A New Start

Today I want to talk about using pre-generated characters (or a "Starter Slate") and what I think that should look like.


The Basics

When you look at the "Basic" rules for 5th Edition D&D, they give you essentially one build for each of the "Core 4" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.) Similarly, the boxed starter set for 5e features 5 characters based off of these same classes; there are 2 Fighters, with one focused on melee and the other on archery.

Building off of this, there are basically 5 character types that I think should be represented in any sort of pre-gen package:

• Archer
• Tank/Defender
• Healer
• Magic-user/Spellcaster
• Skill Specialist

For The Next Project, ideally I would also like to try and represent as many of the "Core 4" classes as possible, while still using each of the 5 class dice.

In the Beta 4 rules, the pre-gens were effectively:

• Acrobat [Archer] (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Crusader] (d8)
• Mystic [Warlock] (d10)
• Barbarian [Shieldbearer] (d12)

Same Class, Different Dice

If we look at the ways these classes will be changing around for the 2018 Edition, we notice that the Rogue and Acrobat overlap, in that they are both cast as "Skill Specialist" but also that they both only use Subclass as their subtype. So I wanted to sort of mix things up a bit. I figured the best place to start was with figuring out who should be the archer of the party, if not the Acrobat.

An intentional part of the design for TNP, was the idea that a particular niche could/should be represented different ways, across the 3 slates -- preferably using a different class die, each time. As such, we have archers in d4 (Acrobat), d6 (Fighter), and d8 (Ranger) flavours. Similarly, different takes on the Rogue and Bard exist, in particular as archetypes for the Adventurer class.


Making the Selections

From the 3 options for archer, I decided to go with the Ranger; with the Beta 4 starter slate including Barbarian as its "Tank/Defender" class, it stood to reason that the next best candidate to fill that role in the 2018 Edition would be the Fighter, so I didn't want to use that as my archer class.

This leads into the next decision point: with Ranger in at d8, that meant Cleric was out -- and that the "Healer" job would have to be filled by a class which uses a different die. With d6 already spoken for, and Bard being another d8 class, the list narrowed significantly. Since it was such a popular class in 4th Edition (particularly among goons), I decided that Warlord should get the job.

That leaves the roles of "Magic-user/Spellcaster" and "Skill Specialist" to be filled out. Through some informal polling, Warlock and Scout rated highly for those respective roles. Unfortunately, they both occupy the same class die, and with Warlock having been in the previous starter slate, I'm going with the Adventurer for the d10 class, occupying the role of "Skill Specialist."

So for the final role to fill, we're left with two options using the final remaining class die (d4) -- Druid, or Wizard. Since sticking close to the "Core 4" was one of the guiding principles I set out, the Sage gets in as final member of the 2018 Edition starter slate.


Updating & Integrating

So here's the final lineup:

• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Adventurer (d10)
• Warlord (d12)

Ideally, it would have been nice to also include one class from each subtype loadout (Fighter and Adventurer overlap, in this regard) but we do end up with at least one class from each slate.

The previous starter slate was also pretty good for this as well, but I think it's worth noting that the classes listed here which utilize Subclass (Sage and Ranger) are pretty clearly going to be narrowed down into one option (Wizard and Hunter, respectively.) Since the idea of pre-gens is to facilitate quickly picking up and playing the game, these options will be already selected by default, when presented within the starter slate.

I also think the decision to gate Archetypes to something "purchased" at later levels, will help make classes that use them a little more accessible (as opposed to everything being frontloaded) and that the Fighter, Adventurer, and Warlord classes are particularly well-suited in that regard. I may not include both Archetypes for each class as options for pre-gens, but that's still something that hasn't been 100% ironed out (along with Roles, for Fighter and Adventurer, which I may limit to one each.)


Next Post

In the previous post, I mentioned that there will only be one post in the month of December, and that it will try and tie up any loose ends.

With that in mind, now is a great time to leave me feedback or questions, here in the comment section or via other means of communications (i.e. wherever you're linking to this blog from.) If there is anything you would like answered, addressed, or clarified in the upcoming post, I would love to hear from you!

Back to Basics -- Part 2: Numbers & Nomenclature

Everything old is new again, as today's post is a sort of follow up to a post I made just over a year ago.

There are a few things I want to touch on in specific, but overall this post is going to be about some changes I want to make, in order for the game to be simpler and more accessible.


