TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm wondering if the pathfinder rule has too little downside for the specialist wizard. More spells most of the time, but still retaining much of the flexible spell selection of a generalist wizard.

I think so. It creates a "false choice."

Regarding your math-- giving you the benefit of the doubt on whether the comparison is valid or not-- the total addition in spell levels would be:

1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 = 45

This would bring the wizard's spellcasting value up to 0.51, an increase of 0.10, or 10 feats.

Or, 1 feat every other other level; or 1 feat per added specialist spell slot.

(This would value the 1st level spell slot as 1 feat and the 9th level spell slot as 1 feat, but of course then we start to get into what 1 CR means at 1st level vs. 20th level, etc. You and I don't need to go down that road-- paved by UK-- again I hope...)

Some drafts of Trailblazer had the specialist wizard gaining only the bonus ready spell and not the bonus slot, but I felt it was too great a departure.

Would still be a good house rule if you find specialist wizards too powerful (even with banned schools).

 

[Cheiromancer]

Yeah, it looks like I messed up my calculations somewhere. Looks like I interpreted the 0.1 level as being 0.1 feats/level over 20 levels for a grand total of 2. That was just bone-headed.

 

[Elephant]

I'm wondering if the pathfinder rule has too little downside for the specialist wizard. More spells most of the time, but still retaining much of the flexible spell selection of a generalist wizard.

I strongly agree with this statement. Much of the "downside" of a specialist wizard is the opportunity cost represented by the banned schools. Giving access to the banned schools, even at a premium of costing extra spell slots, eliminates the cost.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yeah, it looks like I messed up my calculations somewhere. Looks like I interpreted the 0.1 level as being 0.1 feats/level over 20 levels for a grand total of 2. That was just bone-headed.

UK's method averages the value of a feat across 20 levels; ergo 0.2 per feat becomes 0.01 per feat (or class feature).

Clearly, 1 feat (0.2) is worth more proportionally at 1st level than it is at 20th level.

I've seen some criticisms of Trailblazer on this count in various venues, as if I was unaware of the fact.

The "solution" to this is to expand the "bands" of CR, exactly as Upper_Krust did, to account for those proportional increases in CR.

That's a step too far for me, at this time-- and probably for most 3e devotees.

But it is on my To Do. The reception to Trailblazer so far (and, it should be noted, to Pathfinder) indicates a greater appetite for aggressive fixes than I anticipated.

As long as I am exploring the design space I'm down for more cowbell.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, a 1st level spell is worth more at 1st level than it is at 9th level. :shrugs:

I'm interested in the various tidbits that you drop- like not allowing Natural Spell. I want to hear more about things like that.

A design column on "hard limits" vs "soft limits" vs "flavor limits" might be helpful. Flavor limits are things like restrictions on the multiclassing of monks or paladins- not necessary for game balance, but still something that can enrich the game.

Soft limits are limits that can be broken with feats or spells or prestige classes. Or AP for that matter- things you can't normally do, except when you can.

Hard limits are things that are deeply imbedded in the game, and things get messed up when they are tinkered with. Either that or they would be much more expensive to remove than would seem reasonable at first glance. Things like the specialist prohibited school. Or Natural Spell. Maybe others. There's a feat that allows a bard to disguise their spells in their performances. Is that a soft limit or a hard limit?

Intuitively it seemed to me that a feat could unlock a prohibited school. Or maybe unlock it for a pathfinder two-for-one exchange. But that was me being dumb- that prohibited school is actually worth five feats, not one. And who knows what a pathfinder option should be priced at? I don't even know if it makes sense to go down that road and *try* to price such things.

 

[sbarrie]

I'm a bit confused as to how the Spell Slot system interacts with the 10 minute rest.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a character can ready three first level spells, and they have three first level spell slots.

As I understand it, that character could prepare a Rote spell, a Restricted spell, and a Ritual spell.

During the adventure, they could cast each spell once (Case A). Or they could cast the Rote spell three times (Case B). Or the Restricted spell three times (yes?)(Case C), or the Ritual spell three times (Case D).

After a 10 minute rest, if no AP are spent, case A has one spell slot available, case B has three available again, and cases C and D have none available. If you spend 1 AP, case A would have two available, C would have all three available again, and D would have one available.

Is this correct? So you could cast the same Ritual spell multiple times, it just wears the spellcaster out. But they can always take a full night's sleep to replenish.



