That said, I'd like to see less magic use amongst non-casters.
As got mentioned earlier in the thread, if you don't like non-caster classes having access to magic... just flavor their features as non-magical
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While the specific terms may be, they aren’t overtly setting specific the way “Purple Dragon Knight” or “Scion of the Three” are, plus Scion of the Three specifically referenced the three gods of the Zhents for its 3 modes. The core concepts behind Spellfire and Bladesinging are fairly setting agnostic- special magic fire and a wizard gish. They’re not invoking the same kind of proper names as these other two.
Just because you can file the serial numbers off of Spellfire more easily than a reference to the Dead Three, it doesn't mean there are no serial numbers there to file off. At the end of the day, setting-specific subclasses is something we'll all have to get used to, both in this product and future ones.
While the specific terms may be, they aren’t overtly setting specific the way “Purple Dragon Knight” or “Scion of the Three” are, plus Scion of the Three specifically referenced the three gods of the Zhents for its 3 modes. The core concepts behind Spellfire and Bladesinging are fairly setting agnostic- special magic fire and a wizard gish. They’re not invoking the same kind of proper names as these other two.
Just because you can file the serial numbers off of Spellfire more easily than a reference to the Dead Three, it doesn't mean there are no serial numbers there to file off. At the end of the day, setting-specific subclasses is something we'll all have to get used to, both in this product and future ones.
Fair, Spellfire takes a little more gymnastics to generalize. But it's still not doing as much obviously setting specific name-dropping.
Gish builds - builds that combine magic and swordplay - have been standard since the very early days of D&D. It is not hard to see why - the idea of wielding a sword and magic to some degree is a pretty common trait within fantasy. For much of D&D's history, Gish characters could be fairly clunky, often requiring multiclassing and careful design to optimize. That led to a popular archetype being somewhat mechanically difficult, particularly for new players. 3e brought in variant classes to help solve this problem, while 4e simply created a large list of classes that, frankly, got a little unwieldy and often struggled with balance.
The idea that, within the game, "Martials should not understand, nor want to understand, magic" is nothing short of out of touch with some 50 years of real gameplay--martial builds have been dipping into magic since the very, very early days of the game. To do so required busywork, but that does not mean it was not done.
5e simply made that easier by simplifying design and giving options to Gish anything, depending on the flavor you want, balancing how far into magic you want to go, without the design process getting messy. For example, if you want to feel like a magic user who happens to use a blade, Bladesinging provides that. If you want to be mostly martial, with some magic, Eldritch Knight. Want to play the classic illusionist rogue? Arcane Trickster. All of that is built into the game, without having to get into the messy multiclassing of prior editions. And, if none of that is your cup of tea? You don't have to play it. That is why there are options.
Now, sure, some people do not like having all those options. There do exist timid DMs get scared of too many options or those who wish to eliminate options for purposes of gatekeeping or recreating the fictitious version of the game that exists in their head. Personally, I am glad Wizards is learning from the mistakes and complexities of their past and making the game more accessible. As someone who has lived through the messy character creation of prior editions and seen it prove difficult for more casual players, I would much rather have a system that makes it easy to play the character you actually want to play, instead of the character game designers and apprehensive DMs want you to play.
So folks at GenCon have shown a preview of a Banneret Fighter, replacing the Purple Dragon Knight from an earlier UA. This preview shows third-level features, and I'm going to be frank, all of them highlight how terrible WotC's modern design philosophy is.
To go through each aspect of the revealed features one by one...
Knightly Envoy gives you three sub-features. The very first sub-feature? You can cast comprehend languages as a ritual. A Fighter subclass, with no innate magical nature, and the very first feature is a spell.
The second sub-feature lets you learn one language. But at the end of a long rest, you can change that to another language you've heard or seen in the past 24 hours. You gain the ability to both instantly learn languages from potentially nothing more than a single word, and to instantly forget a learned language at the drop of a hat.
