Wild, I think I hate that. You're definitely correct, it just feels like a huge oversight in the rules.
One leveled spell per turn would definitely be simpler than the current rules, but it would also be a meaningful change.
Honestly, I think (and so does Treantmonk) that they're going to go whole hog and just remove the BA/leveled spell casting limitation completely. Not reword, not tweak, just straight up remove it. Want to Misty Step out of melee, throw a Fireball, and then Counterspell the enemy's attempt to Counterspell you? You'll be able to do that, just like you can in Baldur's Gate 3.
"But Psyren," I can hear people say, "that will unbalance the game! What about Quicken?" The thing about Quicken is that in the playtest, the restriction against casting a leveled spell and a quickened spell on the same turn is actually built into Quicken Spell itself already; similarly, playtest Action Surge doesn't allow for double-casting anymore either. The only bonus action spells that you'll be able to combine with an action spell are the ones that are already balanced around being bonus actions in the first place. And yes, being able to Misty Step and follow up with a leveled spell instead of a cantrip will be a buff - but with all the various species that can BA teleport without a spell like Eladrin, Shadar-Kai, and Astral Elf, or doing similar things like BA Disengage and Rabbit Hop etc., it's not like tons of PCs weren't already using tactics like this.
(Not to mention, Counterspell itself is getting nerfed as well.)
I'd be glad to see the back of the BA rule, not keen on the Action Surge though, you've made a sacrifice for it and it's only once a day.
As for Silvery Barbs v Shield, it really depends on play styles.
If your DM will only tell you if it hits or not before letting you decide to use it, then SB is better. If they need 10 to hit, then if they rolled 15-20, it's wasted. If they tell you what they scored (eg, does a 16 hit?) then you can be more judicious and there's much more parity.
The other thing is numbers. If you're in a small party, you're much more likely to be hit multiple times in a round, meaning Shield could be more useful (remember, you'd have to be hit three times for Shield to be statistically more likely to be useful than wasted, so we're looking at being hit four times in a round to have a 50% chance of using this feature, assuming your AC isn't so high compared to their "to hit" that Shield's usefulness isn't impacted). In large parties, SB is more useful because you're much less likely to be targeted multiple times, and you have greater opportunity to use SB since there are more players in the party to defend.
As I said, their relative power depends on how the DM runs things and circumstances. I'd say that often, SB and Shield are different tools that are in rough parity (which isn't to say that one isn't better, just that the difference is small enough to be academic). However, circumstances can push SB to be clearly the superior choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And on top of all that, just having SB on your list means that you automatically know any time a roll by a visible character that is within 60 feet of you was successful.
Silvery Barbs does not give you an automatic way to bypass passive perception or insight. If your character does not know what happened, either because the other person did if subtly or you did not notice an effect, then you have no reason to cast SB.
If you are seeing this as a problem, the problem lies not with the spell, but with an overly permissive DM expanding the spell beyond what it actually does.
Wild, I think I hate that. You're definitely correct, it just feels like a huge oversight in the rules.
One leveled spell per turn would definitely be simpler than the current rules, but it would also be a meaningful change.
Honestly, I think (and so does Treantmonk) that they're going to go whole hog and just remove the BA/leveled spell casting limitation completely. Not reword, not tweak, just straight up remove it. Want to Misty Step out of melee, throw a Fireball, and then Counterspell the enemy's attempt to Counterspell you? You'll be able to do that, just like you can in Baldur's Gate 3.
I'd honestly be fine with that as long as we have a consistent rule to apply. My issue is less about casting multiple level spells in a turn, and more about the counterintuitive idea that casting an "especially swift" Bonus Action spell precludes the caster from using a Reaction spell on the same turn, but casting a regular-speed Action spell does not.
When did player meta-knowledge of another creatures attempt to do something become commonplace ?
Sure one might be able to visually see if someone is trying to do something openly, and determine if they are making progress in whatever action they take, but some things should be left to mystery.
Personally SB is a massive piece of design crap, and can stay in the garbage where it belongs. It opens the floodgates of player and DM creature meta-gaming, and D&D isn’t a game of Player Vs DM, it’s about not having any idea what might happen next, and adjusting to the ever changing world around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MEMBER DATE(DD/MM/YYYY) :11/09/2019
to all DDB staff and Moderators, each of you are pathetic mentally incompetent individuals who should be fired along with Crawford and everyone else who works for Hasbro. To those users who are the company shills and kiss azssers, may you all burn in the deepest darkest depths of the 9 hells and my you all suffer the worst fortune in the remainder of your life and all eternity.
And on top of all that, just having SB on your list means that you automatically know any time a roll by a visible character that is within 60 feet of you was successful.
Silvery Barbs does not give you an automatic way to bypass passive perception or insight. If your character does not know what happened, either because the other person did if subtly or you did not notice an effect, then you have no reason to cast SB.
If you are seeing this as a problem, the problem lies not with the spell, but with an overly permissive DM expanding the spell beyond what it actually does.
But that is not how the spell is written. You can take the reaction any time that a creature that you can see succeeds on an attack, ability check, or save. It doesn't say you need to pass a check to notice it. It just says any time they save.
So by the RAW, the DM would have to inform the person with SB whenever any creature they can see succeeds on a roll.
That's not true at all. Nowhere in any rulebook does it say the DM has to inform players when triggers for their reactions happen. That's something you've just entirely made up.
That's not true at all. Nowhere in any rulebook does it say the DM has to inform players when triggers for their reactions happen. That's something you've just entirely made up.
This depends a little bit on how you view the Sage Advice Compendium and the posts that are the source of that advice.
HERE you can see an entry in the SAC that speaks about a reaction that affects a die roll:
Is the intent that a bard gets to know the number rolled on an attack roll or ability check before using Cutting Words, or should they always guess? If used on a damage roll, does Cutting Words apply to any kind of damage roll including an auto-hit spell like magic missile?
You can wait to use Cutting Words after the roll, but you must commit to doing so before you know for sure whether the total of the roll or check is a success or a failure. You can use Cutting Words to reduce the damage from any effect that calls for a damage roll (including magic missile) even if the damage roll is not preceded by an attack roll.
And HERE you can see the original piece of advice from Jeremy Crawford with further clarification, the relevant part which is ...
As DM, you decide whether to roll behind a screen or not. If something can change the roll, show the die or report what it rolled.
Which does seem to imply that if a character has the ability to affect rolls, the DM is supposed to inform them of the rolls that they can affect.
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!
Personally, for the record, I see no problem with a PC knowing an enemy they can see succeeded on their saving throw against that player's ability. "You have Silvery Barbs but have no idea when you're allowed to use it" just feels like a passive-aggressive ban of the spell; if a DM told me that, I'd rather they were just up front about not allowing it at all and let me pick something else for my character.
As DM, I am not going to tell the players that a particular person in a crowded market square is making a stealth check to hide from them or has attempted to pick their pockets. That is immersion breaking. I also I don't believe that it was the point of Silvery Barbs in the first place. Kind of like how Healing Spirit wasn't broken unless it was used in a way that it was never intended to be used. The Clockwork Sorcerer ability has work perfectly fine under these same conditions, just like Lucky and Chronal Shift. None of these complaints happened with these abilities, just Silvery Barbs.
Right, I would expect a Perception roll first and I think a reasonable interpretation of Silvery Barbs, Cutting Words, et al. is that the character must notice their target doing something in order to be able to use their abilities. Pretty sure that's how all the other abilities have been run by most reasonable DM's as well.
Let's put hidden actions aside in their own hypothetical by assuming that all actions are taken out in the open and perceivable, even if not understandable. With that assumption, do you think it is reasonable to say that it would be quite burdensome for a DM to check with the players at each and every possible action and ask, "Would you like to use your reaction on this?" and that it is more feasible for it to be the player's responsibility to know their character's abilities and when to use them?
Given that, I can see two ways to approach it. I'm sure there are more, but these are what I can think of at the moment: 1) DM narrates the world with no mechanics and the players are allowed to shoot off their reaction abilities freeform during the narrative whenever they suspect it might land. I can see this being better for immersion, but I can also see it leading to a lot of either wasted spell slots or hoarded spell slots because of a lack of understanding or a non-sympatico rapport of the flow of the story between the DM and the players. I would expect such a DM to allow some takebacks and do overs from misunderstandings. 2) DM is open about the mechanical goings on at the meta level so the players can more accurately and tactically respond with their abilities when it is appropriate. This requires the players to also participate in building the game on a meta level along with the DM to create a smoother game at the narrative level, but some may not like this intrusion of meta mechanics into their play.
In the end I guess it depends on whether dice rolls or do-overs break one's immersion worse. I know I prefer the second approach.
How is this immersion breaking? You don't know what that person is doing, are they making an insight roll, are they trying to remember if they've seen your party beforehand, you as a player just don't know. Knowing what they have been doing would expect an almost omniscient awareness of the world. Players just don't have that.
