We retrofitted everyones characters yesterday to 2e and it took a little while but it all worked out for the most…

We retrofitted everyones characters yesterday to 2e and it took a little while but it all worked out for the most…

We retrofitted everyones characters yesterday to 2e and it took a little while but it all worked out for the most part. (adding my changes to make load , damage and hit die ability based using “measure” , see my last post. slowed us down a bit.)

We decided our Cleric would keep her moves being Charisma based since that is how they had developed. It seems like either could work fine and you could imagine a god who was more charisma influenced and another more sensitive type who would attract those who had greater perception.

Wisdom has been a question for me. An ability that encapsulates perception, willpower, and intuition. It sometimes seems strange that a Cleric by default would be perceptive. It seems more of a Theify trait, and i do like the idea that perception could be a trait that is not the primary stat for anyone. but you could say the same about Charisma. I kind of like the idea of Clerics being Charisma based – good at influencing people, but again it doesn’t seem neccesary for all Clerics to be that way.

In the Ranger class I frankensteined together I made Rangers have “focus” (like Mettle and cunning) based on Wisdom.

I’m sure you’ve thought a lot about this already. Jason Lutes

13 thoughts on “We retrofitted everyones characters yesterday to 2e and it took a little while but it all worked out for the most…”

  1. I think the original 6 stats from D and D (which were directly ported over to Dungeon World and FotF) sort of shoe horn in a lot of different aspects. Dex for instance represents both gross and fine motor skills. At some point it’s worth giving up fine grained detail in favor of abstraction (imo). Where that line lives is the difference between World of Dungeons and GURPS Fantasy. These days I personally lean towards higher abstraction.

  2. Good points Chris. Ease of play counts for a lot. It is better not having your head in the minutia of realism when you are trying to get into the story at hand.

    Finding that middle ground where things feel right and substantial without getting too complicated is a worthy goal.

    When we added “Measure” to our game, to calculate stats based on abilities not class, we hit a little snag when someone asked what happens to my load and weapon damage when I take Strength damage? I hadn’t thought of that.

    It gets complicated if you say “you get tired from the long journey, take a point of Strength damage, check your strength measure, if you have dropped a level then your capacity changes and you have to drop something or become encumbered and you take a -1 to wield your weapon if your Strength Measure is now lower than your Weapon Measure.”

  3. Yeah, the Charisma-vs-Wisdom divide on Clerics has come up several times in play and during development, and your house rule makes sense. My feeling was that a cleric’s connection to the divine is better represented by Wisdom, but that Charisma is obviously important to things like leading, preaching, converting, etc., so I included Cleric moves that rely on Charisma. So any given Cleric is going to want to prioritize Wisdom because of favor and the Invoke move, but whichever ability scores end up second-tier help distinguish that particular Cleric’s playstyle. We’ve had a high-CHA proselytizer who spent a lot of time convincing people to join his faith, a high-STR, low-CHA dwarven holy warrior, and a high-DEX sneaky evil priest of Darkness.

    That’s also how “Rangers” work in our games — they’re Fighters who go with high DEX, decent WIS (for tracking and the like), and bow as their favored weapon. I do see the appeal of more than 4 classes, though, and would like to include such options in 2e.

    Ability score damage forces re-calculation of modifiers as written, and that’s by design. Taking Strength or Constitution damage from travel should occasionally force the PCs to pause and consider the potentially deleterious effects. I can see how adding “measure” to ability score considerations might add an extra step in there.

  4. PS – Let us know how things go with the 2e changes. I am particularly interested in how Venture Forth and Make Camp, with their “danger on doubles” effects, play out at your table.

  5. We’ve only tried it once. They did venture forth. No doubles were rolled (I think … I hope i remembered to check). They succeeded on their choice to scout carefully with WIS. That all worked fine but i decided to create something for them to get the drop on because the evening was getting late and I felt like we needed a bit of action…

    One question I had about the move, which I had from the older Freeboooters as well, is all the consequences for rolling 7-9 …oh wait it says 7+, does that mean you choose the same results if you get a 10+ as well? I was going to say the things you choose all seem like positive consequences. I guess if they are available for any kind of success, partial or full, than that makes sense. I hadn’t read it that carefully.

    It seems like the chances of rolling doubles are a bit slim, one in six, but it seems cool that it tells you when to have a danger on top of everything else. AND you can have a danger appear for any failed roll.. so yes I think it works!

    I’m a little confused by “taking care to ensure that the way back is safe”. I wonder if an example or an additional phrase might help clarify some ways that could happen….Leaving food caches , marking your trail, leaving arcane watching wards, or bells on strings. I’m not sure how you could “ensure” you’d be “safe” but maybe saying you are “attempting” to make the way back safe.

    What does the way back is safe move mean in terms of them going forwards? (I guess you aren’t more likely to get the drop on anything than when you go quickly. Would you just have the characters get ambushed by a danger with that or the go quickly move or call for a Stay Sharp roll?)

    Maybe some tried and true examples of play would help clarify how all these carefully worded moves work.

    Speaking of which I am pretty confused by the wording in the new treasure section, I like it, It seems great in combination with the creature builder, but i can’t really tell if i’m doing it right.

    It seems like a few different parts of the process are all being called Booty Units or Booty Dice. Is the damage die that you roll for Booty units have a name? Is it called a Booty Die ?

    The example you give with the vampire doesn’t get resolved. Do the players roll a d8 10 times and then multiply the value of each treasure rolled by 10? the repetition of the number 10 in the example is a bit confusing….It seems like a lot of treasure for a 1d8 vampire as well.

    Is the amount of treasure based mostly on damage die and not numbers? It seems like you could base it on size instead since you are scaling the damage die based on if a creature is solitary or in a group or horde in section 3 of create a creature, and so things of the same size seem to be relatively equal in power and therefore maybe treasure too. Or maybe solitary creatures just have more loot.

    In general things seem to be working well though. I messed up by leaving all my old books at home and so all i had was a clever binder of all the new rules and i couldn’t find things because I haven’t gotten used to navigating it. I think I navigate based on my and Kenny’s illustrations!

  6. + Jason

    I like the idea of slight specialization through characteristic differences to make a different type of cleric or turn a fighter into a ranger!

    I wonder if adding some kind of bonus special move for ….anyone to help add a level of uniqueness to their concept; A fighter who can hide in the woods, a magic user who can have a favored weapon, a thief who can ….well, I already know your answer.

    If the “ranger” has a high Wisdom then they will already be good at hiding.

  7. Thanks for the feedback. “The way back is safe” is meant to be somewhat open to interpretation, but is also a call back to Take the Well-Beaten Way, the trigger for which is, “When you travel by a known or safe route…”

    The idea is that if the party is worried about survival, choosing “the way back is safe” ensures that they can make it back to the previous juncture without encountering a Danger, at least “until the Judge deems it otherwise.” I can certainly try to rewrite it to be more clear.

    The 1-in-6 chance of encountering Danger is intentional, both because even a 1-in-6 chance each time you Venture Forth and Make Camp can add up to a lot of Dangers (which can become exhausting), and as a call back to the old D&D “wandering monsters appear on a 1” rule. Also, by having the appearance of a Danger occur outside of the 10+/7-9/6- structure, I’m able to combine a PC’s ability-based move with a “random encounter” roll.

  8. I get the way back is safe in mechanical game terms. The part I am mostly vague about was how would one realistically or in story terms make sure that the way back was safe?

    It depends on circumstance a lot of course but If someone just said “we make sure the way back is safe” My mind would spin a bit wondering how? And I would want them to describe how they are trying to do it.

    I guess then if they succeed in doing it by say leaving caches of food on a long journey then if they are on the way back and hungry then their food would be right where they left it. But they might still get ambushed.

    On the other hand if they left a trail of flour on the ground then they would be able to get the drop on someone following them …except that wouldn’t work. They might not get lost trying to find their way back though.

    I can’t think of many ways to cover my retreat except leaving someone behind to guard it, but i don’t think that is what you are imagining.

    Not a big deal, just curious if that is how you would play it and wondering if a couple examples might clarify it.

  9. I was playing with the idea of an “outlander” a while back, who’s special currency might be “spirits” or the like. I agree with the idea of the ranger being built out of a hybrid of the fighter and perhaps thief–paladin comes together pretty well out of cleric and fighter, e.g. But for a barbarian or druid, or the idea of a character who is from this perilous frontier, rather than the safe kingdom. I like the idea of character classes that can play with a variety of ability arrays, makes them much more diverse and reusable, like the Fighter’s Wisdom secondary move, great!

  10. +Jan Burger, I forgot to address your treasure question — the current version of treasure generation is the result of me going too far down a particular path, and as a result is way too complicated and time-consuming to have any real utility at the table. I am working to boil it down so that in the end it will be more complex than the Dungeon World treasure roll but much easier to use than its is at present.

  11. Sure, that makes sense. It seems to work in an intuitive way, using the same charts but a lower die type to alter the likelyhood of getting great stuff for weaker creatures. But yeah simpler…A plus side is that is fun to roll …”I got 4 silver and a wooden box with spices in it!”

  12. Here’s an idea for more than four classes:

    Roll your class and your ability scores as normal, and then, if you have over (or under) a certain threshold in (a) certain class(es), the you have the option (or random roll) to switch into the subclass.


    Barbarian: Fighter, Strength 15+ and Wisdom 12-

    Ranger: Fighter, Dexterity 15+ or Thief, Strength 12+ and Dexterity 15+

    Druid: Cleric, Wis 15+

    Illusionist: Magic-User, Charisma 15+, Dexterity 12+

    Monk: Any Class, Strength 15+, Constitution 11+, Dexterity 15+, Wisdom 15+

Comments are closed.