Having Reservations (2024)

Let's talk a bit about reserves!

I'll start by saying that the baseline assumption I'm working from for the sequel designs, is that all characters just have 10 HP and 10 reserves; 10 is a nice round number, and 10 is the default target-number or "DC" in TNP anyway. But there are other sources to consider.

One of the games that I've played with a D&D group that I'm a part of is the Warhammer Quest: Cursed City board game. This game effectively has a "wounds" system, whereby being hit twice removes one of your four action dice; for all intents and purposes, this means that the player-characters each possess 8 HP. There is no consideration given to a Constitution score or racial/background bonuses. Early drafts of TNP had all monsters function almost as minions, dealing a fixed amount of damage (usually 1 point) which is similar to how monsters in Cursed City tend to work; this allows HP to be relatively low, compared to the 30ish you would start with in modern TNP (or 4th Edition D&D) for example.

Since in TNP, "everything is derived from the dice," earlier drafts had HP as a function of a rolled class die; this was pretty quickly revised to "maximum value of your class die" (producing a range from 4 to 12) but the obvious imbalance this created led to (effectively) a flat 20 HP being added to these numbers, to even things out a bit more. Naturally, monster math and mechanics had to be completely reworked to accommodate this.

However, since the sequel is expressly not built off of class dice, we can use something like a flat 10 HP to avoid all of the complexity that got built onto the original, simple TNP framework. Likewise, rather than needing to have reserves be "maximum of 2d4/2d6/1d8/1d10/1d12" so that all classes are more or less balanced, we can just give everyone 10 reserves and be done with it.

Now, a topic that I brought up in the Discord is the idea of a "TNP version 1.1" which would fall outside of the sequel designs, and be more of "the same" game, as TNP. In particular, one thing I brought up was the (often blogged-about) idea of per-day and per-encounter abilities. So let me break this idea down a bit -- hopefully without re-treading too much ground.

Basically, if the assumption is that "one reserve = one full heal-up" then the idea becomes something like, "if you have [a maximum of] 7 combats per day, you need 7 reserves for healing," meaning any extra reserves can be used to fuel your other class features. The basic idea is that TNP 1.1 would focus around properly implementing this idea.

To wit, a class with 8 reserves (i.e. 2d4 or 1d8 as their reserve calculation) would have 1 extra reserve not needed for healing, each adventuring day; the assumption would be that these classes would have a "once per day" reserve-burning ability. Likewise, a class with 12 reserves (2d6 or 1d12 calculation) might have a "once per encounter" reserve-burning ability.

So maybe the hierarchy ends up looking something like this:

• 8 reserves: 7 for healing + 1 per-day ability
• 10 reserves: 7 for healing + 3 extra healing
• 12 reserves: 7 for healing + 1 per-day ability + 4 extra healing -OR- 7 for healing + 5 for per-encounter abilities

In this case, extra healing might be for the character to top themselves up (if they are a tanky class that is expected to eat more damage than average, and therefore needs more healing) or to spend their own reserves to provide healing for allies -- such as in those situations where monster damage outpaces expectations. I'd like to have a cleaner method, such that the "10 reserve" builds could have more flexibility, but in a "dice determine everything"-paradigm like TNP, I'd rather be limiting these kinds of things to 1/day or 1/encounter, rather than have to somehow use the dice to justify a different limit.

To take things kind of full-circle, this brings into question the "sequel logic" of just having a flat 10 reserves for everyone; as with a few things already so far in these designs, the space for building mechanics around spending reserves for stuff other than healing is effectively lost by going to a flat math model. However, it's important to remember that the TNP "reserve-burning" mechanics are actually an attempt to unify 4th Edition's healing surge resource with (if not its per-encounter resources) its per-day resources. With that in mind, perhaps the solution as it pertains to the sequel designs is to re-adopt something akin to the 4e power progression, whereby (for example) per-encounter powers are gained at odd-numbered levels, and these are what essentially fuel your "d6 pool" features. So, reserves and "reserve-burning" abilities are no longer fueled by a unified mechanic -- but the upshot is that the numbers become easier to flatten out and balance.

...

Alright! So with today's post being on-schedule, the final post of the year should be on December 10th or 12th, as previously planned. Check back then!

Comparing Dice Mechanics (2024)

Continuing on with the ideas behind the planned TNP sequel, I've been giving some thought to how the old mechanics compare and contrast with the new.

By necessity, TNP has 5 different "class dice bonuses" that are all meant to be roughly mathematically balanced with each other; some dice can be added to a hit, a miss, to damage, or some combination of all 3, and the d12 even has its own unique jumble of mechanics.

The idea with the sequel would be to pare this down, so that instead of rolling 5 different dice and "reading the tea leaves" to determine how to assign the bonuses, you might (for example) roll up to 5 d6s, using the highest as an attack bonus, and all of them as a damage bonus. (Another way to do it might be to use one for an attack bonus, and the rest for damage, but I digress.) A couple of problems arise with this.

First, I find it kind of bland, compared to the sort of "emotional rollercoaster" effect you can potentially get from the various class dice bonuses. Secondly, it doesn't really play nice with the idea of "weapon dice" as I've put forth previously. As extra damage, the d6 mechanic works fine, but when it comes to attack bonus, the weapon dice and d6 pool are stepping on each others' toes. The idea behind the weapon dice was to keep the uniqueness of some of the class dice bonuses (in particular, the d8 mechanic of "add to a miss, crit on a tie" as well as the [current d10/proposed d12] mechanic, which is a roll that replaces the d20 result) rather than just have bonuses that are strictly "+math" types of things.

So the question is, to keep the mechanics from overlapping, what do you do?

I think that a purely d20/d6 based system could be interesting, and might have some merit. As I've mentioned before, you could revert skill checks back to d20 rolls from d10, by allowing "attributes" to provide a negative skill rank bonus, instead of always being a minimum of "+1" -- although I generally find this clunkier than the "d6 pool" skill bonuses of TNP. The other problem is, if class dice bonuses are considered the "USP" of The Next Project, then excising weapon dice from the sequel designs would eliminate a significant portion of that DNA.

