Talk:Legacy (3.5e Template)

Ratings

	Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Like mythic rules from pathfinder, but cleaner. It is a boom to DMs who wants bosses everywhere.

I like this

However, what is the CR increase (I wouldn't expect an LA increase)? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The CR does not change because the template itself is a measure of challenge and power. Like elites or bosses in an RPG. --Sulacu (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

But clearly the creatures are getting a power boost, that's what the CR is for. I don't follow. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Regular monsters have just their challenge rating. It denotes the difficulty level of the fight, though it is also considered to be a flat indication of power, roughly equivalent to the effective character levels of PCs. But, there are plenty of situations in which this equivalence gets lost, or where it simply isn't desired. For example, CR by itself becomes next to meaningless in a game that straddles the top of Very High balance. So, this template and the resulting Subtype aims to introduce a second indication of challenge and power apart from challenge rating. An empowered pit fiend for example would still be a base of CR 20, with, say, the 'Legacy 3' subtype. --Sulacu (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I know CR isn't really that accurate, but not even a rough geusstimate on how much power has been added? I suppose the closest is the "mythic" levels from Pathfinder, but those change the CR. I don't know if there is a pattern. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose since I don't have to be precise about it, considering the inherent wishywashiness of CR, I could simply say the effective CR goes up by the legacy rating, if only to grant it a proper frame of reference.

Also, I changed the ability score gains from the legacy template in order to prevent multiplicative growth to rolls and checks, instead making it a flat +2 per legacy bonus. --Sulacu (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that works (and what I went with in the recent article, not that I have any idea if it's accurate). I don't actually disagree with your change either. But that timing... XD Man, I had to re-do everything. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lal, My bad. --Sulacu (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)