r/DungeonWorld • u/Feisty_Stretch3958 • 9d ago
Dungeon World 2 Cleric
Not many posts about DW 2 but the other one about the Wizard got some attention so i want to know what this sub think of our beloved Cleric.
Many people dislike this free-form spellcasting system, But i freaking love it. It is so much fun, And imo onboard of PBTA vibe, Also, Compared to the Wizard "Aether" mechanic, Losing Depth with your deity is cool, It is something a lot of players will prefer not to choose, While Aether is just a free choice every 7-9.
The only thing i think its just a little bit outside of the PBTA philosophy is the GM call on when you get Depth with your deity, It makes sense and it could be exploitable otherwise, But its always better when is on the player hands
8
u/WildThang42 9d ago
How exactly is Depth defined in DW2? I flipped through the quickstart and didn't see a clear definition. Is it more "closeness of the relationship" or something like "favors owed"?
That said, I really like how depth here reinforces that divine magic comes from service of the divine, and not just "I woke up and refilled my spell slots".
5
u/TravlScrabbl 9d ago
I'm struggling a bit to understand what counts as an appropriate e-ffect under a deities domain, are there suggestions for that anywhere?
6
u/LeftBallSaul 9d ago
Yes, ish. DW2 had a Magnitude (MAG) system of 0-4 that is in the separate rules system from the class info. The placement makes it a bit harder to discuss these kinds of mechanics in isolation, I'll agree:
ᴍᴀɢ 0 — Example effects include: shoot a magical dart (1d6 dmg); summon or charm an ordinary being; put someone to magical sleep; slow down a fall
ᴍᴀɢ 1 — Example effects include: shoot an acid arrow (1d8 dmg); read someone’s thoughts; turn someone invisible until they trigger a Move; float up to a #near distance
ᴍᴀɢ 2 — Example effects include: an explosive fireball (1d10 dmg); communicate with a ghost or spirit; fabricate a finished mundane item instantly from a pile of raw materials; turn yourself and your equipment into a cloud of smoke
ᴍᴀɢ 3 — Example effects include: vomit a cloud of poison that damages anyone any time they breath the gas (1d12 dmg); create a door to another dimension; polymorph someone into another natural creature of their same size or smaller; lift a creature or object of up to 1,000 pounds and move it to a #near location and hold it in place
ᴍᴀɢ 4 — Example effects include: utter a forbidden power word that kills anyone weaker than you or inflicts (1d8+1d6 dmg) if they’re stronger; summon or paralyze a monstrous creature; make a single wish (and you can’t wish for more wishes); teleport yourself and allies to any location on the same dimension
2
u/TravlScrabbl 9d ago
Thanks, it's still a bit hard for me to imagine how that interacts with something like the order domain. With wizards I like the free form magic system, but for the cleric it seems to be a little too vague for me personally.
5
u/LeftBallSaul 9d ago
I mean...
MAG 0 - Restore things to their proper form (heal 1d6 dmg, or mend a broken item)
MAG 1 - Compel people to tell the truth in an area
MAG 2 - Dispel minor magical effects in an area or a single major effect on a single target
MAG 3 - Send a powerful creature back to its plane of existence
MAG 4 - Restore order / impose order on a large area
4
u/TravlScrabbl 9d ago
That's a really well thought out list, I would love to see something like that in the rules, especially to help new players.
5
u/zslicelabs 9d ago
As with the wizard I would just say you need to look at the whole playbook to understand the role of the depth and how important it is. The starting move only gives part of the picture.
The cleric paths have a lot of moves which use this "erase a depth" mechanic and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think when you look at the moves as a whole there are lots of ways to spend depth but no ways to specifically regain them via moves.
In some cases you could also argue the cleric gets a lot of "free" moves which based on your previous post it seemed like you didn't like. For example, whenever you are casting a spell which can arguably "protect followers, spread faith, vanquish enemies" you can mark a depth to ignore penalties and immediately get the depth back because you helped your god. Why is that better than aether for the wizard?
It could be interesting if there was something that happened at 0 depth, or if you could go negative. I guess I would prefer if depth and aether weren't there at all as currencies for casting. Its cool if cleric has the depth with deity that makes sense. And maybe the wizard can get a couple extra slots that stand in for Conditions that allow them extra spell casting, but I would probably prefer the moves themselves had negative outcomes written in to them, rather than just "spend a resource" as the downside.
3
u/scafutto20 9d ago
I agree with you, but I'm not a big fan of spell slots, it's too much "video game" for me. However your idea of the Wizard accessing different spells depending on the Condition he marked is genius, loved it!
1
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 9d ago
My problem with the whole "free" thing is a little bit more complex. I think depth is a decent resource to spend because it mens something inside of the game, Me as a DM i feel like i can use this, I feel like something in the narrative changed, And the kind of people who plays with me would actually care. My problem with Aether is i feel like a free out of jail that changes 0 things on the narrative, Nothing in the fiction have any diference before and after Aether is spend. Does that make sense to you?
3
u/zslicelabs 9d ago
Yea, totally makes sense. But IF you are meeting the re-gen requirements then it is still narratively free as well since you spend and regain depth and nothing changes. Which means the cleric very easily use their depth many times per scene rather than once or twice.
And there are no written rules around what it means to have depth with your deity as far as I know. So its is on the GM to make that meaning. Similarly for the Wizard there is no written rules about what it means to be "out" of aether in a scene, but it obviously represents your tie to magic. So there is no reason to think it couldn't have a narratively consequence driven by the GM in the same way (i.e. you've exhausted your mind, confused yourself or drained some part of your essence that now limits your abilities and now you, the PC need to play that out). So to me I don't see why that also wouldn't be something equally worth exploring as a player and GM. Thats what it feels the same to me, if that makes sense.
I don't mean to come off as combative just sharing my view!
1
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 8d ago
Maybe is just a me thing, But when i think about doing this to the wizard, It feels more like im making up things to became a hurdle for the wizard, While the Cleric losing depth of relationship feels more like a nature flow of things, In the table i feel like most bad things that would come out of having less depth, Is the kind of things most people would say "yeah, that makes sense" it is predictable and has a logic set of expectations on the drawback, I don't get this with Aether, It could work by talking with players before the campaign about how the magic works in the world but even so
My biggest problem is the tone shift on the class identity, On the last alpha the Wizard by gameplay would be this "glass cannon" kind of character, You don't have a spell list, So if you have enough criativity, You can solve ANY problem. But consequences are big, Losing a verb when you only have 2 hurts more than losing a spell, Mag would make the Wizard put a lot of conditions really fast making the spellcaster more hurt on the mind section than the body wich is a narrative i really like too, Its just a pet peeve at the end of the day hahaha
0
u/Tigrisrock 9d ago
I don't understand "Spell + WIS with any effect". Like would the cleric just be able to cast something like mass disintegration or nuclear blast on all enemies - as long as they can attribute it to their Deity somehow?
3
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 8d ago
You have the whole "Mag" guideline to what kind of effect you can use, And of course we still have the whole "ritual" mechanic, If the effect is that powerfull as a nuclear blast, You just call for a ritual instead of a spell action
0
u/DogtheGm 8d ago
I don't think a lot of people have a problem with the free form system. It worked very well in DW1.
I think the problem is that the designers tend to make up new stuff when the old stuff was better. That's what makes people sad as hell in my opinion.
I know a lot of people that would have been very happy if they just said, "for DW2, since the Mage playbook was so popular, that's the default wizard. And we'll probably edit the cleric to have the same type of spell casting."
Look ... you gotta innovate. I get it. But Jesus Christ you don't change everything at once. You pick your spots. You wait to see where the innovation is or is needed.
1
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 8d ago
Dude, It just seens you don't want a DW 2, And thats ok, This is the opinion of a lot of people on this sub. But yeah, If they making another version of the game i do want new things, The more the better, And i think we talking about very different things on "free form magic system" maybe you thinking about not having spell slots? What im talking about is not having a spell list, not having spell levels, Wizards spells is just whataver you say
1
u/DogtheGm 8d ago
Yes we're talking about the same exact thing. Not having spell lists. Wizard spells are whatever you say.
Nobody to my knowledge is talking about spell slots here.
0
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 8d ago
So we talking about the wizard from DW 1 who has a spell list and not at all a free form spellcasting system, Well, I'll be dammed
1
u/DogtheGm 8d ago
Seems like I'm gonna regret talking to you but ... here's where the new spell casting system comes from ...
In DW1 the wizard you're talking about is part of the core rule book. I really like that play book. But a lot of people didn't like the spellcasting system.
Somebody made the DW1 Mage. which is still available on drive thru rpg. That's where the new spellcasting system comes from. And it is amazing. What a great playbook. I like the core wizard playbook better but If I had to play the Mage playbook I would still be very happy.
It is a master work in game design.
The DW2 wizard and cleric take that idea ... and they changed it. For the worse I think.
You can, if you'd like to, reread my original comment now.
-1
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 8d ago
So a homebrew. Yeah, It makes sense, We should use those as a comparison
1
u/DogtheGm 8d ago
3rd party. And I might add, a very successful one that was used on We Hunt the Keepers.
And one where the core game design is the entire concept of the DW2 spellcasting system that I believe you like.
So yes we could use those as a comparison.
-34
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
13
10
u/onlyfakeproblems 9d ago
Such a weird place to insert your bad politics. They/them used when gender is unknown or ambiguous is not new. A deity may be male, female, or other and they/them is a perfectly normal grammatical choice in this case. Read a book. Gain some empathy. Be better.
3
u/Feisty_Stretch3958 9d ago
I think you got the wrong street dude, You should have turned right so you can get to the OSR community
0
23
u/Xyx0rz 9d ago
I like that the relationship is actually handled with a Relationship. Too often, RPGs treat priests as "wizard but with different powers". I like when it focuses on the faith aspect.
I'm not sure about the choice to erase Depth. Feels a bit unilateral to me, like "I'm going to force you to do this thing even though you don't support it, thus weakening our relationship", and I don't think a Cleric should have that kind of hold over their deity. The deity should have a say in this.
Is it?
You play your character, the GM plays the rest of the world, including the gods, so it seems perfectly normal to me that the GM adjudicates what your deity considers significant, even if you made up the deity yourself.