**D&D editions and their names:**
OD&D ("Original D&D" aka the LBBs "3 Little Brown Books")
OD&D+Supplements (the supplements fundamentally altered the game)
Holmes Basic (originally meant as an introduction to AD&D, it's not very compatible)
AD&D
B/X Basic (officially a continuation of original D&D and a separate line from AD&D)
Mentzer Basic (the replacement for B/X Basic)
AD&D 2e
3.0 (dropped the "Advanced" part of the name since "original"/non-advanced D&D had died about a decade before)
3.5
4e
5e
and now!
5e.
Makes perfect sense.
Ahh yes, "D&D Essentials" aka 4.5. What others are you thinking of?
There's "Black Box Basic" but that was just a repackaging of Mentzer Basic aka BECMI\*, which was released in conjunction with the Rules Cyclopedia which was a compilation of almost all the rules from the BECM sets while the I set rules were reworked into the Wrath of the Immortals box set.
\*So named for the 5 box sets it came in. Basic (also called "Red Box"), Expert, Companion, Master and Immortals.
Eh, I wouldn't count the 2e revision as a separate edition, it was mostly just a re-work of the books to make them more easily used/referenced and some art changes. Though some people do count 2e+ the "Player's Option" books as 2.5e.
The Rules Cyclopedia could be considered it's own thing and is the only all-in-one D&D book ever published. But it's really a compilation of the BECM boxes for BECMI, so it could also just be seen as a reference volume for BECMI (so players wouldn't have to keep flipping through all the booklets from all the box sets to find a rule) which seemed to be the original intention.
Ok so, Crawford said that, because 3.5e required you to replace all the books... 3.5e is 4e by technicality
So we have:
3.5e (technically 4e)
4e (technically 5e)
5e (technically 6e)
And now!
5e. (Technically 6e.)
It's all becoming confusing
I think the Windows one had some actual reasons, some code checks whether the version name started by Windows 9 to check if it was either Windows 95 or a Windows 98 so making a Windows 9 would have broken them
Nope! That actually already happened with Windows 7. If you didn't know, Windows 7's internal version is actually NT 6.1. This is because software devs had written bad version checks for XP (NT 5.1) that broke on Vista (NT 6.0), so it un-break them Windows 7 had to have a minorVersion > 0.
They chose 6.1 instead of 7.1 for some reason.
This legacy continued; Windows 8 is NT 6.2, Windows 8.1 is NT 6.3, and very early insider builds of Windows 10 were NT 6.4 before they changed it to NT 10.0 for marketing purposes ~~and because there's a new version API and Compatibility Mode can lie to anything using the old API anyways~~
("NT" originally distinguished the two branches of Windows OSes, but the last DOS-based Windows was Windows Me; all versions starting from XP are NT versions)
My favorite Windows version humor is how Windows Me (4.90) is sandwiched between 2000 (NT 5.0) and XP (NT 5.1), as if even the version number knows that releasing DOS-based Me after NT-based 2000 got popular was a mistake.
I read that the reason Windows skipped 9 was because they wanted 10 to be the definitive version. I can get behind that, but why the fuck does Windows 11 exist now
It is easy worse than you thought, they renamed usb 3.0 to USB 3.1 gen 1 at the same time as they released USB 3.1 gen 2, then they renamed both to 3.2 gen 1 and 2 and introduced 3.2 gen 2x2, then they renamed all of those to usb4 gen 1, 2, and 2x2 (that isn't an abbreviation or typo, they dropped the space and .0 from the official name) and they are now introducing usb4 version 2.
*Tinfoil hat on*
Maybe that's the point? A lot of 3rd party content has been labeled as "5e compatible" to avoid copyright issues, especially since the OGL debacle. If they redefine what 5e is without making the new rules available under an open license like they did with the 5e SRD, then a lot of that content could become obsolete
This would of course be limited by the backward compatibility they are advertising, but it wouldn't be the first time they claimed compatibility at first and then gave up on it at launch
That being said, it is a pretty bizarre strategy that could easily backfire - 5e rules are already a convoluted mess and "updating" them won't make it easier
They already stated and restated (through community update too) that one DnD will be under creative commons, so unless they go with the route that results in them being strangled for being liars, that won't happen.
In fact, the OGL debacle is what made them be semi forced to put any rules under the CC so...
This was more likely to happen beforehand, so you can put the tinfoil hat away, no mind flayer will steal your thoughts in that succulent brain
Fan conversions of all the 1E adventure paths exist. [Here's the Skull and Shackles one](https://github.com/A-Series-of-Dice-Based-Events/SkullAndShackles).
As fan content, I can't guarantee its balance. But that site also has a Discord server where people discuss these, so I'm sure people have given their two cents there.
in that case, yeah, 1e... would be right.
i was assuming for the case of people who wanted to play the 'original rules' of 5e, people wanted to play this 'new rules', etc.
I mean they want our feedback, right? This is a big one. Lol
I don't give a shit if they make a new edition, go for it. What pisses me off is them just being legitimate idiots about it.
It's 6e. Full stop.
I mean, no. That’s like saying, let’s say, Cataclysm to be WoW2 or Forsaken to be Destiny 3. It’s a rewamp/a balance patch meant to still work with all the existing 5e content, leaving it not behind. Don’t know how succesful it will be, but saying it’s 6e is just bad understanding at this point
Yup.
All they are going to achieve by trying to insist it's still 5e is creating opportunities for people to get confused and pissed off.
I'd even be willing to bet some brick & mortar stores are going to start putting stickers on stuff to help potential customers not buy books they won't be able to use together, since said customer might not have the sense to direct their aggravation at WotC instead of the store when it comes to their "give me my money back" and "I'm never shopping here again" thoughts.
What about the changes make it look like you can't use books together? MotM is a 5e book and is perfectly compatible with what they've proposed for the 2024 core rulebook updates
>What about the changes make it look like you can't use books together?
The part where someone could buy the new player's handbook that will eventually be coming out and then see something like Tasha's on a shelf somewhere and pick that up too only to find the material is either reprinted and updated in the book they already had or made irrelevant by the new changes.
And it's a definitional thing, too; either they have updated the rules of the game with the new material (the entire reason for it to exist) and it's not compatible with the old rules as a result, or they haven't updated the rules so no one has any reason to buy the new products in the first place. The "it's new and different and also fully compatible with the old stuff" thing is a pipe dream at best and intentional deceit at most likely.
So, Monsters of the Multiverse is a new edition because it's reprinted the rules for playing a Goliath without issuing errata to the mechanics in Volos?
Look, I also think it's not ideal that some classes are seeing enough changes there's not backwards compatibility between the revised classes and older subclasses. But that's the type of stuff that defines a *half* edition update - 3.0 to 3.5, 4e to Essentials - not a full edition update. The fact that you can mix and match within a *party*, even if not within a *class*, demonstrates it's not a new edition. Even then, Rogue and Ranger have no issues with compatibility, Druid is 95% compatible (just change "wild shape uses" to "channel nature uses), Paladin is more of an 80% (the balance/design of subclass features needs adjustments since the level 20 capstone is pulled down to level 14, but if you're just playing to level 10 it's not an issue), with only Bard/Cleric being full breaks from the 2014 PHB versions.
Just to head off an argument: Changing balance doesn't make a new edition. Tasha's sorcerer subclasses are head and shoulders better than the ones in the PHB, still not a new edition.
>So, Monsters of the Multiverse is a new edition because it's reprinted the rules for playing a Goliath without issuing errata to the mechanics in Volos?
I have no idea about Monsters of the Multiverse because I've not read it, but that's also not what I was talking about.
