Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - GreyMantle

Pages: [1] 2
Legend Homebrew / Re: The Fighter - Combat Prowess in a Class
« on: December 21, 2013, 03:16:38 PM »
This looks pretty neat. Is there anything in it that's crazy incompatible with 1.0?

General Legend Discussion / Re: Questions about the rules, thread #2!
« on: December 14, 2013, 11:00:37 PM »
Q208: Can you use Mental Thrust to accomplish things that a strong gust of wind would accomplish? Eg, blow out a torch, move a bunch of leaves, etc? Or can it only act on creatures as a telekinesis-type thing?

Q209: If you get [Blown Away] into a wall, do you take damage?

General Legend Discussion / Should this have been a party sweep?
« on: October 13, 2013, 05:47:13 PM »
The party:

Level 3; Legendary

Ranger: Vigilante/Reign of Arrows/Professional Soldier
Sage: Just Blade/Force of Will/Arcane Secrets
Paladin: Judgment/Heroica/Smiting

Ranger had the Mr. Atlas ability so he could use Dead-Eye every round.
Sage had the Indestructible ability.
Paladin had the Chameleon ability; she didn't use it.

Optimization-wise, none of them were great, but the characters were competently built.

Total EL: 7-9ish

The baddies:

3 level 2 Monks (standard)
1 level 4 Swashbuckler/Esoterica Radica/Acrobatic Adept

Total EL: 6-7ish

The Battle:
It was an effectively nondescript room; the Paladin showed up on the second round of battle. Other than that, it was pretty much a straight melee. No one played their character perfectly: the Paladin misread how Truly Bad People worked and only used it once instead of once every round, and the Ranger forgot about Return Fire a time or two. But I know I missed a few of the enemies' passive abilities as well. I was rolling reasonably above average; their rolls were about as you'd expect.

Despite this, the battle was pretty one-sided. The party had managed to drop one or two of the monks before they all got merc'd. Should I have expected this? By my rough reckoning, they probably should have been able to prevail. But they totally did not.

Legend Mechanics & Balance / Re: Decreasing Everything's Hp
« on: July 24, 2013, 05:25:20 PM »
I'm worried that combat resolution is likely to take a lengthy amount of time were I to run Legend with my group. I have like 6-8 regular players and almost half of them have never really shown the capacity to become especially rules savvy. An immediate (but clearly bad) way to make combat take less time would be to fix the rules such that everyone gets KO'd faster.

Legend Mechanics & Balance / Re: Decreasing Everything's Hp
« on: July 24, 2013, 05:08:33 PM »

That's about what I figured. I don't mind playing rocket launcher tag in 3.5, but I feel like it would not be as enjoyable in Legend.

What about just thirding or halving the base class hp by level? That would not be quite as prominent, and it would not weaken KDM so much.

Legend Mechanics & Balance / Decreasing Everything's Hp
« on: July 24, 2013, 01:43:33 PM »
Say I were to decrease everything's hp by a a factor of a third or something, but leave every other mechanic that interacts with hitpoints alone. To what extent would this fuck over Legend's underlying maths and make me a terrible person?

General Legend Discussion / Re: How long do combats last in practice?
« on: July 07, 2013, 05:22:03 AM »
The two Legend encounters I've run so far were both in the 6-10 [Round] range. But this was mostly because, for three or four [Rounds] in both encounters, almost no one rolled anything above a 8 for attack rolls. So they were definitely statistical outliers.

[GreyMantle casts Revive Thread]

Did anybody ever use this class? It did not seem to get a whole lot of attention when it was posted. I'm probably going to be running an Eberron-y Legend game in the near-ish future, so an Artificer would certainly be useful to have.

An immediate addition I would want to make to the class, were I to include it, would be letting Wands emulate spell-like abilities in addition to spells. That way you could get stuff from the Elementalist, among other tracks. I suspect that wands that can emulate any spell-like might be a wee bit overpowered, or at least thematically undesirable. But you could probably get a list of tracks that Artificers are allowed to crib spell-likes from without screwing over your game that much. Right?

A 397 (partial): I guess there is this class by DragoonWraith, although it addresses item creation in an incomplete and extremely ephemeral way. This is presumably by design, since the 3.5 Artificer was so hilariously broken.

edit: lrn2bbcode, GreyMantle

Okay, snazzy.

Q 396: What happens if a character tries to use or activate a magic item that they are not high-enough level to use? Clearly, that character is unable to access the item's specific magical abilities. But what about items that could conceivably have mundane functionality? Can you use, say, an Infighter's Bardiche or Oxidized Slab as a normal weapon even if you don't meet the activation prereqs? If you can, are the items purely mundane in function? Can you use a Gunslinger's Sash just to carry things even if you haven't attuned to the Sash?

Q 397: Will there ever be rules as to how a character would actually go about creating a magic item, or is this purely "Mother May I with your MC" territory?

