It's not a house rule. If you can provide any rules text to support the notion that the GM must inform players when the triggers of all their reactions are fulfilled, I'd love to see it.
A DM can choose to run their game however they like. No one disputes this. One of the problems with SB is that the trigger rests on knowledge that ONLY the DM can be guaranteed to know. Only the DM knows all the die rolls made by NPCs. Players may not and characters have no idea what a die roll is in the first place. Characters can only perceive effects.
This isn't true, again. The text of the game is very clear, from the very trigger of the spell we're talking about. When a character succceeds on an attack roll; what does it look like for a character to succeed? Well, that's up to the GM's narration, but it definitely looks like something.
if the spell is in play it is incumbent upon the DM to notify the player when the spell's trigger has been activated so that the player/character can choose to use it or not.
Seems like we agree on everything except this. Again, if you can provide any rules text to support this idea, I'm all ears. It is 100% RAW, as well as conducive to smooth, fun play, for the GM to simply not tell players about rolls they shouldn't reasonably know about. A GM absolutely could, if they so chose. But it's definitely not the responsibility of the GM to keep track of all the PCs' reactions and inform the players when they become available. The GM describes what they PCs experience, and the players react accordingly.
Does an adventurer’s sword swing hurt a dragon or just bounce off its iron-hard scales? Will the ogre believe an outrageous bluff? Can a character swim across a raging river? Can a character avoid the main blast of a fireball, or does he or she take full damage from the blaze? In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure.
Every character and monster in the game has capabilities defined by six ability scores. The abilities are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and they typically range from 3 to 18 for most adventurers. (Monsters might have scores as low as 1 or as high as 30.) These ability scores, and the ability modifiers derived from them, are the basis for almost every d20 roll that a player makes on a character’s or monster’s behalf.
Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps.
1. Roll the die and add a modifier.
Roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier. This is typically the modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and it sometimes includes a proficiency bonus to reflect a character’s particular skill. (See chapter 1 for details on each ability and how to determine an ability’s modifier.)
2. Apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties.
A class feature, a spell, a particular circumstance, or some other effect might give a bonus or penalty to the check.
3. Compare the total to a target number.
If the total equals or exceeds the target number, the ability check, attack roll, or saving throw is a success. Otherwise, it’s a failure. The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail.
The target number for an ability check or a saving throw is called a Difficulty Class (DC). The target number for an attack roll is called an Armor Class (AC).
This simple rule governs the resolution of most tasks in D&D play. Chapter 7 provides more detailed rules for using the d20 in the game.
The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail.
Notice that this is the recommended procedure for when the player rolls the die. The player makes an attack roll or ability check or saving throw for their character and then asks the DM if that roll succeeded or failed.
It's not explicitly stated, but it is sort of implied that when the DM is the one who rolls the die then this procedure is exactly reversed. If the DM is making an attack roll against a PC on behalf of an NPC then the DM rolls the die. The DM announces the result of the die roll and then asks the player if the attack hits or misses. The player is keeping track of his own AC and so he provides the answer to the DM. This is also true when a PC casts a spell that targets an NPC which requires a saving throw. The player is the one who is keeping track of his own spell save DC. The DM rolls the saving throw for the NPC, announces the result, and then asks the player if the saving throw succeeds or fails. The player then informs the DM.
Again, this procedure for when the DM is rolling the die is not explicitly written so some tables play it this way and some do not.
But yes, in both cases this is quite a bit different than making an attack roll or saving throw and then just not being told if it succeeded or not.
You missed where it says "Every character and monster in the game has capabilities defined by six ability scores....Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps."
If the DM doesn't to tell wether a player character attack or spell succeed or fails, then it should at least narrate it and ask for damage and effects etc, in which case it will figure out and if there was any reaction it could take in response allow for a back in time to resolve such effect.
Like i said, there's a minimum of game transparency expected.
Like i said, there's a minimum of game transparency expected.
I agree completely, obviously. The game needs to proceed apace. But there reaches a point where absolute transparency begins to disrupt the gameplay. There's typically no reason for GMs to tell players about checks they don't know about, and Silvery Barbs doesn't change that. The combination of the spell and the idea that the GM has to inform everyone of every roll that could possibly be relevant to the spell creates garbage gameplay that almost no one would enjoy. Anyone who would enjoy it can certainly play that way. All I'm doing is combating the false idea that such play is mandated by the rules or in any way encouraged by the game, as David42 seemed to be suggesting.
Like i said, there's a minimum of game transparency expected.
I agree completely, obviously. The game needs to proceed apace. But there reaches a point where absolute transparency begins to disrupt the gameplay. There's typically no reason for GMs to tell players about checks they don't know about, and Silvery Barbs doesn't change that. The combination of the spell and the idea that the GM has to inform everyone of every roll that could possibly be relevant to the spell creates garbage gameplay that almost no one would enjoy. Anyone who would enjoy it can certainly play that way. All I'm doing is combating the false idea that such play is mandated by the rules or in any way encouraged by the game, as David42 seemed to be suggesting.
I'm not actually suggesting the game should be played that way.
However, the wording of the Silvery Barbs trigger does not limit the trigger to events the character can see or be aware of. The trigger is explicitly based on die rolls. It also does NOT state that these die rolls are only the ones the DM chooses to reveal the results for. The trigger is any attack roll, ability check or saving throw by any creature that the character can see. If any of these succeed then the character can use SB as a reaction whether the character or player is aware that a die roll of any type succeeded. That is simply what the rules for Silvery Barbs states.
As a result, whether the character can use Silvery Barbs becomes limited only by the amount of information the DM chooses to share with the players. Some DMs make all die rolls public ... in this situation the use of the SB trigger isn't a problem since everyone at the table is aware of the die rolls and whether they succeeded or not. On the other hand, other DMs like to have a "fog of war" where the players are only given the information that the characters can perceive in game.
It's not a house rule. If you can provide any rules text to support the notion that the GM must inform players when the triggers of all their reactions are fulfilled, I'd love to see it.
A DM can choose to run their game however they like. No one disputes this. One of the problems with SB is that the trigger rests on knowledge that ONLY the DM can be guaranteed to know. Only the DM knows all the die rolls made by NPCs. Players may not and characters have no idea what a die roll is in the first place. Characters can only perceive effects.
This isn't true, again. The text of the game is very clear, from the very trigger of the spell we're talking about. When a character succceeds on an attack roll; what does it look like for a character to succeed? Well, that's up to the GM's narration, but it definitely looks like something.
Sure but have you even bothered to read the posts? No one is disputing that hits from attacks would be noticeable and look like something.
BUT, silvery barbs applies to ability checks and saving throws which very definitely are not necessarily visible or have ANY indication whether they were successful. So please drop the attack roll argument and focus on the checks to which SB can be applied which do NOT look like anything.
Example 1: An NPC makes an insight check on an interaction with the PCs - opposed Deception vs Insight. Please tell me ... how do the character have any idea whether that check succeeded or failed? How does an SB spell caster have any idea that the check was successful so they can cast SB to try to change the result? (unless the DM explicitly tells the players that the NPC seems to have seen through their deception .. even though there is no way they would know this?)
Example 2: A PC casts Command on an NPC telling them to Grovel. Did the NPC save or not? The spell is not concentration. It is instantaneous and affects the targets NEXT turn. There is no indication of success or failure of that save in-game until the target's turn arrives and they do as the spellcaster asked or they don't. The caster of SB wants to know if the NPC succeeded so they can try to change the result. The only way that happens is if the DM tells them whether the save was successful or not, which has NO noticeable in game effect until the targets next turn.
Example 3: Critical hits. A DM is under no obligation to tell the players the dice they roll. They roll a die, apply modifiers, find the character AC and then announces to the players whether the attack hit or not. That is ALL the information Silvery Barbs gives to the players. It does not indicate whether it was a critical hit or not - only that the attack was successful. There is no indication in game that an attack might have been a critical hit until after damage is assigned and even then a lot of crits will still fall within the normal weapon damage range - doing no more damage than a regular hit.
The point I have been trying to make is that SB is very badly designed and the trigger is based on actual die roll results that the player may be unaware of ... never mind the character. How a DM chooses to resolve this issue is up to them but when a DM chooses to not inform the player that a skill check or save was successful even if the player is not aware that such a check was made at that point in time, then the DM is deciding that the player/character will not be allowed to use the spell for that event even though the rules of the spell would explicitly allow its use since all the spell requires is a creature within sight rolling a successful attack roll, ability check or save. That's it. The spell places no limits beyond the die roll itself. Any additional limitations are the DM imposing perfectly justifiable house rules on a spell that is badly designed for the way they run their game where the players are not aware of every die roll, every check, every saving throw made by any creature within 60' that the SB caster can see.
if the spell is in play it is incumbent upon the DM to notify the player when the spell's trigger has been activated so that the player/character can choose to use it or not.
Seems like we agree on everything except this. Again, if you can provide any rules text to support this idea, I'm all ears. It is 100% RAW, as well as conducive to smooth, fun play, for the GM to simply not tell players about rolls they shouldn't reasonably know about. A GM absolutely could, if they so chose. But it's definitely not the responsibility of the GM to keep track of all the PCs' reactions and inform the players when they become available. The GM describes what they PCs experience, and the players react accordingly.
The only rule forcing this is the trigger for Silvery Barbs. RAW, this spell does not require either the player or the character to be aware of ANYTHING except that a successful die roll was made by a creature they can see within 60' of the character. This is a specific rule for this spell that over rides general rules elsewhere. The spell can be triggered by die rolls, period.
Personally, I disagree with it. I think it would make for generally less interesting game play but RAW, the rules for the spell indicate NOTHING about the player or character needing to be aware of the roll. The spell can be triggered if that die roll happens and if the DM decides to NOT inform the player that a successful die roll was made then the DM is limiting the player agency by deciding for them that their spell will not be used in this case.
As I have said several times, SB is a badly designed spell whose trigger is based on metagame knowledge that may not be available to the player in the first place. However, RAW, that doesn't change the dependency and validity of the trigger. This makes it up to the DM to explicitly decide whether they will share with the player that the circumstances in which they could cast SB have been fulfilled. If they decide not to do so, they are effectively house ruling that the spell doesn't work unless I say it does since the spell itself has no requirement that either the player or character be aware of the check in the first place.
That's not true at all. A hit is not the effect of a successful attack roll. A hit is a successful attack roll
No, that's simply flat out wrong. You are very much confusing the meal for the menu there, I'm afraid. When a character hits a zombie with a sword, no dice are involved within the reality of the game world
You've excised the relevant part of my comment here; if you continue to pretend that the "reality of the game world" is somehow walled off from the game that we are playing, that there is no interaction between the fiction and the mechanics, then any attempt to understand the rules fails. The text of the game consistently, throughout its body, mixes the mechanics with the imaginary action the mechanics are modeling. The game treats them as one and the same. You want to pretend they are distinct things, but the foundational request that a roleplaying game makes of you is to imagine that they are the same.
Please refrain from strawman arguments, thanks
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)
There's a minimum of game transparency expected. PC casting spells should be told if their target's saving throw succeed or fail, usually the spell's effect depends on it for result. Afterall, a saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice and usually it's specified in the PC's spell or feature the kind of saving throw the target must make and its effect in case of success or failure resulting from it.
Likewise most of the time when attacked, PC should also be told if said attack hit or miss since they suffer the consequences.
[...]
I guess most of the DMs/GMs play with that transparency, not only in D&D but in others TTRPGs. Or at least, I'm of this kind.
But transparency doesn't necessarely mean rolling in the open, of course.
Anyway, Silvery Barbs is mainly used during combats (*), and I don't see why you wouldn't tell the players when an NPC (they can see) succeeds on a D20 Test, with more or less narrative involved.
(*) disclaimer: I know you can use Silvery Barbs out of combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This isn't true, again. The text of the game is very clear, from the very trigger of the spell we're talking about. When a character succceeds on an attack roll; what does it look like for a character to succeed? Well, that's up to the GM's narration, but it definitely looks like something.
Seems like we agree on everything except this. Again, if you can provide any rules text to support this idea, I'm all ears. It is 100% RAW, as well as conducive to smooth, fun play, for the GM to simply not tell players about rolls they shouldn't reasonably know about. A GM absolutely could, if they so chose. But it's definitely not the responsibility of the GM to keep track of all the PCs' reactions and inform the players when they become available. The GM describes what they PCs experience, and the players react accordingly.
Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps.
Notice that this is the recommended procedure for when the player rolls the die. The player makes an attack roll or ability check or saving throw for their character and then asks the DM if that roll succeeded or failed.
It's not explicitly stated, but it is sort of implied that when the DM is the one who rolls the die then this procedure is exactly reversed. If the DM is making an attack roll against a PC on behalf of an NPC then the DM rolls the die. The DM announces the result of the die roll and then asks the player if the attack hits or misses. The player is keeping track of his own AC and so he provides the answer to the DM. This is also true when a PC casts a spell that targets an NPC which requires a saving throw. The player is the one who is keeping track of his own spell save DC. The DM rolls the saving throw for the NPC, announces the result, and then asks the player if the saving throw succeeds or fails. The player then informs the DM.
Again, this procedure for when the DM is rolling the die is not explicitly written so some tables play it this way and some do not.
But yes, in both cases this is quite a bit different than making an attack roll or saving throw and then just not being told if it succeeded or not.
You missed where it says "Every character and monster in the game has capabilities defined by six ability scores....Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps."
If the DM doesn't to tell wether a player character attack or spell succeed or fails, then it should at least narrate it and ask for damage and effects etc, in which case it will figure out and if there was any reaction it could take in response allow for a back in time to resolve such effect.
Like i said, there's a minimum of game transparency expected.
I agree completely, obviously. The game needs to proceed apace. But there reaches a point where absolute transparency begins to disrupt the gameplay. There's typically no reason for GMs to tell players about checks they don't know about, and Silvery Barbs doesn't change that. The combination of the spell and the idea that the GM has to inform everyone of every roll that could possibly be relevant to the spell creates garbage gameplay that almost no one would enjoy. Anyone who would enjoy it can certainly play that way. All I'm doing is combating the false idea that such play is mandated by the rules or in any way encouraged by the game, as David42 seemed to be suggesting.
I'm not actually suggesting the game should be played that way.
However, the wording of the Silvery Barbs trigger does not limit the trigger to events the character can see or be aware of. The trigger is explicitly based on die rolls. It also does NOT state that these die rolls are only the ones the DM chooses to reveal the results for. The trigger is any attack roll, ability check or saving throw by any creature that the character can see. If any of these succeed then the character can use SB as a reaction whether the character or player is aware that a die roll of any type succeeded. That is simply what the rules for Silvery Barbs states.
As a result, whether the character can use Silvery Barbs becomes limited only by the amount of information the DM chooses to share with the players. Some DMs make all die rolls public ... in this situation the use of the SB trigger isn't a problem since everyone at the table is aware of the die rolls and whether they succeeded or not. On the other hand, other DMs like to have a "fog of war" where the players are only given the information that the characters can perceive in game.
Sure but have you even bothered to read the posts? No one is disputing that hits from attacks would be noticeable and look like something.
BUT, silvery barbs applies to ability checks and saving throws which very definitely are not necessarily visible or have ANY indication whether they were successful. So please drop the attack roll argument and focus on the checks to which SB can be applied which do NOT look like anything.
Example 1: An NPC makes an insight check on an interaction with the PCs - opposed Deception vs Insight. Please tell me ... how do the character have any idea whether that check succeeded or failed? How does an SB spell caster have any idea that the check was successful so they can cast SB to try to change the result? (unless the DM explicitly tells the players that the NPC seems to have seen through their deception .. even though there is no way they would know this?)
Example 2: A PC casts Command on an NPC telling them to Grovel. Did the NPC save or not? The spell is not concentration. It is instantaneous and affects the targets NEXT turn. There is no indication of success or failure of that save in-game until the target's turn arrives and they do as the spellcaster asked or they don't. The caster of SB wants to know if the NPC succeeded so they can try to change the result. The only way that happens is if the DM tells them whether the save was successful or not, which has NO noticeable in game effect until the targets next turn.
Example 3: Critical hits. A DM is under no obligation to tell the players the dice they roll. They roll a die, apply modifiers, find the character AC and then announces to the players whether the attack hit or not. That is ALL the information Silvery Barbs gives to the players. It does not indicate whether it was a critical hit or not - only that the attack was successful. There is no indication in game that an attack might have been a critical hit until after damage is assigned and even then a lot of crits will still fall within the normal weapon damage range - doing no more damage than a regular hit.
The point I have been trying to make is that SB is very badly designed and the trigger is based on actual die roll results that the player may be unaware of ... never mind the character. How a DM chooses to resolve this issue is up to them but when a DM chooses to not inform the player that a skill check or save was successful even if the player is not aware that such a check was made at that point in time, then the DM is deciding that the player/character will not be allowed to use the spell for that event even though the rules of the spell would explicitly allow its use since all the spell requires is a creature within sight rolling a successful attack roll, ability check or save. That's it. The spell places no limits beyond the die roll itself. Any additional limitations are the DM imposing perfectly justifiable house rules on a spell that is badly designed for the way they run their game where the players are not aware of every die roll, every check, every saving throw made by any creature within 60' that the SB caster can see.
The only rule forcing this is the trigger for Silvery Barbs. RAW, this spell does not require either the player or the character to be aware of ANYTHING except that a successful die roll was made by a creature they can see within 60' of the character. This is a specific rule for this spell that over rides general rules elsewhere. The spell can be triggered by die rolls, period.
Personally, I disagree with it. I think it would make for generally less interesting game play but RAW, the rules for the spell indicate NOTHING about the player or character needing to be aware of the roll. The spell can be triggered if that die roll happens and if the DM decides to NOT inform the player that a successful die roll was made then the DM is limiting the player agency by deciding for them that their spell will not be used in this case.
As I have said several times, SB is a badly designed spell whose trigger is based on metagame knowledge that may not be available to the player in the first place. However, RAW, that doesn't change the dependency and validity of the trigger. This makes it up to the DM to explicitly decide whether they will share with the player that the circumstances in which they could cast SB have been fulfilled. If they decide not to do so, they are effectively house ruling that the spell doesn't work unless I say it does since the spell itself has no requirement that either the player or character be aware of the check in the first place.
Please refrain from strawman arguments, thanks
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 guess most of the DMs/GMs play with that transparency, not only in D&D but in others TTRPGs. Or at least, I'm of this kind.
But transparency doesn't necessarely mean rolling in the open, of course.
Anyway, Silvery Barbs is mainly used during combats (*), and I don't see why you wouldn't tell the players when an NPC (they can see) succeeds on a D20 Test, with more or less narrative involved.
(*) disclaimer: I know you can use Silvery Barbs out of combat.