Last one for the 4e Campaign I’m porting.  Another focused CC (for a fighter character) called the Guardian.  Any…

Last one for the 4e Campaign I’m porting.  Another focused CC (for a fighter character) called the Guardian.  Any…

Last one for the 4e Campaign I’m porting.  Another focused CC (for a fighter character) called the Guardian.  Any feedback is appreciated.

25 thoughts on “Last one for the 4e Campaign I’m porting.  Another focused CC (for a fighter character) called the Guardian.  Any…”

  1. I don’t know, it’s a little bit awkward. This compendium class make it more convenient not resolving Bonds with another character (that could well be a NPC, if I understood correctly). It tampers with one generic rule for gaining XP and coul make the advancments and the group dinamics… I don’t know, different. Slower maybe. After all, the two parts involved must both agree that the Bond is changed or no longer relevant. That’s of course open to discussion, it’d feel weird bringing in a set of rules that rewards you for not resolving bonds… also, Defend can be used with objects (and maybe locations) too…

  2. Wow, that’s a great point on the Bonds.  I hadn’t looked at it that way.  Fairly new to DW so still getting used to the dynamics and that’s a big oversight.  Back to the drawing board – thanks!

  3. on the “color” side, I’d like the concept of a Guardian that could swear an oath to protect a place, an object, even an ideal or a forgotten spell. But that’s personal taste: if it’s a bodyguard you’re looking for, that’s fine too!

  4. Well because I’m porting from D&D, this is meant for a character that specifically acts as a constant guardian over another character. That’s why it is so lopsided. However my aim is to create a CC usable by any Fighter or Paladin in DW, so your feedback is awesome.

  5. I’m sorry, I must tell you I’m not convinced but I can’t really say why. Maybe I’m just tired, I’ll think about it. Usually, I see CC that don’t depend on the basic class, but on the fiction. I mean, there isn’t a “CC for wizards”, but rather a “CC for charachters who want to lead a criminal gang”. Of course, the first idea that comes to mind in this example is the thief, but I, for istance, made it with a bard, and frankly loved it. But I don’t think that’s the point; right now the only think I can tell you is that the 12+ that kills enemies with a one shot could not be such a good idea: I mean, with a +2 bonus (plus the stat modifier) it’s not really that hard to get a 12. Also, that “unless that’s good reason for the contrary” sounds… dangerous. In one of my groups that could start more than a tiring argument!

    Again, I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful, I’ll think about it, but one thing I can tell to you: what if, instead of just giving bonuses on the roll, you would try to “improve” the Defense move and make it stronger? Maybe one could take holds even with a 6-, or could be able to, I dunno, have a +something armor while defending…

  6. Agreed, +2 is definitely too powerful. One of the paradigm shifts that I went through in going from Pathfinder to D&D is that it’s not about having big numbers, it’s about being able to do cool things.

    Think of what the purpose of adding a CC does. If it’s something that every member of a certain base class–or only members of a certain base class–would want to take, it’s not a good choice. 

  7. Yeah, I think there are two issues at play here. The first is that I naturally (due to D&D experience) go to bonuses and DW isn’t about that. The second is that there is a concept beyond DW’s Defend move I’m trying to convey. As the flavor text states, “anyone can Defend.” The Guardian is someone who defends as a matter of duty and honor. It’s personal, as I’m attempting to convey in the moves. Brianne of Tarth versus a general defender, if that makes sense. I’m just not doing it the right way for this game, sounds like. Any suggestions?

  8. I’d go with “expand the concept” of Dendend. The meaning of the word is (as often happens) wider than it looks at first sight. Defending someone may not be just something about physical damage and avoiding that.

    Think about some possibilities: maybe the PC in question is not a spellcaster, but their will to protect is so adamantine that they can protect someone esle from magic only with willpower. And not magic as in “a fireball hits you, that’s 8 damage”. What about redirecting every kind of spell, like even mind controlling one, or curses?

    Then, think about the concept: what makes defending someone (or something, or somewhere) interesting? If it’s about honor and believing in something higher (like Brienne), try to make a move about that. If it’s about sacrificing yourself, no matter what, to prevent bad things to happen to others at any cost… try to make a move about that, too (making it possible to do exceptional thing by sacrificing HP or stat or even Bonds, secrets and memories from the mind of the PC: make up a currency that is gained through suffering and loss and is spent to make awesome stuff!)

    Try to think as little as you can about things like mere bonuses (if you are less and less capable of failing, it actually makes thing less interesting) and the classes that is supposed to take the CC, because, imho, playing unexpected classes for a CC is so more fun to play! Physical Defense may be appropriate for fighters and paladins, sure, but I’d like to imagine a druid whose sacred duty is to guard the Big Sacred Rocks or a slumbering treant, or a wizard that has been trained by a secret cabal to never let anyone know a powerful and ancient spell or demonic name (by memorizing it and making their own mind into an unpregnable fortress!)… heck, maybe the barbarian (who’s not a dull damage machine anymore, btw) fled from their people to protect them in some twisted way, and the thief maybe is doing all the adventuring and robberies because they want to make a better life for their children or brothers.

    Before all that, think about what kind of game you (and I mean both you and your group) want to play: high fantasy or low fantasy? What kind of theme and moods? That’s because many CC are made when the campaign is already begun, and not beforehead.

    Sorry for the essay, I hope it’s somehow useful…

  9. It’s very useful! You’re giving me a broader concept to work with and I do appreciate it. I will go back to the drawing board in a bit and see what I can swing. Thanks!

  10. Okay, revamped the Guardian again.  I think most of it works okay but still not sure about Stalwart Defender.  Let me know what you guys think about the HP for Hold concept in particular.

  11. hmmm… what about taking a debility per two holds? Write down something about the fiction… if you decide to take a Strength debility, you must describe how you weak (or shaky or scarred or whatever)

  12. Now that’s a really interesting take.  And the debility is up to the player, so it doesn’t have to be vital to what’s going on at that moment (though the evil GM can take “advantage” of it)! 

  13. I’ve made that change because it just makes better sense in the story being developed.  How about the Oh No You Didn’t change?  Rather than +2 to the attack and auto kill, etc, simply add the Piercing tag so you ignore armor for that attack?

  14. maybe forcefull too would be interesting. I mean, piercing and forceful: not all the enemies have armor, and remember that you should make the move appealing enough to be taken into account by the player… and also, the barbarian always has forceful and messy as a starting move!

  15. So I made that fix and I can totally envision the Guardian taking out vengeance after their charge has been threatened by both ignoring armor and knocking the enemy away from their precious.

Comments are closed.