You mean Player Character, right? And yes, but then who is it that's casting the spell? Is it the character, who doesn't even know anything is going on and thus has no reason to cast a spell? Or is it the player who was just given the meta knowledge that something triggered the spell? See I think my example is a weird halfway approach that frustrates me. Either only tell me what my character can perceive, or tell me the mechanics of what's going on at the meta level and trust that I will be a fellow architect of our shared narrative working towards building a satisfying experience for all involved. I lean toward the latter.
You know, I had the discussion about this three years ago, i think I'll just quote myself because it still stands to reason.
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!
Which does seem to imply that if a character has the ability to affect rolls, the DM is supposed to inform them of the rolls that they can affect.
This is contradicted by the rules in Xanathar's:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
This tells you that the DM should not reveal rolls, at least when revealing rolls would reveal information the players should not have.
Which does seem to imply that if a character has the ability to affect rolls, the DM is supposed to inform them of the rolls that they can affect.
This is contradicted by the rules in Xanathar's:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
This tells you that the DM should not reveal rolls, at least when revealing rolls would reveal information the players should not have.
Yes, but this is a suggested rule that I have never seen enforced in any game I’ve played or watched. I think Dungeon Dudes did an analysis of why it’s really not good for the table itself for Counterspell.
Edit: Was thinking of a different part of this rule than the quoted section, but abilities that manipulate meta factors like rolls do need some insight into the roll. Stuff like SB and Cutting Words are meant to attempt to turn a success into a failure; making players commit the resource before knowing if the roll was going to hit when the effect doesn’t expressly direct you to undermines that function.
Yes, but this is a suggested rule that I have never seen enforced in any game I’ve played or watched. I think Dungeon Dudes did an analysis of why it’s really not good for the table itself for Counterspell.
I've never seen 'reaction to identify a spell' used in a game, but that's a different rule. Speaking of things I've never seen enforced, I've never seen a DM reveal a roll where revealing the roll would give the PC information they shouldn't have, except too late for anyone to do anything about it (for example, a stealth roll might be revealed... after the ambush has already happened).
Which does seem to imply that if a character has the ability to affect rolls, the DM is supposed to inform them of the rolls that they can affect.
This is contradicted by the rules in Xanathar's:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
This tells you that the DM should not reveal rolls, at least when revealing rolls would reveal information the players should not have.
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
Yes, but this is a suggested rule that I have never seen enforced in any game I’ve played or watched. I think Dungeon Dudes did an analysis of why it’s really not good for the table itself for Counterspell.
I've never seen 'reaction to identify a spell' used in a game, but that's a different rule. Speaking of things I've never seen enforced, I've never seen a DM reveal a roll where revealing the roll would give the PC information they shouldn't have, except too late for anyone to do anything about it (for example, a stealth roll might be revealed... after the ambush has already happened).
I realized I had missed the initial point and amended my comment to address the point about “information the player should not have” as it relates to things like roll results and whether that constitutes a success or failure.
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
I would say that's it's the same visibility as the spell effect itself, so if a spell has an obvious effect success or failure will be obvious.
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
I would say that's it's the same visibility as the spell effect itself, so if a spell has an obvious effect success or failure will be obvious.
Sorry, forgot to bold the last sentence too. "Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target" tells me that you know they succeeded regardless of the visible effects of the spell itself; the "otherwise" being "if they're not immune."
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
I would say that's it's the same visibility as the spell effect itself, so if a spell has an obvious effect success or failure will be obvious.
This sounds reasonable, but also a houserule. Of course from my discussion from three years ago I, apparently, think that "the player is informed of every single possible successful roll within line of sight" should be houseruled just for ease of play.
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!
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
I would say that's it's the same visibility as the spell effect itself, so if a spell has an obvious effect success or failure will be obvious.
This sounds reasonable, but also a houserule. Of course from my discussion from three years ago I, apparently, think that "the player is informed of every single possible successful roll within line of sight" should be houseruled just for ease of play.
The campaign would explode at the first city, or even the first moderately busy town square.
Well I don't think most DMs actually roll for the actions of mass bystanders.
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 each and every potential such check is a check the caster might decide to interfere with, whether actually meaningful or not. For there to be an expectation of being informed of rolls, either the players are informed of every check, no matter how small, or the DM is required to inform them every time something important happens, regardless of whether it is reasonable for them to know or not. How does their character know when to cast?
I think my preferred answer, like I said before, is that the DM and the players should work together at the meta level to create the kind of game that's fun for everyone. This kind of cooperation would entail the DM and the player having a conversation about the kinds of things the character would be on the lookout for to try and interfere with rather than treating it all mechanistically, and if there needs to be some minor retroactive stuff going on, that should be fine as long as all involved try to work together rather than antagonistically. Part of this would be the agreement to only consider things that are narratively important, for both the player and the DM. Which means an agreement to try not to make things annoying by flooding the player with useless unimportant rolls or for the player to jerk the DM around by asking to try and control trivial events.
But each and every potential such check is a check the caster might decide to interfere with, whether actually meaningful or not. For there to be an expectation of being informed of rolls, either the players are informed of every check, no matter how small, or the DM is required to inform them every time something important happens, regardless of whether it is reasonable for them to know or not. How does their character know when to cast?
I think my preferred answer, like I said before, is that the DM and the players should work together at the meta level to create the kind of game that's fun for everyone. This kind of cooperation would entail the DM and the player having a conversation about the kinds of things the character would be on the lookout for to try and interfere with rather than treating it all mechanistically, and if there needs to be some minor retroactive stuff going on, that should be fine as long as all involved try to work together rather than antagonistically. Part of this would be the agreement to only consider things that are narratively important, for both the player and the DM. Which means an agreement to try not to make things annoying by flooding the player with useless unimportant rolls or for the player to jerk the DM around by asking to try and control trivial events.
Or, the PC gets to choose to interfere in rolls their character can believably make a conscious choice over, i.e. "You see someone doing X and... <rolls> it looks like they are going to succeed!".... "I get silvery!" (or decide to let it ride). I.E. not every roll, not even every relevant roll.
Yes, this sounds like a reasonable way to run it. Which is the conclusion I came to three years ago, I believe.
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.
Honestly, I think (and so does Treantmonk) that they're going to go whole hog and just remove the BA/leveled spell casting limitation completely. Not reword, not tweak, just straight up remove it. Want to Misty Step out of melee, throw a Fireball, and then Counterspell the enemy's attempt to Counterspell you? You'll be able to do that, just like you can in Baldur's Gate 3.
"But Psyren," I can hear people say, "that will unbalance the game! What about Quicken?" The thing about Quicken is that in the playtest, the restriction against casting a leveled spell and a quickened spell on the same turn is actually built into Quicken Spell itself already; similarly, playtest Action Surge doesn't allow for double-casting anymore either. The only bonus action spells that you'll be able to combine with an action spell are the ones that are already balanced around being bonus actions in the first place. And yes, being able to Misty Step and follow up with a leveled spell instead of a cantrip will be a buff - but with all the various species that can BA teleport without a spell like Eladrin, Shadar-Kai, and Astral Elf, or doing similar things like BA Disengage and Rabbit Hop etc., it's not like tons of PCs weren't already using tactics like this.
(Not to mention, Counterspell itself is getting nerfed as well.)
I'd be glad to see the back of the BA rule, not keen on the Action Surge though, you've made a sacrifice for it and it's only once a day.
As for Silvery Barbs v Shield, it really depends on play styles.
If your DM will only tell you if it hits or not before letting you decide to use it, then SB is better. If they need 10 to hit, then if they rolled 15-20, it's wasted. If they tell you what they scored (eg, does a 16 hit?) then you can be more judicious and there's much more parity.
The other thing is numbers. If you're in a small party, you're much more likely to be hit multiple times in a round, meaning Shield could be more useful (remember, you'd have to be hit three times for Shield to be statistically more likely to be useful than wasted, so we're looking at being hit four times in a round to have a 50% chance of using this feature, assuming your AC isn't so high compared to their "to hit" that Shield's usefulness isn't impacted). In large parties, SB is more useful because you're much less likely to be targeted multiple times, and you have greater opportunity to use SB since there are more players in the party to defend.
As I said, their relative power depends on how the DM runs things and circumstances. I'd say that often, SB and Shield are different tools that are in rough parity (which isn't to say that one isn't better, just that the difference is small enough to be academic). However, circumstances can push SB to be clearly the superior choice.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Silvery Barbs does not give you an automatic way to bypass passive perception or insight. If your character does not know what happened, either because the other person did if subtly or you did not notice an effect, then you have no reason to cast SB.
If you are seeing this as a problem, the problem lies not with the spell, but with an overly permissive DM expanding the spell beyond what it actually does.
I'd honestly be fine with that as long as we have a consistent rule to apply. My issue is less about casting multiple level spells in a turn, and more about the counterintuitive idea that casting an "especially swift" Bonus Action spell precludes the caster from using a Reaction spell on the same turn, but casting a regular-speed Action spell does not.
