D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[Yaarel]

They have a different design philosophy, and are labeled as separate editions, so they are separate. I mostly used the core rules for 1e and the supplements for 2e when we played. We did that from '88 to '14, with a brief hiatus in '01 for 3e, and in '10 for 4e.

Old school often used the 1e core with 2e supplements.

Now might be the other way around.

Players use the 2024 core with 2014 supplements.

Because the schedule for new D&D books will probably continue to be slow, players will continue to rely on 2014 content for years.

Then we switched to 5e until '18 when my friend passed away and the group broke up. I've been flailing ever since.

I am sorry for your loss of your friend.

 

[Remathilis]

They have a different design philosophy, and are labeled as separate editions, so they are separate. I mostly used the core rules for 1e and the supplements for 2e when we played. We did that from '88 to '14, with a brief hiatus in '01 for 3e, and in '10 for 4e. Then we switched to 5e until '18 when my friend passed away and the group broke up. I've been flailing ever since.

I was the reverse; I ran 2e Core Rules and only occasionally used 1e sources.

• I ran 1e modules, converting to 2e when needed especially when it came to monster stats and magic items. (And let me say, 2e monsters beat the snot out of their 1e versions, especially dragons, giants and undead).
• I occasionally used spells and PC options from 1e, though considering how prolific 2e was, there were scant few things that didn't have an official 2e conversion by the mid 90s.
• I never used the 1e version of anything that had a 2e version. I would have never allowed a 1e ranger at the table with a 2e ranger, for example. If someone brought their 1e PHB, I'd kindly direct them to the 2e book.

Of course, the biggest problem with 2e wasn't that it was only somewhat compatible with 1e, it was that it was only somewhat compatible with 2e! The rules for 2e changes a half-dozen times over the course of its lifespan, mostly in errata and variants found in specific sourcebooks.

 

[mamba]

I backed the Kickstarter. It's a great book, but it is essentially a big supplement. You still need the 2014 PH to use it.

Of course it is a big supplement, that never was in question. The question was is it really less of a change to 5e PHB than moving to the 2024 PHB is.

That adding a class to 5e is less of a change is obvious, just based on scale, that is why I was wondering whether you think your

Replacing the core rules and all the information in them is a bigger deal than using a 3pp supplement with your game.

still holds true with that size of 3pp supplement, because I do not really see it

 

[Clint_L]

The Duck Test tells us this is not the same edition, based on precedents that this company has set. So we still argue.

Speak for yourself. I've had no trouble wrapping my head around it not being a new edition in the way that term has previously been used. At all. It seems obvious to me. I've been using the UA for around a year. It feels like the same game with some upgrades that are mostly intuitive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Replacing the core rules and all the information in them is a bigger deal than using a 3pp supplement with your game. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that was being put forth. Nijay was speaking about the changes to classes, not things like drinking potions as a bonus action.

 

[Azzy]

Both the Easly cover 1E and the 2E alternate covers included enough errata that they got new ISBNs...which means by normal publishing parlance they were new editions of the books.

3E was hence rhe 5th edition of those D&D core books, 3.5 was the 6th, 4E the 7th, 2014 the 8th, and this is now the 9th edition of the Player's Handbook coming up. Using the word edition like a normal book would.

So instead of clearing that up, WotC ia focusing on "your books from the past decade all will still work, full stop".

Personally, I think that WotC realizes that they had poisoned the well long ago with their "editions" being incompatible with the previous edition (unlike the 1e to 2e transition). Now, because the word "edition" carries a context of being incompatible with what's come before, they are eschewing the term.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since Wizard's has purchased it, we have a fairly consistent meaning of edition that matches what a majority of the industry does when it issues a new edition (or does not), as well a clear example of what Wizard's considers a half edition. We also have clear views on what are changes that aren't an edition change, such as essentials for 4e, which while being a significant change did not invalidate any earlier material. I could take races or feats from the 4e PHB with an Essentials class and any other mix-and-match allowed.

Looking to what non-RPG publishing does, or what was done at the very begining of the hobby when the totality of RPG publishers was one, a nigh-amateur when it came to publishing, and standards hadn't roughly formed in the industry yet, are not particularly weighty points compared to what does the industry do now, and what does this specific company do with this specific brand. At least to me.

The Duck Test tells us this is not the same edition, based on precedents that this company has set. So we still argue.

The industry as a whole, huh?

Considering the standard for DnD is "a complete rework of every single subsystem and completely different version of various parts (I mean, just TRY using feats from 3.5 in 5e)" and I know for a fact that Savage Worlds editions are largely "some small wording changes, maybe some changes to a single subsystem" I'm going to press X to doubt that the industry as a whole has accepted the WoTC DnD meaning of editions.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Personally, I'm excited that we will wrap up the "what to call the 2024 books" argument by 2033, so we can finally move on to arguing about "what to call the 2034 books."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was the reverse; I ran 2e Core Rules and only occasionally used 1e sources.

• I ran 1e modules, converting to 2e when needed especially when it came to monster stats and magic items. (And let me say, 2e monsters beat the snot out of their 1e versions, especially dragons, giants and undead).
• I occasionally used spells and PC options from 1e, though considering how prolific 2e was, there were scant few things that didn't have an official 2e conversion by the mid 90s.
• I never used the 1e version of anything that had a 2e version. I would have never allowed a 1e ranger at the table with a 2e ranger, for example. If someone brought their 1e PHB, I'd kindly direct them to the 2e book.

Of course, the biggest problem with 2e wasn't that it was only somewhat compatible with 1e, it was that it was only somewhat compatible with 2e! The rules for 2e changes a half-dozen times over the course of its lifespan, mostly in errata and variants found in specific sourcebooks.

My crew was 1e from the mid '80s. I loved 2e and convinced them to bring it in, but our core was always 1e.

 

[Remathilis]

My crew was 1e from the mid '80s. I loved 2e and convinced them to bring it in, but our core was always 1e.

Why didn't they upgrade to 2e, if I may ask?