TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[Mr. Patient]

I apologize if these were already mentioned upthread (I skimmed quickly), but here are a few more errors you may want to fix, if you haven't caught them already:

p. 26 under Halflings: the text about being a Small character refers to gnomes
p. 41: the list of rangers' favored enemies includes "Magical Beats"
p. 58: the Heal skill has two entries for Try Again?, and none for Take 20?
p. 62: under Passive Perception, the last sentence reads, "The Search must still be used to find the trap."


*Loving* this product.

 

[Mr. Patient]

A few more that I've noticed (some very nitpicky; apologies in advance):

p. 96: Use a Spell-Like Ability on the Defensive, last sentence has "cant" rather than "can't"
p.106: Activate a Magic Item refers to grapple checks, rather than combat maneuver rolls
p. 115: Ranged Attacks, "Attacks with a crossbows"
p. 117: hold portal is italicized, but arcane lock isn't. There are probably more scattered here and there, like trap the soul on p.120

The new polymorph spell is a bit confusing as well. As written, it seems to permit the caster to mix-and-match movement modes and special features as he sees fit, almost like creating a custom monster to polymorph into. "Hm, I'll have a climb speed and poison, thanks." Is this what's intended? If not, some clarification may be necessary to indicate that you can only take the benefits in the table that correspond to the monster you're polymorphing into.

I should also note that the list of possible creature types in the polymorph spell does not match what's in the polymorph special ability on p. 149. Again, not sure if that's intentional.

Thanks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A few more that I've noticed (some very nitpicky; apologies in advance):

p. 96: Use a Spell-Like Ability on the Defensive, last sentence has "cant" rather than "can't"
p.106: Activate a Magic Item refers to grapple checks, rather than combat maneuver rolls
p. 115: Ranged Attacks, "Attacks with a crossbows"
p. 117: hold portal is italicized, but arcane lock isn't. There are probably more scattered here and there, like trap the soul on p.120

Much appreciated.

The new polymorph spell is a bit confusing as well. As written, it seems to permit the caster to mix-and-match movement modes and special features as he sees fit, almost like creating a custom monster to polymorph into. "Hm, I'll have a climb speed and poison, thanks."

Kinda like a spider?

Perhaps a very chitinous spider (with extra natural armor)? Perhaps a very dexterous or strong spider?

Maybe it's a tree-climbing lizard with a poisonous bite?

Maybe it's a bizarre poisonous ape.

Are you suggesting that somewhere in the vast panoply of Gygaxian Naturalism there's not one damned thing with both a climb speed and poison? Or any combination of X, Y, and Z?

Is this what's intended? If not, some clarification may be necessary to indicate that you can only take the benefits in the table that correspond to the monster you're polymorphing into.

So: That's what's intended.

You can either let the player have what he wants or needs right then, or you can waste a whole lot of time while he thumbs through a dozen monster books to find something that fits.

I err on the side of, "All the options are balanced-- knock yourself out."

That being said, at my table, there's usually at least some attempt to justify any particular combination. Creativity is its own reward.

I should also note that the list of possible creature types in the polymorph spell does not match what's in the polymorph special ability on p. 149. Again, not sure if that's intentional.

Probably not. Noted; will double-check.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Are you suggesting that somewhere in the vast panoply of Gygaxian Naturalism there's not one damned thing with both a climb speed and poison? Or any combination of X, Y, and Z?

I'd say that's a pretty radical interpretation of my question, but that's fine. I'm actually 100% on board with your intent for the spell. The reason I ask is that if the caster is essentially free to define his own creature, why does the spell still bother to enumerate the creature types you can polymorph into? Is your poisonous ape an animal, a magical beast, or an aberration? Does it really matter, if he's just being defined by +2 Con, a climb speed, and poison?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd say that's a pretty radical interpretation of my question, but that's fine.

It was more a matter of reframing your question to cover anybody else who might be more alarmist about it.

I'm actually 100% on board with your intent for the spell. The reason I ask is that if the caster is essentially free to define his own creature, why does the spell still bother to enumerate the creature types you can polymorph into? Is your poisonous ape an animal, a magical beast, or an aberration? Does it really matter, if he's just being defined by +2 Con, a climb speed, and poison?

If the subject's type changes, there will be interactions with other aspects of the rules where it does matter.

It's a bit of a rules artifact, agreed.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Dear Wulf and GlassJaw:

I like your stuff. Write lots more.

Thank-you for the spine analysis.



Sep

 

[Mark Chance]

Hello again!

I'm finally crawling out of my dark hole, and I had a question about OGC in Trailblazer. Your OGL says that chapter one includes no OGC. Does that mean, for example, that an aspiring writer/publisher (say, me) wouldn't be able to take the rest mechanic rules and include them in one of his own works?

I ask because I'd like to. I'm slowly putting together a product line that I plan on launching next year, and I like to borrow from the best. Y'all's rest mechanic fits in great with some of my goals, as does your iterative attack fix (which is also in the introduction).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm finally crawling out of my dark hole, and I had a question about OGC in Trailblazer. Your OGL says that chapter one includes no OGC. Does that mean, for example, that an aspiring writer/publisher (say, me) wouldn't be able to take the rest mechanic rules and include them in one of his own works?

Yes and no.

I don't claim any particular copyright over the mechanics themselves (let's not get into that discussion), merely to the words as written.

So just don't copy those words. (For now. See below *.)

Anything else that's OGC from Ch2 and beyond, feel free to make use of your cut-and-paste tool.

*
[sblock]
I was aware that putting those bits up front in the Introduction would mean carving them out of the OGC, but I didn't do this to withhold or protect them for any reason, just because I wanted to make sure the Big New Stuff was up front, and carving out the entirety of CH1 was simply the easiest way to make my OGC designation. The Rest Mechanic and Iterative Attacks happen to fall alongside some stuff I did want to specifically except and protect.

I could move those sections (by repeating them) into a later section of the work where they would be more accessible, and may do this in a later version.[/sblock]

 

[Mark Chance]

I don't claim any particular copyright over the mechanics themselves (let's not get into that discussion), merely to the words as written.

Gotcha, and thanks. Rewriting is easy enough to do.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Gotcha, and thanks. Rewriting is easy enough to do.

Just, of course you know, be careful. Because if you do it wrong, your ass is mine.