Construction Ahead! [2024-11-20]

Some minor updates were made to the wording, pertaining to the different action types. Now it should be more clear that while things that require 'no action' can be done on your turn or any other turn, interrupts can only be done when it is not your turn; Standard, Move, and Minor actions can only be done on your own turn.
I also realized that it might be worth making a distinction that 'no actions' cannot be used to interrupt enemy actions; for example, you see an archer take aim at you, and you decide to drop prone so that they have disadvantage on the attack. Should this be allowed, or should 'no actions' only be allowed to work as an "immediate reaction" but not an "immediate interrupt" (to use the 4e terminology) -- i.e. no actions might only be allowed to be used at the end of a turn, rather than at any point during the turn in question. If this is to be the case, I might also want to consider whether "no action, on your turn" should also be limited to the end of said turn.

In order to fix the Druid conundrum w/r/t starting roles, I think what I'll do is make the following changes to Disciple-category classes:

1. each gain one role at level 0
2. Class specialization (i.e. at level 1) changed to bonus power source of your choice; can be used to upgrade an existing power source
3. Class Category progression options (i.e. 1st, 3rd, and 5th levels) changed to the following:
• Bonus skill rank: Charisma, Intelligence, or Strength
• Bonus skillset training: Communication or Subtlety
• Gain an additional Role
4. Druids need to spend a reserve, when switching Roles, in combat(?)

Some things that need to be worked back into the rules from the older drafts are the keywords. To wit, if archenemy-type monsters in particular are able to turn off features with certain keywords, this will be important to iron out.
One of the key maxims in TNP is that benefits to you or your allies that you create are assumed to last until the start of your next turn, while penalties you apply to enemies are assumed to last until the end of your next turn. That being said, some such features may have the "sustaining" or "concentration" keywords; sustaining requires you to take a particular action to keep the buff/debuff going (typically the same action used to create the effect) while concentration effects are more "set it and forget it" and typically persist for longer than just one round. Some other important rules that keywords provide are the general mechanics around summoning, and also restoring or regaining HP.

...

A bit of a brief update this go-around, due to being in something of a time crunch.
Since there are only two more blog posts planned for the remainder of 2024, it's clear that work on the "2024 edition" will continue, until it's finished. I'm fine with this, since the blog would likely continue on anyway, as the TNP Sequel (working title) is being developed in parallel to the main designs.

Next post is planned for November 30th, with the final post for this year expected either December 10th or 12th; after the winter break, blogging typically resumes around January 10th or 11th.

For full details, check in on the TNP Discord.

Unifying the Mechanics: Spell Dice

Following on from the previous post, let's try and extrapolate the math for weapon dice onto spell dice.

Now, the distinction would be that spells are expected to use either INT or CHA, but if they're using the same actual dice as weapons, then the modifiers might necessarily need to change. To wit, if the assumed "standard array" is +3/+2/+2/+1/+1 but a two-weapon routine is not assumed in the spell math, then we'll need to tinker a bit in order to create something comparable to the weapon dice math.

As an aside, I think that 4e D&D at least sets the bar for how we should think about spell damage. For example, a "close burst 1" attack would hit all adjacent enemies (for all intents and purposes.) Since we're talking about miniatures on a square grid, this means a 3x3 square, excluding the center square; in short, a maximum of 8 enemies could be targeted. Likewise, strategically, it might be reasonable to assume that a power such as this would not be used unless, say, there were at least 3 enemies adjacent. So in the paradigm of 1dX+mod, this gives us a range of that number, multiplied by [3,4,5,6,7,8]. You can easily see how multiplying (in particular) the modifier so many times can lead to massive spikes in the expected damage curve. Generally D&D (especially outside of 4th Edition) 'tries' to "balance" this by making such AoE spells limited on a per-day basis -- in other words, they make it apples and oranges, and hope nobody audits the math too closely.

