Heavy Metal Thunder -- The Warlord and The Spellbinder (Beta 4)

Today's post features two classes based off the the d12 class die:

• The Warlord
• The Spellbinder

Warlord was one of the first few "expansion" classes that I wanted to add, after the first slate was finished (as has been mentioned here previously.)

I personally never quite got the allure of the "lazylord" style of gameplay, but I included it nonetheless, with a few twists of my own; making the Warlord a d12 class was mainly done for two reasons:

• a distinct lack of d12 classes to take inspiration from, in pre-existing d20 systems
• the desire to make attacking a powerful option for the class, rather than always opting to make someone else attack instead

This also meant that Warlord would be a melee-focused class, as per the role of the d12 within the system. It's a class that is more effects-based than damaged-based, in some ways similar to the Ranger.

The Commander archetype can direct allies as either a Standard Action, or when they make an unsuccessful attack. This is intended to allow players to be conservative and just trade their action to their teammates, but to also not punish them for being aggressive and choosing to attack.

The Protector archetype is meant to be a strong battlefield controller, wading into the thick of things to defend allies and punish enemies. 

With the Warlord polished up for Beta 4, their slate is now complete!

Heroes of Martial Might & Divine Power

• The Acrobat (d4)
• The Fighter (d6)
• The Cleric (d8)
• The Paladin (d10)
• The Warlord (d12) 

...

Spellbinder began its life as the Swordmage archetype for the Mage (d4) class. Originally, Mage was the only class that had any sort of teleportation abilities, so it was logical that Swordmage would fit under that umbrella. When I settled on writing 3 slates (and on what shape those would take) the Mage became the Sage, with Wizard and Monk as its archetypes; it made sense to shift an archetype like Swordmage up to a "heavier" slot, like the d12.

As for another archetype to go with the Swordmage, probably one of the first names to come to mind was the Hexblade. In a slate of classes built around arcane magic and shadowy power, it made for a class with an interesting dichotomy to reflect that.

Though not as fiddly as the Essentials version of the class, the Hexblade as presented here takes inspiration from the Fey pact, with its focus on teleporting; this also serves to make this archetype a good fit for the umbrella class. The Hexblade also works well with the d12; it's basically a melee-focused version of the warlock, a class that naturally lends itself to the mechanic of burning reserves (of which d12 classes get the highest number) for powerful effects.

The name "Spellbinder" doesn't seem a great fit at first glance, but I think the archetype names themselves compliment one another. However, the definition of the word "spellbound" references distracting, fascinating, or holding someone's attention (either with the spoken word, or outright magic.) This seemed perfect for a class with one archetype that focuses on distracting enemies to protect their allies (Swordmage) and another that gains their attention in order to punish them even harder (Hexblade.)

I also had intentions of incorporating ideas from the "Binder" (warlock subclass in 4e) just to wrap the name up neatly, but a quick glance at that class showed it to be mostly a ranged version of the Hexblade, and so it was not really suited to a d12 class.


The Spellbinder caps off another slate!

Heroes of Magic & Shadow

• The Sage (d4)
• The Rogue (d6)
• The Bard (d8)
• The Mystic (d10)
• The Spellbinder (d12)

---

All of the classes are now set! That means it's time to move on to other aspects of the game's design. Going forward, posts will likely focus on the "GM side" of the system, although player options may see some further tweaks and refinement.

TNP Design will be taking a short break for the holidays, but expect a new post on January 5th.

See you in 2017!

Blood from a Stone -- The Guardian and The Warrior (Beta 4)

Quickly posting the links for the new classes, then I will add content shortly:

• The Guardian (d6)
• The Warrior (d10)

Stay tuned!


The Warrior
As was mentioned in my post about The Rogue, I wanted to make a Scout class that was sort of like a "wilderness rogue." Simple enough, right? Well, the thing about that is, it means the class needs to be the skill specialist of its slate -- which is sort of hard, since a slate like "Heroes of the Wilderness" is bound to have a fair bit of redundancy in the skill department.

Originally, I was planning to have the class use the d6, and focus on two-weapon fighting (harkening to the Essentials version of the Scout -- a Ranger subclass.) A couple problems with this:

1. Already having a d6 Fighter class, with two-weapon fighting as one of its options.
2. Already having a d6 Rogue class, with skillfulness as a major focus. 

I could have easily just reused these mechanics, but it felt sort of wrong. I had "Guardian" penciled in for the d10 spot on this slate, but I decided to swap the two around. It was similar to how I moved Warlock to a d10 slot, when I split it off from the Sorcerer.

