OneDnD Bard Playtest discussion

No arcane caster can do it or has ever been able to do it.
Yeah they can.

Wizards get two spells of their choice per level and have done since 3E. There's no requirement those spells come from like, the Wizard's correspondence course or something.

Bards and Sorcerers pull magic from entirely different sources to Wizards, but cast exactly the same spells. That actually hard-proves you're wrong. If arcane spells weren't "floating around the ether", a Sorcerer wouldn't cast Magic Missile, he'd fire an energy blast like a Pathfinder Kineticist or something. You can't even argue with that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah they can.

Wizards get two spells of their choice per level and have done since 3E. There's no requirement those spells come from like, the Wizard's correspondence course or something.
Those spells represent study, learning and practice. Not suddenly having the spells flash into their mind because hey, why not! The entire premise of wizards is that they have to study and practice to use their magic. Sorcerers were the ones who gained magic intuitively. To give that ability to wizards is to go against the RAI for wizards that has existed in every edition of the game.
Bards and Sorcerers pull magic from entirely different sources to Wizards, but cast exactly the same spells. That actually hard-proves you're wrong. If arcane spells weren't "floating around the ether", a Sorcerer wouldn't cast Magic Missile, he'd fire an energy blast like a Pathfinder Kineticist or something. You can't even argue with that.
It actually proves me right. You're looking at that one backwards. It's not sorcerers who pull out wizard spells. It's wizards who have to study hard, learn spells and practice to be able to cast the spells that sorcerers can learn intuitively. Bards are not only not sorcerers, but they are not better sorcerers than sorcerers are, which is what this ability would make them.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Sure they are.

There's no reason to believe they're not. It can't possible be an accident that people all cast identical Magic Missiles and so on.

Your argument might have made sense in 1E/2E, where magic was treated very differently, and essentially every arcane spell was unique, indeed, it wasn't uncommon to see adventures or the like where a spellbook had a different version of a common spell, but that hasn't been the case for 20+ years.
I have no dog in this fight
@Micah Sweet - This is a really serious issue that needs to be addressed when considering any kind of "injury"-type system, and which typically, people completely ignore, especially people making house rules.

Some classes are specifically designed to get hit/damaged more than others. Those classes correspond, unfortunately, with some of the classes who have the least power to impact the game outside combat, and also who have some of the most selfless roles, because they're already in a position where they're essentially taking risks to protect the casters and the like.
This is a very good point
If you introduce an injury-type system, especially one with permanent or longer-term injuries, you're taking these characters and making them significantly weaker and also meaning that they will burn out sooner and so on.

Now, that might make sense in some kinds of game, particularly dark fantasy-type ones. But in that sort of fiction, casting spell also extracts a terrible toll, and this is what tends to get swept under the rug. So we end up with deeply unbalanced sets of changes that make life much harder for front-line warriors in the name of "verisimilitude", but "verisimilitude" is suddenly nowhere to be found when the consequences of spellcasting come calling.
Dark and gritty, in my opinion is fighting against the tide of modern D&D. There are other games that do this better, including I believe, modern D& variants but I cannot comment because it is not my jam. When I liked that kind of play I used Warhammer FRPG first edition.

Equally, with the "Yoyo" issue (which I agree is a real issue), if we just slam level after level of Exhaustion onto the people getting yoyo'd, we're not really addressing the problem. In general, those PCs are trying to stay alive. Being the yoyo is not very comfortable or fun. They're usually getting downed because they're out front protecting other, more vulnerable PCs from getting downed. But as long as the people at the back are fine, they're not really going to care that the Fighter out front now has a -3 to everything on anything but a vague intellectual level. Not sure what the solution is, but it's very obvious it's not punishing the frontliners alone.
The issue here is the action economy of healing. No amount of punishing the front-line characters for falling unconscious will change that. Well, that and typically small parties. Spending an action on healing that cannot keep up with the incoming damage is not efficient compared to letting the fighter drop but preserving the fighter's actions by popping them back up again with a bonus action heal.
This was really brought home to me, watching Critical Role Vox Machina where the players made strong efforts to keep party members on their feet for narrative purposes but usually failed and the healers would have been better off doing damage. It was especially noticeable in the fights where the ranger and the druid were the principal healers.