I'm really of two minds about this. I do think that the current weapon dice model is neat, because of how it streamlines the particular design space from other D&D games, but also adds it to TNP where it didn't really exist before. I also like how it allows the d12 mechanic to really be unique and shine, rather than in the TNP iteration where it is fairly limited and has to fall in line, so to speak. I also don't think it really makes sense to do a rework to the tune of, "it's TNP, but actually d10 isn't a class die anymore."

If that were the case, the combinations would be reduced to 6:

• d4/d6
• d4/d8
• d4/d12
• d6/d8
• d6/d12
• d8/d12

Coincidentally, if we're considering possibly only including 6 classes, that might not be the worst thing... But does it even make sense to have d6 as a "class die" if the "d6 pool" mechanic is going to be the new standard? Or should that standard just be thrown out, in favour of 4 class dice? Does d10 become the generic "extra damage" mechanic, in that case?

I feel like I'm chasing my tail a little bit, but basically there seems to be a bit of a schism forming, within the intended new designs. Should weapon dice just be damage, and let "d6 pool" handle the attack bonus and extra damage function? The reason weapon dice was proffered as an attack bonus to begin with is that the "d20 vs. DC10" standard felt like it wasn't hitting enough -- but only getting an attack bonus when you have a damage bonus (i.e. d6 pool) doesn't feel right, either. One idea I had suggested was, ok, maybe you always use your STR or DEX d6 pool for weapon attacks, but then your class features/special abilities/teamwork bonuses could add d6s to that pool (such as a CHA bonus for Paladins, as an example.) I think there's some merit to that idea, but it comes back to, is the d6 pool mechanic just too bland? It certainly doesn't feel engaging, the way that the class dice mechanic potentially does. Should the whole system use d20/d6, and the attributes be reworked accordingly?

Really what it boils down to is does the "design space" of weapon dice (and hanging onto some vestige of the old "class dice bonuses" in this particular guise) really add something of value? To wit, part of the fun of class dice bonuses is the picking and choosing aspect; weapon dice don't really do this, since you're only ever going to be using one per each attack. Again, the problem is, do you shift to a "weapon die or d6 pool" standard for the attack bonus? It feels sort of clunky and kind of a "worst of both worlds" solution.

Suffice it to say, this is kind of a mental exercise which hasn't led to me any concrete conclusions. But it has given me more of an appreciation for the certain 'it' factor that the TNP mechanics have.

...

A bit of a delay in the scheduling, but expect the next post on October 19th or 20th.

Overview: Class Dice Bonuses (2024)

Recently, I've been giving some thought to how the class dice bonuses work (particularly since finalizing the d12 bonus, in this post which covers the overall topic in great depth.) One thing I was considering is whether "attack and damage" should be the exception or the rule; it turns out those mechanics are kind of split 50/50... At any rate, I figured a big recap of the specific, individual mechanics was warranted. I also want to use this post to try and narrow down what is the most concise way to word the mechanics for each die.

There are a couple of things I should mention first. Since TNP does not use static modifiers (for example, a +3 STR mod or a +2 proficiency bonus, to your attack roll) a total roll of 20 or higher is considered to be a critical hit. This means you can score a crit on a natural 20 on the d20, or by adding to a hit (a d20 roll of 10-19.) Some people are immediately confused by the prospect of some dice bonuses being allowed to be "added to a hit" but this is the reason for that. Similarly, you can add to a miss to improve it to a hit (10-19), which is a bit more intuitive.

As mentioned in the previous post, all class dice bonuses that are not used as the attack bonus are used as a damage bonus. I'm not sure that I've been entirely clear on this point before, so I think it's worth stating here; basically, if there is an exception to this rule, it's that some specific dice can be used as the attack bonus AND as a damage bonus. You can always roll all of the dice bonuses that apply to the attack being made, but you must choose only one of those dice results to be applied as the attack bonus. (Similarly to save bonuses or skills ranks, where you may be able to roll more than one d6, but only apply the highest.) With that out of the way, let's go over each die.

The d4 bonus can be added to either a hit or a miss, and can be used as a damage bonus even if it is used for the attack bonus (i.e. "attack [hit or miss] and damage.") So for example, if the d20 result is a 9, adding a d4 roll (i.e. minimum 1) to it, will turn that miss into a hit; likewise, if the d20 result is a 16, a d4 result of 4 could be used to turn that hit into a critical hit. The special perk for the d4 is that it is treated as having mastery applied to it, but only when used as a damage bonus. This means that if the d4 turns up a 1, it is effectively treated as a +1 to the attack roll, but as a +4 to damage (mastery allows you to treat a 1 as whatever the highest number is, on the die to which mastery is being applied.) So, the d4 bonus provides a small boost to both hit chance and crit chance, as well as a small (but very reliable) damage boost.

The d6 functions similarly to the d4, with the exception that it cannot be used as a damage bonus if it is used as the attack bonus on a roll that would already hit (i.e. if the d6 is used to improve a hit into a crit.) So for example, if the d20 result is a 9, you can use the d6 as the attack bonus and as a damage bonus; if the d20 roll is a 16, you can use the d6 as the attack bonus OR as a damage bonus -- not both. The shorthand I tend to use to think of this is "miss and damage; hit or damage."

The d8 is more straightforwardly "miss or damage." On a hit, the d8 can only be used as a damage bonus; on a miss, the d8 can be added to the d20 result to possibly improve it to a hit. The special perk for the d8 is that if the d8 result and the d20 result are a tie (i.e. the d20 rolls a miss, on the numbers 1 through 8), you can treat the attack as a critical hit; since this perk is considered to be the attack bonus, you cannot use the d8 for a damage bonus if you do so -- the d8 can never be used for both attack and damage. I've always thought of the d8 bonus as sort of "raising the floor" in terms of hit chance.

The d10 bonus in this paradigm is "hit or damage" -- it can either be used to improve a hit into a crit, or it must be used as a damage bonus, only. Since this was found to be just slightly low in terms of the average damage boost, the d10 was given the special perk that (as the attack bonus) the d10 result can be used in place of the d20 result. What this means is that a roll of 10 on the d10 can be used to turn a miss into a hit; essentially, this is a flat 10% chance to improve a miss into a hit. Broadly speaking, though, the function of the d10 is to improve crit chance while offering a large boost to damage.

