|
Update So I'm going to be taking a 3-day weekend out of town from Oct. 16th-18th; to facilitate this, I'll be working the 6 days leading up to then. As such, I won't have a lot of time to work on TNP until the following week, at the earliest. Edit: I think for this next draft, I'm going to start with doing each class one by one, as I have done a fair bit recently. Moving archetypes around and seeing where things fit might be a fairly long process, but I think it's an important enough task to focus on. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 11, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Knowledge Skills The usefulness of knowledge skills has always been a bit nebulous. In The Next Project, I tried to shoehorn some tactical combat uses in for them, but by and large they are only used in Exploration mode; typically, this is to piece together clues of some sort. It's kind of odd, then, to also have an "Investigation" skill... I'm thinking I might borrow a page out of the playtest versions of "D&D NEXT", and have Knowledge skills or "Fields of Lore" be their own unique thing. What I mean is, if they are to have no combat utility, it makes sense not to give them the same weight as skills that do have combat utility, when determining class skills. So for example, apart from their combat skills, classes could have bonuses with:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Knowledge Skills That makes sense. It'd also go a long way towards making sure a class always has something that they can use during the exploratory/investigative part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Skill Jargon I'm leaning towards this setup:
+1d6 is called Proficient skills Expertise will be called Skill Expertise  I'm thinking that each class that has Expertise with certain skills will have it listed in their skills section, rather than elsewhere in the class. Examples might be: Skill Expertise "Bards have Expertise on all Knowledge checks" or "Rogues have Expertise on all Deception checks" or "While raging, Warriors have Expertise on Grapple and Intimidate checks" ... Classes, Class Dice, and Archetypes Further to this quote: P.d0t posted:I think for this next draft, I'm going to start with doing each class one by one, as I have done a fair bit recently. Moving archetypes around and seeing where things fit might be a fairly long process, but I think it's an important enough task to focus on.  discussion:
Scout: Either gonna disappear completely, or re-emerge as a Rogue archetype. There are some similarities with the Scoundrel, but the differences might be adequate for making another archetype. d10 Class: Currently, no plans to write a "new" d10 class. If i do, Leader is probably the most likely candidate. I think d10 should be used as a "stacking damage dice" class (along with d6) but I also think something that borrows from Zeal or Twin Strike could work, i.e. always/often rolling twice for Class Die usages. Warlock/Necromancer: this might become a d10 class; currently, Warlock as-written isn't really stacking a ton of d6 dice, so d10 might be a better fit. Necromancer already has a draft as a d10 class, so maybe the two archetypes would work as a ~spooky, dark magician~ kind of class, together. It would also work better w/r/t making the class have skill benefits that are consistent across archetypes, akin to how Ranger currently functions. Mage/Sorcerer: Not really sure what to add onto Mage; if Warlock and Sorcerer get separated, and Bard becomes an archetype somewhere else (or becomes a class), the lazy solution would seem to be putting Sorcerer here. At that point though, it'd probably turn out basically like what the Bard is, now. Alternately, if Bard is done as a d6 class, it might work to keep Sorcerer in that slot as an archetype. d4 Classes: I think where it makes sense to have d10 class mechanics be "rolling twice, a lot" the d4 classes probably work better with Expertise being their "thing." No one likes rolling d4s anyway, and the math on Advantage vs. Expertise on d4s is almost identical. Also, some kind of Swordmage archetype probably belongs either with Monk or Mage; if the d4 classes get merged, I think this archetype suddenly becomes more likely to make an appearance. Warlord: I think the Battle Master archetype has the same problem as its 5e cousin, in that it will always be better when played as an archer; would it make more sense to just have a straight-up Archer archetype for either Warlord or Warrior? Or go the other direction, and just limit their features to melee attacks? Battle Master overall seems sorta blah in comparison to Marshal, but what do other people think about it? Druid: I'm coming around to Generic Octopus' take on the class being "archetype-less." I do like the idea of a Shaman- or Sentinel-like archetype, though. I like the idea of keeping this as a d8 class, so there is some symmetry with the Ranger, although that might be flipped to d10, if i want the Warlock/Necromancer in the d8 slot even moreso than Druid. Ranger: If Druid is going to be done that way, and Scout is departing, that basically leaves ranger with Hunter and Beastmaster archetypes. I think the Beastmaster from the Summoner draft is probably a good place to at least playtest from, once it's been shoehorned in. As mentioned before, I like the idea of the Beastmaster's version of Twin Strike being one attack from the Ranger and the other from the pet; I also think the Aspects of Nature could help round out the Hunter and give it that "meaty" quality I want classes to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Beta 3 drafts of some classes are up Rogue (d6) [Scoundrel/Assassin/Scout archetypes] Ranger (d8) [Hunter/Beastmaster archetypes] Mystic (d10) [Necromancer/Warlock archetypes]
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Not a complete class yet -- by any means -- but I'm going to post the beginnings of the "Trickster" (working title) here, just to see how the concept is received.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Beta 3 drafts of some more classes are up Paladin (d10) [Priest/Blackguard archetypes] Warlord (d12) [Defender/Commander archetypes] Warrior (d12) [Barbarian/Fighter archetypes] Mostly just touch-ups for the Paladin, but a lot got added/moved around for the d12 classes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:[*]Barbarians: Nature and Anatomy This is both sensible enough and funny as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:This is both sensible enough and funny as hell. Yeah, the fluff of Diablo2 Barbarians (yes, Diablo2; I haven't kept up with videogames) is very naturey, even moreso than 4e. Like, they live in inhospitable hellholes and have to eat anything that isn't poison to survive -- and even then they just get used to poison because of the power of swole. poo poo like that. Also, something something Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan, it all makes sense now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Thanks to the anatomy bit I'm now picturing Barbarians pulling off Flex Mentallo style Muscle Magic through flexing their mighty muscles
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Of course they know anatomy, it's where they hock their potions and swords and platemail from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
The big thing with trying to separate out some of the Knowledge skills was stuff like this:P.d0t posted:So you know how every fightymans class in 4e gets Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate as class skills (but good luck being good at all of them, because they each use a different ability score)? In TNP, those skills all fall under (FORT), just different skillsets, so if your class gets a bonus to that ability, you're good at all those skills. So right now, Medicine/First Aid/Anatomy falls under FORT/Knowledge; it might not actually make sense for a Barbarian to know how to perform brain surgery, but he's probably seen enough battles, that he can tell if a skeleton is human or orc or whatever. Figuring out how the whole skill/knowledge thing is gonna shake out is still a work in progress. Like, if you get a couple Knowledge skills that your class gives you some bonus to (and that bonus still hasn't been hashed out, mind you) then how are the other Knowledge skills adjudicated? Are they still in the same spots on the skill lists that they have always been? If they are, you can easily tell what sort of bonuses you would have, but then it would kind of defeat the point of singling out Knowledge skills in the first place. Basically, I think the Ability/Skillset setup for skills is kind of dissolving at this point, and classes will probably end up with Class Skill lists in the typical D&D fashion; if anything they'll be broken down into "Pillars" for ease of use, but the status quo is probably gonna be gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Completing Classes So, drawing from this post, it looks like the 2 slates of classes will look like this: Core:
Rogue (d6) Ranger (d8) Paladin (d10) Warrior (d12) "Expansion"
"Trickster" (d6) Druid (d8) Mystic (d10) Warlord (d12) The classes that need to be finished up are:
Are there any suggestions/requests for Iconic Abilities or Archetypes that people would like to see out of these classes?Some ideas:
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Not a complete class yet -- by any means -- but I'm going to post the beginnings of the "Trickster" (working title) here, just to see how the concept is received. It's a better way of handling a "chaos mage" character, for sure. Rolling for things once at the start of the encounter keeps it from being the groan-inducing class that the table has to wait on every time their turn comes up. I do think you'd want to either give it its own subset of powers, or summarize/reprint the stuff it's borrowing so the player wouldn't have to track it down (I get it's just a mock-up for an idea now, just making a note for if you go back to it). P.d0t posted:Skill Jargon Something I know people would get tripped up on is forgetting the difference between "Trained" and "Proficient" and which bonus is associated with which. I don't really have a solution for that but, yea. Maybe note on each sheet something like "Trained (+1d10): Skill X, Skill Y"? Probably looks kinda...I dunno, ugly to have that reminder everywhere. Idk, it's not really a mechanical/systemic problem. P.d0t posted:Rogue (d6) [Scoundrel/Assassin/Scout archetypes] Rogue: Still looks as solid as before, but is it intentional that the Scout doesn't have a special bonus/effect with Sneak Attack? Ranger: Looks really good. Mystic: E-blast looks really strong; I like it but it might be easy to nuke something with that trade-off as is. Like hypothetically, if you rolled two 10s, could that be 10 attacks with +10 damage? Even if each enemy is meant to take the extra damage once, that's a lot of attacks. P.d0t posted:Paladin (d10) [Priest/Blackguard archetypes] Warlord: Cool beans. Definitely feels more like a leader/party oriented fighter guy in contrast to the Warrior. Warrior: Archery and GWF look like huge accuracy increases. Idk if that's a problem or not. Aside from that the archetypes look good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Did some touch-ups on the Shapeshifter/Druid, it's not a whole lot different but I figured it'd be easier to mess with if updated. General breakdown: With the Trained/Proficient skills split, I figured it'd be fine to have the forms grant different Proficient skills while the druid itself is Trained in knowledge-y stuff. Rogue remains king of skill versatility and Ranger is still better at its skills, so I don't imagine the problem of switching forms to access certain skills would be as severe. Didn't include a Skill Expertise because it can fly, although that could be codified in a Skill Expertise note. Bear got changed the most; when you switch to it, you draw some enemies to you (like 4e's Come And Get It), which frees up your Move to use bear's passive benefit. Changed the heal to be guaranteed rather than dependent on a hit; with the change to Defense being a pure d20 roll vs DC 10, your other forms are probably getting hit often enough that a reliable heal for yourself would be helpful, plus it makes you one less person the healer/leader has to worry about. Bear itself isn't likely to get hit if it's using its Move to Defend though, so either the Heal or the Move -> Defend might have to go, but I get the feeling there's enough design space for team monster that they might be mitigated or maybe even necessary in tough fights? Anyway, Guardian's Wrath is there to hold aggro and also potentially set up allies who want to force surrender on someone. I imagine a team of Bear druids/warriors roaring & screaming at things til they give up. Cat didn't change much, Advantage on damage rolls seemed like more incentive to stay in the form. Eagle is the same. Just to reiterate for anyone else reading, the goal was to make a class that is role-versatile while not eclipsing specialists or being eclipsed by them. It's supposed to reward frequent shifting of forms with strong temporary benefits, the idea being that switching into a form briefly puts you on par with a specialist (i.e. a druid who just switched to Cat should deal damage comparable to a Rogue/Warrior). But, if on the next turn you still need to be in that role, the form should have the ability to stick around and still contribute, just at a level less effective than a specialist (so a druid who's been a Cat for two rounds should still be dealing good damage, but less damage than a Rogue/Warrior). I outlined Bear above, so I'll just say it's supposed to be tanky with some control. Cat is meant to have good single-target damage at the cost of survivability; it's only 'safe' if it succeeds at hiding, and to stay safe it'd have to not attack. Therefore if/when it gets in danger it has to pivot to either Eagle to disengage or Bear to heal & protect itself. Eagle acts as a support for party damage, and provides the druid with maneuverability and a pivot for Bear/Cat (Bear->Cat is less than ideal since Bear is probably engaged, meaning Cat can't hide). Mechanically it's probably the least interesting to remain in. Mostly I like how it interacts with the other forms. Plus it can fly, and flying is cool enough by itself to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Something I know people would get tripped up on is forgetting the difference between "Trained" and "Proficient" and which bonus is associated with which. I don't really have a solution for that but, yea. Maybe note on each sheet something like "Trained (+1d10): Skill X, Skill Y"? Probably looks kinda...I dunno, ugly to have that reminder everywhere. Idk, it's not really a mechanical/systemic problem. I think I'd want to break those long list down into pillars, so players (especially newbies) have an idea of when and how to use stuff. On the other hand, the list I started on the Beta 3 doc is kinda... unwieldy.. Generic Octopus posted:Rogue: Still looks as solid as before, but is it intentional that the Scout doesn't have a special bonus/effect with Sneak Attack? Eldritch Blast: I kinda wanted to move Necro/Warlock away from "roll Class Die; use that number for class feature" to using Trade-offs for that instead. You raise a good point, though; I'll have to think on it. Generic Octopus posted:Warlord: Cool beans. Definitely feels more like a leader/party oriented fighter guy in contrast to the Warrior. GWF: Admittedly, this one's a bit cobbled together. What I wanna do with it is basically, something that ups your minimum damage, and increases crit chance; I'm sure there's a better way to do it, I'll have to ponder some more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Bard concept P.d0t posted:Knowledge Skills As far as The Next Project goes, Performance has always been basically a "ribbon" ability, and I think Knowledge is heading the same direction. For Bards, I'm thinking a good option might be, "You are Trained in all Knowledge skills and Proficient in all Performance skills, or vice-versa." Generic Octopus posted:Did some touch-ups on the Shapeshifter/Druid
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Beta 3 draft of another class is up Trickster (d6) [Bard/Skald/Sorcerer archetypes] Bard = Lore Skald = Valor A new link, much more fleshed-out combat utility; skill selection is still TBD. I think Sorcerer is a little sparse (maybe something akin to Sorcery points is in order?) and I also need to finish the new Mage, so I may cannibalize ideas from here for that. Also, if anyone has ideas for better names for the class/archetypes/abilties, I'm happy to take suggestions 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Beta 3 draft of another class is up Monk (d4) [Martial Artist/Ki Master archetypes] The class has never been tested, so this is mostly some cosmetic changes, formalization of the suggestions/ideas that came up with the first draft, bringing the defensive abilities in line with the changes to Defense, and changing some "Advantage with class die" stuff to Expertise, as was expressed here, regarding d4 classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Started doing some preliminary work/updating on the DM advice/Monster-building section of the game. Any ideas or feedback are appreciated. Organization With that in mind, I'm thinking once I have the class updates complete, I'll want to split the game into 3 main documents:
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
New Skill Breakdown Since Initiative is effectively going to be "the transition from Exploration or Social encounters into Combat," there probably won't be distinct Initiative skills, going forward. When this transition happens, the last check you make will determine what you are doing at the start of combat, as well as your initiative order. Based on a chart resembling this one, I came up with some lists of class skills, broken down by "pillar." Basically, the idea was to divvy up the skills by class, in a flavourful way, but still making sure there was some utility being spread around. How this will translate into bonuses on skills is still in the process of being ironed out. Also, the "Ribbon" skills will probably just be streamlined to just "pick 2 basic abilities for Knowledge skills, and 1 Performance skill." The Combat skills are also a short list, so it might be worthwhile to free up selection there, too..  Is this making things too granular and clunky? Was the old way easier/better?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Skills: apprentice/journeyman/master. Boom, solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Skill Math Sometimes I like to design by tummyfeels, and then do math after, but sometimes just doing the math first paints the roadmap for how to figure this stuff out. For example: DC10 1d20+1d6 succeeds 72.5% of the time 1d20+1d10 succeeds 82% of the time 1d20+1d6+1d10 succeeds 93.08% of the time DC15 1d20+1d6 succeeds 47.5% of the time 1d20+1d10 succeeds 57.5% of the time 1d20+1d6+1d10 succeeds 74.67%% of the time If we want a slight boost to the odds, we can slap Expertise on the rolls, which gives these results: DC10 1d20+1d6 succeeds 81.67% of the time 1d20+1d10 succeeds 89.5% of the time 1d20+1d6+1d10 succeeds 98.33% of the time DC15 1d20+1d6 succeeds 56.67% of the time 1d20+1d10 succeeds 67% of the time 1d20+1d6+1d10 succeeds 86.58%% of the time So it looks like the DC10 model is probably where we want things to be, but stacking both 1d6 and 1d10 will probably not end up happening at all. What we'll see are tiers something like this, using DC10:
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Status Update So after sitting on my rear end in front of the computer most of the day on Friday working on this stuff, I decided to spend Sunday going outdoors and visiting family and such. Hopefully stuff will be completely caught up in the next week or two. Specifically:
Future Plans
Knowledge Skills I'm thinking the rule of thumb will be "Each character chooses 2 Basic Abilities from FORT, INT, WIS, and CHA; you are Trained in the Knowledge skills from one, and Proficient in the Knowledge skills from the other." I will probably include suggested/"quick start" knowledge skills by class or class die. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Skills by Class & Pillar Just wanted to pop in a post a quick re-format of this info; this can/will basically be used as the Class headers for the finalized Beta 3 versions of each class, with some minor tweaking around the edges. The associated skill categorization breakdowns are still available here. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Long Form As has been mentioned before, the qualification of skills into a Basic Ability and Skillset is probably going away; this allows me to mix-and-match individual skills with each class. Now, that said, as a tool for weighing/balancing the skill utility of classes (which may not last into actual "play materials") I've split the skills into pillars. As mentioned, knowledge skills and performance skills will be left off of these lists, since they tend to be more flavourful than mechanical. Here's an early list of skills that will/should be included; controversial stuff marked with a Athletics
Combat, this can be used to gain High Ground Exploration, it would function similarly Balance Exploration, but could conceivably be used in a trap/skill challenge to complicate combat Run/Swim Exploration, covering distances quickly Break Objects Exploration, bend bars/lift gates kind of thing Grapple Combat, restraining enemies Tumble Combat, disengaging Influence-ish
Combat, making enemies surrender Social, bullying people Bluff/Disguise Social, lying to people/impersonating someone else Animal Handling Exploration/Social?? depends if you think influencing animals is closer to "interacting with the environment" or "interacting with people" Suggestions?Persuasion Social, getting people on your side/making them see things your way Deception
Social, you're making false documents with the intent of swaying people in their interaction with youStealth Combat, to become hidden Social, you're trying to mitigate risk of being detected; if there are no people to interact with in that manner, it's moot. (hence, NOT exploration)Thievery/Sleight of Hand Social, current text mentions taking or planting objects without being detected; you are either interacting with a person or trying to avoid their attention (getting the actual macguffin I guess could qualify as Exploration, but with no danger of getting caught, it's less of A Thing..)Disable Device Exploration, a trap or an alarm may trigger a Social (or Combat) encounter but disabling one in/of itself is not a Social encounter Detection
Exploration, standard "interacting with objects" type-stuff Social, you could frisk someone I guess..?Investigation Exploration, solving riddles and puzzles and piecing together clues PerceptionCombat, to counter Stealth Social, to counter Thievery/Sleight of Hand Exploration, to.. notice all kinds of poo poo! Insight Social, to evaluate basically any Influence from NPCs ... As usual, are there any thoughts/comments/ideas/questions about this stuff? Anything missing? Anything that could/should be renamed or otherwise revised?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
P.d0t, lemme know if/when you feel like you've hit a stable version of this, I'd like to do a oneshot of it sometime so you can get some in-play feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:P.d0t, lemme know if/when you feel like you've hit a stable version of this, I'd like to do a oneshot of it sometime so you can get some in-play feedback. Well, let's look at some of the to-do lists: P.d0t posted:
There's also this more-recent list: P.d0t posted:Hopefully stuff will be completely caught up in the next week or two. Specifically: The core mechanical stuff is mostly figured out, it's just a matter of adding "class perks" (i.e. X class can do Y skill as a Minor Action, for example) The main change is that rather than having a bunch of little clusters of engaged parties, once you're adjacent/engaged with a thing, you're clustered with everything else they're adjacent/engaged with. This is outlined somewhere in the Beta 3 text I posted earlier, along with the basic rules for Minor actions. Also, needs testing as do any of the new classes/class mechanics.If you're ok with handling the monster math/DM adjudication side of things on your own, and not having Mage or Druid available, you can pretty much run as-is, maybe just let everyone pick their own skills, 'til I have the Class lists ironed out? Basically, skills you wanna be good at should either be "+1d10" or "+1d6 and Expertise." Otherwise, let me know which stuff you need finished up first, and I'll prioritize that work. I'm a little busy until about the middle of next week, but I can chip away at things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
