A couple of options I'm curious about with Trailblazer

[GlassJaw]

I'm also a big fan of degrees of success, probably because of my love of Shadowrun.

TB expanded upon that slightly with the critical success/failure system. Between the inherent "5 or more" mechanic in a lot of skills and criticals, you can get a variety of results in the same skill check.

 

[Vespucci]

One of the things that's killed me about 3.5 is how long it often takes to create characters. For 4e, it's even worse IMO.

And a lot of that I lay down on Feats and Skills (of course, it's Powers in 4e). Especially Skill Points. Sure, some of us have a pretty good grasp on what we're going for and we can knock out a non-spellcaster in less than half-an-hour. But then there are the analysis paralysis types who are going to sit there and grouse over whether they should take Cleave or Power Attack or something else for an hour or two.

Multi-classing and prestige classes (together with the build complications these create) are the other component. Because Trailblazer removes the need for "fix" Prestige Classes, the pressure is eased. It's also simplified rolling up spell-casters.

1) Get rid of Feats. Or at least move their function into another, more freeform, less shopping-list, mechanic. Like Action Points maybe?

A serious consequence of this would be shifting time costs into the game session. My main question is: which problem are you trying to solve? It doesn't sound like you're worried about overall complexity, but rather players feeling "locked in" to their decisions.

To solve that, I recommend a two-ways solution. Firstly, go with the PHB2 solution of standard builds. These give the "not sure" player something to pick up and run with. Secondly, allow feats to be changed between adventures at no or little cost.

If those don't address the problem, then the problem is identifying what's wrong!

And how would the "+5 for Trained" model (or something similar) translate to TB? How many Trained skills would characters get? When would they get new ones?

I think skills need a more comprehensive redesign. What I would suggest is dividing what we currently think of as skills into three basic categories:

1. Things regular people do (Craft, Profession, etc.).
2. Things all adventurers do (Perception, among others)
3. Whacky things certain kinds of adventurers do (Use Magic Device, but also some high end stunts from Stealth and the like)

This is the hardest task. The conclusions from there are fairly obvious. For (1), it's better to have a non-level based skill system (i.e. no cap on skills from class level, skill points can be derived from things other than leveling). This gets around the awkwardness of 6 year old Mozart getting +8 BAB - the kid can be 0th level with a ridiculous skill in music. (2) should simply be a function of level. Things in (3) become Class Features and Feats.

I'm not sure that solves your problem, of course. But it does remove skill points as a build complication.

 

[ValhallaGH]

How does Mozart have a BAB +8? Yeah, sure, he's a high level expert / commoner, so he can have his 10 ranks in Perform and Craft (Music) - but a 4 / 3 split means he's on BAB +4.

Which is still ridiculous for a 6 year old, but it's no +8.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

3. Whacky things certain kinds of adventurers do (Use Magic Device, but also some high end stunts from Stealth and the like)

. . .

Things in (3) become Class Features and Feats.

This gets back to some old school origins, not completely "Thief chart" obviously, but in that direction just a bit. We already have some wild Stealth stunts as class features, hide in plain sight comes to mind, trapfinding for Disable Device is another.

For #2, I think Concentration is an example. Trailblazer purged that from skills and made it a thing spellcasters do.

I'm intrigued by this sort of skill redesign, it feels like a good direction . . .

 

[Vespucci]

+8 was an arbitrary figure. +4 would be just as bad - and, actually, it's a problem for other great masters, as their levels in Expert (or Commoner) will end up making them much tougher than the first level warriors who should be able to push them around.

NPC classes: they just don't work!

 

[ValhallaGH]

Oh, they aren't so bad. Just say the poor kid rolls a 1 on all his hit dice. 10 hp is impressive, but it's not enough to stand up to a 1st level warrior for very long.

What is flawed is the skill DC assignments. Mozart was probably a level 4 character - Skill Focus for a +3; +4 ability score; and 7 "ranks" means he's on a +14 (plus tools and any assistance he might receive). A +14 means he can do almost anything you want for a skill - unless he's an adventurer, in which case some jerk adventure writer will assign a DC of 35 to an "easy" check, just so it will "be a challenge". But I already complained about that.

I do admit, my favorite NPC "class" was the Ordinary Role from True 20. Each level in Ordinary provided either 4 skill points or 1 feat - which meant Mozart was a level 2 Expert (PC class) / level 8 Ordinary, with his 13 ranks in the relevant skills, and total 20+ modifier. Allowing him to to the nearly impossible, musically (which is probably a bit of an overstatement - he was good but I don't think you could call any of his compositions nearly impossible quality).

 

[Vespucci]

I haven't read True 20. But, for me, levels that aren't really levels (i.e. they don't provide anything beyond skill points and/or feats) are an obvious design error. If these character features are meant to be available without levels, then they should be designed that way.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Of course Trailblazer dispenses with this slavish devotion to Simulationism.

Mozart has as many skill ranks as he needs to fill the role the DM needs. He need not have a class nor any levels. I wouldn't even give him hit points. Why would you care? If the PCs need to attack Mozart Child Prodigy, I'm just going to assume they can take him and move the story forward.

Indeed, why would he even need skill ranks? It seems about as relevant as assigning ranks of blueness to the sky or brightness to the sun.

What purpose does statting him out serve your story?

 

[Vespucci]

Well, I wasn't thinking of including Mozart Child Prodigy in my latest attempt to drag a group of role-players through my-really-good-idea-for-a-novel-if-only-those-philistine-editors-could-see-my-talent.

I did think that Mozart, or someone like him, might be an interesting part of a setting that the players could explore. As they might compete with him musically (and be judged), his musical competence seemed kinda important. As players love killing things (and their enemies try killing things they love), a few hit points and defenses need to go in, too.

In other words:

Oh, Wulf, I thought you were old school.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As they might compete with him musically (and be judged), his musical competence seemed kinda important.

So just set a DC for, "Beat Mozart at his own game."

As players love killing things (and their enemies try killing things they love), a few hit points and defenses need to go in, too.

Absolutely not. Whether the PCs can kill or protect Mozart (CP) has nothing to do with his stats. Mozart is the McGuffin. His guards might need stats; his assassins might need stats. Mozart-- not so much.

Oh, Wulf, I thought you were old school.

With respect to the rules serving me, and not the other way around, I am.