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

 

[Weiley31]

I'm not gonna lie: I legit liked the old school DND idea that a Druid had to fight another Druid or a Monk had to fight another Monk, of high rank, in order for them to advance to the next level.

I use the same idea, except the whole "fighting to advanced to a higher tier in the Class Ranking" is more of a flavor/rp thing. So even if a Druid did reach level 20, they aren't a Archdruid yet in universe until they fight and beat one. The Levels ups still happen normally.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Nope. I give the players some input*, but ulitmately I am the ultimate authority on the setting and run the type of setting that I want to run. I have no interest in running for just anyone that plays D&D- especially, tyrannical/enititled players whom expect the DM to cater to them and run a campaign/setting the DM won't enjoy. My time is too valuable so I run for players with similar preferences in both fantasy and playstyle which is why I interview perspective players for compatability.

*Most of the input is the type of adventures, because I don't have a preplanned story, but base the actual campaign on the goals. backgrounds, and actions of the PCs provided they are within the confines of the setting limitations (e.g. cosmology, cultures) and house rules (e.g. no evil characters)

 

[Yaarel]

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.


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


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

If a setting flavor BANS certain lineages or classes, including Cleric or Warlock, that is fine, and self-evident during session zero when players are creating characters and discussing what they want in the setting.

But to violate the personal space of a player, including the character concept that player roleplays and self-identifies with, is something different. The DM and the players are reallife humans, and there are interpersonal boundaries and comfort zones.

 

[Charlaquin]

Bad rules create bad DMs.

No. Experience creates good DMs. Most DMs are bad at first, they make mistakes, and then they learn from them and become better DMs. This is true regardless of the rules system, and writing rules to try to be bad-DM-proof just leads to them being overly rigid and hampering good 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.

This is always what it comes down to. We’ve all had bad experiences in the past, usually from when we were first learning the game, usually with DMs who were also inexperienced. Sometimes those experiences can leave a lasting negative impression like this, and yes, that sucks. I’m sorry you had such a negative experience, but I am not your old DM and it isn’t fair to me to assume that I am making the same mistakes they did.

 

[Yaarel]

No. Experience creates good DMs. Most DMs are bad at first, they make mistakes, and then they learn from them and become better DMs. This is true regardless of the rules system, and writing rules to try to be bad DM proof just leads to them being overly rigid and hampering good DMs.

This is always what it comes down to. We’ve all had bad experiences in the past, usually from when we were first learning the game, usually with DMs who were also inexperienced. Sometimes those experiences can leave a lasting negative impression like this, and yes, that sucks. I’m sorry you had such a negative experience, but I am not your old DM and it isn’t fair to me to assume that I am making the same mistakes they did.

I will NEVER play any version of D&D whose rules permit a DM to violate reallife players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But to violate the personal of space of a player, including the character concept that player roleplays and self-identifies with, is something different. The DM and the players are reallife humans, and there are interpersonal boundaries and comfort zones.

Your character not being able to use a spell is not violating your personal space. The player presumably chose to play a cleric of certain deity, and thus were fine with at least roughly following the core principles of the said religion. That the GM upholds the fiction the player is committed to is respecting their character concept, and this includes having the deities actually matter.

Also do you know what also prevents the character using their powers? Being dead. Do you also think that the GM cannot create situations in which characters might die, regardless of what they do? Is that too 'violating the personal space of the players?'

 

[Charlaquin]

But to violate the personal space of a player, including the character concept that player roleplays and self-identifies with, is something different. The DM and the players are reallife humans, and there are interpersonal boundaries and comfort zones.

It’s only violating the player’s space if it’s sprung on the player unexpectedly. If instead you do as the rules say to do and discuss the matter with the player and come to a mutual agreement about how it will work, there’s no violation.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Also do you know what also prevents the character using their powers? Being dead. Do you also think that the GM cannot create situations in which characters might die, regardless of what they do? Is that too 'violating the personal space of the players?'

There are games where, while the characters can certainly get into life-threatening situations, the decision to actually have them die if they get dropped to 0 is entirely on the player. The player has a limited number of "respawn options" with narrative consequences to choose from (their character takes a permanent injury, their character's personality changes, their character has theirbstats and skills redistributed, player's choice).

 

[Charlaquin]

I will NEVER play any version of D&D whose rules permit a DM to violate reallife players.

Nobody is violating anyone, except apparently your old Dragonlance DM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are games where, while the characters can certainly get into life-threatening situations, the decision to actually have them die if they get dropped to 0 is entirely on the player. The player has a limited number of "respawn options" with narrative consequences to choose from (their character takes a permanent injury, their character's personality changes, their character has theirbstats and skills redistributed, player's choice).

Yes. D&D is not that sort of game. You can of course include such houserules.