Expertise

When I sat down to write the actual text for Beta 4, I had decided that I wanted to make Basic Attacks somehow distinct from Iconic Attacks. What I mean by this, is that generally they use the same dice rolls, so I wanted to add something a little extra to Basic Attacks, to make them distinct. My initial thought was to use the "roll and compare" mechanism: "when you make a Basic Attack and the attack and damage rolls are equal, treat the attack as a critical success."

This effectively increases your "critical threat range" by one number (i.e. 5%) regardless of the class die being used for the damage roll. The problem is that Basic Attacks are given so many modifiers by class features, that it becomes clunky and untenable. So, I decided to give all Basic Attacks the Expertise property; this gives the same increase to crits, but also a little boost to damage as well.

Through the process of working out "bonus math" and subsequently trying to integrate those mechanics when crunching damage output for various attack routines, I came to realize that "always-on" Expertise needed to go. Particularly with so many d4 and d6 classes being able to use the "double roll and stack" rule for their damage, layering Expertise on top of that just had the effect of further narrowing the possible range of results -- or, as I put it, making it closer to flat damage, with none of the elegance of flat damage (because it still required rolling.)

(An interesting note, worth making mention of here, is that the average result of "double roll and stack d4" is the same as "d8 with Expertise"; the same is true for d6 and d12, respectively.)

The result of all of this, is that it frees up the design space of Expertise, to be used more meaningfully. In the earliest drafts of the game, characters gained Advantage on their attack rolls for doing things that were iconic to their class: Rogues benefited from attacking "flanked" enemies, and Barbarians got the benefit when they were raging, for example. The problem is that Advantage ends up being a huge bonus, and eventually most instances of Advantage were ripped out or dialed back. However, this is where a smaller bonus like Expertise can (I hope) step in to fill the gap.


Advantage

Following from this "dialing back" of Advantage, gaining it as a bonus to attack rolls changed in the rules to being almost exclusively the purview of positional considerations -- High Ground, Prone, etc.

The intent, then, was to start using the aforementioned "bonus math" to give classes their boosts gained from fighting "in-character," so to speak. Two main problems arose with this: first, no matter how streamlined the mechanisms for the bonuses got, they always tended to be unintuitive, and to have the potential to slow down gameplay; secondly, when crunching out damage for actual attack routines, Advantage always made it a lot easier to hit the benchmarks, because it tends to be such a huge boon, mathematically.

All this being said, I think that bonuses using class dice will be limited to "support" abilities, which will allow them to layer onto other bonuses, such as Advantage and/or Expertise. As such, Advantage will start to make a return to the designs of some classes, but Expertise will be used in instances where it is more appropriate.

Bottom line: the math has to work, but the gameplay has to be smooth.


Damage on a Miss

The mechanic used for this in TNP (known as the "Reliable" property) has always been "deal damage equal to the unsuccessful attack roll." I've always preferred this over alternatives of "half damage" or "minimum damage" (in the case of their being multiple damage dice stacked onto one attack) just because it is a little quicker to adjudicate.

This gives us a range of miss damage from 1-9 (or 2-9, with Expertise) for an average of 5 damage (or 5.5 with Expertise.) The problem with this expression comes when applied to attacks that normally could not reach the high end of that range, i.e. 1d4, 2d4, 1d6, and 1d8.

As such, "Damage on a Miss" will only be used as a tool for boosting DPR on attacks that could deal more than a maximum of 8 damage, on a 'hit'. Probably attacks that would result in a single d10 of damage will also be excluded, so mainly this would be utilized on attacks where d6s, d8s, or d10s are being "stacked" -- or where a d12 is being used. So while classes making attacks below this range would not natively be given the "Reliable" property, it could still be given to them by a bonus "support" mechanic, as it currently exists for the Warlord.


Basic Attacks, Power Attack, and Counter-attack

With the Expertise mechanic no longer being a defining characteristic of Basic Attacks, a few properties remain unique to them: Reach, Reliable, and the ability to Power Attack with them.

My intention with Power Attack is to change it from this:

Before you make a basic attack as a Standard Action, you can choose to make a Trade-off using your class die; apply the lower roll as a penalty to the attack roll, and apply the higher roll as a bonus to the damage roll.

To this:

Before making a Basic Attack, you can impose Disadvantage on the attack roll; if you do so, you can treat a successful attack as a critical success.

What this would do, is make access to Advantage more clearly beneficial when using Power Attack. It also removes the disparity between the penalties involved (a d4 being a much smaller one than a d12, for example.) Counter-attack could use a similar rule, granting an Opportunity Attack if the triggering Defense roll is successful.


Basic Abilities and Iconic Abilities

The initial structure of classes was such that you had Iconic Abilities, which gave you suites of benefits. Generally speaking, every class also had an Iconic Attack, which differed from Basic Attacks, as has been explained above. However, some Iconic Abilities simply offered benefits that modified Basic Attacks; there was confusion over whether this was meant to be considered an Iconic Attack (for the purposes of whether Expertise/Reach/Reliable properties applied, or if Power Attack could be used) which it was not.

Going forward, the phrase "Iconic Ability" will not be used. Instead, these will be labeled as either Class Feature, Subclass Feature, Archetype Feature, or Role Feature, as appropriate. Features that grant a modification to a type of Basic Attack, or that grant an Iconic Attack will subsequently be more clearly defined, with each having its own entries under that Feature's heading.

Related to this, Basic Abilities (STR, AGIL, DEX, CHA, INT, WIS) were named as such, since they were not ability "scores" in the traditional sense, and were more fundamental and simple than the Iconic Abilities. The temptation has lingered around to simply lump these in as "Skillsets" but I think there is still use within the design in having the two be separate; some classes have the option to gain training in one "Skillset" of their choice, for example, and it is not intended for them to be able to pick a "Basic Ability" set for that option.

With "Iconic Ability" terminology going away, now is a good time for a change here, too. I've decided that Basic Abilities will be re-titled as simply "Attributes." This terminology is fairly common in the RPG space, and is probably more accurately descriptive for its utilization within TNP.


Blogging/Scheduling

I'm planning to get out one more post before the end of the month, so check back for that on November 30th.
I will also do another post before the middle of December -- likely a year-in-review sort of deal, tying up any loose ends.
Then, I will be on break for about a month, during which time I will start work in earnest on the new draft of TNP, which I am tentatively referring to as the "2018 Edition."

Know Your Role (Beta 4)

In one of my recent posts, I talked a bit about how subtypes will be changing in the next iteration of the rules; the two forms of "combat subtypes" (those that can be chosen/changed at the start of combat) will be unified under the "Role" banner.

The plan is that there will be 3 classes with both Roles and Archetypes (Fighter, Bard, Adventurer) and 3 classes with Roles only (Warlord, Mystic, and Druid.)

In past iterations, the Warlord's roles appeared as "Commander" and "Protector" archetypes. What will now be "Roles" for the Mystic could easily have been strict Paths, but I felt "Necromancer" and "Warlock" were close enough in feel, that allowing more customization was the side to err on. Similarly, as the design progressed, the Druid's subtypes felt less and less like the building blocks of two distinct classes, and more like two sides of the same coin.

The challenge with integrating these three classes into the Role framework comes out of ironing out what their subtypes actually do. The Warlord is pretty straightforward, in this regard: while the class chassis contains the "healer" mechanics, the Commander is the part that contains the "enabling" mechanics -- so I'd say this makes it the "Support" role; the Protector maps pretty clearly to the "Defender" role.

This gets a little messier once we start to look at the Mystic and the Druid, however. The Warlock is a straightforward "blaster" sort of character (i.e. the "Striker" role); the Necromancer is a "Summoner" (as is the Druid's Summoner subtype, obviously) but unfortunately, "Summoner" isn't a pre-existing Role. The Shapeshifter doesn't fit neatly into the framework, either; it's intended to be able to use its forms to serve different roles -- a kind of "6th man" character class, so to speak.

However, with the "4.1 version" of the Druid, the class chassis was given a "healer" mechanic -- in a way, making it very similar to how the Warlord is built. So while the Shapeshifter subclass isn't specifically about "enabling" allies, it is intended to use its utility to "support" the party -- by being whatever they need in a particular combat encounter (or perhaps to round out an undersized group.) Although I've waffled on whether or not to simply rename the "Support" role to "Utility" across the board, I can say that I have decided to put the Shapeshifter under this heading -- whatever it ends up being called, in the end.

Now, the Druid and Mystic being related by a summoning mechanic, harkens back to an earlier draft (Beta 2, maybe?) where the Summoner class came in "Beastlord" and "Necromancer" flavours. It still makes sense that they should share a Role, now -- but I wasn't sure if having a "Summoner" role that applied to only two classes was the way to do it.

