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

Sulicius · 2026-03-03T08:22:06+0000

The compatibility means that you can use any 5e supplement with any 5.5e supplement (ew, I have to get used to writing it that way), as long as you use the most recently released versions. In truth, there is a bit more space if you're willing to field 5e and 5.5e characters next to each other.

The only example of a subclass just not working anymore is the Sheperd Druid. I'd say that's not bad.

In truth, 5e wasn't compatible with itself already. You had Dragonmarks and Strixhaven Backgrounds that wildly changed how powerful characters were, allowing you to start with an extra feat or extra spells known.

I was on team 5e24 (just try typing it on a keyboard, it's so nice!), but 5.5 was probably inevitable. Funny how they didn't want to confuse their customers to say it was all the same, but then confused their customers.

TrippyHippy · 2026-03-03T08:23:22+0000

Toe Knee Nose said:
I' ve been running a 2014 module with 2024 rules and not having any problems. Granted, the classes are all 2024 but, still, I have not had a single issue yet.

Well, that supports what I said. I could make the same claim about scores of other games that are playable across editions. They are still new editions though.

tetrasodium · 2026-03-03T09:36:37+0000

It was just the other day that wotc said they would be announcing new books soon. That's relevant because locking in on a term allows something that hasn't really come up to be done with those books. Specifically is drop in replacement and bolt on rules like some of the xge/Tasha sidebars. By having the term wotc can make one of those rules for 5.5 in a rules supplement like the Tasha's or setting book like rising without complaints about compatibility from the people who should have had expectations corrected when they started expecting exact textual binary level compatibility with the 2014 phb.

It would also allow them do do stuff like include a new set of base classes themed to a setting like the 10 in oriental adventures without needing to preserve the problematic 2014 sacred cows & have them fit 5.5 subclasses

Corinnguard · 2026-03-03T10:05:46+0000

Artamo said:
Best use of that meme!

Memes are a modern-day version of Thieves ' Cant. A short-lived image of something or someone conveying meaning to those who are familiar with it.

SlyFlourish said:
What about Tales of the Valiant?

When one wants to write a product compatible with Level Up Advanced 5e along with the others, what should they call it?

I have been using the term 5e-adjacent to describe RPGs like ToV and A5e that were created from 5e14 and used its' chassis and now exist side-by-side with it.

EzekielRaiden said:
My only issue with the new change is that I think they should have called the original product "5.0" or "5.0e" or the like.

That way, you'd have three labels:

5e/"Fifth Edition": Umbrella term for all games which are published under this ruleset

5.0(e)/"Fifth Edition (Original)"/"Five-oh": Specific term for what used to be called "2014" or "5.14(e)" or whatever else

5.5(e)/"Fifth Edition (Revised)"/"Five-point-five": Specific term for what used to be called "2024" or "5.24(e)" or w/e else

That way, "5e" continues to be a generic label, and products wishing to be more specific about what particular subset of the rules it applies to can use the more-specific variants within.

So, 5.0(e)"Fifth Edition (Adjacent)": Specific term for any RPG that was developed from the original 5e (O5e)?

Morrus · 2026-03-03T10:41:40+0000

SlyFlourish said:
What about Tales of the Valiant?

When one wants to write a product compatible with Level Up Advanced 5e along with the others, what should they call it?

Are you suggesting that I get to decide? Because if so, I'm gonna need time to workshop this!

Morrus · 2026-03-03T10:42:38+0000

Belen said:
Is it just for 5.5? I mean, if a publisher says it is made for 5.5, then I may avoid it.

Well, they're adventures. The differences between a 5E and a 5.5E adventure are basically the format of the stat blocks.

Minigiant · 2026-03-03T10:45:01+0000

tetrasodium said:
It was just the other day that wotc said they would be announcing new books soon. That's relevant because locking in on a term allows something that hasn't really come up to be done with those books. Specifically is drop in replacement and bolt on rules like some of the xge/Tasha sidebars. By having the term wotc can make one of those rules for 5.5 in a rules supplement like the Tasha's or setting book like rising without complaints about compatibility from the people who should have had expectations corrected when they started expecting exact textual binary level compatibility with the 2014 phb.

It would also allow them do do stuff like include a new set of base classes themed to a setting like the 10 in oriental adventures without needing to preserve the problematic 2014 sacred cows & have them fit 5.5 subclasses

Can't have a ranger subclass that uses charges if Favored Enemy if you don't make it clear that you are using the 5.5e version which has uses of Favored Enemy.

tetrasodium · 2026-03-03T11:02:11+0000

Minigiant said:
Can't have a ranger subclass that uses charges if Favored Enemy if you don't make it clear that you are using the 5.5e version which has uses of Favored Enemy.

I was thinking more like eliminating pact magic the SR class design malicious compliance SR nova loop & such. Ranger never had trouble at my tables because basic math is easy enough that I never bought into wotc's absurd claims like "If your 5E characters have no magic items, the game would still be balanced. Magic items are pure candy"

talien · 2026-03-03T11:09:36+0000

Dire Bare said:
I worry that widespread adoption of a 5.5E label might further the idea that the two versions are not fully compatible, what happened with 3.0/3.5 . . . but I guess that is the downside of WotC's recent decision.

I'm discovering 5.5E is about as compatible with 5E as 3.5E was about as compatible with 3E. Which is to say DM can handwave the differences between monsters for the most part, spells work drastically different in subtle but important ways, and the classes between the two editions are different enough to cause considerable confusion to new players using the different books.

Now though, players seem far less concerned about that than DMs and publishers (it is an ongoing struggle with my weekly library game) so at least from a financial perspective, it seems WOTC managed to minimize the impact to their brand.

mamba · 2026-03-03T11:14:50+0000

tetrasodium said:
It was just the other day that wotc said they would be announcing new books soon. That's relevant because locking in on a term allows something that hasn't really come up to be done with those books. Specifically is drop in replacement and bolt on rules like some of the xge/Tasha sidebars. By having the term wotc can make one of those rules for 5.5 in a rules supplement like the Tasha's or setting book like rising without complaints about compatibility from the people who should have had expectations corrected when they started expecting exact textual binary level compatibility with the 2014 phb.

I don’t see how calling it 5.5 rather than 2024 changes anything in regards to what they can release in an ‘of Everything’ book