|
Generic Octopus posted:Only idea I have besides changing the attacks to iconic is to change the core ability from melee only, and then maybe swap the attack Ki option with "gain advantage for attacks this turn." My kneejerk reaction is that sounds too good but I haven't run any math on it. I guess it depends on where you want the Monk's damage to come from: - Miss Damage with Advantage works out to 2-9 damage, 18% of the time - Miss Damage on a normal roll works out to 1-9 damage, 45% of the time - Crit Damage with Advantage works out to 1d4+4 damage, 14.5% of the time - Crit Damage on a normal roll works out to 1d4+4 damage, 5% of the time - Normal Damage with Advantage works out to 1d4 damage, 67.5% of the time - Normal Damage on a normal roll works out to 1d4 damage, 50% of the time ...at least I think I did that all right (accounting for doubles on Advantage) If you want them to hit and crit more as their way of doing damage, then you want Advantage; if you want them to do miss damage reliably (not necessarily a bad thing, with multiple attacks), then just a straight d20 roll is fine. Power Attack throws another wrinkle into it, but it's basically a waste to use it if you don't get miss damage as a safety net; if your options are to miss for 1-9 damage or hit for 4-8[1d4(exp)+1d4(trade-off bonus)], then just Power Attack all day! Although doing that 3-4 times per turn might slow things down.. Hmmm..
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Expanding on the previous post, if we spread those damages over 3.5 attacks per round (which should be the average) we end up with just about 15 DPR, with or without Advantage. So that's probably fine; my monster math is built around 10 DPR, but it's clear that Warriors are capable of more than that (and I probably won't be nerfing that anytime soon.) The catch is that you can add Power Attack onto EACH of those, for an extra 3.5 average damage / a -1.25 average to attack (and/or miss damage.) At that point, you can probably remove the option to make extra attacks, outright. Now, if you change it to an Iconic Attack, you can't power attack, and you also lose the miss damage, so then your DPR expectations drop pretty dramatically (especially without Advantage.) I mean, I kinda like the simplicity of having it be a basic attack, especially for the Martial Artist, but I don't want Power Attack bogging down each attack. Making it Iconic really hurts the Martial Artist, if you give the Ki Master the option for Advatange... although Prone will be granting advantage a lot... Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Thoughts? Not sure, honestly. I also like keeping the attacks basic for reliable damage, but can't really say how much Power Attack would slow things down in live play (for online or pbp, it shouldn't matter much). Something that just occurred to me on a re-read though is how strong the Martial Artist's Perfect Defense is if triggered. Perhaps something to consider is shifting the Martial Artist's expected damage from flurry/attacks to its defense: player uses flurry to lock up one or more enemies, then effectively counters them on their turn(s). That might require giving it more control over Perfect Defense though, instead of the random trigger. Maybe tie it to the Counter-Attack trade-off: you counter as normal, but the damage is equal to the total defense roll if successful. That might let you change the Flurry attacks to Iconic and let the Ki Master keep basic attacks as a ki option while keeping the two archetypes even...don't really have time to run the numbers myself now, though, so maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Something that just occurred to me on a re-read though is how strong the Martial Artist's Perfect Defense is if triggered. Perhaps something to consider is shifting the Martial Artist's expected damage from flurry/attacks to its defense: player uses flurry to lock up one or more enemies, then effectively counters them on their turn(s). That might require giving it more control over Perfect Defense though, instead of the random trigger. Maybe tie it to the Counter-Attack trade-off: you counter as normal, but the damage is equal to the total defense roll if successful. What about something like "When you Counter-Attack, roll one trade-off using your Class Die and one using d20s, and use either result"? Admittedly, this is an attempt at keeping it unique from both the Warrior and Mage, so it's a little bit shoehorned. Maybe also stipulate that the Monk can deal this damage even if they take the hit, and they take no damage if the counter-attack drops the attacker?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
Ok, so here's some class/archetype things I'm pondering at the moment: Summoner (d8)
Druid (d10)
Cleric (d12)
... Ok, so what would the distinctions be, here? Necromancer would have a caster bent, with Class Skills including Arcana and such, and would have masses of weaker minions. Beastmaster would effectively be a Ranger/Druid with a specialization with a singular, tough beast with offensive uses. Shapeshifter is pretty straightforward, the ideas I've proffered earlier in the thread and as fleshed out by Generic Octopus will probably be the template. Shaman I'm thinking will have a spirit companion or possibly totems, more of a support/defensive/passive summoned creature. Holy Priest will basically be a modification of the Paladin's Priest Archetype (which will be removed), focused on healing and Knowledge skills War Priest will be more Warlord-like, with a focus on offensive abilities, and probably CHA or Influence skills Thoughts? ... Admittedly, some of the classes feel a little shoe-horned into their Class Dice. Are there any suggestions for alternate classes, a this point? I still would like to see about doing some kind of Swordmage particularly, and some of the other suggestions from drrockso20. It's just a matter of figuring out niches/roles for each of them. All that said, what seems like the best direction to go after the 2nd slate of classes is done?
