D&D (2024) The 2024 Core D&D Rulebooks Are Coming In May

21st May 2024 is the official release date!

Update--WotC has taken down the promo image and replaced it with one without a release date. See more here.

 

[Remathilis]

One D&D is too gimmicky for me to use and it's certainly not remaining 5e. I use 5.5e for lack of anything better to use.

Fascinating. Can you point out what constituted 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4?

 

[Maxperson]

Fascinating. Can you point out what constituted 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4?

Does it matter? It's a drastic change from 5e. A half edition fits nicely. Could it be narrowed down to 5.3 or 5.7? Maybe, but I don't see that it matters.

 

[Remathilis]

Does it matter? It's a drastic change from 5e. A half edition fits nicely. Could it be narrowed down to 5.3 or 5.7? Maybe, but I don't see that it matters.

Iterative change. Warrants a 5.1 at most.

 

[BookTenTiger]

OK, look at this way: have you ever heard of Call of Cthulu fans arguing about what constitutes a new Edition?

No, because Chaosium has followed standard publishing industry practice, so an edition is an edition regardless of how big or small the changes were. And that's wirh all 7 editions of the game being fully interoperable!

I think this is the real key here.

The problem with this conversation is that "edition" is being used in two different ways:

First, there's "edition as an updated version." When I buy a textbook, it's a new edition even if there are minor changes. We could call this a "lower case e edition." With this definition, the 2024 Core Rulebooks are absolutely a new edition.

Then, there's "edition as defined by D&D." In the tradition of D&D, a new edition means a big change with new rules that are not, necessarily, compatible with older editions. New versions of books are published, and in general it's seen as a new game. We could call this an "upper case E Edition." Someone playing 3e wouldn't buy 4e for small updates; they'd switch over because they want a new experience.

Personally I don't see the 2024 version as enough of a change to warrant the second definition. However, it is absolutely a new "lower case e" edition, since it's updating the text and replacing previously published copies.

Now one could absolutely argue for either definition, but I'm seeing a lot of the debate reduced to:

A: Yes this is a new edition.

B: No, this isn't a new Edition.

C: Yes, it's a new Edition.

A: No, it's a new edition.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t think it is. We know that WoTC has been moving from Legendary Actions to multiple Reactions in earlier books, we know they’ve been changing how they do statblocks in earlier books, and we know how many monsters are going to be in the MM. Likewise, we have a sense of what the new material in the DMG is going to be, because they’ve described the different sections in interviews.

You only need to start looking at the 2014dmg's optional & variant rules to see examples of things that should fill a particular need for the DM in need yet do so only to the letter of the need while seeming to have been designed with the primary goal of undermining the goals of the need. Those tea leaves you are reading mean nothing at this point. The fact that EB & PHB197 changes immediately reverted back to the 2014 version is strong evidence for why you shouldn't be reading so much into the vague whisps of hinted intent you are clutching at. Preserving the warts all the way to festering sores of d&d5.0 as published of 2014 is far too high on wotc's priority list to bestow the award of an upward edition increment.

 

[MockingBird]

Will there be some subclasses from Tasha’s going in the new PHB untouched? If so, then what was Tashas? 5.1 or still 5.0?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I know that everyone wants a 600 page 2024 PHB, but it's a little bit impractical.

As someone who has been using a 600-page Ptolus rulebook for 17 years, I would absolutely not want the PHB to be comparable in size.

I don't think I'd split it into spells and everything else, though. I would probably include levels 1-10 in one book and 11-20 in another (with additional rules support for things like domain level play).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Will there be some subclasses from Tasha’s going in the new PHB untouched? If so, then what was Tashas? 5.1 or still 5.0?

Tasha's was evidence that the X.Y system of classifying rules falls apart pretty quickly. The Book of Nine Swords wasn't 3.7E or the alpha of 4E or anything like that.

It's a bad way to talk about this stuff, as the 45,000 threads on this issue have all amply demonstrated.

 

[MockingBird]

Tasha's was evidence that the X.Y system of classifying rules falls apart pretty quickly. The Book of Nine Swords wasn't 3.7E or the alpha of 4E or anything like that.

It's a bad way to talk about this stuff, as the 45,000 threads on this issue have all amply demonstrated.

I agree

 

[beta-ray]

Didn't we have a thread dedicated to arguing about how to name the version rather than bogging down every damn thread with it?

EDIT: Yeah, we did:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/is-...gue-about-it-here-not-everywhere-else.697263/