There's too much content with much of it incoherent to not curate what's allowed and what's not. I'll be running Strahd next year - I won't be allowing Warforged in it. I'll be following it up with the Vecna campaign, and I will be allowing new characters to be Warforged, since it is a Planescape adventure.
That said, Silvery Barbs isn't really ban-worthy based on power.
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.
Just my $.02 - I peeked in this thread to see what all the fuss was about. Any DM that does not "allow" WOTC content at their tables is imho doing their tables a disservice and taking an easy out. Its that same reason I hate adventure league. If people are playing the game and its in the game they should be able to use it.
Nah. Worldbuilding is part of the GM's job, and that includes constraining the options available. If you want to have an "everything goes" world, more power to you (but the Forgotten Realms already exists), but it's not the only way to fly. In particular, stuff tied to a specific setting, such as the Strixhaven backgrounds and feats, the Eberron dragonmark stuff, etc. should not be expected to exist in a different setting.
Even official settings, such as Dragonlance, restrict the pool of available character building choices.
I personally allow Silvery Barbs, as I don't find it to be a big deal, but somebody who doesn't is well within their rights, whether because it's from Strixhaven, because they think it's unbalanced, or because they just don't like its aesthetic.
I think Silvery Barbs is great but people want to use it at bad times. Plus, a lot of people (imo) weren't considering how Shield is absolutely busted so when you have both it's a hard choice.
I will say it was pretty funny watching Matt Mercer mishandle Silvery Barbs, both mechanically and strategically, in the most recent episode of CR's campaign 3. If you want a textbook example of how SB may not be all that great, that was it
Would you mind summing up what happened?
Short version: the BBEG used it on a player who had attacked with advantage and hit (not even a crit), and Matt said the lowest of the three rolls would get used
With the BBEG's reaction burned, the next player then cast forcecage...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think Silvery Barbs is great but people want to use it at bad times. Plus, a lot of people (imo) weren't considering how Shield is absolutely busted so when you have both it's a hard choice.
I personally prefer to take Shield over Silvery Barbs, and it's not really close. I like Silvery Barbs, but I love shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Any DM that does not "allow" WOTC content at their tables is imho doing their tables a disservice and taking an easy out. Its that same reason I hate adventure league. If people are playing the game and its in the game they should be able to use it.
Until recently, I was 100% onboard with this. But at some point, we need to start pushing back on bad game design. WoTC are not infallible. The 2014 to 2024 baseline versions of the game are already incredibly easy. The CR system is a joke. In the all the campaign books combined, there might be five total encounters - as written - that a competent party can't just walk through (mostly revolved around CoS and ToA).
Silvery Barbs is bad game design. Conjure Minor Elementals is absolutely busted. Numerous other examples exist throughout this thread.
I am stunned that some of these things make it through play testing.
Any DM that does not "allow" WOTC content at their tables is imho doing their tables a disservice and taking an easy out. Its that same reason I hate adventure league. If people are playing the game and its in the game they should be able to use it.
Until recently, I was 100% onboard with this. But at some point, we need to start pushing back on bad game design. WoTC are not infallible. The 2014 to 2024 baseline versions of the game are already incredibly easy. The CR system is a joke. In the all the campaign books combined, there might be five total encounters - as written - that a competent party can't just walk through (mostly revolved around CoS and ToA).
Silvery Barbs is bad game design. Conjure Minor Elementals is absolutely busted. Numerous other examples exist throughout this thread.
I am stunned that some of these things make it through play testing.
Please cite a rule anywhere that says a DM must use CR strictly. It is a joke but can also be ignored.
There's too much content with much of it incoherent to not curate what's allowed and what's not. I'll be running Strahd next year - I won't be allowing Warforged in it. I'll be following it up with the Vecna campaign, and I will be allowing new characters to be Warforged, since it is a Planescape adventure.
That said, Silvery Barbs isn't really ban-worthy based on power.
I deeply agree with this. I don't have any strong opinions on Silvery Barbs - but in a frankly human-centric world, it just strikes me as odd that the average party has zero humans (nor any elves or dwarves btw) but any number of elemental people, planar people, rabbits and undead and insects. I like exotic races. But I like them to be NPC's.
And some players disagree with that. And there are other games for those players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Any DM that does not "allow" WOTC content at their tables is imho doing their tables a disservice and taking an easy out. Its that same reason I hate adventure league. If people are playing the game and its in the game they should be able to use it.
Until recently, I was 100% onboard with this. But at some point, we need to start pushing back on bad game design. WoTC are not infallible. The 2014 to 2024 baseline versions of the game are already incredibly easy. The CR system is a joke. In the all the campaign books combined, there might be five total encounters - as written - that a competent party can't just walk through (mostly revolved around CoS and ToA).
Silvery Barbs is bad game design. Conjure Minor Elementals is absolutely busted. Numerous other examples exist throughout this thread.
I am stunned that some of these things make it through play testing.
Please cite a rule anywhere that says a DM must use CR strictly. It is a joke but can also be ignored.
Literally why I said CR -as written. I do my own encounters, even when doing published adventures.
Any DM that does not "allow" WOTC content at their tables is imho doing their tables a disservice and taking an easy out. Its that same reason I hate adventure league. If people are playing the game and its in the game they should be able to use it.
Until recently, I was 100% onboard with this. But at some point, we need to start pushing back on bad game design. WoTC are not infallible. The 2014 to 2024 baseline versions of the game are already incredibly easy. The CR system is a joke. In the all the campaign books combined, there might be five total encounters - as written - that a competent party can't just walk through (mostly revolved around CoS and ToA).
Silvery Barbs is bad game design. Conjure Minor Elementals is absolutely busted. Numerous other examples exist throughout this thread.
I am stunned that some of these things make it through play testing.
Please cite a rule anywhere that says a DM must use CR strictly. It is a joke but can also be ignored.
Literally why I said CR -as written. I do my own encounters, even when doing published adventures.
Just to add on to this thought
You can either de-power the party to make cr mostly work (I never take that option) - or you can empower the party with cool fun stuff and just adjust your encounters even in pre written modules. I think my players always have more fun when they have a bunch of cool stuff they can do or use - if the creature(s) has 200 or 300 , 400, 500 hp nobody cares -- if they are having a fun time killing it and maybe 1-2 of them get knocked out along the way if its a boss fight (and immediately picked back up by an aoe heal or whatever).
I have been in so many games where this race or that race or this feat is not allowed - I ask why - "DM" well resistance to everything for 1 round breaks the game. Immediately I start laughing in my head I will play the session as a courtesy and never play with that group again that is just poor understanding of mechanic's and lazy DM'ing. Particularly at low levels you can punch through a Shadar-kai's teleport by just having a range dps creature focus them for 4-5 rounds BAM done and now they are out of teleports its not rocket science.
Fights in D&D are never meant to be a contest the DM can ALWAYS win - its about creating a fun challenging event in the context of the story for the table.
Fights in D&D are never meant to be a contest the DM can ALWAYS win - its about creating a fun challenging event in the context of the story for the table.
This is why I don't understand all the hand-wringing about anything being too easy for the players. Any DM can easily make things harder if that is the style their table prefers.
This is why I don't understand all the hand-wringing about anything being too easy for the players. Any DM can easily make things harder if that is the style their table prefers.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to make things hard for the PCs. The problem is that the advice the game gives on how to make things reasonably challenging are complete nonsense. In tier 1, the rules kind of work as long as you understand that you're supposed to use up your entire daily budget, in higher tiers they're hopeless.
This is why I don't understand all the hand-wringing about anything being too easy for the players. Any DM can easily make things harder if that is the style their table prefers.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to make things hard for the PCs. The problem is that the advice the game gives on how to make things reasonably challenging are complete nonsense. In tier 1, the rules kind of work as long as you understand that you're supposed to use up your entire daily budget, in higher tiers they're hopeless.
The easiest thing in the world is to modify creatures upwards: More AC if the party are always hitting, more HPs if the damage they are doing is bringing down creatures too fast, more accuracy and/or damage, if the party seem to feel unthreatened. Plus any sort of surprise ability you think makes sense for the creature and your story (again, adjusting for the party).
There is literally no rule in the books anywhere limiting the DM to the Monster Manual.
Now that advice on how to run could be better, sure, but I do not remember any prior edition having any such wisdom to offer. Silly us, back then we figured that kind of thing out for ourselves.
I see the problem as player power creep, when the solution is to limit the player’s power curve to match the enemy power, not vice versa.
And I of the same camp that recently the player power creep has begun to cause bad design to rules and gameplay, and at some point it has to be called out in hopes of a fix.
Silvery Barb’s is an example of player metagamming that has no place in the game. ( or better yet, if SB just gave a negative bonus to a roll, then regardless if the opposing side had any type of advantage/disadvantage, the roll made would have a much lower chance of success.)
And by the way, if denial of “certain material of expansion rules” is a disservice and lazy DM/GM, then anyone who thinks that a DM/GM should absolutely cater to every absolute request of a player just to ensure that player has a “ good time” hasn’t spent much time as a DM/GM.
And besides, as a DM/GM I would have long since weeded those people out before even starting a session 0.
TL;DBR , Silvery Barb’s is sadly a set of rules that is very much in need of a change, it’s an affront to the game spirit, and if people don’t like that others are willing to simply deny its use, or anything they feel is incompatible with the spirit of the version of the game they plan to provide, then those people can find others who are willing to accommodate them.
