More Silvery Barbs discussion

[Elves]

You keep ignoring counterpoints and restating this sort of thing.

The counterpoint I've heard is that ST spells are often less powerful than other options. But when you balance a game ability, you balance it for its use case. Barbs's use case is for single target spells.

It lets you cast high-level single-target spells with a 1st-level spell slot as a reaction. The question is whether that's balanced.

Do you characterize disadvantage in this same way? Does that mean your spell is double powered? ...not really, it just means your spell is more likely to land by X percent.

Silvery barbs is better than a spell that imposes disadvantage because you can use it after you know if the first roll succeeded or failed.

Barbs, a no-save "target has disadvantage" spell, and casting the spell again all equate to an increase in the chance of affecting the target with the spell, but disadvantage is a smaller increase.

[Captain Panda]

The counterpoint I've heard is that ST spells are often less powerful than other options. But when you balance a game ability, you balance it for its use case. Barbs's use case is for single target spells.

And since single target spells are generally way worse than other sorts of spells, its balanced just fine.

It lets you cast high-level single-target spells with a 1st-level spell slot as a reaction. The question is whether that's balanced.

No, that's just something you keep repeating. It's a silly characterization, and remains so.

Silvery barbs is better than a spell that imposes disadvantage because you can use it after you know if the first roll succeeded or failed.

The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.

[tokek]

The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.

You get it.

If making a target roll their save twice and take the lowest was this powerful then the Rune Knight would be the most busted class in the game. The 7th Level Storm Rune can do that every turn for a minute per short rest. That's up to 10 times per short rest, double that at higher levels.

The thing is that while I think Rune Knights are fine and nice to play nobody seems to think they are the most busted thing ever. So why do they think that a spell, which short of an 18th level Wizard nobody will cast anywhere near this often, is busted for having mathematically the same effect? I honestly don't know why people think this.

If there was some combo with a forced save reroll and a spell that broke the game we would know by now. There are plenty of people playing Rune Knight Fighters out there. There are plenty of other abilities which can achieve the same (although none quite so many times as Rune Knights that I can think of). As this has not been the talk of every D&D forum for months I think we can be very confident that in fact this combo is in fact nothing special.

[Elves]

No, that's just something you keep repeating. It's a silly characterization, and remains so.

Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.

The order of the rolls doesn't really matter. Silvery Barbs functions very similarly to disadvantage. You're rolling two dice. Making the reroll after you know it succeeds is a matter of how you are perceiving events, but doesn't change the fact that you're just rolling two dice.

You get it.

If making a target roll their save twice and take the lowest was this powerful then the Rune Knight would be the most busted class in the game.

Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome. It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

[tokek]

Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.





Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome. It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

Its still two rolls take the lowest.

Storm Rune is resource free once you declare it so you could just do it every turn. No spell slots, just do it every turn for a minute.

But the core of this is that if forcing a second dice roll and taking the lowest on saves broke the game then it was broken a good while ago and somehow for some strange reason nobody noticed and all the optimisation guides forgot to mention just how busted this was. Or, and maybe you might just want to consider this as a possibility, its just not that powerful and all the current guides are actually more or less right that its an okay but not incredible thing to be able to do.

[Captain Panda]

Then what's inaccurate about it? All I've heard you say is that it doesn't matter because you see non-ST spells as stronger.

It's similar to disadvantage. It increases failure chance on a saving throw if you do something suboptimal, in the same way disadvantage does against a single target. Disadvantage is mechanic that already existed and is generally much cheaper than your reaction and a spell slot.

Barbs only needs to be used if the second roll could be decisive, meaning that compared to disadvantage's second roll, barbs' second roll has a greater chance of affecting the outcome.

It's still two dice. It's still the same chance of failure. The difference, again, is one of perception. When disadvantage is rolled people don't typically assign one of the dice as "the one that would have been rolled if not for disadvantage," so you don't know that it's the disadvantage making the difference. With Silvery Barbs if it causes a fail, you know it was the Barbs. Still the same two dice, though.

It also means your spell slots go farther -- an equivalent spell that imposes disadvantage would have to be used every time someone rolls a save, while barbs needs to be used less often for the same result.

