TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

[GlassJaw]

I'm very surprised at this answer, since it's the answer often used to defend any balance problem with any game, and most of Trailblazer seems to written with the diametrically opposed mindset.

Which is why I am often the yang to Wulf's yin. (wow, that doesn't sound right at all).

I am usually more sensitive to issues like this (as well as the half-orc and half-elf). In my early 3ed days, I was definitely a min-maxer, at least away from the table. I made the character I wanted to play but I wanted to be aware of the holes in the rules and the rules that could be exploited.

Wulf and I were clearly on the same with the biggies - the druid animal companion for example. I did push for some smaller "tweaks" that would have been fine as-is but were easy to fix and were worthwhile improvements (in my opinion).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I find the former view infinitely annoying, because I find it most often punishes those that the holder of the view would ostensibly want to reward.

That's astute. It paraphrases what I said above: You fix the balance problems that screw the sub-optimal guy.

Ignoring balance problems in 3.5 doesn't punish the beat-the-game guy who just plays the druid (or whatever is strongest), it punishes the guy who is into wuxia and plays the sword-wielding monk and ends up missing out on flurry of blows (or whatever specific concept someone thinks is cool, but doesn't work merely because of rule idiosyncrasies).

Hey! Weapon kata!

Early on I had made the monk so that he got to use his "monk damage" regardless of what weapon he was holding (or none). I think that may still be the best solution for monks.

Ultimately, though, from what I'm getting, your mindset is actually closer to "a balance problem exists not when there's an imbalance (which is practically unavoidable), but when the imbalance diminishes the enjoyment of the game". Yes?

...for the greatest number of players.

(See our design note on the spiked chain...)

I don't think player entitlement is bad. I agree with the way you phrased it in the book, it's bad if it comes at the expense of the DM.

Or the other players.

And I think that players are justified in feeling entitled to having their quarterstaff not suck when compared to the long spear.

I would agree, however, that the impulse to seize even the tiniest bonus and to label a quarterstaff as sucking just because of a 1-point difference in damage is tyranny of the rules.

It seems we only diverge on our threshold of "sucks."

Drifting further away, I think this is one of the flaws of 4E. With a completely unified framework, it's very easy to notice that the other guy's 7th-level encounter power deals 3d6 to your 2d8 and feel envious.

Dude, it's 10.5 average vs. 9 average. Let go of the 1 point envy.

Since the new AoO rules only smack you for leaving a threatened area, does that mean that being able to attack inside your reach (spiked chain, monk w/long spear, giant) is a disadvantage (in that respect) compared to wielding a polearm? Or is the intent that closing with someone with a polearm doesn't provoke an AoO, even if you enter and then leave their threatened area?

To clarify, we're talking about the fact that the long spears and polearms have a "donut" shape where you can't attack if the opponent is adjacent?

If the opponent gets in through your threatened area, essentially under your weapon, your response should be to take a 5 foot step back on your turn so that he starts his turn in your threatened area. Now you have options. (Yes, he can 5' step forward, if that is his intent, but if he's actually moving, now you have him.)

No question the effectiveness of "reach" got worse for everyone-- including large creatures.

The polearms are very good weapons for those standing in the second rank.

EDIT: We're taking a second look at what I wrote vs. what we intended.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Which is why I am often the yang to Wulf's yin. (wow, that doesn't sound right at all).

You're damn right it doesn't sound right. I am way more yang.

You... you love cats.

 

[GlassJaw]

You're damn right it doesn't sound right. I am way more yang.

You... you love cats.

Says the guy with two Yorkies, one of which is a brat and the other that acts like a cat.

 

[GlassJaw]

No question the effectiveness of "reach" got worse for everyone-- including large creatures.

The polearms are very good weapons for those standing in the second rank.

EDIT: We're taking a second look at what I wrote vs. what we intended.

Wulf and I wanted the "spirit" of the rules to be such that getting into combat = good, retreating from combat = bad.

No doubt the wording must be clear - we went through quite a few rewrites to catch all situations but there's certainly a chance it could still be better.

Creatures with natural reach and reach weapons pose the challenge.

 

[jasin]

Hey! Weapon kata!

I know!

