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).
The easiest thing in the world is to modify creatures upwards:
The game should work out of the box.
It does work, inasmuch as it can ever work.
It's impossible to calibrate for the standard reference party and have that work for every table. They just vary too much. Even without optimizing, groups vary in combat effectiveness just based on party composition, and it changes on type of encounter.
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.
There's a balance between complexity of use and accuracy. 5e's does try to be simple, which limits how accurate it can be. 4e is a special case, since the characters are more homogenous in damage capability. IIRC, it was still a pain to do by hand, and I bet that it still had accuracy issues.
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.
First and foremost I never said those using it we’re playing wrong, just in a manner that is not in the spirit of the game as it should be played.
While magic can certainly be used to alter the outcome of a situation, Silvery Barb’s is a step too far in the ability of characters to alter an already established event. ( it gets reserved just like inspiration was being reserved for just in case uses, especially crits, rather than serving as a debuff for a wider range of tasks. )
And if ensuring that things like Silvery Barb’s and other elements of the game that make more of a mess than actually cleaning up the game is gatekeeping, well at least someone is willing to admit its a bit too much and isn’t afraid to say “No” when a player thinks they should “ have it their way, everyday.”
When you say “how the game should be played” you are saying there is a correct and incorrect way to play. That is the definition of gatekeeping. You are doing it right, and people who do it differently are having badwrong fun. You don’t get to decide how it “should” be played. No one does.
You think the spell is a mess. I disagree, but I acknowledge your opinion and your right to ban it at your table. Just don’t try to tell me I’m doing it wrong for allowing it at mine.
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.
First and foremost I never said those using it we’re playing wrong, just in a manner that is not in the spirit of the game as it should be played.
While magic can certainly be used to alter the outcome of a situation, Silvery Barb’s is a step too far in the ability of characters to alter an already established event. ( it gets reserved just like inspiration was being reserved for just in case uses, especially crits, rather than serving as a debuff for a wider range of tasks. )
And if ensuring that things like Silvery Barb’s and other elements of the game that make more of a mess than actually cleaning up the game is gatekeeping, well at least someone is willing to admit its a bit too much and isn’t afraid to say “No” when a player thinks they should “ have it their way, everyday.”
When you say “how the game should be played” you are saying there is a correct and incorrect way to play. That is the definition of gatekeeping. You are doing it right, and people who do it differently are having badwrong fun. You don’t get to decide how it “should” be played. No one does.
You think the spell is a mess. I disagree, but I acknowledge your opinion and your right to ban it at your table. Just don’t try to tell me I’m doing it wrong for allowing it at mine.
And up until Silvery barb’s was introduced, the only true method of fundamentally altering an already established event was “Wish”.
Objectively untrue; there were several abilities and/or spells that allowed for manipulation of dice rolls/their outcomes in the same manner as Silvery Barbs. Shield, for one, is obviously only going to be used at the point where all the presently available information says an attack will hit. Cutting Words from 2014 Lore Bard is also used after the roll is made- sure it's before the outcome has been declared but it's not hard to know when an attack is going to hit when you either know the AC or have seen a previous roll or two against that target. Precision Attack from Battlemaster Maneuvers only says it needs to be used before effects of the attack are applied. The Defensive Duelist feat is the same as Shield and specifically lets you raise your AC after an attack has been declared a hit to make it a miss. All this just from the PHB, note. Yes, there's not much that influences saving throws in this manner, but the precedent was there from the start of 5e that features can alter a d20 roll as it resolves. Which brings us to the biggest flaw in your argument.
Silvery Barbs doesn't alter an "established" event- an established event is one that has been resolved, at which point altering a d20 roll doesn't do anything because the results are locked in. Silvery Barbs is a little meta in the way the various abilities/spells I listed above are and alters the numbers as the effect resolves. How you explain that narratively is open-ended, but you're not doing anything like a Wish level reality rewrite, it's just a nudge to events as they're in motion.
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.
First and foremost I never said those using it we’re playing wrong, just in a manner that is not in the spirit of the game as it should be played.
While magic can certainly be used to alter the outcome of a situation, Silvery Barb’s is a step too far in the ability of characters to alter an already established event. ( it gets reserved just like inspiration was being reserved for just in case uses, especially crits, rather than serving as a debuff for a wider range of tasks. )
And if ensuring that things like Silvery Barb’s and other elements of the game that make more of a mess than actually cleaning up the game is gatekeeping, well at least someone is willing to admit its a bit too much and isn’t afraid to say “No” when a player thinks they should “ have it their way, everyday.”
When you say “how the game should be played” you are saying there is a correct and incorrect way to play. That is the definition of gatekeeping. You are doing it right, and people who do it differently are having badwrong fun. You don’t get to decide how it “should” be played. No one does.
You think the spell is a mess. I disagree, but I acknowledge your opinion and your right to ban it at your table. Just don’t try to tell me I’m doing it wrong for allowing it at mine.
And up until Silvery barb’s was introduced, the only true method of fundamentally altering an already established event was “Wish”.
I never said anything about doing it wrong for allowing it in your games, just that by allowing it, the game isn’t really the same.
Never before has the ability to force ether advantage or disadvantage after the fact of a roll, regardless of whatever that roll meant, was never an issue until SB was introduced, the “spirit” was to have all the possible options that could inevitably affect that one possible roll accounted for so the roll is a fair chance probability.
Silvery barb’s ability to affect a roll, after all the initial options have been used that should have the ability to affect the roll, is the very essence of “not playing the game in the manner it was designed to be played.”, as it does nothing but make all the previous elements used before meaningless.
and that opinion may very well be “gate-keeping” by some, but that same gate-keeping is what's kept the game from devolving into just the same old “just like every other RPG that exists” mold.
That’s why I say it is an affront to the “spirit” of the game, because it goes against the established norm that anything that can affect the outcome of an event should be considered before the event occurs, not afterwards.
I agree with you completely.
SB is completely abused at my table. Far and away, the most used spell, whatever the second most cast spell was, it wasn't even close to SB. Every caster that could take it, took it. Regular encounters were:
"I silvery barbs". Hey Mike, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also silvery barbs". Hey Josh, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also, also, silvery barbs". Hey Rusty, you have advantage on any roll.
Obviously, a bit tongue in cheek, but not terribly far off. It's just too much as a first level spell (plus, it has a range of 60ft). And again, as broken as SB is, how did Conjure Minor Elemental make it through testing?
And yes, cue the "well, you are burning up their resources DM!" If you have a 5th lvl party that has a sorcerer, a bard and a wizard, they have 27 spell slots amongst them. And Uhh, I don't have time to run five combat encounters per "day". I need to move the story along. Plus, players perpetually obsess about taking long rests. If you have DMd longer than five minutes, you know what I mean.
Also, for what it's worth: "Gatekeeping" is such an overused buzzword; it's eyeroll inducing. You gatekeep if you agree with something. You gatekeep if you don't agree with something.
This thread being 46 pages long is the problem. Not Silvery Barbs.
If something as simple as having an enemy reroll a save or a crit and having a player burn a spell slot to do so is in any way shape or form considered "breaking" or "busted" - the amount of bandwidth being built into encounters is WAY to narrow. If 1/2 this effort just went into building in some latitude into encounters SB would never be an issue. I have never even considered it an issue until I saw this thread.
Hmm let me think you have a caster heavy SB heavy group - IDK what could I do ??? Flood the zone with melee mobs - nah that's too much effort maybe just have 2-3 hidden and if the fight is moving too quickly the reinforcements show up...maybe one stealth archer poking the casters ? Nah still too much effort lets ban SB.
You will hate the new conjure celestial spell let me tell ya - i have 2 players that have these things going simultaneously in one of my higher level games (I'm DMing that game) -----ok understand that the players can do this and factor it in to encounter design probably take a few tries to dial it perfectly but i would never even consider banning the spell.