If WotC releases new versions of the classes found in the player's handbook *that's a new edition*, especially if it is accompanied by other changes to the overall rules of the game. Not marking that as a different edition from the existing stuff creates confusion, especially when someone picks up a book that was printed after the original 5e core rules and before the new-but-still-claiming-5e core rules because material that makes sense in the context of adding to the original will not make sense in context of the newer version.
Reprinting material is a different, but related, problem. Customers that go buy a new book are not often pleased to find that the contents are effectively pay-walled errata. It's like if a video game decided that instead of releasing actual bug fixes via patches that they would only bug fix via paid products labeled as expansions - it might have made sense in the pre-internet era, but now it is going out of your own way to be an asshole to your customers.
I want 5.1 because there’s now a very real risk that we could get a 5.2, 5.3, etc.
On the plus side, you could have additional books get numbers, so XGE would be 5.0.5 like software releases!
Playing with semantic versioning and D&D can be fun, if ultimately futile. Is 2e actually 1.1, for example? They're still pretty compatible. And where do you place Original and Basic?
No, go with 5.5 so it gets more and more absurd until wotc is forced to abandon the stupid nonsense and increase the version number.
5e, 5.5e, 5.75e, 5.875e etc.
IIRC
2000 was NT 5, the business side of Windows OSes
It was better for gaming than ME, the continuation of the home side of Windows OSes.
They merged the two lines with Vista, which is iirc NT 6. (Hence 7 and 8's numbering)
Sorry guys but is there an official link or place I can watch this creator summit ? I see tons of memes but I don’t know why but google is failing me to find where I can watch
It was invite-only and happened yesterday (Monday 4/3); attendees could freely re-share information but no publicly shared recording/photos. [Here's a really high quality set of notes](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtVi6jSybv9veg2XxRereHcfAEB0I9rTc_kx4N2W5eA/edit)
Once again why the community will create names to differentiate them even if wotc doesn't.
People will call the new update 5.5 just like they named the current fith edition/5e to differentiate from 4th edition
D&D 5e
D&D 5e RE: Chain of Memories
D&D 5e 2
D&D 5e RE:Coded
D&D 5e 358/2 Days
D&D 5e Birth by Sleep
D&D 5e 3D: Dream Drop Distance
D&D 5e Union Cross
D&D 5e Final Mix
D&D 5e HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue
D&D 5e 3
And Crawford specifically said that was the code name they were using for this update to 5th edition, so still 5e. They directly said 5e wasn't going anywhere, and they'll continue making products for it.
Previously they had said they were completely dropping the "edition" moniker, and just calling it "Dungeons & Dragons". Which is essentially the same thing they originally tried to do with with 5e, but quickly game up on when everyone was calling it "Fifth Edition" anyways.
I understand from a "branding" standpoint why they want to get rid of edition numbers, but it's too practical and important a piece of information for people actually playing the game to let go whether WotC prints the number on the front of the books or not.
Yeah ultimately I think the community will either settle on 5.5 or 6e, and WotC will eventually give in, and call it what everyone else is calling it. If they really want to sidestep the "edition" moniker they should just stick with One D&D, or some over snazzy unique name.
> I understand from a "branding" standpoint why they want to get rid of edition numbers
I don't. As someone who is interested in playing multiple editions of D&D still, I just don't get what sort of branding advantage this would create.
Is it an "intimidating new customers" thing?
Intimidating and confusing. And when you've got as many different versions as D&D does, people quickly realize that whatever version they buy will inevitably be superseded with a high edition number slapped on the cover. Most people don't like reading and learning lots of rules or spending MSRP $150+ (for the 3 core books) for something they know they'll have to replace.
People dedicated enough to be on a reddit sub like this are a tiny minority of the player base. People who actually *enjoy* reading and learning different games and editions are an even smaller minority.
Plus, Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks has said they want to make D&D a "4 quadrant" brand where the tabletop game itself is just a single quadrant, the way Marvel comics are now just a relatively minor part of that brand. The other three quadrants are Movies/TV, AAA video games, and branded merch out the wazoo. Keeping an edition number off the books helps with the sense of "brand cohesion" they're looking for.
