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!

Casting the Dice -- Part 2: The New Ethos

If we dig up the previous post on this topic, (from way back to the earliest days of this blog) the mechanics still have a long way to go.

The problem with the "roll and compare" mechanic used for the d4, is that if the d20 result is higher than 4, there is no point in even making the secondary roll (but the mechanic doesn't say not to.)

Later on, I crunched out the math, and in terms of the "miss/hit/crit" breakpoints of the TNP system, simply adding a d4 to a d20 roll gives the exact same outcomes. The knock-on effect of using this mechanic, though, is that to get comparable bonuses out of bigger dice requires more hoops to jump through. It also made it clear that for class dice results that interact with "misses" but do not cover the entire range of "miss" numbers, the roll should always have a secondary usage -- while still trying to keep the mechanics from getting too clunky.

It's simple enough to use the mechanics from one of these class dice and "downgrade" them for use with a smaller die, by using Expertise. For example, a d6 with Expertise using the same mechanic described for the d8, produces mathematically similar results. However, this can potentially cause confusion as to whether or not Expertise should also be applied to the triggering d20 roll (which it should not, in this case) so I have decided not to use Expertise as a tool for establishing baseline mechanics for these uses of class dice. It could, however, be used as a means of increasing the effectiveness of these mechanics, as sort of an additional buff; an example of this can be seen in the interaction between Frenzy and the "Role" mechanics for the Barbarian.

In the old post, I talked about not wanting to mesh "double roll" with "roll and compare" mechanics. Through the process of running the numbers, I found that flatout double rolling d10s or d12s in place of a d20 roll can produce results in the preferred ranges. However, I worry about the confusion this might cause; specifically, if you to make a d20 roll, and then (if the result is bad) make this sort of double roll afterwards, this swings the math quite dramatically. It's easy enough to conceive of a scenario where a player might end up doing this as an honest mistake, but it is also an invitation for unscrupulous players to abuse the mechanic. As such, all class dice mechanics that I've been working on can be made after a d20 roll, without impacting the probabilities.

While something like, "when you make a d20 roll, double roll and stack your d8, and use either result" avoids that pitfall, it unfortunately ends up just shy of the benchmarks I have set up. Where there was some fertile ground for double rolls, however, was in applying d8 mechanics to "double roll and stack d4," as well as using d12 mechanics for "double roll and stack d6." One side effect of this is that it could produce some inelegant rules, if double rolling were then combined with trying to match the d20 result, i.e. can either die match, or only the combined result of the double roll? Luckily, this has not turned out to be necessary for boosting these mechanics mathematically, and so has been left out to avoid any confusion.

So what are the specific benchmarks? Well, since "add a d4 to the d20 roll" is the simplest mechanic we can throw out there, that sets the groundwork. This mechanic gives us a "hit" chance of 50%, and a "crit" chance of 17.5%; since a "crit" deals roughly the damage of 3 regular "hits", bonuses to crit chance are weighted more heavily, when comparing these mechanics to one another, using this formula:

hit chance + (crit chance * 3) 

This in turn gives us a "score" which I've been using to grade various dice tricks. Ultimately, I came up with two scales: scores in the 90-93 range would be "minor" bonuses, and scores roughly in the 100-103 range would be "major" bonuses. This puts our simple d4 mechanic squarely in the "major" category; for comparison, the Advantage mechanic (as used in TNP) has a score of 111 (67.5% hit, 14.5% crit.)

The intention with these mechanics, ultimately, is to give some design tools by which support abilities can me modeled, but also allow for boosting DPR output without necessarily needing to add multiple attacks to a class' routine. At the time of this writing, the d10 mechanics are still up in the air (I caught something a bit late) so not every bonus has been completely ironed out. But to give you a taste, I will say that generally each mechanic uses two of these qualifiers:

• add the [class die/double roll] result to an unsuccessful d20 roll
• treat the result as a [success/critical success], if the class die result matches the d20 roll

(For rolls that can result in 10 or higher):

• use the [class die/double roll] result or the d20 result to determine success
• treat the result as a critical success if the [class die/double roll] result and the d20 result would both be successes

More details to come, as the math gets hammered out and finalized. I'd expect the next post to touch on the changes coming to the Role mechanic, so check back for that around the 2nd weekend in November.

Happy Halloween!

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.

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!

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!