People are also forgetting that the strength of Silvery Barbs is that it is an All-Purpose Tool. Unlike Shield, Bless, or the other examples of so-called OP 1st level spells, Silvery Barbs can be used for social situations, to make a climb check, to make a save-or-suck stick, to counter an enemy critical hit, etc. etc. It is useful for almost everything. That is a sure sign that it easily breaks the game as it renders most other spells and abilities B Tier just by existing because those other spells and abilities can Only be used in certain contexts whereas Silvery Barbs is useful Everywhere, All the Time. It's like a Swiss Army Knife that also functions as a mind hack and the best of all breath mints. With Arcane Recovery, having this as a 1st level spell makes too many things trivial for the party. With Spell Mastery, the party or the enemy Wizard gets literally infinite usages of that Swiss Army Knife/Mind Hack/Super Breath Mint.
Been allowing this in both of my campaigns since it came out in 2020. From one DM to another, so what?
Good for you. I have problem with you or anybody else making that choice at Your table with and for Your players. But at my table, Wizards act smart b/c they have high INT. Enemy wizards would Always pick this spell. Then the PCs will complain about it. Or multiple PCs pick up the spell. Then the BBEG is effectively nerfed unless I have wizards with Counterspell for every major encounter. Then the game becomes un-fun because it becomes too predictable because every major encounter will feature enemy wizards. But hey, if your players love to play Counterspell+Silvery Barbs Gotcha all the time, who am I to say that's a bad thing? The point is that a realistic application of this spell in a game universe changes the scale of encounters. If everybody and their grandpa is a Wizard, that's probably much less of a problem. But most of the time, the DM is cheating on behalf of the players by acting like their enemy Wizards don't know this spell.
None of this has happened at my table and I play with some pretty normal players. Maybe I am the luckiest DM in history or maybe you are blowing things well out of proportion. Which is more likely?
If the spell breaks your game, the spell is not the problem.
Maybe you are a lucky DM. Is there any statistical evidence that your players are within or outside the bounds of what is or is not "normal"? How do we even define "normal" in the first place for a tabletop RPG?
Frankly don't care if you enjoy using Silvery Barbs at your table or not, since I'm neither a DM or a player there. However, I do get annoyed when Hasbro/WotC releases stuff that has a strong tendency to make other spell/subclass options Very sub-optimal. Silvery Barbs is just one a list of things they've released in the last few years that easily break the game. That's why I post here. It's not personal and it's not about Your table. I don't why you're making this about your table. It's about game design. It's about whether we, as current or potential customers for Hasbro/WotC's products, can assume that what they release is Balanced or Not.
Maybe you are a lucky DM. Is there any statistical evidence that your players are within or outside the bounds of what is or is not "normal"? How do we even define "normal" in the first place for a tabletop RPG?
Frankly don't care if you enjoy using Silvery Barbs at your table or not, since I'm neither a DM or a player there. However, I do get annoyed when Hasbro/WotC releases stuff that has a strong tendency to make other spell/subclass options Very sub-optimal. Silvery Barbs is just one a list of things they've released in the last few years that easily break the game. That's why I post here. It's not personal and it's not about Your table. I don't why you're making this about your table. It's about game design. It's about whether we, as current or potential customers for Hasbro/WotC's products, can assume that what they release is Balanced or Not.
Do you have any statistical evidence that the game has been shattered by the spell? Why ask for that which you would not provide? I see a lot of crowing about the sky falling should the spell not be banned or modified and basing it off of absolutely no data at all.
If WotC has already done this, then the game has been broken for a very long time and Silvery Barbs therefore cannot break it. :)
I used my table because it is a tangible, real number of games (2) that has not been broken by regular inclusion of the spell as written for literal years. Does it have statistical significance? No, but then again, I didn't try to argue that it had. Since you are asking for scholarly articles, when will we get to see some on Silvery Barb's obliteration of D&D? Do you have any meaningful experience with game design to speak to the balance or be a person of authority on the matter, or at you just some random that is basing their opinions off of their own limited worldview like everyone else in this thread?
The game isn't broken. Some people just are so rigid in their play style that any change to the meta is confused for game breaking. As I said before, the spell is not the problem if it has the power to 'break' your game.
