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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

5.5.5

Because that would be awesome.

From now on, we will just periodically launch revisions with increasing numbers of 5. You have said it, now let us make it so!

I can only pray that one day, our children, and our children's children, can enjoy D&D 5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5!

 

[Maxperson]

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

It's misleading. They are taking changes every bit as significant as 3.5 and telling us that it's effectively no change.

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?

20 full years of use. That's why. It's the common usage when talking about D&D editions. And half editions. Hell, I've even seen the skills and powers for 2e referred to as 2.5e many times over the years.

 

[Maxperson]

5.5.5

Because that would be awesome.

From now on, we will just periodically launch revisions with increasing numbers of 5. You have said it, now let us make it so!

I can only pray that one day, our children, and our children's children, can enjoy D&D 5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5!

If they labeled it that way, I'd buy it whether I was planning on using it or not.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

There is a slight difderence between 3.0 to 3.5 and 5.0 to 5.5:
3.5 changed skill proficiencies and some other stuff that might be referenced in an adventure.
5.5 won't (although I had prefered if perception went the way of the dodo). So by that metric, 5.0 adventures will stay more compatible with the new editions of the core books.

And I heard on these forums, that the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 did not go smoothly for Hobby shops, because people stopped buing 3.0 adventures. I think WotC wants to prevent that feom happening again.

So make of that what you will. I think as long as adventures will smoothly enough work with 2014 and 2024 books, I'd try to stay away from calling it a new or a half new edition, even though the change to classes and some game elements would warrant it.

 

[codo]

It's misleading. They are taking changes every bit as significant as 3.5 and telling us that it's effectively no change.

20 full years of use. That's why. It's the common usage when talking about D&D editions. And half editions. Hell, I've even seen the skills and powers for 2e referred to as 2.5e many times over the years.

It was used for 5 years, from 2003 until 2008 when 4e came out. When 4e had a revised edition they didn't call it 4.5e, it was essentials.

How is it misleading exactly? The change from 5e to OneD&D is actually bigger than the changes from 1e to 2e, so it must be 6e right?

The point I have been trying to make is that D&D's naming methods have never made any sense, no two editions of the game have ever used the same naming scheme. It is incredibility confusing, and doesn't make any sense. Arbitrary insisting that they again use the version they used once twenty years ago is just your personal preference, there is nothing more correct or morally superior about using .5 vs any other name.

Personaly, D&D version names are so contradictory and confusing, I agree with WotC that just calling it Dungeons and Dragons is the best call. It is clean and simple, and in no way more confusing than any other name would be.

 

[codo]

And I heard on these forums, that the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 did not go smoothly for Hobby shops, because people stopped buing 3.0 adventures. I think WotC wants to prevent that feom happening again.

That is a really good point. The 3.0 to 3.5 really did end up killing a lot a hobby stores by sticking them with a glut of unsold 3e books that no one wanted to buy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's misleading. They are taking changes every bit as significant as 3.5 and telling us that it's effectively no change.

20 full years of use. That's why. It's the common usage when talking about D&D editions. And half editions. Hell, I've even seen the skills and powers for 2e referred to as 2.5e many times over the years.

The idea does have some ground beneath it.

 

[TwoSix]

It's misleading. They are taking changes every bit as significant as 3.5 and telling us that it's effectively no change.

I tend to view it more as that the 3.5 changes were relatively insignificant and were oversold. You could use 3.0 stuff in 3.5 or PF with only minor interoperability issues, with the exception of 3.0 haste.

Now they're just correctly labeling minor revisions and errata as the minor changes they are.

 

[Maxperson]

I tend to view it more as that the 3.5 changes were relatively insignificant and were oversold. You could use 3.0 stuff in 3.5 or PF with only minor interoperability issues, with the exception of 3.0 haste.

And DR. 3.5 cut DR in half and got rid of specific +s needed to bypass it. That was pretty major. Spell duration changes were also pretty large.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tend to view it more as that the 3.5 changes were relatively insignificant and were oversold. You could use 3.0 stuff in 3.5 or PF with only minor interoperability issues, with the exception of 3.0 haste.

Now they're just correctly labeling minor revisions and errata as the minor changes they are.

So basically, you just like the current nomenclature better than the old way? Can't argue personal preference i suppose.