D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.