Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

Not open for further replies.


Strictly speaking if the system is still ultimately d20 then everything under it is cross compatible. This is what I was getting at with my post; d20 itself isn't a game, and its d20 that people are referring to when they point at things like the resolution system or skills being the same, and thus 1DND is "not" a new edition.

Which, of course, doesn't really follow unless one takes to the logic that updates to the SRD/OGL are what mark new editions. But even then, I could easily make the argument that the move to Creative Commons made such a change.

And meanwhile, the compatibility between different sets of content isn't even whats being argued by the people who assert this isn't a new edition.

Remember, the logic being used here is that because the underlying system isn't changing, its not a new edition, no matter how extensive the changes in content are. But that logic doesn't follow, and falls apart even when given the benefit of the doubt.

Ultimately, though, one also just has to consider what precisely is the hesitation towards accepting 1DND as a new edition. We know what WOTCs hesitation is, and that, if nothing else, is understandable.

I don't recall seeing anyone in this topic expressing why they don't want 1DND called a new edition, nor for that matter why itd be such an issue for them if it was.
Plenty of people have expressed why we don't want 1D&D called a new edition. Mostly because a new edition implies that the old book are not combatable with the new one. If you can run a 1D&D adventure using 5e books, it is not a new edition. If you can run a 5e adventure using the 1D&D book it is not a new edition. WotC has been emphatically stating from the start that 1D&D is backwards compatible, and It sure looks like it will be.

Do you see any problem with running an old 5e adventure path with the new 1D&D rules? I sure don't, so not a new edition.

log in or register to remove this ad


The thing I'm objecting to is WotC's framing that's suggesting we won't be talking about 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 as separate entities.
some people definitely will, how large a percentage of players that is however… remains to be seen


WotC used the .5 edition model once over 20 years ago. Why should that be the default naming convention? There have been over a dozen different "Editions" of d&d so far, why should the naming convention from 2003 be the default. Why not use 6E? The changes from 1e to 2e where very similar in scope to 5e and OneD&D. You could also call it 5E essentials. The 4e to essential change was also of a similar scope to 5e and OneD&D.

We need to face the fact that D&D has never used a consistent naming scheme, and there really isn't a naming convention that really makes any more sense than any other.
I am pretty sure they could name it what ever they want as long as they label it and those of us calling it out would be happy

I know this was the case with AD&D and the Arneson estate... I didn't know it similarly affected Gary.
The book Empire of Imagination has a quote from Gygax about this on page 197. It discussed 2e as being a costly revision to the game's mechanics, which after the result failed to sell as well as TSR hoped Gygax was quoted as saying "to save 2.5 percent they wrecked the company", so it doesn't sound like he received royalties from the 2e era products.


Then why a new PHB with all the classes races feats and some spells and conditions overhauled?
Because after 10 years they see some rough patches and want to update them, while still using the same core rule and being compatible with all of the 5e books and adventures they have already released. D&D naming conventions have never been consistant for 50 years. What ever name they choose will cause some confusion, because they have never used the same system twice.

Honestly just sticking with 5e is probably going to cause the least amount of confusion of any name they could choose. Calling it 5.5, or 6e, or what ever else they could come up with, would actually cause more confusion and lead people to believe that the old 5e adventures are not compatible with the new version.

Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement