To balance the spell, you could make the trigger "perceivable", using the same trigger reaction rule as the one for the Ready action. (How can a character react to something that can't be perceived or intuited?) Also, I would allow creatures with immunity to Charmed condition an initial saving throw. (UA had something similar, iirc)
When a creature within range (other than yourself) succeeds on a perceivable attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you magically distract the triggering creature and turn its momentary uncertainty into encouragement for another creature. The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll. A creature's legendary resistance isn't affected by this effect, and a creature immune to the Charmed condition can make a Charisma saving throw to avoid the effect, ending the spell on a success.
The things have existed, but they have not existed in an easy to use package like you say. Something does not need to set the universe on fire to be OP. Granting a better version of wish as a 6th level spell would be OP would it not? It does not matter than Wish has existed for all of DnDs life cycle.
I've seen people saying this spell is OP because it swings to many things for to little investment and your here saying no its not because this power could mimic only this aspect of barbs power for more cost.
I guess I just don't value advantage/disadvantage as highly as other people do.
Barbs is only - ONLY - an issue because it mucks with saves. If it applied only to attacks and ability checks, literally no one would care about this spell, at all, period. Imposing disadvantage on an attack roll is, in virtually all circumstances, pointless. It's why Frostbite is one of the worst damage cantrips in D&D and why nobody really cares about the effects of vicious mockery, only the memes. So the target has disadvantage on one swing? Whoo. The following sixteen swings from its seventeen-hit multiattack will ensure that by the time it's done with you, that first disadvantage swing will be a forgotten memory because the 5e design philosophy behind making a creature an offensive threat is "ensure it attacks twice as often as an entire six-man party full of dual-wielding fighters".
Gonna trim it down to just this to keep the quote from being massive. Not valuing advantage/disadvantage is fair I can't really argue that as it's just a preference. The only part I would point out is again the comparison of frostbite and mockery.
You are right, Frostbite nobody cares about its a cantrip that forces a con save for a d6 + disadvantage on its next melee attack for an action, and mockery is a wis or d4 + disadvantage on the next attack roll.
It's again not that barbs is giving disadvantage because it's not, it's giving disadvantage ONLY after seeing a success hoping for failure, and again it's not taking your action to make it happen, so your still free to go ahead and do something more productive than force a con save for a d6 dmg and a possibly conditional disadvantage. and well than it does all that other stuff too like spell saves
What I'm trying to do with these comparisons is prove that the things Silvery Barbs can do have existed in D&D 5e for a long time. This spell is not a wild divergence from everything we've ever known that's radically changing the face of D&D as we know it, it's simply an assemblage of things other spells can do in an arguably too-convenient package. People are acting like this spell will blow up the entire edition, and that this is the first time in D&D history they've been able to hedge their bet on a save-or-suck control spell. That is simply not true. One can argue that the spell is not costly enough for what it provides, and there's reasonable arguments to be made there. But the pants-staining panic I've seen in a couple of plays is dismaying and unnecessary.
I do not and never have cared for "THE SKY IS FALLING!" protestations of eternal damnation. The spell is fine. All it can do is cause a die roll to flub, and if a DM isn't prepared for any given roll to go any given way they shouldn't be DMing. Might it have been a better choice to rate it second level, like all the other Strixhaven spells? Perhaps. Frankly I'm not opposed to the notion, and if a DM wants to houserule/homebrew Silvery Barbs as a second-level spell rather than a first, I would not give them the sass. But the overblown outcry is just frustrating.
If your argument is that it's not broken because it doesn't add new mechanics, that seems to be a poor argument. That's like saying having Wish be a 3rd level spell is not broken, because people have been able to cast that spell since forever.
What if you had a spell that combined the effects of Fireball and Prayer of Healing and it was cast as a bonus action? Would you not state that this spell is overpowered and had the ability to break encounters/campaigns?
If this was a 2nd level spell, I would still argue it was very strong, but this being available at 1st makes this overly accessible to dips or feats. And it makes this spell easily spammable.
The argument was that what the spell does is already doable, just in different, but importantly, somewhat comparable ways. Suggesting that they would be fine with Wish be a 3rd level spell or combining Fireball and Prayer of Healing together in the one spell is disingenuous to what they have stated.
It's not disingenuous because the argument being put forth is along the lines of, Barbs is not OP because granting advantage and disadvantage are things that already exist. An example given being heightened spell that effects spell saves, while having the cost of 1 of your metamagics, 3 sorcery points and having to be used at time of casting.
Which entirely ignores that barbs is a reaction, used after the die roll, also grants advantage, can be used on more than just spell saves, and only costs a 1st lvl spell slot and your reaction (also isn't a class feature like metamagic)
The argument about Barbs being OP is not that it gives advantage/(pseudo) disadvantage its that it does both at the same time, as a reaction for a 1st lvl spell slot to any dice rolls being made
So yes an apt counter would be would a fireball/prayer of healing with a BA cast time not be OP? It doesn't matter than we have fireball and prayer of healing already, or that we have wish as a 9th lvl spell if they put out a 6th level wish that you can't lose access to.
"I am okay with this spell, because what is does is similar to other kinda closely obtainable spells and features such as Shield and doesn't do anything new in particular."
"Well then you would be okay with taking the arguably most powerful spell in the game and making it 3rd level right? Because it won't be doing anything new, so you'd be fine with that yeah? You'd be okay with fusing Fireball and Prayer of Healing together into the one spell as a bonus action because we could already do those things before, yeah?"
I'd say that is rather disingenuous and ignoring the context of the discussion. By the power of Tiamat's left nipple, keep in mind the context.
For the record, every point you just brought up about the power of Silvery Barbs are ones that I have already made in this thread. I am against Barbs, I don't like it. But we can still be reasonable within the discussion without bring up a strawman collection.
"I am okay with this spell, because part what is does is similar to other kinda closely obtainable spells and features with higher usage costs such as Guiding bolt/metamagic/bless/bane and doesn't do anything new in particular."
Is what is being said, hence why people are coming in with the fireball/prayer comparison
I haven't read the previous 100+ posts, so I'll keep my piece simple:
+1 for making this spell not work on creatures immune to being charmed. That alone should help protect NPCs that are already protected against tomfoolery.
