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]

I do believe that it is better. And, I'd point out, D&D has been moving in this direction (slowly but surely) with every iteration. The old "DM controls your paladin" schtick is largely gone, although vestiges of it still remain. The whole "only award full xp to players who play "well" thing fell by the wayside decades ago. While 5e does strongly go for the "rulings not rules" thing, there are still FAR stronger and more comprehensive rules than, say, AD&D. Less than perhaps 3e, although, really, not very much. Less granularity maybe, but, 5e is still very much a modern RPG with the very least rules suggestions for pretty much everything.

The main issue is, the Dev's have to appeal to old school DM's who have a real issue with relaxing the grip. You said it yourself, "the DM does the work, so, the DM gets the power". As if that somehow justifies anything. If you didn't want to do the work, don't DM. If one of the reasons you are DMing is so you can maintain control over the campaign, don't. The game is improved when we make everyone at the table responsible for a good game. That means handing some of the responsibility over to the players and expecting the players to be more than passive consumers of whatever plot wagon the DM is rolling up today.

The primary roadblock to the expansion of the hobby is creating new DM's. The fastest way to create new DM's is to lessen the workload of the DM. Placing this level of control squarely into the hands of the DM, particularly a new(ish) DM without the benefit of years of experience, results in bad games far more often than not. Heck, I know that I was a terrible DM for a long time. And I'm pretty sure most of us, if we're being honest, were too. We learned. We grew. We have years of really, really bad decisions informing our decisions today.

While mechanics won't guarantee a good DM, they will guarantee that someone without experience and knowledge will make the same mistakes we all made.

Again, I'm glad you're playing a game where your specific needs are met. That in no way makes what you want objectively better than what others want. Why are so many people invested in changing the entire game to suit their preferences?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The "POWER" itself of the immortals flows into the Material Plane. In other words, the same "divine power source" that is in the Astral Plane where the immortals use it, is the same "divine power source" that is in the Material Plane where mortals use it. They are both learning how to use and wield the same power source.

Immortals are archetypes. These mental symbols "wish" to shape the linguistic structure of reality. Immortals often seek humans to propagandize the respective archetypes to organize a culture, and to "inform" the Material Plane.

So in your game, the gods are frauds pretending to grant power to lesser beings. That's fine. Sounds like an interesting concept for a setting. But it's not how it is commonly depicted, and has been explicitly contradicted in several places over the years.

 

[Yaarel]

What matters is the fiction of the given setting. If it has been established to work in certain way then that's how it works, and whatever logical consequences follow from that, will follow. I certainly am not against GMs altering such assumptions to better fir their setting and do so myself regularly. that being said, I already quoted the PHB cleric description earlier:

D&D 4e was designed for players and DMs to "refluff" its flavor. Powers (spells and features) had a "flavor text" that characterized the power in prose, before the section that described the mechanical formulas. Mechanical formulas 100% determine 4e adjudication. Narrative adjudication doesnt exist in 4e. Even so, 4e is pretty good at expressing flavor, because it is easy for any one to fine a power with reasonably appropriate mechanics, and then radically reflavor it according to personal taste. So 4e makes it possible to play character concepts that are less likely in other editions.

I learned D&D from a group who played 1e and 2e. I am familiar with theater of the mind, narrative immersion, and narrative adjudication, and strongly prefer it. Then I played 4e, and I love 4e, and greatly appreciate its striving for class balance. Then I played 3e, tho I knew about it earlier. I missed the 4e at-wills. Now I play 5e, and it kinda does allow me to do (most of) the things that I like from the earlier editions.

I like narrative adjudication, and focus on the story, is what makes the story come life.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D&D 4e was designed for players and DMs to "refluff" its flavor. Powers (spells and features) had a "flavor text" that characterized the power in prose, before the section that described the mechanical formulas. Mechanical formulas 100% determine 4e adjudication. Narrative adjudication doesnt exist in 4e. Even so, 4e is pretty good at expressing flavor, because it is easy for any one to fine a power with reasonably appropriate mechanics, and then radically reflavor it according to personal taste. So 4e makes it possible to play character concepts that are less likely in other editions.

I learned D&D from a group who played 1e and 2e. I am familiar with theater of the mind, narrative immersion, and narrative adjudication, and strongly prefer it. Then I played 4e, and I love 4e, and greatly appreciate its striving for class balance. Then I played 3e, tho I knew about it earlier. I missed the 4e at-wills. Now I play 5e, and it kinda does allow me to do (most of) the things that I like from the earlier editions.

I like narrative adjudication, and focus on the story, is what makes the story come life.

Yes, I hated that aspect of 4e. The fluff was just an afterthought. I am very much a 'lore first' sort of person. The lore is paramount the rules merely represent it, and if they come into conflict, the rules can take a hike.

 

[Yaarel]

So in your game, the gods are frauds pretending to grant power to lesser beings. That's fine. Sounds like an interesting concept for a setting. But it's not how it is commonly depicted, and has been explicitly contradicted in several places over the years.

The immortals are creatures of the Astral Plane. Compare how fey are creatures of the Feywild.

There is no real difference between immortals, including angels and eladrin, except hierarchical rank.

In linguistics (semiotics), some symbols are "deeper" to organize more of the other symbols to form a linguistic structure. Thus these deeper archetypes are more "powerful", especially if they are perceived to be necessary for survival. Sometimes assemblages of symbols tend to cluster together and associate more closely with each other.

In the Forgotten Realms setting, each archetype is understood to be a commodity to put into ones "portfolio". The immortal can give the archetype away to someone else, or barter it, or sell it. Likewise anybody, including humans, can acquire the archetype, even kill and loot the archetype, thus become the new immortal with this commodity in ones own portfolio.