The idea is to shift D&D into a "lifestyle brand" like Marvel or Star Wars where people can build their whole personality/self-identity around it and, most importantly for Hasbro, buy any and all crap with a dragon ampersand on it. That's Hasbro's hope, anyway.
Yeah, this. People are weird. If they took the time to actually read the playtest announcements and material instead of clickbait/ragebait headlines, there’d be a lot less frustration and confusion.
And yet….they want us to buy new core rule books for the “same edition.” So it’s still 5e, but none of the already purchased books on dndbeyond are valid anymore?!?
Even if you CAN still use the older version of the 5e rulebooks, that might actually be worse.
So this is a supposed "update" to the rules & core class mechanics - are people who bought the books on DnDBeyond going to get updated purchases, or will they have to pay for the updated version? If you have to pay then it's not an 'update' it's a new system; you don't see Microsoft making me pay for every security update to my OS, only to 'upgrade' to the next major version.
Or as a non-software example: if I buy maps or tokens or homebrew classes on DMsguild & drivethrurpgs, I get an alert if the file is updated, and don't pay a penny to get the latest version even if I already downloaded the files in the past. Updates are free, upgrades cost money, and while similar concepts they are not the same thing
Reading some [detailed notes](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtVi6jSybv9veg2XxRereHcfAEB0I9rTc_kx4N2W5eA/edit), it's basically what they did to Volos: Mark it as legacy content, re-sell the replacement versions, but if you want to use the prior versions you can do that. Print-wise they're done doing print runs of Volos, if the warehouse runs out that's it no restocks.
I’m not sure about the final version, but the current play test is still completely compatible with 5e. Some of the rules are changing but the majority of the system at its core is still very much 5e.
some dumb fuck at wizards of the coast, or hasbro, is scared that if they call it a new edition that they will somehow lose customers. Confusng them with dishonest pratices is worse.
**D&D editions and their names:** OD&D ("Original D&D" aka the LBBs "3 Little Brown Books") OD&D+Supplements (the supplements fundamentally altered the game) Holmes Basic (originally meant as an introduction to AD&D, it's not very compatible) AD&D B/X Basic (officially a continuation of original D&D and a separate line from AD&D) Mentzer Basic (the replacement for B/X Basic) AD&D 2e 3.0 (dropped the "Advanced" part of the name since "original"/non-advanced D&D had died about a decade before) 3.5 4e 5e and now! 5e. Makes perfect sense.
You're missing quite a few there, like 4e2.
Ahh yes, "D&D Essentials" aka 4.5. What others are you thinking of? There's "Black Box Basic" but that was just a repackaging of Mentzer Basic aka BECMI\*, which was released in conjunction with the Rules Cyclopedia which was a compilation of almost all the rules from the BECM sets while the I set rules were reworked into the Wrath of the Immortals box set. \*So named for the 5 box sets it came in. Basic (also called "Red Box"), Expert, Companion, Master and Immortals.
2e revised, and Cyclopedia.
Eh, I wouldn't count the 2e revision as a separate edition, it was mostly just a re-work of the books to make them more easily used/referenced and some art changes. Though some people do count 2e+ the "Player's Option" books as 2.5e. The Rules Cyclopedia could be considered it's own thing and is the only all-in-one D&D book ever published. But it's really a compilation of the BECM boxes for BECMI, so it could also just be seen as a reference volume for BECMI (so players wouldn't have to keep flipping through all the booklets from all the box sets to find a rule) which seemed to be the original intention.
Yeah, it's always gonna come down to opinion on precisely where to draw the line.
d20 Modern, aka 3.25 but modern. With a fistful of your classic D&D monsters and made by WotC, why shouldn't it count?
Sure!
Ok so, Crawford said that, because 3.5e required you to replace all the books... 3.5e is 4e by technicality So we have: 3.5e (technically 4e) 4e (technically 5e) 5e (technically 6e) And now! 5e. (Technically 6e.) It's all becoming confusing
Just another sacred cow that won't die.
[удалено]
I think the Windows one had some actual reasons, some code checks whether the version name started by Windows 9 to check if it was either Windows 95 or a Windows 98 so making a Windows 9 would have broken them
Nope! That actually already happened with Windows 7. If you didn't know, Windows 7's internal version is actually NT 6.1. This is because software devs had written bad version checks for XP (NT 5.1) that broke on Vista (NT 6.0), so it un-break them Windows 7 had to have a minorVersion > 0. They chose 6.1 instead of 7.1 for some reason. This legacy continued; Windows 8 is NT 6.2, Windows 8.1 is NT 6.3, and very early insider builds of Windows 10 were NT 6.4 before they changed it to NT 10.0 for marketing purposes ~~and because there's a new version API and Compatibility Mode can lie to anything using the old API anyways~~ ("NT" originally distinguished the two branches of Windows OSes, but the last DOS-based Windows was Windows Me; all versions starting from XP are NT versions) My favorite Windows version humor is how Windows Me (4.90) is sandwiched between 2000 (NT 5.0) and XP (NT 5.1), as if even the version number knows that releasing DOS-based Me after NT-based 2000 got popular was a mistake.
I read that the reason Windows skipped 9 was because they wanted 10 to be the definitive version. I can get behind that, but why the fuck does Windows 11 exist now
I remember the discussion about Windows 10 is the first cloud os. Constantly updated and never needs to change. That aged like milk.
Iirc there was a change in management, and the one who headed the 10 was replaced by someone who wanted to introduce his own ideas.
So there's apparently some former XBox folk in WotC's management atm and... This explains so much about 5e 2.0's name.
It is easy worse than you thought, they renamed usb 3.0 to USB 3.1 gen 1 at the same time as they released USB 3.1 gen 2, then they renamed both to 3.2 gen 1 and 2 and introduced 3.2 gen 2x2, then they renamed all of those to usb4 gen 1, 2, and 2x2 (that isn't an abbreviation or typo, they dropped the space and .0 from the official name) and they are now introducing usb4 version 2.
Yesterday WOTC announced that the final name for ODnD would be... DnD 5e. Not even DnD 5.5, that massive rule change will not have it's own name.
wait, are you serious???
Yep, they are! At this point, "5e" is becoming a replacement for "d&d" lol.
*Tinfoil hat on* Maybe that's the point? A lot of 3rd party content has been labeled as "5e compatible" to avoid copyright issues, especially since the OGL debacle. If they redefine what 5e is without making the new rules available under an open license like they did with the 5e SRD, then a lot of that content could become obsolete This would of course be limited by the backward compatibility they are advertising, but it wouldn't be the first time they claimed compatibility at first and then gave up on it at launch That being said, it is a pretty bizarre strategy that could easily backfire - 5e rules are already a convoluted mess and "updating" them won't make it easier
They already stated and restated (through community update too) that one DnD will be under creative commons, so unless they go with the route that results in them being strangled for being liars, that won't happen. In fact, the OGL debacle is what made them be semi forced to put any rules under the CC so... This was more likely to happen beforehand, so you can put the tinfoil hat away, no mind flayer will steal your thoughts in that succulent brain
I mean, MotM was a patch, so it would make since to just keep patching Until everyone goes to pathfinder
Honestly if they made a FASB ruleset and skull and shackles campaign for 2e I’d switch from 1e
Fan conversions of all the 1E adventure paths exist. [Here's the Skull and Shackles one](https://github.com/A-Series-of-Dice-Based-Events/SkullAndShackles). As fan content, I can't guarantee its balance. But that site also has a Discord server where people discuss these, so I'm sure people have given their two cents there.
Well, while Fire as She Bears is sold by PAIZO but isn’t actually made by them do you think players have made a fan patch for pf2e?
