What do YOU plan on doing with Daggerheart?

[Reynard]

I saw this on the Daggerheart subreddit and think it's solid advice.

View attachment 409661

I mean, this is cool, but it isn't particularly Daggerheart specific. You could post this on a Dungeon World or 5E sub and it would be of equal "value".

 

[zakael19]

I mean, this is cool, but it isn't particularly Daggerheart specific. You could post this on a Dungeon World or 5E sub and it would be of equal "value".

IT's explicitly about "Experiences," the DH mechanical widget.

 

[dbm]

If you changed that to ‘aspects’ it would be equally useful, however. I tend to agree that Experiences are basically a subset of Aspects, specifically focussed on a character’s experience. And that is perfectly fine. I like Aspects.

Their weaknesses (IMO) are: they are all +2, which can make them feel ‘samey’, and characters can have so many it becomes overused and that sameness feels magnified. But DaggerHeart addresses both of those positively, with just two experiences to start and the possibility of increasing the numerical value of experiences.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's the games tones and presentations. They may have similar rule sets, but are presented in very different ways. And the way that 4e was presented was not appealing to me.

Look, here's the 4e and 2e dryads:

(Image from Faolyn's post, cut into mine because I will be commenting)

The 4e version, to me, is combat monster. You see this thing, you fight. It's a tree with boobs attacking you! Did you have to fight when you saw a 4e dryad? No, of course not--but you wouldn't know it from the illustration, information, or flavor text. You had to know it from previous editions or from mythology. (that's one of the few problems I have with DH--the adversaries could use a few more sentences of flavor text.)

Whereas to me, the 2e version of the dryad is a clearly a nature spirit of some sort. Combat is a possibility, of course, but it's clear that's not her main purpose in either the game or the world. An encounter with her could be violent, could involve fae trickery, or could involve negotiations or diplomacy. The way 3x and 5.14 presented the dryad are similar in their own ways.

I just thought I'd double back on this because it also shows why I find 2e and the Monstrous Manual in particular to be thematically so underwhelming (as well as a mechanical disaster). And yes I do expect a little knowledge of mythology from DMs - or other sources of research and inspiration.

The 2e dryad I see is not a nature spirit. She's a pale skinned girl who lives in the woods, plucks flowers to braid into her hair and, damningly, wears cloth clothing. Worse yet she wears flowing cloth clothing that would catch on branches. That's not a nature spirit there. It's a hippie elf chick who lives in a house and buys her clothes from a shop and drawn in a pose to emphasise sideboob.

Just as an aside the 1e dryad is simply funny.

I mean that's not a nature spirit. That's a girl who's hollowed out a tree, and made a ladder and shutters in the tree. And she can't even fit in her own literal tree house.

Meanwhile let's look at the 3.5 dryad. The one that immediately preceded the 4e one. (As an aside the 3.0 dryad was very much an elf of the woods - but at the very least an improvement over the 2e one in that she looked as if she actually lived in the "Hollywood woods" and had a tan.)

... fully naked, front on? Visible wooden nipples? This is just embarrassing. Although to give it its due it is an actual nature spirit and not a dressed up hippie.

Judging by the art the 4e Dryad is the only one of the official D&D dryads to the point it was published that I can take even vaguely seriously. And yes, it is a bit of an over-reaction to the 3.5 one (of course if it's your kink I don't judge).

The 5e dryads, both 2014 and 2024 (I honestly prefer the 2014 impressionist one) both manage to hit all the points I'd expect - being nature spirits not ren faire humans with pointy ears, be sexy, and be wearing clothing or ornamentation that is actually natural rather than cloth.

That's not the only monster I had issues with, but it's definitely one of the most egregious examples I can think of. And I'm not saying that the 4e art is bad, either--it's certainly good enough and evocative enough for what it is, even if the boobs are unnecessary. But it doesn't make me think dryad.

This is the old "Dragon boobs" question of course. But other than the embarrassing 3.5 dryad the 4e one is the only D&D dryad up to the time it was published that gets the nature spirit as opposed to "sexy wood elf" part at all.

And it's not just the dryad. The 4e bard may indeed be the best bard in all of D&D--I don't know, obviously, but I'm willing to accept the possibility--but the fact it wasn't in the main PH indicated to me that that sort of social character wasn't the game's main goal, at least not when it was first released.

And this is blatant special pleading. "Wasn't the game's main goal"? Specialist social characters have never been D&D's main goal in any edition. 4e simply did them better than any other edition unless you were an utter munchkin who got their fun out of abusing the broken 3.X diplomacy rules or the 3.5 glibness spell.

D&D's main goal has always been either dungeon exploration or action adventure combat. And the bard was held back to give time to do it justice - a decision I wish they would have made for the whole of 4e.

So that's what I mean. It wasn't (just) the mechanics. It was the way the game presented itself, which was not in a way I wanted to explore. And it's why I like Daggerheart, because they did bring in the exact sort of elements I love.

And yes, we can agree on presentation. Which Daggerheart is much better at D&D than.

And I would also point out given how I'm critiquing the artwork so few of the monsters illustrated might actively be a strength of Daggerheart. (It certainly makes Daggerheart much more usable to not have an entire separate volume for the monsters).

 

[Reynard]

View attachment 409737
(Image from Faolyn's post, cut into mine because I will be commenting)

I just thought I'd double back on this because it also shows why I find 2e and the Monstrous Manual in particular to be thematically so underwhelming (as well as a mechanical disaster). And yes I do expect a little knowledge of mythology from DMs - or other sources of research and inspiration.

