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

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, it's Forgotten Realms, so, I'd say there's a pretty darn strong setting.

There are a lot of words I might use to describe Forgotten Realms as a setting, but “strong” is not among them. Obviously this is a matter of personal taste, but I don’t care for it.

 

[Hussar]

There are a lot of words I might use to describe Forgotten Realms as a setting, but “strong” is not among them. Obviously this is a matter of personal taste, but I don’t care for it.

What would you call a setting that has as much background information as FR? It has a pretty distinct D&D flavor. I mean, as far as settings go, is there any fantasy setting with as much information as Forgotten Realms? Thousands and thousands of pages of information. It's a pretty complete setting. That you don't particularly care for it doesn't really enter into the issue. I don't like it doesn't make it somehow less of a complete setting.

Granted, I change settings with every campaign I run, so, for me, there's just something that pretty much every setting ((Outside of Planescape which I never could stand)) that appeals to some element in the game I want to run. In a Candlekeep Mysteries game, where the whole point of the campaign is delving into the history and whatnot of the setting, you couldn't pick a better setting than FR, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

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.

See that bolded point. That's what I mean by the DM holds all the power. Even if it's not 100%, it really doesn't matter. The power imbalance is so extreme that it might as well be 100%. The only option the player has is to vote with their feet. That's it. Either accept what the DM is cooking or don't play. Whereas the DM can do anything from booting the player from the group to completely accepting the player's idea.

How in the world is that NOT a completely imbalanced power relationship? And, frankly, what's wrong with being a "yes-man to the player's whims"? See, this right here is just so indicative of how deeply ingrained in the gaming culture that DM's must jealously guard every single thing or those poxy players will just take advantage of the game and destroy it. Loosen the grip. Honest. It makes for better games. There's a REASON that virtually no non-D&D style game published in the last 20 years builds that level of imbalance into the game. There's a very good reason why things like Fate and whatnot build upon the notion that EVERYONE at the table is responsible for everyone's good time and that consensus gaming is far, far preferable to top down.

The problem is, D&D hasn't really gotten that message yet. 5e is predicated on beliefs in how tables work from decades ago. No, the players are not going to turn you into a "yes man to their whims". Why would they do that? How would that be fun for them? They're not going to enjoy it, so, they don't do it. Why presume that your players are so immature that they can't be responsible for the campaign world?

 

[Charlaquin]

What would you call a setting that has as much background information as FR? It has a pretty distinct D&D flavor. I mean, as far as settings go, is there any fantasy setting with as much information as Forgotten Realms? Thousands and thousands of pages of information. It's a pretty complete setting. That you don't particularly care for it doesn't really enter into the issue. I don't like it doesn't make it somehow less of a complete setting.

Oh, I definitely think “full of information” and “complete” are accurate descriptions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Gods being real and having actual opinions is weird. Many fantasy worlds work like that, the real world (presumably) does not. So that affects metaphysics of these sort of things, and the player is accepting that when they choose to play in that sort of a setting. Now personally I tend to do gods rather distant, so they certainly do not care about some minor theological schism between their worshippers, so it is perfectly possible to be a cleric of god X who disagrees with the temple of X on some matters. And aftercall, these same gods are worshipped by variety of cultures in differnt ways, so there cannot be some one super strict orthodoxy. But the god still is a real thing, albeit somewhat nebulous, so there are some limits.

But the bottom line is that this is a game in which we pretend that this fictional world is real. Everyone agreed to this. The world has a sort of reality of its own, and things you do in it have consequences. And it has to be that way or the game cannot exist. People keep ignoring my character death question, but it's no joke; it is the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

No, it is not the same thing.

My character's death is because something in the game came and ate me. There's no interpretation going on. I lost X HP and now I'm dead. Fair enough, that's part of the game.

A more similar situation would be the DM declaring that since your character went into negative HP, he now has a paralyzing phobia of the type of monster that dropped the character into negative HP. Every time you see X creature type, you character is affected by the Frightened effect. Should be perfectly fine right? After all, the DM has control over mechanical effects in the game and can alter your character sheet as a "consequence" of events. No problems right?

Yeah, good luck with that.

See, the trick is, you've decided that the "consequence" of the actions of the player are to strip away mechanical elements of the character, even if the player doesn't agree with your interpretation of how the patron of that character, which the player chose in the first place, would necessarily react. You, as DM, have decided that your interpretation is the right one, thus, you are now entitled to change the player's character sheet.

Not something I do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, it is not the same thing.

My character's death is because something in the game came and ate me. There's no interpretation going on. I lost X HP and now I'm dead. Fair enough, that's part of the game.

But the GM put the thing that ate your character in the game and the GM decides that it eats you. All of this is in GM's control.

See, the trick is, you've decided that the "consequence" of the actions of the player are to strip away mechanical elements of the character, even if the player doesn't agree with your interpretation of how the patron of that character, which the player chose in the first place, would necessarily react. You, as DM, have decided that your interpretation is the right one, thus, you are now entitled to change the player's character sheet.

Not something I do.

Sounds like a failure to communicate. The nature of the deity/pact/whatever should be established at character creation, so that both the GM and the player have roughly similar idea o what it entails. In my game warlocks are just infused with power, so this doesn't apply to them, their power is their own once given. Though in theory the character could take some actions which might result that power being removed, for example a character infused with cthulhoid essence could seek to have that purified and removed somehow, and as that is the source of their powers the powers would go with it. But again this is something the player would knowingly choose. What they cannot decide, that they purify themselves of said essence and still retain their powers, as that goes against the established and agreed upon fiction. And ultimately in D&D the GM controls NPCs and other such setting elements. So sorry, I simply don't believe that the player can just declare that a god whose central stated purpose is the opposition of demons is suddenly super cool with their clerics summoning and cavorting with demons.

I believe in players making informed choices, that's agency. I really am not talking about old school horror story gotcha moments where the GM tries to trick the paladin out of their powers. But I believe respecting the fiction, and things having consequences. If you leave your magic items unguarded in the middle of a market place teeming with thieves and other shadowy individuals, then you don't get to be upset if they got stolen even though they're part of your 'character concept.'

 

[AtomicPope]

Reminds me of 2e kits, but far more mechanically sound and versatile, more like a 4e Paragon or Epic. This is a step in the right direction.

Edit:

The more I look at this, the more I see ways to flesh out the various campaign settings for more player options that don't fit the standard classes or DnD world. Dark Sun immediately comes to mind. After reading Witherbloom it's easy to see how Defilers could be a subclass. This is similar to the way 4e treated Defilers. Also, Gladiator would work well here too as it wouldn't rely entirely on being a Fighter. You could be any Martial Class and using this template could work. In Greyhawk we have the Scarlet Brotherhood, which wasn't just Monks, and the Knights of the High Forest, who weren't just Fighters/Warriors. Many of these orders of the hart are a mix of fighters and other classes, or multi-class, which were just restrictions of the previous editions. We wouldn't have to do that anymore. Nor would we have to pigeonhole all religious fighting orders to be Paladins or War Clerics. The introduction of thematic subclasses allows DMs and Players to delve deep into the culture of any campaign and have it play out seamlessly on the table without the handwaiving.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See that bolded point. That's what I mean by the DM holds all the power. Even if it's not 100%, it really doesn't matter. The power imbalance is so extreme that it might as well be 100%. The only option the player has is to vote with their feet. That's it. Either accept what the DM is cooking or don't play. Whereas the DM can do anything from booting the player from the group to completely accepting the player's idea.

How in the world is that NOT a completely imbalanced power relationship? And, frankly, what's wrong with being a "yes-man to the player's whims"? See, this right here is just so indicative of how deeply ingrained in the gaming culture that DM's must jealously guard every single thing or those poxy players will just take advantage of the game and destroy it. Loosen the grip. Honest. It makes for better games. There's a REASON that virtually no non-D&D style game published in the last 20 years builds that level of imbalance into the game. There's a very good reason why things like Fate and whatnot build upon the notion that EVERYONE at the table is responsible for everyone's good time and that consensus gaming is far, far preferable to top down.

The problem is, D&D hasn't really gotten that message yet. 5e is predicated on beliefs in how tables work from decades ago. No, the players are not going to turn you into a "yes man to their whims". Why would they do that? How would that be fun for them? They're not going to enjoy it, so, they don't do it. Why presume that your players are so immature that they can't be responsible for the campaign world?

The game you're describing is a perfectly viable way to play, and as you mentioned many modern games operate with those assumptions. I'm happy for you that you have a group of players who want to play D&D that way. Those assumptions are not built into D&D (as you also mentioned), and the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you are treating your playstyle preferences as objectively better than what is presumed, and the makers of D&D just "haven't gotten the message". If you want to play Fate, play Fate. If you want to play D&D like Fate, and your players are on board, by all means. Dont assume that people who dont share your gaming preferences are simply behind the times. People get touchy about stuff like that.

 

[Weiley31]

My character's death is because something in the game came and ate me. There's no interpretation going on. I lost X HP and now I'm dead. Fair enough, that's part of the game.

Eh probably didn't die actually and is playing cards with Geppeto and Figaro. Gotta wait for Season 2's Mid-Season plot twist to see the reveal.