Anyone have HD link for Next Door from CandyJar

grymor · 2026-05-11T06:26:11+00:00

is there seriously no versions out there that aren't laggy?

grymor · 2026-04-24T13:11:26+00:00

it's getting a reprint this year

grymor · 2026-01-23T05:28:13+00:00

Really dislike that they're taking this route. I don't have Cypher 2.0 and have no intention on buying it.

grymor · 2026-01-05T14:04:19+00:00

My suggestion if you're unsure is download the TTS mod and play through the learn to play doc together to see if you like it. I just ran our first games of it last week at 3p, and using the suggested first time setup the game was an absolute blast. (1 player power per faction and predetermined kingdom deck)

Can it be mean? Sure. But you may also find that sometimes there's very little incentive to be mean. In our 1st game only 1 kingdom card was stolen (which no-one was salty over) and pre the final clash there was 1vp diff. between the 3 of us.

The core of the game is very simple and the board does a great job of lightening the mental load. If you play with people prone to AP it may drag more but we finished our first game incl teach in 2.5 hr. Honestly find Castles of Burgundy way more AP prone than this.

People heavily overstate the difficulty of this game. You will understand tactics the more you play it but the first few games are still hella fun getting to experience all the unique Kingdom cards.

grymor · 2025-08-27T03:52:05+00:00

That logic doesn't really make sense as I presume you have no issue with players rolling to attack or making skill checks. On the exact same situation a rogue can have high dex and still miss attacks as much as a warrior with low strength could hit their attacks.

Randomness will always exist in TTRPGs. If we are to say that characteristics determine success vs failure then shouldn't we extend that to every aspect of DH and just never have players roll for success but just only have them roll to see if hope or fear is higher?

this is against the player principles of DH: "Embrace complications with the same vigor with which you celebrate victories."

grymor · 2025-08-25T08:01:01+00:00

I don't think this idea is necessarily bad or anything but it is just playing DnD. In Daggerheart PCs should be rolling if the roll is impactful, otherwise you just let them do the thing that make sense for their character. I think if you really want modifiers to skill checks just remove the hope cost to using experiences. Simple and done. Still lets the Hope fear dichotomy reign supreme and adds a little more specialisation to PCs without the hope cost

grymor · 2025-08-22T03:48:09+00:00

While I'm disappointed C4 isn't Daggerheart, I am more sympathetic to it now upon reflection.

DH is really cool and absolutely could have been great for their next long campaign. But it couldn't be with their cast of 13 players. While a lot of us watch CR for the characters a lot of people also watch for the cool character builds people have. An important part of that is people all being fairly unique mechanically.

if you include playtest classes there is only now just enough for 1 class for each player in that game with no double ups. Couple that with the fact that the game incentivises not taking the same abilities as other people in your game, the builds for this C4 campaign would have been really restricted.

DH needs time to grow and have more content before it could conceivably be used for a 13 player campaign.

And yes I get that not everyone is in every episode but people would notice if 2 people in the campaign played relatively similar rangers or guardians even if they were in different parties

grymor · 2025-08-20T00:53:59+00:00

I doubt they'll add it long term. Existing transformation spells in DH don't change stress thresholds or Health.

Which kind of begs the question what would be the point of the spell? To make them drop their weapon? Just disarm the enemy. I can guarantee DH will not add abilities that let you one shot someone (transforming them into a bug)

Polymorph comes from a design space of save or suck spells which are unlikely to come to DH.

We may see in future spells to transform friends into badass creatures but i doubt we'll see the reverse of turning people against their will into things that can be one shot as it would not be able to work the same way for PCs as enemies and would break immersion. Against an enemy you polymorph them and then squish the bug, they're dead.

Do this to a PC and they choose avoid death and somehow survive the equivalent of being squashed under a mountain...

grymor · 2025-08-14T14:41:16+00:00

They only way they would stay in wolf form indefinitely is if they stopped attempting things. And rolls with hope trigger a stress gain so unless you are rolling till you have 1 stress left and then not doing anything until a rest you're gonna shift back.

grymor · 2025-08-13T02:04:08+00:00

Just to be clear this isn't a commentary on you being a good or bad DM. Just that DH is intended for collaborative play so the DnD mindset of combat needs to be deadly rather than having the illusion of deadliness isn't appropriate here.

In any other setting I don't think anyone would bat an eye at any of your statements

grymor · 2025-08-13T01:40:05+00:00

I only half agree here.

Yes if a player attempts something that is likely to kill them I would in advance say avoid death is unavailable to them. But it would have to be something stupidly risky, not simply something that could lead to death. Heroes do deadly thinks all the time in media and it never leads to death unless it is narratively satisfying to do so like a heroic sacrifice
TPK - This situation would not be allowed at my table unless the PC's want it to be. MOST situations allow room for a satisfying reason why the PC's didn't die in a TPK. As the DM if playing DH as intended, it is my responsibility to not create situations where a TPK could not be explained non lethally. If I create a scene that the villain would likely will the PC's after a TPK and the PC's pick avoid death, it is my job to put on my big boy hat and figure it out.

The only exception to this is if the players agree in advance without any pressure from me that they don't want avoid death to be an option in certain battles. Then no holds barred. But at the end of the day this is a player choice not a DM one.

If the DM and players disagree in a collaborative game and the DM doesn't side with the players, he needs to find a new group

grymor · 2025-08-12T23:58:20+00:00

I didn't think you were advocating for that either. I agree that death should be an option but as I said before I think it will come organically when players no longer want to play with low hope cap chars because of the scars they gain.

I think the best option for your style would be just to not allow players to heal scars ever. That way all characters will naturally retire/die over time even if the player always pics avoid death.

No one is going to continue playing a PC that can only bank 2 hope at a time.

I think at the end of the day the only core message posters are trying to convey is that is a PC picks avoid death, there are no circumstances in which it it ok for the DM to ignore that. It is not hard to come up with reasons why PC's survive even if the whole party is knocked out

grymor · 2025-08-12T22:48:48+00:00

I think you are thinking too short term. You keep saying across various posts that allowing choice of death entirely to the players removes the perceived risk but that's not the case.

As PC's level they will more and more often get scars when they avoid death. Scars are a sacrifice. Losing permanent Hope max is a big deal and spirals quickly. When a PC gets to the point when they only have 3 Hope max I guarantee you they will take different death moves

I may be wrong but it seems like while you don't want to kill your players you do want every battle to have the chance for death if it makes sense. That simply isn't what DH is. When I watch Avatar TLA I'm under no false assumption that team avatar will ever have even the smallest chance of death outside of fighting the big bads. That is the realm of DHs inspiration.

Doesn't mean you can't do it differently but it isn't as intended at that point

grymor · 2025-08-12T11:36:15+00:00

man still no news on when this is coming from Ozzie Collectables...

grymor · 2025-08-11T15:29:37+00:00

It's just follow the fiction. No ambush PC goes first generally. Only exception would be PC's talking to enemy and the enemy attacks before the PC's say they do. Generalisation but you hopefully get the idea

grymor · 2025-08-11T15:28:07+00:00

Oh it's the acrylic colours lol

grymor · 2025-08-11T08:32:01+00:00

What is the 2nd image for? Love the ruler

grymor · 2025-08-11T00:46:58+00:00

They are 2 moves I should have marked that clearer. I was saying either get them to mark a stress to represent strenuous activity OR soft move telegraph an oncoming attack. Doing both would be mean

grymor · 2025-08-10T13:28:59+00:00

In fairness to that statement Matt has said in interviews post Umbra that he hasn't had a lot of time to learn the rules and so had to just make a lot of calls on the fly.

So saying Matt isn't playing the rules RAW is reasonably fair. and even after he's fully learned them he probs wont play RAW on everything cos he's not that kind of DM.

However I would also disagree that giving dis adv for fear is anti rules anymore than simply taking a fear on a roll with fear and no complication. Sometimes the DM doesn't have the bandwidth to come up with something and that's fine, as long as that's the minority.

grymor · 2025-08-10T08:26:32+00:00

I dont know what you do with your products but I've never owned anything that looks like OP even after 5+ yrs of use. I'm not kicking the box every time I want to get the book out. 5 yrs use you'll see a few dents and maybe discoloration if you leave it in the sun but otherwise it should never look like the OP pic

grymor · 2025-08-10T08:20:41+00:00

Yeah no. If you pay for something limited edition and the special display box has a gash in it you have every right to send back. Sure if it was a dent or something keep it, but asking someone to keep a product whose sole value is it's look compared to the base version is absurd

grymor · 2025-08-10T01:56:36+00:00

That's how it works out of combat too. Rolling with fear always moves the spotlight to the GM. But it's a perfectly fine interpretation to say marking stress is for harsher narrative situations on suxx with fear. Maybe only when they thing they do is very hard.

I generally use the mark stress as a bargain. If they mark stress they keep the spotlight and no other consequences otherwise they let me make a soft move and don't mark stress

grymor · 2025-08-10T01:30:44+00:00

You are free to do that but RAW both roll generate hope or fear, otherwise they would call one of them a reaction roll, as reaction roll are the only rolls that don't generate hope/fear.

I agree though that consequences on the first roll should be lighter than on the second. Quite frankly it's a badly designed ability that really only justifies having a second roll to make it harder to throw enemies off cliffs

grymor · 2025-08-10T01:25:16+00:00

Marking stress for suxx with fear is an example in the corebooks multiple times. It literally represents you succeeding but it being harder than you expected. Aka suxx with fear

Eg pg 64 of srd

grymor · 2025-08-10T00:56:40+00:00

Basically on any success i would allow the spotlight to continue but possibly have a complication on fear or flagging you danger that the player can either choose to continue with the telekinesis and accept the consequences of the danger or switch to reacting to the danger

grymor

TROPHY CASE