Conjure Celestial Level 7 Conjuration (Cleric) Casting Time: Action Range: 90 feet Components: V, S Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes You conjure a spirit from the Upper Planes, which manifests as a pillar of light in a 10-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range. For each creature you can see in the Cylinder, choose which of these lights shines on it: Healing Light. The target regains Hit Points equal to 4d12 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. Searing Light. The target makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 6d12 Radiant damage on a failed save or half as much on a successful one. Until the spell ends, Bright Light fills the Cylinder and when you move on your turn, you can also move the Cylinder up to 30 feet. Whenever the Cylinder moves into the space of a creature you can see and whenever a creature you can see enters the Cylinder or ends its turn there, you can bathe it in one of the lights. A creature can only be affected by this spell only once per turn. Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The healing and damage increase by 1d12 for each spell slot above level 7.
I suppose we can all run around at level 5 casting magic missile and hitting things with the pointy side of a dagger - fun times!
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.
First and foremost I never said those using it we’re playing wrong, just in a manner that is not in the spirit of the game as it should be played.
While magic can certainly be used to alter the outcome of a situation, Silvery Barb’s is a step too far in the ability of characters to alter an already established event. ( it gets reserved just like inspiration was being reserved for just in case uses, especially crits, rather than serving as a debuff for a wider range of tasks. )
And if ensuring that things like Silvery Barb’s and other elements of the game that make more of a mess than actually cleaning up the game is gatekeeping, well at least someone is willing to admit its a bit too much and isn’t afraid to say “No” when a player thinks they should “ have it their way, everyday.”
When you say “how the game should be played” you are saying there is a correct and incorrect way to play. That is the definition of gatekeeping. You are doing it right, and people who do it differently are having badwrong fun. You don’t get to decide how it “should” be played. No one does.
You think the spell is a mess. I disagree, but I acknowledge your opinion and your right to ban it at your table. Just don’t try to tell me I’m doing it wrong for allowing it at mine.
And up until Silvery barb’s was introduced, the only true method of fundamentally altering an already established event was “Wish”.
I never said anything about doing it wrong for allowing it in your games, just that by allowing it, the game isn’t really the same.
Never before has the ability to force ether advantage or disadvantage after the fact of a roll, regardless of whatever that roll meant, was never an issue until SB was introduced, the “spirit” was to have all the possible options that could inevitably affect that one possible roll accounted for so the roll is a fair chance probability.
Silvery barb’s ability to affect a roll, after all the initial options have been used that should have the ability to affect the roll, is the very essence of “not playing the game in the manner it was designed to be played.”, as it does nothing but make all the previous elements used before meaningless.
and that opinion may very well be “gate-keeping” by some, but that same gate-keeping is what's kept the game from devolving into just the same old “just like every other RPG that exists” mold.
That’s why I say it is an affront to the “spirit” of the game, because it goes against the established norm that anything that can affect the outcome of an event should be considered before the event occurs, not afterwards.
I agree with you completely.
SB is completely abused at my table. Far and away, the most used spell, whatever the second most cast spell was, it wasn't even close to SB. Every caster that could take it, took it. Regular encounters were:
"I silvery barbs". Hey Mike, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also silvery barbs". Hey Josh, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also, also, silvery barbs". Hey Rusty, you have advantage on any roll.
Obviously, a bit tongue in cheek, but not terribly far off. It's just too much as a first level spell (plus, it has a range of 60ft). And again, as broken as SB is, how did Conjure Minor Elemental make it through testing?
And yes, cue the "well, you are burning up their resources DM!" If you have a 5th lvl party that has a sorcerer, a bard and a wizard, they have 27 spell slots amongst them. And Uhh, I don't have time to run five combat encounters per "day". I need to move the story along. Plus, players perpetually obsess about taking long rests. If you have DMd longer than five minutes, you know what I mean.
Also, for what it's worth: "Gatekeeping" is such an overused buzzword; it's eyeroll inducing. You gatekeep if you agree with something. You gatekeep if you don't agree with something.
1) If you are insisting "No one should use this, it breaks the game" then you are gatekeeping. If you say "We do not use this, for these reasons," then you are not gatekeeping. The former is making a blanket statement that you think applies to everyone and the latter is just saying what works for you and how/why.
2) If your party are misusing it in the way you describe, then the monsters you are putting up against them may simply need a bit more hps. Or, alternatively, you are not doing the math yourself. Is guaranteeing that one melee hit (and remember, although it applies to a roll, it only applies to one roll and does not actually guarantee) actually do more damage than if the caster simply cast, say, magic missile instead? If the casters are doing nothing but using Silvery Barbs, they are forgoing doing a massive ton of direct damage. They are actually holding back because of the spell!
