Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Mike Olson on February 13, 2012, 05:33:06 AM
-
I can't remember now where I saw it mentioned -- here or on S-G? -- that the Beta version of the cleric lets him actually turn undead as opposed to, y'know, not being able to do that thing. Which is an improvement!
That said, I'm a little bothered by the new form it's taken. "A number of mindless undead equal to your level" seems to really hamstring the cleric and prevent the classic turn-the-vampire-with-your-holy-symbol trope. However, without monster levels, it's not so easy to quickly differentiate between various gradations of undead without GM fiat ("Well, no, the vampire lord obviously isn't turned, no, but those skeletons, yeah, they cower and back off").
What about using the one defensive monster stat that still remains -- Hit Points -- as the basis for accomplishing something like this? It seems like doing this could also recall how Turn Undead works in AD&D, too.
For example:
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith, roll+Cha. Compare the Hit Point total of every nearby undead being to the total of your roll. If an undead's HP total is less than your roll, the undead is destroyed. If an undead's HP total is greater than your roll but less than twice your roll, it cowers at your power. If an undead's HP total is twice your roll or greater, it is unaffected.
Now, look. I know I like rolling dice, and tend to insert dice-rolling into DW in places where maybe other people wouldn't like it. But this strikes me as consistent with the core mechanic and more fun than the guaranteed certainty of number = level. And you get to make skeletons explode just by shouting at them.
-
Having played a cleric for the first time on Saturday and having run into a ghost for which Turn Undead was useless, I agree that something should change about that power. I hesitate to climb on-board with all the additional mechanics and dice-rolling, but I think there should be some effect on all undead.
I'm not experienced enough in the game to know what a balanced alternative would look like. I'd at least like to have the power to ask the undead questions (if it's not mindless) before it savages me.
-
When you hold forth your holy symbol as a show of faith all undead that can see you immediately freeze. If they're mindless undead that's it, they stay frozen so long as you hold forth your holy symbol. If they're intelligent they pause for a few moments before regaining their wits.
-
Sage, is that how the power is intended? Iserith was a player in my game and when the situation came up I went with RAW.
-
That's a rewrite. What do you think?
-
I might add that for as long as you hold forth your holy symbol in faith, you have leverage over them.
-
I might add that for as long as you hold forth your holy symbol in faith, you have leverage over them.
I like that. Synergy! Makes it possible for you to Parley with them, which means they might flee before you.
-
I think we want to avoid ever saying something is leverage. Leverage is a plain-english word that has to be interpreted at the table.
How about this:
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith undead who can see you are held at bay. Mindless undead cannot deliberately come closer to you. Intelligent undead can come closer if they choose, but take 1d8 damage per your level. This effect lasts until your show of faith stops, but an intelligent undead can only take damage once per turning.
Or maybe this:
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith roll+Wis. On a 10+ all undead that can see you must flee your presence (once they leave they can return freely). On a 7-9 undead that can see you cower for a few moments doing nothing but groveling.
I think the stun lock potential is too high right now. I'm liking the idea of fleeing and a roll. To me that feels like it really is turning, and it's a big deal, but it's not so huge that intelligent undead are boned.
-
Have you considered stepping away from the "area effect" way of thinking and making it a bit more like Going Aggro on a particular undead creature?
-
I like both of those options, Sage, but prefer the second, I think.
Here's what prompted me to post about it in the first place: I'm making a magic item that makes good clerics better at turning undead. That was the idea, anyway. But when I read the description of the move again, there was nothing there I could really hook into, mechanically speaking, except the cleric's level determining the number of undead affected. So then I got to thinking about AD&D's take on it and etc.
Thus, for the purposes of my thing, adding in a little mechanical "rigor" makes coming up with a magic item that's relevant to the move easier, or at least more intuitive.
-
The term "leverage", while plain English, does seem to be a repeated bone of contention. It's quite broad, but I've noticed that players seem to initially interpret it quite narrowly. Perhaps a discussion in the rules with some non-obvious examples (such as this one) might be in order?
-
Yup, that's what the moves discussion chapter is for. "Avoiding your deity's wrath as channeled through your holy symbol" is totally leverage.
-
Sage,
I like the second one, it feels more like what I think of when I think of Turning.
To your point about leverage though, leverage in any other context is simple to understand but as a prerequisite to a move it becomes something a little more difficult to parse. If I were to confront you with a sword or magic I would assume I have leverage over you but in DW swords and magic are common place so leverage becomes a bit more iffy.
-
That's exactly why I think invoking the word "leverage" works in this case. To Parley, you have to have leverage over the other guy. "I can channel the power of a god in a way that you won't enjoy" seems like pretty good leverage to me.
-
It feels like, if the rules are going to be specific that you need leverage, they should also be clear about what counts as leverage. Including leverage in the text of aproriate moves just makes sense. Saying, if it does then it does, puts the one and only social option directly in the hands of GM fiat and I am very uncomfortable with that.
-
Sage, I LOVE the second re-write (with a roll). Signature moves should be rolls in my mind, with fictional triggers and multiple outcomes. This is not just for the opportunity for a soft or hard hit and the resultant story changes, but also for the chance that the cleric may fail and thus hand me a golden opportunity on a plate so I can make as hard a move as I like that is so so tied in with the tense situation of failing that roll.
I also like the idea of lists and options.
So maybe as the given move....
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith roll+Wis.
On a hit, undead that can see you cower only for a few moments doing nothing but groveling before regaining their 'wits'. On a 10+ choose 2, on a 7-9 choose 1
*Name one undead creature and command it to flee your presence (once they leave they can return freely)
*all undead who can see you are held at bay until your show of faith stops
*deal your level x1d4 of faithful damage to the horde as you channel the wrath of your god
*Your God protects you from an imminent threat or suffering a calamity
Also, how does they new lack of monster levels effect the Paladin's rebuke undead moves?
-
If I were to confront you with a sword or magic I would assume I have leverage over you but in DW swords and magic are common place so leverage becomes a bit more iffy.
A credible threat to life and limb is totally leverage. If they don't think you'll follow through, not so much.
-
It feels like, if the rules are going to be specific that you need leverage, they should also be clear about what counts as leverage. Including leverage in the text of aproriate moves just makes sense. Saying, if it does then it does, puts the one and only social option directly in the hands of GM fiat and I am very uncomfortable with that.
GM fiat and GM interpretation of the fiction aren't the same thing. Leverage is "something that a character wants or needs". GM fiat is generally disliked because it's arbitrary and can be capricious. Trying to interpret the fiction based on what honesty demands isn't like that -- does the target character want or need the thing that the PC is offering? It's supposed to be grounded in the fiction and characterization that's been developed so far.
-
Dan,
That looks like you took that quote from the book, do you have a page reference for that? That is what I remember leverage being but if that is the case then we have stepped away from the general useage of leverage and the need for definitive use in other moves is even more important.
-
Dan,
That looks like you took that quote from the book, do you have a page reference for that? That is what I remember leverage being but if that is the case then we have stepped away from the general useage of leverage and the need for definitive use in other moves is even more important.
That's from the Parley move, in parenthetical clarifying text right after the word leverage: "When you have leverage on someone (something they need or want) and you try to get them to do what you want..."
I don't understand why you think this is stepping away from a plain english definition, it seems pretty consistent to me with a common usage of the word "leverage". Have you had experiences where it was hard to interpret the fiction to determine if someone had appropriate leverage for Parley?
-
If you include that they want or need not to have my sword in their face or to make a scene thats ok but then I have to come back to, why don't I always have leverage? If leverage is going to be an important prerequisite then it needs a better definition as a game term. I had a player attempt to parlay with a ghost in my last game but I couldn't see what they had that it wanted or needed other than contenued existance.
-
I would think that the leverage should be something that the monster wants, like a bribe of gold, or a concrete threat against it. How did the player actually interact with the ghost in the "fiction"? That would tell you what leverage, if any, the player held over the ghost.
You don't always have leverage because you're not always sticking your sword in the monster's face. That's a quite aggressive action that might very well backfire.
-
They had the ability to affect the physical world more easily than the ghost could?
Perhaps it's worried about it's descendants, or some item it left behind?
Perhaps it would like them to avenge it in some way?
D.
-
If you're asking what the players might have that the ghost wanted, a classic answer would be for them to lay its physical remains to rest in a sanctified grave.
-
If you include that they want or need not to have my sword in their face...
Do all creatures want or need that? I can imagine a dragon that wouldn't care at all if you tried to get in its face with a sword, and a goblin that would care quite a bit. Look at it from the target's perspective. I can imagine a creature that thought it was winning a fight not wanting an opportunity to escape (why would it need that?) but a creature that thinks it's losing a fight could very easily want or need an opportunity to get away. "Leverage" isn't universal, it's contextual based on the fictional situation.
I had a player attempt to parlay with a ghost in my last game but I couldn't see what they had that it wanted or needed other than contenued existance.
Did the ghost believe that they had control over its continued existence? When you asked the player for clarification about what leverage they had for the Parley what leverage did they think they had?
-
I like the idea of a roll for Turn Undead. It allows for a golden opportunity on a fail which might look very cool depending on the scene.
Damage to undead by way of Turn Undead doesn't "feel" right to me. I just don't think it's very interesting, even if old school D&D allowed for it. I'd rather it be a situation where I could keep them at bay and communicate. Perhaps instead of saying the cleric has leverage and worrying about what that means, you could just say it allows the cleric to Parlay with intelligent undead on a 10+.
-
Dan,
Do you mind if we take this to a new thread? I seem to have drifted a bit from what we started talking about here.
-
Damage to undead by way of Turn Undead doesn't "feel" right to me. I just don't think it's very interesting, even if old school D&D allowed for it.
Well, in AD&D, for any given undead being you either have a chance of turning it (or no chance), you automatically turn it, or you outright destroy it. Just blast 'em to dust. Which is pretty metal, IMO.
I'm not sure when turning started to involve dealing damage (3rd ed., I guess?).
-
It's funny, the damage for Turning came directly from 3E, because it was the first thing I could remember about turning. Adam set me straight!
