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!"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Anyone want to summarize every argument that's been made for me?

"Yes, it is." "No, it isn't."

 

[Celebrim]

OK, I call.

Let's see this list.

The mods tend to get upset when I start sermonizing. Ask for example your Rabbi, Pastor, or Priest.

 

[Panda-s1]

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.

...no, first of all charmed also has the bit about not being able to attack the charmer (yikes). also making someone more attractive != mind control, there's a HUGE difference between making someone more attractive and forcing someone to find someone else attractive. Eagle's Splendor is still a thing (just not its own spell)

also let's bring sexuality into this because you can make a woman (in very broad terms) an 11 and a gay man might not care. using a spell to make them attracted to the woman? that's weird and wasn't possible otherwise (also is an example of "turning" and oh hey it's gotten real bad now huh?)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If they did the changes for that reason, then I am disappointed in their disingenuous tweet about it "not being ready yet", and then changing it. Because then it's blatantly an attempt to avoid bad PR.

While working for a major videogame company, I had a colleague accidentally post a draft of a document that wasn't ready to be released and which included factual errors. When we said the posting was premature, we had fans who were sure it was spin.

All three subclasses received changes. It's entirely likely this was a much earlier draft than they intended to publish. That would help explain how quickly these changes were made -- they just went to the proper version that they meant to publish, glanced at it using the feedback they'd received already, and then posted it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The mods tend to get upset when I start sermonizing. Ask for example your Rabbi, Pastor, or Priest.

Bearing false witness isn't accorded the same weight as murder.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

...no, first of all charmed also has the bit about not being able to attack the charmer (yikes). also making someone more attractive != mind control, there's a HUGE difference between making someone more attractive and forcing someone to find someone else attractive. Eagle's Splendor is still a thing (just not its own spell)

also let's bring sexuality into this because you can make a woman (in very broad terms) an 11 and a gay man might not care. using a spell to make them attracted to the woman? that's weird and wasn't possible otherwise (also is an example of "turning" and oh hey it's gotten real bad now huh?)

I don't know how you run charms, but "advantage on Charisma checks" implies to me "they're not going to do anything that a normal Charisma check wouldn't convince them to do".

 

[Bolares]

The mods tend to get upset when I start sermonizing. Ask for example your Rabbi, Pastor, or Priest.

Slander and murder are NOT on the same level in christian morality

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's also worth noting that you don't have to look at Charm to find evidence that NPCs in the RAW understand and get upset about being mentally manipulated.

Look at Friends, which was a pretty innocuous (and maybe seldom-used) spell in previous versions of the game. By the RAW, WotC has clearly stated that most NPCs in 5th edition are not OK with people using magic to manipulate their behavior.

 

[Bolares]

While working for a major videogame company, I had a colleague accidentally post a draft of a document that wasn't ready to be released and which included factual errors. When we said the posting was premature, we had fans who were sure it was spin.

All three subclasses received changes. It's entirely likely this was a much earlier draft than they intended to publish. That would help explain how quickly these changes were made -- they just went to the proper version that they meant to publish, glanced at it using the feedback they'd received already, and then posted it.

I find this discussion of the designers intent on the changes rather pointless. We can only guess and look for possible causes...

 

[Celebrim]

Bearing false witness isn't accorded the same weight as murder.

Depends on the witness. We're talking slander, which is a specific case of bearing false witness. However, I'm not going to construct the essay or cite the texts for you. Feel free to research the connection if you are really interested, but if I were going to construct a sermon for you as to why slander carried the same weight of sin as murder and was acquainted in scripture as such, in addition to the chapter and verse, I'd probably enter into a discussion of the 1921 Tulsa race riots. And with that, to avoid really derailing this, I'm going to stop going down this thread and return to the main topic.