This is not a trivial problem to solve because if you increase in combat healing then the combat is robbed of tension, or the DM will jack up the enemies to overcome the healing function to maintain tension. Some of this is intrinsic to the armour class, hit points model of D&D.

You can change the paradigm by introducing sudden death mechanics, but D&D has moved away from that for a reason.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
There are many Bard concepts that dont use a musical instrument. The Bard even mentions relying on "verse" and "dance".

I find it highly problematic that the Bard Spellcasting Focus insists on the use of a Musical Instrument.

There must be a way to rely on voice only. (Or somatic only if via dance.)
Agreed on this for sure. 100%.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
I honestly think WotC need to rethink components entirely. They're so dumb and outdated - WotC are so unnecessarily married to V/S/M. If they were willing to ditch them and not look back for the right classes, there's so much more they could do with the spell system. Bards should be V components only unless it's CASH MONEY YO. If you want Psionicists to work with D&D spells, make them S components only and able to suppress that. Make Rangers M components only and suddenly their spells look a bit less irritating. And so on.

And they're another thing almost no-one tracks (again, c.f. podcasts/streams if anyone is going to say "BUT MUH HOMEGAME!").
100% this!
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
Sorry if this is a bit tangential but...

I'm not a fan. But then I don't see how I could have been given that 1D&D "isn't a new edition" and "will be 100% backwards compatible." Bard is my favorite class to play, but whenever I'm playing one I wish I had fewer spells and more cool bard stuff. Of course I cast the spells because the party needs me to, but spells just feel kinda basic compared to cutting words or mantle of inspiration or blade flourish,

The new bardic inspiration is simple and powerful and makes sense. The flip side of that is that any other uses for BI will have to be awesome to compete. Add to that the fact that you are limited to 2 uses per day for 4 levels, 3 per day for another couple levels, and then finally a handful of uses per SR after 7 levels (the halfway point of many games) makes me sad.

But again, they weren't going to overhaul the Bard to be warlock-esque or a half-caster so I was fated to be disappointed.

Apologies again for the topic-adjacent-ish post.
I agree. This is my main issue with the College of Lore. Its abilities have nothing to do with lore, and don't reflect the words of creation at all. I hate the disconnect between the lore of this and the execution of it.

Less spells, more cool powers. What happened to countercharm (which should be a reaction)? I posted this in the general thread about expertise classes and the RANGER discussion there....but more stuff that is "magical" but not spells. Counterspell. Inspiration. Temp hit points. For the college of lore, more knowledge. More use of a word of power (not sure what those should be yet).

I play (ed) a bard to a pretty high level recently, and at those levels I was just another spellcaster.
 

Arilyn

Hero
I agree. This is my main issue with the College of Lore. Its abilities have nothing to do with lore, and don't reflect the words of creation at all. I hate the disconnect between the lore of this and the execution of it.

Less spells, more cool powers. What happened to countercharm (which should be a reaction)? I posted this in the general thread about expertise classes and the RANGER discussion there....but more stuff that is "magical" but not spells. Counterspell. Inspiration. Temp hit points. For the college of lore, more knowledge. More use of a word of power (not sure what those should be yet).

I play (ed) a bard to a pretty high level recently, and at those levels I was just another spellcaster.
I agree with this completely. I'd love to have a bard with no spells, but supernatural songs that have unique effects. If they are plucking on the universal strings if creation, the magic should be distinct.

I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark).

I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy.

The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save.

Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Demons are weak to iron, like fae. In fact, given the presence of Lolth in the Abyss, you can think of many demons as evil fae, and thus weak to iron. Easy way to remember the difference.

Demons and Fae are not actually weak to iron in DnD. Just making sure that this isn't a misunderstanding.

