It's alright. People compare it to shield but this spell leaves you completely open to magic missile (making it more viable) and the bad guys can use it against you as well. Yes someone can have both shield and barbs but not only are you dedicating two prepared spells to defense (which can be rough at lvl1) but it's a really easy way to burn through your spell slots in the blink of an eye.
Also shield lasts until the beginning of your next turn whereas this is just against the one roll. I'd argue that to the former is stronger.
Honestly I'm not worried about MM... It's not even on a lot of the spellcaster statblocks and if my DM starts to use it a lot I'm going to likely have shield any way.
Barbs is more powerful than shield for sure as you basically get a second casting of save or suck spells and thus it's power goes up as your level does.
Since it works on attacks, saves, and ability checks barbs is more versatile.
Barbs can counter a nat 20. Shield cannot.
Shield gets less and less valuable as to hit bonus gets better.
You can protect another person with barbs... You can't with shield
Overall you get a lot more value for the spell at level 1 with barbs
It's alright. People compare it to shield but this spell leaves you completely open to magic missile (making it more viable) and the bad guys can use it against you as well. Yes someone can have both shield and barbs but not only are you dedicating two prepared spells to defense (which can be rough at lvl1) but it's a really easy way to burn through your spell slots in the blink of an eye.
Also shield lasts until the beginning of your next turn whereas this is just against the one roll. I'd argue that to the former is stronger.
This is another aspect that also has me worried about barbs. Some people do not like Counterspell because it opens the door for "reaction wars" between friendly and enemy casters. Whichever side has more people with Counterspell prepared decides whether a particular spell gets cast or not. Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, so the DM has to have more powerful enemy casters to get the appropriate spell slots
Barbs is a 1st level spell, so a DM could honestly modify a cult fanatic (CR 2) stat block to give them this spell. IMO, Silvery Barbs is much scarier than Counterspell for enemy casters to have. If the boss is supported by some of these casters, whenever it decides to use its super powerful 1/combat-type move and force a saving throw on a friendly PC, that PC doesnt have to make its saving throw 1 time. It has to succeed up to X+1 times (X=number of enemy casters). Unlike Counterspell, an ally caster cannot use a casting of barbs to try and "cancel out" the enemy's casting because the appropriate trigger is not present (none of the enemy's are making a d20 roll).
Even if the ally manages to succeed X+1 times on their saving throw, at the end of the chain a good chunk of the enemies (likely including the boss) will have advantage on their next d20 roll. The only upside for the party is they wasted many enemy's reactions, but given that they were spellcasters most probably wouldn't be more effective if using an opportunity attack instead. Most low CR minions are going to be cannon fodder, so having them use their reactions to try to soil a PCs save against one of the boss's big moves will probably be more impactful than trying to get the minion to survive an extra round by using Shield or Absorb Elements, in my opinion.
Now, of course, all of this depends on what type of DM you have. There are plenty of "scary" spells a DM could throw at a party; however, I think with barbs being a 1st level reaction spell it opens up the possibility of weaker enemy support casters being a larger threat to the party in an encounter then they would have been if they had any other 1st level spell prepared primarily due to this spell's ability to chain.
A re-roll after a successful roll is totally different from mere disadvantage. Then people are comparing it to rune knight (1 per short rest) and metamagic (heightened spell), both of which you get at level 3, right?
A re-roll after a successful roll is totally different from mere disadvantage.
Well, it's not more effective, but it's much cheaper, because disadvantage is frequently wasted (the target made the first save anyway). For a target with a 40% chance to save normally, 60% of the time you apply disadvantage it's totally wasted because they save anyway. Thus, we're comparing a level 1 spell slot (plus a reaction) to 5 sorcery points, not 2.
This is a dice game and whenever you can change the outcome or force another roll after the die roll has been determined is a powerful ability period. This thing stops crits, reduces the effectiveness of counter-spell as it is an ability check, and late-game pass or fails spells percentile changes greatly because of a level 1 spell.
Why are people pretending like this isn't a big deal? Easily one of the best spells WOTC has put out in years and it will get the Healing Spirit treatment until it is balanced or just stay in Ravnica type thing.
