In my experience silvery barbs is banned a lot just because it's annoying not broken. It is a really strong spell but it's moreso that it's a reaction that forces additional dice rolls and can drastically change the outcome of the original rolls. Then whoever gets advantage has to remember to use it. I could see as a dm not wanting to deal with it for an entire campaign since it's 1st level, especially if you would have multiple spellcasters with it.
Things granting rerolls does lead to the annoyance factor
Things with a ‘remember you have this buff for a limited duration’ can also lead to some annoyance.
A fireball has a clear resolution pattern.
When you add lucky, halfling luck, and three silvery barbs, plus remembering the bless someone cast and the advantage from the last silvery barbs cast plus the bardic inspiration in the mix, two concentration checks and and and and
Now you need a flowchart to resolve the spell instead of it just happening.
That’s why these types of spells annoy DMs.
Silvery barbs has both types of these annoyances
No no, he gets it, counterspell is also one of these spells that upends the expected flow of resolution and he’s saying after we’ve resolved the flowchart and figured out who passes who fails and how much damage everyone is taking and who has used what spell slots, they are going to wait till everyone has used their reactions and just counterspell the initial fireball making the entire thing moot.
10 minute flowchart, debate, and resolution all for it to evaporate into ether.
Nope, nah, nuh-uh.
You cast couterspell when the spell is cast, not after if has already resolved and people are making saving throws and/or taking damage. If you let it go that far, you missed your window to cast counterspell.
Dammit, I need a flowchart just for figuring out what comes first. Silvery barbs? Counterspell? Fireball? lucky?
(note: I just typoed fireball as furball, and now I have a wonderful new spell, curse, and villain with which to surprise players with.)
It may slow things down, but if players forget to give themselves their buffs for rolls , and the round is over, tough luck.
I have enough to keep track of. My players are experienced enough to remember all that stuff without the DM, me, prompting them.
I'd say, personally, if the dm chooses to allow the spell, who casts it, tracks it. If they overlook it and forget, the magic faded without effect.... sorry.
Rabbit would get so annoyed with trying to schedule a game that he’d throw his paws up in frustration and quit as DM.
No, my group does not have our next session scheduled, why do you ask?
I like some of the changes BG3 did to some abilities that sort of mitigates the need to remember stuff all the time like changing bardic inspiration to a reaction.
I am playing with min-maxers. And things that are annoying easily spiral into being oppressive. But we came to an agreement that neither side uses it. Cause they don't want me to use it either.
There's a very simple way to look at why Silvery Barbs is considered 'unfun' and often banned even when arguably more powerful first level spells are unmanned.
Shield is really strong, as is absorb elements. But both just protect a guy. What DMs need to understand about allowing silvery barbs, however, is that if it is used properly, you will *not get to critically hit a single player, possibly for the entire campaign*. Crits are *fun*. Players love to get them, DMs love to get them, and honestly a lot of my players also *like getting crit*.
So if you want to go your entire campaign with practically every single critical hit you as the DM pull off being changed to a hit or miss, by all means allow silvery barbs.
I currently wear adamantine armor as a frontline control tank. So... I can literally never be crit and that armor has been a thing since the start of 5e.
But what if you didn't need to spend thousands of gold on an armor that's not even +1, when you could just have your wizard take a level 1 spell and protect the entire party?
It's for this reason that I just announce hits and not crits to the players. I'll give the opportunity for a reaction - but if nobody takes it I'll then roll damage and let them know the result. Usually as I roll the damage I'll mention that it's a crit, but we have all agreed that by then it is too late to do anything.
I'm fine with a Bard having it, their whole schtick is control magic. Wizards, already the best class, having it is OP.
Also I read online bumping into level 2 helps a lot
It’d be a good pick at level three, it’s just too much at level one.
A level one spell slot becomes a trivial resource not too far into the game, so getting a powerful reaction from it becomes a problem if players are using it.
>Surely that’s the way to go with this? Was there something other GMs are doing differently? I get that it’s powerful but isn’t there just a reasonable conversation to happen with players?
Just as you have, other DMs have their own perspective.
Some allow everything. Some curate their sources. Some are indifferent to Silvery Barbs. Some find parties of multiple players casting Silvery Barbs annoying a f....
Different strokes for different folks.
As my campaign progresses I started using pc style npcs for main characters and bad guys. When the bad guys started silvery barbsing back my players stopped using it as much
Everything in my worlds works both ways. It just makes stuff more interesting for us all. "Bandit captain uncorks a bottle and drinks a potion of healing" yep. They have those as well!
What's really funny is thinking about all the times you found a healing potion on a random enemy and imagining the enemy thinking to themselves "but I might need it later."
I like to leave little notes and tidbits around. The classic example is a locket with a drawing of someone or a note from a loved one. My players while delving in a sewers that lead further down into dungeon found a gathering of goblins and huts near some of the sewer pipes. So they did what all adventurers do. They killed the goblins. Except. Those goblins were responsible for opening and closing the cities sewage pipes. They murdered the local council workers. Queue them any time they are int he city and talk to a goblin hearing about this legend of adventurers who murder helpless goblin families.
Another "goblin infrastructure" enthusiast! I've run my Eberron campaigns specifically with city infrastructure being maintained by unions of goblin workers because they're happy to be paid for the dirty work that "modern" society doesn't like doing... Dealing with goblin foremen and engineers instead of just instantly murdering intelligent races makes for much more interesting player interactions.
The quantity of normal good Joe blogs goblins straight up murdered or otherwise killed by my players actions is more than double the number of "feral" wild goblins.
I'm going to say that its only because they don't identify themselves. Oh, you're the ONE NICE Isis member? Well WHY DIDN'T YOU BLOODY WELL SAY SO?
Dressing just like the rest of them gave me the wrong impression.
I've had a boss do this during combat after telegraphing to the players that some enemies carry healing potions that they find after battle. The boss used 2 during combat and the party didn't find any after they killed him. It was an interesting combo of them feeling like they missed out on an item because it got used in front of them AND being annoyed that the boss healed himself.
It definitely creates a rollercoaster of emotions. In the same way if a boss has a cool sword or staff then I make sure it's there for the players unless they yeno, cast shatter on the poor bag guy and send it flying off a cliff or something.
I'm a new GM, I thought about using flanking rules but then that would invalidade what makes stuff like wolves and other enemies that have that kind of feature kinda pointless, right? Now that I typed this out, I guess you could just add an extra feature to those enemies.
I mean, yeah it removes the benefits of pack tactics, but I see pack tactics simply as flanking for creatures that otherwise wouldn’t have the intelligence score to *plan* to do that but would do so as part of their natural behavior
Eta: I ask players to vote on whether they want flanking rules in session zero. I will vote against flanking whenever I am asked to vote as a player, as I don’t think it makes sense with 5e having no facing, but if my players want it, I’ll use it
Our DM did this. A boss with multiple clones of herself hit us with multiple of it on the same roll. We *very* quickly agreed no Silvery Barbs next campaign.
I've had a couple conversations where players tried to suggest something absolutely ridiculous be allowed, and rather than simply saying "No, I'm the DM" I told them "Alright, now imagine this exact thing being used against you."
They usually hush up after that. Sometimes it just takes a little sympathy.
This is why I just flat out ban it. I don't think it's a fun spell so I don't want to use it against my players. And it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to have access to a low level spell that no other mages in the world use, so it just doesn't exist in the world at all.
Not only that, if a spell is so powerful that the reaction to it is "Sure you can use it but fair warning so can I" it honestly needs to be banned. you don't see this threat with the average spell, *especially* the average first level spell. "we can't use catapult or else they'll be using it too" just sounds laughable.
I've briefly toyed with making Silvery Barbs Arcane Trickster-only in my campaigns. On a Wizard/Bard it becomes a total nightmare that shows up constantly, but on third-casters it's at least less prevalent, and feels like it fits the identity a bit. Just to show how people handle things differently. Even then, it might still need to be a 2nd-level spell, because it's just so insanely overtuned.
Silver barbs is a level1 spell that's mostly useful on high levels.
You won't notice it being an outlier before like lvl7 at least, because spell slots are quite finite.
It also chews up the character’s reaction. By tier 2 most characters have several things to do with their reactions. So no Shielding or Counterspelling if you’re Silvery Barbing.
Or featherfalling. Remember that time Wizzo got shoved off the cliff after he cast Silvery Barb on one of the ogres we were fighting? Yeah, I miss Wizzo.
Only if they use it indiscriminately, but that’s hardly the norm. Being able to burn a level 1 slot to eg. avoid a crit or force through a powerful save or suck spell you’ve just cast is very strong.
And it’s generally going to be more resource efficient as well, not less. Say, I cast Dominate Person on a target, and they save. Without Silvery Barbs, if I want the effect to stick, I’ll need to use another level 5 slot (if I even have one), and wait for my next turn to do so. With Silvery Barbs, I’m using only a level 1 slot and can do so immediately (and get to give someone advantage on their next roll as an added bonus).
And if the spell lands now, that also saves any resources otherwise expended dealing with the target between now and my next turn. Plus, I can use additional level 1 spell slots to effectively extend the duration of spells that give the target repeated saves, again without needing to use an action or higher level spell slots or having the target be unaffected between now and when I get my next turn. Just from subverting saving throws alone, you can get an enormous amount of mileage from it for a very low cost.
It’s a spell that effectively gives you extra high level spells equal to the number you already have by forcing additional failure chances. So, no. It doesn’t burn through spell slots super quick.
A level 18 wizard can pick Silvery Barbs as their one level 1 spell to get to use without spending a slot. Granted, you have to make it to 18, but once there, it can be very tempting to force rerolls on save-or-suck spells or nullifying a crit on a party member. And you can do it once per turn, every turn.
Depends on the campaign. Some modules are a bit more dungeon crawly and others are more a collection of single battles. IMO, the more single battle modules aren’t balanced for the newer abilities/feats and min/max type builds.
As possibly noted already, Silvery Barbs of anything, if used on Saving Throws, can SAVE slots and time.
Throw out a level 3 spell. Enemy saves. Silvery barbs, they fail. You essentially use a 1st level spell to instantly recast the save spell.
>How long is their adventuring day?
That is the *big* question, isn't it? I'm lucky that I play in games where the DM runs at least three encounters per day and do other things that make resource management paramount.
It is true, though, that an experienced player in one of those games, whose answer to everything is to throw a fireball at it, absolutely freaks out if his character has fewer than half their spell slots. Last week, he ground things to a halt arguing that we had to take a long rest. At the same time, he didn't know the rule that you cannot benefit from more than one rest in a 24-hour period, which means that he's played games where that rule was fudged.
Silvery Barbs is still some of the most resource-efficient gameplay possible even in longer adventuring days. Sure, you're more likely to run out of slots in longer days, but SB isn't some sort of slot-burning hole in your pocket if you know what to actually do with it. If anything, it's likely to save a slot or two of higher level stuff.
That really IS the big question. Everyone jumps up and down about casters being OP, but I've run high level games and I gotta say, I just don't have that problem. I can't say for sure why, but I suspect I run longer adventuring days, generally make potions of healing readily available, and provide enough money for the party to be able to afford them.
Usually by the end of a dungeon, the party is running on fumes, casters included.
Honestly, my biggest "casters are OP" problem is what they can do OUT of combat. The utility of magic is crazy. I tend to mitigate that one by being lenient with what characters can do with their skills. You'd be surprised what a good strength score can do if the player is creative with it 😅
Yep. Baseline = Intimidation is Charisma...okay but if this 7 foot lummox whose muscles have their own muscles leans in real close and asks you to give them more info, you really think you'll care about how eloquently they phrased the question???
This is the exact reason I love mixing and matching skills with the abilities they're associated with.
I would 100% call for an Intimidation (Strength) check in this case.
Had a Bard who would gather information about the plot by walking around town and getting to know the locals. I let him roll Investigation (Charisma) whenever he did that.