The 2e dryad I see is not a nature spirit. She's a pale skinned girl who lives in the woods, plucks flowers to braid into her hair and, damningly, wears cloth clothing. Worse yet she wears flowing cloth clothing that would catch on branches. That's not a nature spirit there. It's a hippie elf chick who lives in a house and buys her clothes from a shop and drawn in a pose to emphasise sideboob.

Just as an aside the 1e dryad is simply funny.
View attachment 409734
I mean that's not a nature spirit. That's a girl who's hollowed out a tree, and made a ladder and shutters in the tree. And she can't even fit in her own literal tree house.

Meanwhile let's look at the 3.5 dryad. The one that immediately preceded the 4e one. (As an aside the 3.0 dryad was very much an elf of the woods - but at the very least an improvement over the 2e one in that she looked as if she actually lived in the "Hollywood woods" and had a tan.)
View attachment 409731
... fully naked, front on? Visible wooden nipples? This is just embarrassing. Although to give it its due it is an actual nature spirit and not a dressed up hippie.

Judging by the art the 4e Dryad is the only one of the official D&D dryads to the point it was published that I can take even vaguely seriously. And yes, it is a bit of an over-reaction to the 3.5 one (of course if it's your kink I don't judge).

The 5e dryads, both 2014 and 2024 (I honestly prefer the 2014 impressionist one) both manage to hit all the points I'd expect - being nature spirits not ren faire humans with pointy ears, be sexy, and be wearing clothing or ornamentation that is actually natural rather than cloth.

This is the old "Dragon boobs" question of course. But other than the embarrassing 3.5 dryad the 4e one is the only D&D dryad up to the time it was published that gets the nature spirit as opposed to "sexy wood elf" part at all.

And this is blatant special pleading. "Wasn't the game's main goal"? Specialist social characters have never been D&D's main goal in any edition. 4e simply did them better than any other edition unless you were an utter munchkin who got their fun out of abusing the broken 3.X diplomacy rules or the 3.5 glibness spell.

D&D's main goal has always been either dungeon exploration or action adventure combat. And the bard was held back to give time to do it justice - a decision I wish they would have made for the whole of 4e.

And yes, we can agree on presentation. Which Daggerheart is much better at D&D than.

And I would also point out given how I'm critiquing the artwork so few of the monsters illustrated might actively be a strength of Daggerheart. (It certainly makes Daggerheart much more usable to not have an entire separate volume for the monsters).

Oh no! Nudity! Won't someone think of the children?!?

Here's the thing about that image: it isn't a explotative fan service. That creature is downright dangerous, and you can tell in that picture. She isn't there seducing you -- you have stumbled upon her home and she is not pleased about. She is a scary fae being -- the way they are meant to be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh no! Nudity! Won't someone think of the children?!?

Here's the thing about that image: it isn't a explotative fan service. That creature is downright dangerous, and you can tell in that picture. She isn't there seducing you -- you have stumbled upon her home and she is not pleased about. She is a scary fae being -- the way they are meant to be.

So could you explain the biology which has dryads having nipples? I mean what do they use them for?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And, to bring it back to Daggerheart, the Bard also looks really fun. Getting access to the Codex domain is sweet. Combined with Grace, they might have the best domains in the core?

Personally I was kind of fascinated because as a long-time Bard player I had basically zero interest in playing DH's Bard.

Re: Grace I think it's one of the worst Domains, for two reasons:

1) Tons and tons of its abilities are "per rest" or even per long rest, but don't offer any ability to pay to refresh them sooner (unlike some of those for other classes). This seems to be more the case here than with any other Domain, and it's easy to miss if you're not thinking about it. This means they're drastically less usable than other Domain cards. That matters when you can only have 5 Domain cards. Codex, which has three abilities per card in a lot of cases, being your other Domain helps here, but it's quite an issue.

2) A lot of others are narrowly specific to social situations but not actually that powerful. Oh Advantage on rolls to lie/trick for 1 Hope? Any party member could spend 1 Hope and use Help An Ally for the exact same result. So unless your other party members are often not in a position to help you, and/or miserly with Hope, that's a pretty useless ability and a real waste of a Domain card. Awesome picture but come on!

It's also a bit of a confused Domain, sort of randomly having social and psychic elements in a way that seems less thematic than a lot of the other domains.

The Rally die is pretty strong but is also a trap if you use it for anything but clearing Stress, and is 1/Session - not even Long Rest! I feel like they should have probably just limited it to clearing Stress and kept it at 1/Session OR made it something you can add to any roll and made it be 1/rest or something.

 

[Reynard]

So could you explain the biology which has dryads having nipples? I mean what do they use them for?

Because humans are looking at the art.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So could you explain the biology which has dryads having nipples? I mean what do they use them for?

I mean, presumably dryads aren't the result of biological evolution, but magical creation? And we all know 100% of wizards and gods are pervs. Like, does anyone for even one second doubt Elminster or Azuth or Corellon would give dryads boobs and nips if they created them? I mean just name a god or wizard and you know you're naming someone who would do that!

 

[The Soloist]

After watching 4 episodes of DH, I'm not going to invest in this RPG. The FOMO was strong for this one, but it's too superpower fantasy for my taste. Disappearing in a shadow zone and reappearing in another shadow zone elsewhere on the battle board is not something I am looking for.

Have fun!