You don't know when a crit is rolled but after the damage is dealt. You only know if an attack hits or misses.
That is utterly dependent on the table, I generally always roll in the open. Not only that but there are a number of magical items that specifically rely on the players knowing if it was a critical hit or not, such as a Guardian Emblem which says - When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit while you’re wearing the armor or wielding the shield that bears the emblem, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to turn the critical hit into a normal hit instead. So if you didn't know then you couldn't use this item or any other of the abilities and items.
This Item especially mentions a critical roll. So if you go by that, it means that in all other cases you don't know, as there is no mention of the crit in other spells, abilities, etc..
That's not what I got from the quoted text. It says that when you see a creature suffer one - it doesn't say anything about a special knowledge being granted of it happening. Indeed, I'd say this implies that players generally know of crits. Are the designers honestly going to expect DMs to remember that this one player has this particular item and so go out if their way to declare crits seen by the player within 30ft of them? That's tall order, I think. Generally, abilities etc rely on the player to keep track of them and declare them, not the DM. Instead, I think there is an unwritten assumption that DMs declare crits or otherwise communicate them to the players.
Personally, I roll hidden. Mostly because it means that I can tweak things without the players feeling robbed, but also I think it is implied that it's intended due to the DM screen (if others roll openly, then this is isn't a criticism, it's just my reasoning for my table, play however you wish). However, I do declare crits, for two reasons - one in-game and one meta. The meta reason is so that players know I'm playing fair. If their Gobbo gets an absurdly high damage roll, they know it's just roll of the dice. The in-game reason is that crits represent a solid blow to a vital area - the character would know that it had happened and therefore I communicate it to the players. Of course, the tension that builds as they realise that I'm rolling a second dice doesn't do any harm either!
Personally, I'm reasonably confident that players are intended do know when crits happen - regardless of what item they're holding.
As you look at rulings on things, an inclusion makes the difference. Here in this case crit is included, in all other cases it isn't. And yes, I roll hidden most of the time.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You don't know when a crit is rolled but after the damage is dealt. You only know if an attack hits or misses.
That is utterly dependent on the table, I generally always roll in the open. Not only that but there are a number of magical items that specifically rely on the players knowing if it was a critical hit or not, such as a Guardian Emblem which says - When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit while you’re wearing the armor or wielding the shield that bears the emblem, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to turn the critical hit into a normal hit instead. So if you didn't know then you couldn't use this item or any other of the abilities and items.
This Item especially mentions a critical roll. So if you go by that, it means that in all other cases you don't know, as there is no mention of the crit in other spells, abilities, etc..
That's not what I got from the quoted text. It says that when you see a creature suffer one - it doesn't say anything about a special knowledge being granted of it happening. Indeed, I'd say this implies that players generally know of crits. Are the designers honestly going to expect DMs to remember that this one player has this particular item and so go out if their way to declare crits seen by the player within 30ft of them? That's tall order, I think. Generally, abilities etc rely on the player to keep track of them and declare them, not the DM. Instead, I think there is an unwritten assumption that DMs declare crits or otherwise communicate them to the players.
Personally, I roll hidden. Mostly because it means that I can tweak things without the players feeling robbed, but also I think it is implied that it's intended due to the DM screen (if others roll openly, then this is isn't a criticism, it's just my reasoning for my table, play however you wish). However, I do declare crits, for two reasons - one in-game and one meta. The meta reason is so that players know I'm playing fair. If their Gobbo gets an absurdly high damage roll, they know it's just roll of the dice. The in-game reason is that crits represent a solid blow to a vital area - the character would know that it had happened and therefore I communicate it to the players. Of course, the tension that builds as they realise that I'm rolling a second dice doesn't do any harm either!
Personally, I'm reasonably confident that players are intended do know when crits happen - regardless of what item they're holding.
As you look at rulings on things, an inclusion makes the difference. Here in this case crit is included, in all other cases it isn't. And yes, I roll hidden most of the time.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
Show me the rule the DM needs to announce their crit roles before damage is declared. And yes my players, well every DM in our group, makes players roll to hit roll blind, if you mean they don't know the AC of a creature the first time the characters meet it. We try to keep meta game knowledge to a minimum.
You don't know when a crit is rolled but after the damage is dealt. You only know if an attack hits or misses.
