How people can say Silvery Barbs isn't too much for a first level spell don't really realize what it can do....
It's chainable for one thing... So you can wait to see if the creature succeeds, then cast it, and if they succeed again another caster can use their reaction to force a second reroll.
Then on top of that you give an Ally ADV on attack/save/ability as well?
It's literally like Bardic inspiration but it's better because since it's a 1st level spell anyone can pick it up via feat or a dip very easily.
I agree with OptimusGrimus on the Silvery Barbs...
For a first level spell it does nearly the equivalent to 2 of the 3 dice rolls/ per day that the Lucky feat does, all in a single level 1 spell, in a single action.
-Make them (enemy) roll another dice if you don't like the first - lucky feat/ silvery barbs -Have an ally roll another dice (advantage) on something and use the better one- lucky feat/ silvery barbs -No save against it- lucky feat/ silvery barbs
Just imagine if you will for a moment... divination wizard, lucky feat, with silver barbs.... now start cringing for the next three weeks if you're a DM, go ahead and sell all your dice, the players will start rolling for you.
Well, sidestepping the sourcebook vs adventure topic....
I'm going to run a few players through the adventure presented and I'm going through the book and see the bits about relationships. If you have positive points with NPC's you get boons and if you have negative points then there's banes. They mostly just end up giving funny RP situations over the course of the adventure. However, there are a few boons and banes that will make the game just slightly easier or harder, and eventually certain bonds end up netting you a bless effect on certain rolls. I thought (as I was reading it) there would be some kind of give and take on these. Like you can't be friends with everyone, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's up to the players if they want to be friends with NPC's or not. So why (mechanically) would you ever voluntarily be on an NPC's bad side in this case? Did I miss something when reading through the relationships chapter? I may end up making things up if there's no real way to end up with enemies outside of choosing to be jerks to some NPC's.
I was about to say maybe it has to do with their motivations as a student...if they want to study history and another student is destroying books for target practice they may get very upset.
Or maybe a students inkling destroys one of their scrolls and refuses to apologize. NPC's can be jerks and if you just always take it then you aren't really holding to your characters ideals...
How people can say Silvery Barbs isn't too much for a first level spell don't really realize what it can do....
It's chainable for one thing... So you can wait to see if the creature succeeds, then cast it, and if they succeed again another caster can use their reaction to force a second reroll.
Then on top of that you give an Ally ADV on attack/save/ability as well?
It's literally like Bardic inspiration but it's better because since it's a 1st level spell anyone can pick it up via feat or a dip very easily.
Yeah no question that spell is rather broken. NO idea why especially the strongest one is the only with a lower level than the rest.
Because it's a limited resource (except if you have Spell Mastery) that's not going to break a game (even if you have Spell Mastery). Silvery Barbs might be strong relatively speaking compared to other spells or traits, but it is very limited in what it lets you do. Mechanically, I understand the power of the spell, the effective (indirect) bonuses and penalties, functionally letting you recast save-or-suck spells, yadda yadda yadda. But the spell begins and ends at a couple of rerolls.
At level 1, if given the choice for your party to start with either a wand of magic missiles or a wand of silvery barbs, which would you take? (Assume the wand of silvery barbs has 7 charges and regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the wand's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ashes and is destroyed. Just like the wand of magic missiles.) If you would take MM over SB at level 1, is there a level at which that would change?
Silvery Barbs' effectiveness is tied strongly to the action economy and its use will be limited by a desire for utility/variety. The more enemies attacking, the more attacks per round from the fighters, the less impactful it is in the fight. I find it hard to believe that EVERY level 1 spell slot is going to be reserved for Silvery Barbs, the same way I can't imagine ever ONLY casting Shield with my level 1 spell slots, from mechanical, RP, and player reasons, unless I have created a character focused on it. (For example, I could see a clockwork soul sorcerer focusing on silvery barbs, like how I could see a gish focusing on shield.)
I think there's a bit of magical thinking because of how versatile Silvery Barbs is that players will have all the potential effects all the time. But I think at the end of a session, Silvery Barbs might end up being used a couple times to force a couple rerolls and that the outcome of the adventuring day will be relatively similar with or without it. There's a difference between powerful and game-breaking, conflated and confused in the word overpowered.
I legitimately don’t understand where your sour view on it is coming from
My sour view is that this book clearly was designed with the idea that the 5 Unearthed Arcana multiple subclasses that could be used by multiple classes were going to be the central focus for the "sourcebook" status. When that failed due to abnormally high complaints (unbalancing issues, lack of synergy with bases classes, and lack of interest in some of the choices) rather than actual fill that exceptionally large gap with something new or tweaks on the subclasses we got left with a large hole.
That hole in the book was filled with very little: 2 feats, 5 spells, 8 new magic items (of which most are very similar), and a couple spell list backgrounds. These are nice, I like these things... but it doesn't make up for the fact that it is listed and was advertised as a SOURCEBOOK not an adventure book.
