D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[billd91]

I think there's substantial backward compatibility and I think it was a worthwhile goal. I'm currently running two games with 2024 rules and PC classes/subclasses but 2014-based adventures. I'm using updated monster stats from the 2024 Monster Manual. Things are working just fine. It's just a question of where the greatest amount of backward compatibility lies and what value it brings. Using 2014 adventures - very easy to use with little adjustment. Using some 2014 subclasses - I expect they'll feel a bit behind the curve in their abilities compared to 2024 peers.
I am reasonably well satisfied with the effort and care taken in that regard. A more radical shift would have been a lot more annoying.

 

[Burnside]

For one thing, in terms of WotC's goals, I think they wanted to not tank sales from between the time an upcoming new edition was announced (August 2022) and released (July 2024 - February 25). It would have been harder to sell 5E material released after August 2022 if it seemed like it would be anodyne within 3 years.

As for whether it works in play, my experience has been yes, at least in tiers 1 and 2 (which is where 95% of my games take place anyway). I've run several games where 2014 characters and 2024 characters are in the same party, and while 2024 characters are certainly more powerful, the difference is not vast. For example, a skilled player running a 2014 character will still seem "better" than a less skilled player running a 2024 character.

 

[mamba]

Thoughts? Opposing opinions?

I always considered backwards compatibility overrated. Compatibility with adventures, yes, but with classes / subclasses, no. They should have gone much farther there imo and harmonized the progression across classes

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I still think they had no intention to substantially changing the way wildshape works. They threw out a really terrible version of template wildshape as a stalking horse, then had cover to say "it wasn't what the community wanted".

 

[mamba]

It was always a marketing tool. To ease fears that it was 3X all over again. Turns out it was 3X all over again.

so they lied? The market turned it into 3x by not using both sets together?

 

[LordEntrails]

Backwards compatibility was always a marketing slogan. It's there to keep the consumers from shouting Money Grab! and to minimize edition wars etc. All editions are compatible, with enough work from the DM. These two just require less work than most.

 

[Parmandur]

I still think they had no intention to substantially changing the way wildshape works. They threw out a really terrible version of template wildshape as a stalking horse, then had cover to say "it wasn't what the community wanted".

I don't think such a conspiracy theory is necessary, given how many people were absolutely vehement that they would never accept a template approach.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I don't think such a conspiracy theory is necessary, given how many people were absolutely vehement that they would never accept a template approach.

I'm sure that between the simulationists and people who thought the original UA rules were hot garbage, it got pushed down below the the "needs work" threshold.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sure that between the simulationists and people who thought the original UA rules were hot garbage, it got pushed down below the the "needs work" threshold.

Honestly, the former were probably sufficient to sink the idea.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Honestly, the former were probably sufficient to sink the idea.

We'll probably never know, so we can comfort ourselves in our own presuppositions.