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!"

 

[jayoungr]

For the record, a God of Abusive Relationships (who calls himself the God of Love) would be an interesting evil deity to have in the mix, just as Evening Glory is an amazing goddess that WotC would do well to bring back as well.

I don't know if you know this, but the Evening Glory features heavily in the season 4 Adventurer's League adventures. And yep, she's an awesome villain.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't have a problem with reworking love domain, so yes I do get that. But I've been seeing the Charm school get attacked as problematic. So I may be expanding the scope. Charm effects are an important part of the game.

They won't get rid of charms. Assassins are a core part of 5th edition and are in the Players Handbook, but WotC also says "hey, these guys are not exactly heroic, for the record." There's nothing wrong at all with having NPCs (rightly) not trusting enchanters and treating them as less noble than even pyromaniac evokers, since you at least know where you stand with those guys. (In a burning building, for the record. You stand in a burning building with those guys.)

 

[ad_hoc]

Artistic expression doesn't guarantee your expression will be in a commercial product. Speak to anyone who actually creates stuff for a living and they'll be happy to tell you about it at length.

Agreed. But I go further and say 'viewed at all'.

Just like it isn't censorship to stop being friends with someone who says awful things.

Not listening to someone is not persecuting them. Just as not buying 5e products is not persecuting WotC or their artists.

There was someone in here who kept saying that someone is being persecuted from this but refused to say whom. It's a common thing to claim.

I disagree. If something bothers someone within the game it's up to the group to deal with it. Disease really bothers me, I'm not going to campaign WOTC to remove it from the game because the fact it bothers me is MY problem and no one else's.

If the books contain content that I don't like then I'm not going to "suck it up" and buy them anyway. I'm going to stop buying them.

How is that not a sensible thing for me to do? I might even tell WotC when they ask for my feedback during playtesting that I will not buy a product because of something I don't like in it.

 

[Horwath]

It's a playtest article for feedback. They got feedback. Everything worked as intended.

I think they hoped for a mechanical feedback, not the debate; will the new "love" domain make local drug dealers happy as their revenue from selling "roofies" in local night clubs will be largely increased according to ever correct twitter opinion.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Do you want to explain to your 12-year old group why their cleric of love casting a spell on the daughter of the king to mind control her into going on a date with him is wrong?

One of my players is my 12 year old son, so we do talk about consent both inside the game and out. But yes, there are certainly games where that would change the tone of things.

 

[GrahamWills]

If something is in the game, people shouldn't campaign to eliminate it, instead let the individual groups decide to police that.

I understand your desire to let people have fun the way they want and generally am in favor of that position, but I think the problem is that you are not considering the effect of the product promoting an activity. Try putting yourself in the position of a newcomer to the game, wondering what it's about and if this will be a fun hobby for them. To be more specific, put yourself in the position of an 18-year old woman who is trying this new game out at a convention. During the adventure, the cleric of Sune, a male human with a pure good alignment (NG), casts his domain spell on a barmaid to make her fall in love with him and brings her off to his room for some off-camera activities and gets the info from her that the party need to advance the plot.

There's a disconnect here. That kind of behavior is seen by most people as wrong. And yet, when she looks it up in the book, our new player sees that yes indeed, Sune is "good" but also gives her clerics the ability to do this sort of activity on a daily basis. So she is left with the impression that D&D is a game where guys using spells to seduce women for their own profit is a good thing to do.

This isn't an edge case; we're not taking about a rare occurrence. About one in four women (one in six men) will have suffered sexual abuse by the time they are 18 in the USA. So at your gaming gaming group, you should expect that at least one person at your table is going to have at best unpleasant associations when you present mind controlling others in the name of love as a reasonable activity for a good person.

No-one is saying you cannot have a bad guy do this. Even a confused good guy or mis-intentioned good cleric. Sure -- that could make a good story. But when you put it on the domain list for good gods, it makes the strong statement that it's a good thing to do.

And it isn't. I don't think anyone's arguing that point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think they hoped for a mechanical feedback, not the debate

Speaking as someone who's run testing for commercial products that you have heard of, no, it's all relevant data. Getting feedback on both crunch and fluff gives them multiple ways to address the feedback, if they should choose to.

 

[Horwath]

They won't get rid of charms. Assassins are a core part of 5th edition and are in the Players Handbook, but WotC also says "hey, these guys are not exactly heroic, for the record." There's nothing wrong at all with having NPCs (rightly) not trusting enchanters and treating them as less noble than even pyromaniac evokers, since you at least know where you stand with those guys. (In a burning building, for the record. You stand in a burning building with those guys.)

how is being and evoker more noble?

As Tywin Lannister said; why is it more noble to kill 20,000 men at the battlefield, than killing 20 at the dinner table?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. I simply do not understand as this to me is such a non-issue. This is just a game. ... But just because someone interprets something one way, doesn't mean it is "the way."

Alanis Morissette, is that you?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't have a problem with reworking love domain, so yes I do get that. But I've been seeing the Charm school get attacked as problematic. So I may be expanding the scope. Charm effects are an important part of the game.

The worst offensive thing I have seen yet for me was not WOTC, it was the Book of Vial Darkness a particular type of mage. I bought the book but literally ripped the page of that class out.

Yeah, the BoVD deliberately had things that were challenging or on the verge (or perhaps even over the edge) of distasteful (if not outright illegal).

But this goes along with the idea that times change. At the time that book was released, the question was whether game players had matured to the point where they could conceive or adapt to using rules such as that, talking with their tables, taking those kinds of difficult things seriously and not facetiously. The answer ended up being, yes... roleplaying had advanced to the point where actual delving into difficult subjects for some players was possible, allowing them to consider what they mean, empathize with the victims, and work through the gruesome nature that a lot of humanity has subjected itself to over the millenia in an adult and thoughtful way.

But now, 18 years later... we all know that most game players are mature enough to know the difference, and thus it doesn't need to be "tested" by releasing a book like that now. So why would anyone do so now other than for giggles and titilation? And those people could and would be rightly criticized for it, because it really just isn't necessary. And if it isn't necessary to have, and its contents are actually hurtful to some people... you'd just have have a cruel streak in you to deliberately thumb your nose at them and gleefully write and release it anyway.