And up until now, correct me if I am wrong most/all source books (minus monster manual type books & the DM book) have at least 2 new subclass additions up to 23 subclass additions (Tasha's).
So what we are left with a is "source book" missing far too much of the actual meat required of a "source book" . I am left feeling like because things didn't work out with the UA they abandoned it and then never adequately made up for this large missing chunk that was needed in the book. Their solution to removing these subclass choices were 5 backgrounds with spell lists which to me shows a very minimal effort to make up for what was lost.
Without this core chunk it is almost entirely an adventure book but was not advertised as this. I am not knocking it for its subject, I am not knocking it for its monsters, or the spells, or the quests, or the background. I am knocking it because its clear that what we got was an incomplete book that was falsely advertised.
Subclasses do not a sourcebook make. A sourcebook is, "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." So, with that out of the way, the only relevant question is, "Does this book do that?" Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion, which is available both stand-alone and as part of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, is a sourcebook. It's also only 27 pages; cover to cover. It's not a lot, but it's enough to at least give DMs and players enough to immerse themselves into the setting.
We're talking about an academy with five schools. If you were expecting something as detailed as Explorer's Guide to Wildemount on the relative geography and makeup of each building then I think you were setting yourself up for disappointment. The subclasses from the UA were a mess. Nobody disputes this. The backgrounds, with their expanded spell lists, are akin to the guilds from Ravnica, another MTG sourcebook, and the Dragonmarks from Eberron. And it still works, so if it's not broken there's nothing to fix.
The "core chunk" of a sourcebook is not mechanical. Never has been and never will be. If there are mechanics, then great. But it's not necessary.
How people can say Silvery Barbs isn't too much for a first level spell don't really realize what it can do....
It's chainable for one thing... So you can wait to see if the creature succeeds, then cast it, and if they succeed again another caster can use their reaction to force a second reroll.
Then on top of that you give an Ally ADV on attack/save/ability as well?
It's literally like Bardic inspiration but it's better because since it's a 1st level spell anyone can pick it up via feat or a dip very easily.
Yeah no question that spell is rather broken. NO idea why especially the strongest one is the only with a lower level than the rest.
Because it's a limited resource (except if you have Spell Mastery) that's not going to break a game (even if you have Spell Mastery). Silvery Barbs might be strong relatively speaking compared to other spells or traits, but it is very limited in what it lets you do. Mechanically, I understand the power of the spell, the effective (indirect) bonuses and penalties, functionally letting you recast save-or-suck spells, yadda yadda yadda. But the spell begins and ends at a couple of rerolls.
At level 1, if given the choice for your party to start with either a wand of magic missiles or a wand of silvery barbs, which would you take? (Assume the wand of silvery barbs has 7 charges and regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the wand's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ashes and is destroyed. Just like the wand of magic missiles.) If you would take MM over SB at level 1, is there a level at which that would change?
Silvery Barbs' effectiveness is tied strongly to the action economy and its use will be limited by a desire for utility/variety. The more enemies attacking, the more attacks per round from the fighters, the less impactful it is in the fight. I find it hard to believe that EVERY level 1 spell slot is going to be reserved for Silvery Barbs, the same way I can't imagine ever ONLY casting Shield with my level 1 spell slots, from mechanical, RP, and player reasons, unless I have created a character focused on it. (For example, I could see a clockwork soul sorcerer focusing on silvery barbs, like how I could see a gish focusing on shield.)
I think there's a bit of magical thinking because of how versatile Silvery Barbs is that players will have all the potential effects all the time. But I think at the end of a session, Silvery Barbs might end up being used a couple times to force a couple rerolls and that the outcome of the adventuring day will be relatively similar with or without it. There's a difference between powerful and game-breaking, conflated and confused in the word overpowered.
Those few rolls can be incredibly impactful is the point...rarely do you get a tool that imparts a penalty on a save....for good reason.
If you fail a Polymorph save you are a fish or whatever for an hour with no real way to counter it. The issue is that that:
1. 1st level spells progressively get more and more likely to be burned during encounters as you progress.
2. Saves in general become increasingly more important and the more ways you can stack it against a target (Mind Sliver, Rune Knight, Silvery Barbs, Bane,) the more likely you create a failure state which can trivalize an encounter COMPLETELY and even change the face of your campaign.
3. You increasingly incur re-rolls which as a DM is annoying at best and down right derailing at worst.
4. It can chain....if everyone in the party has it you can force a bunch of rerolls on a single save with no real loss in action economy and basically ensure a failure on just about any important save. Since its a first level spell and literally you get a free feat that is basically Magic Initiate+ you can pick it up for 0 cost up front regardless of your build.
Just imagine if you will for a moment... divination wizard, lucky feat, with silver barbs.... now start cringing for the next three weeks if you're a DM, go ahead and sell all your dice, the players will start rolling for you.
Play a halfing with all their racial reroll feats and BOOM, now you're the DM
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 legitimately don’t understand where your sour view on it is coming from
My sour view is that this book clearly was designed with the idea that the 5 Unearthed Arcana multiple subclasses that could be used by multiple classes were going to be the central focus for the "sourcebook" status. When that failed due to abnormally high complaints (unbalancing issues, lack of synergy with bases classes, and lack of interest in some of the choices) rather than actual fill that exceptionally large gap with something new or tweaks on the subclasses we got left with a large hole.
That hole in the book was filled with very little: 2 feats, 5 spells, 8 new magic items (of which most are very similar), and a couple spell list backgrounds. These are nice, I like these things... but it doesn't make up for the fact that it is listed and was advertised as a SOURCEBOOK not an adventure book.
And up until now, correct me if I am wrong most/all source books (minus monster manual type books & the DM book) have at least 2 new subclass additions up to 23 subclass additions (Tasha's).
So what we are left with a is "source book" missing far too much of the actual meat required of a "source book" . I am left feeling like because things didn't work out with the UA they abandoned it and then never adequately made up for this large missing chunk that was needed in the book. Their solution to removing these subclass choices were 5 backgrounds with spell lists which to me shows a very minimal effort to make up for what was lost.
Without this core chunk it is almost entirely an adventure book but was not advertised as this. I am not knocking it for its subject, I am not knocking it for its monsters, or the spells, or the quests, or the background. I am knocking it because its clear that what we got was an incomplete book that was falsely advertised.
Subclasses do not a sourcebook make. A sourcebook is, "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." So, with that out of the way, the only relevant question is, "Does this book do that?" Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion, which is available both stand-alone and as part of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, is a sourcebook. It's also only 27 pages; cover to cover. It's not a lot, but it's enough to at least give DMs and players enough to immerse themselves into the setting.
We're talking about an academy with five schools. If you were expecting something as detailed as Explorer's Guide to Wildemount on the relative geography and makeup of each building then I think you were setting yourself up for disappointment. The subclasses from the UA were a mess. Nobody disputes this. The backgrounds, with their expanded spell lists, are akin to the guilds from Ravnica, another MTG sourcebook, and the Dragonmarks from Eberron. And it still works, so if it's not broken there's nothing to fix.
The "core chunk" of a sourcebook is not mechanical. Never has been and never will be. If there are mechanics, then great. But it's not necessary.
Your argument is moot, I never said that subclasses make a source book, though most of the actual sourcebooks have at least 2 new subclasses. I am stating that the book was clearly designed with having a large chunk of the book dedicated to these missing subclasses which would have helped it lean more toward a sourcebook. I am stating that the spell list backgrounds were a clear poor lack of effort to fill this large hole.
Using Waterdeep as an example of a sourcebook when its clearly not and isn't even listed as thus is also a faulty argument and to be frank I don't even know why you're using a listed adventure as a defense of how a sourcebook should be setup.
Your argument "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." is so vague that it could literally apply to every adventure book made, every D&D book made. This distinction eliminates any and all differentiation between all the books. They all are over some particular subject, made with a collection of writings. Whether Decent into Avernus (adventure book) is a particular subject on Avernus & Tasha's Guide (sourcebook) is a particular subject on character creation options both fit into your vague false definition.
I also never said that the "core chunk" of a sourcebook is mechanical (which I am guessing is what you are classifying classify character creation choices), though usually 1/4 to 1/5 of it is...
....I will say that that core chunk of a sourcebook has never been a fully laid out walk through adventure, never has been, never will be. And that is why this book is an adventure book that was misadvertised as a sourcebook.
I get the feeling justifying what a sourcebook is will be difficult. I think it’s more helpful to define at what point a sourcebook becomes and adventure. It’s not if there is a single quest. But I think once it’s over a certain percent then it becomes one by default
I legitimately don’t understand where your sour view on it is coming from
My sour view is that this book clearly was designed with the idea that the 5 Unearthed Arcana multiple subclasses that could be used by multiple classes were going to be the central focus for the "sourcebook" status. When that failed due to abnormally high complaints (unbalancing issues, lack of synergy with bases classes, and lack of interest in some of the choices) rather than actual fill that exceptionally large gap with something new or tweaks on the subclasses we got left with a large hole.
That hole in the book was filled with very little: 2 feats, 5 spells, 8 new magic items (of which most are very similar), and a couple spell list backgrounds. These are nice, I like these things... but it doesn't make up for the fact that it is listed and was advertised as a SOURCEBOOK not an adventure book.
And up until now, correct me if I am wrong most/all source books (minus monster manual type books & the DM book) have at least 2 new subclass additions up to 23 subclass additions (Tasha's).
So what we are left with a is "source book" missing far too much of the actual meat required of a "source book" . I am left feeling like because things didn't work out with the UA they abandoned it and then never adequately made up for this large missing chunk that was needed in the book. Their solution to removing these subclass choices were 5 backgrounds with spell lists which to me shows a very minimal effort to make up for what was lost.
Without this core chunk it is almost entirely an adventure book but was not advertised as this. I am not knocking it for its subject, I am not knocking it for its monsters, or the spells, or the quests, or the background. I am knocking it because its clear that what we got was an incomplete book that was falsely advertised.
Subclasses do not a sourcebook make. A sourcebook is, "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." So, with that out of the way, the only relevant question is, "Does this book do that?" Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion, which is available both stand-alone and as part of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, is a sourcebook. It's also only 27 pages; cover to cover. It's not a lot, but it's enough to at least give DMs and players enough to immerse themselves into the setting.
We're talking about an academy with five schools. If you were expecting something as detailed as Explorer's Guide to Wildemount on the relative geography and makeup of each building then I think you were setting yourself up for disappointment. The subclasses from the UA were a mess. Nobody disputes this. The backgrounds, with their expanded spell lists, are akin to the guilds from Ravnica, another MTG sourcebook, and the Dragonmarks from Eberron. And it still works, so if it's not broken there's nothing to fix.
The "core chunk" of a sourcebook is not mechanical. Never has been and never will be. If there are mechanics, then great. But it's not necessary.
Your argument is moot, I never said that subclasses make a source book, though most of the actual sourcebooks have at least 2 new subclasses. I am stating that the book was clearly designed with having a large chunk of the book dedicated to these missing subclasses which would have helped it lean more toward a sourcebook. I am stating that the spell list backgrounds were a clear poor lack of effort to fill this large hole.
Using Waterdeep as an example of a sourcebook when its clearly not and isn't even listed as thus is also a faulty argument and to be frank I don't even know why you're using a listed adventure as a defense of how a sourcebook should be setup.
Your argument "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." is so vague that it could literally apply to every adventure book made, every D&D book made. This distinction eliminates any and all differentiation between all the books. They all are over some particular subject, made with a collection of writings. Whether Decent into Avernus (adventure book) is a particular subject on Avernus & Tasha's Guide (sourcebook) is a particular subject on character creation options both fit into your vague false definition.
I also never said that the "core chunk" of a sourcebook is mechanical (which I am guessing is what you are classifying classify character creation choices), though usually 1/4 to 1/5 of it is...
....I will say that that core chunk of a sourcebook has never been a fully laid out walk through adventure, never has been, never will be. And that is why this book is an adventure book that was misadvertised as a sourcebook.
You repeat faulty claims; like how the rejected subclasses were just removed and there's this giant void where they should be. No, they were replaced with the backgrounds. Which is actually better since this creates options for more classes to fully immerse themselves into the setting. You can't prove there's this massive hole in the book, so stop claiming there is one.
Don't like my definition? Well, guess what, it's not mine. I pulled it from a dictionary. If you don't find it helpful, that's on you. Come up with a better one. And I didn't list the entirety of WDH as a sourcebook. I only listed 27 pages. [REDACTED]
The only "core chunk" you've alluded to are the allegedly missing subclasses that were replaced with something else. If you meant something else, then you have been communicating your point so ineffectively that no reasonable person can discern your true intent. And those subclasses are mechanical options.
Lastly, if you think it was wrongfully advertised as a sourcebook then take it up with D&D Beyond and its listing. WotC hasn't been advertising it as a sourcebook. But, honestly, I think you're just quibbling.
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
So glad I looked through this book before falling for the completionist compulsion in me and actually purchasing it. It looks and feels like a modern Marvel comic. 'Nuff said.
I'm going to chalk it up to the intended content and hope it won't be a trend into whatever comes next. But this book is for a niche within a niche group of a niche hobby. It will be interesting to see how it does as they've excluded one portion of the audience by making it in a sub setting of the MTG universe (albeit more readily adaptable to Ferun or other D&D setting than Ravnica was), but most anyone I know past college age would have 0 interest in this. If it sells well, good on WotC. But I have a feeling it will be in the bottom tier for sure. Case in point I am seeing the pre-order pricing on some platforms such as Roll20 being extended after release which I have never seen.
We're hitting the Power Creep singularity. You thought Hexblade was bad? Well it's in, Tasha's ramped that up, and now no one designing these modules has any idea what range they actually need to hit in. They can't force the existing books to nerf, so they just get dragged along into this escalation.
I don't have Strixhaven, but here's why I'm not getting it:
I'm not a Harry Potter Fan. Look, the first 3 books were fun, but the universe has massive game design problems built into the core, and anyone trying to simulate that "vibe" wont be able to do so without making things similarly broken. Don't try to deny the massive influence this is clearly trying to homage, if not outright crib.
It's setting dependent and restrictive. Look I get that you TECHNICALLY could be some other class, and use the background to still have some magic to work with, but the setting is a bunch of magic schools. That's not a SOURCE book, that's an adventure module. Everything you'd take from this books is setting dependent and makes no sense to let people have without specifically playing a game set in that specific place, usually with classes that are geared to support it.
Silvery Barbs - Even without the Legendary Resistance RAW interpretation snafu (Sure, not RAI, but RAW phrasing clearly doesn't convey those intentions) the spell is still massively broken. Nothing on that powerscale should be functional without some sort of save against the effect, and definitely not at first level. This needs errata'd to a) make it require the target to "ROLL a successful attack roll/ability check/saving throw" to get rid of the Legendary Resistance interpretation, and b) allow the target to make some sort of saving throw to at least avoid the initial effect, and c) bonus action to cast, which then grants 1-5(not sure where the balance would be) rounds where AR/AC/ST can be forced low reroll as a reaction, preventing this from being self-combined with heavy hitting spells, but allowing teamwork to produce the same effect. (and as a first level spell, it could be worth taking magic initiate for, but that would only be one use per long rest)
The sour view is that the book was marketed, classified, and sold as a "Sourcebook". Sourcebooks are supposed to be generalized information, useful for anyone playing any adventure in the setting the sourcebook describes. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a sourcebook - it has tons of information about the setting it details, gives lots of background and world lore, and empowers a DM to create whatever adventure they wish in the world while giving players the information they need to make characters grounded in the setting.
Strixhaven has two short chapters dedicated to basic introductory material, and then spends the entire rest of its page count on one single adventure chain. Once you've played that adventure chain, the Strixhaven book becomes worthless. It does not empower a DM to create whatever adventures they wish in Discount Color Warz Harry Potter; it spoon-feeds a DM the one single adventure in the book und zat is it. If you like that adventure? Great! Awesome! Enjoy! But the books that spoon-feed a DM a single rigid, fixed, unbending adventure and which players are supposed to avoid reading at all costs are called "Adventure Books". Not "Sourcebooks". That distinction was abused here to sell more copies of Strixhaven than would have been sold had it been properly classified as an Adventure, and people who bought the thing thinking they were getting a sourcebook only to receive an adventure instead are justifiably salty about that.
It's very comparable to Wild Beyond the Witchlight, which Wizards also tried to panhandle off as a 'Sourcebook on the Feywild!", save that Wizards correctly classified Witchlight as an Adventure. Which meant people knew what they were getting when they purchased it and discovered it had almost no useful worldbuilding/adventure building lore but was instead almost nothing but a single, one-and-done rigid adventure. Satisfaction for Witchlight purchasers was high, but Wizards didn't care for the number of people who purchased Witchlight, so....here we are.
I agree. Strixhaven is an adventure. However, this is D&D Beyond's classification fault - https://dnd.wizards.com/products/strixhaven-curriculum-chaos says the book is about "rollicking campus adventures", and everyone's best friend J Crawford (doesn't deserve his bad reputation, but here goes) said "this book is primarily an adventure" so many times in streams it was hard not to know about.
I love Strixhaven so far. And as for Silvery Barbs, I just won’t use it. I actually haven’t read the adventure part yet, but I really like the setting. I love the Relationship system (though there’s no way to simulate the very common situation where people start dating without even being friends first, or the almost as common situation where rivals fall for each other, but those are small things I can easily fix). And I like adventure books in general, so I’m deliriously happy 😊. If you guys wanna discuss I’d love to.
I legitimately don’t understand where your sour view on it is coming from
My sour view is that this book clearly was designed with the idea that the 5 Unearthed Arcana multiple subclasses that could be used by multiple classes were going to be the central focus for the "sourcebook" status. When that failed due to abnormally high complaints (unbalancing issues, lack of synergy with bases classes, and lack of interest in some of the choices) rather than actual fill that exceptionally large gap with something new or tweaks on the subclasses we got left with a large hole.
That hole in the book was filled with very little: 2 feats, 5 spells, 8 new magic items (of which most are very similar), and a couple spell list backgrounds. These are nice, I like these things... but it doesn't make up for the fact that it is listed and was advertised as a SOURCEBOOK not an adventure book.
And up until now, correct me if I am wrong most/all source books (minus monster manual type books & the DM book) have at least 2 new subclass additions up to 23 subclass additions (Tasha's).
So what we are left with a is "source book" missing far too much of the actual meat required of a "source book" . I am left feeling like because things didn't work out with the UA they abandoned it and then never adequately made up for this large missing chunk that was needed in the book. Their solution to removing these subclass choices were 5 backgrounds with spell lists which to me shows a very minimal effort to make up for what was lost.
Without this core chunk it is almost entirely an adventure book but was not advertised as this. I am not knocking it for its subject, I am not knocking it for its monsters, or the spells, or the quests, or the background. I am knocking it because its clear that what we got was an incomplete book that was falsely advertised.
