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

[Micah Sweet]

You're the one who thinks WotC designed the new books solely to make money and with no love or art in it. I assume you only view rpg design as either passion projects or corporate slop. So you tell me which it was.

I don't know, but I trust corporations to care about maximizing profits over creativity or innovation, and they're the ones who get to decide, so absent evidence to the contrary I will continue to see the situation as, "glass mostly full of money".

 

[Stormonu]

Who says they were expecting the same content? You say that now they expect the same content because there is no version number, despite the different cover. I'd say if I have a different cover, I also expect different content.

View attachment 374594

Why would I expect the below to be the same rules?

View attachment 374595

To be honest, TSR/WotC has done this three ways to Sunday and not just in 2E. Back in 1E there was the Easley covers for the Core 3. In 3.5E, they did reprints and then shortly thereafter premium editions that incorporated errata (I think the 2E revised ones might have errata incorporated as well). In 4E there was whatever the heck Essentials was (I didn't follow that edition closely, so I have no clue myself). Then you had the "recent" 1E/2E/3E reprints around about the time 5E came out. And on the other end of the pond you've got PF1/2/Revised...

If you've been keeping up, it's easy to know if its a reprint or new edition. If you've been away you might not be aware that the version you're grabbing isn't the one everyone's been playing of late - or you're buying the one about to go out of print. Doesn't really matter unless the group you're going to join is using a specific version, and hopefully in that case you can return it and get the right one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Using that measure, I would say AD&D 1e and 2e are not compatible with each other either.

They have a different design philosophy, and are labeled as separate editions, so they are separate. I mostly used the core rules for 1e and the supplements for 2e when we played. We did that from '88 to '14, with a brief hiatus in '01 for 3e, and in '10 for 4e. Then we switched to 5e until '18 when my friend passed away and the group broke up. I've been flailing ever since.

 

[Micah Sweet]

let’s see, the PHB gets me 12 classes and 48 subclasses plus whatever else changed. Valda’s Spire of Secrets gives me another 10 classes and 150 subclasses across both sets of classes, new feats and spells too.

I am not sure I consider adding that a smaller change.

In case you are not familiar with it

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/magehandpress/spire-of-secrets

I backed the Kickstarter. It's a great book, but it is essentially a big supplement. You still need the 2014 PH to use it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Replacing the core rules and all the information in them is a bigger deal than using a 3pp supplement with your game. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

No it isn't. I've played both with the UA playtests AND Level Up (not at the same time) and AFAICT, 2024 D&D changes the game less than A5E does. Both improve it (in different ways).

 

[Blue]

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

Since Wizard's has purchased it, we have a fairly consistent meaning of edition that matches what a majority of the industry does when it issues a new edition (or does not), as well a clear example of what Wizard's considers a half edition. We also have clear views on what are changes that aren't an edition change, such as essentials for 4e, which while being a significant change did not invalidate any earlier material. I could take races or feats from the 4e PHB with an Essentials class and any other mix-and-match allowed.

Looking to what non-RPG publishing does, or what was done at the very begining of the hobby when the totality of RPG publishers was one, a nigh-amateur when it came to publishing, and standards hadn't roughly formed in the industry yet, are not particularly weighty points compared to what does the industry do now, and what does this specific company do with this specific brand. At least to me.

The Duck Test tells us this is not the same edition, based on precedents that this company has set. So we still argue.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I backed the Kickstarter. It's a great book, but it is essentially a big supplement. You still need the 2014 PH to use it.

I'm sure that you could use the 2024 PHB instead without trouble.

 

[Parmandur]

To be honest, TSR/WotC has done this three ways to Sunday and not just in 2E. Back in 1E there was the Easley covers for the Core 3. In 3.5E, they did reprints and then shortly thereafter premium editions that incorporated errata (I think the 2E revised ones might have errata incorporated as well). In 4E there was whatever the heck Essentials was (I didn't follow that edition closely, so I have no clue myself). Then you had the "recent" 1E/2E/3E reprints around about the time 5E came out. And on the other end of the pond you've got PF1/2/Revised...

If you've been keeping up, it's easy to know if its a reprint or new edition. If you've been away you might not be aware that the version you're grabbing isn't the one everyone's been playing of late - or you're buying the one about to go out of print. Doesn't really matter unless the group you're going to join is using a specific version, and hopefully in that case you can return it and get the right one.

Both the Easly cover 1E and the 2E alternate covers included enough errata that they got new ISBNs...which means by normal publishing parlance they were new editions of the books.

3E was hence rhe 5th edition of those D&D core books, 3.5 was the 6th, 4E the 7th, 2014 the 8th, and this is now the 9th edition of the Player's Handbook coming up. Using the word edition like a normal book would.

So instead of clearing that up, WotC ia focusing on "your books from the past decade all will still work, full stop".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Since Wizard's has purchased it, we have a fairly consistent meaning of edition that matches what a majority of the industry does when it issues a new edition (or does not), as well a clear example of what Wizard's considers a half edition. We also have clear views on what are changes that aren't an edition change, such as essentials for 4e, which while being a significant change did not invalidate any earlier material. I could take races or feats from the 4e PHB with an Essentials class and any other mix-and-match allowed.

Looking to what non-RPG publishing does, or what was done at the very begining of the hobby when the totality of RPG publishers was one, a nigh-amateur when it came to publishing, and standards hadn't roughly formed in the industry yet, are not particularly weighty points compared to what does the industry do now, and what does this specific company do with this specific brand. At least to me.

The Duck Test tells us this is not the same edition, based on precedents that this company has set. So we still argue.

I don't think using Point Five once and then Essentials once and then 2024 Revised is somehow this time bucking some kind of clear precedent.

All three are different attempts at a revision that use different marketing ideas (informed by the failures of the previous one).

There's really no reason to think that those are right, and this is wrong. If anything 2024 Revision is the most clear, as the other two don't tell you what it means without explanation. YMMV, clearly.

 

[Yaarel]

Both the Easly cover 1E and the 2E alternate covers included enough errata that they got new ISBNs...which means by normal publishing parlance they were new editions of the books.

That is an other reason why I feel the nomenclature of "5e 2024" is best.

It is like saying, ©2014 and ©2024. This is what the printing term "edition" actually means. It is the most correct and clearest name possible.