3E? 4E? PF? Trailblazer.

[Destan]

Hi all -

So my Christmas gaming budget was pretty much non-existent, mainly because there wasn't too much on the market that I wanted to buy. My group has been enjoying a run through Robert E. Howard's Hyboria and we have all the books we need. Nonetheless, there's one product that recently popped on Amazon - Trailblazer - that got my attention.

Now, time for full disclosure. Trailblazer is co-authored by Ben Durbin of Bad Axe Games. I happen to like Ben, have enjoyed his company's past products, and even freelanced for him a bit. So I'm certainly not biased when it comes to his work. I also think it's relevant to mention that I have played and enjoy both 4E and PFRPG - there's no hidden agenda here to claim one is better than the other or that either is better than good ol' 3E. I've written for Dungeon during the halycon days of Paizo's stewardship and also for one of the first digital Dungeon issues. My point here is not to throw around my meager bona fides, but rather to clear the air before I launch into what, admittedly, is an unabashed lovefest with this Trailblazer book.

And what a book it is. It's soft cover, 187 pages, B&W. Like PF, Conan, and all the other d20 derivatives, there's a significant portion of the book that anyone could find within the SRD. But we're not here to talk about what's old. We're here to talk about what's new.

What Bad Axe Games has done is break down 3E's system mathematically. We all like to incorporate house rules, right? Yet how many of us really like to dig into the numbers - the "spine" as BAG calls it - and see what really is making the engine tick? To me, that sounds like work - not fun. That being said, it's nothing short of revelatory to see some of the things most of us have suspected (e.g., a comparatively overpowered druid class) shown in a statistical light. This seminal "spine" work quite convincingly shows that - with a couple tweaks offered in Trailblazer - one can say good riddance to the magical item Christmas tree that has (IMO) plagued 3E since it's earliest days. Class balance, the influence of magical items, a whoppin' all new CR/EL system - all of these tools are included up-front for any would-be 3E/PF tinkerer.

Not all of TB is groundbreaking, of course. What makes it stand apart, I believe, is the fact that it takes some darn good ideas from 3E, from 4E, and from PF - including a whole slew of "why didn't I think of that" tweaks from Bad Axe Games itself - and manages to form a rule set that is familiar yet different, elegant yet complex. There's no parochial approach here.

I need to confess - I have never played using the Trailblazer rule set. But, by Oghma, this stuff looks appealing on paper. Some of the more interesting aspects are a unified spell progression, a class balance level-set, a new rest mechanic to get rid of the 10-minute adventuring day, skill consolidation (who doesn't do that now?), some changed feats, encounter budgeting similar to 4E's sweet subsystem, etc.

I'll end with one final thing that really made me sit up and giggle. Throughout the book are a number of little symbols that indicate why a rule has been changed. It may be for balance purposes, or ease of play, or simply because the old mechanic wasn't as much fun. There's the standard dry humor in there one can learn to expect from BAG, as well. On including or excluding the spiked chain, TB recommends to drop it because it's "fun for exactly one person around the table." Or with regards to aerial/underwater comment, TB asks, to paraphrase, "Have you tried aerial/underwater combat? Then you'll know why we changed it. You're welcome."

In summary, I guess I'd have to say that TB is a couple tenths of a version point ahead of PF. Not in "goodness" but in the relative difference between it and 3E. PF had to maintain significant backwards compatibility; TB didn't have that restraint. So if PF is 3.75, TB would probably be 3.9. There are some really good concepts in 4E, and TB doesn't apologize for merging those within a 3E-base system.

I suppose that's it. Felt like posting because I haven't done it in so long and because I haven't had a d20 product stir the creative juices as much as this one has since I first dusted off my shiny new 3E PHB.

Cheers,
D

 

[Ahnehnois]

I bought TB on a whim. Fantastic. I don't play it wholesale, but their rules for iterative attacks and combat reactions and exploits were simple, intuitive, and transformed combat without requiring a lot of work, so I took them for my game. For those 3.5 revisionists willing to sift through things, 2009 has been a little second golden age for the game.

