As a DM I have learned to like Silvery Barbs

[tokek]

This might seem like such a hot take its insane but hear me out

As a DM I have a deep aversion to fudging rolls, but if I'm honest it hurts me and derails my plans when a well engineered character arc is cut short by a bad roll. Which happens if you are balancing the combats to be challenging then a few wild dice rolls can swing the result hard.

So what does Silvery Barbs do? It gives the players the tool to fudge the dice so I never have to.

If they use it on trivial rubbish then that was on them - and very importantly they know it was on them. If they keep it as an ace up their sleeve for when things go horribly wrong it will save them. They know this.

The honest truth is that as a DM I feel more relaxed about throwing challenging encounters together than I used to. I can put in harder hitting monsters where a single dice roll might have more impact and not worry about it too much, that opens up a wider range of monsters and other options for me. I'm finding that overall my time as a DM is actually more enjoyable. I am running online and I leave all rolls completely in the open, there is no possibility that I am fudging anything and the players know it. I let them have Silvery Barbs and they know its their last line of defence against terrible luck.

Yes the interruptions can break the flow. Yes they could "break" encounters with it but they rarely do because at low level they don't have spell slots to burn and at higher levels they have to worry about legendary resistance. So it shifts the odds for already top tier spells like Hypnotic Pattern but when you target 4 or 5 monsters being able to Silvery one of their saves is not THAT big a deal.

Away you all go. Tell me I'm a maniac :)

[Anymage]

I don't mind the ability of players to have an official way to fudge odds in their favor. That's cool.

Making it a first level Wiz/Sor/Bard spell is troublesome, though. First, it focuses the benefits into a group of spellcasters who don't need the extra boost. (Arguably sorcerers could use one, but wizards and bards are at the top of the list to begin with.) Another caster could get it off of Fey Touched, true, but that just leans hard into system mastery and non-obvious mandatory feats. (A heavy weapon user wanting GWM is the sort of thing you'd expect from a basic read. A cleric getting such a large boost from having fey ties, not so much.)

Second, tying it to spell slots means that fullcasters get the full benefits, halfcasters and otherwise get less benefit, and pure mundanes get none. If my fighter or rogue wants to tweak the odds to their favor, they shouldn't be required to pick their sole relevant caster subclass in order to make proper use of the ability. (Yes, they could pick up Fey Touched too. 1/day pales in comparison to "as many spell slots as you're willing to toss into it"/day.)

Third, tying it to spell slots makes it very sensitive to time between rests. Given that there are a lot of reasons that five minute work day is so popular, it's very likely that spell slot conservation is not a real concern. If the characters can afford a low level spell slot every round on top of their leveled spells, you quickly start to see these abilities becoming SOP. If the only reason why SB might not get used is because Shield and Counterspell are also competing for use of a reaction, that sounds like the question is which way you want your wizard to screw encounter expectations this round.

If the system were different and these were tied to a coherent metagame currency I might agree with you. Given that they're low level wizard spells, the balance structure is off.

[tokek]

Third, tying it to spell slots makes it very sensitive to time between rests. Given that there are a lot of reasons that five minute work day is so popular, it's very likely that spell slot conservation is not a real concern. If the characters can afford a low level spell slot every round on top of their leveled spells, you quickly start to see these abilities becoming SOP. If the only reason why SB might not get used is because Shield and Counterspell are also competing for use of a reaction, that sounds like the question is which way you want your wizard to screw encounter expectations this round.



Part of my experience might be that I don't fall into the trap of the 5 minute day. I just ran a campaign for 6 months and I varied the adventuring day enormously over that period: the shortest adventuring day was 2 encounters the longest was 9 because the party were attacked at night and denied any long rest.

Having established that early on I was able to shift to a fairly comfortable 4-6 encounter rhythm without the players being able to know the future which made them think hard about resource conservation.

I will agree that if as a DM you can't manage the rest schedule to make the full casters think about resources then Silvery Barbs (or any reaction spell with decent impact) will just make things worse due to its cheap action economy cost. SB would probably make a bad game worse, I can see that.

[Boci]

Do you not see how "thanks to a 1st level spell I can now throw challenging encounters at a party they wouldn't reliably survive otherwise" could be construed as a negative?

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you not see how "thanks to a 1st level spell I can now throw challenging encounters at a party they wouldn't reliably survive otherwise" could be construed as a negative?
I see it. That spell isn't an option when I am a DM. I have seen some arguments for making it a level spell (on this forum, and which level is an interesting point of discussion) that slightly change my approach to that ... but I am not interested in hacking a spell to make it fit. (It is also a bit fiddly).

[Boci]

I see it. That spell isn't an option when I am a DM. I have seen some arguments for making it a level spell (on this forum, and which level is an interesting point of discussion) that slightly change my approach to that ... but I am not interested in hacking a spell to make it fit. (It is also a bit fiddly).

I like the effect and fluff enough that I have considered salvaging it by requiring a perform check before you can cast it, since its from silverquill and is meant to be about cutting words. Definitely still fiddly. I think it works, but its only for someone who likes the flavour of the spell, if you just want the effect, inspiration might be a better way to achieve that. A friend's DM reworked inspiration to be like luck points.

[solidork]

I think it works, but its only for someone who likes the flavour of the spell, if you just want the effect, inspiration might be a better way to achieve that. A friend's DM reworked inspiration to be like luck points.

I agree that some kind of meta currency would be a better way to accomplished the goals described in the OP, especially since that would mean that everyone would get a chance to use it and you wouldn't have to worry about some situation where you've got more than one person with Silvery Barbs and it's just truly oppressive. Combine with a more regular way of handing out inspiration and you're good to go.

[Quietus]

Do you not see how "thanks to a 1st level spell I can now throw challenging encounters at a party they wouldn't reliably survive otherwise" could be construed as a negative?

Alternatively, as i feel the OP was trying to convey - and I agree - "I can throw my standard encounters at the players, and let them control some of the swinginess, and they'll feel clever/powerful for doing so!"

[Boci]

Alternatively, as i feel the OP was trying to convey - and I agree - "I can throw my standard encounters at the players, and let them control some of the swinginess, and they'll feel clever/powerful for doing so!"

That's not "alternatively", that's the same thing. If Silvery Barbs is what makes these encounters manageable for the players, then that would imply they were struggling with them previously without Silvery Barbs, so substituting "challenging" for "standard" doesn't change anything.

[Skrum]

The one game I ran that silvery barbs annoyed me was a game where all 3 characters in the game had it, and they used it to *absolutely lock down* enemies, ruthlessly. It was brutal, and it definitely got on my nerves. It was a little while ago, but I think we actually changed/clarified the rules after that game to allow only 1 silvery barb (or reaction) to any single thing. I.e., the players can discuss who's going to silvery barbs, but they can no longer chain barbs together and force multiple rerolls.

But that's been the only sour spot for me. Otherwise, I generally agree with the OP. Silvery barbs is fine, and just part of the landscape of powerful, capable characters. I personally like being in and running tough, tactical combats, and absolutely, silvery barbs lets the heat get turned up.

I have far more complaints about shield. Fine on traditional spellcasters, but pretty meta-warping when stacked with fully armored martial characters. The spread of AC becomes ridiculous and enemies that have any chance of hitting the AC Towers are practically guaranteed to shred everyone else.

[tokek]

Do you not see how "thanks to a 1st level spell I can now throw challenging encounters at a party they wouldn't reliably survive otherwise" could be construed as a negative?

