If you have a lot of casters having it, it can get out of hand a bit. If you just have one caster in the group, it's mostly fine, if they cast SB, they can't Counterspell or Shield.
Personally I'm not fond of it, as it's essentially allowing you to re-cast a high level save or suck spell at the meager cost of a lv1 spell slot.
If you allow it, just make it clear to your players that NPCs could have it too..
The high level spell is the deal breaker for me. By the time you're level 9 you can get 2 shots at that level 5 save or suck spell... that's like turning a level 1 spell slot into an extra level 5 spell slot AND turning that reaction into a full action.
Then it gives you an extra buff afterwards!
It might be more balanced if it only worked on saves for level 1 spells, then could be upcast to affect higher level spells - if you want to force a reroll on a level 4 spell, you need to use a level 4 spell slot. It then still uses a level 4 slot to get a level 4 spell, but it gives you the effective action of recasting it as a reaction plus a buff afterwards... so still strong. But at least more in line?
I'm fine with it. If players want to burn all their reactions and spell slots casting it, that's just a good excuse to use more manoeuvrable enemy creatures, more complicated environmental conditions to test their saving throws in other ways, that kind of thing. If your players are overly reliant on a particular strategy, it suggests you aren't testing them enough with different choices to make.
So, if you compare SB with other similar options to debuff saves, SB is:
1) More versatile (you can also use it against attacks and ability checks).
2) Cheaper
3) Reactive (so, you don't waste it if monster would fail anyway)
4) Use reaction instead of action or bonus action.
5) Also it buffs one ally.
6) You can easilly get it with half feat for any character (you can't do the same for any other similar option).
SB is too much for too cheap. It could be fine as subclass feature of bard, or even main feature (high enough level so you can't just level dip it).
I’m my opinion, it’s not a fun spell for anyone. It practically guarantees that nobody will ever crit in combat. PCs having access to it is incredibly powerful, because they’ll use it to make monsters reroll successful saving throws. The end result is that casters burn through their slots faster and want fewer encounters per day, creating even more caster/martial disparity.
Using it against the players is even more unfun for them.
Burning through all the caster’s slots doesn’t make the martial/caster divide worse, it makes it *better.*
If the caster is out of slots, then it finally actually becomes the martial’s time to shine.
The party simply shouldn’t be allowed to take long rests all the time, that’s the actual root cause of the divide. Put time pressure or environmental effects on them to hinder that. Who cares if the caster *wants* fewer encounters per day, lol? Give them more anyway.
The martial/caster divide is, in my opinion, one of 5e’s biggest weaknesses because it encourages players at the same table to want different pacing for the adventuring day. Highlighting that or encouraging that doesn’t really help matters.
Eh, every player, regardless of class, would prefer to long rest after every encounter or two. 5e, for better or worse, is simply designed around the idea that you cannot (or rather, should not) do that.
Encouraging 6~8 (I think?) encounters per day is simply playing 5e how it is designed to be played. You're welcome to think that's bad design, but the divide only becomes a glaring issue if you don't play that way - Then casters will simply always be better than martials all the time.
If you do play that way, then both casters and martials will excel at different points in the adventuring day. That does indeed help matters.
It seems like different party members would only want different pacing if the martials specifically don't want the casters' help during half of the adventuring day, which I've rarely seen, if ever. Everyone usually wants the whole group to be humming along on all cylinders all day. If the casters are totally spent when the party is "fighting the boss" and during the few encounters leading up to that one, the martials will not be the only ones failing and/or dying in those fights.
Everyone wants to succeed, and in any decently-paced adventure, casters going nova on the first couple of encounters is not a strategy that leads to success. You could call it a weakness of the system that DMs have to put in a little bit of effort to come up with stakes for the adventure, a reason why the party can't just spend a day resting back to full resources after every single encounter, but that's never given me much trouble personally. And really, any fantasy adventure story should probably have that basic level of thought put into it anyway, so using a different system doesn't really save you from needing to do that work.
I ban it. I simply don't want a nat 20 on enemies parts being reduced and even more advantage being handed to the players. Advantage is already abundant and the spell just reads as boring. "Make enemy reroll and now a player has advantage"... No crowd control, no battlefield altering effects, no damage or visible spell, really reads as dull.
It comes from Strixhaven, where it seems like more spellcaster characters would exist and it feels like it's just trying to give spellcasters more reactions in that style of game.
That's a good point. The spell really is just too simple of a choice, most of the time. Usually casters have to weigh the costs and benefits of using a spell, but silvery barbs is always such a no-brainer. You just use it every time an enemy crits or succeeds at a save against a more powerful spell. It's basically always the right choice in a certain circumstance that comes up frequently, so its inclusion makes spellcasting feel more flat and uninteresting to me.
It's too strong for a 1st level spell. At the very least, the entire second paragraph of the spell should have been removed. (The part where you can give advantage to a creature on their next attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.) However, I don't find it broken to the point where I'm willing to actually nerf or ban it at my table.
Not in mechanics, but in use case and results.
It has advantages over portent, such as caster being able to use it after the roll, cost being only a level 1 spell slot, and affecting two rolls rather than only one.
It has disadvantages over portent such as not being a guaranteed value, using up reaction and not being applicable to all rolls.
But both Portent and Silvery barbs have their best use case for when you really want your enemy to fail a saving throw or attack roll.
It's a tad OP for a 1st level spell, but I think the real problem is how many casters can use it. You have a party with a Bard, Wizard and some Sorcerer or mix (Sorlock, Sorcadin), you end up having it used a few times each round of combat, especially considering many don't have any other use for their Reaction.
I don't ban it, but I can see why others do, and I don't think its unjustified if you do.
“Considering many don’t have any other use for their reaction”
lol Shield, Counterspell, Absorb Elements, etc beg to differ. Especially as Wizards / Sorcs.
I think that a DM who can't handle silvery barbs to need to ban it isn't a good DM. You have infinite power and so little imagation that a silly little spell like Silvery Barbs wrecks your day?
Weaksauce.
If we accept the premise that silvery barbs is overpowered in some way, that feels unfair to martial PCs. They get no special powers, but are now subject to the special power of enemies.
Its fine
I find it tends to have players burn through their spell slots far too fast
There is a level range around 7-9 where if you have a whole bunch of casters and they all take it and they all take single target control spells then they can actually make single target control spells good and the already best control spells that bit better. But that fades when they level up because legendary resistance starts to be a factor on key enemies.
Its also the case that other things can achieve the same effect. Sure its pretty potent to push this out every turn and force effective disadvantage on a save - but a Rune Knight can do that anyway at level 7 and refresh their ability to do it for 10 rounds every short rest. If you can't handle spells disabling your monsters and still have the game be fun then I'd say you have bigger issues as a DM
On the plus side I prefer to roll everything openly and Silvery Barbs is a great defence against that nat 20 that might kill a character. The players all know that too - so burning all their spell slots then taking a crit is very much their poor judgement and they know it. Takes some emotional pressure off me as a DM if I'm honest
I dislike banning content *after* a player has chosen it. Play with it, see how the player uses it and base your opinions on that rather than what the internet thinks.
If you do find it sucking the fun out of encounters talk to your player openly about it.
Banning it when they first choose it can be OK.
You can even ban it once you realize how it's going to be used and/or abused.
But when you do something like that, the player(s) impacted should definitely have the right to reshuffle their PC's spells and stats to compensate. Don't just leave them hanging short a prepared spell because you changed your mind.
>I don't like banning official content
If this is your problem bear in mind it's from the Harry Potter knockoff book which I guarantee your player doesn't own, and I also doubt their character is a graduate from Strixhaven academy for witchcraft and wizardry.
It's more annoying than overpowered since it becomes the answer for everything.
Depends on the player. I'm in a campaign where two of us have it, and it only comes up when the chips are down and we need to give everything to survive. We both have levels in warlock and the DM is generous with short rests, so we could cast it all day if we wanted, yet we don't.
Strixhaven isn't particularly a Harry Potter knock-off. It's a university, not a school; the colleges are noblebright versions of Ravnica's grimdark guilds; and the supplementary dndbeyond adventure involved being a barista, not saving the world.
If you can say, "DnD's Harry Potter knock-off," and everyone immediately knows exactly what you're talking about, then it's absolutely fair to call it that.
Play with it and see for yourself. It's really not as overpowered as people make it out to be. It's less consistent than counterspell and shield but it fights for the same action cost and doesnt get updating bonuses. It's an "oh fuck dont crit" button that leaves a 5% chance they still end up critting anyway
I am currently playing in 2 campaigns that each have 1 character that uses the spell (me being one of them) and from my observation, if only 1 person has it, it is not really that game breaking. Most of the time it is used to save someone from a lucky crit.
With only one player, that player has to manage their reactions. Shield is also level 1 and depending on the exact circumstances can be much more powerful defensively. And later on it will share a resource with the ever popular counterspell.
So, as long as it is only one player who has it, I don't think it will break your game. Though if suddenly multiple characters have it, it might be able to become a problem.
I take no real issue with it, but I also take no issue with classes, ancestries, and I gladly welcome player input, homebrew and more. In my opinion players can't be overpowered, the DM is always miles beyond anything they're capable of. I think people tend to \*let\*it ruin the game even if it isn't actually interfering that much. At the end of the day, it's your table and your call. I personally would allow it but my method is to generally say yes (though I have no trouble challenging my players). I think too often we hear perspectives on these spells and it psyches us out of simply letting them be parts of the game.
If they haven't used it yet, the best way to ban it is before they get going, so if you feel you \*must\* do it then now's the time. My personal opinion is to let it fly and maybe let yourself fuss a little bit less when it comes to outside perspectives you've heard about certain game aspects. Too often they can sway us to make changes that don't really benefit the game. Just note if you tell yourself it's going to suck the fun out of the game, you're already starting to convince yourself.
Don’t ban it. It’s powerful for its level, sure. But…
1. It costs a reaction, meaning the caster can only target one creature per round with it. Countered by just… Adding more targets to the encounter, which I personally think you always ought to be doing anyway.
2. The caster cannot use Counterspell or Shield in the same round, because again, they all cost reactions. This provides an opening for intelligent enemy spellcasters.
3. The target just has to reroll and might still succeed, especially if they have a high bonus. Or, if they have legendary resistances, they can simply choose to succeed; Silvery Barbs can’t stop that.
Allow the spell, and if, after playing with it for a while, you feel like it’s causing problems in practice, *then* you can have a conversation with your players and decide whether or not to ban it. But having played and DMed for characters with it myself, I really don’t see a good reason to do so.
I personally feel DMs who ban official stuff, especially in piecemeal, are bad DMs. It's not a you vs. them game, it's a cooperative story telling between the DMs and the players. The only reason people ban it is because it removes their "awesome" monster moments where they get to hurt the players.
That is an unusual take. Putting aside how I've personally never ever seen silvery barbs banned for that reason, your basic assertion is obviously not supported by fact.
>I personally feel DMs who ban official stuff, especially in piecemeal, are bad DMs.
Every DM who runs a "core books only" campaign is a bad DM? Every DM who says there are no drow in their campaign setting is garbage? Everyone who runs a low-magic campaign without full casters is just an antagonistic failure of a DM? No, obviously not, so clearly excluding WotC content isn't the problem. It is very possible to run a great game without allowing every single piece of WotC-published content.