Subclasses do not a sourcebook make. A sourcebook is, "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." So, with that out of the way, the only relevant question is, "Does this book do that?" Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion, which is available both stand-alone and as part of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, is a sourcebook. It's also only 27 pages; cover to cover. It's not a lot, but it's enough to at least give DMs and players enough to immerse themselves into the setting.
We're talking about an academy with five schools. If you were expecting something as detailed as Explorer's Guide to Wildemount on the relative geography and makeup of each building then I think you were setting yourself up for disappointment. The subclasses from the UA were a mess. Nobody disputes this. The backgrounds, with their expanded spell lists, are akin to the guilds from Ravnica, another MTG sourcebook, and the Dragonmarks from Eberron. And it still works, so if it's not broken there's nothing to fix.
The "core chunk" of a sourcebook is not mechanical. Never has been and never will be. If there are mechanics, then great. But it's not necessary.
Your argument is moot, I never said that subclasses make a source book, though most of the actual sourcebooks have at least 2 new subclasses. I am stating that the book was clearly designed with having a large chunk of the book dedicated to these missing subclasses which would have helped it lean more toward a sourcebook. I am stating that the spell list backgrounds were a clear poor lack of effort to fill this large hole.
Using Waterdeep as an example of a sourcebook when its clearly not and isn't even listed as thus is also a faulty argument and to be frank I don't even know why you're using a listed adventure as a defense of how a sourcebook should be setup.
Your argument "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." is so vague that it could literally apply to every adventure book made, every D&D book made. This distinction eliminates any and all differentiation between all the books. They all are over some particular subject, made with a collection of writings. Whether Decent into Avernus (adventure book) is a particular subject on Avernus & Tasha's Guide (sourcebook) is a particular subject on character creation options both fit into your vague false definition.
I also never said that the "core chunk" of a sourcebook is mechanical (which I am guessing is what you are classifying classify character creation choices), though usually 1/4 to 1/5 of it is...
....I will say that that core chunk of a sourcebook has never been a fully laid out walk through adventure, never has been, never will be. And that is why this book is an adventure book that was misadvertised as a sourcebook.
You repeat faulty claims; like how the rejected subclasses were just removed and there's this giant void where they should be. No, they were replaced with the backgrounds. Which is actually better since this creates options for more classes to fully immerse themselves into the setting. You can't prove there's this massive hole in the book, so stop claiming there is one.
Don't like my definition? Well, guess what, it's not mine. I pulled it from a dictionary. If you don't find it helpful, that's on you. Come up with a better one. And I didn't list the entirety of WDH as a sourcebook. I only listed 27 pages. [REDACTED]
The only "core chunk" you've alluded to are the allegedly missing subclasses that were replaced with something else. If you meant something else, then you have been communicating your point so ineffectively that no reasonable person can discern your true intent. And those subclasses are mechanical options.
Lastly, if you think it was wrongfully advertised as a sourcebook then take it up with D&D Beyond and its listing. WotC hasn't been advertising it as a sourcebook. But, honestly, I think you're just quibbling.
I had a whole thing written up but this has just devolved into each of us attacking each other in an internet arguement and that's not productive.
I got on here to voice my concern that I think that this was misadvertised, that I feel their process of subclass review from the community with too little time to correct it does not work, and the fact that this last book was far from the quality I've come to expect from the company. Generally they do a decent job of listening to our suggestions and remarks on their products and it is my hope they will see the large amount of displeasure from the community surrounding how this book turned out.
I am not attacking D&D, I own all of the books and generally love the material presented. I played Magic the Gathering for many years and generally love the material presented. I do not like, enjoy, or agree with how this book turned out and so I've presented my reasons why with evidence.
So I have to ask why the need to jump on here and attack me? You don't work for the company, I get that you enjoy the book and that you think its fine. Great! I am glad you enjoy the product, really I am. I wish I could but I don't. I don't understand why me pointing out the flaws that I see requires you to stand on a hill an start an internet argument.
Perhaps if it bugs you so much that I dislike it and the points I have presented bug you so much that you may also see these flaws more than you originally thought.
I agree with OptimusGrimus on the Silvery Barbs...
For a first level spell it does nearly the equivalent to 2 of the 3 dice rolls/ per day that the Lucky feat does, all in a single level 1 spell, in a single action.
-Make them (enemy) roll another dice if you don't like the first - lucky feat/ silvery barbs
-Have an ally roll another dice (advantage) on something and use the better one- lucky feat/ silvery barbs
-No save against it- lucky feat/ silvery barbs
Just imagine if you will for a moment... divination wizard, lucky feat, with silver barbs.... now start cringing for the next three weeks if you're a DM, go ahead and sell all your dice, the players will start rolling for you.
Well, sidestepping the sourcebook vs adventure topic....
