Bard: "Oh I don't actually play my guitar. I just wave it around." [Archive]

Strill

2017-03-19, 09:24 PM

Are there seriously people who think that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus? I just got out of a discussion on another board where people were saying that a Bard can just carry around their instrument without ever playing it, and that that is enough to "use" it as a spellcasting focus, since the book doesn't explicitly say that a Bard must play their instrument to use it as a focus.

Can you seriously read the Bard description and conclude that music is not integral to their magic?

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

A Bard's instrument is not a Wizard staff. It's not some intricately constructed tool designed to channel arcane power. It's just an ordinary instrument. A Bard can pick up literally any instrument and use it as a focus. That should tell you that it is not the instrument itself that is important, but the music that it plays.

DragonSorcererX

2017-03-19, 09:29 PM

Two Words: "War Caster" :smallbiggrin:

Strill

2017-03-19, 09:30 PM

Two Words: "War Caster" :smallbiggrin:

That I would say is the Bard learning to rhythmically time their sword clashes into music.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-19, 09:34 PM

Oh, man... have you even looked at the Roleplaying Rules thread?

Yes, there are people out there who think this. And they are offended by you.

Isn't it obvious to you that the Bard is simply the mechanics of the Bard Class, and that the fluff can be whatever fluff a player wishes to create, regardless of the DM's opinion and the setting?

Prepare for some serious stupidity.

Regwon

2017-03-19, 09:36 PM

DragonSorcererX

2017-03-19, 09:39 PM

That I would say is the Bard learning to rhythmically time their sword clashes into music.

Well, if we divide the 6 seconds of a round between the actions I think that it would be like this:
Standard Action: 2s.
Move Action: 2s.
Bonus Action: 0,5s.
Reaction: 0,5s.
Free Action: 1s.

So, a Bard can sing a "spell song" in two seconds... how does one sings a cantrip, operates bagpipes, moves, sings a bonus action spell, reacts and interacts with one object in 6 seconds I don't know...

Strill

2017-03-19, 09:41 PM

Well, if we divide the 6 seconds of a round between the actions I think that it would be like this:
Standard Action: 2s.
Move Action: 2s.
Bonus Action: 0,5s.
Reaction: 0,5s.
Free Action: 1s.

So, a Bard can sing a "spell song" in two seconds... how does one sings a cantrip, operates a bag pipe, moves, sings a bonus action spell, reacts and interacts with one object in 6 seconds I don't know...

It's an abstraction. It's not meant to be simulationist.

Addaran

2017-03-19, 09:43 PM

Bard is a great class to use refluffed as an aventurer with some magic (valor bard for an EK-ish feel but more caster then martial)
Or for a charisma cleric that's more about converting people then deep introspection and wisdom.

Strill

2017-03-19, 09:47 PM

On the other hand, if they can use literally any instrument as a focus without being able to play it, maybe it isn't the music that it makes that is important. The PHB makes no mention of being able to play an instrument properly to use bard abilities, and so if you're not using an instrument how it was intended (because you are incapable) then is there any difference to actually playing it, or just waving it around?
Anyone can play any instrument. Proficiency only lets you add your Proficiency bonus to Performance checks with it.

Also, that description that the beginning of each class is not rules text. It is there to give you a flavour of what bards can be like, not to dictate what bards can only be like.
"Spellcasting: You have learned to untangle and reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with your wishes and music."

What do you see that could be interpreted differently?

Bard is a great class to use refluffed as an aventurer with some magic (valor bard for an EK-ish feel but more caster then martial)
Or for a charisma cleric that's more about converting people then deep introspection and wisdom.

Certainly a bard can be refluffed, but there's no room to interpret the stock Bard as not using music in their magic.

DragonSorcererX

2017-03-19, 09:47 PM

It's an abstraction. It's not meant to be simulationist.

I'm not complaining, but as one of the members above said to just refluff it, in my game I have a Half-Elf Lore Bard that is a Fey Sorceress.

tkuremento

2017-03-19, 10:13 PM

"Spellcasting: You have learned to untangle and reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with your wishes and music."

Yes but if you take that as MUST play the instrument whilst casting as opposed to just holding it because of that fluff, then that also means Great Weapon Master feat gives Advantage because the fluff at the start of it says "You've learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes."

BurgerBeast

2017-03-19, 10:15 PM

Also, that description that the beginning of each class is not rules text. It is there to give you a flavour of what bards can be like, not to dictate what bards can only be like.

There really is no justification for this view, at all, despite the fact that it is perpetuated by many people.

(edit: what follow is added after the original post)

Yes but if you take that as MUST play the instrument whilst casting as opposed to just holding it because of that fluff, then that also means Great Weapon Master feat gives Advantage because the fluff at the start of it says "You've learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes."

No, it really doesn't. This is a non sequitur.

SLIMEPRIEST

2017-03-19, 10:22 PM

What about a bard that performs oratory?

BurgerBeast

2017-03-19, 10:26 PM

What about a bard that performs oratory?

Consider this bait taken: what about him?

Puh Laden

2017-03-19, 10:27 PM

Most instruments require two hands to play. A lot of bard players who take instruments instead of component pouches, still like the idea of being musical and playing their instruments out-of-combat, but a lot of those same players also like the option of attacking with a weapon or using some other item without having to wait a turn to do so. Why would it take a turn? Because you use one free object interaction to stow the instrument, and one to pull out whatever thing you want to use, and sometimes things happen between turns so that you can't predict what you're going to need next.

As for myself, I prefer the explorer flavor of the bard and would take the pouch instead anyway just for that. But also the idea of having to hold an instrument and juggling everything around just pulls me out of the game. However, mechanically, I allow my bard players to just hold it as it says in the rules governing material components.

tkuremento

2017-03-19, 10:35 PM

No, it really doesn't. This is a non sequitur.

All I get hit with anymore are "you misspoke and did a fallacy, therefore anything you say is now invalid." I am not saying it isn't true because this other thing isn't true. What I am saying is when something is a mechanic is clearly states it is a mechanic and isn't fluff. If you look into Chapters 5 and 10, neither the equipment descriptions nor the material use of a focus mentions actually playing the instrument.

But back to what I said before. What I am saying is many things have a fluff sentence or paragraph before it gets into the actual, specific benefits of what it does. What I am then saying is if we read fluff to be part of the mechanics, then the mention of advantage in GWM would imply mechanical advantage.

SLIMEPRIEST

2017-03-19, 10:38 PM

Consider this bait taken: what about him?
Just that he doesn't need an instrument. Bards that don't want to use an instrument as a focus don't need one. Why would a character carry one around if he/she didn't want to play it?

BurgerBeast

2017-03-19, 11:58 PM

All I get hit with anymore are "you misspoke and did a fallacy, therefore anything you say is now invalid." I am not saying it isn't true because this other thing isn't true. What I am saying is when something is a mechanic is clearly states it is a mechanic and isn't fluff. If you look into Chapters 5 and 10, neither the equipment descriptions nor the material use of a focus mentions actually playing the instrument.

I never said that anything you say form this point forward is invalid.

Well, the fact that the rules don't say it doesn't discount it. That's really not the framework to start from (also despite the fact that many people on this forums do start there).

But back to what I said before. What I am saying is many things have a fluff sentence or paragraph before it gets into the actual, specific benefits of what it does. What I am then saying is if we read fluff to be part of the mechanics, then the mention of advantage in GWM would imply mechanical advantage.

And I'm saying there's no real justification for deciding exactly what is fluff and what is mechanics, and people tend to do it differently. Also, there's nothing in the rulebooks (so far as I know) that calls out this distinction.

Just that he doesn't need an instrument. Bards that don't want to use an instrument as a focus don't need one. Why would a character carry one around if he/she didn't want to play it?

He wouldn't. But this isn't what the OP was talking about. The OP said:

Are there seriously people who think that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus? (emphasis added)

So, it really doesn't apply to the orator, since he isn't trying to use the instrument as a focus. The OP is talking about people who are trying to use it as a focus without playing it.

Arcangel4774

2017-03-20, 01:17 AM

Maybe the bard has such vocal talents as to cast the spell in a frequency that resonates with the instrument, causing the string/membrane/air within to vibrate with magic of its own.

Or you could argue that their having played the instrument at any point brings forth the raw magic of the universe and binds it to the instrument, making it a focus for them.

RSP

2017-03-20, 01:22 AM

The rules are pretty clear on how a focus works and it doesn't entail "playing" with any of them.

In addition to the combat issues in playing two handed instruments, how would a Bard do V components while playing a flute or bagpipes?

If you actually use this rule, you're restricting Bards to using one-handed, non wind instruments, which may leave one able to use a drum, assuming they set it on the ground and don't move.

Cespenar

2017-03-20, 01:24 AM

Wizard: "Oh, I'm not actually reading my spellbook, it's just there so I can prepare my spells."

Strill

2017-03-20, 01:41 AM

In addition to the combat issues in playing two handed instruments, how would a Bard do V components while playing a flute or bagpipes?By speaking in-between playing it. No one said it had to be simultaneous. Alternatively, the act of playing a wind instrument is also a verbal component as well.

If you actually use this rule, you're restricting Bards to using one-handed, non wind instruments, which may leave one able to use a drum, assuming they set it on the ground and don't move.Why are two-handed instruments a problem? If you want to cast a V,S spell, just hold the instrument in one hand and cast. If you're a Valor Bard, you should probably take War Caster.

RickAllison

2017-03-20, 01:54 AM

Wizard: "Oh, I'm not actually reading my spellbook, it's just there so I can prepare my spells."

I could definitely see that. Instead of having script, have pictures of various glyphs so it is really just a picture book (for a wizard like Weiss Schnee). Heck, I could see a wizard making his spell-book a pop-up book where you move little tabs around to demonstrate for the caster exactly how to perform the components (seems perfect for an orc wizard).

Of course I am the person who is fine with Barbarians being iaijutsu swords(wo)men whose Rage is more of a zen state, druids who don't have every facet of their lives dictated by stereotypical portrayals of druids (you know, so they are a character and not a caricature), and Sorcerers who have learned how to manipulate the Weave effortlessly through study rather than lucking into it. So long as the mechanics match and they don't conflict with my setting, I really don't care what variation on the class they have chosen to take.

And most of the time it doesn't come down to that. PCs who are unique like that tend to be alone. They don't have friends to call on, or NPCs that can relate to them, and players realize this. Portraying a non-standard character is difficult because you have to consider them as a character with their own desires. You can't fall back on an archetype.

NNescio

2017-03-20, 02:53 AM

Certainly a bard can be refluffed, but there's no room to interpret the stock Bard as not using music in their magic.

Sure there is. Even if you rule that a bard must play his instrument to use it as a spellcasting focus. Just grab a spell component pouch.

The rules are pretty clear on how a focus works and it doesn't entail "playing" with any of them.

In addition to the combat issues in playing two handed instruments, how would a Bard do V components while playing a flute or bagpipes?

If you actually use this rule, you're restricting Bards to using one-handed, non wind instruments, which may leave one able to use a drum, assuming they set it on the ground and don't move.

That's why every Bard has at least one proficiency in castanets, maracas or den-den daiko.

Jokes aside, any one-handed percussion instrument can get around this houserule interpretation of the rules. Since drums are in the PHB shopping list anyway, any Bard can use a pellet drum with one hand. Alternatively, if the DM doesn't allow pellet drums, well, just grab a horn and use verbal components between horn blasts. Or a pan flute if you want to be fancy (the smaller types can be played one-handed like a harmonica).

Heck, most string instruments can also be plucked with one hand, using the player's chin or some other part of his body as support. Viol(in) players can do this, for example, by doing a one-handed pizzicato (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9GN2cIOiVU) without using the bow.

Why are two-handed instruments a problem? If you want to cast a V,S spell, just hold the instrument in one hand and cast. If you're a Valor Bard, you should probably take War Caster.

Valor Bards get proficiency with shields. War Caster doesn't get around it if you insist on them needing to play their two-handed instruments. This forces them to use one-handed ones (or at most two-handed ones that can also be played with one hand like the violin/viol), or just use a SCP and not bother with War Caster at all. It's not like the loss of OA matters too much anyway.

Arkhios

2017-03-20, 03:04 AM

I would argue that technically the instrument as a focus might just be considered "an object of significance" for bardic magic. Not necessarily being required to play to use as a focus.

Hawkstar

2017-03-20, 03:38 AM

Just that he doesn't need an instrument. Bards that don't want to use an instrument as a focus don't need one. Why would a character carry one around if he/she didn't want to play it?Bards don't have Perform(Oratory). All bards are proficient in three musical instruments.

Even if your preference is singing, you still need one of the three musical instruments you know how to play to use as a focus (Or, you can use another focus)

You must use your focus to cast your spells that require components/a focus. If you don't want to be musical, grab a component pouch.

Strill

2017-03-20, 03:54 AM

Sure there is. Even if you rule that a bard must play his instrument to use it as a spellcasting focus. Just grab a spell component pouch.That's what singing is for.

Valor Bards get proficiency with shields. War Caster doesn't get around it if you insist on them needing to play their two-handed instruments. This forces them to use one-handed ones (or at most two-handed ones that can also be played with one hand like the violin/viol), or just use a SCP and not bother with War Caster at all. It's not like the loss of OA matters too much anyway.That's why Bards get three musical instrument proficiencies. You'll notice the Bard in the PHB is carrying a lute, but also has a recorder hanging from a necklace.

Alternatively, just use a component pouch and use your sword to make music like it says in the opening description.

"A stern human warrior bangs his sword rhythmically against his scale mail, setting the tempo for his war chant and exhorting his companions to bravery and heroism. The magic of his song fortifies and emboldens them."

Laserlight

2017-03-20, 04:28 AM

Are there seriously people who think that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus?

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?

Arkhios

2017-03-20, 04:31 AM

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?

Indeed. Besides, an arcane focus can be a staff; when casting a spell using a staff as a focus, what else are you supposed to do with it than wave it around? Lean on it?

blurneko

2017-03-20, 04:41 AM

I think we are getting a little too pedantic here. It doesn't affect balance or mechanics so I don't see a reason to not let the Bard wave his guitar around.

It is like an earlier thread about a player wanting to be a one-armed man who has trained his whole life to use a greatsword. It sounds completely wrong at first but then you realise, it doesn't matter. Why not let him be one-armed? Imagine a regular person with an invisible arm that can't do anything other than to help use a greatsword. That sounds okay right? It is the same. Just refluffed.

Millstone85

2017-03-20, 04:41 AM

Most instruments require two hands to play. A lot of bard players who take instruments instead of component pouches, still like the idea of being musical and playing their instruments out-of-combat, but a lot of those same players also like the option of attacking with a weapon or using some other item without having to wait a turn to do so.Maybe playing the instrument out-of-combat is what makes it a suitable focus during combat. It remains imbued with magical vibrations.

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?In addition to the aforementioned point about many instruments requiring two hands to play, it could go against the notion of a silent spell.

Strill

2017-03-20, 04:53 AM

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?

The whole concept of the class is based around drawing magic from music. If you're not using music to make your magic, then you're not playing a Bard. "The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

It's a matter of narrative consistency.

Maybe playing the instrument out-of-combat is what makes it a suitable focus during combat. It remains imbued with magical vibrations.
That's patently untrue, because a Bard can just grab someone else's instrument and cast a spell with it.

Laserlight

2017-03-20, 04:56 AM

In addition to aforementioned point about many instruments requiring two hands to play, it could go against the notion of a silent spell.

In last year's campaign, the barbarian used maracas to get the attention of his patron loa. He usually kept them on his belt. On one occasion he was pressed for time and did a few belly dance moves to shake the maracas while wielding his 2H axe. So, no hands to play.

"Notion of a silent spell" doesn't have any mechanical meaning. Either it has a Verbal component or it doesn't.

NNescio

2017-03-20, 04:58 AM

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?

Single-class bards can't ever cast spells in Silence then, even if the spell doesn't normally have verbal components (note that Strill insists on a Bard to "sing" even when using an SCP). Multiclass Sorcerers/Bard also cannot Subtle their Bard spells. Effectively, all bard spells would have verbal components (similar to his 3.5e brethren).

Coretex

2017-03-20, 05:01 AM

I could definitely see that. Instead of having script, have pictures of various glyphs so it is really just a picture book (for a wizard like Weiss Schnee). Heck, I could see a wizard making his spell-book a pop-up book where you move little tabs around to demonstrate for the caster exactly how to perform the components (seems perfect for an orc wizard).

Of course I am the person who is fine with Barbarians being iaijutsu swords(wo)men whose Rage is more of a zen state, druids who don't have every facet of their lives dictated by stereotypical portrayals of druids (you know, so they are a character and not a caricature), and Sorcerers who have learned how to manipulate the Weave effortlessly through study rather than lucking into it. So long as the mechanics match and they don't conflict with my setting, I really don't care what variation on the class they have chosen to take.

And most of the time it doesn't come down to that. PCs who are unique like that tend to be alone. They don't have friends to call on, or NPCs that can relate to them, and players realize this. Portraying a non-standard character is difficult because you have to consider them as a character with their own desires. You can't fall back on an archetype.

This, all of this, and this exactly.

Why restrict players to playing archetypes exactly as written for any reason?

This game has the potential to allow people to play the characters they find interesting within a framework of mechanics for each that allows them to be balanced (reasonably). Why should we argue to restrict people's options based on fluff? What purpose does limiting roleplay for non mechanical reasons hold?

Now obviously world building is important. Characters have mechanical skills because of the fluff to which they ascribe. Beyond that I don't understand the desire to have LESS freedom.

On topic:
I can understand a desire to have a Bard's magic tied to music. Equally, nothing seems more tiresome to me than having to describe every spell as a song being actively sung. Other posters have pointed out the difficulty aligning mechanics with the playing of an instrument effectively, (somatic components, verbal with a wind instrument, etc).
I would see it as the bard 'feeling' the rhythm of the weave and being able to manipulate it. This way you can justify a bard who wants to sing/play every spell and also the bard who wants to be musical on occasion, but otherwise encourage folks with words (or maybe a swift kick up the backside).

Letting players play fun characters that line up with a cool idea they have is much better than enforcing a strict interpretation of the character as you see it.

Important caveat: all of this applies to fluff only; Mechanical balance is a different matter entirely and should be treated with extra care.

Arkhios

2017-03-20, 05:04 AM

That's patently untrue, because a Bard can just grab someone else's instrument and cast a spell with it.

If someone else had an instrument, regardless of that person being a bard or not, assuming that music itself would be one way to channel magic - if you know how (like a bard would), wouldn't the other person's instrument still hold some imbued magic in it. Surely the person who had the instrument has played with it out of combat. The other person (assuming a non-bard) just doesn't know how to unleash the magic. The magic would still be imbued in the instrument.

Millstone85

2017-03-20, 05:14 AM

That's patently untrue, because a Bard can just grab someone else's instrument and cast a spell with it.
The other person (assuming a non-bard) just doesn't know how to unleash the magic. The magic would still be imbued in the instrument.That's when I would give disadvantage on spell attack rolls / advantage on spell saving throws, on account of the previous owner being tone-deaf.

Laserlight

2017-03-20, 05:14 AM

The whole concept of the class is based around drawing magic from music. If you're not using music to make your magic, then you're not playing a Bard. "The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

It's a matter of narrative consistency.

