Hello all! Sorry if this has been answered before, I couldn't find anything the forum or online. Seems like this spell gets some folks heated but i'm mostly interested in how others interpret in this specific scenario. If someone uses subtle spell on a spell that uses Verbal and Somatic components, can a player with Silvery Barbs still react?
The language is, "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. The triggering creature must reroll the d20and use the lower roll" and "1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
Right now i'm ruling it as yes because the only prereq is distance, a successful roll, and visibility of the target, not if you can see the target make an attack. Not the biggest fan of that for a couple reasons but i'm not trying to rewrite the rules, I'm just seeking clarification or suggestions since I have players that use one or the either and I want to give a fair ruling before it comes up in combat. Pretty confident in my initial ruling and I know I can always just "DM's call" it but I want cover any blind spots I may have.
You need to know there's something to react to in order to react. That said, I'm not aware of any spell that involves an attack roll that doesn't have a visible projectile, so even if the casting itself is imperceptible, the attack almost certainly would be. If you think the specific spell involved would be an exception, which spell was it?
I can't think of any spell attacks that don't have a visible component to it once cast. The argument really hinges on, "What is this reacting to?", like you said. That and "you can see within 60 feet of yourself" not being "you can see within 60 feet of yourself attacking you". With subtle spell it's not to the spell being cast like counterspell. My in-game response to this is this reaction happens in the split second between spell being successfully cast and being properly aimed at an opponent.
It's always been a difficult spell for me to visualize in my head so maybe i'm just splitting hairs.
The silvery barbs spell can be cast when metagame circumstances occur, this wether you saw what caused them or not.
So when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can cast the spell regardless if you know what triggered the roll.
The silvery barbs spell can be cast when metagame circumstances occur, this wether you saw what caused them or not.
So when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can cast the spell regardless if you know what triggered the roll.
That's incorrect. If you don't know about it, you have no reason to even think it could be castable. On the rare occasions where the player may have knowledge about the trigger that their character does not share, if a GM wants to let them get away with it, they can do whatever, but most GMs I expect would simply say "you don't know about that" and move on.
The silvery barbs spell can be cast when metagame circumstances occur, this wether you saw what caused them or not.
So when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can cast the spell regardless if you know what triggered the roll.
That's incorrect. If you don't know about it, you have no reason to even think it could be castable. On the rare occasions where the player may have knowledge about the trigger that their character does not share, if a GM wants to let them get away with it, they can do whatever, but most GMs I expect would simply say "you don't know about that" and move on.
The silvery barbs spell doesn't say you have to know the creature is making a such roll, just see it make one, you never know these metagame stuff per se, otherwise you'd never be able to use the spell.
The silvery barbs spell can be cast when metagame circumstances occur, this wether you saw what caused them or not.
So when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can cast the spell regardless if you know what triggered the roll.
That's incorrect. If you don't know about it, you have no reason to even think it could be castable. On the rare occasions where the player may have knowledge about the trigger that their character does not share, if a GM wants to let them get away with it, they can do whatever, but most GMs I expect would simply say "you don't know about that" and move on.
The silvery barbs spell doesn't say you have to know the creature is making a such roll, just see it make one, you never know these metagame stuff per se, otherwise you'd never be able to use the spell.
It doesn’t matter what the spell says. You cannot react to something you do not know about. If I as a GM do not tell you that a creature just succeeded on a check, what are you gonna do?
It doesn’t matter what the spell says. You cannot react to something you do not know about. If I as a GM do not tell you that a creature just succeeded on a check, what are you gonna do?
What the spell say do matter on the contrary.
Do i see the creature?
is it within 60 feet of me?
Does it succeed on an attack roll, ability check or saving throw?
If yes, then the trigger for silvery barbs is met RAW and anything else is GM territory. One can make any ruling, but what's being discussed is what the spell say and doesn't say.
The spells that off-hand I can think of that would give no indication of being cast require that the caster talk. If subtle spell removes the talking bit, it wouldn't work at all.
Anyway, RAW if you can see the creature, and it succeeds with something, you can Barb it. We all know that sometimes the rules don't make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The important thing to remember in this situation is that when an attack roll or saving throw is made as part of a spell's effect, spellcasting is already performed wether it had any somatic or verbal components. The roll serve to determine the success of said effect.
Here's a clear exemple to portray better the situation; When a spellcaster cast Fire Bolt using no noticeable spell components, everyone can see it hurl a mote of fire because it's part of the spell effect and silvery barbs can be used to react to this outcome.
Similarly, when a spellcaster cast Acid Splash using no noticeable spell components, everyone can see it hurl a bulble of acid because it's part of the spell effect and silvery barbs can be used to react to this outcome.
Fire Bolt: You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried.
Acid Splash: You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one or two creatures you can see within range. If you choose two, they must be within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.
It's counterintuitive, but the general rule for Reactions does not actually require the trigger to be perceivable, although I think that it's a reasonable house rule to require this.
In just about every case in the game where a trigger is defined, it is perceivable. Silvery Barbs is an exception, which is why many people feel that it's a poorly worded spell.
In contrast, when you are defining your own trigger for use with a Ready action, the trigger explicitly must be a "perceivable circumstance". But this is a specific rule for use with the Ready action -- it's not the general rule for Reactions and their triggers.
It's counterintuitive, but the general rule for Reactions does not actually require the trigger to be perceivable, although I think that it's a reasonable house rule to require this.
Again, my point is not about the rules. My point is about what is actually possible among the players of the game. The rules certainly suggest that if the trigger is satisfied, the reaction is available. But if you don't know about it, that does not matter.
The problem with this spell description is that it is based on a metagame trigger and NOT on an in game observable.
From the Ready action - a trigger is supposed to be :
"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. " PHB
"Certain game features let you take a special action, called a reaction, in response to an event." Tasha's (in my opinion die rolls are NOT events)
"If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action." DMG
Triggers are supposed to be due to something that can be noticed by the characters ... shield requires an attack that would otherwise hit you then allows you to cast a spell that might deflect that hit at the last second ... counterspell requires seeing a spell being cast within 60' ... all Ready action triggers have to be perceivable by the character.
Silvery Barbs says: "* - which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
None of these are in game perceivable actions by a character - they are metagame action triggers and as such effectively break the rules on what a trigger should be.
The player knows when another player or NPC rolls an attack, ability check or saving throw. Unfortunately, in many circumstances, the character really would have no idea that such a die roll was made. The trigger of Silver Barbs should be based on something the character would perceive, not on something the player would perceive. This is one aspect of what makes Silver Barbs a ridiculously badly worded spell.
How can a character know to cast silvery barbs when they may or may not be aware of whether the attack, ability check or saving throw succeeded? If the effects of this attack/check/save aren't perceivable by the caster of Silvery Barbs ... how can that character possibly cast the spell even if the player is aware someone rolled a save? Depending on the circumstances, the player may even be unaware of whether the die roll was successful if the DM doesn't tell the player. The player may not even know what number was rolled ... a creature with legendary resistance may just succeed at the save if the DM is rolling behind the screen ... the player has no idea whether the die roll succeeded or whether a legendary save was used. Can the character cast Silvery Barbs?
RAW the spell says a successful attack roll, ability check or saving throw ... RAW also says that triggers should be perceivable. Unfortunately, none of these are perceivable so it all falls into a DM ruling category ... how do they want Silvery Barbs to run in their game. Do they take it at face value and allow characters to be aware of die rolls? Do they take it at face value and say that none of the triggers are perceivable and so the spell doesn't work at all? :) Do they decide that player awareness of die rolls allows the player's character to respond?
Honestly, it is just incredibly badly written and this is just another reason why I don't use the spell at all in any game I run.
Hello all! Sorry if this has been answered before, I couldn't find anything the forum or online. Seems like this spell gets some folks heated but i'm mostly interested in how others interpret in this specific scenario. If someone uses subtle spell on a spell that uses Verbal and Somatic components, can a player with Silvery Barbs still react?
The language is, "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. The triggering creature must reroll the d20and use the lower roll" and "1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
Right now i'm ruling it as yes because the only prereq is distance, a successful roll, and visibility of the target, not if you can see the target make an attack. Not the biggest fan of that for a couple reasons but i'm not trying to rewrite the rules, I'm just seeking clarification or suggestions since I have players that use one or the either and I want to give a fair ruling before it comes up in combat. Pretty confident in my initial ruling and I know I can always just "DM's call" it but I want cover any blind spots I may have.
Thanks!
I would personally require that the caster perceive that an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check was successful, but a strict reading of RAW does not require it. Cast in point, someone could make a history check to recall a detail about something, and you could force a reroll with silvery barbs. How would you even know they made the attempt? The spell doesn't care.
Generally speaking, the trigger should be perceivable because it triggers against a target succeeding in a d20 test which means they were either: a) making an attack, which is always observable unless they're unseen, which handily is covered by the "a creature you can see" portion of the triggering conditions; b) attempting an ability check, which generally means they're actively doing something- granted, this one gets a little fuzzy on knowledge/social rolls, but about the only two of those that will occur in a circumstance where the PC's want to interfere is Insight or Perception checks, which kind of defeats the purpose since producing an obvious spell effect rather highlights that something is up, and c) attempting a saving throw, which will generally mean the PC is aware one of their allies is trying to do something to the target. Whether or not you can observe gestures or sounds don't matter because any attack roll either happens completely out of your sight which explicitly puts it out of SB's wheelhouse per the reaction timing description, or must perforce have some discernable element that the caster can interfere with. You're not messing with the cast when you use SB, you're messing the resolution.
It's counterintuitive, but the general rule for Reactions does not actually require the trigger to be perceivable, although I think that it's a reasonable house rule to require this.
Again, my point is not about the rules. My point is about what is actually possible among the players of the game. The rules certainly suggest that if the trigger is satisfied, the reaction is available. But if you don't know about it, that does not matter.
If your point is not about the rules, it does not belong in the rules & game mechanics subforum
It's counterintuitive, but the general rule for Reactions does not actually require the trigger to be perceivable, although I think that it's a reasonable house rule to require this.
Again, my point is not about the rules. My point is about what is actually possible among the players of the game. The rules certainly suggest that if the trigger is satisfied, the reaction is available. But if you don't know about it, that does not matter.
If your point is not about the rules, it does not belong in the rules & game mechanics subforum
My point is about the practical implication of the rules. Other people in this thread have made similar points about the spell being poorly worded because of that. It really feels like the topic absolutely belongs in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello all! Sorry if this has been answered before, I couldn't find anything the forum or online. Seems like this spell gets some folks heated but i'm mostly interested in how others interpret in this specific scenario. If someone uses subtle spell on a spell that uses Verbal and Somatic components, can a player with Silvery Barbs still react?
The language is, "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll" and "1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
Right now i'm ruling it as yes because the only prereq is distance, a successful roll, and visibility of the target, not if you can see the target make an attack. Not the biggest fan of that for a couple reasons but i'm not trying to rewrite the rules, I'm just seeking clarification or suggestions since I have players that use one or the either and I want to give a fair ruling before it comes up in combat. Pretty confident in my initial ruling and I know I can always just "DM's call" it but I want cover any blind spots I may have.
Thanks!
You need to know there's something to react to in order to react. That said, I'm not aware of any spell that involves an attack roll that doesn't have a visible projectile, so even if the casting itself is imperceptible, the attack almost certainly would be. If you think the specific spell involved would be an exception, which spell was it?
I can't think of any spell attacks that don't have a visible component to it once cast. The argument really hinges on, "What is this reacting to?", like you said. That and "you can see within 60 feet of yourself" not being "you can see within 60 feet of yourself attacking you". With subtle spell it's not to the spell being cast like counterspell. My in-game response to this is this reaction happens in the split second between spell being successfully cast and being properly aimed at an opponent.
It's always been a difficult spell for me to visualize in my head so maybe i'm just splitting hairs.
The silvery barbs spell can be cast when metagame circumstances occur, this wether you saw what caused them or not.
So when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can cast the spell regardless if you know what triggered the roll.
That's incorrect. If you don't know about it, you have no reason to even think it could be castable. On the rare occasions where the player may have knowledge about the trigger that their character does not share, if a GM wants to let them get away with it, they can do whatever, but most GMs I expect would simply say "you don't know about that" and move on.
It depends on whether the PC knows anything is going on.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The silvery barbs spell doesn't say you have to know the creature is making a such roll, just see it make one, you never know these metagame stuff per se, otherwise you'd never be able to use the spell.
It doesn’t matter what the spell says. You cannot react to something you do not know about. If I as a GM do not tell you that a creature just succeeded on a check, what are you gonna do?
What the spell say do matter on the contrary.
Do i see the creature?
is it within 60 feet of me?
Does it succeed on an attack roll, ability check or saving throw?
If yes, then the trigger for silvery barbs is met RAW and anything else is GM territory. One can make any ruling, but what's being discussed is what the spell say and doesn't say.
If the question is, can a GM rule against using silvery barbs? The answer is yes, they can make any ruling!
The spells that off-hand I can think of that would give no indication of being cast require that the caster talk. If subtle spell removes the talking bit, it wouldn't work at all.
Anyway, RAW if you can see the creature, and it succeeds with something, you can Barb it. We all know that sometimes the rules don't make sense.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The important thing to remember in this situation is that when an attack roll or saving throw is made as part of a spell's effect, spellcasting is already performed wether it had any somatic or verbal components. The roll serve to determine the success of said effect.
Here's a clear exemple to portray better the situation; When a spellcaster cast Fire Bolt using no noticeable spell components, everyone can see it hurl a mote of fire because it's part of the spell effect and silvery barbs can be used to react to this outcome.
