Archpaladin Zousha
2012-03-03, 07:34 PM
I recently came into possession of the Legends of Excalibur: Arthurian Adventures book, an attempt at a d20-based system based on the stories of King Arthur and his Knights, and I was curious as to what others thought of it.
I'm not a very good judge of game balance, I'm afraid, so I was wondering how well the game worked both as a version of D&D and on its own. From what I've read it does a very good job of incorporating the Arthurian mythos into the rules, with a wide variety of classes and eliminating some balance problems with the removal of unbalancing spellcasters (though Druids are still around).
To those who know of this, I just have to ask: Is Legends of Excalibur good? Is it easier to run than, say, Pendragon? What are problems that one associates with 3.5 that the game avoids? What problems of its own does it have? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :smallsmile:
I'm not a very good judge of game balance, I'm afraid, so I was wondering how well the game worked both as a version of D&D and on its own. From what I've read it does a very good job of incorporating the Arthurian mythos into the rules, with a wide variety of classes and eliminating some balance problems with the removal of unbalancing spellcasters (though Druids are still around).
To those who know of this, I just have to ask: Is Legends of Excalibur good? Is it easier to run than, say, Pendragon? What are problems that one associates with 3.5 that the game avoids? What problems of its own does it have? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :smallsmile: