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

[Mort]

Something to consider with SB:

You have to be a really careful with it when trying to apply it to enemy savings throws!

Let's say you're up against a monster and you cast hold monster. DM rolls in the open, gets 10 and says the monster passed (your save DC is for ex: 15). You KNOW the monster has at least a plus 5 but maybe it has a +6 or better. Are you willing to throw a first level spell (25% or more of your total) for a reroll?

It's worse with legendary resistance because the DM doesn't have to tell you if it was used! The DM rolls a 10 and says the monster passed, you don't know if you're pushing past legendary resistance or just a regular passed save (sure if the DM rolled a 2 or so you have a much better idea, but then you also have no actual idea of you're chances of the save getting blown on a reroll).

It's enough to make a caster's player start tearing their hair out (or the equivalent) and as DMs isn't that what we want?

PS: sure, if the monster NEEDS a high roll or gets a crit then SB can shine, but I wonder if that will come up in play anywhere near enough to earn the OP label.

 

[ECMO3]

Much less wasteful than having to burn another action and another high-end spell slot, plus fix whatever damage that opponent inflicts on your party before your initiative comes up again.
Take the Banishment example: You have already cast the spell (worth 7 SP) metamagicked with heightened spell (3 SP).
Casting Silvery Barb (2 SP) is much better value than casting Banishment (7 SP) again, for the same chance of banishing your opponent.

In terms of a spell slot, sure. But more than likely if he succeeded once he will succeed again and aside from the price in spell slot, there is also a price in spells known/prepared and in using your reaction.

I have never played a full caster that had all the spells I needed, even when I played high level wizards with spells via feats and races.

2) How many are capable of applying disadvantage to saving throws and attack rolls and ability checks cheaply?

But SB can't do this on a single use either. It can only affect 1 roll and only 1 time with a casting. So a better wording is capable of forcing a reroll to A saving throw OR AN ability check OR AN attack roll. Yes, the spell can be used for all 3, but only one at a time and only a single roll.

For comparison a 1st-level undead warlock can cause disadvantage on ALL attacks and ability checks for an entire turn and can do this every single turn at level 1 as long as he lands an attack (spell or weapon). This costs 1 bonus action and it is a free rider thereafter requiring no spell slot and in addition to disadvantage it also imposes movement restrictions. He can do this on every turn for 2 fights a day at first level and going up from there with PB. So at 1st level he will be able to affect more rolls a day than even a 20th level sorcerer will be able to do with SB without using higher level slots.

At level 3 any Warlock subclass can cause disadvantage to all attacks and abilities with a bonus action, again with no spell slot at level 3. This is at will, can be done every single turn all day long for the cost of a bonus action. It also lasts an entire minute, so after 4 turns he could have 4 different enemies getting disadvantage on ALL attacks and ALL ability checks for the next 6+ turns, where a caster of any level who used all of his 1st level slots on SB in the same battle will have affected a total of 4 rolls and will be done. To add insult to injury the Warlock has a flat 25% chance of making the opponent unconscious and incapacitated. The Warlock can keep going all day long.

An Undead Warlock level 3+ can stack both of these, giving 2 different foes disadvantage on all attacks and abilities every turn.

Bane can cause -1d4 to attacks and saves and do this for a full minute to 3 different foes and there are I think 16 different subclasses that can cast this at 1st level and I believe at least another 3 that can do this by level 3. All these abilities affect all attacks and ability checks or attacks and saves for an entire turn or an entire minute respectively.

So to answer, I would say on the order of 17 different subclasses can do something equivalent or better at 1st level. Another 8 subclasses by level 3.

Those are rough numbers but I think that is the ballpark.

3) How many can get access to Silvery Barbs?

I believe 9 of the above named subclasses can get silvery barbs. This assumes we are not including subclasses that can get it through attendance at the Strixhaven school. If we are counting that, then every subclass can get it.

And I am pointing out that this is a fallacy, because generally, you do not cast a spell that requires an opponent to fail a saving throw against an opponent with a good chance of making that saving throw.

Generally you do not know what they need to save and it is not uncommon at the tables I have played at to cast spells against enemies that are immune to them completely.

I tried to banish Bel a few weeks ago.

If their chance to pass is high, why did you cast the initial spell in the first place, rather than a spell that was more likely to have an effect?

