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?