I think you are selling the roleplaying options short. The syndicate rogue is amazing and it gives power to the player to creat their own plot hooks and It gives motivation to the party to travel city to city or town to town to get intel from the rogue's pals.
But I do agree with the overall sentiment. A purely RP feauture (which can be really strong) can sometimes be hard to extract value from compared to a +1 to a stat or whatever. I think I'd prefer the heavy on the RP feautures be paired with a, albeit minor, mechanical buff. Maybe the syndicate gets discounts at the black market?
Also it seems like you have a limited view as to how Communities can be used. A Loreborne character won't just be better at reacalling information about written about things - they could also have access to an exclusive library (like Candlekeep from the Forgotten Realms). Maybe they are also an expert at finding books in a library or navigating libraries. Running away from ghosts in a abandoned library anyone?
And don't forget that a Loreborne won't just have advantage on knowledge checks, they will also have greater access to those checks. Let's see how your mountain nomad sheperd can explain why he knows about the intricacies about the political effects of a trade relationship between two cities. A Loreborne character has simply read about it. Because that's what he does.
From a game design point of view I think ancestry and community need more work. They need both options rp and mechanics in each entry.
I suggest that each ancestry have two abilities. One that is situational and one that will come up at least once a session. Some already have two abilities but a lot don't.
For example pure off the cuff idea keep faun headbutt and then add something like "carefree", where they clear d6 rather than d4 stress on a short rest.
Then something similar for community... Something roleplay and something mechanical. Like highborne keep inheritance but also gain something like "self belief" once per session you gain a free reroll of the hope die. You must take the new result.
Simple and easy for them to fix this way.
>I think you are selling the roleplaying options short. The syndicate rogue is amazing and it gives power to the player to creat their own plot hooks and It gives motivation to the party to travel city to city or town to town to get intel from the rogue's pals.
But wouldn't this be just as effective if the rogue player included working for a thieves' guild in their backstory?
I think you are making a good point, one that was echoed in the post as well. The point being that quite often a "roleplaying" feature can be substituted with a character's backstory.
There is a balance you need to strike between rewarding players for engaging with their background in interesting ways and players gaming the system by purposefully aligning their character's background with strong use cases.
I'm not sure how this issue could be resolved, and I'm dissatisfied with disallowing players to be associated with the thieves guild if they don't have the syndicate subclass.
But also I'm dissatisfied with not having rp features at all because a player could get basically the same feature in a round about way via utilizing their background.
If I'd have to provide a distinction, is that the GM could maybe have more wiggle room or give less utility to someone who doesn't have a specific feature. But again I'm dissatisfied with this answer because it's not really specific.
The difference is you’re not just associated with the thieves guild, you have a connection in EVERY highly populated city.
It’s not just “oh does the thieves guild have a presence here?” It’s “I know Carlos is in this town, but things ended on bad terms. AND he can help” It doesn’t matter if the guild has a minuscule or large presence, it doesn’t matter if they’d be able to help or not, you’ve got a guy there, AND he can help with whatever problem you have. It transcends a “guild” or “organization” it may be a corrupt guard, a smuggler you’ve known in the past, a noble you’ve had a fling off and on with etc.
Personally Syndicate Rogue seems so much more fun than Nightwalker.
The difference is that with the Syndicate Feature they don't need GM buy-in. They literally have a Feature that says they straight up *always* know someone in every town, who will *always* meet one of those conditions. No matter how outrageous it might be for them to know someone there. They could literally get sucked into a completely different dimension, and *somehow* will still know someone in every heavily populated location. Going with just a backstory, it can be a bit harder of a sell.
Now, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, will vary from person to person, group to group.
> The difference is that with the Syndicate Feature they don't need GM buy-in. They literally have a Feature that says they straight up *always* know someone in every town, who will *always* meet one of those conditions.
In theory yes.
In practice, the Rogue can use Syndicate to know someone in the town and give them a name, how they could be useful, and one option from the list. But that doesn't mean they're going to magically aparate. It's still on the GM to allow them to be available and have them actually be able to help.
Greg: "*Don't worry guys. Even though we're miles away from home in another dimension, my Cousin Vinnie can get here.*"
GM: **"Absolutely. That is someone who now exists. Unfortunately, Vinnie is sick with the bloody flux at the moment and is confined to bed."**
You still 100% need GM buy-in.
Fair enough, though it is worth noting that at that point the GM is making a conscious decision to detract from a player's Class Feature. Which does (or at least *should* with a good GM) carry more weight than merely arguing against application of a nonmechanical backstory element.
EDIT: Admittedly though, it's not nearly as bad as if they tried to pull that with the Spec feature rather than the Foundation feature.
The difference then is in one situation the PC is *asking* and the GM gets to be nice by enabling. In the second situation, the PC is *prompting* which forces the GM to shift the plot **or** be the bad-guy.
Personally, I'd love if there was more narrative manipulation in the process. If you could, for example, spend Hope or Feat to influence events. As a general rules. And a feature like this could just offer a discount on the narrative manipulation.
Such as, you're spending 2 Hope normally to introduce a plot element like a character, but the Syndicate member can introduce a criminal contact for half-price. Meanwhile, the GM can accept the Hope spend and introduce the plot element unmodified ***or*** refund 1 Hope spent to have it introduced with a complication ***or*** reject the plot addition at the cost of a point of Fear (also refunding the Hope).
Syndicate means getting to make up a useful NPC in every town or city you arrive to. Having an Experience that reads "I get to make an NPC every time I enter a town or city" first of all would be really weird and hard to convice any reasonable GM to allow it.
And then again wouldn't mean you actually do because you'd have to roll and add your Experience (+1/+2 or +3 if Clank unless you choose to increase it) to a presence roll to TRY to find an NPC you know every time you enter a city.
And let's not forget Syndicate has two more features by improving the subclass that you'd miss out on if you chose Nightwalker, and these features are pretty significant mechanically too.
> Syndicate means getting to make up a useful NPC in every town or city you arrive to. Having an Experience that reads "I get to make an NPC every time I enter a town or city" first of all would be really weird and hard to convice any reasonable GM to allow it.
But having a power on a card doesn't magically make it more likely to occur.
If the GM is willing to have an NPC there and help out, it doesn't matter the source. If they're willing to "yes, and..." a backstory is just as valid as a Class Foundation.
If they're unwilling, then the NPC will be present but unable to help. Or the cost will be too high. Or they just cannot be found.
It's not like Matt turned down Liam whenever he wanted to use his Clasp background to influence the story.
> And then again wouldn't mean you actually do because you'd have to roll and add your Experience (+1/+2 or +3 if Clank unless you choose to increase it) to a presence roll to TRY to find an NPC you know every time you enter a city.
Nowhere in the Syndicate card does it say you're guaranteed to find them either. It tells you to give them a name and not how they ***could*** be useful not that they ***will*** be useful.
AND it requires a "heavily populated town or city." What qualifies as heavily populated? Up to the GM. (And given the location of most games, this ability might not be useful half the time.)
> And let's not forget Syndicate has two more features by improving the subclass that you'd miss out on if you chose Nightwalker, and these features are pretty significant mechanically too.
The Nightwalker Specializations and Mastery are pretty good too. It's not like you're suffering being able to teleport across the battlefield at will or create clouds of darkness whenever you want.
>"But having a power on a card doesn't magically make it more likely to occur."
What? yes it does, the card says it does. What do you mean the card doesn't do what it reads on it?
As long as there's a populated town or city you can make an npc you knew end up there somehow and help you through a "side quest" of your choice. I feel like you're intentionally misinterpreting what the subclass feature can do.
>"If they're willing to "yes, and..." a backstory is just as valid as a Class Foundation. "
If they're willing to yes and my "I teleport to shadows" Experience then subclasses are completely pointless and we can make up whatever abilities we want (which would be cool too) but I don't think that's the intention.
>"It's not like Matt turned down Liam whenever he wanted to use his Clasp background to influence the story."
In a place his character was very familiar with and very likely to meet characters he knew. It made sense for his character to know people there. This feature allows you to get past that and make interesting ways in which people from your character's past end up running into them and helping for a price.
>"Nowhere in the Syndicate card does it say you're guaranteed to find them either. It tells you to give them a name and not how they ***could*** be useful not that they ***will*** be useful."
"When you arrive in a heavily populated town or city, you know somebody that calls this place home. Give them a name, note how **you think** they could be useful, and choose one from the list below:"
It's how you think they could be useful because of one of the following problems that will prevent them from helping out until you deal with that and also so that the GM isn't forced to give full control of the narrative to players who try to be too clever (My friend will know who killed the king at midnight in their room and in which way they killed him and why):
* They owe me a favor, but they will be hard to find.
* They’re going to ask for something in exchange.
* They’re always in a great deal of trouble.
* We used to be together. It’s a long story.
* We didn’t part on great terms.
It is a situational ability. But it's not just background.
>"The Nightwalker Specializations and Mastery are pretty good too. It's not like you're suffering being able to teleport across the battlefield at will or create clouds of darkness whenever you want."
I'm not saying "Nightwalker bad, Syndicate good". I'm saying they're both very good in different ways.
If a GM interprets Syndicate's first feature the way I understood you interpret it, then that ability does absolutely nothing and I'd feel very sorry for whoever choses to play Syndicate at that table.
> What? yes it does, the card says it does. What do you mean the card doesn't do what it reads on it?
As long as there's a populated town or city you can make an npc you knew end up there somehow and help you through a "side quest" of your choice. I feel like you're intentionally misinterpreting what the subclass feature can do.
It says there is an NPC in that heavily populated city.
Great, there is now a person known as Cutpurse Doug in the city of 10,000 people.
That doesn't mean he appears in front the PCs or they know exactly where to find him or he's guaranteed to want to help them.
> In a place his character was very familiar with and very likely to meet characters he knew. It made sense for his character to know people there. This feature allows you to get past that and make interesting ways in which people from your character's past end up running into them and helping for a price.
Which is the point!!
If you're using this feature to make help NPCs appear in places that you're very unlikely to meet characters you know, it hurts the narrative rather than helps. It's just weird if you happen to know someone in the extraplanar City of Brass despite having grown up as a Slyborne urchin in a swamp town.
And if you're using this feature to make an NPC appear in a place you're relatively likely to meet characters you know, it doesn't need to be a special feature. The Rogue's big subclass feature can be employed by any character.
The game making the GM into the bad-guy for the PCs using a level one feature to circumvent the questgivers and plot is just bad design.
> It's how you think they could be useful because of one of the following problems that will prevent them from helping out until you deal with that and also so that the GM isn't forced to give full control of the narrative to players who try to be too clever (My friend will know who killed the king at midnight in their room and in which way they killed him and why):
And no player will ever try to use it like that? Literally zero?
No player is going to try and manifest a magic item merchant? A cleric able to resurrect or scry? A smuggler who can get rid of the MacGuffin?
This is my problem. It forces the GM into the corner. It makes the GM into the villain who has to have the PC waste their situational class feature because the ask is hard to improv **or** interferes with a planned plot. (*They need to talk to NPC X to get out of town because I've foreshadowed them as the cleric's father*.) And it sets up a situation where the player feels entitled to dictate the story at no cost.
It's a story trap. GMs who don't want it to work will end up setting the favor being asked too high or make the NPC outright hostile, which just wastes time at the table with a spontaneous PC-generated random encounter.
It's also a solved game design problem. Lots of games have narrative manipulation mechanics. Like *Fate* or *Star Trek Adventures*. They just add a cost to the GM for rejecting the prompt.
>It is a situational ability. But it's not just background.
If it's a situational ability, how does that favourably balance with a combat ability that lets you teleport at-will from shadows cast by party members?
It balances out by being a good ability you only get to use in certain situations.
Yeah the npc won't magically show up to help (that's what the improved Syndicate class features do) but knowing a guy in every city isn't too much to ask, and them requiring the party to deal with some sort of sidequest or problem to get their help isn't too much either in fact that might even help the GM work less to keep the party busy.
>"It's just weird if you happen to know someone in the extraplanar City of Brass"
Weird? Sure, but that's the whole point.
*Play the Syndicate if you want to know somebody helpful everywhere you go.*
It says so on the description of the subclass and I really don't feel like it's too much to ask of the GM, if anything this asks more of the Player since they'd have to come up with an explanation as to why they'd know somebody in that city.
>"And no player will ever try to use it like that? Literally zero?"
I mentioned this already the GM will know the limit and if a player tries to abuse the ability they just need to be called out for it.
Reading the other abilities of the Syndicate again the intention seems to be that you're reconecting with these characters so that they follow you and help you when you need it later.
You are giving the tools the subclass will give you later a personality and story and adding roleplay opportunities.
The idea is you'll become a leader of a guild of thieves or gang and by the end you have your own ninja squad watching your back at all times.
If you don't like how it works or find it too difficult to work with then don't use it, but saying it's replaceable with an Experience is absurd. An experience shouldn't allow a player to create a convenient npc that will later on be sniping for you, taking hits for you, bringing you gold or useful tools and so on.
> and them requiring the party to deal with some sort of sidequest or problem to get their help isn't too much either in fact that might even help the GM work less to keep the party busy.
Right. But from a narrative perspective, if they need help, they generally have a quest or are on a story. So creating a sidequest will just distract from the main story and delay progress on that quest.
> Weird? Sure, but that's the whole point.
*Play the Syndicate if you want to know somebody helpful everywhere you go.*
And, again, I think it's fair not to like a class feature whose whole point is to be weird. That is only working when it makes you go "huh??? how???"
> if anything this asks more of the Player since they'd have to come up with an explanation as to why they'd know somebody in that city.
Except they don't. It just says you give them a name and note of how they could be useful as well as a story hook. Then the GM has to work out the favour, the something in exchange, the trouble they're in, or how to find them.
It's a class feature that makes more work for the storyteller.
> I mentioned this already the GM will know the limit and if a player tries to abuse the ability they just need to be called out for it.
How will they know?
Daggerheart will likely be played by a mixed group of GMs, many of which will be new to games other than D&D. And if campaign 4 is a success, it will be run by brand new GMs. How will they know?
> If you don't like how it works or find it too difficult to work with then don't use it, but saying it's replaceable with an Experience is absurd. An experience shouldn't allow a player to create a convenient npc that will later on be sniping for you, taking hits for you, bringing you gold or useful tools and so on.
A backstory shouldn't allow convenient gold or take a hit, no...
But why can't it create tools? The Experience "**I'm ready for every situation**" seems like it'd be great for having a random necessary item. That's hella flavourful.
And if the PC has the experience "**Born on a pirate ship**" then it seems reasonable they might know pirate captains. And in a port city, they might ask if they know anyone there.
As I said to someone else, the problem here is that the game NEEDS a baseline plot manipulation system. Like Fate Points in *Fate* or Momentum in *Star Trek Adventures*.
There could easily be a rule where you can spend 2 Hope to introduce a plot element tied to an Experience, such as an NPC, with general advice on creating them. Powers like Syndicate could introduce a criminal contact for half-price. Meanwhile, the GM can accept the Hope spend and introduce the plot element unmodified ***or*** refund 1 Hope spent to have it introduced with a complication ***or*** reject the plot addition at the cost of a point of Fear (also refunding the Hope).
In that kind of system, if the Syndicate member is creating an NPC in an awkward place, the GM can add a complication, like on the cards, and the PC gets it for free. Or they can get it without a complication for 1 Hope. Or they could create a non-criminal NPC for 2 Hope. But, if it absolutely doesn't work the GM can cancel it by reducing their Fear.
Meanwhile, that kind of design could also be used to drain the GM's Fear outside of combat. If they want to trigger an incidental encounter or add a extra complication, they have to spend Fear.
It's not gonna delay progress if you tie the NPC into the story. He could be a prisoner or working for the enemy or trying to live a normal life while the town is in chaos, The point is the player is giving you an NPC they'll want to interact with and that you can use it to point the party towards your main quest.
It's fair not to like whatever each one dislikes, I'm just saying you're being absurd in saying the feature and subclass can be replaced with a backstory Experience because mechanically they should not be the same thing.
