STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

Well, I've just had a nightmare happen.

A critical drive failure wiped out my current version of the Ruins & Realms document and the backup isn't showing up in my google drive or the desktops of any of my machines where they're supposed to be.

The most recent version I have is pre-vehicle fixes.

I have the PDF, so I can hopefully strip the data out of that without having to rewrite it, but basically all the edits since before I started the vehicle update were lost and I'm not even certain which version of the backups I do have is the most recent.

I'll get back to you when I know where I actually am.

Update: So the magic items changes are gone too... I'll have to pull those from the PDF. In a stroke of luck, the realm creation rules I was working on were in a separate file and so seem to have survived.

We'll see how much else I can recover after I go get a bunch of fresh flash drives to create multiple backups on.

Oh, shit! Good luck with the recovery, man. Nightmare sounds about right here.

Update on the recovery... I've managed to pull the Vehicle and Magic Item rules from the PDF and re-format them. They're still in a separate file at the moment, but I'll re-integrate them shortly (I've got the gross re-formatting done, but there's some special headers I need to throw in to make sure they turn up in the table of contents and PDF bookmarks properly).

By comparing my posts about changes here to the PDF and to the copies of the Document I found I was able to determine the most up to date of those and which elements hadn't been updated.

I was also able to recover the environments section from an older file I'd created to keep the size of the document I was editing down to a reasonable size.

At this point the primary loss seems to be a number of grammatical/typos I've caught and updated in the past few weeks. Nothing critical, but super-annoying in the sense that I only found them by accident and made the changes without documenting them so finding them again is going to be nigh impossible.

I relegate those to "that's why part of my kickstarter funding request is for a professional copy-editor" and am just relieved that 99.99% of my work remains intact even if my hand cramped up with all the copy-pasting, removing the line breaks and re-formatting.

I also have it backed up to two different thumbdrives, my google drive and my laptop's hard drive. I'll be putting a copy on my desktop harddrive once I'm done with work.

Good, good. Glad that got worked out.

Okay, been a bit and work on the Realms section is ongoing, but due to some feedback on character creation I did some revisiting of the classes section to see if I couldn't streamline it for some people having trouble with it.

While I'm not certain about some of the potential changes, which I'll go into later... I wanted to open with one change that definitely will be sticking around... the Abjurer got something of an upgrade in terms of flexibility.

The first part of the update is this; the Wards were replaced with Minor Spells (and yes, I did a side-by-side to make sure every non-damage effect was in the Minor Spells list, even added one there to make sure). So instead of Protective or Challenging Ward triggering a ward from the old list, it triggers a minor spell on the target, which adds effects like confusion, flat-footed, deafened, being surrounded by a wall of force, etc.

Second there's another option for the Ward effect; Resistive or Retributive. Retributive Wards also deal extra damage equal to the Abjurer's level to the triggering enemy (of a type you choose at level 1 with additional options at level 5 and 10) while Resistive Wards give the ally or target of a warded resistance to all damage and effects.

Abjurers can pick Protective or Challenging and Resistive or Retributive to start and pick up the other two options for the cost of a minor spell selection each. Thus, you can range from the 4E Swordmage protective resistive ward to the 4E Paladin's challenging retributive ward and with extra minor spell effects on top of that.

So basically, more flexible and more fun. I am VERY happy with that change.

* * * *

The change I'm less certain of is mostly one of nomenclature and a bit of resultant reorganization; the short version is that some younger players were getting a bit confused on the spellcasting side of the equation with class group, class and spellcasting paths.

So the change would be this; rename the class groups + spellcasting paths as Classes. Due to the way Masterminds break a couple of things in the Fighter class-group they'd also be split out so you'd end up with the following classes (names subject to change and I'm open to suggestions); Astralist, Fighter, Gadgeteer, Mastermind, Primalist, Sorcerer and Wizard.

The current classes would then be renamed Paths; so Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel, Sharpshooter and Striker would be paths of the Fighter class... while Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor and Summoner would be paths open to the Astralist, Gadgeteer, Primalist, Sorcerer and Wizard classes.

My thinking here is that a lot of the hang-up came in that when a kid would describe what they wanted in terms of the spellcasters they'd hone in on things like "I want to be a wizard" rather than "I want to be an interdictor."

So essentially the change would be... "okay, you're a wizard (or you're a fighter), now pick your focus and path within that broad category." (this is also why Sorcerer got split out from the Covenant because, first, there were some subtle but relevant mechanical differences, but second, the practices of "swear fealty to The Source" and "born with an innate gift" feel very different when you're breaking things down with the old paths as the new classes).

The main thing I am not happy with in that is the Mastermind because it essentially becomes a single-role class while a Fighter or Wizard could have any role. But at the same time its a lot easier to set up as a class in that breakdown precisely because of what it does uniquely get and, more importantly, what it doesn't get (combat style, one less talent and the one remaining talent is pre-picked).

I'd love to find a way to make the Mastermind into something where it could take paths other than essentially "Captain" but as soon as your identity is basically, make others do the work, you're pretty much locked into the Enabler role with the only difference being what you enable (ex. using "create minor opening" on a striker or maledictor is essentially using your turn to be in the Slayer role).

And maybe that's actually just the answer... the Mastermind is technically only an enabler, but because if its unique special abilities its really an extra of every other role in their current party by handing out extra main and minor actions to the party with extra goodies on top of that.

* * * *

Anyway, that's my update for this weekend; back to the grindstone.

I am completely here for the abjurer/minor spell change. My only question is how does the base ward interact with damage types, since barring energy missile and energy zone, the minor spells don't have damage types types the way that the wards did. I assume the Resistance option replaces the resistance ward, while the retributive ward is intended to replace the acidic extra damage ward, just with different numbers. The real question is how the ward damage shakes out with Retributive Ward and Energy Missile.

***

Flipping class and path is a good idea - it clears up confusion, allows you to draw on the common idea of class being the uppermost decision level, and the language just fits better. If you do nothing else, then this switch is worthwhile.

