More Silvery Barbs discussion

[claypigeons]

Silvery Barbs is a spell introduced in the Strixhaven supplement that forces a target to roll a new d20 on a save/attack/ability check as a Reaction. Level 1 spell. Most people have heard of it and probably formed strong opinions by now.

My question, the topic for this discussion, is this:

The verbiage of the spell rules say to reroll the d20 and use the lower result. The rules text does not specifically mention any modifiers to the roll...

However, my position is that things like Bane, or Mind Sliver or Unsettling Words would still modify the roll. You would not reroll them. Nor would you ignore the already rolled values.

I have a player and DM that vehemently disagrees, and posits that only the d20 is rerolled and only that new d20 is used to determine the outcome.

This is a debate that will need to be settled at our table, but I thought it was an interesting topic and wanted to get a wider range of opinions.

[Kane0]

Bah, cull the spell entirely and the problem goes away. What other sources of full rerolls exist in 5e?

Edit: but to actually answer the question, as DM i would rule that anything that changes the old roll also applies to the new one, so bane and the like would be rolled again

[ProsecutorGodot]

Same check with a new d20 means you use the same modifiers, I can't see any reason you wouldn't considering that if your original roll is lower you still use it.

This is the primary example of why this player and DM are mistaken, they seem to be under the misunderstanding that it's not possible for the new roll to be better and thus ignored. The premise that this is a "new" roll in the first place is the issue though, it's not, it's the same roll redone.


Bah, cull the spell entirely and the problem goes away. What other sources of full rerolls exist in 5e?
It's honestly not that complicated, it's functionally identical to Disadvantage except it was designed to work off successes so that it can't "miss" its trigger.

Lucky, Butcher's Bib/Savage Attacker (damage rolls), Indomitable, Luck Blade, Wish, Elven Accuracy, Ruinstone (from Divine Contention, an adventure from the Essential's Kit), Halfling Luck.

I'm sure I've missed several, should we argue that Indomitable doesn't allow you to add your saving throw proficiency?

[Mastikator]

Bah, cull the spell entirely and the problem goes away. What other sources of full rerolls exist in 5e?

Chronuturgy Wizards
Magical Guidance (sorcerer level 5)
Lucky feat
Halfling's lucky

Also some pseudo versions:
Lore bard's Cutting words (apply penalty after roll)
Divine soul sorcerer's Favored by the gods (apply bonus after failure)
Hobgoblin's save face (apply bonus after failure)

Hmm what else is there?

[Kane0]

Chronuturgy Wizards
Magical Guidance (sorcerer level 5)
Lucky feat
Halfling's lucky

Also some pseudo versions:
Lore bard's Cutting words (apply penalty after roll)
Divine soul sorcerer's Favored by the gods (apply bonus after failure)
Hobgoblin's save face (apply bonus after failure)

Hmm what else is there?

*Squints* Technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Ive never had a chrono wiz in play at my table, cant comment.
Only just hit sorc 5 w/tashas last session to test out magical guidance (will likely be very good given the low cost plus me being a clockwork to negate disadvantage plus having the skilled feat).
Lucky is one of the best all-round feats even when you arent using it to convert disadvantage into super l advantage. Would it technically be a pseudo-reroll given you choose to use after you see roll but before results happen?
Halfling lucky im okay with as its limited to a 1 and just yourself, or an ally with the feat and a reaction. Not quite the same level as any attack/check/save from anyone within range as a 1st level reaction spell.

Modifying the roll/shifting the target i see a lot (bards, spells, adv/disadv, cover, -5/+10, etc) and thats a basic game design thing to add variables during play. That feels more intended and agreeable to me, with the ones after the roll rather than before (eg shield) being stronger and a better implementation than simply saying 'nah do-over'

But thats my opinion.

[Hael]

The benefit of rerolls is pretty dramatic and in all of the discussion around Silvery barbs, imo the nature of how it works globally was downplayed significantly by the community.

One of the things that happens is basic game theory. When you only have 2 rerolls or reroll like abilities (portent etc), there are a lot of very nasty hits that you take but where you don't use the roll, b/c you are hedging on using it for something even worse.

But when you tie the ability to say no to a relatively plentiful resource like spell slots (across all caster classes) a lot of those nasty effects will simply not happen, and indeed your overall resource use will drop (no need ot use slots after the fight for heals/restoration etc).

This will dramatically reduce the overall risk profile that a party faces.

In the UA survey of Strixhaven, I spent a paragraph writing about the danger of letting too many reroll like abilities creep into the game. B/c under bounded accuracy, too much of one thing can and will start breaking design assumptions. Of course they do the opposite.

Incidentally, a lot of the optimizers spoke about how this spell devalues classes like the Chronurgist. No.. Incorrect! It makes them stronger. It reduces what already is a low risk pool by an even larger relative percent. Thats why the famous lucky, halfling bards were always nasty to deal with for DMs.

Its also honestly going to turn a lot of the game into a bit of a slog pacing wise. I would just keep the spell banned for peoples sanity and leave it like that.

[lall]

Just the d20 is rerolled. Everything else is the same.

[Greywander]

Bah, cull the spell entirely and the problem goes away.
I get that it's a strong spell, but at least give it a chance before you ban it.

I don't really like this mentality that says you have to ban anything that looks slightly too strong on paper without giving it a chance to see it in practice. Often something that is strong on paper is not as strong in practice for any number of reasons. Get some empirical data before jumping to a conclusion.

[tokek]

Chronuturgy Wizards
Magical Guidance (sorcerer level 5)
Lucky feat
Halfling's lucky

Also some pseudo versions:
Lore bard's Cutting words (apply penalty after roll)
Divine soul sorcerer's Favored by the gods (apply bonus after failure)
Hobgoblin's save face (apply bonus after failure)

Hmm what else is there?

Good list. Also Rune Knight Runic Shield

Cloud Rune does not re-roll the dice but it changes the target which is more powerful most times.

I play a Hobgoblin Rune Knight with Lucky feat. Its like a layer-cake of dice-manipulation bull****. Such fun.

[Mastikator]

*Ahem* my point was that Silvery Barbs is in fact not a new mechanic and I think the situations where it's overpowered is a bit overstated. You're giving up a lot to make someone reroll a successful actually, and even then it's actually only situationally *really* good. For example if an enemy

Has very few/single attacks that hit very hard
Needed to roll very high to hit
The target was at a precariously low level of HP AND they don't have shield


OR

Someone just hit a big target with a powerful save or suck spell that will turn the tide of the battle
AND the target needed to roll high to make the save



If the target could make the attack/save/check with a low d20 result then you're just wasting your

Spell slot
Spells known/prepared
Taken a feat/multiclass dip just for this and it didn't work



I'd easily put Silvery Barbs in the same league as Shield, I'm not willing to concede that it's better than Shield. It's better than Absorb Elements though which I consider more situational.

[Greywander]

One of the neat things about Silvery Barbs is that you can use it when another player, say, casts a spell and the enemy passes their save. This makes it a nice support spell that can help make your team shine. It's strong, yes, but it doesn't just make you strong, it makes the whole team just a bit stronger. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try and get this spell on as many people as you can, allowing you to really skew things in your party's favor on round 1 of combat. Imagine someone casting Web and three out of five enemies pass their saves, and three Silvery Barbs later, only one still passes. EZ win GG

It can be really strong when used to reroll the save on a high level spell. But that doesn't make it worth the same as casting that spell again. Casting a spell twice has the potential to succeed both times, whereas by definition Silvery Barbs is only usable if you've already failed the first casting. It gives you a second chance, and you might fail that, too, but if the spell was worth casting in the first place, it's worth spending a 1st level slot to try again. It's roughly equivalent to Heightened Spell, which costs 3 sorcery points (equivalent to a 2nd level spell), with the trade-off that you don't need to pay for Silvery Barbs until you need it (while you pay for Heightened Spell up front) but it will only affect one save (e.g. on a multi-target spell).

So it's good, definitely worth picking up if you or someone in your party uses nasty save or suck spells or effects, but it's effect is slightly overstated. You can also use it to negate a crit (and potentially turn it into a miss), which can also be a life saver, but isn't really any better than the Lucky feat. I think there's a lot to love about this spell, between its versatility and the fact that you can use it to help out your team and not just yourself, it makes it a fun and satisfying spell to use.

Something interesting to note is that if you somehow could cast this spell at-will, it wouldn't actually be gamebreaking. Powerful, yes, but not really abusable in the same way that, say, at-will Shield or Healing Word or some of those other spells are. All it does is enhance another spell you've cast (which you do have to pay for) or debuff an enemy attack (which can still hit). Against enemy attacks, a good comparison might be Defensive Duelist, which is also at-will. Anyway, this suggests to me that this spell is tamer than people think it is.

[Amnestic]

It's roughly equivalent to Heightened Spell, which costs 3 sorcery points (equivalent to a 2nd level spell),

Which makes it all the stranger it's not a 2nd level spell, since all the other Strixhaven spells are.

[Greywander]

Yeah, I can see the logic behind bumping it up to 2nd level. Still, I'd encourage everyone to try running it as-is and see if it's actually a problem.

In my mind, this spell falls into a similar camp of spammable reactions, along the lines of Shield, Absorb Elements, or even Hellish Rebuke. Such spells are 1st level because I believe the cost would be too high if it were higher level. They're meant to be cheap. For a 2nd level slot, I'd expect something stronger, comparable to things like Web or Enlarge/Reduce or Pass without Trace or Rime's Binding Ice, and I don't think these measure up.

[Kane0]

I get that it's a strong spell, but at least give it a chance before you ban it.

I don't really like this mentality that says you have to ban anything that looks slightly too strong on paper without giving it a chance to see it in practice. Often something that is strong on paper is not as strong in practice for any number of reasons. Get some empirical data before jumping to a conclusion.

As a table that allows homebrew and also doing homebrew myself, you have to. There isnt enough time in the day to playtest every item out of the vortually endless torrent found online. You need to develop an eye for determining what you want at your table and what you dont, so you can scan something and then decide if its worth playtesting or needs adjustment first.

[stoutstien]

As a table that allows homebrew and also doing homebrew myself, you have to. There isnt enough time in the day to playtest every item out of the vortually endless torrent found online. You need to develop an eye for determining what you want at your table and what you dont, so you can scan something and then decide if its worth playtesting or needs adjustment first.

Not to mention nothing is an actual isolated variable. You have to consider the full implementation of adding material to the game. Easier said then done.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not to mention nothing is an actual isolated variable. You have to consider the full implementation of adding material to the game. Easier said then done.

Meanwhile, we're banning it because we've isolated it as a variable.

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with anyone choosing not to use it or their reasons, but I personally prefer to give things a chance even if they meet my "wow that's way overtuned" mark at a glance. We've been pleasantly surprised at how rarely things actually end up being all that much of a problem.

[Segev]

The spell's exact wording says you roll a new d20 and use its value if it is lower than the old one. It says nothing about changing any other rolled dice or modifiers, so they all stand. IF you rolled a 15 on the d20, a 3 on the Bless or Resistance, and had a +5 modifier, you initially got a 23. If the Silvery Barbs roll was a 14, you now got a 22. Here's hoping for your sake that you didn't just barely make that roll in the first place.

[stoutstien]

Meanwhile, we're banning it because we've isolated it as a variable.

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with anyone choosing not to use it or their reasons, but I personally prefer to give things a chance even if they meet my "wow that's way overtuned" mark at a glance. We've been pleasantly surprised at how rarely things actually end up being all that much of a problem.
I think most have it dog eared as something to watch if they are using the new material in question rather than not adding it. The fact it's in a setting specific book is going to be a bigger impact than the spell itself.

[Kane0]

I think most have it dog eared as something to watch if they are using the new material in question rather than not adding it. The fact it's in a setting specific book is going to be a bigger impact than the spell itself.

Seconded. Widlemount, Strixhaven and Ravnica in the case of my group.

I'd be happy for barbs to be a 2nd level spell really, a more comfortable point for a reaction spell that covers attacks, checks and saves plus the followup advantage in between shield/absorb elements and counterspell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a table that allows homebrew and also doing homebrew myself, you have to. There isnt enough time in the day to playtest every item out of the vortually endless torrent found online. You need to develop an eye for determining what you want at your table and what you dont, so you can scan something and then decide if its worth playtesting or needs adjustment first.


Not to mention nothing is an actual isolated variable. You have to consider the full implementation of adding material to the game. Easier said then done.

Personally, new material starts out with negative points, like any other feature request. Once it's proven to have value (which might be as easy as reading it and not having any red flags and liking the thematics), then we can talk about including it. But if a red flag is thrown on first reading, it's going to take substantial effort to make it pass muster.

And being from a setting/adventure book means absolutely no way. That's -1e999 points right there. I may be willing to homebrew something that has the same general theme, except that in this case:
1) the theme is so slim as to be non-existent outside of that setting
2) the effect is gonzo. Most of the power of shield (already a powerful spell for its level), plus freer targeting (not just self) and affecting saves and ability checks? Yeah, no. Hard no.

[Greywander]

Personally, new material starts out with negative points, like any other feature request. Once it's proven to have value (which might be as easy as reading it and not having any red flags and liking the thematics), then we can talk about including it. But if a red flag is thrown on first reading, it's going to take substantial effort to make it pass muster.
If you ban it by default, how is it suppose to "prove itself"?


And being from a setting/adventure book means absolutely no way. That's -1e999 points right there. I may be willing to homebrew something that has the same general theme, except that in this case:
1) the theme is so slim as to be non-existent outside of that setting
2) the effect is gonzo. Most of the power of shield (already a powerful spell for its level), plus freer targeting (not just self) and affecting saves and ability checks? Yeah, no. Hard no.
Shield applies to all subsequent attacks you take until the start of your next turn, and the bonus to AC is quite substantial. Silvery Barbs only applies to one attack, and a reroll is probably slightly worse than a +5 bonus (except against crits). In terms of blocking attacks, Shield is the clearly superior spell; I'd only ever use Silvery Barbs against a crit, otherwise I'd use Shield instead, and your DM might not tell you if the enemy crit or not. Ability checks are eh. You can help your grappler, I suppose, and it might come up under niche circumstances. But IMO attack rolls and ability checks are secondary to using this on saving throws.

Essentially, you're spending a 1st level spell slot to make one enemy reroll their save against your (or an ally's) spell. That, plus the other things it can do, does make it on the strong side for a 1st level spell. I don't think it's so strong that it should be a 2nd level spell, though.

I think it's also a good thing that you can use it on your allies' spells and such. Does it make it stronger? Yes, and potentially quite a bit. But being strong isn't really the issue. The real issue is, is it fun? And I think turning your friend's failed spell into a success is a lot more fun than just turning your own failed spells into successes. This is a really good support spell, and support spells tend to work better at making the game fun for the whole table and not just the person slinging around the super powerful spells.

Nothing about Silvery Barbs indicates to me that it will enable any new gamebreaking builds. It doesn't really have any special interactions. All it does is make the stuff you already had a bit better. I think it's fair to call it out as power creep, but I don't think it will ruin the game. You can even turn it against a player by provoking them into casting Silvery Barbs so that they can't also cast Shield or Absorb Elements or, if you're really cruel, Feather Fall.


Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with anyone choosing not to use it or their reasons, but I personally prefer to give things a chance even if they meet my "wow that's way overtuned" mark at a glance. We've been pleasantly surprised at how rarely things actually end up being all that much of a problem.
I wish more people had this mindset. Instead they seem to have the DM equivalent of launching an unprovoked attack on the king's advisor because you suspect he's a villain. Or on the king himself because you suspect he's a doppleganger. Like, even if you're right, it still doesn't look good for you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you ban it by default, how is it suppose to "prove itself"?


As I said, having good thematics and no red flags on mechanics is generally enough. Unless it comes from a setting or adventure book. Because I don't ever allow things I don't own, and I don't buy those books.



Shield applies to all subsequent attacks you take until the start of your next turn, and the bonus to AC is quite substantial. Silvery Barbs only applies to one attack, and a reroll is probably slightly worse than a +5 bonus (except against crits). In terms of blocking attacks, Shield is the clearly superior spell; I'd only ever use Silvery Barbs against a crit, otherwise I'd use Shield instead, and your DM might not tell you if the enemy crit or not. Ability checks are eh. You can help your grappler, I suppose, and it might come up under niche circumstances. But IMO attack rolls and ability checks are secondary to using this on saving throws.

Essentially, you're spending a 1st level spell slot to make one enemy reroll their save against your (or an ally's) spell. That, plus the other things it can do, does make it on the strong side for a 1st level spell. I don't think it's so strong that it should be a 2nd level spell, though.

I think it's also a good thing that you can use it on your allies' spells and such. Does it make it stronger? Yes, and potentially quite a bit. But being strong isn't really the issue. The real issue is, is it fun? And I think turning your friend's failed spell into a success is a lot more fun than just turning your own failed spells into successes. This is a really good support spell, and support spells tend to work better at making the game fun for the whole table and not just the person slinging around the super powerful spells.

Nothing about Silvery Barbs indicates to me that it will enable any new gamebreaking builds. It doesn't really have any special interactions. All it does is make the stuff you already had a bit better. I think it's fair to call it out as power creep, but I don't think it will ruin the game. You can even turn it against a player by provoking them into casting Silvery Barbs so that they can't also cast Shield or Absorb Elements or, if you're really cruel, Feather Fall.


So it's 60% of shield under most cases, except it's shield for you or any of your allies, plus having offensive uses each equally strong as shield. I'd call that way the heck better than shield as a package. Generally, a spell that does 2 things at 50% of other spells is stronger than either of those spells, because it saves a prep slot. This spell does
* most of a strong spell
* things the strong spell just can't do
* things that are exclusive, higher-level class features of specific subclasses of different classes entirely
* on a first level spell
* available to wizards, who don't need the help

Basically, it's a low-level omni-spell for defense with offensive properties!.

If you don't see how those are all red flags, I'm afraid our ideas of what's appropriate are completely incompatible. When you have a single low level spell that's just flat better than a different class's higher level feature entirely, that's out of balance. Not game breaking, but you don't have to break the game to cause issues.

[JNAProductions]

So... Forcing disadvantage on a single attack is 60% of +5 AC until your next turn?

That seems like iffy math to me.

[Kane0]

Shield applies to all subsequent attacks you take until the start of your next turn, and the bonus to AC is quite substantial. Silvery Barbs only applies to one attack, and a reroll is probably slightly worse than a +5 bonus (except against crits). In terms of blocking attacks, Shield is the clearly superior spell; I'd only ever use Silvery Barbs against a crit, otherwise I'd use Shield instead, and your DM might not tell you if the enemy crit or not. Ability checks are eh. You can help your grappler, I suppose, and it might come up under niche circumstances. But IMO attack rolls and ability checks are secondary to using this on saving throws.

Essentially, you're spending a 1st level spell slot to make one enemy reroll their save against your (or an ally's) spell. That, plus the other things it can do, does make it on the strong side for a 1st level spell. I don't think it's so strong that it should be a 2nd level spell, though.

I think it's also a good thing that you can use it on your allies' spells and such. Does it make it stronger? Yes, and potentially quite a bit. But being strong isn't really the issue. The real issue is, is it fun? And I think turning your friend's failed spell into a success is a lot more fun than just turning your own failed spells into successes. This is a really good support spell, and support spells tend to work better at making the game fun for the whole table and not just the person slinging around the super powerful spells.

Nothing about Silvery Barbs indicates to me that it will enable any new gamebreaking builds. It doesn't really have any special interactions. All it does is make the stuff you already had a bit better. I think it's fair to call it out as power creep, but I don't think it will ruin the game. You can even turn it against a player by provoking them into casting Silvery Barbs so that they can't also cast Shield or Absorb Elements or, if you're really cruel, Feather Fall.


I think of barbs a little bit like I think of Haste.

Is Haste the best movement spell? Possibly, but there is also zephyr strike, longstrider, fly, find steed/phantom steed and all manner of teleports
Is haste the best defensive spell? No, there is shield, shield of faith, protection from good/evil, mirror Image and all manner of vision blockers and walls
Is Haste the best attack buff? No, there is bless, magic weapon, hex/hunter's mark, swift quiver, elemental weapon, shadow blade, and so on.
Is Haste the best action economy enhancer? Quite possibly, but there is also contingency, glyph of warding, expeditious Retreat, simulacrum, find familiar and all manner of summons.

Haste isn't a great spell because its excellent at any one thing, it's a great spell because it's good at a lot of things. It gives you a bundle of pretty good buffs at a cost, but (IMO) its true value lies in its breadth of utility. Many casters have to select their spells known/prepared carefully, and Haste is an awesome pick because it can do a lot of different things well if not the best, even with the associated costs (3rd level slots are heavily contended, you only have one concentration and losing a turn is a significant risk). Its subtle and difficult to measure, but cannot be denied.

Barbs takes this and dials it up to eleven. For a 1st level spell and your reaction, nigh any d20 roll within 60 feet becomes subject to your approval. You can use it on crits against you or an ally, you can use it on an enemy save, you can use it on an ally's grapple or counterspell or check against illusion, and so on. It also stacks and compounds any modifications to the roll like bless/bane, bardic inspiration/cutting words, fighting styles, feats, class abilities, other spells and even allies that also have barbs. There is no avoiding the effect via a saving throw, only the typical 'you can see' clause. There is no additional cost or risk to using barbs at all. And as a cherry on top of it all whether it even works or not you can then hand out advantage on another nigh any d20 roll to an ally (including yourself) within one minute, ensuring that your reaction and spell slot is not wasted even if the new roll still succeeds.

Silvery Barbs might not be strictly better than Shield at protecting yourself, but it definitely is comparable plus is also great at protecting others, and buffing yourself, and buffing others in a multitude of ways. If Shield is already considered one of the best 1st level spells in the game (especially after Tier 1 when those 1st level slots aren't also competing with as many of your other spells) then it rings an alarm bell to me that Barbs can do comparably in Shields sole function plus a bunch more.

And this isn't taking into account the little influences at the game table too. You know how some tables like to have a little pause to see if anyone wants to counterspell? That might now happen to most if not all d20 rolls, and folks who usually roll in secret or out in the open might change their mind due to seeing this spell in play. Now imagine that sort of thing for online play, it could potentially slow the game to a crawl.

[Mastikator]

Barbs is worse at protecting yourself than shield. Most enemies have multiattack, you're rarely attacked only once. Making an enemy reroll one successful attack role out of 2, 3, 6? Not good. Adding a +5 to AC against all those attacks? Very good.

Yes barbs can be used to protect an ally (unlike shield) but if that's what you're using it for you're playing a weak character. The only situation where it's "too good" IMO is when you're making an enemy reroll their save against Banishment or Dominate Person or some other single save high level spell.

[elyktsorb]

The verbiage of the spell rules say to reroll the d20 and use the lower result. The rules text does not specifically mention any modifiers to the roll...

However, my position is that things like Bane, or Mind Sliver or Unsettling Words would still modify the roll. You would not reroll them. Nor would you ignore the already rolled values.


Bane is pointless to talk about as it effects the 'character' every Saving Throw, or Attack Roll made by the player is subjected to the Bane regardless. If your rolling a Saving Throw, or an Attack Roll, and are still under the effects of Bane, Bane applies.

I can see where they might have an argument on Mind Sliver, or Unsettling Words because they imply that they effect the 'next' roll.

Except that Silvery Barbs says to do a reroll, not make a new roll entirely, and the reason it isn't a new roll entirely is that is isn't supposed to be Disadvantage.

Some people may argue that this reroll is a 'different' roll, ergo, one that wouldn't be effected by Mind Sliver, or Unsettling Words. Even by this logic Bane would still apply though.

When a halfling rerolls a 1, he is not making a new roll, he is turning that roll into something else.


Also I don't really get how this is supposed to be better than the Shield spell to some people. Especially since Shield let's you choose, and Silvery Barbs may not end up saving you from the attack even if you do use it. I absolutely understand situations this would be useful for, but I'm taking Shield over it every day.

[Pildion]

In the end, I think barbs will end up like shield. its mandatory for anyone who can take it. Shield is still better for attacks as it last until your next turn vs one attack, but barbs can be used offensively as well. I wouldn't not ban it outright, and everyone needs to remember you don't have unlimited spell slots. Even as a level 1 spell, most games don't even get to double digits in levels.

No one will be using this on mooks, or every fight, until the wizard hits level 18 anyways haha.

[loki_ragnarock]

Okay, playtest it.

Run a dungeon where every encounter has at least one - if not two or three enemies - that can cast it on the party. Just slap it on any old ogre, kobold, or troll; it's a first level spell that doesn't *directly* impact AC or HP or damage dealt, so it shouldn't make for any sort of CR adjustment for them to be able to cast it. Just run Lost Mines of Phandelver and slap it on at least one NPC per combat, if not more for some of the bigger fights.

Behold how much fun a no save dice reroll would be. Watch in glee from behind the screen as every crit becomes a normal blow, as every power attack misses the mark, and as every save the PC's narrowly make ends instead with miserable failure... or success, at the cost of grinding down the joy from that small victory by interrupting the natural flow and pace of the game.


Seems like the perfect tool for an evil DM who hates to see joy on the face of a player for even a moment.

[lall]

Sounds like fun.

[heavyfuel]

If the target could make the attack/save/check with a low d20 result then you're just wasting your

Spell slot
Spells known/prepared
Taken a feat/multiclass dip just for this and it didn't work



I'd easily put Silvery Barbs in the same league as Shield, I'm not willing to concede that it's better than Shield. It's better than Absorb Elements though which I consider more situational.

And your Reaction. Let's not forget that

[heavyfuel]

Okay, playtest it.

Run a dungeon where every encounter has at least one - if not two or three enemies - that can cast it on the party. Just slap it on any old ogre, kobold, or troll; it's a first level spell that doesn't *directly* impact AC or HP or damage dealt, so it shouldn't make for any sort of CR adjustment for them to be able to cast it. Just run Lost Mines of Phandelver and slap it on at least one NPC per combat, if not more for some of the bigger fights.

Behold how much fun a no save dice reroll would be. Watch in glee from behind the screen as every crit becomes a normal blow, as every power attack misses the mark, and as every save the PC's narrowly make ends instead with miserable failure... or success, at the cost of grinding down the joy from that small victory by interrupting the natural flow and pace of the game.


Seems like the perfect tool for an evil DM who hates to see joy on the face of a player for even a moment.

Evil DMs already have any and all tools necessary with or without Silvery Barbs.

Plus, a spell slot for an NPC who is expected to be dead in 3 rounds isn't the same as a spell slot for a PC who is expected to go through 8 full encounters before they are regained. Plus, the PCs are usually outnumbered. Foiling the Rogue's single attack is much more impactful than stopping a single zombie's attack.

If you want to playtest it as a DM in a module, give it to a couple enemies per long rest and let each enemy use it once/long rest. That should be reasonably proportionate.

I think you'll find that the spell is good, but hardly as game breaking as you put it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I apologize in advance, as I'm sure I'm just missing something, but RAW it doesn't seem like the caster of the original spell could cast this spell, as that would be the 2nd leveled spell on their turn. The discussion here seems to imply the original caster could cast SB.
Thoughts?

[Khrysaes]

I didnt read all the posts, but here is my take.

It is not the same as disadvantage, as it works with disadvantage. I.e roll first at disadvantage, if it passes, then silvery barbs, and roll 1 more d20, use the lower of the passing or silvery barbs d20.

Because the spell specifies rolling a new d20, i wouldnt reroll other modifiers such as bless, guidance, bane, etc.

[heavyfuel]

I apologize in advance, as I'm sure I'm just missing something, but RAW it doesn't seem like the caster of the original spell could cast this spell, as that would be the 2nd leveled spell on their turn. The discussion here seems to imply the original caster could cast SB.
Thoughts?

You cannot cast a second leveled spell only if you cast one with your Bonus Action. Reactions aren't affected by this rule

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You cannot cast a second leveled spell only if you cast one with your Bonus Action. Reactions aren't affected by this rule

I figured that was the case. Has this been clarified in errata? In this case the Reaction is occurring on the original caster's turn.

[elyktsorb]

Because the spell specifies rolling a new d20, i wouldnt reroll other modifiers such as bless, guidance, bane, etc.

From what I can see the spell specifies rerolling, not rolling a new d20.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I figured that was the case. Has this been clarified in errata? In this case the Reaction is occurring on the original caster's turn.

Why would it need to be clarified? Reaction spells are not a new thing. You could already run into this issue if you, for example, fireball at your feet and cast absorb elements to gain resistance to the damage.

Again, this is base rules. The restriction was never "two leveled spells" it has always been "Only a cantrip with a casting time of one action, no reaction spells, on your turn if you cast anything as a bonus action". This includes if you cast a cantrip as a bonus action.

[Kane0]

Again, this is base rules. The restriction was never "two leveled spells" it has always been "Only a cantrip with a casting time of one action, no reaction spells, on your turn if you cast anything as a bonus action". This includes if you cast a cantrip as a bonus action.

Honestly though, 'two levelled spells (during your turn)' is much simpler and easier.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Honestly though, 'two levelled spells (during your turn)' is much simpler and easier.

I honestly think this might risk pushing spellcasters power budget up a bit, there are some pretty high quality bonus action spells (primarily utility or movement based) that make it a meaningful choice on whether you should cast them or go for a higher power option using your action instead of a cantrip.

I think the current rules are easy enough they're just very often ignored.

I'll go a step further and say I think the reason the rule is often ignored is that bonus actions aren't guaranteed, especially for spellcasters. The rule should be worded to state that if you use your action or reaction to cast a leveled spell on your turn that you can't cast a spell as a bonus action rather than how it currently reads. I might even cut the reaction part because (until silvery barbs) it was unlikely you'd trigger a reaction spell on your own turn in the first place.

[Kane0]

Sorry that may have been misinterpreted, i meant you cannot cast two levelled spells during your turn, so the limit is one levelled spell on your turn.
Its a nerf since fighter action surge doesnt let you get a second levelled spell anymore, nor does a levelled reaction spell on your own turn, but also a buff in that casting a bonus action levelled spell on your turn doesnt stop you from using a levelled reaction spell on someone elses turn.

Edit: although a limit of two levelled spells per round is an interesting alternative, you could cast two levelled spells on your turn in but give up any levelled reaction spells.

[Hytheter]

but also a buff in that casting a bonus action levelled spell on your turn doesnt stop you from using a levelled reaction spell on someone elses turn.

Huh? That's already how it works. Casting a spell as a bonus action only stops you from casting levelled spells on your turn, it doesn't bar you from using reaction spells for the entire round.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Why would it need to be clarified? Reaction spells are not a new thing. You could already run into this issue if you, for example, fireball at your feet and cast absorb elements to gain resistance to the damage.

Again, this is base rules. The restriction was never "two leveled spells" it has always been "Only a cantrip with a casting time of one action, no reaction spells, on your turn if you cast anything as a bonus action". This includes if you cast a cantrip as a bonus action.

Thanks. I actually never realized it was worded this way. So I guess the only thing you can't do regarding this spell is cast it if you've cast the triggering spell as a Bonus Action.

[ad_hoc]

In the end, I think barbs will end up like shield. its mandatory for anyone who can take it. Shield is still better for attacks as it last until your next turn vs one attack, but barbs can be used offensively as well. I wouldn't not ban it outright, and everyone needs to remember you don't have unlimited spell slots. Even as a level 1 spell, most games don't even get to double digits in levels.

No one will be using this on mooks, or every fight, until the wizard hits level 18 anyways haha.

That's not true. It is easily worth a 2nd level slot (and much more) and Wizards can use Arcane Recovery to get back 1st level slots.

Psionic Sorcerers can use 1 Sorcery Point to cast it as well.

There is potential to cast this most rounds of the adventuring day.

It is ridiculously overpowered.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Purely out of curiosity, ad_hoc, do you also consider the Rune Knight to be overpowered?

RK can negate a Crit and/or chose to transfer a critical hit’s damage depending upon their Rune Selection and class level…up to multiple times per Short Rest.

Silvery Barbs certainly aids save or suck spells, the issue of course, is the caster of Save vs Suck spells feels sucky when the subject Saves….and most Save or Suck require Concentration.

The spell helped a Control Bard, not completely suck, against Magic Resistant foes in one of my games.

Silvery Barbs is an upgrade to Cutting Words…but not by that much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Silvery Barbs is an upgrade to Cutting Words…but not by that much.

So it's a 1st level spell better than an exclusive, 6th level class feature? Doesn't that seem a little off to you? No single spell should be better than an entire non ribbon class feature, especially a higher level one exclusive to a subclass. At least in my opinion.

[heavyfuel]

No single spell should be better than an entire non ribbon class feature

Boy do I have bad news for you then :smallamused:

Turns out that a lot of single spells are better than entire non ribbon class features, Silvery Barbs is just one of them

Plus, unlike Cutting Words, SB draws from the same pool of resource as other spells, so it's unlikely to be used as often as CW

[PhoenixPhyre]

Boy do I have bad news for you then :smallamused:

Turns out that a lot of single spells are better than entire non ribbon class features, Silvery Barbs is just one of them

Plus, unlike Cutting Words, SB draws from the same pool of resource as other spells, so it's unlikely to be used as often as CW

And that's a bad thing and we don't need more of them. In fact, we need fewer. Continuing a bad trend is bad, and the first step is to stop doing that. First rule of holes and all that.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So it's a 1st level spell better than an exclusive, 6th level class feature? Doesn't that seem a little off to you?

Cutting Words is a 3rd level Feature, and a Rune Knight also selects runes at 3rd level….P.P. I am unsure what 6th level class ability you are referencing?

Explaining that Cutting Words technically can’t stop a Critical Hit has grown tedious to me over the years, so I would be fine replacing Cutting Words with Silvery Barbs.

Abilities that can force re-rolls for attacks have been around for awhile…strong abilities for sure, but not something that a DM will find insurmountable.

As someone, that had 3 Magic Resistant creatures ignore a Slow spell cast by my 5th level Necromancer, tonight, I would have enjoyed having a shot to force a re-roll on just one of the creatures.

Is Silvery Barbs overtunned?………probably.
I certainly do not begrudge anyone banning the spell, or finding it too strong…
……..Silvery Barbs in effect is a more efficient vessel to deliver effects that were already in the game.

If your game goes to Eleven, and all books and options are allowed, then the spell is the current best drill bit for rendering the effect….powerful but not game shattering, in my opinion.

Time will tell, the spell is new.

If your game is more curated than a Spinal Tap game, then Silvery Barbs might cause an issue…(but in a more curated game the spell won’t make it to the table).

[Khrysaes]

From what I can see the spell specifies rerolling, not rolling a new d20.

"The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll."

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Okay, playtest it.

Run a dungeon where every encounter has at least one - if not two or three enemies - that can cast it on the party. Just slap it on any old ogre, kobold, or troll; it's a first level spell that doesn't *directly* impact AC or HP or damage dealt, so it shouldn't make for any sort of CR adjustment for them to be able to cast it. Just run Lost Mines of Phandelver and slap it on at least one NPC per combat, if not more for some of the bigger fights.



This is a bad way of testing a spell intended for a Party of PCs intended to buff support characters.

Any old ogre or goblin aren’t making a resource decision with their first level (or higher) slots to aid a team member. And it downplays the key element of the spell: teamwork.




Behold how much fun a no save dice reroll would be. Watch in glee from behind the screen as every crit becomes a normal blow, as every power attack misses the mark, and as every save the PC's narrowly make ends instead with miserable failure... or success, at the cost of grinding down the joy from that small victory by interrupting the natural flow and pace of the game.


Seems like the perfect tool for an evil DM who hates to see joy on the face of a player for even a moment.

Which is why it’s not a tool for the DM. It’s a tool for the PCs….

That glee you feel when your Paladin *isn’t* killed by the Ogre getting a critical hit, and then the Paladin getting a hit and killing the ogre because you gave them advantage on their next roll…

Yeah, I definitely want my players feeling that glee. I, as a DM, want my players to coordinate and act like a team. Silvery Barbs makes giving the assist an optimal, rather than suboptimal, choice, and adds depth to combat.

Everything you describe as a malus on the DM side of the screen is, frankly, a benefit on the other side.

If you want to play test it, give it to every PC and see who uses it instead of their regular class abilities. I doubt you’ll see it being terribly competitive.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

So... Forcing disadvantage on a single attack is 60% of +5 AC until your next turn?

That seems like iffy math to me.

Very iffy.

[loki_ragnarock]

Abilities that can force re-rolls for attacks have been around for awhile…strong abilities for sure, but not something that a DM will find insurmountable.


They aren't insurmountable, but they do totally destroy the flow of play.

I have a friend who ran a high level 4e game who came away from the experience with his major complaint about running it as "I can't roll a die without half the party shouting out abilities that change it." His turns - which should have been over and done and resolved - took forever as layers and layers of mitigating reactions all got shouted out. As a player, it was a slog. As a DM, it broke him of wanting to ever DM that system again.

Ya'll are poopooing my playtest idea, but in your heart of hearts you know that a bunch of monsters with silvery barbs would be annoying as hell to deal with. As a DM, the introduction of more endless dice manipulation/reroll mechanics makes me think back to the worst aspects of 4e. The last thing that table top gaming needs is more speed bumps that interrupt the flow of play. One or two, gated behind specific choices? Cool, that's a special thing. The persons who took the Lucky Halfling feat or played a Lore Bard get to feel a little special as a turn slows down for their benefit; they really invested to get there, paid some real opportunity costs, and it can't be reproduced by joe schmoe.
A widely available first level spell, on the other hand? Something even an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster can start throwing out?

I'm going to call that out as a garbage design choice.


(And for the record, Rune Knight is busted as all hell. You get to be a Warlock with a curtailed and yet in some ways superior spell list, with more spell slots than a warlock has for a good portion of normal play, grafted onto the fighter chassis. And then other stuff, too, as if what I just described wasn't wildly over the top. Rune Knight is a pretty great example of 5e design going off the rails.)

EDIT:

I will say, for a MtG themed spell, it's pretty on point; making something take way longer than it should while denying the person across from you any glimpse of fun is basically the whole blue deck strategy.

[Pildion]

I have a friend who ran a high level 4e game who came away from the experience with his major complaint about running it as "I can't roll a die without half the party shouting out abilities that change it." His turns - which should have been over and done and resolved - took forever as layers and layers of mitigating reactions all got shouted out. As a player, it was a slog. As a DM, it broke him of wanting to ever DM that system again.

Ya'll are poopooing my playtest idea, but in your heart of hearts you know that a bunch of monsters with silvery barbs would be annoying as hell to deal with. As a DM, the introduction of more endless dice manipulation/reroll mechanics makes me think back to the worst aspects of 4e. The last thing that table top gaming needs is more speed bumps that interrupt the flow of play. One or two, gated behind specific choices? Cool, that's a special thing. The persons who took the Lucky Halfling feat or played a Lore Bard get to feel a little special as a turn slows down for their benefit; they really invested to get there, paid some real opportunity costs, and it can't be reproduced by joe schmoe.
A widely available first level spell, on the other hand? Something even an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster can start throwing out?


Hmm I didn't think about how much Silver Barbs would slow combat encounters down. I also already do get annoyed with Halfling and there Bountiful Luck basically ending critical fails on the group and slowing things down. I could see multiple casters all taking this really almost doubling the rolls needed as you would be re-rolling almost anything that won its saving throw. I still don't think I'll ban this outright without at least a couple games worth of play testing myself. You can always talk with your players, maybe only 1 caster gets this spell to keep things sane?

[tokek]

(And for the record, Rune Knight is busted as all hell. You get to be a Warlock with a curtailed and yet in some ways superior spell list, with more spell slots than a warlock has for a good portion of normal play, grafted onto the fighter chassis. And then other stuff, too, as if what I just described wasn't wildly over the top. Rune Knight is a pretty great example of 5e design going off the rails.)



Actually if you are of the opinion that Rune Knight is busted then I can perfectly see why you think this is busted.

I am of the camp that Rune Knight is what martial characters should be like, hugely enjoyable to play with some once per rest abilities that have real impact. Its fine if you don't agree with that.

So anecdotally I have a new-ish sorcerer character who has Silvery Barbs. The DM and I have discussed it, we both agree its on the powerful side and that we will review its use at some point in the future. So far its been alright but not amazing, its early days yet.

[loki_ragnarock]

Actually if you are of the opinion that Rune Knight is busted then I can perfectly see why you think this is busted.
Funny, I would have thought that the explaining why silvery barbs is moving into bad game design by creating additional, low barrier of entry speed bumps to the progress of play would have illustrated that better, as it's a wildly different train of thought.

It can literally be cast by anyone with a spare feat thanks to Fey-Touched. Clerics, Druids, Warlocks; they are a feat away from being able to cast it just as often (actually, slightly more often) as the other half of full casters. Rangers and Paladins are likewise a feat away from spamming this. Fighters and Rogues get natural access to it. (And for an Eldritch Knight it's higher value than shield because its only component is verbal; who needs Shield when you have shield proficiency!)

So, a Rogue, Bard, Cleric, and Fighter walk into a game and turn it into a mess of speedbumps. Or a Ranger, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid walk into a game and... turn it into a mess of speedbumps.

The only safe classes anymore are the monk and barbarian. *That's* the problem with Silvery Barbs.


I am of the camp that Rune Knight is what martial characters should be like, hugely enjoyable to play with some once per rest abilities that have real impact. Its fine if you don't agree with that.
I'm sure playing a Warlock/Fighter without any of the drawbacks of multi-classing is super fun. I don't like Rune Knight, but it's still less of a problem than Silvery Barbs. If everyone comes to the table with a Rune Knight... that's a weird table, and probably a coordinated choice, but one that comes with some pretty substantial opportunity costs for the party.

If everyone comes to the party with Silvery Barbs, which isn't hard in the slightest... the opportunity costs are nearly non-existent by comparison. All roles are filled, and so many, many rolls are doubled.


Again, it's on theme for a MtG campaign. Having something endlessly drag on because someone built their deck around nothing happening is sort of their schtick. Interrupts work as a standard for a CCG but make for a difficult time when trying to run an interactive narrative game, which is a big part of why the floor for introducing them was previously so high. Lowering the floor to the seabed for the broader narrative game is a bad design decision.

TL;DR:
Silvery Barbs is bad because if it exists as it exists, then literally every party member can put up road blocks to your game progressing smoothly.

[Jakinbandw]

TL;DR:
Silvery Barbs is bad because if it exists as it exists, then literally every party member can put up road blocks to your game progressing smoothly.

That can already happen with lucky, and I don't see entire parties having the lucky feat. Lucky might actually be better, because you can use more than once on martial characters that pick it up.

[loki_ragnarock]

That can already happen with lucky, and I don't see entire parties having the lucky feat.

Yep, and it's been a point of annoyance for several people on the boards here since the game started precisely because of it's ability to slow down play. I've never had a particular problem with it because it was a feat, and feats are supposed to be special to compensate for the opportunity cost of an ASI. Or meaningful race features, in the case of some humans.

Of course you don't see entire parties packing the lucky feat; most parties starting below 4th aren't going to have someone with a feat at all. Unless you got 4 V. Humans who all decided to take the lucky feat, in which case you've got the same scenario as the four Rune Knights where the table was actively colluding.

Silvery Barbs concretely bucks that by making it available from an even lower level, with an even lower barrier of entry, at even lower opportunity cost, and (oh, by the by) with an effect that's actually more powerful than the Lucky feat interruption. That can be used even more often for the classes that can cast spells, should they feel like actually investing in a feat. It'd be easy to pull up and incidentally have everyone capable of casting Silvery Barbs, with only one person in the party having spent a feat to do so.
Far more likely outcome.

[heavyfuel]

Ya'll are poopooing my playtest idea, but in your heart of hearts you know that a bunch of monsters with silvery barbs would be annoying as hell to deal with.

Of course it would, but the fact is that most monsters have no way of accessing that spell save for DM fiat. How often is your party fighting NPCs with Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard levels?

In an actual game, you'll have maaybe 2 characters able to cast it. And they can only do so a very limited number of times per rest. And it costs their Reaction. And that's only at high-ish levels, because no level 4 Wizard is going to be spending every single 1st level slot on Silverry Barbs.

You are purposefully and dramatically over-estimating the number of times this spell is going to be cast to prove a point.

If you have two characters capable of casting this spell 4/day, and they spend a half their slots on it (the other half on Shield/Absorb Elements), that's still only 4 times per day you'll see it.

And I honestly don't think that many parties have both a Wizard AND a Bard, both of which will definitely choose this spell, so you're only going to see this spell cast 2, maybe 3 times per day.

[tokek]

Ya'll are poopooing my playtest idea, but in your heart of hearts you know that a bunch of monsters with silvery barbs would be annoying as hell to deal with.

The fundamental design of 5e is that monsters get plenty of attacks and plenty of hit points and that to deal with that player characters get a number of tricks instead. For a clear-cut example look at the NPC equivalent of PC classes like assassin, they lack a number of class features but have inflated HP to balance out the lack of something like uncanny dodge. I've played with a DM who added those class features back on and those monsters slowed everything down and were significantly overpowered relative to their CR.

Giving the monsters PC tricks is not how 5e is designed to operate whatever those tricks are. So no I will not be trying out your suggestion except maybe on the occasional NPC magician with levelled spells.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If everyone comes to the party with Silvery Barbs, which isn't hard in the slightest...

TL;DR:
Silvery Barbs is bad because if it exists as it exists, then literally every party member can put up road blocks to your game progressing smoothly.

The same argument could be made about an entire party having access to the Shield spell.

Do you think Battle Master Fighters with the Riposte Maneuver and creatures with Legendary Actions take too long, in general?

[Kane0]

TL;DR:
Silvery Barbs is bad because if it exists as it exists, then literally every party member can put up road blocks to your game progressing smoothly.
Yes I hadnt articulated it as such but absolutely agree. I think we already have plenty of these sorts of reactions and roll modifiers available in the game to choose from already.

[diplomancer]

If excessive casting of it creates disrupting problems(and I can easily see it could), but not balance problems, here are two possible ways to deal with it:

1- don't allow access to it with Fey-Touched feat, specially for casters. The feat's already very powerful.
2- limit per/day castings. This is a bit weird for the game design, but just make it so that you can't cast it more often in a day than proficiency/2 (rounded down or up, depending on how disruptive you find the spell to be).

[stoutstien]

If excessive casting of it creates disrupting problems(and I can easily see it could), but not balance problems, here are two possible ways to deal with it:

1- don't allow access to it with Fey-Touched feat, specially for casters. The feat's already very powerful.
2- limit per/day castings. This is a bit weird for the game design, but just make it so that you can't cast it more often in a day than proficiency/2 (rounded down or up, depending on how disruptive you find the spell to be).

A lot of, but not all, of the potential issues from this spell go away if you change the school of magic it's from.

[ad_hoc]

Let's compare silvery barbs to heighten spell.

For the sake of sanity to keep the math simple I will use a 50% base chance to save.

With HS the creature will save 1/4 times.

With SB the creature will save 1/4 times.

HS will cost 12 sorcery points. SB will cost 4 sorcery points or only 2 with psionic sorcerer.

In addition SB will give advantage to an ally on a saving throw twice.

Also SB can be used for any Ally's spell or ability that forces a saving throw. It can also be used against the saving throw of a saves end effect.

Etc.

For a 50% save rate it is 1/6 as expensive as HS on a psionic sorcerer and also does a lot more for the cost of a reaction.

[Kane0]

Hows this as an alternative, changing only the reaction trigger and spell effect:

Instead of when creature passes attack, check or save the reaction triggers when a creature rolls an attack, check or save.

The effect is you choose to apply advantage or disadvantage to that roll. After the roll that same creature gains the opposite (advantage/disadvantage) on the next roll of the same type (attack/check/save) within one hour.

So you can still use it on basically everything, but the reverse takes effect for the roll after that. Still very useful and broadly applicable but it no longer stacks as much with other effects and carries an actual tradeoff to using it.

[Snails]

For a 50% save rate it is 1/6 as expensive as HS on a psionic sorcerer and also does a lot more for the cost of a reaction.

I was thinking along the same lines. Resource-wise, it is typically much much better than a major class ability: Sorceror's Heighten Metamagic. Situationally, it can be worse due to the cost of the Reaction, but in most cases SB is simply better, due to the added flexibility and superior efficiency.

Frankly, I would likely choose this spell as a 3rd level spell, if I were playing a T3 Wizard. Because when, say, I want that beastie Banished, I want that beastie Banished.

Granted, at T1 it might not quite seem nuts. But, then again, you are still making Heightened Spell and some other reroll abilities look very weak.

[Hael]

Frankly, I would likely choose this spell as a 3rd level spell, if I were playing a T3 Wizard. Because when, say, I want that beastie Banished, I want that beastie Banished.
.

If you or an ally are spending a 9th lvl slot for a save or suck (imprisonment for instance), then you could make an argument that casting this with any lvl spell slot under 9th is worth it.

Obviously this scales amazingly well. If I had to rate this reaction, i'd probably say it was the best reaction in the game in tier3-4, followed by counterspell, AE (before lvl17), and shield. In tier1, I would likely rate shield higher, then this spell, then AE and then counterspell.

[tokek]

If you or an ally are spending a 9th lvl slot for a save or suck (imprisonment for instance), then you could make an argument that casting this with any lvl spell slot under 9th is worth it.

Obviously this scales amazingly well. If I had to rate this reaction, i'd probably say it was the best reaction in the game in tier3-4, followed by counterspell, AE (before lvl17), and shield. In tier1, I would likely rate shield higher, then this spell, then AE and then counterspell.

While I tend to agree that silvery barbs has balance problems in tier-4 I also think that's like complaining about the wheel balance on your fish's bicycle. Tier-4 is not balanced and is clearly never intended to be. Level 9 spells are enormous fun but in no way are they remotely balanced with anything.

In tier-1 I don't think its the best spell. In tier-2 I retain an open mind that it might be better than shield, I'm not entirely convinced but I will see how it plays. I really don't know in tier-3 but I suspect that legendary saves rather render all this save manipulation rather pointless in tier-3 unless your whole party is all about overwhelming legendary saves with save or suck spells. I've never played in that sort of party, I've always played with a wider more varied mix of character types than that.

[Segev]

How does one define "speed bumps that get in the way of smooth play" vs. "players having options to do things?" It seems to me that the definition being used here - chances to do well or avoid doing poorly - could apply to anything, including having the ability to rage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How does one define "speed bumps that get in the way of smooth play" vs. "players having options to do things?" It seems to me that the definition being used here - chances to do well or avoid doing poorly - could apply to anything, including having the ability to rage.

Generally, things that happen during one player's turn (ie someone doing something on their own turn) aren't disruptive unless they take substantial time to resolve[1]. Interrupts are massive speed bumps no matter how trivial they are to resolve, because you constantly have to check for them. Yes, this includes Legendary Actions and most reaction spells. And the more cases that could trigger an interrupt, the worse the effect even if it isn't actually used much. Because now you have to constantly slow down whenever anyone
* makes an attack roll
* makes a saving throw
* makes an ability check
to see if someone's going to cast silvery barbs. Cutting Words is already this way, except it applies to fewer things and only one subclass can do it. This is available to lots of people.

Even compared to Lucky (which is also disruptive), it can trigger in way more circumstances. And tons more than counterspell, which is also fairly disruptive.

Basically, off-turn and conditional (I'll do X if they do Y) actions are inherently disruptive to the flow. Actions happening on your own turn rarely are.

[1] prismatic spray, minionmancy, I'm looking at you in many cases.

[Kane0]

While I tend to agree that silvery barbs has balance problems in tier-4 I also think that's like complaining about the wheel balance on your fish's bicycle. Tier-4 is not balanced and is clearly never intended to be. Level 9 spells are enormous fun but in no way are they remotely balanced with anything.


Just because it isn't balanced now doesn't mean it should be that way, nor should we be approving ways to make it worse or use it as justification for continuing that trend.

[MrCharlie]

Generally, things that happen during one player's turn (ie someone doing something on their own turn) aren't disruptive unless they take substantial time to resolve[1]. Interrupts are massive speed bumps no matter how trivial they are to resolve, because you constantly have to check for them. Yes, this includes Legendary Actions and most reaction spells. And the more cases that could trigger an interrupt, the worse the effect even if it isn't actually used much. Because now you have to constantly slow down whenever anyone
* makes an attack roll
* makes a saving throw
* makes an ability check
to see if someone's going to cast silvery barbs. Cutting Words is already this way, except it applies to fewer things and only one subclass can do it. This is available to lots of people.

Even compared to Lucky (which is also disruptive), it can trigger in way more circumstances. And tons more than counterspell, which is also fairly disruptive.

Basically, off-turn and conditional (I'll do X if they do Y) actions are inherently disruptive to the flow. Actions happening on your own turn rarely are.

[1] prismatic spray, minionmancy, I'm looking at you in many cases.
You're list is too long and too inclusive-in practice interrupts aren't even on the same scale as summon spells and **** like prismatic spray that has multiple layer of rolling to arbitrate.

After DMing and playing high interrupt parties (swashbuckler/battlemaster, abjuration wizards, and now an eloquence bard using barbs) I think I can speak to it being a DM problem if they are disrupting play. In practice most interrupts are quick and easy to arbitrate, and rolling and re-rolling dice isn't a time consumer. What consumes time is deciding what to do, not doing it.

It's too strong, but this complaint is about your table, not the spell.

Okay, playtest it.

Run a dungeon where every encounter has at least one - if not two or three enemies - that can cast it on the party. Just slap it on any old ogre, kobold, or troll; it's a first level spell that doesn't *directly* impact AC or HP or damage dealt, so it shouldn't make for any sort of CR adjustment for them to be able to cast it. Just run Lost Mines of Phandelver and slap it on at least one NPC per combat, if not more for some of the bigger fights.

Behold how much fun a no save dice reroll would be. Watch in glee from behind the screen as every crit becomes a normal blow, as every power attack misses the mark, and as every save the PC's narrowly make ends instead with miserable failure... or success, at the cost of grinding down the joy from that small victory by interrupting the natural flow and pace of the game.


Seems like the perfect tool for an evil DM who hates to see joy on the face of a player for even a moment.
If any DM alive uses "Oh, it doesn't technically change the CR, so..." excuse, then they need to stop being a DM.

(Also, that argument works just as well for counterspell. NPCs are not made in the same way as PCs, and there is a reason for that.)

The actual problem here isn't table disruption or DM's ******* around, it's that Silvery barbs is too cheap. It's about the power level I'd expect from a 2nd or 3rd level spell-it's on the same power level as counterspell when you have to roll for it. That's pretty much it; outside of a few edge cases I'd change (I.E. overriding advantage) it's fine.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Funny, I would have thought that the explaining why silvery barbs is moving into bad game design by creating additional, low barrier of entry speed bumps to the progress of play would have illustrated that better, as it's a wildly different train of thought.



Because it doesn’t stop the progress of play. No more than any other reaction. Casting Silvery Barbs is PART of the progress of play. The caster is DOING something.

Something that costs both meta currency (spell slots), opportunity cost (spell selection, spell preparation, even a feat!) and action economy (reactions).

This is like arguing attacks of opportunity interrupt the flow of play. They don’t, they CONTRIBUTE to the flow of play by adding tactical depth…


It can literally be cast by anyone with a spare feat thanks to Fey-Touched. Clerics, Druids, Warlocks; they are a feat away from being able to cast it just as often (actually, slightly more often) as the other half of full casters. Rangers and Paladins are likewise a feat away from spamming this. Fighters and Rogues get natural access to it. (And for an Eldritch Knight it's higher value than shield because its only component is verbal; who needs Shield when you have shield proficiency!)

Anyone who spends an incredibly valuable feat.

What do you mean by “spamming”?

You mean once or twice per adventuring day? I’m afraid that strains the definition of spamming. At tier 1, this spell is maybe occurring once every 6 encounters. At tier 3, there are much more complicated interactions that will break the game flow than a reroll.


So, a Rogue, Bard, Cleric, and Fighter walk into a game and turn it into a mess of speedbumps. Or a Ranger, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid walk into a game and... turn it into a mess of speedbumps.

The only safe classes anymore are the monk and barbarian. *That's* the problem with Silvery Barbs.



Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, they’re already a menace of opportunity attacks by your metrics. Any reaction that happens more than once an adventuring day will wreck game flow with a mess of speed bumps apparently.


I'm sure playing a Warlock/Fighter without any of the drawbacks of multi-classing is super fun. I don't like Rune Knight, but it's still less of a problem than Silvery Barbs. If everyone comes to the table with a Rune Knight... that's a weird table, and probably a coordinated choice, but one that comes with some pretty substantial opportunity costs for the party.

If everyone comes to the party with Silvery Barbs, which isn't hard in the slightest... the opportunity costs are nearly non-existent by comparison. All roles are filled, and so many, many rolls are doubled.



What a silly edgecase. Do you play at tables where everyone plays divination wizards or lucky halflings?

Silvery barbs is a style of play that is about supporting other characters. That’s apparently disruptive to you. But not every PC is coming with silvery barbs, it’s not powerful enough. In fact, I doubt you’d bring it to a table, because it doesn’t suit your play style.

Not every party will spend every 4th level or 8th level feat on acquiring Silvery Barbs. Indeed, fewer than 25% of all wizards would take them I suspect.


Again, it's on theme for a MtG campaign. Having something endlessly drag on because someone built their deck around nothing happening is sort of their schtick. Interrupts work as a standard for a CCG but make for a difficult time when trying to run an interactive narrative game, which is a big part of why the floor for introducing them was previously so high. Lowering the floor to the seabed for the broader narrative game is a bad design decision.



You’re really harping on the idea that a PLAYER character interrupting a DM run NON PLAYER character is a disruption.

I think you need to realize, as a DM, the game isn’t really about you and your plan.

It’s about the players being able to use their resources (reactions, feats, spells, spell slots, etc) to fulfill their power fantasy and solve problems.

Your monster critically hitting or passing a save is a PROBLEM that they SOLVE with silvery barbs.

That isn’t disrupting play, that’s the entire point of play.



TL;DR:
Silvery Barbs is bad because if it exists as it exists, then literally every party member can put up road blocks to your game progressing smoothly.

No, it isn’t. You think it’s bad because apparently players being able to control the flow of the game ruins it for you.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Let's compare silvery barbs to heighten spell.

For the sake of sanity to keep the math simple I will use a 50% base chance to save.

With HS the creature will save 1/4 times.

With SB the creature will save 1/4 times.

HS will cost 12 sorcery points. SB will cost 4 sorcery points or only 2 with psionic sorcerer.

In addition SB will give advantage to an ally on a saving throw twice.

Also SB can be used for any Ally's spell or ability that forces a saving throw. It can also be used against the saving throw of a saves end effect.

Etc.

For a 50% save rate it is 1/6 as expensive as HS on a psionic sorcerer and also does a lot more for the cost of a reaction.

Yeah, Sorcerer’s a poorly designed class and giving them silvery barbs instead of the trash that is heighten spell is a good idea.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

How does one define "speed bumps that get in the way of smooth play" vs. "players having options to do things?" It seems to me that the definition being used here - chances to do well or avoid doing poorly - could apply to anything, including having the ability to rage.

Agreed.

All this sounds like is a diatribe against player agency. Opportunity Attacks will happen at a far greater frequency than silvery barbs will.

[Thunderous Mojo]

For a 50% save rate it is 1/6 as expensive as HS on a psionic sorcerer and also does a lot more for the cost of a reaction.

Which can also lead one to the conclusion that the Heighten Metamagic was too expensive in terms of Sorc Points.

Design-wise, I like the idea of spells that have multiple parts, like a debuff that also provides a buff. Yes it can slow down the game, but it also means that even if the reroll had no impact on changing the outcome, some small benefit occurred from using the spell…via granting Advantage to an ally.

To me that is good design…the player accomplishes something, even when Silvery Barbs *fails*.

Experienced tables always find a way to streamline play, so I am less concerned about Reactions slowing down play.

[Gurgeh]

YMMV on the relative frequencies; my tables average less than one opportunity attack per session.

This really highlights the downside of 5e making a "reaction" a completely separate part of the action economy in addition to normal and bonus actions, compared to 3.5's sometimes messy handling of free vs swift vs immediate actions; it's much simpler to explain and account for, but the total separation means that any character who doesn't find some consistent use for all three of their action-types is going to be passing up on a bunch of mechanical opportunities; this is especially tricky when almost all of the ways to use a bonus action or reaction come from class abilities or feats - so if you don't have a feat/spell/class feature that lets you get in on the action, you're missing out on chances to affect the game.

Unfortunately I don't think there's a straightforward answer, and while Silvery Barbs is particularly egregious because it can be applied to virtually everything, you run into the same problem elsewhere so you can't just resolve the matter by banning the spell (though I would ban it anyway for being stupidly versatile and powerful, regardless of its action-economy implications). The Reaction/interrupt issue is one that really just needs to be hased out on a table-by-table basis.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're list is too long and too inclusive-in practice interrupts aren't even on the same scale as summon spells and **** like prismatic spray that has multiple layer of rolling to arbitrate.

After DMing and playing high interrupt parties (swashbuckler/battlemaster, abjuration wizards, and now an eloquence bard using barbs) I think I can speak to it being a DM problem if they are disrupting play. In practice most interrupts are quick and easy to arbitrate, and rolling and re-rolling dice isn't a time consumer. What consumes time is deciding what to do, not doing it.

It's too strong, but this complaint is about your table, not the spell.

It's not that much more of a time waster than simple advantage/disadvantage, I agree it feels disingenuous to compare it to summons.

Summons have added creatures to the map. A lot comes with that to track but just to list a few - AC, HP, Initiative, Actions, Movement, Position.

Silvery Barb's is a reroll on a die roll that has already determined all its modifiers, the only thing it adds to keep track of is a single instance of advantage to be used in the future. Pretty comparable to Bardic Inspiration in the amount of table time it eats up (it must be cast, the DM and character using it must track it and the usages of it can potentially interrupt outside of its own turn) I don't consider Bardic Inspiration to be much of a time waster.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

The actual problem here isn't table disruption or DM's ******* around, it's that Silvery barbs is too cheap. It's about the power level I'd expect from a 2nd or 3rd level spell-it's on the same power level as counterspell when you have to roll for it. That's pretty much it; outside of a few edge cases I'd change (I.E. overriding advantage) it's fine.

I don’t really think it is.

It’s a situational buff/debuff.

Compare with 2nd level debuffs, like blindness/deafness, crown of madness or hold person.

All three of those take away the targets actions entirely or grant disadvantage and the inability to cast spells or target opponents, for potentially multiple turns.

Likewise with buffs: invisibility, magic weapon or enhance ability.

Silvery Barbs is woefully underpowered compared to these spells.

Meanwhile spells like shield, healing word, bless, find familiar, mage armour and many others either match or easily outshine it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This really highlights the downside of 5e making a "reaction" a completely separate part of the action economy in addition to normal and bonus actions, compared to 3.5's sometimes messy handling of free vs swift vs immediate actions; it's much simpler to explain and account for, but the total separation means that any character who doesn't find some consistent use for all three of their action-types is going to be passing up on a bunch of mechanical opportunities; this is especially tricky when almost all of the ways to use a bonus action or reaction come from class abilities or feats - so if you don't have a feat/spell/class feature that lets you get in on the action, you're missing out on chances to affect the game.


5e Action Economy strikes me as a direct iteration of 3.5 Action Economy.

We are 7 years into 5e era…it seemed obvious on my initial read of the PHB that characters should try to have a Bonus Action option available to be maximally productive.

Reaction options are more difficult to come by.

In 3.5 characters with Compendium spells that were swift action etc, were much more efficient than other characters.

In all things, consideration leads to efficiency.

[Snails]

In tier-1 I don't think its the best spell. In tier-2 I retain an open mind that it might be better than shield, I'm not entirely convinced but I will see how it plays. I really don't know in tier-3 but I suspect that legendary saves rather render all this save manipulation rather pointless in tier-3 unless your whole party is all about overwhelming legendary saves with save or suck spells. I've never played in that sort of party, I've always played with a wider more varied mix of character types than that.

Counterspell would probably be rated an overall poor spell in Tier 1, too, regardless of whether it was 1st or 2nd (or 3rd) level. But that is not an argument for Counterspell being weak as a 3rd level spell for Tier 2+.

To me, the attraction of SB is it is trivial to add it to most stacks. Both offensive and defensive. That it can be used to benefit fellow PCs makes it heads and shoulders better than Shield, because your team can benefit while the Wizards sits in a place of relative safety.

[ad_hoc]

I don’t really think it is.

It’s a situational buff/debuff.

Compare with 2nd level debuffs, like blindness/deafness, crown of madness or hold person.

All three of those take away the targets actions entirely or grant disadvantage and the inability to cast spells or target opponents, for potentially multiple turns.

Likewise with buffs: invisibility, magic weapon or enhance ability.

Silvery Barbs is woefully underpowered compared to these spells.

Meanwhile spells like shield, healing word, bless, find familiar, mage armour and many others either match or easily outshine it.

So you cast Hold Person and if they save against it you cast Silvery Barbs to have them save again.

You have now just spent a 1st level slot and a reaction to do what you just did with a 2nd level slot and an action. And then also you get to give advantage to yourself or your ally.

Do you see why it's broken now?

And it scales up ridiculously from there.

Silvery Barbs is better than every other 1st and 2nd level spell in the game. It's about right as a 3rd level spell but the whole design concept is bad so it just shouldn't exist at any level.

[Thunderous Mojo]

ad_hoc, I’m having a difficult time appreciating what you find so disturbing.

Silvery Barbs doesn’t ‘scale up’…..by late Tier 2, Advantage/Disadvantage often doesn’t mean that much anymore….if a Fighter hits the target on a roll of 4 or higher then having Advantage/Disadvantage isn’t altering the expected outcome by that much.

People seemly have less reservations about the fact the ability can negate a Critical Hit compared to Silvery Barb’s impact on Saving Throws, based off the thread.

A successful Hold Person spell turns melee attack against the held target into Critical Hits….not the Silvery Barbs spell.

5e has some spells that are plain better than others…Hold Person, Levitate, Banishment, etc, etc……Silvery Barbs isn’t scaling up, it is being paired with powerful effects….you wouldn’t even need a Silvery Barbs spell if Concentration worked differently than it currently does.

[ad_hoc]

ad_hoc, I’m having a difficult time appreciating what you find so disturbing.

Silvery Barbs doesn’t ‘scale up’…..by late Tier 2, Advantage/Disadvantage often doesn’t mean that much anymore….if a Fighter hits the target on a roll of 4 or higher then having Advantage/Disadvantage isn’t altering the expected outcome by that much.

People seemly have less reservations about the fact the ability can negate a Critical Hit compared to Silvery Barb’s impact on Saving Throws, based off the thread.

A successful Hold Person spell turns melee attack against the held target into Critical Hits….not the Silvery Barbs spell.

5e has some spells that are plain better than others…Hold Person, Levitate, Banishment, etc, etc……Silvery Barbs isn’t scaling up, it is being paired with powerful effects….you wouldn’t even need a Silvery Barbs spell if Concentration worked differently than it currently does.

I'm not following you at all.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

So you cast Hold Person and if they save against it you cast Silvery Barbs to have them save again.

You have now just spent a 1st level slot and a reaction to do what you just did with a 2nd level slot and an action. And then also you get to give advantage to yourself or your ally.

Do you see why it's broken now?

And it scales up ridiculously from there.

Silvery Barbs is better than every other 1st and 2nd level spell in the game. It's about right as a 3rd level spell but the whole design concept is bad so it just shouldn't exist at any level.


No.

I see my third level caster has… 3 spell slots left in exchange for….

Extending hold person and giving an ally advantage.

You need to explain how this is superior to, say, killing 3 goblins with a scorching ray and then avoiding the attacks of the other 3 with shield.

Because killing 3/6 goblins and taking no damage sounds better than holding one goblin and giving an ally advantage against another.

It’s definitely worse than mage armour, shield, chromatic orb, charm person, bless, healing word, detect magic, thunder wave, ice knife, entangle, fog cloud…. It’s a long list.

As I clearly demonstrated, hold person, a second level spell, is better than it. Your argument amounts to: it makes this really good 2nd level spell better.

Perhaps hold person should be 3rd level?

[Gurgeh]

What third-level caster is killing three goblins with a single cast of Scorching Ray? On average they're not even hitting three goblins, let alone pulling off an average-or-better damage roll every time.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

What third-level caster is killing three goblins with a single cast of Scorching Ray? On average they're not even hitting three goblins, let alone pulling off an average-or-better damage roll every time.

Goblins have an AC of 15.

A wizard of level 3 can expect a proficiency bonus of +2 and an int bonus of +3, or even +4 if optimized.

So a +6 bonus is a 9 or higher. 55% chance. To hit.

And average damage on 2d6 is 7. The HP of a goblin. With a 58% chance of rolling it or greater.

I like those odds better than silvery barbs holding one goblin back and the other five wrecking me without my shield spell. Spell slots won’t do much if I have 0 hp.

[ad_hoc]

No.

I see my third level caster has… 3 spell slots left in exchange for….

Extending hold person and giving an ally advantage.

You need to explain how this is superior to, say, killing 3 goblins with a scorching ray and then avoiding the attacks of the other 3 with shield.

Because killing 3/6 goblins and taking no damage sounds better than holding one goblin and giving an ally advantage against another.

It’s definitely worse than mage armour, shield, chromatic orb, charm person, bless, healing word, detect magic, thunder wave, ice knife, entangle, fog cloud…. It’s a long list.

As I clearly demonstrated, hold person, a second level spell, is better than it. Your argument amounts to: it makes this really good 2nd level spell better.

Perhaps hold person should be 3rd level?


No that isn't what I've said at all.

And a moment ago you were going on about how great Hold Person is but now you're saying it's Scorching Ray that should have been cast.

Well, what is it? Either saving throw spells and abilities are good and so therefore Silvery Barbs is broken or they're rubbish and that is a whole other conversation.

I didn't say it makes it better and my example wasn't about extending it (though that is an option if you want).

Here is the scenario again:

You cast Hold Person on an enemy.
The enemy saves.
You cast Silvery Barbs to force a reroll of the save.

The effect of this is identical to casting Hold Person with a 1st level slot as a reaction (well not exactly it is actually stronger because it negates advantage as well as keeping any effects used to negatively influence the roll).

Which is utterly broken and it only gets more powerful as you level up.

The only argument against this is to say that casting the original Hold Person was a mistake. Which okay, it is possible to use a brokenly overpowered spell poorly but that doesn't make the spell balanced.

[Gurgeh]

Goblins have an AC of 15.

A wizard of level 3 can expect a proficiency bonus of +2 and an int bonus of +3, or even +4 if optimized.

So a +6 bonus is a 9 or higher. 55% chance. To hit.

And average damage on 2d6 is 7. The HP of a goblin. With a 58% chance of rolling it or greater.

I like those odds better than silvery barbs holding one goblin back and the other five wrecking me without my shield spell. Spell slots won’t do much if I have 0 hp.

A 9+ to hit is a 60% hit rate, not 55%, since you only need to match AC rather than beat it.

So with your 60% chance to hit, you've got a worse than 22% chance to land all three hits. Those aren't great odds even if you assume every hit translates to a kill (spoilers: it probably won't).

"Trying to kill three goblins" is very different from "killing three goblins". I'm also not sure why you've engineered this absurd white-room scenario where a lone PC is facing off against six enemies who apparently won't ever target any of the PC's allies. :/

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

No that isn't what I've said at all.

And a moment ago you were going on about how great Hold Person is but now you're saying it's Scorching Ray that should have been cast.

Well, what is it? Either saving throw spells and abilities are good and so therefore Silvery Barbs is broken or they're rubbish and that is a whole other conversation.

I didn't say it makes it better and my example wasn't about extending it (though that is an option if you want).

Here is the scenario again:

You cast Hold Person on an enemy.
The enemy saves.
You cast Silvery Barbs to force a reroll of the save.

The effect of this is identical to casting Hold Person with a 1st level slot as a reaction (well not exactly it is actually stronger because it negates advantage as well as keeping any effects used to negatively influence the roll).

Which is utterly broken and it only gets more powerful as you level up.

The only argument against this is to say that casting the original Hold Person was a mistake. Which okay, it is possible to use a brokenly overpowered spell poorly but that doesn't make the spell balanced.

You’re missing the entire part of the equation where hold person was cast first.

This condition only exists because of the previously potent spell.

So at the cost of extra resources, I’ve buffed my spell.

Which is what a buff should do, no?

Buffing a second level spell shouldn’t cost a second level spell. It’s the second level spell’s effect that’s powerful, not the thing that has a chance of extending it.

Indeed, hold person and shield is often the optimal choice anyhow against the thing that you cast hold person on. Silvery barbs hardly guarantees a lower roll.

[ad_hoc]

A 9+ to hit is a 60% hit rate, not 55%, since you only need to match AC rather than beat it.

So with your 60% chance to hit, you've got a worse than 22% chance to land all three hits. Those aren't great odds even if you assume every hit translates to a kill (spoilers: it probably won't).

"Trying to kill three goblins" is very different from "killing three goblins". I'm also not sure why you've engineered this absurd white-room scenario where a lone PC is facing off against six enemies who apparently won't ever target any of the PC's allies. :/

Or why in this thread.

Unless the take is 'Silvery Barbs is balanced because it isn't useful in all situations in the game.'

It is very strong at lower levels (as shown with the Hold Person example) but really starts to show how busted it is at level 7+.

[ad_hoc]

You’re missing the entire part of the equation where hold person was cast first.

This condition only exists because of the previously potent spell.

So at the cost of extra resources, I’ve buffed my spell.

Which is what a buff should do, no?

Buffing a second level spell shouldn’t cost a second level spell. It’s the second level spell’s effect that’s powerful, not the thing that has a chance of extending it.

Indeed, hold person and shield is often the optimal choice anyhow against the thing that you cast hold person on. Silvery barbs hardly guarantees a lower roll.


No, that isn't what those words mean.

[Gurgeh]

If you cast Hold Person and the target saves, then you'd normally need to wait until your next turn and cast Hold Person again, using another action and another second-level spell slot.

If you do have Silvery Barbs, you can try again on the same turn at the cost of your (far less in-demand) Reaction, a lower-level spell slot, and you get to deny the target any benefit of Advantage they might have. And you also get to give an ally a minor buff on top of this!

[Snails]

As I clearly demonstrated, hold person, a second level spell, is better than it. Your argument amounts to: it makes this really good 2nd level spell better.

Perhaps hold person should be 3rd level?

And it makes Banishment better. Maybe Banishment should be a 5th level spell? And it makes Disintegrate better. Maybe Disintegrate should a 7th level spell? And it makes Power Word: Stun better. Maybe Power Word: Stun should be a 9th level spell? And it make high AC better. Maybe all the monsters should get bigger to hit numbers? And it makes Stealth better. Maybe monsters should all be given higher Perception mods?

See the pattern yet? Silvery Barbs stacks on almost everything!

Building up a stack is the fundamental step of serious powergaming. Only Silvery Barbs makes building a higher stack trivial. No careful planning and considered tradeoffs required. No system mastery required. Most everything in the party is a bit better (albeit only one thing in a given round...but you do get to choose this one thing to fit the situation). And even when you are not working with power stacks, anyone with the slightest bit of tactical nous could see how denying a critical on the right PC at the right time is probably outright better than a 5th or 6th level Healing Word spell.

Yes, if you mind is stuck in purely T1 type tactics, Silvery Barbs may be unimpressive to you. I grant that the spell is not necessarily overpowered in a way that matters in T1.

But even basic Hold Person tactics reveals that Silvery Barbs is very very potent for a 1st level spell. To Mulligan a 2nd level spell for the cost of a 1st level spell (and Reaction) is obviously a great deal.

That there are many unimpressive ways to use Silvery Barbs that occur to you does not matter. The demonstrable flexibility of a spell at the cost of a Reaction, that it can be used in many non-great scenarios as well as great ones, is evidence that the spell is more valuable overall, not less so.

[Kane0]

If you cast Hold Person and the target saves, then you'd normally need to wait until your next turn and cast Hold Person again, using another action and another second-level spell slot.

If you do have Silvery Barbs, you can try again on the same turn at the cost of your (far less in-demand) Reaction, a lower-level spell slot, and you get to deny the target any benefit of Advantage they might have. And you also get to give an ally a minor buff on top of this!

Don't forget the 1/2 and 1/3 casters, or anyone with the Fey Touched or Magic Initiate feats, can also do that to assist said caster; and they can do so regardless of how good their casting stat is.

Edit: If you're looking at 2nd level spells to pair this with, try Web, Blindness/Deafness, Heat Metal, Phantasmal Force or Rime's Binding Ice.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

A 9+ to hit is a 60% hit rate, not 55%, since you only need to match AC rather than beat it.

So with your 60% chance to hit, you've got a worse than 22% chance to land all three hits. Those aren't great odds even if you assume every hit translates to a kill (spoilers: it probably won't).

"Trying to kill three goblins" is very different from "killing three goblins". I'm also not sure why you've engineered this absurd white-room scenario where a lone PC is facing off against six enemies who apparently won't ever target any of the PC's allies. :/

Yet the attempt to kill 3 goblins is a laughably superior tactic to “cast hold person on one and then spend your reaction and another spell slot on keeping one at bay.

Even against a CR3 threat like, say, an owl bear, that shield is doing much more reducing its two attacks by a 25% chance (making getting hit twice a whopping 16% [how does that stack up against killing those goblins on a better than 50% chance per hit? I think you said I’d be hitting on just under 22%, yeah?

And I mean, we also are assuming hold person has worked. I mean, consider our CR3 persons: hobgoblin captain you have a 70% chance of hitting with? And another 70% to get to that point where silvery barbs being even necessary, and another 70% chance for barbs, but actually less depending on the first roll.

Assuming they don’t have their leadership buff, which of course shifts those odds down a clean 12.5% per chance.

And that’s a weak save. A lizard folk subchief is brushing the spell off 55% of the time with an optimized build and 60% on a typical build.

So it becomes increasingly circumstantial is will even trigger, let alone buff the initial effect (created by a higher level spell).

I mean, potentially you spend 2 spell slots, a first and a second, for nothing. And that worst case has higher odds than the worst case for scorching ray and shield. Shield blocking even one hit or not being cast is the superior outcome in the worst case.

So the worst case for scorching ray/shield is better than hold person/silvery barbs (and the same as hold person/shield)

So the best case for SR/S is better than HP/SB. And the worst case is better than HP/SB. So are you trying to say those edge cases where silvery barbs and hold person both succeed and scorching ray does not make the case?

Not really. Even one dead goblin (over 65% chance of success) matches hold person and shield, and surpasses hold person and silvery barbs.

I mean, with a 20% chance of killing 3 ON TOP of
the 65% chance of killing AT LEAST 1, it’s a no brainer.

White boxes are of course where this game got its start. They’re much larger and encompassing than you realize.

[Gurgeh]

Yes, when you go outside the single-PC scenario the spell's value snowballs tremendously, since there's nothing stopping every eligible caster in the party from dogpiling on forcing repeated re-rolls of a successful save; your Eldritch Knight's measly +1 intelligence modifier doesn't matter much when they can use their spell slots to give the 20 int wizard a second chance at forcing a save-or-suck, after all.

EDIT: you don't have a 22% chance of killing three goblins, you have a 20% chance of hitting three goblins. Your chances of killing all three are significantly lower (and irritating to calculate, since critical hits complicate things - but it's closer to 5%.

I also don't understand your objection of "what if the powerful spell that you could use Silvery Barbs to boost succeeds right away", given that if that happens you've still got your first-level slot and a reaction to do whatever you want with. Heck, you could just keep it in reserve for Shield, if you really wanted.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Here is the scenario again:

You cast Hold Person on an enemy.
The enemy saves.
You cast Silvery Barbs to force a reroll of the save.

The effect of this is identical to casting Hold Person with a 1st level slot as a reaction (well not exactly it is actually stronger because it negates advantage as well as keeping any effects used to negatively influence the roll).

Which is utterly broken and it only gets more powerful as you level up..

I’m finding the part in bold a bit hyperbolic.

[Menji]

Bah, cull the spell entirely and the problem goes away. What other sources of full rerolls exist in 5e?

Edit: but to actually answer the question, as DM i would rule that anything that changes the old roll also applies to the new one, so bane and the like would be rolled again

This. It's not our job to playtest whatever trash WoTC puts out when they fail to do si, and waste gaming and prep hours in the process.

[Gurgeh]

I’m finding the part in bold a bit hyperbolic.
If anything, it's understating the problem, since it's casting a stronger version of Hold Person (one that ignores Advantage and also gives an unrelated buff to someone else).

[Kane0]

Yes, when you go outside the single-PC scenario the spell's value snowballs tremendously, since there's nothing stopping every eligible caster in the party from dogpiling on forcing repeated re-rolls of a successful save; your Eldritch Knight's measly +1 intelligence modifier doesn't matter much when they can use their spell slots to give the 20 int wizard a second chance at forcing a save-or-suck, after all.

Yeah chances are its one of the most efficient spells they can cast, especially since they can then use it to get advantage om their next attack/shove/saving throw. Right up there with Shield, Absorb Elements, Fog Cloud and Gift of Alacrity.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Or why in this thread.

Unless the take is 'Silvery Barbs is balanced because it isn't useful in all situations in the game.'

It is very strong at lower levels (as shown with the Hold Person example) but really starts to show how busted it is at level 7+.

Level 7+ Where legendary resistances start showing up on the big things that might be impacted by a combo like this.

It’s incredibly weak against legendary resistances. At higher tiers is becomes MORE circumstantial.

Not to mention magical resistance also beginning to appear at the end of tier 2 and well into the upper tiers.

The tiers with forcecage, disintegrate, wish, summon elemental, etc.

But tell more more how broken a spell worse than shield is.

[Gurgeh]

Magic Resistance usually gives its recipient Advantage on saving throws against spells and magic effects... which Silvery Barbs ignores completely, since it's not forcing a new saving throw, it's forcing them to roll a fresh d20 and use that for the save result. If anything, Magic Resistance makes Silvery Barbs even better, since it's giving you a larger marginal benefit than it would against something which didn't have Advantage on the original saving throw.

EDIT: even if you are going to insist that it's not as good as Shield, Shield is also a stupidly overpowered spell, so I don't think that "this spell isn't as strong as one of the very best in the entire game, therefore it isn't a problem" is a very persuasive argument.

[ad_hoc]

Level 7+ Where legendary resistances start showing up on the big things that might be impacted by a combo like this.

It’s incredibly weak against legendary resistances. At higher tiers is becomes MORE circumstantial.

Not to mention magical resistance also beginning to appear at the end of tier 2 and well into the upper tiers.

The tiers with forcecage, disintegrate, wish, summon elemental, etc.

But tell more more how broken a spell worse than shield is.

Is your take that all saving throw abilities and spells after level 7 are bad?

Because that is the take you're putting forth here.

And it is good against Legendary Resistance if the goal is to burn through the resistances. If the party instead chooses to not use saving throw abilities in the fight then yeah it doesn't get used for that fight against that creature but that doesn't make it balanced. If the party's goal is to burn through the LR then it is very good at doing so. 2 or more characters with SB in the party will make quick work of LR.

SB is also very good if a creature happens to have Magical Resistance as it ignores advantage.

