Classes, Now in Session (2018)

So, I didn't finish all of the classes that I wanted to, but I'll update this post with links to them here, as well as in the core rules doc (in the sidebar) as I get them finalized.

• The Druid (d4)
• The Rogue (d6)
• The Cleric (d8)
• The Occultist (d10)
• The Spellbinder (d12)

The first class I got done was the Druid; I think it still needs a few more checks (in terms of math) but I like how well it fit into the new formatting and progression systems, and overall the class is just a lot cleaner now. I'm still a little iffy on breaking the forms into upgrades, but hopefully some testing will give a sense of whether each one is useful enough to justify it.

Next up was the Occultist. It helped that Druid was already out of the way, because the two classes share a "category," and so ended up being structured fairly similarly. One major change was to no longer have Eldritch Blast and Animate Dead as "role features," instead making them part of the core class, and splitting up Banishment, to give each role a more distinctly-flavoured version. Curse was likewise broken up, with the basics of it made into the class' "starting feature."

I then moved on to the Cleric. There were a few more outdated mechanics here than in some of the other classes, and a few more tweaks that needed to be made. Cleric has always been sort of a "vertically integrated" class, but it has enough room for customization, that it can be built in a handful of different ways. I'm particularly happy with some of the changes to Bless and Divine Smite, making the class overall more built around the "double roll" mechanic.

I had a few ideas for the direction I wanted to take with the Assassin, but the Sorcerer is going to be a bigger job to tackle. In terms of the leveling, the foundations are already more or less in place, with the Ranger being part of the same "category" and already having the Sage ready, from the same slate. With the Warlock being less of a distinct class now, that could have some impacts on how Sorcerer is built.

The Spellbinder hopefully should be a quick fix; with most of the action economy stuff and combat math ironed out after the previous playtest, it will likely just be a matter of updating the 4.1 version to the new designs.

---

That's all folks! This here blog is on break for summer; expect the next post on July 27th!

Why We Call Them Heroes

One of the seemingly minor changes in the latest draft of the rules, is the inclusion of the term "heroes." Today I want to talk a little bit about that.

If we look at 4th Edition D&D, this term was used to describe characters in the first "tier" of the level progression; even a level 1 character was referred to as a hero. The assumption (whether mechanical or narrative) that characters could/would/should be ineffectual or incompetent simply wasn't there. Everyone had a job to do, and your mechanics made you capable of doing it -- so your backstory had to be something that fit that level of capability. In earlier editions of D&D (which I haven't played, but have read about) Fighters, even at first level, were titled "veterans" because the assumption was that they (like other classes) would be experienced at what they do.

Another thing that was made expressly clear in 4e, was that player-characters (heroes) should not be evil or chaotic; 4th Edition simplified the "nine alignments" down to five, and (at least in the first PHB) said that PCs should only fall under three of those: unaligned, good, or lawful-good. The purpose of this was to encourage teamwork; the focus on roles and party balance meant that cooperative play was essential, and character backgrounds needed to reinforce that mechanical paradigm.

Now, as an aside, from my playing days in 3.5, one of the big takeaways that I got from looking into alignment a bit more, was that evil characters still understand and appreciate loyalty. Once you're a part of a team, there should be cohesion -- even if some of its members are "dirty" or "scummy" -- and everyone should be working towards the same goal: the big picture.

We can see all of these influences in The Next Project; it's not even really mechanically possible for PCs to attack one another. Simple things like class dice give a framework for how your team should be composed, and that everyone has a part to play, together.

Now, some of the classes in TNP have a darker, more evil bent to them -- Assassin, Blackguard, Necromancer, etc. Things such as the Shadow power source, however, should tell us about what drives or inspires these darker characters -- not be an indicator of their unreliability.


But here's what I think is possibly the most important point:

The characters we create are a heightened, stylized ideal -- a fictional conceit that we admire, from whatever media we consume. They're the brawny protagonist in an action movie, they're the cold anti-hero in a western, they're the swaggering scoundrel in a space opera. They are fantastic, and so they exist in a fantasy world. There is always something about them that we look up to (and that we hope our fellow party members and players might look up to, as well) because they are always, in some small way, a reflection of ourselves and our imagination.

