D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

Did they really say "total backwards compatibility"?

Because I think you may be falling prey to exactly the same thing that people fell prey to back in the D&D Next playtest: taking mildly-worded statements as being much stronger than intended, and taking the moderately stronger statements at their strongest possible interpretation, when weaker meanings could be intended (or, well, finagled, as was clearly the case with the D&D Next playtest.)

Remember that "modularity" was initially described as allowing, at the very least, a new edition that could be calibrated solely with official rules options to match 1st edition preferences and style, or 3e preferences and style, or 4e preferences and style, all smoothly, with the quickly walked-back implication that you could carry characters from one such table to another and not experience any issues or even have multiple different styles in play at the same table at the same time. As I said, they very quickly walked that one back because they realized that that was almost certainly not possible, but it's quite clear that they wanted people to understand "modularity" in a strong and expansive sense, and a lot of people, myself included, felt they fell rather short of that goal.

So: Did they actually say, in exact words, "total backwards compatibility"? Or did they say something else?

Went back and checked the D&D Celebration announcement where they clarified that the big Class satisfaction survey last year was for the new revision in 2024 as they announced the latter would be coming. Their exact words were that the revisions will be "compeltely compatible" with the 2014 rules. We already know from Monsters of the Multiverse, Rabenloft, Witchlight, Strixhaven, Call of the Netherdeep, JourneThrlugh the Radiant Citadel, and Spelljammer that the new Monster can be mixed with the old in practice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Went back and checked the D&D Celebration announcement where they clarified that the big Class satisfaction survey last year was for the new revision in 2024 as they announced the latter would be coming. Their exact words were that the revisions will be "compeltely compatible" with the 2014 rules. We already know from Monsters of the Multiverse, Rabenloft, Witchlight, Strixhaven, Call of the Netherdeep, JourneThrlugh the Radiant Citadel, and Spelljammer that the new Monster can be mixed with the old in practice.

"Completely compatible" can mean a lot of things though. In most ways, 3.5e was "completely compatible" with 3e, yet people kicked up a pretty big fuss about it initially. This is, obviously, a different circumstance, being ten years later as opposed to three. But I would be very cautious about presuming that so little will change. As I said, WotC has a history of making rather strident early claims, claims that SOUND like they're promising a lot, but which are actually a lot more wishy-washy equivocal than they seemed.

 

[Parmandur]

"Completely compatible" can mean a lot of things though. In most ways, 3.5e was "completely compatible" with 3e, yet people kicked up a pretty big fuss about it initially. This is, obviously, a different circumstance, being ten years later as opposed to three. But I would be very cautious about presuming that so little will change. As I said, WotC has a history of making rather strident early claims, claims that SOUND like they're promising a lot, but which are actually a lot more wishy-washy equivocal than they seemed.

But this time we already have many of the actual changes already implemented, such as with the new Starter Set that they confirmed would stay in place through the revision. We have.the new Monster designs, and the new Race paradigm, already in play.

 

[Minigiant]

5e works for people who don’t want to learn systems in order to have fun, and for people who do, and IMO no other edition did that.

I think 4e Essentials also did that and better than 5e.
4e Essentials is super easy to learn as a player and a DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But this time we already have many of the actual changes already implemented, such as with the new Starter Set that they confirmed would stay in place through the revision. We have.the new Monster designs, and the new Race paradigm, already in play.

...which again says nothing about changes they haven't revealed yet. Stuff like, as stated, the almost guaranteed replacement of the Ranger with a new version and heavy rewrites of several PHB subclasses.

You cannot argue from the fact that we have seen certain changes in a certain pattern that it is somehow impossible to get changes that won't fit that pattern. Which is what I'm arguing, as I said before: I think the changes we've seen are the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be substantial changes to a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff, things that will be "completely compatible" with old material in the sense that you will still be able to run it, but not 100% fully backwards-compatible in the sense that it won't really be designed to support the old models.

For example, I expect encounter design to shift, I expect there to be rather more serious changes to monster design than we've already seen, and I expect there to be significant changes to expected rests. They can't implement those changes right now because it would be too dramatic a shift for classes still dependent on short rests. It will still be "compatible" in the sense that you can still run "original 5e" characters through new-style adventures, it just will be much more swingy (and likely more punishing) for certain classes.

Which is why I said that these words can mean something rather weaker than it sounds like they mean. WotC has a vested interest in making people as enthusiastic and positive toward this change as they can. Thus, they have a vested interest in presenting it in as positive a light as possible, which often means playing up compatibility--not outright false claims, to be sure, but massaging the truth wherever it is less convenient. And, like I said, we have the playtest to demonstrate this already. It's not like this is a new pattern. D&D Next was billed as ultra-modular, capable of slotting in all sorts of highly divergent gameplay styles through "toggles" and such. The end product has a small selection of fairly weakly-supported optional rules, most of which just change the flavor or pace of things, without actually shifting the gameplay experience. The exact words of their statements were equivocal, people read them pretty strongly to start off with and a portion were disappointed when that strong interpretation failed to materialize.

