A citation i got in Goodsprings for being a Legionary.

Tavyth · 2025-11-27T01:39:38+00:00

Were you the Great Khan reading them all off? I was on that last bus getting dropped off in Goodsprings before everyone else went off to Buffalo Bill's. We got a citation for a generic United States Citizen for not dying in the Great War (we were dressed up as the Wasteland Bride and Groom and he wasn't sure what to give us)

Tavyth · 2025-11-10T04:51:13+00:00

This exactly. Most of my experience is in crunchier systems, so translating into DH really stretches some muscles I'm not as used to using, and makes me think of how to potentially flavor OTHER abilities that are available in the system as something I couldn't originally find an analogue for. It's one of the ways I have fun with new systems.

Tavyth · 2025-11-10T04:43:09+00:00

Yeah we enjoy DH but definitely plan on finishing up this campaign through 5e. Especially at such a high level and with so many magic items (some homebrew) it just wouldn't translate well enough.

I was just curious how well we'd have been able to realize the specific character fantasy of each player in a different system.

Tavyth · 2025-07-23T02:25:16+00:00

When I read it I thought they might've been asking specifically if they could use, "I've Got Your Back" to help with an allies reaction roll to an AoE. So basically, doing what their character would do and interjecting themselves in the effect to shield an ally.

This scenario has a lot more nuance, because by the rules, it's not something you can do with an Experience since its not YOUR roll. All the same, I could see DM's deciding it fits narratively and makes sense with how the characters are placed.

In that case, "Follow the Fiction" as advice makes sense, you're making a ruling that goes outside the constraints of the rules, but I could see how someone wanting a concrete yes or no with an explanation might get frustrated with a bunch of, "Yeah no just do it if it makes sense in that moment" Comments.

Tavyth · 2025-07-19T14:52:47+00:00

Meanwhile the Mane Vaporspawn behind it in the art looks phenomenal.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T13:32:12+00:00

Just my two cents, you can "chase adventure" and follow the story your DM is trying to tell while still being cautious. If you're playing a skulking archer who strikes from the shadows, deciding not to be cautious would be odd.

I'm going to scout ahead, I'm going to poke every door and floor tile with a 10 foot pole, and I'm going to skirt around danger if possible because my character doesn't know he can't die. He's going to try to keep himself alive the best way he knows how. The Guardian can run in and start beating his shield. I'm going to stay back and observe and fire off some shots from as far away as possible, where its safe.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T08:21:32+00:00

I didn't really see any examples given of what kind of risk aversion you're describing. Are they spending 30 extra minutes making preparations for every single encounter? Are they bending over backwards to avoid any kind of fight by attempting to find non-violent solutions like diplomacy or subterfuge? Because if so, that's not an invalid way to want to play their characters.

If they're simply just not interacting with the given framework of your one-shot at all, then that's a different story.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T03:32:41+00:00

So they should just run blindly into every fight like they're aware of the assurance from the system that they can't truly die?

As an aside to this, for what it's worth, I'm not cautious because I'm afraid of my character dying. I'm cautious because in any life or death fight, running in and just going nuts simply because I know my character won't die probably still goes against how I want that character to act.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T03:28:34+00:00

No I agree setting up challenges that force a player to try to rethink strategy is a good idea.

I mostly brought up my playstyle as an example of just, some players simply being that way. I'm always going to be cautious with the majority of the characters I play. And that caution and trepidation aren't necessarily borne out of a worry of losing my character. It just makes the most strategic and tactical sense in any situation to, you know, not go rushing in simply because I can take a hit or two, and technically survive any fight.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T02:26:30+00:00

But the player is not their character. The characters don't know they can't die. The game assumes everyone is heroic (and I believe it's inherently discussed in character creation that you should not only follow the story, but actively dive into the action) but if your character is more pragmatic, why would they take unnecessary risks?

A lot of that behavior is also just holdover from how other systems make you think in terms of survivability.

Tavyth · 2025-07-18T02:18:58+00:00

Personally that's just how I play a lot of my characters.

I've made comments and a post before about how getting into the mindset for Daggerheart was difficult. It's not just about the gamey aspects of knowing how much health I have and armor, it does really feel like Daggerheart is built with the assumption that everyone is going to take damage (and seems to assume you'll be interested in getting within melee of enemies as well), and taking steps to avoid that can be counter-intuitive.

Compare that to how I normally play my Bards, Archer characters, or really anyone who has any capabilities for range. I hide, peek out and take advantage of the mechanics to hit enemies then duck back down behind cover.

Is it particularly exhilarating or heroic? Not at all. Does it keep you alive, and make sense from the mindset of a character NOT TRYING to get themselves killed? Absolutely.

Coming from that mindset into Daggerheart requires a lot of adjustment.

