WotC Bard is the biggest mystery in the 5.75e PHB

[Remathilis]

I think I'll start referring to editions based on Batman actors...

"1e" = D&D West
"2e" = D&D Keaton
"3e" = D&D Kilmer
"3.5" = D&D Clooney
"4e" = D&D Bale
"5e" = D&D Affleck

... and this year's books are D&D Pattinson

Does this make Basic Conroy?

 

[James Gasik]

Does this make Basic Conroy?

No, that would be Wilson

 

[Parmandur]

They’re being referred to that way now, yes. Because there is currently a lot of need to refer to both rulesets in comparison and contrast with each other. The further we get from this point in time though, the less need there will be for such comparisons, and I guarantee they’ll just end up being referred to as “the rules,” while the current ruleset will be referred to as “the 2016 rules” only when absolutely necessary.

All true, but the benefit of calling these the 2024 rules is thst no matter what WotC does or says that moniker is accurate.* These are rules being released in 2024, irregardless of marketing or jargon.

*even if the MM is coming in 2025

 

[Weiley31]

I know I am going to regret asking this, but what is 5.75?

Its what I call "Revised D&D" because I concider Tasha's to really have been 5.5e, so this goes abit further then that, but not to 6e range.

If your using 1/4 editions wouldn’t Tasha’s be 5.25 and 2024 be 5.5?

No because Tasha's was too big a change to be a mere 5.25.

I base my number on how some folks called OG Patherfinder D&D 3.75e.

Don't get the thread hung up on what number should be applied.

Spoiler

I thought Tasha was like a 5.1, but to each their own. I think a lot of what was in Tasha's probably should have been there from the start and should have been considered a correction. Specifically (and it has been a while since I looked at 5e at all), I think Tasha's added a bunch of fluidity to the game that should have been there early on.

Clearly Tasha's was 358/2nd Edition.

I'm wiling to bet my Sea Salt Popsicle on it!

 

[bmfrosty]

Clearly Tasha's was 358/2nd Edition.

I'm wiling to bet my Sea Salt Popsicle on it!

Lol.

If I had one wish for WotC and 5th, is they'd stop putting out new player options in disparate books, and instead just put out a new PHB every 5 years with whatever changes they want to make. OTOH, DMG, and MM can be much more infrequent for refreshes.

 

[Parmandur]

Lol.

If I had one wish for WotC and 5th, is they'd stop putting out new player options in disparate books, and instead just put out a new PHB every 5 years with whatever changes they want to make. OTOH, DMG, and MM can be much more infrequent for refreshes.

On the other hand, people go through more Monsters and DM materials like maps than they do player characters.

 

[James Gasik]

The way I see supplemental rules is this. If it's intended to be just that, an option to make the game different or expand it's scope, absolutely, put it in a new book.

If it's functionally errata, or clarification of things that were left murky in the core rules, or even represent a paradigm shift in how the developer see the game, put that naughty word in a pdf online for free, and revise the core rulebooks!

This whole "well, we want the core books to be evergreen" didn't work for Magic The Gathering, and it's never worked for any edition of D&D ever. If you think core Rangers are crap, don't create the Gloomstalker in some book that invalidates every other stinking subclass!

If you think Sorcerers need bonus spells, don't give that to a few subclasses and not all.

If you want to fix a race/species/origin/whatever we're meant to call them now, don't do it in a book I need to buy twice.

Thank you.

 

[Blue]

Well, the trouble is they aren’t going to have a name. They’ll just be the Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide, which will have different contents than the books of the same names have had for the past 10 years. Since there isn’t an official name, but people still want to refer to them as a distinct entity, people are making up all kinds of names for them, with no consensus on which to use.

We can call them "SRD 5.2", since it's been announced that a new SRD version 5.2 is coming out with the rules. It's the closest to official we'll get.

I just call it 5R (pronounced "Fiver", so distinct from "Five-E"), since they've used Revamped and Revised as adjectives descripting the rules at various points.

 

[Blue]

I think I'll start referring to editions based on Batman actors...

"1e" = D&D West
"2e" = D&D Keaton
"3e" = D&D Kilmer
"3.5" = D&D Clooney
"4e" = D&D Bale
"5e" = D&D Affleck

... and this year's books are D&D Pattinson

Finally! A logical system I can get behind!

But...

Wouldn't Basic have been D&D West? I mean... just... yeah?

 

[Blue]

The way I see supplemental rules is this. If it's intended to be just that, an option to make the game different or expand it's scope, absolutely, put it in a new book.

If it's functionally errata, or clarification of things that were left murky in the core rules, or even represent a paradigm shift in how the developer see the game, put that naughty word in a pdf online for free, and revise the core rulebooks!

This whole "well, we want the core books to be evergreen" didn't work for Magic The Gathering, and it's never worked for any edition of D&D ever. If you think core Rangers are crap, don't create the Gloomstalker in some book that invalidates every other stinking subclass!

If you think Sorcerers need bonus spells, don't give that to a few subclasses and not all.

If you want to fix a race/species/origin/whatever we're meant to call them now, don't do it in a book I need to buy twice.

Thank you.

Agree with all your points. One, two, three - just right down the list.

And WotC were good with errata until (and definitely not including) Monsters of the Multiverse. For example when Triton got Darkvision, they published an errata PDF for each previous source and updated it.