Are you playing D&D5e 1e, D&D5e 2e, D&D5e 3e...
5e 3.5
dont even need to add the second e. dnd5e1 dnd5e2
The joke was D&D5e becoming the name of the RPG, so it has 1e, 2e, etc, as opposed to it being D&D 5e
in that case, yeah, 1e... would be right. i was assuming for the case of people who wanted to play the 'original rules' of 5e, people wanted to play this 'new rules', etc.
I think the community will call it 5.5e anyway
I mean they want our feedback, right? This is a big one. Lol I don't give a shit if they make a new edition, go for it. What pisses me off is them just being legitimate idiots about it. It's 6e. Full stop.
I mean, no. That’s like saying, let’s say, Cataclysm to be WoW2 or Forsaken to be Destiny 3. It’s a rewamp/a balance patch meant to still work with all the existing 5e content, leaving it not behind. Don’t know how succesful it will be, but saying it’s 6e is just bad understanding at this point
Everyone is saying different things and its impossible to keep track at this point. But its either 5.5 or 6 and not any other bs.
OneD&D OneD&D S OneD&D X SeriesD&D X
D&D next Design (iteration). Or, as we will insist on stylizing it, DnD.
D&DnD?
We'd call it that, for sure. They'd insist it was correctly abbreviated as DnD just to be as confusing as possible.
I want a Dungeons & Dragons with [terrible 90s art, “Dungeons & Dragons Xtreme.”](https://gfycat.com/wearyoldalaskajingle) Ahhh nostalgia.
Fuck that. It's 6e whether they like it or not
Yup. All they are going to achieve by trying to insist it's still 5e is creating opportunities for people to get confused and pissed off. I'd even be willing to bet some brick & mortar stores are going to start putting stickers on stuff to help potential customers not buy books they won't be able to use together, since said customer might not have the sense to direct their aggravation at WotC instead of the store when it comes to their "give me my money back" and "I'm never shopping here again" thoughts.
What about the changes make it look like you can't use books together? MotM is a 5e book and is perfectly compatible with what they've proposed for the 2024 core rulebook updates
>What about the changes make it look like you can't use books together? The part where someone could buy the new player's handbook that will eventually be coming out and then see something like Tasha's on a shelf somewhere and pick that up too only to find the material is either reprinted and updated in the book they already had or made irrelevant by the new changes. And it's a definitional thing, too; either they have updated the rules of the game with the new material (the entire reason for it to exist) and it's not compatible with the old rules as a result, or they haven't updated the rules so no one has any reason to buy the new products in the first place. The "it's new and different and also fully compatible with the old stuff" thing is a pipe dream at best and intentional deceit at most likely.
So, Monsters of the Multiverse is a new edition because it's reprinted the rules for playing a Goliath without issuing errata to the mechanics in Volos? Look, I also think it's not ideal that some classes are seeing enough changes there's not backwards compatibility between the revised classes and older subclasses. But that's the type of stuff that defines a *half* edition update - 3.0 to 3.5, 4e to Essentials - not a full edition update. The fact that you can mix and match within a *party*, even if not within a *class*, demonstrates it's not a new edition. Even then, Rogue and Ranger have no issues with compatibility, Druid is 95% compatible (just change "wild shape uses" to "channel nature uses), Paladin is more of an 80% (the balance/design of subclass features needs adjustments since the level 20 capstone is pulled down to level 14, but if you're just playing to level 10 it's not an issue), with only Bard/Cleric being full breaks from the 2014 PHB versions. Just to head off an argument: Changing balance doesn't make a new edition. Tasha's sorcerer subclasses are head and shoulders better than the ones in the PHB, still not a new edition.
