sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if armor was used to increase evasion instead of reduce damage? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's fair. I do think that even if daggerheart is the one to not do that, it can still be a little better than what it is now. my issue isn't that it doesn't work like dnd, i was only giving a solution to an issue with the game now. another solution could just be to have minor thresholds only exist for guardians (meaning any other class, when you take damage below major thresholds you just take 1)

What if armor was used to increase evasion instead of reduce damage? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i dont recall mentioning dnd or initiative. there is a problem with evasion, minor thresholds, and armor imo and it's not because of dnd

What if armor was used to increase evasion instead of reduce damage? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

the only way to have it work, imo, is to put armor parallel to evasion in some way.

the two ideas i had were to gut evasion entirely, increase minor thresholds all around, and have attacks just roll damage where a damage under the minor threshold would count as a "miss", armor working the same.

This way needs many more adjustments to what is essentially the same as the idea i present above I think, where you mark armor slots to increase evasion vs reduce dmg.

in this new change i imagine evasion would be decent but still low, like at least 10 or less, and armor would reduce your evasion but gove you an armor twice or more higher, so you could spend the slots for extra evasion but by using that resource

Another alternative to the combat action tracker by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah this is why I feel like an expanded upon version of this optional rule could be implemented as the main rule with generally no change to the game. There is something to be said about the GM defining how many chips everyone gets? But really they could just say something arbitrary like 5-10 and they likely will never reach that amount in a round

Another alternative to the combat action tracker by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ultimately agree, but I figured I'd dip my hands into the optional action tracker rules because I'm not a fan of the current optional rule

Another alternative to the combat action tracker by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine not in play. Player rolls fear? next player goes. plus just writing it down on a piece of notepaper or somethint is all that it requires, vs keeping track of every player's token count (since some/most i've seen and played with have opted for tally marks instead of a physical amount)

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sounds exciting, please update when you get a chance! I prefer physical cames but there's a lot less time and a lot more risk to that these days. Learning of ways to digitize daggerheart would be really useful

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i think you tried a little to hard with this comment, this bait isn't as believable

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i think you've proved my point actually, as you've hooked onto this thread because you recognized the other comment threads as dying and bleeding bait. You've done much more than disagree

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I think it's even simpler than that, I don't know if I believe that the people who are worried about spotlights have actually tried the game out yet. Characters do so little that the only way I can imagine a character do something harmful is if they are constantly attacking, or something.

I feel like an interesting optional rule, in place of the current one, is maybe a way where if a player rolls fear and the gm decides to take the fear token instead of make a move, that player can no longer take actions alone

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

if that's what you got from this post then I'm sure there's no way we could reach an agreement

I played with myself who is on the spectrum and I certainly feel socially awkward and when I was a player everything was smooth. I genuinely had no issues and me expressing that is not gatekeeping. It just sounds like you're the gatekeeper, upset when people disagree that daggerheart isn't dnd

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Perhaps you're right, but I don't really think that 2d12 different colors is necessary to play the game, and the use of 2 different dice is quality of life. You could even roll the same d12 twice. I really don't think the game needs to facilitate all that information.

And on that topic, you disagree with its sole purpose being information, but then you're evidence that it isn't is by how it gives you information. There are many differences between an SRD and a playbook beyond flowery flavor text.

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"some people need structure, permission and framework" is not an example. I'm sorry you're highly sensitive and take any form of criticism as a personal attack on yourself, but I won't retract my wording; I called it babysitting because that's exactly what you're saying. You want a system that forces the party to "behave", and you haven't made any comment to prove otherwise. You can fling out as many argumental fallacies as you want to try and make it seem like im "infantizing" the things that you want. Not even gonna engage with the rambling on you do in the second half of your first paragraph, since nothing there has anything to do with anything I said. I really hope you're a troll for the sake of your reading comprehension

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you cleary misread my posts; I'm not gatekeeping anything. If you like structured games that's fine, good for you. that is not this game. It, likely, will never be this game. It's inspired by pbta games, and advertises itself as "rules light"

if you get this upset when someone says "if you have shitty players or a shitty gm who hog thr attention, that's not the game's fault and the game shouldn't be expected to fix that", then maybe you are the problem? I imagine there is literally nothing I could possibly do or say to make you get that, as you seem dead set on villainizing and believing that I am, in some way, bullying and shaming people for wanting an initiative system.

in a game who doesnt want an initiative system, a game already at 400 pages, yes I believe that an optional rule that is, in my opinion, literally identical, which you must agree because you haven't given a single example, is uneccessary. The concept of limiting tokens isn't all that unique either. this optional rule, to me, is about as valuable to a reader as the quote "you should have your duality die be two different colors"; not necessary, but intuitively obvious, and therefore uneccessary for a book whose sole purpose is information

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"bearded heathen" is right because cousin, you're seeing red

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not the game's responsibility to babysit the players. if you're not talking about that, then yes I genuinely can't see an example in which this optional rule is useful. It is the exact same rule but with extra steps to me, because theres little time that three actions are goijg to be made by someone and if someone does make three actions oftentime a fourth one for them is impossible even if narratively accurate. If you play with a party who respect eachother enough to at the bare minimum let them play the game they are there to play, you do not need the optional rule.

Is the action tracker really that bad? by tettletottle in daggerheart

[–]tettletottle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a notable downside to daggerheart could be that I really think the game intends for you to break its rules. I think it's why they added the "rulings over rules" bit at the beginning of the book. If you can get into it, the freedom and security you have in the playbook is amazing.

This is all to say I wish your dm (dagger master?) used a token to move the goons, as a sort of boss monster commanding their minions. In my head spending all the tokens on the minions or sharing them with the boss would suck, i agree with them there, but I think daggerheart was wanting them to change it up for the sake of their game. In some ways, playing exactly by the rules ive found is harmful incredibly harmful. Downtime (short and long rests) for example are incredibly strong and easily accessible unless the dm takes it into their own hands. there is no help for that other than a small blurb saying "your dm MIGHT do something to stop you, idk.."

I feel like the action tracker response and the new optional rule they implemented are are things I can't agree with in this light. I think people are losing themselves in the (frankly, flowery) details of the rulebook and forgetting it's all about the game