A first level spell that neither requires action nor bonus action, that disadvantages an enemy, advantages an ally, offers no save, and can be cast even if another levelled spell has already been cast in the same round - is OP as heck. Make it a third level spell, and I'll consider it.
It is a cheap as cheap can get (1st level slot AND not even an Action or Bonus Action, it's a REACTION), automatically works to eliminate a crit, AND gives advantage to an ally for the low low cost of a 1st level slot and reaction. The cost is way too low, for not one, but two good outcomes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
obviously im not saying that or going that far. what you said is elementary and everyone knows that (not trying to say that in a rude way just saying its basic). but you can do something extremely risky and negate the risk potentially breaking the game. because often times the only thing a dm can do to balance an encounter is a risk reward. he could put a 2nd check into stop you from breaking the game but it can often be transparent that hes just trying to save his own ass. For example. a heist mission would benefit nicely from a nat 20 portent but the dm could put several arbitrary skill checks in to prevent that nat 20 from letting you walk away filthy rich. My point is portent has a higher ceiling than than silvery barbs if that makes sense.
i still think portent is better because you can literally break the game if you wait until you have a nat 20 roll on a good day. then go do something insane knowing you will succeed.
That's not how skill checks work (or at least, not how they should work). The "I flap my arms to fly" or "I persuade the king to give me his kingdom" examples are non-starters for a skill check; if something is objectively impossible, then by definition you do not have a 1 in 20 chance of making it happen.
Yeah and I'd like to add that I once made an insanely overpowered character around both Portent and Silvery Barbs and both are ridiculously overpowered. Honestly, I'd say Divination Wizard is one of the most broken subclasses. Why? Well, just because of how overpowered Portent's ability to determine the results of crucial roles is. The old Aerois campaign on the High Rollers D&D YouTube channel had Qillek Ad Khollar who multiclassed to be a Cleric/level 2 Divination Wizard and used Portent as probably his signature ability throughout the campaign.
Portent scales really well too even though you only get up to 3 Portents per day while at levels 14 through 20. Meanwhile, you have 4 1st level spell slots at 14th, 3 2nd level spells slots then, and 3 3rd level slots as well. All of those are really expendable slots that you can use to cast Silvery then. And unlike Portent, you gain more of them as you go from level 14 to 20.
Also, you don't have to pick the Divination subclass or even be a Wizard to gain access to Silvery Barbs. However, you have to have 2 levels in Divination Wizard to have 2 daily uses of Portent.
I'll say that 1 use of Portent is stronger than 1 use of Silvery, but you have way less of it and have to choose your subclass mainly just for it. So Silvery is much more powerful due to the increased accessibility and fewer sacrifices you must make to attain it.
If you don't understand Portent, this segue will make little sense. But essentially, MrPeeBottles has utilized one of the most common strategies in this debate: Compare Silvery Barbs to another insanely broken feature. This has been used to argue that because Silvery isn't too far out of the same ballpark powerwise as these other busted abilities, clearly it shouldn't be nerfed.
In reality, this just proves my point: If Silvery Barb's power can be compared to other insanely broken features and still come out on top, it's probably insanely broken. And even if it isn't always on top, the things that actually beat it out are ones that are also wildly broken.
There, TedTalk over... For now!!! :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
I guess I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
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.
I guess I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
No you're probably right that I'm a bit biased when it comes to Portent because I like the feature, and on second thought it's probably only broken when it's either used with Silvery or attained via a 2 level dip in Wizard. But my point is that Portent is another really powerful ability that you have less access to than Silvery Barbs and can't get without being a Divination Wizard.
So, this is yet another case of Silvery clearly being superior too a really powerful ability. So even though you're right that calling Portent "insanely broken" was a clear exaggeration on my part, the main thing I'm trying to showcase is how people on this thread generally compare Silvery to really powerful or even overpowered abilities. And the fact how Silvery still dominates in most of these comparisons just demonstrates how it's kinda busted.
Not all Persuasion checks are one and done or even have the opportunity to succeed. Making a long shot and risky check and then transforming your result into a 20 or something close to it is definitely a super powerful use of Portent. And that alone might be enough for some to say that Portent is overpowered in itself. Which goes back to my argument that Silvery's getting compared to some of the best related abilities in D&D and emerging triumphant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
I guess I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
I think the idea is that you wait until you have a guaranteed nat 20, then go use it for some long shot, highly profitable persuasion check.