Or due to a spell that is available from early in the game I no longer feel any desire to fudge rolls.

I think that construing that as a negative really depends on your approach to the game. I don't want to fudge rolls but I don't particularly want to kill off characters either. Or at least I want the players to feel that they had agency in the decisions that led to a character death if it happens.

[tokek]

The one game I ran that silvery barbs annoyed me was a game where all 3 characters in the game had it, and they used it to *absolutely lock down* enemies, ruthlessly. It was brutal, and it definitely got on my nerves. It was a little while ago, but I think we actually changed/clarified the rules after that game to allow only 1 silvery barb (or reaction) to any single thing. I.e., the players can discuss who's going to silvery barbs, but they can no longer chain barbs together and force multiple rerolls.

But that's been the only sour spot for me. Otherwise, I generally agree with the OP. Silvery barbs is fine, and just part of the landscape of powerful, capable characters. I personally like being in and running tough, tactical combats, and absolutely, silvery barbs lets the heat get turned up.

I have far more complaints about shield. Fine on traditional spellcasters, but pretty meta-warping when stacked with fully armored martial characters. The spread of AC becomes ridiculous and enemies that have any chance of hitting the AC Towers are practically guaranteed to shred everyone else.

OK so this is an interesting point.

I ruled that rerolling a d20 is not the same as rerolling a check/save/attack and therefore no result on that d20 can trigger a further Silvery Barbs. It is sometimes the case that a check/save/attack roll has other dice involved so to me there is a clear enough distinction between the acts of rolling a save and rolling a d20 as part of a save. When I say sometimes I mean when spells like Bless/Bane are involved or anything that adds dice to rolls - these are not particularly rare things and my players were easily persuaded that "rolling a save" and "rolling a d20" are not the same thing.

Perhaps that is part of why I did not have oppressive effects from allowing the spell. The issue of multiple characters trying to stack it did not arise with the way that I rule the spell to work.

[Anymage]

Alternatively, as i feel the OP was trying to convey - and I agree - "I can throw my standard encounters at the players, and let them control some of the swinginess, and they'll feel clever/powerful for doing so!"

How does the rogue get to control swinginess and feel clever/powerful? Ideally without saying "just be an AT" or "take this feat and accept that you can only do so once per day".

The intent is cool, fully agreed. I just dislike how often cool abilities that give you some influence over RNG are tied to spell slots, and doubly so when such effects seem especially tied to wizard spell slots.

[Boci]

Or due to a spell that is available from early in the game I no longer feel any desire to fudge rolls.

I think that construing that as a negative really depends on your approach to the game. I don't want to fudge rolls but I don't particularly want to kill off characters either. Or at least I want the players to feel that they had agency in the decisions that led to a character death if it happens.

If you don't want to fudge rolls, why have the option as a first level spell not all characters have easy access to? Why not make it something every character can do, by modding inspiration for example, rather than introducing spell tax on the party?

[JonBeowulf]

I've got no problems with the spell as it is.

I also have no problem with the Dice Gods deciding that something terrible just happened.

I prefer my game worlds to be semi-believable and adventuring/hero-work to be dangerous.

[Quietus]

That's not "alternatively", that's the same thing. If Silvery Barbs is what makes these encounters manageable for the players, then that would imply they were struggling with them previously without Silvery Barbs, so substituting "challenging" for "standard" doesn't change anything.

We've all had that moment where even what should have been a medium challenge becomes surprisingly deadly, because the PCs are rolling poorly and the monsters are rolling crits. That, to my mind, is what this is for.


How does the rogue get to control swinginess and feel clever/powerful? Ideally without saying "just be an AT" or "take this feat and accept that you can only do so once per day".

The intent is cool, fully agreed. I just dislike how often cool abilities that give you some influence over RNG are tied to spell slots, and doubly so when such effects seem especially tied to wizard spell slots.

Halfling luck, the lucky feat, both come to mind. Expertise leans into this from the other side. The should had some options as well. The rogue's control over luck tends to be selfish, and that's okay.

This isn't to diminish your point - it's absolutely a problem that "make it a spell" is the solution to do many tools this game gives us. I'd be thrilled to see this new a not-spell option, I'm just saying that as a spell, I see it has its uses.

[tokek]

We've all had that moment where even what should have been a medium challenge becomes surprisingly deadly, because the PCs are rolling poorly and the monsters are rolling crits. That, to my mind, is what this is for.
.

Exactly this. I felt more free to put in monsters that hit hard - because if they crit and splatter a character then its on the players to use the spell to fudge the dice not me. That felt to me like I had a wider variety of monsters and could get a little bit away from the typical bag of hp monster approach.

[tokek]

How does the rogue get to control swinginess and feel clever/powerful? Ideally without saying "just be an AT" or "take this feat and accept that you can only do so once per day".



This particular campaign that swung my opinion I ran from level 6 to 10. Rogues have pretty good damage mitigation from level 5 up. Rogue only having a selfish mitigation reaction does feel very roguish.

My experience of this in other games I have run is that casters can't really afford to SB very often - if at all - until they hit level 5 anyway due to lack of spell slots.

But more generally its a team game and I don't think every character has to have this ability if the team as a whole has it.

[Atranen]

If you don't want to fudge rolls, why have the option as a first level spell not all characters have easy access to? Why not make it something every character can do, by modding inspiration for example, rather than introducing spell tax on the party?

I agree. The problem with silvery barbs is the ability to force a reroll on saves--adjusting enemy saves is extremely powerful, and at least early on 5E chose to make that ability rare.

I think the right way to proceed would be to keep the effect for attack rolls and (maybe) skill checks, and make it part of inspiration. Inspiration is a pretty poor meta currency mechanic as is, it could use the boost.

[Boci]

We've all had that moment where even what should have been a medium challenge becomes surprisingly deadly, because the PCs are rolling poorly and the monsters are rolling crits. That, to my mind, is what this is for.

Okay? You're still just describing the same thing though. You're just choosing slightly different that don't actually change anything overall. "1st level spell" was an important clause of my initial question, which you seem to have missed, since you haven't addressed that part once.

[Zuras]

Silvery Barbs is terrible because it makes combat last even longer, and makes save based spells far more likely to stick, and it does all this in a generic way with a cheap resource.

It steps on the toes of several bard subclass features, and basically gives casters, but only casters, luck/fate points. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it definitely moves the game in the wrong direction.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don't mind the ability of players to have an official way to fudge odds in their favor. That's cool.

Making it a first level Wiz/Sor/Bard spell is troublesome, though. First, it focuses the benefits into a group of spellcasters who don't need the extra boost. (Arguably sorcerers could use one, but wizards and bards are at the top of the list to begin with.) Another caster could get it off of Fey Touched, true, but that just leans hard into system mastery and non-obvious mandatory feats. (A heavy weapon user wanting GWM is the sort of thing you'd expect from a basic read. A cleric getting such a large boost from having fey ties, not so much.)

Second, tying it to spell slots means that fullcasters get the full benefits, halfcasters and otherwise get less benefit, and pure mundanes get none. If my fighter or rogue wants to tweak the odds to their favor, they shouldn't be required to pick their sole relevant caster subclass in order to make proper use of the ability. (Yes, they could pick up Fey Touched too. 1/day pales in comparison to "as many spell slots as you're willing to toss into it"/day.)