b) a 3rd Archetype for the first 10 classes c) some class-independent Archetypes d) ???
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Ok, so here's some class/archetype things I'm pondering at the moment: Well for Shapeshifter depending on how it's shapeshifting functions, might be a good idea to mix in some aspects of how Warden shapeshifting works, so it's less you turning into a normal animal(which might step on the Beastmaster's niche) and more you merging temporarily with a potent Primal Spirit and turning into a hybrid form(whether that Spirit is something as simple as a Panther or Bear, or something more complex like a Thousand Year Old Treant, or the Manifestation of Winter is another thing entirely) As for Sword-Mage I was thinking it either would be another Archetype for Mystic or as part of a new class that I'm going to call the War-Mage until we think of something better(I'm thinking paired up with one of; an Arcane version of the Soul-Knife, or with something based on the Pathfinder version of the Alchemist, or even a magical Gunslinger class), which would probably be either a d8 or d10 class depending on it's abilities
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Skipping away ahead,  First Draft of the Cleric is up!Not sure if the Holy Priest is interesting enough, and hopefully the action economy of the War Priest is right; I was focusing on capturing the Warlord feel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
First Draft of the Summoner is up! This was actually a lot more fun to write than I expected. The two archetypes don't get a lot to do, but that's largely because managing summons should be busywork enough. Necromancer probably needs the most playtesting/tweaking to make sure it doesn't slow down the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
These both look really good. Idk if the Holy Priest's healing would be too strong or not but that's something that can be adjusted alongside the monster math, if it even needs to be. Looks really solid. Couple clarifications on the Summoner:
Necromancer's Life Link ability: if you make the enemy Provoke...couldn't that be a lot of auto-damage if the necro swarmed it with minions + any allies? Maybe it's meant to just Provoke from the creature being sac'd (like a corpse explosion), but as written it just causes each enemy to Provoke, period, which sounds like everyone gets a swing. Necro's Curse: Looks like it could be a bit of free damage, between Provoking and the basic attack. Could probably make it one or the other, but it might just be a thing to test instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
This stuff can be mostly chalked up to first draft  Like, when I post these, I'm mostly designing by feel (albeit with math ranges in mind, since they're not really complex in the system) and then putting it out there for you all to point out stupid poo poo I wrote  Generic Octopus posted:Beast Lord's pet's attacks are always considered Iconic...except for the basic attack it gets from Life Link? I think I get it, the Iconic part is so the Necro doesn't get a bunch of free miss damage, but maybe that should be a distinction between archetypes? Idk, my main thing was the "attacks are always Iconic except when they're not" part, just reads a little awkward. Generic Octopus posted:Necromancer's Life Link ability: if you make the enemy Provoke...couldn't that be a lot of auto-damage if the necro swarmed it with minions + any allies? Maybe it's meant to just Provoke from the creature being sac'd (like a corpse explosion), but as written it just causes each enemy to Provoke, period, which sounds like everyone gets a swing. Generic Octopus posted:Necro's Curse: Looks like it could be a bit of free damage, between Provoking and the basic attack. Could probably make it one or the other, but it might just be a thing to test instead. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Maybe like, "Whenever that enemy attacks you, it Provokes from ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:the damage of 1HD creatures is just 1, rather than a Class Die Derp, completely spaced on that. Necro looks totally cool then. P.d0t posted:Maybe like, Yea that looks way better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Alright, once i get the Druid first draft out, and then get some feedback and do a round of edits, i think another playtest will be in order. Would anyone be interested in (specifically) playing the new classes? Or even running their own playtests at-home or on the forums?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Also, dumb question, would it make sense to switch the CD of the Mystic and Druid? The Mystic attacks would probably have to be scaled back a bit, if so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Also, dumb question, would it make sense to switch the CD of the Mystic and Druid? The Mystic attacks would probably have to be scaled back a bit, if so. Depends on what you do with Druid, really. I used a d6 in my draft because it seemed like a versatile number for a role-versatile/stance-switching druid, but it also had no archetype variation, like the Warrior. Mechanically it's probably easier/more straightforward to have damage-oriented classes have the larger die, but it might be a little odd to have a blaster-caster with the same hp as a Paladin. Something to experiment with might be giving the druid a changing class die based on form, but idk how well that'd work in practice. In any case I wouldn't try to force a class into a certain die size for the sake of keeping the distribution even.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:In any case I wouldn't try to force a class into a certain die size for the sake of keeping the distribution even. Yeah, this is the problem I'm butting up against. Like, the 5ish most-requested new classes don't fit neatly into the 5 die-shapes. Of note, there aren't a lot of ~traditionally~ d10 classes to draw from, and even fewer d12 classes; d12 might work for War A tangentially related problem arises for the Summoner; thematically the archetypes are similar, and I managed to make ability fluff-names that are androgynous enough to cover both, but then the underlying mechanics belie the split between the two. They share almost no common mechanical basis. Things to ponder.. Generic Octopus posted:Something to experiment with might be giving the druid a changing class die based on form, but idk how well that'd work in practice. It might be an idea to give each slate of classes a 6th "hybrid" class that uses multiple dice, situationally. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
How about for a warlord class, you have one archetype that's the 4e Warlord, and another that's the 2e Fighter, with like an army of loyal followers? Basically it would probably end up resembling a Summoner, mechanically, but maybe those archetypes would fit together better thematically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Overhauls are Coming! I'm pondering some changes to the core mechanics, so I may go dark for a while, and then the next version will show up out of nowhere. Ideas:
Feel free to continue to use this thread for questions and discussion; the playtest will probably be closed shortly, due to a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Class Dice as Flavour Another stray thought, but what about instead of building out multiple slates of classes, have one theme or power source for each class die? Then, build subclasses/archetypes for that die, rather than for multiple classes. My early ideas:
Anything I'm missing/anything that should be added/changed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Math and Dice Usage for Skills As probably should have been apparent long ago, Class Dice make doing skill math pretty screwy. In my previous project, The Unnamed RPG, d6s and d10s were the only dice used; this was kinda the inspiration for d20+Class Dice in The Next Project. I'm thinking in order to smooth out the math, instead of using Class Dice in skill resolution, d6s and d10s will be used in conjunction with d20 rolls; my first idea would be something like:
Proficiency with the Skillset tied to a skill lets you add 1d6 to the skill check This might be tweaked or changed or reversed, etc. It'll also be influenced by what shape the other revisions to skills (and skill lists) end up taking. Skill Resolution and Skill Challenges I wasn't super happy with the simple repurposing of 4e-style skill challenges for the playtest. I assume the players weren't either I'm kinda not well-versed in a wide variety of systems, so I don't have a lot of inspiration to draw from. One idea that got some mention in this thread was to give each specific skill a very defined outcome to a success. I think this is a good idea, particularly in combat. However, outside of combat, I think it might be somewhat stifling for the players. Any advice/suggestions/discussion on how to handle this part of the game would be greatly helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Damage on a Miss I'm kinda thinking that this rule should be limited to certain classes. It obviously doesn't work well with d4 classes, and probably isn't entirely necessary for classes that have Iconic Attacks. I like the idea of rolling it into the Cleave ability for Warriors, I'll just have to figure out where else to keep it; Rogue seems likely, Ranger is also a possibility. Spellcasters I think the Mage will probably need some boosts, assuming the Mystic doesn't get nerfed; the new class kinda does similar things to the older one, just better. Again, this was sorta implied when I mentioned "Reverse Engineering," this is just a specific example of it, that's on my radar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Spellcasters Honestly I'd shift Mage's focus to more of a party support/control class. It'd probably make it easier to have a strong d4-based support class instead of also trying to include a baseline damage mechanic. Something like a stronger version of the Bard's enchantment, maybe fueled by a Ki-like resource (mana/spell points/whatever). This way you have also have a clear split between the blaster/enchanter caster archetypes, if you keep the Mystic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Archetype Changes I'm thinking about rearranging some things, along the lines of this post: P.d0t posted:
I'm not super happy with either the Summoner or Cleric classes, as currently constituted. Basically, I want the archetypes within a class to be aligned in terms of skills and fluff, moreso than by mechanics (although having mechanics in common is important, too.) I'm also considering how/if certain archetypes could be used by multiple classes, gaining slightly different abilities depending on the class they get used with (along with different skills and Class Die, of course.) Here's what I'd like to do:
... Other ideas I'm mulling: - Swordmage: Monk or Mage archetype? - Monk: we've already seen the class represented a couple different ways (mage/d4 archetype, ranger/d8 archetype, standalone d4 class); could it maybe function as an archetype for multiple different classes? I'd personally be interested to see a Monk archetype for Paladin, maybe Cleric.. - Priest archetype: keep the paladin version, and make a cleric version? - Psionics? Other new classes/archetypes? - Bard archetype: move to a d6 class?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Is it just for simplicity's sake that hp and damage are the same die size? I know class die being a one use fits all type deal is appealing. Maybe hp and class are one die size, and archetype and damage are another?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
captain innocuous posted:Is it just for simplicity's sake that hp and damage are the same die size? I know class die being a one use fits all type deal is appealing. captain innocuous posted:Maybe hp and class are one die size, and archetype and damage are another? Can you give me an example of how/where/why you would like to see this implemented?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
This isn't to say the dice would have to be different, just that they could be. I'm not suggesting re-writing the whole drat thing. You had some difficulty finding a place for the monk, and this is just one idea I had. It could have a d6 hp and d8 damage, or vice versa. The monk could maybe even swap them in certain circumstances, to meet a challenge where they can meditate and prepare for what is coming up. Depending on archetype, The barbarian could have d12 HP but deal d12 damage The warlord could have d12 HP but deal d10 damage I just don't like the idea that to do d12 damage, the class has to be d12 beefy, if I am making any sense. This would also give you a another way to balance archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Well, the basic gist of the way things are designed is this: If your Class Die is smaller, you either get to do more attacks, or you get to stack that die more than once. So mages and monks get to attack a lot; rogues and mystics get to do multiple d6s of damage to their target. Those classes end up being weaker in the "AC and HP" category, but the damage is meant to keep pace with other classes. Now, if you wanted a beefy guy that does smaller amounts of damage, then yeah, you'd have to be looking at using different dice. That, or, making the class always have Disadvantage on damage rolls, for example. Alternately, give them abilities to forego damage in order to grant some kind of benefit (the War Priest archetype has a little bit of this.) ... The thing with monk is that "attacks multiple times in melee" is already a thing that Rangers and Paladins do; Jimmeeee posted ideas for monks as a Mage archetype and Ranger archetype, earlier in the thread. Basically, I think the fluff for Rangers and Monks is a little too far divorced, but a Monk and Paladin could be brought closer together. Although my own designs, as they currently sit, put monk more in the Martial camp than Divine. I'm not actually unhappy with the monk design with the d4 Class Die (I was kinda lobbying for that in the face of all suggestions to the contrary), I just think if class-spanning Archetypes end up being A Thing in the system, Monk probably could work as one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Initiative Changes As part of cleaning up skills in general, I'm debating simplifying initiative skills to key off of Skillsets only, so: Deception = Hide Athletics = Charge Detection = Spot Knowledge = 'Analyze Enemy' Influence = 'Goad'
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Unified Mechanics In conjunction with reworking the math/dice for skills, I've been thinking about streamlining the "DC" numbers a little. This would probably mean Defense rolls no longer including Class Dice. We end up with something like this, for Attack, Defense, and Skills:
