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:

• 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.

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.

• 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

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.