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

 

[Yaarel]

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. :-}

It is always better to focus on the good DMs than the bad ones. Even so, the rules having a stop sign here or there for general traffic, is helpful.

 

[Remathilis]

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?

There is no absolute "carte blanche" on character creation; that stuff is laid out in session zero. I'm generally flexible, with the only real hard-line being that options generally tied to a specific setting (IE dragonmarks, Ravnica guilds, Dark Gifts) are only available for that setting.

Once a character is agreed upon, the DM cannot arbitrarily change it without player consent. That doesn't mean things can't happen to the PC (such as death, being infected with lycanthropy, etc) but I don't act as an arbiter of what a PC can do nor do I punish them punitively for actions unbecoming. They suffer consequences, but those are consequences of that are handled in game. To whit.

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?

Well, SOMEONE starts answering them! Not necessarily the god of Justice, but I'm sure there is some dark god, archdevil, demon lord, or the like who is willing to offer the PC "Intervention", perhaps in return for a service or sacrifice in return...

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

Sure. Dark Druids and Fallen Druids do occasionally go mad and opt for desolation as form or rebirth. Now, every druid or fey being within a short ride will come and stop them (word spreads quickly when the land itself answers your questions) and most won't survive such a brazen attempt at open destruction when a druidic circle beings its allies to war.

But the druid will at least have its spells when they come calling.

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?

Paladin is a little trickier one, as the Oath you swear is personal and to break your oath is to betray yourself. If you go full antagonist, you might need to adopt Oathbreaker to continue to advance in paladin.

Also, it should be noted that I generally don't allow Overtly Evil PCs. It used to be a strict prohibition (due to some of the shenanigans described prior) but in recent years, its fallen more to "this game is heroic, try to make a character that is heroic or at least anti-heroic, but not villainous". And to be fair, most if not all players stayed in that mold. The few times a character went outright "switch-sides" evil, it was assumed that PC was not going to continue with the group and the player did create a new PC. I've never really had to deal with a paladin going full genocidal, for example. But short of those extremes, I found that not worrying that a paladin lying or killing an innocent indirectly or any other "gotcha!" moments DMs love to put paladin's in made the game a lot more enjoyable.

I just don't have deities, patrons, and other supernatural beings hanging over my player's shoulders like disapproving nannies waiting for the first sign of impropriety.

EDIT: I just realized these questions weren't aimed at me (they were aimed at someone I cannot see). Take me answers for what you will though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This DM-player conflict wasnt about powergaming.

In my eyes, the problem was, I made the characters too powerful.

In their eyes, it was about sense of self. These particular players dont really care about powergaming. They cherished these items. They invested in the story of them.

You're running the game. If the PCs are overpowered to you, then they are. You're the one who has create challenges for them. If they refuse to step down, you either try to deal with it (and possibly run a campaign less satisfying for all of you). Or you end the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Let me ask you this: you have a dispute in game between a player and the GM. No accord can be reached. Who wins?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To be clear, you're saying you trust your players, but you want there to be rules in place saying they dont have to trust you?

 

[Greg K]

But short of those extremes, I found that not worrying that a paladin lying or killing an innocent indirectly or any other "gotcha!" moments DMs love to put paladin's in made the game a lot more enjoyable.

When it comes to Paladins and Clerics, while I hold them to tenets and strictures of their deity (in my campaigns Paladins are associated with deities and this is made known upfront), I don't do gotcha moments to strip all powers.

In 42 years, I have taken minor abiities away in only two instances- both were Paladins and they had omens warning them. I forget what happened in the first instance. In the second instance, the Paladin served the goddess known as the "Protector". The player knew what was expected of his character, and kept spamming turn undead from the back row at a dracolich (and failing) while leaving the rogue and sorcerer exposed to its attacks on the front row. He received an omen of disapproval and kept insisting on attempting turn undead. So, he lost that ability for a short time until he did pennance.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Very different things. If I say that a class is allowed, then it's allowed. I'm not then going to add a "but... you have to play the class the way I see it".

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?)

Well, it's Forgotten Realms, so, I'd say there's a pretty darn strong setting. The players have already been to Beregost, introduced themselves to Candlekeep and many of the NPC's there, are members of an organization devoted to gathering lore in FR (a patron group - heh, but, one that could not remove class abilities of course), are embedding themselves nicely into the elements of the setting. So, I'd say that it's a pretty setting heavy campaign. All about researching setting lore and whatnot.

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.

And if the player doesn't want that? If the player wants to play a heretical character that still remains a cleric of that Deity because, well, heretics and sectarian storylines are a ton of fun? Oops, sorry, you can't play that because I decided that your deity hates your idea and strips you of your spells. No player is ever going to go for that.

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

Oh, totally agree. You and I should never sit at the same table.

Let me ask you this: you have a dispute in game between a player and the GM. No accord can be reached. Who wins?