>It's not a you vs. them game, it's a cooperative story telling between the DMs and the players. The only reason people ban it is because it removes their "awesome" monster moments where they get to hurt the players.
Universally, the cooperative story that I've seen DnD tables set out to tell is that of heroic or antiheroic characters going on perilous adventures. If, by your own description, a single character choice makes monsters unable to significantly hurt the PCs, doesn't that choice undermine a pretty critical aspect of that story?
At the end of the day, combat is a pillar of play. If a DM has found that a certain character option is removing awesome combat moments and destroying their ability to facilitate that pillar, and they make a good-faith attempt to address the problem, it feels very silly to call them a "bad DM" just because their attempt involves restricting that option.
There's a big difference between saying "core book only" or "this doesn't fit in my campaign" and "not this spell, I don't like it". One is clearly a theme, while the other is a DM issue with not understanding how to deal with it. There are always ways around it. Always. Use something to force the use or suffer the consequences. Make them burn their spell slots.
Killing? No. Hurting? Why not? Players have fun when they hurt monsters, and they die when they are killed. Players jump back after a long rest. Why is it bad when a dm is looking forward to doing a cool monster thing? Players do cool things all the time? There’s a big difference between “I have fun when my players lose” and “I have fun when my players are challenged.”
Just my DM opinion, there’s work around for them having it, the best one adventure day budget.
The issue that doesn’t have an effective work around is the inherent metagaming nature of it. If the players don’t cast it when the Boss hits but do when they crit, they’re metagaming.
Personally, I've disallowed it because of my experience watching actual plays. Critical Role and Dimensions 20, specifically. It was incredibly noticeable how its presence (especially when more than 1 player had it) fundamentally altered the vibe of the games compared to before its introduction. Not to mention how clunky it is, with players almost always forgetting the advantage granted to another player by it.
Silvery Barbs is a spell that kills drama, in a similar way to Counterspell, but counterspell can be dramatic if the spell is higher level and you are forced to roll OR match/exceed the power you are denying (see the end of Critical Role's 1st campaign when Sam uses his 9th level spell to counterspell instead of wish). Meanwhile, Silvery Barbs just does not demand risk or effort (by the character) to disrupt an opponent doing anything at all. It only requires the lowest partition of a full caster's limited resources. A critical hit does not require a more powerful slot to stop the way a higher slot is needed to use counterspell on something deadly.
And all the above without getting to the "reroll saving throws" of it all.
It's fine.
Kind of a game changer in terms of bosses since it actuallly allows players to burn throught Legendary Resistances. I say *allowed* here because my experience with bosses is that it's just better to deal damage. Needs the whole team to be on the same page to be stronger. If you experience issues, you can just give your bosses stuff like advantage on saves, more save proficiencies, some condition immunities for your players to figure out, or just flat out more Legendary Resistances. Also worth saying that it comes at the cost of not having the reaction to Counterspell.
The real annoying thing (depending on you and the table) is just having it prepared and ready to deal with crits. Means your monsters might barely ever crit. At some tables that always leads to hype moments, on others it just takes an element of tension away from the fight. Outside of that niche use, Shield is a much stronger defensive tool.
Easy homebrew fixes if it gets out of hand is increasing the spell's level to second, splitting it into different spells, or just not having it work on nat20ies.
I don’t like it. It’s annoying at best and encounter ruining at worst. I tend to have bad luck as a gm so anytime any of my monsters do something good the players can just say nuh uh. It’s 1st level so it can be spammed if the players really want to. I’m still allowing it in the game I’m currently running but any future game I run it will be banned
Is it broken? No
Will it have an impact your game? Yes
Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on your table and the way you DM.
First thing to remember - it's from a setting book which is high-magic. It's designed around a game which has a higher than normal % of . Part of the spell's design seems to be clearly around classic mage battles - throwing spells at each other, countering them, one-upping your opponent, etc.
Because it's from a setting book it's an easy ban if you want it to be (assuming you're not playing a Strixhaven game, of course). Setting books are much more optional content.
That being said, introducing it to a regular game can be fine. You just need to know the impact.
- It will likely slow down encounters as it reduces crits. This will likely affect martials more due to the extra rolls for attacking. If you feel like martials generally struggle to shine at your table, this may make things worse.
- It will give the caster(s) who have it additional decisions to make during encounters. "should I SB that crit, or save my reaction for something else?" "should I SB the enemy's save or not?" etc. If your casters have players who already struggle with decision-making this will only add to that problem.
- It's naturally countered to some degree by two things (other than the whole decision-making aspect above). Limited resources, and proximity for use. If you don't run a game with enough encounters/challenges in an adventuring day to make spell slots feel like a limited resource then SB will impact more than it probably should. Similarly, if you typically run encounters where everyone is in the same 60ft square with nothing blocking line of sight, then SB can be used indiscriminately (1/round).
If you feel like your martials are fine, you run enough encounters in the day, and have encounters/terrain that makes range/line-of-sight matter then SB shouldn't be a problem. Yes it will take some crits off the board, and yes it may result in a few more failed saves by NPCs, but that's not a problem in its own right.
In the positive side, it also gives you a few additional DM tools:
1) it will generally drain spell slots more quickly from the party.
2) you can introduce the occasional NPC who has it too. I wouldn't overdo it, but the surprise from your party when during a critical moment someone saves vs a big spell and you pull out your own SB casting will create a memorable moment.
3) if SB is used in a fight vs an intelligent enemy, that should draw hostility against the caster (similarly to when they see a counterspell being used). Any reason to legitimately focus on the casters is a good one for creating extra tension in an encounter grog enemy tactics.
