D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[Ashrym]

My initial question was whether the bard still felt like an iconic bard. I believe it still does for the most part but the spell list access restricts access to some typical spells until magical secrets becomes available. I prefer class spell lists to common lists. I think they give more identity to that specific class.

The change to prepared spells led to the change to magical secrets and I think that even though there are less secrets given in total that the prep mechanic made secrets far more versatile. The nice thing about prep is that it leads to using spells that might never be taken because those situational spells can be swapped out and back instead of never taken. The drawback is that I think this can take away from the identity of the specific bard style being emulated.

If the healing spells granted are meant to be a menu choice like domain lists that seems decent and should be attached to the college choice. If they are meant to maintain the jack-of-all-trades concept for bards when the arcane spell list restricts healing I can see the point, but we're going from bards who may or may not be built to heal with some minor healing to all bards have those healing spells. It feels like I have lost the option to build bards who don't heal; probably because I have lost that option.

I preferred song of rest and deciding how much healing I wanted. I thought there was better flavor and more build variety that way. OC, free spells prepped isn't bad and if that's how we have a bard healer then I'll take it.

Losing the extra weapon proficiencies isn't a big deal. They were largely flavor to represent a bit of martial training that wasn't necessary (IMO). Other subclasses will add proficiencies anyway based on what I've seen here so far.

I do like the changes to bardic inspiration. Using proficiency bonus instead of CHA bonus for the number of uses slows down the number of uses, as does the delay of font to 7th level, but the "fail" wording and reaction makes for a more reliable ability. Not losing the ability on a roll of a 1 when the die increases and that likelihood to not lose that use of the inspiration will decrease as the die increases with level. That's not good.

Superior bardic inspiration is far better than the old capstone. Regaining 2 uses is obviously better than 1 use only if all uses are expended. It's subject to the odd mechanic of fully refilling by instigating encounters and not using any inspiration during those encounters.

No. No it's not and it never has been. You're inventing stuff now. They started off with actual druid and no wizard levels. Then moved to arcane casters with wizard spells and a spell book in 2e. Then in 3e were arcane casters that were like sorcerers, but still had a limited selection and the same with 5e. Maybe you're thinking of the Spellsinger series of novels that were not D&D.

Yes they do. They just don't make up magical spells on a whim.

Bards started with magic-user spells prior to the AD&D publication. That PHB was the only version of the bard the was ever not an arcane spellcaster and it was just an appendix option at the time. When a single edition was not arcane and every other edition was then arcane is the standard.

The access to every arcane spell up to the spell level limit existed in 2e because they used a wizard spell book and the wizard spell list. This play test version has less access to arcane spells than that bard because of the spell school restrictions and lower number of spells prepped.

3.x gave bards access to those spells via prestige classes (notably Sublime Chord), and they definitely had the ability to acquire those spells. Spell secrets from Lyric Thaumaturge specifically gave sorc/wiz spells as a precursor to magical secrets. Magical secrets just moved that access from PrC's to the base class in 5e. And 5e grants that same access with magical secrets.

"Making up spells on a whim" might be a bit hyperbolic given what's being presented is the bard is making a bard version of the spell as "making up a spell" and that isn't something we haven't seen. This is especially true for every bard in 3.x or 5e who picks up wish to replicate most spells on whim.

On those notes, however, one of the things I don't like about the common spell lists is bards are harder to make in that 1e tradition of primarily drawing from druid spells. The 5e list shares a lot of druid spells already and secrets can fill that out a bit more. I don't have that same sense of the old school version with this playtest version.

In what way is that reflected mechanically, in any edition?

Magical secrets in the context it was presented, and wish as literally casting spells on the fly. Bards could do this via PrC in 3.x and can do it via secrets in 5e.

If it's based on their whim, why do they have to select their spells ahead of time, either as spells known (in the 5e bard) or prepared for the day (in the proposed 6e bard)? Wouldn't they just be able to create the effect they want right then, "on a whim" as you say?

This part of the discussion was based on creating spells through creativity and that's what secrets allows for. "On a whim" is better expressed through the wish spell and that does exist as an option for bards.

Sure there is. It's the fact that wizard cannot just pluck spells out of the air and write them all in their books to memorize. No arcane caster can do it or has ever been able to do it.

There's no good reason to think that just because bards can play a musical instrument(the only real difference between bards and sorcerers with their spells), that they can just pluck any spell they feel like out of the ether to be able to cast that day. Hell, there's no good reason to think that they've even heard of every spell.

