Search results

So im curious... if fear cap doesn't really affect anything... why have one... or maybe a better question is why 12 vs 20 or 6 or 3?

Yes but this is where that cap kicks in... its not that it's not enough to act, it's that the combats feel and play out surprisingly lopsided... whichis why I find the claim these fights are supposed to be deadly in total contrast to how they've played out at my tables Granted we've only played...

This is assuming the average over time... not in any particular game which is whete this type of equal randomness can break down... And as I said earlier Hope, due to crits and some PC powers, happens more often than fear so its not really balanceed.

Players act as a default but barring failure on their part I have to spend Fear for activations... having more enemies but the same amount of activations doesn't really help mitigate against a higher number of players.

That doesn't help in a combat where there are more PC's to account for and spend Fear for...especially in a climactic or big battle. You're allowing the GM a chance to build up an adequate supply for that big encounter they want to run as well as to dole out more interesting narrative...

I agree that fear spending is probably the most important determiner of combat difficulty... however that makes it seem odd that max fear doesn't also scale in some way with number of PC's...

just looked at the PDF... the regular versions start on page 6... the souped up versions are presented first and it's stated at the beginning of the pdf.

Yeah I'm running with 6 players... does the game comment on adjustments for larger group sizes?

If I'm remembering correctly there were 2 versions of the monsters released... a standard Daggerheart version and an AoU version that was souped up specifically for Matt's game. Which again i find interesting that he used more powerful versions vs. standard.

Well i know he released the monsters he used during his run as a pdf... I haven't had a chance to look at them but it would be interesting to see where they land concerning budget. IMO Daggerheart combat is pretty swingy based on numerous factors and relies on GM force through the spending of...

Im not sure this is correct... Im not even sure you can make a general comparison about budget like this with Daggerheart since that same budget depending on the creatures chosen and the randomness of Fear and hope generation can create vastly different encounters (though in my experience...

How are you arriving at this conclusion? Not saying you're wrong but I dont remember anything in the book giving ranks to budget amounts.

I've found if I actually use the full budget for combat in DH... it's about the same length as 5e... though I think how comfortable, assertive and decisive your players are has alot to do with it. I have 3 brand new (to rpg's) players and I have to constantly prompt them to take action in...

Im curious...what metric are you using to measure its popularity?

Pretty much this... I 'd definitely grab an extra full set but the class based distribution feels off...

While I think Daggerheart is doing much better than DP expected sales wise... just like with Cosmere I do wonder how many of those sales are to those actually playing vs. Critters collecting. I still think its a little early to determine just how well DH will hold people's attention...

Yeah... no, this is wrong and not how 5e is played... at most it's possibly how some choose to play 5e.

I don't disagree that there are controls in place to lessen the impact of optimization here... I just find the narrative focus and the suggestion a strange pairing. I thunk it sends a mixed message... but I also feel critically looking at the mechanics and advice is being frowned on in this...

Hush now with your reasonable take and logical conclusion...

That's a good point, not what I was thinking but interesting and close... what I'm thinking is that the mechanics are the default or intended determinative factor in how the game is intended to play out by it's designers...