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

[Maxperson]

Why do you insist that that the naming convention that the used once twenty years ago the expectable name? Also using 5.5 is also just a "gimmick that they designed to keep from calling it an edition change" too. I don't understand why you thing 5.5 is just being honest but 5e revised is a sinister gimmick. If you think it is a new edition why don't you just call it 6e?

The changes at a minimum amount to a half-edition change. 5.5e is simply a better(in my opinion) and more accurate name than One D&D or even 2024.

 

[Velderan]

Wasn’t the statement about CR semi-recently that they aren’t changing CRs but rather changing statblocks to actually fit their CR?

I haven't been following the playtest as close as I had at the start, but I thought I remembered hearing something similar at one point.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

No. Can you point to an article or official statement by them that they will simply be calling it 2024? Or is it just that they are referring to it that way right now? Because if it's the latter, there's a very, very good chance that they are doing so to keep the official name secret.

The article linked in the OP.

"The proposed solution, then, for differentiating between 5th edition and what comes next? To append the year of publication to the end of the core rulebooks’ names. That way, Wizards said, going forward there will have been a Player’s Handbook (2014) and there will also be a Player’s Handbook (2024)."

 

[Remathilis]

there's a very, very good chance that they are doing so to keep the official name secret.

There is a better than average chance that the Book Titles will just read "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual" respectively. I don't see the words "sixth edition" or "version 5.5" being anywhere on it, thought I guess you might see "revised" or something on the back blurb.

 

[Maxperson]

The article linked in the OP.

"The proposed solution, then, for differentiating between 5th edition and what comes next? To append the year of publication to the end of the core rulebooks’ names. That way, Wizards said, going forward there will have been a Player’s Handbook (2014) and there will also be a Player’s Handbook (2024)."

Thanks! I still think it's not the best way to do it, but that does seem pretty clear. I'd still like to see or hear it from the horse's mouth, but I have no reason to doubt the author of the article.

 

[codo]

The changes at a minimum amount to a half-edition change. 5.5e is simply a better(in my opinion) and more accurate name than One D&D or even 2024.

It's not like a .5 edition is an industry standard term. It was used one time, twenty years ago. Why insist they must use that term? The .5 designation is actually more confusing than any other term. If someone was not playing D&D when 3.5 came out, it really doesn't even make sense.

The .5 designation came from the software world, where it is used to show iterative design versions. 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.3, etc. Wizard of the Coast used it in a completely different way. They used a .5 to show a half version, part way between the old version, and the next.

My other big complaint with the .5 is that OneD&D is not a "half" edition. It is an iteration on 5e, but the next "version" on D&D isn't intended to be 6e, it is intended to be another iteration on 5e. The name is just wrong. If anything it should be 5.1 to give them room to grow.

If they did end up calling it 5.5, and in another decade they have another revision of 5e, what should the call it? 5.5.5? 5.6? 5.5 version 2?
5.5 is literally the wrong name for what they are doing, and it actually causes more confusion than any other name would.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Thanks! I still think it's not the best way to do it, but that does seem pretty clear. I'd still like to see or hear it from the horse's mouth, but I have no reason to doubt the author of the article.

And I still get being cagey about Wizards. They've made a lot of missteps. I'm not saying that a person is wrong for doubting their ability to ultimately achieve their goals. But their reasons make sense, and seem sensible to me. I think 5E is great, but is getting long in the tooth and can use a freshening up (if the freshening actually gives something worthy of investing in). But I want to use my original Curse of Strahd with the new books when they come out, and everything they are showing us suggests I'll be able to do so.

I guess I'm just trying to advocate a common, shared language to discuss the playtest and merits of the changes going forward. The constant derailments of debating the naming convention in multiple threads really negatively impacts experience for me, so I do speak up.

I understand that if/when Wizards shoots themselves in the foot again, people calling them out on it at that time. I'm going to do that too if I feel they miss the mark too much. I just don't think they're in a bad place at this point in the process. Their bold playtest choices really are soliciting a lot of constructive feedback, whether positive or negative.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not like a .5 edition is an industry standard term. It was used one time, twenty years ago. Why insist they must use that term? The .5 designation is actually more confusing than any other term. If someone was not playing D&D when 3.5 came out, it really doesn't even make sense.

So first, I'm not insisting they use it. Second, probably less than 1% of people who know about the books coming out will be confused by 5.5e. They'll be able to put it together.

They used a .5 to show a half version, part way between the old version, and the next.

Which, despite their claims, is where 5.5e is at. The changes we've seen already are enough to place it halfway between versions.

If they did end up calling it 5.5, and in another decade they have another revision of 5e, what should the call it? 5.5.5? 5.6? 5.5 version 2?
5.5 is literally the wrong name for what they are doing, and it actually causes more confusion than any other name would.

In 10 years they should have 6e prepared to go.

 

[Maxperson]

And I still get being cagey about Wizards. They've made a lot of missteps. I'm not saying that a person is wrong for doubting their ability to ultimately achieve their goals. But their reasons make sense, and seem sensible to me. I think 5E is great, but is getting long in the tooth and can use a freshening up (if the freshening actually gives something worthy of investing in). But I want to use my original Curse of Strahd with the new books when they come out, and everything they are showing us suggests I'll be able to do so.

I guess I'm just trying to advocate a common, shared language to discuss the playtest and merits of the changes going forward. The constant derailments of debating the naming convention in multiple threads really negatively impacts experience for me, so I do speak up.

I understand that if/when Wizards shoots themselves in the foot again, people calling them out on it at that time. I'm going to do that too if I feel they miss the mark too much. I just don't think they're in a bad place at this point in the process. Their bold playtest choices really are soliciting a lot of constructive feedback, whether positive or negative.

This isn't about cagey, which I am. The changes they've shown us are as significant as the ones that made 3e into 3.5, so I view this as a half-edition. I'm also not doing this to cause arguments. For the most part when I use 5.5e nobody says anything, because they understand what I mean.

 

[codo]

So first, I'm not insisting they use it. Second, probably less than 1% of people who know about the books coming out will be confused by 5.5e. They'll be able to put it together.

Which, despite their claims, is where 5.5e is at. The changes we've seen already are enough to place it halfway between versions.

In 10 years they should have 6e prepared to go.

You aren't insisting they use 5.5, just saying if they don't they are lying and trying to trick us.

What even is a "half edition"? Again, it was a term used ONE time 20 years ago. Why is that automatically the correct term to use?