Trailblazer Teasers (collected)

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Theocrat

Hi all -
From what I'm reading I like some of this and I think I'll attempt to install at least the 10min break for this weekends game. However, I wonder if the players will say that this feels too much like 4e.

One of the better ideas from 4e-- yes.

One of the posts for this says that PF establishes that there are 20 average encounters per level and 13.3 challenging encounters for a level. I realize that the 3.5 DMG states that it's about 14.5 encounters, but I've not seen that in the PF sourcebook.

It was certainly in the alpha.

I might change the numbers myself before it's all said and done.

In using the 10min Rest Period, it seems that as a GM you'd want your monsters to be maxed in HP and if possible not just generic Monster Manual monsters - you'd ideally want to modify them, giving them more appropriate feats and other aspects to make an encounter additionally challenging. Is this the case?

Not necessarily.

If, as the DM, you intend to permit your players to rest as often as they like-- regardless of whether that rest period is 1 day or 10 minutes-- and they go into every fight fully rested and ready to go, then you'll certainly be able to "whack" on them a little bit harder. That's what I do.

But it is important to remember that the 10 minute rest is really just an agreement between the DM and the players that formalizes the "hand wave" that already exists in most games.

It is impossible for players to "abuse" the 10 minute rest any more than it is possible for them to "abuse" the existing 1 day rest.

If you don't want them to rest, pressure them:

In my current campaign, my players are now facing down the BBEG in a little pocket dimension formed from a conjunction of elemental planes. Though they were confident they'd be able to rest with the same ease and frequency they had grown accustomed to, they were quite shocked to find out that they (a) can't cast rope trick as they are already inside an extra-dimensional space, and (b) can't rest properly with flames, wind, lightning, and earthquakes rattling the area with alarming regularity.

So now they know they are "under the gun," and they're being more cautious with their resources.

You note that you use Action Points and the Reserve Points (in the Trailblazer book), but I don't really understand AP's and RP's. Are AP's just like those found in d20M and Unearthed Arcana?

Very similar. Similar enough that I am confident you'll understand how to use them in play.

[Elodan]

Hey Wulf,

Based on what I read in your multiclass spellcaster post, you're using spell slots. I had been planning on doing the same thing in my campaign. How have you found them in actual play? Also, do you keep the current rules for acquiring spells in place or did you makes some tweaks to work with the slots?

Looking forward to the final product.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Elodan

Hey Wulf,

Based on what I read in your multiclass spellcaster post, you're using spell slots. I had been planning on doing the same thing in my campaign. How have you found them in actual play? Also, do you keep the current rules for acquiring spells in place or did you makes some tweaks to work with the slots?

Looking forward to the final product.

I very much want to answer this one, but I am not exactly sure what you're asking. Can you elaborate a bit more?

Assuming I understand you correctly, yes, there's a tweak to acquiring spells: You take the class, you get all the spells on the list-- same method clerics currently enjoy.

• The wizard has to have his spellbook to get his bonus Ready spells.
• No class has such a thing as a "spells known" list. Sorcerers have access to all Wiz/Sor spells (they just have far fewer ready at any time to choose from).
• Bard have their own spell list (as before).
• Paladins get full access to the cleric spell list. (Bless Weapon and Holy Sword become class abilities.)
• Rangers get full access to the druid spell list.
• Paladins and rangers have "true" 1/2 caster level-- their spellcasting ability starts at 1st level (with 0-level spells) and can go as high as 5th level spells. (20th level Paladin = caster level 10.)

[Elodan]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

I very much want to answer this one, but I am not exactly sure what you're asking. Can you elaborate a bit more?

Assuming I understand you correctly, yes, there's a tweak to acquiring spells: You take the class, you get all the spells on the list-- same method clerics currently enjoy.

• The wizard has to have his spellbook to get his bonus Ready spells.
• No class has such a thing as a "spells known" list. Sorcerers have access to all Wiz/Sor spells (they just have far fewer ready at any time to choose from).
• Bard have their own spell list (as before).
• Paladins get full access to the cleric spell list. (Bless Weapon and Holy Sword become class abilities.)
• Rangers get full access to the druid spell list.
• Paladins and rangers have "true" 1/2 caster level-- their spellcasting ability starts at 1st level (with 0-level spells) and can go as high as 5th level spells. (20th level Paladin = caster level 10.)

I had a feeling I wasn't clear with my question but you pretty much answered it. I was trying to determine if with your method a character has access to all the spells on the list or had to acquire them one by one like the wizard. I'm wondering if players (at least mine) will become overwhelmed by the number of spells they can choose from to ready.

