As someone who has been working full time, through everything going on in the world today, I haven't had the "benefit" of a sudden, unexpected stretch of free time. Admittedly, the turnaround time from the previous post is shorter than I usually do, but aside from a brief bit of conversation, I haven't found any opportunity to even think about TNP, let alone put pen to paper on it, since that last post.
So I'm realizing that I need to take a break; I can't see things changing in the immediate future, so the current logjam will just persist, and possibly even worsen.
Before I step away, I'll kind of lay out where I'm at (aside from rehashing the previously-mentioned obstacles with subtypes.)
First off, I want to say I really like the new regime for skills. I want to test it and make sure it "feels" right, but I'm optimistic about it. That being said, with the move away from d20, the game's design is sort of fracturing into two distinct halves. Why not staple the skill system onto a different set of combat mechanics? Those are the types of questions it starts to beg of me.
In the last couple of posts, it has become clear that the mechanical, crunchy side of the combat needs to be completely overhauled. The focus is shifting towards the "damage + effect" combo-making style of gameplay (in the vein of 4th edition D&D) and the status effects and conditions need to be built around a new paradigm (starting with disadvantage on skills, as one of it's foundations.) This effectively means that every combat feature in the game needs to be reconsidered. A game largely focused on hacking through HP, I'm beginning to realize, does not lend itself to the idea of using d20 (with minimal modifiers) for its combat resolution. So either that mechanic needs to change, or the game needs to be about something other than HP attrition. Whatever the approach, the designs would need significant renovations.
What it comes down to, is I'm seeing myself not having been able to put in the level of time and energy that would entail, since I restarted blogging. And I can make no guarantee that anything will change anytime soon, meaning the amount of work the game needs put into it, is probably not a realistic possibility right now.
I think there are probably two possible paths forward:
1) Scale the game back in scope, to a manageable level, and just push out the best product I can manage.
2) Shift focus to something new.
To be clear, in either case, I won't be blogging; any work being done will be behind the scenes, until I have something meaningful to report. Likewise, in both scenarios, I'll need to sit down, talk, and think long and hard about what I want to get accomplished, and what would make the most sense for a possible new project.
Building a completely different (probably simpler) combat engine, to work in tandem with the skill system, is the first branching path that springs to mind; what shape that takes will depend entirely on what else I can figure out. One such possibility might be unifying around the skill mechanic -- migrating combat away from d20 + class dice.
Really, finishing the game instead of doing something new, boils down to an exercise in managing the scope. If subtypes, combat powers, and status effects all need to be reworked or completely rewritten (in service of a particular gameplay ethos) that's a behemoth task. It also begs the question of whether or not (for example) the skill mechanics will still make sense for the resulting product. It's not long before we're questioning if it'd be easier to start everything from scratch -- so I think if this project is to continue, it'll have to be a case of "addition by subtraction."
I'll leave it at that for now. The TNP Discord will be kept open for anyone looking to join the discussion, so hopefully I'll see you in there.
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Friday, August 21, 2020
The Death of the D20?
I was looking over the existing monster math (from the previous draft of the rules) and I realized things were a bit off.
Specifically, for each PC in the encounter, your budget can include two Standard monsters -- which each having about as much HP as one PC (24-32 HP). In order for this to work within the goal of having combat last 3 rounds, the damage per round (DPR) for a PC needs to be 1/3rd of that total HP, for both of the Standard monsters. This works out to nearly 20 DPR. So what does this mean in practical terms?
Well, the way DPR is calculated, is by taking the average damage you can do on your turn (i.e. using class dice) and multiply it by your chance to hit; with a DC10, that means a d20 roll would hit 55% of the time. To make a long story short, this means you only deal about half of the average damage your dice would deal -- so to average out to 20 DPR, your dice need to average closer to 40 damage per round.
This is obviously way too high.
Oddly enough, the first solution that came to mind was simply axing attack rolls; this would mean taking your actions and simply dealing your damage, using your class dice. This quickly gets around the halving that results from permuting damage through an attack roll, meaning the monster math can remain (roughly) the same as it was. The alternative would be to simply lower the monster HP guidelines -- probably making it so Standard monsters and PCs are at a 1:1 ratio, instead of 2:1.
The third idea that came up in discussion would be to increase DPR by moving the class designs more in line with 4th Edition D&D, adding in encounter and daily powers (or something similar) to help boost damage. My assessment is that it would be a lot easier to implement and balance that, in the paradigm of weapon damage dice, rather than that of class dice.
In any situation where the attack rolls are kept in the game, what would need to happen for damage to increase, is for the hit chance to increase. This would mean using things like advantage, or the minor and major bonuses (using class dice.) I'm not sure I really want these bonuses to become so ubiquitous, though -- essentially making them a math tax.
As such, probably the solution is to make sure that bonuses from abilities, as well as from conditions and positioning, are well defined, meaningful, and readily accessible. For example, if there is a significant boost to hitting a prone target with a melee attack, then there needs to be worthwhile options for knocking enemies prone in the first place -- without further diminishing DPR, by spending your turn setting that up, rather than just dealing damage.
I really think this is the tack to take, since it encourages the players to be tactical, and likewise encourages me to build the system to facilitate that. It also reinforces the sort of 4e paradigm of "damage + effect" on abilities; your powers needs to always bee dealing damage to keep DPR consistent, but they should also be creating opportunities for your allies to combo off of, on their turns, in order to boost DPR.
---
As mentioned before, I'm hoping to get another post in before the end of August, so look for that on Sunday the 30th.
Specifically, for each PC in the encounter, your budget can include two Standard monsters -- which each having about as much HP as one PC (24-32 HP). In order for this to work within the goal of having combat last 3 rounds, the damage per round (DPR) for a PC needs to be 1/3rd of that total HP, for both of the Standard monsters. This works out to nearly 20 DPR. So what does this mean in practical terms?
Well, the way DPR is calculated, is by taking the average damage you can do on your turn (i.e. using class dice) and multiply it by your chance to hit; with a DC10, that means a d20 roll would hit 55% of the time. To make a long story short, this means you only deal about half of the average damage your dice would deal -- so to average out to 20 DPR, your dice need to average closer to 40 damage per round.
This is obviously way too high.
Oddly enough, the first solution that came to mind was simply axing attack rolls; this would mean taking your actions and simply dealing your damage, using your class dice. This quickly gets around the halving that results from permuting damage through an attack roll, meaning the monster math can remain (roughly) the same as it was. The alternative would be to simply lower the monster HP guidelines -- probably making it so Standard monsters and PCs are at a 1:1 ratio, instead of 2:1.
The third idea that came up in discussion would be to increase DPR by moving the class designs more in line with 4th Edition D&D, adding in encounter and daily powers (or something similar) to help boost damage. My assessment is that it would be a lot easier to implement and balance that, in the paradigm of weapon damage dice, rather than that of class dice.
In any situation where the attack rolls are kept in the game, what would need to happen for damage to increase, is for the hit chance to increase. This would mean using things like advantage, or the minor and major bonuses (using class dice.) I'm not sure I really want these bonuses to become so ubiquitous, though -- essentially making them a math tax.
As such, probably the solution is to make sure that bonuses from abilities, as well as from conditions and positioning, are well defined, meaningful, and readily accessible. For example, if there is a significant boost to hitting a prone target with a melee attack, then there needs to be worthwhile options for knocking enemies prone in the first place -- without further diminishing DPR, by spending your turn setting that up, rather than just dealing damage.
I really think this is the tack to take, since it encourages the players to be tactical, and likewise encourages me to build the system to facilitate that. It also reinforces the sort of 4e paradigm of "damage + effect" on abilities; your powers needs to always bee dealing damage to keep DPR consistent, but they should also be creating opportunities for your allies to combo off of, on their turns, in order to boost DPR.
---
As mentioned before, I'm hoping to get another post in before the end of August, so look for that on Sunday the 30th.
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
Dog Days of Summer (2020)
Apologies for the lateness of this post; I will try and cram 3 posts into the month of August, so check for updates on the 21st and 30th, most likely.
To make a long story short, production has not gone along as far as I would have hoped. In largest part, this is due to the protracted unseasonably warm weather, making it difficult for me to sit down and focus on writing for any length of time. Mostly my at-home time since the start fo July consisted of either laying down with a fan pointed directly at me, or soaking in a tub full of cool water. Add to that some computer troubles, and I wasn't able to get much done over the break; what I did get started on, came pretty early into it -- I'll go over that now.
Archetypes & Domains (aka subtypes)
Part of the process of allocating the various subtypes to all of the classes, was to take the conceptual idea and actually spell out what that meant.
Specifically, it's something like this:
1) Class (and subclass) determine your possible power sources
2) Class Category determines your possible subtypes (either archetypes or domains)
Alright, so most classes get 3 or 4 options for power sources (this might be whittled down by subclass, but we'll set that aside for now.) For the sake of argument, let's assume class category only ever allows for one of the subtypes and not both. In practical terms, this means that every class will have between 6 and 8 possible "builds" -- not including differentiation based on subclass.
To make a long story short, there's just too much going on; particularly so, given the idea that each subtype is meant to function across roughly half a dozen classes. I spent some time working on the Paladin class in particular, and I found that even after adding previously-unplanned restrictions, there ended up being 8 different subtype options per subclass. Also, it became clear that domains would probably have to be tailored to each class, meaning the utility of recycling them would be lost entirely.
So probably what's going to happen, going forward, is one or more of the following:
a) Subtypes will be shelved, at least until classes can be ironed out, possibly longer.
b) Subtypes will be scaled back in number, by some method.
c) Subtypes will be dictated strictly by class, making it easier to (for ex.) have one archetype/domain from a particular power source, but not the other, on any given class.
Part of any restructuring might be a shift away from using certain Archetypes across multiple classes. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Adventurer subclasses (Scout, Skald) being reused as archetypes, for other classes. At first glance, it seems like it'd be alright, because Adventurer would also get subtype options on top of that... but it just seems to dilute the big picture. If we go with option a) as mentioned above, then we can focus more on ironing out Scout and Skald in the context of just one class, which I think will produce better overall results.
Class Dice in the New Ethos
One of the first things that needed to be tackled, was cementing the ways in which class dice would function, regarding some of the basic character math.
Acknowledging that balancing out the different dice against one another inevitably means that there can't be a "one size fits all" rule for most of these mechanics, what I set out to do instead was to have each class die essentially function as a "code" for these features. Reserves and Surge Value represent one linked pair of mechanics based on class dice, with HP and Engagment being another pair.
(For those unfamiliar, the necessity of a limit on Engagement sprouted out of playtesting; tanking was a little too easy if you could use the Engage move to simply corral all of the open enemies. So class dice were used as a cap on this action -- thus, tankier classes tend to have bigger class dice.)
From there, I've basically come up with 5 different expressions; each class will use one expression for Reserves and Surge Value, and one for HP and Engagement:
1d4
- Max HP: 24
- Engagement: 4
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 4
1d6
- Max HP: 26
- Engagement: 6
- Reserves: 6
- Surge Value: 12
1d8 or 2d4
- Max HP: 28
- Engagement: 8
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 8
1d10
- Max HP: 30
- Engagement: 10
- Reserves: 10
- Surge Value: 10
1d12 or 2d6
- Max HP: 32
- Engagement: 12
- Reserves: 12
- Surge Value: 12
So what does this amount to, in practical terms? Well, it allows us more flexibility in class design. One example would be the Rogue, with Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses; even though Rogue only has d6 as its class dice, the Assassin might use 1d6 for Reserves, and the Sorcerer might use 2d6 (to facilitate them having a reserve-burning mechanic) while both would likely use 1d6 for their HP and Engagement. Likewise, a class using d4 (like the Sage, for instance) can have one subclass (Wizard) that is more of a back-line role, and so would use 1d4 for Engagement, with the other subclass (Monk) being more melee-focused, granting it the 2d4 expression for its calculations. We can also do things like use d6 classes to be tanky, instead of having that role almost entirely lean on d10 or d12 classes.
There's even more possible customization, when it comes to classes that use two class dice. For example, the Cleric (d4/d10) might have a reserve-burning mechanic on its ranged subclass (utilizing the d10) while its melee subclass could be designed to use either the 2d4 or 1d10 expression, for HP and Engagement.
The other benefit to having most classes use two dice, is it gives us the option to lower the number of reserves for classes that would otherwise have 10 or 12 by default -- without us having to staple on reserve-burning mechanics, just for the sake of it. In addition, revising the mechanics such that spending a reserve simply restores your HP to its maximum (under most circumstances) de-emphasizes the importance of surge value, with regards to number of reserves per day. With these two ideas in concert, we're better able to flatten the amount of daily "reserve" HP that each class will have, while still having class dice form these mathematical foundations of these mechanics.
---.
I mentioned it in the TNP Discord, but one topic of discussion was the possibility of removing attack rolls from the designs; this will likely be touched on in a post sometime this month, so stay tuned for that.
To make a long story short, production has not gone along as far as I would have hoped. In largest part, this is due to the protracted unseasonably warm weather, making it difficult for me to sit down and focus on writing for any length of time. Mostly my at-home time since the start fo July consisted of either laying down with a fan pointed directly at me, or soaking in a tub full of cool water. Add to that some computer troubles, and I wasn't able to get much done over the break; what I did get started on, came pretty early into it -- I'll go over that now.
Archetypes & Domains (aka subtypes)
Part of the process of allocating the various subtypes to all of the classes, was to take the conceptual idea and actually spell out what that meant.
Specifically, it's something like this:
1) Class (and subclass) determine your possible power sources
2) Class Category determines your possible subtypes (either archetypes or domains)
Alright, so most classes get 3 or 4 options for power sources (this might be whittled down by subclass, but we'll set that aside for now.) For the sake of argument, let's assume class category only ever allows for one of the subtypes and not both. In practical terms, this means that every class will have between 6 and 8 possible "builds" -- not including differentiation based on subclass.
To make a long story short, there's just too much going on; particularly so, given the idea that each subtype is meant to function across roughly half a dozen classes. I spent some time working on the Paladin class in particular, and I found that even after adding previously-unplanned restrictions, there ended up being 8 different subtype options per subclass. Also, it became clear that domains would probably have to be tailored to each class, meaning the utility of recycling them would be lost entirely.
So probably what's going to happen, going forward, is one or more of the following:
a) Subtypes will be shelved, at least until classes can be ironed out, possibly longer.
b) Subtypes will be scaled back in number, by some method.
c) Subtypes will be dictated strictly by class, making it easier to (for ex.) have one archetype/domain from a particular power source, but not the other, on any given class.
Part of any restructuring might be a shift away from using certain Archetypes across multiple classes. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Adventurer subclasses (Scout, Skald) being reused as archetypes, for other classes. At first glance, it seems like it'd be alright, because Adventurer would also get subtype options on top of that... but it just seems to dilute the big picture. If we go with option a) as mentioned above, then we can focus more on ironing out Scout and Skald in the context of just one class, which I think will produce better overall results.
Class Dice in the New Ethos
One of the first things that needed to be tackled, was cementing the ways in which class dice would function, regarding some of the basic character math.
Acknowledging that balancing out the different dice against one another inevitably means that there can't be a "one size fits all" rule for most of these mechanics, what I set out to do instead was to have each class die essentially function as a "code" for these features. Reserves and Surge Value represent one linked pair of mechanics based on class dice, with HP and Engagment being another pair.
(For those unfamiliar, the necessity of a limit on Engagement sprouted out of playtesting; tanking was a little too easy if you could use the Engage move to simply corral all of the open enemies. So class dice were used as a cap on this action -- thus, tankier classes tend to have bigger class dice.)
