Martial characters are often rated 'Good/Better/Best' on whether or not they have good, solid, reliable uses for their bonus action and their reaction. It's why Polearm Master is considered by intellectuals to often be superior to GWM/SS - sure, the +10 Power Strike/Power Shot options from GWM and SS are fine and all, but Polearm Master gives you a reliable bonus action and an often-reliable reaction within a single feat, offering many martial characters a huge edge in action economy. This isn't considered "Ohh Pee" so much as just smartly efficient utilization of resources - the martial character has a bonus and a reaction, why not try and use them?
Folks are unused to spellcasters being judged the same way, because Wizards typically does not allow spellcasters to have useful ways to utilize their bonus or reaction. This is usually justified by saying that spellcasters' main actions are so much more impactful than a martial character's multiattack suite, but I don't know how much I buy that because the spellcaster's actions are also limited by their spell slots. Yes, a higher-level spell is often more impactful than a three-hit combo, but the three-hit combo is limitless while the higher-level spells are usually done after three or four casts regardless of which action they use. Good bonus-action spells that aren't Smite-style weapon boosters are extremely rare, and good reaction spells are even rarer.
In that sense, Barbs might be considered "Ohh Pee" because it cracks the paradigm of not letting casters use their bonus actions or reactions for useful stuff...but I'd ask why people think that paradigm is okay in the first place? Why should spellcasters, which already have to pay for their spells with bad armor, bad HP, nonexistent weapon combat, limited usage via spell slots, and often drastically fewer and less impactful class features than martial characters, also have to give up making full use of their turn every turn the way so many martial characters can? Is there a particular reason, beyond "spells are too powerful!", that people can think of as to why spellcasters shouldn't be given more options to fully utilize their turn in the game?
This feels like its more of a tangent. We should be able to consider whether a spell is overly/underly powerful without asking the more general question "do spellcasters deserve to use their bonus action / reaction as consistently as martial classes"
I feel that switching to this new prompt may risk derailing the thread as a whole, as it could turn it into a "Martial vs Caster" discussion similar to the following thread
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I have been over these points already. The versatility of the spell does not make it overpowered. Bane and Bless are objectively better in situations where there is more than one target. With Shield, you can already know whether you can neutralize the attack before you cast it (and therefore whether you want to burn the spell slot and reaction). You cannot do that with Silvery Barbs. All of this we have been over in great detail. If you trade some of these things for SIlvery Barbs as a catch-all, you are sandbagging yourself. Play how you want, but as likely the only person in this thread who has actually played with this spell so far, I am telling you that you are making a mistake. The spell is great, powerful even, but not an adequate replacement for any of these in all or even most situations.
To be fair, the bolded part isnt necessarily true. Unless you have a DM that shares the value of their rolls immediately, all you know when cast Shield is that the attack hit you. You do not know whether the +5 will be sufficient for the attack not to hit, nor is there a guarantee that it will be helpful against subsequent attacks. The Shield spell can very well fail you. I find it unlikely a +5 for a round will not have any impact, but I also find it very unlikely that having 2 more d20s rolled in your side's favor with barbs will not have any impact either
But, as Mezzurah has pointed out, the effectiveness of Shield is not the most apt comparison in the first place.
I thought someone might call this out. I will direct you to my key word here: you can know. You do not necessarily always know or get to know. I do not speak for everyone, but there has only been one table I played at where the hit was not called out, and that was only because no one in the party had an answer for it. It seems standard practice in my experience. In my opinion, a DM who refuses to share that with the intent to make wizards waste Shield is kind of playing with a DM vs player mindset, but that, again, comes down to philosophy.
Well, as you said, thats your experience and your opinion. We cannot consider specific DM styles or table rules if we are talking about the spell that could pop up at any table across the world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
We also cannot assume the most vicious of play styles as common to support our narrative either. Does your DM hide their rolls?
