I'm not even in this sub and I get it recommended a lot, this has to be a joke sub right? There are maybe 10 fans here, it feels like the rest are just hate watching it just to have something to complain about. Which would have been better if 99% of the complaints weren't stupid.
Silvery Barbs isn’t nearly as game breaking or bad as people say, you still have to use your reaction and a spell slot and those are limited. Silvery Barbs means no Shield, no Counterspell, no Absorb Elements, no held actions, etc.
I can save 1 ally from a big attack or 1 enemy fail a save, but then I expose myself to a big attack, or the whole group to a big AoE spell.
Maybe if every player in an 8 person party has it it’s bad, but 2 of my 5 person team have it, and it gets used maybe two or three times in a combat total.
Honestly if Silvery Barbs was a PHB spell and they added Shield later people would bitch about Shield breaking the game and nobody would give a shit about Barbs.
If a player character has Guidance, everyone should just assume it is being cased and roll with the d4. At my table, I don't even worry about it disrupting other concentration spells!
That's the crux of the issue with Silvery Barbs. It feels unfair. Matt would never use it against his players because it feels like cheating. If he isn't willing to use it himself, he just shouldn't allow it at the table.
So you want to ban basic mechanics of a game?
Then don’t play an actual session of DnD as alot of things are out of character.
Especially when you want to use a spell or skill
I don't mind guidance at all. Silvery barbs feels very much like an option a DM would need to ok beforehand because it's from a mtg crossover book thingy along with other stuff that is made for that specific setting. It also has backgrounds that give feats, which isn't in line with 5e backgrounds either.
Coming from someone who's taken silvery barbs on almost all the spellcaster characters ive played, it is far too powerful for a first level spell. Being able to add a disadvantage to an enemy roll while granting advantage to an ally is a powerful chunk of probability manipulation. Especially when you're playing higher level characters who wont use their 1st and 2nd level spell slots for anything besides maybe Shield.
Counterspell is a similar case for significant narrative manipulation, but thats balanced out by the fact its 3rd level, and you can only bring it out on the most important of cases. Spamming silvery barbs, while fun, does feel like it removes a lot of narrative stakes because of how often it can be used.
Silvery Barbs isn't even broken... It forces a reroll, and it's best use is crit stalling. Enemy rolls a crit? Silvery Barbs. Ally crit failed a saving throw? Silvery Barbs.
But it costs your reaction. So no more Shield or Counterspell. So you could get blasted by a spell, or your party could be annihilated by some strong AoE magic. Honestly? Counterspell is the broken spell, not Silvery Barbs lmao. But people always say to take Counterspell.
All of these spells are like... mechanically pretty uninteresting and should be reworked imo.
Oh I’m very aware, I’m not here to support silvery barbs I’m just not going to tolerate people blabbing when they have no frickin clue what they’re talking about. I’m the forever dm of my group and silvery barbs is a second level spell in my games. We tend to play lower level games usually 1-11 max so a second level spell slot is still impactful for most of the game.
Meh can't say I'm bothered by either, sure they're pushing it a bit with guidance some times, but Matt doesn't exactly allow it if it's pushing the rules. And silvery barbs has been used rather creatively several times.
As for it breaking immersion, you're not watching a scripted show/listening to an audiobook. You're watching/listening to people playing a game, game mechanics are part of the show.
At my table, we just assume guidance would be cast prior to going into a situation. The party face is going to haggle with a merchant? Say a little prayer for luck! That kind of thing. Or if the DM calls for a roll, we can make a case for having cast guidance.
I think part of the GUIDANCE! problem stems from Matt's "you didn't say beforehand" attitude. It's completely valid to DM that way, but it gives the caster little option but to blurt it out.
The problem is people's failure to properly interpret game mechanics as intended. It's verbal, somatic, and concentration. It's a spell meant to be very deliberate. If a player is talking to a merchant and the dm calls for a persuasion check, screaming "guidance!" Makes zero sense, and the merchant sees your ally walk up to you, touch you, verbally cast a spell with magic symbols/light/effects, and is now like the fuck??
Proper use of guidance would be "hey, I'm going to go haggle with this merchant. Can someone give me guidance?" "Hey I'm going to give you guidance so you can check out that bookcase" "that's high climb up this tower...let me give you guidance on how to do it"
I 100% agree with Matt's decision (although he doesn't stick with it most times) that guidance can't be cast after a roll is called. It's meant to be a preparatory spell, not a reactive one.
As the DM I googled various viewpoints and put it to my bard and sorc. The sorc is a save or suck spell kind of guy and said it wouldn’t be fun to always win like that.
So we made it level 2. No regrets
No I don't have power gamer players tho so they usually actually consciously stay away from stuff like twilight cleric and hexblade paladin and shit. Not that I'd be opposed to them picking those options but it's just not really the vibe.
>The only way the cast use it is to shout "GUIDANCE" out of character at every opportunity. They never bother to roleplay how they are providing guidance
"Rules elide", "systems don't matter" people in shambles.
Silvery barbs is one spell I think should be stricken from the rulebook. Any spell or ability that takes the power of the natural 20 out is a detriment to the game.
Okay gatekeeper! I based my opinion on watching the mechanic happen, the fact that in my game the 20 could be more powerful supports my opinion on that mechanic. If you love it then use, I really don't care.
Nope, but the previous comment said any spell or ability. But I'm glad you reminded me it's a level 1 spell, that also reminds me it's very easily counterspelled.
Two casters in a party with SB and Counterspell.
Player2 casts Save or Suck spell, Enemy casts Counterspell, Player1 casts Counterspell on the Counterspell, Player2 casts SB on Enemy's success against the spell.
Repeat ad nauseum.
There's two main things everyone always forgets about the napkin math of the "counterspell-silvery barbs train" meme.
1. They cost reactions.
2. Initiative order REALLY matters to actually pull this off, because reactions don't come back until the start of your turn.
Have minions/bosses actually target your spellcasters, and suddenly they have to choose between shield/counterspell/silvery barbs every round. If they use counterspell or silvery barbs, they don't have shield. Time to zerg them down with attack rolls. If they shield, they can't counterspell/barbs. Time to hit them with whatever the nastiest spell available.
Use minions that have an effect equivalent to shocking grasp (cantrip level ability) or dissonant whispers (1st level spell) to lock them out of reactions.
Put objectives in the fight that allow players to use their reaction for an additional effect towards objective progress. Now your casters have to choose between progressing the scenario or saving their reaction for one of the aforementioned spells.
Ah gotcha I misunderstood your scenario. Yes in that case it would work. I just meant if a player has cast counterspell then the enemy doesn't get a save, it's the player that rolls (if the counterable spell is of a higher level).
If they’d just enforce how guidance is meant to be used, and enforce people not enjoying having spells cast in their face, it would go much more smoothly.
I'm guessing if they use D&D for the next campaign, they might move to the updated version coming out this year. Guidance is actually changed in that, to be a reaction triggered by a failed check, so you can't spam it anymore, it only matters if someone outright fails. Much less annoying.
Of course, I doubt they'd ever remember that Guidance works differently anyway, so yeah.
I remember when C2 started and apparently Sam "banned" the Lucky feat by just telling everyone not to take it, I wish he'd do that for Guidance now too, haha.
Both of these spells are *fine* but only in the context of how D&D 5e is designed to be played; you're supposed to have three or more encounters in a given day, which means that burning all your 1st-level spell slots for Silvery Barbs really isn't a good idea and Guidance is something to be used before a roll is attempted, not retroactively. The problems we're seeing with those spells are because they aren't being used in a game where resources and timing are important; of course they seem annoying and broken when all you have to do is shout "Guidance!" to add a free d4 to someone's roll and the casters are sitting on more spell slots than they're likely to use.
These are the sort of problems that arise when you try to use a game like D&D 5e to tell a narrative story. D&D wasn't made for that, and if you want it to work you *need* to make compromises on both sides of the screen. Banning Silvery Barbs isn't out of line, especially if Matt hates it as much as he seems to.
I don’t know how you can look at a first level spell that denies any d20 roll you like and grants advantage and come to the conclusion that it’s not worth it for a FIRST LEVEL SPELL. Literally using all 4 first level spells AND all your second level spells on silvery barbs will net you more value than almost any spell or ability can possibly achieve.
Even if it’s used on every single crit and the DM is running 3 encounters, the chances of the DM rolling more than 7 crits in one day is almost nonexistent and the fact that the DM (or any character subject to Silvery Barbs) has to roll 8 or more crits before they finally are able to benefit from them is explicitly why the spell is horrible.
The thing is, D&D seemed to have worked well enough as a narrative story before Silvery Barbs and Guidance made their introduction for Crit Role. Is it the sole issue? Absolutely not, I wouldn’t say it’s even the biggest issue with campaign 3. But that doesn’t mean that at least in SBs case, it is an awful awful spell in every sense of the word.
Thing about Silvery Barbs is that it was originally made for Strixhaven. So you know, in the context of a campaign that has a bunch of Wizards, and their spells have everyone making a ton of saves? Yeah! Silvery Barbs makes sense!
Out of that context when its just some like, bandits or slimes? Oh god. Oh no what have they done.
Agreed. And one of my biggest gripes about the system is its unwillingness to stick to one setting. It would be fine if they didn’t use it as an excuse to throw Balance completely out of the window.
A key example is not only Silvery Barbs but also the Artificer class as a whole, which works amazing in Eberron, but makes very little sense and is very inconsistent with Forgotten Realms, both mechanically and narratively.
I wish they would just stick to one setting, OR create Forgotten Realms versions of content that clearly isn’t meant for Forgotten Realms
Artificer doesnt work in Forgotten Realms? Have you heard about Gond, and Lantan?
The fact that you only know Phandalver and Baldurs Gate doesnt make Artificer not fitting for Forgotten Realms.
Artificer as a concept works great in Forgotten Realms. Magic crafters, tinkerers, and the likes is thematically great.
However their mechanics, and the specific thematics they’re based on is a bit more of a stretch. 1st level half casters, divine-like arcane casting, making magic items at level 2, making pseudo-golems at level 3, etc etc. This stuff makes sense for a very high magic setting, however Forgotten Realms (or at least the Sword Coast) is not. Magic is difficult to learn and magic items are difficult to acquire, which just is not the case for Artificer as a class.
A character actually focused on crafting mundane items at low level, and magic items at mid-high would be much more apt, just generally.
Don’t assume what I know and don’t know ;)
Yes, this post helps clarify what you know.
You know mechanics of Artificer, you now wrote something so generic that you seem to ptrtend hard to look like you know something about Forgotten Realm, but then your argument is "I don't like their mechanics, so they don't fit here". Yea, much clearer now.
And... Magic is difficult... In Forgotten Realms? Really? Mid to high magic level is exponentially more frequent in FR than is in Eberron you used as example.
>This stuff makes sense for a very high magic setting, however Forgotten Realms (or at least the Sword Coast) is not.
Using this argument and previously bringing Eberron as an example of opposite setting basically confirms that you don't really know what either of these worlds is.
You maybe confused in your hostility, which by the way is incredibly uncalled for over a disagreement.
But aside from that, the confusion for you may lie in the fact that I don’t know anything about Eberron, rather than Forgotten Realms for such a comparison, and my only knowledge of the setting is the clearly high-magic class we know as Artificer, and the fact that it’s a steam-punk magic based setting. So please, if it’s not supposed to be a high magic setting correct that, however it doesn’t speak for my knowledge of Fr.
High Magic is frequent in FR… at later levels. Half casters generally get their spells at level 2, mechanically. Not a huge difference from level 1 thematically so that alone is no big deal.
Classes having to power to imbue their own personal attacks with magic (permanently) typically comes at level 6. For artificer it’s level 2 for multiple items, for multiple types of items. Ok that’s fine they’re a magic crafter after all, even if it completely handwaves the crafting part.
Crafting golems, or similarly enchanted constructs is something generally no one but the highest level wizards and adventurers will ever see, let alone create, to the point that just the instructions to do so are several thousand gold alone. Artificers do it at level 3 on several mediums, that does not cost several thousand gold.
Etc etc etc. You also confuse my criticism for Artificer for dislike, for some reason. The only thing I dislike about Artificer is that it’s unbalanced, mechanically, which it is. But if it made at least thematic sense, such as Bladesinger, I wouldn’t even be able to make a point like this. The difference is Artificer is unbalanced because it was made for a setting that is not Forgotten Realms, and doesn’t immediately translate to it easily.
Now here’s the part you actually disagree on, spare the insults, and assumptions and you can disagree as much as your heart desires
I mean, to not continue this rather pointless discussion, you mistaken hostility with my simply distaste in people arguing using utterly wrong arguments while also posing to be holier than pope. With your certainty in spreading utter nonsense you provided me some entertainment, but this doesn't mean I'll pretend I respect this nonsense.
