TRAILBLAZER - PDF Release - Discussion/Questions/Errata

What are your thoughts on giving the PCs and action point each day as opposed to a pool you get each level?
By day do you mean per rest? I would recommend against it. First off, there are going to be battles where players are going to want (and need!) to spend multiple APs. And actually, that's kind of the point. APs are meant to be another resource that the DM can chip away at to challenge the players. If they refresh after a rest, that component is removed.

Hit points are meant to be a short-term resource; APs are a long-term resource.

On the other hand, I happen to think that Action Points refreshing per level is complete bleh. I'm a fan of them being a per session resource and would say they should start at 3 or 4 points.

It should be noted that by doing this, you're shifting the game into a more actiony sort; some people would call it "heroic" but I dislike that term. You're already playing "heroic" characters in theory. But having AP that refresh each game session means you can expect to do a certain amount of things fairly consistently.

I'll also note that I'm a lone voice advocating this. :)

My own experience has been that AP that refresh per level are generally forgotten and hoarded until the end boss fight. This is a playstyle thing and therefore not everyone will experience it, because not all GMs run games the same way. However, for the GMs I've had that tend to have the big bad boss as the final thing before leveling up? Oh hell yeah, people hoard them. Throwing tougher encounters at people in an attempt to trick them into using their AP or to "encourage" them to use them doesn't really make much of a difference.

The big thing to think about is, what function are AP serving in your game?

Spending 1 AP every 2 or 3 encounters is... well, looking at what AP can do, and thinking about the fact that you can only do one of those cool things every couple or three encounters on average, you need to decide if that's the tone of the game you want or not? Do you want your Fighter to be able to auto-confirm a crit with an AP once every 2 or 3 encounters? Or do you want him to potentially be a whirling machine of death (well, for 3 or 4 critters :) )?

Don't forget about the casters though. Switching to a per session method means that Restricted spell slots are going to be recoverable far more frequently, and Ritual spell slots as well.

And of course, people can be spending them to recover the HP more frequently as well.

Certain things like the Bound Item use *(spend an AP to Bind an item and have it improve as you level) are going to change as well. Now, you can leave it as is, in which case some folks might feel it's "too cheap". You can go a different direction and have it reduce the character's per session AP by one, in which case it might be "too expensive" (and you might want to be running with 4 AP per session if you're thinking of going this route). Regardless of which direction you go, it's going to have a bit of a different effect and you'll want to think about whether you're fine with that or not.

No bones about it, AP are a _metagame_ resource. Use of them has an _in-game_ impact and you need to figure out _what_ that impact is and if messing with them is going to impact your game the way you want. It _will_ have an impact. For the kind of games _I_ like to run (high action) it's a good thing; if you're wanting something "realistic"/"gritty"/"sword & sorcery", then no it's going to have a negative impact.

In my game when I did AP as a per session resource, characters were definitely more dangerous. I didn't have all the tweaks and stuff that Trailblazer has with AP, but I found players tended to be more aggressive in their fights because they had the AP pool there to pull their bacon out of the fire or to spend to help them shut down an opponent hard. Because the players knew it'd be refreshing the next game session, they didn't really spend a lot of time hesitating about whether or not to use their AP. The resource management they engaged in was at the session level, as opposed to the "string of encounters" level.

For people that like screwing around with mechanics, there's some fertile ground out there in terms of how many AP are given, how many AP are given when they refresh, and how frequently AP refresh. I think Trailblazer takes a "middle of the road" approach generally, although my sense is that Wulf and GlassJaw tend to lean in the direction of "gritty" as opposed to "action hero".

I know I sound like a broken record but I can't emphasize it enough: Know what it is that you like in running a game and try to have as clear an idea as you can about what you _want_ in the game. It'll make things much less painful for you when you start pulling and poking at mechanics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Until I see your post about your Trailblazer campaign experience, this particular observation is off the mark; it's history.

To elaborate a little on what Wulf said Scurvy, we just haven't seen that. We've been using our AP system for the past year or so in our home game and we've found that AP's are very valuable, even when it's not the boss fight.

If the encounter is a challenging one, assume the PCs are going to have use APs.
 

I think the rest of SP's post is well-reasoned, but he's extrapolating that "hoarding" mentality from the APs of old, without consideration of the (tighter) integration of APs into other systemic changes (most notably the Rest Mechanic, which itself cascades into "higher EL encounters as the norm", etc.)
 

Podcast appearance has intrigued me

Wulf,

After listening to you on the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast, I decided that I would check out Trailblazer. I don't even play 3.5 exactly. We play Castles & Crusades.

One of the nice things about the C&C system is that I can port elements from other systems that I like. I'm looking forward to seeing what will be useful from Trailblazer.

In general, I want to keep an old school feel while keeping the mechanics somewhat simple. I don't want to drop a load of rules on my players. I'd prefer to use rulings that give them a sense of what actions are more likely to lead to success than others, but that they should still try anything.

As soon as I get paid, I'm buying the pdf. I'd be happy to share what elements I like.

BTW, you sound much more mild mannered on the podcast than your forum posts would suggest.

R
 

BTW, you sound much more mild mannered on the podcast than your forum posts would suggest.

HA!

That made my day.

EDIT: For folks who are interested, the interview can be heard here:

http://rcjrproductions.com/35ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=26

It is rather long, about 30 minutes (and that was after editing...) but it was a lot of fun to do.

Personally I think the highlight of the interview is when I refer to my co-author's "Encyclopidiotic Knowledge."

A mere verbal slip, I promise.
 
Last edited:

What is the best way to inform you of sections that might benefit from clarification? Is there any way to see what you are aware of and what you aren't? Would you prefer a list of multiple things at once or bring them up as you find them?

On page 26, the feats section reads, "All characters receive one feat at 1st level, and an additional feat every 3 levels."

This would imply getting feats at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.
The table below shows that you gain feats at level 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.

I believe the table is correct since it corresponds with the 3.5 PHB, but thought I would mention the inconsistency.


As someone who has never read or played 3.x *, I'm certainly not the intended audience for Trailblazer. Despite my lack of knowledge about 3.x, I'm finding Trailblazer to be extremely understandable. I briefly compared Trailblazer to the 3.5 PHB and was glad to see that most** (if not all) information needed to learn to play is included in Trailblazer. Thus far, I have not had the need to reference the 3.5 PHB for clarification. Hopefully this holds true as I read more, as it would mean that Trailblazer is the only rules document needed.

I found chapter one to be extremely well-written, especially in regard to how you explain the math. As a math major, I've read a lot of math texts and your explanations of the mathematics behind the system are much clearer than many textbooks.

Once I've read the rules more completely, I'll be sure to post more thoughts.

*I have played other RPGs, especially Dungeons & Dragons 4e. I also have some basic knowledge of 3.5, since I have played DDO for about a month. However, DDO doesn't follow the 3.5 rules exactly and certainly doesn't require a good understanding of them to play.

**I know that spell lists aren't included in Trailblazer, but in order to learn the game's concepts, they aren't necessary.
 

What is the best way to inform you of sections that might benefit from clarification? Is there any way to see what you are aware of and what you aren't? Would you prefer a list of multiple things at once or bring them up as you find them?

Just let us know.

On page 26, the feats section reads, "All characters receive one feat at 1st level, and an additional feat every 3 levels."

This would imply getting feats at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.
The table below shows that you gain feats at level 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.

Ok, we could make that clearer. There's some "3e Familiarity" assumed here-- because you're not, you caught it. (Thanks!)



I briefly compared Trailblazer to the 3.5 PHB and was glad to see that most** (if not all) information needed to learn to play is included in Trailblazer. Hopefully this holds true as I read more, as it would mean that Trailblazer is the only rules document needed.

We'll get closer to that standard after we release a couple more products.
 

Typos and the like
On page 13
The final paragraph begins, "The last two pages of this preview..."
Unless this is hinting at greater things to come....I am pretty sure this was never changed from the preview text.

On page 28
There is a problem in the final paragraph of the first column. It says "over and above the number listed on the table below."
"Over and above" may be redundant, but it's hard to know what you mean because there is no table below.

Things I wasn't sure about
I couldn't find the section on iterative attacks in the PHB. I saw the full-attack action and that sounded like it might be the right thing, but I wasn't certain. Full-attack is listed as doable only after your BAB is high enough, but I couldn't find that number. I was guessing it would mean when you get a second attack listed in BAB. i.e. 6/1

In the section on Iterative attacks, you say that at 6th level, characters get a 2nd attack, does this mean all characters or only melee (or martial?) ones?
 

In the section on Iterative attacks, you say that at 6th level, characters get a 2nd attack, does this mean all characters or only melee (or martial?) ones?

It should be BAB +6 (not 6th level). We've caught and fixed this one.

I'll check our notes against your other comments.

Thanks Dean!
 

Remove ads

Top