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

[Yaarel]

The more I deal with 5e, the less I like subclasses. Once upon a time you could just start play as an Assassin, or a Samurai, or a Berserker. Either through a separate 1-20 class or a Kit a 1st level character could take. Oh man, to be a Swashbuckler, I have to go to Rogue school for 2 levels, gaining the same abilities as the Assassin and the Arcane Trickster or a Mastermind?

Some subclasses radically alter the way you play a class, and others...don't really feel like you get much. You lose so much because WotC is terrified to make new character classes? It's especially bad when, at the levels most people end up playing at, you might only get those 3rd level abilities.

I mean, ok, fine, you could make the argument it's hard to balance new classes. But if balance between classes was important to most people, we'd still be playing 4e. And there's enough complaints about the way the game is balanced already for me to say, eff it, let's see Ninja and Cavaliers and Psionicists and Gladiators again!

Give people a reason to switch to your new books, WotC! So far? I'm not seeing much that you couldn't have shoved into errata or a "Somebody's Guide to Some New Stuff".

A benefit of standardizing the subclass design space to four levels at 3, 6, 10, and 14:

It is easier to decide if a concept needs a subclass or not. If it only takes two levels to cover the concept, it is almost certainly better as separate optional feats. If it takes six or more levels to cover the concept adequately, then it is to big for a subclass, and needs to be its own class.

Standardization helps use the various design spaces that are available, more effectively.

 

[Yaarel]

In the 2023 Playtest 6, there is a side note saying: "Bard subclass levels now match the level progression in the 2014 Bard, ensuring compatibility with subclasses already in print."

But this decision seems arbitrary, and not in response to any survey.

Also it was pointless. If the 2024 Bard subclasses have four levels, and the 2014 ones have three, the solution is for those using an outdated subclass to add a feat to fill in the missing subclass level. In the meantime, the popular 2014 subclasses would eventually get 2024 updates anyway.

 

[James Gasik]

A benefit of standardizing the subclass design space to four levels at 3, 6, 10, and 14:

It is easier to decide if a concept needs a subclass or not. If it only takes two levels to cover the concept, it is almost certainly better as separate optional feats. If it takes six or more levels to cover the concept adequately, then it is to big for a subclass, and needs to be its own class.

Standardization helps use the various design spaces that are available, more effectively.

Except, you know, the fact that there aren't new classes (well, ok, they made one in 10 years*. Wow! And it's not like you couldn't expand several existing subclasses to be full classes easily enough).

*I don't count the Blood Hunter, obviously.

Eh, w/e, I know it's not going to change outside of 3rd party products. WotC has decided what their brand looks like, and if it makes them tons of money, bully for them, I guess. The days when they were a company willing to flex their creativity and take risks are apparently over, and I'm just nostalgic for them.

 

[Yaarel]

2023 UA Playtest 5:

It has descriptions for Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Their subclasses standardize to 3, 6, 10, and 14.

For Barbarian, Warlock, and Wizard, this is normal. Fighter too is close enough.

Even Sorcerer has four subclass levels, but its 10 missing and it adds 18.


It is possible Sorcerer players were worried, but in those days there was so much more to worry about the future of the Sorcerer (and Warlock). I doubt the designers could have gotten a meaningful survey response at this point, on the specific question of standardizing subclass levels. Oddly, Playtest 5 doesnt even mention that it is standardizing the subclass levels. Many surveyees likely didnt even realize that it was a possibility.


Indeed, I need to verify this, but I vaguely remember the designers saying, the MAJORITY DID APPROVE the subclass standardization. But the designers ignored the approval because the written feedback text responses werent effusive.

But standardizing subclass levels is smart − not exactly sexy. It looks like math.

In the future, designers would do cool stuff with the standard design space because of its unlocked potential, including multiclass concepts. The possible future products will be sexier because of the standard design space.

It feels like a mistake to leave the subclasses levels without a standard.

 

[Yaarel]

This Reddit mentions some of the feedback for 2023 UA Playtest 5.

It notes that they chose not to standardize subclass progression − but there seems to be no complaints or discussion about it.

Even the Sorcerer − the only class mildly affected by the standardization − was at "72% satisfied". This satisfaction was despite the Sorcerer dealing with disruptive proposals in Playtest 5, such as a completely different spell list.

The failure to standardize the subclass design space looks like an arbitrary whim without explanation − and without concern about the survey.

 

[mamba]

The failure to standardize the subclass design space looks like an arbitrary whim without explanation − and without concern about the survey.

