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

[Stalker0]

This is what people really seem to not understand. In terms of the save reroll the most powerful use is when the enemy has a poor save and made a great roll (needed an 18 and got it). In these cases it can be HUGE. But this does not happen often, certainly not often enough to warrant an entire spell prepared at high level.

The suggestion here is that the spell is ONLY useful in these very niche cases....which I will disagree with.

The fact that silvery barbs is most useful if the monster will have a very hard time passing a reroll is obvious.... but that doesn't mean its worthless if the save is a bit harder. The real question is: when is silvery barbs "not worth the slot", aka how high a save bonus should the monster have before its not worth the use of the slot.

 

[Mort]

We have to remember though that using powerful opponents is not "free", they have a narrative cost.

An extreme example: If a party of 5 1st level characters can take out an Adult Dragon. Now could I use more dragons or even higher ones....of course.... but suddenly the narrative of my world requires a shift. If dragons are so "easy" to take out, then they really shouldn't be credible threats to citys.

Now of course this is an extreme example to highlight the point, the point being that if abilities allow a party to fight a good deal above their weight class, that does have a narrative impact....one that some DMS may not be comfortable with. Its not just about having to redesign encounters, in campaigns where world building and narratives are important....it may also require you to rebuild your world.

Most comments need to have the unstated but assumed - "within reason" tacked on, sure.

In this particular case though, I was speaking to promoting party coordination and teamwork. Silvery Barbs seems to have it's best effects when properly utilized as part of a combination between party members (obvious example being a monk and a caster for example) and I'm all for encouraging that kind of integration.

 

[abirdcall]

I brought up Banishment because you and others are using it as the go to combo with Silvery Barbs in this and other threads on the topic. In your case in the context of a 7th level caster. I do not think I would even prep it as a 7th level wizard. I have at most 12 slots to prep and there are better concentration spells out there competing for attention.

It's just the one I picked to talk about. Saying there are a lot of spells and abilities that force saving throws is an understatement. It's easier to talk about by just picking one.

I do think that Silvery Barbs is a very useful spell and may often be more useful as a reaction use then other options but not ban worthy. However, on average the other option are I think more profitable use of the one reaction per round than Silvery Barbs.

There is this assumption here that the spellcaster is going to have all these reaction spells and a good use for them all every round. Shield is only useful if the monster comes within 5 to hit. Absorb Elements is only more useful when there is a lot of elemental damage on the table.
Most of that is going to come from a saving throw ability too which the caster could get advantage on with Barbs. Counterspell is only useful when fighting creatures that cast spells. It is very campaign dependent. It's also at least 3rd level, probably higher so that the caster doesn't need to make an ability check to ensure it works.

These are all defensive spells too. Better to take out the enemy creature in most cases.

The biggest weakness of Silvery Barbs is that initial reroll. All other things being equal, a reroll of a save is not as valuable as people here are making out.

I just don't get this.

In the absence of other information, the chances are that if a creature made their save then they will make the reroll.

Being able to make a bad choice doesn't mean the spell is bad. This has been pointed out.

It is most useful when you know you are targeting a poor save.

Yes. How is this an argument?

It is most useful when forcing a reroll on a crit, because there you know that, that is a super special roll that is unlikely to be repeated on a reroll.

It's good to use it to force a reroll on a crit. That doesn't mean it's not broken when used on saving throws, I don't see how this is an argument either.

It is also very useful on forcing rerolls on an ability check because there the creature is not benefiting from their proficiency bonus.

This is a very niche use in combat. I mean yes, if they make their counterspell ability check you can force a reroll of it, but that's not really happening very often.

I would also use it to counter a Counterspell that forces an ability check to stop a spell.

Yeah, not exactly a case that is worth talking about in the grander conversation. I don't see how it having this use makes it not broken.

I really do not see how you can generally rate it better than shield or Absorb Elements for damage mitigation

I get that you don't.

 

[abirdcall]

For me, anything that promotes coordination/cooperation and better teamwork between players is almost always a big positive.

There are always more/more powerful opponents.

So the solution to having Silvery Barbs in the game is to make the opponents stronger? Sounds broken to me.

 

[abirdcall]

The thing is, that if Shield is useful you know it will work and spending the reaction and the slot will pay off. Same for Absorb Elements, Feather Fall. Counterspell is a bit of a gamble but if the opponent is using a higher than 3rd slot there is a better than even chance of costing them a high slot for a third level one.
With Silvery Barbs you are at about 50/50 (in the absence of other information) to get something useful on the reroll, worth it if you really need to make the bad guy fail that roll but the pay off will always be uncertain and the advantage is useful but there are much better ways to provide advantage.

That's not actually how probabilities work.

Do not ever play poker.

 

[abirdcall]

Here is an analogy for people who aren't getting how the math works:

Let's say I'm playing poker and my opponent shows down a superior hand. I can pay 10% of the pot to force them to draw a new hand. Also if I do this next hand I get an extra card.

How bad must my hand be compared to a random hand for this to be a bad decision?

Yes, if the spell save DC is 18 and the monster has a +16 then Silvery Barbs isn't going to be useful in that situation. But why are we in that situation to begin with?

I don't want to go to showdown with 9 high very often. And if I do I'm not paying the 10% extra into the pot. So there is a case where it wouldn't be a good ability. But if I did have this option and no one else did I would win all the money.

To finish the analogy - if I paid the 10% and my opponent redrew their hand and still got one that beat me it would still have been a good decision. The expected value in most cases is much much higher than what I paid for it.

The outcome isn't important, the EV of the decision is what is important.

I hope that makes it more clear.

 

[Mort]

So the solution to having Silvery Barbs in the game is to make the opponents stronger? Sounds broken to me.

Nope, my point was mechanics (be they rules, spells whatever) that encourage teamwork and cooperation are generally a big positive.

IF the party coordinates SO WELL that they stomp over supposedly "proper CR" challenges - it's not like the DM is helpless to challenge them. Frankly though, I've never had much of a problem challenging PCs with "appropriate" threats (I always scratch my head at the my party waltzed over the +10CR encounter).

 

[Stalker0]

I watched TreatMonk's video on this spell and I agree with the analysis. It's a good spell, but it is not overpowered in my view.

It should also be noted that Treantmonk has released a list of his "big 3 house rules". In it....he bans shield outright.

So if you consider Silvery Barbs in the ballgame of shield (or maybe even better), than even Treantmonk is suggesting a ban is not out of the question.

 

[iserith]

It should also be noted that Treantmonk has released a list of his "big 3 house rules". In it....he bans shield outright.

So if you consider Silvery Barbs in the ballgame of shield (or maybe even better), than even Treantmonk is suggesting a ban is not out of the question.

I think balance concerns in an RPG to be not worth the time spent worrying about them. Trying to compare silvery barbs and shield isn't anything I'm all that interested in doing.

The only reason I would exclude anything from a given game is because it doesn't fit or support the setting or theme. TreatMonk agreed in the video I referenced that this would be a fine reason to exclude silvery barbs, whereas all the reasons people are giving for banning it are not very good. I agree with that assessment.

 

[Mort]

Here is an analogy for people who aren't getting how the math works:

Let's say I'm playing poker and my opponent shows down a superior hand. I can pay 10% of the pot to force them to draw a new hand. Also if I do this next hand I get an extra card.

How bad must my hand be compared to a random hand for this to be a bad decision?

Yes, if the spell save DC is 18 and the monster has a +16 then Silvery Barbs isn't going to be useful in that situation. But why are we in that situation to begin with?

I don't want to go to showdown with 9 high very often. And if I do I'm not paying the 10% extra into the pot. So there is a case where it wouldn't be a good ability. But if I did have this option and no one else did I would win all the money.

To finish the analogy - if I paid the 10% and my opponent redrew their hand and still got one that beat me it would still have been a good decision. The expected value in most cases is much much higher than what I paid for it.

The outcome isn't important, the EV of the decision is what is important.

I hope that makes it more clear.

The problem is, you're analogy is being presented in a vacuum - and is seemingly without cost other than the spell itself.

In actuality, the caster is going to contend with the fact that silvery barbs loses his reaction. Which means no shield, no absorb elements, no counterspell, for some builds to possibility of a spell as an AoO etc. It's a good effect, but it has enough of a cost to likely balance it.

Still curious to see how it goes in actual play.