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

[darjr]

Why does it also grant advantage?!

It is already very strong bordering on overpowered with the first part.

If we are changing it lets start by removing the advantage.

But is that the “too strong bit” I think it’s still potentially too good even without that.

 

[Bolares]

But is that the “too strong bit” I think it’s still potentially too good even without that.

The thing is... you can't fix the too good portion (if you think it's too good). Otherwise it would just be worse bane...


thinking bout it... maybe give disavantage on the roll, but then you would have a very awkward timing for whent to trigger the effect...

 

[billd91]

Is it too strong even without adding advantage to another check? It might be.

• It's better than Lucky in some ways because it applies to things other than attack rolls and can be selected after the caster knows the check is successful whereas Lucky lacks that wording. But it's worse in that it takes a reaction while Lucky has no action cost. It won't be limited to 3/day as well.
• It's kind of like disadvantage without actually being disadvantage so it won't, by itself, prevent someone from being the target of a sneak attack. But, again, it can be imposed after you know the result is a success whereas, with disadvantage, both rolls might be bad enough to be failures.
• It is likely foil the hell out of a critical hit like disadvantage once you know the crit has been rolled. It's not 100% likely like a grave cleric's Sentinel at Death's Door ability (though it's close enough for gummint work), but it's available much sooner and probably more often since it's such a low-level spell and can be cast from higher level spells. Edit: Oh, and at twice the range...

Yuck. I'm kind of hating the way it's horning in on a lot of stuff. Whether more powerful or not, it's stepping the eff all over that grave cleric's crit negation. And, if nothing else, that probably makes it too good. What party-friendly wizard optimizer won't take it? It's too dominating a strategy right from 1st level.

 

[darjr]

Crit negation!

 

[Umbran]

How potent it is depends very much on how often your GM applies advantage/disadvantage. If your GM almost never grants ad hoc advantage, it seems powerful. If your GM uses it frequently anyway, this isn't that big a deal.

 

[Horwath]

Nothing to fix here.

 

[darjr]

Nothing to fix here.

OK, but why?

 

[ad_hoc]

What if we got rid of the Saving Throw aspect of it?

That is the part that is a problem. It's like duplicating a spell that works on Saving Throws with just a reaction and a 1st level spell.

The spell would be in line with Shield if it only affected attack rolls.

 

[ninjayeti]

Why would I want to fix it when I can just give it to every NPC caster from here on out and enjoy those sweet, sweet player tears?

 

[Horwath]

OK, but why?

If I said that there is nothing to fix, I think that spell works good the way it is written.

But, since you asked: as many stated it's similar to shield but works little different.
It has range of only 60ft and you need to see the target. Shield works if attacked outside that range or from invisible/hidden opponent.

It costs a spell slot, so 4x per day max. It costs a reaction, so no shield(lasts entire round), no absorb elements(might regret when you get hit for 30+ fireball damage), no counter spell(for some really bad spell) for that round.

At low levels, every time you use it, you have one less slot for Sleep,