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

Morrus · 2026-03-03T15:53:11+0000

Clint_L said:
In traditional publishing terms, we are not talking about editions at all.

Indeed. The 2024 PH is certainly not the same book as the 2014 PH.

In traditional publishing IIRC a change of 10% of the content generally means a new edition of that publication. These books change 100% of the content—every word and art piece. They’re entirely new books.

Whether or not it’s a new edition of the game system, those are undeniably new editions of the books.

Morrus · 2026-03-03T15:55:08+0000

SlyFlourish said:
You sure do.

Using my newfound powers, I’m gonna go with ‘Clarence’.

I hope that settles the issue for all!

Artamo · 2026-03-03T15:55:58+0000

Clint_L said:
Was it a new edition when Tasha's came out, with new rules?

Or even earlier, when 2014 books were reprinted with corrections and other changes? Or every time an adventure was published containing new material?

5e has been adding new rules since basically the moment of publication. So it's not simply having the new rules, it's their extent, feel, and means of publication that are exactly the crux of the issue.

In traditional publishing terms, we are not talking about editions at all. The reason this is even an issue is because TSR redefined "edition" for marketing purposes, establishing a new paradigm that we continue to wrestle with.

It's also only an issue on discussion forums like this. Most players don't know or care about earlier versions of the game, and most of mine didn't even notice when I switched to the latest version, or know or care when I add new material of my own, from WotC's latest publication, or from 3PP.

For me, it's all still D&D.

I think the key difference is that these were a few new changes limited to a few subclasses, spells, or optional subsystems. And it’s not simply errata or spot changes that roll into new printings. New rules entering into the game at any time has been part and parcel of the game since the very beginning. But it’s usually the publication of new core books that signify the change even if that change is stronger in some edition shifts than others. This time it was enough of a change to necessitate three new core books that included the things I mentioned earlier.

Again, I go back to 1e vs 2e. Could I run Temple of Elemental Evil from the first edition in second edition with relatively few changes? Absolutely. Were there still enough differences worthy to denote the shift in editions? Yes.

It’s not like I’m upset about any of this. I’m just saying where I see it as a new edition.

Corinnguard · 2026-03-03T16:11:02+0000

Morrus said:
You’ve seen several Kickstarters forced to release a 2014 version and a 2024 version? Really?

The Backgrounds in Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms has the 2024 background info as a set of optional rules in addition to the regular 2014 background info.

This book also has something like the 2024 weapon masteries, but they go one step further in that you get some new weapon feature at each tier of gameplay.

Light Weapons- Light Mastery
Tier 1- Lightweight or Multi Weapon Fighting
Tier 2- Superior Strike: Light
Tier 3-Combination Strike or Riposte
Tier 4- Featherweight or Swift Striker

Finesse- Finesse Mastery
Tier 1- Ambidextrous or Nimble Duelist
Tier 2- Superior Strike: Finesse
Tier 3- Jink or Weak Spot
Tier 4- Fighting Elegance or Opportunist

So, a Fighter wielding a Scimitar can make use of the Advanced Fighting techniques from the weapon's Light and Finesse properties.

Lakesidefantasy · 2026-03-03T16:15:28+0000

Li Shenron · 2026-03-03T16:15:46+0000

Artamo said:
I think the key difference is that these were a few new changes limited to a few subclasses, spells, or optional subsystems. And it’s not simply errata or spot changes that roll into new printings. This time it was enough of a change to necessitate three new core books that included the things I mentioned earlier.

Again, I go back to 1e vs 2e. Could I run Temple of Elemental Evil from the first edition in second edition with relatively few changes? Absolutely. Were there still enough differences worthy to denote the shift in editions? Yes.

It’s not like I’m upset about any of this. I’m just saying where I see it as a new edition.

I don't know why the idea of using adventures as a primary way to establish whether two versions of the game are "compatible" is so popular... to me what makes-or-breaks compatibility is player characters, and the 5.5 edition for me crosses that threshold and is thus incompatible with 5.0. For instance, I can't have a 2014 Cleric and a 2024 Cleric at the same table if the healing spells of the latter simply heals twice the amount the former does. But adventures? I've been running almost all pre-5e adventures with 5e rules, and unless the old adventure has unique monsters, NPC or magic items, I just refer to the 5e DMG/MM and the rest is usable as-is, so for my purposes BECMI/AD&D/3e adventures are compatible enough with 5e. But I just can't stand the idea that a player with the 5.0 PHB is fundamentally being treated unfairly by clearly superior character classes in the 5.5 PHB. We either all play with the same equal opportunities, or we don't play together.

5e remains a VERY different game overall compared to BECMI, AD&D, 3e and 4e, no question on that. And it is obviously easier to mix-and-match two versions of the same edition, rather than two editions. So I never called 5.5 a "new edition", just a new version, but incompatible enough for my peace of mind as a DM and player.

I don't care how they call it anyway, in person I've been just saying "the original 5e" vs "the revised 5e", on the forums I will just adapt.

Morrus · 2026-03-03T16:16:07+0000

Corinnguard said:
The Backgrounds in Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms has the 2024 background info as a set of optional rules in addition to the regular 2014 background info.

Yes, normally not two versions of the same book.

That would kill any print run. It’s publishing suicide.

Piperken · 2026-03-03T16:25:54+0000

Morrus said:
It's important to publishers. For example, we have an upcoming Kickstarter with a big logo on it which says '5E'.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/enworld/shortquests

As of today, that term specifically refers to the 2014 rules, not the 2024 rules. That is not our intention, and we do not want people to think that our KS is designed specifically for the 2014 rules; we will now be changing that logo.

Briefly places editor hat on:

Morrus doesn't mention this here, but what is an exterior change on the cover also affects content in your project e.g. how you may reference the 2024 rules inside.

Also, it's not like prior published titles magically update themselves!

Artamo · 2026-03-03T16:33:21+0000

Li Shenron said:
I don't know why the idea of using adventures as a primary way to establish whether two versions of the game are "compatible" is so popular... to me what makes-or-breaks compatibility is player characters, and the 5.5 edition for me crosses that threshold and is thus incompatible with 5.0. For instance, I can't have a 2014 Cleric and a 2024 Cleric at the same table if the healing spells of the latter simply heals twice the amount the former does. But adventures? I've been running almost all pre-5e adventures with 5e rules, and unless the old adventure has unique monsters, NPC or magic items, I just refer to the 5e DMG/MM and the rest is usable as-is, so for my purposes BECMI/AD&D/3e adventures are compatible enough with 5e. But I just can't stand the idea that a player with the 5.0 PHB is fundamentally being treated unfairly by clearly superior character classes in the 5.5 PHB. We either all play with the same equal opportunities, or we don't play together.

5e remains a VERY different game overall compared to BECMI, AD&D, 3e and 4e, no question on that. And it is obviously easier to mix-and-match two versions of the same edition, rather than two editions. So I never called 5.5 a "new edition", just a new version, but incompatible enough for my peace of mind as a DM and player.

I don't care how they call it anyway, in person I've been just saying "the original 5e" vs "the revised 5e", on the forums I will just adapt.

I guess I think about it in terms of adventures because for me it’s the more likely difference that I’ll encounter as opposed to two players trying to use PCs across different rulesets. In my games, I’m probably 99% likely to have everyone on the same core rules, homebrew stuff notwithstanding. But I’m very likely to reuse an old adventure and determine how much work goes into updating it or modifying it.