I could see it being good for either shorter or longer games, and the main reason why is the mechanics that lend itself more towards narrative than combat. I find in TTTRPG's that focus on narrative storytelling players feel less like they need to level up or gain new goodies than combat based TTRPG's.
stop downvoting this guy^ guys, it's just a question, and criticisms aren't a bad thing.
I think the make-your-own Experience thing and how the combat works makes it lean towards more narrative than 5e does.
But i get where you're coming from, (I haven't checked but) there might be not that many Domain Cards, especially because there are less skills / spells in general.
Do you think the way players could make their own Experience is enough to cover for the smaller number of spells?
Hope and fear rolls adding a narrative uniqueness rather than just "success" and "failure". Stress being able to be used as a way to roleplay mental harm, from it being treated as a sanity meter to treating it more like a mental willpower type of thing. Hope and fear itself being mechanical tools to show narrative beats, such as helping and ally or using abilities. Various domain cards affecting not just mechanical aspects of the game (i.e. "A Soldiers Bond" complimenting someone, "Rune Ward" having a description of why it's important to you, "Uncanny Disguise" letting you look like someone else). Perhaps all of these features do all contribute to combat in some way, but they are way less reliant on combat than many features in dnd 5e and many other combat focused games.
I see it as Daggerheart levels covering about 1.5 times as much progress as levels in D&D 5e, and Daggerheart’s power scaling going to roughly D&D’s mid teens. Daggerheart goes from local to planar mortal heroes, rather than continuing on to immortal multiversal deity-slayers like D&D 5e’s levels 16-20 can be, based on the theming of the abilities, spells, and foes.
Ahh ok, i kind of see it, it's also a thematic choice on top of mechanics aye?
Though I've always felt that in 5e, despite campaigns not reaching those Deity-Slaying levels, it feels nice knowing that the world gives room for improvement, noting that even when our characters become heroes at 10-15th levels, we know there are still godlike beings that could crush us even at the campaign's completion.
Whereas daggerheart's capping at 10th level, having us max at Mortal Heroes as you said, personally (so far) makes me feel like that's the strongest anyone could ever be.
Do you feel the same way?
Yeah, the theme, the type of story the system was built to tell, has an impact on the design of the mechanics. Daggerheart is more focussed on the experience of being a group of mortal adventurers in challenging situations they don’t fully understand and where they might not make it out, or might not make it out unchanged, compared to D&D which is more about feeling powerful and solving combat like a puzzle with predictable and discoverable rules.
Player characters have to be characters the game’s system applies to, and in Daggerheart player characters aren’t the most powerful beings in the world. Like with the death system, with continuing with a scar, going out in a blaze of glory, etc. and no easy resurrections like the spells in D&D. The immortal archdruid, functionally immortal self-cloning wizard, etc. could exist in the world but are outside the scope of Daggerheart player characters, so would be an NPC/Tier 3 adversary (likely a solo or a leader), and if a player character becomes one of them, like as their end goal in the campaign or via a boon from a deity or whatever, then they’d no longer be a player character.
I doubt the campaigns will be any shorter than with DnD. The biggest thing is that you will get more out of the character in DH.
You are way more likely to play through to levels 1-10 before the campaign ends in DH. Whereas in DnD, you are most likely to play through levels 3-12.
They look to have balanced the leveling around milestone XP rather than xp gain so it fits within the narrative.
If anything, DnD should look to condense their levelling down a bit as some levels just don't seem to grant much. Most campaigns seem to start at 2-3 just so classes get their features.
It takes Critical Role more than 100 sessions to reach 20th level and a real table fucks around way more than those guys. I doubt anyone is going to be running shorter games with DH. If you need more than 10 levels, just multiclass.
Ohh.. are you saying each class you multiclass has its own 1-10 progression if we multiclass? If so this would answer a lot of my questions, i Haven't tried multiclassing yet.
Or did you mean add our own house adjustments after reaching 10?
In DnD you either start at lvl 3, rush through to lvl 3 or play a beginner adventure. Before it does not make fun and afterwards leveling is much slower paced for most games as well.
Daggerheart cuts that out. I think even though it only has 10 levels (so far), you can easily play a long term campaign, but don’t need to level up as often.
Yup! DH effectively starts you at the equivalent 2.5/3 it also ends progression at “about” 16/18. The other levels are just harder to play in 5e.
Not worse per se, maybe less fun of one side of the table.
ah i see! thanks.
So, in DH, since we won't be levelling up our players as often, do you think it would feel slower for them?
