Powers vs. Power Strike: Fishing for Crits (2025)

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but let's examine the difference in ethos between 4e and Essentials a little bit.

With an attack power in 4e, generally you declare that you're using it, then the button gets pushed, and you roll dice to determine if you hit. This means that (hit or miss) the power is expended, assuming it is a Daily or Encounter power. In Essentials, the Fighter class instead functioned off of confirming a hit with a melee basic attack; after the hit was confirmed, they would then push the Power Strike button (an encounter power) to deal additional damage. (The Paladin in Essentials got a similar mechanic, and the Scout subclass for Ranger also got access to Power Strike.)

What this meant was that you never had to "waste" your encounter powers, on a miss. It also meant that you could choose to use it only when you scored a critical hit, thus maximizing the damage effectiveness even further. It's also worth mentioning that since attacks like Charge or opportunity attacks also functioned off of melee basic attacks in 4e, buffing such attacks with Power Strike was also possible. In the 2014 version of 5e, this is also true of the Paladin's Divine Smite ability, because it is cued off of scoring a hit with a melee weapon -- so this could be done with each attack made on your turn, in addition to opportunity attacks (as long as you have the spell slots to burn.) Similarly, the Battle Master in 5e keys its maneuvers off of scoring a hit first, and then expending superiority dice after.

So, how will this work for the TNP sequel mechanics?

Well, the ethos of "2d6 + pool" implies that all of the dice will be in the pool, before the roll is made. This means that we're going to be declaring which power we're using, first -- much like in 4e. However, since adding dice to the pool increases our chances of hitting (while also increasing damage) we end up getting a benefit similar to the "Power Strike"-style of mechanic, but without the two-stage confirmation system being applied to the roll.

This begs the question of whether there should be a mechanic for critical hits, in the sequel. If we take 1/20 as our baseline (5%), then saying "11 or 12 on 2d6" would give us a 2/36 (or 1/18) crit rate, which is pretty comparable. However, we need to keep in mind that the assumption is that the attacker will always be rolling at least 3 dice; scoring at least an 11 on "highest 2 of 3d6" already boosts that to almost 1/5 -- whereas a 12 is only 7.41%

An interesting quirk of the pool system is that damage potential also increases hit potential. This also means that as your crit chance goes up, your crit damage is going up; rolling 5d6 gives almost a 1/5 chance of scoring a 12 on the attack roll, but having 3 dice of crit damage is also going to do a lot more than only having 1 die (particularly if crits are handled by say, using the rolled damage but also adding the dice's maximum value, as in TNP.)

A third thing I've been thinking about is whether there should be a flat number of "daily" power uses, or whether this should be tied to attributes in some way. In previous RPG designs that I've done, I had encounter and daily resources keyed off of stats, so the idea of doing it that way is not completely foreign to me. I was thinking of it in terms of utilization, with my classic example being the Paladin. You're going to want STR for damage, and CHA as your pool stat... but then what? We've got at least 3 other attributes to account for, and we don't want to end up with the default "dump everything into AGIL because it's initiative."

So do we make something like INT the "per day" stat (for Paladin, at least?) that governs the number of uses of your "dice pool" stat? This would necessitate your INT and CHA stats both always being at least a +1, which ties into the idea I had presented previously that your class might prescribe which of your attributes has to be a +0. This also (aside from the obvious) highlights that a "flat 10" number of points to be spread across 5 attributes would probably be a little high, if the assumption was that the Paladin only really needs meaningful numbers in 2 of those stats... particularly if the max in any stat is expected to be +3 and not +4. I do like the idea of a +4/+3/+2/+1/+0 as the "standard array" for a loadout with 5 attributes, so maybe that just solidifies it.

Now, what this does is create some interesting choices. Do you want to "pool" harder, but less often? Do you want to do it weaker, but more often? Do you want to just swing your sword harder (knowing that you're getting double your stat as damage, on a two-handed weapon) and let the pool just be a nice cherry on top, once or twice a day? Naturally, there will be ways to optimize it, but then we also have to think of how our attribute choices impact skills, and not just combat -- which I think would tend towards a heavier focus on CHA, for our Paladin. From a design perspective, we also should give some consideration to, "if our pool button can only get pushed X times per day, then how should that number line up with our crit math?" while keeping in mind the fact that pushing the button is also what increases those odds.

...

