Rolling dice and crafting epic tales, one adventure at a time. As a Dungeon Master and proud adventurer in the realms of D&D, I love spending my free time helping others create well-rounded characters. I'd be really happy if you could check out my new tool, which I designed to make life easier for players!
WotC initially said “One D&D” as their working title for the update and then insisted on “5th Ed” because of the claim to be backwards compatible (cough adventures only) and now they themselves use a numbering system different to 5th Ed because, and here there is no surprise, it doesn’t make any sense to call a revision by the original numeric value
WotC initially said “One D&D” as their working title for the update and then insisted on “5th Ed” because of the claim to be backwards compatible (cough adventures only) and now they themselves use a numbering system different to 5th Ed because, and here there is no surprise, it doesn’t make any sense to call a revision by the original numeric value
No, Wizards of the Coast always used One D&D to refer to three things:
The playtest of the new core rulebooks
The integration of D&D Beyond into Wizards of the Coast
The D&D Digital Play Experience (now the D&D 3D VTT)
This was stated from day one in UA FAQ, but that has since moved to here and can also be found here.
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.
And as for backwards compatibility, I can say confidently that (at least for monk, paladin, and wizard) you can use pre-2024 Player's Handbook options with little to no effort or friction. A few term conversions here, maybe a small tweak there. But it's still backwards compatible to a very high degree (more so than even I anticipated)
As for what I'll be calling it? D&D. My group only plays fifth edition so no need to specify that. And as for what rules, we mention the year (usually shortened to '14 or '24) when discussing both in the same convo otherwise we're just referring to whatever is current.
To be blunt, I think the only reason why it wasn’t called ‘D&D 6th Edition’ was purely for marketing reasons. I, personally, wouldn’t have objected to having a new edition 10 years after the last one, which seems to be on par with most other new editions. However, it is what it is. I just call it the 'new D&D’ until it becomes embedded enough for people to forget the 'old D&D’.
They could also call it the ‘50th Anniversary Edition’?
To be blunt, I think the only reason why it wasn’t called ‘D&D 6th Edition’ was purely for marketing reasons. I, personally, wouldn’t have objected to having a new edition 10 years after the last one, which seems to be on par with most other new editions. However, it is what it is. I just call it the 'new D&D’ until it becomes embedded enough for people to forget the 'old D&D’.
They could also call it the ‘50th Anniversary Edition’?
To be fair, in D&D parlance, it's not 6e, it's far too compatible to be comparable to a whole new edition. Why they're suddenly allergic to 5.5e though is mysterious. It is a case of marketing rather than substance - I'm not getting it for free, so it's not a mere update, and it's not just collecting the expansions into one volume - but it's weird. Unless they're taking the "no new editions" seriously, and we're just getting periodic renewals. I hope not though, while 5e is good, there are serious problems with the engine that require starting over again to fix.
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.
To be blunt, I think the only reason why it wasn’t called ‘D&D 6th Edition’ was purely for marketing reasons. I, personally, wouldn’t have objected to having a new edition 10 years after the last one, which seems to be on par with most other new editions. However, it is what it is. I just call it the 'new D&D’ until it becomes embedded enough for people to forget the 'old D&D’.
They could also call it the ‘50th Anniversary Edition’?
It is not just marketing. The rules are not changing any where significantly enough to justify calling it a new edition. Most of it is just rebalancing, reorganizing, and clarifying. Aside from the addition of Weapon Masteries, the renaming of a few keywords, and the rebalancing of some existing mechanics, the core rules of the game are remaining mostly unchanged. Skills are unchanged. Saving throws are unchanged. Proficiency, advantage, disadvantage, passive perception, concentration, actions, bonus actions, reactions, CR, experience, etc... Unchanged. The differences between editions over the years have been far, FAR, more significant.
Describing the new books as a new edition also creates confusion about the intended support on D&D Beyond. Both the 2014 core books and the 2024 core books will be supported on D&D Beyond, but at this time we don't have an official statement on what that will look like. When we know, there will be an official announcement about it.
As far as rules compatibility goes, Jeremy has already given a brief preview of how that is intended to work.
When you have 2024 characters in your group, you should use the revised core books for gameplay.
Existing 2014 characters should be able to play side-by-side with 2024 characters under the revised gameplay rules.
There will be guidance for using some of the older character options with the 2024 class designs.
Any subclasses that have some compatibility headaches like the Circle of the Shepherd or the Hexblade are likely candidates for a revision in the near future. (likely, but not confirmed)
Older adventures like Curse of Strahd should work just fine using the revised rules. The CRs of monsters, the levels of spells, etc. remain unchanged to ensure older adventures do not break.
This is pretty much it. There's a lot of discourse around what the new revision is and why it should be called "X" but the fact is, it's just an update. That's why it's still 5th. Calling it seven different things when the designers aren't is going to cause confusion. It's pretty easy to go "We're playing 5e based on the books that came out in 2024", and move forward.
