|
One more question, this time about Twin Strike. It says that when using Twin Strike I make an attack with Advantage on both the attack and damage rolls, and then I use that roll to make two attacks. I'm a bit unsure as to what the intent is here, so I'll use an example. Supposing my hunter Ranger makes a Twin Strike, rolling a 5 and a 17 for the attack and a 4 and a 6 for the damage. Here are my two readings of how it works:
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Ratpick posted:One more question, this time about Twin Strike. It says that when using Twin Strike I make an attack with Advantage on both the attack and damage rolls, and then I use that roll to make two attacks. I'm a bit unsure as to what the intent is here, so I'll use an example. Supposing my hunter Ranger makes a Twin Strike, rolling a 5 and a 17 for the attack and a 4 and a 6 for the damage. Here are my two readings of how it works: It's the bolded one. The intent is that instead of rolling 2 attacks with advantage, you roll it once but use the result twice; the attacks are literally (identical) twin strikes! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Alright, here goes:quote:Tara Pembroke
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
I'll throw in a rogue for the possible playtest! I like that it can hypothetically spend an entire combat without ever even being a target, assuming they roll well.quote:Kanira
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Alright, well it looks like we have 2 player for now. Do you guys wanna:
Let me know ASAP; if any other players come along, we'll work them in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Alright, well it looks like we have 2 player for now. I just saw a link to this posted in the 5e thread and I'd be up for joining a playtest too. If you guys would like a third I'd like to play a Wizard. I love the design of the Magic Missile trade-off ability, it's such a succinct way of giving Wizards access to a high-damage nuke without letting them trivialize encounters. And I'm a little unclear about the interaction between Magic Missile and Enchantment. As I understand it, you can use the Iconic Magic Missile attack to attack all enemies engaged with one ally, or one engaged enemy per ally, up to the result of your enchantment roll. Is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Hmmm, seeing as we might get a Wizard in the party and the Rogue really needs allies to be engaged with their enemies to have their sneak attack fire off, I'm considering changing my Ranger from a Hunter to a Scout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Hmmm, seeing as we might get a Wizard in the party and the Rogue really needs allies to be engaged with their enemies to have their sneak attack fire off, I'm considering changing my Ranger from a Hunter to a Scout. Oh, I hadn't thought of that. Since I'm the newest I'm happy to change to another class instead. Which Ranger archetype would you prefer to play as?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:And I'm a little unclear about the interaction between Magic Missile and Enchantment. As I understand it, you can use the Iconic Magic Missile attack to attack all enemies engaged with one ally, or one engaged enemy per ally, up to the result of your enchantment roll. Is that correct? Basically you choose one of the following options when attacking with Magic Missile:
The Enchanment die interaction is there to give a little more flexibility in your targetting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Hmmm, seeing as we might get a Wizard in the party and the Rogue really needs allies to be engaged with their enemies to have their sneak attack fire off, I'm considering changing my Ranger from a Hunter to a Scout. Well, this particular Rogue is an Assassin, so they have this: quote:(Assassin) Damage: When you successfully attack an Enemy that is not Engaged with you or any of your allies, you deal an additional 1d20 of damage. So if you all want to play as sissy-ninnies who run around kiting enemies all day, it could work alright
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
As a "rules note" I'm considering changing the language, such that "Disengage from 1 enemy" has it's own word (possibly "Shift") and "Disengage from all enemies" has another. Any preferences/suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Oh, I hadn't thought of that. Since I'm the newest I'm happy to change to another class instead. Which Ranger archetype would you prefer to play as? I've currently got the Hunter archetype which is good for ranged combat, but I'm more than happy to change the archetype to make a more flexible group. Then again, there's this: P.d0t posted:Well, this particular Rogue is an Assassin, so they have this: So I'm probably worrying too much about it.  Go ahead and make a Wizard if that class feels right to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Well, this particular Rogue is an Assassin, so they have this: Sissy-ninny?! Who are you calling a sissy-ninny?! quote:Snikt Magic Missile talk: it might get wordy for one description, but it might be a good idea to lump all three "modes" of Iconic magic missile into one description. That way you can see all of its utility in one place. Disengage talk: maybe use "shift" for one enemy and "retreat" for multiple enemies? I think it reads fine as is, even if it gets a little wordy sometimes. Edit: Looking over the engagement rules, it looks like enemies moving away from players without disengaging first has the potential to slow things down a little over PbP. It seems like the intent is for players to roll all the dice, but needing to wait for players to roll their damage dice whenever the DM moves an NPC seems like it would take a while. Maybe specifically in a PbP setting the DM could roll just those dice? Tenebrous Tourist fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Magic Missile talk: it might get wordy for one description, but it might be a good idea to lump all three "modes" of Iconic magic missile into one description. That way you can see all of its utility in one place. Jimmeeee posted:Edit: Looking over the engagement rules, it looks like enemies moving away from players without disengaging first has the potential to slow things down a little over PbP. It seems like the intent is for players to roll all the dice, but needing to wait for players to roll their damage dice whenever the DM moves an NPC seems like it would take a while. Maybe specifically in a PbP setting the DM could roll just those dice? The idea with "players always roll" is so that at the table, the DM doesn't always have a ton of poo poo to roll, on top of having to move multiple monsters around and make them attack; you just point a badguy at the PC and be like "YOU! Roll Defense." In PbP it's not a big deal to have the DM roll for a player as-needed, when we're posting like once-twice a day or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
 Game thread is here!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
I'm just in the process of doing some math, and I was wondering how people would feel about this: Magic Missile (basic attack): Ranged attack, with advantage. <10 = 1d4 damage, 10-14 = 2d4 damage, 15-19 = 1d4+1d20 damage, 20+ (crit) = 1d4+1d20+24 damage Basically, this should be what happens anyway, if you're applying the Trade-off. But it also leaves it completely up to the roll of the dice, rather than letting the player make a calculated risk for more damage. Thoughts? Edit: ~Math~ Current rules: pre:Miss Damage / chance of occuring 1 0.25% 2 0.75% 3 1.25% 4 1.75% 5 2.25% 6 2.75% 7 3.25% 8 3.75% 9 4.25% pre:Hit Damage, doing a 1d4 trade-off and rolling at least a 14 to attack 4 1.5337% 5 4.5962% 6 13.7837% 7 13.7837% 8 15.3125% P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
* Trying to make a Paladin-Knight: Am I supposed to pick between Holy Aura, Zeal and Lay-on-Hands, or do I gain all three? * The Knight option for Engagement simply means that the enemy becomes (re)Engaged with me at the end of its turn, but it's not-Engaged for the period between using the Disengage action and the end of its turn when Engagement kicks in. Correct? * Defense: what do you mean by "an ally who does not have their own Holy Aura"? Is that just a way to say anyone that isn't a Paladin? * Holy Aura's Basic Attack completely replaces Basic Attack, except if I make a Basic Attack against a not-Engaged enemy, I do not get Advantage, such as the first attack of the combat. Correct? * Zeal: when you say I gain Expertise with this ability, you mean Expertise with the d20 attack roll, because I always have Expertise on d10 damage rolls. Correct? * Zeal's Special: I roll 2d10. The lower result is the Trade-off Penalty and the higher result is the Trade-off Bonus. If both d10s read the same number, then there is no Trade-off Penalty and the Trade-off Bonus is 10. If the Trade-off Penalty is equal to my current HP, then there is (also) no Trade-off Penalty. I then lose HP equal to the Trade-off Penalty, but any roll, including damage rolls and any roll an ally makes, will receive the Trade-off Bonus. Correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* Trying to make a Paladin-Knight: Am I supposed to pick between Holy Aura, Zeal and Lay-on-Hands, or do I gain all three? gradenko_2000 posted:* The Knight option for Engagement simply means that the enemy becomes (re)Engaged with me at the end of its turn, but it's not-Engaged for the period between using the Disengage action and the end of its turn when Engagement kicks in. Correct? gradenko_2000 posted:* Defense: what do you mean by "an ally who does not have their own Holy Aura"? Is that just a way to say anyone that isn't a Paladin? gradenko_2000 posted:* Holy Aura's Basic Attack completely replaces Basic Attack, except if I make a Basic Attack against a not-Engaged enemy, I do not get Advantage, such as the first attack of the combat. Correct? gradenko_2000 posted:* Zeal: when you say I gain Expertise with this ability, you mean Expertise with the d20 attack roll, because I always have Expertise on d10 damage rolls. Correct? gradenko_2000 posted:* Zeal's Special: I roll 2d10. The lower result is the Trade-off Penalty and the higher result is the Trade-off Bonus. Almost, the rule says "If either roll is equal to your current HP, ignore the penalty." So, if the Trade-off Penalty or the Trade-off Bonus equals your current HP, you do not lose HP when you use this ability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Also, if you wanna join the playtest, 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Yeah, thanks for the response. I'm ... thinking about it. Right now I'm just trying to digest the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
 #TheNextProject on synIRC 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
A few class-related things I noticed over the weekend (one I mentioned in the playtest, one new): 1. The Ranger's Proficient Skill lets him add a d8 to another player's skill check as long as the Ranger has it as a class skill. This makes it so the Ranger is usually better helping someone else with a roll they're proficient in rather than rolling themselves. This encourages teamwork, but it also might make the Ranger take a back seat on things that are typically Ranger territory. Specifically, if there is a Wizard in the party the Ranger should always let them roll for Nature checks and if there is a Warrior with WIS as a class skill in the party the Ranger should always let them roll for Animal Handling and Perception checks. Animal Handling, Nature, and Perception are Ranger-y skill checks, so it doesn't feel right that they be overshadowed by other party members when it comes to those checks. What if the Ranger's ability read something like "Whenever you or another party member uses a skill from your class list, you can roll your class die and add the result to it"? That would encourage Rangers to take point on those rolls while still giving a bonus if someone else attempts them instead. If that's too strong, you could make it so it only works on skill checks that are at the intersection between an Attribute and a skillset, which would cut it down to just AGIL (Athletics) skills and WIS (Detection). 2. The Bard's Enchantment ability allows them to roll a d4 with expertise and either replace any roll with the result, or add it to a d20. Now, combined with the Magic Missile Trade-off ability a bard can use d20's, then replace the penalty d20 with the d4's result. That's awesome! It looks like it's integral to making sure the Bard keeps up with the Wizard in terms of DPR. The problem I see is that the Bard's "thing" here is mega-high single target damage without much risk of missing, when a Bard's "thing" should also be about buffing their teammates or debuffing enemies. Bards can still do either of these things if they choose, but the Magic Missile Trade-off is (as far as I can tell) likely to deal more damage than most alternatives, which discourages the Bard from using their d4 result on anyone but themselves most of the time. A potential change for the Bard's ability (which may be wildly imbalanced!): "At the start of each of your turns, roll your Class Die with Expertise. Before your next turn, you can use this result in place of any one other die roll, or add it to a number of other players' d20 rolls equal to the result." So you could use the result to seriously buff your own damage, or use it to slightly boost your teammates' abilities for the round. How does that sound? Does that swing things too much the other way, so it's almost always better to buff your teammates instead of yourself? Sorry if this is all incredibly  , I'm just trying to brainstorm how to help each class keep its own distinctive feel without impacting the math too much.
Tenebrous Tourist fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
One thing I keep struggling to understand with this system is the skills. It might honestly be me just being dumb as a box of rocks, so don't take that as criticism of any sort just yet, but let me see if I can wrap my head around it: As a Knight-Paladin: FORT is listed as a class Basic Ability Influence and Detection are listed as class Skillsets 1. If the GM calls for a Swim check, I have Advantage on the roll, because Swim is under FORT, and FORT is a class Basic Ability for me 2. If the GM calls a generic FORT check, such as an act of pushing a boulder aside, since it is a raw application of FORT with no specific applicable skill, I still have Advantage on the roll, because FORT is a class Basic Ability for me 3. If the GM calls for a Bluff check, I have Advantage on the roll, because Bluff is under Influence, and Influence is a class Basic Ability for me 4. If the GM calls for a generic Influence check, say in the case of maneuvering through the proper decorum at a royal ball, since there is no specific applicable skill, I still have Advantage on the roll, because Influence is a class Skillset for me. 5. If the GM calls for an Intimidate check, then not only do I have Advantage on the roll, I ALSO have Proficiency, which means my results are also generally better subject to the GM's interpretation 6. In all other cases, I do not have any such bonus and so will just roll a flat single d20, which gives me a 60% chance of failing/hitting a setback In the case of initiative actions 1. I have Advantage on charging into battle, via the FORT Basic Ability 2. I have Advantage on keeping a lookout for ambushes, via the Detection Skillset 3. I just roll a straight 1d20 when trying to take cover, or when trying to recall tactics against certain enemies In the case of using skills in combat, I have Advantage on using: 1. Perception because it uses Detection 2. Grapple because it uses FORT 3. Intimidation because it uses both FORT and Influence (does that give me Proficiency even in combat if appropriate?) 4. Deescalate because it uses Influence 5. Stabilize because it uses FORT Finally, Deescalate is an example of the GM asking for a skill check that mentions a Skillset without a matching Basic Ability, Grapple is an example of the GM asking for a skill check that mentions a Basic Ability without a matching Skillset, and all of the initiative actions are examples that use both. Am I getting all that right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:A few class-related things I noticed over the weekend (one I mentioned in the playtest, one new): That's basically the main intended use of the ability anyway, to help an ally succeed where they normally would be at a handicap. Jimmeeee posted:2. The Bard's Enchantment ability allows them to roll a d4 with expertise and either replace any roll with the result, or add it to a d20. Now, combined with the Magic Missile Trade-off ability a bard can use d20's, then replace the penalty d20 with the d4's result. That's awesome! It looks like it's integral to making sure the Bard keeps up with the Wizard in terms of DPR. The problem I see is that the Bard's "thing" here is mega-high single target damage without much risk of missing, when a Bard's "thing" should also be about buffing their teammates or debuffing enemies. Bards can still do either of these things if they choose, but the Magic Missile Trade-off is (as far as I can tell) likely to deal more damage than most alternatives, which discourages the Bard from using their d4 result on anyone but themselves most of the time. Like, The Next Project doesn't have daily/encounter abilities, but it does have once per round; the way you have it written is just "roll a die and add it to everything up to X times" There's no resource management to it, really, because the alternative use is so obviously less efficient. It also probably makes the enchantment Action obsolete, since the effect you're describing is effectively no-action for similar results. gradenko_2000 posted:One thing I keep struggling to understand with this system is the skills. Alright, here's the whole meta-game of this poo poo. You can perform a skill using a Skillset or a Basic Ability. What's a Basic Ability? Well, it's like an ability score, except since it isn't a Score, that would be a huge misnomer, so it's called something else. A skillset is a set of skills that are thematically related, but may rely on different Basic Abilities; if you're good at a skillset, proceed to give no fucks about the Basic Abilities tied to the skills in the skillset, whenever you use them. So for example: Thievery is a DEX skill; it is also a Deception skill. If you have the DEX Basic Ability or the Deception Skillset listed as Class Skills, you have Advantage on Thievery checks. gradenko_2000 posted:As a Knight-Paladin: ..skills! gradenko_2000 posted:1. If the GM calls for a Swim check, I have Advantage on the roll, because Swim is under FORT, and FORT is a class Basic Ability for me gradenko_2000 posted:2. If the GM calls a generic FORT check, such as an act of pushing a boulder aside, since it is a raw application of FORT with no specific applicable skill, I still have Advantage on the roll, because FORT is a class Basic Ability for me gradenko_2000 posted:3. If the GM calls for a Bluff check, I have Advantage on the roll, because Bluff is under Influence, and Influence is a class gradenko_2000 posted:4. If the GM calls for a generic Influence check, say in the case of maneuvering through the proper decorum at a royal ball, since there is no specific applicable skill, I still have Advantage on the roll, because Influence is a class Skillset for me. gradenko_2000 posted:5. If the GM calls for an Intimidate check, then not only do I have Advantage on the roll, I ALSO have Proficiency, which means my results are also generally better subject to the GM's interpretation I had to change the wording a bit when I added the archetypes, cuz this will interact differently if you have different Skillsets. Having both the Basic Ability and Skillset for a particular skill as class skills doesn't give you like ~triple word score SCRABBLE~, Proficient Skills are just "use your Class Die in some way with certain skills." For paladin, it's "roll your Class Die and add the result to the check" for Persuasion and [Insight for Knights/Local+Streetwise for Priest/Bluff+Disguise for Blackguard] gradenko_2000 posted:6. In all other cases, I do not have any such bonus and so will just roll a flat single d20, which gives me a 60% chance of failing/hitting a setback gradenko_2000 posted:In the case of initiative actions gradenko_2000 posted:In the case of using skills in combat, I have Advantage on using: gradenko_2000 posted:Finally, Deescalate is an example of the GM asking for a skill check that mentions a Skillset without a matching Basic Ability, Grapple is an example of the GM asking for a skill check that mentions a Basic Ability without a matching Skillset, and all of the initiative actions are examples that use both. Yes. so you got it like 95% right, I dunno why you 2nd-guess yourself so much. 