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!

Overview: Subclasses & Categories (2023)

Thinking about it recently, I realized that the classes and subclasses (which are included in/planned for TNP) isn't something I've laid out succinctly, or in detail -- probably since the current slates were finalized, way back when. Today I'd like to remedy that, and just give a general, overall update on where class designs are at.

Getting back to Essentials
Now, this may come as a shock to some people, but I don’t distinctly think of TNP as being a “spiritual successor” to 4th Edition D&D. In fact, I’ve previously described it on this very blog as being “sort of a love letter to Essentials” much the same way that the designers of 13th Age describe their game as “a love letter to D&D.” Perhaps a more accurate way of putting it, is that TNP is meant to be something like “what (I think) Essentials should have been.” All this is to say, there was consideration given to including as many of the classes as possible from 4e, in some fashion or another -- such as by using subclasses. (5th Edition follows this same route; the easiest example I can think of is how the 'Favored Soul' class from 3.5 was folded into being a Sorcerer 'Divine Soul' subclass in 5e.) If you want to read into which classes have been left out, along with some context as to why, check out this post right here.

In alphabetical order, I'm going to start with the classes which are considered "playtest ready" (although, as you might infer from a previous blogpost, the overarching design ethos for the reserve mechanic is still subject to change -- which would have knock-on effects w/r/t daily or encounter powers being added to classes.)

The Acrobat (d4, d8) -- Skill Expert
This class came about from my idea to include a simple archer class in the game; this was around the time that there were two full slates of classes, with Fighter (being split off from 'Warrior') and Archer being the beginnings of the third slate at the time. A bunch of classes were rejuggled and the slates were realigned a bit once all 3 started to take shape, part of which involved combining the Archer with the Martial Artist (formerly a Monk subclass) to create the basis of the current Acrobat class. Ultimately, this creates a rogue-ish skill expert class that comes in a melee flavour and a ranged flavour -- a recurring theme you'll see, as we continue through the list.

Since the Acrobat is meant to be more of a simple/generic class that you can reflavour however you'd like, one thing that makes it unique is that ir's the only class which can pick from any power source. Part of the intent with that is to cover the design space of some of the classes that didn't make the final cut -- such as the Executioner and the Seeker. To that end, I'm considering giving the Acrobat some different/special mechanics depending on the power source chosen; this would be another feature to make the Acrobat unique among other classes. As of this writing, that is not yet included in the 'playtest-ready' version.

The Adventurer (d6, d8) -- Jack of All Trades
When this class was originally introduced as "The Warrior" (not to be confused with the earlier Warriors, which eventually morphed into the Barbarian) it was essentially the result of attempting to spin off the Scout subclass into its own class. Earlier in the designs, it had moved around from being a Rogue subclass and a Ranger subclass -- ultimately the Scout is sort of the two-weapon fighting version of both/either; in Essentials, it was a Ranger subclass, and in 3.5 it was (effectively) an alternate Rogue class. With the slates being restructured around power sources, the Primal/Martial (i.e. 3rd) slate needed a social-focused character option; this is when the Skald was spun off from the Bard. Being a class in the post-essentials book Heroes of the Feywild made it not so much of a stretch as a candidate for a slate with this kind of focus. Building out the Skald as a two-weapon fighter makes it a bit distinct from its 4e inspiration, but leans into other origins (such as the Barbarian shouts, from Diablo 2) as mentioned in the linked post.

The Barbarian (d10, d12) -- Blade Master
This is one of the simpler classes within the designs. As such, the Totemic Warrior is more or less the 'tank' subclass, and the Berserker is the 'striker' subclass. One thing I decided to do with classes in the Blade Master category, is to let them borrow from other classes in their slate, for their class specialization at level 1. As such, the Barbarian has the option to take a (modified) Guardian domain, or an Adventurer role as their specialization, allowing them to lean more heavily into tank/striker, or dabble between the two. This idea of "class = role, but also role = role" can be seen a little bit in the Strike! RPG, which also owes a bit of parentage to 4th Edition D&D.

The Bard (d8) -- Jack of All Trades
Subclasses for the Bard amount to specialization in either knowledge/mental skills (Scholar) or physical and social skills (Performer). As a "jack of all trades" class, I wanted there to be sort of a trade off between the two disciplines, rather than being potentially great at almost everything -- which is more in line with a skill expert class. Essentially, it's a split between the "bardic knowledge" sort of bard, and the musician/acrobat sort of bard. The roles for the bard class essentially provide a signature combat spell, to diversify things a little further; the bard (like most classes in its slate) will also be able to dabble in the Sage domains, if they wish.

The Fighter (d6, d12) -- Jack of All Trades
Originally conceived as a simpler class (alongside the Archer) and using only the d6, the Fighter morphed to include the d12 (eliminating the need for 2d6 mechanics) once classes started adopting a 2nd class die. The Brute is the high-HP/high-damage subclass, whereas Soldier is more the high-AC/weaponmaster subclass. Similarly to the Barbarian, roles allow this class the option to lean more heavily into one specialization or the other. Fighting styles add another layer of customization, letting you switch up tactics during combat.

The Guardian (d4, d6) -- Ideologue
Pretty straightforward, here: this class is built off of the Warden (defender) and Shaman (leader) classes, from 4th Edition. I view Shaman as almost a more-magical Warlord, and the TNP iteration leans into having them either cause spirits to possess an ally, or having the Shaman themselves doing the possession. Likewise, the Warden feels like a TNP Fighter (particularly being a d6 class) just with all the martial tinkering stripped down and replaced with more Primal mechanics. It's also worth mentioning that between Shaman and Skald, this slate ends up with two subclasses that can serve as the main healers.

The Paladin (d6, d10) -- Blade Master
I had a lot of fun playing/shoe-horning/turd-polishing the Blackguard in 4e, so I knew I was always going to include it in TNP. It was more a question of whether it'd be on the Divine slate or the Shadow slate (possibly under a Death Knight class, or something similar); it ended up being the former, as a subclass under the Paladin. Generally, the Paladin class in TNP is heavily influenced by Diablo 2 (albeit without the ethos of having 20 different auras to pick from.) The Holy Warrior subclass I'd say borrows ideas from the Hospitaler paragon path (4e) and is at least something of spiritual successor to the 'Oath of Devotion' (5e). For the Paladin's class specialization (as part of the Blade Master paradigm) they get the option to take either a Fighter role, or a (modified) Cleric domain.

The Ranger (d8, d10) -- Skill Expert
With the two-weapon Ranger effectively spun off onto the Adventurer class, the other obvious Ranger subclasses are the archery-focused Hunter and the melee-focused Beastmaster. This also leans into the idea of having only two subclasses per each class (while class specializations expanded, with most classes having at least two, but often 3 or 4.) Much like its Essentials namesake, the Hunter is something of a "martial-controller" build, but the overall Ranger class is geared towards the 'striker' role, particularly being a d10 class. If there's anything I might want to add onto the class, it'd be something like the 'Wilderness Knacks' of the Essentials versions.

The Rogue (d6) -- Skill Expert
At one point, the Rogue and the Trickster were separate d6 classes, with the latter being sort of a generic charisma-based spellcasting class -- having both Bard and Sorcerer as subclasses. With the dice being "cast" in certain "roles" (something I've done multiple posts on, over the years) it seemed obvious to move Bard off of a striker die like d6 and onto more of a support die, like d8. (In fact, at one point in the designs, Bard was effectively the "charisma subclass" of the d4 Mage class -- precursor to the Sage.) Suffice it to say, with all the reshuffling that went on, Sorcerer ended up paired with the Assassin, to make the current Rogue class. Within a slate based on magic and shadow, this seemed like a pretty good fit, with the Sorcerer as the 'AoE' or 'blaster' striker, and Assassin as the single-target striker.

Back in the 'beta 3' version, the Rogue had Scoundrel, Scout, and Assassin as its subclasses; effectively, the Scoundrel features were mostly subsumed into the base Rogue class. As such, I'm leaning towards renaming the Assassin subclass to Scoundrel, leaning on its usage in Knights of the Old Republic (and similarly derived Star Wars tabletop RPGs) as the name for its skill expert-type class.

