D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[Maxperson]

No more so that Xanathar or Tasha does. I'd argue it's a far more aggressive level of change, but it's still not World of Warcraft 2.

Not true. It would be true if Xanathar's or Tasha's were mandatory changes, but they aren't. Both books are 100% optional rules and told to DMs and players that they are optional rules. WoW changes are mandatory.

 

[Maxperson]

just like a software patch could

A patch isn't even remotely close to what 5.5e is, though. A patch is called a patch for a reason. It's to correct screwups by the company. The Sage Advice is D&D's patch.

 

[mamba]

A patch isn't even remotely close to what 5.5e is, though. A patch is called a patch for a reason. It's to correct screwups by the company. The Sage Advice is D&D's patch.

there definitely are patches that are considerably larger and add new feature, etc. Look at No Man's Sky for example, plenty of others too

 

[Maxperson]

But in 35, the whole skill system and spell system and companion system and feat system had to be redone to fix ranger. And they STILL failed.

Removing a few skills isn't changing "the whole skill system." As I pointed out in an earlier post, skills worked the same in both 3e and 3.5e.

The spell system wasn't changed at all for 3.5e. It remained identical to 3e. A number of spells got tweaks, though.

Feats also saw no change to the system. You got feats every 3rd level and got to pick a feat from the list.

 

[Maxperson]

What will happen if you call it something else?

 

[Hussar]

A new edition of a book and a new editon of a game system are two different things.

The new PHB is a new edition of the PHB. It's literally a different book, from cover to cover.

Whether the D&D 2024 game systen is a new edition of D&D is a different question entirely.

No no no.

They keep using words like "the" and "a". It's obviously the same book.

 

[Remathilis]

I fundamentally disagree. "This is D&D in the Year of Our Lord 2024" is not, at all, the same as saying, "This is the mid-revision of the fifth version of the rules." The former lays claim to the entirety of the legacy--tacking the year on does not recognize the steps it took to get here nor the history. The latter makes clear that it is simply the current iteration.

The fact that this is happening to the 50th anniversary edition is particularly galling. Like, this is supposed to be ABOUT recognizing and celebrating the history and past. Yet the naming could barely be working harder to pretend no such past existed.

Let me put it this way: What do we do when an actual 6th edition comes along? We can't just call this "2024 D&D" anymore. That would be inaccurate--it wouldn't be the same game.

Does it bother you that Windows 95 comes between Windows 3.1 and Windows 7?

 

[Maxperson]

Does it bother you that Windows 95 comes between Windows 3.1 and Windows 7?

It bothered me. I disliked that their naming convention kept changing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

By whose measure is being more opaque and confusing better?

Calling the "new edition" the "2024 Revision" is NOT more opaque and confusing. People just like to pretend that it is.

 

[cranberry]

If there are new core books, IMO, it's a new edition.