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!

Construction Ahead! (2024)

Today I'll just do an update post, laying out some of the work that has been going on behind the scenes.

A couple of editing passes were made to the existing class documents. Previously, these were split between 2021 and 2023 versions; there are now 2024 versions of all 15 classes.

Some changes/updates that were recently made:

• any instances of "advantage on base damage" were removed, and replaced with "mastery on base damage" -- the only exception is to the Barbarian's base melee damage
• any instances of "off-turn action" were replaced with "interrupt"
• most features that referenced "no action on your turn, or as an off-turn action if it is not your turn" were just changed to "no action" since this has been clarified to be an action type that can be done on- or off-turn
• current "Brawl" mechanics are now using the terms "trip" (i.e. knock prone) and "shove" (i.e. push away); instances of the term "push" were left in, but the core rules were updated to explain that a push can be either a trip or a shove (as intended)
• class stat layouts were re-structured; HP & initiative are now linked in the layout (instead of HP & engagement) while Surge Value, Reserves (per day), and Engagement are now all de-linked; some features which only improved HP will now also improve initiative bonus die
• added Prone Shooter and Brawler feats; prereqs for feats were adjusted to fit the changes to class categories
• Withdraw/Shift/Tumble have been clarified and greatly streamlined; "Disengaging" status now protects against all enemies in the encounter
• Progression chart (which was instituted in the previous draft) has been added to the current draft of the rules; this also included the caveat capping knowledge skill ranks at 1+level

And, a couple of changes that are being debated:

• reducing the overall power source options for classes, to be more "flavourful" or "thematic"; this may take the form of pushing some to the background, rather than outright disallowing them (i.e. presented as a 'slate' option, rather than a class option)
• (speaking of backgrounds) possibly renaming power sources to 'backgrounds' or something similar
• bringing back Skillset bonuses based on power sources (Shadow power source grants a skill rank in Infiltration, etc.)
• more feats! suggestions needed/wanted
• renaming Adventurer to 'Traveller' or something...

As I've said previously, the "character options" are more or less feature-locked; I'm not really looking to add anything, just making sure everything is using the same jargon and playing nice together. Likewise, most of the designs/mechanics are locked, it's just a matter of putting those to paper.

Having taken a chance to read through the classes, I'm really happy with how most of them turned out. I also like some of the ways the classes go off the beaten path:

• the Occultist -- the new roles in particular making it more like the Darkest Dungeon class than a D&D Warlock or Diablo Necromancer
• the Paladin -- leans more into the Diablo 2 version while still feeling pretty unique
• classes that are typically complicated (like Sage or Bard) are pretty simple, while classes that are typically pretty simple/boring (like Barbarian or Fighter) have a lot more moving parts
• still some complex classes (like Cleric and Druid)
• some simple classes get a lot of customization options (like Warlord and Adventurer)
• other simple classes are very straight-forward and unassuming (basically any of the Skill Expert classes)
• still some that fit somewhere in the middle (Spellbinder, Guardian) -- a little bit of variety within the class, but very straight-forward subclasses

...

A relatively short post (by my normal standards) but hopefully it's enough to tide everyone over until September 20th. Check back then!

Deep Dive: Skills (2024)

Rather than get bogged down in the dice mechanics and such, I want to break down what skills are actually included in TNP, and what they should be used for.
One thing I should add is that the general advice I would give if a specific skill doesn't accurately describe an action, fall back to the closest skillset first, and then fall back on attributes 2nd; for these purposes:

• Strength is generally meant to use the arms and/or upper body
  
• Agility is generally meant to use the legs
• Dexterity is generally meant to use the hands/fingers
• Intelligence is how knowledgeable you are about things
• Charisma is how knowledgeable you are about people

(P.S. this is why there isn't a distinct Swim skill: so that you can use whatever attribute you see fit, for that.)

