I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
Silvery barbs does not actually force a skill check, ability check, or save, it forces you to roll a d20 and replace a previous roll for a check you have already made. As such, it is not eligible for portent.
I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
Silvery barbs does not actually force a skill check, ability check, or save, it forces you to roll a d20 and replace a previous roll for a check you have already made. As such, it is not eligible for portent.
This seems correct...
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
Well, assuming you're casting a save or suck spell at a single target. The problem is that single target save or suck spells... generally suck. Solo monsters probably have legendary resistance or flat immunities, for multiple monsters it's often not worth the cost in time and spell slots.
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Why not make it fifth level? Why not make it a concentration spell requiring your action to cast by "preparing to Barbs", then requiring your reaction to finish casting presuming that the target does something to warrant the spell's use before the start of your next turn and the resulting loss of the spell/spell slot? Or, here's one: why not just ban first-level spell slots, since apparently first-level slots are supposed to be completely worthless and less impactful than cantrips. Make sure no spellcaster ever casts a leveled spell before third level ever again; that'll learn those dirty rotten spellcasting casuals to try and solve problems they encounter by using the primary class feature they picked the class for.
Just to give an update on this after many months since it’s been out. Yes it is powerful, but costly; a caster with it in their arsenal is compelled to use it and the trade off is (at least with the player at my table) that compulsion results in a spent caster very quickly. I saw it used far more often than shield because it has more applications and again, knowing you can do something seems to be all the incentive needed for the PC to do it. A caster with only cantrips after two medium difficulty battles will definitely rethink how they want to use the spell. It is actually really easy to spin that boon into a bane for a DM so inclined.
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Why not make it fifth level? Why not make it a concentration spell requiring your action to cast by "preparing to Barbs", then requiring your reaction to finish casting presuming that the target does something to warrant the spell's use before the start of your next turn and the resulting loss of the spell/spell slot? Or, here's one: why not just ban first-level spell slots, since apparently first-level slots are supposed to be completely worthless and less impactful than cantrips. Make sure no spellcaster ever casts a leveled spell before third level ever again; that'll learn those dirty rotten spellcasting casuals to try and solve problems they encounter by using the primary class feature they picked the class for.
I mean I think what you are suggesting is a bit more than a single level increase and it's pretty hyperbolic in general.
I'm just sharing my experience with the changes I implemented and how they positively affected our table.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
Well, assuming you're casting a save or suck spell at a single target. The problem is that single target save or suck spells... generally suck. Solo monsters probably have legendary resistance or flat immunities, for multiple monsters it's often not worth the cost in time and spell slots.
They suck if you have a low chance of success.
If you drastically increase that chance of success they are very much encounter altering.
A hold person/monster turns an normal attack into an attack with ADV that is automatically a crit if you hit.
Banishment just takes a creature out of the fight completely.
I'm not saying it doesn't have it's limits it's just...a bit much for a 1st level spell imo
No, mostly they just suck. You could have used that action and spell slot to do damage, and dead is the best form of CC.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
I get it in DnD 99% the best condition to implement is dead and normally I would fully agree but in this case you can attempt to shut down an encounter in a single action instead of 3 rounds.
Damage is the rogue’s job. The casters job is to alter reality. In that respect Barbs is great. Two chances to land Suggestion, Hold Person, the aforementioned Faerie Fire. I think you’re limited by your imagination if Barbs is coming across as only moderately useful. It’s an auto pick for everyone able to cast it, and makes a good case for Magic Initiate feat for everyone else.
I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
Silvery barbs does not actually force a skill check, ability check, or save, it forces you to roll a d20 and replace a previous roll for a check you have already made. As such, it is not eligible for portent.
Huh. That's an odd ruling, but I guess it makes sense.
I also like to use Portent with Silvery Barbs, which lets you control the result. That way, you can see if they fail the first time before using Portent. A lvl 1 spell slot, especially at high levels, is easily worth the opportunity to not waste one use of the feature. More information on how this Portent/Barbs combination works is buried somewhere in this this post.
Silvery barbs does not actually force a skill check, ability check, or save, it forces you to roll a d20 and replace a previous roll for a check you have already made. As such, it is not eligible for portent.
This seems correct...
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Agreed. The more people to cast it, the more likely the bad guys will fail their roll. Though Silvery Barbs is not guaranteed to work perfectly, no spell is. And just the fact that it can make a big impact at high levels, and that it takes only a reaction and a first level spell slot is awesome.
Giving up a first level spell slot for the chance at a huge success, is easily worth it at high levels. And even if the monster has legendary resistance, making them give up a use of it for one first level spell is always good too.
Also, the ability to make sure your party is almost never nat 20'd again against is easily worth a couple of first level spell slots.
In addition, the advantage Silvery Barbs provides can be really useful.
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Why not make it fifth level? Why not make it a concentration spell requiring your action to cast by "preparing to Barbs", then requiring your reaction to finish casting presuming that the target does something to warrant the spell's use before the start of your next turn and the resulting loss of the spell/spell slot? Or, here's one: why not just ban first-level spell slots, since apparently first-level slots are supposed to be completely worthless and less impactful than cantrips. Make sure no spellcaster ever casts a leveled spell before third level ever again; that'll learn those dirty rotten spellcasting casuals to try and solve problems they encounter by using the primary class feature they picked the class for.
That's not what anyone here has actually proposed. We said that silvery barb's is really good for a first level spell, not that it should be a fifth level one.
The reason for not making it fifth level is that, just because it's a great spell, doesn't mean it's worth a spell slot 5 times as high.
No, mostly they just suck. You could have used that action and spell slot to do damage, and dead is the best form of CC.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
I get it in DnD 99% the best condition to implement is dead and normally I would fully agree but in this case you can attempt to shut down an encounter in a single action instead of 3 rounds.
I guess if you only ever fight one monster at a time, sure.
But if there are a half dozen enemies and you spend an action and your one 4th level spell on taking an orc out of the battle instead of, say, casting fireball you may have messed up. Maybe not. but just maybe something other than banishment was a better call. Can you imagine if they make their save tho? Yikes. That'd be embarrassing.
But even assuming, like you say, you aren't dealing enough damage to kill any of the half dozen enemies with that fireball, it still deals like avg 28, so even assume they all save that's still 14 damage to each. Like 84 damage total. That's huge. ((Especially since they all have like 1 hp left at this point and your team can finish the job with ease))
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
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.
No, mostly they just suck. You could have used that action and spell slot to do damage, and dead is the best form of CC.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
I get it in DnD 99% the best condition to implement is dead and normally I would fully agree but in this case you can attempt to shut down an encounter in a single action instead of 3 rounds.
I guess if you only ever fight one monster at a time, sure.
But if there are a half dozen enemies and you spend an action and your one 4th level spell on taking an orc out of the battle instead of, say, casting fireball you may have messed up. Maybe not. but just maybe something other than banishment was a better call. Can you imagine if they make their save tho? Yikes. That'd be embarrassing.
But even assuming, like you say, you aren't dealing enough damage to kill any of the half dozen enemies with that fireball, it still deals like avg 28, so even assume they all save that's still 14 damage to each. Like 84 damage total. That's huge. ((Especially since they all have like 1 hp left at this point and your team can finish the job with ease))
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
Yes it depends on the fight...just like every spell every fight. Fireball may be a terrible choice if you have hostages. Hypnotic pattern is bad if your baddies are in the same area as your fighter.
I am not sure your point here? I am simply saying that removing a heavy threat from a fight will undoubtedly lower the difficulty.
28 damage to a single enemy is pitiful at higher levels by the by....
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
Yes it depends on the fight.
^This was the summary of our productive exchange here.
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.
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
Yes it depends on the fight.
^This was the summary of our productive exchange here.
Yes....
I guess that's the case?
A single target save or suck spell will just suck in any fight where you are fighting a lot of enemies. Generally speaking. Against a single big powerful enemy they often suck still since this is exactly the type of creature to resist it, either because high save, or legendary resistance, or both. They have their time and place, and silvery barbs is absolutely crazy power in those situations. We just can't then say as an always true rule "banishment>>>>>doing damage" because that's just not true. Can there be a situation where it is true for that encounter? Sure, probably, yes. But not as a general rule, no.
I just wanted to point out that this improves the odds of big spells hitting big. Which in my opinion is well worth the slot to make work.
You are basically trading a 1st level slot for a much much higher slot to immediately recast the spell.
Totally agree with this 100%.
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.
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
Yes it depends on the fight.
^This was the summary of our productive exchange here.
Yes....
I guess that's the case?
A single target save or suck spell will just suck in any fight where you are fighting a lot of enemies. Generally speaking. Against a single big powerful enemy they often suck still since this is exactly the type of creature to resist it, either because high save, or legendary resistance, or both. They have their time and place, and silvery barbs is absolutely crazy power in those situations. We just can't then say as an always true rule "banishment>>>>>doing damage" because that's just not true. Can there be a situation where it is true for that encounter? Sure, probably, yes. But not as a general rule, no.
I just wanted to point out that this improves the odds of big spells hitting big. Which in my opinion is well worth the slot to make work.
You are basically trading a 1st level slot for a much much higher slot to immediately recast the spell.
Totally agree with this 100%.
Ah well seems we found a good middle ground then. Overall the spell is a good one and I think its perfect at level 2 IMO.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
Depends how many foes you have. Banishment is one of the better CC effects and relatively few opponents are outright immune to it, but it's "remove an enemy who you have to deal with later and it requires concentration", so it's about as valuable as doing 50% damage to a single target. For a level 9 party going up against two CR 9s, that's the equivalent of 75 hp or so, which is better than you're going to manage with any other spells available at 4th level, but if you're up against three CR 6s that's only 50-odd hp equivalent and a fireball that hits two foes is better, and the comparison gets worse the more enemies you have.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
Depends how many foes you have. Banishment is one of the better CC effects and relatively few opponents are outright immune to it, but it's "remove an enemy who you have to deal with later and it requires concentration", so it's about as valuable as doing 50% damage to a single target. For a level 9 party going up against two CR 9s, that's the equivalent of 75 hp or so, which is better than you're going to manage with any other spells available at 4th level, but if you're up against three CR 6s that's only 50-odd hp equivalent and a fireball that hits two foes is better, and the comparison gets worse the more enemies you have.
Yeah this would be the case for something with a boat load of HP and meat shieldy protecting something more fragile
92 hp and abysmal CHA saves. Chances are good it will fail with one roll but if you force it to reroll its chances to fail are very very very high and poof...one CR 6 gone.
Also I think you are drastically under HPing monsters
I just realized that with silvery barbs, you could cast fireball as an action, silvery as a reaction, and then a bonus action spell.
3 spells in one turn
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Silvery barbs does not actually force a skill check, ability check, or save, it forces you to roll a d20 and replace a previous roll for a check you have already made. As such, it is not eligible for portent.
This seems correct...
Where I've found it pretty potent is when more than one person has it.
Math wise at higher levels it's pretty certain to cause a failure if you have two or more barbs available.
Now this sounds like you are wasting slots... But in reality you are trading a 1st level slot for whatever level slot the original spell was.
This makes it very potent and if played this way can absolutely drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter.
I don't ban it myself I just make it a 2nd level spell and it's more balanced in my experience.
Well, assuming you're casting a save or suck spell at a single target. The problem is that single target save or suck spells... generally suck. Solo monsters probably have legendary resistance or flat immunities, for multiple monsters it's often not worth the cost in time and spell slots.
Why not make it fifth level? Why not make it a concentration spell requiring your action to cast by "preparing to Barbs", then requiring your reaction to finish casting presuming that the target does something to warrant the spell's use before the start of your next turn and the resulting loss of the spell/spell slot? Or, here's one: why not just ban first-level spell slots, since apparently first-level slots are supposed to be completely worthless and less impactful than cantrips. Make sure no spellcaster ever casts a leveled spell before third level ever again; that'll learn those dirty rotten spellcasting casuals to try and solve problems they encounter by using the primary class feature they picked the class for.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just to give an update on this after many months since it’s been out. Yes it is powerful, but costly; a caster with it in their arsenal is compelled to use it and the trade off is (at least with the player at my table) that compulsion results in a spent caster very quickly. I saw it used far more often than shield because it has more applications and again, knowing you can do something seems to be all the incentive needed for the PC to do it. A caster with only cantrips after two medium difficulty battles will definitely rethink how they want to use the spell. It is actually really easy to spin that boon into a bane for a DM so inclined.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I mean I think what you are suggesting is a bit more than a single level increase and it's pretty hyperbolic in general.
I'm just sharing my experience with the changes I implemented and how they positively affected our table.
They suck if you have a low chance of success.
If you drastically increase that chance of success they are very much encounter altering.
A hold person/monster turns an normal attack into an attack with ADV that is automatically a crit if you hit.
Banishment just takes a creature out of the fight completely.
I'm not saying it doesn't have it's limits it's just...a bit much for a 1st level spell imo
No, mostly they just suck. You could have used that action and spell slot to do damage, and dead is the best form of CC.
Completely removing an entire creature that you have 0 chance of killing in one slot or one turn with Banishment>>>>>doing damage on your turn.
I get it in DnD 99% the best condition to implement is dead and normally I would fully agree but in this case you can attempt to shut down an encounter in a single action instead of 3 rounds.
Damage is the rogue’s job. The casters job is to alter reality. In that respect Barbs is great. Two chances to land Suggestion, Hold Person, the aforementioned Faerie Fire. I think you’re limited by your imagination if Barbs is coming across as only moderately useful. It’s an auto pick for everyone able to cast it, and makes a good case for Magic Initiate feat for everyone else.
Huh. That's an odd ruling, but I guess it makes sense.
Agreed. The more people to cast it, the more likely the bad guys will fail their roll. Though Silvery Barbs is not guaranteed to work perfectly, no spell is. And just the fact that it can make a big impact at high levels, and that it takes only a reaction and a first level spell slot is awesome.
Giving up a first level spell slot for the chance at a huge success, is easily worth it at high levels. And even if the monster has legendary resistance, making them give up a use of it for one first level spell is always good too.
Also, the ability to make sure your party is almost never nat 20'd again against is easily worth a couple of first level spell slots.
In addition, the advantage Silvery Barbs provides can be really useful.
That's not what anyone here has actually proposed. We said that silvery barb's is really good for a first level spell, not that it should be a fifth level one.
The reason for not making it fifth level is that, just because it's a great spell, doesn't mean it's worth a spell slot 5 times as high.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I guess if you only ever fight one monster at a time, sure.
But if there are a half dozen enemies and you spend an action and your one 4th level spell on taking an orc out of the battle instead of, say, casting fireball you may have messed up. Maybe not. but just maybe something other than banishment was a better call. Can you imagine if they make their save tho? Yikes. That'd be embarrassing.
But even assuming, like you say, you aren't dealing enough damage to kill any of the half dozen enemies with that fireball, it still deals like avg 28, so even assume they all save that's still 14 damage to each. Like 84 damage total. That's huge. ((Especially since they all have like 1 hp left at this point and your team can finish the job with ease))
Taking a %chance to take a single enemy out of the battle isn't always ">>>>>" than doing damage.
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 depends on the fight...just like every spell every fight. Fireball may be a terrible choice if you have hostages. Hypnotic pattern is bad if your baddies are in the same area as your fighter.
I am not sure your point here? I am simply saying that removing a heavy threat from a fight will undoubtedly lower the difficulty.
28 damage to a single enemy is pitiful at higher levels by the by....
^This was the summary of our productive exchange here.
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....
I guess that's the case?
I just wanted to point out that this improves the odds of big spells hitting big. Which in my opinion is well worth the slot to make work.
You are basically trading a 1st level slot for a much much higher slot to immediately recast the spell.
A single target save or suck spell will just suck in any fight where you are fighting a lot of enemies. Generally speaking. Against a single big powerful enemy they often suck still since this is exactly the type of creature to resist it, either because high save, or legendary resistance, or both. They have their time and place, and silvery barbs is absolutely crazy power in those situations. We just can't then say as an always true rule "banishment>>>>>doing damage" because that's just not true. Can there be a situation where it is true for that encounter? Sure, probably, yes. But not as a general rule, no.
Totally agree with this 100%.
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.
Ah well seems we found a good middle ground then. Overall the spell is a good one and I think its perfect at level 2 IMO.
Depends how many foes you have. Banishment is one of the better CC effects and relatively few opponents are outright immune to it, but it's "remove an enemy who you have to deal with later and it requires concentration", so it's about as valuable as doing 50% damage to a single target. For a level 9 party going up against two CR 9s, that's the equivalent of 75 hp or so, which is better than you're going to manage with any other spells available at 4th level, but if you're up against three CR 6s that's only 50-odd hp equivalent and a fireball that hits two foes is better, and the comparison gets worse the more enemies you have.
Yeah this would be the case for something with a boat load of HP and meat shieldy protecting something more fragile
Like the new B'rohg for example: https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2821157-brohg
92 hp and abysmal CHA saves. Chances are good it will fail with one roll but if you force it to reroll its chances to fail are very very very high and poof...one CR 6 gone.
Also I think you are drastically under HPing monsters
https://i.imgur.com/FsaN6rH.png
This table has average stats per CR and the average HP for a CR 9 creature is 191-205 HP.....
I just realized that with silvery barbs, you could cast fireball as an action, silvery as a reaction, and then a bonus action spell.
3 spells in one turn
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)