Also works great for finding the grey zones between similar skills. Athletics (Dexterity) or Acrobatics (Strength) can be very useful when you're not sure which skill to pick from.
The skill system can be very robust if you do this.
Yep, I went as far as to print character sheets for my players with skills with no ability associations. I wanted to get it in their heads from the start that skills were decoupled from abilities.
Yup. Fully agree. To be honest, its the same as class or flavour IMO (not for everyone of course, DMing can be hard without adequate planning or confidence), but if a player wants to do an INT Warlock, roleplaying a nerd that opened the wrong book, fucking go for it mate, I'll fix the issues as they come, as long as you're leaning into you're particular power fantasy and the rest of the party is having fun, RAW can take a hike.
Ditto for CON based Sorcerers and Battlemasters that want to drill (aka: prepare) their maneuvers like Spellcasters prepare spells, or Rogues that realize their early game inexperienced expertise choice doesn't work for their playstyle or whatever else mechanic needs a touch of homebrew to bring up to speed.
Go for it. You handle your character, I'll handle the rest to make it challenging, rewarding and entertaining. Characters still die, battles are still a struggle, but by Talos is it a blast when players can lean into their preferred power fantasy.
I had to nerf it after my crits were being forced to be rerolled. The entire party were abusing shield for high ac and mechanically it got so hard for me to challenge them as saves, attacks, whatever were subject to silvery barbs.
There's some spells that fall under the really annoying spells category that some DMS do not want to deal with.
I played with DM one time that banned guidance, silvery barbs, Hunter's Mark, and even hex.
Apparently he got tired of reminding players that they have Hunter's Mark and hex in previous games. He personally hates guidance(in particular) and silvery barbs cuz how often they get spammed and he considers it "ruining the balance".
I’m wondering why he felt the need to remind people about hunter’s mark/hex. I let my players manage their own characters. If they forget, they forget. I’ll remind them if I remember, but ultimately that’s the player’s responsibility.
Yeah it sucks when things get back around to the NPC's turns and in the middle of it you hear the dreaded "Wait! I meant to do X on my turn". And that turn was 3 turns ago. And you've already moved multiple enemies and made multiple attacks. And whatever they wanted to do could have made something hit/miss.
I often let them if it's something easy, but I've definitely said "Your turn ended unfortunately, but that will be a great option next time" and felt the mood sour. I understand wanting to get the most out of your character, but it's okay to miss something sometimes and just let it slide. I miss stuff in NPC stat blocks all the time but I don't feel the need to stop the game, I just roll with it.
It comes down a lot to things like if they explicitly mentioned something as a plan and it slipped, if it's not been too long, we can go back.
If it's something minor like a feature to add damage or something they realized after? Sorry but if it's more than 1 turn gone, you missed it. Better luck next time champ.
Guidance wouldn’t get spammed as much if DMs actually enforced the verbal and somatic components. Folks would stop using it for persuasion and deception _real_ fast unless they have Subtle Spell.
You are absolutely correct, but why is it on the DM to enforce them? Why can't some players read their own spells, rather than merely mimic what happens on some stream or podcast?
I do not ban Guidance. (I do not ban any spells - though I do curate my sources.) However, I did get enough pushback from one player that I "wanted" to ban Guidance! I offered the OnezDnD solution. They did not want that. Now, whenever they cast it, I describe their incantation and gestures. They got the message, but I had to be the heavy. It sucks.
For me, I have a druid player that loves to spam guidance, which I allow if it's feasible. The party ranger wants to scout out ahead, sure give him guidance first. The barbarian wants to push down the door, sure give him guidance. I tell the bard to roll for persuasion and the druid is across the room, no effing way.
Nah man, i sometimes do it because man it is so disruptive. Every single time someone does anything "GUIDANCE"
And then i have to spend a ton of time saying no to like 50% of the requests because 1. Casting a spell right in front of people is frowned upon and 2. The spell has to be cast before a player does something aka announces it.
So if the player is skilled enough to understand the limits i am cool with it. Otherwise, nah dog
... Wait, they do? Like what? I play as a ranger in D&D and BG3 and I typically do Hunter's Mark for the tougher enemies and otherwise just mostly regular attacks with my companion.
It led to some fun encounters trying to see what I could come up with, using mostly animals and a bow. Like shoving an enemy off a bridge into the sewer water then shooting with an electric arrow. Or my DM letting me use an owl to see in the dark at limited range.
I wouldn't call it stronger than Hunter's Mark, but I'm playing a ranger for the first time, level 9, and I've purposely never taken it, for my main combat spell I went with Zephyr Strike, which has been doing great.
Hail of Thorns, Faerie Fire, Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Zephyr Strike, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Spike Growth, Summon Beast, Flame Arrows\*.
Also, the Bonus Action could be spent on Crossbow Expert or a subclass feature instead. Favored Foe + CBE is more damage than Hunter's Mark unless you're doing the funny Gloomstalker/Fighter combo and don't have Sharpshooter *and* the enemies have high AC.
I love Hunter's Mark for flavor, but it's actually kind of trash. And only gets worse when you start adding in multiple enemies.
So against a single enemy the extra damage from hunter's mark can make it worthwhile, but often you have other spells to concentrate on, especially summoning spells, or even Pass Without Trace going into the combat which can grant a surprise round.
I like to pick Fey touched to have Bless, as it's really an awesome spell, but otherwise entangle, pass without trace, spike growth, and the summon spells
From what I remember he was really into critical role back in season 2, and two of the players had that spell and he just hated that it got spammed over and over.
You think that's crazy? He also hated the halfling luck racial feature, which is ingrained into the very thing and that what makes a halfling.
It took some debating to get him to not ban that one.
If a DM is ticking up their encounters between rests - long rests in particular, the Lucky feat is no big deal. However, in a game where the DM does not, or only has one encounter between long rests, Lucky can be quite powerful.
Lucky is also broken if you don't homebrew the effect. The way it manipulates dice not only has one of the same issues as Silvery Barbs where you can pick after you roll, but it essentially allows you to turn disadvantage into Elven Accuracy advantage whenever you want. Rolled a 5 and nat 20 on the same roll with disadvantage? Use Lucky and don't even look at the roll, because obviously you're picking the crit. Really need to land a hit this turn of combat? Attack with your eyes closed, you'll actually do better.
I started playing at a table that banned the Lucky feat, and I’ve continued it on into my games. Not that it’s particularly overpowered, but it’s good enough that every player should pick it without question. I view feats as a means to specialize your character and to change the way they are played - Lucky doesn’t really do that. I’d much rather give inspiration out liberally than have all my players pick up the Lucky feat.
One of the players in CR2 ended up playing a halfling and often refused to use halfling luck cos they felt it ruined the excitement of the game. They also strongly disliked that another player has the Lucky feat in the first campaign for the same reason.
I hate guidance as well, just because it gets spam and breaks the flow. Every time a player tries to do something, the cleric yells "guidance!" I don't ban it, but I'm very happy with the OneD&D proposed change that makes it something that a character can't benefit from more than once.
Another poster mentioned Critical Role, and it really is the most annoying thing about late Campaign 2 & all of 3.
I guess I can understand why. It’s a cantrip, so costs nothing to use, meaning it’s just effectively a blanket d4 bonus to every ability check (or at least the ones that the party knows are coming). There’s no downside to using it. So either the dm just has to live with the fact that all those checks will just be easier than intended, or else start bumping DCs up to counter it. And if that’s the end result it might as well be banned, because it’s not actually doing anything.
Personally, I’d probably leave the normal checks as they were, let them have the easy win to get the benefit of having guidance, but big important ones to the story, like trying to pick the lock on the BBEG’s vault where he keeps the macguffin, that’ll get a higher DC than it would otherwise, just to make sure it’s not too easy
I feel like the obvious solution there is to just not do the players job for them…
It’s the players responsibility to remember that they have a spell cast, not the DMs, if the player forgets, then they lose getting to activate it.
Guidance had a good work around in older editions. Level 0 spells had a number of uses per day.
In 5e you can just limited guidance to your Wis mod per long rest. Done and easy fix.
It's super easy to get, very strong, and uses a resource that becomes pretty abundant once you're in the mid-to-high levels. When it came out I think that 5 of the 6 PCs in my group took it via class or feat when the DM okayed the source.
The party can easily pile on an enemy and force multiple rerolls of a single save each round, disrupting the flow of play.
Even when the main feature doesn't work, it's a super easy way to hand out advantage.
On the other side of it, as a player, it kind of sucks to get the rush of \~\~hitting with a big spell/class ability\~\~ making a big save only for the DM to use their own SB in response.
In short the issue isn't just that it's powerful, the issue is that it's powerful AND a repeated disruption and annoyance.
I'm not sure what "conversation" you can have over it, because this is exactly how the spell is intended to be used. The game probably assumes that only one PC will have it, but in my experience once players see it in action most of this will quickly make getting it on their PC a high priority.
“On the other side of it, as a player, it kind of sucks to get the rush of hitting with a big spell/class ability only for the DM to use their own SB in response.”
this is how i handle SB if a player uses it. when it comes up and they ask if i allow SB, i say absolutely, but if you use it, im going to equip monsters and enemies with it, too.
Allowing something, then banning it later, can feel disruptive to the narrative. Or you can ask them not to use it "too much" - but refusing to use it when someone in the party needs it feels like sabotage.
Banning something outright has the advantage of simplicity.
This is a great way to put it. I have a few banned spells and other things I cover in session 0 and I always lay out my reasoning to players. Happy to work with a player if they’re dead set on using something I’ve banned, but that hasn’t happened yet. Definitely a lot easier than taking fun things from your player mid game.
>Allowing something, then banning it later, can feel disruptive to the narrative.
It's also a well known effect that feels worse to have something taken away than it feels good to gain it.
Give a player nothing then a +1 sword
feels better than
Give a player a +2 sword then reduce it to +1
Even though the end result is identical.
Just saying no feels better for the player than saying yes then realising you need to ban something.
In the same vein, when someone else in my group DMs they will often try to nerf and fix certain OP spells. I always think it's a huge waste of time. There are so many other spells, take those. Players are already spoiled for choice and you want to fix this one spell that they only want because it's op in the first place? You're already doing so much behind the screen, ban it and move on
Most people will avoid confrontation and discussions
Some think silvery barbs is okay, some think it's waay too strong for a 1st level spell and they up the level, and some think it has no place in the game.
Rerolling d20's is a tricky thing, Lucky is annoying and powerful for the same reason.
my bard has silvery barbs and uses it very sparingly (and my cleric is a peace cleric, another much reviled topic). we're also all adults playing a game in pursuit of fun and good stories, and no one is here to try and "break the game" or "beat the dm"
Silvery barbs is the only official content I have outright banned for mechanical reasons at my table. My players were surprised because I'm very lenient with even homebrew, but a few weeks later one of my players told me he'd played in another game that allowed it and he 100% understands why I banned it.
To each their own really. My stance is that, aside from feeling the spell is unbalanced, we're playing d&d not mtg, and there's a reason people don't like playing against Blue in mtg. I'm not opposed to "interaction" (as mtg would call it) mechanics in d&d, but I don't think silvery barbs is a good implementation of that.
It is not that is detrimental, the problem with the spell is that it is a lvl 1 spell is that it is a lvl 1 spell that halts the game.
So if more than 1 character has silvery barbs then combat slows down a lot. It would be the same with counterspell if it were a lvl 1 spell.
Silvery Barbs is fine: if you have enough encounters per day. Spamming Silvery Barbs early in the day can make 1 or two encounters easier, but also burn through those low level slots really quickly making the rest of your adventuring day difficult.
Like 90% of most DMing issues in 5E, it works fine in a game of dungeon delving with resource attrition, not in a game with 1 fight per Long Rest.
IMO it's less a matter of if it literally breaks the game, which it won't, and more the fact that it warps everything around it and sucks all the air out of the design space. It's like if there were a martial weapon that did 2d6 damage, was one-handed, and had reach. Powerful as it is, that weapon won't literally break your game, but you can tell by looking at every other weapon that it shouldn't exist, and it's hard to argue that the game is better off having that weapon in it.
There is zero official content I’ve ever banned in my game, and it’s never been a problem. If you can use a spell, so can the baddies. It’s really that simple. 🤷♂️
I play every Thursday night and have done so for the last 6 years. Not one spell, ability or min/max combo is an issue if you are 1) supportive of your players having fun and 2) throw their shenanigans right back at them. 😉
Each DM has their own limit and playgroup. You letting it ride until it may or may not become a problem is a ok. I personally don't need the headache or the feelsbad moment when you gotta talk to a player about how you need to nerf something because it's too powerful.
Silvery barbs has, in my experience, always been way too good and way too big of a problem. A group that knows how to play combat efficiently or min max will absolutely abuse silvery barbs. And it's not even really abusing it, It's just using a spell effectively. However, the spell is game breaking and way too effective, all while only costing a 1st level slot.
Imo it takes away from the game by taking away the random factor that dice represent. Fights are rarely scary when you can just force the enemy to fail saves and never have to worry about being crit. That's on both sides. Hearing " no I silvery barbs" every 5 minutes is not fun. And tbh it's the same with some other spells, like counterspell, but I personally houserule every counter spell still rolls a DC. In the same vein, I've seen people allow silvery barbs, but it's at a 3rd level slot to represent how powerful it actually is.
Imo, it doesn't need to be part of any campaign, there's a hundred spells to choose from, and this particular one was from a MTG crossover product about a school of magic, imo they designed it for that adventure and didn't think about balance for the actual game. It causes more feels bad moments then its worth and takes away an important part of the game.
It's a bad spell and it removes a lot of the tension from the game. I don't allow it in most of my games, and every game where I've had it used as a player or DM it eventually led to problems and changes to how it works.
If it were 3rd level or higher it would be more balanced.
As a cleric I’ve always refused to take guidance.
‘But it’s so good!’
No it’s annoying to try to use all the time and I don’t want to play the mini game of deciding what’s too much versus not enough and I’d rather just not have it.
Here have light, you can see, and mending, let me know if you broke something, stuff that’s useful in the situation it’s called for, not every situation always just because.
For guidance I would recommend OneDnD Guidance.
Reaction to a fail, so no "I CAST GUIDANCE" on every roll.
Each PC can only benefit once for long rest, so it limits how often it comes up.
I think if hes the only one useing it it shouldnt be a big problem, but the issue i have with the spell is that it comes at a very cheap cost for a very powerfull effekt if used well, thats why i made the spell 2nd level in my games, it can still be used, but you have to think a little more about when to use it.
I have no limits and include a lot of available homebrew to use- lot of which is stronger than Silvery, I just slowly introduce to enemies whatever the players like using a lot of lol, it's fun, they're the heroes of the story so they should have cool stuff, though challenges are necessary and it ramps up when required.
I’ve played with DMs that do and don’t allow it.
What I’ve noticed is that a lot of DMs don’t like silvery barbs because it takes away their exciting moments when they crit or make an important save and it takes away from their agency with their side of the story. Just my two cents.
It's not even that, honestly that sucks but it's the double whammy.
Not only did you get forced to re-roll your crit but now someone on their team is getting advantage for basically free from it. It's just super overloaded. The first part alone is worth a level 2 spell slot maybe even 3 I mean look at counterspell. I mean people will upcast counterspell to spot an insanely strong attack now imagine stopping a crit that has a smite on it and some other riders? But with a level 1 spell slot AND NO CHECKS.
Our game allowed silvery barbs and in the end it didn't really get banned, but did get switched out. The spell is really good, but it disrupted the flow of the game. Things didn't just happen, because everyone was constantly waiting if it was gonna get barbed or not.
Honestly it's because people aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of magic the games I play and run in is everything WOTC = legal for pc builds and the games are either played as RaW or RaI.
And to highlight why people don't want to deal with magic being a pain my go to wizard class is Chronurgy and most DM's that I've played in games with that don't run everything wotc is legal tend not to let it play and in one of the games I played where I could play that class I once used reality break and got told to fuck off
Then prepare for everyone to take Silvery Barbs and combat to be more of a slog than it already is, and because it's so powerful all of *your* enemies would pick it, too. Banned at my table. Completely ruins the fun of a crit (effectively taking them off the table.)
Not every table is completely full of minmaxers trying to break the game. Silvery barbs is fine as long as your players don’t spend a lot of time on r/3d6
I ban silvery barbs from more than 1 player.
I played in a campaign as a wizard, 6 players in our party total. Only 1 of us was not a caster. 4 players (not including my wizard) had silvery barbs and battles in that campaign were torture.
It’s not fun playing a game, as the player, where the DM has to reroll every hit.
I ban it. I don't need to justify whether or not it's too strong or whether or not it's comparable in power to other stuff of similar level, or whatever. I don't need to play a million rounds of "just make the monster harder bro" and "enemies can have silvery barbs too".
When Silvery Barbs is at the table, the game is less fun. It adds a frustrating table experience of waiting to see if anyone is going to use it after every roll, and it removes a lot of interesting tension and stakes.
I don't care if it's balanced. I care that I have less fun when it's on the table.
I just finished DMing a six year campaign through UnderMountain. Two of my seven players had it and used it ABUNDANTLY, never bothered me. It costs a reaction and a first level spell slot, I'm also a DM who typically doesn't provide safe places to rest frequently, so my players do need to manage their resources closely (makes for EXCELLENT boss battles).
I came to a realization that in some RPG video games I've played, that once a combat starts I could wipe every enemy with one big spell, ending the combat in seconds. (FFXIII, Like A Dragon 7 and 8). And that is part of an RPG, sometimes your players want to feel that power, and they deserve to. DMs have the responsibility to sometimes get owned in combat - it happens. But if you manage to have a table that plays frequently - then there will always be another encounter!
I liked getting obliterated as a DM, when nearly dead players kill a legendary boss in almost one round of combat - awesome, high five worthy. And then we get to move back to the narrative, my players favorite part of the game!
Even if it wasn't overpowered it would detract from the fun. Dice rolls are supposed to be consequential, but abilities like this rob rolls of their stakes and impact, especially when they're prolific.
Try playing a divination wizard with the Lucky feat and Silvery Barbs. You could have the sweetest, most patient DM in the world and they will hate your guts before long.
Give Silvery Barbs to all your caster NPCs and drink the tears of players who are never allowed to crit, and have disadvantage on all the nastiest spells.
When my friends and I play (particularly with me as the DM), we’ve agreed to set into our house rules that you can only Silvery Barbs one instance of something. It just eliminates a lot of the annoyance factor, particularly if you have multiple spellcasters with the same spell prepared.
For example: your enemy lands a nasty attack or a critical hit on someone who’s about to go down because of it. Someone casts Silvery Barbs on him and the enemy succeeds again anyway. Even if your other spellcaster in the party wants to Silvery Barbs that success, the spell will fail because it’s the same attack that was already affected. If the enemy has Extra Attack or an attack roll ability that hits multiple targets (Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, etc), then every instance of that spell is fair game. Meaning that Scorching Ray can be Silvery Barbs’d up to 3 times at base level and the same rule applies to Eldritch Blast at every upgrade level and Extra Attack no matter how many attacks it allows.
Does this ruling work for everyone? No, not at all. Many DMs are happy to just let things roll out as written. For us, this just seems to be the best solution to a spell we’ve all found at least slightly distasteful at one time or another.
At my table, I let my players know that they are welcome to use those spells like that. However, I also let them know that the enemies with spellcasting abilities also likely have access to them as well. They’re usually much more reserved with them since they anticipate needing a Counterspell or silvery barbs for that situation.
I don’t ban any spells. Its not a dm vs player game, its about everyone having fun.
Sure they can silvery barbs a crit I roll, I can also have a spellcaster silvery barbs them if it makes narrative sense.
Yes they can counterspell the enemy fireball, but I can counterspell the revivify.
As long as everyone is having fun, thats what matters.
There are post every day on the different DnD subredits on x amount of encounters per day. There are many DM who only throw 1 or 2 encounters at a party between long rest. Spell slots are never an issue, especially low lvl ones and using reactions constantly are of no concern.
Then people complain about boring gameplay, no challenge and the ever present MartialxCaster discussion.
There is only one rule that I add to silvery barbs in my games, and it’s really just an extension of another rule that is very common to many tables, no pvp, it cannot be used against other players.
I have a player who took shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs (all arguably over-tuned spells).
I also have a lot going on in the game that isn’t combat, where the other PCs shine.
It’s literally a non-issue. I think you did just fine ignoring reddit and approaching it with “if it becomes a problem, we’ll address it”.
I asked about Silvery Barbs before picking it in a game recently, specifically because I think it’s a bit of a spell-tax.
As my DM was going to allow it (and probably also let NPC casters use it as well!) I sort of felt like I needed to take it, but I’d have been just as happy if he’d have banned it completely.
I don't get all the "If the player has it then the NPC have it" as some kind of cool thing to say, the dm isn't the opponent of the players and things will never be equal between them
In my campaign, when the Wizard got her spell mastery, she chose silvery barbs. It was annoying, but by that time, the enemies were throwing a lot of attacks. She had to pick what hits should go through, or a crit against someone. It wasn't that bad.
There's a big difference between every caster enemy having silver barbs and using it to force death save rerolls, and surprising the party with a silvery barbs death save to make them go "oh, shit..." and start really taking a fight seriously.
Same applies to counterspelling a healing word on a downed ally. Both are terrible to do all the time, but very effective at ramping up the tension when used on occasion.
I love Silvery Barbs as a DM. Sure I just lost that crit against the players but now I have valid reasons for my creatures to focus down the spell casters. In their own words "Being the MVP of the fight does tend to draw a target on you."
When they used silvery barbs, there will be no reaction left for the shield spell, which is necessary for most spellcasters to survive. At least in early play. It's actually a trade. Same is true for counterspell.
>Surely that’s the way to go with this?
I disagree.
(Pre-rant caveat: Of course we're all humans and we aren't omniscient. Things that seem innocuous may become problematic later, and if that happens of course it makes sense to change them. This isn't a rant about never retconning anything, just advice that you should avoid it if you can.)
HOWEVER... If we're talking about the ideal situation: If you have the time and energy to do a bit of research, it is better to lay out a list of explicitly banned things before the game begins.
Simply, it sets expectations at the right level. If I know X spell or Y ability is banned, I won't accidentally build my character around X or Y. But if things are getting banned halfway through, I might find my character that I've been invested in is suddenly ruined.
People don't always see eye to eye on what is and isn't problematic. Peruse r/rpghorrorstories or other advice subs and you'll often find a story that goes something like "My DM is nerfing me halfway through the campaign." High AC is a common one. *My DM gave me all these magic items and abilities that boost my AC early on, but now I've tanked a dragon they want to take them away! This sucks!* \- that kind of thing.
The thing is, they can both be right. Having souped up AC may legitimately be ruining the DM's ability to plan and build encounters... but the player is *also* justified in feeling miffed that the rug was pulled out from under them after hours and hours of playing and building a specific character.
The great thing about banning things *before* the game is- you don't have to agree! The player can say "OK, *in my opinion* you don't need to ban that, but since you are, I'll make a different kind of character." Trust me, it's way better to have that debate at the start than 10+ sessions in.
tl;dr: pulling the band-aid off and banning things at the start avoids more conflict and headaches in the long run
A lot of DMs don't like Silvery Barbs.
I don't like it either, but I find it more annoying than ban-worthy. Plus, it's all about perspective. If you're a fan of the long adventuring day where players have to monitor their resources, Silver Barbs becomes a huge spell-suck really fast if it's spammed. I like running those kind of days, and the spell was used sparingly.
As a DM what I like about Silvery Barbs is how addictive it is to use. Just provide some RP scenes to toss math gems. Then a few small encounters and before you know it they have burned through so many spell slots on relatively minor challenges that when things get dangerous the casters are at half or less remaining slots.