If we're building from the assumption that spells are (generally, mostly) ranged attacks, then it would make sense to try and have them be at parity with ranged weapon attacks. In the previous post, we established that a 1d8 ranged weapon attack would add the higher of STR or DEX -- so a 1d8 ranged spell attack should do the same, albeit with INT or CHA. With a +3 mod, this gives an average damage of 6.8 (accounting for the d8 attack bonus math.)

Now, if we take an unmodified d4 attack and allow the spellcaster to make 3 of these per turn (i.e. a magic missile spell, that does "a number of attacks equal to the higher of your INT mod or CHA mod") this comes out to a total of 6.6375 average damage, including attack bonus. Already we can see that this damage almost exactly on pace with the d8; granting more than 3 attacks is probably not in the cards. (If anything, we might be able to do fewer attacks, but attach a small damage modifier to them.) It's probably worth mentioning here that 13th Age tends to use "1d3" for determining the number of targets on multi-target spells, and d4 serves this function in TNP sometimes, for similar reasons.

Finally, a d12 attack with a +1 modifier gives an average damage of 6.45, or a 7.15 average with a +2 modifier. This math is pretty easily attainable if we use our previous mechanic for the d4 two-weapon fighting, whereby the die uses the lower of STR or DEX (in the case of a spell, one assumes INT or CHA).

So, we can see already the framework starting to take shape. We've made attribute modifiers an important part of the math, but kept things relatively balanced within those parameters. I've always sort of liked the idea of having weapon dice function as spell dice; with daggers typically being d4 and staves being d8, I think this kind of thinking maps well to this sort of dice paradigm.

...

A relatively short post today, but most of the groundwork was laid in the previous one.
Following post is due on Nov. 20th so check back then!

Unifying the Mechanics: First Attempt

I'm loathe to just post untested mechanics, because I often end up having to revise them later on. But right now, I'm just going to lay out the basic conceptualizations and math for what I think the weapon dice mechanics might look like, in the TNP sequel.

I had mentioned previously that weapon attacks would use either your STR mod or DEX mod as a damage bonus, but that the mechanics would try and steer d12 weapons towards favouring STR; for example, it might be the case that only classes with features that favour STR would get proficiency with d12 weapons, while other classes would not. I'm currently pointing the designs in a different direction.

So, the idea with the attributes currently is that you'll probably have one +3, either one or two +2s and the rest would be +1s (keeping in mind there are 5 attributes in total.)

My idea is this:

• d4 weapon damage rolls add the lower of your STR or DEX
• d8 melee weapon damage rolls do not add a modifier
• d8 ranged weapon damage rolls add the higher of your STR or DEX
• d12 melee weapon damage rolls add your STR

Now, in order for this to work, I've calculated the "weapon dice bonuses" as follows:

• d4: can be added to a miss; crit on a tie -- assuming +2 mod, average damage = 3.6625
• d8: can be added to a miss; crit on a tie -- assuming no mod, average damage = 4.4 (melee)
• d8: can be added to a miss; crit on a tie -- assuming +3 mod, average damage = 6.8 (ranged)
• d12: can be used in place of a miss; crit on a tie -- assuming +3 mod, average damage = 7.85

The idea was to have 1d4/1d4 two-weapon fighting be slightly worse (3.6625 * 2 = 7.325) than the d12 "two-hander" option, with 1d4/1d8 TWF being slightly better (3.6625 + 4.4 = 8.0625), and 1d8/1d8 (4.4 * 2 = 8.8) being outright better than d12 (albeit limited to very select classes.) Likewise, d8 ranged attacks were intended to be a little stronger than d8 or d4 melee attacks, but not stronger than d12 melee attacks. (Note: the assumption being that d4 weapons can be thrown, functioning as both "ranged" and melee weapons, and able to make 2 attacks in either case -- in practical terms, this is exactly how daggers function, in 5e.)

It's probably worth mentioning here, that the difference from this ethos compared to TNP, is that TNP assumes a baseline damage of 1d8 (or at least something in that ballpark) with 1 class die bonus being added to it; in the sequel math, the damage die and the bonus die are always the same die, meaning the base damage die isn't always the same, and thus the bonuses have to be calculated accordingly. So instead of one static baseline with multiple (5) possible modifiers, there are 3 static baselines but also 3 static modifiers.

Now, as you can see, the "unifying" aspect of these mechanics is that the weapon dice bonuses function off of the assumption of "crit on tie" being part of the dice trick, for all three. In TNP, the d4 could be added to a hit or a miss; this has been changed not only to make the math work (and to unify the mechanics a little better) but also because the assumptions are more like:

• weapon damage dice can "always" roll a number that will change a miss into a hit (or crit)
• the "d6 pool" mechanic does not have the above functionality, but it is going to be able to be added to a miss or a hit (much as the d6 bonus can, in TNP)

In this way, these mechanics (I think) serve to better compliment each other; the d6 pool is the more steady/reliable bonus, whereas the weapon dice bonuses are more for the "hail Mary" situations. I'm also leaning towards the idea that the weapon dice can always be used as damage and as an attack bonus, but a d6 that is used as an attack bonus cannot also be used as damage; the attack bonus would still be limited to one die (as in TNP) meaning you could not use both a weapon die and a d6 from your pool to modify the attack -- it would have to be one or the other.

The other aspect of these dice bonuses is that the overall hit/crit chances are fairly closely comparable, but not identical; working from the baseline of 50% hit/5% crit, these bonuses improve those odds, as follows:

• d4: 62.5% hit / 10% crit
• d8: 70% hit / 10% crit
• d12: 60% hit / 10% crit

You can kind of see from this that we end up with fairly balanced math, but a lot of the uniqueness of the class dice bonuses has been lost. You do kind of have the option of attacking more (d4), hitting more (d8), or hitting hardest (d12) -- all of the little fidgety bonuses are gone, so it's a lot cleaner, but also more... well, sanitary would be a good word to describe it.

Anyway, I had the idea to use the "STR mod as damage bonus" as the way of steering d12 towards favouring STR, and the rest of the experimentation and resulting math just sort of flowed from that assumption. Hopefully this will help the rest of the system to likewise come into focus. I may also apply similar ideas towards spell damage, offering different bonuses whether INT or CHA is used.

...

That's all for October! Assuming we get back on track, the next post is scheduled for November 10th.

Construction Ahead! [2024-10-22]

I somewhat recently did another small pass, tidying up the class documents; this was sort of necessitated by me adding the class category descriptions to the main TNP document. While trying to make a comprehensive, cohesive, and coherent summation of the class categories and their progressions, I came to realize that some streamlining was still warranted.

Some of these changes resulted from holdovers, going back to before the class categories were finalized (i.e. when Paladin was still going to be a Disciple, along with Occultist and Druid; this has since been swapped so Warlord is now the 3rd Disciple class.) Specifically, Disciples gain a bonus attribute rank at level 0, but the choices are limited to STR, INT, and CHA; originally I had Warlord with the option for STR or CHA, Occultist with the option for INT or CHA, and Druid with the option for STR or INT -- but when writing an overarching description for this class category, unifying the options just made more sense than not.

Another thing that I believe was cleared up in this pass is that Disciples (through their 1st/3rd/5th level class category progression) can also gain an additional trained skillset, but only have the option to pick Communication or Subtlety.

In hindsight, the Druid not getting their combat roles (i.e. forms) until level 1 feels a little off, especially for the Shapeshifter. That being said, swapping out either their level 0 perk (bonus attribute rank) or one of their 1st/3rd/5th level features (bonus power source, or Communication/Subtlety training) in order to put a combat role in at level 0, would leave their level 1 "class specialization" feeling kind of wimpy. It also would feel weird to give them a role feature at level 0, and then have their "specialization" (at level 1) be... you gain a different role feature; that seems unintuitive.
This is somewhat negated by the other perk of Disciples, namely that (unlike other classes) they are free to change their subclass, by spending a reserve. So a Druid might start off as a Summoner, but then switch to a Shapeshifter at level 1, when their forms kick in.

All told, I may still have to revisit this.

An interesting wrinkle, that I think is worth mentioning:

• 'core' progression only provides feats at level 3 and 5
• Skill Expert, Jack of All Trades, and Disciple classes can take the Bonus Skill Training feat
• Skill Experts gain a bonus trained skillset or attribute as their class specialization (i.e. at level 1, but not as part of their 1st/3rd/5th level class category progression)
• Jack of All Trades classes can gain an extra feat at any of 1st/3rd/5th level, as part of their class category progression -- but Bonus Skill Training is a feat that can only be taken once

...so potentially, a Skill Expert can have 4 trained skillsets/attributes by 3rd level; a Jack of All Trades can get up to 3 trained skillsets/attributes by level 1. By contrast, a  Disciple can also have 3 by level 1, but the 3rd has to be either Communication or Subtlety; however, at level 3 or 5, they can potentially take the Bonus Skill Training feat, to boost that number to 4. It's also worth pointing out that at 1st/3rd/5th levels, a Jack of All Trades can take the same type of upgrade (but not, for example, double up on the exact same feat) whereas Disciples have to take a different upgrade at each of these levels. I think all in all this does a good job of making the Disciple not step on the Skill Expert's toes, while also not making them just "Jack of All Trades, again" either, despite sharing many similarities (both having the combat role feature mechanics, in particular.)

Another change that was implemented was to make sure every domain granted a bonus knowledge skill rank:

• Life domain grants a rank with one Divine or Primal knowledge skill
• War domain grants a rank with one Martial or Shadow knowledge skill
• Divination domain grants a rank with one Divine knowledge skill
• Enchantment domain grants a rank with one Arcane knowledge skill
• Misdirection domain grants a rank with one Shadow knowledge skill
• Blood domain grants a rank with one Primal knowledge skill
• Stone domain grants a rank with one Martial knowledge skill

I thought this was sort of an important thing to add, not only to make sure that the Ideologue category (i.e. the domain classes) really emphasized having knowledge skills -- and adding some flavour to those subclasses -- but it's also important for the Blade Master classes, which have the option to borrow from these domains (as well being an option for Bards.) In this regard, I feel like the Cleric's Life domain is sort of doubling as the "Nature" domain, while War is doubling as the "Death" domain, to explain the extra options that these ones provide. (Also worth noting, the Sage and Guardian domains each grant a bonus rank to a skillset or attribute; to balance this out, Cleric gains a bonus rank to Charisma -- which Paladins also get.)

Another insight that I took away from these updates is that the skill rank limitations might need to be more clearly spelled out. To wit, with a core skill, the idea was that you could gain one rank in it from the skillset for that skill, and one more rank from the attribute for that skill; it might not be clear that a "skillset" rank bonus from a domain and a "skillset" rank bonus from a feat (just for example) should not be able to stack. The intent has always been to encourage broadening your skill competencies, rather than endlessly doubling-down on one or two skills.

Conversely, after going over the text, it almost seems like knowledge skill ranks are given out like candy (particularly to the Ideologue classes.) While these ranks are currently capped at 1+level, I think that might not be necessary. Oddly enough, with "flavour" or "ribbon" abilities such as knowledge skills, I'd actually lean more towards encouraging people to pick a lane and stick with it, rather than dabble in all 10 skills. That all being said, I do think a final cap of 6 ranks is probably reasonable (and needed) if the ceiling on knowledge skill ranks per character is somewhere around 10.

...

That's all the new updates for today's post. Check back by October 31st for the next one!

Comparing Dice Mechanics (2024)

Continuing on with the ideas behind the planned TNP sequel, I've been giving some thought to how the old mechanics compare and contrast with the new.

By necessity, TNP has 5 different "class dice bonuses" that are all meant to be roughly mathematically balanced with each other; some dice can be added to a hit, a miss, to damage, or some combination of all 3, and the d12 even has its own unique jumble of mechanics.