Wizards can cast wish too. Wish is the spell that let's arcane spell casters easily pluck spells out of the air. It doesn't even need to be an arcane spell that they pluck. Sorcerers can do this too. Neither writes the spell down and learns it, but wizards can easily have more access to wizard spells the bards cannot because the version of the bard we're discussion only has that free access to 2 spells at a time after hitting 3rd tier where the wizard has access to all of the spells in the wizard spell book.

Playtesting the current rules wizards also still cast rituals from their book without needing to prep them like bards would need to.

 

[Maxperson]

Bards started with magic-user spells prior to the AD&D publication. That PHB was the only version of the bard the was ever not an arcane spellcaster and it was just an appendix option at the time. When a single edition was not arcane and every other edition was then arcane is the standard.

Sure. I even noted that only one had them as non-arcane.

The access to every arcane spell up to the spell level limit existed in 2e because they used a wizard spell book and the wizard spell list. This play test version has less access to arcane spells than that bard because of the spell school restrictions and lower number of spells prepped.

No. They did not have access to every spell in 2e, because in 2e they had to go out and find spells. They did not for instance have access to every single 1st level spell the instant that the hit 2nd level. Not only were the 2e bard's first 1d4 spells completely random, but he didn't even gain a spell of choice when he gained a level. He had to find them all.

Having such a hard time getting new spells to cast is the opposite of what the 5.5 playtest is doing.

3.x gave bards access to those spells via prestige classes (notably Sublime Chord), and they definitely had the ability to acquire those spells. Spell secrets from Lyric Thaumaturge specifically gave sorc/wiz spells as a precursor to magical secrets. Magical secrets just moved that access from PrC's to the base class in 5e. And 5e grants that same access with magical secrets.

Right, spell access remains limited as it was in 2e.

"Making up spells on a whim" might be a bit hyperbolic given what's being presented is the bard is making a bard version of the spell as "making up a spell" and that isn't something we haven't seen. This is especially true for every bard in 3.x or 5e who picks up wish to replicate most spells on whim.

Only slightly in that they can't switch spells on the fly. But the bard can invent any spell in existence(of the type he has access to, which is half of the schools), even those he has never even heard about, each morning when he prepares his spells for the day. That's close enough to "on a whim" for me. Hell, the rules don't even state it has to be PHB or from an official list of arcane spells, so he could theoretically just create entirely new spells of those schools without doing any research.

 

[Ashrym]

No. They did not have access to every spell in 2e, because in 2e they had to go out and find spells. They did not for instance have access to every single 1st level spell the instant that the hit 2nd level. Not only were the 2e bard's first 1d4 spells completely random, but he didn't even gain a spell of choice when he gained a level. He had to find them all.

They eventually had access to those spells via captured spell books or found scrolls. Or research or DM rewards or magic item stores depending the DM and campaign style. Harder access isn't the same thing as lack of access. By high levels it was minor distinction while the playtest magical secrets doesn't grant that access until 11th level. In granting that access it's still a limitation on the number available at the given time compared to a wizard and denying access to the divine or primal lists to create an opportunity cost.

The playtest bard is limited to 4 schools and can have 2 of the rest at any given time at higher levels. The 2e bard beats that by prepping 3 spells outside of those 4 schools and can do it earlier than 11th level.

I would also point out that 2e wizards didn't have all the spells, however. There were 3 methods of determining starting spells (player choice, DM choice, or collab) in the DMG. It was pretty much read magic, detect magic, and 4 other spells by DM choice. They also had to find spells leveling up to inscribe. Specialists got a free school spell without a knowledge roll but could not learn opposition schools at all and had lower rolls to learn non-specialized schools.

The intelligence chart determined the chance to learn the spell and dictated the maximum number of spells that could be learned. 2e was the edition a wizard could fail to learn fireball when a bard could, and the bard would cast it at a higher level because of the class progression tables and XP bonus options.

2e bards were great arcane casters and could easily have access to spells wizards did not. Part of the issue here is we don't really have the new playtest wizard to really compare to the new playtest bard, but a 2e to 2e comparison doesn't seem to line up with what you are saying.

Right, spell access remains limited as it was in 2e.

The spells known was the limitation, not the spells available. But when we look specifically at secrets in lyric thaumaturge what we ended up with was the bard having access to the full sorcerer list and the full bard list to have options not available to wizards or sorcerers. The sublime chord also granted access to those high level spells to also give bard spells / songs as options not available to wizards or sorcerers.

