Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March

On March 12th, Critical Role's Darrington Press will be launching the open playtest for Daggerheart, their new fantasy TTRPG/

Using cards and two d12s, the system plays on 'the dualities of hope and fear'. The game is slated for a 2025 release.

Almost a year ago, we announced that we’ve been working hard behind-the-scenes on Daggerheart, our contribution to the world of high-fantasy tabletop roleplaying games.

Daggerheart is a game of brave heroics and vibrant worlds that are built together with your gaming group. Create a shared story with your adventuring party, and shape your world through rich, long-term campaign play.

When it’s time for the game mechanics to control fate, players roll one HOPE die and one FEAR die (both 12-sided dice), which will ultimately impact the outcome for your characters. This duality between the forces of hope and fear on every hero drives the unique character-focused narratives in Daggerheart.

In addition to dice, Daggerheart’s card system makes it easy to get started and satisfying to grow your abilities by bringing your characters’ background and capabilities to your fingertips. Ancestry and Community cards describe where you come from and how your experience shapes your customs and values. Meanwhile, your Subclass and Domain cards grant your character plenty of tantalizing abilities to choose from as your character evolves.

And now, dear reader, we’re excited to let you know that our Daggerheart Open Beta Playtest will launch globally on our 9th anniversary, Tuesday, March 12th!

We want anyone and everyone (over the age of 18, please) to help us make Daggerheart as wonderful as possible, which means…helping us break the game. Seriously! The game is not finished or polished yet, which is why it’s critical (ha!) to gather all of your feedback ahead of Daggerheart’s public release in 2025.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That equals to being dumb, you know. Before I get into details, I watch anime and I know the stereotype. I read books, and I get that there are masochists who just love bleeding, spitting broken teeth and who cultivate bruises and scars.

However, also as a former MMORPG fanatic, and also hateful antifan of Game of Thrones franchise, I would insist that damage prevention is as important as damage mitigation, and that the first step in the damage prevention area is not to be there when the blow lands*. After all, shields break - just not in D&D, though they might do so in Daggerheart (ref. armor slots).

* The true tank mantra:

• kill them before they strike,
• control their actions so that they cannot strike,
• avoid their blows so that their strikes don't land,
• lessen the damage of the strikes that were not avoided.

So, you have a guy whose job is to tank, i.e. to stop and to prevent damage, and despite their expertise, they are worse at this than a warrior:
Rogue: starting Evasion score is 12.
Warrior and Ranger: starting Evasion score is 10.
Guardian (the default tank class): starting Evasion is 6.

So I looked for their damage mitigation abilities:

• Unstoppable class feature - usable 1/long rest - basically, it's a Barbarian Rage that also prevents damage to an extent, but goes down every time you deal damage.
• Stalwart foundation feature - +2 to damage thresholds. This does prevents the damage, making it lower but not preventing hits.

All in all, this just means that Guardians are to be killed by minions.
A skelly from the quickstart adventure has no attack modifier, so their chance to hit goes like this:
Guardian - 75% .
Warrior - 55%.
Rogue - 45%.

So, to summarize. In my opinion, based on the research the Guardian base Evasion score should be at least equal to that of a Warrior, with abilities that would raise it higher. Otherwise, the Stalwart Guardian is likely to go down due to being overwhelmingly easy to hit.

Well, this is a playtest, so if that’s still a concern of yours after actually playing, that’s feedback you should provide.

I haven’t played yet, but in reading the book, they tend to leave the particular “hows” of things up to the player. And the Guardian’s ability cards seem to really make it unlikely that they’ll go down as quickly as you’re concerned about.

You don’t like the way that they mitigate damage. That’s fine. I don’t think that makes the character “dumb” or anything like that.

 

[Stalker0]

So of course its that time to break out the white room simulation analysis!!!

I took a hand at creating some level 10 characters as I was curious what kind of combat disparity you could make.

My first character was a straight up Dwarven Warrior, basically the fighter's fighter. I took all the proficiencies, tons of combat abilities, etc.

My 2nd was a faerie rogue. And my focus was non-combat. I took a lot of expertise boosters, the subclass masteries, stat boosts, and then some evasions when I had nothing else. And the rogue is cool, I can telepathy people from across the planet, literally appear anywhere I've ever been and do work, and when the conditions are right, I have 2d12 + Stat + 20 on anything involving notorious burglary! (yes +20!). But....really not into the combat.

So how would these two fair together in a standard tier 3 combat scenario? I used the perfected zombie as a nice straight up bonus. Now for this first run, I didn't use all of the crazy powers and cards, I was just curious what the difference was straight up, the base damage and prof bonuses.

