D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[mamba]

If profit is more important than truth, yes. 5.5 may be backwards compatible by WotC's meaning, but it is clearly different from 5.0 but has the same name. That's deceptive.

no it isn’t, no one thinks this is just a reprint of the same rules, so no one is deceived

 

[mamba]

By not naming the...whatever the next release is as an "edition" they have done what they were attempting not to do.

have they? what is that?

 

[mamba]

They said the same thing with 3.0/3.5 but still called it 3.5.

and now they call it the 2024 revision, no one is trying to claim that these are the same books

 

[Micah Sweet]

no it isn’t, no one thinks this is just a reprint of the same rules, so no one is deceived

And yet they intentionally took something that is clearly an extensive update in a lot of ways and refused to differentiate it by name.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They said the same thing with 3.0/3.5 but still called it 3.5.

Which is not objectively a better name then had they called it Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition (2002) Revised. We just think so because we are 20 years used to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and now they call it the 2024 revision, no one is trying to claim that these are the same books

What will the books say?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is not objectively a better name then had they called it Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition (2002) Revised.

I think it is. Rolls off the tongue better.

 

[Belen]

and now they call it the 2024 revision, no one is trying to claim that these are the same books

Except that 3.0/3.5 were not compatible. 3.5 was a major change in style and feel. I get the same feeling with 5.5. If you use 2014, then you have to upgrade it to 2024 if using the 2024 rules. They made is forward-compatible and that is different than backwards compatible.

 

[MarkB]

Not in this case I don't believe. They are promoting backward compatibility, so you have two different rulesets or portions thereof that can be played at the same table where apparently you have classes that can use portions of both. Not something I'm personally interested in

And nobody's forcing you to be. The fact that it's compatible with previous content doesn't mean you're forced to allow that content. You can just as easily say "Okay, for this campaign we'll be using the 2024 ruleset only." Heck, I'm planning on doing exactly that for my first campaign once the new PHB drops, because I want to see how it functions in its own right.

I'll be happy to play or run other campaigns that mix-and-match, though - the parameters set out for combining the two seem pretty clear-cut.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think it is. Rolls off the tongue better.

Sure. You can think so. Everyone has opinions.

It doesn't change that how something is named is a choice, and one that has many consequences. The one they are trying to avoid this time is having to revise all the Adventures and obsoleting the supply (whereas that time, obsoleting the supply was part of their reasoning for doing it).

Which one is more of a marketing cash grab? I would argue 3.5. You would disagree. Our opinions have even weight (though I work in selling D&D books whereas you don't care if they sell, you just want them to be done your way).