Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DrunkonDuty" data-source="post: 4158421" data-attributes="member: 54364">I love bards, but my take on the rules is generally considered, err, somewhat catch-as-catch-can. See my sig.Still, here goes:Question 1: My first thought is toward: the action of blowing the horn is sufficient to meet the criteria of playing music (for the Bardic Music ability) and activating the horn itself. Certainly this would be an acceptable literal interpretation. Also I like the idea of these similar magics being in tune (pun not intended) with one another and working together, coming together to form a whole jazz-funk-fusion of a magical effect. Thus I am inclined towards A) (the bard can activate both effects). BUT the potential for abuse here is pretty high: it sets a precedent for getting two magical effects for one action. And this makes me immediately wary. GMed too many power gamers in the past. Also, an argument can be made that it goes against the spirit of the rules to get two distinct effects from one action. As further support for this interpretation I would suggest that the bard can do one of two things with their action: activate the magic of the item OR activate their own magic but not both because there are two seperate sources of magic involved here that must be tapped seperately.* It might also be acceptable to suggest that tapping magic is the action and the act of blowing the horn is merely a required part of that action. The fact that the sub-actions required (making music) in both are similar is neither here nor there.So in the end I'd have to say one action activates the magic item. Another action required to activate the Bardic Music. This is mostly reached due to the potential for abuse at a later time rather than a hard and fast belief in this interpretation.Question 2 seems pretty clear cut to me.The description of the horn states the HP it grants do not stack with any other temporary HP. Instead it replaces them. Thus if the character had 11(temp.)HP from Inspire Greatness and then had the magic of the horn applied to them they would instead have 50(temp.)HP.As I am ruling that the Horn's magic and the Bardic Music are seperate actions there is no question of which one takes precedence in a combined spell effect. Rather there are 2 seperate, yet similar, effects being placed upon the target. This then implies it falls under "Similar Bonuses Not Stacking" rules.** The rule of bonuses from similar sources not stacking then applies. to whit: instead take the larger bonus only, almost certainly the 50. Question 3:Ooooooh. OK here we have a classic example of someone writing a splat book and not bothering to be familiar with core rules that they are modifying. Or at least not realising how the way in which they have phrased something is goddamn ambiguous. Bad writing in either case.It could be either A) Gain 3 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target's Constitution modifier, if any, to these bonus Hit Dice), a +3 competence bonus on attack rolls, and a +2 competence bonus on Fortitude saves;or: Gain 2 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target's Constitution modifier, if any, to these bonus Hit Dice), a +3 competence bonus on attack rolls, and a +2 competence bonus on Fortitude saves;or: Gain 2 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target's Constitution modifier, if any, +1, to these bonus Hit Dice), a +3 competence bonus on attack rolls, and a +2 competence bonus on Fortitude saves;or even: Gain 3 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target's Constitution modifier,if any, +1, to these bonus Hit Dice), a +3 competence bonus on attack rolls, and a +2 competence bonus on Fortitude saves;I'd ask the GM. Personally I'd go for either A) or B)Question 4:The question here is are the sources of the bonuses "similar"? Unfortunately the description of the items does not list them as "Luck" or "Divine" or whatever. GMs call. Given the information presented I would say they are not similar.If NOT similar then A). They stack.If they ARE similar then they dont stack, take the larger bonus. B)  Option C) is right out. Either they are not similar and thus stack or they don't stack and thus the larger bonus applies.Question 5:Ah I see. Trying to have your cake and eat it too? Tsk, tsk.Generally: a magical effect is defined when it is initiated. Certain spells/feats/etc. may allow these defintions to be changed mid-effect, but if so these are specific exceptions. Thus if you start Inspiring with a lute the effect is defined then as with the lute (+1 caster level). You cannot then change it later. Yes this is rather inflexible but I'd rather be inflexible then at the mercy of power gamers. If you must insist on an interpretation where the effect can be modified later then be sure to remove the effect of the lute before applying the effect of the harp. After all, either it is changeable in mid-effect or it is not, not both!! In this case I'd also insist on a perform check to allow the Inspire effect to continue, based on the difficulty of accessing the next instrument. Failure means the bard has effectively finished performing and the normal rules then apply. Also, if losing the level effect of the lute takes the bard down low enough level such that s/he is inspiring more people than they can then I'd have the effect end immediately (no 5 rd lingering song!) for one of the inspirees, regardless of the perform check.hope this helps.*Of course this requires a particular concept of magic as being compartmentalised with each "compartment" needing to be accessed by the user. I would consider this the base assumption for DnD. Some folk may prefer to have magic as being a universal force that is manipulated by certain actions, do A and B results. Thus blowing the horn causes the Inspiration and the Resilience to function.**From the Horn's temp.HP being described as "unstackable with any other source of temp.HP" I would rule that the Horn's temp.HP are defacto "similar" to any source of temp.HP. I admit this is a rather liberal interpretation (it is in fact is the "A therefore B = B therefore A" fallacy) but, hey, read my initial caveat.</blockquote>

Verification