Brawl (Athletics or Strength) is your general purpose skill for grapple, shove, trip, etc.
Climb (Athletics or Strength) is pretty straightforward; in the rules it is one of the methods of gaining high ground provided by "infrastructure." The other method is Jump (Athletics or Agility)
Break Objects (Infiltration or Strength) is meant as the equivalent to "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" from earlier versions of D&D, but in combat is meant specifically to destroy infrastructure that may be providing cover and/or high ground (at the DM's discretion.)
Acrobatics (Athletics or Agility) is meant to cover skills/actions likes Balance, Escape (Artist), or Tumble (i.e. moving without provoking opportunity attacks) as well as landing on your feet when falling, and doing a kip up.

Intimidation (Communication or Strength) probably needs no explanation, but under certain circumstances in combat it can be used to get enemies to surrender (which is mechanically just as good as being at 0 HP) in order to make this option appealing, but also potentially to speed up combat.
Decipher Script (Communication or Intelligence) is meant to be used when reading text that is written in a language foreign to you, or to crack coded messages; likewise Linguistics (Communication or Intelligence) is mean for speaking other languages and understanding the spoken word, in other languages; the general assumption is that your character would use this for languages they aren't fluent with.
Persuasion (Communication or Charisma) is sort of the opposite of Intimidation; you try to get people to go along with your line of argumentation through general positive reinforcement and the force of your personality (rather than threats.)

Lockpicking (Infiltration or Dexterity) does what it says on the tin; for more complex mechanical devices or traps, you may need to use Disable Device (Infiltration or Intelligence)
Similarly, the Forgery skill (Infiltration or Intelligence) is about creating false documents of a sufficiently convincing quality -- oddly enough, this is something I would class as a "social" skill, because it effectively is used to interact favourably with people, rather than with 'things.'
In that same vein, Disguise (Infiltration or Charisma) involves both creating and using a convincing disguise, and giving an effective portrayal of the person you are impersonating; Bluff (Subtlety or Charisma) is more about telling a convincing boast or recounting of events, that are untrue. You may very well need to make such checks while using a disguise, but you can make them under other circumstances as well.
Sleight of Hand (Subtlety or Dexterity) involves pick-pocketing or otherwise snatching items without arousing suspicion, but can also be used for planting contraband or incriminating items onto other people without them noticing.
Stealth (Subtlety or Agility) is your general 'hide' and/or 'move silently' skill.

Rounding out the list are the Detection skills.
Search (Detection or Dexterity) is meant to be used for finding things by your sense of touch, especially your fingers; the example I always think of is trying to quickly find the right coin or key, in a stuck drawer -- where you can fit your hand in, but can't actually see the contents.
Investigation and Perception (Detection or Intelligence) are lumped together here, largely because there is no 'Wisdom' attribute in TNP, but also because they seem to often be used interchangeably in 5e. Perception from 4e onwards has been the combination of 3.5's 'Listen' and 'Spot' skills; Investigation... well, it isn't quite 'Appraise' or 'Search'... but it seems to be "solve puzzles/riddles through brain power rather than sensory input."
Insight (Detection or Charisma) is your lie-detector and/or 'Sense Motive' skill -- pretty standard.

As for the knowledge skills, they're kind of a mixed bag of knowledge/exploration skills, as well as kind of a sub-set of social skills:
Arcana (Arcane power source) is your general knowledge of magic and the occult, other planes, spellcraft, etc. As in 4e, this would be the skill check you make to 'detect magic'
History & Geography (Martial power source) is your knowledge of pertinent historical events and places of particular significance; in 3.5 this was (as you might guess) two separate skills, but I felt it was worth combining them together.
Religion (Divine or Arcane) is generally associated with monster knowledge about the undead, but could also apply to demons/devils; deities, mythology, religious traditions and ceremonies, etc.
Wilderness Survival (Primal power source) generally covers any uses of 'Survival' (including the Use Rope skill) or the Nature skill, as it pertains to things other than animals/beasts... Animal Handling (Martial or Primal) involves using, training, or communicating with animals (whether through basic verbal or visual cues, or magical/telepathic means) including using them as a mount (i.e. the Ride skill)
Dungeoneering (Arcane or Shadow) typically involves knowledge of caves and caverns, but often is about places like the Underdark, and its denizens.
Medicine (Divine or Primal) generally functions like the Medicine skill in 5e, or the Heal skill in 4e or 3.5; this would likely also cover your 'Detect Poison & Disease' spell/ritual.
Streetwise (Shadow power source) essentially functions like your 'Gather Information' skill, when dealing with the (figurative) underworld; Local (Martial or Shadow) functions similarly, but for commoners or "middle class" people and societies; Nobility & Royalty (Divine power source) is essentially the upper-class version of this sort of skill.

It's probably worth mentioning who got these as 'class skills' in 3.5:

• Local -- Bards, Rogues, Wizards
• Gather Information -- Bards, Rogues
• Nobility & Royalty -- Bards, Paladins, Wizards

• Handle Animal -- Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers
• Ride -- Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers
• Nature -- Bards, Druids, Rangers, Wizards
• Survival -- Barbarian, Druids, Rangers
  
• Use Rope -- Rangers, Rogues

• Heal -- Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers
• Religion -- Bards, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards

• History -- Bards, Clerics, Wizards
• Geography -- Bards, Rangers, Wizards

• Arcana -- Bards, Clerics, Monks, Sorcerers, Wizards
• Dungeoneering -- Bards, Rangers, Wizards

Meanwhile in 4th Edition (sorting the PHB1 & PHB2 by power source)...

• Arcana was extended to Druid (primal), Invoker (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane)
• Dungeoneering was extended to Rogue (martial), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal)
• Heal was extended to Barbarian (primal), Bard (arcane), Fighter (martial), Shaman (primal), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal), Warlord (martial)
• History was extended to Druid (primal), Invoker (divine), Paladin (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane), Warlord (martial)
• Nature was extended to Barbarian (primal), Shaman (primal), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal)
• Religion was extended to Invoker (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane)
• Streetwise -- Bard (arcane), Fighter (martial), Rogue (martial), Wizard (arcane)
  

In TNP, classes generally lean towards one or two power sources, with a choice of another (Acrobat is the only class that sort of fits into any of the 5 power sources)

• Paladin (Divine/Martial; Arcane or Shadow)
• Cleric (Divine; Martial or Arcane)
• Druid (Primal; Arcane or Martial)
• Rogue (Shadow; Arcane, Martial, Primal)
• Warlord (Martial; Divine or Primal)
• Spellbinder (Arcane/Martial; Divine or Shadow)
• Occultist (Arcane/Shadow; Primal)
• Adventurer (Martial/Primal; Arcane or Shadow)
• Barbarian (Martial or Primal)
• Bard (Arcane/Divine; Martial or Shadow)
• Sage (Arcane/Primal; Martial or Shadow)
• Ranger (Martial/Primal; Shadow)
• Guardian (Martial/Primal; Arcane or Shadow)
• Fighter (Martial; Divine, Primal, Shadow)

So if we were to, for the sake of argument, combine the 4e and 3.5 class skill lists, and try to represent them in TNP, a few examples would be:

• Paladin: Divine (Nobility & Royalty, Medicine, Religion) + Martial (Animal Handling, History & Geography)
• Cleric: Divine (Medicine, Religion) + Martial (History & Geography) + Arcane (Arcana)
• Druid: Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine) Arcane (Arcana, Religion) + Martial (History & Geography)
• Barbarian: Martial (History & Geography, Animal Handling) + Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine)
• Ranger: Martial (History & Geography, Animal Handling) + Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine) + Shadow (Dungeoneering)
• Fighter: Martial (Animal Handling) + Primal (Medicine) + Shadow (Streetwise)

...