The d12 is essentially "hit and damage." As was mentioned in the previous post (linked above) the d12 has been given a special attack bonus function, whereby it improves all extra damage dice by treating them as having rolled their maximum result. (For this reason, if this attack bonus is used, the extra damage dice should not be rolled, to prevent mixing them up with the base damage dice, and potentially applying this bonus incorrectly.) Now, the d12 bonus is allowed to be used as damage in addition to providing this benefit, but since this special benefit counts as the attack bonus no other dice may be used as the attack bonus, when and if this benefit is applied. To wit, this means that the attack has to hit on its own merit, or the special benefit couldn't be applied to the extra damage. As an additional benefit, whenever the d12 is used as a damage bonus and the attack is a critical hit, the d12 is treated as having rolled its maximum result; this means that it pairs well with bonuses that potentially increase crit chance.

...

Now, the reason that these attack bonuses exist, is because I felt that TNP really needed its own "unique sales proposition" to really set it apart from other systems -- compared to previous iterations, where TNP leaned heavily into the 'advantage' mechanic. I like that by structuring things this way, the attack bonuses are never wasted, on a a hit -- since they can then be translated into damage instead.

It's worth mentioning here, that all class dice bonuses are rolled at the same time as the attack roll. This allows the players to see the potential results of applying one attack bonus vs. another, without the mess having to choose which bonus you're aiming for, and then hoping to roll it. This has the effect of speeding up gameplay; basically, if you miss, you're looking for the smallest bonus that turns it into a hit, and if you hit, you're likewise trying to see if you can turn it into a crit. There really isn't any gambling involved, but the randomness of the dice will present different options depending on the outcomes.

Another interesting quirk of the system is how I've chosen to impliment "combat mastery." Since in 4e D&D, combat advantage was a straight +2 to hit, I wanted something that mimicked this kind of bonus. Simply applying mastery to the d20 would mathematically translate to about a +1 to hit... but it only actually did anything if you rolled a 1. This seemed a little underwhelming, to say the least. As such, combat mastery was expanded to include the attack bonus die; in most cases, this works out to roughly an additional +1 to hit. Doing this means that, for example, a 1 on the d10 bonus can be used to turn a miss into a hit (increasing that 10% miss improvement chance to 20%) while also increasing the ability of the other dice to improve misses into hits (d4, d6, d8), or hits into crits (d4, d6, d10.)

In light of this, since the d12 doesn't gain a benefit from combat mastery (since the number on the d12 result can't be used to manipulate the total of the attack roll) it might make sense as an additional benefit to have combat mastery apply to the d12 bonus as a damage roll... hopefully that wouldn't be too confusing to keep track of.

The Conundrum of Class Dice Bonuses

Since the summer break, I've been trying to figure out a solution to the problem with the d12 bonus. What it comes down to is that because d12 is such a large damage bonus, it has to be a relatively small attack bonus, in order for the DPR to be balanced against the other (smaller) dice bonuses -- to wit, in the current iterations, the d12 does not provide an attack bonus at all. This creates a problem, because it does not bestow the multiplicative effect to "extra damage" that dice bonuses with an attack bonus offer. I came up with a fix, but in the process I realized I should also clean up some of the nomenclature a bit.

Class dice bonuses are bonuses to attacks, which use class dice; they can be bonuses to attack rolls and/or to damage rolls. When used as a bonus to an attack roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as an attack bonus, and when used as a bonus to a damage (i.e. base damage) roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as a damage bonus (or bonus damage, depending on grammatical considerations.) Extra damage is something entirely separate from bonus damage; extra damage is only ever represented by d6s and/or d10s, can only be used for damage (not for attack bonus), and is in addition to both base damage and bonus damage.

Now, it's important to remember that while all 5 of the class dice bonuses may be applied to a given attack, only one may be used as an attack bonus -- and you can choose which one to use, after rolling all bonuses. Some of the class dice bonuses have special functions that work "as an attack bonus," meaning that in order to benefit from said bonus, no other attack bonus may be applied. Specifically, the d8 bonus when it ties the attack roll (d20), or using the d10 roll in place of the d20 (i.e. a 10 on the d10 being used to make a hit.) Remember this for later.

The general rule is that a class dice bonus can be used for an attack bonus OR a damage bonus, but not both -- however, there are exceptions (which is partly why to simplify things, one of the reworks I was considering was to just allow all dice to be used for attack bonus AND damage bonus.)

As I had said from the top, the d12 bonus:
a) does not have an attack bonus component, and;
b) does not properly scale with extra damage dice

So how do we fix this? Well, what I've come up with is this:
"As an attack bonus, the d12 bonus allows all extra damage dice to be treated as having rolled their maximum value."

Essentially what this does, is take the base hit chance (50%) and crit chance (5%) without an attack bonus (or, when applying the d12 bonus, which has no attack bonus component) and instead of multiplying those chances by the random roll of the extra damage dice, you're multiplying them by the maximum value of the extra damage dice. The result is that the extra damage scales up, more in line with the other class dice bonuses.

As mentioned in a previous post, since each class dice bonus (with a base damage of 1d8) produces a DPR of about 7.3 we then need the extra damage dice to work out to at least another 16.7 DPR, in order to hit our "1 KPR" number of 24 DPR. By using the d12 bonus this way, we're multiplying the maximum value of 5d6 or 3d10 by 50% (hit) and taking double that amount, multplied by 5% (crit):

(30 * 50% = 15) + (60 * 5% = 3) = 18

So this means that with the d12 bonus in play, the DPR from extra damage can be increased to 18, finally putting it just about on par with the other bonuses.

Now, this may seem a bit unintuitive and weird, since objectively the roll of the d12 is doing nothing to provide the actual attack bonus. But we do need to treat it as an attack bonus, to keep other attack bonuses from being applied in addition to this one. Since the ~7.3 DPR from the d12 bonus comes entirely from damage, this also means that the rule for the d12 bonus must be that it can be used for attack AND damage, in order for this math to work out.

Essentially, I think of attack bonus and damage bonus more and more like two separate buckets, that can each be filled in specific, different ways. Attack bonus is more like a "typed" bonus, in the sense that, for example, a "feat bonus" to attack can be stacked with a "power bonus" to attack, and a "circumstance bonus" to attack... but not with another "feat bonus" to attack; if every class dice bonus to attack is considered a "feat bonus", then only the highest/best would apply. Bonus damage is more like an untyped bonus; all of them can be stacked (unless they specifically don't apply, such as when using one for an attack bonus prohibits using it as a damage bonus.)

...

Anyway, hopefully that doesn't muddy the waters too much; it was the simplest fix to the class dice problem, short of reworking the whole scheme from scratch.

Next post should be up on October 30th, so check back then!

Role Mechanics (2023)

I'll begin this post with a bit of a disclaimer. As touched on in the overview of subclasses and categories, not all classes will have "roles" (in terms of the TNP mechanic) while some classes will have roles baked in as part of their subclass and/or specialization. That being said, I'm going to touch on what I would consider to be role mechanics, even if a given class does not necessarily derive those mechanics from a role.

Perhaps it'd be best to start off by qualifying what a role is, in TNP. In earlier drafts, it was usually referred to as a "combat role" and (in short) it was a feature or set of mechanics that helped a class to fulfil a particular job or play-style, during combat. The most obvious example is whether a Fighter is going to be playing the "tank" or the "DPS" in a given encounter. Classes which have the option to select a role at the start of combat (i.e when initiative is rolled) will typically get one role at 1st level, with the ability to gain more roles as they progress.

If we look back to 4th Edition D&D (and particularly, pre-Essentials) a class was quite clearly defined as the intersection of one role with one power source; the Paladin was a Divine Defender, while the Fighter was a Martial Defender. The roles included defender (i.e. tank), leader (i.e. healer), striker (i.e. DPS), and controller. (Probably worth mentioning that I've heard cases of people having weird hangups with the term "leader" -- such as assuming that those were the only classes allowed to lead the party.) As 4e progressed into Essentials, the striker role became more gated towards melee, while ranged characters were funnelled into the controller role. At any rate, TNP follows more or less the same formula, with a few wrinkles.

Support
First, in TNP the leader role is generally referred to as "Support" to avoid the aforementioned hangups. The core support mechanic is restoring HP -- typically referred to as "inspiring" allies, rather than explicitly healing them; this has to do with HP being an abstraction more generally, but also specifically with not wanting HP restoration to necessarily have to be miraculous or magical, in any way. Whereas 4e D&D would grant classes with this role a twice per encounter healing ability, I've gone in the direction of "once per ally, per encounter" so that it scales to party size a little bit better. Generally speaking, this HP restoration will not cost reserves, instead using dice mechanics. We kind of want the amount of HP restored to be in that 2d4 to 2d6 ballpark, so depending on the class using the ability, the healing may be keyed off of their own class dice, or use the higher of their dice roll or the target's dice roll. Many support classes will be able to use this ability as a minor action, or as a standard actions with some additional benefit.

Example classes: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Druid, Adventurer (Skald), Guardian (Shaman)

Striker
Just as the striker role in 4e split off into ranged and melee variants (and I've often argued this was how a party of 5 was meant to be rounded out, within a paradigm of only 4 roles) TNP generally does the same. More specifically, the ranged striker role tends to lean towards d6 classes, while the melee striker role tends to be d10 classes. However, as mentioned in earlier posts, the "2d6" ethos allows for tanky (i.e. melee) characters, so this is by no means a strict rule. The reason for going with d6 and d10 as the "striker dice" is because d6 is so ubiquitous, it makes it an obvious choice to use for stacking multiple damage dice; likewise, a standard polyhedral dice set usually contains percentile dice (effectively, two d10s) and sets of multiple d10s (often used in RPGs such as the World of Darkness) have also become commonplace. The other reason for selecting these dice, is that there's actually a pretty obvious cap/balance point: 5d6 or 3d10, both producing a maximum of 30.
Again, while some characters will be strikers by virtue of it being a role option for their class, it'll be baked into some classes in other ways as well.

Example Classes: Fighter (d6, d12), Cleric (d4, d10), Paladin (d6, d10), Rogue (d6), Occultist (d10), Guardian (d4, d6), Adventurer (d6, d8) Ranger (d8, d10), Barbarian (d10, d12)

Defender
While 4e used marking mechanics, Essentials moved to the "defender aura" mechanic. As you might have guessed, TNP leans towards the latter, with a bit of the former sprinkled in as well. The drawback to the aura system is that forced movement can mitigate it to a great extent; a marking mechanic that does not require adjacency can potentially allow for punishments to be dealt from a distance (probably best demonstrated by the Paladin in 4e, but also the Swordmage.) To augment the mark-and-punishment mechanics, generally defenders in TNP will have beefed up "opportunity damage" expressions. There are also some incentivizing mechanics (i.e. encouraging enemies to target the defender and/or discouraging them from targeting others, using bonuses or penalties, respectively.) Another key defender mechanic is allowing them to make opportunity attacks whenever an enemy attempts to move away, including by methods which would normally not provoke such attacks.

Example Classes: Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, Spellbinder (Swordmage), Guardian (Warden), Barbarian

Controller
Often somewhat nebulous, and eluding a comprehensive or simple definition in 4e, this role is likewise broad in TNP. These classes will definitely do the bulk of the status effects / conditions (whereas such riders could be found within nearly any role, in 4e) as well as doing area attacks, and (specific to TNP) performing the role of summoning/controlling other creatures.

Example Classes: Acrobat, Cleric (Invoker), Warlord, Sage (Wizard), Rogue (Sorcerer), Occultist, Spellbinder (Hexblade), Druid (Summoner), Adventurer, Ranger

---

Hopefully that all helps to provide a better overview of how classes can be expected to operate in combat. If you have any suggestions for blog topics, please comment below (or wherever you get your links to the blog.) Next post is due April 15th.

Balancing Act (2018)

One of the distinctive features of The Next Project is the lack of a magic subsystem, and I wanted to touch on that a bit, today.

When we look at editions of D&D that use the "3.x" style of spellcasting, what becomes immediately apparent is that the classes are split into "haves" and "have nots." Ultimately, spellcasting classes are interacting with an extra layer of design -- they gain additional resource management, but also have much greater breadth of abilities.

So what do spells typically end up doing, in practicality? In short, you use them for both combat and non-combat, and generally what you're doing with them is spending limited resources to exceed baseline expectations. You can make an area attack to deal more damage than a single weapon swing, to more targets, or you can use it to overcome an obstacle -- whether that be in social encounters or in exploration. You can cast Knock to open a locked door, or cast Charm Person to get past the guard, or sway the regent, or whathaveyou. Generally when you're targeting a creature, there is a save involved, but a lot of times spells "just work" -- you're spending a limited resource, so the game doesn't make you roll.

Now, that being said, you still (as a spellcaster) have the option to not use these resources; you can swing your weapon all day, and you can try and use skill checks to get past non-combat encounters. This was sort of a problem I ran into with the Backgrounds in 5th Edition; they're a great starting point for giving characters declarative power, but everyone gets them. Spellcasters are still operating in a completely different design space than non-casters, while at the same time overlapping everything that the non-casters can do.

What I wanted to do with this game, is to even that all out: classes have their unique features for combat, and non-combat is handled using skills. That's it. We don't need magic as another layer of design that just duplicates things that are already covered; instead, it's used as a method of applying theme or flavour, to how a particular class handles combat or uses skills. We also don't want to be trying to balance off combat and non-combat utility against one another -- a classic "apples and oranges" analogy -- which is why the combat and non-combat aspects of characters are siloed off from one another, and why resource management is kept very minimal, in the game's overall designs.

This also avoids the pitfalls of having the spellcasting classes be the most versatile, powerful, and influential -- a feat which I think was one of 4th Editions greatest successes. As I've said before, the focus on teamwork meant that classes had to be designed to contribute meaningfully, and on about an even par with one another. What this allows the player to do, is to pick the class that most closely approximates the character that they have in mind, learn the ins and outs of that class, and just play -- secure in the knowledge that they haven't made a false choice, will under-perform, and feel like dead weight, bringing the rest of the party down. Balancing classes is important for enabling players to enjoy the game, by helping them to fully realize their character concepts.

Now, the problem with flattening the power curve, is that it is possible for classes to either look (on paper) or feel (in actual play) very similar to one another. This is where I think the design of TNP has the potential to execute better than some of its predecessors, because of class dice. In order for parity to be maintained, a party of 5 characters -- all operating off of different dice -- necessitates each class having unique and different mechanics. Admittedly, this requires a lot of number-crunching by the designer (me) in order to ensure each class can contribute equally. But overall, I think it's a meaningful goal to have, and one that helps guide much of the design process.


---


This sort of touches on one of the snags that have hit the class designs a bit. Trying to emulate D&D-style fantasy classes can mean dealing with some classes that have too much design space, and others that have too little. In most cases with this project, I've had an easier time of reigning in bloated classes, than in expanding classes that are a bit too narrow in focus. The one that always comes to mind in this regard is the Acrobat, and I'm hoping I can find a satisfactory solution for this class, as well as others.

In the near future, I'm hoping I can crank out a minor revision of the current playtest rules, but I also want to finish up a few more classes -- and make some of the needed changes to the new class format and leveling systems.


---


Next post should be on September 9th, so check back then!

Design Origins -- Part 2: Class Dice

Continuing on from where "Part 1" left off, today I'm going to talk about something I consider to be the defining characteristic of The Next Project: Class Dice.


The Previous Project
As I touched on last time, to a greater or lesser extent, TNP evolved out of the previous RPG that I had written. That system was defined by using only the d6 and d10, for all of its mechanics. In discussion and in playtesting, people found it unintuitive; it essentially functioned as a d20-style system, but with 1d6+1d10 as your "action" die. The main "selling point" of this particular dice gimmick simply wasn't compelling enough.

The game also suffered from being more of a "point-buy" style of character assembly, with only the thinnest of fantasy trappings applied. Players sort of had to take the jumble of mechanics and create their own "skin" for what sort of character their "class" was supposed to be. The game just failed to click with people, on an emotional or psychological level.


Paradigm Shift
So for my next project, I knew that I wanted to do something more recognizable -- something class-based. I had also basically settled on using the d20 for the "action" die; whenever you make an attack or a skill check, just roll the d20. You may need to modify it, after making the roll (i.e. by adding static modifiers or additional dice to the roll, or rerolling using Advantage/Disadvantage) but I knew I wanted something straightforward, and easier to tinker with than 1d6+1d10 had been.

However, I still wanted to retain some of the sense of "these two dice are all you need" that the previous game had brought to the table. Somewhere in an internet discussion about purchasing extra dice, it was pointed out that buying the sets of polyhedral dice (with 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, the "percentile" dice, and 1d12) was sort of a waste, since the d4 and d12 are so rarely used, particularly prior to 5th Edition coming out (which was when this discussion took place.)

That was where my mind sort of made a connection.

Instead of having the entire system function around the same two dice, use the d20 for the core mechanics, and the other die-shapes for the class mechanics.

This was something I really liked, from a tactile perspective: a table of players with just one or two sets of polyhedral dice could/should be able to play an entire party of characters. The idea of using dice rolls for bonuses was also something I liked from 5th Edition, as I wanted to remove any redundant or fiddly modifiers.


Credit where credit is due
Games such as Dungeon World and 13th Age sort of influenced this design ethos, with the former using damage dice as a class-based mechanic, and the latter having the combination of class and weapon "group" determine the damage die to use -- Rogues do better damage with daggers and shortswords, whereas Fighters get the most out of a greatsword or greataxe.

The idea, then, was to figure out which classes each of the dice would represent.


The Original Slate
As mentioned in the last post, from the outset, the first slate of 5 classes was probably going to include some combination of these classes:

• Bard
• Rogue
• Barbarian
• Ranger
• Fighter
• Monk
• Paladin

In 4th Edition D&D, the numerical stats for classes are generally just reverse-engineered from the baselines established within the mathematical framework -- there's nothing really flavourful about them. So I went back to D&D 3.5 for inspiration.

If you think of a Wizard in 3.5, they have a d4 for their hit die, they generally will have a dagger or darts for their backup weapons (using d4 for damage) and one of their iconic spells is Magic Missile (also using d4 for damage.)

Similarly, when you think back to Rogues, one of their iconic abilities is the stacking of d6s for sneak attack damage -- conveniently, they also used d6 for their hit die, in 3.5! The same kind of thinking went into the Ranger (d8 hit die, d8 weapons such as longswords and longbows) as well as the Paladin (d10) and the Barbarian (d12)

I wanted this first slate to be as quintessential as possible, which is why I went with the 5 classes I did: Mage, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian.


