Legend 1.0: Finally Here! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Eldan

2013-06-18, 07:34 AM

Still don't really like it, and still can't really say why, beyond a few vague ideas. I'd rather see more unique abilities rather than just tracks, especially for monsters, that's one thing. And I still think the social system is too technical and complicated for what it needs to do, but that can just be thrown out for skill ckecks, so that's not much of a problem either. And I feel too many tracks go too far into the supernatural martial arts instead of either fully mundane or fully magical, two character archetypes I like. But then, you can build both, so that's not really the problem either...

There seems to be very little choice in what class features you get, as it seems to me there's barely anything in the entire book I'd actually want for a character. I've tried building interesting characters before and I always end up with the same problem. I look through the tracks, discard 3/4 as too combat focused then finally settle for one or two tracks that have an interesting ability or two somewhere burried in there and then I just get "other tracks" to fill stuff out. I'd really like a few more trickster-ish tracks that aren't so focused on killing things or helping allies kill things.

I'm confused, really. I don't like it and I can't say why.

I will say that the design looks a bit sterile to me. I liked 3.5's faux-parchment and pencil-sketch look, though that's just a small detail.

It also seems to still be lacking in fluff. Or not even relaly fluff, world-connectedness? Is that word?. Not just class descriptions and things like that, but fluffed rules. I remember that when I opened my first 3.0 books, the very first chapter (ability scores) had tables explaining what a certain value means. Strength X is as strong as an elephant. Intelligence Y is the world's greatest genius. This book talks about Combat modifiers, but I can't visualize what any of it means. I can only tell what a good or a bad number is by comparing different creatures and see which are above average. I do welcome that classes and races finally got fluff. It now feels as I'm actually reading a (slightly sterile) RPG book instead of an online summary of one. I would still welcome if single class abilities had a sentence or two of fluff beyond just an evocative name.

I'm also not a fan of automatically advancing everything. Like, speed bonus for everyone is just confusing to me. Why is a physically frail ninth level wizard a better runner than the level 1 rogue orphan?

Edit: Yeah, I think I found my problem. It's simply too focused on combat. And not even interesting combat. A lot more so than even third edition D&D (which I still like a lot). I read over it and after three pages my head just goes "Hit enemies, skip, hit enemies in different way, skip, hit, skip, skip, skip, skip, Ooh, arcane secrets! Wait, they hit enemies, skip, skip, skip" and that goes on until halfway into the feat chapter. 90% of which also concern hitting enemies. I mean, the combat chapter starts with " While
Legenddoes not have as strong an emphasis on killing things to take their stuff as some other RPGs, there are other reasons you may want to do so. " and when I read that, I had to laugh. While the skill and social rules are decent, they are a handful of pages out of hundreds and hundreds of pages covered in tons and tons and tons of ways of killing things. there seem to be no class abilities at all that help much with non-combat. Even that magic classes have perhaps one or two interesting spells, usually at level 1 or two, followed by endless amounts of boring energy blasts.

So, a very good system for people who like playing combat-focused characters. Which I am not. Feels to me as if the first about 180 pages of hte book could just be skipped.

Timeless Error

2013-06-18, 08:52 AM

Hooray for the release! It's been great to watch the game grow over the course of the past year and a half.

Mystify

2013-06-18, 08:57 AM

I've been following the development of 1.0 for a while, and its release makes me happy. The changes from the beta are great, with a much higher sense of balance employed. Many of the "meh" things are now awesome, and the overpowered options have been replaced with things that, somehow, are more balanced, and more awesome at the same time. For instance, discipline of the serpent went from "I'll attack a ton of times", to "I'll perform a dozen combat maneuvers each round and tie you into knots".
The beta was great, and it showed the potential of the system, especially the flexibility of the track system, but 1.0 is what makes it live up to that potential. The new content, like mounts, is also very fun and useful.

balistafreak

2013-06-18, 09:17 AM

So, a very good system for people who like playing combat-focused characters. Which I am not. Feels to me as if the first about 180 pages of hte book could just be skipped.

Given that one of Legend's design goals was to make every character able to contribute relatively equally in a combat situation, this is a pretty natural conclusion.

In order to make sure that characters don't accidentally end up nerfing themselves to uselessness in combat, they can't have very many class abilities, items, skills, etc. that don't contribute directly to combat, because these choices undermine this goal.

If you disagree with this design goal, that every player at the table should be combat-viable to the same degree, then of course Legend is going to feel weird to you. And given that you say you don't like playing combat-focused characters, I'd hazard that you're used to, or perhaps even prefer to play characters who aren't as useful and powerful in combat than the guy next to you - so your reaction is pretty natural.

Raineh Daze

2013-06-18, 09:18 AM

Looks good, but I wish I could get rid of the classes and just play around with the tracks. Stop tying options in little bundles. ;-;

Eldan

2013-06-18, 09:31 AM

Given that one of Legend's design goals was to make every character able to contribute relatively equally in a combat situation, this is a pretty natural conclusion.

In order to make sure that characters don't accidentally end up nerfing themselves to uselessness in combat, they can't have very many class abilities, items, skills, etc. that don't contribute directly to combat, because these choices undermine this goal.

If you disagree with this design goal, that every player at the table should be combat-viable to the same degree, then of course Legend is going to feel weird to you. And given that you say you don't like playing combat-focused characters, I'd hazard that you're used to, or perhaps even prefer to play characters who aren't as useful and powerful in combat than the guy next to you - so your reaction is pretty natural.

I don't have anything against players being able to contribute in combat. But I'd also like them to contribute out of combat. And from reading Legend, it just seems to me that all the options you have are combat options.

What I mean is this. Do I really need two dozen combat options on every character? Especially if half of them just seem to be Hit [Enemy] to [deal damage and cause minor effect]? Couldn't a character just have a list of combat abilities and also a list of fun noncombat abilities?

The game already has the track system, so this couldn't be that hard to implement, could it.. Between saving throws, combat bonus, skill points and combat tracks, it just feels to me as if you could easily add another category of "noncombat tracks". Every character gets two combat tracks and two noncombat tracks.

At least the spellcasting classes could have been given the option. Just a chance to take something like "Entice Gift" or "Silent Image" or "Stone Tell" instead of Energy Attack #4305.

Even in combat, there don't seem to be many interesting options. Mainly damage, buffing and healing. Very few debuffs and very few creative ones at that. I don't see very many interesting enchantments or illusions to distract enemies with. Few abilities to reshape the battlefield for tactical advantage. ALmost nothing to turn the enemy's resources against him.

Another thing I noticed. This game seems to focus too much on the big and flashy to my taste. Now, I like big and flashy. From time to time. But in this game, everything seems to be big and flashy and the end effect just seems to be one nonstop flash. Pulling out all the stops doesn't seem to be standing out anymore from the background. What was that quote from the Incredibles? When everyone is super, no one is? That seems to me to be a lot of this game.

And there aren't any of those small, flavourful abilities that all my favourite classes and races have, like, I don't know, just a +2 situational skill bonus.

FrustratedRocka

2013-06-18, 09:54 AM

Well it's about time!
Congrats to the dev team for putting together such a fantastic game. Looking forward to running the new version.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 10:43 AM

Looks good, but I wish I could get rid of the classes and just play around with the tracks. Stop tying options in little bundles. ;-;

You could always just, you know, ignore the classes. :smallwink: It's not a computer game, the only conformity enforcement is the person at the table who can be bribed with nachos.

Timeless Error

2013-06-18, 10:58 AM

Looks good, but I wish I could get rid of the classes and just play around with the tracks. Stop tying options in little bundles. ;-;
Here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,476.msg9849.html#msg9849)'s a post from the Legend forums about creating custom classes.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 10:59 AM

I don't have anything against players being able to contribute in combat. But I'd also like them to contribute out of combat. And from reading Legend, it just seems to me that all the options you have are combat options.
Skills are very useful to this end.

At least the spellcasting classes could have been given the option. Just a chance to take something like "Entice Gift" or "Silent Image" or "Stone Tell" instead of Energy Attack #4305.
Silent Image is in the game, as are many other strictly non-combat spells (Comprehend Languages, for instance).

And there aren't any of those small, flavourful abilities that all my favourite classes and races have, like, I don't know, just a +2 situational skill bonus.
I don't know about you, but "dwarves get a bonus to Engineering" feels more relevant and useful to me than "dwarves get a bonus to engineering when dealing with bearded stone items underground".

Eldan

2013-06-18, 11:19 AM

It's not about relevant. It's about flavourful. Sure, a general engineering bonus is nice to have in the game. An engineering bonus only on stone items that represent female dwarven beards that only applies when the dwarf is making a handstand underground with a blindfold on throws up an endless amount of worldbuilding questions and can biuld an entire adventure in itself. And it will be all the cooler when a player actually finds an application for that ingame.

And I didn't say there were no noncombat spells. I did see Silent Image on there. But, well, they are vastly outnumbered by samey combat spells.

Look at the shaman:

1: 6.5 combat vs. 2.5 non-combat. (Not sure what to count world-mind as. Let's call it more non-combat.
2: 7.5 combat vs. 0.5 non-combat. (Resist Elements is sort of half-half.)
3: 7 combat, 0 non-combat.
4: 9 combat, 1 non-combat, and Wind Walk is useful in combat too.
5: 7/0
6: 7/0
7: 5/1.

Of course, some spells can creatively used to fall in the other category. But still. This is just, well, a bit poor. The Tactician is a bit better, but not much.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 11:36 AM

And I didn't say there were no noncombat spells. I did see Silent Image on there.

No, what you said was
At least the spellcasting classes could have been given the option. Just a chance to take something like "Entice Gift" or "Silent Image" or "Stone Tell" instead of Energy Attack #4305.

The "chance to take something like Silent Image" exists and is called Silent Image. If you had known there was a Silent Image, that is not a statement you would have made.

Wind Walk is useful in combat too
Wind Walk takes a minute to cast, and while in it you can't take any actions except movement.

I strongly suggest you go over the spell list with more attention before criticizing it.

Mystify

2013-06-18, 11:41 AM

The Tactician is a bit better, but not much.
I've actually done a guide to using spellcasting without taking actions in combat. You can have almost every tactician spell you learn be of out of combat use - you end up being extremely utilitarian.

Raineh Daze

2013-06-18, 11:48 AM

You could always just, you know, ignore the classes. :smallwink: It's not a computer game, the only conformity enforcement is the person at the table who can be bribed with nachos.

Mm, it's just working out how to assign the stats stuff. Don't really liked the link forum post--it says no to the extra tracks but lets you freely pick KOM and KDM. Eh.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 11:58 AM

If you don't like classes, you can use the GM creature building rules (unlimited track substitutions, pick any type, pick any KAMs) as a shortcut way of getting rid of them.

Classes are essentially there as a framing tool to make sure that new players don't get lost in the track system, have thematic synergy between their abilities, and have those abilities cover a wide spectrum (offensive track, defensive track, other). At the point where you feel classes are restrictive, you're probably advanced enough as a player to ditch them.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 11:58 AM

Timeless Error

2013-06-18, 12:01 PM

Don't really liked the link forum post--it says no to the extra tracks
Ah, that particular part of the guide (I assume you're referring to where it says you can't pick Knight or Mechanist Savant) is out of date (it was written pre-1.0). In the Beta, Knight and Mechanist Savant required a feat to access - there would be nothing wrong with choosing them (or any other extra track, for that matter) for a custom chassis now.

Raineh Daze

2013-06-18, 12:04 PM

For some reason I get the general impression Legend would be good for a PBP. I'm not sure why. :smallconfused:

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 12:06 PM

For some reason I get the general impression Legend would be good for a PBP. I'm not sure why. :smallconfused:
Some of the dice counts do get a little ridiculous at the high levels, just like in 3.5 (Meteor Swarm? Better buy another pack of d6es) so a mechanized roller is definitely an asset.

Mystify

2013-06-18, 12:11 PM

It begins to feel more like theatre:

"Aaaaaand; scene over! You no longer suffer energy drain".
The scene/encounter system is just an abstraction of time. The drain doesn't go away because of a scene change, a scene change indicates enough time has passed that you have recovered. It saves a lot of bookkeeping and allows the system to handle a much wider range of situations without creating balance concerns.

As far as -2 attack being different from -2 strength, the fluff is mutable. -2 strength can pretty much only mean you are physically weakening them. -2 attack could mean you are weakening them, physically restraining their motions, distracting them, flustering them into fighting poorer, etc. What precisely it means can depend on the specific monster. The fluff of the monsters is likely mutable. You build the mechanics with tracks and feats, and then can describe the result however you see fit. Just because the mechanics and fluff are divorced doesn't mean you won't have fluff. Just because the system doesn't dictate what every ability means for your character doesn't mean its a random ability with no meaning.

Say I make a character with the sentient construct track and the earth elemental track. I could describe it as a classic rock golem, or I could describe the earth elemental powers as a combination of thickened armor, gravity engines, extendable arms, and other purely robotic abilities.

Nohwl

2013-06-18, 12:30 PM

Im with Eldan here. Everything feels so.....Sterile. Its VERY difficult to describe why. But hes right that I just can't feel exited over any of the combat options.

I guess the thing thats annoying is that everything is mainly based around basic plusses and does not get into the roots of the character.

Like as the closest example is no ability damage. When I take Int Damage I know that im getting dumber. When I take Charisma damage, Im loosing my soul. I can RP off of that and taking that damage is pretty Scary. When a Shadow stealth drains me I don't just go "Darn -2 to hit", I collapse on the floor under the weight of my own armor!

Saying "You get a -2 penalty to attack rolls" is not the same (In both RP and mechanically). It feels very gamey.

And all in all the system goes out of its way that "YOUR PLAYING A GAME! DON'T GET IMMERSED IN THE GAME!".

It makes everything feel choppy, and when it feels choppy I see the seems, and when I see the seems I loose my immersion.

It begins to feel more like theatre:

"Aaaaaand; scene over! You no longer suffer energy drain".

the problem with ability damage is that it is extremely hard to tell what kom/kdm is being used because of reflavoring and multiclassing,which are big parts of legend. so you either get lucky and hit something important and debuff the opponent, or you just targeted a stat that the opponent doesn't care about and wasted your turn.

about recovering from it at the end of a scene, it's basically the same thing in 3.5. in 3.5, you recover from ability damage at the rate of 1 point every day. ability damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged). in 3.5, if you take like 20 points of strength damage as a fighter and you have no way to recover from the ability damage, do you think you're really going to go out the next day and try to fight something, or are you going to rest until it goes away? i'm hit with that much ability damage and i'd just try to get the group to make camp for 20 days. you have restoration to remove it in 3.5, but you can remove it earlier in legend with spells too.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 12:48 PM

No, I actually like that part. It forces the player to make some tough decisions. Do I try and camp out here in the wilderness? But if someone tracks me down, I won't be able to defend myself well. And in those three weeks, so much could happen. But if I don't know if I can actually make it back to town to find a healer... but if I don't, someone else might get to my targest first...

That's exciting.

Person_Man

2013-06-18, 12:49 PM

Bravo to all involved. It's a huge accomplishment.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 01:01 PM

the problem with ability damage is that it is extremely hard to tell what kom/kdm is being used because of reflavoring and multiclassing,which are big parts of legend. so you either get lucky and hit something important and debuff the opponent, or you just targeted a stat that the opponent doesn't care about and wasted your turn.

EXACTLY. Which is what makes it fun! That means I have to STUDY beforehand on the opponent, and if it doesn't work then Im TERRIFIED that it didn't.

If EVERY of my attacks is effective then why not just spludge it down into one attack?

about recovering from it at the end of a scene, it's basically the same thing in 3.5. in 3.5, you recover from ability damage at the rate of 1 point every day.

Not really. Because it clearly defined that you needed uninterrupted rest, and pretty much described that as you recovering from a tough fight.

A thing that yells out "Action scene over!" just beats my immersion to death with a hammer.

if you take like 20 points of strength damage as a fighter and you have no way to recover from the ability damage, do you think you're really going to go out the next day and try to fight something, or are you going to rest until it goes away?

So if I don't fight something every day thats bad? Consequences and trouble are bad?

How is that bad. Thats exiting.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 01:08 PM

So if I don't fight something every day thats bad? Consequences and trouble are bad?
See, that's the thing, though.

Because Legend doesn't use real time, the time between [Scenes] is basically whatever you want it to be. If you have a heroic game, and the barbarian shrugs off a curse by flexing his muscles for an hour before kicking down the door to Demon City? That's a new [Scene]. If you have a gritty game, and the party spends a week stitching up their wounds before going back into the Cave of Despair? That's a new [Scene].

You're not obligated to fight something every day unless that's the sort of game you're playing.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 01:17 PM

But what if I actually want to play in that recovery time? What if I want to play as Sam McToughguy who got poisoned and lost the use one hand and his left leg last fight but still tries to make his way through the jungle with a branch as a crudge so he can be in town before the bad guys arrive, even if he has to beat twenty jungle mosters to death on the way?

That's scenes that happen while recovering. I like those.

Geigan

2013-06-18, 01:20 PM

Glad to finally get this to release so we can finally move on to new content. Osaka Street Stories, Monster Guide, and setting material that was promised are certainly going to keep us busy for quite awhile yet. Hope those who like the system stick around for upcoming content.

I can understand the complaint by some that the core book feels a bit "sterile", and there's a reason for that as far as the system goes. We've given what we can where possible to give a good general idea of the feel most of the content has, but we've kept most of the game free of integrated mechanics and fluff for the most part because we want to insure a clean base to work with for further material. No need to introduce setting or fluff baggage to the system that will make future content have to work around or ignore parts of what we intended. The game is meant to model high action, heroic fantasy gameplay and that's what it does for the most part, but we mean to expand on more genres and themes in future content (example: Hallow and other promised setting material). For now, the core system can feel a bit blank because beyond making sure the gameplay runs smooth, balanced, and in an understandable manner we expect playgroups to bring their own flavor to the experience.

For those that feel we aren't doing enough to grab you quite yet, all I can say is be patient as material designed for exactly that is in the works.

But what if I actually want to play in that recovery time? What if I want to play as Sam McToughguy who got poisoned and lost the use one hand and his left leg last fight but still tries to make his way through the jungle with a branch as a crudge so he can be in town before the bad guys arrive, even if he has to beat twenty jungle mosters to death on the way?

That's scenes that happen while recovering. I like those.

If there's still action happening then the [Scene] isn't over is it? :smallwink:

Mystify

2013-06-18, 01:21 PM

See, that's the thing, though.

Because Legend doesn't use real time, the time between [Scenes] is basically whatever you want it to be. If you have a heroic game, and the barbarian shrugs off a curse by flexing his muscles for an hour before kicking down the door to Demon City? That's a new [Scene]. If you have a gritty game, and the party spends a week stitching up their wounds before going back into the Cave of Despair? That's a new [Scene].

You're not obligated to fight something every day unless that's the sort of game you're playing.

This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about earlier, with Legend being able to handle a wide variety of situations. You can be fighting for your life, with battles every 5 minutes and nary a rest, for days on end, and legend will handle it just fine. You could only see battle once every year, and the system still works. You try those in 3.5, and you end up with a horrible mess of novaing and buffs that last for 20 encounters and running out of endurance. 3.5 dictates a basic rate of combat in real time, and deviations from that cause the system horrible issues, and it creates issues like the 15 minute adventuring day and people taking measures to force their abilities to reset and undermining the basis of rechargable resources. In Legend, the game doesn't dictate what the real-time speed of progression is. You can utilize whatever makes the most sense for what you are doing.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-18, 01:29 PM

Mystify

2013-06-18, 01:36 PM

I think the big issue that people were feeling with spells isn't that there are no out of combat spells, because there are. It's that there aren't any out of adventure spells. If you aren't going around killing things, you don't have a lot to do in Legend. For example, in Core D&D, you have things like Plant Growth and Awaken which let you do things that have an effect on the world around you. In Legend you just don't have the real ability to do anything now that you can use in 4 or 5 adventures.

I think those types of effects are best outside of the system. For instance, Legend has 0 rules on how to be a farmer. That does not mean you can't go out and plant some crops. You can befriend the local authorities, develop relationships with people, organize civil construction projects, whatever, and you don't need rules explaining how it all works. It isn't something you need a rigid system to do, you just need a GM to handle it naturally. If you want to do long-term magical things, work with your DM to use your arcana skill to develop cool stuff, or use your engineering skills to build something awesome, or whatever. The lack of a system doesn't mean you have no options, it means you have every option, as best suits your campaign.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 01:52 PM

Mystify

2013-06-18, 01:55 PM

YES! PERFECT, PERFECT!

The system is only designed for the stereotypical adventure!

Which is why it feels so sterile!

Why do you need a system for anything else? You need rules for determining who kills each other in a battle. You shouldn't need rules for free form roleplaying.

Rhynn

2013-06-18, 01:57 PM

Well, I was completely confused by the classes, for a start. No Fighter? Oh, it got folded into... Ranger? Huh. So why call Ranger "Ranger" if it's actually "basic warrior guy"? Why not "Warrior"? (I mean, Ranger used to a Fighter/"Warrior" subclass.)

The game feels even more clinical and mechanical than D&D 3.X, at least in the classes - I think Eldan said something along these lines? They just feel disconnected.

It seems like a refinement of some aspects of D&D 3.X, which is clearly what a lot of people want, but those are definitely the wrong aspects for me.

But what if I actually want to play in that recovery time? What if I want to play as Sam McToughguy who got poisoned and lost the use one hand and his left leg last fight but still tries to make his way through the jungle with a branch as a crudge so he can be in town before the bad guys arrive, even if he has to beat twenty jungle mosters to death on the way?

That's scenes that happen while recovering. I like those.

That's one of the things I like in HârnMaster. Okay, you're a great knight with all your combat Mastery Levels in the 100s (in a d100-based system), you own a full suit of mail and a superb sword... but what if you get attacked by an assassin while you're recovering from heavy injuries from your last big fight? Suddenly, a thug with a knife is a legitimate threat because you're not in your best fighting shape. Same goes for The Riddle of Steel.

I think it's pretty clear, though (even as a first-time reader) that Legend is a narrative game, not a simulationist game.

If there's still action happening then the [Scene] isn't over is it? :smallwink:

You'd have to really stretch the definiton of "scene" to say that the a battle and being attacked by a different enemy in your home 2 weeks later are the same "scene."

Why do you need a system for anything else? You need rules for determining who kills each other in a battle. You shouldn't need rules for free form roleplaying.

Games like ACKS and HârnMaster have rules for all sorts of things, like economy, and for good reason: those rules create interesting scenarios and adventures, and do it organically, without anyone pre-planning them or dedicing on them. There's plenty of reasons to have rules for other things, and claiming otherwise suggests, to me, very narrow experience in RPGs.

Turion

2013-06-18, 02:00 PM

YES! PERFECT, PERFECT!

The system is only designed for the stereotypical adventure!

Which is why it feels so sterile!

Uh... What?

Try taking a look at the first adventure module, Osaka Street Stories. (http://www.ruleofcool.com/osaka-street-stories-and-kickstarter/) it's anything but typical. Note that the ruleset it uses is slightly out of date, but the point stands. Fighting, investigations, rooftop chases, shapeshifting kitsune... Not exactly what I'd call stereotypical or sterile.

jindra34

2013-06-18, 02:00 PM

Why do you need a system for anything else? You need rules for determining who kills each other in a battle. You shouldn't need rules for free form roleplaying.

Because the minute you start putting down any rules you have already left the domain of FFRP.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 02:07 PM

Why do you need a system for anything else? You need rules for determining who kills each other in a battle. You shouldn't need rules for free form roleplaying.

Well thats not what Legends says, cause it does have all those skills for diplomacy and everything.

Don't backpedal. :smallannoyed:

The thing is, adventure can come from so many things.

My favorite "Adventure" progression, is Magical Merchant Empire.

Where you begin on a wagon selling and making magic items and trying to protect it from raiding Goblins. But the end game is where you square off against a rival empire on your floating Island factory where you send out your personally trained crew of Zombies wearing Dragon form armor against the Oponents Elite Ninja Crew.

But that can't be done with "Offscreen". Cause it feels fake. It feels like your in a Rollercoaster merely cruising through a story if you can't viscerally and detaildly influence the world. If my Zombie Dragon creations just exist as this smoke, and I know that if I try to touch them I will feel no crunch under-skin that allows my character to interact with them.

The alternative is of course that the GM has to crowbar the rules into the game and have to get a headache working over them and such. But why do that if the system can at least provide a basis for the GM to work OFF of.

Uh... What?

Try taking a look at the first adventure module, Osaka Street Stories. (http://www.ruleofcool.com/osaka-street-stories-and-kickstarter/) it's anything but typical. Note that the ruleset it uses is slightly out of date, but the point stands. Fighting, investigations, rooftop chases, shapeshifting kitsune... Not exactly what I'd call stereotypical or sterile.

That is indeed quite steryotypical. Your characters are just a different flavor of adventurer.

Mystify

2013-06-18, 02:09 PM

Games like ACKS and HârnMaster have rules for all sorts of things, like economy, and for good reason: those rules create interesting scenarios and adventures, and do it organically, without anyone pre-planning them or dedicing on them. There's plenty of reasons to have rules for other things, and claiming otherwise suggests, to me, very narrow experience in RPGs.
Claiming you need rules to create those things sounds like you lack the experience. I've ran many games which included such aspects, and they have been extremely successful. I've had people build up entire criminal organizations without a single sentence on how to do it, and I didn't plan a thing about it beforehand. On the other hand, I have seen systems with rules for such things fall apart because those rules were flawed and people were able to exploit them, and people were restricted from doing perfectly reasonable things because the rules were not adequate to handle it.
And if you really want a system for that type of thing, it should be easy enough to find one from someplace else.

Rhynn

2013-06-18, 02:14 PM

I think you've missed my point, Mystify.

If you e.g. don't have rules for recovering from injuries, you're not going to organically (without someone specifically deciding on it) get a situation where someone has to fight off enemies while still recovering from injuries.

Rules can create interesting situations in and of themselves, and when they do so organically, they're a surprise for everyone, including the GM, which makes running the game more fun for the GM - they get to be surprised by the situations, too.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 02:17 PM

I think the big issue that people were feeling with spells isn't that there are no out of combat spells, because there are. It's that there aren't any out of adventure spells. If you aren't going around killing things, you don't have a lot to do in Legend. For example, in Core D&D, you have things like Plant Growth and Awaken which let you do things that have an effect on the world around you. In Legend you just don't have the real ability to do anything now that you can use in 4 or 5 adventures.

Out of adventure. Thank you. I'll have to remember that term, it's perfect. There are no out of adventure abilities.

And it's not free form roleplaying. Why do I need rules for players to fight monsters, but no rules for players who want to build strongholds? Why are abilities that deal with adventuring detailed in the book, but not abilities that deal with the economy? What if I want an ability that has both combat applications and out of adventure applications?

The distinction feels weird to me. We play along happily for hours without ever using the rules, all totally freeform, but as soon as someone with a sword shows up to attack us, we have to dig out the legend books? At that point, why shouldn't we just handle the combat as freeform?

I like to either have rules for everything or nothing.

Rhynn

2013-06-18, 02:22 PM

And it's not free form roleplaying. Why do I need rules for players to fight monsters, but no rules for players who want to build strongholds? Why are abilities that deal with adventuring detailed in the book, but not abilities that deal with the economy? What if I want an ability that has both combat applications and out of adventure applications?

To be fair, that's because every RPG has to focus on something. D&D 3.X has basically no (decent) rules for economies. Compare to ACKS... compare to HârnManor... compare to BECM D&D, even.

I like rules for economies, because that's the groundwork on which realms and societies are built on - and those realms and societies are some of the most important things in a campaign. But that can all be handwaved if no one is interested in it anyway. Not making those rules means you're aiming for the audience that is not interested in them, or at least not bothered by their nonexistence.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 02:23 PM

The reason I think we are being so pushy in our intrusion into what was originally your celebration of the systems completion is because of the pushyness of Legend fans.

They announced 3e was "Fixed" rather then saying it was streamlined for a certain demographic.

In all honesty I would rather play 4e then Legends. Legends has a few minor retensions of 3e gameplay, but done the style of 4e but without the universal choices for everybody.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 02:24 PM

Ehh. Nobody said Legend appeals to all tastes. If I want to run a certain kind of game, I'll look for a system that matches that game.

What Legend does, it does well, and if what it does doesn't appeal to you - well, you paid nothing for it, so no harm, no foul. :smallsmile:

The reason I think we are being so pushy in our intrusion into what was originally your celebration of the systems completion is because of the pushyness of Legend fans.

So... you're retaliating against people for liking something and trying to share it? :smallconfused:

Eldan

2013-06-18, 02:25 PM

Hmm. Yeah, it actually feels quite close to 4E. The mechanics may in many ways be simplified 3E rules, but the feel it produces is very 4E, with its focus on adventurers adventuring and nothing else.

Edit: fair point, Afro, and I certainly agree. I think part of my insistence here is that lately, it feels that whenever a discussion starts up somewhere on the problems of 3E, someone feels as if they had to jump in and push Legend in my face.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 02:27 PM

Yes, Legend (note: singular, not plural) is a game, as the name would suggest, about larger than life characters doing larger than life things. I don't think anything in the book makes a claim to the contrary.

Geigan

2013-06-18, 02:29 PM

Out of adventure. Thank you. I'll have to remember that term, it's perfect. There are no out of adventure abilities.

These sorts of abilities are actually quite interesting to design, because they tend to shape the world they're put in and have a great impact on world-building and setting. At the moment most of the truly background shaping abilities are found among [Legendary] abilities, but I think you might see an expansion on this sort of concept once we start getting into setting and module design. The out of adventure concepts I think you're expecting tend to shape game worlds, and we are interested in exploring it a bit more now that we don't have to worry about nailing the system itself down to the point where it won't work in certain genres, settings, or games.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 02:30 PM

You can be larger than life in many ways. Inventing new technologies or spells. Creating new lifeforms. Building enormous marvels. Overthrowing a dynasty nonviolently. Derailing an entire economy.

Raineh Daze

2013-06-18, 02:34 PM

As it is right now, Legend is something I'd probably use for PBP where I don' want detailed out-of-combat restrictions, but do want a framework for character strengths and success/failure stuff. Also for people who don't do much mechanical roleplaying, and don't want to play Maid. :smallbiggrin:

jindra34

2013-06-18, 02:34 PM

You can be larger than life in many ways. Inventing new technologies or spells. Creating new lifeforms. Building enormous marvels. Overthrowing a dynasty nonviolently. Derailing an entire economy.

Those last two (or maybe three) really shouldn't have direct rules. Because they really are going to be made up of a multitude of lesser actions that, in all likely hood, are going to be more funny to play out than gloss over and combine. But at the very least each one of those SHOULD have some loose guidelines to follow on both sides.

Turion

2013-06-18, 02:35 PM

snip
That is indeed quite steryotypical. Your characters are just a different flavor of adventurer.

Okay. When I hear "stereotypical" in a TTRPG context, I think "walk into dungeon, kill things, obtain treasure." No out-of combat, no investigation, no "find the villain" puzzles, no social encounters, or anything of the kind. Maybe a few (binary) traps, depending on the DM. If this isn't what you meant, then I'll have to ask you to explain.

Also, how do you propose running a chase sequence in 3.5, for example? Because, that's something I've never seen rules for, and can't imagine how it would work without having completely binary win/loss conditions.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 02:37 PM

Also, an entirely different question, that was hinted at earlier, but not really brought up openly: class names.

Why is the Ranger called Ranger, if he doesn't seem to have any wilderness abilities? I mean, their fluff says they are rangers, but their abilities seem to say "Soldier" instead.

Rhynn

2013-06-18, 02:38 PM

Those last two (or maybe three) really shouldn't have direct rules. Because they really are going to be made up of a multitude of lesser actions that, in all likely hood, are going to be more funny to play out than gloss over and combine. But at the very least each one of those SHOULD have some loose guidelines to follow on both sides.

They shouldn't have a single rule, but they can certainly be accomplished by using rules. ACKS doesn't have one rule for economics, it has a set of well-thought-out, finely-calibrated, interacting rules for economy (from typical D&D adventurer stuff to magical research to establishing and managing domains to running a thieves' guild to mercantile ventures). The interplay and use of these rules can lead to a story of a character derailing an economy, or even peacefully taking over a domain.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 02:39 PM

Inventing new technologies or spells.
Nothing's stopping you from introducing homebrewed spells as an invention of the character.

Creating new lifeforms.
See above but with monsters.

Building enormous marvels.
Most games don't really last long enough for construction to be completed, so this is a niche case and not really relevant for the first book of a system.

Overthrowing a dynasty nonviolently.
Social skills and social skill games.

Derailing an entire economy.
Legend's abstraction level is above economy, so it doesn't have rules governing it. You want to break the economy, you can do it. Maybe someone objects, you have to conceal it from them (with skill checks), if they find out or you don't conceal it, they might try to convince you to back down (see remarks on overthrowing above) or solve things with violence, and then you fight.

It's really easy to say "yeah, that doesn't work", then sit down and look smug. But if you think in terms of "how can I make this work", then you'd be surprised how much you can do. Yes, Legend doesn't do everything. But it can work with more plots than "go to place and kill thing" if you give it the briefest of thoughts.

Scowling Dragon

2013-06-18, 02:39 PM

Prime32

2013-06-18, 02:44 PM

Out of adventure. Thank you. I'll have to remember that term, it's perfect. There are no out of adventure abilities.

And it's not free form roleplaying. Why do I need rules for players to fight monsters, but no rules for players who want to build strongholds? Why are abilities that deal with adventuring detailed in the book, but not abilities that deal with the economy? What if I want an ability that has both combat applications and out of adventure applications?I think you're jumping the gun a bit.

For a start, D&D Core has the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Most of D&D's out-of-combat stuff was in the DMG, with the PHB being relatively generic. Not only does Legend not have a DMG or MM equivalent (at least not yet; I know there's an MM coming out), but the fluff is deliberately more generic because it's intended for multiple settings, not just quasi-Tolkienian fantasy.

Sure, True Mage could include background info about how you're part of the Order of the White Tower etc., but the Order only exists in one setting. It's no good when everyone is flying around with robots and plasma rifles. If anything, that kind of fluff would lead many GMs to dismiss the track entirely in such a game.

Legend is the kind of game where you put that kind of thing in the setting books, and it wouldn't make sense to put it anywhere else. Basically there shouldn't be universal rules on building strongholds, because those dictate the tone of the campaign. If strongholds are appropriate for a setting, then rules could be written tailored for that setting; in Points of Light there would be a step for clearing out monsters, while in a space opera you might need to negotiate rights with the Galactic Council; in a setting where the PCs are some of the strongest guys around then you could get them pretty early on, while in a game where everyone can shoot lasers from their nostrils it's harder to earn the required fame.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 02:47 PM

These sorts of abilities are actually quite interesting to design, because they tend to shape the world they're put in and have a great impact on world-building and setting. At the moment most of the truly background shaping abilities are found among [Legendary] abilities, but I think you might see an expansion on this sort of concept once we start getting into setting and module design. The out of adventure concepts I think you're expecting tend to shape game worlds, and we are interested in exploring it a bit more now that we don't have to worry about nailing the system itself down to the point where it won't work in certain genres, settings, or games.

Ooh. I'm looking forward to that. That should be good.

And I've been asked to leave this thread, so I'll just stop here. Apparently, I was under a mistaken assumption of what Legend was about.

jindra34

2013-06-18, 02:49 PM

Fable Wright

2013-06-18, 02:51 PM

I think those types of effects are best outside of the system. For instance, Legend has 0 rules on how to be a farmer. That does not mean you can't go out and plant some crops. You can befriend the local authorities, develop relationships with people, organize civil construction projects, whatever, and you don't need rules explaining how it all works. It isn't something you need a rigid system to do, you just need a GM to handle it naturally. If you want to do long-term magical things, work with your DM to use your arcana skill to develop cool stuff, or use your engineering skills to build something awesome, or whatever. The lack of a system doesn't mean you have no options, it means you have every option, as best suits your campaign.
All the options is not what people are looking for. Something to encourage and validate options that allow people to interact with the scenery is.

I'll prefix this by saying that I like Legend. Really, it's got good options, subsystems for each track, keeps most or all of the possible builds relevant, and is generally put together well. However, I really wish there were more things that had the potential to be used out of combat. Things like Siege Walls and the various Mount items are among the most interesting options, though, because they allow you to explore and/or flesh out the world so much more than more combat stuff. Siege walls lets you make something permanent, or leave behind ruins as the mark of combat, and generally show that you had a big impact on the world. Mounts are interesting in the mental jumps you make to justify how the mount has suddenly acquired an upgrade, especially in low-tech high-fantasy worlds. The True Mage abilities like Eternity and Magna Mutatio, which can have a lasting effect on a world (namely, old Eternity cards for people to discover and hoard, or one of the few sources of new relic or artifact consumables, to be left in the kingdom's vault to be used by later heroes) are good for worldbuilding and plot hooks. Finding some way of adding fluff to features or lasting impact on the setting from basic effects, maybe in a PDF of optional rules or a preface at the beginning of settings like Hallow, would add a lot to Legend's appeal.

For example, making Iron Magi, in their fluff, have to make pacts with spirits of lightning, be it with a nature spirit or with the anthropomorphic incarnation of a city's power grid, and getting benefits and taboos, like D&D's Wu Jens, would be interesting. Being able to call in a favor 1/quest to create stormy conditions (a la Control Winds, minus the control part and the ability to make an eye) or the ability to cause an electronic device to malfunction 1/scene, allowing you to have cash shoot out of ATMs, free snacks from vending machines, or the ability to hotwire a car with no rolls, in exchange for having to make a journey at the end of every quest back to the nature spirit or having to take batteries like pills at the end of every encounter, would add immeasurable flavor to the class, be excellent for worldbuilding, and generally add to the immersion of the game. I'm not saying that it has to be in the core book, but again, some PDF with fluff-based options with mechanics attached for different settings would be very much welcome in the game.

Also, don't use the 'work with your DM' argument. You can do that in any system and eventually turn it into systemless roleplay. There's a reason that there's a system, and a corresponding reason why people want to have the ability to do stuff inside it.

EDIT: Ninja'd by about 2/3 of a page. I really hats onscreen keyboards. :smallsigh:

Prime32

2013-06-18, 02:52 PM

Except Prime32 there basicly an area in the rules that covers the DMG, and its still left uncovered. And again its not hard and fast 'you do this, roll this and then bam!' rules that we are discussing, its any covering of it at all. And what happens if you don't use a setting?Then you've got a toolbox system like FATE or Mutants & Masterminds. In the hands of a skilled GM, those have produced incredibly awesome campaigns.

Tvtyrant

2013-06-18, 02:53 PM

I do have that I hope someone comes along and makes a big directory of premade monsters. As a DM I often do not have time to make the 30+ monsters we will encounter in a day, especially since only half of those are going to be combat peoples. With this if my party decides to kill the local barkeep I would either have to premake every NPC or pause for a minute while I stat one.

Otherwise I think it looks wonderful. I love the idea that all monsters are based off classes as well as people, and you can play as any monster you run across.

Timeless Error

2013-06-18, 02:55 PM

Tvtyrant

2013-06-18, 02:57 PM

Fear not, the Monster Guide will cover all these needs and more.

Good, good.
http://cdn.niketalk.com/5/52/52f32f73_family-guy-bug-o.gif

It will be a while but I look forward to running a Legend game once I am done with my current E6 campaign.

Turion

2013-06-18, 03:00 PM

Adventurer is usually a guy not very well rooted into the world. He doesn't lead armies.

He goes into Dungeons/ Shady Buildings and Fights mooks until he gets Treasure/ The Artifact.

I would run a Running would be difficult but doable.

I would plan the area beforehand, and have the character run through the area using the standard combat rules.

Okay, now that's what's confusing me. The module I posted is primarily investigation. There is no dungeon. Most of the time, you're wandering around the town, trying to figure out who stole your macguffin. There is relatively little wading into shady buildings and killing mooks (most of the fights are ambushes), and there are a lot of social encounters (iirc, about half the module). The characters are supposed to be fairly well rooted; they run an okinayami shop in Osaka Street, and possibly have ties to the local yakuza. So, I don't get why you're saying it's stereotypical, as it really doesn't fit any of your listed criteria.

Also, the problem I have with chases in 3.5 is that they almost always boil down to "is one participant a spellcaster?" and "if not, who has the higher move speed?" Spellcaster wins by default (wall of force, forcecage, dimension door/teleport, etc), otherwise the faster character wins as there's simply no way to increase your speed above 4x move (aside from run, bleh, or spellcasting, previously discussed).

jindra34

2013-06-18, 03:04 PM

Then you've got a toolbox system like FATE or Mutants & Masterminds. In the hands of a skilled GM, those have produced incredibly awesome campaigns.

I do tend to play games closer to that end. But JUST because there are games that do that, doesn't mean a game shouldn't, nor does it make the game worse for doing so, or better for not doing so.

Razanir

2013-06-18, 03:08 PM

I'll start out by saying I like Legend. The track system is nice for preventing dead levels while not funneling players into "X at-will abilities at this level, Y per-encounter abilities at that level" like 4e did.

Do I wish there was a bit more out-of-combat stuff? Yes. Do I realize that it's a necessary concession? Also yes. It's just not possible to abstract a system like Legend does and actually have rules for building an economy or breaking a castle. And overall, that abstraction's nice. I'm thinking up builds for possible Iron Chef contests, and I find myself doing what Legend does– taking the abilities and refluffing them to suit my needs. So sure, for instance, a War Mind in 3.5 is a particular school of studious warriors. Do I care as much? Not really. What matters is that they provide a different way to build a studied warrior than just dipping into Warblade.

Honestly, a core rulebook shouldn't contain setting-specific information. I'm still a bit baffled as to why Wizards included the Red Wizard in the DMG.

And finally, there's certainly something to be said for a system that allows you to build a PC-legal Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot :biggrin:

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 03:10 PM

And finally, there's certainly something to be said for a system that allows you to build a PC-legal Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot :biggrin:

Pirate. That's what they dropped the ball on. I say we petition for a Pirate track.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 03:12 PM

It doesn't have to be setting specific. I totally agree that setting specific stuff doesn't belong there. But to name an example that was brought up earlier, stuff like Plant Growth isn't setting-specific. Well, unless your setting has no plants in it. But it allows for the characters to interact with the world outside of their adventures in a way that is still defined by rules. I think that's what Legend is missing right now to become a more universal system. (Or the third edition fix I've seen it praised as quite often.)

That said, if you count all that as setting specific, I'll just say that I'm really looking forward to your setting specific books. Osaka Streets was really quite a nice adventure.

FrustratedRocka

2013-06-18, 03:13 PM

I do have that I hope someone comes along and makes a big directory of premade monsters. As a DM I often do not have time to make the 30+ monsters we will encounter in a day, especially since only half of those are going to be combat peoples. With this if my party decides to kill the local barkeep I would either have to premake every NPC or pause for a minute while I stat one.

The book actually does have rules for mooks and emergency enemies, and they preface it with "These rules are used explicitly for the extremely rapid creation of monsters for simple encounters, throw-away additions to other encounters, and things like city guards attacking that you may simply not have planned for." It starts on page 226 if you want to give them a look.

Dumbledore lives

2013-06-18, 03:23 PM

Well I like the system, and remember running Osaka City Stories and having some fun, so I hope sometime within the next three months or so I'll be able to run a Legend one shot.

Razanir

2013-06-18, 03:23 PM

Pirate. That's what they dropped the ball on. I say we petition for a Pirate track.

They also don't have Zombies. Swashbuckler and Skeletal Warrior are close enough.

But yes. I figured out how to get a Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot using multiclassed Shaman hijinks. It's also possible to get all 4 elemental tracks and make Aang or Korra

FrustratedRocka

2013-06-18, 03:29 PM

They also don't have Zombies. Swashbuckler and Skeletal Warrior are close enough.

...they have Ghoul, Lich, Mummy, Skeleton, and Vampire. What more do you want?

Razanir

2013-06-18, 03:33 PM

...they have Ghoul, Lich, Mummy, Skeleton, and Vampire. What more do you want?

No, I'm fine with it. Again, I already use Ghoul and Skeleton to represent plain old zombies.

Mystify

2013-06-18, 03:34 PM

I think ghoul does a good job for your typical zombie.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 03:38 PM

Pirate. That's what they dropped the ball on. I say we petition for a Pirate track.
Is the Swashbuckler track not good enough for you, you scallywag?

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 03:55 PM

Is the Swashbuckler track not good enough for you, you scallywag?

D'yarr, it be lacking in references to popular media representations of piracy.

jindra34

2013-06-18, 03:57 PM

Do I wish there was a bit more out-of-combat stuff? Yes. Do I realize that it's a necessary concession? Also yes. It's just not possible to abstract a system like Legend does and actually have rules for building an economy or breaking a castle.

What exactly makes Legend an 'abstract' system? And why exactly does it being an 'abstract' system require concessions? Much less concessions that require leaving entire aspects of interactions with other entities and the world completely out of the rules?

Eldan

2013-06-18, 04:02 PM

Well, it seems Legend doesn't want to deal with those parts of campaigns, so it abstracts them, so to say.

I was made aware that I apparently sound too negative in here. (Well, that wasn't the term used).

I'll say this: I don't actually dislike Legend. I think it's deficient in many areas, but I think the areas it covers, it actually covers really well.

One othe,r though minor thing: it seems your writing style in the books is a bit, well, inconsistent sometimes. For most of the text, you stay relatively dry, expaining the rules. But then, you suddenly throw in strange jokes and references. Is that on purpose? It seems a bit jarring. The example that right now comes to mind is the Necromancer being described as listening to bad music.

Coidzor

2013-06-18, 04:03 PM

Raineh Daze

2013-06-18, 04:04 PM

What exactly makes Legend an 'abstract' system? And why exactly does it being an 'abstract' system require concessions? Much less concessions that require leaving entire aspects of interactions with other entities and the world completely out of the rules?

For a start, to avoid the ridiculous economic price inflation and inexplicable priceless artefact availability endemic to the 3.5 ruleset, there's no price for stuff, and you don't have to keep track of basic necessities. Hence, abstracted--economics simulation goes against that.

There's also a drive towards fluff-light abilities, so you can turn the available tracks into pretty much any concept that you want. Again, this means abstraction, because without that it gets spelled out explicitly.

The ability to cover lots of scenarios and genres comes at the cost of fiddly details, like economy. This way the game still works as planned in a wasteland.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 04:04 PM

What exactly makes Legend an 'abstract' system?

It abstracts things :smalltongue:. Rules aren't locked into trying to simulate a specific thing; instead, they're more relative. In D&D, for instance, I know that the average human's strength is in the 8-12 range, whereas an elephant is 30. If I have a giant robot mecha, therefore, I need to scale up its strength above 30 to simulate that paradigm. In Legend, we don't say "this is a baseline for humans" we say "this is a baseline average," so if your campaign is about being Gundams and fighter jets or pirates or ponies or eldritch abominations or what have you, the baseline average is always the same. You can use the system to model what you need, without havign to make comparisons to those things you don't.

Valixes

2013-06-18, 04:11 PM

Ahhhh. I remember back in the old days, when my first character was a Robot Dragon that was on fire.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 04:13 PM

D'yarr, it be lacking in references to popular media representations of piracy.
Time for lazy homebrew by mish-mashing existing circles!

Dread Pirate
C1-Cut of yer Jib: As Demon, except your natural weapon is a hook.
C2-Swing on the Rigging: As Vigilante.
C3-Sea Legs: As Discipline of the Dragon.
C4-Fly the Jolly Roger: As Path of Destruction.
C5-The Day You Almost Caught Me: As Battle's Tempering
C6-Keelhaul: As Celestial (Strike Senseless only)
C7-That Was Me Peg Heart: As Fortune's Friend.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 04:31 PM

The Day You Almost Caught Me

Now that's a reference. :smallbiggrin:

Eldan

2013-06-18, 04:33 PM

It abstracts things :smalltongue:. Rules aren't locked into trying to simulate a specific thing; instead, they're more relative. In D&D, for instance, I know that the average human's strength is in the 8-12 range, whereas an elephant is 30. If I have a giant robot mecha, therefore, I need to scale up its strength above 30 to simulate that paradigm. In Legend, we don't say "this is a baseline for humans" we say "this is a baseline average," so if your campaign is about being Gundams and fighter jets or pirates or ponies or eldritch abominations or what have you, the baseline average is always the same. You can use the system to model what you need, without havign to make comparisons to those things you don't.

Hm. I think it would help a lot if you spelled that out more clearly in the book. You should probably start with a longer introductory chapter, laying out these points. That would help a lot in understanding the tone of what comes later.

Also, it feels as if this book was very much intended for people who already know RPGs in general and D&D in particular. It's hard to describe, but it seems that while it describes the rules, it doesn't seem to explain much what the rules mean and how they translate into the game.

Morty

2013-06-18, 04:41 PM

I have to say, I still don't like the classes. They feel arbitrary and restrictive - even more so than those in 3.x D&D. Sure, we can mix and match Tracks, but it's less "we can" and more "we need to in order for a lot of concepts to be playable". I think it might have been better to drop the classes, let players build their characters from the tracks however they want, and make a few "archetypal" characters so that new players can have a reference or something they can just pick up. It's what point-based systems often do.

jindra34

2013-06-18, 04:46 PM

For a start, to avoid the ridiculous economic price inflation and inexplicable priceless artefact availability endemic to the 3.5 ruleset, there's no price for stuff, and you don't have to keep track of basic necessities. Hence, abstracted--economics simulation goes against that.So you didn't like how something ended up, and instead of trying to make it actually work out it was decided to remove it entirely? That is not abstraction in the least, its simply cutting stuff.

There's also a drive towards fluff-light abilities, so you can turn the available tracks into pretty much any concept that you want. Again, this means abstraction, because without that it gets spelled out explicitly.
And that is why you chose to give everything vivid and flavor filled names and descriptions, gave classes HARD themes in abilities and such?

The ability to cover lots of scenarios and genres comes at the cost of fiddly details, like economy. This way the game still works as planned in a wasteland.
Um... Really? Money is fiddly? And most games can handle 'away from civilization' quite fine. In fact its harder to handle in civilization than out of.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 04:48 PM

I have to say, I still don't like the classes.

They're there, as I understand, for people transitioning over to be able to pick up and run with. Guideline archetypes with clusters of complementary(-ish, I have issues with a few) tracks. As I said before, nobody's enforcing adherence to them except your DM, and possibly not even him or her. In the meantime, with... two? I'ma say two. Two exceptions, you can pretty much stick together anything you like by grabbing one track from your class, one from free multiclass, one from FBI and one from Guild Initiation. Or, of course, use Shaman and get all four tracks as whatever you like.

So you didn't like how something ended up, and instead of trying to make it actually work out it was decided to remove it entirely? That is not abstraction in the least, its simply cutting stuff.

jindra34, if you don't like the game, you don't like the game, but the economy reduction definitely qualifies as abstraction. It's not that wealth is a prohibited concept; it's just not something the game mandates that you track. You could choose to use it if that's your thing, but you don't even have to view magic items as magic items if you're running mechas in space, or ascetic martial arts masters.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 04:52 PM

May I make a suggestion?

It seems as if the class system was aimed at people transitioning over from other RPG systems. Are those your primary audience?

Because it feels to me as if a better way would be to simply list tracks, perhaps giving them a bit more general names and some fluff and description each, and then make a sub-chapter at the end, entitled something like "How to build traditional RPG archetypes in Legend", where you list a few suggestions of track groupings that represent classes people might be familiar with.

Morty

2013-06-18, 04:55 PM

Of course you can, which is my point. The classes are given far more prominence than they actually have. Since in practice you're going to put together your own character from the tracks... why not make it the basic assumption? As it is, it doesn't feel like the classes are treated as "guideline archetypes", but rather as the basic building block of your character, with multiclassing being an option.

Sure, it's mostly presentation. But presentation does matter.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 04:56 PM

All I can really say is that it hasn't been my experience with the game.

Zejety

2013-06-18, 05:01 PM

"How to build traditional RPG archetypes in Legend", where you list a few suggestions of track groupings that represent classes people might be familiar with.

I know you are talking about the actual rulebook and are probably not the person who'd need it but I created a thread for that purpose on the rule of cool forums a while ago:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,400.0.html

Eldan

2013-06-18, 05:53 PM

All I can really say is that it hasn't been my experience with the game.

But how many people have you played with who never played RPGs before?

I'm not sure what your target audience is. You make a few remarks towards new players, but overall, it seems that they aren't. A lot isn't explained from the most basic level

Something else just occured to me. You pointed out in this thread how your game is supposed to be generic, and I can see that with classes, how they can represent everything from mecha to gritty cops. That said, your write-up of races clashes with that quite a bit. They are called "human", "elf", etc. which, in most people's minds, will make them look like humanoids and make them operate at that level.

Flickerdart

2013-06-18, 05:58 PM

Something else just occured to me. You pointed out in this thread how your game is supposed to be generic, and I can see that with classes, how they can represent everything from mecha to gritty cops. That said, your write-up of races clashes with that quite a bit. They are called "human", "elf", etc. which, in most people's minds, will make them look like humanoids and make them operate at that level.
There are guidelines at the end of that chapter for making new races, and a number of racial tracks for robots, dragons, etc.

Eldan

2013-06-18, 06:35 PM

Absolutely. But that means that unlike classes, races don't seem very mutable.

Icewraith

2013-06-18, 07:10 PM

If a race is distinct and powerful enough to warrant extensive detail, make a track. Otherwise, pick or swap bonuses in line with the other races, or move things around to fit the fluff of your campaign.

afroakuma

2013-06-18, 08:15 PM

Make a track anyway. More tracks = good. >_>

RFLS

2013-06-18, 08:23 PM

Make a track anyway. More tracks = good. >_>

Pretty much this. My group fairly regularly will make a new track if we can't represent what we want with the ones on hand. That has gotten much rarer recently.

Timeless Error

2013-06-18, 09:24 PM

My group fairly regularly will make a new track if we can't represent what we want with the ones on hand.
If you'd be willing to share these, you should post them on the Legend homebrew board (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/board,9.0.html)! The Internet can always use more Legend homebrew.

Flickerdart

2013-06-19, 12:58 AM

Incidentally, if you feel like formatting your posts all fancy-like, the actual Legend document is set with Garamond for the body and Syntax for the headings (Trebuchet or Franklin Gothic are probably the closest "web-safe" fonts).

Doorhandle

2013-06-19, 05:25 AM

Time for lazy homebrew by mish-mashing existing circles!

Dread Pirate
C1-Cut of yer Jib: As Demon, except your natural weapon is a hook.
C2-Swing on the Rigging: As Vigilante.
C3-Sea Legs: As Discipline of the Dragon.
C4-Fly the Jolly Roger: As Path of Destruction.
C5-The Day You Almost Caught Me: As Battle's Tempering
C6-Keelhaul: As Celestial (Strike Senseless only)
C7-That Was Me Peg Heart: As Fortune's Friend.

...hold on, I think we're onto something here...

Morty

2013-06-19, 08:32 AM

I know you are talking about the actual rulebook and are probably not the person who'd need it but I created a thread for that purpose on the rule of cool forums a while ago:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,400.0.html

That's cool. But I think this sort of thing should be in the core book instead of Classes.

Geigan

2013-06-19, 09:00 AM

By the way, if anyone had feedback from having previously played the beta version of the Osaka Street Stories module I'd love to hear it while we're still working on updating the module to 1.0. Thoughts, feedback, criticisms from those who've run it or had it run for them? Never too late to listen if you've an opinion on it.

RFLS

2013-06-19, 09:14 AM

If you'd be willing to share these, you should post them on the Legend homebrew board (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/board,9.0.html)! The Internet can always use more Legend homebrew.

Yeah, definitely. They're currently all hand written, but I'll throw them up there when I get the chance.

Draz74

2013-06-19, 12:05 PM

Apparently there's a limit of how many posts you can multi-quote ...

Show Fighter is a'comin'. It's currently slated for editing, and now that the editors are done with 1.0, things should get rolling.
I've been using it in a LOT of characters, so I can't wait until it's finally official ...

Looks like there hasn't been THAT much new art, to be honest? Is that being saved for the Monster Manual?

The only pieces I've seemed on a glance where the Direwolf, Fire Tornado and icy rune traps (proud to say all of these were drawn by a friend of mine!).
There were a couple more, sketch-style, near the beginning. Page 12, page 25, etc. But less than I was expecting, yeah.

I don't have anything against players being able to contribute in combat. But I'd also like them to contribute out of combat. And from reading Legend, it just seems to me that all the options you have are combat options.
Tracks are basically combat abilities. If you want more noncombat abilities, look more to Feats and Magic Items and Legendary Abilities.

The latter being your best chance for out-of-adventure abilities, as the thread has named them.

And there aren't any of those small, flavourful abilities that all my favourite classes and races have, like, I don't know, just a +2 situational skill bonus.
You mean those annoying abilities that people usually forgot when they applied, because they came up so rarely? :smallannoyed:

I guess the thing thats annoying is that everything is mainly based around basic plusses and does not get into the roots of the character.

Like as the closest example is no ability damage.
Ugh, good riddance. :smallyuk: If situational +2 bonuses are annoying, ability damage is pretty much just a game-killer. "Oh boy, the wizard got hit with a Ray of Stupidity. Everyone else, go buy pizza while we re-adjust everything on the Wizard's character sheet. And rent a RedBox while you're out, in case someone else gets hit by another Ray next round."

It feels very gamey.

And all in all the system goes out of its way that "YOUR PLAYING A GAME! DON'T GET IMMERSED IN THE GAME!".
Yes, Legend is very gamey. And not ashamed of it, unlike some games.

And yes, this means it will never be my favorite system for "immersion" into the story. But that's ok. Not everyone loses a sense of "immersion" in gamey games, and not every RPG experience has to be focused on "immersion." Some can just be more about having fun being over-the-top awesome.

The scene/encounter system is just an abstraction of time.

Because Legend doesn't use real time, the time between [Scenes] is basically whatever you want it to be.
Btw, nothing stops the DM from defining a "Scene" as "one day, or the time between extended rests," like in D&D. It's just that if he wants to adjust the Scene to be longer or shorter, he doesn't have to make a houserule to do so.

I think the big issue that people were feeling with spells isn't that there are no out of combat spells, because there are. It's that there aren't any out of adventure spells. If you aren't going around killing things, you don't have a lot to do in Legend. For example, in Core D&D, you have things like Plant Growth and Awaken which let you do things that have an effect on the world around you. In Legend you just don't have the real ability to do anything now that you can use in 4 or 5 adventures.

I think those types of effects are best outside of the system. For instance, Legend has 0 rules on how to be a farmer. That does not mean you can't go out and plant some crops. You can befriend the local authorities, develop relationships with people, organize civil construction projects, whatever, and you don't need rules explaining how it all works. It isn't something you need a rigid system to do, you just need a GM to handle it naturally. If you want to do long-term magical things, work with your DM to use your arcana skill to develop cool stuff, or use your engineering skills to build something awesome, or whatever. The lack of a system doesn't mean you have no options, it means you have every option, as best suits your campaign.'
If Mystify's answer sounds like a cop-out ... yeah, it kind of is. Other than a couple Legendary abilities, Legend really just doesn't try to have rules for out-of-adventure abilities. You can splice in another RPG's rules, or just freeform it (and the crazy things that can be accomplished with Skills at high levels in Legend can provide a template for the freeform aspect). But if you were hoping this was going to be Legend's emphasis, yeah, you'll be disappointed.

Well, I was completely confused by the classes, for a start. No Fighter? Oh, it got folded into... Ranger? Huh. So why call Ranger "Ranger" if it's actually "basic warrior guy"? Why not "Warrior"? (I mean, Ranger used to a Fighter/"Warrior" subclass.)

Also, an entirely different question, that was hinted at earlier, but not really brought up openly: class names.

Why is the Ranger called Ranger, if he doesn't seem to have any wilderness abilities? I mean, their fluff says they are rangers, but their abilities seem to say "Soldier" instead.
Actually, I'd say Barbarian is closer than Ranger to "basic warrior guy." The easiest way to make a D&D-style "Fighter" is probably just to take a Barbarian, and multiclass out of Rage/Dervish in favor of Heroica or Knight.

But to answer the larger question ... Legend embraces re-fluffing as a basic assumption of the game. What the classes are called in the rules should matter even less than it does in D&D. Your Ranger is more than free to think of himself as a "warrior" or "soldier." Heck, I made a character that was the archetypical Elven patrol Ranger guarding the borders of his homeland ... and he was technically a Rogue. :smalltongue:

Although with an emphasis on archery, setting traps, and stealth in some of his track abilities, I don't think it's all that strange that the Ranger is named Ranger.

Ehh. Nobody said Legend appeals to all tastes. If I want to run a certain kind of game, I'll look for a system that matches that game.

What Legend does, it does well, and if what it does doesn't appeal to you - well, you paid nothing for it, so no harm, no foul. :smallsmile:
QFT.

Hmm. Yeah, it actually feels quite close to 4E. The mechanics may in many ways be simplified 3E rules, but the feel it produces is very 4E, with its focus on adventurers adventuring and nothing else.
Yeah, I've made this remark before. Due to how "gamey" its philosophy is, Legend actually feels a lot like a better 4e.

I do have that I hope someone comes along and makes a big directory of premade monsters. As a DM I often do not have time to make the 30+ monsters we will encounter in a day, especially since only half of those are going to be combat peoples. With this if my party decides to kill the local barkeep I would either have to premake every NPC or pause for a minute while I stat one.

Otherwise I think it looks wonderful. I love the idea that all monsters are based off classes as well as people, and you can play as any monster you run across.

Fear not, the Monster Guide will cover all these needs and more.
Also, don't miss the Mook rules. Until the Monster Guide is out, the Mook rules are the means to generate monsters on the fly.

I'll say this: I don't actually dislike Legend. I think it's deficient in many areas, but I think the areas it covers, it actually covers really well.
QFT.

One othe,r though minor thing: it seems your writing style in the books is a bit, well, inconsistent sometimes. For most of the text, you stay relatively dry, expaining the rules. But then, you suddenly throw in strange jokes and references. Is that on purpose? It seems a bit jarring. The example that right now comes to mind is the Necromancer being described as listening to bad music.
I believe this is Jake Kurzer's legacy. He's a genius at game mechanics, but not great at writing clear and non-goofy rulesets. Most of his eccentric references and tangents have gotten gradually edited out of Legend by its more recent writers, but a few have survived the purges.

Time for lazy homebrew by mish-mashing existing circles!

Dread Pirate
C1-Cut of yer Jib: As Demon, except your natural weapon is a hook.
C2-Swing on the Rigging: As Vigilante.
C3-Sea Legs: As Discipline of the Dragon.
C4-Fly the Jolly Roger: As Path of Destruction.
C5-The Day You Almost Caught Me: As Battle's Tempering
C6-Keelhaul: As Celestial (Strike Senseless only)
C7-That Was Me Peg Heart: As Fortune's Friend.

Now that's a reference. :smallbiggrin:
Win.

That said, your write-up of races clashes with that quite a bit. They are called "human", "elf", etc. which, in most people's minds, will make them look like humanoids and make them operate at that level.
Again -- besides the custom race guidelines, Legend embraces Re-Fluffing. I've made a number of "human" characters that are mechanically Dwarves or Halflings. No problem.

Eldan

2013-06-19, 12:17 PM

I see the point about refluffing. But I also sort of feel as if Legend should open with a 36 point disclaimer saying "In this game, yo uare expected to refluff everything!"

Because that would help a lot in setting the expectations with which one goes into the game. I'm wondering, however. If the fluff is intended to be so mutable, why have it at all in the book? It seems to me that you could just as well have "Dextrous race", "Adaptable Race" and "Hardy Race" instead of "Elf", "Human" and "Dwarf", which are setting specific.

That's what I meant with my previous comment. Oftentimes, you are pretty vague in your descriptions and that's fine. But then, in some parts, you suddenly get specific again and it seems a bit inconsistent. The racial write-ups seem straight out of a, albeit relatively generic, high-fantasy setting book. They tell us that elves live in tree cities and details like that, which, well, may not apply to every game.

Razanir

2013-06-19, 12:19 PM

And yes, this means it will never be my favorite system for "immersion" into the story. But that's ok. Not everyone loses a sense of "immersion" in gamey games, and not every RPG experience has to be focused on "immersion." Some can just be more about having fun being over-the-top awesome.

Which I'm fine with, because I like grandiosity in my plots. You don't get larger-than-life heroes in most d20 games.

Yeah, I've made this remark before. Due to how "gamey" its philosophy is, Legend actually feels a lot like a better 4e.

The difference is that Legend fully accepts how gamey it is, but 4e tries to deny it. Also, I like tracks much better than 4e's system for powers

Again -- besides the custom race guidelines, Legend embraces Re-Fluffing. I've made a number of "human" characters that are mechanically Dwarves or Halflings. No problem.

Or on the other hand, I'll let my players pick any [Average] race and refluff them as humans. I have a plot twist in store that requires them to all be human :smallamused:

kharmakazy

2013-06-19, 02:13 PM

Just picked this up, read a bit of it and sent a link to every gamer I know.

This appears to be the best balanced system I've seen at first glance. The rules changes are like houserules that I feel like slapping myself for not thinking of myself. Everything appears to be written out very clearly and I enjoy that. The art is pretty great too.

Great stuff. I'm sitting down to read the whole thing now, and I already want to see more.

Just to Browse

2013-06-19, 02:28 PM

My only legit complaint is that you guys are keeping ability score modifiers (I hate those things) and that KOM/KDM aren't just baked into the leveling progression. Perhaps Legend 2e will have those? Till then I should be happy with this and DtD.:smallsmile:

Flickerdart

2013-06-19, 02:34 PM

afroakuma

2013-06-19, 02:35 PM

"In this game, yo uare expected to refluff everything!"

No, in this game you are welcomed to refluff everything. You're also perfectly welcome to take everything at face value.

I'm wondering, however. If the fluff is intended to be so mutable, why have it at all in the book? It seems to me that you could just as well have "Dextrous race", "Adaptable Race" and "Hardy Race" instead of "Elf", "Human" and "Dwarf", which are setting specific.

1) Some people rather like it. It's familiar, it's easy to refer to and relate to.
2) The races provided are examples, as far as I see. The game specifically provides outlines for how to make your own, and has the standard complement of tabletop fantasy faces as a quick rule of thumb.

What your main problem seems to be, near as I can tell, is that they cut out some of the Jake but not all of the Jake. Tonally, yes, that can be jarring (any Jake is jarring :smalltongue:) but I don't blame the editors and developers at all for missing things that they've probably come to gloss over as a given while hunting for serious issues that could compromise gameplay. They're not paid to do that; it's all volunteers.

Suddo

2013-06-19, 04:39 PM

So I hate to be that guy but you refer to Table 2-1 on page 25 in the Quick Start Guide when you mean to refer to Table 3-1.

Edit: Though the title of the table is correct.

Geigan

2013-06-19, 04:48 PM

So I hate to be that guy but you refer to Table 2-1 on page 25 in the Quick Start Guide when you mean to refer to Table 3-1.

Edit: Though the title of the table is correct.

Totally fine, and thanks for the heads up. Help collecting typos is always appreciated. Feel free to log any you find here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,20.195.html), on our forums.

Flickerdart

2013-06-19, 07:15 PM

So I hate to be that guy but you refer to Table 2-1 on page 25 in the Quick Start Guide when you mean to refer to Table 3-1.

Edit: Though the title of the table is correct.
No, please be that guy, it means we can fix things! :smallsmile:

Just to Browse

2013-06-19, 07:17 PM

Ability mods are still useful for a couple of things - a creature may have its pick of KAMs but skills and saving throws are more or less fixed. A creature built around Strength and Constitution will not have much luck with social skills and Will saves, for example.

But you can represent those with straight up numbers. Instead of having ability score arrays of 16,16,14,12... and converting those to mods, you can have 3,3,2,1... be the scores.

EDIT: Jake?

Flickerdart

2013-06-19, 07:19 PM

But you can represent those with straight up numbers. Instead of having ability score arrays of 16,16,14,12... and converting those to mods, you can have 3,3,2,1... be the scores.
But then how would people be able to roll for random ability scores?

afroakuma

2013-06-19, 07:38 PM

EDIT: Jake?

Jake was Legend's former design lead. He was replaced in a perfectly amicable process involving no decapitations or maniacal laughter whatsoever, and large sections were rewritten to remove elements of his style that were considered distracting or counter to the current version's needs.

Just to Browse

2013-06-20, 05:15 AM

Was this super-recent, like after February. I'm just surprised I had no idea till now. Especially since he's still listed as creative lead.

Star_Lord

2013-06-20, 06:11 AM

Wait a second, so you guys fired Doc Roc?

Eldan

2013-06-20, 06:39 AM

Draz74

2013-06-20, 09:44 AM

Wait a second, so you guys fired Doc Roc?

Nah, if I understand correctly, his bosses at his day job invoked some legalistic crap that restricted how much he could be involved with Legend anymore.

He's definitely still on friendly terms with the design team -- which means that they want to give him credit for getting Legend going even though he's been largely severed from the project. Hence keeping him as the "Creative Lead" credit.

flare'90

2013-06-20, 11:59 AM

I still find the need of something like a "Hallow Campaign Setting" or something similar, just to give an idea of a possible world for the game.

Flickerdart

2013-06-20, 12:30 PM

I still find the need of something like a "Hallow Campaign Setting" or something similar, just to give an idea of a possible world for the game.
There's a sneak peek (PDF) (http://http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Introduction-to-Hallow.pdf) in the extra content section.

afroakuma

2013-06-20, 12:50 PM

I still find the need of something like a "Hallow Campaign Setting" or something similar, just to give an idea of a possible world for the game.

Just about anything is a possible world for the game. I think there was even a homebrew Artificer thing for running Legend Eberron.

Geigan

2013-06-20, 12:58 PM

You know, I'm reading over it again. After hte discussion in tihs thread, I now find the system a lot easier to swallow after thinking of it as a basic rule system to build a game and setting around instead of a complete game. I mean, I would rewrite a lot of it to fit my own needs, but I'd say as a basic combat, skill and feat system, it should be pretty solid. Not that I'm a good judge of that, mind you, and I'd probably break it again in the process of rewriting it.

So, apologies if I came over as too harsh.

No offense taken. I can appreciate feedback, harsh or not. :smallsmile:

There's a sneak peek (PDF) (http://http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Introduction-to-Hallow.pdf) in the extra content section.

and more on the way! :smallwink:

Wait a second, so you guys fired Doc Roc?

As a result of a new choice of employment during development, Jacob Kurzer(aka DocRoc) was unable to continue work with us due to a non-compete clause in his new job's contract. We are appreciative of his contributions to the beginnings of the system, though he's not been involved with the game for awhile now. I believe his "official" statement that he could no longer continue was sometime in February on our kickstarter, though it was actually a bit earlier. I've never worked with him myself in my year or so as a developer, so I can't say much beyond that. I believe we plan to announce something on the subject going into more detail, but that's the gist of it for now.

For those worried about the gap this may leave on the team, no worries as the position has been filled. You can rest assured that we're still hard at work on future content for the Monster Guide and upcoming modules.

The Rose Dragon

2013-06-20, 01:00 PM

But then how would people be able to roll for random ability scores?

Fudge dice?

Morty

2013-06-20, 01:07 PM

I've been thinking about how I could get a few character concepts of mine to work in Legend. A light/medium-armoured warrior focusing on speed would probably be a Barbarian with the Path of the Dervish that swapped the Path of the Ancestors for Battle Hardening, using Dexterity rather than Strength as his KOM. A crossbow-using goblin spy would be a Rogue with the offensive track swapped for Reign of Arrows. Not sure what he'd swap Esoteria Radica for, though. The goblin part could be easily done by renaming the Halfling race as one.

So, better than I expected. I still think that the way the character creation process is described is backwards, though.

Draz74

2013-06-20, 01:14 PM

afroakuma

2013-06-20, 01:17 PM

Razanir

2013-06-20, 01:29 PM

Fudge dice?

5dFb4 (http://anydice.com/program/24cc) would work fairly well

Morty

2013-06-20, 01:40 PM

Those would both work. Esoterica Radica can't actually be swapped, but I don't see why it would be discongruous with a goblin crossbow-firing spy anyway. (If it is, then you'd better use Ranger as your base instead.)

ER doesn't swap; it wouldn't be bad for a spy to have at all, though. And yeah, the character-building could definitely use a cleanup.

I don't really like Esoteria Radica, because I don't like luck-based abilities. Then again, I could just as easily describe them as a result of competence rather than luck. I could go either way, I suppose.

And I guess that the light-armored quick warrior could take Acrobatic Adept instead of Battle Hardening if I wanted to emphasize crazy feats of athletics. Or instead of Path of Destruction, but that might be sacrificing offence for defence a bit too much.

The Rose Dragon

2013-06-20, 02:35 PM

5dFb4 (http://anydice.com/program/24cc) would work fairly well

The second distribution in that link seems to round down all the results, so a 9 gives a 0, and all negative modifiers resulting from an odd score are similarly affected, so the actual modifier distribution would be slightly different.

Razanir

2013-06-20, 02:52 PM

The second distribution in that link seems to round down all the results, so a 9 gives a 0, and all negative modifiers resulting from an odd score are similarly affected, so the actual modifier distribution would be slightly different.

Still, the distributions look similar enough. Also, I fixed the second distribution: link (http://anydice.com/program/24cf)

Raineh Daze

2013-06-20, 03:15 PM

Still, the distributions look similar enough. Also, I fixed the second distribution: link (http://anydice.com/program/24cf)

I'd rather have the 4d6, honestly.

Flickerdart

2013-06-20, 03:16 PM

In case anyone isn't religiously checking the front page, we have new character sheets (http://www.ruleofcool.com/new-character-sheets/), both a print and an interactive version.

Razanir

2013-06-20, 04:33 PM

I'd rather have the 4d6, honestly.

Same here white text

Just to Browse

2013-06-20, 06:41 PM

autocomplete is failing for me...

I've really just given up on anything other than point-buy and ability arrays for attributes. Probably because my stat re-rolls tend to be terrible.

Icewraith

2013-06-20, 07:23 PM

Roll up seven sets of stats using 4d6 drop worst seven times.
Arrange each new set of seven so it forms a 7x7 matrix.
Pick the row, column, or diagonal that you and your DM can agree on.

(Some really bad or really good sets of rolls will cause party conflict if your stat totals are clearly superior or inferior, and will just cause stat inflation of your DM's monsters to compensate. Unless the entire party looks like that, and you happen to get a streak like that, and it's that sort of campaign, don't pick that row or column with all 18s. Although if you get such an allocation, consider playing a really MAD class like a monk.)

Depending on how organic you want your characters, you might assign these scores by dropping the lowest and swapping any two and then applying them in order. Or you can just drop one score (usually the lowest) and arrange the scores as if you had rolled them normally.

It's a little bit more work, but it usually guarantees you a stat allocation that doesn't kill your character concept before it begins play.

afroakuma

2013-06-21, 12:02 AM

Heh, I tried that and got absurdly nice stats.

Drelua

2013-06-21, 02:26 AM

Heh, I tried that and got absurdly nice stats.

Really? My best set was 17, 16, 15, 14, 10, 9. Equal to 40 point buy, but a bit badly distributed unless you're a paladin or something I guess. Is it bad that out of a total of 49 rolls I got 2 16s, 1 17 and no 18s? Plenty of 15s, though...

Also, just wanna say, I love this system and I really hope I can convince my group to play it. They're really bad with rules though, so they might just not want to learn a new system, similar though it is.

Eldan

2013-06-21, 05:33 AM

I have a stat rolling method I'm pretty happy with.

Everyone rolls an array, by whatever method you want. I use 4d6b3, reroll if you don't have at least one 14 or a sum of stat modifiers of less than +2.

Then everyone chooses from between the stat arrays rolled by all the players. That way, everyone has the same chance to go high.

So, if player one rolls 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, player two rolls 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 16 and player three rolls 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, then the rogue and the bard can both take the second array while the sorcerer can grab the third because he needs an eighteen.

And honestly, I like having a stat of around 7 or so on my characters. I don't want to start out far above average in everything, I like having a slight weakness.

afroakuma

2013-06-21, 12:04 PM

Has anyone tried Runesong Scholar in play yet?

Zejety

2013-06-21, 05:40 PM

Has anyone tried Runesong Scholar in play yet?

Scholar has been changed? I really have to give 1.0 a thorrough read-through this weekend!
Always loved the fluff of that track.

Doorhandle

2013-06-21, 07:37 PM

Scholar has been changed? I really have to give 1.0 a thorrough read-through this weekend!
Always loved the fluff of that track.

I think that track has remained unchanged but I LOVE what they've done with Iron magi. Same with acrobatic adept and sentient construct.

Flickerdart

2013-06-21, 08:09 PM

Runesong has a couple of minor changes - the 1/encounter/target limit for abilities was removed from many abilities in favour of tightened restrictions on Know Truename. A couple of higher-circle abilities were also tweaked to be more in accordance with 1.0 rules.

Just to Browse

2013-06-21, 08:45 PM

Yes Truenames Are At Will. I Will Be Powerful Unto The Gods Wahahah

EDIT: That should be in all caps but I think my phone hates me.

Draz74

2013-06-22, 09:58 AM

Uh ... I can't access the Legend forum this morning. Is it just me, or is it a short-term maintenance thing, or did the sudden increase in activity there prompt someone to hack it?

afroakuma

2013-06-22, 10:22 AM

Site looks down to me too.

Flickerdart

2013-06-22, 11:54 AM

I just checked it, and it works. Give it another shot.

afroakuma

2013-06-22, 12:58 PM

Yay! It's back up! :smallsmile:

Alienist

2013-06-23, 07:05 AM

Ooh. I'm looking forward to that. That should be good.

And I've been asked to leave this thread, so I'll just stop here. Apparently, I was under a mistaken assumption of what Legend was about.

Legend suffers from small-fanbase syndrome AKA circling the wagons. It's a shame that any criticism is treated as an attack, because it severely limits the ability of the system to get better.

Pathfinder has a similar problem. Mechanically it's obviously better than 3.5 in a lot of ways (examples: spending your skill points is much less of a PITA in Pathfinder than 3.5). But the last time I went to a tournament 95% of the players were nasty and/or socially backwards. You could try making suggestions on the paizo boards about how to improve things and fix the problems they still have, but you'll get flamewarred into oblivion by the faithful.

Not sure what will happen now that 1.0 is out, there was a lot of "you can't talk about the game on the boards for talking about the game because there's a new version coming out soon." - Which I thought was a short sighted approach. For a small game trying to get bigger, you want to encourage discussion, not come down on it like a ton of bricks.

I am currently running a Legend game, wish I'd seen this thread a little earlier, last session I spent a lot of time wondering why if there were 20+ class powers that referenced grappling why there were no rules for grappling. That, and wishing that search ran faster on my (old) iPad.

For clarification: searchable rules is a damn fine thing to have.

I like the "social challenge" aspect of the game. (The poker chips)

Just from a quick scan through the rules I can see they've tried to spice things up a bit in terms of combat options (I was looking at that because I went to grappling first), but I can't see why anybody would ever bother doing a basic attack. Every attack should be a trip or a disarm, since there's no drawback. Based on my rough guesstimate, people shouldn't be power attacking when facing level equivalent foes (perhaps it's only there as an option for Elites and Solos (to borrow an idea from 4th ed))?

With the previous version looking at the skills it seemed that they were a bit odd in the same vein. Every move should be a tumble, (to avoid opportunity attacks) and you should also roll vigour - even if you're not trained in it, because there's still a chance you'll get some free temp HP.

And there didn't seem to be any reason to take any other skill in combat. Hopefully they've changed this in 1.0 to make other skills more interesting during the 'tactical boardgame' side of things. (And before anyone says "Ahha!", please note that 3rd and 4th ed both have that rpg/boardgame duality going on (and no, fifth edition isn't going to get away from that even 'without the miniatures focus', miniatures are a symptom, not a cause))

For me as a DM one of the initial appeals was "you can customise every monster!" Huzzah!

In actual practice it's more like "OMG you HAVE to customise every monster." Which blows goats.

It's a huge time sink. I remember trying to show someone how to apply (in 3.5 or PF) how to apply the skeleton template to a giant. It was a huge PITA and involved lots of paperwork.

Legend is like that, only 10x worse, and you have to do it for every single monster. **facepalm**

What I ended up doing was throwing level N+2 mooks (which are just the basic stats (to the point where they don't even have ability scores)) at the players (for low values of N) for a tough (but skewed in the player's favour) fight, and using swarms (mobs/myriads) a lot, because they were the only pre-gened monsters.

For emulating classic D&D monsters:
Black Pudding: yes (just use a high level myriad)
Black Dragon: yes, but it will be a lot of work (*exactly* as much work as creating a character from scratch, up to and including agonising over things like feat selection)
Beholder: nope, epic fail.

For variety I've been taking mooks and adding a single track to them.

For the next session I'm looking at a potential combat involving the players plus another dozen NPCs (two battling factions, the players can choose which faction to support, or to run away).

Now, if the players run away, I am a kind and generous DM and will allow that. But roughly 20+ hours of effort is going to go down the toilet at that point.

The faithful of course will tell me that I am 'wrong!', that it only takes 20 minutes, not 20 hours, but they're delusional.

I have no doubt that once you've memorised the entire system it gets easier. Of course it does, that's trivially true. But I still think it's a huge amount of work. And it's work that is hard to recycle. Let's say the players gain three levels, and then I manage to swap the number plates on the monsters and reuse them. Okay, I have to level them up. Great, that's easily at least as much work as levelling up a PC in 3.5 (probably more so, it seems like just about every number on the sheet is going to change (even things like reach and move speed which you could have ignored in 3.5)). Each of them will have learned three new powers (actually four, since I'm going the 'no magic items' route for the NPCs for 'simplicity') (and even that is borked, because (from memory) when they hit level 6 they get a minor magic item, which will probably be a +stats item, which changes their KOM or KDM which means recalculating 75% of their sheet)

Tactically, I'm concerned that it's going to be a mega-nightmare, since there will be literally at least a hundred different powers in play every round. (NB: this is _low_ level play, for higher levels there will be a lot more, and that's just a six a side combat + PCs)

4th ed handles this burden by giving each monster only 2-3 abilities. There's no depth, but you can actually resolve the combat in real time.

PS: to the guy complaining about the naming of Ranger - it has multiple meanings, and the Legend one is clearly modelled after the modern idea of an "army ranger", not "smelly hobbit fancier"

Alienist

2013-06-23, 07:12 AM

Totally fine, and thanks for the heads up. Help collecting typos is always appreciated. Feel free to log any you find here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,20.195.html), on our forums.

To be clear, if you log more than one bug in quick succession you WILL receive nasty PMs from other forum members.

Edit to provide useful content: Lich has a typo, one of its potential racial bonus skills is Shafekeeper Adept, instead of Safekeeper Adept

(NB: it was fine in 0.97, so I'm not sure why it's changed, just one of those things I guess)

The Monk track Discipline of the Dragon swaps the circle 1 and 3 abilities, whereas the table is the same as it was previously (at least one of table and text must be wrong)

Alienist

2013-06-23, 07:28 AM

Fear not, the Monster Guide will cover all these needs and more.

It's going to be interesting to see how they tackle this challenge.

In 3.5 when we had a combat with a dozen monsters the DM would have the "frozen on loading screen" problem for up to an hour.

In Legend when we had an impending battle between 2 NPCs I delegated the task of creating them to one of the players not involved in the current talky-man roleplaying scene, it took 2+ hours to make two low level NPCs.

That was an arena battle/grudge match between a Githyanki and a Githzerai.

For the Githzerai, Monk is already there and relatively functional (as compared to the 3.5 version *cough* ), for the race I just hand-waved and used Elf.
For the Githyanki I used Skeletal Champion and Iron Magi (or maybe True Magi? I forget) for that Gish feeling.

----

As for rules on "out of encounter" stuff, I can already ad-lib. I don't need rules for that. :smalltongue:

PS Apologies for the multiple posts, I just thought I would offer some perspective based on actual play rather than speculation. :D :smallbiggrin:

Mystify

2013-06-23, 08:30 AM

Just from a quick scan through the rules I can see they've tried to spice things up a bit in terms of combat options (I was looking at that because I went to grappling first), but I can't see why anybody would ever bother doing a basic attack.

Every attack should be a trip or a disarm, since there's no drawback. Based on my rough guesstimate, people shouldn't be power attacking when facing level equivalent foes (perhaps it's only there as an option for Elites and Solos (to borrow an idea from 4th ed))?

below level 6, you are right, you should be using combat maneuvers. However, you lose your iterative attacks, since the combat maneuver is a single attack as a standard action, not your attack action. Some builds will find it undesirable at lower levels, since they may have abilities incompatible with it. This dynamic is intentional, as its meant to help give martial characters options at low levels, and by higher levels you should have enough abilities of your own that you don't need to rely on this. Some characters will gain abilities to use combat maneuvers alongside their full attack sequence, or to do multiple in a turn, while others will rarely ever resort to them as they progress in power.

With the previous version looking at the skills it seemed that they were a bit odd in the same vein. Every move should be a tumble, (to avoid opportunity attacks) and you should also roll vigour - even if you're not trained in it, because there's still a chance you'll get some free temp HP.

Rolling vigor is not free. It takes a partial move. This will, at the very least, half your movement speed, and also precludes you using any other partial move.

And there didn't seem to be any reason to take any other skill in combat.

There most certainly are.
Athletics grants movement speed increases, which are useful.
Larceny works with other abilities, both enhancing them(hiding ranger traps) or allowing them (deft strike)
Stealth is very useful in combat. The stealth rules are designed such that it is hard to stay stealthed for long in combat, but it can still offer a couple rounds of protection(they can't find you) and usefulness (make them flat footed)
Ride gives you access to mounts, which have a lot of combat applications
All knowledge skills are used for identification of enemies, which is very useful.
Arcana lets you identify magical effects
All of the social skills have an in combat use, which offers very relevant bonuses and penalties.

afroakuma

2013-06-23, 08:38 AM

With the previous version looking at the skills it seemed that they were a bit odd in the same vein. Every move should be a tumble, (to avoid opportunity attacks) and you should also roll vigour - even if you're not trained in it, because there's still a chance you'll get some free temp HP.

Taking partial move actions slows you. You're also going to want to explore what else you could do with those partial move actions. Vigor is not a universal must-have. It's just one of many nice things.

For me as a DM one of the initial appeals was "you can customise every monster!" Huzzah!

In actual practice it's more like "OMG you HAVE to customise every monster." Which blows goats.

Yup. :smallsigh: Been at their throats about this for over a year now.

The faithful of course will tell me that I am 'wrong!', that it only takes 20 minutes, not 20 hours, but they're delusional.

Nnnope, I'm going to tell you that you're straight-up correct. It does take 20 bloody hours and it's ridiculous and annoying and backward. This is Legend's epic fail - that it evolved from a PvP arena and treats everyone like a player, but then tries to apply itself to a PvM mindset. The DM has been dramatically, poisonously, cripplingly underserved by Legend, and they'd better take some serious steps to help out in that department.

Tactically, I'm concerned that it's going to be a mega-nightmare, since there will be literally at least a hundred different powers in play every round. (NB: this is _low_ level play, for higher levels there will be a lot more, and that's just a six a side combat + PCs)

This part at least gets quicker as you get familiar with things, and non-trivially so. That's not universal, of course; some tracks bog down with options that remain tactically relevant but aren't obvious gimmes when what you really need as a DM is an obvious gimme.

To be clear, if you log more than one bug in quick succession you WILL receive nasty PMs from other forum members.

Has that happened on the Legend forums? If so, send me a PM. That would be an issue. :smallconfused:

Razanir

2013-06-23, 09:04 AM

Taking partial move actions slows you. You're also going to want to explore what else you could do with those partial move actions. Vigor is not a universal must-have. It's just one of many nice things.

That said, I still enjoy taking Vigor even if just for the passives

Nnnope, I'm going to tell you that you're straight-up correct. It does take 20 bloody hours and it's ridiculous and annoying and backward. This is Legend's epic fail - that it evolved from a PvP arena and treats everyone like a player, but then tries to apply itself to a PvM mindset. The DM has been dramatically, poisonously, cripplingly underserved by Legend, and they'd better take some serious steps to help out in that department.

My campaign isn't starting until this fall, but here's what I'm doing that is expediting things so far

NPCs:
*Filler enemies? Mooks (experts at higher levels)
*More advanced enemies? Elites and experts (replace experts with aces at higher levels)
*Boss-types? Full-fledged characters
*Plot important? Full-fledged characters

Monsters:
*Full-fledged characters, most often with full buy-in

Traps:
Used where flavorful

Alienist

2013-06-23, 09:22 AM

below level 6, you are right, you should be using combat maneuvers. However, you lose your iterative attacks, since the combat maneuver is a single attack as a standard action, not your attack action. Some builds will find it undesirable at lower levels, since they may have abilities incompatible with it. This dynamic is intentional, as its meant to help give martial characters options at low levels, and by higher levels you should have enough abilities of your own that you don't need to rely on this. Some characters will gain abilities to use combat maneuvers alongside their full attack sequence, or to do multiple in a turn, while others will rarely ever resort to them as they progress in power.

Ah! I had missed that distinction. Thank you for the correction.

Rolling vigor is not free. It takes a partial move. This will, at the very least, half your movement speed, and also precludes you using any other partial move.

Thanks again. I have the feeling that I'd read the section on partial actions, but then forgotten about "as part of" having a special rules meaning.

That's the sort of thing I think needs work, since if you're just looking at the skills section and read that you can do it 'as part of a move action' the natural language interpretation is 'free anytime you spend a move action'.

Whereas if they used slightly different wording in the skill section, e.g. 'as a partial move action', then I would have immediately known that I needed to go look up partial actions.

'as part of a move action'
'as a partial move action'

Same number of characters, totally different implications.

There most certainly are.
Athletics grants movement speed increases, which are useful.
Larceny works with other abilities, both enhancing them(hiding ranger traps) or allowing them (deft strike)
Stealth is very useful in combat. The stealth rules are designed such that it is hard to stay stealthed for long in combat, but it can still offer a couple rounds of protection(they can't find you) and usefulness (make them flat footed)
Ride gives you access to mounts, which have a lot of combat applications
All knowledge skills are used for identification of enemies, which is very useful.
Arcana lets you identify magical effects
All of the social skills have an in combat use, which offers very relevant bonuses and penalties.

Good list. They should make an FAQ for this sort of thing. :D

Eldan

2013-06-23, 11:46 AM

Mystify

2013-06-23, 12:05 PM

I'm wondering about this statement. Wouldn't it be better, from an options standpoint, if there was a trade-off of some kind, from level one? This way, you lose the option of the normal attack until level 6, since there's no point to it. Wouldn't it be better to, say, give a damage bonus or something to the normal attack so there's a point to it?

The point is to give martial characters interesting things to do, not to have them roll boring attacks all the time. You have numerous options available to you. You can charge, you can bull rush, you can trip, you can disarm, you can grapple, and you can only do one at a time. That is the trade off.
It also serves as an incentive to melee. Ranged attacks are quite potent, and so melee needs to have nice things like that to make it a viable option. Ranged characters get to attack at a distance, melee characters get to do combat maneuvers.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 12:06 PM

I'm wondering about this statement. Wouldn't it be better, from an options standpoint, if there was a trade-off of some kind, from level one? This way, you lose the option of the normal attack until level 6, since there's no point to it. Wouldn't it be better to, say, give a damage bonus or something to the normal attack so there's a point to it?

(Edit: Rogue defensive tracked!)

From a game design point of view it's a thin line to walk.
It's probably better to make everyone do tripping and disarming at low levels from a "gosh there's stuff I can do in combat!" point of view.

Whereas just doing attack roll + damage roll is simpler and makes the combat go faster, but may lead to complaints that combat is dull or 'just rolling dice'.

Compare with PFS play, where the optimum character is a strength race barbarian with a two handed weapon power attacking - often capable of taking out entire modules all by themselves ... for bonus points they complain loudly about how _everyone else_ is a munchkin. **twitch**

Alienist

2013-06-23, 12:17 PM

The point is to give martial characters interesting things to do, not to have them roll boring attacks all the time. You have numerous options available to you. You can charge, you can bull rush, you can trip, you can disarm, you can grapple, and you can only do one at a time. That is the trade off.
It also serves as an incentive to melee. Ranged attacks are quite potent, and so melee needs to have nice things like that to make it a viable option. Ranged characters get to attack at a distance, melee characters get to do combat maneuvers.

Here's a stupid question:

Say I'm a Lich with The Sun Grows Dim, My Shadow Grows Long and Lich's Wrath (Clutch of the Grave).

Sun grows dim: make weapons out of shadow
Shadow grows long: once per round turn a melee attack into a ranged attack
Lich's Wrath: add 1d4 damage per level [necrotic]

Can I do [close] ranged melee attacks which are also trips and disarms, as well as dealing an additional Nd4 damage (where N is my level?)

If I can't apply the Lich's Wrath damage (standard action exclusion?) can I do [close] ranged melee attacks which are also trips and disarms?

Mystify

2013-06-23, 12:22 PM

Here's a stupid question:

Say I'm a Lich with The Sun Grows Dim, My Shadow Grows Long and Lich's Wrath (Clutch of the Grave).

Sun grows dim: make weapons out of shadow
Shadow grows long: once per round turn a melee attack into a ranged attack
Lich's Wrath: add 1d4 damage per level [necrotic]

Can I do [close] ranged melee attacks which are also trips and disarms, as well as dealing an additional Nd4 damage (where N is my level?)

If I can't apply the Lich's Wrath damage (standard action exclusion?) can I do [close] ranged melee attacks which are also trips and disarms?
you can't do combat manuevers with lich's wraith as lich's wraith is its own option.

you could do combat maneuvers at range, or deliver the lich's wrath attack at range, just not both at once.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 01:12 PM

That said, I still enjoy taking Vigor even if just for the passives

My campaign isn't starting until this fall, but here's what I'm doing that is expediting things so far

NPCs:
*Filler enemies? Mooks (experts at higher levels)
*More advanced enemies? Elites and experts (replace experts with aces at higher levels)
*Boss-types? Full-fledged characters
*Plot important? Full-fledged characters

Monsters:
*Full-fledged characters, most often with full buy-in

Traps:
Used where flavorful

I made a spreadsheet, I haven't put saves in there yet and I'm already up to ~75 lines.

For giggles I plugged in the Dire Wolf from page 225. I can make all the numbers line up except hit points.* I calculate that it should have 75. (12 + KDM) x (Level + 1)
I have to assume it's wearing light armour though, otherwise I calculate the AC as 17 not 18.

To be honest I haven't even looked at traps yet. One has to eat an elephant a bite at a time, and you very quickly get sick of the taste of pachyderm.

*Edit: and it's melee range. I can't get it to 15 feet. 5ft (base) + 5ft (natural weapon with reach modifier) is the best I can do.

*sigh*

When I rolled a couple of NPCs by hand then put them into the spreadsheet I found I had made several errors, it's easy to overlook things.

Flickerdart

2013-06-23, 01:28 PM

Eldan

2013-06-23, 01:36 PM

The point is to give martial characters interesting things to do, not to have them roll boring attacks all the time. You have numerous options available to you. You can charge, you can bull rush, you can trip, you can disarm, you can grapple, and you can only do one at a time. That is the trade off.
It also serves as an incentive to melee. Ranged attacks are quite potent, and so melee needs to have nice things like that to make it a viable option. Ranged characters get to attack at a distance, melee characters get to do combat maneuvers.

Yes, I see that. But the point is: if everything is better than the basic attack, there is no point to ever using the basic attack. If a simple melee attack had some advantage of its own, then it would also be a viable option.

So, you would have more options.
So, isntead of
trip, grapple, disarm and bullrush
you'd have
trip, grapple, disarm, bullrush and attack.

And it also makes narrative sense. There's a point where you just want to bash someone's skull in as quickly as possible.

Zaq

2013-06-23, 01:38 PM

I haven't had a chance to play yet (I might be getting together a group to play an as-yet-undecided RPG later on, and I'm lobbying for either Legend or Better Angels), but I'm looking forward to it.

I have a feeling I'll be using Runesong Scholar on at least one character, so when I do (if we do decide on Legend), I'll let you know how it tuns out.

The downside is that I'm probably going to have to DM at least the first arc, and I suck at DMing (I used to think I was good. Then I had some actually good DMs. I no longer think I am good—plus, prep time is harder for me than it used to be), and Legend is less GM-friendly until the Monster Guide comes out.nso we'll see how that goes.

Flickerdart

2013-06-23, 01:39 PM

I have a feeling I'll be using Runesong Scholar on at least one character, so when I do (if we do decide on Legend), I'll let you know how it tuns out.

Truenamer guide got you raring for another go, eh? There's also the feat Words of Power you may consider.

Zaq

2013-06-23, 01:54 PM

Draz74

2013-06-23, 02:10 PM

That track is just baiting me, and you know it. I think you could make a reasonable Truenamer/Runepriest with Rogue (for good BAB, six skills, and flexible KOM/KDM), swap for Runesong and Tactical Insight, then FBI for something offensive to do with your standard actions (possibly Smiting with Dartmuth Secret to make it INT-based). ER is a solid track anyway (take 10 on Geography + Savvy Librarian = easy mode for Tactical Insight, and an extra swift is golden on Runesong), and then you can set your KOM to INT just because. I guess you could go Demo Man and save yourself Guild Initiation, but I don't see a 'Namer as a bomb-chucker, so this is more fun to me.
Hmmm, my instinct says Smiting won't be the strongest option for your 4th track, on a build with no other attack-focused tracks. I mean, if you're already focused on ER/Runesong/Tact.In., it seems a shame to take the Full BAB version of Rogue rather than the "extra two trained skills" version of Rogue.

Tracks that can give you a solid offense regardless of BAB, based on your INT, requiring only Standard actions, include Necromancer, Elementalist, and Arcane Lore. Elementalist would be pretty tricky to re-fluff as an extension of the truenamer concept, but the other two should be doable.

But there's about a dozen characters I want to cobble together anyway, so that'll be fun. Maybe being the GM will be good for me, since I'll get to make them as NPCs.

Yup, until the Monster Guide comes out, an addiction to serial character creating is kinda a requirement for Legend GMs.

On another note, I came up with another truenamer-themed character concept (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,27.msg17467.html#msg17467) a while ago:

Judgment and Runesong Scholar are kind of creepy when you combine them. Add Smiting for a Miko-esque directness in means of dealing with "evildoers." Add in Dread Secret just to cement the creepy "I know everything about you" vibe. This makes a hopefully-memorable "holier than thou" antagonist.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 02:22 PM

The wolf was made when CON was still what governed HP. The value should be 75 and not 80. Please let us know if you see any more mistakes like that; we've been compiling a list and will release a fixed document (for people who use digital copies) plus an errata document (for people who have already printed theirs out).

Reach and AC? (For the wolf) (Is it wearing armour?)

Swapping the 1st and 3rd track circles in the monk dragon discipline in text but not table.

Shafekeeper Adept instead of Safekeeper Adept

Zaq

2013-06-23, 02:34 PM

Hmmm, my instinct says Smiting won't be the strongest option for your 4th track, on a build with no other attack-focused tracks. I mean, if you're already focused on ER/Runesong/Tact.In., it seems a shame to take the Full BAB version of Rogue rather than the "extra two trained skills" version of Rogue.

Tracks that can give you a solid offense regardless of BAB, based on your INT, requiring only Standard actions, include Necromancer, Elementalist, and Arcane Lore. Elementalist would be pretty tricky to re-fluff as an extension of the truenamer concept, but the other two should be doable.

Yup, until the Monster Guide comes out, an addiction to serial character creating is kinda a requirement for Legend GMs.

On another note, I came up with another truenamer-themed character concept (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,27.msg17467.html#msg17467) a while ago:

Hmm. Depending on your team, Force of Will might be even better. By the time Stitch In Time is a swift, you'd have an extra swift from ER anyway, and since TI is a partial move, you can mix in Healing Burst for the hell of it. Your offense will depend on your friends, but if you have folks who hit hard, it should work.

And I love your idea about Judgment + Runesong. That just might be an NPC.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 03:00 PM

I had an idea for an NPC, a noble who gets assassinated and then reincarnated as a Medusa, so he gets sent off to Droam to be a diplomat to the monster nation.

Now, handwaving aside the reincarnation stuff, how would one build something like a Medusa in Legend?

Obviously we're not going to be [petrifying] with our circle 1 abilities, but slowing? Or building up a cumulative penalty perhaps?

Suggestions welcome.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 03:30 PM

Dragon's Blood is list on table 13-3 (p323), but appears to be absent from the rest of the rules.

It was in 0.97

Draz74

2013-06-23, 04:05 PM

Hmm. Depending on your team, Force of Will might be even better. By the time Stitch In Time is a swift, you'd have an extra swift from ER anyway, and since TI is a partial move, you can mix in Healing Burst for the hell of it. Your offense will depend on your friends, but if you have folks who hit hard, it should work.
I like it. Force of Will is a classy track.

Now, handwaving aside the reincarnation stuff, how would one build something like a Medusa in Legend?

Obviously we're not going to be [petrifying] with our circle 1 abilities, but slowing? Or building up a cumulative penalty perhaps?
Yeah, I've wondered this too. Haven't come up with any perfect answer so far. I assume a fair amount of re-fluffing will be involved, regardless.

Combat Alchemist is one obvious direction to look, since it eventually gains petrification abilities. Before that, it could focus on various poisons that or otherwise inhibit targets' motion.

Maybe deliver these poisons through [S]Incantations (via an [Arcane] weapon), a ranged weapon that gets re-fluffed as a gaze attack?

Dragon's Blood is list on table 13-3 (p323), but appears to be absent from the rest of the rules.

Yeah, I think Dragon's Blood and Unhappy Juice were both judged to have too many potential balance issues, and were axed. I liked them. :smallfrown: Unhappy Juice needing to be removed from the Table was mentioned as a Typo on the Legend forums, but removing Dragon's Blood as well is a good call.

Turion

2013-06-23, 04:12 PM

Yeah, I've wondered this too. Haven't come up with any perfect answer so far. I assume a fair amount of re-fluffing will be involved, regardless.

Combat Alchemist is one obvious direction to look, since it eventually gains petrification abilities. Before that, it could focus on various poisons that [Slow] or otherwise inhibit targets' motion.

Maybe deliver these poisons through Incantations (via an [Arcane] weapon), re-fluffed as a gaze attack?

To be more precise, the only tracks in the core document that inflict [petrified] are Combat Alchemist and Tactician Spellcasting. I haven't checked any of the extras like wildborn or lurking terror yet, though.
Arcane Secrets or a Gun Fu edit: way of the gun monk might be the best way to inflict movement penalties at range, though.

Draz74

2013-06-23, 05:30 PM

Arcane Secrets or a Gun Fu edit: way of the gun monk might be the best way to inflict movement penalties at range, though.

Judgment radiates a constant aura of -20 speed. The rest of its Circles don't seem very medusa-ish, though.

Mystify

2013-06-23, 06:40 PM

if you enchant wildborn's natural weapon with throwing(there are a couple of ways to pull this off, the easist is to enchant them with sophisticated), then it can inflict slowed. Later circles can half movement speed with a perception check - you literally slow people down by looking at them.
air elementals can also slow people down at range. It would be easy enough to fluff gust as damage from a stare, considering its raw magic damage that automatically hits, with a movement speed penalty attached. As you progress in the track, you become able to do it stronger, do it with move actions, effect multiple people with it, etc. It won't get you petrified, but....

Turion

2013-06-23, 06:59 PM

Judgment radiates a constant aura of -20 speed. The rest of its Circles don't seem very medusa-ish, though.

Yeah, there are actually quite a few tracks that inflict move-speed penalties, such as air elemental (thanks, Mystify). Problem is, as noted, most of the other abilities they grant aren'tterribly medusaesque, and a number of them have a very restricted range. I noted those two specifically because they work beyond [melee] range, and they have other conditions to inflict that could be in line with a gaze attack.
The Baptized in Rage feat might also work, with a little refluffing.

afroakuma

2013-06-23, 07:33 PM

Baptized in Rage is a must for a medusa. :smallwink:

Flickerdart

2013-06-23, 08:14 PM

if you enchant wildborn's natural weapon with throwing(there are a couple of ways to pull this off, the easist is to enchant them with sophisticated), then it can inflict slowed.
This gives me the mental image of Medusa plucking the snakes from her head and chucking them at people.

Draz74

2013-06-23, 08:31 PM

This gives me the mental image of Medusa plucking the snakes from her head and chucking them at people.

Which means SOMEONE MUST PLAY THIS CHARACTER NOW.

Fable Wright

2013-06-23, 09:38 PM

For a Gorgon, I wound up using Necromancer with fluffing the death effects as turning people to stone permanently for the gaze attack, which would have a very short range at low levels. (Fluffing Chill Touch as focusing your glare on people, Crippling Aura to slow people as their legs turn to stone, all the fear effects to play off the Medusa terrifying people, etc.) Replacing the optional speak with dead, you permanently [Petrify] people you kill with a [Negative] ability.

Alienist

2013-06-23, 10:15 PM

Baptized in Rage is a must for a medusa. :smallwink:

Niiicceeee.

Here's a question. I noticed some of the racial bonus feats have level prerequisites which we're obviously unable to meet.

If I made a homebrew race, and gave them this as the bonus feat, would that make them OP by virtue of getting access to it 8 levels too early? Would it suck up all the points for race building? (I haven't looked at the new rules in depth yet, forgive me if the answer is obvious)

For a Gorgon, I wound up using Necromancer with fluffing the death effects as turning people to stone permanently for the gaze attack, which would have a very short range at low levels. (Fluffing Chill Touch as focusing your glare on people, Crippling Aura to slow people as their legs turn to stone, all the fear effects to play off the Medusa terrifying people, etc.) Replacing the optional speak with dead, you permanently [Petrify] people you kill with a [Negative] ability.

That'd probably work a lot better for me as a Gorgon than it does as a Necromancer!

On the gorgon theme, a quick search through the rules indicates that poison in general is pretty thin on the ground. Not sure if that is for added realism (e.g. something incredibly venomous bites you, you will drop dead some time in the next 2 hrs to 2 days ... doesn't really play well in a game measured in rounds). At the other extreme in 4th ed poison is just another kind of damage, exactly like all the rest.

I'm sure someone will mention combat alchemist again. It seems like that was a big grab bag of stuff that doesn't fit into the game anywhere else, which makes me dubious.

As an aside, petrify is a pretty nasty ability, in 4th ed they handled it much better than in 3rd ed (IMHO), in that it took multiple failed saves to get there, with progressively worse conditions, which against a PC is going to ratchet up the tension, instead of just doing the save or die thing, which is super duper uber lame.

Is there anything like that in Legend?

Flickerdart

2013-06-23, 10:23 PM

Is there anything like that in Legend?
You answered your own question - Combat Alchemist! :smallbiggrin:

The 6th circle of Serpent is kind of close to what you're after, too.

afroakuma

2013-06-23, 11:36 PM

Niiicceeee.

Here's a question. I noticed some of the racial bonus feats have level prerequisites which we're obviously unable to meet.

If I made a homebrew race, and gave them this as the bonus feat, would that make them OP by virtue of getting access to it 8 levels too early? Would it suck up all the points for race building? (I haven't looked at the new rules in depth yet, forgive me if the answer is obvious)

Basically: don't do that. It ends up being really OP at low levels. The rules indicate what level cap a racial bonus feat can bypass, and it's definitely not 9th (I thiiiink it's 3rd. Might be 6th, but I doubt it.)

Medusas are a big trouble spot because they're themed explicitly around action denial, which is a serious thing in a game. Much like monsters related to instant death, it's something that Legend has looked at and said "this is undesirable." At lower levels, it's best to emulate that sort of slow succumbing with move speed reducers and lower-end conditions that make it seem like you're fighting to move. [Shaken] isn't bad for that, nice stiff penalty.

Mystify

2013-06-23, 11:41 PM

Combat alchemist can make a really good poisoner, btw. It is a very versatile track.

Alienist

2013-06-24, 12:02 AM

Basically: don't do that. It ends up being really OP at low levels. The rules indicate what level cap a racial bonus feat can bypass, and it's definitely not 9th (I thiiiink it's 3rd. Might be 6th, but I doubt it.)

Medusas are a big trouble spot because they're themed explicitly around action denial, which is a serious thing in a game. Much like monsters related to instant death, it's something that Legend has looked at and said "this is undesirable." At lower levels, it's best to emulate that sort of slow succumbing with move speed reducers and lower-end conditions that make it seem like you're fighting to move. [Shaken] isn't bad for that, nice stiff penalty.

Weaponized (from Utter Brute) is 6, but to be honest it seems a bit weak for a level 6 feat.

Aramyth

2013-06-24, 12:23 AM

Can I be Naruto in this system? Naruto is the best anime ever, and is better than all others, as all others are little kiddy Japanese shows. Nobody likes those.

Draz74

2013-06-24, 02:40 AM

Here's a question. I noticed some of the racial bonus feats have level prerequisites which we're obviously unable to meet.

If I made a homebrew race, and gave them this as the bonus feat, would that make them OP by virtue of getting access to it 8 levels too early? Would it suck up all the points for race building? (I haven't looked at the new rules in depth yet, forgive me if the answer is obvious)

Basically: don't do that. It ends up being really OP at low levels. The rules indicate what level cap a racial bonus feat can bypass, and it's definitely not 9th (I thiiiink it's 3rd. Might be 6th, but I doubt it.)
The general guideline says 3rd, but there's lots of places that the non-homebrew Races violate that rule and go up to 6th-level feats. So the 3rd level thing is really just a cautious guideline.

I actually think you'd be fine with Baptized in Rage as a racial feat. But that's because IMO it's a really weak feat anyway, at Level 9. (3/Scene limit, a 1-Round duration of a mid-powered debuff, and allows a save. On the upside, good area of effect, only requires an immediate action.) It's a fairly strong feat at Level 1, but as long as the rest of the Race isn't especially optimal, I don't see the problem.

On the gorgon theme, a quick search through the rules indicates that poison in general is pretty thin on the ground. Not sure if that is for added realism (e.g. something incredibly venomous bites you, you will drop dead some time in the next 2 hrs to 2 days ... doesn't really play well in a game measured in rounds). At the other extreme in 4th ed poison is just another kind of damage, exactly like all the rest.
Re-fluffing is your friend, my friend.

Legend did away with poison because Legend is originally founded on 3e-like rules, and 3e poison (i.e. ability damage) was a bookkeeping nightmare that slowed the game to a crawl.

But if you want 4e-style poison ... that's essentially the [Burning] condition in Legend. So just refluff abilities that inflict [Burning] on a hit. (Flesheater weapon is probably your best bet, but there are many other possibilities, like True Mage C3 Symbol of Majesty.)

As an aside, petrify is a pretty nasty ability, in 4th ed they handled it much better than in 3rd ed (IMHO), in that it took multiple failed saves to get there, with progressively worse conditions, which against a PC is going to ratchet up the tension, instead of just doing the save or die thing, which is super duper uber lame.

Yeah, the Combat Alchemist abilities/Spells that inflict [Petrified] are based on several saves -- and also don't last very long, like 4e petrification.

Weaponized (from Utter Brute) is 6, but to be honest it seems a bit weak for a level 6 feat.
It seems weak for a feat at any level to me. Frankly I'm shocked that they didn't buff it up for 1.0.

(Even if you get it at Level 1, your KOM at that level is going to be what, +7 at Level 2 if you completely optimize it and are using the optional Point-Buy Rules? So that's a whopping +3.5 damage per attack over what you'd get, on average, from rolling a d6 normally.)

ShneekeyTheLost

2013-06-24, 03:46 AM

Legend is by no means perfect, I'll be the first to admit that, however I think a lot of the complaints are being aimed in the wrong direction.

Every time I hear complaints about immersion, I wonder what kind of GM they've been working with.

It's the GM's job to set the pace of the campaign, and the GM should take into consideration things like Scenes when pacing it out. If anything, this gives the GM enormous flexibility, and it is a direct counter to the 'fifteen minute adventuring day'.

Another thing I hear complaints about I am singing hosannas about... lack of an Economy. Look, WBL was one of the most ridiculous things ever invented as a means of limiting the power of a character. It was horribly complicated and very easy to break, with decided consequences. You could end up with characters having loot that they shouldn't be able to have at that point, which would throw off the calculations of a point-counting by-the-book GM because they shouldn't have it, yet by the rules they can.

In Legend, the magic item system is simple enough that you can't Powergame around it. You can't just 'lol archivist cohort' or 'infinite weath through Wall of Iron/Salt' past it. You are mechanically limited to the number of items and their relative power that your character can equip at any given time.

The lack of flavor is another strong point for a creative GM and Player because it permits the GM to write their own flavor. The reason it feels so 'sanitary' is because you are expected to be able to write your own character's story, and they try to stay out of your way so nothing they do will conflict with it while still maintaining game balance.

I'm in the process of writing a post-apocalyptic (in this case, a magical apocalypse) setting which is fairly GRIMDARK. I've actually pointed out several ways to mechanically do things that have been claimed to be 'impossible', including managing estates/castles/other property, owning and operating merchant caravan trade routes, diplomatic negotiations, and more.

I've created a Renown and Reputation system which affects social encounters. I've set up a Minion system which pretty much explains why you never really want to bring them along on an adventure (for starters... the highest level a Minion can be is 1/2 of your level. If they level higher than that, they go look for someone stronger to work for or decide to strike out on their own... and you lose MAJOR Renown for losing minions by treating them as disposable) but are still important (Minions are the people who look after your holdings while you go deal with Important Crisis #25). The Wealth system is still abstracted, but it does so in a slightly different manner. Wealth is important only inasmuch as Holdings require upkeep and maintenance, which costs. Some Holdings (when properly managed) can turn a profit. Others have different advantages (forts reduce the chances of raiding, farms are needed to feed the population, workshops build things that allow your Holdings to grow...).

All of that was homebrew... but it was homebrew I could make because there wasn't already a rules system in place for it yet.

The reason I absolutely LOVE writing a campaign setting for Legend is simple... I get to write my own fluff for everything, from races to classes and class tracks to feats to magic items. Immersion is something the Campaign Setting and the GM provide, not the rules system.

Fable Wright

2013-06-24, 04:11 AM

But if you want 4e-style poison ... that's essentially the [Burning] condition in Legend. So just refluff abilities that inflict [Burning] on a hit. (Flesheater weapon is probably your best bet, but there are many other possibilities, like True Mage C3 Symbol of Majesty.)

I'd say that the Lurking Terror's 3rd circle ability fits better there. [Bleeding] plus damage would fit better, as it has some lasting marks (the HP reduction) as well as immediate damage if left untreated. Also, the Lurking Terror would probably fit with the concept, as well. Fluff the Blights as the radius of the Gaze attack, and you have more movement penalties to simulate decreased movement, Sickened to represent increased symptoms, Bleeding as turning to stone, mix with necromancer (Enervating Strike could be the debilitating poison you're looking for), and you have a pretty decent and flavorful chassis. Mix with Assassin for higher damage on the gazes and Chiurgic Poet for movement and defense, and you have a pretty good Gorgon. (I would swap out the Gorgon racial feat with Lich's Wrath for Cause Fear as a final touch. Flatfoot people with Bluff and make them Shaken with your move action, have them bleed with blights, and hit them with one or more glares per turn with petrifying Chill Touch, Vampiric Touch, and Slay Living. Use Chiurgic Poet to slither around, recover from damage, and become increasingly hard to hit (and correspondingly less mobile, as you're using Dream of Hope less) and get a better Entangling effect than Baptized in Rage from The Heart Beckons.)

Regitnui

2013-06-24, 04:41 AM

What Legend needs is a NPC/Monster database that all GMs can contribute to. Say you've just spent two hours making a Necromancer/Sage, you can post it up and save somebody else the trouble. You need a Dragon Dervish who fights with claws? Take a look on the db.

Eldan

2013-06-24, 07:10 AM

Legend is by no means perfect, I'll be the first to admit that, however I think a lot of the complaints are being aimed in the wrong direction.

Every time I hear complaints about immersion, I wonder what kind of GM they've been working with.

It's the GM's job to set the pace of the campaign, and the GM should take into consideration things like Scenes when pacing it out. If anything, this gives the GM enormous flexibility, and it is a direct counter to the 'fifteen minute adventuring day'.

Another thing I hear complaints about I am singing hosannas about... lack of an Economy. Look, WBL was one of the most ridiculous things ever invented as a means of limiting the power of a character. It was horribly complicated and very easy to break, with decided consequences. You could end up with characters having loot that they shouldn't be able to have at that point, which would throw off the calculations of a point-counting by-the-book GM because they shouldn't have it, yet by the rules they can.

In Legend, the magic item system is simple enough that you can't Powergame around it. You can't just 'lol archivist cohort' or 'infinite weath through Wall of Iron/Salt' past it. You are mechanically limited to the number of items and their relative power that your character can equip at any given time.

The lack of flavor is another strong point for a creative GM and Player because it permits the GM to write their own flavor. The reason it feels so 'sanitary' is because you are expected to be able to write your own character's story, and they try to stay out of your way so nothing they do will conflict with it while still maintaining game balance.

None of these is exactly what I've complained about. With "Economy", I don't mean WBL. Wealth by level, really, I don't much care about. This isn't about magic items. It's about how the economy of the world works and how many resources the players have to work with compared to a normal peasant. That's a minor complaint, however and quickly set up in homebrew.

The second is the bigger one. Flavour is a bit lacking, but I'm writing my own flavour anyway. What is, however, lacking is ways for the characters to influence the world around them with their powers. Most of a character's abilities have no application beyond their immediate environment and don't really allow them to leave behind a permanent impact on the world. I mean things like changing the environment by creating permanent new structures. Creating wealth. Creating minions. Changing the weather or other aspect of the landscape for a long time. Anything large-scale or truly world- or character-changing, really. It intersects with fluff. If I have an NPC somewhere in the background who doe something amazing, it should be possible for the PCs to learn to do the same. If I have a necromancer creating hordes of zombies and devastating the landscape with disease, can a PC learn to do the same? If the evil vizier summoned a djinn to build a new palace in three nights, can the party sorcerer learn to do that? If the druids shroud their forest in impassable, magic mists, can the PCs learn to do the same for their stronghold?
That kind of thing is still missing. And as opposed to background, this kind of thing is very time-consuming and potentially difficult to homebrew on your own.

Alienist

2013-06-24, 07:48 AM

Went to bed last night without saving the spreadsheet, lost about 4 hours work on 6 NPCs because there was a power outage this morning.

Very disappointing.

One of the take-aways from that (apart from the obvious 'always save yer crap') was that for the Utter Brute Barbarian I needed a second column for that character when raging. Simply adding a +2 to strength made it sufficiently different that trying to handle all that in just one column was too hard.

Another was that Vigilante gets a magical armour, but there aren't any, you have to roll your own using the custom items rules, yes?

Simplifying it down to two stats: KDM and KOM made me think that perhaps the six base stats can/should be thrown out in favour of something more reminiscent of that old series of books (Warlock of Firetop Mountain et al (by "not that Steve Jackson, the other one")), skill (dex/int) stamina (str/con) and luck (wis/cha), which also happens to line up nicely with Fort/Reflex/Will saves.

Mystify

2013-06-24, 08:40 AM

Isn't it more meaningful to change the world because you did something meaningful, not because you have an ability that says you can?
There are abilities that will have a lasting impact if you want them. Engineering allows you to design complex buildings and devices - you just need to work with the GM to implement it, getting works, working on it yourself, whatever is called for. This includes things like "the body parts of a golem" or "the decision-making cortex of a golem"- i.e. you can design golems with RAW, and the skills is set up such that this is just an example.
Undead can give their undead track to other creatures.
Siege walls allows you to create permanent walls, once per five rounds.
create teleporation circle allows you to create permanent-until-destroyed teleportation circles between two places.
Many Legendary abilities offer ways to drastically alter the world.

Razanir

2013-06-24, 08:45 AM

So a medusa would be Combat Alchemist/Wildborn/Discipline of the Serpent/Necromancer? With Baptized in Rage and the [Thrown] weapon property, of course.

What Legend needs is a NPC/Monster database that all GMs can contribute to. Say you've just spent two hours making a Necromancer/Sage, you can post it up and save somebody else the trouble. You need a Dragon Dervish who fights with claws? Take a look on the db.

If Afro is fine with it, would people be interested in starting a wiki for this? Probably either at wikia or google sites, unless someone has a better idea

Tenno Seremel

2013-06-24, 09:30 AM

Obviously we're not going to be [petrifying] with our circle 1 abilities, but slowing? Or building up a cumulative penalty perhaps?

I've done Inquisitor_(Legend_Track) (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Inquisitor_(Legend_Track)) once (never got the chance to use it, though), it can slow at level 1 (which kind of sucks your actions to apply it). Although overall the track itself might not be quite what you have in mind.

Turion

2013-06-24, 09:34 AM

afroakuma

2013-06-24, 09:44 AM

would people be interested in starting a wiki for this? Probably either at wikia or google sites, unless someone has a better idea

I believe one of the D&D wikis has a Legend category. You could also, of course, use the forum's homebrew section.

Razanir

2013-06-24, 10:11 AM

I believe one of the D&D wikis has a Legend category. You could also, of course, use the forum's homebrew section.

True enough. I just shy away from posting good homebrew on the D&D wikis. Their reputation of having horribly unbalanced homebrew far outweighs whatever good stuff is on the sites

jindra34

2013-06-24, 10:15 AM

(significantly delayed post do to wrapping my head around everything said about Legend...)

I think my problem with Legend is not what it is, but what it is in relation to how people brand and present it. People consistently present it as a 3.X fix when at its roots it is much closer to 4th in all matters. And the universal thing? Its not universal, it may not even be setting independent. It could be both, but for right now its not do to the fact that the designers/developers/writers have gotten so invested in it that they feel that they can make accurate calls on how it should be played. The system of Legend is used to play games of Legend but if one intends it to be universal it is not the game(s) itself. Which means decisions about what is good or bad for the game and the story there of needs to be left in the hands of the person running it, not made by the before hand by people with no connection to any of it. Which does mean more rules, because its much easier to turn off an unfitting rule that doesn't fit the story/game than it is to create and integrate a new rule that doesn't disrupt anything else.

Geigan

2013-06-24, 10:47 AM

Been away for the weekend, so I'm afraid most of the discussion escaped me outside of a skim.

To be clear, if you log more than one bug in quick succession you WILL receive nasty PMs from other forum members.

As afroakuma stated, if that's happening definitely report it to the forum's moderators. That's unacceptable.

On the subject of monster creation, we've definitely noticed the investment required from the GM of their time and it's something we're working to address with the Monster Guide. Aside from all the premades, we'll be working to provide monster creation tools and more advice for how to assess and create encounters. Other than that, all I can ask is patience for now.

*snip* Oh we quite agree that the group/GM will decide what is best for how they play their game. We're certainly not the game police, and while we want to promote an enjoyable experience with the material we've released we're not going to say you can't have fun in ways that we haven't yet explored or "permitted" through the game rules should your group wish to. We definitely will explore concepts and rules that haven't been presented with the core system, but we simply haven't had the time yet. My apologies if what has been presented so far isn't quite to your taste.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-24, 12:07 PM

Isn't it more meaningful to change the world because you did something meaningful, not because you have an ability that says you can?

But "changing the world because you did something meaningful" is basically freeform roleplaying. The point is that in any game a DM can arbitrarily decide that oh yeah, you can do X but not Y. The fact that it is a game that has a DM doesn't mean you can dismiss the lack of rules for genuinely important things. Some of the most popular homebrew on the forum is Kellus's Gramarie (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252794) compendium. It has very little focus on in adventure abilities, very much preferring to give the players the tools to shape the world. Because it gives you rules for that, everyone knows what to expect. It doesn't stifle creativity though. If the DM wants, he can homebrew another ability for it. But he doesn't have to. It's not reasonable to assume the DM wants to individually make up every single thing that a character wants to do which doesn't further a plotline.

Draz74

2013-06-24, 12:14 PM

So a medusa would be Combat Alchemist/Wildborn/Discipline of the Serpent/Necromancer? With Baptized in Rage and the [Thrown] weapon property, of course.
Actually, I like DMofDarkness's suggestions for a Medusa better than anything else that I or anyone else had suggested:

I'd say that the Lurking Terror's 3rd circle ability fits better there. [Bleeding] plus damage would fit better, as it has some lasting marks (the HP reduction) as well as immediate damage if left untreated. Also, the Lurking Terror would probably fit with the concept, as well. Fluff the Blights as the radius of the Gaze attack, and you have more movement penalties to simulate decreased movement, Sickened to represent increased symptoms, Bleeding as turning to stone, mix with necromancer (Enervating Strike could be the debilitating poison you're looking for), and you have a pretty decent and flavorful chassis. Mix with Assassin for higher damage on the gazes and Chiurgic Poet for movement and defense, and you have a pretty good Gorgon. (I would swap out the Gorgon racial feat with Lich's Wrath for Cause Fear as a final touch. Flatfoot people with Bluff and make them Shaken with your move action, have them bleed with blights, and hit them with one or more glares per turn with petrifying Chill Touch, Vampiric Touch, and Slay Living. Use Chiurgic Poet to slither around, recover from damage, and become increasingly hard to hit (and correspondingly less mobile, as you're using Dream of Hope less) and get a better Entangling effect than Baptized in Rage from The Heart Beckons.)
* * *

This isn't about magic items. It's about how the economy of the world works and how many resources the players have to work with compared to a normal peasant. That's a minor complaint, however and quickly set up in homebrew.
Thing is, the way the economy really works will be ... the same way it works in the real world, or in economics textbooks. Supply/demand, etc. So it really makes sense to say it's better for the GM to fudge it than to try to write rules abstracting it.

But yeah, you can also crib it from homebrew/another system (I've heard great things about the economic realism of ACKS) and use it in a Legend game.

'always save yer crap'
Word.

for the Utter Brute Barbarian I needed a second column for that character when raging. Simply adding a +2 to strength made it sufficiently different that trying to handle all that in just one column was too hard.
Well, aside from what Turion pointed out:

As far as I can tell, the +2 STR is constant. The only thing C2 gives you specifically while raging is the size increase.
... I'd also like to suggest that you just fill out your Barbarian's stats with the in-Rage numbers, since that's what he'll normally be like in practice. Then put an asterisk by the ones that you'll need to remember to decrease if for some reason he fights while not raging.

If you're using the official character sheet, there's a Notes field at the end that's an easy place to summarize all the Raging modifiers, from all Circles.

Another was that Vigilante gets a magical armour, but there aren't any, you have to roll your own using the custom items rules, yes?
Roll? :smallconfused:

Yes, you "have to" use the custom magic item rules, unless you have a Relic-level set of armor and you want to use the Winged Armor.

But generally, getting to customize your armor's benefits is stronger than picking from a pre-chosen set anyway, so I'm surprised this is a complaint.

If Afro is fine with it, would people be interested in starting a wiki for this? Probably either at wikia or google sites, unless someone has a better idea
Possibly wikispaces ... but I think you have to pay in order to have more than 5 contributors there, so, probably not.

And the universal thing? Its not universal, it may not even be setting independent. It could be both, but for right now its not
I'd agree it's not universal (if I'm understanding what you mean by that word), but I'd disagree it's setting independent. Legend is remarkably adaptable to superhero, sci-fi, and pulp genres. Just being able to cover several genres, IMO, means it's definitely not setting-specific.

It is, however, geared toward settings driven by "rule of cool," regardless of genre.

Aramyth

2013-06-24, 12:33 PM

Apologies for my previous post, I left my account open.

Anyways, I've followed Legend for some time now, and it's really great system, IMHO. However, if you approach Legend 1.0 expecting a finished, detailed, setting and a stimulation game, you will be disappointed. I know they have at least one setting in the works, Hallow, IIRC, and that's great, but the game is meant to be very freeform in how it's played, or, at least that's how i see it. And if you want world-changing abilities, look to the [Legendary] abilities.

jindra34

2013-06-24, 12:43 PM

I'd agree it's not universal (if I'm understanding what you mean by that word), but I'd disagree it's setting independent. Legend is remarkably adaptable to superhero, sci-fi, and pulp genres. Just being able to cover several genres, IMO, means it's definitely not setting-specific.

It is, however, geared toward settings driven by "rule of cool," regardless of genre.

Well 1. Setting=/=Genre. Firefly and Starwars are both (roughly) Sci-fi but are very different setting.
And 2. I never said it was setting dependent. I was questioning whether or not it was setting independent, meaning that every setting that supports stories it can tell can be done with similar ease.

afroakuma

2013-06-24, 01:33 PM

Given that refluffing is encouraged, I don't really see why not.

Powerdork

2013-06-25, 12:31 AM

As afroakuma said, reflavouring abilities is highly encouraged. I played in an XCOM-themed game, fairly low level, made Arcane Lore's Hammerfall into rockets and Arcana was used to identify aliens and alien tech.

Fable Wright

2013-06-25, 02:52 AM

If Afro is fine with it, would people be interested in starting a wiki for this? Probably either at wikia or google sites, unless someone has a better idea

It's not quite a wiki, but I threw up a thread (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,998.0.html) on the Legend Forums for roughly this sort of thing, if anyone's interested.

Regitnui

2013-06-25, 04:05 AM

DMoD, that's a monster thread, and while it helps I was also thinking of a place where we can submit NPCs (or PCs) for others to use.

Fable Wright

2013-06-25, 04:46 AM

DMoD, that's a monster thread, and while it helps I was also thinking of a place where we can submit NPCs (or PCs) for others to use.

Who says all the monsters are non-humanoids? NPCs and PCs could easily be included; Knight Templars, Grand Viziers, and Evil Sorcerers are all monsters in their own right. Hell, even a Paladin, the Doctor, or other traditionally good characters are monsters to some. I'll put a note at the top, but the best way to include humanoid NPC builds in the thread would be to submit some yourself and encourage others to do so.

Regitnui

2013-06-25, 04:49 AM

Who says all the monsters are non-humanoids? NPCs and PCs could easily be included; Knight Templars, Grand Viziers, and Evil Sorcerers are all monsters in their own right. Hell, even a Paladin, the Doctor, or other traditionally good characters are monsters to some. I'll put a note at the top, but the best way to include humanoid NPC builds in the thread would be to submit some yourself and encourage others to do so.

I'll submit my Elf Dervish/Iron Mage build when I'm done with it, along with any others I eventually build, because tracks are just so much fun!:smallbiggrin:

Razanir

2013-06-25, 08:31 AM

It's not quite a wiki, but I threw up a thread (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,998.0.html) on the Legend Forums for roughly this sort of thing, if anyone's interested.

I'll submit my giant robots when I'm finished. Look up Theo Jensen's Strandbeesten; they'd make a great evil army

Alienist

2013-06-26, 01:28 PM

Roll? :smallconfused:

Yes, you "have to" use the custom magic item rules, unless you have a Relic-level set of armor and you want to use the Winged Armor.

But generally, getting to customize your armor's benefits is stronger than picking from a pre-chosen set anyway, so I'm surprised this is a complaint.

"roll your own" is a common phrase in English. Don't read too much into it.

The question you were referring to was a question, not a complaint. The question mark at the end of the sentence, and complete absence of the words "Legend suxors because ... " should have been enough clues.

Just because some of the things I've said have been complaints doesn't mean you should interpret everything I say as a complaint.

(Which, ironically, was one of my original complaints about Legend; that the small fanbase tends to read everything that isn't glowing praise with a much harsher tone than it should be read at, and thus because they perceive everything as an attack they have a siege mentality)

Allow me to provide an example which illustrates the difference:

Legend suxors because the definition of 'ally' is an important one for interpreting the scope of your abilities, but I can't find it anywhere in the rulebook.

:smallyuk:

Mystify

2013-06-26, 01:32 PM

Legend suxors because the definition of 'ally' is an important one for interpreting the scope of your abilities, but I can't find it anywhere in the rulebook.

Page 212
"Ally refers to any creature in an [Encounter] that you choose to regard as friendly for the purpose of any particular action or ability. You cannot treat a creature as an ally unless they allow you to do so. You are always your own ally. You can assign this term as you wish, though a creature can never be treated as both an ally and an opponent for purposes of a single instance of the same effect."

stack

2013-06-26, 01:33 PM

Ally is defined in the rulebook. I just read it this morning, though I can't site the page number right off. It was in a glossary of terms, I think.

Draz74

2013-06-26, 01:38 PM

stuff

I apologize for misreading (and yet emphasizing) the tone of your question.

No, "roll your own" is not a common phrase in English, at least not in the dialects of English that I am natively exposed to. And in the context of an RPG, it genuinely made me think that you had gotten an idea somewhere that custom magic items had to be generated randomly, by dice. And I was curious where you might have acquired such a misunderstanding. But if you were just using "roll your own" as an idiomatic phrase, that answers my question.

Mystify

2013-06-26, 01:39 PM

No, "roll your own" is not a common phrase in English, at least not in the dialects of English that I am natively exposed to.
It is where I come from.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-26, 01:49 PM

It is where I come from.

You wouldn't happen to live inside a FNGS would you?

Alienist

2013-06-26, 02:34 PM

Page 212
"Ally refers to any creature in an [Encounter] that you choose to regard as friendly for the purpose of any particular action or ability. You cannot treat a creature as an ally unless they allow you to do so. You are always your own ally. You can assign this term as you wish, though a creature can never be treated as both an ally and an opponent for purposes of a single instance of the same effect."

(emphasis added for the bit that was important to me)

Very much appreciated. I need to transfer the pdf onto the iPad and start bookmarking like a madman. :D

I did go looking for a Glossary. You have to admire the Legend guys for being bold enough to break convention and hide it in the middle of the book. I should have searched for it electronically, rather than eyeballing the index looking for it.

------------

NB: "roll your own" is an English idiom in the US of A, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

I can't speak for the Canadians, never having been there.

It wouldn't surprise me though to see it disappear in the next 20-50 years, since I believe that the original etymology referred to rolling your own cigarette

Flickerdart

2013-06-26, 02:38 PM

I should have searched for it electronically, rather than eyeballing the index looking for it.
212 - Glossary is in the document's table of contents, and also Glossary is in the bookmarks.

Spamotron

2013-06-26, 10:25 PM

Do you get a 5ft. increase in reach when [Large]? Powerful Rage says "5 ft bonus to your [Melee] range
associated with the [Large] size," but [Large] itself under size categories does not.

Flickerdart

2013-06-26, 10:28 PM

Do you get a 5ft. increase in reach when [Large]? Powerful Rage and Juggernaut mention it but [Large] itself under size categories does not.
Yes; it's mentioned in the definition of [Melee] range.

Claudius Maximus

2013-06-27, 11:34 PM

So now that Legend finally has an official 1.0 release, I figure it's time to go back to its roots a little. I present to you... the Test of Spite (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,1014.msg18964.html#msg18964).

(Now with brackets! [Brackets!])

Flickerdart

2013-06-28, 12:14 AM

Temji

2013-07-01, 11:08 AM

good morning,

I cannot open rule of cool .com at work... any other way to get to this download??

other than wait til tonight, which will endlessly frustrate Me

thanks!!

Temji Sho Khan
ranger//wizard and sometime thief

Flickerdart

2013-07-01, 11:21 AM

If you can't open the Rule of Cool site, you can download Legend PDF directly from our S3 server (https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf).

Temji

2013-07-01, 12:19 PM

thank you!!

at first skim, it looks pretty awesome... onto My flash drive, and I'll spend some time with it over the next few days

Temji Sho Khan
ranger//wizard and sometime thief

Alienist

2013-07-03, 11:33 PM

I have a high level Myriad.

Does it get multiple flails?*
Does it have DR?
Does it have an initiative modifier?
What's the reach for the flail? (Is the Myriad Large?)

Does it get squashed by a first level Sage doing Hungry Shadows? (All the bodies disappear when hit by an area attack, and then respawn at one per round?)

*Ie extra flails at levels 8 and 15

I felt that to be a credible threat the high level myriad needed to do more flails than just 1, (I realise of course that each flail can hit multiple opponents, but it's capped by the number of bodies), and they also needed a better body recovery mechanism.

Mystify

2013-07-04, 01:01 AM

a myriad does not get extra flails
it does not get DR
its initiative modifier is based on its dex
it has the normal range for its level

a myriad is not supposed to be a credible threat by itself. Their own description says they are useful for pressure damage at high levels. What myriads are good for are populating a battlefield. Want a necromancer with a bunch of undead? add in an undead myriad or two. Fighting a military squad? add in a bunch of soldiers with a myriad. The other elements of the battle will be where the real challenge lies, but having to feal with a few swarms of faceless minions can make things more tactically interesting. How much effort do you want to put into myriad control?
A few myriads can really add up the damage if ignored. Say you have 3 myriads are level 8+. they net 6xlevel+6d6 damage. to everyone. You let that go 3 rounds, and you have 18xlevel +8d6 damage, which will kill most characters. Its controllable, yes, but it does need to be controlled. You now need to devote some effort into pruning their bodies, into setting up battlefield control to counter them, into keeping our distance, and/or maneuvering to take them out alongside the real threat. They take up space on the battlefield and can make maneuvering more interesting. They can also serve to feed the player's desire for collateral damage, as they get to throw out area effects that hit a couple dozen things.

Alienist

2013-07-04, 08:53 AM

Alienist

2013-07-04, 08:58 AM

Mystify

2013-07-04, 09:27 AM

Surely it's 3 x (2 x level + 1d6) = 6x level + 3d6
and
18x level + 9d6

My point about a level 1 Sage squashing a level 10+ Myriad all by himself was not entirely theoretical.

at level 8 the damage is 2d6+2*level.

while an area effect may take out all of the bodies at once, it only deals damage to its hp once.
" If one or more of a myriad’s bodies would be damaged by a single attack or ability, that damage is dealt to the myriad a single time, and the affected bodies are removed from the fight (leaving its square vacant)."

The myriad will flail for ~27 damage(which can kill all but the most defensive of level 1 sages), then sage will wipe out its bodies ,deal ~8 damage to it(out of its 210 hp), then the myriad will stand up a body and then finish them off. Even if the sage wins initiative it still loses horribly.
Area effects don't kill them faster, they just help you control how many bodies are flailing at you. It can also mean you can't take it out as fast, as now you can only make 1 attack against it per round before running out of bodies.

Vicerious

2013-07-04, 10:15 AM

Vigilante Monk: does a brutal kick.

Brutal kick lets you treat your unarmed attack as [brutal 2] & [magnum]

But a low level monk (with external discipline) already has 5 weapon proper ties on his unarmed attacks.

Do they combine? Unarmed attacks with 8 weapon properties?
Or are they mutually exclusive?
Or do you use the monk rules to 'switch' from your unarmed strike to unarmed strike (which adds some, but not all, of your bonus monk weapon properties to the 'new weapon')

Vigilante's Brutal Kick says "you can choose to treat you Unarmed Strike natural weapon as a [Brutal 2], [Magnum] weapon...." So if you choose to do so, your Unarmed Strike now has those three weapon properties, which you can then augment with monk's External Techniques as normal.

If you choose not to, then you use your External Techniques weapon properties on your Unarmed Strike instead.

Example:We have a 3rd level monk DotS/DotC/Vigilante. Thanks to External Techniques, the monk's natural weapon looks like this:
Unarmed Strike
melee, range [Melee], [Brutal 2], [Elemental (Cold)], [Parrying], [Reach]

Our monk then decides to Brutal Kick an opponent and chooses to treak his Unarmed Strike as Brutal Kick describes. Since this is still a natural weapon he possesses, External Techniques adds two properties. So for the purposes of this Brutal Kick attack, his Unarmed Strike looks like this:
Unarmed Strike
melee, range [Melee], [Brutal 2], [Magnum], plus [Brutal +1], [Reach]

After the Brutal Kick attack is resolved, his Unarmed Strike immediately reverts back to his standard External Techniques version.

Alienist

2013-07-04, 04:55 PM

at level 8 the damage is 2d6+2*level.

while an area effect may take out all of the bodies at once, it only deals damage to its hp once.
" If one or more of a myriad’s bodies would be damaged by a single attack or ability, that damage is dealt to the myriad a single time, and the affected bodies are removed from the fight (leaving its square vacant)."

The myriad will flail for ~27 damage(which can kill all but the most defensive of level 1 sages), then sage will wipe out its bodies ,deal ~8 damage to it(out of its 210 hp), then the myriad will stand up a body and then finish them off. Even if the sage wins initiative it still loses horribly.
Area effects don't kill them faster, they just help you control how many bodies are flailing at you. It can also mean you can't take it out as fast, as now you can only make 1 attack against it per round before running out of bodies.

I appear to have been operating under the misconception that in Legend you could ready actions, so that you could ready an action to splat the myriad as soon as it stands up a body, but that appears to have been one of the cancerous parts of 3.5 that got cut out.

Mystify

2013-07-04, 05:02 PM

I appear to have been operating under the misconception that in Legend you could ready actions, so that you could ready an action to splat the myriad as soon as it stands up a body, but that appears to have been one of the cancerous parts of 3.5 that got cut out.

True, readying actions is not a thing.

Alienist

2013-07-04, 05:10 PM

Vigilante's Brutal Kick says "you can choose to treat you Unarmed Strike natural weapon as a [Brutal 2], [Magnum] weapon...." So if you choose to do so, your Unarmed Strike now has those three weapon properties, which you can then augment with monk's External Techniques as normal.

If you choose not to, then you use your External Techniques weapon properties on your Unarmed Strike instead.

Example:We have a 3rd level monk DotS/DotC/Vigilante. Thanks to External Techniques, the monk's natural weapon looks like this:
Unarmed Strike
melee, range [Melee], [Brutal 2], [Elemental (Cold)], [Parrying], [Reach]

Our monk then decides to Brutal Kick an opponent and chooses to treak his Unarmed Strike as Brutal Kick describes. Since this is still a natural weapon he possesses, External Techniques adds two properties. So for the purposes of this Brutal Kick attack, his Unarmed Strike looks like this:
Unarmed Strike
melee, range [Melee], [Brutal 2], [Magnum], plus [Brutal +1], [Reach]

After the Brutal Kick attack is resolved, his Unarmed Strike immediately reverts back to his standard External Techniques version.

I hear what you are saying, but you're just repeating back to me the third option I gave. There doesn't seem to be any especially compelling reason (either of logic or semantics) to pick that option over the other two.

The first option: you get eight weapon properties, is obviously the most gonzo, and therefore seems to be closest in intent to the original design (e.g. dial everything up to 11)

The other variations (where X unarmed attack is not like Y unarmed attack) have the foul stench of 3.5s 'melee cannot have anything nice, and monks are actively persecuted', with reference to the various arguments about whether monks can make offhand attacks or not because they do (or do not) count as wielding their own hands in their own hands.

By making a brutal kick you get a couple of weapon properties which basically amounts to a small quantity of extra damage, and in return you give up the ability to trip or grapple or disarm them or frappe their omelet or whatever.