TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[Wulf Ratbane]

Should questions about the PDF be posted here, or in the General Rules forum? I have a question about the Monk's flurry of blows. Or maybe it's about the rules for iterative attacks. Or maybe it's about the centered bonus. But somebody needs to walk me through how (say) the monk gets +9/+9/+9/+9 at 11th level.

A shortcut to this answer might be to look at the monk at 20th level.

Why, you ask, is he +19/+19/+19/+19?

And the answer to that is, because he never earned the last -1 reduction for iterative attacks at BAB+16.

Because his "true" BAB is just +15.

Also look HERE.


This table is certainly odd looking and you are not the first to note it. And while I am reasonably sure it is "right" in the mathematical sense of just applying the right bonuses at the right time, the confusion it engenders doesn't please me.

 

[joela]

Reviews are up

You know you folks could review the product over at RPGnow.com.

When I get the new PDF up, I'll make sure the preview opens (not sure what happened there...) but in the meantime, Trailblazer is doing well solely on word of mouth. It has no preview and no reviews...

Here you go:

Trailblazer on EN World Reviews

Trailblazer on EN World PDF Store

Trailblazer on DriveThruRPG

Trailblazer on RPGNow

 

[joela]

No AoO when BAB is +0?

Under Trailblazer, an Attack of Opportunity is now a Combat Reaction (CR). Since PCs don't get a CR until a minimum of BAB +1, does that mean 1st level clerics, for examples, wizards, or druids (whose BABs are +0) can't execute an AoO against an opponent leaving their threatened area? Does a 1st level monk's centered bonus (+1) act in lieu of their BAB, which is +0 at that level?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Also look HERE.

This. The last spoiler block in the link cleared it all up. I had thought that iterative attacks were based on character level, not BAB, and I got confused.

The bit about saving throws being based on character level is really neat. But it's a trifle obscure. In the class redesign section you talk about how each class chooses two good and one poor saving throw. I wonder if a mention of this could be put in the class descriptions themselves. I'm thinking that players especially might skip anything that looks theoretical and jump straight to the bottom line.

Also, iirc you remark somewhere about how rogues have good reflex saving throws and clerics have good will saves. It might cause less confusion if there was a remark saying that this is not necessarily true in Trailblazer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Good job, Wulf. Those statistical analysis really just show off the depth of the research and the amount of work you were spending. Amazing.
And your monster building suggestions/guidelines are great, too.

Now I just need a time machine and give Trailblazer to myself ~8 years ago, and make my life as DM vastly easier.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks for the review!

Quick comment about trapfinding for monks... There was a design comment in the monk section that unfortunately had to be clipped for space. I already put it back into my revised section, but it's still very abbreviated (and in the tiny "6 pt. Table" font, to boot.)

The monk class got a lot of "rollbacks" to what they originally had in 1e. Yes, that includes trapfinding, and open locks, and even a larger weapon selection. Spears? Yes! I think the only thing they didn't get back was "polearms."

If you're not old-school, you'll see trapfinding and think ???, but it has its roots.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Under Trailblazer, an Attack of Opportunity is now a Combat Reaction (CR). Since PCs don't get a CR until a minimum of BAB +1, does that mean 1st level clerics, for examples, wizards, or druids (whose BABs are +0) can't execute an AoO against an opponent leaving their threatened area?

That's right. Take a look at how Combat Reflexes interfaces now with Combat Reactions.

If you have the DEX to make it work, Combat Reflexes can earn you Combat Reactions sooner. My home-game fighter-rogue (Wulf Ratbane, natch) took it. I had two Reactions before the fighters in the party.

EDIT: BAB+1 vs BAB+0 seems like the sort of thing that will be house-ruled almost immediately. Although it was intended to distinguish the melee classes from the others, BAB+1 might fail the "Fun" test.

Does a 1st level monk's centered bonus (+1) act in lieu of their BAB, which is +0 at that level?

Emphatically NO.

This. The last spoiler block in the link cleared it all up. I had thought that iterative attacks were based on character level, not BAB, and I got confused.

That's because I am an ass and made the error of telling you they were based on level. Page 19 will be fixed-- it's BAB +6, BAB +11, and BAB +16-- not level.

The bit about saving throws being based on character level is really neat. But it's a trifle obscure. In the class redesign section you talk about how each class chooses two good and one poor saving throw. I wonder if a mention of this could be put in the class descriptions themselves. I'm thinking that players especially might skip anything that looks theoretical and jump straight to the bottom line.

I'll see what I can do.

Also, iirc you remark somewhere about how rogues have good reflex saving throws and clerics have good will saves. It might cause less confusion if there was a remark saying that this is not necessarily true in Trailblazer.

Just playing the odds...?

 

[jasin]

P. 18, the example with the hill giant gaining the class features of a 7th-level barbarian: it says he ends up with greater rage. Should that be rage?

In addition, why do iterative attacks come into the calculation? Giving the hill giant a barbarian's features doesn't change his iteratives. Or is this just a simplification where spine is one category and everything else is the other, so iteratives fall under the other?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

P. 18, the example with the hill giant gaining the class features of a 7th-level barbarian: it says he ends up with greater rage. Should that be rage?

I might have gotten his 12HD in mind when I was flipping back and forth transcribing class features (and not the 7 class levels I gave him). Will fix!

In addition, why do iterative attacks come into the calculation?

Man, I hemmed and hawed over including that. Because giants, technically, get iterative attacks, and I believe it's better to over-estimate CR than to under-estimate it.

In trying to be thorough I think I ended up being inaccurate.

EDIT: Just double checked. It looks like I backed off including the actual value of the iteratives, but left the text there. Will fix.

 

[jasin]

Why are the the dragon CRs multiplied for the purposes of your monster statistics?

It's mostly common knowledge that dragons are intentionally underestimated, so some adjustment is necessary, but I would have expected an addition. Your calculations imply that higher-CR dragons are more underestimated than lower-CR ones; that might hold to an extent, but I don't think it reaches the levels suggested by your calculations at the top end.

For example, a CR 24 (by the MM) dragon will be a tough fight for a 20th-level party, probably tougher than the CR alone would suggest, but I don't think the functional CR is 24 * 4/3 = CR 32 (party level + 12, practically certain to result in an unavoidable TPK).