I'm going to run a few players through the adventure presented and I'm going through the book and see the bits about relationships. If you have positive points with NPC's you get boons and if you have negative points then there's banes. They mostly just end up giving funny RP situations over the course of the adventure. However, there are a few boons and banes that will make the game just slightly easier or harder, and eventually certain bonds end up netting you a bless effect on certain rolls. I thought (as I was reading it) there would be some kind of give and take on these. Like you can't be friends with everyone, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's up to the players if they want to be friends with NPC's or not. So why (mechanically) would you ever voluntarily be on an NPC's bad side in this case? Did I miss something when reading through the relationships chapter? I may end up making things up if there's no real way to end up with enemies outside of choosing to be jerks to some NPC's.
Yeah, the reason you would "ever voluntarily be on an NPC's bad side" is for story/character reasons. Not everything in D&D is mechanical.
I was about to say maybe it has to do with their motivations as a student...if they want to study history and another student is destroying books for target practice they may get very upset.
Or maybe a students inkling destroys one of their scrolls and refuses to apologize. NPC's can be jerks and if you just always take it then you aren't really holding to your characters ideals...
Because it's a limited resource (except if you have Spell Mastery) that's not going to break a game (even if you have Spell Mastery). Silvery Barbs might be strong relatively speaking compared to other spells or traits, but it is very limited in what it lets you do. Mechanically, I understand the power of the spell, the effective (indirect) bonuses and penalties, functionally letting you recast save-or-suck spells, yadda yadda yadda. But the spell begins and ends at a couple of rerolls.
At level 1, if given the choice for your party to start with either a wand of magic missiles or a wand of silvery barbs, which would you take? (Assume the wand of silvery barbs has 7 charges and regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the wand's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ashes and is destroyed. Just like the wand of magic missiles.) If you would take MM over SB at level 1, is there a level at which that would change?
Silvery Barbs' effectiveness is tied strongly to the action economy and its use will be limited by a desire for utility/variety. The more enemies attacking, the more attacks per round from the fighters, the less impactful it is in the fight. I find it hard to believe that EVERY level 1 spell slot is going to be reserved for Silvery Barbs, the same way I can't imagine ever ONLY casting Shield with my level 1 spell slots, from mechanical, RP, and player reasons, unless I have created a character focused on it. (For example, I could see a clockwork soul sorcerer focusing on silvery barbs, like how I could see a gish focusing on shield.)
I think there's a bit of magical thinking because of how versatile Silvery Barbs is that players will have all the potential effects all the time. But I think at the end of a session, Silvery Barbs might end up being used a couple times to force a couple rerolls and that the outcome of the adventuring day will be relatively similar with or without it. There's a difference between powerful and game-breaking, conflated and confused in the word overpowered.
Subclasses do not a sourcebook make. A sourcebook is, "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." So, with that out of the way, the only relevant question is, "Does this book do that?" Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion, which is available both stand-alone and as part of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, is a sourcebook. It's also only 27 pages; cover to cover. It's not a lot, but it's enough to at least give DMs and players enough to immerse themselves into the setting.
We're talking about an academy with five schools. If you were expecting something as detailed as Explorer's Guide to Wildemount on the relative geography and makeup of each building then I think you were setting yourself up for disappointment. The subclasses from the UA were a mess. Nobody disputes this. The backgrounds, with their expanded spell lists, are akin to the guilds from Ravnica, another MTG sourcebook, and the Dragonmarks from Eberron. And it still works, so if it's not broken there's nothing to fix.
The "core chunk" of a sourcebook is not mechanical. Never has been and never will be. If there are mechanics, then great. But it's not necessary.
Those few rolls can be incredibly impactful is the point...rarely do you get a tool that imparts a penalty on a save....for good reason.
If you fail a Polymorph save you are a fish or whatever for an hour with no real way to counter it. The issue is that that:
1. 1st level spells progressively get more and more likely to be burned during encounters as you progress.
2. Saves in general become increasingly more important and the more ways you can stack it against a target (Mind Sliver, Rune Knight, Silvery Barbs, Bane,) the more likely you create a failure state which can trivalize an encounter COMPLETELY and even change the face of your campaign.
3. You increasingly incur re-rolls which as a DM is annoying at best and down right derailing at worst.
4. It can chain....if everyone in the party has it you can force a bunch of rerolls on a single save with no real loss in action economy and basically ensure a failure on just about any important save. Since its a first level spell and literally you get a free feat that is basically Magic Initiate+ you can pick it up for 0 cost up front regardless of your build.
Play a halfing with all their racial reroll feats and BOOM, now you're the DM
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Your argument is moot, I never said that subclasses make a source book, though most of the actual sourcebooks have at least 2 new subclasses. I am stating that the book was clearly designed with having a large chunk of the book dedicated to these missing subclasses which would have helped it lean more toward a sourcebook. I am stating that the spell list backgrounds were a clear poor lack of effort to fill this large hole.
Using Waterdeep as an example of a sourcebook when its clearly not and isn't even listed as thus is also a faulty argument and to be frank I don't even know why you're using a listed adventure as a defense of how a sourcebook should be setup.
