Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Ludanto on May 02, 2011, 11:43:37 PM
-
I don't know if this is an issue or if my player just has preconcieved notions, but he complains that a theif can't effectively use daggers. He considers daggers to be particularly thiefy, and I can see that, what with the portability and all.
I don't know if daggers should be precise, or just precise for theives, or if he should just stop whining. ;)
He also doesn't like that Backstab is a STR move.
So... there's some feedback from the player's side.
-
Backstab as a Dex move is something I've gone back and forth on. I worry a bit that it makes Dex the One Stat To Rule Them all. It allows ranged attacks, Backstab, and Defy Danger, what else does a Thief need?
On the one hand, I agree that Thief with dagger should be totally playable. On the other hand, damage isn't the only measure of playable. That player can still be backstabing to set up the fighter, who deals the real damage. I'll think on it, but I kind of feel like that's just how it is. I tend to think of a little dagger as less dangerous than a big freaking sword.
-
I totally understand. I think maybe his familiarity with 4e D&D combat colors his "DOT" expectations.
-
That's something that we've run into a lot, even in our own designing. It takes a mental shift, I think, but I still look at the Thief and occasional want to add DPS.
-
Keep in mind with this reply that I got out of D&D before Lud's comment made sense.
I am all for breaking people's expectations of what they feel "should be." That being said if someone wants to use daggers let them know that they are in fact daggers. You're going to have to slice really hard to bust a table in half compared to a great sword. I'm not sure if it is the same but beyond giving an enemy a pin prick they can use aid to help the fighter beyond the backstab, if you get one. For something like this I think allowing poison to be applied mid battle shouldn't be too hindering to the world. If someone choses to use daggers they are saying "I don't want to deal damage," so why not let them be able to hinder mid fight with something beyond aid.
I agree that loading up dex into a good stat for thieves can be rough, but keep in mind thieves are almost forced to have bad mental stats now if they are going to be meleeing. If a thief goes for str instead of dex they lose defy danger but they dont lose anything by losing ranged attacks. They sacrafice defy danger for being able to loot and search or being able to tell what something is or being able to charm someone.
-
I tend to think of a little dagger as less dangerous than a big freaking sword.
Not in the hands of a skilled Thief! Tables don't have jugulars!
Here's a custom Thief move:
Cutthroat: when you use a dagger to strike someone's vital organs, it deals 1D6 damage instead of 1D4.
-
i think it still holds true that a dagger is still a tiny thing and does not do much damage, the cutthroat thing should be included in backstab and, not surprisingly, it already is (one of the options is +2 damage which is better than changing d4 to d6)
fun picture, a guy fighting a rhinoceros with a dagger... id take a huge axe for that any day of the week.
-
i think it still holds true that a dagger is still a tiny thing and does not do much damage, the cutthroat thing should be included in backstab and, not surprisingly, it already is (one of the options is +2 damage which is better than changing d4 to d6)
There's no reason why these couldn't both apply. When you are helpless or surprised vs. striking vital organs or both.
fun picture, a guy fighting a rhinoceros with a dagger... id take a huge axe for that any day of the week.
1d6 + 2 damage when a leap onto the back of the rhino, surprising him and stabbing my dagger into its fucking eye socket. ;)
Didn't Legolas do this with the oliphaunts in the LotR movies using arrows?
-
maybe its just me, but i always read sneak attack as using the element of surprise to get a chance to strike the vital organs... having two moves that do the same thing seems rather redundant to me.
and yea, legolas did do that, with a bow, which does a lot more damage than a dagger (both in real life and in this game!)
-
Anyone who thinks a dagger does less damage than an arrow is invited over to my place tonight for a demonstration. :)
But, anyway, it's about what's right for the game, not "realism" (guh). I like my thiefy-types to backstab the fuck outta fools. Not sure if DW is currently doing that... I'll have to take a closer look.
-
Anyone who thinks a dagger does less damage than an arrow is invited over to my place tonight for a demonstration. :)
Amen.
-
okay, ill be right over and bring my long bow, if you can still get up after getting shot with a broad headed arrow you can stab me. (then i get to shoot you again, then you can stab me again and we can continue till someone gives up)
heres a question. in what game do daggers do a lot of damage? not dungeons and dragons...
-
Range and speed are good things. That's why hunters use bows, not daggers. But, either one can easily kill you dead with one hit, damage wise. But, like I said, that's "reality" and not terribly relevant to adventure gaming.
To answer your question, I can think of two games in which daggers do a lot of damage.
D&D (circa 1984). Originally, all weapons did 1d6 damage. But a thief did double damage (and +4 to hit) from a backstab with a dagger.
Apocalypse World. A big knife does the same damage as a handgun (2-harm).
So...
-
its called force, an arrow shot from a bow has a lot more of it than you can hope to have by stabbing someone with a knife
dagger != big knife... big knife is more akin to a short sword
and daggers do more damage when there is no distinction between weapons and what it is is only color... gotcha
and yes, reality doesnt matter much in an adventure game, but comparison usually does. and compared to a dagger, a great sword does a lot more trauma. if you dont want some element of "reality" in the sense that getting chopped in half with a massive axe kills you a lot more than getting stabbed by a knife then the game should not have distinctions between types of weapons and it should use the old DnD generic 'weapon' style. by adding in a distinction between short sword and long sword i see this game as basing it self somewhat on how those weapons function in real life.
-
i like to imagine a sumo jumping off a building holding a dagger out would cause a lot of trauma... though that's true whether or not you're the one being landed on.
-
Realistically and comparatively I think a sword should do more damage than a dagger.
But, I do feel that Thieves seem more appropriate wielding a dagger. Thieves back-stabbing with Shortswords seem inappropriate to me. I would be completely fine with incentivizing a dagger by giving the Thief a starting ability allowing him to do 1D6 with a Dagger. This basically just saves him 1 weight and incentivizes him to stick with what I feel is normal fantasy color.
-
the d6 weapons only weigh 1 as well. it is nothing besides color wanting to have a dagger instead of a short sword. the reason i see taking a dagger over a short sword is that it is smaller and therefore probably easier to conceal.
-
Like in AW, the names associated with damage are largely flavor. The damage:weight:cost pairing is a little more important, since there's an economy there. There's also what weapon types are available to what classes, which is largely flavor plus a bit of 'balance' in the sense that the wizard shouldn't have as awesome of a weapon as the fighter.
You'll notice that in the fighter's signature weapon and in the top tier of standard weapons, adjectives are all that's applied. Feel free to do that if you want to, to treat a weapon as another type. A Loadstone Dagger might be more like a shortsword, in terms of stats.
I don't really care at all what weapons do in the real world. This is Dungeon World!