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 .
I’ve been a DM (for one campaign) and a player (a bunch of times) and I don’t see anything broken about Silvery Barbs. Plus it’s limited to Initiates of Silverquill from the Strixhaven setting (which is very focused on wizard magic) so it’s not like it’s gonna magically appear in your Forgotten Realms campaign.
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 .
I’ve been a DM (for one campaign) and a player (a bunch of times) and I don’t see anything broken about Silvery Barbs. Plus it’s limited to Initiates of Silverquill from the Strixhaven setting (which is very focused on wizard magic) so it’s not like it’s gonna magically appear in your Forgotten Realms campaign.
Regarding the second point, it’s in the general circulation. It’s in spell lists for several classes, so the DM does need to explicitly ban it, which can easily become a big argument in a group.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
It’s an additional spell slot used in the attempt to push a single effect through, and in most cases I expect that effect to be a spell. It’s useful, but it is also resource intensive.
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 .
I’ve been a DM (for one campaign) and a player (a bunch of times) and I don’t see anything broken about Silvery Barbs. Plus it’s limited to Initiates of Silverquill from the Strixhaven setting (which is very focused on wizard magic) so it’s not like it’s gonna magically appear in your Forgotten Realms campaign.
I think many people (including our in our games) don't limit it to Strixhaven only. But if it is then definitely should be allowed since it was designed for that setting.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
It’s an additional spell slot used in the attempt to push a single effect through, and in most cases I expect that effect to be a spell. It’s useful, but it is also resource intensive.
I think you're falling to the sunk cost fallacy.
Let's say you cast Dominate Monster but the target succeeds on its save. That's now done, you've spent your 8th level spell slot. The question is now: Do you spend a 1st level to effectively cast the same 8th level spell and also give advantage to an ally?
That's really not resource intensive at all. A 1st level slot, a reaction and a spell learnt & prepared, in exchange for an 8th level spell and advantage to your ally. Sure, would be better to have succeeded on the initial casting, but that's independent of Silvery Barbs.
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.
Slightly off-topic, I believe I saw Marisha Ray's character use the spell in a recent episode of critical role. I don't watch the show regularly but for anyone who does did you notice if the spell seemed problematic from an outside perspective?
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
It’s an additional spell slot used in the attempt to push a single effect through, and in most cases I expect that effect to be a spell. It’s useful, but it is also resource intensive.
I think you're falling to the sunk cost fallacy.
Let's say you cast Dominate Monster but the target succeeds on its save. That's now done, you've spent your 8th level spell slot. The question is now: Do you spend a 1st level to effectively cast the same 8th level spell and also give advantage to an ally?
That's really not resource intensive at all. A 1st level slot, a reaction and a spell learnt & prepared, in exchange for an 8th level spell and advantage to your ally. Sure, would be better to have succeeded on the initial casting, but that's independent of Silvery Barbs.
Well, by the time you're casting level 8 spells it's less intensive, but from my understanding the majority of games happen in late tier 1 to early tier 3, so you'll have something between 6-16 spell slots. Even at the far end of that range, your first level slots represent a quarter of your total. I'm not saying never use them to attempt to push a powerful effect through, I'm just observing that a counterpoint to them being broken is that it does more rapidly use up a fundamental resource, thus meaning overuse can backfire on the player.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
It’s an additional spell slot used in the attempt to push a single effect through, and in most cases I expect that effect to be a spell. It’s useful, but it is also resource intensive.
I think you're falling to the sunk cost fallacy.
Let's say you cast Dominate Monster but the target succeeds on its save. That's now done, you've spent your 8th level spell slot. The question is now: Do you spend a 1st level to effectively cast the same 8th level spell and also give advantage to an ally?
That's really not resource intensive at all. A 1st level slot, a reaction and a spell learnt & prepared, in exchange for an 8th level spell and advantage to your ally. Sure, would be better to have succeeded on the initial casting, but that's independent of Silvery Barbs.
Well, by the time you're casting level 8 spells it's less intensive, but from my understanding the majority of games happen in late tier 1 to early tier 3, so you'll have something between 6-16 spell slots. Even at the far end of that range, your first level slots represent a quarter of your total. I'm not saying never use them to attempt to push a powerful effect through, I'm just observing that a counterpoint to them being broken is that it does more rapidly use up a fundamental resource, thus meaning overuse can backfire on the player.
I think the point is the spell becomes stronger the higher level you go which is unusual for most 1st level spells
Well, by the time you're casting level 8 spells it's less intensive, but from my understanding the majority of games happen in late tier 1 to early tier 3, so you'll have something between 6-16 spell slots. Even at the far end of that range, your first level slots represent a quarter of your total. I'm not saying never use them to attempt to push a powerful effect through, I'm just observing that a counterpoint to them being broken is that it does more rapidly use up a fundamental resource, thus meaning overuse can backfire on the player.
No, it really doesn't. If a single target save or suck spell is worth casting at all, it's generally worth spending a first level spell slot and a reaction to get a second try on a failed attempt. You should think of it as "I get to cast the spell a second time, but using a first level spell slot and a reaction instead of a higher level spell slot and an action".
Well, by the time you're casting level 8 spells it's less intensive, but from my understanding the majority of games happen in late tier 1 to early tier 3, so you'll have something between 6-16 spell slots. Even at the far end of that range, your first level slots represent a quarter of your total. I'm not saying never use them to attempt to push a powerful effect through, I'm just observing that a counterpoint to them being broken is that it does more rapidly use up a fundamental resource, thus meaning overuse can backfire on the player.
No, it really doesn't. If a single target save or suck spell is worth casting at all, it's generally worth spending a first level spell slot and a reaction to get a second try on a failed attempt. You should think of it as "I get to cast the spell a second time, but using a first level spell slot and a reaction instead of a higher level spell slot and an action".
Yes exactly. If casting your save or suck was worth burning your eg 5th level spell slot, but the enemy got lucky and saved against it... what reasoning can anyone possibly conjure to explain how spending a 1st level slot to try again isn't a fantastic deal? It is getting the effects of a 5th level spell for a 1st level slot.
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.
You did see the part where I said I'm not against using them for pushing a powerful effect, right? But you do have to weigh doubling down to nail the current target vs having a different spell available down the line, particularly in low level play, which is where most campaigns happen.
You did see the part where I said I'm not against using them for pushing a powerful effect, right? But you do have to weigh doubling down to nail the current target vs having a different spell available down the line, particularly in low level play, which is where most campaigns happen.
Even at low level play, you are still using the spell for the effect of the original + an extra rider effect. When used to reroll an enemy save on a save or suck it is always a better use of the spell slot than the original spell was.
Edit: I guess unless you start burning higher than 1st level spell slots for it.
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.
You did see the part where I said I'm not against using them for pushing a powerful effect, right? But you do have to weigh doubling down to nail the current target vs having a different spell available down the line, particularly in low level play, which is where most campaigns happen.
If it was worth using an action and a higher level spell slot on, it's worth spending a level 1 spell slot and a reaction (and, contrariwise, if it's not worth a silvery barbs, you shouldn't have cast it in the first place). The main case for not using it is saving spell your reaction for a different reaction (both absorb elements and shield are problematic for much the same reason as silvery barbs; I would probably change the first to 'prevent up to 10 damage, +5 per spell level above 1' and the second to 'AC becomes 18, +1 per spell level above 1').
The biggest issue DMs have with this spell is a recurring theme that causes many problems in balance, most DMs do not present the number of daily encounters that can burn up resources that the designers expect.
If my party only have one fight a day and the wizard has silvery barbs then yes, they are going to use it to aid anything that needs an enemy to make a roll, from social encounters through to combat with a goblin because they know they are not going to be worrying about wasting spell slots.
If the wizard knows that they might be involved in multiple things that day then suddenly using silvery barbs becomes a real choice. Can they afford to risk not casting shield this turn, can they afford to burn that spell slot.
In the party I dm the wizard doesn’t take silvery barbs at all, the fighter does. That’s 2 uses per long rest, usually used to help him tank and then him or another get advantage to hit. Part of the reason for this is that the Wizard has learnt there are other more important spells at level 6.
Especially since a Wizard at level 18 can cast this for free at only the cost of a reaction. It is offensive (no other affect in the game can force a target to reroll their successful save and always take the lower roll), defensive (on par or better than Shield since it can negate crits and can protect allies too), and supportive (on par or better than Faerie Fire as there is no save and it can be applied to saves and ability checks).
