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!"

 

[Horwath]

Where is the raving here? and one tweet is not a mob. You may not like or agree with the tweet, that's your prerrogative, but it's just criticism.

here, knock yourself out. As people mentioned, they are even putting all "charm" spells into this category.

 

[Kurotowa]

this isn't criticism, it's raving of the twitter mob.

Your attempts to delegitimize people you disapprove of are becoming unsightly. They're not honestly held opinions shaped by cultural events, they're "ravings". It's not an opinion shared by a large number of players and expressed across multiple platforms, it's a "twitter mob".

If you have a counter-point, argue it. If you hold a different opinion, agree to disagree and accept that you might be in the minority on this one. But please don't try to win by denying the agency of those you disagree with. That's just low.

 

[Panda-s1]

1st Twitter post about this:

"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. naughty word excellent. "

wow, what angry and psychotic language they're using in that tweet, they better be careful with what they say.

just look at the language they use in the followup tweet explaining why they don't like the domain, it's just offensive and incomprehensible

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Changes has been made: its now a Unity domain with a different CD and spell list,

The bard gets its pet at level 6 instead of 14th.

The sorcerer gains extra ''protection/metal'' related spells.

EDIT: the sorcerer's capstone also dispel effect up to 6th level and restore 100 hp split as you wish.

 

[Bolares]

here, knock yourself out. As people mentioned, they are even putting all "charm" spells into this category.

I've seen the tweet, it's still just fair criticism.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think anyone has said that directly, but if we take seriously some of the claims made, then absolutely we should either remove them from the game or explicitly tag them as "[Evil]" and move them to a supplement on evil.

Ok, so who made that claim?

Let's approach the question in a slightly different game and setting:

Should a Light Side Jedi be allowed to use a Jedi Mind Trick without acquiring a Dark Side point?

Wait, why? Why shift the goalposts like that? The complaint that was made was that giving something called the “love domain” mind control powers had unfortunate implications. Changes were made to the name of the domain and it’s precise powerset in response to that feedback. Folks who were concerned are generally now satisfied. That’s all. Trying to extrapolate this to “people are claiming charm spells should be reserved for evil supplements” or “Jedi mind trick should be a dark side power” is slippery slope fallacy at best.

 

[Rune]

What else can a "Love Domain" do but use charm effects?

Mechanics that allow the cleric to make sacrifices of self on behalf of others? Something like sharing damage, expending hp or other resources to heal or grant defensive bonuses? Maybe taking on a level of exhaustion to grant someone an automatic success on a saving throw?

Perhaps provide mechanics that incentivize enemies to surrender or negotiate? Disadvantage to attacks while the cleric’s side keeps the peace? Resource-free atonement for willing participants?

How about bonuses that encourage synergies amongst individuals? An extra die when creaures within x feet of the cleric aid another in a non-attack activity? The ability for characters to share hit dice for healing?

It seems to me that there are a lot of non-compulsion/mind-altering possibilities for a love domain. Save the charms for a seduction domain.

 

[Celebrim]

This argument does not make sense.

Why? If we say Aphrodite is the "goddess of love", does it make sense to be upset that Aphrodite's clerics can use charm person?

 

[Salthorae]

This argument does not make sense.

Why should it matter that a cleric of the love domain has the ability to control one person's reaction twice per rest with their channel divinity action? That is literally the only portion of the domain that can control someone's agency.

There are plenty of spells out there: Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Confusion, etc, etc, as well as other class abilities that control someone's agency. Why should this one matter?

Hell, even the Battle Master's commander's strike does EXACTLY what this domain ability did before they changed the domain.

People are upset because it was the "love" domain and the ability had the word "infatuation" in it.

 

[Panda-s1]

I've seen the tweet, it's still just fair criticism.

did you not pay attention? she said a N A U G H T Y W O R D her argument is invalid somehow