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!