But that doesn't change the fact that its factually true that shield gets worse as CR increases.
They seem to be saying that it is misleading because the degree it gets worse is being presented as deciding, particularly vs Silvery Barbs (which is the subject of this thread, after all).
I am simply stating that shield gets worse for the value.
Barbs gets better as you get to effectively recast better and better spells.
Being able to force a reroll on fireball is good.
Forcing a reroll on Disintegrate is amazing.
Its value for the 1st level slot you use is exponentially better with new spell levels.
Those AC tables are a good way to look at how overall AC impacts effective HP, but they are not an appropriate way to look at Shield
Assuming a your AC is higher than the monster's hit bonus and that the enemy attacks without (dis)advantage, Shield will ALWAYS:
Completely block the triggering attack.
Have a 25% of blocking each successive attack until it wears off.
It does this regardless of your base AC or the enemy's +hit. It will always be expected to prevent the same amount of hits/damage.
The only way that Shield scales with your AC is if the enemy has advantage or disadvantage. When the enemy has advantage, shield will prevent more damage if you have higher AC relative to enemy hit bonus. When the enemy has disadvantage, shield actually prevents the most damage when you have low AC relative to the enemy hit bonus, as long as they aren't in auto-hit range.
Shield can't help with saving throws, that is a given, but if you want to compare the defensive abilities of Shield to the Defensive abilities of Barbs, Shield wins. If you use it, you KNOW it will block the attack you are using it against (and maybe a few more before your turn comes back around), where as Barbs is a maybe at best. Now the one thing that Barbs does as a defensive spell that Shield can't is negating Critical Hits. Also, as a defensive spell, Barbs never really gets better since the odds being hit or missed by an attack don't seem to change all that much as characters progress through the levels.
Barbs only really shines as a do over for spell saves, and even then, how effective it is depends heavily on the save. As we know, some creatures are likely to make certain saves even with disadvantage just because their bonuses are so high.
The advantage thing is a red herring. Advantage is super easy to get so is hardly worth talking about as part of this spell.
I think barbs is better than shield because of the versatility. The ability to keep the cleric from going down or some scenario like that is something shield cannot do.
Barbs is more powerful than shield for sure as you basically get a second casting of save or suck spells and thus it's power goes up as your level does. Yes.
Since it works on attacks, saves, and ability checks barbs is more versatile. Yes.
Barbs can counter a nat 20. Shield cannot. Yes.
Shield gets less and less valuable as to hit bonus gets better. Kinda False/Misleading.
You can protect another person with barbs... You can't with shield Yes.
Overall you get a lot more value for the spell at level 1 with barbs Yes.
Replies in red. You're mostly correct but wildly off-base about how much shield helps against creatures with high +hit numbers.
Say you even have a moderately low AC, something like AC 13. An enemy would need to have higher than +11 before shield had any diminished returns. That is well into the mid/high teen CRs. And, in this case, it isn't really shield's fault but your own for having a 13 AC.
If you had a moderately respectable AC 16, the enemy would need higher than a +14 hit before you saw any drop in effectiveness from shield. If you're facing off against adult red dragons, and have a lower AC than that, you're basically trying to reroll.
Really, their to hit needs to be basically the same number as your AC before shield loses any effectiveness. If that is happening, you're asking to die anyway since you'd be at basically 100% hitrate against you. And silvery barbs isn't helping in this case because they're going to for sure still hit you anyway if they rerolled since all rolled numbers hit you, except basically a 1. Shield is actually better than barbs in this case, even though it isn't at 100% effectiveness, because at least it is somewhat effective at all, while barbs basically does nothing here. Eg:
Say AC 13, and the enemy does have a +11 to hit. They hit you on anything except a 1. But, if you shield, then it brings your AC to 18, and they'd miss with a roll of 6 or less on the die. That's still useful. But, Barbs? They'd still only miss if the reroll was a 1. Far less effective in this situation.
So it is true that shield gets less effective as CR Increases which increases average attack bonus?
No. That is false. Shield does not get less effective as CR goes up. In fact, compared to silvery barbs the value of shield stays consistent and even goes up and silvery barbs goes down as the disparity between enemy attack mod and your AC grows. The higher their hit modifier gets the better shield is vs silvery barbs.
I am not sure where that is misleading... I am not sure where you are getting your math
Get my math? As in shop for it at a local grocer? What are you saying.
but if you have an 16 AC (which is +3 to dex on a point buy and mage armor always) then shield makes you have an AC 21 likely well into T2....
This is neat and all but not exactly relevant. That is asking the odds of hitting at least once with 3 attacks. Totally different, irrelevant, question.
I am not seeing where this is misleading...your ability to avoid all hits is worse with the same spell slot use....
False. 100% False.
