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

[abirdcall]

It actually IS a weakness of Silvery Barbs. The spell is as good or as bad as the spell it enhances. It's reliant on a combo effect - that's not a strength.

That's like saying any spell or ability is bad if it relies on a saving throw.

You said it yourself - the spell is as good or as bad as the spell it enhances is exactly right and that is why it is broken. Banishment is a 4th level spell and here is a 1st level spell that is as good as Banishment. Only better because it is just a reaction instead of an action and also grants advantage to an ally on a saving throw. So we have a 1st level spell that is significantly better than a 4th level one (which is considered to be a great spell).

It's broken.

 

[Stalker0]

Lets also not forget the sheer versatility of this spell. Lets say your ally is about to get shoved off a cliff, and failed their athletics check. Giving them a reroll on a check could be life saving.

Now that is a niche thing....but that's what makes this spell so great. It affects so many different kinds of checks, there is ALWAYS somewhere to get value. No matter the enemy, no matter the party, no matter the situation, there is ALWAYS a place where a character will be thrilled they have this spell.

 

[jgsugden]

Let's also think about this spell in terms of resources. You need to spend a spell slot and a spell known/prepared. Those are both in short supply for a reroll mechanic. You want diverse abilities which make squeezing out space for a reroll known/prepared spell tough. It gets easier as time goes by ... but it is a high cost at low levels for somthing that is not quaranteed to work.

Further, forcing a reroll has to make sense. If the enemy has a strong bonus to their save, ability check or attack roll ... well, they are likely to make it on the reroll. This limits the utility of this spell primarily to situations in which they should have failed the spell the first time, or you're desperate.

Ah, it isn't that bad because we can drop Shield and most of these spellcasters have Shield! We were casting that, right?

Remember that this impacts one roll, and I often see Shield negate one attack with 100% certainty, and then stop additional attacks before it expires. Yu either may still want to have both ... or might feel the loss of Shield.

Good spell. Not game breaking.

 

[NotAYakk]

I don't get it. L 6 monk/wizard (18 dex, 14 wis, 18 int). On a CR 9 blue dragon, a decent legendary foe.

Monk runs out of Ki round 2 having stripped an average of 1.2 LR.
Wizard on round 2 using vs wis save or suck lands .45(1.55)*2, or 1.4 LR, and burns 3.1 spell slots our of daily budget of 11-13 slots (about 1/3 of her slots).

The wizard is buring the LR down faster. Without barbs, it burned it 0.9 instead of 1.4, a big difference.

Barbs makes a spelcaster about as good as a monk at stripping LR.

I suppose we could have a L 15+ party against a bunch of CR9 legendary resist monsters? Maybe that is the situation people experience?

I tend to run into LR on monstees that are already in the hard/deadly range.

 

[ECMO3]

Easy example. The downed character is a melee fighter 30 feet away from the monster. Bringing them back up will provide no offense, as they can only stand from prone, grab their sword, and move 15 more feet closer.

Compare that to getting off a spirit guardians or taking the monster out with a banishment or something.

It is not that simple. You are oversimplifying it.

The actual equation assuming spirit guardians is: Spirit Guardians - chance fighter will die VS Cantrip/attack + value of lost action by enemy + character action

You need to account for all 5 of those things and the left has to be more valuable than the right side to say it is more valuable to cast spirit guardian. The only things you accounted for are the value of Sprit Guardians/banishment and the value of the melee fighters action (which is 0)

Add all those into the "easy example" and it will no longer be so easy, common or simple. Sure you can come up with a scenario but it is a corner case full of "ifs" and "conditions", not representative of the vast majority of situations.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

It doesn't state because it doesn't need to - secret rolls do not occur in 5e unless specifically stated. e.g. In the description of the Augury spell. If something isn't mentioned in the rules it aint a rule, RAW.

There are other rules, such as the divination wizard's portent ability, that only work because the player knows the die roll.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't get it. L 6 monk/wizard (18 dex, 14 wis, 18 int). On a CR 9 blue dragon, a decent legendary foe.

Monk runs out of Ki round 2 having stripped an average of 1.2 LR.
Wizard on round 2 using vs wis save or suck lands .45(1.55)*2, or 1.4 LR, and burns 3.1 spell slots our of daily budget of 11-13 slots (about 1/3 of her slots).

The wizard is buring the LR down faster. Without barbs, it burned it 0.9 instead of 1.4, a big difference.

Barbs makes a spelcaster about as good as a monk at stripping LR.

I suppose we could have a L 15+ party against a bunch of CR9 legendary resist monsters? Maybe that is the situation people experience?

I tend to run into LR on monstees that are already in the hard/deadly range.

The deadly white room strikes again!

Meanwhile, in the REAL game, the wizard has a magic item than increases his save DCs, the monk has a magic item that increases his attack rolls, and a subclass and teammates that mean most of his attacks have advantage.

 

[Bolares]

So, big thing in this white room.... young blue dragons don't have Legendary Resistances....

But if it had, the wizard would need to be in range of the dragons breath weapon to use barb. That's very dangerous for a lvl 6 wizard.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The elephant in the room is a dragon.

 

[ECMO3]

Barbs makes a spelcaster about as good as a monk at stripping LR.

A wizard is nowhere near as good as a Monk.

A sixth level Monk can force four saves on one turn, or even more with feats and additionally there are very, very few enemies immune to Stunning Strike, while many legendary enemies are immune to save or suck Wizard spells and many have magic resistance.

Yes, the Monk is going to be out of stunning strike in round 2 if the enemy manages to actually make 2 of his 5 saves (or 3 of 6 if he does not use FOB), but this is what you need to do because as a party you should generally be trying to end the fight after 4 turns, not just getting to where you can start having an effect.

The best thing a 6th-level wizard can do to burn through legendary resistances quickly is to haste the Monk ..... Then if he wants he can move close enough to use barbs and he can cast barbs the first time the enemy saves against SS ..... if he manages to survive that long.