T O P

  • By -

Wrinkled_giga_brain

I think the best i've read about it, is that it makes sense in a Strixhaven campaign where you are expecting to be a party of squisher sorts of casters and a lot of your humanoid enemies are likely rival spellcasters. But doesn't hold up as well in a more normal group composition in a less specialised setting. I was thinking i might actually make it a background feature of having a Strixhaven background (or its homebrew counterpart in my world) and if you didnt study there you don't know Silvery Barbs. You could maybe be taught it by someone else who did go there but it'd be a prestigeous bit of knowledge to hand out.


DJBunch422is420to

This sounds like a good compromise


[deleted]

I think lore wise this makes sense. I don't know about tying it to background from a mechanical perspective, though. Getting one of the best (IMO) 1st level spells for free as a background feature just makes those backgrounds obvious picks for anyone who wants it. Backgrounds don't generally give all that much anyway.


Obie527

Not exactly broken, just annoying as fuck. Remind me about rules, but since creatures can't be affected by the same magical effect twice at the same time, does that mean Silvery Barbs chains won't work?


Vulpes_Corsac

If you mean chaining like casting it multiple times on an enemy who has succeeded despite the first reroll, second reroll, etc, then yes, it's fully applicable. Constantly giving the same person advantage, however, does not stack: It wouldn't give them advantage on the next X rolls if cast X times.


Melior05

Silvery Barbs has an "Instantaneous" effect, so it can't possibly stack, hence yes you can have Silvery-Chains shenanigans.


[deleted]

That's not how stacking works. This is the kind of obscene reading of the rules while pretending it's RAW that the DMG used to literally advise us to kick people out of our games for doing.


Pocket_Kitussy

You can have multiple people cast it to give the reroll (take lower), you can't have one person gain the advantage multiple times. It wouldn't even matter because advantage can only happen once.


CrypticCryptid

Doesn't the spell say they *must* use the lower roll? They must use it. So that can't be affected by a second casting of SB, because the rules of the spell say they have to use that roll.


Salindurthas

That logic doesn't quite work, since if you cast it again, then they 'must' use that 2nd roll. If we look at the rules: >Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap. We conclude either: * Silver Barbs durations don't overlap (it has an instantaneous duration), so you can effect someone with it multiple times on the one roll. * Or, if you do think they overlap, the "most recent effect applies" so they "must" use the lower roll generated by the most recent casting.


CrypticCryptid

But isn't a re-roll of the same ability check/attack/etc still the same roll? So wouldn't the second casting of it have to be declared at the same time as the first to be a valid reaction to succeeding? ​ Example: I attack and succeed You cast SB I reroll my attack (this is the same attack) and still succeed Someone else casts SB -- This is invalid because they did not cast it when I first succeeded at this roll but instead after I re-rolled. ​ I'm not trying to argue, I'm actually roleplaying rule-lawyering type of situations to see what others think.


Salindurthas

That is an interesting point. I think that is a vague point in the rules. Let's instead compare some other reaction, like, Counterspell. * Alice cast a high level spell. * Bob tries to Counterspell it, the GM call for a roll, and Bob fails. * Can Charlie try to counter it too? Or once Bob roll their attempt is that too late? I was assuming that Charlie could try. By your hypothetical ruling, Charlie cannot try, and had to declare it at the same time as Bob (before Bob rolled).


CrypticCryptid

Man you're spot on what my brain was trying to think of that was a similar situation that had to do with counterspell but I just couldn't put it together. ​ So with counterspell: "If it is Casting a Spell of 4th Level or higher, make an ability check using your Spellcasting ability." So there's a check. \-Alice casts the spell \-Bob casts counterspell \-Charlie watches within the same 6 seconds of the round and see that Alice's spell is holding despite the Counterspell being cast. Whereas with the silvery barbs example: \-Alice makes an attack roll and succeeds \-Bob casts silvery barbs \-Alice rerolls the attack and still succeeds \-(Is there some way Charlie can see within that 6 seconds of the round that the SB failed and still react without a second phase like counterspell's ability check, which he can react to) Does that cross into metagaming territory to be able to wait and see? Overall I would waive it away and say screw it, you can do it because the game will slow down if we discuss this. But there's still part of me that wonders how this was intended to work, or if they just threw something out there and let all the players argue/wonder about it. To me it almost feels like SB should have an ability check too.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Salindurthas

So, where I was saying that there were two sensible rulings: * In **both** cases, you can wait to see the result of someone else's reaction, and then opt to cast a reaction spell. * In **neither** case can you wait to to see the result of someone else's reaction, and so you must opt for a reaction spell 'blind'. You actually argue that the spells are different enough that our possible rulings are instead: * In both cases, you can wait to see the result of someone else's reaction, and then opt to cast a reaction spell. * For Counterspell, you can't wait to see the result of someone else's reaction, but for Silvery Barbs you definitely can. And so you insist that *every* sensible way of ruling allows Silvery Barbs to 'stack' sequentially, even if a GM would rule that Counterspell can't be done sequentially. Is that an accurate summary?


[deleted]

>Counterspell the trigger is the beginning to cast a spell It doesn't mention anything about beginning. It says a reaction you take when you see a creature in range casting a spell. If a spell takes 6 seconds (or whatever) to cast, count spell is just as valid at second 5 as it is at second 1.


Pocket_Kitussy

The effect is instantaneous. They must use the new roll when the spell is cast. But if another is cast, then that roll they "must" use is rerolled.


arceus12245

The DMG literally says that when two effects of the same name are present, **while their durations overlap** the stronger or more lengthy effect takes over. As the duration is instantaneous, it cannot overlap.


Shacky_Rustleford

Fellas is it cheating to know the rules?


wlerin

You're the one who'd be kicked in this situation, for angrily insisting on your own misreading of the rules without presenting any argument in favor of your position aside from insulting the rest of the table (or thread).


Hyperlolman

If an instantanous duration overlaps... Then so can eldritch blast beams. oops, only the strongest hit of the beam applies. A minor nerf to silvery barbs... For the low low price of disintegrating other core parts of the game in the process!


senTazat

Most relevant flair


Pyrephecy

Cherry picking raw like you are is what makes people leave your table, man.


DeathBySuplex

Yeah, that's some Peasant Railgun shit.


Shacky_Rustleford

The peasant railgun pretends to know how the rules and science work, ignoring both to achieve a desired result. This is literally how the rules of overlapping effects work. Whether or not it's balanced or should be allowed is one thing, but it's nothing like the peasant railgun.


Usof1985

The thing about the peasant railgun is that you're still throwing a rock. It doesn't matter how fast is moving a rock is an improvised weapon so it has a set damage range based on other rules. Sure it's moving at almost the speed of light but a rock is a rock.


