ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -I accept this is TENTH EDITION. During "AD&D 2nd Edition," TSR released the "Revised Edition" books in 1995. This basically only changed the art and layout and had minor errata. But it fits my definition of being "revised" and marketed as the core rules that you can buy. -In case it isn't clear, this is all a bit tongue in cheek, because "9th edition" simply will not catch on. The evolution of language in the D&D/Pathfinder community means that whole numbers = a ground-up revision with new math, at least for the time being. Language has its own evolution outside of my or any other individual's preference. Only the big actors (WOTC in particular) are able to actually change the convention. So I do not hold it against anyone who calls the new D&D edition "5th edition," "5.5," or "6th edition." However, I DO push back against the argument of "whatever WOTC calls it is what it is," PARTICULARLY when that means allowing WOTC to limit the conversation on how much should change in designing the new edition. As for the Pathfinder Remaster, I call it BOTH "a new edition" (because new editions shouldn't be stigmatized) AND I call it "2.1" because this accurately conveys the degree of evolution from the 2019 edition (again, gotta work with the community's understanding of editions). As for whether it's "3rd edition" under my definition it's a bit murky, because they openly say you don't need the books while rolling them out, plus all the new rules are free online and work with the 2019 books. This means I have a different attitude toward WOTC's PR and Paizo's. (During the process of designing of the next D&D, I have insisted on calling it 6th edition to express players' desire for more improvements.) Yes, Paizo has been reluctant to call the Remaster a "new edition," but I don't see the same need to push back against this because (1) it didn't artificially hold back what they and the players wanted in the new edition and (2) they've been pretty transparent in saying DON'T buy the new books because the changes are minor and both versions of the rules are free online. -Holmes D&D from 1977 DID have 2 alignment axes (further supporting my take that it's to be grouped with AD&D.)

The idea that Dnd 5E is in a state where there no longer needs to be editions and major overalls is just endlessly funny to me.

"A system that is stable. That is well loved". A system that has multiple entire companies dedicated to making mods for it to get it to work better. Don't get me wrong it's a decent base. And it's pretty easy to get into. But at least from my perspective there are some severe holes in it.

By the time 9th edition rolls out, Wizards will have evolved from sending Pinkertons out to people they accidentally send the wrong cards to, from that they will be burning customers at the stake with flame throwers with their heads on pikes.

Call of Cthulhu had multiple revision numbers for 5th edition. There was 5th, 5.5, 5.6

IIRC the line editor of GURPS 4e back in the 00s (not sure if he's still doing that) stated that if GURPS 2e had been printed in the 00s rather than the 80s, it wouldn't have gotten a new edition number, since it didn't do much outside of incorporating errata into the core book (and the only reason 4e was printed at all was that 3e's organizational structure had a major problem that had required them producing two different 'compendiums' to put the frequently referenced rules that non-core books referenced into a book just for other books to reference, which they produced as a half measure while figuring out what they wanted to do with 4e to make sure this problem didn't happen again. And they used it as an opportunity to rebalance things in the process. but it's pretty easy to convert GURPS 3e material to 4e - There's a 24 page conversion pdf) I forget if 3e would have been enough to justify a new edition number or just a new printing in his eyes, so if 4e is actually the second edition of GURPS or actually the third in his opinion of the significance of the changes. tl;dr - Even games that have stuck with whole edition numbers only have changed their mind on what counts as a new edition vs what gets incorporated into a new printing of an older edition over the decades.

I am so glad I subbed to you, I watch you every time I’m at the gym.

There was a post on DnD Beyond about the releases of the 2024 Rule Books back in Feb. PHB Release Date: Sept. 17th, 2024 DMG Release Date: Nov. 12,2024 MM Release Date: Feb. 18, 2025 I didn't see any specifications on if this is only the "DnD Beyond" release date, but they do many times just refer to it as the "books" release date.

Great path-finding along the trail of editions!!

So pathfinder remastered is the 3rd Edition.

Pasion de las Pasiones displayed proudly in the background?!? Ronald loves the good games!

