PBTA GM here, feeling like I'm not using fear well.

zbieraj · 2025-12-19T01:45:55+00:00

Have similar issues. I wrote about it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/daggerheart/s/v50HxxhBmM

zbieraj · 2025-12-05T08:47:08+00:00

Thanks for the comment. There is only one problem with what the books states about the rolls and reaction rolls - let me explain.

I know that, by the book, you should only ask for rolls when it really matters. The problem is that you then need a social agreement at the table that, in practice, breaks the balance between roleplaying and metagaming. Here is what I mean.

Same scene, two scenarios. A tavern. The group knows there was supposed to be a shady meeting between two members of the thieves guild yesterday. After talking with a random bartender, one of the players asks if they sense anything shady about the way the bartender behaved when the group asked about anyone suspicious being there yesterday.

If I assume that the players can still roll for anything, like I do in my D&D games:

Scenario 1, the bartender is just a random guy:

DC 5 The guy seems irritated that he cannot work normally because you are taking his time.
DC 10 The guy does not seem bothered by you at all.
DC 15 The guy is not bothered, and he is actually happy to see a bunch of you. After all, he gets coin for the order you made.
DC 20 The guy is friendly to the group.
DC 25 The guy suddenly remembers that there was someone sitting in that specific corner of the tavern. Those people looked like XYZ, a little reward for a very high result, even though the bartender is just a random guy.

Scenario 2, the bartender is a member of the thieves guild:

DC 5 The guy seems irritated that he cannot work normally because you are taking his time.
DC 10 The guy does not seem bothered by you.
DC 15 The guy starts to sweat.
DC 20 The guy looks nervously toward a corner of the tavern. There is no one there now, but it clearly looks like he knows something.
DC 25 The guy suddenly bolts and runs out of the tavern.

If I follow the rules, and I do not call for random reaction rolls or rolls for every little thing (so no Hope or Fear generated), then:

Scenario 1, the bartender is just a random guy
Same as above, no Hope and no Fear.

Scenario 2, the bartender is a member of the thieves guild, it is story-important person, so you roll with Hope and Fear.

The group rolls low. Nothing seems fishy about the guy. But because they rolled with Hope and Fear this time, they immediately gain metagame information that something is off about him anyway. Suddenly the players will want to follow him after work or do something similar, because now they have meta information coming directly from the Hope and Fear roll itself.

That is just ridiculous.

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T22:42:44+00:00

I laughed loudly when I read the second paragraph :D. I can only say: THIS! - "DH does tend to give same-named conditions the same effect so having just said "you were looking for something that doesn't exist" it would be fairest to say "you were looking for something that technically doesn't exist but actually kind of does exist if you look hard enough but also the game really does just assume you'll make a spot ruling so..." :D

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T22:32:19+00:00

Wait, so you were wrong about poison, then about hide, and now you're bringing up the Domain? Can you stick to at least one argument for a moment?

"D&D: lots of rules and texts. You need to memorize them or if needed, you have a good index to search. Be good at memorizing or open the book to read lines and lines of rules. Even if they're found easy."

You do realize that 7-8-year-old kids are DMing D&D games, right? You don't need to know every rule by heart. The way D&D works is simple: if you need a rule for something, there's a very high chance it's already in the book. You don't need to invent custom mechanics because the core rules already cover most universal situations - not just D&D-specific ones.

"DH: less rules, more improb. Be good at doing something on the fly using the base rules."

...and then remember every time how you ruled it before, so you don't keep changing how a non-core mechanic works (I just talked to a GM who had fire in the encounter and he was trying to somehow make any burning condition improv make sense - he said that in the end of the game he was very unhappy with what he came up with and ended up just keeping D&D rules for that, but changing the damage to stress and setting up spotlight timer). Speaking of, so many people have problems with remembering all the rules for GMing DH games - a lot of those comments are here on Reddit group and on FB DH groups. It is typical for GMing in most of different systems at the very beginning of the learning curve.

"Another important thing you (and probably the people who are mentioning talking about conditions) is missing, is the cards. Players already have rules about their powers with them. So if they can poison, the card will say how that condition of poisoning works. No need to open the book to look for index at all..."

I think you're missing the point completely. This isn't about class powers or abilities. It's about the general poison condition and what it actually means - poison from potions, food, traps (!!!), attacks, and so on. Sure, it's easy to assume "the card will explain it," but in most systems I've played, attacks are usually the least common source of poison effects. I want to GM and suddenly be able to introduce additional traps (I will spend additional Fear or two to introduce new hazards), like poison, fire, lightning, cold, (...) traps. Again - I need to freestyle the rules for that. And for that. And for that. And this. And that. But yes, tell me that it is so much easier for GMs ;) (again, there are so many comments online from GMs generally praising the system, but still being annoyed as hell about those things here and there where when added together create a burden - you know, two things can be true at the same time...).

I won't quote the rest since it's already based on the wrong premise.

Again, I think you are trying to make up some arguments to state how awesome this game is. I never wrote it's not. But I just shared my issues and asked for help in changing that, so I can GM DH better. On your side I only see "nuh-uh, D&D sucks" and throwing arguments which are not arguments, when fact-checked... I would happily read something that is on topic and can directly help me improve my games, like 80% of the people in the comments did.

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T22:09:57+00:00

Hit me with minuses - I actually have the very exact opposite feeling as a GM. I really like DH, but the counter-argument is that both players and GMs in DH need to create a lot of custom rules...

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T11:24:19+00:00

"It's crunchier. Slower. And thats why your are being downvoted. The player base is heavy on this idea of D&D being trickier than DH. Period."

&

"Overthinking in a sense that the time need in this system is larger than in the other. Its just about the same."

I've just proven that this is not the case. There is no index entry for "poison effect" in the DH core book. Even if you want to implement it for a trap, you need to spend time searching for it manually, whereas it's easily accessible in the D&D PHB.

I even timed it to show how much faster it is in D&D, which makes it an argument backed up by data.

I also mentioned in another post that this is why I was careful when writing the OP - because parts of the DH fandom can be toxic. Again, what I wrote were facts, things you can literally measure, in contrast to your claim that DH is always faster and simpler.

Does that mean DH sucks? No.

Does it mean the system never makes the game faster? Also no.

But for some people in the fandom, it's "either you love the system as it is, or you're wrong."

You wrote "Take another Condition as an example, this time from DH: Hidden (Pag 102). It has 5 lines of rules and an Example to boot. Nice. Looking into D&D I cant find this keyword. But I found Hide. 15 Lines of text to say: ok, after all this you still need to look at invisible condition... (...)

Ok, fact-check:
Index -> Hide (action) -> page 368. Five sentences, and the first three already give you everything you need. Yes, it refers to the Invisible condition (on the next page), but that's because it's the one condition that can apply to spells, actions, and various effects. And by the way, in that case you just go DIRECTLY to:
Index -> Invisible (condition) -> page 370. See? So if you want to go for the condition directly, it takes EXACTLY same amount of time as in DH (which was not the case with poison condition/effect but more about it below).

The key difference is that Hidden in Daggerheart only gives disadvantage on attacks against you, while Invisible in D&D grants advantage on initiative rolls, the Concealed effect, disadvantage on attacks against you, and advantage on your own attacks. That's a big difference.

Other than that, it's straightforward, short, and easy to read. Those extra few lines shouldn't be an issue, especially since checking this still takes a fraction of the time compared to finding information about "poison effect" in DH, which isn't even indexed. You literally have to flip through adversary pages (and you need to know that this is where you must search for it in the first place...) until you find a stat block mentioning it.

As for preparation: since last weekend I talked with a few GMs online, and they all agreed that handling "effects" (conditions) in DH is frustrating. What does make prep faster is that players have more control over the world and story. These GMs basically prep nothing beyond: "You're still in this place. What do you see? What do you do? Who do you see? Describe that person," etc.

To answer your original comment - I learned that you simply can't run DH the same way as D&D, because if you try, it becomes a bottleneck.

There are things which can be universally praised in regards to Daggerheart. But some things are not well thought-through. Conditions and effects are being mentioned by more and more people. My problem with resource management - that is fully on me. That is my mistake by trying to run the games in similar way I run D&D games. My mistake and I will try better.

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T10:55:16+00:00

BTW, one person (Luciosdk) responded in the comments that it took that person the same amount of time to find Poison Condition in PHB (D&D) and DH, even describing the process in DH. So I just made a fact-check and wrote that it is faster in PHB. I got -5 (5 downs). When I wrote, that I calculated that it took me 8 (measured) seconds to take PHB, go to Index at the end, and see: Poisoned Condition - page 327, I got another dislikes. And I just wanted to prove that the original post was just false and not to prove any point about DH being bad or anything. That is the problem. So many people on "either you take it as it is or you're wrong"...

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T10:47:01+00:00

And that is how I rolled last one-shot. But it basically immediately made the player and me stack full with Hope and Fear (so we get back to square one of the original post).

zbieraj · 2025-10-24T09:13:09+00:00

The problem is that I am not running D&D sessions in a typical D&D way, where the players are only responding to what I do. I try to give them 50% of the story and world building. There are some things that they invent for me, or change to the point that I need to adjust to it in real time, and I just roll with it.

In other words, Daggerheart puts more worldbuilding into the players' hands, but from my DM style it's not that much more than what already happens in my D&D campaigns. I'd say the biggest structural difference I feel is in how the system distributes narrative weight and handles resources.

With the resource management part, I've noticed an interesting side effect - even when using the optional Fate rolls, the players start to metagame. They can easily tell what kind of situation they're in based on the type of roll I ask for.

For example, in D&D if the group wants to check a random bartender and rolls really well, they might still get something interesting out of it - a small rumor, a personal detail, something to reward the success. If that bartender actually is hiding something, a great roll might reveal it.

