New Spells in Strixhaven

[Psyren]

With no rancor, I must admit I don't think this is a correct adjudication.

Silvery Barbs triggers off a success, and results in the target having to roll the die and take the lower result.

The Legendary Resistance use guarantees a successful save on the initial Saving Throw.

Silvery Barbs kicks in, when Legendary Resistance results in successful Saving Thow, and the target now has to roll again and use the roll.

All of this is correct and in line with what TM is saying.

The part where TM and some of the rest of us disagree with you however, is that we believe the result of that new roll is irrelevant. LR means you succeeded no matter what the roll was, so changing {failed irrelevant roll} to {new, lower failed irrelevant roll} (or leaving it steady at {previous failed irrelevant roll} if the new one is higher) doesn't do anything.

[Thunderous Mojo]

See Post # 90 for my counter argument.😉

[Witty Username]

Yeah that seems like the only way to rule legendary resistance, after all what roll would cause a failure of a saving throw that is a success by legendary resistance.
It is kinda like trying to shield against a natural 20, your AC isn't the problem there.

See Post # 90 for my counter argument.😉

I would say that would only possibly apply if the new roll was lower than the original, since silver threads can't replace the previous roll otherwise.

[Psyren]

See Post # 90 for my counter argument.😉

I saw your post. It's not that LR prevents a failure for the rest of the turn, it's that LR makes whatever is on the die irrelevant, the monster succeeds regardless. So replacing that die value with another die value doesn't change that - once a monster has used LR, there is no die value that will then cause it to fail.

At least, that's the interpretation several of us are going with until WotC clarifies it.

[Oerlaf]

Borrowed Knowledge
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

Wither and decay End this destiny Break these earthly chains And set the spirit free The spirit free

Flower gleam and glow Let your powers shine Make the clock reverse Bring back what once was mine What once was mine

[Hael]

Rules lawyering in 5e is one of the silliest things on the internet. It just goes in circles, and always comes down to statements like 'well it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'!

Maybe the solution in the future is to have 5.5 written with plain English (albeit with a little more care to avoid ambiguity), and some other online slightly less official source to adjudicate on the mechanics with video game like precision (tags/flowcharts and exact RAI explanations). This in contrast to the current sage advice/Jeremy Crawford snafu which tends to fail to elucidate much of anything and has a tendency to generically increase the fog value.

I know some people hate this quasi return to 4e, but I do believe it would help DMs sort through the mess.

[Kane0]

Rules lawyering in 5e is one of the silliest things on the internet. It just goes in circles, and always comes down to statements like 'well it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'!

Maybe the solution in the future is to have 5.5 written with plain English (albeit with a little more care to avoid ambiguity), and some other online slightly less official source to adjudicate on the mechanics with video game like precision (tags/flowcharts and exact RAI explanations). This in contrast to the current sage advice/Jeremy Crawford snafu which tends to fail to elucidate much of anything and has a tendency to generically increase the fog value.

A writer for the book, a lawyer for errata the and the devs can only speak through one or the other?

[tokek]

Rules lawyering in 5e is one of the silliest things on the internet. It just goes in circles, and always comes down to statements like 'well it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'!

Maybe the solution in the future is to have 5.5 written with plain English (albeit with a little more care to avoid ambiguity), and some other online slightly less official source to adjudicate on the mechanics with video game like precision (tags/flowcharts and exact RAI explanations). This in contrast to the current sage advice/Jeremy Crawford snafu which tends to fail to elucidate much of anything and has a tendency to generically increase the fog value.

I know some people hate this quasi return to 4e, but I do believe it would help DMs sort through the mess.

I would rather just adjudicate than have to read tons of dry boring flowcharts and rules written in legalese.

Honestly its not that big a deal

[SharkForce]

as has been mentioned, silvery barbs does not counter the effect of a legendary resistance.

legendary resistance does not change the roll, it changes the outcome.

silvery barbs does not change the outcome, it changes the roll. under normal circumstances, this would require a re-evaluation of the outcome, but legendary resistance ignores the outcome the roll would lead to anyways, and simply replaces it with an automatic success.

since it is the same saving throw (it is a reroll, not a new saving throw), legendary resistance still applies. it does not have a duration in time, but it does cover that one saving throw, and that one saving throw has already been turned into a guaranteed success, regardless of the roll.

the same kind of thing would happen if you used silvery barbs on a rogue with reliable talent. if the roll was a 3 and is modified to become a 10 because of reliable talent, no amount of casting silvery barbs will ever reduce the final result below a roll of 10.

on the plus side, you *would* get the advantage on an ally's roll, since that is not in any way dependant on the other effect of the spell accomplishing anything useful.



having said that, I still think silvery barbs is tremendously broken, for reasons others have already discussed. this spell has the potential to be equal in power to the highest level spell(s) the party can cast, except minus any expensive material components, and it only takes a reaction and a level 1 spell slot.

to put that into perspective, imagine someone was to cast a level 9 planar binding spell to attempt to gain the services of a captured former enemy (not that I think this is a typical use of a level 9 spell slot, this is just an extreme example). if the target passes the saving throw, all allies within range that have access to this spell can generate an effect that is the same as the 1 hour casting time level 9 spell with a 1,000 gp material component, except they can do it with a level 1 spell slot and a reaction.

well, that plus it has the perk of giving someone on your side advantage on a roll, because apparently you weren't already getting enough for the cost of a single level 1 spell slot.


this is not reasonable. the spell would be very powerful, but probably not brokenly so, if it did not include saving throws in my opinion.

that would be a much closer match to the other spells on the list, which I would describe as being more powerful than existing options but not necessarily broken. I still wouldn't necessarily recommend adding them to the game (in some cases I think they're better than the best current options which is not great for game balance), but none of them seem nearly as crazy as silvery barbs.

[Zhorn]

We're all doing the Silvery Barbs vs Legendary Resistance thing are we? Alright then.
Not concerned with convincing anyone to change their mind, just throwing in my 2 cp on how the interactions reads to me. If this wording they are using is what is making it to print, I'm thinking this book is just going to my ban list rather than navigate the arguments at the table.

Legendary Resistance (3/Day). If the creature fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
vs
Silvery 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.

Creature rolls a saving throw; result fail
Creature uses Legendary Resistance to turn THAT failure into a success. It's an instantaneous effect, not a duration blanket cover of the turn.
A successful saving throw counts as a trigger to cast Silvery Barbs.
Silvery Barbs forces a new d20, if the result is lower, they must use it.
The old roll, regardless of it's value, counts as a success thanks to Legendary Resistance
The new roll will only trigger a failure if lower than the old roll, forcing the creature to use that instead of their prior successful outcome.
If the new roll is lower, the creature still has the ability to burn another Legendary Resistance to turn that failure into a success (no per turn limit on the feature).

Essentially I'm seeing it like a counterspell-counterspell chain.

Even ignoring whether this works on Legendary Resistance or not, this spell too strong for a 1st level slot.
Even cutting it in half and only taking the first section alone it would still be worth taking.

[Segev]

For the sake of discussion, here is why I think this is incorrect.
(Caveat: I'm personally fine with your ruling).

Legendary Resistance allows a creature to succeed on a Saving Throw.
Legendary Resistance, does not state, that a use of Legendary Resistance prevents a failure for the rest of a turn, or until the start of another turn.

A truly instantaneous effect, happens once.

• If Player One casts Mord's Malignant Malady on Creature A,
• and Creature A elects to not even roll the Saving Throw,
  but uses a Legendary Resistance charge to Succeed on the Saving Throw...
  ....that use of Legendary Resistance is expended, if it is truly an Instantaneous power.

Silvery Barbs as a Reaction, triggers once the Legendary Resistance concludes, and Succeeds on the Saving Throw. The specific rules of the Silvery Barbs, now apply, and take precedence.

Essentially, your ruling changes Legendary Resistance to say: You chose to Succeed on the Saving Throw and for the rest of the turn can not fail the Saving Throw.

Personally, I think that is not a a bad addition to Legendary Resistance for the future edition, as it seems the Time Barrier has been broken, and we can potentially Post Facto change outcomes with spells.

In game play I suspect, Silvery Barbs will be something like a Hail Mary pass.

