Class Showcase: Druid & Rogue (2023)

Based on a previous request from a TNP Discord member, today's post is going to focus on two classes that I would say are at opposite ends of the complexity spectrum:

• The Druid (d4/d12)
• The Rogue (d6)

With the reshuffling of subclasses that came with the addition of a 3rd slate, the d6 Sorcerer subclass and the d6 Rogue class got combined into one, creating a class which essentially has an arcane subclass and a martial subclass. Admittedly, they don't share a lot mechanically (aside from the d6) so the "Rogue Tactics" feature was extended to the Sorcerer as well; if I recall correctly, this was one of a couple universal features between the previous Rogue subclasses. At one point, the Rogue had 3 subclasses (Assassin, Scoundrel, and Scout) but the Scout was spun off into a Ranger subclass, and is now part of the Adventurer class; what remains of the other two subclasses has essentially been merged together, under the Scoundrel subclass -- a naming choice which was mentioned in a previous post.

The Sorcerer subclass draws most of its inspiration from the 5e version of the class, with Twin Spell in particular being one of my favourite features to use. I also gave the class a generic AoE attack called "Fiery Burst" which is meant to serve to role of both Burning Hands or Fireball. As recently as the 2021 draft, this ability could be used as a melee attack or a ranged attack, but with the recent minor update, I decided to eschew the necessity of an attack roll for this feature -- which cleans up the wording and hopefully gets the point across better. I wouldn't say I have a particular favourite origin for the 5e Sorcerer, but probably the Wild Magic option is the one most associated with the class, so that's what I chose to emulate.

Now, the Druid class is a lot more complex than the Rogue, I would say. It follows in the vein of the Guardian, basically calling upon animal forms and either bestowing that form upon themself (Shapeshifter), or summoning a beast in such a form (Summoner). The form options are Dire Bear, Stalking Cat, and Great Eagle -- all of which are treated as "role features" -- which more or less correspond to Defender, Striker, and Support, respectively. If memory serves, a lot of the bear form features for the 4e Druid revolved around gaining temporary HP, or healing nearby allies; I chose to go that route here as well.

Rather than having the "healer" role siloed into one subclass, I went the same route that I did with the Cleric, and made the baseline, generic healing ability available to both Druid subclasses, but with certain action economy advantages or disadvantages depending on subclass and shapeshifting forms. It's also worth mentioning that features with the [Form] keyword are able to be activated as part an initiative check, but can also be changed (or activated later) as a move action; for this reason, Fighting Styles for the Fighter class are also given the [Form] keyword.

Some of the more recent changes to the Druid (aside from those specifically related to the change in dice, from d4/d6 to d4/d12) are actually some of the mechanical basics. I separated out Reserves and Surge Value to each use different dice (since there are specific reserve-based mechanics for the class) but I also changed the ranged basic attack to be d12 damage. Usually I think of Druids using a longbow (d8), but a cantrip such as 5e's Poison Spray as a d12 ranged attack also makes sense in this case. With the shapeshifter being unable to use ranged attacks when its forms are active, I imagine such attacks actually won't come up much, and they don't really do anything special, either.

...

Anyway, feel free to comment below if you have any thoughts on either of these classes.

Next post will be on Nov. 20th, 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.

Playtesting (Beta 4)

We put together a party of 5 for the playtest game, with each Class Die represented.
Here's what the composition looked like:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Invoker] (d8)
• Paladin [Blackguard] (d10)
• Spellbinder [Swordmage] (d12)

Some of my thoughts so far:

Druid

The boosts to maximum HP from Wildshape don't functionally do anything, since there is no cap on "overhealing" when you're in combat. Overall, the class needs damage boosts, and the Summoner in particular needs some improvements to get rolling faster, since combat is so short. The form of the Great Eagle is meant to be for utility, but might not be useful enough to see much play. I'm strongly considering giving the Druid a healer ability, because the class might not have enough to do, and it feels weird not having one.

Assassin

Overall, the class seems to function well; it definitely does a lot of damage (as intended) but there still doesn't seem to be enough incentive to get into melee. I might end up limiting the use of combat skills to 1/turn. I'm also considering limiting the d20 bonus damage ability of the Assassin, so that you cannot become hidden on the same turn that it is utilized.

Invoker

Since this class relies on area attacks to hit its damage benchmarks (and its area attacks are so reliant on positioning) I'm going to look at giving the Invoker some "battlefield control" abilities, such as being able to either shift or teleport enemies into a maelstrom. Bless also didn't get much love; as a standard action, it is very powerful, but perhaps this is mitigated (again) by the short combat. I'm considering changing it to a minor action, but curbing its potency in some fashion.

