Should I switch to D&D 2024?

FINE, you caught me, Jeremy didn't kill my character, he just knocked her unconscious. But I'm still mad 😤
★ Edited by Bia
x.com/BnazF
Music from Epidemic Sound
Need music for your videos or streams? Here's my referral link: www.epidemicso...
► FIND ME ONLINE:
ginnydi.com
/ ginnydi
/ itsginnydi
/ itsginnydi
/ itsginnydi

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

I know a lot of people who own a sword, but none of them get as much actual use out of it as Ginny Di. If you’re going to own a sword, then OWN it.

[@RichWoods23]

I own a pair of swords. Does that mean that when I draw them both, I own them twice?

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

@@RichWoods23 particularly if you do so frequently in public content, then sure

[@SonsOfLorgar]

​@@purpleniumowlbear2952 what if I've hand forged a sword (badly)😅

[@illoney5663]

What if I practice historical fencing and own multiple swords for that?

[@Mitchasauraus]

​@SonsOfLorgar Then you've made it one whole sword making process more then most people ever will even think about in their life time. How long have you been working a forge for?

[@JohnnyNeedle]

I love it when she goes into journalist mode, she is both critical and fair to the person she interviews, and very sharp-minded! Just like she was when she interviewed Wizards during the OGL scandal. Two thumbs up!

[@dkamouflage]

I loved it when she said "You can play the 2014 Ranger." THANK YOU, @GinnyDi! So many people dismiss the 2014 Ranger as "objectively terrible." But the OG Ranger could do all sorts of things: it could track, it could stealth, it could cast spells...kinda. Look, the point is, some people liked "Original Recipe" Ranger. And that's okay. *#RangerVisibility**.* ...Er, *#RangerInvisibility**?* Whatever, you know what I mean.

[@masterderol]

I have to second that. Even though she's great at putting on costumes and talking to herself, she also shines at this kind of journalism!

[@falconnm]

Entertainer and influencer maybe. Journalist not so much. 1. Journalists don't edit in their own opinions and show interviews in uncut state. 2. Journalists have ethics and are not just out to get the most number of $$$/views by creating controversy.

[@BeauYarbrough]

@@falconnm Columnists who express their own opinions are absolutely journalists. Ginny fits into this tradition, with more cosplay than, say, Jimmy Breslin was known to engage in.

[@ethannaugle2294]

@@falconnm I wouldnt call her a journalist, but I do think people are right to commend her for her integrity when compared to the average youtube interview like this. But it is still youtube and isnt held to quite the same rigor and representation. Your first point is fair, but your second point, I don't see where she's creating controversy? If anything this video is trying to resolve the tension and misunderstandings while being critical of the right things as well.

[@JessicaMorgani]

Remember kids. D&D is the adventure you play with your friends, not the words in the book that they sell you.

[@GinnyDi]

This 💯 It doesn't matter what edition (or even system!) we play as long as we're having fun and feel good about what we're creating.

[@piratelego1]

D&D is the friends we made along the way

[@SamBrockmann]

While this general sentiment is true, that doesn't change the fact that, officially, D&D is what WotC/Hasbro says it is.

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

@@GinnyDi You could argue that everyone has played the game "wrong" because the rules shouldn't take precedent over good storytelling and the overall enjoyment of the players. It's important for DMs to know when to be flexible.

[@IntertwiningRoses]

Yeah but the game is crap if you completely throw away the balance and words to support rules to upkeep said balance. Fun is fun, but when only one or two are having fun then the game shouldn't be run.

[@cwaldrip]

I like Jeremy, and you of course, a bunch. But thanks for the lead-in disclaimer. Respect.

[@GinnyDi]

I like Jeremy, too! He's been super nice every time I've met him, and it is very clear to me that he's extremely passionate about D&D. I want to recognize the complexity inherent in him being a nice guy, a huge D&D lover, AND an employee of a corporation. He's not just one thing, he's lots of things!

[@MossCoveredBonez]

Agreed. As consumers we've all had to become much more aware of corporate culture in the last handful of years so to call that out from the beginning was a good move

[@adambooth7755]

Cleric not getting subclass until 3rd level now sounds so strange to me. Domain and deity are so closely linked, so we're expected to believe they are a cleric without a deity?

[@VinceValentine]

@@adambooth7755 Domain is not deity. If you look at the Forgotten Realms pantheon, most gods have more than one domain. In fact, you can play a cleric who doesn't serve any particular god, even in previous editions. Maybe a level 1-2 cleric is just an acolyte who already serves a deity or an abstract ideal, but hasn't proved themselves worthy of specializing in the domain?

[@faemerothgoblinbane]

@@GinnyDi He contains multitudes!

[@lightfighter4evr]

I've watched all the Jeremy interviews so far, I like your way of doing the intro and sidebars before/after each question and giving your impressions.

[@GinnyDi]

Thank you! I only had 15 minutes with Jeremy so I didn't want to take up that precious time by speaking, but I also didn't just want to offer up my channel as a free platform for product promo. This felt like a nice middle ground where I could allow Jeremy to voice his responses, but also make space for my own thoughts alongside them.

[@me0262]

Definitely a good way of doing it, 15 minutes is not long enough.

[@corypaine9858]

Ginny is one of the few content creators I actually trust to be honest and transparent. It comes from her proven track record of being honest and transparent, with a dash of admitting she was wrong when its appropriate. WotC still hasn't won me back but I was happy to hear Ginny's take on some of the issues with the new not-edition. Great work, keep it up.

[@corypaine9858]

P.S. I don't think many of us hold any ill will toward Crawford or Perkins; they are in a tight spot.

[@Dogman415]

Ginny is one of the few 5e creators I still follow partially because of that but I also really like the information punctuated by skits ala Philosophy Tube or Contrapoints

[@thedruski85]

​@corypaine9858 like hell they are. It's a moral imperative to stand up for what you believe in, and choosing not to makes you complicit. Crawford is the face of WotC and you cannot separate the two.

[@corypaine9858]

@thedruski85 feed your children with your pride sir

[@PeteQuad]

​@@corypaine9858many of us have lived our entire lives and fed our families while also making professional sacrifices because we didn't want to sacrifice our ethics. You are suggesting a false dichotomy - we are lucky to live in a time when there are always other jobs.

[@GoblinKoboldGaming]

In Jeremy's defense, that is a LOT of third-party and even COMPETITOR products on the shelf behind him, so at least we know he's, on a personal level, a true TTRPG fan.

[@SamBrockmann]

Or maybe someone at WotC figured that was a good set for online video interviews? I'm not saying Jeremy isn't a "true TTRPG fan" (whatever that means). I'm just saying, we don't know that for a fact. Also, being a "true TTRPG fan" isn't a skillset.

[@derktoon1]

@@SamBrockmann The fact that he has a whole row of Bibles makes me think that's his own set. No corporation would build a set with Gnostic Bibles and holy scriptures...heaven forbid.

[@andreapiccolo8199]

​@@SamBrockmannit is a skillset. Would you rather a game designer from Candy Crush make changes to a TTRPG or would you want a person who plays games in the genre...

[@SamBrockmann]

@@andreapiccolo8199 , I would rather that someone who can write code is involved in coding candy crush. Hahaha. Bad example, bro. And someone who understands TTRPG design principles designs TTRPGs. Playing a game doesn't mean you can design a game.

[@MrSeals1000]

​@@SamBrockmannYou just proved their point 😂 You'd want someone skilled in the subject to be Working on the subject. Which is literally what they said.

[@jimmyhjt]

You and Dungeon Dudes are the most positive wholesome D&D content creators and ambassadors. Would have be VERY surprised if you both weren't given a chance for an interview! Good stuff!!!!!!

[@rantdmc]

Dungeon Dudes interview with JC was put up yesterday!

[@jimmyhjt]

@@TheCharredTree You know this might come as a shock to you but you DON'T have to play this game or buy the books or watch youtube videos about this game. You can play/watch/do something else. Or if you do want to play, you can just look up the rules online for 5e or other versions or a different game. You ain't gotta buy nothing. Her and DDudes being creators that made quality content and impressed people in said company enough to get to collaborate with them is a testament to my first statement about them being positive people making good content. And as for Hasbros, corporate entertainment companies are here to MAKE MONEY. They ain't a charity organization. You're acting like the are some corrupt political establishment with this whole "mouthpiece" insult. Go take you crappy attitude somewhere else and stop pooping on what was suppose to be a nice complement for Ginny and Dungeon Dudes.

[@jimmyhjt]

​@@davidlewis5312 that's a BS argument. I never said that and you're implying I did to make it seem like your point is valid. You CAN criticize companies. My points, if you actually read what I was wrote, were 1. Ginny & DDudes are positive people that deserve to be recognized in what you & that other person are showing to be a pretty toxic community. 2. Them making quality content so much so that they got to collaborate with Wizards is a good thing. That isn't the same thing as being "bought and paid for" or "mouthpieces" like that other person said. And 3. the fact that over a decade has passed and an update to a game is going to be for sale by a company that's FOR PROFIT is not surprising. Insulting content creators for just talking to said company warrants push back to remind this person THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLAY THIS GAME.

[@Benz74M]

The question about level 1-2 features of older subclasses has been answered in another JC video on another channel: You gain them at level 3, and use the level 1-2 features of the 2024 class when playing those levels.

[@DOOMsword7]

I was gonna say that! You beat me!

[@GinnyDi]

Good to know! This interview was filmed last week, so at the time, that information wasn't available.

[@Benz74M]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4qnlJt3iLNrppofeature=shared 6 : 40+

[@richardschmidt8954]

I love the running bit of always finding a reason to pull your sword out 😂

[@GinnyDi]

One more joke and I fill out my 'running gag' loyalty card!

[@mycatistypingthis5450]

Having swords, they are fun to get out if given half a reason to.

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

@@GinnyDi Success!

[@redeyefire942]

So he answered this another video from Pack Tactics, any subclass feature that was missing giving you skipped over the level now that all the subclass starts at level 3, you gain level one and two features there and any additional feature matching the level of the 2014 version.

[@GinnyDi]

Great to know, thank you!! 🙏

[@franciscofernandez8183]

Can someone parse for me what they're saying? I don't understand this comment.

[@christopherjonas-hamling9397]

​@@franciscofernandez8183When using a 2014 subclass with a 2024 character there can be issues because all 2024 classes gain the subclass at level 3 where some 2014 classes gained the subclass at level 1 or 2. What is being explained is that the new rules state that when using an old subclass with the new classes in the 2024 book you don't gain any subclass features until you gain your subclass in the 2024 book (level 3). When this happens you gain all your subclass features for all levels up to your current class level. For example: You are using an older cleric subclass such as the Tempest Domain. With the old PHB you would have subclass features at levels 1&2. You now gain those features at level 3 when all classes gain their subclass. Any future subclass features are gained when you gain your next subclass feature in the 2024 class. When you gain the subclass features in the 2024 class you gain all subclass features for up to the level in that class.

[@nathanaelthomas9243]

He’s saying that if you play the 2014 Forge Domain Cleric in a 2024 game, you use the 2024 base Cleric class and then adjust the levels at which your subclass features come online. For the Cleric, their level 1 and 2 features would be gained at level 3 since that is the level at which all subclasses now get their first features and at levels 1 and 2, you instead get the features of the base 2024 Cleric.

[@wisey105]

I was about to answer this too. The 2024 book has specific levels where all classes get subclass features. Jeremy said in the Pack Tactics video the wording is along the lines of you get all sub-class features of that level AND below (to cover anything that may have been skipped over).

[@skipy2.0]

For the forge domain question of when you get subclass features, jeremy answered this on the dungeon dudes and said any features that aren't reworked will be gained when they reach a level where they gain a subclass feauture and that level is higher than the level needed to gain those features in the previous edition. For example, the level 1 and 2 forge domain's features will be gained at level 3 as that is when the 2024 cleric gains a subclass feature.

[@Specter_1125]

He also answered it with kolbold.

[@ADirtyLeviathan]

I respect your approach to this meeting so much! Others who have met with him and have done similar interviews didn’t approach it with the same level of caution and carefulness you did. I think Jeremy means well, but he’s representing a basket that WOtC has put all their eggs into, so I get the high level of positivity, and low level of opinion on the questions you asked. He simply does not have the wiggle room to say anything negative and I can’t blame him for that. I just hope this new edition is a fun edition, and isn’t a struggle to use with older features, since we all have a lot of money wrapped up in 5e material.

[@justadude7455]

I *_really_* appreciate the skepticism here! The other interviews I've seen seem to just give the Q&A which, while still informative, doesn't give any additional context or (valid) concerns about the new PHB. I also like that you didn't ask super surface-level questions, and I appreciate that, while perhaps a bit embellished, Jeremy gave reasonable answers.

[@Dlnqntt]

I love to study the history of D&D. One of the things you will notice if you look at the history of the game system is that there is a new edition, or revision, of the D&D rules on average of 7.5 years. OG D&D was around 2.5 years. 1st lasted 11. 2nd was 10, then 3 / 3.5 went for 7 years. 4e was only 5 years, and then 5e lasted for 10 years. I know that people are calling this a cash grab, but the reality is that 5e is just at the end of the average TTRPG lifecycle, and that a revision or new edition brings in new fans, new profits, fresh ideas, and a fresh approach to the game.