I don't think that astralist and primalist work as class names alongside gadgeteer, sorcerer, and wizard, though. There's no heft to those names; it's like calling the sorcerer the bloodline-ist. If we're going this route instead of keeping things the same, I would recommend calling the astralist the theurge, since that's how you described it in the past when you elaborated on real-world magic systems (or what people believed to be real). Druid doesn't work for the primalist, since the real-world druids don't have much to do with your seting's primal monotheistic faith - the human sacrifice that the druids were reputed to commit kind of put a damper on that. I'd recommend shaman instead. So we'd have the gadgeteer, shaman, sorcerer, theurge, and wizard on the caster side.

By the way, with the sorcerer, how are you handling the build options, the ones that determine what stat they use for focus? Because building up to four new options is going to be a royal pain in the neck, unless you decide that the primalist/shaman and sorcerer share options, which opens the question as to whether other sources can share options. And that just opens up another can of worms.

***
With the Mastermind, they could work as a separate class, since they aren't true warriors like the fighter. They don't fight, they hit people with the fighter. Your point about them essentially being an extra of every other role in the party is a good point, and may be a good reason to not monkey with them too much. Or you could just keep the mastermind as a path like what they are now.

The basic ward is a two axis thing. The existing Protective (applied to allies) and Challenging (applied to enemies) is one axis.

The second axis is Resistive (minor spell effect and ally or enemy’s target gets resist all to what triggered the ward) and Retributive (minor spell effect and extra damage equal to your level on the enemy who triggers it; you also pick a damage type for the extra damage and gain more damage types as you level up).

The Abjurer starts with one option from each axis so you get a range from “very defensive” (ward allies who gain resistance as well) to “very offensive” (ward enemies who take extra damage if they don’t attack you) and somewhere in between (ward allies and trigger extra damage or ward enemies and nerf their damage against anyone but you).

* * * *

As to names, Theurge I like... I’ll definitely go with that.

Shaman though isn’t really a term I’ve used anywhere in relation to The Old Faith specifically because of its associations with paganism, altered states of consciousness and bargaining with many types of spirits... versus The Covenant making you a child of the Source so the primal spirits/angels come at your call the same way you calling out to your brother for help would bring his assistance.

The term I use for the religious leaders of the Old Faith is Speaker... essentially the literal meaning of the word Prophet (one who speaks for God) since they’re essentially intended to be akin to the Biblical miracle working judges and prophets.

I’m not sure that works as a class name though.

* * * *

Build-option wise the Sorcerer and Primal Covenant caster are staying exactly as they were (as are all the others... the presentation needs some cleaning up, but the mechanics are in a good place).

In terms of sharing features, Fighters and Masterminds both share the same talent lists (basic, stance and weapon) and Combat Focus (daring, tactical or wary) plus Clever Tricks if you’re a brigand or captain, while Gadgeteers, “Primals”, Sorcerers, Theurges and Wizards share all the same paths and talent lists.

There are enough differences though both in how Sorcerers work in terms of setting fluff and some actual mechanical differences that were sufficient to make it worthwhile to split it from the Covenant if the “power source” is going to be the basis of class.

Sorcery (or if I’m feeling clever with my words; Sourcery) is, theologically speaking, a Charism; a freely given spiritual gift from God/The Source. The particular magic they work is as natural to them as running is to normal people (an ability chosen specifically because it’s something you can lose if you don’t take care of yourself and which, with practice and training, you can hone to far greater levels than just a talented amateur can achieve).

No one knows why some people gain the gift; it is found in the children of kings and paupers in equal measure; only that all Sorcerers eventually end up in situations where their abilities will place in a position to thwart the machinations of the demons and The Shadow. In game terms, ALL Sorcerers are adventurers (or at least adventurer adjacent).

Likewise, because of its association with primal spirits/eldritch and the spirits’ association with demons (fallen primal spirits), being born a Sorcerer isn’t exactly a picnic in some places (hence the bit in Kalla Blackthorne’s background blurb about her father training her to disguise her sorcery as wizardry as, even in the Free Cities, the Old Faith is only tolerated rather than embraced).

Mechanically the differences come down to the Sorcerer literally not needing implements, lacking skill with shields (since using both hands to cast makes their spells more powerful), using Insight for Magic Sense checks and, the real biggie, the interaction of implement attacks with attack spells is literally the opposite of every other spellcasting class.

To recap, every other spellcaster class gets a basic implement attack with a targeted defense and damage type (astral/theurges target Will and deal lethal psychic, wizards target Fort and deal kinetic), but those are always replaced by the defense and damage type of any attack spell they add.

By contrast, Sorcerer basic implement attacks can use either of two damage types/defenses and when they use an attack spell with it, they can replace the damage type/defense of the attack spell with those of their basic implement attack. Basically, Sorcerers get a built-in elemental theme that overrides attack spell’s normal themes.

So while they do share the patron spirit mechanic for determining their Focus and minor supporting abilities with the “Primalist” there’s a bit of a different context to it (to the point I might tweak the name from patron spirit to “inner spirit” for the Sorcerer, even if the mechanics are identical).

I'd figured that was how the abjurer would be structured, I was just wondering about the ward damage types for the resistant branch. I'd probably move the "choice of damage type" out of retributive and make it a general ward thing.

Speaking of retributive, if I understand this thing correctly, with energy missile it's punishment is going to be even more deadly than the maledictor's minor action damage, which ain't no joke, especially as you level up.

***
I hadn't realized that with regard to the shaman. The primal covenant caster's going to be a hard nut to crack.

Well the idea of resistive wards is that they only do damage if the minor spell would; ending up slowed or weakened or inside a force field box or shaken, along with half their damage going away is the guardian mechanic.

Retribution is actually identical in damage to the Maledictor’s minor action (minor spell + level damage) and can affect multiple creatures, but is also conditional on the ward being triggered. If the enemies just don’t attack the warded allies they take no damage (and neither do the allies, so mission accomplished).

Note that energy missile (best of INT, PRE or WIT damage) + level damage (about 5 at level 1 and 21 at level 15) is essentially the same damage as the average damage and hit rate of a weapon attack (1d8+5 hitting on a 10+ at level 1 is 5.225 average damage... 1d12+25 hitting on 9+ at level 15 is 21.9 average damage). That’s how Maledictor is balanced out with Striker and how a Free Strike is balanced with a retributive ward.

* * * *

And yeah, my flipping the script on Primal magic means that several more common names associated with more nature-focused cultures aren’t good fits (druid, shaman, spiritualist). That said, I think some people underestimate the elemental themes in the Judeo-Christian religious practices as well. You particularly see it in the High Catholic Masses like the Easter Vigil, but even in more ordinary masses there are blessed candles (fire), incense (air), holy water and the bread and wine (fruits of the earth).

One of my favorite hymns refers to God as The Lord of “Sea and Sky”, “Snow and Rain” and “Wind and Flame” in subsequent verses (and about choosing to be sent by The Lord); that last verse of “wind and flame” is actually the inspiration for the theme I used for my iconic sorceress Kalla Blackthorne (including every higher level version I’ve included in testing picking up the Healing Aspect via Empowered multi-class and the Restoration primal boon to match the rest of the verse; “I the Lord of Wind and Flame, I will tend the poor and lame.”

Anyway... something about Speaking for God (Spokesman is another translation of Prophet) or being Sent by God or perhaps being annointed (in the sense of having sworn to The Covenant with The Source) would be ideal.

Okay, I think I have a name to replace “Primalist.”

Based on some research with etymology and synonyms and their definitions I found a term used within Judeo-Christian religion for “initiate” and “seeking union with God.”

The proper term for that would be Mysticism and a practitioner would be a Mystic. It’s theologically appropriate, ties to the key attribute of Wits, and put the primal magic into the perspective of “you have access to this magic because you’ve opened yourself to The Source by being initiated into The Covenant.

So the classes would then be Fighter, Gadgeteer, Mastermind, Mystic, Sorcerer, Theurge and Wizard.

Mystic's better than anything I could come up - all I had was Channeler, and that's too generic. I'd say we're good to go.

Couple of updates.

Part One: after some thought I started trying to make the mystic more distinct from the sorcerer, but in the process of laying out options, realized two things;

First, with the exception of the War Wizard, the Wizard was underpowered relative to the other classes.

This was easy to overlook when it was a side-path, but all the others have a set of armor/weapon/implement skills, some “balance traits” (ex. the strong fighter option gets medium armor, the mystic uses WIT for armor defense), a focus score, access to some boons they might not normally get, and then a bonus something about equal to a talent or boon (ex. Daring fighters taking no penalty for using distraction again, mad geniuses being able to overclock their gear).

Lore and Social Wizards got the ability to select Arcana or a PRE ability (not actual skill, just the ability to make it skilled) and the ability to speak Arcanos (which you also get if you’re skilled in Arcana).

So as a tweak for their bonus something, ALL wizards are getting skill with Arcana (a basic talent), Lore wizards are getting the Spellcraft cantrip for free, and Social wizards are getting the Charm cantrip with an extra bonus equal to their PRE on top (since they’d have about as good a Persuade ability if trained)... about a third of a talent each which along with Arcana skill is about equal to a background talent.

A little side-effect of that is that, because there are 19 cantrips and you normally get three per selection, lore and social wizards are the only ones who can snag every cantrip with no waste.

Second, the more I started looking at actual mysticism, the more I realized that my presentation of the Sorcerer was really just a natural born mystic vs. one who came by it via contemplation. So since my every attempt to make the mystic more distinct just made it feel more like the theurge I decided to go the opposite route and re-merge it with the Sorcerer. I’m keeping the name Mystic for the class though because it’s the super-category with the distinction between a contemplative and a sorcerer being just fluff in the same way that a theurge whose pacts aren’t sanctioned by an astral church get labeled warlocks (despite being mechanically identical).

* * * *

Next up I’ve been filtering through some very meaty feedback that came from people whose on-ramp isn’t 4E or 5e, but Pathfinder. While generally positive, the main thing of note was that while they liked the rapid ebb and flow of Edge, it felt extremely deadly to them because, to paraphrase...

“regardless of what you call them, they’re still hit points, and being dropped to zero in three hits still means you’re out of the fight unless you’ve got certain character classes/options. I mostly play in small groups of 2-3 players and being forced to build for certain roles just to not die really makes it feel less fun.”

So I spent several hours with the group hashing out ideas and the ones that gained the most traction were A) there needed to a generic means to reduce damage taken by spending some other resource -and- B) that I should add a virtually meaningless stat called “Wounds” just because having a separate stat called “wounds” would make it easier to not see Edge as “hit/meat points”.

Further refining these thoughts, they liked the idea of a generic focus use to reduce damage taken by an amount in the neighborhood of 4+level per focus (which would functionally add about two hits before dropping at the cost of not spending it on other things; including rallying more than once).

They also felt that wounds should be what you lose with failed recovery checks while dying, but you could heroic surges instead. They felt that about three (as in three strikes you’re out) was the right number and they should have no other effects, at least in the basic rules (optional rules for wound penalties could be a thing).

I dunno if I’m going to do either of those, but at the very least it was worth getting fresh perspectives from people more familiar with other systems.

I like the new wizard revision - having them be skilled in arcana is practically a prerequisite for the class, when we're looking at fluff. I was thinking of recommending the same be done with the the gadgeteer and have them be proficient in engineering, but they already have extra benefits: if the troubleshooter and monkewrencher don't train engineering, they just have high stats in their area of specialty (disable device or jury rig/repair). The mad genius not training in engineering can fit some concepts, and the big lug has that +1 to AC. The theurge and mystic don't really need that kind of buff. I'm curious as to what you think.

***

Given that you're moving the sorcerer to the level of fluff like the warlock, what are you planning to do to differentiate the old covenant mystic and sorcerer mechanics. I had thought that you would have them be covenant and gifted mystics, but I'm not sure.

***

I'm not sure that it's really worthwhile to add an extra damage reduction mechanic like that. 2 or 3-man parties have been a thing since time immemorial - there are plenty of ways for a GM to build their encounters around that, including using lower-level monsters, grunts, etc., and that doesn't even   factor in multiclassing, bodyguard companions like Jon Steele, or summoned allies.

As to the "they're still hit points, and we need wounds to separate edge from meat points," that's down on the group in question and their descriptions. Your system's already geared towards using edge as something other than meat points - about the only way to really accommodate those guys without monkeying your system up with core engine-level redesign would be to have the points below the bloodied threshold be wound points and everything above be edge, but that just adds a layer of confusion, in my opinion.

Yeah, the other spellcasters were in reasonable shape; there were some weaker options, but nothing egregious (mostly the militant and zealous theurges only getting expert skill with one weapon while the war wizard got all basic and two expert categories).

Tangentially related; this also required updating the optional demonic spellcasting path to a class and, fortunately I found an evocative name rather quickly... The diabolist.

* * * *

As to the old Covenant mystic vs. Sorcerer being mechanically distinct; I’m not. Just like a “warlock” is just a Theurge who made their pacts unconventionally, a “sorcerer” is a Mystic who was born with their connection to The Source.

Ultimately it came down to my research into mysticism, particularly Catholic and Jewish mysticism, showing that it’s all focused on using meditation and contemplation to attempt to achieve a spiritual union with God (and that some mystics were “wonderworkers” due to receiving that gift from God).

Essentially the end state of their mystic practices is to achieve the state I describe Sorcerers as being born with; an innate connection with God/The Source (and there’s plenty of examples of such children being born with a deep spiritual connection to God among the Catholic saints and stories of the Prophets).

Basically, the prophets and early Christian miracle workers didn’t NEED implements to call upon God for aid. They just got the gifts they needed. Basically, it turns out the Sorcerer’s innate implement is how all the primal casters should be working magic and leave the implements to the Theurges with their specific pacts (or the gadgeteers and wizards who use them as control peripherals for the Arcane Web).

Mechanically the Sorcerer ate the covenant side, but kept the Mystic name because it’s the broader term that can cover both concepts in the same way that a Theurge can cover both the D&D cleric and the D&D warlock.

And I’m okay with that since among the sample PCs there’s only two sorcerers (one Eldritch and one human) and two covenant primals (one Eldritch and one Malfean) and the difference between the two despite the initial fluff differences (which renaming it the Mystic basically killed) really just came down to implement rules and nature vs. insight (with insight making more sense and the two covenant primals either having both nature and insight already or neither of the two but a species bonus to insight).

* * * *

For the damage resistance “panic button” they did agree to more testing; but essentially the in game situation came down to one of the PCs getting alpha striked through no fault of his own (his ally teleported him into melee not realizing the initiative order meant every last opponent got to attack before the player could go) got dropped in the first turn of combat before even getting an action and, if I hadn’t been running an NPC (a Fetch Shadow Medic) to assist them, they would have been out of the entire fight.

If they’d just been able to take about 5 less damage they’d have still been upright and able to Rally on their own... but they compared the experience negatively to a 1st level 3e/PF PC being dropped by a single hit from an orc and spending the entire fight unconscious because the party couldn’t heal him.

The specific concern raised was that there wasn’t anything he could do to change what happened; you have to be conscious to rally or take specific options to keep you upright that require a degree of system mastery to know to take them and that, in general, from their perspective being dropped was essentially “fight over” with nothing to do until later (and ergo, not fun) whereas a way to ride right up to the edge (with a cost, they wanted it to cost something like focus or even a heroic surge) but not falling over was their perceived ideal.

I meet again with that group in just under two weeks and agreed to run several battles in a more normal dungeon using different options to see what feels best or if it’s even needed. So nothing’s in stone yet, but it was an interesting batch of feedback since the bulk of mine has been with 4E and some 5e players, not 3e or older editions.

It’s saying something when a 3e player says the game feels more lethal than even low-level 3e.

* * * *

As to the wounds, the thinking would be essentially to rewrite “Death and Dying” to...

“Dying creatures make a recovery check during their turn. If they fail they lose a wound. If they have no wounds left, they die. You can spend a heroic surge to avoid losing a wound and, if the recovery check is 15 or better they stop dying and are merely unconscious.”

Then you get, say, 3 wounds and maybe a heroic surge or two less than currently (subject to testing).

The main line of thinking from the person suggesting it is that the change is largely just psychological... akin to changing the name to Edge, only because there would then be a “this is your meat” stat it enables certain people to not think of Edge as just renamed hit points... because now they’re NOT losing alternately named meat (because the three little wound points are the meat).

Honestly, it may have just made more sense in the moment... but even if I don’t go with it, I cannot overstate how important hearing all these different perspectives has been to designing the system and think I at least owe the suggestion a look, particularly since they specifically emphasized wounds having no other mechanical effect (i.e. no death spiral) and only applying if you’re both out of Edge and out of heroic surges... vs. say “make half your Edge into meat points.”

It’d be closer to “make your last couple heroic surges into meat points.”

Honestly, doing a full pass on all the things the classes touch (ex. those “if species X takes spellcasting path Y get benefit Z”) to make the updates there fit (and realm creation rules) is taking up enough of my time that I’ll be lucky to even have anything ready in two weeks for either “desperate defense” or “wounds” testing... much less have a final version of such changes locked down.

But I enjoy the feedback from multiple sources (including “that doesn’t sound like it’s worth the effort” because I have a way of finding rabbit holes to crawl down)... it’s not good to just write this stuff in a vacuum with all your blinders in place.

So if I understand it correctly, the mystic loses the standard implement proficiencies, and the reliquary and crystal are no longer a thing, since the old covenant mystic has been subsumed by the sorcerer's mechanics.

What's interesting about this is that you can get a standard druid with this class, or you can ditch the nature theme and make it a wits-based D&D sorcerer or other natural caster.

***

I see the 3e guys' point with regard to getting alpha struck like that without recourse. It's going to take some testing to see if that was just a one-off. It looks to me like it was a perfect storm of things going wrong from a tactical perspective. Reminds me of something similar that happened during a friend's 5e campaign: one player teleported another character's wizard in front of an ogre by mistake, thinking that the wizard could move to a nearby hidden passage before the ogre's turn came up. The teleporter realized the mistake, told the wizard "be safe," and booked it down the hidden passage. The wizard got knocked out in one shot.

Well, and Sorcerer was always my go to for duplicating a Psion in the game... and frankly calling the class the Mystic makes that association even easier... contemplating the universe unlocking psionic potential is a classic and also means the Mystic can be the foundation of building the more “bending” style of 4E monks.

Which also makes it something easier to refluff for a softer sci-fi/sci-fantasy setting (i.e. here be Psions and Jedi). Gadgeteering is general super-tech, Wizard becomes nano-tech, Mystic becomes Psionics/The Force.

In terms of fantasy cosmology and adaptation to other settings; the Gadgeteer and Wizard have always been the secular options; with the Arcane Web and spells as programs being something people today can easily relate to as science/technology (albeit super-science). Theurges are transactional magic; you make a deal with a supernatural power for power. Mystics are unitive magic; you gain power as a side-effect of seeking spiritual union with a higher power.

Also, just for completeness, Diabolists are the magic as drug addiction angle (the first hit is free) while Necromancy is essentially transhumanist in nature; transforming the self into something both more and less than human.

Adjust the cosmology to a more traditional D&D one and those magical archetypes still fit; If nature spirits are transactional in that cosmos, than build the nature magic wielders as Theurges. If Tibetan-style monks gain supernatural powers by contemplation of the cosmos then build them as Mystics.

Finally, upon consideration I think I will keep the crystal and other more naturalistic implements available, I’ll just move them to options for the Theurge and make them a sort of “alternate implement set” for, say, Bestianism.

But the idea in removing the implements from the Mystic is that the power isn’t coming from props. They might carry a bag of relics to feel closer to their faith or a staff because it a useful tool and weapon. They might carry arcane implements and speak in Arcanos to evade persecution in places (see Kalla Blackthorne who was taught Arcana by her father and wears a runic cestus to disguise her primal magic as wizardry). But that’s not what determines the power of the supernatural effects they can produce.

* * * *

Yes, much testing will be done... and the first step is going to be going through every class and background option for reducing damage taken and see...

A) how available to all PCs those actually are.

B) if I do decide to do something generic, how those might be adapted so there aren’t redundant options floating around (i.e. two reactions means only the better is worthwhile and 4+level damage reduction is basically resistance to a normal even level attack of 8+2/level).

C) if perhaps some streamlining of those options could be useful (ex. instead of a trait being a separate action it could instead modify the basic action... add 1/2 Focus or Focus to the damage absorbed, expand the trigger and benefit to adjacent allies, or make it a free action instead of a reaction so you could both soak a hit and make a free strike... something useful for a guardian).

* * * *

For today though my class rebuild has sent me down the rabbit hole of Shift Form and Beastman traits and whether those, and perhaps those available to mounts, shouldn’t be consolidated in some way (since both Beastmen and Eldritch and Loyal Beast companions and Shift form and mounts all use a list that overlaps a LOT).

I got there because some changes to how the Sorcerer/Mystic Innate Implement is being presented requires me to go revisit all the classes that reference the Innate Implement rules and, in turn, how the natural weapons in general are presented.

The short version of the above is I think it might be clearer if instead of making “Innate Implement” something separate it just modified your Unarmed Implement Attack (i.e. bump the damage die up a step and give it range 10 and versatile properties).

I’m also thinking that doing similar for natural weapons (akin to the Iron Body boon which has you assign a weapon group and add properties to your unarmed attack) might be more intuitive than “gain a natural version of weapon X.”

“Your unarmed attack does X” just seems a bit more straightforward than “your natural short sword does X and you also have an unskilled unarmed attack that does Y.”

Anyway, that’s the rabbit hole for today... with luck the system gets both clearer and more expansive in terms of ways to build things.

Update on the Shift Form, Beastman and Beasts "consolidation."

While they do share about 90% of the traits, there remain enough bits where I'd have to go "beastman can't choose W, Shift Form has X additional options and Beasts can't pick Y, but gains Z options" that I think its better for ease of building to leave them as separate lists in their respective sections.

That said, I noticed quite a few places where some normalization of effect would be beneficial, so we'll see if we can't make it so that if you have "Skilled Ability" its the same benefit whether you take it as a beastman, via shift form or a beast's exotic abilities.

You could do the beast traits the way you did the background boons. For example, you could have the beast-man state "In addition to the basic beast traits, you can also select the following traits" and list anything that you want beast-man exclusive. You could do the same for the loyal beast and shift form boons.

Ultimately I decided on ease of use over saving two pages in terms of the beast/shift form/exotic traits. Being able to just reference everything you need on the same page without having to flip back and forth through the book (and I have to be mindful of that because there’s still a lot of people who prefer to reference a physical book).

Anyway, there’s a new update ready to upload (probably will be by the time you read this) with some major re-formatting and revisions ranging from tiny to major.

Let’s start with some minor ones first. I changed a couple of terms for clarity; most notably to avoid confusion between the controller PC role and the monster role, the monster role was renamed “Inflictor.”

A more moderate change was that natural weapons and implements got replaced with modifiers to the unarmed attack and unarmed implement. Because my weapons and implements follow rather specific rules on size of damage die and number of properties they get it was actually pretty easy to accomplish and makes them hopefully a bit more intuitive since picking a specific weapon to represent a bite (most commonly a pick in my examples) or claw isn’t all that clear; particularly when the best weapon to fit might have the thrown property.

So now in place of a specific weapon, you gain master skill with unarmed attacks, your unarmed attack gains a d6 damage die (matching the default for offhand weapons), versatile, and two fine weapon qualities (the default for an expert tier weapon). You can trade its offhand property for a d8 damage die (default for a one-handed weapon with versatile putting the damage at default for two-handed weapons) and you can trade versatile for shield 1.

With the rules on skilled weapons putting the minimum check modifier at 5 (equal to attribute 3 + 2 skill) this means anyone with “natural weapons” will be reasonably competent with them even if they’re not explicitly built for it.

An extremely major revision to formatting, but not affecting rules at all is that I’ve changed the order of elements in the species chapter. Before hitting the bookmark took you to up to NINE pages of fluff text and pictures you have to scroll through to actually get to the game mechanics.

That’s great the first time you’re reading the book and trying to get a real feel for the species and it’s place in the world. It’s damn annoying on your seventh character when you just want the mechanics.

So the species have been reorganized with a short opening paragraph description, then the mechanics followed by all the fluff text under the heading “Playing a X.”

