D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Charlaquin]

It must be a language gap of some kind. Your seem to be ruling out a bunch of stuff @Parmandur and @OB1 are saying is the case, but as suggested I'll go with what they're saying.

I think I may have figured out where the problem lies. I said you’d have to be playing an Artificer to be playing a fully 2014 character, because I was operating on the presupposition that the character would be using some mix of 2014 and 2024 rules. Yes, if you want to play, like, a 2014 ranger with only 2014 spells, feats, etc. you can do so at the same table as folks using the 2024 versions of those same spells, feats, etc. and it should work fine, as far as I understand.

 

[Corinnguard]

Did not say that. But you assumed that noone likes it...

I love how you mistook the comment on post #129 from @EzekielRaiden for one of mine.

 

[Parmandur]

I think I may have figured out where the problem lies. I said you’d have to be playing an Artificer to be playing a fully 2014 character, because I was operating on the presupposition that the character would be using some mix of 2014 and 2024 rules. Yes, if you want to play, like, a 2014 ranger with only 2014 spells, feats, etc. you can do so at the same table as folks using the 2024 versions of those same spells, feats, etc. and it should work fine, as far as I understand.

I think Crawford even ad.ktrwd yoy can play a 2024 Wizard with a 2014 Illusionist Subclass, and the rules won't spontaneously combust: that's just not their recommendation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I love how you mistook the comment on post #129 from @EzekielRaiden for one of mine.

I refered to post #132. Wasn't that your post. But maybe I misunderstood the meaning there.

 

[Corinnguard]

I refered to post #132. Wasn't that your post. But maybe I misunderstood the meaning there.

Post #132 was my reply to @EzekielRaiden on post #129. He was referring to how WoTC wasn't sticking to a particular lane when it came to 5e. I responded by saying that WoTC appeared to be weaving in and out of several lanes as something of a joking aside to him.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Post #132 was my reply to @EzekielRaiden on post #129. He was referring to how WoTC wasn't sticking to a particular lane when it came to 5e. I responded by saying that WoTC appeared to be weaving in and out of several lanes as something of a joking aside to him.

Ok. I did not get that joke.

 

[Corinnguard]

Ok. I did not get that joke.

It's cool.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Arguably it could have been additive. Or they could not have just told people they had to use the new versions, and left it optional.

 

[Vael]

That's very sensible. I was just being told there were, and I quote "massive buffs", so wanted to look at that

YMMV, but tbh, taking them off of Concentration and triggering on a hit so the slot is never wasted counts as a "massive buff". I cannot recall ever seeing a single smite spell cast by a Paladin, and the general consensus in my group after seeing that UA was "Okay, I can see myself actually using these spells now".

 

[Mistwell]

I wasn't the one who made this quote. It was made by @EzekielRaiden on post #129. I replied back to him on post #132. Go back and read it.

That is what you quoted. What part of the words "This is what you quoted and replied to " is unclear? I'm reading it correctly.