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).

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mournblade94

Adventurer
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.

Did I say that wouldn't be a sensible thing to do? Maybe your mixing me up with someone else.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


GrahamWills said:
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.

I am glad to hear that both you and others (previous comments) are doing the right thing here. I'm happy to hear it. What I was implying, and should have made more plain, is that it's not going to help you if the 12-year old can turn to Sune's page and show you that the book says it's something that clerics of good gods should be doing on a daily basis.
 

Rikka66

Adventurer
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.

WoTC likes to toot their own horn on their efforts to make dnd more inclusive. If they don't want feedback on subjects relating to such, then they really shot themselves in the foot at some point. But they've indicated in the past they take in feedback beyond just the mechanics.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I am glad to hear that both you and others (previous comments) are doing the right thing here. I'm happy to hear it. What I was implying, and should have made more plain, is that it's not going to help you if the 12-year old can turn to Sune's page and show you that the book says it's something that clerics of good gods should be doing on a daily basis.
I absolutely agree. In fact, if it shows up as-is at the table, I expect a number of the folks there will immediately make that very point.
 



I also am curious to know how the issues with this break down by age. I recall a number of aphrodisiac sex comedies from my youth that are super rapey now.
 

Horwath

Legend
Since you appeared to hit the reply button before reading the rest of the sentence: "since you at least know where you stand with those guys."

I read the whole post.

But, by that you don't know where you stand with evoker either.
Enchanter might charm you or not, evoker might burn you or not.

You can expect from enchanter to mess with your brains, and you can expect from evoker to burn/melt/shatter or just force slam you to a pulp.

From enchanter, you might just walk away with your life.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top