D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[mamba]

I was responding to you saying they would have to use the 2014 ruleset if they used the 2014 paladin

I guess it was a phrased a bit confusing, I meant the full 2014 paladin, instead of just picking the 2014 smite for the 2024 paladin. I am not talking about the rest of the 2014 rules, how would that even work, have one set of rules for the party and another set of rules for the one paladin player?

Just to be clear (because sometimes I'm not), I was talking about the class as a whole unit, not individual pieces.

so was I, not about all of 2014

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?

I just mean the whole 2014 paladin, no picking and choosing of smite or some other bits and pieces

 

[Vael]

I'm a fan of having more variety.

Spell slots are fine.

8 classes using slots gets a little boring.

This is fair, I just don't see the point in reinventing a wheel just because.

But I also think this is something that is better for a PH2 sorta thing. Give me more exotic classes and I'd be annoyed if they were also spellcasters. Summoners, wouldn't necessarily give them spell slots. Warlords, martial class, give them something new. Psions, yeah, probably should have power points, not spell slots.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

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.

There are options for how to simplify those pieces.

Either way, it has been changed.

My initial proposal for the points was to say that there are/were options for fixing the parts of Smite that could take inspiration from non-wizards.

This is fair, I just don't see the point in reinventing a wheel just because.

But I also think this is something that is better for a PH2 sorta thing. Give me more exotic classes and I'd be annoyed if they were also spellcasters. Summoners, wouldn't necessarily give them spell slots. Warlords, martial class, give them something new. Psions, yeah, probably should have power points, not spell slots.

Allegedly, the wheel was broken.

I proposed alternative ways of fixing it than the one 5e24 went with. I believe my proposals could have made the necessary changes without introducing ideas that appear to have gone against the grain of what paladin players wanted.

 

[Vael]

Allegedly, the wheel was broken.

I proposed alternative ways of fixing it than the one 5e24 went with. I believe my proposals could have made the necessary changes without introducing ideas that appear to have gone against the grain of what paladin players wanted.

Oh, all this work because some crankiness over Divine Smite becoming a spell? Yeah, back to my initial comment, the juice is definitely not worth the squeeze. I don't even agree that the wheel is broken.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 did they used to make other rpgs? Why do other companies? Why do big companies make more than one product at all? Is that just a business error?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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...

So the TTRPG industry is fundamentally different from other industries?

 

[Maxperson]

That representation could also be in a setting specific guide. That is one thing I wish WOTC did more as given more mechanical weight to different settings.

Yes!

Dark Sun wasn't fun just because it was post apocalyptic. It was fun because it added new mechanics that supported the theme.

Birthright wasn't fun just because of its theme, but also because the bloodline mechanic supported that theme.

WotC is stuck in the rut of putting out kitchen sink settings that only vary thematically. Greek vs. Ships in Space vs. Magic School, with nothing to support those settings mechanically.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Because you are removing the entirety of paladin casting and instead implementing a new system meant to replicate casting but only for smites?

I know the meme is that paladins don't cast spells, but they actually have a lot of good spells AND subclass spell lists, all of which would need to be removed and all of that extra power would need to go somewhere. You'd be making a fundamentally new class which would not work with any previous Oath Subclasses at all.

All to prevent Divine Smite from being made into a spell, which was a simple fix to the balance issue of the smite spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

And you can use a 2014 character with the 2024 rules, without needing to make any adaptations or modifications. So it is backwards compatible, like they said.

My PS2 was backwards compatible and played PS1 games. Going "but all PS2 games looked better and had better gameplay than PS1 games so it wasn't really a choice because no one would play those older games" is completely beside the point. You could do it.

If people are crying foul that they can't use the 2014 rules because they don't want to use the 2014 rules, then they are not arguing in good faith that WoTC was not clear. WoTC was clear.

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.

Sure they are allowed, and my uncle is allowed to believe that they put tracking chips in dollar bills that cause them to be shredded so people can't collect wealth outside of the bank system. That doesn't make them correct. That doesn't mean that they are not going to get called out for misrepresenting what was promised.

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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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 agree with this approach.

Now, if some DM said they wanted to allow that, well, I don't think the game would collapse into a singularity if they did. But if you want the new rules, you are taking the new paladin as a package deal, until I am convinced that it is underpowered compared to the other martials. Convince me of that, and I will consider making all of the smite spells non-action spells.

But out of the gate? Nope. I plan on pressuring them to do one or the other, because a lot of people are reacting emotionally, not seeing the larger picture of Paladin power.