New Spells in Strixhaven

[Segev]

The fact that it works on attacks, checks and saves coupled with the after-the-fact trigger makes me think closer to OP than merely strong.

Edit: for perspective, would you consider a 1st level spell that does this to be good?
Range 60'
Reaction (a creature you can see rolls an attack, check or save)
You impose disadvantage on the roll

For my part...no. I would consider that a boring "pass" spell. I'd rather have shield, and even failing that, I'd probably rather have something more fun. Disadvantage on a single attack roll just isn't enough of a defense to be worth a spell slot and your reaction. The one thing this hypothetical spell has that makes it even remotely not just a cantrip is that it works on attacks not directed at you. And it still is a weak 1st level spell, in my opinion.

[stoutstien]

The rest of the spells are 2nd level. The easiest houserule would be to just bump Silvery Barbs up to 2nd level. At least then it has the same spell-point-equivalent cost as Heighten Spell.

As printed? Lv 3 would be bring it in line. At lv 2 it would work if you remove the advantage rider. For lv 1 ditch the rider and make it touch range.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Silvery Barbs looks ridiculous.

What's more is that it's not even filling a new flavor niche or anything. "Briefly distracting people with lights" isn't exactly peak Wizard fantasy or anything (and if it was, they can already do that). It's not really adding anything to the game beyond pure power creep for the characters who need it least.

Is this really a product of someone sitting down and saying "hey, this will really add to the game"?

I agree with this. I think it also misses the mark of capturing the flavor of the Silverquill College....Elite Spellbinders in Magic the Gathering can disrupt plans, by making spells more expensive, but don't outright cancel magic.

Silvery Barbs, reads more like an Errata to Cutting Words, allowing the class feature to negate a Critical Hit.

Invention, hasn't been a strongpoint for 5e. This is changing somewhat for the scope of Adventures, but on the mechanical side...re-package, and re-purposing, the same mechanics over and over again seems to be the modus operandi.

[Witty Username]

I agree with this. I think it also misses the mark of capturing the flavor of the Silverquill College....Elite Spellbinders in Magic the Gathering can disrupt plans, by making spells more expensive, but don't outright cancel magic.

Silvery Barbs, reads more like an Errata to Cutting Words, allowing the class feature to negate a Critical Hit.

Invention, hasn't been a strongpoint for 5e. This is changing somewhat for the scope of Adventures, but on the mechanical side...re-package, and re-purposing, the same mechanics over and over again seems to be the modus operandi.

Unified mechanics and bounded accuracy, Pretty much 5e.

[tokek]

Very much this. In addition, I don't really want more things that make boss fights into a joke.

OK I have to ask this

Why do people think single boss monster fights will be exciting in D&D? Is this some sort of computer game thing?

A boss that summons minions, animates objects etc - sure I get that is a load of fun. But what is it that people think is going to be so wonderful about that boss fight when Its just a boss?

This spell doesn't ruin that, it was never not ruined IMO.

[Kane0]

OK I have to ask this

Why do people think single boss monster fights will be exciting in D&D? Is this some sort of computer game thing?

A boss that summons minions, animates objects etc - sure I get that is a load of fun. But what is it that people think is going to be so wonderful about that boss fight when Its just a boss?

I suppose the concept is that something like the ancient dragon sitting on its hoard shouldn't need assistance to kill and eat most bands of cocksure thieves.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I suppose the concept is that something like the ancient dragon sitting on its hoard shouldn't need assistance to kill and eat most bands of cocksure thieves.

There are numerous ways to include extra monsters with a reasonable excuse to be there.
-The dragons children, who will betray them and/or the party in an effort to wipe both out and take the hoard for themselves.
-A cult dedicated to the dragon
-The dragons mate
-Another adventuring party who would rather not share the spoils

The ancient dragon who sat on their hoard, alone and without any contingencies deserves to be a speed bump for a properly leveled adventuring party. I certainly haven't seen an example of any ancient dragon who waits in their lair without a plan if they're assaulted.

[Amnestic]

There are numerous ways to include extra monsters with a reasonable excuse to be there.

Sure there is, but that's not the point. The point is that the fantasy of a single big [dragon/devil/archmage/whatever] boss vs. the party is a classic one and has been for multiple previous editions before. You can 'fix' the issue with mooks, but that's not the same encounter in vibes.

I mean, this:

Spoiler

Show

Is the art that they chose for their cover of the official art+history book released a few years ago. One big dragon, one big hoard. Saying that players wanting to fight a single big boss is "videogamey" seems silly, as is saying "well you can just add mooks to the fight" - that's not the point.

[stoutstien]

Sure there is, but that's not the point. The point is that the fantasy of a single big [dragon/devil/archmage/whatever] boss vs. the party is a classic one and has been for multiple previous editions before. You can 'fix' the issue with mooks, but that's not the same encounter in vibes.

I mean, this:

Spoiler

Show

Is the art that they chose for their cover of the official art+history book released a few years ago. One big dragon, one big hoard. Saying that players wanting to fight a single big boss is "videogamey" seems silly, as is saying "well you can just add mooks to the fight" - that's not the point.

One strategy is to shove 2 NPCs into one to basically double it's action economy and give it some Nova protection. So instead of an ancient red dragon just use two adult ones sharing a body and upgrade it's size.

[Witty Username]

I suppose the concept is that something like the ancient dragon sitting on its hoard shouldn't need assistance to kill and eat most bands of cocksure thieves.

Sure, but in 5e the best way to do that is a boss that can TPK the party, which is a thing the game has been designed to avoid at all costs.
But you could try things like Banshees or Demiliches with their AOE reduce target to 0 abilities.

[Azuresun]

OK I have to ask this

Why do people think single boss monster fights will be exciting in D&D? Is this some sort of computer game thing?

A boss that summons minions, animates objects etc - sure I get that is a load of fun. But what is it that people think is going to be so wonderful about that boss fight when Its just a boss?

Why do you think they are not exciting (or at least should be)? If you personally don't find them thrilling, that's entirely fine, but you're presenting your opinion as self-evident, when it's manifestly not.

Also, if you think video games invented the idea of multiple characters against a single mighty enemy....well, they didn't. They just didn't.

[Aquillion]

Silvery Barbs looks ridiculous.

What's more is that it's not even filling a new flavor niche or anything. "Briefly distracting people with lights" isn't exactly peak Wizard fantasy or anything (and if it was, they can already do that). It's not really adding anything to the game beyond pure power creep for the characters who need it least.

Is this really a product of someone sitting down and saying "hey, this will really add to the game"?

I think they just wanted a spell to capture the Silverquill concept of using cutting words and the like to win fights, and the logical representation of that was that a spell that was basically, well, Cutting Words. Which already existed, and obviously the Silverquill spell had to be available to Bards, so it had to do something Cutting Words didn't, which resulted in this.

I think that if you limit it to just rerolling attack spells then it's a decent Shield alternative - being able to cancel (or at least reroll) enemy crits out of a level 1 slot is already hugely powerful, it doesn't need to do anything else. Part of the concept of Silverquill spells is going to be "my wizard can be a Bard", and this spell captures that - obviously mechanically, but jokes aside it's decent at that thematically, too. It serves a very specific flavor niche in that regard.

If the flavor is an issue you might also consider banning these spells in anything but Strixhaven, since "my wizard is a bit Bard-ish" is something you need for Strixhaven games when a wizard wants to join Silverquill, but which isn't really needed elsewhere. Still, if the spells were *balanced* that wouldn't be a big problem, and the flavor isn't so bad as to make them unusable outside Strixhaven.

[tokek]

Why do you think they are not exciting (or at least should be)? If you personally don't find them thrilling, that's entirely fine, but you're presenting your opinion as self-evident, when it's manifestly not.

Also, if you think video games invented the idea of multiple characters against a single mighty enemy....well, they didn't. They just didn't.

Its probably more that I think they are an inherently very limited way to run an encounter and that they are over-used.

The mechanics to make them work (Legendary resistance and actions) are alright but they are a sticking plaster. Far better to have minions even if those minions are lair features in flavour or are the result of spells. Strahd shatters a window and attacks with the shards, that's minions in a narrative big boss encounter. Minions and similar encounter features force the party to have the full range of abilities, to use the full range of abilities. If your party regularly breezes through the legendary saves its because they are facing predictable encounters and are not being stretched with a variety of challenges.

[Corey]

Speaking of Misty Step, i find it interesting they put Silver Barbs in the Enchantment School, I think it may now be the default choice for anyone who wants to take Fey Touched for the +1 Int. Assuming your DM allows access to these spells of course. (or if WotC prints them in a future core book)

Even ahead of Gift of Alacrity?

Yeah, probably.