The solution came in looking at the existing Roles, and how they are doled out so far. Controller is currently only found on the Bard and Adventurer classes; while those roles are more about controlling enemies, it's not much of a leap to then apply that convention to the role of controlling summoned creatures. What helps make the case, is the fact that the controller role (as it exists in 4th Edition) can be a bit broad and nebulous, but also that some of the controller classes in that system gained summoning options, at different points in its lifespan.


So, for classes with roles, we end up with this setup:

• Fighter: Defender, Striker
• Warlord: Defender, Support
• Bard: Controller, Support
• Mystic: Controller, Striker
• Druid: Controller, Support
• Adventurer: Controller, Defender, Striker

It has long been my intention that Power Source would be the lynch-pin by which you could re-spec your classes; since The Next Project has traditionally been less about leveling up, I wanted to provide some lateral flexibility for character "growth." Power Source makes sense, for keeping the flavour of your character consistent (while allowing you to change its mechanics) but it's clear now that Role will also be something which players can pivot their character class upon. Probably all classes with access to Roles will begin with one, and be able to "purchase" additional Roles as they level -- which would then carry over, if a character changed to a class that also utilized the same role, or roles.

Casting the Dice -- Part 2: The New Ethos

If we dig up the previous post on this topic, (from way back to the earliest days of this blog) the mechanics still have a long way to go.

The problem with the "roll and compare" mechanic used for the d4, is that if the d20 result is higher than 4, there is no point in even making the secondary roll (but the mechanic doesn't say not to.)

Later on, I crunched out the math, and in terms of the "miss/hit/crit" breakpoints of the TNP system, simply adding a d4 to a d20 roll gives the exact same outcomes. The knock-on effect of using this mechanic, though, is that to get comparable bonuses out of bigger dice requires more hoops to jump through. It also made it clear that for class dice results that interact with "misses" but do not cover the entire range of "miss" numbers, the roll should always have a secondary usage -- while still trying to keep the mechanics from getting too clunky.

It's simple enough to use the mechanics from one of these class dice and "downgrade" them for use with a smaller die, by using Expertise. For example, a d6 with Expertise using the same mechanic described for the d8, produces mathematically similar results. However, this can potentially cause confusion as to whether or not Expertise should also be applied to the triggering d20 roll (which it should not, in this case) so I have decided not to use Expertise as a tool for establishing baseline mechanics for these uses of class dice. It could, however, be used as a means of increasing the effectiveness of these mechanics, as sort of an additional buff; an example of this can be seen in the interaction between Frenzy and the "Role" mechanics for the Barbarian.

In the old post, I talked about not wanting to mesh "double roll" with "roll and compare" mechanics. Through the process of running the numbers, I found that flatout double rolling d10s or d12s in place of a d20 roll can produce results in the preferred ranges. However, I worry about the confusion this might cause; specifically, if you to make a d20 roll, and then (if the result is bad) make this sort of double roll afterwards, this swings the math quite dramatically. It's easy enough to conceive of a scenario where a player might end up doing this as an honest mistake, but it is also an invitation for unscrupulous players to abuse the mechanic. As such, all class dice mechanics that I've been working on can be made after a d20 roll, without impacting the probabilities.

While something like, "when you make a d20 roll, double roll and stack your d8, and use either result" avoids that pitfall, it unfortunately ends up just shy of the benchmarks I have set up. Where there was some fertile ground for double rolls, however, was in applying d8 mechanics to "double roll and stack d4," as well as using d12 mechanics for "double roll and stack d6." One side effect of this is that it could produce some inelegant rules, if double rolling were then combined with trying to match the d20 result, i.e. can either die match, or only the combined result of the double roll? Luckily, this has not turned out to be necessary for boosting these mechanics mathematically, and so has been left out to avoid any confusion.

So what are the specific benchmarks? Well, since "add a d4 to the d20 roll" is the simplest mechanic we can throw out there, that sets the groundwork. This mechanic gives us a "hit" chance of 50%, and a "crit" chance of 17.5%; since a "crit" deals roughly the damage of 3 regular "hits", bonuses to crit chance are weighted more heavily, when comparing these mechanics to one another, using this formula:

hit chance + (crit chance * 3) 

This in turn gives us a "score" which I've been using to grade various dice tricks. Ultimately, I came up with two scales: scores in the 90-93 range would be "minor" bonuses, and scores roughly in the 100-103 range would be "major" bonuses. This puts our simple d4 mechanic squarely in the "major" category; for comparison, the Advantage mechanic (as used in TNP) has a score of 111 (67.5% hit, 14.5% crit.)

The intention with these mechanics, ultimately, is to give some design tools by which support abilities can me modeled, but also allow for boosting DPR output without necessarily needing to add multiple attacks to a class' routine. At the time of this writing, the d10 mechanics are still up in the air (I caught something a bit late) so not every bonus has been completely ironed out. But to give you a taste, I will say that generally each mechanic uses two of these qualifiers:

• add the [class die/double roll] result to an unsuccessful d20 roll
• treat the result as a [success/critical success], if the class die result matches the d20 roll

(For rolls that can result in 10 or higher):

• use the [class die/double roll] result or the d20 result to determine success
• treat the result as a critical success if the [class die/double roll] result and the d20 result would both be successes

More details to come, as the math gets hammered out and finalized. I'd expect the next post to touch on the changes coming to the Role mechanic, so check back for that around the 2nd weekend in November.

Happy Halloween!

Deconstructing Archetypes (Beta 4)

Today I want to look at some of the classes that use Archetypes, and discuss how these bundles of features will need to be broken down in the next iteration of The Next Project.

For some classes, archetypes mainly serve to staple on some modifications to basic mechanics (Power Attack, for example) but are not definitive to those particular classes. I would put Fighter, Guardian, (and Barbarian, under the upcoming revision) archetypes under this description.

For other classes, their archetypes add riders to all or most of their Iconic Abilities. I'd include Cleric and Paladin here, although admittedly the Cleric's archetype and subclass mechanics become fairly tightly intertwined.

Another grouping would be the classes where archetypes contain their distinguishing mechanic. The Scout and Skald archetypes for Adventurer, as well as the Hexblade and Swordmage archetypes for Spellbinder come to mind here -- fitting, since each archetype maps directly to a specific class. These archetypes also give you some specific options for trained skills, as well as expanding on your options for picking power sources -- all of which is also true for the Paladin's archetypes.

Similarly, Sage archetypes do a lot. They grant your class an Iconic Ability, trained skillset, and a power source. On the flip side of that coin, the default Bard archetypes serve more of a flavour function than a mechanical one, giving the class a more focused background, as well as core skills to pick from.


With the intention of reverse-engineering things into a shape that can be used for our leveling structure, 3 main building blocks (nested within Archetypes) start to emerge:

• Core Skill training
• Iconic Abilities / riders
• Power Sources / background skills

For classes that solely gain Archetypes as their form of customization -- Paladin, Spellbinder, and Barbarian -- we then need to look at these building blocks, in order to try and grant them parity with other classes. The Paladin and Spellbinder classes in particular already gain additional options from their archetypes (for Core Skill training as well as Power Sources) but do not actually gain them as upgrades, beyond the baselines. I think for this "category" of classes, Core Skill training and/or Power Sources could be used as additional upgrades via the leveling process.

Conversely, something like Sage archetypes probably need to be broken down into its component parts: the Iconic Ability, plus the option to pick a different Core Skillset or Power Source, could serve as the perk of the archetype; gaining those optional upgrades would then be a separate leveling perk.

Ultimately, I think that in terms of Archetype benefits, we're going to have to look at Iconic Abilities and Core Skill training as being of equal "cost" or "value" in terms of level-up currency. This can then be extrapolated to help design for classes with less customization options (those with only the Subclass option.) Such classes would need to be able to gain Core Skill training far above that of the existing baseline; fortunately, such classes are intended to be skillful, anyway -- the Acrobat, Rogue, and Ranger classes, specifically.

Expansionism -- Part 2: The Lost Children

Earlier this year, I teased some ideas for potential new content that could be added to TNP, at some point. The idea of doing a 4th slate of classes is one I want to talk about today, and (in particular) why I think it probably won't happen.

Over the months, in various discussions with acquaintances and fans, there basically emerged two possible paths that a 4th slate could take: Monstrous Races, or, what I dubbed "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption."

The first idea is probably one that appeals to the interests of a specific segment of tabletop gamers. I think the demographic is probably a cross-section of the DMs who get heavy into the "monster manual" side of running RPGs, and the players who are always looking for more and more options. While monsters generally use the same basic mechanics of the system, a lot of times they get abilities that are never presented as PC options. Some suggested "classes" for a slate consisting of monstrous races were:

• Dragon
• Drider
• Sphinx
• Centaur/Minotaur

The reason I can't see myself writing this sort of content, is simply because I don't fit into the demographic of people interested in those options. I've always come at gaming more from the "player" side, rather than the DM side, so my interest in monstrous creatures hasn't really ever been there. I don't have the breadth of knowledge (in terms of mechanics) nor a grasp of the appeal (in terms of flavour) to really present those options in a meaningful way. It's one thing to be able to mechanically analyze a class that you've never played (but one which interests you) and do a thumbnail sketch of it; this is essentially the process that produced the Warlord and the Spellbinder, amongst other examples in TNP.

The other big sticking point is that it doesn't quite conform to my ideas about fantasy games, in general. A lot of people are of a mindset akin to "anything you can't do in real life, should be in a fantasy game." My own perspective is more along the lines of "there should be some fantastic and impossible things going on, but the characters should be relatable." Now, this is sort of where we end up with elves that are just tall humans with pointy ears, and dwarves that are just short, fat humans with beards. But I think that having characters be close enough to our day-to-day selves (perhaps just with one or two characteristics taken to extreme) makes them more... well, human. So I can't really see myself writing player options that make the characters something else -- at least not without the help of people who are really passionate about that conceit, and that design space.

Now, the second part kind of hits at something that was touched on in my most recent post. By and large, the classes that are presented in TNP come from a handful of books in the 4th Edition D&D line:

• Player's Handbook 1
• Player's Handbook 2
• Heroes of the Fallen Lands
• Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms

There are some outliers, of course: shades of "Heroes of Shadow" can be seen in the Blackguard, Necromancer, Assassin, and School of Trickery subtypes (and I'd argue that the Acrobat is a cousin of the Executioner, as well.) The Skald and the Barbarian lean heavily on their counterparts from "Heroes of the Feywild," while the Monk and Swordmage appear in 4th Edition in the PHB3 and "Forgotten Realms Player's Guide," respectively.

So who got left out?

Well, everyone from PHB3 not named "Monk" for starters. The other notable exception would be the Avenger (PHB2).

Let's run down the list, and see where the problems start to crop up:

Avenger sort of suffers the same fate in TNP as it did in 5th Edition; with its main mechanic (Advantage) being made universal, the class loses a lot of its weight. Taking it a bit further, with this game obfuscating things like weapons, armor, and ability score usage, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to really mechanically represent the Avenger within the system. Some players have suggested that the Paladin (particularly the Blackguard archetype) as well as the Swordmage or even a great-weapon Fighter could simply be reflavoured as an Avenger.

My preliminary thoughts about what an Avenger would look like in this system pointed me in the direction of the d4 or d6 framework; low HP, but potentially large weapon damage from using the "double roll and stack" mechanic. This ends up overlapping the Acrobat and Fighter design space a bit too much, though (and arguably those are already cramped by classes like Guardian, Adventurer, and Barbarian.)

Psionics as presented in 4e (namely the power point classes) might not stretch beyond one class, within the TNP ethos (where classes are able to have more than one Role.) Porting in that whole subsystem for such a small payoff hardly seemed worth it; the other problem they present is that while historically they represent a different power source (or at least, a different way of "doing" arcane magic), they really... couldn't, in this system.

Runepriest is another example of a 4e class I was always interested in, but never had a chance to play. With regards to its possible place in TNP, I always saw it more as a subtype for either the Cleric or the Paladin. The "rune state" mechanic effectively functions as a stance, which maps closely to Paladin auras -- the rest is just fluff. The alternative would be to slot it in as a Cleric subclass, which would mean bumping the Invoker in some way or another. I always saw Invoker as a d6 class (akin to a blasty, sorcerer type) or a d10 class (damage-stacking, surge-burning) but I never saw it really as more than an subtype within a bigger class, and I didn't see a fit for it as a Paladin archetype (since Paladin is a decidedly melee class, and Invoker is ranged.) Do you split up the Rogue, and put Sorcerer with Invoker? And then do you add Avenger onto Assassin? Or staple Assassin onto Fighter? 

In short, the Runepriest sort of falls victim to it necessitating a whole game of "musical chairs" in order to fit in where it should (and even that "where" was never clear.) This happened a bit, back when the design transitioned from Beta 3 to Beta 4, but I would really need to have an overarching change in the framework to want to do something like that again -- not just to accommodate one class.

Seeker has sort of the same problem that Avenger does; it uses an unconventional ability score for its attack stat, and that doesn't translate to this system at all. I think the Hunter from Essentials (also represented in TNP) does the "bow-wielding controller" niche adequately -- if somewhat more "safe" or "mundane" in design than the Seeker.

Some other classes that got tossed around were the Vampire (or perhaps a "Blood Mage"), as a d4 class -- with Druid-like mechanics for extra HP, a reserve-based mini-game, or potentially other effects while Bloodied. Since each slate is intended to have both a healer and a defender, either Artificer or Ardent would have to make an appearance, with perhaps roles stapled onto an Avenger or Death Knight class, in order to cover all the bases. Elementalist as an unconventional, ranged, d12 class also sparked my imagination a bit.

Ultimately, the trouble with "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption" is a combination of factors. There isn't much of a unifying theme, in terms of either flavour or mechanics; in a lot of cases, they seem like classes that are just "this class, but" or "this other class, only more." There would be a lot of overlap with those classes that are currently using the Divine and Shadow power sources, so the temptation is there to just restructure all the slates from the ground up -- making them conform more closely to Power Sources, for example. But the biggest problem is that almost all of the suggested classes would need mechanics custom-built (or at least completely reinvented to fit the system) in order for them to function, and I'm just not sure the design space is really there, for most of them.


What do you think? Are there ways some of these idea could be implemented in TNP?
Is an entire 4th slate viable, or should some of these classes just appear as options for the existing roster?

Subtypes -- Part 2: Slates & Progression

If we look at 4th Edition D&D as a source of inspiration, both the first and second Player's Handbooks featured 8 classes, conforming (roughly) to a framework of 2 classes for each of the 4 roles. Similarly, when you look at the first and second Essentials books, each has 4 classes (5 if you count the Fighter and Ranger subtypes), with both books having each role represented.

This was kind of a guiding idea behind The Next Project, with the added conceit of making each slate of classes conform to a particular theme (specifically, power sources.) Though I was never married to the idea of redoing "classes tied to role," the mechanical framework of class dice has always made it implicit that classes should be slated in groups of 5 -- one for each die.

So if role is not what separates the 5 classes on a given slate, then what should be? Well, the answer has come through the process of trying to cut the number of subtypes down. As mentioned in the previous post on the topic of subtypes, there is no overlap (on any class) between Path, Role, and Subclass. In addition, the close relation of Role and Subclass (the former being "optional combat subtype" and the latter being "mandatory combat subtype") was explained. In short, I have decided to remove one of these three.

My intention is to merge Role and Subclass; mechanically, it will function as Subclasses currently do, but the "Role" name will be used to describe this subtype. Following from that, Paths will remain mechanically the same, but will instead use the "Subclass" name, since I feel it is a good mechanical descriptor for what that subtype does, within the design.

What this leaves us with is 5 distinctions between classes:

• classes with Archetypes
• classes with Roles
• classes with Archetypes and Roles
• classes with Subclasses
• classes with Archetypes and Subclasses

Now, with a few minor adjustments, we can make it so that each slate of classes has one class for each of these loadouts. Here is how I am proposing to do this:

• Acrobat subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Druid will have its Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Guardian will retain Archetypes and Subclasses, instead of having their Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Ranger subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Barbarian subtypes will change from Roles to Archetypes

So what does this all mean for progression?

Well, classes that only have "Role" for their subtype options will have to have at least one role, to begin with -- since this form of subtype is mandatory, within combat. However, classes with both Role and Archetype may be able to select one or the other early on, instead of Role being mandatory out of the gate, with Archetype being optional; the same could also be true for classes with both Subclasses and Archetypes as options.

This also creates 5 different progression tracks (based on subtypes) which could then be made uniform. For example, with the Fighter/Bard/Adventurer progression (i.e. for classes with both Roles and Archetypes) there could be specific levels at which Archetypes or additional Roles unlock, and that could be consistent between all 3 classes which share that subtype loadout. There could also be a unifying perk for these classes, just as there could be for classes that share a slate, but there can also be progression that is universal across all 5 tracks.

The next post will probably focus more on the specifics of my plans for adding level progression to the game, so stay tuned for that.