Demonstrate caution when combining Silvery Barbs with something like the Shadowfell Shard at low levels. Double-dipping disadvantage is a nice trick. If the party has too much access to short/long rests, it can be disruptive. If the party has long adventuring days, then there is more demand for resource management.
I'm with Yurei on this. It seems perfectly fine. If someone wants to spend two spell slots (whatever they cast in the first place, and then SB) to try and use one spell (try being an important word here), that's seems like a decent trade off. Forcing a re-roll doesn't mean the new roll will fail. Sometimes, yes, the target will fail on the re-roll. Sometimes, they won't, and the caster will have spent a spell slot basically to just give someone advantage on a single roll.
But really, I don't think any of us (myself included) actually knows. All this white room scenario stuff is meaningless; I've never once heard of a combat taking place in one, let alone a whole campaign. Make a caster and play through a whole campaign with it. See how often you use it. See how often it actually turns into a win button, and how often it doesn't actually do much. Could be it trivializes every single encounter. Could be it doesn't do anything. Most likely, it will be very useful sometimes and not at all useful other times, like any other spell or ability. Sometimes, it will be a clutch spell that will save the whole party. Sometimes, the DM will make the save the second time, and everyone will groan. And both of those scenarios are great. That moment-long wait for the die to finish wobbling is probably the most exciting part of the game, imo. So, something that makes that happen more often is all right in my book.
The issues I have with Silvery Barbs is that, unlike every other spell discussed here (aside from Shield) it just works. There is no attack roll like with Guiding Bolt, there is no save like with Bane, Counterspell, and Faerie Fire it just happens. You could cast Bane and get zero affect as every creature makes the save. Not so with Silvery Barbs!
Having Silvery Barbs makes save-or-suck spells SO MUCH better! Let's say you throw a Hold Person and they make their save. Well, now you can make them roll again and use the lower roll -AND- grant pseudo-advantage to your ally. Now, not only is that target paralyzed, but your allies who are attacking with advantage get a third d20 to really fish for that crit! All for the cost of your reaction (which, let's face it, most caster don't use much anyway) and a 1-level spell slot. Of all of the reaction spells, Silvery Barbs is easily the most versatile and universally useful.
The other thing that makes this better than Bane or Bless is that you can use it on top of those two spells.
What makes it better than Shield is that it affects more than just weapon attacks! Say that you got hit with a sword, well Silvery Barbs makes that now a miss, which Shield might do, and you grant yourself the extra d20 (which I will say you get whether the new roll succeeds or fails!) and now you get hit with a save spell. Shield does nothing for that save spell, but now you basically have advantage on that save. Even if you couldn't use Silvery Barbs outside of combat, I would still say that it edges out Shield.
And no one is saying that concentration is bad. But it is an additional cost. You can only concentrate on one spell at a time, and you could lose it. Say you cast Bless and before any of your allies get a turn, you get hit and loose concentration. That was a wasted spell (and action). There is no chance that Silvery Barbs get's wasted.
In summary: it JUST WORKS (no save, roll to hit), only takes a reaction, can buff your own spells, is universally useful, and requires 0 concentration.
This is a misconception. For the above mentioned spells you have to roll and if you succeed on the attack, or the target fails their save, then the target is definitely negatively affected. Barbs does force the target to roll. But that roll is not guaranteed to be lower than the original, or even if it is is not guaranteed to be low enough to fail. As I said before, if you require a save and the target fails, then does the required re-roll and the result is higher than the original, then the failed save was pointless as was spending the spell slot and reaction.
The target has disadvantage on one ability check? Experiment: track your next five D&D games. Count the number of times a monster/NPC makes an ability check to do anything but initiate or escape a grapple. If that number is higher than zero I will physically mail you a cookie. NPCs just don't make ability checks, and monsters make them even less. That aspect of the spell is a nonstarter. Frankly the best use of it I've heard so far is the thing where you leech luck from one party member to another - disad the rogue so you can advantage the paladin on a stealth check.
I just had our DM use Agdon Longscarf's Sleight of Hand skill on our party multiple times during a fight to steal stuff from us.....
Heh. And had I been DMing your game, you would've been allowed to use Barbs on precisely zero of those checks, because you were never aware there was a check being made to foil. That is a basic prerequisite of reactions - you have to know whatever you're reacting to is happening before you can react to it. That is an example of ability checks used by enemies though, so I am obligated to cookie.
Heh. And had I been DMing your game, you would've been allowed to use Barbs on precisely zero of those checks, because you were never aware there was a check being made to foil. That is a basic prerequisite of reactions - you have to know whatever you're reacting to is happening before you can react to it. That is an example of ability checks used by enemies though, so I am obligated to cookie.
This is a great and forgotten about point. It just seems like their is a lot of needless hang-wringing about the spell, that I am guess almost everybody hasn’t even used in a game to see how effective it really is or isn’t.
I won't lie - I've been seriously considering dropping a second-level spell (Calm Emotions) from the twelfth-level bard I'm building for a potential game to pick up Barbs. That's why I can't really argue too hard against the folks citing it fits better at second - clearly I'm willing to play it at second, even if I find it ironic that I'm considering replacing a second-level spell with it because I cannot afford to replace any of my first level spells. Heh...Barbs is good enough to take over a second-level slot but not good enough to take up a first-level, in this case, which I honestly find fascinating.
Nevertheless, I may make that switch even given how much I was looking forward to toying with Calm Emotions, if only to put my money where my mouth is and try the spell in-game. Since this prospective game (if it happens q_q) would start at 12th, I'd be right into the high-up levels where everybody says first-level spells are a waste of time and Barbs is at its best. Would be an interesting experiment.
Second level spells are kinda odd, there's some utility spells that are nice to have, but outside of the druid spell list (Moonbeam, Spike Growth) nothing super significant in combat.
Second level spells are kinda odd, there's some utility spells that are nice to have, but outside of the druid spell list (Moonbeam, Spike Growth) nothing super significant in combat.
