D&D (2024) Is the 2024 rules update a new edition? Argue about it here (not everywhere else)!

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

We know for a fact rules are changing. Do we expect those rules changes to be issued as errata for the existing books? If not, then it's not the same edition and it's an edition change, even if it's just an "update" such as 3e to 3.5.

We've seen this. Tritions, for example, gained Darkvision in a later book. All of the (multiple) previous sources that had them received errata. This is a single edition.

However, starting with MP:MoM, Wizards of the Coast has stopped issuing errata for existing products changed. So I would not expect OneD&D rules changes to be reflected as errata in the earlier books.

Two sets of rules that while perhaps mathematically similar do conflict with each other at points? Not the same edition.

If I can take my completely-up-to-date 2014!PHB and another person at that table takes their completely-up-to-day 2024!PHB and we both have different rules for the Hide action such that the DM or table needs to decided which edition's rules are in force, it's different editions.

Again, this is all based on if they issue errata, and that they will likely continue the trend of not. If they do issue errata, then all of the rule books say the same thing and it's one edition.

Any arguments about backward compatibility or 2014 & 2024 characters sitting at the same table, while valid, are orthogonal to this. Are the rules the same? is a criteria that can not be ignored in determing if things are the same or different.

What would they do errata every race and class? it would rival 4e errata

 

[Blue]

if the rules being identical is your criteria (to the degree that one monster gaining darkvision is not the same edition), then we had several editions of 5e already. Not sure why you did not point them out at the time.

No one saying things are identical, the claim is they are compatible

Please reread what I said, as this is not what I was referring to as rules. That was an example solely of errata that went back several books.

The rule example I said was Hide. If one person at a table has a 2014!PHB that says the rule works one way, and another has a 2024!PHB that the rule works another way, and the DM or table needs to make a call which set of rules they are using, then those aren't the same ruleset, and therefore aren't the same edition.

 

[mamba]

Please reread what I said, as this is not what I was referring to as rules. That was an example solely of errata that went back several books.

and you used the fact that there were errata keeping older books in sync to call it one edition

Do we expect those rules changes to be issued as errata for the existing books? If not, then it's not the same edition

We've seen this. Tritions, for example, gained Darkvision in a later book. All of the (multiple) previous sources that had them received errata. This is a single edition

The rule example I said was Hide. If one person at a table has a 2014!PHB that says the rule works one way, and another has a 2024!PHB that the rule works another way, and the DM or table needs to make a call which set of rules they are using, then those aren't the same ruleset, and therefore aren't the same edition.

Guess what, Hide works however the DM says it works. Minor tweaks do not make it a new edition. Tashas was not a new edition either, but I guess you must have been on the side complaining about that too

 

[Blue]

What would they do errata every race and class? it would rival 4e errata

I am not saying they should. I even suggested that I don't think they will.

That has nothing to do with the argument that if you there are contradictory rules (I used Hide as an example) where a determine needs to be made which are being used, then it's not the same edition.

I put forth a definition for one facet of what is needed for it to be the same edition - that it has the same rules, with an example rule that has nothing to do with character creation or monsters.

There are also other facets people can look at, such as mathematical compatibility and such. All of them need to evaluate as true for it to be the same edition.

 

[mamba]

I put forth a definition for one facet of what is needed for it to be the same edition - that it has the same rules, with an example rule that has nothing to do with character creation or monsters.

There are also other facets people can look at, such as mathematical compatibility and such. All of them need to evaluate as true for it to be the same edition.

In your definition of what an edition is…

I am pretty sure I can find D&D errata that according to your definition are separate editions

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, it’s a 5.5. They just don’t want to call it that for fear of scaring the newer players off.

It's not really the new players that go spare at an edition change or update.

 

[Blue]

In your definition of what an edition is…

Which is what is being discussed, so YES, what my definition of an edition is. Don't say that like it's a counter to my point, this entire thread is discussing our criteria for what a definition is and is the 2024 the same or a different one.

If you want to disagree, please tell me why you think a new publishing with incompatible definitive rules is the same edition. That's adding to the thread.

 

[DarkCrisis]

It's not really the new players that go spare at an edition change or update.

I would think old hat would be used to it. It’s the newer players they have to convince to buy the new books. “I have to buy the core again?!?!?”

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would think old hat would be used to it. It’s the newer players they have to convince to buy the new books. “I have to buy the core again?!?!?”

Having done this five times now, again, it's not the new folks that seem taken by surprise that the thing that happens regularly happened again. Or the ones that swear that this time -- THIS TIME -- they will not go to the new thing because they have all the books they need.

 

[mamba]

Which is what is being discussed, so YES,

we are discussing whether it is a new edition, not whether according to your definition it is. I am fine with you giving us yours, that does not make it the one we need to accept. That is what I was pointing out

If you want to disagree, please tell me why you think a new publishing with incompatible definitive rules is the same edition. That's adding to the thread.

because the changes are small enough to not warrant an edition change. We had errata which according to your definition would have been new editions. So do you expect us to not just ask 'what version are you playing' but e.g. 'which errata of 4e are you using'. If you want to do that, go right ahead, but you left the commonly accepted understanding of edition (as vague as it already is) behind

If I can play the classes alongside each other and can run the adventures with no more adjustment than they would have needed anyway, then the two are compatible and whether you want to call it a new edition or not is largely meaningless / marketing / agenda.