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

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I keep seeing this, so I gotta ask:

Do you often play or Dm for warlock that have in mind '' yeah, I'll betray or cheat my Patron. I'll oppose it with my newly gained powers!'' ?

In my games, most warlock are quite happy to play along with their patron, joyfully cutting corners and making ''ethically-challenging'' bargains to gain moaaaar powar!

Sometimes, reading Enworld makes me think every players out there are playing god-less clerics, pact breaking warlock or pacifist fighters

 

[ph0rk]

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

I highlighted the important one.

Not having read the class section is not an excuse for a DM to do this.

 

[ph0rk]

Do you often play or Dm for warlock that have in mind '' yeah, I'll betray or cheat my Patron. I'll oppose it with my newly gained powers!'' ?

Not particularly. I prefer to pick quite powerful creatures as patrons, though - Ghaunadar, Tiamat, that one Ancient Lich two mountains over, the one New God looking for followers, that sort of thing. When I DM, it does not come up, either.

I don't expect the party would interact with them directly or even really be on their radar until Teir 4 because they are so powerful, and most of what the campaign entails isn't of interest to them.

But I also see the bulk of the stuff under discussion as replaceable fluff text and not usually relevant unless both player and dm wish it to be.

 

[Cadence]

I highlighted the important one.

Not having read the class section is not an excuse for a DM to do this.

I didn't say it was. I said hopefully the player and DM could talk about it. It feels like there is a lot of ground between expecting no repercussions and getting nuked. A player who insists nothing bad could possibly happen for jilting there patron - without working that out in advance - also seems unreasonable to me (albeit less so than the nuke it all DM).

Do you have a personal story of a DM mangling one of your own pact/religious characters by power tanking?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I agree that would be a problem. It’s also something no one in this conversation has said they would do. So, like I said, this conversation would go more smoothly if you assume your fellow forum users are reasonable, rational individuals who aren’t out to ruin their players’ fun.

 

[ph0rk]

I agree that would be a problem. It’s also something no one in this conversation has said they would do. So, like I said, this conversation would go more smoothly if you assume your fellow forum users are reasonable, rational individuals who aren’t out to ruin their players’ fun.

People have said they would either do this or threaten to do this and would include the patron as an antagonist - whether or not the player wishes it.

Eh, I don’t care how Crawford said it works, at my table a warlock’s patron can retract their boons if they feel the warlock is squandering them.

Like you, in this thread. That is removal of class abilities by DM fiat.

It doesn't matter whether or not it has happened, the fact you think this is some sort of divine right reserved for DMs that applies only to a handful of classes is poor gameplay unless you make it crystal clear from the outset with mechanics so the player fully understands, in game terms, how it works. There are no mechanics for this for paladins or warlocks in 5e, so this possibility and the mechanics of it should be provided to the players at session zero.

In this case the patron is in the DMs mind, not the player's mind, so things like the patron feeling gifts are squandered are highly likely to feel arbitrary and unfair to the player.

That aside, is the class so powerful that it requires balancing in this way? Of course not.

 

[Maxperson]

People have said they would either do this or threaten to do this and would include the patron as an antagonist - whether or not the player wishes it.

Can you quote someone as literally saying, "I'm going to ruin the player's fun."? I haven't seen that.

Like you, in this thread. That is removal of class abilities by DM fiat.

By rulings over rules, yes, which is the foundation of 5e. If a player thinks that they can just actively go against their patron with no serious repercussions...

In this case the patron is in the DMs mind, not the player's mind, so things like the patron feeling gifts are squandered are highly likely to feel arbitrary and unfair to the player.

Squandering is probably a bad metric to use. The Warlock made a pact, and that pact would include terms. "I'll do this for you in exchange for power." As long as the Warlock is upholding his end of the bargain and not actively going against his patron's interests, it should all be good. The Warlock should be able to waste his power or not as he sees fit.

That aside, is the class so powerful that it requires balancing in this way? Of course not.

It's not a power thing. It's a roleplaying thing. If you don't want there to be any issues, don't go against your patron or the pact you made.

 

[Charlaquin]

People have said they would either do this or threaten to do this and would include the patron as an antagonist - whether or not the player wishes it.

The “whether or not the player wishes it” and the earlier suggestion that it be without discussion or warning is assumed by you, and not accurate to the way people are describing it working in their games.

Like you, in this thread. That is removal of class abilities by DM fiat.

And as I’ve said many times, if it were to happen, it would be worked out with the player and unfold over the course of the campaign.

It doesn't matter whether or not it has happened, the fact you think this is some sort of divine right reserved for DMs that applies only to a handful of classes is poor gameplay unless you make it crystal clear from the outset with mechanics so the player fully understands, in game terms, how it works.

Which I do.

There are no mechanics for this for paladins or warlocks in 5e, so this possibility and the mechanics of it should be provided to the players at session zero.

Which they are.

In this case the patron is in the DMs mind, not the player's mind, so things like the patron feeling gifts are squandered are highly likely to feel arbitrary and unfair to the player.

I imagine it would be if it came out of nowhere. It would not. It would, once again, be something worked out with the player, and unfold over the course of the campaign.

That aside, is the class so powerful that it requires balancing in this way? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with game balance.

 

[Charlaquin]

Squandering is probably a bad metric to use. The Warlock made a pact, and that pact would include terms. "I'll do this for you in exchange for power." As long as the Warlock is upholding his end of the bargain and not actively going against his patron's interests, it should all be good. The Warlock should be able to waste his power or not as he sees fit.

This is a Charlaquin-specific thing. Warlock Patrons in my game are patrons, not employers.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

By rulings over rules, yes, which is the foundation of 5e. If a player thinks that they can just actively go against their patron with no serious repercussions...

The questions that then follow are: is "rulings over rules" a good design principle, and if "rulings over rules" is in effect, should determining those rulings be solely the province of the GM?

My personal answer is no to both. Your milelage may vary.