Unearthed Arcana WotC Removes Latest Unearthed Arcana

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

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
So if it'd been called the Charm Domain or the Enchantment Domain and had the same spell list and the Instant Infatuation channel divinity option, everything would be a-ok?

If that is your opinion, that seems just as pedantic to me.

That's not at all what that word means. In this case, the context is both relevant and important.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
That's not at all what that word means. In this case, the context is both relevant and important.
"That word"? Which word? I'm not trying to be obtuse, because I understand what you're saying, but, clarity is key!
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
I do not know what this means in the context of what I said. Please repeat, as I am apt to take humor in a manner more autistic than memetic.

My apologies, I was trying to be a bit too clever by half there. This is a reference to an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My point was that the issue wasn't any real harm being caused by the sub-class, but by the implications that could be inferred. The Always Sunny meme was amusing, at least to me, because in that conversation the two characters are discussing consent.


"That word"? Which word? I'm not trying to be obtuse, because I understand what you're saying, but, clarity is key!

My apologies again for the confusion; I highlighted the point where I was called "pedantic" for a thing that has nothing to do with pedantry.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
My apologies, I was trying to be a bit too clever by half there. This is a reference to an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My point was that the issue wasn't any real harm being caused by the sub-class, but by the implications that could be inferred. The Always Sunny meme was amusing, at least to me, because in that conversation the two characters are discussing consent.
Ah, never seen the program, sorry.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
So if it'd been called the Charm Domain or the Enchantment Domain and had the same spell list and the Instant Infatuation channel divinity option, everything would be a-ok?

If that is your opinion, that seems just as pedantic to me.



So your issue is really with Charm and enchantment school spells it seems like. Not their inclusion on this list.

Charm Person is already present on the: Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, and Trickery Domain spell lists. It's everywhere.

If you have a problem with this the Love Domain as originally published, where is the hate from everyone for the College of Glamour Bard?

College of Glamour:
  • Level 3 - Enthralling performance, no concentration Charm against Charisma Mod creatures who can see/hear you. Usable 1/short rest
  • Level 6 - Mantle of Majesty, 1/Long Rest, doubles down here
  • Level 14 - Unbreakable Majesty. 1/Long rest


That subclass takes away other character's (PC or NPC) agency in a WAY bigger manner than anything the Love domain threw out there.
oh man look at all these examples of love O: except they're not love, they're not called love, and the subclass is pretty clear that you're taking advantage of people like a pied piper. I'm not sure why people keep harping on "BUT CHARM PERSON" when multiple people have already said that's not the issue at hand.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
oh man look at all these examples of love O: except they're not love, they're not called love, and the subclass is pretty clear that you're taking advantage of people like a pied piper. I'm not sure why people keep harping on "BUT CHARM PERSON" when multiple people have already said that's not the issue at hand.
They aren't examples of "love", they're examples of the charm mechanic.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
already said that's not the issue at hand

Right the issue at hand is that some people are upset that the word "Love" was put at the top instead of "Charm".

Is Cupid not a god of love? What is Cupid's arrows if not the same thing that people are complaining about? Taking away the target's agency via love.

Narratively, you don't even necessarily have someone "using love" to do things, at least for the spells.

You have a god of love that gives their clerics the ability to charm people. The exact same spell and ability that one other domain and 5 other classes get, not love. Charm. It's even the same mechanics. There is literally zero difference between the Charm Person from Trickery and this domain, other than the god that grants the prepared spell. Even then, there are easily gods in mythology or d&d pantheons that could grant both the love and trickery domains to clerics.

The infatuation ability isn't "love" either. It literally calls itself infatuation.:
an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone or something.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Right the issue at hand is that some people are upset that the word "Love" was put at the top instead of "Charm".

Is Cupid not a god of love? What is Cupid's arrows if not the same thing that people are complaining about? Taking away the target's agency via love.

Narratively, you don't even necessarily have someone "using love" to do things, at least for the spells.

You have a god of love that gives their clerics the ability to charm people. The exact same spell and ability that one other domain and 5 other classes get, not love. Charm. It's even the same mechanics. There is literally zero difference between the Charm Person from Trickery and this domain, other than the god that grants the prepared spell. Even then, there are easily gods in mythology or d&d pantheons that could grant both the love and trickery domains to clerics.

The infatuation ability isn't "love" either. It literally calls itself infatuation.:
this has already been covered earlier. if you want an answer just go through the thread 😉
 


Celebrim

Legend
I was well aware that mutually informed consent is generally spoken of in reference to sex rather than love, and that you might mistake the similarly for conflation. I stand by what I said.

I am surprised you are choosing to double down, because it seems an indefensible position. But OK.

Depends on your definition of love. You don’t need someone’s consent to be romantically attracted to them. Is that love? I wouldn’t say so, as it is one-sided.

Love does not have to be mutual to be love. One can love someone that doesn't love one in response. (That sounds so awkward that I'm going to use specific pronouns from here on out, at the risk of sounding arrogant.) Indeed, I can love someone that hates me or whom considers me my enemy. It wouldn't be easy, but it's possible. Love doesn't require reciprocation.

Woah, now. Maybe define “acts of love” before claiming it’s perfectly appropriate to engage in such acts towards an unconscious person? For my part, I wouldn’t say love is something one “engages in acts of.”

Love is always an action. This doesn't require a huge explanation, as it is part of even the common vernacular. Someone does some gracious and kind act, and we say, "That is love." The 'that' we are pointing at is an action. Moreover, it's normal in the discussion of love to talk about actions. For example, there is a famous quote, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Again, the love is an action. So I find it strange that you would ask me to define what acts of love actually are, since I would think most people recognize an act of love when they see one.

I’m not suggesting it’s about sex. Sex is not the only thing that requires consent.

Sex is not the only thing that requires consent, but love does not require consent. Moreover, you did not say merely "consent" but explicitly used the language of sexuality, "mutually informed consent". But love does not require mutually informed consent, and it is nonsense to suggest that it does. We would both agree that minors ought not engage in sex because mutually informed consent is not possible, but neither of us actually believes that minors cannot love, nor do either of us believe that minors cannot be the object of love. Surely you have been a child and remember yourself engaging in acts of love? Surely a mother can love her child even though the child cannot possibly yet understand the sacrifices that the mother has made on their behalf. Love does not require mutually informed consent. It doesn't even require consent at all, as surely a parent that yanks a kid out of the path of an oncoming car does not first need to get consent to do so, and yet is surely acting out of love. Indeed, if someone were to rush out in the street and shove you out of the path of an oncoming bus, so that they were killed in your place, then that would have been an act of love - your consent for that to happen was not required.

Whenever you use language specific to sex to talk about love, then you are not speaking clearly. A man who sees the victim of an unconscious victim of attack on the side of the road, engages in acts of love when they protect and care for that person. A medic that rushes out into enemy fire to put a tourniquet around a bleeding man is engaging in an act of love. It's nonsense to speak in such circumstances about "mutually informed consent". "Mutually informed consent" has nothing to do with love. It has to do with sex, which may or may not be an act of love. Sex and love have almost nothing to do with each other except that, in the opinion of some, sex is better if it is with a person you love. But that is a question of sexual morality, and not of love.

So again, your statement, "As for why the association of love and mind control is bothersome, it’s because of the implication that love does not require mutual informed consent to be legitimate.", is nonsense. Love does not require mutually informed consent to be legitimate. I have given numerous examples. Sex requires mutually informed consent to be legitimate. Are you positive you aren't mentally equating the two?
 

Celebrim

Legend
Is Cupid not a god of love?

That is I think the entire crux of the entire topic in a nutshell. My answer is emphatically, "No.", but... to answer no to that question involves overturning an huge amount of unconsidered "common sense", because certainly in the larger culture, Cupid is a god of love. Certainly if you asked a high school student, "Who is Aphrodite?", on a test about Greek Mythology, you would hesitate to not give full points to the answer, "The goddess of love.", unless you had specifically overturned conventional wisdom in class.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
My answer is emphatically, "No.", but... to answer no to that question involves overturning an huge amount of unconsidered "common sense"

I mean, I suppose you might be right. I've never heard the concept that he's NOT a god of some kind of love.

I suppose Wikipedia is a bastion of "common sense", but here is what they say:
In classical mythology, Cupid (Latin Cupīdō [kʊˈpiːdoː], meaning "desire") is the god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. He is often portrayed as the son of the love goddess Venus and the god of Mars. He is also known in Latin as Amor ("Love"). His Greek counterpart is Eros.

I get that "love" is a mixed bag in english with a broad array of definitions. But that's why I have no issues with this domain as presented. "Love" is mixed bag, why shouldn't the domain be?
 

Celebrim

Legend
I mean, I suppose you might be right. I've never heard the concept that he's NOT a god of some kind of love.

Some kind of "love" certainly, for certain values of what "love" is. But, is Eros the god of the sort of love that the twitter poster was thinking of when she condemned a Domain of Love that is, in fact, quite well suited to the clerics of Cupid?

I get that "love" is a mixed bag in english with a broad array of definitions. But that's why I have no issues with this domain as presented. "Love" is mixed bag, why shouldn't the domain be?

Boom. Exactly. That's what the whole argument is really about. We're in the midst of a cultural crisis regarding the definition of the word "love". It's apparently evolving back to a more conventional Western conception of what love is, after a couple of generations of experimenting with the idea of "Free Love" and finding it not quite as good as it was billed on the label. And the problem is that the creator of the Love domain was envisioning something like how love was imagined by people who thought up Cupid, and the complaint was raised, "I don't want people thinking about love like that!"

And hooray for that, but it's creating a big crisis of communication.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I really don't understand why we're having such a big discussion about it.

WotC chose to change something they are designing. They are allowed to do so, and it doesn't matter what prompted them to make the change.

Those of you who didn't want it changed, or wanted a chance to say your piece when the eventual survey came out... tough crap for you. You are not owed anything and they can do whatever the hell they want.

You don't like it? I'm sure they'd be happy for you to take your business elsewhere. You just have to decide what's more important... playing this game that WotC has produced, or stop playing it because you don't like the political stance you think WotC took. But I can guarantee you, they aren't going to care what your decision is either way. And thus bitching about it here is resulting in absolutely nothing other than giving you something to do for a couple hours until a more interesting thread gets created for you to post in. ;)
 





Calling it "Love" and then making it have a class feature to override free will...yeah, probably not the best thing to have released close to Valentine's Day.

I dunno, that sounds like Valentines Day to me. I mean the methods of coercion are different, this is magic - whereas Valentines day is more of an extortion racket, perpetrated against the American public by Hallmark and by jewelry companies - but ultimately they are similar.
 

Boom. Exactly. That's what the whole argument is really about. We're in the midst of a cultural crisis regarding the definition of the word "love". It's apparently evolving back to a more conventional Western conception of what love is, after a couple of generations of experimenting with the idea of "Free Love" and finding it not quite as good as it was billed on the label.

 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top