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

[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.