You seem to be confused about exclusivity and provision in the English language. "For examples, see here" does NOT mean "for all allowable items, see here". It means that list is a reference sheet for ideas, not the exclusive boundary for the ability. If they had meant for that list to be exhaustive, it would have been worded differently (e.g. "you create one nonmagical item of your choice from the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook, etc").
The explicitly stated boundary is only the cost, size, gp value, and magical property. It is not "making up new uses" to use the ability within it's stated boundaries.
This class is the ultimate DM dependant class. Limited only by your imagination? - This what one DM told me. For some yes maybe the case, but I can imagine a lot of things. For me the real limitation is "DM says no" - not for me.
This class is the ultimate DM dependant class. Limited only by your imagination? - This what one DM told me. For some yes maybe the case, but I can imagine a lot of things. For me the real limitation is "DM says no" - not for me.
Sure, doesn't have to be, but it's still the class that can summon and animate their own flying battle pet at level 6.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This class is the ultimate DM dependant class. Limited only by your imagination? - This what one DM told me. For some yes maybe the case, but I can imagine a lot of things. For me the real limitation is "DM says no" - not for me.
Sure, doesn't have to be, but it's still the class that can summon and animate their own flying battle pet at level 6.
Entitled to your opinion - how many classes -subclasses could you name and feel you were being honest with yourself that are more DM Dependant than this class? I'm talking about getting a Flat "no".
This class is the ultimate DM dependant class. Limited only by your imagination? - This what one DM told me. For some yes maybe the case, but I can imagine a lot of things. For me the real limitation is "DM says no" - not for me.
Sure, doesn't have to be, but it's still the class that can summon and animate their own flying battle pet at level 6.
Entitled to your opinion - how many classes -subclasses could you name and feel you were being honest with yourself that are more DM Dependant than this class? I'm talking about getting a Flat "no".
What I was saying was that it doesn't have to be for you, no one has to like any class or subclass. I honestly don't see what is so DM dependent about this subclass unless you're asking to make stuff that isn't just regular mundane things. 2014 Ranger was highly DM dependent because of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer built right into the base class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Agreed, I won't like the exact wording here - I'm not sure that's allowed.
As I read it the only RAW limitations are:
Must Be non-magical Must be an Item - Personally at the time I couldn't even find a definitive rule on what an "Item" is, if you can find it, I tip my hat to you - Though there maybe now, or in 4e or before, I'm not sure Must appear within 10 feet of you Must appear on a surface or in a liquid that can support it The GP value of the item can’t be more than 20 times your bard level - pre buff level
It goes on to state that the examples are it equipment in the players handbook - not an exhaustive list.
I'm sure I or anyone else could could spend a day-and-a-night listing things we think of that are within these very broad terms.
Are they allowed? Final decision lies with the DM. One DM say's yay, other says nay.
That said, I do concede the below point
I just include this "unless" statement as being "DM dependant" - though I'm not wed to that wording if someone wants to use another adjective to articulate it.
Having fun is also "DM dependent". Doing anything in the game requires "DM permission". Saying it's true here isn't really saying anything imo. If you want to play this class, talk to your DM so that they set clear parameters up front about how they interpret the rules (like you should any campaign with any class). You do not need to check with them each time you use the ability if they told you in advance how they interpret the rules, you can just be creative within those rules. If they decide to be so restrictive that you feel the entire flavor of the class is taken away, then you need a different DM. If they told you how their rules work, but then subvert everything that you try to do with it after the fact, then you need a different DM. This is how playing d&d has always worked: if your playstyles are incompatible, then don't play together (or at least, don't play the game features you disagree on with the people you disagree with).
Having fun is also "DM dependent". Doing anything in the game requires "DM permission". Saying it's true here isn't really saying anything imo. If you want to play this class, talk to your DM so that they set clear parameters up front about how they interpret the rules (like you should any campaign with any class). You do not need to check with them each time you use the ability if they told you in advance how they interpret the rules, you can just be creative within those rules. If they decide to be so restrictive that you feel the entire flavor of the class is taken away, then you need a different DM. If they told you how their rules work, but then subvert everything that you try to do with it after the fact, then you need a different DM. This is how playing d&d has always worked: if your playstyles are incompatible, then don't play together (or at least, don't play the game features you disagree on with the people you disagree with).
You didn't understand the message of the previous posts, the main idea they wanted to convey to you is that the problem is not in the items that are written in the rules, but in those that are homemade. If the game master deems homebrew items appropriate, then he should be the one developing them, not the player.
I am having A LOT of fun playing a Creation Bard right now (currently level 6). Animating Performance and Performance of Creation add both Resources and Adaptability to the Class. For a Bard and their particular Spell List, both of these Features add things that Bard's don't usually get to do. So you become even more of a Jack of All Trades and the party can turn to you in a pinch for all sorts of solutions. This is the biggest mechanical benefit as I see it, and cannot be reduced to a list of specific things you can or cannot do. Though, as with Illusions and other creative character aspects, this does require a DM who enjoys and supports creativity. If I had a DM who didn't then I would either change DM or play a Class/Subclass I wouldn't feel so frustrated with.
All that said, the biggest thing for me is what any subclass gives me in terms of supporting narrative fun. My Creation Bard is a Puppeteer and I play this out in all sorts of ways, flavouring his spells and features through puppeteering. His Dancing Item is usually a life sized puppet of himself that hangs inert on his back, until animated. Then it jumps off and joins in. Sure there are subclasses that appear at first glance to give stronger mechanical benefits, but few, imho, who gives such cool narrative support with their features.
You didn't understand the message of the previous posts, the main idea they wanted to convey to you is that the problem is not in the items that are written in the rules, but in those that are homemade. If the game master deems homebrew items appropriate, then he should be the one developing them, not the player.
The post I originally replied to said we were "making up additional uses for the ability". We were not, we were following RAW.
If you are now telling me that your responses to that were meant to say "you can create items, but you can't decide what the items are capable of", then I agree. Nobody here was suggesting that you could say "I make a katana that gives +5 to attack". You can make a katana. The DM will then decide (probably using the item table to make it easier) what it's capable of mechanically. You can say "I summon a big rock carved to look like your face", but you can't say "I summon a rock that tells the future". You can invent any item you want if it follows the RAW restrictions of gold, magic, and size, but the DM will decide what the consequences of that are (which will usually be mundane since they're automatically non magical).
created a WHEELBARROW to carry some captured bandits... turns out there are no official price for such thing 😂🤣😂 DM approved that it cost less than the 60gp cap of level 3, but is funny that the books didnt mention such normal thing being such an old invention
there shoud be a listed one and since phb2024 put some more explained items there should be something like "you can carry x3 weight of what you can carry with this object as long as it can be put on it, can lift up to X weight"
Looking up the college of creation bard, I could not find it in the PHB 2024. Where do you find this?
College of Creation is from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
pronouns: he/she/they
For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook.
If you want to create something that is not on the list you will need to talk to your DM about it.You seem to be confused about exclusivity and provision in the English language. "For examples, see here" does NOT mean "for all allowable items, see here". It means that list is a reference sheet for ideas, not the exclusive boundary for the ability. If they had meant for that list to be exhaustive, it would have been worded differently (e.g. "you create one nonmagical item of your choice from the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook, etc").
The explicitly stated boundary is only the cost, size, gp value, and magical property. It is not "making up new uses" to use the ability within it's stated boundaries.
Why are you distorting what I wrote? Anything not listed requires DM approval.... nearly 4 years later reflection.
This class is the ultimate DM dependant class. Limited only by your imagination? - This what one DM told me. For some yes maybe the case, but I can imagine a lot of things. For me the real limitation is "DM says no" - not for me.
Sure, doesn't have to be, but it's still the class that can summon and animate their own flying battle pet at level 6.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Entitled to your opinion - how many classes -subclasses could you name and feel you were being honest with yourself that are more DM Dependant than this class?
I'm talking about getting a Flat "no".
