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]

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.

I would say “absolutely” to the first, and “no, but the DM should have final say” to the second.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yeah, same here. I just think that if the pact is upheld, barring conflicts with the patron's goals and belief system, whatever else the PC wants to do with the powers is up to him. If you have made a patron with a good being, running around murdering people, even if not against the bargain, is probably going to piss off the patron right good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, same here. I just think that if the pact is upheld, barring conflicts with the patron's goals and belief system, whatever else the PC wants to do with the powers is up to him. If you have made a patron with a good being, running around murdering people, even if not against the bargain, is probably going to piss off the patron right good.

What I mean by “patron not employer” is that there isn’t generally a contract. Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement at most, but it’s really just kind of a good-faith gesture. “I like what you do, here’s some (magical) resources so you can keep doing it. Also, if you wanted to do this specific thing for me, that’d be cool of you.”

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In my opinion it's a yes to the first. Assuming good faith DMing, the DM is going to do his best to be fair with his rulings, so it's a great design principle. If the DM is acting in bad faith, no design is going to stop that. To the second part, it's a yes and no. Some things the DM is going to need to just make rulings on. Other things, like house rules, should at least be discussed with the players.

My break is almost over and I will be back in the DM seat again. Last session I handed out sheets to the other 4 members of my group with a list of house rules I was thinking about. Most of them I liked, but I included some that I didn't care about one way or the other, but which they might like. They noted on the sheets which ones they liked, didn't like, or didn't care about one way or the other. If 3 or more were against a rule, I crossed it out and it won't be used. If 3 or more liked a rule, it was in. If it was a tie, I broke the tie. We had a number of ties. Some of them I liked and voted in favor of. A few were ones I didn't care about and since some players didn't like them, I voted to keep those out.

During game play, though, if a situation comes up and I need to make a ruling, I'm not going to stop the game to take a vote. I'm going to unilaterally make that ruling and we will move on. If they players really don't like how it went down, they can talk to me outside of game time and make their case.

 

[Maxperson]

What I mean by “patron not employer” is that there isn’t generally a contract. Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement at most, but it’s really just kind of a good-faith gesture. “I like what you do, here’s some (magical) resources so you can keep doing it. Also, if you wanted to do this specific thing for me, that’d be cool of you.”

That's cool, but for me the whole PACT magic thing means that there is some sort of pact(contract). There's even a heading under Warlock that says Sworn and Beholden.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm most curious about how all of the patrons react to having so many agents of other patrons running around. Is everyone pawns in some big supernatural chess game? Or is it something totally different? How much of an infernal flavor does it have? There's lots of other warlocks, post-3E, but that's where I think most people go when they think of pacts.

Not something I would likely ever want to play, run or own, but it sounds cool as hell.

From what i've read of my PDF copy, since I did back the kickstarter, it is pretty interesting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

I'm curious. Are you saying the fact that the character has been granted powers by another entity is meaningless, that there should be no consequences to betraying said being? The character in question is not going to end up with no class abilities, and I feel it is disingenuous to assume that is what DMs want. What would happen in my game is they start on a new path, possibly including some of their previous abilities "left over" from their old alligence. And what that path is is worked out between the DM and player in what is hopefully mature conversation. Internally consistancy is important, and the mechanics and fluff have to work together to achieve it.

 

[Blue Orange]

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

Actual medieval vassals did this, no? Swear allegiance to multiple lords to get more land and then hope they picked the right one when they went to war?

So, you know, it has a history.

 

[Weiley31]

Well I guess this was a fun UA discussion why it lasted: seems like its all about Warlocks now..............and whether they can go to school or not to get an education and be a productive member of society.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's cool, but for me the whole PACT magic thing means that there is some sort of pact(contract). There's even a heading under Warlock that says Sworn and Beholden.

Makes sense. We focus on different aspects of the warlock/patron relationship, and I think both are interesting takes. Also to be clear I think my take definitely deviates more from the default presentation.