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I had an idea pop into my head, which I haven't delved deeply into, but I am looking for some advice/requests on it. Basically, classes being devised the way they are in The Next Project, I'm considering doing a 2nd full slate of classes The first class that popped into my mind would be the Monk What are some other classes you might want to see integrated into The Next Project? Specifically, what sort of mechanics might they include, and where would you see them fitting on the Class Die scale, so to speak?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I had an idea pop into my head, which I haven't delved deeply into, but I am looking for some advice/requests on it. Well, speaking of the Monk, this is probably adherence to tradition more than any thought into game balance talking, but I could see the Monk as a d8 class. However, I'm having trouble coming up with distinctive mechanics for the Monk that wouldn't overlap too much with the Ranger and Rogue. My ideal of the Monk is a slippery and agile warrior who can move around the combat at liberty (probably some advantage over the other classes to disengaging?) to punch one specific character in the face? An archetype that your project doesn't quite have yet would be the Warlock. You already have the Mage that covers both the Bard and the Wizard, who are both controller-y casters, so a more blasty mage that is all about blowing up their enemies with dark magic would be nice. Actually, in the same way as you have Bard and Wizard under the Mage, you could probably fit both Sorcerer and Warlock under the same blasty magician type of class as archetypes. Sooo, you'd have Sorcerer for elemental dragon magic flavor and Warlock for fire and brimstone and other dark magic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Monks would be a great addition to the game. I agree that there's probably a decent amount of overlap with the ranger, so what if you made the monk exceptionally good at defense and disengaging? You could also make his iconic attack a multiple-target restrain. The two in combination could lead to some great setups where the monk blitzes through stunning everyone while the rest of the team tears through them. Warlock would be a blast too. My first thought is some sort of hex ability; maybe you can pick a target and hit it with class damage whenever it acts (both on it's turn and whenever you provoke it)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Monks would be a great addition to the game. I agree that there's probably a decent amount of overlap with the ranger, so what if you made the monk exceptionally good at defense and disengaging? You could also make his iconic attack a multiple-target restrain. The two in combination could lead to some great setups where the monk blitzes through stunning everyone while the rest of the team tears through them. When I read multi-target restrain I immediately imagined the Monk just grappling everyone in the melee which is, you know, awesome in its own way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Monks have a wide range of abilities in myth. Walk on water, through fire, run across walls and ceiling. Remembering past lives, being detached from the karmic cycle, even seeing the future of someone's soul. Reading minds. Astral projection. Supernatural sight, seeing incredibly small objects in detail, and in the dark. Understanding all languages To hear a whisper from miles away. The ability to exorcise demons. Perfect control of the body, able to act normally in any temperature. To slow down body processes, to conserve air, appear dead, not need food. Unaffected by poison and disease and cure afflictions in others. The ability to ignore all pain. To become immovable. Levitation. This one might not be good for a game, but the ability to die at will at any time. Then there is the standard chi blocking stuff. Blinding on a strike, paralyzing, using pressure points. Then there are the pure combat things, the one inch punch, vibrating palm that kills you after you walk down the road. To catch an arrow in the air. A monk shouldn't just be someone that punches things. Edit: So the monk should have a movement speed higher than anyone else, and nothing impedes it. Not a pool of water or magma, nor a chasm or a stone wall or an army. The monk can move their movement in any direction at any time. captain innocuous fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:When I read multi-target restrain I immediately imagined the Monk just grappling everyone in the melee which is, you know, awesome in its own way. That's exactly what I was picturing. I love the mental image of a monk jumping into the middle of a fray and using a few well-placed punches to temporarily incapacitate everyone. Here's an extremely quick and dirty attempt at a Monk class. I only briefly checked the math in Anydice, so it's likely horribly imbalanced. How does it look? quote:Monk (d6) Edit: The poster above me has a ton of examples of stuff that would be really cool to include, but I have no idea how to model that sort of stuff in this system. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Monks would be a great addition to the game. I agree that there's probably a decent amount of overlap with the ranger, so what if you made the monk exceptionally good at defense and disengaging? This is kinda one of two ideas I had for like the simplest basis of the monk; either: 1. With a smaller Class die, they'd have to be able to do some tomfoolery that consistently buffs their Defense or flatout lets them not lose HP sometimes. Also, always be disengaging. 2. Basically start with a Paladin and then change the class skills list and then change everything else except Zeal, maybe  I think the basic idea of attacking/grappling everyone Engaged with you is alright, but going buck wild with Restrain absolutely will trivialize encounters, I suspect. It might be worthwhile to start working on adding in Prone/High Ground rules, if we wanna integrate Monks. Proning people could be a Monk thing..? I kinda like the draft you posted, it's a good start. The problem is that skillsets are gonna start overlapping like a motherfucker if we're not careful; as dumb as it sounds, I feel like Ranger and Monk are stepping on each others' toes skill-wise in 5e, to say nothing of druids captain innocuous posted:Monks have a wide range of abilities in myth. As mentioned, it would be incredibly hard to model this stuff in the system as it currently exists. Generally passive stuff becomes "bonus to skill checks that model the thing you're supposed to be good at"; there isn't really "I always succeed when I _____" in the game, and that's kinda key to the whole ethos. Some stuff to ponder, though. Ratpick posted:An archetype that your project doesn't quite have yet would be the Warlock. You already have the Mage that covers both the Bard and the Wizard, who are both controller-y casters, so a more blasty mage that is all about blowing up their enemies with dark magic would be nice. Actually, in the same way as you have Bard and Wizard under the Mage, you could probably fit both Sorcerer and Warlock under the same blasty magician type of class as archetypes. Sooo, you'd have Sorcerer for elemental dragon magic flavor and Warlock for fire and brimstone and other dark magic? Warlock is one I've heard suggested elsewhere, the problem would be that separating out archetypes would be hard, in a system that doesn't have "multi-flavoured damages" They seem to have the flavour of either damaging themselves for some benefit, or else sucking life out of enemies (or both) that might be workable, since the Zeal trade-off is already A Thing. On a tangentially related note, I kinda wanna keep any damage-stacking classes to either d6 or d10; d6s are used in like every boardgame known to man, and every polyhedral dice set has two d10s (and there's also that whole.... WoD? that uses d10 pools.) It doesn't really matter for PbP, but for tabletop, I wanna make it easy to chuck a ton of dice if/when you have to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Hmm for a class with Sorcerer and Warlock as the two paths, I'd suggest having Sorcerer be the standard Shooty Mage, while Warlock be an up close and in your face sort of class(basically Bladepact Warlock meets Sword Mage), not quite sure what the Ur-Class would be called though Also for Monks, I'm thinking for it's split branches they would be Ki Master(focusing on esoteric abilities using one's inner energies), and either the Sword Saint(honing a mastery of a specific weapon to the point where it's a literal extension of one's soul), or the Zen Master(becoming so in sync with the harmony of the Universe that one gains a supernatural relationship with the world around it, thus being able to do things that would appear to be magic to others) maybe even all three, I'll admit I'm kinda focusing on the fluff side of things here with mechanics being second as that's more your department(plus I'm awful at math)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
You know, this is a really good point, which makes me wonder: what if you added monk-like options to existing classes? The Ranger class as-is would be a good fit for a martial artist-style monk and the Mage would be a good fit for a "wise Ki master" style monk. For the Martial Artist Monk, it could overlap with the ranger on AGIL, WIS and Athletics for class skills, then maybe the Ranger gets Detection while the Monk gets Knowledge. Twin Strike fits in great as a Monk ability. Maybe you could rename the class to something like "Martial Adept" and they'd both get the Proficient Skill and Twin Strike, then the Ranger could get Hunter's Mark and Ambush while the Monk could get Ki and Lightning Reflexes (or something else Monk-y). The Ki Master Mage could get WIS and maybe detection as class skills. Magic Missile and Teleportation still work for a Ki master and the Enchantment could be something like "you may immediately Restrain a number of Magic Missile targets up to the value of this roll(although as you pointed out, that may be a little crazy). It could also be something more defensive like "you may immediately disengage from that many enemies without using your Move or Action". Just spitballing here, but it seems like you wouldn't need to go completely back to the drawing board to add Monks in. Edit: Here's a quick look at what they might look like. Bolded stuff is new. quote:Martial Adept (d8) quote:Mage (d4) Tenebrous Tourist fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Regarding the playtest itself, how are the players/readers finding the combat? Does it flow well? Are the enemies challenging enough? It's looking as though the budgetted HP is a little low (what should have taken 4 rounds will be done in ~2.5) but I think I'll have to work on giving the enemies more buttons to push, rather than just have them be sacks of HP. A combat with Simple Monsters should prove instructive as well. ... Some ideas I have for monster "roles" (stealing kinda shamelessly from 4e)
