the half-elf binder/warlock/marshal/bard get a single standard action in front of intelligent foes".

4e, on the other hand, tends to fair poorly with combat that isn't some variation of "You are in a limited area with a variety of terrain elements present. There is a squad of monsters in the area, differentiated by role. Use tactics to kill them with damage."

I guess what I'm asking is less about combat structure and more about adventure structure. How much room is there for the PCs to come up with radically different ways to approach obstacles/combats, and how much of the system's detail is lost when they approach situations in these ways?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Wait, you want wizards and diplomancers to break the game? I mean, I can see how scry-n-X can be fun for everyone if it's a Shadowrun-style game where things do go wrong despite the wizard's legwork, but diplomancy seems like a story about a Mary Sue who solves all problems by being totally right... and her tagalongs.

[Eldan]

It's more like that I want the possibility of it in the game system. It doesn't have to be as overpowering as it is, but teleport warfare is interesting, strategically and tactically. Completely removing it from the game seems an overreaction.

[Doc Roc]

Well, for example, 3.5 can vary from "kick in the door, walk up to monsters, deal damage until they drop" to "get as much info as you can with magic, bypass every obstacle you can with magic, check which side has more immunities and contingencies, get what you need" to "let the half-elf binder/warlock/marshal/bard get a single standard action in front of intelligent foes".

4e, on the other hand, tends to fair poorly with combat that isn't some variation of "You are in a limited area with a variety of terrain elements present. There is a squad of monsters in the area, differentiated by role. Use tactics to kill them with damage."

I guess what I'm asking is less about combat structure and more about adventure structure. How much room is there for the PCs to come up with radically different ways to approach obstacles/combats, and how much of the system's detail is lost when they approach situations in these ways?

Yesterday, a player cleaved her way up a tree to kill a sniper.
In the Raid playtest, a player used social combat to get an enemy to come along for the fight.
I've seen monks with guns sailing over treetops in a running duel, like a near future crouching tiger, hidden dragon.
We've also seen battles dominated by soft an hard battlefield control, laden with traps, lightning storms, deadly little automata, and three very angry snipers played by the PCs.

Skills are stronger, feats* provide access to powerful out-of-combat options, and no one has to play a barbaric idiot mercenary. Unless they want to. How you solve problems is finally up to you.

*which we continue to expand.

[CTrees]

The mucus is save or you can't breathe air, but can breathe water, for three hours. Because of the insane suffocation rules, that a couple minutes to die, IFF you can be forced to stay above the surface, which is dozens of rounds. I... don't count that as save or die?

Double checked, I'm wrong. In PF, you get the ability to breathe water, and it's been too long since I checked 3.x. so, yeah, save or die after several rounds.

[Veyr]

It doesn't actually say you gain the ability to breathe water.

[Urpriest]

Yesterday, a player cleaved her way up a tree to kill a sniper.
In the Raid playtest, a player used social combat to get an enemy to come along for the fight.
I've seen monks with guns sailing over treetops in a running duel, like a near future crouching tiger, hidden dragon.
We've also seen battles dominated by soft an hard battlefield control, laden with traps, lightning storms, deadly little automata, and three very angry snipers played by the PCs.

Skills are stronger, feats* provide access to powerful out-of-combat options, and no one has to play a barbaric idiot mercenary. Unless they want to. How you solve problems is finally up to you.

*which we continue to expand.

Cleaving up a tree...ok, this system sounds interesting. There are things that can be done with this.


Wait, you want wizards and diplomancers to break the game? I mean, I can see how scry-n-X can be fun for everyone if it's a Shadowrun-style game where things do go wrong despite the wizard's legwork, but diplomancy seems like a story about a Mary Sue who solves all problems by being totally right... and her tagalongs.

Not exactly. I didn't just ask about whether alternate methods are available, I also asked about how much detail the system has in dealing with those methods. In 3.5 diplomancy is just a single check, generally speaking. The system loses out a lot for that kind of group. On the other hand, a social combat system like it appears Legend has can make that kind of thing workable as something other than Mary Sue boredom.

[Doc Roc]

Cleaving up a tree...ok, this system sounds interesting. There are things that can be done with this.



Not exactly. I didn't just ask about whether alternate methods are available, I also asked about how much detail the system has in dealing with those methods. In 3.5 diplomancy is just a single check, generally speaking. The system loses out a lot for that kind of group. On the other hand, a social combat system like it appears Legend has can make that kind of thing workable as something other than Mary Sue boredom.

It's not a perfect system, we opted to lean towards speed over completeness, but I think it's pretty darn good. The gist of it is that it's a pretty simple betting game with the possibility of both sides "winning." So you might argue them into turning the power off the forcefields, but they might argue you into not murdering everyone.

I'm adding a divination Iconic, I think, by the way.

[IthilanorStPete]

Well, as some people have said...all I need is a group to play it with. It's an amazingly slick system, and I love the way the track system can be used to generate monsters.

[Veyr]

Something I think worth mentioning for 3.5 players (I know it caught my attention) — Legend has a version of Vow of Poverty that works.

[Doc Roc]

I'm adding a divination Iconic, I think, by the way.

Ended up adding a nice little crystal ball item, so that we can have hedge seers and their ilk.

[Khantin]

If someone is dming a game I'd love to give it a shot. I've been reading the google doc and it looks like a really interesting system.

[true_shinken]

Something I think worth mentioning for 3.5 players (I know it caught my attention) — Legend has a version of Vow of Poverty that works.

Everytime someone says VoP does not work, I die a little inside.
VoP is not supposed to be a way to make a gear-free character, it's supposed to be a spiritual choice. Of course it's weaker than gear, it's supposed to be weaker than gear! It's just something you get so you don't suck so much if you really want to make that spiritual choice.