Can the silvery barbs spell in Strixhaven affect Legendary Resistance? No. When a creature uses Legendary Resistance, the creature turns a failed saving throw into a success, regardless of the number rolled on the d20. Forcing that creature to reroll the d20 afterward doesn’t change the fact that the save succeeded as a result of Legendary Resistance. No amount of rerolling will undo that success.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Heh, so exactly how I thought it worked. You can use Barbs on a Legoresist save and still give an ally advantage, but you can't ever overturn a legendary resist. You can use barbs on a saving throw the critter succeeded on naturally and possibly cause them to burn a legoresist on it that way, but once the critter uses Legendary Resistance, it's a done deal. Can't kibitz it, can't massage it, can't spoof it - the critter has succeeded on that save no matter what the player tries to do.
Heh, so exactly how I thought it worked. You can use Barbs on a Legoresist save and still give an ally advantage, but you can't ever overturn a legendary resist. You can use barbs on a saving throw the critter succeeded on naturally and possibly cause them to burn a legoresist on it that way, but once the critter uses Legendary Resistance, it's a done deal. Can't kibitz it, can't massage it, can't spoof it - the critter has succeeded on that save no matter what the player tries to do.
Yeah and honestly I'm glad... It should be just succeed but I do think it was unclear how it interacted.
Obviously not publishing it because DDB would slap me with the power of ten thousand angry frost giants if I did...but is this the version people are okay with? As I see it, the main complaints are "there's no fluff/flavor/Cool Magic Scent!", "first level is just too damn easy!", and "this dumb thing stacks with itself forever!" This version solves all those problems.
I honestly find myself a little ambivalent; it almost seems too hedged around, like the spell is afraid of offending people. I don't know if I'd bother with this version. But let's see what other folks think.
Obviously not publishing it because DDB would slap me with the power of ten thousand angry frost giants if I did...but is this the version people are okay with? As I see it, the main complaints are "there's no fluff/flavor/Cool Magic Scent!", "first level is just too damn easy!", and "this dumb thing stacks with itself forever!" This version solves all those problems.
I honestly find myself a little ambivalent; it almost seems too hedged around, like the spell is afraid of offending people. I don't know if I'd bother with this version. But let's see what other folks think.
Yeah, that seems good to me. I think even if the flavor wasnt corrected the two other changes you made would go a long way.
I would be okay with that. It is still a very strong 2nd level spell, but not the gamebreakingness of a 1st level.
I don't even know that you necessarily need the "once per turn". I think bumping it to 2nd helps take away the craziness of it. With all of that being said, an 18th level Wizard can still use it as a buff to each and every save spell that they cast, which still makes it a very strong spell.
But this definitely takes it from the "Why would you ever NOT take this spell, it's success on a plate" to a "Wow, that's really strong. I should take this on my Wizard/Bard/Sorcerer."
I am fine with the wizard getting it all the time at level 18 TBH as that would be the LEAST broken thing about wizard at that level lol!
Overall this feels right and I would have it at the table no question at 2nd level.
Barbs is more powerful than shield for sure as you basically get a second casting of save or suck spells and thus it's power goes up as your level does. Yes.
Since it works on attacks, saves, and ability checks barbs is more versatile. Yes.
Barbs can counter a nat 20. Shield cannot. Yes.
Shield gets less and less valuable as to hit bonus gets better. Kinda False/Misleading.
You can protect another person with barbs... You can't with shield Yes.
Overall you get a lot more value for the spell at level 1 with barbs Yes.
Replies in red. You're mostly correct but wildly off-base about how much shield helps against creatures with high +hit numbers.
Say you even have a moderately low AC, something like AC 13. An enemy would need to have higher than +11 before shield had any diminished returns. That is well into the mid/high teen CRs. And, in this case, it isn't really shield's fault but your own for having a 13 AC.
If you had a moderately respectable AC 16, the enemy would need higher than a +14 hit before you saw any drop in effectiveness from shield. If you're facing off against adult red dragons, and have a lower AC than that, you're basically trying to reroll.
Really, their to hit needs to be basically the same number as your AC before shield loses any effectiveness. If that is happening, you're asking to die anyway since you'd be at basically 100% hitrate against you. And silvery barbs isn't helping in this case because they're going to for sure still hit you anyway if they rerolled since all rolled numbers hit you, except basically a 1. Shield is actually better than barbs in this case, even though it isn't at 100% effectiveness, because at least it is somewhat effective at all, while barbs basically does nothing here. Eg:
Say AC 13, and the enemy does have a +11 to hit. They hit you on anything except a 1. But, if you shield, then it brings your AC to 18, and they'd miss with a roll of 6 or less on the die. That's still useful. But, Barbs? They'd still only miss if the reroll was a 1. Far less effective in this situation.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I would just make it first level and change its applicability to 'attack or check' instead of 'attack, check, or save'.
