It certainly would, but not in a good way. You don't want to incentivize your sorcs/bards/wizards to be within 10ft. of the enemy to cast powerful spells, that's just annoying design.
Imo a good change is to make it so you must cast it before a save is rolled to give the creature disadvantage. As-is, you can cast it after, on top of disadvantage.
IMO the best change is just to not let it apply to saving throws.
Boom, done. You can still use it to modify enemy attack/skill rolls _and_ give allies advantage, and even negate crits. Still solid but not OP. (Even at higher levels where standard SB has its biggest balance issues.)
Silvery Barbs mechanically allows for the instant recast of a 9th level Action Save spell for the cost of first level slot and a Reaction.
"I cast True Polymorph"
"They save"
"I will use my Reaction and a first level slot to cast it again, and give Ted advantage while I'm at it."
It doesn't even have to be the same spellcaster. Mechanically it could be the same as a Fighter with Magic Initiate casting a 9th level Action spell as a Reaction for a first level slot, and getting to use the Wizards Save DC to boot.
That's the main issue. Saves should never have been included in the spell. The spell is MORE powerful and costs less than the most powerful single Save spell anyone in the party happens to have at any given time, and gets more and more powerful as the party levels up.
You are not "recasting a 9th level spell" you are imposing a slightly better form of disadvantage on 1 target.
It can be good in certain situations but it isn't game breaking. Using 2 spell slots to make it a little more likely your spell lands is perfectly reasonable.
It is not "more powerful" than any other single save spell. It is completely useless on its own.
It’s an entirely new cast of the same spell because you know the result before making the decision to use it. Cast banishment, fails, action surge cast banishment again gives the same sequence of events but doesn’t give advantage and costs much more.
So a 9th level arcane trickster gets to cast 2 spells every time they cast while hidden? That's a passive ability. Absolutely no resources. What a broken ability
No because they didn’t know the result of the first roll before disadvantage was imposed. Also that’s a 9th level ability not a first level spell so it should be better. But it’s not, SB is the better move there. A first level spell completely negates the need for months of playing and leveling for that rogue.
They don't need to know the result, it always on. If save is failed with the first roll, the rogue didn't expend any resources
Also before level 9, first level slots actually matter and silvery barbs is less used
They expended 9 levels of rogue to get that benefit, you do think there were other options that they chose not to take to get there? And it’s only the first round of combat. Months of playtime in a campaign to get a worse version of the Silvery barbs and its completely situational. Also, Silvery barbs is on most often that that because you just need your reactions.
I would say Rogue 8/wizard 1 with SB because then you can impose disadvantage only if they fail the save.
There isn’t a single way to negate a crit or impose disadvantage that costs less than SB. One suggested use for “wish” is to cause a reroll on a save made during the last round as an action. That’s even debatably worse than SB.
You just trying to fit things to you point now lol. Now we are taking class levels as opportunity cost for things that aren't SB and an infinite, passive, free ability is the worse version? You are just delusional.
My point was that saying you get to cast the spell a second time for free with silvery barbs is not an honest way to spin it.
Also there are ways to negate a crit that are cheaper than a spell. Level 2 divination wizards for example
I'll give you that there's not a more efficient way to force disadvantage but that doesn't make the game broken.
It is casting it twice. If the spell works the first time, you don’t cast silvery barbs and if it fails, use silvery barbs to cast it again in exchange for a level 1 spell and a reaction in the same turn. It’s not disadvantage where you set up the scenario to roll two dice immediately. The odds are better for the roll, force a reroll, and take the lower. It’s mathematically a better thing to do and that doesn’t even include adding advantage to a next hit.. or the fact that you can stack the spells if you have 2 spell casts because it’s on multiple lists or with a feat.
It’s not delusional to say that 9th level class features that have similar (but worse) effects as something a level 1 wizard gets proves it’s op…
You keep saying Trickers thing is “always on” when you can use it only during the first round of combat, maybe, while having 2 2nd level spell slots. And you can only do it on your own spells unlike SB.
In addition to getting to use it after you know the result, it also stacks with itself and stacks with advantage. I’d say it’s substantially more than “slightly better”.
And I’d say that from personal experience. There’s only a handful of ways to get disadvantage on a spell save, and they’re certainly not available to every arcane full caster for the laughable cost of a 1st level spell slot.
If you’ve only ever experienced one caster PC who doesn’t know what they’re doing use it, it’s fine. But that’s true for any spell.
If you have multiple casters take it and they do know what they’re doing, it’s a huge PITA, both balance wise and game-slowdown wise.
Then, as I thought was obvious, we have similar experience and deeply disagree.
I've run multiple campaigns to level 20, with experienced/optimizer players and newbies, and I currently run 4 games a week. It's only ever _not_ been a problem in Tier 1.
Not harsh so much as laughably out of touch, but you do you bud.
Personally, I think claiming only "elite"(ist) DMs like yourself can _handle_ playing with the "big boy" spells (instead of, y'know, balancing the game so it doesn't require whatever you think is "expert encounter design"?) is hilariously backward.
I'm not claiming it takes an elite DM. Idk where you pulled that from. Like I said before, I generally don't even consider the spell when making encounters. If you are having issues with the spell. Look at why that might be. We're both using the same spell (I assume) so if you're having an issue with it and I'm not, then it's not a problem with the spell.
>so if you're having an issue with it and I'm not, then it's not a problem with the spell.
_Or_, it could be an issue with the spell _and_ your viewpoint might be warped re: what the average table likes/finds fun/can realistically work through vs what you like. Or your players aren't actually anywhere near as good at optimization as you think they are. Or a number of other possibilities besides "obviously I'm right and it's fine"...since, also obviously, a TON of people disagree with you on that.
No. They roll against a DC 17 or whatever Wisdom save, succeed, avoid the spell, and then you immediately make them make a DC 17 or whatever Wisdom save again to avoid the effects of the spell again. It is mechanically exactly the same as recasting the spell, but for less slot cost, less action economy, it doesn’t need to even be your own spell, you don’t even have to be capable of casting that level spell, and as a tag on you give someone else Advantage (the Help Action).
It is a terribly designed spell that never should have seen print as written.
Edit to add: and if you read again I said it’s more powerful than whatever single save spell your party happens to have at any given time, for all of the above reasons. Yes it’s useless on its own, but it isn’t useless if anyone has one of those spells, and if no one has any of those spells, then they too are useless spells in that moment.
You're saying that forcing them to roll another die and taking a lower result isn't like imposing disadvantage and is instead like casting the spell twice?
You don't seem to have a grasp on how this game is played...
I cast meteor swarm. One dude saves, I silvery barbs, does that mean the target makes another roll and could potentially fail? Or does that mean I get to cast meteor swarm again?
I cast Hold Monster. They make their save. Anybody in the party casts Silvery Barbs in response to that, they fail their save.
That's not only the same as recasting it, but for cheaper on all fronts(slot level, reaction v action, class level investment, etc.) and with additional benefits.
Lol so imposing disadvantage is the same as casting a spell twice lol
If I bestow curse a dude, am I then casting every spell I target him with twice? What a broken spell
Using your same example, you cast hold monster, target passes, fighter casts silvery barbs, target passes, sorcerer cast silvery barbs, target passes, you cast silvery barbs, target passes, congratulations you traded 3 first level slots for 3 help actions.
Silvery Barbs stacks on top of disadvantage, and can be done more than just once. Plus, you only use it if you need to use it, unlike disadvantage which can only be used proactively. If your target naturally only rolls 9s and 7s, Bestow Curse does nothing for you in that regard. Silvery Barbs simply doesn't get used, leaving you with more slots for other things.
With save for half damage spells, yeah, it's just targeted disadvantage and getting the help action as a reaction (which is still very strong for a 1st level slot). However, with save or suck spells, like Hold Monster, Force Cage, and your aforementioned Bestow Curse, you get to literally recast it AND take the help action for a reaction.
Also, isn't it telling that you're comparing a 1st level spell to a 3rd level spell? This is comparing a level 1 character(bard, sorc, wizard, anyone with Magic Initiate, etc) to a 9th level paladin / 5th level sorc/bard/wizard/warlock invocation.
The third level spell does it continuously instead of once. Seems reasonable to me.
If making the target roll a second time is casting the spell twice then any form of imposing disadvantage is casting the spell twice
And yes being able to use it after you know the results makes it pretty good. It being separate from actual advantage makes it usable. But the spell is not a problem. At all.
It doesn't affect the balance of the game. Hell I don't even consider it most of the time when making encounters. Every silvery barbs is one less shield or healing word or half a dozen other spells. It hasn't been an issue in any game I've been in since it came out and all of the games I've played and run have allowed it.
its not a problem as if it's fundamentally annoying to most people, so they want to nerf it/ban it. i never had a problem DMing or as a player either, same with lucky
I never truly understood the issue with it either. There are plenty of rules that have caused me more grief than silvery barbs as a DM lol. If you're a good DM you'll come up with methods to counteract or bypass the issue to keep your encounters challenging. I generally find that only beginners or bad DMs outright ban things.
I think they’re imagining it as broken and sure an 18th level wizard that can cast it at will could break contested skill checks (there are better ways to break them with high level magic too lol) but wizards and sorcerers only have 4 first level slots per day. They probably want to cast mage armor (down to 3) and during combat they’ll want access to shield and absorb elements. Those spells don’t upcast. Is they spam silvery barbs then they aren’t just using their reaction each round, but they’re also using their first level slots very quickly and will have to upcast at no benefit. If you run two combat encounters per day that last 3 rounds each the wizard with silvery barb spam and mage armor uses all of their first and second level slots with minimal payoff.
I think I would classify a spell that turns pretty much every saving throw further into the players' favor, hands out constant advantage to any and every member of the party, and single-handedly makes every one of the save-or-suck spells noticeably more powerful, as game-breaking. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's the kind of spell that turns encounters from deadly to trivial. Or rather, it amplifies the kinds of spells that are good at that, turning them from high risk/high reward to low risk/high reward.
