• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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).

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The person you quoted has a problem with a in game mechanic removing her imganary person' s free will- that's quotable but everyone can see it in the article,

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of things in D&D that remove your imaginary person's free will.
Yeah there is.

But they generally aren't connected to something positive like Love. They are generally positioned as neutral or like a tool that can't really be hated for doing something bad because it was literally created to do something and can't change that (and that a tool doesn't have free will) or as a negative being used by something that is evil (like the succ/incubus example).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


JeffB

Legend
Yeah there is.

But they generally aren't connected to something positive like Love.

"Love" is not always a positive thing. How many people do horrible things in the real world in the name of "love".

That said, this is a game of make believe- If you are going to complain about the mechanical effect of your character losing Free Will- then it should apply across the board.
 


The person you quoted has a problem with a in game mechanic removing her imganary person' s free will- that's quotable but everyone can see it in the article,

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of things in D&D that remove your imaginary person's free will.
This may surprise you, but I don't even have a problem with having a domain centered around Charm abilities. Just don't call it "love." Maybe call it "passion" or "seduction" or "lust" while keeping everything else about it the same and I wouldn't have any issue with it.

Mostly because it'd be a lot more accurate. And a lot less creepy.

I think a proper "love" domain should focus on protective and self-sacrificial abilities.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
The person you quoted has a problem with a in game mechanic removing her imganary person' s free will- that's quotable but everyone can see it in the article,

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of things in D&D that remove your imaginary person's free will.
No, they have a problem with that being described as “love”. You are inventing the rest in order to sneer at people you consider “woke”. Please stop.
 



Sacrosanct

Legend
While I get how mechanically the powers of the love cleric already exist in various spells, with the way it was written, I can't help but imagine that if you were to look through the backpack of a love cleric, this is what you'd find:

1580922404153.png


Kinda creepy. That said, I can also see how WoTC made an effort to try to keep it from being too creepy, but it seems they slipped up a bit.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
Hmmm.

So, on the one hand, I can definitely understand why there is a ... desire ... for a love domain. You can't shake a stick at real-world pantheons without running into some sort of Love Deity. And given the prevalence of various Love Deities, there should be a corresponding Love Domain.
Not necessarily. The life domain fits this niche quite well, as the PHB suggests it for gods of home and community. Of course as someone married for 21 years, I also think Tempest and Trickery fit too ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top