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
What subclasses have they released that break the balance of the game, that are in fact newer... most of the "combination" that break the game, at least from what I've seen are beginning classes (and even than there are workarounds).
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
What subclasses have they released that break the balance of the game, that are in fact newer... most of the "combination" that break the game, at least from what I've seen are beginning classes (and even than there are workarounds).
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! College of Eloquence, Peace and Twilight Domains.
What subclasses have they released that break the balance of the game, that are in fact newer... most of the "combination" that break the game, at least from what I've seen are beginning classes (and even than there are workarounds).
Statistically speaking, they've released far fewer subclasses, so you'd expect far fewer broken subclasses, but even so...
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
What subclasses have they released that break the balance of the game, that are in fact newer... most of the "combination" that break the game, at least from what I've seen are beginning classes (and even than there are workarounds).
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! College of Eloquence, Peace and Twilight Domains.
Hmm so College of Eloquence which has been around sinceThe Mythic Odysseys of Theros and was "re-released" in Tasha's... and if memory serves the most broken thing about that is the ability you get at level 3 where you can treat anything less than a 9 as a 10... super strong for the level you get it at... but since it also gotten so early it can be planned for... I'm not saying everything should be set up to counter act the player who picked up the sub class but definitely enough can be done to keep it in check.
Hmm Tasha than would have ruined everything since Peace and Twilight comes from that book too. If memory serves the strongest thing from Twilight is the dark vision ability and the twilight sphere they create... however, warlocks can get the same thing with devil's sight (other than sharing the darkvision, but the same self abilities) and devil's sight I think has been here since the beginning.. and while I understand how strong the sphere can be I wouldn't say it is the end of the world... but I will admit that could just be my lack of exposure to people using Twilight cleric.
I would argue the Peace cleric would be the most "OP" of those three... but even what I can recall from that class I wouldn't argue it is the most gamebreaking just because of the subclass itself.
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
You are allowed to tag me when you are responding to me, you know. Don't be shy.
It is a bit silly to demand statistical evidence in preparation to dismiss any argument I make that lacks statistical backing, then act like to ask for statistical evidence is bad form once that same request is reversed on you.
Yes, I already know you were asking in bad faith about what constitutes 'normal' behavior. Hence my request that you shoulder the same level of burden for any argument you have been making. Something you obviously have no ability to do and thus, your argument can easily be dismissed on the very grounds you intended to dismiss mine on. ;)
So you think you see the potential to break the game and then assert that it does break the game? It seems you are jumping to conclusions to me. You are speaking from a theoretical standpoint, I am speaking from a position of observation and play. The weight of evidence that we are bringing to the table is as different as an ocean is wide even if I don't feel that my experience should speak for everyone's - you are afraid the spell does something negative to the play experience, and then go on to say that it does in absence of any actual play experience. I believe saying that the spell 'does' do something instead of 'can' do something undermines the argument of the person who would turn and demand statistical evidence from others, but that's just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am offering my own play experience which, unlike you, is a non-zero number. My play experience certainly cannot speak for everyone's play experience but it certainly is more meaningful than imaginary play sessions. Also, YT commentators? I do not really understand why I am shouldered with the burden of furnishing scholarly articles to support what 'normal' behavior is when the only burden of proof you are prepared to meet in support that the spell destroys D&D are people who put food on the table almost exclusively via rage-farming.
The only person who is talking about 'statistical normal' is you. Only you. Just you. And to be clear: you. Regardless, I will take my play experience in a heartbeat over yours; where your players seek every opportunity to pervert the game and create unrest among other players and you, the DM. Because that is certainly what you would need to have happen to confidently say that the spell 'does' break the game from your limited perspective. My players come to my table to play D&D and have fun. I am not sure what you would call your experience, where you have to preemptively ban a spell just to maintain your sanity, but I personally would not call it 'fun'. Different strokes, I suppose.
Your assertion that I am taking this discussion personally carries as much weight for me as your assertion that the spell is game-breaking: simply saying it does not make it so. Maybe you are reading into it too much and confusing someone disagreeing with you as an attack on your intellect? That is not my intention however, so maybe give it another read?
Great. No one is asking you to shut up. However, if you desire to share your opinion online, you should do so with the understanding that not everyone is going to agree with you and those people have just as much license to express their opinions as you do.
Anyway, we don't seem to be communicating very effectively. Maybe I won't respond to the next post. Maybe I will. Who knows. The game isn't broken though. You just need to adapt to an expanding game, which is something I can see you are struggling with. Give it time and... give it a try.
And I will keep disagreeing with content from WotC that is blatantly changes the powercurve of the game. And if you want to disagree with me, you are free to do so. However, I will not be party to pretending that this there is not a trend to change the game to make things too easy for players who enjoy power gaming.
And I will keep disagreeing with content from WotC that is blatantly changes the powercurve of the game. And if you want to disagree with me, you are free to do so. However, I will not be party to pretending that this there is not a trend to change the game to make things too easy for players who enjoy power gaming.
A DM has complete control over what parties face, capabilities, mix, quality and quantity, as well as the rewards for any victories. If a campaign is too easy or too hard, that is on the DM. Even just adding one or two more enemies can change something like Silvery Barbs from feeling like some sort of auto win to 'how did we get through that?' And that is hardly the only option a DM has. Encounters should be tailored to the party anyway.
While I generally agree that the DM can handle just about any given scenario with some quick restructuring, the more "game breaking" abilities the players have access to the more the DM will have to juggle to make encounters engaging and fun. At the end of the day, thats the task the DM has signed up for, but I can definitely imagine it reaching a point where trying to routinely design around a handful of powerful abilities will get annoying and make the game less fun for the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This thread makes me feel awful for all the DMs who have players that make them have these reactions to things in the game like this. I have a couple live games where I allow all content and I have yet to have anyone really push things too far... I have sentinel + polearm combos, silvery barbs, the lucky feat, etc... I just don't have anyone who behaves like a complete ahole. I hope you all get better tables, FOR REAL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd[Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player] Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale Ru's Current Status
So you think you see the potential to break the game and then assert that it does break the game?
What I think Blues is trying to say is that Silvery doesn't break/ruin all of D&D, but that he believes it has the potential to do that to some tables.
So you think you see the potential to break the game and then assert that it does break the game? It seems you are jumping to conclusions to me. You are speaking from a theoretical standpoint, I am speaking from a position of observation and play. The weight of evidence that we are bringing to the table is as different as an ocean is wide even if I don't feel that my experience should speak for everyone's - you are afraid the spell does something negative to the play experience, and then go on to say that it does in absence of any actual play experience... I am offering my own play experience which, unlike you, is a non-zero number. My play experience certainly cannot speak for everyone's play experience but it certainly is more meaningful than imaginary play sessions.
Since this thread is somehow still going, I'm going to give my perspective on Silvery for what feels like the umpteenth time: I personally made a build using Silvery, as well as spells like Shield, Absorb Elements, and the Diviner Wizard ability Portent. The rest of the people at the table were getting demolished in a boss encounter, and while they were using terrible "tactics" and rolling poorly, the fact that I soloed most of the combat while constantly saving my party members does a pretty good job of demonstrating how the spell can completely break certain combat encounters.
To be honest, there isn't a huge amount of data for either side here, but Silvery seems to be fine for some groups and devastating for the balance of others. I think looking at a spell and saying "This is overpowered" is perfectly reasonable, and it's unfair to expect people to experiment with spells that they think will make their gaming experience a gazillion times worse. Honestly, personal experience with spells is useful, but it does make us more biased and ensures that it's harder - for most people - to look at Silvery with a cold eye if they've played with it and had it effect their table/s one way or another. Judging a spell by its mechanics when there isn't large scale data for how it impacts groups honestly seems like a valid, if not more valid, way of understanding how good the spell is than looking at one experience with it and deciding its power based off that.
The only person who is talking about 'statistical normal' is you. Only you. Just you. And to be clear: you. Regardless, I will take my play experience in a heartbeat over yours; where your players seek every opportunity to pervert the game and create unrest among other players and you, the DM. Because that is certainly what you would need to have happen to confidently say that the spell 'does' break the game from your limited perspective. My players come to my table to play D&D and have fun. I am not sure what you would call your experience, where you have to preemptively ban a spell just to maintain your sanity, but I personally would not call it 'fun'. Different strokes, I suppose.
Huge amounts of players are like this, to varying extents however. Ultimately, it's a valid playing style as long as you're in the right group, and plenty of people can't find enough players to easily replace those that powergame. And it's even harder to address when those in question are your friends.
Anyways, Erik, I just wanted to say that you made a bunch of great points, including the ones I nitpicked to disagree with. You're way smarter than me and one of the people I respect most on these forums for your civility and intellect. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
So you think you see the potential to break the game and then assert that it does break the game?
What I think Blues is trying to say is that Silvery doesn't break/ruin all of D&D, but that he believes it has the potential to do that to some tables.
So you think you see the potential to break the game and then assert that it does break the game? It seems you are jumping to conclusions to me. You are speaking from a theoretical standpoint, I am speaking from a position of observation and play. The weight of evidence that we are bringing to the table is as different as an ocean is wide even if I don't feel that my experience should speak for everyone's - you are afraid the spell does something negative to the play experience, and then go on to say that it does in absence of any actual play experience... I am offering my own play experience which, unlike you, is a non-zero number. My play experience certainly cannot speak for everyone's play experience but it certainly is more meaningful than imaginary play sessions.
Since this thread is somehow still going, I'm going to give my perspective on Silvery for what feels like the umpteenth time: I personally made a build using Silvery, as well as spells like Shield, Absorb Elements, and the Diviner Wizard ability Portent. The rest of the people at the table were getting demolished in a boss encounter, and while they were using terrible "tactics" and rolling poorly, the fact that I soloed most of the combat while constantly saving my party members does a pretty good job of demonstrating how the spell can completely break certain combat encounters.
To be honest, there isn't a huge amount of data for either side here, but Silvery seems to be fine for some groups and devastating for the balance of others. I think looking at a spell and saying "This is overpowered" is perfectly reasonable, and it's unfair to expect people to experiment with spells that they think will make their gaming experience a gazillion times worse. Honestly, personal experience with spells is useful, but it does make us more biased and ensures that it's harder - for most people - to look at Silvery with a cold eye if they've played with it and had it effect their table/s one way or another. Judging a spell by its mechanics when there isn't large scale data for how it impacts groups honestly seems like a valid, if not more valid, way of understanding how good the spell is than looking at one experience with it and deciding its power based off that.
The only person who is talking about 'statistical normal' is you. Only you. Just you. And to be clear: you. Regardless, I will take my play experience in a heartbeat over yours; where your players seek every opportunity to pervert the game and create unrest among other players and you, the DM. Because that is certainly what you would need to have happen to confidently say that the spell 'does' break the game from your limited perspective. My players come to my table to play D&D and have fun. I am not sure what you would call your experience, where you have to preemptively ban a spell just to maintain your sanity, but I personally would not call it 'fun'. Different strokes, I suppose.
Huge amounts of players are like this, to varying extents however. Ultimately, it's a valid playing style as long as you're in the right group, and plenty of people can't find enough players to easily replace those that powergame. And it's even harder to address when those in question are your friends.
Anyways, Erik, I just wanted to say that you made a bunch of great points, including the ones I nitpicked to disagree with. You're way smarter than me and one of the people I respect most on these forums for your civility and intellect. :)
Hello Boring Bard,
I actually don't disagree with most of the points you are making here. I will say though, that lacking play experience with a spell does not enable one to have a more objective view of it. We are inherently creatures of bias and these mental shortcuts we make to arrive at comfortable conclusions using our own preconceived notions about what the game should be can be just as misleading, blinding, and damaging as personal experience can be. So who is right in this situation? I suppose both and neither at the same time. We are all armchair game designers on this topic and therefore are all speaking from gross ignorance no matter how logical we try to frame our arguments or how long we have played the game.
My position though, is that people should try it at their tables before cementing their views on it. You think that is unfair to ask but I don't necessarily agree on this. I don't think you are necessarily wrong either, but to me, if one is so afraid of their table breaking the game because of one spell, the spell is not the problem at this table. To me, a DM that is so reactive and afraid probably have other, much larger problems at their table. I have only been DMing for about 4 years now, so I am still pretty green by many DM's standards, but I have had my share of problematic players in the past. They do not get to be problems for long. Maybe this is why I don't have a very easy time seeing why one spell can be so cataclysmic or why a DM should be so afraid. I admit it is entirely possible that my own style of DMing makes me a bit blind to the struggles that others deal with in their DMing experience; I have curated myself a collection of players that at least have overlapping interests and goals with me in the game and weed out those who are not good fits. I will give up ground here, but I believe that this is the very reason (and not the mechanics) why the spell can be harmful; those same certain players (and a DM uncomfortable addressing those issues) can disrupt the game with nothing more than what is in the PHB if they have a mind for it. The problems of the table shouldn't be laid at the feet of a new spell just because it is powerful. However, a powerful spell can exacerbate the issues that are already present.
Also, don't sell yourself short, BB. I love your posts too and often find they give me a lot to think about. Respect and love to you, my friend.
I kind of feel that after a year and nine months and almost 800 posts, there isn't going to be much to say on the subject anymore. People have drawn their lines.
Personally, I think the same as before - it's a very powerful first level spell...but anything we can do to make it less of an issue (increasing the level of the spell, etc), takes it too far the other way. For example, a L2 spell delays its use to L3 and its common use until L5 or so...which is just too harsh. It then quickly passes into the realm of not really costing anything at all very quickly and so the same problem occurs. 5e just lacks the granularity for that kind of balancing.
I don't think that's going to persuade anyone, but that's my view.
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.
a trend to change the game to make things too easy for players who enjoy power gaming.
It's always been incredibly easy to power game in 5e. The character builder part of the game just isn't deep enough to provide a really significant metagame. The only reason most tables aren't running the same handful of characters is that people crave variety, self expression, and to know what it's like to play different stuff. If everyone was only motivated to pick the most optimal options, there would barely be enough options to fill out a standard party without duplicates.
Or did you mean that it's too easy for power gamers to... win? Like, bringing in an optimal build makes the game too easy?
But players pretty much always win regardless. Is the problem that they're not having to engage their brain? They can just cruise through challenges on autopilot? If so, is that a problem for them, or are you just assuming it is because it would be a problem for you, if you were in their shoes? I mean, I've definitely heard a complaint like that before. Something like, "my guy feels overpowered." Iirc, is was because the thing they're good at was the only thing we'd done so far. It went away after a couple of sessions.
Anyway, casters need fewer spell slots. You have to cast so many spells before you start having to consider if you should cast a spell. I felt extravagant with my slots sometimes as a dang Paladin. The second-smallest slot pool in the game, iirc. Not often though.
I've seen Barbs in play now. It doesn't seem THAT good, but it's possible the player just isn't using it to its full potential. They don't use it to force rerolls on their own spells. They use it like a backup for the Circle of Stars fate reroll thing. Which is extremely good by the way. That subclass is nuts.
But players pretty much always win regardless. Is the problem that they're not having to engage their brain? They can just cruise through challenges on autopilot? If so, is that a problem for them, or are you just assuming it is because it would be a problem for you, if you were in their shoes? I mean, I've definitely heard a complaint like that before. Something like, "my guy feels overpowered." Iirc, is was because the thing they're good at was the only thing we'd done so far. It went away after a couple of sessions.
Generally, from my experience playing and hearing others complain Online, people get bored after a while if they cruise through every single encounter. Not only that, but it feels quite unfun as a Dungeon Master if your players aren't getting challenged and the stakes don't feel real. I mean, people run games not just so the people they play with have fun, but also because the world feels tense and dangerous and you lose that when every encounter gets steamrolled.
This forces the DM to do a ton of additional work and throw out or heavily modify all the current encounter tools for their group, and it ensures that they must completely change any premade adventures. Another thing is that when certain spells easily enable powergaming in a way that can break D&D for certain tables, it often isn't the whole party dominating but just one or two players constantly taking the spotlight.
And SIlvery is a very versatile spell, so I'm not sure about the argument that it only feels OP at the start because of the style of the campaign or the fact that it's just been put in a lot of scenarios where it shines.
But hey, I don't think that - 775 posts into this thread - my comment is going to get you or anyone else to abruptly experience a change of heart. To me, continuing going in circles feels pointless. All it does is get more people to use the poll, which isn't actually a useful tool since it's about what most peoples' opinion on this is rather than how it has effected their table.
very well said. especially picking it up as a feat isnt even somethign i realized. and every character having it and negating every single crit ever...is absurd.
i still think portent is better because you can literally break the game if you wait until you have a nat 20 roll on a good day. then go do something insane knowing you will succeed.
i still think portent is better because you can literally break the game if you wait until you have a nat 20 roll on a good day. then go do something insane knowing you will succeed.
That's not how skill checks work (or at least, not how they should work). The "I flap my arms to fly" or "I persuade the king to give me his kingdom" examples are non-starters for a skill check; if something is objectively impossible, then by definition you do not have a 1 in 20 chance of making it happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
None of this has happened at my table and I play with some pretty normal players. Maybe I am the luckiest DM in history or maybe you are blowing things well out of proportion. Which is more likely?
If the spell breaks your game, the spell is not the problem.
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
Maybe you are a lucky DM. Is there any statistical evidence that your players are within or outside the bounds of what is or is not "normal"? How do we even define "normal" in the first place for a tabletop RPG?
Frankly don't care if you enjoy using Silvery Barbs at your table or not, since I'm neither a DM or a player there. However, I do get annoyed when Hasbro/WotC releases stuff that has a strong tendency to make other spell/subclass options Very sub-optimal. Silvery Barbs is just one a list of things they've released in the last few years that easily break the game. That's why I post here. It's not personal and it's not about Your table. I don't why you're making this about your table. It's about game design. It's about whether we, as current or potential customers for Hasbro/WotC's products, can assume that what they release is Balanced or Not.
Do you have any statistical evidence that the game has been shattered by the spell? Why ask for that which you would not provide? I see a lot of crowing about the sky falling should the spell not be banned or modified and basing it off of absolutely no data at all.
If WotC has already done this, then the game has been broken for a very long time and Silvery Barbs therefore cannot break it. :)
I used my table because it is a tangible, real number of games (2) that has not been broken by regular inclusion of the spell as written for literal years. Does it have statistical significance? No, but then again, I didn't try to argue that it had. Since you are asking for scholarly articles, when will we get to see some on Silvery Barb's obliteration of D&D? Do you have any meaningful experience with game design to speak to the balance or be a person of authority on the matter, or at you just some random that is basing their opinions off of their own limited worldview like everyone else in this thread?
The game isn't broken. Some people just are so rigid in their play style that any change to the meta is confused for game breaking. As I said before, the spell is not the problem if it has the power to 'break' your game.
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
An argument about statistics re: this spell isn't going anywhere b/c NOBODY collects information about it. DDB doesn't and neither do the players.
Since you were the one who brought up what is or is not "normal" at a table, I brought up the measurement of "normal" since that is how one determines, scientifically if something is within the bounds of the norm.
What I, and a bunch of other players and YT commentators see, is a huge potential to break the game or grind it to a dull arms match between players and DMs. B/c that's what happens when you let power gamer player affect ANY saving throw made by NPCs and creatures. And the only reason that DMs don't reach for Silvery Barbs more often (and thus cause complaints from their players) is b/c it is such a blatantly unbalanced ability. If it works fine at your table, then it's likely b/c both the DM and the players at your table are showing a lot of restraint. But can you really count on that at every, or even most tables?
Like I said, Your table is not somehow a miracle of Statistical Normal just b/c that is Your table. You take this personally for some strange reason. You can do what you want at Your table. Personal experience is NOT the same as observating thousands of tables and seeing the result.
I am not going to just stand by and shut up when WotC has clearly been releasing subclass after subclass and spell and after spell that easily messes with the balance of the game.
What subclasses have they released that break the balance of the game, that are in fact newer... most of the "combination" that break the game, at least from what I've seen are beginning classes (and even than there are workarounds).
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! College of Eloquence, Peace and Twilight Domains.
Statistically speaking, they've released far fewer subclasses, so you'd expect far fewer broken subclasses, but even so...
Hmm so College of Eloquence which has been around sinceThe Mythic Odysseys of Theros and was "re-released" in Tasha's... and if memory serves the most broken thing about that is the ability you get at level 3 where you can treat anything less than a 9 as a 10... super strong for the level you get it at... but since it also gotten so early it can be planned for... I'm not saying everything should be set up to counter act the player who picked up the sub class but definitely enough can be done to keep it in check.
Hmm Tasha than would have ruined everything since Peace and Twilight comes from that book too. If memory serves the strongest thing from Twilight is the dark vision ability and the twilight sphere they create... however, warlocks can get the same thing with devil's sight (other than sharing the darkvision, but the same self abilities) and devil's sight I think has been here since the beginning.. and while I understand how strong the sphere can be I wouldn't say it is the end of the world... but I will admit that could just be my lack of exposure to people using Twilight cleric.
I would argue the Peace cleric would be the most "OP" of those three... but even what I can recall from that class I wouldn't argue it is the most gamebreaking just because of the subclass itself.
You are allowed to tag me when you are responding to me, you know. Don't be shy.
Anyway, we don't seem to be communicating very effectively. Maybe I won't respond to the next post. Maybe I will. Who knows. The game isn't broken though. You just need to adapt to an expanding game, which is something I can see you are struggling with. Give it time and... give it a try.
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
Cool.
And I will keep disagreeing with content from WotC that is blatantly changes the powercurve of the game. And if you want to disagree with me, you are free to do so. However, I will not be party to pretending that this there is not a trend to change the game to make things too easy for players who enjoy power gaming.
While I generally agree that the DM can handle just about any given scenario with some quick restructuring, the more "game breaking" abilities the players have access to the more the DM will have to juggle to make encounters engaging and fun. At the end of the day, thats the task the DM has signed up for, but I can definitely imagine it reaching a point where trying to routinely design around a handful of powerful abilities will get annoying and make the game less fun for the DM.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This thread makes me feel awful for all the DMs who have players that make them have these reactions to things in the game like this. I have a couple live games where I allow all content and I have yet to have anyone really push things too far... I have sentinel + polearm combos, silvery barbs, the lucky feat, etc... I just don't have anyone who behaves like a complete ahole. I hope you all get better tables, FOR REAL.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd [Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player]
Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale
Ru's Current Status
What I think Blues is trying to say is that Silvery doesn't break/ruin all of D&D, but that he believes it has the potential to do that to some tables.
Since this thread is somehow still going, I'm going to give my perspective on Silvery for what feels like the umpteenth time: I personally made a build using Silvery, as well as spells like Shield, Absorb Elements, and the Diviner Wizard ability Portent. The rest of the people at the table were getting demolished in a boss encounter, and while they were using terrible "tactics" and rolling poorly, the fact that I soloed most of the combat while constantly saving my party members does a pretty good job of demonstrating how the spell can completely break certain combat encounters.
To be honest, there isn't a huge amount of data for either side here, but Silvery seems to be fine for some groups and devastating for the balance of others. I think looking at a spell and saying "This is overpowered" is perfectly reasonable, and it's unfair to expect people to experiment with spells that they think will make their gaming experience a gazillion times worse. Honestly, personal experience with spells is useful, but it does make us more biased and ensures that it's harder - for most people - to look at Silvery with a cold eye if they've played with it and had it effect their table/s one way or another. Judging a spell by its mechanics when there isn't large scale data for how it impacts groups honestly seems like a valid, if not more valid, way of understanding how good the spell is than looking at one experience with it and deciding its power based off that.
Huge amounts of players are like this, to varying extents however. Ultimately, it's a valid playing style as long as you're in the right group, and plenty of people can't find enough players to easily replace those that powergame. And it's even harder to address when those in question are your friends.
Anyways, Erik, I just wanted to say that you made a bunch of great points, including the ones I nitpicked to disagree with. You're way smarter than me and one of the people I respect most on these forums for your civility and intellect. :)
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.Hello Boring Bard,
I actually don't disagree with most of the points you are making here. I will say though, that lacking play experience with a spell does not enable one to have a more objective view of it. We are inherently creatures of bias and these mental shortcuts we make to arrive at comfortable conclusions using our own preconceived notions about what the game should be can be just as misleading, blinding, and damaging as personal experience can be. So who is right in this situation? I suppose both and neither at the same time. We are all armchair game designers on this topic and therefore are all speaking from gross ignorance no matter how logical we try to frame our arguments or how long we have played the game.
My position though, is that people should try it at their tables before cementing their views on it. You think that is unfair to ask but I don't necessarily agree on this. I don't think you are necessarily wrong either, but to me, if one is so afraid of their table breaking the game because of one spell, the spell is not the problem at this table. To me, a DM that is so reactive and afraid probably have other, much larger problems at their table. I have only been DMing for about 4 years now, so I am still pretty green by many DM's standards, but I have had my share of problematic players in the past. They do not get to be problems for long. Maybe this is why I don't have a very easy time seeing why one spell can be so cataclysmic or why a DM should be so afraid. I admit it is entirely possible that my own style of DMing makes me a bit blind to the struggles that others deal with in their DMing experience; I have curated myself a collection of players that at least have overlapping interests and goals with me in the game and weed out those who are not good fits. I will give up ground here, but I believe that this is the very reason (and not the mechanics) why the spell can be harmful; those same certain players (and a DM uncomfortable addressing those issues) can disrupt the game with nothing more than what is in the PHB if they have a mind for it. The problems of the table shouldn't be laid at the feet of a new spell just because it is powerful. However, a powerful spell can exacerbate the issues that are already present.
Also, don't sell yourself short, BB. I love your posts too and often find they give me a lot to think about. Respect and love to you, my friend.
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
I kind of feel that after a year and nine months and almost 800 posts, there isn't going to be much to say on the subject anymore. People have drawn their lines.
Personally, I think the same as before - it's a very powerful first level spell...but anything we can do to make it less of an issue (increasing the level of the spell, etc), takes it too far the other way. For example, a L2 spell delays its use to L3 and its common use until L5 or so...which is just too harsh. It then quickly passes into the realm of not really costing anything at all very quickly and so the same problem occurs. 5e just lacks the granularity for that kind of balancing.
I don't think that's going to persuade anyone, but that's my view.
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.
It's always been incredibly easy to power game in 5e. The character builder part of the game just isn't deep enough to provide a really significant metagame. The only reason most tables aren't running the same handful of characters is that people crave variety, self expression, and to know what it's like to play different stuff. If everyone was only motivated to pick the most optimal options, there would barely be enough options to fill out a standard party without duplicates.
Or did you mean that it's too easy for power gamers to... win? Like, bringing in an optimal build makes the game too easy?
But players pretty much always win regardless. Is the problem that they're not having to engage their brain? They can just cruise through challenges on autopilot? If so, is that a problem for them, or are you just assuming it is because it would be a problem for you, if you were in their shoes? I mean, I've definitely heard a complaint like that before. Something like, "my guy feels overpowered." Iirc, is was because the thing they're good at was the only thing we'd done so far. It went away after a couple of sessions.
Anyway, casters need fewer spell slots. You have to cast so many spells before you start having to consider if you should cast a spell. I felt extravagant with my slots sometimes as a dang Paladin. The second-smallest slot pool in the game, iirc. Not often though.
I've seen Barbs in play now. It doesn't seem THAT good, but it's possible the player just isn't using it to its full potential. They don't use it to force rerolls on their own spells. They use it like a backup for the Circle of Stars fate reroll thing. Which is extremely good by the way. That subclass is nuts.
Generally, from my experience playing and hearing others complain Online, people get bored after a while if they cruise through every single encounter. Not only that, but it feels quite unfun as a Dungeon Master if your players aren't getting challenged and the stakes don't feel real. I mean, people run games not just so the people they play with have fun, but also because the world feels tense and dangerous and you lose that when every encounter gets steamrolled.
This forces the DM to do a ton of additional work and throw out or heavily modify all the current encounter tools for their group, and it ensures that they must completely change any premade adventures. Another thing is that when certain spells easily enable powergaming in a way that can break D&D for certain tables, it often isn't the whole party dominating but just one or two players constantly taking the spotlight.
And SIlvery is a very versatile spell, so I'm not sure about the argument that it only feels OP at the start because of the style of the campaign or the fact that it's just been put in a lot of scenarios where it shines.
But hey, I don't think that - 775 posts into this thread - my comment is going to get you or anyone else to abruptly experience a change of heart. To me, continuing going in circles feels pointless. All it does is get more people to use the poll, which isn't actually a useful tool since it's about what most peoples' opinion on this is rather than how it has effected their table.
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.very well said. especially picking it up as a feat isnt even somethign i realized. and every character having it and negating every single crit ever...is absurd.
i still think portent is better because you can literally break the game if you wait until you have a nat 20 roll on a good day. then go do something insane knowing you will succeed.
That's not how skill checks work (or at least, not how they should work). The "I flap my arms to fly" or "I persuade the king to give me his kingdom" examples are non-starters for a skill check; if something is objectively impossible, then by definition you do not have a 1 in 20 chance of making it happen.