That said.... how do you know you're dealing with a devil versus a demon? Like there's several different ape-like monsters in D&D. How do you tell if its just a beast, a monstrocity, a devil or something else? Balors are giant fire weilding demons, no? But fire is generally a devil thing. It should be easy to confuse them, especially if they're not in their cliche'd appearance. Is the snake monster you are facing a maralith, a liliend or a yuan-ti? Really buff grunge with a grudge or a slaad?

Well, honestly, because most of the time the DM says "The Demon pounces through the door" when it is a demon. So, since they are telling me I don't need to guess.

Also, while there are multiple different ape monsters, few of them are red and blue, which are not common colors for fur and flesh. Additionally, they can't cast spells. So, if I have a big red monkey chanting spells at me, chances are it isn't a common ape. They also tend to be surrounded by cultists, wearing the symbol of their patron. So, even if the big red monkey isn't casting spells, if it is a big red monkey in a room festooned with the symbols of Baphomet, Demon Lord of Beasts, chances are it isn't a normal monkey, and chances are that it isn't a devil.

Fire can be demon or devil. Yugoloths use it too. Frankly, the only thing that doesn't use fire are celestials, which really should, because Fire has been divine for far far far longer than it has been seen as a force of wild and evil destruction.

But let's cut to the chase, most times when you are fighting something above CR 7, the DM has prepped you for it. The DM doesn't just say "and a snake woman bursts out of the closet to attack you." A Marilith is a CR 16 general of demonic armies. She's surrounded by demons, and likely you are looking to stop her, not just stumbling over her with no idea what or who she is. Unless your DM is completely wasting their potential. Yes, information is valuable, but generally the DM is telling you the important stuff, like what the quest is.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
It is mostly the V word, which matters to me, subjectively, at my own table, so I think we're on the same page in principle here.

As for the barbarian, they are an excellent candidate for a class feature that would make them more resistant to lingering injuries (but not immune), for the reasons you described. Whenever you add a subsystem, you have to think about how it interacts with different rules and different characters. I'm sure that could be worked out.

Sure, you could make it work.

You could make Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and all sorts of other frontliners "resistant" to the new penalities you are dishing out, but I just don't see the point of designing a system that will either be dreaded by the players or come up so rarely that you don't even notice it.

If I want particularly nasty injuries for a fight, I'll make the monster special, but I don't see anything I want to deal with in making a general system. I've been on the other side of it, and it sucks.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
You did get that I originally said "in a setting where they are rare" right? Settings can make them common, uncommon, rare, very rare, unique or gone entirely.

And if they are rare... they are still potentially a playable race. They would still be, for OD&D, in the player's handbook.

And still, they are just people. Normal humanoids. Why would I go into battle with an orc and assume they are resistant to acid damage? They are just people.

Goblins are only a playable race if the DM allows it, and are only common in settings where the DM determines that they are common. This includes official settings like the Forgotten Realms where the DM has changed goblins to be rare.

And still doesn't explain why I must assume they are resistant to fire. Why can't I assume they have no vulnerabilities? Why is assuming the baseline metagaming? Just because you don't like it?

Winter Wolves who are immune to cold exist, so why not a fire version?

Then, just like Winter Wolves aren't Wolves (they are two different things) these would be Fire Wolves. And, yeah, I'd assume wolves with embers falling from their fur and breathing fire are immune to fire. Why is this a bad thing?

Owlbears were created by magic. Who knows what magic might have done to them?

It could have... combined an owl and a bear, neither of which are resistant to fire. Are you saying that I should be forced to roll some sort of arcana check before I cast a fire spell, because my character would of course choose to use their action trying to figure out if a normal looking animal (because while they are monstrisities created by magic, they are also common forest dwellers) is immune to fire first?

Again, why is my assumption of null a problem? Why is it so hard to believe that DMs how constantly claim they foreshadow traps will foreshadow things like monsters being immune to fire.

It is entirely about what your characters know.

Well, my character knows that smashing a fluid with a mace isn't effective, so they can figure out that smashing a magmin with a mace isn't effective. Entirely in-character.

That's false. It isn't about different logic and is entirely about what their characters know.

And every time I've presented what the characters know, you swoop in and say "But what if they are wrong? What if it isn't that? What if magma can be SCOOPED!"

This isn't about what my character's can justify, this is you harping on about how I'm a terrible metagamer, because I don't waste time wondering if creatures made of flame are immune to fire.

There's no reason to think that animated armor would be resistant to weapons. PCs wearing armor do not gain resistance when enemies hit their armor, so why would walking armor be any different. Undead created through negative energy(necrotic) are opposite to positive energy(radiant). That was a shifted goal post.

So... poison not working on animated armor is a goal shift because weapons will? Well, someone is certainly shifting goal posts to go from discussing poison to discussing weapons. Also, animated armor ISN'T resistant to weapons, FYI.

And undead being created from negative energy which is opposed to radiant energy... also has nothing to do with poison. Second goalpost shifted. Are you trying to make a triangle?

No. It's a good thing for me that's a false equivalence. Demons have a variety of resistances and immunities. They are not all resistant to exactly the same things. Same with devils. Not sure about elementals, but after the first two I'm not going to look and see.

The ability proposed would continue to be useful against demons, devils, etc.

Hey, it's the triangle!

Because, no, they don't. See, now I'm going to ACTUALLY meta-game and read the Demon statblocks. Tell me if you notice something

Balor: Resistant - cold, lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - fire, poison
Barlgure: Resistant - Cold, fire, lighting. Immune - Poison
Chasme - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Dretch - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning Immune - Poison
Glabrezu - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Goristro - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Hezrou - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Mane - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Marilith - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Nalfeshnee - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Quasit - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Shadow Demon - Resistant - Acid, Fire, Necrotic, Thunder, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison, Cold, Lightning. Vulnerable - Radiant
Vrock - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Yochlol - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison

Now, I'm sure you've noticed how these are... basically identical? The only difference is whether or not they are strong enough to be resistant to mundane weapons. And, I know, you are about to pee yourself with excitement, because fool that I am, how could I not notice the Shadow Demon? Doesn't that disprove my entire point, this single monster?

Actually no. Because Shadow demons are incorporeal. And incorporeal foes share a lot of those same exact traits. So, you just need to know that it is an incorporeal demon... which is kind of in the description? So, after the first time you fight a Mane or a Dretch, you basically know all the resistance and immunities of every demon.

So, once you have used your Hunter's Lore, or Lore Bard's Lore on the dretch, what do you gain by using it on the Glabrezu? Literally only that the more powerful demon is resistant to nonmagical weapons, which is only useful if you HAVE magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, it is useless information.

So, no, it isn't a false equivalence. Once you learn what one demon's R's, V's and I's are, you basically know all of them. Because they are standardized.


How do you know he cast no spell? Not all spells use components. And I can flavor my wizard PC to have his eyes blaze with lightning when I cast electrical spells.

Every spell uses at least one components. Verbal is the most common, and I can't think of a single evocation spell that doesn't use it. And you are sure welcome to have your wizard do that, but since your wizard isn't a giant with an elemental theme, it probably won't lead to the same conclusion. You can't just scream "but he might be a wizard!" and expect me to ignore what giant's are, and how they work, ESPECIALLY when you brought up frost giants in comparison. So, I've encountered elementally themed giants once before. Why would I suddenly act like I have no idea what I'm seeing here? Why do you insist my character must be too stupid to use basic logic?


That's an objectively false statement. Alignment is not the only difference between those planes.

For someone who isn't metagaming? There is no other difference.

So you assume that the creature is immune to fire and use lightning, which is what it really is immune to. You've wasted a spell, done no damage for the round, and could end up dead because of it. In a tough fight one round of doing no damage could mean all the difference.

Assumption can bite you in the rear. Not will. Can.

Well, if I ever encounter a creature made of fire that is actually not resistant or immune to fire, but immune to lightning, I'll be sure to send you a PM and tell you how right you are.

However, in the world where DMs aren't purposefully making gotcha monsters to punish players who use logic, that is never going to happen.

I'm not sure why it's so important for you to make a troll's vulnerability to fire and acid not a vulnerability. It's not the same kind of vulnerability as taking extra damage, but when you can come back from anything, including death unless fire or acid are used, those are vulnerabilities.

Because it isn't a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities are called "Vulnerabilities". The troll ability is under "special abilities" and called "regeneration"

You want to talk about things that bite you in the rear? Writing rules and assuming people won't follow the RAW. That WILL bite you in the rear, consistently, because DMs are far more likely to follow RAW than whatever psychic signal you were trying to send them. Right the rules for the ability you want, if you want them to know a monster's special abilities, put it in the rules. Don't just assume it is obvious and of course everyone will agree with you.

Because half damage can still be effective. I was talking about assuming immunity. You don't know whether something that uses cold and/or lives in the cold is immune or not. Resistance is just as likely an option.

Uh huh. So, if I have a choice between dealing half damage, and dealing full damage by not gambling on that... why in the world would I choose the half damage? Also, what you were talking about seems to not be what I was talking about. You have this bad habit of shifting the goalposts mid-stream without telling anyone you are doing it.

So you walk into a bar and ask the paladin what his armor class is? No. You don't, because while armor and being harder to hit/damage are things in the fiction, armor class numbers are not. Hit point numbers are also not a thing in the fiction.

Why in the world would I ask? If he is wearing full plate is armor is 18. That information is right there in the PHB. It isn't metagaming to know what AC's armors give. If it were, then when the player is trying to buy better armor, the DM would just not tell them what the armor does and make them guess. Maybe they would even hide their AC from the player.

But that doesn't happen. Because AC is not a metagame construct. It is something the player is fully allowed to know, in world.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I agree with this completely. I'd love to have a bard with no spells, but supernatural songs that have unique effects. If they are plucking on the universal strings if creation, the magic should be distinct.

I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark).

I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy.

The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save.

Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.

Why shouldn't it? I could trivially do the same thing with a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid... if you build a background and take feats to get a specific flavor, then ignore the things that give you a different flavor, then you are going to end up with the same result.

Also, well.... this is the same bard, you realize that right?

Take out your PHB and look. Other than songs of rest and the lose of countercharm, these are all identical abilities in most respects. Lore bard only lost access to +2 spells, and they gained more stuff to work with inspiration and cutting words, they actually became MORE bardic.

It isn't like 5e bards had some massive array of song abilities that they removed. This is basically what the Bard has always been.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And still doesn't explain why I must assume they are resistant to fire. Why can't I assume they have no vulnerabilities? Why is assuming the baseline metagaming? Just because you don't like it?
People don't have to assume any resistances or vulnerabilities. If you want to assume they have none, go for it.
Then, just like Winter Wolves aren't Wolves (they are two different things) these would be Fire Wolves. And, yeah, I'd assume wolves with embers falling from their fur and breathing fire are immune to fire. Why is this a bad thing?
They are wolves. Wolves come in varieties.
See, now I'm going to ACTUALLY meta-game and read the Demon statblocks. Tell me if you notice something
I do!
Balor: Resistant - cold, lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - fire, poison
Barlgure: Resistant - Cold, fire, lighting. Immune - Poison
Chasme - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Dretch - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning Immune - Poison
Glabrezu - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Goristro - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Hezrou - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Mane - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Marilith - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Nalfeshnee - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Quasit - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Shadow Demon - Resistant - Acid, Fire, Necrotic, Thunder, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison, Cold, Lightning. Vulnerable - Radiant
Vrock - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Yochlol - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
What I notice is that Balors are not the same as Barlguras, which are not the same as Glabrezu, which are not the same as Chasme, and so on.
Because there are differences, your PC would be using that power on every single type of demon to see if maybe this one was also immune to fire or resistant to nonmagic weapons.
Now, I'm sure you've noticed how these are... basically identical? The only difference is whether or not they are strong enough to be resistant to mundane weapons. And, I know, you are about to pee yourself with excitement, because fool that I am, how could I not notice the Shadow Demon? Doesn't that disprove my entire point, this single monster?
Basically = not. I don't even care about the shadow demon, because the others have differences which would be found out by the ability.
So, once you have used your Hunter's Lore, or Lore Bard's Lore on the dretch, what do you gain by using it on the Glabrezu? Literally only that the more powerful demon is resistant to nonmagical weapons, which is only useful if you HAVE magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, it is useless information.
Yes, other than learning that you need magic weapons to do full damage, it's useless information. Except that's not at all useless information.
Every spell uses at least one components. Verbal is the most common, and I can't think of a single evocation spell that doesn't use it. And you are sure welcome to have your wizard do that, but since your wizard isn't a giant with an elemental theme, it probably won't lead to the same conclusion. You can't just scream "but he might be a wizard!" and expect me to ignore what giant's are, and how they work, ESPECIALLY when you brought up frost giants in comparison. So, I've encountered elementally themed giants once before. Why would I suddenly act like I have no idea what I'm seeing here? Why do you insist my character must be too stupid to use basic logic?
Any creature with psionic magic, which can include giants, dragons or whatever, don't use components for their spells. Then there's subtle spell for giant sorcerers. Good luck seeing a tiny bit of fur and a glass rod that's the size of a giant's pinky enclosed in its fist.
However, in the world where DMs aren't purposefully making gotcha monsters to punish players who use logic, that is never going to happen.
So now DMs can't make unique monsters without it being a gotcha? We have to use book monsters so that you can have read about them in advance?
Because it isn't a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities are called "Vulnerabilities". The troll ability is under "special abilities" and called "regeneration"
It absolutely is a vulnerability, but it's not a Vulnerability. It's like the fact that the DM is a player, but he's not a Player(he's the DM).
Why in the world would I ask? If he is wearing full plate is armor is 18.
PCs don't know that.
That information is right there in the PHB. It isn't metagaming to know what AC's armors give.
I never said it was. It's not something that a PC can find out, so PC abilities should not give that information. PCs can only find out in-fiction things, which AC and hit point numbers are not.
Because AC is not a metagame construct. It is something the player is fully allowed to know, in world.
The player is not in world. The PLAYER knows that plat mail is AC 18 and chain mail is 16, the PC doesn't know those numbers at all. Because in the world all the PC knows is that plate protects better than chain.

AC is entirely metagame. Armor is not.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Sure, you could make it work.

You could make Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and all sorts of other frontliners "resistant" to the new penalities you are dishing out, but I just don't see the point of designing a system that will either be dreaded by the players or come up so rarely that you don't even notice it.

If I want particularly nasty injuries for a fight, I'll make the monster special, but I don't see anything I want to deal with in making a general system. I've been on the other side of it, and it sucks.
The vast majority of houserules act on PCs negatively. I don't see that as a reason in and of itself to not use them.

I've been on the other side of it too, and didn't mind it, so that cancels out.

And barbarians, by virtue of their class's story, might warrant an except to these hypothetical injury rules, but I don't think any other PH class does.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
People don't have to assume any resistances or vulnerabilities. If you want to assume they have none, go for it.

Really, because for the last three posts you have fought tooth and nail about how I must be metagaming, if I was in a game where orcs were rare. Now it is "assume what you want".

They are wolves. Wolves come in varieties.

No. Wolves come in one form. Wolves.

If you want different monsters, you use different statblocks, like Dire Wolves (which aren't just called wolves) or Winter Wolves, or Flame Wolves, or whatever else. When I said wolf, I meant wolf. Not anything else. Remember, we are talking about a game here, terms are defined.

I do!

What I notice is that Balors are not the same as Barlguras, which are not the same as Glabrezu, which are not the same as Chasme, and so on.
Because there are differences, your PC would be using that power on every single type of demon to see if maybe this one was also immune to fire or resistant to nonmagic weapons.

Balgura are the same as Chasme. Glabrezu are the same as Balors, except that the one is immune to fire. The one immune to fire by the way, is the one holding a flaming whip and with an aura of fire around it. I wonder how I could possibly tell that it might be more than resistant to flame, with it being constantly on fire. I must be forced to use magic!

Also, you are ignoring CR. You wouldn't typically fight a Balor before you fight a Chasme.

Basically = not. I don't even care about the shadow demon, because the others have differences which would be found out by the ability.

Yes, other than learning that you need magic weapons to do full damage, it's useless information. Except that's not at all useless information.

And how is the magic weapon information useful if you don't have magical weapons?

This is one of the things that makes this worse than the theorycraft. Because finding out the enemy is resistant to non-magical weapons, like I said and you ignored, is useless information unless you specifically have magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, you will be using the same weapons regardless of the information.

If information cannot lead to a tactical change in the current fight, it is useless information in the current fight.

Any creature with psionic magic, which can include giants, dragons or whatever, don't use components for their spells. Then there's subtle spell for giant sorcerers. Good luck seeing a tiny bit of fur and a glass rod that's the size of a giant's pinky enclosed in its fist.

"can include"

So, now, to avoid metagaming, I have to consider that this STORM giant, isn't actually intrinsically tied to storms, but might instead be a psionic sorcerer using subtle spell to just APPEAR like he is intrinsically tied to storms... So, how does my character know about psionics or subtle spell? Those aren't metagaming according to you, but thinking that a STORM giant might be elementally tied to STORMS is. So, do all characters just come pre-loaded with all knowledge of all casting styles, that they must consider as viable alternatives to any possible elemental resistance?

So now DMs can't make unique monsters without it being a gotcha? We have to use book monsters so that you can have read about them in advance?

Make unique monsters? Sure, that's fine.

Make unique monsters explicitly to evoke an elemental immunity, but actually have the creature immune to a completely different element, with the sole purpose of trying to catch players who assume that the monster's appearance is giving valid clues? Yeah, that's like, definitionally a gotcha. There is no other reason for that.

It absolutely is a vulnerability, but it's not a Vulnerability. It's like the fact that the DM is a player, but he's not a Player(he's the DM).

Uh huh, so an ability that allows you to know Vulnerabilities would not tell it to you, because it is not a Vulnerability. Remember, this was copying the Hunter's Lore ability, which has the capitalization. They are not the same thing, which you literally just admitted.

PCs don't know that.

Yes they do.

I never said it was. It's not something that a PC can find out, so PC abilities should not give that information. PCs can only find out in-fiction things, which AC and hit point numbers are not.

The player is not in world. The PLAYER knows that plat mail is AC 18 and chain mail is 16, the PC doesn't know those numbers at all. Because in the world all the PC knows is that plate protects better than chain.

AC is entirely metagame. Armor is not.

Right, it protects better, and they probably have a rough idea of how hard it would be to hit the individual wearing it.

It is absolutely something the character's can figure out. Just because we can put it to hard numbers instead of vague feelings doesn't change that and suddenly make it impossible for the PCs to understand how armor works. And if we can have abilities that tell us ability scores of enemies, we can have abilities that tell us AC. It isn't even a stretch,

Plus, you know, MAGIC. It doesn't have to strictly follow even psuedo-realism.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
The vast majority of houserules act on PCs negatively. I don't see that as a reason in and of itself to not use them.

I do. Why would I want to use rules that hurt my characters and give me nothing in return? That's like deciding to wear pants that are too tight just because they are too tight and it will hurt. Why would I ever do that?

I've been on the other side of it too, and didn't mind it, so that cancels out.

And barbarians, by virtue of their class's story, might warrant an except to these hypothetical injury rules, but I don't think any other PH class does.

So, we just leave other melee classes hanging out to dry.

Bet you see an uptick in ranged fighters and a down-tick in paladins with rules like that, because no one is going to want to be a frontliner if it just means losing their PC to injury rules.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I do. Why would I want to use rules that hurt my characters and give me nothing in return? That's like deciding to wear pants that are too tight just because they are too tight and it will hurt. Why would I ever do that?



So, we just leave other melee classes hanging out to dry.

Bet you see an uptick in ranged fighters and a down-tick in paladins with rules like that, because no one is going to want to be a frontliner if it just means losing their PC to injury rules.
Have you considered that not everything has to be taken to the extreme? We don't live in a bi-polar universe. I see value in rules that more accurately depict real combat to my mind. My players may as well. That's the upside to me. Your arguments make zero sense to me.
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
As an aside and not having read every last post in the thread.

Morale--motivation, mental stamina, plain stubbornness, being really drunk--can totally allow someone to push themselves forward in the face of otherwise massive physical damage or debilitation.

But what won't happen is waking up the next morning and being all better. That's the unrealistic part.
 

kigmatzomat

Adventurer
I have to say that I really dislike bards being able to just prepare any arcane spell they want on a daily basis. That sort of preparation has been the province of clercs and druids, essentially the divine classes(though now druid is primal). No god gives bards that ability and it doesn't make sense that they would have every spell in existence handy just because they are the jack of all trades class.
Yeah, totally agreed. I liked that Bard was similar to sorcerer with their spells more a cumulative learning. As a player it avoided much of the spell selection paralysis because you only had to choose spells at level-up and even then you got either 1 new one + 1 replaced or 2 new magic secret spells +1 replaced. Pick your spells and move on. If you chose badly, swap it out next level.

I also found innate casters to have a dwindling number of 1st & 2nd level spells as they load up on 3rd & 4th Level spells that upcast well and their 5th+ spells are very limited given how few slots they get to cast. Its a different kind of flexibility.

I also take some umbrage at the name "Peerless skill". It might be "unflagging" skill or "doggedly competent" skill. But it is not "peerless". A peerless skill is one that is without peer. It can achieve things others can not. How do you make a "peerless" artwork with this skill? Can I declare the goal is to make a masterwork and anything less gets the boost?

And in a social circumstance, what does the rule even mean? What kind of outcome qualifies as "failure"? Can we dictate that success is getting the guard to look the other way while we sneak in as "succes" and then if they simply decide not to sound the alarm over our attempted bribe that is a failure?
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark).

I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy.

The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save.

Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.
Yeah.

I similarly use Bard as my go to class for mythologically accurate shamans.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Really, because for the last three posts you have fought tooth and nail about how I must be metagaming, if I was in a game where orcs were rare. Now it is "assume what you want".

No. Wolves come in one form. Wolves.
And dragons come in one form. Dragons!
Balgura are the same as Chasme. Glabrezu are the same as Balors, except that the one is immune to fire. The one immune to fire by the way, is the one holding a flaming whip and with an aura of fire around it. I wonder how I could possibly tell that it might be more than resistant to flame, with it being constantly on fire. I must be forced to use magic!

Also, you are ignoring CR. You wouldn't typically fight a Balor before you fight a Chasme.
CR doesn't matter. You would be using the ability as you encounter them. It's not as if you learn what a balor's resistances and immunities are until you encounter it. Chasme isn't going to clue you in.
And how is the magic weapon information useful if you don't have magical weapons?

This is one of the things that makes this worse than the theorycraft. Because finding out the enemy is resistant to non-magical weapons, like I said and you ignored, is useless information unless you specifically have magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, you will be using the same weapons regardless of the information.

If information cannot lead to a tactical change in the current fight, it is useless information in the current fight.
It can lead to a tactical change. Will it every time? Probably not every time, but at least you will be able to make an informed decision rather than shooting blindly in the dark.
Yes they do.
No they don't. Armor doesn't come with numbers attached in the world.
Right, it protects better, and they probably have a rough idea of how hard it would be to hit the individual wearing it.

It is absolutely something the character's can figure out. Just because we can put it to hard numbers instead of vague feelings doesn't change that and suddenly make it impossible for the PCs to understand how armor works. And if we can have abilities that tell us ability scores of enemies, we can have abilities that tell us AC. It isn't even a stretch,
It's impossible for them to figure out exactly how much it protects, because hit points are abstract. Hit points don't even represent being actually hit until you are at 50%, and then it's only scratches until you hit 0. So that near miss? It was really a hit for 20 points of damage taking you from 100 to 80.

How's a guy in plate mail supposed to figure out how much his armor protected him against a miss that hit?

AC for armor is not representative of physical protection. It would need to be DR for that to be true.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top