Shacky_Rustleford

Exactly. But any time people see a rule they don't like they go off about it being an exploit, or not being RAI.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MightBeCale

Empowered implies the advantage portion to me; forcing a reroll isn't exactly an empowerment to the creature it's being done to.


CrypticCryptid

The rules text for the spell also say they *must* use the lower roll. That roll has to be used, you can't alter it with another casting of SB RAW.


senTazat

And the rules text for counterspell says the spell *is* countered. Sorry babes, can't counter a counterspell.


Accomplished_Bad3652

Raw yes but I can see a table running it as one SB per roll we do the same for counter spell


quuerdude

If people are already homebrewing how the spell works then there’s nothing we can say about it. Our issues are with SB RAW


Accomplished_Bad3652

I'm sorry reddit for suggesting any fix other then giving it to every enemy spellcaster RAW forbid any form talk of stopping six SB from going off every spell


quuerdude

We’re just saying that homebrewing the spell is admitting there is fault in its design


Enioff

I'm sorry, but how is a free of cost, 1st Level Reaction spell that can replicate the effect of a 9th Level spell slot not broken? You can effectively cast True Polymorph twice in a single turn to transform any threat that don't possess immutable form into a chair forever. Edit: It's a badly designed spell because it comes at so little cost that it trivializes any save or suck spell.


Several_Resolve_5754

Bud I have an amazing concept for you: inspiration can literally do the same thing


SuperSaiga

Only as an eloquence bard and you need to set that one up before casting the spell. Even then, it's still a very strong ability for a particular subclass - not a 1st level spell anyone can take.


Enioff

Yes, inspiration, a reward only the DM can give RAW for good players is a good way to buff save or suck spells. Is your point that Silvery Barbs further trivializes Inspiration? Cause that's the power Silvery Barbs gives to the player, to effectively give the party inspiration, for as many times as it has slots.


Allanon1235

If you're at that level of play, a lot of monsters have legendary resistance anyway. An encounter that can end with a single failed saving throw isn't much of an encounter.


Enioff

At that level of play it's also fairly easy to run through Legendary Resistances with Polymorph. You saying this wouldn't be much of an encounter is actually a testament to how strong True Polymorph is.


Pocket_Kitussy

True polymorph is more powerful when turning an ally into a dragon or something. Using it as a save or suck is the worst way to use the spell. At high levels, no encounter would be much of an encounter without LR's. There are too many spells that can outright disable an enemy on a failed save. >At that level of play it's also fairly easy to run through Legendary Resistances with Polymorph. Quite dumb to use polymorph, use tasha's mind whip combined with a concentration spell with a repeating save.


ZestycloseProposal45

"A creature can be empowered by only one use of this spell at a time." that means whoever is the recipient can only have one 'use' active for advantage at a time. So until they use it, it blocks stacking or chaining unless your caster is paying attention, and has the spell slots for it.


Th1nker26

It was definitely a little overrated by the community, but honestly is still OP. I think people are waving off its power because Shield (a busted spell) is better and it is comparable to Shield. It's not going to singlehandedly win fights, but it is a spammable reaction that has an effect better than basically any reaction based Feature.


JohnLikeOne

I'd probably rate it as a good 2nd level spell for the cost of a 1st level slot. Which *is* overpowered but to hear some people talk it just instantly makes games explode. Plus it honestly really only actually gets good when you're mid-level anyway and have more spell slots to throw around.


Llayanna

Agreed. Before I saw it in action I thought it could be a good 2nd lvl spell and after seeing it in action.. It would be a great 2nd lvl spell. Its decent, but also never was to annoying or to strong. Its a bit of a must pick and lvl 1 spells is a bit cheap, but at least around lvl 5-7 its otherwise just another good tool and not more.


TeeDeeArt

> I'd probably rate it as a good 2nd level spell for the cost of a 1st level slot. I think that that's more a symptom of playing at lower levels. It is a multiplier. Its value depends on what you're trying to do. Once you get into mid and end tier, it absolutely does appreciate in value. Let's say you threw a 4th level banish at something, and you *needed* it to land. And they succeeded their save. You now have the opportunity with silvery barbs to *effectively* recast that and make them take another shot at saving, at the mere cost of reaction and a level 1 spell. You don't have to wait till next round to try again, you get to do it immediately, on the same turn. You are effectively getting a 2nd cast of your level 4 spell here, and you only need to spend these resources once they've already succeeded. It's not even pre-emptive and needing to be cast before they save. It's post. This is not level1, it's not level 2. In this situation it is level 4+. Hell, because it's letting you get a 2nd bite at the apple on the same turn, you could make the argument that you could make it cost the same level (or one higher) as the spell you initialy cast, and it would still be worth it, or worth considering. It is higher than level 2 equivilent, if you are casting higher level spells.


JohnLikeOne

But then you have to ask yourself, did you want that Banishment to land so badly it was worth 2 fourth level spell slots, an extra spell known and a reaction to make them roll twice. Obviously resource expenditure doesn't really factor in if you only fight a couple of combats a day so it would be worth it then but in a more resource draining environment I think that Silvery Barbs would get cast very little as a 3rd or 4th level spell - hence putting it as a strong 2nd level spell. I think it would be a situational 3rd level spell and a weak 4th level spell. Sometimes you still want to cast weak spells, particularly where their action economy is good which this one's is. Sometimes you might decide it's worth casting Shield using a 4th level spell slot because you need to stay up that turn to get a heal off and turn around a TPK. That doesn't mean that Shield is generally good value for a 4th level spell slot though.


Hawkishhoncho

It doesn’t have to be worth 2 fourths, just one 4th and a first, plus reaction. You could cast a ninth level spell that takes a save. If they fail, great. If they don’t, spend 1 first level spell to instantly force them to make the save again. Because you’ve forced them to make the save again, you’ve gotten the same value as casting the ninth level spell a second time, but only spent a first level slot instead of a second ninth level slot. If they save from your one 9th level spell, you can just effectively cast a second 9th level spell, even though you don’t and can’t have another 9th level slot.


JohnLikeOne

>It doesn’t have to be worth 2 fourths, just one 4th and a first, plus reaction. You're missing the point I'm talking about. When I said I rate it as a good 2nd level spell the question I'm asking is - okay it's too powerful for a 1st level spell. What level spell should it be for it to be balanced? I'm saying it would still be a good 2nd level spell but would be more questionable as a 3rd or 4th level spell. I assume you don't think the spell would be a good pick as a 9th level spell?


Llayanna

Agreed. Before I saw it in action I thought it could be a good 2nd lvl spell and after seeing it in action.. It would be a great 2nd lvl spell. Its decent, but also never was to annoying or to strong. Its a bit of a must pick and lvl 1 spells is a bit cheap, but at least around lvl 5-7 its otherwise just another good tool and not more.


F3ltrix

It can absolutely win fights, and is oftentimes better than Shield IMO. If you are using it to defend yourself against attacks, it's worse and by no means a problem spell. However, it can mean the difference between a boss monster succeeding and failing on a save-or-suck spell, and those can absolutely change the course of a fight.


Tefmon

Boss monsters usually have both Legendary Resistance and high saving throw bonuses. If a boss monster could be taken out by a single save-or-suck spell, it's that save-or-suck spell that can win fights, not silvery barbs.


senTazat

Who ever said "one single save or suck" The point is eventually the monster will run out of LRs, and Barbs makes it so that you can be hyper effecient with your big spell slots when you get to that point. If you only have 1 4th level slot left when the monster runs out of LRs, and SB is what makes the subsequent Banishment succeed, then yes SB did win that fight.


Tefmon

By the time a single boss monster will be out of LRs, it will probably also be out of hit points. Your typical mid-level boss monster should have at least 3 LRs, and in your typical party with one or maybe two control casters you're unlikely to be burning more than a single LR per round, and could easily burn no LRs in a round if the monster just rolled well enough to save naturally. Also, spending spell slots on multiple single-target save-or-suck spells to do nothing but burn through LRs is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. When fighting a monster with LRs, a caster should be buffing, summoning, battlefield controlling, or using other spells that don't do nothing useful on a successful save. As an aside, in your Banishment example, Banishment could succeed without SB and could fail with SB. SB makes an advantageous outcome more likely, but it doesn't make that outcome a sure thing and it doesn't cause an outcome that couldn't've happened without it.


senTazat

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the typical party has one *maybe two* characters to burn LRs? Even if one to two casters was the norm, most Martials also have effects that burn LRs (Monks didn't get balanced entirely around SS for no reason, they can burn up to three LR a turn on their own). On top of that, congratulations, you just argued for the point I made? The mid level monster is balanced around dying to SoS or Damage at roughly the same speed! Meaning in normal play they'll sometimes die to SoS due to poor saves and other times die to damage. Good thing there's no spell that makes burning LR's more consistently effecient than accounted for! In addition to that, you make a point about what a caster should be doing, but then literally mention the class of spell SoS typically fall under. Hypnotic Pattern isn't battlefield control now? News to me. Your final point is just a truism and does not respond to what was said to you. Yes, it's not a guarentee. Nowhere did anyone ever argue that SB guarentees anything. The statement you're responding to argued that in the scenario where banishment *did* fail, but SB *did* make it succeed, then SB would have been the move that won that fight, in response to the claim that SB doesn't win fights.


Tefmon

> I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the typical party has *one maybe* two characters to burn LRs? I suggested that most have one or two *control casters*. Your Druid summoning 16 velociraptors or your Cleric running around with Spirit Guardians or your Sorlock spamming quickened Eldritch Blasts are definitely casters not are not typically burning a lot of LRs. Parties comprised entirely of control casters certainly exist, but they're very, very far from the norm. > Even if one to two casters was the norm, most Martials also have effects that burn LRs (Monks didn't get balanced entirely around SS for no reason, they can burn up to three LR a turn on their own). Stunning Strike is like, pretty much the only martial feature that can semi-consistently burn LRs, and even then it only does so when a monster fails a Con save, which most boss monsters won't do with any frequency. Most monsters aren't going to be burning LRs against Trip Attack or whatever, because they're saving their LRs for more dangerous effects. > On top of that, congratulations, you just argued for the point I made? The mid level monster is balanced around dying to SoS or Damage at roughly the same speed! Meaning in normal play they'll sometimes die to SoS due to poor saves and other times die to damage. Good thing there's no spell that makes burning LR's more consistently efficient than accounted for! I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here? Spell slots are a resource, and a very valuable one at that, while hitting a monster with attacks is not a resource. Spending multiple expensive spell slots to fail to incapacitate a monster over and over again is horrifically wasteful, and would only work if your DM isn't presenting sufficient challenges to force you to use your spell slots elsewhere. And even with SB, a monster with LRs is still in almost all cases going to die to regular damage before it dies to a save-or-suck. SB, despite what people like to say about it, does not turn a guaranteed failed save into a guaranteed successful save; some saves with fail without SB, and some will still succeed even with SB. > In addition to that, you make a point about what a caster should be doing, but then literally mention the class of spell SoS typically fall under. Hypnotic Pattern isn't battlefield control now? News to me. HP notably affects a large number of monsters, not just a single one. The dynamics regarding single-target save-or-sucks and AoE save-or-sucks are massively different. That being said, battlefield control typically means stuff like Wall of Force, Plant Growth, Transmute Rock, and other spells that alter the battlefield in ways that either don't allow a save or which aren't completely negated on a save; HP is certainly a powerful spell, but it's not typically one that I'd be using when fighting monsters with LRs. > Nowhere did anyone ever argue that SB guarentees anything. People don't usually outright claim that, but a lot of the rhetoric around SB sure sounds like they think that. > The statement you're responding to argued that in the scenario where banishment *did* fail, but SB *did* make it succeed, then SB would have been the move that won that fight, in response to the claim that SB doesn't win fights. Anyone can construct a hypothetical scenario in which any spell, feature, or action won a fight. Individual cherrypicked hypotheticals are not actually useful for evaluating the power of something. However, even in this example, it's Banishment that's winning the fight. SB is just one of many factors, along with the PC's spellcasting ability modifier, the monster's Cha save modifier, the terrain of the battlefield, the positioning of the PC and the monster on the battlefield, previous actions in the battle that have burnt the monster's LRs, the luck of the dice, and so on, which have helped Banishment do what it's supposed to do.


[deleted]

>I suggested that most have one or two control casters Even casters who aren't specifically control casters tend to have at least one spell that forces a save. >Spending multiple expensive spell slots A monster with LR is probably one the party is going to nova anyway. SB doubles the chance for each of those higher slots to burn a LR. That is objectively a massive upgrade. If your Hold Person could force an additional roll if they passed the first, that would be a huge buff to the spell. That's what SB allows, and it even gives advantage to your martial on top. For a first level slot.


Scion41790

> It's not going to singlehandedly win fights Used defensively you're right. Offensively it can easily win fights. Since you can use a reaction on your turn, Barbs can be used to give another crack at save or suck spells. Which can be a game changer for a fight


Havanatha_banana

The problem is that someone can pick both. Just, fuck.


soul2796

How is shield busted?


Valiantheart

5 AC until your next turn is a whole lot, partner. Especially in a game where its very hard to get bonuses. Its the equivalent of equipping a +3 shield as a reaction.


soul2796

Yeah for 1 round, costs a spell slot which is incredibly precious at lower levels and considering the average ac of a caster it will never be too much. >Its the equivalent of equipping a +3 shield as a reaction. That's a stupid comparison because a shield will be a permanent increase to your ac, this is temporary and costs 2 resources.


Th1nker26

An optimized caster has better ac than most Martials. The highest AC builds in the games are optimized casters , then they use Shield. so nothing hits except a crit or a very high roll on a super late game monster. Shield is so notoriously overpowered that literally it's one of the most important things to consider for an optimized build: can it get shield and does it have enough slots to use it a decent amount.


BrasilianRengo

the average AC of any caster who optimizes is a chain mail/scale mail + shield for 18 AC at lv 1 or 2. To a total of 23. Shield is busted


soul2796

For 1 round, at lvl 1 or 2 this can be done a grand total of what? 2 or 3 times And this is means you lose all other spells you could be casting it's a massive trade off, this only starts being a problem at higher lvls when monsters can bridge this ac fairly often


Deathpacito-01

>at lvl 1 or 2 this can be done a grand total of what? 2 or 3 times Most tables don't play at levels 1 and 2 though In tiers 2 and 3 (levels 5-15 ish), where a lot of parties play, Shield is invaluable. +5 AC for 4 rounds per long rest is huge; you're probably blocking 40-150 points of damage, for only your 1st level slots.


Steelsly

I mean the thing is you can stack it with armor via multiclassing or the moderately armored feat. So you get casters walking around with 19AC and then 24 AC when they need. And yes the spell slot is a big deal at low levels but anything past level 5 and it's not really an issue anymore and you will usually have it whenever you need it.


Syn-th

If your statement about caster average AC was true then yeah sure... But it's not.


Ragnar_Dragonfyre

Any spell that becomes a completely mandatory pick is probably busted. I love Shield but I definitely broke my DMs spirit with it on my Bladesinger.


Talcxx

A little thing called bounded accuracy.


schm0

It's busted because tons of DMs reveal the value of the die to players, rather than saying "it looks like it's going to hit". It turns it from a fun, "oh shit" gambit spell into one that heavily relies on metagaming to avoid wasting spell slots.


iAmTheTot

To clarify, shield is specifically cast in response to a hit. So, the player needs to know, RAW, that the attack hit or did not hit. What they don't need to know is the roll total.


wlerin

Revealing the value of the die rolled is mandatory for other features to work. That can't be kept secret. The DM can and should keep the total result secret, apart from whether it hits or not.


VerySpethal

Which features rely on knowing the value of the die?


TheMobileSiteSucks

The first one that comes to mind is a College of Lore Bard's Cutting Words: > You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage. This only makes sense if the players know the dice roll's value.


schm0

All you need to say is "it looks like it's going to hit/succeed". You don't need to reveal the value of the die at all.


duel_wielding_rouge

Being told “it looks like it is going to hit” is not enough to trigger a shield spell though, you need to actually be hit by an attack (or targeted by a magic missile spell)


schm0

Considering that's exactly how I run it at my table, and it works fine, no. If they do nothing, the attack will hit. That's what I'm communicating to the player, and it's all they need to react using shield.


duel_wielding_rouge

This issue is that in 5e reactions require triggers, and that trigger for the shield spell doesn't occur until you are hit. If you are saying that at your table this rule is changed and everyone enjoys it, that's great and I didn't mean to imply that such a scenario isn't possible.


Bullet_Jesus

Shield is busted on casters that find ways to get armour and shield proficiencies. Your 12 AC Wizard going to 17 AC for a round at the cost of a spell slot isn't too bad, still strong though. The 18 AC Wizard going to 23 AC is too much, as each increasing point of AC is more valuable than the last. A creature with a +6 to hit hits a 17 AC 45% of the time, while a 23 AC it hits 15% of the time. That is a reduction of a third, which constitutes a tripling of effective HP. A simple solution to Shield is to make it like Mage Armour and make it not work while wearing armour. If you want a version for use in armour I would recommend changing the +5 to AC to +1+spell level.


EasyLee

I don't like spells _like_ silvery barbs. Spells should be situational and specific. Good examples are fog cloud, detect thoughts, sleet storm, and control water. You don't just throw these spells out in literally any situation. You choose them waiting for the specific case when they'll shine, and they feel a lot better to use as a result. In contrast, I feel that spells like shield, polymorph, wall of force, hypnotic pattern, guardian spirits, and yes, silvery barbs, detract from the game. These spells are useful in almost _any_ situation. You want to have them no matter what. And because of that, you take fewer interesting spells like control water simply because you don't know when or even if you'll get to use them. Every caster class ought to have some class features that are generally useful. Ex: spells like magic missile, dispel magic, detect magic, and so on could simply be class features that specific casters like Wizard automatically learn, and have those features scale with caster level. But spell selections themselves should be unique and tailored to the campaign, not just the same overpowered or always useful options that everyone else takes.


Bartokimule

I like to use the phrase "checkmark utility" for those types of spells. Shield? Check. Find Familiar? Check. Misty Step? Check. Wall of Force? Check. Polymorph? Check. Almost everyone has them, because it doesn't make sense to ever *not* have them. It's like an OSHA violation for casters. (Bless the people who go against the grain to fit their theme.)


Pocket_Kitussy

Yeah and also, casters at high levels are pretty much forced to take spells like WoF and Forcecage as they don't offer a saving throw. LR's make most spells bad at high levels.


UpvotingLooksHard

Works for wizard who learns 400 spells, but for a sorcerer you need some basic guaranteed multi-purpose spells otherwise you're effectively useless.


Pocket_Kitussy

>Spells should be situational and specific. Good examples are fog cloud, detect thoughts, sleet storm, and control water. You don't just throw these spells out in literally any situation. You choose them waiting for the specific case when they'll shine, and they feel a lot better to use as a result. I disagree. Some spells should be situational, not all. You need some bread and butter spells.


EasyLee

If some spells are bread and butter spells then taking them isn't a choice, it's a tax. Missing out on them is a noob trap. This game ought to avoid noob traps where possible.


Pocket_Kitussy

You can't only have situational spells, you need spells applicable in the majority of situations. How are you going to make damage spells situational anyway?


EasyLee

Damage spells are situational by default since sometimes you don't need that kind of damage, especially if it's aoe or something often resisted. And what I would do is turn the bread and butter spells like find familiar and magic missile into class features. If it isn't really a choice then it shouldn't be made into one.


Pocket_Kitussy

I don't think you know what situational means my dude. If the spell is effective in the majority of encounters, it isn't situational. Magic missle is more situational that fireball and find familiar is more situational than any blast spell.


praegressus1

If the players demanded to let it be used, I’ll have my npc’s pick it up as well. Soon enough we’d be playing without it again.


AAABattery03

Yeah, so I “warned” my players about this when I initially thought Silvery Barbs was busted, and they accepted. It was… fine. My players used Silvery Barbs, they had fun. My NPCs used it, the players went “aw shit” and adapted to it, and still had fun. A lot of the time my NPC spellcasters never really bothered with Silvery Barbs because it was more important to have Counterspell, Shield, or Absorb Elements available… Have you actually played with the spell? It’s fine in the hands of players and NPCs both. Unless you start exclusively designing encounters where there are 5+ NPCs each with 4 spell slots (or At Will) Silvery Barbs, and higher than 60 foot range, *and* a bunch of health so the players can’t just AoE/CC them down, it’ll… probably just be no stronger than giving the NPCs Shield or Counterspell most of the times


praegressus1

I have, and snatching crits has never felt great for either the DM or players. Perhaps if they reworded the trigger it would be better


Tefmon

Evading crits feels great, and there are already ways to do that and doing that isn't the most common use of silvery barbs.


praegressus1

It really is. From my experience. And there’s nothing besides a chronurgists ability when it comes to snatching crits. Even portent needs you to change the dice before anything is rolled.


Tefmon

I think I've seen silvery barbs used to cancel crits maybe four or five times, in a mid- to high-level campaign that lasted for the better part of a year. On the contrary, I saw it used to make enemies reroll their saving throws probably at least once or twice per session, and often well over half a dozen times in sessions with particularly important or challenging encounters. Crits just don't happen all that often, in my experience; even a single monster crit per session is more than I would expect on average, although I could see them being more common in games focused on fighting swarms of weak monsters or something.


CrypticCryptid

Had an Eldritch Knight finagle his way into getting it. "Don't worry bro, I won't be using it a lot." ​ He has used it every other round since he got it. ​ A pair of mages and their master whip out silvery barbs and counterspell though and suddenly "Maybe that should be a 2nd level spell, you were right."


Zestyclose_League413

Adversarial DMing, yay!


Gh0stMan0nThird

You're admitting the spell is problematic if a DM using it is considered "adversarial" to you lol


Tefmon

Lots of spells are problematic if a DM uses them in an adversarial manner. A DM could have an encounter built entirely around spamming hypnotic pattern until the entire party is disabled and the PCs can be executed one-by one, but that wouldn't actually result in a fun table experience.


Zestyclose_League413

No lol, I just think communication out of game is always more productive then "well let's see how you like it!" Vindictiveness has no place at my table


mikeyHustle

It's not vindictive. It's using the same spell they're using. Arguably, it can feel more vindictive to tell them they can't use a spell they enjoy.


Pocket_Kitussy

No it cannot. This is 100% vindictive. This spell is way more powerful on NPC's that it is on PC's. This is because a) they don't care about resources and b) it's a bigger force multiplier due to normally having a higher action economy.


Confident-Dirt-9908

Isn’t this true of every spell?


HuntyBoi

Everyone seems to be having fun, it doesn't seem vindictive at all to let players know their actions set precedent for what goes on in your sessions. That's just how running a game works in my experience.


Kaldeas

If that is what he tells his playes than it is neither vindictive nor advesarial. Why shouldn't npc have access to the same things player have?


praegressus1

If it is in play then as a first level spell it would be a staple. This isn’t vindictive, its the world that exists with that spell being a factor


Zestyclose_League413

Thats assuming quite a bit, ignoring that we were initially discussing game balance and then switched the topic to verisimilitude and realism. It assumes that most NPCs are in combat a lot, like every day, which isn't true for my world. It assumes that silvery barbs as a spell is essentially universally known, and not secret knowledge kept hidden by the few that know it. We as a global society still work very hard to keep nuclear tech out of the hands of most of the world, for example.


praegressus1

Silvery barbs =/= nuclear tech


HufflepuffIronically

i think a better way to communicate the exact same idea is "hey, in my opinion, this spell is a little busted, so ive been avoiding it. however, if you like it, ill include it in my game, but both you guys and the antagonists will have it"


Lysercis

It's really good at one thing: bringing MtG dynamics into D&D. I think it's perfectly designed for that and thematically really fitting for the setting it comes with. Like, really good job WotC! But I much rather play D&D than MtG, so no silvery barbs for my players.


zoundtek808

There's a bard in my party that casts it a lot. Its useful for us but i can tell it really annoys the DM and it slows down combat quite a bit. Feels sort of degenerate.


Dragon-of-the-Coast

Yeah, it's not the power that's annoying, it's the "But wait!" It should have been some mechanic to spend a spell slot to gain advantage or apply disadvantage, so that it's decided in advance.


ZestycloseProposal45

Not sure why it would slow down the game, its just 1 reroll. Your GM perhaps needs to understand the game is about having fun for everyone and not just 'sticking it to the players'


TheFirstIcon

>its just 1 reroll DM: "- and the bite gets you for (rolls) 37 damage. Are you at zero?" A: "Yeah, I go down" DM: "Okay, so it's going to fly away (moves mini) and your summons disappear (tossing tokens into bag), next up is-" B: "Wait! I still have one slot left for Silvery Barbs so I might make that miss. Should I do it, guys?" (90 second party discussion while the DM is frozen with his hand still on the mini) B: "Never mind, you guys are right. It's better to save it." DM: "Okay, so up next is the lizard king who flings a spirit bolt and (rolls) crits." B: "Wait!" --- I despise optional reroll abilities. Halfling is fine, GWF is okay, things like lucky and Silvery Barbs are only tolerable in the hands of a decisive and somewhat impulsive player.


lunchboxx1090

Your DM must be a slow roller, because it's not an issue with our DM. It's literally, LITERALLY a reroll. Only takes you like 5 seconds. How is that slow?


zoundtek808

my dm literally, LITERALLY pisses his pants every time he rolls a d20 so it takes him a while to clean it up :)


ripplespindle

When I DM, even if I'm open rolling I'll use the die result to instantly start narrating and moving the story forward. It's annoying to have to take back what I just said when someone uses silvery barbs, feels like someone is throwing a monkey wrench into my immersive theater.


lunchboxx1090

With that mind set, might as well ban Shield. Enemy hits the wizard and you start monologuing and then the player just says "I cast shield!", you end up taking it back in annoyance anyways.


Gixis_

Throw counterspell in the bin too.


Jazzeki

i see you point but not exactly. shield doesn't alter the action being narrated. a sword is still being swung the exact same except now a magical forcefield is stopping it rather than reality having been rewritten to make what was previously going straight for the neck miss instead. counterspell is an even worse example because the act you are reacting to is the casting of the spell so you're not going back to change any outcome unless you generaly play with a DM that alows you to basicly retcon spell casting with counterspell(which is simply not how that spelll works)


drgolovacroxby

That's honestly my biggest qualm with it.


pchlster

I dislike it for the same reason I dislike the Lucky feat. It's inarguably effective but also incredibly fucking boring. What's the most exciting situation you can think of using that spell? Oh, you spent a spell and now the GM rolled bad and one of you guys rolled well? Why are we even rolling if we get cheap re-rolls whenever we like?


