This is a minor change as far as edition changes go. Probably comparable to the change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition, which was relatively minor.
Even then, it does tend to cause a schism as people don’t switch (due to already knowing the rules and the sunk cost fallacy of already owning the books), and finding players that know your version of the rules becomes tricky. This will mostly affect new people joining established groups.
It gets tricky to switch at the table, as people mix up rules or remember old rules or don’t get how the new rules work at first. There tends to be a lot of checking to see if a rule changed or not. As such, it tends to be easier to switch between campaigns, when you’re already starting new characters. Over time, as people start new games and bring in new players they will slowly switch. And as older players stop playing (often due to life) and new players come in, the new edition will be adopted more and more until it is just the norm.
There’ll likely be fighting and arguing online. People insisting ardently it’s NOT a new edition or that it’s a cash grab and the like. People lamenting changes. The usual online discorse.
I'd like to know a bit more about what it's going to be like when the new edition is widely available. What to expect . .Snip
Well technically this isn't a New edition ... But as I have been playing D&D since 1985, I have seen many different editions released.
1989 - Second Edition - Literally just a clarification of the rules, removal of Grey Hawk as the primary setting, and making adjustments to remove as much of Gary Gygax as possible. I should also mention AD&D was sort of a bridge edition as it added to both 1st and 2nd. So the 2nd ed DMG and PHB fit in perfectly seamless to most groups already running.
1995 - Revised 2nd, aka 2.5 - clearing up the rules, nice looking PHB and DMG, came with a CD rom with a "online" character builder and digital dice roller. The age of the Lap Top DM was born... no change really besides DMs being concerned that the new book might have changed a rule, or nerfed something.
2000 - 3rd Edition/D20 system/SRD and WotC buying TSR. This literally divided the community in half. There was very real hate for third edition, meanwhile the SRD and D20 system opened up a massive amount of new books published by independent companies and creators. The number of players almost doubled over night, so by the time 3.5 was created the community could be divided into specific groups. 1st & 2nd ed players (about 20%), 3rd official only (also about 20%), and people who played all things 3rd and D20 (about 60% I fell here, Deadlands D20 anyone? gawds we need a Deadlands 5e)
2003 - 3.5 it slipped in fairly easily as it was mostly a bug patch, and is the most similar to the D&D 2024 books (not edition) most D&D 3rd players just purchased these books and replaced the older 3rd edition books. Around this time some of the die hard 1st 2nd players finally made the switch as well.
2008 - 4th... overall the best marketed version of D&D to date. Really fun way to play D&D and easy for people to learn to play, this game was not a failure, D&D Insider was DnDB only better. However that 60% of the community that played 3.5 and D20 system games were upset that 4th edition did not include an SRD, and that WotC closed the D20 license. So all our D20 system games had to republish as SRD only. This also caused the long time D&D official magazine publisher to stop publishing official D&D material, and to create their own game system based on the 3rd edition SRD aka Paizo and Pathfinder. 4th edition also failed to meet some hidden goals of Hasbro, we can only assume what those were based on their poor attempt to kill the SRD at this time.
2012 - D&D Next UA testing that lead to 5th edition. Everyone I know jumped onto this instantly, it was testing material and it was already better than pathfinder and 4th edition.
2014 - 5th edition - largest growth in D&D's history since 1980. So yeah this really went well, back was the new 5th SRD and OGL, Creators were running Streams, and Kickstarters, and new online tools made online only games a lot of fun.
2024 --- not an new edition... Revised rules, changes to lore, already selling well, has the community excited, besides the marking choice not to call it an Edition Update ie 3.5, 2.5 generally I think this will be the smoothest and best selling update to the game.
I would say the scope of changes between 1e and at-launch 2e were less (or at most about the same) as the scope of changes between 2014 and 2024. The scope of changes between 3 and 3.5 were (to my memory) less as well.
It's a new edition if people consider it a new edition. There's no objective rule about using the term otherwise.
Given that very few tables/games actually play a pure RAW game to begin with I doubt this will be a problematic transition. yes, it changes some rules but many of the changes are based on homebrew that lots of folks are already doing. yes, it adds some martial ability, but folks were looking for that anyway. probably the biggest change is moving the subclass to L3 for all classes not just most. the "whole new classes" (like the ranger) really aren't, they are improvements on the Xanther/Tasha versions (granted they might still need some further adjustments like the ranger capstone). my real complaint is that they are taking 6 months to roll this out so we can't actually transition till next February rather than next month. yes, I can play with character creation this fall and then focus on the DMG during the winter and relearn the monsters in the late winter/early spring, but I don't really NEED 6 months to make adjustments to my ongoing campaign.
As a librarian, any update of a book is a new “edition.”
As a gamer, looking at the different “editions” of board games and other RPGs that have seven or eight editions, this is also a new edition.
This updates the base rules of the game. It isn’t the same game with different variants of the classes, like Essentials. Conversion is required. It is a different version of the game. It IS a different edition.
Saying it’s the same “edition” is 100% marketing. It isn’t. It’s a new version of the game that happens to be largely backwards compatible.
Saying it’s the same “edition” is 100% marketing. It isn’t. It’s a new version of the game that happens to be largely backwards compatible.
Right. It's very compatible with D&D 2014, but it's not the same thing. There's no Artificer in 2024, for example. And your 2014 PCs are technically "illegal" in this new version.
Saying it’s the same “edition” is 100% marketing. It isn’t. It’s a new version of the game that happens to be largely backwards compatible.
Right. It's very compatible with D&D 2014, but it's not the same thing. There's no Artificer in 2024, for example. And your 2014 PCs are technically "illegal" in this new version.
Artificer is an Eberron exclusive class. The "2024" Eberron book (probably in 2~3 years) will have the new updated Artificer, and Warforge. Also the 2014 versions of the class will not be "illegal" as you can still play using the 2014 PHB & DMG, however if you use a 2024 character in the same game they will have some very clear advantages over the 2014 rules characters. So it would be best to update all characters to the new rules, which seems easy enough for most subclasses. While I personally do not disagree with the literal definition of the word "Edition" and I do roll my eyes over the current WotC stance on the word usage, the change from 2014 to 2024 is less painful than the change from 3.0 to 3.5, and is closer in scale to 1st to 2nd edition. (note 3.0 to 3.5 was almost a seamless transition, it was just changes to clarify rules, and add more options based on the massive amount of books published for D&D from 2000 to 2003. While 1st to 2nd was designed to remove Gary Gygax from D&D so TSR didn't have to pay his overly steep royalties. So basically they removed what he wrote and replaced it with material from other creators, that got paid upfront with no royalties in their contracts.) Which is why 2024 feels very similar to 2nd from 1st, as the biggest changes are to remove the last traces of Gygax. Ironically they are going back to Grey Hawk ... Gygax's campaign setting.
In an interview in which Crawford reveals details about the new PHB, he states that a character made using the 2014 rules can be used at a table using the 2024 ruleset, but it will have to be converted.
Converted. And this is out of the mouth of Crawford. One of the lead designers of the game.
It is obviously pure marketing spin for Wizards of the Coast to say, "We no longer see D&D in terms of editions." And it is gross misuse of the language to call it "misinformation" when people simply question whether or not the 2024 ruleset constitutes a whole new edition of the game. People have a right to do that. Wizards of the Coast can say what they want. But people don't have to agree with them. They aren't the f&* emperors of the universe.
The differences between AD&D and AD&D 2nd. Edition were fewer. So—without lying about how THAC0 was such a "drastic" change—how is it that these are two different editions but 5th. Edition and the new ruleset are not? Just because Wizards of the Coast say so? I'm sorry but I don't let corporations do my thinking for me. If more than enough players face conflict enough at their tables to have them see it is a different game there is nothing Wizards of the Coast can do about that.
WotC saying the 2024 rules don't constitute a new edition is just them saying the version numbers are no longer what signifies an "edition." D&D 5e now encompasses the 2014 ruleset and the 2024 ruleset, but that doesn't mean they're not two separate editions. It just means "5e" is no longer a means of defining that.
This isn't uncommon. Software often stops numerical editions/versions after a while. Without looking it up, what is the current version of Photoshop? Or Chrome? Or MacOS? Do you know? You probably don't, because they stopped using numbers as part of their marketing for these products. D&D 2024 may still be "5e" from a branding perspective, but it's functionally 5.5 or 6 (a lot of people have been using 5.14 and 5.24, which works as well).
Side note: Many people don't remember that THAC0 was actually introduced as an optional rule during 1e. 2e just made it official. So the differences between those editions is even less than one might think.
This isn't uncommon. Software often stops numerical editions/versions after a while. Without looking it up, what is the current version of Photoshop? Or Chrome? Or MacOS?
This isn't quite the same since software you buy won't only work with a specific version of the game. And stuff like Photoshop is subscription based so it's continually patching and is based on the year as much as edition.
This is much more of a hardware change. A PS5 versus as PS4. Or rather, a PS4 Pro and a regular PS4. IF they released games for the PS4 Pro that were only designed to run on that version of the console and would not reliably work on the regular PS4. Because while any given subclass from Xanathar's Guide to Everything MAY work just fine with the 2024 classes, you can bet a subclass from Jallarzi'sTome of Everything in 2026 won't work nearly as well with the 2014 classes. (Name for new book pulled out of my butt as an example.)
Do you know? You probably don't, because they stopped using numbers as part of their marketing for these products.
That and we're on version 127 of Chrome, 16.7 of iOS, and 25.11 of Photoshop. It works a little differently when you release a new version ever 6-24 months rather than once every decade. And the changes tend to be more iterative rather than whole rebuilds. AND you don't have to worry about converting old content. The software handles that invisibly behind the scenes. The fifteen-year-old Photoshop fill will still happily load in the new Photoshop.
But everyone still knows we're on Windows 11.
D&D 2024 may still be "5e" from a branding perspective, but it's functionally 5.5 or 6 (a lot of people have been using 5.14 and 5.24, which works as well).
Right. But the fact that we have three different terms doesn't help people feel like they're part of a unified community. It doesn't make it easy to communicate what books to bring when you're joining a new group.
I'm involved in a local D&D club that holds weekly meet-ups at community centers. If someone says they're running a 5e oneshot and to bring 4th level characters, that doesn't tell people what books are expected and what content is allowed. Ditto if you find an add for a game on Reddit or Discord or join a group on Roll20.
The reality? The core rules are essentially staying the same, other things are just being rebalanced to fix what bas been learned over the past decade. This is just the next iteration in a change occurring since Tasha.. and many of the “updates” are things that have been part of 5e for years. Your old modules will not only work fine, they might work better - assuming the 2025 Monster Manual succeeds in its goal of making monsters more dynamic and with better difficulty assessment.
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
In the end, 5.14 and 5.24 are distinct versions of the game. Whether or not you'll burn in D&D hell for using the word "edition" is between you and your D&D god.
There will always be some people screaming to the high heavens that the rules changes are ruining everything. They were pretty prolific posters during the 3.5 rollout. And, just like now, there was a lot of rage over the changes to the Ranger class.
The essential heart of the D&D game hasn't changed much since i started playing in the 80's and have switched from Basic D&D to AD&D,, added Unearthed Arcana, then jumped to AD&D 2nd Edition, added Complete Class Handbooks and later Combat Options. Then got to 3E and then 3.5. Switched to 4E. Now playing 5E while 5.5 is coming...
Tell me what you want to do and i will tell you what to roll. Rules certainly got more complex and intricate yet refined but if i stop to really think about it, i'm still doing about the same thing.
Make character sheet with stats, race, class abilities and gear.
Roleplay social encounters
Explore places
Initiative & combat
Search for treasure
Level up
I still am loud when scoring a Critical Hit and curse when rolling a nat 1!
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
Honestly, because that's what they chose to call it; naming conventions for versions are inconsistent. 2e was most definitely not new in the same way as 3e, 4e, or 5e. Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not.
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
Honestly, because that's what they chose to call it; naming conventions for versions are inconsistent. 2e was most definitely not new in the same way as 3e, 4e, or 5e. Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not.
