Okay, but why is the answer to just increase hps, AC and monster density? I mean, let's be honest, we are already doing that. And if we ALL are doing that, I think there is an argument for bad game design. 5E is a far better game than 2E. It's not even worth the argument. However, 5E is 10000% easy mode.
Obviously, you have been around a while if you remember munchkin and Monty Hall campaigns. You remember what it was like trying to bring up a lvl 1 Wizard in 2E.....
Well ideally we are all learning what is best against the party and adjusting. This has always been true from day 1 back in the late 70's. If it is too easy, you need to do things differently. That figuring out how is up to the DM is a feature. It is why we are playing RPG's instead of board games.
I also remember back in 1 or 2e, low level wizards hiding and being xp sponges until they get the levels to feel safe actually engaging. Not sure why you feel that is somehow better design.
My answer to weaponizing the bag in bag thing is to simply say that mages found a way to stabilize such portals long ago and that problem no longer exists. It was completely artificial even back in the day. Party goes unknowingly into some extra-dimensional space and because they have such weapons the entire plot is derailed by way of all being sucked into the Astral? How is that good game design?
It has never been a perfect game. There is no perfect game. Either accept the imperfections of the world or, this being a game where a DM can do so, play differently. Or both.
Just don't insist that those who have different definitions of imperfection are therefore somehow breaking anything for you.
I stated very clearly that 5E was superior to 2E. I guess you didn't read what I said.
And if rules as written say putting a Bag of Holding inside a Bag of Holding does the Astral Plane thing, and you see fit to change the outcome, then why am I not allowed to change things? Some level of cognitive dissonance there. Those same mages who found a way to stabilize the Bag of Holding trick in your game, found a way to stabilize the casting of Silvery Barbs in my game (probably those damned Red Wizards) =P
Brought the casting all the way to zero instances. Good for all of Faerun if I do say so myself.
And you have been cool in this conversation. Much appreciated.
I don't care what people do at their tables. Has no impact on mine.
My argument is that I DO think WoTC needs to design better. I DON'T like restricting anything that has been published. Some of this stuff isn't defensible. And once again, I am not in charge of game design. They are. There are more things being loopholed by min-maxers on youtube in the new update that I don't even feel like getting into at this point. Better playtesting and wording would have closed many of them.
Those who just blindly defend every decision WoTC makes are just baffling human beings. They make mistakes, just like everyone else. Maybe they are afraid WoTC will send Pinkertons or something if they have a difference in opinion.
CME is broke. Any reasonable person is likely to agree once they actually do some research on it.
I think SB is broke as hell for a first level spell. But that's me. Not quite as egregious as CME though.
^^ you're not wrong there. There are some much bigger offenders as written than SB. As you point out, Conjure Minor Elementals, Spirit Guardians, etc are way bigger problems than SB.
A big part of me is sitting here thinking "oh, the horror...players can do something fun and impactful with their low level spell slots" and "bad guys can cast it too"
EDIT: Got ninja'd by the post above. Was referencing the post two above.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Bad design breeds bad gameplay, and even worse referee behavior. Silvery Barb’s is the NFL referee of D&D. It’s broken, and most everyone knows it, but when it works out for you, then its the best thing in the game that’s ever been. Again, broken and badly designed.
( As for the newest update to the game, the jury is still out that one, but so far the same inconsistent design flaws that have become the norm as of late has made the want to switch just that much less desirable. Maybe it will improve, maybe it won’t, but simply waiting around to find out isn’t worth doing if the ability to criticize and provide constructive feedback is shot down before it is even considered. )
Okay, but why is the answer to just increase hps, AC and monster density? I mean, let's be honest, we are already doing that. And if we ALL are doing that, I think there is an argument for bad game design. 5E is a far better game than 2E. It's not even worth the argument. However, 5E is 10000% easy mode.
Obviously, you have been around a while if you remember munchkin and Monty Hall campaigns. You remember what it was like trying to bring up a lvl 1 Wizard in 2E.....
Well ideally we are all learning what is best against the party and adjusting. This has always been true from day 1 back in the late 70's. If it is too easy, you need to do things differently. That figuring out how is up to the DM is a feature. It is why we are playing RPG's instead of board games.
I also remember back in 1 or 2e, low level wizards hiding and being xp sponges until they get the levels to feel safe actually engaging. Not sure why you feel that is somehow better design.
My answer to weaponizing the bag in bag thing is to simply say that mages found a way to stabilize such portals long ago and that problem no longer exists. It was completely artificial even back in the day. Party goes unknowingly into some extra-dimensional space and because they have such weapons the entire plot is derailed by way of all being sucked into the Astral? How is that good game design?
It has never been a perfect game. There is no perfect game. Either accept the imperfections of the world or, this being a game where a DM can do so, play differently. Or both.
Just don't insist that those who have different definitions of imperfection are therefore somehow breaking anything for you.
I stated very clearly that 5E was superior to 2E. I guess you didn't read what I said.
And if rules as written say putting a Bag of Holding inside a Bag of Holding does the Astral Plane thing, and you see fit to change the outcome, then why am I not allowed to change things? Some level of cognitive dissonance there. Those same mages who found a way to stabilize the Bag of Holding trick in your game, found a way to stabilize the casting of Silvery Barbs in my game (probably those damned Red Wizards) =P
Of course you are allowed to change things for your table. I thought I said as much, but apologize if I was unclear on that.
Silvery barbs is absolutely nothing compared to things like Spirit Guardians as written. Silvery Barbs is not even on my DMs radar. He didn't like 2014 SG, and the new version he's very unhappy with.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Silvery barbs is absolutely nothing compared to things like Spirit Guardians as written. Silvery Barbs is not even on my DMs radar. He didn't like 2014 SG, and the new version he's very unhappy with.
Spirit Guardians, that horrible spell you can save for half against, and is easily broken by concentration disruption, or automatically with a dispel at low levels, or any resist taking it to negated or half. [Redacted]
And in the end the argument is moot, every one trying to convince everyone else how to run their game. If you think its fine in your game, use it as is. If you think it is too strong, bump it a level or two in your campaign.
This argument is going no where. Neither camp is convincing anyone in the other.
Silvery barbs is absolutely nothing compared to things like Spirit Guardians as written. Silvery Barbs is not even on my DMs radar. He didn't like 2014 SG, and the new version he's very unhappy with.
Spirit Guardians, that horrible spell you can save for half against, and is easily broken by concentration disruption, or automatically with a dispel at low levels, or any resist taking it to negated or half. OMG how do deal with that.
Did you miss the part where your barbarian, monk, wizard etc grapple you, you voluntarily fail the save, and they drag you around to re-tag all the enemies?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Silvery barbs is absolutely nothing compared to things like Spirit Guardians as written. Silvery Barbs is not even on my DMs radar. He didn't like 2014 SG, and the new version he's very unhappy with.
Spirit Guardians, that horrible spell you can save for half against, and is easily broken by concentration disruption, or automatically with a dispel at low levels, or any resist taking it to negated or half. OMG how do deal with that.
Did you miss the part where your barbarian, monk, wizard etc grapple you, you voluntarily fail the save, and they drag you around to re-tag all the enemies?
[Redacted]Also the grapple causes a concentration check, or did you forget that part. It would be a check every time they would move the caster. [Redacted]
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.
So you have someone spend their action to grapple you and move typically 15 ft to poke a few enemies with 3d8 damage, half on save, and hope they don't mob the caster before you can try and do it again? You can't move the caster far enough to really make a difference, especially if you aren't able to catch all the enemies in the center.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So you have someone spend their action to grapple you and move typically 15 ft to poke a few enemies with 3d8 damage, half on save, and hope they don't mob the caster before you can try and do it again? You can't move the caster far enough to really make a difference, especially if you aren't able to catch all the enemies in the center.
Yeah, I am surprised that hasn't happened at my table yet. My players are terminally online looking for things like this.
But agreed, seems to be a lot of work given up for that result. I guess in certain situations of creature density it could be viable.....
The spirit guardians is a non issue. The DM just says no. And if the players insist it’s RAW, the DM points to the line in the DMG that says “Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.” a grapple is an attack. So there’s that. (Side note, that bit of advice also takes care of the opportunity attack cure wounds.)
Anyway, this is way off topic for a silvery barbs thread. I do agree with Rhyls no one is going to convince anyone of how valid the spell is. That’s why, personally, I’ve just been pushing back against people who are saying their way is the right way, and others violate the spirit of the game or something, whatever the spirit of the game means. You don’t have to use it. That’s cool, I’m sure your table is having fun. But you don’t get to lecture others about how they should play.
In total fairness - I run player friendly games IF i ask someone to make a check I have never not once been asked about RAW. It's all a matter of trust do your players trust you to run a fair game - and do you trust them not to try and abuse a skill spell homebrew item to be a jerk. Its a collaborative effort No player has ever questioned my call at the table in a real way. Ever.
Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I run good games --- either way IDC none of this is ever an issue at my tables.
Folk, I'm seeing a lot of Quote Reply chains which tends to mean we have gone from discussing the original topic of the thread (Opinions on Silvery Barbs) to debating solely with one or two other users, inevitably turning personal. If you find that your reply in going to include a block of several other messages in a quote, it might be time to step back.
Also it looks like we've derailed from discussing Silvery Barbs and have dipped into 'Edition Wars' and debating other spells and how they intersect with RAW and houserules. At this point I'm not sure what about Silvery Barbs hasn't been discussed in over 50 pages, so if this conversation cannot get back on the rails and discuss it peacefully, it might be time to close the thread to prevent circular debates.
I stated very clearly that 5E was superior to 2E. I guess you didn't read what I said.
And if rules as written say putting a Bag of Holding inside a Bag of Holding does the Astral Plane thing, and you see fit to change the outcome, then why am I not allowed to change things? Some level of cognitive dissonance there. Those same mages who found a way to stabilize the Bag of Holding trick in your game, found a way to stabilize the casting of Silvery Barbs in my game (probably those damned Red Wizards) =P
Brought the casting all the way to zero instances. Good for all of Faerun if I do say so myself.
And you have been cool in this conversation. Much appreciated.
I don't care what people do at their tables. Has no impact on mine.
My argument is that I DO think WoTC needs to design better. I DON'T like restricting anything that has been published. Some of this stuff isn't defensible. And once again, I am not in charge of game design. They are. There are more things being loopholed by min-maxers on youtube in the new update that I don't even feel like getting into at this point. Better playtesting and wording would have closed many of them.
Those who just blindly defend every decision WoTC makes are just baffling human beings. They make mistakes, just like everyone else. Maybe they are afraid WoTC will send Pinkertons or something if they have a difference in opinion.
CME is broke. Any reasonable person is likely to agree once they actually do some research on it.
I think SB is broke as hell for a first level spell. But that's me. Not quite as egregious as CME though.
^^ you're not wrong there. There are some much bigger offenders as written than SB. As you point out, Conjure Minor Elementals, Spirit Guardians, etc are way bigger problems than SB.
A big part of me is sitting here thinking "oh, the horror...players can do something fun and impactful with their low level spell slots" and "bad guys can cast it too"
EDIT: Got ninja'd by the post above. Was referencing the post two above.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Could not have said this any better. Exactly.
If only I had more thumbs up to give.
Of course you are allowed to change things for your table. I thought I said as much, but apologize if I was unclear on that.
Silvery barbs is absolutely nothing compared to things like Spirit Guardians as written. Silvery Barbs is not even on my DMs radar. He didn't like 2014 SG, and the new version he's very unhappy with.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Spirit Guardians, that horrible spell you can save for half against, and is easily broken by concentration disruption, or automatically with a dispel at low levels, or any resist taking it to negated or half. [Redacted]
And in the end the argument is moot, every one trying to convince everyone else how to run their game.
If you think its fine in your game, use it as is.
If you think it is too strong, bump it a level or two in your campaign.
This argument is going no where. Neither camp is convincing anyone in the other.
Did you miss the part where your barbarian, monk, wizard etc grapple you, you voluntarily fail the save, and they drag you around to re-tag all the enemies?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
[Redacted] Also the grapple causes a concentration check, or did you forget that part. It would be a check every time they would move the caster. [Redacted]
Where in RAW does it say that a grappled character needs to make a concentration check?
Neither Concentration (2014e) nor Concentration (2024e) require a check when Grappled.
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.
So you have someone spend their action to grapple you and move typically 15 ft to poke a few enemies with 3d8 damage, half on save, and hope they don't mob the caster before you can try and do it again? You can't move the caster far enough to really make a difference, especially if you aren't able to catch all the enemies in the center.
Please show me the rule that requires a conc check when grappled. [Redacted]
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah, I am surprised that hasn't happened at my table yet. My players are terminally online looking for things like this.
But agreed, seems to be a lot of work given up for that result. I guess in certain situations of creature density it could be viable.....
The spirit guardians is a non issue. The DM just says no. And if the players insist it’s RAW, the DM points to the line in the DMG that says “Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.” a grapple is an attack. So there’s that. (Side note, that bit of advice also takes care of the opportunity attack cure wounds.)
Anyway, this is way off topic for a silvery barbs thread. I do agree with Rhyls no one is going to convince anyone of how valid the spell is. That’s why, personally, I’ve just been pushing back against people who are saying their way is the right way, and others violate the spirit of the game or something, whatever the spirit of the game means. You don’t have to use it. That’s cool, I’m sure your table is having fun. But you don’t get to lecture others about how they should play.
In total fairness - I run player friendly games IF i ask someone to make a check I have never not once been asked about RAW. It's all a matter of trust do your players trust you to run a fair game - and do you trust them not to try and abuse a skill spell homebrew item to be a jerk. Its a collaborative effort No player has ever questioned my call at the table in a real way. Ever.
Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I run good games --- either way IDC none of this is ever an issue at my tables.
James
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFolk, I'm seeing a lot of Quote Reply chains which tends to mean we have gone from discussing the original topic of the thread (Opinions on Silvery Barbs) to debating solely with one or two other users, inevitably turning personal. If you find that your reply in going to include a block of several other messages in a quote, it might be time to step back.
Also it looks like we've derailed from discussing Silvery Barbs and have dipped into 'Edition Wars' and debating other spells and how they intersect with RAW and houserules. At this point I'm not sure what about Silvery Barbs hasn't been discussed in over 50 pages, so if this conversation cannot get back on the rails and discuss it peacefully, it might be time to close the thread to prevent circular debates.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support