D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

It's not about picking the skill or ability individually. Sorry if that was the impression. I stated the 2014 version vs the 2024 version. Not mix and matching the two versions. Hope that clears things up.
so it is about the whole Paladin 2014 package vs the whole 2024 Paladin... ok, then I am not sure what you meant here

The discussion is about backwards compatibility. If you, as DM, have to insist they use the 2014 ruleset with their paladin, then that means characters can't just "port to the new edition without missing a hitch."
because it sounds like that is exactly what you are proposing now while when I proposed it you said that this questions compatibility
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would like to see Wizards of the Coast publish different role-playing games. For now, their attention is rightly directed to D&D, but I agree with Micah that it would be nice to see some diversification in their catalogue and, given their influence, it would be great for new role-players to thereby be exposed to different genres or styles of play. I liked it when Wizards of the Coast published the Star Wars Roleplaying Game and Star Wars has a similar feel to D&D. It would be fun to see some of the Wizards designers stretch their legs and try to develop other games in genres and styles more dissimilar to D&D.

I guess I just don't see that it makes much sense from a company perspective and doesn't buy much from a consumer perspective. They had a D20 Star Wars, I'm not sure how successful it was or if new versions haven't been produced because of licensing issues so it's not like they haven't produced games other than D&D. However, with 5E they're taking a more minimalist approach so that likely has something to do with it.

I guess it just seems to me there are plenty of other games out there if that's what you want, unless they really pushed it I don't see why having the WotC label would help all that much. That, and making another product could be robbing from Peter to pay Paul, it doesn't really buy them anything.
 

Of course it doesn't have to. EN Publishing just came out with an amazing sci-fi version of their game, based on their version of the 5e rules. But that doesn't mean WotC should stick to D&D exclusively. They have a lot of clout they could use to bring in people who want something other than WotC 5e.
no, it does not mean they should not. I explained a few posts up why it is not in WotC's best interest to publish a second TTRPG, those are why they should not
 

Then why do other big companies make more than one product?
are we talking about TTRPGs? Then they are not big... Are we talking about, Coca Cola etc.? Then because they are not in the TTRPG market and their other products are not also TTRPGs

That is like asking why WotC does not offer books in 50 different covers when cars come in all kinds of configurations...
 

Except that before, no one was getting chocolate because no one was bringing it.

Again, their only promise was that you can keep using the stuff you had before. If no one likes that stuff, that isn't their problem and doesn't mean they mislead or misdirected or were not clear. You CAN use the old material, the same exact material that you are using right now. If you feel compelled to change? That doesn't mean that you were FORCED to change.
Again, it goes back to the words: backwards compatible. That is not what backwards compatible means. Backwards compatibility requires two products to work together. Here is the definition:

"able to be used with an older piece of hardware or software without special adaptation or modification."

That is the definition. Not a choice, but a choice to use both with each other. That bolded word "with" is the key here. So when I say that some might view this as a non-choice, it's because the "with" is not part of the deal.

No one is "FORCED to change." But pressures that are applied makes people change. Hence my three reasons.
People have been upset about this since before they announced the anniversary rules update. People have been consistently upset about made-up facts and made-up interpretations. One person was upset because you COULD use old material and therefore all the new material was worthless because if it was weaker, no one would use. Others are upset that it is stronger and now they have no reason to use the old material. Still other people are upset that they didn't call it a new edition, still other other people are upset that they didn't follow Microsoft Windows naming scheme.

The sheer number of people upset over things they have completely and willfully misinterpreted about what WotC claimed is staggering, and yet WoTC has never once actually changed their message on this. People just refused to believe them, so that they could be upset.
Part of this is absolutely true, and I find it as maddening as you do. But there are people that called them out about backwards compatibility and clearly wanted them to use a more forthcoming definition. They didn't. So, there are some of those people that chose to believe them about backwards compatibility. They feel a bit slighted right now. That's okay. They're allowed.
See, but I think moving to the 24 paladin would be stronger. But they see nova spike damage as the reason to play the paladin. And that specifically has been cut from a lot of the 24 material.
I'm with you on this. I think they'll be combos that far outweigh the current 2014 paladin. And even if they don't, the new paladin will be more fun to play.
 

So my question was, if they have to stay within the 2014 ruleset to play a 2014 paladin, doesn't that contradict backwards compatibility? Again, if you meant mix and match abilities, then I apologize.
they are not staying in the 2014 ruleset, they are sticking with the 2014 paladin as is, they do not get to use the 2024 paladin with all its new features and just switch out its smite for the 2014 version
 

so it is about the whole Paladin 2014 package vs the whole 2024 Paladin... ok, then I am not sure what you meant here
I was responding to you saying they would have to use the 2014 ruleset if they used the 2014 paladin. To this, I questioned whether that goes against WotC's backwards compatibility statement. I was told later that they said in a video that if there is a new version, you need to use that. (Which again, doesn't sound backwards compatible, but whatever.) So the entire discussion makes me think of people that wanted true compatibility. That's all.
because it sounds like that is exactly what you are proposing now while when I proposed it you said that this questions compatibility
Just to be clear (because sometimes I'm not), I was talking about the class as a whole unit, not individual pieces.
 

they are not staying in the 2014 ruleset, they are sticking with the 2014 paladin as is, they do not get to use the 2024 paladin with all its new features and just switch out its smite for the 2014 version
I understand. But didn't you say if they stick with that paladin they have to use the 2014 ruleset? By 2014 ruleset, I mean the 2014 books for the campaign. Or do you just mean the 2014 paladin subsection of the 2014 PHB?
 

As said, worked examples of possible alternatives include the 5e monk (ki points,) 5e sorcerer (metamagic,) 5e warlock (varying able to modify Eldritch Blast,) and 4e Psionic Classes.

Reading some of the 5e24 previews, similar ideas have been used for other classes (such as the rogue being able to spend sneak attack dice for other effects).

The Paladin could have "Piety Points" (or whatever name you prefer). Those points would be used to power and modify Divine Smite. As such, none of the Smite spells would need to exist. (As I understand it, the 5e24 rules already treat Smite Spells differently, as they do not interact with Initiate Feats; the Bard's ability to pick up spells from other classes; and etc.)

Where the monk uses points to be a mobile attacker and spread damage around, the paladin would use them to pile damage onto a single target, heal, and protect allies.

Auras, Lay on Hands, Channel. Divinity, save bonuses, and Divine Sense all already worked without using spell slots. It doesn't seem like a giant leap in design to also have Divine Smite (which was not a spell) function in a way that doesn't use spell slots and is instead more like the rest of the class. If you really wanted a small handful of Paladin spells, they could just as easily be powered by spending points.

That may not be your personal cup of tea, and that's valid.

Do you feel that your personal preferences included a desire for the Paladin to become more of a vancian caster?

To be bluntly honest, yes, Paladins have had a close relationship to Clerics, so having them both be casters is a piece of mechanical symmetry that I like. It's why they also share Channel Divinity, it strengthens their common bond as wielders of divine magic.

And I don't agree that this is a simple thing. Monks use ki ... but that is their core mechanic and the 2014 Monk needed some of the most upgrades and revisions for 2024. Sorcerers also got a massive revision because the initial design was too stingy over their own Sorcery point resources. Warlocks continue to be a point of contention because of how some tables manage their short and long rests. So the idea that "this ain't no thing" ... well the classes cited indicate it was and is.

Paladins have more types of resources to manage than other classes, it's true. Which is why I'm in favor of reducing the complexity by not making all these things unique for the sake of uniqueness.

I'm not against classes having different mechanical expressions, if this was an argument that Artificers should not be half-casters and have their own Infusion casting system, I'd agree it's an idea worth exploring. Part of the draw, to me, for Psionics (a base Psion/Mystic class, though, happy with the Psionic flavored subclasses as is) is that Psionics isn't just spells without components so some mechanical differentiation is to be expected.

But given that Paladins have history as spellcasters, are tied thematically to another spellcaster, the Cleric, and are a complicated class with a lot to manage already ... I haven't seen a solid reason to change it.
 

I don't see it as a "massive design challenge" to use things that already exist within the paladin class framework and already exist as building blocks of 5e class design.

Why do you feel that it would be a MASSIVE disruption to the game when it isn't currently one?
Removing spell casting from Paladins would not be a massive design challenge.

Make smite and other spells into channel Divinity, scale by level and recharge when an ally drops to 0. Or some such.

But it would be a massive disruption. Certainly not backwards compatible.
 

Remove ads

Top