Thanks all for so many great comments! But I did want to address some of the more critical comments that I believe make some valid points. 1. You are absolutely allowed to have opinions about games and their mechanics without having played the game! I came across like that was some cardinal sin, and is certainly isn't. I was more frustrated that pretty much every video and comment I saw online that was critical of how these mechanics "felt" hadn't actually played the game, but I wasn't seeing that from anyone who has actually "felt" those mechanics in action, which I think is also an important viewpoint. Sometimes you can't get a good feel for how mechanics work in the greater system until you've experience them and I really felt it was important to also have that perspective. Add on that I had seen a few really bombastic criticisms shortly before recording this, and I definitely came in too hot. Very much on me. 2. I don't think you're stupid if you disagree with me, whether you've played the game or not. Again, I think I mocked the opposing opinions too harshly, as I was primarily thinking of the people who were screaming this game was "trash" because it didn't have initiative when I was poking fun, but I wasn't remotely clear about that. I shot way too wide, and I apologize to anyone caught in the blast radius. 3. There is a lot to keep track of! At least at first, especially when learning a new system! There might be less than in D&D (btw, the list of things to track in D&D is partially a joke, folks, that's why silly music and much more clearly silly things in the list), but that doesn't mean it isn't still a little much to take in at first. I wanted to present people with a number of ways to track these things to show how easily it could be, but damn, looking back I was a little rude about it. I wanted to go for light-hearted like "See, look how easy it can be, you 've got this" but I missed the mark. Anyway, I may edit and update this if I see more comments that I need to address, because frankly if I'm not open to criticism then what right do I have to criticize? If anything, this just reaffirms why I prefer to script my videos, so that I better convey my points (which I, frankly, still screw up). Play what you love, and love what you play! ~Klaus "The Guide" von Hohenloe
Thanks so much, it was very very frustrating seeing all these reviews about a playtest when they haven't done the playtest. It's insane to me lol. Thx for injecting common sense into the discourse, the brain rot was actually impressive out there.
People who play D&D 5e who complain of the things to keep track of in Daggerheart are arguing in bad faith, IMO. I've found Hope to be a much better player resource than 5e's Inspiration. The rate at which a player gains hope (more than 50% of all rolls) encourages players to take more risks and to help their allies out. I'm going to have to try the Action Tracker for myself to experience it. Before that, I simply had an enemy do their thing when a PC rolled with Fear, similar to grtting a 7-9 in Dungeon World. It still worked out pretty well!
Daggerheart definitely melds the crunch of D&D with “narrative first” games like Blades in the Dark, Fate and PbtA games. I’ve seen a lot of comments/reviews from people that have never played narrative games and struggle with the more free form rules like Experiences and fluid initiative. Also how to come up with consequences for fear rolls is another issue that I’ve seen from GMs. Having run a fair amount of Blades in the Dark. I’ve tried to explain that, yes, all these mechanics are tried and tested and work well, but it is a different mindset that takes a bit of learning for both players and GM. It does make for a free flowing style of play where the mechanics don’t get in the way.
The only thing I would change about the initiative system is that it needs to account for quiet players that will quite literally do nothing in combat if you don't turn to them and say "it's your turn". I want Daggerheart to be accessible to as many people as possible, and obviously it is the DM and the player's responsibility to make their game accessible, but there should also be responsibility taken by the system. The token system has ALMOST gotten us there, where PCs taking actions potentially hands an action to the DM to use for enemies. There could be a system where tokens eventually gravitate towards PCs that have not taken as many turns. This would apply some gentle pressure to quieter players to make use of their resources that will disappear once the battle ends.
@@floofzykitty5072 It would be a hard thing to achieve without either seeming to penalise the quiet player for not joining the action or rewarding them for sitting back and accumulating some sort of ‘bonus’ which they can spend all at once. I do see your reasoning though. As a GM, I might reward players that make especially good moves during play, probably with Hope and I would make allowances for those quiet players and give them a little extra if they try to engage more. Hackmaster has an honour system and players get rewarded with honour like this at the end of a session. Blades in the Dark also awards an extra XP at the end of a session to the player that the group feels pulled off the best moment of that session.
@@the_hetman in point of fact the solution is incredibly simple, but your going to have to bend just a little. allow all PCs a set amount of tokens, say 3 at lower levels, 5 at mid levels etc. initiative proceeds as written however PCs only get their allotment of tokens back once everyone present in the "scene" have spent all their tokens. essentially concluding the "round". even if they are quieter players, if they are in the scene, this suggested alteration "forces" them to participate. and I would like to think, maintains vast amounts of that freeform action but enforces a level of decorum.
@@the_hetman I do want to push back on one thing though, freeform narrative games are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum to mechanical heavy games like D&D. In D&D, with it's crunch, a fireball is a fireball is a fireball as per the legal rules definition of fireball in the manual. There is no changing that, for a reason. In FATE, if my character blows something up, the blast could be big, it could be small, the blast could be cone shaped or just make a lot of smoke as the story dictates. you can't be both of those extremes at once.
so combat in Daggerheart works a lot like the (newest) Digimon card game. If you make big moves, the opponent makes big moves. If you make small moves, the opponent makes small moves. I like that.
Yeah the “it’s to complicated” thing baffles me. Folks saying that the DM has a lot to learn and keep track of is also odd… I’m not accusing these folks of anything but like, it’s kind of important in the game that the gm knows the rules and knows how the game works, somewhat right?
There are a lot of people who don't like change and it's really funny to watch it coming from the folks I used to consider the kids. My generation keeps talking about the OSR like it's some sort of religious thing and now we have a generation that's resistant to leaving 5E, lol.
I wish people had a more open mentality when reading the rules and THEN get angry because it seems as if they want to get angry while reading the rules and they misinterpret stuff or complain before understanding them. I have a feeling that is complicated for some people to separate the thematic dimension from the playable dimension and if this game wasn't trad fantasy they wouldn't be as angry or confused by the rules. I would prefer if the game itself encouraged normal players to participate more and spotlighters to take a break. I don't want anyone to feel left out and I prefer if the system itself encouraged this. At the end of the day this is an open beta to give feedback and so I think is fair to point out problems so the game can be better for players. Thanks for the video I really appreciate you making it.
I played the playtest with a group of friends, totally emergent/shared narrative (we built the world and adventure together). I feel like the initiative system actually contradicts "sharing the spotlight". Many players will look for an "optimal" move, and due to fluid initiative and other game elements, the optimal move is often to do nothing and let other players take a turn - maybe even to never take a turn (if they cant damage an enemy or want to keep an "until you roll with fear" effect up.
I ran a session. My experience was that all my players were more active. They were interacting consistently with each other throughout combat- which they don't normally do. (Overall, they found it simpler, too) Lots can improve, but it was kinda great. Lots of positives. Running a long term campaign- Idk if it can do that yet. Gm does have to decide a lot, which has downsides. But we really enjoyed it. Even my "normal players" (None of my party are normal. We're neurodivergent & happy, but I think you know what I mean)
You touched on the part I really find interesting, that the free flowing combat "fixes" the action economy issues with 5e. As you said, people seem overly focused on this theoretical situation where one player goes five times in a row and everyone at the table is helpless to prevent it.
It's not active players people are worried about, it's quiet ones. It is literally unavoidable that you have different activity levels at a table, and this "just leave it up to the players" mentality is precisely one of the biggest problems with D&D. Why is Daggerheart intentionally inheriting one of the weakest attributes of D&D? You don't have to have initiative, you just need to apply pressure. For example, if players that don't take turns accumulate some kind of resource they can only spend by taking actions and will disappear once combat ends they will be pressured to take action. This also solves the issue where if a party member can't contribute much to an encounter they are encouraged to do nothing and let the party members with effective actions take over. For example, there are already enemies in the play test resistant to certain attacks such as physical ones. A PC who can only inflict physical damage taking a turn will hurt the party because it can give the enemy a turn when you get almost nothing in return.
Ok...my "shy player" was fine. Why? Because they were talking to each other and it was really team-based. That shy player? She was more involved during combat than I can ever remember.
@@floofzykitty5072 I have repeatedly seen "what if one player tries to hog the spotlight" as the number one complaint, like the DM has no control to ask the others what they want to do. The act of a GM simply asking a "shy" player what they want to do should be enough to get them to do something. People act as if some people are so passive that they won't do _anything_ unless they are forced to and I think that's getting a bit ridiculous.
@@floofzykitty5072 Except it's not "leave it up to the players". It's "Leave it up to the table." Everyone works on this. The GM should be asking quiet players what they're doing. You're the Game Master. It's your job to keep your table working, preferably with help from your players.
Thank you for a positive review. Theres too much negativity about Daggerheart online at the moment. My group, experienced players all, has tried it and we loved it. So much when our current Pathfinder campaign wraps up we're jumping to Daggerheart.
In the list of things DnD makes you keep track off, I initially read "Concentration" as "Contraception", and for a moment I was like "woah, WTF did I miss when playing 5e?!"
I'm glad you followed the initiative "problem" with advancement. A thought that just came to mind is to (if the table agrees) at session 0 state that advancement can come on an individual basis (rather then the whole party at once like stated in many examples) dew to exemplary play, this will encourage more timid players to put themselves out there (Embrace The Danger p122), because their little fungril wizard, has a chance to ultimately be as tough as the big bad drakona guardian.
I would like to see like 2 things: 1: a cap of 2-3 action tokens per player being codified as an option in the rules for parties that want more initiative structure. Then all players get more tokens at the same time once all players have spent their current tokens. 2: Armor reducing damage from a hit below the lowest threshold should inflict 0 hp loss instead of 1 stress. Stress is oftentimes more valuable than hp.
I agree with you on both points. I've never had an issue with players taking too many actions at any of my tables with initiativeless systems, but I agree that it probably should be codified in some way, if at the very least saying "If there are other players who could act in the scene, then a single player should not take more than 3 actions in a row" or something along those lines. And you make a valid point about stress. You really don't get much of it to work with, and with it being both a resource you can spend, and also lose as a consequence for other things, it probably doesn't need yet another way to lose it. Your suggestion would also help make those armor slots feel that extra little bit more useful if they allowed you to avoid stress. Truly both solid suggestions!
I really like the stress system as a way of managing abilities. Finite resource management is my biggest struggle in videogames and rpgs so having it limited by stress but with options to manage stress are a lot less stressful (eyyy) than something like spell slots.
Really appreciated the balanced take here as a whole! From what I've seen of it, I'm personally really excited about trying it. I have some things that I'm not the biggest fan of, like the cards personally, but I think it's got some solid potential.
I wouldn't call "I like it and people who don't like it are stupid" a balanced take. I respect his take, but it's pretty clearly in favor of Daggerheart and brushes off a lot of the concerns, picking out the ones that are easiest to dispel. Starting to think "really balanced take" is just a new way to say "you share the views I have therefore it's good".
@@StarkMaximum Not remotely what I was trying to get at in the video. I tried to address what I thought were some of the least compelling arguments against it, and then give y thoughts on the rest, where it lands amongst other TTRPGs, and how it feels so people can come to their own conclusions. Yes, I include a few little jokes about D&D and some overblown reactions I've seen, but I would like to think people can tell I'm just giving a good natured ribbing.
Another idea if a player wants to take to many actions in a row. Make them take a strain to do so. Finally a fair video. I have seen so many critical videos on Daggerheart that make the silliest complaints. Couldn't list them all most solved by the players SKIMMING the rulebook. Are their issues.....yes its a PLAYTEST. Running this tomorrow and looking forward to it. Will address issues on the fly like I would with any game and then I will provide feedback with constructive criticisms with solutions instead of the sky is falling it's terrible like so many of these other silly videos. Edit, subscribe for no other reason than your reasonability, and frankly entertaining way of going over things.
Love the video! I agree with all your points about Daggerheart specially about people complaining about the initiative system, I can only really see that being a problem with a group of randos at a convention or online if they’re not having any of it, but even then you can just add a simple initiative system by rolling a d20 and adding your Agility or whatever.
I get the feeling a lot of people dont track everything you'd normally would in dnd ether which makes it feel more light in the tracking. like nobody i've seen tracks arrows and i hear tables ignore spell components.
It's hit point system is interesting to me also. You're basically only tracking like six points that only matter if something hits a threshold. I can't think of another game that uses anything like that. I'm surprised you didn't mention that. So it has a combination of not tracking a bunch of large math while having heavy damage thresh holds leaving you halfway to dead in a single attack.
The rush to be first in order to get the youtube algorithm activated definitely overrides any notion of reviewer integrity. Thanks for putting in actual effort.
Nice, honest and insightful comments about that game. Kudos. Not the system for me, but I suppose it could succeed to ferry some people from the usual trad systems (D&D, Pathfinder, 13th Age etc. I suppose) to something slightly more light and modern, maybe?
I can appreciate the fact that a GM should be the one reigning in overbearing players. As a GM I do it all the time, simply in RP situations so that the table can spotlight quieter players. A fact that ought to be respected though, is currently daggerheart RAW says that one player could go 4 or 5 times before another player pipes up to do anything. RAW doesn't prevent this from happening. And yes you could make house rules limiting the amount of actions a player can take in a "round". But at that point I would suggest it is a badly designed game feature that they need to change if that is the universal feedback that they are getting.
i mean, all the book would need to do to "make it RAW" is add a bit in the GMing section that's like "hey, be a fan of the players, you should probably share the spotlight around and give everyone their moment to shine", which is the kind of vague platitude every game book has because we all know it already
@@lawrl777which is a great platitude but that runs counter to the rule mechanics that they are suggesting. Or you know, they could say, "if you don't like these rules, you can change them" but that isn't productive game design. It isn't game design at all. And again, runs counter to the rules that they are specifically suggesting as the intended game experience. Daggerheart assumes that there isn't going to be any arsehole players but we all know those people exist. And sadly we end up playing with them even as hard as we try to avoid it. A far more elegant approach as this video suggested would be for the rules to **stipulate** that the for everyone in an encounter, they get a number of action tokens (which might increase with level or level bands) which they can spend in any order, but only get them back once the last player has spent all their tokens. Hard code this into the rules, problem solved. But that runs counter to the narrative, improv drama club style of game that Critical Role wishs to make clearly.
Ok...the actions don't work that way. I'm struggling to explain it, I apologize. But there isn't like hit twice, action surge, bonus action kind of turns. That's not how it's set up. The action economy is really different from 5e. Hopefully, someone will see this and be able to say what I am trying, & failing, to explain
@@quinn0517 No, its just "place a token on the tracker and your character does a thing" (which may or may not include some dice roll) to which I would respectfully suggest, that doesn't negate the concerns. I fully expect to see entire subreddits on how this "no turn order, round-less" system spawn countless GM'ing horror stories. By and large because the GM doesn't have the tools (like initiative order) to prevent such from happening.
I am really glad I got to hear your opinion on how the game plays. It is the first real positive one I ran across so far and the way you describe it makes it sound like I would prefer this over 5e by a lot. Also, I am now getting some great ideas on how to redesign some of my older games I am dissatisfied with to riff off of some of these concepts like the action tracker.
Absolutely! I was seeing so much negativity for what I felt is a really solid start to a game. I think there are improvements that can be made and there might certainly be issues I've yet to come across, but I think a lot of folks will really enjoy it if they give it a chance.
Honestly they have a guide one can read as well as the ability to watch a video on instructions. I cant wait to try this system! I for one am tired of dnd this is a system that is different and isnt dnd plus if it has its own online tool? Seriously count me in! The fact its in open beta who is opening the game play to critique? Thats just awesome. Plus as you stated dnd is complex people probably dont realize because of online tools such as dndbeyond. Its not hard why are people taking it as such? To me the system makes sense? Perhaps its just how my brain is wored but its engaging and keeps focus into what is happening!
Idk how interested i'm in Daggerheart tbh - might try it ig? I do like how dnd5e players explore some more games now though It would be great for the hobby if people treated games more like video games, even if i don't see hobby evolving like that any time soon. Wargaming has a similar problem with Warhammer. In both cases, this ends up in corporations behind The Game doing stuff which would harm the hobby but might increase profits. And in both hobbies this means people stick to one system instead of exploring the other systems. Most dnd5e groups want roleplay, but dnd5e offers combat-heavy dungeon crawling. Yet, there are games which do roleplay-heavy gameplay - they just get zero spotlight cause ttrpg hobby has The Game which almost everyone plays no matter how good it is or how much they like what it offers
D&D survived 4th Edition. It's not going to die from 5.5 or 6th or whatever nonsense current WotC is producing. And Daggerheart comes across to me as a system more for role players than the heavy combat ones. But I haven't read the rules, just watched the videoes.
Well... most dnd5e players are roleplayers who very jankily convert a combat-focused game for narrative + combat gameplay. This btw is why recommending people to switch over to pathfinder makes no sense - pf2e is also combat-focused. But yeah, dnd isn't going to die easily... and, given the history of dnd4e and dnd 5.5e... a new scandal born from corporate greed might be more of a matter of when rather than if. I do wish dnd wouldn't necesserily die, but finally fall from it's throne - no single ttrpg should dominate the hobby for it to prosper i think. As for dnd4e - it is maybe is the best modern dnd, but it has bad license, bad last-minute monster tweaks (fixed if you use the MM3 and Monster Vault) and the abomination which is the Essentials book line's classes It is also better at tactical combat than dnd5e, but less combat-focused - as in, the streamlined power system seems to allow you to just... run 1-2 encounters per day without class balance breaking and half the classes losing a huge chunk of their power, unlike dnd5e
It's definitely worth a try, at least! It isn't a perfect system (I mean, it's still being playtested and changed) but my friends and I have been having a lot of fun with it.
There are some aspects about this game which a friend of mine (who definitely didn't complain about the common, clearly bad faith points you referenced) did a great job critiquing Daggerheart such as one of the magic user domains being a dead-end if you're the only magic-user and how the names of Ribbit and Clang feel uninspired and like an in-universe slur respectively, amongst some other fair points I cannot fairly represent this moment. I want to give it a try as a GM but lack the bandwidth myself to organize and run much of anything atm. So I'm hoping they do a solid job refining it and don't let the final draft be impacted by those who've clearly not given it a fair shake. I think it can end up being a decent bridge into other games given how they chose to mix together its inspirations even if I don't personally love it myself.
Yeah, I'm not surprised there would be issues like you mentioned about the magic user domain being a dead-end. Honestly, I'd be shocked if there weren't something like that in their first big open beta/playtest, as that's what it is designed to iron out. As far as the uninspired names, I've always taken stuff like that to be the name given to races in the common tongue when their native tongue is too hard for the average person to pronounce. I mean, yeah, they are still not great, but I'm also have gotten a little numb to bad naming conventions in fantasy, which isn't great either lol. It certainly isn't my favorite game, but I think I'm so excited about it because it might finally get more folks open to playing things that aren't D&D (partially because of Critical Role being behind it). If given the choice between D&D and Daggerheart, even in it's current state, I will choose Daggerheart every single time.
@@TheDungeonNewbsGuideNo doubt for sure on that last bit and I am also used to the terrible names, these ones simply stick out because my memories of Matt Mercer's naming style is a lot more considerate & evocative than that. But I also haven't been interested much in CR now because of personal reasons but especially how overwhelmingly toxic the community is so perhaps that changed.
I am really liking the sound of this (already ordered it). Some of the social problems at the table aren't things that should be dealt with by mechanics. I don't roll a lot of meaningful dice outside of combat. Anyone that worked out an emchantment in Chivalry and Sorcery would laugh at this being called complex.
I think my main problem with the game as it is right now has less to do with the rules and more of the presentation of the system. I’m not a big fan of the reliance on cards and class specific character sheets. I get why they did it and how it could help newer players keep track of the rules, but I think it just adds a bunch of unnecessary jank. Especially after downloading the quickstart on Drivethrurpg and having to navigate multiple folders I would much prefer a book with everything in it and a more flexible character sheet. My biggest worry for the final release is if they don’t offer an alternative to the cards and and the physical version of the game comes out and it’s a bunch of cards and unnecessary gimmicky garbage that’s like 50-90 dollars. I just want the one book, thank you. (I know this comment sounds harsh but I’m genuinely interested in this game and want to see the best version of it come out).
I think I would definitely like to, but I don't think it would be worth it until they release the final version. With things constantly changing between beta-versions, I fear any HtP video I make would become outdated rather quick. And frankly, I've had such a hard time making videos lately, I don't think I could handle releasing a video only for it to be instantly irrelevant in some way :D
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09DPZNJSB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1 These would be the ones I most recently purchased when my old flimsier ones wore out.
This system is difficult for new DMs as it leans heavily on improve for them and balancing fear. I personally thing it's an 'okay' system. There are just too many things that are better out there.
BECMI D&D allowed all players to act in any order that they wanted. Afterwards the monsters got to act in any order that they wanted. That seems simpler and better to me.. Technically speaking the Daggerheart action system rewards weak characters forskipping their turn to avoid causing fear, and that rubs the minmaxer in me the wrong way.
@@TheDungeonNewbsGuide Awesome! Did I mention I'm adapting your adventure The Other into CS?? The horror book Stay Alive! is a grear resource. And may I ask what are you running?
@@the-patient-987 Oh awesome! I think using Stay Alive to pair with the Other is a great idea! Be sure to tell me how it goes! I'm running a campaign I call The Tower in Cypher, a Sci-Fantasy setting of my own I thought up years ago (with influences from all over). A city of people that live atop an impossibly tall mechanical tower, and are trying to explore lower levels to get down. I could write a short essay on how it all works and makes sense (at least for a weird fantasy setting), but yeah!
@@TheDungeonNewbsGuide I'd love to read an essay about that tower as much as one about The Other setting. I'll sure be coming back to tell you about my game after I run it.
._. ok i need to know, your voice is so familiar... are you mostly/mainly facts guy? if not holy shit do you sound alike XD will comment again if i have something to say about the video, but i need this answered ;-;
And no monks, mostly. But you can pretty easily create almost any of them by reskinning existing classes. And classes will be pretty easy to homebrew. You create an ability and then give them access to two domains. Done.
5e being the standard thing but not my thing, rolling 2d12 for actions and tracking hope and fear sounds like more crap to track than I want to track. It might be a cool mechanic, but I suspect it will be slower and more excessive than I need it to be, and so I think any game where you roll only one die to pass/fail will always be a more desirable. Initiative as a terrible mechanic. Good riddance.
The thing is people want to get away from/set themselves apart from the way D&D does things for one ensure no legal issues because though one cannot copyright mechanics they sure as hell can put a smaller creator through the ringer accusing them of theft. Plus people want something new/different! Yes there will be kinks, but that's why it's in open beta. They want to have the community help see issues that they can't. I want to also state in dnd people do roll more than one dice (disadvange/ advantage) so rolling two dice isn't hard at all. Can it use some tweaking/ fine tuning? Sure but at least they are working with the gaming community unlike a certain other game who has essentially a monopoly on TTRPG's soooo like it or not DaggerHeart shpuld succeed to help break that hold in the gaming space! Especially when Hasbro is just evil period.
@@Joshuazx ...is that because you like modifiers better? As if a +1 here and a +2 there is easier to track than "gain another Hope (up to 5)" or is it because you just dislike rolling multiple dice at once? Never rolled 2d6 or d% for a skill check in DnD?
Your assertion that we cannot make comments on Daggerheart (or any other system) until we've played it is analogous to saying "we don't need to improve security until *after* someone has broken in". It's perfectly valid to do a "code review" and find problems/exploits without ever touching a running system. I've found three major faults in critical infrastructure this way. I didn't have to wait for something to go bad *before* getting it fixed. As it stands there are parts of Daggerheart that don't pass this kind of inspection and yet there is no mechanism to provide this kind of feedback to the developers.
I do think I came across a little too harsh in that regard, and didn't clearly make the point I was after. I wasn't trying to say that folks who haven't played the game shouldn't comment on it. It was more that in all the videos I had seen discussing it, none of them had actually played it, and were commenting on how elements of the system "felt" without having actually felt them. "It feels like too much to track" and "the initiative-less system feels too unfocused" were critiques I was seeing. And they are still valid, but my thought was it would also be valuable to hear the perspective from someone who has actually engaged with it as well to say "Actually, here's what I found in practice." As I said, I don't think I made that point terribly well. This is why I usually stick to scripted videos. Just tried more off the cuff to keep the video more casual, but I think that lead to me not presenting some of my points as well as I hope I otherwise would.
@@TheDungeonNewbsGuide I get where you are coming from, I really do, especially with the empirical evidence that no-initiative systems do work for some tables/systems. However, there's an equally vocal side that's saying it *always* works - which I also don't believe. If it's down to Matt to make sure Ashley gets as many actions as Laura at their table, outside the defined mechanics, then the mechanic is potentially serving no purpose - does Daggerheart need some "Muntzing"? There are things that I would need to playtest (or better still - monte carlo) to uncover my suspiscions - like the combo of hope/fear/actions being three inter-related phase-delayed variables: such systems will tend to want to oscilate. I couldn't tell if that will make for a nice ebb-and-flow in combat (good, not sure if intended behaviour), if it will clamp against the rails of the maximum pool size (bad), or it will be truely chaotic like a dual pendulum (worse?). I do know that the last two are much more likely outcomes however.
In all fairness, given the state of WotC, giving people an alternative that evokes D&D is pretty good. Daggerheart could've been a lot closer to D&D and I like a lot of the steps it's taken so far to differentiate itself. It's trying to feel like how CR want D&D to feel and, as a fan of CR personally, that's not necessarily bad a thing.