[Psyren]

My main hope is that Silvery Barbs doesn't sour the whole book for my DM, because I really want Vortex Warp on my Artificer. 90ft.+ teleport other that works on allies and enemies? And allies can choose to fail the save? And no size limit unlike Thunder Step? And lower level than Thunder Step? It's just amazing all around!

[Aquillion]

Minions and similar encounter features force the party to have the full range of abilities, to use the full range of abilities. If your party regularly breezes through the legendary saves its because they are facing predictable encounters and are not being stretched with a variety of challenges.

I'm not sure that the first part is a good thing, and I feel like the second sentence undermines your point. That is to say - not every encounter should involve the full range of the party's abilities. Having specific or unusual encounters can give some members of the party a chance to shine, or can make them stretch their abilities.

If every single encounter consists of multiple opponents, though, how are you making them stretch their capabilities? It seems to me that the way to make them stretch their capabilities and try new things is to have a variety of different setups, which means that there ought to be some encounters against single big bosses - otherwise mass-crowd-control / mass-damage effects are going to be too good, and single-target strategies will be undervalued.

Obviously you don't want every single encounter to be like that, but I don't see how making every major encounter involve multiple opponents helps with what you're trying to accomplish. And that means many-vs-one encounters should be workable, as much as is possible.

[tokek]

I'm not sure that the first part is a good thing, and I feel like the second sentence undermines your point. That is to say - not every encounter should involve the full range of the party's abilities. Having specific or unusual encounters can give some members of the party a chance to shine, or can make them stretch their abilities.

If every single encounter consists of multiple opponents, though, how are you making them stretch their capabilities? It seems to me that the way to make them stretch their capabilities and try new things is to have a variety of different setups, which means that there ought to be some encounters against single big bosses - otherwise mass-crowd-control / mass-damage effects are going to be too good, and single-target strategies will be undervalued.

Obviously you don't want every single encounter to be like that, but I don't see how making every major encounter involve multiple opponents helps with what you're trying to accomplish. And that means many-vs-one encounters should be workable, as much as is possible.

I'm not saying never to have many vs one encounters, I'm saying that I believe they are over-used.

Even the iconic dragons that people like to suggest as loners are given minions and other minion like powers in D&D. We've all read/watched The Hobbit but D&D dragons are not really designed like that in this game and if you play them like that it can be hard to make it a compelling encounter. This is made much worse when you add in the "I think it should just be able to stand in front of the party and hold its own with its teeth and claws" viewpoint. That's really not that much of an optimal experience in most game systems and is a real stretch for 5e.

Which Silvery Barbs does not really change at all. I will agree that it makes that one very specific encounter type a bit harder to do well but for the most part it was already the hardest encounter type to do well and is rarely done well already. It can't ruin the game if it only has a disproportionate effect on a part of the game that you sensibly use very sparingly anyway.

In the same way that pure attack based encounters with no saves can be skewed hard by a gish with Shield spell. Add in Lucky feat or some equivalent ability to negate the very few nat 20's that might hit and the encounter is just "solved".

Which is why my set of encounters for a day will always have a wide mix of threats or challenges. And most individual encounters will try to pose more than one type of threat.

[Keravath]

I have read a few places that Strixhaven is set in a specific setting that seems to have a higher power level than a normal D&D setting (MTG). Do the majority here agree or is this just an excuse for the power creep?

I think all of the MTG settings have a higher base power level and some potentially game breaking elements if added to a "standard" FR type campaign.

- Ravnica
- Theros
- Strixhaven

Eberron with Dragon Marks and special backgrounds can offer some higher power options too but Eberron is supposed to be a high magic setting too. Wildmount likely also has some unbalanced options particularly if taken out of the setting context.

Personally, I don't include MTG/Eberron campaign content in a game based around the PHB/XGtE/Tashas for that reason. On the other hand, if I started a campaign in any of these settings or a homebrew based around them, the content would likely be fine.

[Bobthewizard]

OK I have to ask this

Why do people think single boss monster fights will be exciting in D&D? Is this some sort of computer game thing?

A boss that summons minions, animates objects etc - sure I get that is a load of fun. But what is it that people think is going to be so wonderful about that boss fight when Its just a boss?

This spell doesn't ruin that, it was never not ruined IMO.

Boss fights can be epic fun. As the DM you need to make sure of a few things.

