Myth and Legend
First Post
I've been busy with IRL work-related things and traveling. Perhaps it would be unwise for me to host another game, though I'd definitely give playing a try.
Legend - a 3.5 improvement (doing it right - PF is now obsolete)
Myth and Legend
First Post
Well, this week apart from work I've promised a friend I'd make a logo for his new pet store he is opening, and I want to make it good in Illustrator (professional like), so that will take time. I'm also providing images for an online community sort of as a free services, and I have to make two as well. I don't know where I'll be this weekend, but if I manage to finish the handbook next week I can whip up a level 1 adventure.
Walking Dad
First Post
Sounds great! I want in. If I hadn't just started recruiting for a Savage Worlds game, I would maybe try to GM it myself.
... took me this long to find this thread, yesh 
;
Any ways, I have the urg to do a undead dragon(litch) barb. (Dest. path) and elemental(fire or acid)
Think about how hard it would be to kill, in melee it would have stacking debuffing auras and at range, its tossing AoEs around while healing itself, when you kill it, it revives ready for more, and when you kill it again, it revives yet again at the next story ark
needless to say it would not be exceptional in melee or range, but you would be hard pressed to force it into a situation it can't deal with
Alternatively the dest.path could be replaced with a monk/DotC for yet an other combat revive, for W.W.Y.D.* silliness. Alternatively the litch can be changed to a Ghoul, skelly# or vamp and the Elemental can to changed to a cross class track of DotC
[*Why! WONT! YOU! DIE!!!]
[#but where do you get the heart for the dragon 7th circle ability?]
...
Who thinks I just hate it when my characters kick buckets?
;Any ways, I have the urg to do a undead dragon(litch) barb. (Dest. path) and elemental(fire or acid)
Think about how hard it would be to kill, in melee it would have stacking debuffing auras and at range, its tossing AoEs around while healing itself, when you kill it, it revives ready for more, and when you kill it again, it revives yet again at the next story ark
needless to say it would not be exceptional in melee or range, but you would be hard pressed to force it into a situation it can't deal with
Alternatively the dest.path could be replaced with a monk/DotC for yet an other combat revive, for W.W.Y.D.* silliness. Alternatively the litch can be changed to a Ghoul, skelly# or vamp and the Elemental can to changed to a cross class track of DotC
[*Why! WONT! YOU! DIE!!!]
[#but where do you get the heart for the dragon 7th circle ability?]
...
Who thinks I just hate it when my characters kick buckets?
Jemal
Adventurer
I only recently started playing Pathfinder (Within the last year), I like some of it but for the most part I still prefer 3.5. I wouldn't mind seeing how this holds up, though I must admit that one of the things I love about 3.5 is the abundance of extra material, so not sure how Legend will do with just base rules.
Walking Dad
First Post
I don't think so. The Legend rules sound really innovative and not like trying to milk the last 3.5 lovers. For this look more at Pathfinder (which was born to create a 3.5 feeling) and D&D Next (which brings back many 3.5 tropes).
And if you look at your 30+ 3.5 books, you will realize that it isn't a solid system.
And yes, currently it is a one book system. That doesn't reduce the value of it's core rules and the fixed problems of 3.5 area d20 systems.
And you just decided what the point of D&D is... it looks like the next incarnation goes back to 3.5 multiclassing, which is as "team unfriendly" as the customization abilities in Legend.
I don't say that it is the holy grail of gaming or anything, but I think the core mechanics learned from past mistakes and that the system isn't as bas as your post make it look.
And if you look at your 30+ 3.5 books, you will realize that it isn't a solid system.
And yes, currently it is a one book system. That doesn't reduce the value of it's core rules and the fixed problems of 3.5 area d20 systems.
And you just decided what the point of D&D is... it looks like the next incarnation goes back to 3.5 multiclassing, which is as "team unfriendly" as the customization abilities in Legend.
I don't say that it is the holy grail of gaming or anything, but I think the core mechanics learned from past mistakes and that the system isn't as bas as your post make it look.
Jemal
Adventurer
not exactly the point I was trying to make, Vertexx - In fact, I disagree with you whole-heartedly on the 'point of D&D' multiclassing thing.
Most of the memorable, fun, and well-developed characters I've ever ran, DM'd for, or read about are combination types, b/c they're more complex and involved.
And as far as I'm concerned, the POINT of D&D - And every other game out there - is to have fun.
I actually haven't looked at Legend yet, but when I get a chance I plan on it, I was commenting that the main thing I enjoyed about 3.5 was the abundance of Options (As another of those who has most of the 3.5 source books). It's why I never went back to 2e.. it seemed too restrictive after the freedom of 3/3.5
As for broken systems - I've played literally a few dozen different gaming systems (And not just one-shot or tried it one night, I mean bought the books and played a few campaigns), and I have yet to find a game that isn't broken.
It's true that 3.5 is easier to break with all those 30+ books, but it and most games are just as breakable simply within the core rules. I've long ago come to the conclusion that you can't have a TRULY balanced game if you want it to be fun.
Most of the memorable, fun, and well-developed characters I've ever ran, DM'd for, or read about are combination types, b/c they're more complex and involved.
And as far as I'm concerned, the POINT of D&D - And every other game out there - is to have fun.
I actually haven't looked at Legend yet, but when I get a chance I plan on it, I was commenting that the main thing I enjoyed about 3.5 was the abundance of Options (As another of those who has most of the 3.5 source books). It's why I never went back to 2e.. it seemed too restrictive after the freedom of 3/3.5
As for broken systems - I've played literally a few dozen different gaming systems (And not just one-shot or tried it one night, I mean bought the books and played a few campaigns), and I have yet to find a game that isn't broken.
It's true that 3.5 is easier to break with all those 30+ books, but it and most games are just as breakable simply within the core rules. I've long ago come to the conclusion that you can't have a TRULY balanced game if you want it to be fun.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
Pathfinder 2e Newbie with questions.
