Jeremy Crawford On The Dark Side of Developing 5E

WotC's Jeremy Crawford spoke to The Escapist about the D&D 5th Edition development process and his role in the game's production. "There was a dark side where it was kind of crushing. The upside is it allowed us to have a throughline for the whole project. So I was the person who decided if what we had decided was important two years prior was still being executed two years later."


You can read the full interview here, but below are the key highlights.

• Mike Mearls started pondering about D&D 5th Edition while the 4E Essentials books were being worked on in 2010.
• There were "heated discussions" about the foundations of 5E.
• Crawford is the guy who "made the decision about precisely what was going to be in the game".
• Crawford considers D&D's settings as an important pillar.

For another recent interview, see Chris Perkins talking to Chris "Wacksteven" Iannitti.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm sure MWP had a very different contract than Arhaus/WW did. For one thing, the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book was published by WotC, not MWP, whereas the Ravenloft books were all Arhaus. In that regard, its probably closer to the Rokugan/OA scenario than the Ravenloft one.

The question is, does WotC have complete rights to the material produced by Arthaus (Ravenloft, Gamma World)? Why do you think the "contract" would be any different for the Dragonlance material published by MWP and the Ravenloft material published by Arthaus? Both are important IP owned by WotC and both were licensed during the same "era".

Plus, Arthaus, being a imprint of White Wolf, which is directly connected to DriveThru (the companies are all related, although not sure how tightly anymore), makes it more likely we WILL see the Ravenloft material even if WotC doesn't have complete rights. Or at least, I would think.

Neither company will probably tell us the details of the licensing and rights, but I'm confident we'll see Ravenloft and maybe even Gamma World material from Arthaus up on DriveThru at some point in the future.

Neither situation is exactly like the Rokugan material produced by AEG. At the time the 3E Oriental Adventures hardback was published, WotC owned full rights to the Legend of the Five Rings game and IP. But soon after publication, they sold those rights to AEG and AEG started a d20 line of Five Rings/Rokugan products using the D&D Oriental Adventures ruleset. AEG has most (all?) of the d20 Five Rings line available on PDF on DriveThru, but the 3E Oriental Adventures hardback is not available, by AEG or WotC. I kinda doubt we'll see that book, although there's no reason why AEG and WotC couldn't come to an arrangement to let it happen. I just doubt anyone at WotC is motivated enough to make it so.

 

[Staffan]

Plus, Arthaus, being a imprint of White Wolf, which is directly connected to DriveThru (the companies are all related, although not sure how tightly anymore), makes it more likely we WILL see the Ravenloft material even if WotC doesn't have complete rights. Or at least, I would think.

Nowadays, there is no formal tie between the companies. One of the founders and owners of DTRPG is Steve Wieck, who was also part owner and CEO of White Wolf. White Wolf was merged with CCP Games in 2006, and Steve Wieck is now on their board of directors (and I assume he owns some part of the company).

In other words: White Wolf and DTRPG share a co-owner, but there's no formal tie between the companies.

 

[Staffan]

I believe it was Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons. Those two books made running a priest much more fun than usual.

They were a lot of fun, but broken as heck. The cleric was already pretty powerful, and F&A introduced specialty priests that both upped the power significantly and had a much nicer XP table for the levels that really counted (I think levels 5-12 or so). Why the better XP table? Because the designer looked at the druid table, saw "OK, they cost more at the start and at the end, I guess they cost more overall as well", and used that (just adding the special Hierophant XP to the regular XP instead of resetting to 0 after level 15). I think Powers and Pantheons fixed that part though.

I'm still mixed on the 5E cleric. Seems like an incomplete class. They didn't supply many cantrips for the cleric. One attack cantrip that does radiant damage. Very light on the damage spells. Cleric is perhaps the weakest damage class in the game again. Considering the game dynamic is different than previous editions, I don't understand why the cleric seems so lacking in capacity to do well in combat. I know they have the most powerful buff spell in the game: bless. That doesn't seem a sufficient reason to not supply them with additional interesting and varied combat options. My cleric is evil and a drow. It's hard to see her using sacred flame. They gave no other cantrip options for PC priests unless I make it up. I hope they have a book planed fairly early to make clerics more interesting.

The cleric class is, and pretty much always has been, a secondary warrior. 4e allowed a bit more "laser cleric-ing", but they've rarely been good at direct damage magic. Most cleric spells are protective, healing, and damage tends to come in the form of weapon surrogates (e.g. spiritual weapon). If you look at the domains in the PHB, most of them gain an ability based on hitting things harder (dealing +1d8 damage of some type with a weapon attack), with the Knowledge and Light domains adding cantrip damage instead.

Some options for your evil drow priest:

1. Trickery domain, eventually getting envenomed weapons via Divine Strike.
2. Death domain, with the ability to learn a necromancy cantrip from any other spell list. Currently, that basically means chill touch.
3. Play as some other class, take the Acolyte background, and be a priest without being a cleric.

 

[Nellisir]

They were a lot of fun, but broken as heck. The cleric was already pretty powerful, and F&A introduced specialty priests that both upped the power significantly and had a much nicer XP table for the levels that really counted (I think levels 5-12 or so). Why the better XP table? Because the designer looked at the druid table, saw "OK, they cost more at the start and at the end, I guess they cost more overall as well", and used that (just adding the special Hierophant XP to the regular XP instead of resetting to 0 after level 15). I think Powers and Pantheons fixed that part though.

I thought you were somewhat mistaken about this, but I just checked and you're almost 100% right. (Fixed in Demihuman Deities, pg 225.) XP charts were one of the first things I house-ruled in 2e....

Since I've already waxed somewhat nostalgic once in this thread, I'll add this little story. I wrote the Faiths & Avatar-style article for Wee Jas that was in The Oerth Journal #7 (edited by Erik Mona). Erik wrote one for...Nerull, I think. We were also talking to Eric L. Boyd (he wrote several articles for the OJ as well), and he agreed to go through and edit our articles, since he was The Authority on F&A.

It was awesome. It was a total how-to guide for writing an F&A entry. Virtually line-by-line. I printed out his response to my article, and possibly his response to Erik's, so I could fix my article.

Still waiting for Iquander's article on Nerull, though.

 

[Charles Wright]

2E was a very fun game. The amount of high quality material produced during 2E was impressive. It still has my favorite books for clerics. I have very fond memories of 2E.

2E Clerics are pretty much the foundation for Clerics since that handbook came out.

I DO have many problems with 2E, but I won't get into that. I think that the current edition pulls exactly what I liked from 2E, really.

Also, I wish that I had more time on my hands, I would be cranking out fan version material for all of the 2E setting goodness out there.

In fact, I feel that's the reason I have fondness for 2E at all. It was one of the most prolific periods of time for TSR in terms of setting materials. Lots of good stuff was made in that era!

 

[Celtavian]

They were a lot of fun, but broken as heck. The cleric was already pretty powerful, and F&A introduced specialty priests that both upped the power significantly and had a much nicer XP table for the levels that really counted (I think levels 5-12 or so). Why the better XP table? Because the designer looked at the druid table, saw "OK, they cost more at the start and at the end, I guess they cost more overall as well", and used that (just adding the special Hierophant XP to the regular XP instead of resetting to 0 after level 15). I think Powers and Pantheons fixed that part though.

We don't worry as much about power as we do fun. DM can always create something to challenge anything in the game, so power is relative. I generally equate over-powered to mean "When I as a DM cannot create something within limits I consider reasonable to challenge the character." I reached that threshold often in 3E, but can't recall doing so in 2E.

The cleric class is, and pretty much always has been, a secondary warrior. 4e allowed a bit more "laser cleric-ing", but they've rarely been good at direct damage magic. Most cleric spells are protective, healing, and damage tends to come in the form of weapon surrogates (e.g. spiritual weapon). If you look at the domains in the PHB, most of them gain an ability based on hitting things harder (dealing +1d8 damage of some type with a weapon attack), with the Knowledge and Light domains adding cantrip damage instead.

Some options for your evil drow priest:

1. Trickery domain, eventually getting envenomed weapons via Divine Strike.
2. Death domain, with the ability to learn a necromancy cantrip from any other spell list. Currently, that basically means chill touch.
3. Play as some other class, take the Acolyte background, and be a priest without being a cleric.

You are correct. But they are way too far behind in melee in this edition. I was surprised they didn't get an extra attack given they are secondary warriors. It is the lack of options that bothers me most. Every cleric has only sacred flame as a cantrip attack spell. Tempest priest: sacred flame. Trickery priest: sacred flame. Nature priest: sacred flame. Every priest of every god no matter alignment or purpose: sacred flame. That is lazy design by the developers. I doubt they would not freely admit to it if asked and probably plan to correct this oversight later.

I might incorporate the cleric getting a second attack at 5th level and write up some new cantrips or use some other ones from other spell lists for different clerics. Clerics will be the only class without a very focused attack ability other than sacred flame. I don't care for the lack of originality. I hope a cleric or divine book is released fairly early to add some originality to the class in cantrip attack options. Right now clerics have to be the lowest damage class in the game. I don't know that their healing power makes up for it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Aaron Allston's "Complete Priest's Handbook?"

I believe it was Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons. Those two books made running a priest much more fun than usual.

I missed those, they came out after I wrapped my 10-year AD&D campaign in '95, and the general bloat had put me off 2e. I do remember hearing that some of the 'specialty priests' were decidedly overpowered.

I guess that makes sense. The CPH gave the DM a nice set of tools and guidelines to create priests of specific pantheons and deities (and forces and philosophies), that had different spell lists, granted powers, and combat abilities. The results were generally balanced with (as or slightly less powerful than) the Cleric & Druid in the PH, though.

I might incorporate the cleric getting a second attack at 5th level and write up some new cantrips or use some other ones from other spell lists for different clerics. Clerics will be the only class without a very focused attack ability other than sacred flame. I don't care for the lack of originality. I hope a cleric or divine book is released fairly early to add some originality to the class in cantrip attack options. Right now clerics have to be the lowest damage class in the game. I don't know that their healing power makes up for it.

They're the kind of things you might expect from Domains. The War Domain, for instance, gets better weapons, but no style or extra attack or anything - possibly even as a balance consideration, as it gives up no casting at all. There's no reason a domain couldn't change the name & damage type of sacred flame, if not provide it's own attack cantrip, instead.

I'd prefer a more balanced, CPH approach to that of F&A, but I do agree that the differentiation could be better, and to the level of specific deity rather than just domain.

I would also say that the healing burden doesn't make up for a lack of attack power when it comes to class balance. It might be good for team dynamics, as it makes it easier to decide to let your casting power flow to your allies as healing & buffing, instead of using it more directly to aggrandize the cleric, itself. But for class balance is almost a negative. Even if you /like/ the bandaid role, it's not as niche-protected as it has been in the past.

 

[Greg K]

2E Clerics are pretty much the foundation for Clerics since that handbook came out.

I DO have many problems with 2E, but I won't get into that. I think that the current edition pulls exactly what I liked from 2E, really.

For myself, every edition since 2e has failed with regards to the cleric, because I want them much closer to 2e Priests of Specific Mythoi and Specialty Priests in which armor proficiency, attack bonus, hit die were more varied and tied to deity, spell lists were much more limited by deity, and abilities like Turn Undead were specific to certain spheres/domains.

 

[Staffan]

For myself, every edition since 2e has failed with regards to the cleric, because I want them much closer to 2e Priests of Specific Mythoi and Specialty Priests in which armor proficiency, attack bonus, hit die were more varied and tied to deity, spell lists were much more limited by deity, and abilities like Turn Undead were specific to certain spheres/domains.

I can sympathize with that, but it basically means that every priest class becomes a full class in its own right. That's a lot of design effort to put in a relatively small part of the game. It also causes problems from a role-filling perspective, because you can't rely on a priest of whatever to do what you generally rely on a cleric to do. "What do you mean you need a remove curse to fix your mummy rot? Thor grants me power over thunder and lightning, not over curses."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can sympathize with that, but it basically means that every priest class becomes a full class in its own right. That's a lot of design effort to put in a relatively small part of the game.

Religion might be a large part of some campaigns - especially the more interesting/customized/powerful divine PCs got.

A single 'Priest' class that works more like a 3.5 Favored Soul, with a small number of known spells that don't change readily, and the 2e priests, with granted powers also being something that would be different (perhaps player chosen or by deity), could deliver a lot more variety without needing full new classes or sub-classes. The thing that makes clerics so similar is that, even though they may get some extra spells from Domain, they can still prep any cleric spell any day. If you can't change you spells known every day, then a different slate of spells - ones that represent your deity's portfolio well - makes you distinct from priests of other deities.

It also causes problems from a role-filling perspective, because you can't rely on a priest of whatever to do what you generally rely on a cleric to do. "What do you mean you need a remove curse to fix your mummy rot? Thor grants me power over thunder and lightning, not over curses."

True. But there are no formal roles in 5e, so that's something the group should be aware of, anyway.