An associated change in format that came out some feedback is that I moved the attribute generation, defense calculation and all the shared traits (Edge, heroic surges and initiative) into a “Basic PC Traits” entry in chapter 3 that is now the core of the Character Creation rules. You take the template and add everything it tells you to (ex. Species: pick a species (see chapter 4) and apply its traits).

For ease of use, the key attributes for the classes and a summary of the species attributes is found on the facing page so that players don’t have to flip around too much.

Another part of this reorganization is that languages got moved into the backgrounds chapter (i.e. you learn your languages from your background), which also let me add a little flexibility into it. Arcanists now automatically learn Arcanos, Travelers can begin fluent in some less common languages. Everyone now starts with at least two fluent languages/dialects now.

The leveling up section also got a consolidation. As pretty looking as the chart was, it didn’t add much actual information and with languages moved it could now actually fit onto the page facing the Basic Template which already had the lion’s share of the “this improves at level X” elements.

So in place of the table there’s now a “Level Up Checklist” of the things you should check each time you level up and, as mentioned, it’s on the same set of facing pages as the basic template so everything you need to start a character at higher than level 1 is right there on the same spread.

As a final addition to Chapter 3 there’s a new sidebar labeled “mere mortals” that goes into the default stats for a non-adventurer to give a player a sense of how a PC compares... just to drive home that PCs are intended to be exceptional, not Joe Average (2,2,1,0,0,-1 attributes, 10/10/10 base defenses, 4+level Edge, no surges, no class, one less skill and one less boon from their background).

Which brings me to THE big revision of the update... which even so is more a reorganization than a redo... classes. As I mentioned previously, I flipped around some terms and merged the spellcasting paths into the basic traits for the spellcasting class group to create six classes; Fighter, Gadgeteer, Mastermind, Mystic, Theurge and Wizard.

What were previously called classes have been relabeled “paths”; brigand, captain, defender, etc.

This was largely due to feedback regarding how players came up with character concepts and that “I want to be a wizard or cleric or warlock (i.e. how they do things)” was far more common as a first step than “I want to be a controller, guardian or slayer (i.e. what they do).”

This just puts the decision points into a more natural order for most players.

Related to this, the Demonic Spellcasting Path and Boons of Undeath got reformatted as well into the Diabolist and Necromancer optional classes. The first was pretty straight forward. The Necromancer went back to being a class just because it was so much easier to present the restrictions and benefits in that framework with the other class changes.

To be fair, the class is mostly just the basic “Shadow Implement” part, the restrictions and changes and a special set of rules on retraining your class to Necromancer (including a, if you die you can immediately choose to retrain and rise at the next nighfall as an undead). The Undead transformations and the like remain “Boons of Undeath” but since everything except the Shadow Implement had a prerequisite of taking the Shadow Implement... making them exclusive to the Necromancer doesn’t really change anything.

Because of all this reformatting, the background chapter got some reformatting as well. Mostly reducing the number of color bars to match the other sections and adding a languages line to the traits gained from the background. The biggest revision in this chapter was the formatting of the Companions. The consolidation of the “Basic PC Traits” in Chapter 3 meant that Companions could be presented as modifications to those basic traits instead of needing to restate them.

The final change also ended up more a redefinition than a major upset. I removed all the free exotic traits from the beasts in the equipment section and adjusted their prices accordingly (ex. a riding beast had one trait and cost 200... now it costs 100 and adding a trait costs 100; still 200 just reached differently). Mainly this was done for the sake of clarity.

* * * *

So I’m going to be very interested in the feedback this time around.

ETA: What’s NOT in this update? Any changes to reducing damage via generic action or wounds. Those are waiting for some actual playtesting feedback with me running them before they go into the general playtest rules for more general testing.

So, since the next playtest with the PF group is coming up this weekend I thought I'd throw up some of the options I'm thinking of trying for a more active damage mitigation option. These are the two I have at the moment (with the third test being the current default of no special action).

1) Focused Defense (reaction): You take damage / Spend 1 focus to reduce the damage taken by 4+level.

This is essentially the option mentioned at the last playtest. It is both limited by focus and in only stopping about half an even level opponent's damage. If I went with this option I'd probably modify some of the other class, background and talent related abilities that do similar things to instead modify Focused Defense, sort of like how Attack Spells went from separate things to modifiers of the basic implement attack.

2) Reactive Defense (reaction): You are attacked / Attacks on you are hindered, but your own attacks are weakened (ENT).

This is basically an equivalent of the Full Defense option in D&D (take penalty to hit for bonus to AC) with the main difference being that you can choose to enter it as a reaction to being attacked and the penalties then come to your next turn. This makes more intuitive sense to me than choosing during your turn to fight on the defensive because in an actual fight or match shifting to defense is most often a reaction to a strong offense and it puts you off your balance so its harder to regain the offense.

It doesn't guarantee that you'll take less damage, but it overall will reduce the damage taken since against most opponents it takes their hit rate from 50% to 25%. It also doesn't have a use limit, but does carry a significant penalty (I used weakened for your own attacks instead of hindered specifically because there are enough attack options without attack rolls that you could build a PC who essentially suffers no penalties while gaining the benefits whereas weakened affects everyone.

Weakened also lacks the frustration of hindered cancelling what would otherwise be a solid hit or even a crit... you still hit, you just do half damage/effect and for one-off monsters the distinction between losing less Edge because of taking half-damage or losing less Edge because they got hit less isn't as meaningful (either way they fight for longer... whereas a PC getting outright missed means you don't need to spend a daily resource to recover... whereas a half-damage hit will probably still require spending a surge after the fight if you want to be back to full).

The unarmed attack modification rules are rather elegant - not only do they use something that would otherwise be a footnote in the system, with the minimum attribute rules, a pure caster can put a 2 in Str and still do fine.

The reorganizations are nice as well. The species reorganization makes for better rereading, for the reasons you stated, and having the basic character traits and improving your character sections facing each other (not just their very existence, which is damned good in and of itself) is a stroke of genius.

Speaking of the basic player traits, you made the right call in moving the base load mechanics and hero's action/hero's rebound traits to the base player traits. It consolidates everything nicely. By the way, I noticed that you moved the epic action features into the classes themselves, and revised certain class features so that everybody got a level 15 feature or upgrade.

