Draw Steel General Thread [+]

[zakael19]

Because If I'm playing an enlightened swordmaster, I don't want the sword to be a prop. I want the sword (or axe, or bow, or whatever) to be an inherent part of what I'm doing. It's also against the core ethos of the Null class: "You require no weapons, no tools. You suffice." The Null is also highly psionics-based from day 1, and that's not what I'm after. The class I'm envisioning starts out based on pure skill, and if they have to get some psionic/wuxia nonsense to keep up at higher levels I'm cool with that, but the core of it should be about unparalleled weapon skill.

Rules matter. Draw Steel is not a Lego system where you build your character from building blocks. Classes are designed to be holistic things – that's why Draw Steel doesn't have multi-classing.

It's a TTRPG, all weapons are props. What matters is the fictional descriptions you give. Lots of the Null abilities are perfectly suited for a fictional tweak to become teh sort of preternaturally skilled swordsman like a Zatochi; or blend in with the standard martial arts based swordplay of wuxia style.

Or just do the Vanguard Tactician, who has tons of Im A Big Heroic but Mundane Swordsman stuff going on. Like just oodles of it.

 

[Staffan]

It's a TTRPG, all weapons are props. What matters is the fictional descriptions you give. Lots of the Null abilities are perfectly suited for a fictional tweak to become teh sort of preternaturally skilled swordsman like a Zatochi; or blend in with the standard martial arts based swordplay of wuxia style.

They're really not. The kind of class I'm envisioning does not have force fields protecting them from level 1, or the ability to pull their opponents through themselves and punching them away. The supernatural stuff comes at higher levels when they need it to do the kind of weird stuff other classes do, but up to like level 5 they should look mostly mundane if super-skilled.

Or just do the Vanguard Tactician, who has tons of Im A Big Heroic but Mundane Swordsman stuff going on. Like just oodles of it.

The Vanguard is still a Tactician, and even if they can have two kits at once their main weapons are still their allies. I mean, look at the options a Vanguard has at level 2: No Dying on My Watch (let an ally who just got hurt spend a recovery and gain some temp stamina, and you might make their opponent frightened of them) or Squad! On Me! (give adjacent allies a Stability bonus and 2 surges). Neither of those scream "Best swordsman in the land" to me. The Vanguard mixes things up in a fight a little more than other Tacticians, but they are still primarily a Tactician which is a support class.

 

[zakael19]

The Vanguard is a master of weapons and melee combat, entirely mundane, and the sort of glorious warrior fantasy is chock full of. A Knight that dominates the scene on and off the battlefield.

The kind of class I'm envisioning does not have force fields protecting them from level 1, or the ability to pull their opponents through themselves and punching them away.

This is, quite seriously and literally, a matter of flavor. Lots of the Null's stuff would fit perfectly into a classic Samurai Champloo etc katana wielder. Inertial Shield is lightning reflexes.

Maybe this is because I've been doing a lot of work on Daggerherat stuff (where the only not inherently high magic class is the Guardian, Tactician equivalent) - but 4e was also always about "reflavor the class to meet your headcanon fantasy" and I don't see why DS! is any different.

Like you said, how would you make a "sword master" that wasn't just a reflection of the Null or the Tactician? I see more space in their design for something like a teleporting swordmage.

 

[Enrahim]

Because If I'm playing an enlightened swordmaster, I don't want the sword to be a prop. I want the sword (or axe, or bow, or whatever) to be an inherent part of what I'm doing. It's also against the core ethos of the Null class: "You require no weapons, no tools. You suffice." The Null is also highly psionics-based from day 1, and that's not what I'm after. The class I'm envisioning starts out based on pure skill, and if they have to get some psionic/wuxia nonsense to keep up at higher levels I'm cool with that, but the core of it should be about unparalleled weapon skill.

Rules matter. Draw Steel is not a Lego system where you build your character from building blocks. Classes are designed to be holistic things – that's why Draw Steel doesn't have multi-classing.

Your quote is presented as a quote from one spesific character. The null class basic abilities are as I said generally having the weapon keyword. Also many of the abilities are completely possible to flavor as exceptional skill. I have no problem building a 1st level null with no overtly supernatural abilities. Second level requires choice of the "right" subclass.

I think the null class framework seem to have what you describe. Their power comes from their extreme personal skill/dicipline. If you want an even more tailored experience I think you would have a much easier time to make a new sub class that can make use of a weapon category (similar to the spell caster options), than to try to construct a fully new class concept.

 

[SteveC]

One of the things I've found with creating characters in Draw Steel is that it is very much not generic fantasy. For someone who's been playing RPGs since the 70s, I appreciate it. For people who are new to the hobby, it may be difficult because there are kinds of characters that the game has difficulty representing. For me, that is interesting because when I'm creating a character, I'm doing something new. But I can definitely see where it is not to everyone's taste. Until more classes come out, the choice is really reflavor things or try something else.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I've been noticing both in games I've run and in the few I've played that people have a hard time with montages. People seem to have a really hard time letting go of the DnD framing of skill checks and abilities that let you bypass them.

 

[zakael19]

I've been noticing both in games I've run and in the few I've played that people have a hard time with montages. People seem to have a really hard time letting go of the DnD framing of skill checks and abilities that let you bypass them.

The later / community 4e Skill Challenge stuff might help there? I think anything in this realm Works best if there’s clear stakes for success/failure of the overarching montage, and then each obstacle (conflict) gets framed out at the player but the solution left open. When I run stuff like that my goal is to make each step a situation that’s a) grabby, b) gets the players to say interesting fiction, and c) has an obvious cost/fail forward outcome under the larger challenge.

If they can use an ability to get through it, they get that success.

 

[Staffan]

The Vanguard is a master of weapons and melee combat, entirely mundane, and the sort of glorious warrior fantasy is chock full of. A Knight that dominates the scene on and off the battlefield.

But most of their abilities are about supporting their allies. Even when they deign to hit someone themselves, they do so as a way to buff their allies.

This is, quite seriously and literally, a matter of flavor. Lots of the Null's stuff would fit perfectly into a classic Samurai Champloo etc katana wielder. Inertial Shield is lightning reflexes.

Maybe this is because I've been doing a lot of work on Daggerherat stuff (where the only not inherently high magic class is the Guardian, Tactician equivalent) - but 4e was also always about "reflavor the class to meet your headcanon fantasy" and I don't see why DS! is any different.

To me, flavor matters. Particularly in Draw Steel, where the classes have such strong class fantasies at their core. Trying to force one class into being something it's not is like wearing a shirt that's a size too small – it might technically cover your torso, but it's going to be uncomfortable as heck, and you'll get gaps between the buttons and you run the risk of bursting them if you overextend in the wrong fashion. I'd rather not play a "swordmaster" at all than try to squeeze another class into being one.

Like you said, how would you make a "sword master" that wasn't just a reflection of the Null or the Tactician? I see more space in their design for something like a teleporting swordmage.

Oh, there's definitely room for a swordmage as well. I think Draw Steel could make a lovely swordmage.

As for how I'd build the class... well, I'm not a game designer. I have some ideas about what I'd want to see: a focus on actual attacks rather than making your allies attack, lots of movement, debuffs, not so much forced movement. I could see three subclasses: one offensive, one defensive, and one ranged.

 

[Staffan]

I've been noticing both in games I've run and in the few I've played that people have a hard time with montages. People seem to have a really hard time letting go of the DnD framing of skill checks and abilities that let you bypass them.

One thing I think would help in montages is to not describe failed checks as hard failures. For example, one of the steps in a wilderness montage might be "find the way" which would be a Reason or Intuition check with a skill like Navigate or Nature. Failing that check doesn't mean you don't find your way at all – it means you got lost for a while and had to backtrack and try another path which took a lot of time, which imperils the aggregate success of the montage.