delericho
Legend
Some actions take the full round, some take a very short period of time. Playing an instrument is one of the former.
Perhaps he moves while playing his instrument at the same time? Or is that crazy talk?
D&D 5E bards and instruments
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
Some actions take the full round, some take a very short period of time. Playing an instrument is one of the former.
Perhaps he moves while playing his instrument at the same time? Or is that crazy talk?
CapnZapp
Legend
I agree, but you're looking at my point backwards...!
My point is: assuming the bard really is supposed to play her instruments, won't you need an extra clause folding S and M components into that act of playing the instrument?
I'm asking this question *precisely because* I agree with you: I don't want to force my bards to actually play their instruments only to realize that screws them over regarding component usage!
In other words, I don't want to use (fully valid) reading of the rules where you merely "wave around" your instrument a bit.
But neither do I want to screw bards over.
So what extra rules language do I need?
I guess the question I'd ask is "Why do you need to write down any extra rules at all?"
If the entire point you're trying to get to is that you want bards to be able to cast spells while holding an instrument... then you let them cast spells while holding an instrument. Or cast spells while singing. Or cast spells while dancing. Or orating. Or any other artistic endeavor.
Because the moment you start trying to write down "official" rules... you're going to paint yourself into every corner case out there and have to keep re-writing rule after rule and rule you make.
For instance... you create the rule that says holding a musical instrument counts as a Material focus for a bard's spells, playing the instrument counts as the Somatic component, and singing counts as the Verbal. That's fine. But now... what happens when the bard wants to pull out his sling? If his instrument was a two-handed guitar, he has to let go of the instrument, pull out his sling, use the sling, and then in the next round if he wants to cast another spell he has to spend his free action putting away his sling, NOT be able to grab his guitar since he's already used his free action, and thus is unable to cast the spell. Whereas if his instrument had been a kazoo he could have kept it in his mouth and not have had to drop it and pick it up around his weapon use... or if his weapon had been one-handed he could have kept his free hand on the guitar and thus the next round he could have sheathed his weapon and then still used the guitar to cast the spell because he never "dropped" it the round previous?
It's all these nitpicky worries the bard has to have and decide on about one-handed weapons versus two-handed weapons with one-handed musical instruments versus two-handed musical instruments (or no-handed musical instruments or no instruments at all and just sing or dance etc. etc. etc.) that for me makes actually *codifying* the rules counter-productive.
I mean... if that codification really matters to you that much in your game, I think you're going to have to accept that there are good choices for the instrument of the bard's performance, and a whole heap of bad. I know personally... if I was in a game like that, my "instrument of choice" would be Dancing and an Arcane Focus, because that way I could use a weapon and cast spells without ever having to play the "draw or sheathe with the one free action" mini-game just to be able to use my class's abilities effectively.
So best of luck however you decide to go, but just know that if handedness and the juggling of weapons and instruments is how you are going to go... you're going to effectively eliminate a whole set of weapons and instruments from your potential bard's repetoire because no player is going to want to hamstring themselves like that (even if fluff-wise they'd prefer that kind of instrument.)
vandaexpress
First Post
Maraca bards are so OP.
CapnZapp
Legend
But... but.. you're still missing my point.
Let me see if I can make it clear:
1) I want to make Bards actually play their instruments
2) I don't want to screw the Bard over as regards spellcasting because of #1
This means, among other things, that I definitely don't want certain music instruments to be clearly superior to others. If you can't cast spells because you're blowing on a flute or playing a guitar with both hands, that would be unacceptable - nobody would ever choose those instruments. (Or worse, players would start working around the rules; binding the flute to your face, or showing youtube videos of one handed guitar players... ;-)
What I obviously do not care about is the interaction between your instrument and other items, such as weapons. The whole point, after all, is to make a guitar into the two-handed item it is and should be.
So, if you want to use a sling on occasion, obviously you wouldn't want to use a cumbersome/twohanded instrument.
But you know what? That's okay. The bard class doesn't live or die on the ability to switch weaponry.
Some bards will ONLY cast spells. For them, choosing a flute or guitar would be an okay choice ruleswise and possibly a great choice roleplayingwise.
Some bards will want to fight early and often. These bards can simply choose to not bother with an instrument at all and instead follow the default component rules.
A few bards might - just like you - want to double up and do both. Yes, for these bards, you would want a very light and small instrument, or even choose "dancing". Which is perfectly fine - no, more than fine, because that is what common sense tells you!
(You, on the other hand, is saying this almost as if there's something wrong... What is wrong with the idea that if you want free hands and a free mouth, you obviously wouldn't want to choose a wind instrument that requires both hands AND your mouth to produce music...
)One more thing...:
No, I want bards to be able to cast spells while playing an instrument.
It's fine if bards cast spells without their instrument, but then they aren't (=shouldn't be) using the "use instrument as spellcasting focus" option. A bard casting a spell without his instrument casts spells exactly like a wizard casting a spell without a wand or a cleric casting a spell without a holy symbol.
Best wishes for mutual comprehension,
Zapp
AverageCitizen
Explorer
Isn't there like, a penny whistle or something you can play without hands?
I'm with you on this 100% Capn' Zapp.
The problem, as I see it, is the way that they've implemented the magical focus. It's spill out from that rule that adversely affects bards. Because with focus comes rules of material components, proficiency, and interactions with drawing/stowing rules and "common sense".
In some of the play test materials, the magical focus, for any spell caster, allowed you to add your proficiency bonus to rolls to hit or save DCs. That made using a focus a choice, and it made sense for rod/staff/wand/orb/mistletoe/holy symbol to occupy one hand. But there were edge cases, and enough of them that it was (evidently) a worry: holy symbols on shields, eldritch knights using weapons as foci, etc. Those were ways that let you have two other useful things in your two hands, other than a focus while still getting the bonus.
The solution they adopted was to (a) water down the effect of having a focus (it now replaces minor material components) (b) allow essentially free-swapping of equipped items. That's not the only way they might have gone, of course (I wanted casters to have to "wield" their focus, so that it had to occupy a hand like a weapon), but it's the route they took.
Enter Bards. Bards are proficient in certain weapons as tools (and there's a choice of dozen options, instead of broad categories such a strings, wind, etc.); they can be proficient in the skill performance; and they have a magical focus which can be an instrument. Bard instruments are OVERDETERMINED, with the result that you don't need to be proficient in an instrument to use it as a focus, or play an instrument in which you are proficient when performing, or even use a musical instrument to cast spells since a mc pouch will work just as well. Let alone that "common sense" (and the joke answers in this thread) suggests you can game it so that some instruments are mechanically superior to others; which you shouldn't be able to do. Unlike the other edge cases (above) the problem with bards is that performance and musical ability properly requires both hands for most musical instruments, increasing demands rather than reducing them. By catering to one side of the equation, the rules leave bards in a space of "it's better not to think about it", which (I think you and I agree) is suboptimal.
there is no good solution, because there can't be without rethinking magical foci for other spellcasters. That's where the problem lies.
The problem, as I see it, is the way that they've implemented the magical focus. It's spill out from that rule that adversely affects bards. Because with focus comes rules of material components, proficiency, and interactions with drawing/stowing rules and "common sense".
In some of the play test materials, the magical focus, for any spell caster, allowed you to add your proficiency bonus to rolls to hit or save DCs. That made using a focus a choice, and it made sense for rod/staff/wand/orb/mistletoe/holy symbol to occupy one hand. But there were edge cases, and enough of them that it was (evidently) a worry: holy symbols on shields, eldritch knights using weapons as foci, etc. Those were ways that let you have two other useful things in your two hands, other than a focus while still getting the bonus.
The solution they adopted was to (a) water down the effect of having a focus (it now replaces minor material components) (b) allow essentially free-swapping of equipped items. That's not the only way they might have gone, of course (I wanted casters to have to "wield" their focus, so that it had to occupy a hand like a weapon), but it's the route they took.
Enter Bards. Bards are proficient in certain weapons as tools (and there's a choice of dozen options, instead of broad categories such a strings, wind, etc.); they can be proficient in the skill performance; and they have a magical focus which can be an instrument. Bard instruments are OVERDETERMINED, with the result that you don't need to be proficient in an instrument to use it as a focus, or play an instrument in which you are proficient when performing, or even use a musical instrument to cast spells since a mc pouch will work just as well. Let alone that "common sense" (and the joke answers in this thread) suggests you can game it so that some instruments are mechanically superior to others; which you shouldn't be able to do. Unlike the other edge cases (above) the problem with bards is that performance and musical ability properly requires both hands for most musical instruments, increasing demands rather than reducing them. By catering to one side of the equation, the rules leave bards in a space of "it's better not to think about it", which (I think you and I agree) is suboptimal.
there is no good solution, because there can't be without rethinking magical foci for other spellcasters. That's where the problem lies.
Then I go back to my first line in my post...
"Why do you need to write down any extra rules at all?"
If you want bards who have instruments play those instruments in order to cast spells... then they do. Likewise, if you have bards who don't want to hold instruments but still cast spells... then they do too. You basically are just handwaving away all the V,S,M components like so many other players and DMs already do. What's the point in trying to codify these rules in print, when in truth it seems (from what I'm getting) you just want to give every bard player the opportunity to fluff their spellcasting, weapon use, *and* musicianship in whatever way they want.
But if you really feel like you need it written down for yourself for whatever reason... then just go with what you wrote originally in your initial post: Using a musical instrument with both hands and/or your mouth can replace the somatic and verbal component of the spell.
That works just as fine as anything else.
