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

[Lanefan]

They are absolutely not assuming that, since that’s not how Initiative works in 5e.

Given some of the things Crawford posted as Sage Advice over time, I've no idea how he sees/plays the game.

Fleeing by yourself, abandoning the rest of the party? That might be useful in some modes of play, but the vast majority of 5e players would never consider such a thing.

Silly them.

 

[Weiley31]

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.

Isn't that meta gaming on the DMs part in that situation?

 

[Zardnaar]

Isn't that meta gaming on the DMs part in that situation?

Depends if the sapped individual is aware they're sapped.

 

[Weiley31]

So no new players ever. Got it!

I think MichaelSomething subsists on the tears of new players and those with busy work schedules.

Like how Snarf despises bards with every fiber of their whole being.

 

[tetrasodium]

So no new players ever. Got it!

This is just a round about think of the children! If there is a good reason for the game to cater towards this undefined feel good undefined subset of players

Spoiler

I think you should try to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. Sometimes you can't do that, but when you can you should IMO.

Define it and let those reasons why it should be catered to stand in their own merit. If that subset of players can not be clearly defined or those reasons can not stand in their own, at a certain point it becomes necessary to admit that a friend chicken restaurant serves a menu filled with fried chicken and isn't going to setup a vegan fryer.

 

[Chaltab]

Thinking about the thread topic, this is really two questions:

1. Is 5E better now than it was before Perkins and Crawford left.
2. If so, is it better because they left, or for other reasons?

While I think the correct answer is that it's too early to tell at this point, my instinct is that the long term changes won't necessarily be for the better, but I think it that has less to do with Crawford and Perkins and more to do with corporate general strategy of monetizing D&D more. That strategy would exist no matter who was in charge, and I think James Wyatt, who is now running the ship IIRC, is a veteran with solid design chops.

So I think the problems with recent releases are the result of that change and would likely be there even if Chris and Jeremy had stayed.

 

[Cergorach]

Is it because they turned the reins over to someone else or is it just coincedence?

It might be even the case that this was a result of their accumulated experiences and because they left we won't see this again...

Good call. Crawford is credited as the lead rules developer, Perkins not credited.

So much for my theory!

While Crawford is listed as the lead rules developer for both Faerun books, the Design Director is not listed at all in the credits, which was the role of Chris Perkins before he left. So it's possible that the designs at a higher level were Perkins's work.

Then you have Astarion's Book of Homophobic Tropes Hungers, where the designers didn't think a feat focused on throwing weapons would be something a Strength-focused character could possibly want.

While Crawford is listed as the lead rules developer for both Faerun books, he is not for the two expansion books (Hungers and Netheril). These seem and feel tacked on at a later time to sell more product (digital and bundles) during and leading up to the holiday season.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thinking about the thread topic, this is really two questions:

1. Is 5E better now than it was before Perkins and Crawford left.
2. If so, is it better because they left, or for other reasons?

While I think the correct answer is that it's too early to tell at this point, my instinct is that the long term changes won't necessarily be for the better, but I think it that has less to do with Crawford and Perkins and more to do with corporate general strategy of monetizing D&D more. That strategy would exist no matter who was in charge, and I think James Wyatt, who is now running the ship IIRC, is a veteran with solid design chops.

So I think the problems with recent releases are the result of that change and would likely be there even if Chris and Jeremy had stayed.

This is my view.

 

[eclair~]

Thinking about the thread topic, this is really two questions:

1. Is 5E better now than it was before Perkins and Crawford left.
2. If so, is it better because they left, or for other reasons?

While I think the correct answer is that it's too early to tell at this point, my instinct is that the long term changes won't necessarily be for the better, but I think it that has less to do with Crawford and Perkins and more to do with corporate general strategy of monetizing D&D more. That strategy would exist no matter who was in charge, and I think James Wyatt, who is now running the ship IIRC, is a veteran with solid design chops.

So I think the problems with recent releases are the result of that change and would likely be there even if Chris and Jeremy had stayed.

I don't think it's necessarily one or the other, that being on the designers or being on corporate. Corporate could have dictated a design philosophy that negatively impacted or constrained the designers. Even if corporate dictates a strategy, the designers can still make a good or poor product within said strategy and its constraints.

I don't know how much it falls between corporate and Crawford/Perkins—I imagine both sides have their share of fault—but the consistent vibe I get from 2024 5e is that it's aimed towards a specific subset of the playerbase, catering the game to their specific tastes and opinions. Given that 5e became hugely successful because it appealed to a wide audience, I don't think that strategy is going to pan out.