But if a player has alternate fluff--and it ain't hard to refluff to something that makes more sense than you take a delicate, bulky and expensive musical instrument into combat and play it at the guy who's swinging an axe at you--why insist on telling that player "You're having fun wrong" ?

Quoxis

2017-03-20, 05:14 AM

A build i had in mind for a long time is the lute slayer - a bard gish (may be multiclassed with fighter or whatever) with the tavern brawler feat (reminder: it lets you use improvised weapons like proficient ones, among other effects) that uses their metal plated lute as a greatclub, their war gong (see scag) as a shield, their drumstick as a mace etc.
That way, they can easily switch between instrument (even two handed) and weapon - it's the same.

Strill

2017-03-20, 05:16 AM

Why should we argue to restrict people's options based on fluff? What purpose does limiting roleplay for non mechanical reasons hold?The bottom line is that suspension of disbelief depends on internal consistency (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA). Come up with a spellcaster who gets their power from interpretive dance? Sure. But when you bastardize the concept by having them pull out an iphone and doing the exact same magic with that too, you break suspension of disbelief.

I don't care if people come up with their own fluff, but the PHB Bard explicitly gets their magic from music. Every example in the opening description of the Bard involves music. The idea that a Bard can use their magic by pulling out a musical instrument - and not playing music, breaks the concept and shatters suspension of disbelief.

On topic:
I can understand a desire to have a Bard's magic tied to music. Equally, nothing seems more tiresome to me than having to describe every spell as a song being actively sung.It's equally difficult to come up with incantations and gestures for each spell. You don't have to come up with them if you don't want to.

I would see it as the bard 'feeling' the rhythm of the weave and being able to manipulate it. This way you can justify a bard who wants to sing/play every spell and also the bard who wants to be musical on occasion, but otherwise encourage folks with words (or maybe a swift kick up the backside).Show, don't tell. That's the rule of storytelling. When you have a character who does stuff in a completely invisible way that the audience can't follow without having it explicitly told to them, you degrade the quality of your story.

That's why all the spells in say, Harry Potter, involve a clearly obvious effect. Imagine if the Patronus spell worked the same way as you imagine this musicless Bard. It would be really ****ing lame. Harry just points his wand at the Dementor, casts the spell like he's tried to all these times before, and...nothing happens, but the Dementor leaves. Woohoo. Would an in-depth explanation of the aetherial ripples the spell caused make it seem any more impressive? No. What makes it impressive in the book is the visual description of the spell's effects. A charging stallion of white light bursts forth from Harry's wand and runs straight for the Dementor, who cowers in fear and runs away.

You're telling the audience that the Bard gets its power from music, and then hacking together a cheap explanation about how he doesn't need to be musical because [technobabble], rather than just showing the audience some music.

Quoxis

2017-03-20, 05:19 AM

Single-class bards can't ever cast spells in Silence then, even if the spell doesn't normally have verbal components (note that Strill insists on a Bard to "sing" even when using an SCP). Multiclass Sorcerers/Bard also cannot Subtle their Bard spells. Effectively, all bard spells would have verbal components (similar to his 3.5e brethren).

I can understand having them play their instrument even in combat, but what you're proposing here is a houserule, and a grossly restrictive one at that. I get the idea behind it and yes, it would make sense, but it is directly contradicting the rules in the phb. Magic is magic, you have to be able to subtle it, period.

NNescio

2017-03-20, 05:48 AM

I can understand having them play their instrument even in combat, but what you're proposing here is a houserule, and a grossly restrictive one at that. I get the idea behind it and yes, it would make sense, but it is directly contradicting the rules in the phb. Magic is magic, you have to be able to subtle it, period.

Not my houserule. I'm just following Strill's logic (in an attempt to reductio), because he insisted on the Bard still "sing" even when using a spell component pouch, because (to him) music is integral to a Bard's magic, and "there's no room to interpret the stock Bard as not using music in their magic."

(Unless, well, he's okay with the Bard still being able to make music while in a Silenced area or casting a spell with no verbal or somatic components whatsoever? I could be reading his intentions wrongly, but this seems to clash with fluff even more than a Bard just holding an instrument and not playing it, so I doubt it.)

Quoxis

2017-03-20, 05:50 AM

, rather than just showing the audience some music.

Slow there - nobody said anything about invisible spells there, the visual effects are still there, they're justt not caused by an actual lute riff while gesturing, reciting latin and crushing a diamond all simultaneously (which should be difficult enough on its own).

Strill

2017-03-20, 05:58 AM

Slow there - nobody said anything about invisible spells there, the visual effects are still there, they're justt not caused by an actual lute riff while gesturing, reciting latin and crushing a diamond all simultaneously (which should be difficult enough on its own).The "gesturing" and "crushing a diamond" is what the lute playing replaces. And instead of "reciting latin", it should be "humming an entrancing melody".

But my argument still holds. The result of the spell might still be there, but if the source of the spell is gone, it still breaks suspension of disbelief. Akin to Harry Potter casting a spell without a wand.

NNescio

2017-03-20, 06:00 AM

Strill

2017-03-20, 06:13 AM

Not my houserule. I'm just following Strill's logic (in an attempt to reductio), because he insisted on the Bard still "sing" even when using a spell component pouch, because (to him) music is integral to a Bard's magic, and "there's no room to interpret the stock Bard as not using music in their magic."

(Unless, well, he's okay with the Bard still being able to make music while in a Silenced area or casting a spell with no verbal or somatic components whatsoever? I could be reading his intentions wrongly, but this seems to clash with fluff even more than a Bard just holding an instrument and not playing it, so I doubt it.)

There are no spells which require only material components. Somatic-only spells can easily involve rhythmic claps, foot taps, or other musical gestures.

He did that multiple times without breaking my suspension of disbelief (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wandless_magic).

Because they explicitly address it, explain the costs and benefits, and how it fits into the world. Again, internal consistency. The same cannot be said for how a class whose power comes from the music of creation, can cast spells without music.

Quoxis

2017-03-20, 06:23 AM

AuraTwilight

2017-03-20, 06:24 AM

The problem with the narrative consistency argument is that the opening text of a class write-up isn't a prologue to an actual story. If you read a D&D campaign converted to a novel, nothing in the PHB necessarily ever comes up. If, in my world, bards are basically people who took to music like liberal arts the way wizards took to it like a STEM field, then sure, playing the instrument could be how they channel their music.

...Or maybe they have to recite poetry to themselves loud enough for someone to hear. Or maybe their focus is their paint brush. Or maybe they just need to hold things that remind them of their creative font and let that motivate and shape their music.

But what do I know? I'm just the guy who let a player replace their spellbook with a herd of kittens so they could be a cat lady where each of their spells is encoded into a cat, preparing the spells by petting, playing with, and feeding each cat in turn.

Narrative consistency arguments only hold ground if your rules are internally consistent to your campaign, not the PHB. Literally who cares, when GMs are encouraged to change whatever they want for their tables?

some guy

2017-03-20, 06:31 AM

The bottom line is that [URL="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA"]I don't care if people come up with their own fluff, but the PHB Bard explicitly gets their magic from music. Every example in the opening description of the Bard involves music. The idea that a Bard can use their magic by pulling out a musical instrument - and not playing music, breaks the concept and shatters suspension of disbelief.

I'll grant you that every example in the opening mentions music, but

a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.

Bards thrive on stories,

Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration.

there's also a lot about magic coming from words, stories and oration. Which isn't musical at all. I also grant you that a bard waving the instrument, but not playing that instrument ever, and casting spells is weird, but it doesn't break the concept of a bard and doesn't shatter suspension of disbelief (maybe yours, but not the general suspension of disbelief).
There are plent of players whose suspension of disbelief are shattered by magical music. Bards can be played in multiple ways and there's only a problem if two bard-players play their bards in different ways and can not accept the other's way of playing bards.

Strill

2017-03-20, 06:32 AM

So when YOU are fluffing it's ok?What have I said that isn't bog-standard default fluff? Nowhere does it say that verbal components involve latin.

Also i'm talking about the typical "m (a diamond worth at least x gold)" components which cannot be replaced by any kind of focus i know of. Would a bard still need an instriment then?

Incidentally, most of those spells take an hour to cast, but regardless, no they wouldn't need an instrument. You can still hum a tune or tap to a beat.

Quoxis

2017-03-20, 06:40 AM

What have I said that isn't bog-standard default fluff? Nowhere does it say that verbal components involve latin.

Incidentally, most of those spells take an hour to cast, but regardless, no they wouldn't need an instrument. You can still hum a tune or tap to a beat.

You are the one who stated that the Instrument can replace the somatic component, as opposed to the phb rule that a focus replaces only non-consumed material components. That's not only fluffing, that's a minor "subtle spell" with no cost. A guy waving his hands in weird circly gestures around an NPC might tipp them off they're being enchanted, a bard innocently strumming a tune on his lute much less so. Unfair and contradictory to the ACTUAL rules of the game.

Strill

2017-03-20, 06:42 AM

You are the one who stated that the Instrument can replace the somatic component, as opposed to the phb rule that a focus replaces only non-consumed material components. That's not only fluffing, that's a minor "subtle spell" with no cost. A guy waving his hands in weird circly gestures around an NPC might tipp them off they're being enchanted, a bard innocently strumming a tune on his lute much less so. Unfair and contradictory to the ACTUAL rules of the game.

I was referring to the fact that you can perform somatic components with the same hand you use to perform material components.

INDYSTAR188

2017-03-20, 06:58 AM

In my opinion it's important not to get caught up in small details for consistency/immersions sake. I think OP is right, as described you might need to use an instrument, but in my game I'm fine with fluffing the casting of magic in combat as a war chant, a stirring poem/speech, etc. I tend to think of the out of combat spell casting as more using magic; Song of Recovery and rituals... also Countercharm. I think if you're too specific you risk the player not being able to use a weapon.

NNescio

2017-03-20, 06:59 AM

There are no spells which require only material components. Somatic-only spells can easily involve rhythmic claps, foot taps, or other musical gestures.

Sure they are. Bard/Sorcerer multiclass uses Subtle spell (which I already mentioned) on a Bard spell (i.e. a spell he learned when leveling up as a Bard, not Sorcerer). Are rhythmic claps/foot taps/musical gestures still necessary for that Bard? If they are, does the spell still work in an area of Silence?

Heck, do Somatic-only spells still work for a normal single-classed Bard in Silence if Bards must use rhythmic caps/foot taps/sound-causing gestures to cast S only spells?

And if the answer is yes, then well, there appears to be nearly no mechanical difference at all (provided the Bard uses a one-handed instrument or uses an SCP) between whether a Bard actually plays his instrument or not. Your ruling effectively becomes a restriction only on a bard player's choice of instrument and preferences in fluffing the way his spells are cast. In which case I direct you to Laserlight's post:

Other than getting you riled up, what actual difference does it make whether he plays it or waves it around?

--

Because they explicitly address it, explain the costs and benefits, and how it fits into the world. Again, internal consistency. The same cannot be said for how a class whose power comes from the music of creation, can cast spells without music.

They didn't explain this in the first book. And quite some books in too, for that matter.

Cybren

2017-03-20, 07:33 AM

Dudu

2017-03-20, 07:40 AM

The imagery of a bard playing his lute while the battle rages annoys me. Really breaks the immersion and a DM enforcing this would be a blatant case of pedantry that ruins games.

The same bard who isn't playing his lute when there's a fight happening (because c'mon) might play it on downtimes, in a short rest, in a performance check, so he isn't "just waving it around". It's just that in the middle of the battle is not the time to play it, not to count severely slowing down a bard who wants to employ his weapons in combat.

Contrast

2017-03-20, 08:02 AM

I'm going to stay out of this thread after this as this is basically the exact same discussion as the roleplaying rules thread which has now been locked for the moment.

But for those who think a bard must use a musical instrument - if someone came to me saying they wanted to play as a character inspired by the Dovahkiin from Skyrim, speaking words of power which unleashed powerful and mysterious effects, while still being able to wield a sword or bow, I would suggest they played a valor bard. I would not expect them to roleplay any particular affinity to instruments unless they wanted to.

Randomthom

2017-03-20, 08:15 AM

I once played a bard who's instrument was "air guitar". Essentially we ruled that the movement of his hands while "playing" the air and the simulated string sounds he made "mew mew mew meeeeeewwwww..." were the verbal and somatic components.

Good times :)

Always remember the rule of cool.

I've also DM'd for bards who just recited poetry and another who just gave great speeches, regaling his comrades of military conquests and battles won in days of yore. Bottom-line, if it is cool and isn't going to break the game then don't be too authoritarian about it. The only time I'd be wary of it is if it is with a player who is known for taking liberties with this kind of freedom.

RickAllison

2017-03-20, 08:23 AM

But what do I know? I'm just the guy who let a player replace their spellbook with a herd of kittens so they could be a cat lady where each of their spells is encoded into a cat, preparing the spells by petting, playing with, and feeding each cat in turn.

Narrative consistency arguments only hold ground if your rules are internally consistent to your campaign, not the PHB. Literally who cares, when GMs are encouraged to change whatever they want for their tables?

I want to be that wizard. Unveiling my powers through the adorable-mess of kittens would be the perfect life.

JellyPooga

2017-03-20, 08:30 AM

there's also a lot about magic coming from words, stories and oration.

This pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Bards make magic. They do so through use of more than just making music; somatic, verbal and material components are still involved, a musical instrument only replaces one of these and it's not the verbal one (which would be the intuitive component to replace if we're going down the "music is magic" route, harmonics replacing the "words of power" and all that, surely?). The way I see it, Bards are those artists that have come to the magical arts through use and mastery of their own art (whether it be music, oration or whatever), but that doesn't actually make their magic musical. Nothing in the Bard text outright says "Bard magic is music". Bard magic is magic, not music.

To put it another way;

- A Wizard studies physical and meta-physical laws and how to bend or even break them. End result; Magic.
- A Cleric or Warlock asks his Deity/Patron to give him supernatural powers. End result; Magic.
- A Sorcerer draws upon his inborn talent. End result; Magic.
- A Bard masters his art, he sees the connections between his art and the nature of reality and learns to manipulate it. End result; Magic.

The end result is the same, including the process involved to achieve those results (V,S,M components, concentration, etc.). It's only the route the character takes to get there that is different. A Bard is no more using music, directly, to cast spells than a Warlock is directly getting on the phone to his Patron every time he casts Eldritch Blast...

...except when he's using a musical instrument as a focus. As much as I really dislike the "minstrel in a dungeon" image, if a Bard is using a musical instrument as a focus for his spells, he's playing that mutha; he's at least striking a chord or tootling a note. He's using it to replace an integral part of the spellcasting process (i.e. material components), not just waving it around. It's the Bards USP, his MO...he can tap magic in a way that a Wizard or Cleric can't, by jiving with the echoes of the Words of Creation (or whatever) BUT he does it by setting up those harmonics and such and you don't do that by just holding a drum-stick or reed flute you jury-rigged last time you were down by the river.

Don't want to be a minstrel in a dungeon? Regain your dignity as a spellcaster, get a spell-component pouch and you don't even have to hum a single note.

Chaosmancer

2017-03-20, 08:31 AM

I also prefer the bardic as singer or poet, but that doesn't talk about how to use the instrument as a focus.

However, does anything say that the bard's magic, flowing through the instrument, doesn't play the instrument?

If the problem is "the instrument isn't making any noise" then having their instrument play itself while they are holding it in one hand would seem to work, and the story of internal vibrations creating a force which plays the instrument works just fine for me.

Then the bard would play when not in combat which makes more sense.

Beelzebubba

2017-03-20, 08:33 AM

I must be getting old. The grognard in me initially agreed with Strill, but...when I think back I've been part of D&D parties with robots, sentient oozes (think Gleep and Glorp from the Herculoids as a wizard), huge eagles, etcetera.

I'd much rather play in the games of the people with contrary opinions.

The original D&D had crossovers with the Old West... and spaceships. Keep it weird.

Maxilian

2017-03-20, 08:40 AM

Its... actually true, you don't need to play your guitar even once, you just need to create "music" for your spells, you may hit the floor with your guitar or tap it while humming, or make a melodic sound as you bash your guitar into the enemy skull

Strill

2017-03-20, 08:42 AM

Segev

2017-03-20, 08:44 AM

Given that the rule is that the focus takes one hand, I would argue that any manipulation of the instrument which requires a second hand is a free action to get that hand free and equally free to get the original item back in that hand. Fluff that how you will, but the rules don't require that you use two hands to use an instrument as a focus for your spells, so however you manage it, you only need one hand occupied for mechanical purposes.

Maxilian

2017-03-20, 08:44 AM

Just that he doesn't need an instrument. Bards that don't want to use an instrument as a focus don't need one. Why would a character carry one around if he/she didn't want to play it?

Cause his teacher insisted on making that Guitar (yeah, that one that he never liked but the teacher forced him to play in all his college years) his focus, even though i keep pointing out, that i'm a tap dancer (I make music with my boots!)

Maxilian

2017-03-20, 08:51 AM

The whole concept of the class is based around drawing magic from music. If you're not using music to make your magic, then you're not playing a Bard. "The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

It's a matter of narrative consistency.

That does not change that it can be refluffed, the DMG points out that it can easily be and should be if needed for the PC enjoyement.

That's patently untrue, because a Bard can just grab someone else's instrument and cast a spell with it.

I do agree that Bards, do need to use some kind of "Art" to make their magic, that does not mean that it have to be done with the instrument that is their magic focus.

Maxilian

2017-03-20, 09:03 AM

I have no problem with people making homebrew. I'm specifically commenting on the PHB Bard.

Is no homebrew if they don't use their instrument, i don't know why the lack of use of instrument mean that they are less bardic (They could still use any of the options you pointed out at the start -Music (in any of its many forms) and Speech.

I mean, a Bard could be a Commander of a batallion that gives long speech to Inspire his teanmate and would still go with the PHB Fluff.

Chaosmancer

2017-03-20, 09:15 AM

Cause his teacher insisted on making that Guitar (yeah, that one that he never liked but the teacher forced him to play in all his college years) his focus, even though i keep pointing out, that i'm a tap dancer (I make music with my boots!)

LOL

I love this

IShouldntBehere

2017-03-20, 09:21 AM

Is no homebrew if they don't use their instrument, i don't know why the lack of use of instrument mean that they are less bardic (They could still use any of the options you pointed out at the start -Music (in any of its many forms) and Speech.

I mean, a Bard could be a Commander of a batallion that gives long speech to Inspire his teanmate and would still go with the PHB Fluff.

Then it's just rather odd that he must start with ability to play 3 musical instruments and seemingly has forgotten training with much of his combat equipment until partway through his adventuring career.

The classes as presented in the PHB are really rather narrow character types. Certainly the bards kit can be worked into something like a "Battlefield Commander" but it's clearly not intended to be that. A battlefield commander would have starting gear including military uniforms, medium armor (or even heavy) armor from the start, an ornate weapon maybe even some maps. Their abilities would references Tactics & Planning, not music.

It's fine to pull out the mechanics from the abstraction and re-insert them for another purpose. However given the bards have music everywhere in their profile, gain their archetypes from "Colleges" and have abilities about Songs, Charms & Magical Secrets let's not pretend the bard was meant to be some medieval General Patton here.

Beelzebubba

2017-03-20, 09:27 AM

I have no problem with people making homebrew. I'm specifically commenting on the PHB Bard.

If it's mechanically the same, but the fluff has changed, is that home-brew to you? Because those characters were all mechanically canon as far as stats and rules were concerned. (The eagle was even the result of a reincarnation!)

Maxilian

2017-03-20, 09:28 AM

Then it's just rather odd that he must start with ability to play 3 musical instruments and seemingly has forgotten training with much of his combat equipment until partway through his adventuring career.

They are supposed to be educated in a College, so they take a lot of classes because of curriculum :P

The classes as presented in the PHB are really rather narrow character types. Certainly the bards kit can be worked into something like a "Battlefield Commander" but it's clearly not intended to be that. A battlefield commander would have starting gear including military uniforms, medium armor (or even heavy) armor from the start, an ornate weapon maybe even some maps. There abilities would references Tactics & Quick-Thinking, not music.

You know that is not true, if that were the case, then the military thing won't be part of Background and instead be part of a class. -Note: That starting gear can be gotten with a College of Valor Bard who got the Military soldier background.

It's fine to pull out the mechanics from the abstraction and re-insert them for another purpose. However given the bards have music everywhere in their profile, gain their archetypes from "Colleges" and have abilities about Songs, Charms & Magical Secrets let's not pretend the bard was meant to be some medieval General Patton here.

Music is an option in their profile, they could simply use speech.

Note: The Bard can easily represent the Royal harlequin or the Royal commander

MadBear

2017-03-20, 09:44 AM

This and the roleplaying rules thread are both overly argued about for something that is a very simple. The answer is so simple, that I don't see why we can't just all agree on it, other then thinking the best course of action is to tell other players how to roleplay.

DM solution: Talk to your players about the kinda game you want to have, and express what works and doesn't work within your campaign. Make exceptions as needed to try and accommodate your players as much as possible.

Player solution: Talk to your DM about your character concept and why you want to play that class/race. Make adjustments as needed to accommodate your DM's campaign, and work with them as much as possible

Finally: ROLEPLAYING RULES DO NOT EXIST IN D&D. There are norms that vary from table to table, and players and DM's should always work together to create a world of fun and adventure for both parties. There's a reason that the book doesn't say "You must speak in character", or "you must dress like your character" or "You must follow the fluff at the beginning of each session". Instead, each table will have it's own way of playing and some will follow all three of the aforementioned rules, and some none of them.

RSP

2017-03-20, 09:55 AM

By speaking in-between playing it. No one said it had to be simultaneous. Alternatively, the act of playing a wind instrument is also a verbal component as well.

Why are two-handed instruments a problem? If you want to cast a V,S spell, just hold the instrument in one hand and cast. If you're a Valor Bard, you should probably take War Caster.

Strill,
You're welcome to homebrew how you like for your games, but the rules are clearly stated in the PHB.

In addition, you're changing other rules to try and make and make this work: at no point in the rules does it say you can replace V components with a focus or by playing an instrument.

Further, you state "no one said it had to be simultaneous." If you believe that to be true, then consider a Bard playing their music during downtime as fulfilling the components to the spells.

Likewise, any other caster could do the S and V components prior to the adventuring day, mostly to get around Counterspell, as components are no longer required to be simultaneous to casting.

Obviously, this isn't RAW.

some guy

2017-03-20, 10:00 AM

They have abilities that are literally songs. Proficiency in musical instruments is mandatory. Music is as much an option for the bard as beef is for a burger. Not there is anything wrong with a veggie burger but let's not pretend we aren't making some big substitutions with the baseline recipe. It's something wholly different from the intended default, which is dead cow ground up on a bun.

You can inspire others through stirring words or music.

you can use soothing music or oration to help revitalize your wounded allies during a short rest.

At 6th level, you gain the ability to use musical notes or words of power to disrupt mind-influencing effects.
While the name of Song of Rest suggest a song, it gives you the choice.
I agree with the burger analogy as in so far it's a matter of preference, but not about the intended default (which seems to be either music or words).

RSP

2017-03-20, 10:05 AM

The "gesturing" and "crushing a diamond" is what the lute playing replaces. And instead of "reciting latin", it should be "humming an entrancing melody".

But my argument still holds. The result of the spell might still be there, but if the source of the spell is gone, it still breaks suspension of disbelief. Akin to Harry Potter casting a spell without a wand.

No it doesn't. The instrument is the "focus," NOT the music. Keep that in mind. Also, the rules state the focus can only replace M components that do not have noted values. A diamond being crushed most likely has a noted value and therefore, doesn't fit the bill.

And you can perform the S component with the hand holding the focus, however, you must still do the S component.

"The "gesturing" and "crushing a diamond" is what the lute playing replaces."

What you're suggesting here is that every Bard gets a better version of Subtle Spell for free as they can replace the V, S, and M by playing an instrument instead of following the rules for casting in the PHB.

No one would be able to tell when a Bard is casting or just playing, and with Counterspell, no one would be able to see a Spell being cast as all the components are now tied to the mundane act of playing the flute.

mgshamster

2017-03-20, 10:27 AM

I think it's one of those things where 5e is written so that DMs are allowed to take certain logical leaps to increase versimilitude. In most games Bards who play their music and Wizards who read their spellbook is better

But maybe there's a world where magic works independently of the user. So bardic music literally just requires knowing the words and holding the instrument. It plays itself.

And a Wizards spellbook is a focus connected directly to their soul. They don't need to read it. But writing a spell in it is literally "Writing it to their soul"

And by not having those things written into the book it allows DMs to play with the fluff for their own setting.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-20, 10:54 AM

Bards don't have Perform(Oratory). All bards are proficient in three musical instruments.

Even if your preference is singing, you still need one of the three musical instruments you know how to play to use as a focus (Or, you can use another focus)

You must use your focus to cast your spells that require components/a focus. If you don't want to be musical, grab a component pouch. Or a Kazoo.

Unoriginal

2017-03-20, 11:46 AM

Rather than asking ourselves "what is a Bard?", we should ask ourselves: "what is a focus?"

As described in the PHB: "Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. Acharacter can use a component pouch or a speIlcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. "

The Musical Instrument entry says "Several of the most common types of musical instruments are shown on the table as examples. If you have proficiency with a given musical instrument, you can add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to play music with the instrument. A bard can use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. Each type of musical instrument requires a separate proficiency", which indicates that the bard's proficiency with the instrument is not related to their capacity to use it as a focus.

The Arcane Focus is described as "a special item, an orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length of wood, or some similar item designed to channel the power of arcane spells", meaning that the capacity to channel power is something dependent on the nature of the item. Holy symbols and Druidic focuses are the same: they are items sacred enough to channel the divine magic through them.

Furthermore, if a bard dispose of the material components for the spell in question, they do not need to have any instruments.

Ergo, a bard just need to have the instrument to remove the need of Material Component, they don't have to play it, because the capacity of channeling the power is inherent to the instrument.

Part of a bard's training is to learn how to use any musical instruments as re-usable material components, rather than use the proper, consumable ones that the spell usually require.

tkuremento

2017-03-20, 11:48 AM

Blacky the Blackball

2017-03-20, 12:25 PM

Segev

2017-03-20, 12:41 PM

It is perhaps noteworthy that the focus is "a musical instrument," not "music."

BiPolar

2017-03-20, 12:48 PM

From the top, here are the relevant details on Bards:

Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration.

Nowhere in that does it say that the magic is derived from an external focus. In fact, it is from what you PUT INTO THE PERFORMANCE (aka Charisma) from which your magic is derived.

You can use a musical instrument (found in chapter 5)as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells.

Having the focus is not the same as "using" a focus. Your wizard channels his powers through his staff. Your Bard channels his powers through his instrument. Nowhere does it say he MUST be PLAYING that instrument. The focus is merely replacing non-used material components.

Unoriginal

2017-03-20, 12:49 PM

But I would suggest that "using" a musical instrument as a focus involves playing it, just as "using" a wand as a focus involves waving it and "using" a holy symbol as a focus involves presenting it. It's not enough to merely hold a spellcasting focus passively in your hand; you need to actually use it in an appropriate manner. And the appropriate manner for a musical instrument is playing it.

By the rules, focuses do not need to be waved, presented or "used", they just need to be in your hand.

Having to move in a certain way to cast a spell is a somatic component. An immobilized character with a focus in hand can cast spells that have no somatic component.

Same way that a bard can cast a spell that has no verbal component in silence, even if they use their focus.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-20, 12:54 PM

Having the focus is not the same as "using" a focus. Your wizard channels his powers through his staff. Your Bard channels his powers through his instrument. Nowhere does it say he MUST be PLAYING that instrument. The focus is merely replacing non-used material components. It owuld be cool to get a little Jimi Hendrix like feedback to go off whenever the target misses its saving throw.
Bard casts thunderwave.
A couple of the hobgoblins miss their save.
*Guitar riff a la Hendrix goes off right after the boom from the spell ...*

BiPolar

2017-03-20, 12:59 PM

It owuld be cool to get a little Jimi Hendrix like feedback to go off whenever the target misses its saving throw.
Bard casts thunderwave.
A couple of the hobgoblins miss their save.
*Guitar riff a la Hendrix goes off right after the boom from the spell ...*

My bard got a Cli Lyre on a random treasure roll and I've chosen to roleplay that I AM ALWAYS PLAYING IT. It definitely made life a bit more difficult and partially explained why I dipped warlock to get eldritch blast.

But yeah, I always narrate my spells with how i'm playing the lyre :)

edit: but this was a roleplaying choice, not a roleplaying directive.

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 01:07 PM

Are there seriously people who think that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus?You need 1 free hand to access your focus. There is no requirement if not a S-component spell to make any special gestures with your focus. Casting a single action spell takes (at most) 6 seconds.

So yes, I don't think that Bards need to play their instrument to use it as a Focus. In fact, I think it's definitely not RAW to require it.

Edit: That's not to say that a Bard isn't free to describe themselves as playing a chord or whatever if they have the necessary free hand(s) and it's an S-component spell as well. That would certainly satisfy the RAW for the spell. But allowing it and requiring it are two different things.

pwykersotz

2017-03-20, 01:25 PM

A Bard who uses their instrument as a focus must absolutely play it to gain the benefits. Otherwise, there's no point to having the instrument as a focus versus having a crystal or wand. Speaking of which, the wand must be pointed and waved at the target to be used as a focus. The staff must be dramatically thrust forward or a hand waved over the top. A Holy Symbol must be strongly presented.

If you want to come up with a unique way of casting your magic, feel free. But I have one hard and fast rule. It must be interesting. If you want to have your focus be a mythical dragon's claw, that's cool. Slash it through the air. Plunge it into "the weave". Do something with it. Don't just hold it and say "My focus requirement is met." Even better if you have your own unique way of doing it that distinguishes you from others who use the same focus. Kind of like how each of the Q in Star Trek had their own gesture for activating their powers (Riker's gesture was my favorite!).

If you can make it sound interesting to use an instrument without playing it, I'm on board. I'm skeptical, but I'm on board. Just don't be boring.

#justsaiyan

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 01:26 PM

BiPolar

2017-03-20, 01:28 PM

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 01:30 PM

And last time I checked, the focus was there to replace the M component - not to be a factor in the S component.A caster is can use the same free hand used for the M component, including a focus, for the S component.

But you're correct, that doesn't mean the focus itself must be involved in the S component. Just that it's within RAW to allow it. My wording that you quoted is not technically correct.

BiPolar

2017-03-20, 01:33 PM

A caster is can use the same free hand used for the M component, including a focus, for the S component.

But you're correct, that doesn't mean the focus itself must be involved in the S component. Just that it's within RAW to allow it. My wording that you quoted is not technically correct.

Right, just like holding the material components isn't part of the S component, just that you can do the S component while holding the components/focus.

Frogosaurus

2017-03-20, 01:34 PM

Every time I read threads like this, I'm glad that I have the group of players I have...

pwykersotz

2017-03-20, 01:36 PM

Making a motion with a focus is not required by RAW unless the spell also has a S-component. In other words, it's not a property of using a focus as an M component alone.

Just holding a focus precisely meets the requirements to use it as an M component. You're house-ruling if you run it otherwise.

I am indeed. RAW is sometimes useless or uninteresting. It is incumbent on each table to make the game playable for them. That's why I included the hashtag in jest. It's just, like, my opinion, man. :smalltongue:

Edit: Though with all this RAW talk, I'm curious. Who WOULD NOT allow a bard to jam on his instrument to cast a spell, even if it technically ran afoul of some interaction rule?

Unoriginal

2017-03-20, 01:46 PM

Show, don't tell. That's the rule of storytelling. When you have a character who does stuff in a completely invisible way that the audience can't follow without having it explicitly told to them, you degrade the quality of your story.

Regardless of the debate on Bardic focus, this is not correct.

"Show, don't tell" is not about making powers visible and obvious. It's about integrating the elements of your story into the narrative, rather than just telling them to your audience. For exemple, the narrator saying "Sam is a master thief" when he's introduced is telling, not showing. If Sam is introduced as stealing a jewel in the middle of the king's palace, it'd be showing, not telling, even if the act of stealing the jewel or the explanation on how he did it are never persented to the audience. It could be just the king being told by guards the jewel disappeared while Sam is calmly exiting the palace, holding it.

That's why all the spells in say, Harry Potter, involve a clearly obvious effect. Imagine if the Patronus spell worked the same way as you imagine this musicless Bard. It would be really ****ing lame. Harry just points his wand at the Dementor, casts the spell like he's tried to all these times before, and...nothing happens, but the Dementor leaves. Woohoo. Would an in-depth explanation of the aetherial ripples the spell caused make it seem any more impressive? No. What makes it impressive in the book is the visual description of the spell's effects. A charging stallion of white light bursts forth from Harry's wand and runs straight for the Dementor, who cowers in fear and runs away.

First, this exemple makes no sense, because it's discussing "rule of cool", not "show, don't tell". Having a spell that just makes the Dementors disappear might be less visually impressive, but it wouldn't diminish the story.

Second, there are plenty of magical effects in Harry Potter that are just "the wizard wave their wands/think about it very hard, and then something happen", without any light show or the like.

Third, it's not because there is no light show or visual component to the spell's effect that it's more impressive. Under that logic, Yoda in Empire Strikes Back is less impressive than 11-years-old Harry Potter, because Yoda might be able to casually make a spaceship levitate by calmly closing his eyes and thinking about it, but young Harry can make his wand throw colorful sparks.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-20, 01:46 PM

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 01:51 PM

I am indeed. RAW is sometimes useless or uninteresting. It is incumbent on each table to make the game playable for them. That's why I included the hashtag in jest. It's just, like, my opinion, man. :smalltongue:

Edit: Though with all this RAW talk, I'm curious. Who WOULD NOT allow a bard to jam on his instrument to cast a spell, even if it technically ran afoul of some interaction rule?
My point is it's up to the player, assuming no special house rules from the DM, to interpret how they're meeting the bare-bones RAW requirements of the PHB.

A Bard can declare they are going to jam on their instrument to meet the requirements of an S & M component spell. Or even just an S component spell without an M components, or an M component spell without an S component. Because in all cases, they are meeting the requirements for an S and/or M component spell.

But it's not required. They could declare something else that meets the requirements if they prefer.

Unoriginal

2017-03-20, 02:01 PM

Edit: Though with all this RAW talk, I'm curious. Who WOULD NOT allow a bard to jam on his instrument to cast a spell, even if it technically ran afoul of some interaction rule?

Well, it depends what else the bard is doing. I'd allow it in 99% of the cases without issue, but I'd say that something like doing so while the Lore bard is casting Invisibility and maintaining it with Concentration might not be the best idea.

Might still allow it for comedic value, though.

"Ola sir orc, please don't pay attention,
To the invisible man using his discretion.
His sword his sharp, his feet is light,
If he wasn't invisible he would be quite the sight.

Ola sir orc, please don't pay attention,
I'm simply assisting quite the elaborate con.
My tongue is sharp, my speech is right
If you stop we adventurer you're in for quite the fright."

NNescio

2017-03-20, 02:05 PM

If the DM want to call upon the bard to make some tunes/tones with the instrument, an easy way to solve the problem is to use a guitar strap: have the lute/harp/whatever hanging across your body as I used to have the guitar. (I played electric guitar some years ago, and I always had a strap on it. Don't play it anymore, maybe I should dig it out of its case ...)

You can pluck, pick, or strum a few strings with one hand to make a tone, leaving the other hand free to do whatever. Or, you could play two handed as Bipolar noted above.

If the DM ruled that way then a guitar (or drum) strap won't really work, as you actually need to "hold" the focus in your hand as per "Casting a Spell" rules:

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components - or to hold a spellcasting focus - but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform the somatic components".

I do suppose you could use the same hand to both hold the guitar and pluck it, but that would probably either requiring bracing the body against your body while holding the neck while and plucking it pseudo-pizzicato style, or holding the guitar upside down by the neck (like a club, basicall) and plucking it that way. Neither of this would require a strap (and both would be incredibly awkward regardless).

(And again, this is not my houserule, in my games if the Bard just wants to wave his guitar or lute or anything without playing it, he's more than welcome to do so.)

RickAllison

2017-03-20, 02:12 PM

Regardless of the debate on Bardic focus, this is not correct.

"Show, don't tell" is not about making powers visible and obvious. It's about integrating the elements of your story into the narrative, rather than just telling them to your audience. For exemple, the narrator saying "Sam is a master thief" when he's introduced is telling, not showing. If Sam is introduced as stealing a jewel in the middle of the king's palace, it'd be showing, not telling, even if the act of stealing the jewel or the explanation on how he did it are never persented to the audience. It could be just the king being told by guards the jewel disappeared while Sam is calmly exiting the palace, holding it.

Thank you! I have heard so many repetitions of that phrase where someone would flip the two. Few things are more frustrating than pointing out how a program has been showing us the details of a character's social life in the background for two seasons that are later referenced, and the person refuses to concede not because they don't acknowledge that this shows the reality but that they didn't outright state it. They were saying "Show don't tell" when what they really wanted was for the show to tell them rather than showing it over the course of the seasons.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-20, 02:16 PM

If the DM ruled that way then a guitar (or drum) strap won't really work, as you actually need to "hold" the focus in your hand as

Ok, fine, use castanets or finger cymbals. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 02:17 PM

If the DM ruled that way then a guitar (or drum) strap won't really work, as you actually need to "hold" the focus in your hand as per "Casting a Spell" rules: You don't need to hold it for the entirety of casting the spell. You just need a free hand to hold it at some point in casting the spell. The same free hand that can be used for an S component ... Either at the same time as holding the focus or before/after holding it, since it doesn't specify.

In other words, you can hold the guitar for a second to steady it, strum the notes, then hold it again as you slide it back. Both RAW and house rule requirements are met.

RSP

2017-03-20, 03:09 PM

I understand you *could* interpret the word "use" in the Focus description in the PHB as actively having to use whatever the focus is.

However, if you are interpreting it in this way, that would mean you'd have to use, in the same way, a staff or a wand when it's the focus in question.

Meaning if you're a Wizard with a staff as a focus, you need to attack with it (effectively "using" it) in order to cast a spell. And if you don't hit, then I'm assuming your spell fails as well, as you were unsuccessful in your use.

