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

 

[Parmandur]

Actually reading the rules, which have been helpfully posted to this thread, shows that you're explicitly supposed to have a conversation about this stuff.

I get that some folks on this thread may have had a bad DM experience in the past, but projecting that behavior on total strangers who have repeatedly said they wouldn't cram this down someone's throat is unfair.

The negotiable nature of how the Warlock deal works is a real strength, for sure. I wouldn't want to do something like what happened with Uk'otoa in Critical Role, but it is great that it is an option on the table.

Having thought about ebwryoncontrivutiona, I think I prefer the model of the Patron making the Warlock an initiate into .apical secrets and not having control over the powers they gain, rather than a power line that can be flipped off and on. But whatever works for the table.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually reading the rules, which have been helpfully posted to this thread, shows that you're explicitly supposed to have a conversation about this stuff.

I get that some folks on this thread may have had a bad DM experience in the past, but projecting that behavior on total strangers who have repeatedly said they wouldn't cram this down someone's throat is unfair.

These bad experiences with DMs (even DMs who are close friends) create concerns about the RULES being clear. This isnt personal, it isnt about total strangers. It is about the RULES themselves not making players vulnerable to a bad experience that happens because the RULES themselves invite the bad experience.

The rules need to make it clear to any DM to respect each player character as the agency of its player in the game.

For the very same reason the DM cannot wield a Patron to override the Cleric class features, the DM cannot wield a Patron to override the Warlock class features. The wisdom of this hands-off ruling comes from years of painful player experiences.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

These bad experiences with DMs (even DMs who are close friends) create concerns about the RULES being clear. This isnt personal, it isnt about total strangers. It is about the RULES themselves not making players vulnerable to a bad experience that happens because the RULES themselves invite the bad experience.

This is part of the package when 5E swung back away from 3E and 4E toward "rulings, not rules." Through much of its existence, D&D has been the output of negotiation between players and DM (who is also a player) at the table of what the game really is.

But that may well be part of the issue on this thread. The two previous editions sold the idea that everything could, would and should be rigidly defined and the DM was going to be the equivalent of a major league sports referee, adjudicating off of what are generally pretty specific guidelines. When WotC spun the wheel back to the 1E/2E days in many ways, that assumption was no longer true.

Still, a lot of this comes down to Session Zero. If a would-be warlock player and DM have wildly different ideas about how the class works, they should probably hash that out before the first session of play.

 

[Yaarel]

This is part of the package when 5E swung back away from 3E and 4E toward "rulings, not rules." Through much of its existence, D&D has been the output of negotiation between players and DM (who is also a player) at the table of what the game really is.

But that may well be part of the issue on this thread. The two previous editions sold the idea that everything could, would and should be rigidly defined and the DM was going to be the equivalent of a major league sports referee, adjudicating off of what are generally pretty specific guidelines. When WotC spun the wheel back to the 1E/2E days in many ways, that assumption was no longer true.

Still, a lot of this comes down to Session Zero. If a would-be warlock player and DM have wildly different ideas about how the class works, they should probably hash that out before the first session of play.

The Cleric class is crystal clear about the DM keeping hands off the class features.

The interpretation that, in contrast, the Warlock class somehow might allow the DM to violate the player class features, is because the rules accidentally allowed the flavor to confuse the mechanics.

In any case, the confusion can only involve the Pact Boon, and no other part of the Warlock class. And this confusion arises from poor rules wording. The wording implies the Warlock can only obtain the Boon feature if "loyal" to the Patron. But even then, once obtained, the Patron cannot take it back.



That said, players can do whatever they want. If they want the DM to roleplay an adversarial Patron that can threaten the class features, then the player can ask the DM to override the rules-as-written to do so, and should use session zero to clarify these kinds of house rules. So I have no dispute about session zero decisions that are mutual.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

These bad experiences with DMs (even DMs who are close friends) create concerns about the RULES being clear. This isnt personal, it isnt about total strangers. It is about the RULES themselves not making players vulnerable to a bad experience that happens because the RULES themselves invite the bad experience.

The rules need to make it clear to any DM to respect each player character as the agency of its player in the game.

For the very same reason the DM cannot wield a Patron to override the Cleric class features, the DM cannot wield a Patron to override the Warlock class features. The wisdom of this hands-off ruling comes from years of painful player experiences.

This is not a rule issue, it's a trust and gaming culture issue. The GM can always screw the characters over if they want. "Rocks fall, everyone dies." If you can't trust the GM to use their power wisely, no amount of rules will solve the issue.

 

[Rikka66]

The Cleric class is crystal clear about the DM keeping hands off the class features.

The interpretation that, in contrast, the Warlock class somehow might allow the DM to violate the player class features, is because the rules accidentally allowed the flavor to confuse the mechanics.

In any case, the confusion can only involve the Pact Boon, and no other part of the Warlock class. And this confusion arises from poor rules wording.



That said, players can do whatever they want. If they want the DM to roleplay an adversarial Patron that can threaten the class features, then the player can ask the DM to override the rules-as-written to do so, and should use session zero to clarify these kinds of house rules.

I don't think it's an accident. I think they very purposefully were vague about how the relationship between warlock and patron works. To the extent that this is a rules issue it is that you wish they had made concrete rules in the first place.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Cleric class is crystal clear about the DM keeping hands off the class features.

Different people write the final text of different sections, different people edit them at different times, and even the best-edited works will have internal inconsistencies. (I've had pieces that had seven editors go over it go out with errors, which everyone agrees is maddening.) It's probably true that there was meant to be one standard, but the standard for the warlock says, in black and white, that some of this stuff needs to be worked out between DM and player.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Cleric class is crystal clear about the DM keeping hands off the class features.

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes."

It is pretty damn clear that the clerics are just channelling the power of gods, and having that power requires devotion to the deity and respecting the wishes of the god. The god is a NPC, the GM decides behaviour of the NPCs.

 

[Yaarel]

This is not a rule issue, it's a trust and gaming culture issue. The GM can always screw the characters over if they want. "Rocks fall, everyone dies." If you can't trust the GM to use their power wisely, no amount of rules will solve the issue.

Bad rules create bad DMs.

I learned D&D from close friends who were diehard 1e-2e-ers. At some point I played the Dragonlance campaign with them. When I created a Cleric character, my friend the DM didnt give me a warning that that the Dragonlance setting would remove all of my Cleric class features. He didnt warn me, because he thought that that "gotcha!" was the way the game was supposed to be according to the rules. The DM was innocent. The rules were bad.

That experience of character violation was profoundly violating for me. To this day, I irrationally hate the Dragonlance setting. I dont care if later they fixed that problem. I hate, hate, hate that setting, and want nothing to do with it. I got burned and I will never play that game again.

 

[Yaarel]

Different people write the final text of different sections, different people edit them at different times, and even the best-edited works will have internal inconsistencies. (I've had pieces that had seven editors go over it go out with errors, which everyone agrees is maddening.) It's probably true that there was meant to be one standard, but the standard for the warlock says, in black and white, that some of this stuff needs to be worked out between DM and player.

Establishing the "nature of the relationship" between the Warlock and the Patron, is strictly narrative. It means, whether the Patron is laissezfaire or a busybody showing up unannounced.

This "relationship" has zero to do with class mechanics.