Status Report (2018)

Just a short post to round out the month of May:

In TNP, there are effectively only a handful of debilities/status effects, which can potentially be used as riders for monster attacks:

• Push
• Prone
• Weakened
• Immobilized
• Grappled
• Incapacitated

My early intention is to class these based on how debilitating they are; the more debilitating, the less the damage of the attack would be, and vice-versa. I would categorize them as such:

• High damage: push, prone, weaken
• Medium damage: immobilize, grapple
• Low/no damage: incapacitate

So, using the established mechanics for stepping-down monster damage, (Advantage, Trained, Untrained, and Disadvantage) this should give us a framework for building status effects onto monster attacks, by using their baseline damage expression and reducing it down depending on the effect being added.

Since the default assumption for Standard Monsters is that they deal "Untrained" damage, this limits how far their damage can be stepped down; by extension, this means they should not have access to the strongest debilities, and that these effects should be limited to stronger monsters, exclusively.

Now, that being said, this is essentially all "theorycraft" since it is hard to give a firm numerical value for these effects, which could be directly equated to an amount of damage. Nevertheless, I feel this gives a solid base from which to conduct playtesting, and then begin to troubleshoot the design.

...

Next post should be up on June 6th, so check back then!

Design Origins -- Part 3: The Monster Roll

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

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


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

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

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

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

What I came up with was this:

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

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

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

Making it Your Own

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

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

Whose Roll is it, Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

The Witch's Hammer

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion...

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

Check back May 25th for the next post!

Monster Math (2018)

New content is now live!

That's right! The guidelines for monster stats are now available (in early-draft form) and a link has been added to the end of the Playtest document (linked on the sidebar.)


Square Peg, Round Hole
Since I wanted monsters to have a universal dice-rolling mechanic (1d6+1d10) I had to round off a few edges, in terms of bonuses and penalties. As you'll see in the document, Advantage and Disadvantage are adjudicated a little differently than how they operate for PCs.

Essentially, how it works is like this:

• Advantage: on a tie, maximize both dice
• Disadvantage: cancels out Advantage, or uses the lowest roll

I had tinkered with having Advantage work similarly to the "double roll and stack" rule, potentially maximizing one die or the other. In short, I found it both a little clunky and not a big enough bonus, so I went with maxing both dice, instead.

The Mother of Invention

It should also be pointed out that the previous post (Monster Math -- Part 3: Standards & Elites) contained a mechanical error, which has been corrected in this draft: Standard monsters will use the universal monster roll for damage, but only use the highest die, rather than adding them together. I had figured this out before, but it sort of got lost in the shuffle; when it came time to make the post, my brain reverted back to an older loadout.

However, when double-checking the math this time around (and coming across this snag) I came up with another lever that can be used to differentiate monsters a bit, and at the same time allow them to mesh with some of the existing mechanics.

When a monster is able to stack their roll, the roll is described as "Trained" whereas using only the higher result means the roll is "Untrained." So monsters that specialize in melee might only have this bonus to their melee attacks, whereas "artillery" types might have it only on their ranged attacks. It's worth noting that Expertise can be seamlessly applied to monster rolls, as a straightforward damage boost.

Rogues' Gallery

In addition to Standard and Elite monsters, Minions and Swarms were also established in an earlier post. This new draft rounds out the list of antagonists, with the addition of Solo monsters and Archenemies.

Solo monsters are what I envision as "Colossus" fights -- an enemy that has to be brought down in stages -- whereas Archenemies are the final boss of a shorter or longer story arc; they are exceptionally strong and resilient, a single combatant who is a suitable challenge for an entire party.

Moving Forward

I still have intentions of updating a few more classes, but monster math has taken my attention, for the time being. I have some ideas for implementing area attacks, as well as attacks that impose debilities (I just need to try and square the math); basically, the idea will be to use Trained/Untrained/Disadvantage as a means of "stepping down" damage, in order to leverage such powers. In addition to that, I will want to come up with some sample/example monsters -- in particular, conversions of popular or iconic enemies.

Check back May 15th!

The Sincerest Form of Flattery (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


---


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

Check back May 5th!

Functioning As Intended? (2018)

I wanted to take this post to go over some of the (seemingly) more odd-ball mechanics that are in the game, and outline some of the thought processes behind them.

Combat Skills
One of the rule changes that came out of playtesting, was to limit each character to one skill check per turn. The reason for doing this ties into how the mechanics behind intimidation work.

The baseline rule that I came up with was that you can intimidate an immobilized enemy into surrendering; this causes them to be "dropped" and therefore removed from combat. The rationale for this was that I wanted a mechanic whereby the enemy has to be in a vulnerable position before they'd consider surrendering (from a narrative standpoint) but also mechanically, I didn't want it to completely invalidate combat.

The problem cropped up with classes that either get to make grapple or intimidate checks as a minor action (since grappling is the main way to immobilize an enemy.) This creates a scenario where, by succeeding on two checks on the same turn, a player can remove an enemy from combat without a fight. This doesn't really conform to the narrative intent, nor the mechanical assumption of fights typically lasting for three rounds.

To compensate for removing this combo, some classes were given the ability to intimidate enemies who are bloodied (or who are immobilized.) This keeps a feature like being able to intimidate as a minor action still useful, while also requiring the players to engage in the combat mechanics.

Similarly, elite monsters were made stronger, by requiring that they be both bloodied and immobilized before they can be intimidated into surrendering.


Inspiration & Restoration
I specifically went out of my way to not use the terminology of "healing" within the rules; rather, restoring HP is meant to be as abstract as possible.

It's generally accepted that HP itself is an abstraction, often combining wounds, stress, and the will to fight (among other things.) Using the terms "inspiring" or "inspiration" for most of the HP restoration mechanics serves to highlight the "will" part of the equation. It also makes it easier for non-magical/non-medical characters to have abilities that restore HP.

This brings me to another point: what is the role of "healing" within combat?

As mentioned before, since the earliest designs, there hasn't ever been much in the vein of "combat healing" in The Next Project. The idea behind spending reserves is that it should be a way of returning your HP to its maximum, once combat has concluded. This is more of a DM-side contrivance, because it then allows all encounters to be balanced around the assumption of "all PCs will be at max HP, at the start of every combat." (It should be noted that this is also true of 4th Edition D&D.)

The goal within combat is to simply survive until the end, at which time you are then safe to heal up. In-combat healing is meant to be about on-par with "striker"-level damage; it's something that helps the party to better survive until the end of the fight, while also being a mechanic which is in keeping with a particular play-style, but without being a further tax on limited resources (i.e. reserves.) This is one of the ways that healing operates differently from 4th Edition.

All that being said, HP is further abstracted in TNP by effectively folding the design concept of "temporary hit points" into it. The whole "not real hit points" distinction is sort of meaningless, in a concept already so abstract -- so we junked it. When you receive "healing" in combat, it is allowed to increase your HP above its maximum; any excess is lost at the end of the encounter, however. Likewise, spending reserves after combat cannot increase your HP above its maximum.

What this serves to do is functionally increase the times when it is "appropriate" for a support class to use their restoration ability. In 4th Edition, generally the right time was whenever an ally's HP was down below their surge value, since the standard "leader" heal was usually [surge value + an ability modifier, or 1d6]. Further to this, the "bloodied" mechanic being a condition which all combatants were aware of (once someone had that condition on them) was an effective way of signposting to the support characters, when someone needed to be healed.

Because of how TNP handles HP and in-combat healing, you may very well consider "inspiring" an ally before they have taken any damage, since they will still receive the extra HP (and it may very well make sense, if they're a class who you can expect to soak a lot of damage; if they don't end up taking the damage, it'll have been a waste of one of your actions, so choose carefully.) It also avoids the pitfalls of 5th Edition D&D, where the only time to restore someone's HP is when they're at zero (because damage so drastically outpaces healing, you really only use it to prevent death and/or loss of actions.)

Also, by going with the "once per ally" model for these abilities (akin to the Healer feat, in 5th Edition) rather than the "twice per encounter" model from 4th Edition, these abilities effectively scale to fit a party of any size. However, once a party's size exceeds the typical number of rounds a combat is expected to take, choosing who to heal (and when) suddenly becomes a tactical consideration once again. Overall, I think this framework allows for more interesting decision-making options for the healer "role" and I quite like that outcome.


---

Check back April 24th for the next post!

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.

Design Origins -- Part 2: Class Dice

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


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

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


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

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

That was where my mind sort of made a connection.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

-----

Next Post

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