Search Results
6/25/2025, 3:48:51 PM
I have played and run PbtA before. Daggerheart is a bit more codified.
As far as I can tell, in Daggerheart combat, the GM can elect to gain the spotlight when "someone fails a roll or rolls with Fear" (core rulebook, p. 100). In the example in the core rulebook, p. 95, on a failure with Fear, a failure with Hope, or a success with Fear, an enemy seemingly takes the spotlight and does something: highest-impact on a failure with Fear and lowest-impact on a success with Fear, but still something. This is corroborated by the core rulebook, p. 150, and by the SRD, pp. 63-64, which clarify that the GM might have an adversary attack on a success with Fear or a failure with Hope.
This is complicated by the core rulebook, p. 151, and the SRD, p. 64, suggesting that a soft move (PbtA parlance, essentially) be used on a failure with Hope and a hard move be used on any roll with Fear. An enemy taking the spotlight and acting seems like a hard move. And yet, failing a roll with Hope still allows the GM to claim the spotlight (core rulebook, p. 100); the example in the core rulebook, p. 95, shows an enemy outright attacking a PC on a failure with Hope; and one of the suggestions in the core rulebook, p. 150, and the SRD, p. 64, is an adversary attacking on a failure with Hope.
In any event, each roll proactively made by the PCs in combat will, more likely than not (i.e. any outcome other than a success with Hope or a critical success), provoke some sort of retaliation from the GM. The core rulebook, p. 108, and the SRD, p. 35, instruct players to "Embrace danger," but does that necessarily mean always trying to attack in combat? Regardless of whether or not the party is using the Spotlight Tracker optional sidebar in the core rulebook, p. 89, and the SRD, p. 36, is it possible for a player to simply declare "I am fine with just hanging back and trying to create an opening for our [rogue/warrior] to attack"? Is trying to emulate a 4e warlord fine, or is that against the game?
As far as I can tell, in Daggerheart combat, the GM can elect to gain the spotlight when "someone fails a roll or rolls with Fear" (core rulebook, p. 100). In the example in the core rulebook, p. 95, on a failure with Fear, a failure with Hope, or a success with Fear, an enemy seemingly takes the spotlight and does something: highest-impact on a failure with Fear and lowest-impact on a success with Fear, but still something. This is corroborated by the core rulebook, p. 150, and by the SRD, pp. 63-64, which clarify that the GM might have an adversary attack on a success with Fear or a failure with Hope.
This is complicated by the core rulebook, p. 151, and the SRD, p. 64, suggesting that a soft move (PbtA parlance, essentially) be used on a failure with Hope and a hard move be used on any roll with Fear. An enemy taking the spotlight and acting seems like a hard move. And yet, failing a roll with Hope still allows the GM to claim the spotlight (core rulebook, p. 100); the example in the core rulebook, p. 95, shows an enemy outright attacking a PC on a failure with Hope; and one of the suggestions in the core rulebook, p. 150, and the SRD, p. 64, is an adversary attacking on a failure with Hope.
In any event, each roll proactively made by the PCs in combat will, more likely than not (i.e. any outcome other than a success with Hope or a critical success), provoke some sort of retaliation from the GM. The core rulebook, p. 108, and the SRD, p. 35, instruct players to "Embrace danger," but does that necessarily mean always trying to attack in combat? Regardless of whether or not the party is using the Spotlight Tracker optional sidebar in the core rulebook, p. 89, and the SRD, p. 36, is it possible for a player to simply declare "I am fine with just hanging back and trying to create an opening for our [rogue/warrior] to attack"? Is trying to emulate a 4e warlord fine, or is that against the game?
Page 1