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

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I'm sorry? I think we have a communication SNAFU. I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. I mean the NAMING is meaningless. They've "Revised" D&D WAY MORE than five times. There were four revisions before we got to 1e. As we all know, 2e had a "2.5" that wasn't called that (because it wasn't until 3.5 that someone thought of that name). They can NAME it whatever they like. It's the sixteenth or whatever (I don't remember) version of the game, regardless. It'll be MORE backwards compatible than most changes, but it'll create camps like it always does.

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.

Yup. I'm just not sure that we can (yet) say that "the classes will be worse" than 2014, just because some of what they've shown us is not-there-yet. I agree that some of what we've seen is "not good". But they're going to change it again (this we know).

Heck, one of the only things we can be sure of is that we won't 100% like everything that they do. Because no one ever does.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Similarly, if they'd called it a new edition every time they revised it, we'd have ~16th edition on the books and we wouldn't worry if they bump it to ~17.

 

[ART!]

Some tables will have so much mixing and matching, from 5E, 1DD, Black Flag, C7d20, Level Up, etc, that this will just be part of the mix.

Experienced players will be able to juggle this, but I worry about newer players - and I think WOTC will do what they can do mitigate that confusion, which is just one more reason to steer people toward 1DD.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm sorry? I think we have a communication SNAFU. I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. I mean the NAMING is meaningless. They've "Revised" D&D WAY MORE than five times. There were four revisions before we got to 1e. As we all know, 2e had a "2.5" that wasn't called that (because it wasn't until 3.5 that someone thought of that name). They can NAME it whatever they like. It's the sixteenth or whatever (I don't remember) version of the game, regardless. It'll be MORE backwards compatible than most changes, but it'll create camps like it always does.

Ah, I get where you're coming from now.

Still don't really agree because I think clearly labeling versions is a good thing. Look at software; it's just a better way of showing what's going on than obfuscating it (on purpose or not).

Yup. I'm just not sure that we can (yet) say that "the classes will be worse" than 2014, just because some of what they've shown us is not-there-yet. I agree that some of what we've seen is "not good". But they're going to change it again (this we know).

It does give some idea of intent and desire thought.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some tables will have so much mixing and matching, from 5E, 1DD, Black Flag, C7d20, Level Up, etc, that this will just be part of the mix.

Experienced players will be able to juggle this, but I worry about newer players - and I think WOTC will do what they can do mitigate that confusion, which is just one more reason to steer people toward 1DD.

It'll be like Essentials. The books will have big stickers telling you here is where to start.

 

[Umbran]

But the question is whether or not it's enough to be a .5 change ala 3 -> 3.5.

Shakespeare applies.

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” - Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2.

Whether we call it X.5 or not won't change how it plays, or how it interoperates with previous materials. Function over nomenclature.

I'd say the 3.5 changes were lesser than what we're seeing here

I know of no way to measure "size of change". I care about impact of change.

Since the content of the books will be different, we'll need to have a way to differentiate them in conversation. But whether it "deserves" a X.5 isn't a functional question, to my mind. Calling them 5e and 5.5e, or 5e and OneD&D are the same, for me.

 

[Umbran]

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

Or, alternatively - If it's is a spellcaster, is there going to be an issue if my character built with the prior book uses spells as written in the prior book?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Shakespeare applies.

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” - Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2.

Whether we call it X.5 or not won't change how it plays, or how it interoperates with previous materials. Function over nomenclature.

"Not if you called them stink blossoms" ~ Bart Simpson

I think the community has made it plenty clear that there's way more elements than just function at play when it comes to D&D. That's more of a personal metric-- a lot like backwards compatibility has become at this point.

 

[Mercurius]

I skimmed the first two pages, but not the previous four.

It sounds to me like they're stating the obvious: You can intermix 2014 and 2014 classes, with the quiet part unspoken: But it is entirely up to you, your DM, and table agreements.

I don't know what world people live in in which there's actually players that think, "The DM be damned - because WotC said!" I remember some of that when I was young, but even most teenagers are mature enough not to go that route (unless we're talking about a despotic DM).

The see the hierarchy as:

1. The table as a whole
2. The DM
3. The players (with DM agreement)
4. The RAW
5. WotC's recommendations

I don't know in what world 4-5 trumps 1-2. Tournaments, I guess?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

(If still imagining a time of greatness that could-have-been).

OTOH as a game retailer, I think that this is the "safer" bet, market-wise. They are far, FAR more likely to enrage the overall fanbase with a whole new edition, no matter how "good" it is. I mean, with the internet making bank off of anger, there's almost no way they won't enrage a whole group of people no matter what they do, but this plan is definitely the lesser-of-two-evils.

We shall see how it shakes out.

Well, since I definitely see Level Up as "5e, but better", I strongly suspect WotC's new edition/version/revision won't meet my standard for that phrase. I'm sure some people will like it though.