[Kane0]

Level 7+ Where legendary resistances start showing up on the big things that might be impacted by a combo like this.

It’s incredibly weak against legendary resistances. At higher tiers is becomes MORE circumstantial.

Not to mention magical resistance also beginning to appear at the end of tier 2 and well into the upper tiers.

The tiers with forcecage, disintegrate, wish, summon elemental, etc.

But tell more more how broken a spell worse than shield is.

It makes creatures burn through their Legendary saves faster.

[loki_ragnarock]

Line by line, eh? Okay. I guess we've reached that point?
Because it doesn’t stop the progress of play. No more than any other reaction. Casting Silvery Barbs is PART of the progress of play. The caster is DOING something.

Something that costs both meta currency (spell slots), opportunity cost (spell selection, spell preparation, even a feat!) and action economy (reactions).
The opportunity costs are cheap by comparison to the previous ways to get these sorts of wonky, situational dice manipulation mechanics, which was to gate them behind a subclass, feat, race, or race+feat combinations. The barrier of entry is demolished by comparison, and I reiterate that with full knowledge of what it costs. It's *slightly* more costly for a sorcerer than a wizard or a bard, but still far less costly than having to play a specific type of sorcerer to make use of it.


This is like arguing attacks of opportunity interrupt the flow of play. They don’t, they CONTRIBUTE to the flow of play by adding tactical depth…
It isn't, because I've not argued that. Moving it to opportunity attacks is like me saying "look, the Mandalorian could take off his helmet to eat a banana if he really wanted to."
While I would die on that hill, it's neither here nor there.




Anyone who spends an incredibly valuable feat.
Yes, and in so doing get more in value added than the other major mechanic for these sorts of interrupts that was similarly gated behind a feat. Several times over, even.


What do you mean by “spamming”?
In the case of rangers, they don't really have much better to spend spell slots on, and all their spell slots are fair game since it's a level one spell; if they pick it up at 4th, they can cast it 3 times a day via spell slots (as often as the lucky feat) and the potential uses double on level 5.
So, yeah. Spamming.
For Paladins... it's competing with Smite, and for most people that's a hard ask. But some people don't mind actually ( :sigh: ) casting spells as a Paladin, and for those types the potential for spamming it is just as present, if ultimately less appealing.


You mean once or twice per adventuring day? I’m afraid that strains the definition of spamming. At tier 1, this spell is maybe occurring once every 6 encounters. At tier 3, there are much more complicated interactions that will break the game flow than a reroll.
Once or twice per adventuring day? HAH! See above.

And as previously pointed out by someone else, the broad applicability means that you're slowing down play to check on pretty much every d20 made by any character in the presence of the caster. (Well, very nearly; I suppose that it doesn't effect the d20 Wild Sorcerer mechanic...) That's a larger subset than once or twice. And unlike Lucky, there isn't a hard limit to how many times it happens; any spell slots from 1-9 still available mean you've gotta keep that check in place. Broad applicability plus nigh endless uses makes for more instances of its weight being felt than once or twice an adventuring day.




Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, they’re already a menace of opportunity attacks by your metrics.
Your metrics, sir/madam. I haven't had anything to say about opportunity attacks.


Any reaction that happens more than once an adventuring day will wreck game flow with a mess of speed bumps apparently.
Any reaction that causes the retreading of old ground rather than breaking new ground? Heck yes, that's a mess of a speed bump.


What a silly edgecase. Do you play at tables where everyone plays divination wizards or lucky halflings?
https://pics.me.me/the-point-you-24487436.png

No, because that would - as expressed about the all Rune Knight party - require some measure of collusion. Silvery barbs can be cast by any number of classes, subclasses, races, subraces, etc., which makes the likelihood of encountering multiple characters in a party capable of tossing it out many times more likely.


Silvery barbs is a style of play that is about supporting other characters.
Mmmm... no, I think not. It's about a style of play that is about dictating the narrative in a system/heritage where chance is the ultimate arbiter of the narrative. It is anathema to the fundamental features of the game.

That’s apparently disruptive to you.
Citation needed, at least with regard to your initial premise. Silvery barbs is disruptive, for sure. Supporting other characters surely can exist without dice manipulation mechanics.

But not every PC is coming with silvery barbs, it’s not powerful enough.
Not everyone is coming as Champions or unmodified Beast Masters, and neither of those subclasses are getting features as broad or powerful as this spell. In fact, few do.

In fact, I doubt you’d bring it to a table, because it doesn’t suit your play style.
Heh. I do try to avoid mechanics that will frustrate a GM, at least these days. That said, when I played magic, I tended to play as many colors as possible, because Slivers were cool.


Not every party will spend every 4th level or 8th level feat on acquiring Silvery Barbs. Indeed, fewer than 25% of all wizards would take them I suspect.
I'd hope so, given that it's a spell in a super niche supplement rather than the PHB, and that people do still (I think) build a spell list based on theme rather than pure potential for shenanigans.
A sorcerer, on the other hand, that theoretically has to get pigeon holed into choosing the best spells possible? They'd be crazy not to take Silvery Barbs. Apart from no direct benefits of upcasting, it's the perfect Sorcerer spell; broadly applicable, dirt cheap to produce from spell points, and impactful.




You’re really harping on the idea that a PLAYER character interrupting a DM run NON PLAYER character is a disruption.
... if you think of the DM as a non-player then, buddy, I feel for your DMs.

But yes; anything that interrupts without breaking new ground is a bit of a slog. "Yes, and" makes for good improve. "No, try again" is a throwing up emoji.


I think you need to realize, as a DM, the game isn’t really about you and your plan.

Mmm... it's about that a little, or nothing winds up happening.


It’s about the players being able to use their resources (reactions, feats, spells, spell slots, etc) to fulfill their power fantasy and solve problems.
It can be about that, sure.


Your monster critically hitting or passing a save is a PROBLEM that they SOLVE with silvery barbs.
Which can be solved in other ways that are narratively or tactically interesting. Producing an additional cheaply layered defense ala 3/.5 is the road to madness.


That isn’t disrupting play, that’s the entire point of play.
I disagree with that generalization!

Casting silvery barbs to negate a critical hit - I can say emphatically, nay, categorically - is not the entire point of play. As evidenced by the many years of play that predate silvery barbs.





No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is.

You think it’s bad because apparently players being able to control the flow of the game ruins it for you.
Ha! What game have you played in where the players don't control the flow? The DM doesn't decide which door to kick in, or which magistrate to insult in the street, or which guard to slide gold into the hand of to look the other way. That said the dice are no longer a meaningful arbiter when you get a cheaply applied feature that lets you fudge them.
But, no, it really is:
1. The entirely too broad applicability. (Nigh every d20 roll in 60ft.)
2. The entirely too broad availability. (Just about everyone can access it, with minimal fiddling.)
3. The entirely too cheap. (1st level spell slots to go "Nuh-uh, do it again")
4. The retreading of old ground; roll 'em again, Sam, and take the time to do it right this time, and potentially next time, and the time after that, depending on how many players are rocking this spell. (The primary sin, exacerbated by the previous.)

You know what, I'm kinda gonna agree with you and add:
5. Is a dice manipulation mechanic, undermining the fundamental mechanisms for arbitration in the game.

I actually do prefer to let to dice play their role (roll?) in telling the story. Things that basically exist as a mechanic for fudging that arbitration does leave a bit of a taste in the ole mouth. On the right dish, it could be a condiment, adding flavor; the Lucky feat basically works for me, like just the right amount of blue cheese on a burger.
As Silvery Barbs exists, it's more like a turd sandwich.

If it was of narrower applicability, less broadly available, and more expensive, I'd be significantly less bothered by it.
But in combination, bleck.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

We haven't used this spell yet, but my Palard is going to have to give it a try, though being low level at the moment with limited slots the best 3 uses for my first level spells are Bless, Bless, and Bless. I can give every one of our 3 person party a +2.5 to attack and save for an entire battle. Every time I have to do something else it's sub-optimal with the possible exception of Divine Smite on a Crit in a tight fight. If I do Smite it means the some other battle that day we have to go without me casting spells at all.

My impressions are it's a really good spell for a Bard once leveled up so that there are ample slots to use. I see a lot of arguments here that SB should be a higher level spell, and for a Wizard and Sorc by Tier 2 I think it's kind of a moot given the number of Shields, Absorb Elements, and perhaps the odd Feather Fall you're going to cast in a day. None of these upcast well (AE gives another 1-6 points of damage) so if these spells really are as good as some people seem to think they're effectively going to come out of the 2nd level slots anyway. If you're a Sorcandin or Palard/Bardadin those are valuable slots for smiting as well and you have less of them unless you're very high level.

If these spells really are that good and players aren't getting into 2nd level slots then it's down to the number of encounters being thrown at them, and that's on the DM.

[Kane0]

But yes; anything that interrupts without breaking new ground is a bit of a slog. "Yes, and" makes for good improve. "No, try again" is a throwing up emoji.

Which can be solved in other ways that are narratively or tactically interesting. Producing an additional cheaply layered defense ala 3/.5 is the road to madness.


Aw man, thanks for reminding me.
Multiple ACs, miss chance, spell resistance, confirming crits, damage resistance, damage reduction, overlapping spells plus all the random abilities and features the splatbooks threw in... 'I roll to hit' was blissful simplicity in comparison.

[tokek]

Just because it isn't balanced now doesn't mean it should be that way, nor should we be approving ways to make it worse or use it as justification for continuing that trend.

Bringing Silvery Barbs to any of the difficult tier-4 sessions I've played in would have been bringing a knife to a gunfight, or honestly like bringing a knife to a tank battle. A very shiny sharp knife but still basically irrelevant.

It makes one particular strategy - single target save or suck to deplete legendary saves - better but in my experience that's an ineffective sub-optimal strategy anyway. Why even bother with Hold Monster when you have Force Cage? Any party that has enough pure magical power to burn through those resistances fast enough should have far better options available and better uses for their spell slots in my experience.

I am slightly concerned about Silvery Barbs in tier-2 play but I really do think that it is only the "nova caster" problem made a bit worse by adding yet another reaction spell to the game. The problem is giving long rest casters too many long rests so their only real limitation is the limit of one levelled spell per turn, any reaction spell is incredible when you let the game be like that.

[Amnestic]

. Why even bother with Hold Monster when you have Force Cage?

Because the monster is too big for Force Cage. Or they escaped it. Or you already used it on another creature in this encounter. Or you don't have a spell slot for it.

[tokek]

Because the monster is too big for Force Cage. Or they escaped it. Or you already used it on another creature in this encounter. Or you don't have a spell slot for it.

But you have spell slots to try to force them out of legendary saves with spells like Hold Monster backed up by Silvery Barbs? You need to be planning to have 6 spell slots for that approach.

I'm not saying it won't ever happen but in my experience there would almost always have been a better option than that one.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Because the monster is too big for Force Cage. Or they escaped it. Or you already used it on another creature in this encounter. Or you don't have a spell slot for it.

I think the point being made is that Hold Monster, when compared Force Cage, is in a different league of power. Even with silvery barbs increasing the odds of success you'd still rather have Force Cage where success is guaranteed.

There's no denying that silvery barbs is a powerful option but much of these complaints seem to assume that it will cause something to fail their reroll consistently, which you can't guarantee. It's especially notable in my own experience that the monsters in typically hoping will fail these save or suck spells have a pretty strong defense against them, even when forced to reroll.

I'm willing to bet that, in practice, the strengths of silvery barbs will be best highlighted when it's potentially cancelling a critical hit or increasing the effective hit points of a moderate to high AC ally by causing a miss with higher likelihood. Save or suck spells will remain increasingly polarizing because they are still save or suck except now there more resources being spent on them, players will feel worse when it doesn't work and better when it does.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Magic Resistance usually gives its recipient Advantage on saving throws against spells and magic effects... which Silvery Barbs ignores completely, since it's not forcing a new saving throw, it's forcing them to roll a fresh d20 and use that for the save result. If anything, Magic Resistance makes Silvery Barbs even better, since it's giving you a larger marginal benefit than it would against something which didn't have Advantage on the original saving throw.

You shouldn’t be casting SOS spells on something with magic resistance.

When there’s nothing to trigger Barbs, then it’s useless, no?

Useless is not very powerful at all.



EDIT: even if you are going to insist that it's not as good as Shield, Shield is also a stupidly overpowered spell, so I don't think that "this spell isn't as strong as one of the very best in the entire game, therefore it isn't a problem" is a very persuasive argument.

Shield isn’t stupidly over powered. I’ve listed at least 10 first level spells on par with shield that remain on people’s lists through all tiers.

Shield is merely Barbs obvious competition, and it blows Barbs out of the water.

But a spell like Healing Word is even more powerful and useful and will be used more often, showing us how middling barbs is.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

No, that isn't what those words mean.

Yeah, they do.

Please try and keep up.

[tokek]

I think the point being made is that Hold Monster, when compared Force Cage, is in a different league of power. Even with silvery barbs increasing the odds of success you'd still rather have Force Cage where success is guaranteed.



This really is my experience of tier-4 play; that there is almost always a better use of your action and your spell slots.

More critically it would have been a gamble in most of my big fights at tier-4 to use the caster's reaction and drop the counterspell defences to use Silvery Barbs. Its not that I used counterspell every turn but leaving yourself without any way to counter is lowering your guard and leaving yourself open to a possible TPK.

But its quite possible that other people have a very different experience of tier-4 play. I don't think there is a single generally true thing you can say about play at that level except that it should be quite different at each table.

[Amnestic]

But you have spell slots to try to force them out of legendary saves with spells like Hold Monster backed up by Silvery Barbs?

Likely, yes. Until 20th level, a single classed wizard gets *one* 7th level slot per long rest. Assuming you fight more than 3 rounds per day, chances are you're going to have to spend more than your 9th, 8th and 7th level slots at some point. You've force caged one enemy. Now what about the rest of them?

And yes, burning through legendary saves alone is a lot of spell slots and actions. But it's a hell of a lot cheaper to do once Silvery Barb gets involved and you can stretch your 5th level slots for the cost of a 1st.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Is your take that all saving throw abilities and spells after level 7 are bad?

Because that is the take you're putting forth here.



Not at all. They’re bad against creatures with legendary resistances and magic resistance. That’s the take I’m putting forth.


And it is good against Legendary Resistance if the goal is to burn through the resistances. If the party instead chooses to not use saving throw abilities in the fight then yeah it doesn't get used for that fight against that creature but that doesn't make it balanced. If the party's goal is to burn through the LR then it is very good at doing so. 2 or more characters with SB in the party will make quick work of LR.

SB is also very good if a creature happens to have Magical Resistance as it ignores advantage.

So you’re spending a first level spell and a reaction in hopes of burning a legendary resistance that wasn’t used because they passed their original save against your higher leveled spell?

Or are you deliberately choosing something like Tasha’s laughter to combo Barbs in a flurry of all first level spell slots gone in potentially your first 2 turns to burn 2 resistances?

At this point, that’s just a build. And not a very competitive one for a high tier character. I’d be more worried about how dragged out combat was going to be for a party that spends its first two rounds just trying to set up rinky dink combos rather than ending the fight.

And SB doesn’t ignore advantage. It merely adds a third die that has to be rolled lower than the result of advantage, which is not guaranteed of course.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

And it makes Banishment better. Maybe Banishment should be a 5th level spell? And it makes Disintegrate better. Maybe Disintegrate should a 7th level spell? And it makes Power Word: Stun better. Maybe Power Word: Stun should be a 9th level spell? And it make high AC better. Maybe all the monsters should get bigger to hit numbers? And it makes Stealth better. Maybe monsters should all be given higher Perception mods?

See the pattern yet? Silvery Barbs stacks on almost everything!



So your complaint is powerful spells and skills are powerful?

And by spending more resources, they are buffed?

You seem to not understand that the resource cost of Barbs is more expensive than other, much more powerful plays.

This is exactly the kind of hyperbolic hysteria that is going to prevent any interesting design from happening.

All barbs does is open up buff/debuff builds and allow them to compete against damage builds.


Building up a stack is the fundamental step of serious powergaming. Only Silvery Barbs makes building a higher stack trivial. No careful planning and considered tradeoffs required. No system mastery required. Most everything in the party is a bit better (albeit only one thing in a given round...but you do get to choose this one thing to fit the situation). And even when you are not working with power stacks, anyone with the slightest bit of tactical nous could see how denying a critical on the right PC at the right time is probably outright better than a 5th or 6th level Healing Word spell.

So wait, selecting the spell for your list, preparing the spell (and the spell it will be combining with), taking the feat that gives you better spells but choosing barbs instead, multiclassing to get barbs…

None of these represent planning or a trade off?

Hmmmmmmm.

And healing word at level 5 or 6 is still markedly more powerful. One crit is rarely gonna be a more concerning issue in a world of multi-attack and save for half damage effects.

Being able to get a player their action economy back and not die is WAY more powerful than preventing a few extra damage dice.




Yes, if you mind is stuck in purely T1 type tactics, Silvery Barbs may be unimpressive to you. I grant that the spell is not necessarily overpowered in a way that matters in T1.

I mean, T1 is where most of the game is played, so great. Now let’s address why it’s also not overpowered in T2, and by T3 and T4, it’s a buff that doesn’t belong in char op discussions except as a replacement for absorb elements to make use of 1st level slots:




But even basic Hold Person tactics reveals that Silvery Barbs is very very potent for a 1st level spell. To Mulligan a 2nd level spell for the cost of a 1st level spell (and Reaction) is obviously a great deal.

That there are many unimpressive ways to use Silvery Barbs that occur to you does not matter. The demonstrable flexibility of a spell at the cost of a Reaction, that it can be used in many non-great scenarios as well as great ones, is evidence that the spell is more valuable overall, not less so.

It’s not a great deal. It’s a costly one that can result in 2 spell slots burnt for no result.

For a lower cost, I can either throw Rime’s or Scorching Rays at multiple targets (or rays at a single target) and have a better chance at killing them. It’s a real edge case where selecting barbs to buff the combo is the optimal choice.

What it does do, though, is enable the buff/debuff archetype, which is a very weak archetype right now.

[tokek]

And yes, burning through legendary saves alone is a lot of spell slots and actions. But it's a hell of a lot cheaper to do once Silvery Barb gets involved and you can stretch your 5th level slots for the cost of a 1st.

Every high level game is different. I know that i would have had at least one TPK, probably two, had my character had this as a strategy. Going in with a save or suck plus Silvery Barbs is like swinging a huge haymaker when you know it can't knock the enemy down due to legendary saves. You leave yourself wide open for whatever they throw in reply.

At this level in my eperience you need Counterspell preferably backed up by some means of always making the roll so you don't burn your top spell slots on it. Now if you play tier-4 where enemy spellcasters are a so rare that you don't need to worry about that then Silvery Barbs will be more worthwhile at that table but we will probably agree that its situational to the actual game and encounter style.

[Amnestic]

Every high level game is different. I know that i would have had at least one TPK, probably two, had my character had this as a strategy. Going in with a save or suck plus Silvery Barbs is like swinging a huge haymaker when you know it can't knock the enemy down due to legendary saves. You leave yourself wide open for whatever they throw in reply.

What do you mean "this strategy"? The investment is a single spell known/prepared on Silvery Barbs. You're acting like it's dedicating an entire build to it at the exclusion of all else. It's not. It's one first level spell.

And I'd expect a boss monster to have enough hit points to withstand long enough for a party to burn through its legendary saves, something which is going to go markedly faster now that you can get it to reroll all of its natural successes. What might have taken 4 rounds now might only take two before you start slamming it with disables.



At this level in my eperience you need Counterspell

Right, and you can have that too. But not every high level enemy is casting spells, and certainly not every round, and certainly certainly there's more than just you in the party. Are they casting 3 spells a round that all need counterspelling? Unlikely, even if they are a spellcasting enemy. There might be a few super boss level monsters doing so (Mephistopheles for instance), but not many. It's certainly not the norm.

Seemingly your example enemy is simultaneously is weak to forcecage but is also someone you need to counterspell multiple times a round and also has legendary saves but also has low enough hit points that I guess pure damage is a viable solution to all your problems?

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Line by line, eh? Okay. I guess we've reached that point?

Well, you said so many incorrect things, I had to demonstrate.

But you’ve now simply reiterated your incorrect points, so I don’t need to address them again.

Suffice it to say, you’ve abandoned your “play flow” argument, because it’s simply a howl against reactions in general, and it’s been demonstrated that there are more powerful and more frequent reactions that are more disruptive than “roll another D20”.

So check that box.

And now you’ve veered into this bizarre “opportunity cost” lane, behaving like a feat or a multiclass for a non-wizard/spec/bard isn’t a very long walk for a “turd sandwich” (classy)

So the opportunity cost is obviously high, even if it is for Fey Touched and Misty Step as well. There are far better spells Fey Touched can get you.

So check that box.

Then silliness about how martial classes who have plenty of reactions available to them will use all their spell slots on a spell that’s situation, hilarious. As if silvery barbs is a better choice than bless or hunter’s mark.

And then it devolves into ad hominems and a misunderstanding of your own argument.

I’d say we’re done, eh?

You’re clearly upset that a player has the ability to solve problems in combat without just damaging a creature.

Some people prefer that simple game, and tactical complexity makes the game seem more difficult, and therefore it must mean anything that adds depth must be overpowered and/or disruptive.

Silvery Barbs is neither. It enables a weak archetype and anyone playing a Ranger who thinks Barbs will be their moment to be OP will be sorely disappointed.

I haven’t missed the point, I’ve simply demolished every flimsy point you’ve made, so now you can’t find them.

[tokek]

What do you mean "this strategy"? The investment is a single spell known/prepared on Silvery Barbs. You're acting like it's dedicating an entire build to it at the exclusion of all else. It's not. It's one first level spell.



I mean opening with save or suck spells looking to burn through their legendary saves. It means you know you are using your reaction while the enemy is fully functional with any magic they have fully available.

It hardly matters if you prepare the spell or not, in my games it would have been a bad idea to lead with this whole idea of making save or suck spells work by also using your reaction. But if at your table counterspell is not important then your table is just very different to the game I was playing in.

[Snails]

You shouldn’t be casting SOS spells on something with magic resistance.

When there’s nothing to trigger Barbs, then it’s useless, no?

Useless is not very powerful at all.

Logic fail. Your rule of thumb is usually true, but does not apply here.

As already discussed, Barbs is a reasonable way for a caster to effectively blow through magic resistance entirely, albeit at a small cost. You are relying on a common rule of thumb, and failing to think through how Barbs applies to the scenario.

Walk through the logic:
(1) Cast SOS
(2) Did the target save?
(3a) If no, you are good.
(3b) If yes, cast Barbs.
What are the odds the magic resistant target failed the save? Do the math.




Shield is merely Barbs obvious competition, and it blows Barbs out of the water.

But a spell like Healing Word is even more powerful and useful and will be used more often, showing us how middling barbs is.

In the specific situation where the caster is anticipating multiple attacks upon his person, yes, Shield is better -- I agree. But there are a lot of common situations you are using Shield, where Barbs is unambiguously better.

I would further add that we start seeing the real power when we consider stacks. Yes, cast that Shield when multiple attacks are coming your way. Now the bard can cast Barbs if it seems necessary. The option to use Barbs is extremely valuable. And the crazy thing is Barbs layers on top of most offensive and defensive stacks. Both!

Your comparison with Healing Word is "interesting". A very common reason for I see for needing to use Healing Word is a frontliner just got Critted. Once you get past T1, nullifying the Critical and possibly nullifying the hit completely is a lot better than Healing Word. Barbs gives you a good chance of avoiding 10, 20, 30, 40 HP in the first place. What level spell are you planning on burning for that Healing Word to mitigate the loss of 30 HP? Do the math.

(As a practical matter, the party wants Healing Word available, too, as there are enough other commons situations where it is valuable. But Barbs greatly reduces the likelihood that Healing Word will be needed.)

[Amnestic]

I mean opening with save or suck spells looking to burn through their legendary saves. It means you know you are using your reaction while the enemy is fully functional with any magic they have fully available.

What else are you going to open with?
Are you the only character that can counterspell?
Are you the only character that can both counterspell and silvery barbs?



It hardly matters if you prepare the spell or not, in my games it would have been a bad idea to lead with this whole idea of making save or suck spells work by also using your reaction. But if at your table counterspell is not important then your table is just very different to the game I was playing in.

Do your spellcasters focus solely on pure damage once they get to tier 3/4 then? They just give up any spell with a saving throw because legendary resistance might be an issue?

[loki_ragnarock]

Well, you said so many incorrect things, I had to demonstrate.

But you’ve now simply reiterated your incorrect points, so I don’t need to address them again.

Suffice it to say, you’ve abandoned your “play flow” argument, because it’s simply a howl against reactions in general, and it’s been demonstrated that there are more powerful and more frequent reactions that are more disruptive than “roll another D20”.

So check that box.

And now you’ve veered into this bizarre “opportunity cost” lane, behaving like a feat or a multiclass for a non-wizard/spec/bard isn’t a very long walk for a “turd sandwich” (classy)

So the opportunity cost is obviously high, even if it is for Fey Touched and Misty Step as well. There are far better spells Fey Touched can get you.

So check that box.

Then silliness about how martial classes who have plenty of reactions available to them will use all their spell slots on a spell that’s situation, hilarious. As if silvery barbs is a better choice than bless or hunter’s mark.

And then it devolves into ad hominems and a misunderstanding of your own argument.

I’d say we’re done, eh?

You’re clearly upset that a player has the ability to solve problems in combat without just damaging a creature.

Some people prefer that simple game, and tactical complexity makes the game seem more difficult, and therefore it must mean anything that adds depth must be overpowered and/or disruptive.

Silvery Barbs is neither. It enables a weak archetype and anyone playing a Ranger who thinks Barbs will be their moment to be OP will be sorely disappointed.

I haven’t missed the point, I’ve simply demolished every flimsy point you’ve made, so now you can’t find them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4pxtiLR928

[tokek]

What else are you going to open with?
Are you the only character that can counterspell?
Are you the only character that can both counterspell and silvery barbs?



Do your spellcasters focus solely on pure damage once they get to tier 3/4 then? They just give up any spell with a saving throw because legendary resistance might be an issue?

I mostly faced varied encounters with a variety of threats in each encounter. The casters were usually on crowd control or area control on turn 1 - either taking minions out of the fight or dividing the fight up with Walls of Force etc. Or buffing the martials - which includes removing obstacles that stop them doing their job so that might be a dispel magic or disintegrate to make sure they can go smash face.

My broad ranking of what seemed to work would be: Control > Buffing > Damage > Save/Suck. Now its quite possible that with a ton of spell slots and Silvery Barbs I might decide that the order between damage spells and Save/Suck would be reversed but I am pretty sure it does not do enough to leapfrog any further up the list than that. That's why I'm just not that excited or concerned by the spell at the higher levels of the game.

As it happens my character was the only one who could subtle metamagic counterspell - which is by far the best counterspell - but that was just how that worked out.

If every fight had been against one lone single monster that lacked magic then I would feel differently (but I'm in another game that's getting rather like that in tier-3 and honestly I don't enjoy that sort of encounter nearly as much).

As for going through all of this in order to use my concentration on a save or suck when I could be maintaining concentration on a tier-4 buff? No thanks. I don't mind save or suck spells that avoid concentration at this level but that is a short list of spells. Why would I drop concentration on True Polymorph to cast a spell that I know won't do anything this turn because of legendary resistance? I have no idea why I ever would.

[Xervous]

When it comes to interacting with LR with a group of competent players there’s not going to be an in between. Either the group’s tactics will pursue victory through a Save or X that lands once LRs are exhausted, or they will all be focused on tactics that explicitly ignore LR. We’re not merely dealing with a wizard lobbing a save-or-tickle and backing it up with SB round after round, likely not breaking all LR before the beastie is slain. We’d be looking at a party that serves up three or more saves per round. Giving the legendary monster (LRx3) a generous 40% chance to fail all rolls we observe it’s an average of 10 rolls to get one thing past LR, an event constrained to late round 3/mid round 4 for most parties. With SB forcing rerolls, it’s only 6.24 rolls on average to get one effect through. That’s late round 2/mid round 3. Throwing 6 SB backed effects has a 63% ~ might as well be 2/3 chance of getting through.