There is no difference between an immortal and a mortal human who might become the next immortal one day.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, I hated that aspect of 4e. The fluff was just an afterthought. I am very much a 'lore first' sort of person. The lore is paramount the rules merely represent it, and if they come into conflict, the rules can take a hike.

Yeah, that is why I can get so bent out of shape if I am less happy about some specific official flavor. Some 4e players dont understand the problem and tell me to just "refluff" it. I try to explain why it just doesnt work like that. The flavor of the rules is just as binding as the mechanics of the rules, and in some ways, more so.

For me to enjoy the game, it is vital that I either love the official flavor or can live with it. Or better yet, allow enough flexibility to make the flavor my own.

 

[Hussar]

Again, I'm glad you're playing a game where your specific needs are met. That in no way makes what you want objectively better than what others want. Why are so many people invested in changing the entire game to suit their preferences?

Because, by adding this notion that the DM is empowered to alter character's by fiat, we are training players to turtle up. I've seen far, far too many players who, when it's time for character generation, present me with yet another orphan whose entire family is dead, and just arrived at the beginning location from a land far, far away a week ago. Yet another blank slate character because players have been taught over the years that any time they allow the DM the slightest inch, the DM's will take a mile.

I want players who will enthusiastically engage with the setting when they create characters. I want characters with families and friends, and ties to the community. But, players are so paranoid about doing anything that even remotely suggests the merest whiff of a tie, let alone a tie with any sort of authority over the character, that they would rather chew glass than allow it.

So, yes, it is, IMO, objectively better for the game to emphasize that a player's character belongs 100% to the player. If the PLAYER approaches you with the notion that they want some sort of mechanical change or whatnot? Fantastic. Bend over backwards to help them make that happen. But, it has to come from the player, never, ever from the DM. Because, unfortunately, every player at your table has had other DM's than you. While you would never take advantage of this and would always work with the player, never against the player and you are obviously invested in making sure that it's fun, the unfortunate truth is that that player has also had DM's who are not so inclined and have abused the privilege time and time again, all the while pointing to the same arguments you are making to justify their decisions.

 

[Hussar]

What matters is the fiction of the given setting. If it has been established to work in certain way then that's how it works, and whatever logical consequences follow from that, will follow. I certainly am not against GMs altering such assumptions to better fir their setting and do so myself regularly. That being said, I already quoted the PHB cleric description earlier:

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes."

It pretty much says that the cleric is an intermediary of the god's power, and that their magic is granted to them for being devoted to the god's cause.

Which is fine for clerics. Unfortunately, doesn't apply to druids or paladins. And, frankly, paladins are the only class where it's explicit about the DM altering the mechanics of the class for consequences of the character's actions. Everything else is, IMO, DM over reach. There's nothing that explicitly states that a cleric's deity can choose to turn off the tap, so to speak. And a Druid could kill everything in its path and justify it by saying that they are just emulating forces of nature. Good grief, I'm struggling to think of a single thing a druid could do in the game that wouldn't be justified by pointing to examples in nature. Heck, a Spore Druid gets Animate Dead straight up on its spell list. There are official Druid classes that can create undead.

How on earth is there anything my druid couldn't do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because, by adding this notion that the DM is empowered to alter character's by fiat, we are training players to turtle up. I've seen far, far too many players who, when it's time for character generation, present me with yet another orphan whose entire family is dead, and just arrived at the beginning location from a land far, far away a week ago. Yet another blank slate character because players have been taught over the years that any time they allow the DM the slightest inch, the DM's will take a mile.

I want players who will enthusiastically engage with the setting when they create characters. I want characters with families and friends, and ties to the community. But, players are so paranoid about doing anything that even remotely suggests the merest whiff of a tie, let alone a tie with any sort of authority over the character, that they would rather chew glass than allow it.

So, yes, it is, IMO, objectively better for the game to emphasize that a player's character belongs 100% to the player. If the PLAYER approaches you with the notion that they want some sort of mechanical change or whatnot? Fantastic. Bend over backwards to help them make that happen. But, it has to come from the player, never, ever from the DM. Because, unfortunately, every player at your table has had other DM's than you. While you would never take advantage of this and would always work with the player, never against the player and you are obviously invested in making sure that it's fun, the unfortunate truth is that that player has also had DM's who are not so inclined and have abused the privilege time and time again, all the while pointing to the same arguments you are making to justify their decisions.

That's a rough place to be mentally; I'm sorry about whatever happened to put you in that frame of mind. I just think that taking tools away from either the player or the DM is fundamentally a mistake. I respect your position, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is fine for clerics. Unfortunately, doesn't apply to druids or paladins. And, frankly, paladins are the only class where it's explicit about the DM altering the mechanics of the class for consequences of the character's actions. Everything else is, IMO, DM over reach. There's nothing that explicitly states that a cleric's deity can choose to turn off the tap, so to speak. And a Druid could kill everything in its path and justify it by saying that they are just emulating forces of nature. Good grief, I'm struggling to think of a single thing a druid could do in the game that wouldn't be justified by pointing to examples in nature. Heck, a Spore Druid gets Animate Dead straight up on its spell list. There are official Druid classes that can create undead.

How on earth is there anything my druid couldn't do?

I actually agree with you regarding druids. To me, those are secrets learned from nature. There's no entity granting that power. A druid PC that perhaps suffered trauma and began working against nature is a good story. There was a 2e Ravenloft darklord with that backstory; it was awesome.