D&D 5E (2024) D&D 2024 Is Now OFFICIALLY Called "5.5e"

Settling a debate that has lasted for over two years, the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons, which has been known by various names up until now, has finally received an official designation: D&D 5.5e.

Previously, the current ruleset was referred to as 'One D&D', before becoming 'D&D 2024'. Other variations exist, but the most common version used by fans was D&D 5.5.

The 5.5 terminology echoes the edition names used in the early 2000s for D&D 3E and D&D 3.5.

D&D Beyond has an FAQ related to the name change. In it, they say that "Earlier on, [the 2024 rules] were referred to differently. As D&D Beyond evolved and more players used both versions side by side, it became clear that “5.5e” matched how the community already talks about the game and made things easier to understand."

The terminology will be used going forward on D&D Beyond, although unlike the 3E/3.5 hardcovers, the physical book titles will not include any edition designations.

The 2014 edition of D&D is to continue to be called "5e", with the 2024 version being "5.5e". WotC says that "5.5e refers to content that uses the 2024 updated core rules, which are fully compatible with Fifth Edition."

Despite including the "e" (for "edition") WotC continues to maintain that 5.5e is not a new edition, and merely a 'rules update', or 'version'. Whether 'edition' and 'version' are synonyms or not we'll leave people to debate.

The logo at the top of the page is our own mockup to represent the news, and is not an offical rebranding.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But will that 6e be another effective iteration of 5e or will it be a whole new thing? At some point, they've got to realize that reinventing the wheel will alienate more people than just iterating.

I don't think it's as simple as that, unfortunately. I think preferences re: interating vs. reinventing are quite complex and a lot will depend on what people started, what edition they enjoyed most, why they enjoyed it and so on. Blanket/sweeping declarations like "iterating is always better/worse or always more/less popular" are, to my mind, irrational and not based in history.

Looking at the long, long history of D&D, there are, to my mind, times when they should have iterated, and times when they should have revolutionized. Like, by your logic, 3E should merely have been an iteration of 2E. But had it been that, I think it'd have been completely dead in the water - I don't think it would have been anywhere near as successful as it was. Whereas 4E probably should have been an effective iteration of 3E, bigger than the 0.5-type changes by far, but keeping the basic structure and concepts (moreso than 4E actually did), and at least a vague illusion of semi-compatibility. I think the next one is going to need to be revolutionary or seriously evolutionary (to the degree 5E was to 4E, or 3E to 2E, or PF1 to PF2), rather than merely 5.75E or the like, if it's actually going to move copies, not be part of "managed decline".

I think this especially because the vast majority of people playing 5E haven't been through an actual edition-change, and frankly, I think far more of them will be invigorated by it or even brought back from other RPGs/not playing than off-put by it.

But I would not suggest this year or next was the time for it to happen. Though maybe an initial announcement late next year, I wouldn't be surprised. And historically, I've been pretty good that guessing WotC will do a thing, but I've tended to overestimate, not underestimate how long it takes them to get there!

What I think they do need to learn is that they can't be too driven by whim in terms of what they keep and what they change. I think they need to think pretty damn carefully about that in a way I'm not really sure any edition change prior to 5E did, and that I don't think even 5E adequately considered because it rushed to market (just as 4E did, and to some extent 3E). I think that's the key thing - if they take a slower, more sensible approach to development they should do well.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sales numbers have been parsed and divined from multiple sources. Others claim that there are good reasons why that data, while obviously correct in black and white, empirical and unable to be challenged, don't actually represent an apple to apples comparison vs previous editions and their sales numbers. You have to decide for yourself what to believe. I don't think it pays to be very dogmatic on either side.

6e rumors come from people who claim to have contacts within WotC D&D design team who have told them that it's under development due to poor reception of 5.5. Knowing who some of the rumormongers are, they probably do have such contacts. But ultimately whether the rumors are more than just scurilous gossip or not, again, you'll have to decide did yourself. Again, I don't think it's wise to be too dogmatic on either side of that question either.

There is a third possibility. Ship of Theseus.

so far 5e has been extremely hesitant to add anything approaching the kind of gm support/mechanics extension/alternate rules (pick your favorite wording) beyond new PC options. The 5.05 release was extremely light on change even compared to some past non-edition change splatbooks & such. At least one of the announced books (the arcane whatsit) mentioned something like "new high-magic character creation options". It's entirely possible (and probable) that those "character creation options" will just be new races classes & so on, but it's also possible that those are things like a different pointbuy/standard array & proficiency bonus scaling that carves out room in the math for the GM to actually provide those magic items. If there is a plan to start releasing supporting mechanics for the various settings & whatnot, testing them together from the start as a hypothetical "6e" makes sense to avoid a hyporthetical "yea the game breaks [like so] if you use this selection of options from different books together" problem.

 

[Mistwell]

I keeping hearing whispers of 5.5e not doing well financially and 6e already getting started, but haven't seen proof of either claim.

Anyone know what the source is? Completely made up, or more an exaggeration?

The source for "6e" is TheRPGPundit, who is a consistently not reliable source, particularly about modern D&D.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The source for "6e" is TheRPGPundit, who is a consistently not reliable source, particularly about modern D&D.

Yeah no-one should be believing anything on the basis of that guy, but he's far from the only person or first person who thinks 6E is on the way, just I think possibly the only one claiming Secret Info Only He Knows that it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is a third possibility. Ship of Theseus.

so far 5e has been extremely hesitant to add anything approaching the kind of gm support/mechanics extension/alternate rules (pick your favorite wording) beyond new PC options. The 5.05 release was extremely light on change even compared to some past non-edition change splatbooks & such. At least one of the announced books (the arcane whatsit) mentioned something like "new high-magic character creation options". It's entirely possible (and probable) that those "character creation options" will just be new races classes & so on, but it's also possible that those are things like a different pointbuy/standard array & proficiency bonus scaling that carves out room in the math for the GM to actually provide those magic items. If there is a plan to start releasing supporting mechanics for the various settings & whatnot, testing them together from the start as a hypothetical "6e" makes sense to avoid a hyporthetical "yea the game breaks [like so] if you use this selection of options from different books together" problem.

Like the Player's Option, Combat & Tactics, etc.? But for 5E? I'd be surprised if they went that way. I think that's got a much more niche appeal, even though the people it does appeal to, the appeal is pretty intense.

However, historically that sort of experimentation has been the precusor to a new edition repeatedly, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it.

 

[Mistwell]

Sales numbers have been parsed and divined from multiple sources. Others claim that there are good reasons why that data, while obviously correct in black and white, empirical and unable to be challenged, don't actually represent an apple to apples comparison vs previous editions and their sales numbers. You have to decide for yourself what to believe. I don't think it pays to be very dogmatic on either side.

We know they changed the classifications of their products from Books (which have many objective and public sales metrics published) to Toys and Games (which have almost no objective and public sales metrics published.) We know that breaks the sales tracking when comparing to prior editions, all of which were listed on sales charts as Books and not Toys and Games.

So yeah, the "correct in black and white, empirical and unable to be challenged" data says zero or near zero sales. Because there is no longer data being reported to those sources, due to it not being on the book charts. It correctly states they are not selling products listed as books. Which is deeply unhelpful despite being accurate.

6e rumors come from people who claim to have contacts within WotC D&D design team who have told them that it's under development due to poor reception of 5.5. Knowing who some of the rumormongers are, they probably do have such contacts. But ultimately whether the rumors are more than just scurilous gossip or not, again, you'll have to decide did yourself. Again, I don't think it's wise to be too dogmatic on either side of that question either.

There is one known source for this, and it's TheRPGPundit. He is not known to have an internal source in WOTC anymore. All of his prior contacts no longer work there and have not for years, and he's never claimed to have a new contact. He said he thinks the source is reliable, but that's based on his credibility which is poor. He previously put his credibility on the line for claims like saying WOTC would not sell hardcopy books in 2025 and would only sell digital products, and was proven wrong on that pretty objectively.

