D&D 5E 5E and Backwards Compatibility

[Savage Wombat]

I don't think your character mechanics needs to be backwards compatible. You should be able to play the same concept in any of the editions though. You just need to change how you're going about it, and of course levels don't mean the same thing in each edition.

Just because you were a level 8 halfling fighter with a shortbow in 3.5 doesn't mean you'll be the same thing in 4th. You're more likely going to be a ranger, or the Essential Hunter version of the ranger.

Maybe before you needed to be a multi wizard, fighter, rogue to get what you wanted... Now you can take a roguish theme, on your swordmage who multiclasses into wizard via feats to get some extra spellbook fun.

Mechanics are different you just have to be willing to read the system to build your concept. It's not, nor should it ever, just be cut and paste of the previous edition (otherwise you're not a new edition, just a very confusing additional source book).

And that's sort of my point. If WotC had released a "conversion guide" that explained things like you did, and made suggestions on how to make a conversion work, some of the people who rejected 4e might have tried it.

Instead they just told us that it wasn't possible, start a new game. This may have been the truth, but it wasn't good marketing strategy.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think your character mechanics needs to be backwards compatible. You should be able to play the same concept in any of the editions though. You just need to change how you're going about it, (. . .)

Some might say that idiom is the soul of the character in roleplaying games.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

My guess is the simplified core game will be fairly compatible with 1E/2E, at least so far as to be able to convert anything you need to on-the-fly or with just a short amount of pre-game prep work.

 

[El Mahdi]

My guess is the 247 page conversion pdf that WotC is going to post on their website (downloadable for free) in conjunction with the release of 5E, will make the edition compatible with any product from any other edition...and likely compatible with RIFTS also!

 

[haakon1]

Given the absolute lack of backwards compatibility that 4e has, I think it would be hard to make DnDN backwards compatible with both 4e and any other edition.

I can't give you more XP, but exactly.

It wouldn't be hard to make something compatible-ish with all D&D versions except 4e. Heck, adding compatibility with Pathfinder, Hackmaster, Castles & Crusades, etc., might not be much harder than combatible with OD&D/AD&D/BECMI/2nd Ed/3.5e.

But adding 4e to the mix would almost be like attempting compatibity for both GURPS and RoleMaster. Some concepts are similar, but a lot of things are very different.

 

[hafrogman]

For those of you saying that you want, or are looking for backwards compatibility, what do you actually mean by that? I'll admit that one of 4e's biggest errors in this respect was the delay in publishing classes and races that had been core in 3.5. They've already said that they're going to put every previously core class into 5e, hopefully that means in the first book and hopefully they'll do the same for races. So what else is there? How specific does a 5e character need to match the previous version? Just the story? The thematic elements and feel of a character? Or able to do the exact same things?

When you talk about converting an adventure from one edition to another, does it just need to have 5e goblins that can replace the goblins the existing adventure calls for? Or do you require it to be the same number of goblins with the same treasure?

What exactly qualifies as backwards compatibility in a game like D&D?

 

[haakon1]

[Backwards compatibility has] always been a more prominent concern for the fanbase then I am seeing this time around. That's what striking me as so notable.

Interesting observation.

Speaking for the grognard faction (specifically 3.5e for me):
--- A part of me would like to play the "latest and greatest" edition.
--- But another part of me is "once bit, twice shy" after 4e. I assume it's not going to be FOR me, that WOTC isn't really interested in me as a customer. So I'm not emotionally invested in 5e. They don't want me, and I don't need them anymore.
--- I'm willing to take a look at it, and if it's compatible with my existing campaigns (AD&D started, 3.5e now, and no, the conversion wasn't hard) and it seems like fun rules and the modules are interesting -- helpful if they are Greyhawk-related and respectful of Greyhawk's heritage -- then I might just switch.
--- But if 5e doesn't meet my needs, oh well, it's no worse a situation for me than the present, since I'm already playing an OOP game. Pathfinder is the obvious "upgrade" path if we ever upgrade, because of compatibility.

Thinking from a 4e POV, if backwards compatibility wasn't an issue for that conversion, it won't be for 5e.

I'm thinking the profile for "grognards" might be people like me, who don't play often enough/care enough about char op to be bored of older rule sets, and/or who had "something to lose" if they dropped an old campaign and started a new one for 4e. Backwards compatibility is SO important, 5e isn't a likely choice for them. It's about continuing the story, not having fun new rules. So they don't speak up, because they don't have a dog in the 5e fight.

I'm thinking the profile for 4e fans might be people who play every week and/or focus on char op or are just "early adopters" in general, so they get bored of old rules faster, and because they start a new campaign every year or so, aren't interested in backward compatibility and in fact would be annoyed by it.

And if you use beta test volunteers to test the new rules, you're going to have earlier adopters as the vast majority of the testers . . . which may be why 4e appealed to them but not the grognards.