D&D 5E (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[mamba]

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.

it certainly is the intent, that is why the change was made. Whether they succeed is in the eye of the beholder

 

[Argyle King]

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.

It's not any more work than what was already being done.

There were other possible ways for making changes that were still within the 5e framework.

The viewpoint that anything outside of giving a class more spell slots and more vancian-esque casting means some massive undertaking is a viewpoint that I do not share.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

I don't feel that accurately reflects what I've said. But I understand that you don't like a paladin moving further away from being a typical caster.

The "extra power would need to go somewhere..." No, because that had been addressed in previous comments. Still, you don't like it, so okay.

As for the balance issue, most of the issue was that the paladin didn't have a limit to stacking damage like other 5e classes do. If that was the only issue, there was no reason to change paladin at all; just errata how often Divine Smite could be used.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't feel that accurately reflects what I've said. But I understand that you don't like a paladin moving further away from being a typical caster.

It isn't a matter of liking it or not. It is a matter of the compatibility and the power of the class as a whole. Just as yet another example, currently Paladins work with the multi-classing rules, with their spellcasting and smites operating under that system. Making a piety point system that works like the 4 elements monk (which as a system was largely panned for how bad it was) would throw that completely off and need to be addressed.

The "extra power would need to go somewhere..." No, because that had been addressed in previous comments. Still, you don't like it, so okay.

Even if kept a small list of spells, you are now casting without casting. Creating all of these potential problems, and limiting the number of spells paladins can even possibly know.... and again the sole benefit seems to be "keep Divine Smite from being a spell". Which is just not worth that amount of effort, especially when the designers already considered it to effectively be a spell.

As for the balance issue, most of the issue was that the paladin didn't have a limit to stacking damage like other 5e classes do. If that was the only issue, there was no reason to change paladin at all; just errata how often Divine Smite could be used.

That was not the only issue. It has been stated repeatedly, on this thread and in the interviews with the designers, that they ALSO wanted to bring Divine Smite in line with the other Smite Spells. It was not only the stacking of damage on multiple attacks, it was also that Divine Smite costing no action type made all the smite spells that cost a bonus action far too weak. It was also that Divine Smite technically not being a spell meant it could be used on the same turn a paladin or a sorceadin used a bonus action spell, while the smite spells couldn't be used that way. It may have even been an issue that Divine Smite couldn't be counter spelled and could be used in an anti-magic field, while the other smite spells could not.

As long as Divine Smite worked completely differently than the other smites, they could not be effectively balanced against each other. And that made those other spells useless.

By the same token, taking a spell like Glimmering Smite which has the potential to cancel invisibility and grant advantage to every attack against the target for 1 minute with no save and making it ALSO cost no action and ALSO able to be used the same turn you quicken cast a Fireball... would likely be TOO strong.

To accomplish their three goals (keep the paladin as close to the 2014 system as possible, reduce the power of Divine Smite, as well as raise the power of the other smite spells and make them viable options compared to divine smite) they chose what seems to me to be the most effective and least disruptive option.

Could you have accomplished a similar set of balance concerns by making a piety subsystem that has the Paladin not-casting spell-like effects that are uniquely listed as non-spell options, in a mix between the 4 elements monk and the sorcerery point system? Yes, you could have. But that is not an easy conversion, or one without deep concerns for how the system functions. And the only design goal it accomplishes that the current design does not... is make paladin different for the sake of being different.

 

[Valetudo]

None of my current players have played a 5e pally. So they won't even miss the classes nova potential. I will let old subclasses but not the 2014 class. I am curious how a 2014 way of elements using 2024 class would do alongside a 5.5 for elements monk. I'm also gonna allow old races like mountain dwarf and feats like2014 gwm. Ofcourse after I actually see final product.

 

[Argyle King]

It isn't a matter of liking it or not. It is a matter of the compatibility and the power of the class as a whole. Just as yet another example, currently Paladins work with the multi-classing rules, with their spellcasting and smites operating under that system. Making a piety point system that works like the 4 elements monk (which as a system was largely panned for how bad it was) would throw that completely off and need to be addressed.



Even if kept a small list of spells, you are now casting without casting. Creating all of these potential problems, and limiting the number of spells paladins can even possibly know.... and again the sole benefit seems to be "keep Divine Smite from being a spell". Which is just not worth that amount of effort, especially when the designers already considered it to effectively be a spell.



That was not the only issue. It has been stated repeatedly, on this thread and in the interviews with the designers, that they ALSO wanted to bring Divine Smite in line with the other Smite Spells. It was not only the stacking of damage on multiple attacks, it was also that Divine Smite costing no action type made all the smite spells that cost a bonus action far too weak. It was also that Divine Smite technically not being a spell meant it could be used on the same turn a paladin or a sorceadin used a bonus action spell, while the smite spells couldn't be used that way. It may have even been an issue that Divine Smite couldn't be counter spelled and could be used in an anti-magic field, while the other smite spells could not.

