D&D 5E The Bard's Combat Inspiration is Messed Up

[Will Doyle]

I hate all instances of "before the result is announced", so I always let players use these powers after the event if necessary.

 

[Staffan]

I hate all instances of "before the result is announced", so I always let players use these powers after the event if necessary.

I half-agree. Before-result works perfectly fine when the player making the choice whether to spend a resource is the same player who rolls the dice. Eberron Action Points work like that - you roll your Will save, see that you got a 17, and decide to spend an AP to add 1d6 to the result. Then you tell the DM the final result, and he lets you know if you succeeded or not.

Doing the same on the DM's roll... that doesn't really work so well, because now the DM both has to show you the roll (I generally don't have any problem rolling in the open, but many DMs disagree) and wait for your decision.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, my fighter's ability to grant disadvantage on attacks is a little frustrating sometimes. I'll hold off to protect someone from a nasty attack, only to have the first roll miss anyway.

Not a big deal, but, it is sometimes a bit discouraging to waste an effort on something that was going to miss anyway, only to see other attacks, that I could have blocked, succeed.

 

[Scorpio616]

I don't like attack roll interference abilities at all since it slows down my rolls for my hordes, but I just roll in front of the players and stay quiet for a second letting the player decide whether or not to use the ability. Its very annoying since I have to give the PCs a chance to Disadvantage the attack before the roll (Fighter), a chance to Subtract from the roll (bard) before determining the hit, a chance to Shield boost AC after the hit (Sorcerer), and a chance to Reduce damage after the damage roll, but before the final damage (Bard).

 

[TarionzCousin]

I half-agree.

I like this response; it keeps them guessing!

It reminds me of a friend's question in college "Are you part dumb?"

 

[DracoSuave]

"I rolled a 16, does that hit?" "I use Combat Inspiration.... my AC is.... 17. No it does not." "Ok."

Let the players manage their own stats.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

"I rolled a 16, does that hit?" "I use Combat Inspiration.... my AC is.... 17. No it does not." "Ok."

Let the players manage their own stats.

The Bard ability affects the raw roll, not the modified roll which determines the hit or miss. Being able to know if it is an assured hit is a significantly stronger ability.

DM: "The Gnoll's attack die shows a 12, are you affecting it bard?"

 

[billd91]

"I rolled a 16, does that hit?" "I use Combat Inspiration.... my AC is.... 17. No it does not." "Ok."

Let the players manage their own stats.

With powers like this, I do the same. I generally roll my NPC's attack and announce the total I get and leave it to the players to respond with "Ouch" or "You got me". At that point, I then consider the result announced. Numbers do not make the announcement - declaring "hit" or "miss" is the point of no return.

 

[Jester David]

I have to admit, my fighter's ability to grant disadvantage on attacks is a little frustrating sometimes. I'll hold off to protect someone from a nasty attack, only to have the first roll miss anyway.

Not a big deal, but, it is sometimes a bit discouraging to waste an effort on something that was going to miss anyway, only to see other attacks, that I could have blocked, succeed.

That's my problem with bardic inspiration as well. You use this bonus and half the time you succeed without it and 1/4 of the time the roll is too low for it to matter. The mechanic might only have an impact a very small amount of the time.

Adding the whole "modify rolls that you can see" thing just makes an irritating mechanic weird. I read that and immediately thought of my giant gaming table and wondered "what if the bard is far away from the die?"

 

[DracoSuave]

The Bard ability affects the raw roll, not the modified roll which determines the hit or miss. Being able to know if it is an assured hit is a significantly stronger ability.

DM: "The Gnoll's attack die shows a 12, are you affecting it bard?"

Totals of dice results and modifiers are referred to as rolls many times during the game. Nothing about this ability suggests any sort of exception. Disclaimer: Rules at your table may vary, of course.

There's no gain to hiding this information tho. If you know the value of the die roll came up 10, but suddenly you find out he hit you with an attack roll of 16, it doesn't take a lot of math skill to determine the bonus is +6. After that, you now know what their total attack roll is when they attack anyways--nothing has actually been concealed from you at the end of the day.

Some people do enjoy the discovery of 16-10=+6, but some of us got over it with an overdose of math flash cards.

That's my problem with bardic inspiration as well. You use this bonus and half the time you succeed without it and 1/4 of the time the roll is too low for it to matter. The mechanic might only have an impact a very small amount of the time.

Adding the whole "modify rolls that you can see" thing just makes an irritating mechanic weird. I read that and immediately thought of my giant gaming table and wondered "what if the bard is far away from the die?"

It adds tension and strategy, actually. Do you only use it when you get hit by 1, or do you spend it as desperation maneuvers when you can actually whiff the inspiration? You should know the total going in.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Totals of dice results and modifiers are referred to as rolls many times during the game. Nothing about this ability suggests any sort of exception.

"rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll. You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails".

 

[DracoSuave]

"rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll. You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails".

The part you bolded doesn't actually address what I said.

This is a tautology--because Bardic Inspiration and abilities like it exist, it is not possible to say that by announcing a total you've determined success or failure of a roll--other abilities can kick in and change that.

So, because success or failure has yet to be determined at the announcement of a total for a roll, bolding that section is not actually relevant. What you are stating is that the DM can refuse to do math until there's no numbers left to add or subtract--that isn't what that ability states is happening however, and that's strictly house-rule country.

 

[Hussar]

The part you bolded doesn't actually address what I said.

This is a tautology--because Bardic Inspiration and abilities like it exist, it is not possible to say that by announcing a total you've determined success or failure of a roll--other abilities can kick in and change that.

So, because success or failure has yet to be determined at the announcement of a total for a roll, bolding that section is not actually relevant. What you are stating is that the DM can refuse to do math until there's no numbers left to add or subtract--that isn't what that ability states is happening however, and that's strictly house-rule country.

DS, you're missing the issue here. I agree with you, and do it that way, but, you forget the YEARS of bitching about things like Schroedinger's HP and disassociated mechanics that we had to put up with. If you do it the way you do it, then you are effectively retconning events - the attack was a hit, but, because the bard inspired you, suddenly it's a miss - what happened in the fiction? Was there time travel or something? The resolution of the mechanics doesn't follow a strict one to one correlation with the events in the game world.

Now, I'm fairly sure you, and I know for a fact me, don't give a rats petoot about all that. But, apparently, it's a major breaking point for people's suspension of disbelief. It's exactly the same reason that the fighter's defending disadvantage mechanic only applies before the die is rolled. You cannot force a reroll with the mechanic because it's not "magic". In 4e, it would be handled very differently so that it was never wasted on attacks that already missed.

But, this is very much the heart of the issue here. WOTC had to be very, very careful to avoid anything that looks like an 4e interrupt power to avoid any nerdsplosions of gamer rage that 4e's mechanics were polluting 5e.

 

[Nikosandros]

I dislike in general the idea of players having to "gamble" on whether some of their limited use abilities will be useful. Therefore, I let the players declare the use after knowing the result.

 

[DracoSuave]

DS, you're missing the issue here. I agree with you, and do it that way, but, you forget the YEARS of bitching about things like Schroedinger's HP and disassociated mechanics that we had to put up with. If you do it the way you do it, then you are effectively retconning events - the attack was a hit, but, because the bard inspired you, suddenly it's a miss - what happened in the fiction? Was there time travel or something? The resolution of the mechanics doesn't follow a strict one to one correlation with the events in the game world.

It doesn't bother me, because I don't assume that attack hit. Here's how -I- justify it in fiction.

"The kobold attacks you, you barely catch it out of the corner of your eye. Does a 16 hit?" Notice: The success or failure has yet to be determined at this point. We know it will PROBABLY succeed, but "will probably succeed" != "Has succeeded"

"Suddenly I get an instinctive reaction, raising my shield to catch the bolt--I rolled a 2... making my AC 17. That shot is likely to barely be caught by my defense." Stopping attacks that should make their mark even has a name--it's called "Parrying" and it's a realistic thing to expect people to be able to get last minute reactions to peril.

Notice: NO RETCONNING. You have no more 'Shroedinger's Damage' than you did before the kobold rolled to attack in the first place. If your fiction describes it as having certainty before you have actual certainty, that's a failure of your fiction, not of the mechanic. If your fiction describes it as having reasonable certainty, then your fiction will be just fine.

Now, I'm fairly sure you, and I know for a fact me, don't give a rats petoot about all that. But, apparently, it's a major breaking point for people's suspension of disbelief. It's exactly the same reason that the fighter's defending disadvantage mechanic only applies before the die is rolled. You cannot force a reroll with the mechanic because it's not "magic". In 4e, it would be handled very differently so that it was never wasted on attacks that already missed.

You realise you're talking about a class that has an entire archtype based around "retconning" rolls?

But, this is very much the heart of the issue here. WOTC had to be very, very careful to avoid anything that looks like an 4e interrupt power to avoid any nerdsplosions of gamer rage that 4e's mechanics were polluting 5e.

I think you're overstating the issue. Many players find those sorts of abilities to be fun and enjoyable, because it gives them agency.

Agency is GOOD, not BAD.

 

[drjones]

Yeah I am not a fan of that bard ability. Even in a perfect world it slows down play because there has to be a moment for the bard to decide when to intervene on every single roll. And if I want to have a bunch of mooks in a quick fight that's a ton of rolls that I would normally deal with in bulk. Allowing it to be applied after hit is determined makes it a very powerful ability since it goes form being occasionally useful to being useful every time. Frankly, I would encourage a player not to play a lore bard just to avoid the trouble.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't bother me, because I don't assume that attack hit. Here's how -I- justify it in fiction.

"The kobold attacks you, you barely catch it out of the corner of your eye. Does a 16 hit?" Notice: The success or failure has yet to be determined at this point. We know it will PROBABLY succeed, but "will probably succeed" != "Has succeeded"

"Suddenly I get an instinctive reaction, raising my shield to catch the bolt--I rolled a 2... making my AC 17. That shot is likely to barely be caught by my defense." Stopping attacks that should make their mark even has a name--it's called "Parrying" and it's a realistic thing to expect people to be able to get last minute reactions to peril.

Notice: NO RETCONNING. You have no more 'Shroedinger's Damage' than you did before the kobold rolled to attack in the first place. If your fiction describes it as having certainty before you have actual certainty, that's a failure of your fiction, not of the mechanic. If your fiction describes it as having reasonable certainty, then your fiction will be just fine.



You realise you're talking about a class that has an entire archtype based around "retconning" rolls?



I think you're overstating the issue. Many players find those sorts of abilities to be fun and enjoyable, because it gives them agency.

Agency is GOOD, not BAD.

Oh, I totally and 100% agree with you. As I said, it's not my problem. I'm behind what you're saying 100%. Although, note, that the fighter is doing that for someone else, when it's not the fighter's turn and the fighter isn't even being attacked, but, that's a minor issue. Given the arguments that were put forward for several years complaining about dissociated mechanics, I'm very much not shocked that WOTC wrapped up basic 4e style interrupts in a thin veneer of process simulation to keep the hue and cry down. Those like you and me generally will ignore that veneer and just announce totals because, frankly, we don't care. [MENTION=7993]Nikosandros[/MENTION] goes even a step further (in the right direction IMO) and turns the 5e fighter power into a straight up 4e style interrupt.

But, I know that WOTC could never, ever have gotten away with that in 5e. The hue and cry would have been deafening.

 

[DracoSuave]

But, I know that WOTC could never, ever have gotten away with that in 5e. The hue and cry would have been deafening.

1--I don't think there was as much resistance to interrupts as you think. I don't know of many people that were opposed to it at all. A loud minority doth not a hue and cry make.

2--I don't think they tried very hard to avoid it at all. Shield is the version from 4e that interrupts and increases AC, Battlemasters interrupt ALL the things, and don't get me started on Wild Mages, Diviners, and anyone with the Lucky feat. That's just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[aramis erak]

One thing about the numbers issue...

If the DM rolls in the open, he need never tell them the monster's bonus nor to-hit total; they'll figure it out from whether that 11 hits their AC17 tank or not if it's above 6.