Foundations & Pillars (2024)

Throughout the past year, I've covered a variety of topics (in greater or lesser detail) relating to the game system; today I'm going to go over as many as I can come up with, and talk about where things are, and how they'll all need to come together.

On the DM side...
There are a few basic components:

• Monster Manual: the basic mechanics of monsters, the different types of monsters, general encounter-building advice, and some sample monsters
• Campaign Builder: the guidelines and mechanics for building out an entire campaign, either randomly or via a more curated approach, as well as handing out XP/leveling
• Non-combat encounters: the rules surrounding exploration, subterfuge, and social encounters -- including any exceptions to the general rules around skills (such as opposed checks rather than straight DC10)

In terms of general mechanics, the types of dice rolls and bonuses have been sharpened to a fine point. The conditions/status effects have been laid out and codified. I think part of the process of finalizing the designs will include making sure that the dice bonuses and status effects are utilized properly and adequately throughout the text. One thing that I need to iron out pertaining to positional conditions is whether to handle things like high ground, elevation, altitude, and hovering/levitation separately, or just amalgamate them together.

In terms of combat, the action economy and actions in combat need to be edited and updated, but the framework is essentially there; with the character classes now complete, the largest chunk of the combat mechanics are done. The class categories and their various progressions (as well as the general character progressions) have been hammered out, and the skill mechanics have been solidly in place for a while now. Feats need to be built out a bit, to include more combat-focused options in addition to skill and power source feats. Some of the classes were sort of hastily reworked, and so the proposed implementation of daily/encounter powers didn't really materialize for most of them; this might be something that can be redressed as things go on.

One other thing that will need to be hammered out (in terms of general rules) are things like keywords. Forms, concentration abilities, summoned creatures, and restoration abilities are just some examples of mechanics that have worked off of keywords in the past. These all need to be updated, and built into other mechanics (such as "boss" enemies being able to turn off abilities with certain keywords.) Stealth and surprise (and how those interact with initiative) as well as the interception and tumbling mechanics all need to be formalized, but the basics have already been laid out.

___

Overall, the challenge I've found with designing the rules is how everything seems to feed into everything else. For example, if you knuckle-down and focus on hammering out character mechanics, sometimes you go back to monster design and realize you need to rethink things in light of new character stuff that has been implemented -- so every part of the design is (effectively) constantly evolving. Trying to find the right point to lock things down can feel like a game of whack-a-mole, at times. I think going forward, it'll be key to focus on fleshing out things that are not complete, rather than retooling things that are already considered to be "finished."

Class Showcase: Spellbinder & Warlord (2023)

Oddly enough, it was around this season way back in 2016 when I did a post about these same two classes, for the Beta 4 version of the rules. It's interesting to compare and contrast where the designs have changed over the years.

• The Spellbinder (d12)
• The Warlord (d8/d12)

Working on the other "Disciple" classes (Druid and Occultist) helped to kind of lay the groundwork for how the Warlord would take shape, in this iteration. Essentially, there's one universal Warlord feature, one feature unique to each of the two subclasses, and one feature for each of the three combat roles -- similar to the other Disciples. I had been meaning to take the idea of the old-school Fighter getting an army of followers, and impliment some form of that into TNP for a while now; in pre-3.5 D&D (so, before my time in the gaming space -- apologies if I get any of this 2nd-hand information slightly wrong) Fighters got this perk when they received the title of "Lord." To me, it seemed obvious to fit this feature in with the Warlord class, just based on the naming convention alone. With the other Disciple classes having summoner-type "controller" abilities to work off of, the groundwork for the "Lord of War" was already laid, and this feature actually came together quite quickly.

As I had teased in earlier posts, the Spellbinder didn't need a lot of changes from the 2019-ish iteration, since it didn't require a class die makeover. I was kind of fiddling with the "Blademaster" specializations for this class right up until the last minute, so don't be terribly surprised if they get tinkered with a bit in the future. I've always sort of liked the idea of Spellbinder as the over-class for Swordmage and Hexblade; the name originally was meant to incorporate "the other, other Warlock subclass" from 4th Edition -- the Binder. But, when looking up the meanings of words to see if they really fit (something I agonized over a lot on the debilities, for example -- and also why the Mystic eventually became the Occultist) I found that the word 'spellbinding' means to captivate or even hypnotize; this helped to add another dimension to the class, and helped me build out some of its magical abilities. Sort of like the Acrobat and the Adventurer (to varying degrees) the Spellbinder kind of took on a life of its own with TNP, and became its own "thing."

...

This post marks the end of this season, for the blog. Typically the first post of the new year will come out on January 11th, so I would check back then for any updates.

If you look back on the posts throughout this year, you'll know that there's still a lot of work to be done, in order to finalize the designs. I'll try and squeeze in some writing over the next month, to get some of the "SRD" ironed out; some other goals would be to get an updated "monster math" document (with at least some example monsters) as well as finalizing the campaign-building mechanics.

The Next Mechanics -- Part 2: Re-"role"-ing the Dice

Somewhat in the same vein of a recent post, today I'm going to share some design ideas I've had recently, which may or may not appear in a future game.

First, I want to talk about class dice bonuses. Basically, I think an interesting basis for a new system would be to have simplistic d4, d8, and d12 attack bonuses, with d6 and d10 used strictly for extra damage; this obviously would be a lot easier to balance and mix-and-match in a design ethos which expressly isn't about "class dice," in the way that TNP is. 

That being said, I actually did manage to come up with some balanced reworks, whereby the dice bonuses are approximately equal (when using the assumption of 1d8 as the base damage.) These mechanics assume the dice bonuses can be added to attack AND damage, unless otherwise noted:

• d4: always treated as max value for the damage portion of the bonus; if the d4 ties the attack roll, treat the attack as a crit
• d6: [can be added to attack and damage] -- no other special considerations
• d8: if the d8 ties the attack roll, treat the attack as a crit; can only be added to a miss [essentially the same as the TNP bonus, with the addition of being able to be used for attack and damage]
• d10: roll 2d10, and use the total OR the d20 result to resolve the attack; treat the lower d10 result as the bonus damage, with mastery applied to the roll for determining the damage portion only
• d12: can be used in place of the attack roll; if the d12 roll ties the d20 roll and both would be a hit, treat the attack as a crit; if the d12 and d20 are a tie and both would miss, treat the attack as a hit

Some of these are obviously a bit wordy/clunky, so I do generally prefer the idea of streamlining the bonuses to be more simple, and at the same time making it so not all dice have to be bonuses.

The other major idea I've been giving some consideration to, is what is the resolution mechanic (if not d20)? The thing to ask is whether the DC10/d20 system is really adequate; to wit, is a 50% hit + 5% crit rate enough? Evidently not, since the design has needed to be reworked to include dice bonuses as well as combat mastery. My sense is that at the low end, a meaningful chance of success shouldn't drop below about 20%-25%, whereas at the high end, a meaningful chance of failure shouldn't be less than around 15%-20%

So let's look at some options, for success rates vs. DC10:

• 3d6: 62.50%
• 2d10: 64.00%
• 2d6+3: 58.22% 
• 1d6+1d10: 45%

You'll notice I included that last one, since it's the mechanic that TNP uses for skills; when you apply advantage to the d10 portion, the success rate increases to 66.83% or decreases to 23.17% with disadvantage. The 2d6 expression is meant to model "what if we replaced the 3rd d6 with something like an ability modifier?"
So what happens with the other mechanics? Let's say they all use the same idea of "highest/lowest [X-1] of XdY" as sort of an "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic.

• 3d6: 82.48% / 38.35%
• 2d10: 84.60% / 37.80%
  
• 2d6+3: 80.56% / 31.94%

Now, it's here I'll say that I think I can rule out the d10, for a couple of reasons. First, if we were to add something like a +1 modifier to it, the success rate would become too high. The other reason is that "roll 3d10 and keep the 2 highest" sort of loses the ergonomics of a straightforwardly 2d10 advantage/disadvantage mechanic, such as the one used for skills in TNP.

So what happens if we apply some kind of an "ability" modifier to the d6 candidates?

• 3d6+1: 89.51% / 51.23% (74.07% normal)
• 3d6+0: 82.48% / 38.35% (62.50% normal)
• 3d6-1: 73.07% / 26.93% (50.00% normal)
• 3d6-2: 61.65% / 17.52% (37.50% normal)
  
  
• 2d6+4: 89.35% / 47.69% (72.22% normal)
• 2d6+3: 80.56% / 31.94% (58.22% normal)
• 2d6+2: 68.06% / 19.44% (41.57% normal)
• 2d6+1: 52.31% / 10.65% (27.78% normal)

We find a couple of things:
3d6+1 is pretty comparable to 2d6+4, but both are a little high, with advantage applied.
3d6+0 and 2d6+3 are both kind of in the sweet spot, for all three expressions.
3d6-1 is definitely workable -- but at 2d6+2, disadvantage is at risk of taking the numbers too low.

