D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

[5ekyu]

You added the additional topic of being killed by arrows and then linked it in, not I, so... physician, heal thyself.

My point is that you have some weight limit, current set at the vague point of 'something less than 130 tons' (as that's the weight of the example ship) at which point feather fall becomes a death sentence. Sure, there's a semantic difference between the instant death due to crushing vice the moments more of life due to feather fall failing, but that's really beside the point -- how the spell fails isn't interesting to me.

What is interesting is that you quoted me and said that you have the spell work regardless of additional weight because you didn't see any point of adding an arbitrary set of additional rules to the spell that aren't needed, mostly because you didn't see where they'd come into play. I presented an example of exactly where they'd come into play with the airship, and immediately you agreed that, indeed, weight and feather fall would have an adverse interaction, thereby introducing an arbitrary set of additional rules to the spell based on weight. Granted, in your case that interaction is crushing death vice my interaction of the spell merely failing, but I'm mostly interested, at this point, in exploring the space in which your arbitrary interaction rules for feather fall exist. Mine are well defined, easy to explain to players (your max lift limit is the limit for how much you can carry before feather fall fails), and relies on existing rules. Where are your lines?

If it helps, I have some examples that might illuminate your thinking:

Case 1: there's a 1 ton weight chained to the ankles of your 3rd level caster. It's tossed off a 600' foot cliff, dragging you after. You cast feather fall. What happens?

Case 2: there's 1 ton of gold chains wrapped tightly around your 3rd level caster. You and the chains are tossed off a 600' cliff. You cast feather fall. What happens?

Case 3: same as case 1, but the weight is not 10 tons.

Case 4. Same as case 2, but the chains are magically enhanced to weigh 10 tons.

Case 5: same as 1, weight not 100 tons.

Case 6: same as 2, but weight is now 100 tons.

Case 7: same as 1, but weight is now 1 pound more than your maximum lift weight.

Case 8: same as 2, but weight is now 1 pound more than your maximum lift weight.

The added case of the arrows was to show that as stated it was not the weight but the change in character status that ends the spell.

You are equating an indirect cause to a direct cause.

magic missles can kill someone and their fly spell to end. that is not the same as saying that magic missile shuts down the spell or their is a limit on magic missles that a flier can take.

That is not a semantic difference.

if the feather fall character had invulnerability so they could not take damage, then the feather fall would stay in effect and they would take no damage from having the airship - because they interact with the airship as they normally would (no damage from the weight/impact due to invulnerability.)


As for each of your cases, the answer is the same - the character continues to fall at 60' (unless the spell is ended by some function) and they suffer whatever effects of the chain weight would normally be if they were not moved (or moved slowly.

if you want an in-game analog - assume the creature is in a force cage with chains running to the weights but no way for the body to be pulled through the bars or any other immobile effect working on them.

feather fall sets their descent rate to 60. that is all it does. if the results of those "jerked by weights" other than movement downward is not clear within the rules as far as say "damage taken" that is not an element related to this spell. feather fall does not alter any interaction except for downward movement restrictions.

(It feels like you are not using weight per se to challenge the issue but that there maybe be vague areas in the rules regarding weights and such as far as anything but carrying. That may or may not be true. I am not going to do some rules delve on weights and crushing damage to deal with the issue here in the forum since it applies no matter what.)

net result is i would do it differently because there is no gain from adding a weight limit tied to strength as far as i see it. the spell does not become more clear (or unclear) and does not see enough play in which it has shown itself to be OP that it makes sense to apply an obvious nerf.

But if it helps your game, great.

As for ruling vs rules, you are as anyone else allowed to change any thing in the rules you want.

By RAW (to whatever degree that matters) there is no weight limit and adding such would be a house rule (to whatever degree that matters.)

Sure, there is no statement within the spell that it is not countered by added weight above such and such weight but there is also no rule within the spell that it is not countered by being hit by a flaming orb - so either would be a Gm house rule (to whatever degree that matters.)

But, for any given table, that may not matter.

I, myself, am no great advocate for following the RAW if your game is served better by a house rule.

this is just not a case where i would go that route.

Even if i did see feather fall in need of additional restrictions - i would use the caster specs (someone observed using thei casting stat. not strength) or a target count sort of metric, because your own muscle has nothing to do with how many folks can hang on to you or how many chains can be lashed to you.

Why you have this apparent desire to twist the cases cited into a weight limit for my RAW approach is beyond me. Not sure if its just trolling or what.

But hey, whatever.

 

[Li Shenron]

The situation: Thunderwave blasts a bad guy off the top of a tall tower. The bad guy uses his reaction to cast Feather Fall. As a reaction (after taking a hit reducing him to low HPs), the bard who casts it wants to leap off and grab the falling enemy to evade the other enemies outnumbering the party on top of the tower.

How would you resolve? Would it even work, if he hung on? OR would they both plummet?

Great question!

The bard's action part probably would need some adjustment if you want to keep the validity of action economy, in the sense that grabbing someone normally requires an attack, and so cannot be done in the same round as Thunderwave. But let's say that we could figure out a way for the bard to use the movement for jumping (either in this or next round) and then the action for grabbing (in next round).

The more interesting part is what to do with feather fall if the grab attack is successful... Overall I think I'd be more inclined to make both fall normally, and the spell's effect be suppressed as long as the bad guy is grappled by the bard (if the bard lets go, or if the bad guy escapes the grapple, I'd resume the feather fall effects on the latter, while the bard keeps falling fast).

I can see it could work also the other way, but if I decided to let the bard and bad guy fall slowly together, there can be two possible consequences: one, this could set the precedent to break the creatures limit of the spell (caster targets a few creatures, the rest of the town just holds hands, everyone floats down slowly); two, I could say that the creatures limit apply and that bad guy + bard = 2 is still within the limit, but this sets another dangerous precedent of someone becoming a spell's target after it has been cast.

Since both outcomes have the potential for interesting adventure situations, I do not favor either, so I'll go with the one that seems to have the least impact on other rules.

 

[5ekyu]

Great question!

The bard's action part probably would need some adjustment if you want to keep the validity of action economy, in the sense that grabbing someone normally requires an attack, and so cannot be done in the same round as Thunderwave. But let's say that we could figure out a way for the bard to use the movement for jumping (either in this or next round) and then the action for grabbing (in next round).

The more interesting part is what to do with feather fall if the grab attack is successful... Overall I think I'd be more inclined to make both fall normally, and the spell's effect be suppressed as long as the bad guy is grappled by the bard (if the bard lets go, or if the bad guy escapes the grapple, I'd resume the feather fall effects on the latter, while the bard keeps falling fast).

I can see it could work also the other way, but if I decided to let the bard and bad guy fall slowly together, there can be two possible consequences: one, this could set the precedent to break the creatures limit of the spell (caster targets a few creatures, the rest of the town just holds hands, everyone floats down slowly); two, I could say that the creatures limit apply and that bad guy + bard = 2 is still within the limit, but this sets another dangerous precedent of someone becoming a spell's target after it has been cast.

Since both outcomes have the potential for interesting adventure situations, I do not favor either, so I'll go with the one that seems to have the least impact on other rules.

This seems like a reasonable house rule.

I would shift the other way, keeping away from adding new ways to counter the spell, mostly because the vast majority of times i have seen feather fall used it was PCs using it to save themselves, so adding a "skeleton dives on" or "crazed rst dives on" way to counter the spell and invoke the 500 foot plummet thing seems to be very much a nerf and increased risk for PC thing more than an equal trade.

But in games where lots more npcs use feather fall, i can see it going the other way.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Arial Black]

Incidentally, in earlier editions the spell had a weight limit, above which the spell failed. IIRC, in 3E it was 100 lbs/caster level. If this was 3E we would already know the answer.

As it turns out, I did not recall correctly! I was remembering the weight limit for levitate. Feather fall used the whole 'one large creature counts as two mediums' sequence common in 3E spells. Even then, the 3E spell description doesn't tell us exactly what to do in this circumstance, but each target of the spell can carry its maximum carrying capacity.

 

[Arial Black]

Abandoned the timing issue, eh? Good call.

Not at all! Compare it to a parachutist knowing when to pull the ripcord. In practice you can pull the ripcord as soon as you jump out of the plane, or wait until you are halfway down, or wait until you are closer to the ground.

Of course, a parachute does take some time to deploy after you pull the ripcord, and takes even more time to decelerate you. This is in contrast to feather fall which activates on an 'instant utterance' and 'instantly' changes your falling speed to 60 feet per round.