Be ready for that pattern to repeat itself. I obviously cannot provide any guarantee that it will happen. But it has happened in the past.

 

[Parmandur]

...which again says nothing about changes they haven't revealed yet. Stuff like, as stated, the almost guaranteed replacement of the Ranger with a new version and heavy rewrites of several PHB subclasses.

You cannot argue from the fact that we have seen certain changes in a certain pattern that it is somehow impossible to get changes that won't fit that pattern. Which is what I'm arguing, as I said before: I think the changes we've seen are the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be substantial changes to a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff, things that will be "completely compatible" with old material in the sense that you will still be able to run it, but not 100% fully backwards-compatible in the sense that it won't really be designed to support the old models.

For example, I expect encounter design to shift, I expect there to be rather more serious changes to monster design than we've already seen, and I expect there to be significant changes to expected rests. They can't implement those changes right now because it would be too dramatic a shift for classes still dependent on short rests. It will still be "compatible" in the sense that you can still run "original 5e" characters through new-style adventures, it just will be much more swingy (and likely more punishing) for certain classes.

Which is why I said that these words can mean something rather weaker than it sounds like they mean. WotC has a vested interest in making people as enthusiastic and positive toward this change as they can. Thus, they have a vested interest in presenting it in as positive a light as possible, which often means playing up compatibility--not outright false claims, to be sure, but massaging the truth wherever it is less convenient. And, like I said, we have the playtest to demonstrate this already. It's not like this is a new pattern. D&D Next was billed as ultra-modular, capable of slotting in all sorts of highly divergent gameplay styles through "toggles" and such. The end product has a small selection of fairly weakly-supported optional rules, most of which just change the flavor or pace of things, without actually shifting the gameplay experience. The exact words of their statements were equivocal, people read them pretty strongly to start off with and a portion were disappointed when that strong interpretation failed to materialize.

Be ready for that pattern to repeat itself. I obviously cannot provide any guarantee that it will happen. But it has happened in the past.

On the contrary, the succesuful modular nature of 5E design is why I both agree that they will probably will do some radical stuff with Classes (looking st you, Monks and Rangers), but thst doesnequate to anything "radical." They could replace everybClas in the game and that would be a radical change, if the core rules remain the same. They are going to replace all the Ravesnin the game, and that is bit a radical change either. Just unplugging modules and putting new ones in place.

 

[Minigiant]

"Completely compatible" can mean a lot of things though. In most ways, 3.5e was "completely compatible" with 3e, yet people kicked up a pretty big fuss about it initially. This is, obviously, a different circumstance, being ten years later as opposed to three. But I would be very cautious about presuming that so little will change. As I said, WotC has a history of making rather strident early claims, claims that SOUND like they're promising a lot, but which are actually a lot more wishy-washy equivocal than they seemed.

Yup, Completely compatible could just mean that the PC math and Monster math are the same and the Names of stuff stay the same.

You can change everything but the names and levels of a class's features and it would be completely compatible if the offenses and defenses are within 10% of the 2014 version.

The Ranger is gonna get totally be rewritten except for where the subbclass features come in so the 2024 version can still run Gloomstalker..

 

[Parmandur]

I think 4e Essentials also did that and better than 5e.
4e Essentials is super easy to learn as a player and a DM.

Did thst better for you, absolutely. But thst is hardly a universal experience. 5E has some serious advantages, such as natural.language design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yup, Completely compatible could just mean that the PC math and Monster math are the same and the Names of stuff stay the same.

You can change everything but the names and levels of a class's features and it would be completely compatible if the offenses and defenses are within 10% of the 2014 version.

Further, Pathfinder explicitly did sell itself as "100% backwards-compatible," and yet it invented a whole bunch of new mechanics (CMB/CMD, for instance), rewrote several core classes, and in several other ways made major changes to the 3.5e baseline. It still sold itself as that all the way up to the end, despite mountains of feats, hundreds of Archetypes (a system that doesn't even exist in 3.x), dozens of new spells, etc., etc.

 

[Parmandur]

Yup, Completely compatible could just mean that the PC math and Monster math are the same and the Names of stuff stay the same.

You can change everything but the names and levels of a class's features and it would be completely compatible if the offenses and defenses are within 10% of the 2014 version.

The Ranger is gonna get totally be rewritten except for where the subbclass features come in so the 2024 version can still run Gloomstalker..

Yes, if a 20qr Ranger and a 2024 can play in the same party and encounter monsters from vote 2014 and 2024 without the math breaking, that is complete compatibility in my book.