TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[Shaolin]

I caved and bought the PDF. I'm really loving what I'm seeing so far. I'm not going to pretend I'm of the level to comment on flaws in game mechanics, but, as an English teacher, I'll scrutinize style, grammar, and punctuation for you. Here's what I have so far:

p.12
"Spine Conclusions"
1st paragraph
"...one that is neither too
easy nor too difficult, is somewhere around 70%.." - two periods

9th paragraph
"From the DMs side of the screen, having a dodge in your back pocket may allow your big bad evil guy to unexpectedly dodge an unpleasant ray or touch attack from the party wizard." - DMs = DM's (possessive)

p.13
"Example #1"
"1 encounter will include a Minor item" - sometimes you capitalize "minor," sometimes you don't. Formulate a style guideline and then stay consistent. Same goes for table heading on same page

I'll post more as I see them. I'm really looking forward to playing with many of these rules. Bravo!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks, Shaolin!

 

[Alzrius]

On page 8, the second-to-last paragraph notes that Table 1-2 doesn't take into account Greater Weapon Focus for fighters. That doesn't seem quite right, as the Feats column, when it increases to 2, seems to add a +2 bonus to the PCs attack value; since the text for that column says the first feat is assumed to be Weapon Focus, it seems like Greater Weapon Focus is factored in for the second feat.

As far as I am concerned the only reason you "must" give high level characters any items at all is to keep them balanced against the spine. (Again, my conclusion is that they really don't need it.)

This is noted in the last paragraph on page 8. That said, it seems to understate just how much the damage is going to drop off. The loss of enhancement bonuses and stat boosts to Strength are bad enough, but also adding in the defenses that monsters have, like damage reduction, fast healing, regeneration, etc. makes this a major concern. Having an 85% chance of hitting isn't so great when each hit barely scratches the monster.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

On page 8, the second-to-last paragraph notes that Table 1-2 doesn't take into account Greater Weapon Focus for fighters. That doesn't seem quite right, as the Feats column, when it increases to 2, seems to add a +2 bonus to the PCs attack value; since the text for that column says the first feat is assumed to be Weapon Focus, it seems like Greater Weapon Focus is factored in for the second feat.

I'll check it out. I certainly did include Greater in my first set of calculations, and then took it out later. I might have goofed somewhere.

That said, it seems to understate just how much the damage is going to drop off. The loss of enhancement bonuses and stat boosts to Strength are bad enough, but also adding in the defenses that monsters have, like damage reduction, fast healing, regeneration, etc. makes this a major concern. Having an 85% chance of hitting isn't so great when each hit barely scratches the monster.

In early data sheets I worked out the DPS dropoff, but it was too wonky even for the already very wonky Chapter 1. I apologize if it seems under-stated, but I do note that it's a concern.

I'm not overly concerned with DR, as I think it's already easily passed in RAW, but I'll address it again just in case, when I take up monsters.

Clearly, if you are playing a low magic game, you're a jerk if the PCs never get any magic items to bypass DR. This seems so fundamental and elementary that I confess, I did not mention it.

 

[Shaolin]

I think I'm going to change my handle to "SnottyEnglishTeach," but here's a few more corrections:

p.4
"Design Philosophy"
“If it ain’t broke...” - ellipsis needs period after it (four dots instead of three)

p. 16
"Keep the Abilities, Change the Spine"
2nd paragraph
"in order increase a monster’s CR by +1 relative to the PCs," - the word "to" must be inserted after "order"

If I'm becoming too pedantic just let me know.

 

[GlassJaw]

I think I'm going to change my handle to "SnottyEnglishTeach," but here's a few more corrections:

p.4
"Design Philosophy"
“If it ain’t broke...” - ellipsis needs period after it (four dots instead of three)

p. 16
"Keep the Abilities, Change the Spine"
2nd paragraph
"in order increase a monster’s CR by +1 relative to the PCs," - the word "to" must be inserted after "order"

If I'm becoming too pedantic just let me know.

