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!"

 

[Connorsrpg]

Enchanters and the like certainly have history with "control" powers. I would say that "love" isn't a great name for the domain; it's better suited to something like the Control domain or the Enchantment domain.

Yes. It is this simple. Not sure why people are extrapolating that charm be removed, etc.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

no one is making light of anything.

some are just criticizing people that feel that they have a right to demand censorship on things.

By that standard, I could whine here that half of PHB should be scrapped.

And if everyone posted here what sh.t happened to them in real life, all that would be left of D&D would be to roll d20 and whoever rolls highest wins(I don't know what).

It's ironic that you're complaining about censorship when you're trying to ignore an silence other people's opinions.

There's a word for that I think. It starts with c or something like that? I dunno.

 

[Celebrim]

I think a proper "love" domain should focus on protective and self-sacrificial abilities.

There was a recent commercial on American TV very much highlighting this issue. There is a huge difference between a deity with the domain of Eros, and a deity with the domain of Agape. You will not find a lot of deities of Agape in traditional mythology. You will however find a ton of fertility deities and deities of Eros - they are pretty archetypal, you get at least one per pantheon usually, and often a male and female counterpart.

 

[Morrus]

some are just criticizing people that feel that they have a right to demand censorship on things.

Nobody has demanded censorship on anything. This is a straw man as such as JeffB's "everybody thinks we should get rid of all enchantment magic!" nonsense was.

because sometimes people just screw up, and if you persecute someone every time they make an honest mistake/reject someone who's trying to be better you're just setting up an impossible cliff to climb so why should people even bother.

Nobody has been persecuted. This, also, is a straw man as such as JeffB's "everybody thinks we should get rid of all enchantment magic!" nonsense was.

If you need to make stuff up in order to get yourself appropriately outraged, maybe there's nothing to get outraged about.

 

[ad_hoc]

People who make honest mistakes.

Who is that and how are they being persecuted?

You're just making this up.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Who is that and how are they being persecuted?

You're just making this up.

If you think making a mistake doesn't lead to people persecuting you for that mistake like you 100% meant to do it always, you're a fool.

 

[Panda-s1]

no one is making light of anything.

some are just criticizing people that feel that they have a right to demand censorship on things.

By that standard, I could whine here that half of PHB should be scrapped.

And if everyone posted here what sh.t happened to them in real life, all that would be left of D&D would be to roll d20 and whoever rolls highest wins(I don't know what).

man no one's calling for "censorship", no one's saying you can't have themes like that in your game, we're just saying it's kind of an issue for WotC to say "love" and "mind control" are the same thing.

If you think making a mistake doesn't lead to people persecuting you for that mistake like you 100% meant to do it always, you're a fool.

I've had to deal with this sort of thing before, but this isn't relevant to this thread.

 

[Horwath]

It's ironic that you're complaining about censorship when you're trying to ignore an silence other people's opinions.

There's a word for that I think. It starts with c or something like that? I dunno.

I am not ignoring or silencing anyone.

I am criticizing others opinion on this subject.

 

[Celebrim]

That type of ... very specific, almost always male power fantasy doesn't have a good history in either our hobby, or real life ... and that's when it's fantasy. When you add in reality, it's even less great.

So IMO it's a subject that should probably be broached with great care.

Yes, anything involving Eros should be broached with great care. On that we agree.

But your statement here is I think inadvertently very sexist, in that by framing this as something that pertains to a single gender not only are you defaming that gender, but you are denying that erotic attraction (the desire to possess a partner) is something experienced just intensely by women now and historically. In fact, in the context of a fantasy game, I think it's worth noting that 'love charms' and 'love potions' were generally 'women's magic' and something that was assumed that they would particularly practice. And I'm not really in that culture, but I wouldn't be surprised if the market for love charms wasn't particularly female even in the modern day, both in the creators of those charms and in who consumes those charms.

So I understand that the violent aspect of this possession does tend to go mostly one way, and I understand that that is and ought to be troubling, but at the same time that is also precisely why love magic would be so attractive to someone in the grip of erotic attraction but who lacks the physical means to force themselves on the object of their attraction.

 

[Morrus]

If you think making a mistake doesn't lead to people persecuting you for that mistake like you 100% meant to do it always, you're a fool.

I've had to ask you twice to stop calling people names in this thread, PLUS asking you not to share copyrighted materials. At this point, it's time for you to stop posting in this thread, please.