Design Origins -- Part 1: The Original Slate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Check back February 10th!

Writing the Rules (2018)

Rewriting of the "core rules" has begun in earnest, and I'm coming at it from a little bit of a different angle than I have previously.

When I was writing Beta 4, what I essentially did was start with the most central design concept, and then introduce more concepts as they became pertinent -- usually one idea dovetailing with another. For example, the idea of both a "Basic Roll" and "maximum value" needed to be introduced prior to introducing the starting HP mechanic (which uses the maximum value of your Basic Roll.)

What I'm doing this time around, is essentially writing up each idea or mechanic as its own thing; any time I think of a new one to write, it's going into a separate document. One of the reasons for doing this, is it helps me to worry less about spacing and length -- trying to cram things together so there aren't long stretches of blank space, keeping the overall doc to the fewest number of pages, etc.

As you might expect, this means that the "core rules" this time around will be a fair bit longer. Granted, the Beta 4 version topped out at a mere 14 pages in google docs; the addition of the leveling mechanics alone will push 2018 Edition past that number, but I do hope to expand on and clarify rules wherever it's needed, which will also add to the length.

Here's a quick look at the topics the rules are covering, so far:

• Changing Your Character: rules about changing your Class/Subclass/Roles/Archetype, and what to do if you find yourself unhappy with a character, late in a campaign
• Character Customization: the basic mechanical explanations of Subclass/Role/Archetype
• Combat Skills: expanding on the previous version's text about which skills are used in combat, and their specific implementations
• Double Rolls: updates to the mechanics of Advantage/Disadvantage and double-rolling class dice (with the Trade-off mechanic written out)
• Positioning: touch-up of the positional rules, including streamlining the jargon
• Power Attack/Counter-attack: rewritten mechanics, incorporating changes to Advantage/Disadvantage and removal of Trade-offs
• Skills: cleaned up and expanded text pertaining to the skill mechanics and descriptions, going a bit deeper into Background/Knowledge/Performance skills

...

One thing I'm considering changing the jargon for is the "subtype" descriptors. Essentially, an idea I had was to use Path, War Path, and Paragon Path in place of Subclass, Role, and Archetype (respectively.) After having spilled some ink on the designs, I think I want to keep Subclass, just because it relates closely to Class -- essentially, most Subclasses would be their own classes in other systems, and as such, changing your Subclass is going to work similarly to changing your class, in the mechanics.

With that sorted, the whole "path" nomenclature idea falls apart pretty quickly. Another snag that has come up, is that people unfamiliar with 5e D&D have often pointed out Archetype as a misnomer; it's a broad identifier, whereas in TNP, they serve to more-narrowly identify a character. Some have also pointed to Role as being too vague (on its face) at least until you get into reading their specific mechanics.

As such, I am considering changing Archetypes to Paragon Paths, and renaming Role to something like "Combat Role." I think at the table, if players choose to shorten those terms down to just "Path" and "Role" then that's fine. However, the rules jargon should be adequately informative in addition to being concise; Subclass does this very well, but Role and Archetype need a bit of a tune-up. I haven't settled on these changes, but both are under consideration.

...

Next post should be on January 30th; as always, if you have input on any of the topics discussed here, feel free to comment below, or get ahold of me wherever you read about the blog.

What to expect from 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

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

The Road Ahead (2018)

Today I'm going to go with a rough overview of the changes you can expect to see in the upcoming draft.

Classes
Whereas in Beta 4, I wanted to develop and refine all 15 classes in concert with one another, in the 2018 Edition I'm planning to first implement the classes planned for use with the "starter slate."

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

Once the full versions of these classes are completed, their starter versions will simply remove some of the decision points, i.e. Subclasses for Sage and Ranger will be picked automatically (Wizard and Hunter, respectively) as will things like skills and Archetypes, for all classes.

I do intend to to keep all of the 15 classes from the previous version, but they will be rolled out over time, rather than all at once.

Leveling

Right now, the intention is to have 5 levels of progression (though I am not 100% decided on whether characters will start at level 1 or level 0.) This means that ideally, we want each class loadout (i.e. Subclass only/ Subclass + Archetype/ Archetype only/ Role + Archetype/ Role only) to have at least 5 possible upgrades to purchase (ideally, more.)

Archetypes, additional Roles, skill training, and Power Sources have been identified as upgrades that can be bought using the leveling process, i.e. Experience Points (XP). Now it becomes a matter of unifying class structures, such that those upgrades can be moved off of their current frameworks without breaking anything. Instances of Power Sources tied to Subclasses (for example) will need to be reworked.

Slate upgrades are definitely something I will want to include as purchasable upgrades, though similar upgrades for "Categories" (i.e. loadouts) are currently up in the air.

It's also intended that in lieu of purchasing an upgrade to your current class, XP can be used to change your class, within certain parameters. Currently, the intent is that you don't have to spend XP as soon as you earn it, but also that at earlier levels, changing your class would not come at an XP cost. This is meant to make it easier for newer players to ease into their class, or make changes to their character if they find the class they picked is not the right fit.

Backgrounds

My intention for handling Performance skills, is that they will be on their own progression track (i.e. gaining 'ranks' in them will not be purchased with the same currency as other upgrades) and this track will only be unlocked for certain classes and/or Archetypes.

As for Knowledge skills, I am moving away from the structure I had written about previously. Instead, one of two possible paths will be integrated into the rules (or possibly both will be presented as options.)

The first method is to keep Power Sources as an upgrade (much as they currently exist in the designs) but instead of granting training with 3 knowledge skills, they would instead grant training to one skill, and Expertise to one skill. Depending on the Power Source, this might mean training with one skill and Expertise with another, or both benefits to one skill. Layered onto this, characters would have a Knowledge progression track, where they would gain 1 benefit per level (either training with an untrained skill, or Expertise with a trained skill.)

The alternate method is to adopt something more akin to the 13th Age system for Backgrounds. Specifically, I would get rid of granular Knowledge skills entirely, and instead have knowledge checks rely solely on your Power Sources. Two possible ways of handling this immediately present themselves:

1) Simply replace the 5-level Knowledge progression track with a Power Source progression track -- you gain training with a Power Source or Expertise with a trained Power Source, each level, or;

2) You gain Power Sources more or less as currently devised within the system -- having one Power Source applicable to the knowledge check in question would provide the benefit of training, and having more than one would grant Expertise to the check.

Combat Math

Behind the scenes, I've been working on crunching out the damage of various existing (and potentially future) attack routines. Broadly, the designs are moving towards more streamlined dice usage, including previously-outlined changes, using things like Advantage and Expertise. Another important change is to the assumed baselines for damage.

I've mentioned before that earlier playtests showed classes doing around 15 DPR, and that I had been using that as my benchmark. Through the process of working on the math, I've moved the target to 13.5 DPR; I found that it's quite a bit easier to fit the smaller dice (in particular) under this guideline. As an example, an attack dealing 2d12 damage, with both Expertise and the Reliable property, hits this mark almost exactly -- a reasonable attack routine to use as a base.

For d6 classes, I am trying to move the designs towards the "universal" maximum of 24 damage, with a situational perk that can boost it to 30 (i.e. an additional d6.) In their preexisting versions, Fighters get an additional d6 against prone targets, and Rogues get an additional d6 when attacking an enemy they are already Engaged with. The trick will be in trying to make the "universal" numbers more reliable -- specifically, the Rogue and the Guardian rely a bit heavily on situational damage boosts. One thing I have found effective in patching this, is granting double damage on critical hits (typically in conjunction with boosts to crit chance) so expect to see this benefit implemented widely, particularly for d6 classes.

Blog Scheduling

I would like to keep up with posting roughly 3x per month/once every 10 days, as I have been. I'm not 100% sure on which rotation I'll go with for 2018, but I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. In either case, there will be 5 posts over January and February, 1 post in late July, and 1 post in early-mid December; all other months, I should be able to do 3 posts.

The next blog update will be about a month from today, so check back then!

A New Start

Today I want to talk about using pre-generated characters (or a "Starter Slate") and what I think that should look like.


The Basics

When you look at the "Basic" rules for 5th Edition D&D, they give you essentially one build for each of the "Core 4" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.) Similarly, the boxed starter set for 5e features 5 characters based off of these same classes; there are 2 Fighters, with one focused on melee and the other on archery.

Building off of this, there are basically 5 character types that I think should be represented in any sort of pre-gen package:

• Archer
• Tank/Defender
• Healer
• Magic-user/Spellcaster
• Skill Specialist

For The Next Project, ideally I would also like to try and represent as many of the "Core 4" classes as possible, while still using each of the 5 class dice.

In the Beta 4 rules, the pre-gens were effectively:

• Acrobat [Archer] (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Crusader] (d8)
• Mystic [Warlock] (d10)
• Barbarian [Shieldbearer] (d12)

Same Class, Different Dice

If we look at the ways these classes will be changing around for the 2018 Edition, we notice that the Rogue and Acrobat overlap, in that they are both cast as "Skill Specialist" but also that they both only use Subclass as their subtype. So I wanted to sort of mix things up a bit. I figured the best place to start was with figuring out who should be the archer of the party, if not the Acrobat.