The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted." If something isn't busted when it's a repeated free effect, or a repeated effect for cheap (as with the hound), why is the effect rated so highly in the case of Silvery Barbs?

Again, it's a matter of perception. The DM will feel like the monster was "supposed" to make the save and the player calls out a reaction. It has nothing to do with it being overpowered mechanically and everything to do with it feeling strong in that one moment.

[Elves]

It's similar to disadvantage.

It's similar to disadvantage but better.

It's still two dice. It's still the same chance of failure. The difference, again, is one of perception.

The difference is how much of a % success increase the spell is providing, and whether you have to cast it at all.

The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted."

I'm making a specific comparison: a lower level spell and a higher level spell. The lower level ones are supposed to be weaker.

[tokek]

The examples given that provide disadvantage don't cost spell slots and have been dramatically better at causing rolls to fail. Hound of Ill Omen, 3 sorcery points, disadvantage on as many spells as you can throw, functionally. Tokek is pointing to Storm Rune, which does the same thing, but no one considers it "busted." If something isn't busted when it's a repeated free effect, or a repeated effect for cheap (as with the hound), why is the effect rated so highly in the case of Silvery Barbs?

(Agreed, completely agreed)

We have pointed out two subclasses which can produce the same mathematical effect many times per combat, effectively every turn in a combat. Neither subclass is considered especially strong despite having this ability.

There are other ways in the game to achieve the same thing, spread across many classes.

If this effect was incredible then we would all have been talking about it all the time, how to build it into our optimal character builds and DMs would be constantly looking for ways to deal with it. There is no such discussion, there does not need to be any such discussion. It is just not that amazing.

Banning Barbs while allowing all these other things which mathematically do the same thing would be a knee-jerk reaction to something new. Something which looks new but is just an additional way to access a thing which has been in the game for a good while now without causing any problems.

[Amnestic]

Also, Silvery Barbs stacks with disadvantage. The Rune Knight rune (which is 1/SR until 15th so if you have more than one fight between short rests you only get to invoke once, also ends early if you're incapacitated, it's not just "active for 1 minute no complications", as seems to have been made out) imposes disadvantage...which you can then Silvery Barbs if they still pass. Three dice, not two. Or even more, if you get more people to stack their dice on top. Disadvantage ends at two. Silvery Barbs need not end until you run out of people with reactions to spend.

As for why Barbs is being rated highly, perhaps because it's now being made available to basically everyone at very low buy in cost (a one level dip or a feat) whereas the rune and hound of ill omen both require at least 6-7 levels in a very specific subclass?

[Yakk]

Storm rune was considered crazy good when you could get it for a 3 level dip.

At the cost of 7 levels, without self synergy, it is a very good ability. Unlike SB, you have to expend the reaction before the roll, but it doesn't cost slots.

Rune Knights are BA constrained. Before you can storm, you have to burn the BA. And competes with "resist BPS", "become large", and other class abilities that use reactions.

SB requires a 1 level dip to get, or you get it for free. SB does not require expending a subclass choice, investing more than 1 level (maybe 0).

SB is crazy good as a 1st level spell.

Shadow sorcerer is considered a strong subclass. Its hound's weakness is counterplay (killing it).

SB stacks with all of the above mechanics.

[Captain Panda]

Also, Silvery Barbs stacks with disadvantage. The Rune Knight rune (which is 1/SR until 15th so if you have more than one fight between short rests you only get to invoke once, also ends early if you're incapacitated, it's not just "active for 1 minute no complications", as seems to have been made out) imposes disadvantage...which you can then Silvery Barbs if they still pass. Three dice, not two. Or even more, if you get more people to stack their dice on top. Disadvantage ends at two. Silvery Barbs need not end until you run out of people with reactions to spend.

There is a point of diminishing returns. How many reactions and slots are we wasting to make one spell stick? Is it really worth that? Is that actually a thing that is happening at tables, and if it does, is it that big a deal that the entire team just wasted a pile of spells and reactions to make one roll go the way they want it to?