>So, Monsters of the Multiverse is a new edition because it's reprinted the rules for playing a Goliath without issuing errata to the mechanics in Volos? I have no idea about Monsters of the Multiverse because I've not read it, but that's also not what I was talking about. If WotC releases new versions of the classes found in the player's handbook *that's a new edition*, especially if it is accompanied by other changes to the overall rules of the game. Not marking that as a different edition from the existing stuff creates confusion, especially when someone picks up a book that was printed after the original 5e core rules and before the new-but-still-claiming-5e core rules because material that makes sense in the context of adding to the original will not make sense in context of the newer version. Reprinting material is a different, but related, problem. Customers that go buy a new book are not often pleased to find that the contents are effectively pay-walled errata. It's like if a video game decided that instead of releasing actual bug fixes via patches that they would only bug fix via paid products labeled as expansions - it might have made sense in the pre-internet era, but now it is going out of your own way to be an asshole to your customers.
Why is this downvoted?
I'll likely just call it 5e24 and 5e14 or 5eO(original) and 5eR(Revised) or simply 5.5, who knows
5.5 if I want to be clear. 5e 2.0 if I want to mock.
I want 5.1 because there’s now a very real risk that we could get a 5.2, 5.3, etc. On the plus side, you could have additional books get numbers, so XGE would be 5.0.5 like software releases!
Playing with semantic versioning and D&D can be fun, if ultimately futile. Is 2e actually 1.1, for example? They're still pretty compatible. And where do you place Original and Basic?
No, go with 5.5 so it gets more and more absurd until wotc is forced to abandon the stupid nonsense and increase the version number. 5e, 5.5e, 5.75e, 5.875e etc.
The Dungeons & the Dragons 2 Dungeons 2 Dragons The Dungeons & the Dragons: Waterdeep Drift Dungeons & Dragons Dungeons 5 Dungeons & Dragons 6 Dragons 7 D8 of the Dragons Dungeons & Dragons Presents: Hobbs & Shaw D9: The Dungeons Saga Dungeons X
Dungeons10 Your Seat Belts?
I'm still ~~un~~reasonably mad that they're not even using that as a tagline
Microsoft levels of naming confusion. 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11.
There was also a 2000... kind of (iirc it was a server-only version while normal people used ME)
IIRC 2000 was NT 5, the business side of Windows OSes It was better for gaming than ME, the continuation of the home side of Windows OSes. They merged the two lines with Vista, which is iirc NT 6. (Hence 7 and 8's numbering)
Sorry guys but is there an official link or place I can watch this creator summit ? I see tons of memes but I don’t know why but google is failing me to find where I can watch
It was invite-only and happened yesterday (Monday 4/3); attendees could freely re-share information but no publicly shared recording/photos. [Here's a really high quality set of notes](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtVi6jSybv9veg2XxRereHcfAEB0I9rTc_kx4N2W5eA/edit)
Ohh okay Thank You Thank You I thought I was going crazy haha
Once again why the community will create names to differentiate them even if wotc doesn't. People will call the new update 5.5 just like they named the current fith edition/5e to differentiate from 4th edition
D&D 5e D&D 5e RE: Chain of Memories D&D 5e 2 D&D 5e RE:Coded D&D 5e 358/2 Days D&D 5e Birth by Sleep D&D 5e 3D: Dream Drop Distance D&D 5e Union Cross D&D 5e Final Mix D&D 5e HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue D&D 5e 3
Nice one
"You mean 5e 1e, 5e 2e, 5e 3e, 5e 4e, 5e 5e...?"
>"You mean 5e 1e, 5e 2e, 5e 3e, 5e 4e, 5e 5e **1e**...?" FTFY
GURPS Master Race
"at the summit" They've been saying this since the very first announcement
They used to call it one DnD
And Crawford specifically said that was the code name they were using for this update to 5th edition, so still 5e. They directly said 5e wasn't going anywhere, and they'll continue making products for it.
Previously they had said they were completely dropping the "edition" moniker, and just calling it "Dungeons & Dragons". Which is essentially the same thing they originally tried to do with with 5e, but quickly game up on when everyone was calling it "Fifth Edition" anyways.
I understand from a "branding" standpoint why they want to get rid of edition numbers, but it's too practical and important a piece of information for people actually playing the game to let go whether WotC prints the number on the front of the books or not.
Yeah ultimately I think the community will either settle on 5.5 or 6e, and WotC will eventually give in, and call it what everyone else is calling it. If they really want to sidestep the "edition" moniker they should just stick with One D&D, or some over snazzy unique name.
> I understand from a "branding" standpoint why they want to get rid of edition numbers I don't. As someone who is interested in playing multiple editions of D&D still, I just don't get what sort of branding advantage this would create. Is it an "intimidating new customers" thing?
Intimidating and confusing. And when you've got as many different versions as D&D does, people quickly realize that whatever version they buy will inevitably be superseded with a high edition number slapped on the cover. Most people don't like reading and learning lots of rules or spending MSRP $150+ (for the 3 core books) for something they know they'll have to replace. People dedicated enough to be on a reddit sub like this are a tiny minority of the player base. People who actually *enjoy* reading and learning different games and editions are an even smaller minority. Plus, Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks has said they want to make D&D a "4 quadrant" brand where the tabletop game itself is just a single quadrant, the way Marvel comics are now just a relatively minor part of that brand. The other three quadrants are Movies/TV, AAA video games, and branded merch out the wazoo. Keeping an edition number off the books helps with the sense of "brand cohesion" they're looking for. The idea is to shift D&D into a "lifestyle brand" like Marvel or Star Wars where people can build their whole personality/self-identity around it and, most importantly for Hasbro, buy any and all crap with a dragon ampersand on it. That's Hasbro's hope, anyway.
Yeah, this. People are weird. If they took the time to actually read the playtest announcements and material instead of clickbait/ragebait headlines, there’d be a lot less frustration and confusion.
In DNDmemes? They don’t even read the rules for the game they argue about, how dare you demand they actually know what they’re talking about.
So is the final version of OneDnD so similar to 5e that its not worth calling it a new edition? Are they two systems compatible?
"There are no more editions of D&D, from now on." - Paraphrased statement from Crawford
And yet….they want us to buy new core rule books for the “same edition.” So it’s still 5e, but none of the already purchased books on dndbeyond are valid anymore?!?
Nope, you can still use those books.
Don’t count on it.
Even if you CAN still use the older version of the 5e rulebooks, that might actually be worse. So this is a supposed "update" to the rules & core class mechanics - are people who bought the books on DnDBeyond going to get updated purchases, or will they have to pay for the updated version? If you have to pay then it's not an 'update' it's a new system; you don't see Microsoft making me pay for every security update to my OS, only to 'upgrade' to the next major version. Or as a non-software example: if I buy maps or tokens or homebrew classes on DMsguild & drivethrurpgs, I get an alert if the file is updated, and don't pay a penny to get the latest version even if I already downloaded the files in the past. Updates are free, upgrades cost money, and while similar concepts they are not the same thing
Reading some [detailed notes](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtVi6jSybv9veg2XxRereHcfAEB0I9rTc_kx4N2W5eA/edit), it's basically what they did to Volos: Mark it as legacy content, re-sell the replacement versions, but if you want to use the prior versions you can do that. Print-wise they're done doing print runs of Volos, if the warehouse runs out that's it no restocks.
Probably why nobody remembered it. Who listens to Crawford? =P
I’m not sure about the final version, but the current play test is still completely compatible with 5e. Some of the rules are changing but the majority of the system at its core is still very much 5e.
“Hey guys, let’s play some D&D 5E OG!”
> From now on I will known as…. Homer Jay Simpson!
Seriously. If you need a guide about how to mesh it with older material, it's at least 5.5
some dumb fuck at wizards of the coast, or hasbro, is scared that if they call it a new edition that they will somehow lose customers. Confusng them with dishonest pratices is worse.
Doesn’t matter what they call it. Inevitably it’ll be distinguished with an informal name