When did player meta-knowledge of another creatures attempt to do something become commonplace ?
Sure one might be able to visually see if someone is trying to do something openly, and determine if they are making progress in whatever action they take, but some things should be left to mystery.
Personally SB is a massive piece of design crap, and can stay in the garbage where it belongs. It opens the floodgates of player and DM creature meta-gaming, and D&D isn’t a game of Player Vs DM, it’s about not having any idea what might happen next, and adjusting to the ever changing world around.
MEMBER DATE(DD/MM/YYYY) :11/09/2019
to all DDB staff and Moderators, each of you are pathetic mentally incompetent individuals who should be fired along with Crawford and everyone else who works for Hasbro.
To those users who are the company shills and kiss azssers, may you all burn in the deepest darkest depths of the 9 hells and my you all suffer the worst fortune in the remainder of your life and all eternity.
That's not true at all. Nowhere in any rulebook does it say the DM has to inform players when triggers for their reactions happen. That's something you've just entirely made up.
This depends a little bit on how you view the Sage Advice Compendium and the posts that are the source of that advice.
HERE you can see an entry in the SAC that speaks about a reaction that affects a die roll:
And HERE you can see the original piece of advice from Jeremy Crawford with further clarification, the relevant part which is ...
Which does seem to imply that if a character has the ability to affect rolls, the DM is supposed to inform them of the rolls that they can affect.
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!
Personally, for the record, I see no problem with a PC knowing an enemy they can see succeeded on their saving throw against that player's ability. "You have Silvery Barbs but have no idea when you're allowed to use it" just feels like a passive-aggressive ban of the spell; if a DM told me that, I'd rather they were just up front about not allowing it at all and let me pick something else for my character.
You know, I had the discussion about this three years ago, i think I'll just quote myself because it still stands to reason.
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!
This is contradicted by the rules in Xanathar's:
This tells you that the DM should not reveal rolls, at least when revealing rolls would reveal information the players should not have.
Yes, but this is a suggested rule that I have never seen enforced in any game I’ve played or watched. I think Dungeon Dudes did an analysis of why it’s really not good for the table itself for Counterspell.
Edit: Was thinking of a different part of this rule than the quoted section, but abilities that manipulate meta factors like rolls do need some insight into the roll. Stuff like SB and Cutting Words are meant to attempt to turn a success into a failure; making players commit the resource before knowing if the roll was going to hit when the effect doesn’t expressly direct you to undermines that function.
I've never seen 'reaction to identify a spell' used in a game, but that's a different rule. Speaking of things I've never seen enforced, I've never seen a DM reveal a roll where revealing the roll would give the PC information they shouldn't have, except too late for anyone to do anything about it (for example, a stealth roll might be revealed... after the ambush has already happened).
Yeah, but that rule seems to support the idea that you can perceive successful saves, particularly the bolded part. It says you can't distinguish between a success due to save and a success due to immunity, but either way you can tell that they defeated your attempt. So at best, the player might waste a SB on an enemy that is immune to something, but they won't waste a SB on a target that would have failed anyway.
I realized I had missed the initial point and amended my comment to address the point about “information the player should not have” as it relates to things like roll results and whether that constitutes a success or failure.
I would say that's it's the same visibility as the spell effect itself, so if a spell has an obvious effect success or failure will be obvious.
Sorry, forgot to bold the last sentence too. "Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target" tells me that you know they succeeded regardless of the visible effects of the spell itself; the "otherwise" being "if they're not immune."
This sounds reasonable, but also a houserule. Of course from my discussion from three years ago I, apparently, think that "the player is informed of every single possible successful roll within line of sight" should be houseruled just for ease of play.
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!
Well I don't think most DMs actually roll for the actions of mass bystanders.
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!
I think my preferred answer, like I said before, is that the DM and the players should work together at the meta level to create the kind of game that's fun for everyone. This kind of cooperation would entail the DM and the player having a conversation about the kinds of things the character would be on the lookout for to try and interfere with rather than treating it all mechanistically, and if there needs to be some minor retroactive stuff going on, that should be fine as long as all involved try to work together rather than antagonistically. Part of this would be the agreement to only consider things that are narratively important, for both the player and the DM. Which means an agreement to try not to make things annoying by flooding the player with useless unimportant rolls or for the player to jerk the DM around by asking to try and control trivial events.
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, this sounds like a reasonable way to run it. Which is the conclusion I came to three years ago, I believe.
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!