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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When it comes to character concept, class mechanics, and (legal and setting appropriate) character builds,

yes, DM must respect the safespace of the player − the agency of the player.

The DM has many tools, both carrots and sticks, to narrate an adversarial relation with an NPC. The DM lacks need to violate a players concept of self.

I am a DM, I have never felt the impulse to trespass on the character concept of a player.

Both the players and the DM must respect the fiction. That's we all agree on when we decide to play the game. Sometimes fiction results negative things happening to the character.

Also you didn't answer my earlier question. All my character's powers are dependent on my character being alive; in fact, being alive is super central to my character concept! In your game, is my character immune to death regardless of what I decide to do? Can I challenge elder dragons to one-on-one duels, jump off high cliffs or into lava and my character can never die?

 

[Yaarel]

Somewhat relevant, the following is probably the biggest mistake I ever made as a DM.

During mid-tier (levels 9 to 12) it became apparent, I as a DM had awarded too many magic items. The excess items were highly disruptive to balancing encounter challenges. I explained to the players the situation, and asked them to voluntarily give up the items, at least until a higher level. They refused. For me, it would be impossible to self-identify with a magic item. But they (all of them!) did. For them, these were valuable symbols and vital expressions of their character concept. But I didnt see it. I was mad at them for wanting "broken characters". Playing the DM-tyrant card, I said, "A herd of disenchanters stampedes thru the hallway. Your magic items arent working anymore." Obviously, I should have known better, especially when I was violating my own values. But I didnt see clearly where the PLAYERS had drawn the boundary of their sense of self, their character concept. When I saw their faces of horror, I apologized, pretty much immediately, and we worked things out. But that sense of gaming trust was hesitant for a while afterward.

In hindsight.

No matter what a DM "can" or "cant" do, the DM must be extra cautious about anything on a player character sheet. I have an entire multiverse to play, as the DM. The player has a character sheet. The sheet itself is clear enough as a No Trespassing zone.

 

[Remathilis]

Even for the 1E era, that's pretty bizarre.

"Steve, my character is involved in a long con. Back off."

(Your DM was now canonically named Steve.)

Longer backstory: the DM thought that my thief didn't use his skills enough (he wasn't a steal pickpocket and we didn't do any dungeon) so when the character died, the "deity" of the cleric who raised me decided to make me a fighter and not a thief. He originally used the excuse of "repenting for a life of crime" but the DM let slip his true rationale later. I had no say in the matter except refuse the res and roll a new PC.

I'm reminded of a passage from Van Richten's Guide:

"Ask Permission
Players put considerable thought and investment into their characters. Don't impose rules on characters that might make players not want to play them anymore. For example, characters might gain any of the lineages and Dark Gifts from chapter 1 during play. If there's an opportunity for a character to gain one of these options, ask that character's player if they'd be comfortable with such an adjustment before imposing it. If the player says no, consider other options."

I think that's a good rule to live by, and it put a lot of what I've seen in my years in better light.

 

[Cadence]

I've had DMs force me to change my character class (from thief to fighter) via divine intervention because they didn't feel I was playing a "thief" properly. I've had DMs who have killed PCs because they didn't like the name they gave them. I've seen DMs who hold inherent bias against certain classes (druids, paladins) and create elaborate situations to force them to lose their class status. I've seen DMs have allowed a character option only to revoke it a few sessions later because "it doesn't really fit the world like I thought it would" and force the player to make a new PC.

Truth be told, I'm a little over DMs feeling they can write and rewrite MY PC because they don't like them. The less ability they have to force me into their boxes, the better.

Wow you've had a $hit-ton of bad DMs. :-/

 

[Cadence]

Somewhat relevant, the following is probably the biggest mistake I ever made as a DM.

During mid-tier (levels 9 to 12) it became apparent, I as a DM had awarded too many magic items. The excess items were highly disruptive to balancing encounter challenges. I explained to the players the situation, and asked them to voluntarily give up the items, at least until a higher level. They refused. For me, it would be impossible to self-identify with a magic item. But they (all of them!) did. For them, these were valuable symbols and vital expressions of their character concept. But I didnt see it. I was mad at them for wanting "broken characters". Playing the DM-tyrant card, I said, "A herd of disenchanters stampedes thru the hallway. Your magic items arent working anymore." Obviously, I should have known better, especially when I was violating my own values. But I didnt see clearly where the PLAYERS had drawn the boundary of their sense of self, their character concept. When I saw their faces of horror, I apologized, pretty much immediately, and we worked things out. But that sense of gaming trust was hesitant for a while afterward.

What age range were the players and you when this happened? (Just trying to build a picture in my head).

 

[Yaarel]

Was age range were the players and you when this happened?

High school.

 

[Yaarel]

Wow you've had a $hit-ton of bad DMs. :-/

Heh, sadly, I was one of them, at least, once.

 

[Cadence]

Heh, sadly, I was one of them, at least, once.

I'm guessing if you judge us all on our DMing in HS or before, a lot of us were at least once!

 

[Remathilis]

Wow you've had a $hit-ton of bad DMs. :-/

A lot was from the same DM, but not all. Not all that happened to me (ergo, I've seen vs. I've had) but it was a small area and DMs weren't crawling out of the woodwork in the 90s.

 

[Greg K]

Somewhat relevant, the following is probably the biggest mistake I ever made as a DM.

During mid-tier (levels 9 to 12) it became apparent, I as a DM had awarded too many magic items. The excess items were highly disruptive to balancing encounter challenges. I explained to the players the situation, and asked them to voluntarily give up the items, at least until a higher level. They refused. For me, it would be impossible to self-identify with a magic item. But they (all of them!) did. For them, these were valuable symbols and vital expressions of their character concept. But I didnt see it. I was mad at them for wanting "broken characters". Playing the DM-tyrant card, I said, "A herd of disenchanters stampedes thru the hallway. Your magic items arent working anymore." Obviously, I should have known better, especially when I was violating my own values. But I didnt see clearly where the PLAYERS had drawn the boundary of their sense of self, their character concept. When I saw their faces of horror, I apologized, pretty much immediately, and we worked things out. But that sense of gaming trust was hesitant for a while afterward.

In hindsight.

No matter what a DM "can" or "cant" do, the DM must be extra cautious about anything on a player character sheet. I have an entire multiverse to play, as the DM. The player has a character sheet. The sheet itself is clear enough as a No Trespassing zone.

The disenchanters was heavy-handed. I would have told the players that I made mistake and that the items were, currently, disruptive to game balance, and need to be toned down rather than taking them away. If they refused, I would have told them that the choices were either toning down the items or the campaign was over (I am not going to DM for players, who put powergaming above the good of the campaign)