The third sub-feature gives you one proficiency. It's dull, especially when the comparable 2014 feature gave expertise in Persuasion.
The Banneret can still heal allies when using Second Wind. It's still limited to once per short/long rest, its range is halved compared to its 2014 version. But the biggest problem is how it functions. The 2014 version described the feature as inspiring your allies to fight on; as such, it requires your allies to be able to see or hear you to gain the benefit. The 2024 version has no such flavor; you just magically make people in your vicinity feel better when you use your Second Wind. Even the name screams the lack of flavor—"Rallying Cry" becomes just "Group Healing".
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
You really can't be surprised, can you? The braintrust running wotc canned, what, the top 3 designers over a period of 3 years, starting with Mearls. And yes, the last two guys did not "retire", only to show up at a competitor 2 months later.
Umm, they objectively did not fire the two guys, unless you have some heretofore unseen and verifiable evidence to the contrary you'd like to produce. And no, "they went from working development for the biggest TTRPG in the industry to working development for an indie project" isn't evidence of anything. My boss literally retired this past December, except about all that means is now he's a consultant for our company rather than the boss of our branch. For some people retirement is just finding a less active role in the industry they've spend their life in.
So folks at GenCon have shown a preview of a Banneret Fighter, replacing the Purple Dragon Knight from an earlier UA. This preview shows third-level features, and I'm going to be frank, all of them highlight how terrible WotC's modern design philosophy is.
To go through each aspect of the revealed features one by one...
Knightly Envoy gives you three sub-features. The very first sub-feature? You can cast comprehend languages as a ritual. A Fighter subclass, with no innate magical nature, and the very first feature is a spell.
The second sub-feature lets you learn one language. But at the end of a long rest, you can change that to another language you've heard or seen in the past 24 hours. You gain the ability to both instantly learn languages from potentially nothing more than a single word, and to instantly forget a learned language at the drop of a hat.
The third sub-feature gives you one proficiency. It's dull, especially when the comparable 2014 feature gave expertise in Persuasion.
The Banneret can still heal allies when using Second Wind. It's still limited to once per short/long rest, its range is halved compared to its 2014 version. But the biggest problem is how it functions. The 2014 version described the feature as inspiring your allies to fight on; as such, it requires your allies to be able to see or hear you to gain the benefit. The 2024 version has no such flavor; you just magically make people in your vicinity feel better when you use your Second Wind. Even the name screams the lack of flavor—"Rallying Cry" becomes just "Group Healing".
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
You really can't be surprised, can you? The braintrust running wotc canned, what, the top 3 designers over a period of 3 years, starting with Mearls. And yes, the last two guys did not "retire", only to show up at a competitor 2 months later.
By their own words, they retired from WotC/D&D, not from TTRPGs. Remember that generally speaking there are four ways you leave a job; fired, retired, resigned, and made redundant. Only one of those doesn't have negative connotations, so it's normal for people to use "retired" to mean they left a long term job on good terms. So put down the tin foil for a moment, aluminium fedoras aren't in this season.
Perkins and Crawford quit their jobs at Wizards of the Coast either because they had found employment with another employer or they intended to do so.
Working people do that every day. There needn't be anything nefarious about it; people like change.
They both obviously enjoyed their tenure at Wizards of the Coast and have nothing but good things to say about the game.
'resign' is not a scary word. And it is a far more accurate one than 'retire' in this context. A word that for most—and in most if not all dictionaries too, I should imagine—means to leave your job and to cease work indefinitely. At least it does when its usage is in this context. That of work.
I love my current job but if I were to find employment with another institution what I would then be writing is what we call a letter of resignation. Don't shudder at the sight of it! It's really not that scary.
There are those who sport tin foil hats. And then there are those who sport some other garment that indicates such a morbid sense of devotion to something that anything that might even dare to allude to its not being perfect inspires in them insecurities—and, what's worse, the will to deceive.
Both of these garments look ridiculous. So do those who wear them.
