It would be useful as a race feature, not as a cantrip. Once per day per target like that just means they'll almost never use it and it's likely to just be a waste.
You could decide to use it after the roll was made and declared a failure. This greatly reduces the odds of wasting it, as you'd only actually use it if you had reason to think your roll was close.
It would be useful as a race feature, not as a cantrip. Once per day per target like that just means they'll almost never use it and it's likely to just be a waste.
You could decide to use it after the roll was made and declared a failure. This greatly reduces the odds of wasting it, as you'd only actually use it if you had reason to think your roll was close.
Needs to at least be a d6 if they're limiting the number of uses. If it's gonna be a Hail Mary, particularly if the one per is regardless of success or failure, in needs more potential to swing the results.
As for any narrative value, it is irrelevant. If I put a trap, or a secret door, or a lock, or whatever, in an adventure, it may or may not alter the game dramatically. I have had cases where if the players don't look for secret doors, they miss out on treasure, or have to go about killing the BBEG in a much more difficult manner. More than one PC has been brought to 0 HP because of blowing a skill check.
But the other side of that coin is true too. If the players need to chant loudly every time they look for a secret door, they could alert the BBEG's minions and make the fight more difficult. Or the cleric/druid could break their concentration on the hour-long buff/summon they were hoping to bring into that fight, making it more difficult (2014 version). Or they might need to stand next to the rogue as they try disarming a trap, thereby being in the damage radius if they fail (2024 version), and lacking both evasion or their own reaction to use Absorb Elements on the ensuing blast. And in both cases, there are plenty of checks where casting Guidance is wholly impractical, like being stealthy, or mid-conversation.
It's not WotC's job to introduce drawbacks to using a cantrip repeatedly, because that's precisely how cantrips are designed to work (PHB 201). Rather, it's your job as the DM mix up your encounter design so that sometimes that approach can be suboptimal, while the rest of the time it works as expected.
The math is clear. Silvery Barbs, Guidance et al make setting up the game much harder for the DM, and trivializes challenges. Now, if you believe that the DM is merely a service provider for the players, and the DM's enjoyment of the game is irrelevant, and players' enjoyment of the game is maximized by them steamrolling every challenge so they are not really challenges at all, then yeah, Silvery Barbs and Guidance are awesome.
It's not WotC's job to tell your players that you're not having fun either; their job is to design spells the majority of their audience will enjoy. If you find Guidance to be un-fun or too difficult to design challenges for, have that conversation with your players and either tweak or ban it. And Silvery Barbs is already setting-specific if you need a justification to ban or alter it.
Not really true. From my 2.5 years in this thread, my observation is that the dichotomy is better stated as:
People who fear change: Busted
People who embrace change: Perfectly fine
The reality is that there are a great deal of people unaccounted for in even that dichotomy who fall somewhere in the middle: Slightly overtuned but acceptable or I would make slight change X.
Or like me that feels that it doesn't fit nicely in the granular nature of the system and therefore not sure what change to make. It's fine as a spell, but a bit much for L1 and not really enough for L2.
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.
Or like me that feels that it doesn't fit nicely in the granular nature of the system and therefore not sure what change to make. It's fine as a spell, but a bit much for L1 and not really enough for L2.
Given how often it seems to get forgotten about/go unused, just ditch the "give advantage" part and leave it at 1st level if you're going to tweak it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I dont even think the give advantage part is a problem. For me, it comes down to the fact that there are other reaction spells I'd take first. I will always take shield over silvery barbs as a player. It's hard for me to think that it's 'broken', a word thrown around far too much, when it's not even a must-pick for my characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think the issue is the Bias of memory, so a DM will remember and focus on the one or 2 times that Silvery Barbs caused them an issue, but in reality across all the combat rounds run the spell has very little impact.
I think the issue is the Bias of memory, so a DM will remember and focus on the one or 2 times that Silvery Barbs caused them an issue, but in reality across all the combat rounds run the spell has very little impact.
After a few years of playing with it, I concur. Shield is still the much more impactful spell over the course of a campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
i'm pretty sure that it will be very hard to see a monster get a critical now.
Loss of rare criticals in exchange for them wasting all the spell slots before you spring a boss fight on them? A bargain for the DM!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If crits are rare they wont be wasting all their spell slots on them. And I suspect they wont be using it against the Cr 1 creature that crits but more the giant that crits. So they will have plenty to use on the boss.
If crits are rare they wont be wasting all their spell slots on them. And I suspect they wont be using it against the Cr 1 creature that crits but more the giant that crits. So they will have plenty to use on the boss.
At which point they've deliberately chosen to conserve resources for a big fight, which isn't something I'd care to punitively punish players for.
Honestly, for the vast majority of creatures negating crits is not a big deal, because even at high CRs damage dice per attack usually isn't that high, they just have more and more attacks.
Crits sound scarier than they really are. Every time a nat20 is rolled, everyone at the table gets excited, but it's pretty rare that the damage is notably outside of the normal range of damage (which makes sense when you think about it). If you didn't know it was a nat20, most of the time you wouldn't remark on the damage total, or maybe you think it was a nice attack but not really special. Obviously, it's higher than normal, but it's not a killer outside of the early levels. The exceptions are when a Paladin hits due to Divine Smite or a Rogue does due to Sneak Attack and their ability to choose whether to invoke it or not. That does make a substantial difference - but not really relevant to 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.
