D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Oofta]

That just reads as prioritizing greed over making the best game they can. I have no reason to respect that philosophy.

Best game they can for who? Because as far as I can tell you're in the minority. It may be a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well your counter argument doesn't impress me either so I guess we're even.

Nobody really knows why 5E is as successful as it is. But you don't make radical changes when all you need is a tune up. The corporation would be just fine if your proposed 6E crashed and burned. But the division that produces new D&D material at WotC? I'm not so sure.

The idea that WotC 5e just needs a tune-up is not based on design or creativity factors. It is based on securing maximum profit. If design and creativity were prioritized I am confident we would be seeing a 6e right now and not 5.5.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Best game they can for who? Because as far as I can tell you're in the minority. It may be a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

I never said best game for me. None of this is about me. I mean the best game for what the designers want to accomplish. Not their "D&D is undermonetized" corporate employers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My expectation is that most of those who purchase the new books will do so because they'll be right in their face presentation-wise, or to follow the herd; in short, because its the easier option. WotC's industry weight has already ensured 5.5's success.

That is quite insulting. As if people can't think for themselves.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am clearly talking about a dispute between DM and player here. The DM, regardless of the rule legitimacy of their reasons, is telling the player to accept a nerf. If the player liked the old paladin why should they just roll over on that? It's not like they're playing a new edition here, and nobody else lost a big move like this with no compensation.

No compensation is totally wrong. There is so much compensation. Our paladin does not use sacred weapon often, because wasting an action is too much. Lay on hands is only used, because I allowed him the playtest version.
Weapon mastery and free fighting styles allow for other damage increases.

And the only real nerf is having to spread damage over more turns.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is quite insulting. As if people can't think for themselves.

Of course they can, but I'm a pessimist and expect that most won't do any research and just go with what's in front of them. I applaud those who give it more consideration, even if I don't end up agreeing with their decision. Heck, I'm wrong all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No compensation is totally wrong. There is so much compensation. Our paladin does not use sacred weapon often, because wasting an action is too much. Lay on hands is only used, because I allowed him the playtest version.
Weapon mastery and free fighting styles allow for other damage increases.

And the only real nerf is having to spread damage over more turns.

Ok. Like I said, sounds like a legitimate choice. Either way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok. Like I said, sounds like a legitimate choice. Either way.

Not really. They say that the 2024 rules assume that you use the new content if there is already an update. The paladin got an update, the defaul is, you use it.
At least if you bring a new character.

In an old campaign, with a high level paladin that is built for the old rules, it is probably better to keep it that way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I would not force the player to switch. But I would not give them any goodie frome the new rules either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The idea that WotC 5e just needs a tune-up is not based on design or creativity factors. It is based on securing maximum profit. If design and creativity were prioritized I am confident we would be seeing a 6e right now and not 5.5.

I am confident you are totally wrong. 5e is not done yet. Too many people have fun.