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
If you deal 1d8+3 with a longsword, and hit once for 10 damage and then again for 10 damage, which of these hits was the critical? The 1st one or the 2nd one?
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.
It doesn't matter if it is observable or not. Silver Barbs doesn't, ever, ask if the check is observable.
That's because it's not specific to silvery barbs -- nothing in the rules says that reaction abilities grant special senses, and therefore they do not. As being able to react to non-observable events requires special senses, it is not possible to react to non-observable events. If this means some spells are hard to use... tough.
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.
So you would have a reaction to use the grave cleric ability
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.
A lot of spells don't ask if the target is observable. In fact, some can still be used on targets that are explicitly not visible, if you are aware of them. That doesn't mean the spell gives metagame knowledge that there's an invisible target; you still have to perceive it to know it exists.
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.
That is true, though it's still something non-sorcerers have to work for, and through optional rules to boot (though at this stage it's probably safe to say a lot of tables run with them).
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.
So you would have a reaction to use the grave cleric ability
Grimus, I don't mean to be dense, but I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make here.
A lot of spells don't ask if the target is observable. In fact, some can still be used on targets that are explicitly not visible, if you are aware of them. That doesn't mean the spell gives metagame knowledge that there's an invisible target; you still have to perceive it to know it exists.
Pretty sure the intent there was that 'observable' means 'detectable', not 'visible'. The only spells that let you target undetected creatures are indiscriminate area effects (if it's in the area, it gets targeted).
Grimus, I don't mean to be dense, but I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make here.
I think the point was that in the case of the alert feat, surprise wouldn't prevent using the grave cleric ability. Some other ability might (a hidden assassin isn't visible and therefore doesn't trigger silvery barbs, but the grave cleric ability only requires seeing the target of the attack). I would generally permit it to work, unless the effects of the critical hit wouldn't be apparent, because the entire point of the alert feat is being protected from things like assassins.
A lot of spells don't ask if the target is observable. In fact, some can still be used on targets that are explicitly not visible, if you are aware of them. That doesn't mean the spell gives metagame knowledge that there's an invisible target; you still have to perceive it to know it exists.
Pretty sure the intent there was that 'observable' means 'detectable', not 'visible'. The only spells that let you target undetected creatures are indiscriminate area effects (if it's in the area, it gets targeted).
I'm aware. Words are just hard for the hamster powering my brain.
Grimus, I don't mean to be dense, but I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make here.
I think the point was that in the case of the alert feat, surprise wouldn't prevent using the grave cleric ability. Some other ability might (a hidden assassin isn't visible and therefore doesn't trigger silvery barbs, but the grave cleric ability only requires seeing the target of the attack). I would generally permit it to work, unless the effects of the critical hit wouldn't be apparent, because the entire point of the alert feat is being protected from things like assassins.
That would make sense, but if that's the case then I think the conversation might be getting derailed a smidge.
A lot of spells don't ask if the target is observable. In fact, some can still be used on targets that are explicitly not visible, if you are aware of them. That doesn't mean the spell gives metagame knowledge that there's an invisible target; you still have to perceive it to know it exists.
Pretty sure the intent there was that 'observable' means 'detectable', not 'visible'. The only spells that let you target undetected creatures are indiscriminate area effects (if it's in the area, it gets targeted).
Grimus, I don't mean to be dense, but I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make here.
I think the point was that in the case of the alert feat, surprise wouldn't prevent using the grave cleric ability. Some other ability might (a hidden assassin isn't visible and therefore doesn't trigger silvery barbs, but the grave cleric ability only requires seeing the target of the attack). I would generally permit it to work, unless the effects of the critical hit wouldn't be apparent, because the entire point of the alert feat is being protected from things like assassins.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They would also need to be invisible or behind total cover from you as then it would not be "a creature you see"
Simple surprise without that you could still take the reaction. So I guess my point is that it's less common than one would think likely.
And yes it's been derailed but you asked Mezz so I'm just answering?
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They would also need to be invisible or behind total cover from you as then it would not be "a creature you see"
Simple surprise without that you could still take the reaction. So I guess my point is that it's less common than one would think likely.
