If a caster does not know if a save has failed or succeeded per J. Crawferd then how can silvery barbs be used since it is a reaction and the trigger is a successful save? Is a player expected to cast blindly and hope for an effect?
As an example say a player casts the spell Charm Person, the creature makes a saving throw. How does the player know if it can use barbs or not? I personally am inclined to simply divulge the result of the saving throw but others would not. As a player however burning a spell slot for absolutely no effect also does not feel good and since the spell trigger is a success could you even attempt to cast it at all unless it could be cast?
This is a valid question in my opinion. You could always go the gamist route of "they save", "i cast silvery barbs", it fits within the game mechanics and to be fair, isn't really all that overpowered, just adds more rolls and potentially a bit of tedium. But it does raise the question of what a save is, how are you supposed to know what to even look for.
Overtly visible saves/Attack rolls
Attack rolls are the most straight-forward as you can probably argue that you could see the outcome way in advance.
Strength or Dexterity Saves are more intuitive in terms of determining wether they succeed or not. Either you dodge or not.
With regards to internal saves
From what I understand, if I cast a spell my self, I know what kind of save I'm looking for and when it's supposed to occur, and many times directly know if the effect succeeded or not. Some spells even write this out.
But what if the caster of the spell is unknown to you? What if you don't know what spell they're casting and what the save is?
It's not obvious to me that I should be able to know if a creature is trying to fend of a mental or internal attack if I don't know an attack is even taking place.
With regards to ability checks
Writing ability checks, is as far as I understand it, the same as encompassing all raw ability checks, as well as skill modified ability checks.The few times I even roll ability checks for NPCs, it's usually a friendly NPC or out of combat. I rarely announce what an NPC rolls on a contested check such as deception/insight, that is for their actions to dictate. At which point(while issuing the arrest order), it would surely be too late to distract them?
Imagine if the tables are turned, every court of every king/duke/baron/steward has dedicated Silvery Barbs subtle spell casters. So every time a PC rolls an ability check for insight/persuasion/deception, you instantly shoot them down.
And what does it even mean to succeed on deception, isn't the point that you can't tell? You see someone talking, know that they lie, and distract them to lie worse? Why even bother with the Insight to begin with, if presumably any one with the Silvery Barbs spell always knows when someone is lying based on them succeeding on an ability check?
If a caster does not know if a save has failed or succeeded per J. Crawferd then how can silvery barbs be used since it is a reaction and the trigger is a successful save? Is a player expected to cast blindly and hope for an effect?
As an example say a player casts the spell Charm Person, the creature makes a saving throw. How does the player know if it can use barbs or not? I personally am inclined to simply divulge the result of the saving throw but others would not. As a player however burning a spell slot for absolutely no effect also does not feel good and since the spell trigger is a success could you even attempt to cast it at all unless it could be cast?
It does not say that you have to know that it has been a success, but that it has been a success. That is, even if your character doesn't know it was successful, he can still cast Silvery Barbs as a reaction if the saving throw was successful.
You don't know, what you don't know. Great question.
The simple answer is that the DM would have to make it known that the creature succeeded or failed on a saving throw. The information on the success or failure of the save might be neccessary to determine the amount of damage a target is subjected to, or if a condition is applied to a target. If the DM doesn't outright tell you, they might narrate the effect happening and you may have to ask if your PC would have noticed the success/failure or if there is a method to discern said result.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
If a caster does not know if a save has failed or succeeded per J. Crawferd then how can silvery barbs be used since it is a reaction and the trigger is a successful save? Is a player expected to cast blindly and hope for an effect?
As an example say a player casts the spell Charm Person, the creature makes a saving throw. How does the player know if it can use barbs or not? I personally am inclined to simply divulge the result of the saving throw but others would not. As a player however burning a spell slot for absolutely no effect also does not feel good and since the spell trigger is a success could you even attempt to cast it at all unless it could be cast?
It does not say that you have to know that it has been a success, but that it has been a success. That is, even if your character doesn't know it was successful, he can still cast Silvery Barbs as a reaction if the saving throw was successful.
I see your point and would agree with you that your reading is probably correct. Which means the more information the DM divulges, the more vulnerable they are to Silvery Barbs. I see this potentially leading to a kind of degenerate play.
As a DM, if a player picks Silvery Barbs, I could then elect to never divulge my Saving Throw rolls, just ask for full damage roll/effect and then keep playing, applying appropriate damage as I go and bait the players to burn their reactions and spell slots. Although technically not against the rules, I could see a lot of tables not wanting this kind of play.
Similar to the way the wording of the Lucky Feat, makes it so that I just have to look at my players for a couple of seconds after every Attack Roll, Saving Throw or Ability Check. Then watch them burn their luck points within the first few hours of every adventuring day. Not because I think it's the most fun application of the feat, but the way the feat insists I approach it, and the way my players react to me playing that way, they panic. Because if I play as normal, technically, they do not get to ever use it because I'd tell them immediately if they failed or not.
All this being said, I am not one of the opponents of the spell, neither will I ban it. It's a formula-breaking spell that I'd like to fully explore before implementing it. It is one of a few things that don't seem to fit snugly with many people's idea of the game.
This feels like more of a gameplay style question than a real game mechanics issue. The tables I play at and the ones I watch on livestreams are all open about whether a save succeeds or not. Then you know whether you can use silvery barbs.
Well, yeah I think most tables are open on wether a save succeeds or not, I think very few people disagree with that sort of play. In fact, I think very few mechanics could disrupt a reasonably balanced table in terms of player/DM skill or ambition. But I also think a lot of DMs do approach the wording of this spell with extreme scepticism because they feel it effectively punishes their style of play in a way (which is generally regarded as a sort of standard playstyle).
For myself, I do not necessarily like the gamist way of approaching saves this way. Just because I announce a save failing or succeeding, that does not automatically mean that all the PCs know the save failed. I regard that as meta-knowledge. The in-game description of a creature shaking something off can give you a clue, but I try to imagine the edge cases.
Imagine the creature is situated in a doorway, the party situated on opposite sides of the wall the doorway is built in to (the party can not see each other or communicate effectively.)
I could announce the save failing or succeeding, but I do not necessarily think the creature is like a Cuphead boss that it telegraphs shaking the effects of a spell with a distinct animation.
I can rule this on a case-by-case basis and my party will be cool about it, no problem. But I'd rather have Sage Advice or a dev tweet guide me with regards to exactly how evident it is when a creature makes a save.
In my case, I've actually written a section in to my Core Rules document on how I rule Silvery Barbs, just to manage player expectation around picking the spell. Because I know most of them would intuitively interpret the meaning of the spell to be "when the DM tells me the outcome of the roll, I can always automatically change it." So far, no player has been hesitant towards picking the spell and there's only been one edge case ruling. But it is the only spell where I've actively specified rules for it. I've generally been able to fall back on SA or tweets for ruling everything else.
This is like everything. The DM has the last word. However, even though the rolls are hidden, I think the DM should let the players know whether or not a save was successful.
I always make the rolls in front of the players (except for passive saves and things like that). And I would let the player cast Silvery Barbs even though the character narratively doesn't know that the roll was successful.
RAW does not say that the caster must know that the roll was successful. from there, if the DM wants to change that, it's up to he.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a caster does not know if a save has failed or succeeded per J. Crawferd then how can silvery barbs be used since it is a reaction and the trigger is a successful save? Is a player expected to cast blindly and hope for an effect?
As an example say a player casts the spell Charm Person, the creature makes a saving throw. How does the player know if it can use barbs or not?
I personally am inclined to simply divulge the result of the saving throw but others would not. As a player however burning a spell slot for absolutely no effect also does not feel good and since the spell trigger is a success could you even attempt to cast it at all unless it could be cast?
"If they succeed I'll use Silvery Barbs with my reaction"
This is a valid question in my opinion. You could always go the gamist route of "they save", "i cast silvery barbs", it fits within the game mechanics and to be fair, isn't really all that overpowered, just adds more rolls and potentially a bit of tedium. But it does raise the question of what a save is, how are you supposed to know what to even look for.
Overtly visible saves/Attack rolls
Attack rolls are the most straight-forward as you can probably argue that you could see the outcome way in advance.
Strength or Dexterity Saves are more intuitive in terms of determining wether they succeed or not. Either you dodge or not.
With regards to internal saves
From what I understand, if I cast a spell my self, I know what kind of save I'm looking for and when it's supposed to occur, and many times directly know if the effect succeeded or not. Some spells even write this out.
But what if the caster of the spell is unknown to you? What if you don't know what spell they're casting and what the save is?
It's not obvious to me that I should be able to know if a creature is trying to fend of a mental or internal attack if I don't know an attack is even taking place.