Likewise, if your focus is a magic wand, like say a wand of Magic Missiles, then you'd have to "use" the wand and fire some MMs off in order to have it be your Focus for casting.

I don't see how you could interpret the wording one way for Bards, and another for every other class.

PS: if "use" means just waving around a staff, crystal, holy symbol, etc, it means the same thing for an instrument.

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 03:21 PM

I understand you *could* interpret the word "use" in the Focus description in the PHB as actively having to use whatever the focus is.That's some pretty tenuous interpretation though. The sentence is " A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell."

In other words, in context of the word "use" is in reference to replacing the M component of a spell.

tkuremento

2017-03-20, 04:05 PM

And last time I checked, the focus was there to replace the M component - not to be a factor in the S component.

But a focus can be used in conjunction with a somatic component so long as there is a material component as well. So a subset of spells will have both. I'd understand the concept of "some spells require me to move my arms, some require me to have my instrument, and some require me to do both which might make music, but if I need to JUST move my arms then the instrument gets in the way."

Edit: Wow, my browser is broken today. I did a refresh and there weren't this many replies, it seems this was addressed long ago. Sorry.

RSP

2017-03-20, 04:06 PM

Tanarii,
I 100% agree (in case that wasn't clear). Was just pointing out the ridiculousness of interpreting it the other way, in reference to other focus items.

pwykersotz

2017-03-20, 04:11 PM

My point is it's up to the player, assuming no special house rules from the DM, to interpret how they're meeting the bare-bones RAW requirements of the PHB.

A Bard can declare they are going to jam on their instrument to meet the requirements of an S & M component spell. Or even just an S component spell without an M components, or an M component spell without an S component. Because in all cases, they are meeting the requirements for an S and/or M component spell.

But it's not required. They could declare something else that meets the requirements if they prefer.

We are in complete agreement.

It is interesting to note that this isn't something I've ever had come up in game. In fact, the last few days on this forum have brought up a lot of hypotheticals that I've never had to worry about. Any houserules would be in place to prevent the established lore and mysticism of the world from being violated, but every player I've ever had has not only been respectful of that, but found ways to develop it beyond the baseline. Only on these forums do I hear things that polarize me towards saying "no" because the alternative is a trivialization of a valued part of the game as I've come to play it.

Temperjoke

2017-03-20, 04:47 PM

Bohandas

2017-03-20, 05:18 PM

I could see this working if they used a flute or a digeridoo or some other instrument that could be waved around like a wand or a staff

Ruslan

2017-03-20, 05:21 PM

How about a reasonable compromise?
Isn't it obvious to you that the Bard is simply the mechanics of the Bard Class, and that the fluff can be whatever fluff a player wishes to create, regardless of the DM's opinion and the setting?in collaboration with the DM?

Coidzor

2017-03-20, 05:26 PM

Unoriginal

2017-03-20, 05:30 PM

I'll go with the interpretation that allows me to have a bard actually holding a weapon in combat rather than having both hands fully occupied by an instrument or one hand empty so that it can interact with the instrument as needed.

Well, having one hand empty to interact with material components or focuses.

So you could just use spells that don't have material components.

Tanarii

2017-03-20, 05:45 PM

Well, having one hand empty to interact with material components or focuses.

So you could just use spells that don't have material components.You need one hand empty to do S components anyway. So you might as well use the same one free hand to interact with your instrument. There aren't that many V-only spells.

Or take Warcaster and stick to V/S spells.

Fishybugs

2017-03-20, 06:26 PM

I played a bard who became severely anxious when separated from their instrument. She was so worried about where it got to that she could only cast the most basic of spells (read: V, S components only).

Captain Panda

2017-03-20, 06:43 PM

Fluff is fluff, and isn't meant to be enforced. That's why the distinction between hard rules and fluff is so obvious in this edition. If you want to wave a guitar around... well, it'd look a little silly, but why not? I'd suggest getting a more compact instrument as a focus, like a kazoo. Or if you think playing music in combat is completely asinine but enjoy the bard kit, talk your DM into letting you use just a normal spell focus? Being flexible with fluff breaks nothing and makes players happy, so long as it isn't pushed to ridiculous levels.

Strill

2017-03-20, 07:29 PM

If it's mechanically the same, but the fluff has changed, is that home-brew to you? Because those characters were all mechanically canon as far as stats and rules were concerned. (The eagle was even the result of a reincarnation!)

Of course it's homebrew. You can refluff a Barbarian into a Samurai who goes into a focused trance rather than a berserker rage without changing any mechanics. That doesn't mean it's not homebrew.

Strill,
You're welcome to homebrew how you like for your games, but the rules are clearly stated in the PHB.

In addition, you're changing other rules to try and make and make this work: at no point in the rules does it say you can replace V components with a focus or by playing an instrument. I never said that. I believe the context was with playing a flute. My argument is that because you are using your voice to play the flute, that should count as a verbal component.

Further, you state "no one said it had to be simultaneous." If you believe that to be true, then consider a Bard playing their music during downtime as fulfilling the components to the spells.It still has to be part of that turn.

Likewise, any other caster could do the S and V components prior to the adventuring day, mostly to get around Counterspell, as components are no longer required to be simultaneous to casting.

No.

From the top, here are the relevant details on Bards:

Nowhere in that does it say that the magic is derived from an external focus. In fact, it is from what you PUT INTO THE PERFORMANCE (aka Charisma) from which your magic is derived.

Having the focus is not the same as "using" a focus. Your wizard channels his powers through his staff. Your Bard channels his powers through his instrument. Nowhere does it say he MUST be PLAYING that instrument. The focus is merely replacing non-used material components.

You've just proven yourself wrong. If it's the performance that matters, then why is the instrument itself relevant? How do you expect the bard to perform with an instrument, if they're not going to play it?

RSP

2017-03-20, 07:48 PM

I never said that. I believe the context was with playing a flute. My argument is that because you are using your voice to play the flute, that should count as a verbal component.

Um, not sure if we're talking about the same thing here, but you most certainly DO NOT use your voice to play the flute.

I'm assuming you're thinking you could talk into the mouth piece of a flute, but for the record, this is most definitely not considered playing the instrument.

If this is what you're thinking, that is no more playing the instrument than waiving it around is.

RSP

2017-03-20, 07:54 PM

It still has to be part of that turn.

This is not how the spellcasting rules work: there is no breakdown of spellcasting outside of the actions it takes to do so. Per RAW, you don't get to separate the V, S, and/or M components over 6 seconds of a turn, rather they are included in the action it takes to cast the spell.

Likewise, one couldn't cast a spell within a Silence spell's radius, then move outside to finish the V component (which is possible in your "so long as it's all part of one turn" homebrew), or vice versus, which is more likely: say the V component, then walk into the Silence radius and finish the casting. The action used to cast is also when the components must be accounted for; there is no other breakdown of a turn for spellcasting.

MadBear

2017-03-20, 08:08 PM

Of course it's homebrew. You can refluff a Barbarian into a Samurai who goes into a focused trance rather than a berserker rage without changing any mechanics. That doesn't mean it's not homebrew.

I think this right here is the heart of the disagreement between almost everyone.

Some people (like me) see the fluff section as a guide to how to play the typical trope of a class, but don't find it in anyway restraining. To us, there's nothing about the fluff section that makes it so you have to follow that to play that class.

Like your example shows, I could play a barbarian as a samurai, and I'm good to go, no homebrew needed.

Others (like you apparently) see the fluff as at least important enough that you can't just call a barbarian a samurai and not count it as homebrew.

As I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't think either way of viewing this is wrong at all. I think both views work perfectly fine. The real issue here is that these views can clash, and players & DM's need to reasonably work out what they consider to be a good compromise. No rules are being broken, merely norms. You can't have a functioning table without norms, so it's important to clarify this with everyone at the table.

Here on these forums, I wouldn't recommend calling someone's barbarian/samurai homebrew (I know I said I don't see either view as wrong, this paragraph is just my personal opinion). Despite what's maybe intended that comes off as dismissive, rather then just saying "I don't prefer to have PC make character's who's class deviates wildly from the fluff (and of course I'm sure there's wiggle room depending on your style/taste)" . If the player is playing their samurai completely using the D&D books rules, I don't know that you can really say that's homebrew. It's different for sure, but homebrew I think is a tad too far.

BiPolar

2017-03-20, 08:38 PM

How do you expect the bard to perform with an instrument, if they're not going to play it?

Have you heard of the term "prop"?

Newtonsolo313

2017-03-20, 09:09 PM

Um, not sure if we're talking about the same thing here, but you most certainly DO NOT use your voice to play the flute.

I'm assuming you're thinking you could talk into the mouth piece of a flute, but for the record, this is most definitely not considered playing the instrument.

If this is what you're thinking, that is no more playing the instrument than waiving it around is.

also for the record the proper way to play the flute is blowing over the mouthpiece just the right way, if you blow directly into the flute no noise comes out and if you try to speak while blowing into the flute it makes it messes up the blowing. i know this because i played the flute for 3 years

Mellack

2017-03-20, 09:38 PM

If the spell-casting just has to be on the same turn, then a caster could do the following. Cast the verbal component of Shocking Grasp, walk into a Silence area, do the somantic component and attack with the spell? That is what Strill is suggesting.

Bohandas

2017-03-20, 10:41 PM

How do you expect the bard to perform with an instrument, if they're not going to play it?

Fill it with dynamite like Keith Moon

Strill

2017-03-20, 11:18 PM

RSP

2017-03-21, 01:39 AM

You can move between individual attacks of an attack action, so I don't see why this wouldn't be RAW.

Well for one thing, the Attack Action is distinctly different than the Cast a Spell Action.

For another, it's constantly differentiated by the devs as having different rules (oh and actually has different rules in the PHB).

But yeah, RAW, I guess they're otherwise the same thing. Much like RAW, a Rogue should get all the same class features as a Barbarian.

In case it was missed: that's sarcasm and the two different types of actions are two separate things, and no you can't move between components of a Spell.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 08:00 AM

You've just proven yourself wrong. If it's the performance that matters, then why is the instrument itself relevant? How do you expect the bard to perform with an instrument, if they're not going to play it?

Bards don't have to perform to cast spells, unless the spell specifically says it.

Strill

2017-03-21, 08:03 AM

Bards don't have to perform to cast spells, unless the spell specifically says it.

Tell that to BiPolar.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 08:06 AM

Tell that to BiPolar.

I think they used the term "performance" as "the act of casting the spell", not as "musical performance".

If they meant is as musical performance, then they'd be wrong, too, but not for the reasons you highlighted.

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 08:11 AM

Tell that to BiPolar.

or oration

c'mon, Strill. If you're going to pin a quote on me, at least pin it correctly.

What's oration...speaking?
What's the verbal component of spellcasting...speaking?
Get it?

Stop telling people how to play their PCs, especially when you are creating false limitations.

Strill

2017-03-21, 08:50 AM

c'mon, Strill. If you're going to pin a quote on me, at least pin it correctly.

What's oration...speaking?
What's the verbal component of spellcasting...speaking?
Get it?

Stop telling people how to play their PCs, especially when you are creating false limitations.
What are you talking about? You said that the performance is what matters, and I asked how a Bard is supposed to perform with an instrument without playing it. I have no idea what you're criticizing here.

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 08:53 AM

What are you talking about? You said that the performance is what matters, and I asked how a Bard is supposed to perform with an instrument without playing it. I have no idea what you're criticizing here.

What I was trying to say is that the instrument is basically a prop(just like an arcane focus), the performance can be oration aka verbal component spellcasting. The purpose of the instrument is SOLELY to replace the material component. That's it.

Strill

2017-03-21, 09:00 AM

What I was trying to say is that the instrument is basically a prop(just like an arcane focus), the performance can be oration aka verbal component spellcasting. The purpose of the instrument is SOLELY to replace the material component. That's it.

If you're seriously going to be that dense, and pretend that a class based around the power of music is explicitly not meant to play their musical instrument in order to use their magic, then I don't see what else I can say to you.

Sure, oration is an option. Waving around your guitar like a magic wand is still complete nonsense. It has no value as a "prop" if it 's not making music.

Here, how about this. You explain to me, based on the lore description given in the Bard's PHB entry, why musical instruments, and not the music they make, is in any way relevant to the Bard's magic. Keep in mind that these are completely ordinary musical instruments, and anything with musical potential could qualify. A clamshell, a bag of beans, two sticks. Almost anything can be a musical instrument if you're creative enough. Why would these things, and not anything else, be relevant for a Bard's magic, if not for the music they make?

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 09:12 AM

If you're seriously going to be that dense, and pretend that a class based around the power of music is explicitly not meant to play their musical instrument in order to use their magic, then I don't see what else I can say to you.

Sure, oration is an option. Waving around your guitar like a magic wand is still complete nonsense. It has no value as a "prop" if it 's not making music.

Here, how about this. You explain to me, based on the lore description given in the Bard's PHB entry, why musical instruments, and not the music they make, is in any way relevant to the Bard's magic. Keep in mind that these are completely ordinary musical instruments, and anything with musical potential could qualify. A clamshell, a bag of beans, two sticks. Almost anything can be a musical instrument if you're creative enough. Why would these things, and not anything else, be relevant for a Bard's magic, if not for the music they make?

IT IS NOT A CLASS BASED AROUND THE POWER OF MUSIC. IT IS ALSO BASED ON ORATION.

They are allowed musical instruments rather than just standard arcane foci because their bard background. It doesn't mean that they have to play them.

Again, the instrument is the focus replacing material components. The spell is cast using Verbal (voice), Somatic (hand gestures), and Material (or a focus) components. That's it. If a player wants to have performance be a part of their methodology, that's up to them. It is not directed by the rules.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-21, 09:20 AM

If you're seriously going to be that dense, and pretend that a class based around the power of music is explicitly not meant to play their musical instrument in order to use their magic, then I don't see what else I can say to you.
Hello Strill.
My daughter got her degree in music, performance.
Her instrument? Voice. (She's a passable piano player, but that wasn't her specialty).
A bard can sing a capella, eh? A class based around the power of music ... yes, except it's also based around the power of story telling and poetry. That too is a strength of a bard. (See the Skjald tradition ...)

In some ways I find your original point a worthy one, particularly when one has a musical instrument that is a magical item -- rather than a focus -- in terms of how the bard's skill is manifested via that subset of both bardic and musical forms.

It isn't specified by the text.

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 09:21 AM

IT IS NOT A CLASS BASED AROUND THE POWER OF MUSIC. IT IS ALSO BASED ON ORATION.

They are allowed musical instruments rather than just standard arcane foci because their bard background. It doesn't mean that they have to play them.

Again, the instrument is the focus replacing material components. The spell is cast using Verbal (voice), Somatic (hand gestures), and Material (or a focus) components. That's it. If a player wants to have performance be a part of their methodology, that's up to them. It is not directed by the rules.

Opinion: The Bard should choose a non-instrument focus if they focus on narration. Thematically, an instrument IS a silly prop if you don't play it. But Bards can certainly orate.

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 09:22 AM

Opinion: The Bard should choose a non-instrument focus if they focus on narration. Thematically, an instrument IS a silly prop if you don't play it. But Bards can certainly orate.
Solid opinion. Only one problem. Foci only require one hand to work as foci. Many instruments require two to play.

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 09:25 AM

Solid opinion. Only one problem. Foci only require one hand to work as foci. Many instruments require two to play.

Which is why they don't have to be playing it! And just because they aren't actively using it, doesn't mean that it isn't part of their oration/casting (see Henny Youngman.)

Strill

2017-03-21, 09:26 AM

IT IS NOT A CLASS BASED AROUND THE POWER OF MUSIC. IT IS ALSO BASED ON ORATION.

Ok then. Use a component pouch and orate. But if you do use a musical instrument, it makes absolutely no sense that you could use it without playing it.

Hello Strill.
My daughter got her degree in music, performance.
Her instrument? Voice. (She's a passable piano player, but that wasn't her specialty).
A bard can sing a capella, eh? A class based around the power of music ... yes, except it's also based around the power of story telling and poetry. That too is a strength of a bard. (See the Skjald tradition ...)

In some ways I find your point a worthy one, particularly when one has a musical instrument that is a magical item -- rather than a focus -- in terms of how the bard's skill is manifested via that subset of both bardic and musical forms.

Ok. That's supported in the opening description. However, if you do use an instrument focus, it makes no sense that you should be able to use it without playing it.

Which is why they don't have to be playing it! And just because they aren't actively using it, doesn't mean that it isn't part of their oration/casting (see Henny Youngman.)

If that were true, then many other things could also be used as foci by virtue of them being "props" for your oration. But they can't, because only musical instruments can be foci, and the only sensical explanation is that the music they make is what matters.

Misterwhisper

2017-03-21, 09:33 AM

My question about the whole issue is this.

It is stated in the book that you can use a spell component and complete the somatic components of casting a spell with the same hand.

Does that mean if I use a focus as my material component substitute that I can do the somatic components with the same hand?

Ex. Can the wizard move his wand to make certain runes to cast the spell using his wand hand to do the somatic part, or can the bard play a certain tune with his instrument that is the somatic part of his spell while the instrument acts as the focus replacing the component he would need?

It says that clerics and paladins can place their holy symbol on a shield and move it in certain ways to use it so it should.

If there is errata or sage advice on this it would help.

The only issue if that is true is that so many instruments take 2 hands.

I suspect that this was one of those situations where they just threw out the idea and did not really care how it mechanically worked.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 09:35 AM

Here, how about this. You explain to me, based on the lore description given in the Bard's PHB entry, why musical instruments, and not the music they make, is in any way relevant to the Bard's magic. Keep in mind that these are completely ordinary musical instruments, and anything with musical potential could qualify. A clamshell, a bag of beans, two sticks. Almost anything can be a musical instrument if you're creative enough. Why would these things, and not anything else, be relevant for a Bard's magic, if not for the music they make?

Because, when a Bard is NOT using one of their powers that require a performance, but is instead casting a spell, the Bard is using the instrument as a focus to channel magic.

Instruments can make music, true. And some of the Bard's magic is directly tied to their artistic performance. But spells for a Bard are not necessarily performances, just the expression of the power they get thanks to their mastery of a particular form of magic, and the fact that the instrument has the potential to create music is enough to create magical effects with it.

Both the lore and the mechanics make quite clear that the bard can use their power with an instrument as a focus or a bag of material components without performing oratorically or musically, unless the specific spell require it. Being able to make sounds matters for the Verbal components of the spell. Being able to move matters for the Somatic components. But as far as Material components and focuses go, holding them in one hand is enough to use them, including the Bardic Instruments.

Now, the thing is, there is no spell in the PHB that has M components without V or S ones. Meaning that while there are some spells that require your Bard to say magic words and move in a certain way while holding an harmonica, there is no spell that requires you to only hold an harmonica.

On the other hands, there is definitively several of the Bard's powers who require them to use their instruments, or sing, or dance, or make a speech, in order for them to work.

Segev

2017-03-21, 09:36 AM

However, if you do use an instrument focus, it makes no sense that you should be able to use it without playing it.

That's subjective. That said, I largely agree with your opinion on the subject.

However, I also want to state firmly that you can do whatever it is you need to to use the instrument as a focus for spellcasting with only one hand counting as "occupied." If that means you're using your sword hilt as a pick on your mandolin, so the sword stays readied in the hand not officially holding the instrument, then you can do that.