Perkins and Crawford quit their jobs at Wizards of the Coast either because they had found employment with another employer or they intended to do so.
Working people do that every day. There needn't be anything nefarious about it; people like change.
They both obviously enjoyed their tenure at Wizards of the Coast and have nothing but good things to say about the game.
'resign' is not a scary word. And it is a far more accurate one than 'retire' in this context. A word that for most—and in most if not all dictionaries too, I should imagine—means to leave your job and to cease work indefinitely. At least it does when its usage is in this context. That of work.
I love my current job but if I were to find employment with another institution what I would then be writing is what we call a letter of resignation. Don't shudder at the sight of it! It's really not that scary.
There are those who sport tin foil hats. And then there are those who sport some other garment that indicates such a morbid sense of devotion to something that anything that might even dare to allude to its not being perfect inspires in them insecurities—and, what's worse, the will to deceive.
Both of these garments look ridiculous. So do those who wear them.
I said negative connotations, nothing about words being "scary". Resign/resignation does have a negative connotation because there's a general association of resigning because something is wrong/bad about your current job. Yes, in equal measures, "retire" is often treated as synonymous with "retirement". But generally speaking it means to stop doing something once you've done it "long enough".
My point was of those four words, retire has the least amount of negative connotations which is why one might choose that term, especially after a particularly long period of employment.
There is nothing negative about that. Just because some people quit their jobs because of a lack of satisfaction doesn't mean the word is now most commonly associated with their experience.
Most people who simply resign from a job do so because they have a better offer somewhere else or they want a change or they are moving.
retire:
leave one's job and cease to work, typically on reaching the normal age for leaving service.
That word is rarely if ever used to describe when someone is simply leaving one job for another. It is misleading to call what they have done 'retiring.'
Do you think the communications between them and the human resources team never involved letters of resignation? Because the word has negative connotations?
Who cares if the word might suffer from a negative connotation in contexts in which the employee was unhappy?
Do you make a habit of avoiding the use of every word in the English language that might do so or is it just to temper the sorts of insecurities I alluded to?
Your hat is just as silly as that tin foil fedora.
That is what I was getting at when I said you feared the use of the word. You are afraid the use of the word—despite its being the more accurate word for what happened—might have some people thinking they mustn't have been happy working at Wizards.
They have communicated quite clearly they didn't leave on bad terms. So what are you afraid of?
Not to derail this thread any further, but they made an entire TV show about the negative connotations of resigning from your job
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So folks at GenCon have shown a preview of a Banneret Fighter, replacing the Purple Dragon Knight from an earlier UA. This preview shows third-level features, and I'm going to be frank, all of them highlight how terrible WotC's modern design philosophy is.
To go through each aspect of the revealed features one by one...
Knightly Envoy gives you three sub-features. The very first sub-feature? You can cast comprehend languages as a ritual. A Fighter subclass, with no innate magical nature, and the very first feature is a spell.
The second sub-feature lets you learn one language. But at the end of a long rest, you can change that to another language you've heard or seen in the past 24 hours. You gain the ability to both instantly learn languages from potentially nothing more than a single word, and to instantly forget a learned language at the drop of a hat.
The third sub-feature gives you one proficiency. It's dull, especially when the comparable 2014 feature gave expertise in Persuasion.
The Banneret can still heal allies when using Second Wind. It's still limited to once per short/long rest, its range is halved compared to its 2014 version. But the biggest problem is how it functions. The 2014 version described the feature as inspiring your allies to fight on; as such, it requires your allies to be able to see or hear you to gain the benefit. The 2024 version has no such flavor; you just magically make people in your vicinity feel better when you use your Second Wind. Even the name screams the lack of flavor—"Rallying Cry" becomes just "Group Healing".
These features really highlight how shallow modern subclass design is, as well as the fact that WotC can't create martial subclasses without features that either function like magic or are just magic. Instead of having a character that just learns a bunch of languages, you have to rely on spells or long-rest-swap features. The complete lack of flavor leads to everything feeling like "[x] magically happens". All on a Fighter subclass, the class that should be the easiest to design a subclass without magical features for.
You really can't be surprised, can you? The braintrust running wotc canned, what, the top 3 designers over a period of 3 years, starting with Mearls. And yes, the last two guys did not "retire", only to show up at a competitor 2 months later.
I have redesigned and streamlined the Fighter class in my game. There are not all these ridiculous sub-classes oozing with magic. There are now 3 sub-classes. Battlemaster is the main one, by merging the best of the Champion sub-class with the BM sub-class. Paladins and Rangers go back where they belong, as sub-classes of Fighter, with vastly nerfed magical powers. But true Fighters are not supposed to cast spells. It is as simple as that.
Martials should not understand, nor want to understand, magic.
But if paladins and rangers are fighter subclasses, then they can't have subclasses, and they can't have as many unique features. That really doesn't sound very fun.
Some DM's are not timid, but can see what the essence of the game really is, and curtail so many classes and subclasses that are redundant, and in most cases, OP. If a player wants to play a sword wielding magic user, or a magic using fighter, that player can play a Hexblade. And not MC with 2 or 3 levels of Hexblade, but stay in that class exclusively. A game that is stripped down to a much smaller set of classes and subclasses is far easier for "casual" players to learn.
With the current rules, there are quite literally thousands of race/class/subclass combos out there. (actually, likely an order of magnitude more than that). A player's PC could die every session, and a player could never possibly play every combo. That is a ridiculous situation.
With the current rules, there are quite literally thousands of race/class/subclass combos out there. (actually, likely an order of magnitude more than that). A player's PC could die every session, and a player could never possibly play every combo. That is a ridiculous situation.
With just the 24 PHB, 480. (More if you count subspecies)
If you want the full plethora of the 14 rules, last I looked, there were about 60 species. If you assume a dozen subclasses per class, you get 144, call it 150, for a total of 9000. So, while it may be above 9000*, it's certainly not an order of magnitude more.
But so what? Options are a toolbox. You don't have that set of a gazillion screwdriver heads because you want to use them all. You have it so that when you need a 4mm Robertson, you don't have to shove a flathead bit in and hope. Most GMs don't use anything like all those species -- they pick the ones that fit their world. Most players come up with a concept first, and then look for a class/subclass that more-or-less fits.
And all of this is getting well off-topic. WotC aren't even making another magical subclass of fighter, whatever one thinks of the idea. They're using existing mechanics to implement "familiar with a lot of languages". In D&D's highly-abstracted language system, doing it the way they are is probably good enough. It's too much of a ribbon feature to be worth giving it more complex rules. If you're playing in a game where languages matter, you'll probably want to tinker with the Banneret. For the rest of us, it'll be fine.
* No, I did not choose my estimates to make that happen.
But if paladins and rangers are fighter subclasses, then they can't have subclasses, and they can't have as many unique features. That really doesn't sound very fun.
JustAFarmer is of the opinion that the original AD&D was The Best D&D, and their opinions must be filtered through this lens.
Some DM's are not timid, but can see what the essence of the game really is, and curtail so many classes and subclasses that are redundant, and in most cases, OP. If a player wants to play a sword wielding magic user, or a magic using fighter, that player can play a Hexblade.
Sure, someone who wants a sword-wielding magic user can play a Hexblade. They can also play an Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger or Valor Bard.
If your group doesn't like multiclassing, or having multiple gish options in the game, that's exactly what houserules are for - to curate your own table's sense of fun without dictating what that should be for others.
Except, again, two of them weren’t; they retired from WotC after long careers. If you don’t like the current direction that’s your prerogative, but kindly stop pushing objectively false narratives in the process.
You are correct about my opinion of post tashas. But that does not change the fact the top 3 guys were axed. It just means the bar was pretty low.