IMO that’s a pretty iffy plan because it’s reliant on your DM being on board with however far you try and push the social roll. Better to just use the 20 to turn a Smite, Sneak Attack, or one of those big attack roll spells into a crit.
I guess I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
I think the idea is that you wait until you have a guaranteed nat 20, then go use it for some long shot, highly profitable persuasion check.
IMO that’s a pretty iffy plan because it’s reliant on your DM being on board with however far you try and push the social roll. Better to just use the 20 to turn a Smite, Sneak Attack, or one of those big attack roll spells into a crit.
I did not say it was a particularly great plan, but there is sadly no shortage of players out there who think that fast talking the DM is how you play.
Which is wholly separate from the issue of how broken Portent is in tangible terms as opposed to these kind of “what if” cases.
I guess I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
No you're probably right that I'm a bit biased when it comes to Portent because I like the feature, and on second thought it's probably only broken when it's either used with Silvery or attained via a 2 level dip in Wizard. But my point is that Portent is another really powerful ability that you have less access to than Silvery Barbs and can't get without being a Divination Wizard.
So, this is yet another case of Silvery clearly being superior too a really powerful ability. So even though you're right that calling Portent "insanely broken" was a clear exaggeration on my part, the main thing I'm trying to showcase is how people on this thread generally compare Silvery to really powerful or even overpowered abilities. And the fact how Silvery still dominates in most of these comparisons just demonstrates how it's kinda busted.
Not all Persuasion checks are one and done or even have the opportunity to succeed. Making a long shot and risky check and then transforming your result into a 20 or something close to it is definitely a super powerful use of Portent. And that alone might be enough for some to say that Portent is overpowered in itself. Which goes back to my argument that Silvery's getting compared to some of the best related abilities in D&D and emerging triumphant.
I do believe that it is a bit silly to compare Silvery Barbs to Portent. SB is not more accessible than something you can do on a whim. SB has actually a pretty significant limitation that makes it difficult to argue that they are even comparable. Portent you can only use twice, but it costs no action economy or spell slots - it just works. You also get to choose which number to assign to the character. That is in sharp contrast to SB, which uses action economy, spell slots (which means no casting other spells later and no using reactions the rest of the turn), AND you have to first force someone to roll a second time to take the lower of the two rolls before you can assign someone advantage to another roll. You only get two Portents until level 14 compared to a growing number of spell slots, true, but all other aspects of both strongly favor Portent. An average of a -5 to a roll for the first portion of SB is objectively not as good as knowing they will be assigned a nat 1 before the Portent is even assigned. There is a lot of guesswork in SB that you do not have to worry about with Portent.
Portent is not OP IMO, but it is pretty awesome. SB only has spamming potential but who cares because if you have a caster who wants to spam the spell, the easy answer to that is to just give them a lot of opportunities to use it. In my experience, they will. Then you have a useless caster in a couple of rounds. How powerful is a tapped caster?
But here is another thing: You can still use Portent with SB! They don't compete at all! Did they still succeed after SB? Well now your ally has advantage and you can use one of your Portents anyway!
Portent needs to be used before any rolling happens. SB can only be used after a roll. It cannot apply the reroll or the advantage to the same roll being used for portent.
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.
Except Portent can potentially be useless if you roll a 12 and a 13. Sure, this can negate a crit, but so can SB (and can do so more often). And a Wizard at level 18 can do this at will for nothing more than a reaction (what does a Wizard use their reaction for besides Counterspell or Shield anyway? Plus, SB can achieve certain aspects of both of these).
But here is another thing: You can still use Portent with SB! They don't compete at all! Did they still succeed after SB? Well now your ally has advantage and you can use one of your Portents anyway!
Maybe. Most people have a rough idea of hit modifiers and saves for monsters as they level. I don't think I would ever be so brazen to define Portent as useless. Maybe not useful for every roll you encounter in a session, sure, but useless? No, that is a step too far in my opinion. And are we really talking about balance and game-breaking potential at level 18?! The game has already long gone off the rails by that time, for 3 levels at least, or several months of play. I would be willing to bet any high level DM has far more to make them cry than Silvery Barbs.
Again, if you have a wizard who spams it, there are easy solutions for that: LET THEM. Silvery Barbs means no Counterspell. Silvery Barbs means no Shield. That's Christmas to a DM in any major encounter. I have been allowing this spell in my game since the beginning and it blows my mind that DMs are defeated by this spell.
Who cares if they can use Portent with Silvery Barbs? The same synergy exists with Counterspell and that never got anyone to pull their hair out and gnash their teeth.
