New Spells in Strixhaven

[JohnDaBarr]

Silvery Barbs is really great, probably the 2nd best lv1 spell now.
Casters could abandon shield now, only prepare Silvery Barbs and AE

Eh, debatable. Silvery Barbs works on one attack while Shield can technically work on infinite attacks made before your turn. So it depends on the situation.

And Silvery Barbs sounds way better if you want to force a reroll on a spell save. And this too depends on does your table allows casting reaction spells on your turn after you all ready cast a spell.

[tokek]

I discussed Silvery Barbs with my DM for a new campaign and we both agree its the new Shield spell - sort of broken on the right build.

So is going to be subject to possible future nerf in that game if it turns out to be too much.

It feels very like Lucky Feat. That can be okay in some games and break others. Its always very strong and sometimes too strong.

[Slider Eclipse]

I discussed Silvery Barbs with my DM for a new campaign and we both agree its the new Shield spell - sort of broken on the right build.

So is going to be subject to possible future nerf in that game if it turns out to be too much.

It feels very like Lucky Feat. That can be okay in some games and break others. Its always very strong and sometimes too strong.

I'm Doubtful that it'll be as good as Lucky, Silver Barbs does do something similar sure, but it's also competing with both your Spell Economy and Action Economy while Lucky is just a completely separate Resource that just happens for free. (Interestingly this means that technically you can use both this and Lucky to potentially make someone have to roll four times to land an attack.) That difference makes me think it'll just end up as an alternative for Shield on some builds and a prime candidate for Fey Touched on classes that could use a good reaction and the half feat on mental stats.

[stoutstien]

Silvery Barbs is really great, probably the 2nd best lv1 spell now.
Casters could abandon shield now, only prepare Silvery Barbs and AE

Eh. Using it to reroll anything other than a critical would make it worse that shield even for rounds with one single attack targeting the user. Rerolling a passed saves and basically canceling adv on said save is the probably the best use for it. Range is also a pretty big issue to consider comparing the two.its good but hardly going to dethrone shield for slot value.

[Amnestic]

Mildly curious how Silvery Barbs interacts with Legendary Resistance.

LR:

If [X] fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Barbs:

When a creature within range succeeds on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result.

As written, I'm pretty sure the series of events would be Creature fails saving throw->Burns LR->Silvery Barbs forces them to roll again (because they have now "succeeded" on a saving throw), potentially forcing them to burn a second LR if they fail the follow up.

Personally not okay with that, and I won't be running it as such. I'll have LR simply end the effect entirely. LR is meant to stop fights with big bosses being negated, and Silvery Barbs allowing casters (especially if you have more than one in a group with the spell) to burn through a creature's LRs very quickly isn't something I am a fan of.

[Chronic]

Mildly curious how Silvery Barbs interacts with Legendary Resistance.

LR:

Barbs:


As written, I'm pretty sure the series of events would be Creature fails saving throw->Burns LR->Silvery Barbs forces them to roll again (because they have now "succeeded" on a saving throw), potentially forcing them to burn a second LR if they fail the follow up.

Personally not okay with that, and I won't be running it as such. I'll have LR simply end the effect entirely. LR is meant to stop fights with big bosses being negated, and Silvery Barbs allowing casters (especially if you have more than one in a group with the spell) to burn through a creature's LRs very quickly isn't something I am a fan of.

Good catch on this, this is a problem.

[Amnestic]

Also, how does Silvery Barbs interact with "persistent" dis/advantage (eg. magic resistance, attacking unseen, etc.)?

I quipped earlier that Barbs is "Unlucky" but Lucky uses different wording.

Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.

Barbs specifically calls for a 'reroll', but if I reroll the saving throw while I have magic resistance, shouldn't I get advantage on the reroll too?

Food for thought.

[loki_ragnarock]

Borrowed Knowledge
Barb, Cleric, Warlock, Wizard
1 Action
Second Level Divination
Range: Self
Duration: One hour
(NOT Concentration)
Components: A book worth at least 25gp

Choose one skill you do not have proficiency in. You have proficiency for the duration.

I don't like it. You want skills, you should be a skilled class.

Letting a spell slot substitute for a real class feature is garbage. This drops a turd right in the face of every class that meaningfully invests in skills.

Kinetic Jaunt
Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard
1 Bonus Action
Second Level Transmutation
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
Components: S

+10 walking speed, you don't provoke opportunity attacks, move through creatures space and it's not difficult terrain. Take 1d8 force and be moved to an unoccupied space if you stop in another creatures space

This is Misty Step, but first level. I don't like it; pinning down casters is hard enough. Making it so you can't pin them down from first level on is bleugh.

Silvery Barbs
Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard
First level Enchantment
1 Reaction*
Range: 60ft
Components: V

When a creature within range succeeds on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result.
Then choose another creature within range. The chosen creature has advantage on the next attack roll, skill check or saving throw it makes.
*Notice this doesn't say it imposes Disadvantage. It specifically doesn't use that wording. Interesting.

I don't like this, either; it specifically sidesteps advantage/disadvantage entirely. Trumping a core mechanic is enough to make me hurl.

Vortex Warp
Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard
Second Level Conjuration
1 Action
Range 90ft
Duration: Instantaneous
Components: V, S

The chosen creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw (it can choose to fail) or be teleported to another point you can see within range, which must be in a liquid that or on a surface that can support the creature.*

*No teleporting them into the sky for fall damage.

Depending on the spell level, this I actually kind of dig. Lower than third level and it's back to projectile vomiting, and queasy at third. I think fourth would be pretty dead on.

Wither and Bloom
Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard
Second Level Necromancy
1 Action
Range 60ft
Duration: Instantaneous
Components: V, S, M (a withered vine twisted into a loop)

Each creature of your choice in a 10ft radius within range must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 2d6 Necrotic damage (half if successful).
In addition, one creature of your choice in that area may choose to spend one hit die, and regain HP equal to the roll plus your spellcasting ability modifier.
At Higher Levels: For each slot above Second, plus 1d6 Necrotic and one additional hit die

I don't hate this. It's a little off brand in that healing is coming from a wizard, but I don't hate it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Barbs specifically calls for a 'reroll', but if I reroll the saving throw while I have magic resistance, shouldn't I get advantage on the reroll too?

Food for thought.

No, because the spell specifies one has to reroll the d20 and use the Lower result. Each die you add to the equation, adds a further opportunity to roll a lower number, which then will be the result.

[Amnestic]

No, because the spell specifies one has to reroll the d20 and use the Lower result. Each die you add to the equation, adds a further opportunity to roll a lower number, which then will be the result.

I don't believe this is the case, you could/would take the lower result between the original roll (post dis/advantage) and the reroll (post dis/advantage).

[Topgoon]

Just at first glance, I can't help but feel like Silvery Barbs is absolutely broken . Will reserve final judgment with actual play testing, but right now it's one of those spells that fundamentally shifts the resource and action economy. It's not just the re-roll to attacks that I'm worried about - it's the saving throws aspect that jumps out to me.

Imposing a re-roll (and take the lowest) after a successful save reads as a very cost and action efficient way to reapply a spell effect to 1 more target (or effectively a double cast for single target spells). It's essentially a cheaper and more efficient version of Heightened spell (with minor disadvantages).

It basically gives you the effect of heightened spell at the cost of a reaction + a level 1 spell slot. So economically, like Heightened spell, it basically lets you casting a single-target save-or-suck spell twice, and in 1 turn instead of 2. Burning a reaction is a definitely cost and you do need sight and a 60 ft range, but the benefits compared to Heightened that it's cheaper (level 1 slot vs 3 sorcery points), and you only use AFTER you know the target had succeeded the save. It also doesn't take-up a precious metamagic choice, and now you can apply another metamagic effect to the original spell. This scales more and more as you get bigger and better spells, since you'll be trading a level 1 slot for basically a 2nd cast of banishment, disintegrate, etc.

