D&D (2024) Bard Playtest discussion

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sorry, no moving the goalposts mid-discussion. I didn't ask for a creature type, I asked for a statblock. I haven't been discussing "creatures" I've been discussing statblocks. You don't get to just decide that you can't argue that point and try to argue a different point.

When I said "wolf" I meant "Wolf" not "Winter Wolf" not "Fire Wolf" not "Wisp Wolf" not "Blade Wolf". I was talking about the statblock "Wolf" which represents... normal wolves.

Also, if you want to go down the creature type rabbit hole, I note there is no "wolf" creature type, so that wouldn't apply either.

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.

Why can't I? What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot assume?

As I said, this isn't about "what does your character know" this is about "What Maxperson will allow you to think". Because there is no other reason to demand that I not take the knowledge I have about a demon and apply it to another demon. Because, frankly, if my DM is putting me up against a Balor, and not telling us what this thing is... I question what is going on in the campaign. Why is a CR 19 final boss monster so unimportant to the campaign that we don't know anything about it.

Also, I have no idea what "tons and tons" of creatures you are talking about. Very few entries I can find in the monster books for anything non-demonic that lives in the Abyss. They all seem to be... fiends, with the same sort of resistances and immunities.

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 if they don't have a niche spell like Magic Weapon prepared? What do we do then? Because honestly, I've never seen anyone prepare the spell unless they know BEFORE the fight that they will be facing enemies resistant to non-magical weapons and there is ONE non-magical wielding ally who they can buff to be effective. And that means finding this out BEFORE the fight, so the Hunter's Lore ability would only tell you after the fight is over, at which point you already knew without it.

Very few melee classes who would use non-magical weapons primarily who have effective magical damage dealing options. And generally, if they do have something like that, it is a ranged option they'd be using before getting into melee, and once in melee they'd go back to using their non-magical weapons.

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


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

So why can't the player use an ability that will give them access to the numbers, and then have the PC translate it into something that makes sense to them without it having to be the number? If I can look at someone with plate mail and translate that to 18 AC, why can't I use magic to determine that something has 16 AC? It is literally the exact same thing. The PCs may not learn "you need to roll a 10 on a twenty-sided dice" but they learn information that translates to that, such as "it's hide is as tough as chain mail" which tells me it has an AC of 16. This is really not difficult.

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.

Splitting hairs so fine that no one ever cares about them. The paladin didn't make their choice, they just so happened to make a choice that looked identical but keeps the swiss cheese 4th wall from getting a hole poked in it. That is pointless semantics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I've homebrewed everything to bring it up, so that doesn't apply to me. I don't tend to like some of the 3pp stuff because it is either useless, way too hyper specific, or bonkers broken.

But I find it interesting you think "don't make front-liners games less fun" is overvaluing class balance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've homebrewed everything to bring it up, so that doesn't apply to me. I don't tend to like some of the 3pp stuff because it is either useless, way too hyper specific, or bonkers broken.

But I find it interesting you think "don't make front-liners games less fun" is overvaluing class balance.

I don't necessarily think these rules would make it less fun. If I were playing a fighter, I'd be excited about potentially getting actually hurt in a combat. I might actually be cautious, for example. I might even take combat seriously. I wouldn't use any rule as a DM that I'm not willing to play under with a PC. My group has seen me prove this many times.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If I were playing a fighter, I'd be excited about potentially getting actually hurt in a combat. I might actually be cautious, for example. I might even take combat seriously.

My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.

My experience is that the usual "point of failure" that leads to yoyo'ing isn't the front-line combatants being incautious or unserious about combat. It's that the rest of their team rarely takes supporting them seriously, because they know they can yoyo them. The actual frontline combatant knows that all it takes it some extra damage to hit them from a few sources and they're dead-dead, the rest of the team are usually pretty sure they can drop some kind of minimum-size heal and stop that.

This is why I think it's important to not look at Fighters and the like as the source of the problem here.

I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.

If you make rules that only penalize the PCs who get downed, not the ones who let them go down, you're unlikely to change this dynamic. The only way that even helps is the whinging from the players whose PCs get downed might cause the rest of the players to rethink. But a lot of players just won't even whinge! They'll just grin and take it.

I think maybe the best way to do this would not be to make people who get downed get punished in any way, not by injuries, and not by death, but rather to make so when they're down, they stay down for at least a round or two (even if they're fine), so the monster they were "tanking" (more likely blocking from getting to the rest of the party) can go and pummel the idiots who decided not to cast any spells or really do anything to prevent that guy going down.

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.

I've absolutely seen 3PP like that and it is frustrating. However, what's even more frustrating (imho) is 3PP that is just wildly more powerful than WotC options to the point where there's zero comparison, and this is particularly bad when it's from a like a fairly "pro" 3PP outfit, who should know better. A great example is the Blood Hunter - it's easily as powerful as 1.5 normal classes. Each of the subclasses basically adds 30-80% of entire other class (like Barbarian or Warlock) to the Blood Hunter. Hell, there's a Barbarian-style subclass that gives you literally every major thing a Barbarian with a specific subclass get and then some. That's like 2.1 classes lol.

Personally my experience is that way more 3PP is just wacky OP than frustratingly UP, but YMMV. I'm always looking for that sweet spot in-between, and you do find it sometimes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.

My experience is that the usual "point of failure" that leads to yoyo'ing isn't the front-line combatants being incautious or unserious about combat. It's that the rest of their team rarely takes supporting them seriously, because they know they can yoyo them. The actual frontline combatant knows that all it takes it some extra damage to hit them from a few sources and they're dead-dead, the rest of the team are usually pretty sure they can drop some kind of minimum-size heal and stop that.

This is why I think it's important to not look at Fighters and the like as the source of the problem here.

I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.

If you make rules that only penalize the PCs who get downed, not the ones who let them go down, you're unlikely to change this dynamic. The only way that even helps is the whinging from the players whose PCs get downed might cause the rest of the players to rethink. But a lot of players just won't even whinge! They'll just grin and take it.

I think maybe the best way to do this would not be to make people who get downed get punished in any way, not by injuries, and not by death, but rather to make so when they're down, they stay down for at least a round or two (even if they're fine), so the monster they were "tanking" (more likely blocking from getting to the rest of the party) can go and pummel the idiots who decided not to cast any spells or really do anything to prevent that guy going down.

I've absolutely seen 3PP like that and it is frustrating. However, what's even more frustrating (imho) is 3PP that is just wildly more powerful than WotC options to the point where there's zero comparison, and this is particularly bad when it's from a like a fairly "pro" 3PP outfit, who should know better. A great example is the Blood Hunter - it's easily as powerful as 1.5 normal classes. Each of the subclasses basically adds 30-80% of entire other class (like Barbarian or Warlock) to the Blood Hunter. Hell, there's a Barbarian-style subclass that gives you literally every major thing a Barbarian with a specific subclass get and then some. That's like 2.1 classes lol.

Personally my experience is that way more 3PP is just wacky OP than frustratingly UP, but YMMV. I'm always looking for that sweet spot in-between, and you do find it sometimes.

There are a lot of concepts WotC won't touch, or designs in a way I disagree with. Looking for good 3pp is always worth the search to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There are a lot of concepts WotC won't touch, or designs in a way I disagree with. Looking for good 3pp is always worth the search to me.

For sure. That's honestly the only reason someone lazy and digital (i.e. using Beyond as my primary source) like me even looks to 3PP - the fact that they do stuff WotC won't or that WotC does boringly.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said, this isn't about "what does your character know" this is about "What Maxperson will allow you to think". Because there is no other reason to demand that I not take the knowledge I have about a demon and apply it to another demon. Because, frankly, if my DM is putting me up against a Balor, and not telling us what this thing is... I question what is going on in the campaign. Why is a CR 19 final boss monster so unimportant to the campaign that we don't know anything about it.

Metagaming is cheating. It's not about what you should think. It's about you cheating and assuming to wildly different Abyssal creatures are the same in order to metagame knowledge about their strengths.

Also, I have no idea what "tons and tons" of creatures you are talking about. Very few entries I can find in the monster books for anything non-demonic that lives in the Abyss. They all seem to be... fiends, with the same sort of resistances and immunities.

Creatures found in the Abyss

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

They abyss is infinite and chaotically varied. There are 103 entries on abyssal creatures there, and there are literally millions(infinite really) of other creatures that are not demons that live in the abyss. They do not all have the same resistances and vulnerabilities.

And if they don't have a niche spell like Magic Weapon prepared? What do we do then? Because honestly, I've never seen anyone prepare the spell unless they know BEFORE the fight that they will be facing enemies resistant to non-magical weapons and there is ONE non-magical wielding ally who they can buff to be effective. And that means finding this out BEFORE the fight, so the Hunter's Lore ability would only tell you after the fight is over, at which point you already knew without it.

There are lots of tactics that would be affected, but that you would focus on the one specific one of the many I mentioned while avoiding the actual point is telling.

So why can't the player use an ability that will give them access to the numbers, and then have the PC translate it into something that makes sense to them without it having to be the number? If I can look at someone with plate mail and translate that to 18 AC, why can't I use magic to determine that something has 16 AC? It is literally the exact same thing. The PCs may not learn "you need to roll a 10 on a twenty-sided dice" but they learn information that translates to that, such as "it's hide is as tough as chain mail" which tells me it has an AC of 16. This is really not difficult.

Does it? What if it has a dex bonus as well? What if it has some other magical defenses? Getting hide that is as tough as chain mail would allow the player to assume 16, but that player will often be wrong.

Splitting hairs so fine that no one ever cares about them. The paladin didn't make their choice, they just so happened to make a choice that looked identical but keeps the swiss cheese 4th wall from getting a hole poked in it. That is pointless semantics.

No it isn't. It's a major and distinctive difference.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.

This is basically my answer in a nutshell @Micah Sweet

I actually am playing a barbarian right now who was just in a combat. He had been dropped multiple times in the previous fight and we were moving into a new fight. He took the lead. Was I not taking the combat seriously?

No, I was. This combat was about rescuing a little girl who had been kidnapped. The two non-melee characters who were still up had much lower AC than me, but hit much harder than me. We knew there was only one, maybe two enemies up ahead, and my guy figured he could stay concious for at least one blow, and give the others the opening they needed. Could he have died in that fight? He didn't care. The point wasn't him trying to survive the fight, the point was the team winning the fight and rescuing a little girl. Dying was worth saving a child's life, that's just how he thinks.

Most melee front-liners I see are taking combat seriously. And to any degree they are incautious, it isn't because they are going YOLO, it is because they are prioritizing something else over their own survival. Generally the safety and survival of others.

I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.

Yeah, I know people give me a lot of strange looks when I say healing needs to be buffed, but frankly that would prevent yo-yo healing almost immediately. If you could heal and that healing at least cancel a single monster's attack, then you would see people healing mid-combat more. But very quickly they realize that taking their action to only partially undo an opponents action is a terrible plan, so all healing gets regulated to either after the fight or when someone drops and it is an emergency action.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Metagaming is cheating. It's not about what you should think. It's about you cheating and assuming to wildly different Abyssal creatures are the same in order to metagame knowledge about their strengths.

So, using knowledge about demons to make educated guesses about demons is cheating. Yet again, we find the truth. This is never about "what does your character know", this is about "I am certain you are cheating, because you don't think like I think."

Because, here's a question. Why should my character know anything about Abyssal creatures that aren't demons if they've only ever fought demons? The knowledge you are using to decide that I am cheating is... metagame knowledge. You are literally metagaming when you are saying "I know that there are more types of creatures that aren't demons and don't share their resistances, so therefore my character wouldn't assume that these demons share resistances, because I know they are working from incomplete knowledge."

People work from incomplete knowledge to build paradigms all the time, it is how you can get people who make WILDLY wrong claims about things, but if you limit yourself to only their knowledge, their conclusion makes sense. The difference is, you know that they are lacking knowledge.

Creatures found in the Abyss

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

They abyss is infinite and chaotically varied. There are 103 entries on abyssal creatures there, and there are literally millions(infinite really) of other creatures that are not demons that live in the abyss. They do not all have the same resistances and vulnerabilities.

Even in the first letter, I see a problem with your claim.

Aboleths -> Whether or not they live in the Abyss is irrelevant, they are likely not being encountered there. In fact, I've never heard of any being encountered in the Abyss. So for my character to think about how Aboleths are different I would not only need to know Aboleths live there, but have encountered Aboleths.

Arcanoloth -> These are Yugoloths. They don't live in the Abyss. They go to the Abyss on contracts. They are from The Grey Wastes. Saying they live in the Abyss because you can find them there is like saying that Celestials live in the Abyss because you can find them there.

Abrian, Abyssal Ant, Abyssal Hulk, Abyssal Drake, Abyssal Ghoul -> You know what these things have in common? They aren't in 5e. So, how many of those 103 entries are monsters that haven't been brought to 5e, and therefore don't matter to the discussion?

There are lots of tactics that would be affected, but that you would focus on the one specific one of the many I mentioned while avoiding the actual point is telling.

Because your actual point is a vague "It matters!" without actually giving any concrete reasons for it. You've just made a vague assertion, with no supporting evidence, and expect me to just accept it as gospel fact. Sorry, no. If you want to convince me, you need to provide counter-evidence, not vague assertions. Especially since I have acknowledged there is a small subset times when it happens. I just find it to be the minority. Just like claiming all M&M's are red, if you want to prove it, you need to do more than just pull a single red M&M out of the bowl.

Does it? What if it has a dex bonus as well? What if it has some other magical defenses? Getting hide that is as tough as chain mail would allow the player to assume 16, but that player will often be wrong.

Chain mail doesn't provide a dex bonus, also, if dex bonus mattered, then it would be mentioned in the knowledge the player learns. Magical Defenses? Those would also be mentioned in the knowledge they learned.

What you are doing is assuming that because I didn't list every possible thing, that there must be secret factors that matter that I'm hiding. I'm not. You would be wrong.

No it isn't. It's a major and distinctive difference.

No it isn't.

 

[Yaarel]

If the player knows something but there is doubt if the character would know it, an Intelligence ability check with the appropriate skill can easily determine if the character happens to have come across it.

Every once in a while, a skeptical DM can ask for an ability check to confirm a piece of knowledge.