Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
research:daggerheart [2025/06/15 11:30] – created Ron Helwigresearch:daggerheart [2025/06/22 15:39] (current) – Ron Helwig
Line 1: Line 1:
-This is for my thoughts on Daggerheart.+# Daggerheart 
 + 
 +This page collects my thoughts and critiques of [Daggerheart](https://www.daggerheart.com).   
 +**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 Good 
 + 
 +### Heritage (Ancestries & Communities) 
 + 
 +- 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. 
 + 
 +### Experiences 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +### Domains 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +### Duality Dice (Hope & Fear) 
 + 
 +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 Bad 
 + 
 +### Classes 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +### Heritage 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +### Traits 
 + 
 +Renaming core attributes feels unnecessary and potentially confusing: 
 + 
 +| Daggerheart     | Traditional D&D | 
 +|------------------|------------------| 
 +| Instinct         | Wisdom           | 
 +| Presence         | Charisma         | 
 +| Knowledge        | Intelligence     | 
 +| Finesse/Agility  | Dexterity        | 
 +| Strength (w/Con) | Strength + Constitution | 
 + 
 +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 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +### Domain Naming 
 + 
 +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**. 
 + 
 +### Mechanics & Resources 
 + 
 +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. 
 + 
 +## Pronouns 
 + 
 +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.
  
-====== The Good ====== 
  
-====== The Bad ======