Quote from WilburSnakespear >>

The world-building is an uninspired rip-off from Harry Potter. It didn't deliver any promises about being a sourcebook. Silvery Barbs is quite an unbalanced spell.

I dunno about Harry Potter rip-off, I find the setting feels very different and there is way more distinction between the colleges and various clubs etc. than the pointless houses in Harry Potter. It seems to have a lot of content, though I've avoid spoilers for later in the campaign (it seems quite loose as far as campaigns go, DM additions seem encouraged).

I do agree about Silvery Barbs though, that spell would be broken as hell even at 2nd level (like the other signature spells) but at 1st it's insane. I've homebrewed a more balanced version that I think still works well at 1st-level.

But that's more of a broader problem on WotC not pushing back the release; for Strixhaven they originally had unique sub-classes for each college, and while those had their problems, instead of fixing them they abandoned the idea entirely with not nearly enough time to properly playtest the new backgrounds and signature spells they opted for instead. They really needed a second round in UA to actually get feedback.

I haven't heard any similar complaints about Candlekeep Mysteries though, and Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel sounds a lot more along those lines.

Perhaps I was just wanting too much. You always want another Tasha's that will expand the rules of the game, and not something underwhelming.

Quote from WilburSnakespear >>

Perhaps I was just wanting too much. You always want another Tasha's that will expand the rules of the game, and not something underwhelming.

 Not every book is a rulebook.  Sometimes people want settings or adventures. This book is for those people.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from WilburSnakespear >>

The world-building is an uninspired rip-off from Harry Potter. It didn't deliver any promises about being a sourcebook. Silvery Barbs is quite an unbalanced spell.

I dunno about Harry Potter rip-off, I find the setting feels very different and there is way more distinction between the colleges and various clubs etc. than the pointless houses in Harry Potter. It seems to have a lot of content, though I've avoid spoilers for later in the campaign (it seems quite loose as far as campaigns go, DM additions seem encouraged).

I do agree about Silvery Barbs though, that spell would be broken as hell even at 2nd level (like the other signature spells) but at 1st it's insane. I've homebrewed a more balanced version that I think still works well at 1st-level.

But that's more of a broader problem on WotC not pushing back the release; for Strixhaven they originally had unique sub-classes for each college, and while those had their problems, instead of fixing them they abandoned the idea entirely with not nearly enough time to properly playtest the new backgrounds and signature spells they opted for instead. They really needed a second round in UA to actually get feedback.

I haven't heard any similar complaints about Candlekeep Mysteries though, and Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel sounds a lot more along those lines.

 
I think silvery barbs is about the same power level or less than shield. 

As for world building, Harry potter has an issue of shooting itself in the foot constantly. There is allot of weirdness with how those books address, wizard supremacy, magic,  the economy and races.  Strixhaven is comparatively allot neater but because it has allot less text is also has less concepts and detail to work with.  The problem with MTG settings is they are split between the cards and DND books so  it's easy to miss that in strixhaven's world the dragons actually used to ban magic and use the school to control its use, that there was a great war called the age of blood and the oriq actually aim primarily to obtain public access to the universities archive.  You also don't get the  details of the arguably more interesting story where the Oriq leader successfully  summons the blood avatar.  

I don't think there are any real issues with the world of strixhaven I just think the book fails to capture it and it's because its a weird mix of adventure and setting. 

Quote from Solarsyphon >>

I think silvery barbs is about the same power level or less than shield.

Unfortunately it's not; it's much, much stronger.

Used purely defensively in the same way as shield, silvery barbs isn't giving you a flat boost to turn a hit into a miss, it's forcing the entire attack to be re-rolled, and it can do this even if the attack was a critical hit (which shield cannot defeat). If it was merely imposing disadvantage its strength would be similar, as disadvantage is equivalent to -5 to hit, so broadly similar to +5 to AC, but it's not; silvery barbs applies super disadvantage in the same manner as the Lucky feat, but without the gamble of not yet knowing the result.

While it does have a limited range (unlike shield), you can use silvery barbs to defend creatures other than yourself, so even as just defensive spell it's more versatile than shield as it's both defensive and protective (of others). So already silvery barbs is generally better at the one thing that shield is for (stopping enemies from dealing damage); it would be a bad spell to release even if we stopped there, as it would be devaluing shield, if not rendering it obsolete.

But on top of that you can use it to brute force opposed ability checks by forcing your opponent to roll with disadvantage; if that was all the spell could do that would still be a valuable effect for a 1st-level spell. And again it's doing this with super disadvantage; you're not simply imposing disadvantage, you're forcing your opponent to re-roll only if they succeed the first time.

