D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Scott Christian]

So the first guy that interviews Jeremy is a hoarder, and the second a cartoon?

We'll have to wait and see about the backwards compatibility. I mean, just listen to the language they used describing the classes in the classes' video, and you will only hear how they are better, and in general, stronger. I think like most things D&D, the 2014 will go into the fire pit because it's not new and shiny. The vast majority of players (just like Tasha's rule) will just play the new because it A) Makes their character stronger B) Makes them believe it fills an RP niche they couldn't get from 2014 or C) Makes them because that is what the internet will direct them to. Of course, D) is all of the above.

 

[TiQuinn]

They aren't changing anything. It was always really obvious that if you had the 2024 rulebook, the official line would be to use the 2024 versions of the things in the 2024 rulebook.

CAN you CHOOSE to use the other things? Sure, they can't stop you. But they aren't going to recommend it as the ideal mode of play, and considering the sheer number of buffs and improvements on every level.... why would you want to?

Which is why “backwards compatibility” has always been a laughable consideration.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Which is why “backwards compatibility” has always been a laughable consideration.

Non sequitur?

Or please explain.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

way back somewhere here on enworld I talked about me and another DM reseting searing smite to be 2d4 base, and the extra after the save being 1d12 (so 2-8 av 5 on the hit, and 7ish every round) to 'fix it' and havign both scale (so 2nd level would be 3d4/2d12 and 3rd level would be 4d4/3d13 and 4th level would be 5d4/4d12 and 5th level would be 6d4/5d12) and I got a string of people calling it the most broken spell, that warlocks dipping 2 in paliden and sword/valor bards would take it and break my game....

I never bothered to report back but that was multi campaigns ago... that campaign the main paladin got 2 HUGE moments of "OMG" with it... one was with a crit where he dropped a 3rd level one deal +8d4 and the creature was vunrable to fire... and I rolled 2 super low numbers on my magic res con prof save so on my turn I took 3d12 vunrable...
I don't remember the actual number but since he was useing a homebrew weapon that crit on an 18+ and delt 2d6 one handed I can assume he dealt the 4d6+like 10ish +8d4+3d12 (the last two doubleing) so like 24+82 so well over 100 damage.

the second time was a MUCH more amazing (but way more set up) where the wizard used a cantrip to give the bad guy -1d4 to saves, and the warlock had cursed the target to have disadvantage on con saves and a hit for a 1st or 2nd level spell slot ended up lasting like 4 or 5 rounds of multi d12s...


other then that not once did it stand out and those two awesome moments didn't make us think it broken so we have kept the house rule (although one fellow DM did undo the d12s scaleing when he took the spell into his own game where we DID have a bard/warlock with the spell... but he was allowed to use his 6th level spells slots on smites and to combine with arcane smite) and at no point has any of us said "Wow that is like the best spell ever.".. that first game was in person, we have been on roll20 since we took a two-3 week lay over in 2020 for covid (yeah longest 2-3 weeks ever) and that wasn't the campaign we used it for so this had to be 2017 or before...

even with this house ruled spell unless a target is a well known low Con or a well known vunrability it is almost always better to just regular smite. (Now we didn't take the pre cast or concentration off it, but I doubt that would have broken it)

 

[mellored]

We'll have to wait and see about the backwards compatibility.

They've explained it.

If there is no replacement, keep using the old stuff (i.e. booming blade)
-If it's a subclass, it starts at level 3, getting any lower level stuff.
-If it's a race, don't stack ability score bonus with the new background.
-Don't stack the cleric level 7 subclass feature.

I think that's it.

Also, you can just keep the old character if you want. No one is taking your books away.

I think like most things D&D, the 2014 will go into the fire pit because it's not new and shiny.

I expect most players will take the new stuff both because most people think it's better. At least 70% of the people who voted like it better than the old stuff. So chances are you will too.

As for power, the gap is narrower. They reduced some of the more OP stuff and boosted the weakest stuff.

*The only exception I can think of is the Shepherd druid. But just use the old Conjure Animals spell.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. EVERYONE IS COMPLETELY CLEAR ON THIS POINT.

Mod Note:
Shouting at folks is an indication that you're a bit heated.

So, please dial it back, or take a break, or something, before you do something really regrettable. Thanks.

 

[mamba]

I could see forcing the Feats to update much more than other stuff, so that kind of made sense. But a lot of things they've just redesigned so much that the 2014 version is literally too different to really just change to - it's literally like an edition change. Which is fine if it's optional, and just a different design within the same edition (4E did this also), but not fine if it's mandatory or close to it.

The whole new core books are optional… if you use them the recommendation is to always use the 2024 version of something. If something is in the 2014 books but not the 2024 ones then you can use that and might have to tweak it.

No one forces you to follow that guideline, as usual

 

[mamba]

With Beyond I guess they're going to delete the option for people to buy the 2014 PHB, just like they deleted the option to buy Volo's or the like, which is er... not great, given that they appeared to indicate the opposite of this previously. They should be telling people to buy the 2014 PHB now if they want it

Not sure when they supposedly indicated the opposite

The core books were on sale 50% off a month ago or so, that was them telling you to get it now (they might have spelled it out too, not sure, but if you visit DDB you were aware that a new version is coming, they talk about nothing else)

 

[TiQuinn]

Non sequitur?

Or please explain.

If the choice between 2014 and 2024 options is that 2024 options are superior in every way, backwards compatibility is a fig leaf that they had to say knowing full well no one would actually care once the 2024 products were released, yet everyone up til that release pretends it was of utmost importance.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is why “backwards compatibility” has always been a laughable consideration.

Don't co fuse backwards compatibility with forwards compatability: they never promised forwards compatability, just backwards compatibility. That is, old books and options remain usable, not that all new options will work with the older books. Though frankly the forwards compatability quotient is pretty high, still.