View Full Version : Does anyone still play Rule of Cool's Legend D20?
Firechanter
2019-05-02, 05:19 AM
As it says on the tin. Just curious.
I tried out the system with my old group ca 4 years ago and played a couple of mini campaigns and oneshots (reaching up to level 9), then decided it wasn't for us and moved on. Now recently, I've been looking at game systems again and it occured to me that maybe we judged Legend prematurely. So I'm wondering if I could adapt it to my needs more easily than other systems.
In retrospect, I see indications that the system may have failed for us because we were dysfunctional as a group; without going into too much detail let's just say that most of us wanted different things from a game.
Personally, I have a couple of issues with Legend but they might not be beyond salvage. For instance, I'm not happy with the way gear and magic items are handled -- too meta, too abstract. Another gripe I have is with the skill system (I hate binary skills), but I suppose that could be easily remedied.
The most significant change I am considering is to actually get rid of the D20 and replace it with 3d6. I simply came to realize I prefer bell curves over linear distribution. Since Legend does not know Auto-Fails or -Successes, this may work seemlessly.
There still isn't a Monster Manual, is there?
Did any of you make changes to the system, and how did it turn out?
I'm aware Legend has its own forum but it seems to be dead (no activity all year), so I figured I'd rather ask around here. ^^
I still want to, but I’ve never been able to get a game together.
stack
2019-05-02, 08:50 AM
I haven't seen any games come up on the boards for a long time. It's too bad, since I liked the system. It has definately influenced my ideas about game design too.
Firechanter
2019-05-02, 12:18 PM
Since it's been some 4 years since I last played it, I have to re-read pretty much everything to see if I can make it into what I want.
Basically I want to change it from a strictly CAS system to one that supports CAW.
For instance, I know that Legend only allows 1 AoO per round, and there's no such feat as Combat Reflexes, and anyway Melee ranges increase quite heftily over the levels. What I don't remember is if there are other mechanisms (e.g. tracks) that allow a "Lockdown" or "Interdictor" type combat style.
What I also want to add is a more simulative, less abstract approach to weapons. LAW [Legend As Written] any weapon simply has a d6 damage die and you get to add a couple of properties. There aren't even "shields" as an item; it's simply your choice if you want to fluff your [Parrying] weapon as "Sword & Board". Well: tried it, didn't like it. I'd write a weapon list similar to 3E, and be more liberal with the properties.
Next, I dislike the "all or nothing" way LAW handles skills. I.e. "either you have a skill or you don't". Here I'd consider borrowing from PF2 and introduce kind of "Proficiency levels", like "Ranks = ...
Untrained: 0
Trained: 1/2 Level
Expert: Level
Focus: + 1/3 Level (or so)
--
Edit:
The way the game played out at our table, combat was mostly a race between Damage and Healing on both sides. So basically it didn't quite come down to "who has the biggest boot", but ultimately it was a function of Damage[A]-Healing[B] vs Damage[B] - Healing[A] and who runs out of HP first. So for instance: enemy does 30 damage, we heal 20 damage. You do the math and see how many rounds you can last. Check to see if that's long enough to outlast the enemy; if not: run or die.
One of our games actually ended in a TPK because our main healer failed to do his shtick ONCE, in the first round nonetheless, and that was all it took to throw us far enough behind the curve that we couldn't catch up. Enemies emanated Area DoT and we simply couldn't get out of the blasted room in time.
Another gripe I have is that basically the party, even if it's carefully coordinated, will have exactly _one_ approach to combat (unless it is so terribly unfocussed that it does nothing well), and of course any one strategy can be countered in a dozen ways. Here I'd really prefer to have more flexibility.
I used to be very much involved after the forums died. I made the player's handbook 2, and a monster manual near the end of last year. Here are the links
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0swh2rPFIUoM2JMQmFIS0I0T1k/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lN520Zmy5H1Z1dTS9wCiXkigbWG9po2y/view?usp=drivesdk
There was a Discord server that was trying to keep up with it. Last time I was on it there was a big push to make a new system, and unfortunately due to my own personal issues I have fallen off of there as well. But in my free time I admit I still love working on this system. I have a lot of tracks, classes, feats, items and corrections I want to do for a PHB 2.5 It's the main system I DM.
I hope the second player's handbook and the monster manual might help you enjoy the system a bit more. I don't think they solve any of your specific concerns unfortunately. We did add a bunch of alternative rules and erreta to the end of the monster Manuel, maybe those could help?
If you do find solutions to your problems through Legend I'd love to hear them.
Firechanter
2019-05-03, 01:23 PM
Hello Koeh, well this is indeed a nice turn. Thanks for the links, immediately yoinked. ^^ The existence of the MM alone makes this system so much more appealing. ;)
Since you're so well versed with the system, I'd appreciate your feedback on my ideas a lot.
As for adaptations, here's one rough draft:
More immersive Fighting Styles / Weapon categories:
TWF: Light/Finesse weapons = d6 base, Power Attack 1:1, [Bonus Attack] that stacks with other [Bonus Attacks]
One-Handed = d8 base, PA 2:1, can be used with shield
Two-Handed = 2d6 base, PA 3:1, [Magnum], Full STR bonus (instead of half)
Two-Handed Reach = d10 base, PA 3:1, [Reach], Full STR bonus (instead of half)
Shield = [Parrying]
additional weapon properties may be stacked on top as makes sense for the weapon.
I might in fact make Bonus Attacks entirely stackable. Balancing TWF might become a bit tricky.
I also intend to handle Gear differently, introducing separate progressions for Weapons, Armours, Wondrous Items, and/or using a numeric Gearscore that players can spend however they like.
Light and Heavy Armours should have a more significant value than onesies-twosies to AC. Considering to make armour give DR.
Movement and Melee Range no longer increase automatically. There'll be feats for that. You'll actually have to haul your ass over the battlefield.
Attacks of Opportunity will be a thing again. Combat Reflexes will be a feat. Everyone can pull off Combat Maneuvers as AoOs, not just Knights. [in fact I'll have to rework the Knight specials]
More Feat Slots. Maybe 1/2 levels plus a free Iconic slot. Maybe separate progressions for different categories of feats.
Skills, as written above: allow to train more skills to different levels of proficiency, along the lines of 1/2 Level / Full Level. Introduce a Profession skill field, and give each PC one Profession skill for free. Such as Profession: Soldier.
I'd love to have maneuvers and stances in the game to give players more versatility, sorta like Tome of Battle / Path of War. Might expand PC chassis by a Discipline progression. But I'll have to get better reacquainted with the standard tracks before I make a call on that.
--
Note: the most basic premise that I want from an RPG: it's not supposed to be a game of chance. Player choices have to be much more important than the whims of a tyrannical piece of multi-sided plastic. Hence my preference for bell curves -- much more predictability without having to fully IP-Proof your character, 3.5-style.
First off I agree with the bell curve idea, I like to think that Legend does that pretty well. I've never made a character even with really odd track selections that felt like they could not contribute meaningfully to a fight or a situation.
The weapons and fighting system, I think the fighter class in PHB2 covers a lot of the things that you might be interested in. Also check page 145 of the monster manual, there's an alternative damage calculation that I use at my table. My players hate using a D6 for something like a greataxe, and it works pretty well for us to use that for the brutal property.
As for the bonus attack you do have to be very careful with that at low levels. 2 attacks from a d6 +KOM (5) could instantly kill a level 1 character with low HP without even considering tracks, weapon properties, or feats. At higher levels would be less of a problem I think, if only because AC gets relatively High (at least at my table it dose).
Speaking of armor I know that there's some Homebrew for giving armor damage reduction, and something akin to weapon properties. I'll have to see if I can find that for you this weekend.
More feats slots are always good for characters I think. I think though that there's a lack of interesting feats right now. There's definitely a lot more Feats that I want to add (and items... and classes... and tracks...)
I personally like the increased melee range and movement, but to each their own. I know in my games it's made spellcasters especially think about positioning more often and has led to some very tense moments where the Caster has to decide to either eat three attacks to get a spell off and save an ally or move out of range and save himself.
How you describe it is pretty much how I do skills in my games as well. If a class says they get six, I just give them six points each level and if they keep at least over half of their level in skill ranks they are effectively trained in it. Though with so many DCs scaling by level, it usually is beneficial to max out certain skills and less useful to just dip. I do like the profession idea, I might just use that one myself.
Firechanter
2019-05-03, 06:27 PM
Hey, awesome. ^^ Indeed, just from a brief glance, the Fighter seems to be right up my alley. I immediately feel like playing one. ^^
Also, I totally agree with your players, and the Brutal alternative looks great. Just what I've been looking for. I'm just gonna tie it to handedness.
The horrible swinginess at low levels is maybe the single worst thing I despise about D&D type games. I'm not quite sure how to counter it without turning everyone into a flesh mountain. Though what might work would be to simply make armour and shields more effective. As I said, not just a lousy +1/+2 for armour and no support for nonmagical shields at all.
Of course, a full Bonus Attack at level 1 remains hefty. Compare how TWF works in various editions of D&D:
AD&D2: requires a lot of investment (Proficiencies), but if you go all the way, you get a free extra attack without any drawbacks
3E: even with max investment, -2 to each attack and 0,5 Str on the Off Hand means TWF is unattractive unless you get a boatload of bonus damage.
5E: TWF eats your Bonus Action, and without the Fighting Style, you don't get your Ability bonus to damage on the off hand.
So here we see, in AD&D a competent TWF fighter rules supreme, it's the single best fighting style if you invest all it takes. In every other edition, it's rather lackluster.
Hm. How about having the Off-hand attack not counting as a Bonus Attack, but eating your Move Action?
--
More feats slots are always good for characters I think. I think though that there's a lack of interesting feats right now. There's definitely a lot more Feats that I want to add (and items... and classes... and tracks...)
One could always port over good 3E feats.
Like, one of my favourite 3E feat chains is Mage Slayer / PMC / PMP. Though I don't really know if Legend already has something along these lines.
Another basic feat that would add a ton of versatility would be one that gave you access to a single Circle from a track you do not have. Not counting class-exclusive tracks of course. Add in a clause that your picks are limited to circles you'd qualify for in the Slow Progression. So for instance, if you picked the feat on level 9, you could pick any non-exclusive ability up to C3 (and not C4).
I'm also considering to make Floating Feat a default thing. I.e. everyone has a feat slot they can retrain once per Scene. Something like that.
--
Anecdotal:
For one game I ran, just a mid-level oneshot, I had created all PCs myself and handed them out to the players. I was careful to create good synergies and briefed the players how their toons would function. The main Striker was an Assassin who rolled a crapton of dice for damage. That actually became a bit tedious rather quickly, because rolling and counting every damage roll took quite a lot of time, and then the results were almost the same every time. I forget the exact order of magnitude but it was something like "96 - 94 - 95 ..." - so making all these rolls just bogged down the game for nothing useful in return, combared to just using a single weapon damage die plus a fixed bonus.
Sneak attack can always be a bit of a time sink unfortunately. There's a bunch of ways to make it faster though. Personally I use a dice roller app on my phone and have my sneak attack dice saved (saved me a lot of headache when I played an 3.5 epic level psychic warrior/rogue, 10 attacks with 8d6 each.)
-Could just average it out to do 3.5 damage rounded down for each d6 rolled.
-Just roll a single d6 and multiply for each dice.
- I've used Level + KOM or 2x level before, that works out to hit the average pretty well. Ranger has a good one to use, 3 damage per 2 levels.
But again, make it work for your table. I have a player who is never happy unless he rolls at least 10 dice each round. I have have another who wants to use d12's any opportunity she gets, and I let her replace any 2d6 she has with a d12.
I think the extra attack as a move would work. My mind immediately says "That would make a good C2 for a two weapon fighting style track, or the start of a feat chain akin to To Iron Married" I'm still weary on having it available at level 1-2, but anytime after level 3 I think it would be fine.
I think your 2 feat Ideas work just fine. having floating feat as free allows for some more versatility in characters. An by having non-exclusive things, I assume you mean things like "Evasion" or "Immunity to fear". I think it might be easier to just have a list of abilities you'd consider as options, its what i did for the "Natural Ability" Monstrous feat from the MMl Pg 147. You may even consider starting with some of the common abilities listed on MM pg 3.
Here's the armor properties Homebrew by DJtooth. It was something I had considered adding as part of the alternative rules, if I ever go back and add more things to the books.
Why not give armor the same customization as weapons?
Sometimes characters dont really care about AC, such as chargers so why dont we have a chart that allows people to make armor that fits them?
First change this mechanic adds is armor no longer gives an AC bonus , and Heavy armor is no longer a thing.
Armor can have up to three properties, all circles that give an item armor bonus have no properties(armor can still be worn over it for properties). Sophisticated can now be taken with armor. You can only benefit from one piece of armor at a time, you cannot change the armor you are wearing during encounters.
[Thick] - +1 item bonus to AC. 'can be taken up to three times'
[Tough] increases DR by 1 +1 per ten levels.
[Light] +5 movement speed 'can be taken up to three times'
[Sturdy] +1 to saves against combat maneuvers 'can be taken up to three times'
[Flexible] +1 to any one DEX or Str based Skill.
[Resistant] +1 to fort saves 'can be taken up to three times'
[Loose] +1 to reflex saves 'can be taken up to three times'
[Aluminum] +1 to will saves. 'can be taken up to three times'
[Deceiving] as an immediate action you may cause an opponent to gain -2 to atk rolls against you until end of turn.
[Illuminated] This may be activated/deactivated as a swift action. -5 to stealth rolls, you emit light for up to 5ft.
[Grounded] you take 5 less damage from [Electric].
[Basic] You take 5 less damage from [Acid]
[Insulated] You take 5 less damage from [Cold]
[Fire Proof] You take 5 less damage from [Fire]
___________________________________________
Some examples of armors
Leather armor [thick] [loose] [light]
Robes [Deceiving] [Light] [Aluminum]
Chain mail [Thick 2] [Tough]
Plate [Thick 3]
Ninja Suit[Flexible] [Light 2]
Blast Suit [Fire Proof] [Tough] [Thick]
Clothes [Light 3]
Furs [Insulated] [Thick] [Resistant]
Mining gear [Illuminated] [Sturdy] [Thick]
Firechanter
2019-05-04, 07:12 PM
Yeah I know, some players just love em dice. ^^
BTW, is there a kind of benchmark, what kind of stats and damage output a PC / party should have at any given level?
Like, in this game I mentioned, I'm pretty sure the Assassin had a consistent output of something like 200 per round, at level 9, with some support from the party (iirc the others were a Shaman, a Tac, and a Knight). It's been 4 years so my memory's a bit hazy and that number may be wildly off. However, I am pretty sure that a level 8 Swashbuckler I played just before was nowhere _near_ that output, but I can't reconstruct if the difference just lay in the party composition and teamplay.
--
Re the feats:
Yeah, "common abilities" like Evasion etc would be one option, maybe a separate feat though. Going from your MM list, it would probably make sense to assign some prereqs, e.g. you have to be Fear Immune before you can take Mind Blank.
Actually however I was thinking of picking straight from other tracks, provided the circle isn't contingent on a previous circle (this seems to be most common among Offensive tracks). I.e. it wouldn't make sense to "steal" Assassin C3 if you don't have Ass' C1. But you could for instance choose Ten Ninjas' C5 (Immediate Teleport) if you're at least level 14. (FWIW, my last 3.5 character had that trick as an item on level 9.)
By non-exclusive I basically meant, no Judgment, no Esoterica Radica, that kind of thing.
BTW, quick rules question: can you shuffle your tracks between Fast/Medium/Slow as you want, or do they have to be in the order they are printed?
--
Re weapons and armour:
I like the idea of composing armour from properties.
I'd also consider making DR much more of a thing. And if so, making [Magnum] more effective as well.
Ideally (?) we'd get something like a Rock Paper Scissors [Lizard Spock] constellation. Like,
- TWF is excellent against un- or lightly armoured opponents; you get more attacks and thus deal more damage.
- Two-handed weapons however are better at defeating heavy armour.
- S&B is more of a defensive style.
- Reach Weapons (mostly polearms and chains) are not so much about raw damage but about Control.
- Ranged of course is its own thing; great if you can stay out of melee, crappy otherwise.
Of course it's not a trivial matrix because we have to cross-reference weapon and armour types so it's a lot more complicated than Rock Paper Scissors.
TWF might not even be represented by extra attacks, for that matter. It might also just give a bonus To Hit - because attacking more often means it's harder for the opponent to defend. So its kinda like Precise Strike, just rolled into your choice of weapon. That approach of course would integrate more easily with the action economy.
There might be some sort of benchmark for damage, but none I've ever tracked. The mook rules seem to be the best way to gauge about where you could be at for melee. But still 200 seems... high. 3 hits at max, 3d6 sneak, KOM of say +7. and some good spells like flame blade and natures power (+7). on the top end that gets me ~120 damage. Some crits and/or Full attack Reckless strike Power attack could get him there, but that eats his move action each round. I'd say its possible but one of those situations where everything has to go perfect for it to work. And that's not including things like [Resistance]/DR (which LAW, applies on each individual hit).
My thought with the feat is that it sounds like it works best with utility and defensive abilities. As such, I'm thinking a feat along the lines of Esoteric Adept. Maybe:
Esoteric Training
Prereq: DM Permission
Choose 1 circle of a track you are not trained in, you gain the ability granted by that circle. The circle must be one circle lower than your highest circle available to you. You do not gain any additional abilities granted by that track. Example: If selecting the Path of War C5 ability "Stubborn Rage" you gain the [Immunity] to [Mind effects], but do not gain the +3 to DCs of combat maneuvers while Raging, unless you have gained the ability to rage through some other means.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time, you choose a different ability. You are considered to have 1 Circle in the Track you gain an ability from, for each time you take this feat.
While LAW, you cannot shuffle your tracks around. In practice, nothing really changes, and I encourage doing whatever feels best for the player. Even granting normal access to Esoterica Radica and Judgment doesn't really break anything, Legend is a pretty resilient system like that. Point buy Classes (MM Pg 145), gives a good guide for making your own classes and track order.
As for TWF and the , I'm not really sure where to go on that. Each on of those fighting styles could be feats, or Maybe a new weapon/armor properties?
Firechanter
2019-05-06, 08:26 PM
There might be some sort of benchmark for damage, but none I've ever tracked. The mook rules seem to be the best way to gauge about where you could be at for melee. But still 200 seems... high. 3 hits at max, 3d6 sneak, KOM of say +7. and some good spells like flame blade and natures power (+7). on the top end that gets me ~120 damage.
Could be. I really don't remember that reliably. Could also be it was "just" 100. Could even be that I do remember the numbers right but made a big mistake calculating them back then. xD
I was planning to reconstruct at least some of those characters, but didn't get around to it yet.
Esoteric Training
That seems pretty reasonable.
As for TWF and the , I'm not really sure where to go on that. Each on of those fighting styles could be feats, or Maybe a new weapon/armor properties?
Yeah I'm not quite sure yet where to go with that, either.
I did read up on a couple of old notes, and was reminded by those that LAW allows for some amusing shenanigans with [Quickdraw], but these basically just serve to emulate combinations like Sword & Board (or Rapier and Maingauche etc).
I've been cobbling together a Doc, and test-wise been tying fighting styles to weapon properties, trying to get rid of the Quickdraw shenanigans in the process.
ATM it looks like I've buffed THF quite high, might need to dial it back a bit again, while at the same time I don't quite know yet what to do with TWF.
Oh and I'm moving Masterwork out of the Magic Item section; so MW weapons, shields and armour do not count against your Item track, and actual magic weapons etc. can carry the MW property for free.
If you're interested, the draft document is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11EBgBPGo46LLWgqsUjkYJ1ah7-ATVfoITu4EVKgcczk/edit?usp=sharing
So for instance, a Relic Greatsword might look like this:
Runesword
[Relic] [Masterwork] [Energized [Force]] [Drinking] [Two-Handed] [Brutal 3] [Magnum]
So a level 10 character with KOM = STR 22 would get +4 to attack rolls and 2d6 + 6 (KOM) + 6 (STR) + 6 (Force) + 8 (Brutal) = average 31 for damage and punch through 4 points of DR. Add -3/+9 Power Attack for good measure, and then there's still Track features. If we assume 3 damage per 2 levels as a benchmark for tracks, we get to a total expected value of about 54 per hit, and that's still before buffs. Of course I'm totally ignoring hit chances at this point.
A TWF fighting style would have to be balanced against that. That STR bonus will be a lot lower (if any), Power Attack is basically not an option, and DR will be more of a problem. Piling on extra attacks may quickly get out of hand due to synergies with Sneak Attack or even Smiting, so we'd probably better leave that can of worms unopened. So maybe just adding To Hit bonuses could be the more robust method. Maybe also allow to stack properties and enhancements, so two +2 Shortswords would get you +4? Not sure.
After thinking on TWF/weapon styles for a bit, I think adding feat might be the best route. With your addition of feats, requiring one for a certain weapon style should not be too big of a problem. 2 weapon fighting in 3.5 was super feat intensive, so requiring 1 sounds like a good compromise.
Some rough suggestions:
Two-Weapon Fighting. [Style]
Benefit: weapons you wield gain the weapon property [Finesse 3]. [Finesse] weapons grant a +1 to all attack rolls with the weapon for each instance of the property. [Brutal] and [Finesse] weapon properties cannot be chosen more than a total of 3 times on the same weapon. You may also substitute 1/2 of your Dexterity modifier as additional damage on weapons with [Finesse] instead of Strength. At level 6 any weapon with the [Finesse] property gains a [Bonus attack] (maybe let it stack with [Bonus attacks] gained from other sources? unsure.)
- my thought here is that you'd sacrifice some damage for bonus to hit. You could have Brutal 2/ Finesse 1, but not 3 and 3. It would be a permanent choice for the weapon, and it it already had some brutal property, you could remove that for Finesse. Not sure if I wrote that well enough to get that across.
2 Handed weapon [Style]
Benefit: You may use your full strength modifier instead of 1/2, for weapon damage rolls. On weapons with [Brutal 2] or [Brutal 3], you may use the Power attack combat maneuver to deal 3 points of damage for each point you reduce your attack bonus. At level 6 all weapons with at least Brutal 2 that you wield gain 1 additional weapon property.
Sword and Shield {style]
Benefit: (less sure on this one) - maybe Guardian weapon property automatically adds +1 deflection to AC for each point of magical enhancement. I would go with improving the [Parrying] property, but the iconic feat Lucky Cigarette Case already has that niche covered.
Overall I think your doc looks good, especially for what you want to do with weapons/reach/AoO. I think KDM works best for Combat reflexes. And I agree that mooks can be a bit too much, and lowering the stats of them is probably a good idea.
Firechanter
2019-05-09, 08:13 PM
Indeed, implementing Fighting Styles as feats is a great idea. Might tag them [Style] or even just [Combat], probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Haven't done any numbercrunching yet, so all these figures are just guesswork, but here's my current iteration:
Two-Weapon Master
When wielding two weapons with the [Light] Quality, you receive the following benefits:
- add +3 to attack rolls.
- at level 6, gain a [Bonus Attack] at full BAB. Note that [Bonus Attacks] now stack. This attack is made with the off-hand weapon for purposes of weapon properties and enhancements.
- if you so choose, you may add ½ your Dex modifier instead of ½ Str modifier to damage rolls.
Great Weapon Master
When wielding a [Two-Handed] weapon, you receive the following benefits:
- add your full Str modifier to damage instead of ½.
- when using Power Attack, add 3 points of damage per point of attack penalty taken.
- at 6th level, any [Two-Handed] weapon receives an additional mundane property of your choice while you wield it, except [Arcane] or [Elemental].
Shield Master
When wielding a [One-Handed] weapon in the main hand and a shield in the off-hand, you receive the following benefits:
- you may perform Bull Rush maneuvers with your shield as a Move Action
…?
not quite sure where to go with "Shield Master". Basically I want to enable something like "Viking" fighting style, with broadsword or battleaxe and large shield. That is something that for instance Pathfinder has always sabotaged. Only Path of War makes it viable. Anyway, I like the Shove as Move Action, but I don't want to copy the 5E feat 1:1.
BTW, I also shuffled around weapon properties a bit again. There are now Neutral Properties that are basically just tags and do not cost a slot, like One-Handed; and Negative Properties that impose some drawback but grant an additional slot, like [Two-Handed]. I'm also thinking about bringing back Simple Weapons, in the form of a property [Simple] that just costs a slot and does nothing else.
--
Another thought on Bonus Attacks:
I am wondering if I should limit BAs to "one per source", i.e. you could get one from Tracks, one from Feats, one from Items and one from Spells.
On the one hand, I want to avoid a situation where players might deem it mandatory to max out their Bonus Attacks.
On the other hand, for instance Swashbuckler and Acrobatic Adept are natural siblings but they do have BA redundancy between them, which is kind of a pity.
The hard limit "one BA only" is certainly robust, but makes iconic D&D spells like Haste redundant pretty quickly.
A alternative rule that just came to mind: any [Bonus Attack] that you receive beyond the first, instead improves one of your iteratives to Full BAB.
So suppose you are level 11 and your BAB is +11/+6/+6, the first BA makes it +11/+11/+6/+6; the second one turns it into +11/+11/+11/+6, and so on.
The question again is, what to do wih the Swashbuckler, whose main shtick it is to get Full BAB attacks. Granting him alone extra Bonus Attacks would probably make him vastly overpowered compared to all other offensive tracks; not granting him anything at all would have the opposite effect.
For shield. I think the Shove as base line is a good start. Perhaps something that rewards defensive fighting, like granting bonus deflection to allies within melee/close range, or providing a free AoO or Temp HP whenever a foe misses you with an attack.
I really like the idea of bonus attacks helping iteratives. But you're right, swashbuckler is either left out or super OP. Crashing Wave and Leaping Flame fighter and Charge attackers like Knight also seem to be left out a bit but not as hard as swashbuckler. I'm thinking maybe only apply it to their 1st standard action single attack, but nothing after that. Something along the lines of:
"Whenever an ability requires you to make a single attack as a standard action (Such as Charge or Once More!), any Bonus attacks you receive (at full BAB) also apply to the initial attack, granting all the bonuses to hit and damage that would apply" This would also have the added benefit of making combat maneuvers off of non-monk character slightly less useless.
I think keeping Bonus attacks at 1 per source is still reasonable, Magic, Feat, Item and Track are the 4 I can think of and requires a pretty good investment of resources to get all of them. So at best a character would get +20/20/20/20/15, and missing 1 or 2 sources doesn't feel too detrimental. At least to me. I think playtesting is in order to really hammer it down.
Firechanter
2019-05-16, 07:48 PM
Hey, just a quick heads-up -- I'm pretty swamped these days, and haven't had a lot of time to fiddle with the game atm. Should improve in June I suppose, and I'm looking forward to continue exploring this avenue in good time.
DeadlyUematsu
2019-05-18, 11:58 PM
The forum had a problem which eventually was resolved by the system creator and set to read only. It may be nice to create a new forum but the Legend Fans Discord is still around and it's separate from the The Stuff of Legend discord which is devoted to a spiritual successor spearheaded by Legend contributor Mystify (though there's a lot of overlap between the two). As for myself, I play in a Legend game ran by one of the LF Discord regulars in an adaptation of Wrath of the Righteous which is pretty cool. One of the problems with the discord regulars is there's not a lot of overlapping schedule availability which means not a lot of games get over the body count hump so it's really helpful just to spread word that there are folks still interested for the sake of reaching that sweet critical mass where games can launch without issue.
Silva Stormrage
2019-05-19, 12:28 AM
The forum had a problem which eventually was resolved by the system creator and set to read only. It may be nice to create a new forum but the Legend Fans Discord is still around and it's separate from the The Stuff of Legend discord which is devoted to a spiritual successor spearheaded by Legend contributor Mystify (though there's a lot of overlap between the two). As for myself, I play in a Legend game ran by one of the LF Discord regulars in an adaptation of Wrath of the Righteous which is pretty cool. One of the problems with the discord regulars is there's not a lot of overlapping schedule availability which means not a lot of games get over the body count hump so it's really helpful just to spread word that there are folks still interested for the sake of reaching that sweet critical mass where games can launch without issue.
Could you link any information to the spiritual successor? I couldn't find anything with a quick google search. Is it just run on that discord channel?
Hey, just a quick heads-up -- I'm pretty swamped these days, and haven't had a lot of time to fiddle with the game atm. Should improve in June I suppose, and I'm looking forward to continue exploring this avenue in good time.
No worries, you've given me some motivation to work on a few things from some of the homebrew that was collected from the forum, and I barely get 2-3 hours per week to work on any of my RPG stuff as it is. First work in progress is the Blackguard and the Bard. I do appreciate any comments or concerns on the classes.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uP4xngmJ9Vrp2LWX-0iaNjeoPkKvMmMJMnBgNfjYOeY/edit?usp=sharing
Could you link any information to the spiritual successor? I couldn't find anything with a quick google search. Is it just run on that discord channel?
I looked too and didn't have any luck. I don't even have my links to the Legend Discord server anymore since I had to give it up, but maybe Uematsu does? I remember it was called "The Stuff of Legends" and they had most of a players handbook completed back in December. It felt very different to me, it looked like they maintained the track system but the way stats were determined and calculated was hard for me to grasp at the time. It seemed to be drifting away from SRD and while I wasn't a fan, I could tell a lot of others really liked it. It was definitely interesting and worth looking into.
Ratter
2019-05-19, 10:01 PM
Someone made a monster manual a while ago, and the spiritual successor is as much a successor as 4e is to 3e, the core appeal is different. It still uses tracks but the glorious building of characters has been substituted for a nearly totally balanced game.
Silva Stormrage
2019-05-20, 12:16 AM
Someone made a monster manual a while ago, and the spiritual successor is as much a successor as 4e is to 3e, the core appeal is different. It still uses tracks but the glorious building of characters has been substituted for a nearly totally balanced game.
Well sure I am sure it's different but I would still like to look at it and I can't really do that without knowing where to look :smallbiggrin:
Ratter
2019-05-20, 06:22 AM
In the discord the devs are active and the game is free, discord link: (for legend not for the Revamp) https://discord.gg/qX2Wvxk
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.