Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Mages of Strixhaven

Whizbang Dustyboots · Jun 17, 2021

PsyzhranV2 said:
Not who you were responding to, but I guess I was expecting more people to be talking about the setting of Strixhaven University and the plane of Arcavios? More discussion about the setting, the characters, and how to use them.

I would start a new thread to do that. Fifty-two pages in, this one is unlikely to change back in that direction.

Tonguez · Jun 17, 2021

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
I would start a new thread to do that. Fifty-two pages in, this one is unlikely to change back in that direction.

Yeah I agree, it appears that most discussion on this board go for the broader discussion on how new books influence the overall game rather than dives into setting and play.

Setting and Play needs more specific starter questions to keep people focussed

Yaarel · Jun 17, 2021

Arnie_Wan_Kenobi said:
Dina (Witherbloom): MTG Class: Druid/WizKids Minis Class: Druid
Killian (Silverquill): MTG Class: Warlock/Wizkids Minis Class: Wizard
Quintoruis (Lorehold): MTG class: Cleric/WizKids Minis Class: Artificer
Rootha (Prismari): MTG Class: Shaman/WizKids Minis Class: Bard
Zimone (Quandrix): MTG Class: Wizard/WizKids Minis Class: Wizard

Shaman to Bard makes sense, yet the Bard class would need to be modified to handle elemental spells.

Cleric to Artificer, seems unnecessary. Why not a cosmic force Cleric?

Warlock to Wizard seems unnecessary. Why not an abstract patron for the Warlock? Also, Fey often associates storytelling.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 17, 2021

Parmandur said:
The negotiable nature of how the Warlock deal works is a real strength, for sure. I wouldn't want to do something like what happened with Uk'otoa in Critical Role, but it is great that it is an option on the table.

Having thought about ebwryoncontrivutiona, I think I prefer the model of the Patron making the Warlock an initiate into .apical secrets and not having control over the powers they gain, rather than a power line that can be flipped off and on. But whatever works for the table.

Same. That is how I run Warlocks unless the players wants something else.

Also in general I view supernatural beings as being bound by rules, one of which is that they cannot simply take back something they have given a mortal. This leads to the patron having to actually do something interesting in order to enforce their will.

AtomicPope · Jun 17, 2021

Cadence said:
I had a player who desperately wanted a magic sword. He asked around town and found out there was one above the mantle of a wealthy merchant (introduced only because the player asked). Player goes and knocks on the door and asks to see it, actually assuming he could just go in and take it. Should the DM just have the butler hand him the sword because that's the players conception? Let him take the sword?

When players ask, "Why would I take the spell 'Nystul's Magic Aura'?" This is why. Yes. Let him steal the prop sword with Nystul's Magic Aura fooling everyone that it's a +1 Sword of Sharpness. That's what the spell is for.

Hussar · Jun 17, 2021

Cadence said:
Now I'm wondering if the PhB should have a message about variability in DMs and what a player should do if they're not having fun or something doesn't seem right. (Things to ask the DM, things to look for, how to discuss why you're not having fun etc..).

I think something like that would be a really good idea. A section of "Please don't do this" advice in the DMG wouldn't be remiss either.

We get lots of great Dming advice, but, very little advice on what to do when things go pear shaped. I know that I've kept playing in games far longer than I should have simply because I didn't want to be "that guy" who up and walks away. Frankly, my early gaming experiences probably would have been FAR better if, A. People had walked out my games! and B. I had walked out of other people's games.

But, it's really hard to tell a friend, "Hey, you're my friend, but, I dislike the way you run a game so much that I'd rather not play with you."

Hussar · Jun 17, 2021

Greg K said:
I said 40 to 50 regular players and then mentioned additonal players. I also stated that even before the 90s, I did not have the problem.
if I recall correctly, you also do organized play. I and many of my friends had enough issues with organized play players in the early 80s and heard enough horror stories from others into the 90s that we stay clear of organized play. Also back then, many of the organized play players at cons were people whom had bad reputations and were kicked out of local groups. I am not saying that they were a respresentational sample of organized play players as a whole, but it is a major reason that we stay clear of organized play (in addition to no wanting to be beholden to the organized play rules).

No. Never did organized play. I have done a LOT of online play though. Since about 2002. Good grief, I just realized, I've played online as long as I've played offline. Holy crap!

Hussar · Jun 17, 2021

Micah Sweet said:
I still haven't heard anyone admit that what they want is for the DM in question to essentially "suck it up" and run the game anyway over their own objections. People keep saying these problems shouldn't be problems. But what if they are?

It's only a problem because the DM has chosen to make it so. The DM has decided that the patron doesn't like what the warlock is doing and is insisting on punishing the character for it. So, yeah, it's 100% a DM side problem.

See, I mentioned before that Binders are my go to inspiration for warlocks. With that in mind, here is the text from the 3.5E Binder:

3.5 Tome of Magic pages 17-18
The process of summoning a vestige and making a pact with it was designed to be a behind the scenes process - much liek the exact way that clerics pray for spells and wizards study their spellbooks... However, you can roleplay this interaction if you wish...Because a vestige has already agreed to bind with its summoner simply by showing up, the process of pact making boils down to a contest of wills to determine whether the vestige gains influence over the binder...

If you're playing a binder, you will eventually come under the influence of a vestige... Although the limitations imposed by influence can be a hinderance, they can also make for great roleplaying opportunities... Should this aspect of the influence become too troublesome, you can always just ignore the vestige's influence and take the penalty that such a choice imposes... be considerate of other players at the table when making that choice (to use influence or not). Don't use the influence as an excuse to hog the spotlight... When you have fun at the expense of other player's enjoyment, the campaign is in trouble

See, to me, right there, THAT'S how it should work. It's 100% in the player's hands. The DM has no influence here at all. The player can ASK the DM to role play out the pact, or can ask the DM to talk to the vestige (ie. Patron) but, at no point is it suggested that the DM initiate anything. Note, ignoring influence imposes a -1 on die rolls (attacks, saves and checks) until the vestige leaves. It's a minor penalty at best.

Magister Ludorum · Jun 17, 2021

Undrave said:
You mean the Wizard subclasses excite you or that you think the Monk is powerful?

Monk and wizard are my two favorite classes. I play more monks than any other class. I am glad that they aren't limited by restrictive 4e design conceits.

Hussar · Jun 17, 2021

I gotta ask, @Magister Ludorum, how do you figure that a 4e monk is more restricted than a 5e one? Good grief, a 4e monk had hundreds of options to the point where every character was mechanically very distinct. 5e monks are only differentiated by subclass and two monks with the same subclass are identical.

Anyway, about the point about quitting bad DM groups. I am going to disagree a bit here. Sure, in particularly egregious cases, players do quit. But, what more often, IMO, happens is the players simply develop strategies to get around the DM and mitigate the problem. DM is too hands on with player's characters? Ok, fine, we play classes that don't have any hand holds like wizards and fighters. We create backgrounds that are basically self contained with nothing for the DM to use. So on and so forth.

I mean, it's rare for DM's to be truly bad. Most of the time, it's a DM and player have a problem with this or that element. And the player can simply sort the problem by not using that element. A DM can't hold a patron over a player's head if the player doesn't play a warlock after all. That's the point I was making earlier about seeing so many players coming from other tables. It's handsy DM's, not necessarily bad ones, just ones that have gone a bit too far and gotten a bit too hands on with some player's character that teaches the player to turtle up. It's never a problem if you don't allow it to be a problem.