D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Ruin Explorer]

Seems really clear to me, what questions do you have?

Specifically - can you pick 2014 versions of Feats if the 2024 version exists? What about if you're a 2014 character in all other regards? Most 2024 Feats seem to be upgrades but not all.

Also back on the "massive buffs" I'm looking through the UA in case I'd gone crazy, and no I hadn't. The "massive buffs" don't exist.

Those people saying they'd "never use Divine Smite again" are bad at detail and understanding how spells work. Literally all the other Smites do less damage than Divine Smite (drastically less in many cases) and many of them require a higher minimum spell level.

For example, Blinding Smite is one of the better ones, but it's a 3rd level - so what, you're never going to use L1 and L2 spell slots to smite again? Or only use stuff like Shining Smite? LOL. It also does 3d8 damage where a Divine Smite of the same spell level does 5d8 damage. At least Blinding Smite doesn't allow a save until AFTER the effect is applied, but a lot of them drop down a ton of damage AND allow an immediate save.

On top of all this - these just shouldn't be spells - they're basically exactly the same thing as the Rogue getting the ability to add riders to Sneak Attack, at the cost of damage. None of these actually warrant being a spell! It was the wrong direction to go. It's flim-flam. These shouldn't be spells. Looking at them in detail only weakens the case for them being spells.

And if you also nerf the other thing on top of that, then it is even more of a buff, isn't it?

Literally the only logical answer is "no". Amazing. You're talking about a misguided perception, rather than actuality.

 

[Parmandur]

Specifically - can you pick 2014 versions of Feats if the 2024 version exists? What about if you're a 2014 character in all other regards? Most 2024 Feats seem to be upgrades but not all.

The party line seems to be to only allow replacements where they exist, but I doubt the game will explode ina black hole chain reaction if a DM allowed the older ones.

But I think this is rather aimed at all the Feats released recently: since December 2022, WotC has released 4 books that have 1 or more Feats, that will almost certainly not be in the PHB (Shadow of the Drafon Queen, Bigby's Glory of the Giants, Planescape and the Book of Many Things).

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

LOL this isn't a good argument. It's still blandification and I'm pretty sure you actually know it is.

"Blandification" is subjective criticism and opinion, not objective, and telling someone that they have to know your subjective opinion is right, is wrong (meaning inaccurate, not evil).

Your entire premise is missing its target with me, but I do appreciate that you are clear in your preferences.

I like neat and tidy design that makes sense between similar rules objects, like classes. Despite having a baseline of spells as a resource reference for magical powers that seem spell-like (casting times, durations, targets, areas, etc.), there are many ways the classes and subclasses differ from each other that make them interesting to me. (I recognize too, that "interesting" is subjective.) I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel so that more classes rely on new spell-similar subsystems instead of spells, just so they don't count as spells.

Yes, they could have completely overhauled even more of the game (like building a smite subsystem) if they weren't tethered to the many backwards-compatibility ideas they had to keep, like every existing PH spell had to exist in the 2024 book. As long as the advanced paladin smite spells have to exist in the new PH (even if altered), it makes sense that the divine smite ability was a spell too.

 

[Chaosmancer]

LOL this isn't a good argument. It's still blandification and I'm pretty sure you actually know it is.

As for these "massive buffs", have we got some actual details on what those buffs are, specifically? I'd be interested to know. Or is this the truly dreadful "Nerfing X is buffing Y" argument? Surely not?

EDIT - I mean you definitely could buff the other Smite spells so much that this was overall either parity or a buff to Paladins, or at least serious situational buff, like they had so much flexibility that whilst they couldn't hit as hard, they could apply some really vicious effects reliably. But that is definitely not how the Smite spells work currently, and also they weren't that good in the UA either (no "massive buffs" to the Smite spells there). So presumably you know something we don't?

Searing Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, the flames can no longer be doused by an ally or by jumping into water.

Thunderous Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots

Wrathful Smite --> Concentration removed but frightened still lasts a minute, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, damage changed to necrotic [potentially a sidegrade but gives paladins more damage types], can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots

Branding Smite --> Need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, now gives advantage to every attack against the target as long as you hold concentration, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots

Blinding Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, removed the initial save so now a target hit by this is guaranteed to be blinded until the end of their next turn at a minimum, can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots

Staggering Smite --> Concentration removed, need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes, condition changed to the stunned condition preventing all enemy actions on a failed save and granting advantage to all attacks against them until the end of your next turn. can now be upcast to increase the damage by using higher level spell slots

Banishing Smite --> Need to pre-cast it removed, can now be used with unarmed strikes. Potential nerf following similar lines to banishment, in requiring a save on top of reducing the enemy to less than 50 hp.

/////

So, even if you discount Banishing Smite, and call the changes to Thunderous as being minor, this is still an impressive list of buffs. Searing no longer can be snuffed out, Branding grants advantage to all allies, Blinding is a no save blind effect for at least one turn, staggering is a full on stun, wrathful no longer requires concentration on the fear effect. These are all REALLY GOOD changes

Edit: Missed that searing smite also reversed the order, it is now damage THEN the save, rather than save then the damage

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is a screenrant interview with Jerwmy Crawford that confirms that some ranger spells lost concentration.
So yes, the ranger will probably be very fine.

That article annoyed me, because it didn't go into ANY detail on even one spell that lost concentration, so I feel like it didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

 

[Charlaquin]

Specifically - can you pick 2014 versions of Feats if the 2024 version exists?

No

What about if you're a 2014 character in all other regards?

Well, given that the 2024 versions of things are supposed to replace the 2014 versions, and artificer is the only class without a 2024 version yet, you’d need to be playing an Artificer to have a fully 2014 character in a 2024 game. Assuming you are doing so though, and assuming the 2024 rules are in place, any feats you take that appear in the 2024 books, you would use the 2024 rules for.

Basically, think of it like a massive errata. You use the most recently printed version of any options you want to take for your character, unless your group is agreeing to use an earlier version of the rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Specifically - can you pick 2014 versions of Feats if the 2024 version exists? What about if you're a 2014 character in all other regards? Most 2024 Feats seem to be upgrades but not all.

The official answer is no. You cannot use the 2014 Great Weapon Master feat, because the Great Weapon Master feat was reprinted in the 2024 book, and you should use the new updated version instead.

He was then pressed on "but can you do it anyways?" and he said "Sure, you can, but we don't recommend it"

Which, seems like the obvious answer to me. If they changed something, they want you to use the changed version, that is the official stance of RAI.

Also back on the "massive buffs" I'm looking through the UA in case I'd gone crazy, and no I hadn't. The "massive buffs" don't exist.

Those people saying they'd "never use Divine Smite again" are bad at detail and understanding how spells work. Literally all the other Smites do less damage than Divine Smite (drastically less in many cases) and many of them require a higher minimum spell level.

For example, Blinding Smite is one of the better ones, but it's a 3rd level - so what, you're never going to use L1 and L2 spell slots to smite again? Or only use stuff like Shining Smite? LOL. It also does 3d8 damage where a Divine Smite of the same spell level does 5d8 damage. At least Blinding Smite doesn't allow a save until AFTER the effect is applied, but a lot of them drop down a ton of damage AND allow an immediate save.

On top of all this - these just shouldn't be spells - they're basically exactly the same thing as the Rogue getting the ability to add riders to Sneak Attack, at the cost of damage. None of these actually warrant being a spell! It was the wrong direction to go. It's flim-flam. These shouldn't be spells. Looking at them in detail only weakens the case for them being spells.


Literally the only logical answer is "no". Amazing. You're talking about a misguided perception, rather than actuality.

Damage isn't the only thing people care about. If I hit an invisible enemy, and I can choose to deal either 13.5 damage or 7 damage, remove their invisibility AND grant advantage on every attack against them for 1 minute.... then Glimmering Smite (formerly branding smite) is a no-brainer for me. I'm literally taking my allies from disadvantage on all attacks to advantage on all attacks and removing advantage from all enemy attacks. That is BEYOND worth 7 damage. I can't even see a coherent argument that 7 damage is better unless that damage explicitly is guaranteed to kill that enemy.

Searing Smite is a level 1 spell, and it is guaranteed to do a staggered 2d6 compared to Divine Smite's 2d8 at level 1. That is a difference of 2 points of damage, but ALSO if you are hitting say a spellcaster with concentration then doing a d6 then another d6 is actually proccing TWO concentration saves instead of one. Additionally, a single failed save brings them to 3d6 damage, which is more damage that Divine Smites 2d8.

You mention blinding smite does 2d8 less damage, which is 9 damage. However, it also gives disadvantage to every attack from that enemy, prevents the vast majority of spellcasting from that opponent, and grants advantage to every single attack on that enemy. No save, no concentration. 3rd level spell from the Paladin means we are at 9th level, take a Barbarian partner who can now use Brutal Strike without needing to Reckless attack, adding 1d10 and throwing the enemy back and knocking them prone.

Yes, if you are only looking at pure damage, Divine Smite still does more damage in a single spike than most of the other options. But only looking at pure damage is a poor way to look at these effects.

 

[Nikosandros]

I can answer them on Sage Advice btw - either burn it to the ground and pretend it never happened, don't do it in future, or actually expend real effort on properly considering and answering questions with more than one person being involved in answering each and more reasoning being given for their answers. Pick a lane. Giving half-arsed, frankly obviously flippant answers which often make problems worse, and rules messier, is just not helpful, and that was an awful lot of the previous Sage Advice answers.

100% agree with you on this one. I could never understand what the deal was with sage advice. Some of the answers (i.e. Re: magical shields) were super-weird and bad.

 

[dave2008]

Specifically - can you pick 2014 versions of Feats if the 2024 version exists?

I believe they answered that in all three of the interviews watch. If a 2024 version exists, that is the version you use. Jeremy was pretty clear about that.

 

[Corinnguard]

This assumption that they're not pleasing anyone is false. Many are happy with the direction of this half-edition.

Are you sure? We are talking about WoTC after all. I wasn't talking about the half-edition itself.

That line of argumentation is going back to: I don't like it therefore noone likes it. A bit egocentrical for my tastes.

You're assuming that I don't like it in its' entirety. I have seen and heard bits of what it is going to be like on EN World here and on YouTube. I like some of the changes, but not all of them. I am also quite aware that a number of people on this thread likewise have expressed their share of likes and dislikes about this half-edition. No RPG system is perfect.