The numbers get sillier when we look at 50/50 saves. Players are probably going to be targeting saves a bit more intelligently. Average 8.7 rolls without SB. Average 4.6 rolls with SB. 4 rolls yields a 32% chance of penetration, 5 is 63%.

These numbers lead me to conclude that high incidence of SB in the party leads to Legendary Monsters being tactically solved by save effect spam roughly a round earlier and at notably reduced resource costs.

Spitballing on party setups to abuse this, do you want to give the monk the first advantage tick and pile SBs on his stunning strikes? Seems like this could yield >50% chance of a penetrating effect on round 1.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If anything, it's understating the problem, since it's casting a stronger version of Hold Person (one that ignores Advantage and also gives an unrelated buff to someone else).

This is factually incorrect.

Silvery Barbs forces a target to re-roll a resolved successful Saving Throw, with something akin to Disadvantage.

I’m not unsympathetic, in the slightest, to people finding Silvery Barbs, to be outside their power aesthetic or feeling like the spell opens Pandora’s Box by being able to alter, post facto, an determined result.

I am, however, opposed to incorrect analogies or equivalencies.🕊

“A stronger version of Hold Person” would be Hold Person III…which affects more targets…..and Silvery Barbs is just not doing that, at all.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Logic fail. Your rule of thumb is usually true, but does not apply here.

As already discussed, Barbs is a reasonable way for a caster to effectively blow through magic resistance entirely, albeit at a small cost. You are relying on a common rule of thumb, and failing to think through how Barbs applies to the scenario.

Walk through the logic:
(1) Cast SOS
(2) Did the target save?
(3a) If no, you are good.
(3b) If yes, cast Barbs.
What are the odds the magic resistant target failed the save? Do the math.




In the specific situation where the caster is anticipating multiple attacks upon his person, yes, Shield is better -- I agree. But there are a lot of common situations you are using Shield, where Barbs is unambiguously better.

I would further add that we start seeing the real power when we consider stacks. Yes, cast that Shield when multiple attacks are coming your way. Now the bard can cast Barbs if it seems necessary. The option to use Barbs is extremely valuable. And the crazy thing is Barbs layers on top of most offensive and defensive stacks. Both!

Your comparison with Healing Word is "interesting". A very common reason for I see for needing to use Healing Word is a frontliner just got Critted. Once you get past T1, nullifying the Critical and possibly nullifying the hit completely is a lot better than Healing Word. Barbs gives you a good chance of avoiding 10, 20, 30, 40 HP in the first place. What level spell are you planning on burning for that Healing Word to mitigate the loss of 30 HP? Do the math.

(As a practical matter, the party wants Healing Word available, too, as there are enough other commons situations where it is valuable. But Barbs greatly reduces the likelihood that Healing Word will be needed.)

I've gotta ask, Why is the DM telling the player a hit is a crit until they've chosen to use this spell? There's nothing in this spell or Shield for that matter to indicate the DM should give the player that info, and if SB is as powerful as some are claiming, then why buff it further?

[loki_ragnarock]

I've gotta ask, Why is the DM telling the player a hit is a crit until they've chosen to use this spell? There's nothing in this spell or Shield for that matter to indicate the DM should give the player that info, and if SB is as powerful as some are claiming, then why buff it further?
Ease of play.

Saying "It's a crit" speeds up the pace of play more than "It's a hit. *Pause to resolve stuff.* Okay, it turns out it was a crit, actually."

Which I suppose, is a fine example of how that sort of simple, off the cuff style of play gets martyred by mechanics like this.

[diplomancer]

This is factually incorrect.

Silvery Barbs forces a target to re-roll a resolved successful Saving Throw, with something akin to Disadvantage.

I’m not unsympathetic, in the slightest, to people finding Silvery Barbs, to be outside their power aesthetic or feeling like the spell opens Pandora’s Box by being able to alter, post facto, an determined result.

I am, however, opposed to incorrect analogies or equivalencies.🕊

“A stronger version of Hold Person” would be Hold Person III…which affects more targets…..and Silvery Barbs is just not doing that, at all.

Well, the fact that C is stronger than A and B does not mean that B is not stronger than A.


I've gotta ask, Why is the DM telling the player a hit is a crit until they've chosen to use this spell? There's nothing in this spell or Shield for that matter to indicate the DM should give the player that info, and if SB is as powerful as some are claiming, then why buff it further?

Some DMs roll in the open. And even those who don't, usually announce a crit.

[Segev]

So the opportunity cost is obviously high, even if it is for Fey Touched and Misty Step as well. There are far better spells Fey Touched can get you.

Bit of a tangent, but I'm curious what spells you would list as "far better spells Fey Touched can get you" than silvery barbs.

[tokek]

Bit of a tangent, but I'm curious what spells you would list as "far better spells Fey Touched can get you" than silvery barbs.

Not the person who said that but for a martial character without spell slots I would usually go for one of:
Hex
Hunters Mark
Gift of Alacrity
Bless
(maybe Heroism)

Hex / Hunters Mark are borderline amazing on a Monk. I've seen Gift of Alacrity on a Barbarian and it was pretty high impact

[diplomancer]

Bit of a tangent, but I'm curious what spells you would list as "far better spells Fey Touched can get you" than silvery barbs.

Gift of Alacrity comes to mind. But that's about it. Wake up, use your 1st level slots, make everyone in the party usually act before most monsters for the entire adventuring day.

But this, as usual, depends on a lot of factors. For pure martials, or for Warlocks, apart from Gift of Alacrity, Hex and Hunter's mark would be better. If you're a caster who's going to be concentrating on something, Silvery Barbs will be better than Hex or Hunter's Mark.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well, the fact that C is stronger than A and B does not mean that B is not stronger than A.

Are you contending that Re-rolling a Saving Throw under Silvery Barbs is significantly better than a Saving Throw made under the influence of a Bane spell?

Silvery Barbs is vastly more efficient in terms of Action Economy compared to Bless and Bane, but in terms of impact…is roughly on par…..(the actual circumstances will alter the considerations, of course.)

Making a creature re-roll a DC 14 Con save when the creature has a +7 bonus to the saving throw is an appeal to luck, and less an absolute certainty of failure.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Ease of play.

Saying "It's a crit" speeds up the pace of play more than "It's a hit. *Pause to resolve stuff.* Okay, it turns out it was a crit, actually."

Which I suppose, is a fine example of how that sort of simple, off the cuff style of play gets martyred by mechanics like this.

I get it, kind of. Though I'm not sure it's ever necessary for a DM to give that info even after resolving damage. If it's early on in a battle, the player just might think monster X generally does 20 points of damage instead of 10. There's something to be said for not giving players more info than they need; it adds to the sense of lack of control and unknown for players.

If this is common practice then I think this absolutely adds to the feeling that this spell and Shield are OP. Then there's the 5 min adventuring day. If DMs are doing both of these then absolutely SB is OP; a player with both now won't waste a Shield Spell on a crit where it won't help and will use SB. At our table, where I and our other DM A) have a good length adventuring day and B) don't give info on Crits before resolving reactions, Shield isn't an OP spell. I have no reason to think SB would be either, though for a Bard at mid levels it's definitely a good boost.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Are you contending that Re-rolling a Saving Throw under Silvery Barbs is significantly better than a Saving Throw made under the influence of a Bane spell?

Silvery Barbs is vastly more efficient in terms of Action Economy compared to Bless and Bane, but in terms of impact…is roughly on par…..(the actual circumstances will alter the considerations, of course.)

Making a creature re-roll a DC 14 Con save when the creature has a +7 bonus to the saving throw is an appeal to luck, and less an absolute certainty of failure.
I take your point on action economy assuming you can't cast Bless pre-battle, though at our table that's probably less than half the time. As for impact Bless might provide impact on 10-12 rolls in the average battle at +2.5 vs SB which impacts 2 rolls for (probably) more benefit than 2.5. I can't possibly see how that impact is 'roughly on par'.

[Xervous]

Here’s a few dumb questions I’ve not seen asked yet about SB.

Given that spells fizzle on invalid targets, does a chain of multiple SBs targeting one valid success stop forcing rerolls if one reroll in the chain comes up as a failure?

Given that “succeeding on a saving throw” is an event that can be reacted to in the case of SB and that “failing a saving throw” is also a triggering event that permits a creature to use LR we have a single resolution chain hitting both triggers. The rabbit hole I’m staring down is: does succeeding on the forced reroll from SB count as a new triggering event?

Wizard Joe uses Hold Person on Fighter Bob. Bob saves on the first roll. Joe then casts Silvery Barbs forcing a reroll which Bob then fails. Bob then uses indomitable to reroll this resulting failure and gets a success. At face value it seems like Bard Sally could then Silvery Barbs this new success, because the result of a reroll is something you can react to.

What stops Hold -> success -> SB -> success from producing a second valid opportunity to cast SB (from a third party)?

[Snails]

I've gotta ask, Why is the DM telling the player a hit is a crit until they've chosen to use this spell? There's nothing in this spell or Shield for that matter to indicate the DM should give the player that info, and if SB is as powerful as some are claiming, then why buff it further?

Our experience is it is faster and easier with the rolls on the center of the table, including (most) DM rolls.

Also we find it adds to the drama. Letting the player see the rolled (say) 12 and wondering what about the result is fun for everyone. "What? He hit my high AC with a 12?!? I need help, guys!"

Granted, it gives a lot of info to the players and improves a number of Reaction effects, especially Shield and Barbs. But if it makes the game run faster and the DM has more fun, it seems worth it.

For purposes of our discussion, even with behind the screen rolling, Barbs automatically gains precise information on success/failure for attacks, skills, saves. What it loses is seeing the Nat 20 to precisely stop the Crit. IMO, this is a bigger power down for Shield. I certainly have seen Wizards forego Shield and suck up the hit, when it is only the 3rd of 3 arrows landing. Obviously Shield is still good when rolls are unseen, but I think it loses a lot more than Barbs, because Barbs is broadly applicable to offense and defense.

Really, the power up/down effect of open/hidden rolls is even bigger for some other "luck" inspired effects.

[Kane0]

The rabbit hole I’m staring down is: does succeeding on the forced reroll from SB count as a new triggering event?

Wizard Joe uses Hold Person on Fighter Bob. Bob saves on the first roll. Joe then casts Silvery Barbs forcing a reroll which Bob then fails. Bob then uses indomitable to reroll this resulting failure and gets a success. At face value it seems like Bard Sally could then Silvery Barbs this new success, because the result of a reroll is something you can react to.

What stops Hold -> success -> SB -> success from producing a second valid opportunity to cast SB (from a third party)?

Oh good point. Barbs really should have stated it cannot affect a creature more than once per turn just like it specifies that a creature cannot have multiple advantages.

[Xervous]

Oh good point. Barbs really should have stated it cannot affect a creature more than once per turn just like it specifies that a creature can have multiple advantages.

Quick, everyone cast Silvery Barbs to get the Stunning Strike through!

[Kane0]

*cannot

My bad

[ProsecutorGodot]

Oh good point. Barbs really should have stated it cannot affect a creature more than once per turn just like it specifies that a creature can have multiple advantages.

Why? It's not as if it can go on forever. In a standard party it's happening about 4 times per turn and that assumes each party member can cast it, has a reaction and actually wants to do it.

The advantage aspect however has an extended duration. It might be short but one minute of casting would grant multiple instances of advantage. There's clearly room for active abuse here, especially for a Wizard who can cast this spell at will.

[Kane0]

Why? It's not as if it can go on forever. In a standard party it's happening about 4 times per turn and that assumes each party member can cast it, has a reaction and actually wants to do it.

The advantage aspect however has an extended duration. It might be short but one minute of casting would grant multiple instances of advantage. There's clearly room for active abuse here, especially for a Wizard who can cast this spell at will.

Bevause you cant do it with Lucky.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Bevause you cant do it with Lucky.

A single caster can't do it with silvery barbs either.

The restriction on lucky can only ever apply if both the attacker and target use a luck die, observers cannot use their own luck die on someone else. And it's not that they can't stack them, it's that neither is luckier than the other, they cancel out.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Our experience is it is faster and easier with the rolls on the center of the table, including (most) DM rolls.

Also we find it adds to the drama. Letting the player see the rolled (say) 12 and wondering what about the result is fun for everyone. "What? He hit my high AC with a 12?!? I need help, guys!"

Granted, it gives a lot of info to the players and improves a number of Reaction effects, especially Shield and Barbs. But if it makes the game run faster and the DM has more fun, it seems worth it.

For purposes of our discussion, even with behind the screen rolling, Barbs automatically gains precise information on success/failure for attacks, skills, saves. What it loses is seeing the Nat 20 to precisely stop the Crit. IMO, this is a bigger power down for Shield. I certainly have seen Wizards forego Shield and suck up the hit, when it is only the 3rd of 3 arrows landing. Obviously Shield is still good when rolls are unseen, but I think it loses a lot more than Barbs, because Barbs is broadly applicable to offense and defense.

Really, the power up/down effect of open/hidden rolls is even bigger for some other "luck" inspired effects.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on what is 'fun'. To me everyone looking at the dice, particularly the DM's has an impact on suspension of disbelief as well as provides info to players that allows them a sense of control that I don't think is beneficial from a role playing point of view.

[Segev]

Quick, everyone cast Silvery Barbs to get the Stunning Strike through!

Honestly, if you're willing to burn that many 1st level spell slots on something that costs 1 ki....

[Hael]

Honestly, if you're willing to burn that many 1st level spell slots on something that costs 1 ki....

Except it might be the scenario where the BBEG is about to push a button to end the world and the monk is in range. Its easy to concoct situations where its not worth using relative to another spell, but its *really* easy to do the opposite.

A spells worth is in the latter. No one is claiming this is the one spell to rule them all.

This is why I don't get the shield comparisons. If you are and EK being swarmed by a horde, cast shield. If in addition, a manticore provides a SoS at you, then maybe your spell partner 30 feet away might want to make it reroll (and give the rogue an initiative boost the next turn). Thats going to be how it works out in actual play.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I take your point on action economy assuming you can't cast Bless pre-battle, though at our table that's probably less than half the time. As for impact Bless might provide impact on 10-12 rolls in the average battle at +2.5 vs SB which impacts 2 rolls for (probably) more benefit than 2.5. I can't possibly see how that impact is 'roughly on par'.

Roughly on par in terms of each individual roll…Bane is contributing an expected 2.5 demerit…Silvery Barbs is contributing a -3 demerit…..but absolutely in terms of the aggregate results…Bane/Bless last much longer and likely contribute more.

Thank You for clarifying!

[Hytheter]

I get it, kind of. Though I'm not sure it's ever necessary for a DM to give that info even after resolving damage. If it's early on in a battle, the player just might think monster X generally does 20 points of damage instead of 10. There's something to be said for not giving players more info than they need; it adds to the sense of lack of control and unknown for players.

You're telling me a seasoned adventurer wouldn't be able to figure out when an Ogre's hit them especially hard or when an assassin's gotten their dagger into his weak point? Even if you're rolling behind the screen players should know when they've been crit because it should be obvious to their character.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You're telling me a seasoned adventurer wouldn't be able to figure out when an Ogre's hit them especially hard or when an assassin's gotten their dagger into his weak point? Even if you're rolling behind the screen players should know when they've been crit because it should be obvious to their character.

Based on my example the player and character know they've taken 20 points of damage, which would be a good hit. Whether that was a crit or a particularly good damage roll on a regular hit... would they know? In fairness I'm fine with either letting, or not letting, the player know once damage is being rolled; my main issue on this thread was DMs displaying the hit rolls before reaction spells.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Bit of a tangent, but I'm curious what spells you would list as "far better spells Fey Touched can get you" than silvery barbs.

Bless is a slam dunk. 5-20% buffs for 3 creatures on multiple rolls is far better value than a ~17% buff on a single roll.

Hex and Hunter’s Mark are consistent sources of damage for any class with multiple attack rolls. Heroism has the potential to negate more than one critical hit. Gift of Alacrity is super for anyone. As are Dissonant Whispers, Tasha’s Hideous Laughter and Charm Person. All typically stronger choices with better outcomes and will be less situational.

Special mention to Sleep in tier 1 as well. That’s a game wrecker at that tier.

Command, Animal Friendship, Detect Magic, even Identify, depending on the campaign, are also competitive choices depending on your campaign, though I wouldn’t rank them above it in a char op sense. But certainly for utility (someone in your group should have detect magic. That is not true of Silvery Barbs) or table rulings (animal friendship can trade a daily spell slot for an animal companion under some DMs. Waaaaay more powerful than Barbs, but YMMV on how friendly the animal gets.

I wouldn’t correct a new player for picking barbs with that feat, it’s not a garbage spell, but I certainly wouldn’t correct a char op for not taking it. It’s far from the dominant choice.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Logic fail. Your rule of thumb is usually true, but does not apply here.

As already discussed, Barbs is a reasonable way for a caster to effectively blow through magic resistance entirely, albeit at a small cost. You are relying on a common rule of thumb, and failing to think through how Barbs applies to the scenario.

Walk through the logic:
(1) Cast SOS
(2) Did the target save?
(3a) If no, you are good.
(3b) If yes, cast Barbs.
What are the odds the magic resistant target failed the save? Do the math.

Sure: cast SOS, DC is probably 13 at T1, 15 at T2, 17 at T3 and 19 at T4.

Did the target save? If it’s a strong save, it’s likely. They likely have a ~65% of chance of saving with an 8+. This increases to ~87 with magic resistance.

So they likely saved. Cast barbs. That’s another ~65% chance or a result that won’t fail the save.

So against a strong save and magic resistance , Barbs is more likely to be used, but not more likely to be successful. So higher utility but lower power.

A mediocre save? That’s ~50% chance of saving or worse at higher tiers. ~75% with magic resistance.

Still likely they saved, though less without resistance. Barbs will be used less against mediocre saves, especially at higher tier, meaning it has less utility now.

But it is more powerful. It’s now a ~50% or less chance of saving with the barbs roll.

Against a weak save? A ~40% chance of saving is low. And it gets worse with lower scores and higher tiers. Magic resistance hardly moves the needle due to some scores being so bad they negate any bonus granted, especially as DCs increase in the higher tiers.

So Barbs is only used to make a sure thing more sure and will hardly see action. Or it gives you another bad shot at a bad shot. And magic resistance makes it more extreme.

So the stronger Barbs is, the less likely it is to see play because it won’t be cast. The weaker it is, the less likely it is to see play because it won’t succeed.

And it’s ironically most effective in Tier 1, where your spell DCs are less of a sure thing against mediocre and even weak saves but the SOS spells of that Tier aren’t the ones terrifying the naysayers.

This spell is being criticized for making the rockets hit more often in Rocket Tag, which will be used at a much lower frequency than at low levels.

No failure of logic


option to use Barbs is extremely valuable. And the crazy thing is Barbs layers on top of most offensive and defensive stacks. Both!

That’s simply an argument that barbs enhances another player, which means it’s at the cost of your own. That bard now cannot cast shield because they took barbs and spent a spell slot on barbs and spent a reaction on barbs. I certainly hope the payoff for that cost is potent.

More potent than selecting shield instead? Not usually.

A dead bard isn’t much help. They’d be more help if they survived and brought you back with healing word. The instances where something is bypassing shield but not enough to warrant multiple hits is far lower than the instances that bard will want to avoid a multi attack.


Your comparison with Healing Word is "interesting". A very common reason for I see for needing to use Healing Word is a frontliner just got Critted. Once you get past T1, nullifying the Critical and possibly nullifying the hit completely is a lot better than Healing Word. Barbs gives you a good chance of avoiding 10, 20, 30, 40 HP in the first place. What level spell are you planning on burning for that Healing Word to mitigate the loss of 30 HP? Do the math.

(As a practical matter, the party wants Healing Word available, too, as there are enough other commons situations where it is valuable. But Barbs greatly reduces the likelihood that Healing Word will be needed.)

A front liner getting critted is far less frequent than a multi attack or attacks from multiple characters. A single crit felling a front liner probably means that front liner is down shortly afterwards any how.

You also seem to misunderstand how damage works in 5e. Healing word isn’t about healing damage, it’s about negating it. Your 40 points of damage made the fighter unconscious, my healing word makes the fighter no longer unconscious. Their action economy is fully restored, save half movement to stand back up.

Now, Silvery Barbs could also either negate (second roll is a miss) or it could merely reduce (half the damage dice of the crit, so 40 is now more like ~20-25. Both good results.

But healing word also negates your three hits for 16 16 and 16. Silvery barbs converts that to 16 16 and ~8. Hmmm. Less optimal.

This also applies to any moment a save won’t spare you deadly damage, a critical is overkill, a persistent effect or fixed or unavoidable damage.

So Barbs is only marginally more powerful than healing word in the situations where it is the optimal choice, but so much more situational that healing word is by far the optimal choice unless pursuing a very specific strategy against a very specific foe you have scouted, which isn’t what char op is about typically. General is superior to specific.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Except it might be the scenario where the BBEG is about to push a button to end the world and the monk is in range. Its easy to concoct situations where its not worth using relative to another spell, but its *really* easy to do the opposite.

A spells worth is in the latter. No one is claiming this is the one spell to rule them all.

This is why I don't get the shield comparisons. If you are and EK being swarmed by a horde, cast shield. If in addition, a manticore provides a SoS at you, then maybe your spell partner 30 feet away might want to make it reroll (and give the rogue an initiative boost the next turn). Thats going to be how it works out in actual play.

Or the swarm runs past your EK, kills the bard without a shield spell and the manticore suffers no consequences because the bard is dead and can’t cast Barbs…

Half joking aside, this example is exactly why this is a well designed spell: it makes your allies more powerful at an expense that justifies weakening yourself, which is quite uncommon in 5e. Most buffs aren’t competitive with raw damage and defense on multiple single characters. Barbs suddenly makes spending your spell slots on assists instead of goals seem viable instead of a trap choice that gets worse as time goes on.

[diplomancer]

Bless is a slam dunk. 5-20% buffs for 3 creatures on multiple rolls is far better value than a ~17% buff on a single roll.

Hex and Hunter’s Mark are consistent sources of damage for any class with multiple attack rolls. Heroism has the potential to negate more than one critical hit. Gift of Alacrity is super for anyone. As are Dissonant Whispers, Tasha’s Hideous Laughter and Charm Person. All typically stronger choices with better outcomes and will be less situational.

Special mention to Sleep in tier 1 as well. That’s a game wrecker at that tier.

Command, Animal Friendship, Detect Magic, even Identify, depending on the campaign, are also competitive choices depending on your campaign, though I wouldn’t rank them above it in a char op sense. But certainly for utility (someone in your group should have detect magic. That is not true of Silvery Barbs) or table rulings (animal friendship can trade a daily spell slot for an animal companion under some DMs. Waaaaay more powerful than Barbs, but YMMV on how friendly the animal gets.

I wouldn’t correct a new player for picking barbs with that feat, it’s not a garbage spell, but I certainly wouldn’t correct a char op for not taking it. It’s far from the dominant choice.

Bless is better... if you can easily precast it, are not a full caster who needs to concentrate on something else, and have a way to reliably maintain concentration. Likewise for Hunter's Mark and Hex, though you don't need to worry about the precasting bit.

Dissonant Whispers, Hideous Laughter, Charm Person and Command cannot be pre-cast, and require saves (so if you're a martial that's a no. If you're a half-caster, perhaps, but the Action cost is still steep)

Sleep is wonderful. At levels 1-2. Maybe 3 and 4 as well if your DM likes mobs. It's a terrible choice for Fey-touched, unless you're a V. Human playing a Tier 1 only campaign. You want your choice to remain relevant later on.

Animal Friendship with a very lenient DM... well, your Silvery Barbs can still help your Ranger buddy land that Animal Friendship. And once your DM realizes how unbalanced this is, you still have your Silvery Barbs.

If you're even thinking of getting Detect Magic or Identify, you would get better use of your feat by getting Ritual Caster.

[Xervous]

Honestly, if you're willing to burn that many 1st level spell slots on something that costs 1 ki....

Against a priority target where the stun will offset the future need for healing? Certainly. SB is a tool for bullying probability in critical moments where the outcome of some enemy’s roll could have a disproportionate impact on the rounds that follow. Given that AC is frequently targeted, shield is not a waste of your options to have in your back pocket. SB on the other hand favors interactions with single big enemies but is notable for both being an aggressive option and one that can be dogpiled.

Looking at the case of the Monk stunning, SB is a conditional reaction 60ft range stun. The party already wanted to stun the target, you wouldn’t need another roll if the Monk succeeded the first time. SB allows resource exchanges across characters in this way (spell slot -> ki). They may not be an appealing exchange rate at face value, but it’s still an expanded option for party flexibility. Being a reaction is a gift for action economy and will tend to smooth over otherwise unappealing exchange rates.

Phrased more simply, SB raises the party’s ability to throw resources at fringe probability events. Obtaining it has varying opportunity costs by class, not all parties stand to benefit from it equally, but in a party where each member can frequently benefit from it you will see them squeezing out those favorable outcomes with good tactics.

If there’s to be a loudest gripe over SB, I would say that it sucks the impact out of pivotal events by giving players veto attempts on crits and pivotal rolls. It’s a tool for consistency in a game that already hands most fights to the players on a silver platter. It can be used wastefully, but in the problem cases I just see it as another improvement to party efficiency.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Don't forget the advantage thrown in for good measure

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Bless is better... if you can easily precast it, are not a full caster who needs to concentrate on something else, and have a way to reliably maintain concentration. Likewise for Hunter's Mark and Hex, though you don't need to worry about the precasting bit.

Precast it? That makes it even better. Casting it in round 1 will still outperform barbs consistently.

And reliable concentration merely snowballs the spell’s superiority. If you get 1 round out of bless, you’ve beaten most of the benefits of Barbs.

And hunters mark and Hex are probably being picked by those classes that have a superior con save, so yeah, that’s why it’s a stronger pick for those classes.


Dissonant Whispers, Hideous Laughter, Charm Person and Command cannot be pre-cast, and require saves (so if you're a martial that's a no. If you're a half-caster, perhaps, but the Action cost is still steep)

The action cost is steep, but the outcomes are better. I’d agree most martials don’t want these spells, they’d rather have bless, hunters mark or hex.


Sleep is wonderful. At levels 1-2. Maybe 3 and 4 as well if your DM likes mobs. It's a terrible choice for Fey-touched, unless you're a V. Human playing a Tier 1 only campaign. You want your choice to remain relevant later on.

Yes, that’s what I said. In a T1 campaign (something like half of all play or more is happening there) sleep is a wonderful spell. Crowd control or a save free finisher.

And the custom lineage of Tasha’s makes the lv 1 feat, especially the half feat, very attainable.


Animal Friendship with a very lenient DM... well, your Silvery Barbs can still help your Ranger buddy land that Animal Friendship. And once your DM realizes how unbalanced this is, you still have your Silvery Barbs.

And yet you can’t help anyone get an animal Buddy without animal friendship in the first place. If you aren’t building a support character, Barbs probably holds less appeal than being able to shut down a combat against a bear or convince an eagle to give you a ride.


If you're even thinking of getting Detect Magic or Identify, you would get better use of your feat by getting Ritual Caster.

Ritual caster isn’t a half feat that comes with Misty Step. Detect magic can simply be icing on the cake for a ritual caster like a warlock or a wizard that frees up another spell selection.

[Khrysaes]

Precast it? That makes it even better. Casting it in round 1 will still outperform barbs consistently.

And reliable concentration merely snowballs the spell’s superiority. If you get 1 round out of bless, you’ve beaten most of the benefits of Barbs.

And hunters mark and Hex are probably being picked by those classes that have a superior con save, so yeah, that’s why it’s a stronger pick for those classes.



The action cost is steep, but the outcomes are better. I’d agree most martials don’t want these spells, they’d rather have bless, hunters mark or hex.



Yes, that’s what I said. In a T1 campaign (something like half of all play or more is happening there) sleep is a wonderful spell. Crowd control or a save free finisher.

And the custom lineage of Tasha’s makes the lv 1 feat, especially the half feat, very attainable.



And yet you can’t help anyone get an animal Buddy without animal friendship in the first place. If you aren’t building a support character, Barbs probably holds less appeal than being able to shut down a combat against a bear or convince an eagle to give you a ride.



Ritual caster isn’t a half feat that comes with Misty Step. Detect magic can simply be icing on the cake for a ritual caster like a warlock or a wizard that frees up another spell selection.

Wizard doesnt really need it, as so long as the spell is in their book they can ritual cast it. Wizards also have the biggest spell list which is why i think most people that take rit caster take the wizard version.

Unless you meant icing on the cake for a character that can already ritual cast like wizard or tomelocks.

[JNAProductions]

Something to note-Fey Touched allows you to pick up Bless, as well as Barbs.

As, say, a Battlemaster Fighter, I'd generally rather take Bless than Barbs. I don't have anything else to concentrate on, and giving three people +1d4 to all attacks and saves for an encounter is better than one instance of advantage and one forced reroll on an enemy, in my opinion. It's even a pretty good use of an action in-combat. Precasting it is preferred, of course, but not needed.

[Segev]

While we are analyzing this spell at all levels, let's remember it is a wizard spell. If you're an 18th level wizard, are you going to make thus your at-will first level spell?
If so, does it break any balance it may have had? If not, why not (and what do you take instead)?

[ProsecutorGodot]

While we are analyzing this spell at all levels, let's remember it is a wizard spell. If you're an 18th level wizard, are you going to make thus your at-will first level spell?
If so, does it break any balance it may have had? If not, why not (and what do you take instead)?

I'd say it's a strong choice but shield still puts up a reasonable fight. As far as breaking balance, no, specifically because they had the foresight to prevent someone from stacking instances of advantage through it. It can be a somewhat reliable source of a single instance of advantage if circumstances are lining up still.

[tokek]

While we are analyzing this spell at all levels, let's remember it is a wizard spell. If you're an 18th level wizard, are you going to make thus your at-will first level spell?
If so, does it break any balance it may have had? If not, why not (and what do you take instead)?

When I've played at that level everything but gangs of minions had legendary saves. So at that level the question is should you use your reaction for this on an attack or something else - or save your reaction in case you need to counterspell?

There is no way I'd try to burn through legendary saves with this - unless I have a combo with a worthwhile non-concentration spell to throw around that the target will care enough about to use the legendary save on. Tier-4 concentration spells are just too damn good to give up for an action that might strip away a legendary save.

[Khrysaes]

When I've played at that level everything but gangs of minions had legendary saves. So at that level the question is should you use your reaction for this on an attack or something else - or save your reaction in case you need to counterspell?

There is no way I'd try to burn through legendary saves with this - unless I have a combo with a worthwhile non-concentration spell to throw around that the target will care enough about to use the legendary save on. Tier-4 concentration spells are just too damn good to give up for an action that might strip away a legendary save.

It doesnt work on legendary saves as there are no rolls for legendary saves. It was also brought up in sage advice.

[loki_ragnarock]

It doesnt work on legendary saves as there are no rolls for legendary saves. It was also brought up in sage advice.

Well... kinda.

The "No, I succeed" part of legendary saves doesn't interact. But inducing a failure to trigger the use of "No, I succeed" does.

[Segev]

It doesnt work on legendary saves as there are no rolls for legendary saves. It was also brought up in sage advice.


Well... kinda.

The "No, I succeed" part of legendary saves doesn't interact. But inducing a failure to trigger the use of "No, I succeed" does.

Right. To reiterate, when people who are using the spell correctly say it's to burn through Legendary Resistance, they're saying that in the sense that they want to force a use of Legendary Resistance.

For example, they cast kill Asragore the Dragon on Asragore the Dragon, which offers a Dexterity save (because the notoriously clumsy Asragore is the one valid target for this custom murder spell). Asragore manages to roll a successful save, so he doesn't have to spend one of his Legendary Resistances. Whozisface the Wizard then casts silvery barbs, and Asragore's new roll is low enough that he fails. Not wanting to find out what kill Asragore the Dragon does when Asragore the Dragon fails his saving throw against it, Asragore the Dragon spends a Legendary Resistance use.

(What doesn't do what the people who interpret it wrong think it does is, if Asragore failed the first save and used Legendary Resistance, silvery barbs can't make him fail the save no matter how low the new roll is, so there's no new fishing out of Legendary Resistance, nor is there any overriding of it.)

[Khrysaes]

Right. To reiterate, when people who are using the spell correctly say it's to burn through Legendary Resistance, they're saying that in the sense that they want to force a use of Legendary Resistance.

For example, they cast kill Asragore the Dragon on Asragore the Dragon, which offers a Dexterity save (because the notoriously clumsy Asragore is the one valid target for this custom murder spell). Asragore manages to roll a successful save, so he doesn't have to spend one of his Legendary Resistances. Whozisface the Wizard then casts silvery barbs, and Asragore's new roll is low enough that he fails. Not wanting to find out what kill Asragore the Dragon does when Asragore the Dragon fails his saving throw against it, Asragore the Dragon spends a Legendary Resistance use.

(What doesn't do what the people who interpret it wrong think it does is, if Asragore failed the first save and used Legendary Resistance, silvery barbs can't make him fail the save no matter how low the new roll is, so there's no new fishing out of Legendary Resistance, nor is there any overriding of it.)

Ahh, misunderstood how it was being applied.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I'd say it's a strong choice but shield still puts up a reasonable fight. As far as breaking balance, no, specifically because they had the foresight to prevent someone from stacking instances of advantage through it. It can be a somewhat reliable source of a single instance of advantage if circumstances are lining up still.

I agree with this.

If your game already features a high degree of coordination between the Players,Readied Actions, Monks using Stunning Strike to setup automatic failures for Saving Throws, Bane being used to impact a particular save and then dropping Concentration immediately after the roll etc, etcthen I suspect that Silvery Barbs will make such coordination easier..but not necessarily overbalance the play in favor of the PCs.

If your game doesn’t feature such coordination, then Silvery Barbs might impact balance…until the DM learns to adjust.

A DM rolling a high damage, Critical Hit, might drain off a use of Silvery Barbs from the PCs, just as PCs might be trying to drain off uses of Legendary Resistance, for example.

A Hexvoker is probably sticking with Shield as their 1st level at will spell as upcast Magic Missile with Hexblade Curse and Empowered Evocation is guaranteed damage.

[Yakk]

Silver Barbs is way better if you have lots of 1st level slots to use it on.

Taking it for Fey Touched is iffy unless you have another source of slots.

Bless may be a more efficient use of a 1st level slot, sure, but that matters when slots are at a premium. You can't "more bless" by casting it more than once in a fight (except when concentration is broken).

...

Burning through LR works really well with SB. The game I'd play is comparing it to a monk.

A monk with 75% hit rate can burn 4 Ki/round to force 3 Stunning Blow saves per round. The monk isn't as likely to focus on Wisdom and DCs, and can only target Constitution, so we'll assume the monk's Stunning Blows have a 35% chance of landing.

That is 1.05 LR stripped every round. Pretty good.

A spellcaster who can cast a spell that the foe will want to save against. Say, Psychic Lance, a nice level 4 spell with an int save. Or a myriad of others, from dex to charisma to con to strength. The spellcaster is more likely to focus on their spellcasting stat and DC boosting gear than the monk, and they get to pick a save; we'll give the spellcaster a 65% chance of landing their spell (before LR).

Right now, that spellcaster burns through 0.65 LR per round. The monk is 1.6x better at burning LR.

Add in SB. Now they burn through .65 + .35*.65 = 0.88 LR per round. The monk is now only 1.2x better at burning LR.

And if they are side by side, when the spellcaster doesn't use SB on their spell they can use it on a stunning blow, granting another 0.16 LR stripped/round; 1.04 LR per round, basically matching the monk.

I'm not sure this is a bad thing, but it sure is strong.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Stunning Strike is a good benchmark.

Silvery Barbs has to be used with an effect that warrants using Legendary Resistance….Stunned, Incapacitated, perhaps even Blindness can do the trick.

The Charmed or Deafened Condition, probably, are not enough to warrant a LR use.

[Kane0]

Stunning Strike is a good benchmark.

Silvery Barbs has to be used with an effect that warrants using Legendary Resistance….Stunned, Incapacitated, perhaps even Blindness can do the trick.

The Charmed or Deafened Condition, probably, are not enough to warrant a LR use.

Unless its dominate. Banishment is another good time to employ barbs.

[Snails]

I'd say it's a strong choice but shield still puts up a reasonable fight. As far as breaking balance, no, specifically because they had the foresight to prevent someone from stacking instances of advantage through it. It can be a somewhat reliable source of a single instance of advantage if circumstances are lining up still.

In a given round, it is true that Shield and Counterspell and Barbs competes for the Reaction, and the first two may be better for the situation on hand. But that is not going to be true for every round. There are some rounds where the value of Shield or Counterspell is sufficiently close to zero that they are not even worth considering at all.

You are often not going to be "losing" Shield or Counterspell to use Barbs, simply because you are a spellcaster in a safe enough location, protected by allies, and there are no enemy spellcasters that are going to be within 60 feet.

When you can use Barbs in the right situation, it is incredibly resource and Action Economy efficient. You are literally getting the benefit of, say, a 4th level slot (e.g. Banishment) + Action for the cost of a 1st level slot + Reaction. When the Reaction is not desperately needed for something else, this is waaaay beyond good.

In the case of a Wizard, I am not going to give up on Shield or Counterspell. I am adding Barbs to my Must Have List, after Tier 1 probably. I am giving up on preparing some other utility spell.

In the case of a Bard, I probably do not have Shield although I might have Counterspell. If I am a Lore Bard, I think of Barbs as another flavor of Cutting Words, sometimes better and sometimes worst -- I choose based on the situation on hand. This is what my Reaction is for.

[tokek]

When you can use Barbs in the right situation, it is incredibly resource and Action Economy efficient. You are literally getting the benefit of, say, a 4th level slot (e.g. Banishment) + Action for the cost of a 1st level slot + Reaction. When the Reaction is not desperately needed for something else, this is waaaay beyond good.

In the case of a Wizard, I am not going to give up on Shield or Counterspell. I am adding Barbs to my Must Have List, after Tier 1 probably. I am giving up on preparing some other utility spell.

In the case of a Bard, I probably do not have Shield although I might have Counterspell. If I am a Lore Bard, I think of Barbs as another flavor of Cutting Words, sometimes better and sometimes worst -- I choose based on the situation on hand. This is what my Reaction is for.

The more this conversation goes on the more I think that there is a narrow range of levels where this use of Barbs to try to force fails on big save or suck spells is both easily available and also worthwhile.

I'm not going to burn spell levels like this in tier-1 because they are too precious. Even at the start of tier-2 it might be an issue.

From tier-3 up I just don't see a lot of worthwhile targets that lack legendary saves and I've already discussed the action economy issues I have with spending my turn on doing nothing but probably forcing an opponent to use up a legendary save.

So this looks to me like it has a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of tier-2, but that's a sweet spot that is still circumstantial on having a single worthwhile target that is not yet powerful enough to justify having legendary saves. So it won't apply to every combat. It certainly does not look like its something I would massively build characters around, for example by taking a feat to gain access to the spell.

In all this discussion I have still not really found a spell combo that I would be happy to use with this through the levels. I have an issue with concentration SOS spells at the higher levels of the game when I want to use my concentration for things like Walls of Force - this issue becomes a firm obstacle to this strategy for me if there is a risk of legendary saves in which case I am giving up my concentration ability for nothing immediate in return.

If Blindness/Deafness did not give a save every turn it might have fit the bill but it does give a save and its a Con save which a lot of monsters are good at so what other candidates do we have for spells which are decently crippling but which don't cause the caster to drop concentration on their buff/control spell just for casting them? I don't hate the idea of Hypnotic Pattern with Silvery Barbs to reduce the number of targets which save but that spell is designed for crowd control and you instantly negate it when you attack the target. What else is there?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The more this conversation goes on the more I think that there is a narrow range of levels where this use of Barbs to try to force fails on big save or suck spells is both easily available and also worthwhile.

I'm not going to burn spell levels like this in tier-1 because they are too precious. Even at the start of tier-2 it might be an issue.

From tier-3 up I just don't see a lot of worthwhile targets that lack legendary saves and I've already discussed the action economy issues I have with spending my turn on doing nothing but probably forcing an opponent to use up a legendary save.

So this looks to me like it has a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of tier-2, but that's a sweet spot that is still circumstantial on having a single worthwhile target that is not yet powerful enough to justify having legendary saves. So it won't apply to every combat. It certainly does not look like its something I would massively build characters around, for example by taking a feat to gain access to the spell.

In all this discussion I have still not really found a spell combo that I would be happy to use with this through the levels. I have an issue with concentration SOS spells at the higher levels of the game when I want to use my concentration for things like Walls of Force - this issue becomes a firm obstacle to this strategy for me if there is a risk of legendary saves in which case I am giving up my concentration ability for nothing immediate in return.

If Blindness/Deafness did not give a save every turn it might have fit the bill but it does give a save and its a Con save which a lot of monsters are good at so what other candidates do we have for spells which are decently crippling but which don't cause the caster to drop concentration on their buff/control spell just for casting them? I don't hate the idea of Hypnotic Pattern with Silvery Barbs to reduce the number of targets which save but that spell is designed for crowd control and you instantly negate it when you attack the target. What else is there?

I broadly agree with you for Wizard and Sorc, though at the moment I'm playing a (mostly) Bard who doesn't have access to Absorb Elements, Shield, or any abundance of decent reactions. The 3rd level spells that look good when I get there are Slow and Hypnotic Pattern. Further, this campaign is Rime of the Frostmaiden which will likely end at level 11-12. So I'm thinking this spell will represent a pretty good option and buff for the class once we're out of tier 1, so for the bulk of the character's career.

[Snails]

If you are a Wizard or Sorceror and your Plan A is controller tactics, I have no argument against that.

Yet it is not necessarily so simple. If you are in a party with a Monk and/or Bard, your party is throwing a lot of Save or Suck around, even if you are not. Barbs is applicable to such a broad range of tactical situations, that is it not merely a matter of SoS spells -- that is just the most extreme example to demonstrate usefulness. Barbs helps on both offense and defense, which puts it in the pretty elite company of Bless. Useful situations for Barbs will arise regularly, even if the exact situation will vary a lot. The real question is how often you need your Reaction for something more urgent when that opportunity appears.

[Kane0]

Yet it is not necessarily so simple. If you are in a party with a Monk and/or Bard, your party is throwing a lot of Save or Suck around, even if you are not. Barbs is applicable to such a broad range of tactical situations, that is it not merely a matter of SoS spells -- that is just the most extreme example to demonstrate usefulness. Barbs helps on both offense and defense, which puts it in the pretty elite company of Bless. Useful situations for Barbs will arise regularly, even if the exact situation will vary a lot. The real question is how often you need your Reaction for something more urgent when that opportunity appears.

Ayup. Counterspell is for enemy spellcasters. Shield is for creatures attacking you. Absorb Elements is for taking elemental damage. For everything else (and even some of these sometimes too), theres Silvery Barbs.

Well, unless you intend on making opportunity attacks fairly often or have a reaction granted by race/class/subclass. But all of those would still trigger less frequently than 'something you can see within 60' succeeded on a roll'

[tokek]

I broadly agree with you for Wizard and Sorc, though at the moment I'm playing a (mostly) Bard who doesn't have access to Absorb Elements, Shield, or any abundance of decent reactions. The 3rd level spells that look good when I get there are Slow and Hypnotic Pattern. Further, this campaign is Rime of the Frostmaiden which will likely end at level 11-12. So I'm thinking this spell will represent a pretty good option and buff for the class once we're out of tier 1, so for the bulk of the character's career.

I tend to agree that if you are not likely to run out of spell slots then having Silvery Barbs to make a Hypnotic Pattern or Slow spell stick can be a nice choice in tier-2. I think that tier-2 is the sweet spot for this spell and its strong in that tier. This is of course a tier in which a lot of play takes place.

As with anything that goes to tier-3 you will find this combination begins to hit legendary resistance issues right at the end but you can always choose another option - or even start swapping out some of your spells as you level up.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very good spell. My sorcerer for my new campaign has it and I expect it to see fairly frequent use in tier-1 and more frequent use once we get to tier-2. I may just swap it out once we get into tier-3 depending on how well it has been working for me and what future value it seems to have then.

[Kane0]

Once LR becomes more prevalent you can change to using it in conjunction with party members forcing saves (like the monk or battlemaster), or just swap to using it on attacks and checks instead because LR doesnt help with those. Creatures with LR will often also have legendary actions so youll have plenty of chances, which coincidentally can also help you and your allies pass checks and saves the creature might force with the advantage

[MrStabby]

The more this conversation goes on the more I think that there is a narrow range of levels where this use of Barbs to try to force fails on big save or suck spells is both easily available and also worthwhile.

I'm not going to burn spell levels like this in tier-1 because they are too precious. Even at the start of tier-2 it might be an issue.

From tier-3 up I just don't see a lot of worthwhile targets that lack legendary saves and I've already discussed the action economy issues I have with spending my turn on doing nothing but probably forcing an opponent to use up a legendary save.

So this looks to me like it has a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of tier-2, but that's a sweet spot that is still circumstantial on having a single worthwhile target that is not yet powerful enough to justify having legendary saves. So it won't apply to every combat. It certainly does not look like its something I would massively build characters around, for example by taking a feat to gain access to the spell.

In all this discussion I have still not really found a spell combo that I would be happy to use with this through the levels. I have an issue with concentration SOS spells at the higher levels of the game when I want to use my concentration for things like Walls of Force - this issue becomes a firm obstacle to this strategy for me if there is a risk of legendary saves in which case I am giving up my concentration ability for nothing immediate in return.

If Blindness/Deafness did not give a save every turn it might have fit the bill but it does give a save and its a Con save which a lot of monsters are good at so what other candidates do we have for spells which are decently crippling but which don't cause the caster to drop concentration on their buff/control spell just for casting them? I don't hate the idea of Hypnotic Pattern with Silvery Barbs to reduce the number of targets which save but that spell is designed for crowd control and you instantly negate it when you attack the target. What else is there?

So my priority list for this would be:

1) Fear. It is a brutal spell to take people out of the fight, at least for enough turns to mop up everything else. As it is an AoE spell you can hit enough creaures that it is likely soething will pass giving you an opportunity to use SB. You can always pick which enemy that passes that you want to have another go on.

2) Banishment. This spell scales so well with level and when you need it to land SB will do its job just fine. The higher level you cast this from the better chance you have of getting awesome value from SB. Like fear, even if you hit a legendary save, you still got good value from the action and probably the spell slot by stripping away supporting NPCs.

3) Dominate X. Often this is not just about removing a threat, but also about getting one of your own. This means you can effectively target an enemy with no legendary saves and use it to kill an enemy that does.

4) Forcecage. OK, this is a bit niche, but sometimes it comes as a surprise that the wizard you thought you had taken out of the fight has dimension door prepared. A level 1 spellslot for a chance at a counterspell is a good deal.

5) Wrathful Smite. This is pobably one for the lower levels, but it has this core feature that once it lands, it is very difficult to shrug off as you make the checks with disadvantage.

6) Getting less universaly awesome, but with a strong case. Hold X. Hold monster for example, getting this to stick for just one turn can make dragons fall out of the sky, get grappled, and then suffer massive damage fro a barage of critical hits.

[Yakk]

From tier-3 up I just don't see a lot of worthwhile targets that lack legendary saves and I've already discussed the action economy issues I have with spending my turn on doing nothing but probably forcing an opponent to use up a legendary save.
So the thing is, prior to SB, forcing a LR was a crappy plan.

Unless 3+ PCs are also forcing LR, by the time you stripped away LR the foe was already dead.

Take a foe with magic resistance who saves against your best LR-bait on an 13+. You have to burn (collectively) 8 actions to get through their LR.

Add in SB. Now 64% of casts trigger SB, which you win 60% of the time, meaning instead of 36% of your casts triggering a LR, now 74% do.

It is only 4 actions to strip their LR instead of 8. If two PCs are both doing this the monster is likely to have no LR left by turn 3, instead of turn 5 pre-SB.

It may still not be worth it, but the situation is drastically different post-SB.

This is especially true if your party isn't ridiculously high damage compared to the monster's HP.

[diplomancer]

So the thing is, prior to SB, forcing a LR was a crappy plan.

Unless 3+ PCs are also forcing LR, by the time you stripped away LR the foe was already dead.

Take a foe with magic resistance who saves against your best LR-bait on an 13+. You have to burn (collectively) 8 actions to get through their LR.

Add in SB. Now 64% of casts trigger SB, which you win 60% of the time, meaning instead of 36% of your casts triggering a LR, now 74% do.

It is only 4 actions to strip their LR instead of 8. If two PCs are both doing this the monster is likely to have no LR left by turn 3, instead of turn 5 pre-SB.

It may still not be worth it, but the situation is drastically different post-SB.

This is especially true if your party isn't ridiculously high damage compared to the monster's HP.

I see this as a GOOD thing. If before trying to get past LR was in most cases a losing proposition, and now it's a viable tactic, that means that there are more possible ways of dealing with bosses than "buff the martials and hide while they do the dirty job", which is what some boss fights feel like.

[Rav]

The fundamental design of 5e is that monsters get plenty of attacks and plenty of hit points and that to deal with that player characters get a number of tricks instead. For a clear-cut example look at the NPC equivalent of PC classes like assassin, they lack a number of class features but have inflated HP to balance out the lack of something like uncanny dodge. I've played with a DM who added those class features back on and those monsters slowed everything down and were significantly overpowered relative to their CR.

Giving the monsters PC tricks is not how 5e is designed to operate whatever those tricks are. So no I will not be trying out your suggestion except maybe on the occasional NPC magician with levelled spells.

Lemme paint a scene for you. The BBEG lich death cleric, and his two lieutenants a large undead EK and a vampire sorcerer are trouncing the adventurers while their horde of zombies mucks up the field of battle. The fight has raged on, BBEG has tossed out cloudkills other spells to brutal effect while his Lts are just nuking people, currently the party is in bad... bad shape, and nearly out of resources. One is already outright dead while half the others are unconcious and the other half all bloodied and near dead themselves. And The BBEG just cast spirit guardians, again. We're all going to die. This is the end unless. wait.

The paladin goes next! He saunters up to him, eats the guardians damage like a boss and drops to 8 hp remaining. But then rolls a nat 20 on his glaive. Everyone cheers. He even says "This is the moment every paladin dreams of" and rolls his 2nd level slot crit smite damage. The damage rolls pretty high and is going to deal roughly 70 points to this undead boss. This much damage will for sure break his concentration, there might be a chance left! The cheers from the players subsides and the dm says "roll another d20 for me" player, uncertain why, rolls an 8. DM: "okay, the vampire sorceress casts silvery barbs, you miss."

The mood did not recover after this turn at the table.

FWIW none of the player even have this spell, some didn't even know it existed.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah. You aren't supposed to build NPCs or monsters as PCs. That's something you CAN do, but it's certainly not the default.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Lemme paint a scene for you. The BBEG lich death cleric, and his two lieutenants a large undead EK and a vampire sorcerer are trouncing the adventurers while their horde of zombies mucks up the field of battle. The fight has raged on, BBEG has tossed out cloudkills other spells to brutal effect while his Lts are just nuking people, currently the party is in bad... bad shape, and nearly out of resources. One is already outright dead while half the others are unconcious and the other half all bloodied and near dead themselves. And The BBEG just cast spirit guardians, again. We're all going to die. This is the end unless. wait.

The paladin goes next! He saunters up to him, eats the guardians damage like a boss and drops to 8 hp remaining. But then rolls a nat 20 on his glaive. Everyone cheers. He even says "This is the moment every paladin dreams of" and rolls his 2nd level slot crit smite damage. The damage rolls pretty high and is going to deal roughly 70 points to this undead boss. This much damage will for sure break his concentration, there might be a chance left! The cheers from the players subsides and the dm says "roll another d20 for me" player, uncertain why, rolls an 8. DM: "okay, the vampire sorceress casts silvery barbs, you miss."

The mood did not recover after this turn at the table.

FWIW none of the player even have this spell, some didn't even know it existed.

I'd call bad play on the DM's part for letting it progress to this point before calling it. If he's pretty the Paladin start rolling damage and had spent a spell door he's very arguably missed his trigger. It's obviously going to feel bad if you very intentionally use it this way.

[Kane0]

Yeah. You aren't supposed to build NPCs or monsters as PCs. That's something you CAN do, but it's certainly not the default.

Okay so what if they were just regular caster NPCs with their spell lists swapped around?

[JNAProductions]

Okay so what if they were just regular caster NPCs with their spell lists swapped around?

Then why did they wait this late to use Barbs? Have they not ONCE used it before in this fight?

It should be an “Oh god, I hope they’re out of slots so they don’t negate that crit,” or “Does anyone have a reaction and slot left for Counterspell?”

It shouldn’t be a surprise that this boss has a spell like that, unless the fight has gone in an incredibly specific and unlikely way.

Also, changing a spell list should have you reassess CR.

[Rav]

Okay so what if they were just regular caster NPCs with their spell lists swapped around?

Yeah basically this. You don't need fancy PC classes or anything, Silvery Barbs is just a 1st level spell. NPCs can have those easy.

[Kane0]

Then why did they wait this late to use Barbs? Have they not ONCE used it before in this fight?

It should be an “Oh god, I hope they’re out of slots so they don’t negate that crit,” or “Does anyone have a reaction and slot left for Counterspell?”

It shouldn’t be a surprise that this boss has a spell like that, unless the fight has gone in an incredibly specific and unlikely way.

Also, changing a spell list should have you reassess CR.

Does it matter? The PCs might have been rolling poorly or the enemies rather well. The sorc might have been conserving spell slots or saving reactions for something else. Is the DM using the optional Xans rule where the PCs dont even know the spell unless they use their reaction to figure it out?

And offensive vs defensive CR absolutely, but isnt the whole idea of splitting spells into spell levels that each spell level is roughly equivalent? If any one spell was such a strong outlier (so strong or so weak) that is necessitates a recalculation i would call that spell OP or UP.

[Dualight]

On recalculating CR after swapping spells: Not all spells within a level have an equal impact on CR. To take some 1st level spells as an example: An NPC with detect poison and disease has a CR equal to an NPC without that spell, as it has no impact on damage, nor does it increase the effective hit points or AC of the NPC. That same NPC(assuming them to be unarmoured by default) with mage armour would have a higher AC than if they detect poison and disease, due to the mage armour, which might need to be reflected in the CR, and certainly should prompt a recalculation. Likewise, switching detect poison and disease for guiding bolt increases the damage output if the NPC(unless they deal more damage with non-spell actions than guiding bolt). This increased damage output(and possibly increased default to hit, if spell attack to hit is higher than the weapon attack to hit, and there are more spells in the NPC's nova than weapon attacks) then also prompts a recalculation of the CR.
Admittedly, the books are very vague on the effects of changing spell lists on CR, but that is more a gripe I have with the guidance for calculating CR, which a lot of even Monster Manual creatures seem to not apply properly.
At least, that is how I have interpreted things so far.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Admittedly, the books are very vague on the effects of changing spell lists on CR, but that is more a gripe I have with the guidance for calculating CR, which a lot of even Monster Manual creatures seem to not apply properly.

They're actually better than you think (having done all the math), but one key point is that the guidelines are explicitly just a starting point and play-testing (often party-specific play-testing) is the final determiner of appropriate challenge.

Which makes sense, since CR is only designed as a first-pass filter, especially for new DMs. It's not rule, it's loose, fuzzy suggestions. Except of course for polymorph (et al) and summoning spells. Which IMO (unpopular opinion warning) are badly designed spells to begin with, as is anything that allows dumpster source-book diving. I'd much prefer they were more like PF's versions, which have specific lists or more like Tasha's Summon X (with specific stat blocks). But that's neither here nor now.

[Snails]

And offensive vs defensive CR absolutely, but isnt the whole idea of splitting spells into spell levels that each spell level is roughly equivalent? If any one spell was such a strong outlier (so strong or so weak) that is necessitates a recalculation i would call that spell OP or UP.

Applied intelligently against PC, I think the effect of Barbs is on par with Counterspell. It can be quite a shock to the players to have a novel tactic that they did not even know could exist pop up in a major combat, just like if the first time anyone cast Counterspell in the game, it was a lich pulling it out of a non-PHB source.

Generally speaking, NPCs should not be equipped with crafted anti-PC spell lists. In the particular case of a cleric lich with vampire sorceror bodyguard, that argument is not so strong with respect to low level (1st to 3rd level) spells, at least.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Lemme paint a scene for you. The BBEG lich death cleric, and his two lieutenants a large undead EK and a vampire sorcerer are trouncing the adventurers while their horde of zombies mucks up the field of battle. The fight has raged on, BBEG has tossed out cloudkills other spells to brutal effect while his Lts are just nuking people, currently the party is in bad... bad shape, and nearly out of resources. One is already outright dead while half the others are unconcious and the other half all bloodied and near dead themselves. And The BBEG just cast spirit guardians, again. We're all going to die. This is the end unless. wait.

The paladin goes next! He saunters up to him, eats the guardians damage like a boss and drops to 8 hp remaining. But then rolls a nat 20 on his glaive. Everyone cheers. He even says "This is the moment every paladin dreams of" and rolls his 2nd level slot crit smite damage. The damage rolls pretty high and is going to deal roughly 70 points to this undead boss. This much damage will for sure break his concentration, there might be a chance left! The cheers from the players subsides and the dm says "roll another d20 for me" player, uncertain why, rolls an 8. DM: "okay, the vampire sorceress casts silvery barbs, you miss."

The mood did not recover after this turn at the table.

FWIW none of the player even have this spell, some didn't even know it existed.

So the DM threw a poorly balanced encounter at the party, and choose to give a villain disruption spells without telegraphing it, AND triggered the silvery barbs after the Paladin had already added smite….

Nothing about this sounds like a silvery barbs problem, everything about this sounds like a DM problem.

I mean, the DM could have made one of the hench casters a divination wizard to the same outcome… or used the lucky feat… or a number of alternatives to silvery barbs.

Moments like this do happen, even from something as simple as forgetting you had disadvantage.

[Kane0]

So the DM threw a poorly balanced encounter at the party, and choose to give a villain disruption spells without telegraphing it, AND triggered the silvery barbs after the Paladin had already added smite….

Nothing about this sounds like a silvery barbs problem, everything about this sounds like a DM problem.

I mean, the DM could have made one of the hench casters a divination wizard to the same outcome… or used the lucky feat… or a number of alternatives to silvery barbs.

Moments like this do happen, even from something as simple as forgetting you had disadvantage.

How about this then: Party of four level 5 characters tasked with clearing out a den of cultists (led by a 'necromancer') plus any undead they have raised to cause trouble with.

Encounter 1: 2x Minotaur Skeleton, 1x Cult Fanatic
Encounter 2: 4x Ghoul, 2x Acolyte
Short rest
Encounter 3: 8x Zombie, 2x Cult Fanatic, 2x Skeleton (archer)
Encounter 4: 4x Specter
Short rest
Encounter 5: 2x Wight, 1x Illusionist

The only difference from the standard statblocks is the spell selection:
Cult Fanatics swap Inflict Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Acolytes swap Cure Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Illusionist swaps Sleep for Silvery Barbs

The party has access to anything they like; Barbs, Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell, whatever else they want to add on top like a Lucky Halfling Diviner Wizard and a Lucky Halfling Lore Bard. The NPCs do not have any such luxuries, only Silvery Barbs.

The point I want to get across here is that you can perform the exact same experiment, swapping those Silvery Barbs NPCs to using Shield or Absorb Elements or any other 1st level spell instead and you will find that Barbs is just way more broadly applicable and useful, especially since the PC party are four wildcards. It's really, really strong and costs you very, very little.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

How about this then: Party of four level 5 characters tasked with clearing out a den of cultists (led by a 'necromancer') plus any undead they have raised to cause trouble with.

Encounter 1: 2x Minotaur Skeleton, 1x Cult Fanatic
Encounter 2: 4x Ghoul, 2x Acolyte
Short rest
Encounter 3: 8x Zombie, 2x Cult Fanatic, 2x Skeleton (archer)
Encounter 4: 4x Specter
Short rest
Encounter 5: 2x Wight, 1x Illusionist

The only difference from the standard statblocks is the spell selection:
Cult Fanatics swap Inflict Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Acolytes swap Cure Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Illusionist swaps Sleep for Silvery Barbs

The party has access to anything they like; Barbs, Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell, whatever else they want to add on top like a Lucky Halfling Diviner Wizard and a Lucky Halfling Lore Bard. The NPCs do not have any such luxuries, only Silvery Barbs.

The point I want to get across here is that you can perform the exact same experiment, swapping those Silvery Barbs NPCs to using Shield or Absorb Elements or any other 1st level spell instead and you will find that Barbs is just way more broadly applicable and useful, especially since the PC party are four wildcards. It's really, really strong and costs you very, very little.


So you’re giving a divine caster (the Fanatic) an arcane spell.

Then two divine casters (the acolytes) and another two (the fanatics) an arcane spell.

Then you’re giving an Illusionist an enchantment spell.

In a “Necromancer’s Lair”….

See, I’m just hearing “bad DM who is home brewing disruption abilities into situations they don’t belong”

You maybe should have made your white box a mage’s college or a thieves guild of arcane tricksters and bards. This information tells the party to expect disruptions and tricks, and allows them to plan for them (though I dare say giving every single caster the spell is bad design as well)

Your objections don’t really work if only the illusionist has it, for some reason. And the same objections could be raised if every acolyte and fanatic had the shield spell, because it’s bad design.

[Segev]

I am not even positive that the objection works as written. Okay, they have a lot of silvery barbs, to the point it comes up pretty much every fight. Maybe the necromancer lich is "Barbara the Silver." You've asserted that this is somehow a problem, claiming silvery barbs is "more broadly applicable" than a short list of other spells, but you have not actually shown it to be a problem.

I could make exactly the same argument you're making, just replace silvery barbs with magic missile. That spell is extremely broadly applicable in the context of "a combat we're going to be having."

My point here being: you need to demonstrate that silvery barbs coming up that often is going to be the problem you claim it is. As-is, all I see is assertion, not demonstration nor proof.

[Snails]

My point here being: you need to demonstrate that silvery barbs coming up that often is going to be the problem you claim it is. As-is, all I see is assertion, not demonstration nor proof.

I respect that you have a degree of skepticism without a more concrete argument.

We are looking at the possibility of a real change to the fundamental play experience of the game. Nearly every time an enemy or PC succeeds at a roll, we have the potential for "Oh, wait a moment. Do-over!"

Now, I am not anticipating wall-to-wall combatants with Barbs, no. But it only takes 2 per side to change the dynamics of the game greatly. Bye-bye Critical Hits. Got lucky enough to roll high on a weak save? Nope!

When you play Tier 3+, you have to accept that Counterspell is a thing and be prepared to deal with it. But Barbs as written is just a 1st level spell, and in Tier 3+ even a few of the mooks can have 1st level magic.

I am not particularly concerned about the renowned Barbara the Silver having Barbs, as it is a unique magically powerful enemy that could easily have similarly potent defensive reactions on par with Counterspell (in spite of this one being a cleric who usually does not have access).

IMNSHO it would be Not Fun to have 2-3 enemies with Barbs nearly every combat. And I think this would be Not Fun in a way that is more far reaching than facing Counterspell virtually every combat. At least if you are chucking Fireballs or Forcecage, you do not have to be within 60 feet. But the frontliners are going to be, um, in front and they will feel the effects all the time. Most likely.

[JNAProductions]

I respect that your have a degree of skepticism without a more concrete argument. But we are looking at the possibility of a real change to the fundamental play experience of the game. Nearly every time an enemy or PC succeeds at a roll, we have the potential for "Oh, wait a moment. Do-over!"

Now, I am not anticipating wall-to-wall combatants with Barbs, no. But it only takes 2 per side to change the dynamics of the game greatly. Bye-bye Critical Hits. Got lucky enough to roll high on a weak save? Nope!

When you play Tier 3+, you have to accept that Counterspell is a thing and be prepared to deal with it. But Barbs as written is just a 1st level spell, and in Tier 3+ even a few of the mooks can have 1st level magic.

I am not particularly concerned about the renowned Barbara the Silver having Barbs, as it is a unique magically powerful enemy that could easily have similarly potent defensive reactions on par with Counterspell (in spite of this one being a cleric who usually does not have access).

IMNSHO it would be Not Fun to have 2-3 enemies with Barbs nearly every combat. And I think this would be Not Fun in a way that is more far reaching than facing Counterspell virtually every combat. At least if you are chucking Fireballs or Forcecage, you do not have to be within 60 feet. But the frontliners are going to be, um, in front and they will feel the effects all the time. Most likely.

You do realize that literally nothing stopped a DM from giving every enemy an ability that lets them, as a reaction, force a reroll on any die rolled anywhere within their line of sight, even before Barbs came out?

And that there is no monster or NPC to my knowledge that has this spell on their list? If any do, I'd assume they're in the Strixhaven book-so, to anyone who's got access to the book right now, can you let me know how many monsters or NPCs have Slivery Barbs in that book?

You're effectively saying "The DM can make all enemies super annoying by changing how they work!" And that is true-but also not any different from BEFORE this book came out.

And to address the argument that "Any 1st level spell should be equivalent to any other 1st level spell," that should be true for the PCs, in broad strokes and in general. It's not a 100% hard and fast rule-Sleep is great at low levels, bad at high levels. Shield is the opposite. But for an NPC? Who generally are only supposed to last one encounter, and come in fully loaded with slots in most cases... Shield is much better than Mage Armor-they're down a slot either way, but one round of +5 AC is much better than all day of +3 AC, since their entire day is something like three rounds. For a PC? That calculus is entirely different.

[Snails]

You do realize that literally nothing stopped a DM from giving every enemy an ability that lets them, as a reaction, force a reroll on any die rolled anywhere within their line of sight, even before Barbs came out?


{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

So, a friend of mine just checked Strixhaven, and found zero NPCs or monsters who have Slivery Barbs as a spell known/prepared.

That's good to know.

[tokek]

How about this then: Party of four level 5 characters tasked with clearing out a den of cultists (led by a 'necromancer') plus any undead they have raised to cause trouble with.

(Snip for brevity)

The only difference from the standard statblocks is the spell selection:
Cult Fanatics swap Inflict Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Acolytes swap Cure Wounds for Silvery Barbs
Illusionist swaps Sleep for Silvery Barbs

The party has access to anything they like; Barbs, Shield, Absorb Elements, Counterspell, whatever else they want to add on top like a Lucky Halfling Diviner Wizard and a Lucky Halfling Lore Bard. The NPCs do not have any such luxuries, only Silvery Barbs.

The point I want to get across here is that you can perform the exact same experiment, swapping those Silvery Barbs NPCs to using Shield or Absorb Elements or any other 1st level spell instead and you will find that Barbs is just way more broadly applicable and useful, especially since the PC party are four wildcards. It's really, really strong and costs you very, very little.

Previously you could have given every caster Counterspell and/or Hellish Rebuke - except for the frontline ones who you might give Shield instead. Same thing will happen, it will be incredibly annoying and far more dangerous.

Anything you do to make it more likely that monsters will burn through all their spell slots before they go down makes them that much more dangerous. That includes giving them all Reaction spells or house-ruling to allow BA levelled spells with Action levelled spells and then putting out casters with BA spells. I've seen near-TPK (massive character death) happen because a DM did not understand this fact.

Actually the more this conversation goes on the more strongly I support the current move by the designers away from spells and slots on monsters in favour of giving them "magical" attacks. The fact is that the spell + slot approach will always be vulnerable to under or over powering the monsters with a few "harmless" tweaks like swapping the spells.

[Kane0]

See, I’m just hearing “bad DM who is home brewing disruption abilities into situations they don’t belong”

You maybe should have made your white box a mage’s college or a thieves guild of arcane tricksters and bards. This information tells the party to expect disruptions and tricks, and allows them to plan for them (though I dare say giving every single caster the spell is bad design as well)

Your objections don’t really work if only the illusionist has it, for some reason. And the same objections could be raised if every acolyte and fanatic had the shield spell, because it’s bad design.

You're free to use your own example, I would still call barbs too good for a 1st level spell as it currently is.



My point here being: you need to demonstrate that silvery barbs coming up that often is going to be the problem you claim it is. As-is, all I see is assertion, not demonstration nor proof.



I think of barbs a little bit like I think of Haste.

Is Haste the best movement spell? Possibly, but there is also zephyr strike, longstrider, fly, find steed/phantom steed and all manner of teleports
Is haste the best defensive spell? No, there is shield, shield of faith, protection from good/evil, mirror Image and all manner of vision blockers and walls
Is Haste the best attack buff? No, there is bless, magic weapon, hex/hunter's mark, swift quiver, elemental weapon, shadow blade, and so on.
Is Haste the best action economy enhancer? Quite possibly, but there is also contingency, glyph of warding, expeditious Retreat, simulacrum, find familiar and all manner of summons.

Haste isn't a great spell because its excellent at any one thing, it's a great spell because it's good at a lot of things. It gives you a bundle of pretty good buffs at a cost, but (IMO) its true value lies in its breadth of utility. Many casters have to select their spells known/prepared carefully, and Haste is an awesome pick because it can do a lot of different things well if not the best, even with the associated costs (3rd level slots are heavily contended, you only have one concentration and losing a turn is a significant risk). Its subtle and difficult to measure, but cannot be denied.

Barbs takes this and dials it up to eleven. For a 1st level spell and your reaction, nigh any d20 roll within 60 feet becomes subject to your approval. You can use it on crits against you or an ally, you can use it on an enemy save, you can use it on an ally's grapple or counterspell or check against illusion, and so on. It also stacks and compounds any modifications to the roll like bless/bane, bardic inspiration/cutting words, fighting styles, feats, class abilities, other spells and even allies that also have barbs. There is no avoiding the effect via a saving throw, only the typical 'you can see' clause. There is no additional cost or risk to using barbs at all. And as a cherry on top of it all whether it even works or not you can then hand out advantage on another nigh any d20 roll to an ally (including yourself) within one minute, ensuring that your reaction and spell slot is not wasted even if the new roll still succeeds.

Silvery Barbs might not be strictly better than Shield at protecting yourself, but it definitely is comparable plus is also great at protecting others, and buffing yourself, and buffing others in a multitude of ways. If Shield is already considered one of the best 1st level spells in the game (especially after Tier 1 when those 1st level slots aren't also competing with as many of your other spells) then it rings an alarm bell to me that Barbs can do comparably in Shields sole function plus a bunch more.

And this isn't taking into account the little influences at the game table too. You know how some tables like to have a little pause to see if anyone wants to counterspell? That might now happen to most if not all d20 rolls, and folks who usually roll in secret or out in the open might change their mind due to seeing this spell in play. Now imagine that sort of thing for online play, it could potentially slow the game to a crawl.


I'd be happy for barbs to be a 2nd level spell really, a more comfortable point for a reaction spell that covers attacks, checks and saves plus the followup advantage in between shield/absorb elements and counterspell.

Page one.


You do realize that literally nothing stopped a DM from giving every enemy an ability that lets them, as a reaction, force a reroll on any die rolled anywhere within their line of sight, even before Barbs came out?

And that there is no monster or NPC to my knowledge that has this spell on their list? If any do, I'd assume they're in the Strixhaven book-so, to anyone who's got access to the book right now, can you let me know how many monsters or NPCs have Slivery Barbs in that book??

Sure they could, so why haven't we heard of it happening like that very often? Was there an official way to do it before now? Could it be because its a bad idea? Now that Barbs exists, do you think it's much more likely to happen, and is that good or bad?

Nothing uses Silvery Barbs in the book it was released in? That sounds like a bad omen.



Previously you could have given every caster Counterspell and/or Hellish Rebuke - except for the frontline ones who you might give Shield instead. Same thing will happen, it will be incredibly annoying and far more dangerous.

Anything you do to make it more likely that monsters will burn through all their spell slots before they go down makes them that much more dangerous. That includes giving them all Reaction spells or house-ruling to allow BA levelled spells with Action levelled spells and then putting out casters with BA spells. I've seen near-TPK (massive character death) happen because a DM did not understand this fact.

Actually the more this conversation goes on the more strongly I support the current move by the designers away from spells and slots on monsters in favour of giving them "magical" attacks. The fact is that the spell + slot approach will always be vulnerable to under or over powering the monsters with a few "harmless" tweaks like swapping the spells.

True, any way to let an NPC use more of their spells before they expire will make them more potent. My point was that Barbs was one of the best if not the best option to give that will always be useful regardless of circumstances. Shield won't work against casters using save spells. Absorb Elements won't work on martials attacking with weapons. Most other 1st level spells use your action and need you to hit or the enemy to save, neither are really in the NPCs favor due to their lower CR.
Counterspell is a 3rd level spell. If Barbs is being compared to Counterspell as relatively equal with a disparity of 2 spell levels, again I see that as a red flag.
Hellish Rebuke is a good comparison. It's a modest amount of Fire damage that offers a save for half and triggers specifically on you being damaged. More caveats and workarounds than Barbs, and not usable outside of combat nor gives a boost to an ally as a secondary benefit.

[Corran]

I like it. I think it's going to get spammed a lot for the fun of the moment, and I am guessing it will feel a lot more valuable than it actually is a lot of the time (much like shield in that respect), but there will be times where it will trully make a difference. So if resource management is a thing in a campaign, then I like what this spell is doing. Cause you'll have to know when to use it and when not to. And to do that you'll need to know on what you cannot aford to fail and on what you cannot afford your enemy to succeed. So you need to think of things beforehand or just a sharpened instinct. Bottom line, I think it's a spell that will be used better when you put the tiniest bit of thought in things, assuming resourse management is a problem, and/or it can help keep someone focused in the game so that they dont miss any important opportunities. For these reasons I'd like it even more if it was a 2nd level spell as others have said it should be, though IME (and maybe that's just my experience), 1st level slots can be so spammable compared to 2nd level ones, that I think it doesn't really matter after a point (ie it being a 2nd lvl spell instead of a 1st lvl spell), if you are playing with slots that is.

[tokek]

True, any way to let an NPC use more of their spells before they expire will make them more potent. My point was that Barbs was one of the best if not the best option to give that will always be useful regardless of circumstances. Shield won't work against casters using save spells. Absorb Elements won't work on martials attacking with weapons. Most other 1st level spells use your action

Its telling that you say Shield won't stop save spells. Nor will Silvery Barbs, you cannot use it to reroll failed saves. But Shield combined with Shield of Faith would put those cult fanatics on AC20 for the whole of a typical combat, leaving your martials swinging at thin air. most of the time I'm certain those 5th level martials would much rather swing at AC15 with the chance that one of them has to reroll one of their attacks each round.

Its dice maths, Shield is far more crippling to the damage output than Silvery Barbs - except against those save spells where both are useless.

I come back to my core point, adding Reaction spells onto stat blocks changes their action economy to be far more dangerous and if you go round doing that you are risking breaking your game by TPK. Yes Silvery Barbs is just such a Reaction spell but its only situationally better than the other Reaction spells that have been available all along and DMs nearly all had the good sense not to mess with the spell lists to add those spells onto all their monsters and NPCs.

This is a huge issue on monsters because the story does not follow the monsters, nobody cares if the monsters have any spell slots left later in the day for some other encounter so typically they never hold back. We do follow the story of the PCs however so the players need to worry about conserving resources for later encounters or that were expended in earlier encounters. An increased ability to nova on PCs should be a bit of a trap, a gamble at the very least. There is however no downside whatever to going nova for a monster.

[Amnestic]

Nor will Silvery Barbs, you cannot use it to reroll failed saves

No, but it can give you advantage to stop the save failing in the first place, and advantage on Int/Wis/Cha saving throws isn't that easy to get as a PC. You can get it, but such an advantage isn't broadly accessible usually.

[Kane0]

Its telling that you say Shield won't stop save spells. Nor will Silvery Barbs, you cannot use it to reroll failed saves. But Shield combined with Shield of Faith would put those cult fanatics on AC20 for the whole of a typical combat, leaving your martials swinging at thin air. most of the time I'm certain those 5th level martials would much rather swing at AC15 with the chance that one of them has to reroll one of their attacks each round.

Its dice maths, Shield is far more crippling to the damage output than Silvery Barbs - except against those save spells where both are useless.

Yes, Barbs isn't as good as Shield at Shield's job. However it can perform the same job (not as well, I have never claimed otherwise), plus offers some protection against crits where Shield doesn't, plus all those other things that Barbs can do that Shield cannot (which I feel some comparing to Shield seem to be ignoring). And that 'all the other stuff' is exactly why I think it's too good compared to shield and other 1st level spells.



I come back to my core point, adding Reaction spells onto stat blocks changes their action economy to be far more dangerous and if you go round doing that you are risking breaking your game by TPK. Yes Silvery Barbs is just such a Reaction spell but its only situationally better than the other Reaction spells that have been available all along and DMs nearly all had the good sense not to mess with the spell lists to add those spells onto all their monsters and NPCs.

This is a huge issue on monsters because the story does not follow the monsters, nobody cares if the monsters have any spell slots left later in the day for some other encounter so typically they never hold back. We do follow the story of the PCs however so the players need to worry about conserving resources for later encounters or that were expended in earlier encounters. An increased ability to nova on PCs should be a bit of a trap, a gamble at the very least. There is however no downside whatever to going nova for a monster.


Like I said: True, any way to let an NPC use more of their spells before they expire will make them more potent.
But that is not the same argument I am making about Silvery Barbs being too good as it is currently written and should either be a higher spell level or have some of its capabilities removed.
When you say only situationally better than other reaction spells, what are those situations? Because to me I wouldn't categorize the reaction trigger as situational, but the outcome of that successful roll could be.

[JNAProductions]

Would you rather have a general tool that's pretty good at a lot of stuff, or a specific tool that's amazing at its job and useless for other things?

Regardless of how you answer, are you capable of accepting that other people will value it differently?

[Kane0]

Would you rather have a general tool that's pretty good at a lot of stuff, or a specific tool that's amazing at its job and useless for other things?

Regardless of how you answer, are you capable of accepting that other people will value it differently?

In general, the first. However D&D casters often get the best of both worlds.

Absolutely. I'm at peace that I likely won't change minds, and Barbs won't break the game or hold it hostage on its own.
But I think Barbs is one of those instances of 'shifting the meta', and although only time will tell I don't like the vibe it's giving me of things to come.

[MrStabby]

No, but it can give you advantage to stop the save failing in the first place, and advantage on Int/Wis/Cha saving throws isn't that easy to get as a PC. You can get it, but such an advantage isn't broadly accessible usually.

Also... not advantage from Silvery Barbs. This lets it stack with advantage/disadvantage to give a pick of three dice.

[Kane0]

Also... not advantage from Silvery Barbs. This lets it stack with advantage/disadvantage to give a pick of three dice.
Amestic is likely referring to the second paragraph:

'You can then choose a different creature you can see within range (you can choose yourself). The chosen creature has advantage on the next attack roll, ability check, or saving throw it makes within 1 minute. A creature can be empowered by only one use of this spell at a time.'

[MrStabby]

Amestic is likely referring to the second paragraph:

'You can then choose a different creature you can see within range (you can choose yourself). The chosen creature has advantage on the next attack roll, ability check, or saving throw it makes within 1 minute. A creature can be empowered by only one use of this spell at a time.'

Ah, right. That makes sense. In retrospect this was the obvious interpretation.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Does it matter? The PCs might have been rolling poorly or the enemies rather well. The sorc might have been conserving spell slots or saving reactions for something else. Is the DM using the optional Xans rule where the PCs dont even know the spell unless they use their reaction to figure it out?

And offensive vs defensive CR absolutely, but isnt the whole idea of splitting spells into spell levels that each spell level is roughly equivalent? If any one spell was such a strong outlier (so strong or so weak) that is necessitates a recalculation i would call that spell OP or UP.

No.

They’’re meant to balance a PCs ability to swap out spells, alongside the idea that they have to conserve their resources for the next encounter/have expended resources from a previous encounter.

NPCs are not designed that way, they are assumed to have all resources available, and have no incentive not to use them; they won’t need them later that day.

NPCs need to be viewed through both the lens of action economy and encounter balance.

It’s incorrect to view an NPC’s balance as the same as a PC’s. They are intentionally different designs. I would be shocked if we ever saw a silvery barbs NPC below CR 5, if there ever will be one. None exist presently, so the concern being expressed here is a hypothetical or a homebrewed one.

And a concern that divination wizards have presented since the PHB, yet that hasn’t broken the game.

[tokek]

Yes, Barbs isn't as good as Shield at Shield's job. However it can perform the same job (not as well, I have never claimed otherwise), plus offers some protection against crits where Shield doesn't, plus all those other things that Barbs can do that Shield cannot (which I feel some comparing to Shield seem to be ignoring). And that 'all the other stuff' is exactly why I think it's too good compared to shield and other 1st level spells.



Like I said: True, any way to let an NPC use more of their spells before they expire will make them more potent.
But that is not the same argument I am making about Silvery Barbs being too good as it is currently written and should either be a higher spell level or have some of its capabilities removed.
When you say only situationally better than other reaction spells, what are those situations? Because to me I wouldn't categorize the reaction trigger as situational, but the outcome of that successful roll could be.

Shield's job is at the core of the game - survive against monsters that are a bucket of HP with Multi-attack or against mobs of monsters. That is by far the most common form of monster you are going to meet at most levels of the game and Shield is supreme at defending against it. Its a meta-defining spell - most gish builds would become instantly sub-optimal if you took Shield spell out of the game.

Silvery Barbs is flat out mathematically inferior to Shield against this very common type of problem, what in my experience is the most common type of combat challenge for parties. So Silvery Barbs is relegated to less common situations or for use on a character who can somehow be kept safe from direct attack so they have no use for Shield spell.

I'm playing a sorcerer who took Silvery Barbs instead of Shield and I know its a sub-optimal choice unless the rest of the party can be his shield. That's the point, I'm giving myself a challenge that has a payback. Because the payback is very real, if that sorcerer can keep clear of trouble he can provide party significant support that Shield spell never could, on a support/control themed caster it fits the theme perfectly and is potentially powerful. So far that has been working out around 50/50 - in half the combats the enemy have got to him and the lack of shield spell has really hurt.

I'm sticking to my opinion that the level 1 reaction spells are all incredibly good but that Shield remains the champion of them all. I'm quite open to the idea that Silvery Barbs now takes the 2nd place slot away from Absorb Elements.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Shield's job is at the core of the game - survive against monsters that are a bucket of HP with Multi-attack or against mobs of monsters. That is by far the most common form of monster you are going to meet at most levels of the game and Shield is supreme at defending against it. Its a meta-defining spell - most gish builds would become instantly sub-optimal if you took Shield spell out of the game.

Silvery Barbs is flat out mathematically inferior to Shield against this very common type of problem, what in my experience is the most common type of combat challenge for parties. So Silvery Barbs is relegated to less common situations or for use on a character who can somehow be kept safe from direct attack so they have no use for Shield spell.

I'm playing a sorcerer who took Silvery Barbs instead of Shield and I know its a sub-optimal choice unless the rest of the party can be his shield. That's the point, I'm giving myself a challenge that has a payback. Because the payback is very real, if that sorcerer can keep clear of trouble he can provide party significant support that Shield spell never could, on a support/control themed caster it fits the theme perfectly and is potentially powerful. So far that has been working out around 50/50 - in half the combats the enemy have got to him and the lack of shield spell has really hurt.

I'm sticking to my opinion that the level 1 reaction spells are all incredibly good but that Shield remains the champion of them all. I'm quite open to the idea that Silvery Barbs now takes the 2nd place slot away from Absorb Elements.

When you say 'most gish builds would become instantly sub-optimal' without Shield I have to ask a few questions:
1) At what levels are you referring to?
2) How many encounters per day would those characters be subjected to?
3) And are those 'gish' builds mostly full spellcasters?

I ask this because on a 6-8 encounter day it's pretty easy to hit 20 rounds of combat + the odd spell used for utility, exploration or interaction. The best full class gish is a Paladin who is a half caster and by the mid point of the game has 4 first level spells and 9 total. The best, most efficient use of a 1st level slot for that character is Bless, and it's not even close. Blowing off reaction spells is still just unsustainable for this character.

[tokek]

I ask this because on a 6-8 encounter day it's pretty easy to hit 20 rounds of combat + the odd spell used for utility, exploration or interaction. The best full class gish is a Paladin who is a half caster and by the mid point of the game has 4 first level spells and 9 total. The best, most efficient use of a 1st level slot for that character is Bless, and it's not even close. Blowing off reaction spells is still just unsustainable for this character.

The whole thread about Silvery Barbs being super-powerful is really about games where spell slots cease to be in short supply in tier-2 and it can be thrown around fairly freely. My point is that this is true of other reaction spells and that in many cases (in my experience most cases) Shield is actually still better. If your game is structured so long rest casters constantly run out of spell slots then this whole thread is really not very relevant to your game and Silvery Barbs is absolutely not a problem in that game.

[Isaire]

I feel like this (shield vs barbs) really depends on your level of optimization. In my group, the gnome wizard always has shield prepared, but it's quite rare at level 12 that shield actually boosts his AC over what an attacker rolls. Silvery barbs would not help his defences either - but it could negate a lethal crit, and it boosts his offensive potential significantly.

On my eldritch knight, shield is of course great, and I also have warcaster + blade cantrips for further reaction use - so silvery barbs much less useful to me, unless I know the whole party was going to build a strategy around it.

[tokek]

I feel like this (shield vs barbs) really depends on your level of optimization. In my group, the gnome wizard always has shield prepared, but it's quite rare at level 12 that shield actually boosts his AC over what an attacker rolls. Silvery barbs would not help his defences either - but it could negate a lethal crit, and it boosts his offensive potential significantly.

On my eldritch knight, shield is of course great, and I also have warcaster + blade cantrips for further reaction use - so silvery barbs much less useful to me, unless I know the whole party was going to build a strategy around it.

Another part of the discussion is of course around negating critical hits. If you play in a group where the DM announces critical hits then a number of possible PC forced reroll abilities (Rune Knights, Chronurgy mages, anyone with Lucky Feat, now Silvery Barbs) have a lot more impact than if the DM does not announce them.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The whole thread about Silvery Barbs being super-powerful is really about games where spell slots cease to be in short supply in tier-2 and it can be thrown around fairly freely. My point is that this is true of other reaction spells and that in many cases (in my experience most cases) Shield is actually still better. If your game is structured so long rest casters constantly run out of spell slots then this whole thread is really not very relevant to your game and Silvery Barbs is absolutely not a problem in that game.

Some of the thread, yes. So if that's the context of your comment then fair enough. That's why I asked.

[MrStabby]

The whole thread about Silvery Barbs being super-powerful is really about games where spell slots cease to be in short supply in tier-2 and it can be thrown around fairly freely. My point is that this is true of other reaction spells and that in many cases (in my experience most cases) Shield is actually still better. If your game is structured so long rest casters constantly run out of spell slots then this whole thread is really not very relevant to your game and Silvery Barbs is absolutely not a problem in that game.

Whilst much of the discussion hinges around resource managment, it is really from both sides.

To get two shots at banishment on a bad guy takes two castings of banishment without silvery barbs. That's two level 4 spell slots. With silvery barbs its a level 4 spell slot and a level 1 spell slot. If they have magic resistance then you get 3 attempts not just two for that investment. In a resource constrained game, I know which of these is easier to manage.

[tokek]

Whilst much of the discussion hinges around resource managment, it is really from both sides.

To get two shots at banishment on a bad guy takes two castings of banishment without silvery barbs. That's two level 4 spell slots. With silvery barbs its a level 4 spell slot and a level 1 spell slot. If they have magic resistance then you get 3 attempts not just two for that investment. In a resource constrained game, I know which of these is easier to manage.

That is great against Fiends, typically. I think Banishment is supposed to be good against Fiends. Other creature types at this level are highly likely to have legendary resistance.

Which was how I entered this discussion - that the save or suck strategy may not be worth investing heavily in when the answer to it is in the game and becomes pretty common at the top end of tier 2. Unless you can be assured of Aracana knowledge informing your character (or are metagaming) I'd say the save or suck strategy is a crap shoot at the levels where you have Banishment. But of course every campaign is different and what has been true in my games may not be true in yours.

[Captain Panda]

I ask this because on a 6-8 encounter day it's pretty easy to hit 20 rounds of combat + the odd spell used for utility, exploration or interaction. The best full class gish is a Paladin who is a half caster and by the mid point of the game has 4 first level spells and 9 total. The best, most efficient use of a 1st level slot for that character is Bless, and it's not even close. Blowing off reaction spells is still just unsustainable for this character.

Paladins aren't a gish, at least not in my judgment. A gish build is something like the sorcadin, which would have substantially more spell slots to use.

Also, in a 6-8 encounter day, both Shield and Silvery Barbs are going to be strained. Shield is still way better because it provides value for a round, not one or two rolls. Shield is still the better spell in most fights, most of the time, for most builds.

Also, real talk. 6-8 encounters is something that very, very few tables actually do.

[Captain Panda]

To get two shots at banishment on a bad guy takes two castings of banishment without silvery barbs. That's two level 4 spell slots. With silvery barbs its a level 4 spell slot and a level 1 spell slot. If they have magic resistance then you get 3 attempts not just two for that investment. In a resource constrained game, I know which of these is easier to manage.

Ew. Why are people so insistent on wasting 4th level slots of banishment? Unless it's extraplanar and just deleting something, pick a better spell.

[Yakk]

Ew. Why are people so insistent on wasting 4th level slots of banishment? Unless it's extraplanar and just deleting something, pick a better spell.
If roughly half of the threat of an encounter is one creature, suspending it until the rest of the fight finishes makes the fight 3x easier. And that is before the ready action trap when it ends; wait for their turn to end, everyone has an action ready for it to reappear, drop concentration, everyone gets 2 actions before it gets to go.

Hold monster is better, but not that much. 2 full rounds of damage output is pretty darn good for one wisdom save.

[MrStabby]

Ew. Why are people so insistent on wasting 4th level slots of banishment? Unless it's extraplanar and just deleting something, pick a better spell.

Its just an example of a spell that only requires a single save that isn't repeated, comes online at low enough levels that people won't dismiss it as not coming up in most games, is available to multiple classes and that fills a niche such that it might get played. The fact that it is awesome on things like fiends where you probably get an extra die with silvery barbs is just a nice bonus.

I feel that whatever example spell I picked someone would find issue with it - hold person (what if they are not humanoid?), fear (what if they are immune?), force cage (but they can try and teleport out again next turn!).

[Captain Panda]

I feel that whatever example spell I picked someone would find issue with it - hold person (what if they are not humanoid?), fear (what if they are immune?), force cage (but they can try and teleport out again next turn!).

You know what? Fair. All spells have their weaknesses.

That said, in the case of Banishment (or any save), it's the main thrust spell that is doing the heavy lift, not necessarily Silvery Barbs, which might help you save a 4th level slot from fizzling... or it might make the save again and then you dumped more action economy and slots into a pit.


If roughly half of the threat of an encounter is one creature, suspending it until the rest of the fight finishes makes the fight 3x easier. And that is before the ready action trap when it ends; wait for their turn to end, everyone has an action ready for it to reappear, drop concentration, everyone gets 2 actions before it gets to go.

Hold monster is better, but not that much. 2 full rounds of damage output is pretty darn good for one wisdom save.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter allows a save, but it's a similar effect of removing a single target for a first level slot. At 3rd or 4th level, removing a creature harmlessly from battle is a very weak impact. Especially since most things strong enough that they merit that spell slot to remove them probably have legendary resistance.

[Kane0]

I feel that whatever example spell I picked someone would find issue with it - hold person (what if they are not humanoid?), fear (what if they are immune?), force cage (but they can try and teleport out again next turn!).

Like some sort of reverse schrodinger mage. Maybe levitate or phantasmal force?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Its just an example of a spell that only requires a single save that isn't repeated, comes online at low enough levels that people won't dismiss it as not coming up in most games, is available to multiple classes and that fills a niche such that it might get played. The fact that it is awesome on things like fiends where you probably get an extra die with silvery barbs is just a nice bonus.

I feel that whatever example spell I picked someone would find issue with it - hold person (what if they are not humanoid?), fear (what if they are immune?), force cage (but they can try and teleport out again next turn!).

For the record Banishment has come up a lot at our table, maybe because we've gone up against a lot of fiends. I think it's a solid spell.

Edit: I just looked through the Cleric and Paladin 4th level lists, and I can't say there's a single spell there that is better in most situations for normal daily use. Yes there are a couple of Auras that might be better if you know what you're getting attacked with, and clearly a Flying Steed is better until you've got it. So I'm standing by it: at least for Clerics and Paladins, Banishment would be memorized most days by most players.

[Captain Panda]

For the record Banishment has come up a lot at our table, maybe because we've gone up against a lot of fiends. I think it's a solid spell.

Edit: I just looked through the Cleric and Paladin 4th level lists, and I can't say there's a single spell there that is better in most situations for normal daily use.

That's a fair point. I was thinking of the spell in comparison to the wizard and druid lists. If you have a less stacked list, it's a more appealing spell. Since they don't get it, it doesn't come up for druids, but for wizards? Bad choice of a spell compared to the competition (unless against extraplanar enemies). It could be solid for a cleric, their list is kind of anemic.

[Kane0]

That's a fair point. I was thinking of the spell in comparison to the wizard and druid lists. If you have a less stacked list, it's a more appealing spell. Since they don't get it, it doesn't come up for druids, but for wizards? Bad choice of a spell compared to the competition (unless against extraplanar enemies). It could be solid for a cleric, their list is kind of anemic.
Aw it aint that bad. Could be elemental bane or blight or phantasmal killer

[Hael]

If your game is structured so long rest casters constantly run out of spell slots then this whole thread is really not very relevant to your game and Silvery Barbs is absolutely not a problem in that game.

I would say its not that relevant if there is only one spellcaster in the party and in addition that spellcaster has to have slots for counterspell, as well as possibly tanking and further that resource use is going to be strained to the hilt. So maybe like an eg abjuration wizard or bladesinger who would absolutely need to burn shield/AE/counterspell etc

However if theres a good amount of spellcasters present, its one of the worlds best support spells that really removes a big amount of party wide risk.

[Elves]

The shield comparison seems beside the point, the question is barbs on its own terms. If you use barbs to make a foe roll again vs. a higher-level spell effect, you're effectively using a 1st level slot to cast a higher-level spell, except even better because you get to cast it as a reaction instead of an action. That seems inherently imbalanced.

[Captain Panda]

you're effectively using a 1st level slot to cast a higher-level spell, except even better because you get to cast it as a reaction instead of an action. That seems inherently imbalanced.

That's a pretty silly characterization of the spell and it's value, in my opinion. If you use a 9th level spell slot on a single target, and it makes the save (but doesn't have legendary resistance), and you use Silvery Barbs to make it reroll, that doesn't mean Silvery Barbs has the value of the 9th level slot. Let's ignore (for a moment) that the higher level spell slot you're dealing with the worse an idea it is to do a "saving throw or nothing happens" against a single creature. The lift is being done by the primary spell, all Silvery Barbs does is increase the chance it will stick. This is an effect that is found in quite a few other features.

You can always exaggerate an ability's effectiveness by hyper-focusing on its absolute best use-case and act as though that is the norm. Imagine you have fifty creatures shooting arrows at you, none crit, but half of them hit! But wait! Shield turns all of those hits into misses! How broken! Or imagine a boss is using Power Word: Kill (terrible spell) and is going to kill your buddy, but you throw out Counterspell, make the check, and the spell does nothing! How broken! Imagine you're level 3 and you are up against a 20x20 shambling mound of zombies, oh no! That's 16 zombies! But you cast web, they all fail the saving throw, and now they can't do anything to you. You can do this with pretty much any spell that is good. Shadow Sorcerers get Hound of Ill Omen and that can force fifty rounds worth of saving throws to have disadvantage for a mere three sorcery points (which is about the same value as a 2nd level spell slot). Does that three sorcery points contain the value of X number of spells it helps you land? If not, why not?

A lot of the arguments against Silvery Barbs act as though it's making super duper important spell land when otherwise it wouldn't. That isn't what it does! It makes a single saving throw more likely to fail. It isn't unique in that role, or especially cheap compared to the alternatives either. If the forced reroll succeeds, you just spent an action and a slot on the main spell, and a reaction and a 1st level slot to do nothing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's a pretty silly characterization of the spell and it's value, in my opinion. If you use a 9th level spell slot on a single target, and it makes the save (but doesn't have legendary resistance), and you use Silvery Barbs to make it reroll, that doesn't mean Silvery Barbs has the value of the 9th level slot. Let's ignore (for a moment) that the higher level spell slot you're dealing with the worse an idea it is to do a "saving throw or nothing happens" against a single creature. The lift is being done by the primary spell, all Silvery Barbs does is increase the chance it will stick. This is an effect that is found in quite a few other features.

Though I agree with your overall assessment, it's not an entirely unfair comparison to say that you have "cast the spell again" for the cost of a reaction and 1st level spell slot. Think about what exactly casting a spell that would have triggered Silvery Barb's again means... that they roll another saving throw.

[Elves]

1st level spell: When a foe saves against any spell, you can use this spell to cast that spell again as a reaction.

No one would argue this is a balanced 1st level spell, yet its function is identical to silvery barbs — in fact it's weaker, because it’s limited to spell saves.

Silvery barbs is a logic fart on the devs’ part. The only counterbalance to its ability to imitate a higher-level spell is that it depends on a foe successfully saving, but the game math guarantees that will happen frequently.


Raising it to 2nd level wouldn't fix this; the fix is that it shouldn't be applicable to rolls made as part of spells.

[Captain Panda]

No one would argue this is a balanced 1st level spell, yet its function is identical to silvery barbs — in fact it's weaker, because it’s limited to spell saves.



...no, it isn't functionally identical.

"Oh, that troll saved against my fireball? I recast fireball."

Totally different effects.



Though I agree with your overall assessment, it's not an entirely unfair comparison to say that you have "cast the spell again" for the cost of a reaction and 1st level spell slot. Think about what exactly casting a spell that would have triggered Silvery Barb's again means... that they roll another saving throw.

I maintain that it's an uncharitable and inaccurate characterization. To continue with my example of the Hound of Ill Omen (which is far from the only ability in the game that can twist enemy arms to encourage saving throw failure), it does more or less the same thing. But instead of a spell slot and reaction to impact one save, it's every saving throw you toss at it until the hound dies. Let's assume, because it's a popular example, you toss out Banishment at a creature and it succeeds, and then you Silvery Barbs them and they fail and are banished. The net result is a failed save, at the cost of a 1st level slot and your reaction. Two dice were rolled.

Hound of Ill Omen would also force the creature to roll two dice, which is the same number as above. It would fail. But if it didn't, you haven't wasted the ability. The hound is still there until it is dealt with. Does the hound, due to giving disadvantage, mean you effectively get double value out of the Banishment? I mean, maybe? It's an odd way to characterize the ability, though, and no one seems to think it's broken. Shadow isn't exactly the best Sorcerer subclass.

I think the real problem here is one of perception. DMs, especially inexperienced once, don't like their monster to make a save and then have that taken away from them. If they have disadvantage in the first place, even though it's the same number of rolls, it's less galling to deal with than thinking your monster is in the clear and have a smug PC cry out: "AH HAH! No! I Silvery Barbs him!" and have to roll again.

It's still two dice, in the end. If it counts as "doubling a spell," disadvantage should as well.

Let me pre-empt an obvious counter: "But this stacks with disadvantage!"

True! So do Unsettling Words, which is a cheaper way to force saving throw failures. If a player wants to invest heavily in forcing one thing to fail one save, how is that breaking anything? How many creatures are the people complaining about this spell anticipating are in any given fight? If it's just one, that is not likely to be an especially difficult fight in the first place.

I think another issue I have is that I have a lot of experience as a chronurgist. It's a busted subclass due to Arcane Abeyance, but I actually found Chronal Shift (a better version of Silvery Barbs) got a lot less use than you'd expect. It competes with Shield, Counterspell, and Absorb Elements. It's more versatile than all of those spells, but not as good as any of them in their particular domain. Which is kind of how it should be.

I really don't get the fuss over using a spell and a reaction to force a single reroll. Genuine question, how many fights are you expecting to be in? If it's 6-8, that's a real cost and won't be used much. If it's 2-3, I expect they're bigger, busier fights and you'll want to save your reaction for something a bit more important. I'm coming at this from the perspective that single target saving throw spells are just a bad strategy, generally speaking. Not always, but usually. And tweaking one save is rarely that big a deal.

[tokek]

The shield comparison seems beside the point, the question is barbs on its own terms. If you use barbs to make a foe roll again vs. a higher-level spell effect, you're effectively using a 1st level slot to cast a higher-level spell, except even better because you get to cast it as a reaction instead of an action. That seems inherently imbalanced.

Its not beside the point. For most eligible characters these spells would compete for spells known/prepared, for spell slots and for Reaction used. Those are all limited resources.

Yes it seems strong for single-target Save or Suck spells - but those are honestly not great spells to be using or dedicating your concentration on. It makes a sub-optimal approach to the game less sub-optimal at a noticeable opportunity cost in consuming resources. Even with Silvery Barbs or a Chronurgy Wizard I'd still pick other spells for most situations over using a single target save or suck.

[Elves]

...no, it isn't functionally identical.

"Oh, that troll saved against my fireball? I recast fireball."

Totally different effects.

Only because fireball is multitarget (and if there are multiple targets). Replace it with a ST like finger of death, and what's difference between casting it again and using silvery barbs?

A) Barbs takes up a lower level slot
B) Barbs is a reaction

Meaning barbs is actually better than casting it again

[tokek]

Only because fireball is multitarget (and if there are multiple targets). Replace it with a ST like finger of death, and what's difference between casting it again and using silvery barbs?

A) Barbs takes up a lower level slot
B) Barbs is a reaction

Meaning barbs is actually better than casting it again

If Silvery Barbs suddenly means that anything other than Force Cage is the best use of a 7th level slot in most combat situations I'm going to be fairly amazed. I am quite confident that I would not be using your Finger of Death plus Silvery Barbs combo very often, its clearly not a strong option. At this level any worthwhile target will likely have legendary resistance anyway.

Which is the whole problem with this debate. I don't think buffing a seriously sub-optimal approach is going to break the game.

Mass effect save spells are far better but forcing a re-roll on just one target of the spell does not have a huge mathematical effect. I might do it if it matters situationally but its no more game breaking than all the existing abilities that can do that - none of which broke the game.

[stoutstien]

I've been play testing SB for the last 2 weeks so still limited experience but so far it's only really shown it's teeth on features that call for ability checks rather than saves. It's an interesting work around to a subtle CS.

[Elves]

I am quite confident that I would not be using your Finger of Death plus Silvery Barbs combo very often

Should there be any case in which a 1st-level spell is identical-to-but-better-than a 7th, 8th, or 9th level one?

Not unless it has some serious drawback or limitation. Which barbs does not have. The proc is a) common and b) not a meaningful use limitation because by casting the initial spell at the foe you've already shown that you want to affect that foe with that spell effect.


Mass effect save spells are far better
Yet there are a lot of ST spells in the game. They're hardly a fringe case.

The silvery barbs use case isn't for AOE, it's for ST, so asking how it works for AOE is beside the point. The question is whether it's balanced when used in the way people will actually use it. That it lets a lower level slot function as a higher level slot with faster casting time means it isn't.


At this level any worthwhile target will likely have legendary resistance anyway.
And silvery barbs can burn one, just like casting the spell again would. (Also, LR foes are more likely to be solo encounters, where ST is better than AOE.)

[Captain Panda]

The silvery barbs use case isn't for AOE, it's for ST, so asking how it works for AOE is beside the point.


As Tokek pointed out, ST spells are generally suboptimal. So saying Silvery Barbs is focused on them makes it worse, not better.



The question is whether it's balanced when used in the way people will actually use it.


Yep. It is. I've played with an ability that was better (Chronal Shift). It wasn't broken. It's just one die roll per round.



That it lets a lower level slot function as a higher level slot with faster casting time means it isn't.

And silvery barbs can burn one, just like casting the spell again would. (Also, LR foes are more likely to be solo encounters, where ST is better than AOE.)

You keep ignoring counterpoints and restating this sort of thing.

Do you characterize disadvantage in this same way? Because disadvantage in functionally very similar. Two dice are rolled. Does that mean your spell is double powered? ...not really, it just means your spell is more likely to land by X percent.

[Elves]

You keep ignoring counterpoints and restating this sort of thing.
The counterpoint I've heard is that ST spells are often less powerful than other options. But when you balance a game ability, you balance it for its use case. Barbs's use case is for single target spells.

It lets you cast high-level single-target spells with a 1st-level spell slot as a reaction. The question is whether that's balanced.


Do you characterize disadvantage in this same way? Does that mean your spell is double powered? ...not really, it just means your spell is more likely to land by X percent.
Silvery barbs is better than a spell that imposes disadvantage because you can use it after you know if the first roll succeeded or failed.

Barbs, a no-save "target has disadvantage" spell, and casting the spell again all equate to an increase in the chance of affecting the target with the spell, but disadvantage is a smaller increase.

[Captain Panda]

The counterpoint I've heard is that ST spells are often less powerful than other options. But when you balance a game ability, you balance it for its use case. Barbs's use case is for single target spells.


And since single target spells are generally way worse than other sorts of spells, its balanced just fine.



It lets you cast high-level single-target spells with a 1st-level spell slot as a reaction. The question is whether that's balanced.


No, that's just something you keep repeating. It's a silly characterization, and remains so.



Silvery barbs is better than a spell that imposes disadvantage because you can use it after you know if the first roll succeeded or failed.


The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.

[tokek]

The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.

You get it.

If making a target roll their save twice and take the lowest was this powerful then the Rune Knight would be the most busted class in the game. The 7th Level Storm Rune can do that every turn for a minute per short rest. That's up to 10 times per short rest, double that at higher levels.

The thing is that while I think Rune Knights are fine and nice to play nobody seems to think they are the most busted thing ever. So why do they think that a spell, which short of an 18th level Wizard nobody will cast anywhere near this often, is busted for having mathematically the same effect? I honestly don't know why people think this.

If there was some combo with a forced save reroll and a spell that broke the game we would know by now. There are plenty of people playing Rune Knight Fighters out there. There are plenty of other abilities which can achieve the same (although none quite so many times as Rune Knights that I can think of). As this has not been the talk of every D&D forum for months I think we can be very confident that in fact this combo is in fact nothing special.

[Elves]

No, that's just something you keep repeating. It's a silly characterization, and remains so.
Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.


The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.


You get it.

If making a target roll their save twice and take the lowest was this powerful then the Rune Knight would be the most busted class in the game.

Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome. It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

[tokek]

Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.





Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome. It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

Its still two rolls take the lowest.

Storm Rune is resource free once you declare it so you could just do it every turn. No spell slots, just do it every turn for a minute.

But the core of this is that if forcing a second dice roll and taking the lowest on saves broke the game then it was broken a good while ago and somehow for some strange reason nobody noticed and all the optimisation guides forgot to mention just how busted this was. Or, and maybe you might just want to consider this as a possibility, its just not that powerful and all the current guides are actually more or less right that its an okay but not incredible thing to be able to do.

[Captain Panda]

Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.


It's similar to disadvantage. It increases failure chance on a saving throw if you do something suboptimal, in the same way disadvantage does against a single target. Disadvantage is mechanic that already existed and is generally much cheaper than your reaction and a spell slot.




Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome.


It's still two dice. It's still the same chance of failure. The difference, again, is one of perception. When disadvantage is rolled people don't typically assign one of the dice as "the one that would have been rolled if not for disadvantage," so you don't know that it's the disadvantage making the difference. With Silvery Barbs if it causes a fail, you know it was the Barbs. Still the same two dice, though.



It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted." If something isn't busted when it's a repeated free effect, or a repeated effect for cheap (as with the hound), why is the effect rated so highly in the case of Silvery Barbs?

Again, it's a matter of perception. The DM will feel like the monster was "supposed" to make the save and the player calls out a reaction. It has nothing to do with it being overpowered mechanically and everything to do with it feeling strong in that one moment.

[Elves]

It's similar to disadvantage.
It's similar to disadvantage but better.


It's still two dice. It's still the same chance of failure. The difference, again, is one of perception.
The difference is how much of a % success increase the spell is providing, and whether you have to cast it at all.


The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted."
I'm making a specific comparison: a lower level spell and a higher level spell. The lower level ones are supposed to be weaker.

[tokek]

The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted." If something isn't busted when it's a repeated free effect, or a repeated effect for cheap (as with the hound), why is the effect rated so highly in the case of Silvery Barbs?


(Agreed, completely agreed)

We have pointed out two subclasses which can produce the same mathematical effect many times per combat, effectively every turn in a combat. Neither subclass is considered especially strong despite having this ability.

There are other ways in the game to achieve the same thing, spread across many classes.

If this effect was incredible then we would all have been talking about it all the time, how to build it into our optimal character builds and DMs would be constantly looking for ways to deal with it. There is no such discussion, there does not need to be any such discussion. It is just not that amazing.

Banning Barbs while allowing all these other things which mathematically do the same thing would be a knee-jerk reaction to something new. Something which looks new but is just an additional way to access a thing which has been in the game for a good while now without causing any problems.

[Amnestic]

Also, Silvery Barbs stacks with disadvantage. The Rune Knight rune (which is 1/SR until 15th so if you have more than one fight between short rests you only get to invoke once, also ends early if you're incapacitated, it's not just "active for 1 minute no complications", as seems to have been made out) imposes disadvantage...which you can then Silvery Barbs if they still pass. Three dice, not two. Or even more, if you get more people to stack their dice on top. Disadvantage ends at two. Silvery Barbs need not end until you run out of people with reactions to spend.

As for why Barbs is being rated highly, perhaps because it's now being made available to basically everyone at very low buy in cost (a one level dip or a feat) whereas the rune and hound of ill omen both require at least 6-7 levels in a very specific subclass?

[Yakk]

Storm rune was considered crazy good when you could get it for a 3 level dip.

At the cost of 7 levels, without self synergy, it is a very good ability. Unlike SB, you have to expend the reaction before the roll, but it doesn't cost slots.

Rune Knights are BA constrained. Before you can storm, you have to burn the BA. And competes with "resist BPS", "become large", and other class abilities that use reactions.

SB requires a 1 level dip to get, or you get it for free. SB does not require expending a subclass choice, investing more than 1 level (maybe 0).

SB is crazy good as a 1st level spell.

Shadow sorcerer is considered a strong subclass. Its hound's weakness is counterplay (killing it).

SB stacks with all of the above mechanics.