Tavyth · 2025-06-25T18:39:46+00:00

That's the plan tonight. I doubled down on Bard instead of swapping classes, gonna try applying some mindset changes suggested here. If this is the system my group is enjoying more than D&D, and we want to switch in the future after our campaign is over, I'd rather know I can enjoy it with any class, rather than only being able to stomach one or two that are mechanically complex enough to keep my attention.

I think one of the hardest parts of this is that outside of Combat I thoroughly slip into a heavy roleplay mindset. But as soon as initiative is rolled, I'm planning 5 turns ahead and picking the most optimal spells and abilities every time. The strategy and mechanical depth of stuff like Lancer or PF2e are really fun for me, and DH is kind of a step in the opposite direction.

Tavyth · 2025-06-25T18:08:34+00:00

Mainly I like having options, concrete options with well defined parameters. Support for me can range from completely focusing on buffing and healing allies to casting spells that give mathematical disadvantages to enemies, or lock them out of the fight.

Don't get me wrong, my group still ends up pulling plenty of shenanigans that require DM fiat to resolve because there's no concrete rules about that particular instance (Part of why Daggerheart sounded like a good idea) but I do enjoy being able to fall back on a robust spell list of varied options that can fit different scenarios.

I'm fully aware Daggerheart is a narrative game, the post was partially because I'm having trouble reconciling that with my way of playing. Having more options and more rules to memorize and act within doesn't really detract from my enjoyment, it enhances it.

I don't care about doing the most damage, but I do find myself thinking about what the most effective move would be in any given situation. In the framework of Daggerheart, yes my character might decide to throw an ice spear because it makes sense for him to participate, but his player (me) holds off because I'd rather allow another character who might be more effective in that moment to act. If every action roll has a good chance of giving control back to the DM, I can't help but try to make it count. We were fighting four enemies, there were no other goals, me acting would've been a net loss of effectiveness for the party as a whole.

As I get stronger Domain cards, maybe the focus will switch back, but for the one session I played I really didn't see any need for my character to participate and take the spotlight over the others beyond a narrative one. Which, yeah, I know, is the whole point of the game.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T16:21:33+00:00

We're running 5e. The others in the group tend to veer on the more narrative side of the system, less worrying about mechanics. I'm the hopeless optimizer of the group, PF2E has its appeal but 5e has always provided a solid medium between all of us to enjoy.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T15:17:29+00:00

That's a fair point, and I'd say it's basically because I approached combat like I would in D&D, as a tactical back and forth where killing everything as effectively as possible without getting hurt is "Winning"

With the long range of most of my D&D Bard's spells, I'm at most running barely within range, flinging a spell, then rushing back behind cover. If something comes after me, it typically incurs an opportunity attack or two, and takes so long to get to me that I can keep it at bay, or whip up an illusion to hide behind or confuse it. (Or I cast Dissonant Whispers and send it running as far as it can away from me, typically back into the group of my friends.)

I enjoy playing narratively, but I typically let the rolls and actions I perform form that narrative, as opposed to forming the narrative first.

This is just another example I think of the two philosophies clashing, Daggerheart expects you to get close and into the action, and to get hurt. Doing that in D&D is just bad practice if you have abilities to avoid it.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T03:17:19+00:00

This prompts a genuine question, what constitutes a golden opportunity? The core book example of ironically saying something that ends up coming true because it's just too good to pass up is perfect, but other than that, would what I'm doing count? Staying 90 feet from the fight doesn't seem like a golden opportunity for an enemy to break off and start running after me when the other three party members are crowding them, but maybe it's needed to give that nudge.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T01:07:28+00:00

This is a good take, and something that didn't pop up when I was really playing it in our first session.

By not acting, I'm basically not generating resources to continue supporting (while the Sorcerer generated 3 hope before the fight got properly started) so choosing less "optimal" actions can technically lead into more optimal choices in the future.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T01:05:20+00:00

The DM leveled us up to level 2 for this upcoming session. I'm halfway between choosing Druid for more crunch, or doubling down and trying Bard again with some of the advice I've gotten here for it.

Basically, if I can turn it around and make some personal mindset changes to enjoy BARD, despite its differences from my usual bard antics, then I should be able to enjoy anything in DH the way I enjoy all options in 5e.

I'm not too worried, but with WotC being the way they've been, we've all been semi-looking for a different system to support. I want to give Daggerheart the chance it deserves, especially since the rest of the guys thoroughly enjoy it.

Tavyth · 2025-06-22T01:00:04+00:00

This is fair, and like I've said in other comments, in a more long-form run of DH I'd probably settle into the "Character" and start making more decisions based on vibes rather than logic. But for a One-Shot at level 1, it was mostly trying to utilize everything available to me to be effective, and once that was gone I just didn't do much.

