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 . .
If you've been through an edition change before, I'd like to know about your experiences and predictions. I'm thinking about rules that are going to change and changes that I might not personally like at least at first blush, even if the net effect of all the changes is good (and maybe to my liking), and perhaps some of the changes that I don't like, might actually make the game better. While I like new and exciting and getting new things, and it seems like the designers likely created something really awesome, I have to admit: I don't much like change. I'm think about perhaps having two sets of rules in my head for at least a while. . I'm also thinking about how quickly people will (and won't) migrate over to the new edition, that different people and people will make different decisions about that.
———————— Edited to say: i very much regret the word choice "new edition". My mistake has been pointed out to me, now, thank you.
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 . .
If you've been through an edition change before, I'd like to know about your experiences and predictions. I'm thinking about rules that are going to change and changes that I might not personally like at least at first blush, even if the net effect of all the changes is good (and maybe to my liking), and perhaps some of the changes that I don't like, might actually make the game better. While I like new and exciting and getting new things, and it seems like the designers likely created something really awesome, I have to admit: I don't much like change. I'm think about perhaps having two sets of rules in my head for at least a while. . I'm also thinking about how quickly people will (and won't) migrate over to the new edition, that different people and people will make different decisions about that.
So one, it's not a new edition. Stop using that terminology.
If it were a new edition, all of the content you have right now would instantly be invalidated. It's not. The way you play the game in terms of the rules would be fundamentally different. They aren't. Having consumed a bunch of content about the new PHB, there are rule clarifications but not flat out fundamental rule changes.
The reality is there isn't a single game of D&D in the world that actually runs rules as written as rules as written. Even Crawford, who writes the rules, runs his table different. That's the mindset to take with this. You're getting new content and new options that work within the construct and rules that you're already used to. Use them or don't. Just like you more than likely already do.
I liked the AD&D2e to D&D3e edition change because it made a lot of the mechanics more internally consistent for how you rolled the dice as well as provided rules for more situations you could encounter.
D&D3e to D&D3.5 was pretty much universally embraced by the people that played D&D3e. I would not call it a new game or new set of rules compared to D&D3e. Stuff was trivially easy to convert from 3e to 3.5.
This "2024" edition feels very similar to the 3/3.5 editions. I am astounded they didn't just call it 5.5, as that's what it is. I would still not call it a new game. That said, a lot of the stuff they are changing in "2024" doesn't really fix issues that people had with 5e. There are other 5e alikes (like Level Up/Advanced 5e) that do the same thing but better in many ways. I think people will end up cherry picking the things they like and don't like from 2024 and porting them back into 5e.
The changes to backgrounds are the opposite direction that literally every other game company went with. PF2e, A5e, and Tales of the Valiant all split "race" into two components, being physical traits and cultural ones. IE all elves have darkvision, but you don't have their weapon training unless you were raised in an elf society. In those systems, you could play an elf raised by dwarves and have the dwarf weapon proficiencies & language instead. Tying ability scores to background also took away from the roleplay element of them. Their optional rule for porting "2014" background is just better from EVERY standpoint. You get the ability scores you want, the background feat you want, more tool/language proficiencies AND a ribbon ability. They should have just made that the default rather than what they have as stock.
The changes to conjure spells on the other hand are much better than "2014". With the limited action economy of 5e the easiest and most surefire way to break the game is by using Conjure Woodland Beings to get 8 CR 1/4 creatures. Your character now has eight additional actions in the form of Blink Dog that can teleport around the battlefield to easily block off enemies, grant advantage to their whole party, or other just generally be a nuisance with. Having the spells be "Wolf-ball" as Sly Flourish puts it makes it much more manageable and balanced for the DM.
Given the hit or miss nature of the rules changes, as well as how controversial other events have been for WotC in recent memory, I think a lot of people (my gaming group included) are going to be much slower to uptake "2024" than 3.5 was by the 3e community.
I liked the AD&D2e to D&D3e edition change because it made a lot of the mechanics more internally consistent for how you rolled the dice as well as provided rules for more situations you could encounter.
D&D3e to D&D3.5 was pretty much universally embraced by the people that played D&D3e. I would not call it a new game or new set of rules compared to D&D3e. Stuff was trivially easy to convert from 3e to 3.5.
Agreed. My experiences through those two edition changes/updates (whatever people want to call them) were pretty much the same. The switch from 2e to 3e was a little bit of a pain in the beginning, but that was just the used-to factor. Once I got over that it really wasn’t so bad.