From there, I've basically come up with 5 different expressions; each class will use one expression for Reserves and Surge Value, and one for HP and Engagement:
1d4
- Max HP: 24
- Engagement: 4
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 4
1d6
- Max HP: 26
- Engagement: 6
- Reserves: 6
- Surge Value: 12
1d8 or 2d4
- Max HP: 28
- Engagement: 8
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 8
1d10
- Max HP: 30
- Engagement: 10
- Reserves: 10
- Surge Value: 10
1d12 or 2d6
- Max HP: 32
- Engagement: 12
- Reserves: 12
- Surge Value: 12
So what does this amount to, in practical terms? Well, it allows us more flexibility in class design. One example would be the Rogue, with Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses; even though Rogue only has d6 as its class dice, the Assassin might use 1d6 for Reserves, and the Sorcerer might use 2d6 (to facilitate them having a reserve-burning mechanic) while both would likely use 1d6 for their HP and Engagement. Likewise, a class using d4 (like the Sage, for instance) can have one subclass (Wizard) that is more of a back-line role, and so would use 1d4 for Engagement, with the other subclass (Monk) being more melee-focused, granting it the 2d4 expression for its calculations. We can also do things like use d6 classes to be tanky, instead of having that role almost entirely lean on d10 or d12 classes.
There's even more possible customization, when it comes to classes that use two class dice. For example, the Cleric (d4/d10) might have a reserve-burning mechanic on its ranged subclass (utilizing the d10) while its melee subclass could be designed to use either the 2d4 or 1d10 expression, for HP and Engagement.
The other benefit to having most classes use two dice, is it gives us the option to lower the number of reserves for classes that would otherwise have 10 or 12 by default -- without us having to staple on reserve-burning mechanics, just for the sake of it. In addition, revising the mechanics such that spending a reserve simply restores your HP to its maximum (under most circumstances) de-emphasizes the importance of surge value, with regards to number of reserves per day. With these two ideas in concert, we're better able to flatten the amount of daily "reserve" HP that each class will have, while still having class dice form these mathematical foundations of these mechanics.
---.
I mentioned it in the TNP Discord, but one topic of discussion was the possibility of removing attack rolls from the designs; this will likely be touched on in a post sometime this month, so stay tuned for that.
Friday, June 26, 2020
The Fourth Pillar? (2020)
Perhaps as a prelude to a more deeper dive on using skills, I thought it would be worthwhile to tackle how The Next Project roughly classifies its core skills.
Where I became familiar with the phrase "The Three Pillars" as it pertains to D&D, was during the playtest for 5th Edition; Combat, Social, and Exploration. D&D typically has different mechanics for each of these subsets of gameplay (with "Magic" being the subsystem that overlaps all three, but I digress.) The way I've divided the mechanics is a little bit different: class (and various forms of character customization) handle most of the combat mechanics, with skills handling everything else. However, there are a couple exceptions; obviously, some skills can be used in combat (and some of those almost exclusively so.) But the other exception would be what I think of as the "4th Pillar" in terms of defining skills. So let's start to unpack that.
Exploration & Social
First, let's set the ground rules for what we mean when describing Social skills and Exploration skills. A social skill should generally involve interacting with people; an exploration skill should have to do with comprehending or traversing the physical world. Persuasion and Intimidation are obvious examples of social skills, while Climb, Jump, Search, and Investigation are pretty clearly for exploration.
So what doesn't fit? Well, I realized that there is a subset of skills that is mostly about avoiding social interaction... and exploration interaction. Kind of. Let me explain:
When you use Stealth, you're trying not to be seen or heard. The implication here is that there is some sort of external opponent either trying to attack you, or to engage with you in some other fashion (even if it's just talking.) Likewise, when using Disguise, you probably actually want to avoid interacting directly with an opponent trying to "explore" who you really are -- hoping to give yourself the appearance of someone who is allowed to be (or supposed to be) in some place you are trying to get to, without your presence there being drawn into question. In the same vein, using a Sleight of Hand check usually involves either a) interacting with an object (exploration) without being observed doing so, or; b) interacting with a person (social?) by planting something on them, or lifting something off of them. The final example I would give is Lockpicking; assuming you succeed, the idea is that bypassing a lock not only gives you access to the chest/door/etc. but that also no one suspects (upon visual inspection) that the lock has been defeated or tampered with. So, is that a "social" interaction?
It's an interesting question.
But the further question is how does this manifest itself in gameplay.
Let's go back to the Lockpicking example; should the DM ask for a check to see if they can unlock the lock, or only to see if they can do so without arousing suspicion that the lock has been picked? If the lock is deep in a dungeon and serves only as a barrier to either progress or reward, then the latter is of no concern; this seems to be more of an "exploration" usage of the skill. On the other hand, if the lock being picked is to get access to important documents from the desk of a public figure (without damaging, destroying, or otherwise leaving evidence behind) then the skill is functioning in more of a "social" capacity -- or, perhaps, "anti-social" as it were.
Similar questions arise for using Disguise. Does the DM ask for a check when the Disguise is donned, or only when the Disguise is brought into question, i.e. by a social interaction (such as with a guard)?
If a Rogue stealths through a forest, and there's no one around... does itmake a soundneed to make a check? This is where the advent of "passive" skills starts to come into designs, such as those of 4th Edition D&D. Effectively functioning as a target number, a DM can secretly roll a stealth check against a character's passive perception -- or a perception check against a character's passive stealth; the point being to not give away the fact that there is something trying to hide (or something that is on the lookout for the party members.)
The existence of the opposing force necessitates either the perception or stealth check, but that same necessity spoils the fact of its existence... or does it? You end up in a paradigm of making checks whether the threat is there or not, because to do otherwise would tip off the fact that the threat does exist. It's kind of strange, when you think of it that way. Calling for a check implies that the opponent is there, when it may not be; a failure of the check may imply that the opponent isn't there, or that it is there, but, "your character doesn't know that." All this is to say, I'll have to give some guidance as to when to have players or opponents roll, and whether they should be making opposed checks, or rolling against static DCs.
Subterfuge
Anyways, that got a little bit navel-gazey. I should wrap this up by saying I've always felt that this particular subset of Social/Exploration skills could almost be its own "pillar" ... but not quite. I started referring to these as "Subterfuge" skills, and if there were to be a formalized 4th pillar, that's what I would call it.
Speaking of subterfuge, as has been mentioned before, I'll be going dark for the month of July. No posts will be forthcoming, but I'll be working on things behind the scenes. The blog should return sometime in the first week of August (or, worst case, second week.)
Where I became familiar with the phrase "The Three Pillars" as it pertains to D&D, was during the playtest for 5th Edition; Combat, Social, and Exploration. D&D typically has different mechanics for each of these subsets of gameplay (with "Magic" being the subsystem that overlaps all three, but I digress.) The way I've divided the mechanics is a little bit different: class (and various forms of character customization) handle most of the combat mechanics, with skills handling everything else. However, there are a couple exceptions; obviously, some skills can be used in combat (and some of those almost exclusively so.) But the other exception would be what I think of as the "4th Pillar" in terms of defining skills. So let's start to unpack that.
Exploration & Social
First, let's set the ground rules for what we mean when describing Social skills and Exploration skills. A social skill should generally involve interacting with people; an exploration skill should have to do with comprehending or traversing the physical world. Persuasion and Intimidation are obvious examples of social skills, while Climb, Jump, Search, and Investigation are pretty clearly for exploration.
So what doesn't fit? Well, I realized that there is a subset of skills that is mostly about avoiding social interaction... and exploration interaction. Kind of. Let me explain:
When you use Stealth, you're trying not to be seen or heard. The implication here is that there is some sort of external opponent either trying to attack you, or to engage with you in some other fashion (even if it's just talking.) Likewise, when using Disguise, you probably actually want to avoid interacting directly with an opponent trying to "explore" who you really are -- hoping to give yourself the appearance of someone who is allowed to be (or supposed to be) in some place you are trying to get to, without your presence there being drawn into question. In the same vein, using a Sleight of Hand check usually involves either a) interacting with an object (exploration) without being observed doing so, or; b) interacting with a person (social?) by planting something on them, or lifting something off of them. The final example I would give is Lockpicking; assuming you succeed, the idea is that bypassing a lock not only gives you access to the chest/door/etc. but that also no one suspects (upon visual inspection) that the lock has been defeated or tampered with. So, is that a "social" interaction?
It's an interesting question.
But the further question is how does this manifest itself in gameplay.
Let's go back to the Lockpicking example; should the DM ask for a check to see if they can unlock the lock, or only to see if they can do so without arousing suspicion that the lock has been picked? If the lock is deep in a dungeon and serves only as a barrier to either progress or reward, then the latter is of no concern; this seems to be more of an "exploration" usage of the skill. On the other hand, if the lock being picked is to get access to important documents from the desk of a public figure (without damaging, destroying, or otherwise leaving evidence behind) then the skill is functioning in more of a "social" capacity -- or, perhaps, "anti-social" as it were.
Similar questions arise for using Disguise. Does the DM ask for a check when the Disguise is donned, or only when the Disguise is brought into question, i.e. by a social interaction (such as with a guard)?
If a Rogue stealths through a forest, and there's no one around... does it
The existence of the opposing force necessitates either the perception or stealth check, but that same necessity spoils the fact of its existence... or does it? You end up in a paradigm of making checks whether the threat is there or not, because to do otherwise would tip off the fact that the threat does exist. It's kind of strange, when you think of it that way. Calling for a check implies that the opponent is there, when it may not be; a failure of the check may imply that the opponent isn't there, or that it is there, but, "your character doesn't know that." All this is to say, I'll have to give some guidance as to when to have players or opponents roll, and whether they should be making opposed checks, or rolling against static DCs.
Subterfuge
Anyways, that got a little bit navel-gazey. I should wrap this up by saying I've always felt that this particular subset of Social/Exploration skills could almost be its own "pillar" ... but not quite. I started referring to these as "Subterfuge" skills, and if there were to be a formalized 4th pillar, that's what I would call it.
Speaking of subterfuge, as has been mentioned before, I'll be going dark for the month of July. No posts will be forthcoming, but I'll be working on things behind the scenes. The blog should return sometime in the first week of August (or, worst case, second week.)
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Backtracking (2020)
Today I'm going to touch on a handful of recent topics, just briefly.
Monsters
Looking back on the most recent post on the topic, one of the ideas with the monster roll is that the DM always rolls it, but can adjudicate the monster's course of action, post-hoc.
Within this post, the design space of the monster roll went even further in the direction of unifying its overall mechanics. So I want to sort of lay out the "manual of arms" for how the DM can use the monster roll to speed up encounters.
Firstly, the DM can pre-roll an encounter; essentially, you make the monster roll (either electronically, or manually) enough times to hopefully get you through a whole combat. Then, as each monster has a turn, you use the next roll in the sequence, and "cross off" the rolls as you go. This lets you have a bit of runway, since you know what the next roll "on deck" will be, and can adjudicate the monster's turn a little bit in advance.
Secondly (as I mentioned in the intro) the DM can choose the monster's action based on the result of the roll, rather than choosing the action and rolling afterwards. So for example, since a Standard Monster uses only the highest roll for damage, but would add the dice together to determine success at a skill check, any roll where the total is less than 10 would be used to deal damage (still subject to a failed "save" by the targeted character.) Likewise, if a minion's roll is less than 10, they can do their "auto-damage" attack instead; alternatively, a DM could 'program' particular types of minions to always attack (so they don't have to roll) whereas other types could use signature skills by default (if successful) and deal damage as their backup.
I realize this can seem like 'cheating' insofar as the DM gets to see the result, and then always choose the optimal course of action (something the PCs can't do.) But it's important to understand that this is a mechanical contrivance meant to facilitate speed of gameplay, from the DM side of the board. Since the DM always has to manage all of the opponents in a combat encounter, anything we can do to streamline and simplify their job should be considered. That being said, there's nothing stopping the DM from doing things the 'old-fashioned' way, if they feel this is too much of a detriment to the fun of their players, at the table.
Minor and Major Bonuses (d6)
Naturally, within a day or so of my post, lamenting how hard it has been to come up with d6 mechanics, I was able to come up with a solution:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major bonus: add the d6 to a hit
I really like this. It's clean, slick. I like using the "max value" mechanic, since it would otherwise be underutilized. The major bonus has a 'score' a little bit above the guidelines (105, with the desired range being 100-103) but I think everything else it brings to the table makes up for this; the miss chance on the major bonus remains quite high, but it has the best crit chance out of the bunch, making for an interesting dynamic.
Work(shopp)ing Conditions
Another thing I hammered out since the last post, was a basic guideline for some status effects. This is just sort of to get the ball rolling, so I'll expand on these a bit as I get time/inspiration.
Since the handful of combat skills overlap quite a bit, with regards to Attributes/Skillsets, I quickly realized that I would not need to have 10 different penalties to cover everything. Here are the ones I settled on, with tentative naming conventions:
Some additional thoughts:
Monsters
Looking back on the most recent post on the topic, one of the ideas with the monster roll is that the DM always rolls it, but can adjudicate the monster's course of action, post-hoc.
Within this post, the design space of the monster roll went even further in the direction of unifying its overall mechanics. So I want to sort of lay out the "manual of arms" for how the DM can use the monster roll to speed up encounters.
Firstly, the DM can pre-roll an encounter; essentially, you make the monster roll (either electronically, or manually) enough times to hopefully get you through a whole combat. Then, as each monster has a turn, you use the next roll in the sequence, and "cross off" the rolls as you go. This lets you have a bit of runway, since you know what the next roll "on deck" will be, and can adjudicate the monster's turn a little bit in advance.
Secondly (as I mentioned in the intro) the DM can choose the monster's action based on the result of the roll, rather than choosing the action and rolling afterwards. So for example, since a Standard Monster uses only the highest roll for damage, but would add the dice together to determine success at a skill check, any roll where the total is less than 10 would be used to deal damage (still subject to a failed "save" by the targeted character.) Likewise, if a minion's roll is less than 10, they can do their "auto-damage" attack instead; alternatively, a DM could 'program' particular types of minions to always attack (so they don't have to roll) whereas other types could use signature skills by default (if successful) and deal damage as their backup.
I realize this can seem like 'cheating' insofar as the DM gets to see the result, and then always choose the optimal course of action (something the PCs can't do.) But it's important to understand that this is a mechanical contrivance meant to facilitate speed of gameplay, from the DM side of the board. Since the DM always has to manage all of the opponents in a combat encounter, anything we can do to streamline and simplify their job should be considered. That being said, there's nothing stopping the DM from doing things the 'old-fashioned' way, if they feel this is too much of a detriment to the fun of their players, at the table.
Minor and Major Bonuses (d6)
Naturally, within a day or so of my post, lamenting how hard it has been to come up with d6 mechanics, I was able to come up with a solution:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major bonus: add the d6 to a hit
I really like this. It's clean, slick. I like using the "max value" mechanic, since it would otherwise be underutilized. The major bonus has a 'score' a little bit above the guidelines (105, with the desired range being 100-103) but I think everything else it brings to the table makes up for this; the miss chance on the major bonus remains quite high, but it has the best crit chance out of the bunch, making for an interesting dynamic.
Work(shopp)ing Conditions
Another thing I hammered out since the last post, was a basic guideline for some status effects. This is just sort of to get the ball rolling, so I'll expand on these a bit as I get time/inspiration.
Since the handful of combat skills overlap quite a bit, with regards to Attributes/Skillsets, I quickly realized that I would not need to have 10 different penalties to cover everything. Here are the ones I settled on, with tentative naming conventions:
- Haggard: disadvantage on STR checks (Brawl, Climb, Break Objects, Intimidation)
- Staggered: disadvantage on AGIL checks (Acrobatics, Jump, Stealth)
- Winded: disadvantage on Athletics checks (Brawl, Climb, Acrobatics, Jump)
- Dazzled: disadvantage on Detection checks (would really only be Perception, in combat)
- Frazzled: disadvantage on Presence checks (would really only be Intimidation, in combat -- unless I decide to add some sort of morale system...)
Some additional thoughts:
Probably the 'staggered' condition will also impose some specific penalties to movement, within the action economy, unless the Immobilized/Restrained conditions are kept, and are used to cover that design space. I haven't fully decided if the 'dazzled' condition will also have an attack penalty, or if the combination of those two will be on a full-blown 'blinded' condition. Perception checks on their own aren't super important or common, unless you're fighting enemies that rely heavily on stealth, so it might merit having a little something else tacked on. On the other hand, the same could be said for the 'frazzled' condition; maybe the way to 'balance' these two conditions is solely against each other, with the other three conditions being sort of one "tier" higher in terms of balance/severity.
Slates
Finally, I want to go back and revisit the topic of class dice loadouts ("already?" you say; yes I know...)
After having looked at the loadout I published previously (as well as the 'Plan B' that went with it) I realized I still wasn't satisfied; there were too many weird fits and too many uses of the word "compromise" so I resolved to do some more juggling:
After having looked at the loadout I published previously (as well as the 'Plan B' that went with it) I realized I still wasn't satisfied; there were too many weird fits and too many uses of the word "compromise" so I resolved to do some more juggling:
Acrobat: d4/d8 -- I think this one is just meant to be, dice "roles" be damned.
Cleric: d4/d10 -- Definitely like this a lot more than the alternatives, and I like these dice better here, rather than on Acrobat or Adventurer.
Paladin: d6/d10 -- Fits way better w/r/t the Cleric.
Warlord: d8/d12 -- About as good as d4/d12, and it just makes the rest of the slate work.
Adventurer: d6/d8 -- As said before, this is functionally like the 'light blade' loadout, from Essentials.
Ranger: d8/d10 -- I like this a lot more than d4/d8; honestly my 1st choice would be probably d6/d8, but a beefier Ranger relative to the Adventurer gives it the right feel, in terms of relative class balance.
Guardian: d4/d12 -- Swapped with Warlord; keeping in mind the proposed changes to Reserves, I think we can manage with this.
Barbarian: d10/d12 -- I've always wanted a smaller die for their ranged attacks, but otherwise I like this fit well enough.
Fighter (d6/d12) and Druid (d4/d6) remain unchanged
Overall, I like the loadout of the latter slate in particular. I think having the Adventurer, Ranger, and Barbarian each with a striker die + a different die type is a good fit for all three. This means there's a little weirdness with the Paladin (being striker/striker) but I think it's still s decent enough fit, especially with d10 being the iconically Paladin die.
...
Next post is due out on June 26th, so check back then!
Just a reminder, that will be the last post before the July break, so if you have any topics you'd like covered before then, now is the time to get those in to me :)
...
Next post is due out on June 26th, so check back then!
Just a reminder, that will be the last post before the July break, so if you have any topics you'd like covered before then, now is the time to get those in to me :)
Friday, June 5, 2020
Codifying Conditions (2020)
A short post today, since I haven't been able to really sit down and work on things a whole lot...
By the standards of D&D, there aren't that many "status effect"-type conditions used in The Next Project. The idea was to sort of streamline things into a few broad categories. These could then be widely applied to fit any number of different mechanics, without needing to care too much about the fluff that might be attached to them. Also, some statuses tend to just be too punishing (such as being stunned) so I wanted to leave that on the cutting-room floor.
However, I had an idea for how I might be able to expand the list a little bit, so I wanted to share that with the reading audience; this isn't fully-formed, by any stretch, so I'll try and expand as much as I can, while I'm writing this out.
I was thinking about a condition like "blinded" -- a staple for most RPGs, but not something I have in TNP as it currently stands. I figured, probably this would give you disadvantage on perception checks, and maybe some other penalty (typically in D&D, this would be to attack rolls, just as an example.)
But that sort of got me thinking, a bit. What about this:
Make it so that giving someone disadvantage on perception checks is the mechanic, with the other penalty being tied to having disadvantage on that type of check -- rather than having a blinded condition that gives you those penalties.
Admittedly, it's sort of coming at the problem from a different direction, while achieving the same result. But if the entire subsystem is built around this supposition, maybe it would be possible to blend the two ideas -- status effects, and skill penalties -- into a more unified structure. So what we should look at next, is the whole list of combat skills, as well as the existing status effects, and see where we might at least be able to combine them together.
Combat Skills:
Brawl (STR/Athletics)
- used for grappling, shoving, etc.
Climb (STR/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Break Objects (STR/Infiltration)
- used to destroy sources of Cover or High Ground
Intimidation (STR/Presence)
- used to cow enemies into surrender
Acrobatics (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to escape grapples, balance when falling from high ground, as well as to Withdraw, or to stand from prone using a Minor action instead of a Move action
Jump (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Stealth (AGIL/Subtlety)
- used to become Hidden
Perception (INT/Detection)
- used to detect enemies who are Hidden
Status Effects:
Weakened
- This is sort of a catch-all, disadvantage on skill checks; we may be able to keep it, or we may just break it down into its component parts; it might also make sense to use this terminology for disadvantage on STR checks
Immobilized
- A bunch of action economy penalties, effectively limiting how you can move on your turn
- The first obvious thing is that you cannot gain High Ground, which is typically associated with Jump or Climb; maybe this could be tied to disadvantage on Athletics checks
Incapacitated, Prone
- Further action economy penalties, specifically Off-Turn Actions, as well as a penalty to "saves"
- Perhaps this could be modeled as part of disadvantage on AGIL checks, harkening back to D&D 3.5?
I'll probably have to revisit this topic to give it a deeper inspection, but it seems like there's some hay to be made, particularly the idea of penalties to combat skillsets/attributes:
STR: Brawl/Climb/Break Objects/Intimidation
Athletics: Brawl/Climb/Acrobatics/Jump
AGIL: Acrobatics/Jump/Stealth
So, there might be space in the design for penalties to specific skills (Perception, obviously, but Stealth also sticks out as a good candidate) but penalties to groups of skills also probably has its place. The existing status effects are a bit clunky, and so trying to streamline them behind this structure instead, seems like it'd be a worthwhile quality-of-life improvement to explore.
...
Apologies for this post being a bit slapdash; check back on June 16th for the next update.
As always, suggestions for blog topics are welcome and appreciated.
By the standards of D&D, there aren't that many "status effect"-type conditions used in The Next Project. The idea was to sort of streamline things into a few broad categories. These could then be widely applied to fit any number of different mechanics, without needing to care too much about the fluff that might be attached to them. Also, some statuses tend to just be too punishing (such as being stunned) so I wanted to leave that on the cutting-room floor.
However, I had an idea for how I might be able to expand the list a little bit, so I wanted to share that with the reading audience; this isn't fully-formed, by any stretch, so I'll try and expand as much as I can, while I'm writing this out.
I was thinking about a condition like "blinded" -- a staple for most RPGs, but not something I have in TNP as it currently stands. I figured, probably this would give you disadvantage on perception checks, and maybe some other penalty (typically in D&D, this would be to attack rolls, just as an example.)
But that sort of got me thinking, a bit. What about this:
Make it so that giving someone disadvantage on perception checks is the mechanic, with the other penalty being tied to having disadvantage on that type of check -- rather than having a blinded condition that gives you those penalties.
Admittedly, it's sort of coming at the problem from a different direction, while achieving the same result. But if the entire subsystem is built around this supposition, maybe it would be possible to blend the two ideas -- status effects, and skill penalties -- into a more unified structure. So what we should look at next, is the whole list of combat skills, as well as the existing status effects, and see where we might at least be able to combine them together.
Combat Skills:
Brawl (STR/Athletics)
- used for grappling, shoving, etc.
Climb (STR/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Break Objects (STR/Infiltration)
- used to destroy sources of Cover or High Ground
Intimidation (STR/Presence)
- used to cow enemies into surrender
Acrobatics (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to escape grapples, balance when falling from high ground, as well as to Withdraw, or to stand from prone using a Minor action instead of a Move action
Jump (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Stealth (AGIL/Subtlety)
- used to become Hidden
Perception (INT/Detection)
- used to detect enemies who are Hidden
Status Effects:
Weakened
- This is sort of a catch-all, disadvantage on skill checks; we may be able to keep it, or we may just break it down into its component parts; it might also make sense to use this terminology for disadvantage on STR checks
Immobilized
- A bunch of action economy penalties, effectively limiting how you can move on your turn
- The first obvious thing is that you cannot gain High Ground, which is typically associated with Jump or Climb; maybe this could be tied to disadvantage on Athletics checks
Incapacitated, Prone
- Further action economy penalties, specifically Off-Turn Actions, as well as a penalty to "saves"
- Perhaps this could be modeled as part of disadvantage on AGIL checks, harkening back to D&D 3.5?
I'll probably have to revisit this topic to give it a deeper inspection, but it seems like there's some hay to be made, particularly the idea of penalties to combat skillsets/attributes:
STR: Brawl/Climb/Break Objects/Intimidation
Athletics: Brawl/Climb/Acrobatics/Jump
AGIL: Acrobatics/Jump/Stealth
So, there might be space in the design for penalties to specific skills (Perception, obviously, but Stealth also sticks out as a good candidate) but penalties to groups of skills also probably has its place. The existing status effects are a bit clunky, and so trying to streamline them behind this structure instead, seems like it'd be a worthwhile quality-of-life improvement to explore.
...
Apologies for this post being a bit slapdash; check back on June 16th for the next update.
As always, suggestions for blog topics are welcome and appreciated.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Refining Reserves (2020)
Since the designs will be going forward with the majority of classes functioning off of two dice (instead of one) this makes for a good opportunity to refine the mechanics of reserves. I should start by saying plainly, that reserves are functionally analogous to healing surges in 4th Edition D&D, albeit somewhat more abstracted. Specifically, since most of the mechanics in TNP are effectively "at-will" usage, anything with a limitation on usages tends to burn reserves; in essence, they are both healing surges, as well as being every other per-day resource that a character might have.
In the past, the mechanical ethos was to assign a class a number of reserves based on their class die. A baseline amount of per-day healing from reserves was built off of that; classes with more reserves than the baseline (i.e. d10 and d12 classes) would need to have abilities with a reserve cost (that hopefully "made sense" thematically) built into them. These costs were effectively reverse-engineered onto the abilities, in order to fit the class die. With the "two-dice" ethos, what we can do is instead work from the assumption that the number of reserves will be scaled down to the die that most easily aligns with the baseline, and only scale it up if it makes sense thematically for the class to have a "reserve-burning" mechanic. What this means is that only classes with a d10/d10, d10/d12, or d12/d12 loadout will necessarily have to have 10 or more reserves.
The other direction to take, which might make also sense, would be to streamline reserve calculations a little bit, wherever possible. To wit, it could make it easier to outright remove the d4 expression, or at least roll it up with the d8 expression. I think the same could probably be done for d6 and d12; the previous number-crunching on the subject seems to suggest that the sweet spot is about 6-8 reserves per day (and above that, you have to start adding extra mechanics to burn reserves on.) Rather than having to pump d12 classes up with such mechanics, we could simply have d12 and d6 use the same math.
That would leave us with something like this:
Admittedly, this looks a little screwy. The d4/d8 and d6/d12 expressions (in terms of per-day healing) "average" out the same, but I can't help but feeling there's more that should be done, to smooth out the variance. Perhaps the way to do approach it, is to have the smaller die always used for the number of reserves, while the larger die is used for the "surge value." This would be a bit of a logistical... well, maybe not "nightmare" but at least a "headache" -- it also doesn't do anything to resolve the issue, with regards to single-die classes.
(It's also probably worth mentioning, that each class having two dice can potentially allow for the separation of HP calculation from Reserve calculation; a class or subclass may use the HP calculation from one of their dice, but the Reserve calcucation from their other die, for example.)
What I think this all would ultimately prescribe, is making the d10 into the de-facto "reserve burning" class die, in order to bring their "daily HP" pool more in line with the other expressions. We might still be able to boost reserves to 12 (for classes that have d12 as one of their dice) if they are a class that we want to have reserve-burning as part of their shtick. This could also be used as for "specs" such as the proposed Psionic or Runepriest mechanics, for example; in such a case, it probably makes sense for those archetypes to boost your character's reserves to 12 (or "reserve calcualtion to d12" if we want to be somewhat pedantic.)
Conclusions
I guess what I would take away from all of this would be:
In the past, the mechanical ethos was to assign a class a number of reserves based on their class die. A baseline amount of per-day healing from reserves was built off of that; classes with more reserves than the baseline (i.e. d10 and d12 classes) would need to have abilities with a reserve cost (that hopefully "made sense" thematically) built into them. These costs were effectively reverse-engineered onto the abilities, in order to fit the class die. With the "two-dice" ethos, what we can do is instead work from the assumption that the number of reserves will be scaled down to the die that most easily aligns with the baseline, and only scale it up if it makes sense thematically for the class to have a "reserve-burning" mechanic. What this means is that only classes with a d10/d10, d10/d12, or d12/d12 loadout will necessarily have to have 10 or more reserves.
The other direction to take, which might make also sense, would be to streamline reserve calculations a little bit, wherever possible. To wit, it could make it easier to outright remove the d4 expression, or at least roll it up with the d8 expression. I think the same could probably be done for d6 and d12; the previous number-crunching on the subject seems to suggest that the sweet spot is about 6-8 reserves per day (and above that, you have to start adding extra mechanics to burn reserves on.) Rather than having to pump d12 classes up with such mechanics, we could simply have d12 and d6 use the same math.
That would leave us with something like this:
- d4 or d8 -- 8 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 32-160 HP
- d6 or d12 -- 6 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 72-120 HP
- d10 -- 10 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 100-200 HP
Admittedly, this looks a little screwy. The d4/d8 and d6/d12 expressions (in terms of per-day healing) "average" out the same, but I can't help but feeling there's more that should be done, to smooth out the variance. Perhaps the way to do approach it, is to have the smaller die always used for the number of reserves, while the larger die is used for the "surge value." This would be a bit of a logistical... well, maybe not "nightmare" but at least a "headache" -- it also doesn't do anything to resolve the issue, with regards to single-die classes.
(It's also probably worth mentioning, that each class having two dice can potentially allow for the separation of HP calculation from Reserve calculation; a class or subclass may use the HP calculation from one of their dice, but the Reserve calcucation from their other die, for example.)
What I think this all would ultimately prescribe, is making the d10 into the de-facto "reserve burning" class die, in order to bring their "daily HP" pool more in line with the other expressions. We might still be able to boost reserves to 12 (for classes that have d12 as one of their dice) if they are a class that we want to have reserve-burning as part of their shtick. This could also be used as for "specs" such as the proposed Psionic or Runepriest mechanics, for example; in such a case, it probably makes sense for those archetypes to boost your character's reserves to 12 (or "reserve calcualtion to d12" if we want to be somewhat pedantic.)
Conclusions
I guess what I would take away from all of this would be:
- HP calculations probably won't change; it will still be "maximum value of [d20 + class die]" but for two-dice classes, the exact die will have to be specified, and/or may be different depending on subclass.
- Reserve calculation will effectively default to the lower of the two class dice, with d4 being the exception. This means either d4 will necessarily get 8 reserves, or there will be some other sort of blended calculation that both d4 and d8 will use.
- If the smallest die a class has is d10 or d12, then that should be a class with a rational justification for having a reserve-burning mechanic.
- Archetypes/Domains that call for the addition of a reserve-burning mechanic to a character will likely necessitate the character's reserve calculation being boosted to the d10 or d12 calculation.
