D&D (2024) WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."

[Jahydin]

Essentials was a new edition, but wasn't concerned with getting existing 4E players to convert over. It was to be the "Basic" version, appealing to new players because of the simplified classes and older players who weren't thrilled with 4E's AEDU mechanics. I don't think anyone was mixing and matching books, I could be wrong though?

That said, the Monster Manual was superior in everyway from what I remember, so I think it was worth it to everyone to buy that.

Anyway, what confused and frustrated players is, unlike Basic and AD&D, it seemed WotC was done with 4E and moving completely on to support only Essentials, very much giving the impression it was the new edition now. I remember quite a few people feeling like they were being gaslighted by the whole situation.

By this time, my group and I were very much happy playing Pathfinder, so never got a chance to actually play Essentials.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It would be honest, but if they feel it won't increase sales of Beyond subscriptions, theybwill avoid it.

Right, but my understanding is that there was a significant amount of errata that was never available in a physical, bound copy of the PHB, DMG, or MM. So you would need to reference DDI, a PDF or Essentials to get the standard rule.

Yeah, 4th Ed's phantom corebook was "The Complete Errata Handbook".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Essentials was a new edition, but wasn't concerned with getting existing 4E players to convert over. It was to be the "Basic" version, appealing to new players because of the simplified classes and older players who weren't thrilled with 4E's AEDU mechanics. I don't think anyone was mixing and matching books, I could be wrong though?

That said, the Monster Manual was superior in everyway from what I remember, so I think it was worth it to everyone to buy that.

Anyway, what confused and frustrated players is, unlike Basic and AD&D, it seemed WotC was done with 4E and moving completely on to support only Essentials, very much giving the impression it was the new edition now. I remember quite a few people feeling like they were being gaslighted by the whole situation.

By this time, my group and I were very much happy playing Pathfinder, so never got a chance to actually play Essentials.

Everything about how Essentials was presented pointed to them thinking of it as a new edition, even it wasn't by their previous standards.

 

[dave2008]

You have feats being leveled (and no longer optional)
Background features are gone
Backgrounds now GIVE feats
Races are completely diffrent

We have new status and comditions

We have new crit rules (including the hint that something else will replace monster crits)

IMO, the only one that borders on a whole sale change is if feats are no longer optional. Which we technically don't know yet, but it sure seems it is going that way. The rest are minor revisions / tweaks IMO.

 

[Parmandur]

IMO, the only one that borders on a whole sale change is if feats are no longer optional. Which we technically don't know yet, but it sure seems it is going that way. The rest are minor revisions / tweaks IMO.

Even that isnend of the world material. "Here's, take a 1st Level Feat" is a super easy adjustment for a character sheet.

 

[Branduil]

Personally, in terms of marketing I dislike the obfuscated half-editions as opposed to just openly making it a new edition. I think ever since 3.5 and its false promises of full backwards compatibility, WotC has generally been terrified of calling something a half-edition, for understandable reasons. And really, since 4e they've been terrified of even calling 5e, 5e. I would be happier if they admitted up front that yes, this is a new edition, even if it's going to be very similar to 5e, and although a lot of material may be easily converted, not all of it will be. There's no law that a new edition has to upend the fundamental structure of the game, that's just what has happened so far with WotC's management of the brand for various reasons. I think it might be good to change that now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One thing I believe most of us can agree on: how major or minor these changes are considered, and how much of an edition shift it is, will be determined far more by how we personally feel about the changes than by anything WotC says.

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, in terms of marketing I dislike the obfuscated half-editions as opposed to just openly making it a new edition. I think ever since 3.5 and its false promises of full backwards compatibility, WotC has generally been terrified of calling something a half-edition, for understandable reasons. And really, since 4e they've been terrified of even calling 5e, 5e. I would be happier if they admitted up front that yes, this is a new edition, even if it's going to be very similar to 5e, and although a lot of material may be easily converted, not all of it will be.

They should be terrified of calling something a "half-edition," because thst was raging corporate BS double-speak when they made it up.

 

[Parmandur]

One thing I believe most of us can agree on: how major minor these changes are considered, and how of an edition shift it is, will be determined far more by how we personally feel about the changes than by anything WotC says.

I think it will be determined by how well Beyond integrates mixing and matching. If they pull that off that means it will be easy enough for anyone to do at home.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They should be terrified of calling something a "half-edition," because thst was raging corporate BS double-speak when they made it up.

And the video they just put out wasn't raging corporate BS double-speak?