Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9268229" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No, it isn't.Which were already updated. That's called errata. If every piece of errata means you've made a distinct revision of the text, then there have been thousands of "revisions" of D&D at this point. Which seems, to me, a very good reason not to equate literally all errata with "revisions" of an edition. Just as, for example, a textbook publisher publishing errata for a textbook is not actually the same as putting out an actual "revised" textbook.Every new book does this. Reprinting the PHB does this. Repackaging is irrelevant.Most books do this. Any time you reprint old material, for example. Extant 5e has done this multiple times already, in multiple different ways. Nobody (relatively speaking, as others have said, this is the internet, you can find someone claiming almost anything) was calling Xanathar's Guide to Everything a "revision" of 5e, and few took seriously the grumbles that Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was either.They printed the errata for rules that already existed. Errata which was meant to be used with the game as it was currently played, and which had been published for free specifically for that purpose. Rather different, wouldn't you say, to publishing brand-new alterations that did not exist before that book, and which have never been posted or featured, which can only be acquired by purchasing those books, or subscribing to a paid service which publishes them?Bolded parts: Precisely. That's exactly what is the difference here. There is always a sliding scale of anything (sorites paradox rears its ugly head), but you're straight-up admitting that nothing was replaced. The only "changes" were already-existing errata, rather than total overhauls. By that standard, 2009 4e was already far more of a "revision" since they had replaced the Stealth rules and made major changes to the Skill Challenge rules! Nobody (again, internet nobody, not necessarily a literal zero count of people) was calling that "4.5e." Hell, even Monster Vault can't lay claim to having "revised" the monster math, as that math first came out with MM3, five months earlier (June 2010 vs November 2010).5.5e is generally moderate-sized changes (I mean, the Warlock class is getting heavily reworked, and the original intent of the playtest was to do things like getting rid of class-specific spell lists and other such things--their changes proved unpopular, however, so they've very slowly walked it back), and revising the existing classes, and revising the existing races (in some cases for the third time, see: dragonborn), and revising the existing backgrounds rather a lot (they all give feats now, for one thing!), and publishing entirely new rules in the DMG (the "Bastion" rules).And that's not even touching the much more subtle things being changed, that would actually be in line with the merely presentational, organizational nature of 4e Essentials.</blockquote>

Verification