The classes I can just use whatever's already done, but since you asked I'd rather if the skills were more ironed out first. And, by gosh, please please please don't let this put any pressure on you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The classes I can just use whatever's already done, but since you asked I'd rather if the skills were more ironed out first. Cool. I had some time to work on skills for a few of the classes, this morning. Here are some notes/highlights:
- Knowledge + Performance skills are going to be referred to as "Background Skills" but they still also break down into Knowledge and Performance - Text will be using the Skillsets and Basic Abilities for skill groupings - Basic Ability profs/training will be applied to Background skills and "Adventuring" skills, separately; ex. Prof with INT Background skills will not give Prof in Investigation Is the "defined results for successes on each specific skill" a priority for you to have, or are you alright leaving that Up To The DM™?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
New skill implementation is up! I haven't finished Mage or Druid, so just ignore that stuff for now  Feel free to critique, I'll make changes if anything is screwy. The thing with Trained being +1d10 and Proficient being +1d6, and not trying to stack both together... well, there was some shoehorning I had to do 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
On a related topic, the Shapeshifting Druid presents some challenges, regarding its skill list. As currently constituted, you get some skills depending on what form you're in, and very few when out of your form. This hits at the problem of the Druid always being able to be good at whatever's necessary -- out of combat -- that I want to avoid. I might have to put in a couple clauses, restricting the shapeshifting a bit, along the lines of:
It's clunky, so suggestions would be welcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Rogue (d6) [Scoundrel/Assassin/Scout archetypes] P.d0t posted:Paladin (d10) [Priest/Blackguard archetypes] P.d0t posted:Trickster (d6) [Bard/Skald/Sorcerer archetypes] P.d0t posted:Monk (d4) [Martial Artist/Ki Master archetypes] All the Beta 3 class drafts linked above have been updated, to reflect the new skill distributions; I also added in a page break between the background/skill section and the combat stuff, for ease of use. So far all the classes fit onto 2 pages this way, so it's a lot more usable/readable, particularly if you print them off. Going to add the Beta 3 stuff to the OP.  Edit: Generic Octopus posted:Mystic: E-blast looks really strong; I like it but it might be easy to nuke something with that trade-off as is. Like hypothetically, if you rolled two 10s, could that be 10 attacks with +10 damage? Even if each enemy is meant to take the extra damage once, that's a lot of attacks. Archery and Eldritch Blast have been revised to give some more reasonable results. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Development on the Beta 3 draft of the Mage has begun, in earnest. Details are currently under lock-and-key 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Beta 3 draft of another class is up Mage (d4) [Wizard/Swordmage  archetypes]This class was long overdue for an overhaul, and I think this iteration finally does some of the neat things I always wanted the class to have, but previously had implemented very poorly in the name of I don't have a lot of experience with the archetypes involved, so comment/suggest on the doc (or post here) to your heart's content; I really wanna convey the feel people expect, so the help is much apprecatied. e: Trickster has been updated, accordingly P.d0t fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
The Mechanics of Starting a Fight I quickly drew up this document, giving a rough outline of how I envision initiative working, going forward. It's still very loosey-goosey and relies a bit on improv and adjudication, but I think it conveys the intent of how I want to see Exploration or Social encounters transitioning into Combat. I definitely think some of it could be streamlined and/or more finely codified, so any suggestions for more specific benefits to the individual skills involved are welcome. Or, if there's stuff that could just be lopped off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Druidcraft Research has begun into the Shaman archetype The 4th Edition PHB2 spells out 2 pretty straight-forward builds (Bear and Panther) that I think line up pretty well with the existing Druid design. I've started to do some initial design work, but the challenge is in making both the pet and the PC useful; it's easy to fall into the trap of making it all about the pet. This is also apparently the complaint about the Essentials Sentinel class, so I am going to cautiously try and mine ideas from there. Any requests for Iconic Abilities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The Mechanics of Starting a Fight Using these new initiative rules as a starting point, I came up with some new ideas for using skills in combat. Not all have been fleshed out (edit: cleaned up a bit. Also added some notes to the Initiative doc.) More edit: Housekeeping Note The Beta 3 draft of the rules has been updated a bit; the sections mentioned above, as well as Class info have been added in the form of links within the document, and old text on those items has been removed. This method makes it easier for me to continue doing little edits here and there, until things get finalized -- then I can worry about merging it all together. Also, "Stabilize" has been taken out. It was essentially a Knowledge check used in Combat, and that doesn't jive with the direction the designs have gone in. That said, I've basically added in a version of it, as a Class Feature for Paladins, since I think it fits there without being weird. Also also, put in suggestions for renaming some of the Mage abilities.  Also also also, updated the rules for grappling, a bit. Grapple grapple grapple. 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Collected a few thoughts on the game. I've only had a rough look at the rules, so this analysis could be full of misconceptions. Class Die and HP This is a weird mechanic. It’s also not very intuitive and it’s a difficult balance point. Warriors have three times the hp and three times the class die, so their class die needs to be only a third as useful as the Mage’s, twice as good as the Rogue’s. Changing the dials of a core mechanic and hp so drastically between the classes makes turning the other dials to balance it out that much harder. Look at 5e. Level 1 wizard and fighter with 14 con have 8 and 12 hp respectively. A 50% difference. Mage and Warrior? 300%. That creates a vast imbalance that has to be corrected, and needing to correct it in such broad strokes means it’s real easy to gently caress up. Dice Mechanics “Doubles are a super good thing” should be a universal thing, and should be called out to mention all the instances it applies. The tradeoff mechanic is interesting and has fun math to it, though it seems a bit cumbersome in actual play. “I want to power attack. I’ve got advantage, so I’ll roll 2d20, drop low, then roll 2d12, take the low as an attack penalty, then apply the high as my damage bonus. Two weapon fighter, so gonna do it again.” I’d at least have a sidebar to convert the dice to static values you can choose before the roll. A d12 converts to a -4/+8 bonus, for instance. Expertise is a weird mechanic. It essentially works out to a +1 bonus or less regardless of the situation. Average damage of d4+1? 3.5. Average damage of d4w/expertise? 3.25 Skills Dividing it up into a grid like that is nice, except that there’s no benefit to getting access to a skill twice. The Rogue for instance can become proficient with all CHA and Deception skills, but if he is, gains no advantage to Bluff or Disguise for doing so. Skills are very broad strokes. . The Rogue has just two kinds of skillchecks, no bonus and amazing. Everyone else has up to four. Four levels of granularity is pretty small and it pushes against any advancement, a point I’ll elaborate on later. Combat Initiative is overly complex for what it is. As a rule of thumb I don’t like basic rules that need to be referenced constantly, especially for not so savvy players. Reliable is an odd bug. A hit deals an average of 6.5 damage. A miss does an average of 5.5 damage. It’s certainly reliable, but making every attack essentially a big hit lessens the impact of each swing. If you can’t miss, then hitting loses a lot of its satisfaction. I could be interpreting this rule wrong though. Engaging, Disengaging, and Provoking I like these rules. The only issue I have is with monsters only doing 1 damage to punish, but that’s more of a case of the encounter creation rules being (presumably) largely unwritten at this point. Healing is swingy as gently caress. With again how drastic the differences in hit points are, this can be an issue. Skills in Combat Basically a bunch of extra powers that every PC needs to learn, delivered in very gamist language. Run to Engage all enemies in an encounter. Climb to gain the high ground, regardless of the terrain. Break Objects stands out because it has a powerful effect with zero opportunity cost, so why wouldn’t every character use it every round? Encounter Guidelines