# Bard Playtest discussion



## Ruin Explorer

Making a thread to discuss the changes to Bards specifically, hopefully others can make them for other classes. Will edit in the changes I note as I go through:

1) Changed from Simple + trad Bard weapons to just Simple weapons. Odd change because an awful lot of Bards use Rapiers, but a simplification.

2) Bardic Inspiration changed to a Reaction on someone failing a roll or taking damage, which potentially makes it a lot more flexible and makes Bards very good at getting people up who just got downed. PB/long rest uses at L1, PB/short rest (so they do still exist!) from L7. Also at L7, if the roll a 1 it doesn't use up the Inspiration, nice!

3) Spell Preparation. If I'm reading correctly this now works more like they're a Cleric/Druid? I.e. they choose what spells to prep from a list, and can change on a long rest, including cantrips. That's pretty big.

EDIT - It's a subset of the Arcane list, I see - Only Divination, Enchantment, Illusion or Transmutation. However this overall still feels like a buff.

4) Expertise in 2 skills at L2, 2 more at L9 nice.

5) Songs of Restoration - Always have healing spells prepared so no excuse to not have them/cast them! Kind of seems like a 4E role vibe there, but certainly technically a buff.

6) Magical secrets - Now it's pick a spell LIST and you can memorize 2 spells from that. At 14th pick a different list and get the same. Simple, flexible and useful.

7) Capstone is now 2 uses (up from 1) on rolling initiative and L18 like all capstones.

College of Lore (only subclass for now):

8) Still not available until L3 despite WotC saying this wasn't something they liked, interesting.

9) Gives Arcana, History and Nature instead of letting you choose ensuring you can't be awful at knowing things lol.

10) Cutting Words is explicitly rolled after a SUCCESS, so that's great. Also does psychic damage from L10!

11) Inspiration dice are rolled with Advantage from L6 lol nice.

12) Peerless Skill changed to be "after you fail" instead of the ludicrous "before the DM says if you succeed or fail" approach.

Overall my impression?

I don't have any complaints. This is a straight upgrade that addresses virtually all the major issues with Bard gameplay. Yes, it is slightly more restrictive, in that it's forcing you to be competent at your role, but I had no problem with that in 4E and have no problem with it here.


----------



## rooneg

My only real question is how giving classes like the bard full spell selection flexibility is going to affect the overall power level of casters in the game. Like, the ability to swap out your spells all the time is the Wizard's thing, you know? So now the Bard gets to just pick from huge swaths of the Arcane spell list with no Spellbook restriction? I mean, I like it from the Bard's POV, but I'm not sure I'm in love with the overall impact (although it's not like Wizards are underpowered or anything, so maybe I just shouldn't care?).


----------



## Amrûnril

The Arcane/Divine/Primal spell system and the associated changes to magical secrets seem like the biggest changes (with the arguable exception of spell preparation). Frankly, I don't see the advantage of this system over giving classes unique spell lists. The change to magical secrets is great for players who want more flexibility with spell choice, but it takes away from the "signature spell" dynamic the previous version had. And the loss of additional magical secrets takes away what I thought was the main appeal of the Lore Bard.


----------



## Vael

Also, Prepared Spells = Spell slots. Interesting.

Overall, a lot I like. The change to Bardic Inspiration to a reaction is a net positive, I think.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

rooneg said:


> I mean, I like it from the Bard's POV, but I'm not sure I'm in love with the overall impact (although it's not like Wizards are underpowered or anything, so maybe I just shouldn't care?).



Given WotC, they'll likely use this as an excuse to buff Wizards.


Amrûnril said:


> Frankly, I don't see the advantage of this system over giving classes unique spell lists.



It's likely to be a lot easier to balance and theme, especially if they add more classes in future.


Amrûnril said:


> The change to magical secrets is great for players who want more flexibility with spell choice, but it takes away from the "signature spell" dynamic the previous version had. And the loss of additional magical secrets takes away what I thought was the main appeal of the Lore Bard.



Frankly Lore Bards (and I say this having played more than one) were OP. And it was Magical Secrets that pushed them over the top in terms of appeal and wildly outcompeting other subclasses. I don't view the changes as a real nerf, because Magical Secrets is hugely better now. The only issue is by delaying the first one to 11th means most players will never see the feature.

Really hoping WotC has improved more stuff in the 11-20 range to make that more worth playing in and less of a headache for the DM, as a lot of classes now have cool features in that range.


----------



## Neonchameleon

My problem isn't with the loss of unique spell lists for the _classes_, it's with the loss of unique spell lists for the _characters_. Every bard gets to pick their base spells from the same list. Which means they are much more interchangeable as characters and with a whole lot less character customisation. Yes the ranger and the sorcerer were too crippled in spells known by the PHB - but this is less flavourful characters.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> My problem isn't with the loss of unique spell lists for the _classes_, it's with the loss of unique spell lists for the _characters_. Every bard gets to pick their base spells from the same list. Which means they are much more interchangeable as characters and with a whole lot less character customisation. Yes the ranger and the sorcerer were too crippled in spells known by the PHB - but this is less flavourful characters.



In a purely mechanical and non-roleplaying sense, sure.

But that's a double-edged sword.

What you see as "flavourful" is also how a lot of newer players or players who simply have poor system expertise get themselves into bad traps. If you let a newbie just select spells as they feel, the large number of poorly-balanced spells in 5E (and likely 1D&D) means they can very easily dig themselves into a hole where they're not very effective.

Without Tasha's, they're basically stuck there forever, or near enough.

With Tasha's they can very slowly get out of it, but what they can't do is experiment. They can't try stuff out. They can't try that spell that sounded cool. They can't adapt for specific situations, which means they basically can't have "niche" spells on their list, so the actual spells used by 98% of Bards tend to be a TINY subset of the actual Bard list, like, less than 30% of it.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong, to be clear. I get what you're getting at, and WotC sees it as a bug not a feature, because making D&D more gamist and characters slightly more generic mechanically is likely to help with their longer-term plans and certainly benefits accessibility (which is clearly a key goal here, c.f. the lists of suggested spells etc.).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> In a purely mechanical and non-roleplaying sense, sure.
> 
> But that's a double-edged sword.
> 
> What you see as "flavourful" is also how a lot of newer players or players who simply have poor system expertise get themselves into bad traps. If you let a newbie just select spells as they feel, the large number of poorly-balanced spells in 5E (and likely 1D&D) means they can very easily dig themselves into a hole where they're not very effective.



I understand the argument - but it's IMO a fallacy of the excluded middle when WotC has been showing us for years how to hit that middle, and they've even done it in this play packet. The Bard gets "Songs of Restoration" which gives them a solid list of spells that will always be effective, while the Xanathar's Rangers and Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses (plus an always known Hunter's Mark) give you a starting spell list that should have enough of a foundation that this isn't a major issue.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Bardic Inspiration as a reaction is a great idea. It will speed up combat, too, because it removes the time on your turn to assess who could use Bardic Inspiration most in the coming round - now you immediately know. Also, being able to heal with it is a great utility for rescuing downed PCs.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> I understand the argument - but it's IMO a fallacy of the excluded middle when WotC has been showing us for years how to hit that middle, and they've even done it in this play packet. The Bard gets "Songs of Restoration" which gives them a solid list of spells that will always be effective, while the Xanathar's Rangers and Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses (plus an always known Hunter's Mark) give you a starting spell list that should have enough of a foundation that this isn't a major issue.



That doesn't make any sense to me. How is it an "excluded middle" fallacy? Can you explain? I can't find any definition of that which makes any sense in the context of what you're saying. Is there perhaps a different phrase which might make more sense?

Also I strongly disagree with the argument - Songs of Restoration does not do that - rather if those are the only good spells they have, it locks them into a "reactive healer" role, which is pretty bad. None of those spells are interesting, cool, or fun to use. They're purely the most boring and reactive kind of "party support" spells. I mean some, like Lesser Restoration, are basically a "spell tax", i.e. where one PC is forced to give up spells simply to remove penalties from another PC, and it's not cool or dramatic, it's just required.

They absolutely COULD design a baseline list of spells every Bard has that DOES make them all viable, then let you build from there. It's a classic bit of design in fact to do that. But they haven't.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Having those healing spells always prepared was necessary because Bards now cannot get healing otherwise with all the healing spells moved over to the Abjuration school (which Bards don't get.)  By giving out those 5 spells under Songs of Restoration, Bards can maintain having some healing without needing to be given the entire Abjuration school, which I'm sure WotC didn't want to do.  Last thing Bards need is to have access to _Mage Armor _and _Shield_ from the get-go.


----------



## Amrûnril

Ruin Explorer said:


> In a purely mechanical and non-roleplaying sense, sure.
> 
> But that's a double-edged sword.
> 
> What you see as "flavourful" is also how a lot of newer players or players who simply have poor system expertise get themselves into bad traps. If you let a newbie just select spells as they feel, the large number of poorly-balanced spells in 5E (and likely 1D&D) means they can very easily dig themselves into a hole where they're not very effective.
> 
> Without Tasha's, they're basically stuck there forever, or near enough.
> 
> With Tasha's they can very slowly get out of it, but what they can't do is experiment. They can't try stuff out. They can't try that spell that sounded cool. They can't adapt for specific situations, which means they basically can't have "niche" spells on their list, so the actual spells used by 98% of Bards tend to be a TINY subset of the actual Bard list, like, less than 30% of it.
> 
> Now I'm not saying you're wrong, to be clear. I get what you're getting at, and WotC sees it as a bug not a feature, because making D&D more gamist and characters slightly more generic mechanically is likely to help with their longer-term plans and certainly benefits accessibility (which is clearly a key goal here, c.f. the lists of suggested spells etc.).




I like the idea of character specific known spells, but agree that it's important to have some flexibility, especially for new players. I think Tasha' probably took the wrong approach to this, though. Rather than designating specific level-ups for re-spec'ing, it would have been better to emphasize that the DM should allow this as appropriate to help players learn the game and to reflect character developments- something akin to the discussion of changing subclasses rather than a standardized class feature.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Having those healing spells always prepared was necessary because Bards now cannot get healing otherwise with all the healing spells moved over to the Abjuration school (which Bards don't get.)  By giving out those 5 spells under Songs of Restoration, Bards can maintain having some healing without needing to be given the entire Abjuration school, which I'm sure WotC didn't want to do.  Last thing Bards need is to have access to _Mage Armor _and _Shield_ from the get-go.



This is one of the reasons I think class-specific spell lists are a good idea.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me. How is it an "excluded middle" fallacy? Can you explain? I can't find any definition of that which makes any sense in the context of what you're saying. Is there perhaps a different phrase which might make more sense?



Basically you seem to be saying either (a) you give permanent unguided choices and newbies get lost or (b) you give pure freedom and pure spells prepared for the newbies. I'm saying that both these are bad - but there is a middle way as indicated


Ruin Explorer said:


> Also I strongly disagree with the argument - Songs of Restoration does not do that - rather if those are the only good spells they have, it locks them into a "reactive healer" role, which is pretty bad. None of those spells are interesting, cool, or fun to use.



And I consider this to be a subtle goalpost shift (and I disagree that Healing Word in specific isn't fun). Your initial claim was about picking an entire spell list that was in your words "not very effective" The spells in question are all _effective_ ones even if I agree with you that Lesser Restoration is a spell tax and consider Healing Word the only fun one on the list.

But if we're talking about effectiveness then being able to heal and lesser restore means that they will never be _ineffective._ And the newbie spells problem is normally that they go for interesting and cool over effective. But with a core of effective (if dull) spells going for flash on top of that won't be a problem.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> Basically you seem to be saying either (a) you give permanent unguided choices and newbies get lost or (b) you give pure freedom and pure spells prepared for the newbies. I'm saying that both these are bad - but there is a middle way as indicated



I agree there is a middle way. I don't at all agree it's what you've suggested. The spell-lists for Sorcerers and the like are closer, but inconsistent (some have absolutely terrible spells on them, or all combat, or all non-combat). And the inability to experiment is a genuine problem imo.


Neonchameleon said:


> And I consider this to be a subtle goalpost shift (and I disagree that Healing Word in specific isn't fun).



There's no goalposts, because this isn't that kind of discussion, so you can't shift something that isn't there. I'm trying to discuss how this actually works, not beat Tottenham 4-0.

My point is that all you have there are reactive healing spells. You're not disputing that. And when I say effective, sorry for the short-hand, but I personally include "being fun for the player" in that, and assumed others would. I kind of agree re: Healing Word, but it's still reactive spell which largely duplicates the healing usage of their Inspiration. They have two different abilities which do almost exactly the same thing, just one is a Reaction and the other a Bonus Action. It's not terrible, but it's not engaging (and is kind of clumsy design).


Neonchameleon said:


> But with a core of effective (if dull) spells going for flash on top of that won't be a problem.



Hard disagree.

Dull but effective spells combined with cool but ineffective spells is absolutely a great way to get people to _quit_ a class. To get bored with a game. Particularly if the effective spells are primarily cast on other people.

I'm not saying this just to be difficult, to be clear, you're describing something that's happened _countless times_ in both videogames and TTRPGs. The character who has some boring-but-vital abilities, and has some cool abilities, but they don't work very well, so you need to focus on the boring-but-effective ones. Like, seriously a significant percentage of classes in early MMOs fit into this. Clerics and SPs in 2E fit that.

And people endlessly quit those classes or didn't want to play them.

So I'd say any set of baseline abilities must include some cool and effective abilities.

WotC didn't go with that though, they've gone with a Cleric/Druid-like option. I'm not sure if that's the best choice, but I can say it'll definitely work.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

DEFCON 1 said:


> all the healing spells moved over to the Abjuration school



This sort of baffles me. What are you warding against, negative chi?


----------



## Clint_L

Ruin Explorer said:


> 2) Bardic Inspiration changed to a Reaction on someone failing a roll or taking damage, which potentially makes it a lot more flexible and makes Bards very good at getting people up who just got downed. PB/long rest uses at L1, PB/short rest (so they do still exist!) from L7. Also at L7, if the roll a 1 it doesn't use up the Inspiration, nice!



Being able to use inspiration to heal as a _reaction _is incredibly powerful. I already think healing word is too strong, and this is even better. It adds another cheat death mechanic to the game, which IMO is bad for maintaining narrative tension in combat. A player going to 0 hit points should be a crisis, not a momentary whoopsie.


----------



## Stalker0

The fact that bards can now swap out their spells every day with anything on their list just puts their flexibility even further beyond. That ability alone is an incredible boost in class power.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Clint_L said:


> Being able to use inspiration to heal as a _reaction _is incredibly powerful. I already think healing word is too strong, and this is even better. It adds another cheat death mechanic to the game, which IMO is bad for maintaining narrative tension in combat. A player going to 0 hit points should be a crisis, not a momentary whoopsie.



Well there are two ways to read it:

1) The healing applies after they take damage but before they go down, in which case it's okay but not that powerful, because in a lot of cases it won't prevent someone being downed. For example, PC on 7 HP takes 12 HP swipe from a bear, Bard does his Inspiration, gets a 1/2/3/4 and the PC still goes down, now the Bard needs to use Healing Word to get them up. That's not that great.

2) That the healing applies after they take damage and after they go down, in which case it's basically "Yo-yo healing: The ability!". In the same scenario the PC goes down to the 12 HP swipe, but the Bard uses Inspiration, and now the PC is back awake (albeit Prone) on 1d6 HP.

Way #2 is I think what you're assuming, and yeah, that'll be super yo-yo if that's the intended reading. And to be honest I think it IS actually the intended reading, because they're only buffing healing so far in 1D&D. Long Rest got a buff, for example, restoring 100% of HD instead of 50%, and removing all HP-max-reducing effects.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> This sort of baffles me. What are you warding against, negative chi?



That's always been the goofy bit of dividing spells into schools... oftentimes spells are so wishy-washy in terms of what they do that there's no real rhyme nor reason as to what school they should get placed in.  Healing in years and editions past has been Necromancy, it's been Conjuration, it's been Evocation, and now it's Abjuration-- all trying to either find the most "applicable" place for it to go, or else just trying to balance out the schools themselves with relatively equal numbers of quality spells.

I mean in truth the school of Necromancy should be renamed 'Animancy' or 'Biomancy' and be about the entire circle of life and death, in which case healing would go here.  But the Necromancer concept is so ingrained in D&D that no one has really ever tried broaching the idea of changing the school's name to make the healing spells really fit.  So what can you do?


----------



## TwoSix

DEFCON 1 said:


> I mean in truth the school of Necromancy should be renamed 'Animancy' or 'Biomancy' and be about the entire circle of life and death, in which case healing would go here.  But the Necromancer concept is so ingrained in D&D that no one has really ever tried broaching the idea of changing the school's name to make the healing spells really fit.  So what can you do?



Move healing spells to Abjuration, apparently.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DEFCON 1 said:


> I mean in truth the school of Necromancy should be renamed 'Animancy' or 'Biomancy' and be about the entire circle of life and death, in which case healing would go here. But the Necromancer concept is so ingrained in D&D that no one has really ever tried broaching the idea of changing the school's name to make the healing spells really fit. So what can you do?



What's really dumb is in fantasy literature, and mythology, life and death usually ARE two sides of the same coin. Someone who can heal you probably can also harm you, magically-speaking. Only D&D would backtrack on that and decide to try and make them entirely separate coins.


----------



## Weiley31

I must say the Cutting Words upgrade is hella neat and lends itself to the mental image of taking somebody out with a verbal smackdown. The Bard's version of Eldritch Blast if ya will.
Also: Songs of Restoration is a really awesome thing. And as I mentioned before in the main Expert Class thread, it
 reminds me of it being the Bard's version of Patron Spells, Oath Spells, and Domain Spells.

And going by that logic, a Bard having choices of "Songs" that do things is really intriguing. So, if you have Songs of Restoration, you get healing spells. If you have Songs of Misdirection, you get Illusion spells, etc etc. I mean, really different Bard subclasses going forward would be able to do that if the idea goes through during the playtest survey.


----------



## TwoSix

Weiley31 said:


> And going by that logic, a Bard having choices of "Songs" that do things is really intriguing. So, if you have Songs of Restoration, you get healing spells. If you have Songs of Misdirection, you get Illusion spells, etc etc. I mean, really different Bard subclasses going forward would be able to do that if the idea goes through during the playtest survey.



The best part is getting rid of the consistently confusing and not very useful "Song of Rest" ability.

But yea, it wouldn't shock me if "Songs of Restoration" turns out to be a menu of possible spell choices for that level 2 feature.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ruin Explorer said:


> What's really dumb is in fantasy literature, and mythology, life and death usually ARE two sides of the same coin. Someone who can heal you probably can also harm you, magically-speaking. Only D&D would backtrack on that and decide to try and make them entirely separate coins.



I dunno if I'd say _only_ D&D.  The Necromancer is such a defining villain identity in fantasy literature that it appears everywhere, and D&D is just following the flow of the river to let players play that fantasy.  I mean even though 'animancy' and 'biomancy' might be more applicable names, I fully admit they both sound pretty goofy and are not nearly as cool as necromancy.  So I won't dock WotC points for staying with the name but then trying to place their healing spells in a different school.


----------



## Weiley31

DEFCON 1 said:


> I dunno if I'd say _only_ D&D.  The Necromancer is such a defining villain identity in fantasy literature that it appears everywhere, and D&D is just following the flow of the river to let players play that fantasy.  I mean even though 'animancy' and 'biomancy' might be more applicable names, I fully admit they both sound pretty goofy and are not nearly as cool as necromancy.  So I won't dock WotC points for staying with the name but then trying to place their healing spells in a different school.



Agreed. It just wouldn't be the same if Necromancer/Necromancy had its name changed like that.


----------



## Krachek

Stalker0 said:


> The fact that bards can now swap out their spells every day with anything on their list just puts their flexibility even further beyond. That ability alone is an incredible boost in class power.



Don’t worry all caster will do the same!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Bardic Inspiration as a reaction is a great idea. It will speed up combat, too, because it removes the time on your turn to assess who could use Bardic Inspiration most in the coming round - now you immediately know. Also, being able to heal with it is a great utility for rescuing downed PCs.



Agreed. There's also been an issue in the past that the Bard will give someone their Bardic Inspiration, but the PC will never use it because the Player forgets about it. It being a reaction makes it solely on the Bard to remember, which makes it far less likely to be forgotten. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side Note: Did anyone else notice how Cantrips are prepared now? Because that's interesting.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Sometimes I felt like such a noodge at the table, always reminding people that they had bardic inspiration if they want to use it. And then there were the times they'd use it and get a 24 before they even calculated it in.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Agreed. There's also been an issue in the past that the Bard will give someone their Bardic Inspiration, but the PC will never use it because the Player forgets about it. It being a reaction makes it solely on the Bard to remember, which makes it far less likely to be forgotten.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Side Note: Did anyone else notice how Cantrips are prepared now? Because that's interesting.


----------



## Gorck

I finally got home from work and got a chance to start reading this playtest.  I got as far as page 4 before noticing a peculiarity: the Bard is proficient with Simple Weapons, but then the Starting Equipment lists a Shortsword.  Either it's a typo, or Shortswords are going to move form Martial to Simple.


----------



## Weiley31

Gorck said:


> I finally got home from work and got a chance to start reading this playtest.  I got as far as page 4 before noticing a peculiarity: the Bard is proficient with Simple Weapons, but then the Starting Equipment lists a Shortsword.  Either it's a typo, or Shortswords are going to move form Martial to Simple.



They are INDEED Simple Weapons now.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Gorck said:


> I finally got home from work and got a chance to start reading this playtest.  I got as far as page 4 before noticing a peculiarity: the Bard is proficient with Simple Weapons, but then the Starting Equipment lists a Shortsword.  Either it's a typo, or Shortswords are going to move form Martial to Simple.



They're simple weapons - it's on page 36


----------



## Charlaquin

Mostly positive changes in my opinion, except for Song of Rest getting replaced with healing spells being always-prepared. But old song of rest got rolled into Inspiring Leader, so that’s alright I guess.


----------



## Charlaquin

Weiley31 said:


> I must say the Cutting Words upgrade is hella neat and lends itself to the mental image of taking somebody out with a verbal smackdown. The Bard's version of Eldritch Blast if ya will.
> Also: Songs of Restoration is a really awesome thing. And as I mentioned before in the main Expert Class thread, it
> reminds me of it being the Bard's version of Patron Spells, Oath Spells, and Domain Spells.
> 
> And going by that logic, a Bard having choices of "Songs" that do things is really intriguing. So, if you have Songs of Restoration, you get healing spells. If you have Songs of Misdirection, you get Illusion spells, etc etc. I mean, really different Bard subclasses going forward would be able to do that if the idea goes through during the playtest survey.



It’s a base bard feature though, not a subclass feature.


----------



## Charlaquin

Gorck said:


> I finally got home from work and got a chance to start reading this playtest.  I got as far as page 4 before noticing a peculiarity: the Bard is proficient with Simple Weapons, but then the Starting Equipment lists a Shortsword.  Either it's a typo, or Shortswords are going to move from Martial to Simple.



You didn’t read the whole packet, did you?


----------



## Gorck

Weiley31 said:


> They are INDEED Simple Weapons now.






Neonchameleon said:


> They're simple weapons - it's on page 36



I probably should have finished reading the whole packet before posting.  I also should have realized the underlined words are in the Rules Glossary.  

Another change I noticed is that Cutting Words can no longer be used to reduce the damage roll.


----------



## Stalker0

Charlaquin said:


> You didn’t read the whole packet, did you?



"Short swords are indeed simple weapons now."

Behold, for one less word you could have helpfully informed a fellow forum goer about something they might have missed in the long and complex document, filled with little details....rather than calling them out. A community is built through kindness.


----------



## The Glen

Bard needs lot of options, they are supposed to be jack of all trades.  Songs of restoration pigeon holes them into back up healers, but what if they want to be Frontline support or to jack with the enemy?  Let them pick a set of spells.  So when the dwarves charge the orcs, you can have the bard cranking Sabaton for combat boosts screaming healing is for winners.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

The Glen said:


> what if they want to be Frontline support



I'm assuming that's what the College of Valor/Swords is meant for. 


The Glen said:


> or to jack with the enemy?



College of Lore does exactly that. As do a few of the other subclasses.


----------



## The Glen

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm assuming that's what the College of Valor/Swords is meant for.
> 
> College of Lore does exactly that. As do a few of the other subclasses.



Then why not just have a college for healing spells?  Get rid of the ability all together and kick it to subclasses


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It being a reaction makes it solely on the Bard to remember, which makes it far less likely to be forgotten.



Not just a reaction, but a reaction on a Fail, which means there's only a narrow thing to think about, which makes it even easier to remember.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I am mostly neutral on the loss of a class spell list. Being able to take any Arcane spell from certain schools is cool (even if I'll miss the iconic particular flavor of the ecclectic Bard list), but the new system also seems vastly more complicated. They think they've solved the problem by suggesting spells, but there is a vast spectrum of game familiarity I think between the people who are so new they want the makers to just assign them spells so they can play, and the people who feel up to going through a third of the games spells figuring out which ones are of the right four schools. I feel like WotC is just not in tune with how newer or less committed players approach the game, as I suspect when they playtest they mostly interact with veterans or absolute beginners having their hands held by some WotC employee.

I hate the prepared spell system which I have encountered here with Bards with a firey passion that knows no bounds. Making them prepared spellcasters is one thing feels wrong but I might get behind it. Not having a prepared spellcaster's number of prepared spells be ability score dependent is a change I like. But the idea that you now must prepare spells of levels based on the spell slot progression is an unforgiveable insult to 5e. No. Just no. A thousand times no. You got it wrong. Think of something else. I don't care what other editions did, 5e got that thing right. Make whatever employee thought that was a good idea spend a month playing a prepared spellcaster in actual 5e and don't let them near any more playtest materials until they do.

I like changing inspiration to be proficiency bonus based, as I feel like, being based on charima bonus, it has been one of those things that made it actually unfeasible to play a class mediocre in their primary ability score. I kind of like moving it to the reaction, as it both makes it more powerful (which given that most bards will have less of it most of the time is fair) and avoids the problem of being dependent on other players remembering one of the Bard's class features. But now the Bard is one of those classes in search of something to do with their bonus action, and I liked the ludonarrative logic of giving inspiration in advance better. I am intrigued by making inspiration usable instead as a heal. The value of a slight increase to a critical die roll vs. a die roll of hit points at a clutch moment is difficult to quantify, and might make for compelling gameplay, I'm not sure.

But they moved short rest inspiration regain, something I've long though should be the default at level 1, from 5th to 7th level. Now I understand that requiring several levels of Bard to get it might be necessary to balance multiclassing, especially with it being proficiency bonus based, but come on, level _seven_? And level 5 for Jack of All Trades? No. Characters should have all their iconic class abilities earlier, not later. I understand the joys of delayed gratification, but I shouldn't have to get 10 to 20 sessions in for my character of X class to feel like a proper character of X class.

And on that subject, the level 1 Bard, not yet getting their extra healing spells, and having only 2 Arcane spells, has been severely nerfed. As have level 1 parties whose healer is (going to be) a Bard.

Taking away a Bard's proficiency in rapiers and handcrossbows is an incorrect decision, though not as absurd as taking away the Rogue's proficiency in handcrossbows, which seems like it must just be a straight up oversight.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Benjamin Olson said:


> I feel like WotC is just not in tune with how newer or less committed players approach the game, as I suspect when they playtest they mostly interact with veterans or absolute beginners having their hands held by some WotC employee.



Definitely agree. I think they're trying pretty hard, but they don't actually get it.

Sympathise with a lot of what you're saying even if I don't 100% agree.


----------



## Yaarel

The way the spell lists are interacting with the playtest Bard seems ok.

Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation feels appropriate enough.

Swapping spells per long rest is balanced. For the Bard particularly, these "schools" seem ok.



At the same time, there are many problems with the 5e spell lists, generally. Such as wildly imbalanced spells at the same spell level. The lists defacto mean, the arcane casters get the better spells, and the divine and primal casters get the crappier spells. Thematically, the lists overlap − blurry and redundant − in other words, a poor organization.


----------



## Yaarel

TwoSix said:


> Move healing spells to Abjuration, apparently.



As far as what "abjuration" means, healing spells are abjurations.

I would also include _Regeneration_, and other protective/restorative spells in abjuration.


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> I am mostly neutral on the loss of a class spell list. Being able to take any Arcane spell from certain schools is cool (even if I'll miss the iconic particular flavor of the ecclectic Bard list), but the new system also seems vastly more complicated. They think they've solved the problem by suggesting spells, but there is a vast spectrum of game familiarity I think between the people who are so new they want the makers to just assign them spells so they can play, and the people who feel up to going through a third of the games spells figuring out which ones are of the right four schools. I feel like WotC is just not in tune with how newer or less committed players approach the game, as I suspect when they playtest they mostly interact with veterans or absolute beginners having their hands held by some WotC employee.



This is only a problem if you don’t use digital tools, which may be a feature in WotC’s eyes.


----------



## TwoSix

Benjamin Olson said:


> I hate the prepared spell system which I have encountered here with Bards with a firey passion that knows no bounds. Making them prepared spellcasters is one thing feels wrong but I might get behind it. Not having a prepared spellcaster's number of prepared spells be ability score dependent is a change I like. But the idea that you now must prepare spells of levels based on the spell slot progression is an unforgiveable insult to 5e. No. Just no. A thousand times no. You got it wrong. Think of something else. I don't care what other editions did, 5e got that thing right. Make whatever employee thought that was a good idea spend a month playing a prepared spellcaster in actual 5e and don't let them near any more playtest materials until they do.



Yea, I'm not a fan of swapping to prepared spells in general, but I'm definitely not a fan of forcing prepared spells into certain spell levels.  One of the strengths of the original 5e system was being able to underprepare spells for some levels to give you greater versatility in others.  For a lot of my casters, I would only prep 1 or 2 1st level and 2nd level spells in order to have more options for higher level slots, I don't think losing that freedom is a positive.

I'd much rather have all casters be spells known, and swap out one spell on a long rest.  Maybe give wizards some extra freedom with their spellbook, but every other caster should be spells known.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Reddit has a nice list of bard spell changes.


----------



## Raith5

I do think I will miss the flavour of song of rest - it seemed like the only time a bard did a musical thing rather than casting a spell thing. It felt like a core bard thing to me.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Raith5 said:


> I do think I will miss the flavour of song of rest - it seemed like the only time a bard did a musical thing rather than casting a spell thing. It felt like a core bard thing to me.



Yep, but it was moved to Inspiring Leader. This plus the Musician feat on a bard (and maybe Healer) will make for an absolute beast in terms of support.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Benjamin Olson said:


> I am mostly neutral on the loss of a class spell list. Being able to take any Arcane spell from certain schools is cool (even if I'll miss the iconic particular flavor of the ecclectic Bard list), but the new system also seems vastly more complicated. They think they've solved the problem by suggesting spells, but there is a vast spectrum of game familiarity I think between the people who are so new they want the makers to just assign them spells so they can play, and the people who feel up to going through a third of the games spells figuring out which ones are of the right four schools. I feel like WotC is just not in tune with how newer or less committed players approach the game, as I suspect when they playtest they mostly interact with veterans or absolute beginners having their hands held by some WotC employee.



It's hard to gather data about casual players. In my experience, they don't keep up with D&D news (I often have to tell my players about upcoming books and major updates/changes to the game in order for them to hear about it), don't answer official surveys, and don't participate in forums/discussions online. They just show up to the game and play and don't care much for the background stuff that affects how they play (heh. reminds me of something else). 

I'm not sure how WotC would gather data about what the silent portion of the D&D fanbase wants. D&D Beyond might actually be the best tool to gather that information, actually. A lot of casual players use it and now that WotC owns it, they have a better way of gathering access to this kind of data. 


Benjamin Olson said:


> I hate the prepared spell system which I have encountered here with Bards with a firey passion that knows no bounds. Making them prepared spellcasters is one thing feels wrong but I might get behind it. Not having a prepared spellcaster's number of prepared spells be ability score dependent is a change I like. But the idea that you now must prepare spells of levels based on the spell slot progression is an unforgiveable insult to 5e. No. Just no. A thousand times no. You got it wrong. Think of something else. I don't care what other editions did, 5e got that thing right. Make whatever employee thought that was a good idea spend a month playing a prepared spellcaster in actual 5e and don't let them near any more playtest materials until they do.



I'm a bit conflicted on this issue. It certainly makes prepared casting simpler, which makes it easier for people that typically play Martials to get into Spellcasters, but it also takes away a lot of the versatility that came along with being a caster. Without having playtested it, my gut reaction is that I prefer the old way, but it'll take pretty extensive playtesting to solidify my opinion on this issue. 


Benjamin Olson said:


> I like changing inspiration to be proficiency bonus based, as I feel like, being based on charima bonus, it has been one of those things that made it actually unfeasible to play a class mediocre in their primary ability score. I kind of like moving it to the reaction, as it both makes it more powerful (which given that most bards will have less of it most of the time is fair) and avoids the problem of being dependent on other players remembering one of the Bard's class features. But now the Bard is one of those classes in search of something to do with their bonus action, and I liked the ludonarrative logic of giving inspiration in advance better. I am intrigued by making inspiration usable instead as a heal. The value of a slight increase to a critical die roll vs. a die roll of hit points at a clutch moment is difficult to quantify, and might make for compelling gameplay, I'm not sure.



I think that changing the healing ability to a bonus action could solve the "no bonus action" problem. It's also a bit weird as written anyway, it sort of functions like the Goliath's Stone Endurance ability, but in a weird way where it makes it so the person you're healing takes the entire damage (which could reduce them to 0hp and knock them unconscious) and then are healed (which would "yoyo" them back from being unconscious if the attack reduced them to 0 hp). It's all just very weirdly written in my opinion. Changing it to a bonus action means that it doesn't compete with the Bardic Inspiration reaction and gets rid of the option of you being knocked unconscious and then awoken just in the span of a reaction. 


