• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.

Trailblazer mixology

This could possibly be a poll if I could come up with proper categories . . . The basic question is this, "How do you use Trailblazer?" I mean, how do you blend it with other D20?

Do you use Trailblazer as core. Period.
Do you use Trailblazer as core with some selected, proven 3.x tidbits slapped on (prestige classes, builder-book feats, builder-book spells, builder-book equipment . . .)
Do you use standard 3.x, and piece in a few (or a lot of) Trailblazerisms.
Do you use Pathfinder, and piece in a few (or a lot of) Trailblazerisms.
Do you use Trailblazer and piece in Pathfinderisms.
Uncategorizable mismash of all things D20 with some Trailblazer in there.

Goes without saying there might be some house rules in any of those, I guess. How have you house ruled?

I might cross post this over on the Legacy forum, but here seemed best since it seemed to have the highest concentration of Trailblazer users.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Villager
Hmm... you didn't mention anything other than rulesets.

I use straight Trailblazer for my core ruleset, and then take whatever I need from 3.x sources (spells, monsters, and especially adventures).

I also salt in plenty of new rules currently in R&D which, I suppose, still counts as Trailblazer, though it's not core.

Yet.
 

ValhallaGH

Villager
I use Trailblazer as a core, and pull whatever I need from other sources. Essentially the same approach Wulf describes.
Though I tend to just stick to SRD monsters and spells, but that's a matter of personal preference.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Villager
That's too delicious to let pass. Yum!
Nothing you have seen around these parts...

1) Combat Reactions to take a 5-foot step in certain flanking conditions (to flank, or avoid being flanked);

2) I have a wizard player who likes to push the envelope with customizing spells. Right now we're playing with "metamagic" like changing the ranges and durations on the fly;

3) Some magic item charge/recharge mechanics I swiped from pogre. Rather than track charges, each item starts with a certain size recharge die (d12 down to d4). When you use a charge, roll the die; if it's a 1, drop the die size down, until it's finally expended when the d4 goes away. The math on this is interesting and I would share it-- but it's at work. IIRC, an item that starts with a d12 die works out to about 80 charges (within a certain confidence level-- naturally, you can't predict this event with 100% certitude.)
 
I liked that magic item recharge idea too.

Can't wait to see more concrete descriptions of the metamagic concepts.

I've always thought that Combat Reactions open up a whole swath of design space for new ideas that let characters do things on other characters' turns. In a recent thread in this forum I mentioned one I've wanted to have my group use.
On a missed melee attack, the target can take a combat reaction to make a 5-foot-step. For each +1 of a monk's reaction bonus, a ranger's improved reaction, and a rogue's combat tactics, let those characters add an additional 5-feet of movement to these reactions.​
But my group is on summer hiatus while one of my brother's work is on a happy uptick (home construction).

Back on the thread topic, I've also been only using Trailblazer as core, plus SRD spells, SRD magic items, MM I–V monsters.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Villager
On a missed melee attack, the target can take a combat reaction to make a 5-foot-step. For each +1 of a monk's reaction bonus, a ranger's improved reaction, and a rogue's combat tactics, let those characters add an additional 5-feet of movement to these reactions.​
I sense problems with hordes of kobolds... Verisimilitude-shattering problems.
 
That's why you get paid the big bucks. ;)

The design idea was that it gives some movement options on other character's turns.

I expected that because this was chosen movement (not some forced movement, like being grappled and pulled into a square) that the PC would still be limited by the rules regarding the maximum amount of movement per round based on the character's speed.
 

jedavis

Villager
My group at home uses most of TB (everything but action points, rest mechanic, and the Pile o' HP at first level) + various splatbook feats, spells, and whatnot, while my campus group has been using the same subset of TB + SRD-only spells, items, monsters, and PrCs (only one so far, Assassin - I'm really digging the basically-full BmB so far and full sneak attack... one of these days they're going to figure out that it's not just a two-level dip in Wizard). We also experimented once with letting players tweak-up some of the weaker classes using the class rebalance data; fighters with 5/4 BaB and other crazy but entertaining things ensued.

And I agree that while I'd like to see more reactions, I'm hard pressed to think of things that would be balanced to use reactively. Reactive spellcasting would be extremely powerful (even if you made it something like Improved Quicken... I guess with a hefty enough meta-level boost and two feat prereqs, it might work). Movement is, as you say, going to be mighty annoying for people without reach. Reactive weapon draw might be a reasonable bonus feature for Quick Draw - you can wait until your turn and then draw for free, or burn a reaction to draw now.
 

Ahnehnois

Villager
I run 3.5, with a variety of rules from Uneathed Arcana, Pathfinder, and Trailblazer.

From TB, I use:
*Iterative attacks
*Combat Reactions
*Turning
*Vision rules
*Other odds and ends from classes.

Most of the rest of what TB addressed I had already addressed. I wrote a standardized magic system with UA spell points that fixes the system much better for me. The action point rules for TB I didn't understand and they didn't seem to do what my existing action point rules did. Combat maneuvers had already been handled by Pathfinder so I saw no need to revisit that. The big concept I took from classes was the idea of a circumstantial attack bonus covering the difference in BAB between 3/4 and full, but I had to rewrite the rogue myself to get my vp/wp system and for various other reason.

TB also dumbed down a lot of things that I didn't feel the need to. I'm fine with skill points, and although I understand the rationale behind consolidation I see no impetus for me to do it since my players understand the existing system. And I like putting one rank in Perform (Sing) every now and then. I also didn't like the standarization of saves; I actually added in a medium save to differentiate the classes more based on saves, not less. I've never had any real issue with overpowered spells so I didn't look there. I kind of liked the standardized weapon rules, but saw no need to explicitly implement them. Per rest mechanics is another example of something that is fine but I just didn't see the need for.

The broad conclusion is that after having played the same game for over ten years I know what I need out of it, and I pick rules that get me there from any number of sources.
 

Advertisement

Top