Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up for me, too.
Aside from that, I really don't care what WotC call it—as long as it improves some of the problem points of 5e, I'll give it a go. But so far, I'm on the fence.
D&D (2024) Is the 2024 rules update a new edition? Argue about it here (not everywhere else)!
Aside from that, I really don't care what WotC call it—as long as it improves some of the problem points of 5e, I'll give it a go. But so far, I'm on the fence.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
If you use it that way I do agree.
But since new games were also called editions, it all becomes very muddy.
We could also call 1e to 2e revision.
3e to 3.5 revision. It is what they are going for from 5e 2014 to 2024.
So I think it was a good idea not to refer to the new rules as new edition as that word was ised in too many context and bears no meaning anymore. At least regarding the amount of changes.
So we need an option in the poll: the word edition is useless.
Remathilis
Legend
I think the D&D community should start recognizing that not all editions are created equal. Some are revolution (major changes that breed compatible issues) and evolution (revised rules that are mostly still compatible, even if not 100%).
OD&D and Holmes: revolution
Holmes and BX: mostly evolution
Holmes and AD&D revolution
BX to BECMI: evolution
AD&D 1e to 2e: evolution
2e to 3e: revolution
3e to 3.5: evolution
3.x to 4e: revolution
4e to 5e: revolution
5e to One D&D: evolution
I'm ignoring swords and Spells (0e) Unearthed Arcana (1e), Players Options (2e) and Essentials (4e) because they didn't render the core books obsolete and are thus evolution by default.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I do agree with most... but skills and powers and the rest of the player options of 2e did make quite a lot of the PHB obsolete...
FitzTheRuke
Legend
You hit the nail on the head. The only answer that I personally accept (not that anyone cares) is: "IT DOESN'T MATTER".
I don't know why I stepped foot in this thread, but I am unsurprised to see how heated it is already!
Sure, it looks like it's going to change the rules something similar to the 1e to 2e shift or the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. Note that both those things had different names!
2e itself had the original books, and the rearranged/errata'd revised black books, which the upcoming revision is ALSO similar to. It looks like it probably won't be as big as the 3.5 to 4e or a 4e to 5e shift, though.
So what do we call that? Whatever they choose to market it as, JUST LIKE WE ALWAYS HAVE. It's not like 5e was ever the FIFTH VERSION of D&D. So why do we feel like accepting THAT NAME and not stubbornly calling it 16th or 18th or whatever it "really" is? Because even us pedantic gamers are not THAT stubborn!
Honestly, what they've chosen to call it lately (that being a "rules revision") is the only thing that's totally true. The rules will be revised. Revised from what and into what? Those aren't currently clear.
If you need a name for it RIGHT NOW, call it "2024" or "50th Anniversary D&D" (those are the same thing). Or "the upcoming revision". Or stick with OneD&D if you're talking about the playtest stuff.
/rant
Last edited:
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
First, people don't agree what "Edition" means. It is 100% subjective. Some people say there have been 20+ editions of D&D. By continuing to use the word Edition, they would be using an outdated, subjective concept that means different things to different people, and by its very nature cannot deliver a unified vision of what the 2024 ruleset is intended to achieve.
Second, the word "Edition" is failed marketing jargon that feeds the toxic edition wars, and needs to be left in the trash heap of history. The "new books" or the "2024 books" or the "Anniversary printing" all would be fine and in tune with Wizards messaging as it is currently. In common parlance, the public can just use the one syllable word "New" rather than "Edition." Example below:
"We're using the "new" books for this 5E campaign, but if you want to use the "old" Druid, you're welcome to. Just remember that it works differently than Jenny's Druid in the last campaign and you may have to do a bunch of Monster Manual research (or look online for others who have done the work.). It's ok that they play different, just consider it like a different Circle/subclass variation. If there is a specific spell you want to use the old way, talk to me. Some I may be ok with, but some have gotten errata that works better for my campaign, and I'll be sticking with the new version."
Remathilis
Legend
It really depends on what and how much you used. Skills & Powers alone replaced character generation, but you still needed the PHB for spells and combat rules. Combat & Tactics replaced the combat system, but you still generated your PC with the PHB. Spells & Magic replaced the spell system (and augments chargen) but the PHB was again needed for spells and combat. If you were a mad-lad (as I was) and used all three, you still needed the PHB at the very least for spells. And all of these books still assumed the regular DMG and MM (for better or worse). You could not buy the three PO books and have a functioning game, so I don't count it a separate edition.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I also don't count it as that, but the changes in the parts that were changed were VERY big. Races and Class point buy. Split attributes. Totally revamped skill system. And more. I can't double check as I don't have the book here.
The core chassis was changed. More so than 3 to 3.5.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Yup. It was a "point five", and so was 4e Essentials. So was 2e from 1e, even though that got an edition name. In fact, "point five" was only used THE ONCE, during 3rd Edition, because it was popular at the time in a completely different & influential field (computers).
I would argue that 3.5 was a dumb name then and it's even worse now!
3rd Edition "Revised" would have worked then, and 5th Edition Revised would work now - though it's probably not the name that they'll go with, which is almost undoubtedly going to be 50th Anniversary Dungeons & Dragons (with no mention of 5e, other than perhaps a line somewhere about it being "compatible with the D&D 5th Edition books").
Fifth Edition is a name that they never wanted for it in the first place, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it ISN'T the FIFTH version of D&D.
We in the D&D community have developed a seriously warped idea of what level of change constitutes an "edition." In any other form of publishing, or even any other TTRPG, there would be no question that 2E, 3.5, and 1D&D were new editions. 3.0, 4E, and 5E were not editions, they were total remakes.
An "edition" typically involves some cleanup, errata, reorganization. A better index (ahem). Shiny new art. An introduction by the author. It doesn't involve rewriting the entire thing from the ground up.
But WotC always wants to keep the invested players from getting upset, so they downplay the scale of the changes. (And now, of course, having conditioned us to think "edition" means "complete new game," they have even more incentive. Eventually "edition" will be redefined to require a full-scale revolution and new world government, otherwise it's just a few errata.)
An "edition" typically involves some cleanup, errata, reorganization. A better index (ahem). Shiny new art. An introduction by the author. It doesn't involve rewriting the entire thing from the ground up.
But WotC always wants to keep the invested players from getting upset, so they downplay the scale of the changes. (And now, of course, having conditioned us to think "edition" means "complete new game," they have even more incentive. Eventually "edition" will be redefined to require a full-scale revolution and new world government, otherwise it's just a few errata.)
Last edited:
