As an exercise in understanding DW, I made up a base class.

As an exercise in understanding DW, I made up a base class.

As an exercise in understanding DW, I made up a base class. It’s ready for eyes and brainstorming names (the hardest part!).

The Warlock is modeled after the D&D 4e Warlock, so there are some elements of “crazy blasting ninja” in there, but I also put in a series of advanced moves intended to explore the more witchy side of the class with summoning and binding.

What do you guys think?

13 thoughts on “As an exercise in understanding DW, I made up a base class.”

  1. Sounds interesting though will have to check later on any overlapping issues with similar classes up on drivethrurpg.

    Another good way to understand DW I found is to go through the tavern tab on actual plays & listen to a variety of those.

  2. This is pretty neat. The fictional bits are cool, I think it’s an interesting use of and combination of different elements.

    A few things jump out at me, though:

    1. It says the GM spends hold and makes demands. Shouldn’t it be the patron who makes the demands?

    2. The player has no way to reduce debt, it relies entirely on the GM to keep track of it. This has been a problem for me when MCing the Hoarder in the past (though it might not be for everyone).

    3. Each patron is listed with a type of tribute they demand but this isn’t followed up anywhere. Maybe a solution to number 2?

    4. The class doesn’t start with a symbol of power, which is needed for a move. Is this deliberate (and if so, will be confusing for many people) or just an oversight?

    5. I’m a little uneasy about Shadow Walk being both no-roll and only in battle. It feels a little weird, but that’s just instinct speaking. I could be off on this one.

  3. Thanks for the detailed feedback, Johnstone Metzger. Point by point:

    1. I’m not sure how to word it to make it clearer that the patron’s making demands but I’ll try and figure that out.

    2. That is a good point and something I handled differently in an earlier draft; this version is heavily based on the Hoarder. Do you have any Hoarder tweaks that might apply to this case?

    3. I need to make it clearer that the patron’s demands should follow from its desire for tribute.

    4. I’ll add in some text to clarify my intent. The symbols of power are meant to be something you can just create, given time for preparation.

    5. We’ll see! I could make it apply anywhere but I feel like at-will invisibility is kind of a strong starting move. I revised the move to reflect a middle-ground approach.

  4. 1. Maybe the GM spends and the patron picks one, or “Name a person. The patron demands…” etc. Or a line about how demands for tribute are communicated (the stars do not speak with the tongues of demons, after all…)

    2. The Damned playbook was basically my idea for putting that responsibility on the player. But maybe if you fulfill the patron’s demands (the generic ones, not hold-spending demands) on your own, you get -1 debt? They seem like things that would inspire adventure and dangerous situations. And consequences.

    2a. Also, it strikes me that this move might not need a roll? You could just hand out 2 hold every session or something, right? The player could have the basic impulse of the patron to reduce their debt on their own, and then the GM always has some extra bait handy.

    3. Ah, of course! Yes, that makes sense.

    4. That’s pretty much what I thought when I first read it. As a GM, I would ask the player what these symbols are and how the PC makes them, but “ask your player how it works” is not what a lot of new players want to hear when they first come asking questions.

    5. Yeah, I hear that. I’m just imagining players complaining about how it only works in battle but not other times. And then I imagine it doesn’t have quite the same panache if you have to roll for it. Inverse World has a free-running move in it, but I haven’t seen that in play myself yet, so honestly I dunno. Maybe it works when you are “under threat” or in violence and you gain debt to use it in other situations (like sneaking in)?

  5. This is awesome!  Keep up the work, I’m looking forward to seeing this evolve.  Have to say that a lot of these moves are full of warlock-y flavor. 

    Witch’s Binding?

    Mmmmm.  Delicious.

  6. This actually does look pretty interesting. Do you intend to base it off of the base Wizard Class or Jacob Randolph’s Mage? Both are fine choices. 

  7. Peter Johansen Thanks! It owes more to the Mage and the Hoarder than anything.

    I made a big update last night, detailing each patron’s tribute further, so hopefully that resolves some of the issues Johnstone Metzger raised. Thanks for pointing out your approach in The Damned, Johnstone! I actually like those ‘start of session’ rolls somewhat, so I left that in, but I added more flexibility for the player to offer tribute on their own.

  8. Okay, looked over the new version:

    “At no cost, you can name a tribute” is actually super obvious, now that I’ve seen it. It keeps the conversation going, which is really smart.

    Maybe add a miss result to the start of session roll? I always like when a missed Moonlighting roll generates an entire session worth of action. Maybe your patron is embattled or challenged, or has set up a situation to tempt you into more debt?

    I think the wording in the move, the GM spends a hold “to have them [the patron] demand tribute” clears up any issues about where the request comes from (esp. when combined with the excellent voice descriptions). But removing the GM from the tribute list makes it nebulous as to who picks, player or GM. With the new move language, I think “the GM names a person present” is no longer ambiguous, and you should go back to that.

    “Rush through danger” is nice, I like it.

    Oathkeeper is crazy powerful. This is the kind of move I would expect a limit of one oath at a time or dire consequences for abandoning and oath or failing to keep it. By contrast, Enforcer is a really good move (and rightfully a level 6-10 move, too).

    I don’t like Dark Whispering because it doesn’t necessarily enhance what the GM is telling you from a spout lore roll anyway. You already get useful and interesting knowledge, whether that is secret or public is a matter of flavouring the fiction. It should maybe change the actual process of the move, like you get to say something that is true instead of just the GM saying what is true and then asking you how you know.

    Pact Boon’s “when you strike down an enemy” might be a little vague. Does that mean kill? Defeat? Literally strike them down to the ground?

    I like the active trigger for Spell De/Reflection. I wrote a similar move for my Dungeoneer class and later realized it was too passive and that this way is better.

    Blorch is a good name, actually. You should keep it.

    The other stuff looks pretty good. It gives me ideas.

Comments are closed.