Filling in the Grid: Roster Construction (2024)

A topic that came up in the TNP Discord recently (piggybacking off of the last blog post) was how to determine the roster construction in an RPG. In my previous designs, there were effectively 6 "classes," built off of a chassis of picking whether you were a (martial) warrior or a (spell) caster, crossed with whether you used light, medium, or heavy "armaments" (effectively, armor, in a damage-reduction role.) This mapped pretty closely to the vanilla World of Warcraft classes, but was actually built off of the classes I had sketched out for a presumptive (at the time) Diablo 2 follow-up; Mage, Warlock, and Cleric being the light, medium, and heavy casters (respectively) with Rogue, Hunter(? I think?), and Knight being the warrior classes.

4th Edition D&D started off with a similar ethos to where TNP is now, so let me explain that a bit. 4e was essentially trying to take the pre-existing D&D classes, and map them onto what I refer to as "the intersection of a role and a power source." So for example, Clerics (being a holy healing class, generally) were given the 'Leader' role and the 'Divine' power source.

(As I've probably said before, power sources didn't matter much, until you get into bolting specific feat perks onto your powers; generally power sources informed what your default trained skill would be, as well as your class skills -- this being more or less what got carried over to TNP, mechanically.)

So, with the first PHB, 4e introduced 3 power sources: martial, arcane, and divine. Since the book contained 8 classes, the intention was to (more or less) have 2 classes for each of the 4 roles; famously, this didn't work out because the "martial controller" was nowhere to be found in the designs (until the Hunter subclass, in Essentials.) But the formula for how to "fill in the grid" in 4e was already taking shape; PHB2 added the Avenger (striker) and Invoker (controller) classes to fill out the divine power source, which already included the Cleric (leader) and the Paladin (defender) from the first PHB.

The 2nd PHB also codified Druid away from being a "divine" spellcaster, making the 'Primal' power source its own thing, for really the first time in D&D. The design was kind of kludgy (owed mostly to the fact that Druid is kind of a hybrid, "do everything" class insofar as it's roots in 3.x editions of D&D) so pinning Druid down into the controller role felt sort of forced; to wit, the Essentials and post-Essentials versions of the Druid took the class into completely different directions and roles.

TNP essentially came at its roster construction from the same place as 4e: taking what came before it, and trying to fit it into a defined framework -- namely, class dice. With the earliest iterations of TNP, every class was based off of a single die (either d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12) meaning that a "slate" necessarily needed to have at least 5 classes (whereas every power source in 4e ostensibly should aim to have 4 classes, one for each role.) TNP pretty quickly expanded from one slate into two, and as soon as the 2nd slate was finalized, it began spilling into a 3rd. This is how we got to the current roster of 15 classes.

With the decision to implement a 2nd class die (instead of having just one, for every class) TNP would have had to either expand to a 4th slate, or contract down to just two slates -- in order to keep the class die utilization "balanced." Instead, one slate was kept as single-die classes, while the other two were used to make up all of the 10 combinations of class dice. Similar to 4e trying to fit Druid into a single role within the Primal power source, TNP ended up with "class categories" to try and fit classes into a 'role' within their slate -- which would then make for mechanics/progression that could be mimicked on classes within the same category, on other slates. For what it's worth, I think this works very well on the 'Skill Expert' and 'Jack of All Trades' categories, but is a little shakier for the others.

So why do I bring this up?
Well, it's beginning to seem more and more likely/obvious that there will be an "after TNP" game, in my design future. That said, I think it is worthwhile to ponder, what sort of constraints or framework should be used when deciding what classes to include or exclude from the designs.

TNP has 15 classes, and with subclass mechanics taken into consideration, it tries really hard to at least cover the design space of (if not necessarily faithfully reproduce or "pay homage" to) the 40-odd classes/subclasses presented across the span of 4th Edition (the Psionic classes being the notable absence, in TNP.) Compare that to 5th Edition, where they've started with 12 classes, and more or less just built onto those (adding the Artificer and Blood Hunter, later on) mostly with things that are recognizably prestige classes from 3.5, or (arguably, such as the sprinkling in of Warlord mechanics onto the Fighter class) inspired by 4e.

You can even go back to something as seminal as Final Fantasy 1, to get a sense that 6 classes is kind of the bare minimum; compare that with the "core 4" in D&D of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and the 5e version of "essentials" making Bard the de-facto 5th class. (You could make a case that this maps to "one class for each ability score [excluding CON].") TNP, by its nature, necessitates 5 classes being the minimum -- although if the framework is shifted from class dice to anything else, this could quickly change.

