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!

What to expect from 2018

Happy new year, everyone!
For those keeping score, the blog had just over 1000 views a year ago, and now it's at just under 3000.

Today I'm going to try and touch on as many thing as I can, pertaining to what I plan to write about on the blog this year, as well as the sorts of innovations and changes that will appear in the game design itself. But before getting into any of that, I'm happy to announce that the first draft of the "starter slate" classes is all ready to go:

• The Sage (d4)
• The Fighter (d6)
• The Ranger (d8)
• The Adventurer (d10)
• The Warlord (d12)

I should point out that these classes have been written with much of the new framework in mind; it shouldn't be difficult to have the rest of the classes match up to that. Notably, since there are no "archetype-only" classes in this slate, it'll be important to make sure that those classes have enough customization options, once they are re-written.

In terms of the blog itself, of course I will be including information on changes to the designs, as they come up. In addition to that, I would also like to go back and discuss how some of the existing ideas came to be, and why those decisions were made; for example, I'd like to write about the original slate of 5 classes, the use of Class Dice, and the skill setup. In terms of scheduling, I'm hoping to stick to the plan laid out here, adhering to my "every 10th day"-ish routine, with breaks in July and December.

As I touched on in my previous post, in terms of development, I want to essentially update the classes to the 2018 Edition aesthetic, one slate at a time -- rather than doing all classes in concert with one another. What this means is that (once the core rules are likewise updated) I intend to do some playtesting with the starter set, then adjust those classes (and the core rules) as needed, then work to release another slate of classes, playtest them, and so forth in that fashion.

...

For some mechanical changes (in addition to those already announced) I'm going to work at streamlining and fixing a few things:

Opportunity Attacks: Though I like the conceit of just doing auto-damage with these actions, it's not a good fit for TNP. With some classes getting "double roll and stack" on this damage, it clashes with the positional mechanics that can impose disadvantage on OAs, requiring a specific rules-exception that I don't like. Also, not having an attack roll makes it sort of a misnomer, and I haven't found an alternate piece of jargon that's to my liking. As such, OAs will now use a traditional attack roll. One potential benefit of this is that it will allow for classes to have both a basic attack and an Opportunity Attack "loadout" which may open up new design space.

Trade-offs/Double Rolls: The mechanic of Trade-offs is one that has often been classed as a misnomer, by some of the readers. As the designs have evolved, the specific use of Trade-offs has not been applied uniformly enough, in my estimation. Since things like Counter-attack and Power Attack already have design changes planned (to make them operate without using Trade-offs) I'm going to remove this piece of jargon from the rules, completely. This means that some class abilities will have to be (or have already been) completely changed or replaced. For other instances, the "double roll" terminology will be used instead. Since double rolls that are not just advantage or disadvantage are generally limited to using Class Dice (rather than d20s) you can expect to see that spelled out more explicitly, in the next draft of the rules.

Advantage/Disadvantage: I am considering a few changes to these mechanics:
1) a return to "if you have both advantage and disadvantage, roll 3 dice and use the middle result" (which appeared in earlier drafts.) I might want to have this in place, so that the design space of using both the highest roll and the lowest roll remains viable, in instances where both advantage and disadvantage would apply.
2) re-rolling the dice, in the case of disadvantage resulting in a tie; overall, I don't like to have re-rolls (particularly for play-by-post purposes.) However, the general rule of "treat one result as its maximum value on a tied double roll" functionally does nothing, with disadvantage -- I may want to change that.
Neither of these are set in stone yet, but they are both on my radar.

...

That's about all for today; check back next weekend for another post!

The Road Ahead (2018)

Today I'm going to go with a rough overview of the changes you can expect to see in the upcoming draft.

Classes
Whereas in Beta 4, I wanted to develop and refine all 15 classes in concert with one another, in the 2018 Edition I'm planning to first implement the classes planned for use with the "starter slate."

• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Adventurer (d10)
• Warlord (d12)

Once the full versions of these classes are completed, their starter versions will simply remove some of the decision points, i.e. Subclasses for Sage and Ranger will be picked automatically (Wizard and Hunter, respectively) as will things like skills and Archetypes, for all classes.