Benjamin Olson said:


> But they moved short rest inspiration regain, something I've long though should be the default at level 1, from 5th to 7th level. Now I understand that requiring several levels of Bard to get it might be necessary to balance multiclassing, especially with it being proficiency bonus based, but come on, level _seven_? And level 5 for Jack of All Trades? No. Characters should have all their iconic class abilities earlier, not later. I understand the joys of delayed gratification, but I shouldn't have to get 10 to 20 sessions in for my character of X class to feel like a proper character of X class.



Having Bardic Inspiration that scales off of your Proficiency Bonus and comes back on a Short Rest would definitely be too much for level 1. That's probably the best and easiest support-multiclass dip in the game, and it would be available to anyone with at least a 13 in Charisma. Imagine how many support-focused Paladins would multiclass into Bard if it was designed that way. I'd probably move the "Bardic Inspiration recharges on a Short Rest" to level 5 or maybe even level 3. 


Benjamin Olson said:


> And on that subject, the level 1 Bard, not yet getting their extra healing spells, and having only 2 Arcane spells, has been severely nerfed. As have level 1 parties whose healer is (going to be) a Bard.



Yeah, this has been a problem in 5e for awhile now. You don't truly become a member of your class until you gain your Subclass, which normally happens at level 3. It's especially bad for Druids and Artificers, who don't get to do the things their class is known for until level 2/3. 


Benjamin Olson said:


> Taking away a Bard's proficiency in rapiers and handcrossbows is an incorrect decision, though not as absurd as taking away the Rogue's proficiency in handcrossbows, which seems like it must just be a straight up oversight.



Maybe they're reserving that for a College of Valor/Swords-type subclass? I'm personally fine with getting rid of those proficiencies from the base class so long as there's a well-designed subclass that gives them.


----------



## Yaarel

The UA finally distinguishes between "Perception" and "Investigation".

*Perception* is part of a Search Action. It applies to finding something "concealed".

*Investigation* is part of a Study Action. It applies to "traps and gadgetry" but also to the unrelated linguistic "cypher" and "riddles".

This correctly emphasizes how Perception applies to the senses only, not really how to interpret those sensations.

I would relocate the linguistic stuff of cyphers and riddles to *History*, which I have been using for all of the human sciences, relating to culture and language.

Otherwise, Investigation is something like the Engineering skill that has been missing from 5e, and responsible for gears, machinery, and traps.

Note, I have been using *Nature* in the sense of the four elements (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) for physical sciences, including alchemy and material sciences, including building architecture and structures.


----------



## Krachek

TwoSix said:


> Yea, I'm not a fan of swapping to prepared spells in general, but I'm definitely not a fan of forcing prepared spells into certain spell levels.  One of the strengths of the original 5e system was being able to underprepare spells for some levels to give you greater versatility in others.  For a lot of my casters, I would only prep 1 or 2 1st level and 2nd level spells in order to have more options for higher level slots, I don't think losing that freedom is a positive.
> 
> I'd much rather have all casters be spells known, and swap out one spell on a long rest.  Maybe give wizards some extra freedom with their spellbook, but every other caster should be spells known.



I think it’s a nice playtest tryout.
The forced spell selection by level is more straight forward for beginner, but less versatile for experimented players. In a way it’s a nerf for all caster, having less option for high level spell will indeed impact and nerf more experimented players.

in a way it’s a step back torward old vancian system.


----------



## Krachek

Funny thing! they do keep some recharge on short rest.
Inspiration dice recharge on short rest at Level7.


----------



## Yaarel

There are many Bard concepts that dont use a musical instrument. The Bard even mentions relying on "verse" and "dance".

I find it highly problematic that the Bard Spellcasting Focus insists on the use of a Musical Instrument.

There must be a way to rely on voice only. (Or somatic only if via dance.)


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Gonna make my comments on yours, because why not?



Ruin Explorer said:


> 1) Changed from Simple + trad Bard weapons to just Simple weapons. Odd change because an awful lot of Bards use Rapiers, but a simplification.



Probably the Skald/Swords-type bards will get Rapier (actually, probably all Martial Weapons, which could be neat). Short Swords will have to do for the rest. (Simple weapons now!)



Ruin Explorer said:


> 2) Bardic Inspiration changed to a Reaction on someone failing a roll or taking damage, which potentially makes it a lot more flexible and makes Bards very good at getting people up who just got downed. PB/long rest uses at L1, PB/short rest (so they do still exist!) from L7. Also at L7, if the roll a 1 it doesn't use up the Inspiration, nice!



Yeah, that's nice stuff. It's how we _want_ to use it.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 3) Spell Preparation. If I'm reading correctly this now works more like they're a Cleric/Druid? I.e. they choose what spells to prep from a list, and can change on a long rest, including cantrips. That's pretty big.
> 
> EDIT - It's a subset of the Arcane list, I see - Only Divination, Enchantment, Illusion or Transmutation. However this overall still feels like a buff.



Notice that Bards don't have any healing spells at level one? They have to use Bardic Inspiration for it.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 4) Expertise in 2 skills at L2, 2 more at L9 nice.



Good stuff.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 5) Songs of Restoration - Always have healing spells prepared so no excuse to not have them/cast them! Kind of seems like a 4E role vibe there, but certainly technically a buff.



Right. But at level 2. Also, no Cure Wounds.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 6) Magical secrets - Now it's pick a spell LIST and you can memorize 2 spells from that. At 14th pick a different list and get the same. Simple, flexible and useful.



Interesting that it has to be a "different" list. So you'll know a bit from all 3 lists in the end. Cool.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 7) Capstone is now 2 uses (up from 1) on rolling initiative and L18 like all capstones.



Good. I hope they make some capstones better too.



Ruin Explorer said:


> College of Lore (only subclass for now):
> 
> 8) Still not available until L3 despite WotC saying this wasn't something they liked, interesting.



I think that's due to "backwards compatibility". There's only so much they can change. Personally I'm all for "change anything that will make the game better". But that's subjective. And I understand why they might want to keep as much the same as they can. Too bad, though.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 9) Gives Arcana, History and Nature instead of letting you choose ensuring you can't be awful at knowing things lol.



The "knowledge" skills. Yeah. Makes sense.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 10) Cutting Words is explicitly rolled after a SUCCESS, so that's great. Also does psychic damage from L10!



That's awesome. I like it.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 11) Inspiration dice are rolled with Advantage from L6 lol nice.



Yup. That's nice too.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 12) Peerless Skill changed to be "after you fail" instead of the ludicrous "before the DM says if you succeed or fail" approach.



Yeah much better. Blah blah DM says blah.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Overall my impression?
> 
> I don't have any complaints. This is a straight upgrade that addresses virtually all the major issues with Bard gameplay. Yes, it is slightly more restrictive, in that it's forcing you to be competent at your role, but I had no problem with that in 4E and have no problem with it here.



Seems good to me. I'm on board so far.


----------



## Yaarel

When creating a Bard character, the Bard should choose either Verbal or Somatic. This then counts for all spell components and the spellcasting focus for every Bard spell.

Many Bard concepts lack a musical instrument. For those concepts that have one, a musical instrument can then substitute instead of this method, thus casting spells only by means of the instrument and no other requirement.

Note. The Bard should never use a material component, except if choosing to use an instrument to replace all spell components.


----------



## Yaarel

It is odd that Songs of Restoration casts healing spells, but the Prepared Spells cannot access the Abjuration school.

Probably the Bard spell schools should be: Abjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation.


----------



## Chaosmancer

There is a lot of this I'm on the fence about, but one thing in particular I haven't seen mentioned here yet. 

You can no longer use Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words in the same round. It used to be that you could hand off a bardic inspiration on your turn and then cutting words as your reaction. With them both being reactions now, this isn't possible. 

And, really... this is a nasty bit of choice to make. Do you use bardic inspiration to make an attack hit? Do you save it to cutting words an attack to miss? Do you save it to bardic healing someone who may drop? You only get two of these per day by third level, and this a massive choice. It doesn't feel like it would be satisfying, just reading through it. 

I also feel like a large number of bards will choose Primal for their magical secrets. It will open up blasting, control and I think revival spells for them, and that's everything you may want from the other two lists.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> It is odd that Songs of Restoration casts healing spells, but the Prepared Spells cannot access the Abjuration school.
> 
> Probably the Bard spell schools should be: Abjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation.




That is an intentional design choice though, to not give them abjuration (shield, mage armor, ect) and to still give them healing. 

Remember, if they get Divine or Primal from Magical secrets, they get healing spells, but even if they gained Abjuration, the Arcane list doesn't have healing spells.


----------



## Haplo781

Yaarel said:


> The UA finally distinguishes between "Perception" and "Investigation".
> 
> *Perception* is part of a Search Action. It applies to finding something "concealed".
> 
> *Investigation* is part of a Study Action. It applies to "traps and gadgetry" but also to the unrelated linguistic "cypher" and "riddles".
> 
> This correctly emphasizes how Perception applies to the senses only, not really how to interpret those sensations.
> 
> I would relocate the linguistic stuff of cyphers and riddles to *History*, which I have been using for all of the human sciences, relating to culture and language.
> 
> Otherwise, Investigation is something like the Engineering skill that has been missing from 5e, and responsible for gears, machinery, and traps.
> 
> Note, I have been using *Nature* in the sense of the four elements (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) for physical sciences, including alchemy and material sciences, including building architecture and structures.



Still missing Streetwise/Gather Information.


----------



## Yaarel

Haplo781 said:


> Still missing Streetwise/Gather Information.



I use History in the sense of culture and appropriateness, and sometimes Insight and Persuasion for these kinds of Charisma Checks to gather info from people at large.


----------



## Yaarel

Chaosmancer said:


> That is an intentional design choice though, to not give them abjuration (shield, mage armor, ect) and to still give them healing.
> 
> Remember, if they get Divine or Primal from Magical secrets, they get healing spells, but even if they gained Abjuration, the Arcane list doesn't have healing spells.



Because the Bard masters both Illusion and Transmutation, and specializes in defense and support, I see no difficulty with a Bard casting Mage Armor and Shield.

The problem is with the spell schools themselves being an inconsistent and less useful way to organize spells thematically.

For example, if force-effect spells were all part of the same spell thematic, including Fly, Telekinesis, Unseen Servant and Shield, I wouldnt want the Bard to have it. (But as a Magical Secret it is fine.)

But as-is, the spell schools are a clumsy way to organize spells. The source lists of Primal, Arcane, and Divine, are even worse.

Within this dysfunctional D&D spell school tradition, the Bard might as well have all Abjuration spells.


----------



## ehren37

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> This sort of baffles me. What are you warding against, negative chi?



For most people healing and protective magic go hand and hand. Final Fantasy white mage, MTG white mana, etc. This is a change I can get behind. "White necromancy" was a little used concept anyways. I'm fine with updating the schools to keep with the times.


----------



## ehren37

Also, can we get finally rid of either Perform or instrument tool proficiencies? The idea that someone can play an instrument but not perform with it is just goofy. Perform is such a ridiculously narrow use skill anyways. We may as well bring back Read Lips. Move Perform to the tool category of secondary skills (along w artistic ability).


----------



## Haplo781

ehren37 said:


> Also, can we get finally rid of either Perform or instrument tool proficiencies? The idea that someone can play an instrument but not perform with it is just goofy. Perform is such a ridiculously narrow use skill anyways. We may as well bring back Read Lips. Move Perform to the tool category of secondary skills (along w artistic ability).



Kill Perform, revive Streetwise.


----------



## Micah Sweet

ehren37 said:


> For most people healing and protective magic go hand and hand. Final Fantasy white mage, MTG white mana, etc. This is a change I can get behind. "White necromancy" was a little used concept anyways. I'm fine with updating the schools to keep with the times.



Inspiration was a little-used concept too, but WotC is pushing that HARD.


----------



## Shiroiken

Yaarel said:


> There are many Bard concepts that dont use a musical instrument. The Bard even mentions relying on "verse" and "dance".
> 
> I find it highly problematic that the Bard Spellcasting Focus insists on the use of a Musical Instrument.
> 
> There must be a way to rely on voice only. (Or somatic only if via dance.)



You can still always use a component pouch... which you should still probably have even if you have a focus. Being able to just have "me" to ignore most material components kinda defeats the purpose of them.


----------



## Haplo781

Shiroiken said:


> You can still always use a component pouch... which you should still probably have even if you have a focus. Being able to just have "me" to ignore most material components kinda defeats the purpose of them.



Honestly there's about zero point in nonmagical implements even being distinguished from one another unless they have a special property.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

ehren37 said:


> For most people healing and protective magic go hand and hand. Final Fantasy white mage, MTG white mana, etc. This is a change I can get behind. "White necromancy" was a little used concept anyways. I'm fine with updating the schools to keep with the times.



I don't have an issue with the white mage archetype (but this doesn't really get you there unless school specialties give you cross list access to spells). I just find it odd that this completely untethers the game term from the meaning of the word.

"Oh spirit of gaping chest wounds, in the name of Pelor I rebuke you!"


----------



## ehren37

Haplo781 said:


> Kill Perform, revive Streetwise.



That or Connections/Contacts.


----------



## ehren37

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> I don't have an issue with the white mage archetype (but this doesn't really get you there unless school specialties give you cross list access to spells). I just find it odd that this completely untethers the game term from the meaning of the word.
> 
> "Oh spirit of gaping chest wounds, in the name of Pelor I rebuke you!"



"Mighty Pelor, keep the grim spectre of death away from Jeff the Bleeding this day!"


----------



## Yaarel

Shiroiken said:


> You can still always use a component pouch... which you should still probably have even if you have a focus. Being able to just have "me" to ignore most material components kinda defeats the purpose of them.



The consideration is flavor.

A Bard wields magic by voice − whether song, command, praise or satire.

The Bard never uses a component pouch because to do so would be WRONG.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Probably the Skald/Swords-type bards will get Rapier (actually, probably all Martial Weapons, which could be neat). Short Swords will have to do for the rest. (Simple weapons now!)



Yeah thinking about it we can just fluff a short sword as a shorter rapier.


FitzTheRuke said:


> Notice that Bards don't have any healing spells at level one? They have to use Bardic Inspiration for it.



Did not notice, interesting! That kind of perversely works because it means the what, two Inspirations Bards get at L1 will likely be used to heal, so they'll be in the mindset of using them in other ways than the previous.


FitzTheRuke said:


> So you'll know a bit from all 3 lists in the end.



No, potentially only two. You can pick Arcane as an option, which lets you get ANY Arcane spells (and I suspect I would pick that myself - probably go Arcane/Primal, though I suspect Arcane/Divine is the pure min-max), so given two magical secrets you may well have just Arcane (limited schools), Arcane, and Primal/Divine. But if you want all three, you can get it!


Chaosmancer said:


> You can no longer use Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words in the same round. It used to be that you could hand off a bardic inspiration on your turn and then cutting words as your reaction. With them both being reactions now, this isn't possible.



That's a pretty corner-case issue. The number of rounds/adventure, let alone per day where you'd actually want to do that is probably lower than 1, and impacts one specific subclass only.

I'm not trying to be mean but it literally is an issue impacting a small percentage of Bard players in the end.


Chaosmancer said:


> I also feel like a large number of bards will choose Primal for their magical secrets. It will open up blasting, control and I think revival spells for them, and that's everything you may want from the other two lists.



That's my thinking.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> The consideration is flavor.
> 
> A Bard wields magic by voice − whether song, command, praise or satire.
> 
> The Bard never uses a component pouch because to do so would be WRONG.



I honestly think WotC need to rethink components entirely. They're so dumb and outdated - WotC are so unnecessarily married to V/S/M. If they were willing to ditch them and not look back for the right classes, there's so much more they could do with the spell system. Bards should be V components only unless it's CASH MONEY YO. If you want Psionicists to work with D&D spells, make them S components only and able to suppress that. Make Rangers M components only and suddenly their spells look a bit less irritating. And so on.

And they're another thing almost no-one tracks (again, c.f. podcasts/streams if anyone is going to say "BUT MUH HOMEGAME!").


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Micah Sweet said:


> Inspiration was a little-used concept too, but WotC is pushing that HARD.



Yep. My number one note to WotC would be "stop trying so hard to make inspiration happen".

And I kind of like inspiration.


----------



## Shiroiken

Yaarel said:


> The consideration is flavor.
> 
> A Bard wields magic by voice − whether song, command, praise or satire.
> 
> The Bard never uses a component pouch because to do so would be WRONG.



Your flavor preference isn't mine. Bards are still wielding arcane magics, so a component pouch is perfectly acceptable to me. The idea of allowing a bard to ignore most material components because "flavor" would be wrong.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> Because the Bard masters both Illusion and Transmutation, and specializes in defense and support, I see no difficulty with a Bard casting Mage Armor and Shield.




Just because you don't see any issue, doesn't mean it may not be there. Also, even if we gave them all abjuration spells.... it still wouldn't give them any healing spells, because the Arcane List has no healing spells.  And if you read magical secrets, it ignores the school restriction. So, you aren't arguing for them to get healing spells naturally, you are arguing for them to get shield, dispel magic, mage armor, ect.



Yaarel said:


> The problem is with the spell schools themselves being an inconsistent and less useful way to organize spells thematically.
> 
> For example, if force-effect spells were all part of the same spell thematic, including Fly, Telekinesis, Unseen Servant and Shield, I wouldnt want the Bard to have it. (But as a Magical Secret it is fine.)
> 
> But as-is, the spell schools are a clumsy way to organize spells. The source lists of Primal, Arcane, and Divine, are even worse.
> 
> Within this dysfunctional D&D spell school tradition, the Bard might as well have all Abjuration spells.




You will never have a way to divide these spells that is optimal thematically. The spell schools are rather useless, but they are not something we will likely find a better version of any time soon. 

Personally, I think Bard's should be getting necromancy spells. Bestow Curse and Animate Dead are pretty mythically bardic abilities, But I can see why that wasn't something that they wanted to do.


----------



## Chaosmancer

ehren37 said:


> Also, can we get finally rid of either Perform or instrument tool proficiencies? The idea that someone can play an instrument but not perform with it is just goofy. Perform is such a ridiculously narrow use skill anyways. We may as well bring back Read Lips. Move Perform to the tool category of secondary skills (along w artistic ability).




They actually have fixed this though? Having Perform and an Instrument allows you to roll with advantage. Instrument allows you to play the instrument, perform allows you to dance, sing, paint ect. I like having it this way.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's a pretty corner-case issue. The number of rounds/adventure, let alone per day where you'd actually want to do that is probably lower than 1, and impacts one specific subclass only.
> 
> I'm not trying to be mean but it literally is an issue impacting a small percentage of Bard players in the end.




Well, we don't know that, do we? Most bard subclasses interacted with Bardic Inspiration, and most of them gave an additional way to use them. For example, the Glamour Bard could use it to give temp hp and free movement. Right now, for One D&D, 100% of all Bard players are dealing with this issue, and it could end up being a design choice that persists through the subclasses. I'd rather catch it now, and call it out, then find that they end up making the majority of Bard's work this way and have all bardic inspiration abilities be a reaction instead of bonus action or reaction. 

Additionally, I disagree with your assessment of how often this may come up. The use of healing to stabilize an ally may be rare, but the use of Bardic inspiration vs cutting words is going to happen every single combat. Because every combat is going to have allies failing saving throws or missing attacks, and every combat is going to have enemies making attacks or succeeding saving throws. And it is very much one or the other now, where previously you could do both, even if it did burn through your resources faster.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Shiroiken said:


> Your flavor preference isn't mine. Bards are still wielding arcane magics, so a component pouch is perfectly acceptable to me. The idea of allowing a bard to ignore most material components because "flavor" would be wrong.



If you're not going to use the actual components (which I enjoy doing for wizards and clerics at least because its flavourful) why bother with the pouch?  Just dump the idea entirely.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah thinking about it we can just fluff a short sword as a shorter rapier.



Most people here tend to wrongly think that the Rapier is the Modern Fencing Foil, it isn't. A Foil is based off a Smallsword. And I'd say a Smallsword is in fact a Shortsword.

However I still picture Bards using a sword that's roughly with a blade that's 1 meter long and 2 cm wide with a complex hilt. It fits the image I have of the Bard, even if their the type of Bard like a College of Glamour Bard who'd rarely engage in melee combat. I think they should have the same weapon proficiencies as a Rogue.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> Well, we don't know that, do we? Most bard subclasses interacted with Bardic Inspiration, and most of them gave an additional way to use them. For example, the Glamour Bard could use it to give temp hp and free movement. Right now, for One D&D, 100% of all Bard players are dealing with this issue, and it could end up being a design choice that persists through the subclasses. I'd rather catch it now, and call it out, then find that they end up making the majority of Bard's work this way and have all bardic inspiration abilities be a reaction instead of bonus action or reaction.
> 
> Additionally, I disagree with your assessment of how often this may come up. The use of healing to stabilize an ally may be rare, but the use of Bardic inspiration vs cutting words is going to happen every single combat. Because every combat is going to have allies failing saving throws or missing attacks, and every combat is going to have enemies making attacks or succeeding saving throws. And it is very much one or the other now, where previously you could do both, even if it did burn through your resources faster.



No, it won't come up every combat.

Because resources are finite and not every combat will present a situation where you want to burn both in the same round.

You start with two Inspiration. For 6-8 encounters per day. At 7th that goes to per Short Rest and you have reached what, three Inspiration? So that's still not often. It'd have to be a hell of a round to make burning two make sense.

Most other subclasses don't have the same sort of issue, though some do have a problem with the Inspiration not sticking around.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Ruin Explorer said:


> Making a thread to discuss the changes to Bards specifically, hopefully others can make them for other classes. Will edit in the changes I note as I go through:
> 
> 1) Changed from Simple + trad Bard weapons to just Simple weapons. Odd change because an awful lot of Bards use Rapiers, but a simplification.
> 
> 2) Bardic Inspiration changed to a Reaction on someone failing a roll or taking damage, which potentially makes it a lot more flexible and makes Bards very good at getting people up who just got downed. PB/long rest uses at L1, PB/short rest (so they do still exist!) from L7. Also at L7, if the roll a 1 it doesn't use up the Inspiration, nice!
> 
> 3) Spell Preparation. If I'm reading correctly this now works more like they're a Cleric/Druid? I.e. they choose what spells to prep from a list, and can change on a long rest, including cantrips. That's pretty big.
> 
> EDIT - It's a subset of the Arcane list, I see - Only Divination, Enchantment, Illusion or Transmutation. However this overall still feels like a buff.
> 
> 4) Expertise in 2 skills at L2, 2 more at L9 nice.
> 
> 5) Songs of Restoration - Always have healing spells prepared so no excuse to not have them/cast them! Kind of seems like a 4E role vibe there, but certainly technically a buff.
> 
> 6) Magical secrets - Now it's pick a spell LIST and you can memorize 2 spells from that. At 14th pick a different list and get the same. Simple, flexible and useful.
> 
> 7) Capstone is now 2 uses (up from 1) on rolling initiative and L18 like all capstones.
> 
> College of Lore (only subclass for now):
> 
> 8) Still not available until L3 despite WotC saying this wasn't something they liked, interesting.
> 
> 9) Gives Arcana, History and Nature instead of letting you choose ensuring you can't be awful at knowing things lol.
> 
> 10) Cutting Words is explicitly rolled after a SUCCESS, so that's great. Also does psychic damage from L10!
> 
> 11) Inspiration dice are rolled with Advantage from L6 lol nice.
> 
> 12) Peerless Skill changed to be "after you fail" instead of the ludicrous "before the DM says if you succeed or fail" approach.
> 
> Overall my impression?
> 
> I don't have any complaints. This is a straight upgrade that addresses virtually all the major issues with Bard gameplay. Yes, it is slightly more restrictive, in that it's forcing you to be competent at your role, but I had no problem with that in 4E and have no problem with it here.



I like the spell groups, arcane, primal and divine but if they end up doing spell preparation this way for all classes, then how will the wizard be affected? A prime ability of the wizard is learning new spells in a way that others can't. If that is no longer relevant, will he just get all arcane spells?  To the point on the bard though, being able to choose 2 spells from any list and then at 15th potentially 2 from a third list gives the bard at least some access to every spell in the game, and he can change his choices after a long rest. That, I think is too much. You can have a character then that can do high level healing and high level area attacks. Also, if this means taking away the added Magic Secrets from the Lore bard I'm not a fan. That's the Lore bard's signature ability, more lore. Making Cutting Words a reaction could be beneficial. I like that. I would tentatively suggest making 2 Magic Secret spells from another list bard spells for you and those are your choices. You could still change when you gain prepared spell slots, and instead of Cunning Inspiration, let the lore bard have 2 more at 6th. You could still say those are always prepared and don't count against his limit. It would still be potent for a bard to have 4-6 spells from anywhere at high levels without giving him everything under the sun.


----------



## renbot

Sorry if this is a bit tangential but...

I'm not a fan. But then I don't see how I could have been given that 1D&D "isn't a new edition" and "will be 100% backwards compatible." Bard is my favorite class to play, but whenever I'm playing one I wish I had fewer spells and more cool bard stuff. Of course I cast the spells because the party needs me to, but spells just feel kinda basic compared to cutting words or mantle of inspiration or blade flourish,

The new bardic inspiration is simple and powerful and makes sense. The flip side of that is that any other uses for BI will have to be awesome to compete. Add to that the fact that you are limited to 2 uses per day for 4 levels, 3 per day for another couple levels, and then finally a handful of uses per SR after 7 levels (the halfway point of many games) makes me sad. 

But again, they weren't going to overhaul the Bard to be warlock-esque or a half-caster so I was fated to be disappointed.

Apologies again for the topic-adjacent-ish post.


----------



## ehren37

Maybe martial weapons come with at-will maneuvers? It seems kind of petty to take rapiers away otherwise. That average 1 more damage they do really isn't worth rocking the boat over.


----------



## Wyckedemus

ehren37 said:


> Also, can we get finally rid of either Perform or instrument tool proficiencies? The idea that someone can play an instrument but not perform with it is just goofy. Perform is such a ridiculously narrow use skill anyways. We may as well bring back Read Lips. Move Perform to the tool category of secondary skills (along w artistic ability).



In the playtest rules, if you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any Ability Check you make that uses that tool. If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check. 

They work well together now.


----------



## ehren37

Wyckedemus said:


> In the playtest rules, if you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any Ability Check you make that uses that tool. If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check.
> 
> They work well together now.



It's just so incredibly niche. In 99% of D&D games, Stealth is going to be rolled more than Perform: Tambourine, and the check outcome is going to matter more. It just matters significantly less than the other skills. Meanwile, Thieves Tools is disproportionately used more than the other tool proficiencies, so should migrate to a real skill.

And before everyone tells me about how, in their 17 year long campaign, the only time a d20 was used for Tambourine checks... that's great! But that's not reflective of published D&D adventures, which should at least serve as the default baseline.

In most games, if a player picks peform, they basically start with one less skill, or at least one replaced in almost every way with a tool. Skills are supposed to be more valuable than tools, that's why you can replace a skill with a tool/language, but not the reverse. Or gain a tool/language in downtime, but not a skill. They already moved most of what would fall under "secondary skills" to tools. Perform is the proud nail they refuse to address.


----------



## Yaarel

ehren37 said:


> It's just so incredibly niche. In 99% of D&D games, Stealth is going to be rolled more than Perform: Tambourine, and the check outcome is going to matter more. It just matters significantly less than the other skills. Meanwile, Thieves Tools is disproportionately used more than the other tool proficiencies, so should migrate to a real skill.
> 
> And before everyone tells me about how, in their 17 year long campaign, the only time a d20 was used for Tambourine checks... that's great! But that's not reflective of published D&D adventures, which should at least serve as the default baseline.
> 
> In most games, if a player picks peform, they basically start with one less skill, or at least one replaced in almost every way with a tool. Skills are supposed to be more valuable than tools, that's why you can replace a skill with a tool/language, but not the reverse. Or gain a tool/language in downtime, but not a skill. They already moved most of what would fall under "secondary skills" to tools. Perform is the proud nail they refuse to address.



Perform is a worthless skill in game.

It is something that is useful in reallife, yet seems to lack an ingame point.

The designers made Chef an interesting feat. Maybe do something similarly interesting for the Perform skill.

Perhaps art can heal and refresh via morale. Perhaps it enhances social reactions to be more friendly.

I use Perform for any kind of artistic check. For objects, art can enhance the value of materials.

Art should be doing more ingame.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Wyckedemus said:


> In the playtest rules, if you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any Ability Check you make that uses that tool. If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check.
> 
> They work well together now.



Thanks for pulling this out, I'd actually missed that.


Yaarel said:


> Perform is a worthless skill in game.



This is unfortunately true.

It'd be easy to fix.

They just need to quantize Perform. Say what it can actually do, and let it actually things (like buff people, or change their attitudes en masse). Right now it's one of the worst skills in both 5E and 1D&D and 1D&D kind of seems to be making it even worse.


----------



## Micah Sweet

ehren37 said:


> It's just so incredibly niche. In 99% of D&D games, Stealth is going to be rolled more than Perform: Tambourine, and the check outcome is going to matter more. It just matters significantly less than the other skills. Meanwile, Thieves Tools is disproportionately used more than the other tool proficiencies, so should migrate to a real skill.
> 
> And before everyone tells me about how, in their 17 year long campaign, the only time a d20 was used for Tambourine checks... that's great! But that's not reflective of published D&D adventures, which should at least serve as the default baseline.
> 
> In most games, if a player picks peform, they basically start with one less skill, or at least one replaced in almost every way with a tool. Skills are supposed to be more valuable than tools, that's why you can replace a skill with a tool/language, but not the reverse. Or gain a tool/language in downtime, but not a skill. They already moved most of what would fall under "secondary skills" to tools. Perform is the proud nail they refuse to address.



So many things in the DMG make no sense if the published adventures were used as a baseline.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, it won't come up every combat.
> 
> Because resources are finite and not every combat will present a situation where you want to burn both in the same round.
> 
> You start with two Inspiration. For 6-8 encounters per day. At 7th that goes to per Short Rest and you have reached what, three Inspiration? So that's still not often. It'd have to be a hell of a round to make burning two make sense.
> 
> Most other subclasses don't have the same sort of issue, though some do have a problem with the Inspiration not sticking around.




You realize that doesn't make the situation any better, and in fact worse right? This is another thing I strongly dislike about the current iteration, the bardic inspiration has been drastically cut and with Fount moving to 7th, it will be even longer until it feels like you can use it outside of "emergencies". 

And is that emergency going to be turning a failed save into a success, or a hit into a miss? Those are both fundamentally useful things, but it is going to take 50% of the bard's resources to do one, and they cannot prep another character to succeed, and then use their cutting words to protect a second. I do like it being a reaction meaning that it can't be forgotten or wasted, but I think there are some massive restrictions that came along with both abilities being reactions.


----------



## Chaosmancer

shadowoflameth said:


> I like the spell groups, arcane, primal and divine but if they end up doing spell preparation this way for all classes, then how will the wizard be affected? A prime ability of the wizard is learning new spells in a way that others can't. If that is no longer relevant, will he just get all arcane spells?  To the point on the bard though, being able to choose 2 spells from any list and then at 15th potentially 2 from a third list gives the bard at least some access to every spell in the game, and he can change his choices after a long rest. That, I think is too much. You can have a character then that can do high level healing and high level area attacks. Also, if this means taking away the added Magic Secrets from the Lore bard I'm not a fan. That's the Lore bard's signature ability, more lore. Making Cutting Words a reaction could be beneficial. I like that. I would tentatively suggest making 2 Magic Secret spells from another list bard spells for you and those are your choices. You could still change when you gain prepared spell slots, and instead of Cunning Inspiration, let the lore bard have 2 more at 6th. You could still say those are always prepared and don't count against his limit. It would still be potent for a bard to have 4-6 spells from anywhere at high levels without giving him everything under the sun.




I keep seeing people say this, but... this isn't quite accurate? 

They didn't take away the second magical secrets from Lore Bard, they gave magical secrets to every bard. Every bard now gets two magical secrets, just like the Lore bard. Also, they have fundamentally changed how it works, which actually does make it more fitting for every bard, and not just the lore bard.


----------



## Chaosmancer

ehren37 said:


> It's just so incredibly niche. In 99% of D&D games, Stealth is going to be rolled more than Perform: Tambourine, and the check outcome is going to matter more. It just matters significantly less than the other skills. Meanwile, Thieves Tools is disproportionately used more than the other tool proficiencies, so should migrate to a real skill.
> 
> And before everyone tells me about how, in their 17 year long campaign, the only time a d20 was used for Tambourine checks... that's great! But that's not reflective of published D&D adventures, which should at least serve as the default baseline.
> 
> In most games, if a player picks peform, they basically start with one less skill, or at least one replaced in almost every way with a tool. Skills are supposed to be more valuable than tools, that's why you can replace a skill with a tool/language, but not the reverse. Or gain a tool/language in downtime, but not a skill. They already moved most of what would fall under "secondary skills" to tools. Perform is the proud nail they refuse to address.




No more useless than Animal Handling. Sleight of Hand only comes up as trap stuff too, which is covered by thieves tools, so it is worthless. Intimidation. History. Nature.

If you are going to declare something worthless, then refuse any examples where it might be useful, because you only want to look at the published adventures, then you can basically cut any skill that isn't stealth, persuasion, insight, perception, investigation or athletics. But there are uses for these skills, and things people use them for, even if you don't ever use them yourself.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> You realize that doesn't make the situation any better, and in fact worse right? This is another thing I strongly dislike about the current iteration, the bardic inspiration has been drastically cut and with Fount moving to 7th, it will be even longer until it feels like you can use it outside of "emergencies".
> 
> And is that emergency going to be turning a failed save into a success, or a hit into a miss? Those are both fundamentally useful things, but it is going to take 50% of the bard's resources to do one, and they cannot prep another character to succeed, and then use their cutting words to protect a second. I do like it being a reaction meaning that it can't be forgotten or wasted, but I think there are some massive restrictions that came along with both abilities being reactions.



Disagree.

It doesn't "make it worse".

It shows there is another, real issue that's worth being concerned about, rather than the corner-case issue you were previously illustrating.


----------



## FireLance

Just popping in here to bitterly observe that with Bardic Inspiration, a bard can shout/sing/declaim/harp/dance a wound closed, but it's okay because Magic!

That is all.


----------



## Haplo781

Mike "singing hands back on" Mearls


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FireLance said:


> Just popping in here to bitterly observe that with Bardic Inspiration, a bard can shout/sing/declaim/harp/dance a wound closed, but it's okay because Magic!



Hit points aren't always meat points, healing isn't always "closing wounds", and bards have always been able to heal through music because of magic in 5e.


----------



## Haplo781

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Hit points aren't always meat points, healing isn't always "closing wounds", and bards have always been able to heal through music because of magic in 5e.



Tell it to Mike "shouting hands back on" Mearls.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Haplo781 said:


> Tell it to Mike "shouting hands back on" Mearls.



Just because Mike Mearls mimicked some talking points from the 4e edition wars does not mean that the complaint is valid. Hit points don't only represent physical endurance/health. Normal healing has never regenerated entire appendages. Bards are magic. There are other nonmagical ways of healing in 5e. Thus, that complaint is stupid.


----------



## Haplo781

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Just because Mike Mearls mimicked some talking points from the 4e edition wars does not mean that the complaint is valid. Hit points don't only represent physical endurance/health. Normal healing has never regenerated entire appendages. Bards are magic. There are other nonmagical ways of healing in 5e. Thus, that complaint is stupid.



That... Was the point.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Haplo781 said:


> That... Was the point.



Sorry, I guess I wasn't understanding why you were saying that, then. And "liking" the post that was making the complaint I was rebutting.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> Tell it to Mike "shouting hands back on" Mearls.



Yeah it's always special when D&D designers make comments that are not only stupid, but not even something that can happen in D&D. Like, you literally CANNOT have your hand chopped off in 5E. It is impossible. Only through some wild piece of exception-based design, which would likely run on for multiple paragraphs would it even be possible. Nor would it have been something a Warlord could have fixed in 4E! Or any healer only healing HP! Yet that's the example he chose. SMDH as they say.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Like, you literally CANNOT have your hand chopped off in 5E.



There is an optional rule in the DMG that allows that. (Normal healing doesn't grow back your hand, though. So I agree with you that the "criticism" of nonmagical healing is stupid.)


----------



## ersatzphil

Haplo781 said:


> Tell it to Mike "shouting hands back on" Mearls.



As amusing as I find this as a non sequitor, what is this in reference to?


----------



## Haplo781

ersatzphil said:


> As amusing as I find this as a non sequitor, what is this in reference to?



He hated the Warlord class because they could "shout hands back on". There really isn't anything else to it.


----------



## Remathilis

FireLance said:


> Just popping in here to bitterly observe that with Bardic Inspiration, a bard can shout/sing/declaim/harp/dance a wound closed, but it's okay because Magic!
> 
> That is all.



Sounds like the valor bard with the right background and performance (oratory) will be a perfectly fine warlord after all...


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> Disagree.
> 
> It doesn't "make it worse".
> 
> It shows there is another, real issue that's worth being concerned about, rather than the corner-case issue you were previously illustrating.




The issue I brought up was real enough, why do you have to dismiss it like I'm screaming at the clouds? Also, shockingly, it is possible to have more than one issue with something. They aren't limited in number or something.


----------



## Gorck

FireLance said:


> Just popping in here to bitterly observe that with Bardic Inspiration, a bard can shout/sing/declaim/harp/dance a wound closed, but it's okay because Magic!
> 
> That is all.



As others have already stated, not all damage is physical.  Pyschic damage exists, after all.  So just think of the Heal part of Bardic Inspiration as a morale boost or restoring the party's spirits.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Gorck said:


> As others have already stated, not all damage is physical.  Pyschic damage exists, after all.  So just think of the Heal part of Bardic Inspiration as a morale boost or restoring the party's spirits.



Unless there's actual physical damage, like poison, in which case it heals that too.  Thinking about it differently doesn't change the rules.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Unless there's actual physical damage, like poison, in which case it heals that too.  Thinking about it differently doesn't change the rules.



Poison and bludgeoning/piercing/slashing don't have to damage your body every time you take those damage types and not every hit is an actual physical hit on your person. The PHB clearly states that hit points are a combination of physical resilience, agility, luck, will to live, and other factors. Hit points in 5e are more of a pool of resources you have to expend to avoid falling unconscious in battle, not a source of meat points like in video games. So healing isn't just restoring physical damage, it also can affect your agility, luck, will to live, and the other factors that makeup hit points.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Unless there's actual physical damage, like poison, in which case it heals that too.  Thinking about it differently doesn't change the rules.




Okay, let's play this out for a second. 

Player: "I've been stabbed!" 
Bard: "Don't worry, I will strum on my lyre to call upon the forces of creation and heal your wounds." (rolls a 1d4+cha mod) "You heal 6 points."

Player: "I've been stabbed!" 
Bard: "Don't worry, I will strum on my lyre to call upon the forces of creation and heal your wounds." (rolls a 1d6) "You heal 6 points."

Notice how these are identical? That's because Healing Word is a Verbal only spell. the difference isn't in the lore, it is in the resource and timing. Now, if people want it to be that Bardic Inspiration is purely non-magical, that's fine. If they want it to be a mix of magical and non-magical, that's fine. If they want it to be purely magical, that's fine. 

Because the entire POINT of a bard is that they are using music and words and performance to do magic. "There is magic in a song, the laugh of a child, and the pounding of feet dancing around the fire" is the entire point of the style of magic bard's use. Why would we need to make this another pointless discussion about meat points? If you don't want non-magical healing through the use of words and song, then say that bardic inspiration is magical words and song, it fits just as easily.


----------



## Mistwell

I am fine with this version of the Bard, except the Lore bard. I am rather not fine with the Lore bard. 

Their star ability was additional magical secrets. The replacement in this current version is nothing close to the meaning of that ability. Nothing left in this version says "Lore" focused to me like that missing ability. 

I think they should put it back, or replace it with something as interesting and lore-based as that ability. Because as written, I can't think of why I'd ever choose this subclass again.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Poison and bludgeoning/piercing/slashing don't have to damage your body every time you take those damage types and not every hit is an actual physical hit on your person. The PHB clearly states that hit points are a combination of physical resilience, agility, luck, will to live, and other factors. Hit points in 5e are more of a pool of resources you have to expend to avoid falling unconscious in battle, not a source of meat points like in video games. So healing isn't just restoring physical damage, it also can affect your agility, luck, will to live, and the other factors that makeup hit points.



If you're not taking physical damage, then why does damage type matter?  And if you are, even in part, then healing heals that part, since there's no differentiation in the types of healing in so far as what they do (just how much).


----------



## Weiley31

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> "Oh spirit of gaping chest wounds, in the name of Pelor I rebuke you!"






ehren37 said:


> "Mighty Pelor, keep the grim spectre of death away from Jeff the Bleeding this day!"



_Bard proceeds to Breakdance Jeff's bloody wounds away._


----------



## Weiley31

Chaosmancer said:


> Personally, I think Bard's should be getting necromancy spells. Bestow Curse and Animate Dead are pretty mythically bardic abilities, But I can see why that wasn't something that they wanted to do.



The Dirge Singer agrees with you.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> I am fine with this version of the Bard, except the Lore bard. I am rather not fine with the Lore bard.
> 
> Their star ability was additional magical secrets. The replacement in this current version is nothing close to the meaning of that ability. Nothing left in this version says "Lore" focused to me like that missing ability.
> 
> I think they should put it back, or replace it with something as interesting and lore-based as that ability. Because as written, I can't think of why I'd ever choose this subclass again.




So you think the Lore bard should have access to all three lists of spells, while other bards only get access to two? 

Because Lore Bards are still getting additional magical secrets, it is just that EVERY bard is getting additional magical secrets. 

As for why you might use the Lore Bard, does rolling every single use of bardic inspiration, bardic healing, and cutting words with advantage not sound like a pretty good ability? It is hard to say if that is "lore-based" or not, because that depends on how it is flavored, but it is a pretty decent ability to have.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> The issue I brought up was real enough, why do you have to dismiss it like I'm screaming at the clouds? Also, shockingly, it is possible to have more than one issue with something. They aren't limited in number or something.



I'm dismissing it because it's an obscure corner-case issue which would impact a tiny number of users of the Bard class with one specific subclass in a very rare situation, whereas this issue would affect a significant number.

In the real world, it's _literally my job_ to make assessments like this. And it's important to make assessments like this. You're exactly like the user who can create this specific, reproducible error, but where it does _not_ meaningfully impact his day-to-day workflow, just minorly annoys him once every few days, who think that's a major problem deserving of serious attention. It ain't. Major problems are major problems, not corner-case issues. Even if that issue is never fixed, it's not a big deal. Most players will just move on with their lives and never care about it.

Whereas the significantly lower amount of Inspiration at lower levels will impact all Bard players.


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm dismissing it because it's an obscure corner-case issue which would impact a tiny number of users of the Bard class with one specific subclass in a very rare situation, whereas this issue would affect a significant number.
> 
> In the real world, it's _literally my job_ to make assessments like this. And it's important to make assessments like this. You're exactly like the user who can create this specific, reproducible error, but where it does _not_ meaningfully impact his day-to-day workflow, just minorly annoys him once every few days, who think that's a major problem deserving of serious attention. It ain't. Major problems are major problems, not corner-case issues. Even if that issue is never fixed, it's not a big deal. Most players will just move on with their lives and never care about it.
> 
> Whereas the significantly lower amount of Inspiration at lower levels will impact all Bard players.



Yep.

Getting your inspiration cut by 33-50% until level 12 (which is aspirational for most tables) is a huge nerf that leads to "too good to use" syndrome.

Having to make difficult choices about action economy is a minor issue that comes with an upside (being able to save your inspiration for when you know it's needed.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mistwell said:


> Their star ability was additional magical secrets. The replacement in this current version is nothing close to the meaning of that ability. Nothing left in this version says "Lore" focused to me like that missing ability.



This is a silly position.

Lore means knowledge, and this Bard gets more mandatory knowledge than the previous iteration of the Lore Bard, thanks to the fixed skills.

It also gets more Magical Secrets than the previous Lore Bard, because of the changes to Magical Secrets. In 5E, a Lore Bards know 3 spells that are "magical secrets", and they can very rarely be changed (only on level up and if using Tasha's, IIRC, something close to that). In 1D&D, a Lore Bard (and indeed all Bards), knows 4 spells that are "magical secrets", AND can change them every day!

It's a huge increase in ability from a current Lore Bard. You seem to be confused and think it's a decrease? It's a massive upgrade. Gigantic.

What you seem to be demanding is the upgrade is even more gigantic? Yes? Is that right? You want to go from 3 basically fixed spells to 6 change-every-day spells? 4 change-every-day isn't good enough?

If you were making an argument that Magical Secrets is delayed too late in a Bard's career (i.e. level 11) because of this, you'd be in a much better position, but you aren't.

Lore Bards get some extremely strong abilities, as @Chaosmancer has outlined. It those aren't good enough for you to consider the subclass, well, that's damn silly. We can only compare the 1D&D Lore Bard to 5E subclasses, but right now? It's still the #1 subclass for a Bard in terms of pure mechanic "oomph". Might that change? Sure. It might. Valor Bards might stop being meh and Blades might stop being absolutely terrible, for example. But there's no reason to believe that. In fact, unless they get some further buffs, Blades are going to be even further behind with the 1D&D Bard layout.


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is a silly position.
> 
> Lore means knowledge, and this Bard gets more mandatory knowledge than the previous iteration of the Lore Bard, thanks to the fixed skills.
> 
> It also gets more Magical Secrets than the previous Lore Bard, because of the changes to Magical Secrets. In 5E, a Lore Bards know 3 spells that are "magical secrets", and they can very rarely be changed (only on level up and if using Tasha's, IIRC, something close to that). In 1D&D, a Lore Bard (and indeed all Bards), knows 4 spells that are "magical secrets", AND can change them every day!
> 
> It's a huge increase in ability from a current Lore Bard. You seem to be confused and think it's a decrease? It's a massive upgrade. Gigantic.
> 
> What you seem to be demanding is the upgrade is even more gigantic? Yes? Is that right? You want to go from 3 basically fixed spells to 6 change-every-day spells? 4 change-every-day isn't good enough?
> 
> If you were making an argument that Magical Secrets is delayed too late in a Bard's career (i.e. level 11) because of this, you'd be in a much better position, but you aren't.
> 
> Lore Bards get some extremely strong abilities, as @Chaosmancer has outlined. It those aren't good enough for you to consider the subclass, well, that's damn silly. We can only compare the 1D&D Lore Bard to 5E subclasses, but right now? It's still the #1 subclass for a Bard in terms of pure mechanic "oomph". Might that change? Sure. It might. Valor Bards might stop being meh and Blades might stop being absolutely terrible, for example. But there's no reason to believe that. In fact, unless they get some further buffs, Blades are going to be even further behind with the 1D&D Bard layout.



Valor Bard could literally fold in the entirety of Sword Bard and still not be OP.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> Valor Bard could literally fold in the entirety of Sword Bard and still not be OP.



Ooof, that's brutal but I'm looking at both now and I agree - they'd still be behind the 1D&D Lore Bard subclass for my money.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're not taking physical damage, then why does damage type matter?  And if you are, even in part, then healing heals that part, since there's no differentiation in the types of healing in so far as what they do (just how much).



Because you have to do certain things to avoid different damage types. And while Hit Points aren't just "Meat Points" and healing isn't just physical healing, some of those two things are. Red Dragons don't have to worry about Fire Damage because they will never have to dodge/power through fire/lava, because they're literally immune. Damage types matter even if you take into account that hit points aren't always "Meat Points".


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're not taking physical damage, then why does damage type matter?



I mean, dude, do you really want to have this discussion? We'd need a time machine or necromancy to get hold of Gary to ask him in detail what he meant by HP and why damage types matter, if, as he himself repeatedly indicated, HP weren't always physical damage.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, dude, do you really want to have this discussion? We'd need a time machine or necromancy to get hold of Gary to ask him in detail what he meant by HP and why damage types matter, if, as he himself repeatedly indicated, HP weren't always physical damage.



In the 1e DMs Guide, Gygax describes what he means by hit points. Heh. He is the source of all of the later conflicts about how to interpret hit points.

Essentially, there is a doublestandard.

• For player characters, hit points are almost entirely nonphysical.
• But for monsters, hit points are almost entirely physical.

This doublethink allows players to ignore the inconveniences of actual wounds. At the same time, the DM can go into gory detail about hacking up a monster for its visceral entertainment value.



Unsurprisingly, there are some further inconsistencies. Despite describing the player character damage as nonphysical, the amount of time it takes to heal might imply the healing of actual wounds. When Gygax describes the Constitution bonus to hit points, his example (Rasputin) goes into graphic violence to describe the ability to survive many death-dealing physical injuries. His main point seems to be, some individuals have high Constitution, while others dont. But by extension, at least the hit points that come from Constitution seem to refer to physical trauma. That said, Constitution is also responsibility for avoiding fatigue, so that implies buffing the nonphysical hit points too.

Anyway, we happen to know what Gygax thinks about hit points, and it is complex and inconsistent, depending on which context one is describing when referring to hit points.



In my view, 4e and 5e have the best systematization of the conflictive D&D traditions about hit points.

From max hit points until half hit points is strictly nonphysical, except for allowing some glancing contact if dealing poison or similar contact effect.

At half hit points, the creature becomes "bloodied". The damage is still mostly nonphysical, but there is cosmetic superficial physical damage, the kind that leaves bruises and requires bandages.

Only at zero hit points, can there actually be a deadly wound − the proverbial sword thru the gut.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, dude, do you really want to have this discussion? We'd need a time machine or necromancy to get hold of Gary to ask him in detail what he meant by HP and why damage types matter, if, as he himself repeatedly indicated, HP weren't always physical damage.



I know hit points aren't all, or even mostly, meat.  I'm saying that if any part of them are, that part has to be addressed by any healing effect, since none of them distinguish healing meat from healing fatigue/spirit/what have you mechanically.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Chaosmancer said:


> I keep seeing people say this, but... this isn't quite accurate?
> 
> They didn't take away the second magical secrets from Lore Bard, they gave magical secrets to every bard. Every bard now gets two magical secrets, just like the Lore bard. Also, they have fundamentally changed how it works, which actually does make it more fitting for every bard, and not just the lore bard.



That's not all correct. All bards in 5e get 2 spells in Magical Secrets at 10th again at 14th and again at 18th. Only the Lore Bard gets 2 Additional Magical Secrets at 6th. The playtest replaces this with a different ability, Cunning Inspiration which is nowhere near as potent, IMHO.

My bad though, the base bard gets it 3 times, not twice but the Lore bard gets it earlier and gets more instances than the others. 

The playtest does fundamentally change how it works since you get to choose different spells after a long rest instead of the Magical Secrets being the ones you have.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> I know hit points aren't all, or even mostly, meat.  I'm saying that if any part of them are, that part has to be addressed by any healing effect, since none of them distinguish healing meat from healing fatigue/spirit/what have you mechanically.



I agree with this.

For example, the "Warlord" and other "morale" methods to heal should work normally while at non-zero hit points. But then, such methods should become ineffective if a character reaches zero hit points, thus vulnerably open, and the attacker chooses to inflict a death-dealing injury.

Mechanically: if a character begins making death saves morale can no longer benefit the character.

At this point, the nonmagical healer must resort to the Medicine Wisdom check, while treating physical trauma.

I recognize the reallife trope of the "stay with us!" morale boost while someone is going into shock and dying. But this seems more like the context of something during a Short Rest and an extensive investment of time. It is different from the brief assistance of "watch out for the guy behind you!" or "keep at it!" that in fact can boost nonphysical hit points.



Depending on the exact mechanics, I would enjoy a distinction between Fresh versus Bloodied. Where Bloodied actually does require bandages, and does leave a notable blackeye or similar. It is somewhat entertaining to remind the player during later social encounters, when NPCs ask why the blackeye? "What happened?" Or "What did you do?"


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I know hit points aren't all, or even mostly, meat.  I'm saying that if any part of them are, that part has to be addressed by any healing effect, since none of them distinguish healing meat from healing fatigue/spirit/what have you mechanically.



Okay. What if "inspirational healing" like what the Bards get can't heal you if you're Bloodied. Because you start showing signs of physical damage once you're below half your hit point maximum. You could make a rule saying that Warlords/Bards can nonmagically heal with words/speeches, but that it doesn't work once the character has shown signs of physical damage (in order to prevent a situation where a character stops bleeding from a bullet-wound because a Warlord told them to shake it off). 

Would something like that suffice?


----------



## Yaarel

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Okay. What if "inspirational healing" like what the Bards get can't heal you if you're Bloodied. Because you start showing signs of physical damage once you're below half your hit point maximum. You could make a rule saying that Warlords/Bards can nonmagically heal with words/speeches, but that it doesn't work once the character has shown signs of physical damage (in order to prevent a situation where a character stops bleeding from a bullet-wound because a Warlord told them to shake it off).
> 
> Would something like that suffice?



The Bard is full-on magic. Magical healing is appropriate.

Regarding nonmagical healing and the "Bloodied" condition, nonphysical healing still makes sense.

For example, say someone gets a shaving cut, a "bleeder", or a blackeye. One might have lost hit points at that moment. But after a short rest sotospeak, one can completely ignore it. The person is back to full hit points, even if wearing a bandaid, or it hurts to touch it.

Even a person with a broken arm, as long as the arm safely secure, is back to full hit points, even while currently unable to use the arm.

The death saves mechanic implies a deadly injury has incurred. If a person reduces an opponent to zero hit points (such as in a fightsport), the damage can be nonlethal. Thus it is possible to be at zero hit points without incurring death saves.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Okay. What if "inspirational healing" like what the Bards get can't heal you if you're Bloodied. Because you start showing signs of physical damage once you're below half your hit point maximum. You could make a rule saying that Warlords/Bards can nonmagically heal with words/speeches, but that it doesn't work once the character has shown signs of physical damage (in order to prevent a situation where a character stops bleeding from a bullet-wound because a Warlord told them to shake it off).
> 
> Would something like that suffice?



There are Irish folktales of Bards causing people that mistreated them to die from hearing their satire on them. If their words can kill then they surely can sure.


----------



## Yaarel

UngainlyTitan said:


> There are Irish folktales of Bards causing people that mistreated them to die from hearing their satire on them. If their words can kill then they surely can sure.



Yeah, the folkbeliefs about the reallife bards: their satire injures, but their praise brings wellbeing.


----------



## Haplo781

Yaarel said:


> In the 1e DMs Guide, Gygax describes what he means by hit points. Heh. He is the source of all of the later conflicts about how to interpret hit points.
> 
> Essentially, there is a doublestandard.
> 
> • For player characters, hit points are almost entirely nonphysical.
> • But for monsters, hit points are almost entirely physical.
> 
> This doublethink allows players to ignore the inconveniences of actual wounds. At the same time, the DM can go into gory detail about hacking up a monster for its visceral entertainment value.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly, there are some further inconsistencies. Despite describing the player character damage as nonphysical, the amount of time it takes to heal might imply the healing of actual wounds. When Gygax describes the Constitution bonus to hit points, his example (Rasputin) goes into graphic violence to describe the ability to survive many death-dealing physical injuries. His main point seems to be, some individuals have high Constitution, while others dont. But by extension, at least the hit points that come from Constitution seem to refer to physical trauma. That said, Constitution is also responsibility for avoiding fatigue, so that implies buffing the nonphysical hit points too.
> 
> Anyway, we happen to know what Gygax thinks about hit points, and it is complex and inconsistent, depending on which context one is describing when referring to hit points.
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, 4e and 5e have the best systematization of the conflictive D&D traditions about hit points.
> 
> From max hit points until half hit points is strictly nonphysical, except for allowing some glancing contact if dealing poison or similar contact effect.
> 
> At half hit points, the creature becomes "bloodied". The damage is still mostly nonphysical, but there is cosmetic superficial physical damage, the kind that leaves bruises and requires bandages.
> 
> Only at zero hit points, can there actually be a deadly wound − the proverbial sword thru the gut.



Vitality and wounds from 3.5 UA/Star Wars d20 Revised was a nifty solution.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm dismissing it because it's an obscure corner-case issue which would impact a tiny number of users of the Bard class with one specific subclass in a very rare situation, whereas this issue would affect a significant number.
> 
> In the real world, it's _literally my job_ to make assessments like this. And it's important to make assessments like this. You're exactly like the user who can create this specific, reproducible error, but where it does _not_ meaningfully impact his day-to-day workflow, just minorly annoys him once every few days, who think that's a major problem deserving of serious attention. It ain't. Major problems are major problems, not corner-case issues. Even if that issue is never fixed, it's not a big deal. Most players will just move on with their lives and never care about it.
> 
> Whereas the significantly lower amount of Inspiration at lower levels will impact all Bard players.




So, a Lore Bard potentially never using Bardic Inspiration, because Cutting Words is more valuable is 100% fine, a minor corner case that will never cause any issues. 

Dual-Wielding requiring a bonus action so that Ranger's may not use Hunter's Mark was an issue so large that they fundamentally changed how the entire Dual-Wielding system worked. 

Aren't these.... the exact same issue? Haven't we multiple times on these threads talked about overloading reactions and bonus actions being a poor design? Yet suddenly this doesn't matter just because you say the majority of players won't care about it. You can't prove that in any way, you are just stating it as if it were a fact. 

Bards effectively get three features. Spellcasting, Expertise/Jack of All trades, and Bardic Inspiration. I think an issue where subclass uses of the resource can completely supersede the main classes use of their most iconic ability isn't "a corner case"


----------



## Chaosmancer

shadowoflameth said:


> That's not all correct. All bards in 5e get 2 spells in Magical Secrets at 10th again at 14th and again at 18th. Only the Lore Bard gets 2 Additional Magical Secrets at 6th. The playtest replaces this with a different ability, Cunning Inspiration which is nowhere near as potent, IMHO.
> 
> My bad though, the base bard gets it 3 times, not twice but the Lore bard gets it earlier and gets more instances than the others.
> 
> The playtest does fundamentally change how it works since you get to choose different spells after a long rest instead of the Magical Secrets being the ones you have.




I did forget that bard's got it at 14th, I was actually coming back to correct that when I saw you pointed it out. 

But still, with the new way Magical Secrets works, if the Lore bard got a third instance of it, then Bards would just be able to effectively cast any spell in the game. I don't think that is really something we actually want to happen, so I can understand why they cut it. 

Maybe, if people really feel Lore Bard needs more spells, it could be that they can prepare an additional two spells, or swap spells, but those feel like mage features, not bard features.


----------



## Yaarel

Haplo781 said:


> Vitality and wounds from 3.5 UA/Star Wars d20 Revised was a nifty solution.



Am unfamiliar with the wound systems of 3e and Star Wars.

I am sure, an enduring injury should only become possible at zero hit points. And even things like losing a limb, would be instead of losing a life after three failed saves.

But otherwise, I am flexible for how to determine a particular injury. The system would need to be flexible enough for the DM to determine on the fly, the nature of the injury, whether a burn or a drowning or a fall or a stabbing, and to what extent it impairs the character.

One idea is, all damage from Exhaustion instead reduce the proficiency bonus. If the proficiency goes below zero, it is instead zero, and the character makes death saves. Enduring wounds would be part of this Exhaustion system.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Okay. What if "inspirational healing" like what the Bards get can't heal you if you're Bloodied. Because you start showing signs of physical damage once you're below half your hit point maximum. You could make a rule saying that Warlords/Bards can nonmagically heal with words/speeches, but that it doesn't work once the character has shown signs of physical damage (in order to prevent a situation where a character stops bleeding from a bullet-wound because a Warlord told them to shake it off).
> 
> Would something like that suffice?



Sure, I like it.  WotC wouldn't go for it, because it introduces a tiny dollop of the dreaded complexity, but I would definitely use something like that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> The Bard is full-on magic. Magical healing is appropriate.
> 
> Regarding nonmagical healing and the "Bloodied" condition, nonphysical healing still makes sense.
> 
> For example, say someone gets a shaving cut, a "bleeder", or a blackeye. One might have lost hit points at that moment. But after a short rest sotospeak, one can completely ignore it. The person is back to full hit points, even if wearing a bandaid, or it hurts to touch it.
> 
> Even a person with a broken arm, as long as the arm safely secure, is back to full hit points, even while currently unable to use the arm.
> 
> The death saves mechanic implies a deadly injury has incurred. If a person reduces an opponent to zero hit points (such as in a fightsport), the damage can be nonlethal. Thus it is possible to be at zero hit points without incurring death saves.



You can't get a broken arm, or any other debilitating injury, in 5e without an optional rule.


----------



## Haplo781

Yaarel said:


> Am unfamiliar with the wound systems of 3e and Star Wars.
> 
> I am sure, an enduring injury should only become possible at zero hit points. And even things like losing a limb, would be instead of losing a life after three failed saves.
> 
> But otherwise, I am flexible for how to determine a particular injury. The system would need to be flexible enough for the DM to determine on the fly, the nature of the injury, whether a burn or a drowning or a fall or a stabbing, and to what extent it impairs the character.
> 
> One idea is, all damage from Exhaustion instead reduce the proficiency bonus. If the proficiency goes below zero, it is instead zero, and the character makes death saves. Enduring wounds would be part of this Exhaustion system.





			Vitality And Wound Points :: d20srd.org
		

tl;dr: you have wound points equal to your Constitution _score_, the rest of your health pool is vitality, which represents your ability to not get hit.

When you take damage, it comes off vitality first, only dipping into wounds if you run out... Unless it's a critical hit, in which case it does no additional damage but comes straight off your wounds.

At 0 wounds, you fall unconscious and start dying.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Haplo781 said:


> Vitality And Wound Points :: d20srd.org
> 
> 
> tl;dr: you have wound points equal to your Constitution _score_, the rest of your health pool is vitality, which represents your ability to not get hit.
> 
> When you take damage, it comes off vitality first, only dipping into wounds if you run out... Unless it's a critical hit, in which case it does no additional damage but comes straight off your wounds.
> 
> At 0 wounds, you fall unconscious and start dying.



I always liked that system.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, I like it.  WotC wouldn't go for it, because it introduces a tiny dollop of the dreaded complexity, but I would definitely use something like that.



I highly doubt this would be too complicated for WotC. They already have a feature like this for the Champion Fighter, it just works the opposite way (you regenerate until you're no longer bloodied). Just reverse that for this ability.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> You can't get a broken arm, or any other debilitating injury, in 5e without an optional rule.



I know. It is humorous that broken bones dont exist in D&D.

Still if there would be a doable (interesting, flexible, adaptable, balanced) way to implement a wound system, it would appeal to me. I am less interested in "rolling on a Wounds table". But if there are basic parameters (like Exhaustion), that the DM can easily interpret on a case by case basis, based on the circumstance and damage that caused the 0 hit points, it might work well.


----------



## Yaarel

Haplo781 said:


> Vitality And Wound Points :: d20srd.org
> 
> 
> tl;dr: you have wound points equal to your Constitution _score_, the rest of your health pool is vitality, which represents your ability to not get hit.
> 
> When you take damage, it comes off vitality first, only dipping into wounds if you run out... Unless it's a critical hit, in which case it does no additional damage but comes straight off your wounds.
> 
> At 0 wounds, you fall unconscious and start dying.



I like that system. Except. It only works well, if it is impossible to deal damage to Constitution unless the vitality is zero. The shortcuts are what make the system work less well. To have "vitality" means the ability to avoid a deadly injury.

So, a critical hit might eat up lots of the vitality, but the Constitution would remain unscathed unless vitality ran out.


----------



## Haplo781

Yaarel said:


> I like that system. Except. It only works well, if it is impossible to deal damage to Constitution unless the vitality is zero. The shortcuts are what make the system work less well. To have "vitality" means the ability to avoid a deadly injury.
> 
> So, a critical hit might eat up lots of the vitality, but the Constitution would remain unscathed unless vitality ran out.



You don't take Constitution damage. You take damage to your wound points, which are equal to your Constitution score.


----------



## Yaarel

Haplo781 said:


> You don't take Constitution damage. You take damage to your wound points, which are equal to your Constitution score.



I did mean damage to the points from Consitution.

It was odd to refer to "vitality" and "wounds". I wasnt exactly sure the terminology.

I would have expected two positives, like "vitality" and "robustness", or two negatives like "fatigue" and "wounds". Mismatch made me uncertain.


----------



## Yaarel

One thing I already do now is. If the character makes death saves, it leaves a PERMANENT scar of some kind. (The player can choose how to describe it, based on the nature of the damage dealt at zero.)

Only a high level spell, like Heal or Regeneration, can remove the mark! Heh, any wackamole activity leaves a mark.


----------



## Remathilis

Weiley31 said:


> The Dirge Singer agrees with you.



I can easily see subclasses giving access to an additional school of magic as a feature.


----------



## Remathilis

Haplo781 said:


> Vitality And Wound Points :: d20srd.org
> 
> 
> tl;dr: you have wound points equal to your Constitution _score_, the rest of your health pool is vitality, which represents your ability to not get hit.
> 
> When you take damage, it comes off vitality first, only dipping into wounds if you run out... Unless it's a critical hit, in which case it does no additional damage but comes straight off your wounds.
> 
> At 0 wounds, you fall unconscious and start dying.





Micah Sweet said:


> I always liked that system.



It worked fine on paper, but combat after 5th level basically amounted to crit-fishing. Especially in Star Wars, where combat often was a race to see who crits first.


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> It worked fine on paper, but combat after 5th level basically amounted to crit-fishing. Especially in Star Wars, where combat often was a race to see who crits first.



Yeah it wasn't super well developed but I like the concept.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> So you think the Lore bard should have access to all three lists of spells, while other bards only get access to two?



Yes. And they should get it earlier than the core ability.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because Lore Bards are still getting additional magical secrets, it is just that EVERY bard is getting additional magical secrets.
> 
> As for why you might use the Lore Bard, does rolling every single use of bardic inspiration, bardic healing, and cutting words with advantage not sound like a pretty good ability? It is hard to say if that is "lore-based" or not, because that depends on how it is flavored, but it is a pretty decent ability to have.



It is a fine ability which doesn't say "Lore" to me at all.


----------



## Yaarel

Mistwell said:


> It is a fine ability which doesn't say "Lore" to me at all.



Despite the MAD-ness,

I want to see certain Bard concepts and certain Druid concepts benefit meaningfully from Intelligence.

For the Lore Bard, they are literary, in a sense bookish, even if primarily memorizing oral traditions. They are likely to know verses from a song or poem that relate to History and other topics. They are likely to compose such verses themselves.

For the Druid, I have a notion of a kind of Druid that is protoscientific, relating to the convoluted potion-making in Celtic traditions. In D&D contexts, a Druid can make an excellent alchemist. Reallife alchemy traditions include healing and medical applications, even immortality. The themes of the D&D Druid can represent the Celtic potion-brewing, Hellenist substances (earth, water, air, fire, and ether) and Daoist motions (metal, water, tree, fire, and soil). This kind of Druid needs to be more comfortable with metal (including Islamic alchemy of metallurgy) for weapons and armor, as well as the famous Euro lead-to-gold formulas. But metal is an aspect of earth magic anyway. Alchemy is a ur-form where scientific chemistry and dreamlike symbolism havent diverged yet. The flavor of Intelligence makes sense here too.

Maybe the Bard and Druid can at least use Charisma and Wisdom intuitively for certain kinds of Intelligence knowledge checks, like History and Nature?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> I know. It is humorous that broken bones dont exist in D&D.



