D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

I literally do not understand what "unique paladin style" there is that is lost by taking a single ability and making it work like the other SEVEN abilities that they had that shared the same name.

They still have auras, they still have channel divinity, they still have their lay on hands, they still have their transformations, they still have martial progression.... all they did was make Divine Smite work like the other smites. That's it.

I would have preferred to make the other smites work more like Divine Smite.

You could have had a basic Smite chassis and then be able to spend resources (that are not spell slots) to power and modify the divine power being channeled into an attack.

As said previously, looking at how the monk spends ki points could have provided some inspiration. Likewise, a class like the warlock has various ways to modify Eldritch Blast.

There are, I believe, more interesting (and arguably better) ways that changing the paladin could have been approached - and I believe those ways could have satisfied the 5e24 desire to better balance the paladin while also further embracing what the 5e14 paladin differently than casters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Huh. Almost as if "backwards compatibility" was a marketing strategy to be discarded once folks have given them their cash for whatever errata they intend to sell.

Huh. Almost like all the old modules work, subclasses, feats, spells and species that don't have new versions still work.

Did anyone really think a new version would not override the old? That would require them to basically make no changes at all, so why would they even bother?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All of that assumes no changes to those spells other than losing the concentration requirement. We don't know yet so I'll wait until we actually see what we're getting.
 

All of that assumes no changes to those spells other than losing the concentration requirement. We don't know yet so I'll wait until we actually see what we're getting.
This is based on the UA versions. All his claims are also based on the UA versions. Which change a lot more than the concentration requirement.

If there were no changes besides losing concentration all of these except Banishing Smite would be much, much worse. It's possible there will be changes from the UA versions of course, but this discussion is based on those.

EDIT - UA Packet 6 if you want to see. I do get we might sound like crazy people if you don't know which UA!
 

This is based on the UA versions. All his claims are also based on the UA versions.

If there were no changes besides losing concentration all of these except Banishing Smite would be much, much worse. It's possible there will be changes from the UA versions of course, but this discussion is based on those.

Okay have fun then. I'll wait until we can discuss the rules I'll actually be using at the table.
 

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.
They said for anything: class, feats, rules, etc. That is the general rule of thumb they recommend. They have specific conversion notes in the PHB for 2014 subclass that don't follow the same feature schedule as 2024 class and similar differences. They said you can of course do whatever you want.
 


Did you go back and read the original posts by Oofta and then myself (and the subsequent responses?) I'd like to think my point was made fairly clear-- so long as no one gets distracted by the introduction of the "racism" angle of the Orc by someone else outside the conversation... rather than understanding the example in relation to all the previous posts.

That tends to happen a lot around here. Someone makes a point and uses an example... and then someone shows up to argue the example as not being correct, rather than argue the point in the first place.
I don't really remember. I've been jumping around threads to much and I have been unusually distracted since the death of my daughter. I come her for the distraction from my grief and pain. Not really interested in this argument enough to go back...I'll move on to the next distraction.
 


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.
Backwards compatible does not mean completely inter-operable and never has. Obviously if you’re using the new rules, you would use the new versions of the things printed in those rules, that’s downright tautological to have to explain. Since the fundamental systems are the same, rules objects that haven’t been re-written can of course be used within the new rules; go ahead and play a 2014 subclass with your 2024 class if you want to. Also, if for whatever reason your group decides they want to stick with the 2014 version of something that has been reproduced (I, for example, might consider doing this with the ranger class), you can do that. It might take a bit of work to smooth over parts where the old version doesn’t quite fit with the updated rules, but nothing stops you. Similarly, nothing stops you from just continuing to use the 2014 rules in their entirety. It should be easy enough to run new modules with the old rules as well if you’re of a mind to.
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).
I don’t know why you would presume that. As far as I know, D&D Beyond is still preserving old versions of monsters that have been revised in Mordenkainen’s under the “legacy content” label, I would think the natural assumption would be that they’ll continue to do the same with 2014 player options.
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".
WotC has been incredibly consistent in their messaging from the beginning: you will be able to continue to play any and all modules from before the revision with characters made using the revised rules. Maybe people on Twitter and Reddit and ENWorld have speculated about “backwards compatibility” meaning something other than that, but WotC has been very clear and consistent on that point. If you disagree with framing that as “backwards compatibility,” then, well, sorry I guess. Feel free to stick to the 2014 rules if you’re not interested in what the 2024 rules are offering.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top