Warrior (Legendary Longsword): +6 to attack, 6d8 + 16 damage
Rogue (Legendary Daggers): +5 to attack, 1d8 + 8 x2 (two attacks with a dagger if you spend a stress). And then I assume sneak attack for an extra +1d8 on top.

Baseline
Warrior: Avg .97 HP per action
Rogue: Avg .39 Stress/.47 HP per action

So the Rogue does roughly half the damage of the warrior when spending a stress each round. It should be noted that both have trouble hitting this guy (Difficulty: 20!)


Ok now we take it up a notch, and add in a bunch of combat abilities:

Warrior
1) rerolls any 1 or 2 on damage
2) Always deals 2 HP at a minimum
3) +2 to attack rolls

The warrior has several other cool abilities but many of those are per SR or LR or require certain triggers, so just to get a feel I didn't include those.

Rogue
Not much here, I have a bevy of really cool out of combat abilities, but not much to bring in the pain. And so my combat strength is what I had before.

Card Abilities
Warrior: Avg 1.47 HP per action (50% more than the base before).
Rogue: Avg .39 Stress/.47 HP per action

 

[Reynard]

So of course its that time to break out the white room simulation analysis!!!

I took a hand at creating some level 10 characters as I was curious what kind of combat disparity you could make.

My first character was a straight up Dwarven Warrior, basically the fighter's fighter. I took all the proficiencies, tons of combat abilities, etc.

My 2nd was a faerie rogue. And my focus was non-combat. I took a lot of expertise boosters, the subclass masteries, stat boosts, and then some evasions when I had nothing else. And the rogue is cool, I can telepathy people from across the planet, literally appear anywhere I've ever been and do work, and when the conditions are right, I have 2d12 + Stat + 20 on anything involving notorious burglary! (yes +20!). But....really not into the combat.

So how would these two fair together in a standard tier 3 combat scenario? I used the perfected zombie as a nice straight up bonus. Now for this first run, I didn't use all of the crazy powers and cards, I was just curious what the difference was straight up, the base damage and prof bonuses.

Warrior (Legendary Longsword): +6 to attack, 6d8 + 16 damage
Rogue (Legendary Daggers): +5 to attack, 1d8 + 8 x2 (two attacks with a dagger if you spend a stress). And then I assume sneak attack for an extra +1d8 on top.

Baseline
Warrior: Avg .97 HP per action
Rogue: Avg .39 Stress/.47 HP per action

So the Rogue does roughly half the damage of the warrior when spending a stress each round. It should be noted that both have trouble hitting this guy (Difficulty: 20!)


Ok now we take it up a notch, and add in a bunch of combat abilities:

Warrior
1) rerolls any 1 or 2 on damage
2) Always deals 2 HP at a minimum
3) +2 to attack rolls

The warrior has several other cool abilities but many of those are per SR or LR or require certain triggers, so just to get a feel I didn't include those.

Rogue
Not much here, I have a bevy of really cool out of combat abilities, but not much to bring in the pain. And so my combat strength is what I had before.

Card Abilities
Warrior: Avg 1.47 HP per action (50% more than the base before).
Rogue: Avg .39 Stress/.47 HP per action

Say (general) you had these two in you party. What would that tell you about the players? How would you manage this as GM? And remember, you're playing a narrative game, not 5E.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, this is a playtest, so if that’s still a concern of yours after actually playing, that’s feedback you should provide.

I haven’t played yet, but in reading the book, they tend to leave the particular “hows” of things up to the player. And the Guardian’s ability cards seem to really make it unlikely that they’ll go down as quickly as you’re concerned about.

You don’t like the way that they mitigate damage. That’s fine. I don’t think that makes the character “dumb” or anything like that.

Along with what hawkeyefan is saying here @ruemere , I'd also offer the following for consideration:

1) Hit Points aren't meat in D&D and they aren't in Daggerheart as well. It appears you've got multiple interacting parts when it comes to taking/absorbing a blow in this game; Hit Points, Stress, Armor, Damage Threshold, Ability Cards. The combination of which (and other governing factors I'm sure...we aren't playtesting it yet) makes up a build's survivability profile.

2) I think something that might help you think about this a little differently might be the reality that Floyd Mayweather is considered to be one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time. The set of techniques that make up the Mayweather "Philly Shell" is one of the most (if not the most) widely spread paradigms for successful defense across boxing and MMA; independently tested among a large swathe of athletes. Instead of relying upon dynamic movement and distance control, dominating angles, and consistently slipping the significant volume of punches that come your way (while, hopefully, parrying the rest), the Philly Shell looks considerably more like your your typical Guardian (or Defender style class):

* Side-on stance where you hide your chin/head behind your lead shoulder and use that shoulder to roll/block incoming punches, foiling them (like a shield).

