D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[GMforPowergamers]

I know. It is humorous that broken bones dont exist in D&D.

I have seen my nephew play new mortal combat games and mid fight (not fatality mid fight) some maneuvers slow down show an x ray of a bone breaking moment. BUT there is no effect. "I broke your arm" "Yeah but I can still lift punch and all"

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know. It is humorous that broken bones dont exist in D&D.

Still if there would be a doable (interesting, flexible, adaptable, balanced) way to implement a wound system, it would appeal to me. I am less interested in "rolling on a Wounds table". But if there are basic parameters (like Exhaustion), that the DM can easily interpret on a case by case basis, based on the circumstance and damage that caused the 0 hit points, it might work well.

It makes sense why they don't though. I know some people are all about the grind, but these sort of wounds can't be easily healed, and DnD is largely a combat game where the majority of things happen in melee.

Sure, the wizard might be fine if a broken arm takes 30 long rests to heal, because they can act just as effectively with it. But a fighter? They are going to be ruined in their ability to contribute, and they are the most likely to suffer that sort of injury, being in melee all the time. And there isn't a good way to balance that to make it find.

I remember one of the few times I played Rogue Trader I made a combat focused character. First attack he recieved was a crit, and basically took him out of all combat for the rest of the campaign (it was short-lived due to IRL stuff) and that... wasn't fun.

Actually, I remember it happening in Cold Steel Wardens too. A player was hit by a massive attack, suffered multiple severe injuries, and basically had multiple months of hospitalization. In a game where they were heroes investigating villains that needed to be stopped in a matter of days. They'd have been better off if their character had just died and they had to make a new one. So then they were healed using a super, and walked it off in an afternoon, which felt anti-climatic for how badly injured they had been.

I know some people want that sort of experience, but I've always seen that as just adding a lot of frustration for the players to deal with. If the first combat ends with you having suffered broken bones, then you either need magical healing to fix it and ignore the issue, or you spend the rest of the adventure gimped and being unable to effectively contribute. All because of dice luck. And all it adds are some descriptions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. And they should get it earlier than the core ability.

Why?

To me a "master of all forms of magic" is a mage thing. A Sorcerer or Wizard or Warlock should be able to learn and cast all forms of magic, not a Bard. And that is exactly what that would do. Lore Bards would be able to prepare every single spell in the entire game. And that doesn't feel very "lore" to me, it feels like magical mastery.

It is a fine ability which doesn't say "Lore" to me at all.

So what says "lore"? Being able to be good at intelligence checks? If being able to mastery the finer arts of magic is "lore" then why not flavor it as more specialized bits of lore for their inspiration, healing, ect. They've refined the translations of the ancient notes, or they are singing the song in the original Draneeri tongue.

Is this a mechanical problem, or a flavor problem?

 

[cbwjm]

He hated the Warlord class because they could "shout hands back on". There really isn't anything else to it.

Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.

 

[Mistwell]

Why?

To me a "master of all forms of magic" is a mage thing. A Sorcerer or Wizard or Warlock should be able to learn and cast all forms of magic, not a Bard. And that is exactly what that would do. Lore Bards would be able to prepare every single spell in the entire game. And that doesn't feel very "lore" to me, it feels like magical mastery.



So what says "lore"? Being able to be good at intelligence checks? If being able to mastery the finer arts of magic is "lore" then why not flavor it as more specialized bits of lore for their inspiration, healing, ect. They've refined the translations of the ancient notes, or they are singing the song in the original Draneeri tongue.

Is this a mechanical problem, or a flavor problem?

It's both but leans more on the flavor aspect.

As for why it should be earlier, because the defining ability of a subclass should come relatively early in that subclass. People barely play to 11th level and that is far too late to provide an identifying ability. Any keystone subclass ability should be the first or second ability granted by that subclass.

I'd be fine with replacing Magical Secrets with a different ability, as long as that different ability was more lore-oriented.

Here are some examples, and whatever example I'd be thinking of it arriving early with the first or second subclass ability:

1) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?).

2) The ability to use scrolls from any spell list with a check, and magic items which have other classes as a prerequisite with a check.

3) The ability to cast a spell without preparation or the use of a spell slot from any spell list once a day (of a level they normally have spell slots for of course.)

Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure magical lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."

 

[Haplo781]

Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.

Well he removed it from Essentials and 5e so you tell me.

 

[ersatzphil]

Well he removed it from Essentials and 5e so you tell me.