Bards ultimately had a strong selection in their caster PrC's and given the casting system in that edition a comparison to sorcerers is more accurate than wizards.

Only slightly in that they can't switch spells on the fly. But the bard can invent any spell in existence(of the type he has access to, which is half of the schools), even those he has never even heard about, each morning when he prepares his spells for the day. That's close enough to "on a whim" for me. Hell, the rules don't even state it has to be PHB or from an official list of arcane spells, so he could theoretically just create entirely new spells of those schools without doing any research.

That's a plus. The idea that bards could use magical secrets as a form of spell research isn't really different from any other spellcaster selecting which spells among the many when leveling up.

As it is, the playtest spell system leaves bards with more spell access in some ways when they're just using the same spell casting system as artificers now, but in other ways it leaves out a lot spells no longer available because they were on the class list and now are not.

 

[Kobold Stew]

They actually have fixed this though? Having Perform and an Instrument allows you to roll with advantage. Instrument allows you to play the instrument, perform allows you to dance, sing, paint ect. I like having it this way.

Acapella performers suffer.

 

[Maxperson]

They eventually had access to those spells via captured spell books or found scrolls. Or research or DM rewards or magic item stores depending the DM and campaign style. Harder access isn't the same thing as lack of access. By high levels it was minor distinction while the playtest magical secrets doesn't grant that access until 11th level. In granting that access it's still a limitation on the number available at the given time compared to a wizard and denying access to the divine or primal lists to create an opportunity cost.

No the didn't eventually have access to every single spell. They got access to a very, very limited selection of the thousands of 2e wizard spells. At no point, though, did a bard outside of a Monty Haul game or a player who cheated, have access to even every PHB spell, let alone all 2e spells.

I would also point out that 2e wizards didn't have all the spells, however. There were 3 methods of determining starting spells (player choice, DM choice, or collab) in the DMG. It was pretty much read magic, detect magic, and 4 other spells by DM choice. They also had to find spells leveling up to inscribe. Specialists got a free school spell without a knowledge roll but could not learn opposition schools at all and had lower rolls to learn non-specialized schools.

The intelligence chart determined the chance to learn the spell and dictated the maximum number of spells that could be learned. 2e was the edition a wizard could fail to learn fireball when a bard could, and the bard would cast it at a higher level because of the class progression tables and XP bonus options.

2e bards were great arcane casters and could easily have access to spells wizards did not. Part of the issue here is we don't really have the new playtest wizard to really compare to the new playtest bard, but a 2e to 2e comparison doesn't seem to line up with what you are saying.

2e bards had to roll to learn spells just like a wizard did. It wasn't like they just automatically got a spell that was found on a scroll. And since wizards were smarter on average, the wizard was far more likely to actually learn that fireball spell.

As it is, the playtest spell system leaves bards with more spell access in some ways when they're just using the same spell casting system as artificers now, but in other ways it leaves out a lot spells no longer available because they were on the class list and now are not.

The playtest is changing how spells work. They're getting rid of class lists, so while the artificer was able to learn whatever spell they wanted, they chose from a very, very limited selection of spells.

The playtest is now just giving broad categories. Arcane, primal, and divine. So when the bard uses this system, he is getting access to every spell on the arcane list of the 4 schools that he can use. That's a lot broader than the artificer.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And dragons come in one form. Dragons!

Incorrect. There is no statblock labeled "Dragon". There are statblocks that use the word dragon, but none just called "Dragon"

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.

CR does matter?

If you use this ability on a Chasme, and you learn it is resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. Then later you are fighting a Balor, which is a stronger and more powerful demon, and literally on fire, then you can easily assume that Fire, Poison are immune and cold and lightning might still just be resistant, because it is a demon, just like that other demon. Also, the higher the CR, the higher level you are, and the less and less non-magical weapons matter.

So the only differences between the Chasme and the Balor can be inferred trivially.

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.

It doesn't lead to a tactical change unless you have magical weapons that are weaker than your non-magical weapons. In every other possible scenario, there is no tactical change. So the information is largely worthless.

If I have a longsword +1 and a Longsword, I'll be using the Longsword +1 against enemies with and without resistance to non-magical weapons, because as the stronger weapon, I'm just using it as my default weapon.

No they don't. Armor doesn't come with numbers attached in the world.

And yet, they do, because the players are immediately told a number attached to the armor. It is freely available information that they have 100% access to. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that a person holding a shield is more difficult to hit than a person without it. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that someone wearing chainmail is less protected than someone wearing plate armor.

So, why are you trying to say that there is NO WAY that they could use magic to confirm AC?

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.

Completely missing the point. Because we do know when we hit. Otherwise we couldn't activate abilities on a hit. The Paladin knows when they have hit the enemy, because they can only use Divine Smite when they hit the enemy. Whatever narrative you want to force around that is fine, but it doesn't change what is known.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Acapella performers suffer.

I'd say they have Expertise in Performance, that stuff is impressive as heck.

 

[Maxperson]

Incorrect. There is no statblock labeled "Dragon". There are statblocks that use the word dragon, but none just called "Dragon"

Statblocks =/= creature. But since you will probably want proof, I will provide it to you. Page 6 of the monster manual. Dragon is a type of creature. Not red dragon. Not blue dragon. Dragon.

The statblock for wolf is just for that kind of wolf.

If you use this ability on a Chasme, and you learn it is resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. Then later you are fighting a Balor, which is a stronger and more powerful demon, and literally on fire, then you can easily assume that Fire, Poison are immune and cold and lightning might still just be resistant, because it is a demon, just like that other demon. Also, the higher the CR, the higher level you are, and the less and less non-magical weapons matter.

No, you can't just assume that the Balor is like the other demon, because you don't know that demons have these things in common unless you learn it somehow. There's nothing that a Chasme and Balor have in common by looking at them other than they live on the Abyss. Hell, tons and tons of non-demon creatures also live on the Abyss, so unless you have the knowledge, you won't even know a Balor is a demon and not some other denizen of that place.

It doesn't lead to a tactical change unless you have magical weapons that are weaker than your non-magical weapons. In every other possible scenario, there is no tactical change. So the information is largely worthless.

It can also lead to using the Magic Weapon spell instead of something else someone might have cast, or using a magical class ability instead of swinging, or a lot of other things.

And yet, they do, because the players are immediately told a number attached to the armor. It is freely available information that they have 100% access to. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that a person holding a shield is more difficult to hit than a person without it. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that someone wearing chainmail is less protected than someone wearing plate armor.

Yes. Players know. PCs don't have any access to numbers.

So, why are you trying to say that there is NO WAY that they could use magic to confirm AC?

Magic is in fiction, as are the PCs. The PCs cannot know the numbers.

Completely missing the point.

Or did I? Maybe it was a hit that looked like a miss.

Because we do know when we hit. Otherwise we couldn't activate abilities on a hit. The Paladin knows when they have hit the enemy, because they can only use Divine Smite when they hit the enemy. Whatever narrative you want to force around that is fine, but it doesn't change what is known.

The paladin makes no such choice. The player is the one who makes that choice. Narratively, the paladin just decided to smite on that attack.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sure it doesn't have to be taken to extremes, but I've seen more than a few times when a DM wants something because they see the value in making things "more realistic" and the back-liners who it doesn't affect agree with the DM, and then the front-liners end up getting the short-straw.

And, like I've said, I've played in quite a few systems with these sorts of injury rules, and it is pretty consistent to see the people who try and build character who can take punishment getting utterly rekt, while the people who build the more powerful archetypes who avoid direct confrontation entirely but still effectively contribute stay as they were. One side gets nerfed, the other stays the same, and the power imbalance increases. And it still won't be "accurate" to real-life combat, so it will potentially (because it has done this for me) decrease people's fun, all to just inch closer to an impossible to achieve goal.

And I don't get why.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure it doesn't have to be taken to extremes, but I've seen more than a few times when a DM wants something because they see the value in making things "more realistic" and the back-liners who it doesn't affect agree with the DM, and then the front-liners end up getting the short-straw.

And, like I've said, I've played in quite a few systems with these sorts of injury rules, and it is pretty consistent to see the people who try and build character who can take punishment getting utterly rekt, while the people who build the more powerful archetypes who avoid direct confrontation entirely but still effectively contribute stay as they were. One side gets nerfed, the other stays the same, and the power imbalance increases. And it still won't be "accurate" to real-life combat, so it will potentially (because it has done this for me) decrease people's fun, all to just inch closer to an impossible to achieve goal.

And I don't get why.

Because it a goal you don't value, and because, to me, you overvalue class balance. I have serious issues with some 3pp, for example, because they're so afraid to make something that might be a smidgen stronger than a WotC option that their design is too weak to use.