 

[Destan]

Doh! Can't believe I forgot some of those gems. We've adopted the iterative attack change quicker than you can say "iterative attack change."

I'd like to see more work done on the Combat Reactions bit. I think it's a fantastic idea that needs expanded and explored. I believe Herreman, here on these boards, predicted 5E will have more actions for players to do when it's not their turn - and this seems to fall in that mold. Anything that keeps players engaged throughout the encounter, especially when their character isn't the one acting, is a win.

D

 

[Treebore]

I've had this book in my Amazon cart for a while now. I hope to be able to buy it either January or February.

 

[Dalzig]

It definitely has some very good things to steal. The rests, iterative changes, combat reactions, and elite/solo creatures are the things I hope to try out if we get back to 3.5ish D&D at some point. However, it doesn't seem like it would "fix" 3.5 as much as it thinks it will. *shrug*

That said, the statistical analysis is good enough for the purchase (assuming it's accurate). It gives a reason for not allowing most item creation feats (which have caused problems) and not giving out gobs of +X items. It also gives an idea of what kind of Attack/AC/Save values PCs are expected to have at any level.

Not bad for $5 dollars @ RPGDriveThru.

Edit: Hmm... I wonder if the same kind of statistical analysis would work for PF...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Now, time for full disclosure. Trailblazer is co-authored by Ben Durbin of Bad Axe Games. I happen to like Ben, have enjoyed his company's past products, and even freelanced for him a bit. So I'm certainly not biased when it comes to his work.

Don't forget the love child.

What Bad Axe Games has done is break down 3E's system mathematically. This seminal "spine" work quite convincingly shows that - with a couple tweaks offered in Trailblazer - one can say good riddance to the magical item Christmas tree that has (IMO) plagued 3E since it's earliest days.

I don't think magic items are to the detriment of 3e per se. Magic items are a big part of D&D and (despite having written the low-magic ruleset Grim Tales) I would not want to play D&D without magic items.

That said, I do think that magic item creation feats give far too much control to the players. Given the ability to do so, players WILL break the system. A very good example of this can be found on various backwater "optimization" forums where the members demonstrate all the ways that the wizard is broken if the wizard PC is allowed to craft a near infinite supply of scrolls. That's not a breakdown in the system. That's a breakdown in common sense, and the DM allowing the players/rules to run roughshod over his campaign. I know how Gary would have handled such players.

Anyhow, so it is with magic items. Just don't let every PC have every Big Six item maxxed out to full capacity at all times, okay?

I need to confess - I have never played using the Trailblazer rule set.

Not counting the time spent here at ENworld "developing" the design behind Trailblazer on various threads, we playtested Trailblazer through 3 different campaigns over about 2 years.

But yes, you should play. I am eager to get feedback from players and campaigns in order to continue to improve the rules.

Some of the more interesting aspects are a unified spell progression,

There's an example of some wholly unique design that I don't get nearly enough credit for, dammit.

I'll end with one final thing that really made me sit up and giggle. Throughout the book there's the standard dry humor in there one can learn to expect from BAG, as well. On including or excluding the spiked chain, TB recommends to drop it because it's "fun for exactly one person around the table." Or with regards to aerial/underwater comment, TB asks, to paraphrase, "Have you tried aerial/underwater combat? Then you'll know why we changed it. You're welcome."

Still no love for my favorite goofy easter egg. I'm waiting for someone to find it.

In summary, I guess I'd have to say that TB is a couple tenths of a version point ahead of PF. Not in "goodness" but in the relative difference between it and 3E. PF had to maintain significant backwards compatibility; TB didn't have that restraint. So if PF is 3.75, TB would probably be 3.9. There are some really good concepts in 4E, and TB doesn't apologize for merging those within a 3E-base system.

