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

[The Shadow]

Not exactly the same. Just compatible. I need to be able to use it without it being unbalanced and without having to put in effort to make it work. If I have to put in effort to make it work, I'M making it compatible, not them.

Can you give an example of a genuine change you would see as compatible?

 

[Maxperson]

Can you give an example of a genuine change you would see as compatible?

Not so much. Change is not compatible with staying the same. I don't have an issue so much with change. My issue is with the incorrect claim that change will be backwards compatible. The used the same line on us when moving from 3e to 3.5. It was wrong then. It's wrong now.

 

[Olrox17]

Can you give an example of a genuine change you would see as compatible?

I think I can provide one example of a backwards compatible edition.
4e Essentials. They were a substantial paradigm shift in class design, came with their own “new” core book (the Rules Compendium), and changed quite a bit of rules. And yet, you could run a character from the original PHB alongside Essentials characters with zero effort. Only thing you’d have to do, would be downloading the free errata document for your original PHB.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think it will be compatible enough that you can use 5e character options with 1D&D rules. But it will be clunky, enough so that most groups will stick to content from a single edition, at least for PC options.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Not exactly the same. Just compatible. I need to be able to use it without it being unbalanced and without having to put in effort to make it work. If I have to put in effort to make it work, I'M making it compatible, not them.

I will not budge on this point. Balance is not compatibility. One option being superior to another has nothing to do with something being backwards compatible.

Options can be stronger or weaker than another and still be compatible. You are talking about making the options balanced not compatible, and that is an entirely different thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You just you can't mix and match character options between the 2.

Easy enough to homebrew old cleric sub-classes into new cleric, though.

You absolutely can do exactly that.

Like we’ve…done it?

The playtest cleric is completely compatible with the Grave Domain.

You literally just take you subclass feature levels in order. In the case of the bard, we plan to give an extra feat on the last subclass feature level since the new class has 1 more subclass feature level, and…that’s it. I’m sure we could put all of that into one 2-segment sentence, in the class descriptions and/or in the beginning of the class section.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They don’t seem big to me, not a change that prevents compatibility

Yeah none of that seems big, much less “massive”, to me.

 

[Parmandur]

You absolutely can do exactly that.

Like we’ve…done it?

The playtest cleric is completely compatible with the Grave Domain.

You literally just take you subclass feature levels in order. In the case of the bard, we plan to give an extra feat on the last subclass feature level since the new class has 1 more subclass feature level, and…that’s it. I’m sure we could put all of that into one 2-segment sentence, in the class descriptions and/or in the beginning of the class section.

Maybe neither her nor there, but probably a free Feat in the third Subclass slot makes sense for the Bard, given the Levels they come online originally.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We've already seen some massive changes from 5e's design in terms of starting feats, shifting subclass levels, the new heritage/lineage/post-race rules, the spell groupings, etc. Those are some pretty big changes, IMHO, and some of them (the spell groupings especially) seem to be change for the sake of change. I'm not optimistic for real backward compatibility.

I think, the spell lists are the only change I'd call massive. The rest is not. And even then, there is no problem converting. Wither yoir old character keeps the original spell lost or the new one. Done.

I don't think, that an agreement about what backwards compatibility means can be reached.
Some people more or less stated, that backwards compatibility only allow for taking the old rules, swap some subclasses and put new art on thr cover.
Some people seem to allow even less, because with swapped subclasses, you are forced to buy another book to play your character.

In my opinion that would be a money grab and a waste of time and paper.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I go the other way. "It's compatible if the DM puts in the effort to make it work" is too broad. By that measure(the one people here keep telling me is correct), every RPG is compatible with every other RPG. With enough effort I can make any two RPGs compatible.

I agree. I will have to ask my DM to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like he is putting inn any extra work as we’re play testing. So from that perspective, the play test changes are compatible.