Subtypes (Beta 4)

Probably for the next big revision of the game, I will want to look into changing the jargon pertaining to character options. Here's the current wording, explained:

• Subclass: "mandatory combat role" is how I generally refer to this. At the start of combat, you have to pick one, or else your class doesn't function. Examples: Druid [Shapeshifter/Summoner], Guardian [Shaman/Warden], Mystic [Necromancer/Warlock]
• Path: essentially your "mandatory Archetype." Paths are generally distinct classes that have been put under the umbrella of a single class, for different reasons. Examples: Cleric [Crusader/Invoker], Sage [Monk/Wizard], Rogue [Assassin/Sorcerer]
• Archetype: these basically serve to narrow a class down into a more specific "flavour" or niche; currently, Archetypes are not mechanically necessary in order for classes with them to function. Some classes can choose an Archetype in addition to a Subclass, Path, or Role.
• Role: this hews fairly close to the 4e D&D combat roles. Similarly to Archetypes, it is not mechanically necessary to pick one; they narrow the focus of your character, and can be selected at the start of combat. Currently, the following roles are used in the text: Defender, Striker, Controller, Support.

Archetypes and Paths are both locked in at character creation; Paths are mandatory, Archetypes are not.
Roles and Subclasses are both selected at the start of combat; Subclasses are mandatory, Roles are not.
It's also worth noting that Paths, Roles, and Subclasses do not overlap each other, on any class; classes with these options may, however, also have Archetypes.

I think the problem is that each of these keywords seems to convey a sense of permanency, but only two of them actually are (and one of those is optional.) "Subclass" is the word that seems the biggest misnomer. At one point, "Archetype" covered what would now include Archetypes, Subclasses, and Paths (and all were mandatory); "Subclass" was just a placeholder that was used to pull those specific options out from under the larger umbrella.

Should Subclasses be merged into Roles? It seems like one of the simpler options -- Roles would have to become mandatory to facilitate this, though, which would increase some of the complexity for those classes (Fighter, Warlord, Bard, Adventurer, and Barbarian.) The problem then becomes that the existing Subclasses don't feel like "Roles" so a new piece of jargon may need to be invented to replace them both.

Should Subclasses be reclassified as "Combat Paths" and Roles as "Combat Archetypes"? It would be nice to have one word for "mandatory" customization, and one for "optional" that could then each have a "combat" or similar tag added, to specify when those options could be invoked.

I'm going to give this all some serious consideration, and see which loadout I like most. Then, that will make its appearance in the next iteration of the rules text.

Getting Back on Track (Beta 4)

I'm about a month behind schedule on updating the blog, but now that the days are getting shorter again, I think it's time to get back to working on TNP. I might not continue with posting three times per month, but I'd like to keep it to at least twice.

So here are the thoughts that I have been kicking around, as of late:
I never completely finished crunching out the math for all of the classes that are currently in the game, because myself and (probably) a few of my followers were super hyped just to see the system in action, so I went ahead with some playtests. And largely, what that testing seemed to indicate was that the d4 classes in particular were underperforming, in terms of damage. (As a side note, the Sage was pretty thoroughly crunched out, and subsequently beefed up -- but was not playtested.)

Part of the problem (it seemed) was having so many classes meant that some got the "really good" mechanics, and others were missing out. There was some consideration given to paring down the class slates (from 3 to 2) and what shape that would take, but I wasn't really satisfied with those options. Instead, I am going to try and focus on fixing the underlying math, and coming up with more mechanics, so that each class is unique and interesting.

Ultimately, the problem with the d4 paradigm is trying to hit all the damage benchmarks (specifically, an average DPR of 15, with a cap of 24.) And, compounding that challenge, is trying to do so without needing to make excessive numbers of dice rolls. The results of trying to address this can be seen in the "4.1 version" of the Druid; this introduces the "Druidic Focus" mechanic, which is essentially a banked 2d4 roll, that is reused for a wide majority of the class' abilities.

