It's not called "2024 Edition" or "5.5". The reason being is that it's not a new edition, it's still D&D fifth edition. 2024 refers to the year of publication of two of the three books and how they're differentiated from their 2014 counterparts.
When talking specifically about the revised fifth edition core rulebooks and their predecessors, we'll identify them by their year of publication. So, if we're talking about the barbarian class in the upcoming Player's Handbook, we'll refer to the book as the “2024 Player's Handbook.”
When the 2024 core rulebooks release, we'll drop the “2024” and simply refer to them by their title. (e.g., the 2024 Player's Handbook will just be the Player's Handbook). At that point, we will only clarify the publication date of the books when we're comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions, or simply referring back to the older version.
Basically the 2024 Player's Handbook is just like how previous editions had the Player's Handbook (Revised) or Player's Handbook 1, 2 and 3; not a new edition, just some books getting new and updated versions.
I have to be honest here. Continuing to call it 5th Edition is purely a marketing thing to keep from scaring people. It is definitely a 5.5 in everything but official name.
The 2nd Edition PHB Revised was mostly correcting typos, altering the layout and replacing art. There weren't any changes in the classes or rules. So that one is out.
The PHB 2 or 3 did not replace the PHB1, it was just source books with new optional features. Unless you are saying that the 2014 PHB is still the primary PHB then these are out as well.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I love all these things, but repeatedly saying it isn't a new edition isn't doesn't make it so. After all, every edition is "just some books getting new and updated versions"
edit: This is the Illusory Truth Effect in action.
I have to be honest here. Continuing to call it 5th Edition is purely a marketing thing to keep from scaring people. It is definitely a 5.5 in everything but official name.
The 2nd Edition PHB Revised was mostly correcting typos, altering the layout and replacing art. There weren't any changes in the classes or rules. So that one is out.
The PHB 2 or 3 did not replace the PHB1, it was just source books with new optional features. Unless you are saying that the 2014 PHB is still the primary PHB then these are out as well.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I love all these things, but repeatedly saying it isn't a new edition isn't doesn't make it so. After all, every edition is "just some books getting new and updated versions"
edit: This is the Illusory Truth Effect in action.
I mean, I'm just going off the official language. "D&D 5.5" isn't an official term whereas 3.5 is. The community will come up with whatever terms they wish, I can only speak to the official langauge.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
I would argue the changes are not significant enough. I am not familiar with the older D&D editions, but you can still use 2014 characters in 2024. Just because there is a lot of minor changes does not warrant a name change in my opinion, especially considering many of those changes have already been present.
Adding in a new character creation method does not warrant a name change. We have the sidekick system in place, and the introduction of that did not warrant a name change, and that system is far more different from the main character creation method. I see the change in classes as just an extention of OCF or adding in new classes. OCF did not warrant a name change, and adding in artifcer did not warrant a name change either. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bladesinger being changed, but changes to subclasses happened in the past as well, so renaming the game just because we have more subclass changes happening at once feels a bit arbitrary.
The changes to species and backgrounds is pretty minor as well, moving the ASI from species to backgrounds. Backgrounds having Feats have been a thing for quite a while now.
Feats having a level requirement and is mandatory are a new thing, but I do not think that warrants a name change either.
Weapons having Weapon Mastery is basically Metamagic for Martials, or like Fighting Styles and Martial Adept feat to make martials a bit more interesting. I do not think adding a new subsystem warrants a name change either when we have constantly added subsystems in the past like Piety, Supernatural Gifts, Franchises, etc.
I do not think changes to monsters warrant a name change either. Monsters are more simple to run now, but that alone does not really warrant a change when I can still run the Legacy versions just fine.
I have not read much about inspiration and surprise yet, so I cannot comment much on that.
