D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[mellored]

The ability to use the adventure path books and setting books (subclasses excepted) smoothly along with the 2024 core rulebooks with no need for a reprinting or new edition of those books.

That's what you got. I already did it.

Playtest characters, along side 2014 characters, going though Curse of Strad, with no issues. When a new class came out, the player switched, and we just kept going with the same campaign.
(Except no one liked the first playtest druid).

And the old subclasses can move forward too. Just start at level 3.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

And I would never expect a change from WotC that wasn't the easiest they could get away with.

I'm curious: do you think that the 5.5 designers feel the game is better when more abilities are tied to the spell system? By which I mean, do they actually think it improves the game?

It depends on the situation. Things like Divine Smite becoming a spell is an improvement, and things like the Element Monk's spells becoming abilities is also an improvement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It depends on the situation. Things like Divine Smite becoming a spell is an improvement, and things like the Element Monk's spells becoming abilities is also an improvement.

Fair enough. I understand you see both those things as improvements (and I think I agree on the second one), but that is far from universally agreed-upon.

 

[Argyle King]

Even if you are correct, in contrast there were zero questions about how Divine Smite would work as a spell... because the other smite spells already existed and were designed.

So, again, they would not need to balance the number of points spent a turn. They would not need to consider what those points could be spent on. They would not need to consider how to refresh those points. They also would not need to reformat all the information in the seven existing spells and fit it into this system.

Making Divine Smite a spell was the smoothest and easiest change to bring the smite abilities/spells inline with each other.

Does the monk gain spell slots in 5e24?

 

[Chaosmancer]

And I would never expect a change from WotC that wasn't the easiest they could get away with.

I have often been told to work smarter, not harder.

I'm curious: do you think that the 5.5 designers feel the game is better when more abilities are tied to the spell system? By which I mean, do they actually think it improves the game?

It seems like a bizarre question. I feel like the designers look for the best way to represent an ability, and if that best way is using the spell system, then that is the method to take. So, does improving the game improve the game? Yes. As I pointed out the ONLY instance of an ability being replaced by a spell in the species was the Forest Gnome, and the Speak with Animals spell is more powerful, more versatile, and more clear than the previous ability. And especially for that clarity, I think it improved the game and I believe that is exactly what the Designers saw and considered.

 

[mellored]

Does the monk gain spell slots in 5e24?

No.
And Elemental monk lost the ability to cast spells. So specifically less magical.

Though shadow monk can still cast Darkness. But that's the same.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Does the monk gain spell slots in 5e24?

No. Did the Paladin gain unarmored defense and martial arts?

The monk keeping the same class ability lay out and subsystem is completely different than giving Paladins both spellcasting AND a monk ki system solely designed for Smite abilities on top of all of their own abilities. I mean, you are effectively calling to give Paladins +X spell slots more than they had previously. That requires new balancing

 

[Scott Christian]

I know what you said. "Players won't make the choice" is different than "Players do not have the choice"

WoTC was never making a claim that everyone would CHOOSE to mix-and-match. They were making the claim that you COULD CHOOSE to mix-and-match.

And you can. So their claim is still true and valid. Because it was about the option, not the result.

Just because a person has a choice, does not mean they're really given a choice.

The 1st level party can get to the golden crown by fighting this low level goblin OR they can get to the crown by fighting an ancient red dragon?
The DM shrugs - "They had a choice? Just because they chose the goblin doesn't mean there was no choice."

Again, look at my reasons:

• Stronger characters
• New niche subclasses and shinier standard subclasses
• Internet directs them to the new material

When a company says that their product is backwards compatible and that no one will miss a beat mixing old characters with new, then there is an expectation set. When dozens (none of which were me) call them on this because they know it's just like Tasha's - players will always want what is better and stronger - then the company should say that.

But they didn't. Then they did a great pitch which I really, really like. I am excited for the new books. I will definitely want to use them. But despite that, it doesn't mean that the company was misleading about what they said.

Again, there is a nuance in what I am saying, and in what they said. They used the perfect terms to keep people excited, but not raise too many hairs. But it wasn't necessarily the truth. The truth would be their sales pitch, which basically says: "You guys, we made these classes shinier and more interesting. There's no way you are going to want to go back to the old Champion when the new Champion is a million times better."

That is what some people on here are arguing for. A bit of honesty. (Which doesn't work when you are a billion-dollar company trying to earn as much profits as possible.)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

And I would never expect a change from WotC that wasn't the easiest they could get away with.

I'm curious: do you think that the 5.5 designers feel the game is better when more abilities are tied to the spell system? By which I mean, do they actually think it improves the game?

I'm curious. Why ask what non-designers think the designers prefer? We have the exact same resources for insight that you have. Do you even watch the videos of what the designers are saying before you ask us armchair designers so speak for them? How do you not see and hear the same things we are seeing and hearing? Do you just assume the designers are lying and you're asking others what we really think they mean?

That said, I'll bite. I do think they like to rely on the spell list as a repository for magical effects that have casting/activation actions, durations, targets, and other spell-like attributes.

The Spells chapter uses existing, understandable formats, and removes unnecessary duplication of similar designs, which saves space in the book. They don't have to invent new chapters or sections for alternate systems that don't have a natural fit into the book. The designers are saying all 3 Core books are Core-referential with each other. This cohesion takes a lot of work to get done right, and space is a premium. Every book will reference the Spell list, whether magic items in the DMG, or spells and effects created by the denizens of the Monster Manual.

With all that in mind, they have to keep the advanced smite spells in the 2024 PH, so that every other Wizards and 3rd party book out there that references those smite spells is still accurately referencing a spell in the Player's Handbook (even if it was altered). Because those spells must exist in the PH, and Paladins also have a divine smite ability that uses spell slots, they made the choice to make them all work with each other. That is an elegant solution that fits within their design paradigm.

That is extremely clear to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is what some people on here are arguing for. A bit of honesty. (Which doesn't work when you are a billion-dollar company trying to earn as much profits as possible.)

Yeah. Big companies shouldn't have to be honest.