Because you generally do not know this. Yes you can make some assumptions, but it is rare you know an opponents stats unless you have a character (Ranger, Fighter) that has this ability.

You have still spent the spell slot to cause disadvantage with this comparison spell before throwing your big spell. This means that it is exactly as effective at causing a failed save and more mathematically powerful, because using SB is "free" a significant amount of the time (when your opponent fails their save the first time).

As I said earlier, it is a more efficient use of spell slots than imposing disadvantage, but it will not cause as many fails.

It also is going to be "free" in terms of slots most often when the DC is high. When the DC is low it is not going to be "free" in terms of slots as often and not going to be effective as often. In both cases though you need to spend a known/prepared spell on it.

Let me ask you this - If you could use a bonus action to make someone roll 20 times and take the lowest roll or you have someone who rolled 19 times and suceeded every time and you are going to use a reaction make him roll one more time. Do you think these are equal? Do you think it is better to spend something on the second than on the first?

Wot?
The statistics would be the same, the only difference is that using SB you would save on spell slots. Generally more than 50% of the time.

No they are not. Causing disadvantage will always result in a greater chance of failure than making an enemy reroll a success.

Rolling twice with a random result is NOT the same as rolling a second time when a save has already suceeded.

Note that we are getting bogged down on spell save discussions quite a bit, which is only one facet of the capabilities of SB. If you don't get to use SB to punch spells past saves, you can use it for ability checks or attack rolls instead. Versatility is power.

I agree with this 100%

SB is a good spell and using it to cancel a ctitical hit is awesome. We are bogged down in the discussion on saves because people think that use is both primal and they think it is better than it is.

It is going to be rare that it will make an enemy fail a save on a game-changing spell. It will not be rare that it is useful.

 

[abirdcall]

Something to consider with SB:

You have to be a really careful with it when trying to apply it to enemy savings throws!

Let's say you're up against a monster and you cast hold monster. DM rolls in the open, gets 10 and says the monster passed (your save DC is for ex: 15). You KNOW the monster has at least a plus 5 but maybe it has a +6 or better. Are you willing to throw a first level spell (25% or more of your total) for a reroll?

It's worse with legendary resistance because the DM doesn't have to tell you if it was used! The DM rolls a 10 and says the monster passed, you don't know if you're pushing past legendary resistance or just a regular passed save (sure if the DM rolled a 2 or so you have a much better idea, but then you also have no actual idea of you're chances of the save getting blown on a reroll).

It's enough to make a caster's player start tearing their hair out (or the equivalent) and as DMs isn't that what we want?

PS: sure, if the monster NEEDS a high roll or gets a crit then SB can shine, but I wonder if that will come up in play anywhere near enough to earn the OP label.

This is back to arguing that saving throw abilities are bad.

In order to argue that SB isn't broken the argument also must be made that saving throw abilities are bad.

"What if you used it poorly?" is not a gotcha.

 

[Mort]

This is back to arguing that saving throw abilities are bad.

In order to argue that SB isn't broken the argument also must be made that saving throw abilities are bad.

"What if you used it poorly?" is not a gotcha.

I'm not using it as a gotcha.

I'm just pointing out the downsides which, contrary to trumpeting that this spell is the best spell that has ever spelled, clearly exist.

You yourself trumpeted this and in your prior post trumpeted the use against saving throws (it's one of your four examples).

 

[ECMO3]

Forget the math. The simplest way to compare is this: Disadvantage and SB both let you force the enemy to make a second roll if they succeed on the first. (If they fail the first, neither disadvantage nor SB changes anything.) Overall, counting from the start of your turn, the total chance of landing the spell is the same either way.

However, disadvantage must be applied before you see the outcome of the first roll. SB lets you wait and save the resources if you don't need them. So it's better, because you only have to use it half as often.

ECMO3 is arguing that we should count from the moment SB and disadvantage respectively are applied, rather than from the start of the turn. That approach requires some math, but if you account for everything properly, it ends up in the same place: SB is still better. ECMO3 was doing the math right on SB but overvaluing disadvantage by a factor of 3.

I am not overvaluing anything.

The chance SB will be successful is applied from when you choose to cast it, that is when you are using the spell slot and having reroll against say a DC 5 is a heck of a lot less likely to succeed than giving someone disadvantage on a DC 5.

