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:

• 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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!

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.

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!