Balancing Act: Combat Attributes (2025)

I mentioned previously that the relationship between the d6 pool and "weapon dice" could be one where 2-handed melee weapons add 2d6 whereas 1-handed melee weapons or ranged weapons only add 1d6. The question is how to balance out the utility of these different loadouts. Obviously, there are a few assumptions we need to start from, in order to lay the groundwork; probably there will only be one of your five attributes going as high as +3 (with likely a single +2, and either two +1s or two +0s to round things out.) The other thing is that the baseline assumption of the math is that you will always use your two highest dice for your attack roll; this means that your damage roll will consist of the remaining (i.e. lowest) dice in the pool.

Without accounting for hit chance, the lowest 2 of 4d6 (i.e. two-hander) averages to 4.66
Similarly, if we take two swings with a one-hander (i.e. two-weapon fighting, lowest 1 of 3d6) the average is 4.08

However, when we account for the dice pool attack vs. a 2d6 defense roll, the two-hander is actually going to hit about 10% more often -- meaning the damage modifier needs to bring the TWF routine up to a damage number that's about 10% higher, in order to be comparable in utility. When we factor in a +2 damage modifier for both attacks, the damage is still behind the two-hander (assuming it's at a +3 damage modifier) -- 8.08 vs. 7.66, without factoring in hit-chance. So, that might need some more fine-tuning.

The initial idea I had for balancing out ranged attacks was to use the lower modifier (between STR and DEX) for damage, but allow a number of shots based on Agility mod. The question really then becomes, how do spells even work? Is it just INT mod for number of attacks, and CHA for damage? Is it class/subclass dependent? Is one stat used for damage and one for healing?

This is actually a thing I had narrowed down (somewhat) in my previous RPG designs; basically, weapon-users could attack twice, and magic-users could target one square and all adjacent squares to it. Maybe that'd have to be sort of a class-level of feature, since not all casters are "blasters" per se. The other thing was that I had weapons be sort of an extension of spells, so if you used a dagger or wand, it'd be 1d6 and greater targeting capacity, but if you used a full length staff, it'd be 2d6 with more of a one-target aim. Maybe the baseline for spells in the TNP sequel need to start from something similar?

...

Bit of a shorter post today, as things are a little busy lately.
Hopefully June will be a bit closer to the planned blogging dates; check back on the 5th or 6th.

Power Sources: The 6th Attribute?

I've been giving some thought to how TNP compares to D&D, as it pertains to skills.

If you think about how skills work in 3.x, 4e, or 5e D&D (the versions I'm personally familiar with) there are two main components: ability score modifiers, and skill points/skill training/skill proficiency, respectively. In TNP, skills are linked thematically along two vectors (Attributes, and Skillsets) whereas in D&D skills only share ability modifiers in common, and the remaining skill math varies completely independently; the exception to this would be skill synergies in 3.x, where 5 points in [skill X] provides a +2 bonus to [skill Y].

That all being said, where TNP veers off from this structure is with Knowledge skills. Where D&D uses INT (and sometimes WIS) for its knowledge skills, TNP instead keys them to Power Sources: Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, and Shadow. But with TNP having only 5 attributes instead of 6, I've been starting to wonder (particularly in the context of the sequel mechanics) could power sources be treated as a "6th attribute" for your character? (i.e. 5 universal stats and 1 variable one, rather than 6 that are universal.)

The quirk with knowledge skills in TNP is that they are grouped together, like a skillset (sort of) but they lack that 2nd vector linking them to anything else... aside from other power sources; each power source consists of one unique skill, and 2 other skills that are each shared with different power sources. Coming back to sequel mechanics in particular, with the core skills having both an attribute bonus and a skillset bonus to their dice pool, how would you do something similar with knowledge skills? My first thought was that since in TNP, all classes basically have 2 power sources, you could just... do that again. The problem is not all power sources overlap with each other, and unique knowledge skills don't overlap at all; in short, the extra math has to come from somewhere.