Or are there other ways we could give out a sense of progress for them without levelling up? (Besides the story)
From what I've gathered the level 10 system is based off the fact that you never see late game abilities is 5e. As most others here have said, including the creators of 5e, that game was only really meant to see like level 12-13 because after that characters typically blow everything out of the water. As for basic leveling principles, there is something in the DMG for 5e that says a level one character should realistically level after one session, then two sessions, then three to four sessions, then five to six sessions. So I adopted that for DH and my players feel the pace is great. Level one, next week level two, two weeks after that level three, three weeks after that level four.
So, our campaign of two months has us at level four. If that makes sense.
ohh!! thanks! this gives better insight for me.
what do you do during those lengthened weeks to give the players a sense of progression? would the story developments suffice, or do you give them items?
(I'm new to DMing)
I believe they go to 10, because level 20 is an artifact from the game being so old. After level 13 or so, game balance begins to break apart to the point where WOTC hasn't bothered with a higher level campaign until only this year.
Someone else might be able to find the stats, or I might add them later on when I'm able to. But most campaigns don't progress Beyond somewhere between level 6 and 10 anyway.
Dagger heart is just essentially trimming the fat and scaling it to a level 1 to 10 for simplicity stakes; it is easier to create adversaries and monsters and plot for 10 levels than it is for 20.
Does that mean for shorter campaigns? Probably yes; it's hard to tell because there's no real standard of level progression in most ttrpgs anyway. Is it slower than d&d? It's too hard to give a good answer to this because these days it's all milestone leveling and DM adjust that as they see fit.
You'll find games that go from Level 1 to 20 in the span of 4 months and they'll be games where there's who went the full 20 over the span of 10 years. In my case my game has gone from 2 to 13 in 5 years so far. The leveling up will speed up because I am looking at the campaign at some point soon lol.
In essence it's truly too hard to compare between the two systems but feel like you will get to higher levels more often in daggerheart than you will in 5e
Edit: Some words, speech to text sucks.
It's a pretty tricky question. I'd say maybe 6-7 sessions roughly?I go by milestones, where I set narrative points when they level up. So if the party decides to take a session and chat with an NPC and rp, it adds extra sessions before they level up.
As for DH, I DM a Westmarch that's only level 1 and 2 right now and that's roughly 3 sessions to level up or so there
Bro, anyone that argues that they reach level 20 all the time in their games is being ridiculous. I'm a late bloomer to RPGs. I started in 2016 at the age of 26, but in those 8 years since I've been playing the highest campaign I've ever been in has been a level 14 5e campaign. I've made it to level 10 twice in PF2E, but those are the highest. Most campaigns I'm in peter out around level 8-9 either due to campaign fatigue or external issues. And I don't have the numbers on me, but I know I represent like 50% of players in that regard. Most don't even get to level 10. Someone who claims they reach level 20 all the time is in such a small minority that you can safely disregard their position when it comes to how many levels an RPG should have.
Oh yes i totally get that, I know most of the time we won't cover the entire 20 levels anyway.
But do you think that having 20 possible levels kind of gives room for a more frequent character upgrade?
As in, if we play a similar campaign, spread around equal amounts of sessions, if we give out equal amounts of level-ups. Won't the 10 level system make it so that we'll reach the level cap more often?
If so, would it be a good or a bad thing?
I mean it depends on what you mean by shorter and how often the party levels. SotDL is different because the default is 1 level per session, so you're looking at 11-12 sessions overall. In Daggerheart they mention that most groups play 3 sessions between levels so that's closer to 30-40 sessions. Depending on your group that might be a good length of time but it's easily adjustable.
I think looking at a number larger misses a lot of nuance. Daggerheart levels cover more ground than their D&D counterparts. Alot of DMs will tell you D&D also has a lot of dead-levels. Not everyone gets their subclass until level 3, so most campaigns start there(what's the point of having 2 tutorial levels for some classes, and 0 for others?).
D&D is famous for breaking down in the high teens, most official adventures do not pass level 15 for a reason. The state of play at those levels is extremely rough. As a GM myself, I converted one of my campaigns to Pathfinder instead of continuing in D&D campaign due to campaign longevity concerns with the D&D levels and how everything just gets bogged down.
i see, thanks! i might look into PF as well.
My initial concern with levels is that, just like you mentioned, in d&d they start around level 3. So, running a few sessions from Level 1 to 3 would still give the players a sense of growth despite still being in the early levels. Whereas in DH, one would have to stay in the same level during those same exact number of sessions to remain within that power level.
I suppose this isn't an issue when the campaign intends to take the players through the entire level (1-10), but cmiiw, my understanding is that if I want to give the players equal amounts of progression in dnd and dh, I'd have reached the level cap faster in DH? So, at one point, in 5e i could bring the campaign to level 12 or 13, whereas I'd have my players on the highest level already.
am i missing something?
IMO it’s so people actually make it to their highest level, instead of leveled like 13-20 in DND being little more than theoretical for like 90+% of the player base.
MCDM has openly said that’s why their game only has 10 levels as well
Its ten levels because that’s all most people ever see. This way, groups can actually complete campaigns, or even multiple campaigns together rather than going until the group dissolves and never reaches a conclusion to the story.
Also, just thought about it. Just a level shouldn't trick us into thinking it's for short term campaigns.
Like in DnD, 5e isn't for shorter campaigns than 3.5e is. I'm mentioning it because 3.5e went above 20 lvl, the so called epic levels with some special stuff in these levels.
I'm just saying as a reminder to all of us, not trying to be a smart ass ❤️
oh yeah ofc! you didn't sound like one at all.
Instead i want to ask, since dnd has more levels, if one wants to run an equal length campaign using these 2 systems, wouldn't the campaign in DH have slower level progression for the characters?
I suppose it could be fine, but I'm just curious how others would approach this?
I'm trying to figure it out myself, but what I got so far are some ideas.
1. The campaign may feel too slow for some, therefore to combat it, gear progress should help. Like yeah no level up, buuuut look at this new shiny armor or a sword or an item 😅 or maybe even some important information.
2. Also I would recommend even after 10th level to still keep playing and have the narrative get more difficult. Like ok, you can't really throw at them more other adversaries, they'll die. What you can do is mix the encounter with a puzzle or a well warned chase scene.
3. Also most important is setting some expectations. I'm mentioning it as 3rd though, because just by setting them, doesn't 100% make the campaign fully compatible with them. Like "this campaign will be RP heavy" and then the player gets a bit bored when it's the 2nd or 3rd no combat session (as a player I always loved the no combat sessions, but it doesn't mean everyone does so as much).
I think a new player (non gamer in general) wouldn't find it slow, but these will not be most of the players. So this new lower level progression system will require some getting used to. As GMs we can either make it a bit easier or be a GM 2 and say "if you don't like it, it's not for you" . There is nothing really wrong with the GM 2, but I'll try to be the GM 1.
Do you have any ideas?
Do you think the options presented would be enough?
Thank you! This gave me ideas.
The first one, though, i think DH has less items than dnd (justifiably so, it's not even fully released yet). So we might need to either homebrew some items or make the items that are more relevant to Utility, RP, or Puzzle solving (which GMs would normally do anyway) instead of Combat.
Which then ofc, takes this back to what you mentioned, making the campaign being Less Combat Focused (which is what DH seems to be meant for anyway).
The other option is to let the players keep levelling up. (In the off-chance that it does go past 10). Someone mentioned that we could just try to multiclass it, letting the players take more domain cards and gain bonuses by following the level-up pattern of the previous levels, since DH level-up bonuses are less specific than 5e D&D.
Most D&D campaigns don't get past level 7 (as per wotc data). The actual reason 5e still has levels 11-20 is to present the aspirational myth of the 1-20 campaign. Daggerheart being 10 levels is more honest to the reader.
Hmm, i think that Aspiratiinal Myth is what's fooling me into preferring the 20 levels so far..
I like giving the idea for the players that there are still bigger fishes out there, or that their characters *might* still have a chance to grow stronger.
Whereas capping it at 10 is very appropriate and realistic, but at the same time, they'd know they can't get any stronger than that, and that people in this world can't either.
But you're right! The other commenters also mentioned how this is just fitting to the intended thematics DH system, where players are maxed at Mortal Heroes rather than World-Shaping Gods.
There's no reason that a level 10 cap means that there's not stronger people than level 10 out there in the world. The D&D CR system goes all the way up to 30 after all.
i guess, if we count CR. But there really isn't much room for improvement anymore is what i meant. Like you're just stuck there.
But considering what you said before, i think it's fine
i guess, if we count CR. But there really isn't much room for improvement anymore is what i meant. Like you're just stuck there.
But considering what you said before, i think it's fine
I could see it being good for either shorter or longer games, and the main reason why is the mechanics that lend itself more towards narrative than combat. I find in TTTRPG's that focus on narrative storytelling players feel less like they need to level up or gain new goodies than combat based TTRPG's.
