So, since a character cannot see d20s getting rolled, then they simply can never cast this spell. That is your take? The spell, as written, can never be cast because the d20 roll is imperceptible to the character?
The trigger is success, not rolling. Success is frequently visible (though not always, and it might be situational; for example, you probably only know if someone succeeded at investigation or perception if you have already found whatever they're looking for).
It is not homebrew for the DM to make a ruling on how an ambiguous, unclear, or problematic Thing works at their table. Your stance that Silvery Barbs grants a character complete and utter invincible omniscience, the ability to perceive and act upon absolutely everything within sixty feet of them as if they are a supreme god within their divine domain, is as much a "ruling" as is my demonstrably more reasonable ruling of "if you cvan't see the target and you can't perceive/recognize the action, you can't cast the spell". DMs make rulings all the time.
Would you mind referencing the post # in which I claimed this? I'd be curious to see it. I'm sure you're not misrepresenting me or what I've said in some sort of hyperbolic screed, so, just go ahead and pop that post reference in a quick reply. That'd be lovely dear.
Your own signature line stats "RAW < RAI. Play as intended." You know - you know - how this spell was intended to be used. Please stop being so ridiculous with the RAW and switch to the RAI you and everyone else knows is how the spell was meant to work.
You still aren't addressing the argument you're very clearly avoiding it with as many redirects as possible. Just ask yourself how the Silvery Barbs'er is supposed to know when they can cast this spell. And then provide an answer to that question that isn't entirely made up from your own fiction, but instead found within the game rules.
1.) Why would I need to? has it not been your explicitly stated position, this entire thread, that: "Silvery Barbs, by necessity, grants the player who knows the spell/has it prepared perfect and truthful knowledge of the existence, purpose, originator, and result of every single d20 roll made within sixty feet of them at all times, regardless of any other rules"? That's the whole reason you want it banned and for any player using it to be flogged with a truck transmission - by your stance it breaks the game as written, and as such must be excised.
2.) I laid out exactly how a Barbs user is supposed to know they can cast the spell. You're too wrapped up in purely mechanical triggers - "a d20 rolls, therefor I push this button on my character sheet." Tabletop RPGs are not strictly mechanical frameworks, nor are they strictly narrative frameworks. Both are required. Not enough mechanics and your game is shallow, boring, and unengaging. Not enough narrative and your game is a tax spreadsheet, not a game. But, to recap:
A.) A character perceives a target that is attempting an action, which the player behind the character knows falls into the broad definition of "attack, check, or save." B.) The character can perceive the action, i.e. there is visible evidence in the game world of the action being attempted. A grappler is grabbing at their target, a dragon is shrugging off a spell's effect, an attack is about to bypass a target's guard. C.) The character can then cast Silvery Barbs.
Even you agreed that this method produces sensible, useful, 'better than RAW' results. It works. It makes sense. You just ignore it as "homebrew" and shrug off the idea that Barbs is just fine when played as intended rather than carping on the RAW like an EE instructor Gordon Ramsey-ing a first-year student's first C++ project.
As Pantagruel said, the trigger for the spell is success, not a d20 hitting the table. No, a character cannot see a d20 hitting the table through the fog of Elsewhere that separates your-game-world-of-choice from downtown ****thisplaceton. They can absolutely see the successful result of an attack, check, or save and act to interdict it, save in places where it doesn't make sense that they could A.) see the action, or B.) know an action was taken. You can't Barbs an Insight check - unless you were using Detect Thoughts on the target at the time, in which case you could successfully argue to me as a DM that you're able to see the target and are aware of the check. It's a stretch, but I'd likely give it to you as a good use of resources. You can't Barbs a Stealth check - unless the check is being made by a creature you're aware of and (tangentially) observing to try and stop it from leaving your awareness, a'la Mask of the Wild or such.
Easy. Simple. Intuitive. And how any normal regular sane DM would rule it. And if a player tries to rules-lawyer their way into complete omniscience? That's why God and Matt Mercer invented hardcover DMGs you can **** them across the jowls with before telling them to sit down, be good, and stop trying to ruin the game for everyone else.
I would also like to point out that there is a difference between homebrew and interpretation of the rules. There is room in the interpretation of the rules to apply them in different ways. I think interpreting that the character must perceive the action in order to barbs it to be a reasonable interpretation and not a homebrew alteration of the rules.
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!
So, since a character cannot see d20s getting rolled, then they simply can never cast this spell. That is your take? The spell, as written, can never be cast because the d20 roll is imperceptible to the character?
The trigger is success, not rolling. Success is frequently visible (though not always, and it might be situational; for example, you probably only know if someone succeeded at investigation or perception if you have already found whatever they're looking for).
The triggering is actually not that. The trigger is seeing a creature. A creature that succeeds on an attack roll, save, or ability check. The requirement is to see the creature, and for the seen creature to succeed on a roll.
The trigger is not seeing the result of a successful roll. In fact, if you saw the results of the success it'd be too late to prevent it.
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.
I would also like to point out that there is a difference between homebrew and interpretation of the rules. There is room in the interpretation of the rules to apply them in different ways. I think interpreting that the character must perceive the action in order to barbs it to be a reasonable interpretation and not a homebrew alteration of the rules.
You're wrong. Intentionally disregarding the rule, written rule, and changing the triggering event is indeed homebrew. Almost by definition. It is the conscious decision to ignore the written rule and replace it with your own version.
That is homebrewing. There is genuinely nothing wrong with homebrewing. But, IDK why you'd wanna be in denial about doing it or not.
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.
It is not homebrew for the DM to make a ruling on how an ambiguous, unclear, or problematic Thing works at their table. Your stance that Silvery Barbs grants a character complete and utter invincible omniscience, the ability to perceive and act upon absolutely everything within sixty feet of them as if they are a supreme god within their divine domain, is as much a "ruling" as is my demonstrably more reasonable ruling of "if you cvan't see the target and you can't perceive/recognize the action, you can't cast the spell". DMs make rulings all the time.
Would you mind referencing the post # in which I claimed this? I'd be curious to see it. I'm sure you're not misrepresenting me or what I've said in some sort of hyperbolic screed, so, just go ahead and pop that post reference in a quick reply. That'd be lovely dear.
Your own signature line stats "RAW < RAI. Play as intended." You know - you know - how this spell was intended to be used. Please stop being so ridiculous with the RAW and switch to the RAI you and everyone else knows is how the spell was meant to work.
You still aren't addressing the argument you're very clearly avoiding it with as many redirects as possible. Just ask yourself how the Silvery Barbs'er is supposed to know when they can cast this spell. And then provide an answer to that question that isn't entirely made up from your own fiction, but instead found within the game rules.
1.) Why would I need to? has it not been your explicitly stated position, this entire thread, that: "Silvery Barbs, by necessity, grants the player who knows the spell/has it prepared perfect and truthful knowledge of the existence, purpose, originator, and result of every single d20 roll made within sixty feet of them at all times, regardless of any other rules"? That's the whole reason you want it banned and for any player using it to be flogged with a truck transmission - by your stance it breaks the game as written, and as such must be excised.
I want it banned? My my, you keep enlightening me on my own stances that I didn't even know I had! That's pretty amazing.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you make up your own inventive interpretation of my stance regardless of what I write, it's the same approach you have for the rules.
2.) I laid out exactly how a Barbs user is supposed to know they can cast the spell. You're too wrapped up in purely mechanical triggers - "a d20 rolls, therefor I push this button on my character sheet." Tabletop RPGs are not strictly mechanical frameworks, nor are they strictly narrative frameworks. Both are required. Not enough mechanics and your game is shallow, boring, and unengaging. Not enough narrative and your game is a tax spreadsheet, not a game. But, to recap:
A.) A character perceives a target that is attempting an action, which the player behind the character knows falls into the broad definition of "attack, check, or save." B.) The character can perceive the action, i.e. there is visible evidence in the game world of the action being attempted. A grappler is grabbing at their target, a dragon is shrugging off a spell's effect, an attack is about to bypass a target's guard. C.) The character can then cast Silvery Barbs.
A. Sure. All you need to do is see the creature. Yes.
B. Uh, you needn't observe any action... the trigger is observing a creature. Not observing an action. Saves, themselves, don't even really 'look' like anything at all. How do you "see the action of resisting a charm spell"?? Your homebrewed trigger prevents people from using barbs for one of its intended purpose, vs saves. It also forces you have line of sight to a creature's target and not just the attacking creature, which is not at all required by any text whatsoever. You'd need to see the ally get struck to barbs the archer shooting them? But that is NOT what the spell's text requires.
Even you agreed that this method produces sensible, useful, 'better than RAW' results. It works. It makes sense. You just ignore it as "homebrew" and shrug off the idea that Barbs is just fine when played as intended rather than carping on the RAW like an EE instructor Gordon Ramsey-ing a first-year student's first C++ project.
Eh, sometimes it would. I honestly haven't gone through all the scenarios for how your homebrewed version would impact eveything because it is your homebrew and I have no plans to adopt it.
As Pantagruel said, the trigger for the spell is success, not a d20 hitting the table. No, a character cannot see a d20 hitting the table through the fog of Elsewhere that separates your-game-world-of-choice from downtown ****thisplaceton. They can absolutely see the successful result of an attack, check, or save and act to interdict it, save in places where it doesn't make sense that they could A.) see the action, or B.) know an action was taken.
Okay but the spell trigger isn't that.