So should power sources be linked to skillsets? There's some synergy between the two in TNP, so maybe power source and skillset could be the two vectors linking knowledge skills together. For example, with Infiltration linked to the Shadow power source, a +2 Infiltration skillset bonus could be applied to Streetwise, Dungeoneering, and Local knowledge skill checks. Because of unique skills being their own thing, it seems that power sources would need their own bonus -- but then you end up with all skills in that "set" having the same bonus. However, if it is assumed that all characters have two power sources (say, one with a +2 and one with a +1 bonus) that could at least give the shared knowledge skills some variance. The issue with that being, now we're talking about a "7th attribute" and not just a 6th.

I came into this talking point from a place of trying to cram knowledge skills back into an "ability score" framework, after TNP successfully extracted them from that. And I feel like I'm not any closer to solving that puzzle. It doesn't make sense to give all knowledge skills a flat bonus, but it also doesn't seem to make sense giving all knowledge skills within one power source the same bonus; it seems like the more "a la carte" approach of TNP is all that works. We'll have to see how thing go, as the design process carries on.

...

I've got one more post planned for May, so check back by the end of the month for that.

Death of the DC10 -- Part 2: Rise of 2d6 (2025)

Slowly but surely, the sequel mechanics seem to be rounding into form. The initial conceptualization of something focusing on a "d6 pool" engine seems to now be pivoting into a 2d6 engine, with d6 pool features. So let me unpack all of that, a bit.

In a previous post, I touched on the fact that TNP has 5 basic types of rolls: attacks, saves, skill checks, initiative checks, and base damage rolls. With the 2d6/d6 pool mechanics, the sequel is moving more towards combining attack rolls and damage rolls together; the quintessential idea is that you will pick 2 dice from the pool to use as your attack roll, with any remaining dice being used for damage. There might be a power attack mechanic that (for example) allows you to add dice to the pool, but requires you to use the lowest die from the pool as one of the attack dice; there might also be mechanics ("Daily" powers, as a potential example) which allow the attack dice to be counted in the damage pool as well as the attack roll -- not unlike how some of the class dice bonuses function, in TNP.

(Similarly to 5e, my intention with the sequel is to turn initiative checks into just another type of "ability check"; in the TNP ethos, it makes sense to use Agility for this purpose for a couple reasons, not the least of which being that STR and DEX are assumed to be the weapon attack attributes, while INT and CHA would of course be the spell attack attributes. This change would further simplify the number of basic roll types.)

Now, the idea has come about to replace the DC10, and it's looking like the replacement will be 2d6+mods. For one, this effectively lowers the DC to 7+mods; as mentioned in the last post on this topic, having an attack roll of 2d6+2 vs. DC10 is functionally the same as 2d6+0 vs. DC8. By transitioning the DC to 2d6, this acknowledges the realities that the attack rolls were facing, while also allowing us to remove "ability score modifier" math from the baseline assumptions. For skills, the variability in the DC also means that we remove the issue of "only 5s and 6s matter"; this makes the 2d6/d6 pool mechanic way more viable for skills, without having to incorporate something like the two-stage roll that was proposed before.

By de-coupling ability score math from attack math, we can actually look at expanding the range of modifiers again. I think probably what will evolve as the basic structure of the classes is that one attribute will be your damage modifier stat, and another attribute will be your "dice pool stat." So, for example, as a paladin you could have a +2 STR that adds to every melee damage roll you make, and a +3 CHA which adds dice to every Divine Smite spell/attack that you use -- or you could flip the two, if you want to trade higher burst-damage for more reliability. This has come as something of a revelation recently, and I think it'll open up the designs a lot more; ironically, by going back to the TNP ethos of not having attribute math contribute to attack math, we're actually able to do more with attribute math, and not less.

Since the baseline assumption is that an attacker will be rolling at least 3 dice, I'm leaning towards the idea of one-handed melee weapons and ranged weapons representing the 3rd dice of the attack; two-handed melee weapons would be 2d6, essentially adding a 4th die to the pool. There might be some tinkering around the edges, as to how this works; my first intuition is that two-handed weapons and unarmed attacks (i.e. straight 2d6 roll) would gain a +STR mod to damage, while one-handed/"two-weapon fighting"-type attacks could have the option to add STR or DEX -- or maybe one for the 1st attack and the other for the 2nd? (Ranged weapons might add no mod, or the lower of the 2 mods, but that might be unnecessarily fiddly.) This would still need to be balanced out against spellcasting; it might be the case that spell mods (such as INT and CHA) would simply add dice to the pool, but not damage modifiers. But that also begs the question of, which attribute modifier would spellcasters use, for push-button "Daily" powers, or similar effects?

