Construction Ahead! [2024-11-20]

Some minor updates were made to the wording, pertaining to the different action types. Now it should be more clear that while things that require 'no action' can be done on your turn or any other turn, interrupts can only be done when it is not your turn; Standard, Move, and Minor actions can only be done on your own turn.
I also realized that it might be worth making a distinction that 'no actions' cannot be used to interrupt enemy actions; for example, you see an archer take aim at you, and you decide to drop prone so that they have disadvantage on the attack. Should this be allowed, or should 'no actions' only be allowed to work as an "immediate reaction" but not an "immediate interrupt" (to use the 4e terminology) -- i.e. no actions might only be allowed to be used at the end of a turn, rather than at any point during the turn in question. If this is to be the case, I might also want to consider whether "no action, on your turn" should also be limited to the end of said turn.

In order to fix the Druid conundrum w/r/t starting roles, I think what I'll do is make the following changes to Disciple-category classes:

1. each gain one role at level 0
2. Class specialization (i.e. at level 1) changed to bonus power source of your choice; can be used to upgrade an existing power source
3. Class Category progression options (i.e. 1st, 3rd, and 5th levels) changed to the following:
• Bonus skill rank: Charisma, Intelligence, or Strength
• Bonus skillset training: Communication or Subtlety
• Gain an additional Role
4. Druids need to spend a reserve, when switching Roles, in combat(?)

Some things that need to be worked back into the rules from the older drafts are the keywords. To wit, if archenemy-type monsters in particular are able to turn off features with certain keywords, this will be important to iron out.
One of the key maxims in TNP is that benefits to you or your allies that you create are assumed to last until the start of your next turn, while penalties you apply to enemies are assumed to last until the end of your next turn. That being said, some such features may have the "sustaining" or "concentration" keywords; sustaining requires you to take a particular action to keep the buff/debuff going (typically the same action used to create the effect) while concentration effects are more "set it and forget it" and typically persist for longer than just one round. Some other important rules that keywords provide are the general mechanics around summoning, and also restoring or regaining HP.

...

A bit of a brief update this go-around, due to being in something of a time crunch.
Since there are only two more blog posts planned for the remainder of 2024, it's clear that work on the "2024 edition" will continue, until it's finished. I'm fine with this, since the blog would likely continue on anyway, as the TNP Sequel (working title) is being developed in parallel to the main designs.

Next post is planned for November 30th, with the final post for this year expected either December 10th or 12th; after the winter break, blogging typically resumes around January 10th or 11th.

For full details, check in on the TNP Discord.

Construction Ahead! [2024-10-22]

I somewhat recently did another small pass, tidying up the class documents; this was sort of necessitated by me adding the class category descriptions to the main TNP document. While trying to make a comprehensive, cohesive, and coherent summation of the class categories and their progressions, I came to realize that some streamlining was still warranted.

Some of these changes resulted from holdovers, going back to before the class categories were finalized (i.e. when Paladin was still going to be a Disciple, along with Occultist and Druid; this has since been swapped so Warlord is now the 3rd Disciple class.) Specifically, Disciples gain a bonus attribute rank at level 0, but the choices are limited to STR, INT, and CHA; originally I had Warlord with the option for STR or CHA, Occultist with the option for INT or CHA, and Druid with the option for STR or INT -- but when writing an overarching description for this class category, unifying the options just made more sense than not.

Another thing that I believe was cleared up in this pass is that Disciples (through their 1st/3rd/5th level class category progression) can also gain an additional trained skillset, but only have the option to pick Communication or Subtlety.

In hindsight, the Druid not getting their combat roles (i.e. forms) until level 1 feels a little off, especially for the Shapeshifter. That being said, swapping out either their level 0 perk (bonus attribute rank) or one of their 1st/3rd/5th level features (bonus power source, or Communication/Subtlety training) in order to put a combat role in at level 0, would leave their level 1 "class specialization" feeling kind of wimpy. It also would feel weird to give them a role feature at level 0, and then have their "specialization" (at level 1) be... you gain a different role feature; that seems unintuitive.
This is somewhat negated by the other perk of Disciples, namely that (unlike other classes) they are free to change their subclass, by spending a reserve. So a Druid might start off as a Summoner, but then switch to a Shapeshifter at level 1, when their forms kick in.

All told, I may still have to revisit this.

An interesting wrinkle, that I think is worth mentioning:

• 'core' progression only provides feats at levels 3 and 5
• Skill Expert, Jack of All Trades, and Disciple classes can take the Bonus Skill Training feat
• Skill Experts gain a bonus trained skillset or attribute as their class specialization (i.e. at level 1, but not as part of their 1st/3rd/5th level class category progression)
• Jack of All Trades classes can gain an extra feat at any of 1st/3rd/5th level, as part of their class category progression -- but Bonus Skill Training is a feat that can only be taken once

...so potentially, a Skill Expert can have 4 trained skillsets/attributes by 3rd level; a Jack of All Trades can get up to 3 trained skillsets/attributes by level 1. By contrast, a  Disciple can also have 3 by level 1, but the 3rd has to be either Communication or Subtlety; however, at level 3 or 5, they can potentially take the Bonus Skill Training feat, to boost that number to 4. It's also worth pointing out that at 1st/3rd/5th levels, a Jack of All Trades can take the same type of upgrade (but not, for example, double up on the exact same feat) whereas Disciples have to take a different upgrade at each of these levels. I think all in all this does a good job of making the Disciple not step on the Skill Expert's toes, while also not making them just "Jack of All Trades, again" either, despite sharing many similarities (both having the combat role feature mechanics, in particular.)

Another change that was implemented was to make sure every domain granted a bonus knowledge skill rank:

• Life domain grants a rank with one Divine or Primal knowledge skill
• War domain grants a rank with one Martial or Shadow knowledge skill
• Divination domain grants a rank with one Divine knowledge skill
• Enchantment domain grants a rank with one Arcane knowledge skill
• Misdirection domain grants a rank with one Shadow knowledge skill
• Blood domain grants a rank with one Primal knowledge skill
• Stone domain grants a rank with one Martial knowledge skill

I thought this was sort of an important thing to add, not only to make sure that the Ideologue category (i.e. the domain classes) really emphasized having knowledge skills -- and adding some flavour to those subclasses -- but it's also important for the Blade Master classes, which have the option to borrow from these domains (as well being an option for Bards.) In this regard, I feel like the Cleric's Life domain is sort of doubling as the "Nature" domain, while War is doubling as the "Death" domain, to explain the extra options that these ones provide. (Also worth noting, the Sage and Guardian domains each grant a bonus rank to a skillset or attribute; to balance this out, Cleric gains a bonus rank to Charisma -- which Paladins also get.)

Another insight that I took away from these updates is that the skill rank limitations might need to be more clearly spelled out. To wit, with a core skill, the idea was that you could gain one rank in it from the skillset for that skill, and one more rank from the attribute for that skill; it might not be clear that a "skillset" rank bonus from a domain and a "skillset" rank bonus from a feat (just for example) should not be able to stack. The intent has always been to encourage broadening your skill competencies, rather than endlessly doubling-down on one or two skills.

Conversely, after going over the text, it almost seems like knowledge skill ranks are given out like candy (particularly to the Ideologue classes.) While these ranks are currently capped at 1+level, I think that might not be necessary. Oddly enough, with "flavour" or "ribbon" abilities such as knowledge skills, I'd actually lean more towards encouraging people to pick a lane and stick with it, rather than dabble in all 10 skills. That all being said, I do think a final cap of 6 ranks is probably reasonable (and needed) if the ceiling on knowledge skill ranks per character is somewhere around 10.

...

That's all the new updates for today's post. Check back by October 31st for the next one!

Construction Ahead! (2024)

Today I'll just do an update post, laying out some of the work that has been going on behind the scenes.

A couple of editing passes were made to the existing class documents. Previously, these were split between 2021 and 2023 versions; there are now 2024 versions of all 15 classes.

Some changes/updates that were recently made:

• any instances of "advantage on base damage" were removed, and replaced with "mastery on base damage" -- the only exception is to the Barbarian's base melee damage
• any instances of "off-turn action" were replaced with "interrupt"
• most features that referenced "no action on your turn, or as an off-turn action if it is not your turn" were just changed to "no action" since this has been clarified to be an action type that can be done on- or off-turn
• current "Brawl" mechanics are now using the terms "trip" (i.e. knock prone) and "shove" (i.e. push away); instances of the term "push" were left in, but the core rules were updated to explain that a push can be either a trip or a shove (as intended)
• class stat layouts were re-structured; HP & initiative are now linked in the layout (instead of HP & engagement) while Surge Value, Reserves (per day), and Engagement are now all de-linked; some features which only improved HP will now also improve initiative bonus die
• added Prone Shooter and Brawler feats; prereqs for feats were adjusted to fit the changes to class categories
• Withdraw/Shift/Tumble have been clarified and greatly streamlined; "Disengaging" status now protects against all enemies in the encounter
• Progression chart (which was instituted in the previous draft) has been added to the current draft of the rules; this also included the caveat capping knowledge skill ranks at 1+level

And, a couple of changes that are being debated:

• reducing the overall power source options for classes, to be more "flavourful" or "thematic"; this may take the form of pushing some to the background, rather than outright disallowing them (i.e. presented as a 'slate' option, rather than a class option)
• (speaking of backgrounds) possibly renaming power sources to 'backgrounds' or something similar
• bringing back Skillset bonuses based on power sources (Shadow power source grants a skill rank in Infiltration, etc.)
• more feats! suggestions needed/wanted
• renaming Adventurer to 'Traveller' or something...

As I've said previously, the "character options" are more or less feature-locked; I'm not really looking to add anything, just making sure everything is using the same jargon and playing nice together. Likewise, most of the designs/mechanics are locked, it's just a matter of putting those to paper.

Having taken a chance to read through the classes, I'm really happy with how most of them turned out. I also like some of the ways the classes go off the beaten path:

• the Occultist -- the new roles in particular making it more like the Darkest Dungeon class than a D&D Warlock or Diablo Necromancer
• the Paladin -- leans more into the Diablo 2 version while still feeling pretty unique
• classes that are typically complicated (like Sage or Bard) are pretty simple, while classes that are typically pretty simple/boring (like Barbarian or Fighter) have a lot more moving parts
• still some complex classes (like Cleric and Druid)
• some simple classes get a lot of customization options (like Warlord and Adventurer)
• other simple classes are very straight-forward and unassuming (basically any of the Skill Expert classes)
• still some that fit somewhere in the middle (Spellbinder, Guardian) -- a little bit of variety within the class, but very straight-forward subclasses

...

A relatively short post (by my normal standards) but hopefully it's enough to tide everyone over until September 20th. Check back then!

Ongoing Updates (2024)

With the intention being to finalize TNP sometime this year, I do realize and appreciate the fact that it likely will need some continued updates once it gets into the hands of the general public. So, it's my intent that if/when feedback comes in, I can still update the designs even after the rules are "done."

