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

[Olrox17]

It's an analogy: humans replace machines in applying math, or code, for tabletop applications.

It's an analogy, yes, I just don't think it's a good analogy. Nobody cares if a computer has to do a little or a lot more work behind the scenes to ensure backwards compatibility. It doesn't matter, we don't even notice it.

We all care (or should care) if real humans at the table are saddled with some degree of extra work, just because the higher ups at a corp decided that "backwards compatibility" sounded like a good promotional term, and a professional game designing team couldn't figure out a way to solve the workload issue on their end.
(I'm not saying it's impossible for them to figure something out, I already presented 4e Essentials as an example of backwards compatibility done correctly. I just don't think they will. They'll do a 3.5 thing)

 

[FrogReaver]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

 

[Parmandur]

It's an analogy, yes, I just don't think it's a good analogy. Nobody cares if a computer has to do a little or a lot more work behind the scenes to ensure backwards compatibility. It doesn't matter, we don't even notice it.

We all care (or should care) if real humans at the table are saddled with some degree of extra work, just because the higher ups at a corp decided that "backwards compatibility" sounded like a good promotional term, and a professional game designing team couldn't figure out a way to solve the workload issue on their end.
(I'm not saying it's impossible for them to figure something out, I already presented 4e Essentials as an example of backwards compatibility done correctly. I just don't think they will. They'll do a 3.5 thing)

I mean, from what we've seen in the playtrst, there's basically zero work involved...?

 

[Parmandur]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

Actually, that should be pretty doable based on what we've seen, the last packet even says the final version will have guidance on doing that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, that should be pretty doable based on what we've seen,

Not based on what I've seen.

the last packet even says the final version will have guidance on doing that.

IMO. Guidance on fitting a square peg in a round hole is still fitting a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Parmandur]

Not based on what I've seen.

IMO. Guidance on fitting a square peg in a round hole is still fitting a square peg in a round hole.

The peg is still round: the Bard Subclasses, at least, all work with the latest Bard drop, and that's going to be one of the most difficult ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

The peg is still round: the Bard Subclasses, at least, all work with the latest Bard drop, and that's going to be one of the most difficult ones.

One round peg doesn't equal all round pegs.

 

[Iosue]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

Wizards has never made this claim. They've only defined backward compatibility as "fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D." Cross-pollination of characters, per se, never enters into it. Inasmuch as 5e adventures working with the 1D&D core rules, we can assume that character power will stay largely at the same level, and thus while 5e characters and 1D&D characters sharing a table shouldn't generally be a problem, as near as I can tell, Wizards expects groups to essentially use one of either set of rules for all characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wizards has never made this claim. They've only defined backward compatibility as "fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D." Cross-pollination of characters, per se, never enters into it. Inasmuch as 5e adventures working with the 1D&D core rules, we can assume that character power will stay largely at the same level, and thus 5e characters and 1D&D characters sharing a table shouldn't generally be a problem, as near as I can tell, Wizards expects groups to essentially use one of either set of rules for all characters.

Explicitly you mean. Because implicitly if the 5e adventure and supplements work as is in 5.5e then characters built in 5e should work alongside 5.5e ones as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Parmandur - to elaborate a bit

We've seen four classes now with subclass progression being standardized into 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 14th level from the otherwise scattered progression all over the place. We will assume all 12 PHB classes with keep a similar progression, though its worth noting they may not look exactly the same, if cleric domain is anything to go by. The purpose is to look at the rammifications of this change on the current subclasses in supplemental books.

... (removed for brevity)

Cleric
Current Progression: 1, 2, 6, 8, 17
Well the current UA shows us there is changes coming to clerics. We are already aware the change of domain has been moved to 3rd, and that the bonus proficiencies of domains have been moved to Divine Order. It also looks like the first level domain spells are gone. This will mean most domains will lose the bonus weapons/armor, proficiencies, or cantrips along with one line of spells. Channel divinity at 2nd is moved to 6th, divine strike is a base-class feature at 7th, the current 6th level feature is moved to 10th and the 17th level feature is dropped for 14. That should make most subs still work with cleric with minimal fuss, which is good because waiting on redesigns for nearly a dozen cleric domains seems like eternity.

Fighter
Current Progression: 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
Hoo-boy. This one is going to need some work. We have one more feature than is available in 1D&D. That means at the very least the last two features would come at 14th level as a double-up. I hesitate to speculate until we see the 1D&D fighter, but I imagine there is going to be a lot of work needed to make old fighter's work.

... (removed for brevity)

Cleric and Fighter will be the hardest to move over as they have more subclass features than One D&D subclasses have. Much harder to eliminate a feature than add one. That's the best example of square peg, round hole I have at the moment. More might become apparent when the details of other 5.5e classes become playtested.