Is Legend a good substitute for D&D?

>>49430098
Never played it. I was going to, but it had the misfortune of coming out not long before D&D 5e.

>>49430098
I've had those PDFs sitting around for so long, and I've never had anyone to use them with. No matter how much I try, I can only get groups that'll play Pathfinder or 5e.

>>49430256
>PDFs
Did they make a monster manual yet? Only thing from keeping me going deeper is the fact I might have to stat up literally every type of monster that the party could happen to fall upon.

>>49430298
No monsters, all enemies are just class leveled people.

>>49430298
>>49430344
From what I can tell you just use class levels and different races to simulate monsters. For example, you'd use the Dragon track with some Paladin ones to make a gold dragon. Toss in some mooks from the supplement, and voila, you've got yourself an encounter.

I'd have to read over everything again, as it's been like three or four years since I last read anything about it.

>>49430298
>yet?
Sadly, Legend is dead as a doornail. There are a good number of premade creatures to pull from their forums, and between that and building them the hard way (and tweaking things you or others have already made) you should be alright.

>>49430520
>No posts in two years
>Last post had half a year between it and the previous one
Damn. I liked some of the ideas these guys had, even if they were simply making 3.5 2.0 again.

>>49430098
Yes. Absolutely.

>>49430098

Unfortunately not. Very few members of the design team had any at-the-table experience and it shows. A lot of the paths/items/feats require tracking multiple resources to the point that 5-7 different resources on the same character is not uncommon. Most of the system is downright DM-hostile starting with insisting that every NPC and mob basically go through the same character creation process as PCs leading to even mid-level monsters with 3-4 page "stat blocks."

Ultimately, it was a system designed by people who had only experienced play-by-post and it shows. It had some excellent ideas but an excellent idea in a game that can't actually be played is a waste.

>>49430098
Yes and no. It's really fun to play from the player's end, but from the GM's end it's a pain in the dick because you need to stat every single enemy. You'd be better off creating a book of monsters yourself then pulling from that.

>>49430098
If you want to play D&D, why not just play D&D? /tg/ memes? Ignore them, every board that's dedicated to a form of media has notoriously shit taste regarding it.

>>49431510
>If you want to play D&D, why not just play D&D?

Well, for a D&D clone, Legend had - at least on paper - some good and novel ideas on character building. It's a shame that it never really took off after the initial releases.
Ultimately though you are probably right, there's enough kinds of D&D already out there for everyone to play.