Legend Game System (by Rule of Cool Gaming)

So, there's this new system out called Legend. I am here to heartily, heartily recommend it - it's a very effective streamlining of d20 mechanics, as well as a system chock full of Troperiffic elements in the core rules.

There's just something very cool about a system that feels like 3.5 in gameplay, but has min-maxers wanting to play Paladins and Monks.

You can find it here, as well as a donation button (all proceeds go to charity).

What do you think of the 4e elements?

Well, I'm a big fan of the 4E save system being implemented - balances the characters out very well. The concept of "all classes gain abilities at the same time" is arguably a 4E element, and quite welcome for balance. The skills system is also very elegant (and one of the reasons that character creation is as swift as it is).

...in other words, pretty much everything I like about 4E is in here.

I'm really impressed by this! Dividing classes that way seems like a really inspired move, and their choices of archetypes for the main classes seem really sound.

I'm a little annoyed by the way fluff is crowbarred into the the rules text, though, and I'm not sure that feats should offer new and wacky attack powers as though they were steps on a track. The feat "Baptized in Rage" pretty much brings all of my complaints about the system together and presents them in one ridiculous block of text.

I'd agree, some of the feats just have too much fluff in them. That said, many of them are really easily re-fluffed.

Also: Legend now supports PONIES.

I laughed an evil laugh when I saw that.

Or at least, it sounded evil.

edited 12th Dec '11 6:58:02 PM by AweStriker

I'm looking at the rules, and feel like I'm wasting time reading d20 material I've already read. Can someone give me the quick version of the differences between standard d20 and Legend?

Main differences:

• Every class is built to be Dual Attribute Dependent, so that the broken-ness of Single Attribute Dependency and the problem of Multiple Attribute Dependency are both gone. To facilitate this, characters gain much more significant bonuses to their stats as they level up (+8 to two stats, +6 to two more, distributed over 20 levels).

• Classes have been rebuilt from the ground up. Every class has three sets of abilities, called "tracks" - each track has seven abilities, each one called a "circle." The three abilities are distributed evenly to give every character a minimum of one new class feature per level, which is itself a significant and scaled increase in power. Each class is initially designed to have an offensive track, a defensive track, and a utility track.

• Multiclassing is a breeze. A multiclassed character swaps out one track for a track from another class. This results in a complete set of thematically and mechanically significant abilities that scale properly with level. Feat investment can be used to take an additional track from another class, as well as to replace most of a character's items with another track.

• There is a limit on the number of items a character can use during combat.

• For that matter, items themselves have been streamlined significantly - the mechanics are the same no matter whether your armor is made of silk or titanium (armor is either "Heavy" or "Light," and can be scaled up to any item tier with increased bonuses and abilities) and different weapons are much more equal than in 3.5.

• Conditions are better defined and streamlined.

• Level is the *only* measure of power in this system. A CR 3 Dragon is merely a level 3 Dragon (mechanically, anyway - Game Masters are free to arrange things so that there is no such thing as a Dragon below level 5, for instance). As such, abilities are much more Badass Normal level at low levels, and start to inch up toward godhood at high levels - with encouragement in the system to use level caps to determine the power level or magic level of a campaign. That said, even those godlike abilities tend to still be thematically appropriate (Barbarians get fear effects and permanent Rage at high levels, for example). This means that it is a breeze to play as a monster (demons, dragons, undead, and robots are provided in the core rulebook; pegasi and unicorns have also been published), and that monsters can be easily scaled up or down for any campaign.

• The game was balanced by having experienced 3.5 power gamers create game-breaking builds and fight each other in arena battles - all game-breakers that were discovered were eliminated or modified. The result is a game that feels like 3.5 but is much more balanced. (If anything, melee characters are slightly stronger than spellcasters at the moment, pending errata.)

edited 18th Dec '11 12:37:31 PM by TheEvilDrBolty

Level is the only measure of power? How does that work for monsters vs. players (I.E., the game balance that matters most in practice?) Do you throw level 3 dragons at level 3 players? Level 6? "Whatever seems to work?"

Encounter Level (EL) equals level - which is actually exactly how 3.5 did it for using PC races and classes as encounters. For calculating matches with uneven numbers, a character 3 levels higher is about right to challenge a team of four characters of the same level, and vice versa (IE, one additional level per additional character to keep the EL the same - with the caveat that throwing a group of enemies against the P Cs will be a better way to challenge them). There is also a specific set of abilities that can raise EL by two in order to create particularly challenging bosses.

Personally, I think that works FAR more elegantly than the convoluted system of Challenge Rating, added Hit Dice, and class levels given to creatures in 3.5.

The "Ponies" add-on is good for a laugh, but just from one glance I can see that it's not going to be a threat to any self-appointed Fi M game writers. (Too violent for cartoon ponies, too silly to play in a dungeon game.)

Still, this is a pretty nice game and as a big fan of simplicity I strongly welcome the parts directed at just that. There do seem to be a few issues with balance and random fluff here and there (like everyone else reading this I assume I fell in love with the Paladin), but the level-based character/encounter system makes up for a lot of that.

What kind of rules for different races does it allow?

All races are built on the same basic template. IIRC:

• A size class similar to 3.5.
• Stat modifiers that total to +2 (usually +2, +2, -2)
• A list of racial feats, of which you may choose one during chargen.
• Two special bonuses, such as night vision or a set of related skill bonuses.

Do wizards have to roll to hit with spells or do people still just have to suck it up and take it?

Spellcasters still don't have to roll, but their targets get saves to everything. If anything, saves are so good and spell D Cs are so low that spellcasting is a little underpowered.

Also: "Wizard" has been replaced with "Tactician." Which is essentially a wizard anyway.

edited 26th Dec '11 5:14:32 PM by TheEvilDrBolty

I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out how the classes fit into a archetype structure. In particular, it seems strange to me that there is no Cleric or Knight equivalent.

Also, this is obviously a very combat-centered system, even more so than 3.5, seemingly.

Shaman is more or less the clear Cleric equivalent. Keep in mind that the complete lack of equipment restrictions means that it's pretty easy for nearly any class to be nearly anything. As for knights - Paladins and Barbarians serve that purpose in different ways in the core rulebook.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: Legend Kickstarter! This one dedicating to paying for illustration work in the books and the campaign modules.

Very interesting setting.

edited 25th Feb '12 9:40:08 PM by Vyctorian

"Knight" is actually a track that exists. Look under the incentives page. There's quite a bit of interesting and useful bonus content there.

Blech. I'm quite frustrated. I know one shouldn't be disappointed if their extremely specific character concept is unplayable, but still.

I had this idea, see. It was rather quite detailed (and partially based off of Karn from Magic The Gathering), but the basic concept was "Living weapon that became an artificer out of self-exploration."

It was going pretty smoothly at first. Sentient Construct, on account of him being a robot thing. Mechanist Savant, for the artificer part. (Yeah yeah, two defencive tracks, I know.)

The living weapon bit would follow a pretty long progression, but would be mostly doable. Take the racial feat about the in-built weapon at first level, make it a rifle (because bows aren't robot-y enough), take feats and magic items to increase the epicness of this rifle as you go along, ending with the Planar Weapon artifact if at all possible.

Now, I just needed an offencive track that worked with guns.

Browse, browse. . . Assassin is interesting, but too sneaky. This guy is more "point at something and blow it up" than "snipe from the shadows." Same with the Ranger's track.

Oooh, Paladin. Smiting. That could work. That would be PERFECT. Except it relies on Charisma, which is the Sentient Construct's bad stat.

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

I think there might be a feat to fix that.

I seem to have it pretty much worked out, with the caveat that it would have to start at around fifth level to be anything resembling efficient, due to the sheer number of feats it requires. (Guild Initiation, Battleforged, Musketeer)

edited 29th Feb '12 3:11:56 PM by Exelixi

Play it anyways. Have your character thrive on the adversity the world has curse them with.

Nah, there's a thing that works. Dartmuth Secret. Sweet as fuck. As I mentioned, though, it's yet another feat slot.

Wouldn't multiclass flexibility do the trick?

That only works with DC calculation.