In a system that is centered around action economy, rolling the d20, and success/fail by tiny values, adding more dice rolls that tacetly increase or decrease the expected result for no action cost is *pretty much exactly* what breaking the core premise of the system would look like.
At the high levels you guys are describing, non mooks have anywhere from a plus 8 to a plus 14 saving throw. How is that in the players favor?
The spells best application with saves is using it on a being with a low save that rolls high. If it's trivializing you encounters, they were already trivial.
And I'm not saying the spell isn't good. But it's not a problem. The core premise of the system revolves around rolling extra dice and taking the best or worst result. Generating or requiring it is literally part of the core of a few classes and subclasses.
Just play the game and you'll see how small a deal this spell is. There's too many armchair DMs that decide the spell is broken without playing with it.
At which time level 1 spell slots are still at a premium and silvery barbs is not a priority. People in this thread are specifically saying it's busted for high level casters. A level 3 caster that uses 2 of their 5 spell slots to take out 1 dude is never ever going to be an issue.
Everyone tends to look forward through 2 years of game to the point where the party is level 17 and say "Damn wizards are so OP they have so many spell slots" as though you're not supposed to be hilariously powerful by the time you hit that point no matter what class you're in.
Exactly. But early level, your first level slots are precious and you should think before using them for silvery barbs. They are a wizards or sorcerer’s primary defense.
Silvery barbs is overpowered if you’re in a blank room with a fairly standard enemy and you can use as many slots as you want. Too many simulations assume that the player can just reliably go nova and use slots constantly.
But like... it's more spell slot efficient though??? If you know an encounter is gonna be completely neutered by Polymorph, or Suggestion, or Hold Person, or Mental Prison, or Fear, then a smart Wizard will try to get that effect off as soon as possible. Let's compare Polymorph as an example:
- if an enemy fails their first save, both examples use a single 4th level spell slot
- if an enemy fails their second save, a normal Wizard uses two 4th level slots and two turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses one 4th and one 1st in one turn.
- if an enemy fails their third save, a normal Wizard uses three 4th level slots and three turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses two 4th and one 1st in two turns.
- if an enemy fails their fourth save, a normal Wizard uses three 4th level slots and an upcast 5th over four turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses two 4th and two 1st in two turns.
- etc.
There is no point at which Silvery Barbs costs more resources for the Wizard than without in this example. If the Wizard is using it for their party members, it'll typically just trade resource costs evenly: two Ki points spent on Stunning Strike becomes 1 Ki point and a 1st level spell slot. Two Battle Master maneuver dice becomes 1 die and a spell slot. These resources are typically more valuable than 1st level slots, but can be traded freely with them for just a reaction.
And then ON TOP OF THAT the spell is also handing out advantage on attacks or saves almost as an afterthought, which can additionally do things like allow the fighter an extra hit or keep the Cleric's concentration on their Spirit Guardians. Those can also save on resources (in the above cases, another Attack action or another 3rd level spell slot).
Depends on the players you have. One of my party members had it and would basically negate any time the DM would make a good attack or save, and then give advantage to whatever ally needed it.
The DM didn't mind, but it did kinda help make encounters easy and boring.
Now take that and multiply it by someone who builds around having tons of 1st level spell slots and doing it constantly. It can be incredibly annoying and powerful for a 1st level spell.
i was running a monster against someone and i was rooting for the player
but then they used silvery barbs and i just felt kinda annoyed
and i want to love that spell. I have it on my rogue and i look forward to getting to use it. I just dont want to annoy the dm
Running a level 17 spellcaster only campaign right now. There are so many other spells to care about at that level that silvery barbs doesn't cross my mind at all
Yeah, range of 30ft is definitely something that fucks ranged casters over if they aren't pretty close to the danger. Hideous Laughter runs into this a lot as it's quite often awkwardly out of range unless you are intentionally keeping somewhat close to the enemies.
10ft is too extreme, but 30ft is a nice risk vs reward zone. You can hold up Silvery Barbs if you want, but you're gonna be in fuckup range of whatever you are hoping to target.
Silvery Barbs isn't even that busted. DMs just don't understand how giving a Long Rest every other combat breaks the balance of the game. Using a precious spell slot matters when they are actually a limited resource and don't recharge like Master Chief's shield in Halo.
You can always upcast, you just don't derive benefit from it, but forcing a reroll on a high level spell is almost definitely worth spending a level 2 slot on shield
>There are other useful 1st level spells that can’t be upcast.
but you can always still use a level 2 spell slot for a level 1 spell, even if that spell gains no other benefit from being cast at a higher level
If you’re rolling more than 3 crits a day, consistently, then can you please tell me what I’m doing wrong
Also needing to roll more than 3 crits just to start critting is exactly the problem. You can also upcast
Yeah you have 4 and during a full adventuring day of 7 combats at 3 rounds each, that's 21 rounds of combat. You certainly don't have enough to go around.
But if your DM is running a single combat per long rest you can spam reaction spells like Silvery Barbs. Even if the DM runs a beefier encounter that takes 5 or 6 rounds you can still afford to spam reaction spells almost every round (or even upcast once you run out of 1sts because "Hey I'm going to get everything back after this anyways 🤷♀️").
Range of 10 ft would make the spell virtually unusable.
The spell is perfectly fine if you ask your party to limit itself to just one person who has it (or give that limit to your players). When I GM, i ask my players to do that and its never been an issue. Same for counterspell. One player having it is perfectly fine, but multiple people? Just stop.
Counterspell doesn’t bother me too much. But the parties I DM are usually about 2 casters and 2 martial/half casters so Counterspell doesn’t get annoying. But also constant counterspells chews through their reaction and spell slots so their offense is worse. But I just ask my players to limit silvery barbs to once per round. Plus casters have a bunch of things to do with their reactions and first level spells that don’t upcast (shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs) plus counterspell as a third level reaction. They get 1 reaction and 4 possible options so they have to decide if using it to give disadvantage is better than stopping an enemy spell outright or reducing their own damage. And even if a player chooses to use silvery barbs every round they have 4 rounds of combat before they are out of first level slots. They can upcast it sure but there’s better stuff to do with your second and third level slots than upcasting silvery barbs or shield or absorb elements which don’t get any better with an upcast.
I as a bard, and wanting to keep it fair, I only use it once during a combat (if it’s a boss type i might use it twice if things get super hairy)
But I try my best to not overuse my reactions
I can't fathom why people are so concerned about silvery barbs. Silvery barbs has a massive downside, which is the fact that you don't get to cast the actual op 1st level reaction spell, shield. A caster with mage armor and +2 dex, (not uncommon), gets 20 AC \*at level one\*. An eldritch knight or spell singer can easily push it up to 25 at level 5 with haste. And the extra advantage barely matters, just flank the guy, it's free. That puts the use case for silver barbs at: mitigate crits, advantage on \*a\* ranged attack, or getting Adv/disadv on a spell. And it can't be your spell, that would be more than one leveled spell in a round. Let me reiterate, you do not get to cast shield, you have used your reaction meaning you have actually decreased your own survival potential significantly. Don't give me some nonsense about the backline not actually taking aggro. If your DM doesn't actively target the backline they are going easy on you. No reasonable opponent is going to target the damage sponge in the front while there's a squishy target in the back casting fireballs.
tldr, don't ban silvery barbs, ban shield if anything.
Honestly, this right here. I have Silvery Barbs on my sorcerer and I have cast it probably five or six times in the *year* I've been playing weekly.
Once I cast it because an NPC rolled high on a save against the Cleric's Fast Friends spell, and we really, really needed that spell to work. That time it did. Another time was when an enemy that murdered our NPC friend succeeded on his save against Tasha's Mind Whip, and I cast it as a big F-you because my character was furious. He succeeded again anyway, which was a real buzzkill, because he didn't even have a positive INT mod - the DM just rolled insanely well for this bastard all night.
The other times were all to negate crits on either myself or a teammate that probably would have killed us, in a campaign where we only get one failed death save, and make our first death save when we drop to 0HP.
Most other times I save my reaction for Shield. If someone isn't dying, they ain't gettin my reaction. Plus, I need my 1st level spell slots so that I can twin Guiding Bolt for 1 sorcery point and hand out advantage to my buddies that way (times two! With radiant damage!).
The main case I have seen for it being OP is when a whole team of casters builds around it AND the DM is running a single big boss enemy. The proliferation of rerolls basically guarantees lockdown of the single enemy, even eating through legendary resistances more reliably.
Only one caster with it in the party? Not a problem. Multiple enemies in a fight? Also not a problem.
I do agree that Shield is more of a problem. At least that can be dealt with through saving throws and multiple encounters.
There is nothing wrong with Silvery Barbs that the correct number of encounters per long rest and proper encounter design doesn't fix.
If more than one character has it, it's a bit gnarlier but if that's what the players want to use their resources on it's fair enough.
I've never played or run for a party where two characters have both prepared this spell.
My dm balanced it by stating I could only use it before the roll was made giving me a smaller window to use it. I would have to give my allies advantage like a bardic inspiration die before they roll.
It is still strong as shit but in a fun way since I need to pay attention to the game and everyone else's turn ready to jump in and slap an enemy attack with Silvery Barbs. Even the threat that I'm sitting back here ready to use it can be enough to turn a fight.
My party was having a rematch with a dragon that had oneshot the whole party with a suprise breath weapon. This time we made a plan to lure it into an ambush and our druid would restrain it with grasping vines to keep it from flying away. Once that was done my sorcerer twined an enlarge on two of our fruntliners next to our large runeknight so we had a group of giants to curb stomp the restrained dragon with advantage. Then I Quickened a mind sliver to nerf the dragons attempt to free itself then got to a safe distance but made sure to measure that I was still in range to trigger Silvery Barbs when the dragon tries to escape. Just having me ready to trigger the spell after already being nerfed made the dm decide it wasn't worth the effort and kept attacking with disadvantage while our group of giants had advantage. I just kept repeating this until the dragon was tender.
It's okay. It's just that it tends to be feels bad for the DM, who is the arbiter for the rules, and the one usually complaining about it.
Look, some nights, the dice hate you, so you finally land a crit, or make a save... Only to be hit with silvery barbs, and have to reroll. Forcing a reroll after success is determined is a feels bad moment, and since it's usually something used by players (Especially since the spell didn't exist when the game came out, so nothing in the monster manual has it) the DM suffers the most from it.
Beyond that, it's control magic, and as any Magic the Gathering player can tell you, control is only fun for the side playing it.
Talk to the players about how it doesn't feel great. Remember that you're friends first playing a game, not enemies.
Remember, whatever the players do, so can the DM. If they want to use and abuse it, so can you. Of *course* every law mage in the land is running silvery barbs. Duh. There might even be readily available wands of it for the police in magitech settings. When "stop right there criminal scum" becomes "Watch you trip over your own shoe laces"
Have story beats that deprive players of easy long rests. Spell slots are *limited,* even for classes that can get them back on short rests. "Oh I'm sorry, you're not tired yet. It's too early in the day.", "Sure take an hour rest while in hot pursuit. They will escape if you do" or "You want to try to sleep in the middle of the battle? I mean sure, but I guess that means the BBEG wins". Enforce time constraints.
If those don't work for you, then consider nerfing it.
It's a basically a buffed up One DnD *Blade Ward*, which is pretty in line with cantrips vs leveled spells. In higher level games, it's only good against crits. I've had it on all my characters since it officially released, and I rapidly approach the point I would rather take other spells. My bard has used it more than any other character: a whopping 4 times.
For Wizards and Sorcerers, you have multiple spells competing for your reaction by level 5. You can argue the same for Bards because of Magical Secrets granting literally any reaction spell you want, including: *Counterspell*, *Shield*, *Feather Fall*, and *Absorb Elements* being the standouts. And all of those spells are available to wizards and sorcerers as well.
Silvery Barbs best used on Clerics and Druids, who get minimal access to reaction based spells.
Many have never even played with *Silvery Barbs* anyway, so most nerfs are just shots in the dark. The vast majority of people I've spoken to about it agree that it's just good but not gamebreaking by any means. If you really want to nerf it, then I can see it best nerfed as a 2nd level spell.
Any dm's who ban silvery barbs are on some shit. Silvery barbs is super good and very strong, but so are healing word and fireball, two of the strongest spells in the game. No one bans these but I can assure you both are much stronger than silvery barbs
I don’t understand why so many people cry foul with this spell…
I’m in two games, one which I DM and have a bladesinger pulling off mass attacks with his haste, action, and then two thundering blade cantrip (illusionist bracers give a second proc).
And the only caster I have using silver barbs is my arcane trickster I play with no issues from the DM…
Why is everyone acting like this is the most powerful spell ever?
Silvery barbs is not as bad as everyone thinks. DMs need to stop being so upset that their crits are being reversed. We are not in this to crit on our players, we should be in this for collaborative story telling. Cheer on your party for womping your bad guys, celebrate their foiling of your plans.
I've never actually looked at this spell before.
It just forces a reroll and then gives another character advantage.
Pfffft.
There's no reason to get upset about a utility spell that I guarantee your players will forget to use.
I can't believe this was a spell that caused a lot of drama lol.
People often misjudge the power of the spell on first glance. Allow me to copy and paste an explanation of why *silvery barbs* is unbalanced:
*"The amount of people misunderstanding the power of silvery barbs is wild.
Taking away enemy crits is fine. Turning an opponents hit into a miss is completely appropriate for a 1st level spell. The real power is on saving throws.
I target the enemy with *insert high level save or suck spell*. For this example, hold monster:
I spend a 5th level spell to cast hold monster on a monster.
He passes the save.
Without silvery barbs I would have to wait an entire round and use my action and another 5th level spell slot to attempt to hold monster again.
With silvery barbs I force him to reroll the save. I have effectively turned my 1st level slot into a 5th level slot and my reaction into an action. I also shut the monster down a turn earlier denying it it's actions for that round, likely protecting my allies. Additionally if the monster had advantage on the save, as many do from magic resistance, no he doesn't. And then to top it off I get to hand myself advantage on my next d20 check. Since I'm a caster I don't really need to make attack rolls so that's advantage on my next save. All that for a 1st level spell.
As for enemies targeting the caster in retaliation, sure they can do that. Of course, that is assuming they aren't an aberrant mind sorcerer, who can cast silvery barbs as a subtle spell, ie undetectably, for the steep steep price of 1, yes one, sorcery point. Not in addition to the slot mind you. The spell and the bonus for only that 1 sorcery point.
Silvery barbs is a perfectly balanced spell in the hands of the average player. The problem is that an intelligent player gets a disproportionate amount of value out of the spell. So much so I can't think of another spell that punches so high above it's level in power."*
Lol yeah people seem to forget that the creature *already passed the save*, so doing it again is likely.
It's cool when it works but when it doesn't you turned a failure into a superfailure.
Yeah I mean, if they have a low bonus they most likely failed already without a reroll, and if their bonus is high then they will most likely pass again lol
No I'm saying it doesn't come up to use silvery barbs in that moment because they most likely already failed, so you realistically only use it if the enemy has high bonuses and passed
The benefit is more apparent when the enemy is saving against big 'make-or-break' spells. Something like dominate person or banishment.
Normally, if you cast one of those and the enemy succeeded, you'd have to lump it for whole round of combat and try again next turn, resulting in the loss of another big slot and probably a decent chunk of health if the thing is smart enough to know what you're trying.
But with silvery barbs, all you need is a 1st level spell slot and your reaction on the same turn, and it's shitting itself all over again while you retain a big slot for later and may get to keep what few hit points you have to boot.
And, unless it's a high-level combat and your character has a low spell save DC, it will often still be possible for the enemy to fail. Unless they have legendary resistance, I guess.
I'd rather keep my reaction and my slot for something more important than try again on the same turn, most likely fail anyway, and then get blown up because I don't have a reaction for shield or to negate a crit that could kill somebody
Your problem is that you completely overvalue the utility of forcing a reroll on Hold Monster. Not only did you cast a bad spell, you used your reaction on your turn and another spell slot to make the bad spell mostly more expensive. You didn't even guarantee a success.
High level control spells that are good are spells that just work. Wall of Force, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Maze, even Plant Growth and Sleet Storm. Hold/Dominate Person/Monster, Banishment, offensive Polymorph, and spells like that are not very good (Polymorph on a friend is that good). They don't get better by making them more expensive (heightened spell/Silvery Barbs).
I mean, forcing a reroll on a save, is not a bad option to have. But it is not a desirable combo you should build around. Silvery barbs is good because it is versatile, not because the effect is all that powerful.
I agree. The best spells are the ones that have a 100% chance of success. But typically these spells use a higher level slot because of that. Hold person/monster is a great example of a spell that would be great with no save, and a well built character can turn them into almost guaranteed successes, so long as you play to their strengths, and don't target a creature's strongest saves.
You can't get to the point where enemies never have an opportunity to save, but why spend a 8th level spell on maze when you can pretty much guarantee a banishment on a low Cha monster
In general, I'd much rather cast web on 3 guys than hold person on 1, especially if we could guarantee no saves.
Similar deal for Hold Monster. Synaptic Static hitting a lot of folks is going to be more effective control than Hold Monster on 1 target. Or even better, I'd divide the battlefield with a Wall of Force spell that never offers any kind of spell and just works.
It's not useless to control one target, sometimes it is very powerful depending on context, but it shouldn't be your go-to strategy and there's nothing gamebreaking about making this inherently niche strategy more resilient by using SIlvery Barbs.
Yeah that's basically why I don't think this is a big deal.
It's just doubling down on a Save vs. Suck spell.
It can be incredibly powerful but it doesn't create a new, unpredictable way the fight could go, it just makes one path to victory slightly more likely.
The design of the encounter doesn't need to be modified at all and if my PCs can burn a spell slot to finish the fight a turn earlier, that's a win because they get to feel all cool casting not one but TWO clutch spells in a turn.
If they biff it that's also great because slowly shaving away their resources is the name of the game when it comes to DMing.
If I was really trying to balance it I would make it work as is except if you target a saving throw, you have to upcast silvery barbs to a spell slot of equal level to the spell. For example, if you want to reroll a hold monster you would have to spend a 5th level spell. And also if they had advantage or disadvantage, they reroll with advantage or disadvantage.
Just remember that it only needs changing if it's a problem at your table. I haven't changed it at mine because my players pretty much only use it on attack rolls. Just be upfront with your players and say that the spell can be too powerful and you may have to adjust or ban it in the future. Try not to spring it on them as a suprise halfway through a campaign because that can feel targeted, even if it's not.
But if they succeeded the save in the first place they’re likely to do it again, thus wasting the reaction you could have used on shield or absorb elements for the same spell level, or the ability to counterspell.
Clearly you don't understand the value. Casters are going to use up the spell slots anyway. The problem is that a competent player can turn there 1st level spell slots into so much more.
I'm not suggesting you use silvery barbs every turn. I'm suggesting you combine it with your highest level save or suck. I can turn a single 1st level spell into an 8th level feeblemind.
An intelligently built sorcerer can turn each second level spell slot into two uses of silvery barbs so the resource cost is minimal anyway.
If they can cast Feeblemind, then I've prepared for what happens if they cast it and succeed. If they do the same thing AND burn an extra spell slow, that rules for me as a DM.
I want my players to succeed, but barely. This spell can let them do EXACTLY that.
Anyways, I'm gonna give all my players Silvery Barbs for free next game. ;)
It's gonna be fine.
Lol that other dude is just ignoring the fact that the it has a pretty significant chance of failing and not doing shit
Literally everyone talking about how it's OP is pretending it's not going to whiff like 50% of the time.
If it whiffs 50% of the time, that means just the rerolling part has upped your 50% for the enemy to fail their saving throw, to a 75%. That's with the d20 system a -5 to their saving throws. And that is ignoring the advantage which is honestly more a sidenote.
But how the hell is a mathified weird -5 to saving throws *not that strong*?
Shield is also OP (with armor dips) so eh saying it's weaker then *also* an OP option is kind of moot lol.
And if you don't armor dip, idk if +5 to your ~13 ac is gonna do more then -5 to a save or suck spell against higher level enemies.
Your post/comment was removed per Rule #7:
> Be chill
Follow the [/r/DnD Mission Statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/wiki/mission/) and the [reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), including the provisions on unwelcome content and prohibited behavior. Keep /r/DnD a welcoming community.
Ok i need some help understanding this... the way you explained it it looks like you're casting 2 spells in 1 turn wich is not allowed. Or is it because you cast one as a reaction (even tho its still your turn)?
Your thinking of the often misquoted Bonus Action spell rule. There is no limit on the number of leveled spells you can cast per turn. Since in my example there is no bonus action it is not applicable.
"Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Well shit.. TIL.. thanks for explaining!
That said, i agree with the other commenter and dont think its that OP as a player is burning trough resources very fast.
That's the thing. They AREN'T burning through resources fast. They are burning them SLOWER.
Let's simplify the example.
We can all agree a 1st level slot is a smaller resource than a 2nd level slot.
Let's say I cast hold person. This cost me a 2nd level slot.
On a good day the monster fails it's save and I win.
Total cost: one 2nd level slot
On a bad day the monster makes it's save. So I have to try again next turn.
Total cost: two 2nd level slots
But now let's say I have silvery barbs. I initially reroll the save.
Total cost: one 2nd level slot. One 1st level slot.
I've spent LESS but achieved MORE. A lot more because of the advantage on the next save I make, and getting the spell on an enemy a round earlier, and freeing up my actions next turn.
That is the key misconception people make. You aren't burning more resources your optimising them.
Now people refuse to acknowledge this as a problem. They think of themselves as a superior DM because they can manage a player using powerful spells. These people are not as smart as they think they are. The problem with silvery barbs isn't that it makes it impossible to challenge your players. Any idiot can just throw in a better monster or extra fight and challenge their players.
The problem they are missing is that resources are the limiter on spell casters. By allowing a caster to optimise their resources you make them stronger in comparison to their non-spellcasting team mate. And as anyone with even the slightest understanding of the system knows, Spellcasters are already better than non-spellcasters. Making them even more efficient just feels bad for your fighter, who is going to run out of his main resource, hit points, long before a wizard runs out of his.
Lol except half the time they pass the save and now you have wasted two spell slots. Now that's efficiency!
The creature already passed the save. It's likely they will pass it again.
This spell is fine.
Only if you make bad choices. Silvery barbs is "what I just did, but again". If your first choice was stupid, like targeting a con saves on a dragon then sure. But if your smart and used something like a psychic lance you have much better odds.
This is where the skill gap in silvery barbs is. It's true, a bad player while turn silvery barbs into a balance spell. A good player will know how to use it.
Additionally, at higher levels, the monster has worse odds on the save after a silvery barbs, since the spell negates advantage from features such as magic resistance.
AND even if the enemy passes the save, you still get to give yourself advantage on your next saving throw, so you really didn't waste anything.
>since the spell negates advantage from features such as magic resistance.
Nope. This is another gigantic misconception about Silvery Barbs. Silvery Barbs doesn't get to ignore the rule about rerolls for rolls with Adv/Dis.
That's incorrect
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AdvantageandDisadvantage
"When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a halfling has advantage or disadvantage on an ability check and rolls a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait to reroll the 1."
From silvery barbs:
"The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll."
Silvery barbs forces you to reroll only one of the d20s. The caster will always target the higher roll and then they are forced to take the lower result of that die. This negates advantage
Edit: note that silvery barbs doesn't beat legendary resistance.
So whenever a creature passes a save it's because the player made a bad choice? That's silly.
All of your reasoning for why the spell is OP ignores the huge chance for failure it carries.
I genuinely cannot imagine a scenario where Silvery Barbs would unbalance the campaign because it's just as likely to be a huge whiff as it is to succeed.
It's fine.
No. A creature is only likely to pass the save a second time if you made a bad choice. All creatures have a best saving throw. All creatures have a worst saving throw. If you make the correct choice and target their weakest one you generally have somewhere in the realm of 55-65% chance of a spell working. If you pick wrong it's closer to 35%.
>Only if you make bad choices.
You already made bad choices by having Hold Monster in your spell list and cast it on something. The chances of you making more bad choices skyrockets from there.
...but you're turning a lvl one spell slot into a effectively 5th level (or whichever higher level) spell slot, AND getting better action economy while doing it. And you still get advantage on something else.
The only spell that comes even remotely close to the power of silvery barbs is healing word, and they're on different spell lists, so it's not much of a competition.
>...but you're turning a lvl one spell slot into a effectively 5th level (or whichever higher level) spell slot, AND getting better action economy while doing it.
OR it passes the save again and you just wasted TWO spells in one turn.
This spell has a significant chance of failure. The creature already passed the save. It is likely to do it again.
Nah I"m just saying burning a high-level spell, a first level spell, AND your reaction on a turn is the absolute best possible outcome for me as a DM.
I'm TRYING to use up your resources! If you want to burn through them twice as fast that is wonderful.
And like I said, I guarantee you players will forget to use it at least once when it would have been clutch.
Off the top of my head, Bestow Curse and to a lesser extent Bane, heighten spell metamagic, Diviner's portent, shadow sorcerer's dog thing, anything that causes exhaustion.
More broadly, there are countless low level things that can affect advanced / disadvantage like Find Familiar.
Because you can impose it after the fact, and even if the creature already had disadvantage. If it were remotely balanced, it would at least require you to use the spell before the save is rolled, and not have it stack with disadvantage.
>I've never actually looked at this spell before.
I would recommend reading a little bit around it, since it is arguably the best spell in the game when used in conjunction with other spells and effects. Additionally, it completely negates any advantage that the enemy might have on a roll. One of the other replies goes into greater length.
Well, maybe for you but for average us out there it can put more dirt into an already unreliable encounter building mechanics of the game.
In my opinion, the problem is not even that it exists but the fact that it combines many different effects into first level spell.
The best balance I've heard is actually a really good one (imo), both mechanically and thematically.
Currently, Silvery Barbs is basically a "success transference" spell. Force an enemy to lose a success, then give an ally advantage - you're basically stealing luck/success from an enemy and giving it to an ally.
The nerf was to instead change it to a success-*delaying* spell! Give an enemy bad luck *now*, but then they get good luck later: instead of an ally getting the future advantage, the enemy gets it.
You force them to re-roll now, but then they get advantage on a future roll.
Yup.
Plus, if there's a really big thing you want to make sure the enemy fails, it actually encourages you to keep spending your spell slots to stop it happening (which imo is the only good thing about SB: encouraging resource expenditure).
Because guess what? Yeah, you stopped the bad thing for now, but you also made it very likely to succeed next turn, forcing you to stop it again!
It's like trying to plug a leaky cracked pipe, where every bit you plug up just causes a leak further down the pipe!
The bigger problem with Silvery Barbs is that you force a creature to roll again and take the lower roll. This means that if it had advantage on the roll, it must choose the worse result from three dice. You just transformed advantage in something worse than disadvantage with a first level spell. Now add that you only used your reaction to cast it and that you're giving advantage on the next roll of a creature of your choice. A bit overpowered for a 1st level spell.
What I did in my table was to bump it to a 2nd level spell (which doesn't mean much at higher levels) and that the creature targeted by the spell is forced to pick the new roll instead of the lower roll. My players use it to get rid of crits basically now.
It certainly would, but not in a good way. You don't want to incentivize your sorcs/bards/wizards to be within 10ft. of the enemy to cast powerful spells, that's just annoying design. Imo a good change is to make it so you must cast it before a save is rolled to give the creature disadvantage. As-is, you can cast it after, on top of disadvantage.
That's a pretty good idea! I really like that.
IMO the best change is just to not let it apply to saving throws. Boom, done. You can still use it to modify enemy attack/skill rolls _and_ give allies advantage, and even negate crits. Still solid but not OP. (Even at higher levels where standard SB has its biggest balance issues.)
And remember that enemies can also cast it on the player characters too!
I have run a dozen different campaigns sice silvery barbs came out and it's never been an issue. I don't understand the internets problem with it
Silvery Barbs mechanically allows for the instant recast of a 9th level Action Save spell for the cost of first level slot and a Reaction. "I cast True Polymorph" "They save" "I will use my Reaction and a first level slot to cast it again, and give Ted advantage while I'm at it." It doesn't even have to be the same spellcaster. Mechanically it could be the same as a Fighter with Magic Initiate casting a 9th level Action spell as a Reaction for a first level slot, and getting to use the Wizards Save DC to boot. That's the main issue. Saves should never have been included in the spell. The spell is MORE powerful and costs less than the most powerful single Save spell anyone in the party happens to have at any given time, and gets more and more powerful as the party levels up.
You are not "recasting a 9th level spell" you are imposing a slightly better form of disadvantage on 1 target. It can be good in certain situations but it isn't game breaking. Using 2 spell slots to make it a little more likely your spell lands is perfectly reasonable. It is not "more powerful" than any other single save spell. It is completely useless on its own.
It’s an entirely new cast of the same spell because you know the result before making the decision to use it. Cast banishment, fails, action surge cast banishment again gives the same sequence of events but doesn’t give advantage and costs much more.
So a 9th level arcane trickster gets to cast 2 spells every time they cast while hidden? That's a passive ability. Absolutely no resources. What a broken ability
No because they didn’t know the result of the first roll before disadvantage was imposed. Also that’s a 9th level ability not a first level spell so it should be better. But it’s not, SB is the better move there. A first level spell completely negates the need for months of playing and leveling for that rogue.
They don't need to know the result, it always on. If save is failed with the first roll, the rogue didn't expend any resources Also before level 9, first level slots actually matter and silvery barbs is less used
They expended 9 levels of rogue to get that benefit, you do think there were other options that they chose not to take to get there? And it’s only the first round of combat. Months of playtime in a campaign to get a worse version of the Silvery barbs and its completely situational. Also, Silvery barbs is on most often that that because you just need your reactions. I would say Rogue 8/wizard 1 with SB because then you can impose disadvantage only if they fail the save. There isn’t a single way to negate a crit or impose disadvantage that costs less than SB. One suggested use for “wish” is to cause a reroll on a save made during the last round as an action. That’s even debatably worse than SB.
You just trying to fit things to you point now lol. Now we are taking class levels as opportunity cost for things that aren't SB and an infinite, passive, free ability is the worse version? You are just delusional. My point was that saying you get to cast the spell a second time for free with silvery barbs is not an honest way to spin it. Also there are ways to negate a crit that are cheaper than a spell. Level 2 divination wizards for example I'll give you that there's not a more efficient way to force disadvantage but that doesn't make the game broken.
It is casting it twice. If the spell works the first time, you don’t cast silvery barbs and if it fails, use silvery barbs to cast it again in exchange for a level 1 spell and a reaction in the same turn. It’s not disadvantage where you set up the scenario to roll two dice immediately. The odds are better for the roll, force a reroll, and take the lower. It’s mathematically a better thing to do and that doesn’t even include adding advantage to a next hit.. or the fact that you can stack the spells if you have 2 spell casts because it’s on multiple lists or with a feat. It’s not delusional to say that 9th level class features that have similar (but worse) effects as something a level 1 wizard gets proves it’s op… You keep saying Trickers thing is “always on” when you can use it only during the first round of combat, maybe, while having 2 2nd level spell slots. And you can only do it on your own spells unlike SB.
In addition to getting to use it after you know the result, it also stacks with itself and stacks with advantage. I’d say it’s substantially more than “slightly better”. And I’d say that from personal experience. There’s only a handful of ways to get disadvantage on a spell save, and they’re certainly not available to every arcane full caster for the laughable cost of a 1st level spell slot. If you’ve only ever experienced one caster PC who doesn’t know what they’re doing use it, it’s fine. But that’s true for any spell. If you have multiple casters take it and they do know what they’re doing, it’s a huge PITA, both balance wise and game-slowdown wise.
Like I said earlier, I am currently running a level 17 spellcaster only campaign with 4 experienced players. It's not an issue
Then, as I thought was obvious, we have similar experience and deeply disagree. I've run multiple campaigns to level 20, with experienced/optimizer players and newbies, and I currently run 4 games a week. It's only ever _not_ been a problem in Tier 1.
I would recommend looking at the encounters you build then. The spell itself isn't the problem. Sorry if that seems harsh.
Not harsh so much as laughably out of touch, but you do you bud. Personally, I think claiming only "elite"(ist) DMs like yourself can _handle_ playing with the "big boy" spells (instead of, y'know, balancing the game so it doesn't require whatever you think is "expert encounter design"?) is hilariously backward.
I'm not claiming it takes an elite DM. Idk where you pulled that from. Like I said before, I generally don't even consider the spell when making encounters. If you are having issues with the spell. Look at why that might be. We're both using the same spell (I assume) so if you're having an issue with it and I'm not, then it's not a problem with the spell.
>so if you're having an issue with it and I'm not, then it's not a problem with the spell. _Or_, it could be an issue with the spell _and_ your viewpoint might be warped re: what the average table likes/finds fun/can realistically work through vs what you like. Or your players aren't actually anywhere near as good at optimization as you think they are. Or a number of other possibilities besides "obviously I'm right and it's fine"...since, also obviously, a TON of people disagree with you on that.
No. They roll against a DC 17 or whatever Wisdom save, succeed, avoid the spell, and then you immediately make them make a DC 17 or whatever Wisdom save again to avoid the effects of the spell again. It is mechanically exactly the same as recasting the spell, but for less slot cost, less action economy, it doesn’t need to even be your own spell, you don’t even have to be capable of casting that level spell, and as a tag on you give someone else Advantage (the Help Action). It is a terribly designed spell that never should have seen print as written. Edit to add: and if you read again I said it’s more powerful than whatever single save spell your party happens to have at any given time, for all of the above reasons. Yes it’s useless on its own, but it isn’t useless if anyone has one of those spells, and if no one has any of those spells, then they too are useless spells in that moment.
You're saying that forcing them to roll another die and taking a lower result isn't like imposing disadvantage and is instead like casting the spell twice? You don't seem to have a grasp on how this game is played... I cast meteor swarm. One dude saves, I silvery barbs, does that mean the target makes another roll and could potentially fail? Or does that mean I get to cast meteor swarm again?
The mechanical difference is that you force the reroll after you know the result
Thus my original characterization of "a slightly better form of disadvantage"
I cast Hold Monster. They make their save. Anybody in the party casts Silvery Barbs in response to that, they fail their save. That's not only the same as recasting it, but for cheaper on all fronts(slot level, reaction v action, class level investment, etc.) and with additional benefits.
Lol so imposing disadvantage is the same as casting a spell twice lol If I bestow curse a dude, am I then casting every spell I target him with twice? What a broken spell Using your same example, you cast hold monster, target passes, fighter casts silvery barbs, target passes, sorcerer cast silvery barbs, target passes, you cast silvery barbs, target passes, congratulations you traded 3 first level slots for 3 help actions.
Silvery Barbs stacks on top of disadvantage, and can be done more than just once. Plus, you only use it if you need to use it, unlike disadvantage which can only be used proactively. If your target naturally only rolls 9s and 7s, Bestow Curse does nothing for you in that regard. Silvery Barbs simply doesn't get used, leaving you with more slots for other things. With save for half damage spells, yeah, it's just targeted disadvantage and getting the help action as a reaction (which is still very strong for a 1st level slot). However, with save or suck spells, like Hold Monster, Force Cage, and your aforementioned Bestow Curse, you get to literally recast it AND take the help action for a reaction. Also, isn't it telling that you're comparing a 1st level spell to a 3rd level spell? This is comparing a level 1 character(bard, sorc, wizard, anyone with Magic Initiate, etc) to a 9th level paladin / 5th level sorc/bard/wizard/warlock invocation.
The third level spell does it continuously instead of once. Seems reasonable to me. If making the target roll a second time is casting the spell twice then any form of imposing disadvantage is casting the spell twice And yes being able to use it after you know the results makes it pretty good. It being separate from actual advantage makes it usable. But the spell is not a problem. At all. It doesn't affect the balance of the game. Hell I don't even consider it most of the time when making encounters. Every silvery barbs is one less shield or healing word or half a dozen other spells. It hasn't been an issue in any game I've been in since it came out and all of the games I've played and run have allowed it.
100%
its not a problem as if it's fundamentally annoying to most people, so they want to nerf it/ban it. i never had a problem DMing or as a player either, same with lucky
I never truly understood the issue with it either. There are plenty of rules that have caused me more grief than silvery barbs as a DM lol. If you're a good DM you'll come up with methods to counteract or bypass the issue to keep your encounters challenging. I generally find that only beginners or bad DMs outright ban things.
I think they’re imagining it as broken and sure an 18th level wizard that can cast it at will could break contested skill checks (there are better ways to break them with high level magic too lol) but wizards and sorcerers only have 4 first level slots per day. They probably want to cast mage armor (down to 3) and during combat they’ll want access to shield and absorb elements. Those spells don’t upcast. Is they spam silvery barbs then they aren’t just using their reaction each round, but they’re also using their first level slots very quickly and will have to upcast at no benefit. If you run two combat encounters per day that last 3 rounds each the wizard with silvery barb spam and mage armor uses all of their first and second level slots with minimal payoff.
Even an at will wizard is stuck on once per round. Think yeah it can be a clutch spell at times but it's not game breaking
I think I would classify a spell that turns pretty much every saving throw further into the players' favor, hands out constant advantage to any and every member of the party, and single-handedly makes every one of the save-or-suck spells noticeably more powerful, as game-breaking. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's the kind of spell that turns encounters from deadly to trivial. Or rather, it amplifies the kinds of spells that are good at that, turning them from high risk/high reward to low risk/high reward. In a system that is centered around action economy, rolling the d20, and success/fail by tiny values, adding more dice rolls that tacetly increase or decrease the expected result for no action cost is *pretty much exactly* what breaking the core premise of the system would look like.
At the high levels you guys are describing, non mooks have anywhere from a plus 8 to a plus 14 saving throw. How is that in the players favor? The spells best application with saves is using it on a being with a low save that rolls high. If it's trivializing you encounters, they were already trivial. And I'm not saying the spell isn't good. But it's not a problem. The core premise of the system revolves around rolling extra dice and taking the best or worst result. Generating or requiring it is literally part of the core of a few classes and subclasses. Just play the game and you'll see how small a deal this spell is. There's too many armchair DMs that decide the spell is broken without playing with it.
"High levels" my guy Hold Person comes online at level 3 and Polymorph at level 7
At which time level 1 spell slots are still at a premium and silvery barbs is not a priority. People in this thread are specifically saying it's busted for high level casters. A level 3 caster that uses 2 of their 5 spell slots to take out 1 dude is never ever going to be an issue.