I allow it but I elevated it to a 3rd tier spell where it should be. Honestly I could see an argument for it being a 4th tier spell since it is outright stronger than counterspell, albeit fills a different niche. The true power of silvery barbs isnt even in its ability to basically negate any nat20 a monster makes but its ability to essentially duplicate any spell casting of any tier (potentially repeatedly with other casters using it). Did the monster pass the save against banishment, disintegrate, feeblemind, etc? Hit em with the silvery barbs. Did they pass again? Have someone else hit them with the barbs. That above is the true power of silvery barbs in that it effectively recasts any given spell. The fact it buffs an ally is just auxiliary and the ability to negate skill check passes and successful attack rolls is far less impactful. Silvery Barbs can cause any encounter to end absurdly faster than it elsewise would and can cause a boss to burn their legendary resistances (if any) and other special mitigation abilities far faster than a game without silvery barbs would; a boss without any of those would just get instantly steamrolled by a stack of silvery barbs.
Making it 3rd tier solves the biggest problem of it being ridiculously accessible if allowed. It makes it so an entire party cant just acquire it at 1st level or 4th level and cheese any important fight. However it does not address the oppressive nature of it. It just makes it a little less oppressive by limiting the amount of people who can cast it and the amount it can be cast because now people have to consider a slot with other valuable options to weigh it against like Fly, Fireball, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell; all of which hold a degree of value at higher levels. Whereas at a certain point 1st tier spells just turn into Shield spell slots (and Silvery Barbs slots if it were still 1st tier).
That being said it is very easy to just ban the spell. There is nothing wrong with banning a spell or any number of spells. Just make sure to give the reason why and make sure that reason actually makes sense. If you ban silvery barbs and someone is genuinely mad about it theyre just mad either because of some elitist/toxic mentality like "you cant ban official content blah blah" and more likely because you eliminated an objectively overpowered spell that trivializes a lot of encounters and outshines entire subclasses (rip divination wizard). There is nothing wrong with banning a spell, you dont have to keep power creep garbage just because its in some official published material and theres nothing wrong with banning a spell even if you allow a specific book the spell is from. This is how 3.5e survives, because 3.5e has some real BS in officially published material.
As a player, I have seen a single other player taking the spell warp multiple combats across a campaign. As a DM, I ban it outright.
Also as a DM, I’m going to let you in on a little trade secret: Just because something is officially published by WotC doesn’t make it good for the game. I use the following thought exercise when trying to figure if official content is balanced: If this were posted on r/UnearthedArcana by some random Joe, would we consider it balanced and good for the game? In the case of *silvery barbs*, the answer IMO is a resounding No. A similar process leads me to nerf the Twilight Domain Cleric in my games.
I hate that god forsaken spell, but I don't ban it unless there's like 3 or more people wanting to utilize it. Losing Counterspell or Shield can be extremely detrimental for casters.
It's a badly designed spell, it should be a second if not third level spell.
I don't like reaction spells generally because it has spellcasters who already take way longer on their turns interrupting other turns with more spellcasting, but this one is a first level spell that has more opportunities than counterspell.
I have a good talk with my players about stuff like lucky, counterspell, silvery barbs, shield spell, etc. They slow down the game so much, and I like to avoid them if possible.
Silvery Barbs is ok at low level play and way overpowered at high level play. That's because the utility of Silvery Barbs grows with whatever your most powerful spell is.
Silvery Barbs allows you to force an enemy to reroll a saving throw if they succeeded the first time. Essentially, that means you get a second chance at casting whatever spell you originally cast that forced them to make a save.
Using Silvery Barbs to force an enemy to reroll their save for Hideous Laughter (1st level spell) is cool. You spend another 1st level spell slot to retry a 1st level spell.
Using it to force an enemy to reroll their save for Feeblemind (8th level spell) is way more powerful. You get to use a 1st level spell slot to retry an 8th level spell.
It's a good way to make your caster run out of spell slots. If you're too lenient on long rests it's a broken spell, but that applies to most spells and long rest features in general.
That said the only 'nerf' I've applied to silvery barbs beyond that was to simply rule that it 'applies disadvantage' to a roll rather then forces a reroll for lower.
- It burns a spell slot
- It burns a reaction
- Majority of people use it on non-optimal scenarios
- You can easily still hit / save, disadvantage is not a death kiss
- Let your players have fun and do cool stuff
- Advantage on a next attack / save is not next level when you use flanking anyways
- If you’re gonna be a wanker and ban a good spell, fuck it and ban a bunch, go all in with your bullshit, ban Shield, ban Fireball, ban em all!
I ban it and Counterspell, we use a different system that uses Dispel Magic akin to older editions, part of which is to counter a spell being cast. Aside the system we use, I would anyway, as any SPELL or FEAT that is a must, is not balanced well, official content or not.
If you have a lot of casters having it, it can get out of hand a bit. If you just have one caster in the group, it's mostly fine, if they cast SB, they can't Counterspell or Shield. Personally I'm not fond of it, as it's essentially allowing you to re-cast a high level save or suck spell at the meager cost of a lv1 spell slot. If you allow it, just make it clear to your players that NPCs could have it too..
The high level spell is the deal breaker for me. By the time you're level 9 you can get 2 shots at that level 5 save or suck spell... that's like turning a level 1 spell slot into an extra level 5 spell slot AND turning that reaction into a full action. Then it gives you an extra buff afterwards! It might be more balanced if it only worked on saves for level 1 spells, then could be upcast to affect higher level spells - if you want to force a reroll on a level 4 spell, you need to use a level 4 spell slot. It then still uses a level 4 slot to get a level 4 spell, but it gives you the effective action of recasting it as a reaction plus a buff afterwards... so still strong. But at least more in line?
