D&D 5E Should WotC Keep the Love Domain as is?

[gyor]

Should WotC Keep the Love Domain as is?

 

[OB1]

@gyor can you add an option?

- Yes, but change the mechanics to be more about protection than charming

That seemed to be the most popular option from the previous thread and feel it needs representation in this poll.

 

[Morrus]

Sure. Call it the Coercion domain. It's clearly nothing to do with love, but suits an evil controlling cleric.

 

[Celebrim]

English is a great language, but "love" is a pretty terrible word that covers way too much ground.

In any event, I suppose I can't complain to much if Eros is finely consigned in the popular imagination to the domain of evil it so clearly is. It's a step in the right direction, albeit one made blindly enough that exactly what I mean by that statement isn't going to be clear, and is sure to provoke claims that I'm a prude or what not. If in some small way people start thinking more about what they mean by "love", I guess that's a good thing.

But Aphrodite, for example, wasn't really protecting anyone. And self-sacrificing? Pshaw!

 

[cbwjm]

I'd say it should change based only on the fact that it focuses too much on the bond ability, 3 subclass levels boost deal with it. I'd like to see the bond ability at level 1, a boost at level 6, and then something different at level 17.

 

[Azzy]

If the domain mechanics were to stay, then you'd need change the name for this date-rape cleric domain.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

2 options:
1) keep the name, but remove the spell list and the channel divinity to something more protection/anti-charm related
2) change the name to Beauty domain, keep the spell and the channel divinity but change the other features for something closer to the Enchanter wizard or the Beauty domain (or even Lolth warlock's deathly kiss) MM did on his twitter.

As of now, it looks like 2 domain mushed together and it create creepy result.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

N

English is a great language, but "love" is a pretty terrible word that covers way too much ground.

In any event, I suppose I can't complain to much if Eros is finely consigned in the popular imagination to the domain of evil it so clearly is. It's a step in the right direction, albeit one made blindly enough that exactly what I mean by that statement isn't going to be clear, and is sure to provoke claims that I'm a prude or what not. If in some small way people start thinking more about what they mean by "love", I guess that's a good thing.

But Aphrodite, for example, wasn't really protecting anyone. And self-sacrificing? Pshaw!

not sure why we should care about Aphrodite?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

to clarify, Aphrodite was not a patron of love by any modern usage of the term. She was a goddess of lust, desire, maybe obsession, etc, but love as most modern people (and thus players) understand it? Not at all.

 

[ccs]

You need to add an option: No opinion.

Afterall, it's kinda hard for me to vote having not seen the material.