If it means that you're doing what old-time storytellers with wind instruments did, and playing a few bars between orations of your verbal components, then that's what you're doing. If it means you've found a way to make your verbal component the music you're playing on your wind instrument, that works, too.

Mechanically, all that is required is that you hold the instrument in one hand to use it as a focus. How you achieve whatever other effects go into making it serve as a focus is up to you. By the RAW, this does mean you can hold forth your guitar like some sort of sacred icon rather than actually playing it, though I agree that this seems silly.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 09:42 AM

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-21, 09:45 AM

Ok. That's supported in the opening description. However, if you do use an instrument focus, it makes no sense that you should be able to use it without playing it. I'd like that if playing it satisfied the combined Somatic and Material components ... but the rules didn't get that granular. Maybe they'll toss this one around in a UA sometime. Not sure the Bard need that much attention, but this element might be worth a look ... or not.

If that were true, then many other things could also be used as foci by virtue of them being "props" for your oration. But they can't, because only musical instruments can be foci, and the only sensical explanation is that the music they make is what matters. A tambourine is a musical instrument that only needs one hand, though it can also be played with two.

Segev

2017-03-21, 09:50 AM

I believe spoons, when used as musical instruments, are also played with one hand. Two spoons held specifically between the fingers.

RSP

2017-03-21, 09:52 AM

Strill,
I appreciate that when proven wrong with rules, you ignore the posts and go back to a "how is this possible?!?"

However, I think the rules have been pointed out enough that there is no real debate here, just an unwillingness to accept the answer.

Strill

2017-03-21, 09:53 AM

Because, when a Bard is NOT using one of their powers that require a performance, but is instead casting a spell, the Bard is using the instrument as a focus to channel magic.

Instruments can make music, true. And some of the Bard's magic is directly tied to their artistic performance. But spells for a Bard are not necessarily performances, just the expression of the power they get thanks to their mastery of a particular form of magic, and the fact that the instrument has the potential to create music is enough to create magical effects with it."Potential" to create music? EVERYTHING has the potential to create music. If we're just talking about the "potential" to create music, then two sticks have the potential to create music. Your shoes have the potential to create music. But they're not bardic foci. Only musical instruments are, and the only explanation is that they must be played to be used.

Both the lore and the mechanics make quite clear that the bard can use their power with an instrument as a focus or a bag of material components without performing oratorically or musically, unless the specific spell require it. Being able to make sounds matters for the Verbal components of the spell. Being able to move matters for the Somatic components. But as far as Material components and focuses go, holding them in one hand is enough to use them, including the Bardic Instruments.
Really? the LORE makes it clear that Bards can use their power without performing oratorically or musically? Look at the examples in the opening description.

Bard casts Comprehend Languages by humming a song:
Bard uses Bardic Inspiration by singing a war chant
Bard uses a Charm spell through laughter and cittern playing.

Please, do tell, where does the lore description give even the slightest indication that a Bard can use magic without either music or oration?

Now, the thing is, there is no spell in the PHB that has M components without V or S ones. Meaning that while there are some spells that require your Bard to say magic words and move in a certain way while holding an harmonica, there is no spell that requires you to only hold an harmonica.As I said in the title, waving around a guitar like a magic wand is nonsensical. Waving around a harmonica without playing it is equally nonsensical.

I'd like that if playing it satisfied the combined Somatic and Material components

It does. You can satisfy somatic components with the same hand that you use to satisfy material components.

Strill,
I appreciate that when proven wrong with rules, you ignore the posts and go back to a "how is this possible?!?"

However, I think the rules have been pointed out enough that there is no real debate here, just an unwillingness to accept the answer.

Yes there is real debate. If I can prove that Bards using musical instruments without playing them is an incoherent idea, then I can prove that the rules are wrong.

Syll

2017-03-21, 10:00 AM

Here, how about this. You explain to me, based on the lore description given in the Bard's PHB entry, why musical instruments, and not the music they make, is in any way relevant to the Bard's magic.

The lore description, aka fluff, is utterly and completely separate from mechanical RAW.

Therefore it is irrelevant to a discussion of RAW requirements

House rule your games how you like, but know that it is -you- who are changing the rules, not your player.

What you are proposing is identical to mandating LG paladins, and 'HULK SMASH' barbarians

Syll

2017-03-21, 10:04 AM

Opinion: The Bard should choose a non-instrument focus if they focus on narration. Thematically, an instrument IS a silly prop if you don't play it. But Bards can certainly orate.

Setting dependent, a instrument is less obviously a focus if you do not wish to broadcast that you are a caster and you want an element of surprise

Strill

2017-03-21, 10:05 AM

The lore description, aka fluff, is utterly and completely separate from mechanical RAW.Except it's not. They're both designed to reinforce one another. That's why Wizards get a spellbook and use Intelligence as their spellcasting attribute - to reinforce the idea that they get their power from study.

What you are proposing is identical to mandating LG paladins, and 'HULK SMASH' barbariansNo, what I'm proposing is akin to mandating that a player who chooses to play a LG paladin not go around chanting praises to Asmodeus in every town he visits.

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 10:14 AM

Solid opinion. Only one problem. Foci only require one hand to work as foci. Many instruments require two to play.

Yes. Minor mechanical incongruities can exist as a result of prioritizing thematics over rules text. I have yet to run into a situation where I have felt compelled to audit what players are doing with their hands, however.

For those who do, this might be an unwelcome variant, or they may with to flavor the playing a different way, such as channeling the magic automatically playing the instrument.

"As you focus on your spell, the very weave plucks the strings of your lute, causing a mysterious melody to roll forth."

There are always ways.

RSP

2017-03-21, 10:15 AM

Yes there is real debate. If I can prove that Bards using musical instruments without playing them is an incoherent idea, then I can prove that the rules are wrong.

Real debate? So far I've seen you say "you use your voice while playing the flute" to explain how the V component is completed while playing, and that is just false. Instead of responding and backing up your claim, you ignored it.

When pointed out the RAW rules on using a Focus, you ignored it, rather than explaining how your theory would work within the actual rules.

When pointed out how interpreting the rules for using a Focus in a way that mandated playing an instrument and how that would likewise impact all classes that can use a Focus, because the rule is the same for all classes, you ignored it.

When point out that your "you can move between components of a spell" homebrew wasn't actually a rule, you ignored it.

I'm not sure what you think a debate is, but ignoring the valid points being presented, while only rebutting by restating your initial stance without providing further evidence to back it up, specifically in light of said evidence presented that opposes it, is not debate.

JellyPooga

2017-03-21, 10:24 AM

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 10:24 AM

"Potential" to create music? EVERYTHING has the potential to create music. If we're just talking about the "potential" to create music, then two sticks have the potential to create music. Your shoes have the potential to create music. But they're not bardic foci. Only musical instruments are, and the only explanation is that they must be played to be used.

By that logic, then a bard could use their shoes as focus to replace Material component, if they start making music with them.

So, either the Bards can use anything as focus as long as it does music, OR they are trained to channel the power of word and music through items that are created to be musical instruments.

Really? the LORE makes it clear that Bards can use their power without performing oratorically or musically? Look at the examples in the opening description.

Bard casts Comprehend Languages by humming a song:
Bard uses Bardic Inspiration by singing a war chant
Bard uses a Charm spell through laughter and cittern playing.

Please, do tell, where does the lore description give even the slightest indication that a Bard can use magic without either music or oration?

I've expressed myself badly. I meant to say that the lore and the mechanics made quite clear that the focus did not have to be part of the performance.

For the Lore exemple: Bardic Inspiration is manifested through a war song, but it does not require a focus, since non-instrumental performances work for BI and it is not a spell. Charm spells do not require Material components, meaning that playing the instrument is part of the Somatic components.

And Comprehend Language DOES require Material components, yet only humming the song while the Bard's fingers trace the monument, aka the Verbal and Somatic components are described.

As I said in the title, waving around a guitar like a magic wand is nonsensical. Waving around a harmonica without playing it is equally nonsensical.

You can say it's nonsensical all you like, it doesn't change that there is nothing in the game suggesting that you have to do more than briefly hold your focus in your hand in order to channel arcane, divine or bardic magic through it.

Mechanically, all that is required is that you hold the instrument in one hand to use it as a focus. How you achieve whatever other effects go into making it serve as a focus is up to you. By the RAW, this does mean you can hold forth your guitar like some sort of sacred icon rather than actually playing it, though I agree that this seems silly.

By RAW, if a Lore Bard is fighting a Knight in a room where there is a pipe organ and that said Knight destroy the Bard's luth, the Bard can run to the pipe organ, say "die and burn, s***head", flip their opponent the bird, then touch the organ and throw a Fireball at the Knight.

It's subjective if it's sillier than the Bard throwing a Fireball by singing "hello Darkness my old friend" while pressing the touches of the organ.

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 10:33 AM

Yes. Minor mechanical incongruities can exist as a result of prioritizing thematics over rules text. I have yet to run into a situation where I have felt compelled to audit what players are doing with their hands, however.It becomes a problem for a player the moment they want to use a weapon for an OA and still cast a spell using their instrument as a focus. Or are you saying you just ignore the component rules and/or action economy in such a situation, because it's not important to you?

Segev

2017-03-21, 10:43 AM

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 10:44 AM

Question: What makes a musical instrument a musical instrument?

If it's not defined by its ability to create music, then it's really only so much wood and wire, metal, or whatever. Just as a Wizard cannot simply pick up a stick and call it a wand, a Bard should not be able to simply pick up an object and call it a musical instrument unless he makes music with it. There's a fairly strong argument that it's playing an instrument that makes it musical, whether it's as simple as a stick and a hollow log or as complex as a harpsichord, not its form. Given that a Bard can only use a musical instrument as a focus and not just an instrument, then the playing of said instrument is what makes it a focus, not just the having of it.

Just a little sophistry to consider.
Presumably what makes a stick into a foci is investiture. And what makes a musical instrument a foci is also investiture. (What constitutes 'investing' is besides the point. Could be imbued magic, could be emotional attachment, could be something else.)

Presumably in both cases, what constitutes 'using' a invested item it is channeling power through it somehow. The method of activating the channeling isn't necessary to defining the item. A Wand isn't necessarily a wand just because power is channeled through a stick, nor because it's waved around while you channel through it. In fact, since it can still be a wand and used as an arcane focus without anything other than being held, a good argument can be made that the channeling is purely mentally controlled.

Just as a Wizard can hold a wand in their left hand and make the S-components with their right and speak the words, not gesturing with the Wand or doing anything else ... so should a Bard be able to if they choose. Since there are no other special requirements listed anywhere.

(Note that half way through my post I realized that a Wand might be defined as 'a valuable stick you channel power through' and any stick worth the PHB gp cost would qualify. But the holding while mentally channeling point still holds.)

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 10:52 AM

It becomes a problem for a player the moment they want to use a weapon for an OA and still cast a spell using their instrument as a focus. Or are you saying you just ignore the component rules and/or action economy in such a situation, because it's not important to you?

To start, that's fairly well an edge case. I can't think of a single time that I've had a Bard in melee and casting a spell and then had the enemy provoke an opportunity attack on that same turn.

That said, other people's campaigns are not mine, and edge cases do come up, and I'm sure there are other circumstances where it matters as well. In such cases, I believe it is best to use the rules to dictate what can happen, and to use narration to describe how it happens. Come up with a way in which you juggle your gear. Describe it briefly, pantomime it, whatever. And if it can't be done reasonably or quickly, handwave the house-fluff for that moment.

Basically, if something MUST give, the table should weigh what their priority is and let the least important thing go. For me, that would be the house-fluff. But that doesn't mean I don't want it there at all, or even most of the time.

NNescio

2017-03-21, 10:52 AM

Presumably what makes a stick into a foci is investiture. And what makes a musical instrument a foci is also investiture. (What constitutes 'investing' is besides the point. Could be imbued magic, could be emotional attachment, could be something else.)

Presumably in both cases, what constitutes 'using' a invested item it is channeling power through it somehow. The method of activating the channeling isn't necessary to defining the item. A Wand isn't necessarily a wand just because power is channeled through a stick, nor because it's waved around while you channel through it. In fact, since it can still be a wand and used as an arcane focus without anything other than being held, a good argument can be made that the channeling is purely mentally controlled.

Just as a Wizard can hold a wand in their left hand and make the S-components with their right and speak the words, not gesturing with the Wand or doing anything else ... so should a Bard be able to if they choose. Since there are no other special requirements listed anywhere.

(Note that half way through my post I realized that a Wand might be defined as 'a valuable stick you channel power through' and any stick worth the PHB gp cost would qualify. But the holding while mentally channeling point still holds.)

Apprentice: Master, I talked the shopkeeper down to only 8 gp for my wand!

Master: Great, but you need 10 gp worth to use it as an arcane focus, so go back in and buy another one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html)

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 10:56 AM

Question: What makes a musical instrument a musical instrument?

If it's not defined by its ability to create music, then it's really only so much wood and wire, metal, or whatever. Just as a Wizard cannot simply pick up a stick and call it a wand, a Bard should not be able to simply pick up an object and call it a musical instrument unless he makes music with it. There's a fairly strong argument that it's playing an instrument that makes it musical, whether it's as simple as a stick and a hollow log or as complex as a harpsichord, not its form. Given that a Bard can only use a musical instrument as a focus and not just an instrument, then the playing of said instrument is what makes it a focus, not just the having of it.

Just a little sophistry to consider.

The game defines Musical Instrument as a Tool that can be used in a performance. The PHB defines a Tool as an item that "helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certa in tools. Proficiency with a to01 allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use"

Note that the bard's ability of using Instruments as focus is not tied to the proficiency, and that nothing says you have to play it. Ergo, anything that CAN help you make music in a way you otherwise wouldn't be able is an instrument, and the Bard can use any of such item to channel magic with it, regardless of if they know how to use it or not.

Iamcreative

2017-03-21, 10:57 AM

Have you heard of the term "prop"?

I dont know about you, but I keep chekhov's gun locked and loaded at all times.

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 10:57 AM

To start, that's fairly well an edge case. I can't think of a single time that I've had a Bard in melee and casting a spell and then had the enemy provoke an opportunity attack on that same turn.It's an edge case that your Bards are in melee range and cast spells? Because that's all it requires to not be an edge case. The point of the OA is it exists as a threat, not to actually be provoked. If it doesn't exist as a threat, it changes the tactics of the enemy.

That said, other people's campaigns are not mine, and edge cases do come up, and I'm sure there are other circumstances where it matters as well. In such cases, I believe it is best to use the rules to dictate what can happen, and to use narration to describe how it happens. Come up with a way in which you juggle your gear. Describe it briefly, pantomime it, whatever. And if it can't be done reasonably or quickly, handwave the house-fluff for that moment.

Basically, if something MUST give, the table should weigh what their priority is and let the least important thing go. For me, that would be the house-fluff. But that doesn't mean I don't want it there at all, or even most of the time.For sure it's all reasonable. But my point was it's hardly an edge case situation. Requiring two hands for a casting component has a significant impact on how most characters play at a basic, fundamental level. (Just as removing the one free hand requirement does. Or requiring 2H weapon users to use an object interaction to switch between 'holding' and 'wielding' a 2H weapon changes how it interacts with the 'one free hand' rule.)

Apprentice: Master, I talked the shopkeeper down to only 8 gp for my wand!

Master: Great, but you need 10 gp worth to use it as an arcane focus, so go back in and buy another one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html)
I know, I love the absurdity of it. :)

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 11:00 AM

Apprentice: Master, I talked the shopkeeper down to only 8 gp for my wand!

Master: Great, but you need 10 gp worth to use it as an arcane focus, so go back in and buy another one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html)

Never found this joke to be logical, I must say. And item's worth is not the same as what you payed for it. Otherwise the pile of diamonds you stole to the Mad Priest of Bloodgore the Bloody God of Blood could not be used to resurrect people.

I know, I love the absurdity of it. :)

The joke is absurd (though funny), but the rule it uses is not.

Aside maybe from putting inherent value to items, but then DnD's economics are pretty much set in stone rather than dependent on external factors.

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 11:12 AM

It's an edge case that your Bards are in melee range and cast spells? Because that's all it requires to not be an edge case. The point of the OA is it exists as a threat, not to actually be provoked. If it doesn't exist as a threat, it changes the tactics of the enemy.

For sure it's all reasonable. But my point was it's hardly an edge case situation. Requiring two hands for a casting component has a significant impact on how most characters play at a basic, fundamental level. (Just as removing the one free hand requirement does. Or requiring 2H weapon users to use an object interaction to switch between 'holding' and 'wielding' a 2H weapon changes how it interacts with the 'one free hand' rule.)

It's interesting that you mention that. I would never assume that the threat DIDN'T exist. Enemies trying to run away from that Valor Bard playing his lute would still definitely disengage. It never occurred to me to run it otherwise.

You are much more focused on globally applying the exact ramifications of "requiring two hands for a casting component". In such a context, you're absolutely right, the house-fluff would have no place and Bards would focus on musical instruments without playing them and make magic happen regardless. But if you just assume that the Bard who can use the instrument as a focus can balance another object as well as his instrument, then it becomes a complete non-issue as far as I can tell.

And before you ask, yes. Bards having the capability of wielding a rapier in a threatening manner while playing a lute to cast a spell is much less silly to me than a bard who doesn't play music to cast at all.

Beleriphon

2017-03-21, 11:14 AM

But back to what I said before. What I am saying is many things have a fluff sentence or paragraph before it gets into the actual, specific benefits of what it does. What I am then saying is if we read fluff to be part of the mechanics, then the mention of advantage in GWM would imply mechanical advantage.

GWM does provide mechanical advantage, just not the Advantage mechanic. I'm not trying to make a joke either based on that wording.

GWM does make it more advantageous to use a two-handed weapon when a character has that feat. But Advantage as in rolling two dice and taking the better result and being in an advantageous position due to something in the game rules/game setting aren't the same thing. And reading them as the same thing is wrong, because the context of the description makes it abundantly obvious that isn't what is meant.

Willie the Duck

2017-03-21, 11:45 AM

Yes there is real debate. If I can prove that Bards using musical instruments without playing them is an incoherent idea, then I can prove that the rules are wrong.

Wrong at/about/for what? Rules can be shown to be absurd, self-contradictory, meaningless if no one cares about them, or in breaking of verisimilitude, but one thing one can rarely say about them is that they are wrong. If only because the only thing that rules are is that they are the rules, and at that they are by definition right.

That's all I'll say about the specific rules. I've played 7 editions of this game, depending on how you divide up cD&D, and I don't care all that much about what any given rulebook says. The rest of this is in discussing the basic premise of the debate.

Are there seriously people who think that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus?

Was there any reason in thinking that starting the discussion like this was going to work well? Not, something along the lines of 'someone said that they play the game such that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus, and that really breaks my sense of verisimilitude, what do other people think?,' nor 'Rules clarification: is it true that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus?' but instead 'Are there seriously people who think that [something I disagree with]?' How did you think this would end?

Certainly a bard can be refluffed, but there's no room to interpret the stock Bard as not using music in their magic.

