Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Mages of Strixhaven

An Unearthed Arcana playtest document for the upcoming Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos hardcover has been released by WotC!

"Become a student of magic in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! This playtest document presents five subclasses for Dungeons & Dragons. Each of these subclasses allows you to play a mage associated with one of the five colleges of Strixhaven, a university of magic. These subclasses are special, with each one being available to more than one class."

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

It's 9 pages, and contains five subclasses, one for each the Strixhaven colleges:

• Lorehold College, dedicated to the pursuit of history by conversing with ancient spirits and understanding the whims of time itself
• Prismari College, dedicated to the visual and performing arts and bolstered with the power of the elements
• Quandrix College, dedicated to the study and manipulation of nature’s core mathematic principles
• Silverquill College, dedicated to the magic of words, whether encouraging speeches that uplift allies or piercing wit that derides foes
• Witherbloom College, dedicated to the alchemy of life and death and harnessing the devastating energies of both

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Patrons cant crack a whip. The player is free to control the character concept.

That said, if something truly egregious happens duing the story, the DM can use the story to resolve it. For example, a Patron can send other Warlocks or Clerics who are loyal to try get the player back in line. The player still doesnt have too. The tension can be a fun dynamic.

By this argument, though, all of the warlock fluff, from the term "patron" to the idea that there was a bargain for power, are essentially thrown out the window.

And I get that, for folks who just want to focus on the mechanics of the warlock and to get on with Eldritch Blasting everything into a fine powder, that's great, but if the fluff is in there, it ought to matter.

But this is really a group-level decision. Either you are cool with your DM going off-book in D&D (in other words, you trust your DM to not screw you by breaking the rules) or you'd rather they not. I don't know that anyone is going to convince someone who feels differently than them to change their point of view.

 

[Charlaquin]

It was interesting to reread the PhB on Warlocks... and it feels like a lot of folks posting in this thread haven't in a while.

lt seemed pretty clear that how much control the patron has over the PC's life is something worked.out between the DM and player. (Page 106).

It feels odd to me that the Warlock would keep getting the new Pact Boons on advancement if they didn't keep the patron happy. Each one is "for your loyal service" and is bestowed at the level in question. (Page 107-108)

And Warlocks do seem to study. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed Eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability." (Page 107). That reads to me like the invocations don't depend on the patron being happy. The Pact Magic is also do in part to "[y]our arcane research" and also "the magic bestowed on you by your patron" (also 107).

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the intent is that it’s only the Pact Boon and Subclass features that are granted by the Patron.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But in 5e, the patron has no ability to take their patronage elsewhere. Once the vague pact is made, the warlock gets power, and the patron gets whatever the warlock wants them to get.

Sure they can. They can just...take their patronage elsewhere. There is no reason to assume it's a limited resource.

Come at it from the other direction: What does the patron get out of the bargain? It's not the warlock's soul, because warlocks can be resurrected like any other character. Is the bargain for a one-time boon, what is it? If it's not a one-time boon, but an ongoing benefit to the patron, in what way does the patron enforce the terms of the deal?

IMO that is up to the player. My only say in it is to veto things that don't work with what else has been established in the campaign/setting, or that I or another player find strongly distasteful, and to discuss options and give ideas. If a player wants a "whip" held over their PCs head, I ask them what they have in mind and go from there.

Messing with the warlock's power is the obvious one to me, but maybe there are other routes other DMs prefer. How do patrons in your campaign crack the whip, when needed?

For the most part, I don't consider patrons like asmodeus to actually care at all about the warlock until the warlock gains some notoriety and does some big stuff.

I largely have two kinds of players who play warlocks

1) My patron is my mentor, and the relationship is non-antagonistic. It's a good-faith deal made out of mutually agreed upon goals and interest. Most often these are Hexblades, Archfey, Celestial, or sometimes Undying or reflavored versions of things. My wife has a custom Star Patron modelled after the 4e Star Pact Warlock. She looked to the stars, and one star in particular, Al Ghurab the Raven, Guide-star and patron of alchemists and other experimental scholars, looked back. There is no "price" or thing the patron gets out of the deal. The patron doesn't care about the world or it's creatures, or anything else. It has things it enjoys and things it hates and if it's curiosity leaves Elodie, she will probably just be better off. There are dangers here, beyond the obvious madness. Other, less neutral, stars seem to have noticed Elodie after years of accomplishments and big deeds, and their notice is not beneficial.

2) The patron made an unfair and deeply assymetrical deal. Yes, that can mean the PCs soul. The fact they can be revived has literally no impact on that. It can also mean something else, depending on what the PCs fears and what they value. It could be exactly like in Spawn, where the devil gave him power in order to make him his general, and he then flipped on the devil and worked against him. If the patron wants this power back, they can take it from my cold dead corpse, over the bodies of piles of their lesser minions. Not my problem they didn't understand mortals when they made the deal, or underestimated my resilience to fear-based motivation.

In neither case do I need the patron to be able to do anything at all to the warlock, other than send enemies to "punish" them via violence, threaten that which they value, etc.

"I promised the devil my first born if he gave me the power to get my wife back from the dragon that took her. Now my child is here, I'd rather fight my way through all Nine Hells and fight the devil himself than give him what I promised." Is just a better story, to me, than "Well...guess I'm a commoner again because I annoyed my patron by helping the poor and not killing anyone. Oh well!"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For the most part, I don't consider patrons like asmodeus to actually care at all about the warlock until the warlock gains some notoriety and does some big stuff.

I know that Asmodeus got a lot of development during the 4E era that I missed, but I have a hard time picturing him giving out power for free.

"I promised the devil my first born if he gave me the power to get my wife back from the dragon that took her. Now my child is here, I'd rather fight my way through all Nine Hells and fight the devil himself than give him what I promised." Is just a better story, to me, than "Well...guess I'm a commoner again because I annoyed my patron by helping the poor and not killing anyone. Oh well!"