I started with the pamphlets (0E) and transitioned to Ad&d (1E) which wasn't a major issue as I try to recall back some 40+ years. 1E to 2E took a bit of work to translate characters but wasn't a major problem. Same thing with the 2E to 3E translation. In both cases they provided a guide for converting characters and the actual rules weren't so horribly different that adjusting was hard. As others have said 3E to 3.5E was very smooth - barely noticeable. 3.5E to 4E was horrendous as the entire game changed drastically. 4E to 5E was fairly easy as 5E resembles 2-3.5E in many ways so I was fairly familiar with play style. there were changes and the reduction in magic and limiting of attunement were the major stumbling blocks. I expect the transition to 5.5 to be fairly easy. Characters will have to be converted but that shouldn't be that hard, rules are generally similar but there will be enough little changes to occasionally trip you for a while but nothing serious.
I actually switched off AD&D when 2nd edition came out but this was more to do with being interested in other games at the time. 3rd edition was significant at uniting the fanbase behind a new edition at the time. 3.5 was just an update, with a few tweaks, but essentially the same. 4th edition didn’t feel like D&D and was another turnoff, with 5E (again) being a unification. edition that everybody could get behind. This is the first....um....something....that moderators might admonish you for calling it an edition. The changes are more significant than those of 2.0 to 3.5 though, in my opinion.
I’d guess the problem people will have this time is that the rules are going to be so similar. I’ve seen some of the spell changes, for example, with really subtle differences. Like fireball so longer says it goes around corners and through openings. Lots of those smaller differences will probably get lost in the shuffle and people will continue to use the 14 version of things without realizing it changed. I don’t think it will be game breaking, but it will probably create some moments of, It does what, now?
In the past, when it has actually been an edition change, it was easier in a way, because you knew you were going to have to re-learn everything from the ground up.
Me in the 1980s when I switched from Basic D&D (red box) to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: "OMG there are so many new cool options and ideas, I LOVE it!"
Me in the early 90's skimming the 2e D&D PHB in Walden Books after a year of insisting I'd never update: "Oh wow, those proficiencies are cool. They seem to have included a lot of the things we've been house ruling. I'm in!"
Me at the arrival of 3e D&D: "The heavens have opened and shined a clean mechanic and game system down upon us. I love it! Must. Buy. It. All."
Me at the arrival of 3.5 D&D: "Meh. Cool, but not cool enough. Plus my life's busy with kids, etc."
Me at the arrival of 4th Edition: "This is neat and would sell amazingly well as the World of Warcraft RPG. It doesn't feel like D&D to me plus I'm busy with work and kids so I'll run it twice and not touch anything D&D for a bit."
Me checking back one year after 5th edition released: "I keep hearing good things, let's look. OMG it's the best D&D yet! Feels so much more like D&D than 4e did."
Me today: "D&D 2024 feels like 3.5 did, but the changes are enough that I'm super motivated to update to an improved 5e with 10 years of information to inform the changes. I'm in."
My home game is updating in September. My StartPlaying.Games games are going to as well - I'm on hold there until I have the rules here on D&D Beyond (PHB).
In my experience, there are five big problems with edition changes - only the last two of which I expect to really be relevant to the 2024 rules update.
1. Learning new rules stinks. After playing with a rules system for a while, folks feel comfortable using the system, knowing the major rules by heart and having found ways to address rules quirks. It can take years to build up that level of instinctive knowledge and the idea of starting back at square one is daunting and can keep people from switching. This can result in folks refusing to switch, or at least delaying switching fully until they have more experience.
That really will not be a problem with the 2024 rules update - though there are some slight rules changes, the core rules are all staying the same. There should be no real learning curve on the 2024 rules - no more of a learning curve than dealing with a new class already is. As such, I expect reluctance to adopt 2024 based on not wanting to learn new rules to be at a minimum.
2. There are people who do not like to switch because they like the old rules and do not find the new rules as appealing. Typically, these groups either stay with the old system, or slowly adopt the new system when they do the cost-benefit of “everyone is playing the new rules and it is hard to find players for the old. I would have more fun playing with the new rules I do not like as much than not playing at all.”
Again, since the 2024 update is basically the same set of rules, folks who enjoyed 2014 likely will still enjoy 2024. Once people realize how similar the systems are, I expect this will not be that big of an issue.