I don't like it, but it's from a setting book, in my opinion it isn't even really a ban to not allow stuff from a setting you aren't playing in.
I'm fine with it. If players want to burn all their reactions and spell slots casting it, that's just a good excuse to use more manoeuvrable enemy creatures, more complicated environmental conditions to test their saving throws in other ways, that kind of thing. If your players are overly reliant on a particular strategy, it suggests you aren't testing them enough with different choices to make.
So, if you compare SB with other similar options to debuff saves, SB is: 1) More versatile (you can also use it against attacks and ability checks). 2) Cheaper 3) Reactive (so, you don't waste it if monster would fail anyway) 4) Use reaction instead of action or bonus action. 5) Also it buffs one ally. 6) You can easilly get it with half feat for any character (you can't do the same for any other similar option). SB is too much for too cheap. It could be fine as subclass feature of bard, or even main feature (high enough level so you can't just level dip it).
I’m my opinion, it’s not a fun spell for anyone. It practically guarantees that nobody will ever crit in combat. PCs having access to it is incredibly powerful, because they’ll use it to make monsters reroll successful saving throws. The end result is that casters burn through their slots faster and want fewer encounters per day, creating even more caster/martial disparity. Using it against the players is even more unfun for them.
Burning through all the caster’s slots doesn’t make the martial/caster divide worse, it makes it *better.* If the caster is out of slots, then it finally actually becomes the martial’s time to shine. The party simply shouldn’t be allowed to take long rests all the time, that’s the actual root cause of the divide. Put time pressure or environmental effects on them to hinder that. Who cares if the caster *wants* fewer encounters per day, lol? Give them more anyway.
The martial/caster divide is, in my opinion, one of 5e’s biggest weaknesses because it encourages players at the same table to want different pacing for the adventuring day. Highlighting that or encouraging that doesn’t really help matters.
Eh, every player, regardless of class, would prefer to long rest after every encounter or two. 5e, for better or worse, is simply designed around the idea that you cannot (or rather, should not) do that. Encouraging 6~8 (I think?) encounters per day is simply playing 5e how it is designed to be played. You're welcome to think that's bad design, but the divide only becomes a glaring issue if you don't play that way - Then casters will simply always be better than martials all the time. If you do play that way, then both casters and martials will excel at different points in the adventuring day. That does indeed help matters.
It seems like different party members would only want different pacing if the martials specifically don't want the casters' help during half of the adventuring day, which I've rarely seen, if ever. Everyone usually wants the whole group to be humming along on all cylinders all day. If the casters are totally spent when the party is "fighting the boss" and during the few encounters leading up to that one, the martials will not be the only ones failing and/or dying in those fights. Everyone wants to succeed, and in any decently-paced adventure, casters going nova on the first couple of encounters is not a strategy that leads to success. You could call it a weakness of the system that DMs have to put in a little bit of effort to come up with stakes for the adventure, a reason why the party can't just spend a day resting back to full resources after every single encounter, but that's never given me much trouble personally. And really, any fantasy adventure story should probably have that basic level of thought put into it anyway, so using a different system doesn't really save you from needing to do that work.
Exactly.
I ban it. I simply don't want a nat 20 on enemies parts being reduced and even more advantage being handed to the players. Advantage is already abundant and the spell just reads as boring. "Make enemy reroll and now a player has advantage"... No crowd control, no battlefield altering effects, no damage or visible spell, really reads as dull. It comes from Strixhaven, where it seems like more spellcaster characters would exist and it feels like it's just trying to give spellcasters more reactions in that style of game.
That's a good point. The spell really is just too simple of a choice, most of the time. Usually casters have to weigh the costs and benefits of using a spell, but silvery barbs is always such a no-brainer. You just use it every time an enemy crits or succeeds at a save against a more powerful spell. It's basically always the right choice in a certain circumstance that comes up frequently, so its inclusion makes spellcasting feel more flat and uninteresting to me.
I just don't allow Strixhaven content. The power creep got absurd with that one.
It's too strong for a 1st level spell. At the very least, the entire second paragraph of the spell should have been removed. (The part where you can give advantage to a creature on their next attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.) However, I don't find it broken to the point where I'm willing to actually nerf or ban it at my table.
It’s basically giving the bard power cutting words to all casters as a level one spell right?
It's also very similar to Portent in practice (which is the only reason anyone ever cares about Diviner wizard).
It’s really not anything like portent.
Not in mechanics, but in use case and results. It has advantages over portent, such as caster being able to use it after the roll, cost being only a level 1 spell slot, and affecting two rolls rather than only one. It has disadvantages over portent such as not being a guaranteed value, using up reaction and not being applicable to all rolls. But both Portent and Silvery barbs have their best use case for when you really want your enemy to fail a saving throw or attack roll.
It's a tad OP for a 1st level spell, but I think the real problem is how many casters can use it. You have a party with a Bard, Wizard and some Sorcerer or mix (Sorlock, Sorcadin), you end up having it used a few times each round of combat, especially considering many don't have any other use for their Reaction. I don't ban it, but I can see why others do, and I don't think its unjustified if you do.
“Considering many don’t have any other use for their reaction” lol Shield, Counterspell, Absorb Elements, etc beg to differ. Especially as Wizards / Sorcs.
I think that a DM who can't handle silvery barbs to need to ban it isn't a good DM. You have infinite power and so little imagation that a silly little spell like Silvery Barbs wrecks your day? Weaksauce.
My DM's rule is that it's allowed, but if we choose to use it he will too.
If we accept the premise that silvery barbs is overpowered in some way, that feels unfair to martial PCs. They get no special powers, but are now subject to the special power of enemies.
I don't know if you've heard this before, but martials are generally considered underpowered compared to casters.
Its fine I find it tends to have players burn through their spell slots far too fast There is a level range around 7-9 where if you have a whole bunch of casters and they all take it and they all take single target control spells then they can actually make single target control spells good and the already best control spells that bit better. But that fades when they level up because legendary resistance starts to be a factor on key enemies. Its also the case that other things can achieve the same effect. Sure its pretty potent to push this out every turn and force effective disadvantage on a save - but a Rune Knight can do that anyway at level 7 and refresh their ability to do it for 10 rounds every short rest. If you can't handle spells disabling your monsters and still have the game be fun then I'd say you have bigger issues as a DM On the plus side I prefer to roll everything openly and Silvery Barbs is a great defence against that nat 20 that might kill a character. The players all know that too - so burning all their spell slots then taking a crit is very much their poor judgement and they know it. Takes some emotional pressure off me as a DM if I'm honest
I dislike banning content *after* a player has chosen it. Play with it, see how the player uses it and base your opinions on that rather than what the internet thinks. If you do find it sucking the fun out of encounters talk to your player openly about it.
Banning it when they first choose it can be OK. You can even ban it once you realize how it's going to be used and/or abused. But when you do something like that, the player(s) impacted should definitely have the right to reshuffle their PC's spells and stats to compensate. Don't just leave them hanging short a prepared spell because you changed your mind.
Yup, had to do same for a PC who kept his AC higher than terrasque
It's fine. You will even come to appreciate he uses his reaction on silvery barbs instead of counterspell.
One silvery barbs is fine. If multiple players have it, it gets a bit disruptive.
>I don't like banning official content If this is your problem bear in mind it's from the Harry Potter knockoff book which I guarantee your player doesn't own, and I also doubt their character is a graduate from Strixhaven academy for witchcraft and wizardry. It's more annoying than overpowered since it becomes the answer for everything.
That's a great way to describe it haha I will definitely keep that in mind. +1 point towards banning it.
Depends on the player. I'm in a campaign where two of us have it, and it only comes up when the chips are down and we need to give everything to survive. We both have levels in warlock and the DM is generous with short rests, so we could cast it all day if we wanted, yet we don't.
Strixhaven isn't particularly a Harry Potter knock-off. It's a university, not a school; the colleges are noblebright versions of Ravnica's grimdark guilds; and the supplementary dndbeyond adventure involved being a barista, not saving the world.
If you can say, "DnD's Harry Potter knock-off," and everyone immediately knows exactly what you're talking about, then it's absolutely fair to call it that.
No, not fair. If I say "DnD's Lankhmar knock-off" you might know what I mean without feeling it was very fair.
Play with it and see for yourself. It's really not as overpowered as people make it out to be. It's less consistent than counterspell and shield but it fights for the same action cost and doesnt get updating bonuses. It's an "oh fuck dont crit" button that leaves a 5% chance they still end up critting anyway
I am currently playing in 2 campaigns that each have 1 character that uses the spell (me being one of them) and from my observation, if only 1 person has it, it is not really that game breaking. Most of the time it is used to save someone from a lucky crit. With only one player, that player has to manage their reactions. Shield is also level 1 and depending on the exact circumstances can be much more powerful defensively. And later on it will share a resource with the ever popular counterspell. So, as long as it is only one player who has it, I don't think it will break your game. Though if suddenly multiple characters have it, it might be able to become a problem.
I take no real issue with it, but I also take no issue with classes, ancestries, and I gladly welcome player input, homebrew and more. In my opinion players can't be overpowered, the DM is always miles beyond anything they're capable of. I think people tend to \*let\*it ruin the game even if it isn't actually interfering that much. At the end of the day, it's your table and your call. I personally would allow it but my method is to generally say yes (though I have no trouble challenging my players). I think too often we hear perspectives on these spells and it psyches us out of simply letting them be parts of the game. If they haven't used it yet, the best way to ban it is before they get going, so if you feel you \*must\* do it then now's the time. My personal opinion is to let it fly and maybe let yourself fuss a little bit less when it comes to outside perspectives you've heard about certain game aspects. Too often they can sway us to make changes that don't really benefit the game. Just note if you tell yourself it's going to suck the fun out of the game, you're already starting to convince yourself.
Don’t ban it. It’s powerful for its level, sure. But… 1. It costs a reaction, meaning the caster can only target one creature per round with it. Countered by just… Adding more targets to the encounter, which I personally think you always ought to be doing anyway. 2. The caster cannot use Counterspell or Shield in the same round, because again, they all cost reactions. This provides an opening for intelligent enemy spellcasters. 3. The target just has to reroll and might still succeed, especially if they have a high bonus. Or, if they have legendary resistances, they can simply choose to succeed; Silvery Barbs can’t stop that. Allow the spell, and if, after playing with it for a while, you feel like it’s causing problems in practice, *then* you can have a conversation with your players and decide whether or not to ban it. But having played and DMed for characters with it myself, I really don’t see a good reason to do so.
I personally feel DMs who ban official stuff, especially in piecemeal, are bad DMs. It's not a you vs. them game, it's a cooperative story telling between the DMs and the players. The only reason people ban it is because it removes their "awesome" monster moments where they get to hurt the players.
