Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from gothicshark >>

Nope, it's in the fluff and rules of D&D, all spells in RP have an effect, unless you take subclasses or feats that hide the effect you will always out yourself when casting in a social  situations.  A player can choose how these spell effect look and feel, but they always happen (except in the aforementioned took a feat or subclass). A good DM is always ensures the table remembers this.

Are you referring to this advice from the Sage Advice Compendium:

Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell?

You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PHB , under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells.

Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.

Because that kind of says that the perceptibility of each spell is one a case by case basis with some being very noticeable, and others not being noticeable at all.

Yes Some spells are by nature stealthy, but unless the rules state specifically that it is an undetectable spell, unless you take efforts to hide the casting of the spell, everyone in the room will notice you cast it.

That's not what it says. It says that spells are noticed by their effects and it also mentions the casting of the spell being noticeable, by which is inferred it is talking about the components. Components are noticeable. Spells are noticed only if their effects are noticeable, spells are not just automatically assumed to be noticeable. Read it again.

Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from gothicshark >>

Nope, it's in the fluff and rules of D&D, all spells in RP have an effect, unless you take subclasses or feats that hide the effect you will always out yourself when casting in a social  situations.  A player can choose how these spell effect look and feel, but they always happen (except in the aforementioned took a feat or subclass). A good DM is always ensures the table remembers this.

Are you referring to this advice from the Sage Advice Compendium:

Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell?

You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PHB , under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells.

Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.

Because that kind of says that the perceptibility of each spell is one a case by case basis with some being very noticeable, and others not being noticeable at all.

Yes Some spells are by nature stealthy, but unless the rules state specifically that it is an undetectable spell, unless you take efforts to hide the casting of the spell, everyone in the room will notice you cast it. It's like when you are in a room with people who are religiously apposed to Bacon, and  Vegans and you start to chew on bacon jerky. It just gets seen. As a DM I will always rule against the player who doesn't RP out a way to hide it, and any good DM should do the same. Silvery Barbs is a good spell, but it's not busted, not even in social situations. 

Now a smart player, using it, and taking the effort to hide their spell castings, but in the end I reward smart gameplay, not meme gameplay. 

 

edit: 

Also the All spells are seen come from 1st edition, and are a part of the lore, and the basic concept of how magic works in D&D. Sometimes the spell causes sparkles, sometimes it causes sparkles on the caster, or the target, sometimes makes a big loud Knock when working (See Knock). It's always been a balance point for magic, that unless you hide magic, it is very noticeably magic. 

 That's...not what the rules say.

The rules say that if the effect is noticeable, you notice it. You're going to notice a giant 20ft fireball appearing in your face, so you know someone has cast Fireball. If you feel yourself being forced to do something, you know someone has cast Command.

You can also tell if someone has cast a spell if you notice them performing the M, S or V components (well, M depends, I guess).

If there is no obvious manifestation of a spell, and the spell description of Silvery Barbs doesn't mention any, you don't catch the M, S or V, then you'll only know it was cast if the spell description says it does. Silvery Barbs doesn't. So you'd only know that Silvery Barbs has been cast if you caught the V component (since it has no M or S). That is a valid concern and we had a debate on that topic fairly recently. I'm convinced that in most cases it would be noticed, but there are exceptions.

Previous editions are irrelevant. All the rules are contained within an edition. I don't.need to buy 1e rules to run 5e, and nor should I. You can mine them for lore, but if you bring 1e rules into 5e (or vice versa, or any crosspollination of mechanics between editions), then it's homebrew. Homebrew is fine, but we're not discussing homebrew.

Ultimately, you don't know a spell has been cast unless:

1. The effect is obvious, or;
2. You notice the M, S or V, or;
3. The spell says you do.

In the vast majority of cases, 1 or 3 will be true, but not in the case of Silvery Barbs. The only way you would know is if you notice the V - although, I'd rule that unless there is a good reason why you wouldn't hear it, then you would.

