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

 

[Cadence]

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.

Gack, do you have a link to any of the threads that happened? Both to read your description of the system (which sounds cool) and to also see what on earth they were worried about (which sounds strange give the things aren't ever supposed to be in the foreground).

---

In any case I'm boglee at the number of folks on here either at one extreme who have no trust of the players (but wants DMs to be infinitely trusted) and or on the other side who have no trust of DMs (but assumes players will never be a problem)... and neither group finds it strange.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Well, yes, it refutes your point, when you said that ending the campaign is a perfectly suitable response for a PC being overpowered, which for some DMs includes having a straight-out-of-the-PH ability. Or that if the DM decides something is powerful, it is.

A DM may think that something that is actually balanced and standard is too powerful. It's not really fair for them to simply decide "Welp, if you want to play a rogue, then no game for you."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, yes, it refutes your point, when you said that ending the campaign is a perfectly suitable response for a PC being overpowered, which for some DMs includes having a straight-out-of-the-PH ability. Or that if the DM decides something is powerful, it is.

A DM may think that something that is actually balanced and standard is too powerful. It's not really fair for them to simply decide "Welp, if you want to play a rogue, then no game for you."

If a character is using options that the GM feels are overpowered, and no accord can be reached (in either direction), what option is there? Make the GM run the game anyway? In what way is that fair? No GM is going to run their best game if they feel they playing under duress.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

In case people wanted to see more of the general aesthetic of the setting, here are the five iconic students for each of the colleges at Strixhaven:

Quintorius Kand, loxodon, Lorehold

Rootha Squallhart, orc, Prismari

Zimone Wola, human, Quandrix

Killian Lu, human, Silverquill

Dina, dryad, Witherbloom

 

[Faolyn]

If a character is using options that the GM feels are overpowered, and no accord can be reached (in either direction), what option is there? Make the GM run the game anyway? In what way is that fair? No GM is going to run their best game if they feel they playing under duress.

Did you read what I wrote? There are DMs who are denying actual rules, like sneak attack and smite, because they don't understand what balance actually means. Not optional or third-party stuff.

 

[Cadence]

Did you read what I wrote? There are DMs who are denying actual rules, like sneak attack and smite, because they don't understand what balance actually means. Not optional or third-party stuff.

Why does that change it? If a DM wants to run D&D, but really don't like something and so wants to exclude it, and most of the players are fine with that, why should someone be able to force them to run a game with it? Did 3.5 have some options in fairly basic books (some animal forms or companions) that were a bit out there?

 

[Hussar]

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?

But, now we're into Oberoni Fallacy territory.

Because, for every player who has a good experience with this, there are many who don't. Note, a player gets the same experience without having the DM initiate it if the player chooses to bring it up to the DM. IOW, you can get the same positive results - the players have a world outside of their characters that feel real and that push and pull - without having the negative results where the players turtle up because of DM's being too heavy handed.

I mean, sure, if you, as the DM, suggest the notion to the player and the player is all for it, then groovy. But, that's rarely what DM's mean by "consequences". Player is playing their character, DM feels that whatever the player is doing doesn't fit with the DM's conception of the element that the player brought to the table and then has "consequences" that means that the DM is forcing the player to fit with the DM's interpretation.

Put it this way. Player does something that you feel would have consequences and their patron would step in. Player says, "No, that shouldn't happen". Do you immediately back off? Is the player in control here at all? Or is 100% from the DM? The DM "controls the patron" after all. So, does the player's interpretations of an element that the player introduced into the game have any impact at all?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, now we're into Oberoni Fallacy territory.

No.

Because, for every player who has a good experience with this, there are many who don't. Note, a player gets the same experience without having the DM initiate it if the player chooses to bring it up to the DM. IOW, you can get the same positive results - the players have a world outside of their characters that feel real and that push and pull - without having the negative results where the players turtle up because of DM's being too heavy handed.

It is not the same. Player inventing what happens explicitly is not having a feeling of real and independent external world.

I mean, sure, if you, as the DM, suggest the notion to the player and the player is all for it, then groovy. But, that's rarely what DM's mean by "consequences". Player is playing their character, DM feels that whatever the player is doing doesn't fit with the DM's conception of the element that the player brought to the table and then has "consequences" that means that the DM is forcing the player to fit with the DM's interpretation.

Put it this way. Player does something that you feel would have consequences and their patron would step in. Player says, "No, that shouldn't happen". Do you immediately back off? Is the player in control here at all? Or is 100% from the DM? The DM "controls the patron" after all. So, does the player's interpretations of an element that the player introduced into the game have any impact at all?

You see everything as a conflict. It is not. These problems you describe simply tend not to happen.

 

[Cadence]

Put it this way. Player does something that you feel would have consequences and their patron would step in. Player says, "No, that shouldn't happen". Do you immediately back off? Is the player in control here at all? Or is 100% from the DM? The DM "controls the patron" after all. So, does the player's interpretations of an element that the player introduced into the game have any impact at all?

How did the discussion before the game, that the PhB says should happen for Warlocks, go?

I had a player who desperately wanted a magic sword. He asked around town and found out there was one above the mantle of a wealthy merchant (introduced only because the player asked). Player goes and knocks on the door and asks to see it, actually assuming he could just go in and take it. Should the DM just have the butler hand him the sword because that's the players conception? Let him take the sword? Not have the city guard show up when the butler sends for help? Have the guards not capture him when instead of running ( because the players plan is that the guards, in service of a lord who employs a wizard will be scared of him levitating in the street)? Have city guards not have missile weapons? At what point do the players objections just get that sword because they picture it working for their character? Character is a wizard, never took anything to.have proficiency in sword, do they get to use it like they did anyway because it was their conception?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did you read what I wrote? There are DMs who are denying actual rules, like sneak attack and smite, because they don't understand what balance actually means. Not optional or third-party stuff.

There are several possibilities here. Maybe the ability is unbalanced (PH or not; there's a reason people debate these things). Maybe the DM couldn't find a way to balance it. The point is, if this is a major problem for the DM, and no accord can be reached, then that DM should stop running the game. In that case, sometimes a new DM can take over, but most often, it means the campaign ends.