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

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just like how in previous editions there were some DMs who thought that every Paladin PC story's was required to be them getting cornered into violating their oaths by harsh moral dilemmas, the 5e version seems to be Warlocks having a falling out with their patron and getting their powers foreclosed on. It's a powerful and iconic story, but it's not appropriate for every PC and trying to force it on them is just annoying. Not to mention how repetitive it gets.

Of course it's not appropriate to every PC in every situation. I just object to it being taken off the table entirely. More paths are better than less in TTRPGs, in every sense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This assumes all Warlocks need redeeming.

I like "Warlock in Breach of Contract" better.

Yep. My Half-Elf Archfey TomeLock, Jack, doesn’t need redemption. He’s a hero. His patron, though...his grandmother the Knight General of some Feywild city or other, isn’t exactly a benevolent creature. He could conceivably need to leave her service, hopefully without breaking his word.

Id just flavor his power as being something he mastered and no longer needs help with, though, or possibly lean into his swashbuckler feel and switch to Hexblade.

 

[Undrave]

I was a component of one of my favorite 3.5 builds, Bard 7/Mindbender 1/Ur-Priest 2/Sublime Chord 2/Mystic Theurge 8.

What a world that was...

I don't think it is at all that obvious they way some people talk about it. They sound more like they are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of punishing the player of the warlock for... playing a warlock.

Maybe the punishment would be to become a Wild Magic sorcerer

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is at all that obvious they way some people talk about it. They sound more like they are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of punishing the player of the warlock for... playing a warlock.

I think it’s obvious if you assume good faith on the part of your fellow forum members. Are are DMs like this out there? Probably. Is anyone posting in this thread one of them? Probably not. Either way, the conversation tends to go much more smoothly if you assume the people you’re talking to are reasonable, rational individuals who aren’t out to ruin their players’ fun.

 

[ph0rk]

I think it’s obvious if you assume good faith on the part of your fellow forum members.

They are essentially describing punishment for what they consider bad behavior.

That's garbage. If they don't want warlocks at their table, they should do the right thing and ban them from the outset, not jerk the players around with the patron - particularly with the threat (or followthrough) of removing abilities.

So, as they have described their own approach I don't need to assume anything at all. They have described how they remove player control of their own character.

 

[Cadence]

They are essentially describing punishment for what they consider bad behavior.

That's garbage. If they don't want warlocks at their table, they should do the right thing and ban them from the outset, not jerk the players around with the patron - particularly with the threat (or followthrough) of removing abilities.

So, as they have described their own approach I don't need to assume anything at all. They have described how they remove player control of their own character.

It almost sounds like you're angry that DMs would do what the rules say to do for people who choose this class, a class whose whole idea is being bound by a pact to a super-powerful being and getting powers from it. If the player and DM followed the book they would have worked much of it out in advance...

And what happens during level advancement is in the book as well. Some things are from your studying...

...and some are explicitly given because you continued to be in good standing when you advanced to that level.

It feels like what happens with these invocation, boon, and arcanum if you fall out of favor are something the DM and PC should have talked about at the beginning (and I wish the rules called that out as one of the things to talk about). I don't know how Eldritch Master can possibly be read as being something you could use if you were out of favor.

I'm guessing some DMs have worlds where they want everything to fall together, and where the arch devils don't hand powers out like candy, and when an archdevil hands stuff out for a particular reason and has a contract they enforce it. I'm having a hard time figuring out why that's bad if the players agreed to it in the beginning. Or in general why it's bad that players don't get to just do whatever they want character wise. ("I'm sorry, the <based on some fictional or real world setting everyone agreed to and I've put a lot of time in> doesn't have Dragonborn. If you play one it's going to make life a lot more difficult for your character because the first reaction from everyone would be that you're some sort of demonic-monster or the like. Was it the appearance you wanted or the powers? We might be able to do something with the later.").

 

[ph0rk]

If the player and DM followed the book they would have worked much of it out in advance...

And if the DM says nothing about it until the campaign is underway and then starts removing powers, that doesn't seem like good DMing to me.

Talking about it from the outset (which, above, I said they ought to do if they plan for them to work this way) is what they should do.

There is no mechanic for removing warlock powers - so it is homebrew addition.

I don't play at level 20 that much so I don't really care that much about eldritch master. I've also said, several times, that I don't have a problem with requiring that the player seek a new patron to advance if the old one is lost or the deal broken; so presumably a warlock with a broken pact would have done so by the time they reached 20. That new patron could be of the same type; Fiend 2 to replace Fiend 1.

The problem is yoinking all their abilities mid stream and providing nothing in return. This isn't 2e where a paladin can simply sink back to being a fighter; a warlock without class abilities is dead weight, yet people are arguing a DM should be within their rights to do this. That's stupid.

Consider this, from 3.5:

Ex-Paladins​

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.


Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Neatly and cleanly set out mechanics, right there in the class description. That does not exist for warlocks in 5e, and if a DM pulls this crap without making it as crystal as the above text how it works, what causes it, and how to overcome it, they are being a jerk.

 

[Cadence]

There is no mechanic for removing warlock powers - so it is homebrew addition.

Well, no mechanic for it if , like you say, the DM has said nothing about it in advance.

I can see a new DM not having read the Warlock section much or imagining that the character would want to back out of what might have been their entire character concept. Or see a player not having thought about what they had agreed to. I'd hope the two would be open to talking about it later.

 

[ph0rk]

I can see a new DM not having read the Warlock section much

That's hardly an excuse for jerking the player around, is it?

If a player picks a class and concept and informs the DM in a reasonable time, the DM should then ask if they player wants their patron to be a part of the overall arc. Some will - I would. But to not ask or inform the player and then foist it on them later, upon threat of losing abilities without any clear understanding (for the player) how to get them back?

That's up there with dropping rocks on a player when they piss you off.

I am aware that some Very Popular internet DM did pretty much this. I don't care, and I don't think what said Very Popular internet DM does should define how the system works for anyone else.

 

[Cadence]

That's hardly an excuse for jerking the player around, is it?

It's almost like I had two and a half more sentences in that post you grabbed half of one from...