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

 

[Hussar]

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

Heh, years ago, so many that I can't easily find the thread, I polled En Worlders on their DM experiences as a player. Something like 2/3rds said that the majority of the DM's they played with were bad. Basically ranked from bad to very bad.

No one should ever be surprised that anyone has had a ton of bad DM's. There are FAR more bad ones out there than good.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Do you differ at all in how the deity intervenes based on how the cleric has been acting in regards to the goals of their deity? Cleric of Justice goes out and makes a life of crime, theft, and murder and the god still shows up and is helpful?

Do the druids still get their circle spells (and everything else) if they go full Saruman and strip the land bare ?

A paladin who decides to enter a life of self serving crime like the cleric above just gets to do it with no change in the powers that come from their oath?

 

[Hussar]

Or, you know, if they had said to discuss it with the player.

The default is, the players and the DM work it out together.

To do so unexpectedly is unacceptable. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing it with the player and coming to a mutually agreeable solution.

See, the problem with that is, far too many DM's take "discuss with the player" to mean "dictate to the player". The DM says, "Well, in MY campaign, X=Y, so, get with the program. If you don't like it, there's the door". The "discussion" is so one sided with one part of the discussion holding virtually all the power, that it's not really a discussion at all.

Now, if the rules said, "If you, as the player, want to add this to your character, you bring it up to your DM. DM's? You don't get to said anything until the player brings it up", that would be a HUGE improvement.

 

[Hussar]

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?

This is always the slippery slope isn't it? If we say that DM's should take a back seat, then, it's okay for players to play anything and they'll just abuse the privilege.

Y'know what? I trust my players. So, no, I haven't vetoed a character concept in so long that I can't remember the last time. Oh wait, I tell a lie. I limited classes in my Thule campaign. So, that was right at the outset of 5e, so, about 10 years ago. But, I was very upfront right out of the chute that certain classes were off the table, so, no vetoing going on, just a restriction of options.

My current campaign - Candlekeep Mysteries - I vetoed nothing. I have a character that is a dream figment of an aboleth, a warforged, an owl folk, a half orc and a tiefling. Not a single veto to be seen. And I have players that are so engaged and loving the game that they are messaging practically daily to talk about the campaign. Loving it. Best experience I've had running a game in a very long time.

 

[Hussar]

Do you differ at all in how the deity intervenes based on how the cleric has been acting in regards to the goals of their deity? Cleric of Justice goes out and makes a life of crime, theft, and murder and the god still shows up and is helpful?

View attachment 138252

That 10% chance has never come up. I've never even seen suggested that any cleric in any game I've played or run use this power, so, non issue.

Do the druids still get their circle spells (and everything else) if they go full Saruman and strip the land bare ?

View attachment 138253

Sounds like a defiler to me. Not a problem. Totally get it.

A paladin who decides to enter a life of self serving crime like the cleric above just gets to do it with no change in the powers that come from their oath?
View attachment 138255

This is terrible advice and I would never, EVER use it. It's a holdover from 80's D&D that needs to be consigned to the dustbin but won't be because there are far too many DM's out there that would lose their minds at the merest suggestion that they can't hold that Sword of Damocles over the heads of paladin players.

And, again, who plays characters that suddenly do a 180 and abandon their concept? I've never seen a paladin player who suddenly decided to take up a life of crime. Or a cleric player that is actively opposing their deity. Or a druid that is strip mining the land for gold. Have you? Have you ever seen a player do this? So, why do we need mechanical punishments to hold over the players for something they never do?

 

[Cadence]

This is always the slippery slope isn't it? If we say that DM's should take a back seat, then, it's okay for players to play anything and they'll just abuse the privilege.

Heh, years ago, so many that I can't easily find the thread, I polled En Worlders on their DM experiences as a player. Something like 2/3rds said that the majority of the DM's they played with were bad. Basically ranked from bad to very bad.

No one should ever be surprised that anyone has had a ton of bad DM's. There are FAR more bad ones out there than good.

It makes me wonder about the Player-to-DM pipeline that the majority of DMs are apparently bad, but the players don't need reigning in very often at all. (In either case, it makes me appreciate all of my past DMs and fellow players).

Y'know what? I trust my players. So, no, I haven't vetoed a character concept in so long that I can't remember the last time. Oh wait, I tell a lie. I limited classes in my Thule campaign. So, that was right at the outset of 5e, so, about 10 years ago. But, I was very upfront right out of the chute that certain classes were off the table, so, no vetoing going on, just a restriction of options.