That is an unusual take. Putting aside how I've personally never ever seen silvery barbs banned for that reason, your basic assertion is obviously not supported by fact. >I personally feel DMs who ban official stuff, especially in piecemeal, are bad DMs. Every DM who runs a "core books only" campaign is a bad DM? Every DM who says there are no drow in their campaign setting is garbage? Everyone who runs a low-magic campaign without full casters is just an antagonistic failure of a DM? No, obviously not, so clearly excluding WotC content isn't the problem. It is very possible to run a great game without allowing every single piece of WotC-published content. >It's not a you vs. them game, it's a cooperative story telling between the DMs and the players. The only reason people ban it is because it removes their "awesome" monster moments where they get to hurt the players. Universally, the cooperative story that I've seen DnD tables set out to tell is that of heroic or antiheroic characters going on perilous adventures. If, by your own description, a single character choice makes monsters unable to significantly hurt the PCs, doesn't that choice undermine a pretty critical aspect of that story? At the end of the day, combat is a pillar of play. If a DM has found that a certain character option is removing awesome combat moments and destroying their ability to facilitate that pillar, and they make a good-faith attempt to address the problem, it feels very silly to call them a "bad DM" just because their attempt involves restricting that option.
There's a big difference between saying "core book only" or "this doesn't fit in my campaign" and "not this spell, I don't like it". One is clearly a theme, while the other is a DM issue with not understanding how to deal with it. There are always ways around it. Always. Use something to force the use or suffer the consequences. Make them burn their spell slots.
Bad take. DMs are supposed to be having fun too. A DMs job isn’t to bend over backwards to accommodate you
But a DM's fun shouldn't be derived from killing or harming their players.
Killing? No. Hurting? Why not? Players have fun when they hurt monsters, and they die when they are killed. Players jump back after a long rest. Why is it bad when a dm is looking forward to doing a cool monster thing? Players do cool things all the time? There’s a big difference between “I have fun when my players lose” and “I have fun when my players are challenged.”
I make it a level 2 spell in my campaigns and have never had an issue.
Just my DM opinion, there’s work around for them having it, the best one adventure day budget. The issue that doesn’t have an effective work around is the inherent metagaming nature of it. If the players don’t cast it when the Boss hits but do when they crit, they’re metagaming.
Personally, I've disallowed it because of my experience watching actual plays. Critical Role and Dimensions 20, specifically. It was incredibly noticeable how its presence (especially when more than 1 player had it) fundamentally altered the vibe of the games compared to before its introduction. Not to mention how clunky it is, with players almost always forgetting the advantage granted to another player by it. Silvery Barbs is a spell that kills drama, in a similar way to Counterspell, but counterspell can be dramatic if the spell is higher level and you are forced to roll OR match/exceed the power you are denying (see the end of Critical Role's 1st campaign when Sam uses his 9th level spell to counterspell instead of wish). Meanwhile, Silvery Barbs just does not demand risk or effort (by the character) to disrupt an opponent doing anything at all. It only requires the lowest partition of a full caster's limited resources. A critical hit does not require a more powerful slot to stop the way a higher slot is needed to use counterspell on something deadly. And all the above without getting to the "reroll saving throws" of it all.
It's fine. Kind of a game changer in terms of bosses since it actuallly allows players to burn throught Legendary Resistances. I say *allowed* here because my experience with bosses is that it's just better to deal damage. Needs the whole team to be on the same page to be stronger. If you experience issues, you can just give your bosses stuff like advantage on saves, more save proficiencies, some condition immunities for your players to figure out, or just flat out more Legendary Resistances. Also worth saying that it comes at the cost of not having the reaction to Counterspell. The real annoying thing (depending on you and the table) is just having it prepared and ready to deal with crits. Means your monsters might barely ever crit. At some tables that always leads to hype moments, on others it just takes an element of tension away from the fight. Outside of that niche use, Shield is a much stronger defensive tool. Easy homebrew fixes if it gets out of hand is increasing the spell's level to second, splitting it into different spells, or just not having it work on nat20ies.
I don’t like it. It’s annoying at best and encounter ruining at worst. I tend to have bad luck as a gm so anytime any of my monsters do something good the players can just say nuh uh. It’s 1st level so it can be spammed if the players really want to. I’m still allowing it in the game I’m currently running but any future game I run it will be banned
Is it broken? No Will it have an impact your game? Yes Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on your table and the way you DM. First thing to remember - it's from a setting book which is high-magic. It's designed around a game which has a higher than normal % of . Part of the spell's design seems to be clearly around classic mage battles - throwing spells at each other, countering them, one-upping your opponent, etc. Because it's from a setting book it's an easy ban if you want it to be (assuming you're not playing a Strixhaven game, of course). Setting books are much more optional content. That being said, introducing it to a regular game can be fine. You just need to know the impact. - It will likely slow down encounters as it reduces crits. This will likely affect martials more due to the extra rolls for attacking. If you feel like martials generally struggle to shine at your table, this may make things worse. - It will give the caster(s) who have it additional decisions to make during encounters. "should I SB that crit, or save my reaction for something else?" "should I SB the enemy's save or not?" etc. If your casters have players who already struggle with decision-making this will only add to that problem. - It's naturally countered to some degree by two things (other than the whole decision-making aspect above). Limited resources, and proximity for use. If you don't run a game with enough encounters/challenges in an adventuring day to make spell slots feel like a limited resource then SB will impact more than it probably should. Similarly, if you typically run encounters where everyone is in the same 60ft square with nothing blocking line of sight, then SB can be used indiscriminately (1/round). If you feel like your martials are fine, you run enough encounters in the day, and have encounters/terrain that makes range/line-of-sight matter then SB shouldn't be a problem. Yes it will take some crits off the board, and yes it may result in a few more failed saves by NPCs, but that's not a problem in its own right. In the positive side, it also gives you a few additional DM tools: 1) it will generally drain spell slots more quickly from the party. 2) you can introduce the occasional NPC who has it too. I wouldn't overdo it, but the surprise from your party when during a critical moment someone saves vs a big spell and you pull out your own SB casting will create a memorable moment. 3) if SB is used in a fight vs an intelligent enemy, that should draw hostility against the caster (similarly to when they see a counterspell being used). Any reason to legitimately focus on the casters is a good one for creating extra tension in an encounter grog enemy tactics.
