Trailblazer: New Horizons in 3.5 Roleplaying

[Thurbane]

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.p...ducts_id=64009

Has anyone played or heard about this?

I’m very intrigued – it claims to fix a lot of 3.5’s common problems, but I’ve seen that claim on other products, which have failed to live up to hype.

Any info very much appreciated.

Cheers - T

[Fail]

It failed to be a comprehensive fix too. That said, it actually has new and interesting ideas, unlike Pathfinder.

You can obtain a more or less comprehensive (it wasn't finished, unfortunately) D&D fix for free here.

[eepop]

It made things better, and made a lot more options viable. That said, the Tier 1 classes are still completely able to break the game if they wish.

They did some things to ease DM prep time, but its still a time intensive process.

[Thurbane]

OK, thanks guys. Has anyone got a more comprehensive review? Is it better, comparable, or worse than, say, Pathfinder?

[Fail]

My apologies, man. No time to do a full review the way I'd like. My short assessment of it is: if you see value in owning Unearthed Arcana (WotC's book of assorted 3.5 houserules), you see value in owning Trailblazer. It isn't entirely better than 3.5, and thus I advise against doing "Trailblazer games", i.e. making a point of using it entirely - that said, there's lots of stuff you might use (the "spine" analysis on pages 4-14 is completely crazy, though - that said, this isn't that much of a worry cause as the book's 192 pages long, thus burning 11 pages can not count as a big loss).

Comparisons to Pathfinder are problematic given that Pathfinder fixes 0 problems and has 0 ideas not seen in thousands of bajillions of places. Yes, I'm serious - the problem can by summarized by saying the best classes got better and the worst got worse (to be honest, the druid got worse and the paladin better, but neither did so enough to not still be problematic - and every other class except maybe ranger and bard, whose changes are largely inconsequential, got moved in the wrong direction, i.e. cleric/sorcerer/wizard better, those not mentioned so far worse) and no innovation was had.

If it's not too much to ask, people with any interest in lengthening the Pathfinder issue can quote me on starting another thread, and I'd join for at least enough time to explain all points I find relevant. That said, this thread is for Trailblazer, which already is talked about little enough to not need discussion space stolen by Pathfinder. :P

[Thurbane]

OK, thanks for that. It sounds like it would definitely be worth a look when I grab my next batch of goodies from Amazon...

[Fail]

Argh! Forgot to make an important addition: seriously, it has good ideas, but it won't really make classes balanced. For that, go for the link I posted.

[Rixx]

I kind of get some kind of feeling that Fail doesn't like Pathfinder!

[eepop]

I disagree with Fail about the spine analysis. I do not 100% agree with Traiblazers conclusions that were made from the analysis, but I feel the analysis does give a better understanding of one of the main problems in 3.5

So while their analysis may not fix the issue, it gives me data to work with should I choose to come up with a better fix.

[joela]

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.p...ducts_id=64009

Has anyone played or heard about this?

I’m very intrigued – it claims to fix a lot of 3.5’s common problems, but I’ve seen that claim on other products, which have failed to live up to hype.

Any info very much appreciated.

Cheers - T

I play/GM Pathfinder and am in the process adopting it over to Trailblazer. What would you like to know?

[Thurbane]

I play/GM Pathfinder and am in the process adopting it over to Trailblazer. What would you like to know?

Just a general analysis of the strengths and weaknesses that Trailblazer brings to d20/3.5 gaming...what it has to offer in my 3.5 D&D game.

[joela]

Just a general analysis of the strengths and weaknesses that Trailblazer brings to d20/3.5 gaming...what it has to offer in my 3.5 D&D game.

Hmmm. That would take a bit of time. While I'm working on it, here are some previews of the various TB classes while here are some general reviews of the supp itself.

IMO, TB acts both like Unearthed Arcana (i.e., numerous options you can plug into your 3.x game) and an...enhancement...to same said rules if taken as a whole.

[steelmax73]

this is Bad Axe Games forum

http://www.enworld.org/forum/bad-axe...-hosted-forum/

Patronage Project, the Monster book

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...monstrous-arts

[GreyMantle]

I will admit that I have no real experience with the actual product, but what I saw of that preview thingy did not give me high hopes.

-Based on that mathematical chart, the writers feel that the Sorcerer is far superior to the Wizard. Everything i have seen online and experienced personally screams that this is far from the case.
-They also seem to think that the Rogue is overly weak (when, from what I know, it is often trumpted as a "balanced" class)
-The monk was ranked right below the wizard in power order, which is enough to make me fall out of my chair laughing.
-The spells that they listed as rituals are things like teleport that aren't actually that harmful to interclass balance within a party. They seemed to think that SoD's and other spells that make spellcasters the best within a party don't need to be penalized.

Now, I don't know how much of these observations have any bearing on the finished product. However, would you trust a chemist who thinks that hydrogen is heavier than uranium is and that covalent bonds are betwee a metal and a nonmetal to design a new chemical product for you? [/analogy]

[Fail]

For the record, I'm still looking forward to write a more detailed analysis. :(

Now, I don't know how much of these observations have any bearing on the finished product. However, would you trust a chemist who thinks that hydrogen is heavier than uranium is and that covalent bonds are between a metal and a nonmetal to design a new chemical product for you? [/analogy]

I'm sad to say this: yes. In D&D. Because where your analogy fails is the fact that there's pretty much 0 D&D designers that actually understand D&D (certainly, the guys behind 3.5 didn't) - therefore, having opened basically any D&D book was something done in spite of knowing the material inside would hardly be competently balanced. Hence why I recommended it as another Unearthed Arcana, and not as a rebalance - that it isn't.

-Based on that mathematical chart, the writers feel that the Sorcerer is far superior to the Wizard. Everything I have seen online and experienced personally screams that this is far from the case.
-They also seem to think that the Rogue is overly weak (when, from what I know, it is often trumpeted as a "balanced" class)
-The monk was ranked right below the wizard in power order, which is enough to make me fall out of my chair laughing.

Yes, all of those claims are laughable, and part of why I called the analysis on 4-14 crazy.

-The spells that they listed as rituals are things like teleport that aren't actually that harmful to interclass balance within a party. They seemed to think that SoD's and other spells that make spellcasters the best within a party don't need to be penalized.

Those spells are the ones that can actually unravel an adventure, so it makes sense to restrict them. As for overpowered spells, area spells are restricted (I'm sad that they didn't exempt direct damage, though), and no-save/SR (such as, solid fog) are ritual. Lastly, there's a polymorph fix that's even weaksauce, but has the guts to do what no one did in a published book (the Tomes had done it before, though): not rely on Monster Manuals - the spell's freestanding, so that's a somewhat big design win.

[GreyMantle]

I'll second Fail's initial suggestion of The Tomes as a superior rebalancing compendium for 3.x.

And, although the actual project itself stalled, the other members of the forum have probably written enough material to fill in most of the major gaps.

[Fail]

And, although the actual project itself stalled, the other members of the forum have probably written enough material to fill in most of the major gaps.

Unfortunately, most (not all) of the extra (i.e. post-Tome; the Tomes themselves are good) material is crap, in proportions only somewhat better than WotC material. Thus, fishing the usable stuff ... takes work - which's why I suggest picking the old .pdf for the time being.