Core Designs: "Players Always Roll" (2024)

In the earliest iterations of TNP, the idea was that monsters would always do a flat amount of damage (usually 1 point) when they targeted the PCs. This was partly because HP was a lot lower (essentially capped at "maximum value of your class die") but was also done to speed up gameplay; it was one less roll the GM needed to make. When I decided to expand the monster roster to include minion types (and swarms) this idea of fixed damage was integrated into their designs, and other monsters were given a damage roll, often referred to as the "monster roll" -- specifically a d10 and a d6.

(Without going on too much of a derail, this was derived from my own hack of the "MM3 on a business card"-math that came out of 4th Edition D&D; essentially, I used 1d6+1d10 (per tier) as the monster's damage roll.)

In 4e, the ethos is "attacker always rolls" i.e. you don't roll a Reflex save when targeted, instead the attacker rolls vs. your Reflex defense to determine whether their attack succeeds. TNP kind of... does an homage to this, by saying "players always roll," which means you roll if you're attacking OR if you're being attacked. This was an interesting quality-of-life improvement on the DM side, particularly in the play-by-post playtest games I've done; the DM could declare the monsters as targeting certain PCs, and say, "roll defense; take X damage on a fail," and the play could move on to the next person in initiative. Eventually the roll made when a player was attacked got renamed from a "Defense roll" to the more familiar "saving throw." 

Where this tends to get gummed up is in status effects and conditions. For example, if an effect gives you disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws (such as the Incapacitated condition) how does that work for monsters, who don't make either? Well, the short explanation is that while the monster roll funcions as the damage roll (on a failed saving throw) it is treated as also being the monster's "attack roll" for the purposes of applying such penalties; the disadvantage is applied to the d10, thus making the monster roll effectively a "percentile" die roll which models advantage/disadvantage, and with a d6 added to it.

(Worth mentioning here is that this is also how skill checks are handled, as they use the exact same dice. In the new draft I have been working on, skill checks are therefore recommended to always be rolled as percentile dice with a d6 bonus die, rather than "1d10+1d6" -- but more on that in a future post, probably.)

Alright, so what about the disadvantage on saving throws? Well, the Incapacitated condition (which gets nested into lots of other debilities) also causes anyone with this condition to grant combat mastery to their enemies. Now, this is where I need to have a big think: Should the condition expressly say, "monsters are impacted in X way, but PCs are impacted in Y way," or, should this condition cause PCs to both have disadvantage on saving throws and grant combat mastery, while monsters only do the latter? This seems overly-punishing in a way that isn't really intended, so I'm thinking some of these conditions might have to stipulate different effects for monsters or players.

The same issue arises with things like positioning or terrain effects; since "advantage on saving throws" has been excised from the mechanics, these effects instead grant the PCs a save bonus (a d6, which can be stacked, but only the highest d6 roll is kept.) But what about the monsters? Well, they don't make saving throws, so instead the PCs should have disadvantage to attack enemies with one or more of these effects in play... Which then begs the question: Instead of a save bonus to the PCs, should cover (or similar) instead grant disadvantage on the monster's "attack" roll, just so that the terminology being used is consistent (even though the mechanical applications are different)?

I do think that the way in which conditions and status effects were built out in 4e was slick, and very much worth emulating. I'm just having a bit of trouble translating that ethos over to a system with a different mechanical underpinning. This is one of the other reasons that I'm becoming more convinced I'll want to take on the task of doing a followup game to TNP. I think the game could be made to run a lot smoother with some different mechanical underpinnings, such as "attacker always rolls" and using things like flat modifiers in some places (instead of dice, for everything) -- but then it wouldn't be TNP anymore; it'd necessarily have to be something different.

...

Next post is planned for April 4th so check back then!

Basic Bookkeeping (2024)

Part of the design ethos that went into the 2021 draft was to use class dice as sort of a "keyword" for certain character statistics, but also to bind some of these stats together.

For example, "reserves & surging" were treated as a paired set of statistics, but this produced some odd results. The 1d4 class die "expression" translated to 8 reserves and a surge value of 4, with 1d6 producing 6 and 12, respectively. On some of the classes that were updated most recently (Druid being the one that comes to mind) some expressions were de-coupled, in order to make these statistics operate more smoothly.

I think part of the reasoning for pairing the stats together in the first place was so that there were fewer expressions you needed to remember; if your class has two class dice, then you'd only ever need to memorize two class die "expressions" -- making it so there was a 50/50 chance that you'd be able to guess which value to use, if you couldn't remember. That sort of falls apart when sometimes 1d4 means 4 and sometimes it means 8, as mentioned in the example.

It also didn't really manage to facilitate what it was meant to do, within the design ethos (namely, to raise the floor on certain numbers.) These expressions being unituitive just meant that their functions ended up needing to be spelled out on each class loadout anyway, or else you'd have to refer back to the core rules that explained the values these expressions were meant to generate. In other words, something that was meant to speed things up and streamline the jargon, actually seems to have made things less clear, not more.

This all sort of highlights the limitations of the overall TNP design ethos, whereby "all of the numbers have to derive from the (class) dice," but also highlights how the added flexibility of using a 2nd class die is so important... or at least helpful.

Pivot Point
Since HP in the current versions is calculated as the maximum value of your initiative check (including initiative bonus) HP and initiative bonus will necessarily continue to be paired together. However, I don't think that there's necessarily any benefit to keeping your engagement value coupled with your initiative bonus, as was the case previously.

The idea that I'm moving forward with is that engagement, initative bonus, reserves (per day), and surge value will all be based off of the following class dice expressions, each with their own entry (rather than coupled together):

• 1d4
• 1d6
• 1d8
• 2d4
• 1d10
• 1d12
• 2d6

Obviously, when used as an initative bonus, these dice will be part of a roll, but for the other statistics, they will just straightforwardly use the maximum value of the expression. This means that you can still make a subclass like the Wizard have 8 reserves and a surge value of 4, it's just that you'd use 2d4 as their reserve value and 1d4 as their surge value -- rather than saying 1d4 translates to 8 and 4, respectively. 

I can also confidently say that with the little bit of number crunching I've done over the years on the topic, the 1d4 expression will not be used for "reserves per day" -- effectively raising the 'floor' on that number to 6. In the paradigm of most classes having two class dice, the reality is that almost all classes/subclasses will have between 8 and 12 reserves, with the Rogue (Scoundrel) being the obvious exception to this -- although this could just as easily be handwaved to 2d6, if no other subclasses are going to use 6 reserves as their minimum.

Updating Designs

As I've talked about before, this sort of lends to the idea that classes with "1d10" reserves should have a 1/day reserve-burning class feature, whereas classes with "1d12" or "2d6" reserves could have something that's closer to 1/encounter. This actually leans more into the Essentials-style ethos that TNP tries to go for, where some classes have encounter powers and others have daily powers (compared to core 4e D&D, where all classes have both.)

Previously, reserves always had to be rolled in order to regain HP. In recent drafts, this has been revised to only occur during combat, or if your character is at 0 HP once combat is over. Otherwise, spending one reserve will heal you up to full, without needing to roll. This means that the "HP per reserve" is a lot more even across the classes (vis-a-vis surge value) so we can worry less about that as a consideration, in the overall reserve-burning design space.

Looking back at the text of the 2018 playtest version, there were also a couple of other rules that have since fallen by the wayside; classes with a surge value of 4 were given expertise (mastery) on the d20 roll to restore HP, and you gained advantage on the roll if you weren't bloodied yet. This has me wondering if some take on these mechanics could/should make its way into the current rules. Generally, I'm leaning in the direction of having fewer rules and fewer exceptions overall, and just streamlining things where I can.

...

As was mentioned in the Discord, I've recently begun work on compiling a new draft of the rules -- which is what led to the topics being discussed in today's post. I'm going to continue to work on this draft, as time allows.

Next post should be up on March 23rd, so check back then for more!

Overview: Class Dice Bonuses (2024)

Recently, I've been giving some thought to how the class dice bonuses work (particularly since finalizing the d12 bonus, in this post which covers the overall topic in great depth.) One thing I was considering is whether "attack and damage" should be the exception or the rule; it turns out those mechanics are kind of split 50/50... At any rate, I figured a big recap of the specific, individual mechanics was warranted. I also want to use this post to try and narrow down what is the most concise way to word the mechanics for each die.