Paizo has to satisfy a very particular kind of gamer. My aim was to satisfy another type of gamer (and perhaps even more narrow). I've crafted Trailblazer as the rule set that I want to play and so I instantly have a pretty good idea of who my customers are. If you like Trailblazer, you are no doubt the sort of gamer who would be welcome at my table.

Assuming you observe normal gaming good manners-- like not dumping the shells and husks from the peanuts back into the container that everyone else is eating from.

I suppose that's it. Felt like posting because I haven't done it in so long and because I haven't had a d20 product stir the creative juices as much as this one has since I first dusted off my shiny new 3E PHB.

Very gratifying to draw Destan back to ENworld. Thanks for the comments.

It definitely has some very good things to steal. The rests, iterative changes, combat reactions, and elite/solo creatures are the things I hope to try out if we get back to 3.5ish D&D at some point. However, it doesn't seem like it would "fix" 3.5 as much as it thinks it will. *shrug*

I'm definitely open for feedback when you have it. There's certainly a couple of glaring omissions in the rules-- Monsters and Spells, for example-- which, when fixed, should bring us closer to that "Totally Fixed!" ideal.

And we're working on those now. I'm revamping all the spells and magic items, and Chris Neveu is already most of the way through the monster revamp: a greatly simplified statblock that 3e DMs will love.

I'll also break some new ground with design in monsters, extending the "monster templates" (similar to those found in Trailblazer for Summon Monster) to all monster types: aberration, animals, constructs, etc. These templates are useful for DMs to quickly create challenges at any CR, and for players who-- for fluff purposes-- would like to be able summon things other than the typical outsiders. (For example, a gnome artificer could summon CR-balanced clockwork companions from the construct templates.)

That said, the statistical analysis is good enough for the purchase (assuming it's accurate).

Well, the data is what it is, taken directly from the SRD and sorted into an excel spreadsheet. Of course you're free to quibble with the analysis, but the text is pretty open about that, too-- our methodology, the limitations of Craig Cochrane's CR breakdowns, etc. But I did maintain the strictest adherence to the TLAR Standard.

Edit: Hmm... I wonder if the same kind of statistical analysis would work for PF...

During the PF playtest there were some outspoken folks for whom such analysis was not rigorous enough, and some folks for whom any kind of analysis was anathema. (I have read at least one review of Trailblazer which you could sum up as, "Math is hard!" I'm not sure the reviewer realizes that I know exactly how much time passed between his purchase and his review...)

The thing I would caution folks is not to focus on the minutiae of the analysis-- for example, class features costed out to the thousandth decimal place. This is useful for comparison, but I do not confuse precision for accuracy, and neither should the reader. Nevertheless, it allows us to make apples-to-apples comparisons to get a better "big picture" understanding of the moving parts of the d20 system.

I am definitely looking forward to seeing more feedback from Trailblazer campaigns, and from the purchasers of the print-on-demand version at Amazon. We'll continue to improve as we move forward with additional releases.

 

[firesnakearies]

What is meant, exactly, by "unified spell progression"?

 

[pawsplay]

It definitely sounds interesting. I'm a recent Fantasy Craft convert, though, besides playing Pathfinder, so I'm not sure how much utility I would get from it as a whole. As far as some of the ideas... I would definitely not be looking for more 4e concepts in my 3e game, rather, less 4e concepts in a hypothetical 4e game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It definitely sounds interesting. I'm a recent Fantasy Craft convert, though, besides playing Pathfinder, so I'm not sure how much utility I would get from it as a whole. As far as some of the ideas... I would definitely not be looking for more 4e concepts in my 3e game, rather, less 4e concepts in a hypothetical 4e game.

I will get to firesnakearies in a second but want to address pawsplay first.

In terms of "4e concepts," I would broadly describe my thoughts here as, "Make the game easier to play so that you can get on with the fun." There's a lot of design cues in 4e that get to the heart of that.