[Mystic Muse]

Everytime someone says VoP does not work, I die a little inside.
VoP is not supposed to be a way to make a gear-free character, it's supposed to be a spiritual choice. Of course it's weaker than gear, it's supposed to be weaker than gear! It's just something you get so you don't suck so much if you really want to make that spiritual choice.

Then it's really badly implemented since it's only available to exalted characters, and it requires that you use two feats in addition to giving up all your shinies.

I'm not (entirely) opposed to it being weaker than gear, I'm opposed to how much weaker than gear it is.

Also, What Urpriest said in the post below me.

I will check the system out at some point. Just not any time soon since I've got a lot of other stuff to do.

[Urpriest]

Everytime someone says VoP does not work, I die a little inside.
VoP is not supposed to be a way to make a gear-free character, it's supposed to be a spiritual choice. Of course it's weaker than gear, it's supposed to be weaker than gear! It's just something you get so you don't suck so much if you really want to make that spiritual choice.

Spoilered for tangent:

Power is a game mechanical trait, not an in-world one. A character does not sacrifice power to show their spirituality: they sacrifice convenience, or pleasure, or choice, or something else in-world. The relevant sacrifice for Vow of Chastity is not the fact that taking the feat makes your character mechanically weaker.

[Khantin]

One concern I have about legend (this very much comes from a place of ignorance as I've only read about half way through the doc):

This is just an example, If i wanted to make a tactician and swap one of my tracks for the defense oriented barbarian track, wouldn't I be much better off starting as a barbarian multiclassed with a tactician track, and then using a feat to swap out another one of my bbn tracks for another tactician track?

The track results are the same, but starting as a"bbn" gives you 4 more hp every level and high bab. As well as good will+fort (assuming this is even relevant as being the "good" saves), All at the cost of 1 feat.

[Eldan]

Ended up adding a nice little crystal ball item, so that we can have hedge seers and their ilk.

Now you're talking a language I understand.

Edit: minor point: in the index, chapter 11 is called "Items". In the actual document, it's called "Economy".

Where is said crystal ball? I can't seem to find it in the list.

[Doc Roc]

Now you're talking a language I understand.

Edit: minor point: in the index, chapter 11 is called "Items". In the actual document, it's called "Economy".

Where is said crystal ball? I can't seem to find it in the list.

We do weekly updates, it drops on wednesday, along with vision mode goggles, a pistol that shoots spells, and a few other tidbits. Wednesday is mostly fixes and such, but we'll be trying to drydock paladin's judgment track for the release after, and also introduce a new monster track or three.


One concern I have about legend (this very much comes from a place of ignorance as I've only read about half way through the doc):

This is just an example, If i wanted to make a tactician and swap one of my tracks for the defense oriented barbarian track, wouldn't I be much better off starting as a barbarian multiclassed with a tactician track, and then using a feat to swap out another one of my bbn tracks for another tactician track?

The track results are the same, but starting as a"bbn" gives you 4 more hp every level and high bab. As well as good will+fort (assuming this is even relevant as being the "good" saves), All at the cost of 1 feat.

Tactician's chassis is a little weak, but does offer more skills, which is a very strong point in its favor. We probably need to give it all good saves, though, or similar. it'll go on The List.

Continuing the tangent


Everytime someone says VoP does not work, I die a little inside.
VoP is not supposed to be a way to make a gear-free character, it's supposed to be a spiritual choice. Of course it's weaker than gear, it's supposed to be weaker than gear! It's just something you get so you don't suck so much if you really want to make that spiritual choice.

I'm with Ur-Priest here, as well, that giving up power isn't really a good in-world concept. More than that... VoP's initial flavor, as provided, is this. People like the idea a lot. The mendicant warrior, the saintly cleric, the ascetic monk. These are deep big ol' concepts, and the fact that it was "exalted" was a mistake more than anything else.

Defending it, in any sense, is defending one of the most sorrowful and easily prevented mistakes ever made in 3.x.





And why the heck does spiritual choice equate to weaker? Solars aren't weaker! Good isn't some frail flower to be guarded, some little lost child to be shepherded and cooed over. Good is a fundamental force, a great juggernaut of a thing.

If you want your spiritual choices to be weak, if you want to suck in the name of some imagined higher value, and screw over everyone at the table with you, then simply put, Legend ain't for you. Legend is about having fun. It's a game. It's a game that tells stories, which are in turn fun, or at least interesting. Not a game where you get to strut around and show off just how awesomely you've sucked in the name of this concept that's totally better and thus totally merits sucking.


Khantin: I believe Subject42 is just waiting on an adventure and another player.

[Khantin]

Tactician's chassis is a little weak, but does offer more skills, which is a very strong point in its favor. We probably need to give it all good saves, though, or similar. it'll go on The List.


Okay, I didn't realize all the chassis' (chassi? chassisses?) were supposed to be balanced pre-tracks.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Okay, I didn't realize all the chassis' (chassi? chassisses?) were supposed to be balanced pre-tracks.Well, presumably the margin of error can be the value of one feat, so long as a weaker chassis has better associated tracks.

[Doc Roc]

Well, presumably the margin of error can be the value of one feat, so long as a weaker chassis has better associated tracks.

We've narrowed our margin of error to one feat for the second swap.

[faceroll]

Have there been any updates to to the pdf? Schools out and I'm going to start organizing a nooby sunday game.

[Sir Swindle89]

ok, finally cought up, (and read the book)

on porting mosters (per Eldan's complaints), If you really like a 3.5 moster why don't you add it's bab to it's AC, modify it's HP, and change its skills properly and just put it in, your players don't need to know the crunch on whaat they fight (half the time I make NPC stats up in my head, a bonus of playing too damn long)


Right, here are my thoughts:
I like how tracks let you customize classes, but I don't lie the fact that you can't take part of a track and then switch to another midway, I can see some cases where immight want to take the beginning of something like a spell casting track to get a few basic spells I might want and then switch to a more marshal track ( yes I'm aware that's a bad example, I don't have the required mastery of your system to come up with a good one). I also don't like that if you switch in a new track a latter point it completely replaces your old one. It makes the earlier levels feel less valid.

