D&D 5E (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Ruin Explorer]

Refusing to pick lanes defines 5e.

There is, unfortunately, some considerable truth to that. Nevertheless, they could pick one with Sage Advice, if they wanted. The fact that it's somehow confusing them as to what to do with it does not exactly fill me with bright hope for the future on this, though, I must admit!

 

[Corinnguard]

The latter would be lovely. Unfortunately, this is how 5e was designed, so this is how 5e will be explained. Refusing to pick lanes defines 5e.

Instead, they are weaving back and forth between the various lanes, trying to please everyone while not pleasing anyone at all with their antics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Instead, they are weaving back and forth between the various lanes, trying to please everyone while not pleasing anyone at all with their antics.

Ah, but it worked so well for almost a decade! Clearly they can keep doing it. Nothing will go wrong, because nothing was wrong to begin with. Except all the things they changed. But those changes don't mean what came before had flaws! It just...is better than before! But not in a way that replaces what came before. No not at all.

It's genuinely funny the knots they twist themselves into rather than just speaking plainly.

 

[Corinnguard]

Ah, but it worked so well for almost a decade!

Until they had a string of critical fumbles on their DEX saves, and Deception, Persuasion and Performance checks.

They really need to change their dice more often.

 

[Oofta]

Making it a bonus actions makes it into a complicated and less functional mess. Nothing that's "on-hit" should ever be a bonus action. It's simply bad design (and yeah that does include a couple of existing Feats). Also unless they've made it hit harder, and I haven't seen this discussed yet, the "price" of making a bonus action AND a spell slot means it's considerably worse than it was. The only real nerf it needed was 1/turn. But by making a bonus action, the cost becomes significantly higher than that (because it's removing the possibility of a bonus action attack or the like). I don't think WotC understand the action economy well enough to actually get that though, at this point.

I mean, lest anyone suggest they do, remember what they tried to do to Sneak Attack, and seemed really confident was a cool idea.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's a fact that it's bad design. It just means you think it's bad design. We simply disagree. As far as if smite is less powerful now, well yes. That was kind of the point. Meanwhile I suspect that WotC understands action economy just as well as anyone on this forum.

Can you list a couple of the problematic 2014 Paladin combos here? I've literally never heard of this being a balance issue with the 2014 Paladin.

Without seeing the new version of spells? No.

Imho it should matter, because if this and the new Ranger represent the general direction of design for 5E from this point onwards, I'm not feeling very good at 5E.

However, I don't think they do represent that. I think what actually happened here is the same as what caused problems with several classes in 5E 2014, and caused 4E's blandification to be more severe than intended (per the designers, they we working towards something more like the later take on classes, but had to get it out the door). Specifically, WotC ran out of time to do an actually-good job on the class design for these classes, and just rushed them through with something that it thought would be "good enough". I don't think it is, myself, but at least with Paladin people can just use the 2014 version, whereas with Ranger, it's bad either way.

I think we could use a little bit less spell-ification of the game but I'm not bothered by it. It's just a label on a game mechanic, at least when it comes to classes. When it comes to how OP elves tend to be? That's a different issue.

 

[dave2008]

I don't care. That's not the point of the discussion.

OK, so the false equivalency distracted me. What is your point?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Without seeing the new version of spells? No.

I'm confused.

I mean the 2014 combos that you implied were a balance problem - thus the 2014 spells would be the issue, surely? Or is this some theoretical future problem?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Indeed, doing away with subspecies appears to have been a goal of the 2024 species redesigns. They seem to be shifting towards the dragonborn ancestry model, where you pick an option from a table that determines the selection of a number of options for a common feature for the species. E.G., damage type for the breath weapon and damage resistance with dragonborn, always-prepared spells with elves and tieflings, etc.

One thing that is nice about this approach is that it’s very easy to homebrew new options. Want a custom quicksilver dragonborn ancestry for your home game? Pick a damage type and it’s good to go. Have a player in your Curse of Strahd game who’s character just died and wants to know if they can play a dusk elf? Just choose a cantrip, a first level spell, and a second level spell that feel on-theme, and Bob’s your uncle. The furry at your table is desperate to play a Tiefling descended from Arcanaloths? Just ask them what cantrip, damage resistance, and two spells they think a fox demon would have, and bada-bing, bada-boom!

Yeah, I really love how they are moving to a slightly more cohesive whole for the elves.

 

[Oofta]

I'm confused.

I mean the 2014 combos that you implied were a balance problem - thus the 2014 spells would be the issue, surely? Or is this some theoretical future problem?

I don't think it's worth worrying about 2014 spells for a 2024 rule. It is a hypothetical, it's also one of multiple reasons.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. That's not what he means, and they're doing the opposite of that - what we're seeing is blandification, for better or worse (it's not always bad in TT RPGs), rules-wise. By pushing these classes demonstrably further into being casters and significantly more actually spell-reliant, they're inarguably changing them, but essentially to be more similar to each other and other classes, rather than to more unique or to have stronger mechanical identities.

Instead of nerfing Paladins in this rather hopeless way, they could have leaned in to how Paladins operated, and made them less about casting spells, and more about smiting. And achieved the same DPR result without making the big mechanical mess they've made simply by limiting this special ability Smite (rather than spell) to 1/turn.

No one ever had a single problem with Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Staggering Smite, Blinding Smite, Banishing Smite, Branding Smite, ect

But now that Divine Smite is a spell it is blandification and Paladins are being pushed into being spellcasters instead of the smiting class, even though demonstrably, SEVEN smite abilities just got a massive buff and are now such viable options some people are saying they won't use Divine Smite at all.

The general prediction is actually that you will see variety of smite types, rather than simply divine smite. Yet, somehow, this makes everything more bland because Divine Smite now works like literally every other smite ability the paladin has had from the beginning?