I know reality isn't what you want it to be, and that sucks. But, unfortunately, the trigger just isn't what you're saying. I mean, it is published now and you can read it. The spell is cast as a reaction, "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
There is no written requirement here to observe if that attack roll, ability check, or saving throw was a success, only the ability to see the creature when he does succeed.
If you see an archer when he is shooting at an ally that is around a corner. You do not need to see the ally, you do not need to see if the arrow is going to successfully hit them or not hit them. You only need to see the target creature who succeeded on the roll. That's it.
Any additional requirements you add are homebrew.
You can't Barbs an Insight check - unless you were using Detect Thoughts on the target at the time, in which case you could successfully argue to me as a DM that you're able to see the target and are aware of the check. It's a stretch, but I'd likely give it to you as a good use of resources. You can't Barbs a Stealth check - unless the check is being made by a creature you're aware of and (tangentially) observing to try and stop it from leaving your awareness, a'la Mask of the Wild or such.
Insight checks are ability checks. If the creature succeeding on the insight check is within 60 feet of you, you can barbs it.
Silvery barbs specifically says as much in black and white.
Easy. Simple. Intuitive. And how any normal regular sane DM would rule it. And if a player tries to rules-lawyer their way into complete omniscience? That's why God and Matt Mercer invented hardcover DMGs you can **** them across the jowls with before telling them to sit down, be good, and stop trying to ruin the game for everyone else.
I ge it, you don't think it is busted because you don't understand how it works or have simply decided to ignore how it works. That's a take you can have, sure.
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.
I really don't understand why you're still here, Rav. Every time I turn around you're scourging me over "ignoring the plain text" of the spell and disregarding RAW. I explain why the spell, when run intuitively in a way that makes reasonable sense, works just fine and you respond with some variation on 'Well all right if you wanna play badly and ignore the rules you can do that'. I get fed up and tell you to just ban the spell from your own table then if you hate it so badly, and I get 'What no I don't want it banned I just want to spend fifteen pages arguing how terrible it is."
What is your objective?
What do you WANT?
If you don't want the spell banned, redacted, or otherwise nerfed, the hell is the point of going on and on and on and on about the bizarre, overly-mechanical DM-breaking nonsense you swear the spell is? Your interpretation of the rules makes no bloody sense to me and many others, but you keep cracking me across the brainpan with it.
I really don't understand why you're still here, Rav. Every time I turn around you're scourging me over "ignoring the plain text" of the spell and disregarding RAW. I explain why the spell, when run intuitively in a way that makes reasonable sense, works just fine and you respond with some variation on 'Well all right if you wanna play badly and ignore the rules you can do that'. I get fed up and tell you to just ban the spell from your own table then if you hate it so badly, and I get 'What no I don't want it banned I just want to spend fifteen pages arguing how terrible it is."
What is your objective?
What do you WANT?
If you don't want the spell banned, redacted, or otherwise nerfed, the hell is the point of going on and on and on and on about the bizarre, overly-mechanical DM-breaking nonsense you swear the spell is? Your interpretation of the rules makes no bloody sense to me and many others, but you keep cracking me across the brainpan with it.
Why?
I reply when people address me directly and ask questions. You want me to go away, and yet ask me to reply. I tend to reply when people post something that is incorrect so as to correct the record. I mean, you're entirely free to like or not like the spell. I'm not going to tell you your opinion is wrong or right. But if you mischaracterize how it actually functions, as written, then you should be corrected. Recently, you've dug in and are determined to prove it does something that isn't supported by the rules. There is no such restriction as you claim.
And the implications of the way the spell functions is bad. <-- This is my opinion. This is a place to post that opinion. You are trying to argue that the spell doesn't function the way it does, an attempt to invalidate this opinion. I might ask you Why. Why is it important to you to invalidate my opinion?
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.
I'm not telling you to go away, I'm trying to figure out what your objective is.
You want to 'correct the record'. Very well; the record has been corrected. Your correction of the record stands on about half the pages of this thread. According to you, the spell, by necessity, grants complete omniscience within 60 feet, since a player is entitled to know the source, nature, and outcome of every single d20 roll made by any entity within 60 feet of themselves. You believe this to be game-breaking, which it certainly is. That...seems to be the end of your objective.
You are tremendously opposed to any and all means of correcting the problem. You object when people assume you want it banned because it's so bad. You object when people lay down alternative interpretation of the rules that make it less stupid. You object when people throw up homebrew fixes such as increasing its level. You want the record corrected, you want people to understand how badly broken the spell is, but you seem to be deeply opposed to anybody doing anything about it. Any sort of actionable game plan is shot down and drowned in a sea of rules-lawyering.
Second try: why? What's your actual objective here? The record has been corrected for at least a dozen pages now, yet you continually block any means of discussing how the spell either doesn't actually work the way you posit it does, or can be fixed to not work the way you posit it does.
What's your solution, if every other possible solution is so terrible?
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Couple days ago you seemed to agree that if you have an ability that triggers off something unseen that the character with that ability should have some means of knowing when that is. What changed? Just the need to disagree?
Having an ability that triggers off a d20 result must, by necessity, be a meta-decision that the player makes. The character might has some sense of what is happening, but the nature of the ability will inform how much that character understands about it.
Silvery Barbs is a spell. Which means the character must fully consciously decide to do it in an informed way. Lucky might just happen. The grave cleric's ability might just happen by divine will. Chronal shift is the character seeing it happen and undoing it temporally. But casting a spell? You must be cognizant, fully away, of the trigger. That, in terms of character knowledge, means the character is aware of when d20 rolls succeed within 60ft of him at all times.
Otherwise the character is unable to use the spell. Because they must consciously be aware of when the trigger is happening, and that is a meta-level trigger. So the character must be capable of understanding meta information. It breaks the 4th wall.
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.
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Couple days ago you seemed to agree that if you have an ability that triggers off something unseen that the character with that ability should have some means of knowing when that is. What changed? Just the need to disagree?
I mean reading over both quoted posts, they are arguing the same point.
Relevant text from Sentinel at Death's Door: "...when you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit, you can turn that hit into a normal hit."
That passes the test/methodology I laid out for Barbs: 1.) the Grave cleric can see the target being struck. 2.) an action/event is happening which the Grave cleric can perceive (i.e. a blow falling with unusual, possibly crippling force).
The Grave cleric's ability allows it to intercede in a clearly defined, clearly visible situation. And yet, should the cleric or a nearby ally be struck unseen by an assassin's surprise blade? As a DM, I would not allow the Grave cleric to use Sentinel at Death's Door, no.
My objection was not "the player should be allowed to know something they didn't see!" My objection was "the DM is denying the player information that player needs to use their ability correctly, and I don't believe they have a good case for doing so". DMs who do not announce critical hits when enemies score them are not playing in good faith - the players, after all, are not allowed to simply say "I hit, here's my damage" when they score a crit. They have to announce "Critical hit" or "natural 20" (which, to be fair, most of them are only too pleased to do anyways, heh).
Do not conflate the two issues. One of them is Squirrelly DM causing issues they do not need to in their game. The other is players browbeating the DM into giving them information they have no business possessing.
Now. Answer the question, if you would be so kind - what is your goal. What do you want to do with Barbs, if you believe it is as fundamentally broken as you claim?
My objection was not "the player should be allowed to know something they didn't see!" My objection was "the DM is denying the player information that player needs to use their ability correctly, and I don't believe they have a good case for doing so". DMs who do not announce critical hits when enemies score them are not playing in good faith - the players, after all, are not allowed to simply say "I hit, here's my damage" when they score a crit. They have to announce "Critical hit" or "natural 20" (which, to be fair, most of them are only too pleased to do anyways, heh).
Do not conflate the two issues. One of them is Squirrelly DM causing issues they do not need to in their game. The other is players browbeating the DM into giving them information they have no business possessing.
I mean, you've suggested the spell cannot be used in some cases that it very clearly qualifies as being used for. You've claimed it cannot be used against Insight checks, for example. But, if the target is a creature, ad with 60ft, then, that is a valid target for the spell. So I'm not conflating these two things, you're just not being consistent. You do want to impose restrictions on what the player knows, and prevent them from having the information they need to use this ability.
Now. Answer the question, if you would be so kind - what is your goal. What do you want to do with Barbs, if you believe it is as fundamentally broken as you claim?
Goal: Discuss the spell Silvery Barbs.
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 Grave cleric's ability allows it to intercede in a clearly defined, clearly visible situation. And yet, should the cleric or a nearby ally be struck unseen by an assassin's surprise blade? As a DM, I would not allow the Grave cleric to use Sentinel at Death's Door, no.
As it's surprise, it doesn't actually matter how you interpret the rules text, as you cannot use a reaction when surprised. It's actually questionable whether you can use reactions outside of combat at all, since you don't actually have a reaction until combat starts, though that's a sufficiently dumb interpretation that I'm going to ignore it.
The Grave cleric's ability allows it to intercede in a clearly defined, clearly visible situation. And yet, should the cleric or a nearby ally be struck unseen by an assassin's surprise blade? As a DM, I would not allow the Grave cleric to use Sentinel at Death's Door, no.
As it's surprise, it doesn't actually matter how you interpret the rules text, as you cannot use a reaction when surprised. It's actually questionable whether you can use reactions outside of combat at all, since you don't actually have a reaction until combat starts, though that's a sufficiently dumb interpretation that I'm going to ignore it.
Okay, the question then is: is an insight check observable to the player character? If yes, then Silvery Barbs is triggered. If not, the Silvery Barbs isn't triggered. I personally would rule it isn't, because that has been my understanding of how the rules work in that situation.
