Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[Lord Twig]

The same article that talks about dragon's breath not being magical also talks about different kinds of magic, including the magic of the universe - the physics of the d&d world.

So from the word go, you want to jettison ordinary assumptions of the power of words.

Bardic inspiration is non-magical, the same way a dragon's breath is non-magical. Warlord inspiration is the same.

I'm on board with this. This is the first real explanation for how non-agency-robbing, non-magical inspiration might work.

So it would be similar to the Ex (extraordinary) powers in 3.x.

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Makes sense to me.

 

[jayoungr]

Bardic inspiration is non-magical, the same way a dragon's breath is non-magical.

Bardic inspiration isn't a spell, but it is described in multiple places by the PHB as magic.

 

[Bawylie]

Bardic inspiration isn't a spell, but it is described in multiple places by the PHB as magic.

"You can inspire others through stirring words or music. 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, a d6."

The magic of words is back in the bard overview and couched with "Bards say..."

It's about drawing on the power of those things, sure. It's not magic in the same way a dragon's breath isn't magic.

 

[mellored]

Would you agree that the target must at minimum respect the source of inspiration, and care about what he/she thinks?

I do not accept that the target under the effects of inspiration necessarily feels any kind of positive emotion towards the person who said it.

Weather you where inspired or not, is independent of the source of that inspiration.

I mean...

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." - Adolf Hitler.
or
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Adolf Hitler

You might be inspired, but it doesn't mean you respect him.

[sblock=also]
those are Winston Churchill quotes.

Again, source inspiration doesn't matter.
[/sblock]

Or to paraphrase Lord Twig

You can think of the inspiration like taking performance enhancing drugs, but without any negative side effects. You are pumped up, you are energized. The source doesn't matter, respected friend, bitter rival, or magic, it has the same effect.

 

[jayoungr]

The magic of words is back in the bard overview and couched with "Bards say..."

No, it's in multiple places that aren't all "from the Bard's point of view." The "Bards say..." part is about the exact nature of the power they're tapping into, not about the idea that they're tapping into something.

Emphasis mine in the quotes below.

From the PHB, page 8: "Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes."

Page 45, definition of a bard in the table: "An inspiring magician whose power echoes the music of creation."

Page 51, a vignette that depicts Bardic Inspiration in in-game terms: "A stern human warrior bangs his sword rhythmically against his scale mail, setting the tempo for his war chant and exhorting his companions to bravery and heroism. The magic of his song fortifies and emboldens them."

Same page, under "Music and Magic": "In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain. Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers."

It's about drawing on the power of those things, sure. It's not magic in the same way a dragon's breath isn't magic.

What's the difference between "drawing on the power" and "magic"? I ask because the idea that a warlord's words draw on some power outside of the warlord's being and personality has not met with approval when it was proposed before (see this thread; note that "inspirational healing must be explicitly non-magical" is the second most popular choice by a narrow margin.)

 

[Bawylie]

No, it's in multiple places that aren't all "from the Bard's point of view." The "Bards say..." part is about the exact nature of the power they're tapping into, not about the idea that they're tapping into something.




What's the difference between "drawing on the power" and "magic"? I ask because the idea that a warlord's words draw on some power outside of the warlord's being and personality has not met with approval when it was proposed before (see this thread; note that "inspirational healing must be explicitly non-magical" is the second most popular choice by a narrow margin.)

Magical support of bard's and clerics could well be reference to their actual spells. Come on, now.

Bards are magicians. True. They cast spells.

Bards are masters of words, songs, and the magic they contain. Also true, I guess. Though that's now speaking about the setting, and that's going to vary from campaign to campaign. The PH doesn't tell me how the world was created.

The vignette is likewise in-universe. Which may be cool for most universes, but can't be taken as law across every one.

But you notice there's nothing explicitly magical about Bardic Inspiration in its own entry.

So what's the difference between drawing on the power and magic? When we talk about wanting a non-magical support class, we want to be able to produce effects without reliance on spell slots, without those effects being dispelled by dispel magic, or negated by anti-magic zones, or coming with any religious or arcane baggage like demanding deities, pact-patrons watching over your shoulder, bloodlines, colleges, or cabals of wizards.

If you need "because magic" to justify stuff, cool. Have at. I don't. I'm not hostile to it in the same way I'm not hostile to the idea that giants exist in D&D (even though realistically they'd collapse under their own weight). But giants don't collapse under their own weight. Dragons fly - when they shouldn't be able to - and you can either shrug and go "cool, fantasy" or you need "because magic."

