STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

The obvious in retrospect is what I've taken to calling "emergent design." It's stuff you hadn't actually planned, but which turns out to really work when you look back at.

One of the biggest bits of emergent design was the way Rallies played into the focus and surge economy. How they fit into the surge economy is pretty obvious, every one you spend for an extra action or to boost an attack or regain focus is one less you have for healing and one closer to dying if you're dropped to 0 Edge.

What's less obvious though is how it interacts with the focus economy. First and foremost is the simple cost. Focus equal to the times you've rallied since resting. First time is free, second costs one, next costs two, third costs three... but at that point you've six of your focus (of the 8-9 you'll have at level 14) just on rallies that you don't have to use your other abilities.

And then there's the focus limit. Rallies don't break that limit, so that means from level 1-5 you can only rally twice before stopping to rest because a third would cost you 2 focus. It also means you can't rally on your turn and spend focus on anything else at that point. Level 6 lets you spend 2 focus/turn so you could, in theory, rally a third time if you really had to, but your focus pool is probably only 5-6 so you'd be burning 50-60% your total focus just on using rallies; so realistically you're not going to use three rallies unless its desperate.

Basically, there's a tension there; where most players are going to want to hold back at least that one point of focus at first in case they need it to rally a second time, but are more willing to blow it later in the fight once they're more certain they won't need it. Then in tier 2, they've proven fairly conservative with focus use... they'll spend a point or two early on, but they'll hold onto the last three points until its clear they won't need them and then blow them on fair big effects (like both on the same attack).

Once a player recognizes they can only rally so many times is also when you see more regular use of extra actions. A dead monster can't deal damage so if you've already had to rally once, blowing a surge on an attack to drop it so you don't have to rally again starts looking like a good idea.

The result of these two elements in conjunction leads to players naturally adopting what 13th Age's Action Die mechanic tries to... as the fight gets desperate, players start breaking out "dailies" to keep from having to rally and as it then swings their way and they decide they won't need to rally again start blowing off focus creating a sort of "finisher move" effect.

The only thing I both miss (because of how it interplayed with the above) and don't (because it made it way too complex) was the Focused Attack element because the "free critical" the first time you spent focus with a given stance or spell led to an even more "encounter power" feel where players would hold back on spending focus until it was advantageous (mostly subject to any condition where they'd be flat-footed) and also mixing up their attacks to get the bonus from different ones.

Potent Strikes aren't as varied, but they're easier to use and, they have their own interesting synergy in that "more damage" is a separate piece from "bigger effect" allowing you to potentially use stronger conditions from focus to set up yourself or an ally for using their "more damage."

* * * *

Brontomancy is what rounds out my Cryo/Pyromancy "energy damage" specializations. Resistance to storm, change damage dealt to storm and, like thunderclap, when you deal storm damage you can also knock a target prone (one of the only effects that the storm-based attack spells can't inflict on their own).

Sylvamancy is a merger of Tangler with the plant avatar's "treat all terrain from plants (even blocking) as one step less."

* * * *

As to the rulers 1e encouraged... More likely to go out and deal with the problem yourself was the goal. There's a rather notable discrepancy between the setting as described by all the tables in 1e D&D and what later settings made the norm.

For example, the 1e DMG didn't actually presume feudalism was the norm, nor did it sugarcoat peasantry/serfdom; equating both with slavery and saying essentially that if the PCs force people into peasantry, serfdom or slavery they're going to have to deal with uprisings against them on a fairly regular basis.

Coupled with the prevalence of ruins, vast regions of uninhabited wilderness, that the size of bandit bands you could encounter on the table were like 10-100 (about 55 average) and that the patrols you could run across near civilization were on the order of 24-50 men including 6-8th level clerics and magic users and led by 8-10th level fighters (i.e. name-level "lords" or nearly so)... well, the impression is more one of a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the "lords" are more akin to "warlords" and "strongmen" than any sort of recognized aristocracy; holding power only so long as he is able to kick ass and take names and who's only sure route to growing his holdings is provide protection to the non-combatants living under his protection (lest un-repelled monster attacks and lack of confidence cause them to flee).

A 1e Lord who relied on others to do his fighting and failed to protect his people would quickly find themselves back in the realm of the landless mercenary or bandit leader because, contrary to what a lot of grognards preach about the importance of henchmen and hirelings, the actual recruitment tables had single die rolls available in all but large cities and even then, it'd likely take years of wandering from city to city to actually replenish the troops you got initially for raising the fortress (and you'd have to pay more than room, board and equipment to the new recruits as well).

It is an amazingly stark contrast to the later TSR/WotC entries where the pastoral "feudalism is ideal/happiness in serfdom" for commoners became the norm. It reminds me a LOT of 4E's Points of Light (and by extension, my own setting). Its essentially a world where someplace like Blackspire under First Warden Blackthorne would actually fit right in.

Which, honestly, is another reason why just about every "domain management rules" I've ever looked at for inspiration ultimately proved no help at all for my game. Every last one of them and their mass combat rules were centered around the notion of happy feudalism and armies big and strong enough that even high level PCs would be largely irrelevant to the outcome.

Side-bar: You know, I'd actually really like someone to actually try building an army like that; a thousands of men strong army of grunt infantry with hundreds of bowmen and cavalry... thinking they'll just be able to roll over everything with that much power.

"A death knight strides forward and lets loose a deathly glare. What few soldiers did not whither and fall from fright instantly turned and fled, trampling their own commanders in an effort to escape the supernatural terror that drowned their hearts. Those found in the coming days had hair shocked white and sallow haunted eyes and could barely hold a weapon their hands so trembled. The few commanders with the courage to stand their ground were quickly dispatched by the wights and wraiths that flocked over the fresh carrion. And behind them all, the silent figure of the lich waited to begin its work of growing the army of the dead ever larger."

"Tales a thousand years hence will recount the folly. 'If only they had sought out brave heroes' the tales would say. 'If only they hadn't spent the military strength of an entire nation against an enemy only heroes could match."

No, my system needs a mass combat system where a 15th level warrior smacks a mook using potent strike for 59 damage, cleaving through two more of his buddies and causing ten more who saw it to drop their weapons and flee in panic (also, the biggest army in the known world is probably 600 men if they pulled all their garrison forces out so that dozen men just wiped out is probably 10% of what would be considered a good sized army).

It also needs a "realm management" system where 15,000 people is the largest city in the known world, where serfdom/peasantdom sucks (and if you can hoof it down the old Imperial Road to Free Cities territory or a sympathetic barbarian tribe fast enough you might even have a place to escape it) and your ability to lead is pretty much directly proportional to your ability to kick ass and protect your people.

The update for today is brought to you by the word “nomenclature”; as in, “You should really avoid using a word as complex as nomenclature in an RPG if you can help it.”

