3E? 4E? PF? Trailblazer.

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

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.


That sounds excellent. I really like this idea.

Thanks for the great answer!

(And off I go to buy the Trailblazer PDF now.)


$
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

Not at this time. Maybe. I dunno...? Trailblazer is still seriously scratching my itch, both in terms of my design time and my play time, so it will keep me busy for a while.

Another regular poster, joela, pointed me towards the "Pathfinderize d20 Modern" patronage project that Owen KC Stevens (et al.) are kicking off over at Paizo (link).

Maybe keep your eye on that?
 


I am soon to start a campaign using some of the concepts from Trailblazer. I am particularly in love with the unified spell progression, and want to make babies with it. Also, I think that my players will find that multiclassing spellcaster levels will be a reasonable option.
 

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.
I own the Pathfinder .pdf, Trailblazer .pdf, and now the Fantasy Craft .pdf and physical book.

Fantasy Craft has smitten me with so many elements, it has brought enough new things to the table (in my limited exposure) that I just want to give them a try. Plus, the efforts spent on the bringing mechanical effects from the world-building work of the GM into real game system meaning just tickles my inner world builder. The rules for lifestyle, reputation, prizes, downtime expenses, armor as protection from damage . . . , the attempt at making Large-sized characters USABLE at 1st level . . ., So much good there.

I love how Trailblazer begins with an itemized list of "What Needs Changing". I lost count how many things there I agreed with. I want to go through Fantasy Craft with the Trailblazer "What Needs Changing" list, compare, then maybe try to bring in as much of what Fantasy Craft left out.

I may be wrong, but at a brief first glance it seems easier to import Trailblazer's fixes of D20/3e into Fantasy Craft than it is to import the pieces of Fantasy Craft I like into Trailblazer. I hope it can be even done.
 

I may be wrong, but at a brief first glance it seems easier to import Trailblazer's fixes of D20/3e into Fantasy Craft than it is to import the pieces of Fantasy Craft I like into Trailblazer. I hope it can be even done.

I like (OK, love) Trailblazer as a fix for 3.5, but I honestly can't think of anything in it that needs importing into FC. Partly because part of Trailblazer is pulled from Spycraft, partly because FC has very different design philosophies then 3.5 or Trailblazer, and largely because Spycraft and Fantasy Craft already address most of the points (where they have similar philosophies) that Trailblazer does.
 

I'll admit, After Wulf's admonishment a few months back, I bought and read Trailblazer, and though I still prefer a lot of what 4E has done, Trailblazer has gone a long way towards "fixing" 3E for me.

Even more fascinating is your news, Wulf, that you're working on a spells and magic addendum. I'll keep an eye out for it, because the Problem-spells are the biggest piece not written up in one cohesive fix, the way Trailblazer is.
 

I like (OK, love) Trailblazer as a fix for 3.5, but I honestly can't think of anything in it that needs importing into FC. Partly because part of Trailblazer is pulled from Spycraft...

Hmmm... That must be some old Open Content, probably held over from Grim Tales (which certainly does owe a lot to Spycraft). I can't think of anything in Trailblazer that was consciously pulled from Spycraft.

But you have reminded me that I really should pick up Fantasy Craft!
 

Eric Anondson said:
I love how Trailblazer begins with an itemized list of "What Needs Changing". I lost count how many things there I agreed with.

That should surprise no one as I compiled that list of fixes over the course of about 3 years across various threads as ENworld-- including one titled "what really needed fixing?"

For those who are curious to look back at the desing process, many of those threads are archived (in links) in the Bad Axe Games hosted forum.
 

Hmmm... That must be some old Open Content, probably held over from Grim Tales (which certainly does owe a lot to Spycraft). I can't think of anything in Trailblazer that was consciously pulled from Spycraft.

But you have reminded me that I really should pick up Fantasy Craft!

Mostly I see it in the Action Point rules, primarily the exploding dice and a number of the Enhancements. I wasn't trying to say you copied anything explicitly, more that both rulesets cover similar ground in similar ways. I should have phrased it to make it clear that my statement was based on Trailblazer's Section 15.
 

Remove ads

Top