The Gaming Den

So, Legends & Labyrinths, made by The Alexandrian of "dissociated mechanics" fame, is out, and claims the backwards compatibility that PF lacks.

The Alexandrian wrote:Legends & Labyrinths features 100% compatibility with the advanced version of the 3rd Edition rules. This means that any stat block or mechanic usable in 3rd Edition can be used in Legends & Labyrinths without conversion.

USING ADVANCED RULES IN LEGENDS & LABYRINTHS

Perhaps the most important question is the degree to which the vast supplement library of 3rd Edition can be used in your Legends & Labyrinths game.

Spells: Although the grimoire entries for advanced spells include extra information used by the more complicated rules, these spells can be used in Legends & Labyrinth without conversion. Simply ignore the extraneous information.

Monsters and NPCs: There are two ways to use monsters and NPCs. First, as with spells, you can use their stat blocks without conversion by simply ignoring the extraneous information they contain.

Alternatively, the Legends & Labyrinths rules allow for very quick conversion. For example, the stat block for a fighter in Legends & Labyrinths requires only level, hit point total, ability scores, and equipment. So if you see an 8th-level fighter in an advanced supplement, you can either use the full stat block provides or you can just pull the pertinent information (hit points, ability scores, equipment) and run the NPC as an 8th-level L&L fighter. (This also allows for quick conversion of classes not included in L&L: If you see a samurai, ranger, or witch...

Monsters can be handled in a similar fashion. If you don’t want to use the advanced stat block provided for a monster, you can either do a complete conversion (recreating the monster from scratch using the Monster Creation rules) or you can easily do a partial conversion (using the appropriate core stats for a monster of the given CR, but using the powers listed in the monster’s advanced stat block).

Running Adventures: As detailed above, all of the spells, monsters, and NPCs in adventure can be run without conversion...

Supplementing the Rules: Because Legends & Labyrinths is 100% compatible with the advanced rules, you can incorporate any core mechanic from the advanced rules into your Legends & Labyrinths game on an ad hoc basis.

For example, Legends & Labyrinths features a stripped-down combat system. But what if you really like the detailed combat mechanics of the advanced rules? Well, all you have to do is use them. Similarly, if you really like all the character creation tools the advanced rules give you (allowing you to tweak your character just the way you like), you can create your PCs using the advanced rules and then simply play them using the Legends & Labyrinths rules.

Legends & Labyrinths functions as the streamlined foundation of the game: Advanced rules can be added to it in whatever combination you desire.

Creating New Classes: You can use the advanced character creation rules to create new classes for Legends & Labyrinths. Simply select an advanced character class and make appropriate selections for its feats and special abilities. Do not select a 1st level feat.

USING LEGENDS & LABYRINTHS WITH THE ADVANCED RULES

...

Transferring Characters: PCs created in Legends & Labyrinths can be transferred to the advanced rules at any time. Simply select a single 1st level feat for the character. (All characters in Legends & Labyrinth are assumed to gain the benefits of the Leadership feats in place of their 1st level feat.)

Fast NPC Creation: Because the classes in Legends & Labyrinths are pre-built, creating an NPC is as simple as picking ability scores, race, class, level, and equipment. This makes it much easier to prepare NPCs ...

Hazards, Traps, and Monsters: Hazards, traps, and monsters created in Legends & Labyrinth can be used in an advanced campaign...

Stunt System: The Legends & Labyrinths stunt system gives a unified mechanic for adjudicating ingenuity...

Other Original Elements: Legends & Labyrinths also includes rules for minions and potentates, a Fly skill, social ranks, training rules for advancing characters, and other innovations...

Giving everyone Leadership is an interesting choice. This also seems to indicate that there is no Ranger class; how odd. Has anyone read it?

I thought you meant that OTHER Legends & Labyrinths.

It looks like he strips out the movement rules, which is interesting.

He also uses 4e skills, which is bad. He also seems to strip feats, which is also bad.

I would like to see the unifying mechanic for adjudicating ingenuity. Sounds awesome.

Are 4E skills inherently bad, or was it an implementation issue? I keep hearing how it was a great idea that failed horribly, but it all seemed more based around the DC values and skill challenge setups than anything to do with the skills proper.

By 4E skills, do you mean skills that are either trained/untrained instead of skill points, or the fact that even untrained skills improve as you increase in level? Or having DCs be based on level?
Or do you mean he talks a lot of hype about skill challenges, and you expect him not to deliver?

4E Skills are the perfect example of what will happen if you design a skill system without having in mind what you want the top end of the curve to be. Even if you could do cool things with high-level 4E skills (which you CAN'T) it still would've fallen to pieces on several levels. It's really a fractal of failure. Not quite as bad as 3E skills, but it's like saying that a mountain of dog turds is better than a mountain of dog turds with something throwing a handful of shopping bags on top of it.