Tougher challenges (particularly hitting Solo monsters) might require a 15+ for a success, just as a tool for the DM to spice things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Skill Notation I'm considering how to better convey which Skillsets/Basic Abilities skills can use, so I think this is the best way to do it:
Examples: Charge (FORT/Athletics) Hide (AGIL/Deception) Persuasion (CHA/Influence) This also means the text will more often refer to specific skills, rather than Skillsets and/or Basic Abilities, when describing skill usage. Class Skill Notation, Skill Dice I'm also leaning towards having the Class descriptions lay out which "pillars" skills fall into. This will make it easier for players to know which skills they will likely want to use for initiative, as well as what their combat options are, beyond just their Iconic Abilities. Further to this post, I am considering a couple of different ways to assign skill bonuses. Basically, it will be some combination of:
Examples might be: Rogues add 1d10 to Class Skills, 1d6 to non-Class Skills, and have Expertise on all skill checks Warriors add 1d10 to FORT checks, 1d6 to Athletics and Influence checks, thus a skill that is based on (FORT/Athletics) or (FORT/Influence) gains +1d6 and +1d10
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Work on Beta 3 has begun! So far, mostly just edits to jargon, but some minor class changes too. Working on refining the Action Economy bits and figuring out how to format skill lists and such. Feel free to add your comments onto the doc! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
First draft of the Warlord is up!  I like this much better than cleric, for a d12 class. The conversion from War Priest was mostly seamless, and I quite like the new archetype 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
2nd draft of the Cleric is up! It's still a little incongruous, the same way the Summoner 1st draft was, but I like the class overall a lot better. New archetype names are fun to come up with!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
I'm considering reeling in the classes to just 5, but with 3 (maybe 4) archetypes for each. The more archetypes I try to make, the thinner they seem to get; I'd rather each archetype be meaty, and have fewer classes, than more classes but with weaker archetypes. This is something I'm noticing with 5e: for some classes, the class features make the class, and with others, the archetype features make the class. I was kinda leaning towards the former, thus far in the design, but I think a little of both could work. It will likely just mean longer class descriptions, but I can live with that. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Retool vs. Rewrite The other thing I've been considering with my free time this week is how I need to go about doing "Beta 3." Up to this point, each update has effectively been me starting with the previous text and just adding and adding until I figure it's ready for testing, then doing that all over again. There are a lot of things that need to be changed and updated this time around, so I'm thinking I might just start from the ground up. That's not to say that I think everything needs to be scrapped, it's just that the paradigm gradually shifts over the course of development, and sometimes you just need to reset, with those altered priorities in mind from the get-go. I've had a difficult time finding where to start with these revisions, so I feel like going at it from this direction will help me get rolling. By and large, I think the "core" classes are fairly solid, but the "expansion" classes need to be rounded out and finalized, in whatever shape that takes. I also think most of the more basic mechanics are ok, but maybe could be cleaned up and renamed (like Engaged could be renamed "Adjacent," allowing for Engaged clusters to work more smoothly -- not just mechanically but also from a tabletop, board-and-minis perspective) Classes As touched on in my previous post, I think some classes and archetypes are "weaker" than others. What I want to do, is bring the game back down to 5 "meatier" classes (based on the 5 die-shapes) with maybe a few "hybrid" classes, that can be built off of more than one different die. By doing this, I'm hoping to separate some of the chaff; specifically, after 2 drafts I'm still not happy with how the Cleric has turned out. I think the Necromancer/Death Knight archetype will resurface somewhere, but the Holy Priest as a heal-spamming class just doesn't jive with the game's conceits, and I think the Paladin archetype does a much better job of fitting in. Similarly, I think the Warrior as currently constituted is pretty strongly-designed, and mashing the Warlord into that class will make its archetypes more complete. I'm thinking we'll see this re-emerge as a strong class that also has interesting and unique archetypes that each fit the fluff: a Barbarian with Rage as its unique mechanic, a Marshal with strong enabling, and something akin to the current Battle Master, with flexibility in their attack