As long as Divine Smite worked completely differently than the other smites, they could not be effectively balanced against each other. And that made those other spells useless.

By the same token, taking a spell like Glimmering Smite which has the potential to cancel invisibility and grant advantage to every attack against the target for 1 minute with no save and making it ALSO cost no action and ALSO able to be used the same turn you quicken cast a Fireball... would likely be TOO strong.

To accomplish their three goals (keep the paladin as close to the 2014 system as possible, reduce the power of Divine Smite, as well as raise the power of the other smite spells and make them viable options compared to divine smite) they chose what seems to me to be the most effective and least disruptive option.

Could you have accomplished a similar set of balance concerns by making a piety subsystem that has the Paladin not-casting spell-like effects that are uniquely listed as non-spell options, in a mix between the 4 elements monk and the sorcerery point system? Yes, you could have. But that is not an easy conversion, or one without deep concerns for how the system functions. And the only design goal it accomplishes that the current design does not... is make paladin different for the sake of being different.

Fair points, but virtually everything you've mentioned could be addressed with very little work.

How does it work with multiclassing? No change. It would count as 1/3 of a class for determining how many spell slots it counts toward when multiclassing.

Figuring out how something like Glimmering Smite might work isn't much different than figuring out where it fits within spellcasting. The action cost is that it has to be used with an attack; in theory it is limited by availability of points, attack range, and having a smaller list of Smite modifications (similar to a warlock adding things to Eldritch Blast).

I would agree that the smite spells were "useless" due to typically not being as good as Divine Smite. I disagree that the way to improve them is by making them a bigger assumed part of the paladin.

I would also agree that the 4 Elements monk has issues. Though, I would say that the concept of how it isn't work isn't necessarily bad. Instead, I would say that the issue is work how the Cicero is executed.

Again, I understand that you don't like it. I can understand that, from your point of view, there are deep concerns. That's fine. For me, I'm not seeing it as some sisyphean challenge.

 

[Oofta]

Fair points, but virtually everything you've mentioned could be addressed with very little work.

How does it work with multiclassing? No change. It would count as 1/3 of a class for determining how many spell slots it counts toward when multiclassing.

Figuring out how something like Glimmering Smite might work isn't much different than figuring out where it fits within spellcasting. The action cost is that it has to be used with an attack; in theory it is limited by availability of points, attack range, and having a smaller list of Smite modifications (similar to a warlock adding things to Eldritch Blast).

I would agree that the smite spells were "useless" due to typically not being as good as Divine Smite. I disagree that the way to improve them is by making them a bigger assumed part of the paladin.

I would also agree that the 4 Elements monk has issues. Though, I would say that the concept of how it isn't work isn't necessarily bad. Instead, I would say that the issue is work how the Cicero is executed.

Again, I understand that you don't like it. I can understand that, from your point of view, there are deep concerns. That's fine. For me, I'm not seeing it as some sisyphean challenge.

So you would just ignore the spells the paladin has? Because being able to cast things like Bless. Compelled Duel and Zone of Truth were a big part of being a paladin, not to mention some of the subclass spells like Misty Step. Take those away and for me it's no longer a paladin, it's an armored monk.

The one thing you want to "fix" - smite - is just a tiny, tiny fraction of what a paladin can do with spells.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I would add that this might not even be the prevailing thought. A huge number of players do not read the books. Algorithms within months will direct people to the new. Websites advertise the new. This also (along with thought) promotes the new in ways that make it almost inevitable people will change.

 

[mellored]

So you would just ignore the spells the paladin has?

To be fair, many paladin players ignore the spells the paladin has.

Because being able to cast things like Bless. Compelled Duel and Zone of Truth were a big part of being a paladin, not to mention some of the subclass spells like Misty Step. Take those away and for me it's no longer a paladin, it's an armored monk.

They don't have to go away. There are plenty of other ways to cast spells without slots.

Use Channel Divinity to Compel Duel.
Aura of Truth gives anyone disadvantage on deception checks.
Once per short rest you can cast bless.
Find Steed at the end of every long rest.
Misty Step cost 1 point to cast.

 

[Remathilis]

To be fair, many paladin players ignore the spells the paladin has.

They don't have to go away. There are plenty of other ways to cast spells without slots.

Use Channel Divinity to Compel Duel.
Aura of Truth gives anyone disadvantage on deception checks.
Once per short rest you can cast bless.
Find Steed at the end of every long rest.
Misty Step cost 1 point to cast.

That's just spellcasting with extra steps.