Electric Bungaloo 5e, is also a mouthful, but I agree, the pun/reference is quite hilarious. xD
In the long run, we'd just call it 5E, because just look at MONK, why wouldn't we move to the updated revised rules; which in turn, we'd just apply all the other juicy updates. Though when talking about rules: Written5.14 and 5.24 makes it easier to clarify what is being discussed; SpokenOG5E and updated 5E is simple enough to do.
I don't really understand this drama; but it seems the vocal community really wants to slap a label on it :v
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.
This is the part that makes no sense to me. If there are no significant changes, why put out new books at all? If there are no significant changes, there's also no perceived benefit to be had from upgrading from the current 5th edition. Might as well just release another source book with the add-on rules, which is something I might have actually had a look at or dropped some money on. Seems like there must be more to it than that to justify the release and buy-in cost of three new books. Rebalancing is something DMs can do either in preparation or on the fly by default anyway, so again... not seeing any value there. Is it perhaps considered an edition targeted at new people coming to the hobby?
There are significant changes, enough to make new books worthwhile. It's still not a new edition. Not seeing the disconnect.
"Rebalancing is something DMs can do" - yeah, but now I don't have to. I'm exchanging my money for their time (and a truckload of great art.) Fair trade.
To build on the above, to most folks, the changes and the need for changes are obvious.
1. Martial classes were too linear to play and needed a major refurbishment. Thus was the weapon mastery system born.
2. Entire classes, like Sorcerer, Ranger, and Monk were underperforming and needed an update. Even popular classes could benefit from some changes based on the lessons of a full decade.
3. CR is a well and truly broken system, rendering the 2014 monster manual and every single publication relying on it useless. Everyone knows it and has been complaining about it for a decade. A new, rebalanced MM will help fix this issue and retroactively fix a lot of published adventures.
4. As with pretty much every DMG that came before it, the 2014 DMG focuses on things that a DM really does not need to know. It makes sense to make the flagship product targeted at DMs something that… actually tells you how to DM.
5. Many other aspects of the game could use tweaks based on the last ten years of knowledge. Rebalancing spells that cause gameplay issues, making backgrounds and feats a little more dynamic, etc. We have a whole decade of knowledge on what works and what does not - makes sense to put that knowledge to use.
6. Gary Gygax was a racist and a sexist - by his own admission - who, again by his own admission, added his bigotry to the game. D&D has finally acknowledged this and is taking steps to remove mechanics Gygax explicitly intended to be racist - and wants to make the core books which introduce folks to the game reflect these changes so new players are free from the stain of hate Gygax intentionally left on this game. If you look at the posting history of the loudest voices complaining about the revised edition, you will notice an almost one-to-one ratio of people complaining about the game becoming less racist. This is not a coincidence - they are angry racism is being removed from the game and want to see the least racist version of D&D fail to vindicate their small world views.
And, of course, plenty of other things are being updated, as one would know if they have followed the very public playtesting.
What does not need changing? The actual system. Attack rolls and saves are staying. The skills are staying. The various names of classes are staying. The level cap is staying. The general nature of how you make your character is staying. Nothing about the core elements that make something its own edition are actually changing.
As for why it needs to be a new book? Pretty obvious - most people only buy the core books. You want your flagship products to represent the best the game can be. Saying “eh, here is a good game, but please buy ten years worth of Tasha-like rules bloat to get the full experience” gets increasingly untenable - and now is as good a time as any for a rebalance, ten years of lessons into 5e.
"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"
"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.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
I am not saying that any of them are calling it errata. That is part of my point. Errata is a correction to a work. For it to be the same edition, it would be just that.
Windows software is backwards compatible. Running Win 11, I can run software written for Win 10 or earlier windows versions. But despite it being still Windows and very much of the operating system being very similar to the earlier versions of Windows, they call it a separate version. It is not sold as a version of Win 10 nor as an update or patch for Win 10. When there are refinements of Win 11, those patches (the software equivalent of errata) are offered free because it is Win 11.
What they are doing is the equivalent of Microsoft saying "We have a new version of Win 10 and we are no longer selling the old version, but we are not patching copies of current Win 10 to the new standard." It is a problematic stance.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
I am not saying that any of them are calling it errata. That is part of my point. Errata is a correction to a work. For it to be the same edition, it would be just that.
Windows software is backwards compatible. Running Win 11, I can run software written for Win 10 or earlier windows versions. But despite it being still Windows and very much of the operating system being very similar to the earlier versions of Windows, they call it a separate version. It is not sold as a version of Win 10 nor as an update or patch for Win 10. When there are refinements of Win 11, those patches (the software equivalent of errata) are offered free because it is Win 11.
What they are doing is the equivalent of Microsoft saying "We have a new version of Win 10 and we are no longer selling the old version, but we are not patching copies of current Win 10 to the new standard." It is a problematic stance.
This is not what they are doing. A Windows change alters the fundamental architecture of your operating system, with massive back-end changes.
Nothing about the fundamental architecture of 5e is changing. You still use the same system to attack, the same saves, the same math for calculating stats, same proficiency bonuses, same everything in terms of how you run the game. The changes that they are making are not changes to the edition’s architecture - they are surface level changes of the kind we have already seen in Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, etc. None of those constituted a new edition of the game.
A better analogy would be a house getting some new wainscoting, paint, and wallpaper. It still is the same house, but there are some non-structural differences in the design.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
I am not saying that any of them are calling it errata. That is part of my point. Errata is a correction to a work. For it to be the same edition, it would be just that.
Windows software is backwards compatible. Running Win 11, I can run software written for Win 10 or earlier windows versions. But despite it being still Windows and very much of the operating system being very similar to the earlier versions of Windows, they call it a separate version. It is not sold as a version of Win 10 nor as an update or patch for Win 10. When there are refinements of Win 11, those patches (the software equivalent of errata) are offered free because it is Win 11.
What they are doing is the equivalent of Microsoft saying "We have a new version of Win 10 and we are no longer selling the old version, but we are not patching copies of current Win 10 to the new standard." It is a problematic stance.
This is not what they are doing. A Windows change alters the fundamental architecture of your operating system, with massive back-end changes.
Nothing about the fundamental architecture of 5e is changing. You still use the same system to attack, the same saves, the same math for calculating stats, same proficiency bonuses, same everything in terms of how you run the game. The changes that they are making are not changes to the edition’s architecture - they are surface level changes of the kind we have already seen in Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, etc. None of those constituted a new edition of the game.
A better analogy would be a house getting some new wainscoting, paint, and wallpaper. It still is the same house, but there are some non-structural differences in the design.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. A change in Windows version is not the same as say, going from DOS to Windows. It is not that massive a change. If it was, then it would be nowhere near so easy for Windows to be backwards compatible. No version of Windows can, for example, simply emulate iOS or LINUX. It is sufficiently compatible that they do not even call it emulation but rather 'compatibility mode.'
As for your house analogy, if the original seller of the house or even their agent came in and changed the wainscotting, paint and wallpaper without the permission of the current owners, there would most certainly be issues. Even if a landlord did so without tenant approval, there would be issues. And the changes to the game are more than merely cosmetic.
As for your house analogy, if the original seller of the house or even their agent came in and changed the wainscotting, paint and wallpaper without the permission of the current owners, there would most certainly be issues. Even if a landlord did so without tenant approval, there would be issues. And the changes to the game are more than merely cosmetic.
No one is requiring you to use the new wainscoting (which, sorry bud, wainscoting is a functional, not merely cosmetic, change - it just is not a structural one. Perhaps I should have gone with a new oven as my example - I may have been too subtle). You will still have your old books if you own them. It is likely your old license to D&D Beyond will be kept active but in legacy status. No one is coming and forcing you to change if you do not want. You are welcome to continue to live in the aging, dated house of 2014 5e while all your neighbors get appliances which work better - though you may find fewer people want to visit your aged home.
You can push whatever narrative you want, for whatever reason you want - it does not make you right. The reality is that none of the architecture of 5e is changing. I think you know that - it is pretty darn obvious to anyone who has actually followed what is occurring with the update. It truly is not all that hard to understand - particularly if you have been through actual edition changes before.
"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"
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
I am not saying that any of them are calling it errata. That is part of my point. Errata is a correction to a work. For it to be the same edition, it would be just that.
Windows software is backwards compatible. Running Win 11, I can run software written for Win 10 or earlier windows versions. But despite it being still Windows and very much of the operating system being very similar to the earlier versions of Windows, they call it a separate version. It is not sold as a version of Win 10 nor as an update or patch for Win 10. When there are refinements of Win 11, those patches (the software equivalent of errata) are offered free because it is Win 11.
What they are doing is the equivalent of Microsoft saying "We have a new version of Win 10 and we are no longer selling the old version, but we are not patching copies of current Win 10 to the new standard." It is a problematic stance.
It is and isn't.
Let's be frank here and get out of our feelings.
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. They got mad because they couldn't access the old form of the content here on D&D Beyond, the content they paid for. It wasn't a rules correction, it was a lore correction based on biases/racism that the developers believed exist(for the record, so do I) and made those corrections. People were getting big mad when Monsters of the Multiverse came out because they thought it'd erase Volos.
We're in new waters as it relates to D&D and a digital product that is officially run by the company who creates the product. If this was errata, then the fears people keep talking about and posting about on a daily basis more than likely would be on the horizon about content disappearing, characters being rewritten, etc. Shit, some of this almost happened when D&D Beyond SOLD what was essentially the UA version of Eberron and when the real book came out, a lot of features DID go offline for a bit. Granted, this was two administrations ago and I can't specifically blame Wizards for that and that's an important call out here.
This is a revision to player options, but it's not a new edition. It's just not. 3.0 to 3.5 changed underlying game mechanics. The actual flow of combat changed. They specifically made it so that instances of keen(higher critical ranges) did not stack. They changed attacks of opportunity. They made it so ammunition fired from magic weapons counted as a magical attack, previously it hadn't. They changed concealment. Tall and Long creatures had different rulings on reach. I can sit here and go on.
The only rules change I've seen in 2024, and it's not a change so much as it is an addition is the area of effect addition of emanation for spell effects. Everything else functions the same. Same rolls for attack, same types of actions, same types of movement, same types of saves, etc etc etc.
It is modern, it is short, it reflects the edition and the year, and thus it is flexible enough if we get another update to 5e.
Going with 5.5 is backwards in many ways. And i dislike the heavy backwards marketing in the 5.24 books already (references to the cartoon show, some old characters). Using the precedent of 3.5 is out of date anyway. 3.5 was over 20 years ago, and of a edition cycle that only lasted 8 years. 5e meanwhile is having its 10th year, outliving 3.0 and 3.5 combined. Why would they we want to market something that has been outlived, instead of embracing something new! Like the 5.24 books will be something new for a lot of things. While there can be respect payed to prior things, it shouldn't hold back the future.
As for your house analogy, if the original seller of the house or even their agent came in and changed the wainscotting, paint and wallpaper without the permission of the current owners, there would most certainly be issues. Even if a landlord did so without tenant approval, there would be issues. And the changes to the game are more than merely cosmetic.
No one is requiring you to use the new wainscoting (which, sorry bud, wainscoting is a functional, not merely cosmetic, change - it just is not a structural one. Perhaps I should have gone with a new oven as my example - I may have been too subtle). You will still have your old books if you own them. It is likely your old license to D&D Beyond will be kept active but in legacy status. No one is coming and forcing you to change if you do not want. You are welcome to continue to live in the aging, dated house of 2014 5e while all your neighbors get appliances which work better - though you may find fewer people want to visit your aged home.
You can push whatever narrative you want, for whatever reason you want - it does not make you right. The reality is that none of the architecture of 5e is changing. I think you know that - it is pretty darn obvious to anyone who has actually followed what is occurring with the update. It truly is not all that hard to understand - particularly if you have been through actual edition changes before.
The wainscotting was not my analogy. I was merely responding to it and was trying to explain how it is a bad analogy.
This thread is not even about functionality. It is about terminology and version control. Yes, having the old books will still mean having the old books but it is not like 3.5 vs 5 or even 5 vs Pathfinder. This is players getting together and having issues working out which page they are looking at due to books being identically titled despite material differences between them. It is closer to them doing the new version in French, but declaring it the official English edition. In that case, the mechanics might even be literally completely identical but there would still be a language barrier and translation issues between the original versions and those in the new 'official language.'
If none of the architecture is changing, literally nothing material about it changing, then these would be the same books simply with new art. That is not the case. There are very material changes to all the major classes. That is the entire point to this.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Electric Bungaloo 5e, is also a mouthful, but I agree, the pun/reference is quite hilarious. xD
In the long run, we'd just call it 5E, because just look at MONK, why wouldn't we move to the updated revised rules; which in turn, we'd just apply all the other juicy updates. Though when talking about rules: Written 5.14 and 5.24 makes it easier to clarify what is being discussed; Spoken OG5E and updated 5E is simple enough to do.
I don't really understand this drama; but it seems the vocal community really wants to slap a label on it :v
To build on the above, to most folks, the changes and the need for changes are obvious.
1. Martial classes were too linear to play and needed a major refurbishment. Thus was the weapon mastery system born.
2. Entire classes, like Sorcerer, Ranger, and Monk were underperforming and needed an update. Even popular classes could benefit from some changes based on the lessons of a full decade.
3. CR is a well and truly broken system, rendering the 2014 monster manual and every single publication relying on it useless. Everyone knows it and has been complaining about it for a decade. A new, rebalanced MM will help fix this issue and retroactively fix a lot of published adventures.
4. As with pretty much every DMG that came before it, the 2014 DMG focuses on things that a DM really does not need to know. It makes sense to make the flagship product targeted at DMs something that… actually tells you how to DM.
5. Many other aspects of the game could use tweaks based on the last ten years of knowledge. Rebalancing spells that cause gameplay issues, making backgrounds and feats a little more dynamic, etc. We have a whole decade of knowledge on what works and what does not - makes sense to put that knowledge to use.
6. Gary Gygax was a racist and a sexist - by his own admission - who, again by his own admission, added his bigotry to the game. D&D has finally acknowledged this and is taking steps to remove mechanics Gygax explicitly intended to be racist - and wants to make the core books which introduce folks to the game reflect these changes so new players are free from the stain of hate Gygax intentionally left on this game. If you look at the posting history of the loudest voices complaining about the revised edition, you will notice an almost one-to-one ratio of people complaining about the game becoming less racist. This is not a coincidence - they are angry racism is being removed from the game and want to see the least racist version of D&D fail to vindicate their small world views.
And, of course, plenty of other things are being updated, as one would know if they have followed the very public playtesting.
What does not need changing? The actual system. Attack rolls and saves are staying. The skills are staying. The various names of classes are staying. The level cap is staying. The general nature of how you make your character is staying. Nothing about the core elements that make something its own edition are actually changing.
As for why it needs to be a new book? Pretty obvious - most people only buy the core books. You want your flagship products to represent the best the game can be. Saying “eh, here is a good game, but please buy ten years worth of Tasha-like rules bloat to get the full experience” gets increasingly untenable - and now is as good a time as any for a rebalance, ten years of lessons into 5e.
Ya but imo the crux of the argument amounts to
"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.
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 >
And the crux of your argument is... I don't know really. You don't know how editions work?
For a start, changes to character creation, spells and classes has already happened multiple times. Tasha's is the biggest example, but XGtE add more rules, each errata changed a bunch of things. Should we call each of those a new edition too?
And it's already been pointed out multiple times, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But hey ho, folks got to be mad about something.
But the thing is, they are not calling these errata. That would mean giving them for free. But they are not calling them optional rules, either. They are ceasing sales of the 2014 editions. They seem to want it both way.... to sell what is essentially a new edition while acting as if it is merely errata.
I think you misunderstood their comment. They weren't calling the 2024 core rulebooks errata. They weren't saying WotC is calling it errata. They were pointing out that the game has been changed multiple times by multiple books and also by errata. ie the game is constantly changing and evolving and this is just more of the same. The only constant in D&D is that it's constantly changing.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I am not saying that any of them are calling it errata. That is part of my point. Errata is a correction to a work. For it to be the same edition, it would be just that.
Windows software is backwards compatible. Running Win 11, I can run software written for Win 10 or earlier windows versions. But despite it being still Windows and very much of the operating system being very similar to the earlier versions of Windows, they call it a separate version. It is not sold as a version of Win 10 nor as an update or patch for Win 10. When there are refinements of Win 11, those patches (the software equivalent of errata) are offered free because it is Win 11.
What they are doing is the equivalent of Microsoft saying "We have a new version of Win 10 and we are no longer selling the old version, but we are not patching copies of current Win 10 to the new standard." It is a problematic stance.
The basic tenet in all of this is simply ‘it's not a new edition because we say so’.
No point in arguing (unless it is with your wallet).
This is not what they are doing. A Windows change alters the fundamental architecture of your operating system, with massive back-end changes.
Nothing about the fundamental architecture of 5e is changing. You still use the same system to attack, the same saves, the same math for calculating stats, same proficiency bonuses, same everything in terms of how you run the game. The changes that they are making are not changes to the edition’s architecture - they are surface level changes of the kind we have already seen in Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, etc. None of those constituted a new edition of the game.
A better analogy would be a house getting some new wainscoting, paint, and wallpaper. It still is the same house, but there are some non-structural differences in the design.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. A change in Windows version is not the same as say, going from DOS to Windows. It is not that massive a change. If it was, then it would be nowhere near so easy for Windows to be backwards compatible. No version of Windows can, for example, simply emulate iOS or LINUX. It is sufficiently compatible that they do not even call it emulation but rather 'compatibility mode.'
As for your house analogy, if the original seller of the house or even their agent came in and changed the wainscotting, paint and wallpaper without the permission of the current owners, there would most certainly be issues. Even if a landlord did so without tenant approval, there would be issues. And the changes to the game are more than merely cosmetic.
No one is requiring you to use the new wainscoting (which, sorry bud, wainscoting is a functional, not merely cosmetic, change - it just is not a structural one. Perhaps I should have gone with a new oven as my example - I may have been too subtle). You will still have your old books if you own them. It is likely your old license to D&D Beyond will be kept active but in legacy status. No one is coming and forcing you to change if you do not want. You are welcome to continue to live in the aging, dated house of 2014 5e while all your neighbors get appliances which work better - though you may find fewer people want to visit your aged home.
You can push whatever narrative you want, for whatever reason you want - it does not make you right. The reality is that none of the architecture of 5e is changing. I think you know that - it is pretty darn obvious to anyone who has actually followed what is occurring with the update. It truly is not all that hard to understand - particularly if you have been through actual edition changes before.
It is and isn't.
Let's be frank here and get out of our feelings.
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. They got mad because they couldn't access the old form of the content here on D&D Beyond, the content they paid for. It wasn't a rules correction, it was a lore correction based on biases/racism that the developers believed exist(for the record, so do I) and made those corrections. People were getting big mad when Monsters of the Multiverse came out because they thought it'd erase Volos.
We're in new waters as it relates to D&D and a digital product that is officially run by the company who creates the product. If this was errata, then the fears people keep talking about and posting about on a daily basis more than likely would be on the horizon about content disappearing, characters being rewritten, etc. Shit, some of this almost happened when D&D Beyond SOLD what was essentially the UA version of Eberron and when the real book came out, a lot of features DID go offline for a bit. Granted, this was two administrations ago and I can't specifically blame Wizards for that and that's an important call out here.
This is a revision to player options, but it's not a new edition. It's just not. 3.0 to 3.5 changed underlying game mechanics. The actual flow of combat changed. They specifically made it so that instances of keen(higher critical ranges) did not stack. They changed attacks of opportunity. They made it so ammunition fired from magic weapons counted as a magical attack, previously it hadn't. They changed concealment. Tall and Long creatures had different rulings on reach. I can sit here and go on.
The only rules change I've seen in 2024, and it's not a change so much as it is an addition is the area of effect addition of emanation for spell effects. Everything else functions the same. Same rolls for attack, same types of actions, same types of movement, same types of saves, etc etc etc.
5.24
It is modern, it is short, it reflects the edition and the year, and thus it is flexible enough if we get another update to 5e.
Going with 5.5 is backwards in many ways. And i dislike the heavy backwards marketing in the 5.24 books already (references to the cartoon show, some old characters). Using the precedent of 3.5 is out of date anyway. 3.5 was over 20 years ago, and of a edition cycle that only lasted 8 years. 5e meanwhile is having its 10th year, outliving 3.0 and 3.5 combined. Why would they we want to market something that has been outlived, instead of embracing something new! Like the 5.24 books will be something new for a lot of things. While there can be respect payed to prior things, it shouldn't hold back the future.
The wainscotting was not my analogy. I was merely responding to it and was trying to explain how it is a bad analogy.
This thread is not even about functionality. It is about terminology and version control. Yes, having the old books will still mean having the old books but it is not like 3.5 vs 5 or even 5 vs Pathfinder. This is players getting together and having issues working out which page they are looking at due to books being identically titled despite material differences between them. It is closer to them doing the new version in French, but declaring it the official English edition. In that case, the mechanics might even be literally completely identical but there would still be a language barrier and translation issues between the original versions and those in the new 'official language.'
If none of the architecture is changing, literally nothing material about it changing, then these would be the same books simply with new art. That is not the case. There are very material changes to all the major classes. That is the entire point to this.
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.