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

 

[Hussar]

Why are they different classes then?

Because wizards aren't religious by design? While clerics and druids are? AFAIC, they don't really need to be different classes and I would have zero problem if all three were just lumped into once "Caster" class with subclasses. Heck you could put bards in there as well.

But, again, this has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with flavor. I just prefer that my clerics not be forced into being lockstep, but, rather have the freedom to do what they choose to do.

And, again, I freely and fully admit that this is my own personal, 100% idiosyncratic take on clerics and is most certainly not in keeping with baseline D&D. It's a concept I got from Primeval Thule and liked it so much that I incorporate it into every campaign I run.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because wizards aren't religious by design? While clerics and druids are? AFAIC, they don't really need to be different classes and I would have zero problem if all three were just lumped into once "Caster" class with subclasses. Heck you could put bards in there as well.

But, again, this has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with flavor. I just prefer that my clerics not be forced into being lockstep, but, rather have the freedom to do what they choose to do.

And, again, I freely and fully admit that this is my own personal, 100% idiosyncratic take on clerics and is most certainly not in keeping with baseline D&D. It's a concept I got from Primeval Thule and liked it so much that I incorporate it into every campaign I run.

OK. I feel that if classes work differently there has to be a reason for this. So I want cleric to be powered under differnt metaphysical process than wizard is who in turn is powered differently than the warlock. If I don't have that, then I too would rather just combine all of them into one 'caster' class.

I tend to do my gods as pretty distant and incomprehensible though, so whilst they in theory could mess with their clerics, in practice they really don't. I guess if the cleric literally denounced the god and actively went against their core principles they might need to start looking for a new god. But this is unlikely to actually happen, as presumably when the player chose to play a cleric of certain god they wanted to play cleric of said god, and thus were fine with the basic principles of said faith.

 

[Greg K]

Also, there's the issue that the DM is playing the patron in a baffling manner. Why on earth would Asmodeus give the slightest toss what a 4th level, or even 14th level warlock is doing? Is he dead yet? No? Then I don't get to use his soul for eternity as my plaything? Did he die and get rezz'd? Ah well, still needs to marinate a little longer. He died for realsies? Woohoo snack time!!

Perhaps he cares, because it is not the "Let me walk", "Let me be famous", " Let me be the most talented artist, singer, whatever" type of pact in exhange for my soul in [x] years or upon death. Instead, it is the pact seen in 70's occult movies, Kolchak, and a few episodes of Supernatural*, and some other sources in which you pledge your allegiance and eternal soul to your new lord and master in exchange for real power to do magic and other gifts he might bestow upon you in exchange helping increase his power and fulfill his evil goals. Fail to achieve his goals or turn against him and he will take the character out by death or some other cruel and permanent means.

*Supernatural actually shows both types of pacts- "Let be famous/talented/walk, have someone's love, or heal [x] from some disease" in exhange for my soul in ten years and granting power to cast magic in exchange for pledging to serve the Devil and declaring him your lord and master.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe the result of a warlock losing their patron is that they simply cannot take any more warlock levels. At least not until they find a new patron?

That sounds reasonable, and could probably apply to the Cleric too.

That said, just like the Cleric can be a cosmic-force Cleric, the Warlock can have options like that too.

For example, in Strixhaven, the Warlock could easily drop an interferesome Archfey who is part of the Background, and then make the Magic College the new impersonal abstract Patron. Even after graduating, the Warlock can remain an active alumnus or teach there, or send their kids there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Perhaps he cares, because it is not the "Let me walk", "Let me be famous", " Let me be the most talented artist, singer, whatever" type of pact in exhange for my soul in [x] years or upon death. Instead, it is the pact seen in 70's occult movies, Kolchak, and a few episodes of Supernatural*, and some other sources in which you pledge your allegiance and eternal soul to your new lord and master in exchange for real power to do magic and other gifts he might bestow upon you in exchange helping increase his power and fulfill his evil goals. Fail to achieve his goals or turn against him and he will take the character out by death or some other cruel and permanent means.