This means, yes, adopting some of the more "gamist" approaches of 4e at the expense of some of the more cumbersome "simulationist" rules. Attacks of opportunity are greatly curtailed so as to allow players to, you know, move around in combat. Ditto for firing into melee: it's easier. Ditto for sneak attacks: easier. Critical hits are fun: let's make those 20s count and remove blanket crit immunity. And as for the Rest Mechanic, let's institutionalize the "hand wave" so that the PCs can rest as easily as the DM wants, at whatever rate he wants: we suggest a 10 minute rest.

Trailblazer is very much a beer-and-pretzels, dungeon-delving kind of game focused on removing the obstacles to fun. Most of those obstacles, it turns out, were simulationist atavisms.

What is meant, exactly, by "unified spell progression"?

I've explained this so many times I should put it in a .doc somewhere so I can cut and paste it.

I'll explain this by looking first at the status quo for multiclass spellcasters in 3e. A multiclass spellcaster-- including the Mystic Theurge-- maintains two different classes, each with its own spell progression. The character ends up sacrificing his highest spell levels for, in effect, twice as many lower level spells. A Wiz6 or Clr6, for example, has access to 3rd level spells; a Wiz3/Clr3 only has access to 2nd level spells-- but he'll have double the number of 1st and 2nd level spells.

The problem gets much worse as we look at higher level characters. Losing out on 5th, 6th, or higher level spells ends up being a huge problem, because so many monsters encountered at those levels are expected to be countered by spells that fall at appropriate levels. If your 11th level character doesn't have access to stone to flesh, then the beholder just got a lot more difficult.

The unified spell progression works by assigning each class a base magic bonus and then comparing that base magic bonus to a single spell progression chart. A Wiz6, a Clr6, and a Wiz3/Clr3 all have a base magic bonus of +6. Each of these characters has exactly the same base spell slot allocation (the unified progression is based on the Wizard progression so I suppose it would be 3/2/2 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells-- off the top of my head). The base magic bonus concept can be seen in Unearthed Arcana.

The table indicates the number of spell slots and ready spells that the character receives. Each rest period, the spellcaster prepares his ready spells: that is, those spells from his class spell list that the caster wants to have access to. There is no need to ready multiple "copies" of the same spell-- for example, if you ready magic missile, you can cast it as many times as you want, provided you have the spell slots to do so. The ready spell mechanic can be seen in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.

To these two great Open Content concepts-- and what I think is a pretty good piece of design-- is how we further differentiate between the classes:

• Sorcerers gain bonus spell slots as a class feature; but they have far fewer ready spells. The more sorcerer levels you have, the more bonus spell slots of progressively higher levels you will have.
  
• Clerics gain bonus ready spells in the form of the spontaneous cure spells and their domain spells. The more cleric levels you have, the higher your bonus ready cure spells and domain spells.
  
• Wizards gain bonus ready spells as a class feature, at all levels, of progressively higher levels.
  
• Druids don't get bonus ready spells or spell slots. Indeed the druid loses a bit of power-- fewer spell slots as compared to 3e.
  
• Rangers and paladins have a caster level of 1/2-- they have a base magic bonus of 1/2. This alone gives them a power boost-- they'll be able to cast spells from 1st level and they'll eventually gain access to 5th level spells. They gain an additional boost because they gain access to the entirety of the druid spell list (for rangers) or the cleric spell list (for paladins). A 20th level paladin will have a base magic bonus of +10, so he'll cast spells as a 10th level cleric.

There are a few other little idiosyncrasies in there but I'll leave it at that as it fairly well explains the broad strokes.

 

[Azgulor]

Wulf, just curious - while I really like what Trailblazer does for optimizing D&D-style play, do you have any plans for incorporating Grim Tales concepts into the Trailblazer line?

Specifically:
Class Defense Bonus
Options for eliminating the Christmas Tree Effect
More "dangerous" magic; i.e. applying GT concepts to the Trailblazer re-worked spell progression system
Armor as DR

I generally prefer the simulationist over the gamist but that doesn't mean I'd like you to revert back to early AoO, etc. I WOULD like some High Adventure, Low Magic in my Trailblazer!