Maybe a Planescape handbook coming up? I doubt it, but with the amount of campaign settings they've been coming out with lately; Ravnica, Avernus, Eberron, Wildemount, maybe, just maybe it is tied into Planescape.
Maybe not a handbook for playing in planescape, but possibly narrated by a planescaping NPC, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything was filled with notes from Xanathar, and Volo's Guide to Monsters was commented on by Volo and Elminster.
Or, the first half of the book could have subclasses, and the second half could be a guide to playing in Planescape?
Again, I doubt it, but it could fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If it is a planescape related book, I definitely think it will just be annotated by someone from the Planescape setting, and have vague connections to it, instead of actually being a sourcebook for it.
This could also be a good way of introducing the Class Feature Variants, just saying that the different planes of existence can change the classes abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Mechanically, I love it. Thematically, things get awkward. The elephant in the room is that you are changing the way other characters consider you or someone else. You are making them have strong emotional attachments to others or yourself. If this sounds a bit shady, it's because it is. Sure it says "Willing Creature" and that saves it from being SUPER awkward, but it's still of a questionable nature. This is doubly true if the PC tends to be more manipulative in nature, so I'd avoid that particular minefield if I were to play this one.
I can definately see what you're saying, but technically the text of Emboldening bond doesn't state that it actually manipulates the feelings of the characters affected, though it could definately be read that way. I'd probably flavor it so that it is power by feelings already felt, maybe even making the characters feel each others emotions to some extent, but not actually forcing an emotional bond.
@LLHati It isn't the bonding ability that we have issues with. I focused on that at first too and missed the problematic parts. Half of the Domain spells and the channel divinity all revolve around manipulating someone's mind and altering their perception. It's no wonder someone on Twitter refered to this as the "Roofie" domain. Calling it love, when you are taking away people's ability to consent is really not okay.
I really like the Clockwork Sorcerer, but I think the idea of a giant planar clockwork force would be a better warlock patron, thematically.
If they just switched around the noble genie and clockwork subclasses to make a Genie Sorcerers and a Clockwork Warlock, that would be sick.
Not quite but it's a start. The weird thing about Sor/Lock is that the venn diagram of things that can be patrons and things that can be bloodline relevant is pretty close to a circle.
I would have loved a clockwork patron and a genie bloodline but a genie also fits so well as a patron it's hard to pass up. The obvious answer is both.
Here's the thing. I really like emboldening bond and protective unity. That is stuff I would absolutely love a love cleric to do, create relations (romantic or not) between people, or enhance them, and use those emotions to empower them. That is good stuff right there. But... God, do I hate the idea of love clerics spells being charm based. I don't mind hypnotic pattern, but I would personally rather have Sanctuary instead of Charm Person. Enthrall is fine, honestly, but Charm Person? Also, their channel divinity is something I take issue with in this matter. It is an ability that literally forces another creature to fall in love with you for a short time, and do whatever you say (Before you argue "actually there are many types of love, as they say" it is literally called Impulsive Infatuation, and it forces them to admire you if they can't attack anyone in range). I can forgive all of these, but I will still talk about it now, because it is something that I feel needs to be said.
The "Many Types of Love" argument needs to be used to rip apart the spell list and channel divinity of this love domain. How did they not give them Ceremony?!
I really like the Clockwork Sorcerer, but I think the idea of a giant planar clockwork force would be a better warlock patron, thematically.
If they just switched around the noble genie and clockwork subclasses to make a Genie Sorcerers and a Clockwork Warlock, that would be sick.
Not quite but it's a start. The weird thing about Sor/Lock is that the venn diagram of things that can be patrons and things that can be bloodline relevant is pretty close to a circle.
I would have loved a clockwork patron and a genie bloodline but a genie also fits so well as a patron it's hard to pass up. The obvious answer is both.
