D&D (2024) So Will 'OneD&D' (6E) Actually Be Backwards Compatible?

[dave2008]

4e-5e was not at all accurate. We were told things would be in 5e that weren't. They a;sp dropped things that were popular in the playtest and added a lot into 5e that nobody ever got to playtest to the final product. The end product was very different from the playtest.

I think you are selectively remembering (but I am probably too). They talked about a lot of things during the "playtest." It was a work in progress and they didn't promise many things people seem to think they did. They talked about them, and said some where goals. But they didn't promise them. If you didn't expect changes, then that is on you IMO.

 

[mamba]

Did you miss the rest of my post?

no, I just did not quote it

It's not going to be identical. For many people, that's as good as being completely incompatible.

if it were identical, it would be a reprint. I do not care whether some people think it not being that makes it incompatible, because there is no point arguing that.

The example you gave with someone asking for a LU version of a 5e monster, yeah, if that is what you need, then this no longer is about compatibility. So you remove yourself from any discussion about compatibility.

 

[mamba]

Everyone seems to forget that this is the first edition change where sales haven’t been in the toilet.

what about 3e to 4e? No idea what sales were then, just wondering

 

[Parmandur]

I think you are selectively remembering (but I am probably too). They talked about a lot of things during the "playtest." It was a work in progress and they didn't promise many things people seem to think they did. They talked about them, and said some where goals. But they didn't promise them. If you didn't expect changes, then that is on you IMO.

Big difference between Monte Cook spitballokg ideas in 2012 before they started gathering data, versus Crawford putting out documents after 10 years of input on the game.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I think you are selectively remembering (but I am probably too). They talked about a lot of things during the "playtest." It was a work in progress and they didn't promise many things people seem to think they did. They talked about them, and said some where goals. But they didn't promise them. If you didn't expect changes, then that is on you IMO.

Feats were never publicly playtested as finally written, if my old packets are complete. GWM let you auto-crit for -5 to hit. Sharpshooter (under a different name) gave you an extra attack but all attacks that round were at -5. Yes, both of those are awful designs, but that's kind of the point. They didn't even have sound math. The final designs really bounced around. I also recall that between the last playtest and the final version, Ogre got +30 hit points and -2 CR.

The vast majority of spells were either not in the playtest, or never changed, or only changed after the playtested concluded. Especially spell levels 7+, which is basically what has made the last two tiers of play so commonly frustrating and difficult to run that WotC barely acknowledges it's existence anymore. I only recall Mud Sorcerer's Tomb as the high level adventure, and I remember my friends playing it fairly early in the playtest before most high level spells were available. I really don't see how they could get playtest feedback on high level spells with that.

---

Big difference between Monte Cook spitballokg ideas in 2012 before they started gathering data, versus Crawford putting out documents after 10 years of input on the game.

I mean if the current playtest docs are anything to go by, I'm not so sure. A lot of the nerfs are warranted and necessary, but they didn't backfill with anything. For the most part I have been consistently underwhelmed by the playtest. If anything the game is even more milquetoast than 5e was. I have just not found anything at all to be excited about, and they've published 3 of my favorite classes already.

 

[Parmandur]

Feats were never publicly playtested as finally written, if my old packets are complete. GWM let you auto-crit for -5 to hit. Sharpshooter (under a different name) gave you an extra attack but all attacks that round were at -5. Yes, both of those are awful designs, but that's kind of the point. They didn't even have sound math. The final designs really bounced around. I also recall that between the last playtest and the final version, Ogre got +30 hit points and -2 CR.

The vast majority of spells were either not in the playtest, or never changed, or only changed after the playtested concluded. Especially spell levels 7+, which is basically what has made the last two tiers of play so commonly frustrating and difficult to run that WotC barely acknowledges it's existence anymore. I only recall Mud Sorcerer's Tomb as the high level adventure, and I remember my friends playing it fairly early in the playtest before most high level spells were available. I really don't see how they could get playtest feedback on high level spells with that.

---

I mean if the current playtest docs are anything to go by, I'm not so sure. A lot of the nerfs are warranted and necessary, but they didn't backfill with anything. For the most part I have been consistently underwhelmed by the playtest. If anything the game is even more milquetoast than 5e was. I have just not found anything at all to be excited about, and they've published 3 of my favorite classes already.

I mean, if you c9nsider 5E to be "milquetoast," then yes OneD&D is going to be even more so. That's the point, it's refined 5E, not a different game, and refined to the tastes of people who have enjoyed 5E for years. The conservative Evergreen vision is in play now.

 

[Faolyn]

no, I just did not quote it


if it were identical, it would be a reprint. I do not care whether some people think it not being that makes it incompatible, because there is no point arguing that.

The example you gave with someone asking for a LU version of a 5e monster, yeah, if that is what you need, then this no longer is about compatibility. So you remove yourself from any discussion about compatibility.

But that's going to be what many, even most, people are expecting and want out of something that bills itself as "backwards compatible."

So it honestly does not matter what the execs say or what you say. It's what The People in general say.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But that's going to be what many, even most, people are expecting and want out of something that bills itself as "backwards compatible."

So it honestly does not matter what the execs say or what you say. It's what The People in general say.

Please introduce me to "the people" who all say that. I personally don't think many people would be happy if 6e is on the cover and they buy just a reprint.

 

[SteveC]

I mean, if you c9nsider 5E to be "milquetoast," then yes OneD&D is going to be even more so. That's the point, it's refined 5E, not a different game, and refined to the tastes of people who have enjoyed 5E for years. The conservative Evergreen vision is in play now.

As someone who was there for the 5E playtest, it definitely was designed to be inoffensive. We were supposed to have this fairly bland and generic game that we could spice up with modules to taste. Unfortunately, the most those module ideas amounted to were short optional rules in the DMG.

The 5E design goals were to be everyone's second or third favorite edition, and we see that today: if your group has some people who like 4E, some Pathfinder, some OSR ... you play 5E because it's okay for everyone.

I definitely know there are people who have 5E as their favorite game ever, and I'm not trying to say or imply "badwrongfun" in any way (I'm playing and having fun in a 5E game at the moment), but there is a reason why we don't have things like a Warlord class or full-on psionic rules or a lot of other things.

 

[Faolyn]

Please introduce me to "the people" who all say that. I personally don't think many people would be happy if 6e is on the cover and they buy just a reprint.

Where did I say it would be a reprint?

But hey, on this thread, MaxPerson has been talking about how they're not actually compatible.