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
Honestly, because that's what they chose to call it; naming conventions for versions are inconsistent. 2e was most definitely not new in the same way as 3e, 4e, or 5e. Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not.
Eh, Crawford disagrees with you. We'll see next month.
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.
Eh, Crawford disagrees with you. We'll see next month.
Crawford has said some dumb things, but previews have been pretty consistent that this is a "some conversion required" release, not a "conversion is impossible, best you can do is something thematically similar" release.
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
Honestly, because that's what they chose to call it; naming conventions for versions are inconsistent. 2e was most definitely not new in the same way as 3e, 4e, or 5e. Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not.
More-or-less true, but 5e is the first time they've done a significant revision with the intention of back-compatibility. (Except maybe 3.5; I didn't play through that transition, so can't speak on its compatibility nor its significance.)
I look at edition changes first and foremost in terms of rules. If you know how to play 5e14, and you sit down at a table and are handed a character sheet from 5e24, you'll be able to sit down and play with almost no friction. You may have a somewhat different set of abilities than you were expecting, but you will understand how they work. If you brought your old character sheet, it'll work. It may have a somewhat rougher time of it than a new character would, but it'll be playable.
The 1e-2e transition was, IIRC, somewhat rougher than that, but it's been long enough that I don't remember most of the details. THAC0 may have been the most memorable, but there was a lot of adjustment in there. They eliminated at least one class from 1e, restructured some others, added a skill system, etc. It was probably at the level of "you mostly know how to play, but you can't just drop an old character in." Does that make it a "proper" new edition? I dunno.
There's a case to be made that 1e had at least one change within its lifespan that was bigger than what we're looking at now -- Unearthed Arcana added a bunch of new classes, changed how some of the old ones worked (paladin as subclass of cavalier is the one I remember), and added an entirely new stat.
There are probably cases to be made that 1e's adding a skill system and 2e's adding kits were also significant edition discontinuities, but neither are as disruptive as UA ought to have been.
I look at edition changes first and foremost in terms of rules. If you know how to play 5e14, and you sit down at a table and are handed a character sheet from 5e24, you'll be able to sit down and play with almost no friction.
I would say if there's no single answer to a rules/mechanic question, you're dealing with two different editions. "What are the wizard subclasses in 5e?" has no single answer. You need to specifiy which 5e you're talking about, or provide two mutually-exclusive answers.
There are probably cases to be made that 1e's adding a skill system and 2e's adding kits were also significant edition discontinuities, but neither are as disruptive as UA ought to have been.
Because they were optional rules rather than automatically applied to everything. Versions really come in four-ish degrees of severity:
Bugfixes: People not affected by the bug will probably not even notice it.
Features: Adds new options to a base edition, but doesn't invalidate anything in the base edition (though sometimes the new options are so much better that they essentially invalidate core features).
Conversion Required: you can still mostly use your existing setup, but requires a conversion process.
New Product: your existing product is really only useful for inspiration.
3e, 4e, and 5e all fit in category 4.
2e, 3.5e, arguably 4e essentials (it was kind of a (3) for the DM and a (2) for the players), and (from the looks of things), D&D 2024 all fit in category 3.
Books like Skills and Powers, Kits, Complete Handbooks, and XGTE fit in category 2.
Category 1 is mostly 'new printing with all errata applied'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a minor change as far as edition changes go. Probably comparable to the change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition, which was relatively minor.
Even then, it does tend to cause a schism as people don’t switch (due to already knowing the rules and the sunk cost fallacy of already owning the books), and finding players that know your version of the rules becomes tricky. This will mostly affect new people joining established groups.
It gets tricky to switch at the table, as people mix up rules or remember old rules or don’t get how the new rules work at first. There tends to be a lot of checking to see if a rule changed or not. As such, it tends to be easier to switch between campaigns, when you’re already starting new characters. Over time, as people start new games and bring in new players they will slowly switch. And as older players stop playing (often due to life) and new players come in, the new edition will be adopted more and more until it is just the norm.
There’ll likely be fighting and arguing online. People insisting ardently it’s NOT a new edition or that it’s a cash grab and the like. People lamenting changes. The usual online discorse.
Well technically this isn't a New edition ... But as I have been playing D&D since 1985, I have seen many different editions released.
1989 - Second Edition - Literally just a clarification of the rules, removal of Grey Hawk as the primary setting, and making adjustments to remove as much of Gary Gygax as possible. I should also mention AD&D was sort of a bridge edition as it added to both 1st and 2nd. So the 2nd ed DMG and PHB fit in perfectly seamless to most groups already running.
1995 - Revised 2nd, aka 2.5 - clearing up the rules, nice looking PHB and DMG, came with a CD rom with a "online" character builder and digital dice roller. The age of the Lap Top DM was born... no change really besides DMs being concerned that the new book might have changed a rule, or nerfed something.
2000 - 3rd Edition/D20 system/SRD and WotC buying TSR. This literally divided the community in half. There was very real hate for third edition, meanwhile the SRD and D20 system opened up a massive amount of new books published by independent companies and creators. The number of players almost doubled over night, so by the time 3.5 was created the community could be divided into specific groups. 1st & 2nd ed players (about 20%), 3rd official only (also about 20%), and people who played all things 3rd and D20 (about 60% I fell here, Deadlands D20 anyone? gawds we need a Deadlands 5e)
2003 - 3.5 it slipped in fairly easily as it was mostly a bug patch, and is the most similar to the D&D 2024 books (not edition) most D&D 3rd players just purchased these books and replaced the older 3rd edition books. Around this time some of the die hard 1st 2nd players finally made the switch as well.
2008 - 4th... overall the best marketed version of D&D to date. Really fun way to play D&D and easy for people to learn to play, this game was not a failure, D&D Insider was DnDB only better. However that 60% of the community that played 3.5 and D20 system games were upset that 4th edition did not include an SRD, and that WotC closed the D20 license. So all our D20 system games had to republish as SRD only. This also caused the long time D&D official magazine publisher to stop publishing official D&D material, and to create their own game system based on the 3rd edition SRD aka Paizo and Pathfinder. 4th edition also failed to meet some hidden goals of Hasbro, we can only assume what those were based on their poor attempt to kill the SRD at this time.
2012 - D&D Next UA testing that lead to 5th edition. Everyone I know jumped onto this instantly, it was testing material and it was already better than pathfinder and 4th edition.
2014 - 5th edition - largest growth in D&D's history since 1980. So yeah this really went well, back was the new 5th SRD and OGL, Creators were running Streams, and Kickstarters, and new online tools made online only games a lot of fun.
2024 --- not an new edition... Revised rules, changes to lore, already selling well, has the community excited, besides the marking choice not to call it an Edition Update ie 3.5, 2.5 generally I think this will be the smoothest and best selling update to the game.
Re: "Edition"
I would say the scope of changes between 1e and at-launch 2e were less (or at most about the same) as the scope of changes between 2014 and 2024. The scope of changes between 3 and 3.5 were (to my memory) less as well.
It's a new edition if people consider it a new edition. There's no objective rule about using the term otherwise.
Given that very few tables/games actually play a pure RAW game to begin with I doubt this will be a problematic transition. yes, it changes some rules but many of the changes are based on homebrew that lots of folks are already doing. yes, it adds some martial ability, but folks were looking for that anyway. probably the biggest change is moving the subclass to L3 for all classes not just most. the "whole new classes" (like the ranger) really aren't, they are improvements on the Xanther/Tasha versions (granted they might still need some further adjustments like the ranger capstone). my real complaint is that they are taking 6 months to roll this out so we can't actually transition till next February rather than next month. yes, I can play with character creation this fall and then focus on the DMG during the winter and relearn the monsters in the late winter/early spring, but I don't really NEED 6 months to make adjustments to my ongoing campaign.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
As a librarian, any update of a book is a new “edition.”
As a gamer, looking at the different “editions” of board games and other RPGs that have seven or eight editions, this is also a new edition.
This updates the base rules of the game. It isn’t the same game with different variants of the classes, like Essentials. Conversion is required. It is a different version of the game. It IS a different edition.
Saying it’s the same “edition” is 100% marketing. It isn’t. It’s a new version of the game that happens to be largely backwards compatible.
Right. It's very compatible with D&D 2014, but it's not the same thing. There's no Artificer in 2024, for example. And your 2014 PCs are technically "illegal" in this new version.
Artificer is an Eberron exclusive class. The "2024" Eberron book (probably in 2~3 years) will have the new updated Artificer, and Warforge. Also the 2014 versions of the class will not be "illegal" as you can still play using the 2014 PHB & DMG, however if you use a 2024 character in the same game they will have some very clear advantages over the 2014 rules characters. So it would be best to update all characters to the new rules, which seems easy enough for most subclasses. While I personally do not disagree with the literal definition of the word "Edition" and I do roll my eyes over the current WotC stance on the word usage, the change from 2014 to 2024 is less painful than the change from 3.0 to 3.5, and is closer in scale to 1st to 2nd edition. (note 3.0 to 3.5 was almost a seamless transition, it was just changes to clarify rules, and add more options based on the massive amount of books published for D&D from 2000 to 2003. While 1st to 2nd was designed to remove Gary Gygax from D&D so TSR didn't have to pay his overly steep royalties. So basically they removed what he wrote and replaced it with material from other creators, that got paid upfront with no royalties in their contracts.) Which is why 2024 feels very similar to 2nd from 1st, as the biggest changes are to remove the last traces of Gygax. Ironically they are going back to Grey Hawk ... Gygax's campaign setting.
In an interview in which Crawford reveals details about the new PHB, he states that a character made using the 2014 rules can be used at a table using the 2024 ruleset, but it will have to be converted.
Converted. And this is out of the mouth of Crawford. One of the lead designers of the game.
It is obviously pure marketing spin for Wizards of the Coast to say, "We no longer see D&D in terms of editions." And it is gross misuse of the language to call it "misinformation" when people simply question whether or not the 2024 ruleset constitutes a whole new edition of the game. People have a right to do that. Wizards of the Coast can say what they want. But people don't have to agree with them. They aren't the f&* emperors of the universe.
The differences between AD&D and AD&D 2nd. Edition were fewer. So—without lying about how THAC0 was such a "drastic" change—how is it that these are two different editions but 5th. Edition and the new ruleset are not? Just because Wizards of the Coast say so? I'm sorry but I don't let corporations do my thinking for me. If more than enough players face conflict enough at their tables to have them see it is a different game there is nothing Wizards of the Coast can do about that.
WotC saying the 2024 rules don't constitute a new edition is just them saying the version numbers are no longer what signifies an "edition." D&D 5e now encompasses the 2014 ruleset and the 2024 ruleset, but that doesn't mean they're not two separate editions. It just means "5e" is no longer a means of defining that.
This isn't uncommon. Software often stops numerical editions/versions after a while. Without looking it up, what is the current version of Photoshop? Or Chrome? Or MacOS? Do you know? You probably don't, because they stopped using numbers as part of their marketing for these products. D&D 2024 may still be "5e" from a branding perspective, but it's functionally 5.5 or 6 (a lot of people have been using 5.14 and 5.24, which works as well).
Side note: Many people don't remember that THAC0 was actually introduced as an optional rule during 1e. 2e just made it official. So the differences between those editions is even less than one might think.
This isn't quite the same since software you buy won't only work with a specific version of the game. And stuff like Photoshop is subscription based so it's continually patching and is based on the year as much as edition.
This is much more of a hardware change. A PS5 versus as PS4. Or rather, a PS4 Pro and a regular PS4. IF they released games for the PS4 Pro that were only designed to run on that version of the console and would not reliably work on the regular PS4.
Because while any given subclass from Xanathar's Guide to Everything MAY work just fine with the 2024 classes, you can bet a subclass from Jallarzi'sTome of Everything in 2026 won't work nearly as well with the 2014 classes.
(Name for new book pulled out of my butt as an example.)
That and we're on version 127 of Chrome, 16.7 of iOS, and 25.11 of Photoshop. It works a little differently when you release a new version ever 6-24 months rather than once every decade. And the changes tend to be more iterative rather than whole rebuilds.
AND you don't have to worry about converting old content. The software handles that invisibly behind the scenes. The fifteen-year-old Photoshop fill will still happily load in the new Photoshop.
But everyone still knows we're on Windows 11.
Right. But the fact that we have three different terms doesn't help people feel like they're part of a unified community. It doesn't make it easy to communicate what books to bring when you're joining a new group.
I'm involved in a local D&D club that holds weekly meet-ups at community centers. If someone says they're running a 5e oneshot and to bring 4th level characters, that doesn't tell people what books are expected and what content is allowed.
Ditto if you find an add for a game on Reddit or Discord or join a group on Roll20.
Ahh, Godwin’s Law. We should have seen that coming. I guess that means it’s officially an edition war?
FWIW, this describes the transition from 1e to 2e. If 2e was a new edition, why isn't 2024? If 2024 isn't a new edition, why was 2e?
In the end, 5.14 and 5.24 are distinct versions of the game. Whether or not you'll burn in D&D hell for using the word "edition" is between you and your D&D god.
There will always be some people screaming to the high heavens that the rules changes are ruining everything. They were pretty prolific posters during the 3.5 rollout. And, just like now, there was a lot of rage over the changes to the Ranger class.
History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes.
The essential heart of the D&D game hasn't changed much since i started playing in the 80's and have switched from Basic D&D to AD&D,, added Unearthed Arcana, then jumped to AD&D 2nd Edition, added Complete Class Handbooks and later Combat Options. Then got to 3E and then 3.5. Switched to 4E. Now playing 5E while 5.5 is coming...
Tell me what you want to do and i will tell you what to roll. Rules certainly got more complex and intricate yet refined but if i stop to really think about it, i'm still doing about the same thing.
Make character sheet with stats, race, class abilities and gear.
Roleplay social encounters
Explore places
Initiative & combat
Search for treasure
Level up
I still am loud when scoring a Critical Hit and curse when rolling a nat 1!
Honestly, because that's what they chose to call it; naming conventions for versions are inconsistent. 2e was most definitely not new in the same way as 3e, 4e, or 5e. Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not.
Eh, Crawford disagrees with you. We'll see next month.
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.
Crawford has said some dumb things, but previews have been pretty consistent that this is a "some conversion required" release, not a "conversion is impossible, best you can do is something thematically similar" release.
More-or-less true, but 5e is the first time they've done a significant revision with the intention of back-compatibility. (Except maybe 3.5; I didn't play through that transition, so can't speak on its compatibility nor its significance.)
I look at edition changes first and foremost in terms of rules. If you know how to play 5e14, and you sit down at a table and are handed a character sheet from 5e24, you'll be able to sit down and play with almost no friction. You may have a somewhat different set of abilities than you were expecting, but you will understand how they work. If you brought your old character sheet, it'll work. It may have a somewhat rougher time of it than a new character would, but it'll be playable.
The 1e-2e transition was, IIRC, somewhat rougher than that, but it's been long enough that I don't remember most of the details. THAC0 may have been the most memorable, but there was a lot of adjustment in there. They eliminated at least one class from 1e, restructured some others, added a skill system, etc. It was probably at the level of "you mostly know how to play, but you can't just drop an old character in." Does that make it a "proper" new edition? I dunno.
There's a case to be made that 1e had at least one change within its lifespan that was bigger than what we're looking at now -- Unearthed Arcana added a bunch of new classes, changed how some of the old ones worked (paladin as subclass of cavalier is the one I remember), and added an entirely new stat.
There are probably cases to be made that 1e's adding a skill system and 2e's adding kits were also significant edition discontinuities, but neither are as disruptive as UA ought to have been.
I would say if there's no single answer to a rules/mechanic question, you're dealing with two different editions. "What are the wizard subclasses in 5e?" has no single answer. You need to specifiy which 5e you're talking about, or provide two mutually-exclusive answers.
Because they were optional rules rather than automatically applied to everything. Versions really come in four-ish degrees of severity: