Yeah, to be fair, I think that Saga is talking about the relevant game mechanics in the sense of how a game is actually run. Some DMs make a lot of dice rolls behind a screen and do not share what they are doing with the players, and this could possibly affect how a spell such as Silvery Barbs functions. This forum is about rules and also game mechanics after all.
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.
The OP was asking about Subtle Spell and Silvery Barbs. Give an example. Even if you think the wording isn't ideal, it's still the rules.
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?"
Yeah, to be fair, I think that Saga is talking about the relevant game mechanics in the sense of how a game is actually run. Some DMs make a lot of dice rolls behind a screen and do not share what they are doing with the players, and this could possibly affect how a spell such as Silvery Barbs functions. This forum is about rules and also game mechanics after all.
A DM that does so should probably take a long hard think about how they want Silvery Barbs to work in their game (if at all) and if they need/want to change how they roll dice.
There are a lot of saves that wouldn't perceivable to any character and the same goes for a lot of Wis/Int/Cha skill checks. Among the people I play with SB is primarily used to cancel out Crits but a critical hit is pretty much entirely an meta concept. You could decide to narrate it as a hit that "hits well" but until you get to damage there isn't much of an perceivable difference between a normal hit or a crit (and at that point it is to late to cast SB). Even the not uncommon situation where you can see the attacker but not the target would satisfy the language of SB but would not satisfy a requirement of being perceivable.
Now I'm not saying anyone need to do things in any specific way but if you are prone to rolling secret checks then you need to think over all these situations (and more) and decide if you want to treat different rolls different and if so why?
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.
The spell is badly worded but that's because it breaks with how people are used to do things. It isn't unclear though. It is perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied, it is just that a lot of people doesn't like how it works.
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.
The spell is badly worded but that's because it breaks with how people are used to do things. It isn't unclear though. It is perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied, it is just that a lot of people doesn't like how it works.
It’s perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied if the player knows that the trigger is satisfied. If they don’t, they’re not gonna be able to do anything. This feels very obvious, but every time I’ve said it, people start arguing with me. I’m honestly extremely confused by some of the reactions here.
It’s perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied if the player knows that the trigger is satisfied. If they don’t, they’re not gonna be able to do anything. This feels very obvious, but every time I’ve said it, people start arguing with me. I’m honestly extremely confused by some of the reactions here.
Just as a bunch of us are extremely confused that you seemingly cannot see the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. The characters can never see dice rolls because that isn't an in game concept, it is a rules concept for the players. So if you are arguing that the trigger has to be satisfied by what a character knows then the spell can never be cast.
It’s perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied if the player knows that the trigger is satisfied. If they don’t, they’re not gonna be able to do anything. This feels very obvious, but every time I’ve said it, people start arguing with me. I’m honestly extremely confused by some of the reactions here.
Just as a bunch of us are extremely confused that you seemingly cannot see the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. The characters can never see dice rolls because that isn't an in game concept, it is a rules concept for the players. So if you are arguing that the trigger has to be satisfied by what a character knows then the spell can never be cast.
None of that is in any way an accurate representation of anything I’ve said. In one of my first posts I pointed out that usually, player knowledge and character knowledge will align. It’s obvious when a creature hits its target, for example, as in the original question. And I said that, for the few occasions when the player knows something the character wouldn’t or shouldn’t, the GM can allow it or not.
I’m convinced that some of the folks replying to me are just not actually reading my posts. It’s not productive to dwell on it, I know, I’m just feeling very attacked for bewildering reasons.
I’m convinced that some of the folks replying to me are just not actually reading my posts. It’s not productive to dwell on it, I know, I’m just feeling very attacked for bewildering reasons.
I am not attacking you, I just want an example of a subtle spell (attack roll) that the PC would not notice. That is what the OP is asking about.
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?"
I’m convinced that some of the folks replying to me are just not actually reading my posts. It’s not productive to dwell on it, I know, I’m just feeling very attacked for bewildering reasons.
I am not attacking you, I just want an example of a subtle spell (attack roll) that the PC would not notice. That is what the OP is asking about.
I don’t think there is one. That’s what I said in the very first post in this thread.
Currently only 76% of the pollers answer in that sense though so i think it bears repeating;
The Subtle Spell Metamagic let you cast a spell without any somatic or verbal components to notice, but otherwise has no impact whatsoever on wether the spell's effect itself is perceiveable or not because spell component is seperate and precedes the spell’s effect.
Creature casting command always speak a one-word command even if when cast without spell component due to Psionic innate spellcasting or Subtle Spell Metamagic for exemple.
I’m convinced that some of the folks replying to me are just not actually reading my posts. It’s not productive to dwell on it, I know, I’m just feeling very attacked for bewildering reasons.
I am not attacking you, I just want an example of a subtle spell (attack roll) that the PC would not notice. That is what the OP is asking about.
I don’t think there is one. That’s what I said in the very first post in this thread.
Then what's the problem? Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine to use against a caster that is using Subtle Spell. Done deal =)
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?"
Currently only 76% of the pollers answer in that sense though so i think it bears repeating;
The Subtle Spell Metamagic let you cast a spell without any somatic or verbal components to notice, but otherwise has no impact whatsoever on wether the spell's effect itself is perceiveable or not because spell component is seperate and precedes the spell’s effect.
Creature casting command always speak a one-word command even if when cast without spell component due to Psionic innate spellcasting or Subtle Spell Metamagic for exemple.
Would Command even work without the word? Doesn't the spell say the target has to hear you? BUT you can't use Silvery Barbs against Command anyway. Different discussion.
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?"
It would work, the point is just to illustrate that Subtle Spell here is moot because when any spell's effect calls for an attack roll or saving throw, spellcasting is over with component.
Therefore Subtle Spell Metamagic plays more of a role against reaction to casting a spell such as counterspell.
Currently only 76% of the pollers answer in that sense though so i think it bears repeating;
The Subtle Spell Metamagic let you cast a spell without any somatic or verbal components to notice, but otherwise has no impact whatsoever on wether the spell's effect itself is perceiveable or not because spell component is seperate and precedes the spell’s effect.
Creature casting command always speak a one-word command even if when cast without spell component due to Psionic innate spellcasting or Subtle Spell Metamagic for exemple.
Would Command even work without the word? Doesn't the spell say the target has to hear you? BUT you can't use Silvery Barbs against Command anyway. Different discussion.
I know it's a completely different discussion, as you said, but... it's true spells like command or suggestion have a Verbal component. However, that doesn't mean the one-word command or sentences are part of the casting.
The following official rulings from the SAC are related to this specific topic (which is also off-topic):
Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there.
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
I just want an example of a subtle spell (attack roll) that the PC would not notice. That is what the OP is asking about.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "notice"
Casting something like spiritual weapon or arcane hand with subtle spell would still cause a very noticeable Thing to appear that attacks someone, but it wouldn't be noticeable who created the Thing
So "a creature you can see within 60 feet" might be succeeding on an attack roll, but the character with silvery barbs wouldn't necessary know in-game who had done it
Which, RAW, should have no impact on whether you can cast silvery barbs, because its trigger is pure meta. But in-game, you would be targeting a creature with it just based on vibes, really
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Perhaps you meant another spell? arcane hand has material component that aren't removed by Subtle Spell Metamagic..
Oh, right. Just spiritual weapon then
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I know it's a completely different discussion, as you said, but... it's true spells like command or suggestion have a Verbal component. However, that doesn't mean the one-word command or sentences are part of the casting.
This is starting to miss the point of this thread. The one word command in the Command spell is a noticeable spell effect which a creature makes a saving throw against (and of course Silvery Barbs doesn't even care if the spell effect is noticeable).
The original question is about how casting a spell using Subtle Spell interacts with Silvery Barbs.
The answer is -- it doesn't.
Subtle Spell makes it so that the process of casting a spell can be done without using some of the spell components. This procedure has nothing to do with rolling dice. A spell is always cast without dice rolling. Whether or not the resulting spell effect requires dice rolling is another story, but by then we are no longer interacting with Subtle Spell -- the casting of the spell has already completed.
Silvery Barbs only cares about dice rolling. It forces a reroll of the dice in various situations. One common situation is during the process of resolving the spell effect. Again, the spell effect has nothing to do with Subtle Spell, which only impacts the actual casting.
Using Subtle Spell has no impact on how Silvery Barbs functions.
None of that is in any way an accurate representation of anything I’ve said. In one of my first posts I pointed out that usually, player knowledge and character knowledge will align. It’s obvious when a creature hits its target, for example, as in the original question. And I said that, for the few occasions when the player knows something the character wouldn’t or shouldn’t, the GM can allow it or not.
But that isn't true, characters doesn't have (or at least shouldn't have) knowledge of the game rules. A character attempts something (an action or an attack or climb a wall or talk to someone or whatever) and the player then rolls dice (if needed) to determine the success of that something and the character then performs the act. But the character never knows about the dice roll because it isn't an in-game event, it happens among us players in the real world. The character will know if he hit with the attack or if he got to the top of the wall or if he avoided falling down the stairs but he will never know that he succeeded on a attack roll or an ability check or a saving throw because those aren't concepts in his world, those are rules in our world.
And this is the issue with Silvery Barbs. It doesn't trigger on an perceivable in-game event, it triggers on real world meta knowledge which the character would never have and AFAIK it is the only reaction spell that does so. Shield triggers on "you are hit by an attack", Absorb Elements on "you take ... damage", Soul Cage on "a humanoid dies", Hellish Rebuke on "being damage by a creature" and the rest are the same. All have a bit more words than I CBA to type but they all refer to in-game events that the character can see or feel while SB doesn't. There are other game features that does trigger on meta knowledge, for example the Grave Cleric's "Sentinel at Death’s Door" triggers on a critical hit.
Now I don't think there is a way to write SB so that it trigger on in-game events and still apply to all the things that it currently does but that doesn't change how it currently works. And I agree that it is poorly written (and poorly designed even) and have no issues if someone wants to ban it (not that we've ever had any issues with it in our group though). I'd even concede that how you want it to work wouldn't be a bad place to start when coming up with a house rule for the spell ( I do think that there will be an awful lot of situations to rule on how, and why, the spell works or not).
Yeah, to be fair, I think that Saga is talking about the relevant game mechanics in the sense of how a game is actually run. Some DMs make a lot of dice rolls behind a screen and do not share what they are doing with the players, and this could possibly affect how a spell such as Silvery Barbs functions. This forum is about rules and also game mechanics after all.
The OP was asking about Subtle Spell and Silvery Barbs. Give an example. Even if you think the wording isn't ideal, it's still the rules.
"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
A DM that does so should probably take a long hard think about how they want Silvery Barbs to work in their game (if at all) and if they need/want to change how they roll dice.
There are a lot of saves that wouldn't perceivable to any character and the same goes for a lot of Wis/Int/Cha skill checks. Among the people I play with SB is primarily used to cancel out Crits but a critical hit is pretty much entirely an meta concept. You could decide to narrate it as a hit that "hits well" but until you get to damage there isn't much of an perceivable difference between a normal hit or a crit (and at that point it is to late to cast SB). Even the not uncommon situation where you can see the attacker but not the target would satisfy the language of SB but would not satisfy a requirement of being perceivable.
Now I'm not saying anyone need to do things in any specific way but if you are prone to rolling secret checks then you need to think over all these situations (and more) and decide if you want to treat different rolls different and if so why?
The spell is badly worded but that's because it breaks with how people are used to do things.
It isn't unclear though. It is perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied, it is just that a lot of people doesn't like how it works.
It’s perfectly easy to follow and cast when the trigger is satisfied if the player knows that the trigger is satisfied. If they don’t, they’re not gonna be able to do anything. This feels very obvious, but every time I’ve said it, people start arguing with me. I’m honestly extremely confused by some of the reactions here.
Just as a bunch of us are extremely confused that you seemingly cannot see the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge.
The characters can never see dice rolls because that isn't an in game concept, it is a rules concept for the players. So if you are arguing that the trigger has to be satisfied by what a character knows then the spell can never be cast.
None of that is in any way an accurate representation of anything I’ve said. In one of my first posts I pointed out that usually, player knowledge and character knowledge will align. It’s obvious when a creature hits its target, for example, as in the original question. And I said that, for the few occasions when the player knows something the character wouldn’t or shouldn’t, the GM can allow it or not.
I’m convinced that some of the folks replying to me are just not actually reading my posts. It’s not productive to dwell on it, I know, I’m just feeling very attacked for bewildering reasons.
I am not attacking you, I just want an example of a subtle spell (attack roll) that the PC would not notice. That is what the OP is asking about.
"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
I don’t think there is one. That’s what I said in the very first post in this thread.