*Supernatural actually shows both types of pacts- "Let be famous/talented/walk, have someone's love, or heal [x] from some disease" in exhange for my soul in ten years and granting power to cast magic in exchange for pledging to serve the Devil and declaring him your lord and master.

For the record, I would be thrilled to have a player want to be a warlock for X years, after which, their patron comes for them. Great motivation to level up and gear up and a boss fight with a strong connection to the player, starting at level 1. That'd be a really fun play loop.

 

[Greg K]

For the record, I would be thrilled to have a player want to be a warlock for X years, after which, their patron comes for them. Great motivation to level up and gear up and a boss fight with a strong connection to the player, starting at level 1. That'd be a really fun play loop.

Personally, I like the differentiation between the two types of pacts with the Devil giving magic power to one willing to serve his needs with no time limit unless you fail him or turn against him in which case the marker gets called in early. The first (in exchange for my soul in x years, let me walk, let x love me, cure x of a disease) is for desperate suckers, but the latter (i.e. magic ability and other gifts) is giving something of real value in exchange for service, but either way he still gets your soul. The former knows how long they have. The latter does not and can be used as an example to others not to fail or turn against the Devil.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. If the player came to me with the concept, I'd probably run with it, but, as a DM, suggesting that the player have that kinds of hands on patron? Never going to happen. And, frankly, a DM who insisted on it would simply mean that I don't play warlocks under that DM. Like I said, as a DM I have zero interest in that level of micro management powers over a player's character, and IME, every single player I've ever seen would simply refuse to play a character under those conditions.

Why is it that DM's feel the overwhelming need to place controls over player characters? You have the entire universe to play with. All I have is this one character. Why do you need to play my character too?

 

[Hussar]

OK. I feel that if classes work differently there has to be a reason for this. So I want cleric to be powered under differnt metaphysical process than wizard is who in turn is powered differently than the warlock. If I don't have that, then I too would rather just combine all of them into one 'caster' class.

I tend to do my gods as pretty distant and incomprehensible though, so whilst they in theory could mess with their clerics, in practice they really don't. I guess if the cleric literally denounced the god and actively went against their core principles they might need to start looking for a new god. But this is unlikely to actually happen, as presumably when the player chose to play a cleric of certain god they wanted to play cleric of said god, and thus were fine with the basic principles of said faith.

But, they don't in 5e, by canon. All casters access the Weave. They way they access it might be slightly different, but, not particularly. A wizard memorizes the spells, says the words and casts the spells. A cleric or a druid does exactly the same thing. The only difference is, a cleric memorizes spells by praying. Add a prayer book and now there's no difference. Heck, they even turned druids into the summoning class in 5e, gave clerics and druids a shedload of wizard spells, including iconic ones like fireball and invisibility and all the casters basically pew pew pew all the live long day. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between Produce Flame, Firebolt and Sacred Flame after all.

To me, in 5e, a cleric is just a particularly religious wizard. So, I changed the flavor slightly to reflect that.

Which does bring me back to the other issue of DM's getting their fingerprints all over the player's characters. I am very, very careful not to even give the impression that I am going to interfere in any way with someone's character without their express say so. So, the idea of telling the player that their patron is now giving them orders? Never going to happen in my games. Heck, unless the player initiates it, the patron will never appear in any of my games.

 

[Greg K]

Why is it that DM's feel the overwhelming need to place controls over player characters? You have the entire universe to play with. All I have is this one character. Why do you need to play my character too?

In my opinion, the Patron is part of the universe and that is under the DM's control as are deities when it comes to clerics and other divine powered PCs and paladins. The players should be notified ahead of times what is expected of the character by the patron or deity, the player can decide if they want to play the class or something else.

edit: and as I wrote earlier in the thread, Fiendish warlocks are NPCs only when I run. The patrons expect evil acts to be committed to fullfil their goals and I do not allow evil players or want to kill PCs outright if the PC goes against the patron and killing the PC outright is what they will do for betrayal or failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the record, I would be thrilled to have a player want to be a warlock for X years, after which, their patron comes for them. Great motivation to level up and gear up and a boss fight with a strong connection to the player, starting at level 1. That'd be a really fun play loop.

That does sound really cool.