|
Stabilizing Beta 3 To this end, and to facilitate play/playtesting, the following changes have been implemented/formalized (in bold): SRD posted:Basic Roll SRD posted:Engaging, Disengaging, and Provoking "Status Effects and Conditions" is just about the only remaining section in the core rules that I need to verify/fully implement, so that will be the next thing I take a look at. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Apr 11, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Mystic (Warlock) changes I didn't really like the exception that had to be thrown into the trade-off for Eldritch Blast. Here's the original version: Mystic (Beta 3) posted:Basic Attack: You can make ranged basic attacks as a Minor Action. You gain Advantage on the damage rolls of ranged basic attacks, if you have Advantage on the attack roll. And here's what I want to change it to: Mystic (Beta 3) posted:Basic Attack: If you do not make an Iconic Attack on your turn, You can make ranged basic attacks as a Minor Action. Your ranged basic attacks are Reliable, if you have Advantage on the attack roll. Going with this model, it gives the Warlock an either-or usage; if the penalty is high, they can make more attacks, or if the bonus is high, they can apply it to 2 attacks. The number of attacks averages out to 3.85 * (avg damage on a d10[exp] of 6.4) = 24.64 * 55% hitrate = 13.552 DPR The bonus damage averages out to 7.6, so 2*(7.6+6.4) = 28 * 55% hitrate = 15.4 DPR So since the expected DPR that's in the encounter-building guidelines is currently 15 DPR, these numbers are right in that wheelhouse (admittedly not bothering to do the math on extra damage from crits  )edit: Making some more changes to the Mystic, so check those out, too 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Warrior change To represent "reach" and also to make Great Weapon Fighting more interesting, I added this in: Warrior (Beta 3) posted:When you have this style active, your melee attacks can target any enemy in the encounter, even if you begin your turn Engaged or if the target has High Ground; if you successfully attack a creature that has High Ground, and the target is not Dropped by the attack, you can also gain the High Ground. In addition, you do not have to become Engaged with creatures you target with a melee attack. and for Sword & Shield: Warrior (Beta 3) posted:When you have this style active, you can Push or Prone any creature you target with a Reliable melee basic attack. You can apply this effect before or after making the attack. Mechanical Clarifications Added this, under the Advantage/Disadvantage rules: SRD posted:d20 Rolls Under the Prone condition: SRD posted:Moving away from Prone creatures does not Provoke. and reversed the wording here, so that the rules makes sense, as per the core mechanics: SRD posted:When you Disengage from an enemy, that enemy cannot Engage with you, and you have Advantage on defense rolls against its melee attacks
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Minor Action attack! Added minor action basic attacks to the Scout and Monk, each with their own qualifying circumstances. I felt like Scout needed something that felt Two-Weapon'ish, and Monk needed to punch more, particularly with the amount of attacks that Mages and Warlocks are potentially throwing around. Off-turn Actions This will probably become a defined Action-type, as a game term, and will encompass things like Provoking and Counter-attacking, as well as some class abilities; not sure what limits (if any) might be added in the future. For now, I have added it to part of the Paladin's Holy Aura ability. e: It's more meant to be used as a textual cue, to watch for the trigger when other people are taking their turns. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
3rd (and beyond) Slate Spitballing Been a little too busy to do any concrete work on the game this past little bit, but I want to keep posting once a week, so I'll share some ideas that are bouncing around. The Archer (martial, Striker/Blaster) It might be hard to flesh this class out, but I definitely like the base that was laid out with the old "Archery Weapon Style" that used to be part of the Warrior; ignoring all sources of Disadvantage for ranged attacks is a good starting point. I think some of the d8 mechanics that I worked out when finishing up the Druid may fit well here. I think for archetypes, there's the sniper/sharpshooter, who doesn't fire often but does so very accurately and potently, and then the alternative would be something that just lays down fire and blots out the sun. The Skald (arcane/martial?) This is one that appeared briefly already, but I'm not sure what I'd want to do with it. I think with the Warrior now getting Weapon Styles for both its archetypes, that kind of eats up the mechanical space that the previous Skald occupied. The other thing is it might be hard to differentiate a melee-focused Bard from a Warlord; it would probably have to do other forms of support or control, rather than enabling. The Warden (primal, Defender) I liked this class in 4e, the brief few times I played it. I think the Berserker was sort of a... more traditionalist, simplified take on the Warden. Particularly if I can work out power sources, I think this class would be neat for fleshing out that idea. The Deathknight (divine) Once upon a time, I wrote up some ideas for house-ruling the 4e Blackguard. Aside from adjusting their ability score utilization a fair bit, I came up with something I called "Brash Challenge" which was essentially a mark that caused you to grant combat advantage, in exchange for isolating an enemy and being able to hit them harder. It put the class sort of in between Defender and Striker. Having played the Blackguard a few times, I liked the "Temp HP mini-game" mechanic that it had. I think for a Deathknight, something similar could work; perhaps a life-draining ability (previously mulled for the Warlock) would suit to round out the class a bit. The Invoker (divine) Weirdly enough, in the search for class names (possibly trying to come up with a replacement for "Trickster") I found myself looking up the word "invoke" and the definition made me want to work on an Invoker class. I never played it in 4e, but it was always the "next time the party needs a Controller, I'm totally making one"-class, for me. From what I gather, particularly when taking into account the options presented in Divine Power, the Invoker often applied debilities to themself in order to apply worse ones to their target. It'll be interesting to try and mechanic-ize that idea in TNP. The Cleric (divine) Cleric is a less-defined space compared to Invoker. Broadly, they're the best healer, probably the one of the better support classes, and things like domains let them focus on a particular flavour or theme for their spells and other abilities. In 5e, as a baseline, all Clerics get the "Turn Undead" ability. The problem with all of this is it points to colour-coded damage types, and a monster-type mini-game that currently doesn't exist in this game (as it is not really to my tastes.) In addition, with Wisdom being the "nature stat" in TNP, it sort of leaves Clerics in a weird place; previous drafts had them lean heavily on Charisma instead (where we already have Paladins and Warlords covering a lot of the same design space.) It's one of those cases where I really need to know what does this class do that is iconic, or what makes the class itself iconic, and figure out if that can then be translated to this system? If nothing else, I think it's fairly certain that it would be a class where the Monk/Mage concept of schools/traditions could be applied for flavour and possibly mechanical purposes. The Shapeshifter (primal) I know this just came out as a Druid archetype, but I think there is room to expand it into its own class; the Shapeshifter is kinda the nail that sticks out in that trio, whereas the Shaman and Summoner share the most mechanics in common. (Also, 3 archetypes makes classes somewhat cramped, text-wise; the Rogue gets away with it by not having nearly as much going on as other classes.) It would also make sense to put the Shapeshifter into a higher Class Die slot, if it's meant to mainly be a tanky class; the primal power source is a little cluttered in the d8 slot; I'm slightly leaning towards Ranger for d8+primal and Druid for d8+divine. More on Slates Including the above-mentioned classes, I'd basically still be looking for:
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The Cleric If a cleric is primarily (or "iconically") meant to be the uber-Healer, maybe then borrowing from the Summoner archetype a little bit, the starting point for a Cleric class could be:
Then, depending on archetypes, the Cleric could get different riders for each of those..? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Wrong thread, sorry.
Angrymog fucked around with this message at 23:47 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
The Next Update Gears are starting to turn, with regards to ideas for the proposed new classes. Cleric (d8) will probably be the one I start work on next; due to the nature of domains and such, expect it to be a class that borrows heavily from existing abilities. Very very very preliminary thoughts for some kind of d12+Divine class are brewing in my head. This would mean an Invoker (d6) class, rounding out the divine classes; Monk (d4) and Paladin (d10) would be grouped into that power source. Likewise, I might try and slot in an Archer (d4) and a Knight (d10) for martial classes. I am also giving strong consideration to renaming the Warrior back to "Barbarian." In which case, the Archetypes would probably be dropped completely, but maybe just renamed. The primal power source is a fairly tanky one, so figuring out good fits for the smaller dice might be tough. [to be continued...]
