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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree on all accounts.

Excellent! You know, I've been looking for a signature ... now I have it!

 

[soviet]

What edition of this debate are we on?

 

[BookTenTiger]

What edition of this debate are we on?

Don't you know? It's now a Forever Edition Debate. It will never end.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Don't call people stupid on these forums. I hope that's really clear to your superior intellect.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

What edition of this debate are we on?

Advanced 6.5.24 Revised

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't you know? It's now a Forever Edition Debate. It will never end.

Well, we always wanted an, um ... Evergreen Debate.

I'll show myself out now.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

We've been through this many times. Publishing editions are not the same as D&D editions. They have different numbers.

 

[Parmandur]

We've been through this many times. Publishing editions are not the same as D&D editions. They have different numbers.

D&D editions have no rhyme or reason, it's always been marketing BS. In the 70s/8]s driven by cochise and spite, them later driven by money.

At least this time the reason for the obfuscation is actually pretty decent, to make it clear to people that their books are still useable.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D editions have no rhyme or reason, it's always been marketing BS. In the 70s/8]s driven by cochise and spite, them later driven by money.

What motivated the changes isn't relevant to anything. They were created and numbered and they do have both rhyme and reason. Numerical from 1 to 5 is a pretty reasonable way to do it, regardless of what motivated the change from one to the next.

 

[Parmandur]

What motivated the changes isn't relevant to anything. They were created and numbered and they do have both rhyme and reason. Numerical from 1 to 5 is a pretty reasonable way to do it, regardless of what motivated the change from one to the next.

The numbering is nonsense, and always was nonsense from the start: 1E was not the first edition, 2E was the third edition the way books are normally numbered, 3E was the fifth, "3.5" was the 5th. "5E" was the 8th typical edition! None of this makes any sense.