I do intend to to keep all of the 15 classes from the previous version, but they will be rolled out over time, rather than all at once.

Leveling

Right now, the intention is to have 5 levels of progression (though I am not 100% decided on whether characters will start at level 1 or level 0.) This means that ideally, we want each class loadout (i.e. Subclass only/ Subclass + Archetype/ Archetype only/ Role + Archetype/ Role only) to have at least 5 possible upgrades to purchase (ideally, more.)

Archetypes, additional Roles, skill training, and Power Sources have been identified as upgrades that can be bought using the leveling process, i.e. Experience Points (XP). Now it becomes a matter of unifying class structures, such that those upgrades can be moved off of their current frameworks without breaking anything. Instances of Power Sources tied to Subclasses (for example) will need to be reworked.

Slate upgrades are definitely something I will want to include as purchasable upgrades, though similar upgrades for "Categories" (i.e. loadouts) are currently up in the air.

It's also intended that in lieu of purchasing an upgrade to your current class, XP can be used to change your class, within certain parameters. Currently, the intent is that you don't have to spend XP as soon as you earn it, but also that at earlier levels, changing your class would not come at an XP cost. This is meant to make it easier for newer players to ease into their class, or make changes to their character if they find the class they picked is not the right fit.

Backgrounds

My intention for handling Performance skills, is that they will be on their own progression track (i.e. gaining 'ranks' in them will not be purchased with the same currency as other upgrades) and this track will only be unlocked for certain classes and/or Archetypes.

As for Knowledge skills, I am moving away from the structure I had written about previously. Instead, one of two possible paths will be integrated into the rules (or possibly both will be presented as options.)

The first method is to keep Power Sources as an upgrade (much as they currently exist in the designs) but instead of granting training with 3 knowledge skills, they would instead grant training to one skill, and Expertise to one skill. Depending on the Power Source, this might mean training with one skill and Expertise with another, or both benefits to one skill. Layered onto this, characters would have a Knowledge progression track, where they would gain 1 benefit per level (either training with an untrained skill, or Expertise with a trained skill.)

The alternate method is to adopt something more akin to the 13th Age system for Backgrounds. Specifically, I would get rid of granular Knowledge skills entirely, and instead have knowledge checks rely solely on your Power Sources. Two possible ways of handling this immediately present themselves:

1) Simply replace the 5-level Knowledge progression track with a Power Source progression track -- you gain training with a Power Source or Expertise with a trained Power Source, each level, or;

2) You gain Power Sources more or less as currently devised within the system -- having one Power Source applicable to the knowledge check in question would provide the benefit of training, and having more than one would grant Expertise to the check.

Combat Math

Behind the scenes, I've been working on crunching out the damage of various existing (and potentially future) attack routines. Broadly, the designs are moving towards more streamlined dice usage, including previously-outlined changes, using things like Advantage and Expertise. Another important change is to the assumed baselines for damage.

I've mentioned before that earlier playtests showed classes doing around 15 DPR, and that I had been using that as my benchmark. Through the process of working on the math, I've moved the target to 13.5 DPR; I found that it's quite a bit easier to fit the smaller dice (in particular) under this guideline. As an example, an attack dealing 2d12 damage, with both Expertise and the Reliable property, hits this mark almost exactly -- a reasonable attack routine to use as a base.

For d6 classes, I am trying to move the designs towards the "universal" maximum of 24 damage, with a situational perk that can boost it to 30 (i.e. an additional d6.) In their preexisting versions, Fighters get an additional d6 against prone targets, and Rogues get an additional d6 when attacking an enemy they are already Engaged with. The trick will be in trying to make the "universal" numbers more reliable -- specifically, the Rogue and the Guardian rely a bit heavily on situational damage boosts. One thing I have found effective in patching this, is granting double damage on critical hits (typically in conjunction with boosts to crit chance) so expect to see this benefit implemented widely, particularly for d6 classes.

Blog Scheduling

I would like to keep up with posting roughly 3x per month/once every 10 days, as I have been. I'm not 100% sure on which rotation I'll go with for 2018, but I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. In either case, there will be 5 posts over January and February, 1 post in late July, and 1 post in early-mid December; all other months, I should be able to do 3 posts.

The next blog update will be about a month from today, so check back then!

Know Your Role (Beta 4)

In one of my recent posts, I talked a bit about how subtypes will be changing in the next iteration of the rules; the two forms of "combat subtypes" (those that can be chosen/changed at the start of combat) will be unified under the "Role" banner.

The plan is that there will be 3 classes with both Roles and Archetypes (Fighter, Bard, Adventurer) and 3 classes with Roles only (Warlord, Mystic, and Druid.)

In past iterations, the Warlord's roles appeared as "Commander" and "Protector" archetypes. What will now be "Roles" for the Mystic could easily have been strict Paths, but I felt "Necromancer" and "Warlock" were close enough in feel, that allowing more customization was the side to err on. Similarly, as the design progressed, the Druid's subtypes felt less and less like the building blocks of two distinct classes, and more like two sides of the same coin.

The challenge with integrating these three classes into the Role framework comes out of ironing out what their subtypes actually do. The Warlord is pretty straightforward, in this regard: while the class chassis contains the "healer" mechanics, the Commander is the part that contains the "enabling" mechanics -- so I'd say this makes it the "Support" role; the Protector maps pretty clearly to the "Defender" role.

This gets a little messier once we start to look at the Mystic and the Druid, however. The Warlock is a straightforward "blaster" sort of character (i.e. the "Striker" role); the Necromancer is a "Summoner" (as is the Druid's Summoner subtype, obviously) but unfortunately, "Summoner" isn't a pre-existing Role. The Shapeshifter doesn't fit neatly into the framework, either; it's intended to be able to use its forms to serve different roles -- a kind of "6th man" character class, so to speak.

However, with the "4.1 version" of the Druid, the class chassis was given a "healer" mechanic -- in a way, making it very similar to how the Warlord is built. So while the Shapeshifter subclass isn't specifically about "enabling" allies, it is intended to use its utility to "support" the party -- by being whatever they need in a particular combat encounter (or perhaps to round out an undersized group.) Although I've waffled on whether or not to simply rename the "Support" role to "Utility" across the board, I can say that I have decided to put the Shapeshifter under this heading -- whatever it ends up being called, in the end.

Now, the Druid and Mystic being related by a summoning mechanic, harkens back to an earlier draft (Beta 2, maybe?) where the Summoner class came in "Beastlord" and "Necromancer" flavours. It still makes sense that they should share a Role, now -- but I wasn't sure if having a "Summoner" role that applied to only two classes was the way to do it.

The solution came in looking at the existing Roles, and how they are doled out so far. Controller is currently only found on the Bard and Adventurer classes; while those roles are more about controlling enemies, it's not much of a leap to then apply that convention to the role of controlling summoned creatures. What helps make the case, is the fact that the controller role (as it exists in 4th Edition) can be a bit broad and nebulous, but also that some of the controller classes in that system gained summoning options, at different points in its lifespan.


So, for classes with roles, we end up with this setup:

• Fighter: Defender, Striker
• Warlord: Defender, Support
• Bard: Controller, Support
• Mystic: Controller, Striker
• Druid: Controller, Support
• Adventurer: Controller, Defender, Striker

It has long been my intention that Power Source would be the lynch-pin by which you could re-spec your classes; since The Next Project has traditionally been less about leveling up, I wanted to provide some lateral flexibility for character "growth." Power Source makes sense, for keeping the flavour of your character consistent (while allowing you to change its mechanics) but it's clear now that Role will also be something which players can pivot their character class upon. Probably all classes with access to Roles will begin with one, and be able to "purchase" additional Roles as they level -- which would then carry over, if a character changed to a class that also utilized the same role, or roles.

Deconstructing Archetypes (Beta 4)

Today I want to look at some of the classes that use Archetypes, and discuss how these bundles of features will need to be broken down in the next iteration of The Next Project.

For some classes, archetypes mainly serve to staple on some modifications to basic mechanics (Power Attack, for example) but are not definitive to those particular classes. I would put Fighter, Guardian, (and Barbarian, under the upcoming revision) archetypes under this description.

For other classes, their archetypes add riders to all or most of their Iconic Abilities. I'd include Cleric and Paladin here, although admittedly the Cleric's archetype and subclass mechanics become fairly tightly intertwined.

Another grouping would be the classes where archetypes contain their distinguishing mechanic. The Scout and Skald archetypes for Adventurer, as well as the Hexblade and Swordmage archetypes for Spellbinder come to mind here -- fitting, since each archetype maps directly to a specific class. These archetypes also give you some specific options for trained skills, as well as expanding on your options for picking power sources -- all of which is also true for the Paladin's archetypes.

Similarly, Sage archetypes do a lot. They grant your class an Iconic Ability, trained skillset, and a power source. On the flip side of that coin, the default Bard archetypes serve more of a flavour function than a mechanical one, giving the class a more focused background, as well as core skills to pick from.


With the intention of reverse-engineering things into a shape that can be used for our leveling structure, 3 main building blocks (nested within Archetypes) start to emerge:

• Core Skill training
• Iconic Abilities / riders
• Power Sources / background skills

For classes that solely gain Archetypes as their form of customization -- Paladin, Spellbinder, and Barbarian -- we then need to look at these building blocks, in order to try and grant them parity with other classes. The Paladin and Spellbinder classes in particular already gain additional options from their archetypes (for Core Skill training as well as Power Sources) but do not actually gain them as upgrades, beyond the baselines. I think for this "category" of classes, Core Skill training and/or Power Sources could be used as additional upgrades via the leveling process.

Conversely, something like Sage archetypes probably need to be broken down into its component parts: the Iconic Ability, plus the option to pick a different Core Skillset or Power Source, could serve as the perk of the archetype; gaining those optional upgrades would then be a separate leveling perk.

Ultimately, I think that in terms of Archetype benefits, we're going to have to look at Iconic Abilities and Core Skill training as being of equal "cost" or "value" in terms of level-up currency. This can then be extrapolated to help design for classes with less customization options (those with only the Subclass option.) Such classes would need to be able to gain Core Skill training far above that of the existing baseline; fortunately, such classes are intended to be skillful, anyway -- the Acrobat, Rogue, and Ranger classes, specifically.

Knowledge is Power! (Beta 4)

Further to the previous topic of skill difficulties, I've also been looking into Knowledge skills, Power Sources, and how those two things relate to each other in The Next Project.

I touched on it a little bit in a previous post -- specifically, the thought experiment of limiting playable classes based on power source, and how that might impact class design. In brief, I've decided that such limitations in this system should be done at the class slate level, rather than the power source level (I may go into this in greater detail in a future post.)

What this allows me to do is worry less about how a power source will lead to inclusion/exclusion of a class, and just use them to ascribe background details, as they are intended. With that being said, I've found that there are some tweaks that I might want to make, and that some mismatches currently exist in terms of Knowledge skills as they pertain to class design.

Having a skill like "Geography" strictly limited to Primal characters has started to seem out of place, and even though all classes get at least two power sources, Primal is more hard to come by than some others. "Streetwise" is in a similar spot, where it could/should be more broadly available without needing access to the Shadow power source. On the other side of the coin, a class like Druid not having access to some sort of medicinal (or expressly herbalist) skill kind of shows the cracks in the system.

I'm thinking the best solution to this is to first expand the number of skills on each Power Source's list; this may result in some skills appearing more often than others and leading to overlap. So, the second part of this fix is to simply allow characters to choose a number of skills from the power source lists that they qualify for. Currently, characters end up getting 5 or 6 knowledge skills, so I am leaning towards a straight "pick 5" rule for this. Since each power source will likely grow from 3 knowledge skills to 4, this would necessitate every character having skills from at least 2 power sources.

For character types that are intended to be widely knowledgeable or skillful -- such as the Sage, Bard, and Adventurer -- this can be reflected mechanically in a few ways. One option is allowing them to pick their power sources more freely; another would be letting them pick skills from more than just two power sources. I may still consider simply allowing them to gain more skills than other characters, but I think 5 is a lot to begin with, and I'd prefer to have a rule that is more uniform (particularly since "core" skills are already handled on a class-by-class basis.) Another lever that we can play around with, is granting classes Expertise on certain knowledge skills (or all of them.)

I was probably going to want to go through each of the classes and juggle or reassign power sources anyway. Now that I have a new framework in mind for their implementation, it gives an additional reason or consideration for when I set out to do the actual writing.

Change Log [2017/04/26] (Beta 4)

Playtesting is ongoing, but here are some changes that have been added in the past month; expect more in the coming updates.

• [Core Rules] Capped the number of enemies you can create a maelstrom with using the "Engage" action (Move) at "maximum value of your class die"
• [Core Rules] "Shift" action (Move) can now engage one unengaged enemy
• [Core Rules] Subclasses changed so that they must be selected when entering initiative (instead of at char-gen)
• [Core Rules] Paths added to the character customization options
• Changed Cleric, Sage, and Rogue subclasses to "Paths"
• Changed Warlord archetypes to "Roles" and renamed them accordingly
• Changed Warlord's options for Performance skills to include Expertise or Training, instead of just training
• Sage's power sources expanded to 3, but narrowed down a bit
• Bard's power sources changed to "arcane, plus one of Divine/Martial" instead of "any two"
• Mystic's power sources changed to "two of Arcane/Primal/Shadow" instead of "Arcane + Shadow"
• Guardian's power sources changed to accommodate the new Subclass mechanics
• Adventurer's power sources changed; Scout only gains two of Martial/Primal/Shadow instead of all three; Skald now gains two of Arcane/Martial/Primal instead of Primal and one other
• Swordmage's Shielding Sigil changed so that opportunity attacks can negate enemy actions; Beguiling Blade changed to grant advantage on defense when counter-attacking an enemy with your sigil
• Bard now has the option to take an archetype from other classes within their slate (i.e. Sage schools, Hexblade, Swordmage)
• Bard's Arcane Luck ability now has the [Concentration] tag added
• Sage's Eldritch Enchantment changed to grant advantage on attack rolls, and to use your class die for bonus damage.
• Spellbinder's skills adjusted again; Hexblade back to only 2 core Trained skills; split skill selection into 2 toggles instead of 1 toggle and 1 solely for Hexblade.
• Cleric's Divine Smite using the Life Domain now restores HP equal to the rolled damage (instead of using a separate roll)

Change Log [2017/01/25] (Beta 4)

Here's a list of some of the changes that have been made to the various classes, since the start of the holiday break:

• Archer can now Counter-attack against ranged; same Hunter ability re-worded
• Acrobat using d20 to Power Attack removed; specialty basic attacks are now Reliable; Martial Artist's prone ability now works on unsuccessful attacks; Archer's reroll ability now works on any ranged attack (not just ranged basic)
• Wizard's Magic Missile basic attack is now Reliable; Veritable Vision now grants Expertise to damage rolls
• Assassin now gets training in either AGIL or Infiltration, instead of defaulting to AGIL
• Rogue Tactics given archetype-specific effects; clarified how Disengaging works via Cloak & Dagger
• "Warrior" class renamed to "Adventurer"
• Adventurer's Defender ability changed to "1d10[exp] or 1d20[exp] for defense rolls"
• swapped some aspects of the Fighter and Adventurer TWF abilities
• Soldier archetype's power attack ability limited to attacks made as a standard action; Weapon Training's miss roll is now likewise limited; Weapon Training can no longer turn misses into crits
• Fighter's Protection style changed to "allies in your maelstrom" instead of "Nearby ally"
• changed some Guardian totem perks to require spirit manifestation; Blood Totem now does extra damage when you are bloodied
• Cleric regains some HP when spending reserves in combat
• Ranger mark damage changed to "advantage; stack if you already had advantage"
• Bard can now Power Attack using a basic roll
• Bard's "Leader" role renamed to "Support"
• Necromancer's Animate Dead changed to allow for multi-HD minions
• Warlock's minor action attack removed; Eldritch Blast iconic attack now targets a number of enemies based on the roll, rather than making a number of attacks based on the roll
• Mystic's trained skills corrected to fit current format (oops)
• Paladin's Holy Aura reworded, now grants defense bonus only on unsuccessful rolls
• Paladin now gets training in either STR or Influence skills, instead of both (still gets additional skill training from their Archetypes)
• Swordmage now gets training in both STR and Influence skills, instead of one or the other
• Hexblade's Beguiling Blade changed to "roll class die in place of d20 roll" rather than "double roll and stack in place of an unsuccessful attack roll"
• Changed the rules on stacking class dice onto d20 rolls, in the core rules; clarified mechanics of using a basic roll for a Trade-off

Blood from a Stone -- The Guardian and The Warrior (Beta 4)

Quickly posting the links for the new classes, then I will add content shortly:

• The Guardian (d6)
• The Warrior (d10)

Stay tuned!


The Warrior
As was mentioned in my post about The Rogue, I wanted to make a Scout class that was sort of like a "wilderness rogue." Simple enough, right? Well, the thing about that is, it means the class needs to be the skill specialist of its slate -- which is sort of hard, since a slate like "Heroes of the Wilderness" is bound to have a fair bit of redundancy in the skill department.

Originally, I was planning to have the class use the d6, and focus on two-weapon fighting (harkening to the Essentials version of the Scout -- a Ranger subclass.) A couple problems with this:

1. Already having a d6 Fighter class, with two-weapon fighting as one of its options.
2. Already having a d6 Rogue class, with skillfulness as a major focus. 

I could have easily just reused these mechanics, but it felt sort of wrong. I had "Guardian" penciled in for the d10 spot on this slate, but I decided to swap the two around. It was similar to how I moved Warlock to a d10 slot, when I split it off from the Sorcerer.

What results, is a melee-focused, damage-stacking class, built off exactly the die that is meant to be used that way. Making the "Skirmish" mechanic using a d10 necessitates it working and feeling differently than the Rogue's "Sneak Attack" and I think that's a good outcome.

Skills still presented a problem; I felt the class needed an "urban" archetype or possibly a "spy," to cover the more social-focused skills -- something a specialist should be able to do, but which didn't really fit with a Scout. After much mulling and conversation, the idea of making this archetype into a Skald just clicked.

As a class that exists in Pathfinder as having Bard and Barbarian as its "parent classes," it wasn't too much of a stretch to fit it onto this slate. Similar to a Bard, it made sense for the Skald to be good at social skills, as well as deception. It also gave me the opportunity to make a sort of "two-weapon fighting Barbarian," which I didn't feel worked well as a d12 class. It also sort of lends itself to the Skald being a class from "Heroes of the Feywild" in 4e D&D, as well as the dual-wielding, hidden Bard class from Diablo: Hellfire.

So what we end up with is a more narrowly-focused Fighter in terms of combat, and a more narrowly-focused Rogue in terms of skills. The Scout leans more towards a striker/lurker role, with Skald being more of a support class; each archetype then has a few Role options to choose from, to flesh them out and help them specialize a bit more.


The Guardian
As was mentioned in a previous post, the Guardian kind of grew from the necessity of a landing spot for the Shaman archetype, as well as wanting to do a take on the Warden from 4th Edition.

The name (I think) mainly came from the Warden's daily powers referencing them assuming a "guardian form." Essentially, what these powers do is give you a few passive bonuses (effectively, a stance) and then an attack power you can fire off on that turn, or later in the encounter. The idea from Essentials of using stance powers coupled with "Power Strike" (for both the Fighter and Ranger classes) sort of mimics this kind of mechanic.

However, the specific fluff for the Warden daily powers was not very consistent, so it was hard to come up with something that worked thematically, in as elegant a way as I would have hoped; I looked at the research I had done into the Warden, and mostly scrapped it all, instead going with something closer to the Essentials Ranger.

I tried to emulate something similar to the Stance/Power Strike mechanism, using the combination of totems and spirit manifestations, with burning reserves for more powerful effects. Combine all of that with the concept of using d6 as a damage-stacking class die, plus having a support archetype and a tank archetype (with totems allowing a further degree of role customization) and... there's a lot going on. I expect this class to change a fair bit in future drafts.

---


I was kind of on a tight schedule with this post, and these two classes were probably the most work-intensive of the classes that needed to be completed. I might try and rewrite both of them when I have more time, or let that part shake out in playtesting.


In any case, "Heroes of the Wilderness" for Beta 4 is now a complete slate!

• Druid (d4)
• Guardian (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Warrior (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

---

Coming up on the next blogpost:

• The Warlord
• The Spellbinder

Check back on Dec. 20th!