Well, guess we'll see if he's as awesome as he thinks he is.

Does leadership at first level give everyone an army? Because he's big on insisting that's how the game (and old AD&D) is supposed to be played.

Doom wrote:Does leadership at first level give everyone an army? Because he's big on insisting that's how the game (and old AD&D) is supposed to be played.

In AD&D, you only get free followers, you don't get a free cohort/henchman. I think the ranger was an exception; you could get a bear or a pegasus or something.

To answer your question, no, getting a dozen 1st level peons at level 9 does not count as giving everyone an army.

everyone should have a henchman at first level, also I'm pretty sure that the alexandrian's implementation of his ideas is going to suck. he's a sharp guy but sharpness does not always equate to good game design

I'd be kind of curious to see if his Stunt system is anything more than "Describe something awesome that isn't covered by the rules and hope the MC gives it a TN low enough for you to make it."

The Alexandrian wrote:Finally, we have the stunt system. The Legends & Labyrinths stunt system is a flexible method for allowing characters to perform unusual maneuvers during combat. A stunt can allow a character to apply a bonus to another character (or themselves), apply a penalty to another character, boost their speed or the speed of an ally, force opponents to move, or apply a variety of conditions to opponents. Resolving a stunt is a three step process:
1.Define the effect of the stunt (which determines the DC).
2.Perform the stunt by making the appropriate action check (usually a skill check).
3.If successful, the target of the stunt may attempt a stunt save to negate its effect.

The DC of the stunt save is determined by the level or CR of the combatant performing the stunt, as shown on the Stunt Difficulty Class table.

It looks like the DCs will be codified in the rules, which is a good thing. However, I am doubtful that it will be as tactically interesting as the base 3.5E special attacks.

Psychic Robot wrote:everyone should have a henchman at first level, also I'm pretty sure that the alexandrian's implementation of his ideas is going to suck. he's a sharp guy but sharpness does not always equate to good game design

I assume it'll be another loosey-goosey minimalist old-schoolish D&D game like Castles & Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics or whatever. Which is fine, if that's what you're into, I suppose.

Howdy, folks. Somebody sent me a link and I took a peek. The skepticism makes sense, but I hope y'all will check out the previews we've got coming out at the Alexandrian over the next few weeks. Or, failing that, keep an eye out for reviews and play reports.

Grek wrote:It looks like the DCs will be codified in the rules, which is a good thing. However, I am doubtful that it will be as tactically interesting as the base 3.5E special attacks.

But this caught my eye, though, and I wanted to comment on it.

You and Blicero are absolutely right. What makes the stunt system worthwhile is specifically that the DCs are hard-coded. It turns it into a substantive part of the combat system instead of a "beg the GM for a nice DC" negotiation.

What makes the stunt system work is a divided workload: On the one hand, we use an action check to determine whether or not the character successfully leverages whatever skill/ability they're using to perform the stunt. (This encourages -- but doesn't mandate -- characters to perform stunts within their areas of expertise.) On the other hand, we allow the target to make a saving throw with a DC set by the CR/Level of the character performing the stunt. (This prevents high-level characters from being just as easy to pratfall as a low-level character.) By dividing this workload, we avoid the problem similar systems have had in which the DC calculation becomes calculus: Add up all your stunt factors, then divide by the performer's HD before multiplying by the target's HD, then modify according to difficulty factors before blah blah blah...

Instead there's a short Stunt Effects table and a Stunt Difficulty Class table on page 75. (The latter is unified with the monster creation rules.) You just tally up the stunt DC, make the action check, and then (if applicable) roll the target's saving throw. Done.

Is it as tactically interesting as 3.5's special attacks? Well, let's talk about that. (The base DC for all stunts is DC 5.)

Aid Another: The stunt DC is +5 per +1 bonus. (A +2 bonus requires a DC 15 check instead of DC 10, but the mechanic is open-ended. The simplicity of +5 per +1 playtested much better than work-arounds which attempted to maintain the DC 10 = +2.)

Bull Rush: Forced movement +1 DC per 1 ft. So if you wanted to push someone 10 ft. over a cliff, it's a DC 20 stunt check.

Charge: We left basic charges in the game as an optional rule. (Surprise rounds are hamstrung without them.) But there are quite a few ways to use movement to apply a bonus to your attack roll using the stunt system.

Disarm: Forcing an opponent to drop an item is a DC 15 stunt.

Feint: There's not specifically a way to deny your opponent his Dex bonus to AC, but you can use a Bluff stunt to apply a penalty to his AC.

