D&D 5E Hypervelocity bards (WAS Fixing the bard's action economy (quick suggestion))

[MarkB]

This does have an impact on gameplay.

Bob: I'm using Mantle of Command to move Fred behind the Ogre.
DM: [looks nonplussed] Okay, you [mumble mumble] and Fred, you're now behind the ogre.
Fred: Wait, what happened?
DM: I dunno, the rules just say you're now behind the ogre because he spent his reaction.

No, thank you. Not if I can avoid it. I hate situations like this and I'd rather just preclude them from occurring. In this case that means overriding "the rules" and not allowing the Mystic as written in the campaign.

The discipline says "allow". The ally is allowed to take the move - they don't have to. Whether it's due to the Adept's inspiring psychic aura giving the character an extra turn of speed or his psionically-enhanced air of absolute authority spurring him to extra effort is up to the individual player. Either way, it's not your problem as DM - the players are taking the action, and they can narrate it any way that makes sense to them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The discipline says "allow". The ally is allowed to take the move - they don't have to. Whether it's due to the Adept's inspiring psychic aura giving the character an extra turn of speed or his psionically-enhanced air of absolute authority spurring him to extra effort is up to the individual player. Either way, it's not your problem as DM - the players are taking the action, and they can narrate it any way that makes sense to them.

It appears that you're suggesting the following dialogue:

Bob: I'm using Mantle of Command to move Fred behind the Ogre.
DM: [looks nonplussed] Okay, you [mumble mumble] and Fred, you're now behind the ogre.
Fred: Wait, what happened?
DM: It's not my problem. Make something up, Bob, and tell it to Fred. Or Fred, you make something up and tell it to Bob.

That seems like an abdication of responsibility to me. Remember the basic loop of D&D: DM describes situation, player declares an action (or at least intention), DM adjudicates resolution of that action. The problem with this scenario is that there is no action being declared--there is only an empty noun, "Mantle of Command," and some associated jargon.

I'd sympathize with you if you were asking for this scenario instead:

Bob: I'm using Mantle of Command to move Fred behind the Ogre.
DM: But what are you actually, physically doing?
Bob: Uh, I guess I'm yelling, "Go! go! go! Fred! Get behind the ogre!" in order to speed him up.
DM: Okay, Fred, assuming you listen to him, it seems to speed you up somehow and you're now behind the Ogre.

The latter is too storytelling-ish for my taste but I could at least sympathize with those who like that style. At least the end result winds up looking something like roleplaying. But the first version is just bad DMing.

 

[cbwjm]

Half the time the players are narrating it though. It's a pretty simple situation. Bob activates his ability, explains the path, and then Fred, presumably, moves behind the ogre. Don't need to have some great narrative to explain it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Sure, I'll give you that lute + sword is a bit weird (that's why my bard character uses a horn). But you said "this is all being done while holding a shield". That's not true, because if you wield a weapon and a shield you can't also wield an instrument (either as a focus or as a, well, instrument). Nor can you cast any spell that requires somatic components, unless you "cheat" via War Caster or something similar.

That said, I think it would be fair for valor bards to have a rule that said they can cast somatic spells while wielding a weapon and a shield (perhaps they thump their weapon against their shield or something like that, and consider that a musical instrument for the purposes of arcane focus). After all, they do get shield proficiency and are supposed to be the "fighty" bards, but almost all bard spells require somatic components.

I think we're talking past each other. The shield isn't important (as you note, only some bards will use one). For my point, the relevant details are:
a. the focus (a musical instrument) is used with one hand;
b. the use of a musical instrument as a focus is completely independent of the ability to play it.
I hope this helps clarify my thought.

 

[MarkB]

It appears that you're suggesting the following dialogue:

Bob: I'm using Mantle of Command to move Fred behind the Ogre.
DM: [looks nonplussed] Okay, you [mumble mumble] and Fred, you're now behind the ogre.
Fred: Wait, what happened?
DM: It's not my problem. Make something up, Bob, and tell it to Fred. Or Fred, you make something up and tell it to Bob.

That seems like an abdication of responsibility to me. Remember the basic loop of D&D: DM describes situation, player declares an action (or at least intention), DM adjudicates resolution of that action. The problem with this scenario is that there is no action being declared--there is only an empty noun, "Mantle of Command," and some associated jargon.

I'd sympathize with you if you were asking for this scenario instead:

Bob: I'm using Mantle of Command to move Fred behind the Ogre.
DM: But what are you actually, physically doing?
Bob: Uh, I guess I'm yelling, "Go! go! go! Fred! Get behind the ogre!" in order to speed him up.
DM: Okay, Fred, assuming you listen to him, it seems to speed you up somehow and you're now behind the Ogre.

The latter is too storytelling-ish for my taste but I could at least sympathize with those who like that style. At least the end result winds up looking something like roleplaying. But the first version is just bad DMing.

That seems like a very gamey way of playing, but I guess it's just different tastes. At most tables I've played at, players describe their intended actions in a combination of game-jargon and narrative, and the DM lets them know whether they're successful or not, maybe adding a bit of extra flavour to it in terms of the results. Having to describe their actions in purely game-mechanical terms and then waiting for the DM to digest them and spit them back out again as narrative just feels like a bit of a time-waster, and makes the narrative rather one-sided.

Ultimately, all that is physically happening in this instance is that a character is moving. I presume that you have no trouble narrating characters moving in general, so why is this situation more difficult?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That seems like a very gamey way of playing, but I guess it's just different tastes. At most tables I've played at, players describe their intended actions in a combination of game-jargon and narrative, and the DM lets them know whether they're successful or not, maybe adding a bit of extra flavour to it in terms of the results. Having to describe their actions in purely game-mechanical terms and then waiting for the DM to digest them and spit them back out again as narrative just feels like a bit of a time-waster, and makes the narrative rather one-sided.

That's exactly the point I'm making. You shouldn't ever be reduced to describing things in game-mechanical terms; but the way WotC's designers write certain abilities like Bardic Inspiration and Mantle of Command encourages doing so, because the game mechanics are the only things in the ability description.

Ultimately, all that is physically happening in this instance is that a character is moving. I presume that you have no trouble narrating characters moving in general, so why is this situation more difficult?

The character was already moving, presumably, on his own turn during the round. Apparently something is happening to move him some more, but since only the game mechanics are given, we have no idea why he is moving. It's too gamist for my taste.

If the psionicist (Mystic) were physically teleporting his buddy elsewhere, that would make sense; ditto if he were telekinetically nudging him. But defining things purely in game-mechanical terms does not work for me--it's why I dislike Bardic Inspiration (per OP), and the Mystic is treading down that same path in a couple of places. I think the Bardic Inspiration/Cutting Words thing is potentially fixable though.

Consider the 2nd edition version of this ability:

The music, poetry, and stories of the bard can also be inspirational, rallying friends
and allies. If the exact nature of an impending threat is known, the bard can heroically
inspire his companions (immortalizing them in word and song), granting a +1 bonus to
attack rolls, or a +1 bonus to saving throws, or a +2 bonus to morale (particularly useful
in large battles) to those involved in melee. The bard must spend at least three full rounds
singing or reciting before the battle begins. This affects those within a range of 10 feet
per experience level of the bard.

The effect lasts one round per level. Once the effect wears off, it can't be renewed if
the recipients are still in battle. However, troops who have withdrawn from combat can
be reinspired by the bard's words. A troop of soldiers, inspired by Cwell, could charge
into battle. After fighting a fierce fight, they retreat and the enemy does not pursue.
Cwell, seeing them crestfallen and dispirited, once again rouses their will to fight.
Reinvigorated, they charge back into battle with renewed spirit

If you switch Bardic Inspiration from a gamist description ("To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creature gains one Bardic Inspiration die...") to a roleplaying description ("To do so, as a bonus action on your turn you may sing or recite words immortalizing in song or oratory one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creature gains one Bardic Inspiration die...") then it starts to come together--obviously you can't sing or recite things while gagged, for instance, and depending on DM judgment you may or may not be able to do it while also casting a spell with verbal components. The short duration of a 5E round is a bit of an issue but can plausibly be handwaved by assuming that the bard is building off of established patterns, maybe only playing a few bars from the other PC's "theme song" which they both know--which implies that you wouldn't be able to use Bardic Inspiration the same way on someone you just met.

But you can't do any of that until you redefine Bardic Inspiration from "the ability to use your bonus action to grant Bardic Inspiration dice to other PCs" into "the ability, as a bonus action, to sing or recite inspirational words immortalizing your companions in oratory or song".

By defining things in roleplaying terms instead of game mechanical terms, you make roleplaying clearer and better. You make combat boardgaming a little bit worse and less powerful, but I don't care about that since I don't run D&D as a combat boardgame.

 

[Lanliss]

By defining things in roleplaying terms instead of game mechanical terms, you make roleplaying clearer and better. You make combat boardgaming a little bit worse and less powerful, but I don't care about that since I don't run D&D as a combat boardgame.

So, redefine it at your table? I am not seeing the problem here...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, redefine it at your table? I am not seeing the problem here...

I'm not seeing a difference between your proposal and mine. What exactly are you criticizing here?

 

[Lanliss]

I'm not seeing a difference between your proposal and mine. What exactly are you criticizing here?

Just commenting on the fact that this thread has stretched this far on people either agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, and basically no headway has been made towards anything. It happens, but this seems like an especially odd case to me, for some reason. Maybe because the root of the problem is so easy to change on a case-by-case basis that it does not seem like an actual problem, so it seems almost like the thread is more of a news letter of your table where the only goal is to tell us you are doing this thing.

No criticism meant by the above, btw. Maybe I am just having an odd day, but this stuck in my head in a weird way.

 

[MarkB]

But you can't do any of that until you redefine Bardic Inspiration from "the ability to use your bonus action to grant Bardic Inspiration dice to other PCs" into "the ability, as a bonus action, to sing or recite inspirational words immortalizing your companions in oratory or song".

By defining things in roleplaying terms instead of game mechanical terms, you make roleplaying clearer and better. You make combat boardgaming a little bit worse and less powerful, but I don't care about that since I don't run D&D as a combat boardgame.

By that standard, the Fighter's Extra Attack feature is equally problematic. The rules do nothing to describe how the fighter is suddenly able to attack an extra time each round, so by your definition you'd be forced to narrate it as "the fighter takes a mighty swing at the orc, and then he somehow manages to swing at him again because of [mumble mumble]."

Defining a character's abilities in roleplaying terms is not the ruleset's responsibility. It is not the DM's responsibility. It is the player's responsibility, and their opportunity. The player gets to decide how his character is able to do the things the ruleset allows him to do.