What results, is a melee-focused, damage-stacking class, built off exactly the die that is meant to be used that way. Making the "Skirmish" mechanic using a d10 necessitates it working and feeling differently than the Rogue's "Sneak Attack" and I think that's a good outcome.

Skills still presented a problem; I felt the class needed an "urban" archetype or possibly a "spy," to cover the more social-focused skills -- something a specialist should be able to do, but which didn't really fit with a Scout. After much mulling and conversation, the idea of making this archetype into a Skald just clicked.

As a class that exists in Pathfinder as having Bard and Barbarian as its "parent classes," it wasn't too much of a stretch to fit it onto this slate. Similar to a Bard, it made sense for the Skald to be good at social skills, as well as deception. It also gave me the opportunity to make a sort of "two-weapon fighting Barbarian," which I didn't feel worked well as a d12 class. It also sort of lends itself to the Skald being a class from "Heroes of the Feywild" in 4e D&D, as well as the dual-wielding, hidden Bard class from Diablo: Hellfire.

So what we end up with is a more narrowly-focused Fighter in terms of combat, and a more narrowly-focused Rogue in terms of skills. The Scout leans more towards a striker/lurker role, with Skald being more of a support class; each archetype then has a few Role options to choose from, to flesh them out and help them specialize a bit more.


The Guardian
As was mentioned in a previous post, the Guardian kind of grew from the necessity of a landing spot for the Shaman archetype, as well as wanting to do a take on the Warden from 4th Edition.

The name (I think) mainly came from the Warden's daily powers referencing them assuming a "guardian form." Essentially, what these powers do is give you a few passive bonuses (effectively, a stance) and then an attack power you can fire off on that turn, or later in the encounter. The idea from Essentials of using stance powers coupled with "Power Strike" (for both the Fighter and Ranger classes) sort of mimics this kind of mechanic.

However, the specific fluff for the Warden daily powers was not very consistent, so it was hard to come up with something that worked thematically, in as elegant a way as I would have hoped; I looked at the research I had done into the Warden, and mostly scrapped it all, instead going with something closer to the Essentials Ranger.

I tried to emulate something similar to the Stance/Power Strike mechanism, using the combination of totems and spirit manifestations, with burning reserves for more powerful effects. Combine all of that with the concept of using d6 as a damage-stacking class die, plus having a support archetype and a tank archetype (with totems allowing a further degree of role customization) and... there's a lot going on. I expect this class to change a fair bit in future drafts.

---


I was kind of on a tight schedule with this post, and these two classes were probably the most work-intensive of the classes that needed to be completed. I might try and rewrite both of them when I have more time, or let that part shake out in playtesting.


In any case, "Heroes of the Wilderness" for Beta 4 is now a complete slate!

• Druid (d4)
• Guardian (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Warrior (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

---

Coming up on the next blogpost:

• The Warlord
• The Spellbinder

Check back on Dec. 20th!

Of Holy Light and Vile Darkness -- The Cleric and The Mystic (Beta 4)

Today's post introduces two classes  from two different slates:

• The Cleric

In earlier betas, I had made a couple of unsatisfactory attempts at writing a cleric class. What started off as a d12 Warlord class morphed into a Cleric, but was ultimately scrapped. The big question I kept asking myself throughout this process was, "what is the Cleric's iconic attack?" In a system that doesn't utilize the wide spectrum of damage types or monster types that other RPGs tend to use, slapping "radiant" damage onto attacks or having a "Turn Undead" ability just doesn't work.

When I finished the first two slates back in Beta 3, and then quickly thereafter completed the Archer (d4) and Fighter (d6), I had tentatively settled on rounding out the third slate with a Cleric (d8), Warden (d10), and Deathknight (d12). When I started looking at the possibility of expanding the roster to 5 slates, the idea of an Invoker class for the "divine" slate was something that popped up.

The 4th Edition take on Invoker was a controller class, that generally slapped debilities onto itself, in exchange for slapping bigger ones onto its enemies. This doesn't particularly translate to The Next Project, since I want to avoid "hard control" mechanics. So my idea for an Invoker more closely resembled this game's Sorcerer; a d6 class that focused on stacking damage and attacking crowds of enemies. Giving the class double its normal share of Reserves would put them on par with a d12 class in that regard, but those resources would be used to fuel damage -- an idea that mirrored the 4e namesake class a bit -- wounding yourself to smite your enemies even harder.

Eventually I settled on doing only 3 slates, and the Invoker idea was scrapped.