Off the top of my head, there are a couple of potential design spaces which I don't think have been fully mapped out yet; whether these make their way into TNP or into a later RPG design is still up in the air.

One more narrow example is the proposed mechanics for the Acrobat class. Since this class is meant to cover the design space of some of the classes left out from 4th Edition D&D (specifically the Seeker, Avenger, and Assassin/Executioner) the idea was that each power source would give this class a different feature, mapped to one of those left out classes. This didn't make it into the designs yet, but since it's such a relatively small thing, I may try and include it before the system is officially wrapped.

There are two other subsystems that have a more major impact, which I would like to see fleshed out more fully in the class designs: conditions/status effects, and reserve-burning mechanics (i.e. encounter powers and daily powers.) There were a few classes where, as I was updating them, adding in these mechanics just happened to be top of mind and ended up getting included. But this was not done uniformly, and it would likely require a thorough editing pass to really update all of the classes to a design ethos that properly utilizes these mechanics. As such, this may need to be something that is trickled out through a series of ongoing updates.

Based on the previous post on the subject, it probably stands to reason that all classes could have a 1/day ability; as a starting point, that may be a good enough place to work from. I think the conditions & status effects definitely need to be worked into the monster-building advice, and there probably needs to be some guidance as to what levels along the character progression it would be appropriate to use such effects.

As for the campaign-building mechanics... while still a little rough around the edges, the basic framework seems to be "there." Probably testing will have a bigger impact on it than anything, so having something "playtest ready" is more important than having a system carved in stone.

---

As an update to the previous post, I think the way to approach the skills portion of the character sheet is with something of a "workspace" whereby a generic heading for each 'dot' could be set beside each skill, in rows. So, for example, have two dots for Training, one mapped to Attribute and one to Skillset -- with the same done for skill ranks: one dot for Attribute and one for Skillset (with possibly a 3rd for feat bonuses, or similar things that might bump a skill rank beyond just those two boosts.)

This way, you don't have to necessarily make a notation of the Brawl skill being a Strength/Athletics skill, as long as you know which bonuses you have to those. As such, it would likely make sense to have a section with a list of all 5 Attributes and all 5 Skillsets, where you can fill in your bonuses to each -- or, just have those work similarly, with the "workspace" approach, i.e. you only fill in training/ranks for the attributes/skillsets that have upgrades applied to them, and the rest are left off of your sheet.

...

A little bit of a short/hasty post for today; the next update is due March 3rd!

Class Updates: August 21st (2023)

Quick overview:

• Cleric: I would consider to be updated
• Druid: stable, but not complete
• Occultist: work in progress
• Warlord: preliminary work started
• Spellbinder: not started

As mentioned before, figuring out the Disciple class category (Druid, Warlord, Occultist) is going to be a big piece to completing this puzzle. My general intention with the category is to possibly have their "unique thing" be that they can switch their subclass -- possibly requiring a long rest, or spending a reserve, or similar. We'll see if the finalized designs (for the Occultist in particular) make this workable.

Looking back on previous drafts, both the Druid and the Occultist had the option to gain training with either "Influence" (now "Communication") or Subtlety, as a "category upgrade"; this is going to at least be kept as a placeholder form of category upgrade, particularly since the Warlord previously had the option to gain training with one Attribute or one Skillset (abeit as a "class upgrade"). This may ultimately be revised down to a skill rank, rather than skill training.

The other placeholder category upgrade will be the ability to gain an additional power source; currently this can be any power source, but may ultimately be scaled back to "any power source from your class list."

The final (obvious) category upgrade option is to gain additional roles; this is pretty straightforward for the Warlord, and will probably be kept as access to the different animal forms for the Druid, but for the Occultist it will likely require a major class rework. As it stands right now, the structure of the Occultist is effectively a "roles, but no subclasses" setup, which needs to be expanded to include both roles and subclasses. Essentially, the Necromancer and Warlock "roles" will become subclasses, and new role mechanics will need to be layered on in addition.

In case I've forgotten to mention it previously, there was a late substitution on the 3rd slate, whereby the Druid was changed to a d4/d12 class and the Guardian was changed to d4/d6. This worked out a lot better since the Druid was originally built off a d4, and Guardian was built off a d6; essentially, Guardian utilized stacking d6s of extra damage, so converting it to a d12 was actually a bad fit. Conversely, the Druid wasn't built to utilize such a mechanic, so the change to a d12 is a better fit -- if anything, it's somewhat under utilized for the class.

There were some similarities I found while working on the Cleric (d4/d10) and Druid (d4/d12) since their dice are so similar. Mechanics such as the "Druidic Focus" (which previously called for a double roll of "your class die") have mostly been changed to instead roll both class dice; I consider this to be only a "placeholder change," since testing is obviously going to be needed. Another thing is that the Cleric in particular had a lot of utilization of "advantage on base damage" -- a mechanic which was only very recently axed from the designs, precipitating several reworks. So, porting the class from a d8 to d4/d10 (in addition to those reworks) has likewise created a lot of "placeholder changes."

I think I'm going to have a fairly easy time with the Spellbinder, because the basic structure is already in place. Blademasters' unique thing is that they can gain certain features from other classes, and the Sage Domains are already essentially built to be used by multiple classes in the slate; the subclasses for Spellbinder are already formalized, so most of the work will be in format updating, and potentially adding Occultist roles to the list of features that can be borrowed. Being a 2nd slate class, Spellbinder remains using the same, single class die -- so almost nothing should need to change mechanically.