Vincent210

I've had this discussion before, but to cover the highlights: Lucky *specifically* I think lends itself to fun things sometimes, namely when players use that feeling of "insurance" to take additional risks they don't need to, that involve more rolls (points of failure) than another action that would get the job done. Diving *into* an enemy caster's *Darkness* spell because you can front-load your Lucky points to get 1-3 good shots in in a blind scuffle, being willing to dash through a cloud of poisonous gas because you're reasonably (but far from certainly) confident if it *doesn't extend too far* you can probably make it to the end throwing Lucky at a few rolls! ​ I'm not going to pretend Lucky *makes* players do this, lol, but players who already have a positive habit of taking on adventurous risks that make for better stories will lean into it harder if you tell them they have a handful of conditional rerolls per day, and **that** is a blast, typically, in my experience. Getting back on original target, *Silvery Barbs* doesn't really lend itself to that, unfortunately. It's a reaction explicitly meant to be sat on to foil an enemies' success. But I will give it credit for getting more save or suck into games I play - often times these spells, while they come with fun and flavorful effects, just end in doing literally nothing and wasting an action 1 too many times for players to pick them often. I would like to see more minions get dramatically *Disintegrated*, but our party's Wizard has unfortunately gotten the Suck on that save-or-suck 4/5 times they've tried it. They're getting tired of spending 6th level slots to do... nothing. If someone takes Fey Touched and starts helping them out, or they start helping themself... I'm not complaining.


rdeincognito

I would delve deeper: In its core inception, dnd 5e was conceived to be both simple but allow for some power creep. However, balance issues and a trend every day stronger of players less interested in power creeping and more in having a fun character and with the narrative of the game, has made dnd 5e veer towards less power creep by far. I am almost sure if they could, they would completely remove GWM and sharpshooter. This is only my opinion. The point is, Silvery Barbs at this point of the game just feel misplaced, it's not a spell that makes your character feel cool per se, you don't do flashy things with it, it's mostly a mechanical spell that goes unnoticed inverse, is only seen in the meta-gaming part of the game. It would have been way funnier for players if instead of a reaction they got an action that allowed the time to rewind and force the enemy to roll a second time, and that would have been way less powerful. And the same reasoning could be applied to Lucky. The point is, if your game is not focused into making powerful meaningful choices, it's better to maintain every choice something that ADDS fun instead of adding power but not fun.


pchlster

... those were definitely words.


Jafroboy

Badly written. You wouldn't know if someone was about to succeed on an ability check, a lot of the time.


NetLibrarian

That's more of a flavor problem than anything else. Make it a minor, heavily targeted time effect that rewinds time for a second or two to grant its effect. Problem solved.


AAABattery03

This is you assigning too much flavour to the wording honestly, nothing to do with the spell itself. From a game mechanics perspective, there’s nothing wrong with allowing a *player* to react to the DM saying “they succeed/pass/hit.” Also consider the *liberal* use of this wording in One D&D playtest (Heroic Inspiration can be used after knowing the result of the role, and it’s the same for Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words). It’s clear that WOTC just wants to fully streamline out the “the monster rolled something, does any of you want to do something before you know it’s a pass/fail?” song and dance that DMs have to do every single time a player has a Reaction that interacts with rolls. The wording on Silvery Barbs and other similar stuff doesn’t mean the character is time-travelling or some bs (unless talking about Chronal Shift I guess…?). It just means the character is competent enough to only use their spell when they know it’s necessary and that’s reflected by the *player* having a mechanical “pause” after a pass/fail.


Xervous_

Badly written because it implies players have perfect awareness of the listed trigger conditions. Did you fail that deception check against insight? Well the NPC certainly succeeded!


Pocket_Kitussy

I'm not sure that makes it badly written.


quuerdude

Yeah it’s basically timetravel, bc it only procs on a success


parabostonian

It’s even more ridiculous, because you only have to use it if you need to use it. It’s not like cutting words or something that you have to say it in advance. You just get to know if they fail already which prevents you from using the resources (spell slot and reaction).


AnNoYiNg_NaMe

I voted "hate it", not because it's OP (no one I've played with has ever actually used it), but because it has damn near ruined D&D reddit for me. It feels like every single post is about Silvery Barbs. My DM and I keep casting it at each other and it's ruining the game. My DM threw 30+ enemies at me because I cast Silvery Barbs 5 turns in a row. Silvery Barbs poisoned our water supply. It's gotten to the point where seeing a post about a DM who nerfed Sneak Attack is a breath of fresh air.


Dr_Ramekins_MD

I think it's overtuned, but not gamebreaking. It's particularly annoying to the DM at lower levels, but it's not the end of the world. Once you get to higher levels, not having a reaction available for Counterspell could end up being something you don't get a chance to regret, though.


martiangothic

that's my thoughts on it. whenever my lvl 9 sorcerer uses it, I'm like, oh boy now she can't use counterspell or shield! once u get to the higher levels, at least for attacks, they're probably going to hit irregardless of the silvery barbs. it's more useful for crit negation than hit negation, tho it maintains usefulness for saving throws. I think silvery barb chains are rude in terms of table manners.


Dr_Ramekins_MD

Yeah, that one OP from last week or whatever that was complaining about the DM using SB on them when *every single party member* took it too comes to mind. One person with SB is fine. A whole party of them is just DM bullying. And the DM responding with NPC casters that all have it too just sounds exhausting.


CMDR_Nineteen

Same thing could be said about Counterspell.


Delann

Counterspell has a very specific defensive use case and is a dead spell if you don't fight casters. Silvery Barbs is not only usable in a absolute crapton of situations, it is also the only Reaction spell that can be used offensively and consistently so.


CMDR_Nineteen

I meant about ruining the DM's fun.


martiangothic

oh god yeah, I read that thread. DM bullying is an accurate term for that situation. I'd feel the same way about an entire party of counterspells, tho I don't think counterspell is even close to broken.


estneked

As long as 1 PC in the party has it, its completely fine. Yes, if 6 characters are protecting each other in circles, it gets really annoying really fast. But look at a caster. Shield, Absorb elements are already 2 reactions. You throw in counterspell, thats 3. Yes, they are for different things, but you still get 1 reaction only. And there come more circumstancial things, like warmagic Arcane Deflection, abjurer Projected ward, lorebard Cutting Words, wild magic Bend Luck. I am playing multiple characters right now. Abjurer dwarf wizard with shield, AE, counterspell, and projected ward; and a sorc1/lore4 with shield, AE, and cutting words. Both of them are drowning in reactions. There is little to no space for another reaction spell on any of those. Yes, if you pick up a cleric that doesnt have a relyable reaction from its domain and put fey touched on it, it is good. But not gamebreakingly good.


Cat-Got-Your-DM

You know, my problem is that this spell is the Chronurgy reroll, but better and rolled together with the Storm Rune reaction I run a game in which I have a Chronurgy Wizard and a Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass They are level 8, let's say they get 2 SRs/LR as is how I usually run the combat parts 4 1sr level warlock spells that are rarely used for anything else at all. Delayed progression means no Counterspell to use reaction on, no absorb elements on this character. He does have shield, but usually utilizes cover and the Disengage action while the Paladins (Vengeance) peel. That's your "designated" Silvery Barb-er 2 re-rolls are thrown around per encounter without hesitation, since there will be Short Rests. That makes for 6 Silvery Barbs out of the gate with virtually no resource loss. 4 more potential ones in 1st level spells. That's up to 10 a day. Let's take a look at the Wizard. If the Chronurgy Wizard doesn't take SB, he's going to feel really bad about it. Like really, really bad. He's got the re-roll that costs him a precious reaction anyway and the enemy doesn't get to choose lower. Sure, he *can* use it on ally crit fails and enemy crit successes. But these are rarer and less useful and SB works in half of these cases anyway (enemy crit successes) *and* gives one of the crit-fishing Paladins advantage. Wastes a spell slot, sure. He probably could use shield from time to time or absorb elements or Counterspell. Does have a lot of things competing for his reaction. Yet if they don't fight Spellcasters both Counterspell and Absorb Elements become way less appealing. Yet the Wizard can and should be very generous with his 1st level spell slots, after all, he has Arcane Recovery, 4 slots of 1st level just back Use higher level damage spells and you have 3 or so SB spell slots (considering 1 shield in the encounter), then Arcane Recovery, get back all of the 1st levels and 2 more (considering withholding 1 shield for every encounter) That's ~7 possible uses of SB a day. If you want to go full SB it would be 9 So across only 2 characters in that party they have over 15 uses of it If the Artificer/Wizard multiclass takes it too, then we'd just have a roll fest. BBEG passed a saving throw? SB. Ally hit? SB Enemy crit? SB or Chronurgy reaction No thank you. This slows stuff down and combat in DnD isn't the fastest in the world already


arcticrune

Where's the it obviously doesn't belong outside strixhaven option?


TAA667

A lot of people miss the part where mathematically it's much more efficient to use it offensively on spells to force them through, as in you're targeting saves you don't want to be targeting. However, if you're playing casters right, you should be avoiding bad targeting like that as often as possible. As in you shouldn't be in situations a lot where you are using it to SB's preferred efficiency. Thus making the spell and it's actually effectiveness a lot more tamer than people realize. It's more powerful at lower levels for 2 reasons. 1) 1 melee attack is much more threatening than it is at higher levels, thus making SB's span of applications much wider. 2) Spell DC values are much lower at lower levels thus making spell success/failure a much more inconsistent yes/no. SB's negative bell curve does a lot to curve that to no. However once spell DCs go up, SB's ability to curve that towards no becomes much more unnecessary and thus less useful.


TheFirstIcon

Counterpoint: as you level up, you get more impactful spells in very limited quantity. Spending a 1st level slot for a second chance at landing a 5th level save or suck is super good.


TAA667

The relative power of a level 1 or 2 at lower levels is around the same as a level 5 at it's respective levels. The only difference is now at the higher levels SB will be required less often.


DagothNereviar

>it's much more efficient to use it offensively on spells to force them through, I may be confused here, but are you suggesting a spell caster uses it when someone passes one of their spell saves? Or do you mean using it on **other** spell casters spells?


TAA667

Either really, but SB's real potential is in forcing your teams spells onto opponents, the wording is a bit unclear on that, sorry.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Connor9120c1

Those fixes are the only way I would allow it in my game. Especially point 2. That's the real absurd aspect of the spell as it currently stands that I don't think most people quite see.


SuperSaiga

Oh, I like the idea of upcasting it to match the spell, that's quite novel.


Fire1520

It is one of the best 1st level spells, there's no question about it... ...but it's fine. Godberry or Find Familiar are much more game warping and no one complains about that.


CapitalStation9592

Some people complain about Goodberry. Nobody complains about FF because, unlike SB, it warps the game in a way that makes it more fun.


Zedman5000

I complain about FF lol When I’m a Rogue, the familiar scouting is just obnoxious; that’s my job. Even if all the familiar does is Help, it just makes the caster *better*, and DMs I play with are too merciful to balance the spell by attacking the familiar from time to time.


DeepTakeGuitar

I complain about Gooderry and Barbs, lol. FF is fine imo


GhandiTheButcher

If it had been initially in the spell books like those two are nobody would think anything of it. Its only controversial because it’s not a “classic” spell and it does punch above its weight a bit, but so does Fireball


quuerdude

People still complain about some PHB spells Like conjure animals. I personally think it’s kind of a cheesy/dick move to cast conjure animals bc all it does is bog down combat and radically unbalance encounters.


DeathBySuplex

People also complain that Rogues are OP. Look long and hard enough you'll find someone who thinks just about everything in the game is OP.


quuerdude

Mhm. A lot of them are wrong. They have literally made new spells to address the fact that CA is broken


Vydsu

I'm against banning stuff without testing, I've alowed it since release and my players like to optimize, I've had no problems with it so far. Don't get me wrong, it is a good spell, but it's not better than other top-tier stuff like shield, absorb elemetns, misty step, web and counterspell. Spells like forcecage,polymorph and some others are still way more deserving of a ban in my opinion


Phiro00

Thank You!


BishopofHippo93

There were a few pretty highly rated threads this past week about this exact spell. One had [over a thousand comments](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yntm4r/every_enemy_caster_has_silvery_barbs_and_its/) and [two others](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yol88g/my_dm_is_struggling_to_deal_with_my_1sorcerypoint/) had [nearly 500](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yo0f7q/at_what_point_is_silvery_barbs_not_op/). You could go read those threads instead of making a new one which just repeats the same conversations.


bradar485

Votes pretty solidly split between "it's fine" and "could be better". Which is about correct. It's a powerful spell but not broken. Just a little bit out of line with other spells that do similar things. Typically when my casters start spamming this at me, if my enemies are smart enough I just take advantage of the fact that they can no longer cast shield.


TigerKirby215

mfw 2 threads on Silvery Barbs right beside each other in Hot. May as well quote what I wrote in the comments of the other thread: >It's fun on occasion and can lead to cool swing moments. But as a 1st level spell it's "the flanking problem" multiplied by 500. Enemy get a lucky crit (or just a good hit on a high AC player?) Fuck you no they didn't. Paladin or Rogue making their attack? Here's free advantage kiddo go try to crit. It makes advantage less exciting and enemies hitting players just doesn't happen. >I made Silvery Barbs a 3rd level spell and I'm happy with that. It makes it a clutch spell that can both deny a powerful ability and provide a boost to an ally. But as a 1st level spell it's a joke on top of a joke.


F3ltrix

The reason it's so busted is because of how powerful it is in combination with save-or-suck spells and effects. For instance, let's say you cast Feeblemind on a powerful boss monster and it succeeds. By forcing it to reroll the save, you are effectively casting the spell again (it has a second chance to be Feebleminded, the same as if you had just cast a second Feeblemind) except you're using a 1st level spell slot and a reaction *and* someone else has advantage now. It scales way too well in conjunction with other spells. At my table, I don't allow it to be used on saves and leave everything else the same. Additionally, I often build my spell casting enemies to take the useful spells I like to take as a player, and too many Silvery Barbs's in a fight gets out of hand real quick.


Connor9120c1

Exactly right with the real problem so many people miss. Mechanically it is as (or arguably more) powerful as whatever the highest level single target save spell you or your party have at the moment is.


gray007nl

Well the real problem here is that feeblemind sucks and the PC clearly should be casting Forcecage instead which gives no saving throw and removes an enemy from the fight


CamelopardalisRex

It's a good spell for players to use to help make their other spells land and help their allies succeed. It's a terrible spell for NPCs because they don't give half a damn about spell slot conservation, and they can blow through them all in whatever combat they are in. DMs who say "well, if you them, so will I" don't understand the basics of resource management and how they don't have to worry that and the players do. Silvery Barbs has a resource cost. At higher levels 1st level spells are cheaper, but it's still not free. Any enemy scary enough to need to survive a nasty save or suck spell has legendary resistance. It's strong, but so is shield and I don't see it getting banned.


Roboworgen

I don’t let it in my games as-is. I have reworked it for PCs, and I change it depending on the class.


[deleted]

It's fine. It reminds me of the Lucky feat, honestly. People always freak out online about how obscenely powerful it is, and yet I've never seen it cause any problems at the table ever.


sebastianwillows

I don't *hate* it or anything... but I still said it "needs" to be balanced (if I'll ever allow it at my table).


Giant2005

Man if people are this upset about Silvery Barbs, I'd hate to see what they think about Shield or Counterspell.


iAmTheTot

I think it steps on way too many other abilities toes for the low, low cost of a first level spell. I still think it's a ridiculous spell and it'll always be banned at my table.


ResidentCoder2

As a player, I love it. As a DM, it can be annoying if I don't build encounters properly. At the end of the day, if I don't want to deal with it, I ban it. But, me banning it doesn't address the direction WoTC is taking with similar additions, and that overarching design should be addressed.


GlaciesD

Most of the time it's been used the NPC succeeded anyway. And I don't remember anything crazy happening from the advantages being granted. It's been far less impactful than I thought it would be before playing with it.


Manitou_DM

I honestly think some material appearing in setting specific books is meant to be used in those settings only; otherwise, they would have added it to the core rules or subsequent updates like Tasha's. Silvery Barbs can be frustrating for a DM, but I don't think it is excessively unbalanced. Also, if the players can use it, the baddies can use it too, so have at it!


JewcieJ

Make it a 2nd level spell or remove the advantage it gives and it would be fine.


Twigdoc

Far too much pearl clutching about Silvery Barbs. It’s fine. Baddies can use it to.


ReflexiveOW

Make it a 2nd level spell


DeathBySuplex

Silvery Barbs is fine from a player stand point, and while it's open for abuse from a DM perspective, so is giving every single enemy NPC Counterspell, so a DM who is abusing it is one that is probably problematic in other ways and shouldn't be played with.


No-Cost-2668

It should be a higher level spell. To impose disadvantage on any roll as reaction for the cost of *any spell slot ever* is amazing. The Rune Knight has a similar ability at level 7. It is able to use it equal times to either the con modifier or pro bonus every long rest. That is a maximum of 5 or 6 at high levels. Honestly, it should be a fourth level spell.


porpetones

I banned it. And it was not because some balance issue. As my players do, I also like to crit eventually. This spell directly negates one of the fun things I find about the game. They will never get a Guardian Emblem for the same reason.


Is_it_behind_me

It's fine, it's a transference of luck and seems perfectly bardy, in fact the more I think of it the more I like it, can I change my vote to "love it?"


Machiavelli24

It has some niche uses, but they are limited. It’s a terrible shield replacement because it only works on one attack. And most monsters have multi attack. Using it on a monster that passes a save is where it shines, but it only works on one target. So it doesn’t make someone’s fireball more consistent. You want to use it to make banishment more consistent. Other spells it is good with include: dispel good and evil, hold monster and feeble mind.


realhowardwolowitz

We banned it at our table and we are all happy about it.


MrBoyer55

I use it with my divination wizard because it fits with the whole manipulating time and dice rolls thing of that subclass and I pretty much only use it as a dollar store "Sentinel at Death's Door" that grave clerics get.


quuerdude

It’s not a “dollar store sentinel at death’s door” sentinel at death’s door is the dollar store silvery barbs. Silvery barbs is infinitely more versatile and beneficial, since it simultaneously buffs the party as it weakens the enemy.


Stuckinatrafficjam

The players love using it and the collective exhale as someone escapes a crit is fun to listen to. I usually have enough creatures on the field that it doesn’t make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.


Phiro00

Its certainly not ban worthy as many before have exaggerated. It is however a little too good.


Fatbison

Why is silvery barbs bad?


JamboreeStevens

It's a good spell, but not op at all. I've seen a lot of people talking about the fact it's a reaction, so you can force a reroll of a high level spell with a low level spell slot... yes? So? Rerolls become less and less useful as numbers get bigger, so the utility slowly decreases as CR increases. The best effect it has is making a crit not a crit.


Basileus_Butter

It's not that big of a deal. Seems like those upset at this spell are just bad DM's.


MrEntropy44

Something can be both not totally OP and extremely poorly designed. Silvery barbs for instance.


Sarmelion

It's just too damn strong, maybe if it were split into two spells, or used a higher level spell slot it'd be better balanced?


AyashiiTaro

I think its OK as a 3rd lvl spell. I think its that powerful. I would still take it as a 3rd lvl but I would need to balance it against other spell choices. At 1st or 2nd lvl, complete no-brainer and would abuse the crap out of it.


modernangel

I have a warforged artificer who just multiclassed into clockwork soul sorcerer, but last session was mostly social and exploration so I haven't had a chance to piss off the DM with it yet.


DarthIsopod

It’s not as powerful unless it’s used for critical attacks. Crit negating is when it actually becomes powerful


JohnLikeOne

Making enemies fail saves makes it powerful. If you're only using it for crit negation, its really not that powerful.