Conjure Celestial is a 7th level spell. It's not remotely broken. If you were trying to play gotcha, you missed badly. I mean, I am sure you understand the differences between a lvl 1 and a lvl 7 spell, right? That a PC will have one, maybe two level 7 slots yeah? Apples/Oranges.
Upcasting Conjure Minor Elementals at 7th level is 8d8 damage. 10d8 at 8th. 12d8 at 9th. Per hit. I say again, per hit. For 10 minutes. 100 rounds. Did they not just nerf paladins because two smites per round (at 5d8, maybe 6d8) doing significantly less was OP? In a buddies campaign, apparently a bard took out a terrasque in one in a half rounds. Just the bard solo. I didn't ask for the build, because it was something they found online (of course).
A certain content creator posted a way for a 301 average damage from using CME as a sorcerer. Per turn. With Conjure Minor Elementals already cast at sixth level (not 7th mind you), you cast Scorching Ray at fifth level, which deals 2d6 + 6d8, six times. Then use Metamagic Adept Quicken Spell, Eldritch Blast as a Bonus Action for 3d10 + 18d8 damage.
If you got out of your echo chamber, you would realize there are hundreds of posts on Reddit and other forums talking about CME. But no, everything is fine. You are obviously a DM everyone needs listen to; so wise. I have been DMing since the mid 80s, what would I know?
Back then we had a term for when games were too easy, it was called munchkin D&D. Nowadays, the average lvl 10 party of six is going to crank out enough damage to kill the average CR 30 mob (as written) in a round. Make it make sense. I love the game, I always will. But anyone who has DMd since the red box days or 2nd edition will tell you there is very little threat to the players in 5th edition.
You obviously don't have players terminally online looking up the most broken builds to bring to the table like everyone else does.
Can't possibly be poor game design, right? Nope. Never that. WoTC have it all together. They never have to do errata's to fix things.
And up until Silvery barb’s was introduced, the only true method of fundamentally altering an already established event was “Wish”.
Even setting aside the fact there are other means of altering already established events (Divine Intervention can literally do anything the DM/Deity decides the player's request is worthy of and that is a level 10 Cleric ability), it clearly does no such altering on anywhere near the same level as a wish (or as divine intervention) .
However, how does anyone, anywhere parry any given blow? Just as they wait for an opening to strike the opponent, they wait for an opponent's strike that they think likely to hit them and parry that. In neither case do they just wildly swing at their opponent's weapon hoping for the best. In game that is all abstracted, of course, but the point is, basic combat technique is constantly using skill to turn misses into hits and hits into misses. In game this is all built into proficiency (and defensive fighting and battlemaster parry ability in the case of actively parrying), but even though hidden, it is still there.
Silvery Barbs is a reaction. It's a first level spell. Literally has nothing to do with what happens on THEIR turn. They still have their 2nd to 9th level spells to do damage with on THEIR turn.
Defensive Duelist is a feat that allows for what is essentially a parry on a reaction akin to shield. You can also just take the dodge action if you want and re-flavor the dodge to a parry.
Silvery Barbs is a reaction. It's a first level spell. Literally has nothing to do with what happens on THEIR turn. They still have their 2nd to 9th level spells to do damage with on THEIR turn.
Defensive Duelist is a feat that allows for what is essentially a parry on a reaction akin to shield. You can also just take the dodge action if you want and re-flavor the dodge to a parry.
This thread is making my brain hurt.
Every spell slot they are using for Silvery Barbs is still one less they are using for direct damage. Every reaction they are using for Silvery Barbs precludes any other reaction that turn. And as a DM, you control everything about what the party faces. This includes how many enemies they face, how many HPs those enemies have, how many attacks those enemies get. If the party is routinely having too easy a time, give them tougher opposition.