Fall Semester (2023)

Scheduling:
First and foremost, I'd like to talk about the timing of the blog, for the rest of 2023. I want to get back on track with my usual schedule of posting roughly every 10 days. As such, the plan is to do 4(!) posts in August, followed by 3 each in September, October, and November. I'll be posting on the 1st, 11th, 21st, and 31st in August, followed by the 10th, 20th, and 30th in the remaining months.

My thought with this has always been that a once per week posting schedule would never really leave enough time for actual development, but posting every other week (or semi-monthly) would be too slow, and cause people to lose interest. So the basic idea is to split the difference, and post "3x per month"-ish. With my scheduled breaks, this translates to 30 posts per year -- which averages out to 2.5 posts per month, and still more often than 1 post every two weeks.

Drafting:
The previous draft of the rules, I had basically broken into two parts, once I had finished what I considered to be the first part; this included the dice mechanics, different types of rolls, and other basics like HP calculations. The 2nd part mainly focused on the rules of combat, and on action economy. This part of the draft was never fully realized, since things like the disengaging mechanics and status effects weren't ever completely finished. The simplified idea for disengaging/"Tumble" which I mentioned in a recent blog post will probably be used as (at least) a "playtest-ready" placeholder. The status effects and conditions have mostly been ironed out, as explained in this post; I mostly just want to go over them with a magnifying glass, to see if I made any mistakes -- or else just playtest until something breaks. Essentially, finishing a new draft of "part 2" will go a long way to being able to run combats and test out the game.

Roster Updates:
Since I will be taking some time off (IRL time off, not just time off from blogging) in August, that's when I'm hoping to get done with the biggest chunk that still needs my attention: finalizing the remaining 5 classes. In case I haven't said it recently enough in the blog, the 15 classes in TNP have been set for a while now -- as far back as the 'Beta 4' version, circa 2016-2017. As such, versions of each class already exist, so it's simply a matter of updating to the current mechanics (such as using two class dice, the related changes in HP calculation, class categories, and so forth) and any polishing up that may be warranted, along the way. I would plan/expect to have something to announce in this regard, in time for the final post of this month.

One of the more minor things I touched on recently was deciding whether to keep advantage mechanics on base damage and initiative bonus, as well as whether to extend mastery on base damage to any extra damage applied to the same attack. Whether or not these bits of design spaces are still needed/wanted should become more clear once the roster of characters has had its rework completed. An outgrowth of the discussion around mastery on extra damage is whether the cap of 5d6/3d10 will remain, or if it should be revised down to 3d6/2d10; with percentile dice, if nothing else, there is an ergonmic argument to be made in favour of using 2d10 instead of 3d10.

Timelines:
As I said on the blog earlier this year, I'd like to have TNP wrapped up "sometime in 2024" for a couple of reasons. First of all, the game began as sort of a "love-letter to Essentials" or "an alternate-universe 5e," if you prefer. Design work began in earnest around August of 2014 -- when the "D&D NEXT" playtest gave way to the official launch of 5e, with the player's handbook. Today, we likewise find ourselves in the position of 5e (seemingly) preparing to give way to "One D&D" and (presumably) leading us into a 6th edition -- one coinciding with the 50th anniversary year of the D&D franchise.

In short, TNP is something of an anachronism at this stage. It has been fun to work on, and (possibly even more) fun to write about. But with all the starts and stops that life has thrown at me throughout these years, I feel it's time to really focus on wrapping things up. I owe a lot to the people who've come along with me and stuck around for the journey all this time, and so I really owe it to them to finish the job. If it ultimately needs fixing after it's "done," then so be it -- but I now feel ready for this project to come to its conclusion, in the near future.

---

That said, thanks to all who've kept reading along with the blog so far. Hopefully there will be some exciting things to talk about very soon.
Check back for the next post on August 11th!

Dog Days of Summer (2023)

School's out for summer, as the saying goes!

Progress has been slow, since I've had my attention elsewhere as of late. As such, I'm going to use today's post to take stock of where we're at, and things I should focus on during the break.

One of the more minor priorities is ironing out the final form of the campaign generation / encounter building / skill challenge mechanics. The generalities are there, it's more a matter of streamlining and hammering out the details. I don't believe this'll be the top priority.

Second, is updating the final handful of classes: Cleric, Druid, Occultist, Spellbinder, and Warlord. For these classes, it's mostly a matter of updating the mechanics to the latest designs/layouts (and simplifying wherever possible.) However, the classes specifically in the Disciple category need to have their structure finalized. This means nailing down the subclasses, roles, category progression, and any category-specific features they're going to have; the skeletons of each class are already in place, its more a matter of formalizing them into the broader structures that have been established.

A couple of other minor tasks:

• ironing out the interception and tumbling mechanics / action econony / etc.
• writing additional feats (particularly combat-related feats)
• making a decision on advantage/disadvantage on base damage and initiative bonus, and mastery on the various types of damage rolls
• tweaking the reserves per day / adventuring day mechanics
• formalizing surprise and initiative mechanics

Anyways, whether the blog returns in late July or around the 2nd week of August, hopefully I will have some of this stuff cleared off of the to-do list. I really do want to focus on completing the classes, so that we can start playtesting with them and see what works and what doesn't.

Until then, enjoy your summer!

Custom Campaigns & Skill Challenges (2023)

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

The number of encounters remains the same:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Updated Mechanics: Double Rolls, Advantage, Disadvantage (2023)

In previous iterations of the designs, advantage and disadvantage were nested under the idea of "double rolls" -- which seems reasonable enough, given that in those instances, you're rolling the same die twice. One of the added mechanics that TNP was using pertains to what would happen if you rolled doubles (i.e. a tie) on a double roll; specifically in the 2018 draft, "if a double roll results in a tie, you can redo the roll, or treat one of the dice as having rolled its maximum value."

