So I got this crazy idea of making a class about a cursed armor that can partially function by itself, or can…

So I got this crazy idea of making a class about a cursed armor that can partially function by itself, or can…

So I got this crazy idea of making a class about a cursed armor that can partially function by itself, or can possess dead bodies or willing creatures, I like the concept, but I’m not sure about the execution, so I take any criticism with open arms. (I redid the post because I tagged it incorrectly) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0rJq2bsgJW1LURDWGlkLS1yQjA/edit?usp=sharing

34 thoughts on “So I got this crazy idea of making a class about a cursed armor that can partially function by itself, or can…”

  4. VERY cool idea.  I am a bit confused – when it possesses a body does it do so by enveloping it, or is it raised like a zombie?  I don’t know whether it NEEDS to … wear?… the skin of the dead.

  5. My original idea was for it to start as an empty armor, that needs to be worn by someone to be able to do anything physical related. It would envelop the body it possesses rather than raising it as a zombie, but either could work.

  6. A few bonds are gender specific.  I’m not trying to be PC, it just seems like an unnecessary limitation to have them only available for male characters.

    What happens when you’ve used up your hold against a living creature?  You can’t leave anymore, right?  So you’re on them until they disrobe, or can you re-roll for more hold?  (I’d flesh that out on the sheet itself if you want it to be a certain way – if I GMed a game with this character I’d use it as an excuse to Hard Move them)

    I don’t think the ‘Know how it works’ option for Spellbreaker would be likely to ever come up.  It’s much weaker than the other two. I like the 3-options-available, 2-on-a-full-win setup, but I’d mull over the second option a bit.

    Aegis of Immortality – I’d be careful here – Alive But Bound characters are a GM’s friend.  It’s a great excuse for a new Front or a way to introduce a  Portent or complication.

    Having said all that, I’d agree to let a player build this character for my campaign.

  7. Sean Fager Thanks, I’ll see how I can fix those issues. The problem with the bonds is probably because I’m not a native English speaker and wasn’t too sure on how to handle those, should I write them as “him/her” or is there another way?

  9. You’ve been immersed in the language, right?  Because as far as proper spelling and syntax goes this is better than most things I see native speakers write.

    I’d use a gender-neutral pronoun instead of he or she when it comes to something as specific as “I trust her.”   Them, they, that sort of thing.  “They have worn me, I trust them.”

    How do these look?  I rewrote the Willing Wearer, but I might have gotten your intent wrong.  Let me know.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/48jai3gkkb94pxt/CursedArmor.pdf

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrpu8escu08s32q/CursedArmor.odt

  16. Not a problem, I enjoyed it.  And it gives me something to add to my stack of potential characters for my group to choose from if/when their characters kick the bucket.

    What do you think of the icon?  I can take it back off if you’d like.

  18. Changed it.  I reworded a bit because I thought it read as though you could redirect the blow back to the caster and use that to automatically protect you and your allies – why bother taking the other option if you can redirect the attack backwards? 

    It’s your baby though – I can change it to verbatim the way you wrote it if you’d prefer it that way.

  20. I see what you mean, I reworded some things about the move and the options, now it makes more sense, as intead of “reflecting it” I put that it “affects the caster” which could mean that it either affects everyone, or that you protected yourself and only the caster is affected. And it’s no longer a “cancel spell casted near you”, now it’s a “counter spell targeted near you”

  21. Changed it to ‘Also affects the caster’ (which implies the target is still damaged unless it is otherwise negated for them) and it’s now a ‘counter’ instead of ‘cancel’ (which makes sense – you cancel the spell, but it affects the caster?  How would that work?)

  24. Roman names seem to fit, maybe it’s just my inner Space Marine talking: Arcanus, Adeon, Bellator, Ferrus, Dominus, Lazarus. But those are people names, and this is more of a thing…

  26. I google-translated a whole mess languages for ‘Armor’ and copied a bunch, as well as some Roman names.  They’re in there now.

  28. Sean Fager I added some text to the UNWILLING SERVANT move: “You can roll again to attempt to take control back, but you get one less hold on your result.” That way it’s not possible to permanently control someone, but you can at least try to regain some hold to be able to leave the body.

    And on the same move, “living humanoids body” should be “living humanoid’s body”

  29. My original thought was ‘That looks kind of weak”…. and then I saw the simplistic beauty of it.  6 or less means -1 ongoing.  Which makes future 6 or less rolls more likely.  Eventually, with a short bad luck streak, a 7 becomes impossible.  And the armor is tamed.  You worked a living death into the mechanics, a high-stakes low-probability nightmare!  I love it!

  31. One of the taverners has a master list of the base classes people have put together – is it okay with you if I provide him with the link to the pdf so he can get it more out there?

Comments are closed.