I vote for "Anniversary Edition;" from a sales perspective, I still say that's a really good name.
None of the 5e books are obsolete (as of now at least). I will be able use any and all of them with the 2024 books and plan to do so. What you are saying is just FUD.6e isn't an option, oddly. So, per Chris Perkins' request, it's D&D. Or DND: Do Not Discuss (that we're rendering your 5e books obsolete).
I missed the emphasis on what "you" would be able to do in the games you run. I was picturing a random group of players and DMs getting together.I mean all of them. There will be changes in the 2024, but I can mix and match them just like I do for our houserules.
I agree 100%I mean sure, that's definitely WotC's approach, and it is not unrealistic for how newer players will interact with the game and how veterans refer to it most of the time.
But everyone whose been through more than one edition sometimes feels the need (in fact quite often feels the need), to distinguish editions. And everyone who hasn't been through multiple editions but tries to discuss D&D outside their D&D group soon runs into the question of "what edition are you playing?", particularly if they ask someone for rules help. I doubt "OneD&D" a marketing (and internal corporate strategy) term, geared towards the transition period into the semi-new edition is going to be the term of choice in those situations where edition is specified long after that transition is complete.
It's unfortunate that D&D has so much baggage of using "edition" to mean "totally different sequel game only broadly connected to predecessors in mechanics" rather than what edition means with say, an academic book, where you expect it to mostly be the same content with some revisions and updates (ie: the thing they are making here). Otherwise we could just call this 6th edition (or more accurately 2nd edition of D&D Next or whatever the distinct game that is 5e D&D would be called in this alternative timeline).
Based on the UA, they might include those conversion documents in the PHB and DMG directly, as sidebars.I missed the emphasis on what "you" would be able to do in the games you run. I was picturing a random group of players and DMs getting together.
I'm imagining many folks on EN will navigate fine and smoothly. I'm wondering how long the conversion document for others will be when it's all out. If it's essentially an "add a feat at level 1", "don't double dip starting ASI", and "auto success on 20, auto fail on 1" sticker that gets slapped on the old PHB then it doesn't feel like it will be hard for anyone.
But..........................................that's so much less fun!A playtest. That's all.
Once the playtest is over, the new books published, and we've had a good look at it, then you all can fight over the semantics of what the published rules should be called. Personally, I find it a rather pointless and unnecessary endeavor to define the the playtest as anything but a playtest.
There is one reason. They said the same thing about 3e to 3.5 and it turned out not to be true. The difference was too pronounced for backward compatibility. To make 3e stuff work with 3.5 took a lot of work. As much as making 2e stuff work with 3.5.I am using "compatible" since it's the main point they are emphasizing. There is no reason to assume, so far, that we need to drop anything from the books we own. If you want to double your damage when sneak attacking, just say "I am doing a regular crit". If you don't, say "I am doing a compatible crit, so only weapon damage is rolled and added again." Simple, easy.
3.x lacked the modular system design at the core of 5E. It is very easy to unplug rule elements and replace them without disruption.There is one reason. They said the same thing about 3e to 3.5 and it turned out not to be true. The difference was too pronounced for backward compatibility. To make 3e stuff work with 3.5 took a lot of work. As much as making 2e stuff work with 3.5.