RPG Evolution: Change is Coming

WOTC may insist the latest version of D&D isn't a new edition, but third parties have already started labeling it 5.5.

We're All D&D​

It's understandable that Dungeons & Dragon's brand owner Wizards of the Coast doesn't want to identify the latest changes to the game as a new edition. Trying to balance existing customers with future customers isn't easy, and since D&D is largely customized by game masters anyway, some groups may see the transition as largely cosmetic. "Edition Wars" have also roiled the industry; Second Edition's campaign settings were considered largely incompatible with each other, harming the D&D brand back when it was under TSR's management.

No wonder then that WOTC insists there isn't an edition change. It's just "One D&D":

It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.

I've discussed in the past the plan to create a D&D that receives frequent updates, patterned after software and video games, instead of major changes. It's an interesting balancing act, because print products are not software, and thus new updates only update existing rules to the extent a group agrees to make the change.

Or to put it another way, the only way any rules changes happen in a D&D game is if the group agrees to it. That's important, because it means what's considered enough rules changes to warrant the "new edition" moniker is not determined by WOTC at all.

The Downside of No New Editions​

When Dungeons & Dragons transitioned from Third Edition to 3.5, it caused confusion downstream thanks to the third parties who created Open Game License (OGL) compatible content. There was no clear identifier on the differences between editions. Similarly, WOTC's insistence on "backwards compatibility" has some very important caveats:

It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.

It's notable that WOTC focuses on adventure compatibility. The changes happening to D&D are not insignificant. Ability score changes will be tied to background instead of species:

Each background has three ability scores tied to it. For example, the Wayfarer background is associated with Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma. You can can then choose to add a +2 to one score and a +1 to another. Alternatively, you can add +1 to all three scores. This is a significant change to the rules and reflects the new idea that characters skills and abilities are shaped by their personal history and life choices rather than any kind of biological imperative.

Every third party supplement that features new species or backgrounds are no longer compatible with the rules. That said, this isn't a huge deal as it largely affects character creation, and for existing games the change isn't all that disruptive.

More drastic changes are afoot with weapons:

Weapon Mastery is a class feature shared between some martial classes that reflects their specialization with certain types of weapons. Each weapon in the Equipment section of the 2024 Player’s Handbook lists a mastery property in addition to the weapon’s regular properties. If the weapon meets the requirements in your class's Weapon Mastery feature, you can learn its mastery property and use it in combat.

This means that every new weapon created in every third party supplement no longer offers the same features as in the core rules. It's not a hard change to make, but it does require updating any product that features new weapons. Which is why third parties are starting to identify themselves as "5.5" compatible.

5.5 in the Wild​

As Egg reported in his RPG Crowdfunding Roundup, Moonsoon from Arcane Minis listed it's latest Kickstarter as having "D&D 2024 Compatibility":

Moonsoon is coming out at a unique time! After many years, D&D is being updated and we pledge to make sure that Monsoon is compatible with 5E and the newer 5.5E version coming out this year!

They won't be the last. It will be increasingly important for third parties to show that they are compatible with the latest version of D&D, and whether or not it's an "edition" is largely semantics. Judging by Moonsoon's success ($300K over the $50K goal), it seems declaring compatibility helped.

Your Table, Your Game​

In the end, what matters most is if gamers accept any older supplement at their table. For those who remember the confusion between Third and 3.5, it can matter quite a bit. Whether or not WOTC wants a new edition is less important than what the market will bear. If sales of older Fifth Edition content dip, publishers will react accordingly to let their customers know their product is compatible, with logos, "5.5 Edition," or something else. We'll find out soon enough what the general consensus is.

 

[PurpleHazy]

Meh, not a big deal what the name is. Whether it is 'One D&D', 'D&D 2024', 'D&D 5.5' doesn't really matter to me. Folks can huff and puff about it, but at the end of the day, they don't have any control of it. I personally will focus more on keeping the bits I like, and tossing the bits I don't with regard to both new and old rules.

 

[GMMichael]

Crawford and Perkins have said in multiple videos that CR will be maintained and monster stats will be changed to ‘better represent’ their CR. So CR is intended to remain static here.

That's a moving bar - if monsters become more powerful, and PCs become more powerful, then CR remains the same, although your 5.0 characters can't handle what they used to.