Growing the Roster
A similar process was undertaken when designing additional classes, in order to expand to a 2nd and 3rd slate. In some cases d4 and d6 were used to mimic the d8 and d12, giving those dice some additional design space to muddle in:
 - Monk was designed as a "1d4" class, with the Archer as a "2d4" class (and later the two would start to blend together, in the Acrobat.)
 - As a class that would gain HP by shapeshifting, it made sense to slot Druid in at a d4, adding one extra die to its HP in "cat" form, and double that for "bear" form.
 - When the Fighter finally became a d6 class, it was so that it could simulate both dual wielding (shortswords,) archery (shortbow,) or two-handed weapons (greatsword,) to showcase it as the "weapon master" style of class. Doubling the d6 for their HP helps to slot them into the frontline "warrior" space.

Having a Warlock (with a d10 Eldritch Blast as its iconic ability) also helped push me towards mixing things up a bit, instead of having every d10 class be melee-focused. Conversely, the need for a "heavy mage" made d12 the obvious slot for the Spellbinder.


From there, most other classes just sort of fell into place, to flesh out the three slates:

• Warlord as the "heavy martial" made for a nice d12 class, for the 2nd slate
• a fireballing Sorcerer for d6 -- almost a no-brainer
• Bard and Cleric at d8 (as the support classes) seemed the right fit for dabbling in both melee and ranged combat, without being the strongest at either.
• Adventurer as a two-weapon, melee fighter made sense for d10
• Guardian with a "2d6" melee subclass (Warden) and a "1d6" caster subclass (Shaman) seemed the right fit

-----

Next Post

Check back April 4th for the next update; hopefully by then, I will have at least a playtest-ready version of the rules document compiled, to share.

Constitution -- Part 2: Hit Points and Attributes (2018)

Today I'm going to quickly talk about HP, as well as the concept of Constitution as an "ability score" or "attribute" as it relates to TNP.


Attributes & Skills
In earlier designs, knowledge skills and performance skills were tied to attributes, the same way all core skills are; much like 4th Edition D&D, knowledge skills such as Arcana, History, and Religion were tied to Intelligence, whereas Nature and Dungeoneering were tied to Wisdom. Now, as I've mentioned before, I wanted classes that typically got Heal (or its equivalent) as a class skill, to actually be good at it -- namely, by tying it to an attribute they would likewise be good at. The idea I had was to move it from being a Wisdom skill, to a Constitution skill; since Heal sort of deals with the health and durability of characters, it wasn't that big a leap in logic to use an attribute that deals in the same things.

I quite liked this solution, at least for this one specific attribute. For the other attributes, it sort of devolved into the same problem that 4e had, where classes that were "supposed" to have high Intelligence end up being better with the Religion skill than classes that were supposed to be religious. Eventually, I decided to pull Knowledge skills away from being a Skillset (with individual skills being the intersection of that Skillset, and one attribute.) With the 2018 Edition of the game, I am going to be likewise removing performance skills from the structure of core skills.

Originally, I had Fortitude as sort of a combined Strength/Constitution attribute, but it began to make less and less sense in my head. Having "Constitution" as the key attribute for performance skills such as singing or playing a wind instrument at first seemed fine, but it ended up pigeonholing classes a little too much -- particularly for something that is meant as more flavour than mechanics. The end result is we can use the term "Strength" instead (and have it be straightforwardly combat-focused) without having to worry about it tying to background skills.


Hit Point Calculations
In terms of HP, in the earlier versions, it was simply a function of your class die. It started out with having your maximum HP be something like, "roll your class die with Advantage and Expertise," and that would be the amount of HP you had. You could also re-roll it at the start of every adventuring day -- sort of to reflect the benefits of a long rest, but also potentially the negative results of a poor rest. 5th Edition D&D similarly leans towards the low end for HP (at first level) so I kind of wanted to take a similar approach -- but to implement and execute it better, within the structures I was writing for my system.

As such, monster damage was made to be very low (typically only 1 or 2 points per "hit") which sort of handcuffed the design. It also meant that a player who rolled poorly could be taken out of a fight easily, particularly if they were focus-fired; even if they weren't "dropped," being at your last Hit Point meant you had to play very defensively. This was particularly true, given that there were not many healing options available to the "original slate" of classes. (Indeed, for quite a while there, I had not intended to have "combat healing" in the game at all.)

My first thought in trying to alleviate this problem was to simply use "maximum value of your class die" for your HP. However, it was quickly pointed out that having d12 classes get triple the HP of d4 classes would be problematic. It proved to be difficult to balance around, and made encounter- and monster-design more unreliable. So eventually, in the Beta 4 version of the rules, the HP calculation became "maximum value of your Basic Roll," i.e. 20 (the maximum value of a d20 roll) + 4/6/8/10/12 (the maximum value of your Class Die.)

Why I like this, is because it keeps with the game's ethos of having everything derive from the dice. What gives it some mechanical validity, is when we compare it to how 4th Edition D&D handles HP, at first level. I went and delved into this math, to see how it stacked up to the new formula for TNP.

In 4e, your HP was composed of your Constitution score, as well as a static value provided by the role of your class. Now, since I didn't want to have ability scores (nor did I want modifiers seemingly drawn from the ether) I couldn't just copy+paste over this solution, hence the need to come up with my own formula.

Your starting ability scores in 4e range from 8 to 20; typically, Constitution would not be lower than 10, but also rarely higher than 15 or 16 (again, at 1st level.) As for roles, Defenders would start with 15 HP, Leaders and Strikers with 12, and Controllers with 10 -- in addition to HP equal to their Constitution score. (Some classes would get bigger bonuses to HP; off the top of my head, Barbarian gets more than the baseline for a Striker. But this is the exception, rather than the rule.)

This gives us a practical range of about 20-30 HP, with the extremes of 18 and 35 still being in the realm of possibility. So with the "max Basic Roll" equation for TNP producing a range of 24-32 HP, it seems like a perfect fit. Narrower HP ranges allow for our monsters to pack a similar punch, no matter which party member they target -- making it so that their design can be simpler, and also less reliant on DMs "pulling punches" to make sure combat feels fair.


Appendix
As I touched on in the previous post, I don't intend to tinker with HP values, for the new draft of the rules. I also mentioned that "doubling" the HP you get from your class die would be a feature for certain classes/subclasses. Generally speaking, I think this will be the tack to take for the melee subclass within certain d4 and d6 classes (for example, the "Monk" subclass for Sage, and the "Martial Artist" subclass for Acrobat.)