And yes it's been derailed but you asked Mezz so I'm just answering?
Well, I asked because I felt I was missing something and wasn't sure. Now that it's been cleared up, we can go back to beating each other up over this ******* spell.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They would also need to be invisible or behind total cover from you as then it would not be "a creature you see"
Simple surprise without that you could still take the reaction. So I guess my point is that it's less common than one would think likely.
And yes it's been derailed but you asked Mezz so I'm just answering?
Well, I asked because I felt I was missing something and wasn't sure. Now that it's been cleared up, we can go back to beating each other up over this ****ing spell.
Fair....
I still think its best as a 2nd level spell and then its good to go.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They're no longer hidden after attacking. Which is to say, after they've already succeeded. Which is too late to react.
Hmmm I thought it was as soon as they attacked? Is there a relevant rule citing here?
EDIT:
"give away your location when the attack hits or misses"
they attack and it hits....this prompts Silvery Barbs: * - 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
So they attacked, it was successful, they are no longer hidden....then you can see them prompting the reaction.
As for Grave Cleric:
As a reaction 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. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
You do not need to see the attacking creature only the creature who suffered the hit so its moot.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They're no longer hidden after attacking. Which is to say, after they've already succeeded. Which is too late to react.
Hmmm I thought it was as soon as they attacked? Is there a relevant rule citing here?
EDIT:
"give away your location when the attack hits or misses"
they attack and it hits....this prompts Silvery Barbs: * - 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
So they attacked, it was successful, they are no longer hidden....then you can see them prompting the reaction.
As for Grave Cleric:
As a reaction 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. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
You do not need to see the attacking creature only the creature who suffered the hit so its moot.
"which you take when a creature you can see " still being the most important part here. If you can't see the creature because of topography, or other reasons, you still can't cast the spell. Nothing has changed. The caster with MB still is not omniscient. They still need to see the creature. Edit: Meaning line of sight rules apply, facing applies, cover rules, the 4th level invisibility spell applies, darkness magical and non magical and so on.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They're no longer hidden after attacking. Which is to say, after they've already succeeded. Which is too late to react.
Hmmm I thought it was as soon as they attacked? Is there a relevant rule citing here?
EDIT:
"give away your location when the attack hits or misses"
they attack and it hits....this prompts Silvery Barbs: * - 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
So they attacked, it was successful, they are no longer hidden....then you can see them prompting the reaction.
As for Grave Cleric:
As a reaction 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. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
You do not need to see the attacking creature only the creature who suffered the hit so its moot.
"which you take when a creature you can see " still being the most important part here. If you can't see the creature because of topography, or other reasons, you still can't cast the spell. Nothing has changed. The caster with MB still is not omniscient. They still need to see the creature. Edit: Meaning line of sight rules apply, facing applies, cover rules, the 4th level invisibility spell applies, darkness magical and non magical and so on.
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
And I specifically mentioned that sight based restrictions would be in play still yes....so we agree overall.
Also the original comment was about Grave Cleric and that point is completely moot as you do not even need to see the attacker for that feature to work..****y the creature that is being walloped.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They're no longer hidden after attacking. Which is to say, after they've already succeeded. Which is too late to react.
All reactions happen after the triggering event. It's just that some of them allow the character to affect the roll and retroactively turn successes into failure.
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!
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
The attack has neither hit nor missed until all reactions have fired.
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
The attack has neither hit nor missed until all reactions have fired.
I assume you're distinguishing between a "success" on a d20 and an actual "hit" there
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)
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
The attack has neither hit nor missed until all reactions have fired.
I assume you're distinguishing between a "success" on a d20 and an actual "hit" there
Yes. If it was a hit, the target would take damage, because that's what happens when an attack hits. It's impressive how bad 5e is at writing rules, though -- in 4e there was a clear distinction:
Immediate Interrupt: occurs before the trigger is resolved. Can change the the results of the trigger.
Immediate Reaction: occurs after the trigger is resolved. Cannot change the results of the trigger (though a reaction to being hit could affect damage, as that has not yet been resolved).
Most but not all reactions in 5e are actually interrupts.
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
The attack has neither hit nor missed until all reactions have fired.