I have seen my nephew play new mortal combat games and mid fight (not fatality mid fight) some maneuvers slow down show an x ray of a bone breaking moment. BUT there is no effect. "I broke your arm" "Yeah but I can still lift punch and all"


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> I know. It is humorous that broken bones dont exist in D&D.
> 
> Still if there would be a doable (interesting, flexible, adaptable, balanced) way to implement a wound system, it would appeal to me. I am less interested in "rolling on a Wounds table". But if there are basic parameters (like Exhaustion), that the DM can easily interpret on a case by case basis, based on the circumstance and damage that caused the 0 hit points, it might work well.




It makes sense why they don't though. I know some people are all about the grind, but these sort of wounds can't be easily healed, and DnD is largely a combat game where the majority of things happen in melee. 

Sure, the wizard might be fine if a broken arm takes 30 long rests to heal, because they can act just as effectively with it. But a fighter? They are going to be ruined in their ability to contribute, and they are the most likely to suffer that sort of injury, being in melee all the time. And there isn't a good way to balance that to make it find.

I remember one of the few times I played Rogue Trader I made a combat focused character. First attack he recieved was a crit, and basically took him out of all combat for the rest of the campaign (it was short-lived due to IRL stuff) and that... wasn't fun. 

Actually, I remember it happening in Cold Steel Wardens too. A player was hit by a massive attack, suffered multiple severe injuries, and basically had multiple months of hospitalization. In a game where they were heroes investigating villains that needed to be stopped in a matter of days. They'd have been better off if their character had just died and they had to make a new one. So then they were healed using a super, and walked it off in an afternoon, which felt anti-climatic for how badly injured they had been.

I know some people want that sort of experience, but I've always seen that as just adding a lot of frustration for the players to deal with. If the first combat ends with you having suffered broken bones, then you either need magical healing to fix it and ignore the issue, or you spend the rest of the adventure gimped and being unable to effectively contribute. All because of dice luck. And all it adds are some descriptions.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> Yes. And they should get it earlier than the core ability.




Why? 

To me a "master of all forms of magic" is a mage thing. A Sorcerer or Wizard or Warlock should be able to learn and cast all forms of magic, not a Bard. And that is exactly what that would do. Lore Bards would be able to prepare every single spell in the entire game. And that doesn't feel very "lore" to me, it feels like magical mastery.



Mistwell said:


> It is a fine ability which doesn't say "Lore" to me at all.




So what says "lore"? Being able to be good at intelligence checks? If being able to mastery the finer arts of magic is "lore" then why not flavor it as more specialized bits of lore for their inspiration, healing, ect. They've refined the translations of the ancient notes, or they are singing the song in the original Draneeri tongue. 

Is this a mechanical problem, or a flavor problem?


----------



## cbwjm

Haplo781 said:


> He hated the Warlord class because they could "shout hands back on". There really isn't anything else to it.



Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> Why?
> 
> To me a "master of all forms of magic" is a mage thing. A Sorcerer or Wizard or Warlock should be able to learn and cast all forms of magic, not a Bard. And that is exactly what that would do. Lore Bards would be able to prepare every single spell in the entire game. And that doesn't feel very "lore" to me, it feels like magical mastery.
> 
> 
> 
> So what says "lore"? Being able to be good at intelligence checks? If being able to mastery the finer arts of magic is "lore" then why not flavor it as more specialized bits of lore for their inspiration, healing, ect. They've refined the translations of the ancient notes, or they are singing the song in the original Draneeri tongue.
> 
> Is this a mechanical problem, or a flavor problem?



It's both but leans more on the flavor aspect.

As for why it should be earlier, because the defining ability of a subclass should come relatively early in that subclass. People barely play to 11th level and that is far too late to provide an identifying ability. Any keystone subclass ability should be the first or second ability granted by that subclass.

I'd be fine with replacing Magical Secrets with a different ability, as long as that different ability was more lore-oriented.

Here are some examples, and whatever example I'd be thinking of it arriving early with the first or second subclass ability:

1) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?).

2) The ability to use scrolls from any spell list with a check, and magic items which have other classes as a prerequisite with a check.

3) The ability to cast a spell without preparation or the use of a spell slot from any spell list once a day (of a level they normally have spell slots for of course.)

Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure magical lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."


----------



## Haplo781

cbwjm said:


> Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.



Well he removed it from Essentials and 5e so you tell me.


----------



## ersatzphil

Haplo781 said:


> Well he removed it from Essentials and 5e so you tell me.



I found the original debate on an rpg.net forum post:


> *Mearls:* We don't expect the sergeant of the guard or captain of the guard to heal downed warriors. That's not the default. That's kind of the thing. And then if you say, "Well, he can heal, because he's really this inspiring presence, well then you've just kind of described a bard. Because bards -- the entire schtick of bards -- is that they are really inspiring and they are charismatic. The bard is the guy with panache who -- "Onwward!" That's the bard's deal, isn't it?
> 
> *Thompson:* That's a big part of the bard, I would say. I think there's some desire for a, when you're playing that leader character, to be able to say, "Alright, men! Fight on!" and be the guy leading the charge. To be William Wallace from Braveheart. You want to be that guy. I would not describe a William Wallace-type character as a bard.
> 
> *Mearls:* But you also wouldn't say he's a healer. I wouldn't. I wouldn't think, if there's a guy whose been gutted, William Wallace gets the guys to freak out and charge and moon the British--
> 
> *Thompson:* Well...
> 
> *Mearls:* Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--
> 
> *Thompson:* William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--
> 
> *Mearls:* But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.
> 
> *Thompson:* That's literally a cut scene. Anyway, to bring it back to the warlord, there is a focus that we're trying to take about the warlord being in the fighter, being the tactical leader, and then I think that if you want to play very much the Fourth Edition warlord, we should have a way for you to build that character. Take the fighter. Take the tactical leader-y fighter and apply a specialty or--
> 
> *Mearls:* A Healer Specialty. Just like the one piece that's just not there.



I personally took it more as defending something he viewed as the purview of the Bard class rather then dunking on Warlords, but you can see where the meme comes from.


----------



## fuindordm

This post is mostly about bardic magic.

*Bards (and rangers) preparing spells:  *
From a lore perspective I would prefer only Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to have access to the full spell list and be able to potentially prepare any spell on that list. I think it would also make sense for all three to have "books" or at least be limited to spells that they have found/researched. But at the same time, I understand that we don't want to punish new players for making unusual or suboptimal choices. 

I think a good compromise would be to divide each spell list into common spells and rare spells, so that players choosing what to prepare do so from a smaller list. 

*Bard schools of magic:*
With only 8 choices and the self-imposed requirement to attach each spell to one and only one school, schools of magic are a blunt instrument for reproducing the lore of a class. It is interesting that the thunder/sonic spells (well, Thunderwave and Shatter) have moved to Transmutation--perhaps just so the Bard can learn them? But other spells, such as Gaseous Form and Reverse Gravity, seem completely unrelated to any fictional or mythological example of a bard. Magic Armor on the other hand would be a very common spell for a viking skald.  Using schools to construct spell lists sounds like a good idea on paper but when you try it in practice it just doesn't work. It didn't work well for clerics in 2nd edition either. 

If the design goal is to give bards only "bardic" spells, then just give them their own spell list because Bard magic is kind of a unique mixture of arcane and divine. 1DD needs to add a psionic spell list anyway, so it might as well add a bard list as well.  

Another option would be to give some spells TWO schools instead of one and require a class to have access to both schools to prepare it. Like the common/rare split mentioned above, this mechanic would allow the designers to flag certain spells as only available to full casters. For example, in the Arcane list Contingency is labeled Abjuration (why?) but by labeling it as Divination/Abjuration you could exclude it from bards.

*Magical secrets:*
Incredible--if I am reading the ability right, as a player I can choose Divine and then every long rest I can prepare 2 spells from the whole Divine spell list? This is just far too powerful--at 15th level the bard can prepare almost any spell in the game. When they can cast 9th level spells they have access to the most powerful magic of the clerics, wizards, and druids.  

As with spell preparation, we see here the tendency to shy away from forcing players to make a choice for their character. Is asking them to choose 2 specific spells too restrictive? Are we worried that they will regret their choice and their feelings will be hurt?  Not punishing players for "bad choices" is laudable, but niche protection is also an important design goal.

I would prefer for this ability to come sooner (6th level seems fine) and for the bard to choose to add any 2 spells up to 3rd level to the set of spells they can prepare. Same for additional secrets--move it earlier and limit the choice to their current maximum spell level. It is already an very attractive class ability that way, and the lore bard never gets to access the high-level spells of other classes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is a silly position.



*Mod Note:*

This is a silly way to start a post. 

It’s needlessly confrontational, which “automagically” puts your partner in dialog into a rhetorical position of not only defending their positions, but their _person_ as well.  Not surprisingly, that tends to degrade the quality of the discussion that follows.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

cbwjm said:


> Are we sure this was him saying that he didn't like the warlord or was he referring to it in jest while talking about the vocal group of players who hated the warlord.



That was my memory of it.


----------



## Mistwell

So I am still focused on the Lore bard. The fluff simply doesn't match the abilities of this subclass, and it totally loses focus on the theme.

In my view, this subclass gets TWO abilities which are on-theme. They are: Bonus Proficiencies (3rd level - but many other things get this), and Peerless Skill (14th level - too late for most bard players to care).

Meanwhile, their "core" abilities which they get early do not support the Lore concept: Cutting Words (I never understood what this has to do with Lore - you distract others?), Cunning Inspiration (advantage on bardic inspiration has nothing to do with Lore), Improved Cutting Words (damage on cutting words has nothing to do with Lore).

The subclass appears to be having a sharp wit. So sharp you can eventually do damage with it. WTF does that have to do with knowing scholarly tomes and hanging out in libraries?

If you renamed this subclass "Comedian" or "Jester" or "Snark" you'd be much closer to matching the fluff to the abilities.

I think people liked the fluff of the Lore subclass though. It's just that the abilities should match that fluff. I named some above and I'll repeat them now and add a few more:

1) Additional Magical Secrets at 6th level: You'd be the only bard who can eventually access all types of spells in the game;

2) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, with specifically "Lore" in the ability name, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?);

3) The ability to use scrolls and magic items with another class as a prerequisite, with a check;

4) The ability to cast a spell without preparation or the use of a spell slot from any spell list once a day (of a level they normally have spell slots for of course.)

5) The ability to cast the spell Legend Lore without a spell slot or material components, proficiency bonus times a day (or even once a day).

6) Advantage on the new Study Action checks;

7) Take the new Study Action as a Bonus Action.

I am open to some other ideas, but these at least seem to be on-message to the concept of Lore rather than focusing on cutting words and inspiration abilities. Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> It makes sense why they don't though. I know some people are all about the grind, but these sort of wounds can't be easily healed, and DnD is largely a combat game where the majority of things happen in melee.
> 
> Sure, the wizard might be fine if a broken arm takes 30 long rests to heal, because they can act just as effectively with it. But a fighter? They are going to be ruined in their ability to contribute, and they are the most likely to suffer that sort of injury, being in melee all the time. And there isn't a good way to balance that to make it find.
> 
> I remember one of the few times I played Rogue Trader I made a combat focused character. First attack he recieved was a crit, and basically took him out of all combat for the rest of the campaign (it was short-lived due to IRL stuff) and that... wasn't fun.
> 
> Actually, I remember it happening in Cold Steel Wardens too. A player was hit by a massive attack, suffered multiple severe injuries, and basically had multiple months of hospitalization. In a game where they were heroes investigating villains that needed to be stopped in a matter of days. They'd have been better off if their character had just died and they had to make a new one. So then they were healed using a super, and walked it off in an afternoon, which felt anti-climatic for how badly injured they had been.
> 
> I know some people want that sort of experience, but I've always seen that as just adding a lot of frustration for the players to deal with. If the first combat ends with you having suffered broken bones, then you either need magical healing to fix it and ignore the issue, or you spend the rest of the adventure gimped and being unable to effectively contribute. All because of dice luck. And all it adds are some descriptions.



This is why you maintain multiple characters, so you have someone to run while your other PC is convalescent.  Keep them all at the same level if that's important to you.


----------



## Maxperson

I have to say that I really dislike bards being able to just prepare any arcane spell they want on a daily basis.  That sort of preparation has been the province of clercs and druids, essentially the divine classes(though now druid is primal).  No god gives bards that ability and it doesn't make sense that they would have every spell in existence handy just because they are the jack of all trades class.


----------



## SkidAce

Maxperson said:


> I have to say that I really dislike bards being able to just prepare any arcane spell they want on a daily basis.  That sort of preparation has been the province of clercs and druids, essentially the divine classes(though now druid is primal).  No god gives bards that ability and it doesn't make sense that they would have every spell in existence handy just because they are the jack of all trades class.



I agree, I bet wizards would like to be able to choose from their entire spell list also.*

No need to find or copy spells...!




* its early, we may be misinterpreting this


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> It's both but leans more on the flavor aspect.
> 
> As for why it should be earlier, because the defining ability of a subclass should come relatively early in that subclass. People barely play to 11th level and that is far too late to provide an identifying ability. Any keystone subclass ability should be the first or second ability granted by that subclass.




I agree with this, but I would actually point out that the defining feature of the Lore bard wasn't magical secrets. It was cutting words. Magical secrets was the most powerful ability, because it allowed them to get fireball or other spells they couldn't normally access, but Cutting words is the first and most consistently useful ability they get. That, and the skill profs, which pretty much nothing can be done with.



Mistwell said:


> I'd be fine with replacing Magical Secrets with a different ability, as long as that different ability was more lore-oriented.
> 
> Here are some examples, and whatever example I'd be thinking of it arriving early with the first or second subclass ability:
> 
> 1) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?).




I hate abilities like this. It is entirely a waste. 90% of the time it tells you what you already know, and the 10% of the time it doesn't you now know forever. And it never tells you the actually useful information.

Plus, it becomes worthless if the players have any chance to prepare or roll the skill check before the fight.



Mistwell said:


> 2) The ability to use scrolls from any spell list with a check, and magic items which have other classes as a prerequisite with a check.




The thief ability? Well, the scrolls is kind of pointless for higher level bards. They would already have access to scrolls for 75% of all spells, 85% if they didn't pick arcane for magical secrets. It sounds good on paper, the execution is just underwhelming I think. 

The same with the magic items. The vast majority of item pre-reqs is "spellcasting" which you have. Other than that you are looking at maybe five or six items that have highly specific pre-reqs like the Holy Avenger. And getting the ability to attune to it doesn't help you if you don't have proficiency in the type of weapon. 

This was the issue I had with the (old) Thief Ability. Since being a spellcaster overcame the majority of the pre-reqs, it was worse than just being an arcane trickster in the first place. With bard's already being spellcasters, there isn't much here to latch on to. 

Now, that might change, as it sounds like some items are going to be getting attunement based on class group, but the secondary issue that Bards aren't going to get much use out of attuning to a battleaxe still remains, 

I'm not trying to neg you, just pointing out the issues with the idea as presented.



Mistwell said:


> 3) The ability to cast a spell without preparation or the use of a spell slot from any spell list once a day (of a level they normally have spell slots for of course.)




The use of a spell from any list is already magical secrets. And the ability to cast any single spell without needing to prepare it is, well, accomplished by giving them a single extra preparation slot. And again, I think both of these scream "MAGE" more than they do expert in lore.



Mistwell said:


> Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure magical lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."




Why does it have to be magical lore? If you wanted to be an expert in lore, why not advantage on all intelligence skill checks, or reliable talent that only works for the knowledge skills? Both of those are far more "I am the master of obscure lore" than "I can hack magical items" or "I cast more magic" 

Or...hmmm... 

What about messing with the Planar Binding and Contact Other Planes spells? They are on the list if memory serves, but they could gain access to improved versions of those. Obscure lore leading them to being able to better barter with outer planar beings and bind them into services sounds at least closer, since the True Names of fiends are often obscure lore.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why you maintain multiple characters, so you have someone to run while your other PC is convalescent.  Keep them all at the same level if that's important to you.




Not everyone is interested in running a squad of characters.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Not everyone is interested in running a squad of characters.



You're not running them all at once, so the cognitive load is minimized.  I want _ more_ realistic healing, and I expressed a way to do that while circumventing your problem.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  Do you prefer the current "health bar" system where no amount of injury that doesn't actually kill you matters?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> I hate abilities like this. It is entirely a waste. *90% of the time it tells you what you already know*, and the 10% of the time it doesn't you now know forever. And it never tells you the actually useful information.



A whole lot of tables do not allow metagaming like that, though. The PCs need to know, not just the players. So the ability is extremely useful for them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> You're not running them all at once, so the cognitive load is minimized.




This doesn't matter at all. Because if I want to role-play them properly not only do I have to consider how events would be affecting them, I may also have to be keeping track of what they are doing that suddenly allows them to always show up and be present for the adventure, even if that adventure is something they have no part in. 

If you didn't accept the quest to get the relic from the ruin, then you aren't really invested in the adventure to track down the quest giver who stole it from you and cheated you out of your payment. It isn't "You stole from me!" anymore it is "You stole from people I sometimes work with!". You lose party cohesion, you lose story cohesion, and if everyone is doing it then you have this weird set-up were not everyone is playing the same characters and everyone has to try and remember how five different characters have connections to up to 25 other characters, instead of one character knowing and interacting with 5 others. 

This has nothing to do with running them all at once, and everything to do with the problems of rotating cast members.



Micah Sweet said:


> I want _ more_ realistic healing, and I expressed a way to do that while circumventing your problem.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  Do you prefer the current "health bar" system where no amount of injury that doesn't actually kill you matters?




Frankly? Yeah. I don't mind the PCs being John McClain or Rambo, taking injury after injury after injury and still fighting. 

Additionally, you say it "doesn't matter" but it only doesn't matter if I, as the player, choose to have it not matter. I can RP that after getting shot with three arrows, that attack I miss is because I'm injured. Mechanically, that isn't true, but I can make that choice. Which is far better than getting hit with three arrows, and then having a -2 to every attack roll. Or getting hit once with a club and only being able to move 10 ft at a time. Or (since these "realistic healing" models never let magical healing cure anything) end up with a character who has a -2 from the arrows in the chest, movement speed of 10 from the club to the knee, and another -2 from being blinded in one eye. 

Meanwhile the wizard gets a -3 from that one time he was stabbed, but since his stuff is an enemy save versus a static number, he doesn't care. His actual ability to contribute isn't impacted at all. Unlike the person whose job it is to get hit over and over, and stack these wounds up until they are worthless and need to be retired to they can bring in a new character to suffer the exact same fate.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> A whole lot of tables do not allow metagaming like that, though. The PCs need to know, not just the players. So the ability is extremely useful for them.




Is it metagaming to know that Orcs have no vulnerabilities, resistances or immunities? What about knowing that Trolls don't have any V's, R's or I's? Humans? Elves? Goblins? Owlbears? Wolves?

Is it metagaming to know that the creature made of flame and living in a volcano is going to be harder to hurt with mundane weapons and is immune to poison and fire? 

Is it metagaming to know that the creature with no functioning organs is immune to poison? 

Is it metagaming to know the creature living in a tundra and shooting ice from their eyes is immune to cold damage? 

Maybe it is metagaming to know that a creature made of living darkness is going to take extra damage from attacks made of radiant light? 

Also, let us say that we know we are going to be fighting Demons. The cleric asks if they know anything demons might be vulnerable to. The DM has them roll religion, because they are a cleric and should know about Demons, and they learn that Demons are vulnerable to silver, magical weapons, and resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. If three sessions later I still remember this information the DM gave us, am I metagaming? 

Is it metagaming to know that Demons are immune to poison and weak to silver, and then assume the same thing is true about Devils and Yugoloths? 

Even if the DM and the entire table can somehow be incredibly strict and prevent any knowledge and the PCs are never allowed to assume anything... let us say you are fighting an enemy with fire resistance. How many times do you hit them with fire? Just once. After a single attack, you know they are resistant, and can change tactics. Also, you now know that enemy is resistant to fire, so the next time you face them, you don't use fire. 

And, really, no table is that strict on "no metagaming" and the things people tend to metagame, are things this ability cannot tell you. Like the Troll's regeneration or the Fire Elemental's Water Susceptibility, or the Flesh Glolem's Fire Aversion.


----------



## Marandahir

I feel like _Songs of Restoration_ is NOT a buff, but rather a major debuff. 

They replaced our ability to short rest heal with a list of locked-in healing spells to get around the fact that they locked-off a bunch of traditional Bard spells. They tried to counter the lack of healing by allowing Bardic Inspiration to be used to heal, but this gets into the Monk and Sorcerer resource problem: the class is far too demanding on a very limited resource that has only been made more limited per day in the same document. 

The fact that College of Lore Bards want to spend their Inspiration dice on something OTHER than healing or boosting their friends rolls is more evidence of that. And the healing is really a pittance, while Songs of Rest was a feature that really encouraged parties with Bards to take as many Short Rests as possible each day (and thus avoid the 5MWD trap). 

This feels like they WANT us to have 5MWDs. 

Also, Rangers got healing spells moved to Abjuration (something I've advocated for for decades; most other fantasy fictions combine barrier buffs and patronuses etc with healing spells into a single Restoration or Abjuration school). Yet because the Bard HAS to use the Arcane list because of 3e & 4e, it's not allowed to get them without a special class feature, which has to take the place of something. And if they want any other healing or classic Bard spells still not on the list? Sorry, going to have to wait until Magical Secrets in Tier 3…


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> This doesn't matter at all. Because if I want to role-play them properly not only do I have to consider how events would be affecting them, I may also have to be keeping track of what they are doing that suddenly allows them to always show up and be present for the adventure, even if that adventure is something they have no part in.
> 
> If you didn't accept the quest to get the relic from the ruin, then you aren't really invested in the adventure to track down the quest giver who stole it from you and cheated you out of your payment. It isn't "You stole from me!" anymore it is "You stole from people I sometimes work with!". You lose party cohesion, you lose story cohesion, and if everyone is doing it then you have this weird set-up were not everyone is playing the same characters and everyone has to try and remember how five different characters have connections to up to 25 other characters, instead of one character knowing and interacting with 5 others.
> 
> This has nothing to do with running them all at once, and everything to do with the problems of rotating cast members.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly? Yeah. I don't mind the PCs being John McClain or Rambo, taking injury after injury after injury and still fighting.
> 
> Additionally, you say it "doesn't matter" but it only doesn't matter if I, as the player, choose to have it not matter. I can RP that after getting shot with three arrows, that attack I miss is because I'm injured. Mechanically, that isn't true, but I can make that choice. Which is far better than getting hit with three arrows, and then having a -2 to every attack roll. Or getting hit once with a club and only being able to move 10 ft at a time. Or (since these "realistic healing" models never let magical healing cure anything) end up with a character who has a -2 from the arrows in the chest, movement speed of 10 from the club to the knee, and another -2 from being blinded in one eye.
> 
> Meanwhile the wizard gets a -3 from that one time he was stabbed, but since his stuff is an enemy save versus a static number, he doesn't care. His actual ability to contribute isn't impacted at all. Unlike the person whose job it is to get hit over and over, and stack these wounds up until they are worthless and need to be retired to they can bring in a new character to suffer the exact same fate.



Doesn't matter mechanically, as in, the game does not require you to care about it.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know that Orcs have no vulnerabilities, resistances or immunities?



Depends on if they are common or not.


Chaosmancer said:


> What about knowing that Trolls don't have any V's, R's or I's?



The troll regeneration debate happens for a reason.


Chaosmancer said:


> Humans? Elves? Goblins? Owlbears? Wolves?



See the answer to orc.


Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know that the creature made of flame and living in a volcano is going to be harder to hurt with mundane weapons and is immune to poison and fire?



Depends on the creature.  How are you supposed to know that a Magmin is resistant to those things?  A mace can crush rock, why would you assume that a rock creature would be harder to hurt than a rock?


Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know that the creature with no functioning organs is immune to poison?



Oozes have no functioning organs and are not immune to poison.


Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know the creature living in a tundra and shooting ice from their eyes is immune to cold damage?



Yep.  Why immune and not resistant?


Chaosmancer said:


> Maybe it is metagaming to know that a creature made of living darkness is going to take extra damage from attacks made of radiant light?



Why is the shadow different from a wraith, which looks like it is also made out of living darkness?


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, let us say that we know we are going to be fighting Demons. The cleric asks if they know anything demons might be vulnerable to. The DM has them roll religion, because they are a cleric and should know about Demons, and they learn that Demons are vulnerable to silver, magical weapons, and resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. If three sessions later I still remember this information the DM gave us, am I metagaming?



No.  Why would you be? I will repeat, "*The PCs need to know*, not just the players." and in your example above, they do.


Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know that Demons are immune to poison and weak to silver, and then assume the same thing is true about Devils and Yugoloths?



Yes.  Those are not demons.  That's like saying that just because a frost giant is immune to cold, so is a storm giant.  Hell, it's even worse than that since at least both of those are giants.  Demons are not weak to silver by the way.  Devils are.  Assuming can get you in trouble when you are trying to assume things about different races.

This is also not about assuming. Using player *KNOWLEDGE *involves no assumption.


Chaosmancer said:


> let us say you are fighting an enemy with fire resistance. How many times do you hit them with fire? Just once. After a single attack, you know they are resistant, and can change tactics. Also, you now know that enemy is resistant to fire, so the next time you face them, you don't use fire.



Sure.  


Chaosmancer said:


> And, really, no table is that strict on "no metagaming"



This is objectively wrong, since I've played at many tables that are like that.  In fact, I've played at no table that allows you to use player knowledge to get by resistances, immunities or exploit vulnerabilities without the PC knowing or having a very good in character reason for it.


Chaosmancer said:


> and the things people tend to metagame, are things this ability cannot tell you. Like the Troll's regeneration or the Fire Elemental's Water Susceptibility, or the Flesh Glolem's Fire Aversion.



I don't see why the DM would gimp a player on knowing those vulnerabilities, just because they aren't listed as a vulnerability in the sense that they take extra damage.  A troll is vulnerable to acid and fire, because it stops his regeneration.


----------



## Staffan

fuindordm said:


> But other spells, such as Gaseous Form and Reverse Gravity, seem completely unrelated to any fictional or mythological example of a bard.



Counterexample:


----------



## Marandahir

Staffan said:


> Counterexample:



That's like saying Otto was a Bard because he was interested in magical music spells. 

Elphaba is not a Bard, she's just played by one on TV on Broadway.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Doesn't matter mechanically, as in, the game does not require you to care about it.




Yes, like I said. Are you going to address any other point than the one I conceded? Or are you saying that if it game doesn't force you to care, it cannot possibly matter?


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> I have to say that I really dislike bards being able to just prepare any arcane spell they want on a daily basis.  That sort of preparation has been the province of clercs and druids, essentially the divine classes(though now druid is primal).  No god gives bards that ability and it doesn't make sense that they would have every spell in existence handy just because they are the jack of all trades class.



The UA Bard access to spells seems motivated by the limited access in the PH being a pain point, plus by a new definition of what it means to be an Expert who is a "polymath".

I doubt the non-Expert Wizard will have this fluid access to the spell list. On the other hand, I suspect the Wizard to have features to enhance spellcasting effects.


----------



## Yaarel

Mistwell said:


> So I am still focused on the Lore bard. The fluff simply doesn't match the abilities of this subclass, and it totally loses focus on the theme.
> 
> In my view, this subclass gets TWO abilities which are on-theme. They are: Bonus Proficiencies (3rd level - but many other things get this), and Peerless Skill (14th level - too late for most bard players to care).
> 
> Meanwhile, their "core" abilities which they get early do not support the Lore concept: Cutting Words (I never understood what this has to do with Lore - you distract others?), Cunning Inspiration (advantage on bardic inspiration has nothing to do with Lore), Improved Cutting Words (damage on cutting words has nothing to do with Lore).
> 
> The subclass appears to be having a sharp wit. So sharp you can eventually do damage with it. WTF does that have to do with knowing scholarly tomes and hanging out in libraries?
> 
> If you renamed this subclass "Comedian" or "Jester" or "Snark" you'd be much closer to matching the fluff to the abilities.
> 
> I think people liked the fluff of the Lore subclass though. It's just that the abilities should match that fluff. I named some above and I'll repeat them now and add a few more:
> 
> 1) Additional Magical Secrets at 6th level: You'd be the only bard who can eventually access all types of spells in the game;
> 
> 2) A bonus action to identity creatures vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities with a check (which for some reason they gave to Hunter Rangers, with specifically "Lore" in the ability name, but only if they cast an attack-specific spell on them?);
> 
> 3) The ability to use scrolls and magic items with another class as a prerequisite, with a check;
> 
> 4) The ability to cast a spell without preparation or the use of a spell slot from any spell list once a day (of a level they normally have spell slots for of course.)
> 
> 5) The ability to cast the spell Legend Lore without a spell slot or material components, proficiency bonus times a day (or even once a day).
> 
> 6) Advantage on the new Study Action checks;
> 
> 7) Take the new Study Action as a Bonus Action.
> 
> I am open to some other ideas, but these at least seem to be on-message to the concept of Lore rather than focusing on cutting words and inspiration abilities. Give them something which says, "I have a background in researching obscure lore and can draw on that remembered history in this moment of need."



The Lore Bard seems to follow the mythologically accurate Celtic bard.

The Celtic bard is known for ones praise causing blessings and ones clever humorous satire causing injury, even physical harm.

The Celtic bard functions as a member of a government court whose job is to praise the leader of court, thus magically stabilize the government. But the bards evolve into important technocrats in their own right. The bards are scholars, literally founders of reallife universities. They are go-to experts in various fields of knowledge. Many farflung government courts felt it valuable to include a bard as a member of their courts.

The D&D Lore Bard is blending the fate-magic of praise or satire, with the scholarly aspects of the bardic institution and universities.



It turns out that the Norse tradition of the skald is non-native and actually comes from importing the Celtic bard tradition. The skald start off singing the praise and stabilizing the government of the jarl, including the history of the family that the jarl comes from, but within a few centuries become important technocrats in their own right, as experts of the law and legal system, such as Snorri. The skald have a Norse spin on the bard tradition, doing songs in the Norse language, and individuals known for magic are doing Norse magic. But the skald is Celtic origin.



These particular bard traditions are simultaneously charismatically magical and scholarly.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Depends on if they are common or not.




Common enough to be a playable race. Also, really? Orcs, the most iconic of villains? And you want to play the "they might not be common" card? They are stock humanoids.



Maxperson said:


> The troll regeneration debate happens for a reason.




And Trolls are not vulnerable to fire or acid, so this ability has nothing to do with their Resistances (none), Immunities (None) or Vulnerabilities (None). So, am I metagaming if I assume a troll has no resistances, Immunities or Vulnerabilities?



Maxperson said:


> See the answer to orc.




Are you serious right now? Elf is in the PHB. Human is in the PHB. Knowing that they don't have any R's, I's or V's is not metagaming. Heck, you can't even use the "how common are they" because the answer to how common humans is is "Yes". They are the single most common creature in the entire game. 

You can't stretch this metagaming argument that far. No one would consider knowing about humans metagaming.



Maxperson said:


> Depends on the creature.  How are you supposed to know that a Magmin is resistant to those things?  A mace can crush rock, why would you assume that a rock creature would be harder to hurt than a rock?




I don't know Max, why might I assume a creauture made of MAGMA (a fluid) might be difficult to smash or cut. I'll also go out further on a limb and guess a creature made of MAGMA might not burn. Wild guess, but it seems kind of logical. 

Maces can crush rock? Sure, but you can also crush a rock creature. Resistance =/= immunity. Why would I assume that my mace is going to be equally effective against a fleshy sack wrapped around bones with vital organs floating inside as it is going to be against a solid piece of rock? Have you ever actually taken a one-handed hammer and tried to smash a solid piece rock? You chip it, but you certainly don't do to it what you can do to an arm or a ribcage. So, why am I not allowed to assume my weapon is going to be less effective?



Maxperson said:


> Oozes have no functioning organs and are not immune to poison.




And they eat. They are like Jellyfish. They do have a functioning digestive system. Skeletons don't. Zombies don't. Animated suits of armor don't. 

Also, let's say that my character assumes oozes ARE immune to poison. Is that meta-gaming? Am I going to get called out for not using poison on a creature I incorrectly assume is immune to it?



Maxperson said:


> Yep.  Why immune and not resistant?




Because it shoots ice from its eyes and lives in an icy environment. Why would I assume it still takes damage from the cold? I don't assume that creatures that live in volcano's take fire damage, why assume creatures that live in ice caves will take cold damage?



Maxperson said:


> Why is the shadow different from a wraith, which looks like it is also made out of living darkness?




I don't know, are they different? Am I going to get penalized for assuming that the Wraith is vulnerable to radiant damage because it is an undead and ethereal and made of living darkness? 

Do you know how commonly people assume undead, the enemies of clerics, are vulnerable to clerics signature damage type? Should I accuse all of them of metagaming when they are wrong? Does it matter if they are wrong?



Maxperson said:


> No.  Why would you be? I will repeat, "*The PCs need to know*, not just the players." and in your example above, they do.




Right, so when the PCs learn it once, they learn it forever. How useful is an ability that is only needed once? We generally call that "niche" right?



Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Those are not demons.  That's like saying that just because a frost giant is immune to cold, so is a storm giant.  Hell, it's even worse than that since at least both of those are giants.  Demons are not weak to silver by the way.  Devils are.  Assuming can get you in trouble when you are trying to assume things about different races.
> 
> This is also not about assuming. Using player *KNOWLEDGE *involves no assumption.




Why would someone assume that a Giant living in the Tundra and covered in ice is going to be the same as a giant living underwater and throwing lightning bolts? Hey, I bet the guy who can summon and throw lighting as just a natural part of his existence doesn't take full lightning damage. 

Also, they may not be demons, but they are extraplanar beings of pure evil, formed in the lower planes. That seems like a really similiar thing. Kind of like how orcs and goblins and humans and elves are all humanoids from the material plane, and all lack natural resistance to fire, cold, and lightning. 

