Powers vs. Power Strike: Fishing for Crits (2025)

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but let's examine the difference in ethos between 4e and Essentials a little bit.

With an attack power in 4e, generally you declare that you're using it, then the button gets pushed, and you roll dice to determine if you hit. This means that (hit or miss) the power is expended, assuming it is a Daily or Encounter power. In Essentials, the Fighter class instead functioned off of confirming a hit with a melee basic attack; after the hit was confirmed, they would then push the Power Strike button (an encounter power) to deal additional damage. (The Paladin in Essentials got a similar mechanic, and the Scout subclass for Ranger also got access to Power Strike.)

What this meant was that you never had to "waste" your encounter powers, on a miss. It also meant that you could choose to use it only when you scored a critical hit, thus maximizing the damage effectiveness even further. It's also worth mentioning that since attacks like Charge or opportunity attacks also functioned off of melee basic attacks in 4e, buffing such attacks with Power Strike was also possible. In the 2014 version of 5e, this is also true of the Paladin's Divine Smite ability, because it is cued off of scoring a hit with a melee weapon -- so this could be done with each attack made on your turn, in addition to opportunity attacks (as long as you have the spell slots to burn.) Similarly, the Battle Master in 5e keys its maneuvers off of scoring a hit first, and then expending superiority dice after.

So, how will this work for the TNP sequel mechanics?

Well, the ethos of "2d6 + pool" implies that all of the dice will be in the pool, before the roll is made. This means that we're going to be declaring which power we're using, first -- much like in 4e. However, since adding dice to the pool increases our chances of hitting (while also increasing damage) we end up getting a benefit similar to the "Power Strike"-style of mechanic, but without the two-stage confirmation system being applied to the roll.

This begs the question of whether there should be a mechanic for critical hits, in the sequel. If we take 1/20 as our baseline (5%), then saying "11 or 12 on 2d6" would give us a 2/36 (or 1/18) crit rate, which is pretty comparable. However, we need to keep in mind that the assumption is that the attacker will always be rolling at least 3 dice; scoring at least an 11 on "highest 2 of 3d6" already boosts that to almost 1/5 -- whereas a 12 is only 7.41%

An interesting quirk of the pool system is that damage potential also increases hit potential. This also means that as your crit chance goes up, your crit damage is going up; rolling 5d6 gives almost a 1/5 chance of scoring a 12 on the attack roll, but having 3 dice of crit damage is also going to do a lot more than only having 1 die (particularly if crits are handled by say, using the rolled damage but also adding the dice's maximum value, as in TNP.)

A third thing I've been thinking about is whether there should be a flat number of "daily" power uses, or whether this should be tied to attributes in some way. In previous RPG designs that I've done, I had encounter and daily resources keyed off of stats, so the idea of doing it that way is not completely foreign to me. I was thinking of it in terms of utilization, with my classic example being the Paladin. You're going to want STR for damage, and CHA as your pool stat... but then what? We've got at least 3 other attributes to account for, and we don't want to end up with the default "dump everything into AGIL because it's initiative."

So do we make something like INT the "per day" stat (for Paladin, at least?) that governs the number of uses of your "dice pool" stat? This would necessitate your INT and CHA stats both always being at least a +1, which ties into the idea I had presented previously that your class might prescribe which of your attributes has to be a +0. This also (aside from the obvious) highlights that a "flat 10" number of points to be spread across 5 attributes would probably be a little high, if the assumption was that the Paladin only really needs meaningful numbers in 2 of those stats... particularly if the max in any stat is expected to be +3 and not +4. I do like the idea of a +4/+3/+2/+1/+0 as the "standard array" for a loadout with 5 attributes, so maybe that just solidifies it.

Now, what this does is create some interesting choices. Do you want to "pool" harder, but less often? Do you want to do it weaker, but more often? Do you want to just swing your sword harder (knowing that you're getting double your stat as damage, on a two-handed weapon) and let the pool just be a nice cherry on top, once or twice a day? Naturally, there will be ways to optimize it, but then we also have to think of how our attribute choices impact skills, and not just combat -- which I think would tend towards a heavier focus on CHA, for our Paladin. From a design perspective, we also should give some consideration to, "if our pool button can only get pushed X times per day, then how should that number line up with our crit math?" while keeping in mind the fact that pushing the button is also what increases those odds.

...

Bit of a broad discussion in today's post, but hopefully the ideas flow together well enough for the readers out there.

November's scheduling is a little bit in flux, but I would expect the next post to be up by November 13th, so check back then!

Class Showcase: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (2023)

 So for today's 3 classes, we have the (mostly) martial bunch:

• The Fighter (d6/d12)
• The Paladin (d6/d10)
  
• The Ranger (d8/d10)

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, these classes are sort of grouped together, with "fighting styles" being their common mechanic; the fighter gets access to all, ranger leans towards two-weapon fighting or archery, and paladin can basically get any of the others.

It seems clear that there was a deliberate attempt to make Fighters in 5e that could be built for more than just melee, and I felt that was valuable to keep in TNP. However, I didn't want the fighting styles to be something you were pigeon-holed into, so I added the mechanic of each additional style giving you extra damage. The TNP version of the Fighter is actually an outgrowth of the original "Warrior" class, which was a much more barbarian-ish, d12 class; as the Fighter-y bits got added more and more into the Warrior, the d12 made less and less sense. When I started working on the 3rd slate of classes, I decided to make the Fighter as a separate, d6 class, and later with the two-dice revision, d6/d12 seemed the obvious choice.

The Paladin in TNP, on the other hand, was one of the original 5 character classes... sort of -- having evolved out of the d10 "Fighter" class to include some more holy/healing abilities, which the slate was otherwise completely lacking. There are some subtle influences from Diablo 2, as the Paladin in that game was probably my favourite class. I liked the idea of either taking a Cleric domain or a Fighter role (or possibly fighting style) with the Paladin, so I sort of massaged that into the class specialization options; the Fighter and Paladin sharing the d6 class die made role the easier fighter option to share. In much the same way as in 5e, the Paladin isn't mean to be a "pure" healer or "main" healer, but they're a frontliner who can dish out some healing as they fight. I can honestly say I had fun playing a Blackguard in 4e, and so including a dark Paladin with some of the thievery-type skills had always been on my radar.

The Ranger has always been a d8 class, but honestly, stapling an "extra damage die" such as the d10 onto the class just worked flawlessly. The scout subclass bounced around between Ranger and Rogue for a bit, before finally settling in as part of the Adventurer class; I wanted to keep classes to only 2 subclasses, and that sort of necessitated this. Probably the two-weapon fighting and the archery Rangers are the most iconic, particularly coming out of 4th Edition; TNP's Ranger is more akin to the Essentials' Hunter ranger, stapled onto the beastmaster archetype of the Martial Power book. I feel the latter playstyle became popularized for a lot of people (myself included) with the World of Warcraft hunter class, and I think using the beast for 4e's iconic "twin strike" manages to work out ok.

...

So, the remaining "completed" class is the Rogue, with 5 others still needing to be polished up and finalized; I might squeeze in a post on another topic, rather than continue with the class showcases, for the next one.

Check back on October 20th!

What to expect from 2018

Happy new year, everyone!
For those keeping score, the blog had just over 1000 views a year ago, and now it's at just under 3000.

Today I'm going to try and touch on as many thing as I can, pertaining to what I plan to write about on the blog this year, as well as the sorts of innovations and changes that will appear in the game design itself. But before getting into any of that, I'm happy to announce that the first draft of the "starter slate" classes is all ready to go:

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

I should point out that these classes have been written with much of the new framework in mind; it shouldn't be difficult to have the rest of the classes match up to that. Notably, since there are no "archetype-only" classes in this slate, it'll be important to make sure that those classes have enough customization options, once they are re-written.

In terms of the blog itself, of course I will be including information on changes to the designs, as they come up. In addition to that, I would also like to go back and discuss how some of the existing ideas came to be, and why those decisions were made; for example, I'd like to write about the original slate of 5 classes, the use of Class Dice, and the skill setup. In terms of scheduling, I'm hoping to stick to the plan laid out here, adhering to my "every 10th day"-ish routine, with breaks in July and December.

