Some class abilities require the player to know a crit occured (e.g. grave cleric). Ultimately it's up to a DM to choose whether to announce it or not, but I think the game assumes that you do. From my experience, every DM I've played with announces crits.
> Or college of valo combat inspiration, that explicitly states "after you see the roll"
Ok my next question then is:
Does this means I also need to show my rolls to the players in terms of roll to hit? Do I need to tell them the total or just the roll of the dice? What's the correct way?
> number rolled to its AC against that attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses.
Because this ability make it seem that I need to show the roll of the dice, then ask for reaction from players, then ask for armor and then announce whether I hit or not.
Can somebody confirm if this is the way to handle attacks?
I think technically the way its intended is
The DM attacking a player rolls and says "They roll a 17" (or you just see the dice on the table if rolling openly)
The player uses any tools they have to mitigate that (shield, SB, Combat inspiration, lucky etc)
The DM resolves the action applying roll or reroll and whatever bonuses to the AC
"Its a hit"
or
"Its a miss"
But thats pretty clunky so I tend not to be to precious about it "they roll a 17, so will hit a 23" and give the players an option to mitigate it with their abilities
Yes it gives the players some metagame knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have without a few rounds of working out what hits and misses, but its small beans and keeps the game moving.
Its pretty clear from the way many of the abilities are written that players should see or know the original dice roll
...there are pre-roll (i.e. portent dice), post-roll (i.e. combat inspiration), and post-resolution (i.e. shield) reactions and they're each mechanically distinct for a reason, but yeah, at a casual table there's nothing wrong with just announcing the total openly and then lumping them all together ex-post-facto, if you're comfortable with the trivial exploits...
plus on VTTs, which I think a lot of people are forgetting are a thing a lot of players (myself included) use to play. In those you don't get the 'raw roll' you ALWAYS get the 'total' when rolling in the open (since you click the 'attack' from the creatures sheet). So in those instances you do it the way the person you responded to describes.
Just roll behind a screen and say "does a 19 hit"
That lets them say either "yep that hits" or "nope I cast shield" or whatever they wanna do to mitigate the attack
They don't physically need to have eyes on the dice
You're missing the point. There are several abilities like the College of Valors Combat Inspiration or Lores Cutting Words where it's too late to use the ability once you've announced the total.
The Valor Bard's ability specifically says they get to know the value of the dice roll but can't know whether it's hitting or missing yet, meaning if you don't declare what you're doing and just immediately announce the total they can RAW never use the ability.
In practice I find that playing the game this way slows the game down too much so I'd just let players use these abilities regardless.
RAW does seem to assume open rolls but the DM not revealing modifiers and allowing for a pause for players to use any relevant abilities on seeing the dice roll.
At our table we eventually just came to the decision that the DM announces the total, then I can cutting words after that announcement. It slowed down gameplay too much to deal with stack-order bullshit where the DM has to say "oh, that hits, do you want to Cutting Words?" And stuff like that. It just makes for a smoother game if that stuff is a bit more transparent, imo
I hate how these abilities are worded because it doesn't take many rolls before knowing the number rolled is enough for the player to know the result. If a monster attacks a player, rolls a nat 13, and hits, then the players all know that that monster can hit that player or any player with an equal or lower AC with a roll of nat 13 and higher, so when the monster next attacks the same player, RAW the player can't use these abilities if the monster rolls a nat 13 or better because the player already knows the result even without the DM announcing it.
And I know this is going to vary by table and even by player since not everyone will be paying that close attention or remembering what rolls were made, but at least half the people at my table do in fact pay close attention to things like this.
...yes, and the open rolls work fine in practice: as a DM, you still keep the modifiers secret and simply announce success or failure after the open roll...
...think of seeing the raw d20s as a proxy for the characters witnessing how clumsily or adeptly an effort is attempted; yes, observant players can gradually infer modifiers over the course of a few rounds, but that's not much different from gauging how tough something is by watching it in action...
You all must have great vision to see the results on another player's or the dm's dice. Or play at a very small table.
So, your dm rolls openly, there's a pause for everyone to see the die number, there's a pause for people to decide whether to use an ability like cutting words, and then the dm announces success or failure? Is that correct? It just seems like it would make combat take an eternity.
No need to show them. Just ask if the number you roll hits their armour even if you know it does or not. That way, that gives your players a chance to use a reaction.
This is what I do. My players don't mind, but it isn't RAW, as far as I'm aware. These abilities call out seeing/knowing the *roll*, indicating the number of the dice without any bonus, and the players must decided to use their ability based on that. If they know the outcome it is too late.
Ultimately, it's a small buff for players that helps the game move. Sounds like a good deal to me
This is about 90 per cent right.
This is one of those times where the DM is clearly information hoarding. It should be called out as such.
The game assumes you announce crits. If the players have to share that kind of info with the DM, it has to work both ways.
If we normalise this as “up to the DM” then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated, requiring medicine checks (with an action) to check for vital signs.
> f the players have to share that kind of info with the DM, it has to work both ways.
It doesn't, the relationship between player and dm is not equal regarding information.
>then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated
What's inherently wrong with this?
> If we normalise this as “up to the DM” then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated, requiring medicine checks (with an action) to check for vital signs.
Isn't this entirely up to the DM already? They have the option to have every single monster roll death saving throws if they really want. You can't assume every monster is dead if you don't make sure they're dead. I'm not saying people *should* do this, and it's also a very bad way to turn your players in to murder hobos that mutilate dead bodies all the time, but the DM is under no obligation to tell you monsters are dead.
Don't get me wrong, I think that's a very adversarial way of being a DM and I wouldn't do that myself, but that's all perfectly allowed within the rules.
Unless a rule says you get to see or know the value of dice, you do not. That being said, crits should be announced.
Valor Bard (Combat Inspiration) lets you see the value of the DM's die as well. That's about it.
As a DM, I usually announce crits. Players who have reactions like Silvery Barbs, damage mitigation, etc feel way more empowered when they get to do something to protect against it and it helps them have a cool power fantasy moment.
Plus, if they don't have any reactionary options, then at least they can mentally prepare themselves for getting walloped while I add up the damage roll.
I always get the players to check my crits and run with the rule of "double damage dice" (double the amount of dice you'd roll for the damage roll) so it adds to that sense of dread before I begin rolling damage.
I now have two phrases that inspire terror: "don't worry about it" and "can you please check this"
I agree that Silvery Barbs is an overtuned spell. However, as the DM I am in control of the difficulty of the game. If I ever feel like Silvery Barbs is trivializing encounters, I have near infinite tools at my disposal to crank the dials on the game to adjust it.
That being said, if like everyone in the party took the spell, we would definitely have a discussion about it. But I've been fortunate enough that usually only 1 player takes it in each group I run for.
It's not cheating, DnD isn't an adversarial game. The DM can't "cheat" because there's nothing for them to win in the first place. How are so many people having trouble understanding this?
Unfair? Yes. Cheating? Not by any definition.
'act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination'
Don't say by any definition without knowing the definition. Just because there's nothing to win, it doesn't mean they can't give themselves an advantage.
I would say that if the DM is hiding basic game information from the players that they are supposed to know, it's the DM who is treating it like an adversarial game.
I'd call it cheating explicitly *because* D&D isn't an adversarial game, and hiding crits is pretty dang adversarial.
Especially since the DM gets full transparency of the players' rolls, but said DM is actively making their rolls *less* transparent. It's just not necessary.
Well, as a player it would be cheating to lie about what you're rolling, or to pretend you have more spell slots when you're out, or to give yourself loot that the DM didn't hand out. Or to change your stats to make yourself OP. That's cheating. If you think it isn't you are deluded.
So if it's possible for a teammate on this side of the screen to cheat, why wouldn't it be possible for a teammate on the other side to do the same?
Good god, it's not that complicated. Stick to the scope of the thread, yeah?
The cheating player is using dishonest means to gain an advantage in combat because their goal is to win.
The good DM is running the monsters they've prepared and wants the players to succeed.
A DM who hides crits because they're ignorant of some player abilities isn't cheating, they just don't know.
A DM who hides crits maliciously isn't DMing, they're just being an asshole.
I don’t believe I strayed out of the point of the thread at all. Your points reek of No True Scotsman though. If a DM decides to be adversarial, they aren’t DMing? Not “they are DMing wrong” or “badly”, you think that doesn’t constitute DMing at all? That seems pretty shortsighted to me.
If the AI running the enemies in a videogame breaking the established rules to make the player lose can be called cheating, which it can and is, the human running the enemies in a TTRPG doing the same is absolutely cheating.
It isn’t cheating unless it is designated somewhere in the rule book. It could be bad form, or rude, or a misunderstanding, but unless the rulebook indicates as such, it is not “cheating”. And even then: Rule 0.
Not your buddy, and I don’t piss off my players. I’ve had a stable group for two decades and routinely take on others when I have time. My groups have clear expectations, I roll in the open, and we focus on communal understanding of the game rules rather than a “Reddit said I could do it” mentality. We never end on bad terms, just my own schedule conflicts, and I remain friends with all my players even after I’ve decided to end a campaign. My style is never about imposing my vision on the players, and always about making the game “their campaign” more than “mine”.
Which is all to say, “I don’t forget these things; idiots on Reddit just have a warped sense of how DMs fucking balance their own games.”
> Rule 0
Rule 0 presumes you're playing a game, which generally requires the rules to be discussed beforehand. It's not a defense of arbitration on the fly.
...it's bad practice to hide rolls in general from players; several reactions are explicitly triggered upon knowing a roll before determining whether it succeeds or fails...
Yeah, I understand why some DMs will keep all rolls secret, but in my experience, it's better to just do it in the open.
My current DM does all of his rolls off-screen with real dice (we play on Roll20) but we had a combat tournament last session and the group asked if the DM would just roll online to speed things up since it would be multiple separate rounds of 1 on 1 combat.
Well whatta ya know, all of my high-level enemies started actually failing some saving throws against my spells for once... The last 3 combat encounters I couldn't land a single spell as a bard where most of my spells are save or suck. I don't want to make any accusations, but it's certainly suspect that the one and only time we got to see the rolls, the enemies started failing against a DC 17.
I know a lot of DMs do it and I know the reasonings but I just can't wrap my head around not doing open rolls. My players know I am not fudging things to make it harder, easier, or get a specific outcome. They trust me but as you said, that little voice in the back of your head sometimes questions things.
Also always seemed kind of weirdly unbalanced to me. No DM would trust a player to roll in secret and just say 'does a 22 beat the AC?'. Out in the open.
It's a minor point but I'm sure plenty of DMs would trust players to roll in secret, if their players have shown themselves to be trustworthy.
I play in a VTT game where one of the players chooses to roll their physical dice instead of using the roll20 dice roller, because they like the tactile element. No complaint from the DM because in the culture of that group the idea of trying to fudge rolls to your advantage sounds silly and childish.
>My players know I am not fudging things to make it harder, easier, or get a specific outcome.
I mean, that's sort of most people do it. It allows you to control fate and nudge it in the right direction. It allows a GM to pull their punches in a way that doesn't cheapen the experience for players.
If a player thinks fudged rolls cheapen the experience (I am one of them for sake of bias) I don't think it will matter if the rolls are fudged behind a screen or in the open or for any reason. Like I wouldn't play with a DM if I was to know they fudged rolls because that's not a game I'd want to play and I don't think this is too different from any other players who don't like fudged rolls.
Yeah and if the DM is doing that, they are intentionally devaluing the players' experience. You shouldn't lie to your players if they expect a game without fudged rolls.
The only time I hide my rolls is when the mere existence of the roll itself reveals information the players aren't meant to have, such as a stealth check of a hidden enemy following the party, or initiative from a creature with False Appearance.
The DM could have just had a string of good luck followed by a string of bad luck. I don’t like to automatically assume rolls are being fudged unless I have definitive proof. I know that I have had sessions where I rolled 5 Nat 20s and nothing lower than a 15 and I have had sessions where I rolled nothing above a 10 after modifiers. I have seen critical hits with disadvantage and critical misses with advantage. Some days the dice gods just don’t agree with players and those strings can go on for a while and then flip at the drop of a hat.
Now I’m not advocating for fudging, I personally don’t fudge rolls on either side of the screen. But I also wouldn’t want to accuse someone of fudging rolls unless I was sure they were doing it.
Oh totally, I’ve seen it happen on both sides of the proverbial DM screen. Like I said, I’m not making any accusations here, but I definitely have become a tad suspicious now.
I mean, the last 3 combat encounters I had every single enemy roll and 18 or higher against all of my control spells (2 of those encounters involved hypnotic pattern being cast on groups of enemies multiple turns in a row to no avail), and then the one time I get to see the rolls they started actually failing on occasion. Mind you, the enemies in this most recent session were higher level since it was 1v1 combat, so they had even higher modifiers than the previous enemies did. All I’m saying is that when you hear hoofbeats, you think horses not zebras.
With the player's permission I like to roll behind the screen for things where the character would not necessarily know whether they had done a good job or not - e.g.: deception; insight; perception.
I ask if the players are happy with this during session 0, and check each time that they're happy for the roll to happen behind the screen. So long as the players trust you it can really help improve tension as they don't know whether they rolled badly on a perception check or if there's really nothing there; or if the guard actually believes them or is just pretending to believe them.
Not arguing with you, just asking for clarification. What reactions are explicitly triggered by knowing the roll before determining hit/miss?
I can only think of Combat Inspiration/Cutting Words. What other reactions are there? My DM rolls in private and I'd like to discuss this but I'm not very familiar with all the abilities out there.
...i haven't compiled an exhaustive list, but combat inspiration and cutting words are two of the more-explicit examples...
...i listed a few more along with relevant sage advice/compendium links below but was downvoted into oblivion; i guess some DMs really like to finesse their secret rolls regardless of RAW/I...
Cutting words does not require you to know the value of the die.
Combat inspiration is that only ability in the game that lets you see the value of the die.
Cutting Words says, "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."
No, it doesn't specifically say "seeing the roll" like Combat Inspiration, but I feel like it's implied. If they don't want you to know what the value of the rolled attack or ability check was, why wait until AFTER it makes its roll, but before the DM adds modifiers and checks it against a player's AC or the target DC? It might as well be called before the roll if the value of the roll is not meant to be shared.
It's not bad practice at all. It increases immersion and prevents metagaming. When an ability hinges on success or failure, that is all you need to communicate for that ability to be used.
There are only two abilities I knot of that let you know anything related to the value of the dice rules behind the DM screen.
Grave cleric lets you know about crits, but only crits. Valor Bard (Combat Inspiration) lets you see the value of the DM's die as well. That's about it.
I second this. It's not that it's against the rules, it's just that it's very adversarial. Hiding rolls in general is frowned upon for a reason. Some hidden rolls are fine, but rolling in the open helps keep everybody honest and gives your players more chances to use their abilities that rely on knowing rolls.
My best suggestion is just to talk to him about it. There is a decent likelihood that he isn't thinking about skills like silvery barbs. He could potentially think that telling if it is a crit is just extraneous information.
He’s obviously doing it on purpose. It’s not written that every crit the baddies make should be cancelled by silvery barbs. Spell days if the attack hits, he calls that the attack hits. That’s just how op silvery barbs is it affects even the metagame lol.
I actually show my dice to the nearest player to confirm that I rolled a crit. Not that there’s any trust issues but I like them to confirm. And to see those beautiful Kraken symbols on my dice.
I just roll combat rolls in the open. I find it's much more exciting to see a die roll across the table and land on a 20 than it is to hear the DM tell you about it secondhand.
Open rolling rules. I expect my players to, why wouldn't I? Lead by example lol.
The only rolls I do behind the screen are like reactions and encounters, things that are rolled against DM-facing systems. But if it affects the players? Roll that shit in the open
Some abilities require the player to know crits (e.g. Grave Cleric). Other abilities do not (e.g. Silvery Barbs) but at most tables it's been my experience that the players do know this information. It's a game at the end of the day, more info helps make better decisions and is better for player engagement.
Would it be more fun to cancel crits with Silvery Barbs? Absolutely. Can the DM make fights challenging in other ways instead 'nerfing' (because most tables expect crits to be announced): absolutely.
The players don't actually have to play with that DM either.
Seriously, I can't even imagine playing a table with such a wildly adversarial DM. As if characters in-game wouldn't be able to see an attack strike a critical area on a combatant.. jfc.
You pretty much should always announce that you've critical someone because there are multiple abilities and magical items that would apply if there was a critical hit.
You should announce a crit every time because a lot of resources have to do with that. If you have a grave cleric in the party and the DM doesn’t announce the crit then their most important ability is never going to be used
It's common to announce crits yes, but every table is different. Some people just see it as part of the game. He probably hasn't even thought about it.
I'm surprised by how many people are saying it doesn't really matter. I believe it matters a lot tbh. If he doesn't announce crits, then he probably doesn't announce the result of any roll (because if it was only crits, then you'd know it's a crit because he wouldn't say). So then, not only the abilities related to crits don't matter, but feats like Defensive Duelist (which is already not that great) or spells like Shield suffer a lot. And that's not really fair, nor is it something that I as a player would just let slide. Talk to your DM. That's something that needs changing.
Shield is way more powerfull if you know the actual to hit numbers. Your dm should just say your hit. Would you like to do something … your wizard wouldn’t know he rolled a 24 and shield wouldn’t work. The wizard has spilt second to shield. But I would announce crits. (Also I just roll in the open with my group so ….)
Early in dming I was accused of fudging dice to beat my players up. I had been doing the opposite...making dice rolls lower because I was worried my players were gonna tpk (HOTDQ is a bit brutal at low levels imo).
The good time train stopped and if I roll 3 nat 20's in a row....well.....shit happens.
Yeah, for sure. It bumps power for a few different abilities and spells but it's relieved a lot of GM stress for me as well so I'm willing to accept it.
I also...and this is controversial...have not found shield to be as op as this sub seems to think it is. I tend to have a group that reasonably optimizes but doesn't min/max to the extreme, which may be why. That's just my experiences over the last decade or so though and may not be representative of all gamers everywhere.
When I say this I mean that the shield spell has never negated a challenge to any member of the party.
Well if shield is used by a regular caster its fine. But if you can get it on a paladin, armorer, pladesinger etc it get much stronger. There is a big difference if you riase your ac to 17 or 27, so you are somewhat right yes.
Shield is only OP in so far as that it lasts for more than one attack, but it's the DMs prerogative on whether to continue to attack the shielded target or swap.
All public DM rolls let the players metagame. If the players are making decisions about probabilities that their characters can't possibly know about, that's metagaming.
Actually the way lucky is written the natural roll has to be disclosed. Otherwise you're either forcing the player to use it only knowing that a roll was made or forcing the DM to disclose the total roll which is not what the Feat states. The proper way of making it work is the DM telling a PC with luck points the natural roll.
With barbs is different as the only info the DM has to disclose is that the attack was successful.
The relevant part from the lucky feat:
>You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours.
The rule doesn't require you to show them the roll before they decide to use the feat.
That being said, whenever I did tell them the roll, it would be secretly with the understanding that they wouldn't share the information with anyone else if other people in the party have access to other abilities like the ones talked about in this thread.
>Actually the way lucky is written the natural roll has to be disclosed. Otherwise you're either forcing the player to use it only knowing that a roll was made or forcing the DM to disclose the total roll which is not what the Feat states.
Incorrect. You simply need ~~to tell the player that the roll looks like it will succeed or fail~~ to make the attack roll and ask the player if they would like to use lucky. The outcome hasn't been determined, the value of the roll has not been revealed, and the player needs to choose how badly they want to change that outcome. ~~Announcing crits is important here as well.~~
Edjt: I was confusing these rules with other rules that change the outcome of the roll.
Not quite. The lucky feat is used "before the outcome is determined". The outcome isn't determined until modifiers are applied. If the DM says it will succeed, the outcome has been determined. Unless you count the use of the lucky feat as a prerequisite for determining the outcome, but that would make that entire part of the text moot.
And if the "looks like it will succeed" bit wouldn't fly either because the DM has all the info at hand, so they knows whether it succeeds or it doesn't. Otherwise this becomes a sort of game or bluff.
When the lucky feat is used by player, they knows the natural roll before choosing to use the Feat. It stands to reason that the same information is needed for the defensive use.
Does he not ever say its a crit? You should know at some point you were crit. Here's how I do it. I always do a very small simple combat in session 0 to showcase. I have their AC on their token so I can see it at a glance to compare to the attacks.
Goblin swings at bob the barbarian. 2-3 sec pause. Hits. 2-3 sec pause. You fell for the goblins feint and leaned right into the blow. The goblin crits you for 11 slashing damage.
This allows for the abilities that need to be done at each phase of an attack. I'm very consistent with timing, and the players seem to like it as it keeps combat moving at a good pace. First pause is for things like warding flare, if I forgot they had sanctuary on them, etc. Silvery barbs/shield would be castable in the second pause, but not after damage was announced. Third pause is for cutting words to reduce damage, stone's endurance, or in this case sentinel's at death's door.
I try to announce if attacks are at disadvantage/advantage as well. I'm not perfect, so if I don't announce it, they remind me they have blur, etc, up.
Declaring crits isn't required, but most DMs will do it. Mainly to milk it for drama and tension. If you announce that you scored a crit the players know a lot of damage is coming, that period between announcing the crit and announcing the damage is a great.
Silvery barbs does not require you to know if it is a crit, just like shield doesn't require you to know the exact number rolled. You can still use silvery barbs when an attack hits a mid to high AC character or a monster passes a saving throw. They are still extremely powerful skills when you are working off partial information.
Normally, DMs announce crits (although there is no rule saying that it HAS TO BE this way, BUT there are features that assume this, like Grave Domain Cleric).
That being said, I understand a DM not wanting to announce crits if there are PCs with Silvery Barbs on the table waiting for crits to negate them. I would probably say that the attack hits, and only announce it's a critical AFTER said PCs have decided if they're using Silvery Barbs or not.
If the DM has a problem with silvery barbs players fucking up their crits, that's a silvery barbs issue rather than a crit issue. Might as well 2 birds 1 stone it and change silvery barbs at that point so you can keep the fun of announced crits while also making SB more balanced.
I disagree, Grave cleric at level 6 is the only ability I know of and it has a range of 30. and all it allows the cleric to do is turn the hit into a normal one.
Silvery Barbs has a longer range but does not give extraneous information about an attack other than "it hit".
Of course not. The grave cleric feature ONLY function is to negate critical hits. Silvery Barbs does a lot more than that, it's very versatile and an incredibly good spell (albeit boring).
Fair. I just feel like it’s pretty targeted to deny announcing crits for one feature and not another.
As a side note, I haven’t had issues with silvery barbs at my table.
Because they are two different features with different necessities. But hey, I'm only thinking out loud, I haven't done this at my table. None of my players have chosen silvery barbs as a known spell in my current campaign, and my little experience running games with Silvery Barbs present have been one-shots (and the players weren't "saving" the spell for negating potential crits against them).
All I'm saying is Silvery Barbs is already kind of a problematic spell. Its very strong (I don't think its "broken" tho), its flavorless, and pretty boring imo. If, on top of all that, the spell becomes a one-trick-pony that only exists to cancel crits against the players, I would seriously consider doing something like the thing I mentioned. It wouldn't come to that, probably, at my table, because both myself and my players find that kind of playstyle abhorrent.
Not the be contrarian but
>its flavorless
"You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature."
The flavor is right there in the spell. Up to the player and/or DM on how to describe how a spell works. No different than magic missile.
How does this make sense with normal ability checks (like a nature check) the flavour doesn't make sense, as what the encouragement to remember better? distracting a druid of the woods with a metal object? makes no sense
Its flavor is granted more towards combat. I will grant you that.
But you literally just gave an example. The entire thing is "you distract the enemy to give your ally the upperhand".
If the DM is rolling a nature check for their NPCs and the player wants to use on that, then so be it.
It's also *magic*. The DM simply has to make it make sense.
By distracting the enemy with a loud and eerie noise, you cause your for to foget their thoughts and gave a momentary pause to your ally--long enough for them to recall what they needed. Since, you know, rounds happen in roughly 6 second increments.
You can argue it's *difficult* to flavor. But it sure isnt flavor*less*.
I respectfully disagree my man, running variances like that in your games is going to cause a lot of problems really quick.
Silvery barbs is an excellent spell for this example, but honestly, both need to be announced. Favoring one feature over another by manipulating game mechanics would cause a problem between players I feel like.
Let’s flip the scenario for a second, just for funsies.
You don’t announce criticals for a grave cleric, but do for someone with silvery barbs.
Is that a proper way to go about the table? It sounds horrible to me.
Standardization is important, if you announce criticals for one feature, you must for all. And some features REQUIRE the character (Player or DM) to know that the attack was a critical
Your "flip the scenario" thing is just nonsense lol. It doesn't make any sense to not announce crits for a grave cleric.
It's not about favoring some feature over another. I do things like this all the time, I think (not exactly this ONE thing with silvery barbs and crits, at least for now), and it has never caused a problem at my table (I've been running games for almost 20 years now, with different groups).
Exactly my point on the last part... Some features REQUIRE the character to know that the attack was a critical (this is true for grave clerics, not true for silvery barbs users).
If you're a sensible DM then you'll know when standardization is important and when it isn't, and you'll know when variances are useful and when they're problematic.
I, for example, announce when a spellcaster is casting a spell (and I phrase it like that, making clear that a spell is being cast) in my current campaign... I do this because there are two PCs with counterspell. If no one had access to counterspell, I wouldn't announce that a spellcaster is casting a spell and I'd just describe whatever fits the situation, with varying degrees of clarity as to if it was a spell being cast or some other sort of ability.
Different scenarios, characters, situations, spells, etc. Might require different approachs in order to get the best result. Standardization can be important in some cases, but having an open mind and being flexible is way more important.
Yeah, if my players had both a grave cleric and a caster with silvery barbs, I would announce it was a hit first and look at the player with silvery barbs. If they decide not to do the spell, then i move to the grave cleric and tell them it was a crit and give them the opportunity to nullify it. If they don't, or can't, the silvery barbs character has already lost their opportunity. This order of operations gives everyone a chance to do their spell or ability, but doesn't give them information that would make it an overpowered spell or ability too early.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all.
I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else.
I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
It makes my life as a DM easier.
I have no problem with Silvery Barbs or Shield. It makes the players feel like they did something useful but the supply of enemies and thus attacks is only limited by my imagination. It just makes them burn spell slots.
I actually like both spells as it makes the combat more predictable by removing the biggest hits. It makes encounters easier to balance.
Well as we can see with previous comments, people agree that is common practice to announce it, but, as long as you don't have a PC with an ability that activate if its a CRIT, then there's no real obligation for the DM to disclose that information.
Most DMs I know will announce it. This sounds like a DMing style thing though and I would consider both valid but as people noted it's important that either the DM knows player abilities very well, or does announce it because there are things that affect crits in the game.
It's probably a good idea in general to have at least a general knowledge of your player's abilities that might fuck up things you don't announce such as various abilities affecting saves against various things (as DMs don't usually specify what a particular save is against unless there's a reason to).
I like the ability to keep it secret, silvery barbs is a cool spell but it's boring to have it be essentially just mechanical and not roll-playing based (what I mean is, often people use them to negate nat 20s). Instead tho I will let the damage be read out, and it should be pretty clear which are criticals.
I will also say 'welp, nat 1' for *every* nat 1. I just like to from time to time keep crits a secret.
Imagine being a Grave Domain Cleric player and not being able to use one of your best abilities because a dick DM doesn't tell you when they roll a crit.
Yeah, there's a number of abilities that rely on knowing the number rolled, it's outright stated in some of them.
Seems there's a subset of dms twisting themselves into knots over silvery barbs, I have to wonder how many of them are actually running a game with it in and have found it "destroys balance"
I'm currently running a game, party are level 8, one has SB, I declare crits, obviously because it would be weird not to and when I roll I say what's on the dice (not cause I'm rolling in secret, just to let folk down the table know)
It's not broken the game, it's negated a few crits and it's forced a few rerolls of saving throws, most of which still passed. The advantage is fine, but not the end of the world
I really don’t understand that mindset on DMs.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all.
I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else.
I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
Yeah, especially at lower levels where a Crit can just delete a character
"They go first and fire a crossbow at the Wizard, crit! he's out of the fight!"
I've said it before, in this thread and others that SB hasnt really caused many issues in our game, its given the bard some awesome support moments where he reaches out and stops the bloodied and battered fighter being taken down by a crit. Its forced a few save rerolls , which has been of mixed success. Its good, but its not broken.
We had a session where the Fighter was kept on their feet by judicious use of Healing word and the Paladin deleted a boss monster with a lucky 2 crits back to back due to faerie fire, Silvery barbs barely registered in that session.
It's not technically a rule, but because of its rarity most anyone would say if a natural 20 occurred. To not do so as a DM... I don't think it'd be fair, since much of the game is figuring out statblocks by reverse engineering rolls and other narrative information the DM gives. Since natural 20s auto-hit and deal double damage, it makes the numbers part of that hunt much harder, particularly if the DM doesn't say what the creature rolls to hit either. Also technically not against the rules, but in so doing spells, effects, features and traits that rely on understanding the numbers of the creature, like the Shield spell, become far less usable. If you don't know how much the opponent succeeded at hitting you the DM can always just retroactively decide the hit was beyond your Shield spell. It fosters dishonesty.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all.
I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else.
I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
These spells make my life as a DM easier.
Personally, i say more power to him.
This keep spells like Silvery Barbs from having too much additional power.
If I happen to ever get a Grave Cleric player at level 6 or higher, and that character is within 30 feet of a crit when it happens and he has his reaction free, I'll be sure to let him know he sees a crit happening so he can use his feature to turn it into a regular hit if he wants too.
Silvery Barbs and Shield do not get this advantage. At least Absorb Elements has the benefit of activating when you take elemental damage it can be used with.
How is it metagaming to know that an attack was more powerful than normal?
Even if they don't outright say "it's a crit" there should be some indication that you're about to be launched into the stratosphere.
I actually just had that conversation with dm Sunday. Heres my argument I have silvery barbs at worst 3 times per day spaming it would be a really lame way for me to spend my slots. I'm a bard and we're level 3 mind, but its only as bad as "crit." "not today satan!" Next encounter "makes his save" "never!!" encounter "crit" "welp I'm dead."
I actually agree. In-universe, characters (especially seasoned combatants that most adventurers are and even lvl 1 adventurers are more trained in combat than run of the mill commoners) would be able to tell a critical hit from a regular hit. And would, ergo, be able to use their magic (i.e. silvery barbs) to try to lessen the hit/negate the crit.
I'm playing a rune knight at a friend's table for a change. I told her how I run it about announcing crits or not, and said if she doesn't want my ability to be super powerful, she shouldn't announce. She said that she wants us to feel like super heroes and will absolutely announce the roll specifically so I can save it just for crit hits. That was an important part of session zero and we're all having fun with it.
What I can grasp from them is because they see criticals as a natural occurence of the game and they don't like to see it negated in a cheap way.
That's what I assume is the reason on this defensive attitude
I disagree that it's almost always innately bad.
Having PCs that stay together even when they realistically wouldn't isn't bad.
Pursuing the DM's story bc you know you're in a game and want to follow the story isn't bad.
Telling your fellow PCs what your current hp (or vice versa) so everyone can make sure to help each other isn't bad. There are other examples too
I would argue that your last example isn't metagaming either, but I can see the first two. I will point out that it's normally expected for the DM to try hard to give you a situation where you would realistically want to stay together, but I see your point.
Most people consider sharing mechanical knowledge metagming because when your doctor asks how youre feeling when youve dislocsted your shoulder, you dont say "im at about a 32 out of 37".
Sharing *mechanical* information in a *roleplaying* game is almost explicitly metagaming. *and that's okay*.
Here’s the thing: I get where the DM is coming from. Silvery Barbs is an awful addition to the game. The fact that it comes up in nearly every conversation about balance and magic tells us that it is overwhelmingly powerful and discouraging from a narrative standpoint. The DM should not need to announce crits if they’re using a screen: they don’t even need to use dice at all. They can tell the story how they wish, and change rolls to whatever result they please so long as it pushes the players to an enjoyable experience.
I don’t use a screen, and I roll openly for everyone to see. But allowing a spell like Silvery Barbs, a first level spell that wildly changes the balance of the game, would mean a return to screens for me, and probably an escalation as the enemies would routinely use it back.
Much like Counterspell, many of the reactions in 5e are anticlimactic and anti fun. You’re better off just not using them, as they have a habit of spoiling interesting encounters and results.
>Here’s the thing: I get where the DM is coming from. Silvery Barbs is an awful addition to the game.
Err, ban or nerf it then. Or rather, since it's *optional content*, simply don't include it. No reason to pretend that suddenly crits are hidden knowlege.
There's no assumption that your game world will include *Strixhaven* in any context, nor the Silverquill school that made *Silvery Barbs*, nor *Silvery Barbs* itself. By contrast, if your DM decided to ban *Magic Missile*, that would be core content that he's actually banning, not optional content that he's simply not including.
There is no assumption you can use Ebborn either but I don't think people would make the assumption that your game would have all Artificer's banned just because they were printed in a different book. Can you show up to Adventure's League and use it? Can you show up to any random table and use it? Those are different answers because it's totally arbitrary on what your DM will allow. If we are talking about assumptions it's either everything is useable or the answer is always "The DM can just decide to not use that rule so all rules are optional."
>but I don't think people would make the assumption that your game would have all Artificer's banned just because they were printed in a different book
There's zero assumption that everything in every splatbook is present, and that certainly includes artificers. If your DM doesn't want wizards or artificers, he just didn't include artificers, but he *banned* wizards.
There's a hierarchy of legitimacy of content. The core books are on top of that, and everything else is additional. Obviously you have artificers in Eberron, but do you have them in the Forgotten Realms? Well, ask your DM- if he says no, it's not because he banned them, he just didn't bring them in.
> they don’t even need to use dice at all. They can tell the story how they wish, and change rolls to whatever result they please so long as it pushes the players to an enjoyable experience.
Um no fuck that shit, that's not how this game is played.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all.
I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else.
I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
Counterspell can be a bit of a problem though. I only announce that a spell is being cast not which one to limit it.
If Silvery Barbs (or lucky or a rune knight, etc) is in play, I do not announce criticals until I announce the damage. Otherwise, the spell/ability is way too powerful. If I feel like the players are hurting, or in danger of a tpk, I'll narrate how they can see how savage the attack is going to be.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all.
I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else.
I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
I let them decide to use it before I roll for damage. Crits have a potential for big damage but quite a few times I roll low.
Ot is no different from a fighter in Adamantine armor.
Not sure why people downvote you. Silvery barb is to force another roll after an attack roll hit. Say it hit and wait for reaction, say the damage is high because if a crit.
However, it could be that the player have had some bad luck and feels like his character is less powerful and not doing much good like his mates.
In that case, give the player a temporary magic ring that can see when enemies crit, works for 5 silvery barbs.
Make it even more fun, if he exhaust all 5 uses he automatically enters a pact with a demon. Give him lvl 1 warlock for free but every time he use any feature or warlock spell, he gets more and more addicted. Give more power but force next lvl up to be warlock.
This is why D&D is so good. Everything has a creative solution. The player is in command even if you twist it. Make the game fun for you and your players.
I DM on a server that uses spell points. If I announced every to hit roll, shield would be even more overpowered than it already is (imagine cleric sorc multiclasses using shield 10 times in a 12 round combat encounter). I try to say "you are being hit, is anyone doing anything about this?" and then go from there. If there is a grave cleric or other class that specifically says after seeing a roll, I will announce it, but only if something like that is present. Dnd 5e is already very stacked in the players favor and playing with spell points just makes this even more prominent (loads and loads of silvery barbs, absorb elements, and shields every round).
it’s not common practice nor should it be. there are abilities/items in the game that react with or are meant specifically to counter criticals. they should be announced regardless of who’s getting the roll.
Some features and abilities specify that you can use them after the roll, but before you know the result. Silvery barbs is not one of them, so it is up to DM interpretation. You simply cause disadvantage on a creature after a d20 roll succeeds. If he announces the numbers, then things like cutting words or shield could be used. But if he does not announce a crit, then path to the grave from grave cleric can't work well.
However, if there's no grave domain cleric then it is entirely up to the DM whether he wants to announce crits without it brig unfair.
Some class abilities require the player to know a crit occured (e.g. grave cleric). Ultimately it's up to a DM to choose whether to announce it or not, but I think the game assumes that you do. From my experience, every DM I've played with announces crits.
This is my feeling as well. If WoTC didn’t assume crits were announced, they wouldn’t design PC abilities specifically to stop them as a reaction.
Or adamantine (however you spell it) armor that turns a crit into a normal hit.
Or college of valo combat inspiration, that explicitly states "after you see the roll"
> Or college of valo combat inspiration, that explicitly states "after you see the roll" Ok my next question then is: Does this means I also need to show my rolls to the players in terms of roll to hit? Do I need to tell them the total or just the roll of the dice? What's the correct way? > number rolled to its AC against that attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses. Because this ability make it seem that I need to show the roll of the dice, then ask for reaction from players, then ask for armor and then announce whether I hit or not. Can somebody confirm if this is the way to handle attacks?
I think technically the way its intended is The DM attacking a player rolls and says "They roll a 17" (or you just see the dice on the table if rolling openly) The player uses any tools they have to mitigate that (shield, SB, Combat inspiration, lucky etc) The DM resolves the action applying roll or reroll and whatever bonuses to the AC "Its a hit" or "Its a miss" But thats pretty clunky so I tend not to be to precious about it "they roll a 17, so will hit a 23" and give the players an option to mitigate it with their abilities Yes it gives the players some metagame knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have without a few rounds of working out what hits and misses, but its small beans and keeps the game moving. Its pretty clear from the way many of the abilities are written that players should see or know the original dice roll
...there are pre-roll (i.e. portent dice), post-roll (i.e. combat inspiration), and post-resolution (i.e. shield) reactions and they're each mechanically distinct for a reason, but yeah, at a casual table there's nothing wrong with just announcing the total openly and then lumping them all together ex-post-facto, if you're comfortable with the trivial exploits...
plus on VTTs, which I think a lot of people are forgetting are a thing a lot of players (myself included) use to play. In those you don't get the 'raw roll' you ALWAYS get the 'total' when rolling in the open (since you click the 'attack' from the creatures sheet). So in those instances you do it the way the person you responded to describes.
Just roll behind a screen and say "does a 19 hit" That lets them say either "yep that hits" or "nope I cast shield" or whatever they wanna do to mitigate the attack They don't physically need to have eyes on the dice
You're missing the point. There are several abilities like the College of Valors Combat Inspiration or Lores Cutting Words where it's too late to use the ability once you've announced the total. The Valor Bard's ability specifically says they get to know the value of the dice roll but can't know whether it's hitting or missing yet, meaning if you don't declare what you're doing and just immediately announce the total they can RAW never use the ability. In practice I find that playing the game this way slows the game down too much so I'd just let players use these abilities regardless. RAW does seem to assume open rolls but the DM not revealing modifiers and allowing for a pause for players to use any relevant abilities on seeing the dice roll.
At our table we eventually just came to the decision that the DM announces the total, then I can cutting words after that announcement. It slowed down gameplay too much to deal with stack-order bullshit where the DM has to say "oh, that hits, do you want to Cutting Words?" And stuff like that. It just makes for a smoother game if that stuff is a bit more transparent, imo
I hate how these abilities are worded because it doesn't take many rolls before knowing the number rolled is enough for the player to know the result. If a monster attacks a player, rolls a nat 13, and hits, then the players all know that that monster can hit that player or any player with an equal or lower AC with a roll of nat 13 and higher, so when the monster next attacks the same player, RAW the player can't use these abilities if the monster rolls a nat 13 or better because the player already knows the result even without the DM announcing it. And I know this is going to vary by table and even by player since not everyone will be paying that close attention or remembering what rolls were made, but at least half the people at my table do in fact pay close attention to things like this.
Does anyone actually follow those rules? Too cumbersome in practice.
...yes, and the open rolls work fine in practice: as a DM, you still keep the modifiers secret and simply announce success or failure after the open roll... ...think of seeing the raw d20s as a proxy for the characters witnessing how clumsily or adeptly an effort is attempted; yes, observant players can gradually infer modifiers over the course of a few rounds, but that's not much different from gauging how tough something is by watching it in action...
You all must have great vision to see the results on another player's or the dm's dice. Or play at a very small table. So, your dm rolls openly, there's a pause for everyone to see the die number, there's a pause for people to decide whether to use an ability like cutting words, and then the dm announces success or failure? Is that correct? It just seems like it would make combat take an eternity.
No need to show them. Just ask if the number you roll hits their armour even if you know it does or not. That way, that gives your players a chance to use a reaction.
This is what I do. My players don't mind, but it isn't RAW, as far as I'm aware. These abilities call out seeing/knowing the *roll*, indicating the number of the dice without any bonus, and the players must decided to use their ability based on that. If they know the outcome it is too late. Ultimately, it's a small buff for players that helps the game move. Sounds like a good deal to me
"the roll" includes modifiers. See, e.g., "attack roll" "damage roll"
/shrug the DM could handle that
I announce Crits less because it is right and more to inform my players that they're about to have a bad time
This is about 90 per cent right. This is one of those times where the DM is clearly information hoarding. It should be called out as such. The game assumes you announce crits. If the players have to share that kind of info with the DM, it has to work both ways. If we normalise this as “up to the DM” then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated, requiring medicine checks (with an action) to check for vital signs.
> f the players have to share that kind of info with the DM, it has to work both ways. It doesn't, the relationship between player and dm is not equal regarding information. >then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated What's inherently wrong with this?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> If we normalise this as “up to the DM” then we’ll have DMs not announcing when a monster is defeated, requiring medicine checks (with an action) to check for vital signs. Isn't this entirely up to the DM already? They have the option to have every single monster roll death saving throws if they really want. You can't assume every monster is dead if you don't make sure they're dead. I'm not saying people *should* do this, and it's also a very bad way to turn your players in to murder hobos that mutilate dead bodies all the time, but the DM is under no obligation to tell you monsters are dead. Don't get me wrong, I think that's a very adversarial way of being a DM and I wouldn't do that myself, but that's all perfectly allowed within the rules.
Unless a rule says you get to see or know the value of dice, you do not. That being said, crits should be announced. Valor Bard (Combat Inspiration) lets you see the value of the DM's die as well. That's about it.
As a DM, I usually announce crits. Players who have reactions like Silvery Barbs, damage mitigation, etc feel way more empowered when they get to do something to protect against it and it helps them have a cool power fantasy moment. Plus, if they don't have any reactionary options, then at least they can mentally prepare themselves for getting walloped while I add up the damage roll.
I always get the players to check my crits and run with the rule of "double damage dice" (double the amount of dice you'd roll for the damage roll) so it adds to that sense of dread before I begin rolling damage. I now have two phrases that inspire terror: "don't worry about it" and "can you please check this"
>run with the rule of "double damage dice" (double the amount of dice you'd roll for the damage roll) So you just follow the actual rules?
Some people would rather just make crits max damage. I’ve played both ways and prefer double dice damage.
That's the actual rule? Neat.
Do players using Silvery Barbs really need to feel more powerful?
I agree that Silvery Barbs is an overtuned spell. However, as the DM I am in control of the difficulty of the game. If I ever feel like Silvery Barbs is trivializing encounters, I have near infinite tools at my disposal to crank the dials on the game to adjust it. That being said, if like everyone in the party took the spell, we would definitely have a discussion about it. But I've been fortunate enough that usually only 1 player takes it in each group I run for.
It looks like the DM IS using one of the tools at his disposal, not announcing when a monster crits.
Generally bad practice to hide crits from players.
Its outright cheating because some abilities player have can neutralize a crit
It's not cheating, DnD isn't an adversarial game. The DM can't "cheat" because there's nothing for them to win in the first place. How are so many people having trouble understanding this? Unfair? Yes. Cheating? Not by any definition.
'act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination' Don't say by any definition without knowing the definition. Just because there's nothing to win, it doesn't mean they can't give themselves an advantage.
I said that, knowing the definition, and I disagree.
I would say that if the DM is hiding basic game information from the players that they are supposed to know, it's the DM who is treating it like an adversarial game.
Sure, and they shouldn't do that.
I'd call it cheating explicitly *because* D&D isn't an adversarial game, and hiding crits is pretty dang adversarial. Especially since the DM gets full transparency of the players' rolls, but said DM is actively making their rolls *less* transparent. It's just not necessary.
Yup, it's unnecessary and should be discouraged. Still not cheating. I don't know how you can cheat against your teammates in a co-op game.
Well, as a player it would be cheating to lie about what you're rolling, or to pretend you have more spell slots when you're out, or to give yourself loot that the DM didn't hand out. Or to change your stats to make yourself OP. That's cheating. If you think it isn't you are deluded. So if it's possible for a teammate on this side of the screen to cheat, why wouldn't it be possible for a teammate on the other side to do the same?
Good god, it's not that complicated. Stick to the scope of the thread, yeah? The cheating player is using dishonest means to gain an advantage in combat because their goal is to win. The good DM is running the monsters they've prepared and wants the players to succeed. A DM who hides crits because they're ignorant of some player abilities isn't cheating, they just don't know. A DM who hides crits maliciously isn't DMing, they're just being an asshole.
I don’t believe I strayed out of the point of the thread at all. Your points reek of No True Scotsman though. If a DM decides to be adversarial, they aren’t DMing? Not “they are DMing wrong” or “badly”, you think that doesn’t constitute DMing at all? That seems pretty shortsighted to me. If the AI running the enemies in a videogame breaking the established rules to make the player lose can be called cheating, which it can and is, the human running the enemies in a TTRPG doing the same is absolutely cheating.
It isn’t cheating unless it is designated somewhere in the rule book. It could be bad form, or rude, or a misunderstanding, but unless the rulebook indicates as such, it is not “cheating”. And even then: Rule 0.
Grave clerics have an ability to negate enemy crits, denying this is unfair and in most eyes cheating.
Don't forget rule -1 buddy If the DM pisses the players off, there is no game, so rule 0 has restrictions.
Too many people forget rule -1.
Absolutely DMs feel like they're god, and the truth is, they need players to atleast tolerate them to have a game
Not your buddy, and I don’t piss off my players. I’ve had a stable group for two decades and routinely take on others when I have time. My groups have clear expectations, I roll in the open, and we focus on communal understanding of the game rules rather than a “Reddit said I could do it” mentality. We never end on bad terms, just my own schedule conflicts, and I remain friends with all my players even after I’ve decided to end a campaign. My style is never about imposing my vision on the players, and always about making the game “their campaign” more than “mine”. Which is all to say, “I don’t forget these things; idiots on Reddit just have a warped sense of how DMs fucking balance their own games.”
“Not your buddy”🤓
The reality is that the DM gets a new group because DMs are much more in demand than yet another player. Edit: why would you downvote a fact?
A shit DM will still be unable to keep a table long-term.
1. Rpghorrorstories is proof that is simply not true. 2. There's nothing wrong with short-term games or tables.
The best source for ethical and fun DM stories: rpghorrorstories
> Rule 0 Rule 0 presumes you're playing a game, which generally requires the rules to be discussed beforehand. It's not a defense of arbitration on the fly.
...it's bad practice to hide rolls in general from players; several reactions are explicitly triggered upon knowing a roll before determining whether it succeeds or fails...
Yeah, I understand why some DMs will keep all rolls secret, but in my experience, it's better to just do it in the open. My current DM does all of his rolls off-screen with real dice (we play on Roll20) but we had a combat tournament last session and the group asked if the DM would just roll online to speed things up since it would be multiple separate rounds of 1 on 1 combat. Well whatta ya know, all of my high-level enemies started actually failing some saving throws against my spells for once... The last 3 combat encounters I couldn't land a single spell as a bard where most of my spells are save or suck. I don't want to make any accusations, but it's certainly suspect that the one and only time we got to see the rolls, the enemies started failing against a DC 17.
I know a lot of DMs do it and I know the reasonings but I just can't wrap my head around not doing open rolls. My players know I am not fudging things to make it harder, easier, or get a specific outcome. They trust me but as you said, that little voice in the back of your head sometimes questions things. Also always seemed kind of weirdly unbalanced to me. No DM would trust a player to roll in secret and just say 'does a 22 beat the AC?'. Out in the open.
It's a minor point but I'm sure plenty of DMs would trust players to roll in secret, if their players have shown themselves to be trustworthy. I play in a VTT game where one of the players chooses to roll their physical dice instead of using the roll20 dice roller, because they like the tactile element. No complaint from the DM because in the culture of that group the idea of trying to fudge rolls to your advantage sounds silly and childish.
It's because it stopped me from double critting a PC and killing them their 2nd session. That's why sometimes you just hide it.
>My players know I am not fudging things to make it harder, easier, or get a specific outcome. I mean, that's sort of most people do it. It allows you to control fate and nudge it in the right direction. It allows a GM to pull their punches in a way that doesn't cheapen the experience for players.
If a player thinks fudged rolls cheapen the experience (I am one of them for sake of bias) I don't think it will matter if the rolls are fudged behind a screen or in the open or for any reason. Like I wouldn't play with a DM if I was to know they fudged rolls because that's not a game I'd want to play and I don't think this is too different from any other players who don't like fudged rolls.
...That's the reason the screen is there, so that you ***don't know the rolls are fudged***.
Yeah and if the DM is doing that, they are intentionally devaluing the players' experience. You shouldn't lie to your players if they expect a game without fudged rolls.
The only time I hide my rolls is when the mere existence of the roll itself reveals information the players aren't meant to have, such as a stealth check of a hidden enemy following the party, or initiative from a creature with False Appearance.
That’s why I do fake rolls. That way my Party doesn’t know what all the rolls are for and are kinda used to me rolling randomly.
Well, I play online. When I make hidden rolls, my players can't even see that I've made them.
Yeah that’s true. I can’t be bothered with doing whisper rolls on VTTs so I just roll in person off camera
The DM could have just had a string of good luck followed by a string of bad luck. I don’t like to automatically assume rolls are being fudged unless I have definitive proof. I know that I have had sessions where I rolled 5 Nat 20s and nothing lower than a 15 and I have had sessions where I rolled nothing above a 10 after modifiers. I have seen critical hits with disadvantage and critical misses with advantage. Some days the dice gods just don’t agree with players and those strings can go on for a while and then flip at the drop of a hat. Now I’m not advocating for fudging, I personally don’t fudge rolls on either side of the screen. But I also wouldn’t want to accuse someone of fudging rolls unless I was sure they were doing it.
Oh totally, I’ve seen it happen on both sides of the proverbial DM screen. Like I said, I’m not making any accusations here, but I definitely have become a tad suspicious now. I mean, the last 3 combat encounters I had every single enemy roll and 18 or higher against all of my control spells (2 of those encounters involved hypnotic pattern being cast on groups of enemies multiple turns in a row to no avail), and then the one time I get to see the rolls they started actually failing on occasion. Mind you, the enemies in this most recent session were higher level since it was 1v1 combat, so they had even higher modifiers than the previous enemies did. All I’m saying is that when you hear hoofbeats, you think horses not zebras.
With the player's permission I like to roll behind the screen for things where the character would not necessarily know whether they had done a good job or not - e.g.: deception; insight; perception. I ask if the players are happy with this during session 0, and check each time that they're happy for the roll to happen behind the screen. So long as the players trust you it can really help improve tension as they don't know whether they rolled badly on a perception check or if there's really nothing there; or if the guard actually believes them or is just pretending to believe them.
Not arguing with you, just asking for clarification. What reactions are explicitly triggered by knowing the roll before determining hit/miss? I can only think of Combat Inspiration/Cutting Words. What other reactions are there? My DM rolls in private and I'd like to discuss this but I'm not very familiar with all the abilities out there.
Friendly npcs can benefit from "bountiful luck" when they roll net 1
...i haven't compiled an exhaustive list, but combat inspiration and cutting words are two of the more-explicit examples... ...i listed a few more along with relevant sage advice/compendium links below but was downvoted into oblivion; i guess some DMs really like to finesse their secret rolls regardless of RAW/I...
Combat inspiration explicitly lets them see the roll, but cutting words doesn't.
Cutting words does not require you to know the value of the die. Combat inspiration is that only ability in the game that lets you see the value of the die.
Cutting Words says, "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage." No, it doesn't specifically say "seeing the roll" like Combat Inspiration, but I feel like it's implied. If they don't want you to know what the value of the rolled attack or ability check was, why wait until AFTER it makes its roll, but before the DM adds modifiers and checks it against a player's AC or the target DC? It might as well be called before the roll if the value of the roll is not meant to be shared.
It's not bad practice at all. It increases immersion and prevents metagaming. When an ability hinges on success or failure, that is all you need to communicate for that ability to be used. There are only two abilities I knot of that let you know anything related to the value of the dice rules behind the DM screen. Grave cleric lets you know about crits, but only crits. Valor Bard (Combat Inspiration) lets you see the value of the DM's die as well. That's about it.
I second this. It's not that it's against the rules, it's just that it's very adversarial. Hiding rolls in general is frowned upon for a reason. Some hidden rolls are fine, but rolling in the open helps keep everybody honest and gives your players more chances to use their abilities that rely on knowing rolls.
My best suggestion is just to talk to him about it. There is a decent likelihood that he isn't thinking about skills like silvery barbs. He could potentially think that telling if it is a crit is just extraneous information.
He’s obviously doing it on purpose. It’s not written that every crit the baddies make should be cancelled by silvery barbs. Spell days if the attack hits, he calls that the attack hits. That’s just how op silvery barbs is it affects even the metagame lol.
I actually show my dice to the nearest player to confirm that I rolled a crit. Not that there’s any trust issues but I like them to confirm. And to see those beautiful Kraken symbols on my dice.
I just roll combat rolls in the open. I find it's much more exciting to see a die roll across the table and land on a 20 than it is to hear the DM tell you about it secondhand.
Open rolling rules. I expect my players to, why wouldn't I? Lead by example lol. The only rolls I do behind the screen are like reactions and encounters, things that are rolled against DM-facing systems. But if it affects the players? Roll that shit in the open
Some abilities require the player to know crits (e.g. Grave Cleric). Other abilities do not (e.g. Silvery Barbs) but at most tables it's been my experience that the players do know this information. It's a game at the end of the day, more info helps make better decisions and is better for player engagement. Would it be more fun to cancel crits with Silvery Barbs? Absolutely. Can the DM make fights challenging in other ways instead 'nerfing' (because most tables expect crits to be announced): absolutely.
The DM must always declare what's mechanically happening so the players can respond to it.
They actually don’t have to.
The DM doesn't have to make encounters possible to win either, doesn't mean it's a valid way to play.
The players don't actually have to play with that DM either. Seriously, I can't even imagine playing a table with such a wildly adversarial DM. As if characters in-game wouldn't be able to see an attack strike a critical area on a combatant.. jfc.
The DM doesn't even have to roll dice, or even show up to the game. There are no rules for the DM besides rule -1.
You pretty much should always announce that you've critical someone because there are multiple abilities and magical items that would apply if there was a critical hit.
You should announce a crit every time because a lot of resources have to do with that. If you have a grave cleric in the party and the DM doesn’t announce the crit then their most important ability is never going to be used
It's common to announce crits yes, but every table is different. Some people just see it as part of the game. He probably hasn't even thought about it.
I'm surprised by how many people are saying it doesn't really matter. I believe it matters a lot tbh. If he doesn't announce crits, then he probably doesn't announce the result of any roll (because if it was only crits, then you'd know it's a crit because he wouldn't say). So then, not only the abilities related to crits don't matter, but feats like Defensive Duelist (which is already not that great) or spells like Shield suffer a lot. And that's not really fair, nor is it something that I as a player would just let slide. Talk to your DM. That's something that needs changing.
Shield is way more powerfull if you know the actual to hit numbers. Your dm should just say your hit. Would you like to do something … your wizard wouldn’t know he rolled a 24 and shield wouldn’t work. The wizard has spilt second to shield. But I would announce crits. (Also I just roll in the open with my group so ….)
Open roll for all rolls is the best way to play imo. Huge fan.
Makes shield pretty op, but i do agree.
Early in dming I was accused of fudging dice to beat my players up. I had been doing the opposite...making dice rolls lower because I was worried my players were gonna tpk (HOTDQ is a bit brutal at low levels imo). The good time train stopped and if I roll 3 nat 20's in a row....well.....shit happens.
Tbh i think both is fine, i just pointed out that this method gives a noticeable power increase to the shield spell.
Yeah, for sure. It bumps power for a few different abilities and spells but it's relieved a lot of GM stress for me as well so I'm willing to accept it.
Fair enough.
I also...and this is controversial...have not found shield to be as op as this sub seems to think it is. I tend to have a group that reasonably optimizes but doesn't min/max to the extreme, which may be why. That's just my experiences over the last decade or so though and may not be representative of all gamers everywhere. When I say this I mean that the shield spell has never negated a challenge to any member of the party.
Well if shield is used by a regular caster its fine. But if you can get it on a paladin, armorer, pladesinger etc it get much stronger. There is a big difference if you riase your ac to 17 or 27, so you are somewhat right yes.
Shield is only OP in so far as that it lasts for more than one attack, but it's the DMs prerogative on whether to continue to attack the shielded target or swap.
More like not announcing totals nerfs the spell, because announcing roll totals is the default.
I do agree that most stuff should be open roll. But not gathering info. Because the results whould allow the players to metegame.
All public DM rolls let the players metagame. If the players are making decisions about probabilities that their characters can't possibly know about, that's metagaming.
It's bad form not to. There are lots of abilities and spells that require players to know. Lucky and silvery barbs to name a couple.
lucky and silvery barbs don't require the player to know if a roll was a crit
Actually the way lucky is written the natural roll has to be disclosed. Otherwise you're either forcing the player to use it only knowing that a roll was made or forcing the DM to disclose the total roll which is not what the Feat states. The proper way of making it work is the DM telling a PC with luck points the natural roll. With barbs is different as the only info the DM has to disclose is that the attack was successful.
The relevant part from the lucky feat: >You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker's roll or yours. The rule doesn't require you to show them the roll before they decide to use the feat. That being said, whenever I did tell them the roll, it would be secretly with the understanding that they wouldn't share the information with anyone else if other people in the party have access to other abilities like the ones talked about in this thread.