Next post will probably touch on some recent changes to Power Sources -- unless I get any amount of strong requests for more deep-dives into the subject of Constitution. Check back on March 3rd for more!

Constitution -- Part 1: Reserves (2018)

I've been meaning to give this little subsystem a good old-fashioned number crunching for a while now, so that will be the topic of today's post.

When I first set about implementing Reserves into the designs, one of the basic intents was to provide a structure for the length of an "adventuring day." Essentially, when you run out of Reserves, you need to take a rest and replenish them, in order to continue adventuring. As with most things in TNP, I wanted to use Class Dice in some sort of permutation, to dole out Reserves. Using 4th Edition as a comparison -- 6 to 10 Healing Surges as a base (depending on your class) plus your Constitution modifier -- the easiest way to approximate that range of numbers was simply "maximum value of your Class Die."

I also wanted to have Reserves be closer to a full heal-up. I liked how 4th Edition's handling of bloodied value and surge value worked, but just as a matter of personal taste, I wanted to avoid any division or rounding in my designs (even though HP values in TNP are a lot easier to work with, in that regard.) Subsequently, I came up with the idea of having "maximum Class Die value" as effectively being your "surge value" in the sense that it was the guaranteed amount of HP you would regain from spending a Reserve. Using a d20 roll meant that this mechanic now had a ceiling, to go with its floor.

So with the onset of the 2018 Edition of the game, I figured the rules surrounding Reserves needed a closer look. Since most of the playtests only lasted a few encounters (rather than a whole adventuring day) it made sense to check the math, and ensure Reserves were of roughly equal utility between the various Class Dice. I had already figured out early on that d12 classes would need other things to spend reserves on (since they got so many) but I also had a feeling that d4 classes would not have enough "healing."

Many gamers' experience with the shortcomings of Hit Dice in 5th Edition D&D has pointed some in the direction that out-of-combat HP restoration should essentially come in the form of a pool of HP you can draw from -- and that this amount should be roughly equal for all classes. I started to look at Reserves from that angle, and crunched out how much HP you're actually able to get from spending one:

• d4 -- 4 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 16-80 HP
• d6 -- 6 reserves, 6-20 HP restored per = 36-120 HP
• d8 -- 8 reserves, 8-20 HP restored per = 64-160 HP
• d10 -- 10 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 100-200 HP
• d12 -- 12 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 144-240 HP

As you can see from the numbers above, there is a wide gap in the utility of Reserves, depending on your class die. So, taking that into account, I set about trying to narrow the ranges a bit. The precedent of d4 or d6 classes doubling their maximum Class Die value for both their number of daily reserves and for minimum HP recovery already exists as features for some classes/subclasses, so I decided to work from there. After looking at the numbers a few times, doubling the number of reserves for d4 classes and doubling the minimum recovery for d6 classes appears to be the way to go.

Also, if we assume an adventuring day consists of 5 encounters, and that our d12 classes will take advantage of their reserve-burning abilities in each of those, they will effectively have 7 reserves to spend on healing, per adventuring day. Similarly, we probably need to ensure d10 classes have something they can spend reserves on in combat, a few times per adventuring day; for the sake of this exercise, we'll assume it's used 3 times.

With all of these ideas implemented, we get this:

• d4 -- 8 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 32-160 HP
• d6 -- 6 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 72-120 HP
• d8 -- 8 reserves, 8-20 HP restored per = 64-160 HP
• d10 -- 7 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 70-140 HP
• d12 -- 7 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 84-140 HP

The ranges are much narrower now. We also still have the design space of "double reserves" for d6 classes and "double minimum HP recovery" for d4 classes, both available for use as class features. Also, since the amount healed skews towards the minimum, the average "daily" HP recovery for each die being used ends up being very close.

Now, I should point out that this is essentially intended (more or less) as a balanced control from which to do playtesting. It may turn out that d4 classes have enough defensive tools that they don't need to also have an equal amount of HP recovery available to them; likewise, classes with higher maximum HP values may need bigger reserves to keep themselves topped up. If these changes are found not to be needed, then we have the previous iterations to fall back on.


---

So for the next post in the "Constitution" series, I'm going to talk a bit about HP -- where the numbers come from, how this compares to other games, etc. I also will touch on "Constitution as an Attribute" a bit, and why it hasn't figured into the designs (and some times when it did.) Overall, it will be sort of a hybrid "retrospective" post; there's not much that I expect to change regarding HP in the upcoming rules draft.

Once February is over, I'm hoping to get some more design work done, and the blog content should reflect that; I don't expect to talk about "Constitution" for more than these two posts.

Check back February 20th!

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!

Laying the Foundations (Beta 4)

One of the ideas I have been kicking around for a while, is to do a "level 0" setup, for beginners to get into the game system. The idea would be that you pick a Class Die, plus one power source and skillset (maybe?) and play a couple of encounters, before settling on a full-blown class to play.

To facilitate this, I want the damage to be roughly balanced, but it would probably have to be less than that of a full class. As a matter of course, kicking this idea around while still working on the damage math, the two ideas have sort of cross-pollinated with each other.

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, light weapons (those suitable for two-weapon fighting) are exclusively d4 or d6 weapons. In The Next Project (where the damage is a bit higher, and all classes are expected to have the ability to hit more than one target in a turn) it probably makes sense that d4 and d6 classes should be able to attack more often. When we look at the current d4 classes, I've had to add some attacks just to keep the damage up; with the d6 classes, I'm noticing it leans heavily towards single-target attacking for some loadouts, so that might be something I'll have to dig into.

The logical starting point for figuring out the damage for "level 0" characters is to start with the math for their full-class counterparts, and hack off one Class die, starting with the d12. So, I'm looking at this as a baseline to tweak from:

• d4: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); you deal 2d4 damage when you use this attack as a Standard Action. You can also make this type of attack as a Minor Action, dealing 1d4 damage.
• d6: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You can also make this type of attack as a Standard Action or Minor Action.
• d8: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You have Advantage on the damage rolls of this type of attack.
• d10: You have Expertise on damage rolls.
• d12: You have Disadvantage on ranged damage rolls.

---

In terms of the DM advice areas of the rules, the groundwork is already in place for what sort of shape an "adventuring day" will take.

