"Bulwark of law" seems both needlessly complex and unduly random for the orderly Clockwork Soul. Seems like giving 5 temporary hit points per sorcery point would be easier book keeping and more appropriate to the theme.
I'd still prefer features that supported law and order, rather than mitigating chaos.
I didn't see the Love Domain, but what did it do that Charm Person, Suggestion, Modify Memory, etc. don't already do? Or the Enchantment Wizard? If a player is going to do gross stuff with these abilities, that's a player problem.
It used the word "Love" within one legally standard restraining order's distance of things gross players already do. This makes it absolutely unacceptable and a deep Wizards faux pas, rather than making gross players gross.
Imagine getting upset about charm and a 6 second infatuation ability when you can cast dominate person and take complete control over someone for a day. Talk about priorities, here, in directing all that rage.
Yes, I read the other points. No, I am not signing up for anyones blog. And now it's gone with a bland replacement.
Well, sorcerer looks a lot better, but bonus spells need to be a thing for them, for all subclasses.
honestly feels like for a subclass call clock work soul there aint much outside of the manifestations its rather boring really. You know if it was all about time I would be into it
Hell time if flavored right fits most of the clockwork souls powers
Small like 1 second jumps causing your opponent to miss an opportune strike, or causing the guard to miss your full plate fighter sneaking about ect
Some one takes a hit? Re-flavor that dmg reduction into speeding up the guy so he can dodge it like the bionic man (complete with sound effect) turning it into only a glancing g blow or even a miss
i think time-ebbed sorcerer has a better cool factor that clockwork is missing mostly because there is a lack of the mechanical. or rename it lawbound soul or something so we can get something better out of it later just my opinion
honestly feels like for a subclass call clock work soul there aint much outside of the manifestations its rather boring really. You know if it was all about time I would be into it
Hell time if flavored right fits most of the clockwork souls powers
Small like 1 second jumps causing your opponent to miss an opportune strike, or causing the guard to miss your full plate fighter sneaking about ect
Some one takes a hit? Re-flavor that dmg reduction into speeding up the guy so he can dodge it like the bionic man (complete with sound effect) turning it into only a glancing g blow or even a miss
i think time-ebbed sorcerer has a better cool factor that clockwork is missing mostly because there is a lack of the mechanical. or rename it lawbound soul or something so we can get something better out of it later just my opinion
Clockwork in D&D doesn't mean clocks and time. It refers to mechanical devices relying on cogs and springs and such, often mixed with magic. It's called clockwork because one of the earliest of such mechanised inventions was a clock.
Clockwork not clock.
Clockwork Sorc and Time Sorc would be very different. Time-like spells are coming with Dunamancy from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount so, maybe there's a sorc class there more fitting the theme of time?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Something I'd love to see is the Unity domain getting reflavoured and maybe some minor reworks into the love domain we all want. Now I know what your thinking and yes, they did release one and it was bad. I don't think it is just because of the whole "roofie" thing (not like we don't have other very firm and forceful mind control spells), but because I think charm isn't really the same flavour as "love". Let me explain. So obviously, when people think of love, the first thing you might think is romantic yes, but that is FAR from the only kind of love, and cleric as a class really exemplifies some of them just inherently. Sibling love, parental love, love of your friends (a platonic way), how you might come to care about a rival, how one might care for their friends and co adventurers, and finally the idea of loving your god. Yes "unity" as a domain does suggest some of this, but I would love WotC actually support the idea of "loving" your friends and your god and your family.
didn't think about this being pages after who i was replying too. not sure how to delete entirely if possible
you could always quote the person like so ; by by clicking the quote button right under their comment then it won mater how many pages its been youll have context.
so for the sorcerer they just added a crap ton of spells known nice but not what the class really needs. WOTC is still missing that the sorcerer players want to use metamagic ya know the defining feature of the class. It needs a recovery mechanic for spell slots and/or sorcery points. Failing that it needs 1 extra spell slot per spell lvl to make up for the munching of slots for points.
Okay, I'm getting annoyed and opinionated again. ONE: I will still be referring to the "Unity Domain" as Love if I ever play it, because it fits and I like it.
TWO: The original Love Domain from the leaked document was mechanically confused. Half it's domain spells and it's channel divinity were about manipulating the mind, offensive control spells. While the rest of the class features focused on buffing allies and protecting them. This is bad mechanical design, it sends a confused message about what the class should be doing. The redesign is more focused and clear: you are a mid to back line buff support. That's awesome. I like the mechanics of this.
THREE: They took feed back and adapted. that's what UA play-test is for. In this case they adapted out a mechanic that a lot of their players were REALLY uncomfortable with, might even have triggered others (Trigger being a medical term for something that aggravates PTSD). That's not my case, but I could definitely see it happening.
FOUR: You now want to proclaim we'll never see it because it's garbage now and Wizards will never release it again, just like you said we'd never see this subclass in the official release, and yet here it is. Try saying something positive, try to find how it would be useful for a change, instead of deciding it's garbage and been ruined by "Ess-Jay-Dubyas". That that characterization of you offends, I'm sorry, but that is what you remind me of.
Oh, and not on topic, but I'm playing the new artificer and I'm loving it. :P
Zoken, my good fellow. You mistake me for someone who is not ready, able, and oh so willing to have a go. If you're feeling annoyed and opinionated again? Let's have a dance, you and I.
ONE: Goodie for you. The rest of us will know better, because "Love" is a word you are no longer allowed to say in a D&D game. The Playerbase Has Said So.
TWO: A character that is only capable of one strictly, narrowly defined role in a party is one that does not belong in a party. This is a game where three to five individual people are expected to Save The Freaking World, by themselves with minimal assistance. A D&D character should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a castle, write a ballad, balance a logbook, build a wall, set a bone, spare the dying, take orders, give orders, act in concert, act alone, solve arcane formulae, analyze a problem, pitch manure, enchant a golem, cook a tasty meal, fight effectively, and die gloriously. Specialization is for insects and MMO players. A "mid-back line buff support" character that cannot pivot into offensive control or damage when needed, one that cannot ford a gap or ascend a wall, one that cannot solve a hundred different problems, kill a hundred different foes, or save a hundred different lives in a normal adventuring day is a character that has been badly designed and should be reconsidered.
THREE: Players who were "REALLY uncomfortable" with the Love cleric's ability to temporarily bend a target's will need to re-examine their priorities. Either that or they need to get on the "BAN ALL BARDS!" bandwagon because every freaking bard in D&D is damn near contractually obligated to be the sort of sleazy horndoggin' makes-everyone-else-uncomfortable Leisure Suit Larry jackass people were just oh so afraid that this Love cleric would 'enable'. Bards in general, with their reputation for literally superhuman levels of "charm" and the ability to cast virtually every mind or will-dominating spell in the game on top of usually having non-spell options for doing the same shit, have been "enabling" jackholes to be jackholes since before 5e dropped. Nobody has ever once cared about them, outside of handling it at their tables like adults. Hell, a Love cleric that gets their creeper on has a built in DM handbrake - "Your increasingly lecherous acts have led you astray from your god(dess)'s path. You have lost your deity's favor; until you atone and show that you've changed, you will not be able to cast spells or use your Channel Divinity."
Extreme? Yeah. Something I'd do before talking to the player in question and letting them know that they can either clean up their attitude or kindly leave my table? Nah, not really. But you can't do it at all to a skeevy bard.
FOUR: No. I don't care for this version. 'Unity' is a weaksauce compromise of a 'Divine Domain', just like the entirety of 5e is a weaksauce compromise that people have tons of fun with despite Wizards, not because of it. Nor do I care for shallow, socially-blind hypocrisy. A GOO warlock can literally Create a Thrall, charming a target in perpetuity unless someone actively removes the effect, and this has never once in the history of D&D bothered a single soul. People just accepted that if the player used the ability in a way that was awful, then that player had problems, not the game.
Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that many of the old gods of love were not gods of happily wedded bliss. They were gods of love-as-madness, a blinding and overwhelming infatuation that could drive entire nations to ruin in pursuit of a single beautiful woman. That was awesome shit. It was a side of mythology one rarely sees these days inamongst all the sanitized-for-children TV comedramas, and a cleric able to channel love that was both warming and empowering (a'la Emboldening Bond) as well so hot and intense that it could be wielded as a weapon was ****in' interesting. This 'Unity' domain is basically just a magic guidance counselor, and not of the "I can actually save your life in, like...nine different ways in one turn" kind a'la Cadeucus Clay.
And while we're briefly on the subject of gods and mythology...might I remind the viewing audience that Zeus, one of many, many folks' favorite mythological deities, was the original Horny Bard they drew the pattern from? Y'know, the guy who went around graping anything and everything with a slot to stick it in whether or not 'consent' was involved, or in many cases whether or not it was even physically possible?
Get. Over. Yusselves.
Oh, and equally not on topic, but my Battlesmith has been interesting...after I got done figuring out how to abruptly U-turn out of the Alchemist when Rising came out and we all learned the Alchemist had been destroyed. Even my DM who hadn't really been tracking the artificer at the time looked at that subclass and went "...you were excited for this? o_O" No. No Mr. DM Guy, I was not.
This is tiring. You aren't getting it, clearly. Look, if you hate the game so much, go play others. there are tons of other systems out there. You seem to loath what comes out of WotC, and people who try to respond to UA that don't agree with you.
Either that, or maybe consider that you don't understand what people are talking about, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point.
Wizards of the Coast, on top of having mismanaged a number of other games I dearly loved all the way to death (I will never stop mourning MechWarrior: Age of Destruction even as I understand why it inevitably died), has not made one single decision of their own since the decision to not stand by Fourth Edition. Every single goddamned decision they make about 5e is crowdsourced to The Playerbase, and never you mind your little head that "The Playerbase" is a nameless faceless mindless goo monster that is utterly paralyzed by hive-mind indecision. This design-by-committe bullshit is utterly infuriating, especially when we get those occasional peeks behind the curtain at things that the two or three remaining, tortured Actual Game Designers at Wizards occasionally manage to force out through the cage of corporate greed and pandering Wizards keeps them in. Much like the Murican political system, intelligence is neither required nor even encouraged for participation in Wizards' "game design process".
**** that company and everything about them. If the awesome digital toolset that is the only thing which makes the online games which are all I can play because I live in the ass end of Creation possible was not strictly exclusive to 5e? I probably would be encouraging my online group to try other systems. Maybe we'd come back to 5e later, provided Wizards ever stops waffling around and drops this design-by-committee bullshit, or maybe we'd disappear into GURPS, Savage Worlds, or other toolbox-y games designed by trained and experienced game designers instead of a mindless Internet throng and never look back.
Similarly, I suspect that a very significant percentage of the turdburgers who swept to Twitter in a twittish outrage and said "NOT OKAY WIZARDS CONSENT IS IMPORTANT" are also the people who play the bards that schmooze on every two-copper barmaid their party comes across and creeps out the DM, who is nonetheless forced to deal with it because if she says "yeah, I'd really prefer it if you guys would stop trying to impregnate every female NPC I put in front of you, maybe?" she gets blasted with "BUT MUH PLAYER AGENCY DX" and "I'M JUST PLAYING MY CHARACTER Y U TAKE PERSONAL?! DX" and various other takes on "don't crimp my style, shebro. These hoes be here for bangin', and bangin's what I do."
A problem which should be solved at the table. Not because there's no reason to implement it, but because if Wizards of the Coast has to actually print, in an official public for-profit product, the words "Hey! **** is not okay! If it comes up in your game it should be treated with the gravitas and seriousness it deserves, and you should really make sure the rest of your table is okay with exploring that sort of game before you even think about playing it!", then we have failed as a species because that should be blind braindead idiot obvious.
RPG Consent Checklist. Find it, fill it out, and then stand by your decisions. Wishy-washy hypocritical hogwash is the tool of the devil, and Asmodeus has enough souls as it is.
So you want people to stick by their decisions? Even ones they find bad? No one should grow out of things or come to new understandings based on new info or feed back? Is it better if we just have one person in charge of the decision making who never considers new information or different view points, and makes sure everyone else is just following orders?
So the people who were complaining that a subclass encouraged creepy rapey behavior were likely the people who are creepy and rapey at the table? How does that make sense to you? these are either the people that those people usually harass, and those like me who are listening to them. Let me ask you this: If so many people were vocal about how uncomfortable and problematic they found the subclass WHY do you want it to stay? Why do you want those people feeling that Wizards encourages that behavior?
If you don't like 5e quit coming here and being toxic about new content. many of us clearly enjoy it. It clearway makes you miserable, so why abuse yourself? And if you hate the system, please don't condescend to those of us who enjoy it. There are other systems that you choose not to use because they are less convenient, you aren't better than the rest of us in the player base goo monster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do as well.
'Sa'ight. Everybody's wrong sometimes. People had hopes and beliefs for the artificer too, and we all saw how that went down.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd still prefer features that supported law and order, rather than mitigating chaos.
Gnome Armorist - Artificer Subclass Homebrew
I like the Unity Domain, not so much as a replacement for Love, but because it fits better to the concept of a healer Cleric that I was considering.
I didn't see the Love Domain, but what did it do that Charm Person, Suggestion, Modify Memory, etc. don't already do? Or the Enchantment Wizard? If a player is going to do gross stuff with these abilities, that's a player problem.
It used the word "Love" within one legally standard restraining order's distance of things gross players already do. This makes it absolutely unacceptable and a deep Wizards faux pas, rather than making gross players gross.
Please do not contact or message me.
"Love" might be a cordoned off area at this point.
Aside from "making" people fall in love with each other, either voluntarily or otherwise, what would fall under Love's preview?
Fertility? Doesn't really pop, compared to something you can use in AND out of combat.
Bliss/pleasure? Could possibly trigger people since it skates real close to drug use and/or forced feelings issues already mentioned above.
Obviously, that's not an exhaustive list, but I can't think of anything else. With Unity taking bonds, I don't think there's much left.
Gnome Armorist - Artificer Subclass Homebrew
Imagine getting upset about charm and a 6 second infatuation ability when you can cast dominate person and take complete control over someone for a day. Talk about priorities, here, in directing all that rage.
Yes, I read the other points. No, I am not signing up for anyones blog. And now it's gone with a bland replacement.
Well, sorcerer looks a lot better, but bonus spells need to be a thing for them, for all subclasses.
honestly feels like for a subclass call clock work soul there aint much outside of the manifestations its rather boring really. You know if it was all about time I would be into it
Clockwork in D&D doesn't mean clocks and time. It refers to mechanical devices relying on cogs and springs and such, often mixed with magic. It's called clockwork because one of the earliest of such mechanised inventions was a clock.
Clockwork not clock.
Clockwork Sorc and Time Sorc would be very different. Time-like spells are coming with Dunamancy from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount so, maybe there's a sorc class there more fitting the theme of time?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Something I'd love to see is the Unity domain getting reflavoured and maybe some minor reworks into the love domain we all want. Now I know what your thinking and yes, they did release one and it was bad. I don't think it is just because of the whole "roofie" thing (not like we don't have other very firm and forceful mind control spells), but because I think charm isn't really the same flavour as "love". Let me explain. So obviously, when people think of love, the first thing you might think is romantic yes, but that is FAR from the only kind of love, and cleric as a class really exemplifies some of them just inherently. Sibling love, parental love, love of your friends (a platonic way), how you might come to care about a rival, how one might care for their friends and co adventurers, and finally the idea of loving your god. Yes "unity" as a domain does suggest some of this, but I would love WotC actually support the idea of "loving" your friends and your god and your family.
i have trouble imagining a dm that allows ua running a setting that includes modrons not just giving that to clockwork soul.
didn't think about this being pages after who i was replying too. not sure how to delete entirely if possible
you could always quote the person like so ; by by clicking the quote button right under their comment then it won mater how many pages its been youll have context.
so for the sorcerer they just added a crap ton of spells known nice but not what the class really needs. WOTC is still missing that the sorcerer players want to use metamagic ya know the defining feature of the class. It needs a recovery mechanic for spell slots and/or sorcery points. Failing that it needs 1 extra spell slot per spell lvl to make up for the munching of slots for points.
Okay, I'm getting annoyed and opinionated again.
ONE: I will still be referring to the "Unity Domain" as Love if I ever play it, because it fits and I like it.
TWO: The original Love Domain from the leaked document was mechanically confused. Half it's domain spells and it's channel divinity were about manipulating the mind, offensive control spells. While the rest of the class features focused on buffing allies and protecting them. This is bad mechanical design, it sends a confused message about what the class should be doing. The redesign is more focused and clear: you are a mid to back line buff support. That's awesome. I like the mechanics of this.
THREE: They took feed back and adapted. that's what UA play-test is for. In this case they adapted out a mechanic that a lot of their players were REALLY uncomfortable with, might even have triggered others (Trigger being a medical term for something that aggravates PTSD). That's not my case, but I could definitely see it happening.
FOUR: You now want to proclaim we'll never see it because it's garbage now and Wizards will never release it again, just like you said we'd never see this subclass in the official release, and yet here it is. Try saying something positive, try to find how it would be useful for a change, instead of deciding it's garbage and been ruined by "Ess-Jay-Dubyas". That that characterization of you offends, I'm sorry, but that is what you remind me of.
Oh, and not on topic, but I'm playing the new artificer and I'm loving it. :P
Zoken, my good fellow. You mistake me for someone who is not ready, able, and oh so willing to have a go. If you're feeling annoyed and opinionated again? Let's have a dance, you and I.
ONE: Goodie for you. The rest of us will know better, because "Love" is a word you are no longer allowed to say in a D&D game. The Playerbase Has Said So.
TWO: A character that is only capable of one strictly, narrowly defined role in a party is one that does not belong in a party. This is a game where three to five individual people are expected to Save The Freaking World, by themselves with minimal assistance. A D&D character should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a castle, write a ballad, balance a logbook, build a wall, set a bone, spare the dying, take orders, give orders, act in concert, act alone, solve arcane formulae, analyze a problem, pitch manure, enchant a golem, cook a tasty meal, fight effectively, and die gloriously. Specialization is for insects and MMO players. A "mid-back line buff support" character that cannot pivot into offensive control or damage when needed, one that cannot ford a gap or ascend a wall, one that cannot solve a hundred different problems, kill a hundred different foes, or save a hundred different lives in a normal adventuring day is a character that has been badly designed and should be reconsidered.
THREE: Players who were "REALLY uncomfortable" with the Love cleric's ability to temporarily bend a target's will need to re-examine their priorities. Either that or they need to get on the "BAN ALL BARDS!" bandwagon because every freaking bard in D&D is damn near contractually obligated to be the sort of sleazy horndoggin' makes-everyone-else-uncomfortable Leisure Suit Larry jackass people were just oh so afraid that this Love cleric would 'enable'. Bards in general, with their reputation for literally superhuman levels of "charm" and the ability to cast virtually every mind or will-dominating spell in the game on top of usually having non-spell options for doing the same shit, have been "enabling" jackholes to be jackholes since before 5e dropped. Nobody has ever once cared about them, outside of handling it at their tables like adults. Hell, a Love cleric that gets their creeper on has a built in DM handbrake - "Your increasingly lecherous acts have led you astray from your god(dess)'s path. You have lost your deity's favor; until you atone and show that you've changed, you will not be able to cast spells or use your Channel Divinity."
Extreme? Yeah. Something I'd do before talking to the player in question and letting them know that they can either clean up their attitude or kindly leave my table? Nah, not really. But you can't do it at all to a skeevy bard.
FOUR: No. I don't care for this version. 'Unity' is a weaksauce compromise of a 'Divine Domain', just like the entirety of 5e is a weaksauce compromise that people have tons of fun with despite Wizards, not because of it. Nor do I care for shallow, socially-blind hypocrisy. A GOO warlock can literally Create a Thrall, charming a target in perpetuity unless someone actively removes the effect, and this has never once in the history of D&D bothered a single soul. People just accepted that if the player used the ability in a way that was awful, then that player had problems, not the game.
Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that many of the old gods of love were not gods of happily wedded bliss. They were gods of love-as-madness, a blinding and overwhelming infatuation that could drive entire nations to ruin in pursuit of a single beautiful woman. That was awesome shit. It was a side of mythology one rarely sees these days inamongst all the sanitized-for-children TV comedramas, and a cleric able to channel love that was both warming and empowering (a'la Emboldening Bond) as well so hot and intense that it could be wielded as a weapon was ****in' interesting. This 'Unity' domain is basically just a magic guidance counselor, and not of the "I can actually save your life in, like...nine different ways in one turn" kind a'la Cadeucus Clay.
And while we're briefly on the subject of gods and mythology...might I remind the viewing audience that Zeus, one of many, many folks' favorite mythological deities, was the original Horny Bard they drew the pattern from? Y'know, the guy who went around graping anything and everything with a slot to stick it in whether or not 'consent' was involved, or in many cases whether or not it was even physically possible?
