D&D 5E (2024) D&D Beyond's Development Roadmap Is A Complete Rebuild Of Platform

D&D Beyond has announced its roadmap for the future, including features in active development and those planned for later down the line. These include a full rebuild of the game platform's engine, a new character builder, tools for Dungeon Masters, and more.

Over the past few months, we’ve launched a new homepage, a revamped and more sortable content library, image reveals in the Maps VTT to help DMs immerse their players more easily, and several other quality-of-life improvements.

2026 is a year of refocusing and rebuilding D&D Beyond to make it easier to play D&D your way. Three major initiatives will drive most of our work:

• Rebuilding D&D Beyond’s Game Platform
• Improving Player Onboarding and Revamping the Character Builder Experience
• Launching a Suite of Dungeon Master Tools

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It cannot be 5.1, because that is Tashas.

You gotta be kidding me with this.

A book with some new options, even including optional variants of existing things, is not even a light revision. It is literally just a supplement.

 

[Scribe]

 

[saviirkad]

I don't mind the x.5 moniker for a revision, I just think it's terrible for an edition that already starts with a 5. Every time I've seen 5.5 before it's looked more like a typo or some weird new emote.

I'd also prefer if it was like, 5.1 or something, especially since that feels the closest just in terms of how little really changed. Like we had 5.0 in 2014. We had even smaller revisions like MotM and TCOE, which just kind of made it like 5.0x if one wanted to get really technical with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, I think most insisting that think its a revision, as it is. Its certainly not 2014 5.0.

Again, a new version, a new game, a new edition? 6.0.

Aweful lot of people literally saying it is a new edition that "wotc just won't admit is a new edition", for me to even consider taking this statement remotely seriously.

And seriously, this isn't software, stop with the weird .0 nonsense.

 

[Scribe]

Aweful lot of people literally saying it is a new edition that "wotc just won't admit is a new edition", for me to even consider taking this statement remotely seriously.

And seriously, this isn't software, stop with the weird .0 nonsense.

People saying its a new edition, are not me. I give their opinion about as much weight as those saying its the same game, when it clearly is not.

I wont stop with the .0, or the .5, especially as its now officially, 5.5.

I will however, exit the conversation, enjoy your games!

 

[bsss]

Half edition isn't a real thing. It is a revision. You don't rename revisions, and even if we did, it is more accurate to make it 5.1 than 5.5.

There aren't two versions of 5e, there is just 5e, which has had a revision that is still completely compatible with the unrevised books. Because they are part of the same edition of the rules, the same game.

It is clearly, obviously, objectively, still the same game.

I think you've lost the plot here. They are clearly not the same game or else there would not be a revision to talk about, and you admit the revision exists. What's a normal way to denote a revision? A ".X". Or a year. Or a whole new number, Or "Next". Who cares? This isn't a thing to get worked up over as long as people understand the label, and demonstrably here people do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People saying its a new edition, are not me. I give their opinion about as much weight as those saying its the same game, when it clearly is not.

I wont stop with the .0, or the .5, especially as its now officially, 5.5.

I will however, exit the conversation, enjoy your games!

one post on DDB does not make it officially the name of the game.

When the books are reprinted and call it 5.5, I will concede that wotc has completely given up on fighting the insipid moniker, but posting on ddb and using a colloquialism does not make that colloquialism official.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you've lost the plot here. They are clearly not the same game or else there would not be a revision to talk about, and you admit the revision exists. What's a normal way to denote a revision? A ".X". Or a year. Or a whole new number, Or "Next". Who cares? This isn't a thing to get worked up over as long as people understand the label, and demonstrably here people do.

A revision to the game is not a new game.

 

[bsss]

AFAIK I never argued whether or not it was a "new game". It is a revision, which means that which is not the same as the previous thing. Conveying that difference (when relevant) is what's important. The label(s) in use don't as long as the point gets across.

 

[saviirkad]

I don't mind the x.5 moniker for a revision, I just think it's terrible for an edition that already starts with a 5. Every time I've seen 5.5 before it's looked more like a typo or some weird new emote.

I'd also prefer if it was like, 5.1 or something, especially since that feels the closest just in terms of how little really changed. Like we had 5.0 in 2014. We had even smaller revisions like MotM and TCOE, which just kind of made it like 5.0x if one wanted to get really technical with it.

To be honest, I also just feel like my own takes on 5.1 or 5e2024 are rooted mostly in the community's need to identify them as distinctly different, which I honestly think is itself unnecessary and just another example of fandoms creating their own problems.

Do the new PHB/MM/DMG have some revisions to those published in 2014? Yes. Do they need to have a name other than 5e, or just D&D within the context of them being the current ruleset? Noooo.

We're just too caught up in our need to identify and categorize that it stops becoming helpful and just creates more problems for ourselves, especially those who really need there to be a hard line between the two to justify picking one over the other. You don't need the justification. Just do it.

Edit: Hit post too soon. Was gonna say, the only thing that ultimately matters is that when a player and DM are at the same table and one says "it's in the PHB," it would be helpful to say which one. And for my purposes, 2014/2024 works just fine.