Currently only 76% of the pollers answer in that sense though so i think it bears repeating;
The Subtle Spell Metamagic let you cast a spell without any somatic or verbal components to notice, but otherwise has no impact whatsoever on wether the spell's effect itself is perceiveable or not because spell component is seperate and precedes the spell’s effect.
Creature casting command always speak a one-word command even if when cast without spell component due to Psionic innate spellcasting or Subtle Spell Metamagic for exemple.
Then what's the problem? Silvery Barbs is perfectly fine to use against a caster that is using Subtle Spell. Done deal =)
"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
Would Command even work without the word? Doesn't the spell say the target has to hear you? BUT you can't use Silvery Barbs against Command anyway. Different discussion.
"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
It would work, the point is just to illustrate that Subtle Spell here is moot because when any spell's effect calls for an attack roll or saving throw, spellcasting is over with component.
Therefore Subtle Spell Metamagic plays more of a role against reaction to casting a spell such as counterspell.
I know it's a completely different discussion, as you said, but... it's true spells like command or suggestion have a Verbal component. However, that doesn't mean the one-word command or sentences are part of the casting.
The following official rulings from the SAC are related to this specific topic (which is also off-topic):
Well, it depends on what you mean by "notice"
Casting something like spiritual weapon or arcane hand with subtle spell would still cause a very noticeable Thing to appear that attacks someone, but it wouldn't be noticeable who created the Thing
So "a creature you can see within 60 feet" might be succeeding on an attack roll, but the character with silvery barbs wouldn't necessary know in-game who had done it
Which, RAW, should have no impact on whether you can cast silvery barbs, because its trigger is pure meta. But in-game, you would be targeting a creature with it just based on vibes, really
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Perhaps you meant another spell? arcane hand has material component that aren't removed by Subtle Spell Metamagic..
Oh, right. Just spiritual weapon then
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is starting to miss the point of this thread. The one word command in the Command spell is a noticeable spell effect which a creature makes a saving throw against (and of course Silvery Barbs doesn't even care if the spell effect is noticeable).
The original question is about how casting a spell using Subtle Spell interacts with Silvery Barbs.
The answer is -- it doesn't.
Subtle Spell makes it so that the process of casting a spell can be done without using some of the spell components. This procedure has nothing to do with rolling dice. A spell is always cast without dice rolling. Whether or not the resulting spell effect requires dice rolling is another story, but by then we are no longer interacting with Subtle Spell -- the casting of the spell has already completed.
Silvery Barbs only cares about dice rolling. It forces a reroll of the dice in various situations. One common situation is during the process of resolving the spell effect. Again, the spell effect has nothing to do with Subtle Spell, which only impacts the actual casting.
Using Subtle Spell has no impact on how Silvery Barbs functions.
But that isn't true, characters doesn't have (or at least shouldn't have) knowledge of the game rules. A character attempts something (an action or an attack or climb a wall or talk to someone or whatever) and the player then rolls dice (if needed) to determine the success of that something and the character then performs the act.
But the character never knows about the dice roll because it isn't an in-game event, it happens among us players in the real world. The character will know if he hit with the attack or if he got to the top of the wall or if he avoided falling down the stairs but he will never know that he succeeded on a attack roll or an ability check or a saving throw because those aren't concepts in his world, those are rules in our world.
And this is the issue with Silvery Barbs. It doesn't trigger on an perceivable in-game event, it triggers on real world meta knowledge which the character would never have and AFAIK it is the only reaction spell that does so.
Shield triggers on "you are hit by an attack", Absorb Elements on "you take ... damage", Soul Cage on "a humanoid dies", Hellish Rebuke on "being damage by a creature" and the rest are the same. All have a bit more words than I CBA to type but they all refer to in-game events that the character can see or feel while SB doesn't.
There are other game features that does trigger on meta knowledge, for example the Grave Cleric's "Sentinel at Death’s Door" triggers on a critical hit.
Now I don't think there is a way to write SB so that it trigger on in-game events and still apply to all the things that it currently does but that doesn't change how it currently works. And I agree that it is poorly written (and poorly designed even) and have no issues if someone wants to ban it (not that we've ever had any issues with it in our group though). I'd even concede that how you want it to work wouldn't be a bad place to start when coming up with a house rule for the spell ( I do think that there will be an awful lot of situations to rule on how, and why, the spell works or not).
Agreed, they use completely separate concepts for how they work.