riders. I think the Rogue is a similarly solid class; if anything it might have some more archetypes hung onto it, but I don't think it needs any serious modification. The Ranger/Druid classes are another thing I want to address. I think both share a similar fluff basis, and I also feel that d8 is a good fit, but the Ranger always seemed a bit bare, and Druid hasn't gotten off the ground, yet. What I am currently thinking of doing is making the Beastmaster's Summoning and Ranger's Twin Strike the common pillars that all the archetypes for this class will share: the Hunter will focus on ranged combat and ambush, the Shaman will utilize a spirit companion and focus on enabling, while the Shapeshifter will be the main melee build, but may have some flexibility in its forms. As such, this leaves the Scout with little ground to stand on, and I already think there isn't much that it does that the Rogue's Scoundrel archetype doesn't already emulate. But we'll see what we can do Mage is a class that has never really been given a thorough archetype treatment. What I would like to do here, is maybe put the Ki Master archetype onto the class, wholesale, and move Martial Artist over to Rogue; this will take a bit of ironing out, so stay tuned for more details. I also think consolidating Bard into the "charisma casters" as a Mystic Archetype makes sense; the support/buff niche that they fill doesn't really step on any toes w/r/t Sorcerer or Warlock, and I just think the d6 makes for a better fit. Also, most of the Mage abilities don't feel "bard-like." As mentioned in previous posts, I think Monk and Necromancer are archetypes that could fit into the fluff and mechanics of a couple other existing classes/die shapes, so I might do those as "hybrid" archetypes. I think Necromancer/Death Knight could work for Mage, Mystic, or Paladin, Monk could work almost anywhere, and maybe even a Scout or "Harrier" could work as a Rogue, Ranger, or Warrior archetype. In particular, I think Necromancer as an offshoot of Warlock has some potential to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
I think the way you've restated skills is much easier to grok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Classes Cleric/healing is always going to be a problem, because healing in games is always a problem. Even Lay on Hands seems very potent given the numbers in play, and Priest has more healing/damage mitigation beyond that. My 2 cents: focus the Pally on protecting allies, in contrast to the Warrior focusing on it's own damage/defense. Then let the game build up without "normal" cleric-style healing. You already basically have Blackguard as the "punish" defender and the Knight be the "control" defender; I'd refine those a bit before worrying about whether or how to include healing. P.d0t posted:The Ranger/Druid classes are another thing I want to address. I think both share a similar fluff basis, and I also feel that d8 is a good fit, but the Ranger always seemed a bit bare, and Druid hasn't gotten off the ground, yet. What I am currently thinking of doing is making the Beastmaster's Summoning and Ranger's Twin Strike the common pillars that all the archetypes for this class will share: the Hunter will focus on ranged combat and ambush, the Shaman will utilize a spirit companion and focus on enabling, while the Shapeshifter will be the main melee build, but may have some flexibility in its forms. As such, this leaves the Scout with little ground to stand on, and I already think there isn't much that it does that the Rogue's Scoundrel archetype doesn't already emulate. But we'll see what we can do I think trying to load a pet and twin strike with interesting mechanics on the same simple chassis is gonna be too cumbersome, and really I don't see much similarity between Druid and Ranger to put them together (to me they're both "nature" and sometimes have pets). If you're trying to condense the classes like this I think it makes more sense to nest Pally and Ranger under Warrior or similar (and essentially phase out Blackguard); originally they were both Fighters anyway. Honestly if you relabeled the 3 current Paladin archetypes as "Paladin", "Marshall/Warlord", and "Ranger", you'd be close to doing that. Realistically a problem might be that you can kinda do two very different things with the current "class/archetype" set-up: have a broad concept (class) and multiple roles it can fill (archetype), or a specific role (class) with multiple ways to fill it (archetype). So, for example, you can have a "Fighter" class that can be a striker (Ranger), defender (Pally), or leader (Warlord), and at the same time you can have a "Paladin" class that defends by shielding allies/drawing aggro (Knight) or by supplying disincentives/punishments for attacking allies (Blackguard). A Druid/Ranger "Nature" class strikes me as an example of the former, whereas the other classes so far seem to be the latter. I don't like the Ranger: Beastmaster nearly as much as the Summoner: Beastmaster