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

[UngeheuerLich]

Fair enough. Hard to convey tone in this format. I accept you were going for funny.

Thank you. Iit probably stopped being funny for a while. I sometimes have problems with that (ask my wife).

 

[Malmuria]

I would expect playing in a mixed 5e/Onednd game to be compatible-but-annoying. As long as they keep proficiency bonus and ASI increases where they are now, it will be compatible. But character classes will have abilities added at different levels, and those abilities might work in slightly different ways. I can see tables familiar with 5e mistakenly using a 5e rule instead of a onednd rule without realizing it, and it won't break the game, but will cause confusion (even when I played 5e, I assumed things in 5e worked the same as in previous editions, and was surprised to find they had changed the rule).

The other possible area of incompatibility is encounter building, but that already doesn't work?

 

[Maxperson]

If 5.5 doesn't change significantly enough, a lot of people won't bother to buy it and will just keep playing with the books that they already have. If it does change significantly enough that people need to buy the new books, it's not going to be backwards compatible. I think it will change enough that backwards compatibility will not happen.

 

[glass]

I think they're going to introduce enough differences that it won't be compatible without a fair amount work on the GM's part, which means that, in practical terms, it won't be compatible.

I think they already have, if the relevant parts of OneD&D match the playtest packets.

There are a fair number of people on reddit that think that anything less than being nearly identical means incompatible.

...and in the vast majority of cases there are right. There are things you can change without breaking compatibility, but not many and you have to be extremely careful.

 

[Jer]

If 5.5 doesn't change significantly enough, a lot of people won't bother to buy it and will just keep playing with the books that they already have. If it does change significantly enough that people need to buy the new books, it's not going to be backwards compatible. I think it will change enough that backwards compatibility will not happen.

I think they're more concerned with getting people onto digital and the book sales are a secondary factor now.

Unlike previous edition shifts which came as the edition was losing sales oomph and they needed a new edition to boost sales, this one is happening when 5e is still selling strong. Making an edition that is perceived as too incompatible will be a jumping off point for people to stick with 5e and not subscribe to DDB, and that's a bad thing for them.

I also think there will be enough differences that anyone that wants to declare the two editions incompatible will have a case, but they'll also be so similar that anyone that wants to declare the two editions compatible will also have a case. So everyone will both win and lose this argument in the end

 

[Maxperson]

I think they're more concerned with getting people onto digital and the book sales are a secondary factor now.

New compatible rules won't do that, either. They will need to offer other things as incentives, which they can do right now with 5e. Or produce incompatible rules and a new OGL which will require people to go to DDB to play them on a VTT/

Making an edition that is perceived as too incompatible will be a jumping off point for people to stick with 5e and not subscribe to DDB, and that's a bad thing for them.

I also think there will be enough differences that anyone that wants to declare the two editions incompatible will have a case, but they'll also be so similar that anyone that wants to declare the two editions compatible will also have a case. So everyone will both win and lose this argument in the end

You might be right. I mean, they tried to claim that 3e and 3.5 were compatible.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"Compatible" isn't an objective standard, hence all the differing opinions.

I have not seen anything in the playtest documents that would cause a problem for me DMing with 2014-era materials, so that's compatible enough for me.

That said, I have a high tolerance for conversions on the fly, having mashed together multiple systems as a Castles & Crusades DM, and run a table where everyone is fine with the Rule of Cool trumping RAW.

EDIT: And I like most of the changes I've seen so far and intend, barring WotC deciding next week to try and prohibit everyone on earth from using the ampersand or something, to pick up the new core books next year.

 

[Clint_L]

Bottom line is that it has to work with the existing base of millions of people using DnDBeyond.

If 5.5 doesn't change significantly enough, a lot of people won't bother to buy it and will just keep playing with the books that they already have. If it does change significantly enough that people need to buy the new books, it's not going to be backwards compatible. I think it will change enough that backwards compatibility will not happen.

Monsters of the Multiverse says hi.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Depends on how you define compatible.

Usually it’s “yes with some work on the DMs part”.

Just use the new monster manual monsters in place of the ones in the adventure book.

Etc.

Compatible for a TTRPG just means a little (or a lot) of extra work. Or just wing it like I do.

 

[Maxperson]

Bottom line is that it has to work with the existing base of millions of people using DnDBeyond.

Monsters of the Multiverse says hi.

Not really. If that's the best that they can do a lot of people aren't going to be making the switch. Further, if that's 5.5e, then this whole playtesting this is a farce. Monsters of the Multiverse may have some similarities to what is happening, but it can't be all that there is. And after this fiasco of the last few weeks, WotC will need things to be more drastic if they want to produce a new OGL and gain control of the VTT market.