So, anyway, as I’d put in a sixteen hour marathon session at my day job yesterday, I decided I’d take a break today (one of the perks of being the boss). But rather than just be lazy, I instead opted to take in a webinar called “Ten Rules for Writing Game Rules.”

A lot of it was common sense, and I was doing way better than most under some categories (A+ in “Don’t use intermediary terminology” for my use of Paces instead of squares).

Points that particularly stood out to me though were “Things are the Same or Things are Different” and “Write text no smarter than your intended reader.”

The first boils down to, in your Rules always use the same word for something and only use a different word if it’s actually something different.

Two examples where I think of this in my own rules currently are, first, that sometimes an action “provokes” a Free Strike and other times it “triggers” a Free Strike. Yeah, they mean the same thing, but for clarity I need to pick one or the other and stick with it, particularly if my goal is to employ the same quality of technical language as 4E did.

In this case, because I already discuss triggers for other reactions in the rules, the proper term needs to be “can trigger a Free Strike.”

The second example is my rather slapdash use of ability, trait and benefit throughout the system to refer to rules elements you gain from picking a species, class or background. I need to pick one and use it consistently to improve clarity. My preference at this point is probably “trait”, but I’m not married to it.

The “write no text smarter than your intended reader” thing though has always been a struggle for me. The equivalent grade level of some of my stuff is up at grade 14+.

But one reason for that which this webinar actually made me realize versus just general complexity is that I use a LOT of really big words. Archetype, Specialization, Proficiency, Universal.

Fun fact from the webinar; Wizard is a second grade word (“thank you Harry Potter”), but Sorcerer is a seventh grade one. So unless you need both terms, you should probably use wizard instead of sorcerer to improve the broad appeal.

So, I tried out some of the above words from my game on my twelve-year old niece (going into 7th grade, basically the ideal target audience), who’s actually a couple grades ahead on reading. Here are her guesses.

Specialization - “something you’re special at.”
Proficiency - “good efficiency.”
Archetype - “my brain has FAILED me!”
Universal - “related to the universe.”

Her definition of Specialization is almost “close enough”, but she was guessing at all of them and it could probably be a whole lot more accessible to someone her age if I went with say; “Talent”, “Trained/Training”, “Class Grouping” and “Basic” respectively (and I’m again impressed by 4E’s using simpler terms... trained instead of proficient in this case).

We’re so steeped in some of these terms that they’re old hat to us. I didn’t even think about how actually obscure a lot of things we, as long time D&D players just take for granted as everyone knowing.

So my new book project between engraving a couple hundred glasses (my next day job project) is to try and clean up the nomenclature, both consistency of use and complexity of terms and see if I can’t drag the grade level of the rules down to something at least pre-college for readability.

Replacing Specialization with Talent and Universal with Basic are good ideas. I wonder if Utility might run into the same problem.

Replacing proficiency with training may or may not work - training is already in use by D&D, but so is proficiency. It's really a tossup here.

With regard to Archetype, what I was thinking was turning that into Path and the various Arcane/Gadgeteer/Astral/Primal paths into Subpaths.

Also, the point about "Things are the Same or Things are Different" means that the Skilled Path conflicts with the Skills. Perhaps you can call it the Warrior path, and the Spellcasting path the Spellcaster.

Oh, that “things are the same or they are different” is actually kicking me hard. One of my sentences actually used the phrase “ability scores, skills and abilities.”

In addition to ability scores there are exotic abilities and form abilities and “ability” is also used as a generic form of trait, benefit, specialization, utility, stance or attack spell (such as in the above ‘skills and abilities.”

Not to mention that proficiency is both a thing and a bonus type (as is specialization... and it’s bonuses stopped referring to just ones that came from specializations a while back) and skill is both a category of actions/modifiers to actions and, as you point out... an archetype.

I mean, you can get it the same way you can get 5e’s “natural language,” but 5e is NOT the goal and it turns out my whole rule set is far more riddled with “thing A is not thing A” than I thought.

So I’m going to have go kinda hardcore on my terminology if I want it to be as clear as possible.

Here’s where I think I’m at with things;

- Trait: a rule element that applies to a specific creature. This is the most generic form that replaces traits, benefits and any generic use of “ability.”

- Score: a trait that is a numerical value; ex. a modifier, resource or target number.

- Attributes: a sets of scores that act as modifiers for a wide range of checks and traits. Replaces Ability Scores.

- Abilities: a category of non-combat actions and their modifiers. Replaces Skills (mostly because skill was more valuable as a bonus type; i.e. skill bonus vs. training bonus vs. aptitude bonus vs. proficiency bonus). It also works in the sense that an ability is something you can do (ex. Acrobatics) while skill describes how good you are at it.

- Skill: a type of bonus to action checks. If you have a skill bonus in something you are “skilled” in it. This replaces proficiency (i.e. skilled with a weapon, with armor or an ability).

- Benefit: a trait gained from a background that is not a skill bonus to an ability. Replaces utility (and it needed a shorter descriptor than “background trait” since telling it apart from Abilities/skills and class traits and talents/specializations makes character creation clearer). Background Benefit is also alliterative.

- Basic Benefit: replaces universal utility.

- [Group] Classes: a grouping of classes by shared rules. Replaces archetype.

- Class Traits: traits specific to a class.

- Talents: traits available to an entire class group. Replaces specialization. Talent bonuses will now be exclusive to actual talents.

- Basic Talent: replaces universal specialization.

* * * *

I’m a bit up in the air on Potent Strike and the default specialization bonus to damage and whether or not I shouldn’t just combine those with the Skill Bonus somehow. You’re already tracking Edge, Focus and Surges so if I’m changing around nomenclature, maybe I can clean that up in the process as the bonus types are adjusted.

The hardest part in all of this is actually trying not to be "dawizard."

This was from that webinar. Apparently late in development of a game, the decision was made to change the term Mage to Wizard.

The guy tasked with doing this went in and used the Replace feature and sent it to the printer without even doing a proofread.

As a result the first printing was riddled with "do 1d6 points of dawizard" and who can forget the "mirror iwizard" spell.

Don't be "dawizard." It looks like more work, but its less than having to fix it later.

In this case it means I'm not only NOT doing auto-replace, I'm also having to run the find/replace checks in a certain sequence. For example, my rules are riddled with "ability" (and abilities) that need to be replaced with everything from "attribute" to "trait" to, in some cases, "capability" (i.e. not a game term so its clear its not referencing a game term).

But I have to run all of those into the ground first because if I do the replace on skill first, I'd then have a whole bunch of extra "ability" entries to skip over in the process of replacing the existing ability entries.

Also, fun fact; three quarters of the Skill descriptions referred to themselves as "the ability to X" or "Your X ability." So they've always been defined as abilities... just not called abilities.

Finally... "abilities" looks really weird after you've stared at it through about 1000 instances.

This is a mind numb-er, and the average gamer probably won't even notice due to their long experience with horribly written rules, but I'm going after new players, not just experienced ones and that's where the clarity will be a godsend.

Every word looks weird after looking at it long enough. I think there's some kind of psychological term for it, but Hell if I can remember.

And yeah, the "dawizard" guy deserves to live on in infamy for that particular bout of laziness. Not only did he have to do the work of correcting the mistakes, he had to do it under a cloud of "what a lazy idiot."

***

I like the new terms you picked. Talent and Benefit work well, and replacing Proficiency with Skill is definitely something I wouldn't have thought of.

Replacing proficiency with skill and changing skills to abilities was probably my last choice, but it was the only one that actually worked. Calling trained abilities skills is so engrained in RPG culture it’s hard not to see the word only in those terms.

But the thing is... ability, skill, proficiency, expertise, talent, knack, etc. are all just different words for the same concept (often from different languages... skill is Norse, ability is Latin and proficient comes from Greek). So it really comes down to which you think sounds the best for a given element.

In this case, we need;

- A term for a collection of mostly non-combat actions (previously skills).
- A term to denote sufficient talent/skill/ability to perform advanced actions (previously proficient only).
- A term for the modifier type to checks based on training to prevent stacking (previously proficiency bonus).

Of the many possible options, ability and skill are the simplest terms with the least preconceptions built into them. Knack and talent feel too informal for a category that includes medicine and engineering. Expertise or mastery have the connotation of advanced levels.

Then it was just playing with word order; “You get an ability bonus to the skill if you are abled with it” vs. “You get a skill bonus to the  ability if you are skilled with it.”

The second one seemed the most like normal language... which was another “rule” from the “Ten Rules” webinar (i.e. use real words; which is NOT the same as natural language... rather it’s, “don’t call a ranged attack a translocated ballistic operation.”). It also doesn’t denote a particular level of skill; just that it influences the outcome.

* * * *

For awhile I was thinking either talent for both (i.e. background talent and class talent) but in the end, calling something like the stipend or stronhold or loyal steed “talents” didn’t make a lot of sense. Calling those things talents isn’t doing wonders for the language either. Benefit was something that could be applied to all of those things though.

By now, you know the deal. When I stop posting for a bit it’s because I’m up to my eyeballs in design work.

It turns out that there were a ton of cascading elements associated with changing up some of the names as I was immensely sloppy with the terms benefit, ability and a few other terms. It also led me down some rabbit holes to clean up several elements.

The final terminology changes ended up being as follows (in an Old > New layout);

- Ability/Benefit/Trait > Trait
- Ability Score > Attribute
- Skill > Ability
- Proficiency > Skill bonus
- Archetype > Class Group
- Skilled archetype > Fighter classes
- Spellcasting archetype > Spellcaster classes
- Weapon/Implement/Armor Proficiency > (basic, expert or master) skill with
- Specialization > Talent
- Universal Specializations > Basic Talents
- Skilled Specializations > Weapon Talents
- Spellcasting Specializations > Spell Talents
- Skill Proficiency > Skilled Abilities
- Utility > Boon
- Universal Utility > Basic Boon

* * * *

And now for tweaks that further resulted from this.

First, Potent Strike is dead. You’re already tracking Edge, focus and surges (and times you’ve rallied on the side) and it’s just one more thing to track for a net bonus of a couple points of damage per round over the course of a fight (at max level you’re applying it to four of five attacks with about a 60% hit rate to do about 13 extra damage... or 6 extra dpr at level 15).

In its place I changed the Skill Focus action (+3/focus to next skill check) to Focused Action (+3/focus spent to next roll of any kind, including damage rolls). It’s inferior to both Accurate Offensive (+1 free and +2/focus after you know the result of the initial roll) and Aggressive Offense (5 extra damage/focus after you hit), but it’s a functional “basic” use for focus if your particular build doesn’t have anything else to spend it on.

I also changed attack surge so it no longer requires stances or attack spells to really benefit. In part this also has to do with the change to critical hit damage from “max + half level” to “max + full level” making an automatic critical (without a vulnerability or similar) too good to gain just from focus or a potent strike that you get 2-4 per fight.

So now attack surge deals critical damage on a hit and extends durations to (sustain hit) and deals half damage and usual effect on a miss (you can spend focus on it now too if you want) so it keeps its daily power feel, just expressed differently and able to be used by any build.

Second, I adjusted the damage roll modifiers. Attribute + Level is the base modifier for even non-skilled attacks and a skill bonus of +1 at 3, 7, 9, 12 and 14 (lining up with the skill bonus to abilities) replaces both the old specialization bonus and adds a bit more on top of that.

Third, I replaced “Focus” with “attribute” (usually the one used for weapon/implement attacks) for the autohit slayer abilities (most notably for energy missiles and aspect actions, but also sneak attack damage). The reason for this is that to actually match a 48 dpr (two energy missiles as main and minor action) your attacks have to deal 80 damage in a round if they only hit 60% of the time.

6.5 (d12 damage die) + 6 (attribute) + 15 (level) + 5 (skill) + 1 (overall dpr of critical hits) only gets you to 33.5 per attack (about 36.8 dpr). A skirmisher would need to deal 6.5 extra damage with each hit to match that.

A ravager similarly deals only about 10.5 (d12+4 damage die) + 6 (attribute) + 15 (level) + 5 (skill) + 8 (focus) + 1 (critical hits) = 45.5 * 90% hit rate = 40.5 dpr.

Dropping the autohit damage to 21 (6+15) means you only need to hit a dpr of 42 to match that... a shortfall of only about 1.5 dpr for the skirmisher and ravager. The ravager catches up with its extra damage to flat-footed targets (hit or miss)... the skirmisher gets some work.

Specifically, in place of the “you can use stances on the rapid attacks” which actually requires a specific build (i.e. you actually have to have a stance to benefit from it, none of the other class traits require an “unrequired requirement” like that) the skirmisher gets +1 to weapon attack rolls at level 5 and 10 which bumps it up to the 42 dpr range and keeps the skirmisher’s lack of complicated traits (i.e. you can build a 3.5e/5e fighter with it).

Changing a Maledictor’s energy missile and the other autohits to attribute + level also makes it a lot closer to the opponent autohit damage value of 4+level. A big part of the tactical game is that it’s mainly focus and surges (and more options) that set a PC apart from the opponents. PCs were doing too much base damage to really make that true.

Another element that I had been in the process of adding that got dropped hard once I noticed unintended side effects was making sure each class had something class specific to spend focus on. The intention was to prevent a situation that resulted in a playtest where someone had plenty of focus points but literally nothing to spend them on because of their build choices.

The unintended part was that the only thing a couple of classes could really get was free use of a minor action... and I failed to account for the dpr effects of whole extra full-damage attacks without any surge cost. It was ugly and I have an across-the-board thing to spend focus on now so I was able strip out most of those elements.

Finally, in relation to these I closed a loophole where non-accurate expert weapons were objectively better once you have the funds for better quality. For example, a short sword is accurate d6. A long knife is a d8. Basically balanced. A fine shortsword could get lethal to make it an accurate d8 weapon and a fine long knife could get accurate to make it an accurate d8 weapon. Still balanced. But a legendary long knife could also get lethal too making it an accurate d10 weapon, while a legendary short sword would have to take improved or high crit or some other property.

In theory, improved or high crit has the same dpr effect as accurate or lethal, but their effect is in the form of damage spikes that might not even come up once in an entire game session, while the accurate d10 has a round to round effect that makes it superior to an accurate d8 (18-20 crit range).

So a number of of weapons like the long knife that had a higher base damage due to not being accurate got an * next to their damage die indicating the lethal property is already factored into their statistics (i.e. you can’t add lethal to a long knife because it’s already “lethal”).

* * * *

To put all that in simple terms... I cleaned up the damage numbers some more.

* * * *

Another element I worked on this week that’s about halfway done is actually writing the Old Praetoria background section for the Player’s Guide. One of the side effects of consolidation and clean-up has been shaving more than 20 pages from the Player’s Guide (it went from 374 to 348 pages between the conditions cleanup, courtier/noble merger, the specialization rework and now the latest cleanup that removed some unnecessary duplication).

So that’s 20 pages I’ve opted to fill up with player useful world fluff. In the last week I consolidated “The Favor of the Astral Gods” section with the notes about the gods I’d posted in this thread and some additional details to create full sections on the Via Praetorum (the Praetorian Way... aka the Imperial Pantheon only now with more details on how it’s lived in daily life that make it more like how the Romans actually practiced their religion), Bestianism (now with a helping of fatalism in the idea that every benefit you receive from the gods has a bill that will come due eventually) and the Astral Court (I’d say “now with extra theocracy”, but I think that’s already been capped out).

Each of the gods (except the dark gods of the Via Praetorum who are worshiped against) not only has favored attack spells, but also favored aspects and other talents for enough options to get to level eight on the default options of a single god (by which point you’re easily important enough to get special consideration for other less common options for your last three talents).

Also getting some short blurbs are a half-dozen religious orders of the Via Praetorum that fall outside the usual hierarchy; the Scribes of Verax/Sun Seekers, Castians, Templars of Bellos, Medellan Healers, Knights of Viatus/Hospitalers and Order of Venetrix/Grey Hunters.

I’m currently taking a break (and posting from my phone) from writing up the Old Faith entry due to my hand cramping up, but that’s next, followed by other overviews of some larger towns/cities and institutions like the Black Guard, Onyx Order, Greywolf Mercenary Company and Flotsam Pirates.

All of this is going to form a third Appendix at the the end of Player’s Guide so it doesn’t break the flow of the general and character building rules with a big setting-specific fluff section. The Via Praetorum, Bestianism and Astral Court already clocks in at seven pages, so I’ve got about 14 more to play with before the Player’s Guide is back to its pre-editing length. If anything, I expect to have to crunch and leave out a bunch of things to keep the book size on target (Blackspire’s points of interest are two pages and that doesn’t include any government or organizations players might want to have Allegiances for or against... so probably six pages with some art).

So, anyway, that’s the progress this week. I’m just grateful typing on my phone is mostly thumb-related or I’d have to choose between an update and further aggravation of my typer’s cramp.

So, it’s a little thing, related to my overall renaming... but with the ability of the skirmisher to basically be the 3e/5e fighter I’m wondering if it doesn’t need a different name.

While it has better movement, it’s in an overall package of bonuses to every physical ability (so essentially you get bonuses to acrobatics, fitness, stealth, running, climbing, jumping and swimming) and is now paired with a bonus talent, extra bonuses to hit and skill with general punching/kicking/head-butting.

Put that with Strong combat style and you could have a guy in half-plate armor and a halberd or longsword/shield and it doesn’t particularly feel like “skirmisher” is the word I’d use to describe them (at least not the way a guy who picks a target, moves inexorably towards them and deals insane damage feels naturally like a “ravager” whether they’re a bare-chested berserker with a greataxe, a guy in brigandine and a longsword or half-plate and a halberd).

Basically it’s the same issue that changed the Acrobat (describing a very specific way one would act as a melee controller) into the Disabler (who uses melee attacks to control, but isn’t locked into it being because of agility).

Also, there are already a ton of classes in S-section of the dictionary; sentinel, sharpshooter, sidekick and summoner so moving it to another letter between D (defender and disabler) and R (ravager; yes it jumps from D to R in terms of class names).

* * * *

Related side-bar: I was originally going to call the Fighter classes “Warrior classes”, but ultimately went with Fighter because warrior was being used elsewhere in a more generic sense whereas Fighter is not something you’re liable to use as a generic description.

For example, what’s a good shared name for the companions gained from a barbarian’s “warband”, a military PC’s “men-at-arms” and an outlaw’s “band of thugs”? Grunt has a specific meaning they don’t quite align with, Mook feels very derisive and Soldier isn’t a good fit for tribal warriors or an outlaw gang. Warrior is the only word I could find that can actually cover all those concepts.

But I am not married to calling the former Skilled archetype classes the “Fighter Group.” It’s just the best I can think of to cover them all (Martial is a bit too close to 4E for comfort... which is why I’m kinda happy that “Utility” is now “Boon” and why I chose “Skilled” over “Trained”). I do worry though about to baggage connected to the term “fighter” and wouldn’t mind changing it up if there’s something better someone can think of (though being at the level of “class group” means there’s not the preconception fight there was in 4E with “I want to play a bow-using fighter, not a ranger”... a “bow-using fighter” in this case could be a brigand, captain, ravager, sentinel, sharpshooter, sidekick or skirmisher.”).

I'd keep Fighter as the name of the non-magical class group. If I remember correctly, the first two classes in D&D, way back when, were the Fighting Man and the Magic-User, or the Fighter and the Spellcaster in your case.

Boon's a better name for the utilities - it's not as commonly-used in modern parlance as benefit, so it's easier to associate with a specific mechanical benefit. I wasn't even trying to phrase it like that, "mechanical benefit" just came out as I was typing.

As for skirmisher, striker would have been a perfect fit, but you're already using it for the monster type, and you're looking for something in the D to R range. Hm. This is going to require some thought.

It doesn’t HAVE to be D to R; just that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if it weren’t an “S” class.

I’m halfway tempted to re-name it the “Champion” as a dig at 5e’s super-simple fighter subclass, but only half... and less now that I’ve expressed it outloud.

The problem is I’ve used way too many general terms already. Fighter, warrior (which is too generic), slayer, striker, scrapper, ravager. I looked at Thesaurus.com under fighter and about the one I haven’t used (or isn’t hyper specific, like “boxer”) is “militant,” which, no.

Part of me wonders if I couldn’t lump strikers and scrappers together (both do extra damage as their main feature), but it’d be about like combining ravager and skirmisher into a single class... they both do extra damage (and have extra mobility), but they do it in different ways (and rolling twice for one whalloping hit does have a very different feel than rolling twice for two smaller ones).

Another option, though it’d still be an “S” might be to just use the opponent category of Scrapper for the class as well as the opponents (sorta like controller opponents and controller as a class role) because they both do similar things with their extra minor action attack.

Probably time to go dig through the massive list of paragon paths and 3.5e prestige classes to see if any term pricks my fancy.

I thought of scrapper, but I wasn't sure about the overlapping names. Your bringing up the overlapping controller names justifies it, though.

If you're worried about the proliferation of S-name classes, maybe you could move the Defender's name over to the Sentinel and have the old Defender be the Vanguard, or something like that. I was also thinking of making the Sharpshooter the Marksman, but the latter implies precision over some of the sharpshooter's rapid-fire tricks.

I’m not particularly worried about too many S-names; it’s more an observation that there were a lot and if I could swap a name out to reduce that number a bit I wouldn’t complain, but not at the expense of sacrificing solid descriptive names for things (ex. Sentinel feels right for the ranged Guardian because it has connotations of watching over something).

For similar reasons, I’m not certain scrapper is all that much better than skirmisher in terms of the fighting style it implies. If I were to steal any of the opponent type names for the revised skirmisher it’d be the Striker as that’s about the most agnostic in terms of implied fighting style.

Perhaps the solution is actually to rename the striker opponent role to something that more specifically indicates its massive accuracy bonus (and ability to trade it for extra damage)... maybe “scourge”?

That would free up the term Striker for the most generic of the “slayer” classes... which actually fits with the general theme of using the 4E roles for class names.

I think you have your solution: Scourge works better than Striker for the monster role, allowing you to use Striker for the old Skirmisher class.

Scourge and Striker did end up being my solution. I’m quite happy with that.

Another design update was a change to the “Men” opponent entries to give them all elite variants. The general progression on them now goes Journeyman-tier grunt, standard and elite and an expert and master-tier elite. I made similar, but slightly different changes to the spellcasters opponents as well.

The gist behind this change is that any “human” who actually moves beyond the standard tier-1 opponent type is closer to a PC in ability than just a high level standard opponent and, as per the PC-light build rules, a PC going all out is roughly as dangerous as an elite opponent of the same level.

The purpose is to make it easier for GMs to be able to drop opponents who are often fellow forces of civilization in as PC allies and not just as enemies without needing to use the custom-build rules unless they’re doing something really unique.

* * * *

In terms of new content, I have finished the religion (and religious orders) and calendar sections of the Player’s Guide mini-gazetteer. Next up is a brief overview of the Free Cities (and organizations in the area) and blurbs about their neighbors (El-Phara, Bloodspear Empire, Toria Tribes) to round it out.

* * * *

And finally, I had an unexpected, but fruitful in an unexpected way, playtest session. Given all the changes to terminology and specializations/talents I decided to have them try character generation again to see how it went.

The relevant take away from one was that they really liked how they didn’t have to do like other games did and pick your class first and then pick the race that gives the best bonuses to it and it made sense to them with how I had done things to determine your ability scores last...

But they really didn’t like having to flip all the way back to chapter two to do it after going through two hundred pages of species, class and background entries to get to it and all the derived trait values.

Another player also missed the couple of pages on Attributes and Derived Scores and so had to ask me how you actually determined those values on the character sheet and couldn’t figure out how to calculate their ability modifiers. In the case of Attributes they had literally just put down the two +1s from their species and listed all the others at zero because that’s what they thought the species entry meant.

One thing that was distinctly different this time was that the only rules I had were on tablets rather than spreads with the rules parts only printed out as loose pages people could take the relevant sheets from and go over. This made it a bit more like having to flip through an actual book.

I know there’s always going to be some people who can’t make characters without help regardless of how simple the system is, but both of these bits of feedback hinged on what amounts to “organization.”

Am I actually using the best possible layout for new readers (or for veteran role-players who just assume they know where to find everything based off the layouts of countless similar RPGs)?

So, I’m taking a look at some of those elements and one of the things I’m trying out currently is breaking up the “Skilled and Skill bonuses” section and placing the actual entries in the sections they most apply to; skill bonuses for weapons, armor and implements at the start of the classes chapter and skill bonuses to abilities at the start of the backgrounds chapter (in addition to being in the abilities chapter).

I’m also trying out breaking up the “derived traits” section too... moving how to calculate your initiative modifier, defense scores, focus limit and weapon/implement attack values to the start of the classes chapter (Edge, Focus score and number of heroic surges already being able to be determined just from the classes section) and how to calculate your ability check modifiers to the backgrounds chapter (right after the section describing the number of skilled abilities you get and what the skill bonus for that is).

The big question in this attempt at re-arrangement is “where do Attributes and the base load and speeds derived traits go?” Where is actual best place to put the section on assigning ability scores for minimal backtracking and clarity?

It’s probably NOT between the species/class/background overviews in chapter two. If this playtest proved anything it’s that as soon as one of the species or classes struck their fancy, they skipped ahead to the full entry on it and just didn’t go back to chapter two at all. Instead they would just flip between the species, class and background chapters looking for the relevant information and that’s where the problem finding things arose for both of those players.

Hence, the idea of putting the combat related skill bonuses and how to calculate combat-related modifiers and scores into the class chapter and the ability modifiers into the backgrounds chapter.

As I see it there are a couple of options.

First, even if you shouldn’t determine it until after you’ve at least figured out your class, I could put the rules for determining attributes in the character creation chapter before I start in on the summaries of the species/classes/backgrounds since it’s those lists that seem to cause people to jump ahead.

A related option (call it 1A) would be to move the species/class/background summaries out of the character creation chapter entirely and to the start of their respective chapters. That way it would jump right from the steps of character creation to Attributes, Skill/Skill bonuses and Derived Traits before you ever get to the lists that send people looking elsewhere.

Option Two is move Attributes, Derived Traits, Allegiances, Languages and Levels of Experience into a new chapter (call it “Finishing Touches” maybe) after the background chapter. This might also require moving the Abilities (formerly Skills) chapter (perhaps combining it with the Basic Actions and Movement sections into an “Actions & Abilities” chapter).

