The Road Ahead (2018)

Today I'm going to go with a rough overview of the changes you can expect to see in the upcoming draft.

Classes
Whereas in Beta 4, I wanted to develop and refine all 15 classes in concert with one another, in the 2018 Edition I'm planning to first implement the classes planned for use with the "starter slate."

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

Once the full versions of these classes are completed, their starter versions will simply remove some of the decision points, i.e. Subclasses for Sage and Ranger will be picked automatically (Wizard and Hunter, respectively) as will things like skills and Archetypes, for all classes.

I do intend to to keep all of the 15 classes from the previous version, but they will be rolled out over time, rather than all at once.

Leveling

Right now, the intention is to have 5 levels of progression (though I am not 100% decided on whether characters will start at level 1 or level 0.) This means that ideally, we want each class loadout (i.e. Subclass only/ Subclass + Archetype/ Archetype only/ Role + Archetype/ Role only) to have at least 5 possible upgrades to purchase (ideally, more.)

Archetypes, additional Roles, skill training, and Power Sources have been identified as upgrades that can be bought using the leveling process, i.e. Experience Points (XP). Now it becomes a matter of unifying class structures, such that those upgrades can be moved off of their current frameworks without breaking anything. Instances of Power Sources tied to Subclasses (for example) will need to be reworked.

Slate upgrades are definitely something I will want to include as purchasable upgrades, though similar upgrades for "Categories" (i.e. loadouts) are currently up in the air.

It's also intended that in lieu of purchasing an upgrade to your current class, XP can be used to change your class, within certain parameters. Currently, the intent is that you don't have to spend XP as soon as you earn it, but also that at earlier levels, changing your class would not come at an XP cost. This is meant to make it easier for newer players to ease into their class, or make changes to their character if they find the class they picked is not the right fit.

Backgrounds

My intention for handling Performance skills, is that they will be on their own progression track (i.e. gaining 'ranks' in them will not be purchased with the same currency as other upgrades) and this track will only be unlocked for certain classes and/or Archetypes.

As for Knowledge skills, I am moving away from the structure I had written about previously. Instead, one of two possible paths will be integrated into the rules (or possibly both will be presented as options.)

The first method is to keep Power Sources as an upgrade (much as they currently exist in the designs) but instead of granting training with 3 knowledge skills, they would instead grant training to one skill, and Expertise to one skill. Depending on the Power Source, this might mean training with one skill and Expertise with another, or both benefits to one skill. Layered onto this, characters would have a Knowledge progression track, where they would gain 1 benefit per level (either training with an untrained skill, or Expertise with a trained skill.)

The alternate method is to adopt something more akin to the 13th Age system for Backgrounds. Specifically, I would get rid of granular Knowledge skills entirely, and instead have knowledge checks rely solely on your Power Sources. Two possible ways of handling this immediately present themselves:

1) Simply replace the 5-level Knowledge progression track with a Power Source progression track -- you gain training with a Power Source or Expertise with a trained Power Source, each level, or;

2) You gain Power Sources more or less as currently devised within the system -- having one Power Source applicable to the knowledge check in question would provide the benefit of training, and having more than one would grant Expertise to the check.

Combat Math

Behind the scenes, I've been working on crunching out the damage of various existing (and potentially future) attack routines. Broadly, the designs are moving towards more streamlined dice usage, including previously-outlined changes, using things like Advantage and Expertise. Another important change is to the assumed baselines for damage.

I've mentioned before that earlier playtests showed classes doing around 15 DPR, and that I had been using that as my benchmark. Through the process of working on the math, I've moved the target to 13.5 DPR; I found that it's quite a bit easier to fit the smaller dice (in particular) under this guideline. As an example, an attack dealing 2d12 damage, with both Expertise and the Reliable property, hits this mark almost exactly -- a reasonable attack routine to use as a base.

For d6 classes, I am trying to move the designs towards the "universal" maximum of 24 damage, with a situational perk that can boost it to 30 (i.e. an additional d6.) In their preexisting versions, Fighters get an additional d6 against prone targets, and Rogues get an additional d6 when attacking an enemy they are already Engaged with. The trick will be in trying to make the "universal" numbers more reliable -- specifically, the Rogue and the Guardian rely a bit heavily on situational damage boosts. One thing I have found effective in patching this, is granting double damage on critical hits (typically in conjunction with boosts to crit chance) so expect to see this benefit implemented widely, particularly for d6 classes.

Blog Scheduling

I would like to keep up with posting roughly 3x per month/once every 10 days, as I have been. I'm not 100% sure on which rotation I'll go with for 2018, but I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. In either case, there will be 5 posts over January and February, 1 post in late July, and 1 post in early-mid December; all other months, I should be able to do 3 posts.

The next blog update will be about a month from today, so check back then!

A New Start

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


The Basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same Class, Different Dice

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

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


Making the Selections

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

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

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

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


Updating & Integrating

So here's the final lineup:

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

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

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

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


Next Post

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

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

Back to Basics -- Part 2: Numbers & Nomenclature

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

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


Expertise

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

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

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

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

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


Advantage

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

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

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

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


Damage on a Miss

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

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

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


Basic Attacks, Power Attack, and Counter-attack

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

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

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

To this:

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

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


Basic Abilities and Iconic Abilities

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

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

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

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


Blogging/Scheduling

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

Know Your Role (Beta 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Casting the Dice -- Part 2: The New Ethos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hit chance + (crit chance * 3) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Halloween!