3. Lack of content upon release. Historically, edition changes have annihilated old content - old adventures do not work without updates, there are only the base player and monster options found in the core books. Going from a wealth of content to a much smaller pool is… not fun, and many players wait to switch until there is sufficient content to support play.
With all 2014 content being usable in 2024, this issue is not relevant.
4. Cost. One reason folks do not switch is the cost of buying new content. Buying a full set of new core books is not exactly cheap - and buying future content when you already have older content for a prior edition adds to that expense. This likely will be a barrier to entry though not as high of a barrier as a true edition switch, due to the backwards compatibility meaning you already have relevant content to the 2024 rules.
5. There will be Luddites who, for whatever reason, do not plan to switch and have no intention of giving the new rules a shot. Often these folks try to start “edition wars” arguments online - something we have already been seeing since the playtest started. These folks tend to be a very loud, very active online, but not overly large - and generally insignificant - section of the player base.
I went straight from learning the new-at-the-time 2e rules, to taking a 20+ year break, to learning the 5e rules. I have mixed feelings about all the changes I discovered, as I learned them.
Regarding this new batch of changes. . . I have no opinion worth sharing as I'm still learning the last batch of new stuff.
As it is not a new edition and just a revision of 5e, it will be barely noticable past character creation, a couple of select rules and standardising some stuff. The big difference when you read the books is that the revisions seem smarter with organisation and wording, making it easier to get into the game for new players, and to find specific information in the book, which should be a big help for both players and DMs.
For major edition changes (2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th, 4th to 4th), I recommend just finishing up the campaign you're in and starting a new campaign in the new edition. You could convert everything over, but it often doesn't translate well.
Thankfully, this is just a minor update, like from 3e to 3.5. You can very fairly easily start using the new rules with existing characters & campaigns. The differences are minor enough that it shouldn't be a big deal. That being said, if you're near the end of a campaign, I don't think I'd bother. It's easier just to stick with what you have and finish it out.
One of the biggest problems with moving to a new edition is remembering the wrong rule. Having played a half dozen editions, sometimes I have to stop and think if the rule I'm remembering applies to this edition or some other edition.
Don't expect to know all the changes to all the rules right away, and don't sweat the ones you get wrong. It really doesn't matter if you're playing "surprised" as disadvantage on initiative, or "can't act on the first round" ... either one works. Nobody plays all the rules correctly. And almost nobody just sits down and reads a 300 page book from cover to cover and internalizes all the tiny nuances of rules changes in it.
You'll gradually come to get used to the changes in 5.5, and one day you'll look back at a rule that was different in 5e and wonder how you ever played it like that.
Welcome to your first new edition! It's fun! It's almost like experiencing the game for the first time all over again!
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 . .
If you've been through an edition change before, I'd like to know about your experiences and predictions. I'm thinking about rules that are going to change and changes that I might not personally like at least at first blush, even if the net effect of all the changes is good (and maybe to my liking), and perhaps some of the changes that I don't like, might actually make the game better. While I like new and exciting and getting new things, and it seems like the designers likely created something really awesome, I have to admit: I don't much like change. I'm think about perhaps having two sets of rules in my head for at least a while. . I'm also thinking about how quickly people will (and won't) migrate over to the new edition, that different people and people will make different decisions about that.
Switching from 1e to 2e stunk. I absolutely hated 2e. Then someone bought out TSR and came out with 3e which was a totally different game. And 3.5e didn't make it any better. I completely ignored 4e. When 5e came out I sort of gave it some attention. I had nothing good to say about the D20 game system. In my mind 1e's mechanics were gold.
Now that we have 2024 D&D, I think I will actually play this if I find a competent DM. I still don't care for D20, but it is what it is.
So one, it's not a new edition. Stop using that terminology.
If it were a new edition, all of the content you have right now would instantly be invalidated. It's not. The way you play the game in terms of the rules would be fundamentally different. They aren't. Having consumed a bunch of content about the new PHB, there are rule clarifications but not flat out fundamental rule changes.
The reality is there isn't a single game of D&D in the world that actually runs rules as written as rules as written. Even Crawford, who writes the rules, runs his table different. That's the mindset to take with this. You're getting new content and new options that work within the construct and rules that you're already used to. Use them or don't. Just like you more than likely already do.
Is it just a new printing of exactly the same ruleset? It is not. In the book space the very same novel put out by the very same publisher constitutes a whole new edition of the book if they make a change even as minimal as adding a new introduction. If it's not a new edition what is it? What category does it fall into? One Wizards of the Coast have just made up?
So one, it's not a new edition. Stop using that terminology.
If it were a new edition, all of the content you have right now would instantly be invalidated. It's not. The way you play the game in terms of the rules would be fundamentally different. They aren't. Having consumed a bunch of content about the new PHB, there are rule clarifications but not flat out fundamental rule changes.
The reality is there isn't a single game of D&D in the world that actually runs rules as written as rules as written. Even Crawford, who writes the rules, runs his table different. That's the mindset to take with this. You're getting new content and new options that work within the construct and rules that you're already used to. Use them or don't. Just like you more than likely already do.
Is it just a new printing of exactly the same ruleset? It is not. In the book space the very same novel put out by the very same publisher constitutes a whole new edition of the book if they make a change even as minimal as adding a new introduction. If it's not a new edition what is it? What category does it fall into? One Wizards of the Coast have just made up?
Edition is a term of art within the gaming industry - it has taken on a completely independent meaning than the product’s ISBN number.
Within the industry, an “edition change” means there were substantive and substantial changes to the core rules. 2e substantially modified earlier versions of D&D through massive changes like THAC0. 3e added the d20 system. 3.5 was not a true edition change since it focused on rebalancing 3e - it would have had a new ISBN number, but did not go so far as to substantially alter the d20 system. 4e fundamentally changed the game’s mechanics to an ability based system. 5e went fundamentally changed to the system we play today.
The 2024 rules are not the kind of update which constitutes an edition change within the meaning of the specific industry. The 5e core system is essentially staying the same. This is far closer to the 3e to 3.5 change than an edition change - and, from what I have seen thus far, the changes are even more minor than the ones between 3e and 3.5.
So, while you are correct insofar as there will be a new ISBN number, you are looking at the completely wrong definition of “edition” - you are using a literary definition instead of the tabletop gaming definition as applied here.
From a common sense approach, this makes sense - we do not call something like Tasha’s, which updates the rules and has a unique ISBN number, a new edition.
Edition is a term of art within the gaming industry - it has taken on a completely independent meaning than the product’s ISBN number.
Within the industry, an “edition change” means there were substantive and substantial changes to the core rules. 2e substantially modified earlier versions of D&D through massive changes like THAC0. 3e added the d20 system. 3.5 was not a true edition change since it focused on rebalancing 3e - it would have had a new ISBN number, but did not go so far as to substantially alter the d20 system. 4e fundamentally changed the game’s mechanics to an ability based system. 5e went fundamentally changed to the system we play today.
The 2024 rules are not the kind of update which constitutes an edition change within the meaning of the specific industry. The 5e core system is essentially staying the same. This is far closer to the 3e to 3.5 change than an edition change - and, from what I have seen thus far, the changes are even more minor than the ones between 3e and 3.5.
So, while you are correct insofar as there will be a new ISBN number, you are looking at the completely wrong definition of “edition” - you are using a literary definition instead of the tabletop gaming definition as applied here.
From a common sense approach, this makes sense - we do not call something like Tasha’s, which updates the rules and has a unique ISBN number, a new edition.
No one calls Tasha's "a new edition" despite its carrying a different ISBN because it is a mere supplement to an existing edition. The PHB, DMG, and MM of any given edition have three different ISBNs. No one is questioning whether or not they belong to the same edition either. We are talking about a whole new PHB, DMG, and MM. There is no comparison. Try again.
THAC0 was not a "massive change." The mathematics of THAC0 and that of the tables in 1st. Edition was the same. There are adventure modules during the time of 2nd. Edition that say on the cover they are for use with either AD&D or AD&D 2nd. Edition. in spite of this "massive change." Try again.
I would equate this to the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. Both were compatible, but it became very apparent very quick that no one really wanted to use 3.0 stuff anymore. It didn't feel right, and was wild in its balance. Anyone not seeing 2024 rules set being anything but 5.5 must not have lived through this once before (Ive been playing and DMing since AD&D, so I have seen these refresh cycles a few times)
The bonus we have this time is they have been building towards the changes for a couple years now. Nearly everything since Tasha's has been building on design elements they knew were coming. Origin feats in backgrounds, other feats having +1, Stat bonuses not being ties to races. So its likely those books will be treated as more backwards compatible than most.
This means that what most people will allow is stuff from Fizban's, Monsters of the Multiverse (mostly the species), Glory of the Giants, Van Richens, (Theros, Strix are more likely to fall out of favor due to being settings not related to D&D already). In appropriate games, youll see spelljammer, planescape, and the deck of many also allowed or not based on if those fit the game at hand.
