Apologies for the lateness of this post; I will try and cram 3 posts into the month of August, so check for updates on the 21st and 30th, most likely.
To make a long story short, production has not gone along as far as I would have hoped. In largest part, this is due to the protracted unseasonably warm weather, making it difficult for me to sit down and focus on writing for any length of time. Mostly my at-home time since the start fo July consisted of either laying down with a fan pointed directly at me, or soaking in a tub full of cool water. Add to that some computer troubles, and I wasn't able to get much done over the break; what I did get started on, came pretty early into it -- I'll go over that now.
Archetypes & Domains (aka subtypes)
Part of the process of allocating the various subtypes to all of the classes, was to take the conceptual idea and actually spell out what that meant.
Specifically, it's something like this:
1) Class (and subclass) determine your possible power sources
2) Class Category determines your possible subtypes (either archetypes or domains)
Alright, so most classes get 3 or 4 options for power sources (this might be whittled down by subclass, but we'll set that aside for now.) For the sake of argument, let's assume class category only ever allows for one of the subtypes and not both. In practical terms, this means that every class will have between 6 and 8 possible "builds" -- not including differentiation based on subclass.
To make a long story short, there's just too much going on; particularly so, given the idea that each subtype is meant to function across roughly half a dozen classes. I spent some time working on the Paladin class in particular, and I found that even after adding previously-unplanned restrictions, there ended up being 8 different subtype options per subclass. Also, it became clear that domains would probably have to be tailored to each class, meaning the utility of recycling them would be lost entirely.
So probably what's going to happen, going forward, is one or more of the following:
a) Subtypes will be shelved, at least until classes can be ironed out, possibly longer.
b) Subtypes will be scaled back in number, by some method.
c) Subtypes will be dictated strictly by class, making it easier to (for ex.) have one archetype/domain from a particular power source, but not the other, on any given class.
Part of any restructuring might be a shift away from using certain Archetypes across multiple classes. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Adventurer subclasses (Scout, Skald) being reused as archetypes, for other classes. At first glance, it seems like it'd be alright, because Adventurer would also get subtype options on top of that... but it just seems to dilute the big picture. If we go with option a) as mentioned above, then we can focus more on ironing out Scout and Skald in the context of just one class, which I think will produce better overall results.
Class Dice in the New Ethos
One of the first things that needed to be tackled, was cementing the ways in which class dice would function, regarding some of the basic character math.
Acknowledging that balancing out the different dice against one another inevitably means that there can't be a "one size fits all" rule for most of these mechanics, what I set out to do instead was to have each class die essentially function as a "code" for these features. Reserves and Surge Value represent one linked pair of mechanics based on class dice, with HP and Engagment being another pair.
(For those unfamiliar, the necessity of a limit on Engagement sprouted out of playtesting; tanking was a little too easy if you could use the Engage move to simply corral all of the open enemies. So class dice were used as a cap on this action -- thus, tankier classes tend to have bigger class dice.)
From there, I've basically come up with 5 different expressions; each class will use one expression for Reserves and Surge Value, and one for HP and Engagement:
1d4
- Max HP: 24
- Engagement: 4
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 4
1d6
- Max HP: 26
- Engagement: 6
- Reserves: 6
- Surge Value: 12
1d8 or 2d4
- Max HP: 28
- Engagement: 8
- Reserves: 8
- Surge Value: 8
1d10
- Max HP: 30
- Engagement: 10
- Reserves: 10
- Surge Value: 10
1d12 or 2d6
- Max HP: 32
- Engagement: 12
- Reserves: 12
- Surge Value: 12
So what does this amount to, in practical terms? Well, it allows us more flexibility in class design. One example would be the Rogue, with Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses; even though Rogue only has d6 as its class dice, the Assassin might use 1d6 for Reserves, and the Sorcerer might use 2d6 (to facilitate them having a reserve-burning mechanic) while both would likely use 1d6 for their HP and Engagement. Likewise, a class using d4 (like the Sage, for instance) can have one subclass (Wizard) that is more of a back-line role, and so would use 1d4 for Engagement, with the other subclass (Monk) being more melee-focused, granting it the 2d4 expression for its calculations. We can also do things like use d6 classes to be tanky, instead of having that role almost entirely lean on d10 or d12 classes.
There's even more possible customization, when it comes to classes that use two class dice. For example, the Cleric (d4/d10) might have a reserve-burning mechanic on its ranged subclass (utilizing the d10) while its melee subclass could be designed to use either the 2d4 or 1d10 expression, for HP and Engagement.
The other benefit to having most classes use two dice, is it gives us the option to lower the number of reserves for classes that would otherwise have 10 or 12 by default -- without us having to staple on reserve-burning mechanics, just for the sake of it. In addition, revising the mechanics such that spending a reserve simply restores your HP to its maximum (under most circumstances) de-emphasizes the importance of surge value, with regards to number of reserves per day. With these two ideas in concert, we're better able to flatten the amount of daily "reserve" HP that each class will have, while still having class dice form these mathematical foundations of these mechanics.
---.
I mentioned it in the TNP Discord, but one topic of discussion was the possibility of removing attack rolls from the designs; this will likely be touched on in a post sometime this month, so stay tuned for that.
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
Friday, June 26, 2020
The Fourth Pillar? (2020)
Perhaps as a prelude to a more deeper dive on using skills, I thought it would be worthwhile to tackle how The Next Project roughly classifies its core skills.
Where I became familiar with the phrase "The Three Pillars" as it pertains to D&D, was during the playtest for 5th Edition; Combat, Social, and Exploration. D&D typically has different mechanics for each of these subsets of gameplay (with "Magic" being the subsystem that overlaps all three, but I digress.) The way I've divided the mechanics is a little bit different: class (and various forms of character customization) handle most of the combat mechanics, with skills handling everything else. However, there are a couple exceptions; obviously, some skills can be used in combat (and some of those almost exclusively so.) But the other exception would be what I think of as the "4th Pillar" in terms of defining skills. So let's start to unpack that.
Exploration & Social
First, let's set the ground rules for what we mean when describing Social skills and Exploration skills. A social skill should generally involve interacting with people; an exploration skill should have to do with comprehending or traversing the physical world. Persuasion and Intimidation are obvious examples of social skills, while Climb, Jump, Search, and Investigation are pretty clearly for exploration.
So what doesn't fit? Well, I realized that there is a subset of skills that is mostly about avoiding social interaction... and exploration interaction. Kind of. Let me explain:
When you use Stealth, you're trying not to be seen or heard. The implication here is that there is some sort of external opponent either trying to attack you, or to engage with you in some other fashion (even if it's just talking.) Likewise, when using Disguise, you probably actually want to avoid interacting directly with an opponent trying to "explore" who you really are -- hoping to give yourself the appearance of someone who is allowed to be (or supposed to be) in some place you are trying to get to, without your presence there being drawn into question. In the same vein, using a Sleight of Hand check usually involves either a) interacting with an object (exploration) without being observed doing so, or; b) interacting with a person (social?) by planting something on them, or lifting something off of them. The final example I would give is Lockpicking; assuming you succeed, the idea is that bypassing a lock not only gives you access to the chest/door/etc. but that also no one suspects (upon visual inspection) that the lock has been defeated or tampered with. So, is that a "social" interaction?
It's an interesting question.
But the further question is how does this manifest itself in gameplay.
