Test of Spite and SGTs lead to Legend. What do you think?

[Aharon]

Hi again!

I'm curious what the Den thinks about Doc Roc's new system? Its development was at least partly based on the ToS, but AFAIK, they also did SGTs.

Link: here

I haven't formed an own opinion, because it's
a) a rather large document, which I haven't had the time to attentively read completely yet
and
b) I don't know a lot about well-balanced games. I usually don't recognize flaws unless they are pointed out to me/I actually notice them while playing.

[Lokathor]

[*]Very first thing I notice? They didn't copy the "Section 15" text out of the d20srd website properly, which is fucking sloppy since you just cut and paste. If they're trying to get us a game and they care enough to put in an OGL copy and declare some parts to be OGC and some parts to be PI, then they seem to want to sell this later, so they need to follow it to the letter. Since failure to follow the OGC's rules in that case is probably because you don't understand those rules or don't care about those rules, and the rules are very simple, they could easily not understand any other number of rules or not follow them exactly in their SGTs later on. So, that's a black mark on their record.

[*]Even with all the added Tome material, DnD characters don't often use their Constitution modifier. It seems like the only real reason to keep the stat at this point is for quicker compatibility with existing material. If you're doing all new things, you could probably get rid of it.

[*]They have an option for area attacks against a DC based on a save, but it's not perfectly clear (to me at least) if you roll one attack roll against the group or one per target in the area. The former makes fights far more swingy, which is usually a bad idea.

[*]Races are short and sweet, and it seems like what used to be a big list of racial bonuses is now a list of feats to pick a bonus feat from. So humans (and halflings) can emulate another race of their choice by picking one of those bonus feats I guess. Cool.

[*]"Ability Tracks" are an interesting answer to the Multiclassing problem of 3e. I'm not sure I like it as much, but that's me.

It's 9am it's too early for any more of this analysis stuff.

[mean_liar]

I like it, but I like most RPGs, which means I don't have much constructive to say about it. They're certainly diving in with gusto, I'll give them that.

The most innovative thing I see there is the multiclassing rules.

From my perspective, I just don't have the patience to bother to teach yet another d20 system. I feel I have a good enough handle on base DnDv3.5's problems that I don't want to go and replace them with a new-but-shorter-and-unknown list of problems, much less teach/learn the game alongside my group.

That's not really disparaging Legend, though - its more pointing out that my interest in d20 rewrites and improvements is thin. For that reason, a product like Trailblazer is more interesting to me than this, since its a menu of patch fixes rather than a whole, integrated concept.

I feel like if they were going to redo 3e they could have done better by getting rid of a lot of things that they appear to be holding on to out of nostalgia, such as using ability scores rather than just their bonuses, for example, or not coming up with a meaningful magic system instead of DnD's open-ended whatever, even if that just means explicit benchmarks by spell level and school. That sort of thing.

[MfA]

[*]Very first thing I notice? They didn't copy the "Section 15" text out of the d20srd website properly, which is fucking sloppy since you just cut and paste.

What other parts should they have copied? They didn't copy the list of copyright attributions to the MM etc, but they didn't use content from the sections of the D20SRD site which contained that content AFAICS.

Took a quick look. Some things I noticed :

Multiclassing requires GM approval ... BOO HISS.

There are some pretty curious Ex abilities ... how does a rogue create an obscuring mist as an inherent Ex ability? (Those really should require some components of negligible cost like spell components, or it should be Su/Sp.)

Metagame storytelling based mechanics (encounter/scene/quest durations). Moore booing and hissing.

No Necromancy.

No solution for encounters going straight to rocket launcher duels at higher level.

[Username17]

[*] They have an option for area attacks against a DC based on a save, but it's not perfectly clear (to me at least) if you roll one attack roll against the group or one per target in the area. The former makes fights far more swingy, which is usually a bad idea.

Within the context of the written section, I think it's pretty definite that they mean that you roll one attack for the whole fireball. And yeah, that's pretty swingy. The part I don't get is the part where they think that you should recalculate everyone's save bonuses on the fly "to save time". Inverting save DCs and save bonuses into an attack roll and a passive defense is something that is going to take as long as just rolling the fucking dice. Having set things up that way from the beginning (like 4e) would save time, but doing the operations when the fireball is actually cast sure as fuck won't.

As for the game itself, I can't make hide no hair of it. Classes appear to have three different builds. These are in no way balanced. But I can't find a rule anywhere that says how many paths a Barbarian actually gets or whether they can change paths or how that would work. The different paths don't even give abilities at the same levels, I don't know what the fuck is going on.

Uh... sure. After some more reading, I have found that the rules on how you get abilities out of your class are written in the multiclassing rules. This is so counterintuitive that I am unwilling to judge these rules as a whole.

All told, I'm not super impressed. There's a lot of rather pointless seeming legacy material in there. Why are they mostly using the 3e D&D attribute chart when they've completely gotten rid of odd numbered stats? Why do they have skill ranks when your tag skills just increment every level and you can't change classes?

-Username17

[JigokuBosatsu]

That's beta alright.

[Lokathor]

[*]Very first thing I notice? They didn't copy the "Section 15" text out of the d20srd website properly, which is fucking sloppy since you just cut and paste.

What other parts should they have copied? They didn't copy the list of copyright attributions to the MM etc, but they didn't use content from the sections of the D20SRD site which contained that content AFAICS.

