I was originally on board with 5.5, but better understanding of how WotC intends to go forward in the No-New-Editions future brought me around to 5.24. When a new Not-a-New-Edition comes out--maybe in another 10 years, maybe sooner--the framework that produces 5.24 allows for easy updates in a way 5.5 does not.
Regarding the confusion on whether this is a new Edition or not: some of that is bad faith, sure, but some of it comes from the way TTRPGs have a special definition of the word "Edition" that I rarely see directly explained. The new books are, in the common sense of the word, a new lowercase-e "edition". They are a new publication run with new editorial decisions, formatting updates, and other such small changes. For any other book, we would have no problem calling this a new edition. Within the TTRPG hobby, though, we use the word "Edition", usually with a capital E, to refer not to a new lowercase-e "edition" of an existing book, but rather to a fully new version of a game that is incompatible with all previous versions. The new rules are not (completely) incompatible with existing 5e content, so it's not appropriate to call them a new Edition, but it's also very confusing to expect people who are not veteran TTRPG hobbyists to understand what we mean by that without clarification. Personally I would rather throw out the inside-baseball definition of Edition entirely, but so many games use it now that we're likely stuck with it.
I bring up Strahd a lot in my discussions about the 2024 PHB because people got big mad when Strahd did errata and changed a lot of it's lore around the Vistani.
The Strahd changes are lore changes, not mechanical changes. As every campaign, no matter where its lore starts, develops its own lore just by virtue of being a campaign and despite that being a very significant change on many levels, it is nevertheless a very different kind of change.
Every DM has their own version of Strahd and Ravenloft's history based on how they have fit it into their campaign. Furthermore it is well aside from core rules, an adventure book rather than even considered a sourcebook. Not every DM is going to use it at all, just as not every DM is going to use any other given setting book.
Thus I suggest those changes to have been materially different from these impending ones.
I bring up Strahd a lot in my discussions about the 2024 PHB because people got big mad when Strahd did errata and changed a lot of it's lore around the Vistani.
The Strahd changes are lore changes, not mechanical changes. As every campaign, no matter where its lore starts, develops its own lore just by virtue of being a campaign and despite that being a very significant change on many levels, it is nevertheless a very different kind of change.
Every DM has their own version of Strahd and Ravenloft's history based on how they have fit it into their campaign. Furthermore it is well aside from core rules, an adventure book rather than even considered a sourcebook. Not every DM is going to use it at all, just as not every DM is going to use any other given setting book.
Thus I suggest those changes to have been materially different from these impending ones.
Brother, you took the first three sentences, ignored the rest of the post and then tried to make it sound like you're discussing something I didn't say and in fact said some of the things in your post.
I bring up Strahd a lot in my discussions about the 2024 PHB because people got big mad when Strahd did errata and changed a lot of it's lore around the Vistani.
The Strahd changes are lore changes, not mechanical changes. As every campaign, no matter where its lore starts, develops its own lore just by virtue of being a campaign and despite that being a very significant change on many levels, it is nevertheless a very different kind of change.
Every DM has their own version of Strahd and Ravenloft's history based on how they have fit it into their campaign. Furthermore it is well aside from core rules, an adventure book rather than even considered a sourcebook. Not every DM is going to use it at all, just as not every DM is going to use any other given setting book.
Thus I suggest those changes to have been materially different from these impending ones.
Brother, you took the first three sentences, ignored the rest of the post and then tried to make it sound like you're discussing something I didn't say and in fact said some of the things in your post.
Come on man.
If I am misunderstanding, fair enough- If I took the approach to your Strahd analogy differently than you intended, my apologies there, too. I was trying to stay out of the politics around that and similar lore changes while still trying to respond to what seemed to be your main point about there having been issues around those changes too (and that it seems to have landed ok).