When I set out to work on this latest Cleric class, I had decided early on that d8 would be a good fit for more than one "support" class, and so I was leaning that way for their slot. When the slate itself came together, it was kind of the last piece of the puzzle.

After I had completed the "starter set" version of the Cleric, I let it sit for a while. When I picked it back up again to start work on the full class, I felt that I wanted to give it a ranged archetype, and a melee archetype (similar to how the Acrobat turned out.) It also seemed to make sense for a d8 class.

Invoker seemed like a natural fit for a more spellcasting-focused Cleric; as for melee, names like Knight, Warpriest, and Cavalier had been on my radar during the "5 slate" experimentation phase (particularly with this game being sort of a love letter to Essentials.) Ultimately, I settled on Crusader. I think the archetype itself feels more like the Warpriest of the Essentials line, but with Paladin already having a Priest archetype, I wanted a name that would avoid any confusion.

On top of this, I decided to keep the Domains as a layer of customization; I had originally intended to have about 6 or 8 Domains spread across 3 classes (had I kept with 5 slates) but they didn't all lend themselves well to the mechanics of this game. War and Life domains seemed the easiest to wrangle, and I think they both work with either of the archetypes presented.

• The Mystic

In earlier iterations, what now constitutes the Mystic were archetypes for two other classes. The original Mystic had Warlock and Sorcerer as its archetypes, and was a d6 class, sharing a focus on charisma. The original Necromancer was an archetype of a Summoner class (from which the Beastmaster archetype was ripped, and subsequently hung onto the Ranger.)

The name "mystic" was sort of the first thing that popped into my head when I initially came up with the idea for the class, but looking it up, the word means someone who seeks lost or forbidden knowledge. I think thematically, this works really well for both a Warlock (someone who makes a pact with otherworldly powers) as well as a Necromancer (someone whose magic blurs the lines between the living and the dead.)

In the "5 slate" experimentation phase, the idea of having a slate based on a "shadow" power source was one I really wanted to work. But I found there just wasn't enough to flesh it out. The Deathknight never materialized (although what few ideas I could come up with for it may yet appear, elsewhere) and other than that, it never really got beyond the Rogue (namely, Assassin) and Mystic; having Blackguard already in place as a Paladin archetype also threw a wrench in the works.

At any rate, when I decided to separate the Warlock and the Sorcerer, it made sense to keep Warlock as a damage-stacking class, but didn't seem to make sense to have them as the exact same die; in that case, why bother separating them at all?

So Sorcerer merged with Bard to become the Trickster (d6), and Warlock merged with Necromancer to become the new Mystic (d10). The idea to give the Warlock a Reserve-burning mechanic came late in the lead-up to this post, but I think it fits both the themes of the class, and the mechanics of it using a d10. I like that the Warlock kind of straddles the same line between striker and controller that it did in 4th Edition; I also think the Necromancer does a good job of capturing the iconic abilities of its main inspiration (for me, it's the Diablo 2 version.)

---

Coming up on the next blogpost:

• The Guardian
• The Warrior

Check back on Dec. 10th!

For Man or Beast -- The Druid and The Ranger (Beta 4)

Today's post focuses on two classes that appeared in 4e D&D's "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms" (a book in the 'Essentials' line.) The four classes featured in that book could probably be glossed as the "2nd-team All-Stars" of D&D (particularly the 4e/Essentials paradigm) coming after the "big 4" of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.

Without further ado, I present:

• The Druid
• The Ranger

The Ranger was one of the original 5 classes, from the very earliest beginnings of The Next Project, holding down the d8 slot on that first slate.  It seemed a fit for the weapons a Ranger would typically use in D&D, and for giving them a decent amount of HP; it also works really well for the prescribed function of the class die within this game's framework.

When the idea of expanding the game to a 2nd slate started to gain steam, Druid was one of the first two classes I was interested in doing (Monk being the other, with Warlord being a popular "fan favourite.") At the time, I felt it made sense to have the Druid as a d8 class -- middle-of-the road, sharing flavour and mechanics with the Ranger.

Through the process of paring down the list of classes I wanted to write, and settling on doing 3 slates, it became clear that Ranger and Druid belonged to the same "power source." And so, because of that, one of them would have to be moved to a different class die.

I decided to shift the Druid down to the d4 slot. It made sense as a die that could be used to add HP to the class when they shapechanged, without pushing those numbers outside of the existing bounds. And it seemed like a logical step to just convert the class from "1d8 math to 2d4 math."

