Overview: Subclasses & Categories (2023)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Design Origins -- Part 6: Movement & Positioning

Today I want to talk about the design decisions behind some of the game's positional considerations. Largely these choices came out of my own game experiences and personal preferences, so I'm going to do my best to explain those, in detail.

My experience with RPGs in general is that they are largely two-dimensional in nature (whether that be a Diablo game or a D&D game.) The main thing I noticed when playing D&D, was the tendency for the action (in combat) to crowd into whatever was the most spacious open area of the battlefield. I can recall in a session of 3.5 once, our DM had built some simple structures from popsicle sticks, to provide cover and elevation -- but still this tendency held true, and the terrain was mostly ignored.

Our opponents had one archer up on a rooftop, and so I (playing a Monk) made it my objective to scramble up there and fight him toe-to-toe. Once I had, the verticality completely lost its impact, and we found ourselves once again in regular old combat, albeit slightly separated from the rest of our respective parties.

While I liked 4th Edition's use of the grid, and movement abilities on powers, I felt like it relied too much on making an interesting map, in order for these sorts of powers to feel potent and meaningful. From the DM perspective, managing or homebrewing monsters and encounter groups on its own felt like enough work, without having to build creative arenas to make every fight interesting or challenging. Particularly since I've always been more compelled by the storytelling aspects of running the game, I came away feeling like the system was asking too much of its DMs.

I should also take a moment here to mention a change that I didn't particularly like, from 3.5 over to 4e: the Acrobatics skill. Essentially what this tried to do was combine skills like Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist into one. The problem with it was that originally Tumble had been used to avoid opportunity attacks, while moving around the battlefield -- but instead, 4e hung that function onto "shifting." In and of itself, that's not necessarily a bad thing, however, it had the knock-on effect of making the Acrobatics skill ...not actually do Tumble -- making it a bit too niche, in practical application. I had enjoyed using Tumble (particularly on the aforementioned Monk character) and so with TNP I decided I wanted to sort of turn back the clock, and make that skill matter again. (I should add that while I like 5e's decision to use "movement speed" as something you can spend over the course of your turn, rather than "move actions," it simultaneously fails to have either a "shifting" mechanic or a Tumble skill -- which I find completely baffling. There are feats and class features that allow movement without provoking opportunity attacks, but the lack of a baseline maneuver with which to do so, is outright strange, in my opinion.)

Now, one thing that I think is important to look at with 4e is how range was handled. Specifically, ranged weapons and spells typically could hit targets within 10 squares; coincidentally, your average character's move speed was 6 squares, with the "Charge" action letting them move their speed and make a basic attack -- effectively letting them move 12 squares. So we can see that melee and ranged combatants were meant to have comparable targeting capability; 4th Edition's relatively shorter distances (in addition to features like Prime Shot) worked to keep the party fairly close together, in combat. This is something that 5e forgot about, instead opting to gate Charge behind a feat (for some reason) while giving even the most basic cantrips a range of 120ft (effectively 24 squares.)

If we look at 13th Age, they've completely done away with the granular measurements, in favour of relative positioning. Generally speaking, all combatants will be no more than 2 move actions away from each other, within this system. To me, this makes sense; any further away, and you shouldn't really be considered part of the encounter, or be taking turns within initiative. TNP streamlines this a little further, effectively assuming that all combatants are "Nearby" -- barring things like cover or high ground. I borrowed fairly heavily from 13th Age's execution on positioning, because I feel like it produces similar outcomes to a traditional grid system, just without all the minutiae. Some people who were following TNP's development wanted more tactical options and verticality, so things like "prone" and "high ground" would eventually find their way into the designs, however I feel like these things are likewise executed a bit more simplistically than in traditional D&D.

Where TNP starts to set itself apart, is by making the PCs the focus of the action; this is done by using the mechanic of the maelstrom. All combatants are defined by whether they are "open" or in a maelstrom. So rather than having to say "well I'm behind this guy, but in front of that guy" or "I'm one move away from X but two moves away from Y" the system instead assumes that everyone is in open space, until they become engaged in melee. Each melee group then becomes almost a unique feature of the map; combatants can enter or leave the maelstrom, but who is where at any given time is defined in terms of these melee groups. A maelstrom including any number of enemies, but only one PC, is therefore defined as belonging to that character -- the combat scene effectively centering around them.

What this accomplishes "at the table" is that it allows most encounters to be depicted using miniatures alone; a map with terrain features (but not necessarily with a grid on it) can be helpful and immersive, but it is not mechanically required. Similarly, an intention of this mechanical framework is to help facilitate play-by-post games; positioning can be handled entirely by text (or perhaps even using something as simple as a spreadsheet) without any need to attach images of a map, and having to constantly update them. I've often enjoyed both of these methods of play, but I felt the necessity of a grid (in some games) became a major detriment to "PBP" in particular.


...


Apologies for the somewhat scatterbrained nature of this post; hopefully it at least gets the intent across. Check for the next post on November 20th.

Classification & Categorization (2018)

One of the things that will need to be polished up for the upcoming versions of the game is the leveling system, which is a new feature as of the 2018 Edition writings. Part and parcel to this is the upgrade system, in turn tying itself into the slates and categories of classes. So I wanted to take some time today and untangle all of this, in order to give an idea of where I'll need to be taking the designs, in the future.


Inspiration
First, I want to start of with a bit of nostalgia (without making a full-blown "Origins" post.) Back in 4th Edition D&D, each Player's Handbook (PHB) introduced several classes, with successive books also adding classes with new power sources (Primal in PHB2, and Psionic in PHB3.) Further on, players options would also appear in "Power" books -- geared to all classes within a particular power source, despite these classes often being spread across more than one of the PHBs. I had always thought it would have been nice if they (at some point) made some sort of compendium books, based on power source -- a reprinting of each class (including errata) as well as all of the additional players options for that power source, which had come out along the way.

This ended up forming the sort of thematic basis of the class slates, in TNP. Where 4th Edition's PHBs each had classes spanning no less than three power sources, I initially wanted to have my class slates each based on only one. Ultimately, that would have meant expanding to five slates, or cutting down the number of power sources, so I instead settled on three slates, with (ideally) two main power sources, each: the 1st slate being Martial/Divine, the 2nd being Arcane/Shadow, with the 3rd being mainly Primal.


Metamorphosis
Now, as I had touched on in a previous post, where 4th Edition essentially defines a class as "role + power source" (creating its "class slates" by filling in that grid) TNP tries to go in a different direction. Classes are mostly defined by their Class Die and (what I've come to refer to as) their "category" -- which is, in short, the ways in which a class can be customized, namely by Subclass, Combat Role, and Specialist Class. There are 5 combinations of these options, and each slate contains one class for each combination.

With all this in place, once I began to break these options out into what could or couldn't be used for purchasable upgrades (in order to help build the leveling system) it became clear that (because of their category) certain classes would need additional upgrades. For example, a class which gets both Combat Roles and Specialist Classes to pick from, would already have two possible upgrades already built for them -- whereas a "Subclass only" character would effectively be "fully customized" from the get-go.


Evolution
This is where the idea of "Category Upgrades" came into being. Certain categories simply needed more options for upgrades, but this also opened up the idea that such upgrades could be transferred among classes of the same category (if the player chose to change their class) without needing to purchase the upgrade again. Flowing from that idea, was the notion that classes sharing a category should (ideally) have something in common. In the case of the "Subclass only" category, it seemed to make sense that generally those classes should get access to more skill training; the 3rd slate was retooled slightly, to allow for Ranger to be put into this category, alongside the Acrobat and the Rogue. Likewise, it was loosely determined that "Specialist only" classes should get an extra power source as a common perk.

In the same vein, since classes of a given slate were not limited to a single power source, I wanted to have something mechanically linking them together. This is where the idea of "Slate Upgrades" started from; being able to keep a thematically-appropriate perk across all the classes of a slate would encourage players to stay within a given slate (assuming they chose to change their class) if and when they had opted into this type of upgrade.


Ascension
I want to expand on this idea in the future. In the case of the 1st slate, the simple "Expertise with one Attribute"-upgrade was basically just something I noticed most of the classes already had, and so I ported that over from being a class perk to a slate perk -- but that's a little bit bland. I'm much happier with the idea (if not necessarily the execution) of the 3rd slate's perk, granting certain skill bonuses that utilize class die, for each of the five classes. Likewise, I think the idea of having the 2nd slate be more "knowledgeable" is a good fit, thematically (in particular, with it containing presumably smart classes like Sage, and skillful classes like Rogue and Bard) but it needs a better mechanical implementation.

With the more recent drafts of the rules, I've tried to hammer out a more definitive listing of the power sources available to the classes within each slate. In the process, I've noticed that while slates 1 & 3 effectively each have a couple "primary" power sources and a couple of "secondary" power sources, the 2nd slate is more closely married to its primaries, but then its secondaries vary across the board, from one class to the next. This sort of gives the thought that perhaps extra power sources could be the slate perk, here -- both because power sources are the method of gaining knowledge skills, but also since this slate seemingly positions itself as the pivot point between the other two. Again, before I can give this final approval, I'll have to consider it in the context of the category (or categories) of classes which end up with "gaining additional power sources" as one of their signature upgrades.


---


I'm thinking of doing another "Origins" post for my next entry, but I haven't 100% decided on the topic just yet. In any case, it'd be the final such post for this year; check back on November 10th for that.

Design Origins -- Part 5: Skills

Today I'm going to talk about the origins of the skill system in TNP, which I think is particularly important, due to the bigger role it's taking within the overall designs.


Filling in the Grid
Probably the most wide-reaching question to ask, is where did the "Core Skills grid" come from? There are a few points of influence, and (as with many things in this system) the short answer is that it's a blend of various editions of D&D, plus my own previous designs.

The actual list of skills I went with, was mostly just a blend of 3.5 and 4e -- unifying some skills where 4e did, but adding in some of the old skills it had left behind. The idea was mostly to have a slightly bigger toolbox on hand, in order to deal with non-combat situations. Professions and crafting were still left by the wayside, since there isn't any itemization or money used in TNP -- without which, those skills are largely just fluff.

After a few iterations, I would also separate what I would call "ribbon skills" (Knowledge and Performance) from the Core skills; ultimately, I never thought they were as valuable, and they never really fit into the grid (i.e. having them linked to attributes.) What made more sense, was to borrow from 4e -- by having Knowledge skills more closely linked to Power Source; Arcane classes typically got Arcana as a trained skill, Divine classes got training with Religion, etc. This also helped to give Power Sources more mechanical weight than just interacting with re-specs; generally they didn't do much in 4e, until you got deep into feats and optimization (which is a design space that I wanted this game to avoid.)


The Advent of Skillsets
As I've touched on in one or two other posts before, 4th Edition D&D had a group of class skills that were sort of ubiquitous to all "Fightman"-type classes (namely Athletics, Endurance, Heal, and Intimidate.) Similarly, the Thievery skill was limited to a very small niche of classes, and that was something I sort of wanted to preserve; there might be many classes which could be good at stealth, but deeper forms of skulduggery should still be more limited in their availability. So I was starting to lean more and more into the thought of a "skillset" really being a reflection of "what skills are iconic to this class?"

The idea of allowing classes to be built as "good at a skillset" was intended to avoid M.A.D. -- the design conceit of requiring a character to have several high ability modifiers -- in this case, to be good at their class skills (i.e. Athletics using Strength, Endurance using Constitution, Heal using Wisdom, and Intimidate using Charisma.) Essentially, the system should let you make a character that's good at all the skills in the set, without needing to be "good at" each attribute that the skills are tied to.

Another part of the thought process behind grouping skills into sets, was to allow each group to include skills for each type of encounter (combat, social, and exploration.) This would allow a character to always be able to contribute meaningfully, even if they were only good at one skillset. Ultimately, I would end up keeping skillsets aligned a bit more thematically, but I still think this goal ends up being achieved; generally, each class gets training with at least two groups of skills, which helps to cover the different encounter types.

Now, in the previous game I had worked on, there were 6 skillsets (which at various points in development were coupled and then de-coupled from attributes.)

• Athletics
• Acrobatics
• Influence
• Information
• Deception
• Detection

We can see how this setup clearly influenced TNP. Eventually, Information would become Knowledge (which was then moved to the background skills.) A friend who I had showed the designs to, asked me why I had separated Athletics and Acrobatics, and eventually I decided to just put the two together; conversely, the Deception skillset covered too much space, and would later be split into Subtlety and Infiltration.

The Fifth Element
I can remember when 5th Edition D&D was still in the playtesting phases, one of the notions put forth was that of combining any skill with any ability modifier. Ultimately, I would say that's not what 5e actually implemented, but then neither did TNP; instead, I kind of pivoted slightly, to the idea of distinct skills being the intersection of an attribute, and a skillset.

For example, instead of "Deception" just being a Charisma skill, it would be a skillset; where Deception and Charisma intersected, would be skills like Bluff or Disguise. Other "Deception" skills could be found by intersecting with other attributes, such as Sleight of Hand using Dexterity, or Forgery using Intelligence.

4th Edition D&D flirts with this sort of "mixing and matching" as well, largely due to the necessity of prioritizing your combat stats above all others. This manifested itself in the idea of replacing one ability mod with another, for certain skills. The example that always came up was the feat that allowed half-orcs to use Strength (an attribute which they got a bonus to) for Intimidation, in place of Charisma.

5e allows DMs to use this as sort of a general... piece of advice (I'm not sure you could call it a rule) when appropriate. What all these workarounds solidified for me, was the simple need to get rid of "traditional" ability scores -- the kind that govern both combat, and non-combat. Instead, by using "ability scores" (Attributes) as part of the skill grid, they serve as a second method for grouping skills -- creating another vector by which classes can be distinguished from one another.


Modifiers & Math
In 4th Edition D&D, the design around skill difficulty was something I felt was a problem, and it entirely comes down to the stacking of modifiers. When the game was released, I think the intention was that having either a high ability modifier or skill training would be sufficient to be successful with a given skill (in most cases.)

The problem was that the rest of the system strongly incentivized maxing out one or two stats, and also that there was nothing preventing a high stat from being combined with skill training. When the DCs were revised later on, it was (seemingly) done so, to take into account this sort of rampant overspecialization -- with the obvious side-effect of making it so that combining a low stat with training became suboptimal (and almost pointless, if the stat was low enough.)

So the seeds for the idea of "skill training or ability modifier, but not both" had already been planted in my head. How this manifested in my designs, was by allowing bonuses to a skill to come from either its Skillset, or its Attribute, but having each bonus apply only once -- even if the character had the same bonus to both groupings.

In the earliest incarnations of TNP (with the original slate) there had been skill mechanics based off of each class die; I quickly came to the decision that I wanted a more unified system for skill resolution (particularly as I began to add more classes.) My first thought was to use d6 and/or d10 -- again, leaning on ideas from the previous game I had written; the existing skill mechanics for all 5 class dice could simply be "rounded" up or down, to fit.

I was never sure of the exact implementation I wanted, but when I went in and crunched out the probabilities, it became obvious. The d10 on its own (when added to a d20 roll) pushed the crit chance way too high, and when combined with Expertise, it nearly pushed failure completely off the table. Since the d6 roll combined with Expertise produced comparable results to an unmodified d10 (without the drastic increase in crit rate) axing the d10, and just sticking with d6, presented itself clearly as the simplest solution. I also like that this uses one of the most common dice, sort of keeping in line with the game's more tactile-based design choices.

---

That's all for today! I may dig into some comparisons of the execution of skill systems a bit more, in another post.
In any case, check back on September 29th for the next update.

Balancing Act (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


---


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

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


---


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

Money, Power, Respect (2018)

A little while ago, I did a very mechanical comparison between TNP and D&D's 4th and 5th Editions. Today I want to talk about things in a little bit less-specific manner, and touch on some of the building blocks of characters.

If we look at your typical D&D edition, there are a few ways you can customize a character:

1. Ability Scores and Skills: though generally your class goes a long way to proscribing which skills and ability scores you can potentially be good at, there is generally a little bit of wiggle room within that framework.
2. Feats: little perks that can (in theory) be useful for any character, and are lumped into one big pool to draw from.
3. Spells/Powers: things that give you specific actions, either within combat or outside of it.
4. Magic Items: actually pretty similar to spells and powers, but are not constrained by class (making them similar to feats.)
5. Multi-classing/Dual-classing/Hybrid: combining two or more classes together, to get perks from both.

As we can see from these descriptions, a few of these building blocks overlap one another, somewhat. We can break these things down into essentially two broad descriptors: things which come from your class, and things that don't. Ultimately, what I wanted to do with TNP was to eliminate the customization that comes from outside of your class.

I can remember looking at 4th Edition D&D, just seeing Cleave as a power that Fighters could take (rather than a feat, as it had been in 3.5) and I really liked that simple change. I also liked how so much of the game that (as a player) you could really figure out by simply having an understanding of your class, and the powers you got from it.

When Essentials came around for 4th Edition, it sort of "missed the target, but hit the tree," for me. Where I felt 4th Edition needed simplification and streamlining, was in the areas of both feats and magic items (things from outside of your class) rather than with powers (things from within your class.) The fact that the former design spaces (which were meant to be the most universal) were the ones that became the most bloated, served to make the game more and more inaccessible as its lifespan went on.

Magic Items tended to be the big offender in this regard, in my view. They essentially duplicated the design space that I felt should have been owned entirely by classes. It also served as a crutch for weak or poorly-designed classes; I can remember playing as a Scout, and basically needing to incorporate specific magic items into my build (for basic survivability, in combat) because the class itself failed to provide those tools.

You also end up with less uniqueness to classes, once customization starts to homogenize things too much. The standard "Charge kit" for 4th Edition could be basically built onto the chassis of any class, creating an effective (if boring) playstyle around feats and items, rather than being built through your class and its powers.

Really, this all just boils down to my personal preference, and my experience. My introduction to RPGs was with Diablo 2, and I was immediately captivated by the whole "skill tree" setup for classes. Once magic items which granted cross-class skills were introduced (and the game's true focus on merely farming items became apparent) I was no longer interested. I much preferred the idea that your character was a function of your class, and how you chose to build your character within that class.

---

So how does money figure into all this?

Well, in short, it'll tie into something I mentioned in my previous post; the need for skills to be bigger and more fleshed-out, within the designs.

Money (particularly in the last few editions of D&D, as well as 13th Age) has sort of waned in importance -- the games simply don't give you enough to do with it, or don't properly account for the amount of gold you tend to end up with. (I've even heard it suggested that in 13th Age, money could be used as a "temporary background" as a way of simplifying the whole process of using money.)

The way I look at it, is that money is just yet another thing that comes from outside of your class, which is used to define what your character can do -- so get rid of it.

Weapons? Armor? Those are all functions of the core mechanics now.

Why not take it a step further?

We aren't gonna be buying magic items, clearly. So what does that leave (in the typical D&D play-experience) to spend money on? Equipment and services.

Potions? We have Reserves to cover our healing, and keep the mechanical structure unified.

Lockpicks? Battering Ram? We have skills that cover this design space; just make a check, and narrate it however you want. Whether or not 'Jimm, the Fighter' brought the right tool for the job when he goes to break down a door, is just an exercise in needless bookkeeping. It also makes the inanimate object more crucial to success than the character, which flies in the face of what we want to achieve.

Want to rent a room? Buy a wagon? Get a few horses?

Make it into a roll, using your social skills. If you rolled bad? Then it looks like you're a little short on coin today -- so tell us a story of where all your money ended up, last night.

If the DM wants to make it a little harder on you, then not being able to sleep with a roof over your head (or a wagon full of supplies) might end up costing you a Reserve.
Not being able to get horses to cover ground faster might mean the doomsday clock moves a bit closer to midnight.

In every case, the money isn't the important thing -- it's what happens in the fiction.

All this, coupled with the existing guidelines for skills, should help us figure out how money can be handled in the abstract. "You couldn't possibly have enough money to bribe the king," the DM says, adding, "don't even bother rolling."

---

Next post is due August 28th, so check back then!

Design Origins -- Part 4: The Core Mechanic

And we're back!

Today I want to talk about one of the more basic, mathematical conceits of the system, and how I eventually settled on it -- specifically, the "DC10" rule.

When you look at the basic resolution mechanics for d20 systems, it shakes out something like this:

Attack: d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Armor: 10 + ability modifier + armor bonus

My immediate thought was to strip away the extra modifiers, and just go with d20 vs. 10. This way, it keeps the math streamlined and balanced across the various classes in the game.

I also like the way that Apocalypse World has the 3 different ranges of results, based on 2d6. Similarly, TNP breaks down into miss/hit/crit, but based on the d20.

The fixed "DC10" rule also lends itself to using the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Because the range of numbers does not have to be continually increased (with bigger/higher/more modifiers) to hit escalating target numbers, a mechanic like this can be used to tinker with probability more consistently and elegantly.

This also touches on one of the weird quirks of systems with increasing modifiers -- you end up with one of two outcomes: either the difficulty increases in a manner proportional to your capability increasing (thus keeping the actual math relatively flat), or; your capability increases, while the difficulty remains static (in which case... the game starts out hard and gets easier.)

If our goal is the former, then the easiest way to ensure that the math is as flat and balanced as possible, is to strip out modifiers where we can, and avoid inflating numbers -- which is ultimately what TNP ends up doing.

Another idea I borrowed from, was the 'feel' of the roll-under mechanic. Generally how this works within d20 systems, is you have your standard ability scores (generated by rolling 3d6, producing a range of 3-18.) Then, (to make a skill check, for example) you roll a d20 against the appropriate ability score, and try to "roll under" that score, in order to succeed.

What this means mechanically, is that having a higher score increases your odds of success. Most d20 systems use the conceit of "you want to roll high" thus making bonuses additive, and a little easier to wrap your head around; in a roll-under system, you actually want to subtract from your roll to increase your odds of success, thus your "bonuses" end up being negative numbers -- which is a little counter-intuitive.

But I liked the basic idea of rolling 'against' your number (in order to succeed) rather than rolling against the enemy's number. This helped to unify the mechanics of Attack/Defense/Skills within the designs; the PCs always roll, you always want to roll high, you add/reroll dice for your bonuses, etc.


---


Next post should be up on August 8th, so check back then!

Design Origins -- Part 3: The Monster Roll

May is Monster Month! (...I've decided, retroactively.)

Today I'm going to do an "origins" post, talking about where the Monster Roll came from; if you're not familiar with this mechanic, it's in the new Monster Workshop doc which was featured in the previous blog post.


Reverse Engineering
Back in about... some time prior to 2013, I briefly took over DM duties for the 4th Edition group I had been playing with. I kind of liked homebrewing monsters (once I had gotten into it) with the help of the guiding formula provided by Blog of Holding, known as "Monster Manual 3 on a Business Card."

The core component of the monster math for 4e, as broken down in their post, was this:

• Attack roll: d20+5+level
• Average damage: 8+level

I decided pretty early on that I wanted to make a universal dice expression to represent this math, so that I could use it for any monsters that I was controlling as the DM (instead of having to refer to a half-dozen different stat blocks, for weapon damage.)

What I came up with was this:

• Attack roll: d20+d8+level
• Average damage: 1d6+1d10+level

To further streamline, I integrated "recharge" and "when first bloodied" mechanics into the d8 roll (using roughly appropriate percentages from the source material, for this conversion) as well as using it for situational +4/+5 bonuses; the most common example I can refer to would be instances of bonus damage for being hidden, or bonuses to AC against opportunity attacks while charging.

The damage would be scaled up, per tier -- adding an additional 1d6+1d10 in place of every 10 levels of flat damage bonus.

Making it Your Own

Around the same time, I would be working on my previously mentioned Unnamed RPG, which was essentially a change from my earlier tabletop designs (more rooted in "Diablo 2"-style skill trees and classes) to something that was a bit more "lego-bricking" in character-creation -- but with 4th Edition as its basis for things like movement, area, and powers. Those who have read about this RPG before, will know that it used 1d6+1d10 for its resolution mechanic, as well as using only d6 and d10 for its damage rolls.

After a few iterations, some critical analysis from the outside, and an abortive playtest, I decided to abandon this project and move onto the next. It was around this time that 5th Edition D&D had come out, and so the designs therein had started to shade and shape what I wanted to include in this game.

Whose Roll is it, Anyway?

In the early playtesting for TNP, the PCs had one die worth of HP; this meant that monster damage had to be relatively low. In order for it to be balanced across the classes, I kept it to 1 point per "hit" (or maybe 2, for stronger/solo monsters.)

Now, this is where I should mention how 5th Edition (along with my own DM experience) were influences on the design. The DM has a lot to do, so I wanted (as much as possible) to download some of the mechanical "heavy lifting" onto the PCs. This idea was meant not only to ease the workload of the DM, but to also keep players engaged during their off-turns. 

So I looked at 5th Edition's design: some attacks are rolled, but others call for a "save." (In 4th Edition, the rule is "attacker always rolls.") I realized that a way I could achieve my goal was to simply make all monster attacks trigger a "save" -- this would be called the "Defense roll" in TNP. Conversely, when the PCs attack, they make an attack roll.

What we end up with is a consistent rule, albeit one different from 4th Edition:
"PCs always roll"

This goes against the convention in D&D (generally) of monsters and PCs being built the same way, and using the same mechanical framework. The problem that then presented itself, was that if monsters were to use skills, they still needed to make a roll (since the core mechanic for skills is the flat "DC10" rule, and because generally skill checks are not made in opposition to each other.)

The Witch's Hammer

So as the design evolved, it was decided that PCs should be given more HP. The natural progression of that line of thinking, was that monster damage needed to be increased, too.

This is when monsters started to move away from 1 or 2 points of damage, and minions took up that design space. I had always liked using homebrewed "2-hit minions" in 4th Edition, so the opportunity to build them into the design from the ground, up (rather than have them as a work-around) was an exciting prospect --  a chance to put more tools in the DM's hands.

Somewhere along the way, the idea of taking the "universal roll" (used in both the Unnamed RPG and my own 4e monster homebrews) and applying it to the monster math just sort of came together. It was probably around the time I was making the first monster math posts, and I realized I needed to put pen to paper on how I wanted things to run, and what the mechanics should look like.

With the 1d6+1d10 mechanic, I had a damage expression I could build around, as well as a resolution mechanic for skills -- which worked within the existing framework. It was a unified mechanic, in the sense that regardless of which action the monster took, the dice that the DM needed to roll for them remained the same; if the PC's Defense roll was successful, the result of the monster roll would simply be moot. It also opened up a new design space for monsters: the potential for deciding their action after making the roll.

A roll of 10 or higher would mean a significant amount of damage... but only if the Defense roll failed. However, if used to make a skill check, that result would be a guaranteed success. This makes for some interesting choices to be had. It also lets the monster's actions be a little more scripted, in the case of lower rolls; a roll that has no chance to succeed as a skill check will invariably be used as a damage roll. The hope with this is that it can speed up turn-taking for the DM; a big complaint about 4th Edition was the length of combat, and since the DM operates the largest number of combatants, I figured it was the side of the table where the most headway could be made, in that regard.

In Conclusion...

So now you know the "how" and "why" of the Monster Roll. Since I'm currently focusing my efforts mainly on monster-building tools for TNP (at least when I'm not playing D&D, or making new characters) I'm hoping that all the aspects mentioned in this posts will continue to be further refined and sharpened, in the very near future.

Check back May 25th for the next post!

The Sincerest Form of Flattery (2018)

I think one of the most important parts of designing TNP (along with aiming to be accessible) is to make refinements and improvements upon the games that inspired it. In order to avoid being wholly derivative, you have to be able to identify weaknesses and problems in a system you personally enjoy, and actively work to iterate on its design. So today, I'm going to talk a bit about how TNP compares mechanically to similar d20 systems, and touch on where certain designs came from.

Off-Turn Actions
4th Edition D&D: Characters have a 1/round "immediate action" and a 1/turn "opportunity action"
5th Edition D&D: Characters have a 1/round "reaction"
The Next Project: Characters have a 1/turn "off-turn action"

To greater or lesser extent, this is sort of the "Goldilocks" approach -- not too hot, or too cold. Where I can understand 5e wanting to clean things up and reduce the frequency of characters acting out of turn, it simply reduces things too drastically. A defender who can only make an opportunity attack once per round (5e) is far inferior to one who can do it once per turn (4e).

Furthermore, the important thing to remember is that off-turn actions always have to be triggered -- if the trigger doesn't happen, then you don't get the action. This should naturally keep things in check, particularly if the DM is playing the enemies smart, and not choosing to make them provoke extra attacks. Unifying the mechanics (rather than cutting them to the bone) was the way to go, I feel.

5th Edition's design choice in this regard is particularly frustrating for a class like Fighter; you have opportunity attacks, the Protection "fighting style," and feats (which historically are their "thing") like Shield Master or Defensive Duelist, all competing for the same resource within the game's action economy. Meanwhile, something like the 5e Rogue's "uncanny dodge" is a reaction that is designed around being once per round -- it would be almost infinitely spammable if it were available more often.

By setting off-turn actions to once per turn, it also allows additional triggers to be a meaningful design space for class features. The more ways you can trigger this action, the more likely you'll be able to benefit from this boost in action economy, on any given turn.


Minor Action vs. Bonus Action
4th Edition D&D: On your turn, you have a Standard Action, Move Action, and Minor Action; Standard Actions can be traded down to Move Actions or Minor Actions, and Move Actions can be traded down to Minor Actions.
5th Edition D&D: If you have a feature that allows you to use a Bonus Action, you may do so once, on your turn -- otherwise, you effectively do not have this action type. You can move up to your speed, at any time throughout your turn.
The Next Project: On your turn, you have a Standard Action, Move Action, and Minor Action. You can perform any Minor Action or Move Action using a Standard Action; however, you cannot take the same Minor Action more than once on your turn.

I think the 5e approach is a reaction to the 4e char-op mentality: if you're doing anything less than using every action at your disposal to be dealing damage, you're being sub-optimal. This makes at-will minor action attacks valuable, because they are very repeatable within 4e's action economy. In both 5e and TNP, something like a two-weapon attack uses your "main" action and your "simple" action, so not being able to trade down movement for another attack creates the desired effect within the designs.

Actions in 5e are simultaneously the thing that does everything, and the thing that can't do Bonus Actions (which strikes me as odd.) TNP kind of tries to split the difference: Standard Actions can do any "smaller" actions, but Move Actions cannot be traded down.

It's also worth noting that where 4e would use minor actions for interacting with items or the environment (such as doors or levers) TNP eschews items altogether, thus not requiring an action to draw, stow, or use them. 5e has a sort of vaguely-defined "interact" action for these uses, which is limited to once on your turn. TNP does not have many "universal" minor actions; different uses for this action type largely come from class features.

As a side note, TNP navigates the Move Action vs. Move Speed divide, both by using its more abstract positioning scheme, as well as allowing movement as part of other actions (such as melee attacks and certain skill checks.)


Bonuses & Penalties
Generally speaking, 4e uses a +2/-2 or +5/-5 system for modifiers tied to either status effects, positioning, or powers. Some debilities imbue a -10 penalty to things such as Perception checks.

In 5th Edition, it's pretty much down to Advantage/Disadvantage, although there are a few interesting uses of proficiency bonus (which starts at +2) being halved or doubled, and then added to rolls where it would otherwise not apply. There's also bonuses from things like Maneuvers, Bardic Inspiration, or spells such as Bless, which add (or subtract) a dice roll to a result.

For TNP I went with Advantage/Disadvantage (which is functionally analogous to the +5/-5 from 4e) and use Expertise as my "+2" allegory. There are also bonus dice used for some features, but they all function off the conceit of "class dice" so as to make things a little more uniform.

Generally larger penalties are just a way of saying "don't even try it," so in this regard, I've followed 4e's lead, and instead used penalties to action economy -- requiring "bigger" actions to complete the same task, or requiring a successful skill check in order to do it quickly.


Durations
4th Edition D&D: Generally the duration for an effect is defined as either "until the start of your next turn," "until the end of your next turn," or "save ends" (meaning the effect can be saved against once per round, generally at the end of the effected creature's turn.) Some feats or similar features allow you to "save" out of an effect at the start of your turn. Things such as zones often have a "sustain minor" clause, allowing you to extend their duration by spending a minor action.
5th Edition D&D: Generally you save against an effect when it happens, but sometimes you must roll a save on each of your turns to continue trying to shake it off. Concentration abilities require a constitution save from the character creating the effect, if they take damage, and you can only maintain one spell with this keyword at a time.
The Next Project: In the latest revision, the "Sustaining" keyword basically specifies that if the feature bestows a benefit, it lasts until the start of your next turn; if it bestows a penalty, it lasts until the end of your next turn. These features can be "sustained" by repeating the same action once your turn comes around again.

Within the 4e char-op circles, effects that lasted for one round (i.e. until the end of your next turn) were found to be the most powerful and reliable, since they could not be saved out of. Since saves in 4e were generally a coin-flip, the chance that you wouldn't get more than a round out of a "save ends" effect was pretty high.

TNP gets rid of the mechanic of saves altogether, instead allowing you to maintain these abilities reliably -- so long as you're willing to pay the action economy cost. It also has less-painful debilities, overall.


---


This post has already gotten a bit long, so I'll cut it off there. I still have a few comparisons I would like to touch on, so that may appear in a later post.
I'm also going to try and find time to work on updating another slate of classes, with Druid as the first priority.

Check back May 5th!

Design Origins -- Part 2: Class Dice

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


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

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


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

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

That was where my mind sort of made a connection.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

-----

Next Post

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

Knowledge is Power! (2018)

One of the things I've been fiddling with recently is how knowledge skills will be given out, and I've come to some conclusions that will be implemented for the new draft. Despite being more "flavour" than mechanics, this has always been something I've wanted to get just right, probably agonizing over it more than was really warranted. But I feel like I've got it whittled down to a sharp point, now.


Origins

I mentioned in my last post that at one point, "Knowledge" was treated as a Skillset -- essentially, a grouping of skills -- meaning that you could either be good at all of them, or at individual skills, based on whether or not you were good at the attribute related to that specific skill. This presented problems, and eventually knowledge skills were migrated away from being a skillset, to being tied to Power Sources. The intent here was to give additional design weight to Power Sources, beyond just their function for re-specs.


Next Steps

Initially, each Power Source was assigned 3 knowledge skills; if you had that Power Source, you had training with all 3 skills. Since there are only 10 knowledge skills in the designs, this meant that some of the Power Sources overlapped. This lead to some classes (assuming two power sources for each class) would end up with 6 trained knowledge skills, and others would end up with 5.

The main thing I didn't like about this setup (probably) was that it didn't mirror other skills in terms of math, i.e. those skills could have both training and expertise. With the plan to implement leveling also coming into focus, it seemed like a good idea to have knowledge skills be a part of that progression.


Present Day

So the idea going into the 2018 Edition (at the start) was to narrow the skills of each power source from 3 down to 2, and then, grant training to one of those skills, and expertise with the other (at the player's choosing.) Over and above this idea, was the plan to allow a separate progression track for all characters: each time you gained a level, you would also gain training with a new knowledge skill, or expertise with a trained knowledge skill.

The problem with this is twofold. First, "Knowledge" as its own separate progression becomes messy, if it is intended that the upgrades it provides can also be applied to skills gained from power sources -- specifically, it causes problems if a power source is changed, as part of changing your class. The two methods of gaining/improving knowledge skills needed to be untangled from each other. Secondly, it still ended up giving out too many trained skills, meaning that party members would be stepping on each others' toes; gaining one trained skill per power source, plus up to 5 more as you gained levels (from a list of only 10, to start with) just didn't make sense. Even at two power sources per class, this would be too much, and I already knew that I was going to have a handful of classes be able to get three.


Moving Forward

After much deliberation, the solution I have come to is this:

Each power source is associated with two knowledge skills.
When you gain a power source, you gain one of the following benefits with those skills:

• Training with both skills

• Training with one of the skills, and expertise with both

The decision to remove "knowledge progression" as a tool for precise customization was kind of a tough one, but I feel it is in line with the game's premise -- that The Next Project should be more of a "pick-up-and-play" gaming experience, than be about character creation and crunch. This setup allows for knowledge skills to function like other skills (mathematically) while also helping to reign in the number of skills each character will have. It will also allow two characters with the same power source to still have differences in their skill loadouts.


Backup Power

All that being said, I kind of what to utilize the system that was suggested previously, as sort of a backup/catch-all/fail-safe kind of measure. Specifically, if a situation reasonably calls for a knowledge check, but doesn't map to a specific skill, the players can fall back on their Power Sources. If the DM feels a PC's power source is applicable, the knowledge check can be made as a trained check; if more than one power source would apply, the check could also be made with expertise. As mentioned before, this is fairly similar to  the 13th Age system for Backgrounds, but a little more narrowly-focused.


Next Post

Hopefully I'll be able to get some more writing/designing done, before the next post is due to go up. I am always taking requests for blog topics, so send me your ideas!
Check back March 13th.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Design Origins -- Part 1: The Original Slate

Since the design process of TNP pre-dates the creation of this blog, I want to go back and touch on some of the origins of the game's design choices, from its earliest iterations. The first topic I want to talk about in this series is the "original slate" and where it started from.

Most people who have come in contact with D&D 3.5 will (at some point) have come across the "tier system" for classes, someplace on the internet, or another. The main thing you'll notice when making your way down the list, is that the classes get less and less magical as you go along (i.e. the lower-numbered tiers -- being the most powerful -- are the most magical.)

Now, my personal experience with playing 3.5 was generally limited to only allowing classes from the first PHB, with maybe a few extra classes thrown in for variety. One of the main (or perhaps, better) reasons for limiting your game this way, is if you intend to play 3.5 using only its freely-available SRD content.
If we look at the tier system, and filter it such that we only include classes of Tier 3 or "lower" that appear in the PHB, we get this list:

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

This was sort of the main point of influence; another piece of the puzzle was some goon offering advice along these lines:

If you want to play a balanced game of 3.5 using only the PHB classes, do this:
Don't use Wizards, use Bards.
Don't use Clerics, use Paladins.
Don't use Druids, use Rangers.
Don't use Fighters, use Barbarians.

(Side note: if this sounds like something you wrote, please let me know, because I have forgotten over the years who said it, and would like to start giving out the appropriate credit.)

There were some other pieces of advice (I think Rogues were allowed to stay, and not Monks) but the main thrust of this entire line of thinking was basically, don't use Tier 1 or Tier 2 classes that just step on the toes (in terms of niche, or design space) of other classes. (In the case of Barbarian vs. Fighter, it was more about "Barbarians actually get class features, rather than just more and more feats.")

With all of this in mind, about 3 years ago, one of the first things I ever uploaded to Google Drive was a set of house rules for 3.5; this was limited to a handful of PHB classes, with some tweaks and buffs as desired.

...

Around the time the 5e PHB dropped (August of 2014, as I recall) was when I started working on TNP in earnest. I called it 'The Next Project' because as the previous game I had worked on was winding down, I kept telling people, "well, for my next project, I want to do this..."

One of the earliest mentions of TNP design that I can dig up is from the "Retrocloning 4e" thread, on August 20th, 2014. Back then, the original slate looked like this:

• Mage (d4)
• Rogue (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Fighter (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

As the classes got more and more fleshed out, I noticed that the Fighter and Barbarian (as you might guess) tended to overlap too much in their skills; I eventually decided to change the Fighter to a Paladin. This gave the class a whole new bent in terms of skills, but also allowed me to add things like 'Lay on Hands' to their abilities. This would give us the original slate, as it appeared in the first playtest-ready version of the game.

Shortly thereafter, subtype options for the classes would start to appear (with the Barbarian warping into the "Warrior" as it absorbed more of the Fighter design space) and a 2nd slate of classes would inevitably start to shape up. Much like 13th Age, Monk and Druid were always sort of "first in line" for the 2nd slate, with Warlord also being popular among 4e fans. But perhaps I'll touch more on that another time (assuming I didn't cover the 2nd slate enough, when I started to finalize the classes in Beta 4.)

...

One of the key design components of TNP is the use of Class Dice; I would like to touch on that in a future post in this series, which will include talking about how the original slate was... well, slated, into that paradigm.

I've been very busy this past week with other things, which is why I am writing about this topic, rather than doing an update on the writing of the new draft -- I basically haven't had time to do that, since the last post. So hopefully, the next post will have more on that, rather than being another retrospective.

Check back February 10th!