Another rules application question:

Another rules application question:

Another rules application question:

One of my players is The Professional. He has decided to be the group’s primary damage dealer. With his first improvement, he used “Take a move from another playbook” and selected the devastating move from the Chosen (+1 Harm). With his second improvement (also “Take a move from another playbook”), he wanted to take Sneaky from the Crooked(?) playbook (+2 harm when you attack from ambush or behind).

I ruled that only one move is used at a time, so these harm bonuses would not stack. But after considering it, devastating is used right after Kick Some Ass. I’m ok with it either way, really, just thought I’d get thoughts from the group. The dude is using the sniper rifle (base of 4-harm) already, so he definitely packs a punch.

Thanks!

8 thoughts on “Another rules application question:”

  1. Andrew Prain there’s nothing to say those moves don’t stack – “Devastating” is just “when you inflict harm”.

    To me as a Keeper, this sort of move choice is saying “I want to be fighting bigger, tougher monsters” 😈

  2. The player has spent two advances to pick moves they think are cool, so saying they don’t stack is kind of killing their fun. If you do decide the damage bonus doesn’t stack, by all means let the player choose a different move if they want to.

    But I think they do stack. Devastating says you may inflict +1 harm whenever you inflict harm. Sneaky (from the Flake) says you inflict +2 harm when you attack from ambush or from behind. So, I would say as long as the character is attacking from ambush or from behind, they’re dealing +3 harm on top of whatever weapon they’re using.

    It’s also worth noting that neither of those move require a Kick Some Ass move to trigger. As it says on pg 103, you only make the KSA move when the thing you are fighting is fighting you back. If this hunter is firing their sniper rifle at an unsuspecting or unaware target? The KSA move doesn’t trigger; the hunter just deals their damage. Which, in this character’s case, is going to be a whopping 7 harm (4+1+2).

    Remember though, unless the hunters take advantage of a monster’s weakness, it isn’t really dead. No matter how much harm they deal to it, it will come back.

  3. I guess I should add that MotW is designed so that the hunters can become super awesome monster killing machines, you don’t need to fight it!

    Just give them bigger problems and enemies (see also: later seasons of Supernatural)

  4. Thank you, Michael Sands! It might also be time for his corporate agency with dubious motives and a secretive hierarchy to add some stress to his life.

    Also Chris Stone-Bush, fair point, I was by no means trying to kill the fun. Honestly, he was the one who brought up that maybe they wouldn’t stack, and I went along with it at the time (he picked up a +cool advancement instead). And you’re correct, with that sniper rifle, he hasn’t actually rolled a KSA roll yet. 7-harm will be pretty wild, but hell, they’re badass monster hunters.

    Thanks for the great game, Michael Sands. After our last mystery, one of my players said, “Man…this is way better than D&D!” High praise.

  8. Mark Tygart I’ve already ordered the book, just waiting for it to arrive. The worst aspect of D&D (to me at least) is the endless combat. After you roll initiative, you better settle in for at minimum a half hour, even if it’s just a merry band of goblins. MotW, and PbtA games in general, have been a revelation, because even combat fits in the narrative.

    Also, thanks for your cache of mysteries, I haven’t run one as written, by I’ve stolen lots of inspiration (and Wendigo stats) from them!

Comments are closed.