Grapple: L&L includes a simplified grapple system. Instead of being a complete departure from the rest of the combat rules, L&L's grapple rules just modify them using a single, simple mechanic that's easy to remember. In play it's surprisingly not that different from the advanced grapple rules of 3E, but you won't have to keep flipping the book open every time somebody tries to grab a monster.

Overrun: This one, I'll admit, is missing functionality. We briefly playtested including "helpless" in the stunt system, but it was badly busted. The closest you'll get is just using a forced movement stunt to shove them out of the way as you continue moving.

Trip: Prone is a +10 DC stunt.

So, from a tactical standpoint, we've found that the stunt system effectively replaces most of the existing combat maneuvers.

"Okay," you say. "That's all well and good. But all you've done is duplicate functionality the game already has using a slightly different system. Big deal."

But, of course, the stunt system can do much more than that. And you can actually do any of these actions using any action check (assuming you can explain how the action check will provide the desired result). So you can trip people by making a melee attack roll... but you could also shoot them in the leg (ranged attack roll) or aim a cone of cold spell to create a sheet of ice under their feet (Spellcraft check) or throw them down (grapple check) or force them to leap aside by threatening to run them down (Ride check) or yank their feet out from under them with a lasso (Use Rope check) or anything else you'd care to imagine.

So we basically hoover up all this existing functionality into a simple superstructure that's both (a) simpler than the functionality it's replacing and (b) capable of adding much more functionality to the game.

So, I'm a 7th level Bard. I have max ranks in bluff and can cast Glibness. This gives me an average bluff check of 50. This allows me to do any of the following as a standard action:
-Convince people to move up to 40' in a direction of my choice.
-Give one of my broskis a +10 to any check of my choice.
-Make someone auto-drop their weapon and fall to their kness, presumably with a Will save to avoid this.
-Apply an unspecified (but probably large) penality to someone's AC.
But not do any of these:
-Deny someone their AC from dexterity so they qualify for a sneak attack.
-Sunder things (admittedly, you don't ever WANT to do this, so props here)
-Make someone drop an item they're not holding, or pickpocket people.
-Use this bonus to grapple people. Or at least, I hope you can't.

That's interesting stuff Justin. I'm wondering at the moment about some of the conditions that can be applied through the stunt system as I feel like that's where the system will either shine or bust wide open. If you're willing to talk about it yet I'd like to hear it

Grek wrote:So, I'm a 7th level Bard. I have max ranks in bluff and can cast Glibness. This gives me an average bluff check of 50. This allows me to do any of the following as a standard action:
-Convince people to move up to 40' in a direction of my choice.
-Give one of my broskis a +10 to any check of my choice.
-Make someone auto-drop their weapon and fall to their kness, presumably with a Will save to avoid this.
-Apply an unspecified (but probably large) penality to someone's AC.
But not do any of these:
-Deny someone their AC from dexterity so they qualify for a sneak attack.
-Sunder things (admittedly, you don't ever WANT to do this, so props here)
-Make someone drop an item they're not holding, or pickpocket people.
-Use this bonus to grapple people. Or at least, I hope you can't.

The problem there is glibness bro. You could convince people to do any of those thing before if you were into diplomancy because you could always make people fanatic followers with almost no effort. Once diplomancy's on the table you can and always could make people drop their swords or move around or make best efforts to fellate themselves, or .....whatever.

Fine. Replace "Bard with Bluff and Glibness" with "Barbarian with Jump, the Run feat and a 200 ft. running start." For an average roll of 90 at level 1. Because why the fuck not.

If you're going to allow skill checks to allow cool things, you need to put a cap on how much it can do at what levels, since it is super easy to get an outrageous skill check at an inappropriate level.

JustinA wrote: What makes the stunt system worthwhile is specifically that the DCs are hard-coded. It turns it into a substantive part of the combat system instead of a "beg the GM for a nice DC" negotiation.
[..]
And you can actually do any of these actions using any action check (assuming you can explain how the action check will provide the desired result).

So begging for a DC = bad, but begging for a skill use = good?

Grek wrote:since it is super easy to get an outrageous skill check at an inappropriate level.

As Grek's pointing out, there are cases where going for backwards compatibility with D&D will completely wreck your shit. The skill system is going to be one of these areas, because D&D never bothered to try and maintain the high and low ends of a skill check at any given level. There are probably a dozen ways in core to just have a +10 to +20 on a skill check without a lot of effort (most of them spells), which means a single ability is worth about as many points as you expect to get from levelling up during your career. In D&D, this didn't matter, because there wasn't much you could do with a +50 skill check, but if you can use your skills for combat stunts that means those huge skill checks translate to combat power.

