D&D 5E Silvery Barbs, how would you fix it? Does it need fixing?

[ECMO3]

People keep calling this disadvantage, but it is not the same as disadvantage. The enemy is a LOT more likely to succeed against silvery barbs than against disadvantage. Against a target 11 disadvantage gives an enemy a 75% chance of failure, silvery Barbs gives a 50% chance of failure. Against a target 7 saves, disadvantage fails more than 50% of the time, silvery barbs will give a 30% chance of failure.

For comparison, portent gives a near 100% chance of failure a majority of the time and a 7th level Rune knight can impose disadvantage 10 times in a minute without using a single spell slot and can do that once per short rest.

Because you make the decision after a success, you do know if you should use it, but on the other side of the coin it is a lot less powerful than disadvantage. If you use this every time someone saves against one of your spells, more often than not the majority of the slots will be wasted (the advantage not withstanding), where you would get value out of those slots otherwise. The only time it is really powerful is when an enemy makes a lucky roll. For example needs a 17 and makes it. In this case, yes it is going to be powerful, but it is sucking up a prepared spot for that corner case.

I do think it is a really good pairing with Fey Touched, This is especially true for a martial who already have a 20 Dex/Str or a caster that does not have access to shield. Being able to use it once a day to counter a critical hit is pretty darn good and if you are interested in Fey Toched for Misty Step you could do a lot worse than this as a pairing.

 

[billd91]

People keep calling this disadvantage, but it is not the same as disadvantage. The enemy is a LOT more likely to succeed against silvery barbs than against disadvantage. Against a target 11 disadvantage gives an enemy a 75% chance of failure, silvery Barbs gives a 50% chance of failure. Against a target 7 saves, disadvantage fails more than 50% of the time, silvery barbs will give a 30% chance of failure.

Indeed, but the difference is you know you're throwing out a successful result in favor of something that cannot be better.

For comparison, portent gives a near 100% chance of failure a majority of the time and a 7th level Rune knight can impose disadvantage 10 times in a minute without using a single spell slot and can do that once per short rest.

Sure a 7th level rune knight can impose disadvantage... but silvery barbs is available to 1st level characters. And portent's success depends on the rolls made at the beginning of the day and are limited to twice a day in any event. There are a lot of comparisons to higher level or more limited abilities in this thread, but that just underscores how potent silvery barbs has the potential to be... for a 1st level character.

 

[ECMO3]

Indeed, but the difference is you know you're throwing out a successful result in favor of something that cannot be better.

You also know you are throwing out a spell slot and using your reaction for something that will not change the result a majority of the time.

Sure a 7th level rune knight can impose disadvantage... but silvery barbs is available to 1st level characters. And portent's success depends on the rolls made at the beginning of the day and are limited to twice a day in any event.

A 7th l;evel Rune Knight can impose disadvantage 10 times in one minute and can recharge with a short rest. For comparison a 7th level wizard has 11 spell slots total, including 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots. And disadvsantage is statistically more powerful than forcing a rerolled success.

Using portent twice a day is generally going to change the outcome more often than using ALL of your 1st level spell slots on silvery barbs, regardless of caster level. And it does not even require a reaction or a spell slot to use.

Not knowing what the die is going to be with silvery barbs is not a strength compared to portent, it is a weakness. By knowing the high portent roll I know ahead of time that I can't use it to fail a save. This is as compared to barbs where it is wasted if you use it and he rolls high.

 

[billd91]

You also know you are throwing out a spell slot and using your reaction for something that will not change the result a majority of the time.

And if you're using it in support of a single save important spell like banishment... pretty much worth it. A reaction+1st level spell is cheaper than an action and a 4th level spell slot to try to cast it again.

A 7th l;evel Rune Knight can impose disadvantage 10 times in one minute and can recharge with a short rest. For comparison a 7th level wizard has 11 spell slots total, including 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots. And disadvsantage is statistically more powerful than forcing a rerolled success.

Yeah, but that wizard may have been forcing successes to be rerolled 6 levels earlier.

Using portent twice a day is generally going to change the outcome more often than using ALL of your 1st level spell slots on silvery barbs, regardless of caster level. And it does not even require a reaction or a spell slot to use.

Again, depending on the 2 rolls made at the beginning of the day. If they're on the upper half of the d20 - they're probably not all that useful in undermining an enemy's saving throws which makes their presence moot.

And this is without even considering the fact that silvery barbs can negate 95% of crits with twice the range of a grave cleric's 6th level ability to do so... and all starting at 1st level again.

 

[Stalker0]

The enemy is a LOT more likely to succeed against silvery barbs than against disadvantage. Against a target 11 disadvantage gives an enemy a 75% chance of failure, silvery Barbs gives a 50% chance of failure.

While the total values are correct, I feel you are attributing them incorrectly.

If we assume a spell was cast with a 50% chance of failure. It is the spell that has imposed the 50% chance.

Now we apply disadvantage on the saving throw. The chance of failure is now 75%. The act of disadvantage provided a +25% chance of failure.

Let us instead say the spell was cast normally and the target succeeded. The caster may now choose to activate silvery barbs, forcing another save. This save has a 50% chance of failure. As such, Silvery Barbs has created a new 50% chance of failure.

So in this case, Silvery Barbs is actually much stronger than disadvantage.

 

[Stalker0]

Using portent twice a day is generally going to change the outcome more often than using ALL of your 1st level spell slots on silvery barbs, regardless of caster level. And it does not even require a reaction or a spell slot to use.

So lets dig in on this one.

Let us once again assume that a creature has a 50% chance of failure a saving throw for the spell I cast. In fact, lets assume everyone has a 50% chance of passing saving throws on all spells cast period, to keep the example simple.

