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

[CapnZapp]

Going by this thread, I was under the impression that it was a new option, akin to a new choice being presented. Adding a new option wouldn't change the functionality of anything already in the book.

If I was reading that incorrectly, and he's just sneaking in a new core feature of the Beastmaster so "at level 7, your animal companion counts as a magical weapon for the purposes of bypassing defenses", then that would be a real change.

I don't understand what you mean?

If you want to interpret this as the Ranger or his companion keeping the choice of remaining unmagical, sure, go ahead... but what good does that do you?

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, but you do acknowledge the specific focus of "All I care about is getting an animal companion - I'll pick whatever class you tell me gives it", yes?

Acknowledge? You mean that it may exist in some people? Sure? There are lots of people after all.

But, I would say to a player in my game who said that (assumption new player) that an animal companion is not limited by class features alone and so let's talk about what they mean and what they are looking for.

After all, it could be as simple as gold plus skill and time - heck some backgrounds include "animal companions" of a sort.

IMO starting at "class" for these is way down the list of discussion topics for it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Acknowledge? You mean that it may exist in some people? Sure? There are lots of people after all.

But, I would say to a player in my game who said that (assumption new player) that an animal companion is not limited by class features alone and so let's talk about what they mean and what they are looking for.

After all, it could be as simple as gold plus skill and time - heck some backgrounds include "animal companions" of a sort.

IMO starting at "class" for these is way down the list of discussion topics for it.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

It's possible to read your post as "but the companion isn't all a Ranger gives, so who cares it's weak and ineffectual".

It's quite possible you don't mean that, and if so all's well and good and we can just stop here.

But my point is: giving Rangers outdoors guide and hunter stuff does not help the player who want a sturdy reliable animal companion of the same caliber of nearly every previous version of Dungeons & Dragons.

Thank you

 

[5ekyu]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

It's possible to read your post as "but the companion isn't all a Ranger gives, so who cares it's weak and ineffectual".

It's quite possible you don't mean that, and if so all's well and good and we can just stop here.

But my point is: giving Rangers outdoors guide and hunter stuff does not help the player who want a sturdy reliable animal companion of the same caliber of nearly every previous version of Dungeons & Dragons.

Thank you

Hmmm... so, now you are getting into not just wanting a companion but wanting it to do what companions in other games did.

My general approach to any game system is to not expect it to duplicate any given element of another game system precisely or closely. After all, maybe that thing was something they wanted to fix.

So whether it's someone all bent out of shape that Atonrment was 5th in previous Ed's but arguably now is part of 1st Ceremony or someone hoping animals behave like they did in 1e... my general rule is to nip in the bud the notion that it should be expected that specific things work the same when you switch systems.

So, for me, while I get folks can desire that, to me it seems not a logical expectation to have. But it's obvious not everybody makes decisions based on what I see as logical.

As for 5e, imo no sub-class should result in a character that is weak and ineffectual. That seems contrary to their design.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmmm... so, now you are getting into not just wanting a companion but wanting it to do what companions in other games did.

My general approach to any game system is to not expect it to duplicate any given element of another game system precisely or closely. After all, maybe that thing was something they wanted to fix.

So whether it's someone all bent out of shape that Atonrment was 5th in previous Ed's but arguably now is part of 1st Ceremony or someone hoping animals behave like they did in 1e... my general rule is to nip in the bud the notion that it should be expected that specific things work the same when you switch systems.

So, for me, while I get folks can desire that, to me it seems not a logical expectation to have. But it's obvious not everybody makes decisions based on what I see as logical.

As for 5e, imo no sub-class should result in a character that is weak and ineffectual. That seems contrary to their design.

If they were openly admitting that the animal companion doesn't give you much more than "the secret is you can just buy a war dog or something" (MMearls infamously dismissive tweet), then we could talk from there.

Then I would argue the Ranger Beastmaster subclass is weak and ineffectual because it roughly takes away all the Hunter stuff and gives you nothing more than the 15 gp you need to buy a mastiff. (Heck I'll throw in a full 150 gp so you can replace it nine times for when it dies, which it will do. A lot)

But you're right. I would much rather they actually fixed the Beastmaster. It needs more than magic fangs (though that isn't nothing). It needs something akin to the old cleric life link spell, whatever it was called? Edit: it seems the closest RAW 5E solution would be a permanent Warding Bond spell (the 2nd level Paladin spell) between master and companion. So just make that a subclass ability and see an instant improvement that really makes a difference for D&D pet lovers.

 

[Kramodlog]

We see more and more of Crawford. Did Mearls get a promotion/demotion/something else?

 

[Parmandur]

We see more and more of Crawford. Did Mearls get a promotion/demotion/something else?

Mearls got a promotion a while back. His new title is Franchise Creative Director, which he described on Twitter as follows:

"Mainly a difference of scope - looking at the bigger picture for D&D in terms of new things, still involved in the RPG, but with growing staff I’ll be more strategic (product concepts) than tactical (specific subclasses)."

"This is already true for many products. @chrisperkinsDnD drives the annual campaigns, @JeremyECrawford oversees most everything else. To use a product like Volo’s as an example - I’d still guide creative, just would not write two of the monster sections."

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/2...arls-now-hes-the-franchise-creative-director/

Do note that the previous hour on the Twitch channel was all Mearls, though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, believe it or not, but I have lived blissfully unawares, so I don't mind: fantasize all you want! All it does is paint you as some kind of light fetishist

I guess my preference for written over spoken communication has shielded me all these years.

Always remember... the safeword is 'THAC0'.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're missing the complaint:

The difference is, that before it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a DM to say the animal behaves as other creatures in general.

Now, ONLY dodge is allowed.

Effectively, what the change really says is:


This is the criticism. This is what feels clumsy and intrusive. It's presented as a step forward but it really is a step backward.

Do you see it now?

Why can't you just keep doing it the way you did before. Who cares what Crawford said. How many AL games do you play in where the DM won't allow. Not hypotheticals. How many AL games do you play in where this would be an issue.

 

[Dausuul]

Why can't you just keep doing it the way you did before. Who cares what Crawford said.

The new rule is going to be written into the Player's Handbook. That is the entire point of the objection.

As long as they are confined to Sage Advice and his Twitter feed, Crawford's inconsistent rulings and bizarre interpretations are just a source of comedy. As a DM, I can simply say, "Nothing Crawford says carries any weight at my table," and that's the end of it.

But I can't say "Nothing in the Player's Handbook carries any weight at my table." My group is looking to add 1-2 new players next year. If those players show up with PHBs that contain rules changes, I now have to make a ruling on which PHB applies. I do not appreciate having to keep track of that kind of thing. The DM has enough work to do as it is.