You completely missed AD&D 2.5 core books. The options books weren't the only books in that edition, it had a republished and remastered Player and GM book as well. The black cover 2nd Edition was effectively a different edition from the older 2nd Edition. The republished core books had different rules that were only barely compatible.

Seems awfully silly to consider essentials new edition while discounting BECMI

100% agree on all counts. Thanks, Ron!

I was called an idiot for comparing/ pointing out similarities that D&D 4th edition & PF 2nd edition. This video makes me feel validated.

Another way to phrase is "could you buy just those books and play the game?" You couldn't with greyhawk and player's option. You can with D&D3.5 and 4e essentials and PF2rm. The 4e and PF2 ecosystems are a bit odd in that they had digital references that included errata and incorporate the new rules.

Essentials was definitely a separate edition. Another way to look at it would be how someone would react to "original 4e" if they'd played Essentials 1st, and yeah you'd see a whole lot of differences doing that.

Thank you for this video. It's really, really good. This is the exact reason why the new version of Pathfinder is also a new addition. It is third edition Pathfinder. At best it is Pathfinder 2.5. It is not a remaster. It is a new addition of the game, just like this new version of dungeons and dragons is a new addition of dungeons and dragons. It's the exact same thing.

I would say that oneD&D/5.5/6th edition/ 9th edition. Looks like it'll be about the same thing to 5th edition. As 2nd was to 1st. A mostly compatible update. While also bringing together stuff published in the expanded rule books. Add new stuff that they want to change for "reasons".

@Ronald; so what do you do with an "errata" type update to the rules is that an edition or a printing? I also think the play style between Holms and AD&D and the parallel set (Mystra setting version which culminates in Rules Cyclopedia) is similar yet there are a significant nontrivial distinction however I think I'm in the "10th Edition" (due to inclusion of Rules Cyclopedia)

"I Won Dungeons and Dragons And It Was Advanced!"

I believe Mongoose Traveler has also switched to year-based "editions", in that they released new core books that are intended to replace the old ones, but with iterative changes, and the cover clearly states that this is a "2022 Overhaul" or something.

I would argue that we count Basic (and every version of basic) as separate editions. We don't need to follow only one line of games. Both Dungeons and Dragons and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are Dungeons and Dragons. And, from what I can see in 5e, that edition takes a decent amount of inspiration from b/x / BECMI.

I played back in the 80s and then dropped out. My college-aged son has convinced me to try D&D again. I bought 5e. I found it bewildering (for the record I spent my career in tech and currently do civil litigation mediation for fun in semi-retirement). So I bought 3.0 and 3.5. They make so much sense! And while detailed they feel like I can cut out mechanics to strip them down to something more playable (rulings not rules). 5e feels more like a PC/video game implemented in text. There are so many rules that play gets bogged down. It's the complete opposite of the experience I had in HS/college in the 80s.

If you close your eyes when the spokesman talks he sounds like Christian Slater advertising Sabre printers in The Office.

I would like to see you give more attention to the “Basic” line. B/X morphed to BECMI and that is NOT a series of starter sets.

Basic D&D was readily available, boxes and the Gazetteer series in my area. Up until ad&d 3. Though I did tend to shop in game and specialty shops. The D&D boxes and Gazetteers are the only thing I wish I still had from that time.

Wasn't expecting to see young Ronald. No doubt busy studying for ttrpg law school

I don't agree with ignoring the BECMI editions, but I do accept the definitions otherwise. When I was playing 1e, BECMI was accepted as a completely different version of the same game, almost but not quite as different as 3rd and 4th. And it's firmly in the overall lineage.

Hang on, so TSR was Tactical Studies Rules, but then with Greyhawk they were TSR Rules, so Tactical Studies Rules Rules? I feel they needed a good Rules Lawyer to sort that out.

0e 1e AD&D (You can argue that Holmes is different, but I don't) --->Fork to B/X which expands to BECMI and RC which deadends just before 3e, and all these are essentially revisions of the same edition 2e AD&D "2.5e" AD&D Player's Option 3e (3.5 is really just a revision, if you count this then you should consider OA/DSG/WSG 1e as a 1.5) 4e 5e 5e is the 8th edition of the game, or 7th if you consider 2.5's compatibility with 2e as highly persuasive. If you get more granular, I'd argue that 5e's intial offering was at least the 15th edition.

I was pretty surprised that after your initial reasoning you deemed Essentials an edition by itself since that's what I'd consider the *least* like a full edition. I always found it obnoxious when people started referring to Essentials as "4.5" I'd argue it didn't even count as a half edition since they're pretty much completely compatible. It was basically a glorified rules errata with a Dragon magazine article stapled onto it. Yes, it gave some different "more old-school" mechanics to some classes (which felt like pandering to grognards) but that wasn't unlike the article for an alternate way of multi-classing by "taking levels" or the one on how to make "Level 0" characters. That's my take, anyway. 😅

1:10 Chaosium counts Runequest like 1e, 2e, Runequest: Roleplaying in Glorantha, skipping all of the games Editions from Third Parties, so 3e by Avalon Hill, 4e and 5e/now: Legend by Mongoose and 6e now Mythras by Design Mechanism are no longer counted... As I have played them all (besides 5e...), RQ:RiG is just 7e to me ;) Likewise, The Dark Eye (a german RPG)... They brought out a boxed set and some modules for a setting called Myranor, but it was inbetween their 3e and 4e... and shared properties of both. It was not loved well, btw. D&D is not alone with diffuse edition numbers...

What version of pathfinder are we on? 4? 5?

Year based versions (or calendar based starting with year) are excellent alternatives to semantic versioning (what you refer to as "software versioning"). I use them for applications, where v5.0 makes way less sense than v2024-05-21. As for the D&D books, call them whatever you want, they're a mess. All of the prolific issues go unsolved, and the new stuff isn't even more fun (it's basically a nerf across the board). 4th was my favorite D&D edition, because daily/encounter/at will was so much easier to explain than long/short rest refreshing.

I find it interesting. Your exprerience and mine are almost opposite, and I think we're the same age, or off by 1 or 2 years at most. I completely agree with you that 3e comes from 2e no argument. So its based on the advanced line. And in the 90s, you're also 100% right, the video games came off of AD&D. But i think in the height of D&D thats the 80s. By the 90s D&D was already in trouble. As you've talked about in other videos. And in the 80s, it was the box sets that was more in our consciousness than AD&D. At least for me, on the east coast of the united states. It was the true fans that were playing AD&D whereas a lot of people had Basic Expert, etc.. Those were the ones advertised in comic books on TV etc.. They were the ones in toy stores, book shops, etc... I also lived through the times. I wonder if it was region based, because its funny i had the exact opposite experience as you for being easily able to find books. I could only find the "AD&D" stuff in game stores. (but i'm on the east coast, and you're west coast - i presume the whole time (im pretty sure we're basically the same age) So I agree with your choice, but I think that its worth mentioning that the BECMI B/X lines were a LOT more prevalent in the 80s. But again, maybe this is region based.

I guess this is where “version numbering” makes more sense than “edition numbering.” There is a legacy of calling things editions, but since editions mostly only work in whole number steps, the structure doesn’t do a great job at describing how much of a change there is in the rules. Using pathfinder as an example, the books like Guns and Gears, while not increasing the Edition, probably could be described as increasing the version. They were before the remaster, and combined with various other errata and class or campaign-supplements, made the version something like 2.0.42, or 2.0.159. Post-Tasha’s D&D was probably version 5.2.18 or something. That third number can give some idea about the depth, the number of sourcebooks, the second number conveys how many big revisions and updates the same basic structure. The first number is the level where games are not really recognizable as the same. THAC0 becomes a BAB, the three action system is developed, and so forth.

So what edition of Pathfinder is the most recent "remaster"?

Holmes starter set Has the 9 axis. Fact is the 1st time it appears in a edition

I'm guessing others have asked this Ronald, but just curious about your opinions on whether your definition would mean that the Pathfinder 2e Remaster should be considered a new whole number edition, since the definition you gave was a "Republication of the core rules, with revisions, with the intent of replacing the previous core rules", and that it doesn't require a complete overhaul of the game. In past videos, you've described the Remaster as "2.1", but I feel like it would fall into this definition, and would therefore be the 3rd edition of Pathfinder. I'm a big fan of Pathfinder and the Remaster, and it's my fantasy RPG of choice as well, just want to see what your feelings were about this. (EDIT: I see you addressed this in the pinned comment. I should have hit read more first).

So under this definition would the Remaster of Pathfinder count as a new edition?

Wouldnt this mean we have Pathfinder 3rd edition now by your definition?

If we follow your definitions I feel that we're actually about to release 10th not 9th. Counting 3 and 3.5, 4 and Essentials, we should also count 2nd Edition Revised in 1995. If we count everytyhing that would put us at 14th Edition.

I've heard a lot of people say Pathfinder 2 borrows from 4th edition. Is there a video laying out how they're similar? To me they have very little in common.

I like that they say that 5e is "stable" and is sooo easy to broke that every class has at least 1 combo that brake the game... (mostly 2 lvl in fighter and keep going XD).... So Stable

That makes more sense than Edition 5.5. Roll on 9th Edition. Where does PF2 fit into that chronology? PF1 is an alternative 6th Edition making PF2 a Seven Edition spin off?

I'm not going to take a strong opinion on most of this, but I _will_ strongly argue against Essentials being considered a separate edition. As someone who played 4th edition, but only _after_ the Essentials books were out, the fact that there even _was_ a difference went completely over my head until after I had been playing 5e and heard others talking about it. I played with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Players Handbooks alongside Essentials books like Heroes of Shadow, and had no idea there was any difference to be made. I take some issue with your definition of edition here, because under that definition, the Pathfinder 2e remaster would be 3rd edition. And I hope we can agree that that's kind of a ludicrous position to take. Although I never played vanilla 4e, and only played Pathfinder for a short while _before_ the remaster, I get the impression that the rules changes are of a similar scale.

Still calling the new books 5.5, I happen to like the conventional numbering. But I like the deep dive into what the older editions are.

Well, is there any game that follows the real "edition" number on the cover ? Gosh, not even the newborn Pathfinder 2e is actually on their 2 edition.

Rules Lawyer For versions that are compatible with previous books: They are just trying to prevent sales from dropping from old books; Also Rules Lawyer (for non-compatiable editions) Since this edition isn't compatible with previous books - they just wanna get your money by forcing you to buy new books; So what you're saying is literally anything they do is being greedy.

2nd edition Revised got core books

But also the 5th edition is only called 5th edition by us, the customers, in every single book it's just dungeons and dragons. So it's Dungeons & Dragons (2014) 2nd edition

Meanwhile Classic Battletech hasn't really changed it's core ruleset in decades yet still producing product.

This is why I argue that Pathfinder is now in 3rd edition.

its crazy how confidently Chris Perkins states all of that stuff when its quantifiably not true

By the definition given would that make the remaster the 3rd edition of pathfinder.

Good video, love the concept, tho i would concider basic/expert as a fork, as it later got another edition when companion rules were released, in terms of updated basic/expert books that matched the companion, masters, and immortal rules boxed set formats, and later, rules cyclopedia. "1e" Advanced dungeons and dragons, on the other hand, lead to 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, one dnd, NOT based on BECMI rules.

There's a lot of truth to the number of D&D in the marketing. 3.0 and 3.5 use the same base rules for the most part compared to old school. 2024 appears to be more of a consolidation of the changes made in Tasha's, Zanthar's, and some of the other more popular books. I wish they made some more Consolidations and smaller Digital only PDFs that republish important materials that make it so you don't need a specific book for your subclass that you only are taking 2-3 levels in

Good video

Cannot listen to it atm... but I have seen people counting like that: 1 1 1 Original D&D White Box + Supplements 1a 2 Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry 2 2 3 AD&D First Edition 1b/2a 4 Holmes Basic 3 3 5 Basic D&D B/X 2 2b 6 AD&D 1e Revised (UA, Survival Guides, DL/GH Adventures, Forgotten Realms Campaign setting)

I think there's an issue with the word "edition" being used to describe completely different games. The 2024 books are going to be the second edition of Dungeons and Dragons (2014). I agree this is all a marketing thing that doesn't really mean anything, but I disagree that this is the 9th or 10th edition. If I write something and call it "Romeo & Juliet", it isn't actually a new edition of that play.