Also, what do you mean that assuming can get me in trouble? Is attacking a Demon with a silver weapon going to cause me to explode? No, it just... won't be as effective as I thought. Oh no! That would mean... well, since I had to go and silver my weapons I probably didn't have access to magic weapons. So at worst that just means I spent money on an upgrade that doesn't help. How is this bad? I guess I could have spent the money on something else, but it wouldn't have been anything that helped in the fight. 

And, now I know, in-character and forever, that demons aren't vulnerable to silver. So it will never be something I go and do again. If I don't have my next character in a new campaign go and waste money silvering my weapons against an enemy that isn't vulnerable to them... am I meta-gaming? Are players who never assume Demons are vulnerable to silver meta-gaming when they don't silver their weapons?



Maxperson said:


> This is objectively wrong, since I've played at many tables that are like that.  In fact, I've played at no table that allows you to use player knowledge to get by resistances, immunities or exploit vulnerabilities without the PC knowing or having a very good in character reason for it.




So... "this creature is made of fire, therefore I'm not going to hit it with fire" isn't a very good in-character reason? 

"We've fought extraplanar entities from the Lower Planes before, and poison didn't affect them so I don't think it will work this time" isn't a good in-character reason? 

"They are just goblins, they don't have resistances, they are just people." Isn't a good in-character reason? 

What counts as a good in-character reason then?



Maxperson said:


> I don't see why the DM would gimp a player on knowing those vulnerabilities, just because they aren't listed as a vulnerability in the sense that they take extra damage.  A troll is vulnerable to acid and fire, because it stops his regeneration.




Ah, so you want to cheat. If an ability says that it tells you Vulnerabilities, then it doesn't mean you get to learn their special traits. It means you get to learn their Vulnerabilities. Of which trolls have none. 

If you want to have an ability that does tell you their special abilities then we are talking about something completely different. I've actually advocated for the Ranger's new Hunter's Lore ability to basically give the player the monster's statblock. Learning AC, HP, special abilities, average damage, Vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities IS actually useful, because that information changes and is useful every fight.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Staffan said:


> Counterexample:




Love this song. I like this version, but it isn't my favorite.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Chaosmancer said:


> I did forget that bard's got it at 14th, I was actually coming back to correct that when I saw you pointed it out.
> 
> But still, with the new way Magical Secrets works, if the Lore bard got a third instance of it, then Bards would just be able to effectively cast any spell in the game. I don't think that is really something we actually want to happen, so I can understand why they cut it.
> 
> Maybe, if people really feel Lore Bard needs more spells, it could be that they can prepare an additional two spells, or swap spells, but those feel like mage features, not bard features.



Agree, and I think two instances gives them potentially that ability as it is. If they don't limit Magic Secrets, and especially if all casters become know it alls who prepare a few, then what space will be left for the wizard who's strength is being able to learn new ones (or create them). I would suggest that Magical Secrets let the bard learn two spells of a chosen school from one of the three groups. It would still be potent but minimize encroaching on other classes space and minimize munchkin builds even if they have the ability to change their choices.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The UA Bard access to spells seems motivated by the limited access in the PH being a pain point, plus by a new definition of what it means to be an Expert who is a "polymath".
> 
> I doubt the non-Expert Wizard will have this fluid access to the spell list. On the other hand, I suspect the Wizard to have features to enhance spellcasting effects.



None of that makes it make sense.  Arcane spells are not just floating around the ether for bards to pluck out of nothing at their whim.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, like I said. Are you going to address any other point than the one I conceded? Or are you saying that if it game doesn't force you to care, it cannot possibly matter?



I'm saying it can only matter subjectively, at individual tables.  That's can be very important, but says nothing about the game as a whole or about what's in the books.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Common enough to be a playable race. Also, really? Orcs, the most iconic of villains? And you want to play the "they might not be common" card? They are stock humanoids.



100%.  I've been in homebrew settings where they don't even exist.  They also didn't exist on Athas.  They might not in fact be common in any particular game.


Chaosmancer said:


> Are you serious right now? Elf is in the PHB. Human is in the PHB. Knowing that they don't have any R's, I's or V's is not metagaming. Heck, you can't even use the "how common are they" because the answer to how common humans is is "Yes". They are the single most common creature in the entire game.



Way to ignore the other three races you lumped in with humans and elves. Very telling that. 

As for common. They too might not even be in any given game.  Or might be exceptionally rare and not a PC race.


Chaosmancer said:


> I don't know Max, why might I assume a creauture made of MAGMA (a fluid) might be difficult to smash or cut. I'll also go out further on a limb and guess a creature made of MAGMA might not burn. Wild guess, but it seems kind of logical.



Magma is a very thick fluid.  It would seem to me like a mace might just scoop a large swath of the body out and flick it away doing extra damage.


Chaosmancer said:


> And they eat. They are like Jellyfish. They do have a functioning digestive system. Skeletons don't. Zombies don't. Animated suits of armor don't.



So now you're limiting it to undead?


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, let's say that my character assumes oozes ARE immune to poison. Is that meta-gaming? Am I going to get called out for not using poison on a creature I incorrectly assume is immune to it?



No.  Nor is every case of assuming something that is true a case of metagaming.  As I said, if it makes sense for the PC to make that assumption, that's fine.  If you have to look for a weak justification, you've walked into metagaming territory.


Chaosmancer said:


> Right, so when the PCs learn it once, they learn it forever. How useful is an ability that is only needed once? We generally call that "niche" right?



Once per type of monster isn't niche.  Sure, if you could only use it once in your PCs life on one monster, that would be niche.  DMs use many, many different kinds of monsters, though, so even if you don't personally like it, it will be very useful.


Chaosmancer said:


> Why would someone assume that a Giant living in the Tundra and covered in ice is going to be the same as a giant living underwater and throwing lightning bolts? Hey, I bet the guy who can summon and throw lighting as just a natural part of his existence doesn't take full lightning damage.



You mean that giant wizard?


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, they may not be demons, but they are extraplanar beings of pure evil, formed in the lower planes. That seems like a really similiar thing. Kind of like how orcs and goblins and humans and elves are all humanoids from the material plane, and all lack natural resistance to fire, cold, and lightning.



So creatures that are from three wildly different planes are like creatures who are all from the same plane?


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, what do you mean that assuming can get me in trouble? Is attacking a Demon with a silver weapon going to cause me to explode? No, it just... won't be as effective as I thought. Oh no! That would mean... well, since I had to go and silver my weapons I probably didn't have access to magic weapons. So at worst that just means I spent money on an upgrade that doesn't help. How is this bad? I guess I could have spent the money on something else, but it wouldn't have been anything that helped in the fight.



Assuming incorrectly can bite you in the rear.  I wasn't limiting that statement to demons and silver weapons.


Chaosmancer said:


> What counts as a good in-character reason then?



It varies. It could be as simple as something in your background about growing up near the troll moors or an uncle who was a troll hunter.  It's very probable that he would know about troll regeneration and what to do about it.


Chaosmancer said:


> Ah, so you want to cheat. If an ability says that it tells you Vulnerabilities, then it doesn't mean you get to learn their special traits. It means you get to learn their Vulnerabilities. Of which trolls have none.



I'm the DM.  I can't cheat.  If I want to allow the troll's vulnerability to fire and acid to be revealed by a power that informs a PC what a monster's vulnerabilities are, I can.


Chaosmancer said:


> If you want to have an ability that does tell you their special abilities then we are talking about something completely different. I've actually advocated for the Ranger's new Hunter's Lore ability to basically give the player the monster's statblock. Learning AC, HP, special abilities, average damage, Vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities IS actually useful, because that information changes and is useful every fight.



AC, HP and average damage are not in-fiction things for a PC to learn. Those are OOC things.  Special abilities, vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities are.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> None of that makes it make sense.  Arcane spells are not just floating around the ether for bards to pluck out of nothing at their whim.



Actually, their "whim" is precisely how Bards do magic. They make up songs. Their magic is artistic creativity.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Actually, their "whim" is precisely how Bards do magic.



No.  No it's not and it never has been. You're inventing stuff now.  They started off with actual druid and no wizard levels.  Then moved to arcane casters with wizard spells and a spell book in 2e.  Then in 3e were arcane casters that were like sorcerers, but still had a limited selection and the same with 5e. Maybe you're thinking of the Spellsinger series of novels that were not D&D.


Yaarel said:


> They make up songs.



Yes they do.  They just don't make up magical spells on a whim.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> Yes they do.  They just don't make up magical spells on a whim.



2014 Players Handbook: "The Bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

When a Bard speaks or sings, the verse is itself magical.

Making up a new song or a new poem is making up a new magic.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> 2014 Players Handbook: "The Bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."



Yes.  Otherwise known as Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, Countercharm, etc.  You're stretching things so thin with your explanation that the Martian atmosphere is like gelatin in comparison.


Yaarel said:


> When a Bard speaks or sings, the verse is itself magical.
> 
> Making up a new song or a new poem is making up a new magic.



Not in any edition of D&D or in any way that makes sense to just be able to whim up whatever spell they feel like. I sincerely enough D&D fans tell WotC how bad this idea of theirs truly is.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> 2014 Players Handbook: "The Bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."
> 
> When a Bard speaks or sings, the verse is itself magical.
> 
> Making up a new song or a new poem is making up a new magic.



In what way is that reflected mechanically, in any edition?


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> In what way is that reflected mechanically, in any edition?



In 5e, the songs or poems are inherently magical.

The satire of Cutting Words is different each time, depending on who the target of the satire is. Meanwhile Inspiration generally is versatile and impromptu. Each Bard makes up their own songs or poems for it.

I find the requirement of a musical instrument as a Spell Focus to be highly problematic for certain Bard character concepts that lack an instrument. Nevertheless, this too emphasizes how it is the song itself that is the source of magic. It can be any instrument. The instrument itself doesnt matter. It is the artistic creativity of the Bard oneself − the song and speech − that causes the magic to happen.



2014 Players Handbook

"
BARD
SPELLCASTING
You have learned to reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with *your wishes* and music.

"

Bard magic is whim. It depends on the wishes of the Bard. The Bard actualizes ones personal wishes by means of ones personal music and poetry.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> In 5e, the songs or poems are inherently magical.
> 
> The satire of Cutting Words is different each time, depending on who the target of the satire is. Meanwhile Inspiration generally is versatile and impromptu. Each Bard makes up their own songs or poems for it.
> 
> I find the requirement of a musical instrument as a Spell Focus to be highly problematic for certain Bard character concepts that lack an instrument. Nevertheless, this tpo emphasize how it is the song itself that is the source of magic. It can be any instrument. The instrument itself doesnt matter. It is the artistic creativity of the Bard oneself − the song and speech − that causes the magic to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 Players Handbook
> 
> "
> BARD
> SPELLCASTING
> You have learned to reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with *your wishes* and music.
> 
> "
> 
> Bard magic is whim. It depends on the wishes of the Bard. The Bard actualizes ones personal wishes by means of ones personal music and poetry.



If it's based on their whim, why do they have to select their spells ahead of time, either as spells known (in the 5e bard) or prepared for the day (in the proposed 6e bard)?  Wouldn't they just be able to create the effect they want right then, "on a whim" as you say?


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> If it's based on their whim, why do they have to select their spells ahead of time, either as spells known (in the 5e bard) or prepared for the day (in the proposed 6e bard)?  Wouldn't they just be able to create the effect they want right then, "on a whim" as you say?



My impression from the UA is. To change the magic requires a long rest. In other words, the Bard needs to work on a song or poem, to ruminate on it, and to compose it, to make it a perfect self-expression in order to make the breakthru to the magic. Art requires effort, even training and practice, and the Bard does magic by means of this kind self-expression.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm saying it can only matter subjectively, at individual tables.  That's can be very important, but says nothing about the game as a whole or about what's in the books.




And why do we need broken bones to matter in the game as a whole? Is it just the V word? Because that is also something that only matters subjectively, at individual tables. 

And again, how do you propose to handle fighters and barbarians under a system where the more you get attacked, the longer you need to retire your character? The entire playstyle of Barbarians revolves around making themselves a target for enemies to hit with advantage, they are likely to get hit with any crits at the table, and so would suffer these lingering injuries more than any other class. Do barbarians need to be nerfed like that?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> 100%.  I've been in homebrew settings where they don't even exist.  They also didn't exist on Athas.  They might not in fact be common in any particular game.




So, in a setting where they never exist, why would it matter? They don't exist, so you wouldn't fight them.

Also, if a guy comes up to you, why would you suddenly question "Is he resistant to fire? He looks like a normal dude, but I can't possibly know if he is resistant to fire?"



Maxperson said:


> Way to ignore the other three races you lumped in with humans and elves. Very telling that.
> 
> As for common. They too might not even be in any given game.  Or might be exceptionally rare and not a PC race.




Oh sorry, I forgot that I was dealing with you. 

Humans -> The people playing the game and a playable race in the PHB
Elves -> A playable race in the PHB
Goblins -> A playable race, also an insanely common creature throughout all of folklore, myth and fantasy. In basically none of those depictions are they resistant to energy damage. 
Wolves -> A real-life creature, who is not particularly resistant or immune to things like electricity or fire. 
Owlbear -> A creature defined by being the blend of two real life animals, neither of which is particularly known to be fire resistant or able to avoid being electrocuted. 

Now, sure, MAYBE these things are either the single most common fantasy races in the known world, are real life things, or are combos of real life things may not be common in any given game. But, again, you act like this is going to be some grand cheating strategy. But the thing is, people and animals exist in a DnD world, and normal people and normal animals have no resistances, immunities or vulnerabilities. And they would know that.

And this, again, doesn't address that I'm now supposedly metagaming by assuming a baseline of nothing.



Maxperson said:


> Magma is a very thick fluid.  It would seem to me like a mace might just scoop a large swath of the body out and flick it away doing extra damage.




Really? So I'm supposed to assume that because magma is thick my mace can scoop it and deal normal damage? And if I don't assume that, I'm meta-gaming? So, this isn't about "what do my character's know and how do they use that knowledge?" it is "What does Maxperson think is reasonable and how I should act?" 

This is a fundamental problem with calling people out for "meta-gaming" is that at a certain point, you are just calling them out for using different logic than you. And you don't get to police other people's thoughts and conclusions.



Maxperson said:


> So now you're limiting it to undead?




Are Animated Suits of armor undead? Also, it is very telling that instead of addressing the logic, you decide to attack what you perceive to be a moved goalpost.



Maxperson said:


> No.  Nor is every case of assuming something that is true a case of metagaming.  As I said, if it makes sense for the PC to make that assumption, that's fine.  If you have to look for a weak justification, you've walked into metagaming territory.




And none of the justifications have been weak. So why are we having this long multi-stage "I can prove my logic is better than your logic" discussion?



Maxperson said:


> Once per type of monster isn't niche.  Sure, if you could only use it once in your PCs life on one monster, that would be niche.  DMs use many, many different kinds of monsters, though, so even if you don't personally like it, it will be very useful.




Okay, tell me this. Would Hold Monster be useful if it could only be cast on a single type of monster once? You get to hold one demon, ever. One Devil, ever. One Elemental, ever. 

Would this be a good ability? Paralyzation is very powerful after all, and DMs might use many different types of monsters.



Maxperson said:


> You mean that giant wizard?




The one that cast no spell and still called lightning to his hand to throw? Whose eyes blaze with lightning and whose realm is shaped by the storms he calls? 

Yeah, him. Probably won't be effective to shoot him with a lightning bolt. Just a hunch from all the "I control the weather and elemental power", it also helps that they faced a Frost Giant before, so the idea that the giant's can be elementally themed is kind of a given at this point.



Maxperson said:


> So creatures that are from three wildly different planes are like creatures who are all from the same plane?




You mean three neighboring planes whose only difference is alignment? Yeah. Kind of comes from that whole "is a fiend" thing.



Maxperson said:


> Assuming incorrectly can bite you in the rear.  I wasn't limiting that statement to demons and silver weapons.




Such as....? 

Come on, what is the worst that can happen if a player assumes that an enemy is resistant to fire or lightning who isn't actually resistant? Where is the rear biting?



Maxperson said:


> It varies. It could be as simple as something in your background about growing up near the troll moors or an uncle who was a troll hunter.  It's very probable that he would know about troll regeneration and what to do about it.




Which has zero things to do with resistance, vulnerability or immunty. Don't make this about troll regeneration, this has nothing to do with troll regeneration. 

Why is "lives in ice and fires ice from its body" not a good reason to assume it won't be effective to hit it with cold?



Maxperson said:


> I'm the DM.  I can't cheat.  If I want to allow the troll's vulnerability to fire and acid to be revealed by a power that informs a PC what a monster's vulnerabilities are, I can.




Sorry, in this example you aren't the DM, you are a bard player. You can't assume an ability works a certain way for a playtest just because you plan on rewriting the rules. That just leads to a naughty word playtest.



Maxperson said:


> AC, HP and average damage are not in-fiction things for a PC to learn. Those are OOC things.  Special abilities, vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities are.




They are absolutely in-fiction things, and also... who cares? Why does my game mechanic need to be limited to only learning about Maxperson's approved list of game mechanics instead of learning about any game mechanics we want?


----------



## Mephista

Mistwell said:


> In my view, this subclass gets TWO abilities which are on-theme. They are: Bonus Proficiencies (3rd level - but many other things get this), and Peerless Skill (14th level - too late for most bard players to care



Fun thought - those bonus skills? Arcane, Nature, Religion?  They just so happen to correspond to the three spell lists - arcane, primal, divine.  I don't think that's a cooincidence. So, we do start off with some connection to magic here.


Chaosmancer said:


> Is it metagaming to know that Demons are immune to poison and weak to silver, and then assume the same thing is true about Devils and Yugoloths?



Demons are weak to iron, like fae. In fact, given the presence of Lolth in the Abyss, you can think of many demons as evil fae, and thus weak to iron.  Easy way to remember the difference.

That said....  how do you know you're dealing with a devil versus a demon?  Like there's several different ape-like monsters in D&D.  How do you tell if its just a beast, a monstrocity, a devil or something else? Balors are giant fire weilding demons, no? But fire is generally a devil thing. It should be easy to confuse them, especially if they're not in their cliche'd appearance.  Is the snake monster you are facing a maralith, a liliend or a yuan-ti? Really buff grunge with a grudge or a slaad?


Yaarel said:


> Bard magic is whim. It depends on the wishes of the Bard. The Bard actualizes ones personal wishes by means of ones personal music and poetry.



As far as I'm aware, bard spells come from knowing Words of Creation. And likely stringing them together in sentences and the like. Not wish granting.
"Bards believe that the creators of the multiverse spoke and signed it into existence and that remnants of those Words of Creation still resound and glimmer on every planeof existence.The magic of Bards is an attempt to harness those words—which transcend any language—and direct them to create new wonders."


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> None of that makes it make sense.  Arcane spells are not just floating around the ether for bards to pluck out of nothing at their whim.



Sure they are.

There's no reason to believe they're not. It can't possible be an accident that people all cast identical Magic Missiles and so on.

Your argument might have made sense in 1E/2E, where magic was treated very differently, and essentially every arcane spell was unique, indeed, it wasn't uncommon to see adventures or the like where a spellbook had a different version of a common spell, but that hasn't been the case for 20+ years.


Chaosmancer said:


> And again, how do you propose to handle fighters and barbarians under a system where the more you get attacked, the longer you need to retire your character? The entire playstyle of Barbarians revolves around making themselves a target for enemies to hit with advantage, they are likely to get hit with any crits at the table, and so would suffer these lingering injuries more than any other class. Do barbarians need to be nerfed like that?



@Micah Sweet - This is a really serious issue that needs to be addressed when considering any kind of "injury"-type system, and which typically, people completely ignore, especially people making house rules.

Some classes are specifically designed to get hit/damaged more than others. Those classes correspond, unfortunately, with some of the classes who have the least power to impact the game outside combat, and also who have some of the most selfless roles, because they're already in a position where they're essentially taking risks to protect the casters and the like.

If you introduce an injury-type system, especially one with permanent or longer-term injuries, you're taking these characters and making them significantly weaker and also meaning that they will burn out sooner and so on.

Now, that might make sense in some kinds of game, particularly dark fantasy-type ones. But in that sort of fiction, casting spell also extracts a terrible toll, and this is what tends to get swept under the rug. So we end up with deeply unbalanced sets of changes that make life much harder for front-line warriors in the name of "verisimilitude", but "verisimilitude" is suddenly nowhere to be found when the consequences of spellcasting come calling.

Equally, with the "Yoyo" issue (which I agree is a real issue), if we just slam level after level of Exhaustion onto the people getting yoyo'd, we're not really addressing the problem. In general, those PCs are trying to stay alive. Being the yoyo is not very comfortable or fun. They're usually getting downed because they're out front protecting other, more vulnerable PCs from getting downed. But as long as the people at the back are fine, they're not really going to care that the Fighter out front now has a -3 to everything on anything but a vague intellectual level. Not sure what the solution is, but it's very obvious it's not punishing the frontliners alone.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> And why do we need broken bones to matter in the game as a whole? Is it just the V word? Because that is also something that only matters subjectively, at individual tables.
> 
> And again, how do you propose to handle fighters and barbarians under a system where the more you get attacked, the longer you need to retire your character? The entire playstyle of Barbarians revolves around making themselves a target for enemies to hit with advantage, they are likely to get hit with any crits at the table, and so would suffer these lingering injuries more than any other class. Do barbarians need to be nerfed like that?



It is mostly the V word, which matters to me, subjectively, at my own table, so I think we're on the same page in principle here.

As for the barbarian, they are an excellent candidate for a class feature that would make them more resistant to lingering injuries (but not immune), for the reasons you described.  Whenever you add a subsystem, you have to think about how it interacts with different rules and different characters.  I'm sure that could be worked out.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure they are.
> 
> There's no reason to believe they're not. It can't possible be an accident that people all cast identical Magic Missiles and so on.
> 
> Your argument might have made sense in 1E/2E, where magic was treated very differently, and essentially every arcane spell was unique, indeed, it wasn't uncommon to see adventures or the like where a spellbook had a different version of a common spell, but that hasn't been the case for 20+ years.
> 
> @Micah Sweet - This is a really serious issue that needs to be addressed when considering any kind of "injury"-type system, and which typically, people completely ignore, especially people making house rules.
> 
> Some classes are specifically designed to get hit/damaged more than others. Those classes correspond, unfortunately, with some of the classes who have the least power to impact the game outside combat, and also who have some of the most selfless roles, because they're already in a position where they're essentially taking risks to protect the casters and the like.
> 
> If you introduce an injury-type system, especially one with permanent or longer-term injuries, you're taking these characters and making them significantly weaker and also meaning that they will burn out sooner and so on.
> 
> Now, that might make sense in some kinds of game, particularly dark fantasy-type ones. But in that sort of fiction, casting spell also extracts a terrible toll, and this is what tends to get swept under the rug. So we end up with deeply unbalanced sets of changes that make life much harder for front-line warriors in the name of "verisimilitude", but "verisimilitude" is suddenly nowhere to be found when the consequences of spellcasting come calling.
> 
> Equally, with the "Yoyo" issue (which I agree is a real issue), if we just slam level after level of Exhaustion onto the people getting yoyo'd, we're not really addressing the problem. In general, those PCs are trying to stay alive. Being the yoyo is not very comfortable or fun. They're usually getting downed because they're out front protecting other, more vulnerable PCs from getting downed. But as long as the people at the back are fine, they're not really going to care that the Fighter out front now has a -3 to everything on anything but a vague intellectual level. Not sure what the solution is, but it's very obvious it's not punishing the frontliners alone.



Excellent point.  I believe in, and have stated more than once, the idea that spellcasting should be more difficult and dangerous.  To look at another way, I agree that every PC should be screwed over equally.  Those are big changes (both of them), and I wouldn't institute one without the other.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So, in a setting where they never exist, why would it matter? They don't exist, so you wouldn't fight them.



You did get that I originally said "in a setting where they are rare" right?  Settings can make them common, uncommon, rare, very rare, unique or gone entirely.


Chaosmancer said:


> Goblins -> A playable race, also an insanely common creature throughout all of folklore, myth and fantasy. In basically none of those depictions are they resistant to energy damage.
> Wolves -> A real-life creature, who is not particularly resistant or immune to things like electricity or fire.
> Owlbear -> A creature defined by being the blend of two real life animals, neither of which is particularly known to be fire resistant or able to avoid being electrocuted.



Goblins are only a playable race if the DM allows it, and are only common in settings where the DM determines that they are common.  This includes official settings like the Forgotten Realms where the DM has changed goblins to be rare.

Winter Wolves who are immune to cold exist, so why not a fire version?

Owlbears were created by magic.  Who knows what magic might have done to them?


Chaosmancer said:


> So, this isn't about "what do my character's know and how do they use that knowledge?"



It is entirely about what your characters know.


Chaosmancer said:


> This is a fundamental problem with calling people out for "meta-gaming" is that at a certain point, you are just calling them out for using different logic than you. And you don't get to police other people's thoughts and conclusions.



That's false.  It isn't about different logic and is entirely about what their characters know.


Chaosmancer said:


> Are Animated Suits of armor undead? Also, it is very telling that instead of addressing the logic, you decide to attack what you perceive to be a moved goalpost.



There's no reason to think that animated armor would be resistant to weapons.  PCs wearing armor do not gain resistance when enemies hit their armor, so why would walking armor be any different.  Undead created through negative energy(necrotic) are opposite to positive energy(radiant).  That was a shifted goal post.


Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, tell me this. Would Hold Monster be useful if it could only be cast on a single type of monster once? You get to hold one demon, ever. One Devil, ever. One Elemental, ever.



No.  It's a good thing for me that's a false equivalence.  Demons have a variety of resistances and immunities.  They are not all resistant to exactly the same things.  Same with devils.  Not sure about elementals, but after the first two I'm not going to look and see.

The ability proposed would continue to be useful against demons, devils, etc.


Chaosmancer said:


> The one that cast no spell and still called lightning to his hand to throw? Whose eyes blaze with lightning and whose realm is shaped by the storms he calls?



How do you know he cast no spell? Not all spells use components. And I can flavor my wizard PC to have his eyes blaze with lightning when I cast electrical spells.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, him. Probably won't be effective to shoot him with a lightning bolt. Just a hunch from all the "I control the weather and elemental power", it also helps that they faced a Frost Giant before, so the idea that the giant's can be elementally themed is kind of a given at this point.



And they have wizards, clerics and such, so you've encountered those, too.  


Chaosmancer said:


> You mean three neighboring planes whose only difference is alignment?



That's an objectively false statement. Alignment is not the only difference between those planes.


Chaosmancer said:


> Come on, what is the worst that can happen if a player assumes that an enemy is resistant to fire or lightning who isn't actually resistant? Where is the rear biting?



So you assume that the creature is immune to fire and use lightning, which is what it really is immune to.  You've wasted a spell, done no damage for the round, and could end up dead because of it.  In a tough fight one round of doing no damage could mean all the difference.

Assumption can bite you in the rear.  Not will.  Can.


Chaosmancer said:


> Which has zero things to do with resistance, vulnerability or immunty. Don't make this about troll regeneration, this has nothing to do with troll regeneration.



I'm not sure why it's so important for you to make a troll's vulnerability to fire and acid not a vulnerability.  It's not the same kind of vulnerability as taking extra damage, but when you can come back from anything, including death unless fire or acid are used, those are vulnerabilities.


Chaosmancer said:


> Why is "lives in ice and fires ice from its body" not a good reason to assume it won't be effective to hit it with cold?



Because half damage can still be effective. I was talking about assuming immunity. You don't know whether something that uses cold and/or lives in the cold is immune or not.  Resistance is just as likely an option.


Chaosmancer said:


> They are absolutely in-fiction things, and also... who cares?



So you walk into a bar and ask the paladin what his armor class is?  No. You don't, because while armor and being harder to hit/damage are things in the fiction, armor class numbers are not. Hit point numbers are also not a thing in the fiction.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no reason to believe they're not. It can't possible be an accident that people all cast identical Magic Missiles and so on.



Sure there is. It's the fact that wizard cannot just pluck spells out of the air and write them all in their books to memorize. No arcane caster can do it or has ever been able to do it.

There's no good reason to think that just because bards can play a musical instrument(the only real difference between bards and sorcerers with their spells), that they can just pluck any spell they feel like out of the ether to be able to cast that day.  Hell, there's no good reason to think that they've even heard of every spell.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> No arcane caster can do it or has ever been able to do it.



Yeah they can.

Wizards get two spells of their choice per level and have done since 3E. There's no requirement those spells come from like, the Wizard's correspondence course or something.

Bards and Sorcerers pull magic from entirely different sources to Wizards, but cast exactly the same spells. That actually hard-proves you're wrong. If arcane spells weren't "floating around the ether", a Sorcerer wouldn't cast Magic Missile, he'd fire an energy blast like a Pathfinder Kineticist or something. You can't even argue with that.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah they can.
> 
> Wizards get two spells of their choice per level and have done since 3E. There's no requirement those spells come from like, the Wizard's correspondence course or something.



Those spells represent study, learning and practice.  Not suddenly having the spells flash into their mind because hey, why not!  The entire premise of wizards is that they have to study and practice to use their magic.  Sorcerers were the ones who gained magic intuitively.  To give that ability to wizards is to go against the RAI for wizards that has existed in every edition of the game.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Bards and Sorcerers pull magic from entirely different sources to Wizards, but cast exactly the same spells. That actually hard-proves you're wrong. If arcane spells weren't "floating around the ether", a Sorcerer wouldn't cast Magic Missile, he'd fire an energy blast like a Pathfinder Kineticist or something. You can't even argue with that.



It actually proves me right.  You're looking at that one backwards.  It's not sorcerers who pull out wizard spells.  It's wizards who have to study hard, learn spells and practice to be able to cast the spells that sorcerers can learn intuitively.  Bards are not only not sorcerers, but they are not better sorcerers than sorcerers are, which is what this ability would make them.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure they are.
> 
> There's no reason to believe they're not. It can't possible be an accident that people all cast identical Magic Missiles and so on.
> 
> Your argument might have made sense in 1E/2E, where magic was treated very differently, and essentially every arcane spell was unique, indeed, it wasn't uncommon to see adventures or the like where a spellbook had a different version of a common spell, but that hasn't been the case for 20+ years.



I have no dog in this fight


Ruin Explorer said:


> @Micah Sweet - This is a really serious issue that needs to be addressed when considering any kind of "injury"-type system, and which typically, people completely ignore, especially people making house rules.
> 
> Some classes are specifically designed to get hit/damaged more than others. Those classes correspond, unfortunately, with some of the classes who have the least power to impact the game outside combat, and also who have some of the most selfless roles, because they're already in a position where they're essentially taking risks to protect the casters and the like.



This is a very good point


Ruin Explorer said:


> If you introduce an injury-type system, especially one with permanent or longer-term injuries, you're taking these characters and making them significantly weaker and also meaning that they will burn out sooner and so on.
> 
> Now, that might make sense in some kinds of game, particularly dark fantasy-type ones. But in that sort of fiction, casting spell also extracts a terrible toll, and this is what tends to get swept under the rug. So we end up with deeply unbalanced sets of changes that make life much harder for front-line warriors in the name of "verisimilitude", but "verisimilitude" is suddenly nowhere to be found when the consequences of spellcasting come calling.



Dark and gritty, in my opinion is fighting against the tide of modern D&D. There are other games that do this better, including I believe, modern D& variants but I cannot comment because it is not my jam. When I liked that kind of play I used Warhammer FRPG first edition.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Equally, with the "Yoyo" issue (which I agree is a real issue), if we just slam level after level of Exhaustion onto the people getting yoyo'd, we're not really addressing the problem. In general, those PCs are trying to stay alive. Being the yoyo is not very comfortable or fun. They're usually getting downed because they're out front protecting other, more vulnerable PCs from getting downed. But as long as the people at the back are fine, they're not really going to care that the Fighter out front now has a -3 to everything on anything but a vague intellectual level. Not sure what the solution is, but it's very obvious it's not punishing the frontliners alone.



The issue here is the action economy of healing. No amount of punishing the front-line characters for falling unconscious will change that. Well, that and typically small parties. Spending an action on healing that cannot keep up with the incoming damage is not efficient compared to letting the fighter drop but preserving the fighter's actions by popping them back up again with a bonus action heal. 
This was really brought home to me, watching Critical Role Vox Machina where the players made strong efforts to keep party members on their feet for narrative purposes but usually failed and the healers would have been better off doing damage. It was especially noticeable in the fights where the ranger and the druid were the principal healers. 

This is not a trivial problem to solve because if you increase in combat healing then the combat is robbed of tension, or the DM will jack up the enemies to overcome the healing function to maintain tension. Some of this is intrinsic to the armour class, hit points model of D&D. 

You can change the paradigm by introducing sudden death mechanics, but D&D has moved away from that for a reason.


----------



## Zaukrie

Yaarel said:


> There are many Bard concepts that dont use a musical instrument. The Bard even mentions relying on "verse" and "dance".
> 
> I find it highly problematic that the Bard Spellcasting Focus insists on the use of a Musical Instrument.
> 
> There must be a way to rely on voice only. (Or somatic only if via dance.)



Agreed on this for sure. 100%.


----------



## Zaukrie

Ruin Explorer said:


> I honestly think WotC need to rethink components entirely. They're so dumb and outdated - WotC are so unnecessarily married to V/S/M. If they were willing to ditch them and not look back for the right classes, there's so much more they could do with the spell system. Bards should be V components only unless it's CASH MONEY YO. If you want Psionicists to work with D&D spells, make them S components only and able to suppress that. Make Rangers M components only and suddenly their spells look a bit less irritating. And so on.
> 
> And they're another thing almost no-one tracks (again, c.f. podcasts/streams if anyone is going to say "BUT MUH HOMEGAME!").



100% this!