One other thing (I didn't talk about it above, but should still be mentioned in this conclusion) is the idea of using reserves as a benchmark or modifier. What exactly I mean by this is that, if we're able to hypothetically narrow the number of "maximum" reserves down to a range of 6-10, this should make it more effective to use "current reserves" as a number by which class mechanics can function. The first example that popped into mind would be as a limitation to the number of creatures that could be summoned by a particular ability, or to the number of summoned creatures that could be under your control at any given time. Admittedly the latter would be far more punishing as the adventuring day went on, and no doubt there could be other mechanics that might leverage this more effectively.
This (admittedly) is sort of a roundabout way of getting to the design mechanic of "ability modifiers" into a game where everything is supposed to be designed off of the dice. But looking over some of the mechanics, I can see where the utility of a hard, flat number would be desirable -- and since reserves are still a function of class dice, it fits into the existing ethos, albeit in a roundabout way. At this point, it's just a question of whether or not a modifier that degrades over the course of an adventuring day is a mechanic with wide enough application to really be useful.
Side note:
In going back through some old literature for TNP, I had originally intended that spending a reserve would always heal you to your maximum HP. However, what actually got implemented was the "surge value" system -- which, in combat, can produce "overhealing" as sort of a way of replicating the design space of "temporary HP" (mentioned in this post here.) I think going forward, the assumption will use a blend of these systems: if you're in combat, or at 0 HP (i.e. "under duress") then spending a reserve to regain HP will require a roll; otherwise, spending 1 reserve will restore your HP to its maximum.
...
Next scheduled blogging day will be Friday, June 5th -- so check back then!
Friday, May 15, 2020
Casting the Dice -- Part 3: The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune
To d6, or not 2d6? That is the question...
Way back in old-timey days, I wrote a post outlining how I wanted "support mechanics" to function. Essentially, these are "roll and compare" mechanics (class dice used in conjunction with d20 rolls) providing a framework for bonuses that were bigger than Mastery/Expertise, but smaller than Advantage. Part of that process involved coming up with a measurement by which to create bonuses of comparable value, and I settled on [hit chance + (crit chance * 3)] for giving each mechanic a "score."
Now, I wish I could say that I've settled on all of these mechanics, but as you might have guessed from the opening line, the d6 class die is giving me problems. Specifically, when I recently decided to take another try at finalizing these mechanics, I also looked at what the "miss chance" was for each -- and decided that, as best as possible, that those needed to be kept within a relatively small range. However, one of the mechanics I had picked for d6 (essentially, 2d6, and working fairly similarly to 1d12) resulted in a miss chance of just below 10% -- far less than what any of the other dice were doing. So I decided to revise that, and I'm currently still working on it.
What I have settled on, is basically the textual format that I want to have these mechanics laid out in. The idea is that there will be an expression which lays out a mechanic that the minor and major bonuses (for a given die) will both use; then, the minor bonus will add one clause, and the major bonus will add one different clause (not using the clause from the minor bonus, mind you.) I also tried to narrow down the types of clauses used, so that there aren't any more fiddly mechanics than there absolutely needs to be.
Here's what this looks like so far:
d4
always: add the d4 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d4 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d4 roll to a hit [potentially boosting it to a crit]
d8
always: add the d8 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
d10
always: if the d10 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 10] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d10 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d10 to a miss
d12
always: you can use the d12 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d12 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if both the d12 roll and the d20 roll would hit
A Sea of Troubles
Now, coming back to the d6, I'll just talk about what I'm playing with.
One thing I had considered was rolling 2d6 and allowing the roll to be treated as a crit if the two d6 rolled a tie/match; the math on this was usable, but I don't like that it doesn't fall in line with the existing "match" mechanic, and thought it might cause confusion.
I also looked at fixing the old mechanic by rolling 2d6 but only allowing one to be added to a miss. I found this to be clunky, and more or less decided I don't want to have functions that involved applying 2d6 to one function and also 1d6 to a different function. The idea of rolling 2d6 and adding one (either the lower or higher) on either a hit or a miss seemed intriguing, but the math never quite worked; "add low to miss, add to hit if max" was something mathematically workable, but completely impractical and messy. Howver, that started to point me in a new direction, at least.
What I realized then, was that if I were to use the "add to miss" mechanic on d6, then its other mechanics would have to be completely different than what the d4 and d8 were doing -- otherwise the math would end up slanted, with d6 always being flatout better than d4 and worse than d8. Since I had settled on "add if max" as a mechanic for the d10, I decided I should see if I could make it work for the d6 as well (rather than having it as an outlier.) It also seemed like a sensible idea, in the context of d6 and d10 potentially sharing a "dice role."
This lead me to a few possible setups, each with their own drawbacks:
Option 1:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
A couple problems with this:
1) The minor bonus actually produces the same math as "add to miss, crit on tie" ...but those are the exact same functions used for the d4 minor bonus, so it ends up just being flatout better -- and to top it off, it's a little bit above the cap for minor bonuses.
2) Trying to bash together a 1d6 and a 2d6, while keeping them separate (because one is a minor bonus and one is a major bonus) is ...mushy.
3) Just too many functions going on, causing confusion; I ran this by some people, and they weren't clear as to whether the "add to miss" or "match" mechanics of the minor bonus only triggered on a "max value" roll.
4) The major bonus happens to also be a little bit above the cap, for major bonuses.
Option 2:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
always: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: [no other modifiers]
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
So, on the plus side, the minor bonus produces the exact same math as the d4 minor bonus -- nice! And both bonuses use only 1d6. The problems are mostly esthetic; having two "always" clauses but no "minor" clause is weird, and it means the major bonus ends up having three clauses. Plus, the major bonus math is still a little bit high (it's more of a hit bonus, whereas the major bonus in Option 1 is built on more of a crit bonus -- but both are around a score of 105.)
Option 3:
[using the minor bonus from Option 2, with the major bonus from Option 1]
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
This seems to (at least math-wise) be the best compromise. And it's probably the 'cleanest' option so far -- although I still don't love mixing 1d6 and 2d6 mechanics together, so the alternative would be:
Option 4:
always: roll 2d6
minor bonus: you can use the 2d6 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if both the 2d6 roll and the d20 roll would hit
major bonus: if (either) d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
What we've done here is essentially taken the d12 major bonus, and used it as our 2d6 minor bonus -- which works out in terms of math. And then we've effectively recycled the major bonus from Option 1, for this setup. The downside is, there's a lot of functions flying around, and the only unifying mechanic is the 2d6 -- it's a bit of a high price to pay, for the mess it creates.
Conclusions
I should end by mentioning that the math regarding 2d6 that I used in figuring out these numbers, is actually based on the "double-roll and stack" rule's math, rather than just straight 2d6 math.
With that out of the way, I think that Option 3 probably fits the format best, and is (hopefully?) a little less confusing that the others. Option 1 can likely be ruled out just on its math, but also because of the other problems I mentioned. Option 2 cleans up all of the messiness of Option 1, but isn't the best fit for the format. Option 4 ...works, but is just sort of all-around messy (breaks the format, too many computations, etc.)
So, if I had to start implementing math into a new draft of the rules today, I would probably have to go with Option 3. But let me know what your thoughts are on the matter, and I'll continue working in the background to see if there's a better option still out there.
I should also mention one of the lessons learned from previous playtesting: these mechanics are much stronger when applied to defensive rolls. The simple reason for that, is because a given character can only make so many attack rolls on their turn (and generally only one Basic Attack); in a round, however, they may have to make as many defensive rolls as there are enemies to defend against. That all being taken into account, I think the place within the designs for these mechanics is in the Archetypes and Domains, where mechanical bonuses will need to work similarly, across the various class dice; class-specific mechanics can (and probably will, by necessity) deviate from the math presented here.
...
Next post should be up on May 26th, so check back then.
Way back in old-timey days, I wrote a post outlining how I wanted "support mechanics" to function. Essentially, these are "roll and compare" mechanics (class dice used in conjunction with d20 rolls) providing a framework for bonuses that were bigger than Mastery/Expertise, but smaller than Advantage. Part of that process involved coming up with a measurement by which to create bonuses of comparable value, and I settled on [hit chance + (crit chance * 3)] for giving each mechanic a "score."
Now, I wish I could say that I've settled on all of these mechanics, but as you might have guessed from the opening line, the d6 class die is giving me problems. Specifically, when I recently decided to take another try at finalizing these mechanics, I also looked at what the "miss chance" was for each -- and decided that, as best as possible, that those needed to be kept within a relatively small range. However, one of the mechanics I had picked for d6 (essentially, 2d6, and working fairly similarly to 1d12) resulted in a miss chance of just below 10% -- far less than what any of the other dice were doing. So I decided to revise that, and I'm currently still working on it.
What I have settled on, is basically the textual format that I want to have these mechanics laid out in. The idea is that there will be an expression which lays out a mechanic that the minor and major bonuses (for a given die) will both use; then, the minor bonus will add one clause, and the major bonus will add one different clause (not using the clause from the minor bonus, mind you.) I also tried to narrow down the types of clauses used, so that there aren't any more fiddly mechanics than there absolutely needs to be.
Here's what this looks like so far:
d4
always: add the d4 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d4 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d4 roll to a hit [potentially boosting it to a crit]
d8
always: add the d8 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
d10
always: if the d10 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 10] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d10 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d10 to a miss
d12
always: you can use the d12 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d12 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if both the d12 roll and the d20 roll would hit
A Sea of Troubles
Now, coming back to the d6, I'll just talk about what I'm playing with.
One thing I had considered was rolling 2d6 and allowing the roll to be treated as a crit if the two d6 rolled a tie/match; the math on this was usable, but I don't like that it doesn't fall in line with the existing "match" mechanic, and thought it might cause confusion.
I also looked at fixing the old mechanic by rolling 2d6 but only allowing one to be added to a miss. I found this to be clunky, and more or less decided I don't want to have functions that involved applying 2d6 to one function and also 1d6 to a different function. The idea of rolling 2d6 and adding one (either the lower or higher) on either a hit or a miss seemed intriguing, but the math never quite worked; "add low to miss, add to hit if max" was something mathematically workable, but completely impractical and messy. Howver, that started to point me in a new direction, at least.
What I realized then, was that if I were to use the "add to miss" mechanic on d6, then its other mechanics would have to be completely different than what the d4 and d8 were doing -- otherwise the math would end up slanted, with d6 always being flatout better than d4 and worse than d8. Since I had settled on "add if max" as a mechanic for the d10, I decided I should see if I could make it work for the d6 as well (rather than having it as an outlier.) It also seemed like a sensible idea, in the context of d6 and d10 potentially sharing a "dice role."
This lead me to a few possible setups, each with their own drawbacks:
Option 1:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
A couple problems with this:
1) The minor bonus actually produces the same math as "add to miss, crit on tie" ...but those are the exact same functions used for the d4 minor bonus, so it ends up just being flatout better -- and to top it off, it's a little bit above the cap for minor bonuses.
2) Trying to bash together a 1d6 and a 2d6, while keeping them separate (because one is a minor bonus and one is a major bonus) is ...mushy.
3) Just too many functions going on, causing confusion; I ran this by some people, and they weren't clear as to whether the "add to miss" or "match" mechanics of the minor bonus only triggered on a "max value" roll.
4) The major bonus happens to also be a little bit above the cap, for major bonuses.
Option 2:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
always: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: [no other modifiers]
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
So, on the plus side, the minor bonus produces the exact same math as the d4 minor bonus -- nice! And both bonuses use only 1d6. The problems are mostly esthetic; having two "always" clauses but no "minor" clause is weird, and it means the major bonus ends up having three clauses. Plus, the major bonus math is still a little bit high (it's more of a hit bonus, whereas the major bonus in Option 1 is built on more of a crit bonus -- but both are around a score of 105.)
Option 3:
[using the minor bonus from Option 2, with the major bonus from Option 1]
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
This seems to (at least math-wise) be the best compromise. And it's probably the 'cleanest' option so far -- although I still don't love mixing 1d6 and 2d6 mechanics together, so the alternative would be:
Option 4:
always: roll 2d6
minor bonus: you can use the 2d6 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if both the 2d6 roll and the d20 roll would hit
major bonus: if (either) d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
What we've done here is essentially taken the d12 major bonus, and used it as our 2d6 minor bonus -- which works out in terms of math. And then we've effectively recycled the major bonus from Option 1, for this setup. The downside is, there's a lot of functions flying around, and the only unifying mechanic is the 2d6 -- it's a bit of a high price to pay, for the mess it creates.
Conclusions
I should end by mentioning that the math regarding 2d6 that I used in figuring out these numbers, is actually based on the "double-roll and stack" rule's math, rather than just straight 2d6 math.
With that out of the way, I think that Option 3 probably fits the format best, and is (hopefully?) a little less confusing that the others. Option 1 can likely be ruled out just on its math, but also because of the other problems I mentioned. Option 2 cleans up all of the messiness of Option 1, but isn't the best fit for the format. Option 4 ...works, but is just sort of all-around messy (breaks the format, too many computations, etc.)
So, if I had to start implementing math into a new draft of the rules today, I would probably have to go with Option 3. But let me know what your thoughts are on the matter, and I'll continue working in the background to see if there's a better option still out there.
I should also mention one of the lessons learned from previous playtesting: these mechanics are much stronger when applied to defensive rolls. The simple reason for that, is because a given character can only make so many attack rolls on their turn (and generally only one Basic Attack); in a round, however, they may have to make as many defensive rolls as there are enemies to defend against. That all being taken into account, I think the place within the designs for these mechanics is in the Archetypes and Domains, where mechanical bonuses will need to work similarly, across the various class dice; class-specific mechanics can (and probably will, by necessity) deviate from the math presented here.
...
Next post should be up on May 26th, so check back then.
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Power Sources (2020)
As I teased at the end of the last post, today we're going to discuss which power sources each class will have access to.
First, I should qualify that some of these might be limited to specific subclasses of a given class, but I just want to do a broad overview for now:
Arcane:
Knowledge Skills: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Religion
Archetypes: Psionic, Skald
Domains: Divination, Enchantment
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Cleric, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Adventurer
Divine:
Knowledge Skills: Royalty & Nobility, Medicine, Religion
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Domains: Devotion, Life
Classes: (8 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Sage, Bard, Spellbinder
Martial:
Knowledge Skills: History & Geography, Animal Handling, Local
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
Domains: Leadership, War
Classes: (13 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Rogue, Bard, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Primal:
Knowledge Skills: Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine
Archetypes: Elementalist, Scout
Domains: Blood, Stone
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Warlord
Sage, Rogue, Occultist
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Shadow:
Knowledge Skills: Streetwise, Dungeoneering, Local
Archetypes: Revenant, Vampire
Domains: Death, Trickery
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer
Distribution:
I did try and "balance" out the utilization of each power source. However, as you can see, the 3rd slate does not get access to Divine; as I've mentioned before, most of the stuff going on with that power source doesn't really jive with this slate of classes, particularly with the Religion and Medicine skills being available from other (better suited) power sources.
I think each slate has always had 2 primary power sources. So I decided to make those available to all classes within those respective slates, which necessitated moving some other power sources off of certain classes. With the History and Geography knowledge skills having been combined into one, plus the already existing overlap with Primal (i.e. Animal Handling) it seemed like giving all of the classes on the 3rd slate access to the Martial power source was the right thing to do.
The Acrobat is the closest thing to a blank slate out of its class category (arguably, out of all of the classes) so I decided to give them free choice in their power source, to flavour however you'd like -- which is made a little easier since the category they happen to be in is the "skill specialist" category. I've always seen this class as the main stand-in for the 4e Avenger (Divine) as well as Executioner (Shadow), but also a simplified Ranger (Primal), as well as an obvious place for an "arcane archer"-type character; all of that would also seem to help with the justification.
Flavour:
At times I had considered moving Shadow off of the Paladin class, but it just wouldn't feel right, so long as Blackguard remained one of the Paladin subclasses; taking Martial off of the Sage (i.e. off the Monk subclass) was also something I went back and forth on, but as the design space of power sources expanded in the direction it has, keeping it made less and less sense. On the topic of the Monk, I think Divine seems like a natural fit; the Bard in 3.5 having all knowledge skills on their class skill list, made me want them to have access to this (rare) power source; Spellbinder is sort of taking on its own unique flavour, and Divine as a power source for the Swordmage subclass is a part of that growth.
Rogue being split into Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses makes for a similar case, with Primal being meant for Sorcerer, Martial being meant for Assassin, and their other two power sources being meant for both. The presence of the Shadow power source for classes of the 3rd slate is meant for a more "city-focused" versions of the Guardian (specifically the Warden subclass), Ranger, and Adventurer. I didn't give Bard the Primal power source, since Skald is meant to function as the "Primal Bard" (as it is in 4e's Heroes of the Feywild... sort of.)
Fighter and Warlord are given a bit of room to stretch out, since they would otherwise end up sort of narrowly focused. I particularly like the idea of a Runepriest Fighter, or a Primal-flavoured shamanistic Warlord. I also like the Primal power source on the Sage class, as sort of a "Brown Wizard"-style character. I've often felt bad about limiting Barbarian as much as it is in this regard, but nothing else really seemed to fit; hopefully their subtypes will help do them justice.
A Bridge Too Far?
As you can pretty clearly see, not every Domain or Archetype is a fit with every class, under each power source. This is why these character subtypes remain partially a function of class (or at least class category) rather than purely a function of power source. That being said, I know there will still be some imperfections, as with any time an entirely new framework is presented. I guess this is all to say: "I apologize in advance if you get hyped about one of the possible combos laid out here, and it ends up getting axed," because this is an absolute possibility.
So!
15 classes, 5 power sources, 10 archetypes, and 10 domains. It's going to be tough, but I'll try my best to get these things all playing together nicely -- and limiting subtypes by another metric besides just power source is meant to help facilitate that. Hopefully this all converges together just right, and makes power sources a meaningfully hefty part of the designs, and of character customization.
...
Blog Update
Just one minor thing I want to touch on here:
Historically, I've taken a break in July; I think I will try and take the whole month off from blogging this time, so that I can settle down and focus on going heavy into the writing and design work. Assuming I take December off this year as well, that means 8 months of posting in 2020, for a total of 24 posts this year. That's down from 30 in both 2017 and 2018, but I still feel its a good number; if work continues on into 2021, I will probably use this year's schedule for that.
Next post is due on Friday, May 15th -- check back then!
First, I should qualify that some of these might be limited to specific subclasses of a given class, but I just want to do a broad overview for now:
Arcane:
Knowledge Skills: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Religion
Archetypes: Psionic, Skald
Domains: Divination, Enchantment
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Cleric, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Adventurer
Divine:
Knowledge Skills: Royalty & Nobility, Medicine, Religion
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Domains: Devotion, Life
Classes: (8 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Sage, Bard, Spellbinder
Martial:
Knowledge Skills: History & Geography, Animal Handling, Local
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
Domains: Leadership, War
Classes: (13 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Rogue, Bard, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Primal:
Knowledge Skills: Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine
Archetypes: Elementalist, Scout
Domains: Blood, Stone
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Warlord
Sage, Rogue, Occultist
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Shadow:
Knowledge Skills: Streetwise, Dungeoneering, Local
Archetypes: Revenant, Vampire
Domains: Death, Trickery
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer
Distribution:
I did try and "balance" out the utilization of each power source. However, as you can see, the 3rd slate does not get access to Divine; as I've mentioned before, most of the stuff going on with that power source doesn't really jive with this slate of classes, particularly with the Religion and Medicine skills being available from other (better suited) power sources.
I think each slate has always had 2 primary power sources. So I decided to make those available to all classes within those respective slates, which necessitated moving some other power sources off of certain classes. With the History and Geography knowledge skills having been combined into one, plus the already existing overlap with Primal (i.e. Animal Handling) it seemed like giving all of the classes on the 3rd slate access to the Martial power source was the right thing to do.
The Acrobat is the closest thing to a blank slate out of its class category (arguably, out of all of the classes) so I decided to give them free choice in their power source, to flavour however you'd like -- which is made a little easier since the category they happen to be in is the "skill specialist" category. I've always seen this class as the main stand-in for the 4e Avenger (Divine) as well as Executioner (Shadow), but also a simplified Ranger (Primal), as well as an obvious place for an "arcane archer"-type character; all of that would also seem to help with the justification.
Flavour:
At times I had considered moving Shadow off of the Paladin class, but it just wouldn't feel right, so long as Blackguard remained one of the Paladin subclasses; taking Martial off of the Sage (i.e. off the Monk subclass) was also something I went back and forth on, but as the design space of power sources expanded in the direction it has, keeping it made less and less sense. On the topic of the Monk, I think Divine seems like a natural fit; the Bard in 3.5 having all knowledge skills on their class skill list, made me want them to have access to this (rare) power source; Spellbinder is sort of taking on its own unique flavour, and Divine as a power source for the Swordmage subclass is a part of that growth.
Rogue being split into Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses makes for a similar case, with Primal being meant for Sorcerer, Martial being meant for Assassin, and their other two power sources being meant for both. The presence of the Shadow power source for classes of the 3rd slate is meant for a more "city-focused" versions of the Guardian (specifically the Warden subclass), Ranger, and Adventurer. I didn't give Bard the Primal power source, since Skald is meant to function as the "Primal Bard" (as it is in 4e's Heroes of the Feywild... sort of.)
Fighter and Warlord are given a bit of room to stretch out, since they would otherwise end up sort of narrowly focused. I particularly like the idea of a Runepriest Fighter, or a Primal-flavoured shamanistic Warlord. I also like the Primal power source on the Sage class, as sort of a "Brown Wizard"-style character. I've often felt bad about limiting Barbarian as much as it is in this regard, but nothing else really seemed to fit; hopefully their subtypes will help do them justice.
A Bridge Too Far?
As you can pretty clearly see, not every Domain or Archetype is a fit with every class, under each power source. This is why these character subtypes remain partially a function of class (or at least class category) rather than purely a function of power source. That being said, I know there will still be some imperfections, as with any time an entirely new framework is presented. I guess this is all to say: "I apologize in advance if you get hyped about one of the possible combos laid out here, and it ends up getting axed," because this is an absolute possibility.
So!
15 classes, 5 power sources, 10 archetypes, and 10 domains. It's going to be tough, but I'll try my best to get these things all playing together nicely -- and limiting subtypes by another metric besides just power source is meant to help facilitate that. Hopefully this all converges together just right, and makes power sources a meaningfully hefty part of the designs, and of character customization.
...
Blog Update
Just one minor thing I want to touch on here:
Historically, I've taken a break in July; I think I will try and take the whole month off from blogging this time, so that I can settle down and focus on going heavy into the writing and design work. Assuming I take December off this year as well, that means 8 months of posting in 2020, for a total of 24 posts this year. That's down from 30 in both 2017 and 2018, but I still feel its a good number; if work continues on into 2021, I will probably use this year's schedule for that.
Next post is due on Friday, May 15th -- check back then!
Friday, April 24, 2020
Expansionism -- Part 3: Redux
As you might guess from the title, I've done a couple posts on this topic in the past. More recently, I've been focusing in on the need/desire to have more subtypes available for character customization, and to have those more mechanically tied in with Power Sources. To that end, I went about mocking up some possible candidates, drawing largely from some of the ideas I had touched on in the past.
Previously, classes had been structured a couple different ways. In one setup, some subclasses amounted to "mandatory combat roles" (with actual roles being mechanically optional upgrades) while other subclasses were... more or less a proper class, but jammed in with another class, under one set of shared mechanics (or at least a shared class die.) Archetypes were another layer of optional customization that existed over top of all of these, and were class-specific; in the 2018 rules, these were referred to as Specialist Classes.
I bring this up because basically what I'm looking at doing is to bring back a 4th form of class customization/subtype; subclasses and roles will remain, but Specialist Classes are going to be split into Archetypes and Domains, both of which will expand in number. However, your class will specify whether it uses one or the other -- but usually not both -- so effectively, either an archetype or a domain will be used to "fill" the Specialist Class "bucket" within your class' progression.
Filling in the Grid
One thing I'll throw out there right off the bat, is that I've decided to associate each Skillset with one Power Source.
Probably the mechanics of that will be implemented something like this:
When you gain a Power Source at 1st level, you add its associated Skillset to your class skill list, allowing you to take training with that Skillset. When you gain a Specialist Class (Archetype or Domain) you gain a rank in the Skillset tied to the Power Source of that Specialist Class.
One other specific quirk that I've settled on, is to allow some of the existing Archetypes (from the Fighter/Bard/Adventurer class category) to instead be used as subclasses for their current classes, while also functioning as Archetypes for certain power sources -- thus allowing other classes to also gain them.
Anyways, here's what I have in mind, for the various Specialist Classes; whether or not this changes, will depend on how well I can implement these ideas:
Arcane
Domains: Enchantment, Divination
These will be derived from the existing Sage 'schools'
Archetypes: Skald, Psionic
Psionic is the first instance where I'll have to do some research and build out some new mechanics. I think some sort of 'power point' mechanic is a useful, fun little extra thing to staple onto existing classes, without making an entirely new class, or slate of classes (or Power Source, for that matter.)
Divine
Domains: Life, Devotion
So we already have some Life domain mechanics being used on the Cleric and Paladin; I'll just have to expand that out to give mechanics that'll fit for the other classes that will have access to Divine Domains. In terms of flavour, the 5e D&D Paladin's Oath of Devotion seemed the most in-line with the power source, so I'm going to see what I can mine from that inspiration.
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Here, I'm going to try and get a good mix of 4e D&D's Avenger with 5e D&D's Oath of Vengeance. Similar to the Psionic, I think the 'rune state' mechanic is something fun that could be stapled onto traditional Divine classes, but also Fighter or other Martial classes.
Martial
Domains: War, Leadership
It just seemed logical to move the War domain over here, from Divine. Leadership is where I want to implement my idea for a "Lord archetype" which would get 'followers' (likely, minions) to aid them in combat.
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
These will be taken from the existing Fighter archetypes.
Primal
Domains: Blood, Stone
Here we're going to be taking the existing Guardian totems, and will have to tweak and smooth them out to fit the various class dice.
Archetypes: Scout, Elementalist
Scout is already in the designs (for the Adventurer class) and I thought that could be spread around a bit; in 5e it's used as a Rogue archetype in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, as well as a Fighter archetype in Unearthed Arcana form. Elementalist might be a little bit trickier to pull off, but I wanted that sort of "primal sorcerer" idea, as it was used in 4e's Heroes of the Elemental Chaos.
Shadow
Domains: Trickery, Death
Trickery is going to mostly be a re-skin of the 'Misdirection' Sage school, but may borrow from the 5e equivalent. Death Domain is still very much up in the air, since there is wide swath of source material to draw from, and I haven't settled on anything specific yet.
Archetypes: Vampire, Revenant
Again, Vampire is one of the more unique (but very niche) classes, from 4e's Heroes of Shadow; I think we can boil down the core mechanics of the class (as well as the Vryloka race, from the same book) and get something to layer onto our Archetype-using classes. As for Revenant, I still have some reservations about how to implement it mechanically, but I think this would be a welcome addition, if done right.
Piecing Together the Puzzle
Now that I'm finally (I hope) done shuffling around which classes are part of which categories, what I've decided to do is fundamentally expand the customization options for each category, using these new tools that we have at our disposal. Here's how I see that rolling out:
Category 1: Cleric, Sage, Guardian
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can take any Domain, regardless of Power Source
Category 2: (Skill Specialists) Acrobat, Rogue, Ranger
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can choose Archetypes, based on their Power Source
Category 3: (Generalists) Fighter, Bard, Adventurer
- Uses existing class archetypes as subclasses
- Can gain Roles
- Can take any Archetype, or pick a Domain specific to their class slate*
Category 4: Paladin, Spellbinder, Druid
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can choose one Archetype and one Domain, both based on their Power Source
Category 5: Warlord, Occultist, Barbarian
- Can take certain class-specific archetypes as subclasses**
- Can gain Roles
- Can choose Domains, based on their Power Source
*Fighter domains would be Martial; Bard domains would be Arcane; Adventurer domains would probably differ depending on the subclass taken.
**Warlord subclasses would be likely be Skald, plus any Divine or Martial archetypes; Occultist subclasses would likely be Psionic, Elementalist, plus any Shadow archetypes; Barbarian subclasses would likely be Runepriest, Scout, plus any Martial archetypes.
---
This post is already running a bit long, so I'll try and touch on Power Source distribution another time. It's obviously inter-related, with having them now closely linked to class customization.
Next post should be up on May 5th, so get in touch before then, if you have other suggestions for discussion topics.
Previously, classes had been structured a couple different ways. In one setup, some subclasses amounted to "mandatory combat roles" (with actual roles being mechanically optional upgrades) while other subclasses were... more or less a proper class, but jammed in with another class, under one set of shared mechanics (or at least a shared class die.) Archetypes were another layer of optional customization that existed over top of all of these, and were class-specific; in the 2018 rules, these were referred to as Specialist Classes.
I bring this up because basically what I'm looking at doing is to bring back a 4th form of class customization/subtype; subclasses and roles will remain, but Specialist Classes are going to be split into Archetypes and Domains, both of which will expand in number. However, your class will specify whether it uses one or the other -- but usually not both -- so effectively, either an archetype or a domain will be used to "fill" the Specialist Class "bucket" within your class' progression.
Filling in the Grid
One thing I'll throw out there right off the bat, is that I've decided to associate each Skillset with one Power Source.
- Arcane: Subtlety
- Divine: Presence
- Martial: Athletics
- Primal: Detection
- Shadow: Infiltration
Probably the mechanics of that will be implemented something like this:
When you gain a Power Source at 1st level, you add its associated Skillset to your class skill list, allowing you to take training with that Skillset. When you gain a Specialist Class (Archetype or Domain) you gain a rank in the Skillset tied to the Power Source of that Specialist Class.
One other specific quirk that I've settled on, is to allow some of the existing Archetypes (from the Fighter/Bard/Adventurer class category) to instead be used as subclasses for their current classes, while also functioning as Archetypes for certain power sources -- thus allowing other classes to also gain them.
Anyways, here's what I have in mind, for the various Specialist Classes; whether or not this changes, will depend on how well I can implement these ideas:
Arcane
Domains: Enchantment, Divination
These will be derived from the existing Sage 'schools'
Archetypes: Skald, Psionic
Psionic is the first instance where I'll have to do some research and build out some new mechanics. I think some sort of 'power point' mechanic is a useful, fun little extra thing to staple onto existing classes, without making an entirely new class, or slate of classes (or Power Source, for that matter.)
Divine
Domains: Life, Devotion
So we already have some Life domain mechanics being used on the Cleric and Paladin; I'll just have to expand that out to give mechanics that'll fit for the other classes that will have access to Divine Domains. In terms of flavour, the 5e D&D Paladin's Oath of Devotion seemed the most in-line with the power source, so I'm going to see what I can mine from that inspiration.
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Here, I'm going to try and get a good mix of 4e D&D's Avenger with 5e D&D's Oath of Vengeance. Similar to the Psionic, I think the 'rune state' mechanic is something fun that could be stapled onto traditional Divine classes, but also Fighter or other Martial classes.
Martial
Domains: War, Leadership
It just seemed logical to move the War domain over here, from Divine. Leadership is where I want to implement my idea for a "Lord archetype" which would get 'followers' (likely, minions) to aid them in combat.
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
These will be taken from the existing Fighter archetypes.
Primal
Domains: Blood, Stone
Here we're going to be taking the existing Guardian totems, and will have to tweak and smooth them out to fit the various class dice.
Archetypes: Scout, Elementalist
Scout is already in the designs (for the Adventurer class) and I thought that could be spread around a bit; in 5e it's used as a Rogue archetype in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, as well as a Fighter archetype in Unearthed Arcana form. Elementalist might be a little bit trickier to pull off, but I wanted that sort of "primal sorcerer" idea, as it was used in 4e's Heroes of the Elemental Chaos.
Shadow
Domains: Trickery, Death
Trickery is going to mostly be a re-skin of the 'Misdirection' Sage school, but may borrow from the 5e equivalent. Death Domain is still very much up in the air, since there is wide swath of source material to draw from, and I haven't settled on anything specific yet.
Archetypes: Vampire, Revenant
Again, Vampire is one of the more unique (but very niche) classes, from 4e's Heroes of Shadow; I think we can boil down the core mechanics of the class (as well as the Vryloka race, from the same book) and get something to layer onto our Archetype-using classes. As for Revenant, I still have some reservations about how to implement it mechanically, but I think this would be a welcome addition, if done right.
Piecing Together the Puzzle
Now that I'm finally (I hope) done shuffling around which classes are part of which categories, what I've decided to do is fundamentally expand the customization options for each category, using these new tools that we have at our disposal. Here's how I see that rolling out:
Category 1: Cleric, Sage, Guardian
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can take any Domain, regardless of Power Source
Category 2: (Skill Specialists) Acrobat, Rogue, Ranger
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can choose Archetypes, based on their Power Source
Category 3: (Generalists) Fighter, Bard, Adventurer
- Uses existing class archetypes as subclasses
- Can gain Roles
- Can take any Archetype, or pick a Domain specific to their class slate*
Category 4: Paladin, Spellbinder, Druid
- Uses existing subclasses
- Can choose one Archetype and one Domain, both based on their Power Source
Category 5: Warlord, Occultist, Barbarian
- Can take certain class-specific archetypes as subclasses**
- Can gain Roles
- Can choose Domains, based on their Power Source
*Fighter domains would be Martial; Bard domains would be Arcane; Adventurer domains would probably differ depending on the subclass taken.
**Warlord subclasses would be likely be Skald, plus any Divine or Martial archetypes; Occultist subclasses would likely be Psionic, Elementalist, plus any Shadow archetypes; Barbarian subclasses would likely be Runepriest, Scout, plus any Martial archetypes.
---
This post is already running a bit long, so I'll try and touch on Power Source distribution another time. It's obviously inter-related, with having them now closely linked to class customization.
Next post should be up on May 5th, so get in touch before then, if you have other suggestions for discussion topics.
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Kill and Reroll (2020)
One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post, is that with the new skill mechanics, one thing you can do to speed things up is to always roll both 'percentile' dice, instead of just 1d10. Having a clear ground rule that the "1s" die functions as the natural result, and the "10s" die is used for advantage, this allows both dice to always be rolled (one of them being disregarded, if advantage is not applicable) without any confusion, or possibility of messing with the probabilities (as well as preventing cheating, whether intentional or by honest mistake.)
I bring this up in today's post, because with the new skill mechanics happening to share dice with the monster roll mechanics, it might be helpful to backport this kind of utility from the former, into the latter.
Circa 2018
As I go back and look at the baseline monster mechanics from the 2018 version, a couple things stand out. First, the basic guidelines for how to modify the 1d6/1d10 roll:
However, going through the document a little farther, I noticed that the 'Untrained' expression is only used a couple times: for the damage output of Standard monsters, and for skills. Well, if we suppose that monster skill checks will now function in line with player skill checks, then we can remove this particular definition, and simply specify (as a function of the monsters themselves) that Standard monsters should roll both dice for damage, but only use the higher result.
The other thing that sticks out is the fact that minions function off of their own separate guidelines (albeit using the same shorthand and the same roll, and only for rolling skills):
Now, the intention with this is essentially to make minions worse than other monsters at skill checks; if an encounter budget gives the DM a handful of minions at the same cost of one Standard monster, this allows the monsters to effectively get, say, 5 grapple attempts for the price of one -- which potentially leads to dogpiling, and would just seem unfair to the players. I think my intial idea was to have them simply use "roll under, d6" as their mechanic, so I may yet go back to that. (I instead tried to incorporate the monster roll, in some form.)
Another idea I'd been recently considering, would be to have minions use a flat d20 for skill checks, as sort of a simple, no-nonsense solution. But the success rate starts off a little higher than that of 1d6+1d10, so it would have to be modified in some way to reduce that, thus losing any elegance in the process. One idea in relation to that, was to add the minion's number of Hit Dice (HD) to the DC, increasing it from 10; that produced a situation where lesser minions were better at skills than greater ones, which is counter-intuitive.
However, something else clicked in my head at that point: what if we use the minion's current HD as its skill ranks, and simply have minions (by default) roll the d10 with disadvantage? Since this would mean that minions would no longer use their HD as a 'target number', the cap on minion HD could also be raised a little bit (from 4 to 5, likely not much higher than that.) Alternatively, the cap could be lowered to 3, so that their skills ranks are in line with the player defaults.
It could probably be argued that minions don't need to be given a half-dozen different skill gradations (as they receive in the existing designs) and how keeping it that way would just create more things for the DM to keep track of. So it's helpful to be able to reduce some of the clutter. On the other hand, it may be important for distinguishing different types of minions from one another, such as lurkers vs. bruisers, for example. With that in mind, maybe the distinction could be that such enemies could "buy off" the disadvantage on the d10, for their signature skill(s).
The Biggest Problem
What I found to be a major stumbling block, was trying to figure out the monster interaction with "Positioning & Debilitating effects" which impose advantage or disadvantage, since monsters did not use d20 rolls. With the percentile roll paradigm in mind (springing forth from the new skill mechanics) it might make sense to simply have those modifiers applied only to the d10 roll, for monsters.
This would enable us to unify how Advantage modifies the roll, for all types of monsters (since the standard monster roll and minion monster roll in the old designs interact with Advantage effectively the same way, for skill checks.) It also means Advantage now functions the same as it does within the new skill check mechanics for PCs (which, as we've established, utilize the same dice rolls.)
This also frees up the design space of what happens if the roll is a tie. Ties could be used for adding special effects to attacks, or recharging abilities -- just as a couple of examples. Or the simple perk of "treat both dice as their maximum value" could be made the sole domain of specific monster types, such as Elites and/or Archenemies. As a side note, we could also have special triggers for when either the d6 or the d10 rolls its maximum value.
Drawing Conclusions
So effectively, what I think we've come up with is something like this:
Damage Rolls:
Skill Checks:
When we compare these to each other, we can see that they almost completely overlap, with just a few exceptions for specific monster types. I much prefer this to the previous setup, where minions tried to use the same jargon, but with different mechanics. It also plays a lot nicer with the (admittedly more player-facing) core mechanics of the system.
I bring this up in today's post, because with the new skill mechanics happening to share dice with the monster roll mechanics, it might be helpful to backport this kind of utility from the former, into the latter.
Circa 2018
As I go back and look at the baseline monster mechanics from the 2018 version, a couple things stand out. First, the basic guidelines for how to modify the 1d6/1d10 roll:
Untrained: Use the higher of the two results
Trained: Use the stacked value of the two results
ExpertiseMastery: Any 1s rolled can be treated as the maximum value on that die
Advantage: If the result is a tie, treat both dice as their maximum value
Disadvantage: Cancel out Advantage on the roll, or use the lower of the two results
However, going through the document a little farther, I noticed that the 'Untrained' expression is only used a couple times: for the damage output of Standard monsters, and for skills. Well, if we suppose that monster skill checks will now function in line with player skill checks, then we can remove this particular definition, and simply specify (as a function of the monsters themselves) that Standard monsters should roll both dice for damage, but only use the higher result.
The other thing that sticks out is the fact that minions function off of their own separate guidelines (albeit using the same shorthand and the same roll, and only for rolling skills):
Untrained: Use the d6 result
Trained: Use the lowest result
ExpertiseMastery: (unchanged) Any 1s rolled can be treated as the maximum value on that die
Advantage: Treat the check as a success, if the result is a tie
Disadvantage: Cancel out Advantage on the roll, or use the d10 result
Now, the intention with this is essentially to make minions worse than other monsters at skill checks; if an encounter budget gives the DM a handful of minions at the same cost of one Standard monster, this allows the monsters to effectively get, say, 5 grapple attempts for the price of one -- which potentially leads to dogpiling, and would just seem unfair to the players. I think my intial idea was to have them simply use "roll under, d6" as their mechanic, so I may yet go back to that. (I instead tried to incorporate the monster roll, in some form.)
Another idea I'd been recently considering, would be to have minions use a flat d20 for skill checks, as sort of a simple, no-nonsense solution. But the success rate starts off a little higher than that of 1d6+1d10, so it would have to be modified in some way to reduce that, thus losing any elegance in the process. One idea in relation to that, was to add the minion's number of Hit Dice (HD) to the DC, increasing it from 10; that produced a situation where lesser minions were better at skills than greater ones, which is counter-intuitive.
However, something else clicked in my head at that point: what if we use the minion's current HD as its skill ranks, and simply have minions (by default) roll the d10 with disadvantage? Since this would mean that minions would no longer use their HD as a 'target number', the cap on minion HD could also be raised a little bit (from 4 to 5, likely not much higher than that.) Alternatively, the cap could be lowered to 3, so that their skills ranks are in line with the player defaults.
It could probably be argued that minions don't need to be given a half-dozen different skill gradations (as they receive in the existing designs) and how keeping it that way would just create more things for the DM to keep track of. So it's helpful to be able to reduce some of the clutter. On the other hand, it may be important for distinguishing different types of minions from one another, such as lurkers vs. bruisers, for example. With that in mind, maybe the distinction could be that such enemies could "buy off" the disadvantage on the d10, for their signature skill(s).
The Biggest Problem
What I found to be a major stumbling block, was trying to figure out the monster interaction with "Positioning & Debilitating effects" which impose advantage or disadvantage, since monsters did not use d20 rolls. With the percentile roll paradigm in mind (springing forth from the new skill mechanics) it might make sense to simply have those modifiers applied only to the d10 roll, for monsters.
This would enable us to unify how Advantage modifies the roll, for all types of monsters (since the standard monster roll and minion monster roll in the old designs interact with Advantage effectively the same way, for skill checks.) It also means Advantage now functions the same as it does within the new skill check mechanics for PCs (which, as we've established, utilize the same dice rolls.)
This also frees up the design space of what happens if the roll is a tie. Ties could be used for adding special effects to attacks, or recharging abilities -- just as a couple of examples. Or the simple perk of "treat both dice as their maximum value" could be made the sole domain of specific monster types, such as Elites and/or Archenemies. As a side note, we could also have special triggers for when either the d6 or the d10 rolls its maximum value.
Drawing Conclusions
So effectively, what I think we've come up with is something like this:
Damage Rolls:
- advantage/disadvantage are applied to the d10 roll
- Mastery can be applied to both dice
- Special effect/recharge on a tie(?)
- Standard monsters use the higher roll as damage; minions and swarms do auto-damage (based on current HD)
Skill Checks:
- advantage/disadvantage are applied to the d10 roll
- Mastery can be applied to both dice
- Special effect/recharge on a tie(?)
- Minions have skill ranks equal to their current HD, but default to having disadvantage on the d10 roll (maybe with further disadvantage resulting in outright 'action denial' w/r/t using that skill)
When we compare these to each other, we can see that they almost completely overlap, with just a few exceptions for specific monster types. I much prefer this to the previous setup, where minions tried to use the same jargon, but with different mechanics. It also plays a lot nicer with the (admittedly more player-facing) core mechanics of the system.
---
I've been working on mapping out the new subtype/specialist classes, in the background. So while writing actual mechanics for those will be a big process, I've mostly ironed out what's going where. That will likely be the topic of the next post, on April 24th.
Friday, April 3, 2020
Skill Upgrade (2020)
As I mentioned at the start of of this posting season, skill design is the one area in which I have been able to make significant inroads -- to the point that I have contemplated playtesting these revised skill mechanics on their own; if you feel so inclined to try them out with your group, please let me know how it goes :)
Redrawing the Grid
Only a few minor changes were made, in terms of the setup of core skills:
- Break Objects is now STR/Infiltration, instead of STR/Athletics
- Animal Handling was removed, and changed to a Knowledge skill
- WIS has been removed, and remaining skills put under INT
- Influence skillset was renamed to "Presence" (to better reflect the removal of Animal Handling, but also so that each Skillset now starts with a different letter, for easier abbreviation.)
What this does is create a grid consisting of five Attributes and five Skillsets; symmetry is always nice to have, and 5 is a good number, since it also happens to be the number of classes per slate. It also cleans things up a bit, with each skill 'intersection' now consisting of no more than two skills. If there's one quandry that has arisen out of this, it's the realization that INT seems like a batch of skills that normally might be limited to a small number of classes -- I may have to just own it as a quirk of this particular system, and build lore from those mechanics.
Re-education
The setup of, "which Knowledge skills were tied to what Power Sources," has been a niggling problem since the conception of tying them together in the first place. I had mostly settled on having two skills for each, but it never quite lined up perfectly; when it came to actually doling out skills specifically to classes, the limitations were laid bare. So in addition to adding Animal Handling as a Primal knowledge skill, and combining History and Geography into one (since I felt neither were particularly weighty, individually) eventually I settled on having three skills for each Power Source: one unique skill, and two shared skills.
Going back and forth between my "Knowledge Skills by Power Source" tab and my "Power Sources by Class" tab, this eventually helped to greatly streamline the distribution of the latter, ensuring that classes had better access to the skills that seemed to best fit, thematically. Just as an example, I felt that classes like Paladin should be able to have Medicine without needing the Primal power source, and that classes like Druid should be able to have that skill without needing the Divine power source (since a skill like Royalty & Nobility doesn't really seem to fit, for a hermit...) The easy solution was to give the Medicine skill to both of those power sources.
Mechanical Crunch
The decision to move the math away from d20 was a direct result of me trying to fulfill the request for more gradations of skill competency. The previous designs (which have basically been in place since "Beta 4" days) boiled down to: d20; d20 with expertise; d20+d6; d20+d6 with expertise. There's a pretty sizable mathematical gap between those middle two expressions, and in order to bridge the distance, the d20 would need to somehow morph -- and it just can't.
What I had been tinkering with was some sort of disadvantage/normal/advantage scale, applying to both the d20 and the d6. Toying with that a little bit revealed essentially two things: that the d6 would always need to be added (except if the d20 had advantage) and ...that advantage on the d20 would be too powerful. This produced a really clunky and unintuitive structure (d20 w/ disadvantage or normal + d6 w/ disadvantage/normal/advantage) but it also sucked from a tactile perspective, as I discovered through the process of absentmindedly rolling these dice, to pass the time at my D&D games.
So I decided to start testing out other dice, and one of the obvious choices to go with (after trying a few permutations of solely using d6s) was 1d10+1d6 -- which I had used in my 'previous' project, as well as for the 'monster roll' in TNP. As it turns out, a straight 1d10 roll roughly mimics the math of a d20 with disadvantage, and (likewise) a d10 with advantage approximated a straight d20 (if a d6 was added on, in both cases.) After some further number-crunching, I decided to use a "best 1 of" dice pool for the d6, instead of disadvantage/normal/advantage, with advantage on the d10 coming from skill training.
This creates a setup which is fairly easy to grok: rank 1 is 1d6, rank 2 is best 1 of 2d6, etc., with ranks being gained by upgrading skillsets or attributes. Potentially, ranks could be increased even further (rank 4 for sure, anyway) without breaking any math -- so that creates another design space which can be played in. I initially wanted to keep "expertise" in some form, but realized that within a DC10 paradigm, it was a bit too powerful of a mechanic, when applied to a d10 roll (as apposed to d20.)
Mastery
I had (probably as far back as any playtesting I've done/feedback I've ever gotten) been thinking of alternate names for expertise, and mastery was always one of the contenders. The change in skill mechanics warranted not only a name change, but a change in this mechanic itself. In short, the point of expertise was to get the effect of being able to reroll 1s (although mathematically it's better than that) without having to actually reroll 1s (and slow down gameplay at the table.) But, a realization came to me when I was tinkering with methods for rolling stats in D&D; without going off on too much of a tangent, I realized that "infinite rerolls" is less of a slowdown, when applied to an activity (such as rolling stats) that doesn't take place very often.
Generally, in most tabletop RPGs, one skill check can encompass a large part of a non-combat encounter (or possibly even multiple linked actions, rather than just one.) As such, non-combat is generally resolved with fewer rolls than combat. If we apply the previously-stated logic, we can assume that allowing for rerolls in non-combat (i.e. skill use) should be acceptable, particularly if it fits within the desired mathematical parameters -- and in the case of using 1d10+1d6 for skills, it absolutely does. (As a side note, "Combat Mastery" will probably continue to function exactly as the old expertise, so "Skill Mastery" will be delineated as its own thing, in the rules text.)
For core skills, skill mastery is obtained by having training in both the attribute and skillset tied to a skill. Since the intersection of an attribute and a skillset is now limited to two skills (and with establishment of a default, that characters have training in a combination of two skillsets/attributes) this sets an effective cap for skill mastery, as well as a baseline from which to expand, for more skillful characters. For power sources, mastery functions a little bit differently, granting a minor bonus to all associated knowledge skills (if the player chooses to focus on boosting one skill as high as possible, or if they choose to double-down on a power source, rather than branch out.)
Implications
With effectively "borrowing" the old monster roll for our new skill dice, it's probably time to re-evaluate whether the monster roll mechanic works well. Looking back at it, I've found the implementation a little kludgy, and now might be the time to streamline the mechanics a bit, so that they work a bit more harmoniously on both the player-side and the DM-side.
Another question that all this begs, is whether skills used in combat should apply Skill Mastery or Combat Mastery (or leave it to the gamers' discretion.)
-----
Hopefully I'll get some time to do a little more design work in the near future; no time off work for me, during this extended lockdown, unfortunately.
I don't really have a topic set for the next post (April 14th) so feel free to send in your suggestions.
Redrawing the Grid
Only a few minor changes were made, in terms of the setup of core skills:
- Break Objects is now STR/Infiltration, instead of STR/Athletics
- Animal Handling was removed, and changed to a Knowledge skill
- WIS has been removed, and remaining skills put under INT
- Influence skillset was renamed to "Presence" (to better reflect the removal of Animal Handling, but also so that each Skillset now starts with a different letter, for easier abbreviation.)
What this does is create a grid consisting of five Attributes and five Skillsets; symmetry is always nice to have, and 5 is a good number, since it also happens to be the number of classes per slate. It also cleans things up a bit, with each skill 'intersection' now consisting of no more than two skills. If there's one quandry that has arisen out of this, it's the realization that INT seems like a batch of skills that normally might be limited to a small number of classes -- I may have to just own it as a quirk of this particular system, and build lore from those mechanics.
Re-education
The setup of, "which Knowledge skills were tied to what Power Sources," has been a niggling problem since the conception of tying them together in the first place. I had mostly settled on having two skills for each, but it never quite lined up perfectly; when it came to actually doling out skills specifically to classes, the limitations were laid bare. So in addition to adding Animal Handling as a Primal knowledge skill, and combining History and Geography into one (since I felt neither were particularly weighty, individually) eventually I settled on having three skills for each Power Source: one unique skill, and two shared skills.
Going back and forth between my "Knowledge Skills by Power Source" tab and my "Power Sources by Class" tab, this eventually helped to greatly streamline the distribution of the latter, ensuring that classes had better access to the skills that seemed to best fit, thematically. Just as an example, I felt that classes like Paladin should be able to have Medicine without needing the Primal power source, and that classes like Druid should be able to have that skill without needing the Divine power source (since a skill like Royalty & Nobility doesn't really seem to fit, for a hermit...) The easy solution was to give the Medicine skill to both of those power sources.
Mechanical Crunch
The decision to move the math away from d20 was a direct result of me trying to fulfill the request for more gradations of skill competency. The previous designs (which have basically been in place since "Beta 4" days) boiled down to: d20; d20 with expertise; d20+d6; d20+d6 with expertise. There's a pretty sizable mathematical gap between those middle two expressions, and in order to bridge the distance, the d20 would need to somehow morph -- and it just can't.
What I had been tinkering with was some sort of disadvantage/normal/advantage scale, applying to both the d20 and the d6. Toying with that a little bit revealed essentially two things: that the d6 would always need to be added (except if the d20 had advantage) and ...that advantage on the d20 would be too powerful. This produced a really clunky and unintuitive structure (d20 w/ disadvantage or normal + d6 w/ disadvantage/normal/advantage) but it also sucked from a tactile perspective, as I discovered through the process of absentmindedly rolling these dice, to pass the time at my D&D games.
So I decided to start testing out other dice, and one of the obvious choices to go with (after trying a few permutations of solely using d6s) was 1d10+1d6 -- which I had used in my 'previous' project, as well as for the 'monster roll' in TNP. As it turns out, a straight 1d10 roll roughly mimics the math of a d20 with disadvantage, and (likewise) a d10 with advantage approximated a straight d20 (if a d6 was added on, in both cases.) After some further number-crunching, I decided to use a "best 1 of" dice pool for the d6, instead of disadvantage/normal/advantage, with advantage on the d10 coming from skill training.
This creates a setup which is fairly easy to grok: rank 1 is 1d6, rank 2 is best 1 of 2d6, etc., with ranks being gained by upgrading skillsets or attributes. Potentially, ranks could be increased even further (rank 4 for sure, anyway) without breaking any math -- so that creates another design space which can be played in. I initially wanted to keep "expertise" in some form, but realized that within a DC10 paradigm, it was a bit too powerful of a mechanic, when applied to a d10 roll (as apposed to d20.)
Mastery
I had (probably as far back as any playtesting I've done/feedback I've ever gotten) been thinking of alternate names for expertise, and mastery was always one of the contenders. The change in skill mechanics warranted not only a name change, but a change in this mechanic itself. In short, the point of expertise was to get the effect of being able to reroll 1s (although mathematically it's better than that) without having to actually reroll 1s (and slow down gameplay at the table.) But, a realization came to me when I was tinkering with methods for rolling stats in D&D; without going off on too much of a tangent, I realized that "infinite rerolls" is less of a slowdown, when applied to an activity (such as rolling stats) that doesn't take place very often.
Generally, in most tabletop RPGs, one skill check can encompass a large part of a non-combat encounter (or possibly even multiple linked actions, rather than just one.) As such, non-combat is generally resolved with fewer rolls than combat. If we apply the previously-stated logic, we can assume that allowing for rerolls in non-combat (i.e. skill use) should be acceptable, particularly if it fits within the desired mathematical parameters -- and in the case of using 1d10+1d6 for skills, it absolutely does. (As a side note, "Combat Mastery" will probably continue to function exactly as the old expertise, so "Skill Mastery" will be delineated as its own thing, in the rules text.)
For core skills, skill mastery is obtained by having training in both the attribute and skillset tied to a skill. Since the intersection of an attribute and a skillset is now limited to two skills (and with establishment of a default, that characters have training in a combination of two skillsets/attributes) this sets an effective cap for skill mastery, as well as a baseline from which to expand, for more skillful characters. For power sources, mastery functions a little bit differently, granting a minor bonus to all associated knowledge skills (if the player chooses to focus on boosting one skill as high as possible, or if they choose to double-down on a power source, rather than branch out.)
Implications
With effectively "borrowing" the old monster roll for our new skill dice, it's probably time to re-evaluate whether the monster roll mechanic works well. Looking back at it, I've found the implementation a little kludgy, and now might be the time to streamline the mechanics a bit, so that they work a bit more harmoniously on both the player-side and the DM-side.
Another question that all this begs, is whether skills used in combat should apply Skill Mastery or Combat Mastery (or leave it to the gamers' discretion.)
-----
Hopefully I'll get some time to do a little more design work in the near future; no time off work for me, during this extended lockdown, unfortunately.
I don't really have a topic set for the next post (April 14th) so feel free to send in your suggestions.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
The Role of the Dice (2020)
One of the foundational mechanics of The Next Project has always been class dice; each slate of classes consist of one class for each die (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12) resulting in 5 classes for each slate. Late into my recent downtime, some of the seemingly mismatched class/dice combinations began to nag at me, so I started to look at how those could be remediated. The fact that this seemed to most strongly affect classes which were also hindered by a lack of foundational "lore" or "fluff" was something that made my desire to change things even more acute. So I'll start there.
Since this is essentially talking about "unfinished" design, I should stress that feedback is welcome and appreciated, on any of the stuff covered in this post.
The Acrobat and The Adventurer
I've talked about these classes (perhaps the Adventurer moreso) often in the manner of trying to even justify their existence; typically, when the topic of shortening class rosters came up, they were always at or near the forefront of the discussion. They sound so generic, it's not a 'real' D&D class, that sort of thing. This is a problem which is compounded by the conceit of class dice: why would I want to be that class, when there are two other classes which use the same dice (and possibly, suspiciously similar mechanics) but who I've actually heard of before, or have played in D&D or other RPGs?
Another problem with the Acrobat in particular is that the design space of the d4 is just so... restrictive; even when used for the Sage -- and especially for the Druid -- it ends up often being used as a clunkier d8, by way of 2d4. This eventually got to the point where I simply flatout mocked up a draft of the Acrobat as a d4/d8 class. With the Adventurer, we see kind of the opposite problem; being stuck with one die might not be all that bad for what is primarily a TWF class -- unless that die is too big, as I often felt with the d10. (It should be noted here, that switching Guardian to d6 and Adventurer to d10 was a late change, when I initially introduced those classes, done mainly to ensure the latter would be mechanically distinct from the Rogue.)
Change is Inevitable
The first idea that came to me, to this end, was to simply have each class use two dice. I then quickly realized that would produce 10 combinations of dice, and so (rather than double up on any of them) I decided that I would keep 5 "single-die" classes. Shortly thereafter, I realized that a single slate could not have more than 2 single-die classes, and still have equal utilization of each of the dice. For example, if you have a d4 class, a d6 class, and a d8 class, then your final two classes end up being d10/d12 and... d12/d10. So while other combinations would be possible, I finally settled on having one full slate of single-die classes, and two slates using a mix of the 10 two-dice combinations. As much as possible, I also tried to keep each of these classes with one of their 'original' class dice.
The Title of this Post
Now one other thing I should touch on before the big reveal, is how the dice were essentially each given roles, throughout the design process. In short, the mechanical and ergonomic uses of each die led me to (as I still tentatively map out where this is going) break them down into 3 categories: support dice, striker dice, and defender dice. Naturally, d12 is the defender die, providing a little bit more HP and reserves; d6 and d10 are the striker dice, since they're probably the easiest to have extras on hand, for stacking damage; d4 and d8 are the support dice. The d4 is the smallest die, and so it's the easiest to simply add onto a roll; the d8 'support' mechanics are likewise straightforward (since it covers most of the 'miss' range on a d20, without overlapping onto the 'hit' range.)
Now, with that being said, these clearly are not the only uses that these dice will have; the d4/d8 Acrobat shows us how we can use a d4 to "step down" damage, using the smaller die for area attacks, and the larger one for single-target attacks. So we're not going to worry about classes mapping perfectly to "dice roles," letting us instead use the dice for whatever mechanics we want. It will, however, occasionally be a point which guides the decision-making regarding class dice combinations.
So here's what I've come up with:
Since this is essentially talking about "unfinished" design, I should stress that feedback is welcome and appreciated, on any of the stuff covered in this post.
The Acrobat and The Adventurer
I've talked about these classes (perhaps the Adventurer moreso) often in the manner of trying to even justify their existence; typically, when the topic of shortening class rosters came up, they were always at or near the forefront of the discussion. They sound so generic, it's not a 'real' D&D class, that sort of thing. This is a problem which is compounded by the conceit of class dice: why would I want to be that class, when there are two other classes which use the same dice (and possibly, suspiciously similar mechanics) but who I've actually heard of before, or have played in D&D or other RPGs?
Another problem with the Acrobat in particular is that the design space of the d4 is just so... restrictive; even when used for the Sage -- and especially for the Druid -- it ends up often being used as a clunkier d8, by way of 2d4. This eventually got to the point where I simply flatout mocked up a draft of the Acrobat as a d4/d8 class. With the Adventurer, we see kind of the opposite problem; being stuck with one die might not be all that bad for what is primarily a TWF class -- unless that die is too big, as I often felt with the d10. (It should be noted here, that switching Guardian to d6 and Adventurer to d10 was a late change, when I initially introduced those classes, done mainly to ensure the latter would be mechanically distinct from the Rogue.)
Change is Inevitable
The first idea that came to me, to this end, was to simply have each class use two dice. I then quickly realized that would produce 10 combinations of dice, and so (rather than double up on any of them) I decided that I would keep 5 "single-die" classes. Shortly thereafter, I realized that a single slate could not have more than 2 single-die classes, and still have equal utilization of each of the dice. For example, if you have a d4 class, a d6 class, and a d8 class, then your final two classes end up being d10/d12 and... d12/d10. So while other combinations would be possible, I finally settled on having one full slate of single-die classes, and two slates using a mix of the 10 two-dice combinations. As much as possible, I also tried to keep each of these classes with one of their 'original' class dice.
The Title of this Post
Now one other thing I should touch on before the big reveal, is how the dice were essentially each given roles, throughout the design process. In short, the mechanical and ergonomic uses of each die led me to (as I still tentatively map out where this is going) break them down into 3 categories: support dice, striker dice, and defender dice. Naturally, d12 is the defender die, providing a little bit more HP and reserves; d6 and d10 are the striker dice, since they're probably the easiest to have extras on hand, for stacking damage; d4 and d8 are the support dice. The d4 is the smallest die, and so it's the easiest to simply add onto a roll; the d8 'support' mechanics are likewise straightforward (since it covers most of the 'miss' range on a d20, without overlapping onto the 'hit' range.)
Now, with that being said, these clearly are not the only uses that these dice will have; the d4/d8 Acrobat shows us how we can use a d4 to "step down" damage, using the smaller die for area attacks, and the larger one for single-target attacks. So we're not going to worry about classes mapping perfectly to "dice roles," letting us instead use the dice for whatever mechanics we want. It will, however, occasionally be a point which guides the decision-making regarding class dice combinations.
So here's what I've come up with:
- d4/d10 -- Acrobat
- d6/d12 -- Fighter
- d8/d6 -- Cleric
- d10/d8 -- Paladin
- d12/d4 -- Warlord
- d4 -- Sage
- d6 -- Rogue
- d8 -- Bard
- d10 -- Occultist
- d12 -- Spellbinder
- d4/d6 -- Druid
- d6/d10 -- Adventurer
- d8/d4 -- Ranger
- d10/d12 -- Barbarian
- d12/d8 -- Guardian
I'll try and go through these one by one, as much as possible, but for the second slate (i.e. all the single-die classes) it just seemed simplest to make the most magical slate be the one where the classes had ranged damage that was as strong as their melee damage (in particular, the Occultist and Spellbinder.)
