D&D 5E 5E and Backwards Compatibility

[BobTheNob]

Does it need it?

4e had next to none. At best it emulated certain tropes and I wouldnt for a second say that it suffered as a result.

Im really not concerned if it doesnt.

 

[KidSnide]

Direct backwards compatibility is a little insane for all the reasons mentioned above. The real question is how convertable adventures from other editions will be. If you pick up Forge of Fury and try to run it in 4e, you need to do a lot of work to make the fights make sense.

Personally, I would hope that 1e and 2e modules convert easily into the light-weight version of the game, just because early modules tend to be pretty bare-bones, so there isn't all that much to do (other than changing out the monster stats). I'm less sure about 3e and 4e modules, although the later might be good for the tactical version of D&DN.

I suppose the better 3e modules (e.g. Forge of Fury, Red Hand of Doom and a bunch of Dungeon/Pathfinder stuff) are going to be adventures that you could mine productively for D&DN. But I'm skeptical they will convert especially well. IME, good 3e material involves a fair bit of system mastery that I presume won't be reflected in D&DN. That said, if D&DN simply requires less DM system mastery than 3e (which wouldn't be hard), you might be OK.

-KS

 

[Mark CMG]

Has Green Ronin ever talked about how their systemless update to Freeport has gone? It's supported now by six or seven different systems (and is generally more awesome for having the stats not taking up room in the hardcover). Obviously they're an unusually big fish in this pond, but it might be suggestive.

I've heard it has done very well by them and the following thread shows they will still be coming back with more Freeport stuff, so it's probably a safe bet they feel it still has legs -

Green Ronin Publishing Forum • View topic - Is Green Ronin done with Freeport?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I shouldn't have to have 8 multiclasses, or Paragon level in order to build my character.

I wish this were one of their guiding principles. Waiting until level 8 or 9 to play the character I wanted to play at level 1 has always felt like a failure to me.

That said, I have people I play with who like the additive nature of 3E multiclassing as it allows for character growth. I don't know how a design could accomplish both, but that would be ideal.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've heard it has done very well by them and the following thread shows they will still be coming back with more Freeport stuff, so it's probably a safe bet they feel it still has legs -

Green Ronin Publishing Forum • View topic - Is Green Ronin done with Freeport?

Awesome. More Freeport is excellent news.

 

[Stormonu]

If there's no backwards compatibility (with older modules), my interest in 5E will go to practically nil.

I've been burned once by 4E - I'll not put out for yet another new game system under the D&D banner that won't work with my older stuff.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Does it need it?

4e had next to none. At best it emulated certain tropes and I wouldnt for a second say that it suffered as a result.

Im really not concerned if it doesnt.

I would say it suffered a great deal. One of the first things that turned off uncertain players was the lack of even an attempt at conversion materials.

Some people have been playing the same character for decades. Telling them they couldn't continue playing that character was tantamount to telling them "don't play 4e".

Now, whether such rules were feasible is a different matter. But if they'd kludged together some nonsense that sort-of told you how to convert your high-level character to a 4e equivalent, they'd have been better received at the outset.

 

[Lanefan]

Each time a new edition comes out I hope and expect it will be backwards compatible with the edition before, and twice I have been severely disappointed: the jump from 2e to 3e, and the jump from 3.5/PF to 4e.

I don't think there's any way on the Goddess' Green Earth they can make 5e fully back-compatible with all previous editions, as said previous editions are simply too different from each other. Sad, but true. So, they need to pick one or two and focus on those - and from all I can tell my bet on which they'll pick would be 1e and 3e...and even merging those two into something cohesive presents a mighty challenge.

What I'm reduced to hoping for now is that if 5e doesn't turn out to be a system I want to play (and I'm leaving the jury out on that decision for quite a while yet) at least its adventure modules are compatible enough with 1e that I can use them there without too much work.

Lanefan

 

[Feeroper]

I'm going to be the contrarian here. Sight unseen, their design goals seem to require a certain degree of backwards compatibility, even if by accident. If I'm going to be able to sit down with a (focused) group, create characters, and run a simple adventure during my lunch hour, the most basic characters cannot be much more complex than BD&D ones, combat can't be 3E or 4E-level complexity by default and adjudication has to be, at its simplest level, something a DM can determine or wing very easily.

Now, will there be things that aren't in previous editions, like condition tracks or classes and abilities that don't map directly over to older editions? Of course. But those will likely be the exceptions and I don't think it'd be that hard to either wholesale incorporate them into other editions or replace them with older edition equivalents.

I'm looking forward to, at the very least, pillaging a lot of the sourcebooks and adventures (assuming there are good ones again) for C&C.

I completely agree here. I think backwards compatibility is going to be possible with any edition and as well D20 variants/retroclones like PF. Assuming they can pull off this grand vision then it seems highly likely that alot of older doors will open up as potential options for the game with a little conversion. I know many people don't think they can pull this vision off, but no one can say for certain until it starts coming out. This is a pretty different team working on the game than were working on 4e and certainly the process of development is quite different as well (having an open playtest).

 

[nightwalker450]

I would say it suffered a great deal. One of the first things that turned off uncertain players was the lack of even an attempt at conversion materials.

Some people have been playing the same character for decades. Telling them they couldn't continue playing that character was tantamount to telling them "don't play 4e".

Now, whether such rules were feasible is a different matter. But if they'd kludged together some nonsense that sort-of told you how to convert your high-level character to a 4e equivalent, they'd have been better received at the outset.

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).