D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Hussar]

I think that by, say, 2026, any confusion will likely fade into the background as the community adopts the newer revision books over time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

are factoring it in, but I really think the WotC (and me as well), thinks that most groups aren't going to play with both at once. That is just not the way most 5e players play the game.

I think you’re wrong here. Players aren’t going to not use Tasha’s just because the phb got an updoot.

They’re gonna use both exactly because they don’t think too hard about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that by, say, 2026, any confusion will likely fade into the background as the community adopts the newer revision books over time.

That has been the pattern, and I expect the majority of folks will (eventually) go with the new books. I won't of course, but my way is very much not the way of the majority.

 

[Parmandur]

I think you’re wrong here. Players aren’t going to not use Tasha’s just because the phb got an updoot.

They’re gonna use both exactly because they don’t think too hard about it.

That was my experience of 3.x: never really purely 3E or 3.5

 

[Clint_L]

I'm sorry, but having an edition number immediately tells you what you get. Just having a new PHB with the same classes but different from the other PHB that also contains the same classes is way more confusing than something that says "Oh, this is from a different edition". Like, one way or another you're going to have to denote the difference between the old and the new. If not an edition number, it'll be a picture, a color, something. At least with an edition number it's up front about what you are getting.

Except it's not, because for D&D the word "edition" has previously meant a substantially new, mostly non-backwards compatible version of the game, and that's not what you are getting this time.

That's the problem. Yeah, if these were regular books the word "edition" would be fine. But TSR poisoned that well.

As Crawford pointed out.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The blurb on the back of the 2024 books will likely say "revised fifth edition" or something to that effect, just like the current rulebooks only say "fifth edition" in the blurb on the back of the book. Otherwise, Crawford has said that they will refer to them as PHB (2014) vs PHB (2024).

How much confusion has not having "fifth edition" on the front of the 2014 books actually caused? How much confusion was caused by the original D&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECMI all having the same names? I really think the confusion argument is greatly exaggerated.

It didn't cause any confusion because they weren't meant to be the same edition anyways. The point is that you're calling them both 5E, but they are not the same while covering the same material. That's the point.

Except it's not, because for D&D the word "edition" has previously meant a substantially new, mostly non-backwards compatible version of the game, and that's not what you are getting this time.

That's the problem. Yeah, if these were regular books the word "edition" would be fine. But TSR poisoned that well.

As Crawford pointed out.

I mean, this is substantially new (especially in regards to classes so far) along and has some backwards compatibility but probably shouldn't really be mixed with old material (old subclasses versus new, old feats versus new, old spells versus new, etc). But I feel like people are just making up reasons to not talk abut editions because there's too much fear that it will somehow split the community when I'm not sure it would any more than it already will when it starts changing classes and such.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That was my experience of 3.x: never really purely 3E or 3.5

Yeah man the more causal players I knew brought things from 3/.5 to thier 4e games, and they were actual different games.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I feel like the people haggling over the exact definition of "editions" is missing what people like @Emberashh and I are really pointing to: the fact that you have a second, older PHB out in the wild that is useable is just a messy thing. The whole point to revising something is to replace it, but we're not really getting a replacement as much as they are creating a rival and hoping it supersedes the original. And I think that's likely for a lot of classes... but if they want to do some needed nerfs to certain classes and builds, I think it becomes much harder when you are giving players an exit to go and just continue to use the old ones.

 

[mamba]

I feel like the people haggling over the exact definition of "editions" is missing what people like @Emberashh and I are really pointing to: the fact that you have a second, older PHB out in the wild that is useable is just a messy thing.

or we just think it is a lot less messy than you make it out to be.

The only thing that makes it ‘messy’ is the same class names are being used, and maybe the same subclass names. If these were Mage instead of Wizard and so on, we would basically be back at 4e essentials.

On the other hand having two editions would mean you would have to constantly harp their compatibility when it comes to adventures and half the people still would not believe it because of something someone posted on the internet.

The whole point to revising something is to replace it, but we're not really getting a replacement as much as they are creating a rival and hoping it supersedes the original. And I think that's likely for a lot of classes... but if they want to do some needed nerfs to certain classes and builds, I think it becomes much harder when you are giving players an exit to go and just continue to use the old ones.

this will get sorted out, and if some tables keep using the non-nerfed options, that isn’t really a problem either. They have been using that option for several years now, without much complaining.

How is that any different from some tables sticking with 5e while others switch to a theoretical 5.5? The only thing you maybe eliminate is some tables allowing both options.

Over time the 2014 books will get phased out as people adopt the 2024 ones. I don’t think the rate of adoption will differ much based on whether 1D&D is called 5e or 5.5

 

[John Lloyd1]

I'm pretty sure that is not the case. AD&D 2E isn't that different than AD&D 1E, and there is no difference in the branding. I've certainly never heard that claim before.

You're not obligated, but . . . I'm going to need a source to believe that one.

I remember reading that before, but I can't find a source. Some interview with Zeb Cook maybe?