A word on Backward Compatability

[MerricB]

I see a lot of things being said about the revisions to 3E, and a couple of the words that keep cropping up are "backward" and "compatability". Next to each other. As in, "backward compatability".

I'm not sure if the people bandying them around have any idea what they mean.

"Backwards compatible" does not mean things will stay exactly the same. It does not mean that things from the new edition will be usable under the old rules.

What "backwards compatible" actually means is that things from the old edition will function under the new rules - although not always in exactly the same manner.

The following changes are "backward compatible" changes:
* Changing the bard from 4 skill points per level to 6 skill points per level.
* Giving the sorcerer 8 1st-level spells known at 1st level.
* Changing cure light wounds to healing 8 hit points flat.
* Creating a new spell "Summon Piratecat".

The following changes are not "backwards compatible" changes:
* Removing the magic missile spell.
* Removing the "favoured enemy" ability and its description.
* Removing the "low-light vision" ability and its description.

OK - that's my interpretation of what Backwards compatability means. You can now start disagreeing and arguing the point.

Cheers!

 

[Blacksad]

Except that the backward compatibility isn't only with books like OA or Manual of the Planes, but according to the comments from WotC, with any of their product, which include adventures, and your 2 first backward compatible exemple would not fit with adventures (for the customer who has only the revised version, the stats in those would seems wrong, and he might feel ripped because his book hasn't the same rules used as in the hundreds of D&D and d20 adventures, contrary to what he was told).

 

[DDK]

* Creating a new spell "Summon Piratecat".

Is that anything like the "Summon Cow" spell?

How is that backwards compatible? I don't recall Piratecat weighing a ton and I don't recall anything in the wyvern's ecology writeup stating that they like eating Piratecat.

And anyway, wouldn't there be hundreds of people casting this spell everyday? Surely Piratecat can't be in all those places at once and what about the poor wyvern who has to keep draggin' him around?

I not only think this isn't backwards compatible, but I also think it's BROKEN!

 

[Thorntangle]

Using just the example of the Ranger's skills, anything with a Ranger level will need its published statblock revised. Adventures, guide books, etc.

 

[Sanackranib]

compatability

I wouldnt expect the statblocks to be reprinted. One thing to consider is a lot of us use some non WotC books in our games and NOTHING is going to be done by WotC to retain any sort of compatability backwards or otherwise with ANY of that stuff.

 

[Sanackranib]

backward compatability

I also expect whatever they do to void the slatbooks. they will stay compatable with the core rules and thats all.

 

[thalmin]

Except that the backward compatibility isn't only with books like OA or Manual of the Planes, but according to the comments from WotC, with any of their product, which include adventures, and your 2 first backward compatible exemple would not fit with adventures (for the customer who has only the revised version, the stats in those would seems wrong, and he might feel ripped because his book hasn't the same rules used as in the hundreds of D&D and d20 adventures, contrary to what he was told).

"Backwards Compatible" does not mean backwards identicle. It means you can use the stuff previously printed, but you might need to make some adjustments.
I am sure that some people will feel ripped no matter what changes are made, or even not made.

 

[Zappo]

In what way does giving 6 skill points to the Bard make older material not backwards compatible? A now-suboptimal bard is still a bard nonetheless, it works under the new rules, and can be used normally.

Or is a Pentium IV not backwards-compatible because Space Invaders 1976 doesn't become 3D and massive multiplayer when run on it?

 

[Blacksad]

In what way does giving 6 skill points to the Bard make older material not backwards compatible? A now-suboptimal bard is still a bard nonetheless, it works under the new rules, and can be used normally.

It's a bard with error in it in the eye of someone who has the new PHB and not the old (I think that it is the goal, to have clearer content in the book so that new customer do not need to read 100+ pages of FAQ or old player could get all the info in one book, plus some nice crunchy bits) .

Why do you think people were irked by wrong skills expenditure in Everyone Else and Jade Dragon & Hungry Ghost?

Because it changes the strength of characters/monster, especially with classes which might have a heavy use of skill, consider the difference between a bard with perform, hide, move silently, diplomacy and one who add to that bluff and spot.

For books like Way of the Samurai where only the class level are given this isn't a problem, but for adventure it means that the EL of some encounter were wrong.

Adventure will loose some compatibility, but given that they probably won't be reprinted, it's not that much of a problem to respect their claims, but Eric Noah have already mentioned it: if it isn't compatible with E-tools, they wouldn't respect their claims (and try to do a bard with 6 skill point per level with E-tools, see you in a century, OK?).

Or is a Pentium IV not backwards-compatible because Space Invaders 1976 doesn't become 3D and massive multiplayer when run on it?

Uh? Invaders 1976 is converted to work on a Pentium IV, if you have the original cartridge try to run it on your computer and tell me how it worked, even if the binary code is intact, you need a specail software to run it, so that the machine call are simulated by the emulator, so yes it's not bacward compatible you need a conversion of the old file (through a conversion document/software or directly on the file).

 

[Umbran]

Well, we may have an issue with definitions of what qualifies as "compatible".

By the strict definitions I'm seeing, one cannot make any change to the rules and have the new ones be "compatible". I'm not sure that this is what "compatible" means...

When I see two things called "compatible", I think that they will function together. This does not say they will function optimally, but that they will work. If I take a 3e character sheet, and can take it to a 3.5e game without altering any of the writing on the sheet, and still have the thing mechanically function, that's one definition of "compatible". It's probably the one that the designers mean.

Remember that game balance is nice, but it was never expected that it could be maintained without DM vigilance. If you say that now every bard NPC will have to be inspected for number of skill points to ensure that they'd be a proper challenge, I return that you should have been giving them an inspection anyway, even if the rules hadn't changed. Just because it's "published" doesn't mean you can use it out of the box unthinkingly with your own party and have it work perfectly. The balance guidelines don't work that way - they already required your attention to details.