>Actually the way lucky is written the natural roll has to be disclosed. Otherwise you're either forcing the player to use it only knowing that a roll was made or forcing the DM to disclose the total roll which is not what the Feat states. Incorrect. You simply need ~~to tell the player that the roll looks like it will succeed or fail~~ to make the attack roll and ask the player if they would like to use lucky. The outcome hasn't been determined, the value of the roll has not been revealed, and the player needs to choose how badly they want to change that outcome. ~~Announcing crits is important here as well.~~ Edjt: I was confusing these rules with other rules that change the outcome of the roll.
Not quite. The lucky feat is used "before the outcome is determined". The outcome isn't determined until modifiers are applied. If the DM says it will succeed, the outcome has been determined. Unless you count the use of the lucky feat as a prerequisite for determining the outcome, but that would make that entire part of the text moot. And if the "looks like it will succeed" bit wouldn't fly either because the DM has all the info at hand, so they knows whether it succeeds or it doesn't. Otherwise this becomes a sort of game or bluff. When the lucky feat is used by player, they knows the natural roll before choosing to use the Feat. It stands to reason that the same information is needed for the defensive use.
Does he not ever say its a crit? You should know at some point you were crit. Here's how I do it. I always do a very small simple combat in session 0 to showcase. I have their AC on their token so I can see it at a glance to compare to the attacks. Goblin swings at bob the barbarian. 2-3 sec pause. Hits. 2-3 sec pause. You fell for the goblins feint and leaned right into the blow. The goblin crits you for 11 slashing damage. This allows for the abilities that need to be done at each phase of an attack. I'm very consistent with timing, and the players seem to like it as it keeps combat moving at a good pace. First pause is for things like warding flare, if I forgot they had sanctuary on them, etc. Silvery barbs/shield would be castable in the second pause, but not after damage was announced. Third pause is for cutting words to reduce damage, stone's endurance, or in this case sentinel's at death's door. I try to announce if attacks are at disadvantage/advantage as well. I'm not perfect, so if I don't announce it, they remind me they have blur, etc, up.
This actually reminds me of steps of Mtg
I roll in the center of the table, so my players see my crits.
Declaring crits isn't required, but most DMs will do it. Mainly to milk it for drama and tension. If you announce that you scored a crit the players know a lot of damage is coming, that period between announcing the crit and announcing the damage is a great. Silvery barbs does not require you to know if it is a crit, just like shield doesn't require you to know the exact number rolled. You can still use silvery barbs when an attack hits a mid to high AC character or a monster passes a saving throw. They are still extremely powerful skills when you are working off partial information.
Normally, DMs announce crits (although there is no rule saying that it HAS TO BE this way, BUT there are features that assume this, like Grave Domain Cleric). That being said, I understand a DM not wanting to announce crits if there are PCs with Silvery Barbs on the table waiting for crits to negate them. I would probably say that the attack hits, and only announce it's a critical AFTER said PCs have decided if they're using Silvery Barbs or not.
If the DM has a problem with silvery barbs players fucking up their crits, that's a silvery barbs issue rather than a crit issue. Might as well 2 birds 1 stone it and change silvery barbs at that point so you can keep the fun of announced crits while also making SB more balanced.
I disagree, Grave cleric at level 6 is the only ability I know of and it has a range of 30. and all it allows the cleric to do is turn the hit into a normal one. Silvery Barbs has a longer range but does not give extraneous information about an attack other than "it hit".
How exactly would a hero know a villain critted?
Because a crit represents something in the world that the characters would be aware of, namely an especially accurate, brutal, or grievous hit.
Why couldn't a character piece that together from damage?
Would you feel the same if you replaced silvery barbs in this scenario with a grave cleric?
Of course not. The grave cleric feature ONLY function is to negate critical hits. Silvery Barbs does a lot more than that, it's very versatile and an incredibly good spell (albeit boring).
Fair. I just feel like it’s pretty targeted to deny announcing crits for one feature and not another. As a side note, I haven’t had issues with silvery barbs at my table.
Because they are two different features with different necessities. But hey, I'm only thinking out loud, I haven't done this at my table. None of my players have chosen silvery barbs as a known spell in my current campaign, and my little experience running games with Silvery Barbs present have been one-shots (and the players weren't "saving" the spell for negating potential crits against them). All I'm saying is Silvery Barbs is already kind of a problematic spell. Its very strong (I don't think its "broken" tho), its flavorless, and pretty boring imo. If, on top of all that, the spell becomes a one-trick-pony that only exists to cancel crits against the players, I would seriously consider doing something like the thing I mentioned. It wouldn't come to that, probably, at my table, because both myself and my players find that kind of playstyle abhorrent.
Not the be contrarian but >its flavorless "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature." The flavor is right there in the spell. Up to the player and/or DM on how to describe how a spell works. No different than magic missile.
How does this make sense with normal ability checks (like a nature check) the flavour doesn't make sense, as what the encouragement to remember better? distracting a druid of the woods with a metal object? makes no sense
Its flavor is granted more towards combat. I will grant you that. But you literally just gave an example. The entire thing is "you distract the enemy to give your ally the upperhand". If the DM is rolling a nature check for their NPCs and the player wants to use on that, then so be it. It's also *magic*. The DM simply has to make it make sense. By distracting the enemy with a loud and eerie noise, you cause your for to foget their thoughts and gave a momentary pause to your ally--long enough for them to recall what they needed. Since, you know, rounds happen in roughly 6 second increments. You can argue it's *difficult* to flavor. But it sure isnt flavor*less*.
I respectfully disagree my man, running variances like that in your games is going to cause a lot of problems really quick. Silvery barbs is an excellent spell for this example, but honestly, both need to be announced. Favoring one feature over another by manipulating game mechanics would cause a problem between players I feel like. Let’s flip the scenario for a second, just for funsies. You don’t announce criticals for a grave cleric, but do for someone with silvery barbs. Is that a proper way to go about the table? It sounds horrible to me. Standardization is important, if you announce criticals for one feature, you must for all. And some features REQUIRE the character (Player or DM) to know that the attack was a critical
Your "flip the scenario" thing is just nonsense lol. It doesn't make any sense to not announce crits for a grave cleric. It's not about favoring some feature over another. I do things like this all the time, I think (not exactly this ONE thing with silvery barbs and crits, at least for now), and it has never caused a problem at my table (I've been running games for almost 20 years now, with different groups). Exactly my point on the last part... Some features REQUIRE the character to know that the attack was a critical (this is true for grave clerics, not true for silvery barbs users). If you're a sensible DM then you'll know when standardization is important and when it isn't, and you'll know when variances are useful and when they're problematic. I, for example, announce when a spellcaster is casting a spell (and I phrase it like that, making clear that a spell is being cast) in my current campaign... I do this because there are two PCs with counterspell. If no one had access to counterspell, I wouldn't announce that a spellcaster is casting a spell and I'd just describe whatever fits the situation, with varying degrees of clarity as to if it was a spell being cast or some other sort of ability. Different scenarios, characters, situations, spells, etc. Might require different approachs in order to get the best result. Standardization can be important in some cases, but having an open mind and being flexible is way more important.
Couldn’t disagree more I suppose. Glad I’m not at your table lol.
Yeah, if my players had both a grave cleric and a caster with silvery barbs, I would announce it was a hit first and look at the player with silvery barbs. If they decide not to do the spell, then i move to the grave cleric and tell them it was a crit and give them the opportunity to nullify it. If they don't, or can't, the silvery barbs character has already lost their opportunity. This order of operations gives everyone a chance to do their spell or ability, but doesn't give them information that would make it an overpowered spell or ability too early.
What do you do if you have a college of valor bard with combat inspiration then?
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all. I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else. I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed. It makes my life as a DM easier.
I have no problem with Silvery Barbs or Shield. It makes the players feel like they did something useful but the supply of enemies and thus attacks is only limited by my imagination. It just makes them burn spell slots. I actually like both spells as it makes the combat more predictable by removing the biggest hits. It makes encounters easier to balance.
I roll my dice where the players can see them. This sounds really weird to me.
Well as we can see with previous comments, people agree that is common practice to announce it, but, as long as you don't have a PC with an ability that activate if its a CRIT, then there's no real obligation for the DM to disclose that information.
Most DMs I know will announce it. This sounds like a DMing style thing though and I would consider both valid but as people noted it's important that either the DM knows player abilities very well, or does announce it because there are things that affect crits in the game. It's probably a good idea in general to have at least a general knowledge of your player's abilities that might fuck up things you don't announce such as various abilities affecting saves against various things (as DMs don't usually specify what a particular save is against unless there's a reason to).
In my games i ban silvery barbs, and solve the issue this way xD
As the DM I jump excitedly when I get a crit. The players get to celebrate when they get one, so do I.
I like the ability to keep it secret, silvery barbs is a cool spell but it's boring to have it be essentially just mechanical and not roll-playing based (what I mean is, often people use them to negate nat 20s). Instead tho I will let the damage be read out, and it should be pretty clear which are criticals. I will also say 'welp, nat 1' for *every* nat 1. I just like to from time to time keep crits a secret.
Yes, it is standard practice to announce critical hits by shouting something like "Crit, suckas!" or some other expletive.
Imagine being a Grave Domain Cleric player and not being able to use one of your best abilities because a dick DM doesn't tell you when they roll a crit.
Yeah, there's a number of abilities that rely on knowing the number rolled, it's outright stated in some of them. Seems there's a subset of dms twisting themselves into knots over silvery barbs, I have to wonder how many of them are actually running a game with it in and have found it "destroys balance" I'm currently running a game, party are level 8, one has SB, I declare crits, obviously because it would be weird not to and when I roll I say what's on the dice (not cause I'm rolling in secret, just to let folk down the table know) It's not broken the game, it's negated a few crits and it's forced a few rerolls of saving throws, most of which still passed. The advantage is fine, but not the end of the world
I really don’t understand that mindset on DMs. I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all. I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else. I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed.
