D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

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!
I would be surprisred if they do anything other than throw their hand up & do nothing substantial about it with the PHB & kick the can down the line till the november 12th DLC starts populating shelves.
I can answer them on Sage Advice btw - either burn it to the ground and pretend it never happened, don't do it in future, or actually expend real effort on properly considering and answering questions with more than one person being involved in answering each and more reasoning being given for their answers. Pick a lane. Giving half-arsed, frankly obviously flippant answers which often make problems worse, and rules messier, is just not helpful, and that was an awful lot of the previous Sage Advice answers.
100% my most memorable interaction with a player while running AL games went like this:
I had never seen them before & they were not one of the regulars so SomeGuy will be their name
Someguy: "I have this printout from sage advice that I want to make sure you will follow before I join your table since my PC is kinda built around it"
Me: "No. Try one of the other tables, I've got a few regulars that are expected to show up closer to 6"(it was like 15-20min till)
SomeGuy: "b.. .but you didn't even look"
Me: "No I did not. My [completely empty] table is full as you can see
Me to all the GM's starting to setup: "Hey guys, SomeGuy here has a character built around a printout from sage advice & he wants to know if you will respect the ruling from crawford he built a PC around?"
Three other GMs:"uh... yea... I'm full up"
Nobody cared to find out what was on the printout or look at the PC. The guy wound up making a new PC & joined someone's table
Sage advice could have been valuable if it was about the RAI or early previews into the actual errata that 5e has so dearly needed for the last decade rather than "JC's unofficial soapbox" as it was described earlier, it was far from useful though.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Searing Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, the flames can no longer be doused by an ally or by jumping into water.
It's still REALLY BAD. If you cast at the normal level, Searing Smite does 2d8 damage (+1d8 vs Undead or Fiends), thus averaging 9 damage to normal enemies. Searing Smite does 1d6, so average 3.5 damage, then at the START of it's next turn, it makes a CON save (usually the easiest save to make for monsters), or takes another 1d6 damage, and so on. The CON save prevents the damage and ends the effect. You'd need at least TWO failed saves over two rounds to very slightly exceed Divine Smite!

So you'd need that monster to be alive for 2-3 more rounds (depending on the timing on the round when this spell went off), when the average combat in 5E lasts 3-4 rounds, and individual monsters rarely last more than 2 rounds if they're being actively attacked.

Buffing something that is bad, does not automatically make it good. And in this case, it really doesn't make it good! It's still a bad spell.

It does improve notably from upcasting now, to like, mediocre rather than actively bad - if you cast it with a 3rd level slot, it does 3d6 damage per instance, so 11.5 damage on hit, and then 11.5 damage per failed save (until one passes). It's still CON so easy to make, but it's closer - a level 3 Divine Smite does 5d8 damage, so 22.5 damage. So you only need 1 extra round and 1 failed save for it to be equal - but you still two rounds and two failed saves for it to be better. Which is extremely unlikely. The best use is perhaps annoying DMs with it by putting it on monsters with Legendary Resistance and seeing if maybe they'll make the probable tactical error of wasting a Legendary Resistance on it. More likely they easily make the CON save though.
Thunderous Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots
Still terrible unless you're next to a cliff or similar. None of those "buffs" do anything to genuinely compete with Divine Smite or even other Smites. Especially as it targets STR. Scales really badly unlike Searing, too.
Wrathful Smite --> Concentration removed but frightened still lasts a minute, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, damage changed to necrotic [potentially a sidegrade but gives paladins more damage types], can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots
Still mediocre to bad. Upcasting this is an absolute trap, never do that. The damage increase is negligible, you'd only want to do it if you didn't have a better slot. It's basically just Cause Fear, except you have to be next to the target and hit them with an attack, and get a pathetic amount of Necrotic damage (literally 1d6) in exchange for positioning dangerously and having to use both an Action and a Bonus Action to deliver it.
Branding Smite --> Need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, now gives advantage to every attack against the target as long as you hold concentration, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots
You mean Shining Smite? Upcasting it is a trap. That's not a meaningful buff. Nor are the other changes except the Advantage one. It's okay but it requires concentration and requires the target to be alive. It's basically Faerie Fire except:

L2 not L1, only effects one target, rather than a whole bunch, required Concentration and does a pathetic amount of damage. I guess it's a Bonus Action at least? Not a great deal.
Blinding Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, removed the initial save so now a target hit by this is guaranteed to be blinded until the end of their next turn at a minimum, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots
This one is solid. It's not perfect, but it's solid. Like it actually situationally competes with Divine Smite - but only situationally. You essentially 2d8 damage for a no-save Blind which saves at the END of a target's turn - that is, in fact, worth it in a lot of cases. You can probably make people have Advantage against a target and mess up at least one round of it's attacks for 2d8 damage. Upcasting only ever makes sense if you absolutely have to, but it's not an actual trap unlike Wrathful Smite upcasting is, because it scales up as well as Divine Smite, it just stays 2d8 down.
Staggering Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, condition changed to the stunned condition preventing all enemy actions on a failed save and granting advantage to all attacks against them until the end of your next turn. can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots
For a 4th level spell, it's pretty bad, but at least has situational uses, not unlike the Monk stun. Again most of what you're listing isn't a meaningful buff, it's just extra verbiage to try and make it look like they did more than they did, which you know perfectly well is disingenuous. But changing it to a stun is a buff.
Banishing Smite --> Need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes. Potential nerf following similar lines to banishment, in requiring a save on top of reducing the enemy to less than 50 hp.
This is a BIG nerf! It still only works if they have 50 HP or less, but now it ALSO requires a saving throw both to work, and to keep them there, every round. Previously there was no save. This seems like a fairly senseless nerf, done solely to keep it "in line" with another spell, which is obviously not necessary given Banishment does NOT require the target to be under 50 HP.

So yeah, I'm not seeing "massive buffs". I'm seeing two which were genuinely improved are genuine situational alternatives to Divine Smite - Blinding Smite and Staggering Smite, where you ditch damage to do inflict a condition. But Banishing Smite, already super-situational, inexplicably got nerfed because a different spell with much easier conditions got nerfed (?!?! They could have at least removed the 50 HP bit!). And Searing Smite if upcast is better, but that's pretty niche because of how short 5E combats are and how easy CON saves tend to be.

The rest of the changes had long been required, and you repeating them over and over doesn't make them "massive buffs". It just means rescuing the spells being completely worthless. Some still pretty much are.
 


Are you sure? We are talking about WoTC after all. I wasn't talking about the half-edition itself.

You're assuming that I don't like it in its' entirety. I have seen and heard bits of what it is going to be like on EN World here and on YouTube. I like some of the changes, but not all of them. I am also quite aware that a number of people on this thread likewise have expressed their share of likes and dislikes about this half-edition. No RPG system is perfect.
Did not say that. But you assumed that noone likes it...
 

Basically, think of it like a massive errata. You use the most recently printed version of any options you want to take for your character, unless your group is agreeing to use an earlier version of the rules.
Ok, so it's not backwards-compatible and the specific claims that WotC repeatedly made that you could use 2014 versions of things with the 2024 versions are just giant lies? This is fairly big news being played off as something minor. I mean that's huge. That's a real incentive not to buy 2024, frankly, if you're forced to use the 2024 rules (which Beyond presumably would literally force you to use). It also directly contradicts WotC's story on 2024 up to this point, which was that it was all optional and designed to be better so you'd rather to use it, rather than being an "errata" or "mandatory".
 

Just for Feats? Not for classes/species etc? Or for all? Because that's huge and backwards-compatibility is completely out the window if it's for all.
He was quite clear in the interviews that he meant all: Illusionist, use the 2024 version. Neceomancer? Go ahead and use the 2014 version. Feat not in the new PHB? Go ahead and take it at 4th. Old Rave? Go ahead and use it, but don't take the Background ASI too.
 

He was quite clear in the interviews that he meant all: Illusionist, use the 2024 version. Neceomancer? Go ahead and use the 2014 version. Feat not in the new PHB? Go ahead and take it at 4th. Old Rave? Go ahead and use it, but don't take the Background ASI too.
No, not previously.

Previously he was quite clear - but that wasn't the line. The line was that you had a choice to use the new or old versions of a thing. Changing that at this point is pretty bad form and I'd expect some backlash as it becomes clear, especially from people for whom this is their first edition change.

Also, this becomes an edition change, rather than just a sort of "optional update".
 

Ok, so it's not backwards-compatible and the specific claims that WotC repeatedly made that you could use 2014 versions of things with the 2024 versions are just giant lies? This is fairly big news being played off as something minor. I mean that's huge. That's a real incentive not to buy 2024, frankly, if you're forced to use the 2024 rules (which Beyond presumably would literally force you to use). It also directly contradicts WotC's story on 2024 up to this point, which was that it was all optional and designed to be better so you'd rather to use it, rather than being an "errata" or "mandatory".
Where do you get that...? When he was pressed, he admitted yoy could mix and match, but their recommendation (which I am sure will be true at AL tables) is the new version supercedes the old.
 

No, not previously.

Previously he was quite clear - but that wasn't the line. The line was that you had a choice to use the new or old versions of a thing. Changing that at this point is pretty bad form and I'd expect some backlash as it becomes clear, especially from people for whom this is their first edition change.

Also, this becomes an edition change, rather than just a sort of "optional update".
He said that yoy could use the old thing? In these interviews...?
 


Remove ads

Top