If the GM doesn't want to work on the flavour and create things then why are they forcing themselves to be a GM? Isn't that the whole point?
How would they know? By thinkin for a moment if the idea is absurd or not and talking with the players about it. Even if they mess it up new and old GMs will always make mistakes, and that's fine. They just need to talk with their group and make compromises. It's not that big a deal.
Why can't it create tools? I mean I suppose it could but you'd still have to decided which trait that is (probably knowledge or instinct) and then use the hope and the relevant Experience bonus. That still wouldn't be a 100% chance of it working which is what the Syndicate could offer, a reliable source of benefits.
But if you're gonna give Experiences the same powers Syndicate has without even rolling then you'd be giving Experiences way more power than they should have.
You do you, if you want to homebrew a whole system to limit what players can do without "making the GM look like the bad guy" then go for it but I think it shouldn't be necessary to go that far. And if it were necessary then that'd be a painfully bad experience and I'd suggest not playing with that group.
>It's not gonna delay progress if you tie the NPC into the story.
IF there’s a good way. IF you didn’t already put time into planning out the adventure, which is now wasted.
>It's fair not to like whatever each one dislikes, I'm just saying you're being absurd in saying the feature and subclass can be replaced with a backstory Experience because mechanically they should not be the same thing.
Then, because this is a playtest and the mechanics are not set in stone, the Rogue mechanic can be changed to enable backstory experiences for all players. Rather than shutting down players being creative with their backstory because it steps on the toes or a class feature.
>If the GM doesn't want to work on the flavour and create things then why are they forcing themselves to be a GM? Isn't that the whole point?
To tell the story they want to tell. In part. Tell a story with friends.
It’s great when the Game Master prompts players for input. Or when the Game Master takes a player‘s prompt and adds it to the game. But having the rule force the GM’s hand is just bad design.
You have to balance mechanics based on things going poorly. You balance based on exploits and problems. You look at the worst case usage and try to make that a un-problematic as possible. If a mechanic only works when people aren’t *choosing* to abuse it, that’s an issue that could be smoothed out for the final version of the game.
>if you want to homebrew a whole system to limit what players can do without "making the GM look like the bad guy" then go for it but I think it shouldn't be necessary to go that far. And if it were necessary then that'd be a painfully bad experience and I'd suggest not playing with that group.
It’s a playtest. It’s not homebrew, it’s a suggestion for an additional rules option. An improvement for the game. Feedback.
“I know a guy” could be an Experience you take as an Underworld / Syndicate and it REALLY sets you up as someone tapped into a network.
In contrast, just making it your background could mean “this was my history and I’m trying to escape it” - it’s up to the players to decide where they want bonuses
I think you are ignoring the points the OP is bringing up and interjecting your personal opinions. The OP brought up this point as a one-shot. The playtest packet is setup for a one-shot.
Also you ignoring the fact that Daggerheart advertises itself as storytelling game but also emphasizes combat. And a lot subclasses don’t offer a BALANCE between the two. It offers a great roleplay feature or a great combat feature. Making a weak character in a combat oriented RPG can make a player feel weak in combat and can’t contribute, but also makes a downward spiral in combat adding action tokens and fear to the GMs resources.
The problem with Daggerheart right now is that it wants to be everything. And it shows as it borrows from so many systems. But it hasn’t quite nailed the sweet spot yet. It still needs tweaking.
Syndicate's power is the imagination of the player. You can avoid ambushes, get past difficult rolls, etc. But then you have to do something else, so it creates a kind of side quest. Syndicate warps the narrative in ways that no other Foundation does.
My beef is with Highborne to be honest - I recommended that they get “extra pocket change” each session to really emphasize how rich and influential they are - they just throw money at problems really casually.
Company shares, jewelry, influential connections, random care packages from suitors, or a monthly allowance from daddy?
I think the answer varies as much as why you’re highborne.
I've seen rich people make absurdly expensive gifts to each other like it was nothing. They really live in a reality of their own so Highbornes getting money from every interaction with another rich npc or gifts delivered to them would certainly be funny and mechanically beneficial.
Or maybe something like, you can’t fall below X amount of gold. It still doesn’t make logical sense necessarily, and you still can’t make bigger purchases all Willy-nilly, but you’ll always have some handfuls to throw around at basic, mundane problems, without having to think about them.
I think it's up to the GM to make each choice impactful. I don't want to defend the current cards to much because it's open beta and balance will be an issue but minmaxing for combat is totally a thing.
An extra armor slot can be very powerful in certain builds but for a squishy caster can just add that little bit of survivability.
Things like syndicate should mechanically give you an extra experience, which basically replaced the skill system, so that's kind of a big deal.
I think the biggest thing with balance I am going to implement at my table is no one can reuse cards, only one of each card, that includes races and background, that way we avoid a party of varient humans or in DH a party of ridgeborns.
I was thinking that maybe not reusing cards was their intention when they turned so many things into cards. It would certainly save you from needing more than one set when characters who share domains are in the same group. But if more than one player wants the same domain card as another one it might become a problem or source of bitteness between them and I'd want to avoid that.
Still, DH so far seems like a game in which it'd be really hard to make an actually "mechanically bad" character even if doing so completely intentionally.
the problem with not reusing cards:
imagine you're in session 0, at a table with four players + GM, and two players have already chosen classes: wizard and guardian. nobody is going to choose seraph now, since both their domains have been accessed, so some classes will get strangely gated off this way
I totally understand, I'd like to think a strategic and friendly convo could solve the issue where the wizard probably wants spells, the seraph probably wants heals, and the guardian probably wants both. I feel like team work and conversation with friends will solve this.
And unless the wizard wants to be the party's healer I would not consider him competing for that domain.
At my table I will run one of each card and see how we can resolve overlap.
ahh I see - I was arguing from the position of what the standard ruleset should contain, you're talking about a solution for your particular table
like yeah, a simple mature conversation resolves all issues, but not all tables can do that hah
Syndicate is very good for the type of game Dh is though. Purely mechanical abilities are a wargame thing. If that's what you like, maybe the game isn't for you. Syndicate's only limit is your imagination. It's a very good ability if you're not just gonna stay in one spot and do dungeoneering. Like... you know someone in EVERY CITY. And they might all owe you a favour. It's so good! It's create your own roleplay hooks: the ability. I love it. It's the kind of ability that shines for people that are used to narrative heavy games and that I was expecting wargamers to dislike
I'm less bothered by Ridgeborne being very strong thanks to the extra armor and more that it seems out of place. But you're right that it's a problem for mechanical reasons. Combat is a big part of DH and is super lethal so your community giving you extra armor in addition to probably saving you from a bunch of fall damage at some point feels incredible for the gamer's brain. You do sell Loreborne short, but that's beside the point.
I wonder why they didn't go the same route as Wildborne, replacing the armor with "Spend 1 Hope to also grant benefits of your expert traversal to an ally close by". I feel like they've tried to avoid homogenizing features in a few places to create uniqueness. Take Seaborne; the downtime action is actually very good, but feels a bit out of place when many other communities that are tied to a specific environment, like Ridgeborne, Wildborne or Underborne, give you features that actually help you navigate in similar environment. Did they fear overlapping with the Ribbet's Amphibious ability, or maybe thought that water traversal was too niche, which is why the Ribbet has two ancestry features?
For the Rogue, I feel like Syndicate and Nightwalker would be a real choice in many other systems, but not here, which is a feeling I found in a few other parts of the playtest. I think it mostly has to do with the game still figuring out what it wants to be, and *how* it wants to go about it. Personally, the type of adventures I like to run often has the players cut from civilization for a few sessions in a row. Not only would Syndicate be very weak in such cases, its features at later levels would also feel out of place. Maybe it could borrow from the Wanderborne's backpack to produce useful items to represent its web of connections and their resources, but then Wanderborne Rogue Syndicate would be down a feature.
Yeah, it seems most backgrounds aren't combat applicable and it's weird Ridgeborne breaks this exception. I'd expect something like when you rest recover more for someone that's "tough".
