Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
research:daggerheart [2025/06/15 19:28] – Ron Helwigresearch:daggerheart [2025/06/22 15:39] (current) – Ron Helwig
Line 1: Line 1:
-This is for my thoughts on [[https://www.daggerheart.com|Daggerheart]]. Note that at the current time this is before I have had the opportunity to play the game.+# Daggerheart
  
-====== The Good ======+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.
  
-===== Heritage ===== +## The Good
-I think that Ancestry is nicely done. Each Ancestry gets two features - this is simple and easy to manage.+
  
-Similarly, each Community having one feature is a good idea.+### Heritage (Ancestries & Communities)
  
-===== Experiences ===== +- The **Ancestry** system is elegant: each ancestry grants **two features**, making it simple and manageable. 
-I really like this in concept. I am worried that in play with inexperienced players it will be ignored, misunderstood, or simply abused. I also saw in one review that players might dismiss it as not giving enough of a bonus, especially since using it requires spending a Hope resource.+- **Communities** each provide **one feature**, which adds thematic depth without overcomplication.
  
-===== Domains ===== +This strikes a great balance between character variety and ease of use.
-At least in concept this seems like a very good idea. In fact, this could have replaced Classes entirely - just have the players choose two domains to create their desired archetype. It would even allow for easy multiclassing by letting the players add new domains at each level-up.+
  
-===== Duality Dice ===== +### Experiences
-The Hope and Fear mechanic seems like a really cool idea, although it does put additional creativity work onto the GM. The holistic approach where this integrates into so much of the game-play is well thought out.+
  
-As far as how it affects player turns, eliminating initiative and a forced order, this is both good and bad. It allows for better storytelling but inexperienced and/or shy players might find it more challenging. Outgoing players also might end up taking too much of the spotlight.+Conceptually, Experiences are a **strong idea**. They offer players the chance to define past events that shape their character.
  
-====== The Bad ======+**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).
  
-===== Classes ===== +Still, it’s a meaningful narrative mechanic with good potential—if well supported by play culture and GM facilitation.
-First, the simple existence of classes causes the problems I have previously talked about, where it just isn't possible to pre-define all the archetypes people want to play.+
  
-Secondly, some of the class names are not as immediately recognizable as they should be. Sure, a player familiar with D&D would know what a Rogue implies, but what is a Seraph? Trying to name **every** archetype that someone might want to play is an impossible task.+### Domains
  
-===== Heritage ===== +The Domain system is **very promising**.
-One downside of Ancestries is that the default list includes species that are a bit too fantastical. They could have fixed this by simply setting up a system for creating your own Ancestries, making a list of features from which the GM could create pairs. Having a default set of such pairs would then make sense.+
  
-I do think that adding a Background with a feature and maybe other things is something I would add back in.+- 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.
  
-===== Traits ===== +This modularity supports creativity and could solve many issues inherent in rigid class-based systems.
-Renaming Wisdom to Instinct, Charisma to Presence, and Intelligence to Knowledge seems like a fool's errand to me. Also, splitting Dexterity into Finesse and Agility while shoving Constitution into Strength also seems to be a bad decision. In particular, trying to determine whether something is Finesse or Agility is going to prove a challenge.+
  
-I think they would have done better to just keep the D&D attributes. Maybe moving to just modifiers is OK.+### Duality Dice (Hope & Fear)
  
-As far as **Skills** go, removing them might be OK, but that mostly just moves the decision as to what a character can do into a discussion between the DM and the player.+The **Hope and Fear** system is compelling:
  
-===== Domains ===== +- Offers meaningful **risk/reward tension**. 
-The naming of the Domains is pretty bad. I understand the desire to make them "kewl" but they are just wrong. Some examples: Sage should just be Nature, Splendor should just be Life or Health, and Valor should just be Protector.+- Integrates into many gameplay layers for a **cohesive thematic experience**.
  
-===== Various ===== +**Eliminating initiative** and using a **freeform turn structure** promotes narrative flow. However: 
-I don't like features that are "once per rest" that also have resource (i.e. Hope or Stress) costs. They should simply have resource costs.+ 
 +- 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.
  
-I also don't like some features that are purely mechanical and hard to describe their use as part of the story action. An example of this is "When you roll your damage dice, you can reroll any 1s or 2s". 
  
-===== Pronouns ===== 
-WTF? There's no excuse for making this part of the rules. If people want to specify pronouns they should be allowed to, and the character name is where that would go. But including it as a rule, with a specific place for it on the character sheet is virtue signalling of the worst kind.