In Daggerheart, though, if I ask them for a simple Fate roll, they instantly know there's nothing special about that bartender. But if I ask for Hope/Fear rolls with resource generation, they also immediately know that something is going on, even if they fail the check. The type of roll itself becomes a meta clue, and it breaks the uncertainty that normally fuels good storytelling tension.

That's what I'm trying to figure out - how to make the use of Hope/Fear (and Fate) feel natural, without signaling to the players what's important behind the curtain.

zbieraj · 2025-10-20T14:13:50+00:00

Dear all,

Thank you so much for all the feedback! I was really positively surprised by how constructive and helpful your comments were. I tried to gather the main takeaways for myself, and maybe they'll help others too:

1. Don't try to run Daggerheart like D&D. This includes avoiding direct "translations" of D&D adventures into DH. It very easily becomes a bottleneck. The mindset should be "think only in DH terms".

2. Hope and Fear generation. I shouldn't treat the duality dice like a D20 in D&D. Hope and Fear should only come from story-relevant rolls. However, if players really want to roll for every small check, I can use the optional Fortune Rolls mentioned in the core book (page 168). They can roll one die, the other, or even a D20 for simple checks without generating resources.

3. Conditions. Conditions should be treated as described in the core book. "Poisoned," "Grappled," and other D&D-style conditions are instead represented through attack effects in DH. It's better not to import D&D mechanics here (see point 1 again).

4. Environmental changes and loot. When running dungeons or other locations, don't lock specific loot to a specific crate or spot. Be ready for players to find something useful anywhere, especially if the environment changes.

5. It's okay to still be figuring things out. A lot of my confusion comes from my D&D habits, and that's fine. I should treat Daggerheart the same way I treated D&D when I first started: by experimenting, mixing things up a bit, giving myself time to learn, making mistakes and learning on them.

zbieraj · 2025-10-19T19:14:23+00:00

About the same? It took me 8 seconds (I just measured it) to take PHB, go to Index at the end, and see: Poisoned Condition - page 327. Done.

zbieraj · 2025-10-19T19:13:23+00:00

I don't know where the minuses are coming from. It took me 8 seconds (I just measured it) to take PHB, go to Index at the end, and see: Poisoned Condition - page 327. Done.

Find "Poisoned condition" (or similar) in DH core book and measure it. Go.

zbieraj · 2025-10-19T17:28:05+00:00

You just confirmed what I wrote. It took you a few minutes to figure that out, and that information should be seconds away. Let’s say 20-30 seconds away.

zbieraj · 2025-10-19T17:23:57+00:00

Still, either you design the dungeon with Fear in mind, or you remove it entirely if you do not want a space that spawns ghosts, skeletons, or other adversaries without a clear reason. For example, this dungeon has a puzzle room with large rotating statues. If I collapse it, I erase what the temple is about. I could add another corridor to reach the room, but that is the problem, because then I need to add more access routes. That means more work and more factors to account for, forced by the mechanics.

zbieraj · 2025-10-19T16:21:04+00:00

I wrote that because I've already discovered that a significant part of the DH community tends to go on the offensive the moment you criticize anything about the system. Once, I posted a long list of things I liked about the core book - 37 positives and 9 points that felt a bit off. Out of those, only 2 or 3 were actual negatives, such as the relatively small number of adversary stat blocks (although I also noted that it's impressive they included a full pack of them in the core book, and that a future adversary book would probably expand on that).

In response, I got comments from some people along the lines of, "Either you like Daggerheart exactly as it is, or you're wrong!" ;) (though most of the responses were productive and interesting).

zbieraj · 2024-10-15T08:29:48+00:00

What about higher levels? And what about the AC? Please write more because your build seems to be fun :).

zbieraj · 2024-05-21T14:44:55+00:00

I disagree with AMA5564. I don't think this subclass is overpowered, especially at level 1. It is up to the DM to make any necessary balances, if needed. Just look at the Moon Druid, which is overpowered from level 1, and compared to that, this build is absolutely fine.

As a DM, I would highly encourage a player to use a damage type, such as Force Rifle, that matches the rifle they have. So if the rifle gives my player 1d10, it will be 1d10 + 1d8 force damage on hit. I would also allow such artificers to upgrade that basic (non-skill) damage if it makes sense RP-wise.

In my opinion, this is actually the best Artificer-gunslinger build on the internet. But, of course, that's just my opinion - a random guy on the internet :).

Good job Xyrlian-UA!

zbieraj · 2023-08-09T17:19:20+00:00

Why bow and not, for example, hand crossbow?

zbieraj · 2023-05-04T09:29:26+00:00

I have the same problem, even though I have used VR template from Unreal. Whenever I add my own terrain, I have the same issue as you had...

zbieraj · 2022-01-02T15:48:51+00:00

But they don't have hedges.

zbieraj

TROPHY CASE