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

[abirdcall]

I have given my reasoning in several posts.



So let's go over this specific instance:

This spell allows for a better chance of banishment to be successful by forcing disadvantage on the saving throw. How much better? If I remember the math it gives banishment about a 15-25% better chance to succeed.

That's pretty good, but it's not certain, it just gives a better chance of success - at the cost of a reaction and a spell slot in addition to the banishment slot.

It does not overcome legendary resistance and it means the caster won't get to use shield, endure elements, counterspell etc.

Also it is "good" because banishment is good (though I personally think banishment, while good, is overrated) meaning it has to be part of a combo to be truly effective - that lessens it's stature.

Another way to look at it's impact (you did, after all, call it the best spell currently in the game) - does it have the potential to win an encounter(like sleep at lower levels, like hypnotic pattern, like banishment on a solo monster)? By itself, clearly not. Paired with a spell like banishment? It will aid but not ensure.

With all that - yes, seems like it will be strong, but I'm still not seeing overpowered.

If the creature saves against banishment it is the same as casting banishment again only for just a reaction and a 1st level slot.

That is absurdly broken.

 

[Mort]

If the creature saves against banishment it is the same as casting banishment again only for just a reaction and a 1st level slot.

No, it's not. If the creature had legendary resistance, for example, it'll only require one use of it. If the spell is counterspelled, there's no do over. It essentially imposes disadvantage on 1 save.

Also by your logic heightened spell is even more broken (requires sorcery points but no other actions so the sorcerer still has his reaction), yet it hasn't played out that way.

The college of eloquence bard can force a creature to deduct an inspiration die from its next save (as a bonus action). I've seen this in play, again, good, but not broken.

That is absurdly broken.

I suspect, in play it'll turn out to be the mystic theurge of broken spells.

 

[billd91]

No, it's not. If the creature had legendary resistance, for example, it'll only require one use of it. If the spell is counterspelled, there's no do over. It essentially imposes disadvantage on 1 save.

Also by your logic heightened spell is even more broken (requires sorcery points but no other actions so the sorcerer still has his reaction), yet it hasn't played out that way.

The college of eloquence bard can force a creature to deduct an inspiration die from its next save (as a bonus action). I've seen this in play, again, good, but not broken.

Not really the same logic because this isn’t applying a penalty or disadvantage before the results are known. It’s forcing a known successful save (and resisted spell) to get a do-over. And as such, it’s considerably better.

 

[Mort]

Not really the same logic because this isn’t applying a penalty or disadvantage before the results are known. It’s forcing a known successful save (and resisted spell) to get a do-over. And as such, it’s considerably better.

The fact that you know whether the save was initially failed is decent (hence why I said from the get go that this will likely play decently strong) but at the end of the day, it's STILL just a probability shift not a certainty. It's not an absolute game changer like sleep is at early levels, or like hypnotic pattern is under good conditions.

Certainly not worthy of the title of best spell in the game!?!

 

[ECMO3]

It’s a wizard build, with everything a wizard can do offensively and defensively, albeit one that has traded one wizard level for AC 21 (as soon as they can afford full plate) with spikes at AC 26 (baring magical items and buffs) throughout mid levels when that kind of AC counts the most. If you take your first level as fighter, you get proficiency with CON save at the price of WIS saves, with Warcaster as your variant human feat. Your STR takes the score you would have otherwise put in DEX on a « regular » build.

It’s an efficient built. Broken? Nah, at least not more than other efficient builds, but if you want one that exploits the so called shield-invulnerability, that’s the one I see the most.

Not everything. You need a 15 strength, which is largely useless and you have to give up points elsewhere to keep this. Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution are all more important for a wizard and are collectively a LOT lower since you need to invest so much in strength. You will need to make what is the normal wizard dump stat your 2nd higest stat. Since you are playing a human and not taking a half-feat you are also down on point buy compared to most other races.

Also, the original thread I replied to talked about "plenty" of slots for shield, there are not plenty if you are getting attacked regularly and doing "everything a wizard can do offensively". At 6th level you have at most 12 spell slots a day, including the 3 1st-level you can get back with AR. If you are throwing a magic missile and scorching ray every fight you will have no slots for shield.

If you are doing "everything a wizard can do defensively" then sure, you do have plenty because you are using other things like blur, PEG or mirror image to make yourself even harder to hit and probably only need shield a few times a day .... but then you also do need a weapon to do even average damage and your downright awful dexterity saves are still a pretty big limfac compared to a more traditional build.

 

[abirdcall]

No, it's not. If the creature had legendary resistance, for example, it'll only require one use of it. If the spell is counterspelled, there's no do over. It essentially imposes disadvantage on 1 save.

I said if it saves against it. If it saves against it then it doesn't need to use legendary resistance at all. So then you cast silvery barbs to make the attempt to use up a legendary resistance again.

It is exactly the same as casting it again when the opposing creature has made their save.

Also by your logic heightened spell is even more broken (requires sorcery points but no other actions so the sorcerer still has his reaction), yet it hasn't played out that way.

No that's disadvantage.

The college of eloquence bard can force a creature to deduct an inspiration die from its next save (as a bonus action). I've seen this in play, again, good, but not broken.

That's also not the same thing as this.


It does not impose disadvantage. Maybe that is where the confusion is?

I'll see if I can write up a post to explain it more.

 

[billd91]

The fact that you know whether the save was initially failed is decent (hence why I said from the get go that this will likely play decently strong) but at the end of the day, it's STILL just a probability shift not a certainty. It's not an absolute game changer like sleep is at early levels, or like hypnotic pattern is under good conditions.

Certainly not worthy of the title of best spell in the game!?!

Maybe not best spell in the game, but maybe overpowered for something available at 1st level (as I notice most of the things people are comparing It to are not 1st level abilities).

One major caution flag for me is that silvery barbs has high versatility. It can be used to undermine an enemy’s save (boosting offense), negate crits (boosting defense), undermine ability checks (boosting non-combat goals). Shield is good, but doesn‘t have that versatility. Counter spell is good, but it’s two levels higher and also lacks the versatility.
It’s well worth knowing/prepping because it’s a Swiss Army knife of reactive spells.

 

[abirdcall]

The easier thing to talk about is the comparison to Sorcerer's Heightened Spell so I'm going to do that first.

Metamagic is a core class feature of the Sorcerer. They are 'paying' to have this feature. Further the Sorcerer must 'pay' to have the Heightened Spell option.

A 9th level Sorcerer has 9 Sorcery points. They can Heighten Spell 3 times per long rest. They can spend 3 levels of spells to gain enough Sorcery points to do it again. They need to expend those Sorcery points before the creature has attempted their save so they may have had no impact on the roll.

Conversely a Wizard just needs to have it on their spell list which is a very cheap cost for a 1st level Wizard. At 9th level they can cast Silvery Barbs 7 times per long rest using 1st and 2nd level spell slots (or 4 with 1st level slots though there are cases I would use a 4th level slot on it so really it's a lot of times). Silvery Barbs will only be cast when it is useful as those slots are used only on a successful save. And then for some reason the Wizard also gets to give Advantage to an ally as a bonus.


Heightened Spell is significantly more costly than Silvery Barbs is. So much so that they aren't comparable. It's like saying a low level spell is just as powerful as a high level one so it's balanced.

 

[Mort]

I said if it saves against it. If it saves against it then it doesn't need to use legendary resistance at all. So then you cast silvery barbs to make the attempt to use up a legendary resistance again.

It is exactly the same as casting it again when the opposing creature has made their save.

No it isn't. You resolve whether the save was made or failed first, including silvery barbs. "The triggering creature must reroll the d20 and use the lower roll."

Once that's resolved If the save was still failed THEN the creature can decide if it wants to use legendary resistance. Silvery Barbs absolutely does not get you two bites at this apple!

It IS better than plain advantage because you only roll a second die IF the first succeeded, but it's still resolved as a single outcome not two separate outcomes.

Edit: so I think I get what your saying now, but still disagree. Yes, you only cast silvery Barbs on a success so legendary resistance wouldn't have been used and now it might be, that's decent but I still don't think it's broken.

 

[ECMO3]

Not really the same logic because this isn’t applying a penalty or disadvantage before the results are known. It’s forcing a known successful save (and resisted spell) to get a do-over. And as such, it’s considerably better.

Statistically it is inferior to imposing disadvantage before the results are known. It is more efficient in terms of slots/resources though.