Within a few years, anything not on this list (esp after artificer is release I'm guessing in the DMG with crafting magic item rules being in place) will be basically forgotten or banned at nearly all tables unless its a nostalgia game of 5.0. I would expect once we have artificer updated, and most of the big fan favorite subclasses in, 5.0 will be fully out of style for 99% of games
I would equate this to the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. Both were compatible, but it became very apparent very quick that no one really wanted to use 3.0 stuff anymore. It didn't feel right, and was wild in its balance. Anyone not seeing 2024 rules set being anything but 5.5 must not have lived through this once before (Ive been playing and DMing since AD&D, so I have seen these refresh cycles a few times)
The bonus we have this time is they have been building towards the changes for a couple years now. Nearly everything since Tasha's has been building on design elements they knew were coming. Origin feats in backgrounds, other feats having +1, Stat bonuses not being ties to races. So its likely those books will be treated as more backwards compatible than most.
This means that what most people will allow is stuff from Fizban's, Monsters of the Multiverse (mostly the species), Glory of the Giants, Van Richens, (Theros, Strix are more likely to fall out of favor due to being settings not related to D&D already). In appropriate games, youll see spelljammer, planescape, and the deck of many also allowed or not based on if those fit the game at hand.
Within a few years, anything not on this list (esp after artificer is release I'm guessing in the DMG with crafting magic item rules being in place) will be basically forgotten or banned at nearly all tables unless its a nostalgia game of 5.0. I would expect once we have artificer updated, and most of the big fan favorite subclasses in, 5.0 will be fully out of style for 99% of games
3 to 3.5 had fundamental rule changes. Not clarifications. There were skill removals. They changed how skills functioned. They changed rangers hit die. Feats were combined. They changed damage reduction entirely. Entire spell lists were altered and changed.
This hasn't happened here.
It's why the people calling it 5.5 to me are being silly about it, because it isn't. You can take a 2024 character and run it in a 2014 module with zero conversion. You can run a 2014 character in a 2024 module with zero conversion of that character itself, you just are advised to use the new rules clarity on how that character interacts.
So one, it's not a new edition. Stop using that terminology.
If it were a new edition, all of the content you have right now would instantly be invalidated. It's not. The way you play the game in terms of the rules would be fundamentally different. They aren't. Having consumed a bunch of content about the new PHB, there are rule clarifications but not flat out fundamental rule changes.
The reality is there isn't a single game of D&D in the world that actually runs rules as written as rules as written. Even Crawford, who writes the rules, runs his table different. That's the mindset to take with this. You're getting new content and new options that work within the construct and rules that you're already used to. Use them or don't. Just like you more than likely already do.
Is it just a new printing of exactly the same ruleset? It is not. In the book space the very same novel put out by the very same publisher constitutes a whole new edition of the book if they make a change even as minimal as adding a new introduction. If it's not a new edition what is it? What category does it fall into? One Wizards of the Coast have just made up?
It's a patch, with the option to roll back if you really want to.
It's the same thing Tasha's was or that monsters of the multiverse was. In each instance you are advised you can use the old stuff or new stuff. You can use the optional stuff or not.
Wizards really says that going forward, content will be made with the 2024 patch notes in mind but you can totally take a 2014 hexblade warlock into 2024 since the content will be balanced around the 2024 patch notes.
As was stated, you're attempting to apply a label to this in pre-existing terms, and wizards has said don't do that.
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 . .
If you've been through an edition change before, I'd like to know about your experiences and predictions. I'm thinking about rules that are going to change and changes that I might not personally like at least at first blush, even if the net effect of all the changes is good (and maybe to my liking), and perhaps some of the changes that I don't like, might actually make the game better. While I like new and exciting and getting new things, and it seems like the designers likely created something really awesome, I have to admit: I don't much like change. I'm think about perhaps having two sets of rules in my head for at least a while. . I'm also thinking about how quickly people will (and won't) migrate over to the new edition, that different people and people will make different decisions about that.
————————
Edited to say: i very much regret the word choice "new edition". My mistake has been pointed out to me, now, thank you.
So one, it's not a new edition. Stop using that terminology.
If it were a new edition, all of the content you have right now would instantly be invalidated. It's not. The way you play the game in terms of the rules would be fundamentally different. They aren't. Having consumed a bunch of content about the new PHB, there are rule clarifications but not flat out fundamental rule changes.