With regards to ability checks
Writing ability checks, is as far as I understand it, the same as encompassing all raw ability checks, as well as skill modified ability checks.The few times I even roll ability checks for NPCs, it's usually a friendly NPC or out of combat. I rarely announce what an NPC rolls on a contested check such as deception/insight, that is for their actions to dictate. At which point(while issuing the arrest order), it would surely be too late to distract them?
Imagine if the tables are turned, every court of every king/duke/baron/steward has dedicated Silvery Barbs subtle spell casters. So every time a PC rolls an ability check for insight/persuasion/deception, you instantly shoot them down.
And what does it even mean to succeed on deception, isn't the point that you can't tell? You see someone talking, know that they lie, and distract them to lie worse? Why even bother with the Insight to begin with, if presumably any one with the Silvery Barbs spell always knows when someone is lying based on them succeeding on an ability check?
It does not say that you have to know that it has been a success, but that it has been a success. That is, even if your character doesn't know it was successful, he can still cast Silvery Barbs as a reaction if the saving throw was successful.
You don't know, what you don't know. Great question.
The simple answer is that the DM would have to make it known that the creature succeeded or failed on a saving throw. The information on the success or failure of the save might be neccessary to determine the amount of damage a target is subjected to, or if a condition is applied to a target. If the DM doesn't outright tell you, they might narrate the effect happening and you may have to ask if your PC would have noticed the success/failure or if there is a method to discern said result.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I see your point and would agree with you that your reading is probably correct. Which means the more information the DM divulges, the more vulnerable they are to Silvery Barbs. I see this potentially leading to a kind of degenerate play.
As a DM, if a player picks Silvery Barbs, I could then elect to never divulge my Saving Throw rolls, just ask for full damage roll/effect and then keep playing, applying appropriate damage as I go and bait the players to burn their reactions and spell slots. Although technically not against the rules, I could see a lot of tables not wanting this kind of play.
Similar to the way the wording of the Lucky Feat, makes it so that I just have to look at my players for a couple of seconds after every Attack Roll, Saving Throw or Ability Check. Then watch them burn their luck points within the first few hours of every adventuring day. Not because I think it's the most fun application of the feat, but the way the feat insists I approach it, and the way my players react to me playing that way, they panic. Because if I play as normal, technically, they do not get to ever use it because I'd tell them immediately if they failed or not.
All this being said, I am not one of the opponents of the spell, neither will I ban it. It's a formula-breaking spell that I'd like to fully explore before implementing it. It is one of a few things that don't seem to fit snugly with many people's idea of the game.
This feels like more of a gameplay style question than a real game mechanics issue. The tables I play at and the ones I watch on livestreams are all open about whether a save succeeds or not. Then you know whether you can use silvery barbs.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well, yeah I think most tables are open on wether a save succeeds or not, I think very few people disagree with that sort of play. In fact, I think very few mechanics could disrupt a reasonably balanced table in terms of player/DM skill or ambition. But I also think a lot of DMs do approach the wording of this spell with extreme scepticism because they feel it effectively punishes their style of play in a way (which is generally regarded as a sort of standard playstyle).
For myself, I do not necessarily like the gamist way of approaching saves this way. Just because I announce a save failing or succeeding, that does not automatically mean that all the PCs know the save failed. I regard that as meta-knowledge. The in-game description of a creature shaking something off can give you a clue, but I try to imagine the edge cases.
Imagine the creature is situated in a doorway, the party situated on opposite sides of the wall the doorway is built in to (the party can not see each other or communicate effectively.)
I could announce the save failing or succeeding, but I do not necessarily think the creature is like a Cuphead boss that it telegraphs shaking the effects of a spell with a distinct animation.
I can rule this on a case-by-case basis and my party will be cool about it, no problem. But I'd rather have Sage Advice or a dev tweet guide me with regards to exactly how evident it is when a creature makes a save.
In my case, I've actually written a section in to my Core Rules document on how I rule Silvery Barbs, just to manage player expectation around picking the spell. Because I know most of them would intuitively interpret the meaning of the spell to be "when the DM tells me the outcome of the roll, I can always automatically change it." So far, no player has been hesitant towards picking the spell and there's only been one edge case ruling. But it is the only spell where I've actively specified rules for it. I've generally been able to fall back on SA or tweets for ruling everything else.
This is like everything. The DM has the last word. However, even though the rolls are hidden, I think the DM should let the players know whether or not a save was successful.
I always make the rolls in front of the players (except for passive saves and things like that). And I would let the player cast Silvery Barbs even though the character narratively doesn't know that the roll was successful.
RAW does not say that the caster must know that the roll was successful. from there, if the DM wants to change that, it's up to he.