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

 

[Faolyn]

There are several possibilities here. Maybe the ability is unbalanced (PH or not; there's a reason people debate these things). Maybe the DM couldn't find a way to balance it. The point is, if this is a major problem for the DM, and no accord can be reached, then that DM should stop running the game. In that case, sometimes a new DM can take over, but most often, it means the campaign ends.

Or maybe the DM shouldn't toss a game because they think something is unbalanced. Unless that DM is the master of determining balance, of course. Which most aren't.

 

[Cadence]

Or maybe the DM shouldn't toss a game because they think something is unbalanced. Unless that DM is the master of determining balance, of course. Which most aren't.

"DMs should run games even if they don't enjoy running them anymore."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or maybe the DM shouldn't toss a game because they think something is unbalanced. Unless that DM is the master of determining balance, of course. Which most aren't.

It doesn't matter if they're objectively right. The DM is responsible for setting the scene and creating threats, at the minimum. If player abilities are making that DM feel like they can't balance the game, and they talked with the players, AND no compromise can be reached, what else do you expect them to do?

 

[Greg K]

Or maybe the DM shouldn't toss a game because they think something is unbalanced. Unless that DM is the master of determining balance, of course. Which most aren't.

It is is not as if the designers are infallible either.

 

[Faolyn]

It doesn't matter if they're objectively right. The DM is responsible for setting the scene and creating threats, at the minimum. If player abilities are making that DM feel like they can't balance the game, and they talked with the players, AND no compromise can be reached, what else do you expect them to do?

Create threats that actually can affect the player in question. It's not actually that hard to figure out how to balance around most things, especially things like rogue sneak attacks.

Otherwise, you're encouraging DMs to nerf players willy-nilly, and that's not only no fun for the player, but also can lead to abuses by DMs on power trips.

 

[Cadence]

Create threats that actually can affect the player in question. It's not actually that hard to figure out how to balance around most things, especially things like rogue sneak attacks.

Is it that hard to pick a character class (or subclass) that isn't the one that your struggling DM is having a hard time with? There are a ton, each with lots of options. Or to slightly modify the one you've chosen? Or to just cut the DM slack.

Otherwise, you're encouraging DMs to nerf players willy-nilly, and that's not only no fun for the player, but also can lead to abuses by DMs on power trips.

Ah, slippery slope trap!! :::whoosh!!!:::. ;-)

 

[Charlaquin]

You guys have been very lucky then. I've seen it as a way to A. ignore the setting and B. not allow the DM any handhold over the character far more often than any other approach.

And, it's this whole, "Well, I'm the DM, so, I can control your patron and through your patron, control your actions" schtick that has trained players to be so paranoid about it. And, yes, you can paint it as "consequences" all you like, but, the point from the player's point of view is that you are telling the player how to play the character. And not exactly subtly either. "Do this or you're not a warlock anymore until you get with the program" isn't exactly a light touch.

It's such a pervasive attitude. I've mentioned on the boards a few times a mechanic I borrowed from a game called Chronica Feudalis called Backgrounds. It's not the same as backgrounds in D&D. What it is, is a mechanic that allows players to wall off sections of their character sheet. They literally put it in the "background" so that it is there, but never a focus of the game. So, if I have a huge, extended family, but then put that in the Background, then that's a big sign telling the DM that I do not want that aspect of my character to be a focus of the game. It's there, we can role play it from time to time, but, it's never supposed to be in the foreground.

Upon suggesting this, I've seen multiple DM's on this board recoil in horror. The players will abuse this! You are giving power to the players!!! You can't do this! There is virtually zero trust of the players despite insistence that players should trust the DM.

Again, nothing I'm saying here should come as a surprise to anyone. It's hardly controversial. DM's being heavy handed and jealously guarding their control over the game has been part and parcel of the hobby since day one.

I find it interesting that this seems to be a common thing for you, but doesn’t seem to be a problem for the people who don’t share your rule against changes to PCs happening in play.

 

[Cadence]

Is there a nice table some where of what levels each class gets powers at?

Trying to think how this could work for other classes. Maybe something like PF 1e's alternate multiclassing where you could splash a bloodline or pact or religious devotion by just subbing out some base class feats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Create threats that actually can affect the player in question. It's not actually that hard to figure out how to balance around most things, especially things like rogue sneak attacks.

Otherwise, you're encouraging DMs to nerf players willy-nilly, and that's not only no fun for the player, but also can lead to abuses by DMs on power trips.

You're still arguing that the GM is obligated to run a game they're not comfortable with. I just dont see how that can be the stance. I've been more than clear on what steps have been taken prior to ending the game.

 

[Hussar]

I find it interesting that this seems to be a common thing for you, but doesn’t seem to be a problem for the people who don’t share your rule against changes to PCs happening in play.

Sigh. One more time with feeling. It's not a problem for me. It really, really isn't.

It's a problem that I see coming from people who have played under other DM's who then bring that problem to my doorstep. Note, the whole paranoia thing isn't something I could be giving to the players since I don't take control over their characters. I realize that it's simply easier to pass the blame onto me, but, it's not like I don't have various points of evidence for what I'm saying.

1. Over the years, the amount of DM interference explicitly allowed by the rules has been drastically reduced.

2. Years and years of DMing advice in Dragon and other places saying that DM's should generally not interfere with player's characters.

3. Years of players coming from other tables to my game, basically with a sort of gaming PTSD where they create character after character with nothing for the DM to hook into because they refuse to allow the DM any control over their characters, having been bitten by it in the past.

I'm honestly, frankly, baffled why the advice is controversial.

See, if the player initiates, then I'm all for it. Heck, even if the DM suggests it, but, leaves it up to the player for final say, I'd be perfectly fine. But, my problem is, upon reflection, that the DM is having PLAYER CREATED elements (note @Cadence - your example doesn't apply since none of that was introduced by the player) react to actions taken by the player and removing class elements from the player's character. The player basically has no real say here. The DM is, essentially, saying, "Sorry, you aren't playing your character right. You did something that I think is against the concept of your character and I'm going to punish you for it, regardless of whether or not you agree with the interpretation." And you wonder why people have an issue with this?

And, the funny thing is, the only justification you can find for doing it is in vaguely worded PHB quotes that are meant as examples, and are certainly not universal or explicit. In other editions, it was explicit that the DM should do this sort of thing. The AD&D alignment rules, xp rules, paladins, and I'm sure there are other examples. Heck, 5e alignment doesn't even have any mechanical impact. I can be a Chaotic Evil priest of Heironeous and that's perfectly fine. Sure, other clerics and the authorities might take exception to my orphanage burning ways and they especially don't like me kicking three legged puppies, but, Heironeous? Couldn't care less. This isn't older editions where the DM gets to pull out the beat stick and punish players for not toeing the line by stripping away class goodies.

It's funny how this only seems to apply to NPC's that have power over the player's characters though. Do you similarly strip away class features if a fighter gains a level but didn't kill anything? If I don't use a given skill for long enough, do I lose that proficiency? Does my barbarian lose the ability to rage if I settle down in Waterdeep? After all, the spirits that grant my rage and other powers certainly don't want me to get all civilized right? Where does it stop?