Option Three is move the Determining Attributes rules into one of the chapters where people would expect to find them (put the Attribute rules; what they’re used for, what a given score indicates and the “empty set” rules; into Chapter One with the “common modifiers” rules). The question is “which chapter makes the most sense?”

It could be the classes chapter because that’s where you’ll determine mostly what your best scores need to be.

It could be the backgrounds chapter because it’s the last chapter for building your character, attributes help determine your ability modifers as well and, from a bit of a fluff standpoint, your background probably IS where a real person would actually develop their strong and weak attributes (i.e. if your background is military you probably spent time training up your Strength or Reflexes... if you started out as an Arcanist you’ve studied hard to hone your intellect). Realistically though it’s probably the LEAST relevant choice of the three in terms of your ability scores (case in point is Kalla Blackthorne, who despite having an INT 1 manages an Arcana of 6... just one shy of the typical starting 7-ish).

It could also be put into the species chapter because species is the one category that actually does directly impact your attribute scores (you’d just need to include a note about fighter classes needing a good STR or REF and one of INT, WIT or PRE and Spellcaster classes needing a good INT, WIT or PRE and one other good score so they could assign the scores before they’ve necessarily made their final class choices).

One idea (call it 3A) that’s super interesting in a “creativity in constrained options” sense would be to assign one of the three ability arrays to each species (ex. all humans use the balanced array, all beastmen use the focused array, all dwarves use the strong array, etc.). This would make character creation simpler in that you don’t have to choose one of three arrays, just use the one for that species...

ex. For full humans; “Assign 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, -1 to the six attributes in any order, then add +1 to any two ability scores”

For Beastmen; “Assign 4, 2, 1, 0, 0, -1 to the six attributes in any order, then add +1 to any two of STR, END, REF or WIT”).

... BUT I’m pretty sure that’s basically a non-starter precisely because it does act to constrain options.

Sure, two out three example beastmen use the focused array already, but the third doesn’t and would probably have to go with a STR 5, PRE 2 build (or go from a daring warrior to a wary one) that drops his END to 0 because he can’t apply his species bonus to PRE and can’t use the strong array for a PRE 3 and then put a +1 into the base STR 3.

So, as I said, interesting in the academic sense of “what choices and trade offs do people make when their options are constrained (sorta like if you had to use the default array instead of point buy in 4E)” but probably not when it comes to letting everyone build exactly the character they want to build.

Comments are welcome as always.

I'm thinking that option two might be your best bet - you said that finalizing attributes tends to be one of the last things done, so putting that along with derived traits sections towards the end creates a natural flow in the book, going from species to classes to backgrounds to the finishing touches. Putting in your idea of an "actions and abilities" chapter between the backgrounds and finishing touches would also help the flow as the player narrows their focus down beyond broad concepts. Putting the Levels of Experience section at the end of the character creation process is another benefit - it's a useful summary of everything you've been going over previously, and it acts as a cheat sheet for character creation.

Okay... I am finally done with the reorganization and while I presented options A, B and C as solutions, the actual solution ended up being D; parts of all of the above.

First, I moved all of the species/class/background summaries from the character creation chapter to the start of their respective chapters (i.e. option 1A).

From Option 2, I grabbed the abilities/skills chapter and combined it with basic actions and movement into a new Chapter 2 (Actions & Abilities). This puts ALL the rules for playing the game in the first third of the book instead of split into two parts.

Options 1 and 3 merged in the sense that I moved the rules for determining Attributes (and Base Load and Speed) to the the start of the Species section along with a section describing which attributes were needed by which classes. The attribute descriptions (including rules for null values) were moved to the Modifiers section in chapter 1.

The rest of the Skill Bonuses and Derived Traits calculations were split between classes (weapon, armor and implement skill, initiative, defenses, attack/damage modifiers... edge, focus and surges were already there) and backgrounds (ability/skill bonuses).

That leaves the actual chapter creation chapter at a very short six pages with just the steps, Allegiances, languages and improving your character/leveling up. I ended up keeping it right after “Actions & Abilities” because both Allegiances and languages interact with abilities so having them right after that made sense to me. Likewise, leveling up is something you’ll only have to worry about once the character is built and you’re mostly just referencing rules in the front section of the book (for that matter, when you level up you’ll start with figuring out what you get from that and then go to the class and/or background chapter to get the specifics so you’ll always go front to back when referencing the character building elements).

Heck, I even managed to throw in a version of my 3A “constrained options” idea. I picked an array for each species and included it’s scores in that species’ actual entry, but noted that this is merely the most common array for that species and you could use any of the three if it better fits your concept.

So, for example, the Malfean entry is “Attributes: assign 3, 3, 1, 1, 0, -1 (or alternate array, p. 74) in any order, then add 1 to STR or REF and 1 to END or PRE.” It also now includes an entry for Speed including calculating the derived climb, jump and swim speeds.

The thinking here is that this puts everything you’d need to build those parts of a character right in the species entry itself so someone who doesn’t read very closely (or doesn’t want to flip back) will still be able to produce a viable character.

The added bit on speed also let me tweak some of the derived values just slightly. Dwarves now have a base climb 3, jump 1, swim 2 (instead of 2 across the board; they’re slower so they can’t jump as far without the artifice that boosts it, but they’re more sure footed and have a stronger grip so are better at climbing than average). Golems also got a boost to climb, but took a hit to swimming (they’re made of metal and stone... they sink). Avatars base values depend on their element and Beastmen get to pick for their species to reflect its particulars (ex. Centaurs take a hit to climb, but a bonus to jump).

While it’ll be in the update I’ll be putting up this afternoon, the default array choices for the species are; Balanced - avatars, fetches, humans (basically the most ‘natural’ of the species); Strong - dwarves, elves, gnomes, malfeans (astrals and those warped by demons); Focused - beastmen, golems, mutants (created species and those warped by the Cataclysm).

I’ll be very curious to see how this version does with my next batch of fresh playtesters.

I think it'll work out - I had to think about it to pick option 2, since each option had its good points. Merging the options gets you the best of all worlds.

Making 3A optional saved it from being a non-starter. For all intents and purposes, it works like before, but with the default array, you're likely to see more people experiment with it. Also, mixing up the climb/jump/swim speeds for certain races is a neat little trick.


Edited to add: I'm looking forward to the update.

New version is up. I'm sure its riddled with minor errors from all the renaming and shuffling since the last update, but I'll clean them up as I find them.

Yeah, 3A would have absolutely been a non-starter without it being optional, but the main reason I even explored it was precisely because of the number of people who just skim rule documents because they think they know where stuff is from past experience with other games. A prime example is the one who doesn't read the chapter intro sections because they believe they interpret the jargon in the individual entries well enough.

