D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[EzekielRaiden]

Even a 50 year old does not actually think of two decades as "just a few years". I mean, that's the time to have a kid, have them grow up and be mostly through college.

Okay. Is it not still a "ready-to-hand nearly-identical example"? I feel like the relevant similarity is being drowned out merely because of a rather inconsequential few words.

5e very, very strongly resembles 3e (by explicit intent.) The total gap between "5e as published in 2014" and "5e as published in 2024" is quite comparable to the gap between 3.0 and 3.5e. Naming conventions are primarily useful for the actively engaged community, and that community will tend to have an outsized influence on what conventions develop. I think it safe to say that, at the very least, "5.5e" has a head start relative to other names. Unless WotC does an awful lot of active lobbying to get people to use a different name, that head start will be a durable advantage. Given their explicit stance is that they're apparently going to try not to name the new books anything, they don't seem to be interested in doing that level of active lobbying for a specific name. Hence, it is the community that will decide. And that community seems to lean toward "5.5e," if it leans anywhere at all.

And, frankly, I think the fears about 3PP being negatively affected are unfounded. Folks that are so casual as to be genuinely ignorant of the Totally Not A Revision, We Pinky Swear are, 99 times out of 100, not going to be the kinds of people who would be buying 3PP to begin with. Such books are already chasing a niche of a niche, where folks need to know that there's something to look for in order to even be looking. The fact that products of yesteryear have so often used phrases like "for the world's most popular roleplaying game" etc. makes it rather questionable that it is so essential to avoid every tiny incongruity in naming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would expect such a decision to be made only after we see the new rules, and we see how conversation of the game goes, as Morrus generally makes such determinations based on practical observation.

My current guess is that while there will be some changes, the underlying mechanics will be so similar that many topics will not need to differentiate between the versions. And, the ones that do need to differentiate will be able to do so via a tag, rather than requiring an entirely separate sub-forum.

Needing a tag is another reason why nomenclature is important.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. Is it not still a "ready-to-hand nearly-identical example"?

The "nearly-identical example" bit is a matter of opinion, I think.

What is also ready-to-hand is that past experience has shown that what folks wish to name it, and what we should do about discussion on the boards, often has less to do with any objective technical differences, and more to do with how they feel about it and the transition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I intend on getting the 5E24 books and when talking about the game here on the boards will most likely not bother identifying "which version" I'm speaking of... as I'm going under the assumption that almost all talk in this specific board will be about the current version of D&D (or be edition-neutral). Then if anyone intends on specifically talking about the old 5E14 version only, I'll let them point it out in their post.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Not as relevant as you think, even if you're right. Not everyone uses, Tasha's, just like not everyone playing 3.5 used the Book of Nine Swords. You have to go core book to core book.

It seems relevant to the post to which they were responding.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

We're getting into this argument again are we?

I'll never understand why people hold so tightly to the .5 moniker. The part that's oddest to me is how they've managed to convince themselves that it's some kind of objective truth. Fell for a marketing gimmick from 20 years ago, did you? I mean, go ahead and call it 5.5 if you really must, I guess - but it's not objectively a good name.

(Personally, I think it's a terrible name, just as I think that 3.5 was a terrible name 20 years ago).

We don't actually need to even keep the 5e. The 2014 books weren't really the 5th Edition of D&D, after all. WotC tried to get off the edition bandwagon, but they didn't manage to pull it off that time.

It's D&D24. No need for a decimal.

 

[Meech17]

I intend on getting the 5E24 books and when talking about the game here on the boards will most likely not bother identifying "which version" I'm speaking of... as I'm going under the assumption that almost all talk in this specific board will be about the current version of D&D (or be edition-neutral). Then if anyone intends on specifically talking about the old 5E14 version only, I'll let them point it out in their post.

This is probably the most correct answer. Us, all being internet, forum dwelling, nerds put way more thought into this than necessary. For instance I'd imagine most of the things we discuss are traits that are universal, not just to all editions to D&D, but to most TTRPGs in general.

Even when talking about things that aren't universal, @EzekielRaiden has a good point, considering that we're all so entrenched in the hobby most of us will likely be able to discern the differences through context. And if you're not entrenched enough to notice, you're probably not entrenched enough to care either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Needing a tag is another reason why nomenclature is important.

I like your idea of not tagging the 2024 as D&D 5.5, but just calling the 2014 edition O5e for Old 5e, or Original 5e whenever we speak of it.

 

[Blue]

I've been using PHB'24 recently. Through with how often the press release hammers the word "revised", we may see people moving towards R5e and rPHB. The matter is still unsettled.

I prefer "5eR" with the R at the end. Pronounced "Fiver" it's easy to say and distinct from "Fifth" while still being clear what is being talked about.

 

[Blue]

2014 PHB to Tasha's is a bigger shift than Tasha's to 2024 PHB too

Redoing all classes, subclasses, and many spells is a smaller change then adding 2 subclasses per class and adding a few spells? Especially as we have things like the new monk, the new ranger, the druid with wildshape not acting as a huge pool of HPs?

I'm not sure that I can agree with your assertion.