Given that the 2024 edition was done while they were running things, and the banneret was not, it should be evident that any problems that are general to 2024 (rather than specific to that one subclass) are based on decisions made some time back and merely not changed after they left, and thus them leaving is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As got mentioned earlier in the thread, if you don't like non-caster classes having access to magic... just flavor their features as non-magical
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think it would take a little more tinkering than that in some cases - but it's a fair suggestion.
Just because you can file the serial numbers off of Spellfire more easily than a reference to the Dead Three, it doesn't mean there are no serial numbers there to file off. At the end of the day, setting-specific subclasses is something we'll all have to get used to, both in this product and future ones.
Fair, Spellfire takes a little more gymnastics to generalize. But it's still not doing as much obviously setting specific name-dropping.
Gish builds - builds that combine magic and swordplay - have been standard since the very early days of D&D. It is not hard to see why - the idea of wielding a sword and magic to some degree is a pretty common trait within fantasy. For much of D&D's history, Gish characters could be fairly clunky, often requiring multiclassing and careful design to optimize. That led to a popular archetype being somewhat mechanically difficult, particularly for new players. 3e brought in variant classes to help solve this problem, while 4e simply created a large list of classes that, frankly, got a little unwieldy and often struggled with balance.
The idea that, within the game, "Martials should not understand, nor want to understand, magic" is nothing short of out of touch with some 50 years of real gameplay--martial builds have been dipping into magic since the very, very early days of the game. To do so required busywork, but that does not mean it was not done.
5e simply made that easier by simplifying design and giving options to Gish anything, depending on the flavor you want, balancing how far into magic you want to go, without the design process getting messy. For example, if you want to feel like a magic user who happens to use a blade, Bladesinging provides that. If you want to be mostly martial, with some magic, Eldritch Knight. Want to play the classic illusionist rogue? Arcane Trickster. All of that is built into the game, without having to get into the messy multiclassing of prior editions. And, if none of that is your cup of tea? You don't have to play it. That is why there are options.
Now, sure, some people do not like having all those options. There do exist timid DMs get scared of too many options or those who wish to eliminate options for purposes of gatekeeping or recreating the fictitious version of the game that exists in their head. Personally, I am glad Wizards is learning from the mistakes and complexities of their past and making the game more accessible. As someone who has lived through the messy character creation of prior editions and seen it prove difficult for more casual players, I would much rather have a system that makes it easy to play the character you actually want to play, instead of the character game designers and apprehensive DMs want you to play.
Umm, they objectively did not fire the two guys, unless you have some heretofore unseen and verifiable evidence to the contrary you'd like to produce. And no, "they went from working development for the biggest TTRPG in the industry to working development for an indie project" isn't evidence of anything. My boss literally retired this past December, except about all that means is now he's a consultant for our company rather than the boss of our branch. For some people retirement is just finding a less active role in the industry they've spend their life in.
By their own words, they retired from WotC/D&D, not from TTRPGs. Remember that generally speaking there are four ways you leave a job; fired, retired, resigned, and made redundant. Only one of those doesn't have negative connotations, so it's normal for people to use "retired" to mean they left a long term job on good terms. So put down the tin foil for a moment, aluminium fedoras aren't in this season.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Perkins and Crawford quit their jobs at Wizards of the Coast either because they had found employment with another employer or they intended to do so.
Working people do that every day. There needn't be anything nefarious about it; people like change.
They both obviously enjoyed their tenure at Wizards of the Coast and have nothing but good things to say about the game.
'resign' is not a scary word. And it is a far more accurate one than 'retire' in this context. A word that for most—and in most if not all dictionaries too, I should imagine—means to leave your job and to cease work indefinitely. At least it does when its usage is in this context. That of work.
I love my current job but if I were to find employment with another institution what I would then be writing is what we call a letter of resignation. Don't shudder at the sight of it! It's really not that scary.
There are those who sport tin foil hats. And then there are those who sport some other garment that indicates such a morbid sense of devotion to something that anything that might even dare to allude to its not being perfect inspires in them insecurities—and, what's worse, the will to deceive.
