it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
Totally false. I've used a nearly identical feature (Chronal Shift) up to level 20. It was strong. I liked the ability and used it sometimes to save an ally from a critical hit, or fix my initiative if I rolled terribly, and occasionally on a saving throw. It was an ability that was nice to have. Like having a worse "Lucky" feat held in reserve (also, yes, it is worse than lucky, lucky doesn't eat your reaction) when I didn't particularly need my reaction for something else.
Shield isn't "nice to have." It's something you build around having and rely on to keep you alive as a properly optimized caster. In high stake fights as a caster, especially as you get higher level, your reaction is a precious resource. People keep pointing out what a great, strong ability Silvery Barbs is... but no matter how strong it is (and that's being exaggerated quite a lot), it's one roll that you might make go your way. Shield, Counterspell, Absorb Elements? Those (mostly) don't leave anything up to chance and are outright better uses of your reaction in many, many circumstances. They're much more reliable in their impact, and in the case of Shield also are going to have a much more pronounced impact in most fights, most of the time*.
All? No. Not all. But many. If you have to pick Shield or Silvery Barbs (which as a Sorcerer, given your limited options, is not a ludicrous notion), it's not even a contest. +5 AC isn't a chance to influence a roll, it's a reliable effect that lasts the round for your reaction. The same is true of Absorb Elements. Counterspell (yes, I know it's 3rd level) can just rob an enemy of a turn. Silvery Barbs can have big impact, too. But it won't be as often.
*Let me justify "most fights" here. I am operating under the assumption that most fights are going to be against a group of enemies using attack rolls, as most creatures in the game use attack rolls to damage you, or you are going to be facing something with legendary resistance. In either case, the reliable mitigation is usually better. Silvery Barbs is better if you are against a single creature making fewer, bigger attacks. I can think of examples of fights like that (a Catoblepas comes immediately to mind), but I stand firmly by the fact that it will not be most of them.
Barbs can’t save you from a crit; its trigger is a successful saving throw, not a successful attack roll.
I believe it triggers on a successful d20 roll.
Yes.
This: "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw"
So yes it can save you from a crit and no shield cannot even if you're dealing with the expanded CRIT range...
A crit is a crit.
That's part of the problem is it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
This is a prime example.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
Barbs can’t save you from a crit; its trigger is a successful saving throw, not a successful attack roll.
I believe it triggers on a successful d20 roll.
Yes.
This: "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw"
So yes it can save you from a crit and no shield cannot even if you're dealing with the expanded CRIT range...
A crit is a crit.
That's part of the problem is it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
This is a prime example.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
That really depends on the table. I don’t know many people who don’t go “oh natural 20” when they roll one. Dms included
It does make me wonder if you could stack features to reroll the reroll or if the silvery barbs reroll was meant to be the end of the conversation.
Sorcerer: I cast chill touch. Attack roll is a 19. DM: AC is 13, so that hits, but the goblin wizard casts silvery barbs, so you need to reroll that attack roll. Sorcerer: Reroll is a 9. DM: 9 misses. Sorcerer: ok, I will spend two sorcery points and use seeking spell metamagic to reroll that 9. Now I rolled a 15. I believe that hits.
Does the silvery barbs text, "The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll" preclude the sorcerer from using seeking spell metamagic?
Barbs can’t save you from a crit; its trigger is a successful saving throw, not a successful attack roll.
I believe it triggers on a successful d20 roll.
Yes.
This: "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw"
So yes it can save you from a crit and no shield cannot even if you're dealing with the expanded CRIT range...
A crit is a crit.
That's part of the problem is it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
This is a prime example.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
That really depends on the table. I don’t know many people who don’t go “oh natural 20” when they roll one. Dms included
That's true, but that's more a tables' tradition than a rule. Of the three dms in our group, one never announced crits, even before this. One of us announced it and one, me, was on the fence. I now will stop announcing crits before damage is rolled. It adds tension and makes things like SB and the Chronomancer ability less of a problem if there was one at all. Knowing that a NPC critted is the same form of meta gaming as keeping track of the exact score of a players' hp.
It does make me wonder if you could stack features to reroll the reroll or if the silvery barbs reroll was meant to be the end of the conversation.
Sorcerer: I cast chill touch. Attack roll is a 19. DM: AC is 13, so that hits, but the goblin wizard casts silvery barbs, so you need to reroll that attack roll. Sorcerer: Reroll is a 9. DM: 9 misses. Sorcerer: ok, I will spend two sorcery points and use seeking spell metamagic to reroll that 9. Now I rolled a 15. I believe that hits.
Does the silvery barbs text, "The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll" preclude the sorcerer from using seeking spell metamagic?
Treat it as a counter spelled counterspell and you have your answer.