Let's go back to the Lockpicking example; should the DM ask for a check to see if they can unlock the lock, or only to see if they can do so without arousing suspicion that the lock has been picked? If the lock is deep in a dungeon and serves only as a barrier to either progress or reward, then the latter is of no concern; this seems to be more of an "exploration" usage of the skill. On the other hand, if the lock being picked is to get access to important documents from the desk of a public figure (without damaging, destroying, or otherwise leaving evidence behind) then the skill is functioning in more of a "social" capacity -- or, perhaps, "anti-social" as it were.
Similar questions arise for using Disguise. Does the DM ask for a check when the Disguise is donned, or only when the Disguise is brought into question, i.e. by a social interaction (such as with a guard)?
If a Rogue stealths through a forest, and there's no one around... does itmake a soundneed to make a check? This is where the advent of "passive" skills starts to come into designs, such as those of 4th Edition D&D. Effectively functioning as a target number, a DM can secretly roll a stealth check against a character's passive perception -- or a perception check against a character's passive stealth; the point being to not give away the fact that there is something trying to hide (or something that is on the lookout for the party members.)
The existence of the opposing force necessitates either the perception or stealth check, but that same necessity spoils the fact of its existence... or does it? You end up in a paradigm of making checks whether the threat is there or not, because to do otherwise would tip off the fact that the threat does exist. It's kind of strange, when you think of it that way. Calling for a check implies that the opponent is there, when it may not be; a failure of the check may imply that the opponent isn't there, or that it is there, but, "your character doesn't know that." All this is to say, I'll have to give some guidance as to when to have players or opponents roll, and whether they should be making opposed checks, or rolling against static DCs.
Subterfuge
Anyways, that got a little bit navel-gazey. I should wrap this up by saying I've always felt that this particular subset of Social/Exploration skills could almost be its own "pillar" ... but not quite. I started referring to these as "Subterfuge" skills, and if there were to be a formalized 4th pillar, that's what I would call it.
Speaking of subterfuge, as has been mentioned before, I'll be going dark for the month of July. No posts will be forthcoming, but I'll be working on things behind the scenes. The blog should return sometime in the first week of August (or, worst case, second week.)
Where I became familiar with the phrase "The Three Pillars" as it pertains to D&D, was during the playtest for 5th Edition; Combat, Social, and Exploration. D&D typically has different mechanics for each of these subsets of gameplay (with "Magic" being the subsystem that overlaps all three, but I digress.) The way I've divided the mechanics is a little bit different: class (and various forms of character customization) handle most of the combat mechanics, with skills handling everything else. However, there are a couple exceptions; obviously, some skills can be used in combat (and some of those almost exclusively so.) But the other exception would be what I think of as the "4th Pillar" in terms of defining skills. So let's start to unpack that.
Exploration & Social
First, let's set the ground rules for what we mean when describing Social skills and Exploration skills. A social skill should generally involve interacting with people; an exploration skill should have to do with comprehending or traversing the physical world. Persuasion and Intimidation are obvious examples of social skills, while Climb, Jump, Search, and Investigation are pretty clearly for exploration.
So what doesn't fit? Well, I realized that there is a subset of skills that is mostly about avoiding social interaction... and exploration interaction. Kind of. Let me explain:
When you use Stealth, you're trying not to be seen or heard. The implication here is that there is some sort of external opponent either trying to attack you, or to engage with you in some other fashion (even if it's just talking.) Likewise, when using Disguise, you probably actually want to avoid interacting directly with an opponent trying to "explore" who you really are -- hoping to give yourself the appearance of someone who is allowed to be (or supposed to be) in some place you are trying to get to, without your presence there being drawn into question. In the same vein, using a Sleight of Hand check usually involves either a) interacting with an object (exploration) without being observed doing so, or; b) interacting with a person (social?) by planting something on them, or lifting something off of them. The final example I would give is Lockpicking; assuming you succeed, the idea is that bypassing a lock not only gives you access to the chest/door/etc. but that also no one suspects (upon visual inspection) that the lock has been defeated or tampered with. So, is that a "social" interaction?
It's an interesting question.
But the further question is how does this manifest itself in gameplay.
Let's go back to the Lockpicking example; should the DM ask for a check to see if they can unlock the lock, or only to see if they can do so without arousing suspicion that the lock has been picked? If the lock is deep in a dungeon and serves only as a barrier to either progress or reward, then the latter is of no concern; this seems to be more of an "exploration" usage of the skill. On the other hand, if the lock being picked is to get access to important documents from the desk of a public figure (without damaging, destroying, or otherwise leaving evidence behind) then the skill is functioning in more of a "social" capacity -- or, perhaps, "anti-social" as it were.
Similar questions arise for using Disguise. Does the DM ask for a check when the Disguise is donned, or only when the Disguise is brought into question, i.e. by a social interaction (such as with a guard)?
If a Rogue stealths through a forest, and there's no one around... does it
The existence of the opposing force necessitates either the perception or stealth check, but that same necessity spoils the fact of its existence... or does it? You end up in a paradigm of making checks whether the threat is there or not, because to do otherwise would tip off the fact that the threat does exist. It's kind of strange, when you think of it that way. Calling for a check implies that the opponent is there, when it may not be; a failure of the check may imply that the opponent isn't there, or that it is there, but, "your character doesn't know that." All this is to say, I'll have to give some guidance as to when to have players or opponents roll, and whether they should be making opposed checks, or rolling against static DCs.
Subterfuge
Anyways, that got a little bit navel-gazey. I should wrap this up by saying I've always felt that this particular subset of Social/Exploration skills could almost be its own "pillar" ... but not quite. I started referring to these as "Subterfuge" skills, and if there were to be a formalized 4th pillar, that's what I would call it.
Speaking of subterfuge, as has been mentioned before, I'll be going dark for the month of July. No posts will be forthcoming, but I'll be working on things behind the scenes. The blog should return sometime in the first week of August (or, worst case, second week.)
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Backtracking (2020)
Today I'm going to touch on a handful of recent topics, just briefly.
Monsters
Looking back on the most recent post on the topic, one of the ideas with the monster roll is that the DM always rolls it, but can adjudicate the monster's course of action, post-hoc.
Within this post, the design space of the monster roll went even further in the direction of unifying its overall mechanics. So I want to sort of lay out the "manual of arms" for how the DM can use the monster roll to speed up encounters.
Firstly, the DM can pre-roll an encounter; essentially, you make the monster roll (either electronically, or manually) enough times to hopefully get you through a whole combat. Then, as each monster has a turn, you use the next roll in the sequence, and "cross off" the rolls as you go. This lets you have a bit of runway, since you know what the next roll "on deck" will be, and can adjudicate the monster's turn a little bit in advance.
Secondly (as I mentioned in the intro) the DM can choose the monster's action based on the result of the roll, rather than choosing the action and rolling afterwards. So for example, since a Standard Monster uses only the highest roll for damage, but would add the dice together to determine success at a skill check, any roll where the total is less than 10 would be used to deal damage (still subject to a failed "save" by the targeted character.) Likewise, if a minion's roll is less than 10, they can do their "auto-damage" attack instead; alternatively, a DM could 'program' particular types of minions to always attack (so they don't have to roll) whereas other types could use signature skills by default (if successful) and deal damage as their backup.
I realize this can seem like 'cheating' insofar as the DM gets to see the result, and then always choose the optimal course of action (something the PCs can't do.) But it's important to understand that this is a mechanical contrivance meant to facilitate speed of gameplay, from the DM side of the board. Since the DM always has to manage all of the opponents in a combat encounter, anything we can do to streamline and simplify their job should be considered. That being said, there's nothing stopping the DM from doing things the 'old-fashioned' way, if they feel this is too much of a detriment to the fun of their players, at the table.
Minor and Major Bonuses (d6)
Naturally, within a day or so of my post, lamenting how hard it has been to come up with d6 mechanics, I was able to come up with a solution:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major bonus: add the d6 to a hit
I really like this. It's clean, slick. I like using the "max value" mechanic, since it would otherwise be underutilized. The major bonus has a 'score' a little bit above the guidelines (105, with the desired range being 100-103) but I think everything else it brings to the table makes up for this; the miss chance on the major bonus remains quite high, but it has the best crit chance out of the bunch, making for an interesting dynamic.
Work(shopp)ing Conditions
Another thing I hammered out since the last post, was a basic guideline for some status effects. This is just sort of to get the ball rolling, so I'll expand on these a bit as I get time/inspiration.
Since the handful of combat skills overlap quite a bit, with regards to Attributes/Skillsets, I quickly realized that I would not need to have 10 different penalties to cover everything. Here are the ones I settled on, with tentative naming conventions:
Some additional thoughts:
Monsters
Looking back on the most recent post on the topic, one of the ideas with the monster roll is that the DM always rolls it, but can adjudicate the monster's course of action, post-hoc.
Within this post, the design space of the monster roll went even further in the direction of unifying its overall mechanics. So I want to sort of lay out the "manual of arms" for how the DM can use the monster roll to speed up encounters.
Firstly, the DM can pre-roll an encounter; essentially, you make the monster roll (either electronically, or manually) enough times to hopefully get you through a whole combat. Then, as each monster has a turn, you use the next roll in the sequence, and "cross off" the rolls as you go. This lets you have a bit of runway, since you know what the next roll "on deck" will be, and can adjudicate the monster's turn a little bit in advance.
Secondly (as I mentioned in the intro) the DM can choose the monster's action based on the result of the roll, rather than choosing the action and rolling afterwards. So for example, since a Standard Monster uses only the highest roll for damage, but would add the dice together to determine success at a skill check, any roll where the total is less than 10 would be used to deal damage (still subject to a failed "save" by the targeted character.) Likewise, if a minion's roll is less than 10, they can do their "auto-damage" attack instead; alternatively, a DM could 'program' particular types of minions to always attack (so they don't have to roll) whereas other types could use signature skills by default (if successful) and deal damage as their backup.
I realize this can seem like 'cheating' insofar as the DM gets to see the result, and then always choose the optimal course of action (something the PCs can't do.) But it's important to understand that this is a mechanical contrivance meant to facilitate speed of gameplay, from the DM side of the board. Since the DM always has to manage all of the opponents in a combat encounter, anything we can do to streamline and simplify their job should be considered. That being said, there's nothing stopping the DM from doing things the 'old-fashioned' way, if they feel this is too much of a detriment to the fun of their players, at the table.
Minor and Major Bonuses (d6)
Naturally, within a day or so of my post, lamenting how hard it has been to come up with d6 mechanics, I was able to come up with a solution:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major bonus: add the d6 to a hit
I really like this. It's clean, slick. I like using the "max value" mechanic, since it would otherwise be underutilized. The major bonus has a 'score' a little bit above the guidelines (105, with the desired range being 100-103) but I think everything else it brings to the table makes up for this; the miss chance on the major bonus remains quite high, but it has the best crit chance out of the bunch, making for an interesting dynamic.
Work(shopp)ing Conditions
Another thing I hammered out since the last post, was a basic guideline for some status effects. This is just sort of to get the ball rolling, so I'll expand on these a bit as I get time/inspiration.
Since the handful of combat skills overlap quite a bit, with regards to Attributes/Skillsets, I quickly realized that I would not need to have 10 different penalties to cover everything. Here are the ones I settled on, with tentative naming conventions:
- Haggard: disadvantage on STR checks (Brawl, Climb, Break Objects, Intimidation)
- Staggered: disadvantage on AGIL checks (Acrobatics, Jump, Stealth)
- Winded: disadvantage on Athletics checks (Brawl, Climb, Acrobatics, Jump)
- Dazzled: disadvantage on Detection checks (would really only be Perception, in combat)
- Frazzled: disadvantage on Presence checks (would really only be Intimidation, in combat -- unless I decide to add some sort of morale system...)
Some additional thoughts:
Probably the 'staggered' condition will also impose some specific penalties to movement, within the action economy, unless the Immobilized/Restrained conditions are kept, and are used to cover that design space. I haven't fully decided if the 'dazzled' condition will also have an attack penalty, or if the combination of those two will be on a full-blown 'blinded' condition. Perception checks on their own aren't super important or common, unless you're fighting enemies that rely heavily on stealth, so it might merit having a little something else tacked on. On the other hand, the same could be said for the 'frazzled' condition; maybe the way to 'balance' these two conditions is solely against each other, with the other three conditions being sort of one "tier" higher in terms of balance/severity.
Slates
Finally, I want to go back and revisit the topic of class dice loadouts ("already?" you say; yes I know...)
After having looked at the loadout I published previously (as well as the 'Plan B' that went with it) I realized I still wasn't satisfied; there were too many weird fits and too many uses of the word "compromise" so I resolved to do some more juggling:
After having looked at the loadout I published previously (as well as the 'Plan B' that went with it) I realized I still wasn't satisfied; there were too many weird fits and too many uses of the word "compromise" so I resolved to do some more juggling:
Acrobat: d4/d8 -- I think this one is just meant to be, dice "roles" be damned.
Cleric: d4/d10 -- Definitely like this a lot more than the alternatives, and I like these dice better here, rather than on Acrobat or Adventurer.
Paladin: d6/d10 -- Fits way better w/r/t the Cleric.
Warlord: d8/d12 -- About as good as d4/d12, and it just makes the rest of the slate work.
Adventurer: d6/d8 -- As said before, this is functionally like the 'light blade' loadout, from Essentials.
Ranger: d8/d10 -- I like this a lot more than d4/d8; honestly my 1st choice would be probably d6/d8, but a beefier Ranger relative to the Adventurer gives it the right feel, in terms of relative class balance.
Guardian: d4/d12 -- Swapped with Warlord; keeping in mind the proposed changes to Reserves, I think we can manage with this.
Barbarian: d10/d12 -- I've always wanted a smaller die for their ranged attacks, but otherwise I like this fit well enough.
Fighter (d6/d12) and Druid (d4/d6) remain unchanged
Overall, I like the loadout of the latter slate in particular. I think having the Adventurer, Ranger, and Barbarian each with a striker die + a different die type is a good fit for all three. This means there's a little weirdness with the Paladin (being striker/striker) but I think it's still s decent enough fit, especially with d10 being the iconically Paladin die.
...
Next post is due out on June 26th, so check back then!
Just a reminder, that will be the last post before the July break, so if you have any topics you'd like covered before then, now is the time to get those in to me :)
...
Next post is due out on June 26th, so check back then!
