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.

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)

Expansionism (Beta 4)

With playtesting currently underway, I have been focusing my efforts on running the game; as such, I don't have a lot of work being done on (or changes being made to) the existing material, so I wanted to pitch a few ideas that have bounced through my head at various times.


Alternate Archetypes/Prestige Classes
In particular, I keep thinking I might want to do a slate of Archetypes centered on adding pets to classes that currently don't have any, or focused around using mounts in combat. Ideally, I would want these to work for multiple classes, but that might be difficult given the disparate distribution of Archetype/Path/Subclass between the various classes.

Some example ideas:

• Cavalier: Cleric, Paladin, Warlords or Fighters with the Divine power source
• Death Knight: Paladin, Mystic, Hexblade, Warlords or Fighters with the Shadow power source
• School of Golemancy: Wizard, Sorcerer, Guardian
• Mounted Archer: Archer, Ranger, Adventurer, Monk, Assassin, Fighter
• Beastrider: Ranger, Necromancer, Druid
• Death Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Shadow power sources
• Nature Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Primal power sources

Races

I've kind of had some fleeting ideas about how I might want to structure a loose framework for adding fantasy races to the game. Basically, they wouldn't provide stat boosts, but conceivably could add extra skill training. I would mostly want them to mostly provide things akin to the Background features seen in 5th Edition D&D, or Theme benefits from 4th Edition. Beyond that, some examples of stuff that I've thought might work:

• Dwarf: If you choose a d4 or d6 class, you have double the normal number of reserves; you can also double roll and stack the damage of your melee basic attacks.
• Elf: If you choose a d4 class, you can double roll and stack the damage of your ranged basic attacks; you can also add your class die to any untrained DEX or WIS checks you make.
• Half-Elf: If you choose a class with Paths, you can instead treat them as Archetypes. If you choose a class with Archetypes, you can instead treat them as Subclasses.
• Human: If you choose a class with Roles, you can instead treat them as a Form or Concentration ability; you can change between Roles as a Minor Action. You have Expertise on all untrained skill checks.

Slates/Power Sources

Should there be a 4th slate of classes? Or a 6th power source?

The one power source that's really missing (when compared to the 4e lineup) is Psionic. I think if we were to follow in that vein, any psionic classes would have to have something resembling a power-point mechanic (i.e. an additional resource-management subsystem) built onto them. Another consideration is, which Knowledge skills does it make sense for a Psionic power source to have? How would we differentiate it from the existing ones?

Since TNP doesn't operate in the 4e paradigm of "Role + Power Source = Class" it might not really be possible to create Psionics as more than one class, even.

-----

Today's post is a day behind, mostly because of scheduling considerations; next post, likewise, should be up on April 26th, so check back then!

Heroes of All Stripes (Beta 4)

In 4th Edition D&D, the Dark Sun campaign specifically banned or limited power sources -- effectively cutting back on the number of classes you could pick from.

Just as a thought-exercise, I looked at what sorts of effects this might have, if implemented in TNP; based on that research, I'll be making some adjustments. What ended up happening was classes that are locked into 2 (or even 3) power sources are unlikely to make the cut, whereas classes that get to freely pick both/all of their power sources will always be an option.

As such, I'm leaning towards changing around classes to fall into one of these two setups:

• one power source is locked in, the other can be chosen from a short list
• both power sources can be chosen freely, but from a list of only three options

Generally, I think it will be thematically best to keep your party composition within 2 class slates, but there is no necessity to limit your party as such; limitations on class slate or power source selection should only be done to reinforce the theme or flavour of a campaign, or party cohesion, and only on the agreement of everyone at the table.

-----

Another thing I've been digging into recently is increasing the customization levels of classes, without adding to or changing their abilities drastically.

Some classes have explicit Roles, while others have implicit roles. For example, the Guardian breaks down into Warden and Shaman subclasses, which each effectively occupy a different role (just as the 4e versions did.) However, their abilities are structured such that they all draw from their "role ability" and they cannot really be extracted from each other. Simply put, these subclasses can't be changed to Archetypes, because one of them must be selected, in order for the class to function in combat.

Because of this, subclasses have been changed to be the "mandatory Role" form of customization; classes with subclasses to choose from can now select one at the start of combat, but should have a default one set, which they are most familiar with.

For some classes, this would not thematically make a lot of sense. For example, the Rogue has Assassin and Sorcerer as its subclasses; on its face, it would not make much sense for a character to swap between such drastically different characters at the start of each combat. In those cases, the subclass tag has been changed to "Path"; your path must be chosen when you create one of these characters. This change will apply to the following classes:

• Cleric: Path of the Crusader, Path of the Invoker
• Sage: Path of the Monk, Path of the Wizard
• Rogue: Path of the Assassin, Path of the Sorcerer

I've also been working over the past little while to make it so that classes with Archetypes to choose from still get basic functionality without having to pick one. Granted, having an Archetype will grant you an additional Iconic Ability and/or additional riders on your powers, but I want characters who don't pick one to still have the standard of 2 trained sets of core skills, as well as at least 1 (or preferably 2) power sources.