Anyways, this is getting long-winded and ramble-y. But hopefully that illustrates how skills are supposed to be used, and how I've tried to recreate the class skill lists from D&D, while coming at it from a slightly different angle. Things have been expanded a little bit where I felt it was needed, but I've tried to more or less be faithful to the "source material." With 4e including skills like History for Warlords and Paladins, it made sense to me to put that as a Martial skill, for example (even though Fighters for some reason didn't get History, but I digress.) Likewise, being able to mix Primal skills with Arcane and/or Martial skills goes a long way in making TNP classes like Druid and Guardian feel like the ones they're inspired from.

Next post is due up on September 10th, so check back then!

Taking Shape (2024)

With the onset of "D&D 2024," I've been following some of the content explaining the changes that are forthcoming. When I learned what the changes to the Monk's mechanics were, I just thought, "They gave the Rogue's Cunning Action to Monks, and slapped ki enhancements on top of each of the options." Now, those who have followed my journey through 5th Edition may have heard my opinion that Monks are too combat focused, and needed to either get some utility cantrips, or they should be made into skill experts (like Rogues or Bards.) This latest edition change just sort of cements the fact (to me) that Monk works best as a specialist Rogue; you could even give the class both Stunning Strike and Sneak Attack, but limit them to using one or the other, once per turn.

Since my designs for the "TNP sequel" are leaning towards a tighter, focused slate of classes, I think this is probably the direction that I'm going to go with Monks, insofar as they are included at all. Likewise, I don't think there will be distinct Fighter and Barbarian classes, or Ranger and Druid for that matter; there will likely be some form of subclass or possibly "talent tree" system that will gate off certain mechanics, in order to emulate such classes. I think a game like Diablo 2 (as is often the case) would sort of be the obvious inspiration for how to execute "broad classes that specialize into narrow classes" but to be honest, World of Warcraft might be a better example of this.

Now, tentatively, I've decided on how I want the attributes to function, with regards to combat. Put simply, you will be able to use STR or DEX with any weapons (d4, d8, or d12 -- melee or ranged) that you are proficient with -- but not all classes will be proficient with d12 weapons, and those that are proficient will favour STR. Likewise, caster classes will be able to use either INT or CHA as their spellcasting stat, but certain classes may use one over the other, when it comes to their actual class features. Agility (the 5th attribute) will be the initiative stat.

With that in mind, I'm thinking that attribute scores will also be used as damage modifiers for weapons (and maybe spells) but not as attack roll modifiers. I like the idea of using the "weapon die" as the attack modifier, but I think for class features and/or "teamwork" abilities, the highest d6 in the pool should be able to be used either: a) as an attack and damage bonus, in addition to the weapon die, or; b) instead of the weapon die, but allowing all bonus d6s to be used as damage. The former would lead to more-but-smaller crits, whereas the latter would lead to more-but-bigger normal hits.

So, for example: using a d12 weapon, with a 3d6 bonus...
a) would let you add the highest d6 to the (d20) attack roll; you could also use the d12 in place of the d20 [d12 attack bonus may have other functions]; your damage would be the 1d12 + the highest 1d6 + STR mod, and a crit would add 18 damage to that
b) would let you either add the highest d6, or use the d12 in place of the d20; your damage would be 1d12 + 3d6 + STR mod, and a crit would add 30 damage to that

In terms of the actual numbers for attributes themselves, I'm still thinking of keeping with them all starting at +1 -- which means we're assuming 1d10 for skill checks, and not 1d20. Then, your class would most likely dictate a +2 to one attribute and a +1 to another (or possibly just a +3 to one) with an additional floating +1 to be added freely wherever you'd like -- including to a stat that already gets one of your class bonuses. I think the bump from 2d6 to 3d6 math is compelling enough, but getting a 3rd stat from 1d6 to 2d6 is also worth it, if you prefer to spread your skills around a bit. If anything, I think I may revise this down to "two fixed +1s/one fixed +2, and one free-floating +1." And I think there's certainly room for mechanics that are "+X when you Y" such that the bonus is only applied to skills and not to combat uses of attributes, if desired.