I'll jump in on the long topic for fun. Silvery Barbs is strong, no doubt, but so is Shield spell. Early game, yes Silvery Barbs will save you as a crit in an early game can do serious damage (especially to a wizard). But mid tier and up, many creatures have multi attack, and there are times you're getting attacked by more than one creature. So Silvery Barbs uses your reaction to stop one Crit, but that doesn't mean the re-roll won't still hit you, and with multi attack they can keep hitting you. Sometimes you're better off to take the crit, and next attack use Shield spell to stop it, maybe a 3rd attack or stop attacks from other creatures who might attack you before your  next turn.

Silvery Barbs is great, but its one and done spell vs Shield which is an entire round of +5 AC. I dunno, doesn't feel broke to use up a spell slot and your reaction just to stop 1 Crit especially if the re-roll can still hit you just for less damage. My thoughts.

Quote from Scarloc_Stormcall >>

It is a good spell but the issue with your description is you focus on combat. My experience is players us it for anything other then in combat, I have seen a player cast it, willingly, on the high stealth rogue so they can then use it to buff the disadvantaged plate armor cleric for a stealth check, I have seen them use it to force an npc to re roll a social roll, maybe deception, or a charisma check to try and sway an argument. 

This is where comparing it to Farie Fire or Shield breaks down, they have a very clear purpose silvery barbs has so many different ways it can be utilised any time any character rolls a dice. 

 Thats a good point and I don't usually use it for that, I stick to combat for the most part. Especially in that NPC scenario, my DM would definitely say "OK you cast Silvery Barbs against the NPC to re-roll, he heard you cast that spell and is now refusing to help you and calling the town guard on you for casting a spell on him" or something to that affect. Certainly works for the stealth help if no one has Pass Without Trace, but doesn't guarantee a good roll, it really only takes disadvantage away. Pass Without Trace would be much stronger but guess thats why its a 2nd level spell.

The spell itself isn't broken or anything, but its level is too low for what it does. Not only would a lot of people still take it if it were 2nd level, making it 1st level makes it very easy for spellcasters that arguably shouldn't have it to pick it up. Both of those are strong indicators that it's undercosted at 1st level.

If it were just the reroll enemy success effect I think it would be fine at 1st level. But that + the siphon advantage for an ally is, for me, what pushes it over the top to 2nd or maybe even 3rd level.

I still hate it because there's absolutely no description or explanation attached to the seemingly random collection of mechanics

What the heck's a 'silvery barb'? Why is it in the school of enchantment? Why does it give one person retroactive disadvantage while giving someone else advantage? Nothing about the spell makes any real sense

Quote from AntonSirius >>

I still hate it because there's absolutely no description or explanation attached to the seemingly random collection of mechanics

What the heck's a 'silvery barb'? Why is it in the school of enchantment? Why does it give one person retroactive disadvantage while giving someone else advantage? Nothing about the spell makes any real sense

A barb in this context is an insult or hurtful remark. 

Silvery is a reference to one's "silver tongue" - the ability to confuse and persuade using words. A silvery barb is therefore an insult presented with verbal finesse as to distract, emotionally harm or confuse somebody. It can also be a reference to the duality of the spell as a "silver tongue" is often used positively (persuasion, compliments) while "barbs" are negative, insults. 

The idea is that when somebody is about to succeed at something (bearing in mind that in combat time is not as sequential or as linear as the mechanics make it out to be) the caster speaks a hurtful insult as the aforementioned form of a silvery barb. But with magic behind it to make it more effective and affect the target's mind (hence Enchantment) as a distraction (hence retroactive disadvantage). The spell also allows you to use that distraction to embolden another (advantage). 

This is the meaning to the "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. " line of the spell.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

I still hate it because there's absolutely no description or explanation attached to the seemingly random collection of mechanics

What the heck's a 'silvery barb'? Why is it in the school of enchantment? Why does it give one person retroactive disadvantage while giving someone else advantage? Nothing about the spell makes any real sense

 

A barb in this context is an insult or hurtful remark. 

Silvery is a reference to one's "silver tongue" - the ability to confuse and persuade using words. A silvery barb is therefore an insult presented with verbal finesse as to distract, emotionally harm or confuse somebody. It can also be a reference to the duality of the spell as a "silver tongue" is often used positively (persuasion, compliments) while "barbs" are negative, insults. 

The idea is that when somebody is about to succeed at something (bearing in mind that in combat time is not as sequential or as linear as the mechanics make it out to be) the caster speaks a hurtful insult as the aforementioned form of a silvery barb. But with magic behind it to make it more effective and affect the target's mind (hence Enchantment) as a distraction (hence retroactive disadvantage). The spell also allows you to use that distraction to embolden another (advantage). 

This is the meaning to the "You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. " line of the spell.

I'm aware of what 'barb' means, and what a silver tongue is. If that's what they were going for, they fell well short of the mark. I mean, even look at your attempt to explain it. "Oh yeah, and it also does this other thing." Huh? Why would it?

Let's compare it to the flavor text on Vicious Mockery:

You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range.

Simple, clear, effective, and relates directly to the name of the spell. Perfect, no notes. Heck, you know what else they could have called that spell, that would have fit almost as well with that description? Silvery Barbs

The actual Silvery Barbs, though?

You magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature.

Distract them with what? A 'barb' isn't a distraction, it's a hurtful remark. It's something that does damage, even if it's just to your feelings; it's a metaphor for an actual barb, like on a hook. This spell doesn't do any damage. It just "distracts" a creature, makes them "momentarily uncertain", and then somehow also "encourages" someone else, by completely unexplained means -- unless the utterly generic "magically" counts as an explanation

The damned thing is a mess

It does punch above its spell level weight, but that isnt the biggest issue. It's frequently a spell that makes the game less exciting. Enemies can't crit if everyone just silvery bard when it happens. Key spells always happens at disadvantage so things are more reliable and less u predictable. Silvery barbs is a spell that feels exciting for the players the first times they use it but eventually sucks more excitement from the game then it adds.

As a DM I really don't see the issue with it, it takes away a reaction from the magic user casting it and uses a spell slot. There are ways to get round it in when you want with clever battlefield layout, or tactics forcing players to be out of line of site of each other or spreading the party out so the front line are more then 60 feet away, or you make the player have to decide when to use it each round by presenting more then one key threat. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

I still hate it because there's absolutely no description or explanation attached to the seemingly random collection of mechanics

What the heck's a 'silvery barb'? Why is it in the school of enchantment? Why does it give one person retroactive disadvantage while giving someone else advantage? Nothing about the spell makes any real sense

 I agree. It was a really low effort description. Contrary to Cybermind's assessment, I'm not convinced that was intended to be about making comments. My envisioning was that barbs (as in, sharp pointy things like on a barbed fence) that were silvery in colour came out and distracted the target by flashing towards their face or something. I don't have any explanation for the giving advantage to an ally part, though. Perhaps because they were so distracting, they're unable to try and doge attacks? The alternative Vicious Mockery idea really doesn't make sense to me, though. Like, the guy swings at you, you spend time realising that it's actually going to hit, then in the remaining time manage to come up with some clever retort and say it which makes him miss? Makes no sense. If you had to cast it as an action beforehand maybe, but not as a reaction. It makes much more sense that it's a reflexive casting of something at someone's eyes.

It's a really low effort spell description though. And I wonder if the "it's a feature, not a bug" crew will chime in soon.

Quote from Linklite >>

The alternative Vicious Mockery idea really doesn't make sense to me, though.

Just to be clear: I wasn't saying the mechanics currently attached to Silvery Barbs would make sense attached to a spell called Vicious Mockery

I was saying the actual Vicious Mockery spell -- which does psychic damage and gives disadvantage on the next attack roll -- could have been called Silvery Barbs, and it would still kind of make sense

Personally I mainly use Silvery Barbs to cancel (or attempt to cancel) critical hits against me or my allies, or on occasion force a reroll on a saving throw I feel the enemy got lucky on. More often than not I'd rather save my reaction for Shield, Absorb Elements, or Counterspell depending on the situation.

Quote from HamFrozenSolid >>

Personally I mainly use Silvery Barbs to cancel (or attempt to cancel) critical hits against me or my allies, or on occasion force a reroll on a saving throw I feel the enemy got lucky on. More often than not I'd rather save my reaction for Shield, Absorb Elements, or Counterspell depending on the situation.

 I agree, I use Shield the most out of any first level spell. Counterspell, Absorb Elements and Silvery Barbs are all clutch spells that are more circumstantial than Shield which is necessary for Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, etc. Maybe some people abuse Silvery Barbs, but I know I wouldn't because I need those spell slots for Shield so Silvery Barbs would usually be a 1 or maybe 2 use per long rest vs Shield which is easily 3 to 4 per long rest assuming we're in combat.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Linklite >>

The alternative Vicious Mockery idea really doesn't make sense to me, though.

 

Just to be clear: I wasn't saying the mechanics currently attached to Silvery Barbs would make sense attached to a spell called Vicious Mockery

I was saying the actual Vicious Mockery spell -- which does psychic damage and gives disadvantage on the next attack roll -- could have been called Silvery Barbs, and it would still kind of make sense

I actually intended to be referring to Cybermind's proposal that it's basically you talking at them in a certain manner, but I was a bit clumsy with my reference.

Quote from BoringBard >>

This thread never dies, does it?

 Never! Thou shalt be converted!

I don't know if I'd call it overpowered, but it's banned in a campaign I'm a player in and I don't fault our DM for doing it.

The issue for us was we're a party of 4 PC's and 3 of us had the spell at the time. One was a Wizard, a Warlock that had it through the Feytouched feat, and my character had access as an Arcane Trickster. So naturally during one fight all of us used it at least once, which meant we killed the momentum of the fight one after another often turning the monsters successes into failures. All for the price of a 1st level spell slot each, which even for a 1/3 caster like my character isn't that pricey.

 I think if it was a more limited spell, like only available to Bard's it wouldn't be too bad. As it stands though there are just too many ways to get it and once you have it its way too easy to use.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

For those unfamiliar, Strixhaven contains five new spells, one for each crappy poorly-written oddly hostile-to-all-other-life magical Color Warz college of said M:tG book.  One of them, a first-level spell called Silvery Barbs, is being widely hailed as egregiously power-creepy and often cited as outright broken, to the point where many DMs are outright banning the spell from their tables.  Internet optimancers on YouTube are crying foul, and generally people are blowing their lids over this spell.

I find myself wondering if the spell is really so terrible as all that and am going to challenge the swiftly-growing conventional wisdom where Silvery Barbs is concerned.

First, a legally distinct summary of the spell's functiuon:
Silvery Barbs is a 1st level Enchantment spell, with vocal components but no somatic or material, that is cast as a reaction to another creature within 60 feet of you that you can see succeeding on a d20 roll.  The target must reroll the d20 and use the lower result, while a friendly creature within range that can include yourself gains advantage on the next d20 roll they make within the next sixty seconds.

People look at this spell and they lose their minds.  It's one of the very few ways D&D 5e allows players to muck with enemy saving throws, which is very difficult to do, and it dfoes not, itself, require a save - the spell simply works.  Many optimancers point out that as written, Silvery Barbs allows a player to nullify advantage on an enemy roll by forcing them to roll a second disadvantage-style check on whatever the best result from their advantage roll was.  This is hotly debated, but it's certainly a logical take and an intuitive way for the spell to work.  In addition, the spell allows any target of your choice (within range) to gain advantage on their own next d20 roll.  It's very good, mostly because of how versatile it is.  The spell allows you to muck with saves, but it can also allow a spellcaster equipped to Barb someone to sabotage attempts to start or escape grapples, or to overwhelm a spell with Dispel or Counterspell.  it can muck with any d20 roll, which gives it a great deal of reach.

Let's compare to two other spells in a broadly similar vein to Silvery Barbs, spells which are widely accepted as also being Very Good, but which are perfectly fine to use and under no illusions of being 'busted' - Shield and Faerie Fire.

Shield is a go-to defensive spell for virtually any spellcaster that can take it, adding a potent +5 AC bonus for the entire round.  It's overwhelmingly used against attacks that would hit but are turned into misses, which is exactly the same thing Silvery Barbs seeks to do against attacks.  Barbs, however, is cast on the hope of turning a hit into a miss, whereas the most common usage for Shield is taking something that hit by less than 5 points and making it whiff, instead.  Shield is thusly much more efficient in use of spell slots, on top of the caster retaining its protection for the entire combat round.  Barbs will only ever work on one roll, period.  I would contest that Shield is an overall stronger choice as a defensive spell, especially for characters that have a reasonable AC to start with.

Of course, Shield only affects the caster and cannot provide advantage, which is why Silvery Barbs is heralded as being so excellent.  It effectively steals luck from an enemy, granting advantage to your team.  Once.  On the first thing they do, not their choice of things to do.  Which is where Faerie Fire comes in.  Faerie Fire is a staple support spell that allows someone to trade their concentration in exchange for granting advantage on every attack roll made against every target within the spell's initial effect zone.  It's also often used to effectively negate invisibility effects on enemies, since it's awful hard to be invisible when you're covered in glowing pixie dust.  Faerie Fire only grows more dangerous the more powerful your party's martial attackers become, allowing you to amplify your entire party's ability to hammer multiple targets.  A single well-placed Faerie Fire can turn a difficult battle into a turkey shoot, right from level 1.  it is drastically more impactful than almost any single cast of Silvery Barbs could be, especially in Tier 1 play.

I would posit the following: Silvery Barbs is indeed very good, but it is not broken.  Its most powerful/impactful ability is monkeying with enemy saves, giving the caster a way to try and force through a particularly dangerous control spell.  Sorcerers have been able to do this since 5e was released however, with their Heightened Spell metamagic, so this is not new.  Silvery Barbs' ability to muck with attacks is useful but unworthy of hooplah, as screwing with one single attack will rarely save someone.  The spell's ability to muck with ability checks is very interesting indeed and enables Shenanigans, but it's actually quite rare for NPCs/enemy monsters to be making ability checks beyond grappling anyways, so the shenanigans are already soft-limited.

Silvery Barbs is a fantastic pick for its versatility, allowing a caster the option to muck with almost anything a target can do, but the mucking itself is not enormously powerful.  Many creatures in the game already blow through disadvantage with no trouble, and a single uncontrollable advantage roll for your team is good but hardly game-breaking.  Frankly, Silvery barbs granting advantage to a friendly target is almost superfluous; nobody will use it because it offers advantage, there's so many other, better ways of gaining advantage on things.  Which is the real point - Barbs can do a large number of things semi-decently, but even within first level there's a large number of spells that have a drastically greater impact within an admittedly narrower scope.  Shield is a stronger defensive spell, Faerie Fire is a much better offensive-support spell, Bless offers much more impactful utility boosts...there's a lot of spells someone can take that do things Barbs can do, but better.

If that's the case, is Silvery barbs truly so busted as all that?

 I agree with you. I actually like Silvery Barbs. In fact, even though a lot of people hated it, I really liked the whole Strixhaven book, even if it was more like a campaign than a setting book.

Quote from rammsorrow >>

Allot of people  overreact to stuff 

How dare you suggest my outrage at a lack of coherent flavor text is an overreaction

 Not that you care but I believe he was saying that every time something new comes out there are people who think it's broken but it's really not . Which is vald point.

  I here dms complain about stuff all the time at the game store and band things at their table that are ridiculous . I personally played at tables we're things are obscenely stacked against  player characters . The idea that this spell is so broken to me personally seems laughable .