D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[Marandahir]

I feel like Songs of Restoration is NOT a buff, but rather a major debuff.

They replaced our ability to short rest heal with a list of locked-in healing spells to get around the fact that they locked-off a bunch of traditional Bard spells. They tried to counter the lack of healing by allowing Bardic Inspiration to be used to heal, but this gets into the Monk and Sorcerer resource problem: the class is far too demanding on a very limited resource that has only been made more limited per day in the same document.

The fact that College of Lore Bards want to spend their Inspiration dice on something OTHER than healing or boosting their friends rolls is more evidence of that. And the healing is really a pittance, while Songs of Rest was a feature that really encouraged parties with Bards to take as many Short Rests as possible each day (and thus avoid the 5MWD trap).

This feels like they WANT us to have 5MWDs.

Also, Rangers got healing spells moved to Abjuration (something I've advocated for for decades; most other fantasy fictions combine barrier buffs and patronuses etc with healing spells into a single Restoration or Abjuration school). Yet because the Bard HAS to use the Arcane list because of 3e & 4e, it's not allowed to get them without a special class feature, which has to take the place of something. And if they want any other healing or classic Bard spells still not on the list? Sorry, going to have to wait until Magical Secrets in Tier 3…

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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.

Doesn't matter mechanically, as in, the game does not require you to care about it.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it metagaming to know that Orcs have no vulnerabilities, resistances or immunities?

Depends on if they are common or not.

What about knowing that Trolls don't have any V's, R's or I's?

The troll regeneration debate happens for a reason.

Humans? Elves? Goblins? Owlbears? Wolves?

See the answer to orc.

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?

Depends on the creature. How are you supposed to know that a Magmin is resistant to those things? A mace can crush rock, why would you assume that a rock creature would be harder to hurt than a rock?

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

Oozes have no functioning organs and are not 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?

Yep. Why immune and not resistant?

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?

Why is the shadow different from a wraith, which looks like it is also made out of living darkness?

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?

No. Why would you be? I will repeat, "The PCs need to know, not just the players." and in your example above, they do.

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?

Yes. Those are not demons. That's like saying that just because a frost giant is immune to cold, so is a storm giant. Hell, it's even worse than that since at least both of those are giants. Demons are not weak to silver by the way. Devils are. Assuming can get you in trouble when you are trying to assume things about different races.

This is also not about assuming. Using player KNOWLEDGE involves no assumption.

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.

Sure.

And, really, no table is that strict on "no metagaming"

This is objectively wrong, since I've played at many tables that are like that. In fact, I've played at no table that allows you to use player knowledge to get by resistances, immunities or exploit vulnerabilities without the PC knowing or having a very good in character reason for it.

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.

I don't see why the DM would gimp a player on knowing those vulnerabilities, just because they aren't listed as a vulnerability in the sense that they take extra damage. A troll is vulnerable to acid and fire, because it stops his regeneration.

 

[Staffan]

But other spells, such as Gaseous Form and Reverse Gravity, seem completely unrelated to any fictional or mythological example of a bard.

Counterexample:

 

[Marandahir]

Counterexample:

That's like saying Otto was a Bard because he was interested in magical music spells.

Elphaba is not a Bard, she's just played by one on TV on Broadway.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn't matter mechanically, as in, the game does not require you to care about it.

Yes, like I said. Are you going to address any other point than the one I conceded? Or are you saying that if it game doesn't force you to care, it cannot possibly matter?

 

[Yaarel]

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.

The UA Bard access to spells seems motivated by the limited access in the PH being a pain point, plus by a new definition of what it means to be an Expert who is a "polymath".

I doubt the non-Expert Wizard will have this fluid access to the spell list. On the other hand, I suspect the Wizard to have features to enhance spellcasting effects.

 

[Yaarel]

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."

The Lore Bard seems to follow the mythologically accurate Celtic bard.

The Celtic bard is known for ones praise causing blessings and ones clever humorous satire causing injury, even physical harm.

The Celtic bard functions as a member of a government court whose job is to praise the leader of court, thus magically stabilize the government. But the bards evolve into important technocrats in their own right. The bards are scholars, literally founders of reallife universities. They are go-to experts in various fields of knowledge. Many farflung government courts felt it valuable to include a bard as a member of their courts.

The D&D Lore Bard is blending the fate-magic of praise or satire, with the scholarly aspects of the bardic institution and universities.



It turns out that the Norse tradition of the skald is non-native and actually comes from importing the Celtic bard tradition. The skald start off singing the praise and stabilizing the government of the jarl, including the history of the family that the jarl comes from, but within a few centuries become important technocrats in their own right, as experts of the law and legal system, such as Snorri. The skald have a Norse spin on the bard tradition, doing songs in the Norse language, and individuals known for magic are doing Norse magic. But the skald is Celtic origin.



These particular bard traditions are simultaneously charismatically magical and scholarly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Depends on if they are common or not.

Common enough to be a playable race. Also, really? Orcs, the most iconic of villains? And you want to play the "they might not be common" card? They are stock humanoids.

The troll regeneration debate happens for a reason.

And Trolls are not vulnerable to fire or acid, so this ability has nothing to do with their Resistances (none), Immunities (None) or Vulnerabilities (None). So, am I metagaming if I assume a troll has no resistances, Immunities or Vulnerabilities?

See the answer to orc.

Are you serious right now? Elf is in the PHB. Human is in the PHB. Knowing that they don't have any R's, I's or V's is not metagaming. Heck, you can't even use the "how common are they" because the answer to how common humans is is "Yes". They are the single most common creature in the entire game.

You can't stretch this metagaming argument that far. No one would consider knowing about humans metagaming.

Depends on the creature. How are you supposed to know that a Magmin is resistant to those things? A mace can crush rock, why would you assume that a rock creature would be harder to hurt than a rock?

I don't know Max, why might I assume a creauture made of MAGMA (a fluid) might be difficult to smash or cut. I'll also go out further on a limb and guess a creature made of MAGMA might not burn. Wild guess, but it seems kind of logical.

Maces can crush rock? Sure, but you can also crush a rock creature. Resistance =/= immunity. Why would I assume that my mace is going to be equally effective against a fleshy sack wrapped around bones with vital organs floating inside as it is going to be against a solid piece of rock? Have you ever actually taken a one-handed hammer and tried to smash a solid piece rock? You chip it, but you certainly don't do to it what you can do to an arm or a ribcage. So, why am I not allowed to assume my weapon is going to be less effective?

Oozes have no functioning organs and are not immune to poison.

And they eat. They are like Jellyfish. They do have a functioning digestive system. Skeletons don't. Zombies don't. Animated suits of armor don't.

Also, let's say that my character assumes oozes ARE immune to poison. Is that meta-gaming? Am I going to get called out for not using poison on a creature I incorrectly assume is immune to it?

Yep. Why immune and not resistant?

Because it shoots ice from its eyes and lives in an icy environment. Why would I assume it still takes damage from the cold? I don't assume that creatures that live in volcano's take fire damage, why assume creatures that live in ice caves will take cold damage?

Why is the shadow different from a wraith, which looks like it is also made out of living darkness?

I don't know, are they different? Am I going to get penalized for assuming that the Wraith is vulnerable to radiant damage because it is an undead and ethereal and made of living darkness?

Do you know how commonly people assume undead, the enemies of clerics, are vulnerable to clerics signature damage type? Should I accuse all of them of metagaming when they are wrong? Does it matter if they are wrong?

No. Why would you be? I will repeat, "The PCs need to know, not just the players." and in your example above, they do.

Right, so when the PCs learn it once, they learn it forever. How useful is an ability that is only needed once? We generally call that "niche" right?

Yes. Those are not demons. That's like saying that just because a frost giant is immune to cold, so is a storm giant. Hell, it's even worse than that since at least both of those are giants. Demons are not weak to silver by the way. Devils are. Assuming can get you in trouble when you are trying to assume things about different races.

This is also not about assuming. Using player KNOWLEDGE involves no assumption.

Why would someone assume that a Giant living in the Tundra and covered in ice is going to be the same as a giant living underwater and throwing lightning bolts? Hey, I bet the guy who can summon and throw lighting as just a natural part of his existence doesn't take full lightning damage.

Also, they may not be demons, but they are extraplanar beings of pure evil, formed in the lower planes. That seems like a really similiar thing. Kind of like how orcs and goblins and humans and elves are all humanoids from the material plane, and all lack natural resistance to fire, cold, and lightning.

Also, what do you mean that assuming can get me in trouble? Is attacking a Demon with a silver weapon going to cause me to explode? No, it just... won't be as effective as I thought. Oh no! That would mean... well, since I had to go and silver my weapons I probably didn't have access to magic weapons. So at worst that just means I spent money on an upgrade that doesn't help. How is this bad? I guess I could have spent the money on something else, but it wouldn't have been anything that helped in the fight.

And, now I know, in-character and forever, that demons aren't vulnerable to silver. So it will never be something I go and do again. If I don't have my next character in a new campaign go and waste money silvering my weapons against an enemy that isn't vulnerable to them... am I meta-gaming? Are players who never assume Demons are vulnerable to silver meta-gaming when they don't silver their weapons?

This is objectively wrong, since I've played at many tables that are like that. In fact, I've played at no table that allows you to use player knowledge to get by resistances, immunities or exploit vulnerabilities without the PC knowing or having a very good in character reason for it.

So... "this creature is made of fire, therefore I'm not going to hit it with fire" isn't a very good in-character reason?

"We've fought extraplanar entities from the Lower Planes before, and poison didn't affect them so I don't think it will work this time" isn't a good in-character reason?

"They are just goblins, they don't have resistances, they are just people." Isn't a good in-character reason?

What counts as a good in-character reason then?

I don't see why the DM would gimp a player on knowing those vulnerabilities, just because they aren't listed as a vulnerability in the sense that they take extra damage. A troll is vulnerable to acid and fire, because it stops his regeneration.

Ah, so you want to cheat. If an ability says that it tells you Vulnerabilities, then it doesn't mean you get to learn their special traits. It means you get to learn their Vulnerabilities. Of which trolls have none.

If you want to have an ability that does tell you their special abilities then we are talking about something completely different. I've actually advocated for the Ranger's new Hunter's Lore ability to basically give the player the monster's statblock. Learning AC, HP, special abilities, average damage, Vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities IS actually useful, because that information changes and is useful every fight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Counterexample:

Love this song. I like this version, but it isn't my favorite.