I've essentially mentioned 3 classes so far, that I would intend to include. The others would obviously be some sort of Priest/Cleric/Paladin mashup, and some sort of magic-user. The question would be whether there are any other meaningful archetypes to cover, or if the subclasses of these 5 starters would cover the rest of the design space. If the assumption is that your magic-user is an amalgamation of Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer (and perhaps the Bard fits somewhere under the priest banner, as a healing class)...? Well, at that point we've accounted for all of the design space of the core 12 PHB classes in 5th Edition D&D. But that feels like a topic that deserves its own deep-dive, at another time.

...

Next post is due up on August 31st, so check back then!

Math-o-logical (2024)

As mentioned in the previous post, TNP does not use any static modifiers. This is one of the rules which bound the system (another being that all character statistics must be derived from class dice.) Part of the reason for this is to simplify some of the math, but also to encourage "teamwork bonuses" for increasing your chance to hit, in combat.

That all being said, I feel like the flat 55% success rate just doesn't cut it; I've even heard that some D&D-alike systems have chosen to eschew attack rolls altogether. As such, one of the things I've been juggling with my future project, is having a simple attack bonus to increase the hit chance -- namely, the weapon dice mechanics, as well as the d6 pool mechanics which I've touched on in recent posts. So it's probably a good time to look at the math a little bit.

Sticking with a DC10:

• 1d20+1d4 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 17.5% crit chance
• 1d20+1d6 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 22.5% crit chance
• adding the higher of 1d4 and 1d6 to a d20 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 24.58% crit chance
• adding the highest 1d6 out of 5d6 to a d20 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 32.15% crit chance

So what does that mean, in practical terms? Well, one thing I've always talked about within the designs of TNP is that the math should have a "meaningful" chance of failure -- a number I've typically pegged between about 15%-20%, particularly for skills. If we're incorporating these sorts of bonuses into the designs of the combat math, we can see that we're rapidly approaching that threshold for failure chance; we can't really increase hit chance much higher, particularly if "teamwork bonuses" are meant to be over and above what's accounted for here.

The knock-on effect is that it brings into question the idea of using 1d10 for skill checks. Apart from the ergonomic value of using percentile d10s for an advantage mechanic, if the combat system is using d20, and is based around the assumption of a hit rate in the range of 67.5%-82.15%... then why not just go back to using d20 for skills, too? With the idea being to unify all of the dice bonuses into d6 pool mechanics, this would have the added benefit of allowing attributes to be +0 or even possibly go into negatives, while still allowing the skill math to work properly. The only big sticking point (for me) is deciding what (if anything) a critical success on a skill check should do; using a d10 vs. DC10 system neatly side-steps this consideration.

The other question is whether this scale makes more sense than the d10 skill check math:

• 1d20-1d6 = 37.5%
• 1d20+0 = 55%
• 1d20+1d6 = 72.5%
  
• 1d20+[highest 1 of 2d6] = 77.36%
• 1d20+[highest 1 of 5d6] = 82.15%

Another thing I'm considering is that while most special abilities will be keyed off of attributes (for example, a +2 DEX providing a pool of 2d6) the flat modifier for those attributes might also be used as a damage bonus, just to improve the "oomph" of basic attacks. Another use for flat modifiers might be a sort of 'mastery' mechanic, whereby a die result cannot be lower than the modifier, or could be rerolled if lower/equal to the modifier.

If we're sticking with the 5 attributes of TNP (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma, Agility) and we're assuming the d6 pool will consist of one attribute, plus any "teamwork bonuses," then it stands to reason that our attributes shouldn't really exceed 3 (working from the TNP cap of 5d6 "extra damage" as our baseline.) So how many "points" should we be able to spread, between our attributes? Assuming a minimum attribute of +1 and maximum of +3, we could use 10 points to give us an array of +3/+3/+2/+1/+1. I almost wonder if the better alternative is to start with +1 to all, and then have class/background/whatever give you a +2 to two stats (as in 4e) or +2 to one and +1 to another (as in 5e). I think it'll really come down to what "feels" like the "right" amount of points.

...

That wraps up another meandering post, for now.
Check back on August 21st for the next one.