I'm working on compiling playbooks for my home campaign, based on the efforts of a malignant Worm God to insinuate itself into civilized realms.

I plan to create a series of playbooks ...

1) Cult of the Worm God (how the Worm God operates in a city)

and a series of playbooks detailing Deathhole Dungeon, where the Worm God itself actually resides ...

2) Deathhole Dungeon Site (describes entrances and surroundings)
3) Kobold Quarter (a Kobold tribe occupies the first level)
4) Worm Spawn Quarter (the Kobolds are in conflict with the Worm Spawn who've risen up from below)
5) The Untouched Quarter (ruins of castle dungeons and a temple that once occupied this site but were swallowed into the earth a century ago)

and more playbooks as needed to describe lower levels if my players decide to explore deeper.

Here's the first completed playbook ...

http://www.dmmuse.com/downloads/CultOfTheWormGod.pdf

Yeah, in any AP podcasts I've heard it seems that rule goes under the radar.  But I can definitely see the rationale behind it.  If characters are just effective unarmed, why bother listing weapons in the gear section?  I guess it depends on the tone you want.  If you want superheroes then sure, let them roll their full damage unarmed.  But if you want a bit grittier tone then I think the unarmed damage rule makes sense, but I like the version they had in the Redbook where they mentioned 1d4 stun damage.  This let me conduct a few bar-room brawls quite nicely.

Interesting house rule, Anarchangel.  I could see how that makes for a fiercer game than the rule as written ...

"You have to be wielding a weapon to use your class's damage dice. Default damage without a weapon is 1."

Thinking about it more though, there must be some advantage to having weapons.  Otherwise the heroes could just saunter off unarmed and punch, bite, and rend their way through the dungeon.

Cool, will listen this weekend :)

>>Size is a real tricky one<<

Hi Adam,

I think basing monster HP on environment is also tricky.  For example, take the Imp that you mentioned, and let's create an Imp and a Balrog.  Both are spawned in The Planes (50 HP base).  The Imp gets -6 HP because it's smaller than a Halfling, and the Balrog gets +7 HP because it's much larger than a man.

Imp = 44 hitpoints
Balrog = 57 hitpoints

It strikes me that the Imp has too many HP with this method.

On the other hand, assume a framework something like this:

Tiny = 2 hp base
Small = 5 hp base
Man sized = 10 hp base
Large = 20 hp base
Huge = 30 hp base
Gargantuan = 40 hp base

Spawned in Dangerous or Twisted places = x2 hp
Spawned in the Planes = x3 hp

With a framework like this we get:

Imp = 15 hp
Balrog = 60 hp

which is closer to what I would have expected.

After pondering this for a while, I feel that trying to shoehorn monster stat generation into a rigid set of questions like this will unfailingly lead to some results that defy logic.  As sage stressed earlier, the monster stats aren't even the most important part of the monster, so why devote so much energy in the rules?  I actually think the advice in the earlier DW Print Edition made alot more sense in this regard.  With those brief, helpful paragraphs, and eyeballing the existing monsters, a GM could easily stat out custom monsters.

I'm confused about the Monster damage related to Monster groups.

How does it usually hunt or fight?
As part of a large group (5+) of creatures (damage=base × 3)
As part of a small group (2–5) of creatures (damage=base × 4)
As the leader of other creatures (damage=base × 5)
All by its lonesome (damage=base × 6)

I don't grok the logic of why the Monster's social behavior should impact it's damage.  A tiger might hunt alone, and be capable of defeating a knight in a fair fight (base 8).  So, by this logic, its damage should be (8x6) 48.  Is this assuming a knight has 48 hitpoints generally?

>>Of course, it's worth noting that you're not necessarily under any compulsion to have a monster deal its damage. There are any number of other options available. It's just that if a monster's damage is likely to kill a PC outright, I don't really feel like "dealing damage" is one of those options anymore, most of the time.<<

You hit the nail on the head as to why I don't like the static monster damage.  I even wrote Sage about this very thing.  With static damage, the decision to "kill" a PC is squarely in the hands of the GM, with their choice of move.

If monster damage were variable, then you avoid this awkward situation, and you gain the adventage of those very dramatic monster damage rolls where the fate of the PC is in the hands of the dice.

I find it uncomfortable ... the foreknowledge that Deal Damage will knock a PC to zero colors the GM's decision to use it.

That's why I house rule the following:

- variable monster damage
- PC's really roll their hit dice when gaining level

It's pretty easy to adjust the monsters on the fly to determine their level and their damage output, and I feel it adds more fun to the game.

I dislike the bloat in PC hit points and the removal of monster level. Monster level is a useful gauge, and currently required for several moves like Turn Undead. It seems like DW has needlessly bloated both PC hitpoints and monster damage to excessive levels. Compound that with static monster damage and you have a game that eliminates one if the most tense moments of any old school D&D experience: that dramatic monster damage roll where the life of the PC hangs in the balance.