It gets increasingly dangerous to pull the ripcord the later you leave it. If you leave it too late then you risk hitting the ground before the parachute slows you to a safe speed. Practice helps. Those military personnel who train to HALO into enemy territory (High Altitude, Low Opening) in order to reduce the time they are exposed to Radar/enemy fire are doing so to, among other things, get the timing right so they don't go 'splat'.

It would be a much, much easier task with feather fall. Instant deployment, instant change in falling speed. Although it could still be hazardous if other factors are in play, it should be as easy as walking across a room without falling over as it would be to deliberately jump, fall hundreds of feet to a ground that is visible, and scream the verbal component before the splat. If I were DM I might have an inexperienced caster tell me his desired height (for when he wants the spell to activate) and then get him to make a check (Perception?), with 1 foot plus or minus for each point he misses the DC, with the target number starting at 10 and then dropping by 1 each time until he's spot on after ten jumps.

But, more probably, if he has had time to practice, then I'd rule that he gets the spell off at the height he wants. After all, we don't randomly determine if a fireball explodes at the point the caster wants or if his distance estimation is out by several feet. It would be unfair to impose such inaccuracy on one spell but not all the others.

But you're absolutely right, there's no limit in 5e. However, I do believe that the ruleset is rulings, not rules, so the absence of a distinct rule in a case not anticipated by the rules, like the sudden addition of a lot of weight to a feather falling creature, is a great place for a ruling to occur. Unless you're actually going to insist that in no case where a rule is absent in 5e there cannot be a ruling made?

Oh, this is definitely a case where the DM is expected to make a ruling. That's what DMs are for.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The added case of the arrows was to show that as stated it was not the weight but the change in character status that ends the spell.

You are equating an indirect cause to a direct cause.

magic missles can kill someone and their fly spell to end. that is not the same as saying that magic missile shuts down the spell or their is a limit on magic missles that a flier can take.

That is not a semantic difference.

if the feather fall character had invulnerability so they could not take damage, then the feather fall would stay in effect and they would take no damage from having the airship - because they interact with the airship as they normally would (no damage from the weight/impact due to invulnerability.)


As for each of your cases, the answer is the same - the character continues to fall at 60' (unless the spell is ended by some function) and they suffer whatever effects of the chain weight would normally be if they were not moved (or moved slowly.

if you want an in-game analog - assume the creature is in a force cage with chains running to the weights but no way for the body to be pulled through the bars or any other immobile effect working on them.

feather fall sets their descent rate to 60. that is all it does. if the results of those "jerked by weights" other than movement downward is not clear within the rules as far as say "damage taken" that is not an element related to this spell. feather fall does not alter any interaction except for downward movement restrictions.

(It feels like you are not using weight per se to challenge the issue but that there maybe be vague areas in the rules regarding weights and such as far as anything but carrying. That may or may not be true. I am not going to do some rules delve on weights and crushing damage to deal with the issue here in the forum since it applies no matter what.)

net result is i would do it differently because there is no gain from adding a weight limit tied to strength as far as i see it. the spell does not become more clear (or unclear) and does not see enough play in which it has shown itself to be OP that it makes sense to apply an obvious nerf.

But if it helps your game, great.

As for ruling vs rules, you are as anyone else allowed to change any thing in the rules you want.

By RAW (to whatever degree that matters) there is no weight limit and adding such would be a house rule (to whatever degree that matters.)

Sure, there is no statement within the spell that it is not countered by added weight above such and such weight but there is also no rule within the spell that it is not countered by being hit by a flaming orb - so either would be a Gm house rule (to whatever degree that matters.)

But, for any given table, that may not matter.

I, myself, am no great advocate for following the RAW if your game is served better by a house rule.

this is just not a case where i would go that route.

Even if i did see feather fall in need of additional restrictions - i would use the caster specs (someone observed using thei casting stat. not strength) or a target count sort of metric, because your own muscle has nothing to do with how many folks can hang on to you or how many chains can be lashed to you.

Why you have this apparent desire to twist the cases cited into a weight limit for my RAW approach is beyond me. Not sure if its just trolling or what.

But hey, whatever.

You're having your cake and trying to eat it, too. You insist that I'm the only one coming up with unnecessary rulings about feather fall when you've made the same kind of ruling, you just claim it's different because it doesn't reside inside the spell but instead outside it. It still interacts only in cases where feather fall is used, though, so that's a distinction without a difference.

To sum up: in a case where additional weight is applied to a creature with feather fall active we both invoke rulings. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that I set it at the already existing lifting capacity while you set yours at some unspecified point. A point at which the character will take damage or instantly die, even, rather than my less severe suppression of the effect. Both show interaction with feather fall, both are rulings about how that interaction occurs, and yet you're overly critical of mine while claiming yours is something completely different (and arbitrary and undefined, so far).

Honestly, I wouldn't much care that you do it a different way if you hadn't started this discussion off with a critique of my approach as "thwarting" a players clever tactics. Apparently, you're okay with such thwarting yourself, so long as the weight is significant enough.

If you'd bothered to check the rules on carrying capacity, you might have noticed that a STR 8 non-tiny character has a minimum lift weight of 240 pounds, which should be plenty to accommodate our clever tactician bard. It's not like I picked a harsh metric to use. In fact, unless circumstances were unusual (say the bard is a goliath wearing heavy armor and carrying a backpack full of gold) I wouldn't even bother checking it -- as I noted, I said I would be much more likely to just go with it and only call for the opposed check because this was a fun use.

If you're going to hold a grudge over other discussion in other thread about playstyle, please, let me know so I can absolve myself of having to put up with the constant stream of snide accusation of bad intent. If you don't mean to insinuate bad intent, perhaps you could take a few moments and consider the words you consistently choose to represent opinions that aren't yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not at all! Compare it to a parachutist knowing when to pull the ripcord. In practice you can pull the ripcord as soon as you jump out of the plane, or wait until you are halfway down, or wait until you are closer to the ground.

Of course, a parachute does take some time to deploy after you pull the ripcord, and takes even more time to decelerate you. This is in contrast to feather fall which activates on an 'instant utterance' and 'instantly' changes your falling speed to 60 feet per round.

It gets increasingly dangerous to pull the ripcord the later you leave it. If you leave it too late then you risk hitting the ground before the parachute slows you to a safe speed. Practice helps. Those military personnel who train to HALO into enemy territory (High Altitude, Low Opening) in order to reduce the time they are exposed to Radar/enemy fire are doing so to, among other things, get the timing right so they don't go 'splat'.

It would be a much, much easier task with feather fall. Instant deployment, instant change in falling speed. Although it could still be hazardous if other factors are in play, it should be as easy as walking across a room without falling over as it would be to deliberately jump, fall hundreds of feet to a ground that is visible, and scream the verbal component before the splat. If I were DM I might have an inexperienced caster tell me his desired height (for when he wants the spell to activate) and then get him to make a check (Perception?), with 1 foot plus or minus for each point he misses the DC, with the target number starting at 10 and then dropping by 1 each time until he's spot on after ten jumps.

But, more probably, if he has had time to practice, then I'd rule that he gets the spell off at the height he wants. After all, we don't randomly determine if a fireball explodes at the point the caster wants or if his distance estimation is out by several feet. It would be unfair to impose such inaccuracy on one spell but not all the others.

You've grossly oversimplied the process, though, and applied it to split second timing decision. HALO jumper don't wait until the last moment to open, they open at a relatively high altitude, providing usually a minute of glide before they contact the ground. The typical height for a HALO jump opening is 2000 feet. At this height, you're approximately 12 seconds from impact. Most reserve chutes can open in 1200 feet (some in as little as 400). This means you have about 4.5 second to determine a main chute malfunction has occurred and pull your reserve. Most times, this isn't enough time.

Stating that HALO jumps occur, with their extensively built in safety margins of more than a round's worth of time to justify split moment timing is bogus. In a 600 foot fall, your velocity at impact is approximately 98 feet/second. At 500 feet it's marginally slower at 95 feet/second. To initiate feather fall at 60 feet at a speed of 95-98 feet/second entails a timing window of less than 7 tenths of a second. That's the entire time you have to time your casting anywhere between 60 feet and 1 foot. That's a significant timing issue, and isn't guaranteed. Sure, featherfall goes off instantly when you pull that trigger, but can you, the character, so precisely time that fall? If you routinely practiced such things, I'd give you advantage on the initiative check, DC 10, to pull off that timing, but, then, you've earned that in a very dangerous way.

Oh, this is definitely a case where the DM is expected to make a ruling. That's what DMs are for.

I was confused by your claim that RAW was clear and thus no ruling was required. Have you had a change or heart, or are we talking past each other?

 

[5ekyu]

You're having your cake and trying to eat it, too. You insist that I'm the only one coming up with unnecessary rulings about feather fall when you've made the same kind of ruling, you just claim it's different because it doesn't reside inside the spell but instead outside it. It still interacts only in cases where feather fall is used, though, so that's a distinction without a difference.

To sum up: in a case where additional weight is applied to a creature with feather fall active we both invoke rulings. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that I set it at the already existing lifting capacity while you set yours at some unspecified point. A point at which the character will take damage or instantly die, even, rather than my less severe suppression of the effect. Both show interaction with feather fall, both are rulings about how that interaction occurs, and yet you're overly critical of mine while claiming yours is something completely different (and arbitrary and undefined, so far).

Honestly, I wouldn't much care that you do it a different way if you hadn't started this discussion off with a critique of my approach as "thwarting" a players clever tactics. Apparently, you're okay with such thwarting yourself, so long as the weight is significant enough.

If you'd bothered to check the rules on carrying capacity, you might have noticed that a STR 8 non-tiny character has a minimum lift weight of 240 pounds, which should be plenty to accommodate our clever tactician bard. It's not like I picked a harsh metric to use. In fact, unless circumstances were unusual (say the bard is a goliath wearing heavy armor and carrying a backpack full of gold) I wouldn't even bother checking it -- as I noted, I said I would be much more likely to just go with it and only call for the opposed check because this was a fun use.

If you're going to hold a grudge over other discussion in other thread about playstyle, please, let me know so I can absolve myself of having to put up with the constant stream of snide accusation of bad intent. If you don't mean to insinuate bad intent, perhaps you could take a few moments and consider the words you consistently choose to represent opinions that aren't yours.

First, If you want to choose to drag other threads into this, thats on you. i have not done so.

Second, you seem determined to manufacture a weight limit for my feather fall choice, even though there is none. My case involved death cancelling the effect (if that is the rule) regardless of whether or not the death is caused by weight crushing or not. if you do not see or recognize the difference bewteen a fly ending when a caster drowns to death vs a spell ending when the caster is submerged for x amount of time kinds of cases (or a case where a target dies from crushing vs spell ending due to weight) , that is just not something i can do any more to help you with. A spell ending because the recipient is killed by fireball is not the same thing as a spell ending when a fireball affects the target. those seem obvious to me.

As for the anti-player nature of the decision, well it seems obvious if you pay attention to what i have said.

In the example cited, it was a player initiating the leap to grab the falling participant. We have no info on the carrying capacity of the falling target, we have no information on the size, weight, encumbrance etc of the jumper. So, we cannot know if your ruling would go against the leaper, but it certainly could not help them in their survival effort.

In the cases where i have made observations about my own experience, i have stated clearly that in my experience the vast number of times i have seen feather fall used in game it has been PCs using it to save themselves and their allies, often in rather dire circumstances. So, a rule change to add in a weight limit based "counter" or "off-switch" that NPCs can exploit is going to be one which would work against the PCs more than the PCs.

But as i acknowledged in games where feather fall is more commonly used by enemies than allies, it could be reversed.


As for me invoking a ruling, if you consider "things work as they usually do with no special interactive changes needed" a ruling, than i guess you are right. i did not change what happenes when a ship drops on your character or what happens when you fall through feather fall.

But by that token every time a character fires a bow and i choose to not apply some new mechanic to bow fire, i am making a ruling too so... i find your definition of ruling to be rather a tad too broad.

As already said, you are free to rule any house rule you want for your games.

its not a direction i would consider worthwhile in mine, for reasons already stated.

But your constant attempt to re-frame what i said to be that i have added a weight limit is not accurate and at this point does not seem to be in good faith especially now that it seems you are explicitly trying to tie it in with other prior disagreements.

 

[5ekyu]

Not at all! Compare it to a parachutist knowing when to pull the ripcord. In practice you can pull the ripcord as soon as you jump out of the plane, or wait until you are halfway down, or wait until you are closer to the ground.

Of course, a parachute does take some time to deploy after you pull the ripcord, and takes even more time to decelerate you. This is in contrast to feather fall which activates on an 'instant utterance' and 'instantly' changes your falling speed to 60 feet per round.

It gets increasingly dangerous to pull the ripcord the later you leave it. If you leave it too late then you risk hitting the ground before the parachute slows you to a safe speed. Practice helps. Those military personnel who train to HALO into enemy territory (High Altitude, Low Opening) in order to reduce the time they are exposed to Radar/enemy fire are doing so to, among other things, get the timing right so they don't go 'splat'.

It would be a much, much easier task with feather fall. Instant deployment, instant change in falling speed. Although it could still be hazardous if other factors are in play, it should be as easy as walking across a room without falling over as it would be to deliberately jump, fall hundreds of feet to a ground that is visible, and scream the verbal component before the splat. If I were DM I might have an inexperienced caster tell me his desired height (for when he wants the spell to activate) and then get him to make a check (Perception?), with 1 foot plus or minus for each point he misses the DC, with the target number starting at 10 and then dropping by 1 each time until he's spot on after ten jumps.

But, more probably, if he has had time to practice, then I'd rule that he gets the spell off at the height he wants. After all, we don't randomly determine if a fireball explodes at the point the caster wants or if his distance estimation is out by several feet. It would be unfair to impose such inaccuracy on one spell but not all the others.



Oh, this is definitely a case where the DM is expected to make a ruling. That's what DMs are for.

i am pretty much with you on this part.

if my magical bead of fire can streak to a spot and go off in its split second without me needing to make a roll to get it to hit a 5' area, i think my timing of feather fall based on being able to see the ground should be just as accurate at least... choose the 5' square the spell goes off in. i see no reason to add more chances of failure and dice to what is normally in the rules RAW not a dice thing or a skill check thing. i see no reason to again add a case where a very limited use life-saver spell used most often by/to-save player characters than NPCs can go awry and fail.

But maybe other games have feather fall being seen as too powerful otr too good for enemies and so they have Gms wanting to nerf it.

As you observe, HALO jumpers determine their "safe point to pull" but they have a much more understood variable slow system, not some instance momentum/velocity cancel. if feather fall was as variable as parachuting, then a skill check and choice for "risk vs height" skill check may well be appropriate.

but then that would be a different (house ruled) case.

The case where i would be looking at calling for a roll for FF and close-cast would be if the vision to the bottom was obscured. Say you were falling off a cliff into a fog-laden valley. then you would need to decide whether or not to "pull the feather" above the fog or in the fog and run the risk of a bad perception roll resulting in a very bad landing. my bet would be - barring very very very high fog layer - most would choose "just above the fog" so their extended slow fall period would be with concealment.

 

[SkidAce]

Whereas I'd approach it from a slightly different perspective.

FEATHER FALL
1st-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you or a
creature within 60 feet of you falls
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (a small feather or piece of down)
Duration: 1 minute

Choose up to five falling creatures within range. A falling creature's rate of descent slows to 60 feet per round until the spell ends. If the creature lands before the spell ends, it takes no falling damage and can land on its feet, and the spell ends for that creature.

What feather fall does is change how gravity affects creatures. An affected creature descends slowly. An unaffected creature descends rapidly, unless it can grab onto something - a railing, a ledge, a rope, or a feather falling creature. Strength matters for who is trying to fight gravity. If the FF creature is holding on, either they succeed, or they lose their grip and whatever/whoever falls. If the grappler is trying to hang on, either they succeed or they fall. In both situations, all we need to know is who is/is not affected by gravity and who is/is not attempting to hang on.

Of course, this could lead to some silly results. Fay Wray falls from the Empire State building, but casts feather fall. King Kong jumps after her, grabbing on. Do they plummet, or do both go crashing to the ground? Hey, it's magic. And feather fall doesn't say "up to five falling Medium creatures", it says "up to five falling creatures".

Besides, it would be kind of cool to see King Kong floating down holding onto Fay Wray (or Naomi Watts, take your pick).

It does say "choose" up to five falling creatures. I doubt the bad guy chose the bard.

So the bard is not affected. Adjudicating from there.....I dont know.