I’m taking Codex and making it into a tech-priest domain. If we don’t need to worry about “wizard as Swiss Army knife” I think that sort of theme fits a tech tinker better.
Daggerheart General Thread [+]
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
I’m taking Codex and making it into a tech-priest domain. If we don’t need to worry about “wizard as Swiss Army knife” I think that sort of theme fits a tech tinker better.
innerdude
Legend
So doing my first serious read through of the rules this morning and so far I am SERIOUSLY impressed.
Somehow the smattering of ideas taken from a bunch of systems I really like (Genesys, BitD / AW / Ironsworn, + all of the d20 stuff) come together to become something greater than the sum of the parts.
Also see the influence of Fate, with the whole "Experiences" as a substitute for "skill tree monkeying".
Biggest standouts to me so far:
One question for the audience -- I'm very, very familiar with Ironsworn / BitD / Dungeon World's actions and the basic method for initiating a "move." For players that choose to wield two one-handed weapons, there doesn't appear to be any particular bonus or penalty for "multi-attacking," other than some combinations of one-handed weapons give some particular bonuses or narrative effects.
In cases where a player would declare, "I make one attack with my sword, then go in for second attack shield bash," as GM that obviously becomes two attack rolls made by the player.
In this case, is the expectation that the downside for the player is the possibility of rolling with Fear? As far as I can tell there's no player-side penalty to declaring an attack with both weapons as a single move and making 2 action rolls. So it seems the reasons NOT to make attacks with both weapons as the player is ultimately the possibility of adding Fear on both or either roll, + failure, + potentially triggering existing GM Fear moves via the fiction + die result. Does that sound about right?
Somehow the smattering of ideas taken from a bunch of systems I really like (Genesys, BitD / AW / Ironsworn, + all of the d20 stuff) come together to become something greater than the sum of the parts.
Also see the influence of Fate, with the whole "Experiences" as a substitute for "skill tree monkeying".
Biggest standouts to me so far:
- Downtime procedure -- feels very elegant, and love the fact that resting is NOT a "net neutral" in that the GM gets fear tokens when the party rests. Holy cow, that's brilliant.
- Character advancement procedures -- elegant, easy to follow. It keeps the "fun" of character advancement for the players without turning it into a huge "hunt the rulebooks for every possible net bonus" exercise. The power/domain cards obviously make a difference here.
- An overall sense that despite there being a number of interlocking "mechanical bits," it feels like the individual components have been tested for use across the various gameplay experiences. It feels "holistic" or "whole" or "functionally complete" in a way that many systems simply don't.
- As a side note, this is definitely NOT a rules light system, certainly not anything like an "index card" game or Tiny D6. The rules for a JUST ONE character combo of race + background + class + domains would be 8+ pages more rules than the entire Tiny D6 "rules". I'd put it very much in "rules medium" territory with Savage Worlds and FFG Star Wars / Genesys.
- *Edit: As an additional side note, this "holistic" feel makes it seem like this would be a FANTASTIC system to introduce new players to roleplaying generally. It's so well presented, easy to follow, and with clearly outlined procedures. It really is just so well put together.
One question for the audience -- I'm very, very familiar with Ironsworn / BitD / Dungeon World's actions and the basic method for initiating a "move." For players that choose to wield two one-handed weapons, there doesn't appear to be any particular bonus or penalty for "multi-attacking," other than some combinations of one-handed weapons give some particular bonuses or narrative effects.
In cases where a player would declare, "I make one attack with my sword, then go in for second attack shield bash," as GM that obviously becomes two attack rolls made by the player.
In this case, is the expectation that the downside for the player is the possibility of rolling with Fear? As far as I can tell there's no player-side penalty to declaring an attack with both weapons as a single move and making 2 action rolls. So it seems the reasons NOT to make attacks with both weapons as the player is ultimately the possibility of adding Fear on both or either roll, + failure, + potentially triggering existing GM Fear moves via the fiction + die result. Does that sound about right?
There's not really such a thing as a "multi-attack" apart from a handful of abilities. as you note, an attack is a single Action Roll so you always have the chance to flip the spotlight. You only make one Action Roll at a time, check the result, and if it's a Success with Hope the players side retains the Spotlight and you could follow-up if you want (mostly my players hand it off to somebody else).
Think of it as a very small-scale BitD Skirmish exchange, your offhand contributes generally by a specific flat bonus and not additional attacks; or gives you the ability to keep attacking if the GM makes a move that involves taking your weapons away (I need to do this more when fictionally appropriate).
In fact, in general the DH Action Roll maps pretty well onto the FITD Action Roll flow; with the caveat that the GM calls for them outside of combat / abilities vs player actively identifying them (but there's no reason you couldn't let players affirmatively volunteer a fictional action + Action Roll).
Similar Threads