The reality is there isn't a single game of D&D in the world that actually runs rules as written as rules as written. Even Crawford, who writes the rules, runs his table different. That's the mindset to take with this. You're getting new content and new options that work within the construct and rules that you're already used to. Use them or don't. Just like you more than likely already do.
I liked the AD&D2e to D&D3e edition change because it made a lot of the mechanics more internally consistent for how you rolled the dice as well as provided rules for more situations you could encounter.
D&D3e to D&D3.5 was pretty much universally embraced by the people that played D&D3e. I would not call it a new game or new set of rules compared to D&D3e. Stuff was trivially easy to convert from 3e to 3.5.
This "2024" edition feels very similar to the 3/3.5 editions. I am astounded they didn't just call it 5.5, as that's what it is. I would still not call it a new game. That said, a lot of the stuff they are changing in "2024" doesn't really fix issues that people had with 5e. There are other 5e alikes (like Level Up/Advanced 5e) that do the same thing but better in many ways. I think people will end up cherry picking the things they like and don't like from 2024 and porting them back into 5e.
Given the hit or miss nature of the rules changes, as well as how controversial other events have been for WotC in recent memory, I think a lot of people (my gaming group included) are going to be much slower to uptake "2024" than 3.5 was by the 3e community.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Agreed. My experiences through those two edition changes/updates (whatever people want to call them) were pretty much the same. The switch from 2e to 3e was a little bit of a pain in the beginning, but that was just the used-to factor. Once I got over that it really wasn’t so bad.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I started with the pamphlets (0E) and transitioned to Ad&d (1E) which wasn't a major issue as I try to recall back some 40+ years. 1E to 2E took a bit of work to translate characters but wasn't a major problem. Same thing with the 2E to 3E translation. In both cases they provided a guide for converting characters and the actual rules weren't so horribly different that adjusting was hard. As others have said 3E to 3.5E was very smooth - barely noticeable. 3.5E to 4E was horrendous as the entire game changed drastically. 4E to 5E was fairly easy as 5E resembles 2-3.5E in many ways so I was fairly familiar with play style. there were changes and the reduction in magic and limiting of attunement were the major stumbling blocks. I expect the transition to 5.5 to be fairly easy. Characters will have to be converted but that shouldn't be that hard, rules are generally similar but there will be enough little changes to occasionally trip you for a while but nothing serious.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I actually switched off AD&D when 2nd edition came out but this was more to do with being interested in other games at the time. 3rd edition was significant at uniting the fanbase behind a new edition at the time. 3.5 was just an update, with a few tweaks, but essentially the same. 4th edition didn’t feel like D&D and was another turnoff, with 5E (again) being a unification. edition that everybody could get behind. This is the first....um....something....that moderators might admonish you for calling it an edition. The changes are more significant than those of 2.0 to 3.5 though, in my opinion.
I’d guess the problem people will have this time is that the rules are going to be so similar. I’ve seen some of the spell changes, for example, with really subtle differences. Like fireball so longer says it goes around corners and through openings. Lots of those smaller differences will probably get lost in the shuffle and people will continue to use the 14 version of things without realizing it changed.
I don’t think it will be game breaking, but it will probably create some moments of, It does what, now?
In the past, when it has actually been an edition change, it was easier in a way, because you knew you were going to have to re-learn everything from the ground up.
Me in the 1980s when I switched from Basic D&D (red box) to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: "OMG there are so many new cool options and ideas, I LOVE it!"
Me in the early 90's skimming the 2e D&D PHB in Walden Books after a year of insisting I'd never update: "Oh wow, those proficiencies are cool. They seem to have included a lot of the things we've been house ruling. I'm in!"
Me at the arrival of 3e D&D: "The heavens have opened and shined a clean mechanic and game system down upon us. I love it! Must. Buy. It. All."
Me at the arrival of 3.5 D&D: "Meh. Cool, but not cool enough. Plus my life's busy with kids, etc."
Me at the arrival of 4th Edition: "This is neat and would sell amazingly well as the World of Warcraft RPG. It doesn't feel like D&D to me plus I'm busy with work and kids so I'll run it twice and not touch anything D&D for a bit."
Me checking back one year after 5th edition released: "I keep hearing good things, let's look. OMG it's the best D&D yet! Feels so much more like D&D than 4e did."