So alright, it's all magic. Everything. But bardic inspiration doesn't work like spells. And what a warlord doesn't want to be is a spellcaster. Even a barbarian who takes the totem path and gets one or two spells isn't a spell caster. What he does may be magical, fantastic-al, but it isn't magic (a la the casters).

 

[mellored]

I'm cool with that, provided it's not a spell. Or invocation. Or obviously caster-y thing with slots/preparation.

I agree that not being caster-y is the key.

 

[mellored]

What's the difference between "drawing on the power" and "magic"? I ask because the idea that a warlord's words draw on some power outside of the warlord's being and personality has not met with approval when it was proposed before (see this thread; note that "inspirational healing must be explicitly non-magical" is the second most popular choice by a narrow margin.)

I feel the paladins / monk / rogue explanation would fit better then bards.
Internal more then external.

"A paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.".

"This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies."

"Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat
abilities"
"Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger."

Power from commitment.
Power from the energy of your own living body.
Power from mastery of skills.
And something almost supernatural.

 

[jayoungr]

I mean...

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." - Adolf Hitler.
or
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Adolf Hitler

Are you assuming that I (or my PC) feels inspiration simply as a result hearing a positive statement that we agree with?

Or to paraphrase Lord Twig

You can think of the inspiration like taking performance enhancing drugs, but without any negative side effects. You are pumped up, you are energized. The source doesn't matter, respected friend, bitter rival, or magic, it has the same effect.

See, I don't think that mundane non-magical words from a mundane non-magical person work that way unless I have a particular relationship with that person. It's the relationship that gives the words their power, not the words themselves.

Magical support of bard's and clerics could well be reference to their actual spells. Come on, now.

Bards are magicians. True. They cast spells.

Yes, I know those two statements are ambiguous--I wasn't trying to put one over on you. It's just that, taken with the other quotes, they add weight to the idea that bards are using magic even when they're not casting spells.

Bards are masters of words, songs, and the magic they contain. Also true, I guess. Though that's now speaking about the setting, and that's going to vary from campaign to campaign. The PH doesn't tell me how the world was created.

Words and songs can contain magic even if it has nothing to do with the creation of the world. Though I agree that any and all fluff can be modified for a given campaign.

But you notice there's nothing explicitly magical about Bardic Inspiration in its own entry.

No, but it is described as magic elsewhere, and the article says that being described as magic is one of the tests to apply. The article also says that dragon's breath is a type of "physics" magic, just not a spell.

So what's the difference between drawing on the power and magic? When we talk about wanting a non-magical support class, we want to be able to produce effects without reliance on spell slots, without those effects being dispelled by dispel magic, or negated by anti-magic zones, or coming with any religious or arcane baggage like demanding deities, pact-patrons watching over your shoulder, bloodlines, colleges, or cabals of wizards.

I have no problem with any of that. If you're just saying that a warlord (and bard) have supernatural abilities that aren't spells, then I'm not disagreeing with anything.

So alright, it's all magic. Everything. But bardic inspiration doesn't work like spells. And what a warlord doesn't want to be is a spellcaster. Even a barbarian who takes the totem path and gets one or two spells isn't a spell caster. What he does may be magical, fantastic-al, but it isn't magic (a la the casters).

I'm cool with that, but I seem to remember that others on the forum didn't like the idea.

 

[Bawylie]

Are you assuming that I (or my PC) feels inspiration simply as a result hearing a positive statement that we agree with?


See, I don't think that mundane non-magical words from a mundane non-magical person work that way unless I have a particular relationship with that person. It's the relationship that gives the words their power, not the words themselves.


Yes, I know those two statements are ambiguous--I wasn't trying to put one over on you. It's just that, taken with the other quotes, they add weight to the idea that bards are using magic even when they're not casting spells.


Words and songs can contain magic even if it has nothing to do with the creation of the world. Though I agree that any and all fluff can be modified for a given campaign.


No, but it is described as magic elsewhere, and the article says that being described as magic is one of the tests to apply. The article also says that dragon's breath is a type of "physics" magic, just not a spell.


I have no problem with any of that. If you're just saying that a warlord (and bard) have supernatural abilities that aren't spells, then I'm not disagreeing with anything.


I'm cool with that, but I seem to remember that others on the forum didn't like the idea.

Probably the key to writing it is a sort of fig leaf. None of the warlord powers will be explicitly magical in their own entries, but there will be some kind of supernatural leadership qualities by virtue of the warlord's ability to put a fire in your gut with the magic of words or the mass hysteria effect or whatever. So long as there's a hint of physics-magic, and no explicit spell mechanic (like slots) we'll be ok.