Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Give an example? Not trying to be smarmy, but I'm at a loss at this point.
Let's not say that Silvery Barbs lets you know how everything in the area is rolling whether or not you notice it and use that as justification for how it's OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Give an example? Not trying to be smarmy, but I'm at a loss at this point.
The last fifteen pages are an example, really.
Ophidimancer and I are arguing the perspective that Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine if sane, reasonable limits on what the character can react to are in place in the game.
Ravnodaus and others are arguing that the spell is broken because the text of the spell technically supports a strict RAW overly-mechanistic reading of "Literally any attack/check/save anyone makes ever within sixty feet of you, you are magically aware of - you gain perfect knowledge of what the check is, who is making it, and whether or not they succeeded." In computer-programmin machine code terms, that is correct, but it's a wildly unreasonable stance to take in an actual, run-by-people game.
The disconnect is that Rav and others hear "that's wildly unreasonable!" and answer "Yes. Which is why Silvery Barbs is bad and you should ban it". While Ophidimancer, myself, and others argue that banning a spell due to a wildly unreasonable overly mechanistic interpretation of it is bullshit.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
Anybody remember the last time they saw someone actually use Healing Spirit, since the public outcry forced Wizards to obliterate the spell and make it categorically worse in every conceivable way than a basic-ass Cure Wounds?
Yeah. I can't either. let's not keep doing that to every last single new spell Wizards releases, shall we?
Let's not say that Silvery Barbs lets you know how everything in the area is rolling whether or not you notice it and use that as justification for how it's OP.
I have never said that the spell was OP. The spell is fine.
I said "Barbs is only broken, if you give it more power than it actually has" and "Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Not once in the past 20 pages of this thread have a made an argument against Silvery Barbs.
Not a whole lot has changed for this thread since I stepped away. One can pretty much just quote themselves from page 6 or whatever to address the arguments being made on page 20 on why the spell is not overpowered.
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Give an example? Not trying to be smarmy, but I'm at a loss at this point.
The last fifteen pages are an example, really.
Ophidimancer and I are arguing the perspective that Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine if sane, reasonable limits on what the character can react to are in place in the game.
Ravnodaus and others are arguing that the spell is broken because the text of the spell technically supports a strict RAW overly-mechanistic reading of "Literally any attack/check/save anyone makes ever within sixty feet of you, you are magically aware of - you gain perfect knowledge of what the check is, who is making it, and whether or not they succeeded." In computer-programmin machine code terms, that is correct, but it's a wildly unreasonable stance to take in an actual, run-by-people game.
The disconnect is that Rav and others hear "that's wildly unreasonable!" and answer "Yes. Which is why Silvery Barbs is bad and you should ban it". While Ophidimancer, myself, and others argue that banning a spell due to a wildly unreasonable overly mechanistic interpretation of it is bullshit.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
Anybody remember the last time they saw someone actually use Healing Spirit, since the public outcry forced Wizards to obliterate the spell and make it categorically worse in every conceivable way than a basic-ass Cure Wounds?
Yeah. I can't either. let's not keep doing that to every last single new spell Wizards releases, shall we?
if the current design team understood the current parameters of the game this would be a moot argument. But it is WotC and in the 20 odd years they have owned the IP they have yet to prove they understand RPG design at all. They keep trying to approach it as if it were the same as a TCG (and don't get me started on how badly they screw that up every 3 months).
I went and looked at not just the offending spell but the rest of the new spells introduced in the book. And I noticed something odd. Except for two spells the rest fell in line on power curve for their level. The two off the mark? Barbs (too high for level one) and Borrowed Knowledge (this one imo is under powered for its level and wouldfit better as a 1st, a strong 1st but not op). Anyone want to lay odds someone screwed up in editing and mis-leveled two spells and WotC is (as they have in the past) doubling down and not admitting to an honest error?
I think one thing to consider is that they may know that there was a successful roll, but not what the roll was for or who the roll was against. In combat it is easy to tell what a roll is for, such as an attack roll, grapple check or save. Outside of combat, die rolls could be for any number of things that the players are completely unaware of. Barbs is triggered by a successful d20 roll, but are players willing to cast Barbs every time the DM rolls a dice without out knowing why?
How does this interaction look, though?
"You see a mysterious stranger standing in the road. Would you like to use Silvery Barbs on the successful roll they just made?" "What did they do? Was it an attack roll? An ability check?" "You don't know that." "Well can you describe what they were doing?" "Nothing as far as you can tell, just standing in the road." "How can I even tell I should use the spell if I can't even tell that they did something that could be affected by the spell!?"
Yes. That is pretty much exactly how it would go. The spell does not tell the players anything about the roll other than that it succeeded.
And we still think it is a good addition to the game while creating scenarios like this basically 24/7 and at all times?
If you have silvery barbs on your character, he basically now knows every time an NPC succeeds on a save, ability check, or an attack roll that is within 60ft of himself.
This is not a good and healthy thing for the game. It is one thing to be able to have it quarantined or explained away with specific feature fluff. Like when Chronomancer uses Chronal Shift they're rewriting time a small amount, like do-over. So the fluff explains how how/why the trigger information gets to the character. They very technically got to live a split second in an alternate timeline. So their character is only ever reacting to things that have actually happened, things they've observed, and are un-writing and rewriting. The Diviner is similar, their portent ability lets them force a d20 result, but the fluff explains this away as having a small glimpse of exactly that moment.
So the meta-knowledge leak to this characters is quarantined to just the use of the ability when they're using it.
But Silvery Barbs has no such limited explanation. The fluff, as it were, is even worse because it describes them stealing good luck from one target and giving it to a different one. This means by having the spell you just automatically have luck-sense now. You just automatically know when something has gone well for anyone in 60ft at all times. That's crazy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The bottom line is that the DM decides whether or not a spell is too powerful.
If they think it is, they can change it to suit their campaign.
1. But this thread is about your opinion. You can't just say "it's up to everyone's opinion," that defeats the whole point.
2. What's the point even of having spell rules then? Wouldn't it be better if the spell just said "you mess up somebody's d20 roll. Maybe make them roll it again? Give em disadvantage? I dunno man, you're the DM, you should be the one to decide how powerful it is." Or like, maybe Fireball would just say "you throw a fireball. You know? Boom. Burns up some guys. How many guys? How far away? Hey, don't look at me, I'm just the ideas guy."
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
You haven't done much Organized Play I take it? Reasonable interpretation is superseded by Strict RAW at all times. (It is a main reason why I don't sign my FLGS up to be an AL store ... Keeps the more toxic player base clear).
If you have silvery barbs on your character, he basically now knows every time an NPC succeeds on a save, ability check, or an attack roll that is within 60ft of himself.
I'm pretty sure I just got done saying that I think this is an unreasonable interpretation of the ability.
A thought occurs to me: D&D allows spellcasters to cast spells on targets that are ineligible targets for the spell, right? It just means that the spell fails and wastes the slot, correct? Why wouldn't that apply here as well? A spell doesn't have to tell you when a target is eligible. So wouldn't that mean that people could fire off a Silvery Barbs at just about anything and the DM isn't obligated to tell you anything? On the other hand, isn't it also a rule that Reactions don't exist unless a legitimate trigger occurs? Hmm ....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
Anybody remember the last time they saw someone actually use Healing Spirit, since the public outcry forced Wizards to obliterate the spell and make it categorically worse in every conceivable way than a basic-ass Cure Wounds?
Literally my last session before everyone split for the holidays. It saved someone's ass. I mean, it's reusable ranged healing as a bonus action. That's pretty useful in almost any campaign I've ever been in
It's almost like people's experience with the game isn't universal
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)
The bottom line is that the DM decides whether or not a spell is too powerful.
If they think it is, they can change it to suit their campaign.
1. But this thread is about your opinion. You can't just say "it's up to everyone's opinion," that defeats the whole point.
2. What's the point even of having spell rules then? Wouldn't it be better if the spell just said "you mess up somebody's d20 roll. Maybe make them roll it again? Give em disadvantage? I dunno man, you're the DM, you should be the one to decide how powerful it is." Or like, maybe Fireball would just say "you throw a fireball. You know? Boom. Burns up some guys. How many guys? How far away? Hey, don't look at me, I'm just the ideas guy."
But it is up to each individual DMs opinion.
Most DM's will follow the majority of the rules as written, and only make changes on an as needed basis.
Typically, DMs will inform players of any non standard/house rules beforehand.
I wasn't suggesting an "anything goes" or "off the cuff" approach to the rules.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
I remember how they created something hilariously broken and then had to backpedal rapidly because healing 10d6 to the entire party for a second level spell was excessive. They did overcorrect, but that doesn't mean the original spell wasn't broken.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
I remember how they created something hilariously broken and then had to backpedal rapidly because healing 10d6 to the entire party for a second level spell was excessive. They did overcorrect, but that doesn't mean the original spell wasn't broken.
It's as if almost none of the development team have any practical experience in Table Top RPG design... Or show a willingness to listen to the grey beards who have been playing, "fixing" breaks in the mechanics, and homebrewing for almost 50 years.
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Give an example? Not trying to be smarmy, but I'm at a loss at this point.
The last fifteen pages are an example, really.
Ophidimancer and I are arguing the perspective that Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine if sane, reasonable limits on what the character can react to are in place in the game.
Ravnodaus and others are arguing that the spell is broken because the text of the spell technically supports a strict RAW overly-mechanistic reading of "Literally any attack/check/save anyone makes ever within sixty feet of you, you are magically aware of - you gain perfect knowledge of what the check is, who is making it, and whether or not they succeeded." In computer-programmin machine code terms, that is correct, but it's a wildly unreasonable stance to take in an actual, run-by-people game.
The disconnect is that Rav and others hear "that's wildly unreasonable!" and answer "Yes. Which is why Silvery Barbs is bad and you should ban it". While Ophidimancer, myself, and others argue that banning a spell due to a wildly unreasonable overly mechanistic interpretation of it is bullshit.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
Anybody remember the last time they saw someone actually use Healing Spirit, since the public outcry forced Wizards to obliterate the spell and make it categorically worse in every conceivable way than a basic-ass Cure Wounds?
Yeah. I can't either. let's not keep doing that to every last single new spell Wizards releases, shall we?
But that's exactly what I've been saying, the only way SB and all spells or abilities like SB break the game is, if you don't impose limits on what a player and their character can know?
I don't know if I'm all the way over to "it's fine" but I also don't think "omg it makes PC's omniscient" is a reasonable criticism. I had a criticism that I think is worth discussing, but I don't think it got picked up in the discussion
I'm still on the fence a bit, but the argument about entire teams spamming Silvery Barbs to make absolutely sure someone fails a save has been running through my mind. As a tactic, if it used by NPC's against PC's I think it would be feelsbad gaming and if used by PC's against NPC's more than once it would be feelscheap gaming. And the counterargument of "well don't do that" doesn't seem like a very strong one either. I mean, it works for the coffeelock, but there are slightly shaky rules grounds in the definitions of short and long rests, but a straight up 1st level spell like this has much less to disqualify or deny a player this. Would moving it up to level 2 solve it? Actually, I think it might. It moves it out of range of a simple MC dip or Feat or spellwrought tattoo infusion.
Just like we have to design systems for the rather inept, we also have to design systems assuming that some of our user base is going to be very adept at breaking the turds out of our system. If it's possible and rules legal to use a part of the game in a certain way and if using it in that way will produce mechanically rewarding results you can be sure that it will be used that way and plan accordingly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes. Can we agree that "Silvery Barbs triggers on all rolls from targets that the character can see even if the character does not notice any action happening" is unreasonable and stop making that a factor in this discussion?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That is actually what triggered the discussion in the first place and the fact that it IS unreasonable is the point we are trying to make.
Edit: Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ok so can we approach our analysis of mechanics with reasonable interpretations instead of going out of our way to make things looks unreasonable, then?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Give an example? Not trying to be smarmy, but I'm at a loss at this point.
Let's not say that Silvery Barbs lets you know how everything in the area is rolling whether or not you notice it and use that as justification for how it's OP.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The last fifteen pages are an example, really.
Ophidimancer and I are arguing the perspective that Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine if sane, reasonable limits on what the character can react to are in place in the game.
Ravnodaus and others are arguing that the spell is broken because the text of the spell technically supports a strict RAW overly-mechanistic reading of "Literally any attack/check/save anyone makes ever within sixty feet of you, you are magically aware of - you gain perfect knowledge of what the check is, who is making it, and whether or not they succeeded." In computer-programmin machine code terms, that is correct, but it's a wildly unreasonable stance to take in an actual, run-by-people game.
The disconnect is that Rav and others hear "that's wildly unreasonable!" and answer "Yes. Which is why Silvery Barbs is bad and you should ban it". While Ophidimancer, myself, and others argue that banning a spell due to a wildly unreasonable overly mechanistic interpretation of it is bullshit.
Everybody remember Healing Spirit? A really cool healing spell they gave to Druids and Rangers to givce them an interesting, unique-to-them way of supporting the party? Everybody remember the hollering and hullaballoo that went up over Healing Spirit? Everybody remember how Wizards answered that outcry by nerfing Healing Spirit into the absolute dirt?
Anybody remember the last time they saw someone actually use Healing Spirit, since the public outcry forced Wizards to obliterate the spell and make it categorically worse in every conceivable way than a basic-ass Cure Wounds?
Yeah. I can't either. let's not keep doing that to every last single new spell Wizards releases, shall we?
Please do not contact or message me.
The bottom line is that the DM decides whether or not a spell is too powerful.
If they think it is, they can change it to suit their campaign.
I have never said that the spell was OP. The spell is fine.
I said "Barbs is only broken, if you give it more power than it actually has" and "Silvery Barbs and other similar abilities should not be presumed to give free license to "metagame".
Not once in the past 20 pages of this thread have a made an argument against Silvery Barbs.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not a whole lot has changed for this thread since I stepped away. One can pretty much just quote themselves from page 6 or whatever to address the arguments being made on page 20 on why the spell is not overpowered.
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
if the current design team understood the current parameters of the game this would be a moot argument. But it is WotC and in the 20 odd years they have owned the IP they have yet to prove they understand RPG design at all. They keep trying to approach it as if it were the same as a TCG (and don't get me started on how badly they screw that up every 3 months).
I went and looked at not just the offending spell but the rest of the new spells introduced in the book. And I noticed something odd. Except for two spells the rest fell in line on power curve for their level. The two off the mark? Barbs (too high for level one) and Borrowed Knowledge (this one imo is under powered for its level and wouldfit better as a 1st, a strong 1st but not op). Anyone want to lay odds someone screwed up in editing and mis-leveled two spells and WotC is (as they have in the past) doubling down and not admitting to an honest error?
And we still think it is a good addition to the game while creating scenarios like this basically 24/7 and at all times?
If you have silvery barbs on your character, he basically now knows every time an NPC succeeds on a save, ability check, or an attack roll that is within 60ft of himself.
This is not a good and healthy thing for the game. It is one thing to be able to have it quarantined or explained away with specific feature fluff. Like when Chronomancer uses Chronal Shift they're rewriting time a small amount, like do-over. So the fluff explains how how/why the trigger information gets to the character. They very technically got to live a split second in an alternate timeline. So their character is only ever reacting to things that have actually happened, things they've observed, and are un-writing and rewriting. The Diviner is similar, their portent ability lets them force a d20 result, but the fluff explains this away as having a small glimpse of exactly that moment.
So the meta-knowledge leak to this characters is quarantined to just the use of the ability when they're using it.
But Silvery Barbs has no such limited explanation. The fluff, as it were, is even worse because it describes them stealing good luck from one target and giving it to a different one. This means by having the spell you just automatically have luck-sense now. You just automatically know when something has gone well for anyone in 60ft at all times. That's crazy.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
1. But this thread is about your opinion. You can't just say "it's up to everyone's opinion," that defeats the whole point.
2. What's the point even of having spell rules then? Wouldn't it be better if the spell just said "you mess up somebody's d20 roll. Maybe make them roll it again? Give em disadvantage? I dunno man, you're the DM, you should be the one to decide how powerful it is." Or like, maybe Fireball would just say "you throw a fireball. You know? Boom. Burns up some guys. How many guys? How far away? Hey, don't look at me, I'm just the ideas guy."
You haven't done much Organized Play I take it? Reasonable interpretation is superseded by Strict RAW at all times. (It is a main reason why I don't sign my FLGS up to be an AL store ... Keeps the more toxic player base clear).
I'm pretty sure I just got done saying that I think this is an unreasonable interpretation of the ability.
A thought occurs to me: D&D allows spellcasters to cast spells on targets that are ineligible targets for the spell, right? It just means that the spell fails and wastes the slot, correct? Why wouldn't that apply here as well? A spell doesn't have to tell you when a target is eligible. So wouldn't that mean that people could fire off a Silvery Barbs at just about anything and the DM isn't obligated to tell you anything?
On the other hand, isn't it also a rule that Reactions don't exist unless a legitimate trigger occurs? Hmm ....
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Literally my last session before everyone split for the holidays. It saved someone's ass. I mean, it's reusable ranged healing as a bonus action. That's pretty useful in almost any campaign I've ever been in
It's almost like people's experience with the game isn't universal
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)
But it is up to each individual DMs opinion.
Most DM's will follow the majority of the rules as written, and only make changes on an as needed basis.
Typically, DMs will inform players of any non standard/house rules beforehand.
I wasn't suggesting an "anything goes" or "off the cuff" approach to the rules.
I remember how they created something hilariously broken and then had to backpedal rapidly because healing 10d6 to the entire party for a second level spell was excessive. They did overcorrect, but that doesn't mean the original spell wasn't broken.
It's as if almost none of the development team have any practical experience in Table Top RPG design... Or show a willingness to listen to the grey beards who have been playing, "fixing" breaks in the mechanics, and homebrewing for almost 50 years.
But that's exactly what I've been saying, the only way SB and all spells or abilities like SB break the game is, if you don't impose limits on what a player and their character can know?
I don't know if I'm all the way over to "it's fine" but I also don't think "omg it makes PC's omniscient" is a reasonable criticism. I had a criticism that I think is worth discussing, but I don't think it got picked up in the discussion
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!