TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

They're multiplied in order to keep their data from "polluting" the averages where they were originally located.

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.

It sounds like you understand the methodology but disagree with the specific application.

First, I generally accept the CR calculations done by Craig Cochrane (Upper_Krust around here). You are welcome to disagree, but I do state my biases up front.

Second, the adjusted CR isn't used for any purpose other than grouping the data. I do not recommend changing the CRs on dragons and using it (for example) to price out encounters. If the MM says the dragon is CR12, then use CR12.

But when you're looking at the data in Chapter 1, realize that every monster listed from CR26 and above is (by definition) a data set composed entirely of dragons.

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).

It's not meant to represent the functional CR. The only function served by calling him CR32 instead of CR24 is to compare him alongside other CR24 dragons, and to get his data (BAB, HD, AC, Saves) away from other (non-dragon) CR24 creatures.

Although you have raised an interesting question in my mind-- I would be interested to sort the data, not by full CR, but solely by the Spine value of every critter. That would be a useful metric.

Gonna do that tonite I think.

 

[Mark Chance]

Here you go:

Trailblazer on EN World Reviews

Trailblazer on EN World PDF Store

Trailblazer on DriveThruRPG

Trailblazer on RPGNow

Also: Trailblazer Lights the Way and Back on the Trailblazer.

 

[DBlue]

Racial hitdie and BMB

Two rules of building a spellcaster. Never multiclass, and never take a LA race, especially one with racial hitdie.

Trailblazer fixes the first outright. It has potential to help the second, if we give racial hitdie a BMB.

We can either give all racial hitdie the same bonus(probably 2/3), or we can split it by type.

Potential type list:

The physical types(1/3 BMB): Animal, Construct, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Plant, Vermin

The in betweens(2/3 BMB): Aberration, Elemental, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast

The magics(Full BMB): Dragon, Fey, Outsider, Undead

This is a rough list at best. Probably going to be using something like it in my home game. I might end up deciding that full BMB is too good for anything but a spellcasting class. Thoughts?

 

[jasin]

It sounds like you understand the methodology but disagree with the specific application.

Just jumping on the opportunity to get some freebie additional sidebars.

Second, the adjusted CR isn't used for any purpose other than grouping the data. I do not recommend changing the CRs on dragons and using it (for example) to price out encounters. If the MM says the dragon is CR12, then use CR12.

One of the uses of the data in the table that immediately came to mind where the dragon CRs would be off is creating new monsters: much like in 4E, if I need a monster of a given difficulty, it'd be nice to just go to the table and read off the numbers.

It's not meant to represent the functional CR. The only function served by calling him CR32 instead of CR24 is to compare him alongside other CR24 dragons, and to get his data (BAB, HD, AC, Saves) away from other (non-dragon) CR24 creatures.

Fair enough for high CR dragons that end up in their own category. But for low or mid CR dragons, doesn't their data end up influencing a line that isn't dragon only; a line that is higher than it should be?

... huh.

I was starting to type an example where a CR 9 dragon is put in the CR 12 category when it should in fact be... and realized that it should in fact be somewhere close to 12, probably.

It might well be that listing the dragon in their functional CR lines (I'm guessing at something like listed CR +2 to +4...?) wouldn't yield a table that's all that different.

Although you have raised an interesting question in my mind-- I would be interested to sort the data, not by full CR, but solely by the Spine value of every critter. That would be a useful metric.

Gonna do that tonite I think.

Awesome.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Two rules of building a spellcaster. Never multiclass, and never take a LA race, especially one with racial hitdie.

I've always been rather meh about non-standard and monster races (a trend I got off after 2e).

The physical types(1/3 BMB): Animal, Construct, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Plant, Vermin

Careful with the non-intelligent types, vermin especially.

The in betweens(2/3 BMB): Aberration, Elemental, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast

Careful with the 2/3 BMB. I would likely not have used it at all, but for the bard, and his 2/3 rate is "massaged" at key levels.

I think the 1:2 progression is fine.

The magics(Full BMB): Dragon, Fey, Outsider, Undead

No quibble with any of those.

This is a rough list at best. Probably going to be using something like it in my home game. I might end up deciding that full BMB is too good for anything but a spellcasting class. Thoughts?

Ultimately I think tying BMB to monster HD is a miss, simply because monsters can fill all sorts of roles that have nothing to do with their types. The mind flayer is an aberration-- shouldn't he get full credit for BMB? Storm giants? Hags?

As I said above, I don't spend a lot of brain cycles worrying about this because it's not typical to the kind of game I play.

I do understand though that this is a very popular subject for a lot of people and I might address it at some point, but it is going to have to get in line behind concepts I am more interested in right now...

 

[GlassJaw]

Also: Trailblazer Lights the Way and Back on the Trailblazer.

Mark, thanks for the reviews.

You mention that the AP system doesn't "go far enough" for you. Anything in particular you'd like to see?

I do have M&M though - I'll take a look again when I get a chance.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One of the uses of the data in the table that immediately came to mind where the dragon CRs would be off is creating new monsters: much like in 4E, if I need a monster of a given difficulty, it'd be nice to just go to the table and read off the numbers.

Don't use that table to do that. Use the full monster templates...

... that I will be working on as my next project.

Fair enough for high CR dragons that end up in their own category. But for low or mid CR dragons, doesn't their data end up influencing a line that isn't dragon only; a line that is higher than it should be?

... huh.

I was starting to type an example where a CR 9 dragon is put in the CR 12 category when it should in fact be... and realized that it should in fact be somewhere close to 12, probably.

Ok, first, a caveat. I have been staring at excel sheets just ridiculously slathered in numbers numbers numbers! for a good 2 years or so of development. And I am only human. So I swear to nothing...

That said:

It might well be that listing the dragon in their functional CR lines (I'm guessing at something like listed CR +2 to +4...?) wouldn't yield a table that's all that different.

If sorting the monster data by "Dragon Adjusted CR" (yes, I have a column for that...) caused any dragons to skew the data surrounding them, I would have seen it.

(Of course one would have thought that I would see a line mentioning monk's evasion in the barbarian entry. But you get my point.)

 

[joela]

old school

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.

Actually, Wulf, I do remember 1st edition monks having that ability. What was it again? Find and disable traps or something? Didn't make sense to me back then, either

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Actually, Wulf, I do remember 1st edition monks having that ability. What was it again? Find and disable traps or something? Didn't make sense to me back then, either

I still like it-- an alternate to the rogue.

Just because you said that, I'm going in and giving them back their proficiency with polearms, including the bohemian ear spoon.

 

[joela]

Combat Reactions

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.

Yeah. Saw that after I posted my question. That's going to be a Must-Have for many fighter builds.

EDIT: BAB+1 vs BAB+0 seems like the sort of thing that will be house-ruled almost immediately.

Thought the same thing. I'd houserule all PCs get at least one Combat Reaction regardless of BAB. Also -- and I know you dislike the term with it bantered about during the Pathfinder playtest -- it makes Trailblazer more backwards compatible and more familiar to 3.x gamers

Emphatically NO.

Yeah. Saw it as I took a closer look at the Centered ability.