Getting Playtest Ready (2025)

We're back!
As denizens of the TNP Discord will know, one of the main things I had been putting thought into over the break is the random campaign generation mechanic. I narrowed down a few of the specifics, and finally put it all into writing, so that I could distribute it for critique and feedback. Overall, I'm very optimistic about this system, based on the responses I got. There are only a few minor adjustments/clarifications that need to be implemented, after which I would say that this subsystem is "playtest-ready."

The basics of it are as such:

1. There are 4 basic types of encounters: combat, exploration, social, and subterfuge
2. A number of encounters are planned for each level, starting with 4 at level 0, and increasing by two every level (to a maximum of 5th)
3. A campaign thus consists of 54 encounters, approximately half of which should be combat encounters; these encounters can all be curated entirely by the DM, or by using a deck of cards to quickly generate a randomized campaign.
4. Face cards, jokers, and clubs are all used as combat encounters; aces are considered "wild" but are recommended to also be used as combat encounters; the numbered cards of the other 3 suits are used to generate (non-combat) encounters of the other 3 types.
5. The party can win the campaign, if they successfully complete a majority of their encounters.

This is something that I feel TTRPGs need -- a definitive ending point, and a way to track progress and success. Ever since it was pointed out to me that the number of cards in a deck (52, plus 2 jokers) corresponds to the number of weeks in a year (and that there are 4 suits, just as there are 4 seasons) I've wanted to bake this sort of correlation into how the random campaign generation was constituted. Clubs being a weapon made me want to associate that with combat; hearts representing social interaction seems intuitive, and exploration being about finding treasure would map to diamonds as a suit. Spades end up being "black ops," I suppose.

Since the numbers and types of monsters that can be generated in a combat encounter have a prescribed formula, starting from a randomly generated series of encounters, the monsters can be thrown into action fairly quickly. This formula will need to be incorporated into the campaign generation documentation, since currently I have it bolted onto the monster mechanics documentation. As mentioned before, some of the keywords and their related mechanics need to be finalized, in order to fully flesh out the archenemy mechanics. But after that? The campaign generation and monster mechanics will be basically complete.

The only remaining tasks then, in terms of completing the DM-side documentation, would be finalizing the non-combat encounter mechanics -- which should involve incorporating the detailed description of skill usage, as laid out previously. After that, I feel at least some "sample" monsters should be put out into the wild for mass consumption, but hopefully playtesting can begin as soon as it becomes convenient to do so.

...

Look forward to all of that (and more) coming this year!

As mentioned before (and on the Discord) sequel content will also show up on the blog, as well as any "TNP 1.1" developments -- or possibly even some new ideas in game design, should they arise.

Check back for the next post on January 21st!

Table of Contents (2024)

I found myself thinking about which parts of the TNP system need to be finalized and bolted into the documentation, so I figured a good way to go about listing the missing parts is by listing what's already there. So here's an overview of where the system document currently stands, and how it is structured:

1. Basic Mechanics

• TN10 and TN20
• Mastery and Combat Mastery
• Advantage and Disadvantage
• 5 basic rolls and the 5 dice bonuses (overview)
• Skill Check mechanics
• Saving Throw mechanics
• Attack Roll mechanics
• Extra Damage mechanics
• Class Dice Bonus mechanics

2. Characters

• List of the 3 slates of classes
• Combat Roles (overview)
• Class Categories (overview and breakdown)
• Character Progression
• Core Skills
• Power Sources (knowledge skill progression)
• Skill Synergies
• Feats

3. Combat Mechanics

• Character Statistics
• Engagement, Surge Value, Reserves
• HP and Initiative
• Base Damage and Opportunity Damage
• Initiative mechanics
• Status Effects & Conditions (external doc)
• Actions in Combat (overview and list)
• Skill Checks in Combat
• Disengaging
• Standing Up
• Push/Trip/Shove
• 'No Action'
• Interrupts
• Getting Open
• Engaging
• Standard Actions
• Iconic Attacks, Melee Basic Attacks, Ranged Basic Attacks
• Ranged Attacks
• Melee Attacks
• Reach

So as you can see from this list, what needs to be implemented are (largely) the "DM-side" mechanics. Older drafts of the monster mechanics exist, and a cleaned up overview of those has also previously been posted, here on the blog. (One thing that was mentioned there which also needs to be added are the keywords for things like Forms, Summons, etc. which are interacted with by the archenemy monster type.) The other pillars of these mechanics are the campaign-building, including building of both combat encounters and non-combat encounters.

In the discussion of monster mechanics, the idea of how to handle minions/swarms (with regards to the card-based random generation for campaigns/encounters) basically ironed itself out. The mechanics for "winning" a social or an exploration encounter definitely need to be mapped out; as an adjunct to that, the rules document needs to include a detailed explanation of how Skills are meant to be used.

As you might notice from all the links in the preceding paragraphs, these ideas have already mostly been laid out in the blog -- it's just a matter of incorporating them into the main documentation, cleaning up and refining as needed, and then (hopefully) running everything through some playtesting.

...

That's it for 2024! If there's anything else you think should be included in the TNP documentation in order to help you run or play the game, leave a comment below or join the discussion on Discord.

As mentioned previously, blogging is planned to resume sometime in the 2nd week of January.

Deep Dive: Combat Encounters (2024)

There's a lot to cover when it comes to enemy/monster mechanics, so I'm going to stick with "napkin math" for most of this post. 

Standard & Elite

I'll start off by saying that player-characters can have between 24 and 32 HP, and Standard monsters are meant to have HP in that same range. However, in the encounter budgeting, there should be 2 standard monsters per 1 PC. The baseline assumption is that with one class dice bonus, a character can do about 7.3 DPR on a single attack, but when going through the class mechanics, it was found that most characters will be attacking at least twice per round. This means that a single standard monster with 28-30 HP can be killed in about two turns; if every PC "spawns" two standard monsters, that effectively translates to 4 rounds of combat. (Another thing to account for is that 'extra damage' is not factored in to this equation.)

Now, when standard monsters target the PCs, they use the usual monster roll (1d10 and 1d6) but only use the higher die for their damage. Elite monsters use the same roll, but add the damage together. Generally it is assumed that elites will be specialized for one type of combat (either melee or ranged) and they should have advantage when dealing damage with that method; for monsters this means using the percentile dice instead of just straight d10, and using the higher result. The system also allows for special ability uses/recharges if the d6 and d10 on the monster roll is a tie, meaning advantage (i.e. such as Elites would have) gives another chance to create such a tie. Each elite uses the encounter budget of 1 PC (i.e. 2 standard monsters) and has double the HP of a standard monster. 

Quick napkin math: Standard monsters should average about 6 damage per attack, but only "hit" 45% of the time (assuming no save bonuses for the PCs). This means between about 9-12 attacks to take down a PC, or about half that many rounds of combat (since there will be 2 standard monsters in the budget, for each 1 PC.) Worth mentioning here is that combat mastery (such as from being hidden, or attacking prone targets in melee) would apply to all damage dice that the monsters are rolling, making them just that much more deadly, if they play tactically.

Minions & Swarms

Minions on the other hand just automatically deal damage, as I'll explain. I always enjoyed the mechanics of how minions worked in 4th Edition D&D, and I had fun homebrewing some ways to make "2-hit" minions fit into the game; generally, I had it so that hitting with a critical hit, an encounter power, or dealing damage (even on a miss) with a daily power would take them out. But the system broadly wasn't built from the ground up with this in mind, so there were always messy edge cases. The general idea was to make it so that an attack that dealt more than one weapon die (the [W] expression, in 4e) of damage, would kill 2-hit minions outright. In TNP, this idea is expanded upon, by giving minions "hit dice"; effectively, this means that you need to deal a number of damage dice equal to their hit dice in order to take them out. So for example, a basic attack + 1 class die of bonus damage would take out a minion with 2 HD. In terms of encounter budgeting, each PC can generate 10 HD worth of minions or swarms.

When a minion makes an attack, they deal damage equal to their current HD; when using skills, they also use a skill rank bonus equal to their current HD, but by default have disadvantage on skill checks (to prevent dog-piling.) This means that minions become less deadly the more damage they take. Also, any effect which would impose disadvantage on an action or skill check, causes minions to be unable to use that action or skill check. For example: disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for having an enemy adjacent, would translate to the minion not being able to make ranged attacks at all. If a particular skill is meant to be iconic to a given minion type, the expectation is that they would "buy off" the disadvantage with that type of check, rather than bump straight to having advantage with it.

Swarms function similarly to minions, in that both creature types bypass saving throws and simply deal damage equal to their current HD, with their attack actions. For this reason, minions are meant to be limited to a maximum of about 4 or 5 HD; swarms should have more HD than minions, but not more than 10. This means that a 10 HD swarm which can focus on a single PC will be able to take them out in typically 3 rounds of combat. To balance this out, swarms have several special rules that make them different than minions, particularly the rule that they must spread their damage between all PCs in their maelstrom. It does not have to be spread evenly, however it's probably best practice to try and do so. When a swarm is open, it counts as multiple enemies, making it easier to target; if the swarm enters a maelstrom, it only counts as one enemy for targeting purposes, meaning abilities that require you to target different enemies could now only target the swarm once. For the purpose of disengaging, swarms always count as multiple enemies. Swarms can never make ranged attacks, as they are generally assumed to be beasts or insects, which have no such weapons.

(Note: capping minions at 4 or 5 HD means their skill rank bonus is also capped at 4 or 5, keeping this number in line with what PCs are realistically expected to be able to achieve.)

The Big Bad Evil Guy

The final two enemy types are solos and archenemies. In the random campaign generation rules, it is assumed that archenemies will appear twice out of the 54 encounters in a campaign (about half of which are combat encounters.) For this reason, archenemies are allowed to shut down abilities with certain keywords; re-reading this has reminded me that I need to do another editing pass and make sure the appropriate keywords are included in the character feature descriptions.

Some example keywords:

• Form: covers fighting styles for the Fighter, as well as Druid abilities
• Concentration: buffs such as Bless
• Teleport: features allowing movement via teleportation
• Restoration: features that restore HP (i.e. healing)
• Summon: features that add allies to the combat (features for Warlord, Druid, Ranger, Occultist, etc.)
• Sustaining: generally penalties to enemies or bonuses to allies that can be maintained by repeating the appropriate action each round

Now, the idea is not that the archenemy would shut down all of these keywords, but that each given type of archenemy might have one or two, that are specific to the campaign, or to the party members. The original idea was that these abilities could only be shut down if the PC being targeted is bloodied, but you could also invert that idea by saying the abilities are shut down until the archenemy is bloodied. Likewise, I had written in that an archenemy should be able to do multiple skill checks on its turn instead of just one, and be more easily able to do interrupts; in order to get the same effect (but also limit the power of action denial abilities) it might be simpler to just give the archenemy as many turns in initiative as there are PCs in the encounter.

Similarly, the idea with solo monsters is that they would be one large creature with several independent parts -- each being represented mechanically as an individual monster (either standard monsters or elites, but possibly minions as well.) The example that I used in a playtest was a kraken attacking a ship, with its multiple tentacles; if there are 4 PCs, that would translate to 8 standard monsters, representing 8 tentacles, with maybe an elite monster as the head to top things off, and make it a more challenging encounter. Similarly, the other example I would use as a solo monster is a dragon, where the head does a fiery breath attack, but it also has claws, a tail that can do a swipe attack, etc. In order to encourage tactics other than just focus-firing on one part of the monster, a rule is in place giving disadvantage to each part's monster rolls once it is bloodied.

Sidebar

One note on the 'sustaining' keyword, is that I had pretty much always conceptualized it as "benefits to you (or your allies) last until the start of your next turn, while penalties to enemies last until the end of your next turn." This is based off of the optimization notion from 4e, that effects which last one round are better/more reliable than ones that are "save ends" (i.e. 50/50 chance that they end before you can get any use out of them, on your next turn.) This leads into the idea of archenemies being able to shrug off or otherwise end such effects early, particularly if they are given multiple initiative turns, and a penalty is assumed to only impact them for one of those turns.

...

Anyways, hopefully that's a giant enough wall of text to generate some discussion, until the next post.
Check back on September 30th for that!

Custom Campaigns & Skill Challenges (2023)

I was recently asked what the guidance would be for campaigns that are not randomly generated, using a deck of cards. It's actually quite a simple bit of reverse-engineering.

The number of encounters remains the same:

• level 0: 4 encounters
• level 1: 6 encounters
• level 2: 8 encounters
• level 3: 10 encounters
• level 4: 12 encounters
• level 5: 14 encounters

Now, the general idea with the deck of cards is that all numbered clubs (9), all face cards (12), and both jokers (2), will all be combat encounters, with aces (4) being "wild" (i.e. they can be any type of encounter.) If the aces are treated as combat encounters, this results in 27 out of 54 cards being combat -- exactly half of the deck. When I've asked around in the past, this seems to be roughly the ratio that most game groups shoot for: half combat, half ...other stuff.

Conveniently, since each level is budgeted for an even number of encounters, you can just... make half of them be combat encounters. Or less than that -- totally up to you! The other thing is that without using cards to prescribe which monsters to use in your combat encounters, you can just... use whatever you'd like. This is made easier by the fact that the budgets for the different types of monsters are based off of the number of PCs in each combat encounter:

For each PC in a combat encounter, include one of the following:

• 1 Elite monster, or;
• 2 Standard monsters, or;
• 10 HD worth of Minions and/or Swarms

If you choose to have the "boss" of your campaign be a solo monster rather than an archenemy, so be it. The monster guidelines are meant to ensure that either will be a sufficient challenge for an entire party of (typically) 4-5 PCs. This customization option also lets you drop your "big bad" in wherever it's dramatically appropriate, rather than leaving it to the deck to turn up a joker.

That all being said, the framework for how non-combat encounters are "scored" is something that I have yet to nail down. The basic idea is that it would scale based on the card number and/or the number of encounters for that level. The followup question then becomes, is "completing" a non-combat encounter a question of successful skill checks, or merely attempted skill checks? Is it some ratio of successes vs. failures?

Interestingly enough, if we look at the 4th Edition DMG (page 72-73, ish) it spells out the 'complexity' of skill challenges, in a table -- which conveniently happens to map very closely to the encounters per level, stated earlier in this post; essentially, a "complexity 1" challenge requires 4 successes before 2 failures, a "complexity 2" challenge requires 6 successes before 3 failures, and so on. 

Now, the book goes on to say that you can adjust the DC down to lower the "level" of the challenge, or reduce the maximum number of failures to increase the "level" of the challenge; the 4e DMG bases the level of a skill challenge off of "the moderate DC" for skill checks, at the party's current level. Since TNP uses a static DC10 for skills, we can essentially rule out adjusting the "level" of a skill challenge by lowering the DC of the checks involved. This also seems to rule out the possibility of reducing the maximum failures, because... that only increases the "level" and not the "complexity" -- i.e. requiring 4 successes before 1 failure (instead of 2) would only increase the "level" of the challenge by 2, not the "complexity."

My first thought is something like this:
At level 0, you do 2 skill challenges; one requires 2 successes before 1 failure, one requires 4 successes before 2 failures.
At level 1, you do the same 2 skill challenges, but also add a 3rd which requires 6 successes, before 3 failures.
...and so on in that fashion.

So, ultimately, the number of encounters for a given level would indicate the highest number of successes needed, for a skill challenge at that level; the maximum number of failures would be half of that number... which would also (typically) be the number of non-combat/skill challenge encounters, for that level.

This would mean at 5th level, you would end up doing 7 skill challenges, needing a total of 14+12+10+8+6+4+2 = 56 successes (so an average of 8 successes) -- because requiring 14 successes each, for all 7 skill challenges seems... well, obnoxious.

This also maps out for us how many successes and failures would be needed at each level, if we simply wanted to average the difficulties of the skill challenges at a given level -- or even combine multiple challenges together. If nothing else, I feel like this is at least a playtest-worthy framework.

Now, with that all being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from freestyling their campaign, and using some kind of story/milestone progression, rather than strictly using combat and non-combat encounters for leveling. But the intent here is to provide a meaningful guideline (as well as a definitive endpoint) in order to help beginners to run their campaigns.

The other thing to consider is timing. A given encounter may not necessarily take an entire gaming session to complete (and particularly not the non-combat encounters.) However, with 52 weeks in a year and 54 encounters in a campaign, the hope would be that a bi-weekly gaming group (and certainly a weekly gaming group) could complete a single campaign by the end of one calendar year. A mix of monster types, as well as being able to sprinkle in recurring archenemies, should allow a campaign of this length to include smaller and larger arcs, and also meaningful build-up and payoff for the main quest.

...

I'll aim to have the next post written up about a week from now; check back around June 6th and it should be published.

Monster Math (2023)

A while back, I took a look at the previous monster mechanics, and went about streamlining and updating them a bit. Oddly enough, I tend to put more of the monster mechanics down in blog form, than in my actual notes, so it's often a case of compiling everything into one location to really get the ball rolling.

Way back in the 2018 draft of the monster mechanics, the monster roll (1d10+1d6) was modified by a handful of tags:

• Untrained: Use the higher of the two results
• Trained: Use the stacked value of the two results
• Expertise: Any 1s rolled can be treated as the maximum value on that die
• Advantage: If the result is a tie, treat both dice as their maximum value
• Disadvantage: Cancel out Advantage on the roll, or use the lower of the two results

As with the rest of the designs, obviously "Expertise" has been renamed to "mastery." And since standard monsters were really the only ones using the "untrained" expression for damage, this tag is going away. The "trained" tag (if kept at all) is going to function as the "If the result is a tie, treat both dice as their maximum value" mechanic, while advantage/disadvantage are only going to apply to the d10 component of the monster roll, bringing thm in line with skill checks.

Since monsters effectively only make one roll for attack and damage, this roll is considered their attack roll, for the purposes of whether disadvantage would apply (i.e. in the case of status effects, such as being Incapacitated.)

Every monster will need to be given a skill rating with each of the combat skills, as well as an initiative modifier. Since initiative will be sticking with a d20 roll, the obvious way to handle monster initiative would seem to be bonuses of either 1d6, 1d10, or 2d6. Because most combat skills fall under STR or AGIL (with perception being the outlier) it stands to reason that tmonsters should have their skill stats done strictly by attribute, rather than attribute and skillset.

There are two special rules for minions, regarding skill usage:

• Minions have skill ranks equal to their current HD, but default to having disadvantage on the d10 roll
• If an effect imposes disadvantage on a particular skill check, minions may not use that skill

As I've mentioned in previous posts on the monster mechanics, this is so that it is harder for minions to "dogpile" other characters, such as by massing grapple attacks. (Likewise, miinions cannot make ranged attacks if they are adjacent to one or more PCs.)

Beyond that sort of stuff, the monster mechanics haven't been changed a whole lot.
So far, I'm sticking with the same encounter budgets as before:

For each PC in a combat encounter, include one of the following:

• 1 Elite monster, or;
• 2 Standard monsters, or;
• 10 HD worth of Minions and/or Swarms

Solo monsters are meant to function as a combat with phases/stages, or a creature with multiple llimbs (such as a kraken or a hydra.) It could also be a dragon with various attacks (breath, tail, claws, etc.) where defeating each limb of the dragon disables the associated attack.

The final monster type is the "archenemy" which serves as the final boss/recurring villain of the campaign. Generally, they should take the encounter budget for an entire party of 4-5 PCs, but function more or less like an elite monster, rather than a solo. Their main perk is the ability to shake off debilitating effects, or limit the use of certain abilities. This is based of the foundation of a robust keyword system, covering mechanics such as healing, summoning, sustaining/concentration, forms, etc.

The monster mechanics and the campaign-building card mechanics go hand-in-hand, for obvious reasons; it's probably still worth testing and fine-tuning some of the monster stuff, but really nailing down the campaign mechanics will be a big focus going forward.

...

Next post will be 7-10 days from now, so check back then!

New Mechanics: Status Effects, Conditions, and Initiative (2023)

I'm choosing to not call this post an overview, because some of the information presented here isn't completely instituted into the game, and I expect some of it to change with playtesting. Where status effects and conditions intersect with initiative, is when you try to sort out the notion of "surprise" rounds or a "surprised" mechanic/condition; that will be touched on towards the end of the post.

Laying the Groundwork
As one might expect, when looking for inspiration, the first thing I did was make up a spreadsheet to help me compare conditions from 4e/Essentials with those in 5e. In my opinion, the conditions in 5e are poorly constructed and underutilized in the designs; that's not to say 5e added in a bunch of unneeded conditions, just that they didn't execute on them. (It has been hinted at that 'One D&D' will rework things to make status effects actually line up with spell effects, something I think potentially could be a big improvement.)

The short version of this comparison:

• 4e does not have a Poisoned, Frightened, or Incapacitated condition
• 5e does not have a Slowed, Dazed, Surprised, Helpless, Removed from Play, Weakened, or Insubstantial condition

Breaking down these outliers is probably a helpful place to start, in explaining why or why not to keep a condition in the game.

Poisoned: disadvantage on attack rolls and ability (i.e. skill) checks
This always struck me as weird, since such a generic debuff is tied to such a specific flavour of damage. For TNP, we're going with Exhausted as "disadvantage on all skill checks," while having "disadvantage on attack rolls" end up elsewhere.

Frightened: disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is in line of sight, and cannot willingly move closer to the source of the fear

I feel like this is one of those seminal control-type abilities in RPGs, and I genuinely think it's pretty well-written in 5e. We're keeping Frightened in TNP, but it's beefed up to more of an "action denial" effect, rather than just disadvantage on rolls.

Incapacitated: cannot take actions or reactions
My own DM'ing experience has led me to decide pretty early on that this type of effect wouldn't be in TNP. If you want to be really mean in combat, what you can do is combine more than one action denial effect; in 4th edition, dazed (can only take one action) and prone (needing to use your move action to stand up) was a pretty good example that I came up with.
I tend to refer to this condition as "lose a turn" -- and oddly enough, the 4e condition "Removed from Play" does exactly that; Stunned in 4e does the same, and Surprised is effectively "stunned during the surprise round." Suffice it to say, there's a lot of verbiage being thrown around on a concept that I ultimately wasn't going to use. Instead, if you are surprised at the start of initiative in TNP, you are Shocked, which is similar to 4e's Dazed condition -- limiting how many actions you can take, but not denying you the ability to act, outright. The term "Incapacitated" in TNP is instead recycled as the generic debility, granting you disadvantage on attacks and saves, and granting your enemies combat mastery against you -- while you yourself are unable to gain combat mastery against enemes (that last bit was something that was ultimately added in to the Blinded effect, in Essentials.)

Slowed: your speed becomes 2, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200
This one from 4e was pretty hard to mimic in a more-abstracted movement ethos. Effectively, this is absorbed into the Immobilized condition, which restricts all forms of movement except for teleportation or forced movement. 'Restrained' is a bit of a sticky wicket; in 5e it reduces your movement speed to 0, whereas in 4e it adds that you can only move by teleportation. Both also effectively give you a penalty while granting enemies a bonus to attack you. In the current draft, Restrained in TNP makes you Immobilized, Incapacitated, and unable to move or be moved by any means, in addition to disadvantage on certain skills (i.e. Weakened.) Grappled is essentially "Immobilized while the grapple is maintained" so as such, it seemed reasonable to make it a little stronger than just regular immobilization; in the current draft, this translates to also applying disadvantage on off-turn actions.

Helpless: you grant combat advantage

Now, specifically the only time this condition is used in 4e is when you're unconscious, although the Essentials text more or less says the DM can slap you with this if you're tied up real good, or similar. It's also the prerequisite for a coup de grace in 4e (if memory serves.) Suffice it say, we're not using this in TNP. If a creature is Dropped (i.e. surrenders or drops to 0 HP) they fall Prone -- which is an effect that grants combat mastery in melee.

Weakened/Insubstantial: you deal/take half damage (respectively)

I just never like the mechanics of doing half of anything, and having to round up or down. Effectively, hitting or being hit 50% less often mimics the same effect, and so that's where the disadvantage mechanic is a handy catch-all. Again, this is not used in TNP.

Rounding Out the List:

Now, at its core, the status effects in TNP (aside from those based on positioning in combat) are all designed off of a few basic building blocks:

• Combat Mastery
• Incapacitated
• Shocked
• [disadvantage on skills]

As said earlier, Exhausted grants disadvantage on all skill checks. Weakened grants disadvantage on Strength and Athletics checks; this effect is nested into Restrained, in the current draft. Dazzled is simply disadvantage on Detection skills; the Dazed and Dominated conditions have Dazzled nested into them. Likewise, Frazzled is disadvantage on skill checks using Subtlety (i.e. Stealth) and Communication (i.e. Intimidation); the Fazed and Frightened conditions cause the target to also be Frazzled. (Alliteration is fun!)

I also didn't want the bigger/badder conditions to simply be a combination of smaller conditions -- otherwise, you don't need to make a new condition, you can simply mix and match the smaller ones to get the same effect. So for the higher-end effects, there's also usually a little something extra:

• Dazed creatures are Dazzled, Incapacitated, and unable to see
• Fazed creatures are Frazzled, Incapacitated, and unable to hear or speak
• Dominated creatures are Dazzled, Shocked, and cannot attack or disengage from the source
• Frightened creatures are Frazzled, Shocked, and "Cannot take movement actions except to disengage from the source, or to take cover"

Beyond all this, there are things like cover, high ground (as it has been called in earlier drafts) or altitude (as it's tentatively called in the current draft), as well as being Hidden (covering both the Stealth skill as well as any magical forms of invisibility) and the 4e-staple Bloodied condition.

The trickiness with some of these is the mechanic of "players always roll" rather than enemies attacking players, bringing into question whether or not a particular condition should always apply "evenly." In other words, should an effect that grants disadvantage on saves (i.e. to players only) make the target also grant combat mastery to those targeting it (something that can apply to players, and monsters)? This uneven application can potentially lead to a double-penalty where one is not intended -- theorycrafting doesn't always catch everything, so this is where playtesting has to step in and find issues.

Surprise! Roll for Initiative
I mentioned in earlier posts that initiative checks will be it's own "thing" rather than piggybacking off of skill checks. This is because the change to skill check dice (i.e. no longer using d20) produces a flatter result, meaning the initiative numbers would be clustered together, when in practice it's better if they're spread apart. The question becomes, how do you determine who has surprise? It doesn't make sense to just go by highest/lowest initiative, but we also can't simply compare opposing initiative checks, since they are no longer skill checks.

What I'm considering is this (and admittedly, this is clunky and might bog things down):
Whenever you're out exploring, and danger may arise, each player should choose whether they're sneaking, on lookout, or taking a 'balanced' approach (snazzier terms for these, TBD.)

• If you are sneaking, you roll stealth: on a success, you are Hidden at the start of combat; on a failure, you have disadvantage on your initiative check (i.e. only the d20 component of the roll.)
• If you are on lookout, you roll perception: on a success, you gain advantage on your initiative check (again, only for the d20 component); on a failure, you are Shocked at the start of combat.
• If you are taking a balanced approach, you do not need to make a skill check; you do not gain any of the possible penalties or benefits to initative/at the start of combat.

By structuring it this way, we get the benefit of the 5e approach (where there is no 'surprise round' per se) while making it more clear as to who has the jump on who -- since it can be adjudicated on an individual basis, rather than... whatever the hell 5e is trying to do. (I find the idea of "group checks" to be a bad mechanic, just generally.) It also sort of lines up with the 4e notion of surprise, where the ambushers get a round to take limited actions, while the "surprised" get to do nothing; instead, in TNP you have the ambushers able to act fully and with a bonus (i.e. combat mastery from being Hidden) while the "surprised" are limited in their actions, and have a penalty (granting combat mastery from being Shocked). I also like the structure of having Shocked be an in-combat status as well as the one used to model surprise -- rather than 4e having two different statuses that are functionally the same thing.

Teaser:
The other application to consider is whether certain effects should be 'at-will' while others require you to burn 'encounter' or 'daily' powers -- or whether burning reserves can upgrade effects, along a certain track. It's definitely something that will need to be worked into the overall designs.

---

Well, it's anyone's guess when the next post will be out; hopefully March 26th, at the lastest.

Status Report (2018)

Just a short post to round out the month of May:

In TNP, there are effectively only a handful of debilities/status effects, which can potentially be used as riders for monster attacks:

• Push
• Prone
• Weakened
• Immobilized
• Grappled
• Incapacitated

My early intention is to class these based on how debilitating they are; the more debilitating, the less the damage of the attack would be, and vice-versa. I would categorize them as such:

• High damage: push, prone, weaken
• Medium damage: immobilize, grapple
• Low/no damage: incapacitate

So, using the established mechanics for stepping-down monster damage, (Advantage, Trained, Untrained, and Disadvantage) this should give us a framework for building status effects onto monster attacks, by using their baseline damage expression and reducing it down depending on the effect being added.

Since the default assumption for Standard Monsters is that they deal "Untrained" damage, this limits how far their damage can be stepped down; by extension, this means they should not have access to the strongest debilities, and that these effects should be limited to stronger monsters, exclusively.

Now, that being said, this is essentially all "theorycraft" since it is hard to give a firm numerical value for these effects, which could be directly equated to an amount of damage. Nevertheless, I feel this gives a solid base from which to conduct playtesting, and then begin to troubleshoot the design.

...

Next post should be up on June 6th, so check back then!

Monster Math (2018)

New content is now live!

That's right! The guidelines for monster stats are now available (in early-draft form) and a link has been added to the end of the Playtest document (linked on the sidebar.)


Square Peg, Round Hole
Since I wanted monsters to have a universal dice-rolling mechanic (1d6+1d10) I had to round off a few edges, in terms of bonuses and penalties. As you'll see in the document, Advantage and Disadvantage are adjudicated a little differently than how they operate for PCs.

Essentially, how it works is like this:

• Advantage: on a tie, maximize both dice
• Disadvantage: cancels out Advantage, or uses the lowest roll

I had tinkered with having Advantage work similarly to the "double roll and stack" rule, potentially maximizing one die or the other. In short, I found it both a little clunky and not a big enough bonus, so I went with maxing both dice, instead.

The Mother of Invention

It should also be pointed out that the previous post (Monster Math -- Part 3: Standards & Elites) contained a mechanical error, which has been corrected in this draft: Standard monsters will use the universal monster roll for damage, but only use the highest die, rather than adding them together. I had figured this out before, but it sort of got lost in the shuffle; when it came time to make the post, my brain reverted back to an older loadout.

However, when double-checking the math this time around (and coming across this snag) I came up with another lever that can be used to differentiate monsters a bit, and at the same time allow them to mesh with some of the existing mechanics.

When a monster is able to stack their roll, the roll is described as "Trained" whereas using only the higher result means the roll is "Untrained." So monsters that specialize in melee might only have this bonus to their melee attacks, whereas "artillery" types might have it only on their ranged attacks. It's worth noting that Expertise can be seamlessly applied to monster rolls, as a straightforward damage boost.

Rogues' Gallery

In addition to Standard and Elite monsters, Minions and Swarms were also established in an earlier post. This new draft rounds out the list of antagonists, with the addition of Solo monsters and Archenemies.

Solo monsters are what I envision as "Colossus" fights -- an enemy that has to be brought down in stages -- whereas Archenemies are the final boss of a shorter or longer story arc; they are exceptionally strong and resilient, a single combatant who is a suitable challenge for an entire party.

Moving Forward

I still have intentions of updating a few more classes, but monster math has taken my attention, for the time being. I have some ideas for implementing area attacks, as well as attacks that impose debilities (I just need to try and square the math); basically, the idea will be to use Trained/Untrained/Disadvantage as a means of "stepping down" damage, in order to leverage such powers. In addition to that, I will want to come up with some sample/example monsters -- in particular, conversions of popular or iconic enemies.

Check back May 15th!

Skill Difficulties (2018)

In the previous post on this topic (for Beta 4) I covered most of the fundamentals about how skill usage should be handled, in The Next Project; it's probably worth re-reading before diving into this post. Today I want to expand on that, get into the skill math a little bit deeper, and also touch on "free-form" skill use vs. more structured "skill challenges."

We've already set up the parameters of "when not to roll" -- if a course of action is either trivially easy, or impossible -- but perhaps that needs to be expanded on a bit, with some more crunch applied. Specifically, this means that if/when the DM is going to ask for a roll, there is going to be a chance of failure. So what does that mean in numerical terms?


Math behind the Madness

The 'Beta 4' post established the different degrees of competency that characters can have with each skill; with our universal difficulty (or "DC") of 10, this gives us the following success rates (including critical successes):

1. untrained: 55%
2. expertise: 60%
3. trained: 72.5%
4. trained+expertise: 81.666...%

What this means is that at the highest competency level, the failure rate caps out just below 20%, with the DM having the discretion to further reduce that to zero -- if they declare that a course of action simply succeeds without needing to roll.

Meaningful Results

If we look at the numbers when allowing multiple rolls at the highest competency level, the chance of failure almost immediately starts to approach zero (which, if that is the desired result, then the established rule for "trivially easy" actions should have been invoked.) So while it has always been enforced in my playtests, I'm not sure this has ever been explicitly written into the rules: the party should not be allowed to attempt the same skill check more than once, to overcome the same obstacle. If they are required to roll, it is because the DM wants there to be a chance of failure, and if failure is the result, then the party must attempt a different course of action, in order to proceed.

The example of this from the previous post would be "picking a lock" vs. "breaking a door down" -- if one doesn't work, the party can try the other (or they must simply choose an alternate path.) But the effect of the failure is that the approach must be changed, instead of just rolling the same approach until it succeeds.

Another tool we can put at the disposal of the DM borrows from 4th Edition D&D's skill challenges; a failure can mean a change in approach, or a loss of resources. In some cases, it might be appropriate to allow a failed course of action to succeed, if the player is willing to sacrifice one of their reserves to do so.

Structure vs. Restriction

If only one attempt can be made at each skill check, it also incentivizes party members to diversify their skill selections, across the group; each character should have their own area of specialization, and should only really overlap in case the party gets split up. With all of this in place, we can see how the system helps to facilitate teamwork and "sharing the spotlight" a little bit. The question then becomes whether this needs to be formalized mechanically, even further.

The way skill challenges worked in 4th Edition, it was essentially turn-based; you went "around the table" and everyone took a turn making a skill check of some sort. This, however, is counter to the best practices that came out of actual play experience, with the system. My own anecdotes line up with the advice that "the best skill challenges are the ones the players don't know they're in." 

The best way to achieve this is to put the party in a non-combat scenario with multiple different leads or threads that can be followed, and then ask them which ones they choose to pursue, and how. Giving everyone a chance to act and to have their share of the spotlight is important (as it always should be in gaming) but "gamifying" it into turns can sometimes get in the way of the scene evolving organically, or "the action flowing from the fiction."

Turn-based skill challenges should be a tool in the DM's kit, but one that is used sparingly. All characters in TNP are designed to be able to meaningfully contribute in any encounter; there should be no "risk aversion" on the part of the players, in non-combat encounters. If this is a problem that a DM consistently runs into with their group, then instituting a round/turn structure can be used to help cajole people into putting themselves out there a bit more.

Keeping Score

The next question when examining skill challenges is how you measure success -- and I'll just come right out and say, that I think this comes down to taste.

If a non-combat scene requires the party to amass a certain number of clues, the DM can weigh the numbers of successes and failures it took to get them all, and decide (based on that) whether to award XP or not -- perhaps even going so far as to penalize reserves for particularly unsuccessful outings.

Alternatively (if appropriate to the scene) failure at a skill challenge can end in combat (resulting in a similar expenditure of reserves) albeit with the express understanding that whatever knowledge there was to be gleaned from the skill challenge will be given to the players, at the end of the fight. In any case, the over-arching plot still needs to be advanced, regardless of the outcome.

---

Next post

Work has been going on behind the scenes on compiling the new draft of the rules, but there haven't been any real revelations from that process -- it's just the usual, expected grind.

As always, check back in 10 days for the next update. If you have any questions or requests for blog content going forward, leave a comment below, or get ahold of me wherever you get your TNP links from.

Monster Math -- Part 3: Standards & Elites

Standard Monsters

When building an encounter, your standard monster should have about the same HP as a PC would; this gives us a range between 24 and 32. However, in terms of budgeting, we should use two standard monsters per one PC; as such, we can adjust the HP of standard monsters up or down. For example, you could have one monster with 20 HP and another with 36 HP to account for the encounter budget value of one PC.

Standard monsters will use the "monster roll" of 1d6+1d10 for damage, but this damage can be split across two "attacks" i.e. triggering two separate Defense rolls from the PC target. Standard monsters also use 1d6+1d10 for all of their rolls.

As touched on in a previous post, we can customize different monsters by applying bonuses or penalties to different rolls (skill checks, initiative checks, damage, and opportunity attacks.) This is how our monsters will primarily set themselves apart from one another.


Elite Monsters

An elite monster should have double the HP of one PC. Elites gain Advantage on damage rolls; this functions similarly to the "double roll and stack" rule, except that both dice can be treated as maximum value. While it shouldn't be necessary, the DM can choose to "pull punches" and only maximize one (or neither) of the dice.

Elite monsters cannot be Intimidated unless they are Bloodied. In addition, they do not take extra damage from attacks that are critical successes; these types of successes against Elites can still be "banked" for Advantage later in the same encounter.

Generally, DMs should use more than one elite monster in an encounter (if they are going to use them at all); PCs will often focus on the biggest, baddest enemy, so sometimes it's a good idea to make it harder to prioritize a single target. An elite monster uses the encounter budget value of one PC.

I wanted to give elite monsters a few more perks, so as a special rule, they do not roll for initiative. Instead, they simply act on the highest initiative rolled for the monsters, by the DM. This also serves to set a limit on elites in terms of encounter budgeting; there must be at least one non-elite monster in every encounter group (to roll initiative for any elites in the encounter.)


-----

Next post should be up on June 25th, where I hope to touch on Solo encounters, as well as polish up some of the monster rules a bit more.

Monster Math -- Part 2: Minions & Swarms

In a previous post (where I touched on encounter-building) I had figured out that the budget/ratio for minions would be about 10 HD per 1 PC.

We want to give the DM some tools with which to construct their encounters, so both minions and swarms will be built off of this same budget, but with distinct mechanics, to help differentiate them from one another.


Minions
One of the things that was touched on in the last Monster Math post was that we don't want "cheap" enemies (such as minions) to be able to overwhelm the PCs with skill checks. With this is mind, we're going to bend the core mechanics a little: instead of needing to roll a 10 or higher to succeed at a skill check, minions need to roll a number equal to or lower than their current HD. Their skill checks will still use the universal "monster roll" of 1d6 and 1d10.

When a minion takes the "Use a Skill" action, the DM makes a monster roll, and can then decide which skill to use. Minions will have their skills rated as follows:

• Poor: use the d10 result
• Fair: use the d6 result
• Good: use either die result for the check

With this setup in mind, we'll want to cap the number of HD that a minion can have. For example, a 6 HD minion would succeed at a "Fair" check without needing to roll. As such, minions should have less than 5 HD; minions with 5 or more HD will be treated as swarms.

In terms of damage, minions do not roll, but instead simply deal damage equal to their current HD (meaning they deal less damage as they take damage themselves.) Further, when minions target a PC, it does not provoke a Defense roll; the damage is simply automatic, to facilitate faster DM turns. Notably, minions will only deal damage to a single target, and they will be treated as one enemy for the purposes of PC attacks.

Swarms

So while they will essentially be minions of 5 HD or more, swarms will operate a little differently than their minion counterparts. Firstly, they will use the same skill mechanism as Standard or Elite monsters; roll 1d6+1d10, and succeed on a 10 or higher. Also, swarms will be limited to using only melee attacks.

Where swarms really set themselves apart from minions is in targeting:

For the purpose of PCs using attacks:

• unengaged swarms count as multiple enemies
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom count as one enemy

For the purpose of dealing damage:

• unengaged swarms may deal their damage to a single target
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom must split their damage amongst PCs in that maelstrom

What this does is that it makes loose swarms more dangerous in terms of their ability to "focus fire" but also makes them easier to deal damage to; swarms that are part of a maelstrom are harder to damage, but are less deadly to a single target if the party chooses to gang up on the swarm. We also need to cap the maximum number of HD that swarms can have; I think that 10-15 is a good range, if we reverse-engineer from the HP of our PCs. 

Encounter Guidelines

While we have established that 1 PC = 10 HD worth of minions or swarms, we need to further cap this number in terms of the numbers used to build an entire encounter. The reason for this, is because of the nature of minions and swarms dealing damage automatically.

Since PCs cap out at 32 HP, this means we should never have a combined number of enemies with more than this number of HD in an encounter; we don't want minions or swarms to be able to focus fire and kill one or more PCs before they can even act. The general expectation I have set for myself when building monsters, is that an "average" fight should be able to take the PCs down to half their maximum HP (around 15.)

This sets a good range for us: 15 to 30 HD. Since we know minions and swarms get weaker as the fight goes on (and they take damage) we can skew "hard" encounters towards the higher end of that range, but keep easier fights at the lower end.

-----

Next post should be about Standard & Elite monsters, so look for that on (or after) June 15th!

Monster Math -- Part 1: Rolls & Actions

Today I'm going to start talking about some of the basics behind the monster design for The Next Project (with apologies to Bobby "Boris" Pickett, for the horrible pun in the title.)

The most immediate things we need to consider are what actions the monsters can take, and what rolls they can or will actually make. Where this system fundamentally differs from most d20 games, is that the players are always rolling to determine the result of an attack (whether they are making the attack, or suffering one.) Notably, this means that monsters will never deal a critical "hit" to the PCs. This also narrows down the the types and numbers of rolls that monsters will make, quite significantly. The list of what remains looks something like this:

• Initiative checks
• Skill checks
• Damage rolls
• Opportunity Attacks

While specific monsters may also be able to make Trade-offs (depending on their ability sets) those are pretty much it for monster rolls.

For initiative checks, we can give monsters a separate "score" or "bonus" for the roll, or we can have them simply use a skill, as the PCs do. In terms of actual skill checks, monsters (by necessity) only need to be assigned Training or Expertise with Combat skills, rather than also needing other "core" skills, or "background" skills. So that narrows down the list of specific skills that monsters need a "score" for to this list:

• STR: Brawl (including grapple/reverse grapple, and shove), Break Objects, Climb, Intimidate
• AGIL: Escape, Tumble, Jump, Stealth
• WIS: Perception

Now, we may want to limit which skills certain types of monsters can use. To wit, monsters that appear in larger numbers probably should not be able to simply overwhelm the PCs and mitigate their tactics through the sheer volume of skill checks they can make. This is another limitation we should consider, which can also serve to help simplify the job of the DM.

In terms of damage, monsters should be doing about 10 damage per "hit," as was outlined in a previous post. To come up with this result, I am proposing that we should use 1d6+1d10 for our monster damage rolls; this can also be used for their Opportunity Attacks, but we can apply bonuses separately to each of these types of rolls, in order to help flavour and differentiate our monsters.

The reason behind this thinking comes from its use in a previous untitled RPG that I wrote, and my familiarity with it, statistically. This dice expression produces a result with an average of 9, having all numbers from 7 through 11 be equally likely (10% each.) This damage caps out at 16, which is just over half the HP of the average PC. Using existing game language such as Expertise and "double roll" mechanics, we can increase the minimum and average results of this dice expression, without increasing the maximum; these tools will be used to further diversify our rogue's gallery.

To further streamline the DM's job of controlling the party's antagonists, monster skill checks will use this same roll. This means that monsters will not be capable of reaching the statistical benchmarks that PCs can (in terms of their baseline skill effectiveness, and capability to critically succeed) but it does allow the DM to roll the same dice regardless of the action a monster ends up taking. Potentially, the DM could decide the action after seeing the result of the roll, or such a perk could be limited to certain monster types.

In order for this unique type of roll to fit within the game's existing mechanical framework, we'll have to make some adjustments and specific exceptions for when these elements interact with monsters. In particular, things like Advantage or Disadvantage (as well as statuses which may grant them) will need to be ironed out.

...

Next blogpost will be another change log, but following that, the Monster Math series will continue, at least until the "summer break" (and possibly after) which begins in late June.

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.

Scattershot (Beta 4)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Housekeeping

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

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