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

[GMforPowergamers]

Firstly, our group has determined to start playing with One D&D rules as they are released. So I have a OD&D rogue/bard multiclass character in Scarlet Citadel next to a 5e wizard. There have been zero problems… I don’t even think it’s noticeable… even I forgot until I saw this thread, that’s how little of a problem it is. If that isn’t backwards compatible, I don’t know what is! I love that, evolution not revolution.

so what version of spells conditions and actions are you useing?

 

[Emberashh]

Also has to be said if that if you aren't being affected by class disparities in 5e as it stands, you're not going to empathize with the problem.

 

[TheSword]

it is a way to sell phb with errata, it's standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways... it's enough new that it will change the current game but not enough new to revelutionize the game

If £30 once every eight years too much to bear then the game truly is undermonatised.

They’re putting quite a lot of effort into the new rules, and I like them. Plus there will be new art, and inspiration. I don’t begrudge them a new book every so often… it is all optional after all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If £30 once every eight years too much to bear then the game truly is undermonatised.

I spend a lot more the 30 per year on this game WITHOUT rebuying the core books

They’re putting quite a lot of effort into the new rules,

are they though?

and I like them.

some I do some I don't

Plus there will be new art, and inspiration. I don’t begrudge them a new book every so often… it is all optional after all.

I only begrudge them trying to have there cake and eat it too... they want to redifine editions so everything is canoon

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

I actually think that, if I'm Hasbro, this is actually where I want D&D to live. We put out mild alterations, and minimal changes, and rules options, and nobody cares because it all works together. Like a new Monopoly set, if you buy the newest version, you get the latest and greatest, but it's still recognizable as Dungeons & Dragons. And I think 5th-Edition was them realizing this fact. Let's look at the actual editions that have come before...

1. Dungeons & Dragons (1974, aka OD&D, or "The White Box"): The game as it was presented in 1974. 6 ability scores, AC, hit points, 3 classes (Cleric, Fighting Man, & Magic-User), 4 playable races (Dwarf, Elf, Hobbit & Human). Later printings would change "Hobbit" to "Halfling" and supplements would add Thief, Paladin, Ranger and other classes and races before we got...

2. Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1977, aka "Holmes"): A re-presentation combining the rules in OD&D and Supplement 1: Greyhawk, for the races of Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User and Thief, and the races of Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Human. It only covered the first 3 levels, after which it was assumed that players would move to...

3. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1977, aka "AD&D" "1st-Edition" or "1e"): Expanded rules covering more classes and races than Basic (10 + bards, the game's first "Prestige class" & 7 (adding gnomes, half-elves, & half-orcs). AD&D established the paradigm for hardcover book releases (that would dominate most later editions) of a Player's Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual. AD&D was not fully compatible with "Holmes" and changed a variety of rules, increased the hit points die for (most) classes, and altered the ability score bonus tables and many other systems. Because of this, while supplements over the next several years continued to expand AD&D options, plans for the game to act as the only continuation from Holmes were scrapped, leading to the creation of...

4. Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set & Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set (1981, aka "Moldvay/Cook" or "B/X"): A total revision of the rules, preserving the simpler ability bonuses and lower hit points of Mentzer, but scrapping the concept of race and instead introducing the Dwarf (basically a fighter with some racial bonuses), Elf (a d6 fighter/magic-user hybrid) and Halfling (a d6 fighter with saving throw bonuses and stealth) classes. The Expert Set would expand the available levels to 14th, with spells as high as 5th for Clerics and 6th for Magic-Users. Levels over 14th wouldn't be supported by B/X until after the release of...

5. Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1983, aka "Mentzer" or "The Red Box"): A cleaned up version of Moldvay, the Mentzer Red Box didn't really change anything about the game other than cleaning up the presentation. However, the much better presentation of Basic and Expert was a smash hit, and higher-level supplements followed, including the Set 3: Companion Rules (1984, adding levels 15-25), Set 4: Master Rules (1985, adding levels 26-36), and Set 5: Immortal Rules (1986, adding play for characters who had attained Immortality). The five sets would eventually be collected in the Rules Cyclopedia, but not before the publication of...

6. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 2nd Edition (1989, aka "2nd-Edition," or "2e"): A revision of the AD&D rules, 2e included the "non-weapon proficiencies" that had been introduced in some of the 1e supplements, kept the 1e ability score tables, but added some classes, removed others, and removed Half-Orcs. Assassins and Monks were removed, Magic-User was renamed "Mage," and the core classes of Bard, "Other specialist Wizard," and "Other Specialist Priest" would be added. Once again, supplements would expand the options of 2e, Kits would be introduced, revised, and re-revised before a new edition would come. But in the meantime, we got...

7. The Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia (1991, aka "RC"): This reprinted and collected the rules from the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master sets, and provided a complete game from levels 1-36 in a hardcover book. There were minimal alterations, although the druid and mystic (kinda like monk) from the Companion and Master sets were added to the earlier offerings of cleric, dwarf, elf, fighter, halfling, and magic-user. The two lines would eventually re-converge after TSR was acquired by Wizards of the Coast and finally released their version of...

8. Dungeons & Dragons (2000, aka "3rd-Edition" or 3e): This edition merged the disparate lines, codifying and combining all the disparate rules of various editions into a combined system that took a middle road between the unified stat bonuses of one line and the slightly higher bonuses available in 1e/2e to give us the 3 (-4) to 18 (+4) system we all know today. 3e followed the presentation of AD&D but notably dropped the "Advanced" because it was also (arguably) the 3rd major edition of the B/X line. However, it was also the 3rd serious revision to the ruleset, following OD&D/Holmes (1e), AD&D and BECMI/RC (both "2nd editions"). WotC has remained notably silent on which line of inheritance they were claiming when they called it "3e," possibly because the answer is "all of the above."

I could go on, but I think the history of versions from 3e to now (3.5, 4e, Essentials, 5e...) is well-known, and I have places to be.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If £30 once every eight years too much to bear then the game truly is undermonatised.

They’re putting quite a lot of effort into the new rules, and I like them. Plus there will be new art, and inspiration. I don’t begrudge them a new book every so often… it is all optional after all.

Please new halfling art.
Please new halfling art.
Please new halfling art.
Please new halfling art.
Please new halfling art.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Didn't we just see a thread pop up about how weapon choice is going to matter again?

An added effect that some (not all, it sounds like) player characters can have is still less sweeping than the 3.5 weapon changes, IMO, but obviously, we haven't seen the new proposed weapon rules.

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.

I don't think either of those change how adventures will run across the board.

The difference in spell casters in particular is more of an issue on the player end and even then, I think most players' characters use the same spells on a regular basis and don't really take advantage of the wider list of spells available to them most of the time. YMMV.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They're terrified of splitting the playerbase and instead of making a 6e thats too awesome to want to play anything else, they'd rather create a self-fulfilling prophecy and drive people out when people end up paying more just to find out the game didn't get any better.

The number of folks who will be scared away is far smaller than the larger pool of new players (seriously, if you have been playing for 10 years or more, you are in the minority of all D&D players now) who will be happy that their friend can buy a PHB in 2025 and it won't look like a wildly different game to most of them.

Honestly, they can afford to lose 100% of the grognards, who are a lot less important to them than all the new and younger folks.

 

[mamba]

it is a way to sell phb with errata, it's standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways... it's enough new that it will change the current game but not enough new to revelutionize the game

sure, but the idea still is engagement / revitalization, isn’t it? They are not creating this to achieve the opposite or to find a separate playerbase while the current one sticks with 5e

It definitely needs changes, otherwise they could just keep selling the current books, and compatibility prevents any revolution on the design side, so incremental tweaks are a given from the start

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I actually think that, if I'm Hasbro, this is actually where I want D&D to live. We put out mild alterations, and minimal changes, and rules options, and nobody cares because it all works together. Like a new Monopoly set, if you buy the newest version, you get the latest and greatest, but it's still recognizable as Dungeons & Dragons.

In fact, Monopoly made pretty major revisions to its board and cards in the 21st century, once people with good statistics skills got into analyzing the game. (It runs way better now.)

And most people have no idea, because it's still recognizably Monopoly. Sure, there have been some color changes to make the board easy to parse, but other than that, you'd have to be a real devotee to know what changed. They certainly didn't slap an edition number on the box.

That's definitely the ideal situation for Hasbro and D&D.