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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Again, using Essentials as a model would have been far preferable. Treat 2024 as a new "starting point" you can use instead of the 2014 PH.

In fact, I might go with 5e Essentials as my new name for it.

 

[Dire Bare]

It's worse than that, TSR made a dog's lunch of it before WotC ever got involved: twice versions of D&D predate "First Efition," and by normal publishing parlance, the 1989 books were the third typical edition of simply AD&D (the 1E refresh involved enough changes that they warranted a new ISBN, hence being a second edition). 2E was really the third, and 3E was really the fifth.

Not exactly a "dog's lunch" . . . "2nd Edition" was not the second edition of D&D, it was the second edition of Advanced D&D. At the time, D&D was considered a different game.

Of course, simultaneously publishing two different versions of the game was probably not the best idea ever . . . .

 

[Parmandur]

Not exactly a "dog's lunch" . . . "2nd Edition" was not the second edition of D&D, it was the second edition of Advanced D&D. At the time, D&D was considered a different game.

Of course, simultaneously publishing two different versions of the game was probably not the best idea ever . . . .

Well, no, that what I mean: only looking at AD&D, by normal printing industry parlance, the 1983 revision with a different ISBN is the second edition: there were not substantial changes to the contents, but there were changes enough to meet the general criteria of a new edition rather than a new printing. So, the 1989 books were the third edition of AD&D, ignoring OD&D and the multiple Editions of Basic. The black cover "2E" books had a different ISBN against, and revised contents, so in standard publishing language would be a 4tth Edition of AD&D. So by the time you get to 3.5, that's actually the 6th Edition. At minimum, D&D'24 is the 9th typical edition of the AD&D lineage by core book ISBN count. And that ignores the actual original Edition of the game, multiple Basics, and 4E Essentials.

It makes total sense to just use the year of publication, because at least it is rational, objective, and descriptive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not exactly a "dog's lunch" . . . "2nd Edition" was not the second edition of D&D, it was the second edition of Advanced D&D. At the time, D&D was considered a different game.

Of course, simultaneously publishing two different versions of the game was probably not the best idea ever . . . .

They were both good games though, and the Basic line forms the core of a lot of great OSR material.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They were both good games though, and the Basic line forms the core of a lot of great OSR material.

But they never needed to be two games.

Basic could have just been a hyper-paired-down presentation of ADND.

 

[Clint_L]

It's not that messy. Monsters of the Multiverse wasn't messy. Tasha's wasn't. All that'll happen is that the updated PhB will replace the 2014 one over time, but making the switch won't be a big priority, and they can keep selling all the same adventure books the whole while. On DDB the 2014 books will be labeled as "legacy content" and you will have the option to toggle them on or off.

I routinely mix and match content from Multiverse and Volo's, and it works just fine. Did it just today when putting together a fight on the encounter builder.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It's worse than that, TSR made a dog's lunch of it before WotC ever got involved: twice versions of D&D predate "First Efition," and by normal publishing parlance, the 1989 books were the third typical edition of simply AD&D (the 1E refresh involved enough changes that they warranted a new ISBN, hence being a second edition). 2E was really the third, and 3E was really the fifth.

But what about all the variations of Basic?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they never needed to be two games.

Basic could have just been a hyper-paired-down presentation of ADND.

Yeah, I suppose they could have. But then we wouldn't have race as class, and I must admit I'm fond of it, despite it's unpopularity.

 

[Azzy]

It didn't cause any confusion because they weren't meant to be the same edition anyways.

Oh? Holmes → B/X → BECMI → Rules Cyclopedia/Black Box → Classic D&D never were hailed as different editions by TSR unlike 2e AD&D vis-à-vis 1e AD&D. It's only through fan-made designations that these editions are differentiated. They also generally included less rules changes than 3e → 3.5e or 5e → OneD&D playtest and were generally interoperable.

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.

Well, WotC is going to differentiate them by date of publishing and I'm sure that fans will also create terms to differentiate them in the same way that they have with the "basic" D&D line.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Can you imagine the uproar of selling a new book with 12 renamed classes and other renamed options? "Buy 5.5 Essentials! Play as a Wildling, Troubadour, Warpriest, Warrior, Shaman, Mystic, Hunter, Guardian, Scoundrel, Witch, Channeler and Mage! Argue endlessly if Treeskin and Barkskin stack, if the shaman can use spells and subs for the druid in Tasha's, or if you can multi-class fighter and warrior to get action surge twice! Fight Azure or Crimson Dragons and other slight variants, or wield the power of a +1.5 sword! Pickup 5.5 Essentials on D&D Beyond today!"