As I touched on in my previous post, in terms of development, I want to essentially update the classes to the 2018 Edition aesthetic, one slate at a time -- rather than doing all classes in concert with one another. What this means is that (once the core rules are likewise updated) I intend to do some playtesting with the starter set, then adjust those classes (and the core rules) as needed, then work to release another slate of classes, playtest them, and so forth in that fashion.

...

For some mechanical changes (in addition to those already announced) I'm going to work at streamlining and fixing a few things:

Opportunity Attacks: Though I like the conceit of just doing auto-damage with these actions, it's not a good fit for TNP. With some classes getting "double roll and stack" on this damage, it clashes with the positional mechanics that can impose disadvantage on OAs, requiring a specific rules-exception that I don't like. Also, not having an attack roll makes it sort of a misnomer, and I haven't found an alternate piece of jargon that's to my liking. As such, OAs will now use a traditional attack roll. One potential benefit of this is that it will allow for classes to have both a basic attack and an Opportunity Attack "loadout" which may open up new design space.

Trade-offs/Double Rolls: The mechanic of Trade-offs is one that has often been classed as a misnomer, by some of the readers. As the designs have evolved, the specific use of Trade-offs has not been applied uniformly enough, in my estimation. Since things like Counter-attack and Power Attack already have design changes planned (to make them operate without using Trade-offs) I'm going to remove this piece of jargon from the rules, completely. This means that some class abilities will have to be (or have already been) completely changed or replaced. For other instances, the "double roll" terminology will be used instead. Since double rolls that are not just advantage or disadvantage are generally limited to using Class Dice (rather than d20s) you can expect to see that spelled out more explicitly, in the next draft of the rules.

Advantage/Disadvantage: I am considering a few changes to these mechanics:
1) a return to "if you have both advantage and disadvantage, roll 3 dice and use the middle result" (which appeared in earlier drafts.) I might want to have this in place, so that the design space of using both the highest roll and the lowest roll remains viable, in instances where both advantage and disadvantage would apply.
2) re-rolling the dice, in the case of disadvantage resulting in a tie; overall, I don't like to have re-rolls (particularly for play-by-post purposes.) However, the general rule of "treat one result as its maximum value on a tied double roll" functionally does nothing, with disadvantage -- I may want to change that.
Neither of these are set in stone yet, but they are both on my radar.

...

That's about all for today; check back next weekend for another post!

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!

Know Your Role (Beta 4)

In one of my recent posts, I talked a bit about how subtypes will be changing in the next iteration of the rules; the two forms of "combat subtypes" (those that can be chosen/changed at the start of combat) will be unified under the "Role" banner.

The plan is that there will be 3 classes with both Roles and Archetypes (Fighter, Bard, Adventurer) and 3 classes with Roles only (Warlord, Mystic, and Druid.)

In past iterations, the Warlord's roles appeared as "Commander" and "Protector" archetypes. What will now be "Roles" for the Mystic could easily have been strict Paths, but I felt "Necromancer" and "Warlock" were close enough in feel, that allowing more customization was the side to err on. Similarly, as the design progressed, the Druid's subtypes felt less and less like the building blocks of two distinct classes, and more like two sides of the same coin.

The challenge with integrating these three classes into the Role framework comes out of ironing out what their subtypes actually do. The Warlord is pretty straightforward, in this regard: while the class chassis contains the "healer" mechanics, the Commander is the part that contains the "enabling" mechanics -- so I'd say this makes it the "Support" role; the Protector maps pretty clearly to the "Defender" role.

This gets a little messier once we start to look at the Mystic and the Druid, however. The Warlock is a straightforward "blaster" sort of character (i.e. the "Striker" role); the Necromancer is a "Summoner" (as is the Druid's Summoner subtype, obviously) but unfortunately, "Summoner" isn't a pre-existing Role. The Shapeshifter doesn't fit neatly into the framework, either; it's intended to be able to use its forms to serve different roles -- a kind of "6th man" character class, so to speak.

However, with the "4.1 version" of the Druid, the class chassis was given a "healer" mechanic -- in a way, making it very similar to how the Warlord is built. So while the Shapeshifter subclass isn't specifically about "enabling" allies, it is intended to use its utility to "support" the party -- by being whatever they need in a particular combat encounter (or perhaps to round out an undersized group.) Although I've waffled on whether or not to simply rename the "Support" role to "Utility" across the board, I can say that I have decided to put the Shapeshifter under this heading -- whatever it ends up being called, in the end.

Now, the Druid and Mystic being related by a summoning mechanic, harkens back to an earlier draft (Beta 2, maybe?) where the Summoner class came in "Beastlord" and "Necromancer" flavours. It still makes sense that they should share a Role, now -- but I wasn't sure if having a "Summoner" role that applied to only two classes was the way to do it.

The solution came in looking at the existing Roles, and how they are doled out so far. Controller is currently only found on the Bard and Adventurer classes; while those roles are more about controlling enemies, it's not much of a leap to then apply that convention to the role of controlling summoned creatures. What helps make the case, is the fact that the controller role (as it exists in 4th Edition) can be a bit broad and nebulous, but also that some of the controller classes in that system gained summoning options, at different points in its lifespan.


So, for classes with roles, we end up with this setup:

• Fighter: Defender, Striker
• Warlord: Defender, Support
• Bard: Controller, Support
• Mystic: Controller, Striker
• Druid: Controller, Support
• Adventurer: Controller, Defender, Striker

It has long been my intention that Power Source would be the lynch-pin by which you could re-spec your classes; since The Next Project has traditionally been less about leveling up, I wanted to provide some lateral flexibility for character "growth." Power Source makes sense, for keeping the flavour of your character consistent (while allowing you to change its mechanics) but it's clear now that Role will also be something which players can pivot their character class upon. Probably all classes with access to Roles will begin with one, and be able to "purchase" additional Roles as they level -- which would then carry over, if a character changed to a class that also utilized the same role, or roles.

Deconstructing Archetypes (Beta 4)

Today I want to look at some of the classes that use Archetypes, and discuss how these bundles of features will need to be broken down in the next iteration of The Next Project.

For some classes, archetypes mainly serve to staple on some modifications to basic mechanics (Power Attack, for example) but are not definitive to those particular classes. I would put Fighter, Guardian, (and Barbarian, under the upcoming revision) archetypes under this description.

For other classes, their archetypes add riders to all or most of their Iconic Abilities. I'd include Cleric and Paladin here, although admittedly the Cleric's archetype and subclass mechanics become fairly tightly intertwined.

Another grouping would be the classes where archetypes contain their distinguishing mechanic. The Scout and Skald archetypes for Adventurer, as well as the Hexblade and Swordmage archetypes for Spellbinder come to mind here -- fitting, since each archetype maps directly to a specific class. These archetypes also give you some specific options for trained skills, as well as expanding on your options for picking power sources -- all of which is also true for the Paladin's archetypes.

Similarly, Sage archetypes do a lot. They grant your class an Iconic Ability, trained skillset, and a power source. On the flip side of that coin, the default Bard archetypes serve more of a flavour function than a mechanical one, giving the class a more focused background, as well as core skills to pick from.


With the intention of reverse-engineering things into a shape that can be used for our leveling structure, 3 main building blocks (nested within Archetypes) start to emerge:

• Core Skill training
• Iconic Abilities / riders
• Power Sources / background skills

For classes that solely gain Archetypes as their form of customization -- Paladin, Spellbinder, and Barbarian -- we then need to look at these building blocks, in order to try and grant them parity with other classes. The Paladin and Spellbinder classes in particular already gain additional options from their archetypes (for Core Skill training as well as Power Sources) but do not actually gain them as upgrades, beyond the baselines. I think for this "category" of classes, Core Skill training and/or Power Sources could be used as additional upgrades via the leveling process.

Conversely, something like Sage archetypes probably need to be broken down into its component parts: the Iconic Ability, plus the option to pick a different Core Skillset or Power Source, could serve as the perk of the archetype; gaining those optional upgrades would then be a separate leveling perk.

Ultimately, I think that in terms of Archetype benefits, we're going to have to look at Iconic Abilities and Core Skill training as being of equal "cost" or "value" in terms of level-up currency. This can then be extrapolated to help design for classes with less customization options (those with only the Subclass option.) Such classes would need to be able to gain Core Skill training far above that of the existing baseline; fortunately, such classes are intended to be skillful, anyway -- the Acrobat, Rogue, and Ranger classes, specifically.

Change Log [2017/02/25] (Beta 4)

A couple more updates:

• [Core Rules] Power Attack can now only be used on Basic Attacks that are made as a Standard Action (Bard's Sword & Sorcery may end up changing to Iconic Attacks due to this, but for right now I'm leaving it as Basic Attacks)
• [Core Rules] Added explanation of Subclass/Archetype/Role into the text.
• Wizard can now make ranged basic attacks as a minor action
• Monk can now make melee basic attacks as a minor action, which deals additional damage; Monks gain advantage on melee basic attack rolls
• Bard's Sword & Sorcery now grants advantage to one of the attacks, instead of advantage to one and disadvantage to the other
• Fighter wording altered to grant Fighting Styles without needing an Archetype
• Some Archetypes renamed to "Subclasses"; wording on Roles altered; Domains, Disciplines (i.e. Sage schools), and Totems are now treated as "Archetypes"
• Adventuring Skills renamed to "Core Skills"
• All class backgrounds adjusted to accommodate Power Sources
• Re-worded the Domain riders on Cleric's Bless ability; War Domain's rider changed to only work on Basic Attacks
• Paladin wording altered to grant Trained Skills and Power Sources without needing an Archetype
• Bard background benefits tweaked; added INT skills as a Scholar option
• Fighter's Two-Weapon Whirlwind clarified w/r/t making Brawl checks; also changed this ability to use a double roll instead of a Trade-off, using one roll for the number of attacks and the other roll for the damage (similar to the Monk's Flurry of Fists; the distinction between Trade-offs and similarly-functioning double rolls will be ironed out in later updates)
• Increased Fighter's number of Reserves

Change Log [2017/01/25] (Beta 4)

Here's a list of some of the changes that have been made to the various classes, since the start of the holiday break:

• Archer can now Counter-attack against ranged; same Hunter ability re-worded
• Acrobat using d20 to Power Attack removed; specialty basic attacks are now Reliable; Martial Artist's prone ability now works on unsuccessful attacks; Archer's reroll ability now works on any ranged attack (not just ranged basic)
• Wizard's Magic Missile basic attack is now Reliable; Veritable Vision now grants Expertise to damage rolls
• Assassin now gets training in either AGIL or Infiltration, instead of defaulting to AGIL
• Rogue Tactics given archetype-specific effects; clarified how Disengaging works via Cloak & Dagger
• "Warrior" class renamed to "Adventurer"
• Adventurer's Defender ability changed to "1d10[exp] or 1d20[exp] for defense rolls"
• swapped some aspects of the Fighter and Adventurer TWF abilities
• Soldier archetype's power attack ability limited to attacks made as a standard action; Weapon Training's miss roll is now likewise limited; Weapon Training can no longer turn misses into crits
• Fighter's Protection style changed to "allies in your maelstrom" instead of "Nearby ally"
• changed some Guardian totem perks to require spirit manifestation; Blood Totem now does extra damage when you are bloodied
• Cleric regains some HP when spending reserves in combat
• Ranger mark damage changed to "advantage; stack if you already had advantage"
• Bard can now Power Attack using a basic roll
• Bard's "Leader" role renamed to "Support"
• Necromancer's Animate Dead changed to allow for multi-HD minions
• Warlock's minor action attack removed; Eldritch Blast iconic attack now targets a number of enemies based on the roll, rather than making a number of attacks based on the roll
• Mystic's trained skills corrected to fit current format (oops)
• Paladin's Holy Aura reworded, now grants defense bonus only on unsuccessful rolls
• Paladin now gets training in either STR or Influence skills, instead of both (still gets additional skill training from their Archetypes)
• Swordmage now gets training in both STR and Influence skills, instead of one or the other
• Hexblade's Beguiling Blade changed to "roll class die in place of d20 roll" rather than "double roll and stack in place of an unsuccessful attack roll"
• Changed the rules on stacking class dice onto d20 rolls, in the core rules; clarified mechanics of using a basic roll for a Trade-off