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

[p_johnston]

To start off I don't advocate banning or even changing silvery barbs unless your having problems with it at your table. That has more to do with my philosophy an minimizing house rules and rules changes then the spell itself though.

I think that for the majority of levels Silvery Barbs is going to be the best 1st level spell in the game by a fairly large degree. I think printing the spell as is was a mistake.

Is it better then Shield at defending yourself? no. But it can also defend other members of your party and negate criticals.
Is it better then absorb elements at defending yourself? no. But it can also end up halving the damage someone else takes on something like fireball as a side benefit of the spell by giving them advantage.
Is it better then Counterspell at defending yourself? no. (No follow up here. When counterspell is useful it will just be better. But it's also third level).

Would I burn a first level spell slot and a reaction to
Get a second chance at one of my battle ending spells without having to wait another turn? Yes.
Burn a legendary resistance on a Big Bad? Usually.

Overall this feels like half a dozen spells jammed together any of which I would consider good. A 1st level spell to have an enemy reroll a save alone would be a very good. A 1st level spell that used my reaction to give an ally advantage on any roll for up to 1 minute without concentration would be decent. A 1st level spell that made an enemy reroll an attack would be ok. Roll them all up and it becomes excellent.

 

[abirdcall]

My point was not that Treantmonk says ban SB (he is currently not recommending that). My point is that Treatmonk agrees there is a time when banning spells of Shield level power is good for the game. It sets a precedent that a "Shield level" amount of spell power is ban worthy.

The million dollar question of course, is whether SB is at that level of power.

I don't usually agree with him but this is a reasonable take.

I wonder if requiring Shield to be cast before the attack roll would be the best way to go about toning it down a bit.

If Silvery Barbs gave disadvantage on a Saving Throw and didn't also give you or an ally future Advantage on one I still wouldn't like it but at least it would be more reasonable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The sad thing is the number of people who will believe the hysterical internet hype and ban the spell without actually seeing how it works in practice.

 

[Captain Panda]

I think that for the majority of levels Silvery Barbs is going to be the best 1st level spell in the game by a fairly large degree. I think printing the spell as is was a mistake.

Is it better then Shield at defending yourself? no. But it can also defend other members of your party and negate criticals.
Is it better then absorb elements at defending yourself? no. But it can also end up halving the damage someone else takes on something like fireball as a side benefit of the spell by giving them advantage.
Is it better then Counterspell at defending yourself? no. (No follow up here. When counterspell is useful it will just be better. But it's also third level).

Thank you. I disagree with your conclusion, but it is really nice to see someone on the other side of this argument actually addressing the counterpoints regarding the spell.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Thank you. I disagree with your conclusion, but it is really nice to see someone on the other side of this argument actually addressing the counterpoints regarding the spell.

They missed out one key point though: it's a bard spell, not a wizard spell. If you want your wizard to have it the opportunity cost is increased by + one feat.

Bards actually don't get Shield, or Absorb Elements, or Counterspell, so comparing it to those isn't really meaningful.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am with @ECM03 here, i think that in practice the opportunities to use this spell will be fewer than anticipated.
Would I use Silvery Barbs to force a reroll on a save vs Disintegrate or polymorph, sure if I have a first level slot available. I an not at all sure I would burn a second level slot. There are more useful things I can do with second level spells. Things I know will payoff.

Treantmonk did not ban Shield 6 years ago, he banned it recently because he was sick of tanking wizards and shield spam at his table. He also banned armoured casters unless they get armour from their class or subclass.

All I really ask is let it run and if it becomes a problem then ban it. But not sight unseen at the table.

 

[Stalker0]

All I really ask is let it run and if it becomes a problem then ban it. But not sight unseen at the table.

On the one hand, banning the spell outright could remove something that could be fun at the table, and all based on theorycrafting.

One the other, allowing a broken spell into the game could cause issues with encounters, and lead to that thing a lot of DMs hate: telling a player that the spell their character has fallen in love with is being removed.

At the end of the day I ask this question.... does this spell fill some hole in the game that must be filled? Is the game so bereft of spells that the removal of one will be a keenly felt loss?

I think the simple answer is... no. If your group has done it all, if you've seen every caster build the game has to offer, and are desperate from something new...than you'll need every spell you can get. But, if your pretty happy with spells as is, then I'm not sure taking a chance on a very powerful (possible broken) spell is really worth the risk. Besides, there are other new spells in the book, and some of them look pretty good. Why not give some of those a whirl....and just leave the potential timebomb on the shelf.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At the end of the day I ask this question.... does this spell fill some hole in the game that must be filled?

Yes, good first level bard spells.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

On the one hand, banning the spell outright could remove something that could be fun at the table, and all based on theorycrafting.

One the other, allowing a broken spell into the game could cause issues with encounters, and lead to that thing a lot of DMs hate: telling a player that the spell their character has fallen in love with is being removed.

At the end of the day I ask this question.... does this spell fill some hole in the game that must be filled? Is the game so bereft of spells that the removal of one will be a keenly felt loss?

I think the simple answer is... no. If your group has done it all, if you've seen every caster build the game has to offer, and are desperate from something new...than you'll need every spell you can get. But, if your pretty happy with spells as is, then I'm not sure taking a chance on a very powerful (possible broken) spell is really worth the risk. Besides, there are other new spells in the book, and some of them look pretty good. Why not give some of those a whirl....and just leave the potential timebomb on the shelf.

If a spell causes a problem I would have no issue with banning it later on. All new material is taken on; on the proviso that if it causes issues then the subject will be revisited later.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If a spell causes a problem I would have no issue with banning it later on. All new material is taken on; on the proviso that if it causes issues then the subject will be revisited later.

I think it's more likely that temperamental power gaming players throw their toys out of the pram when they do burn a feat to take the "OP spell" on their wizard, only to discover that they only benefit from it once in ten sessions.