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

[Maxperson]

In fact he goes so far as to imply that there is as much change as there has ever been from one core to another.

That ought to put to bed the idea that the 2024 PHB isn't at least a half edition change. It won't, but it ought to.

 

[Remathilis]

That ought to put to bed the idea that the 2024 PHB isn't at least a half edition change. It won't, but it ought to.

Ok, so let's agree for that.

"The 2024 books are at least equal to a half, if not full, edition change. And therefore..."

Fill in the rest of that sentence. What does it change that it is?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, so let's agree for that.

"The 2024 books are at least equal to a half, if not full, edition change. And therefore..."

Fill in the rest of that sentence. What does it change that it is?

Nothing, but I was argued with to no end by a lot of folks telling me that the changes were slight and it wasn't enough to be a half edition change. That at best it would be a 5.1e instead of a 5.5e.

 

[Distracted DM]

There wasn't a clear name for it from WotC for some time, probably because as someone earlier pointed out poisoning the well with edition changes. We had OneD&D, which was a name but we were told was a placeholder for it, and then we got "it's the same so no new name..." which didn't help differentiate them.

The two names that I've seen wotc folk use are "revised" and "2024." Revised was only used interviews afaik, the stuff that's on DDB etc. is "PHB 2024" etc. It seems like that's it! 5e2024.. or something in that area

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is entirely sane and reasonable...as has been Snarf's expressions along the line of "why is this still a conversation topic?"

Arguing about what the new books are called (especially when there is an obvious motivation to make it clear that third party material and earlier material published by Wizards of the Coast from 2014 on still work with the new books) is such a low-level use of the mind...categorization being one of the least interesting uses of the intellect.

The naming of the new books also appears to be an easy target for those with a penchant for obsessing over categorization. Their intellect is on display here, especially when compared to other (far more stimulating) topics that people discuss on these boards. I was convinced that one particularly obsessed person was probably a teenager and that is why he or she posts scores of posts daily reiterating the same complaint about categorization and naming, only to read in one of this person's own posts that he or she is much older than being an adolescent. It made me sad.

Thanks for your clarity of expression and thinking, Snarf. I have appreciated your post here as well as your other (more intellectually-stimulating) topics and contributions.

I wanted to reply to this because I love compliments, and quoting you means that they are posted twice!

Uh.... dang it. Sorry, that was my internal monologue. You weren't supposed to see that. What I actually wrote was this-

This is a great point, and to be honest, I hadn't thought of it. After reading it, I can see how some of the pushback is because of the desire to categorize. Not just that, it's about discussing the new releases- how are we going to refer to the newly released products when we want to compare them to the past ones?

See, I liked the 5e champion. But I prefer the 5e champion....

On the other hand, I also think that the discussion for some people represents something else. It's kind of like how an athlete will say, "It's about respect." Sure. It's about the money.

In my opinion, that type of pushback can be .... um ... oh no ... categorized ... in the following ways:

1. WoTC sucks. There are those who just don't like WoTC, and this is something for them to latch on to showing that WoTC is bad, or lying, or something.

2. New Material Junkies. There are also people who want to be able to determine is 5e24 is "new" and make determinations of what is worth getting and not.

3. The lying liars category. Related to (1), those who try to parse every statement to see if WoTC (or anyone working for them) has ever said anything that might lead credence to their position.

Hasbro/WoTC has stated that they want 5e to be an evergreen edition, and they get to call it whatever they want. Now, if you (as in the general you, meaning anyone out there) wants to call it a new edition, that's cool! I mean, I have argued in the past that 1e is different and personally refer to 1e and 1eUA (Unearthed Arcana), and there isn't some law enforcement agency that will come to my house and slap the term from my mouth.

But I just don't see the point in arguing that WoTC must call this a new edition. They aren't. Case closed.

 

[Clint_L]

Would you agree an edition is internally compatible? Because you can't mix and match the 2014 and 2024 character building parts freely.

And if you don't agree, please justify that against what the majority of the industry is doing in terms compatibility within a single edition as well as what Wizard's has done before.

I don't agree, and I don't think you can speak for what "the majority of the industry is doing" because I play a lot of different RPGs and the term "edition" seems to mean whatever each particular publisher needs it to mean for marketing purposes. There is not some sort of widespread gold standard as you seem to think. So I'm not going to play the game of justifying my actual lived experience of playing with the UA against your personal definitions.