That would work too...at least then you could still use it to help out the fighter trying to grapple the owlbear!
This also leaves it the ability to counter Counterspell though, which isn't nothing. But it does stop it from being cast as a free recast of a failed save spell.
That's the part that get's me. The fact you can burn a 1st level spell slot to force a save reroll on another spell you cast. That is functionally similar to Sorcerer's Heighten Spell metamagic.
But is the cost the same? No.
"When you cast a spell that forces a creature to make a saving throw to resist its effects, you can spend 3 sorcery points to give one target of the spell disadvantage on its first saving throw made against the spell."
This ability costs 3 spell points. Well, how many spell slots would it cost to make 3 spell points?
"Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level."
So we could burn 3 Bonus Action on three 1st level spells, to rack up 3 spell points, to pull off what this spell functionally does all by itself. And the spell does more than just that because it then grants an ally advantage on something else.
So the functionality of the sorc, a core functionality, is better performed by a spell they (and basically anyone) can take now.
If you still take Heighten Spell instead of silvery barbs you've now made a mathematical error in character building. Silvery barbs is just straight up superior. Now... for those paying closer attention, you could, if you liked, actually take both. The fabled triple disadvantage is now at your fingertips. Why even have enemies roll saves amirite?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you still take Heighten Spell instead of silvery barbs you've now made a mathematical error in character building.Silvery barbs is just straight up superior. Now... for those paying closer attention, you could, if you liked, actually take both. The fabled triple disadvantage is now at your fingertips. Why even have enemies roll saves amirite?
I mean, that's patently false. I like Silvery Barbs better overall, but Silvery Barbs isn't strictly superior to Heightened Spell. Heightened Spell has multiple advantages, two big ones being action economy and Spells Known Tax. Its absurd to call it a mathematical error to choose otherwise, even if its the overall better option.
Your SP -> Spell slot conversion is also an odd comparison. Converting spell slots to SP is intentionally inefficient. Why use that as a baseline when Sorcerers start with a pool of SP?
Barbs is more powerful than shield for sure as you basically get a second casting of save or suck spells and thus it's power goes up as your level does. Yes.
Since it works on attacks, saves, and ability checks barbs is more versatile. Yes.
Barbs can counter a nat 20. Shield cannot. Yes.
Shield gets less and less valuable as to hit bonus gets better. Kinda False/Misleading.
You can protect another person with barbs... You can't with shield Yes.
Overall you get a lot more value for the spell at level 1 with barbs Yes.
Replies in red. You're mostly correct but wildly off-base about how much shield helps against creatures with high +hit numbers.
Say you even have a moderately low AC, something like AC 13. An enemy would need to have higher than +11 before shield had any diminished returns. That is well into the mid/high teen CRs. And, in this case, it isn't really shield's fault but your own for having a 13 AC.
If you had a moderately respectable AC 16, the enemy would need higher than a +14 hit before you saw any drop in effectiveness from shield. If you're facing off against adult red dragons, and have a lower AC than that, you're basically trying to reroll.
Really, their to hit needs to be basically the same number as your AC before shield loses any effectiveness. If that is happening, you're asking to die anyway since you'd be at basically 100% hitrate against you. And silvery barbs isn't helping in this case because they're going to for sure still hit you anyway if they rerolled since all rolled numbers hit you, except basically a 1. Shield is actually better than barbs in this case, even though it isn't at 100% effectiveness, because at least it is somewhat effective at all, while barbs basically does nothing here. Eg:
Say AC 13, and the enemy does have a +11 to hit. They hit you on anything except a 1. But, if you shield, then it brings your AC to 18, and they'd miss with a roll of 6 or less on the die. That's still useful. But, Barbs? They'd still only miss if the reroll was a 1. Far less effective in this situation.
So it is true that shield gets less effective as CR Increases which increases average attack bonus? I am not sure where that is misleading...
I am not sure where you are getting your math but if you have an 16 AC (which is +3 to dex on a point buy and mage armor always) then shield makes you have an AC 21 likely well into T2....
If you increase DEX at level 12 (you shouldn't...take resilient CON instead) then you are looking at AC 22.
I am not seeing where this is misleading...your ability to avoid all hits is worse with the same spell slot use....If you take at least one hit you have a chance of dropping that CON spell (especially if you decide to go with AC over CON resilient). It is straight up diminishing returns.
