Been wondering where all this talk of Defend has been going?

Been wondering where all this talk of Defend has been going?

Been wondering where all this talk of Defend has been going?

Here’s where I think it should go.

Comments/questions/angry screeds welcome and appreciated.

Rewriting Defend

DEFEND When you take up a defensive stance or jump in to protect others , roll +CON: on a 10+, hold 3 Readiness; on a 7-9, hold 1 Readiness.

21 thoughts on “Been wondering where all this talk of Defend has been going?”

  3. Went back and read the H&S blog as well. Good read. And yes, all that work to find that only a minor change was needed, if any, shows just how well written DW is.

    *Tips hat*

  6. Not bad, but now it sounds like you can’t Defend places or items and you can Defend several other people at once. You might want to change “jump in to protect others” to “protect someone, an item, or a place”; or something similar. Unless that was your intention.

  7. I know with the regular defend move there are different interpretations on spending the hold multiple times for the same option against the same attack. With the new move, is the expectation that you can only use each option only once on an incoming attack? For example, if I have 3 Readiness, can I strike back at an attacker multiple times in one go. I would interpret it as no myself, but it may need clarification if that is the case.

  8. I like how the change in trigger makes it feel clearer to say that you can Defend yourself, and changing the damage option was definitely the right move. The changes are subtle, but I agree that this version feels better. Cheers.

  9. Robert Finamore hmm. Yeah, not something I’d really considered. I would generally rule the same way as you (only spend on each option once per attack), but I’m not sure I want to codify it.

    Like, if you’re holding 3 Readiness and you get jumped by a gnoll, I don’t think it’s okay to spend 1 Readiness to strike back at him, and then spend another 1 Readiness to strike back at him again. (If pressed, I’d argue that the second time, you’re not “striking back” anymore.)

    But, if you’re holding 3 Readiness and you get jumped by 3 gnolls, we’d generally respond that as a singular attack right? And I’d be perfectly happy if you spent 1 Readiness per gnoll and dealt damage to each of them.

    Then again, if you have a big fuck-off battle ax and we’ve established that you cleave through foes all the time… I’d probably be okay with you spend just 1 Readiness to chop at all 3 gnolls.

    I’m not sure there’s a good way to capture all of that nuance in the move text itself. And I’m not sure that this version is any more or less ambiguous than the original.

    If you’ve got specific ideas, I’m all ears.

  10. Mike Bauer being able to protect multiple others is intentional, yes. The “location” or “item” thing is a bit of a casualty. I think the first trigger (“take up a defensive stance”) easily applies to defending locations or items, because it doesn’t specify a target that you’re defending. But you’re right, it implies that you can’t “jump in” to protect a place or thing… only “others” (which implies people).

    Let me sit with that for a while.

    Input from others on this is welcome, too.

  11. Jeremy Strandberg Thanks for clarifying. Also, thanks for sharing your ideas with us. The “defensive stance” part gives a clearer trigger than the original and includes the acting character, too. I like that!

    On a sidenote, I wanted to make clear I’m playing “advocatus diaboli” for the sake of a 100% clearly-phrased move. I’m not trying to be an arse 😉

  13. So, one ripple effect that this has on both Stonetop and Homebrew World (and core DW, if you use it there) is that this move ends up feeling a little redundant with the “Draw all attention from your ward to yourself” option.

    What Are You Waiting For?

    When you cry out a challenge to your enemies, roll +CON: on a 10+ they treat you as the most obvious threat to be dealt with and ignore your companions­—gain advantage on damage rolls against them; on a 7-9, only a few (the weakest or most foolhardy among them) fall prey to your taunting.

    I mean, it’s not exactly redundant, but it feels like it’s occupying a similar space, yeah? Barbarian/Heavy pulls aggro and becomes the focus of some or all of the enemies. The option in Defend is arguably better, because it definitely draws “all attention”. Though it does require taking up a defensive stance, which What Are You Waiting For doesn’t.

    What do you all think about replacing it with this?

    What Are You Waiting For?

    When you take up a defensive stance and cry out a challenge to your enemies, roll to Defend normally. On a 7+, you automatically draw all attention from your ward to yourself (no need to spend Readiness). On a 10+, you also gain +1 armor and deal +1d4 damage for as long as you hold Readiness.

  14. Jeremy Strandberg I think your changes to What are you waiting for? are great. It feels cleaner to have it tie into an existing move, and the bonus feels right since your goading them into making a rash decision and taking up an advantageous defensive position.

  15. Does What Are You Waiting For? as written require a defensive stance? I don’t think it does. The Barbarian has always seemed like a more offense-focused class, and a move that’s rooted in Defend like that strikes me as strange.

  16. Sweet! I love this – and this is mainly how we’ve used Defend in the games I’ve GM’ed.

    (I just want to add, even though my precious gaming time seems to dwindle even more, that I really look forward to Stonetop being awailable.)

Comments are closed.