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.

Object of the Game (Beta 4)

After a bit of playtesting, I've been thinking about what the measuring stick for success should be, on a campaign- or adventuring day-level. Pretty much the only resource management in the game currently comes in the form of Reserves, which are a "daily" resource.

On its face, the point of this style of game is generally to get as far down into the dungeon (or advance the story arc as far as possible) before needing to return to safety and take a rest. But since we're not using a framework where levels, magic items, or wealth are used as the driving force of progression, the only measuring stick we have is how much content is completed before going back to "town."

Should the rewards simply be a matter of keeping score? There are a couple possible shapes this could take: rewarding players "points" either based on the number of encounters they have completed before going back to base, or by how many of their Reserves they have left after a predetermined amount of progression has been completed.

Either option requires some amount of balancing, and ultimately the solution may be to introduce additional subsystems to the game, to provide additional means of progression.