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.
No comments:
Post a Comment