Unearthed Arcana WotC Removes Latest Unearthed Arcana

WotC has removed this week's Unearthed Arcana from its website. Not only has the article's web page itself been removed, the actual PDF has been replaced with last month's "Subclasses, Part 1" PDF (although it's URL still reads... /UA2020-Subclasses02.pdf).

The article included three new subclasses, the bardic College of Creation, the cleric's Love Domain, and the sorcerer's Clockwork Soul.

[NOTE - NSFW language follows].

I don't know if it's linked, but WotC came under criticism on Twitter for its treatment of the Love Domain. The main argument isn't that mind-control magic has no place in the game, but rather that coercive powers should not be described as "love", and that the domain might be poorly named.

People like game designer Emmy Allen commented: "It seems WotC have tried to create a 'Love' domain for clerics in 5e. By some sheer coincidence they seem to have accidentally created a 'roofie' domain instead. Nothing says 'love' like overriding your target's free will to bring them under your power."


That domain was introduced as follows: "Love exists in many forms—compassion, infatuation, friendly affection, and passionate love as a few facets. Whatever form these feelings take, the gods of love deepen the bonds between individuals."

The powers were Eboldening Bond, Impulsive Infatuation ("Overwhelm a creature with a flash of short-lived by intense admiration for you, driving them to rash action in your defense”), Protective Bond, and Enduring Unity.

Whether the criticism was a factor in the article's withdrawal, I don't know. It might be that it just wasn't ready for prime-time yet. It seems the domain itself would be better named a "control" or "charm" domain than a "love" domain, which seems to be the main thrust of the criticism on Twitter.

WotC's Jeremy Crawford commented: "The official version of the Unearthed Arcana article “Subclasses, Part 2” is still ahead of us, later this week or sometime next week. Our team will hold off on answering questions until you’ve seen the real deal!"

 

[RogueJK]

Not all of the domain spells are necessarily problematic.

Charm Person, for example. They don't remove the person's free will, or cause them to be "roofied", it just causes them to regard the caster as a friendly acquaintance. Same with Enthrall. It causes the subject to stare at you. No restraint, or removal of inhibitions, or the like.

Hypnotic Pattern is closer to being potentially problematic, since it renders them incapacitated and they can't move. Confusion also has a chance to do that, but has a greater chance to make them move/attack randomly. Hold Monster clearly paralyzes them.


But I get that the overall issue appears to be Mind Control =/= Love. So I guess if they really wanted to remove the potentially sticky situation of mixing the concept of love with mind control spells, alternate domain spells in place of these charm/incapacitation spells could be something like:

1: Ceremony - Performs marriages.
2: Calm Emotions Defuses hostile situations - "Make Love, Not War" - and also removes Charms and Fear.
3: Dispel Magic - Removes Charms and other harmful spell effects.
4: Death Ward - Prevents your friend/lover from being killed.
5: Dispel Evil and Good - Removes Charms, Fear, Possession, etc.

And the Channel Divinity could be reflavored more as exhorting a good friend to perform greater deeds and come to your aid, more like the Order Domain.

Combined with the existing domain buff spells and other abilities, that would sort of make it the "Mutual Support and Anti-Charm" domain, with the Power of True Romantic Love and Fraternal Affection/Friendship trumping fake love/involuntary compulsion/mind control.

 

[Morrus]

Enchanters and the like certainly have history with "control" powers. I would say that "love" isn't a great name for the domain; it's better suited to something like the Control domain or the Enchantment domain.

 

[Olrox17]

Wow, people are really easily offended these days. Imagine if the book of vile darkness or the book of erotic fantasies were realeased today.
Granted, they were labeled for mature audiences only, but still...

 

[Morrus]

Wow, people are really easily offended these days. Imagine if the book of vile darkness or the book of erotic fantasies were realeased today.
Granted, they were labeled for mature audiences only, but still...

It's not about being "offended", or mature audiences, or anything of the sort. It's about the powers not really portraying what people generally understand to be "love".

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Wow, people are really easily offended these days. Imagine if the book of vile darkness or the book of erotic fantasies were realeased today.
Granted, they were labeled for mature audiences only, but still...

Oh man, people don't want to be reminded of gross injustices and horribly things while doing something that is supposed to be a distraction from the crappyness of real life, imagine that!

 

[Olrox17]

Oh man, people don't want to be reminded of gross injustices and horribly things while doing something that is supposed to be a distraction from the crappyness of real life, imagine that!

Yeah, In a game that’s mostly about the glorification of mortal combat, war, zealotry, pillaging and tomb raiding. D&D is full of “bad” things. As is real life.
More specifically about the love domain: I read it, just like everyone else.
I’m not going to argue that someone could have gotten creepy vibes from it. I didn’t, and that’s about it.
Again, I don’t even dare thinking about what would happen if the BoVD was released today.

 

[Esker]

Yep, I agree with others who've pointed out that it's not the existence of enchantment magic that's the issue (for most people, I think), it's conflating any form of one-sided coercion with love, which some people already do IRL without having a game reinforcing the connection.

Nobody is going to look at Hypnotic Pattern or Dominate Person and say that those effects are benign or 'caring'. And as long as we're playing pretend and not affecting real people, I doubt most people have a problem with using that sort of thing in a fantasy setting. But slap the "love" label on there and now you're giving them a weird positive positive connotation, and worse, one that a lot of socially and emotionally stunted people already associate with that sort of behavior.

 

[Umbran]

How often in literature and other media do we see people seeking "love" potions to get so-and-so to fall in love with them? And the village witch/apothecary obliges. Usually this ends badly for our protagonist and they learn a life lesson.

Even Tone Loc knew that you don't mess around with the Funky Cold Medina.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, In a game that’s mostly about the glorification of mortal combat, war, zealotry, pillaging and tomb raiding. D&D is full of “bad” things. As is real life.
More specifically about the love domain: I read it, just like everyone else.
I’m not going to argue that someone could have gotten creepy vibes from it. I didn’t, and that’s about it.
Again, I don’t even dare thinking about what would happen if the BoVD was released today.

My problem with the Book of Vile Darkness was that it wasn't released concurrent with the Book of Exalted Deeds. My problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds is similar. One without the other seems unbalanced to me (aesthetically, not as a matter of gameplay).

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The spell list could go with something like this:
1: Ceremony, Comprehend Language (the language of love!)
2: Warding Bond, Silence (speak now or forever hold your peace!)
3: Sending (love knows no frontiers), Life Transference
4: Aura of Life, Aura of Purity
5: Hallow, Dream

Channel Divinity: Follow the Heart
Allied creatures lose the charmed, frigthened, or any condition that would reduce their speed immediately and move up to their speed without provoking AoO. If they end their move next to an ally, their gain 5/8/10/15 thp.