TOPIC: Casting Conundrums

It would solve many issues if the lute and drums just played themselves and didn't require hands.

Would still need to address the nature of the shield of the scholar. The shield should just have a blurb about overriding the magic casting rules so there is no need to stow a non-focus weapon.

Just say the shield casts the scroll for you or something to indicate why its a free action and ignores the magic rules.

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: In my world, Widseth's is mystical because it plays itself, but the bard can't do anything too thoughtful like casting or lore with the standard action. (Look at all the exceptions and rulings that fall away...) But in the rules, the Bard plays the lute, so we need pages of errata to explain all the interactions. To date, every one I can think of is unnecessary if the Lute is no-hands and plays itself.

That's an intriguing suggestion!

What would be the ramifications of having Widseth's and Briano's(?) play themselves?
(that's addressed to everyone)

Wait - is this a trap?

Wasn't this the exact topic of a 100+ thread 2 years ago when the current TDb wording came down from Jeff?

Tons of people were like: " Wait - I always assumed the lute played _itself_ and allowed the Bard to hold their hands other stuff - and that's what TDb says (as of 2 years ago) ?!?!"

And Jeff was like: " Nope! "



?

Briano's playing itself would allow you to attack while it played....that is not in the spirit of its design I don't think.

I am not touching Widseth's debate.

valetutto wrote: It would solve many issues if the lute and drums just played themselves and didn't require hands.

Would still need to address the nature of the shield of the scholar. The shield should just have a blurb about overriding the magic casting rules so there is no need to stow a non-focus weapon.

Just say the shield casts the scroll for you or something to indicate why its a free action and ignores the magic rules.

There is precedent for that now in the wording of Ring of Spell Storing.

tokendb.com/token/ring-of-spell-storing/

valetutto wrote: It would solve many issues if the lute and drums just played themselves and didn't require hands.

Simply saying that and no more would make them the same token.

I think you would have to say something like:

WML plays itself allowing you to physically attack and perform Bardsong with one standard action (assuming you could otherwise attack and/or perform Bardsong). It does not allow you to cast a spell, perform a lore check, or do any other standard action aside from performing Bardsong and making a physical attack.

Your hands must hold items suitable for ranged or melee combat while WLM is active.

and

BBB plays itself allowing you to cast a spell from your character card and perform Bardsong with one standard action (assuming you could otherwise cast a spell and/or perform Bardsong). It does not allow you to physically attack, perform a lore check, or do any other standard action aside from performing Bardsong and casting a spell from your character card.

Your hands must hold items compatible for using magic while BBB is active.

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: In my world, Widseth's is mystical because it plays itself, but the bard can't do anything too thoughtful like casting or lore with the standard action. (Look at all the exceptions and rulings that fall away...) But in the rules, the Bard plays the lute, so we need pages of errata to explain all the interactions. To date, every one I can think of is unnecessary if the Lute is no-hands and plays itself.

That's an intriguing suggestion!

What would be the ramifications of having Widseth's and Briano's(?) play themselves?
(that's addressed to everyone)

You still only get one standard action, so you pick which one you want to sing along with.

WML says you can sing and combat, not sing two songs at once. In a sense it gives you a second standard action, but the tokens very specific about what you can do with it.

BBB doesn't play itself. It doesn't have to. It lets you sing and cast a spell with the focus effect.

I'm not advocating we change the ruling on how or why bard instruments work. We've gone pretty far down the road we're on already. I'm just saying that short, simple rules are, in my opinion, easier to remember and adjucate without as many explanations, exceptions, and examples. They also have fewer opportunities for loopholes.

And it seems like the focus rules are getting more and more complex. I just think that's the wrong way to go.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

valetutto wrote: It would solve many issues if the lute and drums just played themselves and didn't require hands.

Simply saying that and no more would make them the same token.

I think you would have to say something like:

WML plays itself allowing you to physically attack and perform Bardsong with one standard action (assuming you could otherwise attack and/or perform Bardsong). It does not allow you to cast a spell, perform a lore check, or do any other standard action aside from performing Bardsong and making a physical attack.

Your hands must hold items suitable for ranged or melee combat while WLM is active.

and

BBB plays itself allowing you to cast a spell from your character card and perform Bardsong with one standard action (assuming you could otherwise cast a spell and/or perform Bardsong). It does not allow you to physically attack, perform a lore check, or do any other standard action aside from performing Bardsong and casting a spell from your character card.

