I’m a little new to GMing this game (I’ve made several attempts to get a steady group together and hopefully this one will actually stick for more than 2 sessions) and was wondering what folks thought of the “armaments are vicious and obvious” form of attack. I feel like the majority of monsters could fall under that (a mercenary’s sword, a spider’s fangs, a centaur’s bow and arrow), but glancing through the pre-made monsters in the book, very few have bonus damage on top of their regular dice roll. Are there more specific circumstances where I should allot that +2, or am I just overthinking it? Thanks!
I’m a little new to GMing this game (I’ve made several attempts to get a steady group together and hopefully this…
I’m a little new to GMing this game (I’ve made several attempts to get a steady group together and hopefully this…
The example monsters do not seem to have been created using the monster creation checklist, because they are not consistent with it (or each other) at all.
Yeah, what Marshall Brengle said is true.
Consider “viscious and obvious” relative to other things of its ilk. Like, I wouldn’t call a lion’s claws or fangs “viscious or obvious,” but I’d call a smilodon’s fangs that.
Likewise, a soldier’s sword isn’t viscious and obvious, but that big serrated two-hander that the sergeant in the skull mask is wielding? It counts.
Yeah. Lots of weapons are obvious, like an openly carried sword. But for vicious? In a world where most things have weapons, a vicious one is going to be really nasty.
Yeah, you want to think of things that really epitomize what the monster creation questions are asking. That’s when you say yes.
When in doubt, I disclaim to the table…
‘So [fighter] the monster barrels into your defensive swordplay full-tilt, it is obvious and vicious in its onslaught, you’ve seen this before, tell us how vicious it really is.’
I tend to use a slightly variable damage system, where the monster will do more damage on a particularly good strike. Like if the Goblin Warg Rider charges you and successfully runs you down, you’ll take more damage than if you’re attacking from the side and the Goblin Warg gets a swing in.
If the Dragon breathes its fire on you, it’ll do more damage than if it hits with its tail. So I might do 1D6 for a basic attack, or 1D8 for it’s primary attack. Or if it’s got ONE good solid attack, I’ll let that attack be at B(2D6).
As with a lot of things regarding DW, it works best when you let the fiction lead the rules, not vice versa. Don’t look at the tags as in ‘does my creature have this?’, but creature your creature and then add the tags as makes sense.
The tags etc are mostly useful to be consistent in your approach (and for me coming from D&D, to hold me back making monsters that would have been completely overpowered in DW), but they are not really the place you start.
Rather, the tags are part of the fiction, that result in a certain expectation for the damage. Describe the monster to yourself and then ask “How hard would I expect this monster to hit? Harder than a mauling bear, or more like the bite of a dog? Does its attack have any side effects? Maybe it pierces armor, leaves acid behind, paralyzes the victim, ….etc. s.
Is there anything special about how this creature attacks or defends? If so, add those tags accordingly.
Does the monster have any special abilities, resistances, or other aspects that set is aside from the more regular creatures your PC’s encounter?
Is it a big monster? then it probably won’t go down as fast as a small monster when hit (thus more HP).
How much thick skin/protection etc does it have? A lot? Then it has a lot of armor.
Add tags or ability accordingly. Not because you have to, but to remind yourself what the fiction behind this monster is relative to other creatures in the realm.