The assumptions here are crazy because it’s assumed that each creature will always do only 1 damage. The rules need guidelines for creating actual encounters and monsters, and while this table will technically work in the abstract, it seems like it’d be a challenge to make it work in play. Resource Management There is only one resource in TNP: Actions and HP. Some classes like the Enchanter have other resources to manage, like Arcane Aura buffs, but generally speaking, the decisions to make in combat are “What’s the most efficient action” and “what are the most efficient trade offs to make”? Those questions can be either numbingly easy or frustratingly hard based on the situation and class, but they strongly lean towards the difficult and seem liable to cause decision fatigue, requiring players to invest a lot of thought for a few points of gain, with the rest left at the mercy of the RNG. The game needs more resources. If a character has a most optimal action for attacking a single target and one for attacking a group, then they’re just going to cycle between those two options over and over and over. Since characters can’t advance into new options, this will get boring really fast. Being able to choose to expend extra effort to gain extra oomph is an easy and intuitive and fun decision to make. Popping a Daily in 4e is cool and fun. It breaks the rules a little, shines a spotlight on the character and on that moment. It lets them perform beyond their normal scope and it gives them the narrative control over its execution, not leaving it to the dice. Without that, you’re left with pseudo-4e characters that are running on fumes, relying on a handful of at-wills and passive feats. Class Design There are a few things to cover here. First, the variance. Classes already have far more variance than most versions of DnD when it comes to hp and class die. Each has a handful of powers, about equivilant of a first level 4e character or a 4th level 5e character. Each has training in some skills. Mixing all of that together to create something balanced is going to be a headache and require a lot of testing in a lot of scenarios, not something you can easily math out. Bigger issue than that I feel is character creation and advancement. When a character creates a Fighter, they have two choices. Whether to be proficient in AGIL or Detection, and whether to be trained in Athletics or Influence. That’s it. There’s a total of 4 combinations of Fighter that you can make, meaning that you don’t so much create a character within a class as you pick a character from a roster. Dungeon World has more customization options. The 5e Champion has more options. From level 1! A plethora of more options. The “why” of it ties back to the original problem. The massive variance in class parameters makes balancing the classes a huge pain in the rear end. Trying to balance every class when each has various options that might synergize with each other, or synergize with another class? Impossible. This unstable framework is the same reason that advancement within the game is going to be a huge mess. Creating a “level 2” runs into the problem of new options pushing and pulling at every other mechanic and makes every problem worse, and the framework of “10 or better and you win” cuts against the idea of growing competency and challenges as well. Not only is every fighter the same, but they’re all the same at every point. None weaker or stronger. My advice is to make this framework more stable. Standardize things. Break everything down into pieces. Find the baselines you want for the game, then figure out how you can bend them. Bring the hp closer together. Look carefully at how many abilities you want each character to have. Look at how much decision fatigue there will be in combat, how intuitive it will be, and how much fun things are. How a game feels in play is hugely important, in spite of how much it’s derided in the 5e thread. Simplify the complexity. This isn’t a very complicated game--the wizard comes out to just 575 words--but it’s very complex compared to most other RPGs. Give players choices, and make them feel meaningful. If you want to focus the game on having static characters--characters you pick in a MOBA like heroes of the storm vs classes you choose in an mmo like World of Warcraft--then be up front about that and embrace it. Don’t have a Warrior with Fighter and Barbarian subclasses. Have the two warriors, Bosley and Grunk, with their own quirks and character. If not that, then look at how the rules can be made to let people convert their characters onto the sheet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
I probably should have mentioned, here's a slightly better/more up-to-date draft for the encounter-building stuff. I'll add this to the OP. Going to mull over this stuff when I have more free time; probably later today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:54
|
|