Im not assuming anything and what my DM does is irrelevant. Your entire argument for Shield having this specific benefit over barbs DEPENDS on your DM sharing their rolls, which will not be the case uniformly across all tables. We cannot consider specific cases of DM styles in how these spells/features will play out. We have to stay as general as possible. So if your benefit depends on a specific DM style, then it is irrelevant to a general conversation.
Edit: I am also agreeing with Mezzurah that Shield is a bad comparison to begin with, so I do not intend to take this discussion about Shield any further in this thread. Barbs is a d20 reroll feature and needs to be compared to other d20 reroll features, not other reaction spells.
We also cannot assume the most vicious of play styles as common to support our narrative either. Does your DM hide their rolls?
Im not assuming anything and what my DM does is irrelevant. Your entire argument for Shield having this specific benefit over barbs DEPENDS on your DM sharing their rolls, which will not be the case uniformly across all tables.
You are not assuming anything… except what my posts are about apparently. You attempted to correct something I did not say. What your DM does is relevant. Anecdotes are information. My entire argument does not depend on the DM sharing the rolls, it was a perfectly reasonable response to the comparison of Silvery Barbs to Shield, as it is not uncommon for hits to be called out for any number of reasons.
[I have decided to remove this comment, because I feel like I am putting to much energy into this conversation at this point. I believe the points I have made thus far throughout the thread are more than sufficient to highlight my thoughts on this spell. Best of luck to everyone else]
I personally don't know any DM's that don't call out a number for attack rolls, saving throws or ability checks just like the players do. It just seems like fair play to me.
We also cannot assume the most vicious of play styles as common to support our narrative either. Does your DM hide their rolls?
Im not assuming anything and what my DM does is irrelevant. Your entire argument for Shield having this specific benefit over barbs DEPENDS on your DM sharing their rolls, which will not be the case uniformly across all tables.
You are not assuming anything… except what my posts are about apparently. You attempted to correct something I did not say. What your DM does is relevant. Anecdotes are information. My entire argument does not depend on the DM sharing the rolls, it was a perfectly reasonable response to saying the comparison of Silvery Barbs to Shield, as it is not uncommon for hits to be called out for any number of reasons.
Anecdotes are not objective evidence. Trying to target my experience or my DM's choices is not relevant to the general discussion of this spell.
Your argument DOES depend on the DM sharing your rolls IF " you can already know whether you can neutralize the attack before you cast it. " The reaction trigger for Shield only states that it triggers when you are hit with an attack. The ONLY way you can know for certain that the +5 will save you is IF your DM shares the value of their roll. The only way you can know your spell wont be wasted (100% for certain) is if you know the value of the attack roll. Otherwise, you cant.
I have seen you whinge about users making dismissive statements and misconstruing the arguments of others. Why do you get a free pass on this? I did not say anecdotes are objective, I said that they are information, which is objectively true. I would not be one to stack an anecdotes to population data, but I absolutely would not dismiss it either. The data is weighed against the claim. Asking you what your experience and what your DM does is relevant because it adds data, which increases the sample size. I imagine you dodged the question because you knew it was meaningful and likely undermined your own argument, and yes, that is exactly my takeaway.
ONE point of my argument depended on the DM sharing the roll. I have made arguments that are literally pages long, and your dismissed it as my entire argument depends on the DM sharing rolls. Words mean things, you know. In addressing one point of my argument, it is relevant in the lens of how actual play works, whether this spell is overpowered beyond simply a theoretical standpoint. You are applying a double-standard to the spells under discussion. In determining whether a spell is overpowered beyond theory, we must consider common play styles. I am sorry that this fact upsets you.
We also cannot assume the most vicious of play styles as common to support our narrative either. Does your DM hide their rolls?
Im not assuming anything and what my DM does is irrelevant. Your entire argument for Shield having this specific benefit over barbs DEPENDS on your DM sharing their rolls, which will not be the case uniformly across all tables.
You are not assuming anything… except what my posts are about apparently. You attempted to correct something I did not say. What your DM does is relevant. Anecdotes are information. My entire argument does not depend on the DM sharing the rolls, it was a perfectly reasonable response to saying the comparison of Silvery Barbs to Shield, as it is not uncommon for hits to be called out for any number of reasons.
Anecdotes are not objective evidence. Trying to target my experience or my DM's choices is not relevant to the general discussion of this spell.
Your argument DOES depend on the DM sharing your rolls IF " you can already know whether you can neutralize the attack before you cast it. " The reaction trigger for Shield only states that it triggers when you are hit with an attack. The ONLY way you can know for certain that the +5 will save you is IF your DM shares the value of their roll. The only way you can know your spell wont be wasted (100% for certain) is if you know the value of the attack roll. Otherwise, you cant.
I have seen you whinge about users making dismissive statements and misconstruing the arguments of others. Why do you get a free pass on this? I did not say anecdotes are objective, I said that they are information, which is objectively true. I would not be one to stack an anecdotes to population data, but I absolutely would not dismiss it either. The data is weighed against the claim. Asking you what your experience and what your DM does is relevant because it adds data, which increases the sample size. I imagine you dodged the question because you knew it was meaningful and likely undermined your own argument, and yes, that is exactly my takeaway.
ONE point of my argument depended on the DM sharing the roll. I have made arguments that are literally pages long, and your dismissed it as my entire argument depends on the DM sharing rolls. Words mean things, you know. In addressing one point of my argument, it is relevant in the lens of how actual play works, whether this spell is overpowered beyond simply a theoretical standpoint. You are applying a double-standard to the spells under discussion. In determining whether a spell is overpowered beyond theory, we must consider common play styles. I am sorry that this fact upsets you.
I did not dismiss your entire argument, nor any of your other arguments across the past 9 pages. The only part I brought into question was a detail about how the Shield spell works in general.
My response is in no way meant to be a personal attack against you or how your table plays D&D. My point with anecdotes is that it doesnt matter how this table or that table plays D&D, as that will produce random variances for how effective something will or wont be. The only way to be uniform is to stick to RAW when considering things like this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I personally don't know any DM's that don't call out a number for attack rolls, saving throws or ability checks just like the players do. It just seems like fair play to me.
This has been my experience as well. The DMs I play with (and myself when I have DMed) share the rolls openly. It is fair, nobody can call DM shenanigans, and the tiny hint of metagameness of figuring out the enemy AC and not wasting shield spells actually adds to the experience, in my experience. Especially at low level when a wasted spell slot can have drastic consequences due to having so few of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something is overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
Yurei, I think the argument here is that up until this point, the game has been balanced. Martial and caster classes can hold their own, and neither truly outshines the other. Action Economy was not really a factor for spellcasters as it is for martial classes up until this point.
A paradigm shift like this has a chance to unbalance the game. Unless you are contending that casters currently fall behind martial classes up until now, which I, and I believe most others, would heartily disagree. Giving caster such a huge boost in a use of a resource that they almost never use can easily tip the balance in their favor, making them outshine everyone else.
I do contend that casters currently fall behind martial classes, actually. People assume otherwise because a save-or-suck control spell landed against a single powerful enemy with no minions or support critters can end a fight...but high-level D&D is almost never "hey, let's set up our wizard to cast a bomb-ass spell that helps us win the fight!", it's "Hey, our barbarian can do, like...seventy damage a turn with his insane greataxe swings! Let's set the barbarian up to rip the enemy's face all the way off while we cheer from the background!" And frankly the whole "I cast Save-Or-Suck on the one single giant enemy with a weak save!" thing is a sign of a bad/inexperienced DM more than a sign of caster Ohh-Peeness.
High-level spellcasters are rarely the stars of the show in endgame combat - it's the martial characters that can deal absolutely withering round-over-round damage whilst having dozens of useful class features and the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the heaviest threats while the casters in the back can only hope they can keep up with their best limited-use high-level support spells. A spellcaster can keep up with a well-built endgame martial's completely free, at-will, resourceless damage only by blowing through spell slots as fast as the game allows on the best single-target damage spells in D&D, which they can usually keep up for maybe four rounds tops.
Heh, after all - the most egregiously overpowered 'damage' spell in all of 5e works by creating a small army of martial attackers that overwhelm their enemy with a tsunami of attack rolls, simulating the abilities of a high-level martial character. The ability to summon lightning, to incinerate your foes with arcane fire, to smite them with light from the Heavens - it all pales next to throwing a bag of forks at the enemy and yelling "SIC' EM, FARQUOD!" Why should I believe that spellcasters are the kings of the battlefield?
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something in overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
Then I respectfully disagree. If the conclusions need to be generizable, then the situations we consider them in need to be as general as possible. Yes, there will be variance in practice, but it doesnt do us any good to find out that Option A is stronger with Table Style X but weaker with Table Style Y, because then the conclusion becomes "it depends on your DM." At the end of the day, "it depends on your DM" is the golden rule of 5e, but because there are so many different types of DMs, falling back on that idea also makes comparison difficult.
To be clear, I do not think RAW is perfect nor do I think theorycrafting is everything, but if we are considering balance from a game design perspective falling back on RAW is the best way to get a general idea without introducing new variables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I do contend that casters currently fall behind martial classes, actually.
High level martial classes are the preeminent single target dpr under the assumption that the encounter starts under conditions where they are able to engage. That's a rather limited use case.
I'm in agree with Yuri. I've played 20th level spellcasters a few times now and in every time there was combat, they were outshined by paladins and barbs. I've had some good moments but the consistency of the martials for tanking/DPS has always been the core thing that won the fight. Mage combos/flashies are great. But they're limited, require set up, take considerable resources and often require specific situations to be truly effective. The resource-free consistent damage and defence of martials across the adventuring day and possible multiple combats just works better overall, and their features take it further.
The self-healing Pally with hold person for auto crits and smites for days is usually better in combat than the mage with a few save-or-sucks.
Unless the Dm is not experienced, of course, or it's 1 combat a day!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something in overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
Then I respectfully disagree. If the conclusions need to be generizable, then the situations we consider them in need to be as general as possible. Yes, there will be variance in practice, but it doesnt do us any good to find out that Option A is stronger with Table Style X but weaker with Table Style Y, because then the conclusion becomes "it depends on your DM." At the end of the day, "it depends on your DM" is the golden rule of 5e, but because there are so many different types of DMs, falling back on that idea also makes comparison difficult.
To be clear, I do not think RAW is perfect nor do I think theorycrafting is everything, but if we are considering balance from a game design perspective falling back on RAW is the best way to get a general idea without introducing new variables.
Your interpretation is generalizable, but limited to only theory because strictly RAW is not common. You are incorrectly associating common play style as variances, when I believe the practice of not calling out hits would be the statistical anomaly if we decided to take a measure. Your counterpoint is valid for fringe examples, not common examples. RAW is the foundation for which we begin the discussion, but actual play is where we move from theory to practice.
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something in overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
Then I respectfully disagree. If the conclusions need to be generizable, then the situations we consider them in need to be as general as possible. Yes, there will be variance in practice, but it doesnt do us any good to find out that Option A is stronger with Table Style X but weaker with Table Style Y, because then the conclusion becomes "it depends on your DM." At the end of the day, "it depends on your DM" is the golden rule of 5e, but because there are so many different types of DMs, falling back on that idea also makes comparison difficult.
To be clear, I do not think RAW is perfect nor do I think theorycrafting is everything, but if we are considering balance from a game design perspective falling back on RAW is the best way to get a general idea without introducing new variables.
The main problem I have with the idea that RAW should be the standard of measure, is the fact that the interpretation of RAW is wildly inconsistent. Just a glance at the forums can tell you that RAW varies from table to table based on the DM. There just isn't a "true" standard.
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something in overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
Then I respectfully disagree. If the conclusions need to be generizable, then the situations we consider them in need to be as general as possible. Yes, there will be variance in practice, but it doesnt do us any good to find out that Option A is stronger with Table Style X but weaker with Table Style Y, because then the conclusion becomes "it depends on your DM." At the end of the day, "it depends on your DM" is the golden rule of 5e, but because there are so many different types of DMs, falling back on that idea also makes comparison difficult.
To be clear, I do not think RAW is perfect nor do I think theorycrafting is everything, but if we are considering balance from a game design perspective falling back on RAW is the best way to get a general idea without introducing new variables.
Your interpretation is generalizable, but limited to only theory because strictly RAW is not common. You are incorrectly associating common play style as variances, when I believe the practice of not calling out hits would be the statistical anomaly if we decided to take a measure. Your counterpoint is valid for fringe examples, not common examples. RAW is the foundation for which we begin the discussion, but actual play is where we move from theory to practice.
A poll in a separate thread to check would be interesting. Many of my tables do not call out the values of rolls like yours does. I am not saying my table's style is more general, but it does suggest to me that a DM rolling fully in the open/announcing values isnt as common as it may seem. As another point to this, there have been several discussions about the validity of fudging rolls, and iirc there was a rather mixed opinion in the discussions I saw, so I am not sure that a DM rolling in the open is common enough to use as an assumption for this discussion.
At the end of the day, this only affects the usefulness of Shield compared to Silvery Barbs, but that is only a fraction of the discussion. I feel like furthering this aspect of the discussion will only act as an off-topic conversation about how we theorycraft and what should influence it, which is not what this thread is meant to be about.
Okay, that is fair. I will make a concession then. If we assume that because RAW does not state whether a DM can announce hits or not that they must not announce them, then Silvery Barbs will almost always be the superior spell to use over Shield. If however, the DM elects to share their rolls on hit, which they are not barred from doing per RAW, then there will be many situations where Shield will be the better option. Does this sound reasonable?
Okay, that is fair. I will make a concession then. If we assume that because RAW does not state whether a DM can announce hits or not that they must not announce them, then Silvery Barbs will almost always be the superior spell to use over Shield. If however, the DM elects to share their rolls on hit, which they are not barred from doing per RAW, then there will be many situations where Shield will be the better option. Does this sound reasonable?
Absolutely. I do agree Shield would be a stronger reaction at such tables because it removes the risk of the spell failing against the triggering attack.
This feels like its more of a tangent. We should be able to consider whether a spell is overly/underly powerful without asking the more general question "do spellcasters deserve to use their bonus action / reaction as consistently as martial classes"
I feel that switching to this new prompt may risk derailing the thread as a whole, as it could turn it into a "Martial vs Caster" discussion similar to the following thread
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Well, as you said, thats your experience and your opinion. We cannot consider specific DM styles or table rules if we are talking about the spell that could pop up at any table across the world.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Kaboom979,
We also cannot assume the most vicious of play styles as common to support our narrative either. Does your DM hide their rolls?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Im not assuming anything and what my DM does is irrelevant. Your entire argument for Shield having this specific benefit over barbs DEPENDS on your DM sharing their rolls, which will not be the case uniformly across all tables. We cannot consider specific cases of DM styles in how these spells/features will play out. We have to stay as general as possible. So if your benefit depends on a specific DM style, then it is irrelevant to a general conversation.
Edit: I am also agreeing with Mezzurah that Shield is a bad comparison to begin with, so I do not intend to take this discussion about Shield any further in this thread. Barbs is a d20 reroll feature and needs to be compared to other d20 reroll features, not other reaction spells.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You are not assuming anything… except what my posts are about apparently. You attempted to correct something I did not say. What your DM does is relevant. Anecdotes are information. My entire argument does not depend on the DM sharing the rolls, it was a perfectly reasonable response to the comparison of Silvery Barbs to Shield, as it is not uncommon for hits to be called out for any number of reasons.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
[I have decided to remove this comment, because I feel like I am putting to much energy into this conversation at this point. I believe the points I have made thus far throughout the thread are more than sufficient to highlight my thoughts on this spell. Best of luck to everyone else]
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I personally don't know any DM's that don't call out a number for attack rolls, saving throws or ability checks just like the players do. It just seems like fair play to me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I have seen you whinge about users making dismissive statements and misconstruing the arguments of others. Why do you get a free pass on this? I did not say anecdotes are objective, I said that they are information, which is objectively true. I would not be one to stack an anecdotes to population data, but I absolutely would not dismiss it either. The data is weighed against the claim. Asking you what your experience and what your DM does is relevant because it adds data, which increases the sample size. I imagine you dodged the question because you knew it was meaningful and likely undermined your own argument, and yes, that is exactly my takeaway.
ONE point of my argument depended on the DM sharing the roll. I have made arguments that are literally pages long, and your dismissed it as my entire argument depends on the DM sharing rolls. Words mean things, you know. In addressing one point of my argument, it is relevant in the lens of how actual play works, whether this spell is overpowered beyond simply a theoretical standpoint. You are applying a double-standard to the spells under discussion. In determining whether a spell is overpowered beyond theory, we must consider common play styles. I am sorry that this fact upsets you.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I did not dismiss your entire argument, nor any of your other arguments across the past 9 pages. The only part I brought into question was a detail about how the Shield spell works in general.
My response is in no way meant to be a personal attack against you or how your table plays D&D. My point with anecdotes is that it doesnt matter how this table or that table plays D&D, as that will produce random variances for how effective something will or wont be. The only way to be uniform is to stick to RAW when considering things like this.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This has been my experience as well. The DMs I play with (and myself when I have DMed) share the rolls openly. It is fair, nobody can call DM shenanigans, and the tiny hint of metagameness of figuring out the enemy AC and not wasting shield spells actually adds to the experience, in my experience. Especially at low level when a wasted spell slot can have drastic consequences due to having so few of them.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Kabooom979,
You may not have meant to, but you did, in fact, dismiss my entire argument on the grounds that it depended on DM announcing the rolls. If that is not your intention, then I will drop the issue in an attempt to return to meaningful discourse.
I will also disagree with you that being uniform is the correct way to determine whether something is unfair. Your conclusions should be generalizable. Sticking strictly to RAW does not give meaningful information with respect to how the game is generally played because again, it is only able to address the discussion from a theoretical standpoint. Why would we want to determine whether something is overpowered in live play using only theory? Common play styles matter and allows us to evaluate the spell in terms of actual use and therefore generalizability. This, to me, seems to be the entire point of playtesting any aspect of D&D: to test theory against practice.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I do contend that casters currently fall behind martial classes, actually. People assume otherwise because a save-or-suck control spell landed against a single powerful enemy with no minions or support critters can end a fight...but high-level D&D is almost never "hey, let's set up our wizard to cast a bomb-ass spell that helps us win the fight!", it's "Hey, our barbarian can do, like...seventy damage a turn with his insane greataxe swings! Let's set the barbarian up to rip the enemy's face all the way off while we cheer from the background!" And frankly the whole "I cast Save-Or-Suck on the one single giant enemy with a weak save!" thing is a sign of a bad/inexperienced DM more than a sign of caster Ohh-Peeness.
