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

[Stalker0]

I have to ask ... why are we still arguing over this?

The definition of "edition" in D&D is completely arbitrary, and designated by the company. Editions in publishing aren't the same thing.

And it's not about interoperability or compatibilty. OD&D and Basic (Holmes) and Basic (Moldvay/Mentzer/RC) and AD&D (1e) and AD&D (2e) are all interoperable. But they aren't all the same "edition."

See, e.g., my prior attempts to discuss interoperability of TSR-era D&D and trying to do a new taxonomy of it.

Heck, what even is a "half" edition (3.5e)?

Is this a New Edition? Well, speaking of new editions, Bobby Brown put it best when he said, "Whitney, let's go party!"

Um, no, when he said....

Everybody's talking all this stuff about 5e (now now)
Why don't they learn to forgive?
Hasbro don't need permission, make its own decisions
That's, that's Hasbro's prerogative

They say it's a new edition, Crawford really don't care
That's Hasbro's prerogative
They say Hasbro is lying
But we don't give a damn
Getting money is how corps live
Some ask Crawford questions, what do you want to conceal?
But they don't know history
They really don't know the deal about the past changes
Filled with anger and spite, from wars so long ago
But Hasbro will win this fight, sing

Everybody's talking all this stuff about 5e
That's, that's Hasbro's prerogative (I'll tell you why)
Hasbro don't need permission, make its own decisions
That's Hasbro's prerogative
It's Hasbro's prerogative (it's Hasbro's prerogative)

When we debate the definitions, what we really are debating is, "is this amount of change worth a new series of physical books"?

I agree that the strict definition of edition is arbitrary, but whether we have enough new content to warrant a purchase is a more tangible debate.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When we debate the definitions, what we really are debating is, "is this amount of change worth a new series of physical books"?

I agree that the strict definition of edition is arbitrary, but whether we have enough new content to warrant a purchase is a more tangible debate.

Well, that will end up being a personal choice for each individual, right? I can't make that call for you, or anyone else.

Given that it's been ten years, I don't think that the actual cost of a new PHB is really going to be the barrier. If you're playing 5e regularly, then the cost over time is negligible, and you probably need to get a new one at some point.

On the other hand, if you aren't playing 5e, or don't need a new PHB any time soon, that's cool too.

As for me, I will pick it up in due time. And to the extent that people want to have a conversation about the amount of new content, that's cool too. But the edition thing? Eh, whatever. It is what it is.

 

[Parmandur]

Dungeon Dudes go into this in detail:

 

[mellored]

We've been incorporating the UA rules into our 2014 campaign for a year or so now. It's super easy. Barely an inconvenience.

Using the UA monk rules with the UA grapple rules, I assume.

Not the UA monk with the 2014 grapple rules.

Or a 2024 warlock subclasses that start at 3, when the 2014 subclass says to start at 1.

95% of the game won't matter going either way. And the book has rules for moving the last 5% forwards, just not backwards.

 

[mamba]

Both D4 D&D Deep Dive and Treantmonk rate the 2024 Players Handbook as 4½ stars. They are very happy with it being well done, and excited about it.

did they rate the 2014 PHB?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean, 2nd edition was backwards compatible too, right? And they called that an edition.

Even at the time, the 1E to 2E changes were pretty timid, for a system that clearly was showing its age.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Even at the time, the 1E to 2E changes were pretty timid, for a system that clearly was showing its age.

There were actually some pretty good (and major) changes. As a 1e diehard, I can always tell when someone is more steeped in 2e.

That said, you aren't wrong. Famously, the powers that be nixed the designers' attempts to introduce new-fangled concepts like "Ascending Armor Class" because that would break compatibility.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There were actually some pretty good (and major) changes. As a 1e diehard, I can always tell when someone is more steeped in 2e.

That said, you aren't wrong. Famously, the powers that be nixed the designers' attempts to introduce new-fangled concepts like "Ascending Armor Class" because that would break compatibility.

The biggest thing I was excited about 3E, back when Eric Noah was running this joint, was a unified resolution system (which included ascending armor class).

It was one of those "finally!" moments that you knew that smart folks inside TSR had wanted to do for years, but had been prevented from doing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The biggest thing I was excited about 3E, back when Eric Noah was running this joint, was a unified resolution system (which included ascending armor class). It was one of those "finally!" moments that you knew that smart folks inside TSR had wanted to do for years, but had been prevented from doing.

You'll pry my bespoke subsystems and my tables (SO ... MANY ... TABLES ...) out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[Charlaquin]

But not the other way around, apparently.

Well, yeah, just like I can play PS4 games on my PS5 but not the other way around.