D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[Mistwell]

So I am still focused on the Lore bard. The fluff simply doesn't match the abilities of this subclass, and it totally loses focus on the theme.

In my view, this subclass gets TWO abilities which are on-theme. They are: Bonus Proficiencies (3rd level - but many other things get this), and Peerless Skill (14th level - too late for most bard players to care).

Meanwhile, their "core" abilities which they get early do not support the Lore concept: Cutting Words (I never understood what this has to do with Lore - you distract others?), Cunning Inspiration (advantage on bardic inspiration has nothing to do with Lore), Improved Cutting Words (damage on cutting words has nothing to do with Lore).

The subclass appears to be having a sharp wit. So sharp you can eventually do damage with it. WTF does that have to do with knowing scholarly tomes and hanging out in libraries?

If you renamed this subclass "Comedian" or "Jester" or "Snark" you'd be much closer to matching the fluff to the abilities.

I think people liked the fluff of the Lore subclass though. It's just that the abilities should match that fluff. I named some above and I'll repeat them now and add a few more:

1) Additional Magical Secrets at 6th level: You'd be the only bard who can eventually access all types of spells in the game;

2) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, with specifically "Lore" in the ability name, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?);

3) The ability to use scrolls and magic items with another class as a prerequisite, with a check;

4) 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.)

5) The ability to cast the spell Legend Lore without a spell slot or material components, proficiency bonus times a day (or even once a day).

6) Advantage on the new Study Action checks;

7) Take the new Study Action as a Bonus Action.

I am open to some other ideas, but these at least seem to be on-message to the concept of Lore rather than focusing on cutting words and inspiration abilities. Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

This is why you maintain multiple characters, so you have someone to run while your other PC is convalescent. Keep them all at the same level if that's important to you.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I agree, I bet wizards would like to be able to choose from their entire spell list also.*

No need to find or copy spells...!




* its early, we may be misinterpreting this

 

[Chaosmancer]

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 agree with this, but I would actually point out that the defining feature of the Lore bard wasn't magical secrets. It was cutting words. Magical secrets was the most powerful ability, because it allowed them to get fireball or other spells they couldn't normally access, but Cutting words is the first and most consistently useful ability they get. That, and the skill profs, which pretty much nothing can be done with.

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?).

I hate abilities like this. It is entirely a waste. 90% of the time it tells you what you already know, and the 10% of the time it doesn't you now know forever. And it never tells you the actually useful information.

Plus, it becomes worthless if the players have any chance to prepare or roll the skill check before the fight.

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.

The thief ability? Well, the scrolls is kind of pointless for higher level bards. They would already have access to scrolls for 75% of all spells, 85% if they didn't pick arcane for magical secrets. It sounds good on paper, the execution is just underwhelming I think.

The same with the magic items. The vast majority of item pre-reqs is "spellcasting" which you have. Other than that you are looking at maybe five or six items that have highly specific pre-reqs like the Holy Avenger. And getting the ability to attune to it doesn't help you if you don't have proficiency in the type of weapon.

This was the issue I had with the (old) Thief Ability. Since being a spellcaster overcame the majority of the pre-reqs, it was worse than just being an arcane trickster in the first place. With bard's already being spellcasters, there isn't much here to latch on to.

Now, that might change, as it sounds like some items are going to be getting attunement based on class group, but the secondary issue that Bards aren't going to get much use out of attuning to a battleaxe still remains,

I'm not trying to neg you, just pointing out the issues with the idea as presented.

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.)

The use of a spell from any list is already magical secrets. And the ability to cast any single spell without needing to prepare it is, well, accomplished by giving them a single extra preparation slot. And again, I think both of these scream "MAGE" more than they do expert in lore.

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."

Why does it have to be magical lore? If you wanted to be an expert in lore, why not advantage on all intelligence skill checks, or reliable talent that only works for the knowledge skills? Both of those are far more "I am the master of obscure lore" than "I can hack magical items" or "I cast more magic"

Or...hmmm...

What about messing with the Planar Binding and Contact Other Planes spells? They are on the list if memory serves, but they could gain access to improved versions of those. Obscure lore leading them to being able to better barter with outer planar beings and bind them into services sounds at least closer, since the True Names of fiends are often obscure lore.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is why you maintain multiple characters, so you have someone to run while your other PC is convalescent. Keep them all at the same level if that's important to you.

Not everyone is interested in running a squad of characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not everyone is interested in running a squad of characters.

You're not running them all at once, so the cognitive load is minimized. I want  more realistic healing, and I expressed a way to do that while circumventing your problem. If you don't like it, that's fine. Do you prefer the current "health bar" system where no amount of injury that doesn't actually kill you matters?

 

[Maxperson]

I hate abilities like this. It is entirely a waste. 90% of the time it tells you what you already know, and the 10% of the time it doesn't you now know forever. And it never tells you the actually useful information.

A whole lot of tables do not allow metagaming like that, though. The PCs need to know, not just the players. So the ability is extremely useful for them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're not running them all at once, so the cognitive load is minimized.

This doesn't matter at all. Because if I want to role-play them properly not only do I have to consider how events would be affecting them, I may also have to be keeping track of what they are doing that suddenly allows them to always show up and be present for the adventure, even if that adventure is something they have no part in.

If you didn't accept the quest to get the relic from the ruin, then you aren't really invested in the adventure to track down the quest giver who stole it from you and cheated you out of your payment. It isn't "You stole from me!" anymore it is "You stole from people I sometimes work with!". You lose party cohesion, you lose story cohesion, and if everyone is doing it then you have this weird set-up were not everyone is playing the same characters and everyone has to try and remember how five different characters have connections to up to 25 other characters, instead of one character knowing and interacting with 5 others.

This has nothing to do with running them all at once, and everything to do with the problems of rotating cast members.

I want  more realistic healing, and I expressed a way to do that while circumventing your problem. If you don't like it, that's fine. Do you prefer the current "health bar" system where no amount of injury that doesn't actually kill you matters?

Frankly? Yeah. I don't mind the PCs being John McClain or Rambo, taking injury after injury after injury and still fighting.

Additionally, you say it "doesn't matter" but it only doesn't matter if I, as the player, choose to have it not matter. I can RP that after getting shot with three arrows, that attack I miss is because I'm injured. Mechanically, that isn't true, but I can make that choice. Which is far better than getting hit with three arrows, and then having a -2 to every attack roll. Or getting hit once with a club and only being able to move 10 ft at a time. Or (since these "realistic healing" models never let magical healing cure anything) end up with a character who has a -2 from the arrows in the chest, movement speed of 10 from the club to the knee, and another -2 from being blinded in one eye.

Meanwhile the wizard gets a -3 from that one time he was stabbed, but since his stuff is an enemy save versus a static number, he doesn't care. His actual ability to contribute isn't impacted at all. Unlike the person whose job it is to get hit over and over, and stack these wounds up until they are worthless and need to be retired to they can bring in a new character to suffer the exact same fate.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A whole lot of tables do not allow metagaming like that, though. The PCs need to know, not just the players. So the ability is extremely useful for them.

Is it metagaming to know that Orcs have no vulnerabilities, resistances or immunities? What about knowing that Trolls don't have any V's, R's or I's? Humans? Elves? Goblins? Owlbears? Wolves?

Is it metagaming to know that the creature made of flame and living in a volcano is going to be harder to hurt with mundane weapons and is immune to poison and fire?

Is it metagaming to know that the creature with no functioning organs is immune to poison?

Is it metagaming to know the creature living in a tundra and shooting ice from their eyes is immune to cold damage?

Maybe it is metagaming to know that a creature made of living darkness is going to take extra damage from attacks made of radiant light?

Also, let us say that we know we are going to be fighting Demons. The cleric asks if they know anything demons might be vulnerable to. The DM has them roll religion, because they are a cleric and should know about Demons, and they learn that Demons are vulnerable to silver, magical weapons, and resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. If three sessions later I still remember this information the DM gave us, am I metagaming?

Is it metagaming to know that Demons are immune to poison and weak to silver, and then assume the same thing is true about Devils and Yugoloths?

Even if the DM and the entire table can somehow be incredibly strict and prevent any knowledge and the PCs are never allowed to assume anything... let us say you are fighting an enemy with fire resistance. How many times do you hit them with fire? Just once. After a single attack, you know they are resistant, and can change tactics. Also, you now know that enemy is resistant to fire, so the next time you face them, you don't use fire.

And, really, no table is that strict on "no metagaming" and the things people tend to metagame, are things this ability cannot tell you. Like the Troll's regeneration or the Fire Elemental's Water Susceptibility, or the Flesh Glolem's Fire Aversion.