Deconstructing Archetypes (Beta 4)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Expansionism -- Part 2: The Lost Children

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

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

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

• Dragon
• Drider
• Sphinx
• Centaur/Minotaur

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

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

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

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

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

So who got left out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Subtypes -- Part 2: Slates & Progression

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

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

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

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

What this leaves us with is 5 distinctions between classes:

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

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

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

So what does this all mean for progression?

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

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

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

Knowledge is Power! (Beta 4)

Further to the previous topic of skill difficulties, I've also been looking into Knowledge skills, Power Sources, and how those two things relate to each other in The Next Project.

I touched on it a little bit in a previous post -- specifically, the thought experiment of limiting playable classes based on power source, and how that might impact class design. In brief, I've decided that such limitations in this system should be done at the class slate level, rather than the power source level (I may go into this in greater detail in a future post.)

What this allows me to do is worry less about how a power source will lead to inclusion/exclusion of a class, and just use them to ascribe background details, as they are intended. With that being said, I've found that there are some tweaks that I might want to make, and that some mismatches currently exist in terms of Knowledge skills as they pertain to class design.

Having a skill like "Geography" strictly limited to Primal characters has started to seem out of place, and even though all classes get at least two power sources, Primal is more hard to come by than some others. "Streetwise" is in a similar spot, where it could/should be more broadly available without needing access to the Shadow power source. On the other side of the coin, a class like Druid not having access to some sort of medicinal (or expressly herbalist) skill kind of shows the cracks in the system.

I'm thinking the best solution to this is to first expand the number of skills on each Power Source's list; this may result in some skills appearing more often than others and leading to overlap. So, the second part of this fix is to simply allow characters to choose a number of skills from the power source lists that they qualify for. Currently, characters end up getting 5 or 6 knowledge skills, so I am leaning towards a straight "pick 5" rule for this. Since each power source will likely grow from 3 knowledge skills to 4, this would necessitate every character having skills from at least 2 power sources.

For character types that are intended to be widely knowledgeable or skillful -- such as the Sage, Bard, and Adventurer -- this can be reflected mechanically in a few ways. One option is allowing them to pick their power sources more freely; another would be letting them pick skills from more than just two power sources. I may still consider simply allowing them to gain more skills than other characters, but I think 5 is a lot to begin with, and I'd prefer to have a rule that is more uniform (particularly since "core" skills are already handled on a class-by-class basis.) Another lever that we can play around with, is granting classes Expertise on certain knowledge skills (or all of them.)

I was probably going to want to go through each of the classes and juggle or reassign power sources anyway. Now that I have a new framework in mind for their implementation, it gives an additional reason or consideration for when I set out to do the actual writing.

Skill Difficulties (Beta 4)

I'm slowly but surely going over the core components of the game, piece by piece; one of the things I wanted to touch on is the skill system, and how the difficulty should generally be approached.

There are essentially 4 different levels of competency that characters can have with a given Skillset/Basic Ability:

1. untrained: an unmodified d20 roll
2. expertise: a d20 roll where a 1 is treated as a 20
3. trained: a d20 roll, modified by adding a d6 roll
4. trained+expertise: a combination of both; a 1 on the d20 is treated as a 20, and a 1 on the d6 is treated as a 6, and both rolls are added together

A success is when the result is in the 10-19 range, with anything lower being a failure, and anything higher being a critical success, as outlined in the rules. However, on top of this, the "DM" needs to make additional considerations when asking for a roll -- which also brings up the key consideration that players should not just roll skills, unless prompted by the DM.

Essentially, the players should be describing a desired action or course of action to the DM; from there, the DM judges whether this aligns with a skill (or skills) and asks for a roll if one is necessary. How is that determination made? Well, generally there should be an understanding within the group of what level of "magic" or "fantasy" (or "realism") their campaign entails; depending on this, some actions may be trivially easy, challenging, or impossible. 

If something is either "trivially easy" or "impossible," then the DM should not ask for a roll, and should explain as such; a trivially easy task just succeeds, and an impossible one cannot even be attempted, or the characters know it cannot succeed, forcing them into an alternate course of action. Whether something is trivially easy (or challenging) can be weighed against a particular character's competency with an applicable skill. For instance, a character with both training and expertise in climbing may be able to treat that action as not requiring a roll (under certain circumstances) while an untrained character in the same circumstances must make a roll (as it is effectively "challenging" for them.)

The other consideration to make when asking for a roll, is whether failure is realistic or interesting, and what the outcome of the failure could (or should) be. If there is nothing "at stake" then there's no sense in rolling. 

The specific example that often comes to mind is "picking a locked door." If the characters are being chased, there is a time pressure; failure to pick the lock means the protagonists have lost time, during which their pursuers have gained ground on them. If the characters are trying to be subtle, then a failure to pick the lock means that the door must be broken down -- this solves the problem in a way that can increase the odds of detection, either by being loud, or the prospect of leaving behind evidence of their presence (in the form of the destroyed door.)

So where does this leave having Advantage on a roll? 

Well, the intention of this mechanic (as it pertains to skill checks) is to provide characters an opportunity to spend a limited resource, and gain a better chance of success on a skill that their character would normally not perform well at. Narratively, this can be described as a feat of superhuman perseverance, sheer willpower, adrenaline, magic, or just plain luck -- as the player sees fit. Mechanically, using Advantage on a skill roll should not cause an adjustment of the difficulty, once it has been established that a roll is needed for success. Advantage (statistically) has a comparable success rate to making a trained skill check -- the difference is in the chance for critical success, which is much more likely on a trained check.

