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

 

[Greg K]

Considering most players I've seen won't even read a two page setting summary, I'd say that plays a lot into it.

If the group is face-to-face, go over the material verbally in session 0.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, heck, the last player I had do it to me flat out refused a free house from the background for Secrets of Saltmarsh. A free house, in Saltmarsh and he just turned up his nose and flat out said nope. I've seen it over and over and over again from players and, honestly, I've made some unbelievably favorable offers to the players to get them to actually ground their characters in the setting and inevitably it's turned down.

Have you considered he might just not have wanted a house? In my experience most players don’t care about that kind of thing. What use is a house to an adventurer anyway?

 

[Faolyn]

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.

There are lots of DMs who think that a rogue's sneak attack or a paladin's smite or overpowered, though, and nerf those abilities.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, in the 30+ years since I stoppped running dungeon crawl of the week and gave no thought to setting, I have only encountered one player like that. He was the disruptive butt-kicker/powergamer who ony cared about fighting that I have mentioned in threads on problem/worst players. and I was not the GM- the other two GMs had to deal with him before he was removed.
One other player did the orphan thing once, but his character grew up in a Mageocracy where mundanes inhabited the lowest caste of society and were, essentially, "untouchables". He still gave me background hooks and goals with which to work including initially using the party to leave the island (but eventually, going to view them as his family), wanting revenge against the mages for his mother's death, and having friends and contacts in the local Thieves "guild" (a network of "street rats"). Furthermore, the intention of the player (my roommate at the time) was to serve as a guide for the party while on the island and also provide his character with a motivation to want to leave with the party.

I'm honestly telling you that it is VERY common. I'd peg it as a solid 1/4 to a 1/3 of the players that sit at my table. Not the majority, although I have had that happen where that 1/3 becomes 3/3 :'( but, there's always at least one player like that. Orphan character from far away with zero ties to the setting is a such a common thing there are memes about it.

It's not like I'm saying anything controversial here.

 

[Hussar]

Have you considered he might just not have wanted a house? In my experience most players don’t care about that kind of thing. What use is a house to an adventurer anyway?

Sigh. You don't think that maybe, just maybe there might have been more details to the story that I might have elipsed for the sake of brevity and just maybe, because I'd been playing with this player for a number of years, I perhaps had the slightest clue about what was going on?

But, yeah, thanks for that.

 

[Greg K]

I'm honestly telling you that it is VERY common. I'd peg it as a solid 1/4 to a 1/3 of the players that sit at my table. Not the majority, although I have had that happen where that 1/3 becomes 3/3 :'( but, there's always at least one player like that. Orphan character from far away with zero ties to the setting is a such a common thing there are memes about it.



It's not like I'm saying anything controversial here.

I am not denying it happened to you or to others. I have heard stories on the internet. Maybe, I have been lucky in that the 45 or 50 so regular D&D players and another 20-30 reoccuring/guest players that I have had at my table since the early 90's have never been as you described. Not that I would allow an orphan without ties to the setting into the game, but I have not had to force the issue with players. I might think that it had it had to do with my players since the early 90's having an additional LARP background, but even in the mid-to late-eighties, when I changed my GMing style to emphasizing outside the dungeon, I never had an issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are lots of DMs who think that a rogue's sneak attack or a paladin's smite or overpowered, though, and nerf those abilities.

Does that refute my point? PCs can be overpowered for.many reasons. You have a discussion with your players, and proceed from there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Orphan adventurers are certainly a cliché, and one I still see and one which I have done. But I have never really seen it as an way to not have connections, more often it is the exact opposite. "I was an orphan, so I lived on streets and now I have all these criminal connections," "I am and orphan, because the evil group X killed my parents and now I seek vengeance" etc. And of course it is a common part of 'tragic backstory' in a lot of media, so naturally players will emulate it.

 

[Hussar]

You guys have been very lucky then. I've seen it as a way to A. ignore the setting and B. not allow the DM any handhold over the character far more often than any other approach.

And, it's this whole, "Well, I'm the DM, so, I can control your patron and through your patron, control your actions" schtick that has trained players to be so paranoid about it. And, yes, you can paint it as "consequences" all you like, but, the point from the player's point of view is that you are telling the player how to play the character. And not exactly subtly either. "Do this or you're not a warlock anymore until you get with the program" isn't exactly a light touch.

It's such a pervasive attitude. I've mentioned on the boards a few times a mechanic I borrowed from a game called Chronica Feudalis called Backgrounds. It's not the same as backgrounds in D&D. What it is, is a mechanic that allows players to wall off sections of their character sheet. They literally put it in the "background" so that it is there, but never a focus of the game. So, if I have a huge, extended family, but then put that in the Background, then that's a big sign telling the DM that I do not want that aspect of my character to be a focus of the game. It's there, we can role play it from time to time, but, it's never supposed to be in the foreground.

Upon suggesting this, I've seen multiple DM's on this board recoil in horror. The players will abuse this! You are giving power to the players!!! You can't do this! There is virtually zero trust of the players despite insistence that players should trust the DM.

Again, nothing I'm saying here should come as a surprise to anyone. It's hardly controversial. DM's being heavy handed and jealously guarding their control over the game has been part and parcel of the hobby since day one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You guys have been very lucky then. I've seen it as a way to A. ignore the setting and B. not allow the DM any handhold over the character far more often than any other approach.

And, it's this whole, "Well, I'm the DM, so, I can control your patron and through your patron, control your actions" schtick that has trained players to be so paranoid about it. And, yes, you can paint it as "consequences" all you like, but, the point from the player's point of view is that you are telling the player how to play the character. And not exactly subtly either. "Do this or you're not a warlock anymore until you get with the program" isn't exactly a light touch.

It's such a pervasive attitude. I've mentioned on the boards a few times a mechanic I borrowed from a game called Chronica Feudalis called Backgrounds. It's not the same as backgrounds in D&D. What it is, is a mechanic that allows players to wall off sections of their character sheet. They literally put it in the "background" so that it is there, but never a focus of the game. So, if I have a huge, extended family, but then put that in the Background, then that's a big sign telling the DM that I do not want that aspect of my character to be a focus of the game. It's there, we can role play it from time to time, but, it's never supposed to be in the foreground.

Upon suggesting this, I've seen multiple DM's on this board recoil in horror. The players will abuse this! You are giving power to the players!!! You can't do this! There is virtually zero trust of the players despite insistence that players should trust the DM.

Again, nothing I'm saying here should come as a surprise to anyone. It's hardly controversial. DM's being heavy handed and jealously guarding their control over the game has been part and parcel of the hobby since day one.

Stop to consider for a moment, that people here who say that they control these elements in their games that you think the GM should not control, are not having these same issues with their players than you do. Could it perhaps be, that these GMs actually generally manage handle these things in a manner that results a positive experience to the players? That the players perhaps then like having the world outside of their characters feeling real, having that push and pull? And then in turn these players keep creating characters who have these connections that 'GM could use against them' (as you characterise it,) because they actually feel that having such elements that the GM can use to introduce interesting narratives that are relevant to their characters is a good thing?