I saw your post. It's not that LR prevents a failure for the rest of the turn, it's that LR makes whatever is on the die irrelevant, the monster succeeds regardless. So replacing that die value with another die value doesn't change that - once a monster has used LR, there is no die value that will then cause it to fail.

At least, that's the interpretation several of us are going with until WotC clarifies it.

This is my take on it, too.

as has been mentioned, silvery barbs does not counter the effect of a legendary resistance.

legendary resistance does not change the roll, it changes the outcome.

silvery barbs does not change the outcome, it changes the roll. under normal circumstances, this would require a re-evaluation of the outcome, but legendary resistance ignores the outcome the roll would lead to anyways, and simply replaces it with an automatic success.

since it is the same saving throw (it is a reroll, not a new saving throw), legendary resistance still applies.

Exactly. Silvery barbs retcons the rolled value; it does not create a new saving throw. There exists only one saving throw in the entire sequence, and if that saving throw's die roll matters, then silvery barbs can potentially turn a success into a failure. Legendary Resistance says that the creature can choose to succeed instead of failing. It doesn't matter whether it chose to succeed instead of failing after the initial roll, or after silvery barbs changed the rolled result: Legendary Resistance is only expended once to make a failed saving throw into a successful one.

The old roll, regardless of it's value, counts as a success thanks to Legendary Resistance

Correct up to here.

The new roll will only trigger a failure if lower than the old roll, forcing the creature to use that instead of their prior successful outcome.

You're starting to veer into incorrect territory here. Nowhere does silvery barbs say it forces the creature to fail the saving throw. It says it forces the creature to use the new die roll if the new die roll is lower.

If the creature rolled a 7 before and a 5 after silvery barbs, and the creature used Legendary Resistance on the save when it got a 7, it still has used Legendary Resistance on the save when that changes to a 5. It isn't a second instance of Legendary Resistance because it isn't a different saving throw. The creature has chosen to succeed instead of failing.

Changing the die result doesn't change the success into a failure when the success is already ignoring the die result. All silvery barbs does is change the die result, not (directly) the saving throw's success.

Essentially I'm seeing it like a counterspell-counterspell chain.

I see where you're coming from, but it isn't accurate to the way the rules are written, here.

It would have to say it forces "a new saving throw" or something like that for it to work as you're outlining. It doesn't. It changes - retroactively - the result of the die roll, but it is still THAT roll that is being used to determine outcomes. Legendary Resistance says "I don't care that the die roll is too low to succeed; I succeed anyway."

Even ignoring whether this works on Legendary Resistance or not, this spell too strong for a 1st level slot.
Even cutting it in half and only taking the first section alone it would still be worth taking.

Wait, isn't the first half the "force a reroll and take the lower result" portion?

[Psyren]

legendary resistance does not change the roll, it changes the outcome.

silvery barbs does not change the outcome, it changes the roll.

Perfect summary.

I would rather just adjudicate than have to read tons of dry boring flowcharts and rules written in legalese.

Honestly its not that big a deal

This.

Rules lawyering in 5e is one of the silliest things on the internet. It just goes in circles, and always comes down to statements like 'well it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'!

Maybe the solution in the future is to have 5.5 written with plain English (albeit with a little more care to avoid ambiguity), and some other online slightly less official source to adjudicate on the mechanics with video game like precision (tags/flowcharts and exact RAI explanations). This in contrast to the current sage advice/Jeremy Crawford snafu which tends to fail to elucidate much of anything and has a tendency to generically increase the fog value.

I know some people hate this quasi return to 4e, but I do believe it would help DMs sort through the mess.

I disagree, I think 5e's current language strikes the perfect balance between crunch and accessibility. Yes, the odd argument comes up here and there, but it doesn't hold a candle to the dysfunctions we used to rail about in 3.5, like monks not being proficient with their unarmed strikes or drown-healing or kobolds being true dragons etc.

[Bobthewizard]

Even with this debate, which will sort itself out, I think silvery barbs is a great addition to the spell list. Although I'd rather the attack and save spell benefits were separate spells. I'd like to see 2 or 3 other competitive 1st level reaction spells so casters had to choose which ones to take. Even now, you are probably not taking all of shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs on most casters. Forcing some equal choices for these might lead to more diversity.

I tend to take shield and absorb elements on every wizard or sorcerer as if they are a prepared spell tax. But adding another one in would be tough, especially for sorcerers. You only have one reaction per round, so you probably don't want too many reaction spells.

[stoutstien]

Even with this debate, which will sort itself out, I think silvery barbs is a great addition to the spell list. Although I'd rather the attack and save spell benefits were separate spells. I'd like to see 2 or 3 other competitive 1st level reaction spells so casters had to choose which ones to take. Even now, you are probably not taking all of shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs on most casters. Forcing some equal choices for these might lead to more diversity.

I tend to take shield and absorb elements on every wizard or sorcerer as if they are a prepared spell tax. But adding another one in would be tough, especially for sorcerers. You only have one reaction per round, so you probably don't want too many reaction spells.

As a mechanic I don't mind it but I'd rather have seen it as a subclass/class feature. Spell creep is a real concern.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I saw your post. It's not that LR prevents a failure for the rest of the turn, it's that LR makes whatever is on the die irrelevant, the monster succeeds regardless. So replacing that die value with another die value doesn't change that - once a monster has used LR, there is no die value that will then cause it to fail.

At least, that's the interpretation several of us are going with until WotC clarifies it.

That is an overreach, in my eyes. Legendary Resistance states you succeed on the Saving Throw, not that you are immune to failure on the same Saving Throw, from subsequent actions.

In effect you are adding new text, to current the existing rules, without the bother of errata...it is the literal definition of 'activist' adjudication, as it is a generous read of the existing text, and not a parsimonious reading.

Silvery Barbs leaves us at an impasse, until further clarification is provided, by the powers that be.🍻

I wish that the D&D Design team would take inspiration from prior editions, and include examples of how spells or rules are supposed to work.

In Original AD&D, sometimes Gygax's wall of text did not make much sense, but their example of how the power was supposed to work was clear.

Rules lawyering in 5e is one of the silliest things on the internet. It just goes in circles, and always comes down to statements like 'well it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'!

Maybe the solution in the future is to have 5.5 written with plain English (albeit with a little more care to avoid ambiguity), and some other online slightly less official source to adjudicate on the mechanics with video game like precision (tags/flowcharts and exact RAI explanations). This in contrast to the current sage advice/Jeremy Crawford snafu which tends to fail to elucidate much of anything and has a tendency to generically increase the fog value.

Hael, if so much depends upon on a red wheel barrow glazed by rain, next to some chickens, then why is it so surprising, and threatening that keywords in rule systems are subjects of scrutiny?🃏

Communication and the Inter-Subjective is complex, heady stuff.
Natural Language doesn't make communication any simpler it just tends to, pointedly, not elucidate the complexities of assumptions contained in it's 'natural language'.

Existence is nigh infinitely complex, and frustrating....anyone whom tells you they have a simple answer to it, is selling something.🃏

(I appreciate the civil discourse, Cheers to the board🍻)

[Gtdead]

In Original AD&D, sometimes Gygax's wall of text did not make much sense, but their example of how the power was supposed to work was clear.

This is the crux of the matter for me too. If we didn't have things like nuclear magic missiles for example and the game kept the power scaling consistent across the board, I would never even entertain the thought that Silvery Barbs can do anything to Legendary Resistance. But right now it doesn't seem like a stretch.

[Psyren]

That is an overreach, in my eyes. Legendary Resistance states you succeed on the Saving Throw, not that you are immune to failure on the same Saving Throw, from subsequent actions.

I never said you're "immune to failure." If there was a spell that said "reaction: you make them fail instead" then it would beat LR, or at least force them to burn another one to counter that second failure.

Silver Barbs however doesn't say anything about failure, it says you reroll and take the lower die result. The problem is that the die result no longer matters no matter what you change it to, they have already chosen to succeed.

Even with this debate, which will sort itself out, I think silvery barbs is a great addition to the spell list.

Oh absolutely. Against anything without LR it is gangbusters. Even against a creature with LR, it can beat a natural success (if you can distinguish such) and force them to use a LR instead, or just force them to fail if they don't have any LR left.

Considering that a lot of casters are likely to have more 1st-level slots than monsters have LR, you have very little to lose by trying.

[follacchioso]

Slivery Barbs is also V only, meaning you can wield a shield or two weapons, and still cast it. So no shenanigans on casting S-only spells like for Shield.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Silver Barbs however doesn't say anything about failure, it says you reroll and take the lower die result. The problem is that the die result no longer matters no matter what you change it to, they have already chosen to succeed.

Correct, "Chosen" past tense. Once Legendary Resistance has fulfilled it's purpose, of succeeding on a Saving Throw...the power ends.

Legendary Resistance, succeeded...it accomplished it's aim of success....
.....indeed that success is the trigger for Silvery Barbs.

Silvery Barbs is the first spell effect, that I can think of, that can change a result, after the fact.

Essentially, you position boils down to Legendary Resistance, being a shield against failure, regardless, of the quantity or quality of subsequent (re)actions, that could impact the outcome of the saving throw result.

Legendary Resistance, becomes, in essence like the Shield spell, it isn't an effect that ends once it creates a successful save...but lingers until all options that can change the outcome are expended.

That is quite an expansive read, and quite an assumption baked into the world 'succeed', that isn't supported by the text.

As, I stated previously, I am not opposed to an Errata update to Legendary Resistance, to textually support it being infallible, even when influenced by effects that can post facto alter outcomes....but that assumption, as the text currently stands, isn't explicitly supported, as Legendary Resistance, is currently written.

As an aside, Thematically, I like the idea of Legendary Resistance uses being inviolable milestones in the river of time. A use of Legendary Resistance, is firm in history, and unalterable across the multiverse..and unaffected by time travel...
....historical earmarks, as it were.

Silvery Barbs can be like Balefire, in the Wheel of Time book series, it burns the 'infallibly certain' milestone of history out of the weave of time, and instead allows random chance to play a role in the outcome of the save.

[Segev]

Correct, "Chosen" past tense. Once Legendary Resistance has fulfilled it's purpose, of succeeding on a Saving Throw...the power ends.

Legendary Resistance, succeeded...it accomplished it's aim of success....
.....indeed that success is the trigger for Silvery Barbs.

Silvery Barbs is the first spell effect, that I can think of, that can change a result, after the fact.

Essentially, you position boils down to Legendary Resistance, being a shield against failure, regardless, of the quantity or quality of subsequent (re)actions, that could impact the outcome of the saving throw result.

Legendary Resistance, becomes, in essence like the Shield spell, it isn't an effect that ends once it creates a successful save...but lingers until all options that can change the outcome are expended.

That is quite an expansive read, and quite an assumption baked into the world 'succeed', that isn't supported by the text.

As, I stated previously, I am not opposed to an Errata update to Legendary Resistance, to textually support it being infallible, even when influenced by effects that can post facto alter outcomes....but that assumption, as the text currently stands, isn't explicitly supported, as Legendary Resistance, is currently written.

As an aside, Thematically, I like the idea of Legendary Resistance uses being inviolable milestones in the river of time. A use of Legendary Resistance, is firm in history, and unalterable across the multiverse..and unaffected by time travel...
....historical earmarks, as it were.

That's the thing: silvery barbs doesn't (directly) change the success into a failure. It changes the die roll used to determine success or failure. Legendary Resistance removes the die roll as the determining factor.

Silvery Barbs can be like Balefire, in the Wheel of Time book series, it burns the 'infallibly certain' milestone of history out of the weave of time, and instead allows random chance to play a role in the outcome of the save.

To extend this metaphor, if the cookoff between Chef Ramsey and Chef Swedish has the judge ready to deem Ramsey the winner based on the Swedish Chef having served inedible felt, but the Swedish Chef used his "I'm a Muppet!" trump card to decide he won anyway, it doesn't matter if you use Balefire to get rid of his meal retroactively so that he instead would have lost due to having not submitted a meal at all; his "I'm a Muppet" trump card still got played and he still won.

[Psyren]

That's the thing: silvery barbs doesn't (directly) change the success into a failure. It changes the die roll used to determine success or failure. Legendary Resistance removes the die roll as the determining factor.

Beat me to it

it doesn't matter if you use Balefire to get rid of his meal retroactively

Boy, that's a weave I'm nervous about Amazon representing on-screen.

[Segev]

Beat me to it

Boy, that's a weave I'm nervous about Amazon representing on-screen.

I haven't seen it yet, and I do plan to, but I'm nervous based on some things I've heard.

Spoiler

Show

Perrin starting the series married is not the only concerning thing I've heard, but it so utterly destroys and changes his character arc that I cannot imagine why they would make that choice, and makes me question how much the series writers actually know about the characters and writing the story as a character-driven story.

[Psyren]

I haven't seen it yet, and I do plan to, but I'm nervous based on some things I've heard.

Spoiler

Show

Perrin starting the series married is not the only concerning thing I've heard, but it so utterly destroys and changes his character arc that I cannot imagine why they would make that choice, and makes me question how much the series writers actually know about the characters and writing the story as a character-driven story.

We have a thread over in Media about it discussing some of the changes, with book and latest-episode stuff behind spoiler tags. Yes, that was one of the more controversial ones, but once you get past that bumpy start it's doing pretty well. Rotten Tomatoes is showing that it has pretty good legs, and IMDB is showing that once you get past the kinda clunky beginning the episodes have been steadily ramping up in quality.

[Segev]

We have a thread over in Media about it discussing some of the changes, with book and latest-episode stuff behind spoiler tags. Yes, that was one of the more controversial ones, but once you get past that bumpy start it's doing pretty well. Rotten Tomatoes is showing that it has pretty good legs, and IMDB is showing that once you get past the kinda clunky beginning the episodes have been steadily ramping up in quality.

Good to know. I might visit that thread after I finally give the series a try.

[Thunderous Mojo]

We have a thread over in Media about it discussing some of the changes, with book and latest-episode stuff behind spoiler tags. Yes, that was one of the more controversial ones, but once you get past that bumpy start it's doing pretty well. Rotten Tomatoes is showing that it has pretty good legs, and IMDB is showing that once you get past the kinda clunky beginning the episodes have been steadily ramping up in quality.

The third episode was good.

[Witty Username]

I am reminded of a Guided strike vs shield argument:
Essentially can a guided strike turn a shield miss into a hit. By RAW I believe the consensus was no because the act of calling shield means you have already been told the results of the roll, "miss" due to the shield spell. But it boils down to whether or not the call of casting shield counts as the result being called leaving some ambiguity.

I am not sure silvery barbs is ban worthy, I still find spells like shield and absorb elements well worth the slot and the potential advantages on barbs are not going to be worth not having one or neither of those spells at least all the time.

[SharkForce]

To extend this metaphor, if the cookoff between Chef Ramsey and Chef Swedish has the judge ready to deem Ramsey the winner based on the Swedish Chef having served inedible felt, but the Swedish Chef used his "I'm a Muppet!" trump card to decide he won anyway, it doesn't matter if you use Balefire to get rid of his meal retroactively so that he instead would have lost due to having not submitted a meal at all; his "I'm a Muppet" trump card still got played and he still won.

psh.

that would never happen.

Spoiler

Show

obviously gordon ramsay would lose due to a technicality (specifically that the meal he served was full of hair) as a result of hiring sweetums.

(and yes, that *is* a real thing. go ahead and look it up on youtube).

[Damon_Tor]

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.

This is basically the "rule zero" fallacy, the idea that WotC is excempt from any responsibility for releasing balanced content because the DM can disallow whatever he wants.

[Psyren]

This is basically the "rule zero" fallacy, the idea that WotC is excempt from any responsibility for releasing balanced content because the DM can disallow whatever he wants.

The question then is, are Silvery Barbs and the rest of these spells unbalanced or merely powerful? I lean towards the latter.

[Kane0]

The question then is, are Silvery Barbs and the rest of these spells unbalanced or merely powerful? I lean towards the latter.

The fact that it works on attacks, checks and saves coupled with the after-the-fact trigger makes me think closer to OP than merely strong.

Edit: for perspective, would you consider a 1st level spell that does this to be good?
Range 60'
Reaction (a creature you can see rolls an attack, check or save)
You impose disadvantage on the roll