Before the Munchkin term came along to apply to players, we had other terms for DM's. Monty Haul DM's ran campaigns that were too easy, giving away xps, magic items and gold like candy. Killer DM's were all about running very lethal tables with low survival rates. It was very common for any given DM to start in one of those two groups, overreact to it not working and become the other and then in the end, finding a middle ground between the two. The DM has literally full control of their world, other than how the PC's react to it. If the campaign is too easy, it is not because of any one spell.
Edit: And again, if any given style is working for any given table, even if that is Monty Haul or Killer, that is fine! That is what works for that table! There is no right way for all, merely a right way for any given table. And that needs to be figured out by that table.
Sure. It can drain resources. But as previously mentioned, a 5th lvl party with a bard, sorcerer and wizard has 27 total spell slots. Average non-BBEG combat encounter might last three rounds. You might have three combat encounters in a day.
Lots of ability to cast SB plus whatever else you might want given the situation.
Silvery Barbs is a reaction. It's a first level spell. Literally has nothing to do with what happens on THEIR turn. They still have their 2nd to 9th level spells to do damage with on THEIR turn.
Defensive Duelist is a feat that allows for what is essentially a parry on a reaction akin to shield. You can also just take the dodge action if you want and re-flavor the dodge to a parry.
This thread is making my brain hurt.
Every spell slot they are using for Silvery Barbs is still one less they are using for direct damage. Every reaction they are using for Silvery Barbs precludes any other reaction that turn. And as a DM, you control everything about what the party faces. This includes how many enemies they face, how many HPs those enemies have, how many attacks those enemies get. If the party is routinely having too easy a time, give them tougher opposition.
Before the Munchkin term came along to apply to players, we had other terms for DM's. Monty Haul DM's ran campaigns that were too easy, giving away xps, magic items and gold like candy. Killer DM's were all about running very lethal tables with low survival rates. It was very common for any given DM to start in one of those two groups, overreact to it not working and become the other and then in the end, finding a middle ground between the two. The DM has literally full control of their world, other than how the PC's react to it. If the campaign is too easy, it is not because of any one spell.
Edit: And again, if any given style is working for any given table, even if that is Monty Haul or Killer, that is fine! That is what works for that table! There is no right way for all, merely a right way for any given table. And that needs to be figured out by that table.
Okay, but why is the answer to just increase hps, AC and monster density? I mean, let's be honest, we are already doing that. And if we ALL are doing that, I think there is an argument for bad game design. 5E is a far better game than 2E. It's not even worth the argument. However, 5E is 10000% easy mode.
Obviously, you have been around a while if you remember munchkin and Monty Hall campaigns. You remember what it was like trying to bring up a lvl 1 Wizard in 2E.....
Instead of doing all that other stuff, why hasn't there been a suggestion to give every CR 1/4 enemy (being that CR 1 is balanced to a party of 1s) two casts of Silvery Barbs?
"Yay, I got a crit!"
Oh, sorry Jim. The goblin cast Silvery Barbs. Reroll.
Character gets rolls a 19 to hit at a critical moment.
"Sorry Jen, reroll. You know those goblins don't leave home without Silvery Barbs...."
Fighter with 2hps passes a save vs Toll the Dead?
Sorry, Ted, reroll the save.
Table would empty out pretty quick. But, every time players do the Bag of Holding inside the Bag of Holding trick, what is the first thing DMs say?
If you are going to do that, the enemies can do that too.
Okay, but why is the answer to just increase hps, AC and monster density? I mean, let's be honest, we are already doing that. And if we ALL are doing that, I think there is an argument for bad game design. 5E is a far better game than 2E. It's not even worth the argument. However, 5E is 10000% easy mode.
Obviously, you have been around a while if you remember munchkin and Monty Hall campaigns. You remember what it was like trying to bring up a lvl 1 Wizard in 2E.....
Well ideally we are all learning what is best against the party and adjusting. This has always been true from day 1 back in the late 70's. If it is too easy, you need to do things differently. That figuring out how is up to the DM is a feature. It is why we are playing RPG's instead of board games.
I also remember back in 1 or 2e, low level wizards hiding and being xp sponges until they get the levels to feel safe actually engaging. Not sure why you feel that is somehow better design.
My answer to weaponizing the bag in bag thing is to simply say that mages found a way to stabilize such portals long ago and that problem no longer exists. It was completely artificial even back in the day. Party goes unknowingly into some extra-dimensional space and because they have such weapons the entire plot is derailed by way of all being sucked into the Astral? How is that good game design?
It has never been a perfect game. There is no perfect game. Either accept the imperfections of the world or, this being a game where a DM can do so, play differently. Or both.
Just don't insist that those who have different definitions of imperfection are therefore somehow breaking anything for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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).
It does work, inasmuch as it can ever work.
It's impossible to calibrate for the standard reference party and have that work for every table. They just vary too much. Even without optimizing, groups vary in combat effectiveness just based on party composition, and it changes on type of encounter.
There's a balance between complexity of use and accuracy. 5e's does try to be simple, which limits how accurate it can be. 4e is a special case, since the characters are more homogenous in damage capability. IIRC, it was still a pain to do by hand, and I bet that it still had accuracy issues.
When you say “how the game should be played” you are saying there is a correct and incorrect way to play. That is the definition of gatekeeping. You are doing it right, and people who do it differently are having badwrong fun. You don’t get to decide how it “should” be played. No one does.
You think the spell is a mess. I disagree, but I acknowledge your opinion and your right to ban it at your table. Just don’t try to tell me I’m doing it wrong for allowing it at mine.
Objectively untrue; there were several abilities and/or spells that allowed for manipulation of dice rolls/their outcomes in the same manner as Silvery Barbs. Shield, for one, is obviously only going to be used at the point where all the presently available information says an attack will hit. Cutting Words from 2014 Lore Bard is also used after the roll is made- sure it's before the outcome has been declared but it's not hard to know when an attack is going to hit when you either know the AC or have seen a previous roll or two against that target. Precision Attack from Battlemaster Maneuvers only says it needs to be used before effects of the attack are applied. The Defensive Duelist feat is the same as Shield and specifically lets you raise your AC after an attack has been declared a hit to make it a miss. All this just from the PHB, note. Yes, there's not much that influences saving throws in this manner, but the precedent was there from the start of 5e that features can alter a d20 roll as it resolves. Which brings us to the biggest flaw in your argument.
Silvery Barbs doesn't alter an "established" event- an established event is one that has been resolved, at which point altering a d20 roll doesn't do anything because the results are locked in. Silvery Barbs is a little meta in the way the various abilities/spells I listed above are and alters the numbers as the effect resolves. How you explain that narratively is open-ended, but you're not doing anything like a Wish level reality rewrite, it's just a nudge to events as they're in motion.
I agree with you completely.
SB is completely abused at my table. Far and away, the most used spell, whatever the second most cast spell was, it wasn't even close to SB. Every caster that could take it, took it. Regular encounters were:
"I silvery barbs". Hey Mike, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also silvery barbs". Hey Josh, you have advantage on next roll.
"I also, also, silvery barbs". Hey Rusty, you have advantage on any roll.
Obviously, a bit tongue in cheek, but not terribly far off. It's just too much as a first level spell (plus, it has a range of 60ft). And again, as broken as SB is, how did Conjure Minor Elemental make it through testing?
And yes, cue the "well, you are burning up their resources DM!" If you have a 5th lvl party that has a sorcerer, a bard and a wizard, they have 27 spell slots amongst them. And Uhh, I don't have time to run five combat encounters per "day". I need to move the story along. Plus, players perpetually obsess about taking long rests. If you have DMd longer than five minutes, you know what I mean.
Also, for what it's worth: "Gatekeeping" is such an overused buzzword; it's eyeroll inducing. You gatekeep if you agree with something. You gatekeep if you don't agree with something.
This thread being 46 pages long is the problem. Not Silvery Barbs.
If something as simple as having an enemy reroll a save or a crit and having a player burn a spell slot to do so is in any way shape or form considered "breaking" or "busted" - the amount of bandwidth being built into encounters is WAY to narrow. If 1/2 this effort just went into building in some latitude into encounters SB would never be an issue. I have never even considered it an issue until I saw this thread.
Hmm let me think you have a caster heavy SB heavy group - IDK what could I do ??? Flood the zone with melee mobs - nah that's too much effort maybe just have 2-3 hidden and if the fight is moving too quickly the reinforcements show up...maybe one stealth archer poking the casters ? Nah still too much effort lets ban SB.
You will hate the new conjure celestial spell let me tell ya - i have 2 players that have these things going simultaneously in one of my higher level games (I'm DMing that game) -----ok understand that the players can do this and factor it in to encounter design probably take a few tries to dial it perfectly but i would never even consider banning the spell.
Conjure Celestial
Level 7 Conjuration (Cleric)
Casting Time: Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
You conjure a spirit from the Upper Planes, which manifests as a pillar of light in a 10-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range. For each creature you can see in the Cylinder, choose which of these lights shines on it:
Healing Light. The target regains Hit Points equal to 4d12 plus your spellcasting ability modifier.
Searing Light. The target makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 6d12 Radiant damage on a failed save or half as much on a successful one.
Until the spell ends, Bright Light fills the Cylinder and when you move on your turn, you can also move the Cylinder up to 30 feet.
Whenever the Cylinder moves into the space of a creature you can see and whenever a creature you can see enters the Cylinder or ends its turn there, you can bathe it in one of the lights. A creature can only be affected by this spell only once per turn.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The healing and damage increase by 1d12 for each spell slot above level 7.
I suppose we can all run around at level 5 casting magic missile and hitting things with the pointy side of a dagger - fun times!
1) If you are insisting "No one should use this, it breaks the game" then you are gatekeeping. If you say "We do not use this, for these reasons," then you are not gatekeeping. The former is making a blanket statement that you think applies to everyone and the latter is just saying what works for you and how/why.
2) If your party are misusing it in the way you describe, then the monsters you are putting up against them may simply need a bit more hps. Or, alternatively, you are not doing the math yourself. Is guaranteeing that one melee hit (and remember, although it applies to a roll, it only applies to one roll and does not actually guarantee) actually do more damage than if the caster simply cast, say, magic missile instead? If the casters are doing nothing but using Silvery Barbs, they are forgoing doing a massive ton of direct damage. They are actually holding back because of the spell!
Conjure Celestial is a 7th level spell. It's not remotely broken. If you were trying to play gotcha, you missed badly. I mean, I am sure you understand the differences between a lvl 1 and a lvl 7 spell, right? That a PC will have one, maybe two level 7 slots yeah? Apples/Oranges.
Upcasting Conjure Minor Elementals at 7th level is 8d8 damage. 10d8 at 8th. 12d8 at 9th. Per hit. I say again, per hit. For 10 minutes. 100 rounds. Did they not just nerf paladins because two smites per round (at 5d8, maybe 6d8) doing significantly less was OP? In a buddies campaign, apparently a bard took out a terrasque in one in a half rounds. Just the bard solo. I didn't ask for the build, because it was something they found online (of course).
A certain content creator posted a way for a 301 average damage from using CME as a sorcerer. Per turn. With Conjure Minor Elementals already cast at sixth level (not 7th mind you), you cast Scorching Ray at fifth level, which deals 2d6 + 6d8, six times. Then use Metamagic Adept Quicken Spell, Eldritch Blast as a Bonus Action for 3d10 + 18d8 damage.
If you got out of your echo chamber, you would realize there are hundreds of posts on Reddit and other forums talking about CME. But no, everything is fine. You are obviously a DM everyone needs listen to; so wise. I have been DMing since the mid 80s, what would I know?
Back then we had a term for when games were too easy, it was called munchkin D&D. Nowadays, the average lvl 10 party of six is going to crank out enough damage to kill the average CR 30 mob (as written) in a round. Make it make sense. I love the game, I always will. But anyone who has DMd since the red box days or 2nd edition will tell you there is very little threat to the players in 5th edition.
You obviously don't have players terminally online looking up the most broken builds to bring to the table like everyone else does.
Can't possibly be poor game design, right? Nope. Never that. WoTC have it all together. They never have to do errata's to fix things.
Even setting aside the fact there are other means of altering already established events (Divine Intervention can literally do anything the DM/Deity decides the player's request is worthy of and that is a level 10 Cleric ability), it clearly does no such altering on anywhere near the same level as a wish (or as divine intervention) .
However, how does anyone, anywhere parry any given blow? Just as they wait for an opening to strike the opponent, they wait for an opponent's strike that they think likely to hit them and parry that. In neither case do they just wildly swing at their opponent's weapon hoping for the best. In game that is all abstracted, of course, but the point is, basic combat technique is constantly using skill to turn misses into hits and hits into misses. In game this is all built into proficiency (and defensive fighting and battlemaster parry ability in the case of actively parrying), but even though hidden, it is still there.
Silvery Barbs is a reaction. It's a first level spell. Literally has nothing to do with what happens on THEIR turn. They still have their 2nd to 9th level spells to do damage with on THEIR turn.
Defensive Duelist is a feat that allows for what is essentially a parry on a reaction akin to shield. You can also just take the dodge action if you want and re-flavor the dodge to a parry.
This thread is making my brain hurt.
Every spell slot they are using for Silvery Barbs is still one less they are using for direct damage. Every reaction they are using for Silvery Barbs precludes any other reaction that turn. And as a DM, you control everything about what the party faces. This includes how many enemies they face, how many HPs those enemies have, how many attacks those enemies get. If the party is routinely having too easy a time, give them tougher opposition.
Before the Munchkin term came along to apply to players, we had other terms for DM's. Monty Haul DM's ran campaigns that were too easy, giving away xps, magic items and gold like candy. Killer DM's were all about running very lethal tables with low survival rates. It was very common for any given DM to start in one of those two groups, overreact to it not working and become the other and then in the end, finding a middle ground between the two. The DM has literally full control of their world, other than how the PC's react to it. If the campaign is too easy, it is not because of any one spell.
Edit: And again, if any given style is working for any given table, even if that is Monty Haul or Killer, that is fine! That is what works for that table! There is no right way for all, merely a right way for any given table. And that needs to be figured out by that table.
Sure. It can drain resources. But as previously mentioned, a 5th lvl party with a bard, sorcerer and wizard has 27 total spell slots. Average non-BBEG combat encounter might last three rounds. You might have three combat encounters in a day.
Lots of ability to cast SB plus whatever else you might want given the situation.
Okay, but why is the answer to just increase hps, AC and monster density? I mean, let's be honest, we are already doing that. And if we ALL are doing that, I think there is an argument for bad game design. 5E is a far better game than 2E. It's not even worth the argument. However, 5E is 10000% easy mode.
Obviously, you have been around a while if you remember munchkin and Monty Hall campaigns. You remember what it was like trying to bring up a lvl 1 Wizard in 2E.....
Instead of doing all that other stuff, why hasn't there been a suggestion to give every CR 1/4 enemy (being that CR 1 is balanced to a party of 1s) two casts of Silvery Barbs?
"Yay, I got a crit!"
Oh, sorry Jim. The goblin cast Silvery Barbs. Reroll.
Character gets rolls a 19 to hit at a critical moment.
"Sorry Jen, reroll. You know those goblins don't leave home without Silvery Barbs...."
Fighter with 2hps passes a save vs Toll the Dead?
Sorry, Ted, reroll the save.
Table would empty out pretty quick. But, every time players do the Bag of Holding inside the Bag of Holding trick, what is the first thing DMs say?
If you are going to do that, the enemies can do that too.
This isn't any different.
Well ideally we are all learning what is best against the party and adjusting. This has always been true from day 1 back in the late 70's. If it is too easy, you need to do things differently. That figuring out how is up to the DM is a feature. It is why we are playing RPG's instead of board games.
I also remember back in 1 or 2e, low level wizards hiding and being xp sponges until they get the levels to feel safe actually engaging. Not sure why you feel that is somehow better design.
My answer to weaponizing the bag in bag thing is to simply say that mages found a way to stabilize such portals long ago and that problem no longer exists. It was completely artificial even back in the day. Party goes unknowingly into some extra-dimensional space and because they have such weapons the entire plot is derailed by way of all being sucked into the Astral? How is that good game design?
It has never been a perfect game. There is no perfect game. Either accept the imperfections of the world or, this being a game where a DM can do so, play differently. Or both.
Just don't insist that those who have different definitions of imperfection are therefore somehow breaking anything for you.