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
Yes, it is true that we still will be rolling D20's, with modifiers and comparing the results to a target number. While we will call this a DC in 5e, the principle has been true in every edition. Stats are the same as in every edition, even if the modifiers are different. Spell system is mostly the same, even if saving throw mods have changed a bit over time.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version? Backwards compatibility is one thing but is a 24 ranger compatible with a 14 ranger, for example? Or 24 monk with 14 monk? More importantly, even if you call them both 5e, why not label one a separate version of 5e? If not 5.5e, why not, say, 5e.5? or 5e24? Then they would be keeping the 5th edition designation, while acknowledging this is a new version of 5e.
Any text book anywhere has edition control. And sets of rule books are akin to editions of text books. Our understanding of Math varies at most slightly by year but you still get Nth edition Professor's Favorite Math Text (fictional name to avoid any given actual text or professor being called out). And sets of rule books are very analogous to text books.
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
It really is this simple at tables too.
DM: We are using the 2024 PHB as the basis for this game. Is anyone trying to create a subclass not in the 2024 PHB? If so, we will use the rules included IN THIS BOOK to guide you through the creation of that subclass from older content, but everything else will move forward with this PHB.
Or:
DM: We are using the 2014 PHB for this game and will not reference the 2024 PHB and its revision of classes
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
It really is this simple at tables too.
DM: We are using the 2024 PHB as the basis for this game. Is anyone trying to create a subclass not in the 2024 PHB? If so, we will use the rules included IN THIS BOOK to guide you through the creation of that subclass from older content, but everything else will move forward with this PHB.
Or:
DM: We are using the 2014 PHB for this game and will not reference the 2024 PHB and its revision of classes
Except that officially, it seems to be "We are playing 5e here," without any differentiation.
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
Is there some rule or law somewhere declaring so? You are even using 'and' in there. Some spells do scale with level, by the way (some cantrips, for example).
But there are no such strict rules on what defines the minimum changes to equate to a change in editions.
In practical terms, the reasons it's not a "new Edition" are because:
You can play a 2014 character at a 2024 table, and it'll work fine (no need for conversions, build changes, etc.)
You can play a 2014 module/adventure/book at a 2024 table, and it'll work fine (ditto)
While either case may see some balance changes, they will be minor. And those balance changes can easily(?) be fixed by using the 2024 classes and 2025 MM, and only "porting" the subclasses.
Sure, this is all semantics about the meaning of "edition." But WotC has, so far, been pretty clear about communicating the above. They've also been coy, as marketing dictates, which makes folks-who-haven't-read-the-new-books nervous.
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
Is there some rule or law somewhere declaring so? You are even using 'and' in there. Some spells do scale with level, by the way (some cantrips, for example).
But there are no such strict rules on what defines the minimum changes to equate to a change in editions.
Just for the folks who might actually be paying attention and trying to learn - let us make this very clear.
You do not need to know anything new to play the 2024 update; that is why it is not a new edition.
If you played the 1974 version of D&D, you had to learn fundamentally new systems to play AD&D. If you wanted to play AD&D 2e, you had to learn the entire mess that was THAC0. If you played 3e, you had to learn new systems for 3.5e. You had to learn new systems for 4e and 5e as well.
If you know the 2014 rules, you do not need to learn any new systems for 2024. You can pick up a character sheet, read it, and play it without having to ever learn anything beyond your character sheet. There is no fundamental rules change - the amount of learning required is the exact same as learning a new class.
It is so obviously distinguishable from a true edition change that there really should not be any question that this is not a new edition.
I think some people need to reread the title of the thread/poll. It's simply about shorthand for referencing these rules as opposed to the 2014 ones because "fifth edition using the 2024 core rulebooks" is not something I want to be typing every single time I want to make a distinction. That's why I've settled on 5.24. It's simultaneously clear that it's still 5e, and also quickly and easily identifies the use of the updated materials. It also, as mentioned before, easily allows for future similarly styled updates up until the year 2099, anyway.
5.5 could have worked were it not for the baggage of the 3 to 3.5 core mechanical changes.
Is there some rule or law somewhere declaring so? You are even using 'and' in there. Some spells do scale with level, by the way (some cantrips, for example).
But there are no such strict rules on what defines the minimum changes to equate to a change in editions.
It's common sense (which unfortunately could be more common in any fandom, but still.) Look at prior edition changes and see how the engine was fundamentally different. You'll see very plainly how this revision doesn't rise to those levels, using the various examples I provided.
