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

[Sacrosanct]

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.

When I saw the thread title, I was wondering how long it would be before you would chime in and personally insult Jeremy. Post #8. You do not disappoint.


For the record, I'm not commenting on the legitimacy or criticisms of the actual rule changes, but on how you always go after the DEVs personally. Which I wish you'd stop doing.

 

[Shiroiken]

Note to self - never watch Crawford ever again.

Alas, I have but one XP to give. This alone deserves more.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I find it amusing it's taken some of you five years to realize you don't want to listen to Jeremy. It's like you've been slapping yourself in the face repeatedly for years and only now have come to the conclusion that it hurts when you do it and maybe you should stop.

 

[pukunui]

FWIW I am not necessarily opposed to the stated changes. If giving a ranger's animal companion magical attacks and making it so they take the Dodge action makes the subclass more appealing and fun, I'm all for it.

What I am opposed to is Jeremy telling us these are just minor "tweaks" / "corrections" that can therefore pass as errata rather than actual changes to the rules, which is what I believe them to be. I feel this is a dangerous precedent to set. I was burned once by the endless "rules updates" of 4e, and I don't want to deal with the headache that will come with trying to run a game for people with rulebooks that all say something slightly different or that include rules that aren't in my book or whatever.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

FWIW I am not necessarily opposed to the stated changes. If giving a ranger's animal companion magical attacks and making it so they take the Dodge action makes the subclass more appealing and fun, I'm all for it.

What I am opposed to is Jeremy telling us these are just minor "tweaks" / "corrections" that can therefore pass as errata rather than actual changes to the rules, which is what I believe them to be. I feel this is a dangerous precedent to set. I was burned once by the endless "rules updates" of 4e, and I don't want to deal with the headache that will come with trying to run a game for people with rulebooks that all say something slightly different or that include rules that aren't in my book or whatever.

Not that I want to say something about the qualiy of this change, but it is not the first instance of an actual change to the rule.
Paladin auras not stacking or features in general other than spells was an actual change. Errata because they added something they just forgot...
I think comparing that to the changes of 4e is a bit far fetched...
I also think crawford explains it well enough. It is so much off the mark that comparing with similar features: other characters relying on natural weapons all get a way to overcome magic resistance.

 

[CapnZapp]

I find it amusing it's taken some of you five years to realize you don't want to listen to Jeremy. It's like you've been slapping yourself in the face repeatedly for years and only now have come to the conclusion that it hurts when you do it and maybe you should stop.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

Obviously it varies with focus.

For me well before we get to sub-class features is the notion of the basic class highlights and the ranger to me has always been keyed more towards your solid go-to guy for outdoors guide and hunter stuff. Whether or not they choose a companion for combat or for scout or if they even go that route is to me secondary to whether or not a good number of the core abilities work in like 75% of the adventuring space (or limits the campaign to that other 25% etc.)

But, a lot will vary by campaign.

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?

 

[CapnZapp]

No disagreement, just a possible nitpick:

I personally have little respect for a DMing style that would try to nerf the animal companion by not allowing other creatures to act as they are allowed to by the rules

You mean "buff, relatively speaking" not "nerf", yes?

 

[CapnZapp]

Regarding the Dodge action, it was always a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a DM to make, that an animal without commands will choose to defend itself. It is supported exactly as much as the alternative, where it would just stand around doing nothing and getting stabbed in the face. (As far as I recall, "do nothing" was never a valid option in combat, and the rules do suggest taking the Dodge action if you aren't sure what to do.)

The only difference here is that they seem to be spelling it out, rather than leaving it up to DM interpretation.

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:

no longer can animal companions choose to attack, or run away, or howl at the moon, or whatever. It's dodge or nothin'

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?

 

[CapnZapp]

Magic attacks does seem to be a more substantive change, however.

Absolutely.

This is a clear fix, an unqualified upgrade.