Class Showcase: Spellbinder & Warlord (2023)

Oddly enough, it was around this season way back in 2016 when I did a post about these same two classes, for the Beta 4 version of the rules. It's interesting to compare and contrast where the designs have changed over the years.

• The Spellbinder (d12)
• The Warlord (d8/d12)

Working on the other "Disciple" classes (Druid and Occultist) helped to kind of lay the groundwork for how the Warlord would take shape, in this iteration. Essentially, there's one universal Warlord feature, one feature unique to each of the two subclasses, and one feature for each of the three combat roles -- similar to the other Disciples. I had been meaning to take the idea of the old-school Fighter getting an army of followers, and impliment some form of that into TNP for a while now; in pre-3.5 D&D (so, before my time in the gaming space -- apologies if I get any of this 2nd-hand information slightly wrong) Fighters got this perk when they received the title of "Lord." To me, it seemed obvious to fit this feature in with the Warlord class, just based on the naming convention alone. With the other Disciple classes having summoner-type "controller" abilities to work off of, the groundwork for the "Lord of War" was already laid, and this feature actually came together quite quickly.

As I had teased in earlier posts, the Spellbinder didn't need a lot of changes from the 2019-ish iteration, since it didn't require a class die makeover. I was kind of fiddling with the "Blademaster" specializations for this class right up until the last minute, so don't be terribly surprised if they get tinkered with a bit in the future. I've always sort of liked the idea of Spellbinder as the over-class for Swordmage and Hexblade; the name originally was meant to incorporate "the other, other Warlock subclass" from 4th Edition -- the Binder. But, when looking up the meanings of words to see if they really fit (something I agonized over a lot on the debilities, for example -- and also why the Mystic eventually became the Occultist) I found that the word 'spellbinding' means to captivate or even hypnotize; this helped to add another dimension to the class, and helped me build out some of its magical abilities. Sort of like the Acrobat and the Adventurer (to varying degrees) the Spellbinder kind of took on a life of its own with TNP, and became its own "thing."

...

This post marks the end of this season, for the blog. Typically the first post of the new year will come out on January 11th, so I would check back then for any updates.

If you look back on the posts throughout this year, you'll know that there's still a lot of work to be done, in order to finalize the designs. I'll try and squeeze in some writing over the next month, to get some of the "SRD" ironed out; some other goals would be to get an updated "monster math" document (with at least some example monsters) as well as finalizing the campaign-building mechanics.

The Next Mechanics -- Part 2: Re-"role"-ing the Dice

Somewhat in the same vein of a recent post, today I'm going to share some design ideas I've had recently, which may or may not appear in a future game.

First, I want to talk about class dice bonuses. Basically, I think an interesting basis for a new system would be to have simplistic d4, d8, and d12 attack bonuses, with d6 and d10 used strictly for extra damage; this obviously would be a lot easier to balance and mix-and-match in a design ethos which expressly isn't about "class dice," in the way that TNP is. 

That being said, I actually did manage to come up with some balanced reworks, whereby the dice bonuses are approximately equal (when using the assumption of 1d8 as the base damage.) These mechanics assume the dice bonuses can be added to attack AND damage, unless otherwise noted:

• d4: always treated as max value for the damage portion of the bonus; if the d4 ties the attack roll, treat the attack as a crit
• d6: [can be added to attack and damage] -- no other special considerations
• d8: if the d8 ties the attack roll, treat the attack as a crit; can only be added to a miss [essentially the same as the TNP bonus, with the addition of being able to be used for attack and damage]
• d10: roll 2d10, and use the total OR the d20 result to resolve the attack; treat the lower d10 result as the bonus damage, with mastery applied to the roll for determining the damage portion only
• d12: can be used in place of the attack roll; if the d12 roll ties the d20 roll and both would be a hit, treat the attack as a crit; if the d12 and d20 are a tie and both would miss, treat the attack as a hit

Some of these are obviously a bit wordy/clunky, so I do generally prefer the idea of streamlining the bonuses to be more simple, and at the same time making it so not all dice have to be bonuses.

The other major idea I've been giving some consideration to, is what is the resolution mechanic (if not d20)? The thing to ask is whether the DC10/d20 system is really adequate; to wit, is a 50% hit + 5% crit rate enough? Evidently not, since the design has needed to be reworked to include dice bonuses as well as combat mastery. My sense is that at the low end, a meaningful chance of success shouldn't drop below about 20%-25%, whereas at the high end, a meaningful chance of failure shouldn't be less than around 15%-20%

So let's look at some options, for success rates vs. DC10:

• 3d6: 62.50%
• 2d10: 64.00%
• 2d6+3: 58.22% 
• 1d6+1d10: 45%

You'll notice I included that last one, since it's the mechanic that TNP uses for skills; when you apply advantage to the d10 portion, the success rate increases to 66.83% or decreases to 23.17% with disadvantage. The 2d6 expression is meant to model "what if we replaced the 3rd d6 with something like an ability modifier?"
So what happens with the other mechanics? Let's say they all use the same idea of "highest/lowest [X-1] of XdY" as sort of an "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic.

• 3d6: 82.48% / 38.35%
• 2d10: 84.60% / 37.80%
  
• 2d6+3: 80.56% / 31.94%

Now, it's here I'll say that I think I can rule out the d10, for a couple of reasons. First, if we were to add something like a +1 modifier to it, the success rate would become too high. The other reason is that "roll 3d10 and keep the 2 highest" sort of loses the ergonomics of a straightforwardly 2d10 advantage/disadvantage mechanic, such as the one used for skills in TNP.

So what happens if we apply some kind of an "ability" modifier to the d6 candidates?

• 3d6+1: 89.51% / 51.23% (74.07% normal)
• 3d6+0: 82.48% / 38.35% (62.50% normal)
• 3d6-1: 73.07% / 26.93% (50.00% normal)
• 3d6-2: 61.65% / 17.52% (37.50% normal)
  
  
• 2d6+4: 89.35% / 47.69% (72.22% normal)
• 2d6+3: 80.56% / 31.94% (58.22% normal)
• 2d6+2: 68.06% / 19.44% (41.57% normal)
• 2d6+1: 52.31% / 10.65% (27.78% normal)

We find a couple of things:
3d6+1 is pretty comparable to 2d6+4, but both are a little high, with advantage applied.
3d6+0 and 2d6+3 are both kind of in the sweet spot, for all three expressions.
3d6-1 is definitely workable -- but at 2d6+2, disadvantage is at risk of taking the numbers too low.

Overall, the math makes me lean towards 3d6... but having modifiers that scale from -2 only to +1 is a little bit unconventional. The 2d6 mechanic being based around having only positive modifiers is intriguing, but at the far ends of that scale, it starts to flounder; advantage on 2d6+4 is really high, and disadvantage on 2d6+1 is really low.

I think if I were to use either of those for combat, I might consider using the existing TNP mechanic for skills -- otherwise, the obvious temptation is to just build the entire system out of d6s. Having a skill mechanic that at least uses d6 and d10 would incentivize using both in parts of the rest of the system. At this point, I realize I probably sound like I'm campaigning to reinvent my previous RPG. I haven't decided what "the next next project" is going to be, so anything is still possible, at this point.

...

Next post is due on Nov. 30th, when (if all goes well) we should be unveiling the Spellbinder and Warlord classes -- so check back then!

Class Showcase: Druid & Rogue (2023)

Based on a previous request from a TNP Discord member, today's post is going to focus on two classes that I would say are at opposite ends of the complexity spectrum:

• The Druid (d4/d12)
• The Rogue (d6)

With the reshuffling of subclasses that came with the addition of a 3rd slate, the d6 Sorcerer subclass and the d6 Rogue class got combined into one, creating a class which essentially has an arcane subclass and a martial subclass. Admittedly, they don't share a lot mechanically (aside from the d6) so the "Rogue Tactics" feature was extended to the Sorcerer as well; if I recall correctly, this was one of a couple universal features between the previous Rogue subclasses. At one point, the Rogue had 3 subclasses (Assassin, Scoundrel, and Scout) but the Scout was spun off into a Ranger subclass, and is now part of the Adventurer class; what remains of the other two subclasses has essentially been merged together, under the Scoundrel subclass -- a naming choice which was mentioned in a previous post.

The Sorcerer subclass draws most of its inspiration from the 5e version of the class, with Twin Spell in particular being one of my favourite features to use. I also gave the class a generic AoE attack called "Fiery Burst" which is meant to serve to role of both Burning Hands or Fireball. As recently as the 2021 draft, this ability could be used as a melee attack or a ranged attack, but with the recent minor update, I decided to eschew the necessity of an attack roll for this feature -- which cleans up the wording and hopefully gets the point across better. I wouldn't say I have a particular favourite origin for the 5e Sorcerer, but probably the Wild Magic option is the one most associated with the class, so that's what I chose to emulate.

Now, the Druid class is a lot more complex than the Rogue, I would say. It follows in the vein of the Guardian, basically calling upon animal forms and either bestowing that form upon themself (Shapeshifter), or summoning a beast in such a form (Summoner). The form options are Dire Bear, Stalking Cat, and Great Eagle -- all of which are treated as "role features" -- which more or less correspond to Defender, Striker, and Support, respectively. If memory serves, a lot of the bear form features for the 4e Druid revolved around gaining temporary HP, or healing nearby allies; I chose to go that route here as well.