I also wanted to use the d4 as the Summoner archetype's limit on how many 'minions' they could control, in contrast with the Mystic's utilization of the d10. However, this ended up being implemented differently than I had originally planned -- largely due to the move away from using abilities from other classes (as was also done with the new Bard.) The Summoner no longer uses pre-existing summoning abilities; instead, it has its own unique mechanic for summoning, which works similar to the new Ki mechanic for the Monk (itself a d4 class.)

Wanting to keep classes to only 2 archetypes, I knew that having Shapeshifter and Summoner under 'Druid' would mean moving the Shaman archetype off to somewhere else; stay tuned for the Guardian class in an upcoming post, if you're wondering where it ended up.

The Ranger hasn't changed a whole lot since its inception, aside from having the archetype framework added onto it; this was when the class inherited the Beastmaster archetype from a previous Summoner class. Likewise, the Druid was completed very late in Beta 3, and so hasn't seen nearly as many iterations as some other classes. Overall I think this update removes some of the clunkiness that the d8 version had, with trying to juggle its 3 archetypes.

In terms of skills, I decided to play with the math on these two classes a little bit; no guarantees I'll keep things this way, but we'll see how it shakes out in playtesting. I didn't want the Druid to be able to use its forms to always be the best at whatever the party needed for skills, so I like the interaction of the d4 class die with Expertise for them. Likewise, the Ranger using its class die for skills interacts in a neat way with its Expertise bonuses, and makes them truly the master of the outdoors.

Along with the Barbarian class (which was completed prior to kicking off "50 Days of Design") the Druid and the Ranger fit onto the slate I'm referring to as:

"Heroes of the Wilderness"

 As of right now, the previously-mentioned 'Scout' class will instead be made an archetype, under the umbrella of a 'Warrior' class; along with the Guardian, these 5 classes complete this "3rd slate."

---


Coming up on the next blogpost:

• The Cleric
• The Mystic

Check back on Nov. 30th!

Scoundrels, Swashbucklers, and Scholars -- The Rogue and The Bard (Beta 4)

Busy day, so here's a short post with the latest drafts for these classes.
Check this post tomorrow for an updated version with more info!

• The Rogue (d6)
• The Bard (d8)

*UPDATED* (11/11/2016)

In the previous Beta, there were two d6 classes: the Rogue and the Trickster.

The Rogue had 3 archetypes: the Assassin, the Scoundrel, and the Scout. Skill-wise, the Assassin favoured INT, the Scoundrel favoured STR, and the Scout favoured WIS. The Assassin was meant to be the type who lurked in the shadows, then struck with deadly precision. The Scoundrel focused more on melee combat, excelling as a brawler. The Scout was the outdoorsy rogue, with a two-weapon fighting style.

The problem I found, was that the Scoundrel grew out of a suggestion to give the Rogue incentive to be in melee. But limiting that to one archetype didn't make sense, and also I ended up with 3 archetypes that were too bare-bones. With the completion of the revised Martial Artist archetype (for the Acrobat class) the brawler-rogue seemed kind of redundant, and I had always kind of felt like Sneak Attack didn't fit with it anyway.

When I settled on the 3 slates as they are constituted now, I knew I wanted to make Scout into its own class; it's essentially the "wilderness Rogue" so it falls into a different "power source" than an Assassin. 

The thing then, was, that the Rogue was left with only one archetype...

So, the Trickster was a class I was never particularly happy with. It basically had a "lucky number" mechanic, but otherwise its main gimmick was using abilities from other classes. It also had 3 archetypes (Bard, Skald, and Sorcerer) but I was never particularly happy with any of them; the Skald was just bland, the Bard wasn't unique enough, and the Sorcerer didn't have enough meat on it.

When I was writing up my post about "Casting the Dice" I realized that the Bard needed to be a d8 class; it made sense as a jack-of-all-trades support specialist, that was comfortable at range or in melee (if not necessarily a "skirmisher" per se.) The Sorcerer made sense as a d6 class, since it was intended to be a damage-stacking class, but not particularly durable. 

And so, a connection was made: the Sorcerer would become a Rogue archetype.

What we end up with is two classes for the slate which I refer to as: 

"Heroes of Magic & Shadow"

Though mechanically the Sorcerer and the Assassin don't share much in common, the idea of them thematically as both being outsiders or renegades seems to fit. In that sense, they're sort of "two sides of the same coin," with one using arcane spellcasting, and the other as a shadowy weapon-user. They both utilize the d6 class die quite well, for its intended purposes. The Sorcerer also retains some of the "lucky number" mechanics of its prior incarnation with the Trickster class, showcasing it as a chaotic and unstable style of magician; its use of other class' abilities has been stripped down and simplified, but the flavour is still there, giving the Sorcerer two distinct "sub classes."

The Bard similarly retains the "lucky number" mechanic, with different applications depending upon the combat role they choose. Their archetypes (Scholar and Performer) serve to add a bit of flavour to the class, informing their skills selection. I am a lot happier with their new iconic abilities being closer to what has made Bards popular, however, I still consider the class to (overall) be in its infancy, so there may be more heft added to it in later revisions; the mechanics may change shape a bit, down the road.

...

The two classes I will be showcasing in my next post will be:

• The Druid
• The Ranger

Stay tuned!

Fifty Days of Design (Beta 4)

Another quick post to announce my latest plans:

10 classes in 50 days!

 As of right now, these classes are what I would call "done":

• Acrobat (d4)
• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Paladin (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

So, over the next 50 days, I'm looking to finish up the final 10 classes, each with 2 archetypes:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue (d6)
• Scout (d6)
• Cleric (d8)
• Bard (d8)
• Ranger (d8)
• Mystic (d10)
• Guardian (d10)
• Warlord (d12)
• Spellbinder (d12)

Since I am trying to post every 10 days, that works out to 2 classes for each blog post!

Some of the classes are in a more complete state than others (specifically, those from previous iterations mostly just need some tweaking) so it's not as huge a feat in some cases.

...

As a minor note, Knowledge skills have finally been moved away from the structure of other skills, in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner in terms of the language used for them. Knowledge skills will fall into 4 categories: Battlefield, Social, Exploration, and Lore.

Also, if you haven't had a look at the core rules yet, check them out here!

The Road Ahead (Beta 4)

A quick-ish post to take stock of where The Next Project is at:

About half the classes need some major form of writing; either new classes that need to be written from the ground up, archetypes that need to be added, or classes/archetypes that need to be converted from one slot to another. The other half could still use some touch-ups, but a couple of them are what I would consider "done."

The core rules are probably done; it'll just be a matter of whether playtesting turns up any bugs that need to be fixed. Movement and status effects might cause hangups.

The monster math/encounter design stuff is more or less there, in my head. So I need to put pen to paper with that, and get an updated draft ready. I also want to at least have some sample monsters rolled out, if not an entire full-length monster manual.

I also want to do up a DM guidance doc, explaining how to utilize the system from both a technical as well as an aesthetic perspective. Specifically, I want the game to support both DM-driven as well as player-driven campaigns/narratives, so there should be advice for that bundled with the system.

Compare and Contrast (Beta 4)

One of the things I wanted to do with The Next Project was to get rid of static modifiers, and instead use more dice rolling. I kind of want to limit the straight-up addition of other dice rolls to d20 rolls, but so far there is still some of that in the game.

Using Advantage, Disadvantage, Expertise and "roll and compare" mechanics allows for improving hit chance and crit range, but doing so with dice has a fun, tactile side to it; simply having +1 to hit or "18-20 crit" on your sheet doesn't give you the same kind feel.

I also like Advantage/Disadvantage better (particularly as I have defined it in this game) rather than just bigger and more numbers being added to your roll. The nice thing with the "compare and contrast" mechanics, is that they can be layered over top of Advantage/Disadvantage, without skewing the numbers the way simply adding to the roll would. It also helps to mitigate the downside of Disadvantage, and further minimize the randomness of Advantage.

For example, if you're using "roll and compare" with a d8:

• With Disadvantage, you stand a fairly good chance of matching your d8 roll, assuming you don't roll doubles with the d20s to begin with. So while statistically the Disadvantage will give you a much higher chance of rolling unsuccessfully, that d8 can potentially turn that around
• With Advantage, you gain another safety net against bad rolls, without the swinginess that greatly expanding crit range (by adding dice) would bring into the game.

Trade-offs also work to keep things interesting; even something as simple as Power Attack is more interesting when the penalties and bonuses are subject to a roll of the die, rather than being known, flat numbers. There are limited ranges though, and the math isn't too tough to figure out, for those who want to crunch the numbers and optimize their actions.

Basically, I think it all plays off of that added rush from the "gambling" aspects of it. More dice-rolling means less of the same outcomes over and over, and more randomness -- but it has to be tempered by the design elements, to keep the math within acceptable ranges. This is what makes the process of design long and challenging, but also fun.

Back to Basics (Beta 4)

One of the things I have to continually remind myself of, is that The Next Project is meant to be a distillation of the general D&D playstyle. To this end, it's important to occasionally dial back some of the more grandiose ideas that crop up. I am giving some consideration to doing an "Advanced" version (that would functionally be an expansion of the game) but I think the base game needs to focus on being simple and accessible; the typical newbie probably doesn't need to dive in at the deep end of "great RPGs of the modern era" and thus, I don't think this game needs to fully emulate everything that would entail. To this end, the skill system is going to be kept very freeform, within a simple mechanical framework.

The other thing with coming at it from this angle, is that while it's important to introduce new players to some of the D&D classes that don't quite conform to existing fiction, not every D&D class in the history of the game needs to be represented. In terms of class design, I'm moving away from "filling in the grid." I found with a lot of slots, I was staring at a class name, with no idea of how to represent it mechanically and still make it unique. The other thing is, using Archetypes as a design conceit of the game, you can take class concepts that are relatively minor or don't quite translate to this system, and still have them represented while making them play effectively.

So right now, I am planning on doing 3 slates of classes, with each class having 1-3 archetypes. As currently constituted, each slate will be composed of 1-2 "power sources." Some classes within a slate will lean towards one power source or the other, while some will have an archetype for one power source, and a second archetype for the other power source.

The idea with this is that, if the system is to be monetized at some point, each slate would be its own supplement, that you could build a party out of (similarly to how the Essentials books were laid out, in 4e.) I also have plans for a demo/starter 'party' that would borrow classes from across the slates/supplements, with one archetype for each class; barring major changes, that 'basic' slate would look like this:

• d4: Archer
• d6: Rogue
• d8: Cleric
• d10: Mystic
• d12: Barbarian

With the question of slates figured out, it's just a matter of finishing off the last few classes that need to be written/expanded upon. Then, my attention will turn to developing the DM side of the game.

Casting the Dice (Beta 4)

Occasionally I get people asking me why I've gone with the design that I have for this game, and the answer is usually, "I'm an in-the-box thinker."

Fitting within limitations is a fun thought-experiment, when it comes to design. Figuring out which classes fit with which dice thematically is one thing, but so is fitting together dice mechanics with class abilities. Something I did in preparation for Beta 4 was to work out some math (which I have talked about briefly in other places) pertaining to "roll and compare" mechanics.

What I figured out was a set of unique mechanics for a couple of the class dice, that generally would be applied to "support class"-style abilities.

• d4: When an unsuccessful d20 roll is made, roll this class die; if the d20 result does not exceed the d4 result, treat the roll as a critical success.
• d8:  When an unsuccessful d20 roll is made, roll this class die; if the d20 result equals the d8 result, treat the roll as a critical success. Otherwise, combine the rolls together.
• d12: When a d20 roll is made, roll this class die and use either result; if the d20 result equals the d12 result, treat the roll as a critical success.

Effectively what each of these mechanics do, is to turn rolls that would normally "miss" into successes or critical successes; mostly they do not turn successes into critical successes.

Now, while you can use other dice to produce similar outcomes, my experimentation found that d6 generally ended up working as either "same as the d4 but stronger" or "same as the d8, but clunkier." The same held true of the d10, when compared to the d8 or d12. This sort of works out ok, because generally the intent was to use d6 and d10 as damage-stacking classes, rather than support classes; this math just serves to outline how that kind of "ergonomic" thinking actual dovetails logically into the mechanics (i.e. every set of polyhedral dice comes with two d10s; every boardgame in history uses one or more d6s, so most households have extras they can dip into.)

Upon this, we can layer the use of class die as an effective cap on the range of results. So, for example, the Monk as a d4 class can roll their class die and make a number of attacks equal to the result; this means they will be doing 1-4 attacks on their turn, which we can modify further (with mechanics like Expertise or Advantage) but still will never exceed that range. The Beta 3 version of the Mystic had a similar mechanic, but using d10s with Disadvantage; this ends up a bit clunkier, and with a higher (if statistically less likely) top range.  Also, the d4 "support" mechanic specifically is a straight increase in crit chance rather than "hit" chance, which makes it distinct from the other support mechanics.

Likewise, d12 as a class die translates to higher HP and more Reserves, thus informing that these classes should generally be inclined towards the middle of the fray, with perhaps fewer options for outright damage mitigation. So, it was decided back in Beta 3 that d12 classes' niche should be in melee, or possibly built around burning those resources (HP or Reserves) to fuel more-powerful effects. A unique thing about the d12 is that it's the only class die that dips into the "hit" range (aside from the d10, which ends up a little weird, being that it can only "hit" on one number.)

With d8, we end up with something that's sort of "middle of the road." It works well as a support class, if we use the class die mechanic introduced above, but it also works well (I think) for a class that is meant to dabble between melee and range (as the d8 Ranger class has done, since the beginnings of The Next Project) but leans more on the "core" dice mechanics. The d8 is interesting in that its range covers most of the "miss" range on the d20, but none of the "hit" range.

So if d10 and d6 are meant to mostly be damage-stacking classes, this gives us two "flavours" for that sort of design space; one that can take a few hits and mix it up in melee, and one that probably can't/shouldn't. The existing Sorcerer (d6) archetype and Paladin (d10) class from previous versions illustrate this the best, I think.

Taken on the whole, the various mechanics paint a roadmap to how any future classes should be built:

• d4: multi-attacking classes / high crit support
• d6: ranged damage-stacking
• d8: "skirmishing" style combatant / good hit support
• d10: melee damage-stacking
• d12: melee combatant / minor hit support

Building upon the foundations established in previous posts, we can fiddle with this a little bit, by letting d4 or d6 classes use 2 class dice for certain things. However, I've found that mixing this sort of "doubling" with "roll and compare" mechanics is a bit clunky; I want to keep those things separated, for the most part.

Classes & Slates (Beta 4)

Towards the tail end of Beta 3, the first two slates of classes were finalized, with two classes for each Class Die. That looked like this:

• d4: Mage, Monk
• d6: Rogue, Trickster
• d8: Ranger, Druid
• d10: Paladin, Mystic
• d12: Warrior, Warlord

Now, each class had at least 2 archetypes. Sometimes archetypes were "Roles" and other times they were subclasses. In some instances, archetypes served to put classes with similar fluff and skillsets together, despite having different mechanics.

The other notable thing is that there was a distinct split between the two slates; the first was mostly fighty-types, and the second was mostly magic-users. So the idea came to me that I should try and have a slate of "martial" and a slate of "magical" (a slate being one of each Class Die.) The problem comes with the fact that in the d12 slot, there were two very decidedly-martial classes, and that shortly after finishing the first 10 classes, I came up with an 11th (the Archer, a d4 class.)

The solution was to try and have more slates:

Monk and Paladin would be the beginnings of the Divine slate.

Druid and Warrior would be put into the Primal slate.

Archer, Rogue, Ranger, and Warlord would just about make a complete Martial slate.

Mage, Trickster, and Mystic would likewise form a strong base for the Arcane slate.

This presents the problem of trying to "fill in the grid."

What does a d12 Arcane class look like?

Should archetypes that are 'mechanically' closest to being their own class, be split off? Or should it be archetypes that better fit a slate thematically, that get moved over (even if this results in 2 or more classes with very similar mechanics?)

Another concern is that abilities were already starting to get borrowed between the first 10 classes, so expanding that out further might just serve to compound that problem.

Instead of focusing on making full slates thematically, it might be better to simply fill slates mechanically -- such that each class die has the same number of character options to choose from.

Stolen from the Apocalypse (Beta 4)

Continuing on the topic of how to group skills, if bonuses are to be doled out based on thematic groupings, then it seems like borrowing the idea of class-specific moves vs. "basic moves" might be a direction to explore.

General rules for using Combat skills might prescribe a Basic Ability and/or Skillset to use when taking a particular Combat action, such as Grappling, for example:

"When you attempt to bodily restrain an opponent, roll FORT"

"When you attempt to escape a grapple, roll AGIL" 

"When you attempt to initiate, reverse, or escape a grapple, roll Athletics" 

Likewise, so-called "Background Skills" could be made into class-specific moves:

Paladin: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Religion, Royalty, or Nobility, roll CHA

Cleric: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Religion, roll INT or WIS

Ranger: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Nature or Geography, roll WIS

Bard: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Geography or History, roll INT or Knowledge

Wizard: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Arcana or History, roll INT 

And so on, in that fashion.
Since we're using d20 math, I've decided to go with the following skill bonuses:

• Trained: roll 2d20 and use the higher result (i.e Advantage)
• Proficient: add 1d6 to the roll
• Expertise: (whether combined with either of the above, or not) treat any 1s rolled as maximum value on the die

Whether you are Trained or Proficient in a skill would be mutually exclusive; in the end, this all works out to give us some values that fall roughly in line with the established baselines, coming out of the Apocalypse. The use of a Proficiency die breaks from the idea of using Class Die + d20 for all of the mechanics, but it makes the math easier to keep consistent.

The ranges established in previous iterations of The Next Project are going to be used, and also follow from the d20 combat math:

• <10: bad
• 10-19: good
• 20+: very good

Most likely, in-combat skill usage will have 'bad' rolls and 'good' rolls just be normal 'miss'  or 'hit' (respectively) rather than have complications; outside of combat, skills can be made more involved. 

The next step is to add a bunch of words to all of these skills/moves. 

Skills set? (Beta 4)

The Next Project has never used ability scores, in the traditional sense (i.e. a numeric value from which you derive a modifier, which is then applied to both combat and out-of-combat statistics and rolls.) Instead, the combat has used d20 and Class Dice for its parameters. Skills, on the other hand...

In many ways, this and other games I've designed/hacked are attempts at combining a few different ideas to make something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

5th Edition D&D had the idea of being able to combine proficiency in a particular skill with any one ability score/modifier, as reasonable (although in the final product, the two end up more or less married together.) I liked that idea, but I think things need to be more defined than that.

The idea I came up with borrows from 4th Edition D&D. You'll notice that "fighty" classes have a few skills in common on their class skill lists, namely Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate. The problem is, each of these keys off of a different ability score, so it's hard for any of these classes to be good at all of these skills (even though it thematically makes sense that they would be.) Similarly, if you compare the class skill list of Rogue with that of Blackguard, you can start to see something resembling a formula, at work.

So from all of this, I came up with the idea of a skill, or skills, being Basic Abilities (ability scores, without the 'score' part) crossed with Skillsets. "Rogueish" skills fell under one skillset, so making a class rogueish out-of-combat was as simple as granting them a bonus to that skillset. Likewise, "fighty" skills were put under one Basic Ability, so that warrior classes could easily be made strong and intimidating.

The problem came with what eventually came to be known as "Background Skills." It still made sense to put performance-type skills and knowledge skills under Basic Abilities, in theory, but in practice it ended up shoehorning and pigeonholing classes in weird ways. The end result is that the elegant application of bonuses to either a skillset or a Basic Ability got broken into something more clunky and/or granular.


Now, one of the core aims here is to make sure classes have utility in all types of non-combat encounters. The grouping of skills into Skillsets and Basic Abilities doesn't actually ensure this, because both groups tend to include skills from two or more "pillars." An idea I had had previously (but never followed through on) was to instead group skills by the type of encounter they are used in. This would necessarily require some of the broad skills to be broken into multiple smaller ones; skillsets could still be used to link skills in some fashion, but it would probably be more logical to just abandon them. On the other hand, the elegance of the system would be lost, if skills were to be solitary and de-coupled, and then parcelled out as long Class Lists.

Another problem that presents itself is how Stealth and Perception factor in. Finding hidden things vs. trying not to be found is sort of a concept that almost constitutes its own type of encounter, but could also be tacked onto or worked into other sorts of encounters. This sort of has led me to conclude that these skills should sort of be its own "4th pillar" that can dovetail into the other three (Combat, Exploration, and Social.)

Doubling Down (Beta 4)

It was pointed out that rolling twice should be something that was highlighted in the rules a bit more, so that's going to be presented a bit more "front and centre" in the upcoming draft. I'm also working to make these rules more concise and formal; generally you won't roll more than 2 of the same die as part of any action.

Furthermore, with the Beta 3 changes to HP and the introduction of Reserves, I've found a few more knobs to fiddle with. Pertaining specifically to d4 and d6 classes, you can expect to see some double-dipping on class die, as follows:

• Basic Attacks: for some classes, these will deal 2 dice of damage, based on their area of specialty (as seen previously with the Archer as a ranged example, and the Swordmage for melee)
• Base HP and Reserves: expect classes that are focused on melee/taking a beating to have their class die values doubled, when calculating HP and Reserves

As you might guess, this blows the design possibilities for d4 and d6 classes wide open. However, a 2d4 class apes a d8 class, and a 2d6 class apes a d12 class. This is a positive development though, since it allows me to scale certain classes up or down, and thus better slot in the new classes that are on the drawing board.

In particular, I'm considering scaling the Druid down from d8; it might work as a d6 class, or a d4 class that gains its doubling perks while shapeshifted. Or, perhaps the Shaman archetype could be split off as a d4 class, since the Mage has shown us that it can be a good die for support and enabling. Similarly, an Invoker class that burns Reserves to fuel their combat effects might not work with just 4 or 6 Reserves at their disposal; doubling that amount, but keeping them as a smaller-die class could prove interesting.

I have already put a fair share of work into a d6 Fighter, that would be separate from the d12 Warrior class (which will likely change back to being named 'Barbarian'.)