D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[mamba]

It matters to me because it affects 3pp products, who have a strong financial incentive to do what WotC does and go where they go, whether they think its a good idea creatively or not, and I like 3pp. Having 5.5 actually be labeled a separate edition would IMO lessen that force. 3pp I liked is already trying to sell me on "changing over".

I would expect them to move to 6e, the incentive to stay compatible is the same, so all you do is cut yourself off from the 3pp market by staying with 5e while WotC moves to 6e

 

[Dire Bare]

The bugbear: I HATE changing goblinoids to Fey. This is a change for no reason that I can see. It is one of the only places where WotC is actually inserting lore, but it's intrusive in that it changes long established lore in a way that has mechanical consequences. Yuck.

I dunno; I agree it could be ‘change for change’s sake . . .

Just because you do not care for a change, or do not understand the reasoning behind the change, it does not mean there is "no reason" or that is it "change for change's sake". That tired old complaint is one of my pet peeves!

I mean, if you don't like that goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are now fey instead of humanoids . . . that's cool. Personally, I love it! Whenever the game changes, there will be changes we like and changes we don't.

We have plenty of evil antagonist humanoids, changing goblins to fey brings them more in line with folklore and fantasy literature, and diversifies the cast of D&D creatures. Goblins work better as mischievous dark fey than just another group of humanoids like orcs . . . in my opinion, of course.

And like elves, there is plenty of reasons for goblins to be living both in the feywild and in the material world. Changing goblins to fey opens them up in lore and storytelling potential!

But what if this change messes with my established setting!! So? Easy fix. Keep goblins as humanoids in your campaign. Or tweak the charm person spell to work against humanoid fey under a certain hit die or CR . . . so many simple, easy fixes. And that's what D&D has been about since the 70s . . . taking the established rules and lore and making it your own!

 

[Dire Bare]

Ie-2e was, IMO, mostly a TSR cash grab. They were not different editions. I stopped buying 2e stuff because I didn't like the graphic design and art, but also because it didn't seem to change much. I didn't need the new books. However, I did buy a lot of the 2e Monstrous Compendium and used the 2e monsters in my 1e game just fine. In fact, many of them area identical. It was not a new edition either (again, compared to 2e-3e-3e-4e-5e) IMO.

"Cash grab" is another common gamer/fan complaint that grinds my gears. It means, of course, the only reason for a change is to juice profits. And that is rarely, if ever the only reason for changes to anything, including in D&D.

The shift from AD&D 1E to 2E was not a cash grab. Was TSR hoping to increase profits on D&D? Hell yes! But there were, as always, multiple reasons for the edition change. 1E was a mess, and 2E straightened out and streamlined some of that mess. It was designed to be backwards compatible, much like 3.0 to 3.5 and 2014 5E to 2024 5E. The term "edition" wasn't as charged back then as it is today.

The re-design of the trade dress, layout, and art style was much needed, as even to a middle-school kid back in the 80s, 1E looked incredibly dated and unprofessional. Now in my later years, I feel 1E and OD&D have a nostalgic charm . . . but in the 80s I was excited for the new version of the game and the new look! Sadly, like you, the art style of 2E left me cold, and the later revised 2E even colder . . . although many individual titles were beautiful books! But still, to that middle-schooler in the 80s, the new 2E books looked more modern than what came before.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Perhaps they feel sacrificing tactical choice and planning is worth gaining simplicity (oh, I'm sorry, "stream-lining") and "cinematic coolness"?

Minus that these monsters are generally tactically more interesting than the original.

Also yes, saying why the bugbear does more damage with its hammer is unnecessary. They are not going outside the excepted math for their CR.

 

[Dire Bare]

Question, because I know you've told me but I have forgotten, why does it matter to you so much that WotC calls it an edition change? Also, for you, what makes it an edition change?

The term "edition" is meaningless in D&D history . . . in the sense that it means different things to different people at different times. I'm so tired of folks complaining about whether WotC calls 2024 a new edition or not. Move on and find something new and meaningless to argue about!

The game has changed. As it has before, and as it will again. The changes this time around aren't huge, and the "new" game is fully compatible with the "old" game. The changes, or what we call them, won't break the 3rd party market or anyone's home game. We're all free to adopt the changes, or not, or tweak them to our liking.

For me, there's never been a better time to be a D&D fan or even a TTRPG player more broadly. You can take multiple versions of D&D 5E (2014, 2024, ToV, Level Up) and a plethora of supplements (WotC and 3rd party) to tweak the game into a "perfect" version of D&D to your tastes . . . and that's even before you start creating your own house rules!

Too many fans overreact to game changes, big and small, and this is why WotC was conservative with the changes this time around and loathe to call the new rules a new "edition" . . . they didn't want to spook fans or 3rd party publishers like what happened when the game shifted from 3.0 to 3.5. I understand why they went in that direction, and I think it was the wise move. But in my personal games and fandom, I could care less. I'm already blending 2014 and 2024 rules at my table. When any rough spots come up . . . my players and I deal with it to our liking and move on. No stress or angst involved.

 

[dave2008]

It matters to me because it affects 3pp products, who have a strong financial incentive to do what WotC does and go where they go, whether they think its a good idea creatively or not, and I like 3pp. Having 5.5 actually be labeled a separate edition would IMO lessen that force. 3pp I liked is already trying to sell me on "changing over".

Or the 3pp can say 2024 compatible and not change a thing!

 

[Dire Bare]

Or the 3pp can say 2024 compatible and not change a thing!

3rd party creators are just fans who are publishing RPG books, and like the rest of us, have a range of opinions on the game changes and what we should call them. I chuckle at how some creators are handling this on various Kickstarter projects.

The ones I respect simply say something like . . .

• Compatible with 5E, the world's greatest fantasy roleplaying game! This project was designed before the new 2024 5E revised rules were released and do not take into account any changes. However, we're confident our project is fully compatible! After we get all 3 new core books and have a chance to process the changes, we might release an addendum if we feel it necessary.
• Or . . . Compatible with 5E, the world's greatest fantasy roleplaying game, both the 2014 5E rules and the new 2024 5E revised rules.

I've certainly seen some tortured statements that confuse the issue, or insist on odd nomenclature like 5.24E or even 6E!

 

[the Jester]

For me:
Any edition change (in D&D) needs incompatible. I can't play them together in the same campaign. I can't use monsters from one with other or adventures from one with the other.

I have literally run Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e adventures in 5e, adapting them by importing 5e stat blocks for monsters and traps, with no other real changes (except for those necessary to make it fit into my campaign setting).

That doesn't mean they were all the same edition- it just means that it's easy to use any edition's material in any edition with a minimal amount of effort.

 

[Dire Bare]

I have literally run Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e adventures in 5e, adapting them by importing 5e stat blocks for monsters and traps, with no other real changes (except for those necessary to make it fit into my campaign setting).

That doesn't mean they were all the same edition- it just means that it's easy to use any edition's material in any edition with a minimal amount of effort.

Then the 2024 5E changes shouldn't pose much of a roadblock then!

How easily the various editions of D&D are compatible is very much YMMV. Using 3E materials with a 4E game (for example) can be done . . . but the games are not directly compatible and how easy it is to kludge them together varies with how fluid and confident the GM is!

We use to clumsily blend "Basic" D&D and AD&D 1E stuff all the time back in the 80s as kids . . . because we didn't all realize they were different versions of the game! It was clumsy, but we did it! Once we realized OD&D and AD&D were different games . . . most of us (in my circle anyways) moved to AD&D and never looked back until the OSR days much, much later.

I do think that WotC would be well served by leaning into adapting older material for the current game by publishing a "conversion guide" on doing so, and then opening it all up with the OGL (or CC) and on the DMs Guild.

 

[Riley]

Just because you do not care for a change, or do not understand the reasoning behind the change, it does not mean there is "no reason" or that is it "change for change's sake". That tired old complaint is one of my pet peeves!

I was not complaining; I like the change and pointed out reasons I like the change.