Having a version there gives them what they actually need without having to cross check, while still telling them they can use different numbers if they just turn to page 74 to get them.

Another advantage, since I decided to change up the sample characters to all use their species' default arrays was it helped provide a more even mix of arrays. When I was deciding which species might get which array I took a look at what all the pre-gens were using... it turns out that out of 30 characters, 21 used the strong array, 6 used the balanced array and only 3 used focused arrays. Now its 12 strong, 9 balanced and 9 focused.

The biggest irony is that the one beastman (Steelcoat) I used as my example for why having to use a preset array would cause problems probably ended up stronger as a result since going from a STR 4, PRE 3 to his new STR 5, PRE 2 kept his actual damage the same, but increased his accuracy by one and with another slight tweak got his PRE back to 3 anyway at the cost of automatic Edge recovery while bloodied, but picked up 'gain soak points on a hit; spend focus for Edge recovery' that when coupled with his Berserker resistance and even greater accuracy will probably keep him upright even more effectively (with resistance, each batch of soak points should soak an entire hit without even touching his Edge and refreshes with every hit he makes).

Mixing up the climb, jump and swim numbers once I actually put them into each species instead of a generic derived score just hit me as I was doing it. It actually started with the golem and the idea that they're heavy so they'd have a hard time actually swimming (also, they don't need to breathe so technically even if their swim speed ended up a 0, that just means they have to walk slowly; I'd count it as challenging terrain; across the bottom of the body of water to cross it).

From there I started looking at others. Dwarves, especially given the classic bit from Lord of the Rings where Gimli has to be thrown across a gap because he can't jump it, being less good at jumping than climbing or swimming (both things they might have to do regularly in caves) was another easy one. Then avatars being further refined by their elemental affinities so they feel more distinct from each other and beastmen already going to extremes with their default Focused attributes made sense to add ways to further define their movement based on their form and native environment of the beast they're based on.

By the time I was done, four of the ten species had different speed profiles built into them. Coupled with the default arrays it should help make the species feel even more meaningfully distinct (even if the attribute bit is something of an illusion due to being optional).

And the weirdest part of it all? Somehow doing all this actually REMOVED ten pages from the book's length, given me even more room to squeeze in some meaningful fluff and player side options into the guide before it hits my "this is probably going to be too thick" limit.

Right now I've got an even dozen more pages to play with before I hit my ideal 364 page count and as many as 33 before I hit my semi-hard 385 page limit (the previous peak page count for the Player's Guide before I turned Shifters into a background boon instead of two classes, dropped the Monastic background for physical adept boons, switched the Beastmaster into a background boon as well, consolidated the non-armor defenses, and merged courtiers and nobles into aristocrats and completely redid the specializations/talents... all of which increased the options available while reducing the page count.

The new setup is definitely easier from a reference standpoint. Also, how in the heck does each of these changes end up removing page count? It's a little creepy at this point.

New version is up. Fixed a few typos and reworked how the derived traits are displayed in the Classes chapter because I wasn’t entirely happy with the appearance. It involves some duplication in that they’re in both the shared Fighter and shared Spellcaster traits, but sorta like with the attributes and speeds in the actual species entries, it’s harder to overlook the info as you’re in the guts of making a character.

With regards to the creepy reduction in pages often as options increase... in this case (as with a lot of previous ones) the drop in pages comes from consolidation that ends up removing duplication.

Dropping the Monastic background for Physical Adept utilities (with the remainder largely overlapping with Religious already and what little didn’t being added to it) for example dropped three pages (the Monastic fluff text, the full page picture needed for it and the entire page of duplicate utilities and the dead space needed to have the next entry start on a fresh page). Similarly, consolidating the Courtier and Noble into the Aristocrat slice a net four pages off despite also opening up more design space by using limited access to other backgrounds instead of directly adding utilities from them to the aristocrat entry.

In this case, a lot of it came from the reduction in redundancy. In the case of the class blurbs that had been in the character creation chapter, they were largely or entirely duplicated in the classes chapter already, so all I needed were the class blurbs and the duplicate material (a bit over a page and half worth) just deleted.

Similarly, Edge, Focus and Heroic Surges already had calculation formulas in the classes chapter (under the archetype/class group traits) and, while more technical (ex. “Edge: 20+5/level (25 at level 1)” instead of “Your character has an Edge score of 20, plus 5 per level (so 25 at level one).”), it had all the relevant data already, so the flowery versions and their larger font headers were removed and the shorter technical expression from classes retained.

Then on top of that because I was moving the rest of the combat derived traits there too it made sense to express them technically like Edge, Focus and Surges to match, so Initiative went from about four lines (including header) to a single line.

Another aspect with the above too is that consolidation of these also reduced the number of art pages needed. The character creation chapter had about four full page art elements associated with the species, class and background summaries that could be folded right into the already needed start of chapter artwork for their chapters. That was three pages I didn’t even have artwork done for saved all by itself.

So the art pages, duplicate class blurbs and derived combat traits probably accounts for 60% of the drop this time. Then it was just little bits like the skill/ability list being duplicated in derived traits and the background chapter so the only thing that needed moved was the skill bonus values and how to calculate the final modifier while the duplicate list disappeared.

Likewise, the entirety of determining/improving attributes and derived Speed traits sections got absorbed into the dead space in each species entry so that’s another full page not needed. About the only thing really cut without replacement in that was the “Surge-based build” discussion and the capability is still there, only the implications are missing and that might be something for a blog entry or for discussion in the optional rules section (specifically in an “old-school” emulation option where spellcasters would be required to use a surge-based build to emulate Vancian casting).

All told, the duplication largely served as reminders of things discussed elsewhere. In retrospect, that probably should have been my first clue that things weren’t laid out as sensibly as I thought. I’m so used to the rules by now that I don’t even have to consult a table of contents or pdf bookmarks... I just know where it all is. The result was I couldn’t actually judge how sensible the layout was. I need outside eyes for that, which probably means I need a fresh playtest in the very near future to test how these changes look to someone unfamiliar with the system as a whole.

Given the improvements to reading comprehension I also made, it might be time to have my 14 year old goddaughter take a look since I’ll be seeing her and her folks (all three gamers) this weekend.

So, I'm working on a new map for the Old Praetoria gazetteer at the end of the player's guide so I can firm up what places actually need blurbs in that appendix.

But the main thing I'm looking for feedback on today is that the Ravager needs some serious love.

The main problem is that its mechanics don't compete well with either the brigand or striker.

- For damage its mechanic is Focus extra damage when you hit and rolling twice to try and hit if you spend a minor action first. You know what's better than spending a minor action to maybe get to hit once? Spending a minor action to maybe get to hit once or twice or spending a minor action to deal automatic attribute+level damage on a hit or miss in addition to whatever effect a clever trick provides; like "dirt to the face" that lets you roll twice on a target too (and also is probably a bit overpowered since it also shadows).