You can take a group of adventurers with the new options in the revised books into Strahd. Granted, I think you're going to wipe the mat because of things like weapon masteries when the adventure wasn't balanced around it but you can still do it. Everything in the module will function properly. I don't think anyone can point to a single rule change that's been in the UAs that has been so wildly different that it would break things in old content.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Ya but they called 3.5 that and it's same thing as 3e to 3.5 that everyone was calling it that same thing here that not calling it 5.5 and just the new rules seems a bit odd as even gaming site coverage been calling it 5.5
And it's people treating it like a new edition that is causing the confusion, not the resistance to it.
I generally agree that people treating it like a new edition are causing some confusion - sometimes because the poster is confused and, to a distressing amount, sometimes because the poster is trying to sow confusion in furtherance of their (usually racist) anti-Wizards agenda.
But those folks are a drop in the bucket compared to the true source of the confusion - Wizards’ characteristically bad PR team. Starting our by calling it “One D&D” made it seem like an edition change - probably why they dropped that branding for a more muddled message of Wizards just calling it 5e or referring to it as the 2024 rules. Wizards introduced confusion early with their branding then, despite their best efforts to inform the public “this is not a new edition” really gave folks a singular branding to rally around.
The thread is full of posters who are paying attention, are watching videos or reading articles, have been following the playtests, and are fully cognizant that 2024 is a revision, not a new edition. The fact that even these highly-informed players cannot settle on a singular shorthand shows bad PR and bad branding on Wizards’ part. If the most in tune players cannot agree what to call the update, is there really any surprise less dialed in players might be confused?
3.5 was an official designation. It was even labeled as such on the cover of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. It was intended to be a new edition and a reset.
As I stated before
Describing the new books as a new edition also creates confusion about the intended support on D&D Beyond. Both the 2014 core books and the 2024 core books will be supported on D&D Beyond, but at this time we don't have an official statement on what that will look like. When we know, there will be an official announcement about it.
When people hear "new edition" or "6th edition", they understandably come to us asking whether their existing stuff will still be supported. The answer is yes, it will be, because it's not a new edition.
This is why we are classifying deliberate and willful misleading statements to be disinformation and trolling.
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.
There's a lot to unpack here.
Underlying rules vs character options are being conflated. A LOT of character options are changing. Sneak Attack isn't changing in how it works, its getting more options WHEN it works. The underlying mechanics of sneak attack are the same. Spells are changing in how the individual spells work, the mechanics of spellcasting are not changing. This is why we can say it's still 5th edition. If someone learned how to play 6 years ago, they can pick up the new PHB and dive right in.
All of the videos that have been released also speak to what you said about 2014 characters in a 2024 world. The 2014 character functions as it does on its character sheet, but "the world" is in 2024. That said, whose to say a DM isn't mixing and maxing. We already see this with people who use volos vs monsters of the multiverse.
D&D Beyond has a lot of discourse on the implementation, but beyond the horrific search feature that every administration has agreed this website has? This is me now speculating, but character sheets will probably reference the set of rules in which they were created. 2014 classes and subclasses won't see 2024 spells, and 2024 characters won't see 2014 spells, but there might be a toggle to turn those on which will probably create duplicates of them in spell lists. These are website issues. They aren't edition issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
5.24
R5e (revised 5th edition)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not 5eR?
"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
Over all it seems not to rate any sort of Emergency Room (ER) designation, lol
Well I was thinking Fiver.
"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
5 & dot)
Rolling dice and crafting epic tales, one adventure at a time. As a Dungeon Master and proud adventurer in the realms of D&D, I love spending my free time helping others create well-rounded characters. I'd be really happy if you could check out my new tool, which I designed to make life easier for players!
5.5 or 5th Ed revised
WotC initially said “One D&D” as their working title for the update and then insisted on “5th Ed” because of the claim to be backwards compatible (cough adventures only) and now they themselves use a numbering system different to 5th Ed because, and here there is no surprise, it doesn’t make any sense to call a revision by the original numeric value
No, Wizards of the Coast always used One D&D to refer to three things:
This was stated from day one in UA FAQ, but that has since moved to here and can also be found here.
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.
And as for backwards compatibility, I can say confidently that (at least for monk, paladin, and wizard) you can use pre-2024 Player's Handbook options with little to no effort or friction. A few term conversions here, maybe a small tweak there. But it's still backwards compatible to a very high degree (more so than even I anticipated)
As for what I'll be calling it? D&D. My group only plays fifth edition so no need to specify that. And as for what rules, we mention the year (usually shortened to '14 or '24) when discussing both in the same convo otherwise we're just referring to whatever is current.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To be blunt, I think the only reason why it wasn’t called ‘D&D 6th Edition’ was purely for marketing reasons. I, personally, wouldn’t have objected to having a new edition 10 years after the last one, which seems to be on par with most other new editions. However, it is what it is. I just call it the 'new D&D’ until it becomes embedded enough for people to forget the 'old D&D’.
They could also call it the ‘50th Anniversary Edition’?
Ill just call it 5e and simply distinguish things by calling it 2014 Cleric or 2024 Cleric, etc, when i talk about things.
To be fair, in D&D parlance, it's not 6e, it's far too compatible to be comparable to a whole new edition. Why they're suddenly allergic to 5.5e though is mysterious. It is a case of marketing rather than substance - I'm not getting it for free, so it's not a mere update, and it's not just collecting the expansions into one volume - but it's weird. Unless they're taking the "no new editions" seriously, and we're just getting periodic renewals. I hope not though, while 5e is good, there are serious problems with the engine that require starting over again to fix.
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.
The new s***.
How to: Replace DEX in AC | Jump & Suffocation stats | Spell & class effect buff system | Wild Shape effect system | Tool Proficiencies as Custom Skills | Spells at higher levels explained | Superior Fighting/Martial Adept Fix | Snippet Codes Explored - Subclasses | Snippet Math Theory | Homebrew Weapons Explained
My: FEATS | MAGIC ITEMS | MONSTERS | SUBCLASSES Artificer Specialist: Weaveblade
Dndbeyond images not loading WORKAROUND FIXED!!! (TY Jay_Lane for original instructions)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorIt is not just marketing. The rules are not changing any where significantly enough to justify calling it a new edition. Most of it is just rebalancing, reorganizing, and clarifying. Aside from the addition of Weapon Masteries, the renaming of a few keywords, and the rebalancing of some existing mechanics, the core rules of the game are remaining mostly unchanged. Skills are unchanged. Saving throws are unchanged. Proficiency, advantage, disadvantage, passive perception, concentration, actions, bonus actions, reactions, CR, experience, etc... Unchanged. The differences between editions over the years have been far, FAR, more significant.
Describing the new books as a new edition also creates confusion about the intended support on D&D Beyond. Both the 2014 core books and the 2024 core books will be supported on D&D Beyond, but at this time we don't have an official statement on what that will look like. When we know, there will be an official announcement about it.
As far as rules compatibility goes, Jeremy has already given a brief preview of how that is intended to work.
That's what I'll be doing as well, because that's the most accurate way to describe it.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
This is pretty much it. There's a lot of discourse around what the new revision is and why it should be called "X" but the fact is, it's just an update. That's why it's still 5th. Calling it seven different things when the designers aren't is going to cause confusion. It's pretty easy to go "We're playing 5e based on the books that came out in 2024", and move forward.
You can take a group of adventurers with the new options in the revised books into Strahd. Granted, I think you're going to wipe the mat because of things like weapon masteries when the adventure wasn't balanced around it but you can still do it. Everything in the module will function properly. I don't think anyone can point to a single rule change that's been in the UAs that has been so wildly different that it would break things in old content.
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorRebalancing 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.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Ya but they called 3.5 that and it's same thing as 3e to 3.5 that everyone was calling it that same thing here that not calling it 5.5 and just the new rules seems a bit odd as even gaming site coverage been calling it 5.5
I generally agree that people treating it like a new edition are causing some confusion - sometimes because the poster is confused and, to a distressing amount, sometimes because the poster is trying to sow confusion in furtherance of their (usually racist) anti-Wizards agenda.
But those folks are a drop in the bucket compared to the true source of the confusion - Wizards’ characteristically bad PR team. Starting our by calling it “One D&D” made it seem like an edition change - probably why they dropped that branding for a more muddled message of Wizards just calling it 5e or referring to it as the 2024 rules. Wizards introduced confusion early with their branding then, despite their best efforts to inform the public “this is not a new edition” really gave folks a singular branding to rally around.
The thread is full of posters who are paying attention, are watching videos or reading articles, have been following the playtests, and are fully cognizant that 2024 is a revision, not a new edition. The fact that even these highly-informed players cannot settle on a singular shorthand shows bad PR and bad branding on Wizards’ part. If the most in tune players cannot agree what to call the update, is there really any surprise less dialed in players might be confused?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Moderator3.5 was an official designation. It was even labeled as such on the cover of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. It was intended to be a new edition and a reset.
As I stated before
When people hear "new edition" or "6th edition", they understandably come to us asking whether their existing stuff will still be supported. The answer is yes, it will be, because it's not a new edition.
This is why we are classifying deliberate and willful misleading statements to be disinformation and trolling.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
There's a lot to unpack here.
Underlying rules vs character options are being conflated. A LOT of character options are changing. Sneak Attack isn't changing in how it works, its getting more options WHEN it works. The underlying mechanics of sneak attack are the same. Spells are changing in how the individual spells work, the mechanics of spellcasting are not changing. This is why we can say it's still 5th edition. If someone learned how to play 6 years ago, they can pick up the new PHB and dive right in.
All of the videos that have been released also speak to what you said about 2014 characters in a 2024 world. The 2014 character functions as it does on its character sheet, but "the world" is in 2024. That said, whose to say a DM isn't mixing and maxing. We already see this with people who use volos vs monsters of the multiverse.
D&D Beyond has a lot of discourse on the implementation, but beyond the horrific search feature that every administration has agreed this website has? This is me now speculating, but character sheets will probably reference the set of rules in which they were created. 2014 classes and subclasses won't see 2024 spells, and 2024 characters won't see 2014 spells, but there might be a toggle to turn those on which will probably create duplicates of them in spell lists. These are website issues. They aren't edition issues.