D&D (2024) Based upon what we currently know, what degree of "edition update" is 5.5?

[TwoSix]

Right now, I'm expecting to be roughly in line with the 3.5 changes. And the 3.5 changes weren't earth-shattering; going by the above guidelines, 3.5 was really more of a 3.3.

I expect to see:
-Minor changes to the base character creation rules. I think ASIs will move off of backgrounds and simply become a free floating step. There will be slight tweaks to racial features, but I think the currently proposed rule changes are pretty close to where we'll end up.
-Some moderate shakeups to classes. Not a full on rewrite, but some class features being tweaked, and some subclass features might change levels a little bit.
-Some kind of change to short rest. I'm totally torn on whether they'll bite the bullet and change warlock casting to LR, but I think monk ki and a bunch of fighter features are going to shift to LR. They'll leave short rest in as a way to spend Hit Die and to preserve backwards compatibility, but I'm betting it will shift to be less in-game time and have a mechanical constraint on how many you can take. (Like you can do it twice, or maybe PB times, before a long rest.)
-A bunch of minor changes to basic rules, like the "no monster crit" and grapple changes. These will be the points that cause the most consternation, yet make the least impact and somehow remain the most impervious to feedback. Basically the 3.5 weapon size fiasco all over again.
-What will make the 5.X revision the most like 3.5 is that feats and spells are going to get majorly revised, because those changes are easy to make, easy for the player base to accept, and also majorly consequential to gameplay. It's the part of the revision that I'm most actively looking forward to.

 

[aco175]

I'm not that big of a computer guy and hear things like software editions and how much would 5.1 be off of 5.5 or 6.27 and I start to think about the Windows software. I remember when 3.1 was cool and then I think it was Windows98 or Win2000, XP, Vista and now 10, 11 whatever.

Aren't these backwards compatible as well? Granted the new, cool, shiny software makes the people look better and runs things faster and smarter than the old. The new edition or patch or whatever is sold as better but my IT department at work tells us to hold off buying it until they get it fixed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm going to use an older analogy.

I think that this will be similar to the change from 1e (base) to 2e (base).

They will be streamlining. They will be correcting errors that have popped up. There will be some substantial revisions when it comes to character creation. But all the material from the prior version- all those modules, all the stuff, is fundamentally compatible. There will be small details that will change so there will be distinctions (especially at chargen), but fundamentally the gameplay will be nearly identical.

 

[Stalker0]

It’s clear this is not a new edition. I think the real bar will be: “is this more or less than 3->3.5”.

Based on marketing it’s likely less, but it’s simply way too early to know

 

[glass]

But more than 4e Classic -> Essentials.

This is your regularly scheduled reminder that Essentials was not a new edition. It was 4e. And therefore by definition did not have changes from itself.

It’s clear this is not a new edition. I think the real bar will be: “is this more or less than 3->3.5”.

3.5 OTOH, definitely was a new edition. So if 1D&D were not going to be a new edition (hint: it is) it would obviously be considerably less than the 3.0 => 3.5.

---

Anyway, from the initial announcements, I was assuming 5.1. But it is now looking very much like a 5.5. I believe this to be a mistake.

 

[Stalker0]

3.5 OTOH, definitely was a new edition. So if 1D&D were not going to be a new edition (hint: it is) it would obviously be considerably less than the 3.0 => 3.5.

If you compare the amount of change from 2e to 3e, or 3.5 to 4….with respect no way was 3 to 3.5 a new edition.

While you could define your editions somewhat arbitrarily, in this case editions have been defined by precedent, we have seen what a new edition constitutes.

A lot was changed was changed in 3.5 but the fundamental structures remained the same. People still played the game fundamentally in the same way. Wotc has defined that as a half edition, and nothing in their marketing descriptions for 1dnd has suggested it will be any more than that

 

[delericho]

This is your regularly scheduled reminder that Essentials was not a new edition. It was 4e. And therefore by definition did not have changes from itself.

There was a significant release of "errata" (actually revisions - errata is another term WotC have been wildly misusing) that hit at the same time as Essentials did - things like magic missile switching back to an auto-hit power. So, yes, Essentials did bring in changes.

 

[glass]

If you compare the amount of change from 2e to 3e, or 3.5 to 4….with respect no way was 3 to 3.5 a new edition.

New core books. New supplements (Complete Divine replacing Defenders of the Faith for example). Definitely a new edition, scale of changes compared with 3e and 4e notwithstanding. And I note that you did not compare the scale with the 1 to 2e change, or B/X to BECMI....

There was a significant release of "errata" (actually revisions - errata is another term WotC have been wildly misusing) that hit at the same time as Essentials did - things like magic missile switching back to an auto-hit power. So, yes, Essentials did bring in changes.

Yes, Essentials incorporated errata, as well it should. It was nonetheless entirely compatible in both directions with other 4e products released before it and after it.

 

[Stalker0]

New core books. New supplements (Complete Divine replacing Defenders of the Faith for example). Definitely a new edition, scale of changes compared with 3e and 4e notwithstanding. And I note that you did not compare the scale with the 1 to 2e change, or B/X to BECMI....

Again with respect you are using your own definitions of an edition change, whereas I am using it as WOTC has previously defined it. WOTC has already showcased what edition changes look like (both half editions and full ones).

And your right I did not use the early editions as I don't have a lot of experience with them, but I think looking at the last 3 full edition changes and one .5 change is a worthy way to see how they have been defined previously.

 

[delericho]

Again with respect you are using your own definitions of an edition change, whereas I am using it as WOTC has previously defined it. WOTC has already showcased what edition changes look like (both half editions and full ones).

In fairness @glass is right - 3.5e should have been considered a new edition (especially given the precedents of B/X -> BECMI and 1st -> 2nd).

4e was the edition of Theseus, so I'll leave the question of whether Essentials counts as a change or not to the reader. Certainly, comparing the core rulebooks as published in 2008 with the books as published in 2010 would show significant revisions.

(And, in publishing terms, I think the change to the "black cover" 2nd Edition core rulebooks would also be considered a new edition, despite them containing no rules changes.)

As noted in one of the other threads, the word 'edition', as regards D&D, has been thoroughly mangled.