I don't think you, or anyone, should play with a DM that would strip a character of all its power, no matter what the class. I don't know that anyone has advocated otherwise.

And yes, you can definitely tell a good story with the first take. "Spawn" is obviously a good exemplar of the form here.

But "I'm doing horrible things I disagree with, because I need to continue accessing this power" (which maybe just means the ability to take additional levels as a warlock) "so that I can obtain my goal" is arguably the primary story of deals with the devil, literal or metaphorical. That's everything from "The Ninth Gate" to "Wall Street."

It's not selling your soul, literally or metaphorically, if the warlock can go "lol, bro, I got my power, I'm good." At that point, just rename the class "sorcerer" and move on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because generally your patron won’t take away your power. Like I said, I’ve never had it happen in an actual game, and if it were to happen I can only imagine it would be something that had player buy-in, and unfolded over the course of a campaign.

I don't understand. How on earth is the patron capable of doing it, but won't, when the warlock is literally directly opposing them?

So the patron has some kind of leverage to try and get the warlock to do what it wants. Part of the appeal of characters like Spawn and Ghost Rider is the tension created by the fact that their powers come directly from the devil. They may try to use it for good, but there’s always the fear that by using it at all you’re playing into his hand. The fun of warlocks is the unbalanced power dynamic, which doesn’t work if the patron can’t at least theoretically take the power away. Obviously this is subject to the “don’t be a jerk, and don’t play with jerks” rule.

But in both of those examples, the devil cannot take their power away. The devil wishes it could, but they can't, and their only recourse is to either send demons to kill the ungrateful brat, or constantly try to manipulate them into doing what the devil wants.

It’s also… just how patronage works. You get the luxury of the patron’s resources, at the cost of having to keep your patron (or patrons) appeased. Most of the time, that means doing whatever you were going to do anyway - the patron wouldn’t have chosen to support you in the first place if they didn’t already enjoy your work. But, sometimes they want something specific, and while you don’t have to do it, are you really going to say no to the person enabling you to make a livelihood off your art? Sometimes you have to take some requests, or offer some reward tiers, to keep your patron(s) happy.

At most, that translates to not getting more stuff from the patron. They can't take back the stuff you bought with the money they already gave you. They paid you, the only way they're getting any of it "back" is if they have the ability to physically come and steal it from you or take it by physical force. Ie, send enemies to mess with you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The relationship is less about the Patron and more about the player character.

It is like which politician does one want to vote for?

If one politician (Patron) fails to do what one wants, then vote for an other one.

That is an interesting interpretation of the class that unfortunately has no support in the actual text.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know that Asmodeus got a lot of development during the 4E era that I missed, but I have a hard time picturing him giving out power for free.

Sure. And what you paid for the power is up to you, the player.

I don't think you, or anyone, should play with a DM that would strip a character of all its power, no matter what the class. I don't know that anyone has advocated otherwise.

The implication has been, repeatedly, that the patron should be able to do so, regardless of whether the DM should use that ability.

But yes, you can definitely tell a good story with the first take. "Spawn" is obviously a good exemplar of the form here.

It's the entire reason that I, and nearly every player I've ever played with who liked warlocks, would ever want to play a warlock with a relationship other than the mentor relationship I mentioned in another post.

But "I'm doing horrible things I disagree with, because I need to continue accessing this power" (which maybe just means the ability to take additional elves as a warlock) "so that I can obtain my goal" is arguably the primary story of deals with the devil, literal or metaphorical. That's everything from "The Ninth Gate" to "Wall Street."

I disagree. I think very few of those stories rely on the premise that they will lose the power if they stop doing the terrible things. Usually it's more that using the power results in terrible things, and they can't afford to stop using the power. As for taking additional levels of warlock, the class fluff negates that pretty solidly with wording that suggests that only your subclass features even come directly from the patron.

At most, I could see the patron retracting the subclass, requiring you to switch to something else. Probably hexblade tbh because it's pretty generic. If a player wants to use this idea to instead multiclass sorcerer or paladin or wizard or something, I'd be stoked to explore that with them.

It's not selling your soul, literally or metaphorically, if the warlock can go "lol, bro, I got my power, I'm good." At that point, just rename the class "sorcerer" and move on.

Sure it is. They sold their soul. When they die and are actually free from the mortal plane (ie not available for resurrection), they're soul is forfeit. Or, depending on the setting and how death works, maybe their soul is forfeit and res magic won't work unless their patron allows it, potentially leading to a new, even more distasteful, deal. After all, not taking the deal means the patron gets your soul, while taking it means you have some tiny fraction of a chance of winning your way free of the deal and keeping your soul, or maybe just living forever so the contract can never be completed. Who knows. Big multiverse out there, anything could happen. It's an easy choice, right?

At the end of the day, the PCs are more important than my story ideas. If a potential ruling or story element runs counter to what they want to do with their character concept (assuming good faith and reasonable asks) then I am going to bend the worldbuilding to fit the PCs, not the other way around. So, I don't care if someone or even most people thinks that patrons should be able to take power away. The character is here to play their warlock that opposes the being that gave them power, and so patrons cannot take their power away, and has to try to send agents to deal with them, or intimidate or manipulate them into doing what the patron wants, or whatever else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the DM wants to, totally doable.

If the DM to impose additional restrictions beyond the class description, and the player agrees to it, then yes.

 

[Yaarel]

That is an interesting interpretation of the class that unfortunately has no support in the actual text.

The Warlock can vote for a different Patron.

Heh, it sure has support in the actual mechanics.

 

[Parmandur]

If the DM to impose additional restrictions beyond the class description, and the player agrees to it, then yes.

Exactly!