I've floated a few ideas as to how defenses/"saves" might work, but so far I think the most compelling idea is having saves tied to effects, rather than saves tied to attributes. I think there will likely be an "Armor Class"-equivalent that is tied to class bonuses/features; having Agility tied to both AC and initiative seems overbalanced, so I'm probably going to try and avoid that. In general though, the DM can use 2d6 in a pinch to determine success or failure; skill check DCs can be nudged up or down using small modifiers, but I think the general assumption for monster "save" DCs should be an unmodified roll.

The other interesting quirk about a 2d6 baseline assumption is that it also still allows room for mechanics based around rolling "doubles" or "ties." And since 2d6 is the backbone of each type of roll (attacks, saves, checks, and opposed checks) you can have classes or other features apply different bonuses on doubles, to each type of roll -- almost akin to how 'mastery' in TNP works as sort of a universal dice modifier.

All of these things have made me very positive about the direction that things are going, with the sequel development. I think the current implementation of the d6 pool mechanic now does an adequate job of filling the design space left behind by 'class dice'. I also like that despite axing the d20, DC10, and other things from TNP designs, the ACIDS "skill grid" and the Knowledge skill/Power Source paradigm have been able to remain intact, giving a strong foundation to build upon.

...

Apologies for the delay in posting; I'm hoping to cram 3 posts into what remains of May, so that we can keep on track. Check back around this time, next week!

Status Effects & Conditions (2025)

This'll be a bit of another hybrid post, similar to the last one. So, I've done a post previously about this topic, but I kept some things close to the vest. I didn't feel like the designs were necessarily finalized (and playtesting may still break some things) but since that post, I haven't made any significant changes to the designs... So I've decided to share them here, in full. 

Now, the thing that this has me thinking about with the sequel, is how saves should be structured. The obvious idea from D&D is to base saves off of "attributes" but perhaps it'd make more sense to base them off of effects? Prior to 3.x, D&D tended to have saves based on the origin of the effect, such as a wand or a dragon's breath.

With TNP, the "dazzled" effect is nested into both the "dazed" and "dominated" effects; maybe it would make some sense to have those saves tied to a mental defense, using INT? Likewise, "frazzled" is nested into "fazed" and "frightened" -- all of which seem to line up with a CHA save. Without a CON attribute in play thus far, it feels like it might warrant being represented as a save (if nothing else) particularly against effects like "exhausted" or "weakened" (assuming it'd be preferable to just using STR.) Maybe with lower/flatter HP, "current HP" could be used as a DC for effects that would target CON -- something that would degrade through attrition? The other issue is that DEX doesn't really lend itself well to a save, if AGIL is in the mix -- so it makes it hard to "balance" a setup like TNP's into something where every attribute has a save (such as in 5e.)

I also kind of like the idea of more situational bonuses, akin to (2014) 5e having gnomes gain advantage on mental saves vs. magic, halflings getting advantage on saves vs. being frightened, elves being immune to magical sleep and advantage against being charmed, etc. It might end up being that the defenses are their own array, not tied to attributes -- or maybe there's just one generic "defense" roll, and only situational bonuses apply? An interesting thing with this is you could nest two 'saves' into one roll; maybe you have a different bonus for attacks that target AC/HP than for ones that cause fear, so an attack that does both only calls for one defense roll, but the differing bonuses would be applied to that roll, to determine whether damage, effect, or both would "hit."

Now tentatively, the defense roll in the sequel would be a simple 2d6, with flat modifiers. The reason for this is that unlike attack rolls, adding dice to the pool is kind of a waste, since they cannot be converted to damage dice. Relatedly, since many of the penalties in the TNP designs hinge on disadvantage, they don't easily or directly translate to this 2d6 system idea. You could do something like "roll 3d6 and take the 2 lowest" but I feel like if the DC mechanic is a dice roll, then the modifiers should be static -- whereas with TNP, the DC is static, and the modifiers are dice rolls. So, penalties to things like defense rolls would be simple -1 or -2 to the roll (depending on what the math ultimately would dictate.)

Worth mentioning is how this leans into monster designs. I've said a few times that the status effects and conditions aren't really worked into the PC mechanics all that much, but they definitely still could be, for monsters -- especially if they're meant to be more "built on the fly." The steeper debilities might be limited to the more difficult monster types, but I also should reiterate that the baseline in TNP is that any bonus or penalty is assumed to only last for 1 round; that also goes a long way in defining monster capabilities, as well. Another monster mechanic that was hinted at was the sort of "recharge/special" effect, if the monster roll (1d10 and 1d6) were a tie. Perhaps this could be something that upgrades effects, either in severity (such as stepping up dazzled to dazed or dominated) or in duration (from 1 round, to a "save ends" kind of effect.)

...

I think the sequel stuff is rounding into shape, as far as basic mechanics. I just need to focus on hammering out the necessary "playtest materials" for TNP, in the meantime.

Check back in the first week of May for another post!

Recap: TNP vs. Sequel

As part of the process of trying to get my focus back onto TNP, I've done some thinking about what makes the system "more than the sum of its parts." I also think it's a good time to look back at the progress the sequel has made, and where that currently sits.

Despite being a d20 game, TNP is probably not what you would refer to as a "d20 system" type of game. To wit, TNP does not use traditional ability scores (or ability modifiers) nor does it bother with having 5e's six saving throws, or the FORT/REF/WILL paradigm of 3.5/4e; the 5 main types of rolls as laid out in the design are:

• attack rolls
• saving throws
• skill checks
• initiative checks
• base damage rolls

Dice (and dice mechanics, such as mastery) are used as the bonuses for all of these 5 types of rolls; all of the mechanics flow from the dice (generally, the class dice in specific) and the few uses of flat modifiers are typically drawn from class dice mechanics, as well.

The original premise for the sequel grew out of a combination of some smaller ideas. With several of the TNP mechanics using d6 for bonuses (and with d6 and d10 being cemented as the "Extra Damage Dice") there was some temptation to expand out that idea -- by making "d6 pool" the overarching mechanic of the system. The d10 would be kept for skill checks (no change from TNP) but the other "class dice" would be warped into "weapon dice." Ultimately, this idea didn't really play nice with the d6 pool, and it didn't even really fill the same niche as class dice did, in TNP.

The other "smaller idea" that was intended to be implemented was somehow reverse-engineering attribute modifiers from the skill rank system, and massaging those into some kind of combat application. This was meant to provide more of a "traditional" RPG feel to the mechanics, but ultimately this never felt like it worked, either. One compromise idea was to use a d20 + d6 pool system, however, the very reason that skill checks in TNP stopped using d20 is because it became impossible to make the math work, with those mechanics. This is what ultimately set us out on the path of pivoting the sequel designs towards a purely d6-based system; at time of writing, the only thing really recognizably TNP about it is that I am still committed to keeping the skill "grid" intact.

Getting back to TNP, what makes the class dice mechanic unique is that each die is sort of a bundle of mechanics, rather than just more math; you could replace the damage effect with something like a d6 pool, but the system really loses something without the die-matching mechanism that class dice provide. Since only one die can ultimately be applied as the "attack bonus" (although some can be used for attack and damage) there's sort of this element of making each attack roll its own little mini-game.

To compare roster construction, TNP has a slate of 15 classes (based on a single use of class dice, as well as each combination of two.) I would say TNP is most heavily inspired by 4e's roster of characters (and in some cases, particularly the Essentials versions) but the 5e influence does show itself as well. For the sequel, the idea was to pare down 5e's core 12 classes by about half, while possibly adding Warlord and Necromancer into the mix. So while TNP's classes each have 2 subclasses (some of which could be classes in their own right, some of which are more "two sides of the same coin") the idea with the sequel was more that each "class" would straightforwardly consist of 2 classes -- with attributes doing the heavy lifting for differentiating them. (A cleric leaning more on INT, with a paladin benefiting more from CHA, for example.)

