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

[Scribe]

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

Maybe it was too early for me, but I was reading it as having more generic subclasses, that would then increase complexity by increasing decision points.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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

Where is this rule printed?

 

[Shardstone]

Maybe it was too early for me, but I was reading it as having more generic subclasses, that would then increase complexity by increasing decision points.

Hmm no, subclasses would stay the same as now, but it would open the door for stuff they tried and failed in the past, like the college-based subclasses in Strixhaven that could be used by any class.

For example, I have a published setting, Scavenger. In Scavenger, I narratively divide classes into four groups vaguely the same as what 2024 was trying to do in the UA's. If we still had standardized subclass leveling (3, 6, 10, 14), I could make subclasses for those groups that provides a more seamless connection between narrative (the four groups) and mechanics (12 individual classes).

This isn't unique to my setting, as I already talked about how Strixhaven could do it. But Eberron could have as well, turning Dragonmarks into subclasses instead of Backgrounds. Dragonlance could have had Red, White, and Black Robe subclasses instead of backgrounds, which IMO would have worked better too.

It doesn't work for every setting, but since the only thing truly necessary in this situation are standardized class levels, it doesn't have to work for every setting. You can still have flavorful class-specific subclasses such as the Bladesinger or World-Tree Barbarian. In other words, this small change sacrifices easier backwards compatibility but opens up the door to far more interesting concepts that IMO would really make the game sing.

You could even go further. Instead of relying on the Renown System for Theros and Ravnica, you could have God or Guild subclasses etc.

Now, I realize I'm partially biased here. As a designer, of course I want a game that lets me play with it in more interesting ways. But I also think this would benefit casual DMs/players because it keeps character creation in these settings streamlined. To play Theros, I don't need to learn about this Renown system and gaining Renown points and tracking benefits that way; instead, I have my subclass "Demigod of Heliod." These class-agnostic subclasses could easily be designed to offer benefits that apply to most classes, if not all, so it also wouldn't be a big deal making subclasses that fit every class.

These are just my thoughts. I know that many people are comfortable with the system as is and I believe that comfortability is valid. I like 2024, and I like designing for it. But I feel like sometimes comfortability gets in the way of GOOD progress. Not progress for progress's sake, not change for change's sake, but actual GOOD innovations that could improve everyone's game.

 

[mamba]

Maybe it was too early for me, but I was reading it as having more generic subclasses, that would then increase complexity by increasing decision points.

ah, I read that more as an ‘it would enable people / 3pps to create that’ while WotC would stick with their current approach of class-specific subclasses

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is not enough people play it

Then it needs better marketing, not manipulating it's customer base into buying replacement books they don't need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If they had made it 6e, they could have done those things and it would have been more acceptable IMO, since it would more clearly be a new game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Complexity is only the enemy subjectively (ie, if it's a problem for you).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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.



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.




The default rules on using old in a new game is that anything in the new replaces something with the same name in the new. 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.

This is why I make myself a houserule document which either references the source itself or directly reproduces the material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

L5R 3e and especially 4e were excellent edition updates IMO, but you really need to look at the situation on a case by case basis I think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?"

I can't speak for TotV yet (though I'm reading it now and I've heard good things), but IMO A5e is definitely better than either version of WotC 5e.