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

[ECMO3]

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.

Banishment has a 60 foot range (I think), so it actually is a good example in that regard. On the other hand many legendary monsters and especially those that get permanently banished have a high charisma save.

Silvery Barbs feels like throwing good money after bad, here.

This! When you get to use it, this will be the most common outcome.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

It is broken against saves but it isn't going to fix making a bad decision in the first place.

If you cast Fireball on the demon and the demon made its save you could SB it. And yes, that would be terrible to do but the Fireball was also terrible.

That it is possible to use something poorly doesn't mean it isn't extremely overpowered.

 

[billd91]

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.

Banishment is not inefficient. It’s a one and done kind of spell with respect to saves, something hold spells are not. And while the creature may be coming back in about 10 rounds, it usually gives you plenty of time to clear out any other creatures in the encounter, prep, and then concentrate power. We find holds to be not nearly as convenient.

 

[Captain Panda]

Banishment is not inefficient. It’s a one and done kind of spell with respect to saves, something hold spells are not. And while the creature may be coming back in about 10 rounds, it usually gives you plenty of time to clear out any other creatures in the encounter, prep, and then concentrate power. We find holds to be not nearly as convenient.

I don't wanna derail the thread too much, so only gonna post on this the one time, but...

Banishment takes something (unless it's extraplanar) and knocks them out of the fight for a minute (if they fail, otherwise it eats a slot for nothing). At the cost of a 4th level spell slot (so polymorph, conjure woodland beings, upcast spirit guardians aren't being used), and your concentration for a minute. As a 7th level caster, or higher.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter incapacitates a target for a minute with a first level slot and your concentration. Now, unlike some of the people in this thread, let me acknowledge the drawbacks upfront: yes, you get a save at the end of each turn, and yes, they wake up if they take damage. But if you want to knock one thing out of the fight you can do it way cheaper than with Banishment.

Hypnotic Pattern. A spell level lower, hits a bunch of stuff and knocks them out of the fight. I acknowledge that some things are immune to charm so this isn't always applicable, still a way better effect any time it applies.

Suggestion. DM dependent, but at minimum you can probably use suggestion to remove a foe from the combat for an hour. I see some people treat this like hard mind control and the suggested creature should do everything you want (those people tend not to be welcome at my table because that's a really poor reading of the spell), but you don't need to treat it anywhere close to that for it to function better than Banishment.

Web. Can't charm the creatures? Web them. One might make a save in a group, but they all probably won't.

So the main benefits of Banishment once you stop targeting something extraplanar is they don't get to repeat the save, and charisma is a good save to target. That's it. But does that make it worth a higher slot than all of the above? It's only better than the above if something is alone (so you can't benefit from web or hypnotic pattern to the same degree), and is immune to charm effects, and isn't a humanoid so you can't hold person it. If it's a humanoid, hold person is way better. Paralyzed generally means "dead real soon."

And 10 rounds? How many fights genuinely go that long? I have seen some, but those are really big boss battles where you'll probably want to cast a better spell to use your concentration, one that impacts multiple targets, or swings the fight more than just removing one thing that doesn't have a legendary resistance. Banishment isn't so bad it's unusable, but it's hardly a spell I'd say is so stronk that making it even harder to pass (at the cost of your reaction and a 1st level spell slot, mind) is breaking anything.

 

[jgsugden]

So the main benefits of Banishment once you stop targeting something extraplanar is they don't get to repeat the save, and charisma is a good save to target. That's it. But does that make it worth a higher slot than all of the above? It's only better than the above if something is alone (so you can't benefit from web or hypnotic pattern to the same degree), and is immune to charm effects, and isn't a humanoid so you can't hold person it. If it's a humanoid, hold person is way better. Paralyzed generally means "dead real soon."

And 10 rounds? How many fights genuinely go that long? I have seen some, but those are really big boss battles where you'll probably want to cast a better spell to use your concentration, one that impacts multiple targets, or swings the fight more than just removing one thing that doesn't have a legendary resistance. Banishment isn't so bad it's unusable, but it's hardly a spell I'd say is so stronk that making it even harder to pass (at the cost of your reaction and a 1st level spell slot, mind) is breaking anything.

This is highly inconsistent with my play experience. Banishment removes an enemy from the combat until you're ready to deal with it. It does so consistently against most threats due to the Charisma save, and once remoed only your loss of concentration or 1 minute duration brings them back.

I have seen plenty of PCs and enemies make the hold person save on subsequent turns, I also see so many monsters make the wisom save as many monsters have a bonus to wisdom saves.

Banishment is a highly utilized 4th level spell. Even on a solo monster, it allows the PCs time to heal, to put up new defensive spells, etc... It is a killer spell when it succeeds.

 

[Captain Panda]

This is highly inconsistent with my play experience. Banishment removes an enemy from the combat until you're ready to deal with it. It does so consistently against most threats due to the Charisma save, and once remoed only your loss of concentration or 1 minute duration brings them back.

Yes, I acknowledged that it targets a better save than similar spells. I don't think that and the lack of repeated saving throws is enough to justify it being three spell levels higher. Fourth level spells should be doing more than maybe taking one enemy off the field. Wisdom is a more common save to have high end creatures proficient in, sure. It's more likely to make the save against Hideous Laughter. Considering people are saying it's super duper OP that Silvery Barbs can increase the chance of a 4th level spell landing, one might consider that it's a better idea just to use that first level slot for a very, very similar effect and use Silvery Barbs to tweak the odds on that instead. Disabling one enemy is a great use of a 1st level spell. It's a pretty weak use of a 4th level one.

I have seen plenty of PCs and enemies make the hold person save on subsequent turns, I also see so many monsters make the wisom save as many monsters have a bonus to wisdom saves.

So have I, but how long do your combats last? 3 rounds is a pretty common length, from what I've seen. If something is paralyzed, hit it, it won't be paralyzed and making a save next time its turn pops up, it'll be dead.

Banishment is a highly utilized 4th level spell.

Well, yeah. So is haste. They're both overrated. Being highly utilized doesn't mean it's a good spell for the level.

Even on a solo monster, it allows the PCs time to heal, to put up new defensive spells, etc... It is a killer spell when it succeeds.

And when it fails? You just spent and action and a 4th level slot, which for most campaigns is a pretty powerful resource, to do nothing. Why do you need to use Banishment on a solo monster? I'm sure there are corner-case reasons you would, but I just don't see that as a valuable use of a 4th level slot to remove one creature from play, if you're lucky. If you use Silvery Barbs, that dastardly broken spell, to make super sure something fails the save then you just spend a 4th and a 1st level slot to remove a single creature from the battlefield! That's just... so inefficient. I notice that, apart from the Hold XYZ comment, you didn't address any of the other spells being dramatically more efficient for their cost.

 

[NotAYakk]

That is simply not true

It is simply true.

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

Naw, a reroll acts exactly like disadvantage when the original roll is plain.

It is identical. Please stop posting incorrect math.

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%.

Such as this.

Repeating your incorrect math doesn't make it right.

Stats and probability is hard, but it doesn't excuse refusing to be corrected.

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

A first level slot is worth less than a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or higher level slot.

Casting a 2nd or higher level spell means you thought it was worth the chance of failure.

Unless you where quite wrong (and maybe thatis the case), spending a 1st level slot on the same gamble is a better deal than you just thought was worthwhile; lower cost (in terms of slots), same payoff matrix.

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.

When comparing two abilities, working out the benefit per cost matters. Not casting SB because it isn't beeded is part of calculating its cost when compared with abilities you have to "pre fund".

If you ignore this you'll gettge wrong answer. Which is why you are getting the wrong answer. This is your error here.

If you don't understand this error, you'll continue to claim false things.

This isn't a matter of opinion. You have an error here.

Unless you address this mistake, you'll not understand why your math is solving the wrong problem.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

No. Having SB allows you to affect any of those rolls. Therefore we need to compare with subclasses that also has options to affect each of those rolls. I have made no requirement that they have to be able to do it all at once.

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.

I don't think I've spotted this. How are they doing it?

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

I really need to check your maths here. If you are rolling a D20 twice, with the same DC, and taking any failed result, the chance of failure is identical. It doesn't matter whether you roll them at the same time, or the second D20 only after you see the result of the first.

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

This is an outright falsehood. The chances of failure are the same. You are rolling a D20 twice at the same DC, and taking any failure as the result. It is also the same chance as if you were to cast the same spell at them on a subsequent round if they make the save the first time.

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

The chance of failure overall is identical.

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.

My experience disagrees.

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!

Its a good example of a higher level spell with a save that does nothing if the opponent makes it. One of my groups has run into a lot of elementals lately, so it was at the top of my mind. Its a good "remove this opponent from the current fight" spell, and even if it can't permanently get rid of the target, it reduces the current opponents, allowing better focusing by the party and less damage taken. It is actually only generally rarely used against opponents that it can permanently banish I've found. (Current experience notwithstanding ).

 

[Stalker0]

Banishment is also one of the best ways to neutralize golems if your dealing with multiple foes

 

[Stalker0]

So 21 pages in, pretty sure we have all of the arguments we are going to get, so here is my summary:

Silvery Barbs is OP

• Ability to augment saving throws is a very powerful ability (often a class/subclass feature, equivalent to heighten spell) and is now given as a 1st level spell, that can stack or work together with other saving throw augment effects. This opens up an entire new arena of spell power.
• Spell is incredibly versatile even beyond saving throws, with the ability to negate crits, augment dispel checks, help an ally saving throw, etc.
• Spell has a very strong scaling. Its good at low levels, and continues to get better and better at higher levels.
• Ability is only consumed when needed, making it in some ways superior to other abilities that require you to spend them before you know the initial result.

Silvery Barbs is Powerful but not OP

• The need for a reaction is a major cost, having it directly compete with other "top tier spells" like shield and absorb energy.
• Silvery Barbs is only really strong in cases where you miss with a saving throw against a creature within 60 feet, and the saving throw was a difficult one to make in the first place. These cases should be rare, which weakens how often the spell will actually be "game changing".
• The spell burns through spell slots quickly, ultimately leading to a spellcaster with limited spell slots towards the end of a long adventuring day.

So....after all of this discussion, am I going to ban silvery barbs out of the gate?

I think my plan for the spell will be to put it on my "aggressive watch list". Aka if a player is interested in the spell, I tell them "honestly I have a great fear this spell is OP, and I will watch it very carefully. I reserve the right to remove it at any time, and if your not comfortable with that, I recommend avoiding the spell."

I did the same thing with counterspell, and ultimately did ban counterspell in my games (I hate that spell so very much). I also did that with the original healing spirit, and I wound up eventually houseruling the spell until the official change came out.

So my track record, is that any spell that goes on my watch list, generally gets some adjustment from me before all is said and done. Will silvery barbs get the same, we will see, but I think that is my plan for now.