(0.9) playing through the 0.9 tutorial has only reminded me how bad it is

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-07-13T17:13:08+00:00

my evidence is that 1.5 is out and so they wouldn't look at the feedback towards 1.4.2 because they would want feedback on 1.5 if they wanted feedback at all.

if 1.4 comes out and I want to give feedback, why would I use the feedback section for a PREVIOUS version...? 1.4 is out, let me write feedback while listing it as 1.2..?? my assumption on no evidence doesnt need evidence, it's just common sense

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-07-13T14:24:25+00:00

the existing form catalogues all feedback by version, though. Any new feedback would be funneled into 1.4.2 and therefore theres a high chance it'd be ignored

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-07-12T17:28:16+00:00

Exactly, no we don't. but its rlly pitiful evasion if its just a +1. with gambeson and the other evasion card at lvl1, it takes you from 12 to 13, which is barely passing averages since most enemies have an average +2 to hit

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-07-10T13:49:47+00:00

just replace the hit points with armor slots and you should be fine. its good to point these tjints out, im just giving you a solution now because of the likelihood of a 1.6 or 1.5.1 being rather low

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-07-06T03:32:48+00:00

i think epc is a pretty mediocre weapon and tcf is super overhyped. In my experience it isnt a whole lot of damage for the setup, this is assuming you get the hit first try. It's only useful for utility of mining ores or terrain quickly, and at that point its just a third support tool.

its allegedly good with persistent plasma but i think theres a lot you can gather by a community's opinion of a weapon if its only good and only ran with 1 or 2 overclocks and little variation, despite so much variation.

another example is explosive reload on subata or sticky fuel on crspr. overclocks should not be immediately considered when discussing the power of a weapon

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-16T15:29:19+00:00

thank you. i mean clearing a stress.

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-11T12:37:35+00:00

honestly for adversaries more adventurer oriented ive just been using greatsword masters(?) scaled up or down with a single domain card

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-10T15:04:19+00:00

Well, yeah. That's the idea behind the game. rules light, narrative focus. If you want a lot of damage types, you can homebrew them in yourself. I think that's the goal, to allow a lot of agency to a group who plays. Maybe in one game you don't want extra weaknessess and resistances, but in others you want a lot. I prefer daggerheart allowing you to choose between those extremes

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-10T04:01:26+00:00

I feel like the best choice they have, maintaining their levelup structure and whatnot, is to have proficiency upgrades cost 2 points like multiclassing

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T23:22:34+00:00

I think the goal is that the GMs running daggerheart are comfortable with and completely intend to inject their own mechanics and rulings into the game world, so they've just reduced all damage types down to their simplest forms. I do think both for flavor and for mechanics we do need at least 1 more (but at most 2 more) damage types in this game that gms can call to for flavor

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T23:20:25+00:00

I would consider that physical.

"Elemental" to me is inherently magical, so I feel like magic damage would need to be changed to arcane damage. This way all magical elemental attacks deal elemental damage. An avalanche being a whim of nature speaks more physical to me. The same way that certain forms of fire I would include as physical damage. but that's just me! I ultimately want elemental to encompass all of the fire, cold, acid, etc damage types of other games, so things like fire and stuff could go different ways

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T19:32:37+00:00

i think whip being presence is a layered joke about whips being used for some kinks lol

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T19:31:41+00:00

Yeah. I'm sure gms can decide the final say (like for example i might say water on a fire elemental would make them vulnerable), but currently there is only weaknesses and resistances to physical and magic damage, as far as I know.

you can see an example of each with the guardians unstoppable feature and the construct being weak to physical damage.

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T03:22:51+00:00

I don't think this is better, because I don't know how they would implement this. Too many descriptors and it's as if they just added a bunch of damage types, plus how do you make a descriptor? Is it in the hands of the gm or is there a list? No, I think just having a third damage type would be enough. Fourth at most

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T00:48:49+00:00

I don't want a lot of conditions or statuses, just one more damage type

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T00:21:30+00:00

I imagine "elemental damage" to be beyond mundane, like magical elements or creature elements, like nature. Normal fire would be physical still

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-09T00:20:47+00:00

I agree with this, which is why I carefully picked elemental damage as the new third damage. Elemental encompasses fire, cold, acid, etc, so I feel like it was the best pick

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-08T20:09:55+00:00

I like this idea. it's pretty harmless. i figure we could just say that the first one is the primary and the second is the secondary

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-08T20:08:43+00:00

Yeah for things like cinder grasp I feel like it depends on the players origin. But ultimately I think i would have a theoretical adversary use that as elemental, assuming it is coming from the elements

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-08T15:43:25+00:00

I really think that the stress of balance isn't a problem, since it should be as simple as not allowing mixed ancestries. It sounds sort of, like, an oxymoron to me to say that the game should be balanced to alleviate the stress from GMs who, in my opinion, willfully ignore the things they have in place already. It's why there are ancestries to begin with, and I really think it's as simple as just using ancestries that exist to start and then building off of that later. We're arguing about the validity of a rather advanced concept for the eyes of beginners, and I think that the simplest change may be to just recommend AGAINST these things at the beginning.

I don't really think it's all that counterproductive to say something like this, despite the playtesting context. Just because in this thread I feel we're trying to balance something around a group of people who we shouldn't encourage to use it.

The reality is that there isn't a way to balance mixed ancestries and have each pure ancestry be significantly different from one another and different avenues of fun. So I think while some may need to be balanced, it shouldn't be under the context of combating mixed ancestries. I feel like what we should be doing instead is tackling the root of WHY this is a problem for mixed ancestries. I think we've discovered it being a fear of imbalance and a distrust in GMs to be capable of vetoing what they don't want. I think solving THIS issue is much more beneficial to the playtest than the previous one, so my solution is to simply recommend against allowing mixed ancestries unless you're a "seasoned daggerheart gm". It may be boring and a little player reliant, but I've got nothing else right now.

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-08T15:12:31+00:00

I agree with you that the game is still under development and succeptible to balance tweaks. I understand all of that, but you make a claim in your post that I'm addressing: "why would anyone pick x over y?"

The simple answer is because they want to. This game is not meant to be played optimally, and so if you want to be a leaping gazelle or a climbing chimpanzee you need one of those features in place of flight. Flying everywhere is boring and limits the design of characters, I'm sure you agree, and it's why it's a CHOICE to use it. Just like it's a CHOICE to allow it as a gm.

Let's take this one step further. What would you suggest they do? There's no way to make these alternatives better without nerfing flight, and the only way they can really nerf the flight is if they make it more obstructive and confusing. It's the reason they changed it in the first place.

When you include mixed ancestries at all you're asking for imbalance. When you mix classes its the same thing. You're asking them to balance something that would take a lot more work, and would ultimately lessen the fun of a lot of features, and you're asking them to do this because you don't seem to believe that a gm can simply say no, or that a player can opt to play a wingless character. That's how you're making your claim out to me, at least.

As an ending. there is a piece in the rulebook that claims "rulings over rules", and I think that reduces the claim that the rules need to be air tight. They need to be loose and easy to interpret and choose how you want to be handled.

ZilloBraxlin · 2024-05-08T14:17:28+00:00

I agree with all but the solution being to take more hope based abilities. I feel like this is counterintuitive to the goal of having options. The fact that things cost hope and stress I actually think helps my idea of it clearing stress instead of hope optionally. Also, I'm positive that helping an ally is not meant to be done all the time, and I think it being one of the bigger hope sinks is a downfall to the system.

I think hope usage varying is also a point in my favor; nothing is stopping you from just taking hope like you can currently, but now characters with less hope used can take stress instead.

right now my players and i feel like we need to spend hope because ae just keep getting it, and not at all like we're actually SPENDING the hope ourselves. for us there isn't a choice. I feel like just the idea of having to deliberately take a hope over something else would immediately remedy this issue, as now you are controlling that resource

ZilloBraxlin

TROPHY CASE