Your argument "a collection of writings and articles on a particular subject, especially one used as a basic introduction to that subject." is so vague that it could literally apply to every adventure book made, every D&D book made. This distinction eliminates any and all differentiation between all the books. They all are over some particular subject, made with a collection of writings. Whether Decent into Avernus (adventure book) is a particular subject on Avernus & Tasha's Guide (sourcebook) is a particular subject on character creation options both fit into your vague false definition.
I also never said that the "core chunk" of a sourcebook is mechanical (which I am guessing is what you are classifying classify character creation choices), though usually 1/4 to 1/5 of it is...
....I will say that that core chunk of a sourcebook has never been a fully laid out walk through adventure, never has been, never will be. And that is why this book is an adventure book that was misadvertised as a sourcebook.
I get the feeling justifying what a sourcebook is will be difficult. I think it’s more helpful to define at what point a sourcebook becomes and adventure. It’s not if there is a single quest. But I think once it’s over a certain percent then it becomes one by default
You repeat faulty claims; like how the rejected subclasses were just removed and there's this giant void where they should be. No, they were replaced with the backgrounds. Which is actually better since this creates options for more classes to fully immerse themselves into the setting. You can't prove there's this massive hole in the book, so stop claiming there is one.
Don't like my definition? Well, guess what, it's not mine. I pulled it from a dictionary. If you don't find it helpful, that's on you. Come up with a better one. And I didn't list the entirety of WDH as a sourcebook. I only listed 27 pages. [REDACTED]
The only "core chunk" you've alluded to are the allegedly missing subclasses that were replaced with something else. If you meant something else, then you have been communicating your point so ineffectively that no reasonable person can discern your true intent. And those subclasses are mechanical options.
Lastly, if you think it was wrongfully advertised as a sourcebook then take it up with D&D Beyond and its listing. WotC hasn't been advertising it as a sourcebook. But, honestly, I think you're just quibbling.
So glad I looked through this book before falling for the completionist compulsion in me and actually purchasing it. It looks and feels like a modern Marvel comic. 'Nuff said.
I'm going to chalk it up to the intended content and hope it won't be a trend into whatever comes next. But this book is for a niche within a niche group of a niche hobby. It will be interesting to see how it does as they've excluded one portion of the audience by making it in a sub setting of the MTG universe (albeit more readily adaptable to Ferun or other D&D setting than Ravnica was), but most anyone I know past college age would have 0 interest in this. If it sells well, good on WotC. But I have a feeling it will be in the bottom tier for sure. Case in point I am seeing the pre-order pricing on some platforms such as Roll20 being extended after release which I have never seen.
We're hitting the Power Creep singularity. You thought Hexblade was bad? Well it's in, Tasha's ramped that up, and now no one designing these modules has any idea what range they actually need to hit in. They can't force the existing books to nerf, so they just get dragged along into this escalation.
I don't have Strixhaven, but here's why I'm not getting it:
I agree. Strixhaven is an adventure. However, this is D&D Beyond's classification fault - https://dnd.wizards.com/products/strixhaven-curriculum-chaos says the book is about "rollicking campus adventures", and everyone's best friend J Crawford (doesn't deserve his bad reputation, but here goes) said "this book is primarily an adventure" so many times in streams it was hard not to know about.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I love Strixhaven so far. And as for Silvery Barbs, I just won’t use it. I actually haven’t read the adventure part yet, but I really like the setting. I love the Relationship system (though there’s no way to simulate the very common situation where people start dating without even being friends first, or the almost as common situation where rivals fall for each other, but those are small things I can easily fix). And I like adventure books in general, so I’m deliriously happy 😊. If you guys wanna discuss I’d love to.
I had a whole thing written up but this has just devolved into each of us attacking each other in an internet arguement and that's not productive.
I got on here to voice my concern that I think that this was misadvertised, that I feel their process of subclass review from the community with too little time to correct it does not work, and the fact that this last book was far from the quality I've come to expect from the company. Generally they do a decent job of listening to our suggestions and remarks on their products and it is my hope they will see the large amount of displeasure from the community surrounding how this book turned out.
I am not attacking D&D, I own all of the books and generally love the material presented. I played Magic the Gathering for many years and generally love the material presented. I do not like, enjoy, or agree with how this book turned out and so I've presented my reasons why with evidence.
So I have to ask why the need to jump on here and attack me? You don't work for the company, I get that you enjoy the book and that you think its fine. Great! I am glad you enjoy the product, really I am. I wish I could but I don't. I don't understand why me pointing out the flaws that I see requires you to stand on a hill an start an internet argument.
Perhaps if it bugs you so much that I dislike it and the points I have presented bug you so much that you may also see these flaws more than you originally thought.
I also loved the NPC students. Very detailed and realistic (at least from a young adult fantasy perspective).