Now, I don't know how much of a problem this is for your game. It depends on how backwards compatible you're trying to be and what you've done to the skill system. You'll probably have to address this problem at some point, or else your combat stunt system will fall apart: either you set the balance point so that the average character is effective with combat stunts, and then the skill-pumpers absolutely break it, or you set the balance so that the skill-pumpers are effective and average characters suck at it, OR you set the balance point to some extreme beyond that where nobody ever uses combat stunts or everybody always uses combat stunts. All of these are bad places to be.

hogarth wrote:So begging for a DC = bad, but begging for a skill use = good?

While it's very MTP/Mother May I, you'd rather play the Mother May I game with the skill to use instead of the difficulty. At worst case scenario, it turns into "roll your highest skill against the stunt DC," which isn't a terrible way to go if skill advancement were balanced against level (which it won't be unless the problem above is solved). It just means everyone maxes one skill and are pretty much in line with eachother when it comes to performing combat stunts, and you have a define-your-own-fluff combat system based around level, as opposed to a fixed-fluff combat system based around level.

DSMatticus wrote: At worst case scenario, it turns into "roll your highest skill against the stunt DC," which isn't a terrible way to go if skill advancement were balanced against level (which it won't be unless the problem above is solved). It just means everyone maxes one skill and are pretty much in line with eachother when it comes to performing combat stunts, and you have a define-your-own-fluff combat system based around level, as opposed to a fixed-fluff combat system based around level.

On the contrary, that sounds terrible to me. I don't want Jumpy McJumperson trying to solve every problem by jumping.

hogarth wrote:

DSMatticus wrote: At worst case scenario, it turns into "roll your highest skill against the stunt DC," which isn't a terrible way to go if skill advancement were balanced against level (which it won't be unless the problem above is solved). It just means everyone maxes one skill and are pretty much in line with eachother when it comes to performing combat stunts, and you have a define-your-own-fluff combat system based around level, as opposed to a fixed-fluff combat system based around level.

On the contrary, that sounds terrible to me. I don't want Jumpy McJumperson trying to solve every problem by jumping.

Is that really so different from Hercules trying to solve every problem by being freakishly strong? Or fairy tale heroes that solve problems just by being unusually brave? I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but it doesn't seem like an element that's horribly out of place. I think it's more of a perception problem than anything; because most heroes in fiction don't have to transition between wildly different types of challenges during their careers in the way that D&D adventurers might. James Bond doesn't fight the spawn of Shub Niggurath and Cu Chulainn will never have to reprogram Skynet.

What about the other half of what he said?

JustinA wrote: What makes the stunt system work is a divided workload: On the one hand, we use an action check to determine whether or not the character successfully leverages whatever skill/ability they're using to perform the stunt. (This encourages -- but doesn't mandate -- characters to perform stunts within their areas of expertise.) On the other hand, we allow the target to make a saving throw with a DC set by the CR/Level of the character performing the stunt. (This prevents high-level characters from being just as easy to pratfall as a low-level character.) By dividing this workload, we avoid the problem similar systems have had in which the DC calculation becomes calculus: Add up all your stunt factors, then divide by the performer's HD before multiplying by the target's HD, then modify according to difficulty factors before blah blah blah...

Instead there's a short Stunt Effects table and a Stunt Difficulty Class table on page 75. (The latter is unified with the monster creation rules.) You just tally up the stunt DC, make the action check, and then (if applicable) roll the target's saving throw. Done.

There's another whole step to this mechanic, though not a well explained one. Skill checks don't do anything but force your target to roll a save, if I'm reading this right.

violence in the media wrote:

hogarth wrote: On the contrary, that sounds terrible to me. I don't want Jumpy McJumperson trying to solve every problem by jumping.

Is that really so different from Hercules trying to solve every problem by being freakishly strong?

(a) I'm not sure that he solves every problem with strength; at the very least, he has a bow with poison arrows.
(b) I'm not sure that the Labors of Hercules would make an interesting RPG adventure; even though there's only twelve of them, there's still significant repetition (find monster, chase it, catch it).
(c) Lastly, one PC with a limited schtick may be tolerable, but a party of characters like The Four Skillful Brothers or The Five Chinese Brothers or even the Legion of Superheroes would be a bit strained over multiple adventures; the GM has to keep finding rather stilted tasks for "guy with a telescope" or "iron neck guy" or Matter-Eater Lad/Bouncing Boy/Triplicate Girl to do.

I really like the idea of having different effects be achievable by a variety of means, like in the trip example. The bard example is a good idea of how it might start to slip, though, so perhaps each skill can have a list of things it can do without penalty, and then some outlandish stunt-type things where there is a penalty, or at least a level-based limit? So the 7th level bard in the example can do all the things deanruel mentioned, but the 18th level bard can sunder weapons with a jarring chord or "grapple" people with hypnotic music?

Overall, despite the complications, I really do like this part of the idea. Pushes things towards "rule of cool" without going full retard.