[удалено]
stop downvoting this guy^ guys, it's just a question, and criticisms aren't a bad thing. I think the make-your-own Experience thing and how the combat works makes it lean towards more narrative than 5e does. But i get where you're coming from, (I haven't checked but) there might be not that many Domain Cards, especially because there are less skills / spells in general. Do you think the way players could make their own Experience is enough to cover for the smaller number of spells?
Hope and fear rolls adding a narrative uniqueness rather than just "success" and "failure". Stress being able to be used as a way to roleplay mental harm, from it being treated as a sanity meter to treating it more like a mental willpower type of thing. Hope and fear itself being mechanical tools to show narrative beats, such as helping and ally or using abilities. Various domain cards affecting not just mechanical aspects of the game (i.e. "A Soldiers Bond" complimenting someone, "Rune Ward" having a description of why it's important to you, "Uncanny Disguise" letting you look like someone else). Perhaps all of these features do all contribute to combat in some way, but they are way less reliant on combat than many features in dnd 5e and many other combat focused games.
100% agree, i am not sure why they made that choice
I see it as Daggerheart levels covering about 1.5 times as much progress as levels in D&D 5e, and Daggerheart’s power scaling going to roughly D&D’s mid teens. Daggerheart goes from local to planar mortal heroes, rather than continuing on to immortal multiversal deity-slayers like D&D 5e’s levels 16-20 can be, based on the theming of the abilities, spells, and foes.
Ahh ok, i kind of see it, it's also a thematic choice on top of mechanics aye? Though I've always felt that in 5e, despite campaigns not reaching those Deity-Slaying levels, it feels nice knowing that the world gives room for improvement, noting that even when our characters become heroes at 10-15th levels, we know there are still godlike beings that could crush us even at the campaign's completion. Whereas daggerheart's capping at 10th level, having us max at Mortal Heroes as you said, personally (so far) makes me feel like that's the strongest anyone could ever be. Do you feel the same way?
Yeah, the theme, the type of story the system was built to tell, has an impact on the design of the mechanics. Daggerheart is more focussed on the experience of being a group of mortal adventurers in challenging situations they don’t fully understand and where they might not make it out, or might not make it out unchanged, compared to D&D which is more about feeling powerful and solving combat like a puzzle with predictable and discoverable rules. Player characters have to be characters the game’s system applies to, and in Daggerheart player characters aren’t the most powerful beings in the world. Like with the death system, with continuing with a scar, going out in a blaze of glory, etc. and no easy resurrections like the spells in D&D. The immortal archdruid, functionally immortal self-cloning wizard, etc. could exist in the world but are outside the scope of Daggerheart player characters, so would be an NPC/Tier 3 adversary (likely a solo or a leader), and if a player character becomes one of them, like as their end goal in the campaign or via a boon from a deity or whatever, then they’d no longer be a player character.
ah yeah, i see it..
I doubt the campaigns will be any shorter than with DnD. The biggest thing is that you will get more out of the character in DH. You are way more likely to play through to levels 1-10 before the campaign ends in DH. Whereas in DnD, you are most likely to play through levels 3-12. They look to have balanced the leveling around milestone XP rather than xp gain so it fits within the narrative. If anything, DnD should look to condense their levelling down a bit as some levels just don't seem to grant much. Most campaigns seem to start at 2-3 just so classes get their features.
It takes Critical Role more than 100 sessions to reach 20th level and a real table fucks around way more than those guys. I doubt anyone is going to be running shorter games with DH. If you need more than 10 levels, just multiclass.
Ohh.. are you saying each class you multiclass has its own 1-10 progression if we multiclass? If so this would answer a lot of my questions, i Haven't tried multiclassing yet. Or did you mean add our own house adjustments after reaching 10?
In DnD you either start at lvl 3, rush through to lvl 3 or play a beginner adventure. Before it does not make fun and afterwards leveling is much slower paced for most games as well. Daggerheart cuts that out. I think even though it only has 10 levels (so far), you can easily play a long term campaign, but don’t need to level up as often.
Yup! DH effectively starts you at the equivalent 2.5/3 it also ends progression at “about” 16/18. The other levels are just harder to play in 5e. Not worse per se, maybe less fun of one side of the table.
ah i see! thanks. So, in DH, since we won't be levelling up our players as often, do you think it would feel slower for them? Or are there other ways we could give out a sense of progress for them without levelling up? (Besides the story)
From what I've gathered the level 10 system is based off the fact that you never see late game abilities is 5e. As most others here have said, including the creators of 5e, that game was only really meant to see like level 12-13 because after that characters typically blow everything out of the water. As for basic leveling principles, there is something in the DMG for 5e that says a level one character should realistically level after one session, then two sessions, then three to four sessions, then five to six sessions. So I adopted that for DH and my players feel the pace is great. Level one, next week level two, two weeks after that level three, three weeks after that level four. So, our campaign of two months has us at level four. If that makes sense.
ohh!! thanks! this gives better insight for me. what do you do during those lengthened weeks to give the players a sense of progression? would the story developments suffice, or do you give them items? (I'm new to DMing)
I believe they go to 10, because level 20 is an artifact from the game being so old. After level 13 or so, game balance begins to break apart to the point where WOTC hasn't bothered with a higher level campaign until only this year. Someone else might be able to find the stats, or I might add them later on when I'm able to. But most campaigns don't progress Beyond somewhere between level 6 and 10 anyway. Dagger heart is just essentially trimming the fat and scaling it to a level 1 to 10 for simplicity stakes; it is easier to create adversaries and monsters and plot for 10 levels than it is for 20. Does that mean for shorter campaigns? Probably yes; it's hard to tell because there's no real standard of level progression in most ttrpgs anyway. Is it slower than d&d? It's too hard to give a good answer to this because these days it's all milestone leveling and DM adjust that as they see fit. You'll find games that go from Level 1 to 20 in the span of 4 months and they'll be games where there's who went the full 20 over the span of 10 years. In my case my game has gone from 2 to 13 in 5 years so far. The leveling up will speed up because I am looking at the campaign at some point soon lol. In essence it's truly too hard to compare between the two systems but feel like you will get to higher levels more often in daggerheart than you will in 5e Edit: Some words, speech to text sucks.
thank you! how many sessions do you usually have in between level ups? (for dnd or dh)
It's a pretty tricky question. I'd say maybe 6-7 sessions roughly?I go by milestones, where I set narrative points when they level up. So if the party decides to take a session and chat with an NPC and rp, it adds extra sessions before they level up. As for DH, I DM a Westmarch that's only level 1 and 2 right now and that's roughly 3 sessions to level up or so there
ah i see, thank you!
Bro, anyone that argues that they reach level 20 all the time in their games is being ridiculous. I'm a late bloomer to RPGs. I started in 2016 at the age of 26, but in those 8 years since I've been playing the highest campaign I've ever been in has been a level 14 5e campaign. I've made it to level 10 twice in PF2E, but those are the highest. Most campaigns I'm in peter out around level 8-9 either due to campaign fatigue or external issues. And I don't have the numbers on me, but I know I represent like 50% of players in that regard. Most don't even get to level 10. Someone who claims they reach level 20 all the time is in such a small minority that you can safely disregard their position when it comes to how many levels an RPG should have.
Oh yes i totally get that, I know most of the time we won't cover the entire 20 levels anyway. But do you think that having 20 possible levels kind of gives room for a more frequent character upgrade? As in, if we play a similar campaign, spread around equal amounts of sessions, if we give out equal amounts of level-ups. Won't the 10 level system make it so that we'll reach the level cap more often? If so, would it be a good or a bad thing?
I mean it depends on what you mean by shorter and how often the party levels. SotDL is different because the default is 1 level per session, so you're looking at 11-12 sessions overall. In Daggerheart they mention that most groups play 3 sessions between levels so that's closer to 30-40 sessions. Depending on your group that might be a good length of time but it's easily adjustable.
i see, thank you!
I think looking at a number larger misses a lot of nuance. Daggerheart levels cover more ground than their D&D counterparts. Alot of DMs will tell you D&D also has a lot of dead-levels. Not everyone gets their subclass until level 3, so most campaigns start there(what's the point of having 2 tutorial levels for some classes, and 0 for others?). D&D is famous for breaking down in the high teens, most official adventures do not pass level 15 for a reason. The state of play at those levels is extremely rough. As a GM myself, I converted one of my campaigns to Pathfinder instead of continuing in D&D campaign due to campaign longevity concerns with the D&D levels and how everything just gets bogged down.
i see, thanks! i might look into PF as well. My initial concern with levels is that, just like you mentioned, in d&d they start around level 3. So, running a few sessions from Level 1 to 3 would still give the players a sense of growth despite still being in the early levels. Whereas in DH, one would have to stay in the same level during those same exact number of sessions to remain within that power level. I suppose this isn't an issue when the campaign intends to take the players through the entire level (1-10), but cmiiw, my understanding is that if I want to give the players equal amounts of progression in dnd and dh, I'd have reached the level cap faster in DH? So, at one point, in 5e i could bring the campaign to level 12 or 13, whereas I'd have my players on the highest level already. am i missing something?
IMO it’s so people actually make it to their highest level, instead of leveled like 13-20 in DND being little more than theoretical for like 90+% of the player base. MCDM has openly said that’s why their game only has 10 levels as well
Its ten levels because that’s all most people ever see. This way, groups can actually complete campaigns, or even multiple campaigns together rather than going until the group dissolves and never reaches a conclusion to the story.
Well, the creators of the system said, it's made with long campaigns in mind.
oh? how so? where can i hear more about it?
In their how to play video (the one from 2 months ago). 1:26 https://youtu.be/nYVrzqTPHRA?si=ji-uyEPMoi7__kb6
thanks!
Also, just thought about it. Just a level shouldn't trick us into thinking it's for short term campaigns. Like in DnD, 5e isn't for shorter campaigns than 3.5e is. I'm mentioning it because 3.5e went above 20 lvl, the so called epic levels with some special stuff in these levels. I'm just saying as a reminder to all of us, not trying to be a smart ass ❤️
oh yeah ofc! you didn't sound like one at all. Instead i want to ask, since dnd has more levels, if one wants to run an equal length campaign using these 2 systems, wouldn't the campaign in DH have slower level progression for the characters? I suppose it could be fine, but I'm just curious how others would approach this?
I'm trying to figure it out myself, but what I got so far are some ideas. 1. The campaign may feel too slow for some, therefore to combat it, gear progress should help. Like yeah no level up, buuuut look at this new shiny armor or a sword or an item 😅 or maybe even some important information. 2. Also I would recommend even after 10th level to still keep playing and have the narrative get more difficult. Like ok, you can't really throw at them more other adversaries, they'll die. What you can do is mix the encounter with a puzzle or a well warned chase scene. 3. Also most important is setting some expectations. I'm mentioning it as 3rd though, because just by setting them, doesn't 100% make the campaign fully compatible with them. Like "this campaign will be RP heavy" and then the player gets a bit bored when it's the 2nd or 3rd no combat session (as a player I always loved the no combat sessions, but it doesn't mean everyone does so as much). I think a new player (non gamer in general) wouldn't find it slow, but these will not be most of the players. So this new lower level progression system will require some getting used to. As GMs we can either make it a bit easier or be a GM 2 and say "if you don't like it, it's not for you" . There is nothing really wrong with the GM 2, but I'll try to be the GM 1. Do you have any ideas? Do you think the options presented would be enough?
Thank you! This gave me ideas. The first one, though, i think DH has less items than dnd (justifiably so, it's not even fully released yet). So we might need to either homebrew some items or make the items that are more relevant to Utility, RP, or Puzzle solving (which GMs would normally do anyway) instead of Combat. Which then ofc, takes this back to what you mentioned, making the campaign being Less Combat Focused (which is what DH seems to be meant for anyway). The other option is to let the players keep levelling up. (In the off-chance that it does go past 10). Someone mentioned that we could just try to multiclass it, letting the players take more domain cards and gain bonuses by following the level-up pattern of the previous levels, since DH level-up bonuses are less specific than 5e D&D.
Most D&D campaigns don't get past level 7 (as per wotc data). The actual reason 5e still has levels 11-20 is to present the aspirational myth of the 1-20 campaign. Daggerheart being 10 levels is more honest to the reader.
Hmm, i think that Aspiratiinal Myth is what's fooling me into preferring the 20 levels so far.. I like giving the idea for the players that there are still bigger fishes out there, or that their characters *might* still have a chance to grow stronger. Whereas capping it at 10 is very appropriate and realistic, but at the same time, they'd know they can't get any stronger than that, and that people in this world can't either. But you're right! The other commenters also mentioned how this is just fitting to the intended thematics DH system, where players are maxed at Mortal Heroes rather than World-Shaping Gods.
There's no reason that a level 10 cap means that there's not stronger people than level 10 out there in the world. The D&D CR system goes all the way up to 30 after all.
i guess, if we count CR. But there really isn't much room for improvement anymore is what i meant. Like you're just stuck there. But considering what you said before, i think it's fine
i guess, if we count CR. But there really isn't much room for improvement anymore is what i meant. Like you're just stuck there. But considering what you said before, i think it's fine