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

[Micah Sweet]

Eh.... I think their audience is pretty happy with getting more options for their 5e games, with more to come throughout the year...

What exactly do you think 6e would have offered the vast majority of fans that are playing D&D 5e?

A coherent version of the game the designers want to design and that they think players want, incorporating design and lore changes in tune with their changed sensibilities and untethered by the mechanical ethos of their predecessors.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

But if people did not want them...they aren't benefits.

 

[Imaro]

A coherent version of the game the designers want to design and that they think players want, incorporating design and lore changes in tune with their changed sensibilities and untethered by the mechanical ethos of their predecessors.

Vs... A game fans are happily playing with a ruleset they are by definition fans of already, regular official support and options from WotC, along with 3pp support for nearly any variation a fan could want... all with the largest ttrpg community to draw players, advice, ideas and suggestions from.... why do I want this unknown system again?

 

[Nightfly]

Is it just me or is the number of double quotes in the title growing? I could’ve sworn yesterday there were only four total.

Every time you look away and then look back, there are more.

 

[TiQuinn]

Every time you look away and then look back, there are more.

Seriously! That’s exactly what it feels like!

 

[ECMO3]

Where is this rule printed?

It is not printed, but it is widely covered in all the WOTC guidlines and discussion on backwards compatibility. You can find it many places online, here is one exerp with a link following:

":So the classes, subclasses, feats, species backgrounds, and all the rest that you have in the new Player’s Handbook, you can use with any similar elements that appear in other books as long as it’s not the same thing. ...... If a subclass appears in the 2024 rules and you’re making a 2024 character, you can’t use the 2014 version of that subclass. Same with feats, same with species, and any other element that basically as soon as it appears in its new form, that new form replaces the old form .......If something doesn’t appear in the 2024 Player’s Handbook, you are welcome to pair it with a thing that does ...... Let’s say you pick an older subclass that maybe had a different level progression, the new subclass ability rules make it clear you get all of the features from any earlier levels ...... So, the Wizard’s new 3rd level subclass ability would specify that players can add the features from the Necromancer subclass that would have activated at 2nd level if players opt to use the Necromancer"

Dungeons & Dragons: How Backwards Compatibility Works in 2024 Player's Handbook

Dungeons & Dragons lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford has explained exactly how backwards compatibility will work with their new Player’s Handbook. Later this year, Wizards of the Coast will publish a new Player’s Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons, featuring updated rules for character building...

comicbook.com

 

[ECMO3]

Disagree. Paladin is still probably the strongest class.

I don't really agree with this. If you are considering only combat and levels 1-20 I would say both Monk and Fighter with the 2024 subclasses are better.

If you are considering all three pillars over 1-20, fighter is a lot better IMO.

 

[ECMO3]

A coherent version of the game the designers want to design and that they think players want, incorporating design and lore changes in tune with their changed sensibilities and untethered by the mechanical ethos of their predecessors.

I don't think the designers wanted to design a new game, I think the driver for a new edition was mostly financial and selling new game material, which doesn't happen without a new "Players Handbook".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Vs... A game fans are happily playing with a ruleset they are by definition fans of already, regular official support and options from WotC, along with 3pp support for nearly any variation a fan could want... all with the largest ttrpg community to draw players, advice, ideas and suggestions from.... why do I want this unknown system again?

Perhaps you don't.

 

[Shardstone]

But if people did not want them...they aren't benefits.

This is an unnecessary binary. I'm assuming a lot of feedback was mixed, and that since they decided they didn't have time to experiment more, they dropped their more experimental concepts. It's really harmful to discussion to just reduce things to overly shallow black and white statements.