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!"

 

[Undrave]

I think I'd make a Beauty domain for two-sided powers of charm.

Another good idea.

 

[Rikka66]

I kinda like that the Love domain isn't squeaky clean, that it could be used by Evil Clerics and Evil Deity of Desire. It's sort of like a two-faced coin. If its called out that the Love Domain includes both selfless 'true love' and selfish desire for control then I don't think it would be out of whack fluff-wise. You could easily just use your Channel Divinity only on your willing allies who would then get to attack with their reaction, or always use it on enemies, all depending on your Alignment.

As Lowkey said, Charms are always creepy... but I think as long as we're aware of it I think we can deal.

The fluff in the leaked document is very positive and shall we say "good-aligned". But even if it was more of a both sides kind of deal I think the name "Love" will always be a deal breaker, as noted by others in the thread.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I created a thread here to address some of these issues. I tried to shift the abilities from "making others do X", to "giving benefits to people who are bonded already (best friends, partners, pets, etc). I.e., granting extra benefits for those who love each other.

 

[Laurefindel]

Maybe the Desire domain?

Desire, seduction, passion; a few titles have been suggested and would fit the set of abilities better, as well as the possible ambiguity of the cleric’s ethics.

i do think there is an opportunity to make a love domain as a positive force here however.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Rikka66]

Just to help put this in context, can anyone clarify what 4E's Love Domain entailed? Did it involve charm/mind control too? (I never played 4E.)

4e didn't have domains (well, essentials did, but I wouldn't think of them in the same way as 5e.) And it had pretty conspicuous lack in traditional enchantment abilities. Combat ones tended to inflict the dazed (one action a turn) or dominate (attack your friends) conditions. Utility powers were most often in the form of bonuses to skill checks. I'm sure there were a few buried here and there, but they were a rarity. I don't think this was a moral decision by the designers, though. Just a result of the editions focus on combat and balance.

 

[Rhianni32]

Out of all the atrocities that are committed within your typical campaign (murder, racial profiling of non good humanoids, stealing their belongings), loss of player free will especially when it comes to love is a unique among them and I can honestly see why.

Its something many people have experienced in person in real life. Being sexually harrassed, coereced or pressured into something you didn't want to do and the left over mental state you have to live with from it.
And then you go to your TTRPG which is supposed to be an escape but nope, you get forced against your will here too.

So its not really about loss of free will against a charm spell as much as not wanting to relive something you are trying to escape from and may or may not be ready to mentally deal with.

 

[Rhianni32]

I mean, I try not to do that sort of think in my D&D games so I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I was partially joking but partially making a point.

Take the adventure Storm King's Thunder. Some barbarians are minding their own business at their holy sites and the players are to storm in, kill them, and then loot the religious artifacts for the greater good.

Your average adventure will come across some drow. Regardless of what the drow have or havent done, the party will probably attack them because everyone knows they are evil and of course the GM put them here for us to fight. And then they will take their money and magic items.
Its glossed over and underplayed but its still racism and murder. Maybe they were a bunch of Drizzts wanting to redeem their past.

We don't go into detail or think about it but essentially this is what we are doing as adventurers. I think its acceptable at most tables because its not framed that way, and because most of us havent lived through these things in real life vs the effect of forced love.

 

[TwoSix]

Just call it the Charm domain and move on.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Just to help put this in context, can anyone clarify what 4E's Love Domain entailed? Did it involve charm/mind control too? (I never played 4E.)

4e had the Heartwarder of Sune (FR goddess of Love) Paragon Path, which had a domination power.