Classes have between 4 and 12 reserves. In terms of design space, reserves fulfill the same role as Healing Surges in 4th Edition D&D, however, classes in 4e have between 6 and 10 surges (plus your CON modifier.) To help try and bridge the gap, classes on the higher end of that scale in TNP tend to have abilities that can burn reserves for other uses in combat, whereas those with fewer reserves tend to have abilities to mitigate damage. In addition, Reserves provide more healing per use -- typically a full heal.

All that being taken into account, we get a framework that should roughly line up with that of 4th Edition -- specifically, to aim for around 4-6 encounters per day. Encounters per day and reserves per day might both have to be adjusted after some playtesting, but I think it's a good enough place to start from.

The important thing to keep in mind is that an adventuring day is not a literal time-based day, nor should it end when your gaming session ends. If an adventuring day spans more than one session, it should be considered a "two-part episode" in much the way TV series often do (even when a series usually conforms to "one-shots.") As such, I am considering alternate names for "adventuring day," such as "chapter."

---

For monster math, the baselines for PC damage have been established, so it is a simple matter of reverse-engineering from there. If we expect PCs to deal 15 DPR (or 3 hit dice of damage) on average, then in order to facilitate 3-round combat, an encounter should include 45 HP (or 9 HD) worth of enemies per PC participant. We can round these numbers off for simplicity -- 50 HP or 10 HD -- if we want something easy to remember.

Likewise, if the PCs have between 24 and 32 HP, and our objective is to reduce their HP by about half each encounter, then it makes sense to have standard monsters do 4-6 DPR over a 3-round combat. Assuming the PCs only successfully defend 50% of the time, this works out to about 10 damage for each standard monster's turn.

I think when class abilities come to bear, playtesting will show that the PCs are a bit heartier both in terms of damage and defense. As such, I'm betting that enemies will have to be adjusted "up" based on playtest feedback, but that should be easy enough to do.

Fifty Days of Design (Beta 4)

Another quick post to announce my latest plans:

10 classes in 50 days!

 As of right now, these classes are what I would call "done":

• Acrobat (d4)
• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Paladin (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

So, over the next 50 days, I'm looking to finish up the final 10 classes, each with 2 archetypes:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue (d6)
• Scout (d6)
• Cleric (d8)
• Bard (d8)
• Ranger (d8)
• Mystic (d10)
• Guardian (d10)
• Warlord (d12)
• Spellbinder (d12)

Since I am trying to post every 10 days, that works out to 2 classes for each blog post!

Some of the classes are in a more complete state than others (specifically, those from previous iterations mostly just need some tweaking) so it's not as huge a feat in some cases.

...

As a minor note, Knowledge skills have finally been moved away from the structure of other skills, in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner in terms of the language used for them. Knowledge skills will fall into 4 categories: Battlefield, Social, Exploration, and Lore.

Also, if you haven't had a look at the core rules yet, check them out here!

Classes & Slates (Beta 4)

Towards the tail end of Beta 3, the first two slates of classes were finalized, with two classes for each Class Die. That looked like this:

• d4: Mage, Monk
• d6: Rogue, Trickster
• d8: Ranger, Druid
• d10: Paladin, Mystic
• d12: Warrior, Warlord

Now, each class had at least 2 archetypes. Sometimes archetypes were "Roles" and other times they were subclasses. In some instances, archetypes served to put classes with similar fluff and skillsets together, despite having different mechanics.

The other notable thing is that there was a distinct split between the two slates; the first was mostly fighty-types, and the second was mostly magic-users. So the idea came to me that I should try and have a slate of "martial" and a slate of "magical" (a slate being one of each Class Die.) The problem comes with the fact that in the d12 slot, there were two very decidedly-martial classes, and that shortly after finishing the first 10 classes, I came up with an 11th (the Archer, a d4 class.)

The solution was to try and have more slates:

Monk and Paladin would be the beginnings of the Divine slate.

Druid and Warrior would be put into the Primal slate.

Archer, Rogue, Ranger, and Warlord would just about make a complete Martial slate.

Mage, Trickster, and Mystic would likewise form a strong base for the Arcane slate.

This presents the problem of trying to "fill in the grid."

What does a d12 Arcane class look like?

Should archetypes that are 'mechanically' closest to being their own class, be split off? Or should it be archetypes that better fit a slate thematically, that get moved over (even if this results in 2 or more classes with very similar mechanics?)

Another concern is that abilities were already starting to get borrowed between the first 10 classes, so expanding that out further might just serve to compound that problem.

Instead of focusing on making full slates thematically, it might be better to simply fill slates mechanically -- such that each class die has the same number of character options to choose from.

Doubling Down (Beta 4)

It was pointed out that rolling twice should be something that was highlighted in the rules a bit more, so that's going to be presented a bit more "front and centre" in the upcoming draft. I'm also working to make these rules more concise and formal; generally you won't roll more than 2 of the same die as part of any action.

Furthermore, with the Beta 3 changes to HP and the introduction of Reserves, I've found a few more knobs to fiddle with. Pertaining specifically to d4 and d6 classes, you can expect to see some double-dipping on class die, as follows:

• Basic Attacks: for some classes, these will deal 2 dice of damage, based on their area of specialty (as seen previously with the Archer as a ranged example, and the Swordmage for melee)
• Base HP and Reserves: expect classes that are focused on melee/taking a beating to have their class die values doubled, when calculating HP and Reserves

As you might guess, this blows the design possibilities for d4 and d6 classes wide open. However, a 2d4 class apes a d8 class, and a 2d6 class apes a d12 class. This is a positive development though, since it allows me to scale certain classes up or down, and thus better slot in the new classes that are on the drawing board.

In particular, I'm considering scaling the Druid down from d8; it might work as a d6 class, or a d4 class that gains its doubling perks while shapeshifted. Or, perhaps the Shaman archetype could be split off as a d4 class, since the Mage has shown us that it can be a good die for support and enabling. Similarly, an Invoker class that burns Reserves to fuel their combat effects might not work with just 4 or 6 Reserves at their disposal; doubling that amount, but keeping them as a smaller-die class could prove interesting.

I have already put a fair share of work into a d6 Fighter, that would be separate from the d12 Warrior class (which will likely change back to being named 'Barbarian'.)