And on top of that you can also apply it to saves which is what makes it even more broken; you can cast dominate monster against an enemy, and if they pass the save you can immediately counter with silvery barbs as a reaction to force them to re-roll it. The ability to force regular disadvantage on saves is an ability formerly limited to higher level magic items and certain higher level class abilities, but with a 1st-level spell you can apply super disadvantage to any saving throw you or an ally forces an enemy to make (and only if they pass it). Compare this to bane which must speculatively apply a comparatively measly d4 penalty to enemies who might make a saving throw in a future turn (since you have to spend your action to do that). And even worse, with this being super disadvantage you're forcing a re-roll of a save even if the creature passed it using a legendary resistance; you've got a 1st-level spell that can force legendary creatures to either fail saves or burn two of their limited (usually three) legendary resistances in a single turn.

Then that's not even the end of it, because you can also grant someone else advantage.

The spell is easily one of the most broken that Wizards of the Coast has ever released, as for an optimised build there is literally no reason to ever not take it as one of your 1st-level spell choices on literally any character that can take it or somehow get it via feats etc.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Solarsyphon >>

I think silvery barbs is about the same power level or less than shield.

Unfortunately it's not; it's much, much stronger.

 And even worse, with this being super disadvantage you're forcing a re-roll of a save even if the creature passed it using a legendary resistance; you've got a 1st-level spell that can force legendary creatures to either fail saves or burn two of their limited (usually three) legendary resistances in a single turn.

Then that's not even the end of it, because you can also grant someone else advantage.

The spell is easily one of the most broken that Wizards of the Coast has ever released, as for an optimised build there is literally no reason to ever not take it as one of your 1st-level spell choices on literally any character that can take it or somehow get it via feats etc.

 This part isn't true.  They would roll, fail, use Legendary, get Barb'd &  roll again, and then no matter what, still pass because of Legendary.  Because Legendary isn't "You roll a 20.", it's "You pass."  A million re-rolled 1s later, they still pass.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Solarsyphon >>

I think silvery barbs is about the same power level or less than shield.

Unfortunately it's not; it's much, much stronger.

Used purely defensively in the same way as shield, silvery barbs isn't giving you a flat boost to turn a hit into a miss, it's forcing the entire attack to be re-rolled, and it can do this even if the attack was a critical hit (which shield cannot defeat). If it was merely imposing disadvantage its strength would be similar, as disadvantage is equivalent to -5 to hit, so broadly similar to +5 to AC, but it's not; silvery barbs applies super disadvantage in the same manner as the Lucky feat, but without the gamble of not yet knowing the result.

While it does have a limited range (unlike shield), you can use silvery barbs to defend creatures other than yourself, so even as just defensive spell it's more versatile than shield as it's both defensive and protective (of others). So already silvery barbs is generally better at the one thing that shield is for (stopping enemies from dealing damage); it would be a bad spell to release even if we stopped there, as it would be devaluing shield, if not rendering it obsolete.

But on top of that you can use it to brute force opposed ability checks by forcing your opponent to roll with disadvantage; if that was all the spell could do that would still be a valuable effect for a 1st-level spell. And again it's doing this with super disadvantage; you're not simply imposing disadvantage, you're forcing your opponent to re-roll only if they succeed the first time.

And on top of that you can also apply it to saves which is what makes it even more broken; you can cast dominate monster against an enemy, and if they pass the save you can immediately counter with silvery barbs as a reaction to force them to re-roll it. The ability to force regular disadvantage on saves is an ability formerly limited to higher level magic items and certain higher level class abilities, but with a 1st-level spell you can apply super disadvantage to any saving throw you or an ally forces an enemy to make (and only if they pass it). Compare this to bane which must speculatively apply a comparatively measly d4 penalty to enemies who might make a saving throw in a future turn (since you have to spend your action to do that). And even worse, with this being super disadvantage you're forcing a re-roll of a save even if the creature passed it using a legendary resistance; you've got a 1st-level spell that can force legendary creatures to either fail saves or burn two of their limited (usually three) legendary resistances in a single turn.

Then that's not even the end of it, because you can also grant someone else advantage.

The spell is easily one of the most broken that Wizards of the Coast has ever released, as for an optimised build there is literally no reason to ever not take it as one of your 1st-level spell choices on literally any character that can take it or somehow get it via feats etc.

I've done the math and it depends what the difference between the monsters attack modifier and AC but silvery barbs only on average has a very minor edge over shield when the difference is between 6 and 14 and when I say minor I'm talking less than 0.01 in effective ac so we may as well call them the same. This however is a very rare circumstance. If you take into account that shield blocks multiple attacks and that the number of attacks and attack bonus increase with level, shield scales allot better than silvery barbs. Its basically a greater average increase to your ac that applies more often  so they way you should be thinking about this is like having the effect of vicious mockery every round to to wearing plate. Even if the disadvantage from vicious mockery also reduces your chance to be hit in a comparable way, in the long term that heavy plate will protect you allot more. Even this comparison is unfair to shield because the difference between  plate and [/spell]mage armor[/spell] is smaller than what shield gives you. Preparing shield will just on average reduce the damage you take more.

