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!"

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I thought it was pulled cause it was never actually released. Someone just guessed the URL name.

 

[Panda-s1]

The 3e sourcebook Testament has the Qedeshot, a Cleric/Bard class for the Canaanite deity of fertility. A qedeshot was presumed to be female but did not have to be, got CHR-based unarmored defense, could buff allies with a touch, and used powers like Fascinate to create a "look at me not them" effect. The accompanying drawing was attired like Jasmine (cartoon Disney's Aladdin).

The class could be used to play a heal/buff-er, a party face, or a harlot.
So we do have a 3e-era third-party example of the multiple meanings of 'love'.

man that's a third party example. from 3.0. I'm pretty sure if you swam through the cesspool of bargain bin fodder you'd find a cleric domain for butts. Unearthed Arcana is official first party material and should be held to a higher standard.

I thought it was pulled cause it was never actually released. Someone just guessed the URL name.

it seems to be a bit of both. as someone else suggested earlier, someone found the url, wotc probably decided since it leaked they should release it anyway, then the backlash happened so they redacted everything.

I personally thought it was a bit early for them to release it officially, I mean it's barely been 2 weeks since the last UA release, which suggests the Love domain would have been out just in time for Valentine's Day. Haha..... Orz

 

[Demetrios1453]

That's why I say most, not all. I'm running the level 1-4 part of Descent into Avernus right now, and I'd find it difficult to have it happen as intended if the players didn't play fast and loose with the murderous attitude that's mostly expected from the party. Also, tomb-robbing and corpse-defiling. And it's as official as it gets.



Cool. Let's have it do what's intended to do and have everyone else play the game however they want to.



Indeed, 2e has "love" as one of the examples for specific deities. It also states that a favored weapon for that kind of deity would be a... short bow! (This last bit of information is presented with no further comment).

When describing the Charm sphere of divine magic, 2e describes charm spells as "those that affect the attitudes and actions of people. Deities of love, beauty, trickery, and art often allow access to this sphere."

While we never had a bow-wielding charm-casting cleric of love in our games, I find it interesting to realize that this has been an option since 1989. 2e AD&D is really that cool.



Not at all. I'm upset by the idea of a vocal minority on Twitter getting to decide what kind of content should go into the game. We don't do a lot of assassins or demon-worshipping antiheroes either, and I'd be equally upset if someone was campaigning for this kind of thing to stay out of the game because there are people who suffer with them in real life.

Having pulled out my 3e FRCS, Sune grants the Chaos, Charm, Good, and Protection Domains (and with the favored weapon being the whip, ostensibly representing a silken sash, but... still).

As 2e had the Charm sphere and 3e had the Charm domain, it would probably behoove them to maintain tradition and continue using "Charm" in the current edition as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not at all. I'm upset by the idea of a vocal minority on Twitter getting to decide what kind of content should go into the game. We don't do a lot of assassins or demon-worshipping antiheroes either, and I'd be equally upset if someone was campaigning for this kind of thing to stay out of the game because there are people who suffer with them in real life.

You’re upset by straw people then. Nobody is saying the domain as-written should “stay out of the game.” What some folks are actually saying is that calling this domain “love” is kinda icky. Maybe call it “lust” or “desire” or “compulsion” or something instead. And while they’re at it, a love domain with more buffing and protective magic instead of mind control would be pretty cool too.

 

[Umbran]

Now it's used to horribly smear millions of innocent men, which just so wrong.

Mod Note:

First, language changes.

Second, and far more importantly, if you think there aren't folks outside of prisons that feel they should be allowed to force themselves on women, for whom the term is entirely apt, you are woefully misinformed. If you have forgotten how many women are subjected to sexual assault each year, I suggest you go read up on the statistics.

Please do not minimize the issue. It makes women reading the site (rightfully) feel like their situation and persons are not respected.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You’re upset by straw people then. Nobody is saying the domain as-written should “stay out of the game.” What some folks are actually saying is that calling this domain “love” is kinda icky. Maybe call it “lust” or “desire” or “compulsion” or something instead. And while they’re at it, a love domain with more buffing and protective magic instead of mind control would be pretty cool too.

Well, someone in this thread already said that removing the philter of love from the list of magic items would be a good idea. Definitely not straw people.

Besides, it's pretty characteristic of language that a single word can be used with different meanings to describe many things. Deities of desire/passion/lust have been described as deities of love for as long as I've been interested in mythology - the fictional mythology of D&D or real-world mythology, it doesn't matter.

As long as we don't fail to communicate, you get to decide what constitutes valid use of language for you. You won't hear a word from me trying to invalidate it, no matter how dumb I actually find your use of language to be (and I find a lot of the modern trends on that matter dumb, really).

Once you storm Twitter or any other channel to demand from others that they only use language in a way that's valid for you, you should be prepared to hear from them that, as long as we can keep communication free of violence/offense/prejudice/etc., you don't get a say on what constitutes valid use of language for others.

And I think this makes even more sense when talking about a concept as abstract and multi-conceptual as "love".

D&D magic can forge/manipulate states of consciousness. Being in love is a state of consciousness. It's fine for D&D magic to force people to love others. Or do you really think the morality of the act perpetrated on the other person changes once you call it "the domain of lust"? It's absurdly immoral in any case, but so is accepting a contract kill, which D&D characters do all the time.

 

[Weiley31]

Did the Book of Erotic Fantasy have a Love Domain? I will admit the domain sounds like it would've came from there.

But it's the month of Valentine's Day. So makes sense.

 

[Weiley31]

Plus reflavoring is one of 5E's greatest traits.

 

[Marandahir]

There are differences between Deities of Love and Deities of Attraction. Hera vs Aphrodites, for instance.

 

[Umbran]

As long as we don't fail to communicate, you get to decide what constitutes valid use of language for you.

You don't see the problem, here?

Unless you are talking to yourself, you are using language to communicate with someone else. And then, if you wish to communicate, what they consider to be valid use of language becomes pretty central to your needs.

Now, in some cases, using words in a way you know are at odds with how others think is entirely appropriate, even constructive. This can be the basis of conversations or philosophical thought. If you were writing a book or a novel that asks "What is love?" then there'd be a lot of space to talk about history, and mythology, and literature, and various cultural norms...

When you are trying to sell gaming content, though, you are probably not trying to get them to question their concept of love - you are trying to give them tools to represent love within their games. If your concept doesn't mostly match theirs... they aren't going to use it, now are they?

I mean, you'd not give them a "Fighter" that didn't actually fight, right? So, you don't give them a Love Cleric that isn't about their kind of love. Pretty simple, really.