Me today: "D&D 2024 feels like 3.5 did, but the changes are enough that I'm super motivated to update to an improved 5e with 10 years of information to inform the changes. I'm in."
My home game is updating in September. My StartPlaying.Games games are going to as well - I'm on hold there until I have the rules here on D&D Beyond (PHB).
In my experience, there are five big problems with edition changes - only the last two of which I expect to really be relevant to the 2024 rules update.
1. Learning new rules stinks. After playing with a rules system for a while, folks feel comfortable using the system, knowing the major rules by heart and having found ways to address rules quirks. It can take years to build up that level of instinctive knowledge and the idea of starting back at square one is daunting and can keep people from switching. This can result in folks refusing to switch, or at least delaying switching fully until they have more experience.
That really will not be a problem with the 2024 rules update - though there are some slight rules changes, the core rules are all staying the same. There should be no real learning curve on the 2024 rules - no more of a learning curve than dealing with a new class already is. As such, I expect reluctance to adopt 2024 based on not wanting to learn new rules to be at a minimum.
2. There are people who do not like to switch because they like the old rules and do not find the new rules as appealing. Typically, these groups either stay with the old system, or slowly adopt the new system when they do the cost-benefit of “everyone is playing the new rules and it is hard to find players for the old. I would have more fun playing with the new rules I do not like as much than not playing at all.”
Again, since the 2024 update is basically the same set of rules, folks who enjoyed 2014 likely will still enjoy 2024. Once people realize how similar the systems are, I expect this will not be that big of an issue.
3. Lack of content upon release. Historically, edition changes have annihilated old content - old adventures do not work without updates, there are only the base player and monster options found in the core books. Going from a wealth of content to a much smaller pool is… not fun, and many players wait to switch until there is sufficient content to support play.
With all 2014 content being usable in 2024, this issue is not relevant.
4. Cost. One reason folks do not switch is the cost of buying new content. Buying a full set of new core books is not exactly cheap - and buying future content when you already have older content for a prior edition adds to that expense. This likely will be a barrier to entry though not as high of a barrier as a true edition switch, due to the backwards compatibility meaning you already have relevant content to the 2024 rules.
5. There will be Luddites who, for whatever reason, do not plan to switch and have no intention of giving the new rules a shot. Often these folks try to start “edition wars” arguments online - something we have already been seeing since the playtest started. These folks tend to be a very loud, very active online, but not overly large - and generally insignificant - section of the player base.
I went straight from learning the new-at-the-time 2e rules, to taking a 20+ year break, to learning the 5e rules. I have mixed feelings about all the changes I discovered, as I learned them.
Regarding this new batch of changes. . . I have no opinion worth sharing as I'm still learning the last batch of new stuff.
As it is not a new edition and just a revision of 5e, it will be barely noticable past character creation, a couple of select rules and standardising some stuff. The big difference when you read the books is that the revisions seem smarter with organisation and wording, making it easier to get into the game for new players, and to find specific information in the book, which should be a big help for both players and DMs.
For major edition changes (2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th, 4th to 4th), I recommend just finishing up the campaign you're in and starting a new campaign in the new edition. You could convert everything over, but it often doesn't translate well.
Thankfully, this is just a minor update, like from 3e to 3.5. You can very fairly easily start using the new rules with existing characters & campaigns. The differences are minor enough that it shouldn't be a big deal. That being said, if you're near the end of a campaign, I don't think I'd bother. It's easier just to stick with what you have and finish it out.
One of the biggest problems with moving to a new edition is remembering the wrong rule. Having played a half dozen editions, sometimes I have to stop and think if the rule I'm remembering applies to this edition or some other edition.
Don't expect to know all the changes to all the rules right away, and don't sweat the ones you get wrong. It really doesn't matter if you're playing "surprised" as disadvantage on initiative, or "can't act on the first round" ... either one works. Nobody plays all the rules correctly. And almost nobody just sits down and reads a 300 page book from cover to cover and internalizes all the tiny nuances of rules changes in it.
You'll gradually come to get used to the changes in 5.5, and one day you'll look back at a rule that was different in 5e and wonder how you ever played it like that.
Welcome to your first new edition! It's fun! It's almost like experiencing the game for the first time all over again!
Switching from 1e to 2e stunk. I absolutely hated 2e. Then someone bought out TSR and came out with 3e which was a totally different game. And 3.5e didn't make it any better. I completely ignored 4e. When 5e came out I sort of gave it some attention. I had nothing good to say about the D20 game system. In my mind 1e's mechanics were gold.