With this in place, I went on to look at the Acrobat. Currently, they have an AoE ability, which does a number of attacks equal to the result on a d4 roll, each dealing 1d4 damage. When I crunched this out, it's easy to see that the damage is too low -- but, a connection was made. Essentially, the formula needs to be closer to this:

[1d4 attacks * 2d4 damage] or [2d4 attacks * 1d4 damage]

This gives us a maximum of 4 * 8 = 32 damage. While we want the cap to be 24, I'm already making allowances for d10 classes to cap out at 30 (for obvious mathematical reasons) with d6 classes given similar leeway (since they too are intended to be damage-stacking classes.) As usual, things like Expertise and "double roll" mechanics can be used to tinker with the averages for this d4 formula. It also avoids the problem of having massive crits, from using d20s to supplement damage rolls.

With that in mind, I had a thought for another mechanic that could be unique to d4 classes:
auto-damage.
The current math essentially filters all damage through a 60% (for basic attacks) hit-rate, requiring a bunch of d4s in order to hit the benchmarks. If that mechanical restriction is removed, it makes it easier to achieve those same results, with fewer dice. For example, we can roughly hit the average DPR and the cap by simply using 6d4 or 1d4+1d20 for damage, where filtering through hit-rate math would require closer to 11d4 of damage.

For an iconic ability such as Magic Missile, auto-damage is a historical fit; that ability may be changed to use this new mechanic, instead of its current setup. The current Magic Missile mechanics would then be freed up, to be hung onto other classes.

To Be Continued?

I'm already a little behind on my final post for this month, so I'm just quickly writing to say that it'll be a while before the next update. Life's been busy as of late, the rules for Solo monsters aren't quite ready yet, and I was planning on taking a break from the blog in July anyway.

I've done a little bit more playtesting, and it's clear that some classes still need some work, or possibly that the damage math as a whole needs to be retooled. Hopefully it is something that can be solved, but it may mean a major overhaul (and a redraft of the rules is probably overdue, anyway.)

I will be aiming to have another post ready sometime in August, but if things go better than expected, I may be able to squeeze one out before the end of July.


Take care!

Monster Math -- Part 3: Standards & Elites

Standard Monsters

When building an encounter, your standard monster should have about the same HP as a PC would; this gives us a range between 24 and 32. However, in terms of budgeting, we should use two standard monsters per one PC; as such, we can adjust the HP of standard monsters up or down. For example, you could have one monster with 20 HP and another with 36 HP to account for the encounter budget value of one PC.

Standard monsters will use the "monster roll" of 1d6+1d10 for damage, but this damage can be split across two "attacks" i.e. triggering two separate Defense rolls from the PC target. Standard monsters also use 1d6+1d10 for all of their rolls.

As touched on in a previous post, we can customize different monsters by applying bonuses or penalties to different rolls (skill checks, initiative checks, damage, and opportunity attacks.) This is how our monsters will primarily set themselves apart from one another.


Elite Monsters

An elite monster should have double the HP of one PC. Elites gain Advantage on damage rolls; this functions similarly to the "double roll and stack" rule, except that both dice can be treated as maximum value. While it shouldn't be necessary, the DM can choose to "pull punches" and only maximize one (or neither) of the dice.

Elite monsters cannot be Intimidated unless they are Bloodied. In addition, they do not take extra damage from attacks that are critical successes; these types of successes against Elites can still be "banked" for Advantage later in the same encounter.

Generally, DMs should use more than one elite monster in an encounter (if they are going to use them at all); PCs will often focus on the biggest, baddest enemy, so sometimes it's a good idea to make it harder to prioritize a single target. An elite monster uses the encounter budget value of one PC.

I wanted to give elite monsters a few more perks, so as a special rule, they do not roll for initiative. Instead, they simply act on the highest initiative rolled for the monsters, by the DM. This also serves to set a limit on elites in terms of encounter budgeting; there must be at least one non-elite monster in every encounter group (to roll initiative for any elites in the encounter.)


-----

Next post should be up on June 25th, where I hope to touch on Solo encounters, as well as polish up some of the monster rules a bit more.

Monster Math -- Part 2: Minions & Swarms

In a previous post (where I touched on encounter-building) I had figured out that the budget/ratio for minions would be about 10 HD per 1 PC.

We want to give the DM some tools with which to construct their encounters, so both minions and swarms will be built off of this same budget, but with distinct mechanics, to help differentiate them from one another.


Minions
One of the things that was touched on in the last Monster Math post was that we don't want "cheap" enemies (such as minions) to be able to overwhelm the PCs with skill checks. With this is mind, we're going to bend the core mechanics a little: instead of needing to roll a 10 or higher to succeed at a skill check, minions need to roll a number equal to or lower than their current HD. Their skill checks will still use the universal "monster roll" of 1d6 and 1d10.

When a minion takes the "Use a Skill" action, the DM makes a monster roll, and can then decide which skill to use. Minions will have their skills rated as follows:

• Poor: use the d10 result
• Fair: use the d6 result
• Good: use either die result for the check

With this setup in mind, we'll want to cap the number of HD that a minion can have. For example, a 6 HD minion would succeed at a "Fair" check without needing to roll. As such, minions should have less than 5 HD; minions with 5 or more HD will be treated as swarms.

In terms of damage, minions do not roll, but instead simply deal damage equal to their current HD (meaning they deal less damage as they take damage themselves.) Further, when minions target a PC, it does not provoke a Defense roll; the damage is simply automatic, to facilitate faster DM turns. Notably, minions will only deal damage to a single target, and they will be treated as one enemy for the purposes of PC attacks.

Swarms

So while they will essentially be minions of 5 HD or more, swarms will operate a little differently than their minion counterparts. Firstly, they will use the same skill mechanism as Standard or Elite monsters; roll 1d6+1d10, and succeed on a 10 or higher. Also, swarms will be limited to using only melee attacks.

Where swarms really set themselves apart from minions is in targeting:

For the purpose of PCs using attacks:

• unengaged swarms count as multiple enemies
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom count as one enemy

For the purpose of dealing damage:

• unengaged swarms may deal their damage to a single target
• swarms that are part of a maelstrom must split their damage amongst PCs in that maelstrom

What this does is that it makes loose swarms more dangerous in terms of their ability to "focus fire" but also makes them easier to deal damage to; swarms that are part of a maelstrom are harder to damage, but are less deadly to a single target if the party chooses to gang up on the swarm. We also need to cap the maximum number of HD that swarms can have; I think that 10-15 is a good range, if we reverse-engineer from the HP of our PCs. 

Encounter Guidelines

While we have established that 1 PC = 10 HD worth of minions or swarms, we need to further cap this number in terms of the numbers used to build an entire encounter. The reason for this, is because of the nature of minions and swarms dealing damage automatically.

Since PCs cap out at 32 HP, this means we should never have a combined number of enemies with more than this number of HD in an encounter; we don't want minions or swarms to be able to focus fire and kill one or more PCs before they can even act. The general expectation I have set for myself when building monsters, is that an "average" fight should be able to take the PCs down to half their maximum HP (around 15.)

This sets a good range for us: 15 to 30 HD. Since we know minions and swarms get weaker as the fight goes on (and they take damage) we can skew "hard" encounters towards the higher end of that range, but keep easier fights at the lower end.

-----

Next post should be about Standard & Elite monsters, so look for that on (or after) June 15th!

Change Log [2017/05/25] (Beta 4)

Some more changes/updates, mostly coming out of the playtest:

• [Core Rules] Each character can make only one skill check per turn
• [Core Rules] Intimidate now only requires the Immobilized condition; Elite monsters will still require the Bloodied condition
• [Core Rules] Clarified the rules around Teleport; you cannot move to or from High Ground using teleportation, unless specifically allowed by the ability
• [Core Rules] Abilities with the [Form] keyword all can now be activated as part of an initiative check, or activated/changed as a Move Action
• [Core Rules] HP rules clarified; maximum can be exceeded during combat but extra is lost at the end of the encounter
• [Core Rules] Clarified the "Weakened" condition when applied to skill checks with Advantage
• Assassin's skill expertise changed to "all untrained skills from your core skills lists"
• Assassin can no longer Stealth after using Sneak Attack ability to deal d20 bonus damage
• Skald's Inspiring Shout granted attack changed; instead of "double roll and stack in place of attack or damage" it is now "double roll; stack in place of attack, OR use higher in place of damage"
• Skald's intimidate checks changed so that they can target any bloodied enemies
• Spellbinder's intimidate checks changed so that they can target enemies with sigil or hex without needing them to be Immobilized
• Swordmage can now make a melee basic attack OR a skill check as part of a teleport (not both)
• Spellbinder's skill training options altered slightly
• [Cleric] Bless changed to a minor action, but now only benefits 1 ally. Also gains the [Sustaining] keyword.
• [Cleric] Divine Smite basic attacks still get advantage on the damage roll, but can now stack the damage if an ally is engaged with the target; Life Domain smite basic attack now heals a Nearby ally OR one engaged with the target; War Domain can now make divine smite basic attacks as a minor action
• [Cleric] Crusader gets advantage on Opportunity Attacks; changed the Crusader's iconic attack from "make a basic roll and use either result for damage" to "you can power attack with this ability; you gain Advantage on the attack rolls if you do."
• [Cleric] Invoker gains a Minor Action self-teleport and a Move Action to shift enemies; Invoker's reserve-burning damage on iconic attack now does damage, hit or miss.

