I just got my Hands on the Alternative Playbooks “The Mage” “The Priest” “The Inquisitor” and “The Artificer”

I just got my Hands on the Alternative Playbooks “The Mage” “The Priest” “The Inquisitor” and “The Artificer”

I just got my Hands on the Alternative Playbooks “The Mage” “The Priest” “The Inquisitor” and “The Artificer”

The Mage, Priest and Inquisitor are meant to replace the Wizard, the Cleric and the Paladin.

Is there anyone who tested these? Are they a good replacement or are there common Probems with them I just dont see?

They look awesome and i am considering if i should use them in my upcoming Dungeon world campaign instead of the default classes.

27 thoughts on “I just got my Hands on the Alternative Playbooks “The Mage” “The Priest” “The Inquisitor” and “The Artificer””

  1. They have more of a “anime” or “final fantasy” feel. The Mage is felt to be problematic by many around here (too open ended, can overcome just about any obstacle with one roll of their best stat, tends to hog the spotlight consequently). The problems with the priest are similar just to a lesser degree.

  2. The Mage is considered to be broken by some. Mainly, it’s move to cast spells can do ANYTHING and hog the spot light from the group if you aren’t careful


    I got ninja’ed… Google Master has spoken!

  3. yeah. I thought so about the Mage too but they are limited in Options and also they have a drawback even on a 10+ (they can take a move to stop this lvl 6+ but until then they have to take a disadvantage)

    I think you have to be very strikt about what to allow and what not and let him feel the disadvantages of a missed spellcast to counter it.

    But good to know that there are some concerns. Did anyone make the Mage Work in his campaign?

  4. I think the person who made these playbooks just don’t like the semi-Vancian magic system (forget spells, rest to prepare, etc.) I understand that dungeon world might seem like The Wizard can cast Lighting Bolt, Blizzards, Meteor,  Fly, and all manner of other spells. But Ritual is more fitting especially considering the much larger impact such great power would present.

    I’ll say it here, I’m pro Vance, I don’t care for the mage, priest, templar playbooks.

    If you want a powerful spell go on a quest for it, research it, Wizards have INT and make great sacrifices to control great power. I don’t beleive shooting every color of the rainbow in energy bolts is “Magical” or fantastic. Frankly I like Dungeon World Spells and I implore you to craft up spell ideas as well.

  5. The problem with the Priest besides the one the Mage has is that there is a lot of burden on the GM to come up with the magical effects of what is happening. In theory that should put them a bit down power-wise but it would be too much effort for me. Effort that I could put into making evey character more awesome. 

  6. The Reason why I like the Ideas is that they feel much more like Dungeonworld to me. I always liked the Mechanics of the Druid with Shapechange and calling spirits as more as a free form magic than a spell- or Animal-List.

    And it seems to me at least that these classes try to emulate this Feeling over to the Priest and the Mage and that is pretty exciting to me. also their Damage/Heal-Potential is much lower than the Default-Classes which i think is a good counter to keep them from being to OP.

  7. Tim Franzke It seems like you are right. I thought the Wizard would get some realy high damage spells at higher Spell Levels but it seems like the 2d6 Fireball is the end of the spectrum but still, you could empower the Spell for 4D6 damage which is a lot in DW.

    The Mage can do 1D8 + 1D4 (messy) if he takes battle mage and later 1d8+1d8 for the improved version of that.

    Its not much more but it is more. Also it ignores armor and works on an area by default.

  8. Ben Wilson In my version you have to choose a focus for your Magic, so you cant cast any magic you want. You have some things you can do good (always at least +1) some you can do ok (at -1) and some you simply cant do. Based on the Focus you took. And those are relativly narrow too. Most things you want to do would fall into the -1 category.

  9. Ben Wilson​ it helps keep the Mage in check by only allowing the user to do magic in their field of study however, the magic the Mage can do, if not kept in check, is endless.

    The alternate classes are a great try at non-vancian classes, but to be honest, use the wizard and such and add your own spells as you adventure. I’m sure they will come across a library

  10. hmm.. Maybe you are right. Robert Doe I already let my players do a lot of things with ritual magic and giving the cleric boons from his god in the default classes. Plus they are pretty new to roleplaying anyways.

    Also: you can always add more spells.. thats right.

    hmm.. what do you guys think about the Artificer?

  11. Vincent Shine I like the artificer as an alchemist style character more than other game’s alchemists. Gives them fun items to use and the GM valuable things to put at risk. Sure a freeze cannon is powerful, but what if an cunning enemy steals it from you?

  12. I’ll second Samuel Bogumill’s recommendation of the artificer. It’s a lot of fun to both play and GM, as long as the player feels empowered to stretch the limits of what their devices can do and the GM supports that.

    The mechanics have a couple rough spots, but they mostly work themselves out. 

  13. Thx. I think ill add the Immolator, the Barbarian and the Artificer and take some inspirations from the Priest and Mage for the normal base classes for adding flavor 🙂

    I can always add compendium classes, Spells and Magic Items to the Game.

  14. Oh… mostly the blurry line between when to use Field Test vs Jury-Rig, and how you end up resolving those moves.

    It’s super hard to describe what I mean without getting into huge long actual play examples, but it… grinds a little. We’d often have to stop and talk through how to apply the moves and interpret the results a lot more than we did with any other move.

    It’s nothing you can’t get past, and it doesn’t break the class or the game or even make it much less fun.  Just something to be prepared for, I guess. 

  15. yeah I also find it a bit hard to understand but as i read it it seems that Field Test is the “use Gadget”-Move and Jury-Rig is the “build something new / Modify something you have”-Move. So when Field Test wouldnt work with what he has, he needs Jury Rig.

    Thats what i got out of it. But i never actually GMed it 😉 Thats why I am asking, to be able to think about Problems before they are handled in Game. To be able to prepare myself for that.

  16. OK, I have that one. But it doesn’t have the ‘Field Test’ move as Jeremy Strandberg​ mentioned.

    Didn’t know which on was more up to date and excepted

  17. I’m a bit late to the conversation, but I played an Artificer in a short-lived play-by-post game.  We ran Field Test and Jury Rig as Vincent Shine describes above, except maybe I think we restricted it to “modify something you have.”  It seemed to work fine in that context, but I haven’t played in in a face-to-face setting.

Comments are closed.