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

 

[Greg K]

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.

I disagree with you regarding 3e (I can't speak for 4e as I only own two books and neither are the PHB 1 or DMG). While many DMs never read the DMG or skipped over sections, the 3.0 DMG Introduction (p.6) specifically, states that the DM is in charge of how the game is played at the table, how the rules work, which rules are used, and how strictly to adhere to them. It is not the only place in the book that stated that. It is one of the reasons for Rule 0 in the PHB

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.

Agreeed, Session 0 is, to me, always important (although as DM, I have final say).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bad rules create bad DMs.

Nah. And good rules most definitely do not create good GMs.

I learned D&D from close friends who were diehard 1e-2e-ers. At some point I played the Dragonlance campaign with them. Whe 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.

I haven't read the DL campaign setting or if I have I can't remember it. Though I doubt that it just instructed to creating clerics as normal but removing their powers. And if it did, a good GM would realise that this would be complete nonsense.

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.

Sure, It isn't a very good setting. Your reaction is still extreme, and as you say, irrational.

 

[Greg K]

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

I don't care what the rules say. The DM is final authority on how the rules work at the table and in their setting. The only time RAW matters is for organized play, tournament play, and as a baseline for discussing the rules in forums (unless stated otherwise). Edit: The DM just should be upfront about houserules and changes

 

[Yaarel]

Nah. And good rules most definitely do not create good GMs.


I haven't read the DL campaign setting or if I have I can't remember it. Though I doubt that it just instructed to creating clerics as normal but removing their powers. And if it did, a good GM would realise that this would be complete nonsense.


Sure, It isn't a very good setting. Your reaction is still extreme, and as you say, irrational.

The good DM did realize the Dragonlance rules were nonsense. And therefore, after one session, we never played Dragonlance again.

Regarding the 5e Cleric class, the rules for each feature are crystal clear, despite the intro fluff. And, later rules clarifications allow for nonpersonal religions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Mechanics should never be unconnected to the fiction. The only purpose of the mechanics is to represent what's going on in the fiction.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, It isn't a very good setting. Your reaction is still extreme, and as you say, irrational.

Violations of reallife players is at risk, if the rules themselves fail to respect players.

It is the same reason we are now more careful about harm to reallife players via careless rules implying sexism or racism, even tho most agree such situations would be unintentional.

Allowing the player to express a character concept as the character identifies with it, is key. Interfering with expected class features, interferes with the character concept.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The good DM did realize the Dragonlance rules were nonsense. And therefore, after one session, we never played Dragonlance again.

Or just understand that clerics not having powers (at certain historical period) is a feature of Dragonlance, (like it is in the Dark Sun,) and tell that to players so that they can create other sort of characters.

Regarding the 5e Cleric class, the rules for each feature are crystal clear.

These rules only exist to represent the fiction. You can't ignore the fiction.

And, later rules clarifications allow for nonpersonal religions.

This is a world building matter, thus in purview of the GM. The GM decides what sort of religions exist in the world.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I don't care what the rules say. The DM is final authority on how the rules work at the table and in their setting. The only time RAW matters is for organized play, tournament play, and as a baseline for discussing the rules in forums (unless stated otherwise). Edit: The DM just should be upfront about houserules and changes

A pox on tyrannical DMs and their unilateral use of Rule 0. Make the democratization and decentralization of table authority so that all members are not just allowed, but expected to have creative input the new normal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To me, this is less about what the rules do or don't say and more about what makes sense in the world, tempered by not arbitrarily screwing over your players. If you enter into any agreement with a higher power where you are expected to show loyalty in exchange for power, there need to be consequences to breaking that loyalty. How that works is a discussion, not a pronouncement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Violations of reallife players is at risk, if the rules themselves fail to respect players.

Rules are inanimate strings of text and can't respect anyone. Respect exists between people.