Just a reminder, that will be the last post before the July break, so if you have any topics you'd like covered before then, now is the time to get those in to me :)
Friday, June 5, 2020
Codifying Conditions (2020)
A short post today, since I haven't been able to really sit down and work on things a whole lot...
By the standards of D&D, there aren't that many "status effect"-type conditions used in The Next Project. The idea was to sort of streamline things into a few broad categories. These could then be widely applied to fit any number of different mechanics, without needing to care too much about the fluff that might be attached to them. Also, some statuses tend to just be too punishing (such as being stunned) so I wanted to leave that on the cutting-room floor.
However, I had an idea for how I might be able to expand the list a little bit, so I wanted to share that with the reading audience; this isn't fully-formed, by any stretch, so I'll try and expand as much as I can, while I'm writing this out.
I was thinking about a condition like "blinded" -- a staple for most RPGs, but not something I have in TNP as it currently stands. I figured, probably this would give you disadvantage on perception checks, and maybe some other penalty (typically in D&D, this would be to attack rolls, just as an example.)
But that sort of got me thinking, a bit. What about this:
Make it so that giving someone disadvantage on perception checks is the mechanic, with the other penalty being tied to having disadvantage on that type of check -- rather than having a blinded condition that gives you those penalties.
Admittedly, it's sort of coming at the problem from a different direction, while achieving the same result. But if the entire subsystem is built around this supposition, maybe it would be possible to blend the two ideas -- status effects, and skill penalties -- into a more unified structure. So what we should look at next, is the whole list of combat skills, as well as the existing status effects, and see where we might at least be able to combine them together.
Combat Skills:
Brawl (STR/Athletics)
- used for grappling, shoving, etc.
Climb (STR/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Break Objects (STR/Infiltration)
- used to destroy sources of Cover or High Ground
Intimidation (STR/Presence)
- used to cow enemies into surrender
Acrobatics (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to escape grapples, balance when falling from high ground, as well as to Withdraw, or to stand from prone using a Minor action instead of a Move action
Jump (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Stealth (AGIL/Subtlety)
- used to become Hidden
Perception (INT/Detection)
- used to detect enemies who are Hidden
Status Effects:
Weakened
- This is sort of a catch-all, disadvantage on skill checks; we may be able to keep it, or we may just break it down into its component parts; it might also make sense to use this terminology for disadvantage on STR checks
Immobilized
- A bunch of action economy penalties, effectively limiting how you can move on your turn
- The first obvious thing is that you cannot gain High Ground, which is typically associated with Jump or Climb; maybe this could be tied to disadvantage on Athletics checks
Incapacitated, Prone
- Further action economy penalties, specifically Off-Turn Actions, as well as a penalty to "saves"
- Perhaps this could be modeled as part of disadvantage on AGIL checks, harkening back to D&D 3.5?
I'll probably have to revisit this topic to give it a deeper inspection, but it seems like there's some hay to be made, particularly the idea of penalties to combat skillsets/attributes:
STR: Brawl/Climb/Break Objects/Intimidation
Athletics: Brawl/Climb/Acrobatics/Jump
AGIL: Acrobatics/Jump/Stealth
So, there might be space in the design for penalties to specific skills (Perception, obviously, but Stealth also sticks out as a good candidate) but penalties to groups of skills also probably has its place. The existing status effects are a bit clunky, and so trying to streamline them behind this structure instead, seems like it'd be a worthwhile quality-of-life improvement to explore.
...
Apologies for this post being a bit slapdash; check back on June 16th for the next update.
As always, suggestions for blog topics are welcome and appreciated.
By the standards of D&D, there aren't that many "status effect"-type conditions used in The Next Project. The idea was to sort of streamline things into a few broad categories. These could then be widely applied to fit any number of different mechanics, without needing to care too much about the fluff that might be attached to them. Also, some statuses tend to just be too punishing (such as being stunned) so I wanted to leave that on the cutting-room floor.
However, I had an idea for how I might be able to expand the list a little bit, so I wanted to share that with the reading audience; this isn't fully-formed, by any stretch, so I'll try and expand as much as I can, while I'm writing this out.
I was thinking about a condition like "blinded" -- a staple for most RPGs, but not something I have in TNP as it currently stands. I figured, probably this would give you disadvantage on perception checks, and maybe some other penalty (typically in D&D, this would be to attack rolls, just as an example.)
But that sort of got me thinking, a bit. What about this:
Make it so that giving someone disadvantage on perception checks is the mechanic, with the other penalty being tied to having disadvantage on that type of check -- rather than having a blinded condition that gives you those penalties.
Admittedly, it's sort of coming at the problem from a different direction, while achieving the same result. But if the entire subsystem is built around this supposition, maybe it would be possible to blend the two ideas -- status effects, and skill penalties -- into a more unified structure. So what we should look at next, is the whole list of combat skills, as well as the existing status effects, and see where we might at least be able to combine them together.
Combat Skills:
Brawl (STR/Athletics)
- used for grappling, shoving, etc.
Climb (STR/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Break Objects (STR/Infiltration)
- used to destroy sources of Cover or High Ground
Intimidation (STR/Presence)
- used to cow enemies into surrender
Acrobatics (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to escape grapples, balance when falling from high ground, as well as to Withdraw, or to stand from prone using a Minor action instead of a Move action
Jump (AGIL/Athletics)
- used to gain high ground
Stealth (AGIL/Subtlety)
- used to become Hidden
Perception (INT/Detection)
- used to detect enemies who are Hidden
Status Effects:
Weakened
- This is sort of a catch-all, disadvantage on skill checks; we may be able to keep it, or we may just break it down into its component parts; it might also make sense to use this terminology for disadvantage on STR checks
Immobilized
- A bunch of action economy penalties, effectively limiting how you can move on your turn
- The first obvious thing is that you cannot gain High Ground, which is typically associated with Jump or Climb; maybe this could be tied to disadvantage on Athletics checks
Incapacitated, Prone
- Further action economy penalties, specifically Off-Turn Actions, as well as a penalty to "saves"
- Perhaps this could be modeled as part of disadvantage on AGIL checks, harkening back to D&D 3.5?
I'll probably have to revisit this topic to give it a deeper inspection, but it seems like there's some hay to be made, particularly the idea of penalties to combat skillsets/attributes:
STR: Brawl/Climb/Break Objects/Intimidation
Athletics: Brawl/Climb/Acrobatics/Jump
AGIL: Acrobatics/Jump/Stealth
So, there might be space in the design for penalties to specific skills (Perception, obviously, but Stealth also sticks out as a good candidate) but penalties to groups of skills also probably has its place. The existing status effects are a bit clunky, and so trying to streamline them behind this structure instead, seems like it'd be a worthwhile quality-of-life improvement to explore.
...
Apologies for this post being a bit slapdash; check back on June 16th for the next update.
As always, suggestions for blog topics are welcome and appreciated.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Refining Reserves (2020)
Since the designs will be going forward with the majority of classes functioning off of two dice (instead of one) this makes for a good opportunity to refine the mechanics of reserves. I should start by saying plainly, that reserves are functionally analogous to healing surges in 4th Edition D&D, albeit somewhat more abstracted. Specifically, since most of the mechanics in TNP are effectively "at-will" usage, anything with a limitation on usages tends to burn reserves; in essence, they are both healing surges, as well as being every other per-day resource that a character might have.