Right now we have a version that has a roll. On a hit undead can't come near you. On a 10+ mindless undead also flee and intelligent undead cower for a moment. The effect endures so long as you hold forth your holy symbol and pray. Intelligent undead may still be able to find ways to hurt you from afar.
The way Adam explained it to me, which makes a lot of sense, is that it's a way for the Cleric to exercise power over the undead, not necessarily kill them. It's a way to buy time to heal and prepare a counter assault.
-
I like the rolling it allows for that moment when the vampire lord just walks up and snaps your holy symbol like a twig but it still has an oppertunity for you to be a complete bad ass.
-
Dan,
Do you mind if we take this to a new thread? I seem to have drifted a bit from what we started talking about here.
Sounds like a good idea.
-
Can you heal someone while maintaining your turn undead? The devil could be in the details here and by details I mean wording.
-
I think not. You have to keep praying and channeling, which you also have to do while Cast a Spell, but it lets you clear the space and get to the person.
-
That's when the paladin steps in I guess.
-
Yeah. Or you get a strong hit and buy some time.
-
Well, in AD&D, for any given undead being you either have a chance of turning it (or no chance), you automatically turn it, or you outright destroy it. Just blast 'em to dust. Which is pretty metal, IMO.
I'm not sure when turning started to involve dealing damage (3rd ed., I guess?).
No doubt it's neat and, in another game system, I'd fully support going damage/destroy on Turn Undead. I just think it could be somewhat limited in practice from a storytelling perspective. It's likely that a cleric will be in the party because, well, someone always gets "stuck" being the cleric in a full group, right? As a result, more often than not, mindless undead would need not apply in the adventure. It'd be like an unnecessary speed bump in any given scenario. "Here are some zombies for you to destroy with your holy symbol before we move onto something else." It feels flat to me.
At that point, as a GM, I'd see no further reason to include those monsters in my game because likely nothing interesting would happen by doing so.
-
Yeah, but you're a fan of the players, so sometimes you throw them a bone (animated in this case) so they can be badass.
-
Yeah, but you're a fan of the players, so sometimes you throw them a bone (animated in this case) so they can be badass.
True, but the GM can both be a fan of the players AND work to keep things interesting. I'm definitely down with letting players blow stuff up. I do it all the time in this and other games. I just think from a design point of view, mindless undead blowing up on a Turn Undead will simply result in less mindless undead being used in the first place. In practice among many tables and groups, I mean. I'm not a game designer though so perhaps I'm wrong. It feels like there's no incentive to including them in a game very often if there's a cleric around. I'd rather put in a ghoul or vampire so at least the PCs can have a conversation with it if they so choose.
-
The thing with mindless undead is that they need to be present in overwhelming numbers. I'm not talking about little groups, I'm talking clogging the streets and filling the darkness, I'm talking about an environmental effect. You should be treating 'turn undead' into a lamp that keeps the grue at bay. If the cleric stops praying for a moment you know you'll be defying danger or defending. What? The cleric can't stop praying to make camp, that -1 forward will suck. What, the cleric has to defy danger to avoid falling asleep, oh no! Those skeleton archers sure are going to wreak havoc on the cleric if there isn't someone to defend them. And who defend the party while he heals the fighter that took 3 arrows for protecting him. When it comes to mindless dead, go big.
-
I just think from a design point of view, mindless undead blowing up on a Turn Undead will simply result in less mindless undead being used in the first place. In practice among many tables and groups, I mean.
I see your point. I also really like the D&D trope of the cleric blowing up skeletons :) Mind you, that only happens at high levels, so perhaps something like "if the mindless undead have HP < ClericLevelx2, they are destroyed". But in proper English, not Maths ;)
-
You should be treating 'turn undead' into a lamp that keeps the grue at bay.
This was Adam's insight that made the move click for me.
Damaging undead, or flat out killing them, takes a different sort of move I think. I tried to sell Adam on a fictional trigger of "When you touch your holy symbol to an undead creature..." but that's a different move, not Turn Undead.
The issue with making Turn Undead too powerful against undead is that it makes undead fights very binary: you turn them or you don't. By keeping it a bit more dynamic there's room for interesting action.
Also keep in mind that we're not using monster levels anymore. This has lead to some great changes in the rules to my mind. In particular, a monster has to be fictionally threatening in some way, not just higher level. Likewise if you want to say what undead can be effected you have to use only traits that are clearly present in the fiction, not just level, which makes something like "destroy any undead with 2 fewer HD than you" a non-option.
-
The thing with mindless undead is that they need to be present in overwhelming numbers. I'm not talking about little groups, I'm talking clogging the streets and filling the darkness, I'm talking about an environmental effect. You should be treating 'turn undead' into a lamp that keeps the grue at bay. If the cleric stops praying for a moment you know you'll be defying danger or defending. What? The cleric can't stop praying to make camp, that -1 forward will suck. What, the cleric has to defy danger to avoid falling asleep, oh no! Those skeleton archers sure are going to wreak havoc on the cleric if there isn't someone to defend them. And who defend the party while he heals the fighter that took 3 arrows for protecting him. When it comes to mindless dead, go big.
Pure awesome.