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

[Kurotowa]

You are being excluded and your preferences actively mocked by the designers? I think we live in different realities within the multiverse. This just isn't behavior I've observed . . . ever . . . from the D&D team at WotC.

Granted, any given rules-set isn't going to align with everyone's preferences. If you don't care for aspects of the current rules, or the 2024 rules, that's understandable. But excluded and mocked?

Some people have the idea that if their personal preferences aren't being directly catered to, they're being unfairly persecuted. It's an ...interesting take that I feel lacks perspective, but I've seen it happen enough times to recognize it as a recurring thing.

I don't know about the majority, but certainly a very vocal few. And its annoying, especially for a small number who seemed compelled to spam the same arguments across every thread discussing the new books. But that seems to have gotten a lot better.

Once I got over my reluctance to utilize it, it's amazing how few people I had to add to my Ignore list to only see one side of most of these arguments. And when I do see both sides, it's altogether more civil and well reasoned. I highly recommend the practice to others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It does matter. D&D 2024 gets rid of 5e and there would be no current numbered edition of the game. 6e creates a new numbered edition. 5.5e is the only truly accurate name there as it keeps the edition numbering intact, and since what we have seen isn't even remotely close to being a new edition, 6e would be a bad name for it. Further, D&D 2024 will cause confusion since it is no longer 5e, but is functionally the same game as 5e. Creating confusion in your players is bad. 5.5e is accurate and creates no confusion.

Hence, by the standard used in this thread, you must therefore hate 5e and be hoping that 5.5e fails!

(I don't believe that. But that's a position explicitly articulated in this thread. If someone prefers "5.5e" as a label, they must dislike the game to which they are assigning it, and they must be hoping that it fails.)

 

[trappedslider]

We were talking about the likely and preferred nicknames and shorthand terms for the edition.

this is where the message you quoted me sends me when i click on my name. https://www.enworld.org/threads/the...r-thread-thread.672602/page-2512#post-9267343

 

[Echohawk]

It's not a numbered edition of AD&D.

But... but... it's got a number right there in the title. It's the Diablo II Edition

 

[Mannahnin]

this is where the message you quoted me sends me when i click on my name. https://www.enworld.org/threads/the...r-thread-thread.672602/page-2512#post-9267343

How weird. Was I not quoting text you wrote? Apologies if I messed up my quoting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My only two notes:

1) people arguing over how many people will convert. No one knows, because we don’t even know what the new edition looks like yet. You’ve seen a preview of a few changes. Once the books actually get press and people read some pages and xyz then you’ll start to see the hype train moving or never leave the station.

2) people equate this to the 3.5 switch. And while it could ultimately be as impactful, from what we have seen so far it’s not even close. People really underestimate how much was changed in 3.5.

Honestly to me, based on the playtests, it looks like people are underestimating how much is being changed all over again. If all the changes from recent and earlier playtests go in, including the spell changes, it'll be a bigger change than 3E to 3.5E (though I will say better formatting will probably make it take up less space than the 3.5E ones, which were incredibly poorly formatted), or at the very least, easily comparable.

But we don't know. It could be that only some fraction of the changes from the playtests go through. Or it could be that everything in the later playtests and then a bunch of stuff they haven't playtested goes through. Based on WotC's history it's hard to say - in recent years they've both dumped tons of unplaytested content into the game with some products, but also have playtested a ton of stuff and then used only a fraction of it (even when received well!).

And we have no idea how many changes will be made in the DMG and PHB. Will the DMG just be formatted better and with much better DM advice? Will it change systems? How in-depth with the MM revisions be?

 

[Maxperson]

But... but... it's got a number right there in the title. It's the Diablo II Edition

So where's the first edition of that? Huh! Huh! Where is it?!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So where's the first edition of that? Huh! Huh! Where is it?!

On the Moon. With Steve.

 

[trappedslider]

How weird. Was I not quoting text you wrote? Apologies if I messed up my quoting.

yeah it quoted some one else but it tagged me, I don't come to this section of the forums at all.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. If your table wants to call 5.5e "jojo Plays Baseball," go for it. On the individual and table levels of the game the names don't matter at all. However, when discussing in a larger group like an online forum which versions are an edition and which are not, names and designations do matter to that discussion.

AD&D has had 5 and only 5 editions. Basic and it's various lines were not editions of AD&D, so they do not count towards the edition numbers. Similarly, the expansions/half editions were not editions and do not count towards the edition numbers.

AD&D had 4 typical editions before WotC bought TSR, and WotC is working on releasing their 5th edition of PHB, DMG, & MM this coming year. That's 9 Editions, based on nor.al publishing usage.

I could see calling the new books 9th edition, but then OD&D and the Basic line make things even more complex.

This is why they are dropping the yerminolgoy.