Let's examine that AC13 and +11 attack example again. (Since you listed the +11 values above.)
Each attack has a 95% chance to hit.
Shield drops them to 70% chance to hit.
Silvery Barbs, conversely, only drops one attacks odds of hitting you from 95% to 90.25% while leaving the other two unmodified.
So Shield is still very very effective despite being used against a High hit modifier.
Remember your claim was that as the hit modifier goes up shield becomes...less...effective.
But does it? Not compared to silver barbs, no it doesn't.
Why? Well as we can see even against a high Hit value shield is out performing it.
If you take at least one hit you have a chance of dropping that CON spell (especially if you decide to go with A C over CON resilient). It is straight up diminishing returns.
I am not saying barbs is BETTER at preventing attacks than Shield...in fact its much worse. The only time I would use Barbs instead of shield is when the creature rolled a natural 20 on the first swing.
Okay so you do agree that shield remains better than barbs and you're just... saying "Hi"? Hi.
But that doesn't change the fact that its factually true that shield gets worse as CR increases.
It doesn't.
Shield blocks 25% of attacks. By default, this is what it does. It does this at low CR, and at high CR. It does this in house, and with a mouse. It does it on a boat, with a goat. It blocks 25% of attacks Sam I Am.
Only in extreme disparities of hit modifier vs AC does this change.
+11 and AC 13. Let's revisit.
Only a Nat 1 misses. Nat 2+ results in hitting 13+. So if you activate shield you can now block nat 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 rolls. That if five of the possible twenty die results. 25% of rolls.
Is That different at lower level, you ask? No. +6 vs AC 13. Nat rolls of 1-6 miss. 7+ hits. So activating shield nullifies rolls of 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Believe it or not. That is five of the twenty die results. and shield blocked 25% of attacks here too.
Compare most ACs vs expected hit modifiers and: you. will. find. 25% of attacks get blocked by shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This also leaves it the ability to counter Counterspell though, which isn't nothing. But it does stop it from being cast as a free recast of a failed save spell.
It leaves it the ability to sometimes counter counterspell. It won't work if counterspell doesn't need a roll, and even if it does, it probably gets through half the time, whereas countering with counterspell works 100%.
Shield blocks 25% of attacks. By default, this is what it does. It does this at low CR, and at high CR. It does this in house, and with a mouse. It does it on a boat, with a goat. It blocks 25% of attacks Sam I Am.
That's absolutely false. How many attacks Shield blocks is dependent on how many possible values the attacker's d20 can roll that puts them >= you AC but < your AC + 5, and that's a function of the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus. For example, if you're a wizard using mage armor with an AC of 15, Tiamat is still going to hit you 95% of the time, and Shield is blocking exactly 0% of attacks. An ancient red dragon is still going to hit 90% of the time, and the only number it could roll for which Shield would actually help is a 2, so Shield is blocking 5% of attacks.
OptimusGrimus's point is that the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus is very roughly correlated with CR.
Those AC tables are a good way to look at how overall AC impacts effective HP, but they are not an appropriate way to look at Shield
Assuming a your AC is higher than the monster's hit bonus and that the enemy attacks without (dis)advantage, Shield will ALWAYS:
Completely block the triggering attack.
Have a 25% of blocking each successive attack until it wears off.
It does this regardless of your base AC or the enemy's +hit. It will always be expected to prevent the same amount of hits/damage.
The only way that Shield scales with your AC is if the enemy has advantage or disadvantage. When the enemy has advantage, shield will prevent more damage if you have higher AC relative to enemy hit bonus. When the enemy has disadvantage, shield actually prevents the most damage when you have low AC relative to the enemy hit bonus, as long as they aren't in auto-hit range.
That's simply not true... The tables show that attack bonus scales but your AC doesn't....
I also didn't even factor in if the creature has ADV which makes shield even less effective.
So it's not always 25%.
It's fair point on the first attack though as you would likely know to use it.
Technically the DM could just say it hits without giving you the total and you would have to guess.
Overall it's effectiveness does decline with CR as creatures get a better attack bonus, more ways to gain ADV on attacks, and get more attacks.
If you still take Heighten Spell instead of silvery barbs you've now made a mathematical error in character building.Silvery barbs is just straight up superior. Now... for those paying closer attention, you could, if you liked, actually take both. The fabled triple disadvantage is now at your fingertips. Why even have enemies roll saves amirite?
I mean, that's patently false.
Is it?
I like Silvery Barbs better overall, but Silvery Barbs isn't strictly superior to Heightened Spell.
It is.
Heightened Spell has multiple advantages, two big ones being action economy and Spells Known Tax.
Action economy? Because of using your reaction? I guess, maybe. That's a valid Con. Not a strong one imo since Heightened spell uses spell points. Lots of them. So if you're planning on doing it more than once you'll be burning Bonus Actions converting your spell slots into more sorc points. Then you're losing the action economy argument pretty strongly at this point. 3 BA> 1 reaction imo.
Spell Known Tax sure, but this spell is a must have now for all sorcs. Sorcs need versatile spells that can be used in as many situations as possible and this.. this is that and more. Name a single situation SB isn't useable? Must have sorc spell, even if you're not using at as a better heightened spell replacement.
In what ways is it better than Heightened? Only have to burn the slot after they failed, so it is never wasted. That's super resource efficient. A more accurate comparison is 2 heightened spells vs one silvery barbed spell. That's 6 spell points vs 1 spell slot.
Other pros? You know what a sorc has less of than spells known? Metamagics known. Heightened takes up one of those and now you can take something else, meaning even more versatile. An even more pro along the same lines? Not only is it a better more efficient resource saving heightened spell (plus a bunch of other utility tacked on) but you don't even need to know metamagic at all and BAM you're effectively doing it better than a sorc can anyway. Get rekt sorcs; forcing multiple saves isn't your schtick any more.
Its absurd to call it a mathematical error to choose otherwise, even if its the overall better option.
Naw, makes sense. It is objectively better in every conceivable way.
Your SP -> Spell slot conversion is also an odd comparison. Converting spell slots to SP is intentionally inefficient. Why use that as a baseline when Sorcerers start with a pool of SP?
Heightened Spell takes 3 spell points dude. It is not at ALL a weird conversion if you do it more than once you're going to need to refill your spell points by burning spell slots. At level 6 you could do it twice. Then you're burning spell slots. How many slots to use it again? Three. Three 1st level slots to use heightened spell. Or I guess you could burn a whole 3rd level slot instead if you wanted?? But that's not a better argument on your side lol.
How many 1st spell slots to use silvery barbs?
One.
One you only need to use if. IF. The enemy made their save. That is 6 times more efficient plus does more, by adding advantage to an ally (or yourself) and is still way more versatile.
Ie Mathematically better.
Need more proof?
How many Silvery Barbs could we cast if we didn't burn them on Heightened spell? 6 spell points converts into ... 3 1st level spells. So we can either force disadvantage twice... or... silvery barbs 3 times, from just the spell points alone.
Math.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Shield blocks 25% of attacks. By default, this is what it does. It does this at low CR, and at high CR. It does this in house, and with a mouse. It does it on a boat, with a goat. It blocks 25% of attacks Sam I Am.
That's absolutely false. How many attacks Shield blocks is dependent on how many possible values the attacker's d20 can roll that puts them >= you AC but < your AC + 5, and that's a function of the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus. For example, if you're a wizard using mage armor with an AC of 15, Tiamat is still going to hit you 95% of the time, and Shield is blocking exactly 0% of attacks. An ancient red dragon is still going to hit 90% of the time, and the only number it could roll for which Shield would actually help is a 2, so Shield is blocking 5% of attacks.
OptimusGrimus's point is that the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus is very roughly correlated with CR.
OH I see what you're saying!! Oh that makes so much sense. Thanks. You're saying that only in extreme disparities of hit modifier vs AC does is deviate from blocking 25% of all attacks. I wish I thought to add that into my comment immediately after what you're quoting.
Shield blocks 25% of attacks. By default, this is what it does. It does this at low CR, and at high CR. It does this in house, and with a mouse. It does it on a boat, with a goat. It blocks 25% of attacks Sam I Am.
Only in extreme disparities of hit modifier vs AC does this change.
It's actually funny. I even posted more than once exactly when it happens. AC-1=enemy hit mod is when shield begins to loss effectiveness. But even in this situation it still blocks attacks better than silvery barbs does.
Silvery barbs only worse than shield in this extreme cases and despite that yall arguing that it is somehow better than shield in this case? But the opposite is true. Silvery Barbs is best when the enemy chance to hit you is exceptionally low, because in those cases using shield probably wasn't needed for the followup attacks since they'd likely miss anyway and it is more likely you're only getting hit by crits at this point anyway and shield isn't stopping those at all while SB is.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Those AC tables are a good way to look at how overall AC impacts effective HP, but they are not an appropriate way to look at Shield
Assuming a your AC is higher than the monster's hit bonus and that the enemy attacks without (dis)advantage, Shield will ALWAYS:
Completely block the triggering attack.
Have a 25% of blocking each successive attack until it wears off.
It does this regardless of your base AC or the enemy's +hit. It will always be expected to prevent the same amount of hits/damage.
The only way that Shield scales with your AC is if the enemy has advantage or disadvantage. When the enemy has advantage, shield will prevent more damage if you have higher AC relative to enemy hit bonus. When the enemy has disadvantage, shield actually prevents the most damage when you have low AC relative to the enemy hit bonus, as long as they aren't in auto-hit range.
That's simply not true... The tables show that attack bonus scales but your AC doesn't....
I also didn't even factor in if the creature has ADV which makes shield even less effective.
So it's not always 25%.
Yes. It is. Always 25%. With advantage. Without advantage. 25% of attack rolls, shield blocks.
And also again for the millionth time: only in extreme disparities of AC vs attack mod does this change: Exact point of that change is AC-1=attack mod.
Enemy has a +10 to hit? AC12+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Enemy has +14 to hit? AC 16+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Tiamat, the god, or whatever, has a +19 to hit? AC21+ and shield blocks 25% of every attack roll from succeeding.
The math is very simple. AC-1= attack mod. <--- This is the threshold you might encounter in extreme situations where shield is no longer blocking 25% of attacks. The types of situations like when a level 1 wizard tries to fight a dragon god or whatever and AC 15 isn't cutting it versus Tiamat's +19 to hit.
Overall it's effectiveness does decline with CR as creatures get a better attack bonus, more ways to gain ADV on attacks, and get more attacks.
False. It only declines if you're running around like a madlad at level 20 with a 13AC. If your AC even remotely pretends to keep up it stays identically effective. 25%.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Those AC tables are a good way to look at how overall AC impacts effective HP, but they are not an appropriate way to look at Shield
Assuming a your AC is higher than the monster's hit bonus and that the enemy attacks without (dis)advantage, Shield will ALWAYS:
Completely block the triggering attack.
Have a 25% of blocking each successive attack until it wears off.
It does this regardless of your base AC or the enemy's +hit. It will always be expected to prevent the same amount of hits/damage.
The only way that Shield scales with your AC is if the enemy has advantage or disadvantage. When the enemy has advantage, shield will prevent more damage if you have higher AC relative to enemy hit bonus. When the enemy has disadvantage, shield actually prevents the most damage when you have low AC relative to the enemy hit bonus, as long as they aren't in auto-hit range.
That's simply not true... The tables show that attack bonus scales but your AC doesn't....
I also didn't even factor in if the creature has ADV which makes shield even less effective.
So it's not always 25%.
Yes. It is. Always 25%. With advantage. Without advantage. 25% of attack rolls, shield blocks.
And also again for the millionth time: only in extreme disparities of AC vs attack mod does this change: Exact point of that change is AC-1=attack mod.
Enemy has a +10 to hit? AC12+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Enemy has +14 to hit? AC 16+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Tiamat, the god, or whatever, has a +19 to hit? AC21+ and shield blocks 25% of every attack roll from succeeding.
The math is very simple. AC-1= attack mod. <--- This is the threshold you might encounter in extreme situations where shield is no longer blocking 25% of attacks. The types of situations like when a level 1 wizard tries to fight a dragon god or whatever and AC 15 isn't cutting it versus Tiamat's +19 to hit.
Overall it's effectiveness does decline with CR as creatures get a better attack bonus, more ways to gain ADV on attacks, and get more attacks.
False. It only declines if you're running around like a madlad at level 20 with a 13AC. If your AC even remotely pretends to keep up it stays identically effective. 25%.
I'm not sure how you can say that when the math is right there...
Heightened Spell has multiple advantages...[including] Spells Known Tax.
Not really. Let's take level 13 because that's where most of my published adventures end, so it's a reasonable maximum.
At L13, you get 12 known spells and 3 metamagic options. I can either sacrifice a third of my metallic options for Heightened Spell, or one twelfth of my known spells to get Silver Barbs. I'd argue that this makes SB more favourable, because it allows a Sorceror to have a different metamagic option, which is in much shorter supply. Obviously thenratios work out differently, but after L1, you'll always have more spells than metamsgic options. Of course, which one is more valuable is debatable, but metamagic is the one in shorter supply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Naw, makes sense. It is objectively better in every conceivable way.
See, the great thing about arguing against drastic claims like this is that I only need to provide one counterexample to disprove them.
Like if you are in a campaign with lots of enemy spellcasters. I'd almost always rather keep my reaction open than forcing a reroll. Your reaction is super important in some combats. Heightened Spell needs to be less efficient than Silvery Barbs, for that very reason. (Also, as a side note, who is burning 3 consecutive bonus actions in combat to restore 1 SP at a time? You're either converting outside of combat, or doing one larger conversion in an act of desperation).
To be clear, I think Silvery Barbs is fantastic and that I am not a huge fan of Heightened spell. But I think the types of claims you are making, and the implications that come with them, go too far and can be detrimental. I don't like the implication that people are being stupid and making factual character building errors by not choosing certain spells or abilities. This isn't a +2 weapon vs +1 weapon scenario. There are tradeoffs in both directions, and while they might not be perfectly balanced, they exist.