So yes, we all need to make up our own minds, but let's be clear on who and what we're talking about and what their credibility level is like when making up our minds. Pretending this is some nebulous "people" as opposed to that specific guy who is the source here, is a tad disingenuous.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah no-one should be believing anything on the basis of that guy, but he's far from the only person or first person who thinks 6E is on the way, just I think possibly the only one claiming Secret Info Only He Knows that it is.

Most people saying 6e is on the way source back to hearing that rumor from TheRPGPundit saying he has a source he believes who told him that. Usually if you look, you can find them either on his message board or interacting with him directly on social media about this topic. He's the source for most of these rumors.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Most people saying 6e is on the way source back to hearing that rumor from TheRPGPundit saying he has a source he believes who told him that. Usually if you look, you can find them either on his message board or interacting with him directly on social media about this topic. He's the source for most of these rumors.

I mean, there's two kinds of people who think 6E is on the way.

1) People who have reached that conclusion by dint of what they see as evidence and just what is a likely course for WotC from now. I think that's like, 80-90% of people who think 6E is on the way (and by on the way, I mean on the way in the next few years, not to be revealed this year, let alone released any time soon).

2) People who are following "rumours of 6E", which yeah, in that case they shouldn't believe any rumours from RPGPundit, ever, under any circumstances, he's a self-promoter who constantly claims secret info and special connections, even when they're evidently not the case. But I think that's by far the smaller group.

I mean, prior to this discussion I'd heard zero "rumours" of 6E being otw, but I've believed it was ever since the WotC reorganisation (and that can be seen in my post history). Whereas I wouldn't even believe RPGPundit if he had a 6E book in his hands and was passing it to me! I'd assume it was an AI-generated fake frankly!

I think most rumourmongers like Pundit operate on the basis of waiting until something is simply logically likely, or they think it's likely, and then making up that they got a "rumour". We see the same thing in videogames and with movies too. There are some people who constantly have "rumours" of things happening which are merely very likely things to be happening!

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I really can't imagine 6e coming within the next 5 years. From the roadmap it looks like they're putting a lot of effort into supporting 5.5e (including redoing the whole character creator on DnD Beyond).

Though when they start working on 6e, I hope they actually give themselves enough time to not rush it unlike with both the 5e and 5.5e playtests.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think it's as simple as that, unfortunately. I think preferences re: interating vs. reinventing are quite complex and a lot will depend on what people started, what edition they enjoyed most, why they enjoyed it and so on. Blanket/sweeping declarations like "iterating is always better/worse or always more/less popular" are, to my mind, irrational and not based in history.

Looking at the long, long history of D&D, there are, to my mind, times when they should have iterated, and times when they should have revolutionized. Like, by your logic, 3E should merely have been an iteration of 2E. But had it been that, I think it'd have been completely dead in the water - I don't think it would have been anywhere near as successful as it was. Whereas 4E probably should have been an effective iteration of 3E, bigger than the 0.5-type changes by far, but keeping the basic structure and concepts (moreso than 4E actually did), and at least a vague illusion of semi-compatibility. I think the next one is going to need to be revolutionary or seriously evolutionary (to the degree 5E was to 4E, or 3E to 2E, or PF1 to PF2), rather than merely 5.75E or the like, if it's actually going to move copies, not be part of "managed decline".

I think this especially because the vast majority of people playing 5E haven't been through an actual edition-change, and frankly, I think far more of them will be invigorated by it or even brought back from other RPGs/not playing than off-put by it.

But I would not suggest this year or next was the time for it to happen. Though maybe an initial announcement late next year, I wouldn't be surprised. And historically, I've been pretty good that guessing WotC will do a thing, but I've tended to overestimate, not underestimate how long it takes them to get there!

What I think they do need to learn is that they can't be too driven by whim in terms of what they keep and what they change. I think they need to think pretty damn carefully about that in a way I'm not really sure any edition change prior to 5E did, and that I don't think even 5E adequately considered because it rushed to market (just as 4E did, and to some extent 3E). I think that's the key thing - if they take a slower, more sensible approach to development they should do well.

The real X factor here is how successful Beyond has become...and the back catalog continuing to move. That mitigate against any sort of revolutionary change, pretty strongly, particularly if the business model is primarily about on boarding fresh players anyways.