Untrue....the success has been determined. The other example would be shield which procs on a "hit".
In both cases a successfull attack roll is all that is needed. In both cases the attack is modified after the "hit".
If you deal 1d8+3 with a longsword, and hit once for 10 damage and then again for 10 damage, which of these hits was the critical? The 1st one or the 2nd one?
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.
That's because it's not specific to silvery barbs -- nothing in the rules says that reaction abilities grant special senses, and therefore they do not. As being able to react to non-observable events requires special senses, it is not possible to react to non-observable events. If this means some spells are hard to use... tough.
So you would have a reaction to use the grave cleric ability
A lot of spells don't ask if the target is observable. In fact, some can still be used on targets that are explicitly not visible, if you are aware of them. That doesn't mean the spell gives metagame knowledge that there's an invisible target; you still have to perceive it to know it exists.
That is true, though it's still something non-sorcerers have to work for, and through optional rules to boot (though at this stage it's probably safe to say a lot of tables run with them).
Grimus, I don't mean to be dense, but I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make here.
Pretty sure the intent there was that 'observable' means 'detectable', not 'visible'. The only spells that let you target undetected creatures are indiscriminate area effects (if it's in the area, it gets targeted).
I think the point was that in the case of the alert feat, surprise wouldn't prevent using the grave cleric ability. Some other ability might (a hidden assassin isn't visible and therefore doesn't trigger silvery barbs, but the grave cleric ability only requires seeing the target of the attack). I would generally permit it to work, unless the effects of the critical hit wouldn't be apparent, because the entire point of the alert feat is being protected from things like assassins.
I'm aware. Words are just hard for the hamster powering my brain.
That would make sense, but if that's the case then I think the conversation might be getting derailed a smidge.
I guess my point is once they attack that aren't hidden anymore....
They would also need to be invisible or behind total cover from you as then it would not be "a creature you see"
Simple surprise without that you could still take the reaction. So I guess my point is that it's less common than one would think likely.
And yes it's been derailed but you asked Mezz so I'm just answering?
Well, I asked because I felt I was missing something and wasn't sure. Now that it's been cleared up, we can go back to beating each other up over this ******* spell.
They're no longer hidden after attacking. Which is to say, after they've already succeeded. Which is too late to react.
Fair....
I still think its best as a 2nd level spell and then its good to go.
Hmmm I thought it was as soon as they attacked? Is there a relevant rule citing here?
EDIT:
"give away your location when the attack hits or misses"
they attack and it hits....this prompts Silvery Barbs:
* - 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
So they attacked, it was successful, they are no longer hidden....then you can see them prompting the reaction.
As for Grave Cleric:
As a reaction 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. Any effects triggered by a critical hit are canceled.
You do not need to see the attacking creature only the creature who suffered the hit so its moot.
"which you take when a creature you can see " still being the most important part here. If you can't see the creature because of topography, or other reasons, you still can't cast the spell. Nothing has changed. The caster with MB still is not omniscient. They still need to see the creature.
Edit: Meaning line of sight rules apply, facing applies, cover rules, the 4th level invisibility spell applies, darkness magical and non magical and so on.
But the fact that they had to make the attack and the outcome was determined ("it hits") Means that the creature is now no longer hidden and thus now applicable for the spell.
And I specifically mentioned that sight based restrictions would be in play still yes....so we agree overall.
Also the original comment was about Grave Cleric and that point is completely moot as you do not even need to see the attacker for that feature to work..****y the creature that is being walloped.
All reactions happen after the triggering event. It's just that some of them allow the character to affect the roll and retroactively turn successes into failure.
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 attack has neither hit nor missed until all reactions have fired.
I assume you're distinguishing between a "success" on a d20 and an actual "hit" there
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)
Yes. If it was a hit, the target would take damage, because that's what happens when an attack hits. It's impressive how bad 5e is at writing rules, though -- in 4e there was a clear distinction:
Most but not all reactions in 5e are actually interrupts.
Untrue....the success has been determined. The other example would be shield which procs on a "hit".
In both cases a successfull attack roll is all that is needed. In both cases the attack is modified after the "hit".
Success has not yet been determined. Once success has been determined you resolve damage.