Third, tying it to spell slots makes it very sensitive to time between rests. Given that there are a lot of reasons that five minute work day is so popular, it's very likely that spell slot conservation is not a real concern. If the characters can afford a low level spell slot every round on top of their leveled spells, you quickly start to see these abilities becoming SOP. If the only reason why SB might not get used is because Shield and Counterspell are also competing for use of a reaction, that sounds like the question is which way you want your wizard to screw encounter expectations this round.

If the system were different and these were tied to a coherent metagame currency I might agree with you. Given that they're low level wizard spells, the balance structure is off.

Making it a 1st level Wizard spell is a particular problem due to Arcane Recovery, though that can be said for a few low level spells, particularly Shield. My current campaign I've bumped SB to a 2nd level spell, so we'll see how that works. The characters are just 5th level, and we have a Wizard and a Bard so we're not far enough down the track to see the results yet.

[sithlordnergal]

I'll be honest, I've never had an issue with Silvery Barbs. The Bard in our party has been using it for a while, and its never been an issue. Does it allow players to have a reroll? Sure, but they spend a spell slot and their reaction, which cuts out Shield and Counterspell for that player. As long as you're doing a proper number of encounters and have multiple enemies, then its impact becomes a lot less pronounced.

[Oramac]

snip

Away you all go. Tell me I'm a maniac :)

If you're a maniac, so am I. I quite like Silvery Barbs for much the same reason, both as a player and a DM. I'm even ok with it as a 1st level spell, though I can understand the argument for a higher level.

[Phhase]

Silvery Barbs is terrible because it makes combat last even longer, and makes save based spells far more likely to stick, and it does all this in a generic way with a cheap resource.

It steps on the toes of several bard subclass features, and basically gives casters, but only casters, luck/fate points. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it definitely moves the game in the wrong direction.

How exactly does it make combat last longer? I'd think making spells stick more often would make combats much shorter.


Personally, I've never seen issue with it, but I can see how allowing multiple casters to stack the effect would be deleterious. I'd probably rule it could only be used once on any particular roll as well.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Here's a question, if Silvery Barbs started as a 1st level spell, but scaled with the level of spell impacted (if that's the way it were used) would it still see play? For example, if a player cast Banishment as a 4th level slot and the target saved, would players still deem it worthwhile to use a reaction and a 4th level slot to have the target try again (and gain advantage for a party member)?

My sense is that SB would still see play in this case; given that, 1st level is too low for this spell.

[Skrum]

Here's a question, if Silvery Barbs started as a 1st level spell, but scaled with the level of spell impacted (if that's the way it were used) would it still see play? For example, if a player cast Banishment as a 4th level slot and the target saved, would players still deem it worthwhile to use a reaction and a 4th level slot to have the target try again (and gain advantage for a party member)?

My sense is that SB would still see play in this case; given that, 1st level is too low for this spell.

I assume you don't mean quite what you said, since you said "if it gets used it's too good." Lol.

90% of the uses at the table I play at is cancelling enemy crits. Since a crit from a big monster might take half or more of a character's hp, it's a very good thing to save it for.

I think people don't use to to force extra saves as much any more because 1) the crits, and 2) a lot, really all, of the big enemies have legendary resists, so using barbs to force a resist use doesn't seem as worth it. And spending it on lessor enemies, yeah probably not worth it.

[tokek]

Here's a question, if Silvery Barbs started as a 1st level spell, but scaled with the level of spell impacted (if that's the way it were used) would it still see play? For example, if a player cast Banishment as a 4th level slot and the target saved, would players still deem it worthwhile to use a reaction and a 4th level slot to have the target try again (and gain advantage for a party member)?

My sense is that SB would still see play in this case; given that, 1st level is too low for this spell.

Most of the use I saw of this spell was not to force save rerolls. It was used more often to force attack rerolls. So given that is the case then it absolutely would still see use.

But a lot of that comes down to my approach to encounter design. If a single failed save can wreck the encounter - and saves tend to fail 50% of the time at best - then that encounter had better be a pretty inconsequential one. I am absolutely not a fan of the solo big boss encounter style, I don't think it works well at all. Even with legendary resistance I think its generally quite hard to make compelling and challenging so its a style of encounter I use very sparingly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't allow the book that this comes from for a lot of other reasons, so it's not a problem either way for me.

However, as to the meta topic (allowing players to "safely fudge" outcomes)--

I've considered altering Inspiration from its current, rather anemic state, to something more like

1. You can hold up to 3 Inspiration at a time.
2. You start each session with at least one; you also reset back to one on a long rest.
3. You can get more by <various things, including accepting FATE-like suggestions from the DM or players or for funny things or bringing food :smallsmile:>
4. You can use Inspiration at any time to
a) force a reroll of any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll, exactly as it occurred (so no super-advantage/disadvantage).
b) declare a fact about the situation that doesn't contradict anything already established. If the DM thinks it's too out there, they can veto, but that doesn't cost your Inspiration. Things like "there's a little bit of cover there so I can sneak up on him without coming directly in the open" or "this room has a chandelier I can swing off of".
c) Maximize one damage roll.

And then alter the Lucky feat to be a half feat where you start with two Inspiration instead of 1 and can hold an extra one (because Lucky's too much of a Must Have at my tables).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I assume you don't mean quite what you said, since you said "if it gets used it's too good." Lol.

90% of the uses at the table I play at is cancelling enemy crits. Since a crit from a big monster might take half or more of a character's hp, it's a very good thing to save it for.

I think people don't use to to force extra saves as much any more because 1) the crits, and 2) a lot, really all, of the big enemies have legendary resists, so using barbs to force a resist use doesn't seem as worth it. And spending it on lessor enemies, yeah probably not worth it.

I didn't say 'if it gets used it's too good'. What I said was that if it would still see significant play as a higher level spell (specifically 4th) then 1st is too low. I'd say that's a fair assessment. Would Wall of Force see play if it were an 8th level spell? If yes, then 5th is too low for that as well.

[Skrum]

I didn't say 'if it gets used it's too good'. What I said was that if it would still see significant play as a higher level spell (specifically 4th) then 1st is too low. I'd say that's a fair assessment. Would Wall of Force see play if it were an 8th level spell? If yes, then 5th is too low for that as well.

OK that certainly makes more sense xD

But still, I don't really agree. There are effects of lower level spells that are still good for their particular circumstance through all 20 levels. That doesn't mean the spell is the wrong level. Spells like darkness, silence, fog cloud, faerie fire, vortex warp, misty step...like they're just good spells. And the fact that spell DC's don't change with the level of the spells, well you're not supposed to just "outlevel" spells like that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

OK that certainly makes more sense xD

But still, I don't really agree. There are effects of lower level spells that are still good for their particular circumstance through all 20 levels. That doesn't mean the spell is the wrong level. Spells like darkness, silence, fog cloud, faerie fire, vortex warp, misty step...like they're just good spells. And the fact that spell DC's don't change with the level of the spells, well you're not supposed to just "outlevel" spells like that.

I think there's some confusion. It's not about the DC, it's about the slot. I'm not sure I'd be wiling to cast faerie fire out of a 5th level slot (assuming no upcast benefit), for instance. Or even a 3rd level slot. That means that it's "true value", for me, is < 3rd level.

Similarly, if people would be reasonably willing to say "yeah, I'd cast silvery barbs out of a 5th level spell to force a reroll of a save against a 5th level spell", that says that the "true value" for them is at least greater than 1st level.

I don't think this line of reasoning holds in detail (you can't really narrow down the power like that), but it's certainly suggestive.

Take, for instance, wall of force. Would you be willing to cast it just as much if it were a 6th level spell? 8th level? If your willingness doesn't significantly drop off at 6th level, then it's likely not well balanced as a 5th level spell. At least for your personal opinion.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The intent is cool, fully agreed. I just dislike how often cool abilities that give you some influence over RNG are tied to spell slots, and doubly so when such effects seem especially tied to wizard spell slots.

Silvery Barbs, (if I remember correctly), is the only spell that enables someone to directly negate a Critical Hit. Every other ability that can negate a Critical Hit is a subclass ability, (with Rune Knight Fighters being quite adept at this).

So alas, blaming the Wizard class, seems to be misplaced.

I myself have have found my experience in play to mirror tokek’s.
One of the lower level games I referee for has 7 players in it, which means that I am often placing some fairly advanced foes with friends to challenge the large group,

The Arcane Trickster in the group has Silvery Barbs, and the spell helps smooth out circumstances like when the critical hit from a Giant Skeleton would outright massive damage kill a PC.

Silvery Barbs chains, certainly strike me as problematic, but singular uses of the spell, are fine, in my experience.

A 3rd level Rune Knight has access to the Cloud Rune, and by 7th level the Rune Knight subclass receives yet another stand alone anti-crit ability.

[Zuras]

How exactly does it make combat last longer? I'd think making spells stick more often would make combats much shorter.


Personally, I've never seen issue with it, but I can see how allowing multiple casters to stack the effect would be deleterious. I'd probably rule it could only be used once on any particular roll as well.

Any mechanic that adds an extra roll to a combat makes things take longer. That’s why rolling damage dice simultaneously with your attack speeds up play considerably. Silvery Barbs adds a potential additional player decision point to every DM die roll.

[Witty Username]

Here's a question, if Silvery Barbs started as a 1st level spell, but scaled with the level of spell impacted (if that's the way it were used) would it still see play? For example, if a player cast Banishment as a 4th level slot and the target saved, would players still deem it worthwhile to use a reaction and a 4th level slot to have the target try again (and gain advantage for a party member)?

My sense is that SB would still see play in this case; given that, 1st level is too low for this spell.

I doubt it, we already have highten spell for sorcerer and it is one of the seldom taken metamagics. Twin spell is closer but it also has twice the potential upside.

That being said, I am of the mind that silvery barbs is already not great, it decieves people into not casting shield and is still in single target save or suck territory, which is rarely worth more than a 1st level spell.

[tokek]

Any mechanic that adds an extra roll to a combat makes things take longer. That’s why rolling damage dice simultaneously with your attack speeds up play considerably. Silvery Barbs adds a potential additional player decision point to every DM die roll.

To the extent that all reaction abilities add to the length a combat takes then SB does add to the length a combat takes.

I would definitely not want a player with analysis paralysis issues holding the game up with this spell. Its not been an issue for me so far but on a reaction ability I would timeout any chance to interrupt pretty brutally if it became a problem at the table. That does not only apply to this spell of course, there are other reaction abilities and some of them are stronger (hello Cloud Rune, I'm looking at you)

[Unoriginal]

As a DM I have a deep aversion to fudging rolls, but if I'm honest it hurts me and derails my plans when a well engineered character arc is cut short by a bad roll.

The solution is to not do any plan that can be derailed by a bad roll.

Plans should be roll-agnostic. When a roll happens, it's that the DM is forgoing the control of everything they have as a DM and letting random chance dictate the results.


Worth noting some games give players an "actually, that didn't happen like that" ressource that let them change/ignore the result of a roll or prevent the roll from happening at all. Might be worth taking a look in that kind of options, if you don't want the PCs to be dependent on random chance but still want some random chance.

[tokek]

The solution is to not do any plan that can be derailed by a bad roll.

Plans should be roll-agnostic. When a roll happens, it's that the DM is forgoing the control of everything they have as a DM and letting random chance dictate the results.

Plans can't be entirely roll-agnostic. The campaign as a whole should be resilient to bad rolls but elements of it can't always be.

If I'm working on a character story arc inspired by their backstory and that character dies I'm probably going to abandon the work I have done. It does not destroy the campaign, my campaign will be flexible enough to carry on. But I will definitely have lost time and effort that I put into something.

The only campaign that is entirely roll-agnostic is an unplanned campaign. Which strangely enough is something I am almost experimenting with now in a play by post game - its driven by random events and player choices and I'm seeing if some form of story is emergent from the randomness. The jury is still out on the concept but the players seem to be having fun so I am rolling with it.

[Unoriginal]

Plans can't be entirely roll-agnostic. The campaign as a whole should be resilient to bad rolls but elements of it can't always be.

If I'm working on a character story arc inspired by their backstory and that character dies I'm probably going to abandon the work I have done. It does not destroy the campaign, my campaign will be flexible enough to carry on. But I will definitely have lost time and effort that I put into something.

If I was the DM in this situation, my reaction would be to use the death to continue the story arc, using the PC's backstory to add to the circumstances surrounding them coming back.

Maybe the character's life-long rival has the means to allow the resurrection, and will hold that over the character's head. Maybe the rival actually genuinely respect and care for them and will help as much as they can. Maybe they care but don't want the PC to know that so they provide help anonymously or only if the PC's friends promise to never reveal their involvement.

Maybe one of the PC's enemies bring them back to life, either as a way to get the PC off their back or with added conditions.

Maybe a powerful entity mentioned in the backstory takes an interest, or change their opinion based on how the PC died.

To say nothing of how the PC's family, friends, allies, etc., would react to the death.

Or, depending on the cosmology involved, the PC could go through some serious character arc material in the afterlife. Their sister died? Could be seeing her. They're devoted to a god? Could have a personal audience. They did some seriously awful stuff and have spent years fleeing the consequences? Can't run away anymore.

Death is rarely the end for PCs who are in a character arc, I would say.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Plans can't be entirely roll-agnostic. The campaign as a whole should be resilient to bad rolls but elements of it can't always be.

If I'm working on a character story arc inspired by their backstory and that character dies I'm probably going to abandon the work I have done. It does not destroy the campaign, my campaign will be flexible enough to carry on. But I will definitely have lost time and effort that I put into something.

The only campaign that is entirely roll-agnostic is an unplanned campaign. Which strangely enough is something I am almost experimenting with now in a play by post game - its driven by random events and player choices and I'm seeing if some form of story is emergent from the randomness. The jury is still out on the concept but the players seem to be having fun so I am rolling with it.

There's a middle-ground between fully-planned, fragile arcs and completely unplanned.

I tend to only plan about 2 sessions ahead. Sometimes only 1. You can still do character arcs, but they're all contingent and subject to change. It drastically reduces the "must keep this character alive" pressure while still allowing some deeper weaving and emergent-but-curated order. Ask me about anything beyond a couple sessions and I'll go "well, I have some ideas, but those are subject to change without warning."

I don't do pre-planned plots, and my plots are heavily influenced by character actions. Including the hard left turns the tend to take occasionally.

[Hail Tempus]

To the extent that all reaction abilities add to the length a combat takes then SB does add to the length a combat takes.

I would definitely not want a player with analysis paralysis issues holding the game up with this spell. Its not been an issue for me so far but on a reaction ability I would timeout any chance to interrupt pretty brutally if it became a problem at the table. That does not only apply to this spell of course, there are other reaction abilities and some of them are stronger (hello Cloud Rune, I'm looking at you)
Right, like with Counterspell and any other reaction-based ability, my players know they need to use Silvery Bards within a few seconds of the thing they're trying to stop. If they stop to read their character sheet, they've missed their opportunity, if they ask one of the other players whether they should cast the spell, they lost their opportunity.

I haven't seen any meaningful delays. And having the spell keeps one of my players engaged when it's not her turn, which has been an issue in the past.

[ZRN]

I don't mind the ability of players to have an official way to fudge odds in their favor. That's cool.

Making it a first level Wiz/Sor/Bard spell is troublesome, though. First, it focuses the benefits into a group of spellcasters who don't need the extra boost.

If only there was a built-in mechanic that allowed the DM to give out limited rerolls to players of ANY class, perhaps representing a burst of heroic inspiration...

[Xervous]

If only there was a built-in mechanic that allowed the DM to give out limited rerolls to players of ANY class, perhaps representing a burst of heroic inspiration...

A well documented and detailed mechanic thoughtfully integrated into the system and game culture as presented to the users?

Nah, it’s down on the bottom of the box with the double asterisk, right after “only contains 25% juice”.

[tokek]

If only there was a built-in mechanic that allowed the DM to give out limited rerolls to players of ANY class, perhaps representing a burst of heroic inspiration...

As written you can't use Inspiration to affect an enemy attack.

You can use it to make a save however, so it really covers a different set of unlucky dice to what Silvery does. Its almost a mirror image in that regard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If only there was a built-in mechanic that allowed the DM to give out limited rerolls to players of ANY class, perhaps representing a burst of heroic inspiration...

The problem with Inspiration as written (other than that everyone forgets about it) is that it has to be declared in advance and isn't a reroll, but instead grants Advantage.

The few tables I'm aware of that do use it do so much more like a self-only Lucky point (ie reroll one of your rolls). Which makes it a bit better, but silvery barbs is even better still. Especially since it's not once per <however long it takes for someone to remember that Inspiration exists and players should get some occasionally> since your Inspiration cap is firmly 1.

[Snails]

If they use it on trivial rubbish then that was on them - and very importantly they know it was on them. If they keep it as an ace up their sleeve for when things go horribly wrong it will save them. They know this.

Well, I appreciate that you are being open-minded and willing to try things out at your table to see what really happens. But...this last bit is strange.

Silvery Barbs is a 1st level spell. And when you really really need it, it is absolutely worth a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot. So not having this ace up their sleeve basically means being completely tapped out.

If this were a special something only available to a very particular subclass of Bard or Sorceror or Warlock, I would be more accepting. But I really hate this as a generic spell, as this heavily favors certain full spellcasters.

IMNSHO, if Silvery Barbs were 3rd level instead of 1st, it would see plenty of usage by skillful players. I think that is strong evidence of a potential problem that DMs should be aware of, even if it not a problem at totek's table.

[tokek]

Well, I appreciate that you are being open-minded and willing to try things out at your table to see what really happens. But...this last bit is strange.

Silvery Barbs is a 1st level spell. And when you really really need it, it is absolutely worth a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot. So not having this ace up their sleeve basically means being completely tapped out.



Being tapped out - or nearly tapped out - is a real concern for players in games I run. its intentional. I regard D&D beyond the first couple of levels as primarily a matter of resource depletion.

I think I mentioned my variable adventuring day before - it can vary from anything as low as 2 encounters to as high as 12 between long rests. I think in that last campaign the highest was 11. If you only ever have one or two encounters between long rests then nobody will ever be tapped out and spell slots will be plentiful at all times - that is not the game I run.

[Quietus]

The thing to keep in mind is that Silvery Barbs isn't in a vaccuum. It's a first level spell, available to the same spellcasters that get Shield and Absorb Elements, and eventually Counterspell. Even at high levels, there's going to be moments where you consider - is it worth forcing the reroll on that crit, knowing the enemy mage is getting ready for something nasty? Can I afford to spend this slot here instead of using Shield to potentially block multiple attacks?

If you're seeing people chain multiple uses together, yes that's a problem. And it never should have been allowed to affect saves, I'll grant that. But as far as its use on saves and checks, I have no issues there.

[Anymage]

If only there was a built-in mechanic that allowed the DM to give out limited rerolls to players of ANY class, perhaps representing a burst of heroic inspiration...

There is a mechanic that allows you to reroll a failed roll. Possibly save, but possibly also a clutch attack roll or other check. And it allows you to force an attack against you to reroll if it crits. That mechanic is the Lucky feat. If the table likes swingy fights where one dice roll can make or break the whole encounter , I wouldn't mind letting everybody have it as a freebie feat since otherwise everybody would prioritize it as their first ASI option. Then everybody gets their pool of bad luck protection points, and the pools exist on their own instead of tying off a resource that some people have and others don't.

Inspiration is a muddled mess that's generally forgotten. I wouldn't mind an inspiration hack that made them act more like luck points, but you'd have to figure out the specifics on your own and mind when to hand them out. Which right now tends to be forgotten in the rush to get to the next cool encounter, and if you made inspirations more impactful or allowed a character to stock more, you'd risk encouraging spotlight hogging in order to have as many as possible.


The thing to keep in mind is that Silvery Barbs isn't in a vaccuum. It's a first level spell, available to the same spellcasters that get Shield and Absorb Elements, and eventually Counterspell. Even at high levels, there's going to be moments where you consider - is it worth forcing the reroll on that crit, knowing the enemy mage is getting ready for something nasty? Can I afford to spend this slot here instead of using Shield to potentially block multiple attacks?

Shield and Counterspell are also known as problem spells. One gets to severely hamper any incoming mundane attacks, the other can shut down a caster's entire turn. If the opportunity cost of casting SB is that the others are locked out, that tells you the power level it's on. Which is quite a bit higher than most classes can get out of their reactions.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The thing to keep in mind is that Silvery Barbs isn't in a vaccuum. It's a first level spell, available to the same spellcasters that get Shield and Absorb Elements, and eventually Counterspell. Even at high levels, there's going to be moments where you consider - is it worth forcing the reroll on that crit, knowing the enemy mage is getting ready for something nasty? Can I afford to spend this slot here instead of using Shield to potentially block multiple attacks?

If you're seeing people chain multiple uses together, yes that's a problem. And it never should have been allowed to affect saves, I'll grant that. But as far as its use on saves and checks, I have no issues there.

Largely agree here. For me there's not too much of an issue until higher levels, about the beginning of tier 3. It is a particular issue with wizards and Arcane Recovery and in parties with lots of casters. Even running lots of encounters per day, it starts to get to the point with some groups/ characters where they're almost spamming lower level slots. I'm hoping bumping SB to level 2 in our current campaign will slow this down a bit.

[Witty Username]

I think there's some confusion. It's not about the DC, it's about the slot. I'm not sure I'd be wiling to cast faerie fire out of a 5th level slot (assuming no upcast benefit), for instance. Or even a 3rd level slot. That means that it's "true value", for me, is < 3rd level.

Similarly, if people would be reasonably willing to say "yeah, I'd cast silvery barbs out of a 5th level spell to force a reroll of a save against a 5th level spell", that says that the "true value" for them is at least greater than 1st level.


This breaks down weird for me because many spells are worth a premium in edge cases.

Take for example, Tasha's hideous laughter vs banishment. There are times where laughter will get more value due to knocking the creature prone as part of the effect.
By this logic it would follow that hideous laughter should be a higher level slot (afterall it is competition with existing 4th level spells). But that doesn't feel correct, It ignores some restrictions for one, but is applicable to just about anything with incomprables.

In short, while I would be willing burn a 5th level slot on shield, I can't say I would be happy about it, but it is better than being revivified.

