Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Myopic Sniper" data-source="post: 9429903" data-attributes="member: 55013">&quot;'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.”&quot;<a href="https://www.polygon.com/23728470/dnd-dungeons-dragons-6e-5e-changes" target="_blank">D&amp;D has a messaging problem that goes beyond the OGL controversy</a>I voted &quot;yes.&quot; 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 &quot;Befuddlement&quot; 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.&nbsp; (Or vice-versa if a 2014 PHB using player is casting &quot;Feeblemind&quot; and I am trying to reference a spell that doesn't exist in my PHB).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Myopic Sniper, post: 9429903, member: 55013"] "'We are releasing new editions of [I]the books[/I],” Crawford emphasized. “We are not releasing a new edition of [I]the game[/I]. 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.”" [URL="https://www.polygon.com/23728470/dnd-dungeons-dragons-6e-5e-changes"]D&D has a messaging problem that goes beyond the OGL controversy[/URL] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification