# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  No crits for DM

## Dmdork

This whole silvery barbs thing and anything else that has the DM reroll crits is annoying.  I dont mind rerolling a crit every now and then, but the chars seem to have almost unlimited access, which, basically plays out that the DM never  crits anyone again.  Thoughts?  And yeah I know the deplete the chars resources (no resting all the time), or other tactics to challenge the players, but Im thinking of disallowing this whole thing all together.....

----------


## diplomancer

I'd consider house ruling it to "doesn't work on crits" before banning it altogether. Or make it a Bard exclusive. No backgrounds; no feats.

Reasoning for second option: bards lack a good defensive option, and Silvery Barbs is not only on the level of Shield, it fits the Bard theme very well.

Or combine both suggestions and say "It only works on crits if you're a Bard".

----------


## Guy Lombard-O

> I'd consider house ruling it to "doesn't work on crits" before banning it altogether. Or make it a Bard exclusive. No backgrounds; no feats.
> 
> Reasoning for second option: bards lack a good defensive option, and Silvery Barbs is not only on the level of Shield, it fits the Bard theme very well.
> 
> Or combine both suggestions and say "It only works on crits if you're a Bard".


Problem is, Silvery Barbs isn't the only recent way to deny crits.  The Rune Knight has a couple of different tools that interfere with crits as well.  But nerfing a fighter subclass would feel a lot more punishing that simply disallowing or nerfing one new (arguably badly designed) spell.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

If it bugs you that much just don't roll open.  Players and DMs just say, "I hit".  At that point the other party has the option of using SB or Shield or whatever.  I get that there are tables that don't want to do this, but at this point the selection of Reaction spells that some classes get is a huge boost that gets even bigger if they know exactly what's coming. 
Arguments can be made what's RAW or RAI, but from a balance and fun point of view I feel like the pragmatic approach is to roll hidden.

----------


## diplomancer

> Problem is, Silvery Barbs isn't the only recent way to deny crits.  The Rune Knight has a couple of different tools that interfere with crits as well.  But nerfing a fighter subclass would feel a lot more punishing that simply disallowing or nerfing one new (arguably badly designed) spell.


Which is why I would not recommend nerfing the Fighter subclass at all. Come on, it's really the spell (and it's too easy availability... you can get it with a background; compare that to at least 3 levels in the Fighter class, 7 if you want all the "crit-negating tools") that creates this problem.




> If it bugs you that much just don't roll open.  Players and DMs just say, "I hit".  At that point the other party has the option of using SB or Shield or whatever.  I get that there are tables that don't want to do this, but at this point the selection of Reaction spells that some classes get is a huge boost that gets even bigger if they know exactly what's coming. 
> Arguments can be made what's RAW or RAI, but from a balance and fun point of view I feel like the pragmatic approach is to roll hidden.


I don't know... Announcing crits is part of the fun of the game, at least for me. And there are some class features that get really awkward with hidden rolls. Cutting Words is particularly hit by it; it goes from an educated guess to flying blind (unlike Shield, you _can't_ use it after you know you've been hit, you have to announce it at the moment you're attacked, which is a brutal nerf, AND it only works on one attack, so you risk wasting it on a bad roll that would have missed anyway only to be hit later by a good roll).

----------


## Skrum

I like the idea of making it bards only, and taking it off background and freats. The ubiquity of silvery barbs is definitely a large part of the problem. When 2 or more members of the party have it, it can often be extremely difficult for the DM's forces to get any traction *at all.* 

Bards need the relative buff too.

----------


## Leon

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The DM is free to make use of it as well, much in the same way that the PCs should use it with a light touch so should the DM, but since Players often have difficulty in moderation your mileage may vary on that.

----------


## Snails

The problem is Silvery Barbs, which is such a no brainer in many, many situations for a 1st level slot.  The resource efficiency is extremely high on any turn you do not desperately need your Reaction for something else.

This is a spell that would still get used a fair amount if it were 3rd level instead of 1st.  So I believe it is obvious the problem is the spell.  I agree that limiting this to the Bard is a reasonable choice, regardless of whether the DM changes the spell level.

As for Rune Knight, the DM gets to suck it up.  The whole schtick of the subclass is to do a few powerful and weird things per day.  If it is a problem, the issue is the DM should not have allowed the subclass at all.  No crits are the least of your problems as a DM, because that Crit could be hitting a fellow monster (Cloud Rune).

----------


## Myth27

> This whole silvery barbs thing and anything else that has the DM reroll crits is annoying.  I dont mind rerolling a crit every now and then, but the chars seem to have almost unlimited access, which, basically plays out that the DM never  crits anyone again.  Thoughts?  And yeah I know the deplete the chars resources (no resting all the time), or other tactics to challenge the players, but Im thinking of disallowing this whole thing all together.....


Well since I houserule that DM cannot crit, I dont think its a big deal.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Problem is, Silvery Barbs isn't the only recent way to deny crits.  The Rune Knight has a couple of different tools that interfere with crits as well.  But nerfing a fighter subclass would feel a lot more punishing that simply disallowing or nerfing one new (arguably badly designed) spell.


I had a RN in a party with a Clockwork Sorc and a Chronurgy Wiz, it was short lived and ended at lvl 4 (about 8 sessions), no one took damage from a crit througout the whole campaign.

----------


## MrStabby

> This whole silvery barbs thing and anything else that has the DM reroll crits is annoying.  I dont mind rerolling a crit every now and then, but the chars seem to have almost unlimited access, which, basically plays out that the DM never  crits anyone again.  Thoughts?  And yeah I know the deplete the chars resources (no resting all the time), or other tactics to challenge the players, but Im thinking of disallowing this whole thing all together.....


Its worth just removing the spell.  Its clear and unambiguous and it lets the special abilities of other classes be special again.  Being able to negate a crit or impose disadvantage (effecively ) on a spell save are important class feature for a number of classes and can probably be preserved.

I just don't see much in favour of keeping it.


I think the only circumstance in which I might consider keeping it would be a PHB+1 source material for a campaign.  If you are using your +1 to get this then I think you might just about be OK (until it gets reprinted elsewhere, at least)

----------


## Jerrykhor

I think you're just salty (as a DM, i was too). Obviously you never DM for a party with Rune knight and Grave Cleric. Even without those, Adamantine armour exists, and its not even a magic item (though you could say they dont exist in your world). Its low rarity/cost should indicate that its a small benefit, proof that its not powerful enough for any cause of concern. 

Personally, i like it when players have some way to deal with crits. Any tool that can reduce/negate bad luck is always welcomed.

----------


## Samayu

I played a Grave Cleric. I almost stopped using the ability to deny criticals. I always held onto them for when somebody was low on HP and got critted by something that hit hard. And also for creatures with riders on their crits. Otherwise it was like, "you rolled a crit? Congratulations, I'm going to reduce the damage from 30 to 20! And then, I can do it twice more today!" The enemies were shaking in their boots let me tell you.

----------


## Mastikator

The DM is well within their right to ban any spell or class feature they want. IMO banning a class feature should be handled with care, maybe adjust or replace it. If a spell is making the game less fun, do ban it. If the players complain then spray them with water.

----------


## Xihirli

> I think you're just salty (as a DM, i was too). Obviously you never DM for a party with Rune knight and Grave Cleric. Even without those, Adamantine armour exists, and its not even a magic item (though you could say they dont exist in your world). Its low rarity/cost should indicate that its a small benefit, proof that its not powerful enough for any cause of concern. 
> 
> Personally, i like it when players have some way to deal with crits. Any tool that can reduce/negate bad luck is always welcomed.


Eh, I also despise Silvery Barbs as a spell it's very unfun to DM, and DMing should be fun.

----------


## Particle_Man

> I played a Grave Cleric. I almost stopped using the ability to deny criticals. I always held onto them for when somebody was low on HP and got critted by something that hit hard. And also for creatures with riders on their crits. Otherwise it was like, "you rolled a crit? Congratulations, I'm going to reduce the damage from 30 to 20! And then, I can do it twice more today!" The enemies were shaking in their boots let me tell you.


Agreed.  I mean, crits from the DM side are usually not that big a deal anyhow (nor are they from a player side unless that player specifically optimizes for crits, like playing a half-orc champion/barbarian multiclass or something).  

There are other ways for DMs to have fun and there are other ways for the DM to challenge the players.

----------


## Easy e

DMs should stop rolling dice entirely.  Only players should roll.  If a DM is going to attack, they should have the players roll all the monster attacks on them instead.  

There are also a lot of games where the GM never rolls a dice, but only interprets the results of the players rolls.  It is up to players to hit or avoid hits.  I have grown to like these games a lot.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Which is why I would not recommend nerfing the Fighter subclass at all. Come on, it's really the spell (and it's too easy availability... you can get it with a background; compare that to at least 3 levels in the Fighter class, 7 if you want all the "crit-negating tools") that creates this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know... Announcing crits is part of the fun of the game, at least for me. And there are some class features that get really awkward with hidden rolls. Cutting Words is particularly hit by it; it goes from an educated guess to flying blind (unlike Shield, you _can't_ use it after you know you've been hit, you have to announce it at the moment you're attacked, which is a brutal nerf, AND it only works on one attack, so you risk wasting it on a bad roll that would have missed anyway only to be hit later by a good roll).


Well, if you can't find an order of providing info on rolls and decision making around reactions that works for you, then I'd vote with those who say turf the spell entirely.  The game worked fine without it.

Edit: Optionally you can still roll behind a screen, give most players/ abilities the opportunity to declare reactions, then declare the rolls for abilities that you think require knowing or will be nerfed too badly by not knowing; at that point only those reactions are allowed.  Oddly enough the last thread that was centered on rolling open or not Cutting Words came up a few times.  Given Lore Bard is considered one of, if not the, strongest Bard subclasses to the point some people think they're overpowered or even game breaking I have a tough time being too sympathetic to this argument.  But anyway, there is a work around.

----------


## DigoDragon

> What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The DM is free to make use of it as well, much in the same way that the PCs should use it with a light touch so should the DM, but since Players often have difficulty in moderation your mileage may vary on that.


This is how I deal with Silvery Barbs (and pretty much any cheesy-good abilities). If the Pcs use it a lot, then so does my BBEG. 





> DMs should stop rolling dice entirely.  Only players should roll.  If a DM is going to attack, they should have the players roll all the monster attacks on them instead.


I remember there was an optional rule in 3.5's UA book that set this up. I tried it out and it wasn't bad. I'm sure it can be updated to 5e.

The benefits were giving the players more to do when it wasn't their turn in combat. Downside is you can't fudge rolls, but I guess if you allow Silvery Barbs like I do, then it's not a big deal.

----------


## fishyfishyfishy

> This whole silvery barbs thing and anything else that has the DM reroll crits is annoying.  I dont mind rerolling a crit every now and then, but the chars seem to have almost unlimited access, which, basically plays out that the DM never  crits anyone again.  Thoughts?  And yeah I know the deplete the chars resources (no resting all the time), or other tactics to challenge the players, but Im thinking of disallowing this whole thing all together.....


As the one usually in the DM's chair: I don't see an issue with Silvery Barbs. So what if I don't crit the players as much because of it? Random crits that kill PCs never feels good for the player. Character death should be earned through story and choices, not the result of an off the wall dice roll. It's not going to impact the game very much.

----------


## MrStabby

> As the one usually in the DM's chair: I don't see an issue with Silvery Barbs. So what if I don't crit the players as much because of it? Random crits that kill PCs never feels good for the player. Character death should be earned through story and choices, not the result of an off the wall dice roll. It's not going to impact the game very much.


I think it's about tension and making every die roll feel important.  Knowing that any attack could be a critical and swing the fight adds to the drama in my oppinion.  Fighting with the safety net of silvery barbs just has a lot fewer turns of tension and drama.  It isn't easier per se - the DM can compensate by adding tougher enemies or whatever, but the feeling of tension and risk is diminished.  Sure, there is a cost, but its one I generally find more players are comfortable with.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> I think it's about tension and making every die roll feel important.  Knowing that any attack could be a critical and swing the fight adds to the drama in my oppinion.  Fighting with the safety net of silvery barbs just has a lot fewer turns of tension and drama.  It isn't easier per se - the DM can compensate by adding tougher enemies or whatever, but the feeling of tension and risk is diminished.  Sure, there is a cost, but its one I generally find more players are comfortable with.


Your description is reminding me of a current campaign I'm in.  We have a newer (to 5e) DM who is rolling open and Strixhaven characters who mostly have SB or Shield pasted onto their characters.
The only thing he's really found to challenge us are 'dueling classes' where the party fights nova battles vs. groups of students created in similar fashion, or multiple encounters against foes with CRs that are way beyond what our current level would dictate.  Removing the odd lucky roll for the baddies is just another card for us in a stacked deck.

----------


## fishyfishyfishy

> I think it's about tension and making every die roll feel important.  Knowing that any attack could be a critical and swing the fight adds to the drama in my oppinion.  Fighting with the safety net of silvery barbs just has a lot fewer turns of tension and drama.  It isn't easier per se - the DM can compensate by adding tougher enemies or whatever, but the feeling of tension and risk is diminished.  Sure, there is a cost, but its one I generally find more players are comfortable with.


In my experience, tension and drama come from the storytelling and the stakes of the confrontation, rather than random dice rolls.

----------


## animorte

> If the players complain then spray them with water.


Haha, I can get behind this.




> There are other ways for DMs to have fun and there are other ways for the DM to challenge the players.


_So_ many ways!




> DMs should stop rolling dice entirely.  Only players should roll.  If a DM is going to attack, they should have the players roll all the monster attacks on them instead.


Ive tried this before it was pretty fun. The players certainly feel some tension when they have to roll for an attack on themselves.




> In my experience, tension and drama come from the storytelling and the stakes of the confrontation, rather than random dice rolls.


This is very much the same in my experience.

----------


## Veldrenor

If you really dislike Silvery Barbs then ban or nerf it.  It's from Strixhaven and players tend to be more accepting of limiting access to options from setting books than nerfing/banning things from core (unless you're playing in the setting).

All that being said, maybe what you should do first is think about why it bothers you.  Why specifically does it annoy you when the players make you reroll a crit?  If you understand the root cause of your annoyance then there may be alternative solutions that make it fun for you without taking a fun option away from the players.  Or you may realize that there aren't other solutions that satisfy your particular drives and so banning is the way to go.  Me, I'm cool with Silvery Barbs because when a player uses it to save an ally from a crit they feel like a big hero.  Healing damage feels like triage, while preventing damage feels like triumph.

----------


## Sigreid

Because I play with friends, my fix for anything "broken" like this is a simple "Don't be a [email protected]#$."

Spell does sound like a poorly thought out piece of trash though.

----------


## OvisCaedo

I'd generally expect being able to prevent crits to be a less obnoxious ability of the spell than its ability to force rerolls on saving throws of higher level spells/effects.

----------


## Sigreid

Ok, so I just googled it.

First level spell
As a reaction (so other leveled spell can be cast that round) force a creature to reroll, taking the lower roll.
Designate a creature to have advantage on their next attack against the target of the spell.
No saving throw

Yeah, that spell is terrible design.  Wouldn't be as bad without that no saving throw part and allowing a saving throw might just put it back in line enough to not worry about it.

----------


## Leon

> is terrible design.


D&D design choices in a nutshell.

----------


## Envyus

I dont care about getting crits as a DM, one of the reasons I was fine with Crits being a Player only thing in the first One D&D document.

----------


## Snails

> I'd generally expect being able to prevent crits to be a less obnoxious ability of the spell than its ability to force rerolls on saving throws of higher level spells/effects.


This.  

A boss having strong saves and/or Magic Resistance and/or Legendary Resistance _all_ means _a lot_ less if the PCs use Silvery Barbs with even a small degree of tactical savvy.

The only meaningful counterargument is if the PCs so happen to have extremely strong Reaction competition in the encounter.

The "missing Crits" is really small potatoes.  If the DM is actually annoyed by NPCs doing a little less weapon damage, then s/he definitely needs to ban Silvery Barbs before the "real fun" begins.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Yeah, that spell is terrible design.  Wouldn't be as bad without that no saving throw part and allowing a saving throw might just put it back in line enough to not worry about it.


 My solution is that it does not exist at my table, but that's mostly due to the book it comes from being on my "nope list" at present. 
I have the book, but don't care for most of its contents.

----------


## Sigreid

> My solution is that it does not exist at my table, but that's mostly due to the book it comes from being on my "nope list" at present. 
> I have the book, but don't care for most of its contents.


Yeah, it came out after I gave up on WoTC products so I had to google it.

----------