In the past, the mechanical ethos was to assign a class a number of reserves based on their class die. A baseline amount of per-day healing from reserves was built off of that; classes with more reserves than the baseline (i.e. d10 and d12 classes) would need to have abilities with a reserve cost (that hopefully "made sense" thematically) built into them. These costs were effectively reverse-engineered onto the abilities, in order to fit the class die. With the "two-dice" ethos, what we can do is instead work from the assumption that the number of reserves will be scaled down to the die that most easily aligns with the baseline, and only scale it up if it makes sense thematically for the class to have a "reserve-burning" mechanic. What this means is that only classes with a d10/d10, d10/d12, or d12/d12 loadout will necessarily have to have 10 or more reserves.
The other direction to take, which might make also sense, would be to streamline reserve calculations a little bit, wherever possible. To wit, it could make it easier to outright remove the d4 expression, or at least roll it up with the d8 expression. I think the same could probably be done for d6 and d12; the previous number-crunching on the subject seems to suggest that the sweet spot is about 6-8 reserves per day (and above that, you have to start adding extra mechanics to burn reserves on.) Rather than having to pump d12 classes up with such mechanics, we could simply have d12 and d6 use the same math.
That would leave us with something like this:
Admittedly, this looks a little screwy. The d4/d8 and d6/d12 expressions (in terms of per-day healing) "average" out the same, but I can't help but feeling there's more that should be done, to smooth out the variance. Perhaps the way to do approach it, is to have the smaller die always used for the number of reserves, while the larger die is used for the "surge value." This would be a bit of a logistical... well, maybe not "nightmare" but at least a "headache" -- it also doesn't do anything to resolve the issue, with regards to single-die classes.
(It's also probably worth mentioning, that each class having two dice can potentially allow for the separation of HP calculation from Reserve calculation; a class or subclass may use the HP calculation from one of their dice, but the Reserve calcucation from their other die, for example.)
What I think this all would ultimately prescribe, is making the d10 into the de-facto "reserve burning" class die, in order to bring their "daily HP" pool more in line with the other expressions. We might still be able to boost reserves to 12 (for classes that have d12 as one of their dice) if they are a class that we want to have reserve-burning as part of their shtick. This could also be used as for "specs" such as the proposed Psionic or Runepriest mechanics, for example; in such a case, it probably makes sense for those archetypes to boost your character's reserves to 12 (or "reserve calcualtion to d12" if we want to be somewhat pedantic.)
Conclusions
I guess what I would take away from all of this would be:
In the past, the mechanical ethos was to assign a class a number of reserves based on their class die. A baseline amount of per-day healing from reserves was built off of that; classes with more reserves than the baseline (i.e. d10 and d12 classes) would need to have abilities with a reserve cost (that hopefully "made sense" thematically) built into them. These costs were effectively reverse-engineered onto the abilities, in order to fit the class die. With the "two-dice" ethos, what we can do is instead work from the assumption that the number of reserves will be scaled down to the die that most easily aligns with the baseline, and only scale it up if it makes sense thematically for the class to have a "reserve-burning" mechanic. What this means is that only classes with a d10/d10, d10/d12, or d12/d12 loadout will necessarily have to have 10 or more reserves.
The other direction to take, which might make also sense, would be to streamline reserve calculations a little bit, wherever possible. To wit, it could make it easier to outright remove the d4 expression, or at least roll it up with the d8 expression. I think the same could probably be done for d6 and d12; the previous number-crunching on the subject seems to suggest that the sweet spot is about 6-8 reserves per day (and above that, you have to start adding extra mechanics to burn reserves on.) Rather than having to pump d12 classes up with such mechanics, we could simply have d12 and d6 use the same math.
That would leave us with something like this:
- d4 or d8 -- 8 reserves, 4-20 HP restored per = 32-160 HP
- d6 or d12 -- 6 reserves, 12-20 HP restored per = 72-120 HP
- d10 -- 10 reserves, 10-20 HP restored per = 100-200 HP
Admittedly, this looks a little screwy. The d4/d8 and d6/d12 expressions (in terms of per-day healing) "average" out the same, but I can't help but feeling there's more that should be done, to smooth out the variance. Perhaps the way to do approach it, is to have the smaller die always used for the number of reserves, while the larger die is used for the "surge value." This would be a bit of a logistical... well, maybe not "nightmare" but at least a "headache" -- it also doesn't do anything to resolve the issue, with regards to single-die classes.
(It's also probably worth mentioning, that each class having two dice can potentially allow for the separation of HP calculation from Reserve calculation; a class or subclass may use the HP calculation from one of their dice, but the Reserve calcucation from their other die, for example.)
What I think this all would ultimately prescribe, is making the d10 into the de-facto "reserve burning" class die, in order to bring their "daily HP" pool more in line with the other expressions. We might still be able to boost reserves to 12 (for classes that have d12 as one of their dice) if they are a class that we want to have reserve-burning as part of their shtick. This could also be used as for "specs" such as the proposed Psionic or Runepriest mechanics, for example; in such a case, it probably makes sense for those archetypes to boost your character's reserves to 12 (or "reserve calcualtion to d12" if we want to be somewhat pedantic.)
Conclusions
I guess what I would take away from all of this would be:
- HP calculations probably won't change; it will still be "maximum value of [d20 + class die]" but for two-dice classes, the exact die will have to be specified, and/or may be different depending on subclass.
- Reserve calculation will effectively default to the lower of the two class dice, with d4 being the exception. This means either d4 will necessarily get 8 reserves, or there will be some other sort of blended calculation that both d4 and d8 will use.
- If the smallest die a class has is d10 or d12, then that should be a class with a rational justification for having a reserve-burning mechanic.
- Archetypes/Domains that call for the addition of a reserve-burning mechanic to a character will likely necessitate the character's reserve calculation being boosted to the d10 or d12 calculation.
One other thing (I didn't talk about it above, but should still be mentioned in this conclusion) is the idea of using reserves as a benchmark or modifier. What exactly I mean by this is that, if we're able to hypothetically narrow the number of "maximum" reserves down to a range of 6-10, this should make it more effective to use "current reserves" as a number by which class mechanics can function. The first example that popped into mind would be as a limitation to the number of creatures that could be summoned by a particular ability, or to the number of summoned creatures that could be under your control at any given time. Admittedly the latter would be far more punishing as the adventuring day went on, and no doubt there could be other mechanics that might leverage this more effectively.
This (admittedly) is sort of a roundabout way of getting to the design mechanic of "ability modifiers" into a game where everything is supposed to be designed off of the dice. But looking over some of the mechanics, I can see where the utility of a hard, flat number would be desirable -- and since reserves are still a function of class dice, it fits into the existing ethos, albeit in a roundabout way. At this point, it's just a question of whether or not a modifier that degrades over the course of an adventuring day is a mechanic with wide enough application to really be useful.
Side note:
In going back through some old literature for TNP, I had originally intended that spending a reserve would always heal you to your maximum HP. However, what actually got implemented was the "surge value" system -- which, in combat, can produce "overhealing" as sort of a way of replicating the design space of "temporary HP" (mentioned in this post here.) I think going forward, the assumption will use a blend of these systems: if you're in combat, or at 0 HP (i.e. "under duress") then spending a reserve to regain HP will require a roll; otherwise, spending 1 reserve will restore your HP to its maximum.
...
Next scheduled blogging day will be Friday, June 5th -- so check back then!
Friday, May 15, 2020
Casting the Dice -- Part 3: The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune
To d6, or not 2d6? That is the question...
Way back in old-timey days, I wrote a post outlining how I wanted "support mechanics" to function. Essentially, these are "roll and compare" mechanics (class dice used in conjunction with d20 rolls) providing a framework for bonuses that were bigger than Mastery/Expertise, but smaller than Advantage. Part of that process involved coming up with a measurement by which to create bonuses of comparable value, and I settled on [hit chance + (crit chance * 3)] for giving each mechanic a "score."
Now, I wish I could say that I've settled on all of these mechanics, but as you might have guessed from the opening line, the d6 class die is giving me problems. Specifically, when I recently decided to take another try at finalizing these mechanics, I also looked at what the "miss chance" was for each -- and decided that, as best as possible, that those needed to be kept within a relatively small range. However, one of the mechanics I had picked for d6 (essentially, 2d6, and working fairly similarly to 1d12) resulted in a miss chance of just below 10% -- far less than what any of the other dice were doing. So I decided to revise that, and I'm currently still working on it.
What I have settled on, is basically the textual format that I want to have these mechanics laid out in. The idea is that there will be an expression which lays out a mechanic that the minor and major bonuses (for a given die) will both use; then, the minor bonus will add one clause, and the major bonus will add one different clause (not using the clause from the minor bonus, mind you.) I also tried to narrow down the types of clauses used, so that there aren't any more fiddly mechanics than there absolutely needs to be.
Here's what this looks like so far:
d4
always: add the d4 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d4 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d4 roll to a hit [potentially boosting it to a crit]
d8
always: add the d8 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
d10
always: if the d10 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 10] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d10 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d10 to a miss
d12
always: you can use the d12 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d12 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if both the d12 roll and the d20 roll would hit
A Sea of Troubles
Now, coming back to the d6, I'll just talk about what I'm playing with.
One thing I had considered was rolling 2d6 and allowing the roll to be treated as a crit if the two d6 rolled a tie/match; the math on this was usable, but I don't like that it doesn't fall in line with the existing "match" mechanic, and thought it might cause confusion.
I also looked at fixing the old mechanic by rolling 2d6 but only allowing one to be added to a miss. I found this to be clunky, and more or less decided I don't want to have functions that involved applying 2d6 to one function and also 1d6 to a different function. The idea of rolling 2d6 and adding one (either the lower or higher) on either a hit or a miss seemed intriguing, but the math never quite worked; "add low to miss, add to hit if max" was something mathematically workable, but completely impractical and messy. Howver, that started to point me in a new direction, at least.
What I realized then, was that if I were to use the "add to miss" mechanic on d6, then its other mechanics would have to be completely different than what the d4 and d8 were doing -- otherwise the math would end up slanted, with d6 always being flatout better than d4 and worse than d8. Since I had settled on "add if max" as a mechanic for the d10, I decided I should see if I could make it work for the d6 as well (rather than having it as an outlier.) It also seemed like a sensible idea, in the context of d6 and d10 potentially sharing a "dice role."
This lead me to a few possible setups, each with their own drawbacks:
Option 1:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
A couple problems with this:
1) The minor bonus actually produces the same math as "add to miss, crit on tie" ...but those are the exact same functions used for the d4 minor bonus, so it ends up just being flatout better -- and to top it off, it's a little bit above the cap for minor bonuses.
2) Trying to bash together a 1d6 and a 2d6, while keeping them separate (because one is a minor bonus and one is a major bonus) is ...mushy.
3) Just too many functions going on, causing confusion; I ran this by some people, and they weren't clear as to whether the "add to miss" or "match" mechanics of the minor bonus only triggered on a "max value" roll.
4) The major bonus happens to also be a little bit above the cap, for major bonuses.
Option 2:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
always: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: [no other modifiers]
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
So, on the plus side, the minor bonus produces the exact same math as the d4 minor bonus -- nice! And both bonuses use only 1d6. The problems are mostly esthetic; having two "always" clauses but no "minor" clause is weird, and it means the major bonus ends up having three clauses. Plus, the major bonus math is still a little bit high (it's more of a hit bonus, whereas the major bonus in Option 1 is built on more of a crit bonus -- but both are around a score of 105.)
Option 3:
[using the minor bonus from Option 2, with the major bonus from Option 1]
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
This seems to (at least math-wise) be the best compromise. And it's probably the 'cleanest' option so far -- although I still don't love mixing 1d6 and 2d6 mechanics together, so the alternative would be:
Option 4:
always: roll 2d6
minor bonus: you can use the 2d6 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if both the 2d6 roll and the d20 roll would hit
major bonus: if (either) d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
What we've done here is essentially taken the d12 major bonus, and used it as our 2d6 minor bonus -- which works out in terms of math. And then we've effectively recycled the major bonus from Option 1, for this setup. The downside is, there's a lot of functions flying around, and the only unifying mechanic is the 2d6 -- it's a bit of a high price to pay, for the mess it creates.
Conclusions
I should end by mentioning that the math regarding 2d6 that I used in figuring out these numbers, is actually based on the "double-roll and stack" rule's math, rather than just straight 2d6 math.
With that out of the way, I think that Option 3 probably fits the format best, and is (hopefully?) a little less confusing that the others. Option 1 can likely be ruled out just on its math, but also because of the other problems I mentioned. Option 2 cleans up all of the messiness of Option 1, but isn't the best fit for the format. Option 4 ...works, but is just sort of all-around messy (breaks the format, too many computations, etc.)
So, if I had to start implementing math into a new draft of the rules today, I would probably have to go with Option 3. But let me know what your thoughts are on the matter, and I'll continue working in the background to see if there's a better option still out there.
I should also mention one of the lessons learned from previous playtesting: these mechanics are much stronger when applied to defensive rolls. The simple reason for that, is because a given character can only make so many attack rolls on their turn (and generally only one Basic Attack); in a round, however, they may have to make as many defensive rolls as there are enemies to defend against. That all being taken into account, I think the place within the designs for these mechanics is in the Archetypes and Domains, where mechanical bonuses will need to work similarly, across the various class dice; class-specific mechanics can (and probably will, by necessity) deviate from the math presented here.
...
Next post should be up on May 26th, so check back then.
Way back in old-timey days, I wrote a post outlining how I wanted "support mechanics" to function. Essentially, these are "roll and compare" mechanics (class dice used in conjunction with d20 rolls) providing a framework for bonuses that were bigger than Mastery/Expertise, but smaller than Advantage. Part of that process involved coming up with a measurement by which to create bonuses of comparable value, and I settled on [hit chance + (crit chance * 3)] for giving each mechanic a "score."
Now, I wish I could say that I've settled on all of these mechanics, but as you might have guessed from the opening line, the d6 class die is giving me problems. Specifically, when I recently decided to take another try at finalizing these mechanics, I also looked at what the "miss chance" was for each -- and decided that, as best as possible, that those needed to be kept within a relatively small range. However, one of the mechanics I had picked for d6 (essentially, 2d6, and working fairly similarly to 1d12) resulted in a miss chance of just below 10% -- far less than what any of the other dice were doing. So I decided to revise that, and I'm currently still working on it.
What I have settled on, is basically the textual format that I want to have these mechanics laid out in. The idea is that there will be an expression which lays out a mechanic that the minor and major bonuses (for a given die) will both use; then, the minor bonus will add one clause, and the major bonus will add one different clause (not using the clause from the minor bonus, mind you.) I also tried to narrow down the types of clauses used, so that there aren't any more fiddly mechanics than there absolutely needs to be.
Here's what this looks like so far:
d4
always: add the d4 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d4 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d4 roll to a hit [potentially boosting it to a crit]
d8
always: add the d8 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
d10
always: if the d10 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 10] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d10 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d10 to a miss
d12
always: you can use the d12 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d12 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if both the d12 roll and the d20 roll would hit
A Sea of Troubles
Now, coming back to the d6, I'll just talk about what I'm playing with.
One thing I had considered was rolling 2d6 and allowing the roll to be treated as a crit if the two d6 rolled a tie/match; the math on this was usable, but I don't like that it doesn't fall in line with the existing "match" mechanic, and thought it might cause confusion.
I also looked at fixing the old mechanic by rolling 2d6 but only allowing one to be added to a miss. I found this to be clunky, and more or less decided I don't want to have functions that involved applying 2d6 to one function and also 1d6 to a different function. The idea of rolling 2d6 and adding one (either the lower or higher) on either a hit or a miss seemed intriguing, but the math never quite worked; "add low to miss, add to hit if max" was something mathematically workable, but completely impractical and messy. Howver, that started to point me in a new direction, at least.
What I realized then, was that if I were to use the "add to miss" mechanic on d6, then its other mechanics would have to be completely different than what the d4 and d8 were doing -- otherwise the math would end up slanted, with d6 always being flatout better than d4 and worse than d8. Since I had settled on "add if max" as a mechanic for the d10, I decided I should see if I could make it work for the d6 as well (rather than having it as an outlier.) It also seemed like a sensible idea, in the context of d6 and d10 potentially sharing a "dice role."
This lead me to a few possible setups, each with their own drawbacks:
Option 1:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
A couple problems with this:
1) The minor bonus actually produces the same math as "add to miss, crit on tie" ...but those are the exact same functions used for the d4 minor bonus, so it ends up just being flatout better -- and to top it off, it's a little bit above the cap for minor bonuses.
2) Trying to bash together a 1d6 and a 2d6, while keeping them separate (because one is a minor bonus and one is a major bonus) is ...mushy.
3) Just too many functions going on, causing confusion; I ran this by some people, and they weren't clear as to whether the "add to miss" or "match" mechanics of the minor bonus only triggered on a "max value" roll.
4) The major bonus happens to also be a little bit above the cap, for major bonuses.
Option 2:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
always: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: [no other modifiers]
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
So, on the plus side, the minor bonus produces the exact same math as the d4 minor bonus -- nice! And both bonuses use only 1d6. The problems are mostly esthetic; having two "always" clauses but no "minor" clause is weird, and it means the major bonus ends up having three clauses. Plus, the major bonus math is still a little bit high (it's more of a hit bonus, whereas the major bonus in Option 1 is built on more of a crit bonus -- but both are around a score of 105.)
Option 3:
[using the minor bonus from Option 2, with the major bonus from Option 1]
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value
This seems to (at least math-wise) be the best compromise. And it's probably the 'cleanest' option so far -- although I still don't love mixing 1d6 and 2d6 mechanics together, so the alternative would be:
Option 4:
always: roll 2d6
minor bonus: you can use the 2d6 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if both the 2d6 roll and the d20 roll would hit
major bonus: if (either) d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
What we've done here is essentially taken the d12 major bonus, and used it as our 2d6 minor bonus -- which works out in terms of math. And then we've effectively recycled the major bonus from Option 1, for this setup. The downside is, there's a lot of functions flying around, and the only unifying mechanic is the 2d6 -- it's a bit of a high price to pay, for the mess it creates.
Conclusions
I should end by mentioning that the math regarding 2d6 that I used in figuring out these numbers, is actually based on the "double-roll and stack" rule's math, rather than just straight 2d6 math.
With that out of the way, I think that Option 3 probably fits the format best, and is (hopefully?) a little less confusing that the others. Option 1 can likely be ruled out just on its math, but also because of the other problems I mentioned. Option 2 cleans up all of the messiness of Option 1, but isn't the best fit for the format. Option 4 ...works, but is just sort of all-around messy (breaks the format, too many computations, etc.)
So, if I had to start implementing math into a new draft of the rules today, I would probably have to go with Option 3. But let me know what your thoughts are on the matter, and I'll continue working in the background to see if there's a better option still out there.
I should also mention one of the lessons learned from previous playtesting: these mechanics are much stronger when applied to defensive rolls. The simple reason for that, is because a given character can only make so many attack rolls on their turn (and generally only one Basic Attack); in a round, however, they may have to make as many defensive rolls as there are enemies to defend against. That all being taken into account, I think the place within the designs for these mechanics is in the Archetypes and Domains, where mechanical bonuses will need to work similarly, across the various class dice; class-specific mechanics can (and probably will, by necessity) deviate from the math presented here.
...
Next post should be up on May 26th, so check back then.
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Power Sources (2020)
As I teased at the end of the last post, today we're going to discuss which power sources each class will have access to.
First, I should qualify that some of these might be limited to specific subclasses of a given class, but I just want to do a broad overview for now:
Arcane:
Knowledge Skills: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Religion
Archetypes: Psionic, Skald
Domains: Divination, Enchantment
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Cleric, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Adventurer
Divine:
Knowledge Skills: Royalty & Nobility, Medicine, Religion
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Domains: Devotion, Life
Classes: (8 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Sage, Bard, Spellbinder
Martial:
Knowledge Skills: History & Geography, Animal Handling, Local
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
Domains: Leadership, War
Classes: (13 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Rogue, Bard, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Primal:
Knowledge Skills: Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine
Archetypes: Elementalist, Scout
Domains: Blood, Stone
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Warlord
Sage, Rogue, Occultist
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Shadow:
Knowledge Skills: Streetwise, Dungeoneering, Local
Archetypes: Revenant, Vampire
Domains: Death, Trickery
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer
Distribution:
I did try and "balance" out the utilization of each power source. However, as you can see, the 3rd slate does not get access to Divine; as I've mentioned before, most of the stuff going on with that power source doesn't really jive with this slate of classes, particularly with the Religion and Medicine skills being available from other (better suited) power sources.
I think each slate has always had 2 primary power sources. So I decided to make those available to all classes within those respective slates, which necessitated moving some other power sources off of certain classes. With the History and Geography knowledge skills having been combined into one, plus the already existing overlap with Primal (i.e. Animal Handling) it seemed like giving all of the classes on the 3rd slate access to the Martial power source was the right thing to do.
The Acrobat is the closest thing to a blank slate out of its class category (arguably, out of all of the classes) so I decided to give them free choice in their power source, to flavour however you'd like -- which is made a little easier since the category they happen to be in is the "skill specialist" category. I've always seen this class as the main stand-in for the 4e Avenger (Divine) as well as Executioner (Shadow), but also a simplified Ranger (Primal), as well as an obvious place for an "arcane archer"-type character; all of that would also seem to help with the justification.
Flavour:
At times I had considered moving Shadow off of the Paladin class, but it just wouldn't feel right, so long as Blackguard remained one of the Paladin subclasses; taking Martial off of the Sage (i.e. off the Monk subclass) was also something I went back and forth on, but as the design space of power sources expanded in the direction it has, keeping it made less and less sense. On the topic of the Monk, I think Divine seems like a natural fit; the Bard in 3.5 having all knowledge skills on their class skill list, made me want them to have access to this (rare) power source; Spellbinder is sort of taking on its own unique flavour, and Divine as a power source for the Swordmage subclass is a part of that growth.