The idea with the sequel would be to pare this down, so that instead of rolling 5 different dice and "reading the tea leaves" to determine how to assign the bonuses, you might (for example) roll up to 5 d6s, using the highest as an attack bonus, and all of them as a damage bonus. (Another way to do it might be to use one for an attack bonus, and the rest for damage, but I digress.) A couple of problems arise with this.

First, I find it kind of bland, compared to the sort of "emotional rollercoaster" effect you can potentially get from the various class dice bonuses. Secondly, it doesn't really play nice with the idea of "weapon dice" as I've put forth previously. As extra damage, the d6 mechanic works fine, but when it comes to attack bonus, the weapon dice and d6 pool are stepping on each others' toes. The idea behind the weapon dice was to keep the uniqueness of some of the class dice bonuses (in particular, the d8 mechanic of "add to a miss, crit on a tie" as well as the [current d10/proposed d12] mechanic, which is a roll that replaces the d20 result) rather than just have bonuses that are strictly "+math" types of things.

So the question is, to keep the mechanics from overlapping, what do you do?

I think that a purely d20/d6 based system could be interesting, and might have some merit. As I've mentioned before, you could revert skill checks back to d20 rolls from d10, by allowing "attributes" to provide a negative skill rank bonus, instead of always being a minimum of "+1" -- although I generally find this clunkier than the "d6 pool" skill bonuses of TNP. The other problem is, if class dice bonuses are considered the "USP" of The Next Project, then excising weapon dice from the sequel designs would eliminate a significant portion of that DNA.

I'm really of two minds about this. I do think that the current weapon dice model is neat, because of how it streamlines the particular design space from other D&D games, but also adds it to TNP where it didn't really exist before. I also like how it allows the d12 mechanic to really be unique and shine, rather than in the TNP iteration where it is fairly limited and has to fall in line, so to speak. I also don't think it really makes sense to do a rework to the tune of, "it's TNP, but actually d10 isn't a class die anymore."

If that were the case, the combinations would be reduced to 6:

• d4/d6
• d4/d8
• d4/d12
• d6/d8
• d6/d12
• d8/d12

Coincidentally, if we're considering possibly only including 6 classes, that might not be the worst thing... But does it even make sense to have d6 as a "class die" if the "d6 pool" mechanic is going to be the new standard? Or should that standard just be thrown out, in favour of 4 class dice? Does d10 become the generic "extra damage" mechanic, in that case?

I feel like I'm chasing my tail a little bit, but basically there seems to be a bit of a schism forming, within the intended new designs. Should weapon dice just be damage, and let "d6 pool" handle the attack bonus and extra damage function? The reason weapon dice was proffered as an attack bonus to begin with is that the "d20 vs. DC10" standard felt like it wasn't hitting enough -- but only getting an attack bonus when you have a damage bonus (i.e. d6 pool) doesn't feel right, either. One idea I had suggested was, ok, maybe you always use your STR or DEX d6 pool for weapon attacks, but then your class features/special abilities/teamwork bonuses could add d6s to that pool (such as a CHA bonus for Paladins, as an example.) I think there's some merit to that idea, but it comes back to, is the d6 pool mechanic just too bland? It certainly doesn't feel engaging, the way that the class dice mechanic potentially does. Should the whole system use d20/d6, and the attributes be reworked accordingly?

Really what it boils down to is does the "design space" of weapon dice (and hanging onto some vestige of the old "class dice bonuses" in this particular guise) really add something of value? To wit, part of the fun of class dice bonuses is the picking and choosing aspect; weapon dice don't really do this, since you're only ever going to be using one per each attack. Again, the problem is, do you shift to a "weapon die or d6 pool" standard for the attack bonus? It feels sort of clunky and kind of a "worst of both worlds" solution.

Suffice it to say, this is kind of a mental exercise which hasn't led to me any concrete conclusions. But it has given me more of an appreciation for the certain 'it' factor that the TNP mechanics have.

...

A bit of a delay in the scheduling, but expect the next post on October 19th or 20th.

Filling in the Grid (Part 2) -- The Sixth Class?

