D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[Micah Sweet]

if anything it is more erased by not being for the current version

I feel the opposite. It would be 5e material, not 5e material that is just enough out of phase with D&D 5.5 to be confusing and potentially off-putting as a result. 6e would be a clearer separation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Both the D&D store (at Wizards) and Amazon seem to be using 2014 and 2024 in front of the names to distinguish the core books, and in parentheses after the names on the rear covers of the books themselves.

Honestly? I just don't feel that's good enough. 5.5 or 6e would have done the job better IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

The label makes a difference. There's no agreed upon label for the two different versions of D&D 5e, so its treated by the industry as nothing more than "newer is better" so far as any changes WotC has made to their 5e rules. If they called it 6e, then 5e would stop as far as WotC is concerned (just like all the previous editions) and 6e would be considered a separate thing any 3pp could make new content for if they wanted. They could also continue to develop the 5e content they had been producing, some of them near a decade.

For decades we have been able to differentiate between the Moldvay/Cook version of Basic (B/X) and the Mentzer version (BECMI) version with no edition numbers. In fact, there are five "editions" of Basic (77/Holmes, 81/Moldvay, 83/Mentzer, 91/Denning and 94/Stewart) that are all different but compatible versions (some with more rules changes than others). And that's on top of its distinction from two different versions of AD&D that ran parallel to them.

If we can discuss the differences in rules,, tone and style across five versions of "the Basic game", we can keep 5.14 and 5.24 separate.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes, it would have been better.

I personally would've preferred 5.5 since it's basically 3e -> 3.5, 4e -> 4e Essentials

 

[Micah Sweet]

I personally would've preferred 5.5 since it's basically 3e -> 3.5, 4e -> 4e Essentials

I've been calling it 5.5 all this time for a reason.

 

[abirdcall]

The DMG if it included everything everyone wanted.
View attachment 386486

"Michael: You see Chidi, I can read the entirety of the world's literature in about an hour. This took me two weeks to get through."

 

[mamba]

I feel the opposite. It would be 5e material, not 5e material that is just enough out of phase with D&D 5.5 to be confusing and potentially off-putting as a result. 6e would be a clearer separation.

it would be a clearer separation, which also means as people move to ‘6e’ the ‘5e’ material would drop off and be in even more need for an updated version than it already is with the current approach, and clearly some 3pps are already working on upgrades as is

 

[mamba]

I've been calling it 5.5 all this time for a reason.

antagonism?

 

[Parmandur]

I personally would've preferred 5.5 since it's basically 3e -> 3.5, 4e -> 4e Essentials

Nah, that was silly nonsense in 2003, it would be silly nonsense now. Besides, going withbthwt, what will they call the next revision, 5.75??

2024 is best, because itnis factually accurate. This is the version of D&D released in 2024.

 

[Distracted DM]

Nah, that was silly nonsense in 2003, it would be silly nonsense now. Besides, going withbthwt, what will they call the next revision, 5.75??

2024 is best, because itnis factually accurate. This is the version of D&D released in 2024.

But they don't even call it that on the book covers
3.5 said 3.5, 4e essentials said 4e essentials.. eh. Just nitpicking.