That actually doesn't matter at all. You copy the full section 15 of whatever you get your thing from and add your own line at the end, as per section 6 of the OGL.

Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

The following items are in the hyperdtext d20's Sec 15 but aren't in their Sec 15:

[*]Creature Collection Volume 1 Copyright 2000, Clark Peterson.
[*]Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker,Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker
[*]Monster Manual II Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
[*]Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.
[*]Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.
[*]Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

It's a pedantic complaint, but anyone who thinks they've got the brains to fix all of 3e into a more balanced game should really have their shit together.

[MfA]

Language doesn't do truth ...

As the license says, section 15 is not the copyright notice in and of itself ... it's the "COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion". So an argument can be made that each line in there is a copyright notice, not the section as a whole. Further strengthened by the fact that it says "You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE". It does not say "titles, copyright dates, and the copyright holder's names to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE". Which is what it would have to say if the section as a whole is the copyright notice.

I think they have a pretty good case for only including the copyright notices from the copyright notice portion for the actual open game content they distribute, as long as they are sure the D20 SRD didn't cross-copy content from the other books to the portions they used.

[Aharon]

@Frank
=> Calculate Saving Throws thing
I think they just put that in because you may have situational bonuses (Other modifiers). The standard number (11+base save bonus+ability modifier) of course doesn't have to be recalculated every time. They could have chosen a better wording, though.

=> Swinginess
I think they wanted to deal with the caster problem the same way 4e does - the attacker does the die rolling, not the defender. It leads to more swinginess, true. If the rest of the math works out, this may be a good thing because it scales down the power of AoE attacks to everybody else's level.

=> Gaining Tracks
The Header is "Class Features and Multiclassing", and it's at the start of the classes section. Where should they have put it in your opinion, or how should they have titled it to make clearer what the paragraph contains?

=> Legacy Material
Interesting point. There's a similar thread on GiantITP, I think it was one of the main complaints there, too.

[Username17]

@Frank
=> Calculate Saving Throws thing
I think they just put that in because you may have situational bonuses (Other modifiers). The standard number (11+base save bonus+ability modifier) of course doesn't have to be recalculated every time. They could have chosen a better wording, though.

It really does have to be recalculated every time. Especially since it becomes an attack roll, which makes it subject to a lot more bonuses and penalties than a set save DC would be.

=> Swinginess
I think they wanted to deal with the caster problem the same way 4e does - the attacker does the die rolling, not the defender. It leads to more swinginess, true. If the rest of the math works out, this may be a good thing because it scales down the power of AoE attacks to everybody else's level.

It doesn't scale anything down to anyone's power. Assuming for the moment that we agree that they never intended for AoE attack rolls to be actually treated like attack rolls and become subject to attack buffs, it's just a +1 to the DC. Let's say you're a Goblin and a low level Wizard is hitting you with a spell. You had a +1 Save Modifier and he had a DC of 15. You need to roll a 14+ to save, which means you do 35% of the time. In attack roll land, he rolls a d20 and adds +5 while you have a static defense DC of 12. He needs to roll a 7+ to hit, meaning that you "save" 30% of the time (6 numbers instead of 20).

The issue isn't that the inversion raises the spell DC by 1, it's 1 point and I don't give a fuck. The issue is that when the big bad wizard dumps his spell on 3 Goblins, instead of on average hitting 2 and missing 1, he has a 70% chance of hitting all three and a 30% chance of missing all three.

=> Gaining Tracks
The Header is "Class Features and Multiclassing", and it's at the start of the classes section. Where should they have put it in your opinion, or how should they have titled it to make clearer what the paragraph contains?

I skipped the "Class Features and Multiclassing" section until after I read the classes. I sort of assumed that the "Character Creation" chapter would tell me the procedure for getting class features. Which it did not, hence me becoming offended.

=> Legacy Material
Interesting point. There's a similar thread on GiantITP, I think it was one of the main complaints there, too.

Legacy material is all over the place. Time and time again I read something and say "Oh right, just like 3e", and then get a giant WTF moment as I realize that that 3e mechanic is just floating in space and interacts with the rest of the system in no way. The most egregious example is the skill system. I don't know what the fuck is going on there.

But not knowing what the fuck the author is talking about is pretty standard for this book:

(Su): Starting at 15th level, once per encounter, you can call down nature‘s wrath upon your opponents. When you select this ability, choose either the power of earth or the power of sky. The ability is typed as an [Earth] or [Air], [Electricity] effect based on this choice.

If you choose the power of earth, as a standard action, you cause the ground to quake in a 40-foot radius centered on any spot within Long range. Opponents take 4 damage per level and must make a Reflex save (DC 10 + ½ your level + the higher of your Strength or Dexterity modifiers) or become [entangled] for 2 rounds. A successful Fortitude save means that they are instead [prone] for the duration.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

The issue isn't that the inversion raises the spell DC by 1, it's 1 point and I don't give a fuck. The issue is that when the big bad wizard dumps his spell on 3 Goblins, instead of on average hitting 2 and missing 1, he has a 70% chance of hitting all three and a 30% chance of missing all three.

Yeah, and this only gets worse with bigger numbers of creatures. You end up with a case where a wizard is fireballing a group of mooks, and you expect one of the twenty to live through it while 19 die, but in this case, 19 attack rolls kill the whole group, and one-in-twenty suddenly have no effect (or half effect, or whatever).

Likewise, you could be fighting a group of tough monsters that you expect most of them to make the save, and randomly, they'll all just drop and the encounter will become trivial.