Monster Math -- Part 1: Rolls & Actions

Today I'm going to start talking about some of the basics behind the monster design for The Next Project (with apologies to Bobby "Boris" Pickett, for the horrible pun in the title.)

The most immediate things we need to consider are what actions the monsters can take, and what rolls they can or will actually make. Where this system fundamentally differs from most d20 games, is that the players are always rolling to determine the result of an attack (whether they are making the attack, or suffering one.) Notably, this means that monsters will never deal a critical "hit" to the PCs. This also narrows down the the types and numbers of rolls that monsters will make, quite significantly. The list of what remains looks something like this:

• Initiative checks
• Skill checks
• Damage rolls
• Opportunity Attacks

While specific monsters may also be able to make Trade-offs (depending on their ability sets) those are pretty much it for monster rolls.

For initiative checks, we can give monsters a separate "score" or "bonus" for the roll, or we can have them simply use a skill, as the PCs do. In terms of actual skill checks, monsters (by necessity) only need to be assigned Training or Expertise with Combat skills, rather than also needing other "core" skills, or "background" skills. So that narrows down the list of specific skills that monsters need a "score" for to this list:

• STR: Brawl (including grapple/reverse grapple, and shove), Break Objects, Climb, Intimidate
• AGIL: Escape, Tumble, Jump, Stealth
• WIS: Perception

Now, we may want to limit which skills certain types of monsters can use. To wit, monsters that appear in larger numbers probably should not be able to simply overwhelm the PCs and mitigate their tactics through the sheer volume of skill checks they can make. This is another limitation we should consider, which can also serve to help simplify the job of the DM.

In terms of damage, monsters should be doing about 10 damage per "hit," as was outlined in a previous post. To come up with this result, I am proposing that we should use 1d6+1d10 for our monster damage rolls; this can also be used for their Opportunity Attacks, but we can apply bonuses separately to each of these types of rolls, in order to help flavour and differentiate our monsters.

The reason behind this thinking comes from its use in a previous untitled RPG that I wrote, and my familiarity with it, statistically. This dice expression produces a result with an average of 9, having all numbers from 7 through 11 be equally likely (10% each.) This damage caps out at 16, which is just over half the HP of the average PC. Using existing game language such as Expertise and "double roll" mechanics, we can increase the minimum and average results of this dice expression, without increasing the maximum; these tools will be used to further diversify our rogue's gallery.

To further streamline the DM's job of controlling the party's antagonists, monster skill checks will use this same roll. This means that monsters will not be capable of reaching the statistical benchmarks that PCs can (in terms of their baseline skill effectiveness, and capability to critically succeed) but it does allow the DM to roll the same dice regardless of the action a monster ends up taking. Potentially, the DM could decide the action after seeing the result of the roll, or such a perk could be limited to certain monster types.

In order for this unique type of roll to fit within the game's existing mechanical framework, we'll have to make some adjustments and specific exceptions for when these elements interact with monsters. In particular, things like Advantage or Disadvantage (as well as statuses which may grant them) will need to be ironed out.

...

Next blogpost will be another change log, but following that, the Monster Math series will continue, at least until the "summer break" (and possibly after) which begins in late June.