Another comparison to make would be the resolution mechanics. TNP uses a DC10 for attacks, saves, and skill checks; the sequel seems to be pivoting more towards an "opposed roll" structure, with d6 pools for some mechanics, and flat bonuses for others -- details to come, as things get finalized. Relatedly, instead of having things like HP and reserves/surges tied to class dice (as in TNP) the intention with the sequel was that these might be more standardized, on a number like 10, for example.

Notable about TNP is how skills are not governed by the same attributes used for combat math; though this might change a little bit for the sequel, one key thing that will likely remain the same is how Knowledge skills (i.e. backgrounds, for all intents and purposes) do not function off of a mental attribute, and are instead based on power sources, akin to those of 4e. This means that players can more easily tailor their backstory to taste, and have the mechanics actually reflect those decisions -- while not sacrificing combat effectiveness, or proficiency with other "core" skills, in order to do so.

While monsters aren't terribly fleshed out for TNP or its sequel, the TNP slate is built off of the foundations laid by 4e D&D. Minions, swarms, and standard monsters form the backbone (and have been expanded in their scope a little bit) while elites, solos, and archenemies serve to flesh out the campaign, as well as the DM's toolkit. The bare bones for the TNP monster mechanics are there (owing much to the "MM3 on a business card" ethos), but it will probably be helpful to have some example monsters ready, for playtesting if nothing else.

...

Anyway, that's probably enough of a recap for now. I'll try and revisit the sequel stuff as the designs progress a bit more concretely. Maybe the next step is to move into playtesting and just hammer out the "DM side" of TNP, as it goes?

One more post to go, before the end of the month. I'll be planning to have it up on April 25th.

U-turn

So far in 2025, I've mostly been wrestling with trying to hammer a "d6 pool" TNP sequel into shape. I think what the previous post highlighted is that the DC10 mechanic is hard to get away from, but also that it simultaneously works so much better in a d20 paradigm. Also, the closest translation of the d10 skill check into a d6 mechanic feels kinda fake and weird -- but on the other hand, nothing else seems to work, or feel right.

I've been contemplating what the solution might be; does it make sense to do a d20+d6 system? Would it work better to start by fleshing out the character classes first, and then circling back to the mechanics?  

One of the problems is the wild swings that even small mods seem to provide, in a d6 system. This is a lot easier to manage in a d20 system, where every +1 is a flat 5% increase, and even something like a d6 pool being stapled on top of that provides very reliable math. Earlier theorycrafting basically sussed out that having "weapon dice" as well as a d6 pool wasn't going to work, in a d20 system -- it's just too much of a mess. So do you do something with static mods? As dumb it kind of sounds sometimes, one of the core notions I had behind doing a sequel was the possibility of an "ability scores, done right" ethos; as a direct successor to TNP, the obvious way to translate that was to start from the Attribute "ranks" of the skills system, and extrapolate that out to modifiers for the combat system.

But is there really any point to that? It seems like the answer is "not really," particularly if the assumption is that the d6 pool would likewise be keyed off of Attribute "ranks." So that begs the question, is it worth it to jump from "class dice do everything" d20 TNP to "d6 does everything" d20 TNP? I think that comes back around the the question of the character classes; if it's a robust system where the 6(ish) classes really sing, that could be a tight, compelling style of game. If there's one drawback I can foresee, it's that d20 still doesn't provide an answer as far as the skills system -- to wit, "d20" TNP doesn't use d20 for skill checks.

At this point, I'm feeling like enough ink has been spilled on the sequel, while ultimately arriving at an idea that isn't really that distinct from the original. So I'm leaning towards pivoting back to "old" TNP and finishing that up. Whether or not I change my mind again in another week is yet to be seen; if I have some big revelatory "eureka" moment, that could still change.

...

Apologies for the slight delay on this post; expect the next one to be up prior to April 18th.

The Death of the DC10? (2025)

Without completely rehashing the conversations that came to light on Discord, I'll summarize some of the key points.

Essentially, the DC10 is one of those elements that the current sequel design retains from TNP; an argument could be made that it's vestigial, or that it's one of those "ship of Theseus" situations -- but on the other hand, you have to start somewhere. Where it seems to be at loggerheads is in the particularly sequel-ish notion of adding flat modifiers into the mix. To wit (and, in short) if the assumption is that your combat rolls will always add your highest stat (i.e. a +2) then the DC isn't really 10, it's more like it's actually an 8.

So, one direction in which that conversation forks off is, how do we incentivize variety in combat modifiers? Well, essentially you would have to structure a class' basic features such that the +2 was always (or at least, often) adding dice to the pool. The math tells us that a +1 increase in attack is about equal to adding one more d6 to the pool, so the bigger incentive is going to be adding the die, because it also adds a d6 of damage (and not just +1 damage.) Alright, but since our acceptable range of modifiers is already so limited (+0/+1/+2) how do you iterate that idea over, say, 6 different classes? This idea also solidifies the notion that the attribute array would have to be limited to a single +2 -- otherwise, you'd put a +2 into your attack stat, and a +2 into your "dice pool" stat, because that's a no-brainer.

Now, this sounds like a nitpick, but part of the reason I chose DC10 in the first place is because of the ergonomics of it; 10 is the first double-digit number, it's also ingrained in 10-fingered humans (which is likely the reason the base-10 number system exists.) But as I've said before on the blog, where it really came from was if you strip away your +3 attribute and +2 proficiency when trying to hit an AC15, the math of +0 vs. AC10 is exactly the same. But that's talking about d20 math, and the sequel isn't in that paradigm at all, anymore.

So the first idea that occurred to me was to strip out the modifiers; to keep the math the same, we'd have to arrive at a DC8 -- at least for a basic combat roll involving 3d6. Well, 5 is a nice starting point (for the reasons mentioned previously) and adding the number of dice to that gives you 8. So maybe the DC is "5 + [number of dice]" instead of just a flat 8. What I quickly found with that is the DC escalates slightly, for almost no meaningful change in hit-chance; this felt like it was adding overhead to the mechanics with no subsequent added functionality.

Building off of that, the next idea that popped into my head was, "what if the DC was [number of dice] * 2?"

What this would functionally do is lower the DC of the 'basic attack' down to 6, giving a much higher hit chance and reliable damage output; it also creates a cap where having 6 dice in the pool bestows steep diminishing returns, and 7 pushes the DC into impossible territory (i.e. 2d6 cannot equal more than 12, and 7 dice would create a DC of 14.)

With a little help from the people who brought you Strike! RPG, I was able to get a very precise calculation as to what the math would look like on this (rather that just ball-parking it, with my limited mathematical knowledge.) Using the two lowest possible dice (which still produce a hit) for the attack roll, and the remaining dice for damage, we get:

3d6 DPR = 3.58
4d6 DPR = 5.40
5d6 DPR = 5.93
6d6 DPR = 3.21

The question then is, does this give us enough flexibility to build out the mechanics? Clearly, the answer is "not quite" since this would effectively cap the number of additional dice you could add to the pool at 2 or 3; the only way you could get around that is to cap the DC at something like 10 -- go figure.

The other thing we have to remind ourselves is that without using modifiers, "only 5s and 6s matter" starts to creep back in. (It genuinely makes me wonder if the Arkham Horror-type games are built around the assumption of 5s and 6s being successes, for this same kind of reason -- or it could just be a coincidence.)

And that's pretty much where I sit, at the moment -- stuck between a rock and a hard place. It seems silly to have flat modifiers that don't matter, but it seems nearly impossible to diversify those numbers, either. On the other hand, if you go back to the paradigm of "attributes only matter for skills" then we've just reinvented d20 TNP (seemingly right down to the DC10, even) -- almost like building that ship of Theseus I mentioned at the start.

...

April should be a lot better for sticking to the planned schedule of 5th/15th/25th, so check back on those dates, for more!