D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Ruin Explorer]

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".

I don't really agree - basic usability changes that bring something up to a meaningful level of functionality can never, imho, be considered "real buffs". There are other changes which can be seen as significant buffs - like going from disadvantage to stun - but this is just removing absolutely terrible, really incompetent-seeming design choices made in 2014 so that the spells can basically function. The old Smites was drastically unpowered for their spell level, too, like I wonder what criteria WotC had applied to them or designed them under? It's almost like they were designed to be "subnormal", and now that element has (mostly) been reverted (I'd say 4 of 7 are still subnormal or really close to the lower bound of expected power for that spell level, but the other 3 have specific use cases).

I think what we'll see a lot more of now is the Paladin essentially forced to act as the "debuffer" so that the Fighter can do real damage.

Generally I'm interested to see the new DPR charts - I suspect Fighter will be at the top, but who comes after, we shall see. Barbarian or Warlock seem plausible, but Paladin will no longer even be in the running.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

JC:"So with Divine smite in particular... We realized very early on that frankly the paladin was too powerful & that excess of power was largely because of how open ended the use of divine smite was. When we originally designed divine smite it was under the hood basically a spell. You're spending a spell slot on it & it was sort of our idea of what if there was just a really simple spell option for the paladin who just wants to kick the @#$# out of things . In the process we kind of outwitted ourselves by making this spell not a spell . That then planted the seed of now the paladin who has multiple attacks is smiting on every single on of the attacks"

As a GM I am absolutely livid that wotc threw every gm under the bus of needing to deal with this problem for wotc without so much as a tweet or blog post somewhere to provide us support when players lash out in frustration citing "wotc did polls they know what is fun" & similar when having to fix problems wotc knew about very early on but couldn't manage to admit.

This kind of throwing GMs under the bus seems to be continued based on the second video where I did not hear words like "ask your GM if" or " if your gm allows it" with regards to the 2014 stuff (or anything else)... especially for a company that recently said the following at a shareholder conference "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases"

Huh, what are you complaining about? Like I don't get how this sentence throws GMs under the bus.

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

I was posting a reply to a quote made by @EzekielRaiden. I was making a joking aside to his comment about how WoTC wasn't staying in their lane with regards to 5e. Why don't you ask @EzekielRaiden about post #129?

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I feel it mostly has been. There were things that needed adjusting to fix imbalance on. You couldn't just raise the floor without lowering the ceiling or all you're doing is adding power creep. Things like Wild Shape, Smite, Twin Spell and Stunning Strike needed fixing so they could increase the classes overall budget.

 

[tetrasodium]

Huh, what are you complaining about? Like I don't get how this sentence throws GMs under the bus.

by "sentence" I assume you mean "quote from crawford that included a link to a timestamped section of the video where he said it"? If you continue reading past the words "under the bus" though you will see that it does so by leaving GMs "needing to deal with this problem☆ for wotc without so much as a tweet or blog post somewhere to provide us support when players lash out in frustration citing "wotc did polls they know what is fun" & similar★ when having to fix problems wotc knew about very early on but couldn't manage to admit."

☆That would be the problem crawford stated wotc "realized very early on" that he discussed in the timestamped link to the video that went along with the entire quote from him.

☆These are examples of the bus in question that the GM lacks any sort of backing or shield from wotc that simply admitting what wotc themselves realized "very early on" would have provided.

 

[Demetrios1453]

There's zero doubt that 2024 versions will supersede the older versions in DDAL - they already did that when Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and people couldn't make characters with the older versions of species in the book.

Yes they could - I can go right on there and make a Volo's goblin if I wanted to, for instance. They're just labeled as legacy.

Now if someone hadn't purchased Volo's before Monsters of the Multiverse came out, then they can't, as purchasing the former is no longer possible. But if you had it before, you still have access.

 

[Minigiant]

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".

Not really.

You have to choose to run a 2014 PC or 2024 PC.

2024 PCs must use the most updated version of anything.

2014 PCs can use the any version of anything they get access to (but earlier versions are often weaker and are gated from some stuff like weapon mastery)

So it's much like running mods on a game and some older mods not being updated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really.

You have to choose to run a 2014 PC or 2024 PC.

2024 PCs must use the most updated version of anything.

Or what? I'm confused about the word "must" here. Honestly, I just don't see why any player whose chosen option is getting nerfed "must" use the new version. Why should they? It's not like you're playing a new edition right?

 

[Minigiant]

Or what? I'm confused about the word "must" here. Honestly, I just don't see why any player whose chosen option is getting nerfed "must" use the new version. Why should they? It's not like you're playing a new edition right?

It's more about "balance".

You can do whatever you want.

But if you let a 2024 PC use a replaced aspect from earlier and it "breaks your game", WOTC is saying "Don't whine about us. We told you not to"

Because that 10,000% will happen and those tables will blame WOTC.

 

[Remathilis]

Or what? I'm confused about the word "must" here. Honestly, I just don't see why any player whose chosen option is getting nerfed "must" use the new version. Why should they? It's not like you're playing a new edition right?

Nothing is stopping you. But don't complain about WotC when things break due to it.