1. The boss needs to have some emotional connection with the players. They need to care that it is defeated.
2. It needs enough HP and legendary saves and abilities to survive and be a threat for a few rounds.
3. It needs interesting legendary actions so it can do something after each player's turn. These should preferably be unique, varied, and of similar value so it can do something different after each turn.
4. Ideally, there should be terrain and time pressure that make it more than just a slugfest. The players should have to follow the BBEG through the dark, or keep it from flipping the switch to end the world, or rescue the princess slowly being lowered into the lava. Something more than just "I attack." I like to always give the players several options, each with clear pros and cons.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I think they just wanted a spell to capture the Silverquill concept of using cutting words and the like to win fights, and the logical representation of that was that a spell that was basically, well, Cutting Words. Which already existed, and obviously the Silverquill spell had to be available to Bards, so it had to do something Cutting Words didn't, which resulted in this.

I think that if you limit it to just rerolling attack spells then it's a decent Shield alternative - being able to cancel (or at least reroll) enemy crits out of a level 1 slot is already hugely powerful, it doesn't need to do anything else. Part of the concept of Silverquill spells is going to be "my wizard can be a Bard", and this spell captures that - obviously mechanically, but jokes aside it's decent at that thematically, too. It serves a very specific flavor niche in that regard.

If the flavor is an issue you might also consider banning these spells in anything but Strixhaven, since "my wizard is a bit Bard-ish" is something you need for Strixhaven games when a wizard wants to join Silverquill, but which isn't really needed elsewhere. Still, if the spells were *balanced* that wouldn't be a big problem, and the flavor isn't so bad as to make them unusable outside Strixhaven.

My big problem with it (which I will definitely exploit at the table until it's banned) is that if it lets a wizard be 'a little bit bard-ish', which it does, it allows an Eloquence Bard to trivialize basically any encounter if there is one other arcane caster in the party. Mind Sliver + Unsettling Words + Silver Barbs (all of which occupy a different slot in the action economy, so could be done in a single round) mean that unless you burn a legendary resistance or roll 2(!) Nat 20s on the save back-to-back, you're almost definitely going to fail the save. Which at mid-to-high level play, means that Bad Guys is dead as disco. And for what cost to the bard? A cantrip (no resource cost), a short-rest-recharge resource (almost negligible cost given how much Charisma you're likely to have) and a first-level spell slot (which for any power-built Bard with a Hex dip is also a short-rest resource, which they will have a minimum of 6 first level spell slots generally).

So even with 3 legendary resistances, if the Bard stays upright for 4 rounds, the BBEG *will* fail a save, and *will* get killed. So then his only option is to go all out after the Bard, and just eat the DPR from the entire rest of the party until the Bard goes down because if he doesn't before his fourth turn, you 100% of the time are going to die. You could try to kill the buddy caster who the bard is setting up, but by Tier 3, that might help, but the Bard himself can cast his own Save-or-Suck spells at that point.

On the upside, that changes the combat dynamic to make martials more useful, since any single target big bad guy with a high CR is a liability, and if you flood the zone with mooks, the single-target-guided-nuke of the eloquence bard becomes kinda pointless.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Martial PCs generally don't have good Mook clearing capabilities. They are best against big bruisers. So this makes them relatively worse.

[stoutstien]

Martial PCs generally don't have good Mook clearing capabilities. They are best against big bruisers. So this makes them relatively worse.

To be fair there are a few that are extremely good at it, like the hunter ranger, but multi target abilities are rated lower for martials because they are seen as 1-2 target focused as a rule for some reason.

[Damon_Tor]

To be fair there are a few that are extremely good at it, like the hunter ranger, but multi target abilities are rated lower for martials because they are seen as 1-2 target focused as a rule for some reason.

The hunter ranger is not "extremely good" at mook clearing. "Can do it" != "Extremely good". By the time they have a 1w+dex ranged burst 2 ability (sorry for the 4e shorthand there) the caster has had shatter for 8 levels and fireball for 5. A sunsoul monk might be a better example.

[stoutstien]

The hunter ranger is not "extremely good" at mook clearing. "Can do it" != "Extremely good". By the time they have a 1w+dex ranged burst 2 ability (sorry for the 4e shorthand there) the caster has had shatter for 8 levels and fireball for 5. A sunsoul monk might be a better example.

The get an extra attack on adjacent foes at 3 and they can couple SS with volley to bypass cover and stack on damage. Someone having fireball doesn't effect the fact that hunters can handle multiple targets as well.
The hunter also has the advantage of selective fire so doesn't really matter how many shattered you can throw out if you're going to hit half your party in the process. So they're absolute damage output might not look as amazing as a full caster throwing around spells left and right,
their relative damage is quite good.

