It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Not even a new concept in D&D see 1st edition, AD&D, and 2nd Edition.
However, the last two edition changes weren’t forwards or backwards compatible. Hence, “new edition” has a particular baggage that they didn’t want this version to carry and therefore they have decided not to call this a new edition.
There is no universally agreed definition of an edition change in table-top role-playing games. My definition, your definition and old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh’s definition might all be completely different. Thus, the only definition which matters here is the definition of the people who publish the game.
There’s no point continuing to argue whether to call this a new edition or not. The only point of interest is how far they achieve their goal of backwards compatibility.
I'm not arguing any point. I'm just stating facts some might not know. Hells, after some of the reveals at this point, the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 might have been less significant than the changes from 2014 to 2024. But my opening question wasn't this should be thought of as a new edition or not, but what is the easiest way to communicate which DMG/PHB is being used.
IMO the debate this a different edition or not is deflection of the real point, what should we call it. Me I'm calling it "five point five" or "five by five" when feeling silly. I'm however still considering calling it "five two four" simple is what I want to use, and what the community chooses will inevitably be the best choice.
Just because some marketing guy/gal/pal wants to call it "the twenty twenty four players hand book" because WotC had a bad experience with 4th edition, is no matter to me.
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
What, pray tell, are the “problems” of calling it a revised version of 5e?
The problems of calling it a new edition are manifold. It causes unnecessary fear in the hearts of individuals who think their content will become invalid. It implies there is some kind of fundamental rules update, even though the core mechanics are exactly the same. It brings to mind “edition wars” sentiments which often fracture the community. It implies you will have to learn a new system to play, even though the system is the same as it has been for the past decade. It plays into the hands of the folks who are trying to make the least racist version of D&D fail by stoking these fears. Etc.
Recognizing reality and calling it a revised version of 5e does, what exactly? I mean, it is a bit harder to type than “6e” - but that is not a real problem. Real problems are the ones caused by incorrectly referring to it as 6e.
Am I the only one thinkin' y'all taking this way to damn seriously?
We're several pages beyond simple "I'll just call it XYZ" and into full blown back-n-forth arguments now. Like why debate what it should be called? Call it whatever you want. Hell, don't even need to call it D&D if you don't wanna, like call it the game of flipalip if that's what's preferred at your table. WotC ain't sendin' the Naming Convention Police to your door about it. Whether it's a new edition, not a new one, why gives a shite either way? None of that matters. If ya like it, play it, if ya don't then don't and call it whatever the fluffing feck you like. Like some rules and not others? Mix and match! Who cares about backwards compatible? 5th wasn't backwards compatible to 4th, yet people still play 5th with some 4th edition rules thrown in.
Following this thread has been like an aneurysm in slow motion. So much arguing over something so irrelevant. WotC will name it what they want and nothing stated here will change that. You can name it whatever you want because it doesn't matter. So many peeps here trying to "convince" each other about what it should be called like you got any say? Peep A can say 6th ed, Peep B can say 5.5, Peep C can say latest rules of 5th, - all 3 will know what it meant, so it's just personal preference. Why so much fuss?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Not even a new concept in D&D see 1st edition, AD&D, and 2nd Edition.
However, the last two edition changes weren’t forwards or backwards compatible. Hence, “new edition” has a particular baggage that they didn’t want this version to carry and therefore they have decided not to call this a new edition.
There is no universally agreed definition of an edition change in table-top role-playing games. My definition, your definition and old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh’s definition might all be completely different. Thus, the only definition which matters here is the definition of the people who publish the game.
There’s no point continuing to argue whether to call this a new edition or not. The only point of interest is how far they achieve their goal of backwards compatibility.
I'm not arguing any point. I'm just stating facts some might not know. Hells, after some of the reveals at this point, the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 might have been less significant than the changes from 2014 to 2024. But my opening question wasn't this should be thought of as a new edition or not, but what is the easiest way to communicate which DMG/PHB is being used.
IMO the debate this a different edition or not is deflection of the real point, what should we call it. Me I'm calling it "five point five" or "five by five" when feeling silly. I'm however still considering calling it "five two four" simple is what I want to use, and what the community chooses will inevitably be the best choice.
Just because some marketing guy/gal/pal wants to call it "the twenty twenty four players hand book" because WotC had a bad experience with 4th edition, is no matter to me.
Sorry; wasn’t specifically you I was addressing. I agree: 5.24 is probably the most concise but accurate code.
Am I the only one thinkin' y'all taking this way to damn seriously?
We're several pages beyond simple "I'll just call it XYZ" and into full blown back-n-forth arguments now. Like why debate what it should be called? Call it whatever you want. Hell, don't even need to call it D&D if you don't wanna, like call it the game of flipalip if that's what's preferred at your table. WotC ain't sendin' the Naming Convention Police to your door about it. Whether it's a new edition, not a new one, why gives a shite either way? None of that matters. If ya like it, play it, if ya don't then don't and call it whatever the fluffing feck you like. Like some rules and not others? Mix and match! Who cares about backwards compatible? 5th wasn't backwards compatible to 4th, yet people still play 5th with some 4th edition rules thrown in.
Following this thread has been like an aneurysm in slow motion. So much arguing over something so irrelevant. WotC will name it what they want and nothing stated here will change that. You can name it whatever you want because it doesn't matter. So many peeps here trying to "convince" each other about what it should be called like you got any say? Peep A can say 6th ed, Peep B can say 5.5, Peep C can say latest rules of 5th, - all 3 will know what it meant, so it's just personal preference. Why so much fuss?
I'm quite curious why mods not locked thread due to this haha
As the thread is getting into non-constructive territory again, I'll be locking this thread.
The conversation on this has run its course, but as I've said before, describing the new books as a new edition creates confusion about the intended support on D&D Beyond, which is why it is inaccurate to describe it as such. 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.
You can call it what you want, but deliberately misleading people into thinking it's a new edition and creating confusion about compatibility and support is not helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
I'm not arguing any point. I'm just stating facts some might not know. Hells, after some of the reveals at this point, the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 might have been less significant than the changes from 2014 to 2024. But my opening question wasn't this should be thought of as a new edition or not, but what is the easiest way to communicate which DMG/PHB is being used.
IMO the debate this a different edition or not is deflection of the real point, what should we call it. Me I'm calling it "five point five" or "five by five" when feeling silly. I'm however still considering calling it "five two four" simple is what I want to use, and what the community chooses will inevitably be the best choice.
Just because some marketing guy/gal/pal wants to call it "the twenty twenty four players hand book" because WotC had a bad experience with 4th edition, is no matter to me.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
What, pray tell, are the “problems” of calling it a revised version of 5e?
The problems of calling it a new edition are manifold. It causes unnecessary fear in the hearts of individuals who think their content will become invalid. It implies there is some kind of fundamental rules update, even though the core mechanics are exactly the same. It brings to mind “edition wars” sentiments which often fracture the community. It implies you will have to learn a new system to play, even though the system is the same as it has been for the past decade. It plays into the hands of the folks who are trying to make the least racist version of D&D fail by stoking these fears. Etc.
Recognizing reality and calling it a revised version of 5e does, what exactly? I mean, it is a bit harder to type than “6e” - but that is not a real problem. Real problems are the ones caused by incorrectly referring to it as 6e.
Am I the only one thinkin' y'all taking this way to damn seriously?
We're several pages beyond simple "I'll just call it XYZ" and into full blown back-n-forth arguments now. Like why debate what it should be called? Call it whatever you want. Hell, don't even need to call it D&D if you don't wanna, like call it the game of flipalip if that's what's preferred at your table. WotC ain't sendin' the Naming Convention Police to your door about it. Whether it's a new edition, not a new one, why gives a shite either way? None of that matters. If ya like it, play it, if ya don't then don't and call it whatever the fluffing feck you like. Like some rules and not others? Mix and match! Who cares about backwards compatible? 5th wasn't backwards compatible to 4th, yet people still play 5th with some 4th edition rules thrown in.
Following this thread has been like an aneurysm in slow motion. So much arguing over something so irrelevant. WotC will name it what they want and nothing stated here will change that. You can name it whatever you want because it doesn't matter. So many peeps here trying to "convince" each other about what it should be called like you got any say? Peep A can say 6th ed, Peep B can say 5.5, Peep C can say latest rules of 5th, - all 3 will know what it meant, so it's just personal preference. Why so much fuss?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Sorry; wasn’t specifically you I was addressing.
I agree: 5.24 is probably the most concise but accurate code.
I'm quite curious why mods not locked thread due to this haha
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAs the thread is getting into non-constructive territory again, I'll be locking this thread.
The conversation on this has run its course, but as I've said before, describing the new books as a new edition creates confusion about the intended support on D&D Beyond, which is why it is inaccurate to describe it as such. 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.
You can call it what you want, but deliberately misleading people into thinking it's a new edition and creating confusion about compatibility and support is not helpful.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources