I think people want to see the books to judge for themselves, rather than believing marketing spin just because the corporate spokesperson said the same thing in X number of interviews.
D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books
Oofta
Legend
Kurotowa
Legend
There's always going to be a clash when we apply the term "tank" to a TTRPG character. It was popularized as MMORPG terminology by Everquest and later World of Warcraft, and in that framework a tank's job is as much about managing aggro and enemy placement as it is simple damage mitigation. So when it gets used in a TTRPG context, there's immediately a clash in expectations.
A TTRPG high durability front liner usually doesn't have the control elements a MMORPG tank does. They tried that with 4e, and it pops up a little bit still in 5e, but it's not common. Instead, 5e mostly follows the older D&D legacy of the meatshield. The warrior who stands on the front line and holds their ground, while the archers and casters huddle in safety behind them.
So in the sense of being a good meatshield, the UA Monk definitely does a much better job of it than it used to. The actual play reports talk at length about how their improved defensive options let them hold the front line instead of having to be a light skirmisher like the Rogue.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
But the proposed Class groups were Warriors (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk) and Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin), so without knowing what Perkins may have said exactly I would suppose the interview writer was keying off of something like that.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I mean, they've shown us all the rules, we know the score.
Oofta
Legend
As far as whether the 2024 release is a new edition, first I don't care what we call it. I'll take a look at the rules and decide what we use. Second, the game has been evolving and changing since Sword Coast Adventurers Guide added new subclasses. Xanathar's could practically qualify as a 5.5 version if they tracked such things.
What it is not, is a major change to how the game functions.
What it is not, is a major change to how the game functions.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
It's about historical equivocation around tge word "edition."
By the standard publishing term "edition," this is obviously a new edition since they will have new ISBNs, just like the mid-80's refresh of 1E was a new edition, and the black cover 2E books from the 90's were a new edition, and "3.5" was a new edition. These will be the 9th editions for both the PHB and DMG.
But TSR and later WotC adopted idiosyncratic, ad hoc uses under the moniker of "edition." 1E was not the original version of D&D. 2E started with the third typical edition of the rulebooks. 3E wasn't the third of anything, being the 5th typical editionof the big rulebooks and like the 10th version of the game.
If WotC could talk a out editions normally, that would be nice, but that ship sailed in the 80's.
Oofta
Legend
At this point, the edition terminology is largely marketing barring major changes like we saw 2 to 3, 3 to 4, 4 to 5. Those were all pretty major revisions and I think qualified. As to whether the new version justifies edition change or not, I don't think it matters.
Whether or not monks can be tanks is far, far more important.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I mean, thinking about actual tank warfare, high mobility hard to take out troops puncturing defensive lines, a Monk seems to fill that role.
Kurotowa
Legend
Speaking of such things, with the change to the Heavy weapon trait I kind of want to play a halfling Barbarian. Halfling Nimbleness means you laugh at any defensive line that isn't goblins or kobolds. So why not grab a greataxe, Rage away, and fearlessly dive into the middle of the enemy formation.