Carrying on from some previous posts on this topic (as it pertains to the TNP sequel) I think it might be pertinent to mention that I've recently (just) dipped my toe into the Shadowdark RPG, which has managed to shape my thinking a little bit.

To wit, their designs started out with the "core 4" classes (named Fighter, Priest, Thief, and Wizard, in the game's materials) but a successful stretch goal was unlocked to design a 5th class; my understanding is that Bard and Ranger were both neck and neck in the preference for what this class would be -- and the designer(s) ended up just doing both.

So what is a Bard? Is it a Wizard that is also a healer? Is it a spellcaster that is also a skill expert -- but not an expert with the same skills as a Rogue? Is a bard a performer, or are they a 'lore master'? I think the fewer classes you have, the more things a given class can be.
Likewise, the question was raised as to whether the Ranger should just be an archer, or a two-weapon fighter, or both; the extent to which the mechanics allow TWF at all can have a huge impact on that decision, and Shadowdark opts not to have it as an option.

The obvious 5th class always seems to be either an archer class, or a "Charisma caster" of some sort. The thing I've come to ponder is, should Bard be the "6th class" for the TNP sequel? The first 5 classes are kind of set, so let me expand on why Bard might be the 6th.

Part of the lore of 4th Edition D&D's development, is that it was kind of rushing to make deadlines, and so the design team was split into two groups, with (if memory serves) Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt's team focusing on the PHB1 classes (such as Warlord) while Mike Mearls and his team worked on the PHB2 classes (such as Bard.) As you might have guessed, there was some noise made about the Warlord infringing on what was supposed to be the Bard's shtick; ultimately in the 4e designs, I would say the Warlord is more about granting attacks to allies, whereas the Bard is about repositioning enemies. In the more TNP-like paradigm, you could see how such a narrow distinction could just as easily be built into subclasses for a single class -- if the mechanics even warranted that level of segregation. (Worth mentioning: Arguably, the 4e Shaman class is a WIS-based off-shoot of this same general mechanical niche.)

So if the starting 5 classes for the TNP sequel are: 

• Cleric/Paladin
• Rogue/Monk
• Fighter/Barbarian
• Ranger/Druid
• Sorcerer/Wizard

...two obvious questions arise: (as this compares to the 5th edition D&D roster)
Where does the Bard fit in?

What even is a Warlock, anyway?

Obviously, my answer to the first question skews towards the idea that maybe (instead of bolting Warlord-isms onto the hypothetical Fighter/Barbarian class, and shoving Bard in with the "divine healer" Cleric/Paladin class) there ought to be a Warlord/Bard class. Both used charisma in 4e; Bard is the INT side of that coin, with Warlord being the STR side. But that also begs the question (albeit possibly somewhat reductive) of, if a Warlord is a STR/CHA martial (melee) healer class... how is that not a Paladin? If your attributes don't include a WIS stat, what's the difference between a Cleric and a Bard?

As for the Warlock...?
Some would argue that they should be a "pet" class -- but clearly they don't fit under the Druid/Ranger umbrella. With 5th edition's adoption of cantrips (an idea implemented in 4th edition, among other places) and its spell slot mechanic (itself a derivative of an optional mechanic for 3.5) the Warlock shtick of knowing fewer spells, but doing them all day is a niche that has been stepped on by basically every full-caster -- and short rest mechanics w/r/t spells isn't really a thing in the TNP paradigm. I think the Occultist (effectively the Necromancer/Warlock class of TNP's designs) is unique in its own ways; do I think it stands out enough, to be a "Top 10" class, apart from a hypothetical Sorcerer/Wizard class? That, I'm not sure of.

Speaking of which, I suppose the next question that arises is:
Will the sequel have 8 classes? 10 classes?

A loose range of "minimum 5, maximum 12" has been pretty well-established at this point. If Warlord/Bard and Necromancer/Warlock end up being the 6th and 7th classes, then what's the 8th? If D&D 2024's martial subclasses are any indication, maybe the answer is some kind of a Psionic class -- again, assuming such a thing even makes sense, within a TNP-like ethos.

As I've mentioned in at least one other post, the original slate of 5 classes for TNP left so much out, that a 2nd slate was almost an inevitability (Druid, Monk, and Warlord being the more obvious candidates, not unlike the "2nd slate" of classes for 13th Age) -- and as soon as the 2nd slate was completed, I already had ideas for 2 more classes (Fighter, and Archer) so a 3rd slate became inevitable, too. Sometimes you don't realize what's really left out, until you've put the work in and finalized the things you've already planned to keep in. So whatever the 8th through 10th (or 12th) classes end up being, those answers might not be fully fleshed out until much later into the development process.

...

Work has been continuing behind the scenes, as updated (infrequently) in the Discord server.

Check back here on October 10th for the next scheduled blog post.

Deep Dive: Combat Encounters (2024)

There's a lot to cover when it comes to enemy/monster mechanics, so I'm going to stick with "napkin math" for most of this post. 

Standard & Elite

I'll start off by saying that player-characters can have between 24 and 32 HP, and Standard monsters are meant to have HP in that same range. However, in the encounter budgeting, there should be 2 standard monsters per 1 PC. The baseline assumption is that with one class dice bonus, a character can do about 7.3 DPR on a single attack, but when going through the class mechanics, it was found that most characters will be attacking at least twice per round. This means that a single standard monster with 28-30 HP can be killed in about two turns; if every PC "spawns" two standard monsters, that effectively translates to 4 rounds of combat. (Another thing to account for is that 'extra damage' is not factored in to this equation.)

Now, when standard monsters target the PCs, they use the usual monster roll (1d10 and 1d6) but only use the higher die for their damage. Elite monsters use the same roll, but add the damage together. Generally it is assumed that elites will be specialized for one type of combat (either melee or ranged) and they should have advantage when dealing damage with that method; for monsters this means using the percentile dice instead of just straight d10, and using the higher result. The system also allows for special ability uses/recharges if the d6 and d10 on the monster roll is a tie, meaning advantage (i.e. such as Elites would have) gives another chance to create such a tie. Each elite uses the encounter budget of 1 PC (i.e. 2 standard monsters) and has double the HP of a standard monster. 

Quick napkin math: Standard monsters should average about 6 damage per attack, but only "hit" 45% of the time (assuming no save bonuses for the PCs). This means between about 9-12 attacks to take down a PC, or about half that many rounds of combat (since there will be 2 standard monsters in the budget, for each 1 PC.) Worth mentioning here is that combat mastery (such as from being hidden, or attacking prone targets in melee) would apply to all damage dice that the monsters are rolling, making them just that much more deadly, if they play tactically.

Minions & Swarms

Minions on the other hand just automatically deal damage, as I'll explain. I always enjoyed the mechanics of how minions worked in 4th Edition D&D, and I had fun homebrewing some ways to make "2-hit" minions fit into the game; generally, I had it so that hitting with a critical hit, an encounter power, or dealing damage (even on a miss) with a daily power would take them out. But the system broadly wasn't built from the ground up with this in mind, so there were always messy edge cases. The general idea was to make it so that an attack that dealt more than one weapon die (the [W] expression, in 4e) of damage, would kill 2-hit minions outright. In TNP, this idea is expanded upon, by giving minions "hit dice"; effectively, this means that you need to deal a number of damage dice equal to their hit dice in order to take them out. So for example, a basic attack + 1 class die of bonus damage would take out a minion with 2 HD. In terms of encounter budgeting, each PC can generate 10 HD worth of minions or swarms.

When a minion makes an attack, they deal damage equal to their current HD; when using skills, they also use a skill rank bonus equal to their current HD, but by default have disadvantage on skill checks (to prevent dog-piling.) This means that minions become less deadly the more damage they take. Also, any effect which would impose disadvantage on an action or skill check, causes minions to be unable to use that action or skill check. For example: disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for having an enemy adjacent, would translate to the minion not being able to make ranged attacks at all. If a particular skill is meant to be iconic to a given minion type, the expectation is that they would "buy off" the disadvantage with that type of check, rather than bump straight to having advantage with it.