I remember them saying that they did not do some things that got a high enough rating anyway. Not subclass harmonization specifically though. In any case, it looks like they got cold feet / decided to go with compatibility uber alles, even if the poll results did not warrant it, which further undermines the polling (as if it needed that, I already think it is no better than a coin flip…)

 

[Mannahnin]

I played 1E and 2E extensively. Parts of it were backwards compatible (classes and PC facing stuff generally), but overall it was far less compatible than 5E to 2024 is.

You really think so? How? The point of retro-compatibility is minimizing how much of your old books and notes you have to change to use old materiels with the new rules, right? 2E was designed to highly prioritize that.

Ok did those sources call 2E a "success"

People are changing the discussion and trying to hedge against the original claim. 2E was not successful, whether or not it was the "cause" of that failure or just happened at the same time is irrelevant because 2E did not "cause" success.

To paraphrase - the argument is releasing a new edition is a successful practice for WOTC and that is just historically untrue.

How do you define a success? I want to know where your goal posts are.

I think your prior statements that it was a failure and that backwards-compatible editions (you cited 3.5) are generally successful are also contradictory. I don't agree with the premise that new editions are mostly unsuccessful, but maybe your definition of success is different from mine. Generally new editions are the most reliable source of broad new sales for D&D and other games which do them. The exceptions seem to be when it's been a pop culture fad, like (A)D&D was in the late '79-~'83 period, and like it's been again in 5E. The nature of the beast with RPGs is that once you have a rules set you're happy with you never NEED to buy another product again. But a lot of folks do get tired of old rules or feel problems with them more over time, and enjoy the refresh and new energy and ideas that a new edition brings.

We're really focusing on sales and business success right now, right? Although there are other elements we could consider. I consider B/X and BECMI very successful in part because they also simplified the game and explained it better than AD&D did, and made it easier to learn. They also sold very well, of course. 2E was after the big fad period but also succeeded in clarifying and simplifying AD&D to a large extent. Gods know it needed that initiative overhaul, for example.

2E sold well on release, and later products and campaign settings seem to have sold worse in large part because they were competing against one another- cannibalizing each other's sales, as a group saw themselves as "primarily Forgotten Realms" players, or "primarily Dark Sun", or Ravenloft, or what have you, so each setting-focused product was functionally selling to a smaller sub-set of the fan base. This combined with management failures in cost containment (especially selling elaborate boxed sets they actually lost money on), in investing huge capital in unsuccessful products (Buck Rogers, for example, or the late 80s board games, like Dragonlance, Mage Stones, and Gammarauders) or the "comic book modules" effort with TSR West which stupidly alienated DC Comics while producing no profitable competing products), and an inability to capitalize on successes thanks to the factoring agreement, meant the balance of sales vs liabilities was bad on a much broader basis. TSR under the Williams regime didn't go down under eight years after 2E released in 1989. 2E sold, and it made AD&D much more accessible to new players than 1E had been.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'm not sure how true this is. My 5.24 wizard could be played using 5.14 rules and basically no one would notice. Our melee MVP is a 5.14 Paladin/Hexblade in a 5.24 campaign. Our Moon Druid has just got out of the levels where a 5.14 moon druid was overwhelmingly better.

Yeah the monk got a whole lot spicier - but that's because they were terrible. The new barbarian is not that much stronger than the old reckless/gwm barb before level 11; they just have more options. And the poor sharpshooters...

I don't think that it's that the math changed so much as more care was taken ensuring everyone can keep up as long as they don't do something daft. Which means less time balancing for player skill.

(Yes the monster math has changed for more teeth and less blubber - this is a separate and good change)

 

[MichaelSomething]

To switch to a standardized subclass design space has many benefits, no loss, and negligible disruption.

Sometimes the fan base needs to get used to an idea.

Earlier, surveyees were uncertain how much change the 2024 edition would entail, and were panicking with emergency breaks.

Scheduling the subclass levels is a smart move, for reasons similar to scheduling feats, and I suspect the fan base is ready for it.

If I wanted standardized design across classes, I go play 4th Edition!

Keep 5E weird!!

 

[ECMO3]

I’d say keeping a company afloat another 5 years or so is a success

It would have stayed afloat for far longer if no 2E content at all was published.

It was all the content that was printed and not sold that bankrupt them.

his can be true without 2e being a failure too.

It doesn't matter, in a business context saying something is not a failure is not the same as saying something is successful.

According to your logic all editions except for 5e should be a failure because they all tanked, some sooner, some later

WOTC did not tank financially (the metric for a business success) with any of the editions other than 2 and 4 was the only version that saw them lose a substantial market share.

Bottom Line: There is no evidence to support the claim that releasing a new edition is consistently or even normally a "successful business practice" as compared with releasing an update and beating around the bush, saying this edition or that edition was not really a failure does not itself support that claim.