Generally speaking, the reason for adding in this rule was because you always feel kind of robbed when advantage turns up the same result on both dice. Since disadvantage would always use the lower result, this added rule didn't impact the result of a tie with disadvantage, unless you chose to reroll.

Since the designs are moving more towards the "2dX" expression (rather than describing those as being some sort of double roll) as well as moving towards class dice bonuses and away from advantage, things have been reworked in the latest designs.

Specifically, advantage is only going to be applicable to certain types of rolls:

• Initiative Checks (d20)
• Skill Checks (d10)
• Base Damage (class dice)
• Initiative Bonus (class dice)

Now, since the class dice expressions mentioned here can use 1dX or 2dX, in order to have advantage work as a generic bonus that can be applied to these rolls, the old double roll mechanic has been broken down into its composite parts. Essentially, when advantage is applied to a 2dX expression, the "treat one of the dice as having rolled its maximum value"-rule is used, on a tie. Part of the rationale for doing it this way is that, interestingly enough, 2d4 with advantage and 1d8 with mastery produce the same average result as each other (about 5.375) as do 2d6 with advantage and 1d12 with mastery (about 7.42). This is potentially very helpful in ensuring that base damage expressions (as well as initiative bonuses) remain reasonably balanced with each other.

The idea with allowing advantage to be applied to initiative bonuses was meant to create another little piece of design space to work with, in terms of class features. With advantage on initative checks being more of a specific, situational bonus (as mentioned in the previous post) I didn't want to have class features tinker with the checks themselves, too much.

In order to streamline things (and make some of the calcuations a bit simpler) the option to reroll on ties has been removed. Also, as a general rule, disadvantage will override advantage; this means that if both would apply to a roll, only disadvantage is applied. This makes sense in the context of skill checks in particular, where training with a skill gives you advantage, but debilities to skills are intended to give you disadvantage -- whether you have training or not.

To avoid any further confusion with the 2dX mechanics, there is no applying disadvantage to base damage or to initiative bonus, within the new designs; generally speaking, disdvantage will only be applied to:

• Attack Rolls (d20)
• Saving Throws (d20)
• Initiative Checks (d20)
• Skill Checks (d10)

Generic double-rolls do still exist within the mechanics, and always use the mechanic for ties. This is typically utilized where a specific number range is meant to be produced. For example, the Sage's magic missile ability targets a number of enemies equal to the stacked value of the double roll (effectively, 2d4 number of targets, taking into account the mechanic for ties.) and each missile deals damage equal to the lower of the two double-rolled dice (i.e "lowest 1 of 2d4") The result is that the number of targets will be from 3 to 8 (skewed towards the average of 5.375) and the damage of each missile will be from 1 to 4 (skewed towards the average of 1.88).

---

A fairly brief topic for today, but I figured it was one worth touching on.
Hopefully I can get us back on schedule going forward; next post is planned for April 5th.

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

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

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

The short version of this comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helpless: you grant combat advantage

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

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

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

Rounding Out the List:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

The Next Revision (2018)

So back at the start of this year, I went over how I would be doing the new draft of the rules section by section, and eventually bringing the pieces all together. This would culminate (in April) with the "2018(a) Playtest" draft of the rules.

Since playtesting ended, most of my blog entries have been about ways in which the rules need to expand even further, so that we can give greater clarity about how the game should function, and how the mechanics should be used. This will likely take on a similar writing process; however, I first want to release a new playtest packet. (The intention always having been to do 2 or 3 drafts, throughout 2018.)

This draft already includes a few rules changes/clarifications, coming out of the playtest and other sources of feedback -- but largely, this is not what I would call a "stable" or "finalized" draft. This time around, it'll be more of a work in progress (as was largely the case in Beta 4) and I intend to be continually adding smaller changes as needed, as well as stapling on whole new sections, as they become complete.


The Next Project -- 2018(b) Playtest

Current changes: [from 2018(a) to 2018(b)]

• Included a longer explanation of the "Expertise" mechanic, hopefully reducing confusion
• Changed the "Reliable" property to only work with basic attacks that are made as a Standard Action
• Changed the rule for "Power Attack" to make its interaction with Advantage a little simpler;  removed the option to deal the higher attack roll as extra damage, to facilitate this (and also because that option was overpowered/overused)
• Made some clarifications to Advantage/Disadvantage/Expertise applying to dice which are stacked onto a d20 roll (generally, Expertise should apply, but the others should not; this may need further attention)
• Expanded on some of the core dice mechanics
• Added an example of when Advantage (from a critical success) might be applied before making a roll
• Clarified the game term "maximum value" (specifically, max on d10 is 10, rather than it being used as a 0-9 scale)
• Explanation of "Training Die" added to the core dice mechanics
• Clarified some of the mechanics around "Double Rolls" (specifically, those pertaining to treating a Basic Roll as a double roll; added explanation about the uses of the dice from a double roll being a function of the feature that is using the roll, rather than there being a general rule that is always used.)
• Changed list of classes to a table, rather than bullet-points
• Clarified the amount of HP characters have after a rest; if they began the rest with more than their maximum, then it is reset to their maximum.
• Added a rule for the off-chance that a class gets a single Power Source, 3 times
• Changed the rules for applying Advantage (from a critical success) to a skill check; this can now be used on any check (not just Untrained) but specifically only applies to the d20 roll
• Explanations for basic attacks (under the "Actions in Combat" section) were expanded a bit, as per feedback/suggestions

Changes that still need finalization:

• The "Weakened" effect will probably need to be changed, in order to make it function properly with Monster Math expressions
• Expanded rules for summoned creatures i.e. when they do or do not count as allies (work-in-progress)
• Expansion/clarification of the "Nearby" position

---

If you have any feedback or suggestions, please get ahold of me however/wherever you link to the blog from.
The next post should be up on October 20th, so check back then!