This means that a portent rolled will be in one of two states:
1) There is a 50% chance the portent roll will be useful in causing an enemy to fail a save. Otherwise, the roll will be too high, and will be useless for this purpose.
2) There is a 50% chance the portent roll will be useful in helping an ally pass a save. Otherwise, the roll will be too low.

Obviously, I will use the portent in the best possible state, after I know the result. So if I have failed a save....I now have a 0% chance of success. The portent gives me a 100% chance of success... so a change of 100%, very nice! Conversely it could have forced a failure on a monster, again with a +100% chance. Since each result is possible 50% of the time, we get a total of 100%.

With two portents, that is +200% (resource of change) that portents gives us.


Silvery Barbs imposes a +50% extra chance of failure on a monster's saving throw. However, it also gives our ally advantage on a saving throw, which in this example is a +50% extra chance of success. In other words, each spell is giving us +100% (resource of change).

By this definition, 2 spell slot of Silvery Barbs = 2 portents. 2 spell slots are available to a 1st level wizard, never mind a 20th level one.


Now this is a highly simplified example, spell failures are rarely exactly 50%. Further, this equivalency requires a certain minimum amount of saving throws. If I don't even have two saving throws in the day, than the portents are wasted. If I don't have at least 2 enemy saves and 2 ally saves...than the silvery barbs are weaker. The reaction of the barbs is a limitation, as is its range. Further, the context of the saves is very important. What makes Portent so good is when you have a really really nasty saving throw....having a guarantee of success can be extremely important. But on the flip side, you could blow your portents early in the day....and now are defenseless. Meanwhile someone with silvery barbs could use slot after slot (even using higher slots if needed) long after the portents are expended.

The point.... is that while Portent is very powerful, it is not "infinitely powerful" compared to barbs. They have equivalencies, and there are situations where one or the other is a superior offering. Maybe its 1 barbs to 1 portents one day, 2 barbs to 1 portents the next, 3 to 2 on the third day. Further still.... they don't have to compete with each other. No reason a diviner can't have both!

And therein lies the problem to me. We are taking a thing that was once considered so powerful that it needed to be kept in the restricted hands of a limited subclass ability....and now are making it a generic spell slot that any tom, dick, and harry wizard can spam to their hearts content. That is a significant increase in power.... we have given the portents ability (or some fraction of it) to every wizard who wants it.

If portents is a strong ability (which it is), if there is an equivalency to silvery barbs (which there is as I've shown), and now all wizard have access to it....than that is power creep pure and simple.

 

[Bolares]

Sure a 7th level rune knight can impose disadvantage... but silvery barbs is available to 1st level characters.

Sure, but at low levels barbs is way worse. You have so few slots that it's very debatable if you should save them for barbs instead of using sleep or something like that....

 

[ECMO3]

And if you're using it in support of a single save important spell like banishment... pretty much worth it. A reaction+1st level spell is cheaper than an action and a 4th level spell slot to try to cast it again.

It is only worth it if he fails the second roll and if you are going to use it every time an enemy suceeds then most of the time the second roll will be a failure as well.

Wasting a spell slot and a reaction for no effect is not "worth it" and that will be the most common result.

Yeah, but that wizard may have been forcing successes to be rerolled 6 levels earlier.

Yeah ONCE a day on a spell he cast and it is forcing a reroll, it is not disadvantage.

Again, depending on the 2 rolls made at the beginning of the day. If they're on the upper half of the d20 - they're probably not all that useful in undermining an enemy's saving throws which makes their presence moot.

And if the Barbs roll is on the upper half of the D20 they are probably not that useful either. The difference is you don't waste a slot and a reaction AND you still get to use the portent when you need to succeed.

And this is without even considering the fact that silvery barbs can negate 95% of crits with twice the range of a grave cleric's 6th level ability to do so... and all starting at 1st level again.

That is a legit reason to use it, and probably the most powerful use available, but it is fundamentally different than using it to reroll on a save.

As I said above silvery barbs is HUGE as a once a day through a feat on a martial or for a caster without shield on his list. Honestly an 8th level fighter would be hard pressed to argue any feat or ASI is generally better than MI or FT and a feat that gives you one use of silvery barbs is hands down better than resilient constitution or a constitution ASI on a Monk, Rogue, Paladin or Ranger. ....or really any character except a barbarian.

 

[ECMO3]

So lets dig in on this one.

Let us once again assume that a creature has a 50% chance of failure a saving throw for the spell I cast. In fact, lets assume everyone has a 50% chance of passing saving throws on all spells cast period, to keep the example simple.

This is a false assumption. It is actually the opposite. If you have already suceeded once, then statistically the data indicates the chance of success is higher than the chance of failure.

If he saved once, statistically his estimated chance of successfully saving again is GREATER than 50%. If your only data are he saved once then you assume that success was an average roll AND you know that roll saved. That means by definition the population estimate from the single sample indicates success is more common than failure if the observed roll suceeded.

Now if you know the roll and know it was high, or you know the target number to save through metagaming this might not be the case, but in a blind roll the assumption is the first observed result is the median result.

When you use Barbs you are depending on luck, not statistics unless you have reason to believe the observed value (success) is not representative of the population. If you have seen more than one save (for example he made 1 and failed 2 in the previous three rounds), then this changes the math. But your assumption does not hold up unless you have seen that, or have reason to estimate the target roll to save is not low.

The rest of your argument relies on this statistical fallacy. Redo the analysis mathematically with the assumption that this is a binomial population (success or failure) and the median roll is a "success" with a standard deviation of 0 and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[Stalker0]

The rest of your argument relies on this statistical fallacy.

Keep in mind that my assumption of a 50% failure was based on your original argument, in which you used the assumption of a "success on an 11". Everything else I wrote used that assumption to provide the counterpoint.