Depending on the reading of the spell, it also has the additional potential, beyond Heightened Spell, to impose super disadvantage (i.e. like the opposite of the Lucky interpretation - if someone is saving at advantage, forcing them to take the lowest roll after the 3 rolls means super disadvantage). The way I read it, it also implies that this spell can burn 2 legendary actions a turn (since you impose the re-roll AFTER the success).

The re-roll check aspect of this spell also makes it a cheap, situational alternative to "counter-spell duels". Anytime someone is rolling for their counterspell this can be a cheaper way to disrupt that instead of using your own counterspell, especially if you don't know that they used a level 3 slot to counterspell.

Lastly, I know high-level balance is basically non-existent, but this is probably the best pick for Spell Mastery since it doubles all your save-or-suck efficiency and is far more impactful and versatile than Shield when you factor in the multiple uses (you should basically be casting this almost every round).

[Kane0]

This is Misty Step, but first level. I don't like it; pinning down casters is hard enough. Making it so you can't pin them down from first level on is bleugh.

Its second level

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't believe this is the case, you could/would take the lower result between the original roll (post dis/advantage) and the reroll (post dis/advantage).

That is what the spell text says, so I agree.

The re-roll mandated by the Silvery Barbs spell isn't a Saving Throw.
The Silvery Barbs spell just works, no save offered.

The Magic Resistance Trait already applied on the initial Saving Throw, which set the final number on the successful check.....which is then the 'target' of the Silvery Barbs spell.

Since the reroll is not a Saving Throw, Magic Resistance does not apply to the reroll.

[Amnestic]

Since the reroll is not a Saving Throw, Magic Resistance does not apply to the reroll.

If the reroll isn't a saving throw, does that mean you don't apply any proficiencies, bonuses, etc. to it? That seems...wrong.

[jaappleton]

If the reroll isn't a saving throw, does that mean you don't apply any proficiencies, bonuses, etc. to it? That seems...wrong.

Its typically worded as "use the lower result", but this says "use the lower roll".

I firmly believe RAI is that its rerolling the saving throw, in the example being spoken of.

RAW... I think its finnicky at best, and really going out of your way to cheese it if you're arguing that any bonuses such as proficiency shouldn't apply to the roll.

[Dark.Revenant]

I don't like it. You want skills, you should be a skilled class.

Letting a spell slot substitute for a real class feature is garbage. This drops a turd right in the face of every class that meaningfully invests in skills.


This is Misty Step, but first level. I don't like it; pinning down casters is hard enough. Making it so you can't pin them down from first level on is bleugh.

I don't like this, either; it specifically sidesteps advantage/disadvantage entirely. Trumping a core mechanic is enough to make me hurl.


Depending on the spell level, this I actually kind of dig. Lower than third level and it's back to projectile vomiting, and queasy at third. I think fourth would be pretty dead on.


I don't hate this. It's a little off brand in that healing is coming from a wizard, but I don't hate it.

They're all 2nd-level, except Silvery Barbs, which is 1st-level.

[Hawk7915]

Borrowed Knowledge: How strong is floating proficiency? Depends on the game. This feels like a fine spell. Note that the book doesn't seem to get consumed and doesn't need to be about the subject. In general this seems worse than Enhance Ability at the same level - Enhance takes concentration, sure, but both are largely at their best outside of combat and Enhance affects more skill checks with what will be the same or better a bonus for most tiers of play with other upside, and it can target others and scales with level! But Wizards and Warlocks don't get Enhance Ability by default and this may be of interest to some skill-focused Warlocks and especially Divination Wizards as a solid utility spell.

Kinetic Jaunt: This spell is a bit awkward. As a second level spell, it feels just worse than Longstrider which lasts longer and doesn't take concentration. The bonus action casting and no provoke is nice to escape, but Misty Step fulfills that function with a lot more power at the same spell level (and doesn't have a "S" component that might prevent one from breaking a grapple). Misty Step isn't on the bard or artificer spell list though (at least not without Fey-Touched), so maybe this feels of interest for a melee-focused Bard? 2nd Level Spells on Bard are a bit thin imo anyhow, so I can see it. I think this would have been fine as a 1st level spell though, where it'd be pros-and-cons mostly stronger but not strictly so compared to Longstrider and Expeditious Retreat.

Silvery Barbs: This spell is broken, and I tend to find claims of "broken" overwrought in DND 5E. It's nonsensically OP. Given how much better it is than Fortune's Favor (a 2nd level spell limited to only Chronurgy and Graviturgist Wizards that requires a hefty 100 GP of pearls per casting), this should at a minimum have been 2nd level, and given that all the other school spells are 2nd level I wonder if it's a misprint. At 2nd level I'd have still called this spell a must-take for all three classes as one of the only spells in the game that could help force a failed saving throw on a creature. At 1st level, either one of these effects would have been an amazing use of a spell slot + reaction. Getting both is insane. Oh, and it's an enchantment spell meaning you can poach if off of Fey-touched. It also frightens me to imagine an Eloquence Bard combining this with Unsettling Words, to REALLY force the issue. There's some confusion and likely table disagreement brewing on how this interacts with Legendary Resistance and Advantage as well. The one saving grace is that as a leveled spell, a caster can't by themself force a failed save - if Senior Wizard just hurled Polymorph at the dragon to turn them into a newt, by RAW they can't use their reaction on this I don't think? That's actually unclear to me too. EDIT - I read the rules; nope, casters can totally cast this to force a failed save of their own spells. The "can only cast cantrips if you cast a leveled spell" thing specifically only applies to spells cast as a Bonus Action, not a Reaction. That being said, if I allow this spell at my table it will likely be as a 2nd level spell to start and even then I'd be worried.

Vortex Warp: I really really like this spell for its versatility. A 90 point teleport is handy for out-of-combat trickery and as an escape maneuver. If that's all this did it'd be of limited interest compared to Misty Step (which is only 30', but Bonus Action with no Somatic components). But being able to target an ally or an enemy (saving throw allowing) is really neat. Set up a kill-box for enemy archers, yeet an enemy warrior at least two turns away from reengaging the party...oh, and while you can't send someone into the sky for 9d6 fall damage, you can teleport them into the water...or lava. So that's pretty slick.

Wither and Bloom: Meh. At 1st level this would be merely "fine". At 2nd level, that damage is pathetic and the healing is mediocre. One unclear thing (to me, at least), is if this works on an unconscious ally to let them get back to their feet. If it does that gives it at least a bit of play for Wizards and non-Divine Sorcerers, as one of the only healing skills in their spell list. But even then it's real bad. Druids need not apply.

[dafrca]

Am I reading Vortex Warp right, it is usable on others but not self targeting, yes?

Or am I misreading it?

[kingcheesepants]

The silvery barbs is strong sure but that vortex warp seems insane to me. Just being able to push an enemy 5 or 10 ft is strong but being able to teleport them and a whole 90 ft? It will absolutely trivalize encounters unless said enemy has their own teleportation. It's a con save which is many monsters strongest save and you need to be in a group that has decent control options or terrain manipulation (or be on a map with lots of hazards or particularly disadvantageous terrain) so maybe it won't be quite as strong as it looks at first glance but still....

[Gtdead]

So the Silvery Barbs language is broken. It either does nothing or it rerolls Legendary Saving Throws.

"When a creature within range succeeds on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result.
Then choose another creature within range. The chosen creature has advantage on the next attack roll, skill check or saving throw it makes."

The problem here is that the resolution has already taken place. This is different than lucky for example, where it specifies that you use it before the resolution.
The text doesn't specify what happens to the resolution. This is vital. It just says that you reroll a die but it needs to specify that the old resolution is cancelled for something to happen.

LR: If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Again, the saving throw is resolved. LR doesn't say anything about changing the roll. Just that the ST succeeds.

If the intended use for Silvery Barbs is to cancel the previous resolution, then it cancels LR resolution too.
If the intended use is to reroll, then nothing happens because there is no subject.

I'm not arguing for what the spell is intended to do. It's fairly clear to me. It rerolls a save and it has no interaction with LR because LR resolves the Saving throw anyway, but for this to be RAW the spell need to be changed into "When a creature within range rolls on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw and if the roll had been a success, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result".

This change fixes both instances. The ST hasn't yet been resolved so the reroll has a subject. It also doesn't interact with LR because it will be applied after the reroll.

Edit: My grammar seems to be terrible, what is the correct one here, "if it would have been" or "if it had been"? lol

[quindraco]

So the Silvery Barbs language is broken. It either does nothing or it rerolls Legendary Saving Throws.

"When a creature within range succeeds on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result.
Then choose another creature within range. The chosen creature has advantage on the next attack roll, skill check or saving throw it makes."

The problem here is that the resolution has already taken place. This is different than lucky for example, where it specifies that you use it before the resolution.
The text doesn't specify what happens to the resolution. This is vital. It just says that you reroll a die but it needs to specify that the old resolution is cancelled for something to happen.

LR: If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Again, the saving throw is resolved. LR doesn't say anything about changing the roll. Just that the ST succeeds.

If the intended use for Silvery Barbs is to cancel the previous resolution, then it cancels LR resolution too.
If the intended use is to reroll, then nothing happens because there is no subject.

I'm not arguing for what the spell is intended to do. It's fairly clear to me. It rerolls a save and it has no interaction with LR because LR resolves the Saving throw anyway, but for this to be RAW the spell need to be changed into "When a creature within range rolls on an attack roll, skill check or saving throw and if the roll had been a success, the triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower result".

This change fixes both instances. The ST hasn't yet been resolved so the reroll has a subject. It also doesn't interact with LR because it will be applied after the reroll.

Edit: My grammar seems to be terrible, what is the correct one here, "if it would have been" or "if it had been"? lol

Effects that rewind time (as this spell is clearly intended to) can have multiple wordings:

Relentless Endurance. When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.

Shield
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the Magic Missile spell
Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from Magic Missile.

As you can see, they're inconsistent - Relentless Endurance says instead, but Shield doesn't. In fact, Shield has the exact grammar issue you're highlighting: it raises your AC against an attack you've already been hit by, which is by definition useless - you've already been hit by it and no rule in the game has you re-check against the new AC to see if you're still hit. This is because WOTC is incompetent and always has been.

Assuming you're at a table where Shield can block the triggering attack - and most DMs seem to agree that it can - SB should work on LR, but in practice it'll be completely DM-dependent.

[follacchioso]

Just at first glance, I can't help but feel like Silvery Barbs is absolutely broken . Will reserve final judgment with actual play testing, but right now it's one of those spells that fundamentally shifts the resource and action economy. It's not just the re-roll to attacks that I'm worried about - it's the saving throws aspect that jumps out to me.

Imposing a re-roll (and take the lowest) after a successful save reads as a very cost and action efficient way to reapply a spell effect to 1 more target (or effectively a double cast for single target spells). It's essentially a cheaper and more efficient version of Heightened spell (with minor disadvantages).

Totally agree with this.

It is much more efficient than Heightened spell, because you only use it when the target fails the saving throw. It even replaces Shield if the opponent is within range.

This will be a "tax" spell, that every wizard, bard and sorcerer will have to take.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This will be a "tax" spell, that every wizard, bard and sorcerer will have to take.

Except these spells are specific for the Strixhaven setting, so the situation is less like new spell options being delivered in TCoE, and more like the spells in Explorer's Guide to Wildemont or Acquisition Incorporated;

A DM can say "No" to including the spells.

[jaappleton]

Except these spells are specific for the Strixhaven setting, so the situation is less like new spell options being delivered in TCoE, and more like the spells in Explorer's Guide to Wildemont or Acquisition Incorporated;

A DM can say "No" to including the spells.

There is a weird, unspoken of aspect to this, though.

It's on the DM to say No when necessary. And there are times when that's absolutely necessary!

Simultaneously, saying No to a player can dampen the fun, and if No is said too much, it can create this tension, this killjoy sort of relationship. An underlying tone, so to speak.

Not saying a DM should allow everything. Of course not. Just wanted to mention it's a strange balance that has to be struck.