If crits are rare they wont be wasting all their spell slots on them. And I suspect they wont be using it against the Cr 1 creature that crits but more the giant that crits. So they will have plenty to use on the boss.
At which point they've deliberately chosen to conserve resources for a big fight, which isn't something I'd care to punitively punish players for.
I would not call that conserving resources, its not wasting resources frivolously. It is like rewarding people for not fire balling a lone CR 1 orc. Good thing you saved your resources there guy, using that cantrip against the non threat good choice.
Crits sound scarier than they really are. Every time a nat20 is rolled, everyone at the table gets excited, but it's pretty rare that the damage is notably outside of the normal range of damage (which makes sense when you think about it). If you didn't know it was a nat20, most of the time you wouldn't remark on the damage total, or maybe you think it was a nice attack but not really special. Obviously, it's higher than normal, but it's not a killer outside of the early levels. The exceptions are when a Paladin hits due to Divine Smite or a Rogue does due to Sneak Attack and their ability to choose whether to invoke it or not. That does make a substantial difference - but not really relevant to Silvery Barbs.
Thats because most enemies are not threats in the slightest in this game. The ones that can be though usually still have clutch moments they need to pan out in order to be a threat and they can get trivialized by low level spell. That seems off to me.
If all Silvery Barbs did was force an enemy to reroll, ok.
If all Silvery Barbs did was allow an ally (including self) to gain advantage on their next roll (including attack rolls which means granting Sneak Attack), ok.
But doing both, without a save to resist it, at the low, low cost of a 1st level slot and Reaction - No.
Make it a second level spell slot, and I'll consider it. Even Counterspell now allows a save to resist (I know Silvery Barbs is still 2014, hasn't been updated (yet))
Bane applies a d4 penalty on up to 3 targets (with a 1st level slot), but each gets a save to resist which means you'll likely only affect 1, maybe 2; and it costs both a 1st level slot and Action to cast. Legendary Resistance can avoid it, and main baddies are unlikely to fail their save against it (Silvery Barbs works against anyone, every time)
Shield is awesome, and is still the go to choice if you are the one being targeted, buf if you're not the target, then Silvery Barbs is the clear choice. Let's also not forgot that at the low low cost of a 1st level slot, which most casters have in abundance once past the lowest levels.
It effectively negates crits, and is quite frankly the primary use of the spell.
The fact that it can negate a crit (no save), AND then give an ally advantage (which can mean Sneak Attack), and it only costs a Reaction and 1st level slot make it a NO GO at our tables. We have 4 DMs in our extended group, some of us with 40+ yrs of experience as DMs, and NONE of us allow that spell.
You are of course free to make your own ruling at your table, but the spells banned at our table are: 1. Silvery Barbs 2. Raulothim's Psychic Lance (speak someone's name and if they're in range they take damage = hard no) 3. Sickening Radiance (damage + exhaustion + prevents invisible, the exhaustion alone means 6 rounds within the spell = death. Every pt of exhaustion (even worse in 2024) means a -2 (cumulative) to their next save vs the spell, and at 6 levels you're dead regardless of level, HD, or HP - Cast this in an enclosed area, wait the 10 minute duration, and everything within is guaranteed to be dead = hard no)
i'm pretty sure that it will be very hard to see a monster get a critical now.
Honestly, my DM doesn't really like getting crits on the party, and it makes things a bit more swingy than he'd like. He's happy to see us negate crits, because it's fun for us and makes his life a bit easier. He's not trying to 'win'. and monsters not critting on us makes it easier to make things tight without killing us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You could decide to use it after the roll was made and declared a failure. This greatly reduces the odds of wasting it, as you'd only actually use it if you had reason to think your roll was close.
Needs to at least be a d6 if they're limiting the number of uses. If it's gonna be a Hail Mary, particularly if the one per is regardless of success or failure, in needs more potential to swing the results.
But the other side of that coin is true too. If the players need to chant loudly every time they look for a secret door, they could alert the BBEG's minions and make the fight more difficult. Or the cleric/druid could break their concentration on the hour-long buff/summon they were hoping to bring into that fight, making it more difficult (2014 version). Or they might need to stand next to the rogue as they try disarming a trap, thereby being in the damage radius if they fail (2024 version), and lacking both evasion or their own reaction to use Absorb Elements on the ensuing blast. And in both cases, there are plenty of checks where casting Guidance is wholly impractical, like being stealthy, or mid-conversation.
It's not WotC's job to introduce drawbacks to using a cantrip repeatedly, because that's precisely how cantrips are designed to work (PHB 201). Rather, it's your job as the DM mix up your encounter design so that sometimes that approach can be suboptimal, while the rest of the time it works as expected.
It's not WotC's job to tell your players that you're not having fun either; their job is to design spells the majority of their audience will enjoy. If you find Guidance to be un-fun or too difficult to design challenges for, have that conversation with your players and either tweak or ban it. And Silvery Barbs is already setting-specific if you need a justification to ban or alter it.
