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

[Remathilis]

Yes. Every race received official fixed/float stats as errata, and changes to what any given power does were well-precedented in errata across 4e's lifespan. There were zero problems playing Essentials-only characters alongside not-at-all-Essentials characters, and with the sole exception of "internal" multiclassing (that is, a Slayer couldn't MC to a different Fighter subclass), Essentials options had 100% miscibility with non-Essentials options and vice-versa. Indeed, optimization for some Essentials classes, like Vampire and Hexblade, depended quite heavily on their ability to pick up "Original" 4e multiclass options, e.g. Vampires wanted a particular Sorcerer power (Flame Spiral). Essentials also added--not removed nor replaced--racial powers, such as Heroic Effort instead of the bonus at-will for humans...which had already been done in Dragon Mag, for dragonborn (Dragonfear as an alternative to Dragon Breath).

Even the "internal" multiclassing thing was addressed (IIRC within six months of Essentials' launch?), where "Weaponmaster" Fighters (aka "original" Fighters) could spend a feat to swap out an Encounter power for Power Attack and (I think?) Slayers could likewise give up a use of Power Attack for a Weaponmaster encounter power.

Nothing--not one thing--that Essentials did to alter the rules themselves was in any way unprecedented. All PHB3 races, for example, were published with flex stats, at least three months before Essentials--and the Changeling, from Eberron, had flex stats even earlier than that.

Essentials is not, and never was, an edition or a revision or any of that. It was just more options for the existing game. If Xanathar's and SCAG weren't a new edition or "revised" game, neither was Essentials.

I'll agree that it wasn't really a replacement as much as soft reboot. They tried to restart the 4e line with both some QoL updates but also some "revisions" that would appeal to people like me who had left D&D for Pathfinder because we weren't all impressed with how 4e had been up to that point. And I know this because in my case, it almost worked. We were in the middle of Pathfinder game at the time, and we were considering playing an Essentials-based game to see if it had improved. The fact the edition started to shutter, and the Next playtest was starting to be discussed nixed that idea. But the fact that we felt we could potentially jump in AT the Essentials line and ignore much of what came before was absolutely something WotC was hoping could/would happen.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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."

Yeah, it's clearly simpler. Look at what you wrote. The first is simpler, isn't it?

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.

No it doesn't. Saying it's the revision of 2024 in NO WAY makes any claim that there wasn't earlier versions! Where do you get the idea that it does?

The fact that this is happening to the 50th anniversary edition is particularly galling.

The fact that it's the 2024 revision AND the 50th anniversary makes it EVEN MORE CLEAR that it's just the latest version of a legacy.

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

Of course not! You'd call it "2032 revision" or whatever year it comes out.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You can argue that it does not tell you where it stands in relation to them or how many there were...

You could argue that "5.5" doesn't tell you anything of the sort either, seeing as the rules have been tweaked and their presentation revised SEVENTEEN times to get to now.

 

[mamba]

You could argue that "5.5" doesn't tell you anything of the sort either, seeing as the rules have been tweaked and their presentation revised SEVENTEEN times to get to now.

even less I mean

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'll agree that it wasn't really a replacement as much as soft reboot. They tried to restart the 4e line with both some QoL updates but also some "revisions" that would appeal to people like me who had left D&D for Pathfinder because we weren't all impressed with how 4e had been up to that point. And I know this because in my case, it almost worked. We were in the middle of Pathfinder game at the time, and we were considering playing an Essentials-based game to see if it had improved. The fact the edition started to shutter, and the Next playtest was starting to be discussed nixed that idea. But the fact that we felt we could potentially jump in AT the Essentials line and ignore much of what came before was absolutely something WotC was hoping could/would happen.

People tend to forget, that from a product point of view (design had its own goals) 4e Essentials was called that, and packaged as it was, because WotC had finally broken out from just us FLGSes and into "real" stores like B&N, Walmart, and Zellers, and they realized that they had a problem.

No one in those places understood how to stock and sell their game. They didn't know what was "core" and what wasn't. So they created the "Essentials" line to let them know that these are the core products to order and sell to their customers.

Of course, much like our discussion here, we had hard-core 4e fans mad that they were implying that "old" 4e was not "essential" anymore - the betrayal! And others insisting that it had to be called "4.5".

 

[JEB]

Would it be better if D&D had used the term "version" rather than "edition" for its numbered entries? Probably. Blame Gygax--or I guess Zeb Cook?--for calling it "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition" rather than "2nd Version."

Think you may be onto something here about "versions" rather than "editions."

Perhaps when people are arguing over whether the 5e rules and the 5e revised rules are different "editions", they're really arguing over whether the two sets of core rules are different games. Arguing over the specific word "edition" and its applicability, or degrees of backwards compatibility, are really a proxy for that more fundamental question.

 

[Maxperson]

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

2024 revision is more opaque than 5.5e. In the same way as glass is more opaque than open air. 5.5e is just a bit easier to understand.

 

[Hussar]

2024 revision is more opaque than 5.5e. In the same way as glass is more opaque than open air. 5.5e is just a bit easier to understand.

So basically two smurfs arguing over who is more blue?

 

[Maxperson]

So basically two smurfs arguing over who is more blue?

Pretty much. It really just comes down to preference between the two.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Yes, but that's for a variety of reasons--I have always found Windows naming conventions annoying to one degree or another. E.g., consider that "Windows 10" is actually Windows 9.X, and thus "Windows 11" is actually Windows 10. As in, the most recent dev branch of Windows 11 development is literally numbered 10.0.22631.3958, so it literally is "Windows 10.x," it's just called "Windows 11." I dislike this immensely.

At least "The Fast and the Furious" franchise has the impressive temerity to be so radically inconsistent, it is impossible to draw a pattern between any two arbitrary films, let alone the series as a whole. That actually requires a great deal of artistic creativity. Combinatoric explosion would normally prevent such a thing. After all, 10 choose 2 = 45 different pairs of films, and yet none of those 45 pairs lines up!)