Rather than having the "healer" role siloed into one subclass, I went the same route that I did with the Cleric, and made the baseline, generic healing ability available to both Druid subclasses, but with certain action economy advantages or disadvantages depending on subclass and shapeshifting forms. It's also worth mentioning that features with the [Form] keyword are able to be activated as part an initiative check, but can also be changed (or activated later) as a move action; for this reason, Fighting Styles for the Fighter class are also given the [Form] keyword.

Some of the more recent changes to the Druid (aside from those specifically related to the change in dice, from d4/d6 to d4/d12) are actually some of the mechanical basics. I separated out Reserves and Surge Value to each use different dice (since there are specific reserve-based mechanics for the class) but I also changed the ranged basic attack to be d12 damage. Usually I think of Druids using a longbow (d8), but a cantrip such as 5e's Poison Spray as a d12 ranged attack also makes sense in this case. With the shapeshifter being unable to use ranged attacks when its forms are active, I imagine such attacks actually won't come up much, and they don't really do anything special, either.

...

Anyway, feel free to comment below if you have any thoughts on either of these classes.

Next post will be on Nov. 20th, so check back then!

Class Showcase: Cleric & Occultist (2023)

Given that it's nearly Halloween, it seemed like Occultist was an obvious choice for today's post. And since D&D's cleric class famously was based off of the vampire-hunter Van Helsing, that seemed like another solid candidate.

• The Cleric (d4/d10)
• The Occultist (d10)

Like many classes, the Cleric breaks down into essentially a melee subclass (Battle Priest) and a ranged subclass (Invoker). In the 4e paradigm where [role + power source = class], it makes sense to split Invoker off from Cleric; in a paradigm closer to 5e, Invoker just seems like a specialized cleric, with particular spells picked. I chose to give the Cleric class a d10, so that the Invoker could have a few extra reserves to burn for powering their abilities (rather than putting debuffs on themself to power them, as in 4e) -- this is also why the Invoker is one of the first real instances where the newly-defined debilities make an appearance, within a class' features.

Beyond that, I felt like a "healing word"-esque spell and a buff like Bless sort of neatly encapsulates the basic Cleric's toolkit in 5e -- barring specific flavours from domains beyond the obvious divine-ish types.

The Occultist was a class I actually took a long time to settle on a name for. I eventually picked this one after it came up as a class in Darkest Dungeon. In earlier iterations, I had the Animate Dead ability as exclusive to the Necromancer, and the Eldritch Blast ability as exclusive to the Warlock. In the previous iteration, I decided to make both of these abilities available to all Occultists (mainly because they both required a standard action to use) and treated Necromancer and Warlock more as 'roles' rather than distinct subclasses. This lastest version kind of splits the difference; the two aforementioned abilities remain universal, but the curses remain specific to each subclass. The Banishment ability was changed to a controller ability from a Necromancer ability, the Hellish Rebuke ability was changed from a Warlock ability to a striker ability, and Vampiric Touch was added as a support ability.

Generally the ethos in TNP has been to try (as much as possible) to fit the abilities of each class into 3 features, which are sometimes bundles of smaller features -- almost akin to how feats work in 5th Edition D&D. There is some bending of this rule; a class might have one feature and each subclass might have 3 of their own features, in addition to that (such as the Cleric... sort of.) The Occultist essentially has 4 features (one of which has 2 different subsets, depending on subclass) and 3 possible role features, on top of that. In the earliest versions of TNP, the idea was that ALL classes should be able to fit onto one sheet of paper; now, it's usually 3, but some of the simpler classes make in at 2 (with the 1st page essentially being the key, basic statistics for each class loadout.) Hopefully this allows the game to overall strike the right balance between complexity as well as range of character options.

...

Check back for the next post on November 10th!

The Conundrum of Class Dice Bonuses

Since the summer break, I've been trying to figure out a solution to the problem with the d12 bonus. What it comes down to is that because d12 is such a large damage bonus, it has to be a relatively small attack bonus, in order for the DPR to be balanced against the other (smaller) dice bonuses -- to wit, in the current iterations, the d12 does not provide an attack bonus at all. This creates a problem, because it does not bestow the multiplicative effect to "extra damage" that dice bonuses with an attack bonus offer. I came up with a fix, but in the process I realized I should also clean up some of the nomenclature a bit.

Class dice bonuses are bonuses to attacks, which use class dice; they can be bonuses to attack rolls and/or to damage rolls. When used as a bonus to an attack roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as an attack bonus, and when used as a bonus to a damage (i.e. base damage) roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as a damage bonus (or bonus damage, depending on grammatical considerations.) Extra damage is something entirely separate from bonus damage; extra damage is only ever represented by d6s and/or d10s, can only be used for damage (not for attack bonus), and is in addition to both base damage and bonus damage.

Now, it's important to remember that while all 5 of the class dice bonuses may be applied to a given attack, only one may be used as an attack bonus -- and you can choose which one to use, after rolling all bonuses. Some of the class dice bonuses have special functions that work "as an attack bonus," meaning that in order to benefit from said bonus, no other attack bonus may be applied. Specifically, the d8 bonus when it ties the attack roll (d20), or using the d10 roll in place of the d20 (i.e. a 10 on the d10 being used to make a hit.) Remember this for later.

The general rule is that a class dice bonus can be used for an attack bonus OR a damage bonus, but not both -- however, there are exceptions (which is partly why to simplify things, one of the reworks I was considering was to just allow all dice to be used for attack bonus AND damage bonus.)

As I had said from the top, the d12 bonus:
a) does not have an attack bonus component, and;
b) does not properly scale with extra damage dice

So how do we fix this? Well, what I've come up with is this:
"As an attack bonus, the d12 bonus allows all extra damage dice to be treated as having rolled their maximum value."

Essentially what this does, is take the base hit chance (50%) and crit chance (5%) without an attack bonus (or, when applying the d12 bonus, which has no attack bonus component) and instead of multiplying those chances by the random roll of the extra damage dice, you're multiplying them by the maximum value of the extra damage dice. The result is that the extra damage scales up, more in line with the other class dice bonuses.

As mentioned in a previous post, since each class dice bonus (with a base damage of 1d8) produces a DPR of about 7.3 we then need the extra damage dice to work out to at least another 16.7 DPR, in order to hit our "1 KPR" number of 24 DPR. By using the d12 bonus this way, we're multiplying the maximum value of 5d6 or 3d10 by 50% (hit) and taking double that amount, multplied by 5% (crit):

(30 * 50% = 15) + (60 * 5% = 3) = 18

So this means that with the d12 bonus in play, the DPR from extra damage can be increased to 18, finally putting it just about on par with the other bonuses.

Now, this may seem a bit unintuitive and weird, since objectively the roll of the d12 is doing nothing to provide the actual attack bonus. But we do need to treat it as an attack bonus, to keep other attack bonuses from being applied in addition to this one. Since the ~7.3 DPR from the d12 bonus comes entirely from damage, this also means that the rule for the d12 bonus must be that it can be used for attack AND damage, in order for this math to work out.

Essentially, I think of attack bonus and damage bonus more and more like two separate buckets, that can each be filled in specific, different ways. Attack bonus is more like a "typed" bonus, in the sense that, for example, a "feat bonus" to attack can be stacked with a "power bonus" to attack, and a "circumstance bonus" to attack... but not with another "feat bonus" to attack; if every class dice bonus to attack is considered a "feat bonus", then only the highest/best would apply. Bonus damage is more like an untyped bonus; all of them can be stacked (unless they specifically don't apply, such as when using one for an attack bonus prohibits using it as a damage bonus.)

...

Anyway, hopefully that doesn't muddy the waters too much; it was the simplest fix to the class dice problem, short of reworking the whole scheme from scratch.

Next post should be up on October 30th, so check back then!

Class Showcase: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (2023)

 So for today's 3 classes, we have the (mostly) martial bunch:

• The Fighter (d6/d12)
• The Paladin (d6/d10)
  
• The Ranger (d8/d10)

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, these classes are sort of grouped together, with "fighting styles" being their common mechanic; the fighter gets access to all, ranger leans towards two-weapon fighting or archery, and paladin can basically get any of the others.

It seems clear that there was a deliberate attempt to make Fighters in 5e that could be built for more than just melee, and I felt that was valuable to keep in TNP. However, I didn't want the fighting styles to be something you were pigeon-holed into, so I added the mechanic of each additional style giving you extra damage. The TNP version of the Fighter is actually an outgrowth of the original "Warrior" class, which was a much more barbarian-ish, d12 class; as the Fighter-y bits got added more and more into the Warrior, the d12 made less and less sense. When I started working on the 3rd slate of classes, I decided to make the Fighter as a separate, d6 class, and later with the two-dice revision, d6/d12 seemed the obvious choice.

The Paladin in TNP, on the other hand, was one of the original 5 character classes... sort of -- having evolved out of the d10 "Fighter" class to include some more holy/healing abilities, which the slate was otherwise completely lacking. There are some subtle influences from Diablo 2, as the Paladin in that game was probably my favourite class. I liked the idea of either taking a Cleric domain or a Fighter role (or possibly fighting style) with the Paladin, so I sort of massaged that into the class specialization options; the Fighter and Paladin sharing the d6 class die made role the easier fighter option to share. In much the same way as in 5e, the Paladin isn't mean to be a "pure" healer or "main" healer, but they're a frontliner who can dish out some healing as they fight. I can honestly say I had fun playing a Blackguard in 4e, and so including a dark Paladin with some of the thievery-type skills had always been on my radar.