An intentional part of the design for TNP, was the idea that a particular niche could/should be represented different ways, across the 3 slates -- preferably using a different class die, each time. As such, we have archers in d4 (Acrobat), d6 (Fighter), and d8 (Ranger) flavours. Similarly, different takes on the Rogue and Bard exist, in particular as archetypes for the Adventurer class.


Making the Selections

From the 3 options for archer, I decided to go with the Ranger; with the Beta 4 starter slate including Barbarian as its "Tank/Defender" class, it stood to reason that the next best candidate to fill that role in the 2018 Edition would be the Fighter, so I didn't want to use that as my archer class.

This leads into the next decision point: with Ranger in at d8, that meant Cleric was out -- and that the "Healer" job would have to be filled by a class which uses a different die. With d6 already spoken for, and Bard being another d8 class, the list narrowed significantly. Since it was such a popular class in 4th Edition (particularly among goons), I decided that Warlord should get the job.

That leaves the roles of "Magic-user/Spellcaster" and "Skill Specialist" to be filled out. Through some informal polling, Warlock and Scout rated highly for those respective roles. Unfortunately, they both occupy the same class die, and with Warlock having been in the previous starter slate, I'm going with the Adventurer for the d10 class, occupying the role of "Skill Specialist."

So for the final role to fill, we're left with two options using the final remaining class die (d4) -- Druid, or Wizard. Since sticking close to the "Core 4" was one of the guiding principles I set out, the Sage gets in as final member of the 2018 Edition starter slate.


Updating & Integrating

So here's the final lineup:

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

Ideally, it would have been nice to also include one class from each subtype loadout (Fighter and Adventurer overlap, in this regard) but we do end up with at least one class from each slate.

The previous starter slate was also pretty good for this as well, but I think it's worth noting that the classes listed here which utilize Subclass (Sage and Ranger) are pretty clearly going to be narrowed down into one option (Wizard and Hunter, respectively.) Since the idea of pre-gens is to facilitate quickly picking up and playing the game, these options will be already selected by default, when presented within the starter slate.

I also think the decision to gate Archetypes to something "purchased" at later levels, will help make classes that use them a little more accessible (as opposed to everything being frontloaded) and that the Fighter, Adventurer, and Warlord classes are particularly well-suited in that regard. I may not include both Archetypes for each class as options for pre-gens, but that's still something that hasn't been 100% ironed out (along with Roles, for Fighter and Adventurer, which I may limit to one each.)


Next Post

In the previous post, I mentioned that there will only be one post in the month of December, and that it will try and tie up any loose ends.

With that in mind, now is a great time to leave me feedback or questions, here in the comment section or via other means of communications (i.e. wherever you're linking to this blog from.) If there is anything you would like answered, addressed, or clarified in the upcoming post, I would love to hear from you!

Back to Basics -- Part 2: Numbers & Nomenclature

Everything old is new again, as today's post is a sort of follow up to a post I made just over a year ago.

There are a few things I want to touch on in specific, but overall this post is going to be about some changes I want to make, in order for the game to be simpler and more accessible.


Expertise

When I sat down to write the actual text for Beta 4, I had decided that I wanted to make Basic Attacks somehow distinct from Iconic Attacks. What I mean by this, is that generally they use the same dice rolls, so I wanted to add something a little extra to Basic Attacks, to make them distinct. My initial thought was to use the "roll and compare" mechanism: "when you make a Basic Attack and the attack and damage rolls are equal, treat the attack as a critical success."

This effectively increases your "critical threat range" by one number (i.e. 5%) regardless of the class die being used for the damage roll. The problem is that Basic Attacks are given so many modifiers by class features, that it becomes clunky and untenable. So, I decided to give all Basic Attacks the Expertise property; this gives the same increase to crits, but also a little boost to damage as well.

Through the process of working out "bonus math" and subsequently trying to integrate those mechanics when crunching damage output for various attack routines, I came to realize that "always-on" Expertise needed to go. Particularly with so many d4 and d6 classes being able to use the "double roll and stack" rule for their damage, layering Expertise on top of that just had the effect of further narrowing the possible range of results -- or, as I put it, making it closer to flat damage, with none of the elegance of flat damage (because it still required rolling.)

(An interesting note, worth making mention of here, is that the average result of "double roll and stack d4" is the same as "d8 with Expertise"; the same is true for d6 and d12, respectively.)

The result of all of this, is that it frees up the design space of Expertise, to be used more meaningfully. In the earliest drafts of the game, characters gained Advantage on their attack rolls for doing things that were iconic to their class: Rogues benefited from attacking "flanked" enemies, and Barbarians got the benefit when they were raging, for example. The problem is that Advantage ends up being a huge bonus, and eventually most instances of Advantage were ripped out or dialed back. However, this is where a smaller bonus like Expertise can (I hope) step in to fill the gap.


Advantage

Following from this "dialing back" of Advantage, gaining it as a bonus to attack rolls changed in the rules to being almost exclusively the purview of positional considerations -- High Ground, Prone, etc.

The intent, then, was to start using the aforementioned "bonus math" to give classes their boosts gained from fighting "in-character," so to speak. Two main problems arose with this: first, no matter how streamlined the mechanisms for the bonuses got, they always tended to be unintuitive, and to have the potential to slow down gameplay; secondly, when crunching out damage for actual attack routines, Advantage always made it a lot easier to hit the benchmarks, because it tends to be such a huge boon, mathematically.

All this being said, I think that bonuses using class dice will be limited to "support" abilities, which will allow them to layer onto other bonuses, such as Advantage and/or Expertise. As such, Advantage will start to make a return to the designs of some classes, but Expertise will be used in instances where it is more appropriate.

Bottom line: the math has to work, but the gameplay has to be smooth.


Damage on a Miss

The mechanic used for this in TNP (known as the "Reliable" property) has always been "deal damage equal to the unsuccessful attack roll." I've always preferred this over alternatives of "half damage" or "minimum damage" (in the case of their being multiple damage dice stacked onto one attack) just because it is a little quicker to adjudicate.

This gives us a range of miss damage from 1-9 (or 2-9, with Expertise) for an average of 5 damage (or 5.5 with Expertise.) The problem with this expression comes when applied to attacks that normally could not reach the high end of that range, i.e. 1d4, 2d4, 1d6, and 1d8.

As such, "Damage on a Miss" will only be used as a tool for boosting DPR on attacks that could deal more than a maximum of 8 damage, on a 'hit'. Probably attacks that would result in a single d10 of damage will also be excluded, so mainly this would be utilized on attacks where d6s, d8s, or d10s are being "stacked" -- or where a d12 is being used. So while classes making attacks below this range would not natively be given the "Reliable" property, it could still be given to them by a bonus "support" mechanic, as it currently exists for the Warlord.


Basic Attacks, Power Attack, and Counter-attack

With the Expertise mechanic no longer being a defining characteristic of Basic Attacks, a few properties remain unique to them: Reach, Reliable, and the ability to Power Attack with them.

My intention with Power Attack is to change it from this:

Before you make a basic attack as a Standard Action, you can choose to make a Trade-off using your class die; apply the lower roll as a penalty to the attack roll, and apply the higher roll as a bonus to the damage roll.

To this:

Before making a Basic Attack, you can impose Disadvantage on the attack roll; if you do so, you can treat a successful attack as a critical success.

What this would do, is make access to Advantage more clearly beneficial when using Power Attack. It also removes the disparity between the penalties involved (a d4 being a much smaller one than a d12, for example.) Counter-attack could use a similar rule, granting an Opportunity Attack if the triggering Defense roll is successful.


Basic Abilities and Iconic Abilities

The initial structure of classes was such that you had Iconic Abilities, which gave you suites of benefits. Generally speaking, every class also had an Iconic Attack, which differed from Basic Attacks, as has been explained above. However, some Iconic Abilities simply offered benefits that modified Basic Attacks; there was confusion over whether this was meant to be considered an Iconic Attack (for the purposes of whether Expertise/Reach/Reliable properties applied, or if Power Attack could be used) which it was not.

Going forward, the phrase "Iconic Ability" will not be used. Instead, these will be labeled as either Class Feature, Subclass Feature, Archetype Feature, or Role Feature, as appropriate. Features that grant a modification to a type of Basic Attack, or that grant an Iconic Attack will subsequently be more clearly defined, with each having its own entries under that Feature's heading.

Related to this, Basic Abilities (STR, AGIL, DEX, CHA, INT, WIS) were named as such, since they were not ability "scores" in the traditional sense, and were more fundamental and simple than the Iconic Abilities. The temptation has lingered around to simply lump these in as "Skillsets" but I think there is still use within the design in having the two be separate; some classes have the option to gain training in one "Skillset" of their choice, for example, and it is not intended for them to be able to pick a "Basic Ability" set for that option.

With "Iconic Ability" terminology going away, now is a good time for a change here, too. I've decided that Basic Abilities will be re-titled as simply "Attributes." This terminology is fairly common in the RPG space, and is probably more accurately descriptive for its utilization within TNP.


Blogging/Scheduling

I'm planning to get out one more post before the end of the month, so check back for that on November 30th.
I will also do another post before the middle of December -- likely a year-in-review sort of deal, tying up any loose ends.
Then, I will be on break for about a month, during which time I will start work in earnest on the new draft of TNP, which I am tentatively referring to as the "2018 Edition."

Know Your Role (Beta 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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