The Sage (d4) -- Ideologue
In the original slate, "Mage" was the name of the de-facto Wizard class. Various subclasses have come and gone since then, including Swordmage and Bard. When the 3rd slate was finalized and everything was reshuffled to line up by power sources, Monk was stapled onto the Mage, which then morphed into the Sage. I felt that splitting the more magical, mystical "Ki Master" off from the Martial Artist made sense, and reimagining Wizard schools to also fit with the Monk worked pretty seamlessly. Again, this is a shining example where a class consists of a melee subclass and a ranged subclass, similar to the Acrobat.

The Sage is the only Ideologue class which has 3 domains to pick from; these options have always been there, basically from the outset of the designs, and I didn't see any sense in reducing it down to 2, just for the sake of uniformity. Also, because the Bard and Spellbinder classes are able to dip into Sage domains, it makes sense to have more variety rather than less.

Work in Progress
Now as I've said, the following classes are not playtest ready, and as such, features mentioned here are either not complete or not implemented at all -- and so while the stated intentions may be to do things a certain way, they may ultimately not turn out as such. So take this all with a grain of salt.

The Cleric (d4, d10) -- Ideologue
While not a direct descendant of the Warpriest, the Battle Priest is meant to be the archetypical melee Cleric. Likewise, the Invoker is meant more as a generic 'lazer cleric' -- although with the reworks of reserves still ongoing, there might be room to implement some of the unique mechanics the class had in 4e. Healing will be a baseline ability for the core Cleric class, so both subclasses will be able to fill that role. In the previous iteration, the Cleric also had domains (War, Life) as their class specialization, with their features gaining different riders dependent on (potentially) both their chosen subclass and their domain. This became a bit messy/clunky, so part of finalizing the class will be trying to clean that up, hopefully without sacrificing any functionality or interesting build options.

The Druid (d4, d12) -- Disciple
What started off as a generic "summoner" class (with essentially Druid and Necromancer subclasses) was eventually reshuffled into the Druid class, with Shapeshifter and Summoner as its subclasses. Like the Cleric, this class will also have healing as a baseline ability, but there will likely be some limitation to its use while shapeshifted. There was originally some thought given to structuring Druid similarly to Paladin or Barbarian (borrowing from other classes for their specialization) but eventually the Disciple category was reworked, to function off of roles. Druids "forms" will function as roles, gaining one as their specialization at 1st level, with the option to gain others as they level. I'm still debating if there might be something else to add onto the class. Also, implementing d12 into the class mechanics hasn't been done yet; that'll be a huge step, so hopefully it doesn't cause too many problems.

The Occultist (d10) -- Disciple
The previous iteration was a bit of a departure from what had come before it; I had kind of just said "screw it" and redid the designs more or less from scratch. What resulted was essentially an Occultist class, having Necromancer and Warlock as "roles" (providing different effects to cursed targets, and a few different combat actions) and with the class having both "Animate Dead" and "Eldritch Blast" as baseline abilities. With the whole design ethos pivoting towards all classes having two subclasses, I think I want the next rework to return Necromancer and Warlock to being subclasses, and layer on different role features (as a Disciple class) on top of that -- which may result in the different "spells" effectively becoming role actions, similar to how it works for the Bard. There's also a question of what "something else" the class might need to have, as is the case with the Druid.

The Spellbinder (d12) -- Blade Master
This class has always been a combination of magical swordmen, specifically the Swordmage (from 4e's Forgotten Realms Player's Guide) and the Hexblade (from the Essentials book Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) Leaning into the spellbinder name, I also built in a focus on sort of hypnotizing and/or blinding opponents. When it came time to make a tanky, d12 class for the 'magic & shadow' slate, this type of class was the obvious choice (aside from possibly the previously-mentioned Death Knight idea.)

Looking at the previous draft, I think the class is (overall) more or less complete(?) and probably just needs to be updated to the current formatting. The only thing missing (to bring it in line with the other Blade Master classes) would be another specialization option; currently the Spellbinder only has Sage domains as their options, whereas the other two Blade Masters get to pick from domains, and one other thing. Maybe once the Occultist roles get worked out, those could be added in, here.

The Warlord (d8, d12) -- Disciple
Warlord is actually a class that is missing subclasses altogether. It has roles, and it also has the "something else" (namely, Combat Maneuvers) that other Disciple classes are missing. My intent is to add in a Tactician subclass (which is more of a frontline, melee-focused idea) as well as a Strategist subclass (more of a backline, support/commander sort of idea.) What form that will take in terms of actual class features is yet to be ironed out; I'll want to go back and mine the various 4e Warlord subtypes for ideas.

---

Apologies for the delay in posting, but hopefully the deep dive makes up for it.
Next post is due on March 15th!

Character Layouts (2018)

Some of the feedback that came out of the playtesting -- really just from new people putting their eyes onto the materials -- was that I should look into making a standardized character sheet form, and that the various bits of character generation should be listed by level.

Currently, the design of the class documents is essentially:

• Skills/Starting Feature page
• Upgrade page
• Combat page

Now, there are exceptions to every rule -- "Starting Features" aren't always combat features, but (even if they are) they're always on the first page. So that could definitely be cleaned up a little bit; probably the best solution is to have those starting features which are combat features be mentioned in both places, perhaps with just a reference on the first page, and the actual mechanics on the combat page.

Ultimately what the intention is with using this formatting, is to have the classes broken down into distinct modes of play, on a page-by-page basis: when you're in non-combat scenarios, the Skills/Starting Feature page will be used; the Upgrade page will be used during leveling-up (which may or may not take place "at the table"), and; the Combat page will be used for combat encounters.

During recruitment for the playtest, I made the suggestion (which I was taken up on, by most of the players) to add a copy of the Core Skills grid to their "character sheet." Particularly in electronic format, it's easy enough to take the class documents, and make your specific character by simply deleting any "toggle options" that were not selected. Even then, having a separate reference (outlining a character's Training and/or Expertise with skills) was found to be really helpful, and will probably constitute the backbone of any standardized character sheet, going forward.

I think if the "Combat page" aesthetic remains mostly intact, it will be worthwhile to add a listing of the Combat Skills to it as well, allowing a space for the players to mark off any Training or Expertise they may have with those skills, on that page. Really, it's kind of a no-brainer.

It will probably make sense to have extra space on both the "Skills page" and the "Combat page" to allow upgrades to be written in. Most upgrades tend to provide additional features for one of these sections or the other; the "Upgrade page" itself could be used as more of a bingo-card, for keeping track of which upgrades have been taken -- and it could also serve as a natural place to keep track of XP, as well.

I could go so far as to even split "Subclass" classes up a bit, as far as this formatting is concerned. It might make sense for the Sage, for example, to have its two subclasses use the same "Upgrade page" while having separate skill pages and combat pages, for both the Wizard and the Monk. This would kind of lay bare that some of these subtypes (within the same class) have more differences than similarities, but I think it might be a worthwhile change, for ease of use and for simplicity's sake. Breaking things up this way might also help some of the more lengthy class descriptions -- ones that spill onto a 2nd combat page -- to get back down to the one-page benchmark.

---

Next post is planned to be an "origins" post, talking about the basis of the skill system.

Check back for that on September 19th.

Classes, Now in Session (2018)

So, I didn't finish all of the classes that I wanted to, but I'll update this post with links to them here, as well as in the core rules doc (in the sidebar) as I get them finalized.

• The Druid (d4)
• The Rogue (d6)
• The Cleric (d8)
• The Occultist (d10)
• The Spellbinder (d12)

The first class I got done was the Druid; I think it still needs a few more checks (in terms of math) but I like how well it fit into the new formatting and progression systems, and overall the class is just a lot cleaner now. I'm still a little iffy on breaking the forms into upgrades, but hopefully some testing will give a sense of whether each one is useful enough to justify it.

Next up was the Occultist. It helped that Druid was already out of the way, because the two classes share a "category," and so ended up being structured fairly similarly. One major change was to no longer have Eldritch Blast and Animate Dead as "role features," instead making them part of the core class, and splitting up Banishment, to give each role a more distinctly-flavoured version. Curse was likewise broken up, with the basics of it made into the class' "starting feature."

I then moved on to the Cleric. There were a few more outdated mechanics here than in some of the other classes, and a few more tweaks that needed to be made. Cleric has always been sort of a "vertically integrated" class, but it has enough room for customization, that it can be built in a handful of different ways. I'm particularly happy with some of the changes to Bless and Divine Smite, making the class overall more built around the "double roll" mechanic.

I had a few ideas for the direction I wanted to take with the Assassin, but the Sorcerer is going to be a bigger job to tackle. In terms of the leveling, the foundations are already more or less in place, with the Ranger being part of the same "category" and already having the Sage ready, from the same slate. With the Warlock being less of a distinct class now, that could have some impacts on how Sorcerer is built.

The Spellbinder hopefully should be a quick fix; with most of the action economy stuff and combat math ironed out after the previous playtest, it will likely just be a matter of updating the 4.1 version to the new designs.

---

That's all folks! This here blog is on break for summer; expect the next post on July 27th!

The Road Ahead (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

Leveling

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

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

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

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

Backgrounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combat Math

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

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

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

Blog Scheduling

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

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

Expansionism -- Part 2: The Lost Children

Earlier this year, I teased some ideas for potential new content that could be added to TNP, at some point. The idea of doing a 4th slate of classes is one I want to talk about today, and (in particular) why I think it probably won't happen.

Over the months, in various discussions with acquaintances and fans, there basically emerged two possible paths that a 4th slate could take: Monstrous Races, or, what I dubbed "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption."

The first idea is probably one that appeals to the interests of a specific segment of tabletop gamers. I think the demographic is probably a cross-section of the DMs who get heavy into the "monster manual" side of running RPGs, and the players who are always looking for more and more options. While monsters generally use the same basic mechanics of the system, a lot of times they get abilities that are never presented as PC options. Some suggested "classes" for a slate consisting of monstrous races were:

• Dragon
• Drider
• Sphinx
• Centaur/Minotaur

The reason I can't see myself writing this sort of content, is simply because I don't fit into the demographic of people interested in those options. I've always come at gaming more from the "player" side, rather than the DM side, so my interest in monstrous creatures hasn't really ever been there. I don't have the breadth of knowledge (in terms of mechanics) nor a grasp of the appeal (in terms of flavour) to really present those options in a meaningful way. It's one thing to be able to mechanically analyze a class that you've never played (but one which interests you) and do a thumbnail sketch of it; this is essentially the process that produced the Warlord and the Spellbinder, amongst other examples in TNP.

The other big sticking point is that it doesn't quite conform to my ideas about fantasy games, in general. A lot of people are of a mindset akin to "anything you can't do in real life, should be in a fantasy game." My own perspective is more along the lines of "there should be some fantastic and impossible things going on, but the characters should be relatable." Now, this is sort of where we end up with elves that are just tall humans with pointy ears, and dwarves that are just short, fat humans with beards. But I think that having characters be close enough to our day-to-day selves (perhaps just with one or two characteristics taken to extreme) makes them more... well, human. So I can't really see myself writing player options that make the characters something else -- at least not without the help of people who are really passionate about that conceit, and that design space.

Now, the second part kind of hits at something that was touched on in my most recent post. By and large, the classes that are presented in TNP come from a handful of books in the 4th Edition D&D line:

• Player's Handbook 1
• Player's Handbook 2
• Heroes of the Fallen Lands
• Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms

There are some outliers, of course: shades of "Heroes of Shadow" can be seen in the Blackguard, Necromancer, Assassin, and School of Trickery subtypes (and I'd argue that the Acrobat is a cousin of the Executioner, as well.) The Skald and the Barbarian lean heavily on their counterparts from "Heroes of the Feywild," while the Monk and Swordmage appear in 4th Edition in the PHB3 and "Forgotten Realms Player's Guide," respectively.

So who got left out?

Well, everyone from PHB3 not named "Monk" for starters. The other notable exception would be the Avenger (PHB2).

Let's run down the list, and see where the problems start to crop up:

Avenger sort of suffers the same fate in TNP as it did in 5th Edition; with its main mechanic (Advantage) being made universal, the class loses a lot of its weight. Taking it a bit further, with this game obfuscating things like weapons, armor, and ability score usage, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to really mechanically represent the Avenger within the system. Some players have suggested that the Paladin (particularly the Blackguard archetype) as well as the Swordmage or even a great-weapon Fighter could simply be reflavoured as an Avenger.

My preliminary thoughts about what an Avenger would look like in this system pointed me in the direction of the d4 or d6 framework; low HP, but potentially large weapon damage from using the "double roll and stack" mechanic. This ends up overlapping the Acrobat and Fighter design space a bit too much, though (and arguably those are already cramped by classes like Guardian, Adventurer, and Barbarian.)

Psionics as presented in 4e (namely the power point classes) might not stretch beyond one class, within the TNP ethos (where classes are able to have more than one Role.) Porting in that whole subsystem for such a small payoff hardly seemed worth it; the other problem they present is that while historically they represent a different power source (or at least, a different way of "doing" arcane magic), they really... couldn't, in this system.

Runepriest is another example of a 4e class I was always interested in, but never had a chance to play. With regards to its possible place in TNP, I always saw it more as a subtype for either the Cleric or the Paladin. The "rune state" mechanic effectively functions as a stance, which maps closely to Paladin auras -- the rest is just fluff. The alternative would be to slot it in as a Cleric subclass, which would mean bumping the Invoker in some way or another. I always saw Invoker as a d6 class (akin to a blasty, sorcerer type) or a d10 class (damage-stacking, surge-burning) but I never saw it really as more than an subtype within a bigger class, and I didn't see a fit for it as a Paladin archetype (since Paladin is a decidedly melee class, and Invoker is ranged.) Do you split up the Rogue, and put Sorcerer with Invoker? And then do you add Avenger onto Assassin? Or staple Assassin onto Fighter? 

In short, the Runepriest sort of falls victim to it necessitating a whole game of "musical chairs" in order to fit in where it should (and even that "where" was never clear.) This happened a bit, back when the design transitioned from Beta 3 to Beta 4, but I would really need to have an overarching change in the framework to want to do something like that again -- not just to accommodate one class.

Seeker has sort of the same problem that Avenger does; it uses an unconventional ability score for its attack stat, and that doesn't translate to this system at all. I think the Hunter from Essentials (also represented in TNP) does the "bow-wielding controller" niche adequately -- if somewhat more "safe" or "mundane" in design than the Seeker.

Some other classes that got tossed around were the Vampire (or perhaps a "Blood Mage"), as a d4 class -- with Druid-like mechanics for extra HP, a reserve-based mini-game, or potentially other effects while Bloodied. Since each slate is intended to have both a healer and a defender, either Artificer or Ardent would have to make an appearance, with perhaps roles stapled onto an Avenger or Death Knight class, in order to cover all the bases. Elementalist as an unconventional, ranged, d12 class also sparked my imagination a bit.

Ultimately, the trouble with "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption" is a combination of factors. There isn't much of a unifying theme, in terms of either flavour or mechanics; in a lot of cases, they seem like classes that are just "this class, but" or "this other class, only more." There would be a lot of overlap with those classes that are currently using the Divine and Shadow power sources, so the temptation is there to just restructure all the slates from the ground up -- making them conform more closely to Power Sources, for example. But the biggest problem is that almost all of the suggested classes would need mechanics custom-built (or at least completely reinvented to fit the system) in order for them to function, and I'm just not sure the design space is really there, for most of them.


What do you think? Are there ways some of these idea could be implemented in TNP?
Is an entire 4th slate viable, or should some of these classes just appear as options for the existing roster?

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.