Pathfinder 1E Anyone using Trailblazer with Pathfinder?

[Lawngnome4hire]

I looked over the Trailblazer pdf and it had a few good ideas in it but over all I think most of the changes in Pathfinder were better.

I think I'm going to incorporate the 10min rest and the iterative attacks change, both of those look like really good ideas. Iterative attacks were always problematic, if you were fighting something hard enough that you needed them, they would never actually hit, and the 10 minute rest solves what is in my opinion the biggest problem with 3.5 and it's derivatives, and that's limited resources causing excessive delays in play. I looked over the changes to attacks of opportunity but at first glance it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. I really don't see how it lowers the number of AoO since you can already take a 5ft step and not provoke as long as you don't take a normal move. The only attacks I see it removing are those incurred during the initial rush in to melee range, but taking those out nullifies any advantage reach weapons, or creatures with reach have. As a big fan of reach weapons and the tactics they allow that doesn't sit to well with me. And while the added combat reactions are a cool idea, it's adding more complexity with a rule that is suppose to try and simplify things, seems to cancel out any benefit.

 

[Stormrazor2000]

As I've thought more on the changes, I am also leaning away from the combat reactions unless I am DMing a small (3-4) group of players. Any more than that and the reactions would end up making combat more complex and take longer than it already does. Cancelling out any benefit of more engaging play.

The biggest sticking point with the 10 minute rest is that non-casters would rarely ever have to spend an action point. If the group has a healer, they can presumably cover the remaining 50% of HP a fighter wouldn't heal with a single rest. While casters would feel the pressure to spend their action points to get back their "nukes". I think the rule is still better than resting in Pathfinder core, but I'm worried it would have unintended consequences.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

The biggest sticking point with the 10 minute rest is that non-casters would rarely ever have to spend an action point.

True, but casters have more incentive to spend it in combat, recovering spells mid-fight (where it's a much worse bargain, with each action point recovering only one spell).

Truthfully, though, Action Points are much more for martial characters than magic characters. But I'm pretty okay with that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I use a little of both for my 3.X game.

From Trailblazer, I've found mostly things to power up the non-magic classes. Iterative attacks, combat reactions, combat exploits, and I use their barbarian and I used their rogue a bit when writing my own.

The first two especially help; the iterative attack fix cuts down on time wasting and combat reactions add a whole new tactical element and give more benefit to having a good BAB. It's just a subtle push towards balance without having to give fighters spells.

 

[Stormrazor2000]

I was wondering about that. Does it help close the power gap between fighter types and casters at mid to high levels? Combat reactions sound like a lot of fun, but I could see them taking a lot of time (since monsters would get to use them too) and definitely favor those who are in melee range where they can aid another.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here's my experience:

Taking a combat reaction is optional. You can always save it in case you need an AoO. The options are simple and well-defined: AoO, AC, DR, or aid (maybe missing something but those are the ones my players use). I don't think it really makes the fighter's turn last longer (esp since TB cuts down the number of iterative attacks at high levels).

As far as ranged characters vs melee, it's true you can't aid. But two archers shooting at each other can still dodge/block so I don't see the new rules as favoring melee any more than the old ones.

It does favor monsters with high BAB (as monster HD are weak, a challenging monster often has more of them, and more BAB). Some of the options are BAB-based, so dodge/block can become scary. It also increases the distance between levels; a character a few levels higher than you might be able to dodge or block your one-two attacks per round, becoming unhittable.

The upside is that fighters have more actions. Since casters' turns have always taken longer than fighters, I have no problem with this. The fighter can dodge a caster's ray-type spell much more effectively, since his touch AC is weak but his BAB is strong. The aiding another reaction encourages teamwork, but makes for an interesting tactical choice, since you reduce your ability to defend yourself (I still allow aid as an attack action, scaling the aid bonus based on the attack roll). Combat Reflexes is now an excellent feat, instead of a weird niche option that may or may not see a lot of use.

On the whole, I think Combat Reactions cost me very little effort and time and added a lot to the game.

 

[Stormrazor2000]

I would think that casters hanging back would use dodge or block every turn as it is unlikely they would need to save an AoO. Does that cause any issues?

Obviously they wouldn't get as many reactions with their low BaB, but they would still get at least one to try and fend off the archer targeting them, or the ray spell from the rival caster.

I think I'll give it a shot with the small group I run (4 players) before I try it with the large group (7 players).

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I would think that casters hanging back would use dodge or block every turn as it is unlikely they would need to save an AoO. Does that cause any issues?

Truthfully, "+2 AC vs the first attack" has never saved any of my caster's bacon. Although, if your caster's ACs are at the point where a small bonus to AC is the difference between hitting and missing, your casters may vary from mine. (I've rarely seen a pure caster bother with Rings of Protection or Amulets of Natural Armor, for instance. AC is for people who get hit.)

Our Cleric probably makes the most use of it, treating it as "another buff" that she gets to hand out. The melee characters move around a smidge more, to set each other up.

And large swarms of weak enemies are significantly powered up (which, for our playstyle, is a good thing), constantly flanking / aiding and gaining larger attack bonuses than they "deserve". Being surrounded by 4 orcs gets a lot more dangerous when one of them effectively gets +6 (or more) to hit because of it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would think that casters hanging back would use dodge or block every turn as it is unlikely they would need to save an AoO. Does that cause any issues?

Obviously they wouldn't get as many reactions with their low BaB, but they would still get at least one to try and fend off the archer targeting them, or the ray spell from the rival caster.

My casters haven't really used them because they've rarely been subject to attack rolls. If the tank is doing his job, they aren't, and when they are attacked, it's often by spells that require saves from enemy casters. When they have been attacked, the AC bonus hasn't helped. For an arcane caster, it's +1/4 level to AC vs one attack (or two attacks starting at 12th level). It doesn't even do anything until level 4. I don't think it's going to save a wizard against any remotely credible opponent, although I agree dodge is the primary viable option for a caster using this system.

 

[PolterGhost]

Honestly, the only things I've found useful in Trailblazer are already part of Pathfinder's core.

I might look into to combat reactions, but that's about it.