Honestly? And this is being 100% honest here, I'll almost always default to the player. On a character issue? Yeah, the player wins, pretty much every time. It's their character. They want to play that. Why should I abuse my authority as DM to force the player to play something they don't want to play? Actually, thinking about it, pretty much this issue, which, really, is more of an incompatible play style issue, resulted in me dissolving my last group. Two of the four players, well, three of the five but the third one left earlier, and I just could not see eye to eye on issues. And it was affecting the game to the point where I didn't want to play anymore. So, the group dissolved. At some point, that's probably the best answer. Particularly if there is a dispute between the player and the GM where absolutely no compromise can be made, it's probably best at that point to simply walk away from that table. Because once you reach that point, it's going to happen again and again and it will just flush the game straight down the toilet.

To be clear, you're saying you trust your players, but you want there to be rules in place saying they dont have to trust you?

Absolutely. I have 100% of the power at the table. They shouldn't trust me in a situation where I have all the power and no oversight. Why on earth would I expect anyone to just trust me, particularly when I'm exercising that power over another player at the table to force them to do something they don't want to do? I work to earn the trust of my players. And, hopefully, I've proven that yes, they can trust me to provide a fun game. But, to just trust me? Bugger that. I WANT them to challenge me all the time. Good grief, sitting at the table with me, excluding myself, I've got about 150 years of gaming experience between the players. Both as DM's and players. In multiple systems. I freely admit they know, collectively, far, far more about how to run a good game than I do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Very different things. If I say that a class is allowed, then it's allowed. I'm not then going to add a "but... you have to play the class the way I see it".

Well, it's Forgotten Realms, so, I'd say there's a pretty darn strong setting. The players have already been to Beregost, introduced themselves to Candlekeep and many of the NPC's there, are members of an organization devoted to gathering lore in FR (a patron group - heh, but, one that could not remove class abilities of course), are embedding themselves nicely into the elements of the setting. So, I'd say that it's a pretty setting heavy campaign. All about researching setting lore and whatnot.


And if the player doesn't want that? If the player wants to play a heretical character that still remains a cleric of that Deity because, well, heretics and sectarian storylines are a ton of fun? Oops, sorry, you can't play that because I decided that your deity hates your idea and strips you of your spells. No player is ever going to go for that.



Oh, totally agree. You and I should never sit at the same table.


Honestly? And this is being 100% honest here, I'll almost always default to the player. On a character issue? Yeah, the player wins, pretty much every time. It's their character. They want to play that. Why should I abuse my authority as DM to force the player to play something they don't want to play? Actually, thinking about it, pretty much this issue, which, really, is more of an incompatible play style issue, resulted in me dissolving my last group. Two of the four players, well, three of the five but the third one left earlier, and I just could not see eye to eye on issues. And it was affecting the game to the point where I didn't want to play anymore. So, the group dissolved. At some point, that's probably the best answer. Particularly if there is a dispute between the player and the GM where absolutely no compromise can be made, it's probably best at that point to simply walk away from that table. Because once you reach that point, it's going to happen again and again and it will just flush the game straight down the toilet.



Absolutely. I have 100% of the power at the table. They shouldn't trust me in a situation where I have all the power and no oversight. Why on earth would I expect anyone to just trust me, particularly when I'm exercising that power over another player at the table to force them to do something they don't want to do? I work to earn the trust of my players. And, hopefully, I've proven that yes, they can trust me to provide a fun game. But, to just trust me? Bugger that. I WANT them to challenge me all the time. Good grief, sitting at the table with me, excluding myself, I've got about 150 years of gaming experience between the players. Both as DM's and players. In multiple systems. I freely admit they know, collectively, far, far more about how to run a good game than I do.

See, I think mutual trust is important. The game can't proceed without players any more than it can without a DM, so no, you dont have 100% of the power. And I dont think every campaign needs to be all about what the player wants. That idea flies in the face of creating a world for your players to adventure in. DMs generally put in a lot of work on their games, and that means they get to make decisions about the world that can effect them. It's a relationship. Neither side gets to dictate everything, but without the ability to have the last word (after reasoned discussion) the game is either going to eventually reach an impasse, or the DM becomes a yes-man to the player's whims.

 

[Charlaquin]

I assume that's a typo.

Yes, it is.

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.

I don’t see anything wrong with a DM disallowing some class/race options. There are plenty of other things you can play, and if nothing that’s available interests you, then don’t play in their game.

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.

Sure, I generally will try to work with a player to work out how the character they want to play fits into the world we’re playing in. But if a DM considers certain races or classes a hard no? I think they should have the right to say no.

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.

Sure, it’s a good concept for some settings. Might be less good for others. Like any concept, really.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position to take. As I said in my last response to you, there are plenty of other things you can play, and if nothing that’s available appeals, don’t play with that DM.

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.

I disagree.