Taking Shape (2024)

With the onset of "D&D 2024," I've been following some of the content explaining the changes that are forthcoming. When I learned what the changes to the Monk's mechanics were, I just thought, "They gave the Rogue's Cunning Action to Monks, and slapped ki enhancements on top of each of the options." Now, those who have followed my journey through 5th Edition may have heard my opinion that Monks are too combat focused, and needed to either get some utility cantrips, or they should be made into skill experts (like Rogues or Bards.) This latest edition change just sort of cements the fact (to me) that Monk works best as a specialist Rogue; you could even give the class both Stunning Strike and Sneak Attack, but limit them to using one or the other, once per turn.

Since my designs for the "TNP sequel" are leaning towards a tighter, focused slate of classes, I think this is probably the direction that I'm going to go with Monks, insofar as they are included at all. Likewise, I don't think there will be distinct Fighter and Barbarian classes, or Ranger and Druid for that matter; there will likely be some form of subclass or possibly "talent tree" system that will gate off certain mechanics, in order to emulate such classes. I think a game like Diablo 2 (as is often the case) would sort of be the obvious inspiration for how to execute "broad classes that specialize into narrow classes" but to be honest, World of Warcraft might be a better example of this.

Now, tentatively, I've decided on how I want the attributes to function, with regards to combat. Put simply, you will be able to use STR or DEX with any weapons (d4, d8, or d12 -- melee or ranged) that you are proficient with -- but not all classes will be proficient with d12 weapons, and those that are proficient will favour STR. Likewise, caster classes will be able to use either INT or CHA as their spellcasting stat, but certain classes may use one over the other, when it comes to their actual class features. Agility (the 5th attribute) will be the initiative stat.

With that in mind, I'm thinking that attribute scores will also be used as damage modifiers for weapons (and maybe spells) but not as attack roll modifiers. I like the idea of using the "weapon die" as the attack modifier, but I think for class features and/or "teamwork" abilities, the highest d6 in the pool should be able to be used either: a) as an attack and damage bonus, in addition to the weapon die, or; b) instead of the weapon die, but allowing all bonus d6s to be used as damage. The former would lead to more-but-smaller crits, whereas the latter would lead to more-but-bigger normal hits.

So, for example: using a d12 weapon, with a 3d6 bonus...
a) would let you add the highest d6 to the (d20) attack roll; you could also use the d12 in place of the d20 [d12 attack bonus may have other functions]; your damage would be the 1d12 + the highest 1d6 + STR mod, and a crit would add 18 damage to that
b) would let you either add the highest d6, or use the d12 in place of the d20; your damage would be 1d12 + 3d6 + STR mod, and a crit would add 30 damage to that

In terms of the actual numbers for attributes themselves, I'm still thinking of keeping with them all starting at +1 -- which means we're assuming 1d10 for skill checks, and not 1d20. Then, your class would most likely dictate a +2 to one attribute and a +1 to another (or possibly just a +3 to one) with an additional floating +1 to be added freely wherever you'd like -- including to a stat that already gets one of your class bonuses. I think the bump from 2d6 to 3d6 math is compelling enough, but getting a 3rd stat from 1d6 to 2d6 is also worth it, if you prefer to spread your skills around a bit. If anything, I think I may revise this down to "two fixed +1s/one fixed +2, and one free-floating +1." And I think there's certainly room for mechanics that are "+X when you Y" such that the bonus is only applied to skills and not to combat uses of attributes, if desired.

I've essentially mentioned 3 classes so far, that I would intend to include. The others would obviously be some sort of Priest/Cleric/Paladin mashup, and some sort of magic-user. The question would be whether there are any other meaningful archetypes to cover, or if the subclasses of these 5 starters would cover the rest of the design space. If the assumption is that your magic-user is an amalgamation of Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer (and perhaps the Bard fits somewhere under the priest banner, as a healing class)...? Well, at that point we've accounted for all of the design space of the core 12 PHB classes in 5th Edition D&D. But that feels like a topic that deserves its own deep-dive, at another time.

...

Next post is due up on August 31st, so check back then!