Classes, Now in Session (2018)

So, I didn't finish all of the classes that I wanted to, but I'll update this post with links to them here, as well as in the core rules doc (in the sidebar) as I get them finalized.

• The Druid (d4)
• The Rogue (d6)
• The Cleric (d8)
• The Occultist (d10)
• The Spellbinder (d12)

The first class I got done was the Druid; I think it still needs a few more checks (in terms of math) but I like how well it fit into the new formatting and progression systems, and overall the class is just a lot cleaner now. I'm still a little iffy on breaking the forms into upgrades, but hopefully some testing will give a sense of whether each one is useful enough to justify it.

Next up was the Occultist. It helped that Druid was already out of the way, because the two classes share a "category," and so ended up being structured fairly similarly. One major change was to no longer have Eldritch Blast and Animate Dead as "role features," instead making them part of the core class, and splitting up Banishment, to give each role a more distinctly-flavoured version. Curse was likewise broken up, with the basics of it made into the class' "starting feature."

I then moved on to the Cleric. There were a few more outdated mechanics here than in some of the other classes, and a few more tweaks that needed to be made. Cleric has always been sort of a "vertically integrated" class, but it has enough room for customization, that it can be built in a handful of different ways. I'm particularly happy with some of the changes to Bless and Divine Smite, making the class overall more built around the "double roll" mechanic.

I had a few ideas for the direction I wanted to take with the Assassin, but the Sorcerer is going to be a bigger job to tackle. In terms of the leveling, the foundations are already more or less in place, with the Ranger being part of the same "category" and already having the Sage ready, from the same slate. With the Warlock being less of a distinct class now, that could have some impacts on how Sorcerer is built.

The Spellbinder hopefully should be a quick fix; with most of the action economy stuff and combat math ironed out after the previous playtest, it will likely just be a matter of updating the 4.1 version to the new designs.

---

That's all folks! This here blog is on break for summer; expect the next post on July 27th!

Why We Call Them Heroes

One of the seemingly minor changes in the latest draft of the rules, is the inclusion of the term "heroes." Today I want to talk a little bit about that.

If we look at 4th Edition D&D, this term was used to describe characters in the first "tier" of the level progression; even a level 1 character was referred to as a hero. The assumption (whether mechanical or narrative) that characters could/would/should be ineffectual or incompetent simply wasn't there. Everyone had a job to do, and your mechanics made you capable of doing it -- so your backstory had to be something that fit that level of capability. In earlier editions of D&D (which I haven't played, but have read about) Fighters, even at first level, were titled "veterans" because the assumption was that they (like other classes) would be experienced at what they do.

Another thing that was made expressly clear in 4e, was that player-characters (heroes) should not be evil or chaotic; 4th Edition simplified the "nine alignments" down to five, and (at least in the first PHB) said that PCs should only fall under three of those: unaligned, good, or lawful-good. The purpose of this was to encourage teamwork; the focus on roles and party balance meant that cooperative play was essential, and character backgrounds needed to reinforce that mechanical paradigm.

Now, as an aside, from my playing days in 3.5, one of the big takeaways that I got from looking into alignment a bit more, was that evil characters still understand and appreciate loyalty. Once you're a part of a team, there should be cohesion -- even if some of its members are "dirty" or "scummy" -- and everyone should be working towards the same goal: the big picture.

We can see all of these influences in The Next Project; it's not even really mechanically possible for PCs to attack one another. Simple things like class dice give a framework for how your team should be composed, and that everyone has a part to play, together.

Now, some of the classes in TNP have a darker, more evil bent to them -- Assassin, Blackguard, Necromancer, etc. Things such as the Shadow power source, however, should tell us about what drives or inspires these darker characters -- not be an indicator of their unreliability.


But here's what I think is possibly the most important point:

The characters we create are a heightened, stylized ideal -- a fictional conceit that we admire, from whatever media we consume. They're the brawny protagonist in an action movie, they're the cold anti-hero in a western, they're the swaggering scoundrel in a space opera. They are fantastic, and so they exist in a fantasy world. There is always something about them that we look up to (and that we hope our fellow party members and players might look up to, as well) because they are always, in some small way, a reflection of ourselves and our imagination.

We root for them to succeed, we watch them grow and change, and we fill in their past as they move forward through their adventures. We carry them over -- across editions, campaigns, settings, parties, playgroups -- and each time we do, our characters (all of them) become more and more refined. They become more real, they become more human.



So, why do we call them heroes?

Because they're our heroes.

Playtest! (2018)

A new playtest has been unveiled! So if you're a forums goon, check out the recruitment thread here; the roster filled up fast, so expect the gameplay thread to be linked soon.

Based on early feedback, I'm going to look into hammering out a unified character sheet for players to use. In the past, generally people would either just post their abilities in shorthand, or else save a copy of the class document, and simply cross out or delete any options they did not select for their character. Going forward, I'm going to try and have a form, at least to keep track of things like skill training/expertise, with some open space for Combat Features (and the like.)

I'm also going to probably rearrange the class sheets a little bit, so that Combat Features (which are generally all automatic) come immediately after Starting Features, and are then followed by 1st Level features, and then "Gaining Additional Levels." Archetype Features will most likely be at the very end, and possibly Roles, too.

Since we very quickly got to 7 applications, it kind of made me wish that I had more classes prepared by now. On the other hand, this will help test out more of the different subclasses and archetypes, so these classes will get a more thorough inspection.


---


That being said, I do want to try and have the next "playtest slate" of classes ready before the summer break. I've been trying to balance off some of the class utility (in terms of skills) as well as making a point of including at least one class from each of the three main slates, and a relative balance in terms of "category" distribution.

 Here are the classes I've settled on:

• Druid (d4) [Roles]
• Rogue (d6) [Subclasses]
• Cleric (d8) [Subclasses + Specialist Classes]
• Occultist (d10) [Roles]
• Spellbinder (d12) [Specialist Classes]

As the d4 and d6 mechanics have evolved and been sharpened, some ideas for how to better execute on the Druid and Rogue have come along; I look forward to implementing those in the near future. In particular, I think the mechanic of doubling damage on a crit (currently showcased on the Fighter's two-weapon style) is something that'll fit well with the Assassin subclass.

The advent of "Starting Features" gives a design space where I think the distinctive Subclass Features from the "4.1 Cleric" can be slotted in. The Mystic class has been renamed "Occultist" but otherwise remains mostly the same -- aside from a few ideas I have for additional mechanics. I'm also looking at implementing a unique little subsystem for d10 classes.

The Spellbinder is a class that has a lot of fluff to draw from for inspiration; both of its subtypes are interesting of their own accord, but the base class itself has kind of taken on its own personality as I've written it (specifically, being a captivating and confounding sort of character.) It's hard to do much math-wise for the d12 classes, so I think they will have to rely on design spaces other than damage mechanics, to make them interesting in combat. Warlord already has the "enabling" niche mostly cornered; Spellbinder seems like it would logically lean towards debilities and status effects, so expect them to sport more of those in the next draft.

This slate does sort of lean towards the more magical side, with the current playtest slate being more "martial" overall. The classes on this 2nd slate have also seen a fair bit of playtesting already (compared to most other classes) whereas the entire slate for this playtest saw no testing during "Beta 4." Overall, the third playtest slate will be more of a balance between the two, in both of these regards.

---

Check back June 16th for the next update!