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

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure what "a lot of people" means, or if those are the same "lot of people" who demanded backwards compatibility (allegedly.) I don't think the surveys gaslit WotC about backwards compatibility, I think WotC gaslit the players about backwards compatibility, which was clearly a strong desire and which wasn't really delivered, even though it was promised. I don't think the backwards compatibility is any more real than it was between 3e and 3.5, or between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, the systems are quite similar, but the details are all different. Which is probably why when talking freely, the WotC call it 5.5. They know it's not really backwards compatible.

Agreed, 5.5 ultimately failed both groups. Folks who wanted substantive changes improving quality of life rightly shake their heads at all the obvious failures at doing so. Folks who were sold a marketer's wet dream version of backwards "comparability"that was more like an overinflated hyped up binary compatibility were never going to get what they were told to expect.
Maybe the setting books can address some of that maybe not. Although the lack of any indication that those are a planned way of doing so in any particular way doesn't give me high expectations of seeing them trying to do som

 

[billd91]

I mean, I have heard that...

Heard it, sure. I hear a lot of things. Not all of them I would characterize as fundamentally, or even remotely, true.

 

[Azzy]

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what aspect of "backwards compatibility" hasn't been achieved. I'm playing in games where we use 2014 and 2024 material interchangeably, freely mixing and matching, and we haven't run into any issue. Heck, one of my characters is 2014 warlock multiclassed with a 2024 sorcerer, and has feats from both corebooks.

This is the way.

 

[Remathilis]

Heard it, sure. I hear a lot of things. Not all of them I would characterize as fundamentally, or even remotely, true.

I didn't say it was, only people who claimed it was.

 

[Yaarel]

I didn't say it was, only people who claimed it was.

Heh, I can name names!

 

[Desdichado]

Don't care about what?? So you don't like 5e are not interested in playing 5e revised and are basing your oppinion on second hand information, that doesn't really support what you are claiming. Mainly that 5e and 5e revised aren't compatible.

Second hand information? Yeah, it's the information in the OP. I'm reacting to it. I also made that caveat. Twice. Funny that you somehow missed that.

Wait... you think OD&D and AD&D 2e are compatible... but you don't think 5e and 5e revised are... Say what now? And again you're basing your rant on secondhand information... why? Why even comment if you don't actually know whether it's compatible... or better yet why assume the OP is any more accurate than the many posters stating it is compatible?

You have a funny tolerance for what you consider a "rant."

 

[Desdichado]

I'm pretty sure some people's views on backwards compatibility means "if I have to do any conversion, it's not compatible."

If that's not your view on backwards compatibility, then every version of D&D (and most other fantasy RPGs too) is compatible with every other version. It's not a lot of work to run a B/X or AD&D module in 5e, as long as you have a Monster Manual. And you probably don't even need that.

 

[AlViking]

So we're still arguing about this? Has anyone come up with what they thought backwards compatibility means other than "absolutely no rule changes"? Because I can't think of how much more compatibility we were supposed to have.

Like others, one DM is still using an old mod only making tweaks she would have done to adjust difficulty for our group anyway. I have people playing old subclasses and it works just fine. We have switched over to new versions of feats and spells for my sanity as a DM but that's about it.

 

[Remathilis]

If that's not your view on backwards compatibility, then every version of D&D (and most other fantasy RPGs too) is compatible with every other version. It's not a lot of work to run a B/X or AD&D module in 5e, as long as you have a Monster Manual. And you probably don't even need that.

If you're options are "all" or "nothing" then I can see it. But it's not. A 4e power can't be used in 2024, but a 2014 spell can. A 3.0 character can take a 3.5 prestige class, but a AD&D character can't. A 2e Death Knight is incredibly easy to hit in 4e: he only has a 2 AC! You can't use the individual parts interchangeably. But some you can. A 1e ranger can take a 2e kit. You can rebuild a module by replacing the mechanics with appropriate edition equivalents.

All of this is to say that I can run Curse of Strahd in 2024 with minimal changes (mostly swapping out 14 for 24 monster stats). I can't run I6, despite being the same maps and layout, because I6 wants you to save vs spell (which isn't a thing in 24). You can't say those two levels of compatibility are equal.

 

[Imaro]

Second hand information? Yeah, it's the information in the OP. I'm reacting to it. I also made that caveat. Twice. Funny that you somehow missed that.

I just wanted to confirm that you're speaking with no first hand knowledge... regardless of caveat, you don't actually know what you're talking about Didn't miss it, just wanted to confirm it so I could decide whether going back and forth would garner a better understanding. However you don't seem open to more/better information since you've already decided you don't like 5e.

You have a funny tolerance for what you consider a "rant."

Tolerance? I'm not even sure how my tolerance comes into play here. Please elaborate.