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

ECMO3 said:

It was only really a successful business tactic from 4E to 5E.

Looking historically:

1E to 2E --> Not successful and drove TSR into bankrupcy

2E -->3E --> Successful only because 2E was dead. Kind of hard not to improve.

3.5E --> 4E Disaster

4E --> 5E This is the only complete edition switch that I would say was truely an unmitigated successful business decision.

Further when talking about backwards compatibility, we should also consider the 3E to 3.5E update which was a success.

Frankly I would argue the historical record, limited though it is, would indicate the opposite of your hypothesis: Going to a backwards-compatible updated version has always worked (the one other time it was tried), while bringing an entirely new edition to the table has generally not been a good business decision.

Click to expand...

2E was a very backwards-compatible edition. That's one of the reasons it retained descending AC for example (which was ironic, since the reason Gary kept it in AD&D 1E was for backwards compatibility/familiarity to existing players). 2E was more reverse-compatible with 1E than 3.5 was with 3, IMO.

Slaying the Dragon and other sources have made pretty clear the reasons for TSR's bankruptcy, and it wasn't the release of 2E, which they definitely needed to clean up the rules, such as (among other things) implementing a playable initiative system.

The bankruptcy had much more to do with lacking awareness and cost controls on boxed sets, setting proliferation cannibalizing their own sales, and the factoring agreement fixing their budgets at the start of the year making them unable to pivot nimbly to adjust to flops or capitalize on successes with immediate reduced or ramped up production. Once they started losing money thanks to those things, and started utilizing the Random House deal to get cash advances on products (which wouldn't necessarily sell, and eventually got returned) to cover their basic operating expenses, their doom was pretty close to sealed.

As far as subclasses, most of the people wanting to use old subclasses in 2024 are gonna be people who already have a character built who was using that subclass and just don't want to remake the character from scratch again, so the old subclasses remaining "compatible" with the adjustment of shifting all their features before 3rd level onto 3rd level is nice to have (especially because most established builds are going to be past 3rd level anyway so they won't notice the change, rip to anyone that wants to keep their 1st level subclass from 2014 and only just started before the rules change if it wasnt one of the updated ones though). As for campaigns, honestly there wasn't really anything they needed to do to maintain backwards compatibility in those besides a sidebar saying, "use the 2024 version of the monster where available", explaining the monster to npc change and giving some advice on adapting old monsters that didn't make the cut at all in the 2024 book. They could have kept a lot of the weirder and more experimental rules and been fine as long as they didn't alter classes too much. Tbh we might even see the cut class changes come back in a supplement similar to tasha's alternate class features once wotc has finished porting over all the subclasses they want to.

Mannahnin said:

You're thinking of the VTT, not character builder.

4E DID have an absolutely excellent character builder and everyone used it. It was the main reason so many people had subscriptions for the online service (it also helped with adoption, though maybe not WotC's bottom line, that one person in a group could have a subscription and share it with the rest). The monster builder and online abbreviated version of Dragon Magazine weren't bad, and if the ever got the VTT to actually work they probably would have hit their sales targets, but the character builder was the star as it was.

Click to expand...

I misspoke.

4E needed a VTT to handle the powers and the tracking of buffs and debuffs which would clog up the leaders and controllers of later years.

Minigiant said:

I misspoke.

4E needed a VTT to handle the powers and the tracking of buffs and debuffs which would clog up the liters and controllers of later years.

Click to expand...

VTT automation would certainly have helped with some of the complexity, especially multiple conditions and conditional modifiers which tended to increase in number at higher levels.

Mannahnin said:

VTT automation would certainly have helped with some of the complexity, especially multiple conditions and conditional modifiers which tended to increase in number at higher levels.

Click to expand...

4E really felt like it wanted an management app to handle the powers and conditions on the player side.

Ironically it was on of the easiest editions to run as a DM but hardest to manage as a player.

Minigiant said:

Then when it actually made money they ballooned the number to 1 Billion dollars.

Click to expand...

The total brand value they suggest could be a billion. That would include video games, tv, movies, shirts, etc. That's also a revenue goal not a profit goal

Mannahnin said:

2E was a very backwards-compatible edition.

Click to expand...

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.

Mannahnin said:

Slaying the Dragon and other sources have made pretty clear the reasons for TSR's bankruptcy, and it wasn't the release of 2E, which they definitely needed to clean up the rules, such as (among other things) implementing a playable initiative system.

Click to expand...

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.

ECMO3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

ECMO3 said:

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

Click to expand...

this can be true without 2e being a failure too. According to your logic all editions except for 5e should be a failure because they all tanked, some sooner, some later - and the jury on 5e is still out from that perspective

Here are the subclass levels for the 2024 classes.

STANDARD SUBCLASS LEVELS

In the aggregate, the 2024 classes suggest standardizing the subclasses levels as follows:
3, 6, 10, and 14. Thus all subclasses comprise four levels.

Four classes already have exactly these four classes. Other classes can accommodate this subclass schedule by swapping features up or down a level or so.

Bard and Cleric need to make room for a subclass level at 10.

Note, the Fighter has an extra subclass level at 18. However instead, make this an extra epic boon feat. The extra boon can help balance the Fighter at the highest levels, comparing the full caster classes.

It is easy to standardize the design space for subclasses.

Yaarel said:

Here are the subclass levels for the 2024 classes.

STANDARD SUBCLASS LEVELS

LEVEL

BRB

DRU

WRK

WIZ

SRC

BRD

CLR

MNK

FTR

RGR

PAL

ROG

1

2

3

BRB

DRU

WRK

WIZ

SRC

BRD

CLR

MNK

FTR

RGR

PAL

ROG

4

5

6

BRB

DRU

WRK

WIZ

SRC

BRD

CLR

MNK

...

...

...

...

7

FTR

RGR

PAL

8

9

ROG

10

BRB

DRU

WRK

WIZ

...

...

...

...

FTR

...

...

...

11

MNK

RGR

12

13

ROG

14

BRB

DRU

WRK

WIZ

SRC

BRD

...

...

...

...

...

...

15

FTR

RGR

PAL

16

17

CLR

MNK

ROG

18

SCR

FTR

19

20

PAL

In the aggregate, the 2024 classes suggest standardizing the subclasses levels as follows:
3, 6, 10, and 14. Thus all subclasses comprise four levels.

Four classes already have exactly these four classes. Other classes can accommodate this subclass schedule by swapping features up or down a level or so.

Bard and Cleric need to make room for a subclass level at 10.

Note, the Fighter has an extra subclass level at 18. However instead, make this an extra epic boon feat. The extra boon can help balance the Fighter at the highest levels, comparing the full caster classes.

It is easy to standardize the design space for subclasses.

Click to expand...

I mean, WotC did propose that, and it got shot down in UA.