Likewise, you know what else allows you to ignore movement impairing conditions that the Ravager doesn't get until level 5? A successful recovery check that a brigand can do as a minor action and get to use their sneak attack damage on their next attack.

Also, the Striker and Brigand can hit their damage targets using just about any weapon (okay, maybe not daggers... though they're cheap enough that a pair of fine daggers with the lethal property could be starting gear and essentially throwable short swords in terms of damage) whereas the Ravager needs a 1d12 weapon (the class' innate accuracy makes accurate not all that needed) to not fall short of the other two on damage.

Basically... Ravager is balanced, but its having issues with its design space. Its no longer the simplest fighter class and the brigand can pretty easily eat its lunch and then some with the right clever tricks. Strikers and Brigands both have the design space now to do the "great weapon" fighting style if they wish (there are times mechanically where a great weapon striker almost feels more "ravager-y" in that they attack with their greatsword then pommel smash/head butt/kick in the face with their minor action... particularly if it goes with the Berserker fighting style).

So, I NEED to find something to make the Ravager stand out from the other two, because I don't see the point of keeping it if I can't find something (and I already have to fight myself to not merge the disabler and sharpshooter due to their degree of overlap... and you know the number of times I've considered just making the Sidekick an option for the Captain; fortunately repeated playtests where testers said "I never would have thought of that concept on my own" cured me with the Sidekick).

I like the fact that, at least in my system, there are MORE fighter classes than spellcasting ones. I just need to make sure they're truly distinct from each other (which probably also argues for making disabler and sharpshooter more distinct if I want to resist the urge to the just merge them).

One avenue worth considering might be something along the line of the Maledictor in that the Ravager could have a bit of area effect damage they can draw upon. That would make them particularly terrifying against grunts and other weak foes when the "larger battles" damage rules are in effect.

Maybe they get Ravager's Mark as they do now, but also Ravager's Sweep (make next attack target all enemies in Melee Burst 1) as second minor action option?

Lemme know if you have any thoughts on the matter.

Ravager's Sweep needs to be a thing. The Ravager's not a Striker hitting you repeatedly, it's not a Brigand that's using Clever Tricks, it's an engine of destruction. It needs to ravage the battlefield, and Ravager's Sweep to terrorize weaker opponents is how you do it.

The only way you could merge Sidekick into Captain would be to have the Sidekick's benefits be under a switch, like the Defender's Style. On top of the "I would have never thought of that concept" is that no other class operates like that - they're condensed down to their basest elements. It would be more complexity than necessary.

As for the Disabler and Sharpshooter, it looks like their main overlap is in the flurries and volleys. I'd rework the flurries and volleys to work off of the same list, like how the Brigand, Captain, and Sidekick all use Clever Tricks. Otherwise, I'd advise against merging them. It would be like trying to merge the Defender and Sentinel.

Something else about Ravager's Sweep - it also helps the Ravager clear out any of the minions between the Ravager and the big bad of the fight (who's going to be the recipient of Ravager's Mark). It reinforces the Ravager's inexorable nature compared to the Brigand and the Striker.

Agreed on all counts. The comment "I never would have thought of that concept on my own" is why Sidekick has been forever safe after that point. I merely brought it up as a point of comparison to my present thoughts. And yeah, my thinking on Disabler vs. Sharpshooter is less "combine features" and more "what can I do to make them more distinct from each other?" Think the difference between an interdictor and a summoner; both controllers, but do it in much more different ways than the Disabler and Sharpshooter go about it.

And you came to the same conclusion I did about Ravager's Sweep. While it can do single target damage on par with a brigand or slayer, where the Ravager now shines best is against multiple foes using Ravager's Sweep. Here's the revised mechanics for the class;

Bonus Talent: You gain a basic or weapon talent of choice.
Physically Adept: You gain a Physical Adept boon (p. 250) at level 1 and an additional Physical Adept boon at level 3, 8 and 13.
Ravager’s Strike (minor): Your next weapon attack deals extra damage when you hit or miss equal to your level + the attribute used for the attack check.
Ravager’s Sweep (minor): Your next weapon attack targets a Wall 6 (ENT). If you are using a melee attack you shift to an open space adjacent to the last square of the wall after the attack is resolved.
Retaliation (Level 5) (reaction): A creature within your weapon’s range deals damage to you / Spend 1 focus to make a Free Strike on the creature. You can use a ranged weapon for this attack.
Improved Retaliation (Level 10): You can use Retaliation without spending focus, but the Free Strike deals only half damage.

The idea behind the free shift with a melee sweep is that the Ravager gets a small benefit for using it the riskier position of melee instead of just peppering people from a distance. Also, now I actually look at it, between his unerring spear and astral artillery attacks, Kar-Taxsu, Earthbound God of War is absolutely a member of the Ravager class (with the Benedictor multi-class talent since he can give soak points to his allies). That the stats for the elven god of war fit best with the revisions to the ravager has to mean I'm on the right track.

It's also worth noting that Physically Adept also replaced the Striker's movement bonuses. Its movement related parts and those from the ravager were either moved into the Physical Adept Boons or were already there in some fashion.

This and the bonus Talent makes both the Ravager and Striker very generic in terms of inbuilt features, but the fact is, unlike a guardian, controller or enabler, there's NOT a lot of unifying theme to "does lots of damage" and there's only so much you can add onto its damage dealing feature itself without breaking it. Guardians can get extra class features based around protecting their allies or making themselves tougher. Enables can get extra features to buff allies and controllers to debuff enemies.

But without the elements I long ago moved to backgrounds (ex. rogue sneak/trap/evasion abilities, ranger favored terrains/nature abilities, etc.) there's not much you can add in terms of common features to the ravager or striker that relate to combat.

So I've decided to dump the "common features" entirely in favor of "add various borderline superhuman physical traits to taste." Wanna be a D&D monk? Grab Iron Body (formerly Unarmed Expert) and later evasion, slow fall and ghost step. A barbarian? inexorable advance, pain tolerance, mighty, and swift.

You can still do those using the other classes and your regular background boons, but their actual class role is broad enough that specific class features actually make sense. It also makes the Ravager and Striker very much akin to the 3e/PF fighter where, outside of full base attack, its main feature was lots of bonus feats; only because spellcasting is actually on par with the "feats" here, that's not actually a feature that will be quickly outstripped by high level spells.

I also changed the Disabler's AoE from close burst 1 or blast 2 to be a Melee Wall 6 with free shift when resolved like the Ravager. Its just a more interesting mechanic that better reflects either dodging and weaving between or just bowling over (depending on concept) your opponents.

Okay. Back to that map. My goal is to spend my time on NEW content this week.