If you are weighing the cost at the start of the turn you need to consider all the rolled up costs in this discussion, which include positioning, saving a slot to have a chance to use it and losing your reaction. You have to put a value on these because the decision is no longer made when you cast the spell, it is made at the begining of the turn and all your decisions and your cost basis needs to include that. There is a cost there because those things are "spent" whether you cast SB or not.

It is not an accurate comparison to make the cost associated with it based solely on the spell slot.

 

[NotAYakk]

Using a resource before a save to induce disadvantage is strictly worse than having the option to spend a resource after a successful save to force a naked d20 be used to resolve the save.

There is no situation where a SB effect (ignoring the specific fuel, just the effect) is less good than disadvantage before, and many many cases where it is better.

Cases where it is better:
1. The first d20 failed. Now no fuel needs be spent. This is quite common, and means SB cost is cheaper per maginal success than a disadvantage abiluty with the same fuel would have. Sometimes by a large multiplier, sometimes a smaller one.

Anyone who can do basic stats should see this and understand it.

2. If the foe has advantage, SB effect has a further benefit. Imagine SB had to be used blind, and was just wasted if the foe already failed; then if the foe has advantage, SB becomes 2d20 take highest, then 1d20 take lowest with first 2d20. Forcing disadvantage is just 1d20 flat. SB is better here; both have a naked 1d20, but SB also lets the original with advantage save stand.

3. SB stacks with disadvantage. Disadvantage does not stack with itself.

It is really really simple. Whenever someone passes a saving throw, lets you convert a 1st level slot into repeating it. If the saving throw was worth the cost originally, by mid-high levels the 1st level slot becomes a no brainer.

It helps you take down LRs faster, at near monk speed on many foes. On creatures without LR it is rather gross. Its only significant disadvantage is you risk not having access to shield, absorb elements and counterspell.

It is a strong class feature, as a 1st level spell. And that is talking about one of its uses.

If you removed its ability to work on saves, it would still be a solid spell. That is how crazy good it is!

Some pluses:
1. It weakens LR. LR was so good that often a spellcaster should just give up and maximize damage or focus on buffing.

2. The class features it compares with where often so ridiculously good that spreading the wealth might make things more sane.

3. It actually is a better mechanic than counterspell; imagine if counterspell was designed like SB. It goes off when someone makes a save; if they failed, they can reroll, with a bonus equal to the counterspell slot level. If they pass, reduced damage on a successful save is ignored.

That is a bit less of a shutdown than baseline counterspell.

 

[ECMO3]

Using a resource before a save to induce disadvantage is strictly worse than having the option to spend a resource after a successful save to force a naked d20 be used to resolve the save.

That is simply not true

In terms of math a reroll is less effective at causing a fail than disadvantage before the first roll. That is fact.

If the DC is a 8, your chance of suceeding with disadvantage is 42%, your chance of suceeding when SB is cast is 65%. If the DC is an 18 the chance of success is 4%, your chance of suceeding when SB is cast is 20%.

Establish a value for your 1st level slot. What absolute chance of failure is worth spending a 1st level slot?

ases where it is better:
1. The first d20 failed. Now no fuel needs be spent. This is quite common, and means SB cost is cheaper per maginal success than a disadvantage abiluty with the same fuel would have. Sometimes by a large multiplier, sometimes a smaller one.

Then you did not cast SB. It is irrelevant to the spell. Further if this happens every time it is sucking up a spell known and a slot you need to "save" for something that is completely useless.

This is like saying Fireball is a great spell in a fight because all the enemies failed their save against Fear and ran away. So therefore Fireball is awesome! I did not cast it. It had no effect on the battle, but it was a game changer.

2. If the foe has advantage, SB effect has a further benefit. Imagine SB had to be used blind, and was just wasted if the foe already failed; then if the foe has advantage, SB becomes 2d20 take highest, then 1d20 take lowest with first 2d20. Forcing disadvantage is just 1d20 flat. SB is better here; both have a naked 1d20, but SB also lets the original with advantage save stand.

Only if he makes the first save (with advantage). At this point, whether he had disadvantage or advantage is irrelevant.

t helps you take down LRs faster, at near monk speed on many foes. On creatures without LR it is rather gross. Its only significant disadvantage is you risk not having access to shield, absorb elements and counterspell.

It will never compare to this. You only get one reaction a turn. A 5th-level Monk can use knock out as many LRs in one turn as a caster of any level can SB use all day long.

Further you need the save to succeed to do this.

If you really think this is true, provide an actual example of a Legendary foe you think this will work on effectively and I will show you statistically that it won't.

I don't think in most campaigns SB will knock out a single LR ever.

It is a strong class feature, as a 1st level spell. And that is talking about one of its uses.

Sure, but you only have 4 1st level slots per day.

If you removed its ability to work on saves, it would still be a solid spell. That is how crazy good it is!

It is a solid spell and its use on saves is the most insignificant part of it.

Some pluses:
1. It weakens LR. LR was so good that often a spellcaster should just give up and maximize damage or focus on buffing.

It will not do this effectively. I showed you that using Bel as an example previously (while even forgetting magic resistance).

You keep saying this, I challenge you to post the actual numbers using a real monster to back it up!

2. The class features it compares with where often so ridiculously good that spreading the wealth might make things more sane.

As I pointed out on a post above a POC Warlock can use a bonus action to cause disadvantage on all attacks and ability checks for a minute and can do it at will. It requires a hit and a failed save and bingo, poisoned for an entire minute (and incapacitated if he rolls less than a 5). He can do this over and over again. A 1st level undead warlock in Form of dread can cause an enemy disadvantage on all attacks and abilities for a turn and can do this turn after turn for 2 battles at 1st level and more thereafter.

These abilities are going to cause disadvantage on 10+ rolls per day, without spending a single spell slot.

Bane (which is not even considered a great spell) is going to cost -1d4 on numerous rolls for up to 3 enemies with a single casting and is available to numerous subclasses at 1st level.

At most SB is going to affect FOUR enemy rolls a day (unless you start upcasting it). FOUR individual rolls total, plus another 4 with advantage. It affects 8 rolls in an entire day if you use ALL your 1st level slots on it! Do you really think that is way more powerful than hitting lets say 2 wererats (1 saved) with a single Bane and giving them -1d4 on say 16 attack rolls and another 10 or so saving throws over a 4-round battle?

In the example I just used SB affected 1 enemy roll with one 1st level slot. Bane affected 26 enemy rolls with a 1st level slot.

 

[Captain Panda]

Take the Banishment example: You have already cast the spell (worth 7 SP) metamagicked with heightened spell (3 SP).

Y'know, this has nothing to do with Silvery Barbs, but why is Banishment constantly the example used? I mean, it doesn't matter that much, the point is "single target effect does nasty thing," but it actually works against your case in a way. It might be worth throwing a Silvery Barb onto a Hold XYZ spell, because you can really pile damage on after that, and in the case of Hold Person you're talking about a 1st and 2nd level slot, that isn't a crazy waste. Banishment is a very inefficient use of a spell, just generally, and using Silvery Barbs on it could make it stick when it might not otherwise, but I frankly see the issue here as being you gambling such a high level spell slot for such a small effect. Silvery Barbs feels like throwing good money after bad, here.

Unless the Banishment is on something that is going to stay gone, I can't help but wonder what sorts of games you guys are playing. And at either extreme I see this spell as pretty bad! If you're playing a game where resources are stretched thin, going nova and throwing your spell slots away? Bad idea.
If you play in games with fewer, heavier fights? Then Silvery Barbs is a waste of your reaction because it isn't as high impact as other options!

 

[abirdcall]

I'm not using it as a gotcha.

I'm just pointing out the downsides which, contrary to trumpeting that this spell is the best spell that has ever spelled, clearly exist.

You yourself trumpeted this and in your prior post trumpeted the use against saving throws (it's one of your four examples).

Fireball isn't good against a demon but that doesn't make fireball bad.

 

[Mort]

Fireball isn't good against a demon but that doesn't make fireball bad.

If you hadn't so trumpeted SBs use against saves and legendary resistance, you'd have a point.

Even in your last post, before the quoted one, you're basing how good it is, in large part, against saves and legendary resistance.

I'm not even arguing it's a bad spell (it isn't, though IMO it's much more of a resource drain than you're acknowledging), just that, other than when responding to my last few points - you're glossing over a fairly large downside.