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!"

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. Why not? We have far more depraved domains than that really. Myself and other people like their good and evil to be rich and complex. ESPECIALLY their evil. What i find more bizarre, personally, is that there are many people at all that DONT want one. Granted i understand why. Doesnt change that its bizarre. It's like not wanting a corruption domain. Or not wanting the various domains of sin thay archdukes reign over. Its weird to me.

Everyone who doesn’t want an enchanter Cleric domain ever, raise your hand!

What? Nobody? Huh, what do you know.

 

[Undrave]

Sure. Why not? We have far more depraved domains than that really. Myself and other people like their good and evil to be rich and complex. ESPECIALLY their evil. What i find more bizarre, personally, is that there are many people at all that DONT want one. Granted i understand why. Doesnt change that its bizarre. It's like not wanting a corruption domain. Or not wanting the various domains of sin thay archdukes reign over. Its weird to me.

It's a labelling issue. If it had been called the 'Domination Domain' it probably wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[cbwjm]

We use a UA spell (Healing Elixir) in our game to balance out the fact that we don't have a traditional healer in our tabletop game.

So far, knock on wood, WotC's stormtroopers haven't kicked down the door and told us we're not allowed to use this content.

People who are are, dare I say it, in looove with the Love Domain can find a copy of it out there and use it. You will be lower on the list for the WotC stormtroopers than my group is.

I loved that healing elixir spell and was hoping to have them expand on it with more spells like it, maybe even an alchemist subclass for the wizard. I think I started making a subclass and additional alchemy spells but as with most of things I start creating for DnD I didn't really finish it.

 

[generic]

It's a labelling issue. If it had been called the 'Domination Domain' it probably wouldn't have been a problem.

A BDSM Domain? This is a 12+ game...

 

[Charlaquin]

@Panda-s1 : Your wow reaction to my “raise your hand” comment gives me the impression that I may not have communicated my intent very effectively. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting your intent in the wow reaction. What I was trying to express is that I doubt many people would object to an enchanter Cleric being released at some point down the line, provided it wasn’t framed as “love.” Am I mistaken?

 

[Panda-s1]

The point is not universal. So some gods do and some gods don't. So what would the domain for a love god who does look like?

idk, gives you powers to be "desirable", or make others desirable. which isn't the same as mind control? there can be a separate enchantment domain for that sort of thing, like others have said.

@Panda-s1 : Your wow reaction to my “raise your hand” comment gives me the impression that I may not have communicated my intent very effectively. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting your intent in the wow reaction. What I was trying to express is that I doubt many people would object to an enchanter Cleric being released at some point down the line, provided it wasn’t framed as “love.” Am I mistaken?

oh, no, I'm just trying to go along with the joke.

 

[Charlaquin]

oh, no, I'm just trying to go along with the joke.

Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Bolares]

I'd LOVE to create a yuan-ti cleric of dendar with the Domination Domain... Just don't mix this stuff with love, sex, romance and similar stuff...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

idk, gives you powers to be "desirable", or make others desirable. which isn't the same as mind control? there can be a separate enchantment domain for that sort of thing, like others have said.

Okay. For me, the first game mechanic that springs to mind to represent "being desirable" would be advantage on Charisma checks.

Which is literally the effect of the charmed condition. The swashbuckler rogue charms people with Panache, to give a concrete example.

 

[Gradine]

The fact that it's so unbelievable to some that quite a few people have an issue with giving a "Love" Domain the ability to mentally dominate others is basically the reason why we need to have this conversation in the first place.

In a 3.x homebrew campaign setting I ran I had a God of Peace whose priests specialized in mental domination and removing free will because they thought it was the only way to create actual world peace. A cleric domain that focuses on enchantment/domination would be an interesting trope to play with.

Introducing mental domination to the concept of "love" raises all kinds of unfortunate implications and aspersions to serious real world issues that I can't imagine WotC would want being raised intentionally.