On one hand, ultimately, the PCs are supposed to be successful. Not about everything, and not every time. There must be struggle and adversity so feeling heroic isn't a cheapened experience.

Spells like this certainly assist in that. So where is the line of creating adversity, but also making them feel heroic?

[Segev]

Kinetic Step is interesting because it would stack with longstrider, but since it's not a Ranger spell, that's less exciting than it could be.

Silvery barbs is a little intricate when working with advantaged and disadvantaged rolls and legendary resistances, but I think it actually does have wording precise enough that it's unambiguous with sufficient analysis. It says, after you succeed on the roll, you "reroll the d20," which means, if you rolled with (dis)advantage in the first place, you've already selected which d20 from the (dis)advantaged roll you were keeping. That d20 is the one you reroll. Note that it doesn't say, "roll another d20" or "reroll the check/save," or anything of the sort. It says (emphasis added) "reroll the d20." Since, by the time you've succeeded on the roll (which must happen before the spell is cast), you've already selected a single d20 whose result is determining your success, it is that specific d20 you're rerolling.

Similarly, Legendary Resistances take a failed roll and declare you succeed anyway. Casting this spell on a creature that used a Legendary Resistance is a waste: it will force them to reroll the d20 that already failed, and, even if the new roll is lower and they must keep it, they used their Legendary Resistance, so the fact that the roll is even lower than before doesn't change the fact that they succeeded anyway. This also means that, if a creature WITH Legendary Resistances succeeds on the die roll and you use silvery barbs on that successful saving throw, and the silvery barbs die results in a failed roll, the creature can still use Legendary Resistance to turn the failed saving throw into a success.

There's no ambiguity here, though it is a little complicated to work through.

[Gtdead]

Kinetic Step is interesting because it would stack with longstrider, but since it's not a Ranger spell, that's less exciting than it could be.

Silvery barbs is a little intricate when working with advantaged and disadvantaged rolls and legendary resistances, but I think it actually does have wording precise enough that it's unambiguous with sufficient analysis. It says, after you succeed on the roll, you "reroll the d20," which means, if you rolled with (dis)advantage in the first place, you've already selected which d20 from the (dis)advantaged roll you were keeping. That d20 is the one you reroll. Note that it doesn't say, "roll another d20" or "reroll the check/save," or anything of the sort. It says (emphasis added) "reroll the d20." Since, by the time you've succeeded on the roll (which must happen before the spell is cast), you've already selected a single d20 whose result is determining your success, it is that specific d20 you're rerolling.

Similarly, Legendary Resistances take a failed roll and declare you succeed anyway. Casting this spell on a creature that used a Legendary Resistance is a waste: it will force them to reroll the d20 that already failed, and, even if the new roll is lower and they must keep it, they used their Legendary Resistance, so the fact that the roll is even lower than before doesn't change the fact that they succeeded anyway. This also means that, if a creature WITH Legendary Resistances succeeds on the die roll and you use silvery barbs on that successful saving throw, and the silvery barbs die results in a failed roll, the creature can still use Legendary Resistance to turn the failed saving throw into a success.

There's no ambiguity here, though it is a little complicated to work through.

Actually the bolded part is the problem. It doesn't say after you succeed on the roll, it says after you succeed. The "roll" is used only for attack and is only assumed for the others but it's not written. It'd be fine if it said on attack, skill check or saving throw rolls, but it only mentions attack rolls.

There are more ways to succeed. So the only natural continuation of the language is that you ignore the resolution that has already happened, not just the roll. Which conflicts with LR.

LR resolves the saving throw and ends, silvery barbs works after LR and is assumed that it cancels the resolution, because if it doesn't then silvery barbs doesn't do anything as a spell, at least not against skills and saves.

Again, I don't support my reading as the intended, but it's what is written.

[Segev]

Actually the bolded part is the problem. It doesn't say after you succeed on the roll, it says after you succeed. The "roll" is used only for attack and is only assumed for the others but it's not written. It'd be fine if it said on attack, skill check or saving throw rolls, but it only mentions attack rolls.

There are more ways to succeed. So the only natural continuation of the language is that you ignore the resolution that has already happened, not just the roll. Which conflicts with LR.

LR resolves the saving throw and ends, silvery barbs works after LR and is assumed that it cancels the resolution, because if it doesn't then silvery barbs doesn't do anything as a spell.

Again, I don't support my reading as the intended, but it's what is written.

"Ability checks" and "saves" are also rolls. This language has been consistent throughout 5e.

There ARE ways to succeed in spite of a bad roll or even without rolling. If you've used one, then the roll is irrelevant, and silvery barbs can't make you fail. This is what happens if you used a Legendary Resistance, for example, to turn a failed roll into a success: you rolled (say) a total of 14 when it was DC 15, used Legendary Resistance to succeed anyway, and then silvery barbs made you reroll the d20 that gave you the 14 and now you got a 12. You still succeed in spite of the roll being below the DC.

The intent and the wording are clear once you parse through it. There's no ambiguity. No question that the result of the attack roll, saving throw, or ability check is altered if the new die roll is too low and the die roll is what determined the result.

I don't know how many times I've laid out this principle before, but I'm tempted to try to name it something catchy to make it easier to pull out: Any time you have multiple possible readings of a rule, and one of them presents clear and clean results that are easy to grasp and use, while the others lead to complicated messes or make the rule simply fail to do what it was obviously designed to do, you should reject the readings that create those problems and use the one that works.

This is one such case: my reading of it is wholly consistent with the RAW and precedent. Your arguments rely on an alternate reading, and create ambiguity or contradiction and possibly make the spell do nothing, when its intent is pretty clearly to transform successful rolls into failed rolls. Therefore, my reading is, I assert, the correct one, because it leads to no ambiguity and accomplishes what was clearly the intent. Where intent was possibly unclear (e.g. interaction with Legendary Resistances), my reading is self-consistent and creates no odd corner cases.

The spell focuses on altering dice rolls. Where dice rolls matter, assume they matter and not that they're arbitrarily negated by some persnickety reading of the rules that could be argued a different way.

[Gtdead]

"Ability checks" and "saves" are also rolls. This language has been consistent throughout 5e.

There ARE ways to succeed in spite of a bad roll or even without rolling. If you've used one, then the roll is irrelevant, and silvery barbs can't make you fail. This is what happens if you used a Legendary Resistance, for example, to turn a failed roll into a success: you rolled (say) a total of 14 when it was DC 15, used Legendary Resistance to succeed anyway, and then silvery barbs made you reroll the d20 that gave you the 14 and now you got a 12. You still succeed in spite of the roll being below the DC.

The intent and the wording are clear once you parse through it. There's no ambiguity. No question that the result of the attack roll, saving throw, or ability check is altered if the new die roll is too low and the die roll is what determined the result.

I don't know how many times I've laid out this principle before, but I'm tempted to try to name it something catchy to make it easier to pull out: Any time you have multiple possible readings of a rule, and one of them presents clear and clean results that are easy to grasp and use, while the others lead to complicated messes or make the rule simply fail to do what it was obviously designed to do, you should reject the readings that create those problems and use the one that works.

This is one such case: my reading of it is wholly consistent with the RAW and precedent. Your arguments rely on an alternate reading, and create ambiguity or contradiction and possibly make the spell do nothing, when its intent is pretty clearly to transform successful rolls into failed rolls. Therefore, my reading is, I assert, the correct one, because it leads to no ambiguity and accomplishes what was clearly the intent. Where intent was possibly unclear (e.g. interaction with Legendary Resistances), my reading is self-consistent and creates no odd corner cases.

The spell focuses on altering dice rolls. Where dice rolls matter, assume they matter and not that they're arbitrarily negated by some persnickety reading of the rules that could be argued a different way.

Ok, let me make it even more crystal clear.

First, there is nothing wrong with my reading, I don't assume things and I don't alter any rule.
To make a check, you roll. This is what the rules say. It doesn't say that Ability Checks and Saving Throws are a roll, it says that to make the checks, you have to roll.
If the roll is high enough, you succeed.
There are multiple ways to succeed, without the roll. Legendary resistance is one of them.

If you used Legendary Resistance, you have already rolled. You failed, you used Legendary resistance and you succeeded. Now the spell forces you to make another roll and use it. The spell doesn't say what happens to the previous resolution, but there is no piece of RAW that explains this situation. The only logical assumption is that the previous resolution is cancelled. If you can find some evidence to the contrary, I will concede my point.

My argument here is that if it doesn't cancel the resolution, then it doesn't work at all. So it can't possibly be something else.

Silvery Barbs as written is stronger than the majority of abilities which reroll things. It rerolls almost everything, it happens only if the resolution was successful, unlike let's say Heighten Metamagic. It basically ****s on everything. Why would it be so dramatic to reroll Legendary Resistances at this point?

This is not the Nystul's Magic Aura situation all over. The matter is very precise. It's like the Evoker's Magic Missile conundrum where we all know it's legal, we have confirmation that is legal, but the majority are not going to allow it on their table cause it's absurd.

[Segev]

Ok, let me make it even more crystal clear.

First, there is nothing wrong with my reading, I don't assume things and I don't alter any rule.
To make a check, you roll. This is what the rules say. It doesn't say that Ability Checks and Saving Throws are a roll, it says that to make the checks, you have to roll.
If the roll is high enough, you succeed.
There are multiple ways to succeed, without the roll. Legendary resistance is one of them.

If you used Legendary Resistance, you have already rolled. You failed, you used Legendary resistance and you succeeded. Now the spell forces you to make another roll and use it. The spell doesn't say what happens to the previous resolution, but there is no piece of RAW that explains this situation. The only logical assumption is that the previous resolution is cancelled. If you can find some evidence to the contrary, I will concede my point.

My argument here is that if it doesn't cancel the resolution, then it doesn't work at all. So it can't possibly be something else.

Silvery Barbs as written is stronger than the majority of abilities which reroll things. It rerolls almost everything, it happens only if the resolution was successful, unlike let's say Heighten Metamagic. It basically ****s on everything. Why would it be so dramatic to reroll Legendary Resistances at this point?

This is not the Nystul's Magic Aura situation all over. The matter is very precise. It's like the Evoker's Magic Missile conundrum where we all know it's legal, we have confirmation that is legal, but the majority are not going to allow it on their table cause it's absurd.

My argument is that your reading COULD be a valid one, but certainly is no more valid than the one I presented, and since yours creates ambiguity and causes the RAW to break, your reading should be rejected. Since mine causes no breaks and works with all existing RAW, mine should be accepted.


Once again, on Legendary Resistances, they say you change a failure into a success.

Silver barbs says, on a success, you are forced to reroll the die and "use the new roll if it is lower."

Using the new roll normally means your success is now a failure, if the new roll is lower than the DC. However, if your result is not dependent on the rolled value - as in the case of a Legendary Resistance - this is not true.

"Use the new roll" can - and should, in context - be read to mean "in place of the old one for determining whether the check/save/whatever was a success or not." If the die roll determined the success of the check or save or attack roll, then replacing its result can cause the success to change to failure. If the die roll did not determine the success of the check or save or attack roll, changing it cannot change the success.

Put another way: 5e does not have M:tG-style resolution stacks. It is very loosey-goosey with resolution order, allowing reactions to things to alter the determining factors of a result in a sort of nebulous narrative time. This doesn't extend across multiple turns, but it DOES allow for a lot of interaction and back-and-forth in a single turn.

[Joe the Rat]

Silvery Barbs vs. Legendary Saves:
So either the spell is a waste, because the fail state of the roll does not impact the use of the LS, or the spell can't be used, because there isn't a successfully rolled save to target.

And now I am debating the viability of using this on your allies. If someone rolled an attack with advantage and both look like they'd hit, you could fire this off to give the player another try for a crit (since the low die was good enough), and give someone else advantage. I'm also picturing this with Reliable Talent - if your rogue didn't roll over 10 on that check (and you really, really need high numbers, or your DM has some awesome graded success options), this gives a no-risk reroll (since anything below 10 is made into a 10), and gives someone else a boost.