Blackguard

As with the Assassin, this is one of the oldest classes, and so has had a fair bit of design energy put into it. The class works well as an attacker, but getting the most out of its defensive perks relies on your allies' positioning. It's definitely a class that relies on using the "basic moves" in order to get some variety in combat; these may need to be highlighted in the class itself, rather than just being spelled out in the core rules.

Swordmage

This class can function very well as a damage-dealer, particularly if you're able to win initiative and/or get favourable positioning, albeit burning reserves at a good clip. We saw this class get a lot of the spotlight in combat. I definitely think I will need to cut back on some of the action economy perks the class gets, and I may limit their reserve ability to 1/encounter. The class perk to Intimidate will need some revision (as will the similar Skald ability) which touches on enemy design a bit, too. Mechanically, I think the class functions well, all around.

---

As part of the testing, I've been trying out some of the ideas I've had for how to use and customize the party's opponents, so the next blog update will probably touch on that.

For Man or Beast -- The Druid and The Ranger (Beta 4)

Today's post focuses on two classes that appeared in 4e D&D's "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms" (a book in the 'Essentials' line.) The four classes featured in that book could probably be glossed as the "2nd-team All-Stars" of D&D (particularly the 4e/Essentials paradigm) coming after the "big 4" of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.

Without further ado, I present:

• The Druid
• The Ranger

The Ranger was one of the original 5 classes, from the very earliest beginnings of The Next Project, holding down the d8 slot on that first slate.  It seemed a fit for the weapons a Ranger would typically use in D&D, and for giving them a decent amount of HP; it also works really well for the prescribed function of the class die within this game's framework.

When the idea of expanding the game to a 2nd slate started to gain steam, Druid was one of the first two classes I was interested in doing (Monk being the other, with Warlord being a popular "fan favourite.") At the time, I felt it made sense to have the Druid as a d8 class -- middle-of-the road, sharing flavour and mechanics with the Ranger.

Through the process of paring down the list of classes I wanted to write, and settling on doing 3 slates, it became clear that Ranger and Druid belonged to the same "power source." And so, because of that, one of them would have to be moved to a different class die.

I decided to shift the Druid down to the d4 slot. It made sense as a die that could be used to add HP to the class when they shapechanged, without pushing those numbers outside of the existing bounds. And it seemed like a logical step to just convert the class from "1d8 math to 2d4 math."

I also wanted to use the d4 as the Summoner archetype's limit on how many 'minions' they could control, in contrast with the Mystic's utilization of the d10. However, this ended up being implemented differently than I had originally planned -- largely due to the move away from using abilities from other classes (as was also done with the new Bard.) The Summoner no longer uses pre-existing summoning abilities; instead, it has its own unique mechanic for summoning, which works similar to the new Ki mechanic for the Monk (itself a d4 class.)

Wanting to keep classes to only 2 archetypes, I knew that having Shapeshifter and Summoner under 'Druid' would mean moving the Shaman archetype off to somewhere else; stay tuned for the Guardian class in an upcoming post, if you're wondering where it ended up.

The Ranger hasn't changed a whole lot since its inception, aside from having the archetype framework added onto it; this was when the class inherited the Beastmaster archetype from a previous Summoner class. Likewise, the Druid was completed very late in Beta 3, and so hasn't seen nearly as many iterations as some other classes. Overall I think this update removes some of the clunkiness that the d8 version had, with trying to juggle its 3 archetypes.

In terms of skills, I decided to play with the math on these two classes a little bit; no guarantees I'll keep things this way, but we'll see how it shakes out in playtesting. I didn't want the Druid to be able to use its forms to always be the best at whatever the party needed for skills, so I like the interaction of the d4 class die with Expertise for them. Likewise, the Ranger using its class die for skills interacts in a neat way with its Expertise bonuses, and makes them truly the master of the outdoors.

Along with the Barbarian class (which was completed prior to kicking off "50 Days of Design") the Druid and the Ranger fit onto the slate I'm referring to as:

"Heroes of the Wilderness"

 As of right now, the previously-mentioned 'Scout' class will instead be made an archetype, under the umbrella of a 'Warrior' class; along with the Guardian, these 5 classes complete this "3rd slate."

---


Coming up on the next blogpost:

• The Cleric
• The Mystic

Check back on Nov. 30th!