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

[Mistwell]

 

[the Jester]

This makes me more glad than ever that I'm not married to Crawford's interpretation of the rules. This is pretty darn far from what I consider to be errata. And one of the great attractions of 5e is the lack of reams of errata that really need to be applied for the game to function correctly.

Crawford's interpretations lost a great deal of credibility for me with his "roll 1d4 for all your magic missiles" ruling. His idea of what errata is versus what a revision is further pushes me away from giving him much credence. I view his 'rulings' more like 'advice from a seasoned pro, with whom you may or may not agree, and who has no say at your table.'

 

[pukunui]

And one of the great attractions of 5e is the lack of reams of errata that really need to be applied for the game to function correctly.

It was an attraction at first -- as was the idea that what little errata there was was being incorporated into future printings of the books -- but now that we're several years into the game, it is having the opposite effect on me. I *don't* want more errata now, and I *don't* like that there are now numerous versions of the core rules, all with slightly different wordings. That's not a headache I'm looking forward to having to deal with.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It was an attraction at first -- as was the idea that what little errata there was was being incorporated into future printings of the books -- but now that we're several years into the game, it is having the opposite effect on me. I *don't* want more errata now, and I *don't* like that there are now numerous versions of the core rules, all with slightly different wordings. That's not a headache I'm looking forward to having to deal with.

Just do what I do... throw a small selection of house rules into every campaign so that my players are comfortable from the beginning that not everything they read in any of the books is necessarily how things are being run and played.

Either that, or just realize you're probably never going to have anyone play a Beastmaster Ranger anyway, and thus the "errata" is never going to come up.

 

[pukunui]

I do include some house rules, yes.

And I have one player who keeps talking about playing a beast master ranger. These changes might make him want to play one even more!

 

[Mouseferatu]

By more or less four years into their lifespan...

2E and 4E had dozens if not scores of pages of rules-changing errata, whether delivered electronically or in Dragon Magazine.

3E not only had swathes of similar errata, it had a new semi-edition.

1E, in addition to Dragon-based errata, actually introduced new rules that overtly and deliberately changed old rules (such as the paladin becoming a subclass of cavalier in Unearthed Arcana.

5E has... What? A few sentences? Maybe a few paragraphs, if we include some previous comments on which the audience is torn as to whether they were clarifications or changes?

Look, people don't need my permission to feel how they feel. And I'm not crazy about some of these alterations. But the comparisons to prior editions in this regard, and the prophecies of major hassles to come, are a tad overwrought.

 

[ccs]

Question: if it’s that quick and easy then solve then why did they have to do anything?

I believe the person you should ask is Crawford, not me.

Me & mine? We didn't like what the designers came up with initially (PHB), so we fixed it for the table that matters to us (ours), in a way that suites us.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was wondering if someone could direct me to the page on the PHB or the DMG where you can buy a mastiff that will suicidally attack an ancient red dragon just because you bought it? I am pretty sure I can find the page that lets you buy a mastiff that will whimper and run away when it get in the fear aura, but all this talk about how you can just buy a dog and it is just as good as the AC makes me think I missed something.

Lol

Yeah, I would think it's not any page number but the the condescending insulting tweet that basically said "the secret is you don't need any AC rules" that was referenced?

 

[CapnZapp]

This makes me more glad than ever that I'm not married to Crawford's interpretation of the rules. This is pretty darn far from what I consider to be errata. And one of the great attractions of 5e is the lack of reams of errata that really need to be applied for the game to function correctly.

Crawford's interpretations lost a great deal of credibility for me with his "roll 1d4 for all your magic missiles" ruling. His idea of what errata is versus what a revision is further pushes me away from giving him much credence. I view his 'rulings' more like 'advice from a seasoned pro, with whom you may or may not agree, and who has no say at your table.'

The worst thing is that he doesn't appear to realize what a corporate tool he comes across as.

Yes, we realize WOTC brass wants to be able to say "no revisions".

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pretend the five-year old PHB is like the Ten Commandments that must be kept unchanged and uncriticized at all costs.

It would be much more appreciated if Crawford spent his time on acknowledging and then solving actual gamer concerns...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have a feeling that he is utterly unconcerned with looking like a "corporate tool" when he considers the quality of people who are calling him that.