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!"

 

[Raunalyn]

Honestly, I am unsure how it's different than typical charm and domination spells in the PHB. Why don't we get rid of the Enchanter, too?

Sorry...I am genuinely confused as to why there is backlash, especially considering that this is a fantasy role-playing game and that things like this have been part of the standard fantasy trope since the beginning. Not trying to be obtuse or angry about it, just baffled.

 

[oreofox]

As I said, the Domain abilities (except for Impulsive Infatuation) seemed unobjectionable to me, though I'm willing to hear other opinions; it was the Domain spells that had problems (and were kinda creepy). I'm not sure I see an easy answer, either.

What other kind of spells would a Love domain have? There isn't really much in the way of spells with that sort of theme other than the charm spells. I don't know, maybe someone could possibly find something (only one that really comes to mind is the Ceremony spell). I am sure there's a Love domain (or similar) out there on the internet that might have a better selection of spells.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Yeah, just Impulsive Infatuation seems bad, and you could probably come up with something, even if it's just adding another bonus to you 1st level ability or something.

The domain spells though are a problem, and I don't think there are spells currently in the game could work. Could always make more spells and make those the domain spells, but they haven't done anything like that yet since all domain spells have been in the PHB (at least, to my knowledge).

Honestly, I am unsure how it's different than typical charm and domination spells in the PHB. Why don't we get rid of the Enchanter, too?

Sorry...I am genuinely confused as to why there is backlash, especially considering that this is a fantasy role-playing game and that things like this have been part of the standard fantasy trope since the beginning. Not trying to be obtuse or angry about it, just baffled.

The spells aren't the problem, it's the context those spells are being used in for the domain.

 

[prabe]

What other kind of spells would a Love domain have? There isn't really much in the way of spells with that sort of theme other than the charm spells. I don't know, maybe someone could possibly find something (only one that really comes to mind is the Ceremony spell). I am sure there's a Love domain (or similar) out there on the internet that might have a better selection of spells.

Ceremony had come to mind. I'm not looking at my books at the moment, so I don't have any other ideas, myself.

 

[prabe]

Honestly, I am unsure how it's different than typical charm and domination spells in the PHB. Why don't we get rid of the Enchanter, too?

Sorry...I am genuinely confused as to why there is backlash, especially considering that this is a fantasy role-playing game and that things like this have been part of the standard fantasy trope since the beginning. Not trying to be obtuse or angry about it, just baffled.

Also, the subclass abilities for Enchanter (and some of the specific spells) are ... remarkably creepy. The ability to rewrite memories? Eew. As @FlyingChihuahua sez, the conflation of "love" and "mind control" is the problem, here, and putting those spells in a Love domain makes that conflation hard to avoid, and practically canon.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I'm pretty sure the pulling of the UA document has less to do with the Love Domain Cleric specifically and more that this document was found by somebody scraping their website for possible URLs. And now the document was found before they were ready, and the wind's out of their sails.

As to why they're hosting a (possibly outdated) document not ready for release in a publicly accessible, if hard to find part of their website in the first place? Who knows? They aren't a tech company, that's for sure.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Also, the subclass abilities for Enchanter (and some of the specific spells) are ... remarkably creepy. The ability to rewrite memories? Eew. As @FlyingChihuahua sez, the conflation of "love" and "mind control" is the problem, here, and putting those spells in a Love domain makes that conflation hard to avoid, and practically canon.

From a cynical perspective, love as a form of mind control makes sense, but I don't think that D&D is going for that type of perspective on the world and the nature of love.

 

[prabe]

From a cynical perspective, love as a form of mind control makes sense, but I don't think that D&D is going for that type of perspective on the world and the nature of love.

I'd be inclined to call it more like a form of madness ...

That said, I don't think WotC want to go for that, either.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'd be inclined to call it more like a form of madness ...

That said, I don't think WotC want to go for that, either.

and I think a Madness domain might fall into the same kind of trap as Love did, so that's right out.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There was a reason why I referred to the domain as the stalker domain in the other thread, but half jokingly. But in all seriousness, I can see how they intentionally tried to avoid what that tweet accuses. Look at the powers, and they are the same effect as various charm spells. It's the wording that seems to get people worked up by using "love' and "infatuation". But the effects are no different mechanically than existing enchantment spells.