Daggerheart

This page collects my thoughts and critiques of Daggerheart. Note: These impressions are based on the available documentation and what I have watched of Critical Role's Age of Umbra live play—I have not yet played the game myself.

• The Ancestry system is elegant: each ancestry grants two features, making it simple and manageable.
• Communities each provide one feature, which adds thematic depth without overcomplication.

This strikes a great balance between character variety and ease of use.

Conceptually, Experiences are a strong idea. They offer players the chance to define past events that shape their character.

Concerns:

• May be underutilized or misunderstood by new players.
• Some players might dismiss them due to the relatively small mechanical bonus (especially since activating them costs a Hope resource).

Still, it’s a meaningful narrative mechanic with good potential—if well supported by play culture and GM facilitation.

The Domain system is very promising.

• Could have replaced classes entirely, allowing players to define archetypes by selecting two Domains.
• Would have made multiclassing intuitive—just add another Domain at level-up.

This modularity supports creativity and could solve many issues inherent in rigid class-based systems.

The Hope and Fear system is compelling:

• Offers meaningful risk/reward tension.
• Integrates into many gameplay layers for a cohesive thematic experience.

Eliminating initiative and using a freeform turn structure promotes narrative flow. However:

• Can be challenging for shy or inexperienced players.
• Risk of spotlight hogging by more extroverted players.

The mechanic is bold and innovative—but will require good table etiquette and GM awareness to work well.

The presence of classes introduces known limitations:

1. You can’t predefine every archetype that players want.
2. Class names and expectations can be unclear. For instance:
   • “Rogue” is familiar.
   • “Seraph”? Not so much.

Attempting to label every possible character concept is a losing battle.

While the Ancestry/Community structure is solid, the default ancestries are overly fantastical for many settings.

What would help:

• A DIY ancestry builder, where GMs can assemble ancestry feature pairs from a curated list.
• Official support for custom ancestries and world-specific variants.

Also, I would prefer bringing back Backgrounds—each with a feature or two of their own.

Renaming core attributes feels unnecessary and potentially confusing:

Issues:

• Dex split into Finesse and Agility is arbitrary and unclear.
• Con folded into Strength undermines mechanical clarity.
• Naming changes seem like change for change’s sake.

Using traditional D&D stats (even just the modifiers) would have made the system more intuitive.

Skills are removed. While this can simplify things, it shifts decision-making to open-ended player/GM negotiation. That’s not always a positive for newer players.

The Domain names try too hard to sound cool, but often miss the mark.

Suggestions:

• Sage → Nature
• Splendor → Life or Health
• Valor → Protector

Names should clearly reflect their mechanical and thematic focus.

Some mechanical quirks feel off:

• “Once per rest” features that also cost Hope/Stress: pick one. Having both is redundant.
• Features like “reroll 1s and 2s on damage dice” are too mechanical to integrate naturally into narrative action. These break immersion.

Mechanics should be narratively justifiable—especially in a game that emphasizes storytelling.

This part feels forced:

The game rules include mandatory pronoun fields on character sheets.

While players should absolutely be free to include their pronouns, making it a mechanical rule is unnecessary. It feels like virtue signaling, rather than a genuine aid to gameplay.

Pronouns, like names and personality traits, should be a player choice, not a system mandate.