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!"

 

[Weiley31]

I am glad I downloaded the PDF before they took it down. I totally am down for using this domain.

 

[Azzy]

History lesson, Rape Culture when first coined was a term that referred to men's prisons and had NOTHING to with women outside of the prison. Now it's used to horribly smear millions of innocent men, which just so wrong.

I rolled my eyes so hard they almost fell out of my eye sockets.

 

[CleverNickName]

I am glad I downloaded the PDF before they took it down. I totally am down for using this domain.

It's got a lot of good potential, doesn't it? I am curious what revisions (if any) will be in the polished version.

What did you think of the Bard and Sorcerer subtypes?

 

[Weiley31]

It's got a lot of good potential, doesn't it? I am curious what revisions (if any) will be in the polished version.

What did you think of the Bard and Sorcerer subtypes?

I like the fact the Bard gets a pet with some heavy hitting stats, but it just sucks that it's at such a late level.

The Sorcerer Origin, is intriguing. I am both confused and fascinated by it's ability to cancel advantage/disadvantage. I still have to look over it more.

I do love its ability manifestations though.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

History lesson, Rape Culture when first coined was a term that referred to men's prisons and had NOTHING to with women outside of the prison. Now it's used to horribly smear millions of innocent men, which just so wrong.

Wow, you can't even get that right.

Start here. Or if links are spoopy, here's the relevant section:

The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York Radical Feminists.[16] In the book, the group stated that "our ultimate goal is to eliminate rape and that goal cannot be achieved without a revolutionary transformation of our society".[17] This book, along with Susan Brownmiller's 1975 Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, was among the earliest to include first-person accounts of rape. Their authors intended to demonstrate that rape was a much more common crime than previously believed.[18] In the book, Brownmiller comments upon the idea that women never spoke about rape because women would never want to be open about a "crime against their physical integrity" which explained the general public's ignorance over how often rape was occurring and to whom.[13] Brownmiller, a member of the New York Radical Feminists, argued that both academia and the general public ignored the incidents of rape.[19] She helped spark psychologists to begin observing and studying what sparked this "rape supportive culture".[14] Her book, Against Our Will, is considered a landmark work on feminism and sexual violence, and it is one of the pillars of modern rape studies.[20][21]

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think base D&D has ever shipped with a cleric that had love themed powers (maybe 2nd ed. had that as a sphere, I forget), so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting here when the article was "putting it back" in the first place.

I suppose that it has been a domain in some supplement or other (like Divine Power) in past editions, if not in a core book. I don't recall a 2e Love sphere (spheres seemed fairly practical, like schools, grouping spells by what they did), either There was a love domain in 4e - no charm effects, just typical leader stuff - and I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in 3.5...

...hhmmm… looks like there was a Lust domain in 3.5? There's a dividing line.
...and also seduction, pleasure, and hatred?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

whoa there, I think we're hardcore projecting a bit on every D&D party ever here.

That's why I say most, not all. I'm running the level 1-4 part of Descent into Avernus right now, and I'd find it difficult to have it happen as intended if the players didn't play fast and loose with the murderous attitude that's mostly expected from the party. Also, tomb-robbing and corpse-defiling. And it's as official as it gets.

an X card is about helping people bring up they don't want to deal with a certain issue without having to go into a prolonged discussion.

Cool. Let's have it do what's intended to do and have everyone else play the game however they want to.

I don't think base D&D has ever shipped with a cleric that had love themed powers (maybe 2nd ed. had that as a sphere, I forget), so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting here when the article was "putting it back" in the first place.

Indeed, 2e has "love" as one of the examples for specific deities. It also states that a favored weapon for that kind of deity would be a... short bow! (This last bit of information is presented with no further comment).

When describing the Charm sphere of divine magic, 2e describes charm spells as "those that affect the attitudes and actions of people. Deities of love, beauty, trickery, and art often allow access to this sphere."

While we never had a bow-wielding charm-casting cleric of love in our games, I find it interesting to realize that this has been an option since 1989. 2e AD&D is really that cool.

I find it a little hard to believe you've been upset about the lack of "Cupid" powers between now and the time 5e came out, unless this has been a thing in your campaign this entire time.

Not at all. I'm upset by the idea of a vocal minority on Twitter getting to decide what kind of content should go into the game. We don't do a lot of assassins or demon-worshipping antiheroes either, and I'd be equally upset if someone was campaigning for this kind of thing to stay out of the game because there are people who suffer with them in real life.

 

[Charlaquin]

They could just give it three domain spells at level 1, no one would argue having Ceremony would break the bank.

Just make it a 1st level ribbon.

 

[Eltab]

The 3e sourcebook Testament has the Qedeshot, a Cleric/Bard class for the Canaanite deity of fertility. A qedeshot was presumed to be female but did not have to be, got CHR-based unarmored defense, could buff allies with a touch, and used powers like Fascinate to create a "look at me not them" effect. The accompanying drawing was attired like Jasmine (cartoon Disney's Aladdin).

The class could be used to play a heal/buff-er, a party face, or a harlot.
So we do have a 3e-era third-party example of the multiple meanings of 'love'.

 

[Eltab]

Mentioned above, Heroism would be a good fit for a Love cleric - you can endure ordeals with your mate you would never handle alone.
Another thought: Compelled Duel draws an outsider's hostile attention to you and away from those you love/cherish/protect.