Daggerheart Discussion

[Kichwas]

My issue with character classes in DH isn't how limited in options they are; it's how specific they are (as in implied setting).

This gets me too.

I can't wrap my head around 'wild shape' being built into Druid. Turing it essentially into one of the best 'martials'. I'd be fine if that had been a subclass. But making it a core class feature, and arguably the most powerful ability in the entire game - one you can get at full ability by multi-classing into druid...

That just rips apart any concept of 'what is druid' who's answer is not "A DPS and Tank class in World of Warcraft" - because even the 'Resto Druid' of WoW isn't covered by this because of how dominant it is. Yet alone any concept of Druid taken from either history or folklore, let alone fantasy.

I'm fine with how hyper specific Seraph and Blood Hunter are because they're not "generic fantasy terms". But Druid rankles me.

I don't even mind every Rogue and Bard technically being a Gish because you can pick abilities so as to avoid that or focus into it. But Druid is 'locked'. That said, to NOT be a 'Gish' Rogue or Bard you're essentially picking from slightly under half of your potential choices - that's too specific. And it comes from there not being enough domain abilities at each level / tier, and not enough subclasses.

 

[zakael19]

For whatever reason, both DH and DS! went the "rogues as shadow-magic users" route. I was a little surprised that Rogues were Shadow/Grace and not say, Bone/Shadow tbh; but I'm assuming some of that is balancing out the Sneak Attack dice vs other damage boosting abilities within some of the domains.

If there's one thing I wished DH had done it would be to have gone a more traditional class+abilities route, and just line out multi classing.

 

[Scribe]

You know, both can be possible at the same time. A game can very much encourage a procedure you're not a fan of. It can, in fact, be very carefully designed to do something you don't consider a good idea. In this particular case the use of Fear mitigates that, but that doesn't mean I have to think its generally a good idea none-the-less.

Don't confuse my saying I think something in a design is a bad idea with my saying its badly designed. They aren't the same statement. The latter is when what you've done does a poor job of your apparent intent; the former is when I don't like (at least that piece) of said intent and/or think its generally good.

But you didnt say anything about design. The issue is you called it handwaving, when that objectively is wrong.

Handwaving comes up in systems without the framework and definition that is factually central to Daggerheart design.

You can not like a design, there are things I dont like in Daggerheart as well, but the Fear (and Hope) loops, are not 'handwave' by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Vael]

For whatever reason, both DH and DS! went the "rogues as shadow-magic users" route. I was a little surprised that Rogues were Shadow/Grace and not say, Bone/Shadow tbh; but I'm assuming some of that is balancing out the Sneak Attack dice vs other damage boosting abilities within some of the domains.

This is something I expect to improve as the game expands. As it is, Hope & Fear will have the Assassin, which is a Midnight and Blade class that covers a more stabby style Rogue. And the Witch covers Nature mages that don't want to be shapeshifting Druids. Tbh, I think this will make the game more expandable, it's harder to make a different warrior class with the Fighter covering so much of that space.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This gets me too.

I can't wrap my head around 'wild shape' being built into Druid. Turing it essentially into one of the best 'martials'. I'd be fine if that had been a subclass. But making it a core class feature, and arguably the most powerful ability in the entire game - one you can get at full ability by multi-classing into druid...

That just rips apart any concept of 'what is druid' who's answer is not "A DPS and Tank class in World of Warcraft" - because even the 'Resto Druid' of WoW isn't covered by this because of how dominant it is. Yet alone any concept of Druid taken from either history or folklore, let alone fantasy.

The thing here is that all D&D druids can wild shape which is part of why they all have it. And nature-attuned shapeshifters are mythological; I like having a shapeshifter class and a toolbox class that isn't wizard.

They are also jacks of all trades and masters of none, not even broken just solid substitutes where they can use their domain cards or their wild shape. What gets actually broken however is multiclassing and giving characters the ability to use blade, bone, or valour abilities along side combat beastforms. Especially when stacked with guardian or even warrior class abilities.

 

[Kichwas]

The thing here is that all D&D druids can wild shape which is part of why they all have it. And nature-attuned shapeshifters are mythological; I like having a shapeshifter class and a toolbox class that isn't wizard.

The keyword there being D&D.
Daggerheart isn't D&D.

If I wanted D&D, I'd get D&D.

I want a Druid. Not whatever D&D is.

I don't mind a subclass - "that guy from D&D".
But baking it in as a generic class feature when it's such a hyper-specific concept that only D&D players and WoW players have a reference for bothers me. Especially as it's only part of recent D&D as something that is a powerhouse unlimited best martial in the game idea. Up through third edition it was a mid to high level very limited times per day ability to more or less become some small non-combat critter until you'd gotten way up there if ever. Druid didn't appear in the core 4th edition book - which instead had new classes like warlock and warlord. I imagine it was in a supplement somewhere but I don't have that to check.

I guess I wanted a nature focused magical caster. Not a WoW bear tank.

I'm not a D&D player - I moved away from it in 1982 and have only some small breaks coming back here and there.

That I need to be a D&D player to understand Daggerheart is a bit off to me. Given that it lacks a built in setting called "our rip of D&D" like Pathfinder has, it should have had some ability to play fantasy. And not just remake D&D on 2d12.

There's a lot of things I like. But everytime I see how hyper specific their classes are I realize the game is trying very hard to push me away.
I might not have balked at this so hard if it wasn't the absolute most powerful ability in the entire game system - at every level and across every class. It's so unbalanced you'd think Mercer only plays Druid the same way Black Mage was so unbalanced for years in FFXIV because Yoshi-P mained it. So it becomes the entire focus of a character if they take that class. If it had been at all mild or balanced, you could choose to play a 'nature caster' and ignore it without feeling like you were intentionally trolling your game table.

But everytime I want a nature character I look at the class, then remember I'm essentially being a jerk if I don't play it as "the party tank / melee bruiser / healer" all at the same time - and move on because well, I wanted a nature character. And that one class reminds me their classes are locked to specific themes: in this case: "lets copy D&D 5E", and don't have room to move far beyond those themes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The keyword there being D&D.
Daggerheart isn't D&D.

Indeed it isn't - but it is deliberately D&D-adjacent and written for an audience far more likely to be familiar with D&D than any classical mythology. Using one of the three best known mythologies of our times (the other two being Star Wars and Warhammer) as a touchstone is not IMO unreasonable.

 

[Kichwas]

Indeed it isn't - but it is deliberately D&D-adjacent and written for an audience far more likely to be familiar with D&D than any classical mythology. Using one of the three best known mythologies of our times (the other two being Star Wars and Warhammer) as a touchstone is not IMO unreasonable.

Yes.
But locking to that rather than making it an option in a more fluid design proves the point I and at least one other person in here made: the classes are too specific in their theme.

Druid is "only the D&D Druid" even more than the D&D druid is. Wildshape goes from " a cool party trick" to the central focus, that cannot be opted out of, and most powerful ability in the game. And then there is just not much else there to build your way around it if you want a Druid that is more like a druid rather than a druid...

It's the example I focus on because of how overpowered that ability is, but this is a pattern throughout the game:

• Things that are class abilities would be better as subclasses to keep options open.
• Things that are in subclasses feel like they would make better class abilities because they don't impact 'narrative choice'.
• Domain abilities are too thin - just not enough choices. So you can't customize. This is EXPECTED in a new game. But when asked about it they stated they do not intend to add more abilities to the domains at each level, but to instead add more domains. And they don't want to add more subclasses (*), but instead more classes. So what we see is what we get for the current classes - some of which should therefore not have been presented under generic labels like 'druid', 'rogue', 'warrior', etc.

* Unless it's a Mercer made class, then it gets 3. And it was when people asked after Blood Hunter came out with 3 subclasses that we found out about these intentions. Hopefully they will change their mind on this.

 

[Reynard]

The keyword there being D&D.
Daggerheart isn't D&D.

If I wanted D&D, I'd get D&D.

I want a Druid. Not whatever D&D is.

I don't mind a subclass - "that guy from D&D".
But baking it in as a generic class feature when it's such a hyper-specific concept that only D&D players and WoW players have a reference for bothers me. Especially as it's only part of recent D&D as something that is a powerhouse unlimited best martial in the game idea. Up through third edition it was a mid to high level very limited times per day ability to more or less become some small non-combat critter until you'd gotten way up there if ever. Druid didn't appear in the core 4th edition book - which instead had new classes like warlock and warlord. I imagine it was in a supplement somewhere but I don't have that to check.

I guess I wanted a nature focused magical caster. Not a WoW bear tank.

I'm not a D&D player - I moved away from it in 1982 and have only some small breaks coming back here and there.

That I need to be a D&D player to understand Daggerheart is a bit off to me. Given that it lacks a built in setting called "our rip of D&D" like Pathfinder has, it should have had some ability to play fantasy. And not just remake D&D on 2d12.

There's a lot of things I like. But everytime I see how hyper specific their classes are I realize the game is trying very hard to push me away.
I might not have balked at this so hard if it wasn't the absolute most powerful ability in the entire game system - at every level and across every class. It's so unbalanced you'd think Mercer only plays Druid the same way Black Mage was so unbalanced for years in FFXIV because Yoshi-P mained it. So it becomes the entire focus of a character if they take that class. If it had been at all mild or balanced, you could choose to play a 'nature caster' and ignore it without feeling like you were intentionally trolling your game table.

But everytime I want a nature character I look at the class, then remember I'm essentially being a jerk if I don't play it as "the party tank / melee bruiser / healer" all at the same time - and move on because well, I wanted a nature character. And that one class reminds me their classes are locked to specific themes: in this case: "lets copy D&D 5E", and don't have room to move far beyond those themes.

I am curious what archetypes you were thinking of outside of modern TTRPGs and video games for the Druid. I can't think of a single current view of the druid in any gaming space that hasn't fully embraced the shapeshifter combat role -- not since the late 90s anyway.

And just to be clear, historical druids were not "nature priests" as far as we know -- and frankly we do not know a lot, especially since the term "druid" got completely bastardized in the New Age era. As far as we know they were judges and lorekeepers across multiple Celtic cultures, and no game that I am.aware of has ever focused on that.

The Daggerheart druid isn't the "D&D druid" -- it is the broad "gaming druid" of the last 3 decades or so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But you didnt say anything about design. The issue is you called it handwaving, when that objectively is wrong.

No, it not. I'm using "handwaving" as in "introducing something you had not previously had set up in the situation on the fly". I do, indeed, consider that handwaving even if there's a mechanic that lets you do it. Some of it on a small scale is unavoidable, but doing it on a larger scale is not something I consider a virtue with a more improvisational GMing style and I've done it myself.

You can not like a design, there are things I dont like in Daggerheart as well, but the Fear (and Hope) loops, are not 'handwave' by any stretch of the imagination.

In general I agree, but in regard to some of the large scale and more ad hoc uses, I simply disagree.