D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[Willie the Duck]

It’s hard to predict how the community will react and qualify the 2024 phb before having the final product in hands,
Despite official claims about compatibility, if the community say ”it’s a new edition“ so it will be.

i propose we rename the ship of Theseus to d&d 5th edition. Just how much can be replaced before it’s still the same edition.

spooling off these more than responding to or addressing either specifically.

I've always found the notion that big changes <==> new edition to not line up with past history. I'm thinking of:

• How differently oD&D plays with or without the supplements (particularly Supplement 1: Greyhawk, with the addition of Thieves and new attribute tables)
• The Gazetteers adding to BECMI things like massively multiple alternate classes (mostly amongst race-as-class), skill systems, and magic user gaining name-level followers (to say nothing of everything added in C, M, and especially I).
• Incredible fights over whether it is better to judge AD&D with and without Unearthed Arcana (and, to a lesser degree, the Wilderness/Dungeoneer's/Oriental hardcovers).
• 2nd edition split into core, core+red/green splats, and with-Player-Options books.
• The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 right at release being dwarfed by the difference between 3.5 at release and 3.5 as it wound down.

It seems to me that some of the largest changes that the game has had have occurred within editions instead of between them, that early- and late-edition playstyles have always had incompatible components, and that this has been the case effectively from the beginning.

I'm not advocating for anything or speaking about how things should or ought to work out. I just think that there has been an incredible amount of focus on the notion that 5e would change as it, well, changed. Obviously the IP-holders stating that the new '24 products would be 'backwards compatible*' was a huge amount of dry fuel for the inevitable fire. However, I just want to point out that this is hardly 5e-specific.
*which was always going to be true or false only on a individual/subjective level, since everyone will have different criteria for what counts, and the only way to be purely compatible is if they made no changes at all.

 

[bedir than]

spooling off these more than responding to or addressing either specifically.

I've always found the notion that big changes <==> new edition to not line up with past history. I'm thinking of:

• How differently oD&D plays with or without the supplements (particularly Supplement 1: Greyhawk, with the addition of Thieves and new attribute tables)
• The Gazetteers adding to BECMI things like massively multiple alternate classes (mostly amongst race-as-class), skill systems, and magic user gaining name-level followers (to say nothing of everything added in C, M, and especially I).
• Incredible fights over whether it is better to judge AD&D with and without Unearthed Arcana (and, to a lesser degree, the Wilderness/Dungeoneer's/Oriental hardcovers).
• 2nd edition split into core, core+red/green splats, and with-Player-Options books.
• The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 right at release being dwarfed by the difference between 3.5 at release and 3.5 as it wound down.

It seems to me that some of the largest changes that the game has had have occurred within editions instead of between them, that early- and late-edition playstyles have always had incompatible components, and that this has been the case effectively from the beginning.

I'm not advocating for anything or speaking about how things should or ought to work out. I just think that there has been an incredible amount of focus on the notion that 5e would change as it, well, changed. Obviously the IP-holders stating that the new '24 products would be 'backwards compatible*' was a huge amount of dry fuel for the inevitable fire. However, I just want to point out that this is hardly 5e-specific.
*which was always going to be true or false only on a individual/subjective level, since everyone will have different criteria for what counts, and the only way to be purely compatible is if they made no changes at all.

2014 PHB to Tasha's is a bigger shift than Tasha's to 2024 PHB too

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry, but the 21 years since 3.5 isn't "only a few years"....

Relative to the 50 year anniversary, sure it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The only hesitancy I can see with 5.5e is Third Party Material. So many companies have used the 5e branding to stress compatibility that I can see them being potentially afraid of embracing 5.5e. The thought being:

"Oh, I was going to buy this adventure/supplement/source book, it says it's 5e compatible, but I have the 5.5 ruleset.. Maybe this will be too dated?"

I don't know. I like 5.5e, and it's probably what I'll be going with. I am curious to see official covers. I wonder if WOTC is going to just drop the edition label all together. It'll just be "Dungeons and Dragons"

They've been trying to drop the labels for years, but there are too many versions of the game for that to be realistic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

2014 PHB to Tasha's is a bigger shift than Tasha's to 2024 PHB too

Not as relevant as you think, even if you're right. Not everyone uses, Tasha's, just like not everyone playing 3.5 used the Book of Nine Swords. You have to go core book to core book.

 

[Umbran]

Relative to the 50 year anniversary, sure it is.

Even a 50 year old does not actually think of two decades as "just a few years". I mean, that's the time to have a kid, have them grow up and be mostly through college.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even a 50 year old does not actually think of two decades as "just a few years". I mean, that's the time to have a kid, have them grow up and be mostly through college.

It doesn't really matter how long ago it was. To the people that care about the name enough to discuss it like we have, 3.0 to 3.5 is plenty fresh.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it flops can we call it 5.dead?

Or 5.flop has an even better ring!

Whatever you like.

 

[Umbran]

Will talk of current D&D move into the Older Editions Forum?

I would expect such a decision to be made only after we see the new rules, and we see how conversation of the game goes, as Morrus generally makes such determinations based on practical observation.

My current guess is that while there will be some changes, the underlying mechanics will be so similar that many topics will not need to differentiate between the versions. And, the ones that do need to differentiate will be able to do so via a tag, rather than requiring an entirely separate sub-forum.

 

[Dausuul]

The only hesitancy I can see with 5.5e is Third Party Material. So many companies have used the 5e branding to stress compatibility that I can see them being potentially afraid of embracing 5.5e. The thought being:

"Oh, I was going to buy this adventure/supplement/source book, it says it's 5e compatible, but I have the 5.5 ruleset.. Maybe this will be too dated?"

I don't know. I like 5.5e, and it's probably what I'll be going with. I am curious to see official covers. I wonder if WOTC is going to just drop the edition label all together. It'll just be "Dungeons and Dragons"

Wizards certainly will not be calling it 5.5E. They'll have some other name for it that tries to play down the scope of the changes, and it probably won't lend itself to a handy abbreviation suitable for forum debates. (While I have no doubt WotC would like to dump edition labels, they will still have to have some way to distinguish the 2024 release from the 2014 release when talking about them, privately or publicly.)

But that doesn't mean we can't call it 5.5E. Unless Wizards does come up with an official name that's easily abbreviated, I agree with the general sentiment that 5.5E is the logical thing to call it.