Trailblazer Teasers (collected)

[joela]

"Quality" reviews on the rogue

Combat Tactics: This will definitely encourage the rogue's player to meet those conditions (i.e., besides flanking, use skills such as feint, stunning opponents, etc.)

I wonder: under what condition can Combat Tactics be combined with the rogue's Combat Reactions?

Sneak Attack:

There is no immunity to critical hits, neither does prior immunity to critical hits grant immunity to sneak attack by extension.

This immediately caught my eye. Sounds like you're following Pathfinder's path (pardon the wordplay) in allowing criticals even against constructs and undead. However, Trailblazer effectively separates sneak attack from critical, allow rogues to, well, sneak attack a plant (which is normally immune to critical hits). While I can see purists protesting, I like the separation, differentiating rogues even further from fighters.

Trap Sense: I like what Glassjaw wrote about the class ability.

Rogue Talents: I like this from Pathfinder. However, how come they're accessible at such a late time in the PC's development? A Pathfinder rogue gets its first talent at level 2.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Combat Tactics: This will definitely encourage the rogue's player to meet those conditions (i.e., besides flanking, use skills such as feint, stunning opponents, etc.)

I wonder: under what condition can Combat Tactics be combined with the rogue's Combat Reactions?

Attack of opportunity.

Sneak Attack:

This immediately caught my eye. Sounds like you're following Pathfinder's path (pardon the wordplay) in allowing criticals even against constructs and undead. However, Trailblazer effectively separates sneak attack from critical, allow rogues to, well, sneak attack a plant (which is normally immune to critical hits). While I can see purists protesting, I like the separation, differentiating rogues even further from fighters.

I did my best to address the purist complaint in the sblock.

Damage is damage.

Rogue Talents: I like this from Pathfinder. However, how come they're accessible at such a late time in the PC's development? A Pathfinder rogue gets its first talent at level 2.

I took what I felt were the worthwhile additions to the rogue talents from Pathfinder (including the faster rate of acquisition).

The PF rogue certainly has more "non-combat" options than Trailblazer. Our rogue is pretty unabashedly a "striker;" a real nasty fellow.

As such he's pretty well balanced with Combat Tactics and expanded opportunity for sneak attacks. (Don't overlook the 'unlocking' of combat movement in that equation, either.)

Simply put the TB rogue doesn't need talents starting as early as 2nd level.

 

[joela]

AoO

Attack of opportunity.

*smacks forehead* You can tell I don't play rogues very often

As such he's pretty well balanced with Combat Tactics and expanded opportunity for sneak attacks. (Don't overlook the 'unlocking' of combat movement in that equation, either.)

Simply put the TB rogue doesn't need talents starting as early as 2nd level.

'unlocking'. You mean the new AoO rules? As for the talents, good enough for me. It wouldn't be difficult to reinsert the non-combat talents if necessary.

So, what's next? Cleric? Oh, fyi:

Trailblazer Fighter Preview

Trailblazer Rogue Preview

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

'unlocking'. You mean the new AoO rules?

Mainly that, yes. By "unlocking" I mean the opposite of "locked down," which is how 3e combat felt.

So, what's next? Cleric?

Wizard. Maybe a two-fer with the Sorcerer. Because the wizard will also include the unified spell progression, which is built on the concept of "Readied Spells," and the sorcerer is the a good counterpart to the wizard to show the difference between having lots of spells readied vs. having lots of spell slots.

Oh, fyi:

Trailblazer Fighter Preview

Trailblazer Rogue Preview

That Paizo crowd is a rough crowd.

I don't expect Trailblazer to appeal to most of them. Pathfinder was extensively playtested through them and custom tailored to their tastes.

 

[joela]

Wizard versus Sorcerers

Mainly that, yes. By "unlocking" I mean the opposite of "locked down," which is how 3e combat felt.

It's funny. I just joined the local RPGA shortly after 4th edition came out. I've noticed they still use the same 3.x tactics against their opponents. It works most of the time, but mobility definitely changes the flavor of things.

Wizard. Maybe a two-fer with the Sorcerer. Because the wizard will also include the unified spell progression, which is built on the concept of "Readied Spells," and the sorcerer is the a good counterpart to the wizard to show the difference between having lots of spells readied vs. having lots of spell slots.

NICE . I'll give it a review if it's up tonight.

That Paizo crowd is a rough crowd.

I don't expect Trailblazer to appeal to most of them. Pathfinder was extensively playtested through them and custom tailored to their tastes.

I would love to hear you take, later, on the current Paizo previews (e.g., fighter, sorcerer, ranger, etc.).

 

[GlassJaw]

I would love to hear you take, later, on the current Paizo previews (e.g., fighter, sorcerer, ranger, etc.).

I don't want to speak for Wulf but I think we are pretty much in agreement on this.

I was very excited with the Pathfinder announcement. I wasn't thrilled with 4E and we were still having a lot of fun with 3ed. We were also starting to make small changes to the system here and there already.

As more and more info about PF trickled out, I became less and less interested. I wanted core mechanics changed (multiclass spellcasters, rest mechanic, etc) and PF wasn't addressing any of those things. What they were doing was adding a lot more crunch, which is specifically what I didn't want.

As Wulf and I discussed 4E and PF, we wondered if we could pool our ideas and actually create the system we wanted. It's been over a year later and we're finally getting close...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My take is a little different than that, actually.

I just think Pathfinder has a different set of design criteria-- restrictions that I'm not bound by. They have to be a bit more reserved for reasons of (perceived) backwards compatibility and, absolutely, deference to a veritable herd of sacred cows. I think they have a very good feel of the needs of their customers. (I don't think there's any doubt that Paizo has the best publisher-consumer relationship in the business at this point.)

I put myself just outside their base. I don't think there's any question that Paizo carries the torch on "old school" sensibilities, particularly where "fluff" is concerned; but a lot of their fans carry this over to mechanics. As for myself, there's a lot of forward-thinking 4e design that I am eager-- not at all hesitant-- to embrace.

The most glaring example being the 10 minute rest; there are others. I think the "typical" Pathfinder fan will freak out over the 10 minute rest.

I'm shooting for something between Pathfinder and 4e.

Ultimately, if there is a "baseline" rules system that I want underneath (and supporting) Trailblazer, then I would prefer it to be Pathfinder rather than RAW 3.5.

But I'll be much more comfortable running Trailblazer on top of Paizo's future Pathfinder APs than I would any older 3.5 stuff.

 

[Elodan]

Based on what I've seen here, you're changes to Attacks of Opportunity just what I'm looking for. Just to clarify, I'm fighting an orc so at the end of my turn I'm adjacent to him (face to face). On my next turn can I move from in front of him to behind him without triggering an AoO (since my movement keeps me adjacent to him the whole time)?

For the record, I plan on using Pathfinder RPG as my baseline but am going to mix in Trailblazer (definitely the multiple attack, base magic bonus, and AoO rules).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Based on what I've seen here, you're changes to Attacks of Opportunity just what I'm looking for. Just to clarify, I'm fighting an orc so at the end of my turn I'm adjacent to him (face to face). On my next turn can I move from in front of him to behind him without triggering an AoO (since my movement keeps me adjacent to him the whole time)?

Yep.

For the record, I plan on using Pathfinder RPG as my baseline but am going to mix in Trailblazer (definitely the multiple attack, base magic bonus, and AoO rules).

Again, that's the ideal implementation.

 

[GlassJaw]

Again, that's the ideal implementation.

What Wulf said.