I actualy hate the way the guild feet is used. I don't have a problem with he feet it self, intact I like it. The problem is that it's providing a basic and fairly generic function (changing tracks) but forcing fluff that may not be welcome.


I feel like a good comprimise with this is if the guild feat let you pick up a new track fresh when you take the feat. (so youd get 1-4th circle abilities from one track and 1-3rd circle from a second one.) I by no means support going to a 3.5 multiclassing system. The facts that feats are so strong kind of wards off secondary multiclassing any way.


The lack of utility spells disappoints me a little.
me too, are these left out on purpose or are you still making the spell list?


The rune track seems like a waste. Both the name and the function are cool but they don't match up and as long as they're there you can't make use of what they could be. The track it self has something of a steampunk/mechanist feel and I'd rename it to show that. On the other hand runes have a very strong connection to magic, I'd repurpose the name for a verb, noun (,adj?) system or a word magic system. Of course I'm the type of person who like lots of different resource systems, so that part of the suggestion might need a grain of salt (it might also work better as a full class).
I think i agree here, it's be cool as a steampunk tinkerer OR a shaman useing spirits to protect his friends. but the mish mash kinda flops


I don't recall seeing rules for grappling, and there absence disappoints me. As does the lack of duel-wielding.
A system for grabs would be nice, even if it was just a disable type affect (can't move or act till he beats your check type thing).

There were rules for dual wielding. a matching pair counts as a 2d6 wepon. simple. Making a [Double] tag on wepons that represented it was a double wepon or a pair and gave a bonus to flurry might be somthing to think about Doc


You need to include some rules for porting stuff from 3.5/PF to legend, especially homebrew and classes with different resource systems (binder, xenotheurge, ozadrin [the second two are homebrew]). the cross compatibility and glut of content for 3.5 and PF are advantages I don't think you can beat and while you as a designer can easily port stuff I'm not sure I as a player or dm could.
Legend is on such a higher base power level that i don't think you could honestly just port things that need to be balanced (so as not to self cotradict monsters don't NEED to be balanced)


Some way to use Prcs would be nice.
if you used my multiclass compromise and made 4 circle tracks with requirements you could actually do these. or you could just use the compromise for PrC's specifically.


I still think you'd do better if you stopped comparing your self to dnd.
I agree, you don't see white wolf catching crap for not being 3.P compatible






Were none of my comments worth mentioning?:smallwink:


Also, at last i looked Coldfire ingot is way OP compared to other damage increasing items +stat+2 or soem such. I think i'm looking at the most recent version.

Also Skald isa class mentionted inthe magic section and no where else

[Kurald Galain]

-Nothing that really immediately stands out as new and cool to me. (Which I know is a supremely unhelpful comment, but even after years of thinking about it, I haven't found any good way of quantifying what I find cool).

Hm, that's a pretty good point.

There are no new races, just the time-honored cliches of human, elf, dwarf, gnome, hobbit, orc. The player is assumed to be already familiar with these, because they aren't described, given a new twist (as near as I can tell) or even given pictures. No apparent support for uncommon races like lizardmen, or unusual things like flying races, tiny or large races, centaurs, or Tiste Andii.

What would be useful, right at the very top, is a list of all the classes and an explanation of why they are cool. Your class is still the primary defining factor of your character, after all.

Your system doesn't have fighters and wizards! How can you have a fantasy system without fighters and wizards? Well, okay, you probably do have them albeit by a different name. But having a class-based system without a wizard class (or at least a sorcerer or witch) is quite a turn-off. Similarly: no bard, druid, psion, or assassin. People like having classes with those obvious names and themes. Perhaps something as simple as refluffing an existing class to "wizard" could heighten the appeal.

And, just as with races, you've got the common archetypes down but nothing really special (except tactician, but it appears to be a wizard of sorts). Having something like an alchemist or summoner is a large appeal of Pathfinder.

Yeah, I suppose that doesn't really help you, sorry about that. But the point is that I don't need Legend to play an elven ranger. I've got five systems on my shelf already that allow me to play an elven ranger. And it's hard for a new system to compete with a system that I know already, unless it's got unique selling points or a cool setting.

[Sir Swindle89]

Hm, that's a pretty good point.

There are no new races, just the time-honored cliches of human, elf, dwarf, gnome, hobbit, orc. The player is assumed to be already familiar with these, because they aren't described, given a new twist (as near as I can tell) or even given pictures. No apparent support for uncommon races like lizardmen, or unusual things like flying races, tiny or large races, centaurs, or Tiste Andii.


BEEEETAAAAAA! guys seriously theres a reason theres no fluff and the descriptions are brief and tounge in cheek(that might actually be style but aside)

I do think that mentioning the racial Tracks in the Race section might aleviate some of this issue.



Your system doesn't have fighters and wizards! How can you have a fantasy system without fighters and wizards? Well, okay, you probably do have them albeit by a different name. But having a class-based system without a wizard class (or at least a sorcerer or witch) is quite a turn-off. Similarly: no bard, druid, psion, or assassin. People like having classes with those obvious names and themes. Perhaps something as simple as refluffing an existing class to "wizard" could heighten the appeal.

I an inclined to agree to an extent with Kurald on this. A soldier class seems more fitting to the themes than Fighter. I know a MC Ranger Barbarian is basically all we want out of a fighter but a beat stick is not somthing we should have to derive. Beat stick fighters tend to be a lot of peoples first characters when they come to a system because they are simple.

giving Shamen a suggested list for their free tree might solve the wizard issue. put Necromancer and elementalist and Sage on there(i think it is sage)

A personl gripe i have actually now that i think of it. your necromancer is underwhelming to the extreme. it's more of a deathknight class. When a track is titled Necromancer and it mentions raising Ghouls in the description i expect to be able to actually raise at least a single undead minion. just say'in


As much semi-smack as i have been talking i have actually suggested that we play to one of my Dm's, so it's all good natured on my part.

[Doc Roc]

Your system doesn't have fighters and wizards! How can you have a fantasy system without fighters and wizards? Well, okay, you probably do have them albeit by a different name. But having a class-based system without a wizard class (or at least a sorcerer or witch) is quite a turn-off. Similarly: no bard, druid, psion, or assassin. People like having classes with those obvious names and themes. Perhaps something as simple as refluffing an existing class to "wizard" could heighten the appeal.


Legend has four and a half melee capable classes, and two and a half caster classes. We don't have wizard for a specific reason: We don't have as many uniquely casterly thing. There are certainly a good few, but people think of wizard as a paragon of arcane power, a titan of intellect, and all of this leads to really broken games. I don't think we can have a wizard that isn't broken and not get yelled at for days.

Fighter is harder to talk about. We can discuss it a little later, basically, but it's still under heavy discussion. Ranger may end up getting a more fightery name. We're not sure, and there are some problems there too. We'd like to rename something, but we may end up building an additional chassis shaped like shaman, for being people to death.

Races: We have playable dragons, undead, and sentient constructs, with elementals and aberrations on the way. Considering that this is effectively core, that's pretty darn good, I think.

Classes: We actually do have an alchemist track, it's called demoman and it's under rogue. To get closer to the spirit of alchemist, you'll have to wait for the consumables system dropping in a month.

Necromancer is at the center of an ongoing argument.

We have the distinct ability for players to compose their own classes, elegantly, with an assurance that their cool idea will not fall flat. Things I have seen: Steampunk jedi, fighter pilots, arcanely imbued barbarians, skeleton sages with ancient blades, teleporting monks with guns, a draconic shaman, an ascetic dragon as a PC, 5 different working healers with a variety of interesting ways of hurting people, and a rather mundane infighter.



Have there been any updates to to the pdf? Schools out and I'm going to start organizing a nooby sunday game.

New PDF on wednesday, with a lot of the minor but important mechanical fixes, a few new items, some revised less-lethal rules, and a fixed list of arcane secrets.

[Eldan]

The problem is, if the monsters are in the monster section, even if playable, they will not be as prominent. Prospective players will look at the index and the race/class chapters and think "Hmm, this looks all just like in D&D". So, I actually agree with Kurald here.

[Doc Roc]

The problem is, if the monsters are in the monster section, even if playable, they will not be as prominent. Prospective players will look at the index and the race/class chapters and think "Hmm, this looks all just like in D&D". So, I actually agree with Kurald here.

The races section explicitly mentions the others, or.... it... did.

God----- ---- and ------ ---- --- ------- why the ------- ----!

[Draz74]

The problem is, if the monsters are in the monster section, even if playable, they will not be as prominent. Prospective players will look at the index and the race/class chapters and think "Hmm, this looks all just like in D&D". So, I actually agree with Kurald here.

Hmmm, this is actually a neat little writing style challenge. On the one hand, what you say is true for players checking out a system looking for something revolutionary. On the other hand, I could see presenting monster races side-by-side with cliche races as a turn-off for DMs, or at least more conservative DMs, who will look and jump to the conclusion that this is a system for munchkins who are "too good to play a standard humanoid race."

[Sir Swindle89]

The problem is, if the monsters are in the monster section, even if playable, they will not be as prominent. Prospective players will look at the index and the race/class chapters and think "Hmm, this looks all just like in D&D". So, I actually agree with Kurald here.

I see what you're saying here. Once they get a stable stock campaign setting they can populate that setting with more unique races. It's another side effect of their flufflessness. Or at least i hope this is whats going on:smallbiggrin:

Honestly if you were putting a system together from scratch which ones would you use in your beta version?

[Claudius Maximus]

I don't think it could hurt to have more basic humanoid options in the race section. Like lizardmen, kobolds, goblins and such, maybe alongside some more unique things.

Also an animal track for beast creatures and and werewolf characters would be pretty cool.

[Doc Roc]

I don't think it could hurt to have more basic humanoid options in the race section. Like lizardmen, kobolds, goblins and such, maybe alongside some more unique things.

Also an animal track for beast creatures and and werewolf characters would be pretty cool.

It's relatively painless to roll up races, if people want to just suggest some we can probably snap them straight in. I'll make sure that the reference to exotic races is still in place, so that we can have our cake and eat it.

[Cieyrin]

It's relatively painless to roll up races, if people want to just suggest some we can probably snap them straight in. I'll make sure that the reference to exotic races is still in place, so that we can have our cake and eat it.

I'd all be for scaly and furry types, like Lizardmen and Catfolk so I can play out an Avernum campaign. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Well, I'd want Modrons, 'loths, Lillendi and Eladrin as races, but I think that puts me rather in a minority.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

My only request is no mammaries on the lizard folk.

[Doc Roc]

My only request is no mammaries on the lizard folk.

Fear not, lizards will remain flat-chested in our grim future.

[Claudius Maximus]

Well, I'd want Modrons, 'loths, Lillendi and Eladrin as races, but I think that puts me rather in a minority.

I don't think we can really do those, for copyright reasons. I suppose it's possible to approximate them though. I mean Modrons are just sentient constructs with specialized fluff and maybe some unique abilities you can add yourself.

[Doc Roc]

I don't think we can really do those, for copyright reasons. I suppose it's possible to approximate them though. I mean Modrons are just sentient constructs with specialized fluff and maybe some unique abilities you can add yourself.

You could do up modron by just adding some feats, and linking them to the sentient construct track, as well as adding to the racial feat list.

[Veyr]

Eladrin are fey, right? A Fey or Faerie race seems like it would certainly fit in.

[Eldan]

Eladrin are fey, right? A Fey or Faerie race seems like it would certainly fit in.

Chaotic good outsiders, actually. While they share some similarities with fey, they are more benevolent. I mostly like them for their veiling.

[Doc Roc]

Eladrin are fey, right? A Fey or Faerie race seems like it would certainly fit in.

I'd actually like that to be a racial track. We might need two, or we could do it how we did undead.

[true_shinken]

Honest question, Doc. Does Legend work as a fantasy world simulator? As in, commoners die when they are shot with arrows and you can heal them? Are there rules to determine the higher level character in a community and stuff like that?

[Doc Roc]

Honest question, Doc. Does Legend work as a fantasy world simulator? As in, commoners die when they are shot with arrows and you can heal them? Are there rules to determine the higher level character in a community and stuff like that?

Absolutely will be. There aren't right now, because those rules live on top of the groundwork that the beta is testing, and the beta suggests we've got some crunching to go. Eventually, though, there'll be meaty bits to help you sketch out your cities, and figure out who John Farmer is and why.

As for commoners who get hurt, the playtests have featured these poor long suffering bastards repeatedly already, and has let you heal, revive, abuse, and kill them depending on your moral and intellectual predilections.


It bears mention that I'm not deeply engaged in the simulationist outlook. I build games that incidentally simulate a reality in the pursuit of fun. This doesn't mean that the team as a whole shares these outlooks, it just means I'm uniquely unqualified to answer this question well.

[Draz74]

Shink: Overall, one of the biggest reasons that Legend doesn't look like my ideal perfect dream-come-true systems is a lack of simulationism -- like Doc just said, it's built more to make the game easily playable than to make it make sense.

My scientific mind, however (if I don't turn it off because I'm playing a game, dang it!) keeps asking "Wait ... how did that happen?" as I imagine Legend games at work.

For example, the Ranger's trapsetting track and the Rogue's bomberman/alchemy track are like McGyver on crack ...

[Doc Roc]

Shink: Overall, one of the biggest reasons that Legend doesn't look like my ideal perfect dream-come-true systems is a lack of simulationism -- like Doc just said, it's built more to make the game easily playable than to make it make sense.

My scientific mind, however (if I don't turn it off because I'm playing a game, dang it!) keeps asking "Wait ... how did that happen?" as I imagine Legend games at work.

For example, the Ranger's trapsetting track and the Rogue's bomberman/alchemy track are like McGyver on crack ...

Eventually, we'll hire\bribe\kidnap a solid writer, and get enough fluff in there to..
:smallcool:
defuse this problem.

YEAHHHH.

The other problem is that Legend isn't about simulating just one thing. Any rules I write are going to be biased towards the kinds of game I run. And the upcoming Legend playtest game happens to involve a magitech take on the Musketeers in service to Her Epic Royal Majesty, Awesomnia The Second.



You probably don't want MY simulation in YOUR game. That said, we've got a slightly different schema for how we talk about 1st/3rd party content, and we should discuss this in private, Draz&Shink. Let me know how you'd like to talk about it.

[Kurald Galain]

people think of wizard as a paragon of arcane power, a titan of intellect, and all of this leads to really broken games.
I don't think it's inherent in the existence of a "wizard" class that it has to be broken.


Races: We have playable dragons, undead, and sentient constructs, with elementals and aberrations on the way.
I'm sure you do, but this isn't actually apparent from the beta rulebook I read through.



My scientific mind, however (if I don't turn it off because I'm playing a game, dang it!) keeps asking "Wait ... how did that happen?" as I imagine Legend games at work.
Hm, that's a pretty big strike against, in my opinion.

[Doc Roc]

I don't think it's inherent in the existence of a "wizard" class that it has to be broken.


A wizard who does the things iconic of a 3.x wizard is........... Problematic. I'm open to input here.




I'm sure you do, but this isn't actually apparent from the beta rulebook I read through.


Hm, that's a pretty big strike against, in my opinion.

It's a strike we plan to fix, and we need help doing it. This is why this is a beta, because we want help, not because we want to be told we are right. Noted the issue that it's inobvious that you can play things of great strangeness.

In short, keep yelling at us.

[Tvtyrant]

Actually I think what you need the most is a unique setting to get people to want to play it; the crunch seems like some useful bread but we want our roses too!

So just as soon as you invent an entirely new setting like Planescape, Spelljammer, or even Forgotten Realms people will throw themselves at the system. Something with its own unique flavor and pizazz, where streams of Cure Light Wounds gush out of rocks and Inflict Light Wounds sprays from positive and negative energy sources from the ground, where undead and the living are flip sides of the same coin and can switch back and forth freely by immersing themselves in special pools found on top of the tallest mountains.

Excuse me while I start working on a setting.

[Rei_Jin]

If you want someone to write fluff for you, we can talk about that Doc. I'm currently not on a project and have time to spare.

[Draz74]

Eventually, we'll hire\bribe\kidnap a solid writer, and get enough fluff in there to..
:smallcool:
defuse this problem.

YEAHHHH.
*Groan*


The other problem is that Legend isn't about simulating just one thing. Any rules I write are going to be biased towards the kinds of game I run. And the upcoming Legend playtest game happens to involve a magitech take on the Musketeers in service to Her Epic Royal Majesty, Awesomnia The Second.
Naturally. I'm not saying you should make it more simulationist, actually -- it seems like a great system for running a certain swath of settings and story-types that you seem to have in mind, and there are loads of people out there who, unlike me and Kurald, don't give a crap about simulationist verisimilitude. I actually think you'd be wise to just accept that as an integral part of Legend and play it up as a feature.

