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]

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?

It’s not about wanting to have control over the player’s character, it’s about wanting to incorporate the player’s character into the world. And as a player, that’s something I specifically want out of playing a warlock. I want to talk to the DM and figure out together the nature of my relationship with my patron, the terms of whatever pact I may have made with them, and I want it to matter in the game. I would feel the same way about a paladin’s oath, a cleric’s deity, a monk’s monastery, a rogue’s criminal contacts, a fighter’s military history, etc. etc. I don’t want my characters to be an integrated part of the world they live in.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

That sounds so boring to me. Like, as a player. If I choose to play a warlock its because I want to roleplay as someone who’s bargaining with dangerous otherworldly beings for power, and I want that to have the potential to bite me in the ass.

 

[Yaarel]

That sounds so boring to me. Like, as a player. If I choose to play a warlock its because I want to roleplay as someone who’s bargaining with dangerous otherworldly beings for power, and I want that to have the potential to bite me in the ass.

During session zero, either the Warlock player or the DM, can mention wanting to opt in to the DM removing the players class features, so as to avoid any unintentional violation or discomfort.

 

[Charlaquin]

During session zero, either the Warlock player or the DM, can mention wanting to opt in to the DM removing the players class features, so as to avoid any unintentional violation or discomfort.

Yes, obviously. Why is the assumption always that DMs are going to do this without discussing it with or even informing the players first? No one has suggested that.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, obviously. Why is the assumption always that DMs are going to do this without discussing it with or even informing the players first? No one has suggested that.

There is a disagreement about the Warlock rules, so when someone thinks they is following the rules correctly, they doesnt always ask.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is a disagreement about the Warlock rules, so when someone thinks they is following the rules correctly, they doesnt always ask.

The rules pretty clearly say that the player and the DM should work together to determine the nature of the warlock’s relationship with their patron and what control the patron has over the warlock, if any. Also, even if they didn’t say that, it’s generally bad form to take away a PC’s abilities unexpectedly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That sounds so boring to me. Like, as a player. If I choose to play a warlock its because I want to roleplay as someone who’s bargaining with dangerous otherworldly beings for power, and I want that to have the potential to bite me in the ass.

Just so. Who a PC is is so much more than how their mechanics work. Their place in the world matters just as much (probably more), and that includes where they get their power from and who they work for.

 

[Remathilis]

This thread has reminded me of discussions in halcyon days, when a barbarian (non-lawful, associating with magic-users and magic), a bard (non-partially neutral or later any non-lawful), a cleric (one step removed from deity's alignment, cannot be neutral, cannot use edged weapons, and improper behavior), a druid (non-neutral or partially neutral, using prohibited weapons and armor, inability to defeat a higher-level druid), a monk (non-lawful, limited wealth, inability to defeat a higher-level monk), a paladin (LG, limited wealth, tithing, code of conduct), a ranger (good alignment, limited wealth), a thief, (non-LG), and a warlock (non-Chaotic OR evil, patron demands) could all lose their class features or be prevented from advancing further in their class.

I don't miss those days one bit.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There is a disagreement about the Warlock rules, so when someone thinks they is following the rules correctly, they doesnt always ask.

Actually reading the rules, which have been helpfully posted to this thread, shows that you're explicitly supposed to have a conversation about this stuff.

I get that some folks on this thread may have had a bad DM experience in the past, but projecting that behavior on total strangers who have repeatedly said they wouldn't cram this down someone's throat is unfair.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This thread has reminded me of discussions in halcyon days, when a barbarian (non-lawful, associating with magic-users and magic), a bard (non-partially neutral or later any non-lawful), a cleric (one step removed from deity's alignment, cannot be neutral, cannot use edged weapons, and improper behavior), a druid (non-neutral or partially neutral, using prohibited weapons and armor, inability to defeat a higher-level druid), a monk (non-lawful, limited wealth, inability to defeat a higher-level monk), a paladin (LG, limited wealth, tithing, code of conduct), a ranger (good alignment, limited wealth), a thief, (non-LG), and a warlock (non-Chaotic OR evil, patron demands) could all lose their class features or be prevented from advancing further in their class.

At least the 1E barbarian was compensated for not being able to use magic items by basically having them built in to the character. The rest of it was highly punitive nonsense that I suspect the people who wrote the classes never tested before setting it down in print.

I suspect the druid and monk battle to level thing was intended as being built-in quests during a slower-leveling age, but I don't know anyone who ever sat down, statted up those druids and monks ahead of time and gave them a place in the world. Instead, you got to that level and everyone stared at each other blankly. "Well, crap."

Nowadays, I would assume we'd have published druidic and monkly orders to help DMs be prepared for it.