-----

As an aside, the classes from the slate "Heroes of the Wilderness" (that use a class die other than d6) were all given additional skill mechanics, utilizing their class die -- either instead of, or in conjunction with their "training" die. Since this slate of classes is more narrowly focused in terms of theme (and therefore skills) I felt it was fair to give them a little extra boost to their skills. I had already worked out most of the math for these mechanics, so I wanted to use them somewhere, and this seemed like a reasonable fit. If there is negative feedback about the resulting mechanics, I will probably just take them out.

-----

Schedules are a little disjointed as of late, but I'm still hoping to get 3 posts in this month; next post will be in 7 or 8 days, most likely.

Subtypes (Beta 4)

Probably for the next big revision of the game, I will want to look into changing the jargon pertaining to character options. Here's the current wording, explained:

• Subclass: "mandatory combat role" is how I generally refer to this. At the start of combat, you have to pick one, or else your class doesn't function. Examples: Druid [Shapeshifter/Summoner], Guardian [Shaman/Warden], Mystic [Necromancer/Warlock]
• Path: essentially your "mandatory Archetype." Paths are generally distinct classes that have been put under the umbrella of a single class, for different reasons. Examples: Cleric [Crusader/Invoker], Sage [Monk/Wizard], Rogue [Assassin/Sorcerer]
• Archetype: these basically serve to narrow a class down into a more specific "flavour" or niche; currently, Archetypes are not mechanically necessary in order for classes with them to function. Some classes can choose an Archetype in addition to a Subclass, Path, or Role.
• Role: this hews fairly close to the 4e D&D combat roles. Similarly to Archetypes, it is not mechanically necessary to pick one; they narrow the focus of your character, and can be selected at the start of combat. Currently, the following roles are used in the text: Defender, Striker, Controller, Support.

Archetypes and Paths are both locked in at character creation; Paths are mandatory, Archetypes are not.
Roles and Subclasses are both selected at the start of combat; Subclasses are mandatory, Roles are not.
It's also worth noting that Paths, Roles, and Subclasses do not overlap each other, on any class; classes with these options may, however, also have Archetypes.

I think the problem is that each of these keywords seems to convey a sense of permanency, but only two of them actually are (and one of those is optional.) "Subclass" is the word that seems the biggest misnomer. At one point, "Archetype" covered what would now include Archetypes, Subclasses, and Paths (and all were mandatory); "Subclass" was just a placeholder that was used to pull those specific options out from under the larger umbrella.

Should Subclasses be merged into Roles? It seems like one of the simpler options -- Roles would have to become mandatory to facilitate this, though, which would increase some of the complexity for those classes (Fighter, Warlord, Bard, Adventurer, and Barbarian.) The problem then becomes that the existing Subclasses don't feel like "Roles" so a new piece of jargon may need to be invented to replace them both.

Should Subclasses be reclassified as "Combat Paths" and Roles as "Combat Archetypes"? It would be nice to have one word for "mandatory" customization, and one for "optional" that could then each have a "combat" or similar tag added, to specify when those options could be invoked.

I'm going to give this all some serious consideration, and see which loadout I like most. Then, that will make its appearance in the next iteration of the rules text.

Getting Back on Track (Beta 4)

I'm about a month behind schedule on updating the blog, but now that the days are getting shorter again, I think it's time to get back to working on TNP. I might not continue with posting three times per month, but I'd like to keep it to at least twice.

So here are the thoughts that I have been kicking around, as of late:
I never completely finished crunching out the math for all of the classes that are currently in the game, because myself and (probably) a few of my followers were super hyped just to see the system in action, so I went ahead with some playtests. And largely, what that testing seemed to indicate was that the d4 classes in particular were underperforming, in terms of damage. (As a side note, the Sage was pretty thoroughly crunched out, and subsequently beefed up -- but was not playtested.)

Part of the problem (it seemed) was having so many classes meant that some got the "really good" mechanics, and others were missing out. There was some consideration given to paring down the class slates (from 3 to 2) and what shape that would take, but I wasn't really satisfied with those options. Instead, I am going to try and focus on fixing the underlying math, and coming up with more mechanics, so that each class is unique and interesting.

Ultimately, the problem with the d4 paradigm is trying to hit all the damage benchmarks (specifically, an average DPR of 15, with a cap of 24.) And, compounding that challenge, is trying to do so without needing to make excessive numbers of dice rolls. The results of trying to address this can be seen in the "4.1 version" of the Druid; this introduces the "Druidic Focus" mechanic, which is essentially a banked 2d4 roll, that is reused for a wide majority of the class' abilities.

With this in place, I went on to look at the Acrobat. Currently, they have an AoE ability, which does a number of attacks equal to the result on a d4 roll, each dealing 1d4 damage. When I crunched this out, it's easy to see that the damage is too low -- but, a connection was made. Essentially, the formula needs to be closer to this:

[1d4 attacks * 2d4 damage] or [2d4 attacks * 1d4 damage]

This gives us a maximum of 4 * 8 = 32 damage. While we want the cap to be 24, I'm already making allowances for d10 classes to cap out at 30 (for obvious mathematical reasons) with d6 classes given similar leeway (since they too are intended to be damage-stacking classes.) As usual, things like Expertise and "double roll" mechanics can be used to tinker with the averages for this d4 formula. It also avoids the problem of having massive crits, from using d20s to supplement damage rolls.