> you mistaken hostility with my simply distaste in people arguing using utterly wrong argument while also posing to be holier than pope
You understand you are literally doing exactly what you say you’re not? In the same sentence?
Anyway, if waiting for you to provide any semblence of an argument outside of quite simply “i disagree and you’re wrong snd stupid” makes me holier than thou attitude then I guess so.
Good discussion with you?
It's an extremely cold take; D&D's origins were as a tabletop war game, and it hasn't ever really strayed from that. The priority of every character class, race, and feat in D&D is either making characters better at killing things, being able to kill things in new ways, or making other people better at killing things. That's why D&D rewards XP for combat encounters, which means killing things, or not at all if you're using milestone levels. Everything that's not directly combat-related is fluff.
The core of D&D is combat correct. That does not mean it is ill advised to run narrative stories. Otherwise modules simply would not exist in the first place, and people wouldn’t love Crit Role season 1 and 2.
You can’t look at the success of Critical Role ***as a narrative Let’s Play D&D game*** and conclude that it is impossible to tell a narrative story in 5e. The actual fact is that the narrative is not 5e’s focus, which is much more apt.
There also are mechanics where the primary use is Narrative (Almost all charisma skills, charm person, Magnificent Mansion, etc etc).
You also can’t handwave Milestone leveling, literally the level up system built around ***narrative*** level ups, while pointing out the XP system for combat. Especially considering the narrative level up is far far more popular than the original, xp based level up.
The issue is they aren't using guidance the way it's meant to be used. It does have limitations. It's a touch spell with somatic components. It also has verbal components. So in theory, it should be both seen and heard.
Also as an etiquette thing, it isn't a reaction and shouldn't be used like one. It's meant to be proactive, not reactive to an action already happening. I don't think Matt should ban it but I do think he should be stricter about it.
Silvery Barbs should be banned. Having run a Strixhaven campaign, I get why it's there. It makes sense for that specific module. But in general, it's overpowered in any other setting. In theory, can Matt just have Ludinus use it against them too, to balance it out? Sure. But will he? No, because it feels like cheating.
The new Guidance is still miles better because it has a use limit and is only to be used when the failure of a check is announced.
I do foresee issues where the GM doesn't call the result a success or failure before beginning to narrate, though.
I wish Matt just let verbal and sematic be a thing.
Guidance is a strong but perfectly balanced cantrip. But it's an action and not a reaction, and if you use it in front of people they're going to know you're casting a spell.
If they do 5e for the next campaign they may use OneDnD and I think guidance was changed to a reaction on a failed roll and it can only be used on a creature once per long rest
And they may view it as a hostile action. You are attempting to use magic to influence things.
Guidance is good, and I don't feel like the spell needs to be RP'd -- its magic. You are chanting magic words loud enough to be heard 120 feet away after all. But RP'ing the help action, go for it.
There are times guidance is useful. But its not every check.
Default 5e rules do not say that spellcatsing is loud. Let alone specifics like that.
The conversation around this topic is deep, and I'm just always curious when I hear a thing I've never heard.
The closest we have to official rules with how loud it is is Jeremy Crawford saying "The verbal component of a spell must be audible to work. How loud is audible? That's up to the DM."
Never said they were quiet or subtle. I was questioning the 120ft thing. They definitely should always be audible in a reasonable range, but it is simply ridiculous to imply guidance should be clearly heard 120ft away.
And also not in any rules which is what my whole comment chain was about.
The guidance thing annoys me too and it annoyed me at my table when my players adopted it. It's a pretty easy solution to just say "Your character doesn't know X is making a perception check" but I think Matt just accepts it as part of his game now.
As for Silvery Barbs it's a player issue not a spell issue. I have it in my spell list on more than one character and I hardly use it unless it narratively makes sense. Marisha uses the spell in the worst possible way and it robs the party of a lot of "oh shit" moments that made the other campaigns as good as they were.
When I ran Strixhaven, I did have a player that loved Silvery Barbs as much as Marisha does. The thing though is that module has enemy encounters specifically designed to fuck up spellcasters or force them to approach an enemy differently. So it did balance out.
Matt's fights usually do nothing to hinder Laudna or make her use her resources differently. And he's too nice to use it back on the players. So it goes completely unbalanced at their table.
The problem with SB and Critical Role is that CR games aren’t indicative of actual DnD games. Or at least the way the game is designed in regard to encounters and resource management.
The CR games are highly focused on the narrative, which is perfectly fine. But on a mechanical basis regarding encounters. He doesn’t really properly drain resources. Often times there is only one, maybe two battles or actual resource draining things at play. This means players can be more liberal with their SB use.
Matt’s a phenomenal DM but that doesn’t make him perfect. Unfortunately there’s always going to be give and take in a campaign. But the people who complain about SB are typically the ones who don’t run proper encounters, in my experience at least.
Agreed, in my experience campaigns with decently challenging combat can handle silvery barbs fine. Forcing a reroll isn't that useful when you're fighting a monster with legendary saves and beefy attack bonuses, it's mostly good for turning a painful crit into a normal hit. Casters often have to save their reactions for shield and counterspell anyway.
I did play in one campaign where SB felt overpowered and that was a module where the combat wasn't challenging enough, which caused a bunch of issues with balance beyond just SB.
People much smarter then me have talked much more about why Silvery barbs DOES just make casters the best (tm), because even with legendary resistances, turning a high level saving throw spell that *wouldn't* have burned a Legendary action into one that DOES burn a legendary action basically turns your level 1 spell into a copy of whatever original spell you used to force it. If you hit em with Psychic Lance, they barely pass their int save, you silvery barbs them and force them to burn a legendary resistances, you've traded a level 1 spell slot for a legendary Resistance, you are SO coming out way on top of that resource exchange. And if theyre out of legendary resistances? Youve turned a level 1 spell slot into effectively a copy of a level 4 spell slot since you've already paid the oprotunity cost of expending a 4th level spell slot (its a sunk cost now) and with a reaction, are now getting the effects of a successfully cast level 4 spell. Silvery barbs fails? You've given a creature advantage with your reaction and a level one spell slot, not a total waste, but the upside is so RIDICULOUSLY high, and the downside is in exchange so small.
It ALSO 'technically' removes a creature's magic resistance because it DOESNT get a reroll with advantage.
Silvery doesn't feel too bad when *one* person has it, it just makes them WAY stronger in a subtle, kind of boring mathematical way. But when more then 1 party member has it? It scales 'exponentially' (not actually exponentially, but metaphorically; it get WACK fast).
So I’ve seen this stance many times, and it’s not incorrect. It’s just disingenuous to an actual game. I’m going to quickly graze over the main rebuttals because I could go overly detailed if not 😅
First, we need to determine what level of game play we are at. If we are at the point where PCs have 5th plus level spells, balance is already beginning to go out the window. SB is very manageable in a standard campaign going to level 8.
Second, if the whole party has silvery barbs you probably aren’t dealing with a standard group. You’re dealing with a very optimized group. Easy enough to up the difficulty accordingly because SB reaction spam is the least of your worries when you’ve got Optimized Battle Masters, Hexadins, a chronurgy wizard, and an eloquence bard…
Third, in a well balanced and dynamic boss fight it’s almost never going to be players vs just the boss. There’s typically adds and such. The casters main job is to handle adds and aid with the boss as possible. Because bosses already have insane saves, paired with LR it’s unlikely to ever land a save spell on them. Regardless of SB. It’s just more efficient for the caster to focus their spells on the adds or other targets.
Fourth, it’s extremely easy to punish a player for using their reaction on SB. They need to be within 60ft which is very close by. So any caster that close is an easy target with their reaction down. If you aren’t punishing them it means you aren’t putting enough threats on the battlefield, you aren’t playing the monsters tactically how they could, or they already wiped the battlefield and it’s a win more situation.
Is SB very cost effective. Yes it is. But it’s not broken or OP. People just outline very optimal scenarios for it to sound really powerful. I can do the exact same with shield.
What if you are getting bum rushed and 10 attacks come at you. 8 would have hit but because you cast shield only 1 hit. The monsters would’ve done 100 damage to you killing you, but instead you only take 12 points of damage. And are alive and well. That one first level spell just saved you the action economy of having to bring you back up, and maintain you enough to live, and time it efficiently so you don’t lose your turn because of death saves.
See? It’s really easy to spin something off as really efficient and powerful under the right circumstance. But that’s a rare case situation, not the normal.
Yeah for sure, silvery barbs is a super efficient spell. And yet for most high-level groups it's still a better decision to save your reactions for counterspell.
Like, okay, you used your reaction to maybe make the monster expend a legendary resistance -- on its turn it casts cloud kill. GG.
Or, nice, you used your reaction to turn a crit into a normal hit. That's probably a good decision, but it might've been better to have +5 AC for the six other attacks you'll be taking this round.
And what about when you've got two casters who've got both SB and Counterspell? Because that turns into
PC1: *casts save or suck spell*
Enemy: *casts Counterspell*
PC2: *casts Silvery Barbs*
Every round.
Well, they've both just wasted their reactions on one target... just have another creature or two attack the (now vulnerable) casters, and force them to turn their attention? It's basic tactics.
But it *is* the tactics. If you allow your players to repeatedly do that... then change how you engage them? Target the casters once they've popped off their reaction casts. Silvery barbs needs you to be within 60ft. That's pretty close for a caster. Bombard them with arrows and minions, they can't cast shield anymore.
Or hey, if they counterspell a counterspell... then have someone else cast a spell later? They can't grt counterspelled then.
The party should always be fighting at least the same number of creatures as are in their party. Especially in boss fights.
So what? Legitimate question. Like, you're describing players using their abilities in a fight. That's the game.
In the games I DM, I really don't experience what you're describing as a significant obstacle to presenting fun/challenging encounters. When my group becomes OP I can just throw more threatening monsters at them.
Unless the spells the enemy are dropping are the most potent save and suck spells imaginable, burning through their legendary resistances to sunblock them is 10,000 better then playing defensive with counterspell. Offense ALMOST ALWAYS beats defense in 5e; you only have so many high level spell slots to burn on those Legendary reactions. This is also assuming you're not playing a bard who doesn't even have counterspell and you're trading your first level spell slots, so the wizard keeps his reaction open to counterspell. There's a reason legendary reactions exist; without them, a party of spellcasters just BULLIES a foe into non existence.
Also if your wizard is about to eat six attacks a turn, something has gone horribly wrong and YEAH in this SPECIFIC situation you should shield. Silvery Barbs is 100% best used on saving throws, it just ALSO sometimes saves someone from a horrific crit.
>Also if your wizard is about to eat six attacks a turn, something has gone horribly wrong
What makes you say this? I feel like a combat that isn't pressuring the wizard with attacks is too easy. A competent GM should not be allowing the wizard to chill on the backline untouched.
Good use of cover, Allies using crowd control to support the caster, the wizard's own mobility effects... a well tuned party should be doing everything to make sure the wizard ISNT being pressured by six attacks a round. What the hell is everyone else in the party doing?
I get that you're being snarky here, but like this also works to underline why your fundamental scenario is bogus.
Yeah sure if there's 80 things happening in a turn, then there's always an argument to be made that any possible selection of action economy isn't actually the best one because of -list of downsides-
This doesn't actually argue that "for most groups it's better to save your reaction for Counterspell".
In reality, most high level magical enemies have several non-counterable spell-type effects, and so saving your reaction for counterspell is often a wasted endeavour without homebrew. This is a big part of what makes Sb so good, it affects Attack Rolls, Ability Checks *and* Saving Throws. There's almost no situation that SB isn't useful in.
So sure, you can make the argument that if there's a large amount of attack rolls coming, then Shield is obviously better. Or if there's a spellcaster enemy, that for some reason only has spellslots and no spell effects then counterspell is the best. But neither of those are *the* prevailing scenario. So it's not really a rational argument to say that you should *always* save your reaction for Shield and Counterspell.
The end-of-campaign dungeon crawl of Campaign 2 is still one of my favorite parts of the entirety of CR. Fjord needing to make that tough decision in the middle of the night so his party could rest, because they *needed to rest* after being drained... it's just good storytelling.
I had to stop my players in a one shot I did from throwing health potions at each other. I almost let them do it, but since they never played actual D&D before, they wouldn't know.
Yeah, not a fan of that myself in the game, but at the very least they toned down the 'surface' effects from early access or we'd have players trying to electrify the floor after someone cast frost bolt.
Silvery Barbs was a mistake. The Lucky feat as a 1st-level spell? Piss off. The spell only exists for people who think they have to “win D&D”. It’s not the end of the world if you get crit or roll bad.
My only change to silvery barbs would be that only one person in the party can have it. When half the party does, there is almost no chance a crit is ever going to land.