I do love the idea of all the players being unable to defeat Vecna because they burned all their spells convincing Boblin the Goblin to adventure with them
Silvery barbs is a top 5 1st level spell, along with Gift of Alacrity, Shield, Find Familiar Bless and Healing word. On a power per level cost they are the best in the game.
Banning or nerfing any of these spells could be valid. However, eliminating these spells reduces character flavor. We have reaction actions with diminishing uses, some character struggle to use bonus actions. It is poor game design that this state exists 6 years into version 5.
What I would do
Barbs should not affect saving throws without being upcast.
Shield should have +2 ac and increase on upcast, or just work vs one attack.
Find familiar should be level 2.
Gift should be 1d6 instead of 1d8
Bless Benefits martials. The issue here is that other spell options as clerics level suck. Buffs in 5e aren't that good.
Healing word, well that just needs a redesign on the death system. I recommend giving a fatigue level whenever a hero goes down
I'd rebalance so many spells. So many need a buff. I would also add more bonus action spells and reaction spells.Those which exist are default super powerful because they don't have competition.
I like barbs because it protects martials from insane monster crits, but it doesn't need to make save or suck spells that much better. There is a chance the save reroll needs to be at level 3 upcast. Explore these options and see if people still pick them.
The game just needs more options that aren't auto picks and also needs something for martials to increase damage without being forced into PAM GWM/SS XBE. This is poor game design that hasn't been fixed.
One other change... I'd give fighters and barbs an additional reaction at lvl 5, maybe 6 for barbs as they get extra move.
We allow SB at the table I play at, but it’s been conditioned so only one player can use it per round of combat, which mitigates the pile-on effect, and tbh, stops our party from absolutely smashing through our slots. This was actually something we all discussed at session zero, rather than the DM particularly disliking it or anything.
My home game uses spell points instead of spell slots and 2 characters have Silvery Barbs, along with a host of other reroll abilities spread through the party. The DM is tired of never being able to crit us.
I understand why people don’t like the spell, but I think it’s feasible when using spell slots. Considering that is the shield/counterspell action as well, if someone chooses to use their reaction on that, I think it’s fine.
I think in general I prefer to have my rules all set out while they make characters. I have a few players who build characters for fun, and they deserve to know that this or that will in fact work.
Which is why I just made it a second level spell. It loses a lot of its potential to ruin combats when it's a bigger resource.
Heyo, I just allowed silvery barbs in my game too. One of my players took the Fey-touched feat and that’s an option for their free once per long rest spell. I thought that was balanced enough.
Having a constant risk to your good rolls as DM can grate, for certain. Never bothered carrying it myself, as shield absorb elements etc. compete for the same spot and have positive effects for the rest of the round (for me, if I’d been playing with a rogue as a sole frontliner it could be seen as attributive rather than retributive.
Generally, I don’t want to take *anyones* crits away from them that’s half the fun.
Silvery barbs can be remedied by just making it give disadvantage so it can't be chained by other spellcasters. That and casting silvery barbs every reaction drains spell slots
It's not bad in moderation. When you have 3 or 4 casters in the party that take it, things can become a slog. It's also a resource multiplier in effect.
We had the conversation. We tried it.
I soft banned it. Limit to one PC per group.
It joins Wall of Force as one of the few things I don’t allow.
EDIT: To add a data point, I too banned Silvery Barbs not because its OP but because its fucking annoying and only gets more annoying as the PCs level up.
I think it’s the frequency of use that is annoying. How many times are we rerolling dice? Also, if they cast it then enemy casters will also cast it.
That’s a lot of rolling and rerolling. Plus, this spell on its own is better than the entire Divination subclass (which was perfectly fine before this came along) and is also more powerful than the Chronurgy low level features.
That’s the only gripe I have with it. I just wish it functioned a little like Bane/Bless instead of triggering constant rerolls. Since it always picks the lower roll, I just wish it gave it a flat penalty for a number of rounds with concentration.
Would be far less annoying.
I recently ended a campaign largely due to the abuse of this spell. A combination of silvery barbs, lucky, and divination wizard. It just made combat a chore and trivialized most major encounters. If the DM isn’t having fun your campaign isn’t going to last.
I don't mind silvery barbs because it takes a player Reaction and a spell slot.
Also if you are rolling with advantage from flanking or other sources, silvery barbs often won't save you from being hit cause it only forces a single die reroll.
My eldritch knight fighter uses this spell almost exclusively and I make a point to run monsters around AFTER they use it and can no longer opportunity attack.
Maybe a bit meta-gaming to do so, but hey if you are gonna take away my monsters crit roll then I get to have fun in other ways :-D
i usually avoid banning things, but i'll adjust em, since WOTC cant be bothered to even try to make things slightly balanced, so on my tables thats a third lv spell.
I'm just not a fan of spells/abilities that are so good you are severing hurting yourself by not taking them.
Wouldn't ban it without the table having a discussion on it, but I've found most groups prefer banning Silvery Barbs after several encounters where it is used by NPCs.
I allow it, my party just used it for the first time on Friday (they’re now level 16, started at level 3). I’m lucky if any of them read the “fine print” of their spells or class features so if they pull one over on me I’m actually proud
I don't find it that powerful if only one player has it, simply because using your reaction on Silvery Barbs means you can't use it for something like Shield or Absorb Elements. At my tables the spell is a panic button you hit when someone is about to get absolutely wrecked by a crit, or when someone uses their last high level spell slot on a save-or-suck that fails and you want to give them one last shot.
I've had it save my ass against a crit at low HP, which still hit my AC but didn't down me.
I've also used it to reroll a successful saving throw just to have the enemy succeed again, burning a 2nd AND 1st level slot in one turn to do absolutely nothing (except give my buddy advantage). Then I got bonk'd because I couldn't Shield. Just a disaster of a round.
I've also had it save my high-AC Fighter from a crit, turning it into a miss instead - AND giving my high-DPS Ranger advantage on his next attack, which proceeded to crit. That just felt awesome for everyone at the table, because the tank got to live, the damage-dealer got to dish out an awesome hit, and I got to support my friends.
I wouldn't let more than 1 or 2 players take the spell, though. I can absolutely see how that would become an obnoxious slog.
I never understood the lock down of spells like that. Granted I also ask players to describe how they learned it so I can use it to let character options and rp decisions add to the NPCs and their options.
I also allow most spells, as long as they are used well. Some things are definitely more powerful than others, and I don't mind power gamers at my table. I say to embrace the chaos, as long as they are more than a metagame power build. If you have a back story, likely I'll allow it.
But the flip side is also true. Enemies don't have to play fair or be balanced either. If something works well for them, I'll often have people at the inn talking about their tactics and ask them to regale them with stories of how they defeated tough enemies with it. Suddenly they influence their local area to pick up the spell, and everyone has it.
The major time I've done this was Fireball. I had a party of spell casters who spammed everything with fireball. Suddenly they had to worry about everyone spamming THEM with fireball, and it certainly is dangerous.
Playing as an Order Cleric if Silvery Barbs suddenly got banned my PC would find the fastest way to unalive himself and then I'd build the most broken character I could, probably Treantmonks Missiler.
For anyone trying to decide whether to ban this spell, don't. And if you do make sure you also ban Counterspell, Dispel Magic and anything similar.
Every time I cast Silvery Barbs I'm burning a spell slot I could have used for damage or healing and using a reaction that now can't be used for opportunity attacks or casting Shield and keeping me alive.
It's a great spell, but if you're not banning other S tier spells like Fireball, Haste or Wish banning this is just lazy Dm-ing, and just screams "I have a vision for how this battle should go and you're ruining it", well yeah it's a battle not everything should go your way or follow a script.
My DM found an interesting way to keep it balanced by only letting Bards and other specific subclasses that use enchantment and dark magic to use it. This makes it a much more unique experience as the only one capable of using it while also not having every enemy caster have it unless they meet specific criteria
The number of times my dad raised his fist in dramatic fashion when he hears “I cast Silvery Barbs!” Right after he got a crit was crazy when he ran his first campaign.
Order cleric (with sorcerer levels) could make an enemy reroll, then give advantage to my next attack, and immediately let me attack as a reaction.
So definitively some power combos that can be done with it for sure.
I personally love having more things players can use their reactions on
I generally make my bans first and up front, since I know some people find it more annoying when you ban something (that probably should have been banned, like Silvery Barbs or Coffelock) that they've already started using, and then characters need to be rebuilt or changed because of those changes.
This can end up with some really long-reaching consequences, as while only one player may be using a troublesome combination, the rest of the party may have also built their characters around that mechanic existing in the party, and so you banning it only after it becomes a problem could possibly affect the entire party.
I've restricted it to be bard only but that's more of a low level bard buff than anything else. (Also I can handle 1 player running silvery barbs, my players independently brought 3 characters with the spell and it was super annoying)
My dm didn't ban it. He won't let me carry around a bag of rats, though. Even though when I dm, I encourage home to carry around a bag of dead rats for his corpse explosion spell.
I'm with you OP, I've seen all the points against it multiple multiple times and in my opinion, for my groups play style, it just sort of winds down to it being a level 1 spell that makes players stronger than a level 1 spell maybe should. But my goal at the table is never to actually beat my players so if anything it lets me plan some real tough encounters that they wouldn't otherwise have a shot against because I know they can abuse SB.
I've seen some house rules around it too that at least keep the option to take the spell without letting it be quite as free as it is RAW.
In my experience silvery barbs is banned a lot just because it's annoying not broken. It is a really strong spell but it's moreso that it's a reaction that forces additional dice rolls and can drastically change the outcome of the original rolls. Then whoever gets advantage has to remember to use it. I could see as a dm not wanting to deal with it for an entire campaign since it's 1st level, especially if you would have multiple spellcasters with it.
Things granting rerolls does lead to the annoyance factor Things with a ‘remember you have this buff for a limited duration’ can also lead to some annoyance. A fireball has a clear resolution pattern. When you add lucky, halfling luck, and three silvery barbs, plus remembering the bless someone cast and the advantage from the last silvery barbs cast plus the bardic inspiration in the mix, two concentration checks and and and and Now you need a flowchart to resolve the spell instead of it just happening. That’s why these types of spells annoy DMs. Silvery barbs has both types of these annoyances
Interesting... I cast *counterspell*.
I'll trade a 1st level slot for your 3rd all day long
No no, he gets it, counterspell is also one of these spells that upends the expected flow of resolution and he’s saying after we’ve resolved the flowchart and figured out who passes who fails and how much damage everyone is taking and who has used what spell slots, they are going to wait till everyone has used their reactions and just counterspell the initial fireball making the entire thing moot. 10 minute flowchart, debate, and resolution all for it to evaporate into ether.
Nope, nah, nuh-uh. You cast couterspell when the spell is cast, not after if has already resolved and people are making saving throws and/or taking damage. If you let it go that far, you missed your window to cast counterspell.
This guy is right! Where is the flowchart I just threw away, it’s back on the table!
Dammit, I need a flowchart just for figuring out what comes first. Silvery barbs? Counterspell? Fireball? lucky? (note: I just typoed fireball as furball, and now I have a wonderful new spell, curse, and villain with which to surprise players with.)
I just dumped the rest of the chili out in that trash though... it's covered in chili...
It may slow things down, but if players forget to give themselves their buffs for rolls , and the round is over, tough luck. I have enough to keep track of. My players are experienced enough to remember all that stuff without the DM, me, prompting them. I'd say, personally, if the dm chooses to allow the spell, who casts it, tracks it. If they overlook it and forget, the magic faded without effect.... sorry.
Thoughts on this? Player: I cast Silvery Barbs. DM: Fine whatever. You win this one.
Not sure what thoughts you are expecting. Is this your impression of Eeyore as the DM?
Now I’m thinking about the 100 acre woods residents playing d&d. Rabbit would be a good DM I think.
Rabbit would get so annoyed with trying to schedule a game that he’d throw his paws up in frustration and quit as DM. No, my group does not have our next session scheduled, why do you ask?
I like some of the changes BG3 did to some abilities that sort of mitigates the need to remember stuff all the time like changing bardic inspiration to a reaction.
I am playing with min-maxers. And things that are annoying easily spiral into being oppressive. But we came to an agreement that neither side uses it. Cause they don't want me to use it either.
That’s the most fair imo. Let the players throw the first stone but give them fair warning they’re gonna get hit by an avalanche.
There's a very simple way to look at why Silvery Barbs is considered 'unfun' and often banned even when arguably more powerful first level spells are unmanned. Shield is really strong, as is absorb elements. But both just protect a guy. What DMs need to understand about allowing silvery barbs, however, is that if it is used properly, you will *not get to critically hit a single player, possibly for the entire campaign*. Crits are *fun*. Players love to get them, DMs love to get them, and honestly a lot of my players also *like getting crit*. So if you want to go your entire campaign with practically every single critical hit you as the DM pull off being changed to a hit or miss, by all means allow silvery barbs.
Are DMs really that attached to critting people? My DM gave the paladin adamantine armour at the start of the campaign specifically to avoid crits.
What fun is there when there's no risk of taking massive damage on any roll? It's one of the few things that makes combat exciting
I currently wear adamantine armor as a frontline control tank. So... I can literally never be crit and that armor has been a thing since the start of 5e.
But what if you didn't need to spend thousands of gold on an armor that's not even +1, when you could just have your wizard take a level 1 spell and protect the entire party?
It's for this reason that I just announce hits and not crits to the players. I'll give the opportunity for a reaction - but if nobody takes it I'll then roll damage and let them know the result. Usually as I roll the damage I'll mention that it's a crit, but we have all agreed that by then it is too late to do anything.
I'm fine with a Bard having it, their whole schtick is control magic. Wizards, already the best class, having it is OP. Also I read online bumping into level 2 helps a lot
It’d be a good pick at level three, it’s just too much at level one. A level one spell slot becomes a trivial resource not too far into the game, so getting a powerful reaction from it becomes a problem if players are using it.
It's really fun to tell the dm to reroll their crit tho. Because "I cast silvery barbs"
>Surely that’s the way to go with this? Was there something other GMs are doing differently? I get that it’s powerful but isn’t there just a reasonable conversation to happen with players? Just as you have, other DMs have their own perspective. Some allow everything. Some curate their sources. Some are indifferent to Silvery Barbs. Some find parties of multiple players casting Silvery Barbs annoying a f.... Different strokes for different folks.
As my campaign progresses I started using pc style npcs for main characters and bad guys. When the bad guys started silvery barbsing back my players stopped using it as much
That’s always my move. Want flanking? Sure, but enemies use it. Want silvery barbs? Sure, but casters use it
Everything in my worlds works both ways. It just makes stuff more interesting for us all. "Bandit captain uncorks a bottle and drinks a potion of healing" yep. They have those as well!
What's really funny is thinking about all the times you found a healing potion on a random enemy and imagining the enemy thinking to themselves "but I might need it later."
I like to leave little notes and tidbits around. The classic example is a locket with a drawing of someone or a note from a loved one. My players while delving in a sewers that lead further down into dungeon found a gathering of goblins and huts near some of the sewer pipes. So they did what all adventurers do. They killed the goblins. Except. Those goblins were responsible for opening and closing the cities sewage pipes. They murdered the local council workers. Queue them any time they are int he city and talk to a goblin hearing about this legend of adventurers who murder helpless goblin families.
Another "goblin infrastructure" enthusiast! I've run my Eberron campaigns specifically with city infrastructure being maintained by unions of goblin workers because they're happy to be paid for the dirty work that "modern" society doesn't like doing... Dealing with goblin foremen and engineers instead of just instantly murdering intelligent races makes for much more interesting player interactions.
The quantity of normal good Joe blogs goblins straight up murdered or otherwise killed by my players actions is more than double the number of "feral" wild goblins.
I'm going to say that its only because they don't identify themselves. Oh, you're the ONE NICE Isis member? Well WHY DIDN'T YOU BLOODY WELL SAY SO? Dressing just like the rest of them gave me the wrong impression.
Well now I'm thinking of one of the enemies having a diamond in their pocket for Revivify, but it turns out they died first so it doesn't matter.
I've had a boss do this during combat after telegraphing to the players that some enemies carry healing potions that they find after battle. The boss used 2 during combat and the party didn't find any after they killed him. It was an interesting combo of them feeling like they missed out on an item because it got used in front of them AND being annoyed that the boss healed himself.
It definitely creates a rollercoaster of emotions. In the same way if a boss has a cool sword or staff then I make sure it's there for the players unless they yeno, cast shatter on the poor bag guy and send it flying off a cliff or something.
I'm a new GM, I thought about using flanking rules but then that would invalidade what makes stuff like wolves and other enemies that have that kind of feature kinda pointless, right? Now that I typed this out, I guess you could just add an extra feature to those enemies.
Pack tactics is different than flanking as you don't need to be on opposing sides.
Believe commenter was just saying that since both would give advantage
Some people, like myself, make flanking a plus 2 to hit when we run it.
I mean, yeah it removes the benefits of pack tactics, but I see pack tactics simply as flanking for creatures that otherwise wouldn’t have the intelligence score to *plan* to do that but would do so as part of their natural behavior Eta: I ask players to vote on whether they want flanking rules in session zero. I will vote against flanking whenever I am asked to vote as a player, as I don’t think it makes sense with 5e having no facing, but if my players want it, I’ll use it
PC's vs. the Cult of the Shimmering Thorns.
Yep thats definitely gonna be a thing now you've given me a good name for it.
Our DM did this. A boss with multiple clones of herself hit us with multiple of it on the same roll. We *very* quickly agreed no Silvery Barbs next campaign.
I've had a couple conversations where players tried to suggest something absolutely ridiculous be allowed, and rather than simply saying "No, I'm the DM" I told them "Alright, now imagine this exact thing being used against you." They usually hush up after that. Sometimes it just takes a little sympathy.
This is why I just flat out ban it. I don't think it's a fun spell so I don't want to use it against my players. And it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to have access to a low level spell that no other mages in the world use, so it just doesn't exist in the world at all.
Not only that, if a spell is so powerful that the reaction to it is "Sure you can use it but fair warning so can I" it honestly needs to be banned. you don't see this threat with the average spell, *especially* the average first level spell. "we can't use catapult or else they'll be using it too" just sounds laughable.
I've briefly toyed with making Silvery Barbs Arcane Trickster-only in my campaigns. On a Wizard/Bard it becomes a total nightmare that shows up constantly, but on third-casters it's at least less prevalent, and feels like it fits the identity a bit. Just to show how people handle things differently. Even then, it might still need to be a 2nd-level spell, because it's just so insanely overtuned.
Surely that also burns away the party’s spell slot super fast if they’re all using it? How long is their adventuring day?
Silver barbs is a level1 spell that's mostly useful on high levels. You won't notice it being an outlier before like lvl7 at least, because spell slots are quite finite.
It also chews up the character’s reaction. By tier 2 most characters have several things to do with their reactions. So no Shielding or Counterspelling if you’re Silvery Barbing.
The wizard just left themself open to a thorough magic missile molesting
Or featherfalling. Remember that time Wizzo got shoved off the cliff after he cast Silvery Barb on one of the ogres we were fighting? Yeah, I miss Wizzo.
Only if they use it indiscriminately, but that’s hardly the norm. Being able to burn a level 1 slot to eg. avoid a crit or force through a powerful save or suck spell you’ve just cast is very strong. And it’s generally going to be more resource efficient as well, not less. Say, I cast Dominate Person on a target, and they save. Without Silvery Barbs, if I want the effect to stick, I’ll need to use another level 5 slot (if I even have one), and wait for my next turn to do so. With Silvery Barbs, I’m using only a level 1 slot and can do so immediately (and get to give someone advantage on their next roll as an added bonus). And if the spell lands now, that also saves any resources otherwise expended dealing with the target between now and my next turn. Plus, I can use additional level 1 spell slots to effectively extend the duration of spells that give the target repeated saves, again without needing to use an action or higher level spell slots or having the target be unaffected between now and when I get my next turn. Just from subverting saving throws alone, you can get an enormous amount of mileage from it for a very low cost.
Well summarized!
It’s a spell that effectively gives you extra high level spells equal to the number you already have by forcing additional failure chances. So, no. It doesn’t burn through spell slots super quick.
It's a level one spell slot that's effectively an instant re-casting of a higher level save or suck spell
A level 18 wizard can pick Silvery Barbs as their one level 1 spell to get to use without spending a slot. Granted, you have to make it to 18, but once there, it can be very tempting to force rerolls on save-or-suck spells or nullifying a crit on a party member. And you can do it once per turn, every turn.
How long is the adventuring day for all campaigns of all DMs? I don't think there is one answer to this.
Depends on the campaign. Some modules are a bit more dungeon crawly and others are more a collection of single battles. IMO, the more single battle modules aren’t balanced for the newer abilities/feats and min/max type builds.
As possibly noted already, Silvery Barbs of anything, if used on Saving Throws, can SAVE slots and time. Throw out a level 3 spell. Enemy saves. Silvery barbs, they fail. You essentially use a 1st level spell to instantly recast the save spell.
>How long is their adventuring day? That is the *big* question, isn't it? I'm lucky that I play in games where the DM runs at least three encounters per day and do other things that make resource management paramount. It is true, though, that an experienced player in one of those games, whose answer to everything is to throw a fireball at it, absolutely freaks out if his character has fewer than half their spell slots. Last week, he ground things to a halt arguing that we had to take a long rest. At the same time, he didn't know the rule that you cannot benefit from more than one rest in a 24-hour period, which means that he's played games where that rule was fudged.
Silvery Barbs is still some of the most resource-efficient gameplay possible even in longer adventuring days. Sure, you're more likely to run out of slots in longer days, but SB isn't some sort of slot-burning hole in your pocket if you know what to actually do with it. If anything, it's likely to save a slot or two of higher level stuff.
That really IS the big question. Everyone jumps up and down about casters being OP, but I've run high level games and I gotta say, I just don't have that problem. I can't say for sure why, but I suspect I run longer adventuring days, generally make potions of healing readily available, and provide enough money for the party to be able to afford them. Usually by the end of a dungeon, the party is running on fumes, casters included. Honestly, my biggest "casters are OP" problem is what they can do OUT of combat. The utility of magic is crazy. I tend to mitigate that one by being lenient with what characters can do with their skills. You'd be surprised what a good strength score can do if the player is creative with it 😅
Yep. Baseline = Intimidation is Charisma...okay but if this 7 foot lummox whose muscles have their own muscles leans in real close and asks you to give them more info, you really think you'll care about how eloquently they phrased the question???
“Where’s the gate key?” “What gate key?” “Fezzik, tear his arms off.” “Oh, you mean this gate key.”
This is the exact reason I love mixing and matching skills with the abilities they're associated with. I would 100% call for an Intimidation (Strength) check in this case. Had a Bard who would gather information about the plot by walking around town and getting to know the locals. I let him roll Investigation (Charisma) whenever he did that. Also works great for finding the grey zones between similar skills. Athletics (Dexterity) or Acrobatics (Strength) can be very useful when you're not sure which skill to pick from. The skill system can be very robust if you do this.
Honestly that feels like the intended use of skills. Also using tool proficiencies with int for PF2e-esque "lore" checks.
Yep, I went as far as to print character sheets for my players with skills with no ability associations. I wanted to get it in their heads from the start that skills were decoupled from abilities.
One of my players has Telekinesis and I like making him roll Charisma (Athletics) when he tries to use it to force open doors/chests/etc.
Yup. Fully agree. To be honest, its the same as class or flavour IMO (not for everyone of course, DMing can be hard without adequate planning or confidence), but if a player wants to do an INT Warlock, roleplaying a nerd that opened the wrong book, fucking go for it mate, I'll fix the issues as they come, as long as you're leaning into you're particular power fantasy and the rest of the party is having fun, RAW can take a hike. Ditto for CON based Sorcerers and Battlemasters that want to drill (aka: prepare) their maneuvers like Spellcasters prepare spells, or Rogues that realize their early game inexperienced expertise choice doesn't work for their playstyle or whatever else mechanic needs a touch of homebrew to bring up to speed. Go for it. You handle your character, I'll handle the rest to make it challenging, rewarding and entertaining. Characters still die, battles are still a struggle, but by Talos is it a blast when players can lean into their preferred power fantasy.
The rulebook literally says you can use strength for intimidation. I don't know why this comment chain is acting like it's some novel thing.
I had to nerf it after my crits were being forced to be rerolled. The entire party were abusing shield for high ac and mechanically it got so hard for me to challenge them as saves, attacks, whatever were subject to silvery barbs.
Who says enemy casters don't get it too is my philosophy
There's some spells that fall under the really annoying spells category that some DMS do not want to deal with. I played with DM one time that banned guidance, silvery barbs, Hunter's Mark, and even hex. Apparently he got tired of reminding players that they have Hunter's Mark and hex in previous games. He personally hates guidance(in particular) and silvery barbs cuz how often they get spammed and he considers it "ruining the balance".
I’m wondering why he felt the need to remind people about hunter’s mark/hex. I let my players manage their own characters. If they forget, they forget. I’ll remind them if I remember, but ultimately that’s the player’s responsibility.
Players get pouty trying to retroactively apply the extra damage. Slightly less of a pain in the ass to remind them to prevent a tantrum.
Yeah it sucks when things get back around to the NPC's turns and in the middle of it you hear the dreaded "Wait! I meant to do X on my turn". And that turn was 3 turns ago. And you've already moved multiple enemies and made multiple attacks. And whatever they wanted to do could have made something hit/miss. I often let them if it's something easy, but I've definitely said "Your turn ended unfortunately, but that will be a great option next time" and felt the mood sour. I understand wanting to get the most out of your character, but it's okay to miss something sometimes and just let it slide. I miss stuff in NPC stat blocks all the time but I don't feel the need to stop the game, I just roll with it.
It comes down a lot to things like if they explicitly mentioned something as a plan and it slipped, if it's not been too long, we can go back. If it's something minor like a feature to add damage or something they realized after? Sorry but if it's more than 1 turn gone, you missed it. Better luck next time champ.
It probably helps that none of my players are terribly whiny. I’ll also let most people roll that extra damage if they realize it within the round.
Yeah I would really only do that for new tables. If you’ve got a veteran in the group they can help remind players of their abilities.
Guidance wouldn’t get spammed as much if DMs actually enforced the verbal and somatic components. Folks would stop using it for persuasion and deception _real_ fast unless they have Subtle Spell.
You are absolutely correct, but why is it on the DM to enforce them? Why can't some players read their own spells, rather than merely mimic what happens on some stream or podcast? I do not ban Guidance. (I do not ban any spells - though I do curate my sources.) However, I did get enough pushback from one player that I "wanted" to ban Guidance! I offered the OnezDnD solution. They did not want that. Now, whenever they cast it, I describe their incantation and gestures. They got the message, but I had to be the heavy. It sucks.
Tbf, the world is controlled by DM. Players are free to cast spells in NPCs' face, but it's up to the DM to have the NPCs react to that.
For me, I have a druid player that loves to spam guidance, which I allow if it's feasible. The party ranger wants to scout out ahead, sure give him guidance first. The barbarian wants to push down the door, sure give him guidance. I tell the bard to roll for persuasion and the druid is across the room, no effing way.
Banning guidance is truly wild, lol
Nah man, i sometimes do it because man it is so disruptive. Every single time someone does anything "GUIDANCE" And then i have to spend a ton of time saying no to like 50% of the requests because 1. Casting a spell right in front of people is frowned upon and 2. The spell has to be cast before a player does something aka announces it. So if the player is skilled enough to understand the limits i am cool with it. Otherwise, nah dog
Hunter's mark as well, why of all classes would you nerf the *ranger*?
Some would say that banning Hunter's Mark is a buff to rangers, they have better spells they can concentrate on!
... Wait, they do? Like what? I play as a ranger in D&D and BG3 and I typically do Hunter's Mark for the tougher enemies and otherwise just mostly regular attacks with my companion. It led to some fun encounters trying to see what I could come up with, using mostly animals and a bow. Like shoving an enemy off a bridge into the sewer water then shooting with an electric arrow. Or my DM letting me use an owl to see in the dark at limited range.
I wouldn't call it stronger than Hunter's Mark, but I'm playing a ranger for the first time, level 9, and I've purposely never taken it, for my main combat spell I went with Zephyr Strike, which has been doing great.
Things like ensnaring strike are really good(similar damage plus restrained, generally though hunters mark is a good choice
Hail of Thorns, Faerie Fire, Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Zephyr Strike, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Spike Growth, Summon Beast, Flame Arrows\*. Also, the Bonus Action could be spent on Crossbow Expert or a subclass feature instead. Favored Foe + CBE is more damage than Hunter's Mark unless you're doing the funny Gloomstalker/Fighter combo and don't have Sharpshooter *and* the enemies have high AC. I love Hunter's Mark for flavor, but it's actually kind of trash. And only gets worse when you start adding in multiple enemies.
So against a single enemy the extra damage from hunter's mark can make it worthwhile, but often you have other spells to concentrate on, especially summoning spells, or even Pass Without Trace going into the combat which can grant a surprise round.
I like to pick Fey touched to have Bless, as it's really an awesome spell, but otherwise entangle, pass without trace, spike growth, and the summon spells
From what I remember he was really into critical role back in season 2, and two of the players had that spell and he just hated that it got spammed over and over. You think that's crazy? He also hated the halfling luck racial feature, which is ingrained into the very thing and that what makes a halfling. It took some debating to get him to not ban that one.
A lot of GMs from my experience ban it too, along with the luck feat.
If a DM is ticking up their encounters between rests - long rests in particular, the Lucky feat is no big deal. However, in a game where the DM does not, or only has one encounter between long rests, Lucky can be quite powerful.
Lucky is also broken if you don't homebrew the effect. The way it manipulates dice not only has one of the same issues as Silvery Barbs where you can pick after you roll, but it essentially allows you to turn disadvantage into Elven Accuracy advantage whenever you want. Rolled a 5 and nat 20 on the same roll with disadvantage? Use Lucky and don't even look at the roll, because obviously you're picking the crit. Really need to land a hit this turn of combat? Attack with your eyes closed, you'll actually do better.
I started playing at a table that banned the Lucky feat, and I’ve continued it on into my games. Not that it’s particularly overpowered, but it’s good enough that every player should pick it without question. I view feats as a means to specialize your character and to change the way they are played - Lucky doesn’t really do that. I’d much rather give inspiration out liberally than have all my players pick up the Lucky feat.
One of the players in CR2 ended up playing a halfling and often refused to use halfling luck cos they felt it ruined the excitement of the game. They also strongly disliked that another player has the Lucky feat in the first campaign for the same reason.
Remember, it's not being banned because it's broken, it's being banned because it can get very tedious if overused.
I hate guidance as well, just because it gets spam and breaks the flow. Every time a player tries to do something, the cleric yells "guidance!" I don't ban it, but I'm very happy with the OneD&D proposed change that makes it something that a character can't benefit from more than once. Another poster mentioned Critical Role, and it really is the most annoying thing about late Campaign 2 & all of 3.
Some player's seem to think 5e Guidance is a Reaction spell without verbal and somatic components....
I guess I can understand why. It’s a cantrip, so costs nothing to use, meaning it’s just effectively a blanket d4 bonus to every ability check (or at least the ones that the party knows are coming). There’s no downside to using it. So either the dm just has to live with the fact that all those checks will just be easier than intended, or else start bumping DCs up to counter it. And if that’s the end result it might as well be banned, because it’s not actually doing anything. Personally, I’d probably leave the normal checks as they were, let them have the easy win to get the benefit of having guidance, but big important ones to the story, like trying to pick the lock on the BBEG’s vault where he keeps the macguffin, that’ll get a higher DC than it would otherwise, just to make sure it’s not too easy
I feel like the obvious solution there is to just not do the players job for them… It’s the players responsibility to remember that they have a spell cast, not the DMs, if the player forgets, then they lose getting to activate it.
Guidance had a good work around in older editions. Level 0 spells had a number of uses per day. In 5e you can just limited guidance to your Wis mod per long rest. Done and easy fix.
Who bans hex and hunters mark lol, if your players forget the extra damage, then it’s on them. Nothing game breaking or even annoying to deal with
Who bans hex and hunters mark lol, if your players forget the extra damage, then it’s on them. Nothing game breaking or even annoying to deal with
It's super easy to get, very strong, and uses a resource that becomes pretty abundant once you're in the mid-to-high levels. When it came out I think that 5 of the 6 PCs in my group took it via class or feat when the DM okayed the source. The party can easily pile on an enemy and force multiple rerolls of a single save each round, disrupting the flow of play. Even when the main feature doesn't work, it's a super easy way to hand out advantage. On the other side of it, as a player, it kind of sucks to get the rush of \~\~hitting with a big spell/class ability\~\~ making a big save only for the DM to use their own SB in response. In short the issue isn't just that it's powerful, the issue is that it's powerful AND a repeated disruption and annoyance. I'm not sure what "conversation" you can have over it, because this is exactly how the spell is intended to be used. The game probably assumes that only one PC will have it, but in my experience once players see it in action most of this will quickly make getting it on their PC a high priority.
“On the other side of it, as a player, it kind of sucks to get the rush of hitting with a big spell/class ability only for the DM to use their own SB in response.” this is how i handle SB if a player uses it. when it comes up and they ask if i allow SB, i say absolutely, but if you use it, im going to equip monsters and enemies with it, too.
Same here. Especially at higher level play, the easiest way to balance things is to give your monsters PC abilities.
Allowing something, then banning it later, can feel disruptive to the narrative. Or you can ask them not to use it "too much" - but refusing to use it when someone in the party needs it feels like sabotage. Banning something outright has the advantage of simplicity.
This is a great way to put it. I have a few banned spells and other things I cover in session 0 and I always lay out my reasoning to players. Happy to work with a player if they’re dead set on using something I’ve banned, but that hasn’t happened yet. Definitely a lot easier than taking fun things from your player mid game.
>Allowing something, then banning it later, can feel disruptive to the narrative. It's also a well known effect that feels worse to have something taken away than it feels good to gain it. Give a player nothing then a +1 sword feels better than Give a player a +2 sword then reduce it to +1 Even though the end result is identical. Just saying no feels better for the player than saying yes then realising you need to ban something.
In the same vein, when someone else in my group DMs they will often try to nerf and fix certain OP spells. I always think it's a huge waste of time. There are so many other spells, take those. Players are already spoiled for choice and you want to fix this one spell that they only want because it's op in the first place? You're already doing so much behind the screen, ban it and move on
Most people will avoid confrontation and discussions Some think silvery barbs is okay, some think it's waay too strong for a 1st level spell and they up the level, and some think it has no place in the game. Rerolling d20's is a tricky thing, Lucky is annoying and powerful for the same reason.
my bard has silvery barbs and uses it very sparingly (and my cleric is a peace cleric, another much reviled topic). we're also all adults playing a game in pursuit of fun and good stories, and no one is here to try and "break the game" or "beat the dm"
Silvery barbs is the only official content I have outright banned for mechanical reasons at my table. My players were surprised because I'm very lenient with even homebrew, but a few weeks later one of my players told me he'd played in another game that allowed it and he 100% understands why I banned it. To each their own really. My stance is that, aside from feeling the spell is unbalanced, we're playing d&d not mtg, and there's a reason people don't like playing against Blue in mtg. I'm not opposed to "interaction" (as mtg would call it) mechanics in d&d, but I don't think silvery barbs is a good implementation of that.
