D&D (2024) What does Backward compatibility mean to you?

[niklinna]

if nothing changes from current rules and playtest (again they will be making more changes I'm sure) that isn't true. we already have lucky feat being diffrent, you can't play a character with lucky from the 2014 PHB and one with the lucky form the playtest togather.

Why not? Each player could refer to the corresponding book.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, and you might have to change some stuff if the party has a twilight cleric, a bladesinger, and a sorcadin, compared to a party with a Four Element monk, a beast master ranger, and a wild magic sorcerer.

this is the argument I use in other threads in how the game isn't balanced. If you throw 2 fighters and 2 rogues into an adventure, then take the same adventure and throw a swordbard, twilight cleric, bladesinger wizard, and hexblade through the same adventure and it SHOULD be equally difficult

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why not? Each player could refer to the corresponding book.

how many DMs/Tables do you expect to do this?

I mean by that logic I can make a 4e warlord, you can make a Guardian Jedi, and my buddy can make a 2e specialist cleric of MYstra... and we can find a 5e table to sit at

 

[DEFCON 1]

Look, if I go and buy new books this year and next assuming they will be compatible because they say "It's 'Just D&D', it's the same edition" and then find out that some of the mechanics are no longer applicable, and others need to be reworked, then yes I will be vocal to say that they lied - and correct to do so. Because they made a statement and it turned out that they were saying something untrue that decreased the value to me of what I purchased from them.

This isn't something about sayig the 2014 is balanced or complete or anything like this. It's a statement of direction so we can properly gauge the value to us of the books coming out between now and then. They are saying it's "Just D&D" and they will keep the full value. It's understandable, when 5e was anounced 4e sales dried up. But if it ends up being a case of corporate greediness, and mechanics fromt hese books need to be reworked or just don't fit - then people have a right to yell.

But how reasonable are you going to be?

Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed. If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all. There could very well be countless times in all these books where creatures will suffer from things that cause them to be slowed down, but none of them will impart the Slowed condition (even though they now probably should.) Are you going to say therefore that none of these books are backwards compatible? Or are you going to be reasonable and yes, have to put in a slight amount of work and make the decision to say these creatures all will suffer the Slowed condition so that it matches the game play of 2024 (if that's indeed what you feel should happen)?

And this is just one rule change. There are going to be hundreds of others. Tiny rules that will be different in 2024 that will not be able to be retroactively reflected in any of the books up to this point because maybe just terms have changed. Now if we are lucky... these rules differences will be so minor that it will take almost no effort to just toss off a quick DM call when using an older book to align it to the new paradigm. But by definition that is going to be some work. A very small amount yes... but we've already seen people here stating they don't want to do ANY work. And if that's the case... then I think you might as well just accept you're being lied to right now.

 

[Blue]

But how reasonable are you going to be?

Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed. If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all.

That's fine. I could pick up a monster manual and if not a single creature in it affected the exhaustion track that doesn't mean it's not compatible. It means it just doesn't interact with it.

But if, for example, I get a bunch of feats without levels, and when 2024 comes out there's no errata to add levels to them, then I've got a rule that needs some rework. And if t

And this is just one rule change. There are going to be hundreds of others. Tiny rules that will be different in 2024 that will not be able to be retroactively reflected in any of the books up to this point because maybe just terms have changed. Now if we are lucky... these rules differences will be so minor that it will take almost no effort to just toss off a quick DM call when using an older book to align it to the new paradigm. But by definition that is going to be some work. A very small amount yes... but we've already seen people here stating they don't want to do ANY work. And if that's the case... then I think you might as well just accepting you're being lied to right now.

That's my exact point. I like the rule changes so far. But if you are going to, for example, retool the primary player facing rules by redoing character creation and advancement plus a bunch of changes in combat, casting and the like, then we have a precedent for it with the D&D 3ed to 3.5. They eventually republished most of the 3.0 content updated for 3.5. So say that upfront.

On the other hand, if it's like 4e Essentials where it's new rules but all of the old rules are still in play unchanged, that's the same edition.

Basically, there seems to be this "it's one edition" AND "there will be thousands of tiny changes". I say those two concepts are pretty exclusive. If there really is a huge slew of tiny changes that means I need to discard or rework a lot of the mechanics in the new books, then they have a lot less value for me.

 

[TwoSix]

Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed. If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all. There could very well be countless times in all these books where creatures will suffer from things that cause them to be slowed down, but none of them will impart the Slowed condition (even though they now probably should.) Are you going to say therefore that none of these books are backwards compatible? Or are you going to be reasonable and yes, have to put in a slight amount of work and make the decision to say these creatures all will suffer the Slowed condition so that it matches the game play of 2024 (if that's indeed what you feel should happen)?

Anybody who says that a new condition would somehow make the games incompatible is being ridiculous. You can apply Slowed to any monster from the 2014 MM; likewise, you can use any 2014 MM monster against a 2024 party with no mechanical issues. Having 2 different mechanical expressions of an in-fiction concept is NOT an incompatibility.

The issue of incompatibility would arise if they REMOVE conditions, that would be a much bigger problem for any compatibility claims.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They eventually republished most of the 3.0 content updated for 3.5. So say that upfront.

On the other hand, if it's like 4e Essentials where it's new rules but all of the old rules are still in play unchanged, that's the same edition.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly now, then I may have misunderstood you before.

So it's not that there will be changes or won't be changes within the base game or whatever on their own that would be an issue... but that if the changes are substantial enough that WotC feels like they want/need to update all their previous book and sell them to us again... that's where you're looking for them to tell us that now up front (like how they reprinted 3.0 splatbooks like Sword and Fist and turned them into 3.5 Complete Warrior for example.)

If that's the kind of thing you mean, then yeah, I understand.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Anybody who says that a new condition would somehow make the games incompatible is being ridiculous.

You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't someone out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.

 

[TwoSix]

So it's not that there will be changes or won't be changes within the base game or whatever on their own... but that if the changes are substantial enough that WotC feels like they want/need to update all their previous book and sell them to us again... that's where you're looking for them to tell us that now up front (like how they reprinted splatbooks like Sword and Fist and turned them into Complete Warrior for example.)

As a total aside, I don't think the problem with the 3.5 change was the core books, really. The problem was them immediately publishing Complete Warrior and revising 90% of the material from Sword and Fist, thus immediately telegraphing that the company viewed existing 3.0 splat as problematic.

If Complete Warrior had been 100% new PrCs, thus indicating Sword and Fist was still fine to use, I think people would have been a lot less sour over the change.

 

[TwoSix]

You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't someone out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.

Well, any long-term D&D community is comprised of about 90% salt.