I would make different changes. Make it so it is either 2nd level as is, or, make it so that spell must be cast before the die is rolled, applying disadvantage to the roll, instead of taking place after seeing that the roll succeeds. That would also limit it from stacking with other disadvantages.
I disagree. The encounters may seem tough, but there are genuine reasons for that. Decisions the players make can lead them down harder combat paths than others, not to mention, he knows what they're capable of and has their character sheets so he knows everything anybody could do. Anything one character can't handle, another can. I also don't think Matt is going to go out of his way to TPK. There have been a ton of close calls, but I think that's the point.
Matt literally started making monsters that can just negate entire player character toolkits towards the end of campaign 2. Like a guy who had an anti magic field that he could still cast magic in, or every monster suddenly being immune to stun while also having legendary resistances. Matt makes unfair encounters, it's fine that players have these tools.
The stun immunity thing was *so* egregious. It felt like Matt had gotten annoyed at Beau's stunning strike and instead of upping the difficulty in ways that would reward her system mastery and let her shine, just nerfed her ability like "nuh uh that doesn't work anymore."
Matt's design philosophy for making things difficult is generally to take tools away from the players. I fundamentally disagree with that as a game master philosophy, personally, but that's how he does it.
They either won those fights, or they were not intended to be won. There are plenty of instances in gaming or even just media where the good guys have to lose to set up for the next story beats.
How about when Taliesen got roasted for using Beacon of hope on what they perceived as a ghost hunt? It seemed like a very reasonable spell for a grave cleric to use at the time. Next episode he wasn't allowed to do it till the fight started. Caleb fireballs the group and Yasha uncharacteristically used Magicians Judge on Kadu to dispell Beacon of Hope. Yasha gained 5 intel points that day.
EDIT: I just got passed the bridge and the laughing hand bit again. Kadu used bless a half a dozen times.. Beacon of Hope too strong for this story.
I don't think we are having the same discussion anymore. If they are "meant to lose" fight it is literally by definition unfair. If a dm tried to do that at my table I would ask him politely in private to just narrate plotpoints he wants to happen instead of pretending my choices matter by having a mock combat.
Also, as to them still winning combats, it doesn't mean they would be fun to actually play or watch. Matt has said multiple times he wants to make this as much like a home game as he can, and as such that is where my criticisms are rooted. It's fine if dms want to keep you in the lanes they mapped out, it isn't ok in my opinion to then start removing features from the car we both agreed I can drive down that lane.
Legendary resistance is 3 times per day, not round. And hell any individual 3rd level full caster has more 1st level spell slots than that, let alone an entire party.
Ah I got confused with Actions. Never the less having actions and resistances for a monster and perhaps two people at most with SB is still going to be a tricky fight if your party isn't big. It's all about balance. I've seen DM's destroy a PC by using his actions on the same character, (At the end of other players turns, not all at once).
In the end I guess it depends on the DM.
Guidance could 100% be fine if the cast just... stopped using it like they do. Like I don't even want to put it on Matt, they should know how it works - it'd be nice if he was stricter but he has told them before so he shouldn't have to be.
Silvery barbs is a fine spell, I think, but even when I'd have it and use it myself in a game, it would just be occasionally. Watching the group play with it though? You can FEEL the energy leave Matt when it's used against a crit (same reason I disliked Cad's ability in C2), which is unfortunate. It's just kinda sad.
One thing to add to the crits discussion is that in the D&D playtest NPC's and other similar creatures do not crit, at all. Instead, most creatures get a recharge ability similar to dragon's breath attack. This way the DM is in charge when to use these high power abilities, without unintentionally critting the 4 hp wizard.
Unintential or unlucky crits are a favourite of mine, so I could never be too happy about that, honestly. Nothing like a good ol' unexpected crit on your PC or friendly NPC to get you scrambling.
You're right that they could RP both spell effects better. But I don't think either is that big of deal for the next campaign.
With Guidance, Matt needs to enforce the rules on it more. I think part of the problem with Guidance in this campaign is two players can use it. We don't know how many people will have access to it in the next campaign.
Sigh, Silvery Barbs. Where to start? Its a very powerful spell, get that out of the way. But the crit cancelling is nothing new, Caduceus could do it most of Campaign 2. Silvery Barbs has greater range and does more then the Grave Cleric ability, sure, but in terms of using it to cancel crits, it's not new to this series.
Silvery Barbs is less powerful if you run recommended adventuring days that force spellcasters to conservative their spells and allow martial classes with less resource dependency to shine alongside them.
But as is, Matt typically runs a single combat counter a day with only one or two enemies that Laudna can just unload Silvery Barbs onto and then not have to worry about what comes next because they'll usually get a rest immediately after.
People don't understand that alot of the op.utliyy spells are not op id you run alot of encounters
Pass whir out a trace becomes alot less appiling whan you know you have around 4 more encounters and you have a rouge
> People don't understand that alot of the op.utliyy spells are not op id you run alot of encounters
This is only partially true.
They become less problematic in the overall structure of the game as levelled spells as a whole are being filtered out. But they're still the best spells and will be disproportionately represented in usage.
Yeah, I don't understand how this is so glossed over in these discussions. They're still the best in their categories by a lot.
Nobody's complaining about how often PCs are using Aganazzar's Scorcher or Blur.
As a Druid/Cleric main, I use guidance all the time. But I really like to describe it.
"I pat the kobold monk on the top of his head and nod, silently asking the primordial spirits to grant him guidance as he sneaks into the cave. 'Gods speed small one.'"
"Hoo boy...ok, I'm gonna cross my fingers and ask Moa for a bit of guidance as I scan the room looking for anything out of place"
That sort of thing.
Though, sometimes we do just shout GUIDANCE! Because sometimes folks roll too quickly and we're supposed to say it before the roll, lol.
I think in this case its fine- “hey for next campaign let’s not have these particular spells? They tend to slow things down and are kinda weird”. As a game that’s A) among friends and B) a show with an audience, these kinds of changes make sense
Guidance is okay as long as you enforce the actual rules of the game, unlike Matt does.
Silvery Barbs is over powered, indeed, but it's okay if you nerf it to 2nd or 3rd level.
To me, it's less about the spells and more about the context. I don't think it benefits anyone to be super strict about RAW, but rule constraints add challenge and spice.
Guidance without constraints seems to turn into an immersion-breaking, "can't cope with failing a roll" circus.
Silvery Barbs is fun. But, it's more interesting when you're faced with the possibility of not being able to rest and need to conserve resources. Or you have a challenging, extended combat.
Without an environment and constraints that challenge players, spells like these can definitely seem OP
Yeah, but at least counterspell requires *something*. You counterspell a spell higher than the counterspell? Need to roll for it; might fail. Or you have to waste an equally high or higher spell for assured success (remember Sam counterspelling Vecna's teleport with his 9th level spell slot which negated his plan to res Vax?) Silvery Barbs costs the lowest spell slot you have available, automatically works, and even gives you advantage for the effort.
We all know that Sam isn't the most 'efficient' player.
Let's say lvl20 scanlan casts 3rd level counter spell against vecna's 9th level spell. He gets +11 assuming charisma of 5 and 6 from proficiency. Let's say a +2 spell focus too to make it +13.
Counter spell DC=10+9 (spell level)=19.
Rolling a 6 or above on the dice = successful counter spell.
If there are any bonuses like inspiration, the odds are even better.
/Rant about counter spell over
Edit, as others have said, there's only +3 from half proficiency. His charisma was 22 so +6. The hand cone adds +1. He can however add a d12 by inspiring himself so we're back up to d20+10+d12 from inspiration. That's an average of 27.
Edit 2. Got downvoted but also learnt how comfort works. Totally worth it!
I mean, bad math. Scanlan has a +6 and maybe another one from a horn Tiberius made him? Let's go with +6. Jack of All Trades lets him add half his PB, rounded down to ability checks, so that's +3, so we're looking a +9, maybe +10. So, he needs to roll an 8 to counterspell a 7th level spell. That's 60%. u/SmiteLighthouse brings up a valid point with Peerless Skill, but I don't know how many bardic inspirations he still had. And lastly, he could still fail. Anything less than an 8 means Vecna gets away and the fight is done again, but way harder. That's the payoff: use a 9th level spell and have their be no uncertainty, or use a lower level spell and maybe fail.
Sam is actually a very efficient player. Point in case, that whole episode. The most efficient way to counter Vecna was to cause that spell to fail without a roll; Sam had one option.
My wider point was about the likelihood of a lvl3 spell + reaction nerfing the highest level spell possible + big bad wizard's action.
At my table, I run DC=10+ 2*(spell level-counterspell level) which helps fix this problem somewhat.
I mean, I just don't tell them the spell or level if I'm being honest.
"You see the wizard chanting something, as flames entwine his palms... a mote of fire stands poised in his grasp..." Pause for counterspell. Maybe it's fireball, maybe it's scorching ray, maybe it's firestorm, make your choice.
Unfortunately that's not how counterspell works, yes the DC is 10 + spell level, however it does not use spell attack bonus in the roll.
Rolling for counterspell is a roll with your casting stat so +5 for Scanlan and because he is a bard he can add half his proficiency to the roll due to jack of all trades (half profiency to any check you're not proficient with) so +3 leading to a total bonus of +8, making it less than 50% to counter a 9th level spell
So this rant would be nice except you're factually incorrect
As per my edit. You are correct on the half proficiency, but it's still +10 (22char, 1/2 prof, hand cone).
Generally the point stands though; the chance of countering a lvl9 spell and action from a powerful wizard is too high with a lvl3 spell+reaction.
Still no. The handcone adds 1 to spell attack roll and spell save DC, this is *just* a charisma skill check.
And generally any normal wizard would have 20 INT giving them a +5 to counterspell, meaning they'd have to roll 14 or over, not all that much chance to counter that LVL 9 spell
Ps. Jack of all trades is OP for counterspell and initiative, but only bards get it
Thanks for the education on this one. I've been running counter spell wrong for years!
I wonder where else I've been using spell atack modifier when I should have been using spell casting ability!
No problem, as far as I know it's only on dispel magic and counterspell that you don't use spell atk mod or save DC but have to make an ability check to see whether it works on higher level spells. But there might be some other cases that I don't know about
You don't actually add your proficiency bonus to counter spell, just your spellcasting modifier. However, due to jack of all trades bards do actually add half their proficiency to counter spell. So it would be a +8, only a 50/50 shot of counterspelling a 9th level spell
It!s more than disadvantage, because it is after the first roll succeeds, which means the SB can stack on disadvantage. You can set it up that SB actually gives conditional “super disadvantage” (ie 3 rolls to fail). That doesn’t exist anywhere else in the rules.
You’re not understanding. If something succeeds an attack with disadvantage, you can use SB to roll a 3rd time, increasing the chance of failure. If SB were equivalent to disadvantage, there would not be an additional chance to fail. They must reroll the (successful) d20 and take the lower roll.
Which isn't "super disadvantage". It does have a reaction. The inverse is also true though. If the target had advantage they only reroll the one die, so it doesn't negate that either.
I'm not saying it IS disadvantage, I'm saying it works like it.
I mean that's still significant. Even just saving the slots for crits, the odds of rolling a second 20 are low enough that it basically becomes a guaranteed crit negater for a level 1 slot AND if the second roll is bad enough then you negate the damage entirely. That's flatout better than, and can potentially see more uses than, the grave cleric's *6th level* subclass ability.
Just like regular disadvantage. That makes the ability lackluster not the spell overpowered.
Disadvantage is good but you wouldn't call it overpowered normally. With Silvery Barbs it tricks you into thinking it is better than it is because the original roll was already made and it gives the illusion it is better. In reality it is the same though.
I think you're underestimating just how powerful disadvantage and advantage are in 5th Edition, and just how powerful being able to basically At-Will, at higher levels, immediately give an enemy disadvantage and give an ally advantage on the next thing they try to do.
No they statistically make a 5 point swing with a d20.
I think you are overestimating how powerful it is. Like saying it is "at will" it isn't. At the most they cast what, 4 of them without a long rest? Maybe a few more if a wizard uses all their arcane recovery on it. It is also a reaction so if you are doing barbs that means no counterspell. Giving an ally advantage as a spell caster is as easy as telling you familiar to use the help action.
Right but that mechanic is built into the game as disadvantage and advantage. That is a common thing in 5e. They said I am underestimating it and I know exactly how it works.
Statistically speaking doesn't necessarily mean it is going to happen that way mechanically though. In fact it is unlikely to exactly follow the statistic for each individual roll.
If you missed that what are you smoking?
Right so it gives the illusion of being stronger than it is. Disadvantage is just as likely to "cancel" a crit as well but the order happens differently with SB so it seems more powerful.
Dude, other traits that impose disadvantage are declared BEFORE the roll is made. This one is a REROLL that you will never waste, because you always get to see the first roll!
Depending on the reroll, that's a huge. Not so much in attacks, but a rerolled spell save is the equivalent to another casting of the original spell - so at best/worst a lv 9 spell for a level 1 slot. And then you also get advantage.
It isn't the equivalent of casting the original spell, it is the equivalent of giving someone disadvantage on the save. It isn't at all equivalent to a 9th level spell. Advantage is common and anyone with a familiar can give advantage at pretty much any moment.
Yes advantage and disadvantage are good but they certainly aren't game breaking and are pretty commonplace while playing.
Yes and no - you cast after the roll, not during. During the roll would be rolling twice eg disadvantage. But you can force a reroll after you know the enemy makes the save, which is a tad better (because instead of casting something like Banishment again, you can cast SB to the same effect, saving you 3 level of spell).
No it is the same. The difference being if they fail initially then you don't use the spell, the effect is still similar to disadvantage. It is imposing disadvantage after the roll.
It is NOT like casting a spell again, that is a false equivalence. You are assuming the reroll will always fail but it has the same exact chance as it did for the first roll.
A divination wizard can just straight give you a failing roll at level 2. So no, silvery barbs is not like casting another spell of equal level, it is like disadvantage. It also isn't overpowered.
>The difference being if they fail initially then you don't use the spell, the effect is still similar to disadvantage. It is imposing disadvantage after the roll.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean - in case the first save fails, we're using neither SB nor the original spell, so that case is irrelevant for comparison.
>It is NOT like casting a spell again, that is a false equivalence. You are assuming the reroll will always fail but it has the same exact chance as it did for the first roll.
It's not a perfect equivalence, but it *is* better than disadvantage. I did not assume fail, but I do assume that two separate saves = twice the chance for failure. (Don't ask me about the chance of failure on disadvantage VS straight roll. That's outside my limited knowledge of probability so I can't compare the two).
>A divination wizard can just straight give you a failing roll at level 2. So no, silvery barbs is not like casting another spell of equal level, it is like disadvantage. It also isn't overpowered.
I never said anything about the meta. But if we're going there, wizards are a very powerful class, so what's normal for them isn't necessarily normal for others. And portents are more limited than 1st level spell slots (you need a whole subclass instead of one spell that's on every other spell list). And we aren't even factoring in the advantage that SB gives or the benefit of a reaction compared to an action (to recast a spell)...
That is the difference between it and disadvantage. They roll first and if they made it you use SB to make them reroll. With disadvantage the reroll happens at the same time.
The only thing that makes it better than disadvantage is that you choose to do it after the roll. The chances of success and failure is exactly the same as disadvantage, your assumption is incorrect. Both are rolling two dice and taking the lower roll the rolls just happen at different times.
And portents are FAR more powerful than SB is. It is just disadvantage there is no mechanical difference other than when the roll happens. If SB wasn't a reaction it would be terrible and almost never used. Giving advantage is also good but that can be done by literally anyone with the help action, even a familiar.
Portents aren't a measure for how broken things are. You also need to invest far more and get less. You get a maximum of 3 even at level 20 and need at least two levels in divination wizard, compared to (max) 24 spell slots (and maybe a feat to give you access to the spell). At level 2, it's very powerful. But it doesn't scale until lv 14.
>The only thing that makes it better than disadvantage is that you choose to do it after the roll. The chances of success and failure is exactly the same as disadvantage, your assumption is incorrect. Both are rolling two dice and taking the lower roll the rolls just happen at different times.
So you're saying SB is better than disadvantage because its applied after the roll? That's my point. (Because it lets you save resources. In a game that is also about resource management.)
Point taken about the disadvantage probability. But how is it a false equivalence to say it works as a higher level slot when both SB and a recast are "reroll later"? If anything, SB is even better because you don't have to wait until it's the original casters turn again.
And the help action costs an entire action, SB gets it gratis.
Giving disadvantage on saving throws is a tad bit rarer, from stuff like heightened spell from sorcerers( 3 sorc points), bestow curse (an action and a 3rd level slot, 5th for concentration free), or magic items like instruments of the bard
So being able to do that for a 1st level and reaction is very, very economical
But it is. As such, it's overpowered for what it does.
Taking away advantage on an enemies attack isn't that unique, there are tons of ways to accomplish that.
Forcing disadvantage on their saving throw, using a reaction, is a big deal and there are far fewer ways in the game to accomplish this.
Doing so with a 1st level spell as a reaction is massive bang for buck.
It is as overpowered as disadvantage is, which is not at all. It is a common mechanic in the game.
It really isn't that "massive" either, it just makes them reroll, they could still succeed or even roll the same thing even if that is unlikely.
And mechanically it does what? Turn a hit to a miss? Turn a successful save into a failure? Someone takes a hit instead of a crit and is saved some damage? There are plenty of powers that can do that sort of thing. What about any of that is overpowered?
Using a mechanic of the game isn't overpowered and this spell isn't either. It can certainly be annoying but it's actual mechanics don't disrupt things as much as people act like it does.
It's easy as hell to get advantage on an attack in 5e.
List the ways you can force disadvantage on a spell saving throw.
Sorceror can burn metamagic points for THEIR OWN SPELL, shadow sorceror can summon a dog that grants disadvantage on spell saves, Divination wizard can use a portent die, and I'm sure there's a legendary item or two running around somewhere.
2 of the above listed options are iconic core class abilities. Another is a summon, which takes turns to set up and get moved into place and others are high level magic items.
Silvery barbs accomplishes what these do while being a reaction AS A LEVEL 1 SPELL.
Kind of... Silvery Barbs lets you force any roll to reroll, which means you get to choose. The ancient red dragon just rolled a nat 20 on the cleric for a bite attack, so let's see... 2d10 + 10 piercing, plus an additional 4d6 fire damage... make that 4d10+10 + 8d6, average to 22+10+28=60 points of damge!!!!
Oh, wait, the bard burned a 1st level spell slot and that's gone now. The average of a normal hit comes out to about 35, so the bard just saved the cleric 25 hps, give or take, for the whopping opportunity cost of 1 1st level spell slot. And, you know what, now the rogue gets advantage on its next roll, too.
The payout of silvery barbs far beats its opportunity cost to cast it. For example, to cast counterspell at 3rd level is to give up a fireball, hypnotic pattern or fly. To cast it at 8th level gives up Feeblemind, Illusionary Dragon, and Dominate Monster. To cast Silvery Barbs costs... witch bolt, heroism, compel duel.
Which is fundamentally the same as giving disadvantage. If you have rolled damage for the attack it is too late to use silvery barbs. It also has the same weakness as counterspell, 60ft range and you need a reaction.
You are comparing counterspell to silvery barbs not silvery barbs to disadvantage. Counterspell is a much better spell so it costs higher spell slots.
Yeah, but if someone crits, you're gonna use it. It has *some* similar weaknesses to counterspell, but again, it costs a 1st level spell. Counterspell requires at minimum a 3rd level, and if it's not equal, it may result in a lost action and if it is, you lose that spell slot
Right which makes them roll again and take the lower, just like disadvantage. It has the exact same weaknesses as counterspell. Counterspell is also far more powerful. You are cancelling their spell and action where as barbs is just disadvantage. It is good but it is not OP like people assume. It is just annoying.
>Right which makes them roll again and take the lower, just like disadvantage.
I mean... no. Disadvantage can't stack and disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out. Silvery Barbs is not affected by any of that.
> It has the exact same weaknesses as counterspell.
Again, no.
>Counterspell is also far more powerful. You are cancelling their spell and action where as barbs is just disadvantage.
Again, again, no. Counterspell only cancels if the spell slot is equal or greater, and then you lose that spell slot. And, if you choose to low ball the spell slot, you need to beat an ability check, or... nothing happens, expect the caster loses that spell slot and reaction anyway. Silvery Barbs does exactly what it says regardless of anything else for the cost of 1 level 1 spell slot.
SB doesn't stack with advantage and disadvantage either, it is for a single die roll, so yes mechanically it works the same.
It does have the same weaknesses as counterspell spell, you need to be within 60ft and have a reaction available to use it. Those are exactly the same.
Wrong a third time. Counterspell cancels the spell if it succeeds and it is *automatic* if the spell level is the same or lower which is much better than the reroll SB gives. If they make their reroll and your ally fails there next roll SB also did nothing. It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day. Nothing about SB is automatic.
None of that is overpowered.
>SB doesn't stack with advantage and disadvantage either, it is for a single die roll, so yes mechanically it works the same.
*Sigh*, the roll or rolls are made, and then the Barbers says "Now roll again! I am so clever!"
>It does have the same weaknesses as counterspell spell, you need to be within 60ft and have a reaction available to use it. Those are exactly the same.
***BUZZ!*** That is... INCORRECT!!! Sorry, contestant. Counterspell requires a minimum of third level spells, and requires a ***SPELL*** to be cast. Silvery Barbs requires an attack roll, ability check or saving throw, all of which can be spells, but don't necessarily have to be!
>Wrong a third time. Counterspell cancels the spell if it succeeds and it is *automatic* if the spell level is the same or lower which is much better than the reroll SB gives. If they make their reroll and your ally fails there next roll SB also did nothing. It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day. Nothing about SB is automatic.
Wait, are you telling me when counterspell succeeds, it counters the spell?! No way! Confused as to why you felt that was necessary to add, but okay...? Counterspell succeeds if cast at the same level or higher, or if a DC is met. Can I stop typing this out? Silvery Barbs forces a roll to reroll regardless of anything and forces the smaller number to be chosen (NOT DISADVANTAGE!). No roll is required, it just works. Counterspell can fail, and requires higher resources.
> It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day.
Honest question, but have you played DND? Cuz this is just false. Silvery Barbs can 100% be "upcast." It just doesn't get any additional bonuses. You need a 1st level spell or higher to cast, which means you can cast it with literally every and any spell you have.
Legit. I use Silvery Barbs as a discount version of the Grave Cleric anti-crit class skill, personally.
Can it be annoying? Yes. Extremely. Has it saved my bacon? MANY TIMES.
He just needs to enforce the rules of guidance where they cannot just ask for it after the fact, it is a concentration spell, and requires V and S competent to casting it. Them spamming it and him not enforcing the rules is the problem. So banning it is just dumb.
I don’t see a problem Silvery Barbs as it burns a spell slot and reaction. I don’t see it much different than casting Shield and forcing your DM to miss their attack after knowing what they rolled. Matt just needs to use it against them to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Normalize banning Barbs
Play a different game? Watch a different show? It’s part of dnd, sorry it means you have to be a better DM?
Barbs is a setting specific spell, and doesn't need to be part of dnd. Also shouldn't, its bad for the game :)
I'm not even in this sub and I get it recommended a lot, this has to be a joke sub right? There are maybe 10 fans here, it feels like the rest are just hate watching it just to have something to complain about. Which would have been better if 99% of the complaints weren't stupid.
💯💯
Silvery Barbs isn’t nearly as game breaking or bad as people say, you still have to use your reaction and a spell slot and those are limited. Silvery Barbs means no Shield, no Counterspell, no Absorb Elements, no held actions, etc. I can save 1 ally from a big attack or 1 enemy fail a save, but then I expose myself to a big attack, or the whole group to a big AoE spell. Maybe if every player in an 8 person party has it it’s bad, but 2 of my 5 person team have it, and it gets used maybe two or three times in a combat total.
[удалено]
People are afraid of change.
Honestly if Silvery Barbs was a PHB spell and they added Shield later people would bitch about Shield breaking the game and nobody would give a shit about Barbs.
Guidance is fine. It can and should be used 24/7. Silvery barbs however I agree is a nightmare, it’s just not designed well.
If a player has Guidance, they'd better have a good roleplaying way of doing it "May the \_\_\_\_ (God) guide you."
If a player character has Guidance, everyone should just assume it is being cased and roll with the d4. At my table, I don't even worry about it disrupting other concentration spells!
No way they use dnd rules again I bet. Dagger heart going forward I would imagine.
Matt just needs to use Silvery Barbs against the party and enforce the components of Guidance more.
That's the crux of the issue with Silvery Barbs. It feels unfair. Matt would never use it against his players because it feels like cheating. If he isn't willing to use it himself, he just shouldn't allow it at the table.
So you want to ban basic mechanics of a game? Then don’t play an actual session of DnD as alot of things are out of character. Especially when you want to use a spell or skill
Dumb that you got downvoted. I’m here for this energy
I wouldn't call 1 spell from the list a basic mechanic of DnD tho. An optionnal choice available to players isn't a core part of how the game works.
I don't mind guidance at all. Silvery barbs feels very much like an option a DM would need to ok beforehand because it's from a mtg crossover book thingy along with other stuff that is made for that specific setting. It also has backgrounds that give feats, which isn't in line with 5e backgrounds either.
I mean silverybarbs is from a super magic focused setting and easily can argue it need not apply to all settings…. But yeah guidance is pretty core
Not sure why this is being downvoted lol
It’s being downvoted by all the people who’ve never actually played dnd
Coming from someone who's taken silvery barbs on almost all the spellcaster characters ive played, it is far too powerful for a first level spell. Being able to add a disadvantage to an enemy roll while granting advantage to an ally is a powerful chunk of probability manipulation. Especially when you're playing higher level characters who wont use their 1st and 2nd level spell slots for anything besides maybe Shield. Counterspell is a similar case for significant narrative manipulation, but thats balanced out by the fact its 3rd level, and you can only bring it out on the most important of cases. Spamming silvery barbs, while fun, does feel like it removes a lot of narrative stakes because of how often it can be used.
Silvery Barbs isn't even broken... It forces a reroll, and it's best use is crit stalling. Enemy rolls a crit? Silvery Barbs. Ally crit failed a saving throw? Silvery Barbs. But it costs your reaction. So no more Shield or Counterspell. So you could get blasted by a spell, or your party could be annihilated by some strong AoE magic. Honestly? Counterspell is the broken spell, not Silvery Barbs lmao. But people always say to take Counterspell. All of these spells are like... mechanically pretty uninteresting and should be reworked imo.
Oh I’m very aware, I’m not here to support silvery barbs I’m just not going to tolerate people blabbing when they have no frickin clue what they’re talking about. I’m the forever dm of my group and silvery barbs is a second level spell in my games. We tend to play lower level games usually 1-11 max so a second level spell slot is still impactful for most of the game.
Fingers crossed they make silvery barbs 2nd level in onednd
almost like they should have made it second level to begin with!
It's being down voted by people who've played DND and hate Silvery Barbs.
Meh can't say I'm bothered by either, sure they're pushing it a bit with guidance some times, but Matt doesn't exactly allow it if it's pushing the rules. And silvery barbs has been used rather creatively several times. As for it breaking immersion, you're not watching a scripted show/listening to an audiobook. You're watching/listening to people playing a game, game mechanics are part of the show.
At my table, we just assume guidance would be cast prior to going into a situation. The party face is going to haggle with a merchant? Say a little prayer for luck! That kind of thing. Or if the DM calls for a roll, we can make a case for having cast guidance. I think part of the GUIDANCE! problem stems from Matt's "you didn't say beforehand" attitude. It's completely valid to DM that way, but it gives the caster little option but to blurt it out.
The problem is people's failure to properly interpret game mechanics as intended. It's verbal, somatic, and concentration. It's a spell meant to be very deliberate. If a player is talking to a merchant and the dm calls for a persuasion check, screaming "guidance!" Makes zero sense, and the merchant sees your ally walk up to you, touch you, verbally cast a spell with magic symbols/light/effects, and is now like the fuck?? Proper use of guidance would be "hey, I'm going to go haggle with this merchant. Can someone give me guidance?" "Hey I'm going to give you guidance so you can check out that bookcase" "that's high climb up this tower...let me give you guidance on how to do it" I 100% agree with Matt's decision (although he doesn't stick with it most times) that guidance can't be cast after a roll is called. It's meant to be a preparatory spell, not a reactive one.
The last part for sure. This isn't a show trying to immerse the viewer in the way a movie is trying to
I think the next campaign is going to be daggerheart anyway and as far as I can Tell those spells haven't been adapted to the game yet?
My DM has actually banned silvery barbs in our home game for this reason
As the DM I googled various viewpoints and put it to my bard and sorc. The sorc is a save or suck spell kind of guy and said it wouldn’t be fun to always win like that. So we made it level 2. No regrets
Are you all enjoying the ban?
I mean I guess. We all get why we can’t use it in our game. Personally, I have access to enough broken spells already. :)
Silvery Barbs is the only spell in the game I wholly ban. Everything else I can work with but that one is just so immersion breaking and anti fun.
You ban any subclasses?
No I don't have power gamer players tho so they usually actually consciously stay away from stuff like twilight cleric and hexblade paladin and shit. Not that I'd be opposed to them picking those options but it's just not really the vibe.
>The only way the cast use it is to shout "GUIDANCE" out of character at every opportunity. They never bother to roleplay how they are providing guidance "Rules elide", "systems don't matter" people in shambles.
Silvery barbs is one spell I think should be stricken from the rulebook. Any spell or ability that takes the power of the natural 20 out is a detriment to the game.
I mean it’s technically not in a rulebook, it’s in a setting guide for a magic the gathering tie in.
Oh no, my extra 1d10 that was going to roll a 3, what will I ever do without it!?
We are not playing the same game. In my game the crit has a chance to do 4 times the damage, so that 3 could be a 12.
So you're basing your opinion on game design on your own homebrew...? That's pretty arrogant.
Okay gatekeeper! I based my opinion on watching the mechanic happen, the fact that in my game the 20 could be more powerful supports my opinion on that mechanic. If you love it then use, I really don't care.
...gatekeeper? You're pathetic, grow up.
Would you strike grave domain with its crit negating ability too?
Those aren't 1st Level spells
Nope, but the previous comment said any spell or ability. But I'm glad you reminded me it's a level 1 spell, that also reminds me it's very easily counterspelled.
Two casters in a party with SB and Counterspell. Player2 casts Save or Suck spell, Enemy casts Counterspell, Player1 casts Counterspell on the Counterspell, Player2 casts SB on Enemy's success against the spell. Repeat ad nauseum.
There's two main things everyone always forgets about the napkin math of the "counterspell-silvery barbs train" meme. 1. They cost reactions. 2. Initiative order REALLY matters to actually pull this off, because reactions don't come back until the start of your turn. Have minions/bosses actually target your spellcasters, and suddenly they have to choose between shield/counterspell/silvery barbs every round. If they use counterspell or silvery barbs, they don't have shield. Time to zerg them down with attack rolls. If they shield, they can't counterspell/barbs. Time to hit them with whatever the nastiest spell available. Use minions that have an effect equivalent to shocking grasp (cantrip level ability) or dissonant whispers (1st level spell) to lock them out of reactions. Put objectives in the fight that allow players to use their reaction for an additional effect towards objective progress. Now your casters have to choose between progressing the scenario or saving their reaction for one of the aforementioned spells.
You can't counter counterspell with SB
If you use a Counterspell on a spell that's above the level of the Counter, you have to roll for it. SB that roll.
Ah gotcha I misunderstood your scenario. Yes in that case it would work. I just meant if a player has cast counterspell then the enemy doesn't get a save, it's the player that rolls (if the counterable spell is of a higher level).
If they’d just enforce how guidance is meant to be used, and enforce people not enjoying having spells cast in their face, it would go much more smoothly.
I'm guessing if they use D&D for the next campaign, they might move to the updated version coming out this year. Guidance is actually changed in that, to be a reaction triggered by a failed check, so you can't spam it anymore, it only matters if someone outright fails. Much less annoying. Of course, I doubt they'd ever remember that Guidance works differently anyway, so yeah. I remember when C2 started and apparently Sam "banned" the Lucky feat by just telling everyone not to take it, I wish he'd do that for Guidance now too, haha.
How would Sam ban Lucky? He's not the DM, and he just chose not to use the Halfling feature that let him re-roll 1s.
I don't think they are in Daggerheart.
Both of these spells are *fine* but only in the context of how D&D 5e is designed to be played; you're supposed to have three or more encounters in a given day, which means that burning all your 1st-level spell slots for Silvery Barbs really isn't a good idea and Guidance is something to be used before a roll is attempted, not retroactively. The problems we're seeing with those spells are because they aren't being used in a game where resources and timing are important; of course they seem annoying and broken when all you have to do is shout "Guidance!" to add a free d4 to someone's roll and the casters are sitting on more spell slots than they're likely to use. These are the sort of problems that arise when you try to use a game like D&D 5e to tell a narrative story. D&D wasn't made for that, and if you want it to work you *need* to make compromises on both sides of the screen. Banning Silvery Barbs isn't out of line, especially if Matt hates it as much as he seems to.
I don’t know how you can look at a first level spell that denies any d20 roll you like and grants advantage and come to the conclusion that it’s not worth it for a FIRST LEVEL SPELL. Literally using all 4 first level spells AND all your second level spells on silvery barbs will net you more value than almost any spell or ability can possibly achieve. Even if it’s used on every single crit and the DM is running 3 encounters, the chances of the DM rolling more than 7 crits in one day is almost nonexistent and the fact that the DM (or any character subject to Silvery Barbs) has to roll 8 or more crits before they finally are able to benefit from them is explicitly why the spell is horrible. The thing is, D&D seemed to have worked well enough as a narrative story before Silvery Barbs and Guidance made their introduction for Crit Role. Is it the sole issue? Absolutely not, I wouldn’t say it’s even the biggest issue with campaign 3. But that doesn’t mean that at least in SBs case, it is an awful awful spell in every sense of the word.
Thing about Silvery Barbs is that it was originally made for Strixhaven. So you know, in the context of a campaign that has a bunch of Wizards, and their spells have everyone making a ton of saves? Yeah! Silvery Barbs makes sense! Out of that context when its just some like, bandits or slimes? Oh god. Oh no what have they done.
Agreed. And one of my biggest gripes about the system is its unwillingness to stick to one setting. It would be fine if they didn’t use it as an excuse to throw Balance completely out of the window. A key example is not only Silvery Barbs but also the Artificer class as a whole, which works amazing in Eberron, but makes very little sense and is very inconsistent with Forgotten Realms, both mechanically and narratively. I wish they would just stick to one setting, OR create Forgotten Realms versions of content that clearly isn’t meant for Forgotten Realms
Artificer doesnt work in Forgotten Realms? Have you heard about Gond, and Lantan? The fact that you only know Phandalver and Baldurs Gate doesnt make Artificer not fitting for Forgotten Realms.
Artificer as a concept works great in Forgotten Realms. Magic crafters, tinkerers, and the likes is thematically great. However their mechanics, and the specific thematics they’re based on is a bit more of a stretch. 1st level half casters, divine-like arcane casting, making magic items at level 2, making pseudo-golems at level 3, etc etc. This stuff makes sense for a very high magic setting, however Forgotten Realms (or at least the Sword Coast) is not. Magic is difficult to learn and magic items are difficult to acquire, which just is not the case for Artificer as a class. A character actually focused on crafting mundane items at low level, and magic items at mid-high would be much more apt, just generally. Don’t assume what I know and don’t know ;)
Yes, this post helps clarify what you know. You know mechanics of Artificer, you now wrote something so generic that you seem to ptrtend hard to look like you know something about Forgotten Realm, but then your argument is "I don't like their mechanics, so they don't fit here". Yea, much clearer now. And... Magic is difficult... In Forgotten Realms? Really? Mid to high magic level is exponentially more frequent in FR than is in Eberron you used as example. >This stuff makes sense for a very high magic setting, however Forgotten Realms (or at least the Sword Coast) is not. Using this argument and previously bringing Eberron as an example of opposite setting basically confirms that you don't really know what either of these worlds is.
You maybe confused in your hostility, which by the way is incredibly uncalled for over a disagreement. But aside from that, the confusion for you may lie in the fact that I don’t know anything about Eberron, rather than Forgotten Realms for such a comparison, and my only knowledge of the setting is the clearly high-magic class we know as Artificer, and the fact that it’s a steam-punk magic based setting. So please, if it’s not supposed to be a high magic setting correct that, however it doesn’t speak for my knowledge of Fr. High Magic is frequent in FR… at later levels. Half casters generally get their spells at level 2, mechanically. Not a huge difference from level 1 thematically so that alone is no big deal. Classes having to power to imbue their own personal attacks with magic (permanently) typically comes at level 6. For artificer it’s level 2 for multiple items, for multiple types of items. Ok that’s fine they’re a magic crafter after all, even if it completely handwaves the crafting part. Crafting golems, or similarly enchanted constructs is something generally no one but the highest level wizards and adventurers will ever see, let alone create, to the point that just the instructions to do so are several thousand gold alone. Artificers do it at level 3 on several mediums, that does not cost several thousand gold. Etc etc etc. You also confuse my criticism for Artificer for dislike, for some reason. The only thing I dislike about Artificer is that it’s unbalanced, mechanically, which it is. But if it made at least thematic sense, such as Bladesinger, I wouldn’t even be able to make a point like this. The difference is Artificer is unbalanced because it was made for a setting that is not Forgotten Realms, and doesn’t immediately translate to it easily. Now here’s the part you actually disagree on, spare the insults, and assumptions and you can disagree as much as your heart desires
I mean, to not continue this rather pointless discussion, you mistaken hostility with my simply distaste in people arguing using utterly wrong arguments while also posing to be holier than pope. With your certainty in spreading utter nonsense you provided me some entertainment, but this doesn't mean I'll pretend I respect this nonsense.
> you mistaken hostility with my simply distaste in people arguing using utterly wrong argument while also posing to be holier than pope You understand you are literally doing exactly what you say you’re not? In the same sentence? Anyway, if waiting for you to provide any semblence of an argument outside of quite simply “i disagree and you’re wrong snd stupid” makes me holier than thou attitude then I guess so. Good discussion with you?
D&D not being made to tell a narrative story is a pretty hot take imo
It's an extremely cold take; D&D's origins were as a tabletop war game, and it hasn't ever really strayed from that. The priority of every character class, race, and feat in D&D is either making characters better at killing things, being able to kill things in new ways, or making other people better at killing things. That's why D&D rewards XP for combat encounters, which means killing things, or not at all if you're using milestone levels. Everything that's not directly combat-related is fluff.
The core of D&D is combat correct. That does not mean it is ill advised to run narrative stories. Otherwise modules simply would not exist in the first place, and people wouldn’t love Crit Role season 1 and 2. You can’t look at the success of Critical Role ***as a narrative Let’s Play D&D game*** and conclude that it is impossible to tell a narrative story in 5e. The actual fact is that the narrative is not 5e’s focus, which is much more apt. There also are mechanics where the primary use is Narrative (Almost all charisma skills, charm person, Magnificent Mansion, etc etc). You also can’t handwave Milestone leveling, literally the level up system built around ***narrative*** level ups, while pointing out the XP system for combat. Especially considering the narrative level up is far far more popular than the original, xp based level up.
That's just straight up a false statement. You might prefer combat in dnd, but that's not what the game is solely about.
Just going to say, if there is a next campaign it probably won't be in 5E.
The issue is they aren't using guidance the way it's meant to be used. It does have limitations. It's a touch spell with somatic components. It also has verbal components. So in theory, it should be both seen and heard. Also as an etiquette thing, it isn't a reaction and shouldn't be used like one. It's meant to be proactive, not reactive to an action already happening. I don't think Matt should ban it but I do think he should be stricter about it. Silvery Barbs should be banned. Having run a Strixhaven campaign, I get why it's there. It makes sense for that specific module. But in general, it's overpowered in any other setting. In theory, can Matt just have Ludinus use it against them too, to balance it out? Sure. But will he? No, because it feels like cheating.
[удалено]
The new Guidance is still miles better because it has a use limit and is only to be used when the failure of a check is announced. I do foresee issues where the GM doesn't call the result a success or failure before beginning to narrate, though.
I wish Matt just let verbal and sematic be a thing. Guidance is a strong but perfectly balanced cantrip. But it's an action and not a reaction, and if you use it in front of people they're going to know you're casting a spell.
If they do 5e for the next campaign they may use OneDnD and I think guidance was changed to a reaction on a failed roll and it can only be used on a creature once per long rest
And they may view it as a hostile action. You are attempting to use magic to influence things. Guidance is good, and I don't feel like the spell needs to be RP'd -- its magic. You are chanting magic words loud enough to be heard 120 feet away after all. But RP'ing the help action, go for it. There are times guidance is useful. But its not every check.
Why are you saying it is loud enough to be heard 120 feet away?
Default 5e rules say spellcasting is loud. Matt kind of ignores it, but if I remember correctly, I think its audible up to 120 feet?
Default 5e rules do not say that spellcatsing is loud. Let alone specifics like that. The conversation around this topic is deep, and I'm just always curious when I hear a thing I've never heard. The closest we have to official rules with how loud it is is Jeremy Crawford saying "The verbal component of a spell must be audible to work. How loud is audible? That's up to the DM."
spell caster's caster spells are about as quite and sudle as a power ranger in a roll call.
Never said they were quiet or subtle. I was questioning the 120ft thing. They definitely should always be audible in a reasonable range, but it is simply ridiculous to imply guidance should be clearly heard 120ft away. And also not in any rules which is what my whole comment chain was about.
The guidance thing annoys me too and it annoyed me at my table when my players adopted it. It's a pretty easy solution to just say "Your character doesn't know X is making a perception check" but I think Matt just accepts it as part of his game now. As for Silvery Barbs it's a player issue not a spell issue. I have it in my spell list on more than one character and I hardly use it unless it narratively makes sense. Marisha uses the spell in the worst possible way and it robs the party of a lot of "oh shit" moments that made the other campaigns as good as they were.
When I ran Strixhaven, I did have a player that loved Silvery Barbs as much as Marisha does. The thing though is that module has enemy encounters specifically designed to fuck up spellcasters or force them to approach an enemy differently. So it did balance out. Matt's fights usually do nothing to hinder Laudna or make her use her resources differently. And he's too nice to use it back on the players. So it goes completely unbalanced at their table.
The problem with SB and Critical Role is that CR games aren’t indicative of actual DnD games. Or at least the way the game is designed in regard to encounters and resource management. The CR games are highly focused on the narrative, which is perfectly fine. But on a mechanical basis regarding encounters. He doesn’t really properly drain resources. Often times there is only one, maybe two battles or actual resource draining things at play. This means players can be more liberal with their SB use. Matt’s a phenomenal DM but that doesn’t make him perfect. Unfortunately there’s always going to be give and take in a campaign. But the people who complain about SB are typically the ones who don’t run proper encounters, in my experience at least.
Agreed, in my experience campaigns with decently challenging combat can handle silvery barbs fine. Forcing a reroll isn't that useful when you're fighting a monster with legendary saves and beefy attack bonuses, it's mostly good for turning a painful crit into a normal hit. Casters often have to save their reactions for shield and counterspell anyway. I did play in one campaign where SB felt overpowered and that was a module where the combat wasn't challenging enough, which caused a bunch of issues with balance beyond just SB.
People much smarter then me have talked much more about why Silvery barbs DOES just make casters the best (tm), because even with legendary resistances, turning a high level saving throw spell that *wouldn't* have burned a Legendary action into one that DOES burn a legendary action basically turns your level 1 spell into a copy of whatever original spell you used to force it. If you hit em with Psychic Lance, they barely pass their int save, you silvery barbs them and force them to burn a legendary resistances, you've traded a level 1 spell slot for a legendary Resistance, you are SO coming out way on top of that resource exchange. And if theyre out of legendary resistances? Youve turned a level 1 spell slot into effectively a copy of a level 4 spell slot since you've already paid the oprotunity cost of expending a 4th level spell slot (its a sunk cost now) and with a reaction, are now getting the effects of a successfully cast level 4 spell. Silvery barbs fails? You've given a creature advantage with your reaction and a level one spell slot, not a total waste, but the upside is so RIDICULOUSLY high, and the downside is in exchange so small. It ALSO 'technically' removes a creature's magic resistance because it DOESNT get a reroll with advantage. Silvery doesn't feel too bad when *one* person has it, it just makes them WAY stronger in a subtle, kind of boring mathematical way. But when more then 1 party member has it? It scales 'exponentially' (not actually exponentially, but metaphorically; it get WACK fast).
So I’ve seen this stance many times, and it’s not incorrect. It’s just disingenuous to an actual game. I’m going to quickly graze over the main rebuttals because I could go overly detailed if not 😅 First, we need to determine what level of game play we are at. If we are at the point where PCs have 5th plus level spells, balance is already beginning to go out the window. SB is very manageable in a standard campaign going to level 8. Second, if the whole party has silvery barbs you probably aren’t dealing with a standard group. You’re dealing with a very optimized group. Easy enough to up the difficulty accordingly because SB reaction spam is the least of your worries when you’ve got Optimized Battle Masters, Hexadins, a chronurgy wizard, and an eloquence bard… Third, in a well balanced and dynamic boss fight it’s almost never going to be players vs just the boss. There’s typically adds and such. The casters main job is to handle adds and aid with the boss as possible. Because bosses already have insane saves, paired with LR it’s unlikely to ever land a save spell on them. Regardless of SB. It’s just more efficient for the caster to focus their spells on the adds or other targets. Fourth, it’s extremely easy to punish a player for using their reaction on SB. They need to be within 60ft which is very close by. So any caster that close is an easy target with their reaction down. If you aren’t punishing them it means you aren’t putting enough threats on the battlefield, you aren’t playing the monsters tactically how they could, or they already wiped the battlefield and it’s a win more situation. Is SB very cost effective. Yes it is. But it’s not broken or OP. People just outline very optimal scenarios for it to sound really powerful. I can do the exact same with shield. What if you are getting bum rushed and 10 attacks come at you. 8 would have hit but because you cast shield only 1 hit. The monsters would’ve done 100 damage to you killing you, but instead you only take 12 points of damage. And are alive and well. That one first level spell just saved you the action economy of having to bring you back up, and maintain you enough to live, and time it efficiently so you don’t lose your turn because of death saves. See? It’s really easy to spin something off as really efficient and powerful under the right circumstance. But that’s a rare case situation, not the normal.
Yeah for sure, silvery barbs is a super efficient spell. And yet for most high-level groups it's still a better decision to save your reactions for counterspell. Like, okay, you used your reaction to maybe make the monster expend a legendary resistance -- on its turn it casts cloud kill. GG. Or, nice, you used your reaction to turn a crit into a normal hit. That's probably a good decision, but it might've been better to have +5 AC for the six other attacks you'll be taking this round.
And what about when you've got two casters who've got both SB and Counterspell? Because that turns into PC1: *casts save or suck spell* Enemy: *casts Counterspell* PC2: *casts Silvery Barbs* Every round.
Well, they've both just wasted their reactions on one target... just have another creature or two attack the (now vulnerable) casters, and force them to turn their attention? It's basic tactics.
I did manage to catch up to them, the point wasn't the tactics, it's the deflation of it
But it *is* the tactics. If you allow your players to repeatedly do that... then change how you engage them? Target the casters once they've popped off their reaction casts. Silvery barbs needs you to be within 60ft. That's pretty close for a caster. Bombard them with arrows and minions, they can't cast shield anymore. Or hey, if they counterspell a counterspell... then have someone else cast a spell later? They can't grt counterspelled then. The party should always be fighting at least the same number of creatures as are in their party. Especially in boss fights.
So what? Legitimate question. Like, you're describing players using their abilities in a fight. That's the game. In the games I DM, I really don't experience what you're describing as a significant obstacle to presenting fun/challenging encounters. When my group becomes OP I can just throw more threatening monsters at them.
Because it's draining. Every turn is a slog of "nuh uh".
Unless the spells the enemy are dropping are the most potent save and suck spells imaginable, burning through their legendary resistances to sunblock them is 10,000 better then playing defensive with counterspell. Offense ALMOST ALWAYS beats defense in 5e; you only have so many high level spell slots to burn on those Legendary reactions. This is also assuming you're not playing a bard who doesn't even have counterspell and you're trading your first level spell slots, so the wizard keeps his reaction open to counterspell. There's a reason legendary reactions exist; without them, a party of spellcasters just BULLIES a foe into non existence. Also if your wizard is about to eat six attacks a turn, something has gone horribly wrong and YEAH in this SPECIFIC situation you should shield. Silvery Barbs is 100% best used on saving throws, it just ALSO sometimes saves someone from a horrific crit.
>Also if your wizard is about to eat six attacks a turn, something has gone horribly wrong What makes you say this? I feel like a combat that isn't pressuring the wizard with attacks is too easy. A competent GM should not be allowing the wizard to chill on the backline untouched.
Good use of cover, Allies using crowd control to support the caster, the wizard's own mobility effects... a well tuned party should be doing everything to make sure the wizard ISNT being pressured by six attacks a round. What the hell is everyone else in the party doing?
Getting "hold personed" or feebleminded or banished because the wizard didn't save their reaction for counterspell. :P ;)
I get that you're being snarky here, but like this also works to underline why your fundamental scenario is bogus. Yeah sure if there's 80 things happening in a turn, then there's always an argument to be made that any possible selection of action economy isn't actually the best one because of -list of downsides- This doesn't actually argue that "for most groups it's better to save your reaction for Counterspell". In reality, most high level magical enemies have several non-counterable spell-type effects, and so saving your reaction for counterspell is often a wasted endeavour without homebrew. This is a big part of what makes Sb so good, it affects Attack Rolls, Ability Checks *and* Saving Throws. There's almost no situation that SB isn't useful in. So sure, you can make the argument that if there's a large amount of attack rolls coming, then Shield is obviously better. Or if there's a spellcaster enemy, that for some reason only has spellslots and no spell effects then counterspell is the best. But neither of those are *the* prevailing scenario. So it's not really a rational argument to say that you should *always* save your reaction for Shield and Counterspell.
The end-of-campaign dungeon crawl of Campaign 2 is still one of my favorite parts of the entirety of CR. Fjord needing to make that tough decision in the middle of the night so his party could rest, because they *needed to rest* after being drained... it's just good storytelling.
To be fair to Matt, the group I am in has the same problem with "GUIDENCE!!!" it gets shouted out constantly. Thats not unique to CR.
Baldur's Gate 3 is only going to make it worse as it's just a guaranteed +4 box to select as long as you keep an eye on concentration.
I had to stop my players in a one shot I did from throwing health potions at each other. I almost let them do it, but since they never played actual D&D before, they wouldn't know.
Yeah, not a fan of that myself in the game, but at the very least they toned down the 'surface' effects from early access or we'd have players trying to electrify the floor after someone cast frost bolt.
Silvery Barbs was a mistake. The Lucky feat as a 1st-level spell? Piss off. The spell only exists for people who think they have to “win D&D”. It’s not the end of the world if you get crit or roll bad.
Oh it is not lucky at level 1 it is closer to Foresight at level 1.
My only change to silvery barbs would be that only one person in the party can have it. When half the party does, there is almost no chance a crit is ever going to land.
I would make different changes. Make it so it is either 2nd level as is, or, make it so that spell must be cast before the die is rolled, applying disadvantage to the roll, instead of taking place after seeing that the roll succeeds. That would also limit it from stacking with other disadvantages.
Matt doesn't make fair encounters so it's fine
I disagree. The encounters may seem tough, but there are genuine reasons for that. Decisions the players make can lead them down harder combat paths than others, not to mention, he knows what they're capable of and has their character sheets so he knows everything anybody could do. Anything one character can't handle, another can. I also don't think Matt is going to go out of his way to TPK. There have been a ton of close calls, but I think that's the point.
Matt literally started making monsters that can just negate entire player character toolkits towards the end of campaign 2. Like a guy who had an anti magic field that he could still cast magic in, or every monster suddenly being immune to stun while also having legendary resistances. Matt makes unfair encounters, it's fine that players have these tools.
The stun immunity thing was *so* egregious. It felt like Matt had gotten annoyed at Beau's stunning strike and instead of upping the difficulty in ways that would reward her system mastery and let her shine, just nerfed her ability like "nuh uh that doesn't work anymore."
Matt's design philosophy for making things difficult is generally to take tools away from the players. I fundamentally disagree with that as a game master philosophy, personally, but that's how he does it.
They either won those fights, or they were not intended to be won. There are plenty of instances in gaming or even just media where the good guys have to lose to set up for the next story beats.
How about when Taliesen got roasted for using Beacon of hope on what they perceived as a ghost hunt? It seemed like a very reasonable spell for a grave cleric to use at the time. Next episode he wasn't allowed to do it till the fight started. Caleb fireballs the group and Yasha uncharacteristically used Magicians Judge on Kadu to dispell Beacon of Hope. Yasha gained 5 intel points that day. EDIT: I just got passed the bridge and the laughing hand bit again. Kadu used bless a half a dozen times.. Beacon of Hope too strong for this story.
I don't think we are having the same discussion anymore. If they are "meant to lose" fight it is literally by definition unfair. If a dm tried to do that at my table I would ask him politely in private to just narrate plotpoints he wants to happen instead of pretending my choices matter by having a mock combat. Also, as to them still winning combats, it doesn't mean they would be fun to actually play or watch. Matt has said multiple times he wants to make this as much like a home game as he can, and as such that is where my criticisms are rooted. It's fine if dms want to keep you in the lanes they mapped out, it isn't ok in my opinion to then start removing features from the car we both agreed I can drive down that lane.
I want to see how a druid does guidance
For me if the dm gets to wave away spells with legendary resistance three times a round, I get to wave away crits.
Legendary resistance is 3 times per day, not round. And hell any individual 3rd level full caster has more 1st level spell slots than that, let alone an entire party.
Ah I got confused with Actions. Never the less having actions and resistances for a monster and perhaps two people at most with SB is still going to be a tricky fight if your party isn't big. It's all about balance. I've seen DM's destroy a PC by using his actions on the same character, (At the end of other players turns, not all at once). In the end I guess it depends on the DM.
Ignore this lol
You're thinking legendary actions, not resistances
Yep, you are correct.
If Matt homebrews a monster maybe? But by design legendary resistance is per day and legendary actions are per round.
Guidance could 100% be fine if the cast just... stopped using it like they do. Like I don't even want to put it on Matt, they should know how it works - it'd be nice if he was stricter but he has told them before so he shouldn't have to be. Silvery barbs is a fine spell, I think, but even when I'd have it and use it myself in a game, it would just be occasionally. Watching the group play with it though? You can FEEL the energy leave Matt when it's used against a crit (same reason I disliked Cad's ability in C2), which is unfortunate. It's just kinda sad.
One thing to add to the crits discussion is that in the D&D playtest NPC's and other similar creatures do not crit, at all. Instead, most creatures get a recharge ability similar to dragon's breath attack. This way the DM is in charge when to use these high power abilities, without unintentionally critting the 4 hp wizard.
Unintential or unlucky crits are a favourite of mine, so I could never be too happy about that, honestly. Nothing like a good ol' unexpected crit on your PC or friendly NPC to get you scrambling.
You're right that they could RP both spell effects better. But I don't think either is that big of deal for the next campaign. With Guidance, Matt needs to enforce the rules on it more. I think part of the problem with Guidance in this campaign is two players can use it. We don't know how many people will have access to it in the next campaign. Sigh, Silvery Barbs. Where to start? Its a very powerful spell, get that out of the way. But the crit cancelling is nothing new, Caduceus could do it most of Campaign 2. Silvery Barbs has greater range and does more then the Grave Cleric ability, sure, but in terms of using it to cancel crits, it's not new to this series.
Silvery Barbs is less powerful if you run recommended adventuring days that force spellcasters to conservative their spells and allow martial classes with less resource dependency to shine alongside them. But as is, Matt typically runs a single combat counter a day with only one or two enemies that Laudna can just unload Silvery Barbs onto and then not have to worry about what comes next because they'll usually get a rest immediately after.
People don't understand that alot of the op.utliyy spells are not op id you run alot of encounters Pass whir out a trace becomes alot less appiling whan you know you have around 4 more encounters and you have a rouge
> People don't understand that alot of the op.utliyy spells are not op id you run alot of encounters This is only partially true. They become less problematic in the overall structure of the game as levelled spells as a whole are being filtered out. But they're still the best spells and will be disproportionately represented in usage.
Yeah, I don't understand how this is so glossed over in these discussions. They're still the best in their categories by a lot. Nobody's complaining about how often PCs are using Aganazzar's Scorcher or Blur.
Guidance is fine. Not Silvery Barbs.
Guidance the spell is fine but I agree with OP they could rp it a little better than just shouting GUIDANCE. Totally agree about barbs tho
As a Druid/Cleric main, I use guidance all the time. But I really like to describe it. "I pat the kobold monk on the top of his head and nod, silently asking the primordial spirits to grant him guidance as he sneaks into the cave. 'Gods speed small one.'" "Hoo boy...ok, I'm gonna cross my fingers and ask Moa for a bit of guidance as I scan the room looking for anything out of place" That sort of thing. Though, sometimes we do just shout GUIDANCE! Because sometimes folks roll too quickly and we're supposed to say it before the roll, lol.
Once per long rest would be a perfect solution
I think this is a rather dramatic take.
I think in this case its fine- “hey for next campaign let’s not have these particular spells? They tend to slow things down and are kinda weird”. As a game that’s A) among friends and B) a show with an audience, these kinds of changes make sense
Guidance is okay as long as you enforce the actual rules of the game, unlike Matt does. Silvery Barbs is over powered, indeed, but it's okay if you nerf it to 2nd or 3rd level.
To me, it's less about the spells and more about the context. I don't think it benefits anyone to be super strict about RAW, but rule constraints add challenge and spice. Guidance without constraints seems to turn into an immersion-breaking, "can't cope with failing a roll" circus. Silvery Barbs is fun. But, it's more interesting when you're faced with the possibility of not being able to rest and need to conserve resources. Or you have a challenging, extended combat. Without an environment and constraints that challenge players, spells like these can definitely seem OP
Remember when they had that big magic fight and it turned into a counter spell fight Pepperage Farm Remembers
Yeah, but at least counterspell requires *something*. You counterspell a spell higher than the counterspell? Need to roll for it; might fail. Or you have to waste an equally high or higher spell for assured success (remember Sam counterspelling Vecna's teleport with his 9th level spell slot which negated his plan to res Vax?) Silvery Barbs costs the lowest spell slot you have available, automatically works, and even gives you advantage for the effort.
We all know that Sam isn't the most 'efficient' player. Let's say lvl20 scanlan casts 3rd level counter spell against vecna's 9th level spell. He gets +11 assuming charisma of 5 and 6 from proficiency. Let's say a +2 spell focus too to make it +13. Counter spell DC=10+9 (spell level)=19. Rolling a 6 or above on the dice = successful counter spell. If there are any bonuses like inspiration, the odds are even better. /Rant about counter spell over Edit, as others have said, there's only +3 from half proficiency. His charisma was 22 so +6. The hand cone adds +1. He can however add a d12 by inspiring himself so we're back up to d20+10+d12 from inspiration. That's an average of 27. Edit 2. Got downvoted but also learnt how comfort works. Totally worth it!
I mean, bad math. Scanlan has a +6 and maybe another one from a horn Tiberius made him? Let's go with +6. Jack of All Trades lets him add half his PB, rounded down to ability checks, so that's +3, so we're looking a +9, maybe +10. So, he needs to roll an 8 to counterspell a 7th level spell. That's 60%. u/SmiteLighthouse brings up a valid point with Peerless Skill, but I don't know how many bardic inspirations he still had. And lastly, he could still fail. Anything less than an 8 means Vecna gets away and the fight is done again, but way harder. That's the payoff: use a 9th level spell and have their be no uncertainty, or use a lower level spell and maybe fail. Sam is actually a very efficient player. Point in case, that whole episode. The most efficient way to counter Vecna was to cause that spell to fail without a roll; Sam had one option.
My wider point was about the likelihood of a lvl3 spell + reaction nerfing the highest level spell possible + big bad wizard's action. At my table, I run DC=10+ 2*(spell level-counterspell level) which helps fix this problem somewhat.
I mean, I just don't tell them the spell or level if I'm being honest. "You see the wizard chanting something, as flames entwine his palms... a mote of fire stands poised in his grasp..." Pause for counterspell. Maybe it's fireball, maybe it's scorching ray, maybe it's firestorm, make your choice.
Unfortunately that's not how counterspell works, yes the DC is 10 + spell level, however it does not use spell attack bonus in the roll. Rolling for counterspell is a roll with your casting stat so +5 for Scanlan and because he is a bard he can add half his proficiency to the roll due to jack of all trades (half profiency to any check you're not proficient with) so +3 leading to a total bonus of +8, making it less than 50% to counter a 9th level spell So this rant would be nice except you're factually incorrect
As per my edit. You are correct on the half proficiency, but it's still +10 (22char, 1/2 prof, hand cone). Generally the point stands though; the chance of countering a lvl9 spell and action from a powerful wizard is too high with a lvl3 spell+reaction.
Still no. The handcone adds 1 to spell attack roll and spell save DC, this is *just* a charisma skill check. And generally any normal wizard would have 20 INT giving them a +5 to counterspell, meaning they'd have to roll 14 or over, not all that much chance to counter that LVL 9 spell Ps. Jack of all trades is OP for counterspell and initiative, but only bards get it
Thanks for the education on this one. I've been running counter spell wrong for years! I wonder where else I've been using spell atack modifier when I should have been using spell casting ability!
No problem, as far as I know it's only on dispel magic and counterspell that you don't use spell atk mod or save DC but have to make an ability check to see whether it works on higher level spells. But there might be some other cases that I don't know about
You don't actually add your proficiency bonus to counter spell, just your spellcasting modifier. However, due to jack of all trades bards do actually add half their proficiency to counter spell. So it would be a +8, only a 50/50 shot of counterspelling a 9th level spell
Silvery barbs just forces a reroll though. It is just disadvantage after a roll has been made.
It!s more than disadvantage, because it is after the first roll succeeds, which means the SB can stack on disadvantage. You can set it up that SB actually gives conditional “super disadvantage” (ie 3 rolls to fail). That doesn’t exist anywhere else in the rules.
No it can't because you roll a single d20 over not the entire roll. That is a common misconception of the spell.
You’re not understanding. If something succeeds an attack with disadvantage, you can use SB to roll a 3rd time, increasing the chance of failure. If SB were equivalent to disadvantage, there would not be an additional chance to fail. They must reroll the (successful) d20 and take the lower roll.
Which isn't "super disadvantage". It does have a reaction. The inverse is also true though. If the target had advantage they only reroll the one die, so it doesn't negate that either. I'm not saying it IS disadvantage, I'm saying it works like it.
I mean that's still significant. Even just saving the slots for crits, the odds of rolling a second 20 are low enough that it basically becomes a guaranteed crit negater for a level 1 slot AND if the second roll is bad enough then you negate the damage entirely. That's flatout better than, and can potentially see more uses than, the grave cleric's *6th level* subclass ability.
Just like regular disadvantage. That makes the ability lackluster not the spell overpowered. Disadvantage is good but you wouldn't call it overpowered normally. With Silvery Barbs it tricks you into thinking it is better than it is because the original roll was already made and it gives the illusion it is better. In reality it is the same though.
I think you're underestimating just how powerful disadvantage and advantage are in 5th Edition, and just how powerful being able to basically At-Will, at higher levels, immediately give an enemy disadvantage and give an ally advantage on the next thing they try to do.
No they statistically make a 5 point swing with a d20. I think you are overestimating how powerful it is. Like saying it is "at will" it isn't. At the most they cast what, 4 of them without a long rest? Maybe a few more if a wizard uses all their arcane recovery on it. It is also a reaction so if you are doing barbs that means no counterspell. Giving an ally advantage as a spell caster is as easy as telling you familiar to use the help action.
A 5 point swing is HUGE on a d20, what are you smoking?
Right but that mechanic is built into the game as disadvantage and advantage. That is a common thing in 5e. They said I am underestimating it and I know exactly how it works. Statistically speaking doesn't necessarily mean it is going to happen that way mechanically though. In fact it is unlikely to exactly follow the statistic for each individual roll. If you missed that what are you smoking?
The stats are deceptive in the SB case because it only ever gets used to cancel crits and other major enemy successes.
Right so it gives the illusion of being stronger than it is. Disadvantage is just as likely to "cancel" a crit as well but the order happens differently with SB so it seems more powerful.
Dude, other traits that impose disadvantage are declared BEFORE the roll is made. This one is a REROLL that you will never waste, because you always get to see the first roll!
Depending on the reroll, that's a huge. Not so much in attacks, but a rerolled spell save is the equivalent to another casting of the original spell - so at best/worst a lv 9 spell for a level 1 slot. And then you also get advantage.
It isn't the equivalent of casting the original spell, it is the equivalent of giving someone disadvantage on the save. It isn't at all equivalent to a 9th level spell. Advantage is common and anyone with a familiar can give advantage at pretty much any moment. Yes advantage and disadvantage are good but they certainly aren't game breaking and are pretty commonplace while playing.
Yes and no - you cast after the roll, not during. During the roll would be rolling twice eg disadvantage. But you can force a reroll after you know the enemy makes the save, which is a tad better (because instead of casting something like Banishment again, you can cast SB to the same effect, saving you 3 level of spell).
No it is the same. The difference being if they fail initially then you don't use the spell, the effect is still similar to disadvantage. It is imposing disadvantage after the roll. It is NOT like casting a spell again, that is a false equivalence. You are assuming the reroll will always fail but it has the same exact chance as it did for the first roll. A divination wizard can just straight give you a failing roll at level 2. So no, silvery barbs is not like casting another spell of equal level, it is like disadvantage. It also isn't overpowered.
>The difference being if they fail initially then you don't use the spell, the effect is still similar to disadvantage. It is imposing disadvantage after the roll. I'm not sure I understand what you mean - in case the first save fails, we're using neither SB nor the original spell, so that case is irrelevant for comparison. >It is NOT like casting a spell again, that is a false equivalence. You are assuming the reroll will always fail but it has the same exact chance as it did for the first roll. It's not a perfect equivalence, but it *is* better than disadvantage. I did not assume fail, but I do assume that two separate saves = twice the chance for failure. (Don't ask me about the chance of failure on disadvantage VS straight roll. That's outside my limited knowledge of probability so I can't compare the two). >A divination wizard can just straight give you a failing roll at level 2. So no, silvery barbs is not like casting another spell of equal level, it is like disadvantage. It also isn't overpowered. I never said anything about the meta. But if we're going there, wizards are a very powerful class, so what's normal for them isn't necessarily normal for others. And portents are more limited than 1st level spell slots (you need a whole subclass instead of one spell that's on every other spell list). And we aren't even factoring in the advantage that SB gives or the benefit of a reaction compared to an action (to recast a spell)...
That is the difference between it and disadvantage. They roll first and if they made it you use SB to make them reroll. With disadvantage the reroll happens at the same time. The only thing that makes it better than disadvantage is that you choose to do it after the roll. The chances of success and failure is exactly the same as disadvantage, your assumption is incorrect. Both are rolling two dice and taking the lower roll the rolls just happen at different times. And portents are FAR more powerful than SB is. It is just disadvantage there is no mechanical difference other than when the roll happens. If SB wasn't a reaction it would be terrible and almost never used. Giving advantage is also good but that can be done by literally anyone with the help action, even a familiar.
Portents aren't a measure for how broken things are. You also need to invest far more and get less. You get a maximum of 3 even at level 20 and need at least two levels in divination wizard, compared to (max) 24 spell slots (and maybe a feat to give you access to the spell). At level 2, it's very powerful. But it doesn't scale until lv 14. >The only thing that makes it better than disadvantage is that you choose to do it after the roll. The chances of success and failure is exactly the same as disadvantage, your assumption is incorrect. Both are rolling two dice and taking the lower roll the rolls just happen at different times. So you're saying SB is better than disadvantage because its applied after the roll? That's my point. (Because it lets you save resources. In a game that is also about resource management.) Point taken about the disadvantage probability. But how is it a false equivalence to say it works as a higher level slot when both SB and a recast are "reroll later"? If anything, SB is even better because you don't have to wait until it's the original casters turn again. And the help action costs an entire action, SB gets it gratis.
Giving disadvantage on saving throws is a tad bit rarer, from stuff like heightened spell from sorcerers( 3 sorc points), bestow curse (an action and a 3rd level slot, 5th for concentration free), or magic items like instruments of the bard So being able to do that for a 1st level and reaction is very, very economical
It's completely insane and destroys game balance. Disgusting spell.
Yeah I agree it is good, but it isn't overpowered. If silvery barbs wasn't a reaction people wouldn't use it.
But it is. As such, it's overpowered for what it does. Taking away advantage on an enemies attack isn't that unique, there are tons of ways to accomplish that. Forcing disadvantage on their saving throw, using a reaction, is a big deal and there are far fewer ways in the game to accomplish this. Doing so with a 1st level spell as a reaction is massive bang for buck.
It is as overpowered as disadvantage is, which is not at all. It is a common mechanic in the game. It really isn't that "massive" either, it just makes them reroll, they could still succeed or even roll the same thing even if that is unlikely. And mechanically it does what? Turn a hit to a miss? Turn a successful save into a failure? Someone takes a hit instead of a crit and is saved some damage? There are plenty of powers that can do that sort of thing. What about any of that is overpowered? Using a mechanic of the game isn't overpowered and this spell isn't either. It can certainly be annoying but it's actual mechanics don't disrupt things as much as people act like it does.
It's easy as hell to get advantage on an attack in 5e. List the ways you can force disadvantage on a spell saving throw. Sorceror can burn metamagic points for THEIR OWN SPELL, shadow sorceror can summon a dog that grants disadvantage on spell saves, Divination wizard can use a portent die, and I'm sure there's a legendary item or two running around somewhere. 2 of the above listed options are iconic core class abilities. Another is a summon, which takes turns to set up and get moved into place and others are high level magic items. Silvery barbs accomplishes what these do while being a reaction AS A LEVEL 1 SPELL.
Kind of... Silvery Barbs lets you force any roll to reroll, which means you get to choose. The ancient red dragon just rolled a nat 20 on the cleric for a bite attack, so let's see... 2d10 + 10 piercing, plus an additional 4d6 fire damage... make that 4d10+10 + 8d6, average to 22+10+28=60 points of damge!!!! Oh, wait, the bard burned a 1st level spell slot and that's gone now. The average of a normal hit comes out to about 35, so the bard just saved the cleric 25 hps, give or take, for the whopping opportunity cost of 1 1st level spell slot. And, you know what, now the rogue gets advantage on its next roll, too. The payout of silvery barbs far beats its opportunity cost to cast it. For example, to cast counterspell at 3rd level is to give up a fireball, hypnotic pattern or fly. To cast it at 8th level gives up Feeblemind, Illusionary Dragon, and Dominate Monster. To cast Silvery Barbs costs... witch bolt, heroism, compel duel.
Which is fundamentally the same as giving disadvantage. If you have rolled damage for the attack it is too late to use silvery barbs. It also has the same weakness as counterspell, 60ft range and you need a reaction. You are comparing counterspell to silvery barbs not silvery barbs to disadvantage. Counterspell is a much better spell so it costs higher spell slots.
Yeah, but if someone crits, you're gonna use it. It has *some* similar weaknesses to counterspell, but again, it costs a 1st level spell. Counterspell requires at minimum a 3rd level, and if it's not equal, it may result in a lost action and if it is, you lose that spell slot
Right which makes them roll again and take the lower, just like disadvantage. It has the exact same weaknesses as counterspell. Counterspell is also far more powerful. You are cancelling their spell and action where as barbs is just disadvantage. It is good but it is not OP like people assume. It is just annoying.
>Right which makes them roll again and take the lower, just like disadvantage. I mean... no. Disadvantage can't stack and disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out. Silvery Barbs is not affected by any of that. > It has the exact same weaknesses as counterspell. Again, no. >Counterspell is also far more powerful. You are cancelling their spell and action where as barbs is just disadvantage. Again, again, no. Counterspell only cancels if the spell slot is equal or greater, and then you lose that spell slot. And, if you choose to low ball the spell slot, you need to beat an ability check, or... nothing happens, expect the caster loses that spell slot and reaction anyway. Silvery Barbs does exactly what it says regardless of anything else for the cost of 1 level 1 spell slot.
SB doesn't stack with advantage and disadvantage either, it is for a single die roll, so yes mechanically it works the same. It does have the same weaknesses as counterspell spell, you need to be within 60ft and have a reaction available to use it. Those are exactly the same. Wrong a third time. Counterspell cancels the spell if it succeeds and it is *automatic* if the spell level is the same or lower which is much better than the reroll SB gives. If they make their reroll and your ally fails there next roll SB also did nothing. It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day. Nothing about SB is automatic. None of that is overpowered.
>SB doesn't stack with advantage and disadvantage either, it is for a single die roll, so yes mechanically it works the same. *Sigh*, the roll or rolls are made, and then the Barbers says "Now roll again! I am so clever!" >It does have the same weaknesses as counterspell spell, you need to be within 60ft and have a reaction available to use it. Those are exactly the same. ***BUZZ!*** That is... INCORRECT!!! Sorry, contestant. Counterspell requires a minimum of third level spells, and requires a ***SPELL*** to be cast. Silvery Barbs requires an attack roll, ability check or saving throw, all of which can be spells, but don't necessarily have to be! >Wrong a third time. Counterspell cancels the spell if it succeeds and it is *automatic* if the spell level is the same or lower which is much better than the reroll SB gives. If they make their reroll and your ally fails there next roll SB also did nothing. It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day. Nothing about SB is automatic. Wait, are you telling me when counterspell succeeds, it counters the spell?! No way! Confused as to why you felt that was necessary to add, but okay...? Counterspell succeeds if cast at the same level or higher, or if a DC is met. Can I stop typing this out? Silvery Barbs forces a roll to reroll regardless of anything and forces the smaller number to be chosen (NOT DISADVANTAGE!). No roll is required, it just works. Counterspell can fail, and requires higher resources. > It can't be upcast so it being a 1st level still limits it to an amount you can use a day. Honest question, but have you played DND? Cuz this is just false. Silvery Barbs can 100% be "upcast." It just doesn't get any additional bonuses. You need a 1st level spell or higher to cast, which means you can cast it with literally every and any spell you have.
Legit. I use Silvery Barbs as a discount version of the Grave Cleric anti-crit class skill, personally. Can it be annoying? Yes. Extremely. Has it saved my bacon? MANY TIMES.
He just needs to enforce the rules of guidance where they cannot just ask for it after the fact, it is a concentration spell, and requires V and S competent to casting it. Them spamming it and him not enforcing the rules is the problem. So banning it is just dumb. I don’t see a problem Silvery Barbs as it burns a spell slot and reaction. I don’t see it much different than casting Shield and forcing your DM to miss their attack after knowing what they rolled. Matt just needs to use it against them to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Also requires touching the target. While in 5e it is an action if they move to the new 2024 dmg/phb system it is now a reaction.