Both of these garments look ridiculous. So do those who wear them.
I said negative connotations, nothing about words being "scary". Resign/resignation does have a negative connotation because there's a general association of resigning because something is wrong/bad about your current job. Yes, in equal measures, "retire" is often treated as synonymous with "retirement". But generally speaking it means to stop doing something once you've done it "long enough".
My point was of those four words, retire has the least amount of negative connotations which is why one might choose that term, especially after a particularly long period of employment.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
resign:
voluntarily leave a job or office.
There is nothing negative about that. Just because some people quit their jobs because of a lack of satisfaction doesn't mean the word is now most commonly associated with their experience.
Most people who simply resign from a job do so because they have a better offer somewhere else or they want a change or they are moving.
retire:
leave one's job and cease to work, typically on reaching the normal age for leaving service.
That word is rarely if ever used to describe when someone is simply leaving one job for another. It is misleading to call what they have done 'retiring.'
Do you think the communications between them and the human resources team never involved letters of resignation? Because the word has negative connotations?
Who cares if the word might suffer from a negative connotation in contexts in which the employee was unhappy?
Do you make a habit of avoiding the use of every word in the English language that might do so or is it just to temper the sorts of insecurities I alluded to?
Your hat is just as silly as that tin foil fedora.
That is what I was getting at when I said you feared the use of the word. You are afraid the use of the word—despite its being the more accurate word for what happened—might have some people thinking they mustn't have been happy working at Wizards.
They have communicated quite clearly they didn't leave on bad terms. So what are you afraid of?
Not to derail this thread any further, but they made an entire TV show about the negative connotations of resigning from your job
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
that show is terribly unrealistic. we all know gelatinous cubes aren't round
pronouns: he/she/they
Boy have we gone way off topic
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
But if paladins and rangers are fighter subclasses, then they can't have subclasses, and they can't have as many unique features. That really doesn't sound very fun.
Idk - I like Eldritch Knight a lot.
With just the 24 PHB, 480. (More if you count subspecies)
If you want the full plethora of the 14 rules, last I looked, there were about 60 species. If you assume a dozen subclasses per class, you get 144, call it 150, for a total of 9000. So, while it may be above 9000*, it's certainly not an order of magnitude more.
But so what? Options are a toolbox. You don't have that set of a gazillion screwdriver heads because you want to use them all. You have it so that when you need a 4mm Robertson, you don't have to shove a flathead bit in and hope. Most GMs don't use anything like all those species -- they pick the ones that fit their world. Most players come up with a concept first, and then look for a class/subclass that more-or-less fits.
And all of this is getting well off-topic. WotC aren't even making another magical subclass of fighter, whatever one thinks of the idea. They're using existing mechanics to implement "familiar with a lot of languages". In D&D's highly-abstracted language system, doing it the way they are is probably good enough. It's too much of a ribbon feature to be worth giving it more complex rules. If you're playing in a game where languages matter, you'll probably want to tinker with the Banneret. For the rest of us, it'll be fine.
* No, I did not choose my estimates to make that happen.
JustAFarmer is of the opinion that the original AD&D was The Best D&D, and their opinions must be filtered through this lens.
Didn't you previously say you "despised" everything from Tasha's and later?
Sure, someone who wants a sword-wielding magic user can play a Hexblade. They can also play an Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger or Valor Bard.
If your group doesn't like multiclassing, or having multiple gish options in the game, that's exactly what houserules are for - to curate your own table's sense of fun without dictating what that should be for others.
Except, again, two of them weren’t; they retired from WotC after long careers. If you don’t like the current direction that’s your prerogative, but kindly stop pushing objectively false narratives in the process.
Given that the 2024 edition was done while they were running things, and the banneret was not, it should be evident that any problems that are general to 2024 (rather than specific to that one subclass) are based on decisions made some time back and merely not changed after they left, and thus them leaving is irrelevant.