As far as the cantrip thing, in 5e they scale with character level but not caster level - that's another big change from prior editions, when your spells stopped scaling completely if you multiclassed. Even if you multiclassed two casters, you still had to track their caster levels separately - engine change.
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version?
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
It really is this simple at tables too.
DM: We are using the 2024 PHB as the basis for this game. Is anyone trying to create a subclass not in the 2024 PHB? If so, we will use the rules included IN THIS BOOK to guide you through the creation of that subclass from older content, but everything else will move forward with this PHB.
Or:
DM: We are using the 2014 PHB for this game and will not reference the 2024 PHB and its revision of classes
Except that officially, it seems to be "We are playing 5e here," without any differentiation.
You're still playing 5th edition, you are correct. Officially, they have said many times what the differentiation is.
WOW, this blew up. Kind of thought it would have a few replies and then get forgotten.
So, yeah. Didn't know 5.24 was a possibility (facepalms my past for not predicting it). But yeah that's not bad, not easy as "five point five" but it makes sense.
On the concept and comparison of 3 to 3.5, while the devs have rightly pointed out that there were significant gameplay changes to the system from 3.0 to 3.5, and that 5.0 to the "2024 rules" gameplay will be mostly unchanged, this is also kind of disingenuous. As D&D has seen this level change before. 1st, AD&D, 2nd, and 2.5 (2nd ed with a CD rom in the inside cover).
1st edition is technically not the first edition, but what was called 1st edition was a major upgrade from what came before.
AD&D released during 1st edition, and maintained through 2nd edition, gave expanded rules classes, player options, and setting lore.
2nd edition rebalanced, and made the game more player friendly (nothing like what 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 did but it was a start) however the basic core game was still the same, you could use 1st, 2nd, and AD&D rules together with no issues. Many games and tables did this throughout the 90s. My first real game was during this time, my little Wizard Elf ... sorry about that fireball in the small room... opps.
a few years before 3rd edition, TSR edited streamlined the core rule books for 2nd ed, they didn't mark them as an edition change, but the community started calling it 2.5 edition, because some of those readability edits actually changed some rules. (Technically made them clear in meaning) I still have my PHB from this time, when I got it, my DM was shocked the book and went page by page checking between the old 2nd ed PHB and mine, he noted several changes which were different, not enough to matter for his game but they were there.
The a year later 3.0, Wizards of the Coast, and you probably know the rest. ((I ended up working at my local D&D store, eventually got roped into DMing, and have since been the forever DM.))
Basically in the end, I see 2014 in the same way I see 1st edition, it's core with loose ties to past systems but it fully sits as it's own game, and is not compatible with what came before. I see Xanathar's and Tasha's changing the game in much the same way AD&D changed the system, it added but didn't really change anything but more choices.
I see the 2014 edition being like 2nd, it was mostly rules clarification, and streamlining and removing some of Gygax's issues from the game. It also marked the point where Forgotten Realms became the default. (Technically that happened in AD&D but the PHB still treated Greyhawk as the default.)
And before anyone complains, 3.0 to 3.5 was a bigger difference than 1.0 to 2.0, WotC just didn't want 3.5 to be 4th so they took the community joke about the late 90s PBH (2.5) and made 3.5 a thing before the community could call it other things.
The issue with "2014" vs "2024" is the wordiness of the whole thing, and I am genuinely curious what will become the nomenclature for the community. So I'm surprised "5.24" seems to be gaining popularity. It makes sense honestly, I will try it out next Sunday with my players. See how they take it.
Also I think "5.24" is more of a change than WotC is aware of. Some of the lore changes, choices to use some words over others, all these things add up to making the game vastly different while still being compatible with the material that came between 2014 and 2024. Also to the Devs, if you read this.
Please Publish Eberronas quickly as possible, some of us love Artificers. Oh and we need more shadar-kai lore. :) In fact there are a bunch of species listed as Legacythat need 2024 updates.
