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

[Parmandur]

No they don't. They have them for those specific settings. A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds. Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds. At least by default. The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings. And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.

I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No they don't. They have them for those specific settings. A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds. Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds. At least by default. The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings. And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.

Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.

But the designers have given us 5e and it should never change, because in all their wisdom they did everything correctly in 2014...
Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books. What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.

That sounds like a good business plan.

 

[Maxperson]

I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.

No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.

 

[Parmandur]

No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.

That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.

 

[Maxperson]

Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.

Yes. I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward. That's not what I am arguing, though. I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.

 

[Maxperson]

That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.

Yes. This is an easy fix. It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility. If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes. This is an easy fix. It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility. If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.

To be honest, this seems more like semantics at a certain point. What we've seen already is that they are willing to put in sidebars providing the process to use 2014 options in OneD&D, and as long as they are as simple as that with a laid out process in the final book...that's backwards compatible in any meaningful sense of the term from where I sit.

Using any TTRPG book requires some legwork and adaptation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes. I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward. That's not what I am arguing, though. I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.

I still think your definition is way off the mark. At least you like it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Remind me where they obsolete the 2014 core books? I dont recall that.

As i said,, they were specific about what kind of books are backwards compatible with 2024, and it is not the 2014 core. The new books are a replacement.