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

[ECMO3]

How often do combats happen where people are more then 60 feet away? Because in my group it's fairly rare (maybe 1 in 10 times if that). Hell in dungeons or urban settings getting more than 60 feet away seem like it's going to be actively difficult. (This is an actual question by the way. Might be that my group is weird in how close our combats are)

60 feet away from all combatants, or from where your AOE spells cover. It happens all the time. Well over half the combats, and most of the combats I see are official WOTC campaigns.

Unless she is a bladesinger I would say the party wizard is further than 60 feet away from the most distant combatant most of the time, even in dungeons.

That is not to say there are never close combats, but fights covering

Speaking from a DM perspective unless the players take pains to set up a fight to start a certain way I'm going to plan on all fights starting with both sides fairly close together (30 to 60 feet) for a couple of reasons.but you have it sucking up a prepared/known slot all day long

If this is actually true then spells like fireball and hypnotic patter should routinely be hitting allies.

IF they start 120 feet away and everyone has a 30 foot movement then there is melee on the second round unless one side does not want to melee

Even if the caster ends up moving further than 60 feet away within a couple of rounds that still leaves a few rounds with them in range to use the Silvery Barbs which if anything makes the spell more useful.

Keep in mind it is not 60 feet from the front line, it is 60 feet from the enemies you plan to target with SB, and if they are spread out at all you will need to be a lot closee to the closest enemies.

If their plan is to be in range for only a few rounds I question the decision to prepare this spell. No class has a ton of spells known/prepared. Typically the spells prepared are going to be limited use game changers with automatic effects (example feather fall) or spells that will be useable most of the time.

If they're only going to be in range to cast banishment for 1 turn then landing it is going to become very important.

If they don't land it on the first save they are probably not going to land it on the second.

Also worth noting counterspell is also 60 feet so if there are any other casters in the fight then you probably want to be within that 60 foot range.

Sure. Banishment has a 60 foot range too, which is why I expect it continues to be brought up. More importantly though, if there are other casters in the fight, you probably do not want to be using your reaction on Silvery Barbs.

 

[Bolares]

Also worth noting counterspell is also 60 feet so if there are any other casters in the fight then you probably want to be within that 60 foot range.

And in that case you probably want to save your reaction for counterspell, doesn't you?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It can, theoretically do that. But it is not going to do that often in combat. The majority of times they make the first save, they are going to make the second as well. The times they fail the first save you can't use it.

Except that opportunity will rarely come up and when it does the majority of the time they will make the save again. This is the weakest use of the spell, especially if you move to within 60 feet just to have the potential oppotunity to do it before you cast the crowd pleaser. The positioning requirement is going to hurt you more often than you are going to manage to flip a save. If you happen to be within 60 feet anyway, with no way to avoid that, then sure. But that is not worth preparing a spell for.

If they don't land it on the first save they are probably not going to land it on the second.

I'm not sure if this is correct in actual play.
Generally if you're throwing a spell with a saving throw, you're burning the spell slot because you think it is worth casting. This means that if you didn't think that its effect and the chance of it working is worth the cost of the spell slot and the action, you wouldn't have burned a high level spell slot in the first place. If you think it is worth throwing a Banishment at an elemental using a 5th level spell slot on round 1 of combat, you are likely to think it is worth doing the same thing on round 2 unless it has taken significant damage.

You generally don't throw spells that you think that your opponent has a good chance of saving against. Particularly with wizards, who have so many spells available they can afford to specifically target different saves. Usually if an opponent saves against your spell, it is because it got lucky. Using Silvery Barbs will generally have a good chance of landing the spell because your opponent will have to get lucky again.

Silvery Barbs is better than a spell that inflicts disadvantage on saving throws, because you only need to cast it after you know the result. A no-save spell that inflicted disadvantage on an opponent's save would likely be regarded as a very good spell in its own right.

 

[Captain Panda]

Silvery Barbs is better than a spell that inflicts disadvantage on saving throws, because you only need to cast it after you know the result. A no-save spell that inflicted disadvantage on an opponent's save would likely be regarded as a very good spell in its own right.

But many of the features being compared here inflict disadvantage (or in some other way functionally make it less likely a creature will make save) at cheaper cost. Heightened Spell keeps coming up, but it gives disadvantage on a save at no action cost and at a similar cost. It does that, and it's a metamagic almost no one takes because disadvantage (or a reroll) on one saving throw isn't really that great an effect. You need to have a potent single target effect in the first place to make this option workable, and then you have to use a second resource on top of the first one to hopefully neutralize a single target.
Unsettling Words, Hound of Ill Omen, Mind Sliver, Heightened Spell, Magical Ambush... there are a lot of features that do this sort of thing already for cheaper either in action cost, resource expenditure, or both without blowing anything up.

One thing that I don't think has been brought up that bears mentioning... single target save spells aren't that great, generally, so doubling down on their usage in action and resource cost is not a great strategy. It's not terrible, and it'll feel good when it lands. But it will also feel bad when you flush a bunch of actions and spell slots trying to get something to fail a save only to have it succeed, or use a legendary resistance. I should also disclose my bias in that regard: I think trying to burn through legendary resistances is usually a pretty bad idea. I've been playing 5e since it came out, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen legendary resistance run out soon enough to be relevant. Once it's at 20% health, even if it's out of legendaries, just hit it a few more times.

 

[Bolares]

Silvery Barbs is better than a spell that inflicts disadvantage on saving throws, because you only need to cast it after you know the result. A no-save spell that inflicted disadvantage on an opponent's save would likely be regarded as a very good spell in its own right.

Isn't SB statistically worse than disavantage? (I've not done math in a very long time so I'm not sure)

 

[Dausuul]

Isn't SB statistically worse than disavantage? (I've not done math in a very long time so I'm not sure)

It's statistically identical. If your base chance of landing the original spell is 50%, disadvantage improves it to 75%, and so does being willing and able to cast SB. In both cases, the enemy has to beat the save DC twice before they're in the clear.

However, you only have to actually use SB 50% of the time (when the first save succeeds), while you need disadvantage before any roll is made. It's therefore much more efficient.

 

[Stalker0]

But many of the features being compared here inflict disadvantage (or in some other way functionally make it less likely a creature will make save) at cheaper cost. Heightened Spell keeps coming up, but it gives disadvantage on a save at no action cost and at a similar cost. It does that, and it's a metamagic almost no one takes because disadvantage (or a reroll) on one saving throw isn't really that great an effect. You need to have a potent single target effect in the first place to make this option workable, and then you have to use a second resource on top of the first one to hopefully neutralize a single target.
Unsettling Words, Hound of Ill Omen, Mind Sliver, Heightened Spell, Magical Ambush... there are a lot of features that do this sort of thing already for cheaper either in action cost, resource expenditure, or both without blowing anything up.

One thing that I don't think has been brought up that bears mentioning... single target save spells aren't that great, generally, so doubling down on their usage in action and resource cost is not a great strategy. It's not terrible, and it'll feel good when it lands. But it will also feel bad when you flush a bunch of actions and spell slots trying to get something to fail a save only to have it succeed, or use a legendary resistance. I should also disclose my bias in that regard: I think trying to burn through legendary resistances is usually a pretty bad idea. I've been playing 5e since it came out, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen legendary resistance run out soon enough to be relevant. Once it's at 20% health, even if it's out of legendaries, just hit it a few more times.

In what world does heighten spell have a similar cost to SB? A 6th level sorc can do heighten twice and SB 4 times (assuming 1st level slots).

or for the same amount of sorcery points I could have gotten 3 SB instead of 2 heighten spell.

and once again, they stack!

further I see two sorcs in my game over the last few years, both used heighten spell quite often to land big spells

 

[Captain Panda]

In what world does heighten spell have a similar cost to SB? A 6th level sorc can do heighten twice and SB 4 times (assuming 1st level slots).

Higher resource cost for Heighten, lower action cast (none). A first level spell slot is worth about two sorcerer points, so you're paying a one sorcery point premium for the action economy discount.

And yeah, they stack. That's a lot of resources to spend. You have to use a primary spell of some sort to support, use Heighten, then use Silvery Barbs to try again? That's the main spell, whatever that costs along with your action, and three sorcery points, and then your reaction and a first level spell slot.

Sounds wasteful to me.

For making a creature fail a saving throw, this isn't even the best option. Unsettling Words does something similar at a lower cost.

 

[NotAYakk]

Unsettling words costs 3 bard class levels and subclass pick to get and is very strong. It also requires resource expendature before you know it is worthwhile, level 5 to get the resource to refresh on a short rest, and more bard levels to boost its effectiveness (bigger die size).

Hound of Ill Omen costs 6 sorcerer levels, a subclass pick, 3 sp, and can be killed. It is also considered crazy powerful.

Mind Sliver costs an action, requires a failed saving throw to eork, shaves 1d4 off only, and has to be invested in before you know it is needed.

All stack with silvery barbs.

So yes, SB, a level 1 spell, is about as good as some top notch class features.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm not sure if this is correct in actual play.
Generally if you're throwing a spell with a saving throw, you're burning the spell slot because you think it is worth casting. This means that if you didn't think that its effect and the chance of it working is worth the cost of the spell slot and the action, you wouldn't have burned a high level spell slot in the first place. If you think it is worth throwing a Banishment at an elemental using a 5th level spell slot on round 1 of combat, you are likely to think it is worth doing the same thing on round 2 unless it has taken significant damage.

It i absolutely correct. It is math. The save target and the reaction to use it are not independent variables, they are dependent variables.

I am not saying it is not worth casting once the succeded save has occurred. I am saying most of the time you have the opportunity to do that they will save again and it will be useless (advantage not withstanding).

If their chance to fail a save is small, your chance to use it will be small, meaning most of the time you will not have the opportunity to cast SB. If their chance to pass is high, most of the time they will pass the reroll.

Silvery Barbs is better than a spell that inflicts disadvantage on saving throws, because you only need to cast it after you know the result. A no-save spell that inflicted disadvantage on an opponent's save would likely be regarded as a very good spell in its own right.

This makes it more efficient in terms of spending the reaction and spell slot but FAR less mathematically powerful and less effective at causing a failed save (and I would argue less efficient in terms of being a spell known). The reason why is they have already suceeded on one of the rolls before you activate this. At that point the first roll is history and not statistically relevant to the chance of sucess or failure overall.

If you could cast it as a bonus action before casting another spell and impose straight disadvantage, the math would be different and it would be more powerful statistically.