Misty Step and Mirror Image will beg to differ. Blur might make a fuss too. Enlarge/Reduce and Dragon's Breath might be a tad miffed. Flaming Sphere, Heat Metal, Earthen Grasp, Moonbeam, Rime's Binding Ice, Scorching Ray, Shatter, and a few more will be quite unhappy. Even Silence will be confused. Hold Person will be completely outraged.
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.
What I'm trying to do with these comparisons is prove that the things Silvery Barbs can do have existed in D&D 5e for a long time. This spell is not a wild divergence from everything we've ever known that's radically changing the face of D&D as we know it, it's simply an assemblage of things other spells can do in an arguably too-convenient package. People are acting like this spell will blow up the entire edition, and that this is the first time in D&D history they've been able to hedge their bet on a save-or-suck control spell. That is simply not true. One can argue that the spell is not costly enough for what it provides, and there's reasonable arguments to be made there. But the pants-staining panic I've seen in a couple of plays is dismaying and unnecessary.
I do not and never have cared for "THE SKY IS FALLING!" protestations of eternal damnation. The spell is fine. All it can do is cause a die roll to flub, and if a DM isn't prepared for any given roll to go any given way they shouldn't be DMing. Might it have been a better choice to rate it second level, like all the other Strixhaven spells? Perhaps. Frankly I'm not opposed to the notion, and if a DM wants to houserule/homebrew Silvery Barbs as a second-level spell rather than a first, I would not give them the sass. But the overblown outcry is just frustrating.
Are those the arguments you've been hearing? I've read every post in this thread so far, and I don't think that's how I'd characterize what I've heard. I would go as far as to suggest that you are exaggerating the responses significantly. Probably for humorous intent, but the knock-on effect is to create a strawman.
Despite everyone in every third thread here on DDB accusing me of being an evil cheating baby-eating flaming fornicating powergaming turdburglar, when I sit down to make most of my spellcasting characters I ask myself "what is this character's job, in the game world? What is her profession, what does she do? Or, if her job is 'hobo', how did she come into her powers and what does that say about what they are?", and then make decisions based on that. If I wanted nothing but combat spells or Munchkin Nonsense, second-level magic is replete. Invis, Shatter, done. I originally took Calm Emotions because this particular character is a BS artist extraordinaire, and being able to calm an angry pitchfork mob into shoulder-shrugging indifference long enough to get a sixty-second head start seemed appropriate.
Just found it interesting that when I was looking the gal over and seeing what could be dropped for Barbs, the answer was a second-level spell but not any of her first-level spells. Lots of folk like to bag on first-level magic and say it shouldn't ever be anything but cheap, lame gimmicks nobody ever needs, but one could easily make a very useful utility caster indeed from nothing but first-level spells.
The good thing about most of those other powerful spells is that they focus on one thing. Defence, movement, control. Barbs on the other hand can be used for any of those when combined with other spells. Did the enemy succeed on their save against Vortex Warp (or any other save or suck spell, like Banishment)? Use Barbs so you can effectively cast the spell again on your turn for the cost of a 1st level spell slot. Enemy succeed on their ability check to Counterspell? Cast Barbs to force the check again. Enemy got a crit on you? Cast Barbs which is just shy of a certainty of not being crit, or Shield if they didn't crit and you can boost your AC enough to get through.
Yes, there are undeniably situations where you don't want to cast Barbs so you can save your reaction for other things, but the same can be said for almost everything in the game - be mindful with your resources, casting time included. But Barbs is essentially using your reaction to cast two spells in one turn for the cost of the original spell plus any spell slot you use Barbs for, because taking Barbs doesn't stop you taking the other spells.
And then it also has pseudo abilities from the grave cleric and mastermind rogue subclasses, but arguably better.
Following this line of logic then, Vicious Mockery is far and away too powerful to be a cantrip. After all, it has two focuses - debuff and damage. Being versatile is not a very strong argument for why this spell is broken in my opinion; it really has only two applications for any use - debuff and buff, with a maximum of two targets. I am not sure what you mean with your Counterspell example, so I believe I may be misinterpreting your point. The target does not roll a check or save when you try to use Counterspell; the caster of Counterspell makes the check if the target's spell is of a high enough level. Silvery Barbs has no ability to impact this exchange. Another caster cannot even impact this exchange with Silvery Barbs unless they first debuffed a target (the second condition hinges on the first, which really requires a triggering event to begin with). This example seems a bit fringe to support the point you are trying to make.
Yes, the ability to effectively cancel a critical hit is great, but I fail to see how this is broken for a first level spell. If you use Vicious Mockery on an opponent and during their attack roll they have one of the rolls is a 20, you have effectively done the same thing... with a cantrip.
Being mindful with your resources is one reason why the spell is not broken in actual play. You cannot leverage this spell with the same satisfying effect being implied from a theoretical standpoint as well as some think specifically because of the trade being made. The trade being made is what reduces the utility of the spell. It is versatile, this is true, but it is also extremely restricting for the casters who are able to use it. I am already using this spell with my bard, as I pointed out on the first page. I am telling you from existing experience now, in combat, that this spell is not nearly as mind-blowing in practice as you think it is. These spells do get play-tested and WotC leans heavily into reducing the power of spells. This is not being taken into consideration. Incentivizing casters to use lower level spell slots a higher levels changes the meta a bit, but it does not mean the spell is broken.
The spell is not giving you two spells in one. It is giving you two effects in one spell, of which dozens of spells of any level do. It costs your reaction, which is no small cost to pay for any practicing caster. Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment about taking other spells, but it is untrue that taking Silvery Barbs limits the spells you have at your disposal. This is only partially true for the wizard, but even they have a limited number of prepared spells a day. All other casters have a limit on the spells they can know, making my interpretation of this sentence false. Please clarify so I can address appropriately.
