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

[ad_hoc]

As a debuff to saving throws it's good, but it also potentially becomes a spell slot tax, where you just burn your reaction and an extra spell slot to make the enemy have to make their saving throw a second time. Unless you know the enemy's stats, if they make a save the first time it's hard to know that they are not likely to make it a second time.

If it is a 'spell slot tax' then every spell is a spell slot tax.

Casting Banishment is a 4th level "tax" that burns your action to force the enemy to make a saving throw. I'll take the 1st level reaction spell over that unless you're saying that saving throw spells like Banishment are bad in which case I wholeheartedly disagree.

As for the 2nd part, if you're casting a saving throw spell at an enemy that has a high save against that spell then you've made a bad choice. Just because it is possible to make a bad choice with a spell doesn't mean that the spell is balanced.

 

[darjr]

One of the reasons I LIKE Silvery Barbs is that it is another way for casters to effectively spell duel in combat, instead of just hurling damage at one another. It is a highly useful low level reaction spell that could see one caster using it to negate an enemy save while buffing an ally, while an opposing caster works to undo the effect with the same spell. It adds depth to low level casting.

That's cool. And I think that was its intent, I mean it's taught at a magic school after all.

Maybe I'd limit it to that school and you'd have to attend to learn it. Or convince an ex student to give it to you.

 

[ad_hoc]

Part of the test will be to see how players react when the enemies use it.

Imagine a hard or deadly encounter for level 10 characters but add in 10 CR 1/4 1st level spellcasters with this spell. The added spellcasters won't affect the listed difficulty much but could easily turn the combat into a quick TPK.

 

[Krachek]

IMO I would like more spell like this.
its effect is reliable. You use it when you need it.
its effect stay valuable as you level up. Forcing a reroll is a least as useful at low than at high level.

 

[grimslade]

Imagine a hard or deadly encounter for level 10 characters but add in 10 CR 1/4 1st level spellcasters with this spell. The added spellcasters won't affect the listed difficulty much but could easily turn the combat into a quick TPK.

Yes, go on...
I like the spell. Spells need a bit more magic manipulation in them. Silvery Barbs is better than Bane for representing a hex/ minor curse. It also gives a game representation of magical duels between casters other than Counterspell. It is a powerful 1st level spell, no doubt. Too powerful? Maybe.

I might change it because the spell does too much, not in a power sense, but it really just has too many moving parts for a first-level reaction spell. Split the spell up to affect different rolls. 3 reaction spells for the 3 different rolls. One for Saving Throws, One for attack rolls, and a third for an ability check roll. I don't think the ability check version would be popular except for bard grapplers. SIlvery Barbs is too flowery, I would just call it a jinx.

 

[cbwjm]

I just looked at the spell and my first thought was that maybe it could go up to level 2, but thinking over it a bit more I think it is fine at level 1. I think there are enough abilities that do something kind of similar that it is fine where it is. By something similar, I mean similar to some parts of the spell, not all of it. Spells like faerie fire and guiding bolt can grant advantage, hex is can mess with ability checks, and spells like bless and bane are fairly effective at enhancing or reducing attack rolls and saves. It's cool that this is a reaction, but it's a once off whereas the other spells last for a duration and can affect more allies/opponents. It's one of those spells where if you keep using it, but you'll quickly find yourself out of spell slots meaning you can't do much else.

 

[Mort]

.....The spell is waaaay stronger than shield, if you think they're comparable I don't really know what to say.

If shield were played as intended (player doesn't know whether the +5 would prevent the hit or not) I might agree but I have never seen it played that way.

Every table I've ever played at or seen played - the DM announces the AC, asks if it hits and then allows for shield - so it is never wasted.

Then gives a further +5 AC until the caster goes again(massive at higher levels when monsters get more and harder hitting attacks).

This spell is more versatile (applies to more than AC and isn't caster only), but 1) it, at best will turn 1-2 events not more than that and 2) It provides advantage/disadvantage, not certainty, so can be wasted.

 

[ad_hoc]

Yes, go on...
I like the spell. Spells need a bit more magic manipulation in them. Silvery Barbs is better than Bane for representing a hex/ minor curse. It also gives a game representation of magical duels between casters other than Counterspell. It is a powerful 1st level spell, no doubt. Too powerful? Maybe.

I might change it because the spell does too much, not in a power sense, but it really just has too many moving parts for a first-level reaction spell. Split the spell up to affect different rolls. 3 reaction spells for the 3 different rolls. One for Saving Throws, One for attack rolls, and a third for an ability check roll. I don't think the ability check version would be popular except for bard grapplers. SIlvery Barbs is too flowery, I would just call it a jinx.

So have it be an action that causes disadvantage to the next saving throw a creature makes.

It is by far the best spell in the game and stronger in power than all 1st and 2nd level spells. It is even worth casting in a 3rd level spell slot.

Heck, it's even worth a level 4+ spell slot depending on the circumstance. In the Banishment example I would spend a 4th level slot to have the creature save again. It's the same as casting banishment again only it happens now and saves an action.

 

[darjr]

It's difficult to play shield as intended. Especially in public play. Either you ask everyone, do you have shield prepared and ask EVERY TIME before you announce a hit.

But I have to say I never say what I rolled. Just that I hit. Sometimes that shield spell isn't enough to stop it.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's difficult to play shield as intended. Especially in public play. Either you ask everyone, do you have shield prepared and ask EVERY TIME before you announce a hit.

But I have to say I never say what I rolled. Just that I hit. Sometimes that shield spell isn't enough to stop it.

How do you know that the roll is intended to be secret?

As there are no rules that I know of that say rolls are secret the default is that everyone sees them.