D&D (2024) Specifying 5e

[Corinnguard]

Yeah, but it's wrong.

Only if you consider 5.5 to be another name for A5e/Level Up. Which I happily will do.

 

[el-remmen]

I know what all of those mean to say, so I don't really care.

I think I usually use the year - 2014 D&D vs. 2024 D&D (not even bothering to say 5E half the time), but I can't say I am consistent since everyone I would be talking to about D&D either has the context to know what I mean, or I will give them the context as part of the conversation if the distinction turns out to be relevant.

 

[Deset Gled]

5.5 feels like an uncomfortable scraping noise inside my brain, like people who say "supposably" or "irregardless" or talk on their cell phones at the theatre. It's wrong in so many ways.

So, anything but that.

I think 5.1 vs 5.2 would be the best from a documentation standpoint (especially when dealing with third party content). But I have a feeling it's the least likely to be adopted.

 

[Scribe]

5.5 feels like an uncomfortable scraping noise inside my brain, like people who say "supposably" or "irregardless" or talk on their cell phones at the theatre. It's wrong in so many ways.

Weird, did you feel the same about 3.5?

 

[zottel]

5e and the other, newer 5e. Don't worry about it, I tell you what to roll in any case. Yes, that is a 20 sided die. Did you add your profency bonus? Yes, now the six sided die. The normal one, yes that one! Now add your strength mod...

 

[Charlaquin]

I know what all of those mean to say, so I don't really care.

I think I usually use the year - 2014 D&D vs. 2024 D&D (not even bothering to say 5E half the time), but I can't say I am consistent since everyone I would be talking to about D&D either has the context to know what I mean, or I will give them the context as part of the conversation if the distinction turns out to be relevant.

This. Language is for communication, and if someone uses any of these shorthands, I will understand what they mean, therefore they have communicated adequately. Personally, I tend to say “the 2014 rules” or “the pre-revision rules” for original 5e, and “the 2024 rules” or “the revised rules” for the updated 5e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Weird, did you feel the same about 3.5?

Ah what the heck... I'll take a crack at your question!

For me personally... that new 3.5 revision came so quickly on the heels of the original 3E (I think it was like just 3 years later?) that to me it felt like it wasn't a natural and needed revision to a game that had just become long in the tooth, but was more of a revision based on publishing and money. So in that regard, making a full break identity-wise from 3E seemed more appropriate. The game wasn't a "new edition" because the game didn't change substantially enough (in my opinion)... but it also wasn't just a slightly revised necessity. So calling it by a more substantial name change of 3.5 felt like an appropriate idea at the time.

But 5E24 has never seemed like that to me. First of all it took them 10 years to finally do a published revision of 5E, so that in itself never gave the impression that it was similar to what 3.5 was or why it was made. And of course on top of that... no one at WotC ever deigned to call it 5.5 (unlike WotC straight out calling their revised game 3.5) so to me it just seems odd for me to call this revised game by the same naming convention of what was essentially a quick money-grab and which no one else at the company decided to do this time around. So in many ways, I see the name of 5.5 as a denigration of what it is, and one that this revision doesn't deserve.

And besides... the only reason and time I ever call these games 5E14 and 5E24 to begin with is when I actually need to distinguish between the two... and when I don't need to, I just say 5E for everything anyway.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't care which is used as long as I can tell the difference.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't care which is used as long as I can tell the difference.

This, more or less.

 

[Deset Gled]

Weird, did you feel the same about 3.5?

The short answer is yes. In versioning notation the dot is a delimiter, not a decimal.

But at least in 2003 they had the common courtesy to name the editions themselves, rather than forcing the community to do it. I feel extra spicy about it in 2025 because I pointed out that we would be doing this bit back in 2023 as a result of the nonexistent naming scheme for this edition/revision/smerp. 3.5e was successful communication, even if I didn't like the formatting.