D&D 5E Dragon+: Q&A with Jeremy Crawford, 10/30/18

[Leatherhead]

Wherein, Cawford teases some juicy info about what is happening with the Beastmaster Ranger.

[video=youtube_share;0ljfqkLaW3g]https://youtu.be/0ljfqkLaW3g?t=3568[/video]


The Ranger bit starts just before the hour mark.

 

[5ekyu]

Yup

Beast can dodge without orders and can gain ability to go thru resistance. No mention of changings its action sequences.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting... so this is essentially the first time that Errata Corrige will be used not for just clarifying the text or correcting pre-release mistakes, but to actually revise the rules. Despite of what Jeremy says, adding those 2 things are actual revisions, because at no time before now those 2 have been the intended rules.

I was expecting him to say that from now on the beast companion could keep doing the same action that the Ranger commanded last time. This could have been interpreted (or sold and bought) as RAI that was missed by the RAW, instead the upcoming change cannot. It would have also probably placated forever the dissatisfactions with the Beastmaster (for those who have them, of course), while again the upcoming change will not.

edit: On second thoughts, I think Dodge can in fact be interpreted as implicit RAI. It could be said in general that any creature that's not doing anything specific in combat would always Dodge, it's even suggested in the PHB for player characters. Not so much the "counts as magic for bypassing DR" tho... and I am not convinced that the beast companion needed this more than a Fighter, since magic weapons are not assumed by the game.

 

[5ekyu]

Interesting... so this is essentially the first time that Errata Corrige will be used not for just clarifying the text or correcting pre-release mistakes, but to actually revise the rules. Despite of what Jeremy says, adding those 2 things are actual revisions, because at no time before now those 2 have been the intended rules.

I was expecting him to say that from now on the beast companion could keep doing the same action that the Ranger commanded last time. This could have been interpreted (or sold and bought) as RAI that was missed by the RAW, instead the upcoming change cannot. It would have also probably placated forever the dissatisfactions with the Beastmaster (for those who have them, of course), while again the upcoming change will not.

I tend to see this as a step back, actually. However one sees the errata 4 chg bit, they go from essentially being vague enough as to what the beast might do to locking down dodge.

Meh.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wherein, Cawford teases some juicy info about what is happening with the Beastmaster Ranger.

The Ranger bit starts just before the hour mark.

Could someone summarize in text, please?

Listening to gushing marketing-speak and their guffawing sense of self-import is making me nauseous - I'd like the raw talking points only if possible.

 

[5ekyu]

Could someone summarize in text, please?

Two item

There will be class feature for BM that lets beast get by resistances. Like druid natural wildshape can.

Without instructions, the beast can take dodge action on its own.

 

[pukunui]

How is this not changing the rules via errata? JC’s tweet to me about how they haven’t changed their approach to errata is feeling more and more disingenuous to me.

 

[CapnZapp]

Two item

There will be class feature for BM that lets beast get by resistances. Like druid natural wildshape can.

Without instructions, the beast can take dodge action on its own.

Ouch.

Yes, that's extremely underwhelming and as you say, even countereffective.

Thank you for spelling it out. I made the mistake of actually watching the entire segment (even if it's only four minutes), and boy is he full of himself.

I noticed how he spends more time patting himself on the back claiming to take care of the game, and talking himself into treating actual changes as mere error corrections... than actually talking about the two changes, even during those few minutes.

As if it isn't patently ridiculous it took him five entire years to figure this stuff out. I mean, you needed two seconds after opening up the PHB to ask yourself "where did the Magic Fang spell go?" Does he take us for fools?

And the dodge issue, well... I think I should just leave it, or I fear I must break forum rules to express myself properly. How about... treating the animal companion just like all those other creatures, then?

Instead of making it even more highly specific, how about just removing (errataing away) the PHB text that makes the AC special in this regard - the lines specifying that it does nothing on its own?

Note to self - never watch Crawford ever again.

Thanks.

 

[5ekyu]

Ouch.

Yes, that's extremely underwhelming and as you say, even countereffective.

Thank you for spelling it out. I made the mistake of actually watching the entire segment (even if it's only four minutes), and boy is he full of himself.

I noticed how he spends more time patting himself on the back claiming to take care of the game, and talking himself into treating actual changes as mere error corrections... than actually talking about the two changes, even during those few minutes.

As if it isn't patently ridiculous it took him five entire years to figure this stuff out. I mean, you needed two seconds after opening up the PHB to ask yourself "where did the Magic Fang spell go?" Does he take us for fools?

And the dodge issue, well... I think I should just leave it, or I fear I must break forum rules to express myself properly. How about... treating the animal companion just like all those other creatures, then?

Instead of making it even more highly specific, how about just removing (errataing away) the PHB text that makes the AC special in this regard - the lines specifying that it does nothing on its own?

Note to self - never watch Crawford ever again.

Thanks.

Well, with more than a bit of teasing they have been doing, i myself expected more out of it in terms of the beast issue. Honestly, i have no idea why they did not work this feature into the "creature reacts as it wants - with basic loyalty" and allow the ranger to exert control for precise changes with animal handling checks (success = costs interaction fail = costs action) or some such thing which tied it all together with how creatures normally act. he even mentioned how the original setup is odd cuz it doesn't leave the creature to act like anything else does... but then drops in the dodge?

Anyway, To me it even skips one of the bigger issues with range since forever - favored terrain - which i long ago house ruled to be one "home terrain" and then an "after spending a day in another terrain..." temporary one for getting the lay of the land. That way the ranger is good where he goes, not just where he has been and a major class feature is not abchoring the campaign to a single geographic feature.

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyway, To me it even skips one of the bigger issues with range since forever - favored terrain - which i long ago house ruled to be one "home terrain" and then an "after spending a day in another terrain..." temporary one for getting the lay of the land. That way the ranger is good where he goes, not just where he has been and a major class feature is not abchoring the campaign to a single geographic feature.

Interesting. I didn't know that was a (major) issue.

If I had guessed, the vulnerability of the pet to an area effect would be the #1 issue.

The first design goal of any pet companion ability should clearly be that the owner should never need to ressurrect the pet more often than any other valued member of the party.

(Yes, way before even starting to worry if the pet does any actual good. And I'm saying that as a fairly hardcore DM where players judge abilities by their Damage-Per-Round potential! Not even I am immune to the fact that a tiger or wolf is not worth having even if it eats the monsters alive, if you need to replace/raise Fluffy every other game session)

So clearly Crawford needs to be exposed to actual gamer questions, where he can't hide behind corporate .