There is a major problem with them changing a lot of these features to being reactive on failure... Here's an example of why:


(Character to NPC): "I'm glad that you've decided to help us with this information after all, Folks will be glad of your timely support!"
(NPC to Character): "Of course. After everything, it does seem like the right time to throw my lot in with the resistance after all. When the time comes, you can count on us."

(Player to DM): "So, I'm still cautious, I've been trying to get a feel for where she stands here - can I get a read on how sincere she's being here? Is she really with us?"
(DM to Player): "Sure, give me an insight check."
(Player to DM): "That's.... an 18."
(Dm, nodding): "Sure... so, she's a skilled diplomat, and plays the house game quite well, you know that, and she doesn't often give a lot away, but near as you can tell she seems pretty sincere in this. You don't notice any signs that she's trying to play you"

(OneBard, interjecting): "So, I'd like to use bardic inspiration if they failed that check; is the condition for my reaction met?"

(Dm, frowning): "Err..."

If the DM says that no, the condition for the reaction's trigger is not met at this time... then they *know* that the noble is being sincere, and the *know* that that check was passed. If the DM says that it IS met, then the check is *completely Superfluous*, because they *know* that the check failed, and thus they know that all is not as it seems - the discovering of which was the entire purpose of the check.

Sometimes, it's not clear how well or how poorly you went with a check, and the characters don't know this - giving a reaction ability that is contingently timed on a character failing a check, specifically, creates an innate meta-gaming situation that is actually hard to avoid - you WANT to help your friend succeed, but your ability requires you to ask your DM whether they failed or succeeded, even in cases where you aren't meant to know for certain, and obliges the Dm to reveal that fact when they're not meant to.

In the current situation, the bard can give the speaker inspiration, and they can use it if they choose - the player is deciding how the bard's inspiration motivates and drives them, and what they do with that bolstering of their morale; they may not know whether they've succeeded or failed, but the bard can still help them. In the new document, the bard either cannot help them in this situation, OR helping them completely negates and breaks the game system anyway.

I'm also not fond of bard being Forced into being a healer, no matter what type of bard you are or choose to be... or with the loss of access to spells like dimension door, tiny hut, bestow curse heroes feast or magnificent mansion)

Or with them characterising bards as polymaths.. and then restricting them to four spells schools in one spell list, and reducing their magical secrets so that, for their entire 1-20 career,they will never have access to more than two spells that aren't of that narrow, four school, arcane only, spell set... and those two picks will ultimately be counterspell and wish, 99% of the time, for 99% of bards.

Or that you don't get to pick and choose spells of your choice for having ready - you can't choose 22 spells of your choice.. you must specifically choose 4 1sts, 3 2nds, 3 3rds, 3 4ths, 3 5ths, 2 6ths, 2 7ths, 1 8th and 1 9th... if you, as an 18th level caster, want to have, for example, charm monster, dimension door, polymorph and greater invisibility prepared (which is pretty classic bard utility kit)... you Literally Can't in this new document. Similarly, if there isn't a second 7th level spell that you want right now, or there aren't 3 2nds that you're interested in... tough, you've got to pick some.

Bard is more restricted now than it's ever been, in this new document... but the same looks like it's going to be true for all classes in this first round of tests, so it may be best to look at this as a starting block.