Positioning, Distance, and Ranges in Combat (2024)

When talking about this topic, I find it helpful to compare and contrast the difference in ethos between 4th Edition D&D and 5th Edition D&D.

In 4th Edition, generally each character's move speed was 6 squares, with the smaller races getting 5, and the odd ones (such as elves) getting 7. This is pretty comparable to 5e, where the ranges are all multiplied by 5ft, but otherwise remain the same.

Also worth mentioning is that in 4e, the ranges of most spells were 5 or 10 squares (compared to 30ft-120ft for 5e). Most ranged weapons were between 10-15 squares (vs. 30ft-100ft for bows/crossbows in 5e) and their long ranges were only double the base range (as compared to quadruple, in 5e). The charge action in 4e allowed you to move your speed and to make a melee basic attack, all as a standard action; what this meant was that a character with the typical speed of 6 could move 12 squares while still attacking on their turn. I would also point out that class features such as prime shot (for the Ranger and the Warlock classes) incentivized players to keep within about 10 squares of the center of the action.

What I observed from playing 3.5 and 4e in particular is that combat tended to involve crowding into whatever was the obvious open clearing in a given map (often near the middle.) Particularly with the flanking rules, there ended up being sort of a conga-line of melee characters and enemies all bunched up together. There wasn't a lot of "verticality" involved, most of the time, either.

This intention to keep the action close together is what inspired the more abstracted rules around positioning, in TNP. (Also, at a certain point, if you're far enough away, is it even fair to consider the combatants to be in the same "arena" as each other? Should they be in initiative against one another?) The system heavily borrows from 13th Age, where combat has effectively a front rank, a middle rank, and a back rank -- which TNP simplifies down to two ranks: essentially, melee and ranged (actually, "maelstrom" and "open").

The exception to this would be forms of "verticality" which in TNP have been either described as high ground (typically terrain or structures) or altitude (typically from flying or levitation). Cover also functions similarly to high ground, in that it is typically granted by terrain or architecture, and serves to bestow certain bonuses or penalties depending upon the relative positioning of the combatants involved; it's also possible to be behind the same piece of cover as an enemy, just as you can potentially be on the same piece of high ground with them.

When you are in melee with one or more enemies, this is called a maelstrom, and there are all sorts of rules around who can attack what, when in a maelstrom. This is also described as being adjacent; allies may join each other's existing maelstroms, and you can be adjacent to enemies or allies. If characters are in separate maelstroms from each other, they are not considered to be nearby; only allies who are in the same maelstrom together or who are open, are considered to be nearby. This is relevant for targeting with certain abilities. When you are in a maelstrom, you have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls, as is comparable to the rules in 5e.

You are not considered to be in a maelstrom anytime there are no enemies adjacent to you; this is referred to as being "open." As discussed in the previous post, some actions require you to be open, in order to take/trigger them. In TNP, making a melee attack when you are open is essentially the same as making a charge -- so there is no separate charge action; you close the distance with your target, and then attack it. Once you are adjacent to an enemy or enemies (i.e. in a maelstrom) your melee attacks can only target enemies in that maelstrom (until such time as you leave the maelstrom, of course.) Some classes can gain reach with their melee attacks, which allows them to target enemies outside of their maelstrom, as well as enemies which have some form of verticality.

The other "range" in terms of positioning (sort of, kind of) that I would include is being prone. Basically, since 4e functions off of a move action, it used this action to stand up from prone; since 5e functions off of move speed, it instead takes half of your speed to stand up. Moving while prone (i.e. crawling) essentially slows you to half-speed, in either edition. For TNP, since movement is so abstracted, I've settled on allowing any other normal movement while prone, but doing so will provoke opportunity attacks from adjacent enemies; this may need some testing to iron out. And obviously, you will need to stand up before you can attempt to climb or jump (which are the mundane methods for gaining high ground.)

---

As always, let me know in the comments if there's anything glaring that I missed.
A bit of an extended break until the next post; check back for that on February 12th!

Actions in Combat (2024)

 A topic that's been on my mind lately is the action economy of the game, particularly in combat. To start with, there are 5 types of actions in TNP:

• Standard Action
• Move Action
• Minor Action
• Off-turn Action
• No Action

For those who remember 4th Edition D&D, there was an action type called "Free Action" which at first was unlimited, but later had to be limited down to once per round (if memory serves.) However, some powers were still considered to use "no action" and they tended to propogate as the edition crept on. The idea with TNP is to keep these types combined under the heading of "no action" but limited to once per round on your turn. Essentially, this would be the action type for anything taking place on your turn that isn't a Standard/Move/Minor; anything that might be considered using "no action" but taking place outside of your turn would probably need some justification, if it wouldn't count as an "off-turn action." I may tweak the names of these types of actions (as well as others) in the final text.

As mentioned in a previous post:

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"

Since these types of actions still generally require a specific trigger, I think this kind of setup strikes the right balance between availability of off-turn actions, and keeping the flow of combat from bogging down.

With that out of the way, I'd like to go over some of the typical uses of each action type.

Standard Actions:

• Making a basic attack (either ranged or melee)
• Using an iconic ability (such as other attacks or class features)
• Making most types of skill checks; some class features may allow checks to be made using different actions, but you are still limited to making one skill check on your turn
• Withdraw: Disengage from a maelstrom with more than one enemy; you can disengage from all enemies in the encounter, if you make a successful Acrobatics check as part of this action
• "Defend" action, granting a save bonus until the start of your next turn
• Perform any Minor Action (limit: only one of any given minor action, per turn) or Move Action

Move Actions:

• Engage: [while you are open] create a maelstrom with a number of open enemies, up to your engagement limit (dictated by your class dice) or join an existing maelstrom -- making a melee attack always causes you to become engaged with your target, unless you have "reach"
• Stand Up (from being prone) -- any other movement while prone will provoke opportunity attacks
• Take Cover: [while you are open] you move behind a source of cover, granting a save bonus
• Shift: disengage when you are in a maelstrom with only one enemy; you can disengage from a maelstrom with more than one enemy, if you make a successful Acrobatics check as part of this action
• Flee: move away from a maelstrom, provoking opportunity attacks from any enemies in that maelstrom
• Activate or change a feature with the "Form" keyword
• Escape: [at the end of your turn] You can make an Acrobatics check to escape from a grapple; if the check is successful and you are in a maelstrom with only one enemy, you can also Shift.
• Reversal: [at the start of your turn] You can make a Brawl check to reverse a grapple you are in

Minor Actions:

• Stand Up (from being prone) if you make a successful Acrobatics check as part of this action
• Tumble: You can disengage when you are in a maelstrom with only one enemy, if you make a successful Acrobatics check as part of this action
• Certain class features may call for a Minor Action, such as allowing you to make certain skill checks, or even basic attacks

Off-turn Actions:

• Take an Opportunity Attack, when/if triggered
• Feint: impose disadvantage on a saving throw, in order to deal opportunity damage back, if the save is successful
• Riposte: [when your saving throw is a critical success] deal opportunity damage back to an enemy who targeted you
• Intercept: [while you are open] on an enemy's turn, you can create a maelstrom with that enemy, if they make a melee attack while open, or if they move
• Fall Prone
• Take Cover [if you are open]
• Balance: [Acrobatics check] when you fall from heights, to avoid landing prone

No Action:

• Become open, if all enemies adjacent to you have become dropped
• End a grapple that you are controlling
• Take Cover: if you take another action which lets you disengage/become open
• Fall Prone
• Choose to power attack when making a basic attack as a standard action

Anyway, there's my list, mostly compiled from half-completed drafts of the rules -- plus stuff picked up along the way from various blog posts.
Hopefully I can find a way to nicely streamline it a little bit; if there's anything egregious that I forgot, let me know in the comments below.

...

Next post is due for January 31st so make sure to check back around then!
With February being a short month, posts are planned only for the 12th and 22nd.

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!