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

[abirdcall]

One thing we do have to note on healing word. At 5+ level, healing word does become a lot stronger, as yes I would not expect a single monster to take down a PC in one round.

But 1-4 levels, PCs are still fragile. If a PC with little health left takes a good hit from a monster.... there is a solid chance they will just die outright, so if they are wading into combat believing healing word will save them....they are really rolling the dice on death.

I think a lot of it comes down to the DM.

A fight with a giant or two is not very dangerous with Healing Word in play. But if you add some wolves or the like who are there to finish off PCs suddenly the fight becomes a lot more dangerous and Healing Word isn't enough to keep them going after a hit from a weaker monster.

 

[Stalker0]

I take it you haven't played 5e.

Played for many years, and DMed most of them.

As I said, if we are talking 5th level, completely agree with you, the chance of a PC dying outright to an attack is very small (would have to be the crit of crits).

Below 5th level....PCs can absolutely die. A 4th level rogue with a nice 14 con has 31 hp on average. Take a black pudding for example, it does 4d8 + 1d6 + 3 damage. A slightly high die roll on a rogue that is near 0 could absolutely take it out. And that's a regular attack, if its crits....your toast.

That's assuming a nice fat 14 con. Drop it to a 12 con.... and your just a smidge above average to take you out.

 

[Mort]

At the end of the day, offense trumps defense. If a wizard is focusing their spell slots on defense and healing instead of controlling and killing...they are just going to be less effective. The best healed damage is the damage you never take. The best defense is the monster never attacking in the first place.

But this is precisely why Healing Word is so strong. Used correctly, not only does it maximize action economy - When needed, it's essentially offensive.

The fighter, who was doing massive damage gets knocked down. The cleric (or bard, or divine soul sorcerer) props him right up from across the battle field and can still cast a damaging cantrip. The fighter then unloads on the baddie.

 

[Stalker0]

If the +5 isn't enough to guarantee a miss, then the caster doesn't cast shield - they get hit, but they save the slot.

This may be part of the reason some of us value shield differently.

If you are telling the player what the attack roll is, then your right, shield is very efficient.
If you are telling the player "the attack hit", then shield has a miss chance, and is toned down.

 

[ECMO3]

Its also only protects one person AND requires concentration. Its very hard to look at a concentration spells as "top tier" just because it denies you access to so many other spells.

And it lasts until that concentration ends. If you use it for one round and then dump concentration to cast another spell the next round then it is comparable to barbs. If you use it for 2 or more it is clearly more powerful (and that assumes you don't have something else you want to cast).

What I meant with this spell is that since find familiar is normally cast on a previous day (and is a ritual), its not really competing on spell slots with other spells. So I don't really see it as an "either/or"....I would happily have both!

You do not need to cast it as a ritual. Sure that is a benefit, but it can be cast using a slot as well. It can't be cast in combat, but it can be cast every time you take a short rest.

It is not an either or, but it is more powerful than silvery barbs.

You are also assuming shield is automatic. Yes a +5 to AC is a big boost, but it in no way guarantees the wizard won't be hit. And absorb elements, sure it takes out half the damage....but you still have to make a concentration check. Meanwhile guess what helps with that concentration check....silvery barbs. You can apply the boost to yourself afterall, so if the enemy does force you to make a save, you can reroll it if you need to. And if you don't....well you have a whole minute to apply it to another concentration save should you need it.

If your DM rolls publicly it almost always results in a miss, more importantly it works for a turn even when it "fails" to stop the attack you use it on.

If you compare this to Barbs, the "no effect" will happen FAR more often on barbs AND barbs does not last a turn.

On Barbs, if the DM rolls privately and the players have no idea of the enemies target, the Barbs spell will change the effect of the targeted roll less than 50% of the time. If you know the targets save or you know what roll he succeeded with, you can slant the odds to your favor, but if you are playing hidden rolls with no idea of stats, Barbs will fail to change the outcome more than it changes the outcome.

At the end of the day, offense trumps defense. If a wizard is focusing their spell slots on defense and healing instead of controlling and killing...they are just going to be less effective. The best healed damage is the damage you never take. The best defense is the monster never attacking in the first place.

That is not true. Your wizard probably dies in round 1 against a White Dragon if he uses Barbs on his first turn. If he plays "offensively" and doesn't use Barbs and keeps absorb elements in his back pocket, he probably lasts 4 turns if he can stay out of melee. That is 4 offensive spells he could cast in the fight instead of 1 with a reroll.

 

[Stalker0]

But this is precisely why Healing Word is so strong. Used correctly, not only does it maximize action economy - When needed, it's essentially offensive.

But at the cost of your own. I agree that healing word is a very good spell, but its the only "real spell" your casting that round. All you get otherwise is a cantrip.

Silvery barbs allows me to cast a full powered spell AND this one on the same round. Two full spells are better than one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The ONLY deaths I have ever seen in 5e have been caused by insta-kill effects, specifically wisp life drain and beholder death ray. Oh and once when a ghoul ate a downed character in a Halloween special. I have NEVER seen a character killed by massive damage. But I have seen characters hit zero and bounce back with healing word in more fights than when it does not happen. Frequently several times in one fight.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This may be part of the reason some of us value shield differently.

If you are telling the player what the attack roll is, then your right, shield is very efficient.

That's RAW.

If you are telling the player "the attack hit", then shield has a miss chance, and is toned down.

That's a house rule. If you have a house rule that nerfs shield then it is obviously not going to be as good.

Obviously if you nerf shield you will also have to nerf silvery barbs.

 

[Mort]

But at the cost of your own. I agree that healing word is a very good spell, but its the only "real spell" your casting that round. All you get otherwise is a cantrip.

Silvery barbs allows me to cast a full powered spell AND this one on the same round. Two full spells are better than one.

Only if 1) you are unconcerned about burn rate (you touched on this earlier) - you'll burn through spells FAST. 2) you're confident that the monster has a good chance of failing the spell save. Often, the fighter going full Cuisinart will do more than anything the wizard can.

 

[Stalker0]

That's RAW.

Here is the RAW portion for making an attack.

Making an Attack​

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a Location.
2. Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, Spells, Special Abilities, and other Effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your Attack roll.
3. Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an Attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an Attack roll, you’re making an Attack.


There is technically no requirement to call out an attack result. You make a roll and announce whether you hit or miss.

now I think its perfectly acceptable to require the attack roll to be called out, and I think its fine not to....but I don't think you could argue either way is RAW. Like many things in 5e, its the dms call.