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

[ECMO3]

First, the subclasses. WotC has been reprinting old subclasses with new shine, bringing them up to date with their modern design sensibilities. There weren't that many subclasses released in 2014 in the first place, and the ones released could have been given an appendix on "converting old subclasses" for those that started before Level 3.

I strongly disagree with this. I think there are 40 subclasses in the 2014 PHB and there are far more subclasses in later books which were written based on the 2014 rules.

To capture all these, the appendix on old subclasses would need to be larger than the part of the book on classes.

Next, the adventures of the game. The thing is, the UA versions of 2024 kept the core things necessary to use those old adventures: hit points, conditions, AC, Abilities, and Skills were all the same. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered if the game was redesigned to have Class Groups and Class Group Spell Lists, or if Bard could choose its spell list and Warlock its spellcasting ability; none of these things have any impact on using old adventures at all.

I don't think the examples here were very popular. The hypothesis seems to be that the Warlock can't choose its casting stat for some backwards compatibility reason, when I think it is actually that the reverse.

WOTC also made a purposeful effort in 2024 to heavily restrict Warlock, Paladin, Ranger and Sorcerer specific spells. The unique spells from these classes are effectively locked out of other classes, with the exception of a very few you can get from Fey Touched or Shadow Touched. Bard is most affected by this with the restrictions appying to magic secrets. While I can't say the decision to restrict Bard spells is popular or do to surveys, I can say it is purposeful and has nothing to do with backards compatibility.

lso, the math of the game changed, which means that 2024 characters are already overtuned for 2014 adventures in the first place. You can still run them relatively fine, but you'll have to either tune-up your stat blocks or put more effort into encounter design to match the stronger PCs.

This depends on the specific adventure. Characters are more powerful at high level, but some of the early adventures were really difficult for low level 2014 PCs.

The classic Goblin ambush in LMOP and Cragmaw Castle are better balanced for new PCs than they are for 2014 PCs.

Lastly, even though some people are mixing-and-matching, a lot of people are showing clear hesitation at using old materials with new materials. A lot of people are also talking about how they only want to use new materials, either because they are new or because they are better. So it sounds like a lot of people don't even benefit from backwards compatibility anyway.

The default rules on using old in a new game is that anything in the new rules replaces something with the same name in the old. That makes mixing and matching pretty easy and straightforward.

So no using the old Sleep spell or the old Great Weapon Master, but the old Cause Fear spell and Elven Accuracy feat are fine since they were not reprinted (yet).

We are mixing and matching in our games and having no problems. All of the games I am playing using the 2024 rules follow this template and it is not difficult at all.

In one of my games I am playing a Human Druken Master Monk 5/Scout 4/Wizard 1 and it is working fine, She uses the 2024 species, origin and class mechanics with the Monk and Rogue subclass abilities from XGE. She is rocking Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade off of TCE with 2024 Longstrider and Jump.

In another I am playing a Dragonborn Fey Wanderer 9/Glamour Bard 5/Monk 1. The only thing in her kit that comes from 2014 is the Dragonfear feat, she is using the 2024 Magic initiate Feat with Shield, Truestrike and Message.

IME pulling stuff from about 10 different sourcebooks (2014 PHB, XGE, SCAG, FTD, TCE, Bigby, ....) is a bigger hassle than the backward compatibility and we were already doing that before 2024.

 

[ECMO3]

That so little changed from the half-baked bastion rules to what we got in the DMG, I think WotC was gaslighting the public rather than the other way around. I don’t think there was any honesty in listening to the fans this time around, and at best the squeaky wheels were listened to instead of the actual user base. I think the designers long had I mind what changes they were going to actually make, and short of a revolt by the player base, were going to put in what changes they wanted, regardless of the survey results.

I think they did listen to the fans on some things and that us why they backtracked on Warlock and Wizard changes, stablocks for wild shape and familiars, sneak attack on your turn only etc.

On the other hand, I am not sure they did listen to the fans on other things like Twin Spell and Magic Secrets. On Twin spell in particular they made some moral argument about needing to rebalance it even though fans didn't like the change. Then they went and introduced far more imbalance through other 2024 features like Tactical Mind.

If anything, after playtesting and reviewing the results of those play tests, they should have put the changes into an options book (akin to the 2E player’s option series) rather than what they ended up with. Instead of doing an evergreen revision, they ended up with a half-step edition change.

An options book would not sell nearly as well as the core rulebooks have.

 

[Shardstone]

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

I don't think so, I think class groups and spell lists IMO make the game more streamlined. Subclasses for class groups would be kept to setting books I imagine.

 

[MGibster]

It is unfortunately how consumers have been trained to think. "Oh hey, there's a new edition of this thing, we should play that." "Is it...better?" "Come on, it must be!"

Very often a new edition is a good thing because they typically fix problems with the previous edition. I can only think of a few games where the new edition was a disappointment. Legend of the Five Rings 2nd edition I'm looking at you. With D&D 5th edition, well, it's not a new edition, so I guess I can't be disappointed. It's pretty much the same game to me. Whatever improvements they made are marginal at best.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Here is where I am situated: I like 5e. It like every other edition is not perfect.

I feel like what was added on layers made new problems. Not horrible ones but issues.

I think the new modules will be good enough for use with 2014. That is not nothing but playing the game 2024 and 2014…it is not seamless. If that was the intent it was not advertised appropriately.

If it was “close enough so you can understand it but have some interference learning” they got it squared up.

I don’t think this was a giant lie or conspiracy. It just was not perfect or seamless. I am sticking with 2014 for reasons but I don’t feel this was some conspiracy. They always talk - big game when selling stuff.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is unfortunately how consumers have been trained to think. "Oh hey, there's a new edition of this thing, we should play that." "Is it...better?" "Come on, it must be!"

I can imagine the consumers having the same kind of response when it comes to other RPGs that were built off of 5e, like Level Up and Tales of the Valiant. "It looks like 5e. Could it be better than 5e?"

 

[Minigiant]

However, was that goal actually worth anything?

A worthy goal that became an anchor.

 

[mamba]

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

how so? We already have class specific spell lists, what is missing is general ones. All classes advancing at the same levels does not affect complexity at all

 

[mamba]

An options book would not sell nearly as well as the core rulebooks have.

the of Everything books are the next best selling after the core however

 

[nevin]

The 2024 5R rules changed a lot across the Unearthed Arcana surveys. After a certain point, however, the more experimental rules were rolled back to go back to classic 2014 paradigms. This was done in the name of backwards compatibility -- the ability to use old subclasses and adventures with the game.

However, was that goal actually worth anything?

First, the subclasses. WotC has been reprinting old subclasses with new shine, bringing them up to date with their modern design sensibilities. There weren't that many subclasses released in 2014 in the first place, and the ones released could have been given an appendix on "converting old subclasses" for those that started before Level 3. Thus, the reasoning for wanting to use old subclasses completely doesn't matter.

Next, the adventures of the game. The thing is, the UA versions of 2024 kept the core things necessary to use those old adventures: hit points, conditions, AC, Abilities, and Skills were all the same. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered if the game was redesigned to have Class Groups and Class Group Spell Lists, or if Bard could choose its spell list and Warlock its spellcasting ability; none of these things have any impact on using old adventures at all.

Also, the math of the game changed, which means that 2024 characters are already overtuned for 2014 adventures in the first place. You can still run them relatively fine, but you'll have to either tune-up your stat blocks or put more effort into encounter design to match the stronger PCs.

Lastly, even though some people are mixing-and-matching, a lot of people are showing clear hesitation at using old materials with new materials. A lot of people are also talking about how they only want to use new materials, either because they are new or because they are better. So it sounds like a lot of people don't even benefit from backwards compatibility anyway.

I recall WotC saying that surveys and demand was pushing them to maintain backwards compatibility...but doesn't that seem kind of silly given the above information? I'm not sure what benefit there was to removing standardized class levels for old subclasses if old subclasses are going to be reprinted anyway. I'm not sure what benefit there was to maintaining this half-done backwards compatibility at all.

Thoughts? Opposing opinions?

I'm not seeing people afraid to use old material. Maybe it's new DM's or people without the time to to fiddle with it. I'll admit when you pull out old stuff and try to balance it in your current game that can seem a bit like playing Jenga but the experienced DM's I know just pull what they want mod and go. I suspect they'd prefer the new DM's get used to just playing with the New stuff without running off all us old timers. Thus it's working as intended for thier long term goals.