I think sticking the d10 onto the Acrobat is a bit of a compromise, based on trying to limit each slate to two uses of each die. (Cleric has a similar problem, with the d6 feeling misplaced, but maybe it can work well as a way to add damage to your allies' attacks.) I think it should be simple enough to port over the d4/d8 Acrobat loadout to this ethos -- although admittedly, it does raise the "what weapon is this supposed to simulate?" question, which d4/d8 doesn't really seem to cause.
Fighter, makes sense; it was essentially functioning as a 2d6 class before, so d6/d12 is a no-brainer. Paladin adding the d8 to their repertoire as a support die is a good fit, as well as for stepping-down their ranged damage. Warlord having a support die to go with their d12 also seems right.
For Druid, I think basically adding almost any die to their setup makes it less clunky; I think d6 gives the most design freedom for their animal forms, since both d4 and d6 can be doubled, while keeping things in line with the mathematical expectations of the system. Ranger is another one that feels like a bit of a compromise, since they don't generally map to "support class," but I think they can use the d4 for potentially interesting marking mechanics. Finally, Barbarian and Guardian were ones that I settled on kind of late; I don't really like Barbarian having such a huge ranged damage die (d10) but I think giving them a striker die has merit, as does giving the Guardian (shaman/warden class) a support die, rather than just saying, "well you're a spellcaster, so you have d10 ranged damage, I guess."
So coming back to the Adventurer, like I said earlier, I wanted to do something that had a bit more of a foundation in existing D&D mechanics. Specifically, I looked at the Scout class, from the 4e Essentials line. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, generally you'd build your Scout to use light blades (d8/d6, but with a little better hit chance) or axes (d10/d6, for a little more damage) for your TWF loadout. It also seems logical to have Adventurer be a striker/striker dice combination; admittedly, a lot of other dice were moved around to accomodate this -- possibly more than was really warranted.
Plan B
The other option was something like this:
Acrobat is instead d4/d8
Cleric is instead d8/d10
Paladin is instead d6/d10
Adventurer is instead d4/d10
Ranger is instead d6/d8
Admittedly, I think Acrobat and Ranger both work better in this loadout. But by the same token, I don't like Adventurer as much at d4/d10 (although maybe it makes sense, with Skald being support and Scout being striker.) I also don't particularly like Cleric having (overall) bigger dice than a Paladin, but I likewise don't think I could switch the two (Cleric as striker/striker is basically right out.)
At any rate, I do have this in my back pocket, in case it shakes out that the whole thing need a big rethink. The other possibility might be to have one or two single-die classes on each slate -- but that proved to be a bit messier to navigate, in the course of my tinkering.
Dovetailing into other Designs
With dice roles having been established as a (soft) mechanic, this ties back into my previous post. If we're going to have sort of "generic" subtypes, meant to be used by multiple classes based on their power source (rather than on any mecahnical similarity, such as class dice) then perhaps it makes sense to have subtype mechanics tied to "dice roles." The first thing that comes to mind would be subtype mechanics like, "deal extra damage, using your Striker die," or, "gain a Minor Bonus, using your Support die." The problem with that, is how to port it back onto single-die classes. The real question then becomes whether we work those classes around the subtypes, or work the subtypes around those classes.
---
Went a bit long on this post, but there was a fair bit of interwoven material to cover.
If you have suggestions for the next topic, please comment below, or wherever you're getting linked to the blog from.
Next post will be due on April 3rd.
I think sticking the d10 onto the Acrobat is a bit of a compromise, based on trying to limit each slate to two uses of each die. (Cleric has a similar problem, with the d6 feeling misplaced, but maybe it can work well as a way to add damage to your allies' attacks.) I think it should be simple enough to port over the d4/d8 Acrobat loadout to this ethos -- although admittedly, it does raise the "what weapon is this supposed to simulate?" question, which d4/d8 doesn't really seem to cause.
Fighter, makes sense; it was essentially functioning as a 2d6 class before, so d6/d12 is a no-brainer. Paladin adding the d8 to their repertoire as a support die is a good fit, as well as for stepping-down their ranged damage. Warlord having a support die to go with their d12 also seems right.
For Druid, I think basically adding almost any die to their setup makes it less clunky; I think d6 gives the most design freedom for their animal forms, since both d4 and d6 can be doubled, while keeping things in line with the mathematical expectations of the system. Ranger is another one that feels like a bit of a compromise, since they don't generally map to "support class," but I think they can use the d4 for potentially interesting marking mechanics. Finally, Barbarian and Guardian were ones that I settled on kind of late; I don't really like Barbarian having such a huge ranged damage die (d10) but I think giving them a striker die has merit, as does giving the Guardian (shaman/warden class) a support die, rather than just saying, "well you're a spellcaster, so you have d10 ranged damage, I guess."
So coming back to the Adventurer, like I said earlier, I wanted to do something that had a bit more of a foundation in existing D&D mechanics. Specifically, I looked at the Scout class, from the 4e Essentials line. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, generally you'd build your Scout to use light blades (d8/d6, but with a little better hit chance) or axes (d10/d6, for a little more damage) for your TWF loadout. It also seems logical to have Adventurer be a striker/striker dice combination; admittedly, a lot of other dice were moved around to accomodate this -- possibly more than was really warranted.
Plan B
The other option was something like this:
Acrobat is instead d4/d8
Cleric is instead d8/d10
Paladin is instead d6/d10
Adventurer is instead d4/d10
Ranger is instead d6/d8
Admittedly, I think Acrobat and Ranger both work better in this loadout. But by the same token, I don't like Adventurer as much at d4/d10 (although maybe it makes sense, with Skald being support and Scout being striker.) I also don't particularly like Cleric having (overall) bigger dice than a Paladin, but I likewise don't think I could switch the two (Cleric as striker/striker is basically right out.)
At any rate, I do have this in my back pocket, in case it shakes out that the whole thing need a big rethink. The other possibility might be to have one or two single-die classes on each slate -- but that proved to be a bit messier to navigate, in the course of my tinkering.
Dovetailing into other Designs
With dice roles having been established as a (soft) mechanic, this ties back into my previous post. If we're going to have sort of "generic" subtypes, meant to be used by multiple classes based on their power source (rather than on any mecahnical similarity, such as class dice) then perhaps it makes sense to have subtype mechanics tied to "dice roles." The first thing that comes to mind would be subtype mechanics like, "deal extra damage, using your Striker die," or, "gain a Minor Bonus, using your Support die." The problem with that, is how to port it back onto single-die classes. The real question then becomes whether we work those classes around the subtypes, or work the subtypes around those classes.
---
Went a bit long on this post, but there was a fair bit of interwoven material to cover.
If you have suggestions for the next topic, please comment below, or wherever you're getting linked to the blog from.
Next post will be due on April 3rd.
Friday, March 13, 2020
Class Structures (2020)
As the implementation of leveling mechanics began, one of the ideas that started to emerge was the idea of class "categories." This was essentially the idea that classes (across the different slates) would be related to each other, in terms of the level of customization that they had. For example, the Sage would have two subclasses (Monk, Wizard) and three "schools" to pick from (Divination, Enchantment, and Misdirection); likewise, the Cleric would have two subclasses and two "domains," while the Guardian would have two subclasses and two "totems." Eventually, schools, domains, and totems would be merged together under the banner of "Archetypes" and later renamed "Specialist Classes."
The problem with subclasses is two-fold: 1) it's essentially the least flexible form of customization (if you can even call it that) because a subclass is chosen from the outset, and is usually mechanically crucial to a character class even functioning, and; 2) a lot of what previously existed as archetypes really should have been subclasses. By changing these, to make them fit better, customization was lost. So I felt that more classes will need to have roles or archetypes added onto them. But I also had another piece of inspiration that I had started working from.
The Bard class previously had Archetypes (Scholar, Performer) and Roles, but also had the option to take archetypes from other classes within the same slate (i.e. the previously mentioned Sage schools, or the Spellbinder's archetypes -- which were later changed to subclasses -- of Hexblade and Swordmage.) The idea was essentially, instead of writing entirely new roles and/or archetypes for classes that needed more customization, perhaps we could take the existing ones, and allow other classes to use them. Another idea was that each slate would have one class that had some special option for their customization; for example, Druids might be able to take a Ranger or Guardian subclass as their "specialist class," while Paladins might be able to take either a Cleric Domain or a Fighter Archetype, for theirs.
What this idea led to (along with some of the redesignations, which resulted in more subclasses being used) was the decision to split specialist classes into Domains and Archetypes.
Now, this produces a couple of structural problems. Perhaps most obviously, the fact that these seem to clearly map to Power Sources but mechanically... don't. Yet. (And particularly within the Sage domains, which individually had each previously been tied to their own power source.) The other thing is the obvious lack of symmetry; what should the Shadow specialist class(es) be, if any? Thirdly, should an Adventurer be able to take a Bard archetype? Or a Fighter archetype? If so, should Scout be considered a Fighter archetype, and Skald be a Bard archetype? Maybe a Warlord should be able to take those archetypes, too; do the mechanics even work, if you're stretching these archetypes across such a wide variety of class dice?
The other big problem is the Divine Domains; the obvious thing to do was to change the effect riders for Paladin features from being tied to their (newly redefined as) subclasses, to being tied to Domains -- since Cleric features are also structured this way. But that leaves very little mechanical depth to the Paladin subclasses. And it again presents the question of "ok, but why can't any other class with the Divine power source take Divine domains?" Well, the answer to that is, because the mechanics for those haven't been written yet; the followup question being, is that even a road we want to go down, or should any other class taking the Divine power source just be a "flavour" choice?
I realize that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but hopefully this can be a jumping-off point for discussion. The complication of trying to make the various subtypes work across various classes and dice, also dovetails into the topic I want to cover in my next post: giving each class two dice.
The problem with subclasses is two-fold: 1) it's essentially the least flexible form of customization (if you can even call it that) because a subclass is chosen from the outset, and is usually mechanically crucial to a character class even functioning, and; 2) a lot of what previously existed as archetypes really should have been subclasses. By changing these, to make them fit better, customization was lost. So I felt that more classes will need to have roles or archetypes added onto them. But I also had another piece of inspiration that I had started working from.
The Bard class previously had Archetypes (Scholar, Performer) and Roles, but also had the option to take archetypes from other classes within the same slate (i.e. the previously mentioned Sage schools, or the Spellbinder's archetypes -- which were later changed to subclasses -- of Hexblade and Swordmage.) The idea was essentially, instead of writing entirely new roles and/or archetypes for classes that needed more customization, perhaps we could take the existing ones, and allow other classes to use them. Another idea was that each slate would have one class that had some special option for their customization; for example, Druids might be able to take a Ranger or Guardian subclass as their "specialist class," while Paladins might be able to take either a Cleric Domain or a Fighter Archetype, for theirs.
What this idea led to (along with some of the redesignations, which resulted in more subclasses being used) was the decision to split specialist classes into Domains and Archetypes.
- Fighter/Martial Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
- Bard/Arcane Archetypes: Performer, Scholar
- Adventurer/Primal Archetypes: Scout, Skald
- Cleric/Divine Domains: Life, War
- Sage/Arcane Domains: Divination, Enchantment, Misdirection
- Guardian/Primal Domains: Blood, Stone
Now, this produces a couple of structural problems. Perhaps most obviously, the fact that these seem to clearly map to Power Sources but mechanically... don't. Yet. (And particularly within the Sage domains, which individually had each previously been tied to their own power source.) The other thing is the obvious lack of symmetry; what should the Shadow specialist class(es) be, if any? Thirdly, should an Adventurer be able to take a Bard archetype? Or a Fighter archetype? If so, should Scout be considered a Fighter archetype, and Skald be a Bard archetype? Maybe a Warlord should be able to take those archetypes, too; do the mechanics even work, if you're stretching these archetypes across such a wide variety of class dice?
The other big problem is the Divine Domains; the obvious thing to do was to change the effect riders for Paladin features from being tied to their (newly redefined as) subclasses, to being tied to Domains -- since Cleric features are also structured this way. But that leaves very little mechanical depth to the Paladin subclasses. And it again presents the question of "ok, but why can't any other class with the Divine power source take Divine domains?" Well, the answer to that is, because the mechanics for those haven't been written yet; the followup question being, is that even a road we want to go down, or should any other class taking the Divine power source just be a "flavour" choice?
I realize that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but hopefully this can be a jumping-off point for discussion. The complication of trying to make the various subtypes work across various classes and dice, also dovetails into the topic I want to cover in my next post: giving each class two dice.
Check back for that update, on March 24th
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
A Year Late and a Dollar Short
Amidst all the shuffle of real-life considerations, The Next Project has unfortunately taken a back seat, this past year. I'd say it's only since the last couple months of 2019 that I've given it serious thought. There were a few ideas I sort of left notes on, for those in the Discord server; not much of that has been completed, but it is still under consideration.
So where do we go from here?
Well, let's start with some good news. Something that I have had some success with working on, is the skill system. Now, I want to dedicate a full post to that topic (so I'll keep this brief) but suffice it to say, d20 has been axed from skill mechanics. I wanted to add a few things to this aspect of the game's engine, and a change to the dice (and math) was ultimately necessary.
Reworking of class subtypes was a major component that I felt needed to be tackled, as part of implementing leveling systems into the game. This has caused a major paradigm shift, creating a question that I haven't completely answered. If I were to try and put it succintly, the trouble comes at the confluence of Class, Power Sources, and Archetypes -- how those things relate to each other, and what unlocks what. Again, a topic I want to expand on more thoroughly in the future.
Finally, another major structural change in the works is completely re-working the concept of "class dice." In short, my plans going forward will be to have each die paired with another -- creating 10 combinations, making up 2 of the class slates -- with only 5 classes remaining tied to a single die. With the research into the dice math and mechanics, each die sort of took on its own character, and "role" within the typical RPG ethos; these changes allow me to better implement this idea, and also open up the designs of certain classes. While I have, at this time, settled on who will be getting which dice, design and testing may produce bugs or other unintended interactions which may yet change things -- we will have to wait and see.
Hopefully some of you are still around, and we can restart the conversation going forward.
In terms of blog scheduling, I'm tentatively hoping for a return to the 3x per month frequency, evenly spaced (roughly) and alternating between Tuesdays and Fridays.
Please check back March 13th.
So where do we go from here?
Well, let's start with some good news. Something that I have had some success with working on, is the skill system. Now, I want to dedicate a full post to that topic (so I'll keep this brief) but suffice it to say, d20 has been axed from skill mechanics. I wanted to add a few things to this aspect of the game's engine, and a change to the dice (and math) was ultimately necessary.
Reworking of class subtypes was a major component that I felt needed to be tackled, as part of implementing leveling systems into the game. This has caused a major paradigm shift, creating a question that I haven't completely answered. If I were to try and put it succintly, the trouble comes at the confluence of Class, Power Sources, and Archetypes -- how those things relate to each other, and what unlocks what. Again, a topic I want to expand on more thoroughly in the future.
Finally, another major structural change in the works is completely re-working the concept of "class dice." In short, my plans going forward will be to have each die paired with another -- creating 10 combinations, making up 2 of the class slates -- with only 5 classes remaining tied to a single die. With the research into the dice math and mechanics, each die sort of took on its own character, and "role" within the typical RPG ethos; these changes allow me to better implement this idea, and also open up the designs of certain classes. While I have, at this time, settled on who will be getting which dice, design and testing may produce bugs or other unintended interactions which may yet change things -- we will have to wait and see.
Hopefully some of you are still around, and we can restart the conversation going forward.
In terms of blog scheduling, I'm tentatively hoping for a return to the 3x per month frequency, evenly spaced (roughly) and alternating between Tuesdays and Fridays.
Please check back March 13th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)