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
3rd Slate Before worrying about "filling in the grid" in terms of Class Die+Power source, I'm going to try and get another slate of 5 classes done. As mentioned in the above post, gears have started turning, so I cranked out:  The Archer (d4) Definitely not a finished product yet, so feel free to comment and mark up the doc with suggestions; I'm going to leave it for now and move onto another class, next. I think it has some neat new mechanics, though 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The Warden (primal, Defender) So combined with the Archer (d4) that's been posted, I'm thinking that this will be the 3rd slate. When I was thinking about Cleric domains, it became fairly clear that some of them should be hung onto other classes. For example, the "Light Domain" as presented in 5e D&D would probably be a better fit on a d6 class -- specifically the Invoker, in this case -- since it's mostly about making big explosions. Likewise, I'm not sure a "Death Domain" needs to be represented within the Cleric class, if there is going to be a Deathknight class. Right now, I am hoping to structure the Cleric similarly to the Mage and Monk: 2 archetypes and 3 domains. P.d0t posted:Cleric (d8) I see Deathknight being a tanky class (d12). For power source, this will fall under "Shadow"; I'm going to try and come up with something different for d12+Divine. I think d8 lends itself well to a 'leader' class (in this case Cleric) since mechanically it can cover off Reliable and Advantage on attack rolls with its Class Die, as it does for the Druid class. Likewise, a Warden being on par with a Paladin (d10) has some precedent in 5e, as well as sharing a Role in 4e. OTOH, if you were to take those same d8 mechanics and staple it onto a d10, and call it a Cleric... well, that presents an interesting idea, too! Although that would mess up my plans to eventually organize the slates by power source..
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Archery Did some minor updates to The Archer, to add Archetypes and skill info; the class is now basically playtest ready, and I am hoping/planning/intending to run a new playtest sometime after this month is over.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Divine Power Source So I'm looking at sort of writing the Invoker, Cleric, and Deathknight in concert with one another. Essentially, I want to take the Domains from 5e D&D, and split them among these classes. For example, it might go something like: Cleric: Life, War, Nature Invoker: Light, Tempest/Storm, Knowledge Deathknight: War/Death, Trickery I've looked at jumbling together Ranger(Beastmaster) and Druid(Shaman/Summoner) abilities for the Nature Cleric, but it's hard to do without just ripping off those archetypes wholesale (at which point, just play that character class instead, particularly since they all use the same Class Die) so probably for Clerics, domains will just inform skill selection. I may layer Archetypes onto the class in addition, similar to the Mage; I do kind of have intentions of making a Warpriest archetype for a different class (because I'm weird like that) so I'm still mulling how Cleric will shake out. Invoker will probably borrow from the Sorcerer (for at least one archetype), and Deathknight will likely draw from the Warrior and the Mystic. Both might utilize mechanics that involve spending reserves.  edit: Cleaned up the Warrior a bit/finalized all suggestions I had put on there. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Update After some thought and discussion, I'd like to drop a few tidbits here, and lay out plans/ideas for the future. Core Stuff
Class Stuff
Non-combat Encounters
DMing Guidelines and Advice
I also think it is very important for the game to support both the "DM-directed" campaign style, as well as the "play to see what happens" model, and to be able to blend the two together. Spelling out who has responsibility for moving the campaign along (and in which circumstances) will be an important point of focus. In The Next Project, the DM should definitely be a fan of the players; in terms of combat, it is more of a dungeon-brawler kind of game, where the PCs can and will deal huge amounts of damage and kill swaths of enemies. DMs and players need to understand and embrace this, whether this means their campaign is comically over-the-top violent, or grimdark with hordes of orcs or zombies besieging civilization. Combat and non-combat will continue to be very different games. This is intentional, though I will try to keep the dice mechanics and math somewhat closely related. Non-combat needs more weight and more meatiness, so I will work on developing that side of the game. Restatement of Goals, Intentions, and Target Audience
