Yes. Which is why we've been pushing for them to call them the correct name.
Honestly, I don't want to get into this with you. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what "correct" would look like,
does not make that so. Nor does it make anyone who disagrees with you "dishonest", far or less "wrong".
Can you give an example? How is edition used wrong?
I didn't use the term "wrong" - I used "inconsistent" - and if you think that "edition" has been used
consistently in D&D, then I don't know what to tell you.
Remember, there can be several correct ways,
Yes, that was
my point - yours was to call WotC dishonest.
so one company going up a 0.5 and another going "revised" - both showing incremental changes as opposed to a whole new editon - is not "doing it wrong". I can give plenty of examples where it's used right, from AD&D to 7th Sea to Call of Cthulhu to what have you.
Sure. And using it "right" would make this something like 16th Edition D&D. Since they obviously can't call it that, "5e Revised" is also on the table. Why wouldn't it be?
Boeing can disagree that a door blowing off their plane is a bad thing, that doesn't change that it was. We have a meaning for edition, even if it's not formalized, through decades of use. A company or individual disagreeing doesn't change that.
The company can call their new books whatever they want. You can disagree. It won't make them wrong.
And that's a just fine name. And a change from "Fifth Edition". If they had been calling it for the past two years we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
They've always said, and always meant, that they were revising 5e. They did it. They're calling it that.
I'm fine with "Fifth Edition Revised". Because it shows that it's not "Fifth Edition". A point we've been trying to get them to admit for two years.
They never hid that they were revising 5e. They wanted to call the playtest OneD&D like the 5e playtest was called D&DNext. It's not their fault that people are impatient and want a name for books that don't exist until they're made. They're made now. They're 5e Revised. They've "admitted" it!
Please though, you called 5.5 "wrong". Using the example from WotC of what a half increment edition change is, from 3ed to 3.5, please give specifics about why it's wrong. Get it to the "Net Wrong" side of the page, that there's more wrong with 5.5 than right.
Because a "half edition" is a stupid idea. It was used ONCE, 20+ years ago - and only because it was popular software jargon at the time. It has no other precedent in D&D. It has very little meaning outside people that cut their teeth with 3.5 and almost no meaning whatsoever to any modern marketing. You're fine to like it - but it doesn't make WotC "wrong" or "dishonest" for not wanting to use it.
