"You aren't playing 5th Edition, are you?" "Sure I am." "But those rules are different from mine." "That's because it's the 2024 version." "So not 5th Edition?" "It is but it's 5th Edition version 2024 and not 2014 which you are using." Crystal clear (sorry, Jeremy)... Just call it 5.5, or Revised, or 5.1 but don't pretend it's "5", that's just confusing...

@theophrastusbombastus1359

Жыл бұрын

Yep. 3.5 was a good edition. Everyone knew roughly what to expect

@luketfer

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, 5.5 or 5R (for 5 Revised). Pf2e is already doing this with it's core books its releasing later this year and slapping the label Pathfinder 2nd Edition: Revised on the cover to denote a big rules update whilst keeping the core mechanics the same.

@hartthorn

Жыл бұрын

I mean, it's not like this hasn't ALREADY happened in plenty of places in 5e. Xanathar had expanded/nuanced down time rules. Tasha's rewrote race rules. Is this really all that different?

@PhilipDudley3

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, should be 5ER or 5e Rev. not just FIFTH EDITION because like you said, it's a new edition, Jeremy said it, the only thing compatible will be the adventures, which probably will require tweaking. Nothing is known until printed.

@clivevii2231

Жыл бұрын

Are the rules taht different though? Looking at the UA, most of the things are still the same, I feel like a different class progression does not warrant it being called a new edition. You could probably have a 2014 Warlock and a 2024 Warlock in the same party and the game would work well.

Just call it 5.5 Edition. You're just making it more confusing by still calling it 5e but changing so many of the rules.

@canis2020

Жыл бұрын

For real. It's just insistence on PR

@KJShell

Жыл бұрын

Here here!

@solarisdevorak

Жыл бұрын

Not really

@karthisplays

Жыл бұрын

Or maybe just call it DnD and move on from the past? Just a thought

@redhood5264

Жыл бұрын

​@Rocco Cavuoti that doesn't help distinguish what game you are playing. Some people will play 5e pure without the new update and others will play the new update along with 5e pure, and some will just play the new update. Having a clear distinguishing marker to denote what version you are playing makes for clear and concise communication for potential players and DMs, and when discussing things online, and when you are creating homebrew content. It's why the editions themselves are numbered.

It'd really "light my fire" and "inspire delight" in me if you guys would just call it 5.5. Run a poll guys and see what the community says!

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

"We said NO, guys." - WOTC lol

@BrockitGaming

Жыл бұрын

We're all just gonna call it 5.5 anyway soo yeah

Glad to see WotC embracing D&D tradition by being weirdly messy with edition naming. D&D/Whitebox, AD&D, Basic, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 2nd, Rules Cyclopedia, 3rd, 3.5, 4e, Essentials, 5e, and now 5e (2024).

@obsidiansiriusblackheart

Жыл бұрын

You forgot D&D Next 🤓

@BR-dj1bo

Жыл бұрын

I'm gonna call it 5.5 regardless

@envytee9659

Жыл бұрын

​@@obsidiansiriusblackheartNah, D&D Next was just a codename like One D&D. Codenames are just a random name that they use during development but which aren't intended to be the final name.

@EatAnOctorok

Жыл бұрын

Couldn't even call it 5e 10th Anniversary.

@alfonsovallejo2665

9 ай бұрын

Its a marketing thing. There are a lot of adventures that are selling very well thanks to the unexpected popularity of Baldur's Gate 3 and those would get dumped if a new edition comes and made them seemingly unable to play with the new rules. Thats why the "One D&D" name was thrown into the trash after a a month of Baldur's Gate 3 launch, WotC wants to trick the audience saying this new material is not a new game while making a technically new game to sell the new material and old material alike. It is obvious that it is a pathetic attempt, because everyone can see through the scam.

You know, there is a simple way to let people know this is a continuation of 5e, and that isn’t to call it 5e, rather 5.1 or 5.5. If you release patch 5.2 on a game you don’t call the patch 5.0.

@aethyr4006

Жыл бұрын

I'm already calling it 5.5, and language is based on usage, so if everyone call it 5.5, it will become 5.5

@xyryyn

Жыл бұрын

They did that with 3.5 officially, but it actually caused a backlash because people - especially third party publishers - thought it wasn't compatible with 3.0.

@austinclarke1613

Жыл бұрын

@@xyryyn I mean, it kind of wasn’t, just how this new edition isn’t really compatible with 5e, either. When the switch happens tables will switch and the old material will be there for games that use that material. And I don’t think WotC is making this decision for the 3rd party publishers, rather brand recognition.

@jamestreppa7833

Жыл бұрын

The compatibility isn't the "Rules" of 5e. The compatibility is with the adventures of 5e, with minimal tweeks.

@danielpace5207

Жыл бұрын

You know, they claim to be so interested in community feedback (ehem, OGL), I would like to see a poll where they asked about the 2024 vs. 5.5 nomenclature. I didn't need his explanation about why you need to use different terms for different sets of rules, and I thought it was weird that he was seeming to suggest he first noticed this only internally. I don't know why they're being so obstinate about this nomenclature issue. I can't wait to see what they do when it's December 2024 and they haven't released yet. Are the going to reprint the books? Are the new books going to have a 2024 printed in large font across the cover? Why is this so hard for them?

I would encourage you guys to put out surveys that include _really general_ response material. None of the surveys have asked us directly about standardizing Subclass progression, or whether or not we like the naming convention that you're using. Anecdotally, it seems like there *are* a lot of people who really like the subclass standardization, but there's been no way to indicate that on surveys. Even folks who are closer to indifferent about it might be more on the "Like It" side of the Likert scale than the indifferent side. I know enough about data analysis and aggregated feedback to figure out how you came to that conclusion, if you used data at all to do so, but I think that misses the mark pretty badly.

@gammalolman580

Жыл бұрын

My guess on where they got that data was from the Expert survey, which had questions on how you rated the "subclass feature" feature (NOT the specific subclass features), which disappeared after the Expert survey. If this wild guess is correct, then this data also has heavy bias issues. Of course people weren't against your subclass being obtained at level 3 in the playtest: the three classes we got there (Rogue, Bard and Ranger) all had the subclass at third level already.

@texasbeast239

Жыл бұрын

On the last survey I submitted, they repeatedly gave me dialog boxes to provide additional feedback. And I know I went WAY off script with my comments, and I stayed off script no matter how many times the survey lingo tried to steer me back into the direction that they wanted. So there should have been ample opportunity to volunteer info like what you've described, whether they specifically asked about it or not. You just gotta be perceptive as to when an opportunity to assert your opinion presents itself, and then do it.

@MrStealYourDonuts

Жыл бұрын

That's what the additional comments section at the end of every survey is for. The surveys are already super long (took me 2 hours to complete the last one), adding a question for every minute detail of the survey would make it even more absurdly long.

@gammalolman580

Жыл бұрын

@@MrStealYourDonuts the issue remains that they uhhhh didn't really explicitely ask for feedback on it, which could have resulted in people not thinking too deeply about this. Especially as the majority of the classes that this feedback is tied to (priests and experts, they didn't look at the latest UA's feedback yet) already started at level 3 for their subclass... With the group even having a subclass at another level only coming after the first UA. Of course people in the expert UA would be in favor of the subclasses being obtained at level 3: it's the exact damn same situation as base 5e.

@andrews556

Жыл бұрын

I would absolutely love the ability to do subclass progression from level one. For more advanced players we tend to start at level 2 or 3 because that’s when you really move toward building your characters. I get wanting to onboard people toward a new class and limiting focus but I really feel like subclasses help with growing a player’s sense of possibility. I hope there are options or a nudge toward allowing for that at some point.

Why not just "Bold" keywords instead of just "Capitals"? idk to me it would make more logical sense and make it stand out even more

@flannelogue

Жыл бұрын

Or italicize then?

@AuntieHauntieGames

Жыл бұрын

Different color text.

@MrStealYourDonuts

Жыл бұрын

I feel like reading a paragraph for an ability and having every 5th word be bolded would just make it difficult to read. Capitals make it stand out enough.

@chihuahuajedi

Жыл бұрын

I've seen other books use different fonts for stuff like this, it's pretty snazzy

Good to see the experts will be revisited next time out. The poor rogue needs a lot of love, but I'm a bit concerned about them saying the rogues subclass progression is back as per 5e. Imo, a feature at 3rd and then a feature at 9th is too long a wait, especially on a class with no resources to manage. Feel like the Artificer needs putting in the expert classes too

@Shilques

Жыл бұрын

yeah rogue in 5e has the worst subclass progression by far

@thejammiestjam

Жыл бұрын

As someone who's played a high level rogue, yeah, the wait from 3 to 9 for a subclass feature was a while. Baseline rogue gets features regularly which is nice, but I would like to see the subclass stuff have not quite as long as a stretch.

@ad9aggie

Жыл бұрын

Artificer is an expert class, but it wasn't in the 2014 PHB so it won't be in this one.

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

@@ad9aggie idky people refuse to accept that basic fact.

@mgsmk92

Жыл бұрын

@@CooperAATE accepting and requesting for it to be added are not the same thing. I know it was not in the previous one. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in the new one? No. To this day, 9 years in, they've added 1 new class. If they were going to be adding them frequently, then sure, leave it out, the Everything books will bring in a class when they want. But seems a miss not to put it in this one, so they have all classes in one place. Plus the Artificer needs work as much as some of the other classes...perhaps more than some.

Should be called "5th Edition Revised". That way it can be shorted to "5 ER" which can then be phonetically pronounced as "Fiver".

@jamesm2577

Жыл бұрын

Probably a bad idea for a 5er Because fiverr is a thing for freelancers & is certain to munge search results or trademark in a way that ultimately makes dsome lawyers happy

"2024" won't stick, and as this video demonstrates people do need a signifier to differentiate versions. If it doesn't officially have something better on the cover the community will probably call it 5.5, which will confuse new players whose books just say "fifth edition".

@BluegrassGeek

Жыл бұрын

I'm still pushing for calling it "Anniversary Edition," since it's coming out on the 50th anniversary of D&D.

@ryanroyce

Жыл бұрын

I still suspect that they're going to start referring to 2014 5e as "Legacy 5e" and reserve the unmodified 5e label for the 2024 version.

@divi1139

Жыл бұрын

Personally I'd just call it 6e...it's still backwards compatible so🤷

@natetron7000

Жыл бұрын

D&D 50th?

@Artemisthemp

Жыл бұрын

Warlock going from Short Rest to Long Rest is huge to require a edition change, ad best 2024 is 5.5 as you say. We haven't even seen Monk, yet have a feeling the KI doesn't stay SR.

If all the subclasses come online at level 3, then all the subclass feature progression should come at the same levels. The subclass freatures being at the same levels was one of my favorite things about the UA. Some classes reality suffer from the original 5e subclass progression, like the rogue, sorcerer, and paladin.

@adolfodef

Жыл бұрын

For multiclass, if a player starts their character's second (or third) class at character_lvl_3 & wants to use a subclass from 5e (2014), or from suplemental books like Volo or Tasha; it should be allowed to get the first level benefits asociated with those subclasses (rather than waiting for character_lvl_6 or even later). -> Same thing with some lvl 3 "ribbon" features from the new OneDnD/5e_2024 subclasses (at DM discretion), given that the idea of "making things easy" at lower levels 1 & 2 is no longer valid when the rest of the party & foes are mono-class lvl 3 or 4.

@bentlergerjamin2783

Жыл бұрын

@@adolfodef No. Limiting multiclassing shenanigans is one of the best parts of the new subclass progression. Plus, that doesn't even make sense. What will you get at level 3 if you get your subclass features at level 1? Why are you trying to use subclasses from 2014 with rules from 2024?

@gammalolman580

Жыл бұрын

​@@bentlergerjamin2783 ok so, first off... Crawford kept mentioning up until now backwards compatibility for all books, including supplements. With that being said.. if you are a full caster, at 3rd level you get a very powerful feature: 2nd level spells. Web, aid, shatter, and many more have expanded your power greatly. Your amount of slots has doubled. If the things it solves are mostly multiclassing shenanigans... Then I believe that multiclassing in general should be fixed, especially as there are still a ton of succulent multiclass options currently.

@adolfodef

Жыл бұрын

@@bentlergerjamin2783 (answering backwards) . The whole idea of NOT calling this new Edition of D&D other than "5th Edition" (again), is to take advantage of NEW muggle human beings who do not know any better & will just buy new stuff alongside re-printings of the old stuff (because everything says to be the same edition). -> The Almighty Shareholders (the Over_overlords Of Lord HASBRO) do not understand (nor they care) about anything other than making their IP much BIGGER (read: mainstream, a hundred millon things sold in dozens of countries). Deception is Mandatory. . . . Oh, yeah... You are supposed to be able to play with the old subclasses from the PHB_2014 if you have it (using the rules of the PHB_2024 that your DM and/or friendly A.I. have access). This is by design. - - - - - . My previous post talks about what to do when multiclassing a character between levels 3 to 5 (either lvl_by_lvl or if starting the game not at lvl 1 or 2); because the new paradigm of making the two begginer levels easier to understand simply does not apply anymore once the total character_level is 3 or higher. . With 2 classes, R.A.W. you can only unlock two subclasses at lvl 6; but since the old subclasses were built with some features that lose utility/efectivity at mid or higher tiers of play; getting access to them early (or compensating for their absence) is a way for the DM to fair balance the "powerlevel" or flexibility of a non_monoclass player inserted in an heterogeneus party. -> One way to "compensate" is to give all players that START their character with an old subclass one specific "bonus" lvl1_feat (based on what they are missing until lvl 3); while the OTHER players (starting from a OneD&D class, hence "subclass-less" by default at levels 1 & 2), getting a free_to_choose "bonus" lvl1_feat [but at their character_lvl_3, not from the start]; as "congratulations for surviving" without that relative "advantage" before.

@bentlergerjamin2783

Жыл бұрын

@@adolfodef I do not understand half of what you are saying. I don't know why you're talking about corporate deception, seems completely irrelevant to this conversation. You are not supposed to be able to use older supplements with the newer rules. Backwards compatible means that old adventures will work right, and that's all. A lot of subclasses in the older rules even have a different number of features than those of the new rules, so I think it's pretty clear those aren't designed to mesh. The third level subclass design is in part to let players ease into their characters, but it is also to let characters ease into their classes. You shouldn't know exactly what type of Monk you're gonna be the instant you start training to be one. Why should that fact be any different for a multiclass character? You simply cannot say that letting anybody get any subclass they want with a one level dip will bring balance to the game. Nearly a decade of 5e has shown us how powerful Warlock and Cleric dips can be solely because they get their subclasses at 1st level. And those are classes designed to have 1st level subclasses, so imagine how ridiculously overpowered a build could get if you're stacking 1st level subclasses onto a class that is supposed to be perfectly fine at 1st level without a subclass. I simply cannot parse what you are saying about 1st level feats. So, sorry for my lack of response to that I guess.

I love standardized subclass progression. I loved the big sweeping changes we saw at the beginning. I don’t want to repurchase a game I already own if you don’t make cool, meaningful changes.

How can you come to the conclusion that we don't prefer homogenised subclass progression when you haven't asked explicitly about it in any of the surveys? Having only 200 words for overall impressions of a class leads us to focus on the issues we want repaired - not on the no-brainers that just makes sense without necessarily being exciting.

@rooseveltcooper

Жыл бұрын

Agree. They didn't even ask us if we liked it or not. Would love to know how they came to that conclusion?

@backcountry164

Жыл бұрын

The same way they knew everyone hated the new druid before that survey was even released. Social media.

At this point just call it 5.5 like most of the community already is.

Oh nooo I loved subclasses all coming at the same levels :( Rogue getting a subclass feature at 6 was fantastic

@KnuthMaestro

Жыл бұрын

SAME. I will be altering the classes so that it's all standard, it was a fantastic change!

@bendy2095

Жыл бұрын

They didn't all come at the same levels though?

@Swahhillie

Жыл бұрын

@@bendy2095 The UA ones did.

@marcos2492

Жыл бұрын

I'm one of the "meh" people about it but rogue SPECIFICALLY NEEDS to have its second sub feature earlier than 9th level

@johnoakley8989

Жыл бұрын

I agreed I like having commonality in the subclass progressions. This should not effect the usage of the old books. Maybe a small change for some subclasses in various books, but they should be handleable in a design note in the player's handbook.

I love D&D, and genuinely like the play test content coming out. I also value JC and love these videos. But I truly dislike the 2024 PHB as the new name. It’ll be confusing to new players and cumbersome for old players. Please call it anything else. 5.1 or 5.5 or anything. Please. You’re being super tone deaf to what the community wants.

@LordMorin

Жыл бұрын

The classes are so different that I can definitely see players multiclassing into both fighter types As long as 5e 2024 doesn't replace the earlier book if you have both books. Personally, I won't be buying any of the 5e 2024 books ever. If the new Adventures are truly backwards compatible with 5e 2014 I MAY buy them, but I doubt they will be. I have been against the UA versions since they stated. The new stiff is a load of garbage. I, personally, don't know of anyone that will be buying/playing 5e 2024. Most of them will be switching game systems come 2024.

@blackrabbit6858

Жыл бұрын

​@@victorferri4288 I totally agree. But I have to imagine they will stop selling 2014 and call those books legacy, like Volos guide...

@lotrotk375

Жыл бұрын

You love this, I don't 😁 I've never seen Crawford being interviewed by anyone who wasn't paid to just nod and never prod

I'd enjoyed seeing all the subclasses progressing at a common rate. It made a lot of sense. It might not be exciting, but it's an improved functional design for the game mechanics. "This doesn't excite people," shouldn't be a negative on its own. Excitement isn't always the reaction something should generate. "Infrastructure isn't sexy," but stable functionality is vital.

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

Very well said

@SortKaffe

Жыл бұрын

It was a no-brainer! Since they didn't ask explicitly about it, I used all my words on the stuff that still need work. Didn't expect them to revert the stuff we didn't criticise.

I was convinced the subclass progression was standardized so they could let people create full classes on DNDBeyond and make programming it easier. I did not think they'd back off on that.

@adolfodef

Жыл бұрын

They convinced the HASBRO shareholders to invest more on the digital side AND to wait more time for that money to be used on proper R&D (same ammount of money per annual_quarter & man_hours, but split on less actual people over a longer period); by delaying the release of the Virtual TableTop. -> Then it is possible to "custom made" each class, subclass & multiclassing interactions without making the A.I. doing the DungeonMastering panic & pull a metaphysical gun to shoot itself.

WOTC: "we removed maneuvers from baseline fighter when we released 5e because we think they're too complicated for new players to understand" Also WOTC: "please buy the Player's Handbook. No, not that one"

@direden

Жыл бұрын

This! 100%

I really liked parity in subclass progression, especially for the rogue

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, reverting it makes no sense to me. Why SHOULDN'T everyone get new, unique powers at the same time?

@Razdasoldier

Жыл бұрын

I like them but it should be 2 6 10 14

@Razdasoldier

Жыл бұрын

This is Wizard and Druid leveling and it keeps subclass features every 4 levels after 2 and all on even levels.

@SeanBoyce-gp

Жыл бұрын

​@@Razdasoldier I get that instinct, but each class should really be made up of two core features, one of which you get at 1st level and another of which you get at 2nd level, and you should have the opportunity to explore both before they add your subclass onto it. For example, Fighters get their Fighting Style and Second Wind at first level and they get their Action Surge at second level. Rogues get Sneak Attack and then they get Cunning Action. Warlocks get some form of spells (Pact Magic or Spellcasting depending on your flavor) at 1st level, they get Eldritch Invocations at 2nd level. Clerics add Channel Divinity at 2nd level. Sorcerers get Metamagic and points. Paladins add Smite. So on and so forth. It's actually Wizards and Druids that mess up the list.

@Razdasoldier

Жыл бұрын

@@SeanBoyce-gp not really because looking at the 2014 rules set Clerics had a core feature and a subclass feature Warlocks had a core feature and a subclass feature Sorcerers had a core feature and a subclass feature (meta magic wasn't until level 3) Druids had a core feature and a subclass feature Wizards had a core feature and a subclass feature

I'm totally in favour of keeping 5e going, but I have to agree with the others that branding the new core books as 5.1 or 5.5 or something like that would make more sense - making them backwards compatible will still be possible, but it would just add clarity when taking about them... because saying "5.5e" is quicker and easier than saying "5e, 2024 version".

@yuvalgabay1023

Жыл бұрын

Tbh i was for a brend new edition..the edition ren its course. The cracks are way to wide to be fixed is a simple samplanet book. We needed big changes

@accountid9681

10 ай бұрын

I would say 5.14, and 5.24 as a compromise between two naming systems

Sad to see the subclass progression standardization go

I'd prefer *bold* or some other clear styling rather than capitalisation to signify keywords; a capital doesn't work as a signifier at the start of a sentence, and it's only going to get mixed up with actual names. One of the things I like about D&D Beyond are the tooltips that can be used to make actions, conditions, spells etc. appear really distinctly in text (as well as appear in a box when you hover, but that obviously isn't an option for print media… yet).

@XanderHarris1023

Жыл бұрын

Bolding every time they mention a condition or rule would be a nightmare on the printer and on the eyes. They are just taking the already established capitalization system from Pathfinder (and probably other Paizo products as well).

@marcos2492

Жыл бұрын

I prefer _this_ over *this* TBH. Bold and underline, when used too much, does not make the text easier to read

@luketfer

Жыл бұрын

@@marcos2492 I mean Italics works as well.

@waynecribbs8853

Жыл бұрын

@@XanderHarris1023 I don't think "nightmare" is the right word here. Lots of other RPG books use font styles to make keywords pop and do so successfully. D&D could do it successfully too, if they wanted to.

@SeanBoyce-gp

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the colorizing on D&D Beyond is very good, and I struggle to see why you wouldn't include it or something like it in the books. Most good Powered by the Apocalypse games do that. If you look at the Armour Astir: Advent rules, they do a great job of classifying core mechanics with style and colorization. Red and Green are often used to represent advantage and disadvantage, then each of the sort of "damage types" have their own associated color, which means every time that color pops up you know what they mean. Wouldn't hate that in the printed books for D&D, but I would guess that's too big a stretch.

WotC- we call it “One DnD”, because there is going to be a one ultimate way to play DnD. Also WotC - let’s release a second 5e edition

@broomemike1

Жыл бұрын

When you say it like that, these two statements don't seem in conflict. I imagine they'd have said 5e was the ultimate way to play DND for years now.

@vassarprice757

Жыл бұрын

Did they say one dnd at all in this video? Seems like they are trying to change the rhetoric? Still not calling it 5.5 though.

I wonder where the feedback about standardised progression came from as it wasn't asked about in the surveys. Standardised progression is one of my favorite things out of the playtest, and it was very exciting - opening doors for things like the previously failed strixhaven multi-available subclasses etc.

@nousernameinputed

Жыл бұрын

Wonder if it was inferred from lots of mixed feedback from the specific features that were moved around?

@luketfer

Жыл бұрын

Reddit and certain content creators were very vocal about hating classes that got their subclass at 1 or 2 being moved to 3 but that was about it. So essentially you've now got the worst of both worlds, they still get their subclasses at 3 but Rogues get screwed because their features take forever to come online now whereas they came online much quicker in the original UA.

@nicka3697

Жыл бұрын

No. The last thing we need is subclasses that don't interact with the main class. It nearly made sense in a magical school context but it makes for subclasses that are nothing but a generalised feat tree.

DO NOT ROLL BACK THE SUBCLASS STANDARIZATION PLEASE, I like the valance it brings. Only downside was that the non phb subclasses would get negelected and become really hard to meah together

@adolfodef

Жыл бұрын

If you multiclass your character taking one of the OneDnD (new!5e) subclasses first & the second class with one of the PHB_2014 (old!5e) or Volo/Tasha subclasses at third or fourth character level, you are getting the same things together. -> To avoid the problem of players STARTING with an old!5e subclass first being "weak" or "incomplete" [because the first level features aee "dormant" until lvl 3]; the DM must choose to either allow for some of the "ribbon" features at first level to happen (rather than waiting to lvl3); or compensate it with a bonus lvl_1_feat and/or aditional skills/proficiencies/languages. -> If starting the game at lvl 3 or higher, another option is to grant those lvl1 subclass features from thevget go (regardless if the player has 1, 2 or all 3 levels in that class); to avoid waiting for "basic" things to unlock by the time the rest of the party has 6 levels in a single class.

@nathanielklee

Жыл бұрын

I can see the benefits in the uniformity. The weird aspect of it is when you get to classes where the subclasses are intrinsically linked to a character's identity. It's really odd that Sorcerers, Warlocks, Druids, and Clerics wouldn't get their subclasses until 3rd level since their subclasses are at the very core of those characters' concepts. How do you explain a Sorcerer not getting their subclass until 3rd level when the subclass is a representation of the powers they were born with? How could a Warlock make a pact with an otherworldly entity but not actually see any of that until 3rd level? etc.

@adolfodef

Жыл бұрын

@@nathanielklee All of those problems are solved [mechanically, the logic/meta is another question to solve eith the DM] with bonus lvl_1 feats: . Sorcerer: Metamagic Initiate . Warlock: Eldritch Initiate . Druid: Magic Initiate (Primal) . Cleric: Magic Initiate (Divine) If a player starts their character with the new OneDnD/5e_2024 subclasses, it gets instead a FREE bonus lvl 1 feat at character_lvl_3 [regardless of class or multiclass], as "compensation" for surviving that far without it. -> The others players starting with a PHB_2014 subclass do not get to choose what bonus lvl_1 feat they get when starting [see table above]. Bonus: . Artificer: Infusion Initiate {Homebrew: Learn 2, use only 1 (can switch 1 every level regardless class), needs actual Artificer levels if it has requirements [Replicate Magic Item]}. .

@Bidniss.

Жыл бұрын

​@@nathanielklee all of these issues are solved with a tiny bit of roleplay duct tape. Maybe your sorcerer knows they are magical, but they need to learn more about where their magic comes from so they become an adventurer. They can know that they have a dragon ancestor, but they need to be put in life or death senarios for their "true power" to surface. Your warlock can be an "Intern of Orcus" for their first 2 levels if you're deadset on playing a fiend pact, or they could have simply called out to the void the the voice that answered only reveals itself when your warlock proves itself to be worthy of making a true pact. Clerics can be devoted to the idea of good, but only choose to commit to one god after some time. Maybe they take a few days to read the fine print in their "worshipping 101" pamphlet they got at Sunday school. Most games I've played or seen played either start at level 3, or completely handwave picking a subclass, which completely negates the issue anyways.

Very silly that they refuse to call it 5.5. ⚔️ Everyone playing the game will call it 5.5.

@luketfer

Жыл бұрын

Hell most of the online community is already calling it 5.5 or 5R (for 5th Revised).

@life-destiny1196

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think just calling the 2024 Player's Handbook "the Player's Handbook" once it's out is going to be a huge source of market confusion. Hope they avoid that pitfall.

@CeleriaRosencroix

Жыл бұрын

Yep... it's honestly just... pitiful, and it's sorely disappointing to see this stubbornness play out. :/

@MatthewDragonHammer

Жыл бұрын

Maybe? At least for the first year? I suspect their goal is for everyone to effectively forget about the 2014 books by 2026. If the 2024 books are as well-received as they hope, then all newer players will just use those, and most existing players will update. Especially with things like D&D Beyond. I mean, consider how fast the community as a whole just stopped talking about the older versions of most of the player racial options in MoM. Or how quickly the community assimilated Tasha's into the core game. It won't take long for the 2024 core books to just be "The core books". At which point insisting on calling it 5.5 is something that only those who were around for 3.5 will still be doing. And that's hardly the majority of all players.

@tadeub818

Жыл бұрын

I believe the point is that, before launching 5.5, they'll still launch books in the 5.0 scope. Maybe they fear that people won't buy them if they call the new core something else. That's why they keep telling everyone that it will be 100% compatible. (For what I've seen so far, it's not really that compatible. I mean, you won't have a 2014 warlock playing alongside a 2024)

Why does this watch like a hostage negotiation at certainly points? Crawford is being SOOO careful not to say something or certain things.

@lotrotk375

Жыл бұрын

The poor man would probably break when confronted with anyone who isn't paid to just nod and prod. I wouldn't be surprised if Crawford is really crying inside he really just wants to design a hard break with 5e and call it 6e.

The standardization of subclass levels has been one of the best changes so far. Don't backtrack on it. Also, the community calls it 5.5e. Another suggestion has been 5e Revised. We're not going to use years to refer to game versions and content. Whatever is released in 2024 isn't going to be 5e. It can be built off of it but it's not the same edition and trying to say it is is false and just going to add confusion.

Please, keep the standardized subclass progression.

Yea we're all just gonna call it 5.5 This would be needlessly confusing to many players. Esspecially new players

I wish that there was something to differentiate the 2014 core rules from the 2024 core rules other than release year.

I believe most people loved the idea of subclass features at the same level! I for sure did...

@SortKaffe

Жыл бұрын

Yes, haven't heard any criticism about that? Since they didn't ask explicitly for feedback on it, it would make sense that only few expressed excitement about it because it was such a no-brainer.

@crashstarr6531

Жыл бұрын

I still wanted level 1 subclass for locks and clerics, at least. But keeping all subclasses at 3 but then moving the rest all over is just silly

@timeforsuchaword

Жыл бұрын

"We used to punch people in the face every time they entered the building. We recently tried not doing that, but it didn't seem to surprise or delight people so we're going back to the punching."

@5-Volt

Жыл бұрын

Still think it completely ruins the flavor & distinct differences of Clerics, Warlocks & Sorcerers but I guess I'll get over it...

Perhaps you should ask the broader DND community what they want it to be called. Because calling it 5e is just super confusing when there's a players handbook *replacement*

Aww I really liked the standardized subclasses! They seemed like they could open up some interesting design options, like allowing for the sort of shared subclasses that were playtested for the Strixhaven book. I will agree that this is probably the better decision for compatibility's sake, though

So, I haven't paid much attention to the latest UAs, but the idea of standardizing subclass progression seemed like a good idea. Giving players a chance to feel out their character before making that decision seems alright. I just had that happen to me recently. I am playing a Bard and was originally thinking of selecting the College of Eloquence. I realized after hitting level 2 that I wasn't playing the character as talky as I'd expect for an Eloquence Bard, and decided that I might want to pick something else that fit the character better. We just hit level 3, and I ended up going College of Glamour instead, which felt more on character as he was originally from the Feywild. I guess I'm saying I benefited from having a few levels to make that decision, and I think it would still benefit the game overall.

It's crazy how indecisive their marketing has been. They don't want to commit to something new, so they end up being confusing.

@zynthio

Жыл бұрын

I see your point, but I would rather that, then them making a decision that everyone hates and sticking to it just because. They got alot of backlash around One D&D, because most people don't see a need for an entirely new edition. And as a business, they want to keep their many adventure books still compatible with the game for as long as they possibly can. Even if they heavily promote the fact that a new edition is fully compatible with 5e adventures, there's still many people that would be unaware of that and just assume they arent idk it's very confusing. I hope that the revised 5e thing is what they stick to now and start committing to it more

It still sounds like the design focus is still 99% on players to the frustration of DMs who actually have to run the game.

@jamesm2577

Жыл бұрын

This so much. As a DM that pivot away from focus on player needs to version naming around 8:20 speaks of unsettling levels of consideration for DMs

What scares me about these interviews/playtests is that while claiming that OneD&D will breath life back into the DM role, there is barely anything new being said about it. Are dungeon/wilderness turns coming back? What is happening to monsters? Are we giving up on the soul of D&D and moving towards a heavy narrative focus? I might as well start learning 1 & 2e now at this rate.

@lotrotk375

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your criticism! I too have concerns. Monsters of the Universe barely improved anything to 5e's Monster Manual. So far I'm still believing the 5.5e's Monster core rulebook will just be the same book sold thrice in a row with a different cover.

@EbilNinja

Жыл бұрын

hold your horses, they did say they are focusing on the player options first and expanding the DM stuff afterwards, including monsters, so we will know more I am assuming in the next few playtests

At the end of the day, this is a new edition in the sense that it is a revised set of rules for the same roleplaying game. There is no law that each edition has to be dramatically different from each other. DnD is actually somewhat unique in the extent to which it has completely remodeled its mechanics with new editions. Most RPG's play like more streamlined versions of themselves as they create new editions. My point is when does this end? Are we going to have 5e (2024), 5e (2034), 5e (2044)? Why name the edition after the release year instead of just updating the edition name? It is much easier for players to differentiate 6e or 5.5e from 5e than for new players to have to be aware of the year release of a book before they use it. I understand players are really sensitive right now after the OGL backlash and you don't want to rock the boat, but just call a spade a spade. It's a new edition, even if it is compatible.

Very disappointed to hear the return of non-standard subclass features. Some classes gaps are WAY to big. Paladins, Rogues, Clerics especially benefited from this. The Paladin is especially egregious.

@portsyde3466

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget sorcerers.

@johnmhuizar

Жыл бұрын

I mean, was anyone actually happy with the playtest decision to delay Aura of Protection until 7th level though? Paladin subclass progression was bad, but the solution of making them wait a whole additional level to get their most iconic class feature sucks terribly.

@andrewtedd2398

Жыл бұрын

​@johnmhuizar aura of protection is more iconic than divine smite? I agree it's a crucial feature that everyone associates with Paladins (and pushing it back sucks) but smiting is always what I associate first with Paladins.

This is great. It is almost as if it is... an ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons 5ed 😄

The only reason I believe wotc is still around is because of the bridges that game designers like Jermey Crawford and Chris Perkins have built with the fans

@KJShell

Жыл бұрын

The only reason I believe that the company is not bigger is that many of the wotc business folk keeps burning those bridges that the game designers worked so hard to build.

@JoeStoryteller

Жыл бұрын

@life-destiny1196

Жыл бұрын

Them and their parents at Hasbro, who are, like, Nintendo levels of bad at understanding their own communities.

@johnnikyecole9114

Жыл бұрын

I feel the same.

@iParaShane

Жыл бұрын

Watch as the move to critical role in the coming years

5e is the fisher price version of pen and paper roll playing. Lack of magical items, reduce spell list and usable, spells that arn't just for rp, lack of melee abilities, and lack of team members contributing bonus. It great for someone new to get into pen and paper, but in all aspects.

Terrible idea to roll back the subclass level homogenisation. A few grognards were going to kick off for a while no matter what. Better to bite the bullet and improve the game. Rogues waiting 6 levels to get a subclass is like only giving them one subclass feature for most campaigns, which don't reach level 9 anyway.

@Leo619858

Жыл бұрын

Not a terrible idea at all, if it was a terrible idea, they would not have received the feedback that they did. At the end of the day, this is a game meant for players enjoyment. If the majority of players are enjoying non standard level homogenization, than that's the route they should take.

@nathanielklee

Жыл бұрын

The homogenization conflicts with the character concept for some classes, like the Sorcerer and Warlock. They might need to address some classes' progression, but the answer isn't to make them all exactly the same.

@backcountry164

Жыл бұрын

Grognards?? Doubtful. This comes from the "but my story doesn't make sense" crowd.

@egrettacaerulea

Жыл бұрын

All I know is I'll have waaaay less incentive to buy a brand new PHB if it's just the old one with a few tweaks.

Are the Spells playtests also comming?

So here's a question: Will it be viable to play un-updated races and/or classes like for example a Tabaxi Artificer within the otherwise updated ruleset?

@SortKaffe

Жыл бұрын

Yes, they might not have mentioned it, but it's still just 5e.

I’m eagerly and (im)patiently waiting for the new version of monk! It was my first class back in 3.0 and still my favorite one overall and I’m so excited to see it get a touch up’

Anyone who knows where I can get the wallpaper used in the video’s thumbnail? I can’t find it anywhere…

Ignoring how you don't seem to understand the definition of "Edition," you only gave us a few words. We would've happily talked about the progression if we had the room, or even known it was on the chopping block. We focused on the stuff you saw as experimental, so that's where we focused. We kinda assumed that the parts of this in question where the ones on the giant list of questions.

the naming scheme needs a bit of work obviously. The one thing I'm REALLY peeved about is the subclass progression being changed back. Seeing this normalized subclass progression was great for simplicity, but not just that, most importantly the fact that your specialization that you chose as a player comes through earlier in play, so you are able to see and feel your choice really come forth. It ESPECIALLY helped with some classes such as Rogue, Paladin and Sorcerer, who always felt to me, at least in later play, that they lagged behind in terms of their subclasses power in play, especially Rogue in Tier 2 play, who have a whole 6 levels to go before they even get their 2nd subclass feature, in which some classes would be almost getting their 3rd at level 10, its insane. They need to open up a general survey for these changes, to solidify those opinions. I personally play Rogue and Sorcerer a lot so I understand if I am more annoyed by this than most

@portsyde3466

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, first character was a draconic sorcerer, and I was personally stoked at the last playtest version of sorcerer, as they fixed A LOT of the things that was wrong with the class. Now they just unfixed it? Why?

If you use 2014 and 2024 you recognize a distinction is needed. Saying "this is 5e, just 5e, not 5.5" seems like misleading marketing that can confuse people and create problems. Please just stop being stubborn and just call it Revised 5e, or New 5e, or 5.5 already

People people. Please. Its not 6th edition. Or even 5.5. He’s said it pretty clearly, it’s the second edition of 5th edition. 5e2.

@AKA_Kira

Жыл бұрын

😂

I honestly don’t understand why if no one was complaining about the subclasses becoming available at level 3, they would opt to go back to previous progressions. The only problem I had with the level progressions is more that the level 20 abilities have been severely diminished for some classes, and don’t really make higher level games worth it. I know most people don’t play level 20 games, but for those that do, there’s no real incentive to staying with one class up to level 20. Aside from all of that, I’m sooo glad they’re deciding to backtrack on the One D&D, but still adamant about it not being 5.5 and just going back to calling it 5e… It’s so stupid I’m honestly surprised they’re going to try and stick with calling it 5e

You can say 2024 all you like but every single player will call it 5.5 upon release. You can stop being foolish now.

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

"Every"

Keep the same level subclass features, update the non-phb subclasses quickly, call it 5.5e

It's sad watching them dance to the corporate order to never acknowledge that this is a new edition. OBVIOUSLY it's a new edition. ONLY the adventures and campaigns will be forward compatible. And all that's fine. It's normal to put out new editions, and their design efforts seem even more promising than D&D Next (which gave us the actual 5e). But the worrying thing is the ongoing efforts by WOTC corporate to gaslight their customers at every opportunity, and to make the creatives that earn genuine good will tow the line.

We to in the community will need to talk about versions over a long run edition well running games, pleas put a differentiating subtitle on the books covers. I suggest going with colors for sub-editions in tribute to the old box sets, start with primary like red and move true secondary on the color wheel at this rate you have ruffly 60 years covered there.

like a fine wine, D&D only gets better as it ages.

I'm adding my voice to the chorus of people disappointed in the decision to revert the standardized subclass progression and my feedback on the survey will reflect that aswell. Having the subclasses progress at the same rate just made it easier for everyone. Having different rates of progression really felt like it disadvantaged some classes in original 5e, as classes like the Rogue had to wait until 9th level to receive a second set of subclass features, where the Cleric was getting subclass features at regular intervals.

@nathanielklee

Жыл бұрын

There's actually a bigger progression gap for the Cleric... it just happens later in the progression at levels where most groups never reach. The Cleric's subclass comes online at 2nd level, and they wait 4 levels for the next, 2 levels for the third, and 9 levels for the fourth. The Rogue's subclass comes online at 3rd level, and they have to wait 6 levels for the second, then 4 levels for third, and another 4 levels for fourth. On the other hand, Rogue gets a tons of useful features in the interim while Clerics are basically getting higher level spells. I mean, if you want to complain about class progression, look no further than the Bard. Their subclass comes online at 3rd level, they only wait 3 levels for another feature, then they wait 8 levels for a third and never even get a fourth! And Sorcerers start off with a subclass, wait 5 levels, then 8 levels, then 4 levels. Paladins got a 4-8-5 progression which sees their last feature coming online at 20th level, which means that virtually nobody actually earns their way to the literal capstone feature. I'm personally not against addressing the disparities, but I don't think making them uniform across the board is the right way to go about it, because for some classes it makes no sense that their subclass wouldn't come online until 3rd level. A Sorcerer's origin and a Warlock's patron should be there from the start to align with the thematic concept, for instance.

Please call it 5.1E or 5.5E. There are too many changes to not have a distinct name, but too similar (compatible) to change it to 6E. Otherwise you'll end up being like the MacBook naming scheme where you not only need to have the model name, but also the year to tell people what you have.

I will try to wait and see what the next UA expert classes look like, but I am really disappointed to hear they are looking to revert the subclass standardizations that were in the UA's so far. Also, I would much prefer branding like "5.5e" or even "5.24e" (so there could be a 5.34e in 2034....)

Will there be 2 versions of GWM and SS in the new PHB?

I run a club at school for kids. Some of them get a PHB from the local library. I can only see this as a nightmare for new kids, and old librarians. Very small segment of population, but i thinknthis eill effect me greatly. Call it 50th anniversary, or 5e Gold. Something!

I'm hoping the naming is a bit fluid, still. If only a few of the OneDnD rules get implemented, I'm with the devs about not changing the name. But what we saw in the playtest was a pretty good sized overhaul.

What happens to previous digital version of these books? will thy be updated to the new books or will we have to buy these new versions to use the updated rules?

@backcountry164

Жыл бұрын

Take just one guess...

old subclass progression was pretty bad for some classes. the standard progression had some issues but it's sad that you arent going to do anything to fix rogues for example

How will you be incorporating this into subscriptions and purchases online. Will all the Tasha races for example be unusable in oneDND

I can't wait to see the bard cleric rogue and paladin since their subclass progression would need a combination between the last play test and 2014 versions. Also, I would love to see some behind the scenes looks of the internal playtest. Cause we see that you show us, but there might need to be some content, especially when it comes to creature redesign.

So what problems do people have of the subclasses getting everything at the same time? Mechanically it makes sense. Expect the fanbase to dub the 2024 version 5.5 or 5R (5th revised).

@AKA_Kira

Жыл бұрын

Why not fiver lol?

My favorite thing about DND is the setting- Eberron/Planescape/Spelljammer rules are dumped at the door for home brew or MonteCooks Invisible Sun ruleset (based on Cypher System)

5e and 5r, 5th Edition and 5th Revised, 5 and 5.5, 5e 2014 and 5e 2024. WOTCs can suggest what they call it in-house but the community will decide what we call it It will probably depend on how much you can move between the two rulesets and if they feel interchangeable like a variation at the level of a homebrew or house rule rather than a complete new edition. If current 5e DMs and players can stay playing 5e and slowly bring in aspects of the revised edition in pieces like say weapon mastery or certain feats and spells, WOTC will have succeeded. If you have to decide to start playing 5th Revised then it is a new edition.

When is the next playtest being released?

@CooperAATE

Жыл бұрын

Later this month

Does this mean my D&D beyond players guide will be automatically updated? Or will I need to buy it again? If I have two copies in D&D beyond - how will they be listed?

@backcountry164

Жыл бұрын

It'll almost certainly be done the same way they did Monsters of the Multiverse. All of the options will be shown side by side, and the original options will be listed as "legacy" with a toggle to remove them from the options.

I am genuinely confused about D&D 2024 Fifth (but not Fifth) Edition. Can we still use old Fifth Edition sublcasses? For example...

Literally the only “delight” I had was the subclass progression changes. That is horrific to hear it’s returning to the garbage it was before. Please, PLEASE remember how terrible that progression track is for several classes. Please, PLEASE remember how multiclassing with 5e is a nightmare where several classes are ONLY good as multiclasses.

5E revised is fine with me. I think the DnD players who have been around for a long time might call it 5.5, but I'm just calling in 2024 edition because the material is meant to be backwards compatible, and I've been here since 5E started. Based on what i seen in playtest, enough is staying the same to still play previous books

@nathanielklee

Жыл бұрын

"Revised" isn't bad at all...

The Trouble with calling something 2024 is that it starts to look old immediately in 2025. Happened all the time with Microsoft Window versioning. I vote for D&D 50th Anniversary Editions for 5e. Then people will know it works with 5e, they will know it's the newer stuff, and it doesn't automatically look old in 2025.

As a DM, "we're playing 5e, but only books published before 2023" is about to become a mantra...