With that in mind, I had a thought for another mechanic that could be unique to d4 classes:
auto-damage.
The current math essentially filters all damage through a 60% (for basic attacks) hit-rate, requiring a bunch of d4s in order to hit the benchmarks. If that mechanical restriction is removed, it makes it easier to achieve those same results, with fewer dice. For example, we can roughly hit the average DPR and the cap by simply using 6d4 or 1d4+1d20 for damage, where filtering through hit-rate math would require closer to 11d4 of damage.

For an iconic ability such as Magic Missile, auto-damage is a historical fit; that ability may be changed to use this new mechanic, instead of its current setup. The current Magic Missile mechanics would then be freed up, to be hung onto other classes.

To Be Continued?

I'm already a little behind on my final post for this month, so I'm just quickly writing to say that it'll be a while before the next update. Life's been busy as of late, the rules for Solo monsters aren't quite ready yet, and I was planning on taking a break from the blog in July anyway.

I've done a little bit more playtesting, and it's clear that some classes still need some work, or possibly that the damage math as a whole needs to be retooled. Hopefully it is something that can be solved, but it may mean a major overhaul (and a redraft of the rules is probably overdue, anyway.)

I will be aiming to have another post ready sometime in August, but if things go better than expected, I may be able to squeeze one out before the end of July.


Take care!

Monster Math -- Part 3: Standards & Elites

Standard Monsters

When building an encounter, your standard monster should have about the same HP as a PC would; this gives us a range between 24 and 32. However, in terms of budgeting, we should use two standard monsters per one PC; as such, we can adjust the HP of standard monsters up or down. For example, you could have one monster with 20 HP and another with 36 HP to account for the encounter budget value of one PC.

Standard monsters will use the "monster roll" of 1d6+1d10 for damage, but this damage can be split across two "attacks" i.e. triggering two separate Defense rolls from the PC target. Standard monsters also use 1d6+1d10 for all of their rolls.

As touched on in a previous post, we can customize different monsters by applying bonuses or penalties to different rolls (skill checks, initiative checks, damage, and opportunity attacks.) This is how our monsters will primarily set themselves apart from one another.


Elite Monsters

An elite monster should have double the HP of one PC. Elites gain Advantage on damage rolls; this functions similarly to the "double roll and stack" rule, except that both dice can be treated as maximum value. While it shouldn't be necessary, the DM can choose to "pull punches" and only maximize one (or neither) of the dice.

Elite monsters cannot be Intimidated unless they are Bloodied. In addition, they do not take extra damage from attacks that are critical successes; these types of successes against Elites can still be "banked" for Advantage later in the same encounter.

Generally, DMs should use more than one elite monster in an encounter (if they are going to use them at all); PCs will often focus on the biggest, baddest enemy, so sometimes it's a good idea to make it harder to prioritize a single target. An elite monster uses the encounter budget value of one PC.

I wanted to give elite monsters a few more perks, so as a special rule, they do not roll for initiative. Instead, they simply act on the highest initiative rolled for the monsters, by the DM. This also serves to set a limit on elites in terms of encounter budgeting; there must be at least one non-elite monster in every encounter group (to roll initiative for any elites in the encounter.)


-----

Next post should be up on June 25th, where I hope to touch on Solo encounters, as well as polish up some of the monster rules a bit more.

Monster Math -- Part 2: Minions & Swarms

In a previous post (where I touched on encounter-building) I had figured out that the budget/ratio for minions would be about 10 HD per 1 PC.

We want to give the DM some tools with which to construct their encounters, so both minions and swarms will be built off of this same budget, but with distinct mechanics, to help differentiate them from one another.


Minions
One of the things that was touched on in the last Monster Math post was that we don't want "cheap" enemies (such as minions) to be able to overwhelm the PCs with skill checks. With this is mind, we're going to bend the core mechanics a little: instead of needing to roll a 10 or higher to succeed at a skill check, minions need to roll a number equal to or lower than their current HD. Their skill checks will still use the universal "monster roll" of 1d6 and 1d10.

When a minion takes the "Use a Skill" action, the DM makes a monster roll, and can then decide which skill to use. Minions will have their skills rated as follows:

• Poor: use the d10 result
• Fair: use the d6 result
• Good: use either die result for the check

With this setup in mind, we'll want to cap the number of HD that a minion can have. For example, a 6 HD minion would succeed at a "Fair" check without needing to roll. As such, minions should have less than 5 HD; minions with 5 or more HD will be treated as swarms.

In terms of damage, minions do not roll, but instead simply deal damage equal to their current HD (meaning they deal less damage as they take damage themselves.) Further, when minions target a PC, it does not provoke a Defense roll; the damage is simply automatic, to facilitate faster DM turns. Notably, minions will only deal damage to a single target, and they will be treated as one enemy for the purposes of PC attacks.

Swarms

So while they will essentially be minions of 5 HD or more, swarms will operate a little differently than their minion counterparts. Firstly, they will use the same skill mechanism as Standard or Elite monsters; roll 1d6+1d10, and succeed on a 10 or higher. Also, swarms will be limited to using only melee attacks.

Where swarms really set themselves apart from minions is in targeting:

For the purpose of PCs using attacks:

• unengaged swarms count as multiple enemies
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom count as one enemy

For the purpose of dealing damage:

• unengaged swarms may deal their damage to a single target
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom must split their damage amongst PCs in that maelstrom

What this does is that it makes loose swarms more dangerous in terms of their ability to "focus fire" but also makes them easier to deal damage to; swarms that are part of a maelstrom are harder to damage, but are less deadly to a single target if the party chooses to gang up on the swarm. We also need to cap the maximum number of HD that swarms can have; I think that 10-15 is a good range, if we reverse-engineer from the HP of our PCs. 

Encounter Guidelines

While we have established that 1 PC = 10 HD worth of minions or swarms, we need to further cap this number in terms of the numbers used to build an entire encounter. The reason for this, is because of the nature of minions and swarms dealing damage automatically.

Since PCs cap out at 32 HP, this means we should never have a combined number of enemies with more than this number of HD in an encounter; we don't want minions or swarms to be able to focus fire and kill one or more PCs before they can even act. The general expectation I have set for myself when building monsters, is that an "average" fight should be able to take the PCs down to half their maximum HP (around 15.)

This sets a good range for us: 15 to 30 HD. Since we know minions and swarms get weaker as the fight goes on (and they take damage) we can skew "hard" encounters towards the higher end of that range, but keep easier fights at the lower end.

-----

Next post should be about Standard & Elite monsters, so look for that on (or after) June 15th!

Change Log [2017/05/25] (Beta 4)

Some more changes/updates, mostly coming out of the playtest:

• [Core Rules] Each character can make only one skill check per turn
• [Core Rules] Intimidate now only requires the Immobilized condition; Elite monsters will still require the Bloodied condition
• [Core Rules] Clarified the rules around Teleport; you cannot move to or from High Ground using teleportation, unless specifically allowed by the ability
• [Core Rules] Abilities with the [Form] keyword all can now be activated as part of an initiative check, or activated/changed as a Move Action
• [Core Rules] HP rules clarified; maximum can be exceeded during combat but extra is lost at the end of the encounter
• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Weakened" condition when applied to skill checks with Advantage
• Assassin's skill expertise changed to "all untrained skills from your core skills lists"
• Assassin can no longer Stealth after using Sneak Attack ability to deal d20 bonus damage
• Skald's Inspiring Shout granted attack changed; instead of "double roll and stack in place of attack or damage" it is now "double roll; stack in place of attack, OR use higher in place of damage"
• Skald's intimidate checks changed so that they can target any bloodied enemies
• Spellbinder's intimidate checks changed so that they can target enemies with sigil or hex without needing them to be Immobilized
• Swordmage can now make a melee basic attack OR a skill check as part of a teleport (not both)
• Spellbinder's skill training options altered slightly
• [Cleric] Bless changed to a minor action, but now only benefits 1 ally. Also gains the [Sustaining] keyword.
• [Cleric] Divine Smite basic attacks still get advantage on the damage roll, but can now stack the damage if an ally is engaged with the target; Life Domain smite basic attack now heals a Nearby ally OR one engaged with the target; War Domain can now make divine smite basic attacks as a minor action
• [Cleric] Crusader gets advantage on Opportunity Attacks; changed the Crusader's iconic attack from "make a basic roll and use either result for damage" to "you can power attack with this ability; you gain Advantage on the attack rolls if you do."
• [Cleric] Invoker gains a Minor Action self-teleport and a Move Action to shift enemies; Invoker's reserve-burning damage on iconic attack now does damage, hit or miss.

Monster Math -- Part 1: Rolls & Actions

Today I'm going to start talking about some of the basics behind the monster design for The Next Project (with apologies to Bobby "Boris" Pickett, for the horrible pun in the title.)

The most immediate things we need to consider are what actions the monsters can take, and what rolls they can or will actually make. Where this system fundamentally differs from most d20 games, is that the players are always rolling to determine the result of an attack (whether they are making the attack, or suffering one.) Notably, this means that monsters will never deal a critical "hit" to the PCs. This also narrows down the the types and numbers of rolls that monsters will make, quite significantly. The list of what remains looks something like this:

• Initiative checks
• Skill checks
• Damage rolls
• Opportunity Attacks

While specific monsters may also be able to make Trade-offs (depending on their ability sets) those are pretty much it for monster rolls.

For initiative checks, we can give monsters a separate "score" or "bonus" for the roll, or we can have them simply use a skill, as the PCs do. In terms of actual skill checks, monsters (by necessity) only need to be assigned Training or Expertise with Combat skills, rather than also needing other "core" skills, or "background" skills. So that narrows down the list of specific skills that monsters need a "score" for to this list:

• STR: Brawl (including grapple/reverse grapple, and shove), Break Objects, Climb, Intimidate
• AGIL: Escape, Tumble, Jump, Stealth
• WIS: Perception

Now, we may want to limit which skills certain types of monsters can use. To wit, monsters that appear in larger numbers probably should not be able to simply overwhelm the PCs and mitigate their tactics through the sheer volume of skill checks they can make. This is another limitation we should consider, which can also serve to help simplify the job of the DM.

In terms of damage, monsters should be doing about 10 damage per "hit," as was outlined in a previous post. To come up with this result, I am proposing that we should use 1d6+1d10 for our monster damage rolls; this can also be used for their Opportunity Attacks, but we can apply bonuses separately to each of these types of rolls, in order to help flavour and differentiate our monsters.