I assume you mean Sentinel at Death's Door. I am not overly familiar with rogues, as I have only played a few for one shots, but I am unsure what you mean for the Mastermind subclass. Do you mean Inquisitive's Insightful Fighting? Is so, I would disagree with you on both. Sentinel at Death's Door costs nothing but a reaction that a cleric barely uses unless they have Warcaster and are making opportunity attacks. The cost is extremely low and not all clerics are built for melee. If we are going to invite comparisons to subclass traits, then I can think of a few first level examples that are, by this rationale, busted. Warding Flare automatically imposes disadvantage on any attack roll. No save, it just happens. It does not just cancel critical effects like Sentinel at Death's Door does, it can be used for any attack roll and you can use Warding Flare more than a caster can cast Silvery Barbs at first level if you have a decent wisdom modifier. Should this subclass be banned at first level because of the outrageously powerful imposed disadvantage? Invoke Duplicity gives you a free Silent Image, you get essentially get Find Familiar for the purposes of combat, and you get free advantage against the target during attacks just at level 2.
The problem I have with your assumption of really needing your reaction at times when you do need it is it falls in the same line as feats like sharp shooter or GWM. We know these feats are busted, it doesn't matter that sometimes you fight something with an AC of 18 and the feats are a bad option to use at that point because the vast bulk of the time your not going to be doing that and using SS or GWM is the best option. They don't see as much "oh god" like barbs is getting because most people think casters are far stronger than martials as is, this is a nice bit of power creep for casters.
The vast bulk of the time in combat you will not need your reaction, but saving your buddy from a hit, forcing an enemy to reroll a check or save while granting your allies advantage happen constantly. Even as others have pointed it it could be a non combat scenario with checks being rolled against each other, imagine subtle spell silvery barbs in social situations, stealth situations...anything with an opposed something. it could be an opposed grapple check from your fighter.. It just has such vast array of applications, anytime there's dice being thrown by a non party member barbs can be used (I think the only thing you can't use it on is initiative) and again it's a reaction. Heck who says even non party members? group stealth check? silvery barbs your expertise, reliable talent +5 dex rogue and grant your paladin advantage on the roll! It just does SO MUCH!! edit: some more things I thought of after, someone use's an ability and the baddie passes the check, barbs it to a reroll, grant advantage to my rogue thats about to attack, or that player that's gonna start his turn in an aoe and needs to check or be rooted, or grant advantage to break that frightened/charmed condition. burn it on something stupid JUST to grant advantage on check or save that needs to be made by someone again as a reaction. Big baddy caster about to take his turn and your wizard is gonna need to counterspell? barbs anything to grant your wizard advantage on his next roll.
Yamana tries to draw a connection to guiding bolt but again, the spell is an action that is the clerics turn, they cast guiding bolt hope it hits and if they do 4d6 + advantage, and is only usable in combat. We have to keep in mind how powerful action economy is in DnD and this spell does not demand the players turn to get it of, and it has the chance of effecting two actions with a single spell slot (something easily regained during a short rest for wizards btw, thank you arcane recovery) and again is totally usable outside of combat situations. Something else I will point out about Guiding bolt is a lot of times initiative does not line up the way you want it to, I've seen guiding bolts advantage used up by the wrong character a lot, barbs goes to the person you want to have that advantage
Yurei does the same thing trying to draw connections to faerie fire and barbs. Faerie fire has a save against it, faerie fire hits everything in the zone, faerie fire is your action, faerie fire is concentration, faerie fire grants advantage, and advantage to only attack rolls. Barbs has no save, barbs hits what you want, barbs is not your action, barbs is not concentration, barbs is NOT disadvantage, and barbs is advantage on whatever/whoever rolls next not just attacks. Can faerie fire be better? yeah it can for sure but that does not stop barbs from being insanely good.
Yes there are going to be times where you can't/shouldn't use barbs but that does not stop it from being amazingly strong and asking the bare minimum from the caster, because again outside of situations where you need your counter spells or shields what do you need your reaction for? Why would you NOT cast barbs? and even when you DO need counter spell or possibly shield those windows are going to be opening and closing, if the enemy caster goes and doesn't cast a spell or hold action on one that frees you up to Barbs something until you go again. Likewise if that thing could run up and beat your face in and doesn't you are now free to barbs instead of needing to keep your reaction to shield.
I think some of the difference in view potentially comes in when people look at when the spell becomes powerful, taking barbs at lvl 1 is not a good idea, it's for when the games pushed forward enough that your 1st lvl slots are fodder, at that point it's just adding even more power to classes that frankly do not need power in 5e hence why people say it's OP. Barbs is not stopping me from dropping wall of force, or banishment or force cage etc etc it's just enhancing my abilities to further control the game
You think Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are busted feats? That is probably the biggest red herring I have ever seen used on this site. I do not believe the math supports your assertion. The need to measure your use of reactions is not at all the same as gambling on AC with a -5 to your hit. The barbarian taking Great Weapon Master almost certainly will not be seriously impacted because they are using Reckless Attack when using Great Weapon Master (or they should be). Fighters use this with Polearm Master to get two chances to stack a +10 to their damage, effectively giving them advantage, plus a bonus action attack whether the first attack succeeds or fails. Smart Sharpshooters will be leveraging their range so that even if they miss, the penalty is not being hit in turn. The feats are good options to utilize even with high AC enemies, at least for players who understand their PCs and the abilities they have. These are not broken feats, they are effective feats. This is entirely dissimilar to my argument that casters need to be careful about wasting their reaction economy. In fact, it is the opposite.
Maybe saving your buddy from a hit, you mean. Further, I do not believe you understand just how casters are both extremely fragile and frequently targeted. There is almost nothing that locks enemies into combat with the martial classes and this is not even meta-gaming; it is wise to down the casters first in a fight where they exist. Why do you think casters have Shield to begin with?
You have to know a target succeeded on a non-combat check for you to use this spell. It does not impart knowledge and even if this spell magically imparted knowledge to the user, it would have to be cast first before it could function in providing this knowledge.
The Subtle Spell feature does not only augment Silvery Barbs. Are you suggesting that other spells are not able to benefit from this class feature to the same extent? You can use Subtle Spell and use any number of spells to charm the person, many of which targets are not made aware that they are charmed. This is not a strong argument against the use of Silvery Barbs, but Metamagic and specifically Subtle Spell. I feel like you are losing the thread of your argument here.
I have been over grapple. I went into this at length, in fact. You did not read my argument before you decided to challenge my position. Please rectify this.