Unless there is a change to the core mechanics, I do not think there should be a name change. If all these changes are drip fed to us over the course of three to four years instead of happening over a half a year, I do not think we will have the urge to call it a new edition. Having a name change now just because of the amount of minor changes feels a bit arbitrary, espeially considering all the additions and changes to 5e that has happened over the course of the last decade, and a lot of the changes are also optional rather than mandatory.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
I would argue the changes are not significant enough. I am not familiar with the older D&D editions, but you can still use 2014 characters in 2024. Just because there is a lot of minor changes does not warrant a name change in my opinion, especially considering many of those changes have already been present.
Adding in a new character creation method does not warrant a name change. We have the sidekick system in place, and the introduction of that did not warrant a name change, and that system is far more different from the main character creation method. I see the change in classes as just an extention of OCF or adding in new classes. OCF did not warrant a name change, and adding in artifcer did not warrant a name change either. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bladesinger being changed, but changes to subclasses happened in the past as well, so renaming the game just because we have more subclass changes happening at once feels a bit arbitrary.
The changes to species and backgrounds is pretty minor as well, moving the ASI from species to backgrounds. Backgrounds having Feats have been a thing for quite a while now.
Feats having a level requirement and is mandatory are a new thing, but I do not think that warrants a name change either.
Weapons having Weapon Mastery is basically Metamagic for Martials, or like Fighting Styles and Martial Adept feat to make martials a bit more interesting. I do not think adding a new subsystem warrants a name change either when we have constantly added subsystems in the past like Piety, Supernatural Gifts, Franchises, etc.
I do not think changes to monsters warrant a name change either. Monsters are more simple to run now, but that alone does not really warrant a change when I can still run the Legacy versions just fine.
I have not read much about inspiration and surprise yet, so I cannot comment much on that.
Unless there is a change to the core mechanics, I do not think there should be a name change. If all these changes are drip fed to us over the course of three to four years instead of happening over a half a year, I do not think we will have the urge to call it a new edition. Having a name change now just because of the amount of minor changes feels a bit arbitrary, espeially considering all the additions and changes to 5e that has happened over the course of the last decade, and a lot of the changes are also optional rather than mandatory.
There are more changes between 2014 and 2024 than there were between 3e and 3.5. You could play 3e and 3.5 characters at the same table, but just like with these new books, you probably shouldn't. Again, I like the changes. I have preordered the new books. Not calling it a new edition is only a marketing thing in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Hearing them constantly talk 'in 2014 this... in 2024 that' in the reveal videos, wouldn't it be better if they settled in a standard, compact way to refer to them, like 5e/14, 5e/24... Otherwise the community will just continue with 5.5 which is obviously what they don't want.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
I would argue the changes are not significant enough. I am not familiar with the older D&D editions, but you can still use 2014 characters in 2024. Just because there is a lot of minor changes does not warrant a name change in my opinion, especially considering many of those changes have already been present.
Adding in a new character creation method does not warrant a name change. We have the sidekick system in place, and the introduction of that did not warrant a name change, and that system is far more different from the main character creation method. I see the change in classes as just an extention of OCF or adding in new classes. OCF did not warrant a name change, and adding in artifcer did not warrant a name change either. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bladesinger being changed, but changes to subclasses happened in the past as well, so renaming the game just because we have more subclass changes happening at once feels a bit arbitrary.
The changes to species and backgrounds is pretty minor as well, moving the ASI from species to backgrounds. Backgrounds having Feats have been a thing for quite a while now.
Feats having a level requirement and is mandatory are a new thing, but I do not think that warrants a name change either.
Weapons having Weapon Mastery is basically Metamagic for Martials, or like Fighting Styles and Martial Adept feat to make martials a bit more interesting. I do not think adding a new subsystem warrants a name change either when we have constantly added subsystems in the past like Piety, Supernatural Gifts, Franchises, etc.
I do not think changes to monsters warrant a name change either. Monsters are more simple to run now, but that alone does not really warrant a change when I can still run the Legacy versions just fine.