I got into 3E after falling in love with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and seeing the blade dancer in 3E Oriental Adventures, and I've been tinkering with the concept on and off again for all these years, since it's always somewhere on the edge of what 3E covers.

The fact that Trailblazer includes Weapon Kata played a big part in your sale to me.

Early on I had made the monk so that he got to use his "monk damage" regardless of what weapon he was holding (or none). I think that may still be the best solution for monks.

Yes, I considered that at one point (or more). There is a certain elegance to it, but it invites the question of why not do this with every class? It certainly isn't inappropriate for the genre or inherently problematic for the game if, all other things equal, a fighter with a dagger is more dangerous than a wizard with a greatsword.

But it's something of a can of worms, so I decided I'd rather leave it alone.

Of course, you did something very similar with the fighter anyway...

...for the greatest number of players.

[...]

Or the other players.

Yes, certainly.

It seems we only diverge on our threshold of "sucks."

For what it's worth, my threshold isn't actually at 1 point.

Dude, it's 10.5 average vs. 9 average. Let go of the 1 point envy.

The numbers in the example are arbitrary. Unfortunately, 4E has more than it's share of more noticeable gaps.

But what I was trying to say with that example is that I dislike situations where there the choice is completely one-sided. I'm more bothered by an imbalance between 1d6 and 1d8 than between 1d4 19-20 and 1d8. 1d4 19-20 is actually worse in all but the most unusual cases than 1d6, but it does an advantage (crit rage) over 1d8, even though it's severly limited in scope.

To clarify, we're talking about the fact that the long spears and polearms have a "donut" shape where you can't attack if the opponent is adjacent?

Right, but I think you misunderstand me.

I'm wondering about the fact that closing with a 10 ft. reach giant (or our friend the long spear wielding monk ) doesn't provoke an AoO (since you're just moving into and within his threatened area), while closing with a polearm wielder provokes (since you're moving into his threatened area, and then leaving it and entering the "donut hole"). It certainly seems unusual to me that the "defender" (thinking of the giant/monk rather than the guy closing) would be disadvantaged by the fact that they can threaten more area.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Right, but I think you misunderstand me.

I'm wondering about the fact that closing with a 10 ft. reach giant (or our friend the long spear wielding monk ) doesn't provoke an AoO (since you're just moving into and within his threatened area), while closing with a polearm wielder provokes (since you're moving into his threatened area, and then leaving it and entering the "donut hole"). It certainly seems unusual to me that the "defender" (thinking of the giant/monk rather than the guy closing) would be disadvantaged by the fact that they can threaten more area.

We're sorting out the language. In the meantime, here's the intent:

• Trailblazer encourages combatants to engage with the enemy and the rules for Attacks of Opportunity reflect that philosophy.
  
• Any time you move out of an opponent’s threatened area and you don’t end your turn with that opponent in your own threatened area, you provoke an attack of opportunity.
  

 

[DBlue]

On the subject of AoOs...

I normally use a simplified version of them.

Move actions, excluding movement, do not provoke AoOs.

Standard actions, excluding attacks/combat maneuvers, provoke AoOs.

Full round actions, excluding attacks/withdrawing, provoke AoOs.

For movement, I'm thinking about using a houseruled version of Traiblazer.

Moving into and around threatened areas does not provoke, provided you stay at the same range. Getting closer or farther away without a withdraw or a five foot step does provoke.

It gives a bit of a boost back to larger creatures. It's not quite as liberating as the pure trailblazer suggestion, but it's a lot better than core.

 

[Mark Chance]

Trailblazer encourages combatants to engage with the enemy and the rules for Attacks of Opportunity reflect that philosophy.

I'd rather the rules encourage people to take the AoO. "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" fits heroic fantasy better than "Count the squares! Move with extreme caution!"

But, seriously, I do sort of like the idea of a Close Cautiously move action that would grant a +2 dodge bonus to AC but impose a -2 penalty to attack rolls.

 

[joela]

break it up!

Says the guy with two Yorkies, one of which is a brat and the other that acts like a cat.

Hey, hey, break it up! We're here to discuss TB, not to watch the latest episode of Wulf and Glassjaws' bromance....