[@miavaughn2393]

And at 10 years its MORE than warranted, as the landscape has drastically changed. From dnd becoming more popular every year, to baldurs gate 3 demolishing records and being better mechanically than the ttrpg its based on. I haven't seen the beta, so I can only hope that they've taken some changes bg3 made into the new rules. As well as Larian's changes to certain classes, subclasses, or subclass features, how the game handled verticality/jumping, how liberal the game was with special/magical items in only the first few levels and how they balanced that, etc. But the rules update is needed for sure. I especially like their approach apparently with races/backgrounds/species now.

[@AmbigousInfluence]

Congrats you win the reason award.

[@joncarroll2040]

And there are *a lot* of revisions in there. One a lot of people forget is 2nd edition. About six years (give or take) before 3rd they reprinted the core books with minor updates and all new artwork. They then released three "Player's Option" books that overhauled the character creation, combat and magic systems. The advantage was that the rules were fairly modular and easy to ignore parts your group didn't like. The downside was that if your group did use all the rules, players had to buy four books (because the PHB still had information you needed).

[@robmartinez1627]

5th edition reimagined. Hmmmm almost like 5.5 if you will

[@Erik-ic4fw]

A very reasonable and clear message with insightful commentary. Really enjoyed seeing him discuss these questions outside of the videos on the reveal videos.

[@eliascabbio7598]

"If you don't like the new 2024 ranger, you can play the old 2014 one" Me: 💀

[@bulbasaur001]

Realistically but not officially endorsed, you could play the UA Revised Ranger And the “2014 Ranger” probably also includes the additional options presented in Tasha’s

[@eliascabbio7598]

@@bulbasaur001 you're right, but still this class lacks of features that are truly unique and cool, you know, something that is not just stat boost

[@SilentSooYun]

"Do I jump out of the car going 80mph, or do I ride it into a tree and trust the airbag?" It's gonna hurt either way

[@andyenglish4303]

@@SilentSooYun Neither. Play a Tales of the Valiant Ranger because it's better than either.

[@BigMacEEYUP]

Did you not feel outperformed enough with your Ranger in 2014 Edition? Well that's YOUR TIME to feel even worse now! play the 2014 Ranger in 2024 DnD and you won't feel outperformed. Instead you won't notice you exist at all. It is the perfect deal for anyone who wants to play but actually not. 🤣

[@makeshiftwings7]

They've already done this "it's backwards compatible" with 3.5e and 4eE, and in both cases it was only "sort of" backwards compatible, and they ended up reprinting most of the stuff from the original editions too.

[@link090909]

I forget who said it, but backwards compatibility is something the non-gamer executives demand. Crawford probably would love to truly design a 6e, but then Hasbro’s profits might temporarily suffer, and the line must always go up after all

[@link090909]

Might have been Matt Colville

[@DomenG33K]

From what we have seen and we have seen a lot. The "games" are actually 99% the same. It looks like less of a difference than the difference between 3e release and 3.5... Some class progression being mixed up and slightly different is the biggest difference in the editions.

[@jamesfoster9613]

I love that you came at this objectively, and Jeremy was so sincere in his answers. Obviously, he's also a hype man and that's recognized, but he and Perkins do seem very genuine. As for my own table, I've been sliding in 2024 stuff from UA over time.

[@lesshero9982]

15:06 I think I remember reading that the book releases have been staggered to not overwhelm the printing presses; if they printed all 3 simultaneously, they wouldn’t be able to produce enough copies of each set in the same time frame.

[@GinnyDi]

That makes sense!!

[@Agell]

This was indeed the primary reason, there's not enough printing capacity for all 3 books at the volume they need to be printed for distribution. It's purely logistics.

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

@@GinnyDi Yeah I figured that there had to be a logical reason.

[@tonycosta8601]

In a recent video they said they are still putting art together and figuring out exactly what layout they want for the DMG and MM. I think this is buying them a bit of time to make sure it's just right.

[@Agell]

​@@tonycosta8601 Printer lead times are long, especially for large scale retail distribution. If they're still not finalizing the proofs for the DMG, they're missing their stated release date in stores. They've got PHB proofs in this month, and 3k copies at Gencon. That gives us a realistic look into lead times they're working with. if the DMG hasn't been finalized yet, it will be by the middle or end of August. MM makes more sense, as they have significantly more time before that release.

[@captnjoe]

I feel that within 6 months after release, someone will publish on the Dungeon Masters Guild (if WoTC hasn’t destroyed them) a book that details the differences between the 2014 and 2024 editions and it will cost $10. This way a DM can pick and choose which changes will work for their table. For example I’m already allowing drinking a health potion as a Bonus Action. I think this document would make the existing D&D community a very happy.

[@jaysw9585]

It doesnt work. Dave Arneson did the exact same thing way back in the day when Gygax released ADnD to allow conversion from the existing basic. In the end, the rules weren't all that complicated enough to make it matter.

[@DeathOfAKing]

I personally did not like any of his answers. They all leaned toward "you could use that, but you will want the new one". I know it's his job, but it really felt like he was trying to say not to use 5e and gave VERY half hearted answers when she asked about being able to use 5e still. This was not genuine from him if you ask me. It felt like a sales pitch, not an interview

[@OutwardThinker]

8:40 mark is what really did it for me. Basically, PCs can use either version interchangeable, but FU DMs. You NEED the new version

[@bjpaljug]

This is easily the best of this round of interviews with content creators. The questions are deep and meaningful, and the commentary is insightful and measured.

[@warlockblitz]

I'm trying to make 5.24 the naming convention.

[@Trillium_Grandiflorum]

5r!

[@marcusdowning]

5 + 24i

[@thomasparker6124]

I'm going with "Once D&D" As it's no longer called "One D&D"

[@escapadesrpg]

I think 6e is more likely to stick 😂

[@MrZenzio]

I'm in my "old man yells at cloud"-phase of life, so I'm sure it'll be 2027 before I am convinced to try the new version.

[@erikwilliams1562]

I found myself doing exactly this at the rain today and know I am exactly where I need to be in life

[@carsonrush3352]

"Get off my LAWN!!"

[@thejoester]

It will be way longer than that before I buy ANY WotC or Hasbro product.

[@thegreatkamikaze]

I feel the same way. The current PR push is doing a lot to sell players on switching, but I don't see a lot of support for GMs yet and if a group's GM isn't sold on it, why would the players pick up new books?

