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

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly, I feel like it's a weird Internet thing when I hear about people that don't use feats. I've never played at a table that didn't use feats; I'm never even played at a table where "Do we use feats?" was a question that was asked, it was simply assumed.

This is true but I'd also say a lot of the tables I've played at "used Feats" but no PCs had Feats, not because they didn't want them, but because they couldn't justify them when ASIs were available.

 

[Maxperson]

If that is your measure, balance, then the game was not compatible with itself off the shelf. What I think is reasonable is that the new/revised classes are no more out of balance than the original classes are with each other.

Off the shelf I don't have to put in work to make the classes work together. With 5.5e I'm going to have to make sure that 2014 PCs have feats to pick from. I'm going to have to go through and pick which elf is being used, which cleric is being used, and so on. Having two of everything in the same game doesn't work. Two of everything means you are playing two different games simultaneously.

Plus, what am I supposed to do if the 2024 cleric wants 2014 spells to cast? What if someone wants the 2024 class, but the 2014 feats? If the game is backwards compatible, he can do that.

 

[Maxperson]

While I disagree that there needs to be one version, if you do believe that can’t you just pick one? I mean all it would take is to say we will use the ‘24 version of any and all feats, fighting styles, etc. pretty easy

I'm not saying(yet) that it will be a lot of work. I'm saying that if I have to work to make the game function, there's not compatibility.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Honestly, I feel like it's a weird Internet thing when I hear about people that don't use feats. I've never played at a table that didn't use feats; I'm never even played at a table where "Do we use feats?" was a question that was asked, it was simply assumed.

There definitely was data to support no feeds; however, I’m guessing that that has changed over the past nine years.

 

[TwoSix]

This is true but I'd also say a lot of the tables I've played at "used Feats" but no PCs had Feats, not because they didn't want them, but because they couldn't justify them when ASIs were available.

Oh sure, I've definitely had that happen. I'm not a fan of that dynamic, so I started using higher starting stats to compensate.

 

[Umbran]

That's by definition not backwards compatible.

Eh. Yes and no.

I mean, when I am running a game (any game, not just D&D) in a single edition, I, as GM can expect to have to do some work to massage an adventure a bit to work with my particular party, or maybe work some rules tweaks on character classes so balance is maintained.

If going across editions isn't significantly more work than I'd do anyway, then it is backwards compatible.

 

[TwoSix]

Off the shelf I don't have to put in work to make the classes work together. With 5.5e I'm going to have to make sure that 2014 PCs have feats to pick from. I'm going to have to go through and pick which elf is being used, which cleric is being used, and so on. Having two of everything in the same game doesn't work. Two of everything means you are playing two different games simultaneously.

Plus, what am I supposed to do if the 2024 cleric wants 2014 spells to cast? What if someone wants the 2024 class, but the 2014 feats? If the game is backwards compatible, he can do that.

I'd probably push back on this a little bit. I don't particularly care which version of a class or race somebody uses. If I have a 2014 cleric and a 2024 cleric at the same table, why would I care? It's the player's job to run their character appropriately, not mine. And it's not like having a 2024 version means I'll suddenly forget how the 2014 versions work.

This isn't a hypothetical; I have alternate 3pp versions of a bunch of classes I use in my games, and I've had a 3pp version and the PHB version of a class in the same game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd probably push back on this a little bit. I don't particularly care which version of a class or race somebody uses. If I have a 2014 cleric and a 2024 cleric at the same table, why would I care? It's the player's job to run their character appropriately, not mine. And it's not like having a 2024 version means I'll suddenly forget how the 2014 versions work.

This isn't a hypothetical; I have alternate 3pp versions of a bunch of classes I use in my games, and I've had a 3pp version and the PHB version of a class in the same game.

I agree though I think Max pointed out one serious issue there - Feats. I think we will probably have some issues with those. I suspect we'll have to only use 1D&D Feats.

 

[TwoSix]

Eh. Yes and no.

I mean, when I am running a game (any game, not just D&D) in a single edition, I, as GM can expect to have to do some work to massage an adventure a bit to work with my particular party, or maybe work some rules tweaks on character classes so balance is maintained.

If going across editions isn't significantly more work than I'd do anyway, then it is backwards compatible.

Agreed. To my mind, backwards compatibility would be more along the lines of "Ok, everyone make a Perception check" and the 2024 characters say "We don't have Perception as a skill, they got rid of it, noticing stuff is an Intelligence save now."

 

[TwoSix]

I agree though I think Max pointed out one serious issue there - Feats. I think we will probably have some issues with those. I suspect we'll have to only use 1D&D Feats.

I do see the possibility of some busted synergies with the stronger PHB feats, for sure. I'll probably evaluate case-by-case once the new rules come out; if there are enough issues, just make a standard rule that 2024 characters can only take 2024+ feats, and earlier characters can only take earlier feats.