D&D (2024) Is the 2024 rules update a new edition? Argue about it here (not everywhere else)!

[codo]

Unless it's Star Wars, in which case most fans seem to only ever do both simultaneously.

No one can hate the things they love quite like nerds can.

 

[CleverNickName]

Where's the option to add "...but I really want it to be"?

That seems to be the root of all these OneD&D arguments.

 

[Parmandur]

Don't think this will help. If there are upset players over the 2024 "publication" it will be because they don't like the changes, or don't want to buy new books. WotC abandoning the word edition won't change that. And whatever WotC's plans, the community will settle on a widely used term, whether it's 5.5, or Anniversary edition or Revised or something else, in order to differentiate it from the original 5e.

And we'll fight over the merits of each one.

Given that "the community" still buys the .5 Edition idea, pretty sure that however WotC refers to the final product will win out.

 

[SakanaSensei]

If I'm sitting down to do a campaign and my players make their characters using what they have available and the rules for their characters don't work the same way despite sharing a class (because they prepare spells differently, because their weapons do different things, because their feats say different things, because their book they made their character with gives different rules for frequent mechanics like critical hits), then it's a new edition. If the question ever comes up in play of "wait, why is Jill's Bardic Inspiration a reaction, isn't it a bonus action? That's what my character has," then it's a new edition.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, there's a lot that could and should be fixed in the 5E chassis that could make way for a better game! But I do find the whole "it's not a new edition at all!" talk from WotC specifically to feel dishonest because of the above issues.

 

[gorice]

It is certainly a "new edition" in the sense the term is used for most things outside of certain rpgs, as in it is a revision of existing material.

It is probably not a "new edition" in the special meaning of the term used for certain rpgs where it actually means "sequel game".

I voted yes because I don't approve of the, to me, misleading way in which "edition" is used for rpgs. Just have sequels.

I'm going to start calling the new one 2dungeons2dragons.

 

[Vael]

No. Though, TBH, I think the necessity of having 2014 PCs alongside 2024 PCs is setting the bar too high, if the newer design is a better play experience, I expect most players to just switch and most DMs to just have the Players move on to just limit complexity.

The question will is more ... can I still run a 5e adventure module using the 2024 MM without adjustments? That, I expect to be yes, and that's why I don't think it's a new edition.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If I'm sitting down to do a campaign and my players make their characters using what they have available and the rules for their characters don't work the same way despite sharing a class (because they prepare spells differently, because their weapons do different things, because their feats say different things, because their book they made their character with gives different rules for frequent mechanics like critical hits), then it's a new edition. If the question ever comes up in play of "wait, why is Jill's Bardic Inspiration a reaction, isn't it a bonus action? That's what my character has," then it's a new edition.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, there's a lot that could and should be fixed in the 5E chassis that could make way for a better game! But I do find the whole "it's not a new edition at all!" talk from WotC specifically to feel dishonest because of the above issues.

I, as a DM, can absolutely allow a 2024 bard use their "Bardic Inspiration" in the 2024 format, in the same game as a 2014-style bard and a LevelUp-style bard.

The 2014 bard can use the 2014 bardic inspiration their way.

The LevelUp bard in the same game use their ability their own way, if it were different.

They don't have to be the same. Each player just needs to know how their way works. I just look at them as variants, no different than if they had different subclasses/archetypes that modified those abilities differently.
.
Yes, some of the core rules may change between rulesets, like introducing a "Study" action to use certain skills for ability checks, or adding Mastery to weapons for 2024 warrior classes, and some changes are bigger than others. But it is no different than introducing alternate/optional rules in Tasha's or 3rd party products.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes.

Whether or not WotC calls it and edition, a revision, an update, or a smerp is just marketing. But from a completely functional standpoint, the purpose of naming an edition is communication. People (players, DMs, distributors, content creators, etc) need to be able to communicate clearly and succinctly what set of rules they are using.

When a new group is formed, someone has to ask the question "What game are we playing?" To that question, an answer of "D&D 5E" is different than "1D&D" or whatever you want to call it. Your answer communicates the baseline of how races, spells, classes, etc will work at your table. This also applies to writers: is this RPG book compatible with 5E, 1D&D, D20, OSRIC, 4E, or is it system independent? You will sell to different markets based on how you answer that question. It applies to how FLGS will organize their stock. Or even the simple case of a rando walking up to a table at a convention and asking about what the group is playing. Obviously, further communication will grant more information; optional books can be added or removed, houserules can be modified. But naming the edition is the foundation that the conversation is based on, just as much as naming the game itself (e.g. D&D vs. Castles and Crusades, or Call of Cthulhu, etc).

Eventually, the community will come to a consensus of what to call 1D&D to differentiate it from base 5E, and what comes next. WotC can say that's not an "edition", but functionally that's what it will be.

That doesn't match my experience with 3.x: we were probavly playing 3.5, but 3E books were used all the time (Savage Species was a favorite), and we were never confused (unless we tried to Grapple, which was weirdly frequent considering it never helped).

Most people don't play AL or go to Convention games, so WotC is smart by designing for and leaning into the muddle hard. The new rules are designed to be used indiscriminately with the old, and we have people doing that already.

 

[Remathilis]

By the definition of publishing, it is. If you compare it to a textbook for example, new art/graphics, updated info and changes to layout would certainly constitute a new edition of the book.

By RPG definition, it's a maybe. There are plenty of RPGs where editions aren't radical reinventions of the rules. They might add, clarify and change stuff, but it's mostly the same game. D&D is one of the few that has radically changed every edition (with the exception of 1e to 2e, which is closer to an edition change from other RPGs). It is certainly smaller than the changes from 2 to 3 to 4 to 5, but certainly bigger than just errata. Honestly, it feels more like 5e, 2nd edition. It's a revision of the 5e rules that isn't on the scale of the other major edition shifts. Evolution rather than revolution.

So it's a new edition of 5e, but not a new edition of D&D. I'm content calling it 5e Revised.

 

[TerraDave]

A new edition of 5e...maybe.

It comes down to communication. There will be some, maybe not many, but some, that don't want to use the new books, for whatever reason. There will be some who will actually try to have an open approach at the table (though I wonder for how long). There will be some, I am guessing many, that will only use the new books, possibly with a few small exceptions.

There has to be some way to signal that. To say what you want to play. Maybe just saying 2014 vs 2024. It doesn't have to be an "edition". But there will certainly have to be a distinction.