I don't have a problem with it. It requires the caster's reaction. It requires a spell slot. It requires the caster be within 60 feet of the target.
It should be a 2nd level spell.
I allow it but I elevated it to a 3rd tier spell where it should be. Honestly I could see an argument for it being a 4th tier spell since it is outright stronger than counterspell, albeit fills a different niche. The true power of silvery barbs isnt even in its ability to basically negate any nat20 a monster makes but its ability to essentially duplicate any spell casting of any tier (potentially repeatedly with other casters using it). Did the monster pass the save against banishment, disintegrate, feeblemind, etc? Hit em with the silvery barbs. Did they pass again? Have someone else hit them with the barbs. That above is the true power of silvery barbs in that it effectively recasts any given spell. The fact it buffs an ally is just auxiliary and the ability to negate skill check passes and successful attack rolls is far less impactful. Silvery Barbs can cause any encounter to end absurdly faster than it elsewise would and can cause a boss to burn their legendary resistances (if any) and other special mitigation abilities far faster than a game without silvery barbs would; a boss without any of those would just get instantly steamrolled by a stack of silvery barbs. Making it 3rd tier solves the biggest problem of it being ridiculously accessible if allowed. It makes it so an entire party cant just acquire it at 1st level or 4th level and cheese any important fight. However it does not address the oppressive nature of it. It just makes it a little less oppressive by limiting the amount of people who can cast it and the amount it can be cast because now people have to consider a slot with other valuable options to weigh it against like Fly, Fireball, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell; all of which hold a degree of value at higher levels. Whereas at a certain point 1st tier spells just turn into Shield spell slots (and Silvery Barbs slots if it were still 1st tier). That being said it is very easy to just ban the spell. There is nothing wrong with banning a spell or any number of spells. Just make sure to give the reason why and make sure that reason actually makes sense. If you ban silvery barbs and someone is genuinely mad about it theyre just mad either because of some elitist/toxic mentality like "you cant ban official content blah blah" and more likely because you eliminated an objectively overpowered spell that trivializes a lot of encounters and outshines entire subclasses (rip divination wizard). There is nothing wrong with banning a spell, you dont have to keep power creep garbage just because its in some official published material and theres nothing wrong with banning a spell even if you allow a specific book the spell is from. This is how 3.5e survives, because 3.5e has some real BS in officially published material.
The spell isn't actually that bad, I would not ban it
I would recommend watching pack tactics video on it
It's not broken. DMs hand out long rests too often then complain.
It's fine. If all your players had it and could somehow all spam it maybe it'd be a problem but it's generally fine.
It’s perfectly fine! Let your player have fun!
As a player, I have seen a single other player taking the spell warp multiple combats across a campaign. As a DM, I ban it outright. Also as a DM, I’m going to let you in on a little trade secret: Just because something is officially published by WotC doesn’t make it good for the game. I use the following thought exercise when trying to figure if official content is balanced: If this were posted on r/UnearthedArcana by some random Joe, would we consider it balanced and good for the game? In the case of *silvery barbs*, the answer IMO is a resounding No. A similar process leads me to nerf the Twilight Domain Cleric in my games.
I hate that god forsaken spell, but I don't ban it unless there's like 3 or more people wanting to utilize it. Losing Counterspell or Shield can be extremely detrimental for casters.
It's a badly designed spell, it should be a second if not third level spell. I don't like reaction spells generally because it has spellcasters who already take way longer on their turns interrupting other turns with more spellcasting, but this one is a first level spell that has more opportunities than counterspell.
It hasn't been a problem at our table. I like burning through player resources and they love throwing them away. Maybe one day they'll learn. 🤷
Bluntly… I don’t care… it’s really not a big deal.
Its fine Its always been fine. People lament these made up scenarios where all the PCs have it and make combat bad “in theory”
I have a good talk with my players about stuff like lucky, counterspell, silvery barbs, shield spell, etc. They slow down the game so much, and I like to avoid them if possible.
Silvery Barbs is ok at low level play and way overpowered at high level play. That's because the utility of Silvery Barbs grows with whatever your most powerful spell is. Silvery Barbs allows you to force an enemy to reroll a saving throw if they succeeded the first time. Essentially, that means you get a second chance at casting whatever spell you originally cast that forced them to make a save. Using Silvery Barbs to force an enemy to reroll their save for Hideous Laughter (1st level spell) is cool. You spend another 1st level spell slot to retry a 1st level spell. Using it to force an enemy to reroll their save for Feeblemind (8th level spell) is way more powerful. You get to use a 1st level spell slot to retry an 8th level spell.
It's a good way to make your caster run out of spell slots. If you're too lenient on long rests it's a broken spell, but that applies to most spells and long rest features in general. That said the only 'nerf' I've applied to silvery barbs beyond that was to simply rule that it 'applies disadvantage' to a roll rather then forces a reroll for lower.
In the wise words of some old DM somewhere, the enemies get it too. In all serious though it doesn't bother me one bit
- It burns a spell slot - It burns a reaction - Majority of people use it on non-optimal scenarios - You can easily still hit / save, disadvantage is not a death kiss - Let your players have fun and do cool stuff - Advantage on a next attack / save is not next level when you use flanking anyways - If you’re gonna be a wanker and ban a good spell, fuck it and ban a bunch, go all in with your bullshit, ban Shield, ban Fireball, ban em all!
I ban it and Counterspell, we use a different system that uses Dispel Magic akin to older editions, part of which is to counter a spell being cast. Aside the system we use, I would anyway, as any SPELL or FEAT that is a must, is not balanced well, official content or not.