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!"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

y'know last I checked the gods ("the gods") were wary of just handing knowledge down to humans out of fear of what they would do with it, there's no reason to believe a god of love wouldn't exercise the same level of restraint.

also it's not really spontaneous if a cleric willingly uses a power to make it happen.

You say "the same level of restraint". Do you think the Storm domain should hold back on the lightning bolts out of restraint and because they wouldn't be spontaneous if a cleric can control them?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We're not OWED any theme in this game, nor are UA ever 100% assured to be published. It's playlets content and WotC is in their right to interpret the feedback they get any way they want.

We use a UA spell (Healing Elixir) in our game to balance out the fact that we don't have a traditional healer in our tabletop game.

So far, knock on wood, WotC's stormtroopers haven't kicked down the door and told us we're not allowed to use this content.

People who are are, dare I say it, in looove with the Love Domain can find a copy of it out there and use it. You will be lower on the list for the WotC stormtroopers than my group is.

 

[Olrox17]

a tweet that says "the love domain is icky": bad, unruly, not at all valid criticism
the same tweet, except in a box that literally says to put whatever comment you'd like: valid, constructive, a means to change the content

I have a feeling you don't know what these "professionally made surveys" are actually like.

Really now? Ok. Let’s not even talk about surveys in general, but wotc’s dnd surveys. How are they usually like? Are they comprised of single yes like/ no don’t like box?
No, they allow for a wide range of judgement for every single game element included in the playtest, and they even allow you to leave semi-long sentences as feedback!
So you know, once they get our surveys, they get to know what we think about all the mechanics, individually, which means they get to know which mechanics were liked, which mechanics need work, which mechanics are to be scrapped, etc.

Twitter rage doesn’t allow for that granularity and precision. You get hundreds of tweets focusing on the same, divisive elements, and nothing on the rest. It’s not quality feedback!

 

[Celebrim]

That's not the worst thing you can do with writing by a long shot.

Slander is morally as despicable as murder in many popular systems of morality.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, because professionally made surveys are easily condensed in a single, absolute, numerical value. Whatever.
Also, Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t, be the ultimate judge of anything, let alone morality.

Conveniently, it's not the only place this discussion took place.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Twitter rage doesn’t allow for that granularity and precision. You get hundreds of tweets focusing on the same, divisive elements, and nothing on the rest. It’s not quality feedback!

And it's not the only form of feedback they get or look at.

You guys do understand that you can have multiple tabs on your browser and look at multiple sources of data more or less at the same time, right?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Slander is morally as despicable as murder in many popular systems of morality.

OK, I call.

Let's see this list.

 

[Olrox17]

And it's not the only form of feedback they get or look at.

You guys do understand that you can have multiple tabs on your browser and look at multiple sources of data more or less at the same time, right?

Are you familiar with the term “loud minority”?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

it's official tool for playtesting...?

twitter is NOT!

WotC and most other major companies find it a valuable way to interact with customers.

You can capitalize as much as you want and throw around as many exclamation points as you wish, but WotC clearly disagrees with you.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Are you familiar with the term “loud minority”?

Are you familiar with the term "strawman?"

Multiple avenues of feedback, folks.