The Spell list... I am mostly fine with. But the channel divinity... ugh. "But Enchantment wizard and Glamour bard do the same!" enchantment wizard and glamour bard aren't specifically flavored (or at MINIMALLY heavily implied) to be forcing someone to fall in love with them magically. Enchantment wizard is clear, hypnotism and the like, which, while it could be applied, is much more open to interpretation. Glamour bard is more about idolization, it is about being as flashy as possible to become someone that people like and listen to, not about making someone attracted to you to follow you at all costs. The closest thing glamour bard has to this is having people who witness their performance hinder those who wish the bard harm, in which it makes it clear that they will not fight or do anything to put themselves on the line for you, but instead view you as more of a likable person. Love cleric, being explicitly tied to love, needs to have these implications seriously considered and acted on. Glamour bard was supposed to be a celebrity, this cleric is supposed to be love.
All the mind-controlling, will-dominating, SOUL-STEALING magic out there in D&D...and it's the Love Cleric that gets everybody up in arms saying "hey, that's not okay!"?
Nah.
No.
I don't buy it.
Players have been using Charm Person to literally get away with murder for decades. Dominate spells have been forcing nameless mooks to turn their blades on their comrades, friends, and/or loved ones for the same decades. Half the extraplanar nasties in the Monster Manual have the ability to distort the will of anyone who misses their save; does no one else remember Caleb blowing up the Nein because a succubus told him to? This shit is not new.
If this sort of will-distorting magic was perfectly A-OK in your game before now, the Love Cleric does not suddenly make it worse. Put that shit away and get off the high horse. Come on. The game has a LITERAL LOVE POTION. See? This one > Philter of Love. "...you regard it as your true love while charmed..." No save, nada. Spot something you'd be willing to bonerize and you are in love with it for an hour. If that's perfectly fine, no trouble because it's a fantasy game and errybuddy knows where the boundaries are - or is willing to admit it and step back when they accidentally nudge up to or step over a boundary, like reasonable adults - then the Love Cleric isn't going to change that.
Let's maybe be a little less obtuse than the average sheeple and dial back the hypocrisy a bit, shall we?
Dude, do you realize how many people get raped, but because they were given a mind-altering substance are told they were asking for it, or they wanted it. The mind control aspect of the Love Domain plays WAY too close to a lot of very real problems that a lot of players face.
So does the mind control aspects of literally anything with mind control. Are you saying that the Love Cleric is a thoughtless face-slap to anyone who's dealt with sexual abuse, but literal **** devils from Hell are perfectly okay?
Nah.
This is a table-by-table issue. If there was a player at my table who'd been drugged into sexual abuse and I knew it was a landmine issue, you'd better goddamn believe I'd be telling everybody at my table to lay off the brain control, potentially even adjusting the setting to add in a deep cultural phobia and hatred of will-manipulating magic. Frankly, that's likely a part of any setting I run anyways, as the utter fear of anyone who can steal or subvert your will would be pretty rampant in any population where someone could make you their new best friend with a wave of their hand.
As it is however, most tables are perfectly fine with brain controlling the absolute everlovin' moose manure out of every single NPC the DM puts in their path. How often has a sorcerer or bard tried to use subtle spellcasting/bardic abilities to manipulate the emotions and direct the will of barons, dukes or kings? This is the party literally brainwashing the President to directly interfere with the affairs of an entire country, and nobody has ever given a single rat nugget before this anywhere anybody else could see it.
No. You don't get to SJW this one when the exact same issue has gone completely unaddressed for actual decades already. That is a level of hypocrisy I will not tolerate. Either brain control magic is just part of D&D, or brain control magic should be hated and reviled anywhere it occurs, not just if/when it occurs next to the word 'Love'.
Again - if a Philter of Love is not despised because it's a factually irresistible magic super roofie, the Love Cleric is perfectly fine.
The problem isn't mind control/charm spells existing, however directly associating that kind of control with "Love" specifically has worrying connotations. That's all. It may still be a table to table issue, but im betting WotC doesn't want to encourage the association. That could even be why the PDF was pulled while they make last minute changes to the spell list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe a Planescape handbook coming up? I doubt it, but with the amount of campaign settings they've been coming out with lately; Ravnica, Avernus, Eberron, Wildemount, maybe, just maybe it is tied into Planescape.
Maybe not a handbook for playing in planescape, but possibly narrated by a planescaping NPC, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything was filled with notes from Xanathar, and Volo's Guide to Monsters was commented on by Volo and Elminster.
Or, the first half of the book could have subclasses, and the second half could be a guide to playing in Planescape?
Again, I doubt it, but it could fit.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So we might be looking at Somebody’s Guide to the Planes. I can dig it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Elminster's Compendium of the Planes
Asmodeus's Adventure Guide to Avernus and Otherworldly Places
Xanathar's Guide to Those Places that aren't here (I think)
Just some possible names. It is probably not happening, but these are just my recommendations.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, I should have listed that. Same with the Swarmkeeper ranger, connected to the Feywild, and the Astral Self Monk connected to the Astral Plane.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If it is a planescape related book, I definitely think it will just be annotated by someone from the Planescape setting, and have vague connections to it, instead of actually being a sourcebook for it.
This could also be a good way of introducing the Class Feature Variants, just saying that the different planes of existence can change the classes abilities.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I can definately see what you're saying, but technically the text of Emboldening bond doesn't state that it actually manipulates the feelings of the characters affected, though it could definately be read that way. I'd probably flavor it so that it is power by feelings already felt, maybe even making the characters feel each others emotions to some extent, but not actually forcing an emotional bond.
@LLHati
It isn't the bonding ability that we have issues with. I focused on that at first too and missed the problematic parts. Half of the Domain spells and the channel divinity all revolve around manipulating someone's mind and altering their perception. It's no wonder someone on Twitter refered to this as the "Roofie" domain. Calling it love, when you are taking away people's ability to consent is really not okay.
I really like the Clockwork Sorcerer, but I think the idea of a giant planar clockwork force would be a better warlock patron, thematically.
If they just switched around the noble genie and clockwork subclasses to make a Genie Sorcerers and a Clockwork Warlock, that would be sick.
You know, that's a damn good point.
Not quite but it's a start. The weird thing about Sor/Lock is that the venn diagram of things that can be patrons and things that can be bloodline relevant is pretty close to a circle.
I would have loved a clockwork patron and a genie bloodline but a genie also fits so well as a patron it's hard to pass up. The obvious answer is both.
The Genie has to be a patron because of Aladin. Too many people who play D&D grew up on a diet of Disney movies for it not to be a patron.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Here's the thing. I really like emboldening bond and protective unity. That is stuff I would absolutely love a love cleric to do, create relations (romantic or not) between people, or enhance them, and use those emotions to empower them. That is good stuff right there. But... God, do I hate the idea of love clerics spells being charm based. I don't mind hypnotic pattern, but I would personally rather have Sanctuary instead of Charm Person. Enthrall is fine, honestly, but Charm Person? Also, their channel divinity is something I take issue with in this matter. It is an ability that literally forces another creature to fall in love with you for a short time, and do whatever you say (Before you argue "actually there are many types of love, as they say" it is literally called Impulsive Infatuation, and it forces them to admire you if they can't attack anyone in range). I can forgive all of these, but I will still talk about it now, because it is something that I feel needs to be said.
The "Many Types of Love" argument needs to be used to rip apart the spell list and channel divinity of this love domain. How did they not give them Ceremony?!
I can't get to the PDF. All I am getting to is the first batch of UA from 2020. The Barbarian and so on.
Both? Both. Both is good.
The Spell list... I am mostly fine with. But the channel divinity... ugh. "But Enchantment wizard and Glamour bard do the same!" enchantment wizard and glamour bard aren't specifically flavored (or at MINIMALLY heavily implied) to be forcing someone to fall in love with them magically. Enchantment wizard is clear, hypnotism and the like, which, while it could be applied, is much more open to interpretation. Glamour bard is more about idolization, it is about being as flashy as possible to become someone that people like and listen to, not about making someone attracted to you to follow you at all costs. The closest thing glamour bard has to this is having people who witness their performance hinder those who wish the bard harm, in which it makes it clear that they will not fight or do anything to put themselves on the line for you, but instead view you as more of a likable person. Love cleric, being explicitly tied to love, needs to have these implications seriously considered and acted on. Glamour bard was supposed to be a celebrity, this cleric is supposed to be love.
Okay.
Hold on a minute.
All the mind-controlling, will-dominating, SOUL-STEALING magic out there in D&D...and it's the Love Cleric that gets everybody up in arms saying "hey, that's not okay!"?
Nah.
No.
I don't buy it.
Players have been using Charm Person to literally get away with murder for decades. Dominate spells have been forcing nameless mooks to turn their blades on their comrades, friends, and/or loved ones for the same decades. Half the extraplanar nasties in the Monster Manual have the ability to distort the will of anyone who misses their save; does no one else remember Caleb blowing up the Nein because a succubus told him to? This shit is not new.
If this sort of will-distorting magic was perfectly A-OK in your game before now, the Love Cleric does not suddenly make it worse. Put that shit away and get off the high horse. Come on. The game has a LITERAL LOVE POTION. See? This one > Philter of Love. "...you regard it as your true love while charmed..." No save, nada. Spot something you'd be willing to bonerize and you are in love with it for an hour. If that's perfectly fine, no trouble because it's a fantasy game and errybuddy knows where the boundaries are - or is willing to admit it and step back when they accidentally nudge up to or step over a boundary, like reasonable adults - then the Love Cleric isn't going to change that.
Let's maybe be a little less obtuse than the average sheeple and dial back the hypocrisy a bit, shall we?
Please do not contact or message me.
No.
Dude, do you realize how many people get raped, but because they were given a mind-altering substance are told they were asking for it, or they wanted it. The mind control aspect of the Love Domain plays WAY too close to a lot of very real problems that a lot of players face.
So does the mind control aspects of literally anything with mind control. Are you saying that the Love Cleric is a thoughtless face-slap to anyone who's dealt with sexual abuse, but literal **** devils from Hell are perfectly okay?
Nah.
This is a table-by-table issue. If there was a player at my table who'd been drugged into sexual abuse and I knew it was a landmine issue, you'd better goddamn believe I'd be telling everybody at my table to lay off the brain control, potentially even adjusting the setting to add in a deep cultural phobia and hatred of will-manipulating magic. Frankly, that's likely a part of any setting I run anyways, as the utter fear of anyone who can steal or subvert your will would be pretty rampant in any population where someone could make you their new best friend with a wave of their hand.
As it is however, most tables are perfectly fine with brain controlling the absolute everlovin' moose manure out of every single NPC the DM puts in their path. How often has a sorcerer or bard tried to use subtle spellcasting/bardic abilities to manipulate the emotions and direct the will of barons, dukes or kings? This is the party literally brainwashing the President to directly interfere with the affairs of an entire country, and nobody has ever given a single rat nugget before this anywhere anybody else could see it.
No. You don't get to SJW this one when the exact same issue has gone completely unaddressed for actual decades already. That is a level of hypocrisy I will not tolerate. Either brain control magic is just part of D&D, or brain control magic should be hated and reviled anywhere it occurs, not just if/when it occurs next to the word 'Love'.
Again - if a Philter of Love is not despised because it's a factually irresistible magic super roofie, the Love Cleric is perfectly fine.
Please do not contact or message me.
The problem isn't mind control/charm spells existing, however directly associating that kind of control with "Love" specifically has worrying connotations. That's all. It may still be a table to table issue, but im betting WotC doesn't want to encourage the association. That could even be why the PDF was pulled while they make last minute changes to the spell list.