GMforPowergamers
Legend
yes and no... old sneak attack (called backstab) got some clarification or errata depending on how you read the orginal, and max 1st level hp became standardbut that was mostly layout / graphics, not rules I believe
yes and no... old sneak attack (called backstab) got some clarification or errata depending on how you read the orginal, and max 1st level hp became standardbut that was mostly layout / graphics, not rules I believe
Yes. I edited my post to what I actually meant.
Thank you very much."The changes are the sorts of minor corrections and clarifications we make evry time we reprint, and we've reptrinted both the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master guide more than 10 times since 1989!" sticks out in the introduction to it:
View attachment 281196
Thank you very much.
And now we see: edition confusion goes back to 1995...
and also: it was also clearly called out as comprising all the minor corrections and better accessibility. So maybe calling the new edition revised 5e might be justified by that precedent.
I think you are correct. Still, people back then liked to put a lable on something, so TSR back then had to explain.I'm guessing all of the 2e changes in that are similar to what are in the errata with new printings for 5e:
This is backed up by them saying you'd have to look pretty hard to find the changes and that it's like what they do for new printings.
The 1DD updates seem to be multiple orders of magnitude bigger to me and not comparable at all to that 2e printing (at least based on the playtests so far).
I do think, after all those edition changes or not, it boils down to semantics, or rather trying to force their narrative upon everyone by puting a lable on it. Wizards tries to call it 5e, because they want to sell their in between stuff (which will probably indeed be compatible with the new rules), others want to call it 6e, because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars who want to squeeze money out of their customers...
WotC's definition is for marketing purposes, so they can continue selling product until the change-over that isn't a change-over. And doing so is their right, and there's nothing to be done about it.I think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
At least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
On the other hand, if edition in games must implies non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Is WotC itself seems to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::::
At that point, editions of d&d is not helpful as a guide to what is compatible and what not. So why not just use the "official" name and stop calling it differently in different threads...I think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
At least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
On the other hand, if edition in games must imply non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Does WotC itself seem to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::::
that depends on why they want to… in general people who want to change the label of something have an agendaI think there are a lot of people who would want to call it 5.5e or 6e regardless of what WotC did... so it feels odd to me to say they are doing it "because they want to tell the tale that WotC are liars...".
it is not a text book though, because books do not have the concept of compatibilityAt least one poster on here can go on quite a while about why it would clearly be considered a new edition if considered as a book instead of as a game, and many have pointed out an analogy to a text book and how they do editions.
WotC has clearly used edition inconsistently, some were compatible despite being separate editions, others clearly were not. People by and large called them by what WotC called them. I see no reason why this should be any different nowOn the other hand, if edition in games must imply non-compatability at some point then it becomes an issue. Does WotC itself seem to be limiting what it's compatible with (old modules?) in their description? Is there a formal definition of edition for games that precludes or requires compatability? Were B/X, 1e, and 2e all compatibile to the extend that B2 was run in all three of them just fine?
::::
WotC has clearly used edition inconsistently, some were compatible despite being separate editions, others clearly were not. People by and large called them by what WotC called them. I see no reason why this should be any different now