D&D (2024) The impending mess that will be backwards compatibility

[Umbran]

Communism has worked in practice.

I would argue it works in small groups but doesn't scale well (join a local commun and as long as you don't by mistake end up in a cult you will do great... got to a communist country and well... not so good)

There are no communist countries.

Mod Note:
Somehow, the three of you seem to have forgotten the no-politics rule, or have decided it doesn't apply to you, or something.

It does apply here. It is time to leave off on communism.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't disagree with you guys that as a gamer I'd personally rather have a new edition that really digs into improving the game, but that's not usually what we get from a new edition, is it? Usually it fixes some things that are broken, and breaks some things that were fine. In fact, that's ALWAYS what has happened.

Not usually with the .5's -- they've universally been a step down unless you consider post SW SAGA 3.5.

My hope for this "revision" is that they actually improve on 5e. Maybe that won't be good enough for 5e-haters, and probably won't improve the things I'm not fond of in 5e by enough (for me), but if it's "Like 5e but better" I will be quite happy with it.

I mean, it's a mixed bag so far. Classes seem to be getting worse, everything else seems to be getting better.

 

[MerricB]

Can I use a 2024+ class supplement with new subclasses with a class from the 2014 PHB? Will existing subclasses (not only those from Wizards) work with the 2024 books?

If I turn up at a DDAL table with a 2014 PHB character, will I be able to play?

If it's a spellcaster, how many of my spells won't work the way I expect?

If a lot of the answers are "You need the new core rules", then that's a new edition.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not usually with the .5's -- they've universally been a step down unless you consider post SW SAGA 3.5.

Yeah, I meant when they actually iterate the number. It's all meaningless, really. Calling the 2024 books "5.5" or "6e" is just as meaningless as any branding WotC wants to put on it. It's "D&D the 16th or 18th (or whatever) time they've messed with the rules and printed new books". They can call it whatever they like, and always have.

I mean, it's a mixed bag so far. Classes seem to be getting worse, everything else seems to be getting better.

Well, I mean, we haven't actually SEEN the classes yet. We've seen some stuff they're planning to try, which has been a mixed bag, yeah. And we haven't seen the everything else yet either. There's not really much we can honestly say other than "I hope it will be better". We don't KNOW anything, really, about what it will look like when its done.

 

[Umbran]

Also, all 5.5 casters appear to be prep casters now, and they're no longer pretending feats being optional is a serious idea. Pretty big changes.

However "large" it is, it is not what I'd call a "breaking change" in terms of interoperability. Prep casters currently play alongside spontaneous casters just fine. Characters with feats play alongside characters who just took ASIs just fine in 5e. Nothing breaks if they are next to each other.

You'd have breaking changes if you change broad mechanics that cross classes - say, if you remove Short Rests from OneD&D, then short-rest characters have an issue in terms of interoperability.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I meant when they actually iterate the number. It's all meaningless, really. Calling the 2024 books "5.5" or "6e" is just as meaningless as any branding WotC wants to put on it. It's "D&D the 16th or 18th (or whatever) time they've messed with the rules and printed new books". They can call it whatever they like, and always have.

You... don't think there was significant change between 2,3,4 and 5? I mean 5 is waaaay too much like 3, but still different.

Well, I mean, we haven't actually SEEN the classes yet. We've seen some stuff they're planning to try, which has been a mixed bag, yeah. And we haven't seen the everything else yet either. There's not really much we can honestly say other than "I hope it will be better". We don't KNOW anything, really, about what it will look like when its done.

We're seeing what they intend to do. Obviously they can take a hard right turn like at the end of the NEXT playtests, but that's what they're presenting.

 

[cranberry]

"As long as we don't say you have to buy the new books... you pretty much will no matter how vehemently you protest to the contrary. Because let's face it; your group and/or surrounding community will and soon enough, there's going to be no one around using or allowing the old books. IT happened in 3.5; it happened in 4.5, and by god, it will happen this time too."

I'm pretty sure my group of grognards will be able to resist!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Can I use a 2024+ class supplement with new subclasses with a class from the 2014 PHB?

Yes, as long as you use the sidebar they plan to include to show you how.

Will existing subclasses (not only those from Wizards) work with the 2024 books?

Yes, as long as you use the sidebar they plan to include to show you how.

If I turn up at a DDAL table with a 2014 PHB character, will I be able to play?

Yes, as long as your AL DM doesn't have something against it.

If it's a spellcaster, how many of my spells won't work the way I expect?

Some of them? Do you really memorize (I mean YOU, not your character) how ALL your spells work? Some of them you may have to look up (don't do it at the TABLE, you!) or WRITE DOWN. Like anyone playing a spellcaster already has to do.

Or, I guarantee, you will be able to buy WotC-produced Spell Cards. NOW in convenient bundles of Arcane, Divine and Primal! For only a lot more money than before!

If a lot of the answers are "You need the new core rules", then that's a new edition.

You're not wrong, but again, most of that is going to be up to the table, like it always is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

However "large" it is, it is not what I'd call a "breaking change" in terms of interoperability. Prep casters currently play alongside spontaneous casters just fine. Characters with feats play alongside characters who just took ASIs just fine in 5e. Nothing breaks if they are next to each other.

You'd have breaking changes if you change broad mechanics that cross classes - say, if you remove Short Rests from OneD&D, then short-rest characters have an issue in terms of interoperability.

But the question is whether or not it's enough to be a .5 change ala 3 -> 3.5. I'd say the 3.5 changes were lesser than what we're seeing here--and I say this as someone whose character was broken by the 3.5 change.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, this seems to be the greatest amount of change they've ever made between one PH and another without labeling it in some way, either as a new edition, a .5, or something else. It does feel a little sneaky, like they're trying to get away with something.

It's funny that most RPGs when releasing a new edition, the changes are mostly what D&D would call a .5 edition. It's mostly D&D (and d20 derived systems like Pathfinder) where editions are radical reinventions. I think if the changes between AD&D -> 3e -> 4e -> 5e weren't as large and invalidating, I don't think people would be treating edition changes as radioactive and WotC wouldn't be afraid to call it a new edition.