The reason behind this thinking comes from its use in a previous untitled RPG that I wrote, and my familiarity with it, statistically. This dice expression produces a result with an average of 9, having all numbers from 7 through 11 be equally likely (10% each.) This damage caps out at 16, which is just over half the HP of the average PC. Using existing game language such as Expertise and "double roll" mechanics, we can increase the minimum and average results of this dice expression, without increasing the maximum; these tools will be used to further diversify our rogue's gallery.

To further streamline the DM's job of controlling the party's antagonists, monster skill checks will use this same roll. This means that monsters will not be capable of reaching the statistical benchmarks that PCs can (in terms of their baseline skill effectiveness, and capability to critically succeed) but it does allow the DM to roll the same dice regardless of the action a monster ends up taking. Potentially, the DM could decide the action after seeing the result of the roll, or such a perk could be limited to certain monster types.

In order for this unique type of roll to fit within the game's existing mechanical framework, we'll have to make some adjustments and specific exceptions for when these elements interact with monsters. In particular, things like Advantage or Disadvantage (as well as statuses which may grant them) will need to be ironed out.

...

Next blogpost will be another change log, but following that, the Monster Math series will continue, at least until the "summer break" (and possibly after) which begins in late June.

Playtesting (Beta 4)

We put together a party of 5 for the playtest game, with each Class Die represented.
Here's what the composition looked like:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Invoker] (d8)
• Paladin [Blackguard] (d10)
• Spellbinder [Swordmage] (d12)

Some of my thoughts so far:

Druid

The boosts to maximum HP from Wildshape don't functionally do anything, since there is no cap on "overhealing" when you're in combat. Overall, the class needs damage boosts, and the Summoner in particular needs some improvements to get rolling faster, since combat is so short. The form of the Great Eagle is meant to be for utility, but might not be useful enough to see much play. I'm strongly considering giving the Druid a healer ability, because the class might not have enough to do, and it feels weird not having one.

Assassin

Overall, the class seems to function well; it definitely does a lot of damage (as intended) but there still doesn't seem to be enough incentive to get into melee. I might end up limiting the use of combat skills to 1/turn. I'm also considering limiting the d20 bonus damage ability of the Assassin, so that you cannot become hidden on the same turn that it is utilized.

Invoker

Since this class relies on area attacks to hit its damage benchmarks (and its area attacks are so reliant on positioning) I'm going to look at giving the Invoker some "battlefield control" abilities, such as being able to either shift or teleport enemies into a maelstrom. Bless also didn't get much love; as a standard action, it is very powerful, but perhaps this is mitigated (again) by the short combat. I'm considering changing it to a minor action, but curbing its potency in some fashion.

Blackguard

As with the Assassin, this is one of the oldest classes, and so has had a fair bit of design energy put into it. The class works well as an attacker, but getting the most out of its defensive perks relies on your allies' positioning. It's definitely a class that relies on using the "basic moves" in order to get some variety in combat; these may need to be highlighted in the class itself, rather than just being spelled out in the core rules.

Swordmage

This class can function very well as a damage-dealer, particularly if you're able to win initiative and/or get favourable positioning, albeit burning reserves at a good clip. We saw this class get a lot of the spotlight in combat. I definitely think I will need to cut back on some of the action economy perks the class gets, and I may limit their reserve ability to 1/encounter. The class perk to Intimidate will need some revision (as will the similar Skald ability) which touches on enemy design a bit, too. Mechanically, I think the class functions well, all around.

---

As part of the testing, I've been trying out some of the ideas I've had for how to use and customize the party's opponents, so the next blog update will probably touch on that.

Change Log [2017/04/26] (Beta 4)

Playtesting is ongoing, but here are some changes that have been added in the past month; expect more in the coming updates.

• [Core Rules] Capped the number of enemies you can create a maelstrom with using the "Engage" action (Move) at "maximum value of your class die"
• [Core Rules] "Shift" action (Move) can now engage one unengaged enemy
• [Core Rules] Subclasses changed so that they must be selected when entering initiative (instead of at char-gen)
• [Core Rules] Paths added to the character customization options
• Changed Cleric, Sage, and Rogue subclasses to "Paths"
• Changed Warlord archetypes to "Roles" and renamed them accordingly
• Changed Warlord's options for Performance skills to include Expertise or Training, instead of just training
• Sage's power sources expanded to 3, but narrowed down a bit
• Bard's power sources changed to "arcane, plus one of Divine/Martial" instead of "any two"
• Mystic's power sources changed to "two of Arcane/Primal/Shadow" instead of "Arcane + Shadow"
• Guardian's power sources changed to accommodate the new Subclass mechanics
• Adventurer's power sources changed; Scout only gains two of Martial/Primal/Shadow instead of all three; Skald now gains two of Arcane/Martial/Primal instead of Primal and one other
• Swordmage's Shielding Sigil changed so that opportunity attacks can negate enemy actions; Beguiling Blade changed to grant advantage on defense when counter-attacking an enemy with your sigil
• Bard now has the option to take an archetype from other classes within their slate (i.e. Sage schools, Hexblade, Swordmage)
• Bard's Arcane Luck ability now has the [Concentration] tag added
• Sage's Eldritch Enchantment changed to grant advantage on attack rolls, and to use your class die for bonus damage.
• Spellbinder's skills adjusted again; Hexblade back to only 2 core Trained skills; split skill selection into 2 toggles instead of 1 toggle and 1 solely for Hexblade.
• Cleric's Divine Smite using the Life Domain now restores HP equal to the rolled damage (instead of using a separate roll)

Expansionism (Beta 4)

With playtesting currently underway, I have been focusing my efforts on running the game; as such, I don't have a lot of work being done on (or changes being made to) the existing material, so I wanted to pitch a few ideas that have bounced through my head at various times.