"We're changing how to make a char, 400 spells, all classes, we insist you need to migrate to these new rules for any products we release in 2025+. BUT it's not a new edition :D"
Wizards may be insisting us to buy the books (I mean, Wizards wants everyone to buy all the books, physical and digital, acros all platforms, alternate covers, erratas, etc.), but they sure as hell is not insisting on how we use it. Wizards is in the business of selling rules, they are not in the business of kicking down our door and forcing us to run D&D a certain way. If you are playing in AL, then sure, Wizards forcing you to do something is a valid complaint. However, most D&D players do not play in AL, so we have the freedom to do whatever we want, and Wizards could not care less what we do.
One player can use the old character creation method, another can use the new method, another can use sidekicks, and another can use NPC statblocks, and that is totally allowed. As a GM, I have no issue allowing 2014 and 2024 content to exist side by side; I even allow UA and pre-errata content, so if Wizards wrote it, my players can use it. If you as a GM choose to cut 2014 character creation method at your table, that is on you, not Wizards; you are the one forcing your players to change.
Outside of spending money, Wizards is not insisting us to do anything, in fact Wizards gives us permission to do whatever we want, "A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats... And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.", and that is straight from the DMG.
"It’s All Optional — Everything in this book is optional. Each group, guided by the DM, decides which of these options, if any, to incorporate into a campaign. You can use some, all, or none of them. We encourage you to choose the ones that fit best with your campaign’s story and with your group’s style of play. Whatever options you choose to use, this book relies on the rules in the Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide, and it can be paired with the options in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything and other D&D books." This is in TCOE. Rule zero should be pretty obvious, but I guess Wizards figured the DMG is not explicit nor clear enough on the subject and people needed a reminder. I think Wizards should remind people again in the new DMG, and be more explicit and clear about rule zero, and rule zero does not apply to just one book, but to all books.
Wizards has never said anyone needs to play D&D a certain way. You can call Wizards greedy, lazy, and incompetent, but Wizards has never been bossy, or at least not to its customers.
My point was this changes so many rules insisting it's not like 3.0 to 3.5 is kinda poor marketing on wotc. I'm buying PHB when it comes out I'm not saying I won't play it my point is that insisting it's just 'rules update' is downplaying how much the changes are in September.
One D&D was never a final name for anything let alone just the new core rules, it was always a codename for multiple things, one of which was the playtest. ...
WotC did the same thing when developing 5th, DnD Next 12 years later besides one Reddit group, no one uses DnD Next.
To be blunt, I think the only reason why it wasn’t called ‘D&D 6th Edition’ was purely for marketing reasons. ...
Well, maybe, but TSR made that mistake in the 80s & 90s when they made 3 updates to 1st edition, they made AD&D to add more options and setting material, then they basically made a new PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual and called it 2nd edition. The only significant changes were they moved away from Gygax's Grey Hawk to Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, and tried to reword everything that Gygax had copyrighted. 2nd ed was less of a change in some ways than 3.0 to 3.5. Although I would say the change from 5.0 to 2024 is about the same in scope, and ironically removing the last of Gygax's problematic stuff.
Also since WotC purchased TSR the edition changes (3, 4, 5) have been completely new games. While the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was very significant, and you really couldn't use 3.0 with 3.5. You could technically do it, but it was easier to use 3.5's version or homebrew a 3.5 version.
So WotC is correct in not saying this change is as significate as 3.0 to 3.5, and it's not a totally new game 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. Only when looking back at the TSR years do we see this kind of change in the system, and TSR had no clue what they were doing when naming the the changes. 1st, AD&D, 2nd, and not named but very notable "2.5" 2nd edition Players handbook Revised.
I am calling it 5.24. Like software updates with Agile project management, a single .1 change after a two-week development sprint is hardly a noticeable change, but the software is quite different after a couple dozen such updates, despite being somewhere in-between versions. I guess between the release year being in the official naming and software versioning being so familiar these days, it just makes sense to me.
The rules are changing significantly enough to treat the two versions as if they are like different editions. It is not just rewording, reorganizing and clarifying. There's been rebalancing, which seems to put the newer versions of the classes at a higher enough power level to make at least a perceptual difference for players. Besides the addition of Weapon Masteries, there are changes to several of the existing mechanics, like character creation in general giving a feat and restricting ASI based on backgrounds, feats being tiered, how a rogue sneak attacks, some abilities that no longer take concentration or are quicker as bonus actions instead of actions, changes to spells including new spells, and adding an extra die for healing spells. The differences between 2024 and 2014 rules are enough that I would consider it only polite to signal that to players intending to bring a 2014 character to a 2024 game, and one way of signaling that could be to refer to them as being a bit like different editions - like a 5.24.
The resistance to treating them like different editions creates an unfortunate and avoidable confusion about the (quickly) upcoming implementation on D&D Beyond. Though I do appreciate that they made a bridge for those without the new rules and for the subclasses that didn't make it into the new PHB to still be included rather than forcing people to go all 2014 or all 2024.
Rebalancing isn't remotely enough to justify calling it a new edition. And it's people treating it like a new edition that is causing the confusion, not the resistance to it.
Very true for WotC, not so much for when it was TSR, but I think that was because TSR was not as experienced with how to do these things as WotC has become. I see this as something WotC learned from watching and reviewing the mistakes of TSR.
I think the real issues is that if you took the 2014 PHB and the 2024 PHB and read them, you would think, "Oh, these are different games."
But... you wouldn't. That's the point. You'd read them, and you'd say "Oh, they reworded some the rules for clarity, but the game works more or less exactly the same way as it always did. Some classes and spells are different, but that's not the game. The game is the rules, and the rules are the same, with very few exceptions."
My point was this changes so many rules insisting it's not like 3.0 to 3.5 is kinda poor marketing on wotc. I'm buying PHB when it comes out I'm not saying I won't play it my point is that insisting it's just 'rules update' is downplaying how much the changes are in September.
If you ban the old character creation method and force players to use the new one, then sure, that is absolutely a change, but that is not a change that Wizards even insists on. Wizards says that you can play 2014 and 2024 characters together, so the new character creation method is more of a rules addition than a change, just like how the sidekick creation method is an addition.
I think people are overstating the impact of the 2024 books on game mechanics. It is a lot of new content released all at once, but the underlying game is still the same. If we were drip fed that content at the pace of XGTE and TCOE over another ten years, there would be less misconception that this is a new edition.
Except that officially, it seems to be "We are playing 5e here," without any differentiation.
I do not think differentiation is needed, and I agree with Wizards to just keep it simple and call it 5e. The underlying engine is the same and you can still use the old character creation method if you want to. It is a lot of new content at once, but I do not think the quantity of content justifies an edition change.
I think the real issues is that if you took the 2014 PHB and the 2024 PHB and read them, you would think, "Oh, these are different games."
They have completely changed how nearly half (5 out of 12) of the classes are designed by moving all subclasses to level 3. The Monk is very different, so you could even classify that as a fundamental change, meaning half of the classes have fundamental changes.
They are two character creation methods with a lot of common parts. The new character creation method is not replacing the old one, and no one is stopping you from using both at the same time. It is like saying Wizards is changing the Undying Warlock into the Undead Warlock when Undead is released; nothing is stopping a table from having both Warlocks at the same time.
It is a change in terms of old and new are different, but it is not a change in terms of Wizards is changing how you create characters, because they allow you to use both old and new ways.
I don't feel like this is different at all really. There's some tweaks and tuning, but the game core is the same. This is 100% not a new edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was originally on board with 5.5, but better understanding of how WotC intends to go forward in the No-New-Editions future brought me around to 5.24. When a new Not-a-New-Edition comes out--maybe in another 10 years, maybe sooner--the framework that produces 5.24 allows for easy updates in a way 5.5 does not.
Regarding the confusion on whether this is a new Edition or not: some of that is bad faith, sure, but some of it comes from the way TTRPGs have a special definition of the word "Edition" that I rarely see directly explained. The new books are, in the common sense of the word, a new lowercase-e "edition". They are a new publication run with new editorial decisions, formatting updates, and other such small changes. For any other book, we would have no problem calling this a new edition. Within the TTRPG hobby, though, we use the word "Edition", usually with a capital E, to refer not to a new lowercase-e "edition" of an existing book, but rather to a fully new version of a game that is incompatible with all previous versions. The new rules are not (completely) incompatible with existing 5e content, so it's not appropriate to call them a new Edition, but it's also very confusing to expect people who are not veteran TTRPG hobbyists to understand what we mean by that without clarification. Personally I would rather throw out the inside-baseball definition of Edition entirely, but so many games use it now that we're likely stuck with it.
The Strahd changes are lore changes, not mechanical changes. As every campaign, no matter where its lore starts, develops its own lore just by virtue of being a campaign and despite that being a very significant change on many levels, it is nevertheless a very different kind of change.
Every DM has their own version of Strahd and Ravenloft's history based on how they have fit it into their campaign. Furthermore it is well aside from core rules, an adventure book rather than even considered a sourcebook. Not every DM is going to use it at all, just as not every DM is going to use any other given setting book.
Thus I suggest those changes to have been materially different from these impending ones.
Brother, you took the first three sentences, ignored the rest of the post and then tried to make it sound like you're discussing something I didn't say and in fact said some of the things in your post.
Come on man.
If I am misunderstanding, fair enough- If I took the approach to your Strahd analogy differently than you intended, my apologies there, too. I was trying to stay out of the politics around that and similar lore changes while still trying to respond to what seemed to be your main point about there having been issues around those changes too (and that it seems to have landed ok).
I understand why they do not want to call it errata, however, again, if the changes are really all that minor as you seem to be suggesting, why are they worth all this confusion?
Yes, it is true that we still will be rolling D20's, with modifiers and comparing the results to a target number. While we will call this a DC in 5e, the principle has been true in every edition. Stats are the same as in every edition, even if the modifiers are different. Spell system is mostly the same, even if saving throw mods have changed a bit over time.
At what point is it the same version vs a new version? Backwards compatibility is one thing but is a 24 ranger compatible with a 14 ranger, for example? Or 24 monk with 14 monk? More importantly, even if you call them both 5e, why not label one a separate version of 5e? If not 5.5e, why not, say, 5e.5? or 5e24? Then they would be keeping the 5th edition designation, while acknowledging this is a new version of 5e.
Any text book anywhere has edition control. And sets of rule books are akin to editions of text books. Our understanding of Math varies at most slightly by year but you still get Nth edition Professor's Favorite Math Text (fictional name to avoid any given actual text or professor being called out). And sets of rule books are very analogous to text books.
No change will ever avoid 100% of confusion, and I think you're vastly overstating/overblowing the amount that does exist.
A new edition would mean changing the core underlying engine. That would mean foundational things like no bounded accuracy, skill ranks coming back, spells and spell slots scaling with caster level again (or no spell slots at all and going back to AWED again), feats and ASIs being separate again, iterative attack penalties coming back, WBL coming back etc. 5.24 has exactly none of that.
It really is this simple at tables too.
DM: We are using the 2024 PHB as the basis for this game. Is anyone trying to create a subclass not in the 2024 PHB? If so, we will use the rules included IN THIS BOOK to guide you through the creation of that subclass from older content, but everything else will move forward with this PHB.
Or:
DM: We are using the 2014 PHB for this game and will not reference the 2024 PHB and its revision of classes
Except that officially, it seems to be "We are playing 5e here," without any differentiation.
Is there some rule or law somewhere declaring so? You are even using 'and' in there. Some spells do scale with level, by the way (some cantrips, for example).
But there are no such strict rules on what defines the minimum changes to equate to a change in editions.
In practical terms, the reasons it's not a "new Edition" are because:
While either case may see some balance changes, they will be minor. And those balance changes can easily(?) be fixed by using the 2024 classes and 2025 MM, and only "porting" the subclasses.
Sure, this is all semantics about the meaning of "edition." But WotC has, so far, been pretty clear about communicating the above. They've also been coy, as marketing dictates, which makes folks-who-haven't-read-the-new-books nervous.