I'll just keep working on my own homebrew with slightly less over-the-top class features built into it. :smallsmile:

(On the other hand, if you think fluff can be written that will solve my concern, there's nothing to be lost by trying. It bugs me when people state that you can't have a game that satisfies multiple design goals simultaneously, as if it were a law of physics. So I welcome your efforts to try!)


we should discuss this in private, Draz&Shink. Let me know how you'd like to talk about it.
K, well, hopefully after my midterm on Thursday, I'll have some time maybe this weekend to get on IRC.


Hm, that's a pretty big strike against, in my opinion.

Hmmmm, depends on my mood. Sometimes I love playing games without regards for simulationism. Pandemic, for example, is a new favorite that has very little simulationism. Likewise, I think I could enjoy a game of Legend a lot ... just in a different way from 3e D&D.

[true_shinken]

You probably don't want MY simulation in YOUR game. That said, we've got a slightly different schema for how we talk about 1st/3rd party content, and we should discuss this in private, Draz&Shink. Let me know how you'd like to talk about it.
PM me anytime you want.

[Master_Rahl22]

Where is this dragon racial track you keep talking about? I haven't found it anywhere in the doc. Perhaps you have a newer version and need to update the link in the Full Beta thread?

[Kurald Galain]

A wizard who does the things iconic of a 3.x wizard is........... Problematic. I'm open to input here.
But I'm not looking for an iconic 3.x wizard. How about an iconic wizard from literature? It's a very broad archetype stretching from Merlin to Gandalf and from Milamber to Vanyel.

[Sir Swindle89]

But I'm not looking for an iconic 3.x wizard. How about an iconic wizard from literature? It's a very broad archetype stretching from Merlin to Gandalf and from Milamber to Vanyel.

In that case either Sage or Tactician could be your wizard. The ability to play one is there even if it's not named to your liking.

[Kurald Galain]

In that case either Sage or Tactician could be your wizard. The ability to play one is there even if it's not named to your liking.

Yes, but my point is that renaming either to "wizard" will increase the appeal of the game - because some people will put your book away if it doesn't have a wizard, before they realize that technically it does but it has a different name.

[Sir Swindle89]

Yes, but my point is that renaming either to "wizard" will increase the appeal of the game - because some people will put your book away if it doesn't have a wizard, before they realize that technically it does but it has a different name.

silly people and their lack of an internal Thesarus:smallwink:

I don't disagree with you. The lack of an actual arcane spell caster is kinda... off

[Claudius Maximus]

The lack of a true professional soldier class is also probably a problem (the Professional Soldier track actually doesn't match that theme very well, oddly).

I don't think it would even be all that hard to do. We have these neat but currently underdeveloped combo and focus systems - maybe they could be the basis of it. Maybe add in some defensive track or a Leader of Men track and we have a good Fighter archetype right there.

[Doc Roc]

The lack of a true professional soldier class is also probably a problem (the Professional Soldier track actually doesn't match that theme very well, oddly).

I don't think it would even be all that hard to do. We have these neat but currently underdeveloped combo and focus systems - maybe they could be the basis of it. Maybe add in some defensive track or a Leader of Men track and we have a good Fighter archetype right there.

I've been playing with a solution. We should talk it over.

[theterran]

Yes, but my point is that renaming either to "wizard" will increase the appeal of the game - because some people will put your book away if it doesn't have a wizard, before they realize that technically it does but it has a different name.

I may be in the minority, but I actually like the fact that it didn't have a "wizard" by name...

[Eldan]

Many fantasy or fantasy-ish games don't have a class called "Wizard". That's really not a requirement.

[subject42]

Those of you who wanted to try a PbP game, I got the materials from Doc. I'll be formally announcing it in the PbP forum tomorrow, but I wanted to give you folks the heads-up.

[Kurald Galain]

Many fantasy or fantasy-ish games don't have a class called "Wizard". That's really not a requirement.

I'm not saying it's a requirement, I'm saying it'll increase the appeal. It doesn't have to be "wizard" per se, it can also be a synonym like "sorcerer" or "witch" or whatever. I'm curious what games you refer to, because in my experience every fantasy-ish RPG has a clearly marked spellcaster class.

[Master_Rahl22]

@subject42: I'll watch the Finding Players board then.

[Veyr]

Sage and Shaman both strike me as obviously spellcasting. The Sage has a different form of spellcasting (more like Warlock, in 3.5 terms), but it's still a mage-type. Tactician, I wouldn't have assumed was a spellcaster right off the bat, I suppose, but I like the concept. A Tacshaman would make a pretty good bardy/clericy type. I haven't reviewed the alternative tracks (Elementalist, Necromancer, etc) terribly well, but I'm sure you could combine those with Sage for a pretty good casterly blasty arcanist.

[9mm]

I'm not saying it's a requirement, I'm saying it'll increase the appeal. It doesn't have to be "wizard" per se, it can also be a synonym like "sorcerer" or "witch" or whatever. I'm curious what games you refer to, because in my experience every fantasy-ish RPG has a clearly marked spellcaster class.

Sage, Shaman, and Tactician all hit these points. Though at this point we're hitting nomenclature issues. See many classes cover a wide variety of concepts ranging from walking arcane broomstick to Jedi in the case of Sage. This kind of broad-brush spectrum means a class won't scream "look at me pointy hats!" in offensive Irish accents. However it seems people want to have the system hold their hands to point them out; this is a problem.

[Master_Rahl22]

I like that the names for some of the classes aren't particularly standardized to what one might expect. It helps emphasize that there aren't really just 8 classes, there are many more than that with multiclassing, Guild Initiate, racial tracks, etc.