[@rowlandp6314]

@@thegreatkamikaze Simply put, they won't. My group still play 3.5. We have alot of books from 3.5 and we have a ton of fun playing it, why would we switch ? To us it's a waste of money. Some have been asking for a 2nd ed game, but we'll see. Each to their own though.

[@DnDDeepDive]

Ginny Di + JC = Must See -TV- YT. Gah! Ruined my rhyming scheme!

[@DesmondDentresti]

It still works! Its dee, see, and why-tee

[@thundyrcat]

Colby, do you get to do an interview? I have enjoyed watching this one and the one by The Dudes...would love to see one with you!

[@DnDDeepDive]

@@DesmondDentresti ha ha yeah... in my head I was saying "KZbin" :P

[@DnDDeepDive]

@@thundyrcat Alas, no! Not really sure what criteria WotC used to set these up - looks like they went with a nice breadth of channel sizes, which is cool! Maybe one day ;)

[@OGNoNameNobody]

Another tragedy of reality blocking the creative process...

[@rickhenderson631]

As the Paladin that killed Jeremy in England, You have my sword! :) Thank you for the past good times, and another fantastic video!

[@GinnyDi]

You delivered JUSTICE and everybody should know it!! 💪

[@BeepCrank]

As a heads up, Pack Tactic's video with JC answers this question at 11:10. Also I feel like they could have cleared up a ton of confusion by calling this 5.5, because this is how it sounds like to me.

[@waitthatsillegal.7552]

5.5 describes it perfectly. No new edition, which means it´s "5e-ish", however quite different from 5e.

[@jessec3127]

1. Is the combat more efficient (faster?) in 2024 vs 2014? 2. Is 2024 easier to DM than 2014?

[@autographedcat]

I expect the staggered release is because they oinly have a certain amount of printing capacity. They'd rather have the books spaced a bit apart and make sure that people can get their hands on a copy when it hits stores than putting all three out at once and selling out before everyone has a chance to grab one.

[@GinnyDi]

Oh, duh! I should've thought of that 😂 Totally makes sense!

[@leonelchicas9080]

My guess is it’s a staggered release to generate consistent sales revenue over financial quarters. It makes their stock look better at shareholder meetings. Publishing isn’t difficult for large companies with access liquid revenue like Hasbro does. They don’t do it “in house” they contract out the printing to companies. If they need more than a printing house can produce they have the financial power to contract to multiple printing sources. Also the materials for printing aren’t prone to scarcity like computer tech is.

[@Wulf677]

​@@leonelchicas9080 This. Every decision by Hasbro/WOTC is about making the shareholders happy, not the players.

[@joncarroll2040]

Almost every edition of D&D with three books had a staggered release- certainly 1st (which had years between the Monster Manual and the DMG), 3rd and 5th.

[@salteris]

Jeremy Crawford is Syndrome. His 'design" for the new DND is specifically the villain plot of the Incredibles. Everyone is special, no one has any weaknesses, and so no one is special. I hope you like the color grey.

[@btdxpm]

I just invested in a whole pile of OSR books like Basic Fantasy, White Box and Cairn. Even bought extras to handout to friends. Also trying the Pathfinder Beginner Box (remaster) which includes an insane amount of high quality stuff for the price.

[@BillionSix]

I've been wanting to try Hyperborea.

[@jeroenimus7528]

And all that stuff is pretty easily forward compatible as well. Might need a little bit more work but nothing an experienced GM can't do (or you might find there's already a conversion online).

[@mycatistypingthis5450]

The beginner box is really nice. I don't have the remaster one, but grab stuff from the older one often, even now.

[@btdxpm]

@@mycatistypingthis5450 I don’t think there’s much of a difference except a couple of name changes for spells etc.

[@btdxpm]

@@jeroenimus7528 What do you mean by forward compatible?

[@WisdomSavePodcast]

Great video Ginny! Pack Tactics covered the backwards compatibility their last video too! Subclasses from 2014 (like the cleric) don't get their subclass until level 3 like everyone else in 2024. However, at level three they will receive all their subclass abilities from level 1 to 3, at level 3.

[@The_Crimson_Witch]

11:31 In an Interview with Pack Tactics, Jeremy clarified that the classes that used to get their subclasses before level 3 have their new 3rd level feature that marks the gaining of the subclass worded in a particular way. Basically it says you gain all the 3rd level features of that subclass or lower. So when you take the Forge domain at level 3, you'd get all its 1st and 2nd level features.

[@GinnyDi]

Ah, that's good to know! I just went and checked the wording in the 2024 PHB and I see how it's intended to answer that question. I don't think it's SUPER clear, but I stand corrected that it's not addressed!

[@The_Crimson_Witch]

@@GinnyDi I knew you had a good working relationship with WOTC, but getting access to the 2042 books is very impressive 🤣 Easy to make typos aside, I can see how it'd be easy to skip over. If the roles were reversed, my eyes would probably have glazed over at the description of gaining subclasses in a very "I know how a subclass works" way 🤣 Which is why it's good Jcraw answered this directly elsewhere, and it's good to spread around.

[@GinnyDi]

...whoops! 😅 writing a new edition 18 years before release would really be some 4D chess, haha!

[@travel_garp]

That's a good overview of what's coming down the pike. So many videos out there seemed to do a deep dive on what I wasn't ready to watch yet. This got to the core of what I wanted & needed to know. Thanks so much.

[@GinnyDi]

Happy I could help!

[@belodie]

Re the numbering, I was thinking 5.5e but if internally there's references to calling it 5.2 then 5.2e it is!

[@toastmilke]

As someone who works in print and spent five years working prepress at a book manufacturer, I can pretty confidently say that the staggred release is most probably due to logistics of printing and binding a release on the scale of new edition requires. They most likely have a limited number of vendors that they contract with and it tap out their capacity to print and assemble millions each of each book all out once. I can also say with casebound books, even if the produced with large web offset presses, books with page count of over 100 pages take up a decent amount of warehouse space when you have to stage the sigs together to go into the bindrey equipment. Again, the scale of the volume of books they have to produce for an initial release like these takes a good amount of coordination of the capacity at their disposal to do right.

[@Wrrohm]

Huge huge respect to you Ginny for giving your honest opinion and not just going with the flow. It takes a lot integrity to openly discuss and criticize the upcoming content and changes.

[@owenwhite333]

This vid makes me more confident in the system. Honestly though for good or bad all books should have been planned for release at the same time, this just feels like the transition will be exhausting. Maybe it will sell more but to me feels daunting to know months of changes ahead with many interim questions just to reach the same point.

[@M4TCH3SM4L0N3]

What I want to know: what did they do to fix Challenge Ratings, action economy, and other encounter balancing issues with 5e?

[@marimbaguy715]

We won't know those details until the MM and DMG have been teased/released. Only the PHB is being talked about at the moment.

[@ZeKiwiOfTheNorth]

What did they do to fix encounter balancing issues? Why, they got everyone hype for new player options, and added on more power creep! All I've really heard about the DMG is it will have Bastion rules and a magic item crafting system. If there's anything useful coming, it doesn't matter because 5.5 DMs will have to already stumble through play with what they know, given that only the PHB is releasing initially. WotC hates its DMs.

[@marimbaguy715]

@@ZeKiwiOfTheNorth They have explicitly said they are reworking the Challenge Rating/encounter balance tools.

[@ZeKiwiOfTheNorth]

@@marimbaguy715 they're reworking CR, have we had a glimpse at the math? Because we've had player-sided play testing, and they're putting out the PHB to start, but I'm not sure there's been anything actually useful for the DM to deal with these newly buffed PC parties until the DMG actually ships.

[@20hermanator10]

About the naming of it, I think the simplest answer (for me and my table) is 5e14 and 5e24.

[@GinnyDi]

Very logical names! I will admit my Fast & Furious approach maaaay be a little confusing 😂

[@the.dirt.man.]

I’ll save my money to support independent third party creators

[@GinnyDi]

Sounds good! Third party creators absolutely deserve our support!

[@badmojo0777]

WOTC has bene going out of their way to throw a LOT of businessa ttheir 3r dparyt content creators and KZbinrs. I se eont sof improvbed reblancing, rules clarificationos and to be for, it seme slike the people who complained about what was broken in 2014 5e are the same poeple complaining abou t WOTC making an effor tot fix those thngs, veyr hypocritICAL..

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@badmojo0777 cough, OGL, cough, cough

[@Drago5185]

In pack tactics interview with Jeremy he actually asked him about that exact situation with a forge domain cleric and Jeremy said there’s specific guidance for situations like that and essentially you get all the subclass features at once. I.e. A 2024 forge cleric will get their subclass features they’d normally get at level 1 and 2 at level 3 instead. It also gives guidance for the divine strike and potent spell casting feature as well since they’ve been moved into the base class.

[@jasonhawkins6888]

1. It is 100% a cash grab; Hasbro hasn't even tried to keep that part quiet. 2. Whether you are playing 5e or not, 2024 should be the year you try something new (read, independent), not play dress-up with WOTC on-trend trash.

[@tosteson1]

Journalist Ginny is among my favorite Ginnys.

[@PickledRage]

Obligatory "play Tales of The Valiant" post. It's similar to 5.5e with changes, fully compatible with 5e and whatnot, but it does things differently here and there. You also support a much more ethical company. That said, nothing stopping you from playing this system. Find ways around spending more money on it if you need to.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

This. Supporting more indie and ethical company

[@GinnyDi]

I got to play Tales of the Valiant recently for a few sessions of a charity game and it was a blast! I really enjoyed their new spells (I was playing a bard). And I like their Luck system!

[@mmftg]

I too will be playing TotV. WotC gets no more of my money.

[@mmftg]

The staggered release is about quarterly profits. I'm not concerned about backward compatibility. I'm concerned about Hasbro Wizards being a terrible company. I will play Tales of the Valiant.

[@BBP081]

I am calling it 5.5. I see no better name.

[@AlmightyFuzz1]

What about 5e V2? That's what I was saying my head everytime someone said "the 2024 rules".

[@Whitecat-xx7rr]

I like 5.24

[@GamingPaladin]

15:05 They did the same thing at the launch of 3rd edition (3.0, not 3.5). The first printing of the Player's Handbook had a few monsters in the back to get the DM going. It was a bunch of low level stuff and then a mature adult red dragon. As a teenager just starting out I was mesmerized by that illustration.

[@benjaminjane93]

It is a new edition. The reason they don’t call I a new edition is because of marketing. They can’t risk creating a 6e because the huge boom of customers they gained the last ten years don’t know that this is part of the RPG tradition. And since Hasbro/Wotc hates (and I mean they genuinely despises, no hyperbole necessary) their old customer base they are more willing to allow development of the brand to stagnate, commercialize, and digitize, rather than evolve into a new generation. To Hasbro and the people leading Wotc, you are not customers. You are an obstacle between them and your money.

[@-Claws72-]

Nice. Finally a video that actually answers all my questions on the new edition. Great job! 👍😁

[@GinnyDi]

Glad I could help!

[@LordOz3]

I'm calling it 5.24.

[@Eyblinkin]

I'll also accept 5.50 because of the anniversary.

[@Getsugaru]

5.3, because they did this before with 3.5.

[@enrif3099]

5.24 is the way

[@davidjennings2179]

Or 5.6 because it's actually 6e but they want a 5 in there somewhere to pretend people will want to use it with 5e 😬

[@brendanmatthews8236]

5.56😅

[@jasonstephens6109]

I don't care for the 2024 bard. I liked the unearthed Arcana version with a few tweaks. The new one feels like it fixes nothing and takes things away. Then they just gave us the dancer bard which could have been done with flavor, and then they called it a class change.

[@BlackLotus30]

They even managed to make the Ranger worse.....that takes talent.

[@jimmyhjt]

Not sure if what I looked at was Unearthed Arcana or the official bard but the valor Bard I saw on their website looks great to me. I wanted to basically play a sword and shield bard and them getting 2nd attacks and weapons as spell casting focuses is great. What's the issue or issues you don't like?

[@s1lentsymphony607]

This was a great start to answering things, and I appreciate how honest and transparent you are. Personally, I think a lot of my problem is much less about backwards compatibility or anything like that. But there are a lot of changes to the classes that I'm really not a fan of. I would really like to hear from him about what they changed and why, maybe answer some tougher questions. Because some of the changes to Paladin and Druid? Really left me scratching my head. While Ranger feels like it really is WotC's most hated class.... Again.

[@GinnyDi]

I truly wish I could just sit down with Jeremy for a couple hours and talk about the books! With just 15 minutes and my own goal of providing useful info for my followers, I tried to stay focused on the logistics of play, but I have SO many more theoretical questions I'd love to hear his thoughts on if I had more time. Who knows, maybe I'll be able to corner him at GenCon (if my sword jokes haven't made him scared of me 😂)

[@deepblue812]

I've seen the year numbering thing with all the software we use at work. Going from versions to years means now they can sell you "D&D 2025", "D&D 2026", "D&D 2027"....

[@GenreBGoode]

D&D Vista

[@MoreInsane96]

DnD 8.1 ​@@GenreBGoode

[@andykaufman7620]

I like how they did it where they made it backward compatible. You can thus use existing characters using the 2014 rules and import them into 2024 rules game, or re-create the 2014 character to updated 2024 rules, with GM guidance as I don't see a GM saying 'nope sorry you cannot convert' to which most players would say 'sorry I won't be playing in your game'. Ultimately, most people would simply want a reasonable conversion. I would like to see a Conversion Guide done on helping GMs and players do such conversions, sort of like if you had a 2nd edition ADnD character and wanted to re-create it in 3e ADnD or 5e 2014 edition. You might have Cloak of Displacement but you'll use the 2014 5e version if you go with the 5e conversion. So if an item or option is updated, you'll use the newer one if available.

[@aapelikahkonen]

Looking forward to watching this! Your channel has become a treasure trove to up my (humble) DM game. I love the energy and humour you use to drive the points through!

[@RulesLawyerDnD]

Just found your videos. Your interview, questions, and input is quite refreshing. Thanks for the video and keep up the good work.

[@guitar_gnome]

Being fully backwards compatible is not the first time D&D has done this. Back in TSR games, AD&D Second Edition were reworked books of AD&D, and you could mix and match books.

[@simonfernandes6809]

This. 5.5 sounds like this.

[@nloving]

This was an extremely helpful video! I'm sure it'll take a while. I've played in some really dedicated groups who would be obsessing over the changes, but many groups aren't like that. One of my groups is not hardcore at all, and I'm sure many of them don't even know this version is coming out. Like you said, the great thing is that nobody can stop you from playing 5e. Hell, there are plenty of groups that still play 3.5 and beyond. You approach these kids of things so well! I can't wait to see what you have to say as more content is released!

[@phredbookley183]

When in doubt I always fall back to a 'rule' I've seen in multiple DMGs: If you don't like it, don't use it. You can always make that choice.

[@jacobhughes-gartin1057]

I’ve watched a lot of these interviews that have come up in the past few days and this is easily the best! I’m glad you asked about whether we can play as soon as the new PHB is out or if we would need to wait on all three, because I had been confused about that and was reading conflicting information. Personally I am very excited for the new books, but I only just got started playing a few months ago and haven’t even bought any books yet (I’ve been using a library copy of the handbook), so I don’t have an existing “investment.”

[@timb1310]

Thanks. Good insight, and I look forward to hearing more. One might cynically wonder, though, whether the backward compatibility is, at least in part, a way to keep selling the old supplemental books until new versions are eventually ready. Not that I mind being able to keep using the ones I have.

[@escapadesrpg]

Of course it is.

[@Voxnn]

okay i LOVE the repeating joke with the big sword its one of my fav bits on this channel

[@diageesen4468]

Glad to see someone covering this with a more positive spin and giving the new addition a fair chance!! The dnd community is so doomsday it gets kinda exhausting, so this is lovelyyy!

[@GinnyDi]

I definitely understand their perspective but I'm willing to give it a chance and form my own opinions when I start playing with it!

[@NovakiSalem]

“If there is a new thing you HAVE to use the new thing… unless you don’t like the new thing, then use the old thing and it’s totally cool whatever who cares” thanks for clearing that up for my table Jeremy, I’m sure this will not cause any conflicts or arguments lol

[@fred_derf]

As someone who continues to play 3.5e, he didn't convince me to switch systems.

[@NisansaDdS]

11:15 Pack Tacktics asked this question in his interview with Jeremy. The answer was, "You get the sub class at level 3. And along with it, you get any level 1 or 2 features that were withheld so far". So a significant power jump in level 3 in that case.

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

Sorry that you couldn't get your vengeance! As someone who hasn't played D&D before but very much wants to, I've personally been holding out for the upcoming revised editions because that just seems more straightforward to me. Also, this may or may not be blasphemous but I think that the new core rulebooks have nicer looking covers than the previous ones.

[@GinnyDi]

One of the big things I've noticed in a new handbook is how much more newbie-friendly it is! Things have been streamlined a lot, and even the way the book is written and laid out is much easier for a first-time player to understand. This is one of those benefits that long-time players may not appreciate, but I think it's going to be huge for helping bring new players into the game!

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

@@GinnyDi That is such a huge relief and definitely what I'm counting on! You're my go-to source for D&D related matters, so I trust your judgement on this. Whenever I've done research into D&D mechanics in the past my brain would almost malfunction because it was all way too damn complicated!

[@andykaufman7620]

To be serious the first question out of Ginny Di's mouth should have been 'So did you Nyx the Death Save. That approach made it way to 'survivable' and harder on the GM, and ultimately hard to make 11+ level games. Why make a new 5.5 without such a change? So did you make that change? Let's see if that is Ginny's first question'. The fact there were 3 Death Saves to Die makes 5e the Miracle Max version of TTRPG's. "I"m slightly dead, now i'm mostly dead. I can do something with slightly, alive but dead dead I cannot'.

[@Zr0din]

@0:50 "...those flaws will be new and different..." and all named Ranger. At least they improved Monk. @6:45 "...backwards compatibility..." the new thing should have REPLACED Twilight and Peace Clerics, Echo Knight Fighters, SilveryBarbs, and a bunch of other stuff. I AM happy they REPLACED Summon Animals, Gloomstalker Rangers, and Moon Druids...

[@malmasterson3890]

Ranger will be fine when combined with the spellcasting changes. Just don't feel compelled to always use Hunter's Mark.

[@HighCharityYT]

@@malmasterson3890 The class punishes you for not using it when multiple class features rely on it and an entire subclass is built around it. It should have been a non-concentration class feature if you're hellbent on keeping it, not a bad spell.

[@malmasterson3890]

@@HighCharityYT Most campaigns never even get to the level where those features are located. In addition, the level 17 feature will actually make it worth using as it's basically a free cast version of Guardian of Nature. A really good spell for 5e. Also, they tried removing concentration from it in the playtest and it was overturned, so instead they are REMOVING concentration from key Ranger spells as a compromise; which was confirmed in another article. I do agree that having the only real new content for Ranger outside of spellcasting be higher level features for a single spell is dissapointing and honestly bad game design, however, to say that the new Ranger is worse or even a bad class is just incorrect in the context of viability. It's not even the worst class in the new version.

[@HighCharityYT]

@@malmasterson3890 Not a single person who was in the playtest actually thought it was overtuned though, especially with it dropping the bonus on your 2nd attack. The most common proposed houserule for PHB'24 is removing concentration for HM for a reason. Every relevant spell will still be concentration lol. It's so clearly the weakest class by what's been revealed.

[@Flaraen]

​@@HighCharityYTThat's definitely not true. How do you know what will or won't be concentration? Just because people house rule it doesn't mean it's a good idea

[@Mark-ki7ic]

Seeing the evolution thru the playtest PDFs and playing has made me excited. The redone Monk is great, Ranger is made better with a simple home rule at 1st level. If we continue with the current campaign just replaced with 24. The only PC affected is the Scribe Mage which is good already.

[@KnuthMaestro]

Name fix: D&D 50th Anniversary Edition. Coulda been soooooo easy...

[@ncorrex5809]

Thank you so much for classifying everything Jeremy said. I mean he has a very good way with words and the way he talks about the book is really convincing but to hear an honest opinion from a 3rd party about it, who isn't just shitting because they want to return to pathfinder (hi, powerplayer of my group), is really helpful

[@tntori5079]

I admit I switched to DC20. However I like keeping up on what dnd is up to. This was a good watch and I love your explinations and animations. Thank you! =)

[@fleahammer]

yes dc20 is a blast to play. Ginny is just a fun watch.

[@faemerothgoblinbane]

I feel like a good way to explain the backwards compatibility (for some people) is to think of it like a code update. When the code update gets pushed, the things that are changed overwrite the old versions of those functions. But any functions that were not touched still work the same way they did before. Sometimes this causes friction with the functions that were changed, sometimes it doesn't.

[@teufelghost1885]

Ginny This video felt like u dming the encounter between you and jeremy for us and I love it ❤

[@kennethmoscardini2106]

Love your content, old school GM that has played/ran 5.0. One note, Modifying the play experience pretty must started back with the Ed 0. The white box rules were just not cutting it, so the Greyhawk supplement was created to address issues of game play. This also was the start of modern DnD that has influenced every version after in some way. ADnD, 2.5, 3.5 and 5.0 all now have been modified from key starting rules. 5.X is not so new or different. The trend started in 2.5 when books were released to allow modifying species and classes to craft a more individual experience. 3.0 lifted rules from 2.5 to make up its core rules. Not much new under the sun.

[@DigitalxGamer]

I appreciate the disclaimer and the neutral stance you're taking on the subject for sure. "We aren't losing anything" is the part I take issue with. We absolutely ARE losing something. Take the Ranger for instance. They neuter the class by removing a lot of its flavor and basing almost the entirety of its identity around a single spell. While it's undeniably a little STRONGER mechanically, it doesn't seem like it's as fun to play imho. Sure, I can still TECHNICALLY use an old Ranger. But you go back and notice that you ALSO reach the conclusion that if you're using a 2014 class version, you're probably going to be at a disadvantage. But if I'm going to be at a disadvantage for doing this, then how is that NOT losing something? Now I'm not a powerplaying type, I don't build my character to be strong. I want them to have a unique identity and build them around their personality and style. But at the same time, I can't just neglect character power either, or else I'm not really going to get a chance to actually do much when combat rolls around. So a change like this feels like the worst of both worlds for me. Maybe I'll change my mind later when the spells come out (since Rangers are clearly being pushed to emphasize their spellcasting a bit more in 2024), but for now, I'm really just not interested.

[@andykaufman7620]

I asked the designer? The Designer said "No you should not switch. In fact, you should play Mutants and Masterminds and make a 'Fantasy" game if you want sort of like how Guardians of the Galaxy took a 'comic book superhero genre' and made it into a Sci-Fi-Fantasy themed genre comic. You can make yours Fantasy themed. You get a point system and can design the things you do according to Effects and use of Descriptors.

[@TafkaOddfan]

A question I wish you could have asked: If this is D&D 2024, will there be a D&D 2026? How often are they going to release new core books now? Another question that is more for the community: How is this functionality different from Tales of the Valiant, which is also a backwards compatible update to 5E that's in the creative commons?

[@imagineitqll]

I presume in the same way pathfinder 1e and DnD 3.5 were different. One was by wizards and one was a third party game… the fact is many, many less tables are in the know of small third party takes on wotc systems. What wotc sells, tables will play, especially in a post critical roll/bg3 world

[@GinnyDi]

It's been a decade since the last edition update, so I don't feel like there's any rational reason to assume they'll update it again in just two years (especially since this update was announced two years ago... so that would mean they'd need to already be writing the next update now!)

[@3nertia]

@@GinnyDi It's almost like you haven't been paying attention to their business practices as of late ...

[@GinnyDi]

@@3nertia Actually, it's almost like I think framing WotC as a cartoon villain is unhelpful and inauthentic! If someone can show me actual evidence that they plan to suddenly start recycling editions every 2-4 years, then I will happily change my perspective. But being a cynic doesn't magically make you a future-teller, and I don't base my predictions for the future on fantasy stories that I've invented to affirm my own beliefs.

[@UncommonCommander]

I think they sort of had to do backwards compatibility. Imagine if they did an edition change today the same way they did in the past: they put out a handbook, and then you have to wait for all the additional books to come out, and all the homebrewers to brew before you get as much variety as in 5e. That worked in the past because they didn't have much, or sometimes any, real competition. But today? If they'd have done that I would have just kept playing 5e or switched to Pathfinder. Others might have switched to one of the many other competitors. It would have heavily fragmented their playerbase. I think they made a smart business decision to walk the more difficult design path. It might have been an existential decision. Good interview, Ginny!

[@hebl47]

Jeremy claiming that 2024 characters are more fun, while me looking at Oath of the Ancients super nerfed Aura of Warding: Yeah, I don't think we have the same definition of the word "fun".

[@not_gizby]

Ginny Di's interview skills along with the exposition in between Q and A is top tier. Really appreciate when she does one of these videos

[@the.dirt.man.]

Ngl a lot of his comments sound like corporate dribble. He’s rehearsed the pitch for board members many many times

[@badmojo0777]

jsut like eveyrhting else ytou buy.... JC and Chris Perkins always seems like GREAT GUYS wqho genuinemy lovew wha thtey do and i love em.

[@IQAfan]

@@badmojo0777stroke alert

[@GinnyDi]

Like I said, you can tell he's here for the PR. But at least we can glean some helpful insights between the lines!

[@the.dirt.man.]

@@GinnyDi nevertheless you were a fantastic interviewer, got what you could through his PR speak. Glad the community has Madame Di👍

[@BluegrassGeek]

From what they've said elsewhere, the staggered book release is due to the printer not being able to produce all three books at the same time, in the quantities they need. They're putting all the effort into printing & shipping the PHB, then they'll switch to the DMG, and then the MM. Once the initial deluge of shipping is done, the printer can handle second printings of everything to keep stores stocked.

[@JessicaMorgani]

Hope this gets a lot of views! A new version of D&D was such a terrible idea for everyone but the people at wizards that they didn't even go for a new edition.

[@williamsantosii2211]

As a person that has been playing since the tail end of 2nd edition; much of this makes sense. Of course, I need to move my party over to this revision and since this is going to be the first time I had a party during a revision as I was mostly acting as a player during 3.0-3.5. It shouldn't be a huge problem as I think I'll start them in my Learning Adventure which I just need to translate from 3.5 to 5.5.

[@alexandersanchez8840]

Its literally the dude

[@morryDad]

I just want to see a Jeremy and Ginny throw down with padded swords. Can we get a PPV stream of this?

[@dmstretch6634]

New D&D5e 2024 is the best advert for Pathfinder I’ve ever seen lol

[@jazzy4830]

I was gonna make the same comment, the answer to the title question is: No, switch to PF2 instead.

[@simonfernandes6809]

Nah, I'd literally play ANYTHING rather than Pathfinder. I don't want my brain melting trying to run something as fiddly as Pathfinder.

[@jazzy4830]

@@simonfernandes6809 Aaww buddy, that's okay, I'm sure other people struggled to make it through third grade as well. (In all seriousness, PF2 is not really more complex than DND 5th, you're probably just used to one system and so the specific differences just make it appear complex)

[@tuomasronnberg5244]

You have to admit that PF2e has more moving parts than 5e. Three actions, all classes able to put status effects on allies and enemies, of which many last just for one turn so you have to mark constantly which have timed out this turn and which are still ongoing etc. It's probably fine on VTT that keeps track of everything for you, but I wouldn't want to run a pen and paper version of it.

[@jazzy4830]

@@tuomasronnberg5244 Three actions of the same type (not having to deal with move equivalent actions, standard, full round etc.), and as long as you can get your players to take responsibility for the conditions which they create it's pretty easy to track. I don't use VTTs so I can't speak to that, but I find it very manageable once you have relearnt the system that differs more at a core level from 3.5 and 5th. I think to figure it out it's important to actually start from lvl 1, and because you get your tools drip-fed as you level it all becomes much more easily digested and learnt. I would recommend first trying one of the pre-made adventure paths if you're new since it takes a lot of pressure off the DM to have everything figured out immediately.

[@Konstrukto_spons]

There is a really big and important distinction between the passionate designers of the rulebooks and the goals of the company behind them. The video did not take away my concerns, even though you tried your best! He didn't elaborate on what it takes to convert other options into your D&D 6 game, third party content wasn't even mentioned, you could have... But mostly, and very importantly, the sameyness of the classes and races and the digital direction the company is taking weren't addressed. As an example Ginny, you're probably aware but I recommend watching professor DM's latest video on the digital direction of Hasbro, it will at least make sense of why they release the books in these intervals and will probably also make sense of a lot of the choices made.

[@B3n3f1t]

Respect, Bulma here asked some though questions unlike some of the other YT channels.

[@Kindrick]

Fun fact: I have actually read the DMG cover to cover before. I used to do it all the time with 2E, but haven't done it as much with 5e yet. Often I'm looking for specific content, but doing it in such a way that I'm making sure that I'm not missing anything that could possibly relate to what I'm looking for, so I just end up reading all of it.

[@atomictrice4063]

The more i've seen when it comes down to the one dnd stuff makes me want to hold onto 5e harder, doesnt help i have a 161 page google doc of homebrew and personal campaign stuff.

[@jamoecw]

With 4th edition there was a way to convert from 3rd edition, same with 2nd to 3rd. It was more involved than the current changes, but it isn't completely new. It does allow them to keep making money off the old stuff, but the flip side is that you don't scrap everything that you liked from the past as a player. The problem that nobody thinks about is if the new stuff doesn't win everyone over then not everyone switches over and later down the people are split until eventually when they make a new version many don't like that it doesn't fit well with 2nd edition elements they like and don't update at all so the company cuts backroom deals and strong arms who it can into upgrading and then demands that everyone is up to date all the time without question with automated spyware to verify that you are being a good customer for them, and so they can sell that access to your life to different agencies and companies around the world.

[@Tausami]

I find the "cash grab" argument infuriating. Do people think WOTC should have fired all of their game designers in 2014? Should game designers be expected to accept life as an impoverished gig worker because thats more "ethical"? Why is it evil for them to continue to work for WOTC and produce new content after the initial product is finished? D&D has very limited profit margins. All they have to sell is books. It's ok for them to want to publish new books so they stay in business and their employees continue to have jobs. Comparing that to Bethesda's horse armor or Fortnite skins is downright cruel.

[@Tausami]

(this isn't a critique of the video it's just me complaining about the online discourse in general)

[@PJZ]

Every D&D YTer: It's a cash grab! Unethical! Same D&D YTers: Buy my calendar, 5e supplement and sign up for my Patreon!

[@GinnyDi]

Honestly, I think about this a LOT. People are angry at them for laying people off, but then are angry at them for doing things with the intention of making money (you know... like businesses do). I don't know if I just have a different perspective on this as a business owner myself, but sometimes it seems like people will only call a company ethical if they're functionally a nonprofit. I hope it's clear that I am not calling these books a "cash grab." I was simply acknowledging the sentiments I'd seen online around the books.

[@BB-gl5jc]

Dude! I didn't think of it this way... In my forever search for perfect "rules lite, with just the right amount of crunch" system I didn't give much thought to the business of game design. It's easy to forget that even though it's MY hobby, there are others that depend on me buying books, to put food on their table. While I hate the current KZbin ads for 5.1 (Jeremy saying "Hey players! We just powercrept all your PCs, bug your GM to buy our book!"), I shouldn't fault WOTC for just trying to keep the doors open. That's how so many good IPs get abandoned.

[@andykaufman7620]

Incorrect Ginny Di 5e would NOT be 'Obsolete' if in fact it was 6e. You don't stop being able to play 5e with all that was made or you have access to. You can still do that with a newly 'dead' game, ie a game that won't be supported with new material by WOTC, but guess what, third party OGL people might support it with 5e compatible products. Mind blowing stuff, and did you know it is possible play ADnD 1e. That game has been 'dead' for decades, but it can arise from the dead if you resurrect it to run it at your table and find players to play it. That is the real magic of gaming. The power of 'dead game' resurrection for those games once deemed obsolete.

[@ercapcaap6059]

i think this interview is class!!! thanks a lot and congrats for the opportunity :)

[@tacitakoe5004]

Between this and Pack Tactic's interview, I do feel like I have a MUCH better comprehension of what WotC mean by 'Reverse Compatible' and it all actually sounds solid.