For comparison at lv 3 shatter is 3d8 and the ranger with horde breaker is dealing 1d8+dex vs two targets. Even assuming the target always fails against the save the gap isn't that large and once you factor in one cost 1/2 of the casters biggest slots at this point and the ranger's damage is at-will. it's not hard to see how effective they are at blasting down mooks. Toss on a hunters mark and they are bout even. The Hunter could be considered boring and slightly uneventful as you go up in levels but it's an effective class for wiping out multiple targets.

Sun soul is just a pile of 'meh' to me. 4e gets some well deserved hate but if you want a monk who can blast away at hordes or deal massive spike damage to a single target they have that going for them.

[Segev]

The get an extra attack on adjacent foes at 3 and they can couple SS with volley to bypass cover and stack on damage. Someone having fireball doesn't effect the fact that hunters can handle multiple targets as well.

No, but it does mean that somebody who can't handle as many targets for as much damage is NOT "extremely good" at handling mook crowds. Hitting just two targets is, arguably, still "not actually very good" at clearing mooks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, but it does mean that somebody who can't handle as many targets for as much damage is NOT "extremely good" at handling mook crowds. Hitting just two targets is, arguably, still "not actually very good" at clearing mooks.

Are we defining mooks as "sizeable hit points sponges" or "bodies on the battlefield"? I tend to associate it with the latter, "mooks" are getting overkilled by a Fireball in most cases where a decent damage roll from a weapon attack had a good chance of being as effective.

[stoutstien]

No, but it does mean that somebody who can't handle as many targets for as much damage is NOT "extremely good" at handling mook crowds. Hitting just two targets is, arguably, still "not actually very good" at clearing mooks.

Two is arguably a lot better than zero because a friendly fire and you could say it's three with two weapon fighting. So that means at level five the hunter can run around hitting four separate targets at will with the only stipulation being that two of them are next to each other. If accuracy is more important than they could probably do the same thing with a little bit more feat costs thanks to crossbow expert which works okay for this subclass because they don't really have much competing for their bonus action.
I've always had a problem with the concept of firewall being the standard for dealing with multiple targets because it's not applicable the majority of the time. (Besides evoker wizards but they are arguably in the running for the strongest player option.) I see maybe 1 good opportunity for a fireball every 10 sessions but multiple target abilities are useful at least once a session.

[Gtdead]

Two is arguably a lot better than zero because a friendly fire and you could say it's three with two weapon fighting. So that means at level five the hunter can run around hitting four separate targets at will with the only stipulation being that two of them are next to each other. If accuracy is more important than they could probably do the same thing with a little bit more feat costs thanks to crossbow expert which works okay for this subclass because they don't really have much competing for their bonus action.
I've always had a problem with the concept of firewall being the standard for dealing with multiple targets because it's not applicable the majority of the time. (Besides evoker wizards but they are arguably in the running for the strongest player option.) I see maybe 1 good opportunity for a fireball every 10 sessions but multiple target abilities are useful at least once a session.

A deadly encounter against a level 5 4man party is 22 wolves. Would you rather fireball your party or wait for the ranger to attack 4 times per turn with 8.5 damage per attack with only 2/8 chance to score a kill per attack?

The difference in output is so vast that it completely kills the argument. Ranger is good only when the encounter is tailored for it's abilities. Against 4 thugs the Horde Hunter is better compared to most martials and more sustained than the caster. Against 8 thugs he is inconsequential.

Scale this up to level 11 with volley and same thing applies.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Every formation is fireball formation.

[stoutstien]

A deadly encounter against a level 5 4man party is 22 wolves. Would you rather fireball your party or wait for the ranger to attack 4 times per turn with 8.5 damage per attack with only 2/8 chance to score a kill per attack?

The difference in output is so vast that it completely kills the argument. Ranger is good only when the encounter is tailored for it's abilities. Against 4 thugs the Horde Hunter is better compared to most martials and more sustained than the caster. Against 8 thugs he is inconsequential.

Scale this up to level 11 with volley and same thing applies.

I don't think most players would appreciate a caster tossing fireballs on top of their heads even if the caster would say "but look at all the damage I can do if I count y'all as targets as well."

I more realistic encounter would be 5 wolfs, 4 worgs, and a winter wolf. Coming at the party from 2 flanks it would be a pretty simple encounter to run with a chance for fire ball and the hunter to be at about equal opportunity for impact. It's not always about dealing the most damage the quickest if you can deal it cheaper in terms of resources and HP is kinda an important one.