Acquisitions Inc. switching to Daggerheart

[zakael19]

Yeah, I don't like it, aesthetically.

Me not liking it doesn't mean it is "bad" or "wrong". It does even necessarily mean I might not like it in practice. But that wall of text doesn't inspire me.

What wall of text? That’s 5 different active abilities - each is pretty concise, one to two sentences for an entire thing. You’ll have at most 5 of those in your loadout at any time. At level 1, you start with two chosen from the 6 your two class domains offer (plus your subclass - like most current games a L1 DH character is equiv to a L3 5e one roughly).

Core stuff like “attack with weapon” or “do something interesting / cool” is covered under attacks / Action rolls.

 

[Parmandur]

What wall of text? That’s 5 different active abilities - each is pretty concise, one to two sentences for an entire thing. You’ll have at most 5 of those in your loadout at any time. At level 1, you start with two chosen from the 6 your two class domains offer (plus your subclass - like most current games a L1 DH character is equiv to a L3 5e one roughly).

Core stuff like “attack with weapon” or “do something interesting / cool” is covered under attacks / Action rolls.

Yeah, it just doesn't appeal, and ad I said I would prefer a more upstream solution to character abilities.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, any Skill checks in 5E are fun and dynamic: Skill rolls are one of the best parts of playing.

That's... not something I ever expected to read.

But in terms of magic as Skills: a player makes an action attempt declaration, such as trying to make an illusion thst will fool a passing guard, and rolls a d20 test against a DC determined by the DM to succeed or fail.

And what happens on a success? What are the limitations? What does the entry for the skill look like? How is it better than a feat or spell?

It honestly works perfectly.

While I don't doubt that you feel that way, you really haven't made a particularly compelling case. Not that you are required to. Just saying.

 

[Parmandur]

That's... not something I ever expected to read.

Really? Skill adjudication following an action in 5E is one of the most pleasant and elegant parts of the whole game, as a DM and as a player.

Matt Mercer even turned it into a whole catchphrase ("you can certainly try...")

 

[kermit4karate]

That's... not something I ever expected to read.

And what happens on a success? What are the limitations? What does the entry for the skill look like? How is it better than a feat or spell?

While I don't doubt that you feel that way, you really haven't made a particularly compelling case. Not that you are required to. Just saying.

ls it really hard to imagine? Player wants to cast Magic Missile but doesn't have a clear line of sight to the target. There's a marble statue blocking their view. Player asks, "Would I be able to bend MM around the statue?" Answer: "Perhaps. Odds are slim, but you can try. Roll an INT check against DC 17 + your proficiency bonus."

 

[Reynard]

Really? Skill adjudication following an action in 5E is one of the most pleasant and elegant parts of the whole game, as a DM and as a player.

Matt Mercer even turned it into a whole catchphrase ("you can certainly try...")

Except it is binary, arbitrary, lacks any real advice on adjudication and is easily abused. Making Skill check results interesting and cool is entirely on the GM in 5E. Which is fine if you have a good GM, but that's true of literally everything.

 

[kermit4karate]

Except it is binary, arbitrary, lacks any real advice on adjudication and is easily abused. Making Skill check results interesting and cool is entirely on the GM in 5E. Which is fine if you have a good GM, but that's true of literally everything.

I don't think it's as unhinged as you're making it sound. It's a simple but astonishingly easy mechanic to use. Relies on a player's skills and attributes. Nothing to look up. Easy to use in imaginative ways and gives the player options.

 

[Umbran]

Well, there's no accounting for taste.

Mod Note:
Hey.
Guess what? Putting a little halo on it doesn't mean it isn't insulting.
You seem to have developed a bit of a habit of taking jabs at people. It is time for that to stop, please and thanks.

 

[Parmandur]

Except it is binary, arbitrary, lacks any real advice on adjudication and is easily abused. Making Skill check results interesting and cool is entirely on the GM in 5E. Which is fine if you have a good GM, but that's true of literally everything.

The 2014 and 2024 have very clear guidelines on adjudication, and in practice it is fun and breezy, while still being mathematically satisfactory. It is very easy to set a DC based on what a player wants to do, run a d20 test, and go with it. It is a major highlight of gameplay at the table, again Critical Role being a prime example: the best parts are when the players want to do something, and roll thst d20.

 

[zakael19]

You’ll be glad to hear that Daggerheart is even more simple then! Not only has it moved away from skills in favor of Action Rolls bundling a variety of potential actions under a simple attribute modifier (making it even easier to roll with a player’s ideas of how to tackle a problem), it uses mechanics to provide the option to do built in degrees of success with clear and concise guidance in the boom about what they mean and how to set stakes around rolls to make them matter.

Since most CR style d20 rolls are vibes anyway, this leans into that and allows the dice to help suggest where the narrative is going next in an open way. Good stuff.

Edit: DH also wants you to avoid scaling the DC and use ADV/DISADV more to show how the player’s actions or approach informs how difficult things are.