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.