Barbs can’t save you from a crit; its trigger is a successful saving throw, not a successful attack roll.
I believe it triggers on a successful d20 roll.
Yes.
This: "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw"
So yes it can save you from a crit and no shield cannot even if you're dealing with the expanded CRIT range...
A crit is a crit.
That's part of the problem is it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
This is a prime example.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
That really depends on the table. I don’t know many people who don’t go “oh natural 20” when they roll one. Dms included
That's true, but that's more a tables' tradition than a rule. Of the three dms in our group, one never announced crits, even before this. One of us announced it and one, me, was on the fence. I now will stop announcing crits before damage is rolled. It adds tension and makes things like SB and the Chronomancer ability less of a problem if there was one at all. Knowing that a NPC critted is the same form of meta gaming as keeping track of the exact score of a players' hp.
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
Barbs can’t save you from a crit; its trigger is a successful saving throw, not a successful attack roll.
I believe it triggers on a successful d20 roll.
Yes.
This: "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw"
So yes it can save you from a crit and no shield cannot even if you're dealing with the expanded CRIT range...
A crit is a crit.
That's part of the problem is it seems people don't seem to understand the extent of the spell.
This is a prime example.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
That really depends on the table. I don’t know many people who don’t go “oh natural 20” when they roll one. Dms included
That's true, but that's more a tables' tradition than a rule. Of the three dms in our group, one never announced crits, even before this. One of us announced it and one, me, was on the fence. I now will stop announcing crits before damage is rolled. It adds tension and makes things like SB and the Chronomancer ability less of a problem if there was one at all. Knowing that a NPC critted is the same form of meta gaming as keeping track of the exact score of a players' hp.
I kinda did say in there it depends on the table
It also depends on how you're playing. VTTs default to making rolls public, so everyone can see if it's a crit or not
Honestly I'm not even sure I'd consider it metagaming to try and nullify what would be a crit with a reaction. It's right in the name -- you're reacting to something, which in this case would be your character seeing that their ally left themselves wide open for that incoming strike and that it would likely do a lot more damage than normal
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
Exactly... It's the same argument for shield no?
Your DM could just say it hits and you try to use shield and it does nothing....
Overall the point still stands that SB stops a crit and shield doesn't.
Also it's not like you won't have both spells...a wizard gets 6 at first level and I would have a hard time arguing you never take both spells.
The value of SB is the only one you pick where the value gets exponentially better as you get more spell slots.
Being able to immediately recast a 7th level spell >>>>>>+5 AC
Mostly because that +5 AC loses value as more creatures get super high attack stats, more ways to get ADV, or ways other then just attacks you do damage to you.
I never said Barbs didn't stop a crit. In fact, I specifically pointed out that Barbs' sole defensive edge over Shield was the ability to interdict crits.
The whole "you get to recast Greater Arcana spells" thing is overstated. Anything that provides disadvantage on a saving throw is similarly "getting a second casting for free". Again - Barbs does nothing that couldn't happen without Barbs being cast. A DM can always just flub the save the first time. Barbs can potentially 'save' a big cast by retroactively imposing disadvantage on the save, but despite what yaybos in this thread keep squawking, doing so is not free. Reactions are not free. First-level spell slots are neither free nor valueless, even at high levels. There are very good first-level spells you should be wanting to cast even deep into Tier 3 and 4 play, anyone who says your first-level slots are throwaways after Tier 1 is a damn dirty liar.
Every Silvery Barbs you throw is a Dissonant Whispers you don't get to cast, or a Detect Magic you have to waste ten minutes on instead of just casting. It's a Bane or Bless you don't get to throw out or a Command you don't get to issue. It's a Healing Word you can't use to save an ally's life or a Disguise Self you can't use to infiltrate the villains' fortress. It's a Faerie Fire you can't illuminate the battlefield with, a Hex you can't wither an enemy with, a Protection from Evil and Good you don't get to apply...there's tons of high-value first-level spells. If you're abandoning first-level spells on anything but a warlock, you're playing your spellcaster poorly, just the same way as anyone would say if you said "I don't need my cantrips anymore, I'm just gonna dump 'em." Every single casting class in this game has at least two primo first-level spells they're gonna want access to for the entire length of the campaign, and burning every slot they have on Silvery Barbs because they're throwing away their first-level spells is just bad play.
I never said Barbs didn't stop a crit. In fact, I specifically pointed out that Barbs' sole defensive edge over Shield was the ability to interdict crits.
The whole "you get to recast Greater Arcana spells" thing is overstated. Anything that provides disadvantage on a saving throw is similarly "getting a second casting for free". Again - Barbs does nothing that couldn't happen without Barbs being cast. A DM can always just flub the save the first time. Barbs can potentially 'save' a big cast by retroactively imposing disadvantage on the save, but despite what yaybos in this thread keep squawking, doing so is not free. Reactions are not free. First-level spell slots are neither free nor valueless, even at high levels. There are very good first-level spells you should be wanting to cast even deep into Tier 3 and 4 play, anyone who says your first-level slots are throwaways after Tier 1 is a damn dirty liar.
Every Silvery Barbs you throw is a Dissonant Whispers you don't get to cast, or a Detect Magic you have to waste ten minutes on instead of just casting. It's a Bane or Bless you don't get to throw out or a Command you don't get to issue. It's a Healing Word you can't use to save an ally's life or a Disguise Self you can't use to infiltrate the villains' fortress. It's a Faerie Fire you can't illuminate the battlefield with, a Hex you can't wither an enemy with, a Protection from Evil and Good you don't get to apply...there's tons of high-value first-level spells. If you're abandoning first-level spells on anything but a warlock, you're playing your spellcaster poorly, just the same way as anyone would say if you said "I don't need my cantrips anymore, I'm just gonna dump 'em." Every single casting class in this game has at least two primo first-level spells they're gonna want access to for the entire length of the campaign, and burning every slot they have on Silvery Barbs because they're throwing away their first-level spells is just bad play.
Sorry I was agreeing with you ..I didn't intend to sound contradictory.
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
At 6th level, you gain the ability to impede death’s progress. As a reaction when you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit, you can turn that hit into a normal hit. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
Because this one explicitly states that you see the result ie a critical hit. SB doesn't do that. The chronomancer's doesn't do that. Here the trigger is rolling a critical hit. The trigger.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Because at that time there is a legit compelling reason to announce that it was a critical. Something that is missing from SB and Gravithingy.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Because at that time there is a legit compelling reason to announce that it was a critical. Something that is missing from SB and Gravithingy.
Same reason... They can deny it and also you would want to know for shield as well.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Because at that time there is a legit compelling reason to announce that it was a critical. Something that is missing from SB and Gravithingy.
Same reason... They can deny it and also you would want to know for shield as well.
Your rationale is a bit faulty.
No it's not? Shield won't work on a crit, and I take it that's the point you're making? Grave Cleric states that you use it after a crit roll is made. Others don't. Just that you can use it in x or y cases but not that you know it's a crit.
Silvery Barbs states that you can use it in response to a successful attack roll, save, or ability check. So the presence of the spell means that the DM has legitimate reason to announce the success of every such roll, then?
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Totally false. I've used a nearly identical feature (Chronal Shift) up to level 20. It was strong. I liked the ability and used it sometimes to save an ally from a critical hit, or fix my initiative if I rolled terribly, and occasionally on a saving throw. It was an ability that was nice to have. Like having a worse "Lucky" feat held in reserve (also, yes, it is worse than lucky, lucky doesn't eat your reaction) when I didn't particularly need my reaction for something else.
Shield isn't "nice to have." It's something you build around having and rely on to keep you alive as a properly optimized caster. In high stake fights as a caster, especially as you get higher level, your reaction is a precious resource. People keep pointing out what a great, strong ability Silvery Barbs is... but no matter how strong it is (and that's being exaggerated quite a lot), it's one roll that you might make go your way. Shield, Counterspell, Absorb Elements? Those (mostly) don't leave anything up to chance and are outright better uses of your reaction in many, many circumstances. They're much more reliable in their impact, and in the case of Shield also are going to have a much more pronounced impact in most fights, most of the time*.
All? No. Not all. But many. If you have to pick Shield or Silvery Barbs (which as a Sorcerer, given your limited options, is not a ludicrous notion), it's not even a contest. +5 AC isn't a chance to influence a roll, it's a reliable effect that lasts the round for your reaction. The same is true of Absorb Elements. Counterspell (yes, I know it's 3rd level) can just rob an enemy of a turn. Silvery Barbs can have big impact, too. But it won't be as often.
*Let me justify "most fights" here. I am operating under the assumption that most fights are going to be against a group of enemies using attack rolls, as most creatures in the game use attack rolls to damage you, or you are going to be facing something with legendary resistance. In either case, the reliable mitigation is usually better. Silvery Barbs is better if you are against a single creature making fewer, bigger attacks. I can think of examples of fights like that (a Catoblepas comes immediately to mind), but I stand firmly by the fact that it will not be most of them.
No place in the rules does anyone have to announce they critted before damage is dealt. Attack roll -> hit or miss -> reaction or not -> damage resolution. Crit or not. Yes you can stop a crit, but you also don't know in advance that it was a crit in the first place. This spell is not broken.
That really depends on the table. I don’t know many people who don’t go “oh natural 20” when they roll one. Dms included
It does make me wonder if you could stack features to reroll the reroll or if the silvery barbs reroll was meant to be the end of the conversation.