I am not saying barbs is BETTER at preventing attacks than Shield...in fact its much worse. The only time I would use Barbs instead of shield is when the creature rolled a natural 20 on the first swing.
But that doesn't change the fact that its factually true that shield gets worse as CR increases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agree
Honestly I'm not worried about MM... It's not even on a lot of the spellcaster statblocks and if my DM starts to use it a lot I'm going to likely have shield any way.
Barbs is more powerful than shield for sure as you basically get a second casting of save or suck spells and thus it's power goes up as your level does.
Since it works on attacks, saves, and ability checks barbs is more versatile.
Barbs can counter a nat 20. Shield cannot.
Shield gets less and less valuable as to hit bonus gets better.
You can protect another person with barbs... You can't with shield
Overall you get a lot more value for the spell at level 1 with barbs
This is another aspect that also has me worried about barbs. Some people do not like Counterspell because it opens the door for "reaction wars" between friendly and enemy casters. Whichever side has more people with Counterspell prepared decides whether a particular spell gets cast or not. Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, so the DM has to have more powerful enemy casters to get the appropriate spell slots
Barbs is a 1st level spell, so a DM could honestly modify a cult fanatic (CR 2) stat block to give them this spell. IMO, Silvery Barbs is much scarier than Counterspell for enemy casters to have. If the boss is supported by some of these casters, whenever it decides to use its super powerful 1/combat-type move and force a saving throw on a friendly PC, that PC doesnt have to make its saving throw 1 time. It has to succeed up to X+1 times (X=number of enemy casters). Unlike Counterspell, an ally caster cannot use a casting of barbs to try and "cancel out" the enemy's casting because the appropriate trigger is not present (none of the enemy's are making a d20 roll).
Even if the ally manages to succeed X+1 times on their saving throw, at the end of the chain a good chunk of the enemies (likely including the boss) will have advantage on their next d20 roll. The only upside for the party is they wasted many enemy's reactions, but given that they were spellcasters most probably wouldn't be more effective if using an opportunity attack instead. Most low CR minions are going to be cannon fodder, so having them use their reactions to try to soil a PCs save against one of the boss's big moves will probably be more impactful than trying to get the minion to survive an extra round by using Shield or Absorb Elements, in my opinion.
Now, of course, all of this depends on what type of DM you have. There are plenty of "scary" spells a DM could throw at a party; however, I think with barbs being a 1st level reaction spell it opens up the possibility of weaker enemy support casters being a larger threat to the party in an encounter then they would have been if they had any other 1st level spell prepared primarily due to this spell's ability to chain.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
A re-roll after a successful roll is totally different from mere disadvantage. Then people are comparing it to rune knight (1 per short rest) and metamagic (heightened spell), both of which you get at level 3, right?
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
Well, it's not more effective, but it's much cheaper, because disadvantage is frequently wasted (the target made the first save anyway). For a target with a 40% chance to save normally, 60% of the time you apply disadvantage it's totally wasted because they save anyway. Thus, we're comparing a level 1 spell slot (plus a reaction) to 5 sorcery points, not 2.
This is a dice game and whenever you can change the outcome or force another roll after the die roll has been determined is a powerful ability period. This thing stops crits, reduces the effectiveness of counter-spell as it is an ability check, and late-game pass or fails spells percentile changes greatly because of a level 1 spell.
Why are people pretending like this isn't a big deal? Easily one of the best spells WOTC has put out in years and it will get the Healing Spirit treatment until it is balanced or just stay in Ravnica type thing.
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
Back in my day, that's what we used to call busted.
Ok, Boomer.
An update:
Heh, so exactly how I thought it worked. You can use Barbs on a Legoresist save and still give an ally advantage, but you can't ever overturn a legendary resist. You can use barbs on a saving throw the critter succeeded on naturally and possibly cause them to burn a legoresist on it that way, but once the critter uses Legendary Resistance, it's a done deal. Can't kibitz it, can't massage it, can't spoof it - the critter has succeeded on that save no matter what the player tries to do.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah and honestly I'm glad... It should be just succeed but I do think it was unclear how it interacted.
SO. Just because I'm curious...

Obviously not publishing it because DDB would slap me with the power of ten thousand angry frost giants if I did...but is this the version people are okay with? As I see it, the main complaints are "there's no fluff/flavor/Cool Magic Scent!", "first level is just too damn easy!", and "this dumb thing stacks with itself forever!" This version solves all those problems.