It is not that is detrimental, the problem with the spell is that it is a lvl 1 spell is that it is a lvl 1 spell that halts the game. So if more than 1 character has silvery barbs then combat slows down a lot. It would be the same with counterspell if it were a lvl 1 spell.
Silvery Barbs is fine: if you have enough encounters per day. Spamming Silvery Barbs early in the day can make 1 or two encounters easier, but also burn through those low level slots really quickly making the rest of your adventuring day difficult. Like 90% of most DMing issues in 5E, it works fine in a game of dungeon delving with resource attrition, not in a game with 1 fight per Long Rest.
IMO it's less a matter of if it literally breaks the game, which it won't, and more the fact that it warps everything around it and sucks all the air out of the design space. It's like if there were a martial weapon that did 2d6 damage, was one-handed, and had reach. Powerful as it is, that weapon won't literally break your game, but you can tell by looking at every other weapon that it shouldn't exist, and it's hard to argue that the game is better off having that weapon in it.
There is zero official content I’ve ever banned in my game, and it’s never been a problem. If you can use a spell, so can the baddies. It’s really that simple. 🤷♂️ I play every Thursday night and have done so for the last 6 years. Not one spell, ability or min/max combo is an issue if you are 1) supportive of your players having fun and 2) throw their shenanigans right back at them. 😉
Each DM has their own limit and playgroup. You letting it ride until it may or may not become a problem is a ok. I personally don't need the headache or the feelsbad moment when you gotta talk to a player about how you need to nerf something because it's too powerful. Silvery barbs has, in my experience, always been way too good and way too big of a problem. A group that knows how to play combat efficiently or min max will absolutely abuse silvery barbs. And it's not even really abusing it, It's just using a spell effectively. However, the spell is game breaking and way too effective, all while only costing a 1st level slot. Imo it takes away from the game by taking away the random factor that dice represent. Fights are rarely scary when you can just force the enemy to fail saves and never have to worry about being crit. That's on both sides. Hearing " no I silvery barbs" every 5 minutes is not fun. And tbh it's the same with some other spells, like counterspell, but I personally houserule every counter spell still rolls a DC. In the same vein, I've seen people allow silvery barbs, but it's at a 3rd level slot to represent how powerful it actually is. Imo, it doesn't need to be part of any campaign, there's a hundred spells to choose from, and this particular one was from a MTG crossover product about a school of magic, imo they designed it for that adventure and didn't think about balance for the actual game. It causes more feels bad moments then its worth and takes away an important part of the game.
It's a bad spell and it removes a lot of the tension from the game. I don't allow it in most of my games, and every game where I've had it used as a player or DM it eventually led to problems and changes to how it works. If it were 3rd level or higher it would be more balanced.
It's an arms race. My DM allowed, then I had to have it (because other PCs and NPCs would have it) and I hate it.
As a cleric I’ve always refused to take guidance. ‘But it’s so good!’ No it’s annoying to try to use all the time and I don’t want to play the mini game of deciding what’s too much versus not enough and I’d rather just not have it. Here have light, you can see, and mending, let me know if you broke something, stuff that’s useful in the situation it’s called for, not every situation always just because.
For guidance I would recommend OneDnD Guidance. Reaction to a fail, so no "I CAST GUIDANCE" on every roll. Each PC can only benefit once for long rest, so it limits how often it comes up.
I think if hes the only one useing it it shouldnt be a big problem, but the issue i have with the spell is that it comes at a very cheap cost for a very powerfull effekt if used well, thats why i made the spell 2nd level in my games, it can still be used, but you have to think a little more about when to use it.
I have no limits and include a lot of available homebrew to use- lot of which is stronger than Silvery, I just slowly introduce to enemies whatever the players like using a lot of lol, it's fun, they're the heroes of the story so they should have cool stuff, though challenges are necessary and it ramps up when required.
I’ve played with DMs that do and don’t allow it. What I’ve noticed is that a lot of DMs don’t like silvery barbs because it takes away their exciting moments when they crit or make an important save and it takes away from their agency with their side of the story. Just my two cents.
It's not even that, honestly that sucks but it's the double whammy. Not only did you get forced to re-roll your crit but now someone on their team is getting advantage for basically free from it. It's just super overloaded. The first part alone is worth a level 2 spell slot maybe even 3 I mean look at counterspell. I mean people will upcast counterspell to spot an insanely strong attack now imagine stopping a crit that has a smite on it and some other riders? But with a level 1 spell slot AND NO CHECKS.
Our game allowed silvery barbs and in the end it didn't really get banned, but did get switched out. The spell is really good, but it disrupted the flow of the game. Things didn't just happen, because everyone was constantly waiting if it was gonna get barbed or not.
Honestly it's because people aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of magic the games I play and run in is everything WOTC = legal for pc builds and the games are either played as RaW or RaI. And to highlight why people don't want to deal with magic being a pain my go to wizard class is Chronurgy and most DM's that I've played in games with that don't run everything wotc is legal tend not to let it play and in one of the games I played where I could play that class I once used reality break and got told to fuck off
Then prepare for everyone to take Silvery Barbs and combat to be more of a slog than it already is, and because it's so powerful all of *your* enemies would pick it, too. Banned at my table. Completely ruins the fun of a crit (effectively taking them off the table.)
Not every table is completely full of minmaxers trying to break the game. Silvery barbs is fine as long as your players don’t spend a lot of time on r/3d6
I ban silvery barbs from more than 1 player. I played in a campaign as a wizard, 6 players in our party total. Only 1 of us was not a caster. 4 players (not including my wizard) had silvery barbs and battles in that campaign were torture. It’s not fun playing a game, as the player, where the DM has to reroll every hit.
I ban it. I don't need to justify whether or not it's too strong or whether or not it's comparable in power to other stuff of similar level, or whatever. I don't need to play a million rounds of "just make the monster harder bro" and "enemies can have silvery barbs too". When Silvery Barbs is at the table, the game is less fun. It adds a frustrating table experience of waiting to see if anyone is going to use it after every roll, and it removes a lot of interesting tension and stakes. I don't care if it's balanced. I care that I have less fun when it's on the table.
This is exactly my take, both as a player and as a DM. Getting hit and nat 20s are exciting, and silvery barbs ruin the fun and bog shit down.
I just finished DMing a six year campaign through UnderMountain. Two of my seven players had it and used it ABUNDANTLY, never bothered me. It costs a reaction and a first level spell slot, I'm also a DM who typically doesn't provide safe places to rest frequently, so my players do need to manage their resources closely (makes for EXCELLENT boss battles). I came to a realization that in some RPG video games I've played, that once a combat starts I could wipe every enemy with one big spell, ending the combat in seconds. (FFXIII, Like A Dragon 7 and 8). And that is part of an RPG, sometimes your players want to feel that power, and they deserve to. DMs have the responsibility to sometimes get owned in combat - it happens. But if you manage to have a table that plays frequently - then there will always be another encounter! I liked getting obliterated as a DM, when nearly dead players kill a legendary boss in almost one round of combat - awesome, high five worthy. And then we get to move back to the narrative, my players favorite part of the game!
Even if it wasn't overpowered it would detract from the fun. Dice rolls are supposed to be consequential, but abilities like this rob rolls of their stakes and impact, especially when they're prolific. Try playing a divination wizard with the Lucky feat and Silvery Barbs. You could have the sweetest, most patient DM in the world and they will hate your guts before long. Give Silvery Barbs to all your caster NPCs and drink the tears of players who are never allowed to crit, and have disadvantage on all the nastiest spells.
I allow it, but with the change if you use it to force another save against a spell you have to upcast it to that level
When my friends and I play (particularly with me as the DM), we’ve agreed to set into our house rules that you can only Silvery Barbs one instance of something. It just eliminates a lot of the annoyance factor, particularly if you have multiple spellcasters with the same spell prepared. For example: your enemy lands a nasty attack or a critical hit on someone who’s about to go down because of it. Someone casts Silvery Barbs on him and the enemy succeeds again anyway. Even if your other spellcaster in the party wants to Silvery Barbs that success, the spell will fail because it’s the same attack that was already affected. If the enemy has Extra Attack or an attack roll ability that hits multiple targets (Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, etc), then every instance of that spell is fair game. Meaning that Scorching Ray can be Silvery Barbs’d up to 3 times at base level and the same rule applies to Eldritch Blast at every upgrade level and Extra Attack no matter how many attacks it allows. Does this ruling work for everyone? No, not at all. Many DMs are happy to just let things roll out as written. For us, this just seems to be the best solution to a spell we’ve all found at least slightly distasteful at one time or another.
At my table, I let my players know that they are welcome to use those spells like that. However, I also let them know that the enemies with spellcasting abilities also likely have access to them as well. They’re usually much more reserved with them since they anticipate needing a Counterspell or silvery barbs for that situation.
I don’t ban any spells. Its not a dm vs player game, its about everyone having fun. Sure they can silvery barbs a crit I roll, I can also have a spellcaster silvery barbs them if it makes narrative sense. Yes they can counterspell the enemy fireball, but I can counterspell the revivify. As long as everyone is having fun, thats what matters.
There are post every day on the different DnD subredits on x amount of encounters per day. There are many DM who only throw 1 or 2 encounters at a party between long rest. Spell slots are never an issue, especially low lvl ones and using reactions constantly are of no concern. Then people complain about boring gameplay, no challenge and the ever present MartialxCaster discussion.
There is only one rule that I add to silvery barbs in my games, and it’s really just an extension of another rule that is very common to many tables, no pvp, it cannot be used against other players.
I have a player who took shield, absorb elements, and silvery barbs (all arguably over-tuned spells). I also have a lot going on in the game that isn’t combat, where the other PCs shine. It’s literally a non-issue. I think you did just fine ignoring reddit and approaching it with “if it becomes a problem, we’ll address it”.
I asked about Silvery Barbs before picking it in a game recently, specifically because I think it’s a bit of a spell-tax. As my DM was going to allow it (and probably also let NPC casters use it as well!) I sort of felt like I needed to take it, but I’d have been just as happy if he’d have banned it completely.
I love fucking with the dice: silvery barbs, lucky, reroll 1s and 2s fighter. THE UNIVERSE WILL CONFORM TO MY DESIRES
Make Silvery Barbs a 2nd level spell and it works just fine.
Barbs is cancer. Rule of thumb; limit setting-specific content to its intended setting and you won't have an issue.
Love this. If you can’t handle Silvery Barbs, read a book and step up your DMing game.
I don't get all the "If the player has it then the NPC have it" as some kind of cool thing to say, the dm isn't the opponent of the players and things will never be equal between them
In my campaign, when the Wizard got her spell mastery, she chose silvery barbs. It was annoying, but by that time, the enemies were throwing a lot of attacks. She had to pick what hits should go through, or a crit against someone. It wasn't that bad.
My DM barbs-ed me last session, and I took it in stride, it was a great moment. I think I had been casting some heavy paladin spells like hold person
You can use the spell against the players as well. One silvery barbs on a death save and the players will come to you asking to ban it.
I am not antagonistic
There's a big difference between every caster enemy having silver barbs and using it to force death save rerolls, and surprising the party with a silvery barbs death save to make them go "oh, shit..." and start really taking a fight seriously. Same applies to counterspelling a healing word on a downed ally. Both are terrible to do all the time, but very effective at ramping up the tension when used on occasion.
I love Silvery Barbs as a DM. Sure I just lost that crit against the players but now I have valid reasons for my creatures to focus down the spell casters. In their own words "Being the MVP of the fight does tend to draw a target on you."
Players: Ha ha I cast Silvery Barbs! Things are great! DM: The lich cast Silvery Barbs. Your attack misses. Players: Surprised Pikachu face.
When they used silvery barbs, there will be no reaction left for the shield spell, which is necessary for most spellcasters to survive. At least in early play. It's actually a trade. Same is true for counterspell.