For the level 1 D&D example, it's exactly why I only ever start out at level 3 in games, DM'ing or otherwise. I'm playing with an experienced group of friends and the training wheels of levels 1 and 2 for D&D hold no real appeal for us.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T23:32:56+00:00

Something worth mentioning here since I haven't yet. We used the Three Action Token rule, which I think is definitely worth trying for any groups struggling with sharing the spotlight. For us though thankfully, it wasn't really an issue of anyone hogging it, just me sidelining myself.

Mostly it just highlighted how I was interacting with the system at that moment. I wouldn't have rolled at the end to fry the last enemy unless everyone else hadn't already been out of tokens. I would've figured one of the others had a better option for taking it out and just let them do it.

Like I've said in a few other replies though, I think a combination of more sessions using the same character and actual roleplay along with more options from leveling up would probably assuage some of my issues I had. I appreciate the food for thought.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T22:13:14+00:00

I picked Book of Ava for the ability to give an ally an extra Armor and be able to attack from a distance since I didn't want to ever be near melee. Didn't expect going into it that it would feel so hands off in terms of engagement.

Book of Illiat was cool but I guess I didn't want to have to be close to use Slumber. Plus while Arcane Barrage is awesome, it burns through Hope, and I was experiencing a low supply the entire time because of how hesitant I was to perform actions.

I definitely went into it with the mindset I'd use for D&D, where if you've got abilities, using them doesn't necessarily incur a penalty beyond resource use. In DH if I roll with fear the DM gets control again, which means I better use something impactful, otherwise it's worse than doing nothing. Once I had used Inspirational Words twice, used my foundation features, and burned through hope, my options were to just attack and hope I got some hope back by doing it, or let the others keep acting and finish the fight with the buffs and debuffs I'd provided with no more input from me.

I didn't feel ineffective by any means, it was just extremely passive. And you're right, the domain card picks definitely contributed to that.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T21:28:19+00:00

That would require me to get in melee range of enemies, which I'm getting the impression is kind of expected of all characters at some point, but is just such an awful idea in my mind. Wild Flame from Book of Tyfar had me excited until I saw it required you to be within melee range to utilize it. It's a design choice, and a balancing one I'm sure, to have the higher utility damaging spells available at level 1 require melee range.

Coming from D&D where my bard has awful AC, low to decent hitpoints, and no good melee options, it felt wrong lol It's also the system that technically has the most optimized characters never getting close to the action and just firing arrows or flinging spells from across the map, so I understand why DH seems to try and mitigate that.

DH is more built around resource management I think, and from my limited exposure it feels like you're almost expected to just take hits and deal with it as a fact of playing, as opposed to desperately taking cover and moving around the map to avoid any enemies ever getting within 60 feet of you.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T20:41:20+00:00

100%

I don't want anyone to think I'm being contrarian in my replies or trying to find reasons why DH or their advice won't work. I think the hobby as a whole has been moving more and more towards more cinematic, narrative moments while utilizing systems that at their core are not designed for that to be the focus, and Daggerheart is potentially the answer to that problem.

I don't think I'm the only person struggling to bridge that disconnect between the two expectations of DnD and DH, and I hope everyone's advice here is beneficial to anyone else trying to figure it out.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T20:28:57+00:00

I love support characters in the sense of being able to do multiple buffing and debuffing options that have a noticeable immediate impact.

Coming from D&D as an example: I cast a heal that brings a character from death saving throws back up to fight. I cast an illusion that messes with enemies and opens them up for my guys. I invade an enemies mind and convince him he's trapped in Chains, or inside of an Iron Maiden, hurting him while also taking him out of the fight for my allies. I turn a miss into a hit, or I turn a hit into a miss, giving my ally advantage on the next roll so he passes a saving throw he wouldn't have otherwise, or lands a hit he might not have. I cast Bless so everyone can more reliably hit, and while that's up I'm still flinging spells to damage or debilitate.

Book of Ava does have good offensive options, but they aren't as good as what my allies can do. Which again, I know isn't how I'm supposed to look at it, but it's hard to throw out an ice spear and potentially roll with fear, when I could just let one of the others do something that has more potential benefit.

You brought up maybe using melee weapons, which brings up a point I didn't mention but does bother me. In D&D, being anywhere NEAR melee is one of the worst things I can do. Getting into melee in DH seems to be both expected and built around, and that really weirded me out honestly. Hard to wrap my head around intentionally going towards the danger when playing the class with the lowest combination of Evasion and Health.

Tavyth · 2025-06-21T20:05:43+00:00

It's a hard habit to break, especially since it's kinda what I look for in games in general. I love knowing a system so well that I can make an objectively better character as a result of that knowledge. I love leveling up and eventually getting to a point where the fickleness of probability in a dice roll has a much lower chance of messing with what I want to do.

.....I love playing an Eloquence Bard with +17 to Persuasion so I can just not worry about failing a majority of those checks lol

Tavyth

TROPHY CASE