The question I'm posing to myself is, how many classes would I want, in a follow-up to TNP?
I definitely (if I haven't made it clear in my last few posts on the subject) want to make something smaller in scale, so a straight reproduction/port of the TNP roster is probably off the table. Based on everything we've gone over in this post, 5 seems like the absolute minimum, with 12 probably being the ceiling; ultimately the framework (or "grid") will likely determine what the right fit is.

...

Scheduling is a bit jumbly lately, but I would expect the next post to be between June 15th-19th, with the 3rd post this month coming after the 24th. Stay tuned!

Scattershot (2018)

I have a few ideas that I want to put out into the world -- mostly half-baked -- that kind of cover various areas of the designs. This post is going to be a bit jumbled, so bear with me.

Skill Dice
A couple of comments that I've received are that the skill system needs more gradients (typically, there needs to be something between "Expertise (untrained)" and Trained) but also that maybe there should be a bonus for being trained with both the Attribute and the Skillset of a given skill. I haven't really come up with anything to address the former, but in terms of the latter, I toyed around with a few different ideas (without straying too far from the existing framework.) Really the only thing that didn't seem broken would be to allow the training die to be rolled with Advantage, in that instance. This sort of borrows from the "boons & banes" method of die bonuses, from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

The problem I've found with this, is that the math pretty closely mirrors that of having both Training and Expertise (thus, feeling like "change for the sake of change") with the obvious difference of being able to still layer Expertise on top of it, for further benefit. Doing so puts the success rate pretty close to what using d10s did, in earlier iterations (as was mentioned in the "origins" post about skills.)

Now, this presents the question of, should "skillful" classes simply be able to upgrade their training die to d10, in these circumstances? As I'm typing this out, I'm starting to lean towards "yes," in large part because the overall designs have been trying to avoid mixing double-rolls and Expertise (because it is rather clunky) while still remembering that d10 was completely discarded before, because it pushes success rates too high.

This also does nothing to solve the initial premise of adding a gradation below "trained" -- so I'm not entirely sure I'll use any of this. I'll have to try and crunch out some math, but my first instinct is to try and do something akin to the class dice mechanics of "roll & compare" but utilizing the training die, instead of class die. I'll have to see if that's feasible, without being clunky.


Subtypes
As was mentioned in the recent post about classifying/categorizing classes, right now each slate of classes is set up to include one class for each of the five "categories." These categories essentially grew out of the earlier decision to pare the number of subtypes down from four, to three. This change got rid of "optional combat roles," and left most classes fitting into the current setup.

As I've said before, the 3rd slate was sort of bashed into this framework, and I've never been completely happy with the results. Similarly to the skill conundrum, two questions have presented themselves: does the design conceit of "categories" actually present something worth preserving, and do the classes (overall) have enough customization?

I feel like the continual worry over "subclass only" and "spec only" classes sort of goes to show that maybe this setup isn't viable. The question then becomes, can we add to these classes using the existing subtypes? Should we try and add roles to all classes (in all honestly this has never been my intent) or should we just "upgrade" these two categories?

Likewise, when I looked at the 3rd slate again recently, I found that Druid probably makes more sense as a "subclass & role" loadout -- but that isn't a category that exists in the current designs. (Also, the other classes in the slate could/would probably work better by being slotted into different categories, I feel.) Making the Druid be a unique category on its own means that it loses the design space of having transferable "category upgrades" while also calling the entire framework into question. Does the "symmetry" of each slate having the same five categories really... do anything?

Should "subclass only" classes get roles or specs stapled on? Should "spec only" classes get roles or subclasses stapled on? Should we change only one of these categories, or both? Whichever solution gets settled on, it will mean serious consideration and redesign work.


Monster Math
I haven't looked at it as much, but the framework for monsters is also something that needs a lot of hard thought. Aside from solo monsters needing a more thorough system (as it pertains to positioning) I also am sort of leery about the way things like Advantage/Disadvantage and Trained/Untrained work differently for monsters than they do for PCs.

It sort of results in there being two distinct rulesets -- one for PCs and one for DMs -- where the only place the two cross paths is in situational and positional considerations in combat, where both sides have to interact with one another. It might be a necessary evil, but just the way the terminology is recycled, without the mechanics being unified across the two paradigms... it's something I find worrisome.

The main utility that I like about the "monster roll" is that it can help DMs run their monsters, by letting the dice decide -- allowing for some level of automation, which can speed things up and negate "analysis paralysis." The problem is whether or not the burden of DMs having to familiarize themselves with both paradigms is outweighed by this little bit of utility, or if they would be better served by having monsters be more straightforwardly d20-based.


---


Next post will be up November 30th, so check back then. Just a heads-up, that will be the final post of this year.

Classification & Categorization (2018)

One of the things that will need to be polished up for the upcoming versions of the game is the leveling system, which is a new feature as of the 2018 Edition writings. Part and parcel to this is the upgrade system, in turn tying itself into the slates and categories of classes. So I wanted to take some time today and untangle all of this, in order to give an idea of where I'll need to be taking the designs, in the future.


Inspiration
First, I want to start of with a bit of nostalgia (without making a full-blown "Origins" post.) Back in 4th Edition D&D, each Player's Handbook (PHB) introduced several classes, with successive books also adding classes with new power sources (Primal in PHB2, and Psionic in PHB3.) Further on, players options would also appear in "Power" books -- geared to all classes within a particular power source, despite these classes often being spread across more than one of the PHBs. I had always thought it would have been nice if they (at some point) made some sort of compendium books, based on power source -- a reprinting of each class (including errata) as well as all of the additional players options for that power source, which had come out along the way.

This ended up forming the sort of thematic basis of the class slates, in TNP. Where 4th Edition's PHBs each had classes spanning no less than three power sources, I initially wanted to have my class slates each based on only one. Ultimately, that would have meant expanding to five slates, or cutting down the number of power sources, so I instead settled on three slates, with (ideally) two main power sources, each: the 1st slate being Martial/Divine, the 2nd being Arcane/Shadow, with the 3rd being mainly Primal.


Metamorphosis
Now, as I had touched on in a previous post, where 4th Edition essentially defines a class as "role + power source" (creating its "class slates" by filling in that grid) TNP tries to go in a different direction. Classes are mostly defined by their Class Die and (what I've come to refer to as) their "category" -- which is, in short, the ways in which a class can be customized, namely by Subclass, Combat Role, and Specialist Class. There are 5 combinations of these options, and each slate contains one class for each combination.

With all this in place, once I began to break these options out into what could or couldn't be used for purchasable upgrades (in order to help build the leveling system) it became clear that (because of their category) certain classes would need additional upgrades. For example, a class which gets both Combat Roles and Specialist Classes to pick from, would already have two possible upgrades already built for them -- whereas a "Subclass only" character would effectively be "fully customized" from the get-go.


Evolution
This is where the idea of "Category Upgrades" came into being. Certain categories simply needed more options for upgrades, but this also opened up the idea that such upgrades could be transferred among classes of the same category (if the player chose to change their class) without needing to purchase the upgrade again. Flowing from that idea, was the notion that classes sharing a category should (ideally) have something in common. In the case of the "Subclass only" category, it seemed to make sense that generally those classes should get access to more skill training; the 3rd slate was retooled slightly, to allow for Ranger to be put into this category, alongside the Acrobat and the Rogue. Likewise, it was loosely determined that "Specialist only" classes should get an extra power source as a common perk.

In the same vein, since classes of a given slate were not limited to a single power source, I wanted to have something mechanically linking them together. This is where the idea of "Slate Upgrades" started from; being able to keep a thematically-appropriate perk across all the classes of a slate would encourage players to stay within a given slate (assuming they chose to change their class) if and when they had opted into this type of upgrade.


Ascension
I want to expand on this idea in the future. In the case of the 1st slate, the simple "Expertise with one Attribute"-upgrade was basically just something I noticed most of the classes already had, and so I ported that over from being a class perk to a slate perk -- but that's a little bit bland. I'm much happier with the idea (if not necessarily the execution) of the 3rd slate's perk, granting certain skill bonuses that utilize class die, for each of the five classes. Likewise, I think the idea of having the 2nd slate be more "knowledgeable" is a good fit, thematically (in particular, with it containing presumably smart classes like Sage, and skillful classes like Rogue and Bard) but it needs a better mechanical implementation.

With the more recent drafts of the rules, I've tried to hammer out a more definitive listing of the power sources available to the classes within each slate. In the process, I've noticed that while slates 1 & 3 effectively each have a couple "primary" power sources and a couple of "secondary" power sources, the 2nd slate is more closely married to its primaries, but then its secondaries vary across the board, from one class to the next. This sort of gives the thought that perhaps extra power sources could be the slate perk, here -- both because power sources are the method of gaining knowledge skills, but also since this slate seemingly positions itself as the pivot point between the other two. Again, before I can give this final approval, I'll have to consider it in the context of the category (or categories) of classes which end up with "gaining additional power sources" as one of their signature upgrades.


---


I'm thinking of doing another "Origins" post for my next entry, but I haven't 100% decided on the topic just yet. In any case, it'd be the final such post for this year; check back on November 10th for that.

Writing the Rules (2018)

Rewriting of the "core rules" has begun in earnest, and I'm coming at it from a little bit of a different angle than I have previously.

When I was writing Beta 4, what I essentially did was start with the most central design concept, and then introduce more concepts as they became pertinent -- usually one idea dovetailing with another. For example, the idea of both a "Basic Roll" and "maximum value" needed to be introduced prior to introducing the starting HP mechanic (which uses the maximum value of your Basic Roll.)

What I'm doing this time around, is essentially writing up each idea or mechanic as its own thing; any time I think of a new one to write, it's going into a separate document. One of the reasons for doing this, is it helps me to worry less about spacing and length -- trying to cram things together so there aren't long stretches of blank space, keeping the overall doc to the fewest number of pages, etc.

As you might expect, this means that the "core rules" this time around will be a fair bit longer. Granted, the Beta 4 version topped out at a mere 14 pages in google docs; the addition of the leveling mechanics alone will push 2018 Edition past that number, but I do hope to expand on and clarify rules wherever it's needed, which will also add to the length.

Here's a quick look at the topics the rules are covering, so far:

• Changing Your Character: rules about changing your Class/Subclass/Roles/Archetype, and what to do if you find yourself unhappy with a character, late in a campaign
• Character Customization: the basic mechanical explanations of Subclass/Role/Archetype
• Combat Skills: expanding on the previous version's text about which skills are used in combat, and their specific implementations
• Double Rolls: updates to the mechanics of Advantage/Disadvantage and double-rolling class dice (with the Trade-off mechanic written out)
• Positioning: touch-up of the positional rules, including streamlining the jargon
• Power Attack/Counter-attack: rewritten mechanics, incorporating changes to Advantage/Disadvantage and removal of Trade-offs
• Skills: cleaned up and expanded text pertaining to the skill mechanics and descriptions, going a bit deeper into Background/Knowledge/Performance skills

...

One thing I'm considering changing the jargon for is the "subtype" descriptors. Essentially, an idea I had was to use Path, War Path, and Paragon Path in place of Subclass, Role, and Archetype (respectively.) After having spilled some ink on the designs, I think I want to keep Subclass, just because it relates closely to Class -- essentially, most Subclasses would be their own classes in other systems, and as such, changing your Subclass is going to work similarly to changing your class, in the mechanics.

With that sorted, the whole "path" nomenclature idea falls apart pretty quickly. Another snag that has come up, is that people unfamiliar with 5e D&D have often pointed out Archetype as a misnomer; it's a broad identifier, whereas in TNP, they serve to more-narrowly identify a character. Some have also pointed to Role as being too vague (on its face) at least until you get into reading their specific mechanics.

As such, I am considering changing Archetypes to Paragon Paths, and renaming Role to something like "Combat Role." I think at the table, if players choose to shorten those terms down to just "Path" and "Role" then that's fine. However, the rules jargon should be adequately informative in addition to being concise; Subclass does this very well, but Role and Archetype need a bit of a tune-up. I haven't settled on these changes, but both are under consideration.

...

Next post should be on January 30th; as always, if you have input on any of the topics discussed here, feel free to comment below, or get ahold of me wherever you read about the blog.

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.

Subtypes -- Part 2: Slates & Progression

If we look at 4th Edition D&D as a source of inspiration, both the first and second Player's Handbooks featured 8 classes, conforming (roughly) to a framework of 2 classes for each of the 4 roles. Similarly, when you look at the first and second Essentials books, each has 4 classes (5 if you count the Fighter and Ranger subtypes), with both books having each role represented.

This was kind of a guiding idea behind The Next Project, with the added conceit of making each slate of classes conform to a particular theme (specifically, power sources.) Though I was never married to the idea of redoing "classes tied to role," the mechanical framework of class dice has always made it implicit that classes should be slated in groups of 5 -- one for each die.

So if role is not what separates the 5 classes on a given slate, then what should be? Well, the answer has come through the process of trying to cut the number of subtypes down. As mentioned in the previous post on the topic of subtypes, there is no overlap (on any class) between Path, Role, and Subclass. In addition, the close relation of Role and Subclass (the former being "optional combat subtype" and the latter being "mandatory combat subtype") was explained. In short, I have decided to remove one of these three.

My intention is to merge Role and Subclass; mechanically, it will function as Subclasses currently do, but the "Role" name will be used to describe this subtype. Following from that, Paths will remain mechanically the same, but will instead use the "Subclass" name, since I feel it is a good mechanical descriptor for what that subtype does, within the design.

What this leaves us with is 5 distinctions between classes:

• classes with Archetypes
• classes with Roles
• classes with Archetypes and Roles
• classes with Subclasses
• classes with Archetypes and Subclasses

Now, with a few minor adjustments, we can make it so that each slate of classes has one class for each of these loadouts. Here is how I am proposing to do this:

• Acrobat subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Druid will have its Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Guardian will retain Archetypes and Subclasses, instead of having their Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Ranger subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Barbarian subtypes will change from Roles to Archetypes

So what does this all mean for progression?

Well, classes that only have "Role" for their subtype options will have to have at least one role, to begin with -- since this form of subtype is mandatory, within combat. However, classes with both Role and Archetype may be able to select one or the other early on, instead of Role being mandatory out of the gate, with Archetype being optional; the same could also be true for classes with both Subclasses and Archetypes as options.

This also creates 5 different progression tracks (based on subtypes) which could then be made uniform. For example, with the Fighter/Bard/Adventurer progression (i.e. for classes with both Roles and Archetypes) there could be specific levels at which Archetypes or additional Roles unlock, and that could be consistent between all 3 classes which share that subtype loadout. There could also be a unifying perk for these classes, just as there could be for classes that share a slate, but there can also be progression that is universal across all 5 tracks.

The next post will probably focus more on the specifics of my plans for adding level progression to the game, so stay tuned for that.

Subtypes (Beta 4)

Probably for the next big revision of the game, I will want to look into changing the jargon pertaining to character options. Here's the current wording, explained:

• Subclass: "mandatory combat role" is how I generally refer to this. At the start of combat, you have to pick one, or else your class doesn't function. Examples: Druid [Shapeshifter/Summoner], Guardian [Shaman/Warden], Mystic [Necromancer/Warlock]
• Path: essentially your "mandatory Archetype." Paths are generally distinct classes that have been put under the umbrella of a single class, for different reasons. Examples: Cleric [Crusader/Invoker], Sage [Monk/Wizard], Rogue [Assassin/Sorcerer]
• Archetype: these basically serve to narrow a class down into a more specific "flavour" or niche; currently, Archetypes are not mechanically necessary in order for classes with them to function. Some classes can choose an Archetype in addition to a Subclass, Path, or Role.
• Role: this hews fairly close to the 4e D&D combat roles. Similarly to Archetypes, it is not mechanically necessary to pick one; they narrow the focus of your character, and can be selected at the start of combat. Currently, the following roles are used in the text: Defender, Striker, Controller, Support.

Archetypes and Paths are both locked in at character creation; Paths are mandatory, Archetypes are not.
Roles and Subclasses are both selected at the start of combat; Subclasses are mandatory, Roles are not.
It's also worth noting that Paths, Roles, and Subclasses do not overlap each other, on any class; classes with these options may, however, also have Archetypes.

I think the problem is that each of these keywords seems to convey a sense of permanency, but only two of them actually are (and one of those is optional.) "Subclass" is the word that seems the biggest misnomer. At one point, "Archetype" covered what would now include Archetypes, Subclasses, and Paths (and all were mandatory); "Subclass" was just a placeholder that was used to pull those specific options out from under the larger umbrella.

Should Subclasses be merged into Roles? It seems like one of the simpler options -- Roles would have to become mandatory to facilitate this, though, which would increase some of the complexity for those classes (Fighter, Warlord, Bard, Adventurer, and Barbarian.) The problem then becomes that the existing Subclasses don't feel like "Roles" so a new piece of jargon may need to be invented to replace them both.

Should Subclasses be reclassified as "Combat Paths" and Roles as "Combat Archetypes"? It would be nice to have one word for "mandatory" customization, and one for "optional" that could then each have a "combat" or similar tag added, to specify when those options could be invoked.

I'm going to give this all some serious consideration, and see which loadout I like most. Then, that will make its appearance in the next iteration of the rules text.

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)

Expansionism (Beta 4)

With playtesting currently underway, I have been focusing my efforts on running the game; as such, I don't have a lot of work being done on (or changes being made to) the existing material, so I wanted to pitch a few ideas that have bounced through my head at various times.


Alternate Archetypes/Prestige Classes
In particular, I keep thinking I might want to do a slate of Archetypes centered on adding pets to classes that currently don't have any, or focused around using mounts in combat. Ideally, I would want these to work for multiple classes, but that might be difficult given the disparate distribution of Archetype/Path/Subclass between the various classes.

Some example ideas:

• Cavalier: Cleric, Paladin, Warlords or Fighters with the Divine power source
• Death Knight: Paladin, Mystic, Hexblade, Warlords or Fighters with the Shadow power source
• School of Golemancy: Wizard, Sorcerer, Guardian
• Mounted Archer: Archer, Ranger, Adventurer, Monk, Assassin, Fighter
• Beastrider: Ranger, Necromancer, Druid
• Death Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Shadow power sources
• Nature Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Primal power sources

Races

I've kind of had some fleeting ideas about how I might want to structure a loose framework for adding fantasy races to the game. Basically, they wouldn't provide stat boosts, but conceivably could add extra skill training. I would mostly want them to mostly provide things akin to the Background features seen in 5th Edition D&D, or Theme benefits from 4th Edition. Beyond that, some examples of stuff that I've thought might work:

• Dwarf: If you choose a d4 or d6 class, you have double the normal number of reserves; you can also double roll and stack the damage of your melee basic attacks.
• Elf: If you choose a d4 class, you can double roll and stack the damage of your ranged basic attacks; you can also add your class die to any untrained DEX or WIS checks you make.
• Half-Elf: If you choose a class with Paths, you can instead treat them as Archetypes. If you choose a class with Archetypes, you can instead treat them as Subclasses.
• Human: If you choose a class with Roles, you can instead treat them as a Form or Concentration ability; you can change between Roles as a Minor Action. You have Expertise on all untrained skill checks.

Slates/Power Sources

Should there be a 4th slate of classes? Or a 6th power source?

The one power source that's really missing (when compared to the 4e lineup) is Psionic. I think if we were to follow in that vein, any psionic classes would have to have something resembling a power-point mechanic (i.e. an additional resource-management subsystem) built onto them. Another consideration is, which Knowledge skills does it make sense for a Psionic power source to have? How would we differentiate it from the existing ones?

Since TNP doesn't operate in the 4e paradigm of "Role + Power Source = Class" it might not really be possible to create Psionics as more than one class, even.

-----

Today's post is a day behind, mostly because of scheduling considerations; next post, likewise, should be up on April 26th, so check back then!

Heroes of All Stripes (Beta 4)

In 4th Edition D&D, the Dark Sun campaign specifically banned or limited power sources -- effectively cutting back on the number of classes you could pick from.

Just as a thought-exercise, I looked at what sorts of effects this might have, if implemented in TNP; based on that research, I'll be making some adjustments. What ended up happening was classes that are locked into 2 (or even 3) power sources are unlikely to make the cut, whereas classes that get to freely pick both/all of their power sources will always be an option.

As such, I'm leaning towards changing around classes to fall into one of these two setups:

• one power source is locked in, the other can be chosen from a short list
• both power sources can be chosen freely, but from a list of only three options

Generally, I think it will be thematically best to keep your party composition within 2 class slates, but there is no necessity to limit your party as such; limitations on class slate or power source selection should only be done to reinforce the theme or flavour of a campaign, or party cohesion, and only on the agreement of everyone at the table.

-----

Another thing I've been digging into recently is increasing the customization levels of classes, without adding to or changing their abilities drastically.

Some classes have explicit Roles, while others have implicit roles. For example, the Guardian breaks down into Warden and Shaman subclasses, which each effectively occupy a different role (just as the 4e versions did.) However, their abilities are structured such that they all draw from their "role ability" and they cannot really be extracted from each other. Simply put, these subclasses can't be changed to Archetypes, because one of them must be selected, in order for the class to function in combat.

Because of this, subclasses have been changed to be the "mandatory Role" form of customization; classes with subclasses to choose from can now select one at the start of combat, but should have a default one set, which they are most familiar with.

For some classes, this would not thematically make a lot of sense. For example, the Rogue has Assassin and Sorcerer as its subclasses; on its face, it would not make much sense for a character to swap between such drastically different characters at the start of each combat. In those cases, the subclass tag has been changed to "Path"; your path must be chosen when you create one of these characters. This change will apply to the following classes:

• Cleric: Path of the Crusader, Path of the Invoker
• Sage: Path of the Monk, Path of the Wizard
• Rogue: Path of the Assassin, Path of the Sorcerer

I've also been working over the past little while to make it so that classes with Archetypes to choose from still get basic functionality without having to pick one. Granted, having an Archetype will grant you an additional Iconic Ability and/or additional riders on your powers, but I want characters who don't pick one to still have the standard of 2 trained sets of core skills, as well as at least 1 (or preferably 2) power sources.

The current state of the Paladin is probably the best showcase for this type of design; the class functions fine without an archetype, but picking one gives you some mechanical perks in combat, as well as more options for customization.

-----

EDIT: A new playtest recruit is now live, on the forums. So if you're a goon, sign up!

Change Log [2017/03/26] (Beta 4)

Here are some more changes that have been put in this month. 

Also, check out the Homebrewery version of the Acrobat writeup, if you haven't seen that already.

• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Hidden" rules; attacking reveals your position
• [Core Rules] Updated "starter characters" with some streamlined formatting, and pre-picked core skills, so they can be more easily used as pre-generated characters
• [Core Rules] Changed rules so creatures with 1 HD do auto-damage
• [Core Rules] Added in a fair bit of text and additional guidelines regarding customization options
• [Core Rules] Clarified escaping a grapple, to work as a Shift
• Acrobat can now make any skill checks to gain High Ground as a Move Action.
• Acrobat's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; made some minor adjustments to make non-archetype Acrobats functional
• Archer's Aimed Shot changed to make it easier to deal damage with.
• Barbarian can now make a Class Die roll with Disadvantage in place of their training die on some skill checks
• Barbarian's Frenzy changed so that the trade-off is only rolled once, rather than on each of your turns
• Bard gains an additional trained Core skill list (mostly to accommodate non-archetype Bards) 
• Bard's Sword & Sorcery changed so that only one of the attacks counts as a basic attack (so you can't Power Attack with both attacks)
• Fighter, Druid, and Guardian abilities with the [Concentration] tag all changed to [Form]; added explanation for this new keyword into the Core Rules (this may be discussed a bit in future posts)
• Scout's Skirmish ability changed: extra class die roll now only works when you attack from unengaged; Withdraw changed to Move Action from Minor Action (it was too easy to Withdraw and become Hidden, in playtesting; Skirmish die roll being free was piling on a bit)
• Spellbinder's Beguiling Blade changed to not require sigil or hex for the reserve-burning attack
• Spellbinder's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; core skills list changed to better accommodate non-archetype Spellbinders; Hexblade now gains a 3rd skill training

Next post should be up April 5th, so check back then!

Scattershot (Beta 4)

I'm a little behind on my blogging, but I don't really have enough material on any one topic to make a solid post, so I'll just touch on a handful of things instead. Hopefully they can each be expanded upon down the road.


Subclasses/Archetypes
In the interest of allowing classes to be broken down into smaller bites, and thus less front-loaded, I've been making some tweaks here and there regarding Archetypes. Wherever possible, I'm making it so that choosing an Archetype is optional; where this does not work as well, I've changed the archetypes to instead be called Subclasses, which are mandatory.

This leads to the classes being somewhat asymmetrical, but also kind of gives a clearer indication as to which ones are straightforward, and which ones have more customization.


Combat Math (roughly)
The basis for the damage/HP calculations roughly originated from one of my earlier playtests. I hadn't crunched the numbers that closely, but expected classes to do around 10 damage per round (DPR). In practice, they were doing closer to 15 DPR, so that's been the benchmark for average damage, that I've been aiming at.