mechanics-wise, not as interesting. I would ditch the last part of Martial Superiority. I don't see being able to move the damage to another target being that valuable, considering you've already prioritized who you want to take damage by virtue of targeting them in the first place. The clarified skill format and action economy are Good Things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Cleric/healing is always going to be a problem, because healing in games is always a problem. Even Lay on Hands seems very potent given the numbers in play, and Priest has more healing/damage mitigation beyond that. My 2 cents: focus the Pally on protecting allies, in contrast to the Warrior focusing on it's own damage/defense. Then let the game build up without "normal" cleric-style healing. You already basically have Blackguard as the "punish" defender and the Knight be the "control" defender; I'd refine those a bit before worrying about whether or how to include healing. Generic Octopus posted:I think trying to load a pet and twin strike with interesting mechanics on the same simple chassis is gonna be too cumbersome, and really I don't see much similarity between Druid and Ranger to put them together (to me they're both "nature" and sometimes have pets). The basic idea I have here is to allow the more "Ranger-y" achetypes to do the "classic" 4e-style Twin Strike, whereas the more "Druid-y" ones would be using it more like a "pack attack" i.e. one of the attacks uses the pet, somehow. The idea I had for the shaman version was something like: pre:Iconic Attack: Make an attack and damage roll, both with advantage, and use the result for two attacks; each attack must target a different enemy. * Shaman: You can use an ally to deliver one of these attacks, if they are Adjacent to your pet. If you do so, the ally can roll their basic attack, and use it in place of your granted attack. Generic Octopus posted:If you're trying to condense the classes like this I think it makes more sense to nest Pally and Ranger under Warrior or similar (and essentially phase out Blackguard); originally they were both Fighters anyway. Honestly if you relabeled the 3 current Paladin archetypes as "Paladin", "Marshall/Warlord", and "Ranger", you'd be close to doing that. I think the "fluff" distinction between various fightmans has historically been ability scores and/or skills (Paladin = CHA, Ranger = WIS, Fighter =  )Mechanically, it's more about equipment/fighting styles (Paladin = sword & board/shining armor, Ranger = TWF or Archery, Fighter = )The lack of coherent Fighter is what led me to focus in more on a Barbarian-style warrior, because there's actually some signature abilities there, whereas a Fighter always seems to be a blank slate. Like, from the get-go, the inspiration was always to be low-magic, so having multiple classes of Fightmans (each with their own style of fighting) is/was desirable. And my paladin/ranger favouritism is also part of that. Anyways, I guess all that is to say, I think the Druid and Ranger line up in terms of skills/natureyness, and the Druid is kind of a blank slate in terms of how one wants their combat mechanics to work, so I'm gonna try and write them up together and see if I like what i get. I think the big problem is that I'm backing away from having 2 classes for each die, but I guess going 180° in the other direction probably doesn't work either; like, I still have every intention of having both Rogue and Mystic as d6 classes, and Monk probably deserves its own class, TBH. Beyond that, is where I'm a little murky on how to divvy things. What are your thoughts on the Warlord draft? Like, does it hold its own, as a class? I think the BM archetype could be jazzed up (and it probably will always end up being played as an archer -- maybe something I could expand upon/take it a new direction with?) Generic Octopus posted:Realistically a problem might be that you can kinda do two very different things with the current "class/archetype" set-up: have a broad concept (class) and multiple roles it can fill (archetype), or a specific role (class) with multiple ways to fill it (archetype). So, for example, you can have a "Fighter" class that can be a striker (Ranger), defender (Pally), or leader (Warlord), and at the same time you can have a "Paladin" class that defends by shielding allies/drawing aggro (Knight) or by supplying disincentives/punishments for attacking allies (Blackguard). A Druid/Ranger "Nature" class strikes me as an example of the former, whereas the other classes so far seem to be the latter. Basically, the best option is always to make the other guy dead, so I want the combat to just be about each class having different ways to skin that cat. Hard control can be very effective, too, but it just drags things out and IME as a DM, I've hated being on the receiving end of it; as players, who likes being Stunned? Same thing goes for healing; if you balance your numbers right, you can pretty much get rid of it and still have compelling