Would I cast faerie fire at 5th level for no upcast benefit? How badly do I need to get rid of an invisible enemy?

But I wouldn't cast silvery barbs at 1st level (its not all that strong) so feel free to ignore me.

[Boci]

This breaks down weird for me because many spells are worth a premium in edge cases.

But silvery bars isn't worth a premium edge case. No "does the enemy has a specific ability not every enemy does". Its "Is the enemy going to roll d20s? Is the party?" There's no obvious fight set up where its going to be useless, and none where its going to shine more than it usually does. Its a very consistent spell.

[Witty Username]

But silvery bars isn't worth a premium edge case. No "does the enemy has a specific ability not every enemy does". Its "Is the enemy going to roll d20s? Is the party?" There's no obvious fight set up where its going to be useless, and none where its going to shine more than it usually does. Its a very consistent spell.

Actually yes there is, the fight where an enemy can't fail a particular saving throw. Legendary resistance is the obvious example (rerolling doesn't change the result because the roll no longer matters).
But also the effect is again small, it provides a reroll. It only effects one target and is highly dependent on the effect presented.
There is a reason people bring up things like banishment, they are powerful but also single target.
Would you similarly spend a 3rd level spell slot to have 1 creature reroll a save against something like hypnotic pattern or slow, or a 5th level slot on confusion? Or would you save that slot for a second cast attempt (because 1 creature is minimal in a 12 creature encounter)?
Silvery barbs fits neatly into a 1st level spell, small in scope, but can be powerful with other specific effects. Single target save or suck spell.

[Boci]

Actually yes there is, the fight where an enemy can't fail a particular saving throw. Legendary resistance is the obvious example (rerolling doesn't change the result because the roll no longer matters)

That's a pretty bad example, for a number of reasons:

1. It does matter, because forcing an extra use of legendary resistance is good
2. You can also make it reroll an attack roll or ability check instead
3. You are also buffing an ally with a reroll

So yeah, I'm counting this as still being 0 fights where Silvery Barbs is useless.

[Xervous]

Silvery barbs in the case of fights against Legendary creatures is an interesting one as its value goes up for each party member capable of casting it and each party member that has threatening effects on a save. With critical mass in a 4 character party there’s sizable odds of landing a save or lose that sticks in round 2. In a party built to cheese it you end up with double digit % in round 1 and practical certainty in round 2, with the other special ingredient being a monk.

[Witty Username]

1. It does matter, because forcing an extra use of legendary resistance is good


Not actually true with how the effect is worded, legendary resistance forces a success, as the reroll cannot change the result, just the roll, the spell is not functional.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Actually yes there is, the fight where an enemy can't fail a particular saving throw. Legendary resistance is the obvious example (rerolling doesn't change the result because the roll no longer matters).
But also the effect is again small, it provides a reroll. It only effects one target and is highly dependent on the effect presented.
There is a reason people bring up things like banishment, they are powerful but also single target.
Would you similarly spend a 3rd level spell slot to have 1 creature reroll a save against something like hypnotic pattern or slow, or a 5th level slot on confusion? Or would you save that slot for a second cast attempt (because 1 creature is minimal in a 12 creature encounter)?
Silvery barbs fits neatly into a 1st level spell, small in scope, but can be powerful with other specific effects. Single target save or suck spell.

There are obviously spells with less powerful effects designed to hit multiple creatures where SB isn't good, but I don't see how finding cases where a spell isn't great makes much of a case. I could find cases where every spell isn't good, including the best ones in the game.
Banishment and Polymorph (used against an enemy) are solid spells. Giving an extra bite at the cherry for a 1st level slot, with the advantage benefit, goes way beyond a 1st level spell. It's actually better than the 4th level slot it's replicating, so I don't see how this is consistent with a 1st level spell.

[Anymage]

Not actually true with how the effect is worded, legendary resistance forces a success, as the reroll cannot change the result, just the roll, the spell is not functional.

It's not that you force them to try again after they've spent a resistance already. It's that if they'd otherwise have saved, the forced reroll can change that into a miss that they'd then have to spend a resistance to get out of.

[Boci]

Not actually true with how the effect is worded, legendary resistance forces a success, as the reroll cannot change the result, just the roll, the spell is not functional.


It's not that you force them to try again after they've spent a resistance already. It's that if they'd otherwise have saved, the forced reroll can change that into a miss that they'd then have to spend a resistance to get out of.

What Witty user said. If they fail the save then Silvery Barbs doesn't have an impact, much like it won't have an impact on a monster without legendary resistance failing the save on the first roll. Needing a monster to pass a save to be useful is not really "situational", especially since it can also be used on an attack roll or ability check.

[Snails]

I agree that Legendary Saves "overrule" Silvery Barbs. So the answer is to force the BBEG to burn through those Legendary Saves. For this purpose, Silvery Barbs is insanely good.

A party with three spellcasters would count themselves fortunate to get a BBEG with Legendary Saves to fail an important save in the third round. But with Silvery Barbs, you have a good chance to accomplish that on round 2.

[Witty Username]

There are obviously spells with less powerful effects designed to hit multiple creatures where SB isn't good, but I don't see how finding cases where a spell isn't great makes much of a case. I could find cases where every spell isn't good, including the best ones in the game.
Banishment and Polymorph (used against an enemy) are solid spells. Giving an extra bite at the cherry for a 1st level slot, with the advantage benefit, goes way beyond a 1st level spell. It's actually better than the 4th level slot it's replicating, so I don't see how this is consistent with a 1st level spell.

Hypothetical, if you saw banishment but it had reaction cast time and target must suceed a 4th level spell or higher to cast it, would it still be worth a preperation and a 4th level slot?

Virually any defensive spell has similar interactions with the game of giving spells additional opportunities at effect due to how concentration works. Mage Armor comes to mind, but I am disinclined to believe that it is replicating a 5th level spell because it is keeping me safe while I use one.

[tokek]

Silvery barbs in the case of fights against Legendary creatures is an interesting one as its value goes up for each party member capable of casting it and each party member that has threatening effects on a save. With critical mass in a 4 character party there’s sizable odds of landing a save or lose that sticks in round 2. In a party built to cheese it you end up with double digit % in round 1 and practical certainty in round 2, with the other special ingredient being a monk.

In theory this might be true but its not an issue I see in practice. This really would only happen in a group with a tactical wargaming focus out of the gates so that they optimised for it as a group when generating characters. That is just not a player behaviour that I see at my tables - or at least not to the extent that it would negatively affect the game.

In practice and across a variety of encounters I don't think its even optimal. Pouring that much resources into disabling the boss is a valid tactic but like all tactics (that don't break the game) it has balancing downsides. Totally ignoring the minions has a cost (minions basically get free attacks until you can switch targets), burning through spells lots at double speed has a longer term cost that will impact the next encounter. All of which does what control casters can generally do in a few other ways - divide the combat into two groups so the party can focus one at a time.

If a group were to optimise for this then there are some adventuring days when they would blast through and others when they would struggle like mad. Which is true of any min-max strategy. Diversity of challenge is the key to mitigating any min-max strategy while creating a more interesting and varied game.

[Snails]

In theory this might be true but its not an issue I see in practice. This really would only happen in a group with a tactical wargaming focus out of the gates so that they optimised for it as a group when generating characters. That is just not a player behaviour that I see at my tables - or at least not to the extent that it would negatively affect the game.

It may not be a problem at your table, which has a lot to do with your style of play (to your credit), but the potential for a huge effect of BBEG fights at other tables is certainly there. At other tables, it is not rare for the party to go into a BBEG fight at full strength, where all the resources can be expended towards victory. In such a situation, a mere handful of 1st level slots makes a game changing difference.


In practice and across a variety of encounters I don't think its even optimal. Pouring that much resources into disabling the boss is a valid tactic but like all tactics (that don't break the game) it has balancing downsides. Totally ignoring the minions has a cost (minions basically get free attacks until you can switch targets), burning through spells lots at double speed has a longer term cost that will impact the next encounter. All of which does what control casters can generally do in a few other ways - divide the combat into two groups so the party can focus one at a time.

This argument is wildly overstretching.

In a tough BBEG fight, especially a BBEG with Legendary Saves, yes, it is more usual to clear out the minions because that is a positive gain that can be quickly and reliably accomplished. That is probably the default tactics, with or without Silvery Barbs. We can put this scenario aside.

But in a more normal one fight out of several encounters in a day (and no Legendary saves would be typical), your gauge of the resources seems far off. If the party meets one big monster plus minions, hitting the big monster with, say, a Banishment can be a very resource efficient move. Nobody is intending to ignore the minions, the other three PCs are going after them. In this situation, it is simply silly to suggest burning a whopping 1st level spell slot in the follow up to a lucky successful save by the big monster is resource inefficient. That just does not make sense. The big monster is likely to do damage that far exceeds the value of a 1st level slot.

[Asmotherion]

The fun part comes from using it against the players :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, if they use it, there is absolutely no reson their enemies won't use it as well. And I'm fine with that.

[tokek]

But in a more normal one fight out of several encounters in a day (and no Legendary saves would be typical), your gauge of the resources seems far off. If the party meets one big monster plus minions, hitting the big monster with, say, a Banishment can be a very resource efficient move. Nobody is intending to ignore the minions, the other three PCs are going after them. In this situation, it is simply silly to suggest burning a whopping 1st level spell slot in the follow up to a lucky successful save by the big monster is resource inefficient. That just does not make sense. The big monster is likely to do damage that far exceeds the value of a 1st level slot.

If your one big monster will probably fail a save then your encounter design is probably weak anyway. Actually I'd say if your encounter was meant to be important then your encounter design is definitely bad if its going be ruined by one failed save that the monster probably does not make. Some encounters are really just there to drain resources or to tell a story or to foreshadow and supply hints and if this was one of those encounters then it did its job.

Silvery Barbs shifts the odds a bit and if its a fairly inconsequential encounter then I don't mind if they burn 2 spell slots for the better chance to fight the encounter in two parts - spending multiple spell slot resources SHOULD make the encounter easier.

But for more consequential encounters there are a load of different ways you can build them to be a bit more resilient to this. The first and foremost is to not expose the BBEG until the party have had every opportunity to go in too hard, too fast and burn most of their spell slots before it shows up. If they still have the firepower left to pull these sorts of shenanigans on my BBEG then its because they have been smart, careful, paid attention to the story and deserve the payback for all that previous good play. It makes me happy as a DM when my smart players are rewarded for being smart.

[Boci]

Actually I'd say if your encounter was meant to be important then your encounter design is definitely bad if its going be ruined by one failed save that the monster probably does not make.

That comes down more to DMing style. Some feel that if they designated an encounter to be important than it must be important, others feels is perfectly fine for the occasional important encounter to be "ruined" by a single spell, and that this makes the game more organic and gives the players a sense of achievement.

[tokek]

That comes down more to DMing style. Some feel that if they designated an encounter to be important than it must be important, others feels is perfectly fine for the occasional important encounter to be "ruined" by a single spell, and that this makes the game more organic and gives the players a sense of achievement.

Yup. That's me.

I will sometimes carefully craft an encounter to not be easily wrecked before a certain point is reached for story reasons - but largely if the players are dumping resources into an encounter and the dice work for them so be it. Let them enjoy their victory.

[Boci]

Yup. That's me.

I will sometimes carefully craft an encounter to not be easily wrecked before a certain point is reached for story reasons - but largely if the players are dumping resources into an encounter and the dice work for them so be it. Let them enjoy their victory.

I don't think it should even take dumping resources neccissarily. I don't see anything wrong with an encounter "meant" to be important being overcome with a single spell and a bad roll.

[Snails]

How many "important" encounters are there likely to be between Long Rests? A lot of encounters in a many encounter adventuring day are just there and they many be interesting (hopefully) but they not important; they are expected to cost the party some amount of resources, and sometimes with a little luck and smarts they are made trivial by a single spell -- this will happen more often with SB around.

Reading tokek's description of his campaign, he seems pretty satisfied that the party is usually pretty stretched at the end of adventuring day. In that case, he has demonstrated a good feel on how to pace things to keep the players on their toes, and a bit more efficiency squeezed out of their resources by casting a few SBs is an issue that is easy enough for him to tweak for. Good on him.

I do believe that DMs that are having issues related to the proverbial 15 minute adventuring day will likely find such exacerbated by Silvery Barbs.

My takeaway is that if "luck" is a thing that improves your game, give the PCs "luck" in some form. All the PCs. As Anymage pointed out, SB favors certain classes very strongly. That may or may not be a concern for you campaign, but it seems to me that picking a better answer is usually better than picking a worse answer.

[Frozenstep]

Hypothetical, if you saw banishment but it had reaction cast time and target must suceed a 4th level spell or higher to cast it, would it still be worth a preperation and a 4th level slot?

Banishment specifically? No, that's a bit too narrow unless my party agrees to build around it. Any spell I see, as a reaction, for an equal spell slot level? Absolutely. Actions are precious, and being able to use reactions in a valuable way is a good step towards getting ahead on the action economy. Especially if that reaction is being used to potentially take away an enemy's action for several turns.

[tokek]

My takeaway is that if "luck" is a thing that improves your game, give the PCs "luck" in some form. All the PCs. As Anymage pointed out, SB favors certain classes very strongly. That may or may not be a concern for you campaign, but it seems to me that picking a better answer is usually better than picking a worse answer.

My feeling on that is that the classes that get SB are the support classes - and it is a support ability.

If you want to take a martial with amazing support reactions then Rune Knight is right there for you. But on the whole casters tend towards a playstyle of support with control/buff/debuff spells and this fits right in with that.

Fighters and Barbarians are usually trying to get extra attacks out of PAM, Sentinel or just plain old attacks of opportunity in general. Rogues will be using Uncanny Dodge to mitigate incoming damage. Its only really Monks who don't usually have reaction abilities they typically would rather be using than this.

Even if you have a caster subclass or take a feat to grab a spell I think that 9/10 times they would pick Shield spell over SB. Quite rightly too, Shield is better on the front line characters.

[Boci]

My feeling on that is that the classes that get SB are the support classes - and it is a support ability.

If you want to take a martial with amazing support reactions then Rune Knight is right there for you. But on the whole casters tend towards a playstyle of support with control/buff/debuff spells and this fits right in with that.

But its not a caster spell, its a wizard, sorcerer, bard spell, which is a decent spread, but still not every party will have 1 of those. Hence why the idea of reworking inspiration to fill a similar niche.

[tokek]

But its not a caster spell, its a wizard, sorcerer, bard spell, which is a decent spread, but still not every party will have 1 of those. Hence why the idea of reworking inspiration to fill a similar niche.

That is a bridge I might cross should I ever come to it. I have had no need to houserule inspiration into something different so far.

[Boci]

That is a bridge I might cross should I ever come to it. I have had no need to houserule inspiration into something different so far.

Are you sure you'd know if the party felt compelled to have at least 1 sorceror, bard oi wizard, and that they need to take silvery barbs? Because I could easily see players feeling that, but not bugging the DM about it, because its not a huge issue.

[Amechra]

A little off-topic, but the way the thread's titled reminded me of this (https://youtu.be/lHOIQ6By8Xg?t=168).

[Xervous]

In theory this might be true but its not an issue I see in practice. This really would only happen in a group with a tactical wargaming focus out of the gates so that they optimised for it as a group when generating characters. That is just not a player behaviour that I see at my tables - or at least not to the extent that it would negatively affect the game.

In practice and across a variety of encounters I don't think its even optimal. Pouring that much resources into disabling the boss is a valid tactic but like all tactics (that don't break the game) it has balancing downsides. Totally ignoring the minions has a cost (minions basically get free attacks until you can switch targets), burning through spells lots at double speed has a longer term cost that will impact the next encounter. All of which does what control casters can generally do in a few other ways - divide the combat into two groups so the party can focus one at a time.

If a group were to optimise for this then there are some adventuring days when they would blast through and others when they would struggle like mad. Which is true of any min-max strategy. Diversity of challenge is the key to mitigating any min-max strategy while creating a more interesting and varied game.

It’s not a matter of a group building all around this as a one trick pony. As a first level spell SB is both cheap and accessible by the time LR is a serious consideration. Additionally there is much less competition for 1st level slot prep. For the low price of those prep slots the party holds the potential to turn most LR fights into a blowout, forcing additional GM adventure design considerations. Adventure, not encounter. By making it cheaper to overcome fights involving LR creatures (which tend to occur towards the end of the adventuring day) it loosens up resource management for the preceding encounters.

Also, as a first level spell it isn’t overly difficult for SB to be planned into a build (or even much planning at all). One player might show up with this silvery spell they think is cool, then another caster decides on a whim to grab it at the next opportunity, and then another. Granted, you’re not going to see characters spontaneously transform into an order cleric who picked up SB with a feat, a monk, a wizard and (choice filler). That’a merely to say they can’t pivot to break LR creatures over their knees, only equip themselves with a low cost means for cutting down the resource stress and heightening their nova potential.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It’s not a matter of a group building all around this as a one trick pony. As a first level spell SB is both cheap and accessible by the time LR is a serious consideration. Additionally there is much less competition for 1st level slot prep. For the low price of those prep slots the party holds the potential to turn most LR fights into a blowout, forcing additional GM adventure design considerations. Adventure, not encounter. By making it cheaper to overcome fights involving LR creatures (which tend to occur towards the end of the adventuring day) it loosens up resource management for the preceding encounters.

Also, as a first level spell it isn’t overly difficult for SB to be planned into a build (or even much planning at all). One player might show up with this silvery spell they think is cool, then another caster decides on a whim to grab it at the next opportunity, and then another. Granted, you’re not going to see characters spontaneously transform into an order cleric who picked up SB with a feat, a monk, a wizard and (choice filler). That’a merely to say they can’t pivot to break LR creatures over their knees, only equip themselves with a low cost means for cutting down the resource stress and heightening their nova potential.

This reminds me of our Strixhaven campaign. Pretty much everyone picked up either Shield or Silvery Barbs basically for free. Admittedly the DM, who was new, didn't run a lot of encounters, but the power creep was notable. I remember thinking even if I was DMing, both my character and the other optimizer's (a Cleric and Bard) would be really difficult to deal with once spell slots became abundant.

[Xervous]

This reminds me of our Strixhaven campaign. Pretty much everyone picked up either Shield or Silvery Barbs basically for free. Admittedly the DM, who was new, didn't run a lot of encounters, but the power creep was notable. I remember thinking even if I was DMing, both my character and the other optimizer's (a Cleric and Bard) would be really difficult to deal with once spell slots became abundant.

I don’t consider it overly difficult to deal with if you’re a GM who has experience with encounter flow and design. I do consider the potential for SB proliferation a hazard because it can stress GMs who are just cruising on the system’s default guidance. 5e’s design intent is that those GMs in the latter group shouldn’t be getting thrown such a curveball.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don’t consider it overly difficult to deal with if you’re a GM who has experience with encounter flow and design. I do consider the potential for SB proliferation a hazard because it can stress GMs who are just cruising on the system’s default guidance. 5e’s design intent is that those GMs in the latter group shouldn’t be getting thrown such a curveball.

Adding SB or Shield onto full casters who don't normally get it is absolutely a boost, particularly as levels increase and low level slots become plentiful.

As others have mentioned on the thread, when multiple characters can force repeated re-rolls in critical situations it's power creep.

[tokek]

Adding SB or Shield onto full casters who don't normally get it is absolutely a boost, particularly as levels increase and low level slots become plentiful.

As others have mentioned on the thread, when multiple characters can force repeated re-rolls in critical situations it's power creep.

As I have said I do not think forcing multiple saves with stacked SB is either RAW or RAI and I do not allow it.

[Snails]

As I have said I do not think forcing multiple saves with stacked SB is either RAW or RAI and I do not allow it.

I agree that SB chains on a single spell should not be allowed. Yet it is still a tremendous boost if the PCs are intending to burn through the Legendary Saves, especially because SB partially bypasses Advantage, which is fairly common for the most dangerous BBEGs.

The first round situation goes from "save against these three spells, each of which the BBEG has only a 25% of failing against and then he needs to burn the Legendary Save" to "save against these three spells, each of which (after SB) the BBEG has a 63% of failing against and then he needs to burn the Legendary Save".

Now burning through Legendary Saves is never going to be the end all be all of tactics against a BBEG. But it goes from "probably a bad idea (but if the battle lasts long enough, that may be how we win in spite of our Plan A)" to "probably will work if we have the resources to throw at the encounter, and the tide will likely turn in our favor on round 2".

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As I have said I do not think forcing multiple saves with stacked SB is either RAW or RAI and I do not allow it.

Fair interpretation. Regardless, regular re-rolls on different saves isn't a whole lot different, particularly in a caster heavy party.

[Witty Username]

I don’t consider it overly difficult to deal with if you’re a GM who has experience with encounter flow and design. I do consider the potential for SB proliferation a hazard because it can stress GMs who are just cruising on the system’s default guidance. 5e’s design intent is that those GMs in the latter group shouldn’t be getting thrown such a curveball.

The default guidelines are meant to promote low tension though, The party is expected to win most encounters, often with minimal resources expended, heck JC at one point mentioned that starting every encounter at full HP shouldn't matter much for how challenges are set. If a DM things the system is not providing enough challenge to the party they probably need to perform over the guidelines anyway. And this is where people are comming from with Silvery barbs as safety valve in case something goes awry.

[tokek]

I agree that SB chains on a single spell should not be allowed. Yet it is still a tremendous boost if the PCs are intending to burn through the Legendary Saves, especially because SB partially bypasses Advantage, which is fairly common for the most dangerous BBEGs.



Broadly speaking I think burning through legendary saves is a pretty bad strategy. From what I have seen in-game SB lifts it up to the giddy heights of a mediocre strategy. If you have an all caster party where everyone chose save or suck spells then I suppose the strategy is the only one they have - I still think its a bad strategy.

But also in a 6 month campaign I designed exactly one encounter that was a single big monster. I don't like that style of encounter, I don't think the system supports them well and I use them very infrequently. (For the record the party resolved that encounter with diplomacy)