***
The paths themselves look like they translated over well for the most part, but I want to talk about the abjurer for a bit. First, Abjurer's Rebuke and Reactive Ward still reference the old wards instead of minor spells. Second, the minor spells entry doesn't have (minor) next to them, which would prohibit the abjurer from using a minor spell except as part of the ward - so basically how they operated previously, just with a different list. Then we have the minor spells, specifically energy missile versus threaten, and deafen. While the interdictor and maledictor could use either energy missile or threaten and do just fine, I feel like giving threaten to the abjurer obsoletes energy missile from a ward-triggering perspective. The only way that energy missile would have an advantage is if the abjurer's minor spells can be triggered on your turn with a minor action. Otherwise, threaten is the strictly better choice. Deafen runs into the same problem, I think - it works fine for the interdictor and maledictor, but by itself, especially with retributive ward, it's not much of a punishment.

***
Finally, some characters, like Danai, use the old format, where abjurer is listed as the class and militant astral is in parentheses. However, for those characters that did change, having the focus selection be a descriptive modifier for the path is a nice touch - things like wizard (war abjurer), mystic (clever interdictor), and theurge (militant benedictor) really sell the concept better than abjurer (war wizard), interdictor (clever spirit), or benedictor (militant astral).

***
I think that for the most part, it was a successful update. The reformatting, reorganization, and particularly swapping class and path the way you did, are definite improvements. There are just some tweaks needed to smooth things over.

With regard to focused defense and reactive defense, a third option would be combining the two, with reactive defense as the base and focused defense as the enhancement. If you had to make me choose between the two, I prefer reactive defense, since it doesn't interact with focus much, and as you said, it resembles the full defense action in practice.

Yeah, there really weren't THAT many epic traits to choose from and most of the paths had a clear "best choice" for them so, since the classes basically lacked a "capstone" (the last benefit previously being a talent at level 14) I decided to move the best fit epic hero trait (and take advantage of the specificity to tailor them a bit) into the classes.

The main reason I had separate in the first place was because I wanted to make it feel a bit like a 4E epic destiny choice... except in thinking about it "Hero's Rebound", plus the across the board attribute bump and damage die increase at level 11 (which would be level 21-22 in 4E) is basically the Epic Destiny equivalent (with "Hero's Action" plus the same being your Paragon Path benefits).

It also gives the classes a more complete feel to them as, in the previous tiers, they got benefits at the mid-point (3, 8, 13) and end (5, 10) of each tier. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15 (plus talents at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14... making 7, 9 and 11 the only levels you don't get a class benefit... and you get a background boon at those levels).

* * * *

The initial plan for the Abjurer was always that Minor Spells just replace the ward effects as part of consolidating things because there was a lot of overlap and tagging off minor spells allowed more options (including with "multi-classing"/Second Path).

The Abjurer is supposed to be laying down wards with their role-related action, not outright minor spells for the same reason the benedictor and empowered don't get the ability to fire off minor spells for their role-related actions.

On the other hand, the overlap does mean that an Abjurer who picks Maledictor or Interdictor as their Second Path (and visa versa) gets full overlap on being able to use the minor spells they know both ways (similarly, a Summoner who picks up Empowered w. Aspects or a Benedictor who picks up Empowered with Enhancements, or a Brigand, Captain or Mastermind picking a class with Clever Tricks will stack the options known).

This isn't to say I couldn't be persuaded by testing to make them available as single target minor actions, but only after some testing because getting the option to do minor spells as straight up minor spells in addition to being able to lay down wards while the Interdictor and Maledictor can only lay down minor spells as minor spells (albeit with their respective boosts to targets/damage) seems like it could be making the Abjurer a bit TOO good relative to the other classes, especially since that option is fully available via the Second Path talent if they want it (side-bar: in some play tests I've run I actually had Kel Blackthorne statted as an Abjurer who multi-classed Interdictor at level 4 so I've seen what a baseline vs. an Abjurer who can also do minor spells looks like and I currently think the Talent cost for being able to do that is NOT unreasonable, particularly now that the minors spells known will stack with each other (the tests with him were still using Wards as separate effects).

ETA: Something I just realized about the Abjurer... by adding the variable triggers/effects to the Ward I've basically turned the Challenging variety into the original concept for the Interdictor (back when it was going to be the Astral Controller class with Sanctions consisting of a Trigger and an Effect). The Empowered also kinda picked up the "Aura of X" element from the original Cleric and Shaman over the evolutions so I've really got all the original classes I had planned sitting in here somewhere (even the Mastermind with the right companions and its extra boosts can pull off the one later class I'd intended to add in a supplement of the "Band of Heroes"... i.e. martial version of fighting using minions).

* * * *

As to the Abjurer using "Threaten"... that's actually the LEAST potent overall since the Ward only triggers AFTER the attack is resolved and the Abjurer's triggers for Free Strikes don't change (that's the Defender's trick).

So that "take psychic damage if you would trigger a Free Strike" doesn't get applied to the attacker until AFTER the attacker has made their attack. It also would only apply if they if they moved without shifting or made a ranged attack while still under its effect (the two normal triggers for Free Strikes).

That's actually rather weak-sauce looking at it to the point that I think I need to change the duration on that to "until the end of THEIR next turn" actually since otherwise it would end before they even get a chance to make a ranged attack or move again unless they get a second attack or have more movement in the same turn they set off the ward.

Actually looking at it now... ALL of the Minor Spell effects triggered by the Abjurer need to be worded as "Until the end of the creature's next turn" or everything except Energy Missile is going to wear off before it affects them (if its until the end of YOUR next turn and they've been warded then you've already gone this turn and will go again before they get to take any more actions).

* * * *

And yup... looks like I skipped right over Elves when I was updating the pre-gen characters as those three were the only ones still using the old format. Any time I make extensive changes there's a whole lot of inadvertent typos added by way of version differences that didn't get caught.

Another change I don't know if you caught was to Twinkle Toes the Gnome. He was previously a Disabler, but with the changes that ended up being the Mystic and my previous comment that Mystic would work well in other settings as the basis for a more mystical/bender-style Monk, I rewrote Twinkle Toes into a Mystic Interdictor who uses Kinetic (so can make melee range implement attacks) and Psychic (so monk-like mind tricks) for their unarmed implement attacks.

Since the balance on classes shifted a bit (I tried for a 50-50 split of Fighter group to Spellcaster Group with spellcasters needing examples of four different paths) pulling an example away from the Fighter (which still makes them 14 of the 30 examples) didn't seem like a bad idea, particularly since it highlighted another way to build a Monk-style character (the other being Kra'Kyn who remains a Fighter/captain with Iron Body and a focus on Physical Adept boons).

* * * *

I also prefer the Reactive Defense option of the two, though we'll see how it does in testing. Hindered isn't the same as a guaranteed reduction in damage so you could use it and end up having it not make a lick of difference (whereas the focus cost version at least guarantees you'll be taking less damage).

That said, it definitely needs a pithier name. One of the comments from the PF testers was that they absolutely loved the names I gave to various talents/boons (ex. "Suck It Up" for using STR/END for your Dodge defense was one they specifically mentioned... another was "Nothing to See Here" for using PRE for your Stealth checks) so where I can get more interesting I want to be more interesting.

So I'm thinking maybe calling it "Dodge and Weave", "Duck and Cover", "En Garde" or maybe "Serpentine!" (though that may be a bit too specific a meme from Game of Thrones).

The big reason I figured that the abjurer would be able to use minor spells independent of the wards is that I thought of minor spells as the combat equivalent of cantrips, independent minor effects that supplement attacks, whereas the old wards never came up unless they were triggered. That and I was thinking of out-of-combat utility for the minor spells, like say during a chase scene or something.

I'd test the minor action minor spells with the abjurer, just to see what happens. It might be a problem, but it wouldn't hurt to see just what the problem shapes up to be, if it is one at all.

I think that you mentioned the abjurer eating the old interdictor's concept a while back, and of how it fulfilled the concept while solving the problems it had.

As a side note, I wonder what would happen if you did a similar kind of condensing with the disabler's flurries and the sharpshooter's volleys. I've noticed a lot of overlap there and was curious if their lists could be combined somehow, or if there were balance issues to worry about.

***

With regard to threaten, somehow I got the idea that every free strike could respond to a melee attack not targeting the user, so I was thinking that it would trigger alongside the ward's response to melee damage, thereby obsoleting energy missile. I have no idea how that happened.

***

I completely missed Twinkle Toes's new statblock, but that's probably because I don't really look at the gnomes all that much. Him being a mystic makes him a good counterponit to Kra'Kyn.

***

Reactive defense's lack of a guarantee is in line with 4e's total defense action, which only provided a +2 bonus to defenses at the cost of a standard action. So that might not be a problem. Either way, it's worth testing to shake things out.

As to the name, I didn't have a problem with Reactive Defense, but if you need to change it, I'd go with "Dodge and Weave" over the other options. "Duck and Cover" sounds like they're diving behind a table or something, and En Garde sounds like a challenge, like you're presenting your sword and warning the other guy to be on guard. Serpentine's Game of Thrones meme origin is too specific, like you said - and Game of Thrones is about the opposite of the superversive tone you're going for.

As for pithy names, I just had an idea for Physical Threats, if you're interested: Appeal to Force. Physical Threats works just fine, though, and not every talent or boon has to have a pithy name. If only some of them do, it makes them stand out more.

I’ll add minor spells as minor actions to the testing list.

At one point I looked at combining the Sharpshooter and Disabler into a single class because the lists were so similar, but the supporting abilities other than Flurries/Volleys were just too dissimilar. The main reason I never consolidated the lists like Clever Tricks is that the lists just weren’t long enough to be worth making their own section (my unwritten rule is that no class should be longer than a page and that to be it’s own sub-section it should be most of a page on its own).

* * * *

To be fair, smacking everyone who makes an attack on someone else with a Free Strike IS the Defender’s shtick and the Abjurer can use a minor spell in place of a free strike and their chellenging wards smack people who attack someone else... so it’s something easy to get confused.

Heck, I WROTE the stuff and I still had to go re-read it to make sure I hadn’t actually worded it as you interpreted it.

This system is pretty big... even put into a more standard RPG format (i.e. letter-sized books with two column 9-pt font layout) the character creation section (chapters 3-6) would be 120 pages (which is larger than many TSR-era retroclones entire page counts) and, even worse for those who’ve been following the development, has had scores of revisions including a number of tear it down to the foundations rebuilds.

In other words, misremembering something is just something that happens... pretty regularly even for me.

* * * *

Not many people look at gnomes (though to be fair, even fewer were looking at my take on Halflings outside of tests where they were pregens and were the only options left... Fetches are MUCH better).

That said, there are also people who love them, including several kids who tried the game, and “you wake up back in Arcadia as if roused from a dream” in place of “you’re dead” went over a LOT better.

Basically it doesn’t hurt anything for them to be there (they’re one of the shortest species entries in the book) and if they’re a species in 4E I want them to be creatable*.

* side-bar: my new default for duplicating Halflings in R&R is to use Human, declare that “Halfling” is the ethnic equivalent of the Pygmy peoples (so adult males are less than 4’11”) and then don’t select STR as one of your attribute bonuses. 4’6” is plenty small, but is still on the bottom side of medium so “short humans perhaps with some culturally favored abilities/boons/talents” basically gives you a halfling.

Depending on your setting giving them one of the ancestries might also fit (with halfling in this case being short for “half-human/half-X”). But yeah, this is basically me reminding myself that I really need to update my 4E to R&R conversions, especially with the latest class updates.

* * * *

Yeah, it might be Reactive Defense just because nothing else quite works. One problem is that the most obvious name for it; Evasion; is already being used for the name of the “Avoid Trap Effect” mechanic so I’m stuck trying to either find something else here or finding something else for Evade in the traps/hazards section.

Because really, in my head, this maneuver would be that moment in a film fight where the hero narrowly avoids being struck, but by doing so is off-balance and has to scramble on the defensive and falling back until they can collect themselves and go back on offense. “Evasion” or “Evasive Action” would be perfect for it.

Maybe Traps/Hazards can get the more generic “Avoid TN”?