The Ranger has always been a d8 class, but honestly, stapling an "extra damage die" such as the d10 onto the class just worked flawlessly. The scout subclass bounced around between Ranger and Rogue for a bit, before finally settling in as part of the Adventurer class; I wanted to keep classes to only 2 subclasses, and that sort of necessitated this. Probably the two-weapon fighting and the archery Rangers are the most iconic, particularly coming out of 4th Edition; TNP's Ranger is more akin to the Essentials' Hunter ranger, stapled onto the beastmaster archetype of the Martial Power book. I feel the latter playstyle became popularized for a lot of people (myself included) with the World of Warcraft hunter class, and I think using the beast for 4e's iconic "twin strike" manages to work out ok.

...

So, the remaining "completed" class is the Rogue, with 5 others still needing to be polished up and finalized; I might squeeze in a post on another topic, rather than continue with the class showcases, for the next one.

Check back on October 20th!

Class Showcase: Acrobat, Bard, Sage (2023)

For today's post, we're going to look at 3 classes that have sort of been tangled and disentangled from each other, at various points in the development.

• The Acrobat (d4, d8)
• The Bard (d8)
• The Sage (d4)

When I had first set about making a d4 Monk class (at the start of doing the 2nd full slate of classes, if memory serves) there was essentially a "mundane monk" subclass (the Martial Artist) and a "magical monk" subclass (the Ki Master). Later on, when I got around to doing a 3rd slate of classes, one of the ideas I started off with was to add an archer, as a "2d4" class. Eventually, the archer and the "mundane monk" got stapled together to form the Acrobat. Although not mechanically inspired by the Avenger or the Executioner from 4th Edition, the idea is that with different power sources (such as Divine or Shadow, respectively) the Acrobat can be used to approximate the flavour of such classes.

Likewise, the Sage started off as the d4 Mage class. In early iterations, the "INT Mage" was the wizard subclass, with the "CHA Mage" being the bard subclass. Later, that would change to Wizard and Swordmage being the Mage subclasses (with Bard and Sorcerer being subclasses for the "Trickster" -- kind of a de facto "CHA Mage" class.) With the big remix that came out of the 3rd slate, the "magical monk" got stapled onto the wizard subclass, to create the Sage class. As such, the Wizard is kind of the "mental Sage" whereas the Monk is the "physical Sage" in terms of their skills.

By recombining the subclasses this way, both the Acrobat and the Sage end up with a melee subclass and a ranged subclass. The Bard would eventually get spun off into its own class, as would the Swordmage (expanding to include the Hexblade subclass, under the banner of the "Spellbinder" class.)

As a side note, the general realignment that came with the expansion to a 3rd slate of classes was meant to organize the slates more around power sources.

If you look at the 4th Edition books...

• Martial characters were in PHB1, and Heroes of the Fallen Lands
• Divine characters (specifically Cleric and Paladin) were in PHB1, Heroes of Shadow, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
• Arcane characters were in PHB1 (Wizard, Warlock), and PHB2 (Bard, Sorcerer), with variants and subclasses for those spread across all of the Essentials books
• Primal characters were in PHB2, PHB3 (Seeker), Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (Sentinel Druid, Hunter and Scout Rangers), and Heroes of the Feywild (Berserker Barbarian, Protector Druid)

The original slate in TNP was meant as more of a classic/"greatest hits" compilation (Mage, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian[-ish]) but when the roster expanded to 3 slates, it became more of an exercise in answering the question, "How would the 4e classes have been grouped, if we started with all of them and worked backwards [rather than start with the 8 classes from PHB1, and expand outwards]?"

With the Ranger class moving from "Martial" in PHB1 to "Martial and Primal" in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, and Rogue being a good candidate for the underdeveloped Shadow power source, this left the Martial roster for TNP a little thin; the obvious way to fill it out was to combine Martial and Divine into one slate, consisting of the Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, and Warlord classes.

An "arcane and shadow" slate drawing from the Wizard, the "magical monk", the Rogue, the Sorcerer, the Bard, the Swordmage, the Hexblade, the Warlock, and the Necromancer would have more than enough material to flesh it out. Likewise, a combined "primal, or primal & martial" slate including all forms of Ranger, Druid, and Barbarian, as well as 4e-specific classes like Warden, Shaman, and Skald seemed to cover enough ground as well.

To sum up, the idea was that each TNP "book" (i.e. slate) would revolve around one or two power sources, and have all of the classes (and other materials) related to those power sources included. It's meant as sort of a refinement of the 4e ethos, where each "PHB" seems to have a primary power source (but also secondary and tertiary ones) as well as each power source having one or more "players' option" splat-books... to say nothing of the Essentials or post-Essentials books.

...

Anyway, that's all for this month.

Check back on October 10th for the next post!

Class Showcase: Adventurer, Barbarian, Guardian (2023)

I've been a little bit overly scrambly lately, so I'm going to use this post to release some of the updated classes. Hopefully this will produce some conversation and feedback, on the chance that any changes or tweaks need to be made. I decided to go with these 3 classes in particular, because the Barbarian borrows its class specialization options from the other two.

• The Adventurer (d6, d8)
• The Barbarian (d10, d12)
• The Guardian (d4, d6)

If you click into the links, you'll see that these are the "2021" versions of these classes. Most classes that have been completed since the 2018 version are referred to this way; the classes which are still being worked on will be referred to as "2023" versions.

The Adventurer arguably has changed the most, going from previously using a d10; for a two-weapon fighting class, d8 weapons seem like a better fit, and d6 for an extra damage die seems more appropriate for a subclass (Scout) that often lends itself to being more like a rogue.

The Guardian split into the Warden (defender) and Shaman (support) subclasses, borrowing from the 4e classes of the same names. The Guardian class essentially uses animal spirits to bestow supernatural powers; the Warden bestows those powers on themself, whereas the Shaman causes these spirits to possess an ally. The idea is that the Shaman is a support class more in the vein of a Warlord or Bard in 4e, using their allies as a conduit for attacks and such.

The Barbarian is meant to be more akin to the Berserker class from 4e -- but not entirely mechanically similar. The general idea being that rage is effectively "striker mode" while not raging is closer to "defender mode." As a d12 class, the Barbarian is focused on melee combat, while as a d10 class they're also potentially a very heavy hitter.

...

Anyways, that's all for today. If I stick with the format of releasing 3 classes at a time, that would mean 5 posts like this in total, taking us to the end of October. If I have the handful of remaining classes finished by then, we'll be in good shape.

Check back September 30th for the next post!

Are Old Mechanics the Next Mechanics?

As things crystalize and start to be narrowed down, I'm beginning to think back on some of the dice mechanics that have been shed from TNP (that, and the possible rework to class dice bonuses, that I mentioned in my previous post.) Specific to that, I'm wondering if the "d6 and d10 as extra damage, only" (mixed with beefed up bonuses for the other dice) could constitute the basis for a different game.

All in all, it sort of got me thinking back to some mechanics that have come and gone. At one point, there were no "opportunity attacks" just "opportunity damage" -- no attack roll needed; I wonder if, within the paradigm of two class dice, this is still necessary. Similarly, there used to be a "reliable" property, whereby if a basic attack missed, it would deal damage equal to the missed attack roll (i.e. a number between 1 and 9.) This didn't make a lot of sense, in a paradigm where the base damage of a successful attack might be 1d4 or 1d6, so it only ended up being used on classes which would use bigger dice for damage -- effectively creating a "rich get richer" kind of situation, leading it to eventually be scrapped. I've never liked using half-damage (or half-anything, for that matter) in my designs, so this was my attempt at a simple, streamlined "damage on a miss"-mechanic. If there's anything to be learned from this experiment, it's that damage on a miss should only ever be 1d4, or maybe 1d6?

Another big mechanic that has disappeared is stuff happening when you roll doubles; for advantage and disadvantage on d20s in particular, this was meant to remove the frustration of rolling twice but only getting one result. When it comes to damage dice "treat 1 die as having rolled its maximum" on a tie is sorta just like, "expertise, again" albeit less useful the higher the tie is. It's another way to boost damage, but it's not particularly... slick, really. It's also a bit trickier to calculate the math for "roll two and take the highest, but also" than it is to just do without that extra wrinkle.

Basically, the alternate class dice mechanics I was testing boiled down to this:

• add the d4 to the attack
• add the d8 to a miss
• use the d12 in place of the attack roll

Now, to boost up the damage output, I revised the basic concept of these bonus dice from "attack OR damage" to "attack AND damage." The other universal (sort of) perk, was how a tie between these bonus dice and the attack roll (d20) interacted. In short, when you roll a d20 with any other, smaller die (or along with another d20) the chance of a tie is 5% -- this mechanic is used on the existing d8 mechanic, to produce additional crits. The idea here was that this would also be bolted onto the d4 mechanic (as well as treating that die as max value, for the damage component only.) The idea with the d12 would be that (at least) if the result was a tie and both values would be considered a hit, the attack would be treated as a crit, and (possibly) that any other ties would be treated as a hit.

Overall, I think "use the d12 roll in place of the d20 roll" is a really slick mechanic within a DC10 paradigm, assuming you don't have to bog it down with a bunch of other baggage. I'd really like to use that somewhere, and in fact it'll probably appear on one or more of the d12 classes. I also think it might be interesting if these stripped down d4/d8/d12 mechanics could be used for saving throws (instead of d6 bonuses.)

One underused mechanic that I brought up ages ago is using things like "surge value" or "current number of reserves" as hard-number modifiers for class mechanics. In particular, one thing I thought of lately was using the max value of 1d8 or 2d4 (such as from its use as a surge value) as a replacement target number. Changing the DC from 10 to 8 would effectively boost the hit chance on an unmodified d20 by 10% -- and would also provide some neat interactions with the tying mechanic of the d8 bonus, since that die could effectively cover the entire "miss" range that way. I haven't incorporated this in any classes previously, but there may be some implementation of it for the unfinished classes -- I may even go back and relook at some of the others, particularly in cases where 1d8/2d4 is paired with one of the 'striker dice' (d6 or d10.)