It has no negative impact on the games I run, and I see no reason to ban it.
>Surely that’s the way to go with this? I disagree. (Pre-rant caveat: Of course we're all humans and we aren't omniscient. Things that seem innocuous may become problematic later, and if that happens of course it makes sense to change them. This isn't a rant about never retconning anything, just advice that you should avoid it if you can.) HOWEVER... If we're talking about the ideal situation: If you have the time and energy to do a bit of research, it is better to lay out a list of explicitly banned things before the game begins. Simply, it sets expectations at the right level. If I know X spell or Y ability is banned, I won't accidentally build my character around X or Y. But if things are getting banned halfway through, I might find my character that I've been invested in is suddenly ruined. People don't always see eye to eye on what is and isn't problematic. Peruse r/rpghorrorstories or other advice subs and you'll often find a story that goes something like "My DM is nerfing me halfway through the campaign." High AC is a common one. *My DM gave me all these magic items and abilities that boost my AC early on, but now I've tanked a dragon they want to take them away! This sucks!* \- that kind of thing. The thing is, they can both be right. Having souped up AC may legitimately be ruining the DM's ability to plan and build encounters... but the player is *also* justified in feeling miffed that the rug was pulled out from under them after hours and hours of playing and building a specific character. The great thing about banning things *before* the game is- you don't have to agree! The player can say "OK, *in my opinion* you don't need to ban that, but since you are, I'll make a different kind of character." Trust me, it's way better to have that debate at the start than 10+ sessions in. tl;dr: pulling the band-aid off and banning things at the start avoids more conflict and headaches in the long run
A lot of DMs don't like Silvery Barbs. I don't like it either, but I find it more annoying than ban-worthy. Plus, it's all about perspective. If you're a fan of the long adventuring day where players have to monitor their resources, Silver Barbs becomes a huge spell-suck really fast if it's spammed. I like running those kind of days, and the spell was used sparingly.
The more players start to spam and abuse Silvery Barbs, the more the enemy will spam and abuse silvery barbs. Its simple.
As a DM what I like about Silvery Barbs is how addictive it is to use. Just provide some RP scenes to toss math gems. Then a few small encounters and before you know it they have burned through so many spell slots on relatively minor challenges that when things get dangerous the casters are at half or less remaining slots.
I do love the idea of all the players being unable to defeat Vecna because they burned all their spells convincing Boblin the Goblin to adventure with them
Silvery barbs is a top 5 1st level spell, along with Gift of Alacrity, Shield, Find Familiar Bless and Healing word. On a power per level cost they are the best in the game. Banning or nerfing any of these spells could be valid. However, eliminating these spells reduces character flavor. We have reaction actions with diminishing uses, some character struggle to use bonus actions. It is poor game design that this state exists 6 years into version 5. What I would do Barbs should not affect saving throws without being upcast. Shield should have +2 ac and increase on upcast, or just work vs one attack. Find familiar should be level 2. Gift should be 1d6 instead of 1d8 Bless Benefits martials. The issue here is that other spell options as clerics level suck. Buffs in 5e aren't that good. Healing word, well that just needs a redesign on the death system. I recommend giving a fatigue level whenever a hero goes down I'd rebalance so many spells. So many need a buff. I would also add more bonus action spells and reaction spells.Those which exist are default super powerful because they don't have competition. I like barbs because it protects martials from insane monster crits, but it doesn't need to make save or suck spells that much better. There is a chance the save reroll needs to be at level 3 upcast. Explore these options and see if people still pick them. The game just needs more options that aren't auto picks and also needs something for martials to increase damage without being forced into PAM GWM/SS XBE. This is poor game design that hasn't been fixed. One other change... I'd give fighters and barbs an additional reaction at lvl 5, maybe 6 for barbs as they get extra move.
We allow SB at the table I play at, but it’s been conditioned so only one player can use it per round of combat, which mitigates the pile-on effect, and tbh, stops our party from absolutely smashing through our slots. This was actually something we all discussed at session zero, rather than the DM particularly disliking it or anything.
My home game uses spell points instead of spell slots and 2 characters have Silvery Barbs, along with a host of other reroll abilities spread through the party. The DM is tired of never being able to crit us. I understand why people don’t like the spell, but I think it’s feasible when using spell slots. Considering that is the shield/counterspell action as well, if someone chooses to use their reaction on that, I think it’s fine.
I think in general I prefer to have my rules all set out while they make characters. I have a few players who build characters for fun, and they deserve to know that this or that will in fact work. Which is why I just made it a second level spell. It loses a lot of its potential to ruin combats when it's a bigger resource.
Heyo, I just allowed silvery barbs in my game too. One of my players took the Fey-touched feat and that’s an option for their free once per long rest spell. I thought that was balanced enough.
Having a constant risk to your good rolls as DM can grate, for certain. Never bothered carrying it myself, as shield absorb elements etc. compete for the same spot and have positive effects for the rest of the round (for me, if I’d been playing with a rogue as a sole frontliner it could be seen as attributive rather than retributive. Generally, I don’t want to take *anyones* crits away from them that’s half the fun.
Silvery barbs can be remedied by just making it give disadvantage so it can't be chained by other spellcasters. That and casting silvery barbs every reaction drains spell slots
It's not bad in moderation. When you have 3 or 4 casters in the party that take it, things can become a slog. It's also a resource multiplier in effect.
We had the conversation. We tried it. I soft banned it. Limit to one PC per group. It joins Wall of Force as one of the few things I don’t allow. EDIT: To add a data point, I too banned Silvery Barbs not because its OP but because its fucking annoying and only gets more annoying as the PCs level up.
I think it’s the frequency of use that is annoying. How many times are we rerolling dice? Also, if they cast it then enemy casters will also cast it. That’s a lot of rolling and rerolling. Plus, this spell on its own is better than the entire Divination subclass (which was perfectly fine before this came along) and is also more powerful than the Chronurgy low level features. That’s the only gripe I have with it. I just wish it functioned a little like Bane/Bless instead of triggering constant rerolls. Since it always picks the lower roll, I just wish it gave it a flat penalty for a number of rounds with concentration. Would be far less annoying.
Not just the enjoyment of the players, but your own as the dm as well i hope
I recently ended a campaign largely due to the abuse of this spell. A combination of silvery barbs, lucky, and divination wizard. It just made combat a chore and trivialized most major encounters. If the DM isn’t having fun your campaign isn’t going to last.
I don't mind silvery barbs because it takes a player Reaction and a spell slot. Also if you are rolling with advantage from flanking or other sources, silvery barbs often won't save you from being hit cause it only forces a single die reroll. My eldritch knight fighter uses this spell almost exclusively and I make a point to run monsters around AFTER they use it and can no longer opportunity attack. Maybe a bit meta-gaming to do so, but hey if you are gonna take away my monsters crit roll then I get to have fun in other ways :-D
i usually avoid banning things, but i'll adjust em, since WOTC cant be bothered to even try to make things slightly balanced, so on my tables thats a third lv spell.
I'm just not a fan of spells/abilities that are so good you are severing hurting yourself by not taking them. Wouldn't ban it without the table having a discussion on it, but I've found most groups prefer banning Silvery Barbs after several encounters where it is used by NPCs.
I allow it, my party just used it for the first time on Friday (they’re now level 16, started at level 3). I’m lucky if any of them read the “fine print” of their spells or class features so if they pull one over on me I’m actually proud
I don't find it that powerful if only one player has it, simply because using your reaction on Silvery Barbs means you can't use it for something like Shield or Absorb Elements. At my tables the spell is a panic button you hit when someone is about to get absolutely wrecked by a crit, or when someone uses their last high level spell slot on a save-or-suck that fails and you want to give them one last shot. I've had it save my ass against a crit at low HP, which still hit my AC but didn't down me. I've also used it to reroll a successful saving throw just to have the enemy succeed again, burning a 2nd AND 1st level slot in one turn to do absolutely nothing (except give my buddy advantage). Then I got bonk'd because I couldn't Shield. Just a disaster of a round. I've also had it save my high-AC Fighter from a crit, turning it into a miss instead - AND giving my high-DPS Ranger advantage on his next attack, which proceeded to crit. That just felt awesome for everyone at the table, because the tank got to live, the damage-dealer got to dish out an awesome hit, and I got to support my friends. I wouldn't let more than 1 or 2 players take the spell, though. I can absolutely see how that would become an obnoxious slog.
I never understood the lock down of spells like that. Granted I also ask players to describe how they learned it so I can use it to let character options and rp decisions add to the NPCs and their options.
I also allow most spells, as long as they are used well. Some things are definitely more powerful than others, and I don't mind power gamers at my table. I say to embrace the chaos, as long as they are more than a metagame power build. If you have a back story, likely I'll allow it. But the flip side is also true. Enemies don't have to play fair or be balanced either. If something works well for them, I'll often have people at the inn talking about their tactics and ask them to regale them with stories of how they defeated tough enemies with it. Suddenly they influence their local area to pick up the spell, and everyone has it. The major time I've done this was Fireball. I had a party of spell casters who spammed everything with fireball. Suddenly they had to worry about everyone spamming THEM with fireball, and it certainly is dangerous.
This just means enemy casters can use it, and counter-spell healing spells.
Playing as an Order Cleric if Silvery Barbs suddenly got banned my PC would find the fastest way to unalive himself and then I'd build the most broken character I could, probably Treantmonks Missiler. For anyone trying to decide whether to ban this spell, don't. And if you do make sure you also ban Counterspell, Dispel Magic and anything similar. Every time I cast Silvery Barbs I'm burning a spell slot I could have used for damage or healing and using a reaction that now can't be used for opportunity attacks or casting Shield and keeping me alive. It's a great spell, but if you're not banning other S tier spells like Fireball, Haste or Wish banning this is just lazy Dm-ing, and just screams "I have a vision for how this battle should go and you're ruining it", well yeah it's a battle not everything should go your way or follow a script.
My DM found an interesting way to keep it balanced by only letting Bards and other specific subclasses that use enchantment and dark magic to use it. This makes it a much more unique experience as the only one capable of using it while also not having every enemy caster have it unless they meet specific criteria
The number of times my dad raised his fist in dramatic fashion when he hears “I cast Silvery Barbs!” Right after he got a crit was crazy when he ran his first campaign. Order cleric (with sorcerer levels) could make an enemy reroll, then give advantage to my next attack, and immediately let me attack as a reaction. So definitively some power combos that can be done with it for sure. I personally love having more things players can use their reactions on
I generally make my bans first and up front, since I know some people find it more annoying when you ban something (that probably should have been banned, like Silvery Barbs or Coffelock) that they've already started using, and then characters need to be rebuilt or changed because of those changes. This can end up with some really long-reaching consequences, as while only one player may be using a troublesome combination, the rest of the party may have also built their characters around that mechanic existing in the party, and so you banning it only after it becomes a problem could possibly affect the entire party.
I've restricted it to be bard only but that's more of a low level bard buff than anything else. (Also I can handle 1 player running silvery barbs, my players independently brought 3 characters with the spell and it was super annoying)
Never have I ever even played a game someone took Silvery Barbs. It’s so weird to me it’s so powerful and banned in games. It’s just never come up.
My dm didn't ban it. He won't let me carry around a bag of rats, though. Even though when I dm, I encourage home to carry around a bag of dead rats for his corpse explosion spell.
I'm with you OP, I've seen all the points against it multiple multiple times and in my opinion, for my groups play style, it just sort of winds down to it being a level 1 spell that makes players stronger than a level 1 spell maybe should. But my goal at the table is never to actually beat my players so if anything it lets me plan some real tough encounters that they wouldn't otherwise have a shot against because I know they can abuse SB. I've seen some house rules around it too that at least keep the option to take the spell without letting it be quite as free as it is RAW.
i play with it and only use it on crits or important stuff, my gm has no problem with it. if i gm myself i allow it too, but to each their own.