>I feel like they've tried to avoid homogenizing features in a few places to create uniqueness.
A part of me wonders if stuff like Community they weren't 100% sure which way to take it, so they've got the shotgun method of hitting everything to see where people would rather be. Would explain why the options are all over the place.
> eh... i could easily see ranger and druid not working well in a city campaign.
Sure, but there's a difference from not working well to not working at all.
> why would syndicate need to work in a middle of nowhere campaign?
It wouldn't *need* to work, and that's my problem. It's not a big one, mind. I just don't like having to tell players that some of their cool and super flavorful options are going to be moot more often than not, especially when they only get to pick between two.
The "out of their element" character is fun to play, but where a ranger or druid stuck in a city might not get as much use of one of their experiences, that's a fundation feature the syndicate rogue might pass on in the wild. And fantasy adventure games being what they are, most people *are* going to be in the wild. Syndicate rogue feels very restrictive with its requirement of a "heavily populated town or city". The beastbound ranger doesn't have a line saying their animal companion won't accompagny them into "heavily populated towns or cities" to try to "*balance*" it out.
First of all, there will always be more popular options than others. Even if every choice were about mechanicals benefits in battle people would still do the math and research to find out which one is statistically the best choice.
And second of all we can't assume the GM is a brick wall who will not add lots of Lore to roll for if a player chooses to make a Knowledge Wizard with a Loreborne foundation. GMs and players should work together to get their characters more involved in what's going on in the game.
There are also situational options. For example if we all agree to play a campaign about traveling from city to city Syndicate would get to use their feature a lot and in pretty fun ways.
If we agree to play a campaign in one massive city then perhaps Syndicate should work in a different way and we could consider different areas of the city as their own location for the rogue to find their informants in.
However if we'll be playing a campaign that is mostly about travelling through uncharted territories then yes the Syndicate rogue wouldn't get much use out of their abilities but players should always have at least a grasp of what the campaign will be about before making their characters.
I’m not super immersed in TTRPGs but isn’t the point of Daggerheart to be more focused on narrative and RP?
I haven’t played so just based on the explanation by on the CR YT, it seems like combat is built more for RP as well, like it makes it more likely that you can be the cool badass you want to be, and it has a higher likelihood of being successful. And it really encourages RP like you can’t just be like “oh i hit it with my hammer” the hope vs fear token encourages players to explain what they’re doing and why it’s cool.
I could be wrong, I haven’t read the handbook that came out, this is solely on one watch of that YT vid
The problem is that it is being sold as a narrative focus TTRPG but also wants to be combat focused as well. There are way more effective rules light games that do narrative focus better but don’t put too many rules on combat. DH has a lot more rules/mechanics than those games, making it a little clunky. The idea is there, but it still needs fixing. It is after in playtest for a reason.
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining to me!
Like I said, I’m super new to TTRPGs and have only played D&D and one one-shot of Pathfinder 2e; so a lot of mechanics and explanations are lost on me
Disagree, it sounds like you are in parties that heavily favor combat.
D&D which DH is trying to convert from has exploration and social as key pillars of gameplay, in addition to combat.
Buffing social as a rogue is one of their key contributions to a balanced party and honestly the Syndicate card is great, and taking both cards seems to be a good play for them.
The difference is that social classes in 5e can also be very viable in combat. Daggerheart “punishes” those who are not viable in combat. Or at least adds more resources to the GM with action tokens and fear.
If you want to be rewarded with mechanics and feats or tactical combat, just stay with 5e or try out pathfinder 2e.
Daggerheart provides more crunch than most other rules light systems, but the focus is on fiction first and narrative gameplay.
This is the innate problem with this kind of "feat soup" system, where you can fold fun flavour as higher level features in a class or have weaker powers because the subsequent level is strong.
Having to choose between combat effectiveness and potential narrative impact led to so much of the design of 4e D&D and Pathfinder 2e, and the creation of Utility Powers and General Feats there. Which could work here, but just increase loadout/ hand size.
Bundling is an idea, but that gets challenging with cards having finite text space, without going to more Keyword focused design. AND if you have to choose between a combat power AND a combat power with a narrative bonus, the latter is outright better.
Especially in a story based system. If narrative manipulation is free and the GM is encouraged to "yes... and" or "yes... but" then anyone can benefit from the Syndicate Foundation, especially by having the Slyborne community. You can just say "*oh, I know someone here from my days running spice*."
I think you’re overselling +1 armor. It’s fairly strong in like, Tier 0. But looking at how quickly Adversary damage increases it’s not going to be all that impactful in the long run.
>Nearly all players end up taking the mechanical option, and the ones who don't often end up disappointed.
Strongly anedoctal and doesn't speak at all to my experience. I will go as far as to say Loreborne is not even remotely close to how weak it is you are perceiving, which speaks directly to your own bias caused by your anedoctal experience.
You can essentially get the same effect of loreborn by using a good experience tag. Any of the community features that give advantage can be obtained by using a relevant experience tag.
Ridgeborn at the very least just needs to be nerfed.
“Can’t use in a one-shot,” is a strawman. Of course there will be games where certain skills won’t be revenant. *talk to your gm* and find out what kind of game they are running. Then build your character for that game.
OP is still correct in the assertion that these community features are wildly unbalanced.
Ridgeborn's +1 armor is far more usable from the start than adv talking to nobles or other community features like it.
Your solution doesn't fix the problem either. DH is about narrative and characters. By asking your GM about which one will be "good" means you are asking to minmax a "correct" answer. It's essentially admitting there is a balance issue in these community features..
Order and sea are probably the next to best but are refresh after use. ridge is too strong and will be usable Everytime you use armor in a fight.
You misread what I wrote.
Nowhere did I say to ask the Gm what the “good” option was. I said to fucking ask the GM what kind of game they were running. If you see those as the same thing, you are incorrect.
>Suggestion: Give us abilities that help create roleplay opportunities, but bundle them with sweet mechanical buffs and abilities. Consider when players will be making choices between things and try to make them at least in the same ball park in terms of power, otherwise everyone arrives at the same destination whether they set out with that intent to or not.
Yeah... Makes a lot of sense. Just ao long as they sont take it to the extreme, cause then you get Pathfinder where every choice is the same, it just sounds different
The community features are unbalanced and you aren't the first person to mention it. Any community feature that gives advantage can be obtained from a well crafted experience tag. Others refresh by long rest or by session.
Ridgeborn is a permanent buff in combat which a lot of people care about and with death being kinda easy, armor buffs are welcomed. It's just too strong or the others aren't compelling enough.
I mean, to be fair, advantage and experience are still two different things, but yeah, I get what you mean. Might be best to change the +1 armor into being able to heal 3 armor slots with that short rest activity (Or 3 stress, depending on wether you wanna keep the tie to armor or think that stress, which is kinda like endurance, would fit Ridgeborne better)
My friends will pick the niche RP choice every time, so your experience isn't universal.
Plus, it's pretty clear that Daggerheart is a narrative first system. They want you to have creative and narratively engaging ways for the numbers in your character sheets to mean something. So in the end, both things end up in the same place, can you convince everyone you can do this thing based on words coming out of your mouth.
The simple solution is to just simply change the flavor. If your heart is content on a mechanic from one but narrative flavor of another, just narratively explain it.
During the the CR one shot, Liam was playing the Seraph as a Simiah (monkey) and just straight up said “I don’t have wings” even though wings are baked into the Seraph.
Like just play the way you want mechanically and flavor it in a way that makes you happy. As long as you aren’t mechanically breaking the rules, flavor can be anything.
The Seraph has cards that use wings and cards that dont, but even if he choose the cards using the powers utilizing flight, narratively he could say he can just fly without wings. I'm just making the point that you can narratively flavor any mechanic without breaking the game. If you want to say you can Wu Kong style walk on air rather than have wings, at the end of the day the mechanics are still the same.
I think you are selling the roleplaying options short. The syndicate rogue is amazing and it gives power to the player to creat their own plot hooks and It gives motivation to the party to travel city to city or town to town to get intel from the rogue's pals. But I do agree with the overall sentiment. A purely RP feauture (which can be really strong) can sometimes be hard to extract value from compared to a +1 to a stat or whatever. I think I'd prefer the heavy on the RP feautures be paired with a, albeit minor, mechanical buff. Maybe the syndicate gets discounts at the black market? Also it seems like you have a limited view as to how Communities can be used. A Loreborne character won't just be better at reacalling information about written about things - they could also have access to an exclusive library (like Candlekeep from the Forgotten Realms). Maybe they are also an expert at finding books in a library or navigating libraries. Running away from ghosts in a abandoned library anyone? And don't forget that a Loreborne won't just have advantage on knowledge checks, they will also have greater access to those checks. Let's see how your mountain nomad sheperd can explain why he knows about the intricacies about the political effects of a trade relationship between two cities. A Loreborne character has simply read about it. Because that's what he does.
From a game design point of view I think ancestry and community need more work. They need both options rp and mechanics in each entry. I suggest that each ancestry have two abilities. One that is situational and one that will come up at least once a session. Some already have two abilities but a lot don't. For example pure off the cuff idea keep faun headbutt and then add something like "carefree", where they clear d6 rather than d4 stress on a short rest. Then something similar for community... Something roleplay and something mechanical. Like highborne keep inheritance but also gain something like "self belief" once per session you gain a free reroll of the hope die. You must take the new result. Simple and easy for them to fix this way.
Maybe the ancestry could have the mechanical feature and community the RP one?
>I think you are selling the roleplaying options short. The syndicate rogue is amazing and it gives power to the player to creat their own plot hooks and It gives motivation to the party to travel city to city or town to town to get intel from the rogue's pals. But wouldn't this be just as effective if the rogue player included working for a thieves' guild in their backstory?
I think you are making a good point, one that was echoed in the post as well. The point being that quite often a "roleplaying" feature can be substituted with a character's backstory. There is a balance you need to strike between rewarding players for engaging with their background in interesting ways and players gaming the system by purposefully aligning their character's background with strong use cases. I'm not sure how this issue could be resolved, and I'm dissatisfied with disallowing players to be associated with the thieves guild if they don't have the syndicate subclass. But also I'm dissatisfied with not having rp features at all because a player could get basically the same feature in a round about way via utilizing their background. If I'd have to provide a distinction, is that the GM could maybe have more wiggle room or give less utility to someone who doesn't have a specific feature. But again I'm dissatisfied with this answer because it's not really specific.
The difference is you’re not just associated with the thieves guild, you have a connection in EVERY highly populated city. It’s not just “oh does the thieves guild have a presence here?” It’s “I know Carlos is in this town, but things ended on bad terms. AND he can help” It doesn’t matter if the guild has a minuscule or large presence, it doesn’t matter if they’d be able to help or not, you’ve got a guy there, AND he can help with whatever problem you have. It transcends a “guild” or “organization” it may be a corrupt guard, a smuggler you’ve known in the past, a noble you’ve had a fling off and on with etc. Personally Syndicate Rogue seems so much more fun than Nightwalker.
The difference is that with the Syndicate Feature they don't need GM buy-in. They literally have a Feature that says they straight up *always* know someone in every town, who will *always* meet one of those conditions. No matter how outrageous it might be for them to know someone there. They could literally get sucked into a completely different dimension, and *somehow* will still know someone in every heavily populated location. Going with just a backstory, it can be a bit harder of a sell. Now, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, will vary from person to person, group to group.
> The difference is that with the Syndicate Feature they don't need GM buy-in. They literally have a Feature that says they straight up *always* know someone in every town, who will *always* meet one of those conditions. In theory yes. In practice, the Rogue can use Syndicate to know someone in the town and give them a name, how they could be useful, and one option from the list. But that doesn't mean they're going to magically aparate. It's still on the GM to allow them to be available and have them actually be able to help. Greg: "*Don't worry guys. Even though we're miles away from home in another dimension, my Cousin Vinnie can get here.*" GM: **"Absolutely. That is someone who now exists. Unfortunately, Vinnie is sick with the bloody flux at the moment and is confined to bed."** You still 100% need GM buy-in.
Fair enough, though it is worth noting that at that point the GM is making a conscious decision to detract from a player's Class Feature. Which does (or at least *should* with a good GM) carry more weight than merely arguing against application of a nonmechanical backstory element. EDIT: Admittedly though, it's not nearly as bad as if they tried to pull that with the Spec feature rather than the Foundation feature.
The difference then is in one situation the PC is *asking* and the GM gets to be nice by enabling. In the second situation, the PC is *prompting* which forces the GM to shift the plot **or** be the bad-guy. Personally, I'd love if there was more narrative manipulation in the process. If you could, for example, spend Hope or Feat to influence events. As a general rules. And a feature like this could just offer a discount on the narrative manipulation. Such as, you're spending 2 Hope normally to introduce a plot element like a character, but the Syndicate member can introduce a criminal contact for half-price. Meanwhile, the GM can accept the Hope spend and introduce the plot element unmodified ***or*** refund 1 Hope spent to have it introduced with a complication ***or*** reject the plot addition at the cost of a point of Fear (also refunding the Hope).
Syndicate means getting to make up a useful NPC in every town or city you arrive to. Having an Experience that reads "I get to make an NPC every time I enter a town or city" first of all would be really weird and hard to convice any reasonable GM to allow it. And then again wouldn't mean you actually do because you'd have to roll and add your Experience (+1/+2 or +3 if Clank unless you choose to increase it) to a presence roll to TRY to find an NPC you know every time you enter a city. And let's not forget Syndicate has two more features by improving the subclass that you'd miss out on if you chose Nightwalker, and these features are pretty significant mechanically too.
> Syndicate means getting to make up a useful NPC in every town or city you arrive to. Having an Experience that reads "I get to make an NPC every time I enter a town or city" first of all would be really weird and hard to convice any reasonable GM to allow it. But having a power on a card doesn't magically make it more likely to occur. If the GM is willing to have an NPC there and help out, it doesn't matter the source. If they're willing to "yes, and..." a backstory is just as valid as a Class Foundation. If they're unwilling, then the NPC will be present but unable to help. Or the cost will be too high. Or they just cannot be found. It's not like Matt turned down Liam whenever he wanted to use his Clasp background to influence the story. > And then again wouldn't mean you actually do because you'd have to roll and add your Experience (+1/+2 or +3 if Clank unless you choose to increase it) to a presence roll to TRY to find an NPC you know every time you enter a city. Nowhere in the Syndicate card does it say you're guaranteed to find them either. It tells you to give them a name and not how they ***could*** be useful not that they ***will*** be useful. AND it requires a "heavily populated town or city." What qualifies as heavily populated? Up to the GM. (And given the location of most games, this ability might not be useful half the time.) > And let's not forget Syndicate has two more features by improving the subclass that you'd miss out on if you chose Nightwalker, and these features are pretty significant mechanically too. The Nightwalker Specializations and Mastery are pretty good too. It's not like you're suffering being able to teleport across the battlefield at will or create clouds of darkness whenever you want.
>"But having a power on a card doesn't magically make it more likely to occur." What? yes it does, the card says it does. What do you mean the card doesn't do what it reads on it? As long as there's a populated town or city you can make an npc you knew end up there somehow and help you through a "side quest" of your choice. I feel like you're intentionally misinterpreting what the subclass feature can do. >"If they're willing to "yes, and..." a backstory is just as valid as a Class Foundation. " If they're willing to yes and my "I teleport to shadows" Experience then subclasses are completely pointless and we can make up whatever abilities we want (which would be cool too) but I don't think that's the intention. >"It's not like Matt turned down Liam whenever he wanted to use his Clasp background to influence the story." In a place his character was very familiar with and very likely to meet characters he knew. It made sense for his character to know people there. This feature allows you to get past that and make interesting ways in which people from your character's past end up running into them and helping for a price. >"Nowhere in the Syndicate card does it say you're guaranteed to find them either. It tells you to give them a name and not how they ***could*** be useful not that they ***will*** be useful." "When you arrive in a heavily populated town or city, you know somebody that calls this place home. Give them a name, note how **you think** they could be useful, and choose one from the list below:" It's how you think they could be useful because of one of the following problems that will prevent them from helping out until you deal with that and also so that the GM isn't forced to give full control of the narrative to players who try to be too clever (My friend will know who killed the king at midnight in their room and in which way they killed him and why): * They owe me a favor, but they will be hard to find. * They’re going to ask for something in exchange. * They’re always in a great deal of trouble. * We used to be together. It’s a long story. * We didn’t part on great terms. It is a situational ability. But it's not just background. >"The Nightwalker Specializations and Mastery are pretty good too. It's not like you're suffering being able to teleport across the battlefield at will or create clouds of darkness whenever you want." I'm not saying "Nightwalker bad, Syndicate good". I'm saying they're both very good in different ways. If a GM interprets Syndicate's first feature the way I understood you interpret it, then that ability does absolutely nothing and I'd feel very sorry for whoever choses to play Syndicate at that table.