You do not seem to understand the limitations of the spell, which I have noticed among several users here and is likely because people have not tried using it before cursing WotC for their decisions. You cannot start by buffing your allies. You must debuff someone before you gain access to the secondary effect of buffing one person. You cannot use this for a group stealth check, as the debuff targets one creature and the buff targets one creature. Your other examples are good ways you can try planning for its use, assuming many things go right. These are not examples of why the spell is broken, but instead by the spell is valuable.
You are trying to dismiss Yamana’s argument on the grounds that no spell is exactly like this one. That is, frankly, silly. New spells must be created to keep 5e fresh. Some spells are going to change the meta; this change is actually necessary. They are each and every one useful for particular reasons and less useful for others. Even Silvery Barbs, which I have explained already and which you have not effectively addressed without first constructing strawmen arguments.
Yes, action economy is extremely important. Why are you ignoring this fact with respect to reactions? I suppose I should thank you for making my point for me. If you use this, you have no answer for several of the typical reasons a caster is holding their reaction. The fact that your team lacks synergy is not a valid argument why Guiding Bolt is not powerful. You can just as easily misuse Silvery Barbs because your team lacks this cohesion as well.
Again, you cannot dismiss arguments on the grounds that they are unlike an entirely new spell. Faerie Fire grants advantage on all attack rolls against all of the targets in the area for the duration. Not one attacker for a single attack and you do not need to debuff a character first. The spell is a fantastically powerful 1st level spell. Also, no one… literally not one poster in this thread, has stated or implied that Silvery Barbs is not insanely good. Again, you are having arguments with yourself. The simple fact that you concede that Faerie Fire can be better undermines your entire argument that Silvery Barbs is overpowered for a 1st level spell. Please stop trying to make your imaginary arguments into my arguments.
I mean, that's why you don't spam it every round? You use it for clutch spells that are going to change the direction and potentially end the combat/social encounter/whatever. Like, you don't Counterspell every single Firebolt the enemy is flinging either, you save it for those big ones you really don't want to see happening. It's unlikely both of those are going to happen in the same turn but when it does ... well it's a trade off and there's nothing wrong with that.
Why is it that the counterarguments I keep seeing from those who believe this spell is overpowered so often have strawmen? I invite you to identify where in my post I suggested that spamming is why this spell is not overpowered. In fact, your post supports my argument, which is that reactions are critically important for casters and that there is a significant trade being made in the use of this spell. Use, not overuse.
Thats the thing too...as these spells people are comparing it to the only one that even remotely gets close to its potential is Counterspell....and for that to be truly effective you have to give up a spell slot of equal value.
And Counterspell is a 3rd level spell and we comparing its value to roughly the same...that alone tells me the spell is not 1st level strength in most people's eyes.
Barbs gets exponentially more valuable the higher slots you get. Disintegrate with two chances for the enemy to fail is like casting it twice....effectively you use a 1st level spell to get to immediately recast a 6th level spell.
Its not something you spam but the fact you can do this on someone elses turn means you can leave their reaction open to use counterspell or shield as well....its a huge support spell.
Overall I am NOT opposed to the spell existing....just now as a 1st level spell. 2nd level would at least make it harder for anyone to pick up as they would have to dip pretty far into a class to get it which at that point they deserve it.
You misunderstand the argument being made. It is not the effect that invites the comparison, it is the limited action economy and the ridiculous vulnerability that the caster is imposing on themselves with their choice to use their reaction for Silvery Barbs. Counterpell is vastly superior to Silvery Barbs. There is no comparison at all in terms of vital importance.
Yes, Silvery Barbs gets more valuable the more powerful the wizard becomes, but this argument can be made for several spells so I fail to see how that is really a damning argument.
No one is arguing that the spell is not powerful...
I believe that people who have stated that the spell is fine have all admitted that the spell is a huge spell.
In closing
I have seen many arguments why the spell is broken, but they have been strawmen, gross misunderstandings on what the spell can actually do, fringe examples to support why the spell is too powerful, and conflating changing the meta with introducing broken spells. People demand new content from WotC. They curse them for not giving enough new content fast enough. When that new content finally arrives, people throw their arms up, shouting "Whoa whoa WHOA! You are giving new spells!? Are you out of your minds? How DARE you!"
People made the exact same kinds of comments when Hexblade arrived. It was too powerful, it is busted, etc. Few say that now though and I am willing to bet that after a few months of people actually playing with Silvery Barbs, they will abandon their arguments that it is overpowered too. Changing the meta =/= overpowered. No one wants new spells that people do not use or that only see use with obscure builds. People need to read the spell more carefully, then start actually using it.
I said on the first page that my DM banned all of AI for Fast Friends. I have made the decision that once I finish this campaign, I will not be playing with any future DMs who restrict player options as the answer for their own inadequacy. If you guys ban this spell before you even understand it, I can promise you that there will be people like me who simply will not play with you. Maybe that is the call you want to make, but I believe it is the wrong call. Do you though.
For what my opinion is worth, I also think it's fine. My first reaction to the spell is that there's a pretty good chance it does absolutely nothing - I've got to agree with Yurei that people here are overvaluing ADV/DIS.
The only other thing I'm going to throw out is that your party is not going to sit around and wait for you to cast Barbs in order to gain advantage. If you use the flanking rules or have some other reliable way to set up advantage (as any well-coordinated party should), you may have trouble finding an ally that needs your granted advantage. They may already have advantage on that charm save. They may not need to make another save at all. This just gets more true at higher levels as everyone builds out their offensive and defensive toolkits.
What I'm trying to do with these comparisons is prove that the things Silvery Barbs can do have existed in D&D 5e for a long time. This spell is not a wild divergence from everything we've ever known that's radically changing the face of D&D as we know it, it's simply an assemblage of things other spells can do in an arguably too-convenient package. People are acting like this spell will blow up the entire edition, and that this is the first time in D&D history they've been able to hedge their bet on a save-or-suck control spell. That is simply not true. One can argue that the spell is not costly enough for what it provides, and there's reasonable arguments to be made there. But the pants-staining panic I've seen in a couple of plays is dismaying and unnecessary.
I do not and never have cared for "THE SKY IS FALLING!" protestations of eternal damnation. The spell is fine. All it can do is cause a die roll to flub, and if a DM isn't prepared for any given roll to go any given way they shouldn't be DMing. Might it have been a better choice to rate it second level, like all the other Strixhaven spells? Perhaps. Frankly I'm not opposed to the notion, and if a DM wants to houserule/homebrew Silvery Barbs as a second-level spell rather than a first, I would not give them the sass. But the overblown outcry is just frustrating.
Are those the arguments you've been hearing? I've read every post in this thread so far, and I don't think that's how I'd characterize what I've heard. I would go as far as to suggest that you are exaggerating the responses significantly. Probably for humorous intent, but the knock-on effect is to create a strawman.
I wouldn't necessarily say I've been hearing those arguments here, but I have heard them elsewhere. That Silvery Barbs is going to "break 5th edition" or that "you're nerfing yourself if you don't take this spell".
In all frankness, I think this is a situation where theorycraft is getting way, way *way* ahead of actual play. Is it strong? Certainly. Could it stand to be errata'd to be either nerfed or made more costly? Quite possibly, though I also think it'll probably be fine if it's left as is. And I realize this is just me, but depending on the character I can think of a *lot* of spells I would take before this one, even with the Wizard's Spell Mastery feature. And while some may think this is a logical fallacy on my part, I'd be much, much *MUCH* more worried about Wizards taking Cure Wounds from a Strixhaven feat than this.
That is a fair point. I suppose I will have to hope that those who stand on the other side will not miss the forest of my post for the one gnarled tree. :p
To balance the spell, you could make the trigger "perceivable", using the same trigger reaction rule as the one for the Ready action. (How can a character react to something that can't be perceived or intuited?) Also, I would allow creatures with immunity to Charmed condition an initial saving throw. (UA had something similar, iirc)
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
Gonna trim it down to just this to keep the quote from being massive. Not valuing advantage/disadvantage is fair I can't really argue that as it's just a preference. The only part I would point out is again the comparison of frostbite and mockery.
You are right, Frostbite nobody cares about its a cantrip that forces a con save for a d6 + disadvantage on its next melee attack for an action, and mockery is a wis or d4 + disadvantage on the next attack roll.
It's again not that barbs is giving disadvantage because it's not, it's giving disadvantage ONLY after seeing a success hoping for failure, and again it's not taking your action to make it happen, so your still free to go ahead and do something more productive than force a con save for a d6 dmg and a possibly conditional disadvantage. and well than it does all that other stuff too like spell saves
"I am okay with this spell, because part what is does is similar to other kinda closely obtainable spells and features with higher usage costs such as Guiding bolt/metamagic/bless/bane and doesn't do anything new in particular."
Is what is being said, hence why people are coming in with the fireball/prayer comparison
I haven't read the previous 100+ posts, so I'll keep my piece simple:
+1 for making this spell not work on creatures immune to being charmed. That alone should help protect NPCs that are already protected against tomfoolery.
Demonstrate caution when combining Silvery Barbs with something like the Shadowfell Shard at low levels. Double-dipping disadvantage is a nice trick. If the party has too much access to short/long rests, it can be disruptive. If the party has long adventuring days, then there is more demand for resource management.
I'm with Yurei on this. It seems perfectly fine. If someone wants to spend two spell slots (whatever they cast in the first place, and then SB) to try and use one spell (try being an important word here), that's seems like a decent trade off. Forcing a re-roll doesn't mean the new roll will fail. Sometimes, yes, the target will fail on the re-roll. Sometimes, they won't, and the caster will have spent a spell slot basically to just give someone advantage on a single roll.
But really, I don't think any of us (myself included) actually knows. All this white room scenario stuff is meaningless; I've never once heard of a combat taking place in one, let alone a whole campaign. Make a caster and play through a whole campaign with it. See how often you use it. See how often it actually turns into a win button, and how often it doesn't actually do much. Could be it trivializes every single encounter. Could be it doesn't do anything. Most likely, it will be very useful sometimes and not at all useful other times, like any other spell or ability. Sometimes, it will be a clutch spell that will save the whole party. Sometimes, the DM will make the save the second time, and everyone will groan. And both of those scenarios are great. That moment-long wait for the die to finish wobbling is probably the most exciting part of the game, imo. So, something that makes that happen more often is all right in my book.
This is a misconception. For the above mentioned spells you have to roll and if you succeed on the attack, or the target fails their save, then the target is definitely negatively affected. Barbs does force the target to roll. But that roll is not guaranteed to be lower than the original, or even if it is is not guaranteed to be low enough to fail. As I said before, if you require a save and the target fails, then does the required re-roll and the result is higher than the original, then the failed save was pointless as was spending the spell slot and reaction.
I just had our DM use Agdon Longscarf's Sleight of Hand skill on our party multiple times during a fight to steal stuff from us.....
Heh. And had I been DMing your game, you would've been allowed to use Barbs on precisely zero of those checks, because you were never aware there was a check being made to foil. That is a basic prerequisite of reactions - you have to know whatever you're reacting to is happening before you can react to it. That is an example of ability checks used by enemies though, so I am obligated to cookie.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is a great and forgotten about point. It just seems like their is a lot of needless hang-wringing about the spell, that I am guess almost everybody hasn’t even used in a game to see how effective it really is or isn’t.
I won't lie - I've been seriously considering dropping a second-level spell (Calm Emotions) from the twelfth-level bard I'm building for a potential game to pick up Barbs. That's why I can't really argue too hard against the folks citing it fits better at second - clearly I'm willing to play it at second, even if I find it ironic that I'm considering replacing a second-level spell with it because I cannot afford to replace any of my first level spells. Heh...Barbs is good enough to take over a second-level slot but not good enough to take up a first-level, in this case, which I honestly find fascinating.
Nevertheless, I may make that switch even given how much I was looking forward to toying with Calm Emotions, if only to put my money where my mouth is and try the spell in-game. Since this prospective game (if it happens q_q) would start at 12th, I'd be right into the high-up levels where everybody says first-level spells are a waste of time and Barbs is at its best. Would be an interesting experiment.
