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

[jasper]

backwards compatibility was a lie. Okay not a lie since I can use 1e modules in 5e without any problems either. We are in sixth edition.

 

[jasper]

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

I noticed once I griped about Compatibility with all books. They started saying backwards compatibility with adventures.

 

[Imaro]

backwards compatibility was a lie.

Nah, it really wasn't

Okay not a lie since I can use 1e modules in 5e without any problems either. We are in sixth edition.

Can you? Because the base mechanical foundation... saving throws, attribute bonuses, spellcasting, and so on are all completely different. While '14 and '24 D&D 5e all have, at the least, the same base mechanical foundation.

 

[Shardstone]

Tbh I just wish they went ahead with Class Groups, Generic Spell Lists + Class Specific Spells, and Subclass Standardization. Those three things would have opened the floodgates in terms of design. Psionic Spell List, subclasses that grant class-specific spells, subclasses that can be shared by an entire Class Group, feats for Class Groups, magic items for Class Groups, and even hyper-subclasses that are customizable and can be used for ALL classes to represent a party organization.

Those things IMO could have been kept alongside backwards compatibility to adventures, and with a short guide, to subclasses as well. Would have been a stronger game IMO.

 

[Parmandur]

backwards compatibility was a lie. Okay not a lie since I can use 1e modules in 5e without any problems either. We are in sixth edition.

What do you mean? Old PC Subclasses and Monsters, and all rule elements, remain compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

Tbh I just wish they went ahead with Class Groups, Generic Spell Lists + Class Specific Spells, and Subclass Standardization. Those three things would have opened the floodgates in terms of design. Psionic Spell List, subclasses that grant class-specific spells, subclasses that can be shared by an entire Class Group, feats for Class Groups, magic items for Class Groups, and even hyper-subclasses that are customizable and can be used for ALL classes to represent a party organization.

Those things IMO could have been kept alongside backwards compatibility to adventures, and with a short guide, to subclasses as well. Would have been a stronger game IMO.

But would it have been as well received...? Very likely not.

Change for change sake isn't what SptC is aiming for, pleasing customers is their goal. So they maximize for that.

 

[Imaro]

Tbh I just wish they went ahead with Class Groups, Generic Spell Lists + Class Specific Spells, and Subclass Standardization. Those three things would have opened the floodgates in terms of design. Psionic Spell List, subclasses that grant class-specific spells, subclasses that can be shared by an entire Class Group, feats for Class Groups, magic items for Class Groups, and even hyper-subclasses that are customizable and can be used for ALL classes to represent a party organization.

Those things IMO could have been kept alongside backwards compatibility to adventures, and with a short guide, to subclasses as well. Would have been a stronger game IMO.

I feel like these changes would have almost certainnly created more powerful PC builds (especially with unforseen ramifications with different combinations)...which in a game that already gets complaints of PC's being too powerful probably wouldnt have been well received.

 

[Shardstone]

But would it have been as well received...? Very likely not.

Change for change sake isn't what SptC is aiming for, pleasing customers is their goal. So they maximize for that.

It's not change for the sake of change. That would only be change for the sake of change if you ignored all the benefits I stated in that post.

 

[Shardstone]

I feel like these changes would have almost certainnly created more powerful PC builds (especially with unforseen ramifications with different combinations)...which in a game that already gets complaints of PC's being too powerful probably wouldnt have been well received.

The issue IMO is specifically multi-classing IMO, but I think multi-classing as is is an abomination that really holds the game's design back in many different ways.

 

[Scribe]

Tbh I just wish they went ahead with Class Groups, Generic Spell Lists + Class Specific Spells, and Subclass Standardization. Those three things would have opened the floodgates in terms of design. Psionic Spell List, subclasses that grant class-specific spells, subclasses that can be shared by an entire Class Group, feats for Class Groups, magic items for Class Groups, and even hyper-subclasses that are customizable and can be used for ALL classes to represent a party organization.

Those things IMO could have been kept alongside backwards compatibility to adventures, and with a short guide, to subclasses as well. Would have been a stronger game IMO.

That would have also been a pretty big increase to complexity no?