One of the main mechanics in earlier drafts was "trade-offs" which... apparently some people thought was a misnomer? Essentially, it was a double roll, whereby you'd use one roll as a bonus and the other as a penalty; apparently, this does not describe a trade-off, but whatever. This worked a lot better in the paradigm of a single class die; nowadays when it is used in the text, which die to use for the double roll has to be specified every time, rather than just saying "using your class die." It's a bit tedious.

As I've said before, I really like the "percentile as adv/disadv" for its ergonomic qualities; it's also handy because a tie on 2d10 ends up being a 10% possibility. I've combined this mechanic with a d6 roll for both the (post-d20) skill mechanics in TNP, as well as the monster roll mechanic. The other thing with d10s is that expertise increases the chance of a 10 (i.e. succeeding at a DC10) by 10% as well. Hopefully, this kind of illustrates why I think this mechanic has some potential, if there is to be a "next next project."

---

Check back for the next post on September 20th!

Damage Per Round vs. Monster HP (2023)

As was established in a previous post, the baseline of 1d8 + any one of the 5 class dice bonuses produces about 7.3 damage per round (DPR). Now, the d12 bonus is the outlier in that it does not produce any additional hit or crit chance; this became a concern of mine when I started to look into the interaction of hit and crit chance, with the stacking of extra damage dice. We'll set that aside for now, but I'll come back to that at the end of this post.

Now, coming back to our monster math expressions, we know that standard monsters should have about as much HP as a PC, and that our encounter budget allows for 2 standard monsters per 1 PC. So what does all of this actually mean?

Let's start with the HP: how much HP do PCs have? Since we now calculate HP as "the maximum possible result of your initiative roll [including initiative bonus]" this gives us a range between 24 and 32. This is the same range as in previous iterations, the difference being that we're using initiative roll instead of "basic roll" (i.e. 1d20 + class die, which became muddled once the change to two class dice was made.) Initiative rolls use a d20 + a bonus based on one of your class dice: 1d4, 2d4, 1d6, 2d6, 1d8, 1d10, or 1d12.

What this means is that a team of 4 PCs should deal something like 192-256 damage per encounter, in order to kill off the 8 standard monsters (having between 24 and 32 HP each.) Following the ethos of 4th Edition D&D, ideally combat should be somewhere around 3 or 4 rounds of combat. If we average out this total over 4 rounds, this results in 48-64 damage per round, as a team of 4 PCs.

Now, let's assume that each 'striker' in the party is expected to produce 1 kill per round (KPR). This translates to 24-32 damage per round. Assuming our baseline of 7.3 damage (as mentioned at the start) this means that the striker needs to produce an additional 16.7-24.7 DPR to hit this benchmark. Since the party needs to achieve 48-64 DPR, and if 1 KPR = 24-32 DPR, this means that the remaining 3 party members only need to account for half of the remaining DPR requirement. If we take 24 HP and split it 3 ways, we come up with 8 -- not far off of our benchmark of 7.3; once we add in things like combat mastery from status effects or tactical considerations, this should be easily doable.

So how do we get strikers up by that additional 16.7-24.7 DPR?
Let's look at the proposed baselines we're dealing with, in terms of "extra damage dice." First, it's important to remember that a change was recently made whereby these dice always have mastery applied to them; this increases the average of each d6 to 4.33 and each d10 to 6.4

Now, if we calculate out 5d6 and 3d10, we get averages of 21.65 and 19.2 respectively.
At this point, we have to stop and remind ourselves that this is damage, and NOT DPR -- and we MUST calculate the DPR in this instance. The baseline hit chance in TNP is 50% (a 10-19 on the d20) with a 5% crit chance (natural 20.) So, we'll do 55% of this damage, per round -- plus the maximum damage of these dice (30, in either case) an additional 5% of the time, since crits deal the rolled damage plus the maximum value of the damage dice.

(21.65 * 0.55) + (30 * 0.05) = 13.4075

(19.2 * 0.55) + (30 *0.05) =  12.06

As you can see, when added to the baseline DPR, this still leaves us far short of the damage necessary for 1 KPR. For the sake of argument, let's increase the hit chance and crit chance, by applying the d4 class dice bonus to it; this bonus increases the crit chance to 17.5%, which changes the calculation as follows:

(21.65 * 0.675) + (30 * 0.175) = 19.86375

(19.2 * 0.675) + (30 * 0.175) =  18.21

Now when we add in the baseline DPR of about 7.3, these numbers only just barely break the minimum threshold of doing the 24 damage needed to achieve 1 KPR. Now, imagine if this example were using the d12 bonus (where there is no increase in hit chance or crit chance) rather than the d4 bonus, and you can see where the problem arises. This is why I recently gave some consideration to boosting all of the dice bonuses; I've been prototyping some changes to the d4, d8, and d12 which would increase the baseline DPR to about 8.8 and crucially would add an increase in hit chance for the d12 bonus. The problem is that it's still significantly smaller than the d4 or d8 bonus, meaning it still doesn't scale well w/r/t extra damage dice -- unless the baseline DPR with the d12 bonus is increased to something closer to 9.3

The other question then becomes, do we simply dispense with d6 and d10 bonuses, and only use those dice for extra damage? I've contemplated it, but it really does leave the Paladin (d6, d10), Rogue (d6), and Occultist (d10) classes in a lurch -- unless you compensate them with some unique +hit mechanics, or just boost their extra damage dice beyond the cap, high enough to outpace their lack of a hit booster.

Now, one thing I've discovered in going over all this, is that most classes (in fact) aren't attacking only once per round. At a bare minimum (depending on things like subclass) everyone will at least be doing some kind of two-weapon fighting routine, if not a flatout AoE against an entire maelstrom, or some other form of multi-attack. As such, I think I'm just going to power through, with the bonuses from the most recent draft of the rules intact; it's far too late in the game (no pun intended) to really consider a major overhaul to the base mechanics.

...

As with things like the decision to axe advantage on base damage, the new class dice mechanics I was tinkering with will basically be filed (at least mentally) in my "list of things for the NEXT next project."

Hopefully this deep dive into the math was illuminating for those of you reading out there.

Check back for the next post on September 10th!

Class Updates: August 21st (2023)

Quick overview:

• Cleric: I would consider to be updated
• Druid: stable, but not complete
• Occultist: work in progress
• Warlord: preliminary work started
• Spellbinder: not started

As mentioned before, figuring out the Disciple class category (Druid, Warlord, Occultist) is going to be a big piece to completing this puzzle. My general intention with the category is to possibly have their "unique thing" be that they can switch their subclass -- possibly requiring a long rest, or spending a reserve, or similar. We'll see if the finalized designs (for the Occultist in particular) make this workable.

Looking back on previous drafts, both the Druid and the Occultist had the option to gain training with either "Influence" (now "Communication") or Subtlety, as a "category upgrade"; this is going to at least be kept as a placeholder form of category upgrade, particularly since the Warlord previously had the option to gain training with one Attribute or one Skillset (abeit as a "class upgrade"). This may ultimately be revised down to a skill rank, rather than skill training.

The other placeholder category upgrade will be the ability to gain an additional power source; currently this can be any power source, but may ultimately be scaled back to "any power source from your class list."

The final (obvious) category upgrade option is to gain additional roles; this is pretty straightforward for the Warlord, and will probably be kept as access to the different animal forms for the Druid, but for the Occultist it will likely require a major class rework. As it stands right now, the structure of the Occultist is effectively a "roles, but no subclasses" setup, which needs to be expanded to include both roles and subclasses. Essentially, the Necromancer and Warlock "roles" will become subclasses, and new role mechanics will need to be layered on in addition.

In case I've forgotten to mention it previously, there was a late substitution on the 3rd slate, whereby the Druid was changed to a d4/d12 class and the Guardian was changed to d4/d6. This worked out a lot better since the Druid was originally built off a d4, and Guardian was built off a d6; essentially, Guardian utilized stacking d6s of extra damage, so converting it to a d12 was actually a bad fit. Conversely, the Druid wasn't built to utilize such a mechanic, so the change to a d12 is a better fit -- if anything, it's somewhat under utilized for the class.

There were some similarities I found while working on the Cleric (d4/d10) and Druid (d4/d12) since their dice are so similar. Mechanics such as the "Druidic Focus" (which previously called for a double roll of "your class die") have mostly been changed to instead roll both class dice; I consider this to be only a "placeholder change," since testing is obviously going to be needed. Another thing is that the Cleric in particular had a lot of utilization of "advantage on base damage" -- a mechanic which was only very recently axed from the designs, precipitating several reworks. So, porting the class from a d8 to d4/d10 (in addition to those reworks) has likewise created a lot of "placeholder changes."

I think I'm going to have a fairly easy time with the Spellbinder, because the basic structure is already in place. Blademasters' unique thing is that they can gain certain features from other classes, and the Sage Domains are already essentially built to be used by multiple classes in the slate; the subclasses for Spellbinder are already formalized, so most of the work will be in format updating, and potentially adding Occultist roles to the list of features that can be borrowed. Being a 2nd slate class, Spellbinder remains using the same, single class die -- so almost nothing should need to change mechanically.

Keeping it Simple (2023)

So the topics on the to-do list that I've had the opportunity to think about are those related to dice rolls.

As mentioned previously, the supposition that mastery could apply separately to base damage and to extra damage created a system where you were making 3 separate rolls, to ensure all of the dice were being adjudicated properly. However, it wasn't particularly desirable to just say "mastery on base damage extends to extra damage" because this runs counter to the general rule that mastery on a die roll does not extend mastery on any bonuses to that die roll.

What I came up with instead, was essentially reversing the equation: what if mastery on extra damage would also apply mastery to base damage? And to simplify it all, why not have extra damage always be rolled with mastery applied to it?

This creates two scenarios where mastery can be applied to base damage:
1. When combat mastery would apply to the roll
2. When extra damage would be applied to the base damage

Now, you might be thinking, "But if combat mastery is applying mastery to the base damage, doesn't that mean you'd still have to roll the extra damage without mastery, thus defeating the point?" Right, unless extra damage always has mastery -- then we're back to all of the damage dice being able to be rolled together. Class dice bonuses which end up being used for damage would still have to be rolled separately, but they can always be rolled at the same time as the attack roll; this is how we keep the order of operations down to 2 dice rolls.

Further to this, we can apply the same line of thinking to the decisions about advantage. In short, if base damage with advantage has to be rolled separately (because advantage cannot apply to extra damage) then the solution crystalizes itself: we have to axe advantage. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where we're making 3 rolls again... unless the base damage uses different dice than the extra damage, but I really don't want to have rules that amount to exceptions upon exceptions -- that's just clunky, and it's bad design.

The other consideration is that, with the basic idea of "2d4/2d6 base damage with advantage is comparable to 1d8/1d12 base damage with mastery [respectively]" ...how do you actually balance these things, in a paradigm where combat mastery can be applying to both expressions? The result is that the two pairs of expressions will never actually be balanced with each other, meaning that the supposed value-add of the advantage mechanic is non-functional.

So, could we keep advantage on initiative bonus? Possibly, because it doesn't come with the same kinds of assumptions and interactions as base damage rolls do. But then it becomes this weird outlier where the mechanic only applies to one type of roll, within the overall system. It quickly becomes a case of "less is more" and so the decision to axe it becomes quite obvious in this instance as well, I would argue.

Another wrinkle to "always-on" mastery for extra damage, is that it evens out the numbers a bit -- especially if we're going with the lower cap of 3d6/2d10
With mastery applied, the min/avg/max for these dice expressions are as follows:
 3d6: 3/13/18
 2d10: 2/12.8/20

I still haven't settled on whether this is the cap that will ultimately be used (and in fact, there's an argument to be made for maintaining a higher cap, but that's a whole other post on its own) but I do like the way that this looks, on the surface.

---

A relatively short post, but hopefully with vacation around the corner, the next few can be a bit longer and more in-depth. Check back on August 21st and 31st for those.

Fall Semester (2023)

Scheduling:
First and foremost, I'd like to talk about the timing of the blog, for the rest of 2023. I want to get back on track with my usual schedule of posting roughly every 10 days. As such, the plan is to do 4(!) posts in August, followed by 3 each in September, October, and November. I'll be posting on the 1st, 11th, 21st, and 31st in August, followed by the 10th, 20th, and 30th in the remaining months.

My thought with this has always been that a once per week posting schedule would never really leave enough time for actual development, but posting every other week (or semi-monthly) would be too slow, and cause people to lose interest. So the basic idea is to split the difference, and post "3x per month"-ish. With my scheduled breaks, this translates to 30 posts per year -- which averages out to 2.5 posts per month, and still more often than 1 post every two weeks.

Drafting:
The previous draft of the rules, I had basically broken into two parts, once I had finished what I considered to be the first part; this included the dice mechanics, different types of rolls, and other basics like HP calculations. The 2nd part mainly focused on the rules of combat, and on action economy. This part of the draft was never fully realized, since things like the disengaging mechanics and status effects weren't ever completely finished. The simplified idea for disengaging/"Tumble" which I mentioned in a recent blog post will probably be used as (at least) a "playtest-ready" placeholder. The status effects and conditions have mostly been ironed out, as explained in this post; I mostly just want to go over them with a magnifying glass, to see if I made any mistakes -- or else just playtest until something breaks. Essentially, finishing a new draft of "part 2" will go a long way to being able to run combats and test out the game.

Roster Updates:
Since I will be taking some time off (IRL time off, not just time off from blogging) in August, that's when I'm hoping to get done with the biggest chunk that still needs my attention: finalizing the remaining 5 classes. In case I haven't said it recently enough in the blog, the 15 classes in TNP have been set for a while now -- as far back as the 'Beta 4' version, circa 2016-2017. As such, versions of each class already exist, so it's simply a matter of updating to the current mechanics (such as using two class dice, the related changes in HP calculation, class categories, and so forth) and any polishing up that may be warranted, along the way. I would plan/expect to have something to announce in this regard, in time for the final post of this month.

One of the more minor things I touched on recently was deciding whether to keep advantage mechanics on base damage and initiative bonus, as well as whether to extend mastery on base damage to any extra damage applied to the same attack. Whether or not these bits of design spaces are still needed/wanted should become more clear once the roster of characters has had its rework completed. An outgrowth of the discussion around mastery on extra damage is whether the cap of 5d6/3d10 will remain, or if it should be revised down to 3d6/2d10; with percentile dice, if nothing else, there is an ergonmic argument to be made in favour of using 2d10 instead of 3d10.

Timelines:
As I said on the blog earlier this year, I'd like to have TNP wrapped up "sometime in 2024" for a couple of reasons. First of all, the game began as sort of a "love-letter to Essentials" or "an alternate-universe 5e," if you prefer. Design work began in earnest around August of 2014 -- when the "D&D NEXT" playtest gave way to the official launch of 5e, with the player's handbook. Today, we likewise find ourselves in the position of 5e (seemingly) preparing to give way to "One D&D" and (presumably) leading us into a 6th edition -- one coinciding with the 50th anniversary year of the D&D franchise.

In short, TNP is something of an anachronism at this stage. It has been fun to work on, and (possibly even more) fun to write about. But with all the starts and stops that life has thrown at me throughout these years, I feel it's time to really focus on wrapping things up. I owe a lot to the people who've come along with me and stuck around for the journey all this time, and so I really owe it to them to finish the job. If it ultimately needs fixing after it's "done," then so be it -- but I now feel ready for this project to come to its conclusion, in the near future.

---

That said, thanks to all who've kept reading along with the blog so far. Hopefully there will be some exciting things to talk about very soon.
Check back for the next post on August 11th!

Dog Days of Summer (2023)

School's out for summer, as the saying goes!

Progress has been slow, since I've had my attention elsewhere as of late. As such, I'm going to use today's post to take stock of where we're at, and things I should focus on during the break.

One of the more minor priorities is ironing out the final form of the campaign generation / encounter building / skill challenge mechanics. The generalities are there, it's more a matter of streamlining and hammering out the details. I don't believe this'll be the top priority.

Second, is updating the final handful of classes: Cleric, Druid, Occultist, Spellbinder, and Warlord. For these classes, it's mostly a matter of updating the mechanics to the latest designs/layouts (and simplifying wherever possible.) However, the classes specifically in the Disciple category need to have their structure finalized. This means nailing down the subclasses, roles, category progression, and any category-specific features they're going to have; the skeletons of each class are already in place, its more a matter of formalizing them into the broader structures that have been established.

A couple of other minor tasks:

• ironing out the interception and tumbling mechanics / action econony / etc.
• writing additional feats (particularly combat-related feats)
• making a decision on advantage/disadvantage on base damage and initiative bonus, and mastery on the various types of damage rolls
• tweaking the reserves per day / adventuring day mechanics
• formalizing surprise and initiative mechanics

Anyways, whether the blog returns in late July or around the 2nd week of August, hopefully I will have some of this stuff cleared off of the to-do list. I really do want to focus on completing the classes, so that we can start playtesting with them and see what works and what doesn't.

Until then, enjoy your summer!

What comes after The Next Project?

I'd like to take a bit of a detour today, and discuss something I've been asked a few times in the past: 

"So what's your next game going to be?"

While I did work on a few homebrew TTRPG designs in the past, I've always sort of thought as 'The Next Project' as being my magnum opus within the genre; I've often answered the question with, "I'm not a game designer, I'm just a guy who designed a game."

Early on, what inspired me was the question, "what are the classes for the next Diablo game [after Diablo 2] going to be?" My penchant for playing niche builds in the game (such as archer Paladins, and staff-wielding Amazons) combined with the idea of remixing the different skill trees, ultimately to end up with 6 different classes.

Somewhere along the way, that morphed into the more generic, 1d10/1d6-based system that I generally referred to as "Unnamed RPG" -- the 6 classes I came up with were instead broken down into a combination of whether you were a spellcaster or a warrior, and whether you had light, medium, or heavy armor.

Anyways, getting back to the question: what would I like to do next?
Well, there's a couple ideas.

One of the games that I had the pleasure of playtesting a bit was sort of... a wargame miniatures-esque system with a fantasy theme to it, called 'Feint Wars.' The basic mechanic was that you had a deck of cards consisting of 3 suits, each numbered 1 through 6 (2 through 5? something like that...) Now, this deck was split between you and your opponent, so there was an element of card-counting involved. You could use a certain number of cards on your turn, either to move or attack; you could move a number of spaces equal to the card's value, or attack with that value vs. an opposed card from the defender. The twist was twofold: you would both select your cards and then reveal them at the same time, but also there was a "rock-paper-scissors" element, where each suit trumped one other suit, effectively granting the card a +3.

Now, the idea that this gave me was, "could you base a similar sort of game off of a deck of Italian cards?" Generally, these are pretty similar to a standard deck, with a few notable exceptions, the most pertinent in this instance being that the numbered cards only run 2 through 7. There are still 3 face cards in each suit (although the naming conventions are slightly different) as well as aces; the suits are also different, and there are no "black" or "red" suits. Translated, the four suits are swords, sticks (batons), cups, and coins. Anyways, it isn't really an idea I followed up beyond my brain making that initial connection (and perhaps the suits lending themselves more to an RPG setup.)

The other idea I had for a game is likewise somewhat nebulous; I always just think of it in one phrase:

Ability Scores, done right.

Now, what does that mean, exactly? Basically, in the vein of something like 13th Age, it'd use the conventional 6 ability scores (or something close) but do it in a more modern way. For example, one hack that I always thought would be handy in 4e (or a 3.x paragidm, without multiclassing) would be to have Knowledge skills from your class skill list use either your highest mental stat, or else get a flat bonus in place of an ability modifier if you weren't "trained" with the skill. 

I also like the ways that both 4e and 13th Age do defenses, namely by using the higher of two mods, or using the middle of three mods (respectively.) My basic thought was that each defense would have one or two default stats, but that the special perk of each class would be that they could substitute in their main stat for some (or all) of those defenses. (For example: using Charisma as effectively a sort of 'luck stat' when making Reflex saves, which would otherwise use Agility.)

Another idea in that vein came out of my experience with 4e; couldn't you just use your ability score for your defenses (rather than ability mod + class bonus + magic item bonus + half-level bonus + feat bonus, etc. etc.)? I think that'd be an interesting quality-of-life simplification... if you could make the math work, which is always the rub.

As you might guess from the attibutes used in TNP, I'd like to do something where Agility and Dexterity are split up, and maybe the functions of Constitution are governed by something separate from ability scores. I'd like it to include a Wisdom stat as well, if at all possible. Another thing I'd I like is the possibility of having a handful of basic classes, and mixing them together somehow to expand the roster (For example, Fighter crossed with Priest creates a Paladin character.)

In the broadest terms, I think if there were a new project on the horizon, I would want to revisit the 1d10/1d6 paradigm. The thing that I've realized in working on TNP is that there's a value proposition (and an ergonomic quality) in using percentile dice to model advantage/disadvantage (as TNP does with skills, as well as monster mechanics.) The d20 gaming zeitgeist seems to be shifting more and more towards the idea of bending the flat math into a bell curve, by modifying the roll with other dice rather than with flat modifiers -- something which has always been a cornerstone of TNP, but also pioneered by systems like 'Shadow of the Demon Lord' with its boons/banes mechanic.

In lieu of the "d20 + class die" mechanic of TNP, a more generic/universal system with something like this as its backbone would appeal to me greatly. In particular, I think it would work great for a system that is meant to be small in scope (say, 6 different playable classes, maximum) rather than the sort of "greatest hits" mentality that can be attributed to the size of the TNP roster.

---

Anyway, those are my thoughts for the time being. There's batrely a week left in June, so expect the next post to be up on (or just before) Friday the 30th.

New Mechanics: Level Progression (2023)

As mentioned around the start of the year, the most recent complete(ish) version of the rules is the 2021 draft. This included a revamp of the leveling system that had been bolted on previously; basically, it had gotten too unwieldy and needed to be pared down.

Let's start with the leveling: why 6 levels (0-5)? The short answer is, I felt something a bit more compressed made sense for the general ethos of TNP, as it pertains to streamlining and simplicity. Ultimately, I kind of wanted there to be 5 levels, because that's a number that gets used a lot in the system:

• the 5 class dice
• the 5 class categories
• the 5 Skillsets
• the 5 Attributes
• the 5 Power Sources

I also wanted the progression to be an even number of levels, just for the purposes of symmetry and aesthetics; I ended up cheating a little bit by adding a "level 0" so that I could have it both ways. While there are 6 levels, you can only gain 5 levels, if you want to look at it that way. (It's also probably worth noting that in Warcraft 3, heroes got their ultimate abilities at level 6, so that may have subconsciously influenced my thinking at some point.)

With that being established, there are effectively 3 types of progression:

1. Core progression 
2. Knowledge progression
3. Class Category progression

Core progression is the "meat and potatoes" of progression, starting off with your trained skills at level 0, class specialization (such as a domain, or archetype) at level 1, with Attribute rank bonuses coming at 2nd & 4th levels, and feats being granted at 3rd & 5th levels. TNP doesn't really "do" attributes in the traditional sense, but I wanted to include something resembling that type of progression, nonetheless. Right now, most of the feats that I've written are various types of skill bonuses, but I also want to include some combat perks -- such as improvements to grappling, or ignoring disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when prone.

Knowledge progression is considered more "fluff" than "crunch" so it's siloed off from core progression, to keep the two from competing over the same level-up resources. You gain a power source at level 0, and can upgrade it or add another power source at level 3. At all other levels (1, 2, 4, and 5) you gain a knowledge rank in a skill of your choice; this can be chosen independent of your power sources and their affiliated knowledge skills, allowing players to upgrade their characters in ways that are thematically or narratively appropriate.

Since there are 5 class categories, there are also 5 different progressions for them. Each individual class within a category might not upgrade in exactly the same way (roles tend to be class-specific, as just one example) but the mechanism within a category will be essentially the same. Class category progression bestows benefits at odd-numbered levels (1, 3, and 5) regardless of category.

• Blade Master: 1 bonus knowledge rank, 1 bonus Attribute rank, 1 bonus Skillset rank (chosen in any order)
• Jack of All Trades: combat role, feat (for which you meet the requirements), or other feature from your class (such as Fighting Styles for the Fighter class)
• Skill Expert: bonus Skillset rank at each of the three levels; also gain a bonus power source at level 0
• Ideologue: bonus Knowledge rank at each of the three levels
• Disciple: [still TBD, although the intent is for these classes to have combat roles, so that will certainly be a part of it]

The progression for Blade Master was originally going to be used for Disciple, when that category included the Druid and the Paladin -- so those two categories are still a little bit in flux, but everything else is mostly nailed down. In the past, classes like Paladin, Barbarian, and Warlord have typically gotten a bonus to one of their attributes, so this is something that ended up being built into the ideas for class category progressions.

---

Two more posts to go in June, before taking a break in July.
The initial plan for this year was to do one post in late July (meaning 2 posts in November and 1 in December.) If that changes, I'll be back with a post around the 2nd week of August.

Custom Campaigns & Skill Challenges (2023)

I was recently asked what the guidance would be for campaigns that are not randomly generated, using a deck of cards. It's actually quite a simple bit of reverse-engineering.

The number of encounters remains the same:

• level 0: 4 encounters
• level 1: 6 encounters
• level 2: 8 encounters
• level 3: 10 encounters
• level 4: 12 encounters
• level 5: 14 encounters

Now, the general idea with the deck of cards is that all numbered clubs (9), all face cards (12), and both jokers (2), will all be combat encounters, with aces (4) being "wild" (i.e. they can be any type of encounter.) If the aces are treated as combat encounters, this results in 27 out of 54 cards being combat -- exactly half of the deck. When I've asked around in the past, this seems to be roughly the ratio that most game groups shoot for: half combat, half ...other stuff.

Conveniently, since each level is budgeted for an even number of encounters, you can just... make half of them be combat encounters. Or less than that -- totally up to you! The other thing is that without using cards to prescribe which monsters to use in your combat encounters, you can just... use whatever you'd like. This is made easier by the fact that the budgets for the different types of monsters are based off of the number of PCs in each combat encounter:

For each PC in a combat encounter, include one of the following:

• 1 Elite monster, or;
• 2 Standard monsters, or;
• 10 HD worth of Minions and/or Swarms

If you choose to have the "boss" of your campaign be a solo monster rather than an archenemy, so be it. The monster guidelines are meant to ensure that either will be a sufficient challenge for an entire party of (typically) 4-5 PCs. This customization option also lets you drop your "big bad" in wherever it's dramatically appropriate, rather than leaving it to the deck to turn up a joker.

That all being said, the framework for how non-combat encounters are "scored" is something that I have yet to nail down. The basic idea is that it would scale based on the card number and/or the number of encounters for that level. The followup question then becomes, is "completing" a non-combat encounter a question of successful skill checks, or merely attempted skill checks? Is it some ratio of successes vs. failures?

Interestingly enough, if we look at the 4th Edition DMG (page 72-73, ish) it spells out the 'complexity' of skill challenges, in a table -- which conveniently happens to map very closely to the encounters per level, stated earlier in this post; essentially, a "complexity 1" challenge requires 4 successes before 2 failures, a "complexity 2" challenge requires 6 successes before 3 failures, and so on. 

Now, the book goes on to say that you can adjust the DC down to lower the "level" of the challenge, or reduce the maximum number of failures to increase the "level" of the challenge; the 4e DMG bases the level of a skill challenge off of "the moderate DC" for skill checks, at the party's current level. Since TNP uses a static DC10 for skills, we can essentially rule out adjusting the "level" of a skill challenge by lowering the DC of the checks involved. This also seems to rule out the possibility of reducing the maximum failures, because... that only increases the "level" and not the "complexity" -- i.e. requiring 4 successes before 1 failure (instead of 2) would only increase the "level" of the challenge by 2, not the "complexity."

