D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[mellored]

Depending on how the entire thing is coded... They likely CAN'T delete it and fulfill their stated promises. Because they have promised that anything not reprinted is still useable from 2014. That means they need to keep the Tempest Domain and the Forge Domain and Grave Domain, ect. So, they can't delete the 2014 cleric if that would mean deleting all the domains.

A legacy content tag makes loads more sense.

Oh they won't delete the old Tempest cleric.

They might delete the old Glory subclass from D&D beyond. Which is the placen you might sort-of-kind-of be able to claim is planned obsolescence. Maybe.

All the old books and old SRD will still exsist.

Personally the only old content i would want to keep is the Zealot barbarian. It's just more fun to be able to litterally throw your life away.

 

[MarkB]

I am not criticizing. And when I say broken, I don't mean it breaks the game, I just mean it breaks the notion that there is a power-balance between players.

Shock twist: Predicting that the new rules will have a lot more broken combinations than the current ones is criticising those rules.

My prediction is just that, a prediction. (That is what a lot of these threads are about.)

But until it comes true, using it as an assumption and then criticising how the game will work on the basis of that assumption is just making up problems.

 

[Sulicius]

And what if your player insists on playing the 2014 paladin?

I don't say that as in a gotchya. I say that because I can already see the bot filled threads on Reddit having this exact question: "My player insists that WotC said you could mix and match, so now he is playing the broken 2014 paladin with a touch of warlock, and it's throwing encounters way off. What do I do?"

And then we'll see a bunch of people mention session zero and to communicate. Then the DM will respond with, "I didn't think it would matter, as WotC said we could mix and match. So it's only become a problem now that they are level 8."

My player? I just tell them no, I have seen what 2014 paladins can do and it is not interesting to me anymore. I have made players change their build before, I can do it again. Of course I talk about it with them and try to see eye to eye on the subject. In the end, the DM decides what content is used in a campaign.

Now if the whole table disagrees with that? Then big things might happen.

Optimizers have been a plague on DM's before, let's hope the guidance in the PHB and DMG helps DM's.

 

[Oofta]

Because not everyone cares about doing nova damage? Because a player is fine with moving to the 2024 rules with the rest of the group?

I understand that it feels like it was a nerf, but as a DM I very much welcome paladins being given more flexibility and not just a smite button.

As a player who played and enjoyed the 2014 paladin, I welcome paladins being given more flexibility and not just a smite button.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because not everyone cares about doing nova damage? Because a player is fine with moving to the 2024 rules with the rest of the group?

I understand that it feels like it was a nerf, but as a DM I very much welcome paladins being given more flexibility and not just a smite button.

You're not the paladin player. They have every right to feel differently, especially since all the other classes are getting cool stuff and one of theirs is being taken away. If this were 6e it would be different; new world order and all that. But this is presented as an "update" to the existing rules that actively makes their PC less powerful. In my experience most players are against that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to doubt that. Not that I feel your not being honest (I do) but I imagine that a radically redesigned 6e (on par with 3e to 4e or PF1 to 2) would have included every complaint people have about the current changes (such as species or feats) but lots more that would have invalidated a decade of books (official and 3pp), divided the fan base even more, and just been an excuse for a lot of people to get off the treadmill. In short, the amount of people served by a wholely new edition is smaller than the ones looking for an updated 5e.

I imagine in that parallel universe, you'd still find a reason not to upgrade.

Entirely possible. 6e might have been even more obviously a game I did not like, like 4e before it. Also like 4e, however, I would have respected it and the company that made it a lot more than I do currently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shock twist: Predicting that the new rules will have a lot more broken combinations than the current ones is criticising those rules.

But until it comes true, using it as an assumption and then criticising how the game will work on the basis of that assumption is just making up problems.

So only positive speculation is welcomed here? Otherwise it's cold hard facts or nothing?

 

[mamba]

I think what some people considered as backwards compatible was essentially switching out the 2014 PHB classes/species with later, improved versions from Tasha's and Xanathar's, plus a healthy smattering of errata for problem rules/spells/features. In other words, greater continuity between the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules.

that is basically what we are getting, unless your issue is that they made some more tweaks and did not reprint the stuff from XGoE and TCoE directly

If people thought these would just be reprints, they have not been paying attention (why have a year+ long playtest for reprints…)

 

[Scott Christian]

Shock twist: Predicting that the new rules will have a lot more broken combinations than the current ones is criticising those rules.

No, it's not. If you have read any of my comments on any of these forums, you'll know my standpoint is that classes don't need to be perfectly balanced, challenges can be made via thoughtful and knowledgeable DM, and the entire character system should be based on choices.

It's not a critique, it's a prediction. Hence, why I specifically wrote out the definition of broken:

And when I say broken, I don't mean it breaks the game, I just mean it breaks the notion that there is a power-balance between players.

But until it comes true, using it as an assumption and then criticising how the game will work on the basis of that assumption is just making up problems.

Again, it's not a problem. (Especially at my table.) It is a prediction on how others will perceive the 2024 classes within a year after the game is released.

When you hear Mearls talk about how they haven't tried or even thought of all the combinations, then you can infer that there is probably going to be a lot of loopy combos. Again, they can't test everything. It is unreasonable to expect them to. But if you have increased the class's capacity to do "cool things" and increased the spell list, then odds are there is going to be an increase in powerful combos.

 

[mamba]

Heck, even Crawford said they were looking forward to seeing all the "cool" combinations (which often equates to damage) players will come up with. So, while we might think they removed the NOVA, but we really have no idea. And - this is the important part - it is the promise of finding that NOVA that will move a great many players over to the new rules.

I am not sure that this is what gets people to buy the books at all… I can see a small minority getting them for this, but ‘a great many’ not so much. What is this expectation based on?