D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Minigiant]

I feel we are pretty much here already

I feel the same too but I'm no publisher to state facts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm curious about your actual stance as a DM in these situations. Do you ever deny player wishes? Or do you allow everything they ask for?

And of course the paladin got compensation. The new paladin has better spellcasting, Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands, Auras, and other refined attack boons that stack on top of smites. At a certain level it is a freaking pet class where their mount can fight. That's not nuthin'.

This wouldn't be an issue for me. I'm not hung up on specific mechanics unless a) they don't make logical sense to me, or b) they become a real problem at the table. So if someone wants to play some particular version of anything, I'm cool with it so long as it doesn't fall into one of my categories.

Besides, this isn't really about me. I'm curious about the principle involved.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

This wouldn't be an issue for me. I'm not hung up on specific mechanics unless a) they don't make logical sense to me, or b) they become a real problem at the table. So if someone wants to play some particular version of anything, I'm cool with it so long as it doesn't fall into one of my categories.

Besides, this isn't really about me. I'm curious about the principle involved.

Understood. I don't think I would go hard to paint to criticize something that I myself would do.

For instance, I would not allow the 2014 paladin smite rules, or the 2014 druid wildshape rules at my 2024 table. Because I realized their imbalance for my table. I'd still consider other 2014 builds, or A5E builds, for that matter, if we can make them fit.

I already have an in-game story reason how they can all fit at the table.

There are "old-school"/early era techniques and powers (2014 rules), and there are modern, refined techniques that have been cultivated and embraced by the "next generation" of adventurers (2024 rules). They are different, sure, but both valid (unless I restrict something based on my own perception of power level).

For instance, at my 2024 table, I'd allow an "old-school" 2014 fighter play alongside a "next-gen" 2024 fighter, play alongside a regionally different A5E fighter, but they are not the same "class" and are not interchangeable. Pick one and stick with it. We'd still use the rules definitions in the 2024 rules mechanics, though, like exhaustion and surprise, and the like.

 

[pemerton]

I never said it was a general issue. I said that people who have a problem with it have a legit grievance.

With whom? About what?

This makes no sense.

 

[pemerton]

Fair enough. That might make it a real choice. But preferring the 2014 version and resenting being pushed to lose it is a legitimate gripe.

Legitimate in what sense? Against whom?

WotC is a commercial publisher - they can publish what they like! (Within the limits of the law and good taste.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Legitimate in what sense? Against whom?

WotC is a commercial publisher - they can publish what they like! (Within the limits of the law and good taste.)

Emotionally legitimate. And against a table insisting on using the 2024 rules for your paladin when you preferred the 2014 version. Also against the idea that the errataed version of something (I hate that term, it implies the previous version was a mistake) is inherently superior and should always be used.

 

[mellored]

Emotionally legitimate. And against a table insisting on using the 2024 rules for your paladin when you preferred the 2014 version. Also against the idea that the errataed version of something (I hate that term, it implies the previous version was a mistake) is inherently superior and should always be used.

Is it emotionally legitimate for me to bring my own homebrew class to a table, even if the other player at the table think it's overpowered?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it emotionally legitimate for me to bring my own homebrew class to a table, even if the other player at the table think it's overpowered?

Yes, but that doesn't mean you're going to get your way. There are other considerations.

 

[pemerton]

Emotionally legitimate. And against a table insisting on using the 2024 rules for your paladin when you preferred the 2014 version. Also against the idea that the errataed version of something (I hate that term, it implies the previous version was a mistake) is inherently superior and should always be used.

Why "inherent"? I don't see what that is adding.

But game balance has a technical as well as an aesthetic aspect to it, and I think it's possible to make technical improvements. I've quite often seen it suggested that paladins with their divine smites are overpowered, at least in the damage-dealing department, so a re-write that re-balances them seems reasonable on the face of it.

So, setting aside the "inherent", it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the re-balanced version is superior. And WotC clearly are allowed to publish that if they like!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why "inherent"? I don't see what that is adding.

But game balance has a technical as well as an aesthetic aspect to it, and I think it's possible to make technical improvements. I've quite often seen it suggested that paladins with their divine smites are overpowered, at least in the damage-dealing department, so a re-write that re-balances them seems reasonable on the face of it.

So, setting aside the "inherent", it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the re-balanced version is superior. And WotC clearly are allowed to publish that if they like!

There is a prevailing attitude that, when an official change is made to a rules widget, the assumption is that the new version is always better and should be used. My feeling is simply that new and better are not necessarily the same.

You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that, but IME this is how a lot of people think.