Now that we have 2024 D&D, I think I will actually play this if I find a competent DM. I still don't care for D20, but it is what it is.
Is it just a new printing of exactly the same ruleset? It is not. In the book space the very same novel put out by the very same publisher constitutes a whole new edition of the book if they make a change even as minimal as adding a new introduction. If it's not a new edition what is it? What category does it fall into? One Wizards of the Coast have just made up?
Edition is a term of art within the gaming industry - it has taken on a completely independent meaning than the product’s ISBN number.
Within the industry, an “edition change” means there were substantive and substantial changes to the core rules. 2e substantially modified earlier versions of D&D through massive changes like THAC0. 3e added the d20 system. 3.5 was not a true edition change since it focused on rebalancing 3e - it would have had a new ISBN number, but did not go so far as to substantially alter the d20 system. 4e fundamentally changed the game’s mechanics to an ability based system. 5e went fundamentally changed to the system we play today.
The 2024 rules are not the kind of update which constitutes an edition change within the meaning of the specific industry. The 5e core system is essentially staying the same. This is far closer to the 3e to 3.5 change than an edition change - and, from what I have seen thus far, the changes are even more minor than the ones between 3e and 3.5.
So, while you are correct insofar as there will be a new ISBN number, you are looking at the completely wrong definition of “edition” - you are using a literary definition instead of the tabletop gaming definition as applied here.
From a common sense approach, this makes sense - we do not call something like Tasha’s, which updates the rules and has a unique ISBN number, a new edition.
No one calls Tasha's "a new edition" despite its carrying a different ISBN because it is a mere supplement to an existing edition. The PHB, DMG, and MM of any given edition have three different ISBNs. No one is questioning whether or not they belong to the same edition either. We are talking about a whole new PHB, DMG, and MM. There is no comparison. Try again.
THAC0 was not a "massive change." The mathematics of THAC0 and that of the tables in 1st. Edition was the same. There are adventure modules during the time of 2nd. Edition that say on the cover they are for use with either AD&D or AD&D 2nd. Edition. in spite of this "massive change." Try again.
I would equate this to the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. Both were compatible, but it became very apparent very quick that no one really wanted to use 3.0 stuff anymore. It didn't feel right, and was wild in its balance. Anyone not seeing 2024 rules set being anything but 5.5 must not have lived through this once before (Ive been playing and DMing since AD&D, so I have seen these refresh cycles a few times)
The bonus we have this time is they have been building towards the changes for a couple years now. Nearly everything since Tasha's has been building on design elements they knew were coming. Origin feats in backgrounds, other feats having +1, Stat bonuses not being ties to races. So its likely those books will be treated as more backwards compatible than most.
This means that what most people will allow is stuff from Fizban's, Monsters of the Multiverse (mostly the species), Glory of the Giants, Van Richens, (Theros, Strix are more likely to fall out of favor due to being settings not related to D&D already). In appropriate games, youll see spelljammer, planescape, and the deck of many also allowed or not based on if those fit the game at hand.
Within a few years, anything not on this list (esp after artificer is release I'm guessing in the DMG with crafting magic item rules being in place) will be basically forgotten or banned at nearly all tables unless its a nostalgia game of 5.0. I would expect once we have artificer updated, and most of the big fan favorite subclasses in, 5.0 will be fully out of style for 99% of games
3 to 3.5 had fundamental rule changes. Not clarifications. There were skill removals. They changed how skills functioned. They changed rangers hit die. Feats were combined. They changed damage reduction entirely. Entire spell lists were altered and changed.
This hasn't happened here.
It's why the people calling it 5.5 to me are being silly about it, because it isn't. You can take a 2024 character and run it in a 2014 module with zero conversion. You can run a 2014 character in a 2024 module with zero conversion of that character itself, you just are advised to use the new rules clarity on how that character interacts.
It's a patch, with the option to roll back if you really want to.
It's the same thing Tasha's was or that monsters of the multiverse was. In each instance you are advised you can use the old stuff or new stuff. You can use the optional stuff or not.
Wizards really says that going forward, content will be made with the 2024 patch notes in mind but you can totally take a 2014 hexblade warlock into 2024 since the content will be balanced around the 2024 patch notes.
As was stated, you're attempting to apply a label to this in pre-existing terms, and wizards has said don't do that.
Truly regret using the wrong word in the original post, any chance of overlooking that mistake, going forward?