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

[Yaarel]

I think the biggest thing is that they wanted to maintain compatiblitly with 3rd party content, especially subclasses. When you change the numbers and levels of subclass features, it requires more effort to convert than just changing the first/second level to third.

Having written and converted a bunch of subclasses for 2024, A5E, and TOTV, I can see why they'd want to minimize that. There are already people hesitant to use old material with the new classes or insist that it's not backwards compatible enough as it is. I think they would have had a lot harder time getting people on board with the original, more substantial changes in the UA.

If an indy publishes content for 2014, I feel it is the responsibility of the indy to update it for 2024 (if the goal is to stay current).

Standardizing subclass levels is better for the game.

 

[Shardstone]

But what would that gain?

Many of subclasses require base class features (i.e. Assassin improves poison sneak attack).

And for the things that don't have class specific prerequisite, there are feats.

I'm not sure what your assassin example proves or what you're getting at, and I have no idea what you're responding to with the third line.

 

[Shardstone]

One of my groups is playing 2024 characters in a mod I created using the 2014 rules. Haven't had to do much except bump up the encounters a bit (usually it's just something small like adding an extra monster). I am one of the people you mentioned who hasn't allowed mixing in of old subclasses and spells so far, mostly because I'm trying to keep the game "clean" to assimilate all of the changes in the new ruleset. Personally I'm glad they put such an emphasis on backwards compatibility because I have a ton of 5e 2014 content that I can still use with minor tweaks.

But with the proposed changes in early UA -- class groups, for example -- how does that prevent you from using content with minor tweaks?

 

[AlViking]

The only way to have 0 issues for some people would have been to not change a single rule. We are using a mix of subclasses, using old modules with updated monsters and spells. It's been working well for us.

 

[Shardstone]

To be honest, I think a lot of thst stuff such as Class Groups, just didn't spark joy for people. They failed on their own merits as interesting changes, most likely, no backwards compatibility fears. Though I do think unified Subclass progression scared players way more than it should have: theybshowed with the first couple examples thst it would have worked fine with backwards compatibility.

Part of the reason I feel they didn't spark joy is because they came out of nowhere and with little to support them. It was as if WotC didn't want to give these ideas a full chance and jumped at the chance to can them. But even then, class groups is just one of several things that got rolled back in the name of backwards compatibility.

 

[mellored]

I'm not sure what your assassin example proves or what you're getting at, and I have no idea what you're responding to with the third line.

What's good it do to change subclass levels?

Moving them up to level 3 was to nerf multiclassing, but why change it any further?

 

[Chaltab]

What's good it do to change subclass levels?

Moving them up to level 3 was to nerf multiclassing, but why change it any further?

I mean, TOTV reworks it so all sublcasses are 3/7/11/15 and does some things with this such as providing level 10 and 20 capstone features in the base class.

 

[mellored]

I mean, TOTV reworks it so all sublcasses are 3/7/11/15 and does some things with this such as providing level 10 and 20 capstone features in the base class.

Ok, and how does it make the game better?

 

[Shardstone]

What's good it do to change subclass levels?

Moving them up to level 3 was to nerf multiclassing, but why change it any further?

WotC has shown interest in generic subclasses before but couldn't pull it off due to the issues with standardized leveling. FUrthermore, some classes, like Rogue, have a large gap that hurts the flavor and mechanics of their subclass from 3-9, or some came on so late they are almost never experienced, like Cleric, Fighter, and Sorcerer.

I think the generic subclasses point is the strongest, though most controversial, here. Settings having subclasses that can fit multiple classes, or having subclasses that are organizational and thus can fit any class, would be an interesting design space that I feel would benefit the game both as a player and a designer. While it would have its own issues, I think the strengths in this kind of design far outweigh the weaknesses. With Class Groups, we could have had Group classes as well; Experts who are all members of the Emerald Enclave, etc etc, and get a special Emerald Enclave class.

All that would have to be done is releasing a guide that lets a DM or player adjust a 2014 class to the new standardized levels. It was doable, but maybe not the cleanest solution. But then again, clearly WotC plans on reprinting subclasses as the fancy strikes them regardless, even if they don't need a tune-up (see Bladesinger), so it's hard for me to consider the value of 2014 classes seriously in this conversation when WotC is willing to rewrite them anyway.

 

[Yaarel]

What's good it do to change subclass levels?

Moving them up to level 3 was to nerf multiclassing, but why change it any further?

For example, many concepts apply to more than one class.

The Ranger might have been a "wilderness subclass" that either Fighter or Druid or even Thief (Scout) could take.

Similarly, an Arcane Archer might be a subclass for Fighter or Wizard or other class to choose.

The Strixhaven options would have worked better.

It would also be easier to standardize things like the Fighter class taking Wizard levels for its subclass levels.

Feats could design for specific subclass levels, to augment a class or subclass.

And so on.