Swarms function similarly to minions, in that both creature types bypass saving throws and simply deal damage equal to their current HD, with their attack actions. For this reason, minions are meant to be limited to a maximum of about 4 or 5 HD; swarms should have more HD than minions, but not more than 10. This means that a 10 HD swarm which can focus on a single PC will be able to take them out in typically 3 rounds of combat. To balance this out, swarms have several special rules that make them different than minions, particularly the rule that they must spread their damage between all PCs in their maelstrom. It does not have to be spread evenly, however it's probably best practice to try and do so. When a swarm is open, it counts as multiple enemies, making it easier to target; if the swarm enters a maelstrom, it only counts as one enemy for targeting purposes, meaning abilities that require you to target different enemies could now only target the swarm once. For the purpose of disengaging, swarms always count as multiple enemies. Swarms can never make ranged attacks, as they are generally assumed to be beasts or insects, which have no such weapons.

(Note: capping minions at 4 or 5 HD means their skill rank bonus is also capped at 4 or 5, keeping this number in line with what PCs are realistically expected to be able to achieve.)

The Big Bad Evil Guy

The final two enemy types are solos and archenemies. In the random campaign generation rules, it is assumed that archenemies will appear twice out of the 54 encounters in a campaign (about half of which are combat encounters.) For this reason, archenemies are allowed to shut down abilities with certain keywords; re-reading this has reminded me that I need to do another editing pass and make sure the appropriate keywords are included in the character feature descriptions.

Some example keywords:

• Form: covers fighting styles for the Fighter, as well as Druid abilities
• Concentration: buffs such as Bless
• Teleport: features allowing movement via teleportation
• Restoration: features that restore HP (i.e. healing)
• Summon: features that add allies to the combat (features for Warlord, Druid, Ranger, Occultist, etc.)
• Sustaining: generally penalties to enemies or bonuses to allies that can be maintained by repeating the appropriate action each round

Now, the idea is not that the archenemy would shut down all of these keywords, but that each given type of archenemy might have one or two, that are specific to the campaign, or to the party members. The original idea was that these abilities could only be shut down if the PC being targeted is bloodied, but you could also invert that idea by saying the abilities are shut down until the archenemy is bloodied. Likewise, I had written in that an archenemy should be able to do multiple skill checks on its turn instead of just one, and be more easily able to do interrupts; in order to get the same effect (but also limit the power of action denial abilities) it might be simpler to just give the archenemy as many turns in initiative as there are PCs in the encounter.

Similarly, the idea with solo monsters is that they would be one large creature with several independent parts -- each being represented mechanically as an individual monster (either standard monsters or elites, but possibly minions as well.) The example that I used in a playtest was a kraken attacking a ship, with its multiple tentacles; if there are 4 PCs, that would translate to 8 standard monsters, representing 8 tentacles, with maybe an elite monster as the head to top things off, and make it a more challenging encounter. Similarly, the other example I would use as a solo monster is a dragon, where the head does a fiery breath attack, but it also has claws, a tail that can do a swipe attack, etc. In order to encourage tactics other than just focus-firing on one part of the monster, a rule is in place giving disadvantage to each part's monster rolls once it is bloodied.

Sidebar

One note on the 'sustaining' keyword, is that I had pretty much always conceptualized it as "benefits to you (or your allies) last until the start of your next turn, while penalties to enemies last until the end of your next turn." This is based off of the optimization notion from 4e, that effects which last one round are better/more reliable than ones that are "save ends" (i.e. 50/50 chance that they end before you can get any use out of them, on your next turn.) This leads into the idea of archenemies being able to shrug off or otherwise end such effects early, particularly if they are given multiple initiative turns, and a penalty is assumed to only impact them for one of those turns.

...

Anyways, hopefully that's a giant enough wall of text to generate some discussion, until the next post.
Check back on September 30th for that!