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!"

 

[Bolares]

Are Sune, Aphrodite, Freya, Innana, Astart, etc. metaphyisical representations of Love, or are they metaphysical representations of Eros?

Is posing a charm spell as something that represents well the metaphysical representation of Eros problematic?

I'm basing this on what the document said was the representation of love. They didn't pose it as anbiguous, abusive or toxic in any manner. The UA description of the subclass is clear in posing the Love Domain as something completely positive.

 

[Panda-s1]

They already have a designed and designated feedback system for that. (hint: it isn't twitter).

so you're just upset that they didn't do it a certain way? the surveys are mostly there as marketing data more than anything, and largely focus on actual gameplay aspects.

I have serious doubts they don't also have eyes and ears on twitter, facebook, and just about every other social media site and forum in existence.

Can you show me examples of a raving mob on this? I've seen people giving criticism only.

man don't ask this, they're gonna bring up the one tweet someone made where they decided to use all caps for one word and then everyone's gonna parade it around as "outrage".

 

[Horwath]

Can you show me examples of a raving mob on this? I've seen people giving criticism only.

1st Twitter post about this:

"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. naughty word excellent. "

 

[Bolares]

True - but it has absolutely nothing to do with dungeons and dragons

well, it has when you give the cleric of love the power to control people's mind and agency

 

[Salthorae]

The Satanic Panic was based on completely fabricated events.

Sexual assault is very real.

There is nothing in the class as published originally that was sexual assault.

There was an ability called "impulsive infatuation" that caused a target to use their reaction to make a weapon attack against a target you designated.

Oh and the Domain had the charm spell.

I would say completely revamping the domain spell list and changing just that single ability in the domain and the name of it was a complete overreaction to social media panic/backlash.

I'm not saying that shouldn't be part of their feedback consideration, but they should have left it as it was and taken the survey data in to examine the class as is.

EDIT: and used all of the different types of feedback in their iteration rather than just the knee-jerk social media feedback.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm basing this on what the document said was the representation of love. They didn't pose it as anbiguous, abusive or toxic in any manner. The UA description of the subclass is clear in posing the Love Domain as something completely positive.

Are you suggesting we should make clear that Eros is ambiguous, abusive, or toxic?

 

[Bolares]

1st Twitter post about this:

"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. naughty word excellent. "

Where is the raving here? and one tweet is not a mob. You may not like or agree with the tweet, that's your prerrogative, but it's just criticism.

 

[Desrimal]

well, it has when you give the cleric of love the power to control people's mind and agency

No. It really doesn't

 

[Salthorae]

well, it has when you give the cleric of love the power to control people's mind and agency

This is the problem right here. There are SO many ways in base D&D to control people's minds and agency. To be upset that a love cleric can do it is ridiculous.

 

[Bolares]

This is the problem right here. There are SO many ways in base D&D to control people's minds and agency. To be upset that a love cleric can do it is ridiculous.

This argument does not make sense.