I found the original debate on an rpg.net forum post:

Mearls: We don't expect the sergeant of the guard or captain of the guard to heal downed warriors. That's not the default. That's kind of the thing. And then if you say, "Well, he can heal, because he's really this inspiring presence, well then you've just kind of described a bard. Because bards -- the entire schtick of bards -- is that they are really inspiring and they are charismatic. The bard is the guy with panache who -- "Onwward!" That's the bard's deal, isn't it?

Thompson: That's a big part of the bard, I would say. I think there's some desire for a, when you're playing that leader character, to be able to say, "Alright, men! Fight on!" and be the guy leading the charge. To be William Wallace from Braveheart. You want to be that guy. I would not describe a William Wallace-type character as a bard.

Mearls: But you also wouldn't say he's a healer. I wouldn't. I wouldn't think, if there's a guy whose been gutted, William Wallace gets the guys to freak out and charge and moon the British--

Thompson: Well...

Mearls: Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--

Thompson: William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--

Mearls: But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.

Thompson: That's literally a cut scene. Anyway, to bring it back to the warlord, there is a focus that we're trying to take about the warlord being in the fighter, being the tactical leader, and then I think that if you want to play very much the Fourth Edition warlord, we should have a way for you to build that character. Take the fighter. Take the tactical leader-y fighter and apply a specialty or--

Mearls: A Healer Specialty. Just like the one piece that's just not there.

I personally took it more as defending something he viewed as the purview of the Bard class rather then dunking on Warlords, but you can see where the meme comes from.

 

[fuindordm]

This post is mostly about bardic magic.

Bards (and rangers) preparing spells:
From a lore perspective I would prefer only Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to have access to the full spell list and be able to potentially prepare any spell on that list. I think it would also make sense for all three to have "books" or at least be limited to spells that they have found/researched. But at the same time, I understand that we don't want to punish new players for making unusual or suboptimal choices.

I think a good compromise would be to divide each spell list into common spells and rare spells, so that players choosing what to prepare do so from a smaller list.

Bard schools of magic:
With only 8 choices and the self-imposed requirement to attach each spell to one and only one school, schools of magic are a blunt instrument for reproducing the lore of a class. It is interesting that the thunder/sonic spells (well, Thunderwave and Shatter) have moved to Transmutation--perhaps just so the Bard can learn them? But other spells, such as Gaseous Form and Reverse Gravity, seem completely unrelated to any fictional or mythological example of a bard. Magic Armor on the other hand would be a very common spell for a viking skald. Using schools to construct spell lists sounds like a good idea on paper but when you try it in practice it just doesn't work. It didn't work well for clerics in 2nd edition either.

If the design goal is to give bards only "bardic" spells, then just give them their own spell list because Bard magic is kind of a unique mixture of arcane and divine. 1DD needs to add a psionic spell list anyway, so it might as well add a bard list as well.

Another option would be to give some spells TWO schools instead of one and require a class to have access to both schools to prepare it. Like the common/rare split mentioned above, this mechanic would allow the designers to flag certain spells as only available to full casters. For example, in the Arcane list Contingency is labeled Abjuration (why?) but by labeling it as Divination/Abjuration you could exclude it from bards.

Magical secrets:
Incredible--if I am reading the ability right, as a player I can choose Divine and then every long rest I can prepare 2 spells from the whole Divine spell list? This is just far too powerful--at 15th level the bard can prepare almost any spell in the game. When they can cast 9th level spells they have access to the most powerful magic of the clerics, wizards, and druids.

As with spell preparation, we see here the tendency to shy away from forcing players to make a choice for their character. Is asking them to choose 2 specific spells too restrictive? Are we worried that they will regret their choice and their feelings will be hurt? Not punishing players for "bad choices" is laudable, but niche protection is also an important design goal.

I would prefer for this ability to come sooner (6th level seems fine) and for the bard to choose to add any 2 spells up to 3rd level to the set of spells they can prepare. Same for additional secrets--move it earlier and limit the choice to their current maximum spell level. It is already an very attractive class ability that way, and the lore bard never gets to access the high-level spells of other classes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is a silly position.

Mod Note:

This is a silly way to start a post.

It’s needlessly confrontational, which “automagically” puts your partner in dialog into a rhetorical position of not only defending their positions, but their person as well. Not surprisingly, that tends to degrade the quality of the discussion that follows.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.

That was my memory of it.