Good stuff Shaolin!

You haven't seen pedantic until you've seen my comments. Ask Wulf how he feels about italicizing spell names.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not overly concerned with DR, as I think it's already easily passed in RAW, but I'll address it again just in case, when I take up monsters.

Clearly, if you are playing a low magic game, you're a jerk if the PCs never get any magic items to bypass DR. This seems so fundamental and elementary that I confess, I did not mention it.

No doubt. I don't think that needs mentioning either. Rather, Table 1-2 is comparing what a Fighter with magic items can against an average monster's AC versus what he could do without magic items. While the conclusion - that they're not really needed to hit monsters of the appropriate CR - is good, the mention of just how little damage he'd inflict seemed understated; it's not just the loss of Strength and enhancement bonuses, it's also the powerful defenses monsters have as you go up the CR food chain.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A few thoughts. Mostly things that I have doubts or misgivings about. In no particular order except the last: I have serious worries about the rest mechanic.

the big six

I have my doubts about the analysis of the big six.

Suppose a party with the big six encounters an "optimal encounter": they hit 70% of the time, make their saving throws 70% of the time, kill an opponent after X hits (what's the optimal value for for "X"?), but are only knocked down after Y hits (what's the optimal value for "Y"?), etc..

What happens if this party loses their big six items? They hit less often and do less damage, thus eliminating their enemies more slowly: their enemies get more attacks in, and these are mitigated less by the party's hit point totals (due to lower Con), poorer saves (vs special attacks) and so they drop more party members. More enemies versus fewer party members means that a death spiral could easily ensue.

Mind you, action points could mitigate these dire effects, but a character can only use an AP every other encounter, whereas the big six have their effect multiple times each round.

It seems that the big six will swing the combat considerably more than the analysis in the PDF suggests. The analysis talks about the effect of the big six on saves and hitting/being hit, but neglects the other pieces and the synergy that they have. It wouldn't surprise me if an optimal encounter with the big six could turn into a TPK without them.


choose your best saves

This is a clever fix to the problem of multi-classing on saves, but it occurs to me that not all saves are equally valuable. Very bad things can happen to you if you fail a fortitude save- you might die or be paralyzed or something. Equally bad things can happen if you fail a Will save- you run in panic or get dominated or something. But if you fail a reflex save it typically only means that you take full rather than half damage.

Now things could be systematically reworked so that the saves *are* all equal- make Fortitude and Will less important by eliminating the save or die spells and giving saves every round for save or suck spells, and make Reflex saves have higher stakes (Reflex saves to avoid falling in lava, say). But I'm a little worried that all characters will have saving throw profiles typical of clerics.

stupid characters?

The changes to skills (more skill points, more consolidation of skills) would seem to make intelligence less important than it is now. Except for wizards, of course. It wouldn't surprise me if Intelligence were a more common dump-stat in trailblazer campaigns.

I also wonder if there will be more monotony in skills chosen. With only +3 difference between having a class skill and a non-class skill, everybody will be able to be perceptive, stealthy and acrobatic.

It seems that the consequence will be less diversity in character skills.

the rest mechanic

Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is
complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. This does
not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations; however
it does apply to spells both beneficial and harmful, regardless of their
origin.

This is quite a nerf to spells like mind blank, hero's feast and other multi-encounter buffs. What's worse is that the spell-slots expended for these spells are not recharged. It seems like certain spells are being triply penalized for having multiple targets, area effects and/or long durations: first they start out as higher spell levels; second they are dispelled during a rest; and third the spell slots used to cast them are discharged for the day (unless an AP is used).

The same holds true for certain baneful spells. Take Charm Monster -its duration goes from a week or more to 10 minutes after the victim next stops to rest.