Bit of a broad discussion in today's post, but hopefully the ideas flow together well enough for the readers out there.

November's scheduling is a little bit in flux, but I would expect the next post to be up by November 13th, so check back then!

General vs. Specific (2025)

At the risk of harping on attributes a few too many times, I think it's worth discussing whether the sequel designs should use "general" rules, and whether there can be exceptions to those.

The best examples of "specific beats general" that I can think of are both from 4e D&D. The general rule was that you could shift one square, as a Move action; the mechanic specific to kobolds was that they could instead do this as a Minor action. Likewise, using your 2nd Wind was generally a Standard action, but dwarves could use theirs as a Minor action.

Also worth mentioning in this discussion is how 4e handled class-specific combat mechanics (i.e. powers.) Most classes fell into one of two paradigms: you had one attribute which determined your attack (hit chance) and damage modifier, and had 2 you could pick from for your "effect" riders, or; you had 2 attributes used for attack and damage (depending on the power), with one obvious attribute for riders. Generally, these were referred to as "A-shaped" and "V-shaped" builds, respectively (some people would instead refer to V-shaped as "Y-shaped.")

So far in the sequel mechanics, we have a few general assumptions:

• TWF will use the lower of STR or DEX for damage mod
• cantrips will use the lower of INT or CHA for dice pool bonus
• AGIL mod will be the number of ranged weapon attacks, per round

The question I found myself asking initially is whether the AGIL stat should serve the same function for spells as it does for weapons, thus negating the temptation to add a 3rd mental stat. And then I started thinking, "well if DEX is the finger-waggling stat, that seems like it could be used for doing somatic components for spellcasting..." This ties back into what I was saying about 4e, where Sorcerers sort of had STR crowbar'd in as their 3rd (2nd?) stat; this kind of setup was particularly important, given that 4e had your defenses use the higher of two paired stats, so every class needed to emphasize one of STR/CON, INT/DEX, and WIS/CHA.

I think part of the problem is that having the dice pool stat be the higher of the spellcasting/mental stats is unintuitive to most people; the obvious thing to do is to put your big numbers in the thing you're using all of the time (i.e. your cantrip stat), but the restriction requiring the numbers to balance off of each other throws a wrench into all of that. However, if we allow for a 3rd stat to give additional attacks, that might make it easier to balance, while giving a bit more variety.

Specifically, you might be balancing a +2 cantrip stat against the ability to only attack once with it vs. a +1 cantrip stat but the ability to attack twice with it. The question then is, do we apply a "general" rule for the "cantrip attacks per round" stat, or do we make that a "specific" rule, based on class or subclass? The later seems to be preferable, because then we can also use that to reinforce which skills (if any) we would prefer those subclasses to be good at. For example, if Intimidation is a STR skill, we might actually want that to be "attacks per round" stat for Sorcerers; if the expectation is that Wizards are better at opening doors, that might point to DEX (i.e. lockpicking) as their stat.

I had previously mentioned in the Discord that a standard array might consist of something like +4/+3/+2/+1/+0 (and for the record, a +4 two-hander stat still balances fairly well vs. a +3 TWF stat, in case anyone was wondering.) This gives us a total of +10, which is nice; I had intended that perhaps a floating +1 from class/subclass might be in addition to that. However, it seems like a pool of +10 (with a subclass-specific "locked in" bonus being deducted from that that total, rather than added to it) is more likely to produce the sort of balanced array that we're angling for. In this way, I think a simple rule such as, "you cannot have more than a single +0 attribute," or "all attributes must be at least +1" will be sufficient to keep people from min-maxing their stats, without having to put an actual ceiling value on stats. It might even be the case that your +0 stat is a sort of "specific" rule, for each class/subclass.

The other exception that has been hinted at before is that the Warlock subclass might not have a dice pool stat per se, but that they can use CHA as their cantrip stat -- even if it were to be their highest mental stat, thus giving them more potent cantrips than what other classes could achieve. I think this is fairly in line with the general 3.5/5e mechanics of Warlocks. Likewise, we could have the Necromancer subclass use INT as "number of summons" that they can have under their control at any time, rather than give them a "cantrip stat" at all.