Similarly, when a spellcaster cast Acid Splash using no noticeable spell components, everyone can see it hurl a bulble of acid because it's part of the spell effect and silvery barbs can be used to react to this outcome.
It's counterintuitive, but the general rule for Reactions does not actually require the trigger to be perceivable, although I think that it's a reasonable house rule to require this.
In just about every case in the game where a trigger is defined, it is perceivable. Silvery Barbs is an exception, which is why many people feel that it's a poorly worded spell.
In contrast, when you are defining your own trigger for use with a Ready action, the trigger explicitly must be a "perceivable circumstance". But this is a specific rule for use with the Ready action -- it's not the general rule for Reactions and their triggers.
Again, my point is not about the rules. My point is about what is actually possible among the players of the game. The rules certainly suggest that if the trigger is satisfied, the reaction is available. But if you don't know about it, that does not matter.
The problem with this spell description is that it is based on a metagame trigger and NOT on an in game observable.
From the Ready action - a trigger is supposed to be :
"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. " PHB
"Certain game features let you take a special action, called a reaction, in response to an event." Tasha's (in my opinion die rolls are NOT events)
"If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action." DMG
Triggers are supposed to be due to something that can be noticed by the characters ... shield requires an attack that would otherwise hit you then allows you to cast a spell that might deflect that hit at the last second ... counterspell requires seeing a spell being cast within 60' ... all Ready action triggers have to be perceivable by the character.
Silvery Barbs says: "* - which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw".
None of these are in game perceivable actions by a character - they are metagame action triggers and as such effectively break the rules on what a trigger should be.
The player knows when another player or NPC rolls an attack, ability check or saving throw. Unfortunately, in many circumstances, the character really would have no idea that such a die roll was made. The trigger of Silver Barbs should be based on something the character would perceive, not on something the player would perceive. This is one aspect of what makes Silver Barbs a ridiculously badly worded spell.
How can a character know to cast silvery barbs when they may or may not be aware of whether the attack, ability check or saving throw succeeded? If the effects of this attack/check/save aren't perceivable by the caster of Silvery Barbs ... how can that character possibly cast the spell even if the player is aware someone rolled a save? Depending on the circumstances, the player may even be unaware of whether the die roll was successful if the DM doesn't tell the player. The player may not even know what number was rolled ... a creature with legendary resistance may just succeed at the save if the DM is rolling behind the screen ... the player has no idea whether the die roll succeeded or whether a legendary save was used. Can the character cast Silvery Barbs?
RAW the spell says a successful attack roll, ability check or saving throw ... RAW also says that triggers should be perceivable. Unfortunately, none of these are perceivable so it all falls into a DM ruling category ... how do they want Silvery Barbs to run in their game. Do they take it at face value and allow characters to be aware of die rolls? Do they take it at face value and say that none of the triggers are perceivable and so the spell doesn't work at all? :) Do they decide that player awareness of die rolls allows the player's character to respond?
Honestly, it is just incredibly badly written and this is just another reason why I don't use the spell at all in any game I run.
I would personally require that the caster perceive that an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check was successful, but a strict reading of RAW does not require it. Cast in point, someone could make a history check to recall a detail about something, and you could force a reroll with silvery barbs. How would you even know they made the attempt? The spell doesn't care.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes. The trigger has nothing to do with what the character can percieve.
I think it would be unfair of the GM not to tell the players when the trigger occurs.
Generally speaking, the trigger should be perceivable because it triggers against a target succeeding in a d20 test which means they were either: a) making an attack, which is always observable unless they're unseen, which handily is covered by the "a creature you can see" portion of the triggering conditions; b) attempting an ability check, which generally means they're actively doing something- granted, this one gets a little fuzzy on knowledge/social rolls, but about the only two of those that will occur in a circumstance where the PC's want to interfere is Insight or Perception checks, which kind of defeats the purpose since producing an obvious spell effect rather highlights that something is up, and c) attempting a saving throw, which will generally mean the PC is aware one of their allies is trying to do something to the target. Whether or not you can observe gestures or sounds don't matter because any attack roll either happens completely out of your sight which explicitly puts it out of SB's wheelhouse per the reaction timing description, or must perforce have some discernable element that the caster can interfere with. You're not messing with the cast when you use SB, you're messing the resolution.
If your point is not about the rules, it does not belong in the rules & game mechanics subforum
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
My point is about the practical implication of the rules. Other people in this thread have made similar points about the spell being poorly worded because of that. It really feels like the topic absolutely belongs in this thread.