Please Don’t forget Artificer!!!

@RoryIsNotACabbage

Жыл бұрын

Artificer will probably be redone in a later book, it's never been in the phb

@averageopinion1251

Жыл бұрын

@@RoryIsNotACabbage when they do that I hope they come up with more new classes to actually expand beyond the 12-13 that everyone knows from 5e.

@nerdteller

Жыл бұрын

@@RoryIsNotACabbage I fear you are right but as they said this Will be the ultimate one and only new game and it Will not be Other version alter this, I still hope they make the player handbook with all kind of classes…

Bring back the free attack on light weapons and the new exhaustion mechanics. Is there going to be a dedicated spell redesign play test or are you going to mix those in with the class reiterations? Are all spells going to recieve the banishment treatment; that would make spell casters less broken?

Parts of this are going to drive me mad as a DM. When players show up with "5e" characters and they are using two different versions (because I'd be insane to expect them to update their sources if we're still playing "5e") it's going to require a lot more player responsibility to have a grasp on their character abilities. And they already need hand holding (not a complaint - it's just a reality of not having played as much as the DM likely has).

Unrelated to the video, just wondering where the minecraft dnd dlc is since the release was said to be in spring?

It would also be great if you guys would create English copies of this that have that have the metric system as a unit of measurement. I mean you've already done the conversion for the other language books.

May i suggest Tales of the Overcautious? If you are going to roll back all the changes you have proposed from crits to 2 weapon fighting and subclass progression. You might as well just highlight the lack of boldness.

I'm a character builder, I do it for fun and play in a lot of games, and have now 97 characters on Dndbeyond. Multiclassing and coming up with creative thematic builds and level dips is probably one of my greatest joys of freedom in that process. I know I don't speak for everyone but I'm really not going to enjoy losing out on some of those very nice 1st level subclass choices you can make. What I would do is give retraining options at certain levels or have rules written or suggest about when/how a player can go about retraining their subclass throughout a level path. I've actually seen a lot of hate for multiclassing in these comments but as far as me and my friends we adore being able to piece things together into your perfect unique blend and I think waiting till 3 for *all* subclasses is a really long wait for, at least some of, my favorite builds.

How are books like Tasha’s and Xanathar’s going to be compatible?

Hype for the finalized updates!

being backwards compatible is great and all but what about forward compatible? Can I play the new "edition" adventures with the 2014 rules?

I'd love it if Wizards of the Coast put tools in their books for specific fantasy genres - dark fantasy, epic fantasy etc. But all in one place

@zynthio

Жыл бұрын

If you've not seen it, I would recommend you watching a video by Matt Colville called "What are Dungeons for?" - He talks about genre and how important it is for a game system to support the genre. D&D tend to want to keep the game as a jack of all trades, master of none. Slapping some optional rules on top of 5e trying to get a different genre feel tends to not work super well, because at the end of the day, the *core* rules of the game aren't very strong at supporting those genres - in my opinion. This is coming from someone that loves 5e and I know it like the back of my hand basically, trying a different game entirely is more likely to get you the genre and tone you're after, not hacking 5e cheers

One question: Are there any plans to translate the setting books, such as Eberron or Ravnica, into other languages, such as Spanish or Portuguese, in the future?

How about "protect and carry forward" the OGL?

Does the “light my fire”/“inspire delight” rule mean you are leaving Wild Shape alone?

Great respect to WotC and DnD for allowing people to share their opinions in the comments section. At least they seem like a company that is trying to listen to people's feedback. I know mistakes were done in the past but it does seem like a lot is being done to do better. So many companies close the comments section just to try and hide any sort of criticism. I know not all people are happy with changes and everyone has their own opinion on how to do things, but this conversation and many of the proposed ideas for DnD One are moving DnD in the right direction.

It made perfect sense to my why they reverted the subclass feature standardization. From a narrative standpoint, a lot of it didn't make sense. A warlock, sorcerer and cleric should be dedicated to having a subclass at level 1 because narratively it makes sense. Especially a sorcerer who's supposed to be born with innate magic, it doesn't make sense for every sorcerer to suddenly discover the true source of their innate capabilities at level 3. Plus this allows for easier multi-classing capabilities which this standardization was massacring. Now I do feel that certain subclass features come through way too late in the game (like a Paladin shouldn't reach their end capabilities at level 20) but that should be much easier to juggle than having all subclasses being set at level 3.

@Apfeljunge666

Жыл бұрын

they arent gonna go back to Warlock/Cleric/Sorc subclasses at level 1. they are only reverting the standard progression at higher levels.

@Leo619858

Жыл бұрын

@@Apfeljunge666 well that's the worst of both worlds if that's the case. They ruin the only benefits of non standard while keeping what's crappy about it? That makes no sense!

Why not 5.5e? Year version is good for a company internally, yes, but is confusing for having the same name for 2 products for end-users. This is simple stuff.

I think the main issue is that there is a conflict between the company as a business obviously wanting to push a new version of DnD to sell content while trying not to fragment the community with new versions. And in this scenario the only viable option is to allow the core rule books, website tools and all that to be upgraded either for free or at a lower price for existing owners. This would avoid the Android version fragmentation effect and allow WotC to sell new content to an audience that is more on the fence to move to DnD 2024. In my recurring DnD session my DM as stated multiple times that he will continue to run his games in DnD 5e because he sees no point in moving forward when DnD 5e already works and he already made a big investment in any case. Learning new rules and such and doing so at a cost for a DnD version that is still the norm is something not everyone is willing to do. I think things like the VTT and more of tabletop being done online will help push DnD 2024. But for that to happen the entry point for this must be accessible for DnD veterans. Once they are hooked, they'll buy the content anyway as they always did. There is a reason why over time many OS companies adopted the approach of giving their OS upgrades for free. It's precisely to avoid this approach of 2014 edition vs 2024 edition. Try to move as many people to the new edition and build a business model around the benefits of upgrading such as new content and tools that take better advantage of the new edition.

I know it's small, but the capitalization is actually useful.

Standardized subclass levels had me most excited about the 2024 rules update when i saw them. Now I'm less excited about the rules update. If its just small tweaks, do i really need to buy the book?

What i would really like to see in one dnd is dual subclassing. It would not be game breaking but would open up the customization levels equaling that of pathfinder. Maybe a feat that allows it. Kind of like 3.5 when a cleric had 2 domains. A wizard could be a necromancer war wizard. Or a horizonwalker beastmaster. That way a character doesnt feel pidgeon holed by their subclass