The other thing to remember is that classes like Paladin and Ranger will no doubt use "spellcasting" stats for dice pools and/or other functions, but they won't have a cantrip stat to balance off against. It stands to reason that if STR is the Paladin's "weapon stat" of choice, and CHA is their "dice pool stat" the obvious 3rd choice would be to bump AGIL (the initiative stat) -- but what if a wrinkle of the system would be that Paladins are required to use a +0 AGIL stat? That might be punishing, but it also makes things interesting by eliminating the "obvious" answer from the equation. You could even incentivize this, for example by granting a bonus to AC for doing so; this is reminiscent of how Monks are given certain unique abilities when not wearing armor in 5e, or similar restrictions that Barbarians have while raging.

...

I'm running a bit behind on posting this month, but hopefully we can get back on track now.
One more post before October is out, so check back on (or just after) the 31st; the plan for November would be to post on the 10th/20th/30th to round out the year.

Standard Array (2025)

So, what should the attribute numbers look like, in the sequel?

I've been working from the assumption that the ceiling would be +3, but the paradigm has shifted so many times, it's probably worth reexamining. In a previous post, we've established that the baseline hit chance for weapon attacks is expected to be 72.42% -- so with a two-handed attack adding double STR (+3 * 2 = +6) mod, the [lowest 1 of 3d6] roll (2.04) computed through the hit chance produces a 5.822568 DPR result. Now, if we take the same roll and hit chance values but use only a +2 mod, we get 2.925768 -- which when doubled results in 5.851536, representing a two-weapon fighting routine. This is a great starting point, as these values are very close to one another.

So if the desire is to get the "TWF stat" to always be a +2, it probably stands to reason that it should be something like "lower of STR or DEX" allowing those stats to be either +3/+2 or +2/+2. The other way to do it might be "middle of STR/DEX/AGIL" which also has implications for spellcasting.

If the idea is to balance 3 stats against one another, that likely indicates that the idea is to make the lowest stat a +1, rather than a +2/+2/+3 array. This would be necessary for spellcasting, if the idea is that the "cantrip stat" should always be a +1, for example. This means that the overall array would consist of a single +3, a single +2, and then +1s for the remaining four attributes -- because this assumes 3 spellcasting attributes, and thus 6 attributes in total. We've mentioned before that maybe having +2 be the "minimum" spellcasting stat could be an acceptable quirk of the system, if the alternative is to crowbar in an entire 6th attribute.

Should we complicate the matter by having separate pools of attribute points for physical stats and for spellcasting stats? This actually seems like it would work better for producing the desired results, while allowing for more than just a single +3 and/or +2 stat. Something like a floating +1 based on class/subclass would be a mechanic that works well, for this conceit. If we go with these ideas, it seems like you'd have 3 points to split between 2 spellcasting stats, and 5 points to split between 3 physical stats -- in addition to that floating +1.

If spellcasting is to function off of the lower/higher of two mental stats, the class bonus would help to differentiate builds a little bit, i.e. if a Sorcerer is assumed to get a +1 CHA while a Wizard gets a +1 INT. Similarly, if a Paladin's "dice pool stat" is CHA, they might get a bonus to that stat, requiring them to focus their physical stats more on one mode of combat; by contrast, a Fighter might get a boost to STR or DEX, allowing them to be equally at home with two-handed weapons or TWF.

Is there room for a +0 stat, in the array? Well, if there is, it seems like it would only fit into the physical stat side of things (regardless of how many mental stats there ends up being.) Much like how attributes contribute to skills in TNP, it might be easiest to assume that everything starts at "rank 1" and then increases from there. So far, I haven't come across anything to suggest that the cap needs to be higher than +3... 

Really, the question then becomes whether the dice pools will consist of 1 stat or 2; some of the earliest theorycrafting for "d6 pool" suggested a normal melee attack would add +STR number of dice to the pool, and a Paladin's Smite ability would also add +CHA number of dice to the pool. With the designs migrating to "2d6 + pool" I feel like the necessity for double-stat pools has gone away. Worth mentioning here, I've also floated the idea that "daily" powers might allow all dice in the pool to contribute towards damage; this means you could put your highest 2 dice towards the attack roll (ensuring the best chance of hitting) without missing out on those dice, for their damage potential. This is something that harkens back to the "class dice bonuses" in TNP, most of which can be used for attack or damage, but some of which can also be used for both.

...

I should have a bit more free time coming up later in the month, so expect the next post to be out by October 21st at the latest. A third post will also be out before the end of this month.