----------



## Zaukrie

renbot said:


> Sorry if this is a bit tangential but...
> 
> I'm not a fan. But then I don't see how I could have been given that 1D&D "isn't a new edition" and "will be 100% backwards compatible." Bard is my favorite class to play, but whenever I'm playing one I wish I had fewer spells and more cool bard stuff. Of course I cast the spells because the party needs me to, but spells just feel kinda basic compared to cutting words or mantle of inspiration or blade flourish,
> 
> The new bardic inspiration is simple and powerful and makes sense. The flip side of that is that any other uses for BI will have to be awesome to compete. Add to that the fact that you are limited to 2 uses per day for 4 levels, 3 per day for another couple levels, and then finally a handful of uses per SR after 7 levels (the halfway point of many games) makes me sad.
> 
> But again, they weren't going to overhaul the Bard to be warlock-esque or a half-caster so I was fated to be disappointed.
> 
> Apologies again for the topic-adjacent-ish post.



I agree. This is my main issue with the College of Lore. Its abilities have nothing to do with lore, and don't reflect the words of creation at all. I hate the disconnect between the lore of this and the execution of it.

Less spells, more cool powers. What happened to countercharm (which should be a reaction)? I posted this in the general thread about expertise classes and the RANGER discussion there....but more stuff that is "magical" but not spells. Counterspell. Inspiration. Temp hit points. For the college of lore, more knowledge. More use of a word of power (not sure what those should be yet). 

I play (ed) a bard to a pretty high level recently, and at those levels I was just another spellcaster.


----------



## Arilyn

Zaukrie said:


> I agree. This is my main issue with the College of Lore. Its abilities have nothing to do with lore, and don't reflect the words of creation at all. I hate the disconnect between the lore of this and the execution of it.
> 
> Less spells, more cool powers. What happened to countercharm (which should be a reaction)? I posted this in the general thread about expertise classes and the RANGER discussion there....but more stuff that is "magical" but not spells. Counterspell. Inspiration. Temp hit points. For the college of lore, more knowledge. More use of a word of power (not sure what those should be yet).
> 
> I play (ed) a bard to a pretty high level recently, and at those levels I was just another spellcaster.



I agree with this completely. I'd love to have a bard with no spells, but supernatural songs that have unique effects. If they are plucking on the universal strings if creation, the magic should be distinct. 

I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark). 

I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy. 

The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save. 

Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mephista said:


> Demons are weak to iron, like fae. In fact, given the presence of Lolth in the Abyss, you can think of many demons as evil fae, and thus weak to iron.  Easy way to remember the difference.




Demons and Fae are not actually weak to iron in DnD. Just making sure that this isn't a misunderstanding.



Mephista said:


> That said....  how do you know you're dealing with a devil versus a demon?  Like there's several different ape-like monsters in D&D.  How do you tell if its just a beast, a monstrocity, a devil or something else? Balors are giant fire weilding demons, no? But fire is generally a devil thing. It should be easy to confuse them, especially if they're not in their cliche'd appearance.  Is the snake monster you are facing a maralith, a liliend or a yuan-ti? Really buff grunge with a grudge or a slaad?




Well, honestly, because most of the time the DM says "The Demon pounces through the door" when it is a demon. So, since they are telling me I don't need to guess. 

Also, while there are multiple different ape monsters, few of them are red and blue, which are not common colors for fur and flesh. Additionally, they can't cast spells. So, if I have a big red monkey chanting spells at me, chances are it isn't a common ape. They also tend to be surrounded by cultists, wearing the symbol of their patron. So, even if the big red monkey isn't casting spells, if it is a big red monkey in a room festooned with the symbols of Baphomet, Demon Lord of Beasts, chances are it isn't a normal monkey, and chances are that it isn't a devil. 

Fire can be demon or devil. Yugoloths use it too. Frankly, the only thing that doesn't use fire are celestials, which really should, because Fire has been divine for far far far longer than it has been seen as a force of wild and evil destruction. 

But let's cut to the chase, most times when you are fighting something above CR 7, the DM has prepped you for it. The DM doesn't just say "and a snake woman bursts out of the closet to attack you." A Marilith is a CR 16 general of demonic armies. She's surrounded by demons, and likely you are looking to stop her, not just stumbling over her with no idea what or who she is. Unless your DM is completely wasting their potential. Yes, information is valuable, but generally the DM is telling you the important stuff, like what the quest is.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> It is mostly the V word, which matters to me, subjectively, at my own table, so I think we're on the same page in principle here.
> 
> As for the barbarian, they are an excellent candidate for a class feature that would make them more resistant to lingering injuries (but not immune), for the reasons you described.  Whenever you add a subsystem, you have to think about how it interacts with different rules and different characters.  I'm sure that could be worked out.




Sure, you could make it work. 

You could make Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and all sorts of other frontliners "resistant" to the new penalities you are dishing out, but I just don't see the point of designing a system that will either be dreaded by the players or come up so rarely that you don't even notice it. 

If I want particularly nasty injuries for a fight, I'll make the monster special, but I don't see anything I want to deal with in making a general system. I've been on the other side of it, and it sucks.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> You did get that I originally said "in a setting where they are rare" right?  Settings can make them common, uncommon, rare, very rare, unique or gone entirely.




And if they are rare... they are still potentially a playable race. They would still be, for OD&D, in the player's handbook. 

And still, they are just people. Normal humanoids. Why would I go into battle with an orc and assume they are resistant to acid damage? They are just people.



Maxperson said:


> Goblins are only a playable race if the DM allows it, and are only common in settings where the DM determines that they are common.  This includes official settings like the Forgotten Realms where the DM has changed goblins to be rare.




And still doesn't explain why I must assume they are resistant to fire. Why can't I assume they have no vulnerabilities? Why is assuming the baseline metagaming? Just because you don't like it?



Maxperson said:


> Winter Wolves who are immune to cold exist, so why not a fire version?




Then, just like Winter Wolves aren't Wolves (they are two different things) these would be Fire Wolves. And, yeah, I'd assume wolves with embers falling from their fur and breathing fire are immune to fire. Why is this a bad thing?



Maxperson said:


> Owlbears were created by magic.  Who knows what magic might have done to them?




It could have... combined an owl and a bear, neither of which are resistant to fire. Are you saying that I should be forced to roll some sort of arcana check before I cast a fire spell, because my character would of course choose to use their action trying to figure out if a normal looking animal (because while they are monstrisities created by magic, they are also common forest dwellers) is immune to fire first? 

Again, why is my assumption of null a problem? Why is it so hard to believe that DMs how constantly claim they foreshadow traps will foreshadow things like monsters being immune to fire.



Maxperson said:


> It is entirely about what your characters know.




Well, my character knows that smashing a fluid with a mace isn't effective, so they can figure out that smashing a magmin with a mace isn't effective. Entirely in-character.



Maxperson said:


> That's false.  It isn't about different logic and is entirely about what their characters know.




And every time I've presented what the characters know, you swoop in and say "But what if they are wrong? What if it isn't that? What if magma can be SCOOPED!" 

This isn't about what my character's can justify, this is you harping on about how I'm a terrible metagamer, because I don't waste time wondering if creatures made of flame are immune to fire. 



Maxperson said:


> There's no reason to think that animated armor would be resistant to weapons.  PCs wearing armor do not gain resistance when enemies hit their armor, so why would walking armor be any different.  Undead created through negative energy(necrotic) are opposite to positive energy(radiant).  That was a shifted goal post.




So... poison not working on animated armor is a goal shift because weapons will? Well, someone is certainly shifting goal posts to go from discussing poison to discussing weapons. Also, animated armor ISN'T resistant to weapons, FYI. 

And undead being created from negative energy which is opposed to radiant energy... also has nothing to do with poison. Second goalpost shifted. Are you trying to make a triangle?



Maxperson said:


> No.  It's a good thing for me that's a false equivalence.  Demons have a variety of resistances and immunities.  They are not all resistant to exactly the same things.  Same with devils.  Not sure about elementals, but after the first two I'm not going to look and see.
> 
> The ability proposed would continue to be useful against demons, devils, etc.




Hey, it's the triangle! 

Because, no, they don't. See, now I'm going to ACTUALLY meta-game and read the Demon statblocks. Tell me if you notice something

Balor: Resistant - cold, lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - fire, poison
Barlgure: Resistant - Cold, fire, lighting. Immune - Poison
Chasme - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Dretch - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning Immune - Poison
Glabrezu - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Goristro - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Hezrou - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Mane - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Marilith - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Nalfeshnee - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Quasit - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
Shadow Demon - Resistant - Acid, Fire, Necrotic, Thunder, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison, Cold, Lightning. Vulnerable - Radiant 
Vrock - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
Yochlol - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison

Now, I'm sure you've noticed how these are... basically identical? The only difference is whether or not they are strong enough to be resistant to mundane weapons. And, I know, you are about to pee yourself with excitement, because fool that I am, how could I not notice the Shadow Demon? Doesn't that disprove my entire point, this single monster? 

Actually no. Because Shadow demons are incorporeal. And incorporeal foes share a lot of those same exact traits. So, you just need to know that it is an incorporeal demon... which is kind of in the description? So, after the first time you fight a Mane or a Dretch, you basically know all the resistance and immunities of every demon. 

So, once you have used your Hunter's Lore, or Lore Bard's Lore on the dretch, what do you gain by using it on the Glabrezu? Literally only that the more powerful demon is resistant to nonmagical weapons, which is only useful if you HAVE magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, it is useless information. 

So, no, it isn't a false equivalence. Once you learn what one demon's R's, V's and I's are, you basically know all of them. Because they are standardized.




Maxperson said:


> How do you know he cast no spell? Not all spells use components. And I can flavor my wizard PC to have his eyes blaze with lightning when I cast electrical spells.




Every spell uses at least one components. Verbal is the most common, and I can't think of a single evocation spell that doesn't use it. And you are sure welcome to have your wizard do that, but since your wizard isn't a giant with an elemental theme, it probably won't lead to the same conclusion. You can't just scream "but he might be a wizard!" and expect me to ignore what giant's are, and how they work, ESPECIALLY when you brought up frost giants in comparison. So, I've encountered elementally themed giants once before. Why would I suddenly act like I have no idea what I'm seeing here? Why do you insist my character must be too stupid to use basic logic? 




Maxperson said:


> That's an objectively false statement. Alignment is not the only difference between those planes.




For someone who isn't metagaming? There is no other difference.



Maxperson said:


> So you assume that the creature is immune to fire and use lightning, which is what it really is immune to.  You've wasted a spell, done no damage for the round, and could end up dead because of it.  In a tough fight one round of doing no damage could mean all the difference.
> 
> Assumption can bite you in the rear.  Not will.  Can.




Well, if I ever encounter a creature made of fire that is actually not resistant or immune to fire, but immune to lightning, I'll be sure to send you a PM and tell you how right you are. 

However, in the world where DMs aren't purposefully making gotcha monsters to punish players who use logic, that is never going to happen.



Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure why it's so important for you to make a troll's vulnerability to fire and acid not a vulnerability.  It's not the same kind of vulnerability as taking extra damage, but when you can come back from anything, including death unless fire or acid are used, those are vulnerabilities.




Because it isn't a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities are called "Vulnerabilities". The troll ability is under "special abilities" and called "regeneration" 

You want to talk about things that bite you in the rear? Writing rules and assuming people won't follow the RAW. That WILL bite you in the rear, consistently, because DMs are far more likely to follow RAW than whatever psychic signal you were trying to send them. Right the rules for the ability you want, if you want them to know a monster's special abilities, put it in the rules. Don't just assume it is obvious and of course everyone will agree with you.



Maxperson said:


> Because half damage can still be effective. I was talking about assuming immunity. You don't know whether something that uses cold and/or lives in the cold is immune or not.  Resistance is just as likely an option.




Uh huh. So, if I have a choice between dealing half damage, and dealing full damage by not gambling on that... why in the world would I choose the half damage? Also, what you were talking about seems to not be what I was talking about. You have this bad habit of shifting the goalposts mid-stream without telling anyone you are doing it.



Maxperson said:


> So you walk into a bar and ask the paladin what his armor class is?  No. You don't, because while armor and being harder to hit/damage are things in the fiction, armor class numbers are not. Hit point numbers are also not a thing in the fiction.




Why in the world would I ask? If he is wearing full plate is armor is 18. That information is right there in the PHB. It isn't metagaming to know what AC's armors give. If it were, then when the player is trying to buy better armor, the DM would just not tell them what the armor does and make them guess. Maybe they would even hide their AC from the player. 

But that doesn't happen. Because AC is not a metagame construct. It is something the player is fully allowed to know, in world.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Arilyn said:


> I agree with this completely. I'd love to have a bard with no spells, but supernatural songs that have unique effects. If they are plucking on the universal strings if creation, the magic should be distinct.
> 
> I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark).
> 
> I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy.
> 
> The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save.
> 
> Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.




Why shouldn't it? I could trivially do the same thing with a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid... if you build a background and take feats to get a specific flavor, then ignore the things that give you a different flavor, then you are going to end up with the same result. 

Also, well.... this is the same bard, you realize that right? 

Take out your PHB and look. Other than songs of rest and the lose of countercharm, these are all identical abilities in most respects. Lore bard only lost access to +2 spells, and they gained more stuff to work with inspiration and cutting words, they actually became MORE bardic. 

It isn't like 5e bards had some massive array of song abilities that they removed. This is basically what the Bard has always been.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> And still doesn't explain why I must assume they are resistant to fire. Why can't I assume they have no vulnerabilities? Why is assuming the baseline metagaming? Just because you don't like it?



People don't have to assume any resistances or vulnerabilities. If you want to assume they have none, go for it.


Chaosmancer said:


> Then, just like Winter Wolves aren't Wolves (they are two different things) these would be Fire Wolves. And, yeah, I'd assume wolves with embers falling from their fur and breathing fire are immune to fire. Why is this a bad thing?



They are wolves.  Wolves come in varieties.  


Chaosmancer said:


> See, now I'm going to ACTUALLY meta-game and read the Demon statblocks. Tell me if you notice something



I do!


Chaosmancer said:


> Balor: Resistant - cold, lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - fire, poison
> Barlgure: Resistant - Cold, fire, lighting. Immune - Poison
> Chasme - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
> Dretch - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning Immune - Poison
> Glabrezu - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Goristro - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Hezrou - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Mane - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
> Marilith - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Nalfeshnee - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Quasit - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning. Immune - Poison
> Shadow Demon - Resistant - Acid, Fire, Necrotic, Thunder, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison, Cold, Lightning. Vulnerable - Radiant
> Vrock - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison
> Yochlol - Resistant - Cold, Fire, Lightning, nonmagical weapon damage. Immune - Poison



What I notice is that Balors are not the same as Barlguras, which are not the same as Glabrezu, which are not the same as Chasme, and so on.  
Because there are differences, your PC would be using that power on every single type of demon to see if maybe this one was also immune to fire or resistant to nonmagic weapons.  


Chaosmancer said:


> Now, I'm sure you've noticed how these are... basically identical? The only difference is whether or not they are strong enough to be resistant to mundane weapons. And, I know, you are about to pee yourself with excitement, because fool that I am, how could I not notice the Shadow Demon? Doesn't that disprove my entire point, this single monster?



Basically = not.  I don't even care about the shadow demon, because the others have differences which would be found out by the ability.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, once you have used your Hunter's Lore, or Lore Bard's Lore on the dretch, what do you gain by using it on the Glabrezu? Literally only that the more powerful demon is resistant to nonmagical weapons, which is only useful if you HAVE magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, it is useless information.



Yes, other than learning that you need magic weapons to do full damage, it's useless information.  Except that's not at all useless information.


Chaosmancer said:


> Every spell uses at least one components. Verbal is the most common, and I can't think of a single evocation spell that doesn't use it. And you are sure welcome to have your wizard do that, but since your wizard isn't a giant with an elemental theme, it probably won't lead to the same conclusion. You can't just scream "but he might be a wizard!" and expect me to ignore what giant's are, and how they work, ESPECIALLY when you brought up frost giants in comparison. So, I've encountered elementally themed giants once before. Why would I suddenly act like I have no idea what I'm seeing here? Why do you insist my character must be too stupid to use basic logic?



Any creature with psionic magic, which can include giants, dragons or whatever, don't use components for their spells.  Then there's subtle spell for giant sorcerers.  Good luck seeing a tiny bit of fur and a glass rod that's the size of a giant's pinky enclosed in its fist.


Chaosmancer said:


> However, in the world where DMs aren't purposefully making gotcha monsters to punish players who use logic, that is never going to happen.



So now DMs can't make unique monsters without it being a gotcha?  We have to use book monsters so that you can have read about them in advance?


Chaosmancer said:


> Because it isn't a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities are called "Vulnerabilities". The troll ability is under "special abilities" and called "regeneration"



It absolutely is a vulnerability, but it's not a Vulnerability.  It's like the fact that the DM is a player, but he's not a Player(he's the DM).


Chaosmancer said:


> Why in the world would I ask? If he is wearing full plate is armor is *18.*



PCs don't know that.


Chaosmancer said:


> That information is right there in the PHB. It isn't metagaming to know what AC's armors give.



I never said it was.  It's not something that a PC can find out, so PC abilities should not give that information.  PCs can only find out in-fiction things, which AC and hit point numbers are not.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because AC is not a metagame construct. It is something the player is fully allowed to know, in world.



The player is not in world.  The PLAYER knows that plat mail is AC 18 and chain mail is 16, the PC doesn't know those numbers at all.  Because in the world all the PC knows is that plate protects better than chain.

AC is entirely metagame.  Armor is not.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, you could make it work.
> 
> You could make Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and all sorts of other frontliners "resistant" to the new penalities you are dishing out, but I just don't see the point of designing a system that will either be dreaded by the players or come up so rarely that you don't even notice it.
> 
> If I want particularly nasty injuries for a fight, I'll make the monster special, but I don't see anything I want to deal with in making a general system. I've been on the other side of it, and it sucks.



The vast majority of houserules act on PCs negatively.  I don't see that as a reason in and of itself to not use them.

I've been on the other side of it too, and didn't mind it, so that cancels out.

And barbarians, by virtue of their class's story, might warrant an except to these hypothetical injury rules, but I don't think any other PH class does.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> People don't have to assume any resistances or vulnerabilities. If you want to assume they have none, go for it.




Really, because for the last three posts you have fought tooth and nail about how I must be metagaming, if I was in a game where orcs were rare. Now it is "assume what you want".



Maxperson said:


> They are wolves.  Wolves come in varieties.




No. Wolves come in one form. Wolves. 

If you want different monsters, you use different statblocks, like Dire Wolves (which aren't just called wolves) or Winter Wolves, or Flame Wolves, or whatever else. When I said wolf, I meant wolf. Not anything else. Remember, we are talking about a game here, terms are defined.



Maxperson said:


> I do!
> 
> What I notice is that Balors are not the same as Barlguras, which are not the same as Glabrezu, which are not the same as Chasme, and so on.
> Because there are differences, your PC would be using that power on every single type of demon to see if maybe this one was also immune to fire or resistant to nonmagic weapons.




Balgura are the same as Chasme. Glabrezu are the same as Balors, except that the one is immune to fire. The one immune to fire by the way, is the one holding a flaming whip and with an aura of fire around it. I wonder how I could possibly tell that it might be more than resistant to flame, with it being constantly on fire. I must be forced to use magic! 

Also, you are ignoring CR. You wouldn't typically fight a Balor before you fight a Chasme.



Maxperson said:


> Basically = not.  I don't even care about the shadow demon, because the others have differences which would be found out by the ability.
> 
> Yes, other than learning that you need magic weapons to do full damage, it's useless information.  Except that's not at all useless information.




And how is the magic weapon information useful if you don't have magical weapons? 

This is one of the things that makes this worse than the theorycraft. Because finding out the enemy is resistant to non-magical weapons, like I said and you ignored, is useless information unless you specifically have magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, you will be using the same weapons regardless of the information. 

If information cannot lead to a tactical change in the current fight, it is useless information in the current fight.



Maxperson said:


> Any creature with psionic magic, which can include giants, dragons or whatever, don't use components for their spells.  Then there's subtle spell for giant sorcerers.  Good luck seeing a tiny bit of fur and a glass rod that's the size of a giant's pinky enclosed in its fist.




"can include" 

So, now, to avoid metagaming, I have to consider that this STORM giant, isn't actually intrinsically tied to storms, but might instead be a psionic sorcerer using subtle spell to just APPEAR like he is intrinsically tied to storms... So, how does my character know about psionics or subtle spell? Those aren't metagaming according to you, but thinking that a *STORM *giant might be elementally tied to *STORMS *is. So, do all characters just come pre-loaded with all knowledge of all casting styles, that they must consider as viable alternatives to any possible elemental resistance?



Maxperson said:


> So now DMs can't make unique monsters without it being a gotcha?  We have to use book monsters so that you can have read about them in advance?




Make unique monsters? Sure, that's fine. 

Make unique monsters explicitly to evoke an elemental immunity, but actually have the creature immune to a completely different element, with the sole purpose of trying to catch players who assume that the monster's appearance is giving valid clues? Yeah, that's like, definitionally a gotcha. There is no other reason for that.



Maxperson said:


> It absolutely is a vulnerability, but it's not a Vulnerability.  It's like the fact that the DM is a player, but he's not a Player(he's the DM).




Uh huh, so an ability that allows you to know Vulnerabilities would not tell it to you, because it is not a Vulnerability. Remember, this was copying the Hunter's Lore ability, which has the capitalization. They are not the same thing, which you literally just admitted.



Maxperson said:


> PCs don't know that.




Yes they do.



Maxperson said:


> I never said it was.  It's not something that a PC can find out, so PC abilities should not give that information.  PCs can only find out in-fiction things, which AC and hit point numbers are not.
> 
> The player is not in world.  The PLAYER knows that plat mail is AC 18 and chain mail is 16, the PC doesn't know those numbers at all.  Because in the world all the PC knows is that plate protects better than chain.
> 
> AC is entirely metagame.  Armor is not.




Right, it protects better, and they probably have a rough idea of how hard it would be to hit the individual wearing it. 

It is absolutely something the character's can figure out. Just because we can put it to hard numbers instead of vague feelings doesn't change that and suddenly make it impossible for the PCs to understand how armor works. And if we can have abilities that tell us ability scores of enemies, we can have abilities that tell us AC. It isn't even a stretch, 

Plus, you know, MAGIC. It doesn't have to strictly follow even psuedo-realism.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> The vast majority of houserules act on PCs negatively.  I don't see that as a reason in and of itself to not use them.




I do. Why would I want to use rules that hurt my characters and give me nothing in return? That's like deciding to wear pants that are too tight just because they are too tight and it will hurt. Why would I ever do that?



Micah Sweet said:


> I've been on the other side of it too, and didn't mind it, so that cancels out.
> 
> And barbarians, by virtue of their class's story, might warrant an except to these hypothetical injury rules, but I don't think any other PH class does.




So, we just leave other melee classes hanging out to dry. 

Bet you see an uptick in ranged fighters and a down-tick in paladins with rules like that, because no one is going to want to be a frontliner if it just means losing their PC to injury rules.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> I do. Why would I want to use rules that hurt my characters and give me nothing in return? That's like deciding to wear pants that are too tight just because they are too tight and it will hurt. Why would I ever do that?
> 
> 
> 
> So, we just leave other melee classes hanging out to dry.
> 
> Bet you see an uptick in ranged fighters and a down-tick in paladins with rules like that, because no one is going to want to be a frontliner if it just means losing their PC to injury rules.



Have you considered that not _everything _has to be taken to the extreme?  We don't live in a bi-polar universe.  I see value in rules that more accurately depict real combat to my mind.  My players may as well.  That's the upside to me.  Your arguments make zero sense to me.


----------



## TerraDave

As an aside and not having read every last post in the thread.

Morale--motivation, mental stamina, plain stubbornness,  being really drunk--can totally allow someone to push themselves forward in the face of otherwise massive physical damage or debilitation. 

But what won't happen is waking up the next morning and being all better. _That's_ the unrealistic part.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Maxperson said:


> I have to say that I really dislike bards being able to just prepare any arcane spell they want on a daily basis.  That sort of preparation has been the province of clercs and druids, essentially the divine classes(though now druid is primal).  No god gives bards that ability and it doesn't make sense that they would have every spell in existence handy just because they are the jack of all trades class.



Yeah, totally agreed. I liked that Bard was similar to sorcerer with their spells more a cumulative learning.  As a player it avoided much of the spell selection paralysis because you only had to choose spells at level-up and even then you got either 1 new one + 1 replaced or 2 new magic secret spells +1 replaced. Pick your spells and move on. If you chose badly, swap it out next level. 

I also found innate casters to have a dwindling number of 1st & 2nd level spells as they load up on 3rd & 4th Level spells that upcast well and their 5th+ spells are very limited given how few slots they get to cast.  Its a different kind of flexibility.

I also take some umbrage at the name "Peerless skill".  It might be "unflagging" skill or "doggedly competent" skill. But it is not "peerless". A peerless skill is one that is without peer. It can achieve things others can not. How do you make a "peerless" artwork with this skill?  Can I declare the goal is to make a masterwork and anything less gets the boost?

And in a social circumstance, what does the rule even mean? What kind of outcome qualifies as "failure"?  Can we dictate that success is getting the guard to look the other way while we sneak in as "succes" and then if they simply decide not to sound the alarm over our attempted bribe that is a failure?


----------



## Yaarel

Arilyn said:


> I made a bard yesterday using the new rules. Looking at the abilities, I realized I could make a witch. I took human and gave my character the magic initiative feat (primal). I took the spells, Shillelagh, guidance and Hunter's Mark. (this gives me a magic witch's staff, and the ability to know best place to hit hard via Hunter's Mark).
> 
> I created midwife background and took Healer feat and herbalism tool kit. From bard, Dancing Lights, Vicious mockery, Sleep and Hex as default prepped spells. The inspiration dice work, as my witch shouts advice and quickie cures. At 2nd level, Healing Word works well. The abilities from Lore bard don't require much refluffing to make them witchy.
> 
> The instruments are bit odd but I took really basic ones. I'll probably mostly ignore them, other than my witch has musical talent. I did not take perform. The saving throws aren't quite right but not a huge deal. If a player came to me with this character, I'd allow them to change the Dex save.
> 
> Yes, I did take racial and background features to push the witch motif, but this shouldn't have worked so well. It is really easy to drown out the bard flavour.



Yeah.

I similarly use Bard as my go to class for mythologically accurate shamans.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Really, because for the last three posts you have fought tooth and nail about how I must be metagaming, if I was in a game where orcs were rare. Now it is "assume what you want".
> 
> No. Wolves come in one form. Wolves.



And dragons come in one form.  Dragons!


Chaosmancer said:


> Balgura are the same as Chasme. Glabrezu are the same as Balors, except that the one is immune to fire. The one immune to fire by the way, is the one holding a flaming whip and with an aura of fire around it. I wonder how I could possibly tell that it might be more than resistant to flame, with it being constantly on fire. I must be forced to use magic!
> 
> Also, you are ignoring CR. You wouldn't typically fight a Balor before you fight a Chasme.



CR doesn't matter.  You would be using the ability as you encounter them.  It's not as if you learn what a balor's resistances and immunities are until you encounter it.  Chasme isn't going to clue you in.


Chaosmancer said:


> And how is the magic weapon information useful if you don't have magical weapons?
> 
> This is one of the things that makes this worse than the theorycraft. Because finding out the enemy is resistant to non-magical weapons, like I said and you ignored, is useless information unless you specifically have magical weapons that are worse than your non-magical weapons. Otherwise, you will be using the same weapons regardless of the information.
> 
> If information cannot lead to a tactical change in the current fight, it is useless information in the current fight.



It can lead to a tactical change.  Will it every time? Probably not every time, but at least you will be able to make an informed decision rather than shooting blindly in the dark.


Chaosmancer said:


> Yes they do.



No they don't.  Armor doesn't come with numbers attached in the world.


Chaosmancer said:


> Right, it protects better, and they probably have a rough idea of how hard it would be to hit the individual wearing it.
> 
> It is absolutely something the character's can figure out. Just because we can put it to hard numbers instead of vague feelings doesn't change that and suddenly make it impossible for the PCs to understand how armor works. And if we can have abilities that tell us ability scores of enemies, we can have abilities that tell us AC. It isn't even a stretch,



It's impossible for them to figure out exactly how much it protects, because hit points are abstract.  Hit points don't even represent being actually hit until you are at 50%, and then it's only scratches until you hit 0.  So that near miss? It was really a hit for 20 points of damage taking you from 100 to 80.  

How's a guy in plate mail supposed to figure out how much his armor protected him against a miss that hit?

AC for armor is not representative of physical protection. It would need to be DR for that to be true.


----------



## Ashrym

My initial question was whether the bard still felt like an iconic bard.  I believe it still does for the most part but the spell list access restricts access to some typical spells until magical secrets becomes available.  I prefer class spell lists to common lists.  I think they give more identity to that specific class.

The change to prepared spells led to the change to magical secrets and I think that even though there are less secrets given in total that the prep mechanic made secrets far more versatile.  The nice thing about prep is that it leads to using spells that might never be taken because those situational spells can be swapped out and back instead of never taken.  The drawback is that I think this can take away from the identity of the specific bard style being emulated.  

If the healing spells granted are meant to be a menu choice like domain lists that seems decent and should be attached to the college choice.  If they are meant to maintain the jack-of-all-trades concept for bards when the arcane spell list restricts healing I can see the point, but we're going from bards who may or may not be built to heal with some minor healing to all bards have those healing spells.  It feels like I have lost the option to build bards who don't heal; probably because I have lost that option.  

I preferred song of rest and deciding how much healing I wanted.  I thought there was better flavor and more build variety that way.  OC, free spells prepped isn't bad and if that's how we have a bard healer then I'll take it.

Losing the extra weapon proficiencies isn't a big deal.  They were largely flavor to represent a bit of martial training that wasn't necessary (IMO).  Other subclasses will add proficiencies anyway based on what I've seen here so far.

I do like the changes to bardic inspiration.  Using proficiency bonus instead of CHA bonus for the number of uses slows down the number of uses, as does the delay of font to 7th level, but the "fail" wording and reaction makes for a more reliable ability.  Not losing the ability on a roll of a 1 when the die increases and that likelihood to not lose that use of the inspiration will decrease as the die increases with level.  That's not good.

Superior bardic inspiration is far better than the old capstone.  Regaining 2 uses is obviously better than 1 use only if all uses are expended.  It's subject to the odd mechanic of fully refilling by instigating encounters and not using any inspiration during those encounters.




Maxperson said:


> No.  No it's not and it never has been. You're inventing stuff now.  They started off with actual druid and no wizard levels.  Then moved to arcane casters with wizard spells and a spell book in 2e.  Then in 3e were arcane casters that were like sorcerers, but still had a limited selection and the same with 5e. Maybe you're thinking of the Spellsinger series of novels that were not D&D.
> 
> Yes they do.  They just don't make up magical spells on a whim.




Bards started with magic-user spells prior to the AD&D publication.  That PHB was the only version of the bard the was ever not an arcane spellcaster and it was just an appendix option at the time.  When a single edition was not arcane and every other edition was then arcane is the standard.

The access to every arcane spell up to the spell level limit existed in 2e because they used a wizard spell book and the wizard spell list.  This play test version has less access to arcane spells than that bard because of the spell school restrictions and lower number of spells prepped.

3.x gave bards access to those spells via prestige classes (notably Sublime Chord), and they definitely had the ability to acquire those spells.  Spell secrets from Lyric Thaumaturge specifically gave sorc/wiz spells as a precursor to magical secrets.  Magical secrets just moved that access from PrC's to the base class in 5e.  And 5e grants that same access with magical secrets.  

"Making up spells on a whim" might be a bit hyperbolic given what's being presented is the bard is making a bard version of the spell as "making up a spell" and that isn't something we haven't seen.  This is especially true for every bard in 3.x or 5e who picks up wish to replicate most spells on whim.

On those notes, however, one of the things I don't like about the common spell lists is bards are harder to make in that 1e tradition of primarily drawing from druid spells.  The 5e list shares a lot of druid spells already and secrets can fill that out a bit more.  I don't have that same sense of the old school version with this playtest version.



Micah Sweet said:


> In what way is that reflected mechanically, in any edition?




Magical secrets in the context it was presented, and wish as literally casting spells on the fly.  Bards could do this via PrC in 3.x and can do it via secrets in 5e.



Micah Sweet said:


> If it's based on their whim, why do they have to select their spells ahead of time, either as spells known (in the 5e bard) or prepared for the day (in the proposed 6e bard)?  Wouldn't they just be able to create the effect they want right then, "on a whim" as you say?




This part of the discussion was based on creating spells through creativity and that's what secrets allows for.  "On a whim" is better expressed through the wish spell and that does exist as an option for bards.



Maxperson said:


> Sure there is. It's the fact that wizard cannot just pluck spells out of the air and write them all in their books to memorize. No arcane caster can do it or has ever been able to do it.
> 
> There's no good reason to think that just because bards can play a musical instrument(the only real difference between bards and sorcerers with their spells), that they can just pluck any spell they feel like out of the ether to be able to cast that day.  Hell, there's no good reason to think that they've even heard of every spell.




Wizards can cast wish too.  Wish is the spell that let's arcane spell casters easily pluck spells out of the air.  It doesn't even need to be an arcane spell that they pluck.  Sorcerers can do this too.  Neither writes the spell down and learns it, but wizards can easily have more access to wizard spells the bards cannot because the version of the bard we're discussion only has that free access to 2 spells at a time after hitting 3rd tier where the wizard has access to all of the spells in the wizard spell book. 

Playtesting the current rules wizards also still cast rituals from their book without needing to prep them like bards would need to.


----------



## Maxperson

Ashrym said:


> Bards started with magic-user spells prior to the AD&D publication.  That PHB was the only version of the bard the was ever not an arcane spellcaster and it was just an appendix option at the time.  When a single edition was not arcane and every other edition was then arcane is the standard.



Sure.  I even noted that only one had them as non-arcane.