That is utterly dependent on the table, I generally always roll in the open. Not only that but there are a number of magical items that specifically rely on the players knowing if it was a critical hit or not, such as a Guardian Emblem which says - When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit while you’re wearing the armor or wielding the shield that bears the emblem, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to turn the critical hit into a normal hit instead. So if you didn't know then you couldn't use this item or any other of the abilities and items.
This Item especially mentions a critical roll. So if you go by that, it means that in all other cases you don't know, as there is no mention of the crit in other spells, abilities, etc..
That's not what I got from the quoted text. It says that when you see a creature suffer one - it doesn't say anything about a special knowledge being granted of it happening. Indeed, I'd say this implies that players generally know of crits. Are the designers honestly going to expect DMs to remember that this one player has this particular item and so go out if their way to declare crits seen by the player within 30ft of them? That's tall order, I think. Generally, abilities etc rely on the player to keep track of them and declare them, not the DM. Instead, I think there is an unwritten assumption that DMs declare crits or otherwise communicate them to the players.
Personally, I roll hidden. Mostly because it means that I can tweak things without the players feeling robbed, but also I think it is implied that it's intended due to the DM screen (if others roll openly, then this is isn't a criticism, it's just my reasoning for my table, play however you wish). However, I do declare crits, for two reasons - one in-game and one meta. The meta reason is so that players know I'm playing fair. If their Gobbo gets an absurdly high damage roll, they know it's just roll of the dice. The in-game reason is that crits represent a solid blow to a vital area - the character would know that it had happened and therefore I communicate it to the players. Of course, the tension that builds as they realise that I'm rolling a second dice doesn't do any harm either!
Personally, I'm reasonably confident that players are intended do know when crits happen - regardless of what item they're holding.
As you look at rulings on things, an inclusion makes the difference. Here in this case crit is included, in all other cases it isn't. And yes, I roll hidden most of the time.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
Show me the rule the DM needs to announce their crit roles before damage is declared. And yes my players, well every DM in our group, makes players roll to hit roll blind, if you mean they don't know the AC of a creature the first time the characters meet it. We try to keep meta game knowledge to a minimum.
Show me the rule where it says that you should be hiding crits, if you're setting the standards to "it's explicitly written or it doesn't exist".
And no. Rolling blind is that only the DM knows what you rolled (as I stated when I asked) - either you roll and only the DM looks or the DM does the rolling behind his screen, so only the DM would know the result - just like you're proposing for crits. Sometimes the player has to know what the roll was, other times they don't and just need to know if it suceeded (most of the time, in fact). Your assertion is that because sometimes it doesn't mention the players knowing the result, then that means that they never know. That would imply blind rolls for pretty much everything.
As I've reasoned before, there very much seems to be the assumption that players know when someone - anyone - rolls a crit. That doesn't mean all rolls must be open, but it as I've said - it makes sense for both players and characters to know when a crit occurs in most situations.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You don't know when a crit is rolled but after the damage is dealt. You only know if an attack hits or misses.
That is utterly dependent on the table, I generally always roll in the open. Not only that but there are a number of magical items that specifically rely on the players knowing if it was a critical hit or not, such as a Guardian Emblem which says - When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit while you’re wearing the armor or wielding the shield that bears the emblem, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to turn the critical hit into a normal hit instead. So if you didn't know then you couldn't use this item or any other of the abilities and items.
This Item especially mentions a critical roll. So if you go by that, it means that in all other cases you don't know, as there is no mention of the crit in other spells, abilities, etc..
That's not what I got from the quoted text. It says that when you see a creature suffer one - it doesn't say anything about a special knowledge being granted of it happening. Indeed, I'd say this implies that players generally know of crits. Are the designers honestly going to expect DMs to remember that this one player has this particular item and so go out if their way to declare crits seen by the player within 30ft of them? That's tall order, I think. Generally, abilities etc rely on the player to keep track of them and declare them, not the DM. Instead, I think there is an unwritten assumption that DMs declare crits or otherwise communicate them to the players.
Personally, I roll hidden. Mostly because it means that I can tweak things without the players feeling robbed, but also I think it is implied that it's intended due to the DM screen (if others roll openly, then this is isn't a criticism, it's just my reasoning for my table, play however you wish). However, I do declare crits, for two reasons - one in-game and one meta. The meta reason is so that players know I'm playing fair. If their Gobbo gets an absurdly high damage roll, they know it's just roll of the dice. The in-game reason is that crits represent a solid blow to a vital area - the character would know that it had happened and therefore I communicate it to the players. Of course, the tension that builds as they realise that I'm rolling a second dice doesn't do any harm either!
Personally, I'm reasonably confident that players are intended do know when crits happen - regardless of what item they're holding.
As you look at rulings on things, an inclusion makes the difference. Here in this case crit is included, in all other cases it isn't. And yes, I roll hidden most of the time.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
Show me the rule the DM needs to announce their crit roles before damage is declared. And yes my players, well every DM in our group, makes players roll to hit roll blind, if you mean they don't know the AC of a creature the first time the characters meet it. We try to keep meta game knowledge to a minimum.
Show me the rule where it says that you should be hiding crits, if you're setting the standards to "it's explicitly written or it doesn't exist".
And no. Rolling blind is that only the DM knows what you rolled (as I stated when I asked) - either you roll and only the DM looks or the DM does the rolling behind his screen, so only the DM would know the result - just like you're proposing for crits. Sometimes the player has to know what the roll was, other times they don't and just need to know if it suceeded (most of the time, in fact). Your assertion is that because sometimes it doesn't mention the players knowing the result, then that means that they never know. That would imply blind rolls for pretty much everything.
As I've reasoned before, there very much seems to be the assumption that players know when someone - anyone - rolls a crit. That doesn't mean all rolls must be open, but it as I've said - it makes sense for both players and characters to know when a crit occurs in most situations.
Then no, nobody that I know does that. We have been playing like this for the last three or four years, and it never leads to confusion or extra work for the DM. Attack roll, declaration of hit or miss, reaction or no reaction, damage declaration with or without declaration of crit rolls if and when applicable or a fudge. This is in the player's best interest, especially at lower levels.
You don't know when a crit is rolled but after the damage is dealt. You only know if an attack hits or misses.
That is utterly dependent on the table, I generally always roll in the open. Not only that but there are a number of magical items that specifically rely on the players knowing if it was a critical hit or not, such as a Guardian Emblem which says - When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit while you’re wearing the armor or wielding the shield that bears the emblem, you can use your reaction to expend 1 charge to turn the critical hit into a normal hit instead. So if you didn't know then you couldn't use this item or any other of the abilities and items.
This Item especially mentions a critical roll. So if you go by that, it means that in all other cases you don't know, as there is no mention of the crit in other spells, abilities, etc..
That's not what I got from the quoted text. It says that when you see a creature suffer one - it doesn't say anything about a special knowledge being granted of it happening. Indeed, I'd say this implies that players generally know of crits. Are the designers honestly going to expect DMs to remember that this one player has this particular item and so go out if their way to declare crits seen by the player within 30ft of them? That's tall order, I think. Generally, abilities etc rely on the player to keep track of them and declare them, not the DM. Instead, I think there is an unwritten assumption that DMs declare crits or otherwise communicate them to the players.
Personally, I roll hidden. Mostly because it means that I can tweak things without the players feeling robbed, but also I think it is implied that it's intended due to the DM screen (if others roll openly, then this is isn't a criticism, it's just my reasoning for my table, play however you wish). However, I do declare crits, for two reasons - one in-game and one meta. The meta reason is so that players know I'm playing fair. If their Gobbo gets an absurdly high damage roll, they know it's just roll of the dice. The in-game reason is that crits represent a solid blow to a vital area - the character would know that it had happened and therefore I communicate it to the players. Of course, the tension that builds as they realise that I'm rolling a second dice doesn't do any harm either!
Personally, I'm reasonably confident that players are intended do know when crits happen - regardless of what item they're holding.
As you look at rulings on things, an inclusion makes the difference. Here in this case crit is included, in all other cases it isn't. And yes, I roll hidden most of the time.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
Show me the rule the DM needs to announce their crit roles before damage is declared. And yes my players, well every DM in our group, makes players roll to hit roll blind, if you mean they don't know the AC of a creature the first time the characters meet it. We try to keep meta game knowledge to a minimum.
Show me the rule where it says that you should be hiding crits, if you're setting the standards to "it's explicitly written or it doesn't exist".
And no. Rolling blind is that only the DM knows what you rolled (as I stated when I asked) - either you roll and only the DM looks or the DM does the rolling behind his screen, so only the DM would know the result - just like you're proposing for crits. Sometimes the player has to know what the roll was, other times they don't and just need to know if it suceeded (most of the time, in fact). Your assertion is that because sometimes it doesn't mention the players knowing the result, then that means that they never know. That would imply blind rolls for pretty much everything.
As I've reasoned before, there very much seems to be the assumption that players know when someone - anyone - rolls a crit. That doesn't mean all rolls must be open, but it as I've said - it makes sense for both players and characters to know when a crit occurs in most situations.
Then no, nobody that I know does that. We have been playing like this for the last three or four years, and it never leads to confusion or extra work for the DM. Attack roll, declaration of hit or miss, reaction or no reaction, damage declaration with or without declaration of crit rolls if and when applicable or a fudge. This is in the player's best interest, especially at lower levels.
Then you're inconsistently applying your logic. In both situations, the player's knowledge of what's happening is mention in some instances while others it is not mentioned. In one,myoure claiming that it means that players generally shouldn't have the knowledge, but the other they should.
And micromanagement, almost by definition, is extra work. You have to track their details and remember when they need to apply or not, so you can judge whether the information is applicable or not. If you don't normally communicate crits, then you have to track whether or not any of the abilities or items etc like Guardian Emblem interact with them - otherwise you're screwing them over. On the other hand, I don't need to track or remember anything, because I make it a habit of conveying any and all information that might be relevant and it's the player's responsibility to remember to use it. If they forget? Well, it's their fault. It's their character, not mine, so they're in charge of it. They can do the heavy lifting of remembering when and how their abilities apply, not me.
Anyway, this is digressing way too much from the thread topic of Silvery Barbs and I don't think it's going to go anywhere, so I'm done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't mind the discussion. Whether or not players are allowed to see rolls is pertinent to Silvery Barbs.
I do mind the stupidiculous quote chains. Y'all are thirteen deep at this point, not a soul on this planet needs that.
Please please please please please. Trim your quote chains. Do it for sanity. Do it for the environment. Do it for Justice. And do it because I might start reporting anything that continues a thirteen freaking deep Quote Avalanche. I'm aware DDB's forum software sucks and the 'Quote' functionality is awful. I've written posts before explaining how to trim quote chains. If I need to I'll write a dedicated post explaining how and link it in my signature along with the other "Please stop doing this" links. And perhaps if we can get enough groundswell for it - pipe dream here, but my thread so I'm allowed to pipe dream - DDB will fix its ******* forum software. Or at least kick whoever they're licensing it from to fix it for them.
I don't mind the discussion. Whether or not players are allowed to see rolls is pertinent to Silvery Barbs.
I do mind the stupidiculous quote chains. Y'all are thirteen deep at this point, not a soul on this planet needs that.
Please please please please please. Trim your quote chains. Do it for sanity. Do it for the environment. Do it for Justice. And do it because I might start reporting anything that continues a thirteen freaking deep Quote Avalanche. I'm aware DDB's forum software sucks and the 'Quote' functionality is awful. I've written posts before explaining how to trim quote chains. If I need to I'll write a dedicated post explaining how and link it in my signature along with the other "Please stop doing this" links. And perhaps if we can get enough groundswell for it - pipe dream here, but my thread so I'm allowed to pipe dream - DDB will fix its ****ing forum software. Or at least kick whoever they're licensing it from to fix it for them.
As bad as it is, trying to trim it on mobile is worse. It takes longer to trim the quotes than it does to write them at times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In one of the streams I'm watching one of the players picked up Silvery Barbs, I'm interested in seeing how the DM handles the usage of it at their table. Granted that wouldn't really impact how I feel about silvery barbs, it's just another source of how others adjust it (consider adjusting it) or thinks its fine as is.
Well, having been one of the more outspoken members of the community about Silvery Barbs, and kinda cringing at myself for it...
It's not... *that* bad in practice. I still disagree with it being a 1st level spell, but well- Rei's already pointed out both here and in a couple other threads how it's honestly not that much different than using Shield in a lot of cases. Or it's a potentially large resource sink for a still not-guaranteed result if you're trying to help make a high level spell like Disintegrate worth it.
