D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[bedir than]

What does this refer to?

It's people pushing that general overrides specific, despite the rules saying that the specific overrules general.
In this case a species gets an ability to use a reaction to Dash immediately after initiative is rolled.

Dash starts with

When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn

Since the turn is an ad hoc immediacy due to the ability granted, it is immediately granted, not something broken at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Whenever there is a "best" you know the design is flawed.

He did say one of the best.

I like topple, nick, vex and Cleave on a polearm myself. Sap on sword and board is appealing as well.

 

[ECMO3]

Whenever there is a "best" you know the design is flawed.

I would disagree with this. I know it is unpopular on this board but I do not think "balance" for the sake of balance brings anything of value to the table.

IMO there should be a best of everything and then players can decide if they want the best or something else.

I think that is the best way to cater to the most players.

Most players want to play something cool and fun and usually simple, they don't really care about being the best as long as they are useful and what they are playing is fun.

A significant minority of players want to be the best or most powerful character at the table. For them the fun is being better then everyone else.

A third and even smaller percentage want to play off the wall character ideas, characters with big disadvantages due to combining classes/features that were not intended to go together (a Dwarf Bladesinger in heavy armor for example). These players need powerful options to keep them in the useful range.

If you eliminate "best" options then there are significant number of players that will not be happy.

 

[Reynard]

I would disagree with this. I know it is unpopular on this board but I do not think "balance" for the sake of balance brings anything of value to the table.

IMO there should be a best of everything and then players can decide if they want the best or something else.

For a game meant to offer essentially infinite replayability but is still a game, having a best option runs counter to the design goal.

 

[eclair~]

Sap is one of the best weapon masteries. It is the best on a sword and board heavy armor player IMO.

Sap drops off hard when enemies have multiple attacks, since it only ever affects one attack. It's also completely worthless if an enemy doesn't need to rely on attack rolls. On top of that, the only build that would ever actually use Sap—the aforementioned sword-and-board-type character—benefits much less from Sap anyway because they're already hard to hit.

It's not even good for a tanking build because getting into melee and imposing Sap means the target has no incentive to attack the character in melee over someone more vulnerable at range, since their attack is at disadvantage anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

For a game meant to offer essentially infinite replayability but is still a game, having a best option runs counter to the design goal.

The design goals was to get peopke to play it.

Balance as 6 oeopke on this board would define it doesn't matter.

5.5 is fairly good at levels that matter class to class generally.

Level 13+ not so much and still easy mode with monsters.

 

[ECMO3]

For a game meant to offer essentially infinite replayability but is still a game, having a best option runs counter to the design goal.

No it doesn't. Very few players take the "best" option even when offered.

 

[ECMO3]

Sap drops off hard when enemies have multiple attacks, since it only ever affects one attack.

I have used it pretty effectively until level 20, especially with a Fighter and ranged weapons. Also this presumes you attack the same enemy twice, which you do a lot, but not always and it offers flexibility in application.

It's also completely worthless if an enemy doesn't need to rely on attack rolls.

Sure, but they are all situational. Graze is rarely useful on a very high level Fighter, or at any level against an enemy with very low AC. Vex is worthless on enemies you kill with 1 hit (most enemies at 1st and 2nd level) or where you won't be attacking the same one on multiple turns. Cleave is worthless if there is not another enemy within 5 feet. Topple is actually counterproductive if your allies are using reach or ranged weapons. Slow is worthless if you are already in melee with an enemy and neither of you are leaving. Push is worthless if you don't want to move the enemy. Nick is not useful unless your bonus action is being used for something else.

Did I miss one?

Compared to the situational nature of all the others I think sap is pretty effective and I think is useful in more situations than just about any of the others, except maybe nick. There are times causing disadvantage on one attack won't be useful at all, but that is rare. I think the others, except nick, will come into play less. Some of them will generally be more effective when they do come into play though.

On top of that, the only build that would ever actually use Sap—the aforementioned sword-and-board-type character—benefits much less from Sap anyway because they're already hard to hit.

This is not true. Disadvantage is more debilitating with a high AC than with a low AC, moreover the disadvantage applies regardless of who they attack.

It's not even good for a tanking build because getting into melee and imposing Sap means the target has no incentive to attack the character in melee over someone more vulnerable at range, since their attack is at disadvantage anyway.

I would disagree with this too, for several reasons. To start with ranged damage, when enemies have that option, is generally lower than melee damage, generally imposes fewer bad conditions and often affords fewer attacks. Second your allies often have cover if you are in melee with an enemy.

 

[AlViking]

To answer the OP I think it's far too early to say, the dynamic duo had a lot of influence on product still being produced. But even then, better for whom? For example I don't care for adventures or setting books, I run home campaigns in my own world. So if there's not another XGtE or similar, it doesn't really matter what they release.

 

[AlViking]

Regarding weapon masteries, it depends on the group, style of play, the character. Knick is good for rogues to get that second chance at sneak attack for example and not much use for anyone else. But if you can always get advantage so you almost always hit on the first shot (or for other reasons) it's less so. Being able to push enemies around can be useful if a lot of your fights are in tight quarters and you want to keep the enemy off the squishy.

It's the same problem as almost all white room analysis, there are too many variables to make a blanket declaration in my opinion. It depends on what you think makes sense for your character and what the people at the table enjoy.