3
\$\begingroup\$

Can a player have both inspiration from the DM and a Bardic Inspiration Die from a bard? Additionally, could both be used on the same attack roll/ ability check before the result is announced?

One argument against is the phrase:

You either have inspiration or you don't-you can't stockpile multiple "inspirations" for later use. (PHB 125)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 25 at 7:30
9
\$\begingroup\$

Bardic Inspiration and DM awarded inspiration are completely separate things

First, lets take a look at RAW in this case. Bardic inspiration reads as follows

You can inspire others through stirring words or music. To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creature gains one Bardic Inspiration die, a d6.

So we can see from this ability that a character inspired in this way is not technically inspired, but rather gains an inspiration die. As such, it is not counted as being "inspired".

So, RAW supports this, but what about how the rules are intended to function? Well, it's the same thing here too. DM awarded inspiration is meant to be a reward for players who role play their characters very well, while Bardic Inspiration is meant to be a class feature that let's a bard's music fill their allies with confidence. As such, it seems that the reason for the wording of the two abilities was done that way with the intention of keeping the two abilities seperate

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you have a source for, "the rules creators did not want these two to conflict because of this intended difference." beyond the PHB \$\endgroup\$ – Snowman8734 Jan 25 at 4:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Like I said, thats RAI (rules as intended) as opposed to RAW (rules as written). I was just saying that since these have been seperated in these ways in RAW, it seems that said seperation is because they intend for the two to conflict like this as the rules for each was created to serve very different purposes \$\endgroup\$ – Smart_TJ Jan 25 at 4:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you, I agree with you; I was only curious if you had a tweet or quote on this at all. Cheers! \$\endgroup\$ – Snowman8734 Jan 25 at 4:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should expand the acronym to clarify, or rephrase to avoid confusion. In addition, as Snowman8734 suggests, if you make claims about designer intent, you should support them by citing relevant evidence. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 25 at 5:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.