Please do not contact or message me.
Second level spells are kinda odd, there's some utility spells that are nice to have, but outside of the druid spell list (Moonbeam, Spike Growth) nothing super significant in combat.
Misty Step and Mirror Image will beg to differ. Blur might make a fuss too. Enlarge/Reduce and Dragon's Breath might be a tad miffed. Flaming Sphere, Heat Metal, Earthen Grasp, Moonbeam, Rime's Binding Ice, Scorching Ray, Shatter, and a few more will be quite unhappy. Even Silence will be confused. Hold Person will be completely outraged.
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.
Are those the arguments you've been hearing? I've read every post in this thread so far, and I don't think that's how I'd characterize what I've heard. I would go as far as to suggest that you are exaggerating the responses significantly. Probably for humorous intent, but the knock-on effect is to create a strawman.
Heeeh.
Despite everyone in every third thread here on DDB accusing me of being an evil cheating baby-eating flaming fornicating powergaming turdburglar, when I sit down to make most of my spellcasting characters I ask myself "what is this character's job, in the game world? What is her profession, what does she do? Or, if her job is 'hobo', how did she come into her powers and what does that say about what they are?", and then make decisions based on that. If I wanted nothing but combat spells or Munchkin Nonsense, second-level magic is replete. Invis, Shatter, done. I originally took Calm Emotions because this particular character is a BS artist extraordinaire, and being able to calm an angry pitchfork mob into shoulder-shrugging indifference long enough to get a sixty-second head start seemed appropriate.
Just found it interesting that when I was looking the gal over and seeing what could be dropped for Barbs, the answer was a second-level spell but not any of her first-level spells. Lots of folk like to bag on first-level magic and say it shouldn't ever be anything but cheap, lame gimmicks nobody ever needs, but one could easily make a very useful utility caster indeed from nothing but first-level spells.
Please do not contact or message me.
You know, they wouldn't say that if you'd wait to eat a baby until after you're finished burgling turds.
Following this line of logic then, Vicious Mockery is far and away too powerful to be a cantrip. After all, it has two focuses - debuff and damage. Being versatile is not a very strong argument for why this spell is broken in my opinion; it really has only two applications for any use - debuff and buff, with a maximum of two targets. I am not sure what you mean with your Counterspell example, so I believe I may be misinterpreting your point. The target does not roll a check or save when you try to use Counterspell; the caster of Counterspell makes the check if the target's spell is of a high enough level. Silvery Barbs has no ability to impact this exchange. Another caster cannot even impact this exchange with Silvery Barbs unless they first debuffed a target (the second condition hinges on the first, which really requires a triggering event to begin with). This example seems a bit fringe to support the point you are trying to make.
Yes, the ability to effectively cancel a critical hit is great, but I fail to see how this is broken for a first level spell. If you use Vicious Mockery on an opponent and during their attack roll they have one of the rolls is a 20, you have effectively done the same thing... with a cantrip.
Being mindful with your resources is one reason why the spell is not broken in actual play. You cannot leverage this spell with the same satisfying effect being implied from a theoretical standpoint as well as some think specifically because of the trade being made. The trade being made is what reduces the utility of the spell. It is versatile, this is true, but it is also extremely restricting for the casters who are able to use it. I am already using this spell with my bard, as I pointed out on the first page. I am telling you from existing experience now, in combat, that this spell is not nearly as mind-blowing in practice as you think it is. These spells do get play-tested and WotC leans heavily into reducing the power of spells. This is not being taken into consideration. Incentivizing casters to use lower level spell slots a higher levels changes the meta a bit, but it does not mean the spell is broken.
The spell is not giving you two spells in one. It is giving you two effects in one spell, of which dozens of spells of any level do. It costs your reaction, which is no small cost to pay for any practicing caster. Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment about taking other spells, but it is untrue that taking Silvery Barbs limits the spells you have at your disposal. This is only partially true for the wizard, but even they have a limited number of prepared spells a day. All other casters have a limit on the spells they can know, making my interpretation of this sentence false. Please clarify so I can address appropriately.
I assume you mean Sentinel at Death's Door. I am not overly familiar with rogues, as I have only played a few for one shots, but I am unsure what you mean for the Mastermind subclass. Do you mean Inquisitive's Insightful Fighting? Is so, I would disagree with you on both. Sentinel at Death's Door costs nothing but a reaction that a cleric barely uses unless they have Warcaster and are making opportunity attacks. The cost is extremely low and not all clerics are built for melee. If we are going to invite comparisons to subclass traits, then I can think of a few first level examples that are, by this rationale, busted. Warding Flare automatically imposes disadvantage on any attack roll. No save, it just happens. It does not just cancel critical effects like Sentinel at Death's Door does, it can be used for any attack roll and you can use Warding Flare more than a caster can cast Silvery Barbs at first level if you have a decent wisdom modifier. Should this subclass be banned at first level because of the outrageously powerful imposed disadvantage? Invoke Duplicity gives you a free Silent Image, you get essentially get Find Familiar for the purposes of combat, and you get free advantage against the target during attacks just at level 2.
You think Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are busted feats? That is probably the biggest red herring I have ever seen used on this site. I do not believe the math supports your assertion. The need to measure your use of reactions is not at all the same as gambling on AC with a -5 to your hit. The barbarian taking Great Weapon Master almost certainly will not be seriously impacted because they are using Reckless Attack when using Great Weapon Master (or they should be). Fighters use this with Polearm Master to get two chances to stack a +10 to their damage, effectively giving them advantage, plus a bonus action attack whether the first attack succeeds or fails. Smart Sharpshooters will be leveraging their range so that even if they miss, the penalty is not being hit in turn. The feats are good options to utilize even with high AC enemies, at least for players who understand their PCs and the abilities they have. These are not broken feats, they are effective feats. This is entirely dissimilar to my argument that casters need to be careful about wasting their reaction economy. In fact, it is the opposite.