DM literally sets the enemy the party will be up against though. It is not a video game where everything is pre-programmed and the programmers guessed wrong.
As for the metagaming, you could rule that the player has to make the decision without knowing the roll will be a success, if that aspect really bothers you. I see it more as attempting to intercept an attack that looks like it is going to hit, sort of like a magical parry.
TL;DBR , Silvery Barb’s is sadly a set of rules that is very much in need of a change, it’s an affront to the game spirit, and if people don’t like that others are willing to simply deny its use, or anything they feel is incompatible with the spirit of the version of the game they plan to provide, then those people can find others who are willing to accommodate them.
"An affront to the game spirit" is a gatekeeper sentiment. You're basically saying people who use it are doing some kind of harm to D&D. Essentially, the other side of the coin of those who say there's no need to ban it. If you want to ban it, go nuts. But don't tell those of us who've been using it with no problems that we're playing wrong.
And fwiw, it's no more metagaming than heroic inspiration, flash of genius, or about a dozen other powers that let you make a decision whether or not to use them after you've seen a roll.
Now that advice on how to run could be better, sure, but I do not remember any prior edition having any such wisdom to offer. Silly us, back then we figured that kind of thing out for ourselves.
You never played 3e or 4e? Both of them had encounter building systems that were at least as functional as 5e.
Now that advice on how to run could be better, sure, but I do not remember any prior edition having any such wisdom to offer. Silly us, back then we figured that kind of thing out for ourselves.
You never played 3e or 4e? Both of them had encounter building systems that were at least as functional as 5e.
"Work" ... it is not a machine. And I have played every system including the 0e White Box. We made our own stuff up all the time! That was a feature! I started before there even was a Monster Manual.
Saying "It should have literally everything right out of the box" is like saying "Unless it has a setting with literally everything described, it is unplayable.' Parties will always want to go look at places no one has pre-written. This is why there is a live DM, not just some sort of old school 'Choose Your Adventure' multiple choice game.
The only way a system can have perfectly reliable enemy rating is if PC's are also standardized to blandness.
Saying "It should have literally everything right out of the box" is like saying "Unless it has a setting with literally everything described, it is unplayable.'
While not having encounter building rules at all is a viable option, if you're going to provide rules, those rules should be at least reasonably informative.
Saying "It should have literally everything right out of the box" is like saying "Unless it has a setting with literally everything described, it is unplayable.'
While not having encounter building rules at all is a viable option, if you're going to provide rules, those rules should be at least reasonably informative.
Monsters had levels, which were similarly a bit hit and miss for accuracy. It is playable out of the box. It takes time to figure things out as DM. It takes time to figure things out as a player. But it is most definitely playable. How do you think the game got this far if it was as bad as you seem to be painting it?
And meanwhile, trying to get back on topic, was it fine out of the box and then suddenly Silvery Blades broke it?
And meanwhile, trying to get back on topic, was it fine out of the box and then suddenly Silvery Blades broke it?
Nah. Silvery barbs is overtuned for its level, but it's still not that disruptive. It's on the level of absorb elements and shield (both of which are also overtuned).
There's too much content with much of it incoherent to not curate what's allowed and what's not. I'll be running Strahd next year - I won't be allowing Warforged in it. I'll be following it up with the Vecna campaign, and I will be allowing new characters to be Warforged, since it is a Planescape adventure.
That said, Silvery Barbs isn't really ban-worthy based on power.
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.
Nah. Worldbuilding is part of the GM's job, and that includes constraining the options available. If you want to have an "everything goes" world, more power to you (but the Forgotten Realms already exists), but it's not the only way to fly. In particular, stuff tied to a specific setting, such as the Strixhaven backgrounds and feats, the Eberron dragonmark stuff, etc. should not be expected to exist in a different setting.
Even official settings, such as Dragonlance, restrict the pool of available character building choices.
I personally allow Silvery Barbs, as I don't find it to be a big deal, but somebody who doesn't is well within their rights, whether because it's from Strixhaven, because they think it's unbalanced, or because they just don't like its aesthetic.
I think Silvery Barbs is great but people want to use it at bad times. Plus, a lot of people (imo) weren't considering how Shield is absolutely busted so when you have both it's a hard choice.
Short version: the BBEG used it on a player who had attacked with advantage and hit (not even a crit), and Matt said the lowest of the three rolls would get used
With the BBEG's reaction burned, the next player then cast forcecage...
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I personally prefer to take Shield over Silvery Barbs, and it's not really close. I like Silvery Barbs, but I love shield.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Until recently, I was 100% onboard with this. But at some point, we need to start pushing back on bad game design. WoTC are not infallible. The 2014 to 2024 baseline versions of the game are already incredibly easy. The CR system is a joke. In the all the campaign books combined, there might be five total encounters - as written - that a competent party can't just walk through (mostly revolved around CoS and ToA).
Silvery Barbs is bad game design. Conjure Minor Elementals is absolutely busted. Numerous other examples exist throughout this thread.
I am stunned that some of these things make it through play testing.
Please cite a rule anywhere that says a DM must use CR strictly. It is a joke but can also be ignored.
I deeply agree with this. I don't have any strong opinions on Silvery Barbs - but in a frankly human-centric world, it just strikes me as odd that the average party has zero humans (nor any elves or dwarves btw) but any number of elemental people, planar people, rabbits and undead and insects. I like exotic races. But I like them to be NPC's.
And some players disagree with that. And there are other games for those players.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Literally why I said CR -as written. I do my own encounters, even when doing published adventures.
Just to add on to this thought
You can either de-power the party to make cr mostly work (I never take that option) - or you can empower the party with cool fun stuff and just adjust your encounters even in pre written modules. I think my players always have more fun when they have a bunch of cool stuff they can do or use - if the creature(s) has 200 or 300 , 400, 500 hp nobody cares -- if they are having a fun time killing it and maybe 1-2 of them get knocked out along the way if its a boss fight (and immediately picked back up by an aoe heal or whatever).
I have been in so many games where this race or that race or this feat is not allowed - I ask why - "DM" well resistance to everything for 1 round breaks the game. Immediately I start laughing in my head I will play the session as a courtesy and never play with that group again that is just poor understanding of mechanic's and lazy DM'ing. Particularly at low levels you can punch through a Shadar-kai's teleport by just having a range dps creature focus them for 4-5 rounds BAM done and now they are out of teleports its not rocket science.
Fights in D&D are never meant to be a contest the DM can ALWAYS win - its about creating a fun challenging event in the context of the story for the table.
This is why I don't understand all the hand-wringing about anything being too easy for the players. Any DM can easily make things harder if that is the style their table prefers.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to make things hard for the PCs. The problem is that the advice the game gives on how to make things reasonably challenging are complete nonsense. In tier 1, the rules kind of work as long as you understand that you're supposed to use up your entire daily budget, in higher tiers they're hopeless.
The easiest thing in the world is to modify creatures upwards: More AC if the party are always hitting, more HPs if the damage they are doing is bringing down creatures too fast, more accuracy and/or damage, if the party seem to feel unthreatened. Plus any sort of surprise ability you think makes sense for the creature and your story (again, adjusting for the party).
There is literally no rule in the books anywhere limiting the DM to the Monster Manual.
Now that advice on how to run could be better, sure, but I do not remember any prior edition having any such wisdom to offer. Silly us, back then we figured that kind of thing out for ourselves.
DM literally sets the enemy the party will be up against though. It is not a video game where everything is pre-programmed and the programmers guessed wrong.
As for the metagaming, you could rule that the player has to make the decision without knowing the roll will be a success, if that aspect really bothers you. I see it more as attempting to intercept an attack that looks like it is going to hit, sort of like a magical parry.
"An affront to the game spirit" is a gatekeeper sentiment. You're basically saying people who use it are doing some kind of harm to D&D. Essentially, the other side of the coin of those who say there's no need to ban it. If you want to ban it, go nuts. But don't tell those of us who've been using it with no problems that we're playing wrong.
And fwiw, it's no more metagaming than heroic inspiration, flash of genius, or about a dozen other powers that let you make a decision whether or not to use them after you've seen a roll.
The game should work out of the box.
You never played 3e or 4e? Both of them had encounter building systems that were at least as functional as 5e.
"Work" ... it is not a machine. And I have played every system including the 0e White Box. We made our own stuff up all the time! That was a feature! I started before there even was a Monster Manual.
Saying "It should have literally everything right out of the box" is like saying "Unless it has a setting with literally everything described, it is unplayable.' Parties will always want to go look at places no one has pre-written. This is why there is a live DM, not just some sort of old school 'Choose Your Adventure' multiple choice game.
The only way a system can have perfectly reliable enemy rating is if PC's are also standardized to blandness.
While not having encounter building rules at all is a viable option, if you're going to provide rules, those rules should be at least reasonably informative.
Monsters had levels, which were similarly a bit hit and miss for accuracy. It is playable out of the box. It takes time to figure things out as DM. It takes time to figure things out as a player. But it is most definitely playable. How do you think the game got this far if it was as bad as you seem to be painting it?
And meanwhile, trying to get back on topic, was it fine out of the box and then suddenly Silvery Blades broke it?
Nah. Silvery barbs is overtuned for its level, but it's still not that disruptive. It's on the level of absorb elements and shield (both of which are also overtuned).