Just for the folks who might actually be paying attention and trying to learn - let us make this very clear.
You do not need to know anything new to play the 2024 update; that is why it is not a new edition.
If you played the 1974 version of D&D, you had to learn fundamentally new systems to play AD&D. If you wanted to play AD&D 2e, you had to learn the entire mess that was THAC0. If you played 3e, you had to learn new systems for 3.5e. You had to learn new systems for 4e and 5e as well.
If you know the 2014 rules, you do not need to learn any new systems for 2024. You can pick up a character sheet, read it, and play it without having to ever learn anything beyond your character sheet. There is no fundamental rules change - the amount of learning required is the exact same as learning a new class.
It is so obviously distinguishable from a true edition change that there really should not be any question that this is not a new edition.
I think some people need to reread the title of the thread/poll. It's simply about shorthand for referencing these rules as opposed to the 2014 ones because "fifth edition using the 2024 core rulebooks" is not something I want to be typing every single time I want to make a distinction. That's why I've settled on 5.24. It's simultaneously clear that it's still 5e, and also quickly and easily identifies the use of the updated materials. It also, as mentioned before, easily allows for future similarly styled updates up until the year 2099, anyway.
5.5 could have worked were it not for the baggage of the 3 to 3.5 core mechanical changes.
It's common sense (which unfortunately could be more common in any fandom, but still.) Look at prior edition changes and see how the engine was fundamentally different. You'll see very plainly how this revision doesn't rise to those levels, using the various examples I provided.
As far as the cantrip thing, in 5e they scale with character level but not caster level - that's another big change from prior editions, when your spells stopped scaling completely if you multiclassed. Even if you multiclassed two casters, you still had to track their caster levels separately - engine change.
You're still playing 5th edition, you are correct. Officially, they have said many times what the differentiation is.
WOW, this blew up. Kind of thought it would have a few replies and then get forgotten.
So, yeah. Didn't know 5.24 was a possibility (facepalms my past for not predicting it). But yeah that's not bad, not easy as "five point five" but it makes sense.
On the concept and comparison of 3 to 3.5, while the devs have rightly pointed out that there were significant gameplay changes to the system from 3.0 to 3.5, and that 5.0 to the "2024 rules" gameplay will be mostly unchanged, this is also kind of disingenuous. As D&D has seen this level change before. 1st, AD&D, 2nd, and 2.5 (2nd ed with a CD rom in the inside cover).
1st edition is technically not the first edition, but what was called 1st edition was a major upgrade from what came before.
AD&D released during 1st edition, and maintained through 2nd edition, gave expanded rules classes, player options, and setting lore.
2nd edition rebalanced, and made the game more player friendly (nothing like what 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 did but it was a start) however the basic core game was still the same, you could use 1st, 2nd, and AD&D rules together with no issues. Many games and tables did this throughout the 90s. My first real game was during this time, my little Wizard Elf ... sorry about that fireball in the small room... opps.
a few years before 3rd edition, TSR edited streamlined the core rule books for 2nd ed, they didn't mark them as an edition change, but the community started calling it 2.5 edition, because some of those readability edits actually changed some rules. (Technically made them clear in meaning) I still have my PHB from this time, when I got it, my DM was shocked the book and went page by page checking between the old 2nd ed PHB and mine, he noted several changes which were different, not enough to matter for his game but they were there.
The a year later 3.0, Wizards of the Coast, and you probably know the rest. ((I ended up working at my local D&D store, eventually got roped into DMing, and have since been the forever DM.))
Basically in the end, I see 2014 in the same way I see 1st edition, it's core with loose ties to past systems but it fully sits as it's own game, and is not compatible with what came before. I see Xanathar's and Tasha's changing the game in much the same way AD&D changed the system, it added but didn't really change anything but more choices.
I see the 2014 edition being like 2nd, it was mostly rules clarification, and streamlining and removing some of Gygax's issues from the game. It also marked the point where Forgotten Realms became the default. (Technically that happened in AD&D but the PHB still treated Greyhawk as the default.)
And before anyone complains, 3.0 to 3.5 was a bigger difference than 1.0 to 2.0, WotC just didn't want 3.5 to be 4th so they took the community joke about the late 90s PBH (2.5) and made 3.5 a thing before the community could call it other things.
The issue with "2014" vs "2024" is the wordiness of the whole thing, and I am genuinely curious what will become the nomenclature for the community. So I'm surprised "5.24" seems to be gaining popularity. It makes sense honestly, I will try it out next Sunday with my players. See how they take it.
Also I think "5.24" is more of a change than WotC is aware of. Some of the lore changes, choices to use some words over others, all these things add up to making the game vastly different while still being compatible with the material that came between 2014 and 2024. Also to the Devs, if you read this.
Please Publish Eberron as quickly as possible, some of us love Artificers. Oh and we need more shadar-kai lore. :) In fact there are a bunch of species listed as Legacy that need 2024 updates.
My point was this changes so many rules insisting it's not like 3.0 to 3.5 is kinda poor marketing on wotc. I'm buying PHB when it comes out I'm not saying I won't play it my point is that insisting it's just 'rules update' is downplaying how much the changes are in September.
WotC did the same thing when developing 5th, DnD Next 12 years later besides one Reddit group, no one uses DnD Next.
Well, maybe, but TSR made that mistake in the 80s & 90s when they made 3 updates to 1st edition, they made AD&D to add more options and setting material, then they basically made a new PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual and called it 2nd edition. The only significant changes were they moved away from Gygax's Grey Hawk to Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, and tried to reword everything that Gygax had copyrighted. 2nd ed was less of a change in some ways than 3.0 to 3.5. Although I would say the change from 5.0 to 2024 is about the same in scope, and ironically removing the last of Gygax's problematic stuff.
Also since WotC purchased TSR the edition changes (3, 4, 5) have been completely new games. While the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was very significant, and you really couldn't use 3.0 with 3.5. You could technically do it, but it was easier to use 3.5's version or homebrew a 3.5 version.
So WotC is correct in not saying this change is as significate as 3.0 to 3.5, and it's not a totally new game 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. Only when looking back at the TSR years do we see this kind of change in the system, and TSR had no clue what they were doing when naming the the changes. 1st, AD&D, 2nd, and not named but very notable "2.5" 2nd edition Players handbook Revised.
Very true for WotC, not so much for when it was TSR, but I think that was because TSR was not as experienced with how to do these things as WotC has become. I see this as something WotC learned from watching and reviewing the mistakes of TSR.
But... you wouldn't. That's the point. You'd read them, and you'd say "Oh, they reworded some the rules for clarity, but the game works more or less exactly the same way as it always did. Some classes and spells are different, but that's not the game. The game is the rules, and the rules are the same, with very few exceptions."
No, you'd think, "these are different versions of the classes and spells." I really don't get pretending like this is difficult to understand.
If you ban the old character creation method and force players to use the new one, then sure, that is absolutely a change, but that is not a change that Wizards even insists on. Wizards says that you can play 2014 and 2024 characters together, so the new character creation method is more of a rules addition than a change, just like how the sidekick creation method is an addition.
I think people are overstating the impact of the 2024 books on game mechanics. It is a lot of new content released all at once, but the underlying game is still the same. If we were drip fed that content at the pace of XGTE and TCOE over another ten years, there would be less misconception that this is a new edition.
I do not think differentiation is needed, and I agree with Wizards to just keep it simple and call it 5e. The underlying engine is the same and you can still use the old character creation method if you want to. It is a lot of new content at once, but I do not think the quantity of content justifies an edition change.
They are two character creation methods with a lot of common parts. The new character creation method is not replacing the old one, and no one is stopping you from using both at the same time. It is like saying Wizards is changing the Undying Warlock into the Undead Warlock when Undead is released; nothing is stopping a table from having both Warlocks at the same time.
It is a change in terms of old and new are different, but it is not a change in terms of Wizards is changing how you create characters, because they allow you to use both old and new ways.
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 don't feel like this is different at all really. There's some tweaks and tuning, but the game core is the same. This is 100% not a new edition.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha