D&D 5E Backwards Compatibility and 5E

[Kremnorac]

How backwards compatible will 5E be? I ask because of this statement:

"We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition. " - Mike Mearls.

How true is that statement? If I can use content from my 3.5 games in 5E, that will make the new edition more enticing. At least in terms of content. I am hoping to either use 5E content for 3.5e if the compatibility is there, or if 5E is good enough I can switch my 3.5e/Pathfinder hybrid game to 5E.

WotC's goal just confuses me. I don't know if they're trying to make a table of gamers play their style of an "edition" at the same time and table, or if they're trying to get current gamers to continue their current edition styles, with new material, but can easily invite people of other "edition tastes" to join with no problem?

I hope it's the latter, really. The former is more attractive to new gamers than it is to those settled in their ways (and to those fed up with WotC by this point with the constant iterations of the game and the splitting of the customer base, once again).

 

[El Mahdi]

How backwards compatible will 5E be? I ask because of this statement:

"We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition. " - Mike Mearls.

How true is that statement? If I can use content from my 3.5 games in 5E, that will make the new edition more enticing. At least in terms of content. I am hoping to either use 5E content for 3.5e if the compatibility is there, or if 5E is good enough I can switch my 3.5e/Pathfinder hybrid game to 5E.

WotC's goal just confuses me. I don't know if they're trying to make a table of gamers play their style of an "edition" at the same time and table, or if they're trying to get current gamers to continue their current edition styles, with new material, but can easily invite people of other "edition tastes" to join with no problem?

I hope it's the latter, really. The former is more attractive to new gamers than it is to those settled in their ways (and to those fed up with WotC by this point with the constant iterations of the game and the splitting of the customer base, once again).

If by backwards compatibility you mean "mechanics" (rules, systems, etc.), with minimal or no conversion necessary...the answer is No.

If you're talking about Fluff (Campaign Worlds, Settings, Cultural Info, etc.) then Yes.

Basically what they've told us is:

The Rules (mechanics) of 5E are being designed to emulate the "feel" of other editions and styles. Mechanically: everything from simple to complex. Campaign Style: everything from Grim and Gritty, to Sword and Sorcery, to High Fantasy, to completely unique. And Play Style: everything from ultra-realistic, to gonzo-superhero, to immersive story telling, to full-on method acting.

So, in order to say, use an adventure from a past edition, one is going to have to do rules conversion.

To adapt mechanical material from another edition (races, classes, etc. - if it's not already been done for 5E), will also require conversion.

As far as play at the table, simplicity of build will be mostly the players purview (simple pre-set class, theme and background, up to complete customization - also simple skill choice/tracking up to a more granular skill choice/tracking). The different types of builds will emulate (to varying extents) the different types of character builds found in different editions (simple Basic D&D, a little more complicated AD&D, significantly complicated 3E, more preset 4E, etc.). Other parts will be the purview of the DM/Groups as to style of the campaign.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

All D&D is essentially backwards/forwards compatible on some level. The question is how much mechanical conversion is required versus how much an individual wants.

I'd prefer they get the game thematically right so it supports multiple playstyles rather than try to be precisely mechanically compatible with any particular edition.

 

[rogueattorney]

"5 hobgoblins - chain mail, shield, spear, dagger.

These hobgoblins are well-disciplined and alert. They have nothing of value aside from their armor and weapons. If they are attacked, one of their number will attempt to warn the larger force of hobgoblins in room x, while the remaining four will attempt to prevent the party from passing."

The above is compatible with all versions of D&D.

 

[Steely_Dan]

All D&D is essentially backwards/forwards compatible on some level.

I agree, lately I have been reading my D&D Basic, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed PHBs/Core Rules, and they aren't quite as different as people make them out to be, hence the edition warring is kind of bizarre.

I like that idea of starting a Basic campaign and adding/changing from there.

 

[mkill]

I agree, lately I have been reading my D&D Basic, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed PHBs/Core Rules, and they aren't quite as different as people make them out to be, hence the edition warring is kind of bizarre.

Whoa, hold it. If such basic common sense becomes prevalent among D&D gamers we might as well close the forums. I for one like to watch edition wars.

 

[Greatwyrm]

They'll hopefully make it easy enough to build your own stuff. That'd let you adjust mechanics while maintaining the spirit of what you were wanting.

 

[Savage Wombat]

"5 hobgoblins - chain mail, shield, spear, dagger.

These hobgoblins are well-disciplined and alert. They have nothing of value aside from their armor and weapons. If they are attacked, one of their number will attempt to warn the larger force of hobgoblins in room x, while the remaining four will attempt to prevent the party from passing."

The above is compatible with all versions of D&D.

Counter example - replace "hobgoblins" with "fire giants".

The phrase would be compatible, but the encounter level would be extremely different. You could throw the giants against a party of 8th level 1e characters, and no one would complain too much. Do that in 3e, and it would be a TPK.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Counter example - replace "hobgoblins" with "fire giants".

The phrase would be compatible, but the encounter level would be extremely different. You could throw the giants against a party of 8th level 1e characters, and no one would complain too much. Do that in 3e, and it would be a TPK.

I agree, but frost or hill giants might be an adequate replacement. Even if you then have to re-skin some things. Is it a perfect, no fuss conversion? No, but it can work pretty well and without too much effort.

I spent some time converting Ptolus to 4e, and it's pretty simple once you understand the design principles of the new edition.

Thaumaturge.

 

[rogueattorney]

Counter example - replace "hobgoblins" with "fire giants".

The phrase would be compatible, but the encounter level would be extremely different. You could throw the giants against a party of 8th level 1e characters, and no one would complain too much. Do that in 3e, and it would be a TPK.

Well, it's still compatible in that none of the terms used are alien to any edition of D&D. Would it be finely tuned to every version of D&D's particular level range (assuming the product in question even specifies a level range)? Nope. Individual DMs would have to eyeball it. Change it from 5 giants to 2 or change them from fire giants to ogres.

Using the type of "generic" descriptions in my example would require the publisher to do one of two things: a. Balance your adventures for the current version of D&D and note that DMs using whatever edition or whichever "module" may need to adjust for the specific needs of is or her campaign; or b. Alter your module writing style such that you are not assuming each encounter will be balanced.

The latter approach would probably be something similar to a "sandboxy" setting as seen in the various different versions of the Wilderness Campaign. If the party happens to wander into the fire giant infested lands before they're ready, oh well. They should have scouted more and figured out what was over that hill before they went there.

I do realize the adventure style of the second option has been out of vogue for approximately 30 years, but it's something WotC should "explore" (pun intended) if they truly want to make resources usable to all players of D&D regardless of edition.