What I was saying was that it doesn't have to be for you, no one has to like any class or subclass. I honestly don't see what is so DM dependent about this subclass unless you're asking to make stuff that isn't just regular mundane things. 2014 Ranger was highly DM dependent because of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer built right into the base class.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Agreed, I won't like the exact wording here - I'm not sure that's allowed.
As I read it the only RAW limitations are:
Must Be non-magical
Must be an Item - Personally at the time I couldn't even find a definitive rule on what an "Item" is, if you can find it, I tip my hat to you - Though there maybe now, or in 4e or before, I'm not sure
Must appear within 10 feet of you
Must appear on a surface or in a liquid that can support it
The GP value of the item can’t be more than 20 times your bard level - pre buff level
It goes on to state that the examples are it equipment in the players handbook - not an exhaustive list.
I'm sure I or anyone else could could spend a day-and-a-night listing things we think of that are within these very broad terms.
Are they allowed? Final decision lies with the DM. One DM say's yay, other says nay.
That said, I do concede the below point
I just include this "unless" statement as being "DM dependant" - though I'm not wed to that wording if someone wants to use another adjective to articulate it.
Having fun is also "DM dependent". Doing anything in the game requires "DM permission". Saying it's true here isn't really saying anything imo. If you want to play this class, talk to your DM so that they set clear parameters up front about how they interpret the rules (like you should any campaign with any class). You do not need to check with them each time you use the ability if they told you in advance how they interpret the rules, you can just be creative within those rules. If they decide to be so restrictive that you feel the entire flavor of the class is taken away, then you need a different DM. If they told you how their rules work, but then subvert everything that you try to do with it after the fact, then you need a different DM. This is how playing d&d has always worked: if your playstyles are incompatible, then don't play together (or at least, don't play the game features you disagree on with the people you disagree with).
You didn't understand the message of the previous posts, the main idea they wanted to convey to you is that the problem is not in the items that are written in the rules, but in those that are homemade. If the game master deems homebrew items appropriate, then he should be the one developing them, not the player.
I am having A LOT of fun playing a Creation Bard right now (currently level 6). Animating Performance and Performance of Creation add both Resources and Adaptability to the Class. For a Bard and their particular Spell List, both of these Features add things that Bard's don't usually get to do. So you become even more of a Jack of All Trades and the party can turn to you in a pinch for all sorts of solutions. This is the biggest mechanical benefit as I see it, and cannot be reduced to a list of specific things you can or cannot do. Though, as with Illusions and other creative character aspects, this does require a DM who enjoys and supports creativity. If I had a DM who didn't then I would either change DM or play a Class/Subclass I wouldn't feel so frustrated with.
All that said, the biggest thing for me is what any subclass gives me in terms of supporting narrative fun. My Creation Bard is a Puppeteer and I play this out in all sorts of ways, flavouring his spells and features through puppeteering. His Dancing Item is usually a life sized puppet of himself that hangs inert on his back, until animated. Then it jumps off and joins in. Sure there are subclasses that appear at first glance to give stronger mechanical benefits, but few, imho, who gives such cool narrative support with their features.
.
The post I originally replied to said we were "making up additional uses for the ability". We were not, we were following RAW.
If you are now telling me that your responses to that were meant to say "you can create items, but you can't decide what the items are capable of", then I agree. Nobody here was suggesting that you could say "I make a katana that gives +5 to attack". You can make a katana. The DM will then decide (probably using the item table to make it easier) what it's capable of mechanically. You can say "I summon a big rock carved to look like your face", but you can't say "I summon a rock that tells the future". You can invent any item you want if it follows the RAW restrictions of gold, magic, and size, but the DM will decide what the consequences of that are (which will usually be mundane since they're automatically non magical).
In a recent fight I created a large mirror when we found out we were about to face a basilisk.
created a WHEELBARROW to carry some captured bandits... turns out there are no official price for such thing 😂🤣😂
DM approved that it cost less than the 60gp cap of level 3, but is funny that the books didnt mention such normal thing being such an old invention
there shoud be a listed one and since phb2024 put some more explained items there should be something like
"you can carry x3 weight of what you can carry with this object as long as it can be put on it, can lift up to X weight"