But if anyone's worried about their 5.0 books being planned for obsolescence, don't worry. I used my 3.0 Monster Manual and DMG throughout the 3.5 era, and it worked just fine. In fact, I haven't bought either of those books since about 2003, although that goes beyond the compatibility issue...

 

[sevenbastard]

you could use Dragons of Icespire Peak as the sandbox, Princes of the Apocalypse is right next door too

Agreed. I think integrating Icespire Peak and Lost Mine into one hardcover book with a little expansion would have been better. Easy enough to imagine that the town hired the Redbrands to protect themselves from the dragon and it backfired. The duel plots go independently are fun and you can make some of the content higher CR so that maybe it goes from 1 to 9.

 

[dbm]

That's a moving bar - if monsters become more powerful, and PCs become more powerful, then CR remains the same, although your 5.0 characters can't handle what they used to.

That’s really only relevant to 3pp classes* (which is kind of the point of the thread, I guess) since WotC have been clear that you are only supposed to use 5.24 material with the 5.24 rules and where there is like-for-like you need to use the new stuff.

So a ‘fighter’ going against 5.24 monsters should be using the 5.24 class description, and if they are a champion, arcane knight or one of the other updated sub-classes they need to be using those rules too. Someone choosing to use a 5.14 class in this context is breaking the paradigm being used to deliver ‘compatibility’.

WotC clearly can’t underwrite the future compatibility of 3pp materials, just like they didn’t guarantee the balance of any 5.14 3pp materials.

* and the artificer, which is the only 1pp character class not in the core book IIRC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do not see WotC benefiting from causing disruption in their 3pp ecosystem

"The fewer alternatives to WotC products, the better for WotC" is the short-sighted C-suite argument, I would imagine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Crawford and Perkins have said in multiple videos that CR will be maintained and monster stats will be changed to ‘better represent’ their CR. So CR is intended to remain static here.

Of course, no one really knows what that means.

 

[Demetrios1453]

WOTC may insist the latest version of D&D isn't a new edition, but third parties have already started labeling it 5.5.

Then those third parties are wrong. They can call it whatever they like, but, unless WotC agrees, they aren't correct.

Some might try to do their own labeling for a bit here, but since WotC won't budge on this, they'll be forced to revert back to plain old "5e" labeling.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then those third parties are wrong. They can call it whatever they like, but, unless WotC agrees, they aren't correct.

Some might try to do their own labeling for a bit here, but since WotC won't budge on this, they'll be forced to revert back to plain old "5e" labeling.

Disagree. What name people use to refer to something isn't WotC's call, especially if they refuse to offer an option and instead insist that they have made no significant changes to their product when they very much have. Said changes simply haven't impacted their specific definition of backwards compatibility.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who would have thought that a lack of labeling would cause people to label at thing for ease of use? And who would have thought that insisting that the new edition wasn't an edition wouldn't work?

 

[Oofta]

In theory, monsters can be used "as is." In practice, if the CR changes and no longer matches the suggested levels for the adventure, it may be problematic. I'm not sure how much of a CR swing we can expect between editions.

NPCs might be an issue. If you're using a NPC that has PC-like abilities, and those abilities changed, that NPC no longer accurately represents the class it's supposed to have (e.g., spellcasting levels and access to those spells).

This is far more complicated than "trust us, it's all compatible." And it really depends on your group and how much they care about converting their characters (and if the monsters convert along with them!).

We may have to wait for the new MM, but they are going to be adjusted to be more effective. In addition, I've always had to adjust threat level and number of monsters based on the group. Some groups can simply handle far more than others. That should include several of the NPCs from the MM or other sources, so again those will be adjusted. But we can still use spells and other features that haven't been overridden.

Modules seem to have always been targeted at the lowest common denominator, groups of 4 newbie players that are not at all optimized. If you go into a module and expect it to work for every group right now using the 2014 rules I think you will already hit issues depending on who's playing.

Is that complicated? Well, until we get more details we don't 100% know. I'm just not seeing many issues other than the ones we already deal with. I think this issue of adjusting difficulty to match the preferences of the group should be explained in the modules with hints and ideas on how to do it, that's a different issue.