A ton of factors in your campaign or party compositions can often adjust the value of spells and abilities, and I encourage players to take that into account. Will Silvery Barbs often be the more beneficial feature to have? Yea, I'd say so. Is it "objectively better in every conceivable way", such that a player who chooses otherwise has factually made "a mathematical error in character building"?Not even close.
Why everyone is screaming one over the other? be smart and use them both. Should be smart enough to know when one is better than the other in different situations, that way u cover more bases. Its just another spell in the huge spell list, not the one wins all spell ppl is making it sound. Its just another utility tool in the belt for various situations.
Heightened Spell has multiple advantages...[including] Spells Known Tax.
Not really. Let's take level 13 because that's where most of my published adventures end, so it's a reasonable maximum.
At L13, you get 12 known spells and 3 metamagic options. I can either sacrifice a third of my metallic options for Heightened Spell, or one twelfth of my known spells to get Silver Barbs. I'd argue that this makes SB more favourable, because it allows a Sorceror to have a different metamagic option, which is in much shorter supply. Obviously thenratios work out differently, but after L1, you'll always have more spells than metamsgic options. Of course, which one is more valuable is debatable, but metamagic is the one in shorter supply.
Heightened Spell absolutely has a lower Spell Tax. That is fact.
It also has a higher Metamagic tax, and maybe that's often a worse tradeoff, but that's irrelevant to my point. I'm not trying to argue that Heightened Spell is the overall better option and that you should be picking it instead of Silvery Barbs. The central claim I am arguing against is that Silvery Barbs is "objectively better in every way", which it clearly is not. Heightened spell has some advantages.
Heightened Spell has multiple advantages...[including] Spells Known Tax.
Not really. Let's take level 13 because that's where most of my published adventures end, so it's a reasonable maximum.
At L13, you get 12 known spells and 3 metamagic options. I can either sacrifice a third of my metallic options for Heightened Spell, or one twelfth of my known spells to get Silver Barbs. I'd argue that this makes SB more favourable, because it allows a Sorceror to have a different metamagic option, which is in much shorter supply. Obviously thenratios work out differently, but after L1, you'll always have more spells than metamsgic options. Of course, which one is more valuable is debatable, but metamagic is the one in shorter supply.
Heightened Spell absolutely has a lower Spell Tax. That is fact.
It also has a higher Metamagic tax, and maybe that's often a worse tradeoff, but that's irrelevant to my point. I'm not trying to argue that Heightened Spell is the overall better option and that you should be picking it instead of Silvery Barbs. The central claim I am arguing against is that Silvery Barbs is "objectively better in every way", which it clearly is not. Heightened spell has some advantages.
Naw. You're just wrong there.
Cost is 3 sp for it. At L6 you can do it... twice. All day. Unless you burn slots to recover more sp again. How much slots? Three 1st level slots for one more heighten.
But, if instead you used your 6 sp to make 1st level slots to fuel silvery barbs... how many do you get? Three.
Silvery barbs only needs to be used after they succeed the save, so it is more resource efficient, only needing to activate if they succeed. Heighten forces disadvantage which might be entirely wasted because their normal roll might have failed anyway. This makes barbs roughly twice as efficient.
So tally: To get save insurance you could heighten 3 times in the day costs all our SP and 3 1st level slots. For the same cost we could Barbs 6 times. Six. At at double efficiency that's save protection for like ~12 spells.
So save insurance on 3 spells with heighten vs on 12 spells with barbs. Plus the utility offered by barbs of having handed 6 people advantage too.
Objectively better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only real downside I can see to silvery barbs is the use of your reaction for offense making you more vulnerable. Especially if you're the one messing with all the enemies your DM will probably have them come after you.
The simple fact that Barbs consumes a reaction where Heightened Spell does not makes Heightened better in some circumstances. Barbs is a more resource-efficient way to accomplish the goal "make this guy blow his save", but it is less efficient in terms of action economy. Most of the time, the one will be preferable to the other, but not always. As has been stated multiple times, sometimes you desperately need to keep a reaction open for Counterspell and can't afford to Barbs your best spell...but you can afford to Heighten it. You can Heighten-and-Counterspell, you cannot Barbs-and-Counterspell. That use case may be narrow, but it's valid and proves that Barbs is not universally superior to heightened, let alone universally superior to all other spells ever conceived no matter what those spells are/do, the way many are claiming.
The simple fact that Barbs consumes a reaction where Heightened Spell does not makes Heightened better in some circumstances. Barbs is a more resource-efficient way to accomplish the goal "make this guy blow his save", but it is less efficient in terms of action economy. Most of the time, the one will be preferable to the other, but not always. As has been stated multiple times, sometimes you desperately need to keep a reaction open for Counterspell and can't afford to Barbs your best spell...but you can afford to Heighten it. You can Heighten-and-Counterspell, you cannot Barbs-and-Counterspell. That use case may be narrow, but it's valid and proves that Barbs is not universally superior to heightened, let alone universally superior to all other spells ever conceived no matter what those spells are/do, the way many are claiming.
All fair points. One other resource I am not sure has been touched on is number of metamagic options prepared versus number of spells known. Sorcerers kinda get the short end of the stick on both of these, but they eventually know 4 metamagic options as opposed to 15 spells. Prior to level 10, you only know 2 metamagic options and 10 spells.
Is it worth giving up a different possible metamagic option (which you may use more frequently) to do the same thing you could accomplished by giving up one of your known spells? As you said, there is a case for situations where heightened spell will be better than barbs, but will those cases be frequent enough to merit learning that metamagic option?
One other aspect of this discussion I also want to explore is what about the possibility of empowering barbs with metamagic. How does that compare? A 1st level spell slot is worth 2 sorc points, so potentially we could cast Barbs with a 1 sorc cost metamagic option for the same effective cost as Heightened Spell (technically barbs will be more costly considering it eats your reaction, but that aspect has already been discussed).
So, as an option we could have a Distant barb in case your original spell targets a creature 120 feet away OR an Extended Barbs to let an ally hold onto their advantage longer. Admittedly the later example probably wont be useful, but is interesting to think about nonetheless.
Edit: As I think about it more, could you use Distant spell on barbs? Maybe not. It only applies when you cast the spell, but if the trigger for your reaction is out of your range than presumably you cannot cast it in the first place. Its possible there isnt a good metamagic to apply to barbs (unless doubling down with heightened spell).
I am simply stating that shield gets worse for the value.
Barbs gets better as you get to effectively recast better and better spells.
Being able to force a reroll on fireball is good.
Forcing a reroll on Disintegrate is amazing.
Its value for the 1st level slot you use is exponentially better with new spell levels.
Those AC tables are a good way to look at how overall AC impacts effective HP, but they are not an appropriate way to look at Shield
Assuming a your AC is higher than the monster's hit bonus and that the enemy attacks without (dis)advantage, Shield will ALWAYS:
It does this regardless of your base AC or the enemy's +hit. It will always be expected to prevent the same amount of hits/damage.
The only way that Shield scales with your AC is if the enemy has advantage or disadvantage. When the enemy has advantage, shield will prevent more damage if you have higher AC relative to enemy hit bonus. When the enemy has disadvantage, shield actually prevents the most damage when you have low AC relative to the enemy hit bonus, as long as they aren't in auto-hit range.
Shield can't help with saving throws, that is a given, but if you want to compare the defensive abilities of Shield to the Defensive abilities of Barbs, Shield wins. If you use it, you KNOW it will block the attack you are using it against (and maybe a few more before your turn comes back around), where as Barbs is a maybe at best. Now the one thing that Barbs does as a defensive spell that Shield can't is negating Critical Hits. Also, as a defensive spell, Barbs never really gets better since the odds being hit or missed by an attack don't seem to change all that much as characters progress through the levels.
Barbs only really shines as a do over for spell saves, and even then, how effective it is depends heavily on the save. As we know, some creatures are likely to make certain saves even with disadvantage just because their bonuses are so high.
The advantage thing is a red herring. Advantage is super easy to get so is hardly worth talking about as part of this spell.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think barbs is better than shield because of the versatility. The ability to keep the cleric from going down or some scenario like that is something shield cannot do.
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
No. That is false. Shield does not get less effective as CR goes up. In fact, compared to silvery barbs the value of shield stays consistent and even goes up and silvery barbs goes down as the disparity between enemy attack mod and your AC grows. The higher their hit modifier gets the better shield is vs silvery barbs.
Get my math? As in shop for it at a local grocer? What are you saying.
k, but... irrelevant.
This is neat and all but not exactly relevant. That is asking the odds of hitting at least once with 3 attacks. Totally different, irrelevant, question.
False. 100% False.
Let's examine that AC13 and +11 attack example again. (Since you listed the +11 values above.)
Remember your claim was that as the hit modifier goes up shield becomes...less...effective.
But does it? Not compared to silver barbs, no it doesn't.
Why? Well as we can see even against a high Hit value shield is out performing it.
Okay so you do agree that shield remains better than barbs and you're just... saying "Hi"? Hi.
It doesn't.
Shield blocks 25% of attacks. By default, this is what it does. It does this at low CR, and at high CR. It does this in house, and with a mouse. It does it on a boat, with a goat. It blocks 25% of attacks Sam I Am.
Only in extreme disparities of hit modifier vs AC does this change.
+11 and AC 13. Let's revisit.
Compare most ACs vs expected hit modifiers and: you. will. find. 25% of attacks get blocked by shield.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It leaves it the ability to sometimes counter counterspell. It won't work if counterspell doesn't need a roll, and even if it does, it probably gets through half the time, whereas countering with counterspell works 100%.
That's absolutely false. How many attacks Shield blocks is dependent on how many possible values the attacker's d20 can roll that puts them >= you AC but < your AC + 5, and that's a function of the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus. For example, if you're a wizard using mage armor with an AC of 15, Tiamat is still going to hit you 95% of the time, and Shield is blocking exactly 0% of attacks. An ancient red dragon is still going to hit 90% of the time, and the only number it could roll for which Shield would actually help is a 2, so Shield is blocking 5% of attacks.
OptimusGrimus's point is that the difference between your AC and the attacker's attack bonus is very roughly correlated with CR.
That's simply not true... The tables show that attack bonus scales but your AC doesn't....
I also didn't even factor in if the creature has ADV which makes shield even less effective.
So it's not always 25%.
It's fair point on the first attack though as you would likely know to use it.
Technically the DM could just say it hits without giving you the total and you would have to guess.
Overall it's effectiveness does decline with CR as creatures get a better attack bonus, more ways to gain ADV on attacks, and get more attacks.
Is it?
It is.
Action economy? Because of using your reaction? I guess, maybe. That's a valid Con. Not a strong one imo since Heightened spell uses spell points. Lots of them. So if you're planning on doing it more than once you'll be burning Bonus Actions converting your spell slots into more sorc points. Then you're losing the action economy argument pretty strongly at this point. 3 BA> 1 reaction imo.
Spell Known Tax sure, but this spell is a must have now for all sorcs. Sorcs need versatile spells that can be used in as many situations as possible and this.. this is that and more. Name a single situation SB isn't useable? Must have sorc spell, even if you're not using at as a better heightened spell replacement.
In what ways is it better than Heightened? Only have to burn the slot after they failed, so it is never wasted. That's super resource efficient. A more accurate comparison is 2 heightened spells vs one silvery barbed spell. That's 6 spell points vs 1 spell slot.
Other pros? You know what a sorc has less of than spells known? Metamagics known. Heightened takes up one of those and now you can take something else, meaning even more versatile. An even more pro along the same lines? Not only is it a better more efficient resource saving heightened spell (plus a bunch of other utility tacked on) but you don't even need to know metamagic at all and BAM you're effectively doing it better than a sorc can anyway. Get rekt sorcs; forcing multiple saves isn't your schtick any more.
Naw, makes sense. It is objectively better in every conceivable way.
Heightened Spell takes 3 spell points dude. It is not at ALL a weird conversion if you do it more than once you're going to need to refill your spell points by burning spell slots. At level 6 you could do it twice. Then you're burning spell slots. How many slots to use it again? Three. Three 1st level slots to use heightened spell. Or I guess you could burn a whole 3rd level slot instead if you wanted?? But that's not a better argument on your side lol.
How many 1st spell slots to use silvery barbs?
One.
One you only need to use if. IF. The enemy made their save. That is 6 times more efficient plus does more, by adding advantage to an ally (or yourself) and is still way more versatile.
Ie Mathematically better.
Need more proof?
How many Silvery Barbs could we cast if we didn't burn them on Heightened spell? 6 spell points converts into ... 3 1st level spells. So we can either force disadvantage twice... or... silvery barbs 3 times, from just the spell points alone.
Math.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
OH I see what you're saying!! Oh that makes so much sense. Thanks. You're saying that only in extreme disparities of hit modifier vs AC does is deviate from blocking 25% of all attacks. I wish I thought to add that into my comment immediately after what you're quoting.
It's actually funny. I even posted more than once exactly when it happens. AC-1=enemy hit mod is when shield begins to loss effectiveness. But even in this situation it still blocks attacks better than silvery barbs does.
Silvery barbs only worse than shield in this extreme cases and despite that yall arguing that it is somehow better than shield in this case? But the opposite is true. Silvery Barbs is best when the enemy chance to hit you is exceptionally low, because in those cases using shield probably wasn't needed for the followup attacks since they'd likely miss anyway and it is more likely you're only getting hit by crits at this point anyway and shield isn't stopping those at all while SB is.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes. It is. Always 25%. With advantage. Without advantage. 25% of attack rolls, shield blocks.
And also again for the millionth time: only in extreme disparities of AC vs attack mod does this change: Exact point of that change is AC-1=attack mod.
Enemy has a +10 to hit? AC12+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Enemy has +14 to hit? AC 16+ and shield blocks 25% of the time.
Tiamat, the god, or whatever, has a +19 to hit? AC21+ and shield blocks 25% of every attack roll from succeeding.
The math is very simple. AC-1= attack mod. <--- This is the threshold you might encounter in extreme situations where shield is no longer blocking 25% of attacks. The types of situations like when a level 1 wizard tries to fight a dragon god or whatever and AC 15 isn't cutting it versus Tiamat's +19 to hit.
False. It only declines if you're running around like a madlad at level 20 with a 13AC. If your AC even remotely pretends to keep up it stays identically effective. 25%.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not sure how you can say that when the math is right there...
Not really. Let's take level 13 because that's where most of my published adventures end, so it's a reasonable maximum.
At L13, you get 12 known spells and 3 metamagic options. I can either sacrifice a third of my metallic options for Heightened Spell, or one twelfth of my known spells to get Silver Barbs. I'd argue that this makes SB more favourable, because it allows a Sorceror to have a different metamagic option, which is in much shorter supply. Obviously thenratios work out differently, but after L1, you'll always have more spells than metamsgic options. Of course, which one is more valuable is debatable, but metamagic is the one in shorter supply.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why everyone is screaming one over the other? be smart and use them both. Should be smart enough to know when one is better than the other in different situations, that way u cover more bases. Its just another spell in the huge spell list, not the one wins all spell ppl is making it sound. Its just another utility tool in the belt for various situations.
Heightened Spell absolutely has a lower Spell Tax. That is fact.
It also has a higher Metamagic tax, and maybe that's often a worse tradeoff, but that's irrelevant to my point. I'm not trying to argue that Heightened Spell is the overall better option and that you should be picking it instead of Silvery Barbs. The central claim I am arguing against is that Silvery Barbs is "objectively better in every way", which it clearly is not. Heightened spell has some advantages.
Naw. You're just wrong there.
Cost is 3 sp for it. At L6 you can do it... twice. All day. Unless you burn slots to recover more sp again. How much slots? Three 1st level slots for one more heighten.
But, if instead you used your 6 sp to make 1st level slots to fuel silvery barbs... how many do you get? Three.
Silvery barbs only needs to be used after they succeed the save, so it is more resource efficient, only needing to activate if they succeed. Heighten forces disadvantage which might be entirely wasted because their normal roll might have failed anyway. This makes barbs roughly twice as efficient.
So tally: To get save insurance you could heighten 3 times in the day costs all our SP and 3 1st level slots. For the same cost we could Barbs 6 times. Six. At at double efficiency that's save protection for like ~12 spells.
So save insurance on 3 spells with heighten vs on 12 spells with barbs. Plus the utility offered by barbs of having handed 6 people advantage too.
Objectively better.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only real downside I can see to silvery barbs is the use of your reaction for offense making you more vulnerable. Especially if you're the one messing with all the enemies your DM will probably have them come after you.
The simple fact that Barbs consumes a reaction where Heightened Spell does not makes Heightened better in some circumstances. Barbs is a more resource-efficient way to accomplish the goal "make this guy blow his save", but it is less efficient in terms of action economy. Most of the time, the one will be preferable to the other, but not always. As has been stated multiple times, sometimes you desperately need to keep a reaction open for Counterspell and can't afford to Barbs your best spell...but you can afford to Heighten it. You can Heighten-and-Counterspell, you cannot Barbs-and-Counterspell. That use case may be narrow, but it's valid and proves that Barbs is not universally superior to heightened, let alone universally superior to all other spells ever conceived no matter what those spells are/do, the way many are claiming.
Please do not contact or message me.
All fair points. One other resource I am not sure has been touched on is number of metamagic options prepared versus number of spells known. Sorcerers kinda get the short end of the stick on both of these, but they eventually know 4 metamagic options as opposed to 15 spells. Prior to level 10, you only know 2 metamagic options and 10 spells.
Is it worth giving up a different possible metamagic option (which you may use more frequently) to do the same thing you could accomplished by giving up one of your known spells? As you said, there is a case for situations where heightened spell will be better than barbs, but will those cases be frequent enough to merit learning that metamagic option?
One other aspect of this discussion I also want to explore is what about the possibility of empowering barbs with metamagic. How does that compare? A 1st level spell slot is worth 2 sorc points, so potentially we could cast Barbs with a 1 sorc cost metamagic option for the same effective cost as Heightened Spell (technically barbs will be more costly considering it eats your reaction, but that aspect has already been discussed).
So, as an option we could have
a Distant barb in case your original spell targets a creature 120 feetaway OR an Extended Barbs to let an ally hold onto their advantage longer. Admittedly the later example probably wont be useful, but is interesting to think about nonetheless.Edit: As I think about it more, could you use Distant spell on barbs? Maybe not. It only applies when you cast the spell, but if the trigger for your reaction is out of your range than presumably you cannot cast it in the first place. Its possible there isnt a good metamagic to apply to barbs (unless doubling down with heightened spell).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!