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]

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)

I have had to have this conversation with my players recently, when we converted from 3E to C&C and now to 5E. I explained that having a bunch of +1 items was going to screw up game balance pretty badly, even with attunement. We worked out what I think is a deal everyone's OK with, which is pulling +1 off of everything, and leaving some weapons magical but without that +1 to hit (I always like items that are more than stat sticks).

It wasn't the world's most fun conversation, but everyone seems to be on board.

 

[Greg K]

s OK with, which is pulling +1 off of everything, and leaving some weapons magical but without that +1 to hit (I always like items that are more than stat sticks).

In one of my long running campaigns (that started in 2e), I had given the rogue a magical sword with no plusses, but never needed to be resharpened, never needed to be cleaned as dirt, blood, etc. did not adhere to it, and, if I recall correctly, did double damage vs spellcasters and magical creatures. It was also considered +2 or +3 against creatures only hit by magical weapons despite not having a to hit bonus.

 

[Yaarel]

With Strixhaven

Apparently, these fullcaster classes are official for the Magic The Gathering setting.

• White Cleric
• Blue Wizard
• Red Shaman (≈ Bard with an animistic earth-fire archetype?) (or Elementalist ≈ Geo-Pyromancer Sorcerer?)
• Black Warlock
• Green Druid

If so, I would like each of these classes written from the ground up with flavors that are specific to the Strixhaven setting, without consulting the Players Handbook. It is ok if the spell lists for each class leaves certian Player-Handbook spells if they feel less resonant with the Strixhaven setting.

The DM can of course allow other classes, from the Players Handbook and elsewhere, but the Strixhaven version of these classes should set the tone for the setting.



Regarding the Cleric, this is a cosmic force Cleric whose cosmic force is the White color. There can be advise for how a Cleric can roleplay this color. It will probably have a more "magey" feel, perhaps more secular and less sacred.

Similarly, the Warlock has the Black color as a kind of patron. There can be roleplay advice to play this color.

Whatever relationship the Cleric and Warlock mages have with the respective color, the same relationship and dependence can apply equally to other classes as well:

• Wizard to Blue
• Bard (?) to Red
• Druid to Green

 

[Remathilis]

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

While the more egregious examples were from earlier in my days, the general group of players I gamed with (and where all of these come from) ranged from mid-teens through to almost thirty. It came mainly from one DM, but other players who played under them also emulated that style, adapting it as they saw fit. It took many years after that group collapsed to realize how toxic the mix had been and how much we took as gospel, like "the DM is always right" and "If the DM isn't happy, nobody's happy" aren't supposed to mean the DM controls every aspect of the game, including your PC.

My point was only to say that older D&D (AD&D up through 3.5) relied very heavy-handedly on "DM enforces the role-playing of a class" and when mixed with "DM is God" can empower some antagonistic elements in certain people. Its enabling, because when the DM says, "Your patron is controlled by me, do what I want or I'll cripple your character" and can support it with citing the rulebook, the player ends up in the "my way or highway" as his only options. Personally, a bad DM is going to do stuff regardless of the rules, but I feel a LOT more comfortable if the DM doesn't have the shield of "you did something wrong, now your class is gone!" written in the PHB.

So yeah, I have adopted a more "live and let live" method. Extreme faith and training powers a cleric, paladin, or druid, not direct deity intervetion. Likewise, a warlock's gifts, once given, cannot be revoked and it falls to the patron to find other means to enforcing his contract.

 

[Charlaquin]

Its enabling, because when the DM says, "Your patron is controlled by me, do what I want or I'll cripple your character" and can support it with citing the rulebook, the player ends up in the "my way or highway" as his only options. Personally, a bad DM is going to do stuff regardless of the rules, but I feel a LOT more comfortable if the DM doesn't have the shield of "you did something wrong, now your class is gone!" written in the PHB.

So yeah, I have adopted a more "live and let live" method. Extreme faith and training powers a cleric, paladin, or druid, not direct deity intervetion. Likewise, a warlock's gifts, once given, cannot be revoked and it falls to the patron to find other means to enforcing his contract.

I don’t see why these are being treated as the only options. Yes, it would be bad if the rules expressly gave the DM permission to take a player’s class abilities away if they roleplay “wrong.” But having the rules expressly say the DM is never allowed to change anything on a player’s character sheet isn’t the only alternative to that. You could instead do as 5e does and say that the DM and the players should talk to each other and come to an agreement about it together.

 

[darjr]

 

[Hussar]

I don’t want my characters to be an integrated part of the world they live in.

I assume that's a typo.

Which is fantastic and all. And, as a player, if you initiated this, I'd be 100% in your corner. However, you have a post right above yours by @Gregk saying that the patron is part of the universe and thus under the DM's purview, to the point of straight up disallowing certain classes/concepts because they don't fit with his specific view of how a class works.

That's more the issue that I have. When DM's are so controlling over their world that a player can't even play a character that is coming from a different POV from the DM. I mean, the Fiendish Warlock that's does Good is a pretty tried and true trope - Constantine immediately jumps to mind. Lucifer, while obviously not a warlock, does serve as a perfect inspiration for a fiendish warlock.

Like was said somewhere else, I do truly respect the points of view expressed by different Dy M's and players on the forum, but, man, I sure am glad I don't play in their games.

 

[Cadence]

That's more the issue that I have. When DM's are so controlling over their world that a player can't even play a character that is coming from a different POV from the DM.

Just checking if you're implying that in games you run or play in that the PCs should be able to play any concept that they want with no regard to world the story is taking place in - because if a DM vetoes it they're being controlling and only allowing their own POV?

If that's not the case, do you have any examples of an ok disallowal?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Good point. I was going to mention this.

If I play any other kind of character that has a "patron" of sorts, I don't have to have any sort of conversation. It's not even suggested in the PHB that I would need to have one. I can play a cleric of Lathander any way I choose and the PHB is utterly silent on the notion of me not getting my spells for the day.

Unfortunately, they included the whole "talk to your DM" bit of very bad advice in the PHB for warlocks which, in turn, tells some DM's that it's perfectly fine to get their hands all over someone else's character even if the player has zero interest in it. This is why no one ever played paladins. It was just such a session in self flagellation that it was never worth doing again.

Again, if the PLAYER comes to me and says that they want this, fine and dandy. But it should, IMNSHO, always come from the player and NEVER the DM.

 

[Hussar]

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

And, bingo, we have a winner! Exactly the issue I was pointing to. DM's that cannot relinquish control over the game to the players and insist that they, no matter what, must always have the authority at the table.