I honestly find myself a little ambivalent; it almost seems too hedged around, like the spell is afraid of offending people. I don't know if I'd bother with this version. But let's see what other folks think.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, that seems good to me. I think even if the flavor wasnt corrected the two other changes you made would go a long way.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I would just make it first level and change its applicability to 'attack or check' instead of 'attack, check, or save'.
I am fine with the wizard getting it all the time at level 18 TBH as that would be the LEAST broken thing about wizard at that level lol!
Overall this feels right and I would have it at the table no question at 2nd level.
That would work too...at least then you could still use it to help out the fighter trying to grapple the owlbear!
Replies in red. You're mostly correct but wildly off-base about how much shield helps against creatures with high +hit numbers.
Say you even have a moderately low AC, something like AC 13. An enemy would need to have higher than +11 before shield had any diminished returns. That is well into the mid/high teen CRs. And, in this case, it isn't really shield's fault but your own for having a 13 AC.
If you had a moderately respectable AC 16, the enemy would need higher than a +14 hit before you saw any drop in effectiveness from shield. If you're facing off against adult red dragons, and have a lower AC than that, you're basically trying to reroll.
Really, their to hit needs to be basically the same number as your AC before shield loses any effectiveness. If that is happening, you're asking to die anyway since you'd be at basically 100% hitrate against you. And silvery barbs isn't helping in this case because they're going to for sure still hit you anyway if they rerolled since all rolled numbers hit you, except basically a 1. Shield is actually better than barbs in this case, even though it isn't at 100% effectiveness, because at least it is somewhat effective at all, while barbs basically does nothing here. Eg:
Say AC 13, and the enemy does have a +11 to hit. They hit you on anything except a 1. But, if you shield, then it brings your AC to 18, and they'd miss with a roll of 6 or less on the die. That's still useful. But, Barbs? They'd still only miss if the reroll was a 1. Far less effective in this situation.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's the part that get's me. The fact you can burn a 1st level spell slot to force a save reroll on another spell you cast. That is functionally similar to Sorcerer's Heighten Spell metamagic.
But is the cost the same? No.
"When you cast a spell that forces a creature to make a saving throw to resist its effects, you can spend 3 sorcery points to give one target of the spell disadvantage on its first saving throw made against the spell."
This ability costs 3 spell points. Well, how many spell slots would it cost to make 3 spell points?
"Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level."
So we could burn 3 Bonus Action on three 1st level spells, to rack up 3 spell points, to pull off what this spell functionally does all by itself. And the spell does more than just that because it then grants an ally advantage on something else.
So the functionality of the sorc, a core functionality, is better performed by a spell they (and basically anyone) can take now.
If you still take Heighten Spell instead of silvery barbs you've now made a mathematical error in character building. Silvery barbs is just straight up superior. Now... for those paying closer attention, you could, if you liked, actually take both. The fabled triple disadvantage is now at your fingertips. Why even have enemies roll saves amirite?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I mean, that's patently false. I like Silvery Barbs better overall, but Silvery Barbs isn't strictly superior to Heightened Spell. Heightened Spell has multiple advantages, two big ones being action economy and Spells Known Tax. Its absurd to call it a mathematical error to choose otherwise, even if its the overall better option.
Your SP -> Spell slot conversion is also an odd comparison. Converting spell slots to SP is intentionally inefficient. Why use that as a baseline when Sorcerers start with a pool of SP?
So it is true that shield gets less effective as CR Increases which increases average attack bonus? I am not sure where that is misleading...
I am not sure where you are getting your math but if you have an 16 AC (which is +3 to dex on a point buy and mage armor always) then shield makes you have an AC 21 likely well into T2....
If you increase DEX at level 12 (you shouldn't...take resilient CON instead) then you are looking at AC 22.
With CR Increases so does average attack bonus: FsaN6rH.png (775×607) (imgur.com)
With a +5 to hit three attacks:
With a +8 to hit three attacks:
With a +11 three attacks
Source: Can I Hit This?
I am not seeing where this is misleading...your ability to avoid all hits is worse with the same spell slot use....If you take at least one hit you have a chance of dropping that CON spell (especially if you decide to go with AC over CON resilient). It is straight up diminishing returns.
I am not saying barbs is BETTER at preventing attacks than Shield...in fact its much worse. The only time I would use Barbs instead of shield is when the creature rolled a natural 20 on the first swing.
But that doesn't change the fact that its factually true that shield gets worse as CR increases.