It is a non-level dependent attempt at Counterspell for any spell that requires an attack roll. You don't want to burn a 3rd level slot to stop that Fire Bolt streaking toward your ally who would go down from 4d10 damage, but you can Barbs them and maybe cause it to miss. On top of that, you give your ally advantage on the next saving throw he makes to dodge an AoE.
It is just wildly useful and only level 1. It can replace or mimic three other spells in the game all for the cost of preparing/knowing one.
Exactly and the value only increases as your spell level increases....
Getting another shot at a high level spell is amazing value that imo far outweighs an increase in AC
And as level increases, Shield really falls off as that +5 probably isn't helping your Wizard all that much. But being able to negate a crit is ALWAYS useful.
If the DM is showing their attack rolls, shield is a spell you only use when you know it will make the difference between a hit and a miss, so it's guaranteed to negate at least one hit when you use it. It's just that you may not get the opportunity to use it. Shield also helps against multiple attacks. Silvery barbs doesn't have the same limits on when you can use it, but also doesn't reliably work.
Especially since a Wizard at level 18 can cast this for free at only the cost of a reaction. It is offensive (no other affect in the game can force a target to reroll their successful save and always take the lower roll), defensive (on par or better than Shield since it can negate crits and can protect allies too), and supportive (on par or better than Faerie Fire as there is no save and it can be applied to saves and ability checks).
It is a non-level dependent attempt at Counterspell for any spell that requires an attack roll. You don't want to burn a 3rd level slot to stop that Fire Bolt streaking toward your ally who would go down from 4d10 damage, but you can Barbs them and maybe cause it to miss. On top of that, you give your ally advantage on the next saving throw he makes to dodge an AoE.
It is just wildly useful and only level 1. It can replace or mimic three other spells in the game all for the cost of preparing/knowing one.
If I am running games for players at level 18 then as a dm silvery barbs is the least of my issues with balance. Home brewing monsters and encounters to actually create real challenge at those high levels is more of an issue than a level 1 spell. By level 18 most of the party has gained advantage in multiple ways anyway to that side effect is negated. I think it causes the most issues at lower levels and with inexperienced DMs or DMs who only give one or 2 combats a day.
In the online community I play in, this has been houseruled to level 2, which feels a lot more appropriate. It hasn't caused any disbalance issues as of yet, being at level 2.
Personally, I would have made it a 2nd level spell if I am being completely honest.
Silvery Barbs is probably fine for a 2nd level spell since it is so similar to Divination Wizard's Portent ability, which is also a 2nd level ability. If anyone and their grandpa can get their hands on this spell with Magic Initiate Feat, it easily breaks encounters for the party and/or makes the players feel bad because enemy spellcasters are able to use it against their PCs left and right.
This is not an appropriate spell for 1st level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ve been a DM (for one campaign) and a player (a bunch of times) and I don’t see anything broken about Silvery Barbs. Plus it’s limited to Initiates of Silverquill from the Strixhaven setting (which is very focused on wizard magic) so it’s not like it’s gonna magically appear in your Forgotten Realms campaign.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Regarding the second point, it’s in the general circulation. It’s in spell lists for several classes, so the DM does need to explicitly ban it, which can easily become a big argument in a group.
Personally I don’t think the spell is that terribly broken; burning two spell slots to push a single effect through is going to catch up with you fast in the typical play tiers, LR’s still trump it to keep a boss from going down too fast, and if the party is too prone to pulling it out early a long run dungeon might draw out a few uses before they get to a big fight.
You're not burning two slots. You're burning a level 1 spell slot to get a second try at something that already failed. It's a substantial improvement in single target save or suck spells, with the mitigating factor that most single target save or suck spells are kinda bad so making them better isn't a big deal.
It’s an additional spell slot used in the attempt to push a single effect through, and in most cases I expect that effect to be a spell. It’s useful, but it is also resource intensive.
I think many people (including our in our games) don't limit it to Strixhaven only. But if it is then definitely should be allowed since it was designed for that setting.
I think you're falling to the sunk cost fallacy.
Let's say you cast Dominate Monster but the target succeeds on its save. That's now done, you've spent your 8th level spell slot. The question is now: Do you spend a 1st level to effectively cast the same 8th level spell and also give advantage to an ally?
That's really not resource intensive at all. A 1st level slot, a reaction and a spell learnt & prepared, in exchange for an 8th level spell and advantage to your ally. Sure, would be better to have succeeded on the initial casting, but that's independent of Silvery Barbs.
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.
Slightly off-topic, I believe I saw Marisha Ray's character use the spell in a recent episode of critical role. I don't watch the show regularly but for anyone who does did you notice if the spell seemed problematic from an outside perspective?
Well, by the time you're casting level 8 spells it's less intensive, but from my understanding the majority of games happen in late tier 1 to early tier 3, so you'll have something between 6-16 spell slots. Even at the far end of that range, your first level slots represent a quarter of your total. I'm not saying never use them to attempt to push a powerful effect through, I'm just observing that a counterpoint to them being broken is that it does more rapidly use up a fundamental resource, thus meaning overuse can backfire on the player.
I think the point is the spell becomes stronger the higher level you go which is unusual for most 1st level spells
No, it really doesn't. If a single target save or suck spell is worth casting at all, it's generally worth spending a first level spell slot and a reaction to get a second try on a failed attempt. You should think of it as "I get to cast the spell a second time, but using a first level spell slot and a reaction instead of a higher level spell slot and an action".
Yes exactly. If casting your save or suck was worth burning your eg 5th level spell slot, but the enemy got lucky and saved against it... what reasoning can anyone possibly conjure to explain how spending a 1st level slot to try again isn't a fantastic deal? It is getting the effects of a 5th level spell for a 1st level slot.
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.
You did see the part where I said I'm not against using them for pushing a powerful effect, right? But you do have to weigh doubling down to nail the current target vs having a different spell available down the line, particularly in low level play, which is where most campaigns happen.
Even at low level play, you are still using the spell for the effect of the original + an extra rider effect. When used to reroll an enemy save on a save or suck it is always a better use of the spell slot than the original spell was.
Edit: I guess unless you start burning higher than 1st level spell slots for it.
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.
If it was worth using an action and a higher level spell slot on, it's worth spending a level 1 spell slot and a reaction (and, contrariwise, if it's not worth a silvery barbs, you shouldn't have cast it in the first place). The main case for not using it is saving spell your reaction for a different reaction (both absorb elements and shield are problematic for much the same reason as silvery barbs; I would probably change the first to 'prevent up to 10 damage, +5 per spell level above 1' and the second to 'AC becomes 18, +1 per spell level above 1').
The biggest issue DMs have with this spell is a recurring theme that causes many problems in balance, most DMs do not present the number of daily encounters that can burn up resources that the designers expect.
If my party only have one fight a day and the wizard has silvery barbs then yes, they are going to use it to aid anything that needs an enemy to make a roll, from social encounters through to combat with a goblin because they know they are not going to be worrying about wasting spell slots.
If the wizard knows that they might be involved in multiple things that day then suddenly using silvery barbs becomes a real choice. Can they afford to risk not casting shield this turn, can they afford to burn that spell slot.
In the party I dm the wizard doesn’t take silvery barbs at all, the fighter does. That’s 2 uses per long rest, usually used to help him tank and then him or another get advantage to hit. Part of the reason for this is that the Wizard has learnt there are other more important spells at level 6.
Exactly and the value only increases as your spell level increases....
Getting another shot at a high level spell is amazing value that imo far outweighs an increase in AC
If the DM is showing their attack rolls, shield is a spell you only use when you know it will make the difference between a hit and a miss, so it's guaranteed to negate at least one hit when you use it. It's just that you may not get the opportunity to use it. Shield also helps against multiple attacks. Silvery barbs doesn't have the same limits on when you can use it, but also doesn't reliably work.
If I am running games for players at level 18 then as a dm silvery barbs is the least of my issues with balance. Home brewing monsters and encounters to actually create real challenge at those high levels is more of an issue than a level 1 spell. By level 18 most of the party has gained advantage in multiple ways anyway to that side effect is negated. I think it causes the most issues at lower levels and with inexperienced DMs or DMs who only give one or 2 combats a day.
In the online community I play in, this has been houseruled to level 2, which feels a lot more appropriate. It hasn't caused any disbalance issues as of yet, being at level 2.
Silvery Barbs is probably fine for a 2nd level spell since it is so similar to Divination Wizard's Portent ability, which is also a 2nd level ability. If anyone and their grandpa can get their hands on this spell with Magic Initiate Feat, it easily breaks encounters for the party and/or makes the players feel bad because enemy spellcasters are able to use it against their PCs left and right.
This is not an appropriate spell for 1st level.