Now, if the rules said, "If you, as the player, want to add this to your character, you bring it up to your DM. DM's? You don't get to said anything until the player brings it up", that would be a HUGE improvement.

These seem to go against the spirit of each other? Would you not restrict in a campaign with a particular setting anymore? Or would you wait til they asked before saying what was allowed? Or are these very different things?

My current campaign - Candlekeep Mysteries - I vetoed nothing. I have a character that is a dream figment of an aboleth, a warforged, an owl folk, a half orc and a tiefling. Not a single veto to be seen. And I have players that are so engaged and loving the game that they are messaging practically daily to talk about the campaign. Loving it. Best experience I've had running a game in a very long time.

Sounds fun
Is the lack of vetoes the sign of a campaign without a strong setting based on anything at all about classes and races, and a group of reasonable players? (Is there nothing you can conceive of that would have been veto worthy?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And, again, who plays characters that suddenly do a 180 and abandon their concept? I've never seen a paladin player who suddenly decided to take up a life of crime. Or a cleric player that is actively opposing their deity. Or a druid that is strip mining the land for gold. Have you? Have you ever seen a player do this? So, why do we need mechanical punishments to hold over the players for something they never do?

And that's why it is not an issue. The only reason this would happen, is because the player effectively wants to alter their character concept. And it's not 'punishment' to the player. It is a consequence, and it may be punishment for the character, but it is one which the player is well aware of and intentionally chooses. And they should be allowed to! The cleric who opposes their deity does so because the player wants the said deity to strip the cleric of their powers so that they can seek a new god.

 

[Greg K]

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.

You are right. I am not going to relinquish control of the setting. Certain things would up for discussion- background and goals that you want for your character, and, possibly ways to accmodate your concept provided it stays within the cosmology, cultures etc. of the setting and the house rules i have chosen to use. A few minor changes can possibly be made as I have done on occasion for players, but ultimately, I have the final say including what Patrons and deities expect as those are part of the setting and fall under "the universe". Since I do a session zero and the general information on race, culture, deities (including tenets and strictures), etc are available to players, they have the information they need. Don't want to buy into the settinglike it, it is not my concern, best wishes to you on finding a table/group that fits your playstyle.

However, I would never waste either of our time interviewing you. I know from your post history that you would never make it past the interview stage with my group and several groups I play with on occassion, so it would never get to the stage where we discuss the character you want to play, what concession (if any) might be made to accomodate you, etc

 

[Yaarel]

Do you differ at all in how the deity intervenes based on how the cleric has been acting in regards to the goals of their deity? Cleric of Justice goes out and makes a life of crime, theft, and murder and the god still shows up and is helpful?

View attachment 138252


Do the druids still get their circle spells (and everything else) if they go full Saruman and strip the land bare ?

View attachment 138253

A paladin who decides to enter a life of self serving crime like the cleric above just gets to do it with no change in the powers that come from their oath?
View attachment 138255

All of the above scenarios are comparable to changing alignment.

Alignment − for precisely the same reason − is a DM-keep-hands-off affair.

Alignment is narrative only − with zero mechanical implications.

Regarding Cleric, cosmic force is the norm. So I am looking for consistency in roleplaying a sacred tradition.

Druid, a Druid can destroy the land and keep class abilities, however, literally the land itself might attack the Druid.

Paladin. It is legitimate for a Paladin to switch alignments, break an oath, and take on a new oath. This is storytelling. It is a big deal to break an oath, and I want to see the player make a point to roleplay it. If shifting from Evil to Good, maybe try to fix past harms, or make an effort to help people in the future. If shifting from Good to Evil, reputations can sour, and reactions from NPCs can become volitile, and so on.

Everything is narrative.

No mechanics need apply.

 

[Cadence]

And, again, who plays characters that suddenly do a 180 and abandon their concept? I've never seen a paladin player who suddenly decided to take up a life of crime. Or a cleric player that is actively opposing their deity. Or a druid that is strip mining the land for gold. Have you? Have you ever seen a player do this? So, why do we need mechanical punishments to hold over the players for something they never do?

I've also been blessed to never run into the DMs that also do awful things.

Maybe the folks who put the things in the rules should be those who've run into awful players and awful DMs. :-}