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

JeffB

Legend
No, they have a problem with that being described as “love”. You are inventing the rest in order to sneer at people. Please stop.

Please stop telling me what I'm doing and why, Morrus. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sneering at anyone or inventing anything- These mechanical effects have been in the game for over 40 freaking years.

I've made my point. I'm out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Rikka66

Adventurer
I can sympathize with WoTC on this one. Aphrodite has already been mentioned, and between her and Cupid the popular image of deities of love involve forcing that love onto others. And if you were to ask me what spells go with the love domain, my first thought would be enchantment as well.

While my first thought at hearing there was controversy was an eyeroll, after reading a few of the twitter comments I have to say I agree with their point. That will mean the D&D love domain doesn't match the traditional mythological one, but I think what's more important is how one as suggested by fans (more focused on protection, buffing, ect.) matches with the love deities of the more popular D&D settings. Regardless, I think it's obvious WoTC will choose to make the changes, and if necessary let the subclass wither on the vine.

Luckily, I think the domain is easily salvageable. The core is the bond feature, and I don't see a lot of complaints about that. I do think a less combat focused channel divinity feature would be more fitting, and between trickery and order we aren't lacking in enchantment leaning domains.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I saw this before it got taken down by WotC, and it raised some eyebrows for me. I'm not surprised it was taken down so quickly.

Me and my players are sensitive to "loss of character agency" story arcs, so I don't use much stuff like charm person and dominate when writing my adventures. It's not a law or anything; I've never needed a house-rule to stop the players from selecting these spells when preparing their lists for the day, and there's nothing stopping them from buying a Love Potion No. 9 or whatever from the local witch. We just don't. It feels creepy and we don't like it.

If this brand of mind control is your jam, the rules and game mechanics fully support it. But it's not for me.
 


BMaC

Adventurer
Plato, over two centuries ago, looked at the dark, obsessive yearning side of love in his famous dialogue The Symposium. It's worth a read (link to different versions in the Wikipedia article).
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top