I do think it shouldn't give advantage to an ally in the same breath, but eh, it hasn't... *really* come up much so- guess it's just part of the scenery now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I don't mind the discussion. Whether or not players are allowed to see rolls is pertinent to Silvery Barbs.
I do mind the stupidiculous quote chains. Y'all are thirteen deep at this point, not a soul on this planet needs that.
Please please please please please. Trim your quote chains. Do it for sanity. Do it for the environment. Do it for Justice. And do it because I might start reporting anything that continues a thirteen freaking deep Quote Avalanche. I'm aware DDB's forum software sucks and the 'Quote' functionality is awful. I've written posts before explaining how to trim quote chains. If I need to I'll write a dedicated post explaining how and link it in my signature along with the other "Please stop doing this" links. And perhaps if we can get enough groundswell for it - pipe dream here, but my thread so I'm allowed to pipe dream - DDB will fix its ******* forum software. Or at least kick whoever they're licensing it from to fix it for them.
The sorcadin in the game I am running had it for a spell (lolz), but has since swapped it for Shield when he gained a level. Considering he is one of the most min/maxing players I have ever known, I think it is fair to say that it is not as powerful as people think. There are going to be individual builds and tables where other options just work better. I personally loved it when I was using it for my bard as a player, and it has added no additional burden at all to my game as a DM. I do not run my game to work against my players. Rather, I organize my games to play to my player's strengths, so they always feel like badasses.
There seems to be a...misconception...that the complaint is that it's too strong. Nobody is complaining that this is outdoing Wish. It's the mirror of the recent discussion of Weird where the complaint was that it was too weak for a L9 slot (being mechanically almost identical to a L4 spell which was actually in a way superior). No one is saying that Silvery Barbs is too OP for the game or will wreck games. It's that some feel that it's at an inappropriate level.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't mind the discussion. Whether or not players are allowed to see rolls is pertinent to Silvery Barbs.
I do mind the stupidiculous quote chains. Y'all are thirteen deep at this point, not a soul on this planet needs that.
Please please please please please. Trim your quote chains. Do it for sanity. Do it for the environment. Do it for Justice. And do it because I might start reporting anything that continues a thirteen freaking deep Quote Avalanche. I'm aware DDB's forum software sucks and the 'Quote' functionality is awful. I've written posts before explaining how to trim quote chains. If I need to I'll write a dedicated post explaining how and link it in my signature along with the other "Please stop doing this" links. And perhaps if we can get enough groundswell for it - pipe dream here, but my thread so I'm allowed to pipe dream - DDB will fix its ****ing forum software. Or at least kick whoever they're licensing it from to fix it for them.
As bad as it is, trying to trim it on mobile is worse. It takes longer to trim the quotes than it does to write them at times.
Turn your phone sideways and you can stick the extra bits in a spoiler like I did in this post. (I do everything on DDB from a mobile device.)
Please be aware, Tubbafett, that the "reply" functionality on this website does not tell me WHICH of the many posts I've made in this thread you're replying to. Might I inquire as to which post including the mention of Faerie Fire you're referring to, so I can know what you're trying to dispute?
Sorry, on mobile on not very technically proficient to start with. I’m referencing a post (and I’m not even sure it was yours) about how silvery barbs compares to Shield and Faerie Fire and how it’s not much better than them. In particular, the point about Faerie Fire granting more advantage to the party for longer than Silvery Barbs. My counterpoint is that Faerie Fire offers a saving throw to be completely negated, which isn’t the case with Barbs.
Silvery Barbs does not offer a saving throw, no. It doesn't need to, because the target can simply succeed a second time on their reroll. Having had access to the spell for months in my high-level Sunday game, I can conclusively state that the target is by no means guaranteed to flub their reroll. I've had a few really key successes with Barbs, and have also watched plenty of first-level spell slots disappear into the nether void as something with a gigantic modifier easily aces the reroll. In higher-level play, Barbs is often something of a Hail Mary desperation plot than a cleverly calculated gambit - and frankly, at these levels saving a reaction for Absorb Elements is a nontrivial concern. Honestly the best use I've gotten from Barbs has been arguing the point when something beats my check to manhandle them with Telekinesis.