It should be a game that people can use as a stepping stone to both a) D&D games that are crunchier/fiddlier, and; b) RPGs that are more narrative. TNP should give a taste of both, without demanding a high level of system mastery. I also want the game to be sort of a go-to system for one-shots. Sometimes this will be playing a one-shot for its own sake, or because you had planned to play another game but one of the players cancelled at the last minute, and now you don't have enough people/a full party/whatever. Whether that leads into a campaign continuing on in The Next Project, or moving onto/back to a more complex system, I want this to be the game groups keep coming back to, and always have up their sleeve. TNP should definitely be the game that players want to tell stories in. The combat system exists, and is meant to be fun and engaging, but leveling up/gaining abilities/acquiring wealth and equipment will never be the focus of my writing on this game. The system should bring people together, and facilitate them fully realizing their characters, from a narrative standpoint. Ideally, the mechanics should work great for both homegame and PbP play; if there are any quirks that can be ironed out in order to facilitate use with virtual tabletop platforms, that should also be a priority. It is my intention to start a new draft of the rules, and open a new thread when they are ready for critique, so stay tuned for that!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Research & Development I'm in the process of crunching probabilities, to give me some math to base new mechanics on. Specifically, what we're going to see going forward is more "roll and compare" mechanics, as well as "roll X in place of Y," using d20 and Class Dice. Examples: Roll & Compare:
Roll X in Place of Y: The general idea I'm going with is to not have to roll more than 2 dice, with these mechanics. To produce a result that can still succeed (10+) we have the following options:
I'm kind of leaning towards limiting this mechanic to scenarios that produce a success rolling only 1 die (so 1d10 or 1d12) and/or a crit by rolling 2 dice (so, again, d10s and d12s) I think 2d6 kind of just mimes 1d12 in this regard (it's actually weaker, unless you add other modifications to it); using 2d8 is still intriguing, but it probably needs other gimmicks/exceptions stapled on, to be good. If I can make either one interesting and fun without overcomplicating things, I'll try and work them in there. Rolling Twice It was recommended that being able to roll twice was something that should be highlighted in the rules, and as such, I am moving towards more streamlined language for these situations (Advantage, Disadvantage, Trade-off, etc.) Specifically:
This means Disadvantage will suck slightly less, and will no longer use rerolls. Another place where this rule will be applied, is if/when a class can use 2 Class Dice for a damage roll; it's sort of a secondary Expertise mechanic, the difference being Expertise can apply when any number of dice are rolled, where as this is limited to rolling 2 dice. I might also try and apply this rule to "Basic Rolls" if I can make that not too clunky. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
These kinds of rolls are starting to sound more like dice tricks. You should definitely read up on 13th Age as it does D20-with-dice tricks very well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:These kinds of rolls are starting to sound more like dice tricks. You should definitely read up on 13th Age as it does D20-with-dice tricks very well. The problem I'm bumping up against is that a lot of the mechanics I'm crunching end up just being clunkier-than-but-mathematically-similar-to using Advantage/Disadvantage. It's particularly so, since I'm trying not to do stuff that's just flatout "+numbers, but in the form of extra dice" and also trying to keep the crit range within certain parameters. As mentioned before, I'm going to rip out instances of perma-Advantage from the Class text, and probably end up changing "support" abilities to "grants Advantage" rather than permutations of Class Dice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Blog is here! First post is already up I will be putting all public info about the development of Beta 4 on there, from now on, until it is ready for general consumption (at which point I will make a new SA thread)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:47
|
|