Maybe saving your buddy from a hit, you mean. Further, I do not believe you understand just how casters are both extremely fragile and frequently targeted. There is almost nothing that locks enemies into combat with the martial classes and this is not even meta-gaming; it is wise to down the casters first in a fight where they exist. Why do you think casters have Shield to begin with?
You have to know a target succeeded on a non-combat check for you to use this spell. It does not impart knowledge and even if this spell magically imparted knowledge to the user, it would have to be cast first before it could function in providing this knowledge.
The Subtle Spell feature does not only augment Silvery Barbs. Are you suggesting that other spells are not able to benefit from this class feature to the same extent? You can use Subtle Spell and use any number of spells to charm the person, many of which targets are not made aware that they are charmed. This is not a strong argument against the use of Silvery Barbs, but Metamagic and specifically Subtle Spell. I feel like you are losing the thread of your argument here.
I have been over grapple. I went into this at length, in fact. You did not read my argument before you decided to challenge my position. Please rectify this.
You do not seem to understand the limitations of the spell, which I have noticed among several users here and is likely because people have not tried using it before cursing WotC for their decisions. You cannot start by buffing your allies. You must debuff someone before you gain access to the secondary effect of buffing one person. You cannot use this for a group stealth check, as the debuff targets one creature and the buff targets one creature. Your other examples are good ways you can try planning for its use, assuming many things go right. These are not examples of why the spell is broken, but instead by the spell is valuable.
You are trying to dismiss Yamana’s argument on the grounds that no spell is exactly like this one. That is, frankly, silly. New spells must be created to keep 5e fresh. Some spells are going to change the meta; this change is actually necessary. They are each and every one useful for particular reasons and less useful for others. Even Silvery Barbs, which I have explained already and which you have not effectively addressed without first constructing strawmen arguments.
Yes, action economy is extremely important. Why are you ignoring this fact with respect to reactions? I suppose I should thank you for making my point for me. If you use this, you have no answer for several of the typical reasons a caster is holding their reaction. The fact that your team lacks synergy is not a valid argument why Guiding Bolt is not powerful. You can just as easily misuse Silvery Barbs because your team lacks this cohesion as well.
Again, you cannot dismiss arguments on the grounds that they are unlike an entirely new spell. Faerie Fire grants advantage on all attack rolls against all of the targets in the area for the duration. Not one attacker for a single attack and you do not need to debuff a character first. The spell is a fantastically powerful 1st level spell. Also, no one… literally not one poster in this thread, has stated or implied that Silvery Barbs is not insanely good. Again, you are having arguments with yourself. The simple fact that you concede that Faerie Fire can be better undermines your entire argument that Silvery Barbs is overpowered for a 1st level spell. Please stop trying to make your imaginary arguments into my arguments.
Why is it that the counterarguments I keep seeing from those who believe this spell is overpowered so often have strawmen? I invite you to identify where in my post I suggested that spamming is why this spell is not overpowered. In fact, your post supports my argument, which is that reactions are critically important for casters and that there is a significant trade being made in the use of this spell. Use, not overuse.
You misunderstand the argument being made. It is not the effect that invites the comparison, it is the limited action economy and the ridiculous vulnerability that the caster is imposing on themselves with their choice to use their reaction for Silvery Barbs. Counterpell is vastly superior to Silvery Barbs. There is no comparison at all in terms of vital importance.
Yes, Silvery Barbs gets more valuable the more powerful the wizard becomes, but this argument can be made for several spells so I fail to see how that is really a damning argument.
No one is arguing that the spell is not powerful...
I believe that people who have stated that the spell is fine have all admitted that the spell is a huge spell.
In closing
I have seen many arguments why the spell is broken, but they have been strawmen, gross misunderstandings on what the spell can actually do, fringe examples to support why the spell is too powerful, and conflating changing the meta with introducing broken spells. People demand new content from WotC. They curse them for not giving enough new content fast enough. When that new content finally arrives, people throw their arms up, shouting "Whoa whoa WHOA! You are giving new spells!? Are you out of your minds? How DARE you!"
People made the exact same kinds of comments when Hexblade arrived. It was too powerful, it is busted, etc. Few say that now though and I am willing to bet that after a few months of people actually playing with Silvery Barbs, they will abandon their arguments that it is overpowered too. Changing the meta =/= overpowered. No one wants new spells that people do not use or that only see use with obscure builds. People need to read the spell more carefully, then start actually using it.
I said on the first page that my DM banned all of AI for Fast Friends. I have made the decision that once I finish this campaign, I will not be playing with any future DMs who restrict player options as the answer for their own inadequacy. If you guys ban this spell before you even understand it, I can promise you that there will be people like me who simply will not play with you. Maybe that is the call you want to make, but I believe it is the wrong call. Do you though.
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
For what my opinion is worth, I also think it's fine. My first reaction to the spell is that there's a pretty good chance it does absolutely nothing - I've got to agree with Yurei that people here are overvaluing ADV/DIS.
The only other thing I'm going to throw out is that your party is not going to sit around and wait for you to cast Barbs in order to gain advantage. If you use the flanking rules or have some other reliable way to set up advantage (as any well-coordinated party should), you may have trouble finding an ally that needs your granted advantage. They may already have advantage on that charm save. They may not need to make another save at all. This just gets more true at higher levels as everyone builds out their offensive and defensive toolkits.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I wouldn't necessarily say I've been hearing those arguments here, but I have heard them elsewhere. That Silvery Barbs is going to "break 5th edition" or that "you're nerfing yourself if you don't take this spell".
In all frankness, I think this is a situation where theorycraft is getting way, way *way* ahead of actual play. Is it strong? Certainly. Could it stand to be errata'd to be either nerfed or made more costly? Quite possibly, though I also think it'll probably be fine if it's left as is. And I realize this is just me, but depending on the character I can think of a *lot* of spells I would take before this one, even with the Wizard's Spell Mastery feature. And while some may think this is a logical fallacy on my part, I'd be much, much *MUCH* more worried about Wizards taking Cure Wounds from a Strixhaven feat than this.
Hello Yamana_Eajii,
That is a fair point. I suppose I will have to hope that those who stand on the other side will not miss the forest of my post for the one gnarled tree. :p
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