In the context of what WotC has previously done, this is distinctly unlike the transition from 3e/3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e. Distinctly. To give one obvious example, you can still use all your existing adventure books for 5e, no problem. Running a party of mixed 2014 and 2024 characters is no problem. All of the core mechanics feel the same; where there are tweaks, they mostly feel intuitive. There is very little learning curve involved, and most of what there is amounts to some new stuff you can do. Most of that is at the class level, so if you want to run a 2014 subclass using the 2024 class chassis, it's been no problem.

You do you. Call it what you want. Folks actually playing it will find that it is not like previous edition changes. Which is the point - arguing about semantics changes nothing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

On top of Snarf's excellent point about how, if we limit ourselves to simply WoTC, we have three entirely incompatible systems [and 5e24 is not incompatible], what other groups in the industry are we measuring?

Paizo? PAthfinder 2e is using an entirely new system of actions that was never in place for 1e, they are incompatible. Warhammer? They barely do editions, and when they do it seems to be largely tweaks and changes, the same as Savage Worlds.

So I'm honestly puzzled who this majority is, because if I start looking at Shadowrun and we decide that is largely tweaks... then WoTC atarts looking like the outlier!

To be fair, how D&D does it is never really an outlier where the TTRPG industry is concerned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is entirely sane and reasonable...as has been Snarf's expressions along the line of "why is this still a conversation topic?"

Arguing about what the new books are called (especially when there is an obvious motivation to make it clear that third party material and earlier material published by Wizards of the Coast from 2014 on still work with the new books) is such a low-level use of the mind...categorization being one of the least interesting uses of the intellect.

The naming of the new books also appears to be an easy target for those with a penchant for obsessing over categorization. Their intellect is on display here, especially when compared to other (far more stimulating) topics that people discuss on these boards. I was convinced that one particularly obsessed person was probably a teenager and that is why he or she posts scores of posts daily reiterating the same complaint about categorization and naming, only to read in one of this person's own posts that he or she is much older than being an adolescent. It made me sad.

Thanks for your clarity of expression and thinking, Snarf. I have appreciated your post here as well as your other (more intellectually-stimulating) topics and contributions.

Do you realize how insulting this statement is?

 

[Hatmatter]

I wanted to reply to this because I love compliments, and quoting you means that they are posted twice!

Uh.... dang it. Sorry, that was my internal monologue. You weren't supposed to see that. What I actually wrote was this-

This is a great point, and to be honest, I hadn't thought of it. After reading it, I can see how some of the pushback is because of the desire to categorize. Not just that, it's about discussing the new releases- how are we going to refer to the newly released products when we want to compare them to the past ones?

See, I liked the 5e champion. But I prefer the 5e champion....

On the other hand, I also think that the discussion for some people represents something else. It's kind of like how an athlete will say, "It's about respect." Sure. It's about the money.

In my opinion, that type of pushback can be .... um ... oh no ... categorized ... in the following ways:

1. WoTC sucks. There are those who just don't like WoTC, and this is something for them to latch on to showing that WoTC is bad, or lying, or something.

2. New Material Junkies. There are also people who want to be able to determine is 5e24 is "new" and make determinations of what is worth getting and not.

3. The lying liars category. Related to (1), those who try to parse every statement to see if WoTC (or anyone working for them) has ever said anything that might lead credence to their position.

Hasbro/WoTC has stated that they want 5e to be an evergreen edition, and they get to call it whatever they want. Now, if you (as in the general you, meaning anyone out there) wants to call it a new edition, that's cool! I mean, I have argued in the past that 1e is different and personally refer to 1e and 1eUA (Unearthed Arcana), and there isn't some law enforcement agency that will come to my house and slap the term from my mouth.

But I just don't see the point in arguing that WoTC must call this a new edition. They aren't. Case closed.

I agree on all accounts.

 

[Parmandur]

That ought to put to bed the idea that the 2024 PHB isn't at least a half edition change. It won't, but it ought to.

Half editions are not a thing that exists. So-called "3.5" was the 6th typical edition of the Core ruleboosk. This ia the 9th typical edition.