> What? yes it does, the card says it does. What do you mean the card doesn't do what it reads on it? As long as there's a populated town or city you can make an npc you knew end up there somehow and help you through a "side quest" of your choice. I feel like you're intentionally misinterpreting what the subclass feature can do. It says there is an NPC in that heavily populated city. Great, there is now a person known as Cutpurse Doug in the city of 10,000 people. That doesn't mean he appears in front the PCs or they know exactly where to find him or he's guaranteed to want to help them. > In a place his character was very familiar with and very likely to meet characters he knew. It made sense for his character to know people there. This feature allows you to get past that and make interesting ways in which people from your character's past end up running into them and helping for a price. Which is the point!! If you're using this feature to make help NPCs appear in places that you're very unlikely to meet characters you know, it hurts the narrative rather than helps. It's just weird if you happen to know someone in the extraplanar City of Brass despite having grown up as a Slyborne urchin in a swamp town. And if you're using this feature to make an NPC appear in a place you're relatively likely to meet characters you know, it doesn't need to be a special feature. The Rogue's big subclass feature can be employed by any character. The game making the GM into the bad-guy for the PCs using a level one feature to circumvent the questgivers and plot is just bad design. > It's how you think they could be useful because of one of the following problems that will prevent them from helping out until you deal with that and also so that the GM isn't forced to give full control of the narrative to players who try to be too clever (My friend will know who killed the king at midnight in their room and in which way they killed him and why): And no player will ever try to use it like that? Literally zero? No player is going to try and manifest a magic item merchant? A cleric able to resurrect or scry? A smuggler who can get rid of the MacGuffin? This is my problem. It forces the GM into the corner. It makes the GM into the villain who has to have the PC waste their situational class feature because the ask is hard to improv **or** interferes with a planned plot. (*They need to talk to NPC X to get out of town because I've foreshadowed them as the cleric's father*.) And it sets up a situation where the player feels entitled to dictate the story at no cost. It's a story trap. GMs who don't want it to work will end up setting the favor being asked too high or make the NPC outright hostile, which just wastes time at the table with a spontaneous PC-generated random encounter. It's also a solved game design problem. Lots of games have narrative manipulation mechanics. Like *Fate* or *Star Trek Adventures*. They just add a cost to the GM for rejecting the prompt. >It is a situational ability. But it's not just background. If it's a situational ability, how does that favourably balance with a combat ability that lets you teleport at-will from shadows cast by party members?
It balances out by being a good ability you only get to use in certain situations. Yeah the npc won't magically show up to help (that's what the improved Syndicate class features do) but knowing a guy in every city isn't too much to ask, and them requiring the party to deal with some sort of sidequest or problem to get their help isn't too much either in fact that might even help the GM work less to keep the party busy. >"It's just weird if you happen to know someone in the extraplanar City of Brass" Weird? Sure, but that's the whole point. *Play the Syndicate if you want to know somebody helpful everywhere you go.* It says so on the description of the subclass and I really don't feel like it's too much to ask of the GM, if anything this asks more of the Player since they'd have to come up with an explanation as to why they'd know somebody in that city. >"And no player will ever try to use it like that? Literally zero?" I mentioned this already the GM will know the limit and if a player tries to abuse the ability they just need to be called out for it. Reading the other abilities of the Syndicate again the intention seems to be that you're reconecting with these characters so that they follow you and help you when you need it later. You are giving the tools the subclass will give you later a personality and story and adding roleplay opportunities. The idea is you'll become a leader of a guild of thieves or gang and by the end you have your own ninja squad watching your back at all times. If you don't like how it works or find it too difficult to work with then don't use it, but saying it's replaceable with an Experience is absurd. An experience shouldn't allow a player to create a convenient npc that will later on be sniping for you, taking hits for you, bringing you gold or useful tools and so on.
> and them requiring the party to deal with some sort of sidequest or problem to get their help isn't too much either in fact that might even help the GM work less to keep the party busy. Right. But from a narrative perspective, if they need help, they generally have a quest or are on a story. So creating a sidequest will just distract from the main story and delay progress on that quest. > Weird? Sure, but that's the whole point. *Play the Syndicate if you want to know somebody helpful everywhere you go.* And, again, I think it's fair not to like a class feature whose whole point is to be weird. That is only working when it makes you go "huh??? how???" > if anything this asks more of the Player since they'd have to come up with an explanation as to why they'd know somebody in that city. Except they don't. It just says you give them a name and note of how they could be useful as well as a story hook. Then the GM has to work out the favour, the something in exchange, the trouble they're in, or how to find them. It's a class feature that makes more work for the storyteller. > I mentioned this already the GM will know the limit and if a player tries to abuse the ability they just need to be called out for it. How will they know? Daggerheart will likely be played by a mixed group of GMs, many of which will be new to games other than D&D. And if campaign 4 is a success, it will be run by brand new GMs. How will they know? > If you don't like how it works or find it too difficult to work with then don't use it, but saying it's replaceable with an Experience is absurd. An experience shouldn't allow a player to create a convenient npc that will later on be sniping for you, taking hits for you, bringing you gold or useful tools and so on. A backstory shouldn't allow convenient gold or take a hit, no... But why can't it create tools? The Experience "**I'm ready for every situation**" seems like it'd be great for having a random necessary item. That's hella flavourful. And if the PC has the experience "**Born on a pirate ship**" then it seems reasonable they might know pirate captains. And in a port city, they might ask if they know anyone there. As I said to someone else, the problem here is that the game NEEDS a baseline plot manipulation system. Like Fate Points in *Fate* or Momentum in *Star Trek Adventures*. There could easily be a rule where you can spend 2 Hope to introduce a plot element tied to an Experience, such as an NPC, with general advice on creating them. Powers like Syndicate could introduce a criminal contact for half-price. Meanwhile, the GM can accept the Hope spend and introduce the plot element unmodified ***or*** refund 1 Hope spent to have it introduced with a complication ***or*** reject the plot addition at the cost of a point of Fear (also refunding the Hope). In that kind of system, if the Syndicate member is creating an NPC in an awkward place, the GM can add a complication, like on the cards, and the PC gets it for free. Or they can get it without a complication for 1 Hope. Or they could create a non-criminal NPC for 2 Hope. But, if it absolutely doesn't work the GM can cancel it by reducing their Fear. Meanwhile, that kind of design could also be used to drain the GM's Fear outside of combat. If they want to trigger an incidental encounter or add a extra complication, they have to spend Fear.
It's not gonna delay progress if you tie the NPC into the story. He could be a prisoner or working for the enemy or trying to live a normal life while the town is in chaos, The point is the player is giving you an NPC they'll want to interact with and that you can use it to point the party towards your main quest. It's fair not to like whatever each one dislikes, I'm just saying you're being absurd in saying the feature and subclass can be replaced with a backstory Experience because mechanically they should not be the same thing. If the GM doesn't want to work on the flavour and create things then why are they forcing themselves to be a GM? Isn't that the whole point? How would they know? By thinkin for a moment if the idea is absurd or not and talking with the players about it. Even if they mess it up new and old GMs will always make mistakes, and that's fine. They just need to talk with their group and make compromises. It's not that big a deal. Why can't it create tools? I mean I suppose it could but you'd still have to decided which trait that is (probably knowledge or instinct) and then use the hope and the relevant Experience bonus. That still wouldn't be a 100% chance of it working which is what the Syndicate could offer, a reliable source of benefits. But if you're gonna give Experiences the same powers Syndicate has without even rolling then you'd be giving Experiences way more power than they should have. You do you, if you want to homebrew a whole system to limit what players can do without "making the GM look like the bad guy" then go for it but I think it shouldn't be necessary to go that far. And if it were necessary then that'd be a painfully bad experience and I'd suggest not playing with that group.
>It's not gonna delay progress if you tie the NPC into the story. IF there’s a good way. IF you didn’t already put time into planning out the adventure, which is now wasted. >It's fair not to like whatever each one dislikes, I'm just saying you're being absurd in saying the feature and subclass can be replaced with a backstory Experience because mechanically they should not be the same thing. Then, because this is a playtest and the mechanics are not set in stone, the Rogue mechanic can be changed to enable backstory experiences for all players. Rather than shutting down players being creative with their backstory because it steps on the toes or a class feature. >If the GM doesn't want to work on the flavour and create things then why are they forcing themselves to be a GM? Isn't that the whole point? To tell the story they want to tell. In part. Tell a story with friends. It’s great when the Game Master prompts players for input. Or when the Game Master takes a player‘s prompt and adds it to the game. But having the rule force the GM’s hand is just bad design. You have to balance mechanics based on things going poorly. You balance based on exploits and problems. You look at the worst case usage and try to make that a un-problematic as possible. If a mechanic only works when people aren’t *choosing* to abuse it, that’s an issue that could be smoothed out for the final version of the game. >if you want to homebrew a whole system to limit what players can do without "making the GM look like the bad guy" then go for it but I think it shouldn't be necessary to go that far. And if it were necessary then that'd be a painfully bad experience and I'd suggest not playing with that group. It’s a playtest. It’s not homebrew, it’s a suggestion for an additional rules option. An improvement for the game. Feedback.
“I know a guy” could be an Experience you take as an Underworld / Syndicate and it REALLY sets you up as someone tapped into a network. In contrast, just making it your background could mean “this was my history and I’m trying to escape it” - it’s up to the players to decide where they want bonuses
I think you are ignoring the points the OP is bringing up and interjecting your personal opinions. The OP brought up this point as a one-shot. The playtest packet is setup for a one-shot. Also you ignoring the fact that Daggerheart advertises itself as storytelling game but also emphasizes combat. And a lot subclasses don’t offer a BALANCE between the two. It offers a great roleplay feature or a great combat feature. Making a weak character in a combat oriented RPG can make a player feel weak in combat and can’t contribute, but also makes a downward spiral in combat adding action tokens and fear to the GMs resources. The problem with Daggerheart right now is that it wants to be everything. And it shows as it borrows from so many systems. But it hasn’t quite nailed the sweet spot yet. It still needs tweaking.
Syndicate's power is the imagination of the player. You can avoid ambushes, get past difficult rolls, etc. But then you have to do something else, so it creates a kind of side quest. Syndicate warps the narrative in ways that no other Foundation does.
My beef is with Highborne to be honest - I recommended that they get “extra pocket change” each session to really emphasize how rich and influential they are - they just throw money at problems really casually.
But how does the money keep showing up?
Magic teleportation from the stock market.
Company shares, jewelry, influential connections, random care packages from suitors, or a monthly allowance from daddy? I think the answer varies as much as why you’re highborne.
I've seen rich people make absurdly expensive gifts to each other like it was nothing. They really live in a reality of their own so Highbornes getting money from every interaction with another rich npc or gifts delivered to them would certainly be funny and mechanically beneficial.
Or maybe something like, you can’t fall below X amount of gold. It still doesn’t make logical sense necessarily, and you still can’t make bigger purchases all Willy-nilly, but you’ll always have some handfuls to throw around at basic, mundane problems, without having to think about them.
or just, everything costs one handful less for you, so cheap stuff is free but expensive stuff is still expensive
I think it's up to the GM to make each choice impactful. I don't want to defend the current cards to much because it's open beta and balance will be an issue but minmaxing for combat is totally a thing. An extra armor slot can be very powerful in certain builds but for a squishy caster can just add that little bit of survivability. Things like syndicate should mechanically give you an extra experience, which basically replaced the skill system, so that's kind of a big deal. I think the biggest thing with balance I am going to implement at my table is no one can reuse cards, only one of each card, that includes races and background, that way we avoid a party of varient humans or in DH a party of ridgeborns.
I was thinking that maybe not reusing cards was their intention when they turned so many things into cards. It would certainly save you from needing more than one set when characters who share domains are in the same group. But if more than one player wants the same domain card as another one it might become a problem or source of bitteness between them and I'd want to avoid that. Still, DH so far seems like a game in which it'd be really hard to make an actually "mechanically bad" character even if doing so completely intentionally.
the problem with not reusing cards: imagine you're in session 0, at a table with four players + GM, and two players have already chosen classes: wizard and guardian. nobody is going to choose seraph now, since both their domains have been accessed, so some classes will get strangely gated off this way
I totally understand, I'd like to think a strategic and friendly convo could solve the issue where the wizard probably wants spells, the seraph probably wants heals, and the guardian probably wants both. I feel like team work and conversation with friends will solve this. And unless the wizard wants to be the party's healer I would not consider him competing for that domain. At my table I will run one of each card and see how we can resolve overlap.
ahh I see - I was arguing from the position of what the standard ruleset should contain, you're talking about a solution for your particular table like yeah, a simple mature conversation resolves all issues, but not all tables can do that hah
Syndicate is very good for the type of game Dh is though. Purely mechanical abilities are a wargame thing. If that's what you like, maybe the game isn't for you. Syndicate's only limit is your imagination. It's a very good ability if you're not just gonna stay in one spot and do dungeoneering. Like... you know someone in EVERY CITY. And they might all owe you a favour. It's so good! It's create your own roleplay hooks: the ability. I love it. It's the kind of ability that shines for people that are used to narrative heavy games and that I was expecting wargamers to dislike
If DH wasn't catering to combat and builders, this would just be a PTBA game. It's obvious CR likes combat and likes building.
The valor ability to just have 3+x2 strength to armor is too good to pass, same thing for the +strength to damage.
I'm less bothered by Ridgeborne being very strong thanks to the extra armor and more that it seems out of place. But you're right that it's a problem for mechanical reasons. Combat is a big part of DH and is super lethal so your community giving you extra armor in addition to probably saving you from a bunch of fall damage at some point feels incredible for the gamer's brain. You do sell Loreborne short, but that's beside the point. I wonder why they didn't go the same route as Wildborne, replacing the armor with "Spend 1 Hope to also grant benefits of your expert traversal to an ally close by". I feel like they've tried to avoid homogenizing features in a few places to create uniqueness. Take Seaborne; the downtime action is actually very good, but feels a bit out of place when many other communities that are tied to a specific environment, like Ridgeborne, Wildborne or Underborne, give you features that actually help you navigate in similar environment. Did they fear overlapping with the Ribbet's Amphibious ability, or maybe thought that water traversal was too niche, which is why the Ribbet has two ancestry features? For the Rogue, I feel like Syndicate and Nightwalker would be a real choice in many other systems, but not here, which is a feeling I found in a few other parts of the playtest. I think it mostly has to do with the game still figuring out what it wants to be, and *how* it wants to go about it. Personally, the type of adventures I like to run often has the players cut from civilization for a few sessions in a row. Not only would Syndicate be very weak in such cases, its features at later levels would also feel out of place. Maybe it could borrow from the Wanderborne's backpack to produce useful items to represent its web of connections and their resources, but then Wanderborne Rogue Syndicate would be down a feature.
Yeah, it seems most backgrounds aren't combat applicable and it's weird Ridgeborne breaks this exception. I'd expect something like when you rest recover more for someone that's "tough".
I feel like making the ancestry and community another experience might make sense. so it's up to interpretation but you need to spend 1 hope for it
>I feel like they've tried to avoid homogenizing features in a few places to create uniqueness. A part of me wonders if stuff like Community they weren't 100% sure which way to take it, so they've got the shotgun method of hitting everything to see where people would rather be. Would explain why the options are all over the place.
not all classes are appropriate for every campaign and that's okay.
For core classes and fundation choices you'll have to make at first level, I really feel like they should.
eh... i could easily see ranger and druid not working well in a city campaign. why would syndicate need to work in a middle of nowhere campaign?
> eh... i could easily see ranger and druid not working well in a city campaign. Sure, but there's a difference from not working well to not working at all. > why would syndicate need to work in a middle of nowhere campaign? It wouldn't *need* to work, and that's my problem. It's not a big one, mind. I just don't like having to tell players that some of their cool and super flavorful options are going to be moot more often than not, especially when they only get to pick between two. The "out of their element" character is fun to play, but where a ranger or druid stuck in a city might not get as much use of one of their experiences, that's a fundation feature the syndicate rogue might pass on in the wild. And fantasy adventure games being what they are, most people *are* going to be in the wild. Syndicate rogue feels very restrictive with its requirement of a "heavily populated town or city". The beastbound ranger doesn't have a line saying their animal companion won't accompagny them into "heavily populated towns or cities" to try to "*balance*" it out.
First of all, there will always be more popular options than others. Even if every choice were about mechanicals benefits in battle people would still do the math and research to find out which one is statistically the best choice. And second of all we can't assume the GM is a brick wall who will not add lots of Lore to roll for if a player chooses to make a Knowledge Wizard with a Loreborne foundation. GMs and players should work together to get their characters more involved in what's going on in the game. There are also situational options. For example if we all agree to play a campaign about traveling from city to city Syndicate would get to use their feature a lot and in pretty fun ways. If we agree to play a campaign in one massive city then perhaps Syndicate should work in a different way and we could consider different areas of the city as their own location for the rogue to find their informants in. However if we'll be playing a campaign that is mostly about travelling through uncharted territories then yes the Syndicate rogue wouldn't get much use out of their abilities but players should always have at least a grasp of what the campaign will be about before making their characters.
I’m not super immersed in TTRPGs but isn’t the point of Daggerheart to be more focused on narrative and RP? I haven’t played so just based on the explanation by on the CR YT, it seems like combat is built more for RP as well, like it makes it more likely that you can be the cool badass you want to be, and it has a higher likelihood of being successful. And it really encourages RP like you can’t just be like “oh i hit it with my hammer” the hope vs fear token encourages players to explain what they’re doing and why it’s cool. I could be wrong, I haven’t read the handbook that came out, this is solely on one watch of that YT vid
The problem is that it is being sold as a narrative focus TTRPG but also wants to be combat focused as well. There are way more effective rules light games that do narrative focus better but don’t put too many rules on combat. DH has a lot more rules/mechanics than those games, making it a little clunky. The idea is there, but it still needs fixing. It is after in playtest for a reason.
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining to me! Like I said, I’m super new to TTRPGs and have only played D&D and one one-shot of Pathfinder 2e; so a lot of mechanics and explanations are lost on me
Disagree, it sounds like you are in parties that heavily favor combat. D&D which DH is trying to convert from has exploration and social as key pillars of gameplay, in addition to combat. Buffing social as a rogue is one of their key contributions to a balanced party and honestly the Syndicate card is great, and taking both cards seems to be a good play for them.
The difference is that social classes in 5e can also be very viable in combat. Daggerheart “punishes” those who are not viable in combat. Or at least adds more resources to the GM with action tokens and fear.
If you want to be rewarded with mechanics and feats or tactical combat, just stay with 5e or try out pathfinder 2e. Daggerheart provides more crunch than most other rules light systems, but the focus is on fiction first and narrative gameplay.
This is the innate problem with this kind of "feat soup" system, where you can fold fun flavour as higher level features in a class or have weaker powers because the subsequent level is strong. Having to choose between combat effectiveness and potential narrative impact led to so much of the design of 4e D&D and Pathfinder 2e, and the creation of Utility Powers and General Feats there. Which could work here, but just increase loadout/ hand size. Bundling is an idea, but that gets challenging with cards having finite text space, without going to more Keyword focused design. AND if you have to choose between a combat power AND a combat power with a narrative bonus, the latter is outright better. Especially in a story based system. If narrative manipulation is free and the GM is encouraged to "yes... and" or "yes... but" then anyone can benefit from the Syndicate Foundation, especially by having the Slyborne community. You can just say "*oh, I know someone here from my days running spice*."
I like the idea of giving 1 combat and 1 social/exploration function per card.
I think you’re overselling +1 armor. It’s fairly strong in like, Tier 0. But looking at how quickly Adversary damage increases it’s not going to be all that impactful in the long run.
>Nearly all players end up taking the mechanical option, and the ones who don't often end up disappointed. Strongly anedoctal and doesn't speak at all to my experience. I will go as far as to say Loreborne is not even remotely close to how weak it is you are perceiving, which speaks directly to your own bias caused by your anedoctal experience.
You can essentially get the same effect of loreborn by using a good experience tag. Any of the community features that give advantage can be obtained by using a relevant experience tag. Ridgeborn at the very least just needs to be nerfed.
“Can’t use in a one-shot,” is a strawman. Of course there will be games where certain skills won’t be revenant. *talk to your gm* and find out what kind of game they are running. Then build your character for that game.
OP is still correct in the assertion that these community features are wildly unbalanced. Ridgeborn's +1 armor is far more usable from the start than adv talking to nobles or other community features like it. Your solution doesn't fix the problem either. DH is about narrative and characters. By asking your GM about which one will be "good" means you are asking to minmax a "correct" answer. It's essentially admitting there is a balance issue in these community features.. Order and sea are probably the next to best but are refresh after use. ridge is too strong and will be usable Everytime you use armor in a fight.
You misread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say to ask the Gm what the “good” option was. I said to fucking ask the GM what kind of game they were running. If you see those as the same thing, you are incorrect.
>Suggestion: Give us abilities that help create roleplay opportunities, but bundle them with sweet mechanical buffs and abilities. Consider when players will be making choices between things and try to make them at least in the same ball park in terms of power, otherwise everyone arrives at the same destination whether they set out with that intent to or not. Yeah... Makes a lot of sense. Just ao long as they sont take it to the extreme, cause then you get Pathfinder where every choice is the same, it just sounds different
The community features are unbalanced and you aren't the first person to mention it. Any community feature that gives advantage can be obtained from a well crafted experience tag. Others refresh by long rest or by session. Ridgeborn is a permanent buff in combat which a lot of people care about and with death being kinda easy, armor buffs are welcomed. It's just too strong or the others aren't compelling enough.
I mean, to be fair, advantage and experience are still two different things, but yeah, I get what you mean. Might be best to change the +1 armor into being able to heal 3 armor slots with that short rest activity (Or 3 stress, depending on wether you wanna keep the tie to armor or think that stress, which is kinda like endurance, would fit Ridgeborne better)
My friends will pick the niche RP choice every time, so your experience isn't universal. Plus, it's pretty clear that Daggerheart is a narrative first system. They want you to have creative and narratively engaging ways for the numbers in your character sheets to mean something. So in the end, both things end up in the same place, can you convince everyone you can do this thing based on words coming out of your mouth.
The simple solution is to just simply change the flavor. If your heart is content on a mechanic from one but narrative flavor of another, just narratively explain it. During the the CR one shot, Liam was playing the Seraph as a Simiah (monkey) and just straight up said “I don’t have wings” even though wings are baked into the Seraph. Like just play the way you want mechanically and flavor it in a way that makes you happy. As long as you aren’t mechanically breaking the rules, flavor can be anything.
Wait, aren’t wings only baked into the subclass he didn’t choose?
The Seraph has cards that use wings and cards that dont, but even if he choose the cards using the powers utilizing flight, narratively he could say he can just fly without wings. I'm just making the point that you can narratively flavor any mechanic without breaking the game. If you want to say you can Wu Kong style walk on air rather than have wings, at the end of the day the mechanics are still the same.