The Moment You've All Been Waiting For! (2018)

It's finally time for me to officially release the 2018 rule-set into the wild!

This has actually been ready since just after the previous blog post (and I've distributed it to a few, select places) but now it is out to a worldwide audience. I've added a link to the sidebar, so it'll be on the front page of the blog, going forward.


First things first
So what is this document, exactly? Well, I'm calling it a "playtest" version, because it is sort of the bare-bones minimum needed to run the game, from the player-side; I still need to do up a "monster math" compendium, with some DM rules/advice, in order for everyone to really be able to run it. (That being said, the pertinent info on monsters is on the blog: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.)

I had mentioned previously, that I was writing down the rules section by section, but in light of recent D&D-related considerations, I felt it was finally time to make a (rough) full assembly of what I've got so far. Really, the only things that are missing (in terms of player content) are the rules for character re-specs, and a list of skill descriptions.


Updates
A lot of this will just be re-stating things that have been mentioned in the blog (or planned for) previously. Anyway, here's a loose outline of the changes:

Double Rolls have been rewritten for clarity, and to feature more prominently in the text; "trade-off" has been removed from the jargon.

Bloodied Threshold has been changed to function as it does in 4th Edition D&D.

Surge Value is a new piece of jargon, used to describe the minimum HP restored when spending a reserve; for most classes, this is still "maximum value of your class die."

Subclass replaces the "Path" subtype from Beta 4
Combat Role replaces the previous subtypes of both "Role" and "Subclass"
Specialist Class replaces the term "Archetype" from previous iterations (abbreviated as "Spec")

Knowledge Skills/Power Sources have been implemented as described here.

Attack Types have been more clearly explained, i.e. Iconic vs. Basic Attacks, melee vs. ranged, etc.

Stacking rules have been cleaned up a bit; only one die can be added to a d20 roll, but there is no limit to stacking of damage dice.

Power Attack/Counter-attack have been changed to no longer use "trade-off"
Opportunity Attacks have been changed to use a standard-style attack roll, and have also been clarified a bit further.

Sustaining keyword has been greatly overhauled, to help make its intended implementation more clear; essentially, effects with this keyword last one round, unless the appropriate action is taken to continue them.

Combat Skills were cleaned up a bit, giving a better idea of which skills can be used with which actions, and under what other qualifiers.

Positional Rules have been revised a bit. Rules for "reach" and "high ground" have been clarified; "Adjacent" replaces "Engaged" to allow allies to group up more easily, and to have more distinct wording from the "Engage" action; "Open" replaces the sort of non-jargon of "unengaged"


Other minor changes can be found throughout, so give it a good, solid once-over!


---


Upcoming Content
I recently came up with a rough timeline of blog posts, specifically pertaining to actual-game content (i.e. playtest versions such as the one posted today, as well as updated versions of the remaining character classes.) Basically, I should have already been doing some playtesting by now, so hopefully that will get rolling soon. Additionally, if the 2018 Edition is to be completed... in 2018, then the next slate of classes will need to be out very soon -- hopefully within about a month. So stay tuned for that!

As per this year's blog schedule, the next post should be out on April 14th.

Constitution -- Part 1: Reserves (2018)

I've been meaning to give this little subsystem a good old-fashioned number crunching for a while now, so that will be the topic of today's post.

When I first set about implementing Reserves into the designs, one of the basic intents was to provide a structure for the length of an "adventuring day." Essentially, when you run out of Reserves, you need to take a rest and replenish them, in order to continue adventuring. As with most things in TNP, I wanted to use Class Dice in some sort of permutation, to dole out Reserves. Using 4th Edition as a comparison -- 6 to 10 Healing Surges as a base (depending on your class) plus your Constitution modifier -- the easiest way to approximate that range of numbers was simply "maximum value of your Class Die."

I also wanted to have Reserves be closer to a full heal-up. I liked how 4th Edition's handling of bloodied value and surge value worked, but just as a matter of personal taste, I wanted to avoid any division or rounding in my designs (even though HP values in TNP are a lot easier to work with, in that regard.) Subsequently, I came up with the idea of having "maximum Class Die value" as effectively being your "surge value" in the sense that it was the guaranteed amount of HP you would regain from spending a Reserve. Using a d20 roll meant that this mechanic now had a ceiling, to go with its floor.

So with the onset of the 2018 Edition of the game, I figured the rules surrounding Reserves needed a closer look. Since most of the playtests only lasted a few encounters (rather than a whole adventuring day) it made sense to check the math, and ensure Reserves were of roughly equal utility between the various Class Dice. I had already figured out early on that d12 classes would need other things to spend reserves on (since they got so many) but I also had a feeling that d4 classes would not have enough "healing."

Many gamers' experience with the shortcomings of Hit Dice in 5th Edition D&D has pointed some in the direction that out-of-combat HP restoration should essentially come in the form of a pool of HP you can draw from -- and that this amount should be roughly equal for all classes. I started to look at Reserves from that angle, and crunched out how much HP you're actually able to get from spending one:

• d4 -- 4 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 16-80 HP
• d6 -- 6 reserves, 6-20 HP restored per = 36-120 HP
• d8 -- 8 reserves, 8-20 HP restored per = 64-160 HP
• d10 -- 10 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 100-200 HP
• d12 -- 12 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 144-240 HP

As you can see from the numbers above, there is a wide gap in the utility of Reserves, depending on your class die. So, taking that into account, I set about trying to narrow the ranges a bit. The precedent of d4 or d6 classes doubling their maximum Class Die value for both their number of daily reserves and for minimum HP recovery already exists as features for some classes/subclasses, so I decided to work from there. After looking at the numbers a few times, doubling the number of reserves for d4 classes and doubling the minimum recovery for d6 classes appears to be the way to go.

Also, if we assume an adventuring day consists of 5 encounters, and that our d12 classes will take advantage of their reserve-burning abilities in each of those, they will effectively have 7 reserves to spend on healing, per adventuring day. Similarly, we probably need to ensure d10 classes have something they can spend reserves on in combat, a few times per adventuring day; for the sake of this exercise, we'll assume it's used 3 times.

With all of these ideas implemented, we get this:

• d4 -- 8 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 32-160 HP
• d6 -- 6 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 72-120 HP
• d8 -- 8 reserves, 8-20 HP restored per = 64-160 HP
• d10 -- 7 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 70-140 HP
• d12 -- 7 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 84-140 HP

The ranges are much narrower now. We also still have the design space of "double reserves" for d6 classes and "double minimum HP recovery" for d4 classes, both available for use as class features. Also, since the amount healed skews towards the minimum, the average "daily" HP recovery for each die being used ends up being very close.

Now, I should point out that this is essentially intended (more or less) as a balanced control from which to do playtesting. It may turn out that d4 classes have enough defensive tools that they don't need to also have an equal amount of HP recovery available to them; likewise, classes with higher maximum HP values may need bigger reserves to keep themselves topped up. If these changes are found not to be needed, then we have the previous iterations to fall back on.


---

So for the next post in the "Constitution" series, I'm going to talk a bit about HP -- where the numbers come from, how this compares to other games, etc. I also will touch on "Constitution as an Attribute" a bit, and why it hasn't figured into the designs (and some times when it did.) Overall, it will be sort of a hybrid "retrospective" post; there's not much that I expect to change regarding HP in the upcoming rules draft.

Once February is over, I'm hoping to get some more design work done, and the blog content should reflect that; I don't expect to talk about "Constitution" for more than these two posts.

Check back February 20th!

What to expect from 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

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

Subtypes -- Part 2: Slates & Progression

If we look at 4th Edition D&D as a source of inspiration, both the first and second Player's Handbooks featured 8 classes, conforming (roughly) to a framework of 2 classes for each of the 4 roles. Similarly, when you look at the first and second Essentials books, each has 4 classes (5 if you count the Fighter and Ranger subtypes), with both books having each role represented.

This was kind of a guiding idea behind The Next Project, with the added conceit of making each slate of classes conform to a particular theme (specifically, power sources.) Though I was never married to the idea of redoing "classes tied to role," the mechanical framework of class dice has always made it implicit that classes should be slated in groups of 5 -- one for each die.

So if role is not what separates the 5 classes on a given slate, then what should be? Well, the answer has come through the process of trying to cut the number of subtypes down. As mentioned in the previous post on the topic of subtypes, there is no overlap (on any class) between Path, Role, and Subclass. In addition, the close relation of Role and Subclass (the former being "optional combat subtype" and the latter being "mandatory combat subtype") was explained. In short, I have decided to remove one of these three.

My intention is to merge Role and Subclass; mechanically, it will function as Subclasses currently do, but the "Role" name will be used to describe this subtype. Following from that, Paths will remain mechanically the same, but will instead use the "Subclass" name, since I feel it is a good mechanical descriptor for what that subtype does, within the design.

What this leaves us with is 5 distinctions between classes:

• classes with Archetypes
• classes with Roles
• classes with Archetypes and Roles
• classes with Subclasses
• classes with Archetypes and Subclasses

Now, with a few minor adjustments, we can make it so that each slate of classes has one class for each of these loadouts. Here is how I am proposing to do this:

• Acrobat subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Druid will have its Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Guardian will retain Archetypes and Subclasses, instead of having their Subclasses converted to the "new" Roles
• Ranger subtypes will change from Archetypes to Subclasses
• Barbarian subtypes will change from Roles to Archetypes

So what does this all mean for progression?

Well, classes that only have "Role" for their subtype options will have to have at least one role, to begin with -- since this form of subtype is mandatory, within combat. However, classes with both Role and Archetype may be able to select one or the other early on, instead of Role being mandatory out of the gate, with Archetype being optional; the same could also be true for classes with both Subclasses and Archetypes as options.

This also creates 5 different progression tracks (based on subtypes) which could then be made uniform. For example, with the Fighter/Bard/Adventurer progression (i.e. for classes with both Roles and Archetypes) there could be specific levels at which Archetypes or additional Roles unlock, and that could be consistent between all 3 classes which share that subtype loadout. There could also be a unifying perk for these classes, just as there could be for classes that share a slate, but there can also be progression that is universal across all 5 tracks.

The next post will probably focus more on the specifics of my plans for adding level progression to the game, so stay tuned for that.