Thanks.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Elodan

I had a feeling I wasn't clear with my question but you pretty much answered it. I was trying to determine if with your method a character has access to all the spells on the list or had to acquire them one by one like the wizard. I'm wondering if players (at least mine) will become overwhelmed by the number of spells they can choose from to ready.

Thanks.

That seems unlikely in any circumstance I can think of.

If you're starting from 1st level, no problem. Take it a level at a time. (Of course this is the ideal way to learn any new ruleset-- this is true of everybody and all the rules changes, not just the spellcasters.)

If you're converting an existing high level campaign, the wizards should already have close to all the spells in their spellbook. I'm not seeing a big leap to "Just assume that your spellbook contains every spell in the PHB."

At any rate the problem of deciding what spells to ready each rest is really no more difficult than it was when they were simply deciding what spells they wanted to put in their spellbooks.

It will be a little different for bards and sorcerers. Bards and sorcerers are already accustomed to the Ready spell concept because that's all that spontaneous casting is anyway-- a list of Ready spells (spells known) and a bucket of spell slots to cast them with.

They will have to get accustomed to the concept that they can change out their ready spells each time they rest, but that's a kind of "problem" they will welcome.

[Fenris]

I have a problem with Trailblazer.













It's not out yet. Hurry up!

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hm.

I'm starting to think I should open it up to a few select playtesters.

[Fenris]

Wulf,
I did have a request for Trailblazers.

I am not sure you are interested, but I would like to see psionics get the same treatment for multiclassing as magic did. While I know it isn't as prevalent as magic, I am in an all psionic campaign and am playing a psychic warrior in another game. And half the time I pretend it is magic and spell points anyway.

But I would really like to see some kind of a Base Psionic Bonus system as well.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I am not sure you are interested, but I would like to see psionics get the same treatment for multiclassing as magic did.

I'm just not confident that I have the experience to do a good job with psionics.

[Alzrius]

You're out luck, Fenris. Wulf has already declared that he's no friend of gnomes, psionics, or epic level material. Which means that somewhere out there, someone who's playing a 21st-level gnome psion is going to be incredibly disappointed.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

You're out luck, Fenris. Wulf has already declared that he's no friend of gnomes, psionics, or epic level material. Which means that somewhere out there, someone who's playing a 21st-level gnome psion is going to be incredibly disappointed.

I actually like gnomes just fine. They, at least, are inside the traditions of the game as I have experienced it.

[The Black Kestrel]

Here is another voice saying hurry up, damnit!

Actually what really popped into my head over the weekend was: How applicable is Trailblazer to d20 Modern? Admittedly d20 Modern has it own foibles, some of which are shared with D&D and some unique to d20 Modern. Since a full list of Trailblazer's contents are available yet, how much would you estimate could be used in a d20 Modern game?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by The Black Kestrel

Here is another voice saying hurry up, damnit!

It's been a long, solid night of nothing but Trailblazer here.

Since a full list of Trailblazer's contents are available yet, how much would you estimate could be used in a d20 Modern game?

Ugh. There may be some things that are applicable to it, but only marginally moreso than 3.5 itself.

Honestly you'd get more mileage out of the design notes, I think, but that's not easy stuff to "convert." You could take some design cues from Trailblazer, but I wouldn't try to sell you on that.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out what I'd do for Modern that I didn't already do in Grim Tales-- and coming up dry.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

I actually like gnomes just fine. They, at least, are inside the traditions of the game as I have experienced it.

No, I understand that completely. I had no need or love for psionics whatso ever. It isn;t part of my fantasy trope.

Now, I do like the mechnics of the system though, the power points, being able to augement a power. And when viewed as magic (that whole thing about technoloy sufficiently advanced is indistinguishabel from magic) I can accept it.

Which is why I don;t like soulblades. I can't get around that idea. But a Psion as a wizard, wilder as a sorcerer, psychic warrior as a kind of duskblade. That I can see. Half the powers refernce spells anyway. So I use it as another form of magic.

But I understand the dislike, it took quite a bit for me to get comfortable even with the concept.

I did have a thought about how the 15 minute rest rule might affect wands and potions, specifically healing ones that might be expended less often with the 15 minute rule. Or will that wash out in any case?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I did have a thought about how the 15 minute rest rule might affect wands and potions, specifically healing ones that might be expended less often with the 15 minute rule. Or will that wash out in any case?

Potions and wands are most useful for healing in combat.

Using wands to heal outside of combat was really just a tax on wealth. Did you tax the PCs 750 gp last time they went to town? Yes? Then they have a wand of cure light wounds.

So as gameplay goes, the impact of potion or wand healing between combats is a non-issue by 2nd or 3rd level.

Any circumstance you can imagine in which the PCs can't just say, "I spend a few rounds healing everyone up with our wands," is a circumstance in which the PCs can't snatch a 10 minute rest.

You're either pressuring them, or you aren't. It's that simple.

This is one of Trailblazer's "Zen Moments." (I love that term-- much props to Matthew Finch for that.)

You've just got to get your head around it.

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I keep meaning to poke by and then forgetting...but finally I remembered.

One of the things about the whole 10 minute rest thing...

I ran an E8 game for about a year and right at the outset the group wound up acquiring an item that basically did a Cure Light Wounds every couple of rounds.

The practical end result was that in combat, they were limited in healing but outside of combat, they were able to get their HP back up to full with little "wasted" time. The group liked it and it seemed to strike a nice enough balance.

I've also noticed that several GMs were twitchy about having a Dragon Shaman with the whole "Fast Healing" aura thing going. They felt it was over-powered, despite the fact that it's 1 HP per round (at the level we were playing at) and you can only heal a character up to half their HP; in order to get back up to full they've got to resort to potions/spells/whatever.

It seems like a player/GM divide... Players like this sort of thing because it means they can keep on trucking but it's not a cakewalk for them; on the other hand, GMs seem to get this knee-jerk reflex where they suddenly worry they're not going to able to "challenge" the characters anymore.

Just some random thoughts from both sides of the screen. In the meantime, I'll be chillin' with the rest of folks and waiting.

[GlassJaw]

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

It seems like a player/GM divide... Players like this sort of thing because it means they can keep on trucking but it's not a cakewalk for them; on the other hand, GMs seem to get this knee-jerk reflex where they suddenly worry they're not going to able to "challenge" the characters anymore.

Good post Scurvy. Not to speak for Wulf, but your post addresses some of our basic tenets of design:

1. Do those same DM's have a problem with the party buying a wand of cure light wounds as soon as they can and fully healing the party after every battle?

2. Do those DM's have a problem with the PC's resting again for 8 hours right after their first battle of the day? If they do, how do they feel if the PC's refuse to continue because they know they are not at full strength and therefore more likely to be killed or TPK'ed?

The 10-minute rest mechanic essentially addresses how the game is currently played in many cases.

It definitely gives some "power" back to the PC's but remember, the CR system assumes the party is always at full strength. So in some respects, the Trailblazer rest mechanic will make it easier for the DM to predict how challenging an encounter is.

Hope that helps!

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Originally Posted by GlassJaw

1. Do those same DM's have a problem with the party buying a wand of cure light wounds as soon as they can and fully healing the party after every battle?

From what I've seen, GM's don't tend to find this such a problem because they're "in control" of it.

By which I mean, they can decide if there's going to be wands/potions/whatever available, they have options to take it away, and they've got options for flat-out denying the use of a particular item in some fashion or other.

Encoding it into the rules on the other hand feels like a "loss of power"; this is the sort of thing that ties into arguments about Rule 0 and all that, so it's one of those kinda fine lines to dance.

I personally think that the "control" the GM has is a bit of a false one, but it's all about appearances.

I understand that in a number of respects Trailblazer isn't going to be able to have the "dials" that Grim Tales did for tuning the play, but either putting a dial in on this particular subject might be good, or having a good breakdown of how this particular tweak comes into existence might be the way to go. Just a random "thinking out loud"; I know there's a definite cut-off point where it's a matter of "it'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen at this point."

[GlassJaw]

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

By which I mean, they can decide if there's going to be wands/potions/whatever available, they have options to take it away, and they've got options for flat-out denying the use of a particular item in some fashion or other.

Well I think it would be difficult for any DM to prevent the PC's from getting their hands on a wand of cure light unless the world is almost completely devoid of magic. If that's the case, then

I completely understand your point though Scurv.

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

I understand that in a number of respects Trailblazer isn't going to be able to have the "dials" that Grim Tales did for tuning the play, but either putting a dial in on this particular subject might be good, or having a good breakdown of how this particular tweak comes into existence might be the way to go. Just a random "thinking out loud"; I know there's a definite cut-off point where it's a matter of "it'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen at this point."

Correct, but our new rest mechanic does allow for some flexibility. Our recommended and default "normal rest" is 10 minutes but the system works if that period of time is changed.

We actually recommend the DM "control" the action in other ways, such as pressing the players and preventing them from resting or making the players aware that resting may have consequences.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by GlassJaw

Correct, but our new rest mechanic does allow for some flexibility. Our recommended and default "normal rest" is 10 minutes but the system works if that period of time is changed.

The difference is entirely perception and the control is completely in the DMs hands. What pace do you want to set for your game?

Do you want your PCs on their feet again and back in the thick of things in 10 minutes? Then use that.

If you want to force them to retreat for the day as soon as their resources are spent, then use 1 day.

Somewhere in the middle? Use 1 hour.

Easy.