Daggerheart Discussion

[Reynard]

[NOTE: I am pretty sure there is a Daggerheart general thread, but it is invisible to me so I figured I would start a new one for those of use that have not been blocked.]

This is a place to discuss all things Daggerheart.

I am going to start by asking about the viability of an idea: I want to fool around with a "classless Daggerheart" where you can pick features a la carte, as well as Domains being free to choose (still limited to 2 for each character tho). However, that is a lot of work prior to play so instead what I was considering is building a "one shot adventure" (more like a Savage Worlds Plot Point Campaign) in a bespoke Campaign Frame with specific pregen "playbooks" that break the usual class/domain combo rules but still curate the choices available to that character as they level 9with a limited number of levels over the course of the adventure). I will also probably reskin some abilities/cards to meet whatever unique setting I decide on.

Does that sound like a viable initial test for more freeform character options?

 

[Tigris]

Your idea

In general I dont see anything big speaking against mixing things up. There are some small things:

- Some classes like sorcerers need to have access to good spells which not all arcana might provide

- some arcana have abilities which need a certain stat. So specific combinations might not fit a certain class since its not a primary ability.

- some combinations might be better than intended. (I dont have all abilities in heart but in theory now or in the future with more arcanas Thete could definitly be possible combinations which by choice where put not together. (Like if you could pay 1 stress for 1 hope and 1 hope for 1 stress + something on top).


Anyway if you do make combinations you can make sure this does not happen (but its a bit of work of course).


Overall I think having some fixed classes and combinations (by the game or preselected by you) has some advantages over completly freedom:

- it makes it easier for players they dont need to look up every possible combination

- it makes sure classes and with it different players choice feel distinct from each other

- it makes it slightly easier to communicate what you do to others.

My experience

About daggerheart in general: I recently played a level 1 one shot with it and it was fun. I was playing a sorcerer and we were a group of 5+ gm. No one except the GM ever played daggerheart (GM played once but was the first time GMing). One player in our group was even new to TTRPGs (she played 2 one shots before but also a while ago).

It worked really well, was overall fast explained, people could easy follow and we had some really cool moments. The GM was also way above average for a GM which of course helped a lot to make it enjoyable.

I Dont know how fast levelup is in daggerheart, but unless its super fast (like after this session directly a levelup) I feer I would be bored really fast with a daggerheart character.

I already was a bit bored of my combat gameplay at the end of the one shot. And that even though the sorcerer (also with the free minor illusion) has more special abilities to use than an average character.

 

[Reynard]

I Dont know how fast levelup is in daggerheart, but unless its super fast (like after this session directly a levelup) I feer I would be bored really fast with a daggerheart character.

I already was a bit bored of my combat gameplay at the end of the one shot. And that even though the sorcerer (also with the free minor illusion) has more special abilities to use than an average character.

Interesting. I don't think DH characters have especially fewer abilities at hand than 5E characters on average, between domain cards and class, subclass and potential species abilities. What makes you feel like you would get bored quickly?

 

[Retreater]

Does that sound like a viable initial test for more freeform character options?

So I've been running two Daggerheart campaigns for close to 9 months. I was just thinking of doing something similar for my next campaign. My view was to make the powers like "magic items" that could be discovered, traded, etc. Equipping them with a limit of 5 would be like attunement in D&D.
One thing that is sometimes hard for me to remember as a Daggerheart GM is that difficulty doesn't matter anymore. Players decide their characters life or death. Balance doesn't matter. Let them get as OP as you want. You aren't there to challenge them in combat anyway.

 

[Tigris]

Interesting. I don't think DH characters have especially fewer abilities at hand than 5E characters on average, between domain cards and class, subclass and potential species abilities. What makes you feel like you would get bored quickly?

Well 5.24 characters start now at level 3 and I find level 3 characters in 5.24 definitly more interesting than daggerheart level 1 characters.

I played a sorcerer I had:

• Minor illusion cantrip (mostly non combat especially since creatures near the illusion see through it)
• Basic attack dealing only damage in range
• Ranged spell dealing slightly more damage than a basic attack. (2d10 once useable and rechargable with stress)
• 1 Short range area effect spell. Doing only damage. More damage if enemy is vulnerable but I cant cause that.
• "Metamagic" which can increase range or damage of spells. (Still only damage)
• A 3 hope "reroll damage dice" feature which sounds like an incredible inefficient use of hope.
• I can use hope to get +2 to some rolls but that is just replacing "skills" so I need ressources to activate my in other games passive skills.

So all I can do is damage. No secondary effects. Also with movement and range mostly abstract (and no opportunity attacks mostly), the movement part which normally adds some tactic also mostly falls away.

EDIT: I forgot the race. I could also get advantage on "reaction rolls". Which is good but also not something I can use actively against enemies.

EDIT: Also because of the way how initiative works, it does not matter how many enemies are still there, or who you focus most of the time. So even "who do I attack" is one decision less. There is no focus fire to reduce enemies to have less of them attack etc. So even srea attack vs single attack decision is not rrally important often...


A Level 3 fighter in 5.24 can

• Heal themselves or use the same ressource for increasing an important skill check
• use the origin feat like using 2 times per day luck counters to give advantage on a roll or an enemy attacking you didadvantage
• Use up to 3 different weapons with different properties. This can be cleave, topple and push (to potential kite enemies)
• I can do opportunity attacks and enemies can as well, so positioning is more important. A good movement may protect my allies by threatening opportunity attacks.
• I can do once per short rest a second action. This may normally be an attack, but it could also be a run or disengage action etc.
• I also I can do with the 2 attacks combinations. Like prone an enemy and then switch weapon and push enemy away, allowing me to move farther away from them (with no opportunity attack) than they can reach because they lose half the movement standing up.
• I can get an ability from a race. Like being able to teleport ad a minor action + additional effect (charm, area damage and slow, teleport someone with me etc.)
• I can get heroic inspiration from roleplay etc. Which allows me to reroll a roll after it failed
• I can get easily 2+ different abilities from a subclass which are more than just damage. (Like maneuvers etc.)

And this is not a spellcaster. Spellcasters have even more.

 

[Umbran]

I already was a bit bored of my combat gameplay at the end of the one shot.

Daggerheart's focus is not on interesting tactical gameplay, to be honest.

I am going to start by asking about the viability of an idea: I want to fool around with a "classless Daggerheart" where you can pick features a la carte, as well as Domains being free to choose (still limited to 2 for each character tho). ...

Does that sound like a viable initial test for more freeform character options?

So, the question that comes to mind is - Why? What is the design goal here? What problem are you trying to solve?

I ask not to say, "Justify your choice!" but because whether this sounds like a viable initial test depends on what you want to get out of it.

For example, one of Daggerheart's strengths is the speed with which you can get a character up and rolling. Making the choices wide open puts the players in the situation of having to learn about all the options before choosing. If you have a couple of players who want something they can't find there, it would be easier to stand up a new class with that combination than to open up the whole darned thing.

For another example, if the desired goal is the ability to make even more powerful tactical combinations - then you're working at odds with the general system mechanic, which doesn't have the goal of maximizing tactical gameplay.

 

[Reynard]

So, the question that comes to mind is - Why? What is the design goal here? What problem are you trying to solve?

I ask not to say, "Justify your choice!" but because whether this sounds like a viable initial test depends on what you want to get out of it.

One of the few things I don't like about Daggerheart is that it is not generic enough. Note that isn't a failure. Daggerheart is not trying to be generic, at least no more than D&D is. The campaign frames show that it is reskinnable, but that isn't the same thing. So my long term goal is to find out if I can make a generic character generation system for Daggerheart. The first step of that is exploring how breaking up classes, subclasses and domains into a more "talent tree" like system impacts play. And for me, doing that in a form that can be played rather than white-roomed is definitely preferable.

 

[Retreater]

I Dont know how fast levelup is in daggerheart, but unless its super fast (like after this session directly a levelup) I feer I would be bored really fast with a daggerheart character.

I already was a bit bored of my combat gameplay at the end of the one shot. And that even though the sorcerer (also with the free minor illusion) has more special abilities to use than an average character.

So we're leveling faster than what's recommended in the book. We average a level every 2-3 sessions. That will end up a 25-30 session campaign to 10th level, which is actually a great pace for my interest level. (We're nearly to 8th level.)
IMO, there's not enough to interest players for a "long" campaign in Daggerheart. Rewards like magic items are ho-hum. There's not a lot of enemies to create varied encounters. Players are stuck in patterns, using the same abilities in every fight. The fact that character death is in the players' hands means there's no combat tension.
I love Daggerheart. It's probably the best game for my style that I've GMed this millennium (since the WotC era of D&D, essentially). But it's a "mid length campaign" system - nothing that could last a year or more.

 

[SteveC]

I am not sure that a starting character versus a level 3 D&D character is anything approximating first session Daggerheart character. And yet ... I've run the Quickstart for Daggerheart four times now, and it's been exciting and dynamic each time.

The key is that the GM in Daggerheart is working with the players to make the adventure fun. There is no reason why a DM couldn't take some of these ideas, but they are discussed in detail in the Daggerheart rulebook. You're building the game collaboratively between the GM and the players.

In the Quickstart, you end up with a ritual that's interrupted by undead spirits out of the past. I've never run that encounter the same way twice. There was a group that attacked it as if it was a D&D tactical combat, and a group that spent quite a bit of time with me figuring out what the conflict was about. And then using skills to appease the wraith.

I am pretty much done with D&D, but I would never throw shade at people who like it. The key difference that I've seen in discussions over the past several years, is that any collaborative or narrative storytelling with player input is highly controversial. That's the entire goal of Daggerheart, and that makes a huge difference.

The discussions that I've seen the most, when they talk in negative terms about Daggerheart, is that playing it with all the "fluffy BS" will end up as a better version on 5E. I'd say that's about right. Obviously, just my opinion, of course.

 

[SteveC]

The biggest development for Daggerheart will be when the first supplement comes out. As much as we'd like to have a regular release of products, this is a small company, and putting together a big supplement is a heavy undertaking.

If I had a complaint about Daggerheart, I'd say that the production speed has stalled the adoption of the game. I'm hoping there is still some lightning in the bottle for when it does come out.