As for why Barbs is being rated highly, perhaps because it's now being made available to basically everyone at very low buy in cost (a one level dip or a feat) whereas the rune and hound of ill omen both require at least 6-7 levels in a very specific subclass?

Those are examples to prove a point, not an exhaustive list. Chronal Shift (which I've played with personally) is about the same as Silvery Barbs, but more versatile, and not broken. Unsettling Words does the same thing, and stacks with disadvantage in a much more potent way (not just a straight reroll, but you deduct from the lower roll, really pushing something to fail) and it costs a bardic inspiration, which becomes pretty cheap once you get them back on a short rest.

Silvery Barbs is a good, versatile spell. People are hyper fixating on the absolute best use it could possibly have. That's not going to be the norm.

[Kane0]

It's notable that Storm Rune Knight is a 7th level noncaster subclass feature that requires a bonus action to start up, and also doesn't stack nor throw in the secondary advantage on top. It's passive benefit isn't really that great compared to other runes either. It does have a good (say 50%) chance of being chosen once available however, being one of two that unlock at 7th and the 3rd choice of 6 possible runes, so that's more likely than any list of spells to parse through.
It's entirely possible that Storm Rune might be a sleeper hit that hasn't been recognized in a widespread optimization build yet, for a number of possible reasons (fighters looking for other reactions, other runes stealing the show, higher opp cost negating dips to obtain, advantage/disadvantage being otherwise rather common, etc), but I doubt it personally.
Maybe if there was say a combat maneuver that penalized the next check or save made by the target by the sup die roll, that would be something perceived as more valuable (since it would again stack, easy to apply and be easy to obtain via MC or feat).

As for HoIO, it's again a 6th level subclass feature (for a caster this time though) and requires a bonus action to start up, doesn't affect ability checks or attack rolls, also doesn't stack nor throw in the secondary advantage on top. It does have greater range and acts as a summon though, being able to both attack and be attacked. 3 SP is a pretty efficient cost for the package you're getting, especially compared to Heighten Spell.
I would be tempted to compare barbs to Heighten due to it not being a subclass feature, available at a lower level, available via feat (not enough SP from the feat alone though) and operates on a single instance like barbs is.

Chronal Shift is a 2nd level subclass feature (for a caster), does exactly what Barbs does except for the secondary advantage on top and is hard capped at twice per long rest, matching the Diviner's Portent without the later improvement at level 14. Much closer, but still not as good.

Cutting Words is a 3rd level subclass feature (for a caster), stacks with disadvantage/barbs but applies to damage rolls instead of saving throws (still applies to attacks and checks) and again doesn't carry the advantage rider or similar. It uses an inspiration instead of a spell slot which is more efficient especially from level 5+, and Barbs is on the Bard Spell list natively without needing Magical Secrets.

[Gurgeh]

I will remind the "barbs isn't that good, really" crowd that in addition to its foced-reroll-that-stacks-with-disadvantage-and-overrides-advantage, it also gives a one-minute single-use advantage to anyone you want within 60 feet. The Help action, by contrast, can only provide advantage on an ability check or an attack roll (and the latter requires you to be within five feet of their target), and expires at the start of your next turn - and it can't target yourself.

So not only do you get to force a do-over, you give someone - potentially even yourself - a better-than-help-action.

EDIT: Chronal Shift has half the range (notably it puts you within melee range of almost everything), doesn't completely negate advantage (since the victim gets to choose which die to re-roll and still gets to keep the best result), and doesn't have the better-help-action rider added to it.

[Captain Panda]

I would be tempted to compare barbs to Heighten due to it not being a subclass feature, available at a lower level, available via feat (not enough SP from the feat alone though) and operates on a single instance like barbs is.

If we look at Heighten, we see a subclass feature that almost no one takes. In order to be "good," I argue, Silvery Barbs needs to beat the bar set by Heighten, which is generally seen as a pretty subpar feature.

[Witty Username]

Silvery barbs will never see play while shield exists, it is a bad spell that tricks people into bringing their defenses down to reroll a save the target will likely make anyway or to possibly block maybe one attack. This spell will often do nothing in actual play.

[Amnestic]

There is a point of diminishing returns. How many reactions and slots are we wasting to make one spell stick? Is it really worth that?

Depends on the spell, but yes, it certainly can be. One round of reactions and 1st level spell slots to land a specific debuff absolutely can be worth it. Especially when you then get to dish out advantage on the next attack roll/ability check/save throw someone makes for free on top of that.

Chronal Shift (which I've played with personally) is about the same as Silvery Barbs, but more versatile, and not broken.

Requires a very specific subclass from a setting book, and Chronurgist is already considered one of the best subclasses for wizard if not the best.

And they can also just take Silvery Barbs too? Like on top of it?

Unsettling Words does the same thing, and stacks with disadvantage in a much more potent way (not just a straight reroll, but you deduct from the lower roll, really pushing something to fail) and it costs a bardic inspiration, which becomes pretty cheap once you get them back on a short rest.

Likewise, requires a very specific subclass that is also considered high up for optimisation purposes in part because of this feature. Neither of these, by the way, offer you advantage on the next attack/save/ability check one of your allies makes in addition to the debuff effect like Silvery Barbs does.

"This first level spell which basically anyone can get access to at a very cheap cost isn't quite as good at something which requires a specific subclass, but also it's better than it in some other ways".

Silvery Barbs isn't going to wish-simulacrum break the game but it's better than Shield and that sort of power creep is, maybe, a concern.

Personally I think the entire thing fixes itself if you just strip the debuff saving throws part out.

If we look at Heighten, we see a subclass feature that almost no one takes. In order to be "good," I argue, Silvery Barbs needs to beat the bar set by Heighten, which is generally seen as a pretty subpar feature.

Okay, well...it does.

Heighten: 3 spell points.
1st level spell: 2 spell points.

Heighten: Used proactively, might be wasted.
Silvery Barbs: Used reactively on a fail, never spent before it needs to be.

Heighten: Doesn't offer advantage to an ally.
Silvery Barbs: Does.

Heighten: Costs one of your 2-4 Metamagics Known.
Silvery Barbs: Costs one of your 2-15 spells known (or can be picked up via a feat, or a dip)

[Gurgeh]

Heighten can't be used to help allies land their debuffs, either.

[Kane0]

Silvery barbs will never see play while shield exists, it is a bad spell that tricks people into bringing their defenses down to reroll a save the target will likely make anyway or to possibly block maybe one attack. This spell will often do nothing in actual play.

Try it in the interaction and exploration pillars then? It isn't a purely competing with shield.

[Witty Username]

Try it in the interaction and exploration pillars then? It isn't a purely competing with shield.

So like using it to land a charm effect? Putting you two slots down for not necessarily a success.

I am not sure what silvery barbs would do in the exploration pillar, unless you mean avoiding combat applications like using it to disrupt perception checks?

[Gurgeh]

"The party is on top of a cliff and a dangerous enemy they have no intention of fighting is successfully climbing up after them", perhaps?

[Kane0]

So like using it to land a charm effect? Putting you two slots down for not necessarily a success.

I am not sure what silvery barbs would do in the exploration pillar, unless you mean avoiding combat applications like using it to disrupt perception checks?

Yeah something like charm, detect thoughts, zone of truth, etc.
Exploration is a little more rare, but still useful if something is attempting to find (perception/investigation) or chase (athletics/acrobatics) the party.
Oh and things checking against your illusions and such.

You could theoretically also use it just to give advantage on stuff to yourself and allies if you wanted to do so with a reaction instead of say the Help action, but you'd have to find something inconsequential to succeed & reroll on to do so.

[stoutstien]

Silvery barbs will never see play while shield exists, it is a bad spell that tricks people into bringing their defenses down to reroll a save the target will likely make anyway or to possibly block maybe one attack. This spell will often do nothing in actual play.

They stack and not everyone has shield to cast in the first place.

[Witty Username]

They stack and not everyone has shield to cast in the first place.

But they compete for resources, preparations and slots. Most 1st level slots will be taken up by stuff like mage armor, absorb elements and shield.
Bards possibly have space for this one, and this means they are less likely to dip hexblade. But they already get similar effects for there reaction.

All and all, I won't call this a good spell until I see it in play, much less one of the best. I reads to me like a good way to waste spell slots.

[stoutstien]

But they compete for resources, preparations and slots. Most 1st level slots will be taken up by stuff like mage armor, absorb elements and shield.
Bards possibly have space for this one, and this means they are less likely to dip hexblade. But they already get similar effects for there reaction.

All and all, I won't call this a good spell until I see it in play, much less one of the best. I reads to me like a good way to waste spell slots.

Clerics as well which is why it depends on the context. The problem comparing it to shield is while they are similar in appearance they fulfill completely different roles. One plays with mitigation in a straight forward fashion whole the other is mostly a coin flip+ advantage until you get to edges of the normal curve where it can become a break glass in case of failure button. When purely looking at numbers as a whole shield will always win because we usually use averages and normalized results. SB is for those times the dice are working against you.
It's like lucky in the sense you don't rely on it. The failure/bad stuff is already happening so it's a shot at reversing it.
It's one of the reasons I think it's probably overrated for most primary casters but for those who don't necessarily need the support of spells to be functional it's worth the consideration. Your ranged EK for example could pick it up and see a lot of opportunities to toss them out if they aren't getting swarmed regularly.

[Witty Username]

I thought barbs was bard, sorcerer, wizard and warlock?

[stoutstien]

I thought barbs was bard, sorcerer, wizard and warlock?

The EK and AT use the wizard's list by proxy and both probably would get good milage out of SB. not many debuff have zero reliance on casting stat and are low enough level for them to consider using. Not to mention being verbal only would save some builds a feat with war caster even if it's not quite as strong as shield in that context.

[Captain Panda]

I will remind the "barbs isn't that good, really" crowd

It is good. Spells should be good. My argument is that it isn't "broken," and most of the arguments suggesting it is stem from how it boosts tactics that are actually pretty lame to begin with.

[Gurgeh]

It's an everything-button with a cost that's significantly disproportionate to its effects. Even if you consider the do-over component to not be a problem, it's also playing merry hell with the game's action economy thanks to the advantage component. If your best argument in its defence is "it has a resource clash with the most powerful first-level spell in the game" then I'm not especially convinced.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's an everything-button with a cost that's significantly disproportionate to its effects. Even if you consider the do-over component to not be a problem, it's also playing merry hell with the game's action economy thanks to the advantage component. If your best argument in its defence is "it has a resource clash with the most powerful first-level spell in the game" then I'm not especially convinced.

Advantage isn't all that hard to come by as far as attack rolls are concerned. Not all that hard to come by for skill checks either. Saving throws on the other hand, could be pretty useful.

Keep in mind however that the target doesn't get to choose when to use this advantage, they have advantage on the next one of those rolls and that this effect is wasted entirely if they already have advantage on it for whatever reason.

[tokek]

Clerics as well which is why it depends on the context. The problem comparing it to shield is while they are similar in appearance they fulfill completely different roles. One plays with mitigation in a straight forward fashion whole the other is mostly a coin flip+ advantage until you get to edges of the normal curve where it can become a break glass in case of failure button. When purely looking at numbers as a whole shield will always win because we usually use averages and normalized results. SB is for those times the dice are working against you.
It's like lucky in the sense you don't rely on it. The failure/bad stuff is already happening so it's a shot at reversing it.
It's one of the reasons I think it's probably overrated for most primary casters but for those who don't necessarily need the support of spells to be functional it's worth the consideration. Your ranged EK for example could pick it up and see a lot of opportunities to toss them out if they aren't getting swarmed regularly.

Its Bard, Sorcerer and Wizard. Clerics, Druids and Warlocks don't get it.

EK do have access but I've never seen an EK that did not take Shield. But more to the point they only get one spell outside of Abjuration and Evocation, taking this as their one and only spell outside those schools. That is a big opportunity cost. Honestly I'd rather have Find Familiar but that's just me maybe.

Its a far better fit for the Arcane Trickster, fits their likely fighting style and fits the schools of spells they have easy access to.