Class Warfare Clarifications
This is an awesome book! I’m already planning to roll some of these into my campaign, and am making some new full playbooks.
I’ve come across some (what I think are) typos, and want to get feedback.
p. 39: for adventurers, it says “you may choose a move from one of the other rogue adventurer specialties” Correction right?
p. 106: for disciples, a similar issue, but I’m not sure which is correct (my guess is the latter):
“Your base damage is d6“
“If you choose a magician speciality, reduce both your base damage by one die size (from d8 to d6)
Yup, those are typos. Disciple base damage is d6. You reduce it to d4.
Thanks!
Since we’re at it: what happens if I choose a Disciple specialty with a spellcasting move, but I’m not a Disciple and therefore have no access to spheres?
You get the same spellcasting ability a Disciple with that specialty gets. Just like multiclassing into spellasting in DW proper. Doesn’t really make sense otherwise. Although you could also write up your own spell list if you wanted to.
Since Johnstone Metzger is reading this thread…
Do I understand correctly that certain specialties take a bite out of your stats in addition to what you lose for specializing outside your archetype? E.g., a warrior loses not one, but two die sizes for choosing Shield Arcanus specialty.
Furthermore, are specialties meant to take their bite from your stats if you add them as a compendium class?
Thanks in advance for clarification. Love the book overall!
Glad you like it!
1st: Yes, just like some give you extra load, some reduce your damage or HP. If it’s listed with the specialty itself, it applies to any character with that specialty. It’s a balancing thing, just like the Fighter has more HP than the Ranger, because she’s in close combat more often so she needs a bit extra (and more damage because the Ranger has the animal bonus).
2nd: No, treat it like any other compendium class, you just get the moves. If there’s some reason in the fiction that a PC might become less dangerous, you could reduce their damage die prescriptively, but the stats part of specialties is just for CW style creation.
When building a class, you have opportunities to take moves from other specialities. Can you take starting moves this way?
You mean like, for example: you’re a warrior with Bounty Hunter, Captain, and Champion of Law specialties, but instead of starting with the BH move The Hunter, you want to start with Bend Bars, Lift Gates instead? Sure, I think that’s reasonable.
Pardon, I meant if you can take other specialties’ starting moves as advanced moves.
Page 107: Each time you level up, choose an advanced move from one of your specialties. Or choose one of the following options:
At any level, instead of a move from one of your specialties, you may choose a move from one of the other disciple specialties. You may do this twice only.
Twice between levels 6-10, instead of a move from one of your specialties, you may choose a move from any other archetype.
So, at level 6, can my Disciple pick up Meatshield or Backstab as an advanced move?
Oh! Yes, absolutely. Just like you can take starting moves with the normal DW multiclass move, that is totally fine. And if a starting move requires others to function, you get them all (for example, spellcasting or the ranger’s animal companion).
If my character begins with two Warrior specialties and I choose the Disciple specialty Crusader as my third choice, do I increase my damage die to d12? Or did you word it (from d6 to d8) specifically to prevent that? I’ve got a player or two who would absolutely leap at the chance to deal d12 damage, and I’m not entirely opposed to letting them have it, but I’m interested in what you intended when you wrote it.
Also, this book is amazing. Thanks for putting out such consistently excellent material.
Could you explain a bit more how moves like Avatar’s “Blessed” and Shadow’s “Like a Ghost” work? They sound cool, but I’m not clear on how to use them.
Traveling Haberdasher Yup, d12 damage. The more other PCs there are, the less of an advantage this really is, because the Crusader is always going to be “the guy who gets stuck being the cleric.” When another PC goes down, what does he do? Take advantage of his big-ass damage die? Or go be the cleric?
Peter Johansen The basic idea is to collapse effects into a single roll, instead of rolling for something twice (or more). A sort of “double or nothing” deal. To create a move like this, you think of some special abilities that a PC would be able to use that overlap with other moves. So like, you’re breaking into the evil temple, and you have to climb the ceiling over the pit of fire, BUT you also don’t want the guards to see you. Just like +1d4 damage won’t help you if you can’t hit the dragon with your sword, you can’t be stealthy if you fall into the fire, so making 1 roll for the dangerous climb and 1 roll for the stealth doesn’t really make sense.
Instead, Path of Ghosts manages it in a way that allows you to have extra stealth powers, but they only activate on a hit when you do something else that’s dangerous. Or in the case of Blessed, your god only comes down to help you when you do something dangerous (or otherwise interesting, as decided by the game) and makes your successes more powerful and impressive — but NOT more likely.
And since there’s two levels to success, it allows you to gamble a little. If you just pick 1 effect, on a 7+, you get it, no problem. If you pick more than one, on a 7-9, the GM gets a bit more influence over your fate (and also promotes more back-and-forth between player and GM). Does that make sense?
(This is my understanding of these mechanics, anyway. I have to give credit to J. Walton for that design, it’s not something I thought of. He’s obviously riffing on AW moves like Fortunes and Moonlighting, but combining stuff into 1 roll is pretty ingenious.)
Very ingenious. I’m quite impressed. Cheers!
How would you GM the Captain’s gang/crew? Is it up to the GM to decide what tasks and orders they’re actually capable of carrying out, possibly with the help of the advantages and drawbacks the player chooses?
About a year ago I had someone playing a character with a big gang of mercenaries (basically a Hireling that we treated like a swarm) that followed him around, but because the trigger for ordering them to do things was so easily met, I didn’t know how to handle a 10+ roll on the order “Kill that dragon!” I’m really intrigued by the Captain, but I feel like I might come up against issues similar to this one.
I guess this is kind of a bigger question than just about the Captain, because I feel like I don’t have a great handle on how capable Hirelings should be (aside from “on balance, less capable than the PCs”), but again, I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I would determine what the crew is capable of, and how they normally behave, based on the ‘vantages the player selects, and a conversation with the player (more likely several, since different aspects will come up at different times).
Firstly, I would be a fan of the PC. It’s not my job as the GM to say “no” all the time, it’s to ask “how” and “why.” How does your crew go about doing X? Why do they treat you the way they do? Why are they so loyal / drunk / capable?
Second, I would make things interesting. The player should be the one who determines what “normal” looks like. As the GM, it is my job to introduce “not normal” and other things that become problems. Or just situations that potentially produce problems. So, some of the crew have a private feud of vendetta going with another PC’s allies that causes problems. Or some get greedy and steal the sacred idol impulsively. Of course when problems show up at the Captain’s door, the crew is apologetic, but by then it is too late and interesting things have already happened and must be dealt with.
Third, I would go with the fiction. It’s also my job as the GM to portray a coherent setting. If you order your crew to jump off a bridge and you roll a 10+, do they sprout wings and fly? No, they break theur legs when they hit the water and then they drown. If a dozen or so normal human beings attack a dragon, what happens? This is not a matter of dice, in my opinion (not in DW, anyway). It is a matter of what kind of setting the GM is portraying. If the most likely result is that the dragon torches half of them and the other half flee in abject terror, that’s what happens. The only time “what is most likely to happen” doesn’t happen is when the PCs stop it from happening. If the Captain leads her crew around the dragon’s defences and shows them how to stab it’s unprotected underbelly, okay, the whole crew starts stabbing away. On their own, though, they are fully at the mercy of the setting.
Does that help?
That’s the basics of my methodology. Keep in mind I throw out most concepts of “challenge” when running DW and try to stick to interesting situations that I don’t have preconceived solutions to, and NPCs that have disparate motivations. And then I wait to judge what actually happens until the moment. I’m not concerned with winning/losing or success/failure, only with making sure that I have interesting things to make happen and that the actions of the PCs make a real difference.
That absolutely helps, thanks so much!