Q 395: Since day 1, I've always assumed that you had to be a certain level to use the more powerful magical items. That is, you have to be at least level 5 to use Greater Items, at least level 10 to use Relics, and at least level 17 to use Artifacts. I think I picked up this impression from a combination of the Activating and Using Magic Items section and my 3.5 houserules.

Is this a correct interpretation of the rules, or am I making things up? If I am not making things up, does this restriction apply to both normal items and Consumables?

General Legend Discussion / Re: Questions about the rules, thread #1!
« on: April 14, 2013, 03:23:33 PM »
Q386: Is there any particular balance or mechanical reason that Mechanist Savant can only be attained with Guild Initiation? It seems like kind of an arbitrary restriction as of now.

General Legend Discussion / Re: What Feats Actually Get Taken?
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:15:27 PM »
Oh wow, I totally did not notice that Chatty Bugger actually had mechanical benefit now. That is neat. (I should really learn how to read; I feel it would help endlessly.)

The overall intent of the thread still stands, though: What feats do people notice characters taking in their actual games?

General Legend Discussion / What Feats Actually Get Taken?
« on: March 11, 2013, 01:10:01 PM »
As I read through the descriptions of Legend feats, almost every one makes me think, "Oh wow, that could make for a pretty fun character." (Which is certainly a stark contrast from normal D&D.) But a number of feats (Objective Analysis, By Will Sustained, Chatty Bugger, Senseshift Adept, etc.) really don't do all that much crunch-wise. They'd be neat-o to have, certainly. But they might not make the cut for a real character.

Still, never having run a Legend campaign, I don't really have a sense for what sorts of feats an organically grown character might pick up over time. I can write up builds and plan out progressions, certainly, but that's not quite the same. So I pose this question to the general forum collective. What is the range of feats you see get picked? Do some get picked very frequently? Any other weird feat-related stories, patterns, quirks, etc?

Legend Homebrew / Re: Amorphous Zones of Indeterminate Size!!!
« on: April 17, 2012, 06:13:50 PM »
Re: Hedonismbot

Handwaving positioning often works pretty well. Still, I think that it can be worth it to have a slightly more concrete system.

Re: Mystify

Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a comprehensive manner.

Now, to address some specific points.
I note that the explanation of these rules is much, much more complex than actually haveing a concrete area.

...Sort of. The rules segment of this essay comes to about 1500 words. Now, that's a lot. However, I tend to be needlessly verbose when writing. I could almost certainly cut it down by a few hundred, which is good.

For comparison: The rules in the Legend pdf that cover roughly the same topics (Distance, Terrain, Movement, Areas of Effect) come to about 1200 words. So an unedited Zones system is wordier than Legend, but not horrifically so. (And I do agree that the concept of a Zone system is more complex than the concept of a squares system, so it's understandable if Zones tend to be a bit wordier.

... You are positing several zones of varying sizes, with various features in them, and characters spread across several zones.  You still need an easy way to show what each zone is like, where they are in relation to each other, where people are in the zone.

What I've been doing this year is sketching out battles on a largeish whiteboard hung on a wall. However, you could draw Zones over printed maps, or freehand them on paper, or whatever. I do think that some sort of spatial representation is probably needed for a nonhandwaved positioning system. But such representation is also integral to a grid system.

And I fail to see how having several Zones with characters and features in them is at all more complex than having a bunch of squares with people and things in them. Showing the size of a Zone is really just as simple as writing a "3" in it.

  I have never seen people treat the battlefield as static just because there is a grid.  I have seen people stand there and exchange blows, but that is because the system encouraged it, not because we had a grid.

I'll match your anecdotal evidence with some of mine: I often notice that people treat the battlefield as static. Legend has a nonzero number of movement-based abilities, and it seems slightly more mobile than 3.x, but not such to the extent that battles will often not come down to dudes hitting each other until someone falls over. In a Zonebased system, you can at least imagine your character wandering through his Zone while fighting.

You have to decide where each zone belongs, which is more advanced than simply laying out the scenery for a grid.

As I mention toward the end, I think that having a system to decide Zone placement would increase player investment in the prebattle setup. It's more advanced, but it also opens up an entirely new layer of strategic thinking that gridbased systems just don't have. Which I think is cool.

Legend in particular has a lot of abilities that are very dependent on positioning, and removing that aspect would either undermine their usefulness or their tactical use, perhaps both. You have effects for being withing various range bands, from adjacent to melee range to close range and out...

This entire paragraph brings up a lot of very valid concerns. If I wanted to make a Zone system for Legend, I would indeed have to go through every ability and spell and convert everything into Zone notation. And that is going to be a crazyhuge amount of work. I have no illusions on this part. But I think that analogous mechanics can be found in most cases.

Agile enemies will have good Acrobatics scores and possibly higher movement ranges, allowing them to outmaneuver slower characters with stunts and the like.

So, I do agree that some degree of tactical depth will be lost with a Zone abstraction. But I don't think it's quite as much as you are impling, Mystify. Once players become familiar with the concept, I also think that Zones are faster to resolve the grids. And I believe the added strategic depth Zones give definitely make up for the lost tactical choices.

Pages: [1] 2