[Eldan]

Sage, Shaman, and Tactician all hit these points. Though at this point we're hitting nomenclature issues. See many classes cover a wide variety of concepts ranging from walking arcane broomstick to Jedi in the case of Sage. This kind of broad-brush spectrum means a class won't scream "look at me pointy hats!" in offensive Irish accents. However it seems people want to have the system hold their hands to point them out; this is a problem.

They do, yes. I've often seen that at the table: make the system to open, new players get lost. Having classes that have relatively narrow archetypes makes it easier on them.

[Doc Roc]

They do, yes. I've often seen that at the table: make the system to open, new players get lost. Having classes that have relatively narrow archetypes makes it easier on them.

You try writing 21 abilities about doing the same bloody thing. 'S not easy.

[true_shinken]

You try writing 21 abilities about doing the same bloody thing. 'S not easy.
Well, Wizards did the Soulknife :smalltongue:
But I don't think Eldan meant that as criticism.

[subject42]

They do, yes. I've often seen that at the table: make the system to open, new players get lost. Having classes that have relatively narrow archetypes makes it easier on them.

Could you make a cross-reference or index, perhaps?

You want to play this --------> Go here
Wizard -- Sage
Sorcerer -- Shaman
Ninja -- Rogue
Bard -- Tactician
Sir Richard Francis Burton -- Barbarian/Monk

[Master_Rahl22]

Could you make a cross-reference or index, perhaps?

You want to play this --------> Go here
Wizard -- Sage
Sorcerer -- Shaman
Ninja -- Rogue
Bard -- Tactician
Sir Richard Francis Burton -- Barbarian/Monk

I wouldn't say a Sage is anything like a Wizard actually. A Tactician that took the Necromancer or Elementalist would probably be like a Wizard. A Sage is part Warlock and part Soulknife. Shaman gets some of the Druid type spells and with an appropriate Path, maybe even a Racial track, could duplicate them rather well. Rogues are Swashbucklers and Dervishes and Assassins and Ninjas and Rogues rolled into one.

[Doc Roc]

I wouldn't say a Sage is anything like a Wizard actually. A Tactician that took the Necromancer or Elementalist would probably be like a Wizard. A Sage is part Warlock and part Soulknife. Shaman gets some of the Druid type spells and with an appropriate Path, maybe even a Racial track, could duplicate them rather well. Rogues are Swashbucklers and Dervishes and Assassins and Ninjas and Rogues rolled into one.

Yeah I'm... not as sure as I'd like that we have the hermetic mage\dying earth wizard\gandalf expy covered super well.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yeah I'm... not as sure as I'd like that we have the hermetic mage\dying earth wizard\gandalf expy covered super well.

I'm very sure that you need to beat that paradigm until it cries tears of blood and then burn it when you're finished. Re-read the stories those wizards come from and then look me in the eye and tell me you can make a balanced version.

[Draz74]

I'm very sure that you need to beat that paradigm until it cries tears of blood and then burn it when you're finished. Re-read the stories those wizards come from and then look me in the eye and tell me you can make a balanced version.

Eh, it's not so hard as long as you assume that the mages in question were much higher level than any of the other characters. :smalltongue:

I mean, Fizban ended up being a freaking deity in disguise ...

[Eldan]

Honestly, when you ignore the part of the story where Gandalf is resurrected when he dies, he doesn't seem all that overpowered. I mean, what does he do? Dispatch a few enemies with lightning. The party fighters regularly hack through scores of orcs. Push back evil enemies with rays of light. Nice, but not overpowered, given that that same enemy was killed by a backstabbing rogue with a magic sword and a fighter. Talk to animals. A few other small things.

He doesn't really cast anything that's more than, say, 3rd level, in D&D. And mostly evocation and abjuration.

I'd very much like a character that is a more scholarly magic user (and I'm wondering a bit why the sage isn't, given the name).

[Gullintanni]

He doesn't really cast anything that's more than, say, 3rd level, in D&D. And mostly evocation and abjuration.


Gandalf was a 5th level Wizard, after all.


A wizard who does the things iconic of a 3.x wizard is........... Problematic. I'm open to input here.

In short, keep yelling at us.

I haven't read much about Legend, but the discussion here is interesting enough that I feel as, an RPG enthusiast, I should inform myself. But on the subject of archetypal Wizards...the problem you're having is that Wizard is a dirty word, because those transitioning from 3.5 will see Wizard and think broken, yes?

What you need is a versatile synonym that sounds non-threatening and arcane. I suggest Magi. It's a scholarly title that's phonetically close enough to the word Mage that people should make the thought association. The Wizard archetype will be evidently present from a linguistic point of view, but also obviously different from what we see in D&D. Sage is, IMO, just a little too far in the scholar direction to have appeal for someone who wants to go full on arcane.

[Eldan]

Magus, please. Don't use the plural for the singular. It annoys me.

Anyway: "scholarly caster" really doesn't have to mean "kills everything ever because he's near-omnipotent at mid-levels". Include a few lore-like features, a bit more knowledge-type (divination) magic, a few things that say "academic background" (I studied this spell for three semesters. Of course I'm good at it). It doesn't have to come out overpowered. Or just add a scholar track to the Tactician, Sage and/or Shaman.

[Gullintanni]

Magus, please. Don't use the plural for the singular. It annoys me.

Anyway: "scholarly caster" really doesn't have to mean "kills everything ever because he's near-omnipotent at mid-levels". Include a few lore-like features, a bit more knowledge-type (divination) magic, a few things that say "academic background" (I studied this spell for three semesters. Of course I'm good at it). It doesn't have to come out overpowered. Or just add a scholar track to the Tactician, Sage and/or Shaman.

To each his own I suppose :smallwink:

My point was that if you can find a way to say Wizard without saying I'm Batman then you can probably make up the appeal that's missing without having a wizard, while at the same time, discarding the baggage that the title carries out of 3.5.

I think Magi, or to appease the picky, Magus, does the trick.