High-level spellcasters are rarely the stars of the show in endgame combat - it's the martial characters that can deal absolutely withering round-over-round damage whilst having dozens of useful class features and the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the heaviest threats while the casters in the back can only hope they can keep up with their best limited-use high-level support spells. A spellcaster can keep up with a well-built endgame martial's completely free, at-will, resourceless damage only by blowing through spell slots as fast as the game allows on the best single-target damage spells in D&D, which they can usually keep up for maybe four rounds tops.
Heh, after all - the most egregiously overpowered 'damage' spell in all of 5e works by creating a small army of martial attackers that overwhelm their enemy with a tsunami of attack rolls, simulating the abilities of a high-level martial character. The ability to summon lightning, to incinerate your foes with arcane fire, to smite them with light from the Heavens - it all pales next to throwing a bag of forks at the enemy and yelling "SIC' EM, FARQUOD!" Why should I believe that spellcasters are the kings of the battlefield?
Please do not contact or message me.
Then I respectfully disagree. If the conclusions need to be generizable, then the situations we consider them in need to be as general as possible. Yes, there will be variance in practice, but it doesnt do us any good to find out that Option A is stronger with Table Style X but weaker with Table Style Y, because then the conclusion becomes "it depends on your DM." At the end of the day, "it depends on your DM" is the golden rule of 5e, but because there are so many different types of DMs, falling back on that idea also makes comparison difficult.
To be clear, I do not think RAW is perfect nor do I think theorycrafting is everything, but if we are considering balance from a game design perspective falling back on RAW is the best way to get a general idea without introducing new variables.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
High level martial classes are the preeminent single target dpr under the assumption that the encounter starts under conditions where they are able to engage. That's a rather limited use case.
I'm in agree with Yuri. I've played 20th level spellcasters a few times now and in every time there was combat, they were outshined by paladins and barbs. I've had some good moments but the consistency of the martials for tanking/DPS has always been the core thing that won the fight. Mage combos/flashies are great. But they're limited, require set up, take considerable resources and often require specific situations to be truly effective. The resource-free consistent damage and defence of martials across the adventuring day and possible multiple combats just works better overall, and their features take it further.
The self-healing Pally with hold person for auto crits and smites for days is usually better in combat than the mage with a few save-or-sucks.
Unless the Dm is not experienced, of course, or it's 1 combat a day!
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Your interpretation is generalizable, but limited to only theory because strictly RAW is not common. You are incorrectly associating common play style as variances, when I believe the practice of not calling out hits would be the statistical anomaly if we decided to take a measure. Your counterpoint is valid for fringe examples, not common examples. RAW is the foundation for which we begin the discussion, but actual play is where we move from theory to practice.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The main problem I have with the idea that RAW should be the standard of measure, is the fact that the interpretation of RAW is wildly inconsistent. Just a glance at the forums can tell you that RAW varies from table to table based on the DM. There just isn't a "true" standard.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A poll in a separate thread to check would be interesting. Many of my tables do not call out the values of rolls like yours does. I am not saying my table's style is more general, but it does suggest to me that a DM rolling fully in the open/announcing values isnt as common as it may seem. As another point to this, there have been several discussions about the validity of fudging rolls, and iirc there was a rather mixed opinion in the discussions I saw, so I am not sure that a DM rolling in the open is common enough to use as an assumption for this discussion.
At the end of the day, this only affects the usefulness of Shield compared to Silvery Barbs, but that is only a fraction of the discussion. I feel like furthering this aspect of the discussion will only act as an off-topic conversation about how we theorycraft and what should influence it, which is not what this thread is meant to be about.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Kaboom979,
Okay, that is fair. I will make a concession then. If we assume that because RAW does not state whether a DM can announce hits or not that they must not announce them, then Silvery Barbs will almost always be the superior spell to use over Shield. If however, the DM elects to share their rolls on hit, which they are not barred from doing per RAW, then there will be many situations where Shield will be the better option. Does this sound reasonable?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Absolutely. I do agree Shield would be a stronger reaction at such tables because it removes the risk of the spell failing against the triggering attack.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!