Alternate Archetypes/Prestige Classes
In particular, I keep thinking I might want to do a slate of Archetypes centered on adding pets to classes that currently don't have any, or focused around using mounts in combat. Ideally, I would want these to work for multiple classes, but that might be difficult given the disparate distribution of Archetype/Path/Subclass between the various classes.

Some example ideas:

• Cavalier: Cleric, Paladin, Warlords or Fighters with the Divine power source
• Death Knight: Paladin, Mystic, Hexblade, Warlords or Fighters with the Shadow power source
• School of Golemancy: Wizard, Sorcerer, Guardian
• Mounted Archer: Archer, Ranger, Adventurer, Monk, Assassin, Fighter
• Beastrider: Ranger, Necromancer, Druid
• Death Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Shadow power sources
• Nature Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Primal power sources

Races

I've kind of had some fleeting ideas about how I might want to structure a loose framework for adding fantasy races to the game. Basically, they wouldn't provide stat boosts, but conceivably could add extra skill training. I would mostly want them to mostly provide things akin to the Background features seen in 5th Edition D&D, or Theme benefits from 4th Edition. Beyond that, some examples of stuff that I've thought might work:

• Dwarf: If you choose a d4 or d6 class, you have double the normal number of reserves; you can also double roll and stack the damage of your melee basic attacks.
• Elf: If you choose a d4 class, you can double roll and stack the damage of your ranged basic attacks; you can also add your class die to any untrained DEX or WIS checks you make.
• Half-Elf: If you choose a class with Paths, you can instead treat them as Archetypes. If you choose a class with Archetypes, you can instead treat them as Subclasses.
• Human: If you choose a class with Roles, you can instead treat them as a Form or Concentration ability; you can change between Roles as a Minor Action. You have Expertise on all untrained skill checks.

Slates/Power Sources

Should there be a 4th slate of classes? Or a 6th power source?

The one power source that's really missing (when compared to the 4e lineup) is Psionic. I think if we were to follow in that vein, any psionic classes would have to have something resembling a power-point mechanic (i.e. an additional resource-management subsystem) built onto them. Another consideration is, which Knowledge skills does it make sense for a Psionic power source to have? How would we differentiate it from the existing ones?

Since TNP doesn't operate in the 4e paradigm of "Role + Power Source = Class" it might not really be possible to create Psionics as more than one class, even.

-----

Today's post is a day behind, mostly because of scheduling considerations; next post, likewise, should be up on April 26th, so check back then!

Heroes of All Stripes (Beta 4)

In 4th Edition D&D, the Dark Sun campaign specifically banned or limited power sources -- effectively cutting back on the number of classes you could pick from.

Just as a thought-exercise, I looked at what sorts of effects this might have, if implemented in TNP; based on that research, I'll be making some adjustments. What ended up happening was classes that are locked into 2 (or even 3) power sources are unlikely to make the cut, whereas classes that get to freely pick both/all of their power sources will always be an option.

As such, I'm leaning towards changing around classes to fall into one of these two setups:

• one power source is locked in, the other can be chosen from a short list
• both power sources can be chosen freely, but from a list of only three options

Generally, I think it will be thematically best to keep your party composition within 2 class slates, but there is no necessity to limit your party as such; limitations on class slate or power source selection should only be done to reinforce the theme or flavour of a campaign, or party cohesion, and only on the agreement of everyone at the table.

-----

Another thing I've been digging into recently is increasing the customization levels of classes, without adding to or changing their abilities drastically.

Some classes have explicit Roles, while others have implicit roles. For example, the Guardian breaks down into Warden and Shaman subclasses, which each effectively occupy a different role (just as the 4e versions did.) However, their abilities are structured such that they all draw from their "role ability" and they cannot really be extracted from each other. Simply put, these subclasses can't be changed to Archetypes, because one of them must be selected, in order for the class to function in combat.

Because of this, subclasses have been changed to be the "mandatory Role" form of customization; classes with subclasses to choose from can now select one at the start of combat, but should have a default one set, which they are most familiar with.

For some classes, this would not thematically make a lot of sense. For example, the Rogue has Assassin and Sorcerer as its subclasses; on its face, it would not make much sense for a character to swap between such drastically different characters at the start of each combat. In those cases, the subclass tag has been changed to "Path"; your path must be chosen when you create one of these characters. This change will apply to the following classes:

• Cleric: Path of the Crusader, Path of the Invoker
• Sage: Path of the Monk, Path of the Wizard
• Rogue: Path of the Assassin, Path of the Sorcerer

I've also been working over the past little while to make it so that classes with Archetypes to choose from still get basic functionality without having to pick one. Granted, having an Archetype will grant you an additional Iconic Ability and/or additional riders on your powers, but I want characters who don't pick one to still have the standard of 2 trained sets of core skills, as well as at least 1 (or preferably 2) power sources.

The current state of the Paladin is probably the best showcase for this type of design; the class functions fine without an archetype, but picking one gives you some mechanical perks in combat, as well as more options for customization.

-----

EDIT: A new playtest recruit is now live, on the forums. So if you're a goon, sign up!

Change Log [2017/03/26] (Beta 4)

Here are some more changes that have been put in this month. 

Also, check out the Homebrewery version of the Acrobat writeup, if you haven't seen that already.

• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Hidden" rules; attacking reveals your position
• [Core Rules] Updated "starter characters" with some streamlined formatting, and pre-picked core skills, so they can be more easily used as pre-generated characters
• [Core Rules] Changed rules so creatures with 1 HD do auto-damage
• [Core Rules] Added in a fair bit of text and additional guidelines regarding customization options
• [Core Rules] Clarified escaping a grapple, to work as a Shift
• Acrobat can now make any skill checks to gain High Ground as a Move Action.
• Acrobat's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; made some minor adjustments to make non-archetype Acrobats functional
• Archer's Aimed Shot changed to make it easier to deal damage with.
• Barbarian can now make a Class Die roll with Disadvantage in place of their training die on some skill checks
• Barbarian's Frenzy changed so that the trade-off is only rolled once, rather than on each of your turns
• Bard gains an additional trained Core skill list (mostly to accommodate non-archetype Bards) 
• Bard's Sword & Sorcery changed so that only one of the attacks counts as a basic attack (so you can't Power Attack with both attacks)
• Fighter, Druid, and Guardian abilities with the [Concentration] tag all changed to [Form]; added explanation for this new keyword into the Core Rules (this may be discussed a bit in future posts)
• Scout's Skirmish ability changed: extra class die roll now only works when you attack from unengaged; Withdraw changed to Move Action from Minor Action (it was too easy to Withdraw and become Hidden, in playtesting; Skirmish die roll being free was piling on a bit)
• Spellbinder's Beguiling Blade changed to not require sigil or hex for the reserve-burning attack
• Spellbinder's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; core skills list changed to better accommodate non-archetype Spellbinders; Hexblade now gains a 3rd skill training

Next post should be up April 5th, so check back then!

Laying the Foundations (Beta 4)

One of the ideas I have been kicking around for a while, is to do a "level 0" setup, for beginners to get into the game system. The idea would be that you pick a Class Die, plus one power source and skillset (maybe?) and play a couple of encounters, before settling on a full-blown class to play.

To facilitate this, I want the damage to be roughly balanced, but it would probably have to be less than that of a full class. As a matter of course, kicking this idea around while still working on the damage math, the two ideas have sort of cross-pollinated with each other.

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, light weapons (those suitable for two-weapon fighting) are exclusively d4 or d6 weapons. In The Next Project (where the damage is a bit higher, and all classes are expected to have the ability to hit more than one target in a turn) it probably makes sense that d4 and d6 classes should be able to attack more often. When we look at the current d4 classes, I've had to add some attacks just to keep the damage up; with the d6 classes, I'm noticing it leans heavily towards single-target attacking for some loadouts, so that might be something I'll have to dig into.

The logical starting point for figuring out the damage for "level 0" characters is to start with the math for their full-class counterparts, and hack off one Class die, starting with the d12. So, I'm looking at this as a baseline to tweak from:

• d4: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); you deal 2d4 damage when you use this attack as a Standard Action. You can also make this type of attack as a Minor Action, dealing 1d4 damage.
• d6: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You can also make this type of attack as a Standard Action or Minor Action.
• d8: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You have Advantage on the damage rolls of this type of attack.
• d10: You have Expertise on damage rolls.
• d12: You have Disadvantage on ranged damage rolls.

---

In terms of the DM advice areas of the rules, the groundwork is already in place for what sort of shape an "adventuring day" will take.

Classes have between 4 and 12 reserves. In terms of design space, reserves fulfill the same role as Healing Surges in 4th Edition D&D, however, classes in 4e have between 6 and 10 surges (plus your CON modifier.) To help try and bridge the gap, classes on the higher end of that scale in TNP tend to have abilities that can burn reserves for other uses in combat, whereas those with fewer reserves tend to have abilities to mitigate damage. In addition, Reserves provide more healing per use -- typically a full heal.

All that being taken into account, we get a framework that should roughly line up with that of 4th Edition -- specifically, to aim for around 4-6 encounters per day. Encounters per day and reserves per day might both have to be adjusted after some playtesting, but I think it's a good enough place to start from.

The important thing to keep in mind is that an adventuring day is not a literal time-based day, nor should it end when your gaming session ends. If an adventuring day spans more than one session, it should be considered a "two-part episode" in much the way TV series often do (even when a series usually conforms to "one-shots.") As such, I am considering alternate names for "adventuring day," such as "chapter."

---

For monster math, the baselines for PC damage have been established, so it is a simple matter of reverse-engineering from there. If we expect PCs to deal 15 DPR (or 3 hit dice of damage) on average, then in order to facilitate 3-round combat, an encounter should include 45 HP (or 9 HD) worth of enemies per PC participant. We can round these numbers off for simplicity -- 50 HP or 10 HD -- if we want something easy to remember.

Likewise, if the PCs have between 24 and 32 HP, and our objective is to reduce their HP by about half each encounter, then it makes sense to have standard monsters do 4-6 DPR over a 3-round combat. Assuming the PCs only successfully defend 50% of the time, this works out to about 10 damage for each standard monster's turn.

I think when class abilities come to bear, playtesting will show that the PCs are a bit heartier both in terms of damage and defense. As such, I'm betting that enemies will have to be adjusted "up" based on playtest feedback, but that should be easy enough to do.