Beta 2.3 Questions / Feedback

[P2]

Hi guys,

I have some questions / feedback about beta 2.3 version (I won't repeat the previous questions / feedback I already made in other threads, even if I still think the Bard needs little tweaks in his moves):

1- Carouse: I see a problem about how much coin you have to spend to "throw a big party"... To me, 100 coin is too generic. It's very expensive for a lvl 1 character and too cheap for a lvl 10. Maybe, as a suggestion, you have to spend your level x 10 coins to throw a "big" party (so the "size" of the party could be "proportional" to some intern measurement, your level).

2- There's a bug in "Vicious Blast" (Bard's Advanced Move): The text says it replaces Vicious Cacophony. If it replaces, the bonus granted by the Move should be +2d4 damage, not +1d4 (by the rules on page 169).

3- I liked the changes in Cleric's Moves, but Apotheosys seens too loose and powerful to me.

4- The Cleric's Spell list had it's Tags removed, but "Speak with the dead" still has the Death Tag (on the book and character sheet).

5- I like the new rules about Ranger's Animal Companion Ferocity and Archery Moves. I've seen some other very cool Archery Moves on anoter thread too (but I don't remember the names of these moves right now).

6- Prices for bows, elven arrows, rapier and dueling rapier are way too expensive in comparison to other weapons.

7- Shields costs and weights more than a chainmail??? What's the logic about that? 

[skinnyghost]

Thanks for the bug fixes and typo spotting!  We'll make sure they get looked at.

As for the weight and cost stuff, there's definitely some tweaks that need to go on there.  Part of what we've tasked to our editor is making sure all that junk is internally consistent.  Also, it totally makes sense that a shield weighs more and costs more than a suit of chain mail, right?  ;-)

As far as Apotheosis goes,  I can see where it could appear a little daunting, but in play I bet it's less scary than it looks.  It's up to the GM to work with the player to determine what the move means and how it works in play.  More than anything, it's the ability to fictionally position oneself a little differently.  Anything mechanic is on the GM to work out.  Think of it, in some ways, as a magic item - potentially very powerful but generally pretty limited in scope.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on the magic items we've added and the revisions we've done to the existing set?

[P2]

Also, it totally makes sense that a shield weighs more and costs more than a suit of chain mail, right?  ;-)

No, at least for me. Historically A suit of chain mail is pricier and havier than a shield. Even in fantasy world this rule applies too. Maybe you can say that shield are clumsy, as you have to sacrifice the mobility of one arm to use it, but it isn't heavier.

Also, you don't specify if the shield is made of wood or steel, but, in both ways, they are cheaper and lightier than a chain mail.

In other hand,on Chapter 17, page 206, about making monsters, it's stated:
"What is its most important defense?
Leathers or think hide: 1 armor
Mail or scales: 2 armor"

Why mail and leather gives only 1 armor for players? Again, both history and fantasy portrays that chain mails gives you better protection than leather armor.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on the magic items we've added and the revisions we've done to the existing set?

I take a look in some ones... I'll take a better look about them =)

[skinnyghost]

I was kidding about the shield thing.  A suit of chainmail should definitely be heavier and more expensive.  I'll submit a bug fix for it and make sure it gets into the next version.

[iserith]

I tend to think of Weight in the DW context as more than just the number of lbs/kilos something is. It's also about bulk, unwieldiness, or care required to keep something from being smashed (as in potions or the like). A shield, because it ties up your arm would thus have equal or more "weight" as chainmail which is, for all intents, like wearing heavy clothes.

At least, that's how I justify any "inconsistencies." So far, that has worked in our games.

[P2]

I was kidding about the shield thing.  A suit of chainmail should definitely be heavier and more expensive.  I'll submit a bug fix for it and make sure it gets into the next version.

Sorry if my post seemed a little harsh. English isn't my native tongue so I didn't realized you were kiddind =/

But thanks for appreciating my question =)

I tend to think of Weight in the DW context as more than just the number of lbs/kilos something is. It's also about bulk, unwieldiness, or care required to keep something from being smashed (as in potions or the like). A shield, because it ties up your arm would thus have equal or more "weight" as chainmail which is, for all intents, like wearing heavy clothes.

At least, that's how I justify any "inconsistencies." So far, that has worked in our games.

That's why I "justify" this with a clumsy tag. Warriors (fighters and paladins for game sake) train hard to use armor and shields effectively, and that's why they ignore the "clumsy" tag, but others don't. Maybe your wizard want to use a shield to get cover from arrows, the weight of the shield won't be the most significant thing, but the fact that he doesn't trained to use it, and, thus, will suffer the consequences (the weight will sacrifice his load and his moves in the battle).

Are you getting my point?

[iserith]

Yes, I see your point. Ultimately, that would just require the Clumsy tag to be added to shields and then Clerics must be given the Armored move like Fighters and Paladins or the shield is removed as starting equipment for Clerics. By making shields Clumsy, you're basically saying who gets to use shields and who doesn't by way of a penalty. I'd rather it be more contextual with the benefits and detriments of grabbing a shield determined at the moment it happens in play, like in the example of the wizard defending himself against a hail of arrows. I just don't need tags to tell me what to do in this case.

[saintandsinner]

Pg 23 is missing some of the alignments.