Perhaps it is the TSR-era D&D gamer in me, but the very idea that they do use music in their magic is where my verisimilitude breaks down. See, bards are supposed to cast spells because they are Jack of all Trades, including fighting and magic along with their singing and/or storytelling., not because the singing/storytelling is the magic. I think this came into being in 3e (maybe 2e Complete Bard Handbook) and I have no idea where it came from, but it seems so silly to me.

Syll

2017-03-21, 11:48 AM

before you ask, yes. Bards having the capability of wielding a rapier in a threatening manner while playing a lute to cast a spell is much less silly to me than a bard who doesn't play music to cast at all.

There's a military sapper in Steven Erikson's Malazan series named Fiddler, who buys/loots a fiddle in the course of the military campaign, amidst ridicule of his squad mates, under the conceit that he'll learn to play it 'someday'.

Predictably, it doesn't remain in working order very long across the myriad battlefields, but he stubbornly lugs around this broken fiddle regardless.

I could have a lot of fun playing him as a bard, and considering that world began as Erikson's D&D campaign setting, he may have felt the same

Edit: not really trying to make a point, just something you reminded me of

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 11:51 AM

There's a military sapper in Steven Erikson's Malazan series named Fiddler, who buys/loots a fiddle in the course of the military campaign, amidst ridicule of his squad mates, under the conceit that he'll learn to play it 'someday'.

Predictably, it doesn't remain in working order very long across the myriad battlefields, but he stubbornly lugs around this broken fiddle regardless.

I could have a lot of fun playing him as a bard, and considering that world began as Erikson's D&D campaign setting, he may have felt the same

Edit: not really trying to make a point, just something you reminded me of

That sounds pretty awesome. I should check that out.

Syll

2017-03-21, 12:07 PM

That sounds pretty awesome. I should check that out.

I would highly recommend the series. Malazan: Book of the Fallen is the series name. Gardens of the Moon is book 1.

And the series is compete, too...so no having to wait for him to finish it.

Strill

2017-03-21, 01:04 PM

Wrong at/about/for what? Rules can be shown to be absurd, self-contradictory, meaningless if no one cares about them, or in breaking of verisimilitude, but one thing one can rarely say about them is that they are wrong. If only because the only thing that rules are is that they are the rules, and at that they are by definition right. The purpose of rules is to accurately depict the world, and to facilitate stories consistent with the source material that inspired them. If they fail to do this, then they fail at their purpose.

Was there any reason in thinking that starting the discussion like this was going to work well? Not, something along the lines of 'someone said that they play the game such that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus, and that really breaks my sense of verisimilitude, what do other people think?,' nor 'Rules clarification: is it true that Bards don't need to play their instrument to use it as a focus?' but instead 'Are there seriously people who think that [something I disagree with]?' How did you think this would end?Are you saying it hasn't worked well? I could care less about people all stating their opinions and agreeing to disagree. That's a complete waste of time. No one learns anything. I also could care less about what homebrew setting someone else uses in their own game. That's their business, and none of my concern. My concern is with the default core setting. Also, I knew coming in what the rules said about this.

Perhaps it is the TSR-era D&D gamer in me, but the very idea that they do use music in their magic is where my verisimilitude breaks down. See, bards are supposed to cast spells because they are Jack of all Trades, including fighting and magic along with their singing and/or storytelling., not because the singing/storytelling is the magic. I think this came into being in 3e (maybe 2e Complete Bard Handbook) and I have no idea where it came from, but it seems so silly to me.It was probably inspired by the likes of Orpheus, the Sirens, the magic fiddle that makes people dance in Grimm's fairy tale: "The Jew Among Thorns", Genesis 1, Aslan in the first book of the Chronicles of Narnia, and the fact that "to sing" and "to enchant" or "to prophesy" are the same word in Latin (praecanto).

Telok

2017-03-21, 01:20 PM

NNescio

2017-03-21, 01:24 PM

Willie the Duck

2017-03-21, 01:30 PM

The purpose of rules is to accurately depict the world, and to facilitate stories consistent with the source material that inspired them. If they fail to do this, then they fail at their purpose.

These are certainly not inherent to any definition of rules of which I know. Whether they apply to the rules of D&D is a matter of which much ink has been spilled.

Are you saying it hasn't worked well? I could care less about people all stating their opinions and agreeing to disagree. That's a complete waste of time. No one learns anything. I also could care less about what homebrew setting someone else uses in their own game. That's their business, and none of my concern. My concern is with the default core setting. Also, I knew coming in what the rules said about this.

It sure hasn't turned a lot of people to your point of view, and probably at least 50% of the reason being your hostile framing, which by all accounts served no purpose. As for you caring less about the opinions of others, if not to influence others towards your point of view, then what is the point of even posting at all?

It was probably inspired by the likes of Orpheus, the Sirens, the magic fiddle that makes people dance in Grimm's fairy tale: "The Jew Among Thorns", Genesis 1, Aslan in the first book of the Chronicles of Narnia, and the fact that "to sing" and "to enchant" or "to prophesy" are the same word in Latin (praecanto).

Hmmm. Those are definitely pre-modern stories which include magical music. I'm not sure how well they sync up with the inspiration for the D&D bard. If they are, what was the reason that music-as-spellcasting didn't show up until late 2e or 3.0?

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 01:33 PM

I can add only two things to this.

First: some players will choose the bard class because the mechanics most closely match the character concept of a dilettante, jack of all trades, or Renaissance man. But the whole yodelling and music stuff is completely absent from the character concept. Achieving the concept without using the bard class could take a three class multiclass build that won't come online until after level 6 or something.

Second: Tuned chickens. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSJc72OC7Dg) I my character isn't interested in performing, don't try to force me.

Aren't both of these completely beside the point? I might be wrong, but I thought the whole point was that some of us feel that if you use an instrument as a focus, it necessitates playing the instrument to some degree. Not that a bard can't do that stuff and use a different focus or method, or that alternate character concepts can't be realized. I have skimmed a little while reading this thread though, so I might have missed something.

Syll

2017-03-21, 01:48 PM

I couldn't care less about people all stating their opinions and agreeing to disagree. That's a complete waste of time. No one learns anything. I also couldn't care less about what homebrew setting someone else uses in their own game. That's their business, and none of my concern. My concern is with the default core setting. Also, I knew coming in what the rules said about this.

What value is gained by intentionally mistating your opinions of what RAW ought to be, as what RAW factually is?

A sprig of mistletoe plucked from a tree is sufficient for a druid to focus their will to effect change. A pinch of iron dust, or a spiderweb, are the material components for x spells. These are mundane bits of detritus that have undergone no special preparation, but are nonetheless necessary to casting their respective spells with material components....

But also substitutable by an arcane focus. This infers to me that -what- the Focus is (be it a crystal, wand, lute or shrub) doesn't matter in a physical sense, but rather a mental one.

JellyPooga

2017-03-21, 01:52 PM

The game defines Musical Instrument as a Tool that can be used in a performance. The PHB defines a Tool as an item that "helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certa in tools. Proficiency with a to01 allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use"

Note that the bard's ability of using Instruments as focus is not tied to the proficiency, and that nothing says you have to play it. Ergo, anything that CAN help you make music in a way you otherwise wouldn't be able is an instrument, and the Bard can use any of such item to channel magic with it, regardless of if they know how to use it or not.

So to sum up;

Musical Instrument = Tool
Tool = Thing that facilitates an Activity
Music = an Activity

Therefore: Musical Instrument = Thing that facilitates Music

Thus: If the "Thing" is not facilitating Music, it's not a Musical Instrument (regardless of its intended purpose)

So a stick and a hollow log being used to beat out a rhythm (facilitating music) is a Musical Instrument and can be used an a Focus, whilst a Lute being waved in someones face is not facilitating music; therefore it isn't a Musical Instrument and is, in fact, nothing more than a really expensive and delicate Club that cannot be used as a Focus.

Discuss.[/devil's advocate]

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 01:54 PM

You can say "the game is not representing what I want it to represent", but that won't make what it represents "wrong" or "not what the game is about"

So to sum up;

Musical Instrument = Tool
Tool = Thing that facilitates an Activity
Music = an Activity

Therefore: Musical Instrument = Thing that facilitates Music

Thus: If the "Thing" is not facilitating Music, it's not a Musical Instrument (regardless of its intended purpose)

So a stick and a hollow log being used to beat out a rhythm (facilitating music) is a Musical Instrument and can be used an a Focus, whilst a Lute being waved in someones face is not facilitating music; therefore it isn't a Musical Instrument and is, in fact, nothing more than a really expensive and delicate Club that cannot be used as a Focus.

Discuss.[/devil's advocate]

Don't be disingenuous, now. A Tool is something that CAN facilitate the activity. A hammer doesn't stop being a Tool because it's not currently used, nor does a set of thieves' tools are not Tools because they're in a treasure chest instead of being used by a thief.

So, what define the Tool "Musical Instrument" is that it is an item that can be used to help make music in a way that is not possible without it. Not something that is *currently* being used to make music.

So, yes, an hollow log with a stick IS a musical instrument, and can be used as Focus, just like a lute can.

And an Instrument being used as Focus does NOT need to be played

Xetheral

2017-03-21, 02:07 PM

Never found this joke to be logical, I must say. And item's worth is not the same as what you payed for it. Otherwise the pile of diamonds you stole to the Mad Priest of Bloodgore the Bloody God of Blood could not be used to resurrect people.

I believe the relevant economic principle is familiarly quoted as: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." This isn't exactly the same as "Everything is worth what its purchaser did pay for it", but it's close enough that I find the comic hilarous.

That D&D expresses the required quantity and/or quality of spell components in GP is pretty hilarious anyway, and creates absurdities the moment you try to apply even basic economics. "10 GP-worth" just isn't a well-defined measurement.

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 02:20 PM

Hmmm. Those are definitely pre-modern stories which include magical music. I'm not sure how well they sync up with the inspiration for the D&D bard. If they are, what was the reason that music-as-spellcasting didn't show up until late 2e or 3.0?My understanding has always been that the D&D Bard is almost exclusively inspired by Celtic Druid Bards. With various editions (including 5e) including a Viking Skald in their origins.

Not a Troubadour Minstrel.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 02:23 PM

DnD Bards are a mix of all the different "they use music for magic" people in folklore and legends.

JellyPooga

2017-03-21, 02:26 PM

Don't be disingenuous, now. A Tool is something that CAN facilitate the activity. A hammer doesn't stop being a Tool because it's not currently used, nor does a set of thieves' tools are not Tools because they're in a treasure chest instead of being used by a thief.

So, what define the Tool "Musical Instrument" is that it is an item that can be used to help make music in a way that is not possible without it. Not something that is *currently* being used to make music.

So, yes, an hollow log with a stick IS a musical instrument, and can be used as Focus, just like a lute can.

By that argument, as others have pointed out anything can be used to make music, from a sheet of paper or bent piece of metal to the shoes on your feet and it's clearly not the intent of the rule that a Bard can use anything as a focus; e.g. "I don't need a component pouch, I have...er...this twig!". So we need to define what, exactly, a musical instrument is for the purpose of using it as a Focus. If we can use a stick and a hollow log, why not a bent piece of scrap metal or a barrel? And if we allow such things to be used as Foci, then what differentiates them from a lute or harpsichord? A Lute is clearly a Tool in the same way that a Hammer or Thieves Tools are; designed for purpose, but what we're looking for is the definition of a Musical Instrument, because it is that which a Bard can use as a Focus. What's the difference, if any, between a log and a lute when it comes to making music? My argument is that it's in how it is currently being used that defines it, at that time, as a Musical Instrument. If it's not being used, at that time, to create music then it's not, by this definition, a Musical Instrument.

Either only an instrument designed for purpose (such as a Lute) can be used as a Focus, in which case it may not need to be played to act as such (depending on your interpretation of Bards and their magic), or anything can be used as a Focus but only so long as it is being used to make music at the time it's being used as a Focus.

Chaosmancer

2017-03-21, 02:28 PM

"As you focus on your spell, the very weave plucks the strings of your lute, causing a mysterious melody to roll forth."

There are always ways.

I was going to bring this up again, personally, this is my favorite method of fixing this problem. Plus, it is a really cool visual for me.

By that logic, then a bard could use their shoes as focus to replace Material component, if they start making music with them.

So, either the Bards can use anything as focus as long as it does music, OR they are trained to channel the power of word and music through items that are created to be musical instruments.

I go with #1 to be honest. Anything goes.

Why?

A Cleric can take mud and scrawl their holy symbol on a rag, nail it to their shield, and for all practical purposes, it should work the exact same as painting the symbol on the shield with fancy oil paints. Also, they just thrust their shield forward and magic happens. Same with paladins.

Druid can take 5 minutes to use string and bird feathers to make a totem. Maybe add some pebbles or small bones. Hold it in their hand and magic happens.

I don't see the point in making it harder than it needs to be. A bard grabs some pieces of grass and makes a grass whistle, good enough for me.

And honestly, this isn't a problem if you just allow the handedness to not matter so much. If my DM said, "You can totally play your lute while holding your sword or wearing a shield, but not both, doesn't bother me" Then I would love to flavor my spells as specific lute chords that ring through the air with spectral beauty.

If they say "to cast your spells you need both hands on the lute, meaning you have to drop the shield and use an action to pick it up later" then I've got a problem, because the flavor is hurting me. I also generally expect my players have their weapons drawn and don't worry about switching them. It makes them more powerful, sure, but it is so much better for me than trying to police that and remember what everyone had. And if it really matters, then my players are willing to adjust with me, for the dramatic scene. It just never seems to be an issue.

Willie the Duck

2017-03-21, 02:31 PM

DnD Bards are a mix of all the different "they use music for magic" people in folklore and legends.

I disagree. They are a mix of all the different "they use music...and other things, because they are Jack of All Trades (including magic, because that's what a Jack of All Trades would be able to do in a D&D world)." That's my point. The music-as-magic part is a recent (okay, 17 years is not recent, but y'knowwhatImean) addition.

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 02:32 PM

Either only an instrument designed for purpose (such as a Lute) can be used as a Focus, in which case it may not need to be played to act as such (depending on your interpretation of Bards and their magic), or anything can be used as a Focus but only so long as it is being used to make music at the time it's being used as a Focus.
Those are not the only two options. You left out: only an instrument that has been invested in some way may be used as a focus to channel music, but playing music with it

As I said before, investiture might including magical preparation of the instrument, or it might require some emotional investment such as using the instrument until you are attuned to it somehow.

JellyPooga

2017-03-21, 02:37 PM

Those are not the only two options. You left out: only an instrument that has been invested in some way may be used as a focus to channel music, but playing music with it

As I said before, investiture might including magical preparation of the instrument, or it might require some emotional investment such as using the instrument until you are attuned to it somehow.

This would be straying into houserule territory in my opinion. As has been pointed out a Bard doesn't even need to be proficient in the instrument to use it as a Focus, let alone have that instrument "invested" somehow. A Bard can pick up any musical instrument and use it as a focus; it doesn't stipulate a "Focus Instrument" or the like. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion of a Bard requiring to have some kind of connection or the instrument being magicaly imbued somehow, like a Wand or Staff focus for a Wizard, but if we're looking at the strictest rules, then it should be disregarded.

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 02:38 PM

Misterwhisper

2017-03-21, 02:44 PM

By that argument, as others have pointed out anything can be used to make music, from a sheet of paper or bent piece of metal to the shoes on your feet and it's clearly not the intent of the rule that a Bard can use anything as a focus; e.g. "I don't need a component pouch, I have...er...this twig!". So we need to define what, exactly, a musical instrument is for the purpose of using it as a Focus. If we can use a stick and a hollow log, why not a bent piece of scrap metal or a barrel? And if we allow such things to be used as Foci, then what differentiates them from a lute or harpsichord? A Lute is clearly a Tool in the same way that a Hammer or Thieves Tools are; designed for purpose, but what we're looking for is the definition of a Musical Instrument, because it is that which a Bard can use as a Focus. What's the difference, if any, between a log and a lute when it comes to making music? My argument is that it's in how it is currently being used that defines it, at that time, as a Musical Instrument. If it's not being used, at that time, to create music then it's not, by this definition, a Musical Instrument.

Either only an instrument designed for purpose (such as a Lute) can be used as a Focus, in which case it may not need to be played to act as such (depending on your interpretation of Bards and their magic), or anything can be used as a Focus but only so long as it is being used to make music at the time it's being used as a Focus.

I am not sure how this is confusing:

Your musical instrument is your focus. Listed in chapter 5 in the book.
You get training in the TOOL use of certain instruments of your choice. You are trained in the use of 3 instruments as tools.
The instruments listed in the PHB and the extras from the SCAG can be your focus.

A voice is not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.
Tap shoes are not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.
A log and a stick are not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.

The list of instruments to get tool proficiency in is listed right in the book.

Essentially it works exactly like a wand for a wizard but you get many different types to choose from.

Now the fact that it never says whether you have to be proficient in the use of the instrument you use as a focus could be a little bit of a gray area.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 02:48 PM

By that argument, as others have pointed out anything can be used to make music, from a sheet of paper or bent piece of metal to the shoes on your feet and it's clearly not the intent of the rule that a Bard can use anything as a focus;

[...]
What's the difference, if any, between a log and a lute when it comes to making music? My argument is that it's in how it is currently being used that defines it, at that time, as a Musical Instrument. If it's not being used, at that time, to create music then it's not, by this definition, a Musical Instrument.

By that argument, *anything* that is used to produce music is by definition a Musical Instrument, so a Bard can use anything as focus, even a sheet of paper or a bent piece of metal or the shoes on your feet. Yet you claim that is in not the intent of the rule.

A Lute is clearly a Tool in the same way that a Hammer or Thieves Tools are; designed for purpose, but what we're looking for is the definition of a Musical Instrument, because it is that which a Bard can use as a Focus.

Either only an instrument designed for purpose (such as a Lute) can be used as a Focus, in which case it may not need to be played to act as such (depending on your interpretation of Bards and their magic), or anything can be used as a Focus but only so long as it is being used to make music at the time it's being used as a Focus.

You can't repeat an argument I made, agree with the argument I made, and then try to use it against my argument.

As I said before, what define a Musical Instrument is that it is a Tool made to help play music. An emptied-out log has been crafted to be an Instrument, the same way that someone had to bend or forge pieces of metal to create some of the things in a Thieves' Kit, or the same way that a DM would probably not grant you the benefits a carpenter's toolset if all what you have is a sharp rock and a blunt rock tied to a stick that you've put little tags with "saw" and "hammer" on.

Also, no, it does not depend on the interpretation of Bards and their magic, if we're talking about what the books say.

[QUOTE=Misterwhisper;21833679
The instruments listed in the PHB and the extras from the SCAG can be your focus.

A voice is not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.
Tap shoes are not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.
A log and a stick are not a musical instrument in the book, it can not be your focus.

The list of instruments to get tool proficiency in is listed right in the book.

Essentially it works exactly like a wand for a wizard but you get many different types to choose from.[/QUOTE]

Errr, it must be said the listed instruments are described as just being exemples, they're not an exhaustive list of all the possibilities.

Not to mention that the Wizard's focuses list is basically "whatever, as long as it was designed to channel the arcane power".

