NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9377862" data-attributes="member: 59816">Honestly, I don't want to get into this with you. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what "correct" would look like, does not make that so. Nor does it make anyone who disagrees with you "dishonest", far or less "wrong".I didn't use the term "wrong" - I used "inconsistent" - and if you think that "edition" has been used consistently in D&D, then I don't know what to tell you.Yes, that was my point - yours was to call WotC dishonest.Sure. And using it "right" would make this something like 16th Edition D&D. Since they obviously can't call it that, "5e Revised" is also on the table. Why wouldn't it be?The company can call their new books whatever they want. You can disagree. It won't make them wrong.They've always said, and always meant, that they were revising 5e. They did it. They're calling it that.They never hid that they were revising 5e. They wanted to call the playtest OneD&D like the 5e playtest was called D&DNext. It's not their fault that people are impatient and want a name for books that don't exist until they're made. They're made now. They're 5e Revised. They've "admitted" it!Because a "half edition" is a stupid idea. It was used ONCE, 20+ years ago - and only because it was popular software jargon at the time. It has no other precedent in D&D. It has very little meaning outside people that cut their teeth with 3.5 and almost no meaning whatsoever to any modern marketing. You're fine to like it - but it doesn't make WotC "wrong" or "dishonest" for not wanting to use it.</blockquote>

Verification