We root for them to succeed, we watch them grow and change, and we fill in their past as they move forward through their adventures. We carry them over -- across editions, campaigns, settings, parties, playgroups -- and each time we do, our characters (all of them) become more and more refined. They become more real, they become more human.



So, why do we call them heroes?

Because they're our heroes.

Playtest! (2018)

A new playtest has been unveiled! So if you're a forums goon, check out the recruitment thread here; the roster filled up fast, so expect the gameplay thread to be linked soon.

Based on early feedback, I'm going to look into hammering out a unified character sheet for players to use. In the past, generally people would either just post their abilities in shorthand, or else save a copy of the class document, and simply cross out or delete any options they did not select for their character. Going forward, I'm going to try and have a form, at least to keep track of things like skill training/expertise, with some open space for Combat Features (and the like.)

I'm also going to probably rearrange the class sheets a little bit, so that Combat Features (which are generally all automatic) come immediately after Starting Features, and are then followed by 1st Level features, and then "Gaining Additional Levels." Archetype Features will most likely be at the very end, and possibly Roles, too.

Since we very quickly got to 7 applications, it kind of made me wish that I had more classes prepared by now. On the other hand, this will help test out more of the different subclasses and archetypes, so these classes will get a more thorough inspection.


---


That being said, I do want to try and have the next "playtest slate" of classes ready before the summer break. I've been trying to balance off some of the class utility (in terms of skills) as well as making a point of including at least one class from each of the three main slates, and a relative balance in terms of "category" distribution.

 Here are the classes I've settled on:

• Druid (d4) [Roles]
• Rogue (d6) [Subclasses]
• Cleric (d8) [Subclasses + Specialist Classes]
• Occultist (d10) [Roles]
• Spellbinder (d12) [Specialist Classes]

As the d4 and d6 mechanics have evolved and been sharpened, some ideas for how to better execute on the Druid and Rogue have come along; I look forward to implementing those in the near future. In particular, I think the mechanic of doubling damage on a crit (currently showcased on the Fighter's two-weapon style) is something that'll fit well with the Assassin subclass.

The advent of "Starting Features" gives a design space where I think the distinctive Subclass Features from the "4.1 Cleric" can be slotted in. The Mystic class has been renamed "Occultist" but otherwise remains mostly the same -- aside from a few ideas I have for additional mechanics. I'm also looking at implementing a unique little subsystem for d10 classes.

The Spellbinder is a class that has a lot of fluff to draw from for inspiration; both of its subtypes are interesting of their own accord, but the base class itself has kind of taken on its own personality as I've written it (specifically, being a captivating and confounding sort of character.) It's hard to do much math-wise for the d12 classes, so I think they will have to rely on design spaces other than damage mechanics, to make them interesting in combat. Warlord already has the "enabling" niche mostly cornered; Spellbinder seems like it would logically lean towards debilities and status effects, so expect them to sport more of those in the next draft.

This slate does sort of lean towards the more magical side, with the current playtest slate being more "martial" overall. The classes on this 2nd slate have also seen a fair bit of playtesting already (compared to most other classes) whereas the entire slate for this playtest saw no testing during "Beta 4." Overall, the third playtest slate will be more of a balance between the two, in both of these regards.

---

Check back June 16th for the next update!

Status Report (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Design Origins -- Part 3: The Monster Roll

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

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


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

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

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

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

What I came up with was this:

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

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

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

Making it Your Own

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

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

Whose Roll is it, Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

The Witch's Hammer

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion...

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

Check back May 25th for the next post!

Monster Math (2018)

New content is now live!

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


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

Essentially, how it works is like this:

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

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

The Mother of Invention

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

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

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

Rogues' Gallery

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

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

Moving Forward

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

Check back May 15th!

The Sincerest Form of Flattery (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


---


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

Check back May 5th!