Except you don't need Counterspell or Shield if you were able to make two attempts at nailing them with Hold Person on the same turn. On top of that, you now have advantage on your next save/check/attack.
Aren't you restricted from doing that by the one-spell-per-turn rule? The rules don't seem to explicitly say you can't use an action to cast a spell and a reaction to cast another, but that interpretation seems implied by the wording of the bonus action spell rules.
Except you don't need Counterspell or Shield if you were able to make two attempts at nailing them with Hold Person on the same turn. On top of that, you now have advantage on your next save/check/attack.
Aren't you restricted from doing that by the one-spell-per-turn rule? The rules don't seem to explicitly say you can't use an action to cast a spell and a reaction to cast another, but that interpretation seems implied by the wording of the bonus action spell rules.
Not at all. The bonus action spell rules have absolutely no bearing on a turn in which no bonus action spell is cast. If you quickened that Hold Person to cast it as a bonus action, then you couldn't cast Silvery Barbs. But if you cast it normally, there's no restriction.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think SB is overtuned, but not grossly so. Remove the granting advantage bit (or make that an upcast to 2nd level) and it's fine.
Except you don't need Counterspell or Shield if you were able to make two attempts at nailing them with Hold Person on the same turn. On top of that, you now have advantage on your next save/check/attack.
Aren't you restricted from doing that by the one-spell-per-turn rule? The rules don't seem to explicitly say you can't use an action to cast a spell and a reaction to cast another, but that interpretation seems implied by the wording of the bonus action spell rules.
Not at all. The bonus action spell rules have absolutely no bearing on a turn in which no bonus action spell is cast. If you quickened that Hold Person to cast it as a bonus action, then you couldn't cast Silvery Barbs. But if you cast it normally, there's no restriction.
Wild, I think I hate that. You're definitely correct, it just feels like a huge oversight in the rules.
Except Portent can potentially be useless if you roll a 12 and a 13. Sure, this can negate a crit, but so can SB (and can do so more often). And a Wizard at level 18 can do this at will for nothing more than a reaction (what does a Wizard use their reaction for besides Counterspell or Shield anyway? Plus, SB can achieve certain aspects of both of these).
But here is another thing: You can still use Portent with SB! They don't compete at all! Did they still succeed after SB? Well now your ally has advantage and you can use one of your Portents anyway!
Maybe. Most people have a rough idea of hit modifiers and saves for monsters as they level. I don't think I would ever be so brazen to define Portent as useless. Maybe not useful for every roll you encounter in a session, sure, but useless? No, that is a step too far in my opinion. And are we really talking about balance and game-breaking potential at level 18?! The game has already long gone off the rails by that time, for 3 levels at least, or several months of play. I would be willing to bet any high level DM has far more to make them cry than Silvery Barbs.
Again, if you have a wizard who spams it, there are easy solutions for that: LET THEM. Silvery Barbs means no Counterspell. Silvery Barbs means no Shield. That's Christmas to a DM in any major encounter. I have been allowing this spell in my game since the beginning and it blows my mind that DMs are defeated by this spell.
Who cares if they can use Portent with Silvery Barbs? The same synergy exists with Counterspell and that never got anyone to pull their hair out and gnash their teeth.
Except you don't need Counterspell or Shield if you were able to make two attempts at nailing them with Hold Person on the same turn. On top of that, you now have advantage on your next save/check/attack.
I don't know that I'd say it reasonably replaces spells. I build wizards without silvery barbs, I do not build wizards without shield for example. Just because silvery barbs can be used in place of specialist spells in certain situations, I don't think I'd say it's better. If I had to cross off shield and counterspell in order to open up access to silvery barbs, I seriously doubt I would make that choice.
So no, I'm not sure I agree that it's overpowered. It's certainly NOT broken (A word that gets thrown around far too much).
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.
If one 1st level spell can reasonably replace several other spells, while also granting advantage to the next save/check/attack roll, don't you think it is reasonable to say it is broken/overpowered? That is the whole reason behind this discussion.
Now, whether it should be banned or not is a whole other discussion. But it seems like the consensus is that it is a tier above Shield, which is/was already considered to be an overpowered spell.
It does not reasonably replace several other spells though. It effectively imposes disadvantage for one attack, check, or save for one creature and grants advantage for an attack, check, or save for one creature for the next minute, provided that a reaction and triggering successful attack/check/save be made that you would prefer not succeed. Even if I agreed with your strained assumption on what is 'reasonably replaced', I would disagree with your conclusion. I thought that would be clear by now in the literal years we have been discussing it. For the record, I don't think Hold Person is overpowered just because it might work either and I don't wring my hands if multiple casters have it in their spell list.
Further, the logic that one would not need Counterspell or Shield because they have Silvery Barbs is deeply flawed and honestly makes me wonder how much of your opinion is formed through play and how much is formed from the armchair. SB might turn one attack aside, maybe, but for any fight that has a number of enemies greater than 1, that has a high risk to backfire. For any enemy that has multi-attack, that has a high risk to backfire. You don't need Shield if you have Silvery Barbs? Sure, if the extent of one's play is only arguing about spells on these forums. For those of us who do play though, players have to weigh their decision against the current conditions of the battle and each one is different. There are plenty of battles my players have had where it was a decidedly poor decision to use SB and there are some battles where it was quite useful. That's how it should be. So no, I do not agree that the spell is broken or overpowered because that has not been my experience in actual play. The most it was used was when it was novel in play and while still useful a couple years later, it does not see nearly the facetime that it once had because my players see that it is not always beneficial to use.
According to the poll, almost half of the people think the spell is perfectly fine and of those who chose overpowered, many expanded on their thoughts and feelings here in this thread to say they would prefer it to be a level 2 spell. Many others also said that they felt they might alter it in some small way. Then there are those who said it was banned before it could be used to inform their opinions. I saw no consensus among these people and I have been following this thread since 2021, therefore I reject your opinion that there is a consensus among those who find it overpowered. A handful of people agreed with each other in the discussion. If there is a consensus, it would be that a larger collection of people have found that the spell is fine and who left it at that. I also disagree that it is a tier above Shield. I believe that it is both better or worse, depending on the situation. If you use SB, you are spent for the rest of the turn and you cannot Counterspell. You cannot turn away any more than a single attack. These are not inherently bad decisions, they are estimations of risk vs reward and they are both also very common risks to take in any game I have been a DM or a player.
Once again, for 2+ years I have had this spell in my games, sometimes with multiple casters that had it. It has literally never been a problem for this DM. If anyone has a DM that doesn't allow it at their table, send me a PM. If I get enough, I will host a PBP for you.
To emphasize what Erik is saying above, SB will grant disadvantage to an attack. Shield gives me a 5 bonus to AC against ALL attacks coming in. I do not think that SB is better than shield.
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.
A first level spell that neither requires action nor bonus action, that disadvantages an enemy, advantages an ally, offers no save, and can be cast even if another levelled spell has already been cast in the same round - is OP as heck. Make it a third level spell, and I'll consider it.
It is a cheap as cheap can get (1st level slot AND not even an Action or Bonus Action, it's a REACTION), automatically works to eliminate a crit, AND gives advantage to an ally for the low low cost of a 1st level slot and reaction. The cost is way too low, for not one, but two good outcomes.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
its as good as shield imo. I think they should be level 2 spells.
obviously im not saying that or going that far. what you said is elementary and everyone knows that (not trying to say that in a rude way just saying its basic). but you can do something extremely risky and negate the risk potentially breaking the game. because often times the only thing a dm can do to balance an encounter is a risk reward. he could put a 2nd check into stop you from breaking the game but it can often be transparent that hes just trying to save his own ass. For example. a heist mission would benefit nicely from a nat 20 portent but the dm could put several arbitrary skill checks in to prevent that nat 20 from letting you walk away filthy rich. My point is portent has a higher ceiling than than silvery barbs if that makes sense.
Yeah and I'd like to add that I once made an insanely overpowered character around both Portent and Silvery Barbs and both are ridiculously overpowered. Honestly, I'd say Divination Wizard is one of the most broken subclasses. Why? Well, just because of how overpowered Portent's ability to determine the results of crucial roles is. The old Aerois campaign on the High Rollers D&D YouTube channel had Qillek Ad Khollar who multiclassed to be a Cleric/level 2 Divination Wizard and used Portent as probably his signature ability throughout the campaign.
Portent scales really well too even though you only get up to 3 Portents per day while at levels 14 through 20. Meanwhile, you have 4 1st level spell slots at 14th, 3 2nd level spells slots then, and 3 3rd level slots as well. All of those are really expendable slots that you can use to cast Silvery then. And unlike Portent, you gain more of them as you go from level 14 to 20.
Also, you don't have to pick the Divination subclass or even be a Wizard to gain access to Silvery Barbs. However, you have to have 2 levels in Divination Wizard to have 2 daily uses of Portent.
I'll say that 1 use of Portent is stronger than 1 use of Silvery, but you have way less of it and have to choose your subclass mainly just for it. So Silvery is much more powerful due to the increased accessibility and fewer sacrifices you must make to attain it.
If you don't understand Portent, this segue will make little sense. But essentially, MrPeeBottles has utilized one of the most common strategies in this debate: Compare Silvery Barbs to another insanely broken feature. This has been used to argue that because Silvery isn't too far out of the same ballpark powerwise as these other busted abilities, clearly it shouldn't be nerfed.
In reality, this just proves my point: If Silvery Barb's power can be compared to other insanely broken features and still come out on top, it's probably insanely broken. And even if it isn't always on top, the things that actually beat it out are ones that are also wildly broken.
There, TedTalk over... For now!!! :)
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 I don't see how Portent is "insanely broken", personally. It's only two (three later on) rolls that you can change, is reliant on you rolling well (IE not in that awkward range that could either pass or fail anyway) and having the right kind of roll available to you (rolling two 19s is awesome - unless you're trying to push Banishment, then they're useless) - plus you have to decide before the roll to use them, so there's a good chance they're wasted anyway unless they're nat20s. You can't keep them after a day anyway, so it's not like you can hoard your good ones.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's also that subclass' key ability so it should be. This is just theory crafting so I might be wrong, but the limitations make it seem like it's not too OP.
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.
No you're probably right that I'm a bit biased when it comes to Portent because I like the feature, and on second thought it's probably only broken when it's either used with Silvery or attained via a 2 level dip in Wizard. But my point is that Portent is another really powerful ability that you have less access to than Silvery Barbs and can't get without being a Divination Wizard.
So, this is yet another case of Silvery clearly being superior too a really powerful ability. So even though you're right that calling Portent "insanely broken" was a clear exaggeration on my part, the main thing I'm trying to showcase is how people on this thread generally compare Silvery to really powerful or even overpowered abilities. And the fact how Silvery still dominates in most of these comparisons just demonstrates how it's kinda busted.
Not all Persuasion checks are one and done or even have the opportunity to succeed. Making a long shot and risky check and then transforming your result into a 20 or something close to it is definitely a super powerful use of Portent. And that alone might be enough for some to say that Portent is overpowered in itself. Which goes back to my argument that Silvery's getting compared to some of the best related abilities in D&D and emerging triumphant.
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.IMO that’s a pretty iffy plan because it’s reliant on your DM being on board with however far you try and push the social roll. Better to just use the 20 to turn a Smite, Sneak Attack, or one of those big attack roll spells into a crit.
Which is wholly separate from the issue of how broken Portent is in tangible terms as opposed to these kind of “what if” cases.
I do believe that it is a bit silly to compare Silvery Barbs to Portent. SB is not more accessible than something you can do on a whim. SB has actually a pretty significant limitation that makes it difficult to argue that they are even comparable. Portent you can only use twice, but it costs no action economy or spell slots - it just works. You also get to choose which number to assign to the character. That is in sharp contrast to SB, which uses action economy, spell slots (which means no casting other spells later and no using reactions the rest of the turn), AND you have to first force someone to roll a second time to take the lower of the two rolls before you can assign someone advantage to another roll. You only get two Portents until level 14 compared to a growing number of spell slots, true, but all other aspects of both strongly favor Portent. An average of a -5 to a roll for the first portion of SB is objectively not as good as knowing they will be assigned a nat 1 before the Portent is even assigned. There is a lot of guesswork in SB that you do not have to worry about with Portent.
Portent is not OP IMO, but it is pretty awesome. SB only has spamming potential but who cares because if you have a caster who wants to spam the spell, the easy answer to that is to just give them a lot of opportunities to use it. In my experience, they will. Then you have a useless caster in a couple of rounds. How powerful is a tapped caster?
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
Portent needs to be used before any rolling happens. SB can only be used after a roll. It cannot apply the reroll or the advantage to the same roll being used for portent.
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.
Maybe. Most people have a rough idea of hit modifiers and saves for monsters as they level. I don't think I would ever be so brazen to define Portent as useless. Maybe not useful for every roll you encounter in a session, sure, but useless? No, that is a step too far in my opinion. And are we really talking about balance and game-breaking potential at level 18?! The game has already long gone off the rails by that time, for 3 levels at least, or several months of play. I would be willing to bet any high level DM has far more to make them cry than Silvery Barbs.
Again, if you have a wizard who spams it, there are easy solutions for that: LET THEM. Silvery Barbs means no Counterspell. Silvery Barbs means no Shield. That's Christmas to a DM in any major encounter. I have been allowing this spell in my game since the beginning and it blows my mind that DMs are defeated by this spell.
Who cares if they can use Portent with Silvery Barbs? The same synergy exists with Counterspell and that never got anyone to pull their hair out and gnash their teeth.
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
Aren't you restricted from doing that by the one-spell-per-turn rule? The rules don't seem to explicitly say you can't use an action to cast a spell and a reaction to cast another, but that interpretation seems implied by the wording of the bonus action spell rules.
Not at all. The bonus action spell rules have absolutely no bearing on a turn in which no bonus action spell is cast. If you quickened that Hold Person to cast it as a bonus action, then you couldn't cast Silvery Barbs. But if you cast it normally, there's no restriction.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think SB is overtuned, but not grossly so. Remove the granting advantage bit (or make that an upcast to 2nd level) and it's fine.
Wild, I think I hate that. You're definitely correct, it just feels like a huge oversight in the rules.
One leveled spell per turn would definitely be simpler than the current rules, but it would also be a meaningful change.
So? Seriously, so what?
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 don't know that I'd say it reasonably replaces spells. I build wizards without silvery barbs, I do not build wizards without shield for example. Just because silvery barbs can be used in place of specialist spells in certain situations, I don't think I'd say it's better. If I had to cross off shield and counterspell in order to open up access to silvery barbs, I seriously doubt I would make that choice.
So no, I'm not sure I agree that it's overpowered. It's certainly NOT broken (A word that gets thrown around far too much).
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
It does not reasonably replace several other spells though. It effectively imposes disadvantage for one attack, check, or save for one creature and grants advantage for an attack, check, or save for one creature for the next minute, provided that a reaction and triggering successful attack/check/save be made that you would prefer not succeed. Even if I agreed with your strained assumption on what is 'reasonably replaced', I would disagree with your conclusion. I thought that would be clear by now in the literal years we have been discussing it. For the record, I don't think Hold Person is overpowered just because it might work either and I don't wring my hands if multiple casters have it in their spell list.
Further, the logic that one would not need Counterspell or Shield because they have Silvery Barbs is deeply flawed and honestly makes me wonder how much of your opinion is formed through play and how much is formed from the armchair. SB might turn one attack aside, maybe, but for any fight that has a number of enemies greater than 1, that has a high risk to backfire. For any enemy that has multi-attack, that has a high risk to backfire. You don't need Shield if you have Silvery Barbs? Sure, if the extent of one's play is only arguing about spells on these forums. For those of us who do play though, players have to weigh their decision against the current conditions of the battle and each one is different. There are plenty of battles my players have had where it was a decidedly poor decision to use SB and there are some battles where it was quite useful. That's how it should be. So no, I do not agree that the spell is broken or overpowered because that has not been my experience in actual play. The most it was used was when it was novel in play and while still useful a couple years later, it does not see nearly the facetime that it once had because my players see that it is not always beneficial to use.
According to the poll, almost half of the people think the spell is perfectly fine and of those who chose overpowered, many expanded on their thoughts and feelings here in this thread to say they would prefer it to be a level 2 spell. Many others also said that they felt they might alter it in some small way. Then there are those who said it was banned before it could be used to inform their opinions. I saw no consensus among these people and I have been following this thread since 2021, therefore I reject your opinion that there is a consensus among those who find it overpowered. A handful of people agreed with each other in the discussion. If there is a consensus, it would be that a larger collection of people have found that the spell is fine and who left it at that. I also disagree that it is a tier above Shield. I believe that it is both better or worse, depending on the situation. If you use SB, you are spent for the rest of the turn and you cannot Counterspell. You cannot turn away any more than a single attack. These are not inherently bad decisions, they are estimations of risk vs reward and they are both also very common risks to take in any game I have been a DM or a player.
Once again, for 2+ years I have had this spell in my games, sometimes with multiple casters that had it. It has literally never been a problem for this DM. If anyone has a DM that doesn't allow it at their table, send me a PM. If I get enough, I will host a PBP for you.
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
To emphasize what Erik is saying above, SB will grant disadvantage to an attack. Shield gives me a 5 bonus to AC against ALL attacks coming in. I do not think that SB is better than shield.
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