The current state of the Paladin is probably the best showcase for this type of design; the class functions fine without an archetype, but picking one gives you some mechanical perks in combat, as well as more options for customization.

-----

EDIT: A new playtest recruit is now live, on the forums. So if you're a goon, sign up!

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!

Laying the Foundations (Beta 4)

One of the ideas I have been kicking around for a while, is to do a "level 0" setup, for beginners to get into the game system. The idea would be that you pick a Class Die, plus one power source and skillset (maybe?) and play a couple of encounters, before settling on a full-blown class to play.

To facilitate this, I want the damage to be roughly balanced, but it would probably have to be less than that of a full class. As a matter of course, kicking this idea around while still working on the damage math, the two ideas have sort of cross-pollinated with each other.

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, light weapons (those suitable for two-weapon fighting) are exclusively d4 or d6 weapons. In The Next Project (where the damage is a bit higher, and all classes are expected to have the ability to hit more than one target in a turn) it probably makes sense that d4 and d6 classes should be able to attack more often. When we look at the current d4 classes, I've had to add some attacks just to keep the damage up; with the d6 classes, I'm noticing it leans heavily towards single-target attacking for some loadouts, so that might be something I'll have to dig into.

The logical starting point for figuring out the damage for "level 0" characters is to start with the math for their full-class counterparts, and hack off one Class die, starting with the d12. So, I'm looking at this as a baseline to tweak from:

• d4: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); you deal 2d4 damage when you use this attack as a Standard Action. You can also make this type of attack as a Minor Action, dealing 1d4 damage.
• d6: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You can also make this type of attack as a Standard Action or Minor Action.
• d8: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You have Advantage on the damage rolls of this type of attack.
• d10: You have Expertise on damage rolls.
• d12: You have Disadvantage on ranged damage rolls.

---

In terms of the DM advice areas of the rules, the groundwork is already in place for what sort of shape an "adventuring day" will take.

Classes have between 4 and 12 reserves. In terms of design space, reserves fulfill the same role as Healing Surges in 4th Edition D&D, however, classes in 4e have between 6 and 10 surges (plus your CON modifier.) To help try and bridge the gap, classes on the higher end of that scale in TNP tend to have abilities that can burn reserves for other uses in combat, whereas those with fewer reserves tend to have abilities to mitigate damage. In addition, Reserves provide more healing per use -- typically a full heal.

All that being taken into account, we get a framework that should roughly line up with that of 4th Edition -- specifically, to aim for around 4-6 encounters per day. Encounters per day and reserves per day might both have to be adjusted after some playtesting, but I think it's a good enough place to start from.

The important thing to keep in mind is that an adventuring day is not a literal time-based day, nor should it end when your gaming session ends. If an adventuring day spans more than one session, it should be considered a "two-part episode" in much the way TV series often do (even when a series usually conforms to "one-shots.") As such, I am considering alternate names for "adventuring day," such as "chapter."

---

For monster math, the baselines for PC damage have been established, so it is a simple matter of reverse-engineering from there. If we expect PCs to deal 15 DPR (or 3 hit dice of damage) on average, then in order to facilitate 3-round combat, an encounter should include 45 HP (or 9 HD) worth of enemies per PC participant. We can round these numbers off for simplicity -- 50 HP or 10 HD -- if we want something easy to remember.

Likewise, if the PCs have between 24 and 32 HP, and our objective is to reduce their HP by about half each encounter, then it makes sense to have standard monsters do 4-6 DPR over a 3-round combat. Assuming the PCs only successfully defend 50% of the time, this works out to about 10 damage for each standard monster's turn.

I think when class abilities come to bear, playtesting will show that the PCs are a bit heartier both in terms of damage and defense. As such, I'm betting that enemies will have to be adjusted "up" based on playtest feedback, but that should be easy enough to do.

Object of the Game (Beta 4)

After a bit of playtesting, I've been thinking about what the measuring stick for success should be, on a campaign- or adventuring day-level. Pretty much the only resource management in the game currently comes in the form of Reserves, which are a "daily" resource.

On its face, the point of this style of game is generally to get as far down into the dungeon (or advance the story arc as far as possible) before needing to return to safety and take a rest. But since we're not using a framework where levels, magic items, or wealth are used as the driving force of progression, the only measuring stick we have is how much content is completed before going back to "town."

Should the rewards simply be a matter of keeping score? There are a couple possible shapes this could take: rewarding players "points" either based on the number of encounters they have completed before going back to base, or by how many of their Reserves they have left after a predetermined amount of progression has been completed.

Either option requires some amount of balancing, and ultimately the solution may be to introduce additional subsystems to the game, to provide additional means of progression.