And Solos will probably have to be able to shake off Hunter's Mark
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
On the topic of Monk chat, I think the case for doing it as a Ranger Archetype is fairly strong (not perfect, but strong). It'd take a little finessing from the base laid out by Jimmeeee (for example, you can't have Advantage on a Trade-off, such as a Counter-Attack). I think taking the Scout and walking it towards something more like an Avenger kinda works for Monk. It's still weird, because the disparate fluff makes it ~feel~ like the classes are kinda shoehorned together. Mechanically they mesh, though.. I'm not really sold on Monk as a Mage Archetype, but if I were to do it as its own class (which was kinda my intent at the outset) then I definitely have a strong preference for making it a d4 Class. It'd be easier to make it strong on the HP/Defense side with a bigger Class Die, but I'm sure I can come up with some math/mechanics to make a d4 work. Alternately, it might even make sense to work it as a Rogue Archetype, but as I said previously, I kinda wanna reserve d6s for classes that stack damage, and that really isn't a Monk (they're more about multi-attacking, as far as combat is concerned) Skill wise, I think it actually makes some sense for Monk to not use WIS, since it's kinda meant to be mostly related to nature/animals/survival in this system (harking back to the 4e Ranger and Druid) Detection works as a skillset for monk, but there honestly aren't any classes where you can't make that case Athletics is probably a must, with grappling and the Agility stuff; on the flipside, I don't think an agile Monk necessarily has to be good at sneaking and hiding. Like, that works for a ninja/assassin-feeling class, which a monk certainly can be in fiction, but I think for The Next Project, it might be more of an in-your-face Martial Artist, above all else, in the vein of the "Open Hand" monk of 5e. All that said, it seems like whatever the next d6 class ends up being, it will probably be some kind of spellcasting class. Stacking d6s just screams "Fireball" and that probably works as a Sorcerer or a Warlock. Another class I have intentions on addressing is some kind of Druid. The concept would be something along the lines of a Shapeshifter; the lowest-effort idea I had for the class would be that they retain their Class Die, but effectively gain some/all of the abilities of another class when they change shape (sort of a take on the Bear and Cat forms of the World of Warcraft Druid, which basically make you a Warrior and a Rogue, respectively.) This would probably necessitate a medium-ish class die...? I wouldn't want to be like "you get a d4 class ability but use a d8 instead" but on the other hand, "you get a d12 class ability but use a d8" seems like a fair trade for the versatility. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Regarding the playtest itself, how are the players/readers finding the combat? Does it flow well? Are the enemies challenging enough? Off the cuff, I agree with this: I feel that between stuff like the character's having advantage and/or expertise on almost all attack rolls when it matters means that damage output is going to be really high on the player's side. As far as the flow of combat goes, I do think it works, but at the same time the fact that players make all rolls is not particularly conducive to the PbP environment: it means that players will have to be alert, even off-turn. In general I much prefer design where only the active player rolls, because at worst you get situations where the combat grinds to a halt as you get a cascading number of off-turn reactions. Having said that, this criticism is much more about the format than the game itself, because the same problem exists in almost any system where players have the ability to make off-turn reactions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:As far as the flow of combat goes, I do think it works, but at the same time the fact that players make all rolls is not particularly conducive to the PbP environment: it means that players will have to be alert, even off-turn. In general I much prefer design where only the active player rolls, because at worst you get situations where the combat grinds to a halt as you get a cascading number of off-turn reactions. Yeah, this for sure is true. On the other hand, if "roll Defense; lose HP if you roll low" is all that's happening on your off-turn, it can just