Now to be fair to silvery barbs it  is more versatile, it does have  a wider range of use but it is not better in terms of spell slot economy than similar spells like bane. The effect of silvery bars will on a single target increase the chance of them failing more than bane in almost all circumstances but again this is unfair to bane which extends well beyond that effect. As a quick list of the advantages of bane
1) it applies to everything in a minute
2) it applies to more than just saves
3) it stacks with disadvantage
4) it effects multiple targets.
Ultimately bane is a more economical and effective use of your first level slot unless you have one spell in particular on one target you need to hit.  The main advantage that silvery barbs has is that bane is likely not better than other concentration spells and so in that case you wouldn't use bane  and silvery barbs scales better but if you had only 1 slot to use for bane or silvery barbs, the best choice would be bane almost every time. 

Finally the notion of super disadvantage is kind of weird. Yes, having more information changes the probability of a single decision but if you average out the situation it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't actually increase the number of times silvery barbs prevents a hit, instead it reduces the number of times you used silvery barbs when you didn't need to, basically it improves spell slot economy not it's power. 

Quote from Solarsyphon>>

I've done the math and it depends what the difference between the monsters attack modifier and AC but silvery barbs only on average has a very minor edge over shield

And you don't see the problem with that? Shield is exclusively for personal defence, and even if it's still better at it overall, Silvery Barbs is very nearly as good at it, and can be applied to allies as well. In that respect it's a Lore Bard's Cutting Words on steroids, available to anyone that can take it. A versatility spell should not be nearly as good or even better than a specialised spell, and it definitely should not excel as a replacement to multiple spells at once.

And this is the worst use of the spell, and yet it's frequently going to be as good as a spell whose sole purpose is to protect you.

if you had only 1 slot to use for bane or silvery barbs, the best choice would be bane almost every time. 

In practical terms bane is only likely to apply to a handful of rolls at most, and it doesn't have the same ability to ensure a key spell succeeds; what's more it requires your action to cast it, which means effectively losing your first turn if you can't set it up in advance. Silvery barbs is a reaction, so you can almost always cast it when you need to push something to fail, and you only need to cast it when you know something did succeed.

Finally the notion of super disadvantage is kind of weird. Yes, having more information changes the probability of a single decision but if you average out the situation it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't actually increase the number of times silvery barbs prevents a hit, instead it reduces the number of times you used silvery barbs when you didn't need to, basically it improves spell slot economy not it's power. 

That is improving its power; many spells that it overlaps with are gambles. You might bane a target only for it to then never suffer the penalty, or for the penalty to not actually matter, or for you to lose your concentration (which bane occupies, but silvery barbs doesn't). You might trigger shield against one attack only for it to not be enough because the roll was so good (or a critical hit) and/or nothing else attacks you (no benefit to it potentially affecting more than one attack) and so-on. These are uncertainties that silvery barbs simply doesn't have; while the enemy could roll well for a second (or third) time, you only cast it when you know it succeed, and you will always get at least that chance of forcing it to fail (knowing that it's possible).

You're also ignoring the spell choice economy; for a single spell you're getting the benefits of shield, bane, bless, enhance ability and more, while remaining free to also take some of those if you want to. All in an easy to use, and easy to stack, reaction spell that can be used both for yourself and allies, and lets you maximise the effectiveness of multiple other spells in the party. It goes way, way beyond broken as for optimising there is literally never a reason not to take this spell if you can. Not one. Because it is never preventing you from taking something better when it's giving you 4+ spells you may not even otherwise be able to take.

You've also completely ignored just how powerful super disadvantage is; once again, it overrides critical hits and legendary resistances using only a 1st-level spell slot, it is statistically much better than regular disadvantage, and it is utterly, utterly broken for a 1st-level spell. Every other college's signature spell is 2nd-level and reasonably balanced; silvery barbs would still be broken even at that level.

And you've also ignored that it also lets you apply a buff to an ally; while a 1st-level spell that only gave an ally advantage once would be underpowered, this is an added benefit on top of what is already now one of the strongest, most versatile, easiest to use 1st-level spells in the game.

But this is entirely off-topic for Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, feel free to continue it on the Silvery Barbs spell page comments, though you won't find my opinion is going to be easily changed on what is objectively one of the most broken spells ever released.

this sounds so fun

Quote from theonly1intown >>

Jaeken
Posted Mar 22, 2022

"This may sound wierd, but could we get a page count of the book, either in the pre-order announcement, the Marketplace, or both?  Am I paying $29.99 for 13 1 page adventures sketched on a napkin at 3 in the morning, 13 adventures each worthy of being a J. R. R. Tolkien novel, or something in between?"

 

"Also, I hope they add a few new ways to get to the Ethereal Plane, especially for non-casters & low level characters"

agreed, the only way i ever entered the ethereal plane, was being killed by a mini star in icewind dale rime of the frostmaiden, which would be difficult to replicate (also with a bit of risk, warning you can not do it on your own you need someone to pull you back, three of us died and were briefly sent to the ethereal plane). also, how do you quote stuff without copy and pasting as i did here?

 Click the Quote option on the bottom right edge of the message you want to quote.

Strixhaven sucks unless you have a very roleplay-heavy group, and nearly every encounter (the entirety of the first chapter and a half) is barebones and formulaic. It only starts to pick up in the latter half, and by then it's nearly over. I don't deny that it's very creative, but having a 1 yr time skip FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES is really just showing of bad writing. You play in game for around a month, and it expects DMs to fill in the rest. This is coming from someone who has DM'ed group for 6 months in strixhaven, and finished the module.

The fundamental problem with Strixhaven is that it is a sourcebook that is eighty percent a barebones, rather railroady adventure. It presents mystery elements like the star arches and the snarls, which have a high probability of drawing PC investigation, without even providing prompts for what they might be or how they might work. If I tell my players that there is a magical tangle in the library, I know for a fact that we have at most two sessions before someone shoots a firebolt through it to see what happens and at that point, I'm busking. If I tell them the campus is full of mysterious levitating arches, ain't no-one playing mage tower when they could be poking those things wi' a stick.

Quote from OldMightyFriendlyGamer >>

Could have gone and done Sigil - City of Doors..... 

 The book is more about the stuff outside of the radiant citadel. If you include the companion on dm's guild I'd say that there's actually 13 different setting in here that get about the same amount of info as the radiant citadel does.  If you got a sigil focused book and it was set up like this one I think you'd be disappointed because it wouldn't bee an adventure in sigil but rather a book about places you could get to from sigil.  Think candlekeep mysteries. 

So no they probably couldn't have gone sigil city of doors. At least not in a way that would make the people asking for it happy. 

Quote from Solarsyphon >>

Quote from OldMightyFriendlyGamer >>

Could have gone and done Sigil - City of Doors..... 

 The book is more about the stuff outside of the radiant citadel. If you include the companion on dm's guild I'd say that there's actually 13 different setting in here that get about the same amount of info as the radiant citadel does.  If you got a sigil focused book and it was set up like this one I think you'd be disappointed because it wouldn't bee an adventure in sigil but rather a book about places you could get to from sigil.  Think candlekeep mysteries. 

So no they probably couldn't have gone sigil city of doors. At least not in a way that would make the people asking for it happy. 

 Just my 2 cents, but I'd have preferred 2 books released as a set.  One full setting book about the Citadel, and a second adventure book with the adventures a little more fleshed out & a little more Gazetteer description.  If one or more settings is popular, then it can get it's own full setting book next year (maybe on DM's Guild).

Quote from Jaeken >>

Quote from Solarsyphon >>

Quote from OldMightyFriendlyGamer >>

Could have gone and done Sigil - City of Doors..... 

 The book is more about the stuff outside of the radiant citadel. If you include the companion on dm's guild I'd say that there's actually 13 different setting in here that get about the same amount of info as the radiant citadel does.  If you got a sigil focused book and it was set up like this one I think you'd be disappointed because it wouldn't bee an adventure in sigil but rather a book about places you could get to from sigil.  Think candlekeep mysteries. 

So no they probably couldn't have gone sigil city of doors. At least not in a way that would make the people asking for it happy. 

 Just my 2 cents, but I'd have preferred 2 books released as a set.  One full setting book about the Citadel, and a second adventure book with the adventures a little more fleshed out & a little more Gazetteer description.  If one or more settings is popular, then it can get it's own full setting book next year (maybe on DM's Guild).

 Yeah, there are some compelling concepts in the citadel section but looking at the map its not very big compared to say Sigil or water deep.  The concept art makes it look allot bigger than the maps.  It's really quite intertwined with the other locations and I wonder if it is big enough to work on it's own as a full setting.

There was apparently an old concept that each of the concord jewels would also be  a mini city so a cool concept to expand it might be to give it some satellites that would definitely make it big enough. 

Looking to DM and how are you handling the first two adventures with leveling?  Salted Legacy has party level up (level 2) after completing market games... nothing at the end states to level up to 3.  I'll give party level 3 after Salted Legacy.. that’s not a big deal.. as it will have them at level 3 for Written in Blood.  However, having a party level mid-adventure seems like it will break the gameplay.  My idea is just giving two levels after Sated Legacy.  How are/did you handle there is no level 2 adventure?