With the intent of keeping damage roughly equal, the smartest thing was to work from the biggest class die (d12) and see how best to fit the other dice into it. The best starting point was to assume that d12 classes would be doing 2d12 of damage on their turn (a maximum of 24) which obviously is hard for d10 classes to fit under. This is alright, since d10 and d6 classes are expected to have a slightly higher damage output; essentially we want each class to have a maximum damage output (aside from critical hits) in the 24-30 range. This gives us a couple of possible expressions for each class die:

• 6d4, 7d4, 1d4+1d20, 2d4+1d20
• 4d6, 5d6, 1d6+1d20
• 3d8, 1d8+1d20
• 3d10, 1d10+1d20
• 2d12

So using things like Advantage, Expertise, and "double roll and stack," we can bump the average damage of individual dice without increasing the maximum range. (This is something that D&D typically doesn't dabble with, instead using +1s to increase minimum, average, and maximum damage.)

For example, the Acrobat gets to double roll and stack the damage of their specialty basic attacks (and basic attacks also get Expertise.) So by being able to make basic attacks as both a standard action and a minor action, they're effectively doing 4d4 damage (before adding in things like Power Attack.) However, their average will be much higher than a Wizard doing four individual 1d4 attacks with their Magic Missile iconic attack, because the Acrobat is more likely to do maximum damage with each die.

I'm in the process of slowly crunching out the actual DPR of each class' attack sequences, to make sure they actually hit that 15 DPR benchmark; as such, some classes have already been given a few damage perks or additional attacks.

Housekeeping

I'm still going to try and keep up with posting 3x per month. I've been keeping a change log of any edits to the classes and core rules, so I'm hoping I can use that as the 3rd post of each month.

The remaining posts due for this month will hopefully be able to be done on time.

Separation of Powers (Beta 4)

As part of the process of polishing up the character classes, I took a look at the distribution of trained skills and skill expertise. Most classes end up with 2 trained skill "lists" (i.e. Skillsets or Basic Abilities) with particularly skillful classes getting 3 or 4. In addition, most classes get expertise with one skill list. I might look into adjusting some classes to fit more closely into these general guidelines.

Another thing I want to work on is making the structure of the classes more unified, in terms of their Iconic Abilities, Archetypes, and so forth. I want to see if classes can be broken into smaller chunks, beginning simpler and adding layers of complexity. This is not meant as a leveling system, per se, but as a way to ease newcomers into the game, rather than front-loading all of the character generation. This could also potentially shape the "starter classes" quite significantly.

The problem is that currently Archetypes do different things for different classes. For example, the Sage's archetypes are essentially two distinct sub-classes (Wizard and Monk) whereas the Barbarian's archetypes prescribe slightly different playstyles, but don't significantly modify the base class. Further to that, some classes have additional layers of customization that others don't, such as Roles, or the Cleric's domains, the Guardian's totems, and the Sage's disciplines. I might be able to remedy this disjointed nature by simply altering terminology in a few places, or it might require more significant changes. The path of least resistance might be to simply take each class and break its parts down on a case-by-case basis.

As was mentioned in my previous post, my intention is to add power sources to each class; knowledge skills would be tied to these power sources, helping to flesh out your character's background. Another part of the intention for adding this layer of customization, is so that there can be a rule allowing players to change their class at narratively appropriate times, but limited to classes that share at least one power source with your current class.

The challenge then, is ironing out which parts of the existing framework to hang power sources on. In particular, I think it makes sense to have the Sage gain one power source based on the discipline they take, whereas tying power sources to Cleric domains or Guardian totems doesn't work as well. It could also be made completely independent, but too much customization goes against the design intent to have quick and simple character generation. On the other hand, a simple character could conceivably start with nothing but a background/power source, and then buy into a class later on.

...

Work on the "math pass" continues, along with other bigger and smaller edits as I go along; the 2nd slate (Magic & Shadow) is effectively done, though I may still take a hard look at the Sorcerer archetype. The 3rd slate (Wilderness) is probably done, particularly since most of its classes were completed/updated so recently, but I may give the Druid some closer scrutiny. The 1st slate (Martial & Divine) will get a once-over, but is probably mostly set; I've done considerable edits to the Acrobat already. Once I feel this iteration is "done," expect a long blog post with a log of all the changes.

...

One major change: "The Warrior" has been renamed to "The Adventurer"
I think that Scout/Skald wasn't quite war-like enough to merit the title of "warrior" so I think the new name is a better fit; Scout having been a class from the book "Complete Adventurer" back in D&D 3.5 sort of cemented this change.

...

Check back January 25th for the next post!