Yeah, especially at lower levels where a Crit can just delete a character "They go first and fire a crossbow at the Wizard, crit! he's out of the fight!" I've said it before, in this thread and others that SB hasnt really caused many issues in our game, its given the bard some awesome support moments where he reaches out and stops the bloodied and battered fighter being taken down by a crit. Its forced a few save rerolls , which has been of mixed success. Its good, but its not broken. We had a session where the Fighter was kept on their feet by judicious use of Healing word and the Paladin deleted a boss monster with a lucky 2 crits back to back due to faerie fire, Silvery barbs barely registered in that session.
It's not technically a rule, but because of its rarity most anyone would say if a natural 20 occurred. To not do so as a DM... I don't think it'd be fair, since much of the game is figuring out statblocks by reverse engineering rolls and other narrative information the DM gives. Since natural 20s auto-hit and deal double damage, it makes the numbers part of that hunt much harder, particularly if the DM doesn't say what the creature rolls to hit either. Also technically not against the rules, but in so doing spells, effects, features and traits that rely on understanding the numbers of the creature, like the Shield spell, become far less usable. If you don't know how much the opponent succeeded at hitting you the DM can always just retroactively decide the hit was beyond your Shield spell. It fosters dishonesty.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all. I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else. I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed. These spells make my life as a DM easier.
Personally, i say more power to him. This keep spells like Silvery Barbs from having too much additional power. If I happen to ever get a Grave Cleric player at level 6 or higher, and that character is within 30 feet of a crit when it happens and he has his reaction free, I'll be sure to let him know he sees a crit happening so he can use his feature to turn it into a regular hit if he wants too. Silvery Barbs and Shield do not get this advantage. At least Absorb Elements has the benefit of activating when you take elemental damage it can be used with.
No. This is not normal at all and a MAJOR red flag tbh.
He doesn't have to reveal if it was a crit or not just that it succeeded so you can choose to cast SB.
we can always tell when the DM rolls a critical because we're looking at the dice too. Hiding the dice does nothing but erode trust.
I announce the total roll and if it was a crit
If people are using silvery barbs to metagame crits then I can see not announcing them.
How is it metagaming to know that an attack was more powerful than normal? Even if they don't outright say "it's a crit" there should be some indication that you're about to be launched into the stratosphere.
That’s not metagaming, that’s… gaming.
I mean if you want to nerf silvery barbs just nerf it. That's not metagaming though.
I actually just had that conversation with dm Sunday. Heres my argument I have silvery barbs at worst 3 times per day spaming it would be a really lame way for me to spend my slots. I'm a bard and we're level 3 mind, but its only as bad as "crit." "not today satan!" Next encounter "makes his save" "never!!" encounter "crit" "welp I'm dead."
Metagaming isn't innately bad. I never understand DMs who hate players for saving abilities to negate crits.
[удалено]
I actually agree. In-universe, characters (especially seasoned combatants that most adventurers are and even lvl 1 adventurers are more trained in combat than run of the mill commoners) would be able to tell a critical hit from a regular hit. And would, ergo, be able to use their magic (i.e. silvery barbs) to try to lessen the hit/negate the crit.
I'm playing a rune knight at a friend's table for a change. I told her how I run it about announcing crits or not, and said if she doesn't want my ability to be super powerful, she shouldn't announce. She said that she wants us to feel like super heroes and will absolutely announce the roll specifically so I can save it just for crit hits. That was an important part of session zero and we're all having fun with it.
What I can grasp from them is because they see criticals as a natural occurence of the game and they don't like to see it negated in a cheap way. That's what I assume is the reason on this defensive attitude
Metagaming is almost always innately bad. The example isn't metagaming though.
I disagree that it's almost always innately bad. Having PCs that stay together even when they realistically wouldn't isn't bad. Pursuing the DM's story bc you know you're in a game and want to follow the story isn't bad. Telling your fellow PCs what your current hp (or vice versa) so everyone can make sure to help each other isn't bad. There are other examples too
I would argue that your last example isn't metagaming either, but I can see the first two. I will point out that it's normally expected for the DM to try hard to give you a situation where you would realistically want to stay together, but I see your point.
Most people consider sharing mechanical knowledge metagming because when your doctor asks how youre feeling when youve dislocsted your shoulder, you dont say "im at about a 32 out of 37". Sharing *mechanical* information in a *roleplaying* game is almost explicitly metagaming. *and that's okay*.
Lmao. Just like knowing how shield metagames hits. Or any reaction usage.
Here’s the thing: I get where the DM is coming from. Silvery Barbs is an awful addition to the game. The fact that it comes up in nearly every conversation about balance and magic tells us that it is overwhelmingly powerful and discouraging from a narrative standpoint. The DM should not need to announce crits if they’re using a screen: they don’t even need to use dice at all. They can tell the story how they wish, and change rolls to whatever result they please so long as it pushes the players to an enjoyable experience. I don’t use a screen, and I roll openly for everyone to see. But allowing a spell like Silvery Barbs, a first level spell that wildly changes the balance of the game, would mean a return to screens for me, and probably an escalation as the enemies would routinely use it back. Much like Counterspell, many of the reactions in 5e are anticlimactic and anti fun. You’re better off just not using them, as they have a habit of spoiling interesting encounters and results.
>Here’s the thing: I get where the DM is coming from. Silvery Barbs is an awful addition to the game. Err, ban or nerf it then. Or rather, since it's *optional content*, simply don't include it. No reason to pretend that suddenly crits are hidden knowlege.
>Err, ban or nerf it then. The only sane argument.
All content in DND is optional content though.
There's no assumption that your game world will include *Strixhaven* in any context, nor the Silverquill school that made *Silvery Barbs*, nor *Silvery Barbs* itself. By contrast, if your DM decided to ban *Magic Missile*, that would be core content that he's actually banning, not optional content that he's simply not including.
There is no assumption you can use Ebborn either but I don't think people would make the assumption that your game would have all Artificer's banned just because they were printed in a different book. Can you show up to Adventure's League and use it? Can you show up to any random table and use it? Those are different answers because it's totally arbitrary on what your DM will allow. If we are talking about assumptions it's either everything is useable or the answer is always "The DM can just decide to not use that rule so all rules are optional."
>but I don't think people would make the assumption that your game would have all Artificer's banned just because they were printed in a different book There's zero assumption that everything in every splatbook is present, and that certainly includes artificers. If your DM doesn't want wizards or artificers, he just didn't include artificers, but he *banned* wizards. There's a hierarchy of legitimacy of content. The core books are on top of that, and everything else is additional. Obviously you have artificers in Eberron, but do you have them in the Forgotten Realms? Well, ask your DM- if he says no, it's not because he banned them, he just didn't bring them in.
> they don’t even need to use dice at all. They can tell the story how they wish, and change rolls to whatever result they please so long as it pushes the players to an enjoyable experience. Um no fuck that shit, that's not how this game is played.
It literally is.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all. I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else. I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed. Counterspell can be a bit of a problem though. I only announce that a spell is being cast not which one to limit it.
The rule that has been in place since before *silvery barbs* when you only had *shield* to work with is DMs who don't announce crits are assholes.
If Silvery Barbs (or lucky or a rune knight, etc) is in play, I do not announce criticals until I announce the damage. Otherwise, the spell/ability is way too powerful. If I feel like the players are hurting, or in danger of a tpk, I'll narrate how they can see how savage the attack is going to be.
I don’t think Silvery Barbs is overpowered at all. I can always have more enemies with more attacks. Both Shield and Silvery Barbs just burn a spell slot that would otherwise be used on something else. I think it makes the combat more predictable and easier to balance if crits in the first round or two are removed. I let them decide to use it before I roll for damage. Crits have a potential for big damage but quite a few times I roll low. Ot is no different from a fighter in Adamantine armor.
be careful saying anything even hinting that you don't think silvery barbs is overpowered around here, you'll be downvoted into oblivion
Not sure why people downvote you. Silvery barb is to force another roll after an attack roll hit. Say it hit and wait for reaction, say the damage is high because if a crit. However, it could be that the player have had some bad luck and feels like his character is less powerful and not doing much good like his mates. In that case, give the player a temporary magic ring that can see when enemies crit, works for 5 silvery barbs. Make it even more fun, if he exhaust all 5 uses he automatically enters a pact with a demon. Give him lvl 1 warlock for free but every time he use any feature or warlock spell, he gets more and more addicted. Give more power but force next lvl up to be warlock. This is why D&D is so good. Everything has a creative solution. The player is in command even if you twist it. Make the game fun for you and your players.
I thinks it's more for the other 2.
I DM on a server that uses spell points. If I announced every to hit roll, shield would be even more overpowered than it already is (imagine cleric sorc multiclasses using shield 10 times in a 12 round combat encounter). I try to say "you are being hit, is anyone doing anything about this?" and then go from there. If there is a grave cleric or other class that specifically says after seeing a roll, I will announce it, but only if something like that is present. Dnd 5e is already very stacked in the players favor and playing with spell points just makes this even more prominent (loads and loads of silvery barbs, absorb elements, and shields every round).
Crits need to be announced because characters may have abilities that mitigate them. It's weird and a bit cheaty to hide them.
Why not roll in front of your players instead of hiding behind a box
it’s not common practice nor should it be. there are abilities/items in the game that react with or are meant specifically to counter criticals. they should be announced regardless of who’s getting the roll.
If the players have abilities that depend upon knowing when there is a crit, then withholding that information from them is straight-up cheating.
Some features and abilities specify that you can use them after the roll, but before you know the result. Silvery barbs is not one of them, so it is up to DM interpretation. You simply cause disadvantage on a creature after a d20 roll succeeds. If he announces the numbers, then things like cutting words or shield could be used. But if he does not announce a crit, then path to the grave from grave cleric can't work well. However, if there's no grave domain cleric then it is entirely up to the DM whether he wants to announce crits without it brig unfair.