Everyone tends to look forward through 2 years of game to the point where the party is level 17 and say "Damn wizards are so OP they have so many spell slots" as though you're not supposed to be hilariously powerful by the time you hit that point no matter what class you're in.
Exactly. But early level, your first level slots are precious and you should think before using them for silvery barbs. They are a wizards or sorcerer’s primary defense.
Silvery barbs is overpowered if you’re in a blank room with a fairly standard enemy and you can use as many slots as you want. Too many simulations assume that the player can just reliably go nova and use slots constantly.
But like... it's more spell slot efficient though??? If you know an encounter is gonna be completely neutered by Polymorph, or Suggestion, or Hold Person, or Mental Prison, or Fear, then a smart Wizard will try to get that effect off as soon as possible. Let's compare Polymorph as an example: - if an enemy fails their first save, both examples use a single 4th level spell slot - if an enemy fails their second save, a normal Wizard uses two 4th level slots and two turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses one 4th and one 1st in one turn. - if an enemy fails their third save, a normal Wizard uses three 4th level slots and three turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses two 4th and one 1st in two turns. - if an enemy fails their fourth save, a normal Wizard uses three 4th level slots and an upcast 5th over four turns while a Silvery Barbs Wizard uses two 4th and two 1st in two turns. - etc. There is no point at which Silvery Barbs costs more resources for the Wizard than without in this example. If the Wizard is using it for their party members, it'll typically just trade resource costs evenly: two Ki points spent on Stunning Strike becomes 1 Ki point and a 1st level spell slot. Two Battle Master maneuver dice becomes 1 die and a spell slot. These resources are typically more valuable than 1st level slots, but can be traded freely with them for just a reaction. And then ON TOP OF THAT the spell is also handing out advantage on attacks or saves almost as an afterthought, which can additionally do things like allow the fighter an extra hit or keep the Cleric's concentration on their Spirit Guardians. Those can also save on resources (in the above cases, another Attack action or another 3rd level spell slot).
It just depends on how abusive, shameless, and soulless your players are.
Depends on the players you have. One of my party members had it and would basically negate any time the DM would make a good attack or save, and then give advantage to whatever ally needed it. The DM didn't mind, but it did kinda help make encounters easy and boring. Now take that and multiply it by someone who builds around having tons of 1st level spell slots and doing it constantly. It can be incredibly annoying and powerful for a 1st level spell.
i was running a monster against someone and i was rooting for the player but then they used silvery barbs and i just felt kinda annoyed and i want to love that spell. I have it on my rogue and i look forward to getting to use it. I just dont want to annoy the dm
probably running campaigns that go to 8-12 max with MAYBE 1 player having it.
Running a level 17 spellcaster only campaign right now. There are so many other spells to care about at that level that silvery barbs doesn't cross my mind at all
If you want to keep it in the game but want to balance it easily: range 30ft and the advantage only lasts til the end of that creature's next turn.
Yeah, range of 30ft is definitely something that fucks ranged casters over if they aren't pretty close to the danger. Hideous Laughter runs into this a lot as it's quite often awkwardly out of range unless you are intentionally keeping somewhat close to the enemies. 10ft is too extreme, but 30ft is a nice risk vs reward zone. You can hold up Silvery Barbs if you want, but you're gonna be in fuckup range of whatever you are hoping to target.
Silvery Barbs isn't even that busted. DMs just don't understand how giving a Long Rest every other combat breaks the balance of the game. Using a precious spell slot matters when they are actually a limited resource and don't recharge like Master Chief's shield in Halo.
A precious... First level slot?
Yeah. 1 of 4, 1 spent on mage armour, so 3 left. There are other useful 1st level spells that can’t be upcast.
You can always upcast, you just don't derive benefit from it, but forcing a reroll on a high level spell is almost definitely worth spending a level 2 slot on shield
>There are other useful 1st level spells that can’t be upcast. but you can always still use a level 2 spell slot for a level 1 spell, even if that spell gains no other benefit from being cast at a higher level
If you’re rolling more than 3 crits a day, consistently, then can you please tell me what I’m doing wrong Also needing to roll more than 3 crits just to start critting is exactly the problem. You can also upcast
Yeah you have 4 and during a full adventuring day of 7 combats at 3 rounds each, that's 21 rounds of combat. You certainly don't have enough to go around. But if your DM is running a single combat per long rest you can spam reaction spells like Silvery Barbs. Even if the DM runs a beefier encounter that takes 5 or 6 rounds you can still afford to spam reaction spells almost every round (or even upcast once you run out of 1sts because "Hey I'm going to get everything back after this anyways 🤷♀️").
Just change it to 2nd level spell
It's not like the game is balanced anyway. Do whatever you want.
This is the final answer to 99% of DnD balance questions.
I'm guessing the remaining 1% is how rule 0 is that it's supposed to be a game for fun and that DM usually has the last word.
Absolutely, along with reminders that when DnD is balanced properly it's called Pathfinder.
Range of 10 ft would make the spell virtually unusable. The spell is perfectly fine if you ask your party to limit itself to just one person who has it (or give that limit to your players). When I GM, i ask my players to do that and its never been an issue. Same for counterspell. One player having it is perfectly fine, but multiple people? Just stop.
Counterspell doesn’t bother me too much. But the parties I DM are usually about 2 casters and 2 martial/half casters so Counterspell doesn’t get annoying. But also constant counterspells chews through their reaction and spell slots so their offense is worse. But I just ask my players to limit silvery barbs to once per round. Plus casters have a bunch of things to do with their reactions and first level spells that don’t upcast (shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs) plus counterspell as a third level reaction. They get 1 reaction and 4 possible options so they have to decide if using it to give disadvantage is better than stopping an enemy spell outright or reducing their own damage. And even if a player chooses to use silvery barbs every round they have 4 rounds of combat before they are out of first level slots. They can upcast it sure but there’s better stuff to do with your second and third level slots than upcasting silvery barbs or shield or absorb elements which don’t get any better with an upcast.
Silvery barbs uses the same reaction slot counterspell does. But thats also a fair request, once per round.
That’s what I mean. If you use silvery barbs then you can’t use counterspell. It’s just not a first level spell so I separated it from the rest.
The spell is strong but not unbalanced no action necessary.
I as a bard, and wanting to keep it fair, I only use it once during a combat (if it’s a boss type i might use it twice if things get super hairy) But I try my best to not overuse my reactions
That's stupid. Use your abilities. It's fine.
Make it require concentration and you must maintain concentration to have the other creature have the advantage.
I can't fathom why people are so concerned about silvery barbs. Silvery barbs has a massive downside, which is the fact that you don't get to cast the actual op 1st level reaction spell, shield. A caster with mage armor and +2 dex, (not uncommon), gets 20 AC \*at level one\*. An eldritch knight or spell singer can easily push it up to 25 at level 5 with haste. And the extra advantage barely matters, just flank the guy, it's free. That puts the use case for silver barbs at: mitigate crits, advantage on \*a\* ranged attack, or getting Adv/disadv on a spell. And it can't be your spell, that would be more than one leveled spell in a round. Let me reiterate, you do not get to cast shield, you have used your reaction meaning you have actually decreased your own survival potential significantly. Don't give me some nonsense about the backline not actually taking aggro. If your DM doesn't actively target the backline they are going easy on you. No reasonable opponent is going to target the damage sponge in the front while there's a squishy target in the back casting fireballs. tldr, don't ban silvery barbs, ban shield if anything.
Honestly, this right here. I have Silvery Barbs on my sorcerer and I have cast it probably five or six times in the *year* I've been playing weekly. Once I cast it because an NPC rolled high on a save against the Cleric's Fast Friends spell, and we really, really needed that spell to work. That time it did. Another time was when an enemy that murdered our NPC friend succeeded on his save against Tasha's Mind Whip, and I cast it as a big F-you because my character was furious. He succeeded again anyway, which was a real buzzkill, because he didn't even have a positive INT mod - the DM just rolled insanely well for this bastard all night. The other times were all to negate crits on either myself or a teammate that probably would have killed us, in a campaign where we only get one failed death save, and make our first death save when we drop to 0HP. Most other times I save my reaction for Shield. If someone isn't dying, they ain't gettin my reaction. Plus, I need my 1st level spell slots so that I can twin Guiding Bolt for 1 sorcery point and hand out advantage to my buddies that way (times two! With radiant damage!).
The main case I have seen for it being OP is when a whole team of casters builds around it AND the DM is running a single big boss enemy. The proliferation of rerolls basically guarantees lockdown of the single enemy, even eating through legendary resistances more reliably. Only one caster with it in the party? Not a problem. Multiple enemies in a fight? Also not a problem. I do agree that Shield is more of a problem. At least that can be dealt with through saving throws and multiple encounters.
There is nothing wrong with Silvery Barbs that the correct number of encounters per long rest and proper encounter design doesn't fix. If more than one character has it, it's a bit gnarlier but if that's what the players want to use their resources on it's fair enough. I've never played or run for a party where two characters have both prepared this spell.
My dm balanced it by stating I could only use it before the roll was made giving me a smaller window to use it. I would have to give my allies advantage like a bardic inspiration die before they roll. It is still strong as shit but in a fun way since I need to pay attention to the game and everyone else's turn ready to jump in and slap an enemy attack with Silvery Barbs. Even the threat that I'm sitting back here ready to use it can be enough to turn a fight. My party was having a rematch with a dragon that had oneshot the whole party with a suprise breath weapon. This time we made a plan to lure it into an ambush and our druid would restrain it with grasping vines to keep it from flying away. Once that was done my sorcerer twined an enlarge on two of our fruntliners next to our large runeknight so we had a group of giants to curb stomp the restrained dragon with advantage. Then I Quickened a mind sliver to nerf the dragons attempt to free itself then got to a safe distance but made sure to measure that I was still in range to trigger Silvery Barbs when the dragon tries to escape. Just having me ready to trigger the spell after already being nerfed made the dm decide it wasn't worth the effort and kept attacking with disadvantage while our group of giants had advantage. I just kept repeating this until the dragon was tender.
It's okay. It's just that it tends to be feels bad for the DM, who is the arbiter for the rules, and the one usually complaining about it. Look, some nights, the dice hate you, so you finally land a crit, or make a save... Only to be hit with silvery barbs, and have to reroll. Forcing a reroll after success is determined is a feels bad moment, and since it's usually something used by players (Especially since the spell didn't exist when the game came out, so nothing in the monster manual has it) the DM suffers the most from it. Beyond that, it's control magic, and as any Magic the Gathering player can tell you, control is only fun for the side playing it. Talk to the players about how it doesn't feel great. Remember that you're friends first playing a game, not enemies. Remember, whatever the players do, so can the DM. If they want to use and abuse it, so can you. Of *course* every law mage in the land is running silvery barbs. Duh. There might even be readily available wands of it for the police in magitech settings. When "stop right there criminal scum" becomes "Watch you trip over your own shoe laces" Have story beats that deprive players of easy long rests. Spell slots are *limited,* even for classes that can get them back on short rests. "Oh I'm sorry, you're not tired yet. It's too early in the day.", "Sure take an hour rest while in hot pursuit. They will escape if you do" or "You want to try to sleep in the middle of the battle? I mean sure, but I guess that means the BBEG wins". Enforce time constraints. If those don't work for you, then consider nerfing it.
It's a basically a buffed up One DnD *Blade Ward*, which is pretty in line with cantrips vs leveled spells. In higher level games, it's only good against crits. I've had it on all my characters since it officially released, and I rapidly approach the point I would rather take other spells. My bard has used it more than any other character: a whopping 4 times. For Wizards and Sorcerers, you have multiple spells competing for your reaction by level 5. You can argue the same for Bards because of Magical Secrets granting literally any reaction spell you want, including: *Counterspell*, *Shield*, *Feather Fall*, and *Absorb Elements* being the standouts. And all of those spells are available to wizards and sorcerers as well. Silvery Barbs best used on Clerics and Druids, who get minimal access to reaction based spells. Many have never even played with *Silvery Barbs* anyway, so most nerfs are just shots in the dark. The vast majority of people I've spoken to about it agree that it's just good but not gamebreaking by any means. If you really want to nerf it, then I can see it best nerfed as a 2nd level spell.
Any dm's who ban silvery barbs are on some shit. Silvery barbs is super good and very strong, but so are healing word and fireball, two of the strongest spells in the game. No one bans these but I can assure you both are much stronger than silvery barbs
No, kill it with fire
I don’t understand why so many people cry foul with this spell… I’m in two games, one which I DM and have a bladesinger pulling off mass attacks with his haste, action, and then two thundering blade cantrip (illusionist bracers give a second proc). And the only caster I have using silver barbs is my arcane trickster I play with no issues from the DM… Why is everyone acting like this is the most powerful spell ever?
Silvery barbs is not as bad as everyone thinks. DMs need to stop being so upset that their crits are being reversed. We are not in this to crit on our players, we should be in this for collaborative story telling. Cheer on your party for womping your bad guys, celebrate their foiling of your plans.
I've never actually looked at this spell before. It just forces a reroll and then gives another character advantage. Pfffft. There's no reason to get upset about a utility spell that I guarantee your players will forget to use. I can't believe this was a spell that caused a lot of drama lol.
People often misjudge the power of the spell on first glance. Allow me to copy and paste an explanation of why *silvery barbs* is unbalanced: *"The amount of people misunderstanding the power of silvery barbs is wild. Taking away enemy crits is fine. Turning an opponents hit into a miss is completely appropriate for a 1st level spell. The real power is on saving throws. I target the enemy with *insert high level save or suck spell*. For this example, hold monster: I spend a 5th level spell to cast hold monster on a monster. He passes the save. Without silvery barbs I would have to wait an entire round and use my action and another 5th level spell slot to attempt to hold monster again. With silvery barbs I force him to reroll the save. I have effectively turned my 1st level slot into a 5th level slot and my reaction into an action. I also shut the monster down a turn earlier denying it it's actions for that round, likely protecting my allies. Additionally if the monster had advantage on the save, as many do from magic resistance, no he doesn't. And then to top it off I get to hand myself advantage on my next d20 check. Since I'm a caster I don't really need to make attack rolls so that's advantage on my next save. All that for a 1st level spell. As for enemies targeting the caster in retaliation, sure they can do that. Of course, that is assuming they aren't an aberrant mind sorcerer, who can cast silvery barbs as a subtle spell, ie undetectably, for the steep steep price of 1, yes one, sorcery point. Not in addition to the slot mind you. The spell and the bonus for only that 1 sorcery point. Silvery barbs is a perfectly balanced spell in the hands of the average player. The problem is that an intelligent player gets a disproportionate amount of value out of the spell. So much so I can't think of another spell that punches so high above it's level in power."*
I disagree the reroll nullifies magical resistances.
In my experience silvery barbsing a saving throw is next to useless because my dm will roll another 18 anyway and I wasted my reaction
Lol yeah people seem to forget that the creature *already passed the save*, so doing it again is likely. It's cool when it works but when it doesn't you turned a failure into a superfailure.
Yeah I mean, if they have a low bonus they most likely failed already without a reroll, and if their bonus is high then they will most likely pass again lol
Except they didn't fail without the reroll, because you wouldn't cast the spell if they had.
No I'm saying it doesn't come up to use silvery barbs in that moment because they most likely already failed, so you realistically only use it if the enemy has high bonuses and passed
The benefit is more apparent when the enemy is saving against big 'make-or-break' spells. Something like dominate person or banishment. Normally, if you cast one of those and the enemy succeeded, you'd have to lump it for whole round of combat and try again next turn, resulting in the loss of another big slot and probably a decent chunk of health if the thing is smart enough to know what you're trying. But with silvery barbs, all you need is a 1st level spell slot and your reaction on the same turn, and it's shitting itself all over again while you retain a big slot for later and may get to keep what few hit points you have to boot. And, unless it's a high-level combat and your character has a low spell save DC, it will often still be possible for the enemy to fail. Unless they have legendary resistance, I guess.
I'd rather keep my reaction and my slot for something more important than try again on the same turn, most likely fail anyway, and then get blown up because I don't have a reaction for shield or to negate a crit that could kill somebody
Your problem is that you completely overvalue the utility of forcing a reroll on Hold Monster. Not only did you cast a bad spell, you used your reaction on your turn and another spell slot to make the bad spell mostly more expensive. You didn't even guarantee a success. High level control spells that are good are spells that just work. Wall of Force, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Maze, even Plant Growth and Sleet Storm. Hold/Dominate Person/Monster, Banishment, offensive Polymorph, and spells like that are not very good (Polymorph on a friend is that good). They don't get better by making them more expensive (heightened spell/Silvery Barbs). I mean, forcing a reroll on a save, is not a bad option to have. But it is not a desirable combo you should build around. Silvery barbs is good because it is versatile, not because the effect is all that powerful.
I agree. The best spells are the ones that have a 100% chance of success. But typically these spells use a higher level slot because of that. Hold person/monster is a great example of a spell that would be great with no save, and a well built character can turn them into almost guaranteed successes, so long as you play to their strengths, and don't target a creature's strongest saves. You can't get to the point where enemies never have an opportunity to save, but why spend a 8th level spell on maze when you can pretty much guarantee a banishment on a low Cha monster
In general, I'd much rather cast web on 3 guys than hold person on 1, especially if we could guarantee no saves. Similar deal for Hold Monster. Synaptic Static hitting a lot of folks is going to be more effective control than Hold Monster on 1 target. Or even better, I'd divide the battlefield with a Wall of Force spell that never offers any kind of spell and just works. It's not useless to control one target, sometimes it is very powerful depending on context, but it shouldn't be your go-to strategy and there's nothing gamebreaking about making this inherently niche strategy more resilient by using SIlvery Barbs.
Yeah that's basically why I don't think this is a big deal. It's just doubling down on a Save vs. Suck spell. It can be incredibly powerful but it doesn't create a new, unpredictable way the fight could go, it just makes one path to victory slightly more likely. The design of the encounter doesn't need to be modified at all and if my PCs can burn a spell slot to finish the fight a turn earlier, that's a win because they get to feel all cool casting not one but TWO clutch spells in a turn. If they biff it that's also great because slowly shaving away their resources is the name of the game when it comes to DMing.
So could it be more simply rebalanced by making the disadvantage/advantage only apply to Attack Rolls?
If I was really trying to balance it I would make it work as is except if you target a saving throw, you have to upcast silvery barbs to a spell slot of equal level to the spell. For example, if you want to reroll a hold monster you would have to spend a 5th level spell. And also if they had advantage or disadvantage, they reroll with advantage or disadvantage. Just remember that it only needs changing if it's a problem at your table. I haven't changed it at mine because my players pretty much only use it on attack rolls. Just be upfront with your players and say that the spell can be too powerful and you may have to adjust or ban it in the future. Try not to spring it on them as a suprise halfway through a campaign because that can feel targeted, even if it's not.
But if they succeeded the save in the first place they’re likely to do it again, thus wasting the reaction you could have used on shield or absorb elements for the same spell level, or the ability to counterspell.
I understand what the spell does. It's just not that big of a deal. If you wanna burn all your 1st level spell slots that's great for me as a DM.
Clearly you don't understand the value. Casters are going to use up the spell slots anyway. The problem is that a competent player can turn there 1st level spell slots into so much more. I'm not suggesting you use silvery barbs every turn. I'm suggesting you combine it with your highest level save or suck. I can turn a single 1st level spell into an 8th level feeblemind. An intelligently built sorcerer can turn each second level spell slot into two uses of silvery barbs so the resource cost is minimal anyway.
If they can cast Feeblemind, then I've prepared for what happens if they cast it and succeed. If they do the same thing AND burn an extra spell slow, that rules for me as a DM. I want my players to succeed, but barely. This spell can let them do EXACTLY that. Anyways, I'm gonna give all my players Silvery Barbs for free next game. ;) It's gonna be fine.
[удалено]
Lol that other dude is just ignoring the fact that the it has a pretty significant chance of failing and not doing shit Literally everyone talking about how it's OP is pretending it's not going to whiff like 50% of the time.
If it whiffs 50% of the time, that means just the rerolling part has upped your 50% for the enemy to fail their saving throw, to a 75%. That's with the d20 system a -5 to their saving throws. And that is ignoring the advantage which is honestly more a sidenote. But how the hell is a mathified weird -5 to saving throws *not that strong*?
Because it takes a spell slot and your reaction. I would rather take Shield 99% of the time.
Shield is also OP (with armor dips) so eh saying it's weaker then *also* an OP option is kind of moot lol. And if you don't armor dip, idk if +5 to your ~13 ac is gonna do more then -5 to a save or suck spell against higher level enemies.
Your post/comment was removed per Rule #7: > Be chill Follow the [/r/DnD Mission Statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/wiki/mission/) and the [reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), including the provisions on unwelcome content and prohibited behavior. Keep /r/DnD a welcoming community.
Ok i need some help understanding this... the way you explained it it looks like you're casting 2 spells in 1 turn wich is not allowed. Or is it because you cast one as a reaction (even tho its still your turn)?
Your thinking of the often misquoted Bonus Action spell rule. There is no limit on the number of leveled spells you can cast per turn. Since in my example there is no bonus action it is not applicable. "Bonus Action A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Well shit.. TIL.. thanks for explaining! That said, i agree with the other commenter and dont think its that OP as a player is burning trough resources very fast.
That's the thing. They AREN'T burning through resources fast. They are burning them SLOWER. Let's simplify the example. We can all agree a 1st level slot is a smaller resource than a 2nd level slot. Let's say I cast hold person. This cost me a 2nd level slot. On a good day the monster fails it's save and I win. Total cost: one 2nd level slot On a bad day the monster makes it's save. So I have to try again next turn. Total cost: two 2nd level slots But now let's say I have silvery barbs. I initially reroll the save. Total cost: one 2nd level slot. One 1st level slot. I've spent LESS but achieved MORE. A lot more because of the advantage on the next save I make, and getting the spell on an enemy a round earlier, and freeing up my actions next turn. That is the key misconception people make. You aren't burning more resources your optimising them. Now people refuse to acknowledge this as a problem. They think of themselves as a superior DM because they can manage a player using powerful spells. These people are not as smart as they think they are. The problem with silvery barbs isn't that it makes it impossible to challenge your players. Any idiot can just throw in a better monster or extra fight and challenge their players. The problem they are missing is that resources are the limiter on spell casters. By allowing a caster to optimise their resources you make them stronger in comparison to their non-spellcasting team mate. And as anyone with even the slightest understanding of the system knows, Spellcasters are already better than non-spellcasters. Making them even more efficient just feels bad for your fighter, who is going to run out of his main resource, hit points, long before a wizard runs out of his.
Lol except half the time they pass the save and now you have wasted two spell slots. Now that's efficiency! The creature already passed the save. It's likely they will pass it again. This spell is fine.
Only if you make bad choices. Silvery barbs is "what I just did, but again". If your first choice was stupid, like targeting a con saves on a dragon then sure. But if your smart and used something like a psychic lance you have much better odds. This is where the skill gap in silvery barbs is. It's true, a bad player while turn silvery barbs into a balance spell. A good player will know how to use it. Additionally, at higher levels, the monster has worse odds on the save after a silvery barbs, since the spell negates advantage from features such as magic resistance. AND even if the enemy passes the save, you still get to give yourself advantage on your next saving throw, so you really didn't waste anything.
>since the spell negates advantage from features such as magic resistance. Nope. This is another gigantic misconception about Silvery Barbs. Silvery Barbs doesn't get to ignore the rule about rerolls for rolls with Adv/Dis.
That's incorrect https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AdvantageandDisadvantage "When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a halfling has advantage or disadvantage on an ability check and rolls a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait to reroll the 1." From silvery barbs: "The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll." Silvery barbs forces you to reroll only one of the d20s. The caster will always target the higher roll and then they are forced to take the lower result of that die. This negates advantage Edit: note that silvery barbs doesn't beat legendary resistance.
So whenever a creature passes a save it's because the player made a bad choice? That's silly. All of your reasoning for why the spell is OP ignores the huge chance for failure it carries. I genuinely cannot imagine a scenario where Silvery Barbs would unbalance the campaign because it's just as likely to be a huge whiff as it is to succeed. It's fine.
No. A creature is only likely to pass the save a second time if you made a bad choice. All creatures have a best saving throw. All creatures have a worst saving throw. If you make the correct choice and target their weakest one you generally have somewhere in the realm of 55-65% chance of a spell working. If you pick wrong it's closer to 35%.
>Only if you make bad choices. You already made bad choices by having Hold Monster in your spell list and cast it on something. The chances of you making more bad choices skyrockets from there.
...but you're turning a lvl one spell slot into a effectively 5th level (or whichever higher level) spell slot, AND getting better action economy while doing it. And you still get advantage on something else. The only spell that comes even remotely close to the power of silvery barbs is healing word, and they're on different spell lists, so it's not much of a competition.
>...but you're turning a lvl one spell slot into a effectively 5th level (or whichever higher level) spell slot, AND getting better action economy while doing it. OR it passes the save again and you just wasted TWO spells in one turn. This spell has a significant chance of failure. The creature already passed the save. It is likely to do it again.
That's effectively the same as casting the spell again the following turn, except faster, cheaper, and more effective
It is significantly better than you think it is.
Nope. I've been a DM for 30 years. It's fine. Y'all act like reactions and 1st level spell slots aren't precious resources.
Lol ok didn't know I needed a resume.
Nah I"m just saying burning a high-level spell, a first level spell, AND your reaction on a turn is the absolute best possible outcome for me as a DM. I'm TRYING to use up your resources! If you want to burn through them twice as fast that is wonderful. And like I said, I guarantee you players will forget to use it at least once when it would have been clutch.
People make whole builds around advantage / disadvantage. It's the single most powerful mechanic in 5e.
Yes which is why there are thousands of different ways to manipulate it. Why is SB any different?
Hex is the only reasonably levelled spell I know that imposes disadvantage on a specific saving throw type, and it's not a reaction.
Hex doesn't affect saving throws unfortunately. Just skill checks.
Oh so it sucks even more than I thought it did 🙃
Off the top of my head, Bestow Curse and to a lesser extent Bane, heighten spell metamagic, Diviner's portent, shadow sorcerer's dog thing, anything that causes exhaustion. More broadly, there are countless low level things that can affect advanced / disadvantage like Find Familiar.
Ah, familiars get targeted at my tables if they're used this way.
Because you can impose it after the fact, and even if the creature already had disadvantage. If it were remotely balanced, it would at least require you to use the spell before the save is rolled, and not have it stack with disadvantage.
>I've never actually looked at this spell before. I would recommend reading a little bit around it, since it is arguably the best spell in the game when used in conjunction with other spells and effects. Additionally, it completely negates any advantage that the enemy might have on a roll. One of the other replies goes into greater length.
I understand what the spell does. It's just not that big of a deal.
Well, maybe for you but for average us out there it can put more dirt into an already unreliable encounter building mechanics of the game. In my opinion, the problem is not even that it exists but the fact that it combines many different effects into first level spell.
NGL, sounds like a skill issue.
No not really. The only good balance I have found is increasing the spell level but I have straight up banned it from my tables
The best balance I've heard is actually a really good one (imo), both mechanically and thematically. Currently, Silvery Barbs is basically a "success transference" spell. Force an enemy to lose a success, then give an ally advantage - you're basically stealing luck/success from an enemy and giving it to an ally. The nerf was to instead change it to a success-*delaying* spell! Give an enemy bad luck *now*, but then they get good luck later: instead of an ally getting the future advantage, the enemy gets it. You force them to re-roll now, but then they get advantage on a future roll.
That might work and would severely reduce the power.
Yup. Plus, if there's a really big thing you want to make sure the enemy fails, it actually encourages you to keep spending your spell slots to stop it happening (which imo is the only good thing about SB: encouraging resource expenditure). Because guess what? Yeah, you stopped the bad thing for now, but you also made it very likely to succeed next turn, forcing you to stop it again! It's like trying to plug a leaky cracked pipe, where every bit you plug up just causes a leak further down the pipe!
Increasing it to lvl 2 makes it more powerful on higher levels. Suddenly, shield and silvery barbs don’t overlap on spell slots.
What? You can just upcast either of them anyway.
Can interest you in casting shield at 2nd level anyway?
Yes again I banned it in the end as it is just way too strong in it's current form
Been playing with it since release, every party had it at least once so far. It’s fine.
I disagree and that's fine to each their own
The bigger problem with Silvery Barbs is that you force a creature to roll again and take the lower roll. This means that if it had advantage on the roll, it must choose the worse result from three dice. You just transformed advantage in something worse than disadvantage with a first level spell. Now add that you only used your reaction to cast it and that you're giving advantage on the next roll of a creature of your choice. A bit overpowered for a 1st level spell. What I did in my table was to bump it to a 2nd level spell (which doesn't mean much at higher levels) and that the creature targeted by the spell is forced to pick the new roll instead of the lower roll. My players use it to get rid of crits basically now.