Get. Over. Yusselves.
Oh, and equally not on topic, but my Battlesmith has been interesting...after I got done figuring out how to abruptly U-turn out of the Alchemist when Rising came out and we all learned the Alchemist had been destroyed. Even my DM who hadn't really been tracking the artificer at the time looked at that subclass and went "...you were excited for this? o_O"
No. No Mr. DM Guy, I was not.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is tiring. You aren't getting it, clearly. Look, if you hate the game so much, go play others. there are tons of other systems out there. You seem to loath what comes out of WotC, and people who try to respond to UA that don't agree with you.
Either that, or maybe consider that you don't understand what people are talking about, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point.
<REDACTED>
Wizards of the Coast, on top of having mismanaged a number of other games I dearly loved all the way to death (I will never stop mourning MechWarrior: Age of Destruction even as I understand why it inevitably died), has not made one single decision of their own since the decision to not stand by Fourth Edition. Every single goddamned decision they make about 5e is crowdsourced to The Playerbase, and never you mind your little head that "The Playerbase" is a nameless faceless mindless goo monster that is utterly paralyzed by hive-mind indecision. This design-by-committe bullshit is utterly infuriating, especially when we get those occasional peeks behind the curtain at things that the two or three remaining, tortured Actual Game Designers at Wizards occasionally manage to force out through the cage of corporate greed and pandering Wizards keeps them in. Much like the Murican political system, intelligence is neither required nor even encouraged for participation in Wizards' "game design process".
**** that company and everything about them. If the awesome digital toolset that is the only thing which makes the online games which are all I can play because I live in the ass end of Creation possible was not strictly exclusive to 5e? I probably would be encouraging my online group to try other systems. Maybe we'd come back to 5e later, provided Wizards ever stops waffling around and drops this design-by-committee bullshit, or maybe we'd disappear into GURPS, Savage Worlds, or other toolbox-y games designed by trained and experienced game designers instead of a mindless Internet throng and never look back.
Similarly, I suspect that a very significant percentage of the turdburgers who swept to Twitter in a twittish outrage and said "NOT OKAY WIZARDS CONSENT IS IMPORTANT" are also the people who play the bards that schmooze on every two-copper barmaid their party comes across and creeps out the DM, who is nonetheless forced to deal with it because if she says "yeah, I'd really prefer it if you guys would stop trying to impregnate every female NPC I put in front of you, maybe?" she gets blasted with "BUT MUH PLAYER AGENCY DX" and "I'M JUST PLAYING MY CHARACTER Y U TAKE PERSONAL?! DX" and various other takes on "don't crimp my style, shebro. These hoes be here for bangin', and bangin's what I do."
A problem which should be solved at the table. Not because there's no reason to implement it, but because if Wizards of the Coast has to actually print, in an official public for-profit product, the words "Hey! **** is not okay! If it comes up in your game it should be treated with the gravitas and seriousness it deserves, and you should really make sure the rest of your table is okay with exploring that sort of game before you even think about playing it!", then we have failed as a species because that should be blind braindead idiot obvious.
RPG Consent Checklist. Find it, fill it out, and then stand by your decisions. Wishy-washy hypocritical hogwash is the tool of the devil, and Asmodeus has enough souls as it is.
Please do not contact or message me.
So you want people to stick by their decisions? Even ones they find bad? No one should grow out of things or come to new understandings based on new info or feed back? Is it better if we just have one person in charge of the decision making who never considers new information or different view points, and makes sure everyone else is just following orders?
So the people who were complaining that a subclass encouraged creepy rapey behavior were likely the people who are creepy and rapey at the table? How does that make sense to you? these are either the people that those people usually harass, and those like me who are listening to them. Let me ask you this: If so many people were vocal about how uncomfortable and problematic they found the subclass WHY do you want it to stay? Why do you want those people feeling that Wizards encourages that behavior?
If you don't like 5e quit coming here and being toxic about new content. many of us clearly enjoy it. It clearway makes you miserable, so why abuse yourself? And if you hate the system, please don't condescend to those of us who enjoy it. There are other systems that you choose not to use because they are less convenient, you aren't better than the rest of us in the player base goo monster.