Change Log [2017/05/25] (Beta 4)

Some more changes/updates, mostly coming out of the playtest:

• [Core Rules] Each character can make only one skill check per turn
• [Core Rules] Intimidate now only requires the Immobilized condition; Elite monsters will still require the Bloodied condition
• [Core Rules] Clarified the rules around Teleport; you cannot move to or from High Ground using teleportation, unless specifically allowed by the ability
• [Core Rules] Abilities with the [Form] keyword all can now be activated as part of an initiative check, or activated/changed as a Move Action
• [Core Rules] HP rules clarified; maximum can be exceeded during combat but extra is lost at the end of the encounter
• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Weakened" condition when applied to skill checks with Advantage
• Assassin's skill expertise changed to "all untrained skills from your core skills lists"
• Assassin can no longer Stealth after using Sneak Attack ability to deal d20 bonus damage
• Skald's Inspiring Shout granted attack changed; instead of "double roll and stack in place of attack or damage" it is now "double roll; stack in place of attack, OR use higher in place of damage"
• Skald's intimidate checks changed so that they can target any bloodied enemies
• Spellbinder's intimidate checks changed so that they can target enemies with sigil or hex without needing them to be Immobilized
• Swordmage can now make a melee basic attack OR a skill check as part of a teleport (not both)
• Spellbinder's skill training options altered slightly
• [Cleric] Bless changed to a minor action, but now only benefits 1 ally. Also gains the [Sustaining] keyword.
• [Cleric] Divine Smite basic attacks still get advantage on the damage roll, but can now stack the damage if an ally is engaged with the target; Life Domain smite basic attack now heals a Nearby ally OR one engaged with the target; War Domain can now make divine smite basic attacks as a minor action
• [Cleric] Crusader gets advantage on Opportunity Attacks; changed the Crusader's iconic attack from "make a basic roll and use either result for damage" to "you can power attack with this ability; you gain Advantage on the attack rolls if you do."
• [Cleric] Invoker gains a Minor Action self-teleport and a Move Action to shift enemies; Invoker's reserve-burning damage on iconic attack now does damage, hit or miss.

Change Log [2017/04/26] (Beta 4)

Playtesting is ongoing, but here are some changes that have been added in the past month; expect more in the coming updates.

• [Core Rules] Capped the number of enemies you can create a maelstrom with using the "Engage" action (Move) at "maximum value of your class die"
• [Core Rules] "Shift" action (Move) can now engage one unengaged enemy
• [Core Rules] Subclasses changed so that they must be selected when entering initiative (instead of at char-gen)
• [Core Rules] Paths added to the character customization options
• Changed Cleric, Sage, and Rogue subclasses to "Paths"
• Changed Warlord archetypes to "Roles" and renamed them accordingly
• Changed Warlord's options for Performance skills to include Expertise or Training, instead of just training
• Sage's power sources expanded to 3, but narrowed down a bit
• Bard's power sources changed to "arcane, plus one of Divine/Martial" instead of "any two"
• Mystic's power sources changed to "two of Arcane/Primal/Shadow" instead of "Arcane + Shadow"
• Guardian's power sources changed to accommodate the new Subclass mechanics
• Adventurer's power sources changed; Scout only gains two of Martial/Primal/Shadow instead of all three; Skald now gains two of Arcane/Martial/Primal instead of Primal and one other
• Swordmage's Shielding Sigil changed so that opportunity attacks can negate enemy actions; Beguiling Blade changed to grant advantage on defense when counter-attacking an enemy with your sigil
• Bard now has the option to take an archetype from other classes within their slate (i.e. Sage schools, Hexblade, Swordmage)
• Bard's Arcane Luck ability now has the [Concentration] tag added
• Sage's Eldritch Enchantment changed to grant advantage on attack rolls, and to use your class die for bonus damage.
• Spellbinder's skills adjusted again; Hexblade back to only 2 core Trained skills; split skill selection into 2 toggles instead of 1 toggle and 1 solely for Hexblade.
• Cleric's Divine Smite using the Life Domain now restores HP equal to the rolled damage (instead of using a separate roll)

Change Log [2017/03/26] (Beta 4)

Here are some more changes that have been put in this month. 

Also, check out the Homebrewery version of the Acrobat writeup, if you haven't seen that already.

• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Hidden" rules; attacking reveals your position
• [Core Rules] Updated "starter characters" with some streamlined formatting, and pre-picked core skills, so they can be more easily used as pre-generated characters
• [Core Rules] Changed rules so creatures with 1 HD do auto-damage
• [Core Rules] Added in a fair bit of text and additional guidelines regarding customization options
• [Core Rules] Clarified escaping a grapple, to work as a Shift
• Acrobat can now make any skill checks to gain High Ground as a Move Action.
• Acrobat's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; made some minor adjustments to make non-archetype Acrobats functional
• Archer's Aimed Shot changed to make it easier to deal damage with.
• Barbarian can now make a Class Die roll with Disadvantage in place of their training die on some skill checks
• Barbarian's Frenzy changed so that the trade-off is only rolled once, rather than on each of your turns
• Bard gains an additional trained Core skill list (mostly to accommodate non-archetype Bards) 
• Bard's Sword & Sorcery changed so that only one of the attacks counts as a basic attack (so you can't Power Attack with both attacks)
• Fighter, Druid, and Guardian abilities with the [Concentration] tag all changed to [Form]; added explanation for this new keyword into the Core Rules (this may be discussed a bit in future posts)
• Scout's Skirmish ability changed: extra class die roll now only works when you attack from unengaged; Withdraw changed to Move Action from Minor Action (it was too easy to Withdraw and become Hidden, in playtesting; Skirmish die roll being free was piling on a bit)
• Spellbinder's Beguiling Blade changed to not require sigil or hex for the reserve-burning attack
• Spellbinder's subclasses changed back to being archetypes; core skills list changed to better accommodate non-archetype Spellbinders; Hexblade now gains a 3rd skill training

Next post should be up April 5th, so check back then!

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

A couple more updates:

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

Scattershot (Beta 4)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Housekeeping

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

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