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

[Morrus]

Ah, so we're just not using the same definition of "new edition," then. That should be defined by the person asking the question, if they don't want to stir up things between folks Or ask how you define "a new edition" @Morrus

All the info you need to vote in the poll is in the first post!

 

[Yaarel]

The D&D community might be weaponizing the terms 5.0 and 5.5 as a proxy for an edition war, relating to updates they liked or didnt like.

WotC is wise to avoid the nomenclature.

Meanwhile the distinction between 5e 2014 and 5e 2024 is clear and accurate.


I will continue to refer to the copyright dates to distinguish. Meanwhile in my gameplay I will attentively note how compatible the earlier content is, by means of what I need to do to update characters and character options (like homebrew backgrounds) for the 2024 core rules.

I already updated character content for Tashas, and consider it fully 5e.

I mainly view 2024 as integrating the Xanathars and Tashas content as part of the core rules. So 2024 is 5e.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

"'We are releasing new editions of the books,” Crawford emphasized. “We are not releasing a new edition of the game. And so that, I think, is a really important distinction — that it is still 5th edition, but yes, we are releasing revised versions of the books, which anywhere else in the publishing world would be called new editions.”"

D&D has a messaging problem that goes beyond the OGL controversy

I voted "yes." I can't think of another sort of instance in publishing where a book so radically different wouldn't constitute a new edition. And though I know what Jeremy is trying to say and why he is saying that way, I think they would have been better just calling this project 6th Edition and done a bit more cleaning up of the rules that they felt they couldn't do because it would break 100% backwards compatibility like unified subclass progression.

If as a 2024 GM I ask my players to refer to page 273 and look at the "Befuddlement" spell to see what the NPC is casting at them and there is an equipment list on that page instead. It is a new edition as far as I am concerned. If they then go to the spell section and there isn't a spell with that name even claims of cross-compatibility are suspect. (Or vice-versa if a 2014 PHB using player is casting "Feeblemind" and I am trying to reference a spell that doesn't exist in my PHB).

 

[Yaarel]

I mean if you have to specify which version of a class,spell, other feature you are talking about to avoid confusion it would at least be a different version.

DMs need to specify whether using Players Handbook species or Tashas species. Meanwhile the official settings have their own rules for species. Yet all of this is 5e.

New spells and updates of spells happen continually during 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The D&D community might be weaponizing the terms 5.0 and 5.5 as a proxy for an edition war, relating to updates they liked or didnt like.

Or having a useful label that isn't a clumsy mouthful like saying the entire year every time.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

This issue should be settled the only rational way it can be. A dance off.

If 2e was a new edition, so is this, but I'd be fine with calling 2e D&D '89.

 

[mamba]

You (general you) might not feel the need to call it anything other than 5e, but if that's the case, how do you tell someone which spells they can pick if one book says one thing and another says something else?

First of all I am not even sure I would mix and match, and generally speaking, the revised version beats the original if you do

 

[mamba]

Paizo themselves on sales.

what are they saying? That no one uses Roll20? What are their sales numbers?

 

[Maxperson]

3.5 was a new edition. 4e Essentials was not. The 2024 revised Core books lie somewhere in the middle. I say it's on the "no" side, but to each their own.

3e wasn't overhauled to the same degree 5e is being overhauled.

 

[mamba]

I think they would have been better just calling this project 6th Edition and done a bit more cleaning up of the rules that they felt they couldn't do because it would break 100% backwards compatibility like unified subclass progression.

I would have been all for it, part of what makes 2024 so disappointing to me