Sorcerer: I cast chill touch. Attack roll is a 19.
DM: AC is 13, so that hits, but the goblin wizard casts silvery barbs, so you need to reroll that attack roll.
Sorcerer: Reroll is a 9.
DM: 9 misses.
Sorcerer: ok, I will spend two sorcery points and use seeking spell metamagic to reroll that 9. Now I rolled a 15. I believe that hits.
Does the silvery barbs text, "The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll" preclude the sorcerer from using seeking spell metamagic?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's true, but that's more a tables' tradition than a rule. Of the three dms in our group, one never announced crits, even before this. One of us announced it and one, me, was on the fence. I now will stop announcing crits before damage is rolled. It adds tension and makes things like SB and the Chronomancer ability less of a problem if there was one at all. Knowing that a NPC critted is the same form of meta gaming as keeping track of the exact score of a players' hp.
Treat it as a counter spelled counterspell and you have your answer.
How do you figure?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
action -> reaction silver barbs -reroll- ->reaction metamagic Seeking Spell -> reroll
edit: although metamagic is technically a free action and now my head hurts.
I kinda did say in there it depends on the table
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
Please do not contact or message me.
It also depends on how you're playing. VTTs default to making rolls public, so everyone can see if it's a crit or not
Honestly I'm not even sure I'd consider it metagaming to try and nullify what would be a crit with a reaction. It's right in the name -- you're reacting to something, which in this case would be your character seeing that their ally left themselves wide open for that incoming strike and that it would likely do a lot more damage than normal
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Exactly... It's the same argument for shield no?
Your DM could just say it hits and you try to use shield and it does nothing....
Overall the point still stands that SB stops a crit and shield doesn't.
Also it's not like you won't have both spells...a wizard gets 6 at first level and I would have a hard time arguing you never take both spells.
The value of SB is the only one you pick where the value gets exponentially better as you get more spell slots.
Being able to immediately recast a 7th level spell >>>>>>+5 AC
Mostly because that +5 AC loses value as more creatures get super high attack stats, more ways to get ADV, or ways other then just attacks you do damage to you.
I never said Barbs didn't stop a crit. In fact, I specifically pointed out that Barbs' sole defensive edge over Shield was the ability to interdict crits.
The whole "you get to recast Greater Arcana spells" thing is overstated. Anything that provides disadvantage on a saving throw is similarly "getting a second casting for free". Again - Barbs does nothing that couldn't happen without Barbs being cast. A DM can always just flub the save the first time. Barbs can potentially 'save' a big cast by retroactively imposing disadvantage on the save, but despite what yaybos in this thread keep squawking, doing so is not free. Reactions are not free. First-level spell slots are neither free nor valueless, even at high levels. There are very good first-level spells you should be wanting to cast even deep into Tier 3 and 4 play, anyone who says your first-level slots are throwaways after Tier 1 is a damn dirty liar.
Every Silvery Barbs you throw is a Dissonant Whispers you don't get to cast, or a Detect Magic you have to waste ten minutes on instead of just casting. It's a Bane or Bless you don't get to throw out or a Command you don't get to issue. It's a Healing Word you can't use to save an ally's life or a Disguise Self you can't use to infiltrate the villains' fortress. It's a Faerie Fire you can't illuminate the battlefield with, a Hex you can't wither an enemy with, a Protection from Evil and Good you don't get to apply...there's tons of high-value first-level spells. If you're abandoning first-level spells on anything but a warlock, you're playing your spellcaster poorly, just the same way as anyone would say if you said "I don't need my cantrips anymore, I'm just gonna dump 'em." Every single casting class in this game has at least two primo first-level spells they're gonna want access to for the entire length of the campaign, and burning every slot they have on Silvery Barbs because they're throwing away their first-level spells is just bad play.
Please do not contact or message me.
Sorry I was agreeing with you ..I didn't intend to sound contradictory.
You make a good point
At 6th level, you gain the ability to impede death’s progress. As a reaction when you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit, you can turn that hit into a normal hit. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
Because this one explicitly states that you see the result ie a critical hit. SB doesn't do that. The chronomancer's doesn't do that. Here the trigger is rolling a critical hit. The trigger.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Please do not contact or message me.
Because at that time there is a legit compelling reason to announce that it was a critical. Something that is missing from SB and Gravithingy.
Same reason... They can deny it and also you would want to know for shield as well.
Your rationale is a bit faulty.
No it's not? Shield won't work on a crit, and I take it that's the point you're making? Grave Cleric states that you use it after a crit roll is made. Others don't. Just that you can use it in x or y cases but not that you know it's a crit.
Silvery Barbs states that you can use it in response to a successful attack roll, save, or ability check. So the presence of the spell means that the DM has legitimate reason to announce the success of every such roll, then?
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!