My first thought is something like this:
At level 0, you do 2 skill challenges; one requires 2 successes before 1 failure, one requires 4 successes before 2 failures.
At level 1, you do the same 2 skill challenges, but also add a 3rd which requires 6 successes, before 3 failures.
...and so on in that fashion.

So, ultimately, the number of encounters for a given level would indicate the highest number of successes needed, for a skill challenge at that level; the maximum number of failures would be half of that number... which would also (typically) be the number of non-combat/skill challenge encounters, for that level.

This would mean at 5th level, you would end up doing 7 skill challenges, needing a total of 14+12+10+8+6+4+2 = 58 successes (so an average of 8 successes) -- because requiring 14 successes each, for all 7 skill challenges seems... well, obnoxious.

This also maps out for us how many successes and failures would be needed at each level, if we simply wanted to average the difficulties of the skill challenges at a given level -- or even combine multiple challenges together. If nothing else, I feel like this is at least a playtest-worthy framework.

Now, with that all being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from freestyling their campaign, and using some kind of story/milestone progression, rather than strictly using combat and non-combat encounters for leveling. But the intent here is to provide a meaningful guideline (as well as a definitive endpoint) in order to help beginners to run their campaigns.

The other thing to consider is timing. A given encounter may not necessarily take an entire gaming session to complete (and particularly not the non-combat encounters.) However, with 52 weeks in a year and 54 encounters in a campaign, the hope would be that a bi-weekly gaming group (and certainly a weekly gaming group) could complete a single campaign by the end of one calendar year. A mix of monster types, as well as being able to sprinkle in recurring archenemies, should allow a campaign of this length to include smaller and larger arcs, and also meaningful build-up and payoff for the main quest.

...

I'll aim to have the next post written up about a week from now; check back around June 6th and it should be published.

Damage Rolls (2023)

One thing that derives out of the new ethos for bonuses, is the necessity of keeping the dice for attack rolls and damage rolls separate from each other. This is a little unintuitive for me, since I tend to roll them both together (when I'm playing D&D) to speed up play just slightly.

Since class dice are used for the functions of both attack bonuses and base damage, it's important to know which dice are for what, when you're physically rolling them. One thing I wrote into the most recent draft of the rules is that it's a good idea to have at least two trays to roll dice into, in order to help facilitate this.

In one of my recent posts, I hinted at possibly removing the advantage mechanic from base damage. If we were to take it a step further, allowing mastery on base damage to apply to extra damage, this would make it possible for all damage dice to be rolled together -- without the need to delineate between the types of damage rolls. Since base damage is always going to be 1 or 2 dice, but extra damage can be from 1d6-5d6 or 1d10-3d10, the application of mastery separately to each expression seems valuable, to keep damage from spiking. On the other hand... does it really make sense to have "mastery on extra damage" as a separate mechanic from "mastery on base damage"?

The most likely application of mastery on base damage would come from combat mastery; this is attainable from positional mechanics (like targeting prone creatures in melee) as well as status effects (a.k.a. debuffs, conditions, etc.) such as a target being Incapacitated. So where would mastery on extra damage come from? This seems like an obvious bit of design space for class features (much like mastery on initiative bonus, for example.) It's just a question of whether having separate instances of mastery for the two damage types is worth the added overhead; there would be something of a 'quality of life' improvement if the damage could all just be rolled together, and have mastery apply to everything.

The problem with this is that it creates an exception to the general rule, whereby mastery on a given type of roll does not extend mastery onto the bonus dice for that type of roll. This is particularly important for saving throws and skill checks (where there is the potential to stack multiple dice bonuses) because adding mastery would significantly skew the math, in unintended ways.

There's also an argument to be made for not allowing mastery to apply to extra damage at all. In short, the mechanic changes the average damage on a d6 from 3.5 to about 4.33, and on a d10 from 5.5 to 6.4; this means that the average damage on 5d6 is over 2 points higher than 3d10, once mastery is applied to both. Again, this 'solution' would still mean extra damage ends up being the 3rd roll in the attack sequence:

Attack roll + bonus dice -> base damage -> extra damage

It might also be the case that the break between calculating base damage and extra damage has some value -- sometimes the extra damage might just be overkill. It's probably worth mentioning here that since monsters such as swarms and minions have a number of "hit dice" (rather than "hit points") they actually take damage based on the number of damage dice inflicted on them, rather than the exact value of the dice rolls. So, if you hit one of these creatures, you only really need to know whether your base damage does 1 or 2 dice of damage, and how many dice of extra damage you would apply (as well as any bonus dice which are able to be used to deal damage) -- effectively only needing to physically roll the attack die and its bonuses.

---

Check back for another post, between the 25th and 28th of May.

Monster Math (2023)

A while back, I took a look at the previous monster mechanics, and went about streamlining and updating them a bit. Oddly enough, I tend to put more of the monster mechanics down in blog form, than in my actual notes, so it's often a case of compiling everything into one location to really get the ball rolling.

Way back in the 2018 draft of the monster mechanics, the monster roll (1d10+1d6) was modified by a handful of tags:

• Untrained: Use the higher of the two results
• Trained: Use the stacked value of the two results
• Expertise: 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

As with the rest of the designs, obviously "Expertise" has been renamed to "mastery." And since standard monsters were really the only ones using the "untrained" expression for damage, this tag is going away. The "trained" tag (if kept at all) is going to function as the "If the result is a tie, treat both dice as their maximum value" mechanic, while advantage/disadvantage are only going to apply to the d10 component of the monster roll, bringing thm in line with skill checks.

Since monsters effectively only make one roll for attack and damage, this roll is considered their attack roll, for the purposes of whether disadvantage would apply (i.e. in the case of status effects, such as being Incapacitated.)

Every monster will need to be given a skill rating with each of the combat skills, as well as an initiative modifier. Since initiative will be sticking with a d20 roll, the obvious way to handle monster initiative would seem to be bonuses of either 1d6, 1d10, or 2d6. Because most combat skills fall under STR or AGIL (with perception being the outlier) it stands to reason that tmonsters should have their skill stats done strictly by attribute, rather than attribute and skillset.

There are two special rules for minions, regarding skill usage:

• Minions have skill ranks equal to their current HD, but default to having disadvantage on the d10 roll
• If an effect imposes disadvantage on a particular skill check, minions may not use that skill

As I've mentioned in previous posts on the monster mechanics, this is so that it is harder for minions to "dogpile" other characters, such as by massing grapple attacks. (Likewise, miinions cannot make ranged attacks if they are adjacent to one or more PCs.)

Beyond that sort of stuff, the monster mechanics haven't been changed a whole lot.
So far, I'm sticking with the same encounter budgets as before:

For each PC in a combat encounter, include one of the following:

• 1 Elite monster, or;
• 2 Standard monsters, or;
• 10 HD worth of Minions and/or Swarms

Solo monsters are meant to function as a combat with phases/stages, or a creature with multiple llimbs (such as a kraken or a hydra.) It could also be a dragon with various attacks (breath, tail, claws, etc.) where defeating each limb of the dragon disables the associated attack.

The final monster type is the "archenemy" which serves as the final boss/recurring villain of the campaign. Generally, they should take the encounter budget for an entire party of 4-5 PCs, but function more or less like an elite monster, rather than a solo. Their main perk is the ability to shake off debilitating effects, or limit the use of certain abilities. This is based of the foundation of a robust keyword system, covering mechanics such as healing, summoning, sustaining/concentration, forms, etc.

The monster mechanics and the campaign-building card mechanics go hand-in-hand, for obvious reasons; it's probably still worth testing and fine-tuning some of the monster stuff, but really nailing down the campaign mechanics will be a big focus going forward.

...

Next post will be 7-10 days from now, so check back then!

Scattershot (2023)

 Just a few short little things today:

1. Advantage
After typing out the whole post on the double roll mechanics, I'm leaning more and more towards stripping out Advantage for base damage and initiative bonus. This would leave it only being able to apply to checks (skill checks or initiative checks) which is a lot cleaner. It would also remove the need for the specific double-roll mechanic, for advantage on 2dX base damage/initiative bonus expressions. Basically, what I'll have to do is go through the existing drafts for the classes, and see how many times these mechanics were actually used, and then decide if they should just be replaced with mastery, or with some other kind of dice bonus. (This may lead to some pondering over whether HP and initiative should still be linked.)

2. Class Slates & Power Sources
I should probably lay out what the actual "class slate" compositions are. It's also worth noting that each slate will contain one class from each "class category" -- the idea being that this allows classes within a category to have easily-comparable mechanics, but also so that each slate can be used to compose a party consisting of one member from each category, without the need to borrow classes from other slates. That being said, since slates are focused around power sources, getting every power source (and therefore, training with all of the knowledge skills) will be a lot easier for a party if they mix and match classes from more than one slate. Although each slate focuses on 2 power sources, most classes will have access to at least 3 power sources, and I've tried to sprinkle the power sources "evenly" when all 3 slates are taken on the whole.

• Slate 1 ("Martial or Divine") - Cleric, Paladin, Fighter, Acrobat, Warlord
• Slate 2 ("Arcane or Shadow") - Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
• Slate 3 ("Martial and/or Primal") - Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian

3. Tumbling

It sort of occured to me that there might be justification for having 3 tiers of "disengaging." For starters, the obvious baseline for such mechanics is the "5-ft step" (3.5) or the "Shift" (4e) which allows you to move 5 feet / 1 square (respectively) without provoking, but this effectively ends your movement. In my head, I've kind of extrapolated this out in TNP terms to equate to "disengaging from 1 enemy" which should take a Move Action, without requiring a check; to "disengage from 1 enemy" as a Minor Action, would require a Tumble check (however that ends up being adjudicated.) 