as easily be resolved when it is your turn. On the third hand, once the monster creation gets to the point where they get effects like forced movement and/or conditions, it becomes complicated again. I mean... I guess there is also stuff where "i need an ally to be engaged with a thing for me to do my thing, and that doesn't happen if the ally is dead" Ratpick posted:Having said that, this criticism is much more about the format than the game itself, because the same problem exists in almost any system where players have the ability to make off-turn reactions. I think that was one thing that 4e did well; off-turn stuff (as well as positional considerations) makes everyone pay attention to the actual game, which is particularly good/desirable for tabletop play, IMHO. It just got taken to it's logical (absurd) conclusions in that system, with a) too many of them, and b) counter-counter-counter-reactions at higher levels, and such. Counter-Attack is maybe the only thing that really slows this game down on this front, and the expectation on my part was kinda that people would only be using if they were a Warrior, or took the Defend action on their turn. But maybe I'm underestimating something in that equation? Ratpick posted:Off the cuff, I agree with this: I feel that between stuff like the character's having advantage and/or expertise on almost all attack rolls when it matters means that damage output is going to be really high on the player's side. This is kind of intentional, but might be "a solution looking for a problem." Like, I wanted to avoid having combat like 5e where "oh poo poo I missed 2 rounds in a row, now we're hosed and I can't do anything to improve my odds" as well as the early-4e "padded sumo effect." I'm ok with high %to-hit as well as miss damage, but I think the PC DPR could stand to be toned down. This is particularly true of the Warrior, because I kinda took the "well fighters are poo poo, so you can tack all kinds of poo poo onto them and it still doesn't compare to CoDzilla/Wizard shenanigans." So I may have allowed some power creep that led to the class being ahead of the curve on damage; on the other other hand, it might be hard to tone it down without taking away some of the buttons they get to push. ...Does Raging seem worthwhile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
I absolutely agree with the design decision to reduce the whiff factor of attacks, there's nothing more frustrating as a player than making an attack and rolling low and nothing happening for the rest of your turn because that was the one big thing you got to do that turn. That I think is perfectly good design. I think the only thing you need to do is, after running a couple of combats, to figure out whether the problem is on the side of monsters having too few hit points or not enough tricks for avoiding damage, or whether the problem lies in player characters being able to deal too much damage too reliably. Basically, it comes down to calibrating your monsters until you find a place where combats will generally take as long as you want them to while not being too swingy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Another class I have intentions on addressing is some kind of Druid. This sounds cool, but I'd make sure it doesn't fall into the trap of trading effectiveness for versatility, since in my experience that just ends up having the character play second chair to any specialists in the party while having no real niche. And then obviously, if you make the forms too good, it obviates the need/desire for specialists. Probably stuff you already know, but, yea. Honestly with as simple as the system is now, a class like the Druid sounds like it'd become pretty complicated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Some stray thoughts: A d4 monk would be cool. You could help survivability by could giving it advantage on d20 and d4 rolls for Defense, putting its likelihood of success above that of a Warrior. The Rogue's Assassin subclass already pretty much covers the "sneaky ninja" style of Monk, but an Open Hand one would be a welcome addition. You could probably get away with making Sorceror and Warlock subclasses for the same class. Have one focus on multi-target damage and one focus on single-target. Random class skill idea that might be terribly imbalanced depending on encounter makeup: quote:Iconic Ability: Eldritch Might Druid seems like it would likely just end up very complicated. Generic Octopus outlined my concerns with a Druid class way more clearly than I could hope to. Raging absolutely seems worthwhile, I just haven't been using it because I wanted to see how the Warrior played without it. Considering the Warrior gets the biggest Class Die to roll on defense and has the most HP (diffusing Rag'e sbiggest downside), I'd guess it makes sense to use it almost every single fight. There's been some talk upthread about the Warrior maybe being too strong, of Rangers maybe needing something extra, and of reactions slowing down PbP combat. What would the math look like if you made Counter-Attacks a Ranger-only ability? This would help with all three issues, but it might be a band-aid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:00
|
|