Your hands must hold items compatible for using magic while BBB is active.

Yes something like this would work. True you'd need to be a bit more informative as you have been above but the basic concept works.


It would also help if all the instruments were labeled focus items so you could cast as your action without having to free action stow.



#hatethefreeActionLimit

I edited my last post while Valetutto was cross-posting, so I'll quote this bit:

"BBB doesn't play itself. It doesn't have to. It lets you sing and cast a spell with the focus effect."

That seems like the simplest way to state the original intent of the token.

Letting WML play itself simplifies the token, IMO.
Letting BBB play itself complicates it.

Ro-gan wrote:

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: We have to hold the Holy Symbol?

When actively Turning, yes.

jedibcg wrote: You definitely do not need to be holding a holy symbol to turn though since you can turn without one.

Incorrect
All clerics have a basic holy symbol. We assume some level of basic gear, just like:

• all bards have a basic lute
• all classes's naughty bits were covered before the 2016 "invention" of pants
• a tokenless player's character is not literally naked

Nope. My characters over the years before pants Tokens were going commando below the waist and above the feet.

I'm still not wearing pants, my wife said I'm not allowed. Which is why you will see me pushing for a good kilt during token design.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I edited my last post while Valetutto was cross-posting, so I'll quote this bit:

"BBB doesn't play itself. It doesn't have to. It lets you sing and cast a spell with the focus effect."

That seems like the simplest way to state the original intent of the token.

Letting WML play itself simplifies the token, IMO.
Letting BBB play itself complicates it.

I suspect the Bard lobby want BBB to play itself so they can then argue they should be able to use Shield of the Scholar with it.

The inability to use BBB and SoTS together has quite the entry in the Bardic Great Book of Grudges .

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: I edited my last post while Valetutto was cross-posting, so I'll quote this bit:

"BBB doesn't play itself. It doesn't have to. It lets you sing and cast a spell with the focus effect."

That seems like the simplest way to state the original intent of the token.

Letting WML play itself simplifies the token, IMO.
Letting BBB play itself complicates it.

I suspect the Bard lobby want BBB to play itself so they can then argue they should be able to use Shield of the Scholar with it.

The inability to use BBB and SoTS together has quite the entry in the Bardic Great Book of Grudges .

As the resident Bard Lobbyist I'll go on record and state that I dislike the tedium of switching gear. I'm also in favor of anything that allows the use of more tokens. What is the point in having them if we don't get to use them.

In my view the original intent of the WML was to decouple bards from being required to just sit and sing. It allowed them to join in on the other aspects of the game such as combat. It was limited to combat.
WML = Fight and sing. To address the spell casting component along came the BBB which was Spell and Sing.
Where things get complicated is the issue of Hands and switching stuff around.

For the longest time WML didn't have a hands icon and was considered slotless. This was eventually changed and chaos began. Making it slotless would remove the chaos.

Making BBB slotless would indeed allow bards to use the SotS because they could have a weapon and shield out. The fear is if the BBB plays itself why can't the bard then attack, and the answer is because its not a WML. The BBB allows you to Cast and Sing while active. Just phrase it like this, the BBB only plays itself while the bard takes a standard action to cast a spell. The drums magically accompany the bard while the bard is casting a spell so the bard's song is maintained.
So standard action to cast spell = good you get song bonus. Standard action to attack with weapon = bad you lose song bonus.

There is likely a better way to phrase it but that should get the point across.

"But the bard will get their shielded AC!" - guess what they already do because that is what is written on the party card. I highly doubt many DMs are asking if the bard has a shield calculated in their AC when they are using a BBB or other non-WML instrument that they are "holding" instead of their melee shielded AC, or their range shielded AC.

Yes this doesn't fix all the issues or all the instruments but it certainly addresses the main ones.

As both a forumite and a training room coach i'm actually dreading getting asked questions on people 'who heard about rules changes' and costing time trying to explain it to somebody who isn't a forumite or haven't read the latest revision. Why i checked out of the focus weapon discussion/trench warfare of earlier this year.

Simple is better overall for explanation and less room for loopholes. I'd rather get more chances to use these tokens the we spend money on but not if paragraphs of clarifications are required to use said tokens.