With that baseline in mind, it then stands to reason that "disengaging from 1 maelstrom" as a Move Action would require a Tumble check (but would not require one, if done as a Standard Action), and that "disengaging from all enemies" could be done as a Standard Action requiring a Tumble check -- then it's just sort of a matter of "filling in the grid" so to speak.

---

Going to keep it short this time, as I've been in kind of a crunch lately.
Check for the next post on the weekend of May 5th-7th.

Party Composition (2023)

So, building off of the earlier posts on role mechanics as well as class categories, I felt that party composition was something I should touch on for today.

Generally speaking, TNP is built around the idea of having a party of 4 characters. This sort of leans on roles, and sort of leans on class categories... but not really. So let's get into it.

The basic idea for party composition in TNP is that, in its totality, the party should have training with each core skill, twice over. That is to say, at least two members of the party (mixed and matched) have training with each core skill. Each class will have training with 2 attributes/skillsets, with 'skill expert' classes gaining a 3rd, plus 'skill expert' and 'jack of all trades' classes having the option to take a feat granting an additional trained attribute/skillset.

Going the route of having both a 'skill expert' and 'jack of all trades' in the party, (and taking this feat twice, as a group) a party of 4 characters can end up with 11 instances of skill training, covering the 5 skillsets/attributes. This means there is a little bit of wiggle room, since at a minimum, a party of 4 would still have 8 instances of skill training, meaning most skills should be covered at least once.

Just as not every class category is covered by a party of 4, this also means that not every role or 'role mechanic' would necessarily be covered either. This is why it is useful having these mechanics as something that certain classes can toggle on or off; 'jack of all trades' classes and 'disciple' classes both have the option to select a different combat role at the start of each combat, essentially allowing such classes to plug different gaps in the party.

As such, while the class categories used in TNP are grouped by slate (and slates are loosely based on power sources) this is not analagous to 4th Edition; class category does not determine your class' combat role within its slate / power source. Instead, it is more of an indication of which "pillar" your class focuses on:

• Skill Experts focus on core skills, and generally have the easiest access to Infiltration skills
• Ideologues focus more on knowledge skills, and generally have access to more knowledge skill ranks than other categories -- but they also tend to specialize, rather than generalize, in this regard
• Jack of All Trades classes are the most customizable, and meant to fill gaps within parties through bonus feats and their access to role mechanics
• Blade Masters are (obviously) melee classes, and so generally focus on combat, of the melee variety -- either tanking/defending, or as melee strikers (and within that, they're more of a 'skirmisher' or 'brute' role rather than a 'lurker')
• Disciples are...still kind of a mixed bag, at this point.

So that sort of begs the question...
...if skill expert is the Subterfuge (♠) category
....and blade master is the Combat (♣) category

...does that make 'jack of all trades' the Social (♥) category?

...should the Exploration (♦) category be the Disciples, or the Ideologues?

A compelling argument could be made that Warlord should be the Social disciple, and Druid should be the Exploration disciple, leaving Occultist as (probably) the obvious Subterfuge disciple. But I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge Warlord as basically a literal "disciple of Combat" (duh)

Knowledge skills (i.e. ideologues) tend to lean towards exploration skills, but they do have some social applications as well (specifically the Local, Streetwise, and Nobility & Royalty skills.)

If we're looking at the 'jack of all trades' category, Fighter is the obvious Combat class; Bard (Scholar) could be Exploration, and Bard (Performer) could be Social, with Adventurer (Scout) being Exploration and Adventurer (Skald) being Social... then is Exploration or Social the obvious secondary pillar, for the Fighter?

Circling back to roles, I should reiterate that most "support healing" in TNP does not spend reserves. The rationale being that we do not want that role to create an additional drain on reserves -- as was the typical knock on 'leader' classes in 4e. (Some people people have argued that "Damage is King" and healing is wasteful and unnecessary, but I can't say I've lived that experience.) Part of the reason for doing it this way is so that you can better compose your party to the tastes of your players, without necessarily needing to fill every "role" in combat. This (hopefully) allows people to play more to their preferred style, rather than tailoring to some real or perceived necessity, within the party composition mini-game. And it certainly isn't mandatory to have one of each "category" in every party, or that you shouldn't double up on a given category, either.

---

Alright, I'll leave it at that for today. Next post will be aiming for April 25th or 26th, so check back then!

Role Mechanics (2023)

I'll begin this post with a bit of a disclaimer. As touched on in the overview of subclasses and categories, not all classes will have "roles" (in terms of the TNP mechanic) while some classes will have roles baked in as part of their subclass and/or specialization. That being said, I'm going to touch on what I would consider to be role mechanics, even if a given class does not necessarily derive those mechanics from a role.

Perhaps it'd be best to start off by qualifying what a role is, in TNP. In earlier drafts, it was usually referred to as a "combat role" and (in short) it was a feature or set of mechanics that helped a class to fulfil a particular job or play-style, during combat. The most obvious example is whether a Fighter is going to be playing the "tank" or the "DPS" in a given encounter. Classes which have the option to select a role at the start of combat (i.e when initiative is rolled) will typically get one role at 1st level, with the ability to gain more roles as they progress.

If we look back to 4th Edition D&D (and particularly, pre-Essentials) a class was quite clearly defined as the intersection of one role with one power source; the Paladin was a Divine Defender, while the Fighter was a Martial Defender. The roles included defender (i.e. tank), leader (i.e. healer), striker (i.e. DPS), and controller. (Probably worth mentioning that I've heard cases of people having weird hangups with the term "leader" -- such as assuming that those were the only classes allowed to lead the party.) As 4e progressed into Essentials, the striker role became more gated towards melee, while ranged characters were funnelled into the controller role. At any rate, TNP follows more or less the same formula, with a few wrinkles.

Support
First, in TNP the leader role is generally referred to as "Support" to avoid the aforementioned hangups. The core support mechanic is restoring HP -- typically referred to as "inspiring" allies, rather than explicitly healing them; this has to do with HP being an abstraction more generally, but also specifically with not wanting HP restoration to necessarily have to be miraculous or magical, in any way. Whereas 4e D&D would grant classes with this role a twice per encounter healing ability, I've gone in the direction of "once per ally, per encounter" so that it scales to party size a little bit better. Generally speaking, this HP restoration will not cost reserves, instead using dice mechanics. We kind of want the amount of HP restored to be in that 2d4 to 2d6 ballpark, so depending on the class using the ability, the healing may be keyed off of their own class dice, or use the higher of their dice roll or the target's dice roll. Many support classes will be able to use this ability as a minor action, or as a standard actions with some additional benefit.

Example classes: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Druid, Adventurer (Skald), Guardian (Shaman)

Striker
Just as the striker role in 4e split off into ranged and melee variants (and I've often argued this was how a party of 5 was meant to be rounded out, within a paradigm of only 4 roles) TNP generally does the same. More specifically, the ranged striker role tends to lean towards d6 classes, while the melee striker role tends to be d10 classes. However, as mentioned in earlier posts, the "2d6" ethos allows for tanky (i.e. melee) characters, so this is by no means a strict rule. The reason for going with d6 and d10 as the "striker dice" is because d6 is so ubiquitous, it makes it an obvious choice to use for stacking multiple damage dice; likewise, a standard polyhedral dice set usually contains percentile dice (effectively, two d10s) and sets of multiple d10s (often used in RPGs such as the World of Darkness) have also become commonplace. The other reason for selecting these dice, is that there's actually a pretty obvious cap/balance point: 5d6 or 3d10, both producing a maximum of 30.
Again, while some characters will be strikers by virtue of it being a role option for their class, it'll be baked into some classes in other ways as well.

Example Classes: Fighter (d6, d12), Cleric (d4, d10), Paladin (d6, d10), Rogue (d6), Occultist (d10), Guardian (d4, d6), Adventurer (d6, d8) Ranger (d8, d10), Barbarian (d10, d12)

Defender
While 4e used marking mechanics, Essentials moved to the "defender aura" mechanic. As you might have guessed, TNP leans towards the latter, with a bit of the former sprinkled in as well. The drawback to the aura system is that forced movement can mitigate it to a great extent; a marking mechanic that does not require adjacency can potentially allow for punishments to be dealt from a distance (probably best demonstrated by the Paladin in 4e, but also the Swordmage.) To augment the mark-and-punishment mechanics, generally defenders in TNP will have beefed up "opportunity damage" expressions. There are also some incentivizing mechanics (i.e. encouraging enemies to target the defender and/or discouraging them from targeting others, using bonuses or penalties, respectively.) Another key defender mechanic is allowing them to make opportunity attacks whenever an enemy attempts to move away, including by methods which would normally not provoke such attacks.

Example Classes: Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, Spellbinder (Swordmage), Guardian (Warden), Barbarian

Controller
Often somewhat nebulous, and eluding a comprehensive or simple definition in 4e, this role is likewise broad in TNP. These classes will definitely do the bulk of the status effects / conditions (whereas such riders could be found within nearly any role, in 4e) as well as doing area attacks, and (specific to TNP) performing the role of summoning/controlling other creatures.

Example Classes: Acrobat, Cleric (Invoker), Warlord, Sage (Wizard), Rogue (Sorcerer), Occultist, Spellbinder (Hexblade), Druid (Summoner), Adventurer, Ranger

---

Hopefully that all helps to provide a better overview of how classes can be expected to operate in combat. If you have any suggestions for blog topics, please comment below (or wherever you get your links to the blog.) Next post is due April 15th.