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.