Silvery Barbs does not offer a saving throw, no. It doesn't need to, because the target can simply succeed a second time on their reroll. Having had access to the spell for months in my high-level Sunday game, I can conclusively state that the target is by no means guaranteed to flub their reroll. I've had a few really key successes with Barbs, and have also watched plenty of first-level spell slots disappear into the nether void as something with a gigantic modifier easily aces the reroll. In higher-level play, Barbs is often something of a Hail Mary desperation plot than a cleverly calculated gambit - and frankly, at these levels saving a reaction for Absorb Elements is a nontrivial concern. Honestly the best use I've gotten from Barbs has been arguing the point when something beats my check to manhandle them with Telekinesis.
True, but they also have to automatically take the lower roll, so if they get something higher than the original, they can't take it. That's why I love using it against nat 20's because it stops double damage and makes a massive difference against that.
I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
Do you make your players roll blind? They roll so only the DM can see and adjudicate it? Because sometimes it's mentioned the players as thoughcan see it, other times it's not. If in one situation it assumes that a certain knowledge is possessed and then in others it doesn't mention it (because it's not relevant to those situations), that doesn't imply that the knowledge isn't generally available. In fact, that the knowledge is assumed to be known without remark implies that such knowledge is generally available.
It would be extraordinarily bad game design for that item to force a DM to remember its special ability and who has it in order to incorporate its influence into the game. The DM already has to track a dozen (or more) NPCs and creatures. Forcing them to micromanage all of the PCs would be just extraordinarily bad game design, even for WotC. The example does not imply that crits are hidden - it mentions crits because they're pertinent to the ability, and does imply that crits are general knowledge - it doesn't say anything along the lines of "You can detect critical hits, and when you see one against a creature within 30ft..." If crits were intended to be hidden, that kind of language would be used in order to create that exception.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Show me the rule the DM needs to announce their crit roles before damage is declared. And yes my players, well every DM in our group, makes players roll to hit roll blind, if you mean they don't know the AC of a creature the first time the characters meet it. We try to keep meta game knowledge to a minimum.
Show me the rule where it says that you should be hiding crits, if you're setting the standards to "it's explicitly written or it doesn't exist".
And no. Rolling blind is that only the DM knows what you rolled (as I stated when I asked) - either you roll and only the DM looks or the DM does the rolling behind his screen, so only the DM would know the result - just like you're proposing for crits. Sometimes the player has to know what the roll was, other times they don't and just need to know if it suceeded (most of the time, in fact). Your assertion is that because sometimes it doesn't mention the players knowing the result, then that means that they never know. That would imply blind rolls for pretty much everything.
As I've reasoned before, there very much seems to be the assumption that players know when someone - anyone - rolls a crit. That doesn't mean all rolls must be open, but it as I've said - it makes sense for both players and characters to know when a crit occurs in most situations.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Then no, nobody that I know does that. We have been playing like this for the last three or four years, and it never leads to confusion or extra work for the DM. Attack roll, declaration of hit or miss, reaction or no reaction, damage declaration with or without declaration of crit rolls if and when applicable or a fudge. This is in the player's best interest, especially at lower levels.
Then you're inconsistently applying your logic. In both situations, the player's knowledge of what's happening is mention in some instances while others it is not mentioned. In one,myoure claiming that it means that players generally shouldn't have the knowledge, but the other they should.
And micromanagement, almost by definition, is extra work. You have to track their details and remember when they need to apply or not, so you can judge whether the information is applicable or not. If you don't normally communicate crits, then you have to track whether or not any of the abilities or items etc like Guardian Emblem interact with them - otherwise you're screwing them over. On the other hand, I don't need to track or remember anything, because I make it a habit of conveying any and all information that might be relevant and it's the player's responsibility to remember to use it. If they forget? Well, it's their fault. It's their character, not mine, so they're in charge of it. They can do the heavy lifting of remembering when and how their abilities apply, not me.
Anyway, this is digressing way too much from the thread topic of Silvery Barbs and I don't think it's going to go anywhere, so I'm done.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Gentlemen.
I don't mind the discussion. Whether or not players are allowed to see rolls is pertinent to Silvery Barbs.
I do mind the stupidiculous quote chains. Y'all are thirteen deep at this point, not a soul on this planet needs that.
