Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[overgeeked]

I am positive it is not faster.

That’s not my experience. Daggerheart is much faster than 5E. Same players with a decade of 5E experience and zero Daggerheart experience. And Daggerheart was still faster.

 

[John R Davis]

That’s not my experience. Daggerheart is much faster than 5E. Same players with a decade of 5E experience and zero Daggerheart experience. And Daggerheart was still faster.

That's not my experience. I do play 5E with high pace though. Maybe not quite up to pace with DH

 

[Imaro]

That’s not my experience. Daggerheart is much faster than 5E. Same players with a decade of 5E experience and zero Daggerheart experience. And Daggerheart was still faster.

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 combat while my 3 veteran players ( even though they make it a point to ask if anyone wants to take an action) are constantly taking actions. It makes DH combat drag more than it should for our group.

 

[zakael19]

Are you setting up an adversary action via GM move and pivoting to one of the players and asking “what do you do?” Leaving the spotlight unfocused without a natural person to pick it up and a group who doesn’t want to step on toes is going to absolutely lead to drag and people going “oh no you go” and such. Prompting action such that there’s a natural flow felt really quick and easy, and the concrete sheet given actions means a little less time and space spent on the fictional positioning like you lose with PBTAs (which IME can be as slow as a mid-length 5e combat even if you’re saying so much cooler stuff).

Again, we got to do an entire on-budget combat in 15 minutes at the end of a session that was narratively appropriate, highlighted characters, and began and ended with fiction.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Right. It’s Critical Role’s fix D&D project. It just so happens that a lot of the pain points CR felt needed fixing were also pain points other gamers felt needed fixing. Hence its popularity.

Exactly. What’s striking isn’t just how Daggerheart is designed, but how it’s being rolled out. The team didn’t launch with a confident declaration that they’d solved tabletop design. They released something tuned for a particular style of play, and then watched how the broader community responded. The fact that it’s resonating with a wider group of players—many of whom share those same friction points—is more confirmation than intention.

You can see that responsiveness in the way they’re pacing announcements, forming collaborations, and expanding future support. None of it feels pre-loaded. They’re watching, listening, and adjusting as momentum builds. That’s a smart posture—not just for this system, but for any new entrant into a space long dominated by a single brand.

There will always be a segment deeply anchored in D&D—and that’s fine. Not every tool has to replace the one that came before it. But it’s clear Daggerheart is doing more than just offering an alternative. It’s widening the conversation around what game systems can be, especially for players who value pacing, clarity, and story over granularity.

 

[nyvinter]

This doesn’t feel like a generic “fix D&D” project. It feels like a purpose-built answer to the way one particular group plays—and the demands of performing that play for an audience. This was tailor-made for Critical Role. That it resonates with other players is a bonus, with success and popularity being an absolute surprise.

I really don't think this is true.

Spenser and Rowan made the fantasy game they wanted, and sure they looked at the Legend of Vox Machina cartoon for inspiration because the goal was to capture the feel of Critical Role in that way. But if you look at how CR play? Daggerheart expects far more indie rpg sensibilities and a proactiveness than CR displays (currently, they are relearning things as evident in Umbra). Now, if you ask them they will list things they don't like with 5e that Daggerheart "fixes" but I do not think it's tailor-made for them at all.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I really don't think this is true.

Spenser and Rowan made the fantasy game they wanted, and sure they looked at the Legend of Vox Machina cartoon for inspiration because the goal was to capture the feel of Critical Role in that way. But if you look at how CR play? Daggerheart expects far more indie rpg sensibilities and a proactiveness than CR displays (currently, they are relearning things as evident in Umbra). Now, if you ask them they will list things they don't like with 5e that Daggerheart "fixes" but I do not think it's tailor-made for them at all.

Fair, but I think you’re interpreting my post more literally than it was intended. I’m not suggesting Daggerheart is the official Critical Role RPG or that the cast dictated its design. My point is that the system reflects solutions to long-standing friction points that have been visible across years of Critical Role play. That’s not speculation—it’s in the structure.

You don’t need insider confirmation to see how the abstraction of gear, the pre-selection of powers, or the embedded leveling flow directly address issues that have repeatedly slowed or fragmented their sessions. Whether those choices were made for CR, by CR, or simply with CR’s format in mind is beside the point. The alignment is there.

 

[nyvinter]

Oh yeah. In theory from outside, this should be a hand in glove fit. And it wasn't just dictated at you, I've just seen far too many people dismiss the game as "a game only made for Critical Role and the critters" as if theatre kids never existed in the 70s. So more of a kneejerk thing

 

[Vael]

I am positive DH combat is more dynamic than 5E.
I am positive it is not faster.

Faster is an odd measurement, because I don't use a stopwatch or time combat ... so while I think combat takes the same amount of time or possibly longer than 5e ... how that time is spent is much different. I haven't seen a player check their phone because their turn is done and they won't be acting again for a good 10 minutes. The PC whose turn it is isn't flipping through the PHB to reread their spells (have I said that cards are so good here? ).

Instead I see everyone lean in to see if it was a roll with Hope or Fear, discussion of whether this is the time to initiate a Tag Team or not ...

So I am not sure how long combat actually takes, but I love the quality of the time spent in combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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 combat while my 3 veteran players ( even though they make it a point to ask if anyone wants to take an action) are constantly taking actions. It makes DH combat drag more than it should for our group.

I've only done full or over-budget encounters and my experience was the same as @overgeeked and @zakael19. I suspect things would be dragging a great deal more if this was D&D with three new players and three vets but who knows.

@Vael I don't personally think faster is an odd measurement, but bear in mind I was burned hard by how slow combat got in some games, particularly 3E and 4E D&D (though the very worst offender remains Champions: The New Millennium), so this matters a lot to me. I vastly prefer a short or moderate session in which we might have multiple combats and plenty of RP and exploration, not multiple combats OR that or worse, one combat taking the whole short or moderate session (obviously if you play for like 12 hours you can get a lot done regardless lol).