[Doug Lampert]

Having read through the system, there are a couple of related issues that leap out at me.

1) What happens if I multiclass a spell-list and it ISN'T the power that increases in circle at level 3?

What do I do for spells per day?

Concievably I could have three spell-lists (four if there's a guild where full buy-in gives spells). If I multiclass to have multiple lists then do they get separate slots?

2) If I am a member of a class that gets track Y then I get it and it's fixed which of three advancement rates it gets. Second circle is level 3, 4, or 5 and I get no choice about which. If I am class Z, which DOES NOT GET track Y, then I can put track Y in a slot that advances at any of these three levels.

Is it deliberate that people who multiclass into a track get more choice about how to take it than those coming by it as a class power?

Granted this isn't much, but to me the class that started with the abilities should be able to be the best at them, and that means that if other classes can make the ability a level 1,3,6,... track then the class that gives the ability should at least have the option to make any of their tracks a level 1,3,6... track.

I'd rather that which track goes with which ability was a recommendation, and that the character could freely swap (which goes back to needing spell progressions for the other two tracks).

[Doc Roc]

Magus, please. Don't use the plural for the singular. It annoys me.

Anyway: "scholarly caster" really doesn't have to mean "kills everything ever because he's near-omnipotent at mid-levels". Include a few lore-like features, a bit more knowledge-type (divination) magic, a few things that say "academic background" (I studied this spell for three semesters. Of course I'm good at it). It doesn't have to come out overpowered. Or just add a scholar track to the Tactician, Sage and/or Shaman.

Sage gets to use a small set of quite powerful abilities at will. That doesn't convey mastery? We don't do skill-tracks, generally, as part of classes. People must not think that this-class is THE class for skill monkeys and that it needs to be a skill-focused character. Rogue has a little bit in E. Radica, but that's really it.

If you want to play a lore-focused sage, there are items and feats that support this really well.

[Veyr]

The Sage (with Full Buy-in for Tactical Insight) that I've drawn up is extremely scholarly and has a lot of soft control and support "spells". He's definitely a mage character; he'll almost certainly never be making a weapon attack.

[Doc Roc]

The Sage (with Full Buy-in for Tactical Insight) that I've drawn up is extremely scholarly and has a lot of soft control and support "spells". He's definitely a mage character; he'll almost certainly never be making a weapon attack.

Could you post the build?

[Veyr]

No fluff yet, but sure, here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=48257). I know I've linked you to it before, you know, heh.

He's got multitudinous teleports, very solid blasting in the form of Black Tidings plus The Sky Empties (Swift to gather charge, Black Tidings for damage and free Teleport from With A Word, to discharge the damage from The Sky Empties), decent debuffing with Hungry Shadows and Stutter Step, great buffing and a bit of healing with the Tactical Insight and Force of Will options, and Spellbreaker and Reweave (I've been told) are good anti-mage and anti-anti-mage options (being a dispel and an un-dispel, respectively, from what I've heard).

My main worry is lack of Swift/Immediate action options: The Sky Empties is literally the only way I can use those until I get the higher-level Force of Will features.

[Claudius Maximus]

Since the new doc is delayed because we keep coming up with stuff to fix, I guess I'll just put this here for anyone who's been wondering:

Spellbreaker
Arcane Secret
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target\Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
As dispel magic, excepting that it is an Spell-Like Ability.

Reweave
Arcane Secret
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target\Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
You may restore one effect dispelled in the last two rounds

So they are decent anti-mage features, considering they're at-will.

[subject42]

Beta test want ad is up:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199095

[Doc Roc]

Added that to OP, will add a link to the actual OOC/IC thread.

[subject42]

Players have been acquired.

OOC thread is up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10991275#post10991275)

I'll be starting the In-Character thread on Tuesday, and with it, I'll start the game.

[Doc Roc]

Players have been acquired.

OOC thread is up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10991275#post10991275)

I'll be starting the In-Character thread on Tuesday, and with it, I'll start the game.

Awesome! Thank you again for this opportunity.

[Vortling]

I just reread the first post and it answered some of my questions. Here's the rest. I'm asking these under the assumption that Legend is trying to be a generic toolkit system as opposed to a genre system.

What range of power scales does Legend support? How gritty does it go? How epic does it go?

Is there a significant change in game play through the levels? How much difference would a group see in the encounters at level 5 as compared to level 10?

What makes classes in Legend special? If I decide to be class X, are there features granted by the class that no other class can obtain?

That's all for now. I may check in on some of the play tests to see how combat plays out.

[Doc Roc]

I just reread the first post and it answered some of my questions. Here's the rest. I'm asking these under the assumption that Legend is trying to be a generic toolkit system as opposed to a genre system.

What range of power scales does Legend support? How gritty does it go? How epic does it go?

Is there a significant change in game play through the levels? How much difference would a group see in the encounters at level 5 as compared to level 10?

What makes classes in Legend special? If I decide to be class X, are there features granted by the class that no other class can obtain?

That's all for now. I may check in on some of the play tests to see how combat plays out.

Best to think of it as "Tracks are unique" as only rogue and paladin have a track no one else can get easily. Most tracks have distinctions and special mechanics.

You'll see a slow rise of the Heroniumeter through the arc of play. Each of the seven circles represents a loose delineation of power, and tend to provide a good metric for judging the current power level.

We don't perfectly support gritty games yet, since we don't model money well. On the other hand, this means that you can have poor players who aren't gimped to the point of sitting outside the game system crying. We'll have an optional system for managing mundane wealth in a sensible if limited fashion, sometime either in Core or Expansion 1.

Likewise, until we release the [Legendary] type, there's a serious limit on how epic people can get. I'm not sitting on top of any examples at the moment, but perhaps it is best to think of Legend as a game that, in its normal modes, talks about people and heroes instead of heroes and demi-gods.