I have not read much about inspiration and surprise yet, so I cannot comment much on that.
Unless there is a change to the core mechanics, I do not think there should be a name change. If all these changes are drip fed to us over the course of three to four years instead of happening over a half a year, I do not think we will have the urge to call it a new edition. Having a name change now just because of the amount of minor changes feels a bit arbitrary, espeially considering all the additions and changes to 5e that has happened over the course of the last decade, and a lot of the changes are also optional rather than mandatory.
There are more changes between 2014 and 2024 than there were between 3e and 3.5. You could play 3e and 3.5 characters at the same table, but just like with these new books, you probably shouldn't. Again, I like the changes. I have preordered the new books. Not calling it a new edition is only a marketing thing in my opinion.
I have very recently made a detailed study of 3.0 and 3.5, and the changes were significantly larger back then than what we have right now. In 3.0 and 3.5 even a few core rules changed drastically, most importantly the Small and Medium equipment changes (in 3.5 smaller versions of weapons deal a die step less damage). In the 2024 rules, the new stuff in the core rules is extremely minor if at all changed, mostly it's just clarifications (the new emanation area of effect, the "new" rules on Dying). All that said, it is of course a marketing thing to say that it's not a new edition, just as it would have been marketing to say it is a new edition. Both are true to a point, but I firmly believe that it errs on the side of this not being 5.5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
There are more changes between 2014 and 2024 than there were between 3e and 3.5. You could play 3e and 3.5 characters at the same table, but just like with these new books, you probably shouldn't. Again, I like the changes. I have preordered the new books. Not calling it a new edition is only a marketing thing in my opinion.
I do not see why you should not have 2014 and 2024 characters play together. The mechanical differences I have seen are not enough to discourage that. Sidekicks are even more different, half way between NPC statblocks and character sheets, and they are still compatible with characters created the regular way. Players can also use NPC statblocks to play too along side regular PCs, so the differences between the old and new normal character generation method is pretty small in comparison.
I would call the differences between 2014 and 2024 comparable to the difference between AD&D and AD&D 2e (prior to Skills and Powers), or 3.0 to 3.5, or 4th edition to 4th edition Essentials. One of those was called a full edition jump, one of them was called a point version, one of them had no official version name, so referring to the 2024 edition is as consistent as anything else D&D has done.
I was not a fan of it not being a new or .5 edition initially, but I will say as it has progressed and as more information about the 2024 rules comes available I think it fits very well, and this is coming from someone who will likely not buy into the new rule set anytime soon if ever.
5e14 and 5e24 are plenty descriptive and distinct enough to differentiate between the two, and 2024 is a great time to draw that line being it's the 50th anniversary and the release year of the new PHB.
As much as I want to find fault with this choice, I see it as a brilliant decision and very well done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The issues being discussed here are largely due to esoteric use of terms.
With other kinds of books like textbooks, a new edition does not fundamentally alter the book itself. Usually, it means correcting typos and the like, sometimes they're not interchangeable because they alter the layout (like how they number sections etc) or they change their examples, but it's still the same book, really. "Editions" in the sense that TTRPGs use them is closer to being different books which are closely related. More like sequels, in computer game or novel terminology. The problem is that it's not commonly established what constitutes a new edition, so we're disagreeing on it.
Take for example, STA that announced its 2e a few months ago, I'm waiting patiently for the PDF which should be released any day now. The major change is that they've gotten rid of challenge dice and replaced them with fixed values. In D&D terms, that's basically taking away the various damage dice (everything other than the d20) and replacing it with a fixed value. Because of that, they consider it not only a change worth noting with a change of edition notation - not just by half, but a full edition change. There are other changes, but are pretty minor in comparison. (eg health is determined by Fitness rather than Security). Even the dice change is very small fry compared to what D&D is going through right now.
I genuinely think saying this isn't the equivalent to a 5.5e is misleading. I think we've been there for a while, but with the PHB change, it's more codified. I think this because:
It's a very substantial change to 2014e PHB. It's not one or two rules being changed or added here - everything has been revisited and most things have been changed. Every class has changed, abd we're having the subclasses changed in order to work properly with them. The rules have changed. You can't turn up with a 2014e PHB and not have confusion each session.
It's not intercompatible, and "backwards compatible" is a misnomer. You can't just take a character built using one set of rules and play with the other. The dynamic is better describes as 2014e characters being forward compatible - they've said that you can't play a 2024e character in 2014 rules. If you want to play them alongside each other, you have to play 2024e rules. I'm sure that's not literally true and you can bodge them to work, but they will require bodging.
The adventures...ugh. Even with 2014e characters, I'm having to buff enemies to make encounters feel like a challenge. Now they've made 2024e characters generally more powerful again? I'll have to play them to be sure...but I think it's somewhat stretching the idea of compatibility, I'm going to have to a fair amount of bodging.
I think it's fair to insist that it's still 5e, but it's definitely a change worth noting by a .X and to be honest, insisting that we say "I used the 2024e PHB for this Ranger" rather than "it's a 5.5e Ranger" or "we're using the 2024 version of the rules" instead of "we're using 5.5e rules" because WotC is allergic to admitting that they've made substantial changes to the rules isn't going to work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm definitely with the camp that, yes, maybe it's all still 5th edition, but we still have to call it something, and refusing to name it is eventually found to get more and more confusing. We can't simply call the 2024 update "5e" because, if I'm joining a game that says they're playing "5e" then I'm still left with a pretty big question about what to expect from the game. Can I use Xanathar's or Tasha's subclasses in it? Crawford has mostly said that those won't be compatible with the 2024 rules, so there is a clear necessity for there to be a name.
I call it 5.5 because it's reasonably accurate, and again, we need to call it *something*.
I'm definitely with the camp that, yes, maybe it's all still 5th edition, but we still have to call it something, and refusing to name it is eventually found to get more and more confusing. We can't simply call the 2024 update "5e" because, if I'm joining a game that says they're playing "5e" then I'm still left with a pretty big question about what to expect from the game. Can I use Xanathar's or Tasha's subclasses in it? Crawford has mostly said that those won't be compatible with the 2024 rules, so there is a clear necessity for there to be a name.
I call it 5.5 because it's reasonably accurate, and again, we need to call it *something*.
Exactly "it's a new edition in all but names" and "new rules" is just an ambiguously generic as HELL useless term for referring to 5.5
The publishers can call it whatever they want to be honest, my table has always referred to it as 5.5e and I don't see that changing just because WotC's insisting it's still 5e.
The reality of the situation is that it is not a new edition, and it's not of course the same edition either. But the previous WotC management back in 2003 leaned heavily into 3.5 being "new". The players didn't like that one bit, because unlike Core Rules 2024 which are coming after a decade, 3.5 came after less than 3 years. So back then WotC decided to market it as being more new than old, to make the sales go smoother. That kinda bit them in the a** especially with the later relative fiasco of 4e (it was a good edition IMO, but nothing anybody really wanted), so now, they decided to market Core Rules 2024 as NOT a new edition. Both are true. Both are marketing. In the end it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you call it something so people know the difference. Saying "2014 rules" or "2024 rules" is a mouthful, but WotC has to do it to keep up with the marketing image they chose (rightly IMO, edition change is scary, even when it was 3.0 to 3.5). You don't have to. Call it 5.5, call it 5e/24, whatever. I just hope the books won't be a financial disaster, because then we might see some of the very bad corporate tactics come to us, some might say come to us again, but I think we didn't even scratch the surface of corporate f-ups.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I don't really care whether it is a new edition or whatever. All I know is that if you are talking to anyone about D&D you have to specify what rule set you are using and saying I play 5e isn't enough to do that any more. You have to add 2014 or 2024 so that people know what you are talking about. That sounds like an edition change to me, but like I said, I don't care about that. I just want an easy universal name to use so that no matter who I am talking to we can understand one another.
