Some Material form the UAs are being cut due to backwards compatibility.
5.5e is if the well loved but not backwards compatible stuff is kept. Like Power Source Spell lists, Class Groups, and Simplified -X Exhaustion.
D&D 5E Using "D&D 2024" instead of "5e24"
5.5e is if the well loved but not backwards compatible stuff is kept. Like Power Source Spell lists, Class Groups, and Simplified -X Exhaustion.
I think the design team has been pretty clear they rolled back things from UA that didn’t get people excited. Why would they publish things in the UA’s when they already know they won’t use it?
Like I said backwards compatibility.
Some UA rules require changes people people liked but broke some old content.
Or flavor.
Like the Arcane spell List.
Fans LOVED it for the Sorcerer and Warlock, liked it as an option for the Bard, but hated it for the Wizard.
But if you play the 2024 version and don't have wizard npcs or wizard players, a DM might bring back the Arcane spell list.
mamba
Legend
there are enough people that liked stuff that did not make it in, sometimes even enough to meet WotC’s threshold and they still cut it, it does not need to be everyone for some to homebrew it back in
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Since it's an incremental edition and C-like syntax is always elegant, I propose 5e++.
pogre
Legend
I like 'bro24.
It's the Hasbro version of D&D. It does not cede all of 5e or all of D&D to Hasbro.
Besides, it has a nice Chad ring to it - that's perfect for X, Reddit, etc.
The designers said it.
They said spell lists were highly rated for some classes but hated for others.
Exactly.
It was noted that the main feature of the wizard was their larger spell list so sharing it with sorcerer and warlock devalued wizards unless you powered them up.
And giving clerics paladin spells was dangerous for combat balance.
WOTC had to cut some beloved ideas because the base systems were not designed for them.
But you can houserule them back in easily if you don't mind the issues.
Echohawk
Shirokinukatsukami fan
The term "3.5" was definitely in use by fans even before WotC made any announcement about a new edition. For example, this ENWorld post (titled "3.5 D&D?") from March 2002 speculated that the upcoming new version of the Stars Wars RPG was an indication that WotC might also revise the 3e rules.
WotC made the official announcement of the new edition on 5th December 2002 (archived copy here), but that announcement did not refer to it as "3.5", only as a "revised edition". This post from 27th December 2002 is the earliest reference to "3.5" I could find on ENWord after the announcement and that seems to predate any public WotC use of the term.
According to this page, WotC staff referred to the new edition as "3.5" during an (invite only) RPGA event at the Winter Fantasy convention, which took place at the end of January 2003, so they were definitely thinking of it as 3.5 by then.
The earliest official reference to the new edition as "3.5" in Dragon seems to be in the article "Revision 3.5 Update" in February 2003, where Ed Stark wrote "Think of it as a “3.5” edition of the game, much like a software upgrade." The use of quotation marks at this point is interesting. By the end of February, there was a 3.5 logo, so WotC was fully committed to that nomenclature by then.
It is entirely possible that the revision was thought of as "3.5" internally by WotC from the beginning. However, since the initial announcement didn't use "3.5", and fans were apparently using that term before WotC officially did, it is at least a possibility that the D&D team followed fans' lead on the matter.
WotC made the official announcement of the new edition on 5th December 2002 (archived copy here), but that announcement did not refer to it as "3.5", only as a "revised edition". This post from 27th December 2002 is the earliest reference to "3.5" I could find on ENWord after the announcement and that seems to predate any public WotC use of the term.
According to this page, WotC staff referred to the new edition as "3.5" during an (invite only) RPGA event at the Winter Fantasy convention, which took place at the end of January 2003, so they were definitely thinking of it as 3.5 by then.
The earliest official reference to the new edition as "3.5" in Dragon seems to be in the article "Revision 3.5 Update" in February 2003, where Ed Stark wrote "Think of it as a “3.5” edition of the game, much like a software upgrade." The use of quotation marks at this point is interesting. By the end of February, there was a 3.5 logo, so WotC was fully committed to that nomenclature by then.
It is entirely possible that the revision was thought of as "3.5" internally by WotC from the beginning. However, since the initial announcement didn't use "3.5", and fans were apparently using that term before WotC officially did, it is at least a possibility that the D&D team followed fans' lead on the matter.
Similar Threads