There are a couple of things I should mention first. Since TNP does not use static modifiers (for example, a +3 STR mod or a +2 proficiency bonus, to your attack roll) a total roll of 20 or higher is considered to be a critical hit. This means you can score a crit on a natural 20 on the d20, or by adding to a hit (a d20 roll of 10-19.) Some people are immediately confused by the prospect of some dice bonuses being allowed to be "added to a hit" but this is the reason for that. Similarly, you can add to a miss to improve it to a hit (10-19), which is a bit more intuitive.

As mentioned in the previous post, all class dice bonuses that are not used as the attack bonus are used as a damage bonus. I'm not sure that I've been entirely clear on this point before, so I think it's worth stating here; basically, if there is an exception to this rule, it's that some specific dice can be used as the attack bonus AND as a damage bonus. You can always roll all of the dice bonuses that apply to the attack being made, but you must choose only one of those dice results to be applied as the attack bonus. (Similarly to save bonuses or skills ranks, where you may be able to roll more than one d6, but only apply the highest.) With that out of the way, let's go over each die.

The d4 bonus can be added to either a hit or a miss, and can be used as a damage bonus even if it is used for the attack bonus (i.e. "attack [hit or miss] and damage.") So for example, if the d20 result is a 9, adding a d4 roll (i.e. minimum 1) to it, will turn that miss into a hit; likewise, if the d20 result is a 16, a d4 result of 4 could be used to turn that hit into a critical hit. The special perk for the d4 is that it is treated as having mastery applied to it, but only when used as a damage bonus. This means that if the d4 turns up a 1, it is effectively treated as a +1 to the attack roll, but as a +4 to damage (mastery allows you to treat a 1 as whatever the highest number is, on the die to which mastery is being applied.) So, the d4 bonus provides a small boost to both hit chance and crit chance, as well as a small (but very reliable) damage boost.

The d6 functions similarly to the d4, with the exception that it cannot be used as a damage bonus if it is used as the attack bonus on a roll that would already hit (i.e. if the d6 is used to improve a hit into a crit.) So for example, if the d20 result is a 9, you can use the d6 as the attack bonus and as a damage bonus; if the d20 roll is a 16, you can use the d6 as the attack bonus OR as a damage bonus -- not both. The shorthand I tend to use to think of this is "miss and damage; hit or damage."

The d8 is more straightforwardly "miss or damage." On a hit, the d8 can only be used as a damage bonus; on a miss, the d8 can be added to the d20 result to possibly improve it to a hit. The special perk for the d8 is that if the d8 result and the d20 result are a tie (i.e. the d20 rolls a miss, on the numbers 1 through 8), you can treat the attack as a critical hit; since this perk is considered to be the attack bonus, you cannot use the d8 for a damage bonus if you do so -- the d8 can never be used for both attack and damage. I've always thought of the d8 bonus as sort of "raising the floor" in terms of hit chance.

The d10 bonus in this paradigm is "hit or damage" -- it can either be used to improve a hit into a crit, or it must be used as a damage bonus, only. Since this was found to be just slightly low in terms of the average damage boost, the d10 was given the special perk that (as the attack bonus) the d10 result can be used in place of the d20 result. What this means is that a roll of 10 on the d10 can be used to turn a miss into a hit; essentially, this is a flat 10% chance to improve a miss into a hit. Broadly speaking, though, the function of the d10 is to improve crit chance while offering a large boost to damage.

The d12 is essentially "hit and damage." As was mentioned in the previous post (linked above) the d12 has been given a special attack bonus function, whereby it improves all extra damage dice by treating them as having rolled their maximum result. (For this reason, if this attack bonus is used, the extra damage dice should not be rolled, to prevent mixing them up with the base damage dice, and potentially applying this bonus incorrectly.) Now, the d12 bonus is allowed to be used as damage in addition to providing this benefit, but since this special benefit counts as the attack bonus no other dice may be used as the attack bonus, when and if this benefit is applied. To wit, this means that the attack has to hit on its own merit, or the special benefit couldn't be applied to the extra damage. As an additional benefit, whenever the d12 is used as a damage bonus and the attack is a critical hit, the d12 is treated as having rolled its maximum result; this means that it pairs well with bonuses that potentially increase crit chance.

...

Now, the reason that these attack bonuses exist, is because I felt that TNP really needed its own "unique sales proposition" to really set it apart from other systems -- compared to previous iterations, where TNP leaned heavily into the 'advantage' mechanic. I like that by structuring things this way, the attack bonuses are never wasted, on a a hit -- since they can then be translated into damage instead.

It's worth mentioning here, that all class dice bonuses are rolled at the same time as the attack roll. This allows the players to see the potential results of applying one attack bonus vs. another, without the mess having to choose which bonus you're aiming for, and then hoping to roll it. This has the effect of speeding up gameplay; basically, if you miss, you're looking for the smallest bonus that turns it into a hit, and if you hit, you're likewise trying to see if you can turn it into a crit. There really isn't any gambling involved, but the randomness of the dice will present different options depending on the outcomes.

Another interesting quirk of the system is how I've chosen to impliment "combat mastery." Since in 4e D&D, combat advantage was a straight +2 to hit, I wanted something that mimicked this kind of bonus. Simply applying mastery to the d20 would mathematically translate to about a +1 to hit... but it only actually did anything if you rolled a 1. This seemed a little underwhelming, to say the least. As such, combat mastery was expanded to include the attack bonus die; in most cases, this works out to roughly an additional +1 to hit. Doing this means that, for example, a 1 on the d10 bonus can be used to turn a miss into a hit (increasing that 10% miss improvement chance to 20%) while also increasing the ability of the other dice to improve misses into hits (d4, d6, d8), or hits into crits (d4, d6, d10.)

In light of this, since the d12 doesn't gain a benefit from combat mastery (since the number on the d12 result can't be used to manipulate the total of the attack roll) it might make sense as an additional benefit to have combat mastery apply to the d12 bonus as a damage roll... hopefully that wouldn't be too confusing to keep track of.

Ongoing Updates (2024)

With the intention being to finalize TNP sometime this year, I do realize and appreciate the fact that it likely will need some continued updates once it gets into the hands of the general public. So, it's my intent that if/when feedback comes in, I can still update the designs even after the rules are "done."

Off the top of my head, there are a couple of potential design spaces which I don't think have been fully mapped out yet; whether these make their way into TNP or into a later RPG design is still up in the air.

One more narrow example is the proposed mechanics for the Acrobat class. Since this class is meant to cover the design space of some of the classes left out from 4th Edition D&D (specifically the Seeker, Avenger, and Assassin/Executioner) the idea was that each power source would give this class a different feature, mapped to one of those left out classes. This didn't make it into the designs yet, but since it's such a relatively small thing, I may try and include it before the system is officially wrapped.

There are two other subsystems that have a more major impact, which I would like to see fleshed out more fully in the class designs: conditions/status effects, and reserve-burning mechanics (i.e. encounter powers and daily powers.) There were a few classes where, as I was updating them, adding in these mechanics just happened to be top of mind and ended up getting included. But this was not done uniformly, and it would likely require a thorough editing pass to really update all of the classes to a design ethos that properly utilizes these mechanics. As such, this may need to be something that is trickled out through a series of ongoing updates.

Based on the previous post on the subject, it probably stands to reason that all classes could have a 1/day ability; as a starting point, that may be a good enough place to work from. I think the conditions & status effects definitely need to be worked into the monster-building advice, and there probably needs to be some guidance as to what levels along the character progression it would be appropriate to use such effects.

As for the campaign-building mechanics... while still a little rough around the edges, the basic framework seems to be "there." Probably testing will have a bigger impact on it than anything, so having something "playtest ready" is more important than having a system carved in stone.

---

As an update to the previous post, I think the way to approach the skills portion of the character sheet is with something of a "workspace" whereby a generic heading for each 'dot' could be set beside each skill, in rows. So, for example, have two dots for Training, one mapped to Attribute and one to Skillset -- with the same done for skill ranks: one dot for Attribute and one for Skillset (with possibly a 3rd for feat bonuses, or similar things that might bump a skill rank beyond just those two boosts.)

This way, you don't have to necessarily make a notation of the Brawl skill being a Strength/Athletics skill, as long as you know which bonuses you have to those. As such, it would likely make sense to have a section with a list of all 5 Attributes and all 5 Skillsets, where you can fill in your bonuses to each -- or, just have those work similarly, with the "workspace" approach, i.e. you only fill in training/ranks for the attributes/skillsets that have upgrades applied to them, and the rest are left off of your sheet.

...

A little bit of a short/hasty post for today; the next update is due March 3rd!

Skill Layout (2024)

One topic that's been on my mind lately, is how the skills should be laid out, vis-a-vis some sort of character sheet format. The way that upgrades are given to skills in TNP makes this sort of thing hard to map; this is why (if I design a followup game) I'm considering other possibilities -- such as training only being applied to skillsets, and ranks only being derived from attributes.

To wit, TNP has 20 "core" skills and 10 "knowledge" skills; the closest comparison would be D&D 3.5, with 35 and 10, respectively. The question in mind is whether the character sheet should simply list bonuses by attribute and by skillset, which would then be hashed out using a player aid, such as this one -- something designed to be read (somewhat) easily either vertically or horizontally. The alternative is to simply list all 30 skills, and do something akin to World of Darkness -- with either one or two training 'dots' and two rank 'dots' to fill in, for each skill, corresponding to attributes and skillsets.

Basically, the intent with the mechanics (as discussed more thoroughly in this post) is to cover as much of the spectrum of those typical adventuring skills, without having to track different skill points for 35+ distinct line entries. By having an overlapping system of 5 skillsets and 5 attributes, the whole process can be simplified. Also, the intention was to build in a system of diminishing returns, so as to encourage branching out, rather than overspecialization; I also didn't want training to stack, in order to avoid the kind of numbers bloat I would associate with skills in 4th Edition D&D.
For example, training in 4e would give you a +5 to a skill, and your ability modifier in your main stat could easily start as high as +5 -- meaning it was impossible to fail a DC10 with your main skills, while a skill with a +0 bonus was effectively a coin-flip. What TNP essentially does, it make it so you can get that +5 from your attribute or from your skillet, but not both; you can have training in both, but then the diminishing returns kick in.

The other reason that the skill mechanics now use the 1d10+1d6 system, is that there was some rumbling about a desire to have a greater variety of skill gradations. Under the d20 system, there was effectively only 4 skill levels, and the numerical jumps in between them were not very smooth. With the current mechanics, a skill check can be made with or without training, or with training + mastery, as well as applying 1, 2, or 3 skill ranks (potentially more, but rarely more than 4.) This means a total of 9 possible combinations, however this is all kept neat and streamlined by the "skill grid" of attributes and skillsets.

Now, knowledge skills function a little differently than "core" skills, in two ways:

• they can potentially gain mastery without training
  
• they can more easily exceed 3 ranks in a given skill

Much like how an attribute or skillset is a suite of core skills, a power source is essentially a suite of knowledge skills; when you gain a power source, you either gain training with 2 of its 3 associated knowledge skills, or training with 1, but mastery with all 3. Since every power source shares 2 of its skills with other powers sources, and because most character classes should be able to get at least 2 power sources, this gives some amount of flexibility to branch out or to specialize. Since knowledge skill ranks are part of character progression and/or class category progression, you also have a lot of latitude in how you scale up these skills, regardless of the power source you start with.

The question then is, since half of the knowledge skills are associated with more than one power source, should the character sheet list each of these skills twice? Or would that cause too much confusion? It seems like it'd be easier to just list all 10 knowledge skills (than it would be for all 20 core skills) with 'dots' for training and ranks -- mention of power source in that mix might not even be entirely necessary, come to think of it... perhaps you could have the knowledge skills split between those that are unique to one power source, and those that are shared.

I wonder if the tack to take with skills more generally is to only write the ones you have training/mastery/bonus ranks with, onto your character sheet. I actually tend to write my 5e characters out by hand (on lined paper) and this is the way I do my skills, within that ethos. Since the baseline assumption in TNP is that a skill check is 1d10+1d6, you only really need to make note of the skills with which you would roll something other than that. You could have a set of blank lines where you fill in your specialized skills, with spaces beside each to write in the relevant attribute or skillset, and beside that, additional space for noting training/mastery/bonus ranks -- possibly using some kind of a 'dot' system.
(One other thing to mention is that since 1 or 2 skills can exist at the intersection of any given attribute or skillset, while TNP has 20 core skills, there are actually only 15 such intersection points -- further shortening the list. For example, Brawl and Climb both fall under Strength and under Athletics, so their bonuses will always be the same as each other -- no need for separate line entries, despite being two different skills.)

So how would you like to see the skill layout handled, for TNP characters?
Let me know in the comments below.
Next blog post is due up on February 22nd, so make sure to check back then.

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.