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 02:51 PM

This would be straying into houserule territory in my opinion. As has been pointed out a Bard doesn't even need to be proficient in the instrument to use it as a Focus, let alone have that instrument "invested" somehow. A Bard can pick up any musical instrument and use it as a focus; it doesn't stipulate a "Focus Instrument" or the like. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion of a Bard requiring to have some kind of connection or the instrument being magicaly imbued somehow, like a Wand or Staff focus for a Wizard, but if we're looking at the strictest rules, then it should be disregarded.
No one said it must be imbued or invested by the Bard themselves, be it through magic or emotional investment of having been used as an instrument before. Just like (I assume) a Wizard is not required to create the Wand or Staff or Crystal or whatever themselves. On the other hand, it does seem simplest to assume there is some kind of Instrument-ness that defines an instrument, just as there is some kind of Wand-ness that defines a wand.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 02:54 PM

No one said it must be imbued or invested by the Bard themselves, be it through magic or emotional investment of having been used as an instrument before. Just like (I assume) a Wizard is not required to create the Wand or Staff or Crystal or whatever themselves. On the other hand, it does seem simplest to assume there is some kind of Instrument-ness that defines an instrument, just as there is some kind of Wand-ness that defines a wand.

The Instrument-ness of the Musical Instrument is that they can be used with a performance skill check, as the game defines Tools.

Not has been, nor will, nor have to be currently used in, but can.

Lombra

2017-03-21, 03:04 PM

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 03:07 PM

RAW you don't have to play an instrument to cast a spell, but what's the point of bringing a guitar in battle if you don't play it like that guy from the Mad Max film? You run on the battlefield over the corpses of your enemies playing and singing of their miserable deaths while you keep killing them and the rest of the party is headbanging with advantage.

Because that is one trope of many possible tropes?

This whole thread is very focused on the Lore Bard, but if you take OP to completion, the Valor Bard is basically useless.

pwykersotz

2017-03-21, 03:08 PM

RAW you don't have to play an instrument to cast a spell, but what's the point of bringing a guitar in battle if you don't play it like that guy from the Mad Max film? You run on the battlefield over the corpses of your enemies playing and singing of their miserable deaths while you keep killing them and the rest of the party is headbanging with advantage.

Pretty much the entire spirit of my position. Magnificently stated. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii

2017-03-21, 03:16 PM

The Instrument-ness of the Musical Instrument is that they can be used with a performance skill check, as the game defines Tools.I am perfectly willing to accept both "it's on the PHB equipment list and has a price" and "magic item description calls it out as usable as" for an instrument, or arcane focus, or for that matter weapon. (I'm specifically thinking of magic staffs that say they can be used as Quarterstaff.)

Strill

2017-03-21, 03:23 PM

Real debate? So far I've seen you say "you use your voice while playing the flute" to explain how the V component is completed while playing, and that is just false. Instead of responding and backing up your claim, you ignored it.The book says that verbal components are "the chanting of mystic words", and yet we have the example of a Bard casting Comprehend Languages by humming. Obviously verbal components must be more loosely defined in the context of Bards.

When pointed out the RAW rules on using a Focus, you ignored it, rather than explaining how your theory would work within the actual rules. It doesn't. My argument is that the implications of a Bard using an instrument as a focus, but not playing it, lead to a contradiction.

When pointed out how interpreting the rules for using a Focus in a way that mandated playing an instrument and how that would likewise impact all classes that can use a Focus, because the rule is the same for all classes, you ignored it. It's not the same. Clerics get different rules. I don't see why the same can't be done for Bards.

When point out that your "you can move between components of a spell" homebrew wasn't actually a rule, you ignored it. Ok. I said I didn't see why that wouldn't be possible, and someone corrected me. I was wrong.

RSP

2017-03-21, 03:38 PM

The book says that verbal components are "the chanting of mystic words", and yet we have the example of a Bard casting Comprehend Languages by humming. Obviously verbal components must be more loosely defined in the context of Bards.

Nope. We get a snipet of a story and not all the details. We do not know what exactly the Bard was doing. Perhaps they have a magic item that gives the effect of CL when activated by humming.

As pointed out earlier, the rules for V components state they are clearly words, so this cannot be an example of a V component, therefore, it has to be something else.

Strill

2017-03-21, 03:42 PM

Actually, the first point you make here contradicts your second. If your shoes have the potential to create music, then they are potentially "musical instruments," and can be used as foci. So if the only criterion for being "a musical instrument" is "the potential to make music" (or, rather, that music is being made with it, as is the implicit assertion you're making), any object the bard picks up and "makes music" with qualifies. That jail cell you locked him in? He knocks some rhythm on the bars and those how count as his focus for spellcasting!

If you want "a musical instrument" to be something specific that costs gp and can be denied to the bard, then it must be something more than a thing with which he can make music. And thus, the music must be, at most, only a part of it.There's a difference between potential and actuality. Potentially, even the air itself could make music, which renders the concept of a Bard carrying musical instruments an absurdity. But in actuality, doing so is exceedingly difficult. That's why people have actual instruments that are finely made to produce specific sounds, and which you can tune.

So to answer you, yes you can define a "musical instrument" entirely in terms of the music it makes. You just have to say that anything is a musical instrument, which produces sound of a minimum quality.

At best, you can show that the rules can be made silly. "Wrong" is an objective term which you can't prove without demonstrating inherent contradiction within the rule set.The rules exist to portray a consistent world, and to create experiences which evoke the source material that inspired them. If they fail in that, then they are wrong.

RSP

2017-03-21, 03:43 PM

It doesn't. My argument is that the implications of a Bard using an instrument as a focus, but not playing it, lead to a contradiction.

It's not the same. Clerics get different rules. I don't see why the same can't be done for Bards.

The rules are clear on how to use a Focus, and it doesn't involve playing with them, whether a staff for a Wizard or an instrument for a Bard, so no contradiction in the rules, just something you apparently don't like.

And yes, Clerics get different rules because the RAW specifically state they get different rules. The same *could* have been done with Bards, but wasn't. You deciding to institute the possibility of Bards having different rules is fine for homebrew, but it certainly isn't RAW.

And another class actually having specifically stated rules, doesn't give one the freedom to make up rules for another class and claim it as RAW.

RSP

2017-03-21, 03:45 PM

Ok. I said I didn't see why that wouldn't be possible, and someone corrected me. I was wrong.

Cool. Then let's get back to the point that brought this up:

If you need to play the instrument to use it as a Focus, then you can't actually use any woodwind instrument/horn/etc as a Focus as you can't play it while doing V components, which certainly seems contrary to using an item as a Focus.

Newtonsolo313

2017-03-21, 03:46 PM

Nope. We get a snipet of a story and not all the details. We do not know what exactly the Bard was doing. Perhaps they have a magic item that gives the effect of CL when activated by humming.

As pointed out earlier, the rules for V components state they are clearly words, so this cannot be an example of a V component, therefore, it has to be something else.

also even if humming can be a verbal component that doesn't necessarily mean you can use blowing as a verbal component because humming uses the Vocal chords while blowing does not. simply because the alternative is wrong does not mean you are right.

Coidzor

2017-03-21, 03:46 PM

BiPolar

2017-03-21, 03:48 PM

RSP

2017-03-21, 03:52 PM

And just to touch on the "fluff vs rules" issue: here's something from the Rogue fluff:

"Suppressing a giggle, a gnome waggles her fingers and magically lifts the key ring from the guard’s belt."

Note, this appears to be Mage Hand Legerdemain, however, Mage Hand has a V component, yet it's stated here that the Gnome only waggles her fingers, the S component.

Are we now to assume that Mage Hand no longer requires the V component because of this snippet?

No, because the rules specifically state it does need it, and this snippet is just a literary device intended to convey an idea of what a Rogue may be invisioned as, not a complete set of rules in and of itself.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 03:55 PM

The book says that verbal components are "the chanting of mystic words", and yet we have the example of a Bard casting Comprehend Languages by humming. Obviously verbal components must be more loosely defined in the context of Bards.

The Bard described in that exemple also use neither Material Component nor focus, despite the spell she uses requiring one or the other.

Does it means that Bards should be able to use this spell without material component or focus? Or, crazy idea I know, does it means that the RP descriptions to give a feel of what the classes are aren't actually 100% accurate or describes everything that the character do or did?

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-21, 03:56 PM

A sprig of mistletoe plucked from a tree is sufficient for a druid to focus their will to effect change. A pinch of iron dust, or a spiderweb, are the material components for x spells. These are mundane bits of detritus that have undergone no special preparation, but are nonetheless necessary to casting their respective spells with material components....

But also substitutable by an arcane focus. This infers to me that -what- the Focus is (be it a crystal, wand, lute or shrub) doesn't matter in a physical sense, but rather a mental one.Nice.

My understanding has always been that the D&D Bard is almost exclusively inspired by Celtic Druid Bards. With various editions (including 5e) including a Viking Skald in their origins. Not a Troubadour Minstrel.
Not quite right, but close. If I may quote the original design intent:

INTRODUCTION (by Doug Schwegman, Strategic Review, Issue 6, February 1976, page 11)

. . . I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’.

The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did. Tolkien, a great Nordic scholar, copied this style several times in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for example Bilbo’s chant of Earendil the Mariner).

The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes.

By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .

I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc.

A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter. He is supposedly able to extract himself from delicate situations through the use of diplomacy, but since this does not always work he is given the innate ability to charm creatures.
From the horses' mouth.

DnD Bards are a mix of all the different "they use music for magic" people in folklore and legends.Well, it's a bit tighter than that originally, but it has expanded over the various editions ...

This whole thread is very focused on the Lore Bard, but if you take OP to completion, the Valor Bard is basically useless. A point that perhaps someone wishes you had not brought up. :smallcool:

This is a fantastic response.
Yeah, that was.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 04:01 PM

This whole thread is very focused on the Lore Bard, but if you take OP to completion, the Valor Bard is basically useless.

You mean there is no valor in defending this position?

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-21, 04:03 PM

You mean there is no valor in defending this position?

No, it means that he plays his axe. :smallbiggrin:

Strill

2017-03-21, 04:11 PM

These are certainly not inherent to any definition of rules of which I know. Whether they apply to the rules of D&D is a matter of which much ink has been spilled. They're inherent to roleplaying games, since that is the purpose of roleplaying games, and the rules exist to serve that purpose.

It sure hasn't turned a lot of people to your point of view, and probably at least 50% of the reason being your hostile framing, which by all accounts served no purpose. As for you caring less about the opinions of others, if not to influence others towards your point of view, then what is the point of even posting at all?I don't care about influencing people to my point of view. Another person's opinion doesn't mean anything if it's based on flawed reasoning, whether they agree with me or not. I just care about proving that my point of view is correct. The only way I'm going to do that is to get people to argue against me.

Hmmm. Those are definitely pre-modern stories which include magical music. I'm not sure how well they sync up with the inspiration for the D&D bard. If they are, what was the reason that music-as-spellcasting didn't show up until late 2e or 3.0?

No idea.

Syll

2017-03-21, 04:21 PM

Coidzor

2017-03-21, 04:21 PM

Not quite right, but close. If I may quote the original design intent:

From the horses' mouth.

Ahh, thank you. Gotta love them primary sources.

I don't care about influencing people to my point of view. Another person's opinion doesn't mean anything if it's based on flawed reasoning, whether they agree with me or not. I just care about proving that my point of view is correct. The only way I'm going to do that is to get people to argue against me.

If you just want fact-checking, you can present things without being inflammatory and ask for feedback.

It'll be higher quality and better for the health and well-being of the forum and its inhabitants than just poking the hornets' nest, too.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 04:22 PM

Actually the only point to prove that a point of view is correct is to present arguments that cannot be argued against.

Strill

2017-03-21, 04:23 PM

What value is gained by intentionally mistating your opinions of what RAW ought to be, as what RAW factually is? Did I ever mention RAW in the first place? If I did I apologize.

A sprig of mistletoe plucked from a tree is sufficient for a druid to focus their will to effect change.Druids are Wisdom-based casters, so they don't cast through force of will. That would be Charisma-based casters. Druids instead open their senses to the presence of nature, and allow nature to channel its power through them.

A pinch of iron dust, or a spiderweb, are the material components for x spells. These are mundane bits of detritus that have undergone no special preparation, but are nonetheless necessary to casting their respective spells with material components....

But also substitutable by an arcane focus. This infers to me that -what- the Focus is (be it a crystal, wand, lute or shrub) doesn't matter in a physical sense, but rather a mental one.That contradicts the description of the Arcane Focus.

"An arcane focus is a special iteman orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length ofwood, or some similar item designed to channel the power of arcane spells".

So the arcane focus is not simply a mental crutch or a placebo. It actually channels power. Similarly, the Druidic focus description makes it clear that it is not the object itself that matters, but its sacredness.

"A druidic focus might be a sprig of mistletoe or holly, a wand or scepter made of yew or another special wood, a staff drawn whole out of a living tree, or a totem object incorporating feathers, fur, bones, and teeth from sacred animals. A druid can use such an object as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10."

Because that is one trope of many possible tropes?

This whole thread is very focused on the Lore Bard, but if you take OP to completion, the Valor Bard is basically useless.

Take a component pouch and sing a battle chant. Or just don't draw your weapon or shield, and instead play the bagpipes. That's what plenty of people have done in the past.

Nope. We get a snipet of a story and not all the details. We do not know what exactly the Bard was doing. Perhaps they have a magic item that gives the effect of CL when activated by humming.

As pointed out earlier, the rules for V components state they are clearly words, so this cannot be an example of a V component, therefore, it has to be something else.
So either the writers were woefully incompetent and deliberately misleading when they wrote that, or that's not the case. I'm willing to accept that the writers overlooked things, but not that they were so blatantly misleading. Also, the snippet specifically says that it is the power of her song which puts the knowledge in her head, not some other magic item.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 04:35 PM

Druids are Wisdom-based casters, so they don't cast through force of will.

Because Willpower is the last thing that'll ever be associated with Wisdom, in DnD.

So either the writers were woefully incompetent and deliberately misleading when they wrote that, or that's not the case. I'm willing to accept that the writers overlooked things, but not that they were so blatantly misleading. Also, the snippet specifically says that it is the power of her song which puts the knowledge in her head, not some other magic item.

You're ignoring the part were the Bard in this snippet is also not using material components or a focus, despite the spell she's using requiring either one of those.

Strill

2017-03-21, 04:43 PM

Cool. Then let's get back to the point that brought this up:

If you need to play the instrument to use it as a Focus, then you can't actually use any woodwind instrument/horn/etc as a Focus as you can't play it while doing V components, which certainly seems contrary to using an item as a Focus.As I was saying, the opening description of a Bard involves humming used as a verbal spell component, even though that is not allowed by the rules. I take this as an indication that the Bard is meant to have looser requirements on what constitutes a verbal spell component.

The Bard described in that exemple also use neither Material Component nor focus, despite the spell she uses requiring one or the other.

Does it means that Bards should be able to use this spell without material component or focus? Or, crazy idea I know, does it means that the RP descriptions to give a feel of what the classes are aren't actually 100% accurate or describes everything that the character do or did?
It doesn't necessarily include every detail. That is why I have only commented on those details which it does include.

If you just want fact-checking, you can present things without being inflammatory and ask for feedback.

It'll be higher quality and better for the health and well-being of the forum and its inhabitants than just poking the hornets' nest, too.

Unless you wrote the book, there aren't really any facts to check. The best we can argue is whether the rules and/or fluff contradicts itself.

And just to touch on the "fluff vs rules" issue: here's something from the Rogue fluff:

"Suppressing a giggle, a gnome waggles her fingers and magically lifts the key ring from the guard’s belt."

Note, this appears to be Mage Hand Legerdemain, however, Mage Hand has a V component, yet it's stated here that the Gnome only waggles her fingers, the S component.

Are we now to assume that Mage Hand no longer requires the V component because of this snippet?

No, because the rules specifically state it does need it, and this snippet is just a literary device intended to convey an idea of what a Rogue may be invisioned as, not a complete set of rules in and of itself.
Because Mage Hand has a 1 minute duration after you say the incantation.

Umm.. /confused
I don't need to prove anything to anyone else. I just need to hear out the best arguments to the contrary and see whether they're substantial, in order to prove it to myself.

Syll

2017-03-21, 04:59 PM

That contradicts the description of the Arcane Focus.

"An arcane focus is a special iteman orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length ofwood, or some similar item designed to channel the power of arcane spells".

So the arcane focus is not simply a mental crutch or a placebo. It actually channels power. Similarly, the Druidic focus description makes it clear that it is not the object itself that matters, but its sacredness.

I'm AFB, but what about the description of the components of a spell component pouch?

I don't recall them necessitating any preparation. Why must a focus channel power, but not the spiderweb?

It's no secret that D&D is rife with inconsistencies.

Temperjoke

2017-03-21, 05:00 PM

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 05:07 PM

I'm AFB, but what about the description of the components of a spell component pouch?

I don't recall them necessitating any preparation. Why must a focus channel power, but not the spiderweb?

It's no secret that D&D is rife with inconsistencies.

The Material components do channel power. They just get consumed in the process.

There is no inconsistencies here, because an arcane focus has to be designed to be used as channel for arcane power repeatedly, in a way that allow a wizard to not use the ingredients the spell usually require. Same way that a spellbook isn't just any two-bit paper book you can find in a tourist shop, it has to be specially made to hold the arcane might of the spells, or at least their physical representations.

Newtonsolo313

2017-03-21, 05:08 PM

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 05:09 PM

If you cut a Bard's tongue, can they still use Verbal components?

busterswd

2017-03-21, 05:36 PM

Few things regarding this debate:

#1, an example IN THE PHB talks about a bard casting a spell while tuning her instrument. So the fluff explictly provides an example of non-musical magic.

#2, there's nothing in the rules that says the music explictly causes the magic, though there's a lot of fluff regarding music and magic being intertwined for a bard. But who's to say the act of producing bardic magic isn't the source of the music? In other words, you don't have to strum your lute to create a Hypnotic Pattern, but it's accompanied with the sound of a lute, as that's the focus you used to do it.

#3, none of the three fluff examples provided mention actually playing an instrument, and are used as examples of bardic spellcasting. If there was some sort of requisite musical component, it's not something that requires you to be creating it on your instrument.

RSP

2017-03-21, 05:41 PM

As I was saying, the opening description of a Bard involves humming used as a verbal spell component, even though that is not allowed by the rules. I take this as an indication that the Bard is meant to have looser requirements on what constitutes a verbal spell component

Reread the fluff: if a spell is being cast, it isn't Comprehend Languages, its most likely Legend Lore (CL doesn't provide info one who built stuff). LL has a monetary value associated with its material components, so a Focus can't be used with that spell, so this bit is in no way evidence of whether or not an instrument has to be played or not.

And again, as we don't know what's happening in this snippet, like whether a spell is even being cast or not, it's hardly good evidence that "Bards have looser restrictions on V components."

Really you are assuming what is happening in the snippet, then in turn saying "my assumptions should be RAW, despite what the RAW actually says."

RSP

2017-03-21, 05:51 PM

Because Mage Hand has a 1 minute duration after you say the incantation.

Good point, we don't know exactly what's happening in these snippets. Oh wait, that's my point and one which you refuse to see when it comes to the Bard fluff for some reason.

Syll

2017-03-21, 05:56 PM

The Material components do channel power. They just get consumed in the process.

There is no inconsistencies here, because an arcane focus has to be designed to be used as channel for arcane power repeatedly, in a way that allow a wizard to not use the ingredients the spell usually require. Same way that a spellbook isn't just any two-bit paper book you can find in a tourist shop, it has to be specially made to hold the arcane might of the spells, or at least their physical representations.

No longer AFB; they are not consumed in the casting, unless the spell specifically says that they are.

"Material(M): ... If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell"

Tangentially, On the question of what qualifies as an instrument, (and thus, as a bardic focus) it might make for a neat houserule that an improvised instrument requires playing the instrument (if it doesn't have a Verbal), or a performance check(if it does) to use it as a Bardic Focus since a proper instrument is not at hand.

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 06:00 PM

No longer AFB; they are not consumed in the casting, unless the spell specifically says that they are.

"Material(M): ... If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell"

My bad. In this case, those who are reusable still channel magic, but the arcane focus is specially designed to channel magic for all spells that need material component.

DnD's spell ingredients work by some kind of punny sympathetic magic. Like having to use black powder ingredients to cast a Fireball. Focuses bypass that.

Syll

2017-03-21, 06:10 PM

My bad. In this case, those who are reusable still channel magic, but the arcane focus is specially designed to channel magic for all spells that need material component.

DnD's spell ingredients work by some kind of punny sympathetic magic. Like having to use black powder ingredients to cast a Fireball. Focuses bypass that.

No problem; In fact you had me convinced you were right up until i double-checked.

Probably for the best, otherwise a 3rd level caster who could cast Spider-climb would trivialize any encounter against giant spiders by using them as their material component

Strill

2017-03-21, 06:35 PM

DnD's spell ingredients work by some kind of punny sympathetic magic. Like having to use black powder ingredients to cast a Fireball. Focuses bypass that.

No, they're just jokes by Gygax. That's why you use a bit of fleece when you cast Minor Illusion to pull the wool over someone's eyes, or a bit of copper wire to use as an antenna when you cast Message.

Syll

2017-03-21, 06:41 PM

No, they're just jokes by Gygax. That's why you use a bit of fleece when you cast Minor Illusion to pull the wool over someone's eyes, or a bit of copper wire to use as an antenna when you cast Message.

While, yes, this is true; Sympathetic Magic (I think) provides a far better rationalization of the inconsistency between a focus and a spell component than 'Because the gods(Gygax) will it!'

Unoriginal

2017-03-21, 06:44 PM

The jokes still results in sympathetic relations.

Segev

2017-03-21, 07:18 PM

There's a difference between potential and actuality. Potentially, even the air itself could make music, which renders the concept of a Bard carrying musical instruments an absurdity. But in actuality, doing so is exceedingly difficult. That's why people have actual instruments that are finely made to produce specific sounds, and which you can tune.

So to answer you, yes you can define a "musical instrument" entirely in terms of the music it makes. You just have to say that anything is a musical instrument, which produces sound of a minimum quality.That is more or less my point. If your insistence is that the musical instrument must be playing music to serve as a focus, because it isn't a musical instrument if it isn't being used thus, the converse is that anything that can be used to make music is a musical instrument.

You can either insist that music must be played, and allow that anything on which you can play music is a musical instrument, or you can allow that the rules don't require that, but that "musical instruments" are specifically called out as such in the rules and can serve as foci for Bard spells.

The rules exist to portray a consistent world, and to create experiences which evoke the source material that inspired them. If they fail in that, then they are wrong.The rules do create a consistent world. "Evok[ing] the source material that inspired them" is rather subjective.

"Silly" is not the same as "inconsistent." If players wish to fluff their instrument-focus-use in various ways, it presumably evokes the material and feel they're looking for.

Arkhios

2017-03-22, 01:12 AM

*holds up the book* Everything in this book is exact and perfectly true, even the parts that are vague, claims itself to be subject to interpretation and variation, and flat out contradicts itself in several instances!

I know it's terribly impolite to quote my own post, but I feel it needs to be repeated.

I can do it for you. That quote, sarcasm as it is, is the most sane thing said in this thread.

Strill, stop reading the rules like a devil reads the bible: literally and deliberately refusing to see the unwritten intentions.

Strill

2017-03-22, 03:05 AM

I can do it for you. That quote, sarcasm as it is, is the most sane thing said in this thread.And I'M the one arguing that the book is wrong. You're the ones defending it as infallible.

Strill, stop reading the rules like a devil reads the bible: literally and deliberately refusing to see the unwritten intentions.Lol??? My argument has always been based in fluff, not rules. You're the one reading the rules and failing to see the intentions.

Arkhios

2017-03-22, 03:44 AM

Zilong

2017-03-22, 04:21 AM

SaintRidley

2017-03-22, 04:27 AM

And I'M the one arguing that the book is wrong. You're the ones defending it as infallible.

Lol??? My argument has always been based in fluff, not rules. You're the one reading the rules and failing to see the intentions.

Between not understanding humming (particularly that it is a form of vocalization, which makes it fit exactly in the parameters of what is described for the bard) and not seeming to grasp the concept of sympathetic magic, you do a good job of casting doubt on your ability to understand the book well enough to have a credible argument about it being right or wrong.

Willie the Duck

2017-03-22, 07:30 AM

I don't care about influencing people to my point of view. Another person's opinion doesn't mean anything if it's based on flawed reasoning, whether they agree with me or not. I just care about proving that my point of view is correct. The only way I'm going to do that is to get people to argue against me.

Proving it correct to whom? To yourself? You already think you are correct. To others? You're doing a surprisingly poor job of that. So to what end? There's no overall point here. We're not irrefutably, irrevocably, and with finality proving anything once and for all and for all time. Sure this thread might be archived here for some time, but effectively the only lasting impact anything any one of us says here has is if we actually convince someone else of our point of view, and they leave here with that new, modified understanding.

I'll also point out what you just said. "I just care about proving that my point of view is correct." That implies no room in your worldview that you might not be correct. You are therefore excluding from yourself the possibility of intellectual growth. That's not something which to aspire at all.

Strill

2017-03-22, 11:27 AM

That is more or less my point. If your insistence is that the musical instrument must be playing music to serve as a focus, because it isn't a musical instrument if it isn't being used thus, the converse is that anything that can be used to make music is a musical instrument.

You can either insist that music must be played, and allow that anything on which you can play music is a musical instrument, or you can allow that the rules don't require that, but that "musical instruments" are specifically called out as such in the rules and can serve as foci for Bard spells.
Did you not read what I just told you? I'll repeat myself. Only objects which produce sound of a minimum quality and consistency are musical instruments. They are defined by the sound they create, because the sound is what matters.

The rules do create a consistent world.Not if they have rules which imply that Bards do not carry instruments, when they clearly do.

"Silly" is not the same as "inconsistent."Yes it is. The standard setting does not include silly absurdities. If the rules produce such absurdities, then the rules have failed at their purpose.

If players wish to fluff their instrument-focus-use in various ways, it presumably evokes the material and feel they're looking for.Your homebrew setting is irrelevant to this discussion.

Chaosmancer

2017-03-22, 11:36 AM

So...there's basically been 8 pages worth of non-discussion since, if crunch is not being considered, fluff can be anything a table damn well pleases whether it be guitar waiving bards or skalds who play a mean spoon solo?

Well, the RP thread is currently locked and the Druid thread died.

Where else are we going to continue the same discussion?

Strill

2017-03-22, 11:39 AM

Proving it correct to whom? To yourself? You already think you are correct. To others? You're doing a surprisingly poor job of that. So to what end? There's no overall point here. We're not irrefutably, irrevocably, and with finality proving anything once and for all and for all time. Sure this thread might be archived here for some time, but effectively the only lasting impact anything any one of us says here has is if we actually convince someone else of our point of view, and they leave here with that new, modified understanding.

I'll also point out what you just said. "I just care about proving that my point of view is correct." That implies no room in your worldview that you might not be correct. You are therefore excluding from yourself the possibility of intellectual growth. That's not something which to aspire at all.Yes, I think I am correct, and I came here to hear the best arguments against my position.

If I were to start this out just by politely asking what peoples' opinions are, I'd be misleading you and wasting everyone's time. Peoples' opinions don't matter unless they form a cohesive whole, and asking people to clarify their opinions, and hammer out inconsistencies would just be interpreted as hostility. So instead, I cut to the chase, and get what I wanted in the first place - for people to argue against my point.

So...there's basically been 8 pages worth of non-discussion since, if crunch is not being considered, fluff can be anything a table damn well pleases whether it be guitar waiving bards or skalds who play a mean spoon solo?

What a table pleases is of no concern to me. I only care about the default setting.

Unoriginal

2017-03-22, 11:43 AM

Not if they have rules which imply that Bards do not carry instruments, when they clearly do.

They clearly do not require it. They CAN carry instruments, but they don't have to.

Even in the exemples you keep bringing up, there only one who is described has having an instrument. And the character isn't even PLAYING it while casting the spell.

Yes it is. The standard setting does not include silly absurdities.

...have you READ DnD, dude?

It's filled with silly absurdities.

Your homebrew setting is irrelevant to this discussion.

In which case, yours is as well.

You seem to think that Bardic spells are like songs of power in Zelda or something like this. They're not.

INDYSTAR188

2017-03-22, 11:59 AM

Strill

2017-03-22, 12:09 PM

Between not understanding humming (particularly that it is a form of vocalization, which makes it fit exactly in the parameters of what is described for the bard)Could you remind me what those parameters are?

and not seeming to grasp the concept of sympathetic magic, you do a good job of casting doubt on your ability to understand the book well enough to have a credible argument about it being right or wrong.I'm well aware of what sympathetic magic is. Clerics have the holy symbol of their deity. Druids have some particular sacred plant. However, the gods and nature (at least in D&D), are anthropomorphic. They choose which symbols are relevant to them.

A Bard's music, however, comes from reproducing the song of creation, so they have a musical instrument, which they use to sympathetically mimic that song - except they apparently don't. They just hold it because it's an object vaguely related to music. The song of creation apparently just really likes musical instruments, since other music-related objects don't count for some reason.

Do you see what I mean? The song of creation is not anthropomorphic, so why would it care about anthro-centric sympathies? It's certainly not sitting around saying "I like nice musical instruments, but not sheet music or cheap ad-hoc musical instruments.". The only sympathy that makes sense is music itself.

Few things regarding this debate:

#1, an example IN THE PHB talks about a bard casting a spell while tuning her instrument. So the fluff explictly provides an example of non-musical magic.Does the tuning not count as music? It's explicitly described as "subtle".

#2, there's nothing in the rules that says the music explictly causes the magic, though there's a lot of fluff regarding music and magic being intertwined for a bard. But who's to say the act of producing bardic magic isn't the source of the music? In other words, you don't have to strum your lute to create a Hypnotic Pattern, but it's accompanied with the sound of a lute, as that's the focus you used to do it.The opening descriptions make it very clear that the Bard's power comes from music.

"conjured forth by the magic of her song-"
"Discovering the magic hidden in music requires hard study"
"The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

When you say that bardic magic instead produces music, you've put the cart before the horse. Music is the source of their power, not the other way around.

#3, none of the three fluff examples provided mention actually playing an instrument, and are used as examples of bardic spellcasting. If there was some sort of requisite musical component, it's not something that requires you to be creating it on your instrument.Not all of them involve playing an instrument, but they do all involve music.

They clearly do not require it. They CAN carry instruments, but they don't have to.Yes, but the implication I was addressing lead to the conclusion that Bards could use the air as a spellcasting focus, in which case instruments become wholly redundant.

Even in the exemples you keep bringing up, there only one who is described has having an instrument. And the character isn't even PLAYING it while casting the spell.Tuning it isn't playing it?

Also, I've never been against Bards casting without using an instrument at all. My point is that if they do use an instrument, they should have to play it.

...have you READ DnD, dude?

It's filled with silly absurdities. Like?

In which case, yours is as well.Good. Glad we've got it cleared up that this discussion is about the default setting, and not any homebrew setting.

Newtonsolo313

2017-03-22, 12:17 PM

What a table pleases is of no concern to me. I only care about the default setting.

Okay, then what is the name of the "default setting" you keep talking about

Strill

2017-03-22, 12:24 PM

Okay, then what is the name of the "default setting" you keep talking about

The one described in the book.

Newtonsolo313

2017-03-22, 12:27 PM

The one described in the book.

That's also not a name.
Where does it mention "The song of creation" in the book and where does it say its not anthro-centric?

Strill

2017-03-22, 12:32 PM

That's also not a name.Ok. Is that a problem?

Where does it mention "The song of creation" in the book and where does it say its not anthro-centric?

I apologize. I used inappropriate terminology. I was referring to this paragraph.

"Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers"

Unoriginal

2017-03-22, 12:33 PM

Does the tuning not count as music?

[...]

Tuning it isn't playing it?

No, Strill, tuning isn't playing.

"Tuning is the process of adjusting the pitch of one or many tones from musical instruments to establish typical intervals between these tones. Tuning is usually based on a fixed reference, such as A = 440 Hz. Out of tune refers to a pitch/tone that is either too high (sharp) or too low (flat) in relation to a given reference pitch. While an instrument might be in tune relative to its own range of notes, it may not be considered 'in tune' if it does not match A = 440 Hz (or whatever reference pitch one might be using). Some instruments become 'out of tune' with damage or time and must be readjusted or repaired.

Different methods of sound production require different methods of adjustment:

-Tuning to a pitch with one's voice is called matching pitch and is the most basic skill learned in ear training.

-Turning pegs to increase or decrease the tension on strings so as to control the pitch. Instruments such as the harp, piano, and harpsichord require a wrench to turn the tuning pegs, while others such as the violin can be tuned manually.

-Modifying the length or width of the tube of a wind instrument, brass instrument, pipe, bell, or similar instrument to adjust the pitch." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning

So, since the bard in the exemple is tuning an instrument and not her voice, she's literally just moving its pegs a bit.

I guess she could be pinching the cords, too, but that's not playing.

Not all of them involve playing an instrument, but they do all involve music.

None of them involve playing an instrument. Ergo, they can not be used as exemple for your thread.

Like?

Like the Nilbog, or the Flail Snail, or the Gibbering Mouther (that can use its spit as flash-bang grenade), or half the jokes in the OotS comics.

Also, just to makes everything clear:

"WHAT IS A SPELL? A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect-in most cases, all in the span of seconds. " PHB p.201

To explain what is a spell. Note that the Bard's ones are no exception.

"Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item. Members of a few classes, including bards and sorcerers, have a limited list of spells they know that are always fixed in mind." PHB p.201

To explain why and how a bard can use spells.

"Every adventure is an opportunity to learn, practice a variety of skills, enter long-forgotten tombs, discover lost
works of magic, decipher old tomes, travel to strange places, or encounter exotic creatures." PHB p. 51-52

"...you have plundered magical knowledge from a wide spectrum of disciplines. Choose two spells from any class, including this one." PHB p.53

To show a few of the places from which Bards learn their spells.

"All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect" PHB p.205

To show that Bard's spells are of the same nature than any other caster's, not special songs the bard learns.

"VERBAL (V): Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion" PHB p.203

To show that what the caster says is meaningless, only the sounds count, meaning that it's not a question of making a coherent song or music when you need Verbal components.

"MATERIAL (M) Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. [...] A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." PHB p.203

To show that it is the ITEM that matters to cast the spell, not the movements or use that you make of it.

BiPolar

2017-03-22, 12:38 PM

Ok. Is that a problem?

I apologize. I used inappropriate terminology. I was referring to this paragraph.

"Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers"

Last I checked, voice was still a form of making music. Because, you know, verbal components?

Again, spells require up to three parts in order to work: Verbal, Material, and Somatic. The focus a caster can use is only to replace the material component need. The bard's focus is an instrument. Spellcasting is still done via the three parts. Nowhere does it say that a Bard must be playing his instrument to cast a spell. NOWHERE.

The problem here is you are introducing your interpretation of how a Bard is supposed to cast spells. Yes, I understand that you are having an issue with separating bard vs wizard in terms of casting if the bard doesn't "need" to playing an instrument. But a Bard is more than a musician. And the quote you used above supports that. You are having an issue with your very narrow definition of music.

At this point, I"m going to stop feeding the troll and just watch the thread continue to devolve.

good luck to you all.

Bohandas

2017-03-22, 12:41 PM

What if they set the guitar on fire like Jimi Hemdrix? That's yet another way you can perform with an instrument that doesn't involve playing the instrument

Strill

2017-03-22, 12:42 PM

Last I checked, voice was still a form of making music. Because, you know, verbal components? Ok? Is that supposed to contradict me?

Unoriginal

2017-03-22, 12:42 PM

Also, the song of creation part is "something that Bards say", not an objective truth of the setting.

When the "default setting" objectively describes from where the Bard's magic come, it says that it comes from the Weave, just like all the other spellcasters.

Strill

2017-03-22, 01:02 PM

No, Strill, tuning isn't playing.

"Tuning is the process of adjusting the pitch of one or many tones from musical instruments to establish typical intervals between these tones. Tuning is usually based on a fixed reference, such as A = 440 Hz. Out of tune refers to a pitch/tone that is either too high (sharp) or too low (flat) in relation to a given reference pitch. While an instrument might be in tune relative to its own range of notes, it may not be considered 'in tune' if it does not match A = 440 Hz (or whatever reference pitch one might be using). Some instruments become 'out of tune' with damage or time and must be readjusted or repaired.

Different methods of sound production require different methods of adjustment:

-Tuning to a pitch with one's voice is called matching pitch and is the most basic skill learned in ear training.

-Turning pegs to increase or decrease the tension on strings so as to control the pitch. Instruments such as the harp, piano, and harpsichord require a wrench to turn the tuning pegs, while others such as the violin can be tuned manually.

-Modifying the length or width of the tube of a wind instrument, brass instrument, pipe, bell, or similar instrument to adjust the pitch." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning

So, since the bard in the exemple is tuning an instrument and not her voice, she's literally just moving its pegs a bit.

I guess she could be pinching the cords, too, but that's not playing.And in-between moving the pegs, she's strumming the strings to see if they're in tune yet.

Like the Nilbog, or the Flail Snail, or the Gibbering Mouther (that can use its spit as flash-bang grenade), or half the jokes in the OotS comics.Not sure why any of those are silly, apart from the names. The Gibbering Mouther in particular seems like it would fit perfectly at home in Call of Cthulhu, so I don't understand how it ruins the tone of the game.

Also, just to makes everything clear:
PHB p.201

To explain what is a spell. Note that the Bard's ones are no exception.

PHB p.201

To explain why and how a bard can use spells.

PHB p. 51-52

PHB p.53

To show a few of the places from which Bards learn their spells.
PHB p.203

To show that what the caster says is meaningless, only the sounds count, meaning that it's not a question of making a coherent song or music when you need Verbal components.

PHB p.203

To show that it is the ITEM that matters to cast the spell, not the movements or use that you make of it.Right, so your argument is that the Bard's magic has nothing to do with music, and they're just a slightly different wizard? So you're saying that the opening description of the Bard is all a lie? A purposely deceptive bait-and-switch, that exists only to trick new players?

"All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect" PHB p.205

To show that Bard's spells are of the same nature than any other caster's, not special songs the bard learns.It doesn't say much of anything apart from the fact that Bard spells manipulate reality (aka the "Weave"). Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about how each class goes about performing their manipulations, just what the end effect is.