combat, back and forth. So I guess it might be fair to say, I'm aiming for a more "Action RPG" kinda thing, where the methods or styles of fighting are what make classes distinct in combat, rather than having a "job" per se. Almost like, if you were to take the 5e concept of Fighting Styles, but build them out to be class-defining, rather than just small "+x when you Y" boring bullshit. Within that, again, it's more about archetypes within a class having either similar fluff/skills or similar combat mechanics (ideally both.) Although, that said, I guess there is some shared design space between Paladin and Warlord, as you point out. The other thing is that Class Die informs this quite a bit, too; people with lower HP get tricks to avoid being swarmed or hit, whereas the higher HP classes do get ~some~ tank-like abilities, (albeit not out-and-out Marking) but they're mostly just meatbags. Generic Octopus posted:I don't like the Ranger: Beastmaster nearly as much as the Summoner: Beastmaster mechanics-wise, not as interesting. Generic Octopus posted:I would ditch the last part of Martial Superiority. I don't see being able to move the damage to another target being that valuable, considering you've already prioritized who you want to take damage by virtue of targeting them in the first place. The basic idea is you have a bit of freedom to put the right-size damage on the right enemy. Might only be situationally useful, but it's something to make Reliable a little more unique for one class Generic Octopus posted:The clarified skill format and action economy are Good Things. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Bard concept As mentioned before, I'm considering changing the Bard from a Mage (d4) archetype to a Mystic (d6) archetype; in the absence of a "charisma caster" class, it made sense for bard to be a Wizard subclass, but since I'm pretty sure Mystic is sticking around, it makes less sense to keep Bard in its old form. Some ideas I have for new Bard abilities:
As for skills, I think there are a few schools of thought on this: 3.5: bards are capable of being really good at Knowledge skills (class features) or CHA skills (spellcasting ability); DEX is regarded as their weapon/combat stat 4e: bards are good at CHA, INT, bad at DEX 5e: bards are best at CHA if spellcaster-y, or DEX if fight-y, but both are usually their top 2 skillsets/abilities I think the 4e interpretation lends itself more to Bards being "learned" at magic (and owing to the more DTAS-able design of the edition) whereas 3.5/5e are more grounded in "makes-sense" design, but also lends itself more to the fluff that the bard is just someone who is "gifted" magically, through music or song. Thoughts to ponder!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Mechanical Pillars and Skill Utilization One of the things that I have been puzzling over as of late in my own gaming, is this:
There are already a couple of distinct modes by which skills are used, in The Next Project; some skills can be used for Initiative and some can be used in combat, both with very defined mechanical results on a success. In trying to shoehorn Initiative skills into one of the existing "3 Pillars," I realized that keeping it separate was the thing I needed in order to bridge the gap from one other type of encounter and into combat. As touched on in this post, let's say you were to simplify Initiative into the existing skillsets; what you are doing (or trying to do) prior to the outbreak of hostilities, could be used to determine how you enter initiative. One of the things that needs to maybe be untangled, is which skills fit into which Pillars. Here's what I mean... Under the heading of (FORT/Athletics) alone, we have the following skills/abilities:
Climb: Obviously can be used for Exploration, when you need to get to something high up, but also for Combat, to gain High Ground Grapple: a pure Combat skill, used to lock down enemies. Here's the question: Should classes keep skills as groups, or should they be listed out individually? In our example, a class that has heavy bonuses to FORT/Athletics is going to play a certain way; specifically, they will tend to lean on the abilities they are best at, in as many situations as they can. I think that's a good thing, in that it can be made to be evocative of a class' playstyle that is intended by fluff, and then encouraged by the mechanics. The current text has skill usage broken down by the pillars they are used in (namely Combat and Initiative) but the Class writeups don't reflect this breakdown. I think in the next draft, this is something that will need to be remedied; skills will feature more prominently in the text, and the bonuses to individual skills should be spelled out more clearly for each class. tl;dr The skills themselves and the pillars in which skills are used in the game, should (in the text) be emphasized more than the Basic Abilities or Skillsets that they fall under.
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 06:26
|
|