For my typo, on page 46, is it "Bonus Ready Spell" (in the text) or "Bonus Readied Spell" (in the table)? Bonus Ready Spell reads oddly for me, but it pops up a couple of times. Maybe that's not a typo.

And on page 74, Greater Weapon Focus isn't aligned with the other feat titles. (Nitty)

Won't the feats Extra Spell Slot and Extra Ready Spell become "must haves"? Maybe if they only worked on your second highest (or lower) level spells?

Something that's not addressed by the system is massive damage. 50 points of damage in a single attack isn't that rare at high levels, and with a "1" automatically failing you can end up with a pretty "unfun" situation for front line fighters (roll to see if you die outright. Again).

I'm a bit disappointed that the Monk's speed is still an enhancement bonus. That never made sense to me. I guess they have magic feet.

Anyway, great product. I'm pleased with my purchase.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As I understand it, that character could prepare a Rote spell, a Restricted spell, and a Ritual spell.

During the adventure, they could cast each spell once (Case A). Or they could cast the Rote spell three times (Case B). Or the Restricted spell three times (yes?)(Case C), or the Ritual spell three times (Case D).

After a 10 minute rest, if no AP are spent, case A has one spell slot available, case B has three available again, and cases C and D have none available. If you spend 1 AP, case A would have two available, C would have all three available again, and D would have one available.

Is this correct? So you could cast the same Ritual spell multiple times, it just wears the spellcaster out. But they can always take a full night's sleep to replenish.

It's early and pre-coffee, but I think you have it exactly right.

For my typo, on page 46, is it "Bonus Ready Spell" (in the text) or "Bonus Readied Spell" (in the table)? Bonus Ready Spell reads oddly for me, but it pops up a couple of times. Maybe that's not a typo.

Too late to change that for print (we're in pre-flight already) but I'll note it to keep the PDF updated.

Won't the feats Extra Spell Slot and Extra Ready Spell become "must haves"? Maybe if they only worked on your second highest (or lower) level spells?

Well, I don't think so. YMMV.

Something that's not addressed by the system is massive damage. 50 points of damage in a single attack isn't that rare at high levels, and with a "1" automatically failing you can end up with a pretty "unfun" situation for front line fighters (roll to see if you die outright. Again).

Massive damage = Dying works just fine. Many folks have been doing that for years.

Trailblazer is already pretty darn nerfy with respect to PCs.

(And although the mechanic has not changed, we've cleaned up that whole death/dying section extensively.)

I'm a bit disappointed that the Monk's speed is still an enhancement bonus. That never made sense to me. I guess they have magic feet.

That never made the list of complaints... Again, easy to house rule! Go nuts.

 

[sbarrie]

Massive damage = Dying works just fine. Many folks have been doing that for years.

Trailblazer is already pretty darn nerfy with respect to PCs.

(And although the mechanic has not changed, we've cleaned up that whole death/dying section extensively.)

It's not the death as much as the fixed value that's a problem in my mind (and possibly only there). 50 points to a 5th level character is like the wrath of God. 50 points to a 20th level barbarian is a flesh wound.

I'll probably just return to my old AD&D house rule, that massive damage kicks in at half your maximum hit points, for the next campaign I run. (It even works well with Trailblazer 1st level characters, where it was fairly cruel to AD&D 1st level characters.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's not the death as much as the fixed value that's a problem in my mind (and possibly only there). 50 points to a 5th level character is like the wrath of God. 50 points to a 20th level barbarian is a flesh wound.

I'll probably just return to my old AD&D house rule, that massive damage kicks in at half your maximum hit points, for the next campaign I run. (It even works well with Trailblazer 1st level characters, where it was fairly cruel to AD&D 1st level characters.)

I think 50% will prove too low through low and mid levels.

Can I bargain you into 50 points or 50%, whichever is greater?

 

[joela]

why?

The reception to Trailblazer so far (and, it should be noted, to Pathfinder) indicates a greater appetite for aggressive fixes than I anticipated.

May I ask your opinon on that, Wulf. Seriously? As I go through the various forums, from here to Paizo to rpg.net, the amount of vitriol against the 3.x system seems almost limitless. Sometimes I even wonder if we play(ed) the same game.

Why do folks want, as you call it, "aggressive" changes yet deplore the 4th edition system? I like Pathfinder and Trailblazer.