D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews


log in or register to remove this ad

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"
 
Last edited:



Just scrolled through the first page to look at the videos linked. Didn't see the Dungeon Dudes video linked. Apologies if it was on page two or three

 



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"
I don't know that that's throwing the GM under the bus to say 'ask your GM if you can'. There are absolutely setting or scenarios where a certain PC type is not baseline appropriate for.

It's no different than coming to a table where the pre-established worldbuilding is 'Elves all left for the Grey Havens centuries ago and none exist' and saying you fully want to play a wood elf swordmage. The worldbuilding for the 1e grey box Forgotten Realms, for example, the Elven Court, overnight, went into full retreat; any elves left were rare and generally solitary ... or basically the PCs.
 

My argument against this idea is that you don't need an entire species to play that trope. Indeed, any PC from any species can play that thematic identity just based on how you decide your PC grew up.

Indeed... that's the issue with pretty much ALL the species... they get devolved down to just a handful of "tropes" that every single member of that species is supposed to be in order to distinguish them from humans. Which is just meant to direct players into playing each species in a specific way, thereby making them all the same. But we know that humans are not all the same... they are as wide and as varied as could be. So why would we think other species would be?

For me, the two half-races were a way to explore the struggles of mixed heritages; as well, they both represented different reflections of humanity and the variety of things that someone with mixed heritage faces when navigating life.

Being a mix of both while situationally neither is a unique experience.
 

Still haven't seen the Pack Tactics video, or read anyone's comments yet, but that Diana interview covers some new information and some things that no one else has touched on.

Seems like there are new rules for dehydration, malnutrition and suffocation which loop into the Exhaustion rules.

Also, they are thinking about what to do with the Sage Advice Compendium.
 

Remove ads

Top