GMforPowergamers
Legend
yes and no... old sneak attack (called backstab) got some clarification or errata depending on how you read the orginal, and max 1st level hp became standard
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) The impending mess that will be backwards compatibility
- Thread starter Emberashh
- Start date
"The changes are the sorts of minor corrections and clarifications we make evry time we reprint, and we've reptrinted both the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master guide more than 10 times since 1989!" sticks out in the introduction to it:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Thank you very much.
And now we see: edition confusion goes back to 1995...
and also: it was also clearly called out as comprising all the minor corrections and better accessibility. So maybe calling the new edition revised 5e might be justified by that precedent.
I'm guessing all of the 2e changes in that are similar to what are in the errata with new printings for 5e:
This is backed up by them saying you'd have to look pretty hard to find the changes and that it's like what they do for new printings.
The 1DD updates seem to be multiple orders of magnitude bigger to me and not comparable at all to that 2e printing (at least based on the playtests so far).
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I think you are correct. Still, people back then liked to put a lable on something, so TSR back then had to explain.
I do think, after all those edition changes or not, it boils down to semantics, or rather trying to force their narrative upon everyone by puting a lable on it. Wizards tries to call it 5e, because they want to sell their in between stuff (which will probably indeed be compatible with the new rules), others want to call it 6e, because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars who want to squeeze money out of their customers...
I am more leaning towards WotC´s point of view, but am still hesitant to buy. After all, everyone can decide for themselves, how they see the 2024 books. Everyone forcing others to use a certain lable is overreaching by far.
I think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
At least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
On the other hand, if edition in games must imply non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Does WotC itself seem to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::
::
Last edited:
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
WotC's definition is for marketing purposes, so they can continue selling product until the change-over that isn't a change-over. And doing so is their right, and there's nothing to be done about it.I think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
At least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
On the other hand, if edition in games must implies non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Is WotC itself seems to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::
UngeheuerLich
Legend
At that point, editions of d&d is not helpful as a guide to what is compatible and what not. So why not just use the "official" name and stop calling it differently in different threads...I think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
At least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
On the other hand, if edition in games must imply non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Does WotC itself seem to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::
mamba
Legend
that depends on why they want to… in general people who want to change the label of something have an agenda
it is not a text book though, because books do not have the concept of compatibility
WotC has clearly used edition inconsistently, some were compatible despite being separate editions, others clearly were not. People by and large called them by what WotC called them. I see no reason why this should be any different nowOn the other hand, if edition in games must imply non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Does WotC itself seem to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::
It feels like if they call these core books anything easily abbreviatable besides just 5e or just D&D then it will probably be adopted. Could be a year, or revised, or edition or...
If WotC doesn't, then it feels like the community will pick one to easily differentiate which version they mean when they talk about .
Picking a nomenclature that will work when they do the same thing again next time feels like it would be nice.
------
My guess is some folks will continue to use D&D name for ttRPGs like the name Coke for soda in some places. "What are you playing?" "D&D" "What kind?" "Shadow Run". Others won't know there is anything other than the current version. And others will need something specific to add it to the O,D&D, B,1e, B/X, 2e, etc... list of base games and follow it by the list of allowed splat books. I assume it will have something on message boards that fits in the version lists to distinguish what threads on it specifically are about .. and neither just 5e or DnD feels like it will do that to me. Or would 4e and essentials lived happily long term without distinguishing? If so, I could be wrong.
Last edited:
