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

[Mort]

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.

Even rolling in the open, the DM isn't required to disclose bonuses.

 

[darjr]

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.

True, it doesn't say the resulting number must be secret, it only says they only know they've been hit. What they don't know is the bonus to hit the creature has. Do you tell them that? I don't. I also don't tell them the total.

But I did get it wrong. They DO know if they've been hit.

So I guess I've been doing it correctly.

ope!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For anyone but a Wizard (or Land Druid that somehow acquires it) it's a 4/day combo of forcing a reroll on an enemy and advantage to yourself.

Is it good? Certainly. Probably among the best 1st-level spells for support. Is it an auto-pick? Ehh...I don't think so. For a support-focused caster, sure, it probably is an auto-pick, but so is shield for a combat-focused caster, or fireball for an offense-focused caster. Spells that are auto-picks for certain approaches or playstyles are quite common. We don't call for the removal of healing word simply because it's an auto-pick for anyone wanting to heal in combat. (You do see people call for its removal, to be clear, but the vast majority of the complaints center on the "whack-a-mole healing" bugaboo some folks have, not that every healing-interested Bard, Cleric, and Druid is automatically going to learn/prepare it.)

To a blaster, it's of potential utility if you use a lot of save-based spells, but even then I don't see it being so utterly irreplaceable that people would never cast other spells with their first-level slots. Even if they do, is four failed saves a day for the vast majority of characters actually that much of a concern? To battlefield control Wizards it may or may not be useful, depending on whether they're interested more in terrain effects (which may not have saves) or debuffs (which usually do).

The Divination Wizard's Portent feature is nearly as good in terms of its potential (a guaranteed result, but must be used before the target roll) and far superior in terms of action economy (taking no action whatsoever, not even a free action), though I admit that Portent does not pull double duty by both buffing and debuffing. Yet while Divination is recognized as a strong school, no one talks about banning Divination or that Portent is some stupidly overpowered thing for forcing enemies to fail their saves or allies to pass their saves or whatever.

I also feel like there's some amount of having one's cake and eating it too, here. Much as I absolutely see the "Batman Wizard" as a problem, there is something of an issue with allowing all the many potential uses of the spell simultaneously, when that's not physically possible. You can't have the caster simultaneously holding it in reserve for crit-prevention, farming it to ensure failed saves, and deploying it whenever they like in order to juice up an ally. Yes, each of those use cases could come up in a single day, but if the Wizard's accomplishments via first-level spells are "I forced one enemy to fail a save, saved one ally from a crit, and gave one ally useful Advantage," honestly, that's not that big a deal. It's only things like 18th-level Wizards with infinite uses that might be a problem...and at that point you're already talking about campaigns that can feature wish. Negating crits all day is small potatoes compared to what a max-level spellcaster can do in 5e.

So...yeah. I don't see it as being that big a deal. It's definitely powerful, and if that power freaks you out...okay. Change it. Something like this:

• trigger condition is that an enemy attempts an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check
• impose Disadvantage rather than forcing a reroll and taking the lower of the two
• Secondary target must use the Advantage before the end of their next turn or they lose it (cutting the buff duration by 90%)

This eliminates the "crit prevention" thing (which I think is way overblown, but whatever), the "it stacks with disadvantage!!" anxiety, and the "it's incredibly good support" thing. It's still powerful and still highly desirable, but this steps back from everything the critics say negatively about it other than its quick cast time (which is essentially unchangeable, it must be a reaction to work the way it does).

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

It's not necessarily a bad choice based on the information the player has, which should usually be fairly little if they aren't metagaming. Usually the best information they should have about how the enemy is likely to do on a given saving throw is how they have done on saving throws of that type and they just succeeded at one.

At least that's how I all my groups approach the game. I'm not intending it as a criticism of groups who play otherwise. But the etiquette I am accustomed to is to not use knowledge of saving throws beyond what is roughly guessable from broad creature type, apparent attributes, or what is learned in combat.

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.

By "spell slot tax" I mean something I feel obligated to do that isn't necessarily particularly fun or effective (much like sending the government money). I guess Banishment can feel like a spell slot tax if you become super burned out on Banishment and the group always wants you to be banishing enemies, but I don't think that's the typical experience. Mage armor would be the classic spell slot tax spell, and it's not such because its a bad spell, it's such because it is a spell prepared and cast out of a feeling of obligation to achieve an unexciting result.

While not boring in the Mage Armor way, Silvery Barbs is a spell that sets up a sunk-cost dilemma any time an important target saves against a big spell or effect, and I suspect for many players it will just become a bummer, one that results in burning through spell slots faster as it is the reaction spell whose preconditions are generally likely to be triggered most frequently. It's a big old invitation to send good spell slots after bad.

I don't know, maybe it's more like a spell insurance plan. I also don't find insurance terribly fun or exciting, even when it is effective.

In any case, the more I think about the spell the more I dislike it as something that just fundamentally changes the resource management calculus of 23% of the classes (or anyone who wanst to take a feat for it, since it's first level) far more than a single spell in a setting book most players probably never intended to buy should. So I think I'll expand on my prior opinion to say the saving throw option should be a separate, higher-level spell to say that that separate higher level spell also shouldn't exist.

 

[abirdcall]

Even rolling in the open, the DM isn't required to disclose bonuses.

I never said anything about that.

 

[abirdcall]

True, it doesn't say the resulting number must be secret, it only says they only know they've been hit. What they don't know is the bonus to hit the creature has. Do you tell them that? I don't. I also don't tell them the total.

But I did get it wrong. They DO know if they've been hit.

So I guess I've been doing it correctly.

ope!

I'm replying to your comment where you say you don't tell them what you rolled just whether they have been hit. You seem to be implying that this is the 'intended way' and I don't know where you're getting that from.

This is the first time the total has been mentioned and I don't see why you're suddenly bringing that up when replying to me.

 

[darjr]

I'm replying to your comment where you say you don't tell them what you rolled just whether they have been hit. You seem to be implying that this is the 'intended way' and I don't know where you're getting that from.

This is the first time the total has been mentioned and I don't see why you're suddenly bringing that up when replying to me.

I don’t tell them what I’ve rolled no.

But I meant the bit I got wrong. I thought that was intended.

Not about sharing or showing what is rolled.

I am a bit confused why it matters though?

 

[abirdcall]

I don’t tell them what the total is, no.

Never have.

I do roll out in the open so players eventually can figure it out.

Though I imagine lots of DMs that use screens never tell the total rolled either.

Where does it say you must tell them the total?

I dint have a problem if DMs do say the total, I’d just not.

I have never said that they should know the total. Where are you getting that from?

The "intended" or default is to know whether they have been hit and what was rolled.

If a DM wants to make Shield worse by hiding the roll that is their business. The notion that people are buffing the spell or not playing as intended by rolling in the open is just wrong.

 

[darjr]

I have never said that they should know the total. Where are you getting that from?

The "intended" or default is to know whether they have been hit and what was rolled.

If a DM wants to make Shield worse by hiding the roll that is their business. The notion that people are buffing the spell or not playing as intended by rolling in the open is just wrong.

Ah. See my edit.

 

[ECMO3]

Redirect Notice

Silvery Barbs is a spell from Strixhaven that is a reaction to cast, forces a reroll, and then grants advantage.

ThinkDM says he’d ban the spell.

I’d rather find a way to fix it.

But how?

I don't think it needs to be fixed. It is pretty balanced for a 1st level spell. Compared to shield it has a lot more randomness. It is usable when sheild isn't but you also do not know if it will work, where with shield you usually do and it is only versus one attack, not for a whole turn. I think it is a great spell for a bladesinger as a companion to shield but does not replace it.

Thematically I think it should be available to warlocks though.

Honestly I don't think it is a lot more powerful than many other options, however you can get it with Fey Touched, while Shield is not available with that feat.