Overall, the math makes me lean towards 3d6... but having modifiers that scale from -2 only to +1 is a little bit unconventional. The 2d6 mechanic being based around having only positive modifiers is intriguing, but at the far ends of that scale, it starts to flounder; advantage on 2d6+4 is really high, and disadvantage on 2d6+1 is really low.

I think if I were to use either of those for combat, I might consider using the existing TNP mechanic for skills -- otherwise, the obvious temptation is to just build the entire system out of d6s. Having a skill mechanic that at least uses d6 and d10 would incentivize using both in parts of the rest of the system. At this point, I realize I probably sound like I'm campaigning to reinvent my previous RPG. I haven't decided what "the next next project" is going to be, so anything is still possible, at this point.

...

Next post is due on Nov. 30th, when (if all goes well) we should be unveiling the Spellbinder and Warlord classes -- so check back then!

Class Showcase: Druid & Rogue (2023)

Based on a previous request from a TNP Discord member, today's post is going to focus on two classes that I would say are at opposite ends of the complexity spectrum:

• The Druid (d4/d12)
• The Rogue (d6)

With the reshuffling of subclasses that came with the addition of a 3rd slate, the d6 Sorcerer subclass and the d6 Rogue class got combined into one, creating a class which essentially has an arcane subclass and a martial subclass. Admittedly, they don't share a lot mechanically (aside from the d6) so the "Rogue Tactics" feature was extended to the Sorcerer as well; if I recall correctly, this was one of a couple universal features between the previous Rogue subclasses. At one point, the Rogue had 3 subclasses (Assassin, Scoundrel, and Scout) but the Scout was spun off into a Ranger subclass, and is now part of the Adventurer class; what remains of the other two subclasses has essentially been merged together, under the Scoundrel subclass -- a naming choice which was mentioned in a previous post.

The Sorcerer subclass draws most of its inspiration from the 5e version of the class, with Twin Spell in particular being one of my favourite features to use. I also gave the class a generic AoE attack called "Fiery Burst" which is meant to serve to role of both Burning Hands or Fireball. As recently as the 2021 draft, this ability could be used as a melee attack or a ranged attack, but with the recent minor update, I decided to eschew the necessity of an attack roll for this feature -- which cleans up the wording and hopefully gets the point across better. I wouldn't say I have a particular favourite origin for the 5e Sorcerer, but probably the Wild Magic option is the one most associated with the class, so that's what I chose to emulate.

Now, the Druid class is a lot more complex than the Rogue, I would say. It follows in the vein of the Guardian, basically calling upon animal forms and either bestowing that form upon themself (Shapeshifter), or summoning a beast in such a form (Summoner). The form options are Dire Bear, Stalking Cat, and Great Eagle -- all of which are treated as "role features" -- which more or less correspond to Defender, Striker, and Support, respectively. If memory serves, a lot of the bear form features for the 4e Druid revolved around gaining temporary HP, or healing nearby allies; I chose to go that route here as well.

Rather than having the "healer" role siloed into one subclass, I went the same route that I did with the Cleric, and made the baseline, generic healing ability available to both Druid subclasses, but with certain action economy advantages or disadvantages depending on subclass and shapeshifting forms. It's also worth mentioning that features with the [Form] keyword are able to be activated as part an initiative check, but can also be changed (or activated later) as a move action; for this reason, Fighting Styles for the Fighter class are also given the [Form] keyword.

Some of the more recent changes to the Druid (aside from those specifically related to the change in dice, from d4/d6 to d4/d12) are actually some of the mechanical basics. I separated out Reserves and Surge Value to each use different dice (since there are specific reserve-based mechanics for the class) but I also changed the ranged basic attack to be d12 damage. Usually I think of Druids using a longbow (d8), but a cantrip such as 5e's Poison Spray as a d12 ranged attack also makes sense in this case. With the shapeshifter being unable to use ranged attacks when its forms are active, I imagine such attacks actually won't come up much, and they don't really do anything special, either.

...

Anyway, feel free to comment below if you have any thoughts on either of these classes.

Next post will be on Nov. 20th, so check back then!

Class Showcase: Cleric & Occultist (2023)

Given that it's nearly Halloween, it seemed like Occultist was an obvious choice for today's post. And since D&D's cleric class famously was based off of the vampire-hunter Van Helsing, that seemed like another solid candidate.

• The Cleric (d4/d10)
• The Occultist (d10)

Like many classes, the Cleric breaks down into essentially a melee subclass (Battle Priest) and a ranged subclass (Invoker). In the 4e paradigm where [role + power source = class], it makes sense to split Invoker off from Cleric; in a paradigm closer to 5e, Invoker just seems like a specialized cleric, with particular spells picked. I chose to give the Cleric class a d10, so that the Invoker could have a few extra reserves to burn for powering their abilities (rather than putting debuffs on themself to power them, as in 4e) -- this is also why the Invoker is one of the first real instances where the newly-defined debilities make an appearance, within a class' features.

Beyond that, I felt like a "healing word"-esque spell and a buff like Bless sort of neatly encapsulates the basic Cleric's toolkit in 5e -- barring specific flavours from domains beyond the obvious divine-ish types.

The Occultist was a class I actually took a long time to settle on a name for. I eventually picked this one after it came up as a class in Darkest Dungeon. In earlier iterations, I had the Animate Dead ability as exclusive to the Necromancer, and the Eldritch Blast ability as exclusive to the Warlock. In the previous iteration, I decided to make both of these abilities available to all Occultists (mainly because they both required a standard action to use) and treated Necromancer and Warlock more as 'roles' rather than distinct subclasses. This lastest version kind of splits the difference; the two aforementioned abilities remain universal, but the curses remain specific to each subclass. The Banishment ability was changed to a controller ability from a Necromancer ability, the Hellish Rebuke ability was changed from a Warlock ability to a striker ability, and Vampiric Touch was added as a support ability.

Generally the ethos in TNP has been to try (as much as possible) to fit the abilities of each class into 3 features, which are sometimes bundles of smaller features -- almost akin to how feats work in 5th Edition D&D. There is some bending of this rule; a class might have one feature and each subclass might have 3 of their own features, in addition to that (such as the Cleric... sort of.) The Occultist essentially has 4 features (one of which has 2 different subsets, depending on subclass) and 3 possible role features, on top of that. In the earliest versions of TNP, the idea was that ALL classes should be able to fit onto one sheet of paper; now, it's usually 3, but some of the simpler classes make in at 2 (with the 1st page essentially being the key, basic statistics for each class loadout.) Hopefully this allows the game to overall strike the right balance between complexity as well as range of character options.

...

Check back for the next post on November 10th!

The Conundrum of Class Dice Bonuses

Since the summer break, I've been trying to figure out a solution to the problem with the d12 bonus. What it comes down to is that because d12 is such a large damage bonus, it has to be a relatively small attack bonus, in order for the DPR to be balanced against the other (smaller) dice bonuses -- to wit, in the current iterations, the d12 does not provide an attack bonus at all. This creates a problem, because it does not bestow the multiplicative effect to "extra damage" that dice bonuses with an attack bonus offer. I came up with a fix, but in the process I realized I should also clean up some of the nomenclature a bit.

Class dice bonuses are bonuses to attacks, which use class dice; they can be bonuses to attack rolls and/or to damage rolls. When used as a bonus to an attack roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as an attack bonus, and when used as a bonus to a damage (i.e. base damage) roll, the class dice bonus is referred to as a damage bonus (or bonus damage, depending on grammatical considerations.) Extra damage is something entirely separate from bonus damage; extra damage is only ever represented by d6s and/or d10s, can only be used for damage (not for attack bonus), and is in addition to both base damage and bonus damage.

Now, it's important to remember that while all 5 of the class dice bonuses may be applied to a given attack, only one may be used as an attack bonus -- and you can choose which one to use, after rolling all bonuses. Some of the class dice bonuses have special functions that work "as an attack bonus," meaning that in order to benefit from said bonus, no other attack bonus may be applied. Specifically, the d8 bonus when it ties the attack roll (d20), or using the d10 roll in place of the d20 (i.e. a 10 on the d10 being used to make a hit.) Remember this for later.

The general rule is that a class dice bonus can be used for an attack bonus OR a damage bonus, but not both -- however, there are exceptions (which is partly why to simplify things, one of the reworks I was considering was to just allow all dice to be used for attack bonus AND damage bonus.)

As I had said from the top, the d12 bonus:
a) does not have an attack bonus component, and;
b) does not properly scale with extra damage dice

So how do we fix this? Well, what I've come up with is this:
"As an attack bonus, the d12 bonus allows all extra damage dice to be treated as having rolled their maximum value."

Essentially what this does, is take the base hit chance (50%) and crit chance (5%) without an attack bonus (or, when applying the d12 bonus, which has no attack bonus component) and instead of multiplying those chances by the random roll of the extra damage dice, you're multiplying them by the maximum value of the extra damage dice. The result is that the extra damage scales up, more in line with the other class dice bonuses.

As mentioned in a previous post, since each class dice bonus (with a base damage of 1d8) produces a DPR of about 7.3 we then need the extra damage dice to work out to at least another 16.7 DPR, in order to hit our "1 KPR" number of 24 DPR. By using the d12 bonus this way, we're multiplying the maximum value of 5d6 or 3d10 by 50% (hit) and taking double that amount, multplied by 5% (crit):

(30 * 50% = 15) + (60 * 5% = 3) = 18

So this means that with the d12 bonus in play, the DPR from extra damage can be increased to 18, finally putting it just about on par with the other bonuses.

Now, this may seem a bit unintuitive and weird, since objectively the roll of the d12 is doing nothing to provide the actual attack bonus. But we do need to treat it as an attack bonus, to keep other attack bonuses from being applied in addition to this one. Since the ~7.3 DPR from the d12 bonus comes entirely from damage, this also means that the rule for the d12 bonus must be that it can be used for attack AND damage, in order for this math to work out.

Essentially, I think of attack bonus and damage bonus more and more like two separate buckets, that can each be filled in specific, different ways. Attack bonus is more like a "typed" bonus, in the sense that, for example, a "feat bonus" to attack can be stacked with a "power bonus" to attack, and a "circumstance bonus" to attack... but not with another "feat bonus" to attack; if every class dice bonus to attack is considered a "feat bonus", then only the highest/best would apply. Bonus damage is more like an untyped bonus; all of them can be stacked (unless they specifically don't apply, such as when using one for an attack bonus prohibits using it as a damage bonus.)

...

Anyway, hopefully that doesn't muddy the waters too much; it was the simplest fix to the class dice problem, short of reworking the whole scheme from scratch.

Next post should be up on October 30th, so check back then!

Class Showcase: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (2023)

 So for today's 3 classes, we have the (mostly) martial bunch:

• The Fighter (d6/d12)
• The Paladin (d6/d10)
  
• The Ranger (d8/d10)

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, these classes are sort of grouped together, with "fighting styles" being their common mechanic; the fighter gets access to all, ranger leans towards two-weapon fighting or archery, and paladin can basically get any of the others.

It seems clear that there was a deliberate attempt to make Fighters in 5e that could be built for more than just melee, and I felt that was valuable to keep in TNP. However, I didn't want the fighting styles to be something you were pigeon-holed into, so I added the mechanic of each additional style giving you extra damage. The TNP version of the Fighter is actually an outgrowth of the original "Warrior" class, which was a much more barbarian-ish, d12 class; as the Fighter-y bits got added more and more into the Warrior, the d12 made less and less sense. When I started working on the 3rd slate of classes, I decided to make the Fighter as a separate, d6 class, and later with the two-dice revision, d6/d12 seemed the obvious choice.

The Paladin in TNP, on the other hand, was one of the original 5 character classes... sort of -- having evolved out of the d10 "Fighter" class to include some more holy/healing abilities, which the slate was otherwise completely lacking. There are some subtle influences from Diablo 2, as the Paladin in that game was probably my favourite class. I liked the idea of either taking a Cleric domain or a Fighter role (or possibly fighting style) with the Paladin, so I sort of massaged that into the class specialization options; the Fighter and Paladin sharing the d6 class die made role the easier fighter option to share. In much the same way as in 5e, the Paladin isn't mean to be a "pure" healer or "main" healer, but they're a frontliner who can dish out some healing as they fight. I can honestly say I had fun playing a Blackguard in 4e, and so including a dark Paladin with some of the thievery-type skills had always been on my radar.

The Ranger has always been a d8 class, but honestly, stapling an "extra damage die" such as the d10 onto the class just worked flawlessly. The scout subclass bounced around between Ranger and Rogue for a bit, before finally settling in as part of the Adventurer class; I wanted to keep classes to only 2 subclasses, and that sort of necessitated this. Probably the two-weapon fighting and the archery Rangers are the most iconic, particularly coming out of 4th Edition; TNP's Ranger is more akin to the Essentials' Hunter ranger, stapled onto the beastmaster archetype of the Martial Power book. I feel the latter playstyle became popularized for a lot of people (myself included) with the World of Warcraft hunter class, and I think using the beast for 4e's iconic "twin strike" manages to work out ok.

...

So, the remaining "completed" class is the Rogue, with 5 others still needing to be polished up and finalized; I might squeeze in a post on another topic, rather than continue with the class showcases, for the next one.

Check back on October 20th!