Let's assume though that an insight check IS observable, and the player character uses the opportunity to cast Silvery Barbs. Well, Silvery Barbs has a big ol' Verbal component to it, so unless the player character has access to Subtle Spell metamagic or something comparable, it'll be completely and utterly obvious that the PC has used magic to interfere with that insight check.
Your issue with the spell is that its trigger, as written, technically allows a player to know the results of rolls they should not know are being made, let alone know the results of.
Solution: do not tell the player those rolls are being made; do not give them the results of those rolls.
Does this 'break' the spell text? Yes.
Who cares.
It makes the game better. A DM's core job is to facilitate the game and run it as best they can. The text of one spell does not overule that core function. Nor does denying players knowledge their characters have no business possessing weaken Silvery Barbs in any meaningful way. There's still dozens of splendid use cases per session in most games for players to Barbs something they do have business knowing about. Just like the Grave Cleric's Sentinel at Death's Door allows them to muck with things they have business knowing of, but not with things they do not.
Your stance - "the spell is bad and should not have been printed in this form" - is noted. The spell got printed anyways. People are going to need to decide what to do with it. The DM for a game we're hoping to start soon has said, and I quote, "Silvery Barbs is bullshit" and declared it off-limits at game start, and you know what I did? Accepted it without issue and moved on (not least of which because I'm running a palladalladingdong in this game, but I'd've done the same even if I was running a class that had access to Barbs). The DM laid a ruling down and as a player who knows how D&D works, I abided by it.
OptimusGrimus, were he DMing that game instead, would likely have ruled "We're using the 2nd-level version of Silvery Barbs". Again - no issue. Accepted and moved on.
Many DMs are allowing the spell as-is. Were one of those at the table, I would've accepted it and moved on.
Saying "this is bad and broken" and then just kinda sitting there staring at it accomplishes nothing. Decisions on how to address it are required. Constant correcting-the-record is not. The record is as corrected as it's getting, ne?
Grave Clerics would like to know how they're supposed to use their subclass-defining ability to turn off critical hits, if a DM is not announcing critical hits and just applies the extra damage/crit effects behind the screen without letting players know why a particular blow was several times more effective than is typical.
How does the Grave cleric's player know when touse their reaction if they're never informed that the trigger occurred? I agree - if the cleric cannot see the attack (i.e. a hidden attacker, as one example), they cannot react to it. But if the DM never says "that's a critical hit" and instead just says "you suffer 57 points of damage and lose a hand" when the creature normally deals ~20ish on a hit, is the Grave cleric just supposed to say "wait, was that a critical hit?! Can I stop it?"
DMs who conceal every single roll they possibly can are forgetting that the characters in the game can see and judge things the players cannot. A Grave cleric with a divine ability to 'impede death's progress' would be able to see a particularly gruesome hit coming and know their ability can stay that hit's fury to a degree. The same way a martially trained character, adept at heavy melee combat, should be able to look at a creature and judge its armor class to within a poijnt or two - the trained martial character should be able to know how difficult it will be to successfully land a strike on an enemy after a single exchange, if not sooner, unless some X-factor says otherwise. Hiding dice because that feels more immersive comes at the cost of turning characters into simpletons that miss obvious cues and facts they have no business missing.
Couple days ago you seemed to agree that if you have an ability that triggers off something unseen that the character with that ability should have some means of knowing when that is. What changed? Just the need to disagree?
I mean reading over both quoted posts, they are arguing the same point.
I guess if you think critical hits are "unseen" or are indistinguishable from normal hits for some bizarre reason, you might see those two statements as contradictory
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 Grave cleric's ability allows it to intercede in a clearly defined, clearly visible situation. And yet, should the cleric or a nearby ally be struck unseen by an assassin's surprise blade? As a DM, I would not allow the Grave cleric to use Sentinel at Death's Door, no.
As it's surprise, it doesn't actually matter how you interpret the rules text, as you cannot use a reaction when surprised. It's actually questionable whether you can use reactions outside of combat at all, since you don't actually have a reaction until combat starts, though that's a sufficiently dumb interpretation that I'm going to ignore it.
What if you had the Alert feat?
Then you have the alert feat and you're not surprised. I'm not sure what part of that is confusing here.
Okay, the question then is: is an insight check observable to the player character? If yes, then Silvery Barbs is triggered. If not, the Silvery Barbs isn't triggered. I personally would rule it isn't, because that has been my understanding of how the rules work in that situation.
It doesn't matter if it is observable or not. Silver Barbs doesn't, ever, ask if the check is observable. You only need to see the creature when that creature is succeeding at the roll... Seeing the result, is never asked for.
Compare the trigger text of Barbs vs Grave cleric to see the difference in phasing.
This sorta makes sense because the spell doesn't undo something, it twists fate to prevent it. So seeing it happen 1st then responding to undo it doesn't even make sense.
Let's assume though that an insight check IS observable, and the player character uses the opportunity to cast Silvery Barbs. Well, Silvery Barbs has a big ol' Verbal component to it, so unless the player character has access to Subtle Spell metamagic or something comparable, it'll be completely and utterly obvious that the PC has used magic to interfere with that insight check.
True. Actually using it is something with hurdles in a social setting. Though, subtle isn't especially hard to get ahold of.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The trigger is success, not rolling. Success is frequently visible (though not always, and it might be situational; for example, you probably only know if someone succeeded at investigation or perception if you have already found whatever they're looking for).
1.) Why would I need to? has it not been your explicitly stated position, this entire thread, that: "Silvery Barbs, by necessity, grants the player who knows the spell/has it prepared perfect and truthful knowledge of the existence, purpose, originator, and result of every single d20 roll made within sixty feet of them at all times, regardless of any other rules"? That's the whole reason you want it banned and for any player using it to be flogged with a truck transmission - by your stance it breaks the game as written, and as such must be excised.
2.) I laid out exactly how a Barbs user is supposed to know they can cast the spell. You're too wrapped up in purely mechanical triggers - "a d20 rolls, therefor I push this button on my character sheet." Tabletop RPGs are not strictly mechanical frameworks, nor are they strictly narrative frameworks. Both are required. Not enough mechanics and your game is shallow, boring, and unengaging. Not enough narrative and your game is a tax spreadsheet, not a game. But, to recap:
A.) A character perceives a target that is attempting an action, which the player behind the character knows falls into the broad definition of "attack, check, or save."
B.) The character can perceive the action, i.e. there is visible evidence in the game world of the action being attempted. A grappler is grabbing at their target, a dragon is shrugging off a spell's effect, an attack is about to bypass a target's guard.
C.) The character can then cast Silvery Barbs.
Even you agreed that this method produces sensible, useful, 'better than RAW' results. It works. It makes sense. You just ignore it as "homebrew" and shrug off the idea that Barbs is just fine when played as intended rather than carping on the RAW like an EE instructor Gordon Ramsey-ing a first-year student's first C++ project.
As Pantagruel said, the trigger for the spell is success, not a d20 hitting the table. No, a character cannot see a d20 hitting the table through the fog of Elsewhere that separates your-game-world-of-choice from downtown ****thisplaceton. They can absolutely see the successful result of an attack, check, or save and act to interdict it, save in places where it doesn't make sense that they could A.) see the action, or B.) know an action was taken. You can't Barbs an Insight check - unless you were using Detect Thoughts on the target at the time, in which case you could successfully argue to me as a DM that you're able to see the target and are aware of the check. It's a stretch, but I'd likely give it to you as a good use of resources. You can't Barbs a Stealth check - unless the check is being made by a creature you're aware of and (tangentially) observing to try and stop it from leaving your awareness, a'la Mask of the Wild or such.
Easy. Simple. Intuitive. And how any normal regular sane DM would rule it. And if a player tries to rules-lawyer their way into complete omniscience? That's why God and Matt Mercer invented hardcover DMGs you can **** them across the jowls with before telling them to sit down, be good, and stop trying to ruin the game for everyone else.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would also like to point out that there is a difference between homebrew and interpretation of the rules. There is room in the interpretation of the rules to apply them in different ways. I think interpreting that the character must perceive the action in order to barbs it to be a reasonable interpretation and not a homebrew alteration of the rules.
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 triggering is actually not that. The trigger is seeing a creature. A creature that succeeds on an attack roll, save, or ability check. The requirement is to see the creature, and for the seen creature to succeed on a roll.
The trigger is not seeing the result of a successful roll. In fact, if you saw the results of the success it'd be too late to prevent it.
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.
You're wrong. Intentionally disregarding the rule, written rule, and changing the triggering event is indeed homebrew. Almost by definition. It is the conscious decision to ignore the written rule and replace it with your own version.
That is homebrewing. There is genuinely nothing wrong with homebrewing. But, IDK why you'd wanna be in denial about doing it or not.
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.
I want it banned? My my, you keep enlightening me on my own stances that I didn't even know I had! That's pretty amazing.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you make up your own inventive interpretation of my stance regardless of what I write, it's the same approach you have for the rules.
A. Sure. All you need to do is see the creature. Yes.
B. Uh, you needn't observe any action... the trigger is observing a creature. Not observing an action. Saves, themselves, don't even really 'look' like anything at all. How do you "see the action of resisting a charm spell"?? Your homebrewed trigger prevents people from using barbs for one of its intended purpose, vs saves. It also forces you have line of sight to a creature's target and not just the attacking creature, which is not at all required by any text whatsoever. You'd need to see the ally get struck to barbs the archer shooting them? But that is NOT what the spell's text requires.
Eh, sometimes it would. I honestly haven't gone through all the scenarios for how your homebrewed version would impact eveything because it is your homebrew and I have no plans to adopt it.
Okay but the spell trigger isn't that.
I know reality isn't what you want it to be, and that sucks. But, unfortunately, the trigger just isn't what you're saying. I mean, it is published now and you can read it. The spell is cast as a reaction, "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
There is no written requirement here to observe if that attack roll, ability check, or saving throw was a success, only the ability to see the creature when he does succeed.
If you see an archer when he is shooting at an ally that is around a corner. You do not need to see the ally, you do not need to see if the arrow is going to successfully hit them or not hit them. You only need to see the target creature who succeeded on the roll. That's it.
Any additional requirements you add are homebrew.
Insight checks are ability checks. If the creature succeeding on the insight check is within 60 feet of you, you can barbs it.
Silvery barbs specifically says as much in black and white.
I ge it, you don't think it is busted because you don't understand how it works or have simply decided to ignore how it works. That's a take you can have, sure.
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.
I really don't understand why you're still here, Rav. Every time I turn around you're scourging me over "ignoring the plain text" of the spell and disregarding RAW. I explain why the spell, when run intuitively in a way that makes reasonable sense, works just fine and you respond with some variation on 'Well all right if you wanna play badly and ignore the rules you can do that'. I get fed up and tell you to just ban the spell from your own table then if you hate it so badly, and I get 'What no I don't want it banned I just want to spend fifteen pages arguing how terrible it is."
What is your objective?
What do you WANT?
If you don't want the spell banned, redacted, or otherwise nerfed, the hell is the point of going on and on and on and on about the bizarre, overly-mechanical DM-breaking nonsense you swear the spell is? Your interpretation of the rules makes no bloody sense to me and many others, but you keep cracking me across the brainpan with it.
Why?
Please do not contact or message me.
I reply when people address me directly and ask questions. You want me to go away, and yet ask me to reply. I tend to reply when people post something that is incorrect so as to correct the record. I mean, you're entirely free to like or not like the spell. I'm not going to tell you your opinion is wrong or right. But if you mischaracterize how it actually functions, as written, then you should be corrected. Recently, you've dug in and are determined to prove it does something that isn't supported by the rules. There is no such restriction as you claim.
And the implications of the way the spell functions is bad. <-- This is my opinion. This is a place to post that opinion. You are trying to argue that the spell doesn't function the way it does, an attempt to invalidate this opinion. I might ask you Why. Why is it important to you to invalidate my opinion?
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.
I'm not telling you to go away, I'm trying to figure out what your objective is.
You want to 'correct the record'. Very well; the record has been corrected. Your correction of the record stands on about half the pages of this thread. According to you, the spell, by necessity, grants complete omniscience within 60 feet, since a player is entitled to know the source, nature, and outcome of every single d20 roll made by any entity within 60 feet of themselves. You believe this to be game-breaking, which it certainly is. That...seems to be the end of your objective.
You are tremendously opposed to any and all means of correcting the problem. You object when people assume you want it banned because it's so bad. You object when people lay down alternative interpretation of the rules that make it less stupid. You object when people throw up homebrew fixes such as increasing its level. You want the record corrected, you want people to understand how badly broken the spell is, but you seem to be deeply opposed to anybody doing anything about it. Any sort of actionable game plan is shot down and drowned in a sea of rules-lawyering.
Second try: why? What's your actual objective here? The record has been corrected for at least a dozen pages now, yet you continually block any means of discussing how the spell either doesn't actually work the way you posit it does, or can be fixed to not work the way you posit it does.
What's your solution, if every other possible solution is so terrible?
Please do not contact or message me.
Couple days ago you seemed to agree that if you have an ability that triggers off something unseen that the character with that ability should have some means of knowing when that is. What changed? Just the need to disagree?
Having an ability that triggers off a d20 result must, by necessity, be a meta-decision that the player makes. The character might has some sense of what is happening, but the nature of the ability will inform how much that character understands about it.
Silvery Barbs is a spell. Which means the character must fully consciously decide to do it in an informed way. Lucky might just happen. The grave cleric's ability might just happen by divine will. Chronal shift is the character seeing it happen and undoing it temporally. But casting a spell? You must be cognizant, fully away, of the trigger. That, in terms of character knowledge, means the character is aware of when d20 rolls succeed within 60ft of him at all times.
Otherwise the character is unable to use the spell. Because they must consciously be aware of when the trigger is happening, and that is a meta-level trigger. So the character must be capable of understanding meta information. It breaks the 4th wall.
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.
I mean reading over both quoted posts, they are arguing the same point.
Relevant text from Sentinel at Death's Door: "...when you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you suffers a critical hit, you can turn that hit into a normal hit."
That passes the test/methodology I laid out for Barbs:
1.) the Grave cleric can see the target being struck.
2.) an action/event is happening which the Grave cleric can perceive (i.e. a blow falling with unusual, possibly crippling force).
The Grave cleric's ability allows it to intercede in a clearly defined, clearly visible situation. And yet, should the cleric or a nearby ally be struck unseen by an assassin's surprise blade? As a DM, I would not allow the Grave cleric to use Sentinel at Death's Door, no.
My objection was not "the player should be allowed to know something they didn't see!" My objection was "the DM is denying the player information that player needs to use their ability correctly, and I don't believe they have a good case for doing so". DMs who do not announce critical hits when enemies score them are not playing in good faith - the players, after all, are not allowed to simply say "I hit, here's my damage" when they score a crit. They have to announce "Critical hit" or "natural 20" (which, to be fair, most of them are only too pleased to do anyways, heh).
Do not conflate the two issues. One of them is Squirrelly DM causing issues they do not need to in their game. The other is players browbeating the DM into giving them information they have no business possessing.
Now. Answer the question, if you would be so kind - what is your goal. What do you want to do with Barbs, if you believe it is as fundamentally broken as you claim?
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, you've suggested the spell cannot be used in some cases that it very clearly qualifies as being used for. You've claimed it cannot be used against Insight checks, for example. But, if the target is a creature, ad with 60ft, then, that is a valid target for the spell. So I'm not conflating these two things, you're just not being consistent. You do want to impose restrictions on what the player knows, and prevent them from having the information they need to use this ability.
Goal: Discuss the spell Silvery Barbs.
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.
As it's surprise, it doesn't actually matter how you interpret the rules text, as you cannot use a reaction when surprised. It's actually questionable whether you can use reactions outside of combat at all, since you don't actually have a reaction until combat starts, though that's a sufficiently dumb interpretation that I'm going to ignore it.
What if you had the Alert feat?
Okay, the question then is: is an insight check observable to the player character? If yes, then Silvery Barbs is triggered. If not, the Silvery Barbs isn't triggered. I personally would rule it isn't, because that has been my understanding of how the rules work in that situation.
Let's assume though that an insight check IS observable, and the player character uses the opportunity to cast Silvery Barbs. Well, Silvery Barbs has a big ol' Verbal component to it, so unless the player character has access to Subtle Spell metamagic or something comparable, it'll be completely and utterly obvious that the PC has used magic to interfere with that insight check.
Very well. "Discuss Silvery Barbs".
Your issue with the spell is that its trigger, as written, technically allows a player to know the results of rolls they should not know are being made, let alone know the results of.
Solution: do not tell the player those rolls are being made; do not give them the results of those rolls.
Does this 'break' the spell text? Yes.
Who cares.
It makes the game better. A DM's core job is to facilitate the game and run it as best they can. The text of one spell does not overule that core function. Nor does denying players knowledge their characters have no business possessing weaken Silvery Barbs in any meaningful way. There's still dozens of splendid use cases per session in most games for players to Barbs something they do have business knowing about. Just like the Grave Cleric's Sentinel at Death's Door allows them to muck with things they have business knowing of, but not with things they do not.
Your stance - "the spell is bad and should not have been printed in this form" - is noted. The spell got printed anyways. People are going to need to decide what to do with it. The DM for a game we're hoping to start soon has said, and I quote, "Silvery Barbs is bullshit" and declared it off-limits at game start, and you know what I did? Accepted it without issue and moved on (not least of which because I'm running a palladalladingdong in this game, but I'd've done the same even if I was running a class that had access to Barbs). The DM laid a ruling down and as a player who knows how D&D works, I abided by it.
OptimusGrimus, were he DMing that game instead, would likely have ruled "We're using the 2nd-level version of Silvery Barbs". Again - no issue. Accepted and moved on.
Many DMs are allowing the spell as-is. Were one of those at the table, I would've accepted it and moved on.
Saying "this is bad and broken" and then just kinda sitting there staring at it accomplishes nothing. Decisions on how to address it are required. Constant correcting-the-record is not. The record is as corrected as it's getting, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess if you think critical hits are "unseen" or are indistinguishable from normal hits for some bizarre reason, you might see those two statements as contradictory
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)
Then you have the alert feat and you're not surprised. I'm not sure what part of that is confusing here.
It doesn't matter if it is observable or not. Silver Barbs doesn't, ever, ask if the check is observable. You only need to see the creature when that creature is succeeding at the roll... Seeing the result, is never asked for.
Compare the trigger text of Barbs vs Grave cleric to see the difference in phasing.
This sorta makes sense because the spell doesn't undo something, it twists fate to prevent it. So seeing it happen 1st then responding to undo it doesn't even make sense.
True. Actually using it is something with hurdles in a social setting. Though, subtle isn't especially hard to get ahold of.
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.