Rogue being split into Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses makes for a similar case, with Primal being meant for Sorcerer, Martial being meant for Assassin, and their other two power sources being meant for both. The presence of the Shadow power source for classes of the 3rd slate is meant for a more "city-focused" versions of the Guardian (specifically the Warden subclass), Ranger, and Adventurer. I didn't give Bard the Primal power source, since Skald is meant to function as the "Primal Bard" (as it is in 4e's Heroes of the Feywild... sort of.)
Fighter and Warlord are given a bit of room to stretch out, since they would otherwise end up sort of narrowly focused. I particularly like the idea of a Runepriest Fighter, or a Primal-flavoured shamanistic Warlord. I also like the Primal power source on the Sage class, as sort of a "Brown Wizard"-style character. I've often felt bad about limiting Barbarian as much as it is in this regard, but nothing else really seemed to fit; hopefully their subtypes will help do them justice.
A Bridge Too Far?
As you can pretty clearly see, not every Domain or Archetype is a fit with every class, under each power source. This is why these character subtypes remain partially a function of class (or at least class category) rather than purely a function of power source. That being said, I know there will still be some imperfections, as with any time an entirely new framework is presented. I guess this is all to say: "I apologize in advance if you get hyped about one of the possible combos laid out here, and it ends up getting axed," because this is an absolute possibility.
So!
15 classes, 5 power sources, 10 archetypes, and 10 domains. It's going to be tough, but I'll try my best to get these things all playing together nicely -- and limiting subtypes by another metric besides just power source is meant to help facilitate that. Hopefully this all converges together just right, and makes power sources a meaningfully hefty part of the designs, and of character customization.
...
Blog Update
Just one minor thing I want to touch on here:
Historically, I've taken a break in July; I think I will try and take the whole month off from blogging this time, so that I can settle down and focus on going heavy into the writing and design work. Assuming I take December off this year as well, that means 8 months of posting in 2020, for a total of 24 posts this year. That's down from 30 in both 2017 and 2018, but I still feel its a good number; if work continues on into 2021, I will probably use this year's schedule for that.
Next post is due on Friday, May 15th -- check back then!
First, I should qualify that some of these might be limited to specific subclasses of a given class, but I just want to do a broad overview for now:
Arcane:
Knowledge Skills: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Religion
Archetypes: Psionic, Skald
Domains: Divination, Enchantment
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Cleric, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Adventurer
Divine:
Knowledge Skills: Royalty & Nobility, Medicine, Religion
Archetypes: Avenger, Runepriest
Domains: Devotion, Life
Classes: (8 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Sage, Bard, Spellbinder
Martial:
Knowledge Skills: History & Geography, Animal Handling, Local
Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
Domains: Leadership, War
Classes: (13 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord
Rogue, Bard, Spellbinder
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Primal:
Knowledge Skills: Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine
Archetypes: Elementalist, Scout
Domains: Blood, Stone
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Warlord
Sage, Rogue, Occultist
Druid, Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer, Barbarian
Shadow:
Knowledge Skills: Streetwise, Dungeoneering, Local
Archetypes: Revenant, Vampire
Domains: Death, Trickery
Classes: (11 total)
Acrobat, Fighter, Paladin
Sage, Rogue, Bard, Occultist, Spellbinder
Guardian, Ranger, Adventurer
Distribution:
I did try and "balance" out the utilization of each power source. However, as you can see, the 3rd slate does not get access to Divine; as I've mentioned before, most of the stuff going on with that power source doesn't really jive with this slate of classes, particularly with the Religion and Medicine skills being available from other (better suited) power sources.
I think each slate has always had 2 primary power sources. So I decided to make those available to all classes within those respective slates, which necessitated moving some other power sources off of certain classes. With the History and Geography knowledge skills having been combined into one, plus the already existing overlap with Primal (i.e. Animal Handling) it seemed like giving all of the classes on the 3rd slate access to the Martial power source was the right thing to do.
The Acrobat is the closest thing to a blank slate out of its class category (arguably, out of all of the classes) so I decided to give them free choice in their power source, to flavour however you'd like -- which is made a little easier since the category they happen to be in is the "skill specialist" category. I've always seen this class as the main stand-in for the 4e Avenger (Divine) as well as Executioner (Shadow), but also a simplified Ranger (Primal), as well as an obvious place for an "arcane archer"-type character; all of that would also seem to help with the justification.
Flavour:
At times I had considered moving Shadow off of the Paladin class, but it just wouldn't feel right, so long as Blackguard remained one of the Paladin subclasses; taking Martial off of the Sage (i.e. off the Monk subclass) was also something I went back and forth on, but as the design space of power sources expanded in the direction it has, keeping it made less and less sense. On the topic of the Monk, I think Divine seems like a natural fit; the Bard in 3.5 having all knowledge skills on their class skill list, made me want them to have access to this (rare) power source; Spellbinder is sort of taking on its own unique flavour, and Divine as a power source for the Swordmage subclass is a part of that growth.
Rogue being split into Assassin and Sorcerer subclasses makes for a similar case, with Primal being meant for Sorcerer, Martial being meant for Assassin, and their other two power sources being meant for both. The presence of the Shadow power source for classes of the 3rd slate is meant for a more "city-focused" versions of the Guardian (specifically the Warden subclass), Ranger, and Adventurer. I didn't give Bard the Primal power source, since Skald is meant to function as the "Primal Bard" (as it is in 4e's Heroes of the Feywild... sort of.)
Fighter and Warlord are given a bit of room to stretch out, since they would otherwise end up sort of narrowly focused. I particularly like the idea of a Runepriest Fighter, or a Primal-flavoured shamanistic Warlord. I also like the Primal power source on the Sage class, as sort of a "Brown Wizard"-style character. I've often felt bad about limiting Barbarian as much as it is in this regard, but nothing else really seemed to fit; hopefully their subtypes will help do them justice.
A Bridge Too Far?
As you can pretty clearly see, not every Domain or Archetype is a fit with every class, under each power source. This is why these character subtypes remain partially a function of class (or at least class category) rather than purely a function of power source. That being said, I know there will still be some imperfections, as with any time an entirely new framework is presented. I guess this is all to say: "I apologize in advance if you get hyped about one of the possible combos laid out here, and it ends up getting axed," because this is an absolute possibility.
So!
15 classes, 5 power sources, 10 archetypes, and 10 domains. It's going to be tough, but I'll try my best to get these things all playing together nicely -- and limiting subtypes by another metric besides just power source is meant to help facilitate that. Hopefully this all converges together just right, and makes power sources a meaningfully hefty part of the designs, and of character customization.
...
Blog Update
Just one minor thing I want to touch on here:
Historically, I've taken a break in July; I think I will try and take the whole month off from blogging this time, so that I can settle down and focus on going heavy into the writing and design work. Assuming I take December off this year as well, that means 8 months of posting in 2020, for a total of 24 posts this year. That's down from 30 in both 2017 and 2018, but I still feel its a good number; if work continues on into 2021, I will probably use this year's schedule for that.
Next post is due on Friday, May 15th -- check back then!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)