Please please please please please. Trim your quote chains. Do it for sanity. Do it for the environment. Do it for Justice. And do it because I might start reporting anything that continues a thirteen freaking deep Quote Avalanche. I'm aware DDB's forum software sucks and the 'Quote' functionality is awful. I've written posts before explaining how to trim quote chains. If I need to I'll write a dedicated post explaining how and link it in my signature along with the other "Please stop doing this" links. And perhaps if we can get enough groundswell for it - pipe dream here, but my thread so I'm allowed to pipe dream - DDB will fix its ******* forum software. Or at least kick whoever they're licensing it from to fix it for them.
Please do not contact or message me.
As bad as it is, trying to trim it on mobile is worse. It takes longer to trim the quotes than it does to write them at times.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In one of the streams I'm watching one of the players picked up Silvery Barbs, I'm interested in seeing how the DM handles the usage of it at their table. Granted that wouldn't really impact how I feel about silvery barbs, it's just another source of how others adjust it (consider adjusting it) or thinks its fine as is.
Well, having been one of the more outspoken members of the community about Silvery Barbs, and kinda cringing at myself for it...
It's not... *that* bad in practice. I still disagree with it being a 1st level spell, but well- Rei's already pointed out both here and in a couple other threads how it's honestly not that much different than using Shield in a lot of cases. Or it's a potentially large resource sink for a still not-guaranteed result if you're trying to help make a high level spell like Disintegrate worth it.
I do think it shouldn't give advantage to an ally in the same breath, but eh, it hasn't... *really* come up much so- guess it's just part of the scenery now.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
My bad, I apologize for this.
The sorcadin in the game I am running had it for a spell (lolz), but has since swapped it for Shield when he gained a level. Considering he is one of the most min/maxing players I have ever known, I think it is fair to say that it is not as powerful as people think. There are going to be individual builds and tables where other options just work better. I personally loved it when I was using it for my bard as a player, and it has added no additional burden at all to my game as a DM. I do not run my game to work against my players. Rather, I organize my games to play to my player's strengths, so they always feel like badasses.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's a very powerful spell but I think it is within the realms of still being fair. I love the spell I'll be using it for my sorceress
There seems to be a...misconception...that the complaint is that it's too strong. Nobody is complaining that this is outdoing Wish. It's the mirror of the recent discussion of Weird where the complaint was that it was too weak for a L9 slot (being mechanically almost identical to a L4 spell which was actually in a way superior). No one is saying that Silvery Barbs is too OP for the game or will wreck games. It's that some feel that it's at an inappropriate level.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Faerie fire offers a popular saving throw to completely nullify it. I guess if you silvery barbs the saving throw, it gets better…
Turn your phone sideways and you can stick the extra bits in a spoiler like I did in this post. (I do everything on DDB from a mobile device.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Please be aware, Tubbafett, that the "reply" functionality on this website does not tell me WHICH of the many posts I've made in this thread you're replying to. Might I inquire as to which post including the mention of Faerie Fire you're referring to, so I can know what you're trying to dispute?
Please do not contact or message me.
Sorry, on mobile on not very technically proficient to start with. I’m referencing a post (and I’m not even sure it was yours) about how silvery barbs compares to Shield and Faerie Fire and how it’s not much better than them. In particular, the point about Faerie Fire granting more advantage to the party for longer than Silvery Barbs. My counterpoint is that Faerie Fire offers a saving throw to be completely negated, which isn’t the case with Barbs.
Ah.
Silvery Barbs does not offer a saving throw, no. It doesn't need to, because the target can simply succeed a second time on their reroll. Having had access to the spell for months in my high-level Sunday game, I can conclusively state that the target is by no means guaranteed to flub their reroll. I've had a few really key successes with Barbs, and have also watched plenty of first-level spell slots disappear into the nether void as something with a gigantic modifier easily aces the reroll. In higher-level play, Barbs is often something of a Hail Mary desperation plot than a cleverly calculated gambit - and frankly, at these levels saving a reaction for Absorb Elements is a nontrivial concern. Honestly the best use I've gotten from Barbs has been arguing the point when something beats my check to manhandle them with Telekinesis.
Please do not contact or message me.
True, but they also have to automatically take the lower roll, so if they get something higher than the original, they can't take it. That's why I love using it against nat 20's because it stops double damage and makes a massive difference against that.
I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Also, Faerie Fire takes an action, not a reaction. And it and Silvery Barbs serve very different purposes, so they're not very comparable.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.