* Actively parry against body attacks with your low lead arm while your rear parries anything that gets through your shoulder (more "shield/armor-based defense").

* Manage distance control as normal, but with the above techniques playing the essential role.

This generates a paradigm where angles, head movement/slipping punches, and explosive mobility (Pernell Whitaker is the paradigm here) plays a far second fiddle.

Mayweather and the legion of boxers and MMA fighters who have successfully deployed this set of techniques are renowned for their Fight IQ. They're anything but the prototypical "big, dumb, slow fighter."

So using these things as a cue to help you imagine how Guardians might by technicians rather than big/dumb/slow? Maybe check out some of the famous fighters who have deployed it (especially late Mayweather who didn't have the athleticism of his more youthful self; who still deployed it)? Might help.

 

[ruemere]

Well, this is a playtest, so if that’s still a concern of yours after actually playing, that’s feedback you should provide.

I haven’t played yet, but in reading the book, they tend to leave the particular “hows” of things up to the player. And the Guardian’s ability cards seem to really make it unlikely that they’ll go down as quickly as you’re concerned about.

You don’t like the way that they mitigate damage. That’s fine. I don’t think that makes the character “dumb” or anything like that.

I am planning to. I put my doubts here just in case I missed something. Also, the survey questionnaire expects to run a session first, and before I do that I want to make sure that I know the rules.

Oh, I see that a Tower Shield is -2 Evasion, and Full Plate Armor is -2 Evasion, too.

So, basically, Evasion is a non-stat for Guardians who invest into heavy armor. It's fine then, as it confirms my initial suspicion that I was overlooking something.

 

[ruemere]

snipped helpful content

Thank you for the explanation. As I have explained, I have missed the fact that Evasion is a non-stat for heavily armored Guardians.

 

[Stalker0]

Say (general) you had these two in you party. What would that tell you about the players? How would you manage this as GM? And remember, you're playing a narrative game, not 5E.

As a GM I would likely want my games to have a nice even split of heavy roleplay and combat, as I have some players that are really focused on one over the other.

That said, while I recognize that the game has a lot more narrative elements than 5e does, I think people are assuming that means its combat light compared to dnd. Of course the GM can play it that way (as can a 5e DM), but this game is STACKED with combat rules and abilities. Just because combats might have a looser narrative element doesn't mean they wouldn't be as prevalent as they are in standard dnd fair.

In other words, there is nothing innate to this game that would make me want to run combats more or less frequently than I would in a 5e campaign.

 

[Stalker0]

Say (general) you had these two in you party. What would that tell you about the players? How would you manage this as GM? And remember, you're playing a narrative game, not 5E.

As a GM I would likely want my games to have a nice even split of heavy roleplay and combat, as I have some players that are really focused on one over the other.

That said, while I recognize that the game has a lot more narrative elements than 5e does, I think people are assuming that means its combat light compared to dnd. Of course the GM can play it that way (as can a 5e DM), but this game is STACKED with combat rules and abilities. Just because combats might have a looser narrative element doesn't mean they wouldn't be as prevalent as they are in standard dnd fair.

In other words, there is nothing innate to this game that would make me want to run combats more or less frequently than I would in a 5e campaign.

 

[Stalker0]

One question I've had in reading teh rules.

So one of the tonal differences between DH and dnd is that rolls in DH are supposed to be rarer and more powerful, because that roll can introduce narrative changes to the game (as well as tokens).

In that case, how do you do traditional dnd "group checks". For example in dnd I might call for my players to all make a perception check to see a key thing, or to all roll stealth as a party. Or if they are all climbing a dangerous rock they all roll athletics.

That seems like too many rolls for the spirit of DH, so are you supposed to pick a group leader or something to make the check? I know there is the help action but that requires Hope, so how does it work at base?

 

[Reynard]

As a GM I would likely want my games to have a nice even split of heavy roleplay and combat, as I have some players that are really focused on one over the other.

That said, while I recognize that the game has a lot more narrative elements than 5e does, I think people are assuming that means its combat light compared to dnd. Of course the GM can play it that way (as can a 5e DM), but this game is STACKED with combat rules and abilities. Just because combats might have a looser narrative element doesn't mean they wouldn't be as prevalent as they are in standard dnd fair.

In other words, there is nothing innate to this game that would make me want to run combats more or less frequently than I would in a 5e campaign.

Emphasis mine.

Maybe not innate in the game, but with those two in your group there is definitely something that should make you want to run combats differently -- if not less frequently -- than 5E. Here you have one player telling you they want to stab things, and another telling you they want to burgle stuff. There is no reason in a narrative game you can't accommodate both without sacrificing anything.