I have been calling the upcoming release “D&D 5.5”, but now I think it would be better to refer to it as “D&D 5.2”. Here’s why. After the release of the Player’s Handbook (Sept 2024), Dungeon Master’s Guide (Nov 2024), and Monster Manual (Feb 2025) Wizards of the Coast will release an updated versi

  • timgrant@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    For anyone wondering where this is coming from, WOTC announced their new System Reference doc associated with the upcoming book releases, and that is SRD 5.2.

    I agree, that’s the version number. Marketing types might want a catchier name, but “five-two” may be the most clear way to communication what version you’re talking about.

      • ...m...@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        …nah, creative commons is sacrosanct and pretty well ironclad: i think WotC realised they’d do better following the embrace-extend-extinguish model to secure DnDbeyond’s supremacy as the de-facto industry marketplace and skim their cut from developers across the board…

    • ...m...@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      …one could handily retcon post-tasha fifth edition as 5.1, since it started rolling out many of system revisions under development…

      • timgrant@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        SRD 5.1 was released 8 years ago though, long before TCE. And since Tasha’s rules are all considered optional, that book didn’t really revise the rules, just expand on them.

        • ...m...@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          …yeah, it’s a retronym, but if the marketing campaign ends up branding the new edition 5.2, whither 5.1?..

          • timgrant@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m not sure it’s an exact match, but SRD 5.1 was published around the same time as the PH accrued the “This printing includes corrections to the first printing” message in the front matter.

            They both contain the corrections from the previously-published errata.

            So if you will, if your PH has that message, and it probably does, you’ve probably been playing 5.1 for a while now.

            • ...m...@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              …the SRD 5.1 corrected several oversights from the first-draft SRD 5.0 released four months earlier, but didn’t in any way reflect changes to the actual published game, which remained substantially unchanged until tasha’s cauldron of everything was published five years later, effectively revising several key classes, races, and other core design mechanics, setting the stage for other forthcoming proto-sixth edition revisions including spell-like abilities and deprecated alignment…

              …calling the new SRD 5.2 is purely a marketing decision, as it will be an entirely new document rather than a revision to SRD 5.0/5.1…if any point in fifth edition’s ten-year history merits version update, it’s the revised game design WotC have been publishing since 2021…

              • timgrant@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Are you quoting something with those ellipses?

                If “5.2” were a marketing decision, then it would probably be getting used in their marketing materials. But there you see stuff like “One D&D.”

                Incrementing the second number here is in line with general “geek numbering system” convention. It doesn’t seem to me like marketing barged into the production room and insisted on a more “marketable” version number — not that that has never happened, but marketing would most likely have wanted “5.5” not the inscrutable “5.2.”