Ashrym said:


> The access to every arcane spell up to the spell level limit existed in 2e because they used a wizard spell book and the wizard spell list.  This play test version has less access to arcane spells than that bard because of the spell school restrictions and lower number of spells prepped.



No.  They did not have access to every spell in 2e, because in 2e they had to go out and find spells.  They did not for instance have access to every single 1st level spell the instant that the hit 2nd level.  Not only were the 2e bard's first 1d4 spells completely random, but he didn't even gain a spell of choice when he gained a level.  He had to find them all.  

Having such a hard time getting new spells to cast is the opposite of what the 5.5 playtest is doing.


Ashrym said:


> 3.x gave bards access to those spells via prestige classes (notably Sublime Chord), and they definitely had the ability to acquire those spells.  Spell secrets from Lyric Thaumaturge specifically gave sorc/wiz spells as a precursor to magical secrets.  Magical secrets just moved that access from PrC's to the base class in 5e.  And 5e grants that same access with magical secrets.



Right, spell access remains limited as it was in 2e.


Ashrym said:


> "Making up spells on a whim" might be a bit hyperbolic given what's being presented is the bard is making a bard version of the spell as "making up a spell" and that isn't something we haven't seen.  This is especially true for every bard in 3.x or 5e who picks up wish to replicate most spells on whim.



Only slightly in that they can't switch spells on the fly.  But the bard can invent any spell in existence(of the type he has access to, which is half of the schools), even those he has never even heard about, each morning when he prepares his spells for the day.  That's close enough to "on a whim" for me.  Hell, the rules don't even state it has to be PHB or from an official list of arcane spells, so he could theoretically just create entirely new spells of those schools without doing any research.


----------



## Ashrym

Maxperson said:


> No. They did not have access to every spell in 2e, because in 2e they had to go out and find spells. They did not for instance have access to every single 1st level spell the instant that the hit 2nd level. Not only were the 2e bard's first 1d4 spells completely random, but he didn't even gain a spell of choice when he gained a level. He had to find them all.




They eventually had access to those spells via captured spell books or found scrolls.  Or research or DM rewards or magic item stores depending the DM and campaign style.  Harder access isn't the same thing as lack of access.  By high levels it was minor distinction while the playtest magical secrets doesn't grant that access until 11th level.  In granting that access it's still a limitation on the number available at the given time compared to a wizard and denying access to the divine or primal lists to create an opportunity cost.

The playtest bard is limited to 4 schools and can have 2 of the rest at any given time at higher levels.  The 2e bard beats that by  prepping 3 spells outside of those 4 schools and can do it earlier than 11th level.

I would also point out that 2e wizards didn't have all the spells, however.  There were 3 methods of determining starting spells (player choice, DM choice, or collab) in the DMG.  It was pretty much read magic, detect magic, and 4 other spells by DM choice.  They also had to find spells leveling up to inscribe.  Specialists got a free school spell without a knowledge roll but could not learn opposition schools at all and had lower rolls to learn non-specialized schools. 

The intelligence chart determined the chance to learn the spell and dictated the maximum number of spells that could be learned.  2e was the edition a wizard could fail to learn fireball when a bard could, and the bard would cast it at a higher level because of the class progression tables and XP bonus options.

2e bards were great arcane casters and could easily have access to spells wizards did not.  Part of the issue here is we don't really have the new playtest wizard to really compare to the new playtest bard, but a 2e to 2e comparison doesn't seem to line up with what you are saying.



Maxperson said:


> Right, spell access remains limited as it was in 2e.




The spells known was the limitation, not the spells available.  But when we look specifically at secrets in lyric thaumaturge what we ended up with was the bard having access to the full sorcerer list and the full bard list to have options not available to wizards or sorcerers.  The sublime chord also granted access to those high level spells to also give bard spells / songs as options not available to wizards or sorcerers.

Bards ultimately had a strong selection in their caster PrC's and given the casting system in that edition a comparison to sorcerers is more accurate than wizards.



Maxperson said:


> Only slightly in that they can't switch spells on the fly. But the bard can invent any spell in existence(of the type he has access to, which is half of the schools), even those he has never even heard about, each morning when he prepares his spells for the day. That's close enough to "on a whim" for me. Hell, the rules don't even state it has to be PHB or from an official list of arcane spells, so he could theoretically just create entirely new spells of those schools without doing any research.




That's a plus.  The idea that bards could use magical secrets as a form of spell research isn't really different from any other spellcaster selecting which spells among the many when leveling up. 

As it is, the playtest spell system leaves bards with more spell access in some ways when they're just using the same spell casting system as artificers now, but in other ways it leaves out a lot spells no longer available because they were on the class list and now are not.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Chaosmancer said:


> They actually have fixed this though? Having Perform and an Instrument allows you to roll with advantage. Instrument allows you to play the instrument, perform allows you to dance, sing, paint ect. I like having it this way.



Acapella performers suffer.


----------



## Maxperson

Ashrym said:


> They eventually had access to those spells via captured spell books or found scrolls.  Or research or DM rewards or magic item stores depending the DM and campaign style.  Harder access isn't the same thing as lack of access.  By high levels it was minor distinction while the playtest magical secrets doesn't grant that access until 11th level.  In granting that access it's still a limitation on the number available at the given time compared to a wizard and denying access to the divine or primal lists to create an opportunity cost.



No the didn't eventually have access to every single spell.  They got access to a very, very limited selection of the thousands of 2e wizard spells.  At no point, though, did a bard outside of a Monty Haul game or a player who cheated, have access to even every PHB spell, let alone all 2e spells.


Ashrym said:


> I would also point out that 2e wizards didn't have all the spells, however.  There were 3 methods of determining starting spells (player choice, DM choice, or collab) in the DMG.  It was pretty much read magic, detect magic, and 4 other spells by DM choice.  They also had to find spells leveling up to inscribe.  Specialists got a free school spell without a knowledge roll but could not learn opposition schools at all and had lower rolls to learn non-specialized schools.
> 
> The intelligence chart determined the chance to learn the spell and dictated the maximum number of spells that could be learned.  2e was the edition a wizard could fail to learn fireball when a bard could, and the bard would cast it at a higher level because of the class progression tables and XP bonus options.
> 
> 2e bards were great arcane casters and could easily have access to spells wizards did not.  Part of the issue here is we don't really have the new playtest wizard to really compare to the new playtest bard, but a 2e to 2e comparison doesn't seem to line up with what you are saying.



2e bards had to roll to learn spells just like a wizard did.  It wasn't like they just automatically got a spell that was found on a scroll.  And since wizards were smarter on average, the wizard was far more likely to actually learn that fireball spell.


Ashrym said:


> As it is, the playtest spell system leaves bards with more spell access in some ways when they're just using the same spell casting system as artificers now, but in other ways it leaves out a lot spells no longer available because they were on the class list and now are not.



The playtest is changing how spells work.  They're getting rid of class lists, so while the artificer was able to learn whatever spell they wanted, they chose from a very, very limited selection of spells. 

The playtest is now just giving broad categories.  Arcane, primal, and divine.  So when the bard uses this system, he is getting access to every spell on the arcane list of the 4 schools that he can use.  That's a lot broader than the artificer.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> And dragons come in one form.  Dragons!




Incorrect. There is no statblock labeled "Dragon". There are statblocks that use the word dragon, but none just called "Dragon" 



Maxperson said:


> CR doesn't matter.  You would be using the ability as you encounter them.  It's not as if you learn what a balor's resistances and immunities are until you encounter it.  Chasme isn't going to clue you in.




CR does matter? 

If you use this ability on a Chasme, and you learn it is resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. Then later you are fighting a Balor, which is a stronger and more powerful demon, and literally on fire, then you can easily assume that Fire, Poison are immune and cold and lightning might still just be resistant, because it is a demon, just like that other demon. Also, the higher the CR, the higher level you are, and the less and less non-magical weapons matter. 

So the only differences between the Chasme and the Balor can be inferred trivially. 



Maxperson said:


> It can lead to a tactical change.  Will it every time? Probably not every time, but at least you will be able to make an informed decision rather than shooting blindly in the dark.




It doesn't lead to a tactical change unless you have magical weapons that are weaker than your non-magical weapons. In every other possible scenario, there is no tactical change. So the information is largely worthless. 

If I have a longsword +1 and a Longsword, I'll be using the Longsword +1 against enemies with and without resistance to non-magical weapons, because as the stronger weapon, I'm just using it as my default weapon. 



Maxperson said:


> No they don't.  Armor doesn't come with numbers attached in the world.




And yet, they do, because the players are immediately told a number attached to the armor. It is freely available information that they have 100% access to. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that a person holding a shield is more difficult to hit than a person without it. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that someone wearing chainmail is less protected than someone wearing plate armor. 

So, why are you trying to say that there is NO WAY that they could use magic to confirm AC? 



Maxperson said:


> It's impossible for them to figure out exactly how much it protects, because hit points are abstract.  Hit points don't even represent being actually hit until you are at 50%, and then it's only scratches until you hit 0.  So that near miss? It was really a hit for 20 points of damage taking you from 100 to 80.
> 
> How's a guy in plate mail supposed to figure out how much his armor protected him against a miss that hit?
> 
> AC for armor is not representative of physical protection. It would need to be DR for that to be true.




Completely missing the point. Because we do know when we hit. Otherwise we couldn't activate abilities on a hit. The Paladin knows when they have hit the enemy, because they can only use Divine Smite when they hit the enemy. Whatever narrative you want to force around that is fine, but it doesn't change what is known.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kobold Stew said:


> Acapella performers suffer.




I'd say they have Expertise in Performance, that stuff is impressive as heck.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Incorrect. There is no statblock labeled "Dragon". There are statblocks that use the word dragon, but none just called "Dragon"



Statblocks =/= creature.  But since you will probably want proof, I will provide it to you.  Page 6 of the monster manual.  Dragon is a type of creature. Not red dragon.  Not blue dragon.  Dragon.

The statblock for wolf is just for that kind of wolf.


Chaosmancer said:


> If you use this ability on a Chasme, and you learn it is resistant to fire, cold, lighting and immune to poison. Then later you are fighting a Balor, which is a stronger and more powerful demon, and literally on fire, then you can easily assume that Fire, Poison are immune and cold and lightning might still just be resistant, because it is a demon, just like that other demon. Also, the higher the CR, the higher level you are, and the less and less non-magical weapons matter.



No, you can't just assume that the Balor is like the other demon, because you don't know that demons have these things in common unless you learn it somehow.  There's nothing that a Chasme and Balor have in common by looking at them other than they live on the Abyss.  Hell, tons and tons of non-demon creatures also live on the Abyss, so unless you have the knowledge, you won't even know a Balor is a demon and not some other denizen of that place.


Chaosmancer said:


> It doesn't lead to a tactical change unless you have magical weapons that are weaker than your non-magical weapons. In every other possible scenario, there is no tactical change. So the information is largely worthless.



It can also lead to using the Magic Weapon spell instead of something else someone might have cast, or using a magical class ability instead of swinging, or a lot of other things.


Chaosmancer said:


> And yet, they do, because the* players *are immediately told a number attached to the armor. It is freely available information that they have 100% access to. No one is ever going to say that a player has NO WAY of knowing that a person holding a shield is more difficult to hit than a person without it. No one is ever going to say that a *player* has NO WAY of knowing that someone wearing chainmail is less protected than someone wearing plate armor.



Yes. Players know.  PCs don't have any access to numbers.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, why are you trying to say that there is NO WAY that they could use magic to confirm AC?



Magic is in fiction, as are the PCs. The PCs cannot know the numbers.


Chaosmancer said:


> Completely missing the point.



Or did I? Maybe it was a hit that looked like a miss. 


Chaosmancer said:


> Because we do know when we hit. Otherwise we couldn't activate abilities on a hit. The Paladin knows when they have hit the enemy, because they can only use Divine Smite when they hit the enemy. Whatever narrative you want to force around that is fine, but it doesn't change what is known.



The paladin makes no such choice.  The player is the one who makes that choice.  Narratively, the paladin just decided to smite on that attack.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Have you considered that not _everything _has to be taken to the extreme?  We don't live in a bi-polar universe.  I see value in rules that more accurately depict real combat to my mind.  My players may as well.  That's the upside to me.  Your arguments make zero sense to me.




Sure it doesn't have to be taken to extremes, but I've seen more than a few times when a DM wants something because they see the value in making things "more realistic" and the back-liners who it doesn't affect agree with the DM, and then the front-liners end up getting the short-straw. 

And, like I've said, I've played in quite a few systems with these sorts of injury rules, and it is pretty consistent to see the people who try and build character who can take punishment getting utterly rekt, while the people who build the more powerful archetypes who avoid direct confrontation entirely but still effectively contribute stay as they were. One side gets nerfed, the other stays the same, and the power imbalance increases. And it still won't be "accurate" to real-life combat, so it will potentially (because it has done this for me) decrease people's fun, all to just inch closer to an impossible to achieve goal. 

And I don't get why.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure it doesn't have to be taken to extremes, but I've seen more than a few times when a DM wants something because they see the value in making things "more realistic" and the back-liners who it doesn't affect agree with the DM, and then the front-liners end up getting the short-straw.
> 
> And, like I've said, I've played in quite a few systems with these sorts of injury rules, and it is pretty consistent to see the people who try and build character who can take punishment getting utterly rekt, while the people who build the more powerful archetypes who avoid direct confrontation entirely but still effectively contribute stay as they were. One side gets nerfed, the other stays the same, and the power imbalance increases. And it still won't be "accurate" to real-life combat, so it will potentially (because it has done this for me) decrease people's fun, all to just inch closer to an impossible to achieve goal.
> 
> And I don't get why.



Because it a goal you don't value, and because, to me, you overvalue class balance.  I have serious issues with some 3pp, for example, because they're so afraid to make something that might be a smidgen stronger than a WotC option that their design is too weak to use.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Statblocks =/= creature.  But since you will probably want proof, I will provide it to you.  Page 6 of the monster manual.  Dragon is a type of creature. Not red dragon.  Not blue dragon.  Dragon.
> 
> The statblock for wolf is just for that kind of wolf.




Sorry, no moving the goalposts mid-discussion. I didn't ask for a creature type, I asked for a statblock. I haven't been discussing "creatures" I've been discussing statblocks. You don't get to just decide that you can't argue that point and try to argue a different point. 

When I said "wolf" I meant "Wolf" not "Winter Wolf" not "Fire Wolf" not "Wisp Wolf" not "Blade Wolf". I was talking about the statblock "Wolf" which represents... normal wolves. 

Also, if you want to go down the creature type rabbit hole, I note there is no "wolf" creature type, so that wouldn't apply either.



Maxperson said:


> No, you can't just assume that the Balor is like the other demon, because you don't know that demons have these things in common unless you learn it somehow.  There's nothing that a Chasme and Balor have in common by looking at them other than they live on the Abyss.  Hell, tons and tons of non-demon creatures also live on the Abyss, so unless you have the knowledge, you won't even know a Balor is a demon and not some other denizen of that place.




Why can't I? What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot assume? 

As I said, this isn't about "what does your character know" this is about "What Maxperson will allow you to think". Because there is no other reason to demand that I not take the knowledge I have about a demon and apply it to another demon. Because, frankly, if my DM is putting me up against a Balor, and not telling us what this thing is... I question what is going on in the campaign. Why is a CR 19 final boss monster so unimportant to the campaign that we don't know anything about it. 

Also, I have no idea what "tons and tons" of creatures you are talking about. Very few entries I can find in the monster books for anything non-demonic that lives in the Abyss. They all seem to be... fiends, with the same sort of resistances and immunities.



Maxperson said:


> It can also lead to using the Magic Weapon spell instead of something else someone might have cast, or using a magical class ability instead of swinging, or a lot of other things.




And if they don't have a niche spell like Magic Weapon prepared? What do we do then? Because honestly, I've never seen anyone prepare the spell unless they know BEFORE the fight that they will be facing enemies resistant to non-magical weapons and there is ONE non-magical wielding ally who they can buff to be effective. And that means finding this out BEFORE the fight, so the Hunter's Lore ability would only tell you after the fight is over, at which point you already knew without it. 

Very few melee classes who would use non-magical weapons primarily who have effective magical damage dealing options. And generally, if they do have something like that, it is a ranged option they'd be using before getting into melee, and once in melee they'd go back to using their non-magical weapons.



Maxperson said:


> Yes. Players know.  PCs don't have any access to numbers.
> 
> 
> Magic is in fiction, as are the PCs. The PCs cannot know the numbers.




So why can't the player use an ability that will give them access to the numbers, and then have the PC translate it into something that makes sense to them without it having to be the number? If I can look at someone with plate mail and translate that to 18 AC, why can't I use magic to determine that something has 16 AC? It is literally the exact same thing. The PCs may not learn "you need to roll a 10 on a twenty-sided dice" but they learn information that translates to that, such as "it's hide is as tough as chain mail" which tells me it has an AC of 16. This is really not difficult.



Maxperson said:


> The paladin makes no such choice.  The player is the one who makes that choice.  Narratively, the paladin just decided to smite on that attack.




Splitting hairs so fine that no one ever cares about them. The paladin didn't make their choice, they just so happened to make a choice that looked identical but keeps the swiss cheese 4th wall from getting a hole poked in it. That is pointless semantics.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Because it a goal you don't value, and because, to me, you overvalue class balance.  I have serious issues with some 3pp, for example, because they're so afraid to make something that might be a smidgen stronger than a WotC option that their design is too weak to use.




I've homebrewed everything to bring it up, so that doesn't apply to me. I don't tend to like some of the 3pp stuff because it is either useless, way too hyper specific, or bonkers broken. 

But I find it interesting you think "don't make front-liners games less fun" is overvaluing class balance.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> I've homebrewed everything to bring it up, so that doesn't apply to me. I don't tend to like some of the 3pp stuff because it is either useless, way too hyper specific, or bonkers broken.
> 
> But I find it interesting you think "don't make front-liners games less fun" is overvaluing class balance.



I don't necessarily think these rules would make it less fun.  If I were playing a fighter, I'd be excited about potentially getting actually hurt in a combat.  I might actually be cautious, for example.  I might even take combat seriously.  I wouldn't use any rule as a DM that I'm not willing to play under with a PC.  My group has seen me prove this many times.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> If I were playing a fighter, I'd be excited about potentially getting actually hurt in a combat. I might actually be cautious, for example. I might even take combat seriously.



My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.

My experience is that the usual "point of failure" that leads to yoyo'ing isn't the front-line combatants being incautious or unserious about combat. It's that the rest of their team rarely takes supporting them seriously, because they know they can yoyo them. The actual frontline combatant knows that all it takes it some extra damage to hit them from a few sources and they're dead-dead, the rest of the team are usually pretty sure they can drop some kind of minimum-size heal and stop that.

This is why I think it's important to not look at Fighters and the like as the source of the problem here.

I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.

If you make rules that only penalize the PCs who get downed, not the ones who let them go down, you're unlikely to change this dynamic. The only way that even helps is the whinging from the players whose PCs get downed _might_ cause the rest of the players to rethink. But a lot of players just won't even whinge! They'll just grin and take it.

I think maybe the best way to do this would not be to make people who get downed get punished in any way, not by injuries, and not by death, but rather to make so when they're down, they stay down for at least a round or two (even if they're fine), so the monster they were "tanking" (more likely blocking from getting to the rest of the party) can go and pummel the idiots who decided not to cast any spells or really do anything to prevent that guy going down.


Micah Sweet said:


> I have serious issues with some 3pp, for example, because they're so afraid to make something that might be a smidgen stronger than a WotC option that their design is too weak to use.



I've absolutely seen 3PP like that and it is frustrating. However, what's even more frustrating (imho) is 3PP that is just wildly more powerful than WotC options to the point where there's zero comparison, and this is particularly bad when it's from a like a fairly "pro" 3PP outfit, who should know better. A great example is the Blood Hunter - it's easily as powerful as 1.5 normal classes. Each of the subclasses basically adds 30-80% of entire other class (like Barbarian or Warlock) to the Blood Hunter. Hell, there's a Barbarian-style subclass that gives you literally every major thing a Barbarian with a specific subclass get _and then some_. That's like 2.1 classes lol.

Personally my experience is that way more 3PP is just wacky OP than frustratingly UP, but YMMV. I'm always looking for that sweet spot in-between, and you do find it sometimes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.
> 
> My experience is that the usual "point of failure" that leads to yoyo'ing isn't the front-line combatants being incautious or unserious about combat. It's that the rest of their team rarely takes supporting them seriously, because they know they can yoyo them. The actual frontline combatant knows that all it takes it some extra damage to hit them from a few sources and they're dead-dead, the rest of the team are usually pretty sure they can drop some kind of minimum-size heal and stop that.
> 
> This is why I think it's important to not look at Fighters and the like as the source of the problem here.
> 
> I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.
> 
> If you make rules that only penalize the PCs who get downed, not the ones who let them go down, you're unlikely to change this dynamic. The only way that even helps is the whinging from the players whose PCs get downed _might_ cause the rest of the players to rethink. But a lot of players just won't even whinge! They'll just grin and take it.
> 
> I think maybe the best way to do this would not be to make people who get downed get punished in any way, not by injuries, and not by death, but rather to make so when they're down, they stay down for at least a round or two (even if they're fine), so the monster they were "tanking" (more likely blocking from getting to the rest of the party) can go and pummel the idiots who decided not to cast any spells or really do anything to prevent that guy going down.
> 
> I've absolutely seen 3PP like that and it is frustrating. However, what's even more frustrating (imho) is 3PP that is just wildly more powerful than WotC options to the point where there's zero comparison, and this is particularly bad when it's from a like a fairly "pro" 3PP outfit, who should know better. A great example is the Blood Hunter - it's easily as powerful as 1.5 normal classes. Each of the subclasses basically adds 30-80% of entire other class (like Barbarian or Warlock) to the Blood Hunter. Hell, there's a Barbarian-style subclass that gives you literally every major thing a Barbarian with a specific subclass get _and then some_. That's like 2.1 classes lol.
> 
> Personally my experience is that way more 3PP is just wacky OP than frustratingly UP, but YMMV. I'm always looking for that sweet spot in-between, and you do find it sometimes.



There are a lot of concepts WotC won't touch, or designs in a way I disagree with.  Looking for good 3pp is always worth the search to me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> There are a lot of concepts WotC won't touch, or designs in a way I disagree with.  Looking for good 3pp is always worth the search to me.



For sure. That's honestly the only reason someone lazy and digital (i.e. using Beyond as my primary source) like me even looks to 3PP - the fact that they do stuff WotC won't or that WotC does boringly.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> As I said, this isn't about "what does your character know" this is about "What Maxperson will allow you to think". Because there is no other reason to demand that I not take the knowledge I have about a demon and apply it to another demon. Because, frankly, if my DM is putting me up against a Balor, and not telling us what this thing is... I question what is going on in the campaign. Why is a CR 19 final boss monster so unimportant to the campaign that we don't know anything about it.



Metagaming is cheating.  It's not about what you should think.  It's about you cheating and assuming to wildly different Abyssal creatures are the same in order to metagame knowledge about their strengths.


Chaosmancer said:


> Also, I have no idea what "tons and tons" of creatures you are talking about. Very few entries I can find in the monster books for anything non-demonic that lives in the Abyss. They all seem to be... fiends, with the same sort of resistances and immunities.











						Creatures found in the Abyss
					






					forgottenrealms.fandom.com
				




They abyss is infinite and chaotically varied.  There are 103 entries on abyssal creatures there, and there are literally millions(infinite really) of other creatures that are not demons that live in the abyss.  They do not all have the same resistances and vulnerabilities.


Chaosmancer said:


> And if they don't have a niche spell like Magic Weapon prepared? What do we do then? Because honestly, I've never seen anyone prepare the spell unless they know BEFORE the fight that they will be facing enemies resistant to non-magical weapons and there is ONE non-magical wielding ally who they can buff to be effective. And that means finding this out BEFORE the fight, so the Hunter's Lore ability would only tell you after the fight is over, at which point you already knew without it.



There are lots of tactics that would be affected, but that you would focus on the one specific one of the many I mentioned while avoiding the actual point is telling.


Chaosmancer said:


> So why can't the player use an ability that will give them access to the numbers, and then have the PC translate it into something that makes sense to them without it having to be the number? If I can look at someone with plate mail and translate that to 18 AC, why can't I use magic to determine that something has 16 AC? It is literally the exact same thing. The PCs may not learn "you need to roll a 10 on a twenty-sided dice" but they learn information that translates to that, such as "it's hide is as tough as chain mail" which tells me it has an AC of 16. This is really not difficult.



Does it?  What if it has a dex bonus as well?  What if it has some other magical defenses? Getting hide that is as tough as chain mail would allow the player to assume 16, but that player will often be wrong.


Chaosmancer said:


> Splitting hairs so fine that no one ever cares about them. The paladin didn't make their choice, they just so happened to make a choice that looked identical but keeps the swiss cheese 4th wall from getting a hole poked in it. That is pointless semantics.



No it isn't. It's a major and distinctive difference.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> My experience is that front-line combatants already do take things seriously and already are cautious.




This is basically my answer in a nutshell @Micah Sweet 

I actually am playing a barbarian right now who was just in a combat. He had been dropped multiple times in the previous fight and we were moving into a new fight. He took the lead. Was I not taking the combat seriously? 

No, I was. This combat was about rescuing a little girl who had been kidnapped. The two non-melee characters who were still up had much lower AC than me, but hit much harder than me. We knew there was only one, maybe two enemies up ahead, and my guy figured he could stay concious for at least one blow, and give the others the opening they needed. Could he have died in that fight? He didn't care. The point wasn't him trying to survive the fight, the point was the team winning the fight and rescuing a little girl. Dying was worth saving a child's life, that's just how he thinks. 

Most melee front-liners I see are taking combat seriously. And to any degree they are incautious, it isn't because they are going YOLO, it is because they are prioritizing something else over their own survival. Generally the safety and survival of others.



Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, a lot of healers, and I've been absolutely guilty of this in 5E, just don't really want to heal anyone who isn't already down, because it's literally inefficient.




Yeah, I know people give me a lot of strange looks when I say healing needs to be buffed, but frankly that would prevent yo-yo healing almost immediately. If you could heal and that healing at least cancel a single monster's attack, then you would see people healing mid-combat more. But very quickly they realize that taking their action to only partially undo an opponents action is a terrible plan, so all healing gets regulated to either after the fight or when someone drops and it is an emergency action.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Metagaming is cheating.  It's not about what you should think.  It's about you cheating and assuming to wildly different Abyssal creatures are the same in order to metagame knowledge about their strengths.




So, using knowledge about demons to make educated guesses about demons is cheating. Yet again, we find the truth. This is never about "what does your character know", this is about "I am certain you are cheating, because you don't think like I think." 

Because, here's a question. Why should my character know anything about Abyssal creatures that aren't demons if they've only ever fought demons? The knowledge you are using to decide that I am cheating is... metagame knowledge. You are literally metagaming when you are saying "I know that there are more types of creatures that aren't demons and don't share their resistances, so therefore my character wouldn't assume that these demons share resistances, because I know they are working from incomplete knowledge." 

People work from incomplete knowledge to build paradigms all the time, it is how you can get people who make WILDLY wrong claims about things, but if you limit yourself to only their knowledge, their conclusion makes sense. The difference is, you know that they are lacking knowledge.



Maxperson said:


> Creatures found in the Abyss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forgottenrealms.fandom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They abyss is infinite and chaotically varied.  There are 103 entries on abyssal creatures there, and there are literally millions(infinite really) of other creatures that are not demons that live in the abyss.  They do not all have the same resistances and vulnerabilities.




Even in the first letter, I see a problem with your claim. 

Aboleths -> Whether or not they live in the Abyss is irrelevant, they are likely not being encountered there. In fact, I've never heard of any being encountered in the Abyss. So for my character to think about how Aboleths are different I would not only need to know Aboleths live there, but have encountered Aboleths. 

Arcanoloth -> These are Yugoloths. They don't live in the Abyss. They go to the Abyss on contracts. They are from The Grey Wastes. Saying they live in the Abyss because you can find them there is like saying that Celestials live in the Abyss because you can find them there. 

Abrian, Abyssal Ant, Abyssal Hulk, Abyssal Drake, Abyssal Ghoul -> You know what these things have in common? They aren't in 5e. So, how many of those 103 entries are monsters that haven't been brought to 5e, and therefore don't matter to the discussion?



Maxperson said:


> There are lots of tactics that would be affected, but that you would focus on the one specific one of the many I mentioned while avoiding the actual point is telling.




Because your actual point is a vague "It matters!" without actually giving any concrete reasons for it. You've just made a vague assertion, with no supporting evidence, and expect me to just accept it as gospel fact. Sorry, no. If you want to convince me, you need to provide counter-evidence, not vague assertions. Especially since I have acknowledged there is a small subset times when it happens. I just find it to be the minority. Just like claiming all M&M's are red, if you want to prove it, you need to do more than just pull a single red M&M out of the bowl.



Maxperson said:


> Does it?  What if it has a dex bonus as well?  What if it has some other magical defenses? Getting hide that is as tough as chain mail would allow the player to assume 16, but that player will often be wrong.




Chain mail doesn't provide a dex bonus, also, if dex bonus mattered, then it would be mentioned in the knowledge the player learns. Magical Defenses? Those would also be mentioned in the knowledge they learned. 

What you are doing is assuming that because I didn't list every possible thing, that there must be secret factors that matter that I'm hiding. I'm not. You would be wrong.



Maxperson said:


> No it isn't. It's a major and distinctive difference.




No it isn't.


----------



## Yaarel

If the player knows something but there is doubt if the character would know it, an Intelligence ability check with the appropriate skill can easily determine if the character happens to have come across it.

Every once in a while, a skeptical DM can ask for an ability check to confirm a piece of knowledge.


----------



## Mephista

Chaosmancer said:


> The knowledge you are using to decide that I am cheating is... metagame knowledge. You are literally metagaming when you are saying "I know that there are more types of creatures that aren't demons and don't share their resistances, so therefore my character wouldn't assume that these demons share resistances, because I know they are working from incomplete knowledge."



What.  So we have to call someone on metagaming .... through IC actions?  That's some uno reversal shinanigans right there.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> This is basically my answer in a nutshell @Micah Sweet
> 
> I actually am playing a barbarian right now who was just in a combat. He had been dropped multiple times in the previous fight and we were moving into a new fight. He took the lead. Was I not taking the combat seriously?
> 
> No, I was. This combat was about rescuing a little girl who had been kidnapped. The two non-melee characters who were still up had much lower AC than me, but hit much harder than me. We knew there was only one, maybe two enemies up ahead, and my guy figured he could stay concious for at least one blow, and give the others the opening they needed. Could he have died in that fight? He didn't care. The point wasn't him trying to survive the fight, the point was the team winning the fight and rescuing a little girl. Dying was worth saving a child's life, that's just how he thinks.
> 
> Most melee front-liners I see are taking combat seriously. And to any degree they are incautious, it isn't because they are going YOLO, it is because they are prioritizing something else over their own survival. Generally the safety and survival of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know people give me a lot of strange looks when I say healing needs to be buffed, but frankly that would prevent yo-yo healing almost immediately. If you could heal and that healing at least cancel a single monster's attack, then you would see people healing mid-combat more. But very quickly they realize that taking their action to only partially undo an opponents action is a terrible plan, so all healing gets regulated to either after the fight or when someone drops and it is an emergency action.



I'm glad to hear you have your PCs perspective prioritized.  A lot of players I've encountered approach combat from a mechanical perspective, however, and make decisions based on how the rules work, not how their PCs would react to the situation.  They can't help it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, I know people give me a lot of strange looks when I say healing needs to be buffed, but frankly that would prevent yo-yo healing almost immediately. If you could heal and that healing at least cancel a single monster's attack, then you would see people healing mid-combat more. But very quickly they realize that taking their action to only partially undo an opponents action is a terrible plan, so all healing gets regulated to either after the fight or when someone drops and it is an emergency action.



A simple buff to healing is, not on its own, sufficient. The front-line fighters will always go down first as that it their job, to tank the fight (leaving aside considerations of damage dealing for now).
If healing in combat is simply buffed, then there is a very strong incentive for the DM to up the difficulty of the combat to maintain tension in the fight and the penalty falls on the front-line fighters.
You need healing to be effective in the combat rather than other actions the healer might do, and I think that the limitation on daily healing should be on the character being healed.
That was the nice thing about healing surges. The amount healed scaled with the initial hit points of the character not the spell that was cast. The number of surges frames the daily limit of the characters not the power/spell recharge limits of the casters. 
You might need damage rider effects on healing magic to make the action economy work or bonus action healing might do it.


----------



## Yaarel

It is worthwhile to return to the 4e mechanic, where the class determines the amount of healing.

If a Fighter uses the d10 to determine hit points, then it rolls d10s when determining healing.

Tougher classes benefit more from healing.

So for example, the Cure Wounds spell heals "1 hit die" rather than "1d8".


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Yaarel said:


> It is worthwhile to return to the 4e mechanic, where the class determines the amount of healing.
> 
> If a Fighter uses the d10 to determine hit points, then it rolls d10s when determining healing.
> 
> Tougher classes benefit more from healing.
> 
> So for example, the Cure Wounds spell heals "1 hit die" rather than "1d8".



1 Hit die would not be near enough. A healing surge in 4e was a quarter of your hit points (rounded down) translated to hit dice you would be nearer to one quarter of your hit dice rounded up.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So, using knowledge about demons to make educated guesses about demons is cheating. Yet again, we find the truth. This is never about "what does your character know", this is about "I am certain you are cheating, because you don't think like I think."
> 
> Because, here's a question. Why should my character know anything about Abyssal creatures that aren't demons if they've only ever fought demons? The knowledge you are using to decide that I am cheating is... metagame knowledge. You are literally metagaming when you are saying "I know that there are more types of creatures that aren't demons and don't share their resistances, so therefore my character wouldn't assume that these demons share resistances, because I know they are working from incomplete knowledge."
> 
> People work from incomplete knowledge to build paradigms all the time, it is how you can get people who make WILDLY wrong claims about things, but if you limit yourself to only their knowledge, their conclusion makes sense. The difference is, you know that they are lacking knowledge.



Except you have virtually nothing to go on.  Hell, you don't even know that either or both of them are demons without PC knowledge.  You're assuming that a horse is a shark, because you found them on the same plane.


Chaosmancer said:


> Aboleths -> Whether or not they live in the Abyss is irrelevant, they are likely not being encountered there. In fact, I've never heard of any being encountered in the Abyss. So for my character to think about how Aboleths are different I would not only need to know Aboleths live there, but have encountered Aboleths.



Whether you have encountered them or not doesn't mean that a bunch don't live there.


Chaosmancer said:


> Arcanoloth -> These are Yugoloths. They don't live in the Abyss. They go to the Abyss on contracts. They are from The Grey Wastes. Saying they live in the Abyss because you can find them there is like saying that Celestials live in the Abyss because you can find them there.



"Arcanaloths were rumored to have originated within the Abyss but had been driven out by the demon lords due to their deceptive nature."

It's a big place.  Some almost surely still live there.


Chaosmancer said:


> Abrian, Abyssal Ant, Abyssal Hulk, Abyssal Drake, Abyssal Ghoul -> You know what these things have in common? They aren't in 5e. So, how many of those 103 entries are monsters that haven't been brought to 5e, and therefore don't matter to the discussion?



All of them do.  As I said, the Abyss is infinite and has an infinite variety of creatures on it.  Just because the DM would have to make them for 5e, doesn't mean that they are not there.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because your actual point is a vague "It matters!" without actually giving any concrete reasons for it. You've just made a vague assertion, with no supporting evidence, and expect me to just accept it as gospel fact. Sorry, no. If you want to convince me, you need to provide counter-evidence, not vague assertions. Especially since I have acknowledged there is a small subset times when it happens. I just find it to be the minority. Just like claiming all M&M's are red, if you want to prove it, you need to do more than just pull a single red M&M out of the bowl.



I've provided multiple tactics with dozens more obvious ones out there.  I'm not going to provide more just because you refuse to see them.


Chaosmancer said:


> Chain mail doesn't provide a dex bonus, also, if dex bonus mattered, then it would be mentioned in the knowledge the player learns. Magical Defenses? Those would also be mentioned in the knowledge they learned.



Chain mail isn't the only armor the ability affects.  Dex would 1) be a part of AC for most creatures, and 2) would be a part of many creatures with ACs or hides as thick as chain.


----------



## Yaarel

UngainlyTitan said:


> 1 Hit die would not be near enough. A healing surge in 4e was a quarter of your hit points (rounded down) translated to hit dice you would be nearer to one quarter of your hit dice rounded up.



For 5e. In the sense that 1d8 feels insufficient, I agree that 1 hit die feels insufficient.

Perhaps _Word of Healing_ heals 1 hit die as a bonus action at range, while _Cure Wounds_ heals 2 hit die as an action at touch.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> It is worthwhile to return to the 4e mechanic, where the class determines the amount of healing.
> 
> If a Fighter uses the d10 to determine hit points, then it rolls d10s when determining healing.
> 
> Tougher classes benefit more from healing.
> 
> So for example, the Cure Wounds spell heals "1 hit die" rather than "1d8".



I like the concept. Scale healing to the max hp of the recipient.  I've been experimenting with that in my homebrew.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Yaarel said:


> For 5e. In the sense that 1d8 feels insufficient, I agree that 1 hit die feels insufficient.
> 
> Perhaps _Word of Healing_ heals 1 hit die as a bonus action at range, while _Cure Wounds_ heals 2 hit die as an action at touch.



That could put a character out of HD in one combat. It is not straight forward not simple. All the moving parts lock together. 

If we look at the expected days combat, then the fighter is expected to endure about 24 rounds of combat per long rest. 
Ideally you want the fighter to run out of steam around the same combat (or one combat more) than a conservatively played caster)
So, of a fighter drops to a one more shot and down in a round you want to pop him up to about good for 2 rounds with healing. That is 2 rounds of normal damage not an alpha strike on a recharge.
So that cure wounds might need to do 2DH worth of healing but only spend 1 HD.
Or something like that. People better at math modelling and probability could give us better figures.


----------



## Yaarel

UngainlyTitan said:


> That could put a character out of HD in one combat. It is not straight forward not simple. All the moving parts lock together.
> 
> If we look at the expected days combat, then the fighter is expected to endure about 24 rounds of combat per long rest.
> Ideally you want the fighter to run out of steam around the same combat (or one combat more) than a conservatively played caster)
> So, of a fighter drops to a one more shot and down in a round you want to pop him up to about good for 2 rounds with healing. That is 2 rounds of normal damage not an alpha strike on a recharge.
> So that cure wounds might need to do 2DH worth of healing but only spend 1 HD.
> Or something like that. People better at math modelling and probability could give us better figures.



I didnt mean the healee needs to "spend" hit dice.

I mean that the spell itself heals an amount that the class determines.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Yaarel said:


> I didnt mean the healee needs to "spend" hit dice.
> 
> I mean that the spell itself heals an amount that the class determines.



Oh! ok, I misunderstood.

Though one of the advantages of the recipient of the heal spending HD was that it acted as a pacing mechanic other than the casters are out.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, I know people give me a lot of strange looks when I say healing needs to be buffed, but frankly that would prevent yo-yo healing almost immediately. If you could heal and that healing at least cancel a single monster's attack, then you would see people healing mid-combat more. *But very quickly they realize that taking their action to only partially undo an opponents action is a terrible plan*, so all healing gets regulated to either after the fight or when someone drops and it is an emergency action.



Definitely agree 100%.

Bolded bit is the key.

It's like, yeah, you can move into danger and use your entire Action to heal for less than a monster hits for! Great! That makes total sense! Even dimmer players quickly realize this is a "bad deal", especially compared to CC or even damage spells. Maybe you could heal them for 2d8+4, or, you could try and land a Hold Person (or whatever), likely stop them doing 2x that much damage for every round it stuck whilst also making them easy to kill!

The problem is 5E is balanced entirely for attrition/wear-down. The 6-8 combats a day. So the idea is absolutely that these heals are used out of combat or in emergencies, however wrong that feels, that's by design.

So we get the yoyo effect, up/down/up/down.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Definitely agree 100%.
> 
> Bolded bit is the key.
> 
> It's like, yeah, you can move into danger and use your entire Action to heal for less than a monster hits for! Great! That makes total sense! Even dimmer players quickly realize this is a "bad deal", especially compared to CC or even damage spells. Maybe you could heal them for 2d8+4, or, you could try and land a Hold Person (or whatever), likely stop them doing 2x that much damage for every round it stuck whilst also making them easy to kill!
> 
> The problem is 5E is balanced entirely for attrition/wear-down. The 6-8 combats a day. So the idea is absolutely that these heals are used out of combat or in emergencies, however wrong that feels, that's by design.
> 
> So we get the yoyo effect, up/down/up/down.



Maybe get rid of the emergencies part and have healing be out of combat only.  It would certainly fit a lot of fiction.  Add to that scaled healing based on the recipient and you've got yourself a system I would support.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> If the player knows something but there is doubt if the character would know it, an Intelligence ability check with the appropriate skill can easily determine if the character happens to have come across it.
> 
> Every once in a while, a skeptical DM can ask for an ability check to confirm a piece of knowledge.




Sure, but there are certain things it makes sense for and certain things it doesn't. 

It makes perfect sense to have a player roll because they know Zariel was once an angel who fell to corruption, but their character might not. 

It makes less sense to have a Ranger or Druid who specializes in the Tundra to roll to know about Winter Wolves. It makes perfect sense that they would, even if there can be debate about the issue.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe get rid of the emergencies part and have healing be out of combat only.  It would certainly fit a lot of fiction.  Add to that scaled healing based on the recipient and you've got yourself a system I would support.



While I would not in principle have a problem with that game. I would not play a game of D&D that way. Not a class based leveling game, I do not want my 15th level character to die in an alley from an alpha strike from some random mook. 
If I want to play that game I can always play Warhammer.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mephista said:


> What.  So we have to call someone on metagaming .... through IC actions?  That's some uno reversal shinanigans right there.




Not quite, but it is the fundamental problem with decrying metagaming. 

There was a game I was in at a convention once, where the GM had created a bunch of puzzles. Each puzzle had had a symbol next to them, and the final puzzle was a code made of those symbols. We solved it on the first try. The GM was stunned, and asked how we had done it. We were confused, because the code was literally the order we had seen them in, right? 

Turns out it wasn't, we had just written them down in the wrong order.... which happened to be the exact order of the code. Pure, unadulterated coincidence. But the thing is, this sort of stuff happens. I tend to be quite good at guessing plot twists that GMs out into the story. Is it because I'm metagaming? Not really, I'm just deeply immersed in fantasy tropes so I spot them. You could say that is meta-gaming, because fantasy tropes aren't part of the world, but I would literally have to change the way I think and interact to "avoid cheating" 

Which would mean I would have to know what the twist is, realize I know it "for the wrong reasons" and then intentionally metagame to come to the wrong conclusion. But not only is that far too much effort, but it makes the mistake of assuming that meta-gaming is always bad. We meta-game all the time with things like "why is this group of strangers working together for another job after the first?"

People can take incomplete information and come to a conclusion, that conclusion can be correct or it can be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then no one cares. It is only when it is correct that people start accusing them of cheating. Which, to avoid, a lot of players will INTENTIONALLY choose the incorrect guess. Which is also metagaming.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Chaosmancer said:


> Not quite, but it is the fundamental problem with decrying metagaming.
> 
> There was a game I was in at a convention once, where the GM had created a bunch of puzzles. Each puzzle had had a symbol next to them, and the final puzzle was a code made of those symbols. We solved it on the first try. The GM was stunned, and asked how we had done it. We were confused, because the code was literally the order we had seen them in, right?
> 
> Turns out it wasn't, we had just written them down in the wrong order.... which happened to be the exact order of the code. Pure, unadulterated coincidence. But the thing is, this sort of stuff happens. I tend to be quite good at guessing plot twists that GMs out into the story. Is it because I'm metagaming? Not really, I'm just deeply immersed in fantasy tropes so I spot them. You could say that is meta-gaming, because fantasy tropes aren't part of the world, but I would literally have to change the way I think and interact to "avoid cheating"
> 
> Which would mean I would have to know what the twist is, realize I know it "for the wrong reasons" and then intentionally metagame to come to the wrong conclusion. But not only is that far too much effort, but it makes the mistake of assuming that meta-gaming is always bad. We meta-game all the time with things like "why is this group of strangers working together for another job after the first?"
> 
> People can take incomplete information and come to a conclusion, that conclusion can be correct or it can be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then no one cares. It is only when it is correct that people start accusing them of cheating. Which, to avoid, a lot of players will INTENTIONALLY choose the incorrect guess. Which is also metagaming.



This kind of reminds me of one of the underlying things in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the shows premise is a subvertion of the horror trope of the blonde airhead getting murdered in the alley at the start of the movie.

D&D players as a group now adays are so steeped in genre tropes that genre savviness and trope knowledge permeated our play and we do not notice half of it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> While I would not in principle have a problem with that game. I would not play a game of D&D that way. Not a class based leveling game, I do not want my 15th level character to die in an alley from an alpha strike from some random mook.
> If I want to play that game I can always play Warhammer.



I'm actually cool with in-combat stabilization, but no positive hit points.  If you're down, you're down.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngainlyTitan said:


> A simple buff to healing is, not on its own, sufficient. The front-line fighters will always go down first as that it their job, to tank the fight (leaving aside considerations of damage dealing for now).
> If healing in combat is simply buffed, then there is a very strong incentive for the DM to up the difficulty of the combat to maintain tension in the fight and the penalty falls on the front-line fighters.
> You need healing to be effective in the combat rather than other actions the healer might do, and I think that the limitation on daily healing should be on the character being healed.
> That was the nice thing about healing surges. The amount healed scaled with the initial hit points of the character not the spell that was cast. The number of surges frames the daily limit of the characters not the power/spell recharge limits of the casters.
> You might need damage rider effects on healing magic to make the action economy work or bonus action healing might do it.




Healing surges worked really well, but part of that was they also were significant healing. 25% of the character's max hp. I agree that they worked incredibly within their system for keeping the resource in who was being healed, which makes narrative sense

I don't think just giving more healing will cause DMs to just increase the damage, that feels counter-intuitive to me, if they were the ones increasing the healing in the first place.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Healing surges worked really well, but part of that was they also were significant healing. 25% of the character's max hp. I agree that they worked incredibly within their system for keeping the resource in who was being healed, which makes narrative sense
> 
> I don't think just giving more healing will cause DMs to just increase the damage, that feels counter-intuitive to me, if they were the ones increasing the healing in the first place.



If WotC increases the healing though, not the DM, that's a different story.


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah they can.
> 
> Wizards get two spells of their choice per level and have done since 3E. There's no requirement those spells come from like, the Wizard's correspondence course or something.
> 
> Bards and Sorcerers pull magic from entirely different sources to Wizards, but cast exactly the same spells. That actually hard-proves you're wrong. If arcane spells weren't "floating around the ether", a Sorcerer wouldn't cast Magic Missile, he'd fire an energy blast like a Pathfinder Kineticist or something. You can't even argue with that.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Except you have virtually nothing to go on.  Hell, you don't even know that either or both of them are demons without PC knowledge.  You're assuming that a horse is a shark, because you found them on the same plane.




Nope. I already addressed why the character's would know both are demons. So, I have a demon, traits for that demon, and then the assumption that another demon shares the traits. Unless you can tell me why it is impossible for someone to use that logic, then I can use it. 



Maxperson said:


> Whether you have encountered them or not doesn't mean that a bunch don't live there.




And yet, it doesn't matter that they live there, if no one encounters them there. I'm sure there is an elf living in the Abyss too, but that doesn't mean that I have to account for the elf living in the Abyss. 



Maxperson said:


> "Arcanaloths were rumored to have originated within the Abyss but had been driven out by the demon lords due to their deceptive nature."
> 
> It's a big place.  Some almost surely still live there.




So, you've now given me another reason to consider the demons. So why is it a problem? I now hav reasons to think Arcanaloths are really demons. 



Maxperson said:


> All of them do.  As I said, the Abyss is infinite and has an infinite variety of creatures on it.  Just because the DM would have to make them for 5e, doesn't mean that they are not there.




So now I have to consider homebrew before I'm allowed to use logic to determine how I act? How many times have you considered the My Little Pony Homebrew when planning your actions? 



Maxperson said:


> I've provided multiple tactics with dozens more obvious ones out there.  I'm not going to provide more just because you refuse to see them.




Look, I'm stressed right this second, and not going to go trawling back through. If you feel I've missed something, let me know, I responded to what you said. 



Maxperson said:


> Chain mail isn't the only armor the ability affects.  Dex would 1) be a part of AC for most creatures, and 2) would be a part of many creatures with ACs or hides as thick as chain.




And so the magic would tell them about that. Again, this isn't that difficult.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So now I have to consider homebrew before I'm allowed to use logic to determine how I act? How many times have you considered the My Little Pony Homebrew when planning your actions?



Every day.  I live by the My Little Pony credo.


Chaosmancer said:


> Look, I'm stressed right this second, and not going to go trawling back through. If you feel I've missed something, let me know, I responded to what you said.



I'm sorry you're stressed man. 


Chaosmancer said:


> And so the magic would tell them about that. Again, this isn't that difficult.



Metagame magic is a bunch of hokum. The PC has no way of knowing this stuff and the magic isn't going to bypass the PC and give the information to the player.


----------



## Amrûnril

Chaosmancer said:


> Not quite, but it is the fundamental problem with decrying metagaming.
> 
> There was a game I was in at a convention once, where the GM had created a bunch of puzzles. Each puzzle had had a symbol next to them, and the final puzzle was a code made of those symbols. We solved it on the first try. The GM was stunned, and asked how we had done it. We were confused, because the code was literally the order we had seen them in, right?
> 
> Turns out it wasn't, we had just written them down in the wrong order.... which happened to be the exact order of the code. Pure, unadulterated coincidence. But the thing is, this sort of stuff happens. I tend to be quite good at guessing plot twists that GMs out into the story. Is it because I'm metagaming? Not really, I'm just deeply immersed in fantasy tropes so I spot them. You could say that is meta-gaming, because fantasy tropes aren't part of the world, but I would literally have to change the way I think and interact to "avoid cheating"
> 
> Which would mean I would have to know what the twist is, realize I know it "for the wrong reasons" and then intentionally metagame to come to the wrong conclusion. But not only is that far too much effort, but it makes the mistake of assuming that meta-gaming is always bad. We meta-game all the time with things like "why is this group of strangers working together for another job after the first?"
> 
> People can take incomplete information and come to a conclusion, that conclusion can be correct or it can be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then no one cares. It is only when it is correct that people start accusing them of cheating. Which, to avoid, a lot of players will INTENTIONALLY choose the incorrect guess. Which is also metagaming.




Yep, anytime players have information their characters lack, it's impossible for their decision making to be completely divorced from metagame reasoning. This dynamic can, to some degree, be limited by keeping information a mystery to the players, but it's never going to disappear completely- there are just too many possible fields of metagame knowledge (monster characteristics, spell properties, setting history, genre conventions, DM habits...). At some point, you need to rely on the players to use their metagame knowledge in a way that makes for an enjoyable game and a compelling narrative, whatever that means at your table.


----------



## Mephista

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm sure there is an elf living in the Abyss too, but that doesn't mean that I have to account for the elf living in the Abyss.



Lolth and the drow pantheon exist in the Abyss, and it's probably a good thing to keep in mind that her dark elves petitioners as well as the souls of elf sacrifices are there


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Chaosmancer said:


> Healing surges worked really well, but part of that was they also were significant healing. 25% of the character's max hp. I agree that they worked incredibly within their system for keeping the resource in who was being healed, which makes narrative sense
> 
> I don't think just giving more healing will cause DMs to just increase the damage, that feels counter-intuitive to me, if they were the ones increasing the healing in the first place.



The healing surge system worked (IMOand all that) because the character had enough surges that the availability of surges became a constraint on the adventuring day not the caster resources. Now that was in a system with encounter resources. I think for a healing surge mechanic to work it would have to operate at a similar scale. 
As far as I remember the party could only trigger 2 or 3 healing surges per combat with the option of one surge equivalent that used caster only resources. 
It was the combination of limited heals per combat with a good healing return but that healing opportunity refreshed on the next combat. 
This was enabled with encounter powers but would be very hard to pull off on a daily power budget. Unless healing was removed from spell casting and put on a short rest timer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

@Haplo781 

Why are you posting a picture of the best edition of D&D? I mean, apart from to be awesome, obviously!

Re: 4E, I think we have to allow that AEDU made every class function differently lol. Honestly I literally never had anyone play a Wizard in 4E. Ritual magic + loads of awesome Controller classes which _actually had a theme and style_ instead of "I AM GENERIC SPELL MAN!!!!" meant they weren't worth considering. Interesting how quick people ditched the hell out of that concept when it was no longer overpowered as all getout.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe get rid of the emergencies part and have healing be out of combat only. It would certainly fit a lot of fiction. Add to that scaled healing based on the recipient and you've got yourself a system I would support.



Have you looked at Worlds Without Number? There's a free version. If not check out the healing system in that (which I understand differs significantly from Star Without Number), I don't want to describe the whole thing, but whilst I'd make it a little less fatal I honestly think it's very close to the direction WotC should have taken with 5E - and WWN is pretty seriously OSR (stressing the R, admittedly).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Have you looked at Worlds Without Number? There's a free version. If not check out the healing system in that (which I understand differs significantly from Star Without Number), I don't want to describe the whole thing, but whilst I'd make it a little less fatal I honestly think it's very close to the direction WotC should have taken with 5E - and WWN is pretty seriously OSR (stressing the R, admittedly).



I have, and I agree.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> I have, and I agree.



Honestly WWN makes me tempted to hack a whole bunch of its stuff into 5E. Right now I'm running Spire but if I go back to 5E/1D&D at some point, I think I'll adapt several of the rules. They had some good ideas about "stealth kills", for example, which have been a sticking point in D&D since '90s for my main group, too, making them possible without making them trivial/routine.


----------



## Staffan

UngainlyTitan said:


> As far as I remember the party could only trigger 2 or 3 healing surges per combat with the option of one surge equivalent that used caster only resources.



Pretty close. The baseline for a leader was Healing Word and Inspiring Word which were 2/encounter, or 3/encounter at level 16+_, triggering a healing surge with 1d6 to 6d6 bonus healing. These abilities were minor actions (bonus actions in 5e parlance), so you could also do something "productive". In addition, each PC could use Second Wind as a standard action*_ 1/encounter to spend a healing surge. You could also have other abilities triggering healing surges, both from leaders and others. For example, clerics could choose the Healing Strike encounter power which would deal 2W+Str damage, mark the target, and allow you or a nearby ally to spend a healing surge. 

And of course, during a short rest you could spend as many healing surges as you wanted.


UngainlyTitan said:


> It was the combination of limited heals per combat with a good healing return but that healing opportunity refreshed on the next combat.



That, and having healing surges be the main attrition mechanic, not actual hp.

* 4e levels went to 30, not 20.
** One of the dwarven racial abilities was to use Second Wind as a minor action instead of a standard action.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> If WotC increases the healing though, not the DM, that's a different story.




Sure, but that's going to become a roll of the dice. Some people will just follow WoTC's guidelines. Others will figure out the math. And some will overdo it. Same as we have now.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> I'm sorry you're stressed man.




Just work stuff



Maxperson said:


> Metagame magic is a bunch of hokum. The PC has no way of knowing this stuff and the magic isn't going to bypass the PC and give the information to the player.




Why not? Magic can see the future. Magic can read signatures invisible to the eye. Magic can look inside a creature and see the microbes that cause disease. Why can't magic give information that aggregates into the information of AC? 

Heck, magic can increase and create AC. How can a caster possibly even comprehend the spell "Mage Armor" since it gives the protection of AC 13 + Dex mod. That is a part of the spell that the caster can read and comprehend, however it is presented in world, they understand it. Same with Barkskin, which gives you an AC of 16, and that AC cannot be lowered. Scrolls of Barkskin exist and can be understood, so how is that spell capable of presenting the concept of AC to a caster, but magic cannot possibly present information that can aggregate into AC for the caster? That is contradictory.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're not going to use the actual components (which I enjoy doing for wizards and clerics at least because its flavourful) why bother with the pouch?  Just dump the idea entirely.



Because they attach to your belt, whereas Arcane Foci occupy a hand even when you’re not actively casting a spell.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Because they attach to your belt, whereas Arcane Foci occupy a hand even when you’re not actively casting a spell.



I'm not a big fan of arcane foci either.  Again, traditional components are a lot more flavorful, at least for wizards.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Just work stuff



I sincerely hope it gets better for you soon. We may disagree a lot here, but on a personal level I wish the best for everyone.  Perhaps the weekend will provide the rest and freedom of mind that you need. 


Chaosmancer said:


> Why not? Magic can see the future. Magic can read signatures invisible to the eye. Magic can look inside a creature and see the microbes that cause disease. Why can't magic give information that aggregates into the information of AC?



Magic can tell the caster, "The creature has protection roughly equal to chain mail and it is agile as well," but it's not going to give the caster AC 18(16 from hide, 2 from dex bonus).  The caster doesn't even know that chain mail is 16 and hide is 12.  He only knows that chain protects significantly better than hide.


Chaosmancer said:


> Heck, magic can increase and create AC. How can a caster possibly even comprehend the spell "Mage Armor" since it gives the protection of AC 13 + Dex mod. That is a part of the spell that the caster can read and comprehend, however it is presented in world, they understand it. Same with Barkskin, which gives you an AC of 16, and that AC cannot be lowered.



No, the caster does not read or comprehend 13+dex.  He reads and understands that mage armor affords some protection and he can still move in it easily, so it's a good spell to have.  The hard numbers are metagame.


----------



## Yaarel

I would love each kind of spellcasting focus to grant a different spellcasting benefit. I would need these benefits to robustly balance with each other and be equally good choices.

Delete spellcasting "components" from the game. Instead, only the focus matters. Decide which focus the character concept is using.

Examples of focuses:
• Mind (trance, mystical experience, visualization, etcetera)
• Voice (improvising expressions of intention, chant, song, poem, command, reciting formula, etcetera)
• Body (dance, Airbender, nose wiggle, hand signs, magic-infused body, drop of blood, etcetera)
• Symbol (personal, traditional, sacred, necklace, tattoo, shield, etcetera)
• Text (personal, traditional, sacred text, diary, book of poetry, written oracles, spellbook, etcetera)
• Implement (wand, staff, rod, cane, distaff, orb, sword, musical instrument, etcetera)
• Components (protoscientific properties of various objects, animal/plant parts, tarot deck, etcetera)
• Pet (familiar)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> I would love each kind of spellcasting focus to grant a different spellcasting benefit. I would need these benefits to robustly balance with each other and be equally good choices.
> 
> Delete spellcasting "components" from the game. Instead, only the focus matters. Decide which focus the character concept is using.
> 
> Examples of focuses:
> • Mind (trance, mystical experience, visualization, etcetera)
> • Voice (improvising expressions of intention, chant, song, poem, command, reciting formula, etcetera)
> • Body (dance, Airbender, nose wiggle, hand signs, magic-infused body, drop of blood, etcetera)
> • Symbol (personal, traditional, sacred, necklace, tattoo, shield, etcetera)
> • Text (personal, traditional, sacred text, diary, book of poetry, written oracles, spellbook, etcetera)
> • Implement (wand, staff, rod, cane, distaff, orb, sword, musical instrument, etcetera)
> • Components (protoscientific properties of various objects, animal/plant parts, tarot deck, etcetera)
> • Pet (familiar)



There you go!  Make them do something, and perhaps lean more into different spellcasters using different ones, and arcane foci could be really cool as opposed to just an excuse not to interact with the component rules.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> I sincerely hope it gets better for you soon. We may disagree a lot here, but on a personal level I wish the best for everyone.  Perhaps the weekend will provide the rest and freedom of mind that you need.




Doubt it will, but who knows. 



Maxperson said:


> Magic can tell the caster, "The creature has protection roughly equal to chain mail and it is agile as well," but it's not going to give the caster AC 18(16 from hide, 2 from dex bonus).  The caster doesn't even know that chain mail is 16 and hide is 12.  He only knows that chain protects significantly better than hide.
> 
> No, the caster does not read or comprehend 13+dex.  He reads and understands that mage armor affords some protection and he can still move in it easily, so it's a good spell to have.  The hard numbers are metagame.




If a Druid has Hide Armor, a Dex of 14, and a shield, then they know that Barkskin cannot offer them any additional protection. They have to know this, because it is true, and no druid in that situation will cast Barkskin. They may not think of it in terms of "I have an AC of 16, therefore the spell setting my AC to 16 is not helpful" but they still come to the same conclusion and have the same understanding. 

Mages who can cast Mage Armor and wear normal armor are aware of how Mage Armor stacks up against their various choices. They would know for example that Mage Armor is superior to wearing a chain shirt, but inferior to them wearing plate armor (if their Dex score is less than 20) 

However this is possible, it is possible, because these decisions are made. The caster has to be able to tell when a spell is and is not useful, otherwise every time that a Druid doesn't cast Barkskin because it won't change their AC, or a Hexblade uses Mage Armor because they have an 18 dexm instead of purchasing half-plate, they would be meta-gaming.


----------



## SkidAce

Yaarel said:


> I would love each kind of spellcasting focus to grant a different spellcasting benefit. I would need these benefits to robustly balance with each other and be equally good choices.
> 
> Delete spellcasting "components" from the game. Instead, only the focus matters. Decide which focus the character concept is using.
> 
> Examples of focuses:
> • Mind (trance, mystical experience, visualization, etcetera)
> • Voice (improvising expressions of intention, chant, song, poem, command, reciting formula, etcetera)
> • Body (dance, Airbender, nose wiggle, hand signs, magic-infused body, drop of blood, etcetera)
> • Symbol (personal, traditional, sacred, necklace, tattoo, shield, etcetera)
> • Text (personal, traditional, sacred text, diary, book of poetry, written oracles, spellbook, etcetera)
> • Implement (wand, staff, rod, cane, distaff, orb, sword, musical instrument, etcetera)
> • Components (protoscientific properties of various objects, animal/plant parts, tarot deck, etcetera)
> • Pet (familiar)



I lean towards "sympathetic" magic, so material components always made sense to me.

Feel like it would depend on the style of the campaign.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> I would love each kind of spellcasting focus to grant a different spellcasting benefit. I would need these benefits to robustly balance with each other and be equally good choices.
> 
> Delete spellcasting "components" from the game. Instead, only the focus matters. Decide which focus the character concept is using.
> 
> Examples of focuses:
> • Mind (trance, mystical experience, visualization, etcetera)
> • Voice (improvising expressions of intention, chant, song, poem, command, reciting formula, etcetera)
> • Body (dance, Airbender, nose wiggle, hand signs, magic-infused body, drop of blood, etcetera)
> • Symbol (personal, traditional, sacred, necklace, tattoo, shield, etcetera)
> • Text (personal, traditional, sacred text, diary, book of poetry, written oracles, spellbook, etcetera)
> • Implement (wand, staff, rod, cane, distaff, orb, sword, musical instrument, etcetera)
> • Components (protoscientific properties of various objects, animal/plant parts, tarot deck, etcetera)
> • Pet (familiar)




I tried to give some minor benefits to the different foci. Increased range, +1 damage, the ability to have a reaction defense against a single element. 

Problem I ran into was that component pouches were too generic, but also the most expensive. I think I mostly was going to just make their special thing being incredibly cheap.


----------



## Yaarel

Chaosmancer said:


> I tried to give some minor benefits to the different foci. Increased range, +1 damage, the ability to have a reaction defense against a single element.



Choosing a Pet as a focus, can cast the spell via the Pet as the point of origin. This relates to range as well as other situationally excellent benefits. This can be the amount of design space for the respective benefits of other focuses.



Chaosmancer said:


> Problem I ran into was that component pouches were too generic, but also the most expensive. I think I mostly was going to just make their special thing being incredibly cheap.



Yeah.

If the player wants their focus to cost one copper piece, that is fine. If the player wants to use a priceless magic item for the focus, that is fine too.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Doubt it will, but who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> If a Druid has Hide Armor, a Dex of 14, and a shield, then they know that Barkskin cannot offer them any additional protection. They have to know this, because it is true, and no druid in that situation will cast Barkskin. They may not think of it in terms of "I have an AC of 16, therefore the spell setting my AC to 16 is not helpful" but they still come to the same conclusion and have the same understanding.
> 
> Mages who can cast Mage Armor and wear normal armor are aware of how Mage Armor stacks up against their various choices. They would know for example that Mage Armor is superior to wearing a chain shirt, but inferior to them wearing plate armor (if their Dex score is less than 20)
> 
> However this is possible, it is possible, because these decisions are made. The caster has to be able to tell when a spell is and is not useful, otherwise every time that a Druid doesn't cast Barkskin because it won't change their AC, or a Hexblade uses Mage Armor because they have an 18 dexm instead of purchasing half-plate, they would be meta-gaming.



The player would, yes. The character, not so much. The wizard is not going to understand about dex and mage armor not being better than plate until a 20 dex, but if he has heavy armor proficiency may just feel more secure in plate or prefer it because it's shiny.  Only the player is going to know to such fine detail that armor + dex modifiers = this number or that.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> The player would, yes. The character, not so much. The wizard is not going to understand about dex and mage armor not being better than plate until a 20 dex, but if he has heavy armor proficiency may just feel more secure in plate or prefer it because it's shiny.  Only the player is going to know to such fine detail that armor + dex modifiers = this number or that.



Wouldn't that imply that most NPC's would use armor that wasn't efficient, because they didn't realize what the most effective defense is?


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Wouldn't that imply that most NPC's would use armor that wasn't efficient, because they didn't realize what the most effective defense is?



They'd know roughly about the armor itself, and generally that plate mail(in later editions) slowed you down if you were quick, but not by how much specifically.  NPCs often in modules wore armor that wasn't as good as they could get.

It's the player who in 3e knew that Full Plate only allowed you to use 1 point of dex bonus, not the PC.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> The player would, yes. The character, not so much. The wizard is not going to understand about dex and mage armor not being better than plate until a 20 dex, but if he has heavy armor proficiency may just feel more secure in plate or prefer it because it's shiny.  Only the player is going to know to such fine detail that armor + dex modifiers = this number or that.




So... I have to make up reasons like "this armor is shinier" or "I just feel more secure this way" when I am a trained warrior deciding what protection will save my life? 

Yeah, no. My character is a professional. They know their trade-craft, and they know that what they are choosing is the _best_ option they have, because they are ensuring their lives by this equipment, so they are picking it for the effectiveness, not because of how it looks or how it makes them feel. 

I would also tell any druid who felt the need to waste a spell slot and concentration for defenses that do not help them "because my character wouldn't know any better, and more armor is better" that they don't need to waste their resources like that. They are a professional, and they know their own abilities and how they work, they don't need to pretend to be ignorant just to satisfy some warped need to perfectly separate character and player knowledge.


----------



## James Gasik

Indeed.  I have to assume characters know that things like a longsword does d8 damage and a rapier does d6, as well as "because of my Dexterity, studded leather armor provides just as good of protection as half plate.  If people assumed that "more armor is better", then everyone who has proficiency and can afford it would wear full plate, regardless of their Dexterity bonus, because they would have no way of knowing if lighter armor would serve them better or not.

Does a character know what a +1 modifier is?  Not in game mechanics terms, no, but they should understand what the difference means in their world.  Otherwise, no one would understand what makes +2 weapons or armor better than +1.


----------

