Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Definitely. Will fix. Glassjaw probably did this right, and I probably came in behind him and screwed it up.
TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata
Definitely. Will fix. Glassjaw probably did this right, and I probably came in behind him and screwed it up.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I was trying to be helpful to steer players towards the more successful option.
What it means is you have a choice on a saving throw:
A) Roll the d20, and before the DM tells you if you succeeded or failed, roll an action point and it to this first roll.
B) Roll the d20, and after the DM tells you it failed, roll the d20 again.
The improvement on option A is going to be the average of an action die; in the case of an exploding d6, that average is 4.
The improvement on option B is going to be the higher of two d20 rolls, and that average is less than 4.
jasin
Explorer
My mistake. What I wanted to say is that the second bolded second makes it sound like it's "roll twice, pick better" when it's actually "reroll, use the second roll" (which means that you might end up with a lower result). But it doesn't really matter, since you're only rerolling when you know you failed, so if you roll lower... you still failed. (Although I have a nagging feeling that for an exact statistic on expected improvement, it's not quite the same...? But that question is of merely academic interest.)
Another question! This time discussion-type, rather than errata-type.
I just noticed that taking a short rest dispels all ongoing effects, both good and bad. My experience is that many characters have much of their power tied up in long-lasting buffs like greater magic weapon, magic vestment, barkskin (at higher levels when 10 min/level totals in hours). Once they deplete enough of their x/rest resources that they feel they need to rest rather than pushing onwards, won't these characters be as inclined to rest until the next day as under 3.5 rules? A short rest will restore their x/rest stuff, but it will deprive them of their long-term buffs.
Another question! This time discussion-type, rather than errata-type.
I just noticed that taking a short rest dispels all ongoing effects, both good and bad. My experience is that many characters have much of their power tied up in long-lasting buffs like greater magic weapon, magic vestment, barkskin (at higher levels when 10 min/level totals in hours). Once they deplete enough of their x/rest resources that they feel they need to rest rather than pushing onwards, won't these characters be as inclined to rest until the next day as under 3.5 rules? A short rest will restore their x/rest stuff, but it will deprive them of their long-term buffs.
jasin
Explorer
I'm very surprised at this answer, since it's the answer often used to defend any balance problem with any game, and most of Trailblazer seems to written with the diametrically opposed mindset.This is not a playstyle I care to design to.
I don't design quarterstaves worrying that someone somewhere is going to work out that the spear is clearly better-- clearly better defined here as 1 point of damage, on average, better.
Frankly I didn't want to touch the half-orc, either.
Play the character that makes you go WAHOO! inside. Play the character that makes you go WAHOO! at the table.
Play what's fun, for
Ultimately, as you say, a difference of 1 point of damage is almost negligible, but it's not as if you need to work it out: 1d8 x3 > 1d6 x2 pretty clearly for anyone who knows what the notation means.
I'm not worried that the long spear monks will outshine the quarterstaff monks in actual play, but that long spears will become the automatic no-thought-required choice for monks since they're so obviously (if so slightly) better.
... or is this what you're saying? That you're only interested in addressing the problems in actual play, and if people want that +1 so hard that they'll never ever choose a quarterstaff over a long spear, that can't be helped anyway since perfect equality is impossible to achieve, and more precision will only send those people hunting for +0.5, or +0.25, or...?
random.brown
First Post
I finally finished the PfRPG Core Book so I powered up the eReader and DAGNAMMIT, I forgot to charge it. Page 2 and it powers off ...
...waiting waiting
EDIT: can't wait, plugged it in the USB charger and I am sitting next to my PC
No threadjack intended, but what reader do you use for RPG rulebooks? The models I've seen have screens so small you'd be vertically and horizontally scrolling all the time.
If you (or anyone for that matter) have one that works, I'm sold!
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
That's right, it will.
There will be some tension between players who want to continue, forcing the "long term buff" guys to spend an action point to refresh those slots-- which they can use to immediately re-cast the same buffs-- or to wait until the next day, when the long term buff guys can get all their slots refreshed for free, and then they cast all the same buffs.
Pay 1 AP and continue, or force the whole party to wait till the next day in order to save 1 AP.
This is part of spellcaster balance.
I have my suspicions how the above party discussion will usually work out.
(The Party Pool is also there for this reason, among others.)
No, Trailblazer really isn't written with the diametrically opposed mindset.
You are conflating,
"I can't be WAHOO! with my quarterstaff-wielding character concept, because the spear is a little bit better, therefore quarterstaves are for suckers and I have to use the spear..."
vs.
"I can't be WAHOO! with my cleric-wizard concept, because multiclassing spellcasters makes me suck beyond playability."
One "problem" is worthy of serious consideration. One is not.
My job as a designer is not to make sure that all options available to the players are equal. My job as a designer is to make sure that if one option does get picked over the other, that the sub-optimal decision is still playable and enjoyable. The quarterstaff passes that test with flying colors, with or without the changes we made. The half-orc passes that test with flying colors, with or without the changes we made.
Some players want to play the game. Some players want to beat the game.
I am not concerned with the players who want to beat the game, with those who find joy every time they demonstrate its unplayability through their ability to break it in various (often silly) ways.
I find my opinion on the matter fairly Gygaxian, in fact.
Yes. One is clearly better. And so you have reached an early decision point, and that decision will define you.
I am not picking on you, jasin. I appreciate the opportunity to vent on a sore subject.
EDIT: The reason it is a sore subject is because it feels to me, in my gut, that it falls under the same umbrella of player-entitlement and tyranny of the rules.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Ok, vent over.
Jasin, I didn't give you a fair shake. As I said, it's a bit of a sore subject for me, and so I took your comments in the worst possible light: from the point of view of a "seasoned" player squeezing the most from the game.
A completely new player, presented with the list of weapons available to the monk, who sees a long list of 1d6's and a 1d8 weapon, would certainly not be at fault for picking the 1d8.
The correct answer to that "problem" is that the weapons are fairly balanced against each other (inside the grouping of 2H simple melee weapons).
It certainly didn't hurt to give the quarterstaff the trip quality.
Jasin, I didn't give you a fair shake. As I said, it's a bit of a sore subject for me, and so I took your comments in the worst possible light: from the point of view of a "seasoned" player squeezing the most from the game.
A completely new player, presented with the list of weapons available to the monk, who sees a long list of 1d6's and a 1d8 weapon, would certainly not be at fault for picking the 1d8.
The correct answer to that "problem" is that the weapons are fairly balanced against each other (inside the grouping of 2H simple melee weapons).
It certainly didn't hurt to give the quarterstaff the trip quality.
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
I don't think that's right. Suppose the save DC is relatively easy (50% chance of success) but it is of critical importance- enough to spend an AP on. Spend it on the exploding die, and you've added a 20% chance to your save. Your overall chance of success has risen from 50% to 70% for the cost of 1 AP.
But suppose you wait for the result of the save. 50% of the time you'll succeed with your first try, and you'll save the AP. The other 50% of the time you'll roll again, and have a 50% chance of success. Your overall chance of success will be 75% for the cost of 1/2 AP. Clearly the second strategy is much better. It yields an improved chance of success and your average expenditure of AP is less.
I think the "add an exploding die" strategy starts to win at around 25% chance of success. If you need a 16 or better, add a die instead of rerolling.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
The "better strategy" depends entirely on what you need to succeed. And on the size of your action die, how many action dice you roll (see Shadow), etc.
EDIT: Also keep in mind, that in either case, you see the result of your d20 roll before you decide to spend an AP. (You just don't get to know if the actual result is a success or not in Case A.)
If you know you're close to 50/50 to begin with, and you roll in the high teens, you can still presume that you won't need to spend the AP.
This of course assumes you don't know the DC going in.
If you know the DC going in, it becomes trivially easy to determine which strategy is better.
Last edited:
jasin
Explorer
Yes, I sort of glossed over the option to both regain the x/rest resources and keep (i.e. recast) the buffs. There's a cost, but it's not unmanageably high.
The diametrically opposed mindsets I was talking about were
"balance problems? a real roleplayer doesn't care about balance because he will implement his concept regardless of whether it's mechanically strong or weak"
vs.
"balance problems? let's isolate them and address them".
I find the former view infinitely annoying, because I find it most often punishes those that the holder of the view would ostensibly want to reward. Ignoring balance problems in 3.5 doesn't punish the beat-the-game guy who just plays the druid (or whatever is strongest), it punishes the guy who is into wuxia and plays the sword-wielding monk and ends up missing out on flurry of blows (or whatever specific concept someone thinks is cool, but doesn't work merely because of rule idiosyncrasies).
The beat-the-game mindset is just as annoying on the face of it, but it's somehow less pernicious because it's easier to identify as problematic and address.
Ultimately, though, from what I'm getting, your mindset is actually closer to "a balance problem exists not when there's an imbalance (which is practically unavoidable), but when the imbalance diminishes the enjoyment of the game". Yes?
And I'm not picking on you, or your design, just seizing the opportunity to pick the brain of someone whom I've come to respect as a game designer in record time.I am not picking on you, jasin. I appreciate the opportunity to vent on a sore subject.
I don't think player entitlement is bad. I agree with the way you phrased it in the book, it's bad if it comes at the expense of the DM. And I think that players are justified in feeling entitled to having their quarterstaff not suck when compared to the long spear.
I would agree, however, that the impulse to seize even the tiniest bonus and to label a quarterstaff as sucking just because of a 1-point difference in damage is tyranny of the rules.
Personal experience: back in the 2E days, longswords were 1d8/1d12 (vs. Medium and smaller opponents/vs. Large and larger) and battle axes were 1d8/1d8. Dwarves still used battle axes, because what with all the DM fiat going on, the wonky 2E rules that could be pulled out, whether to the PCs advantage or detriment, the difference just got lost in the noise. This was true even for dwarves played by the beat-the-game folks.
With a tighter, more transparent ruleset, smaller differences are relatively more obvious. Now, transparency is good, but when the pervading atmosphere suggests that the only way to be awesome is within the rules, I think people can't be blamed overmuch for hunting for every last bit of awesomeness within the rules, including looking for the upgrade from 1d6 to 1d8.
Drifting further away, I think this is one of the flaws of 4E. With a completely unified framework, it's very easy to notice that the other guy's 7th-level encounter power deals 3d6 to your 2d8 and feel envious. It's not as easy to compare enervation and Whirlwind Attack.
This is one of the reasons why I've come to like action points, Exalted's stunts, and similar meta-mechanics: they let the DM enjoy all the benefits of a well-ordered system and yet inject a measure refreshing chaos when required.
Anyway, another rules question.
Since the new AoO rules only smack you for leaving a threatened area, does that mean that being able to attack inside your reach (spiked chain, monk w/long spear, giant) is a disadvantage (in that respect) compared to wielding a polearm? Or is the intent that closing with someone with a polearm doesn't provoke an AoO, even if you enter and then leave their threatened area?
Similar Threads