I'm also afraid that the rest mechanic will constitute an "action tax" on spell casters. A wizard who wants to regularly cast fireball or magic circle against evil or buff the party with mass bear's endurance etc. will need to spend an action point each time the party rests. But she only gets 6 AP per level, and many of these will be needed for other purposes.

Instead of paying this tax, the wizard might insist on resting for 24 hours. Then we have the 10 minute adventuring day all over again.

---------

I hope these concerns do not reflect real problems, but only my misunderstanding of the rules. I'm busy with school and haven't had the time or energy to devote to this PDF that I would have liked.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A few thoughts. Mostly things that I have doubts or misgivings about. In no particular order except the last: I have serious worries about the rest mechanic.

the big six

I have my doubts about the analysis of the big six.

I think my concluding analysis of the Big Six is much better read as "You don't have to have all six of the Big Six at optimal levels (ie, a steady increase of +1 per 3 character levels), all the time,"

... as opposed to

"You can play a completely no-magic game without any of the Big Six."

Trailblazer is not a low-magic ruleset.

choose your best saves

This is a clever fix to the problem of multi-classing on saves, but it occurs to me that not all saves are equally valuable. Very bad things can happen to you if you fail a Fort or Will save. But I'm a little worried that all characters will have saving throw profiles typical of clerics.

"Feature."

Not-so-subtly hidden.

Note that 4e improved ALL saves to the Good rate (1/2 HD), while also removing save or die.

If I can take your statement there-- "I'm a little worried that all characters will have saving throw profiles typical of clerics," and extrapolate it to, "I'm a little worried that all characters have identical saving throw profiles," I have just described 4e.

I suppose your mileage may vary on standardized saving throw profiles.

Barring "Save or Die" Reflex saves-- which I suppose might be relegated to high-level "Tomb of Horrors" style traps (but definitely not lava: If you fall in lava, you die. No save.)-- I think you underestimate the value of making 10 run-of-the-mill, nothing-but-damage Reflex saves to failing 1 key Fort save. I'd rather not sweat the 10 Reflex saves, and use my APs to make those key saves.

And that's not even counting Evasion.

But if you feel that what's presented is a "False Choice," then I encourage you to give all PCs THREE Good saves.

stupid characters?

The changes to skills (more skill points, more consolidation of skills) would seem to make intelligence less important than it is now. It wouldn't surprise me if Intelligence were a more common dump-stat in trailblazer campaigns.

I also wonder if there will be more monotony in skills chosen. With only +3 difference between having a class skill and a non-class skill, everybody will be able to be perceptive, stealthy and acrobatic.

It seems that the consequence will be less diversity in character skills.

Overall we tried to de-emphasize the importance of skills in terms of "CR-consequential" stuff.

It's a design goal that all characters be able to be good at lots of "Roleplay-consequential" stuff. You can do things, explore things, know things, etc.

You left a lot of cool skills off your list. Jump is good. Spellcraft is good. Survival is good (everybody can track). Linguistics is cool.

There are bound to be some "duds" on the skill list-- especially for PCs without a clear "concept" to work towards, other than kicking ass-- but I definitely don't agree that everything other than Acrobatics, Perception, and Stealth is a dud.

the rest mechanic

Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is
complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining.

This is quite a nerf to spells like mind blank, hero's feast and other multi-encounter buffs. What's worse is that the spell-slots expended for these spells are not recharged. It seems like certain spells are being triply penalized for having multiple targets, area effects and/or long durations: first they start out as higher spell levels; second they are dispelled during a rest; and third the spell slots used to cast them are discharged for the day (unless an AP is used).

First, you're overstating the spell level increase of long durations, area of effect, and multiple target spells. Such spells exist at all spell levels (except perhaps 0th).

They're not equivalent to their short duration, single target counterparts, no. They give up something, somewhere-- usually on the order of 1/2 a spell level-- in order to boost duration or AoE. (I'll direct you back to Heroes of High Favor: Elves.)

But it's incorrect to say that your AoE spells are always your highest level spells.

The same holds true for certain baneful spells. Take Charm Monster -its duration goes from a week or more to 10 minutes after the victim next stops to rest.

We'll address specific spells later; and in the meantime look at spells with durations longer than 1 day. The goal in the design here is not to have spells that last longer than "1 rest."

You definitely don't want a situation where the casters buff everyone, rest, and get all their spell slots back-- so that the party begins with "Full buffs + Full spell slots."

I'm also afraid that the rest mechanic will constitute an "action tax" on spell casters. A wizard who wants to regularly cast fireball or magic circle against evil or buff the party with mass bear's endurance etc. will need to spend an action point each time the party rests. But she only gets 6 AP per level, and many of these will be needed for other purposes.

That's explicitly called out in the text as one of the design goals.

Instead of paying this tax, the wizard might insist on resting for 24 hours. Then we have the 10 minute adventuring day all over again.

I can't state this often enough:

When you get right down to it, the 10-minute rest is nothing more than an agreement between the players and the DM to hand-wave 10 minutes instead of hand-waving a day.

If the DM doesn't want to allow the party to rest, he doesn't allow it. Whether that process takes place across 10 minutes or 24 hours is irrelevant.

I'm busy with school and haven't had the time or energy to devote to this PDF that I would have liked.

I look forward to more comments when you have time. You know I encourage commentary from esteemed contributors.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm a bit confused. Is the 10 minute rest supposed to be the equivalent of a day's rest or not? If it is true that "...the 10-minute rest is nothing more than an agreement between the players and the DM to hand-wave 10 minutes instead of hand-waving a day" then the restorative effects of a 10 minute rest should be EXACTLY the same as the restorative effect of 24 hour rest. Heck, you can even reduce the duration of all spells affecting the players by one day in order to solve the "Full buffs + Full spell slots" problem.

I think there should be some restricted spells, since there needs to be a way to prevent no-cost accumulative changes to the game world. You don't want a wizard to be able to charm a whole village in an afternoon by spamming charm monster spells interspersed with multiple rests. But if a wizard is paying xp and/or gold for a spell, I think the danger of spamming is inherently limited. If you don't want the cleric to be casting raise dead twenty times a day, don't let him have that much diamond dust.

But I do think that if a spell is dispelled during a rest, its spell slot should be recharged. Fair's fair.

[edit] However, I don't see why spells like fireball have to be restricted. Here's how I'm thinking the spell restriction idea should look:

[sblock]Rote spells include:

• All 0-level spells.
• Any spell with a duration of 1 min/level or less.

Restricted spells include:

• Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level or longer.
• Spells that create lasting goods (water, food, iron, stone) at the
DM’s discretion.
• At the DM’s discretion, any other spell which by reputation or overuse
proves disruptive to the campaign (for example, spells that require no roll to affect the target and permit no defenses). Teleport and certain divination spells may also be restricted.

Effects of Rest
• Any ongoing spell effects of a short duration on your person are dispelled when your rest is complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. This does not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations, or with durations measured in 10 minutes/level or longer, or any restricted spell; however it does apply to spells both beneficial and harmful, regardless of their origin.

After a successful rest period, at no cost of Action Points:
• All “per rest” class abilities are refreshed (rage, smite, wild shape, etc.)
• All characters heal an amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal,
maximum hit point total.
• All spell slots used to cast Rote spells are refreshed. (See above).

After a successful rest period, at a cost of 1 Action Point:
• A character can recover an additional amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total (which will restore any character to full hit points).
• All spell slots used to cast Restricted spells are refreshed (see above).[/sblock]

The main difference between Restricted spells and Ritual spells in TrB was that an Action Point recharges all the Restricted spells, but only one Ritual spell. I think that's a little heavy handed. Characters get only 6 AP per level of experience, and they are going to want to save it for special occasions. It's not the end of the world if 1 AP will give them back a teleport *and* a limited wish. Or a divination *and* a raise dead.