1st edition) D&D (White Box) 2nd edition) AD&D 3rd edition) Moldvay Basic 4th edition) Frank Menzer edition 5th edition) AD&D 2nd edition 6th edition) D&D 3rd edition 7th edition) D&D 3.5 8th edition) D&D 4e 9th edition) D&D 5e 10th edition) D&D 2024 If you discount basic D&D as actual editions of D&D, then 4e would also have to be discounten as an edition of D&D.

Hello Ronald, nice video. I have a topic I would like to... discuss? I think I just want to share some information with you and everyone else, and if you respond, it's a win. I want to address Pathfinder for Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds is a RPG system with some similarities to PF2e, like analogs to a 3-action economy and degrees of success, but with a modular point-buy approach to character creation, kind of like Gurps. In 2020, publishers from both systems cooperated and made a Pathfinder adaptation to Savage Worlds, converting classes, spells and equipments. What do you think of this kinda of sytem conversion? In case you come to learn the system, do you think there are lesson/mechanics from raw Savage Worlds that Pathfinder could benefit from?

This confuses "edition" and "version" just as Marketing hoped. This video ignored new printings of each edition which changed the cover style & included errata.

It can be argued that Holmes Basic is just a reorganization of the original box set, and a starter set for AD&D, so I’ll grant that it’s not a ‘true’ edition. But after AD&D core was complete in 1979 we see Moldvay/Cook as another full edition of the game. BECMI can be seen as a further expansion on this edition. So by the time we see AD&D 2nd Edition (the first time the cover of the game materials declared an edition number) we are actually up to 4 editions, or 5 or 6 if you take the most liberal meaning of what an edition would be. If the more liberal definition is used we will most likely end up with close to a dozen editions total. The rules cyclopedia, the big black box, and the later basic game in the 90s were still just minor revisions presenting the same rules in part to varying degrees. ‘2.5’ was just optional supplemental material, the same as any splat books that had come before. 3.0 is then the 5th edition, with 3.5 being a slight update to the rules, almost being a supplement compared to the radical change between editions of AD&D. Despite the attestation of WOTC that their version of D&D was the de facto 3rd edition of AD&D it was an amalgamation of the previous ‘basic’ D&D and AD&D with many more rules additions than had been seen before. At any rate, 3.x is the 5th edition. 4th is actually 6th and and 5th is actually 7th. It remains to be seen how radically different D&D One (or whatever it will be called) will be compared to the current edition, but it’s likely to be a more substantial change than 3.5 was but less than 2nd was.

Basic D&D did "improve" and replace previous rule sets which under your definition are "new editions".

By this logic, do you revise your stance on calling the pf2e remaster "2.1"? The new core books definitely replace the old ones. Wouldn't this now be Pathfinder 3e? Not that i don't like bashing wotc and 5e, but this feels like a low hanging fruit, and a touch of hypocrisy..

Genuinely wish Pathfinder 2e Remaster was just called Pathfinder 3e. Aside from the fact that its a new edition, it does make looking up rulings and stat blocks and stuff for the remaster a bit awkward

I find the knowledge of the editions very thought provoking. I'm TSR, not wizards or the coast. If been playing since 1978. I believe Gary Gygaxx is turning over in his grave. I have also gone Pathfinder. I also play the newest version, I call this version 2.5. I have pretty much given up in the newer D&D version, like 5th, for I find it to player friendly...it's a good intro to the community, but I'm still Advanced and want to earn my scares and not be given them.

With that logic, PF 2.1 is really PF3

At the least there is: original D&D (several versions, but more or less compatible) AD&D 2nd 3rd 4th 5th So the new edition would be at least 7th. That’s my version of it, anyway.

Ha, how much did they have to pay the guy to say that 5e was the most stable version of D&D??? You know, we did see something similiar happen with Microsoft Windows where Windows 7 certainly wasn't the 7th version. Which is why there was a jump to 10 and 11 soon there after. So D&D 9e could catch on. I still won't be playing it, but the name is fine.

If you went by the D&D title, then AD&D first and second editions wouldn't count. The second edition of D&D would be B/X, third = BECMI, fourth = Rules Cyclopedia, and fifth = 3.0. That would mean 2024 D&D is actually the 10th edition.

I have to wonder, is DnD gonna start getting a power creep? It would be a sure-fire way to make groups buy more books. "Oh, you think the wizard dragon-mech subclass is over powered? Well your player want to play one. Guess you have to buy the book." This is all speculation, honestly

Moreso than more changes than 1e to 2e, it has more changes than 3.0 to 3.5

0.0 Original D&D [official fork: Basic] 1.0 Advanced D&D 2.0 Advanced D&D 2nd Edition 2.1 Advanced D&D 2nd Edition-Revised 3.0 D&D 3rd Edition 3.1 D&D 3rd Edition "v3.5" [unofficial fork: Pathfinder] 4.0 D&D 4th Edition [official fork: Essentials] 5.0 D&D 5th Edition 5.1 OneD&D [Basic D&D] 1.0 Basic Set (Holmes) 2.0 BX 2.1 BECMI 2.2 Rules Cyclopedia 2.3 "Classic" discontinued [Pathfinder] 3.2 Pathfinder 1st Edition 4.0 Pathfinder 2nd Edition 4.1 Pathfinder 2nd Edition-Remastered [Essentials] 4.1 D&D Essentials discontinued ***** If you count major version numbers then OneD&D should be sixth edition, as Original has never been part of the official count before but ideally should be, but if you count minor versions too OneD&D should be ninth edition. My main point here is that forks don't count, literally. I don't know much about Basic D&D, my versioning could be very wrong there.

WotC: 5e is perfect! Meanwhile, every DM out there throwing books across the room and frantically googling to find a solution to all the problems WotC didn’t bother solving. 5e would be 80% smaller than it is if we had no internet. And as to the claim that the new version will be fully compatible with 5e… Try playing the original Ranger while someone else plays the Tasha’s version and see who’s having fun. Even 5e isn’t compatible with 5e! 😂😂😂

Windows switched from versions including sub numbers... To years... And back again... And promised rolling updates, and then gave us a new edition...

WotC should just start complying with SemVer

it's 5.5

15:42 I’m going to start calling 2024 Core Rules "Just DnD" which is just as stupid as "Next DnD" or "One DnD". The single stupidest think is to say there will never be another edition of DND, when the sales inevitable drop of the "9th" edition WotC will make a new edition. If the current edition known as 5th Edition core books were still selling WotC wouldn’t be making the 2024 Rulebooks. The only reason that a another edition wouldn’t be released would be if the company that owns DND, currently WotC and Hasbro, goes out of business and no other company decides to purchase the rights to publish DnD but I highly doubt that would ever happen. But I bet if worse came to worse the fans would come up with a way to get the rights if no company would buy it, whether if but a crowd funding campaign or whatever.

Hm, what an interesting history of their editions. It's weird that WOTC has such a history of avoiding new editions when other games have no problem calling something a new edition.

Foda se d$d!

Nope, I won't be buying this edition. Good luck WoTc

2024 will be an update to version 5. so there are 5 editions. not 9

As far as I'm concerned, the LAST edition of D&D is Pathfiinder 1e. Whatever wokejobs of the coast have released since 2008 is NOT D&D. In 2008, they released a combination of Diablo 1&2 and Shining Force. Their so-called 5e is TTJRPG light. Every class gets magic powers. It stopped being D&D a long time ago.