From what I can tell the major changes were to subclasses, feats, and backgrounds.
The core rules are still the same? Stats and their bonuses are the same? AC still means the same thing? DC still means the same thing? CR is still imperfect? Class names and HD are still the same? Exp for levels still the same?
I wouldn't say that the difference constitute a 6e because the core mechanics are unchanged. Agree with a lot of other folks that some kind of term is needed instead of "the 2024 version". You can say that you can play with 2014 PCs and 2024 PCs at the same table but that is SO wrong.
In the end, no matter what the corporate heads think or want, the players will come to some form of consensus on their own and call it something. Don't like 5.1? 5.5? 5G? 524? tough shit, that's what all the players are calling it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I wouldn't say that the difference constitute a 6e because the core mechanics are unchanged.
Honestly, in all the minor edition bumps I mentioned before (1e-2e, 3e-3.5e, 4e-essentials) adventures, characters, monsters, and the like from the prior edition still made sense and were mostly usable; it's only 2e->3e, 3.5e->4e, and 4e->5e that actually changed things in ways that made things entirely unusable (rather than 'occasionally weird and anachronistic, and not necessarily well designed or even rules legal, but usable').
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyone know reasons or your opinions why these 5.5 rules are called just 'new rules'
It's not called "2024 Edition" or "5.5". The reason being is that it's not a new edition, it's still D&D fifth edition. 2024 refers to the year of publication of two of the three books and how they're differentiated from their 2014 counterparts.
From the Community Update on Clarifying Language: One D&D, 2024 Core Rulebooks
Basically the 2024 Player's Handbook is just like how previous editions had the Player's Handbook (Revised) or Player's Handbook 1, 2 and 3; not a new edition, just some books getting new and updated versions.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I have to be honest here. Continuing to call it 5th Edition is purely a marketing thing to keep from scaring people. It is definitely a 5.5 in everything but official name.
The closest actual example that this compares to is 3rd to 3.5, the changes in Classes, Subclasses, Species, Feats, Backgrounds, Spells, Weapons, Monsters, Surprise, and Inspiration presented so far are significant. The Core Mechanics are the same but that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I love all these things, but repeatedly saying it isn't a new edition isn't doesn't make it so. After all, every edition is "just some books getting new and updated versions"
edit: This is the Illusory Truth Effect in action.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I mean, I'm just going off the official language. "D&D 5.5" isn't an official term whereas 3.5 is. The community will come up with whatever terms they wish, I can only speak to the official langauge.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I would argue the changes are not significant enough. I am not familiar with the older D&D editions, but you can still use 2014 characters in 2024. Just because there is a lot of minor changes does not warrant a name change in my opinion, especially considering many of those changes have already been present.
Adding in a new character creation method does not warrant a name change. We have the sidekick system in place, and the introduction of that did not warrant a name change, and that system is far more different from the main character creation method. I see the change in classes as just an extention of OCF or adding in new classes. OCF did not warrant a name change, and adding in artifcer did not warrant a name change either. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bladesinger being changed, but changes to subclasses happened in the past as well, so renaming the game just because we have more subclass changes happening at once feels a bit arbitrary.
The changes to species and backgrounds is pretty minor as well, moving the ASI from species to backgrounds. Backgrounds having Feats have been a thing for quite a while now.
Feats having a level requirement and is mandatory are a new thing, but I do not think that warrants a name change either.
Weapons having Weapon Mastery is basically Metamagic for Martials, or like Fighting Styles and Martial Adept feat to make martials a bit more interesting. I do not think adding a new subsystem warrants a name change either when we have constantly added subsystems in the past like Piety, Supernatural Gifts, Franchises, etc.
I do not think changes to monsters warrant a name change either. Monsters are more simple to run now, but that alone does not really warrant a change when I can still run the Legacy versions just fine.
I have not read much about inspiration and surprise yet, so I cannot comment much on that.
Unless there is a change to the core mechanics, I do not think there should be a name change. If all these changes are drip fed to us over the course of three to four years instead of happening over a half a year, I do not think we will have the urge to call it a new edition. Having a name change now just because of the amount of minor changes feels a bit arbitrary, espeially considering all the additions and changes to 5e that has happened over the course of the last decade, and a lot of the changes are also optional rather than mandatory.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
There are more changes between 2014 and 2024 than there were between 3e and 3.5. You could play 3e and 3.5 characters at the same table, but just like with these new books, you probably shouldn't. Again, I like the changes. I have preordered the new books. Not calling it a new edition is only a marketing thing in my opinion.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Hearing them constantly talk 'in 2014 this... in 2024 that' in the reveal videos, wouldn't it be better if they settled in a standard, compact way to refer to them, like 5e/14, 5e/24... Otherwise the community will just continue with 5.5 which is obviously what they don't want.
I have very recently made a detailed study of 3.0 and 3.5, and the changes were significantly larger back then than what we have right now. In 3.0 and 3.5 even a few core rules changed drastically, most importantly the Small and Medium equipment changes (in 3.5 smaller versions of weapons deal a die step less damage). In the 2024 rules, the new stuff in the core rules is extremely minor if at all changed, mostly it's just clarifications (the new emanation area of effect, the "new" rules on Dying). All that said, it is of course a marketing thing to say that it's not a new edition, just as it would have been marketing to say it is a new edition. Both are true to a point, but I firmly believe that it errs on the side of this not being 5.5.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I do not see why you should not have 2014 and 2024 characters play together. The mechanical differences I have seen are not enough to discourage that. Sidekicks are even more different, half way between NPC statblocks and character sheets, and they are still compatible with characters created the regular way. Players can also use NPC statblocks to play too along side regular PCs, so the differences between the old and new normal character generation method is pretty small in comparison.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I would call the differences between 2014 and 2024 comparable to the difference between AD&D and AD&D 2e (prior to Skills and Powers), or 3.0 to 3.5, or 4th edition to 4th edition Essentials. One of those was called a full edition jump, one of them was called a point version, one of them had no official version name, so referring to the 2024 edition is as consistent as anything else D&D has done.
I was not a fan of it not being a new or .5 edition initially, but I will say as it has progressed and as more information about the 2024 rules comes available I think it fits very well, and this is coming from someone who will likely not buy into the new rule set anytime soon if ever.
5e14 and 5e24 are plenty descriptive and distinct enough to differentiate between the two, and 2024 is a great time to draw that line being it's the 50th anniversary and the release year of the new PHB.
As much as I want to find fault with this choice, I see it as a brilliant decision and very well done.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The issues being discussed here are largely due to esoteric use of terms.
With other kinds of books like textbooks, a new edition does not fundamentally alter the book itself. Usually, it means correcting typos and the like, sometimes they're not interchangeable because they alter the layout (like how they number sections etc) or they change their examples, but it's still the same book, really. "Editions" in the sense that TTRPGs use them is closer to being different books which are closely related. More like sequels, in computer game or novel terminology. The problem is that it's not commonly established what constitutes a new edition, so we're disagreeing on it.
Take for example, STA that announced its 2e a few months ago, I'm waiting patiently for the PDF which should be released any day now. The major change is that they've gotten rid of challenge dice and replaced them with fixed values. In D&D terms, that's basically taking away the various damage dice (everything other than the d20) and replacing it with a fixed value. Because of that, they consider it not only a change worth noting with a change of edition notation - not just by half, but a full edition change. There are other changes, but are pretty minor in comparison. (eg health is determined by Fitness rather than Security). Even the dice change is very small fry compared to what D&D is going through right now.
I genuinely think saying this isn't the equivalent to a 5.5e is misleading. I think we've been there for a while, but with the PHB change, it's more codified. I think this because:
I think it's fair to insist that it's still 5e, but it's definitely a change worth noting by a .X and to be honest, insisting that we say "I used the 2024e PHB for this Ranger" rather than "it's a 5.5e Ranger" or "we're using the 2024 version of the rules" instead of "we're using 5.5e rules" because WotC is allergic to admitting that they've made substantial changes to the rules isn't going to work.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm definitely with the camp that, yes, maybe it's all still 5th edition, but we still have to call it something, and refusing to name it is eventually found to get more and more confusing. We can't simply call the 2024 update "5e" because, if I'm joining a game that says they're playing "5e" then I'm still left with a pretty big question about what to expect from the game. Can I use Xanathar's or Tasha's subclasses in it? Crawford has mostly said that those won't be compatible with the 2024 rules, so there is a clear necessity for there to be a name.
I call it 5.5 because it's reasonably accurate, and again, we need to call it *something*.
Exactly "it's a new edition in all but names" and "new rules" is just an ambiguously generic as HELL useless term for referring to 5.5
The publishers can call it whatever they want to be honest, my table has always referred to it as 5.5e and I don't see that changing just because WotC's insisting it's still 5e.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].The reality of the situation is that it is not a new edition, and it's not of course the same edition either. But the previous WotC management back in 2003 leaned heavily into 3.5 being "new". The players didn't like that one bit, because unlike Core Rules 2024 which are coming after a decade, 3.5 came after less than 3 years. So back then WotC decided to market it as being more new than old, to make the sales go smoother. That kinda bit them in the a** especially with the later relative fiasco of 4e (it was a good edition IMO, but nothing anybody really wanted), so now, they decided to market Core Rules 2024 as NOT a new edition. Both are true. Both are marketing. In the end it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you call it something so people know the difference. Saying "2014 rules" or "2024 rules" is a mouthful, but WotC has to do it to keep up with the marketing image they chose (rightly IMO, edition change is scary, even when it was 3.0 to 3.5). You don't have to. Call it 5.5, call it 5e/24, whatever. I just hope the books won't be a financial disaster, because then we might see some of the very bad corporate tactics come to us, some might say come to us again, but I think we didn't even scratch the surface of corporate f-ups.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I still kinda prefer calling it "gold" because of the 50th anniversary (and the use of gold on the covers).
I don't really care whether it is a new edition or whatever. All I know is that if you are talking to anyone about D&D you have to specify what rule set you are using and saying I play 5e isn't enough to do that any more. You have to add 2014 or 2024 so that people know what you are talking about. That sounds like an edition change to me, but like I said, I don't care about that. I just want an easy universal name to use so that no matter who I am talking to we can understand one another.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
From what I can tell the major changes were to subclasses, feats, and backgrounds.
The core rules are still the same? Stats and their bonuses are the same? AC still means the same thing? DC still means the same thing? CR is still imperfect? Class names and HD are still the same? Exp for levels still the same?
I wouldn't say that the difference constitute a 6e because the core mechanics are unchanged. Agree with a lot of other folks that some kind of term is needed instead of "the 2024 version". You can say that you can play with 2014 PCs and 2024 PCs at the same table but that is SO wrong.
In the end, no matter what the corporate heads think or want, the players will come to some form of consensus on their own and call it something. Don't like 5.1? 5.5? 5G? 524? tough shit, that's what all the players are calling it.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Honestly, in all the minor edition bumps I mentioned before (1e-2e, 3e-3.5e, 4e-essentials) adventures, characters, monsters, and the like from the prior edition still made sense and were mostly usable; it's only 2e->3e, 3.5e->4e, and 4e->5e that actually changed things in ways that made things entirely unusable (rather than 'occasionally weird and anachronistic, and not necessarily well designed or even rules legal, but usable').