DM's vote: busted
Player's Vote: perfectly fine
Not really true. From my 2.5 years in this thread, my observation is that the dichotomy is better stated as:
People who fear change: Busted
People who embrace change: Perfectly fine
The reality is that there are a great deal of people unaccounted for in even that dichotomy who fall somewhere in the middle: Slightly overtuned but acceptable or I would make slight change X.
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
Or like me that feels that it doesn't fit nicely in the granular nature of the system and therefore not sure what change to make. It's fine as a spell, but a bit much for L1 and not really enough for L2.
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.
Given how often it seems to get forgotten about/go unused, just ditch the "give advantage" part and leave it at 1st level if you're going to tweak it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I dont even think the give advantage part is a problem. For me, it comes down to the fact that there are other reaction spells I'd take first. I will always take shield over silvery barbs as a player. It's hard for me to think that it's 'broken', a word thrown around far too much, when it's not even a must-pick for my characters.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think the issue is the Bias of memory, so a DM will remember and focus on the one or 2 times that Silvery Barbs caused them an issue, but in reality across all the combat rounds run the spell has very little impact.
After a few years of playing with it, I concur. Shield is still the much more impactful spell over the course of a campaign.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Wizard in my campaing got it.
i'm pretty sure that it will be very hard to see a monster get a critical now.
Loss of rare criticals in exchange for them wasting all the spell slots before you spring a boss fight on them? A bargain for the DM!
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If crits are rare they wont be wasting all their spell slots on them. And I suspect they wont be using it against the Cr 1 creature that crits but more the giant that crits. So they will have plenty to use on the boss.
At which point they've deliberately chosen to conserve resources for a big fight, which isn't something I'd care to punitively punish players for.
Honestly, for the vast majority of creatures negating crits is not a big deal, because even at high CRs damage dice per attack usually isn't that high, they just have more and more attacks.
Crits sound scarier than they really are. Every time a nat20 is rolled, everyone at the table gets excited, but it's pretty rare that the damage is notably outside of the normal range of damage (which makes sense when you think about it). If you didn't know it was a nat20, most of the time you wouldn't remark on the damage total, or maybe you think it was a nice attack but not really special. Obviously, it's higher than normal, but it's not a killer outside of the early levels. The exceptions are when a Paladin hits due to Divine Smite or a Rogue does due to Sneak Attack and their ability to choose whether to invoke it or not. That does make a substantial difference - but not really relevant to 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.
I would not call that conserving resources, its not wasting resources frivolously. It is like rewarding people for not fire balling a lone CR 1 orc. Good thing you saved your resources there guy, using that cantrip against the non threat good choice.
Thats because most enemies are not threats in the slightest in this game. The ones that can be though usually still have clutch moments they need to pan out in order to be a threat and they can get trivialized by low level spell. That seems off to me.
If all Silvery Barbs did was force an enemy to reroll, ok.
If all Silvery Barbs did was allow an ally (including self) to gain advantage on their next roll (including attack rolls which means granting Sneak Attack), ok.
But doing both, without a save to resist it, at the low, low cost of a 1st level slot and Reaction - No.
Make it a second level spell slot, and I'll consider it. Even Counterspell now allows a save to resist (I know Silvery Barbs is still 2014, hasn't been updated (yet))
Bane applies a d4 penalty on up to 3 targets (with a 1st level slot), but each gets a save to resist which means you'll likely only affect 1, maybe 2; and it costs both a 1st level slot and Action to cast. Legendary Resistance can avoid it, and main baddies are unlikely to fail their save against it (Silvery Barbs works against anyone, every time)
Shield is awesome, and is still the go to choice if you are the one being targeted, buf if you're not the target, then Silvery Barbs is the clear choice. Let's also not forgot that at the low low cost of a 1st level slot, which most casters have in abundance once past the lowest levels.
It effectively negates crits, and is quite frankly the primary use of the spell.
The fact that it can negate a crit (no save), AND then give an ally advantage (which can mean Sneak Attack), and it only costs a Reaction and 1st level slot make it a NO GO at our tables. We have 4 DMs in our extended group, some of us with 40+ yrs of experience as DMs, and NONE of us allow that spell.
You are of course free to make your own ruling at your table, but the spells banned at our table are:
1. Silvery Barbs
2. Raulothim's Psychic Lance (speak someone's name and if they're in range they take damage = hard no)
3. Sickening Radiance (damage + exhaustion + prevents invisible, the exhaustion alone means 6 rounds within the spell = death. Every pt of exhaustion (even worse in 2024) means a -2 (cumulative) to their next save vs the spell, and at 6 levels you're dead regardless of level, HD, or HP - Cast this in an enclosed area, wait the 10 minute duration, and everything within is guaranteed to be dead = hard no)
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Honestly, my DM doesn't really like getting crits on the party, and it makes things a bit more swingy than he'd like. He's happy to see us negate crits, because it's fun for us and makes his life a bit easier. He's not trying to 'win'. and monsters not critting on us makes it easier to make things tight without killing us.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha