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

[mamba]

The PHB has to be the player-facing side, so it tends to be more scrutinized

true

Less people get upset they messed up a monster stat block than people upset they messed up a class.

that would be more akin to being upset about a feat or spell, not a whole class

 

[Imaro]

which is not what I was arguing for…

Wait...huh? I never asserted you did argue for this... I wasn't even replying to you.

 

[Remathilis]

I would say that would make any such change even less likely: if after 10 years, backwards compatibility was a primary goal...after 20 years, 30 years...that will only increase.

See, that's where I think there will be a difference between "we are consolidating spells into 3-4 major lists" vs "we are scrapping the spell system and using ADEU powers" style changes. The game will continue to innovate as both tastes change, and things get better refined. I think of it more akin to how Basic, 1e and 2e are compatible because the major mechanics are the same or similar.

What I don't see changing in 6e would be things like proficiency bonus, the six-saves based on ability scores, the class/species/background character design paradigm, spell slots and upcasting, advantage/disadvantage, stuff like that. But I could see a version where subclasses no longer align to the levels of 14/24 for example. General compatibility due to running on the same engine, but not carrying if things line up 1:1 like 2024 was.

 

[mamba]

Wait...huh? I never asserted you did argue for this... I wasn't even replying to you.

all good, just clarifying it since there are different threads going on in parallel

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does it mean for one of those games to be a better proposition over the others?

In terms of a business, financial success. In terms of creativity it's obviously fuzzier, but if the new game does what you intend as a designer better than another game, then for you it seems like a win.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is how most boardgames...wargames, videogames, ccg's, etc. all itterate and in general they are vastly more successful than ttrpg's. It's weird to me that some expect ttrpg's to go out of print, stop being published and then be redesigned from the ground up under the same name every couple of years with a totally new rules set... as a norm.

Nope. Just official D&D

 

[Micah Sweet]

and they all happened because sales had evaporated

Certainly a big part of it. I'd like to think the designers also had legitimate creative reasons for trying something new, but maybe that's just wishful thinking?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It is not printed, but it is widely covered in all the WOTC guidlines and discussion on backwards compatibility. You can find it many places online, here is one exerp with a link following:

":So the classes, subclasses, feats, species backgrounds, and all the rest that you have in the new Player’s Handbook, you can use with any similar elements that appear in other books as long as it’s not the same thing. ...... If a subclass appears in the 2024 rules and you’re making a 2024 character, you can’t use the 2014 version of that subclass. Same with feats, same with species, and any other element that basically as soon as it appears in its new form, that new form replaces the old form .......If something doesn’t appear in the 2024 Player’s Handbook, you are welcome to pair it with a thing that does ...... Let’s say you pick an older subclass that maybe had a different level progression, the new subclass ability rules make it clear you get all of the features from any earlier levels ...... So, the Wizard’s new 3rd level subclass ability would specify that players can add the features from the Necromancer subclass that would have activated at 2nd level if players opt to use the Necromancer"

Dungeons & Dragons: How Backwards Compatibility Works in 2024 Player's Handbook

Dungeons & Dragons lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford has explained exactly how backwards compatibility will work with their new Player’s Handbook. Later this year, Wizards of the Coast will publish a new Player’s Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons, featuring updated rules for character building...

comicbook.com

So it's not actually a rule, at least not one that's part of the core books it ostensibly regulates.

I wonder why they didn't print this in the PHB?

 

[Corinnguard]

Will 6e borrow what worked for its' 5e-adjacent rivals? 5.5 sort of did this when they moved ASIs from species to background.

 

[Parmandur]

See, that's where I think there will be a difference between "we are consolidating spells into 3-4 major lists" vs "we are scrapping the spell system and using ADEU powers" style changes. The game will continue to innovate as both tastes change, and things get better refined. I think of it more akin to how Basic, 1e and 2e are compatible because the major mechanics are the same or similar.

What I don't see changing in 6e would be things like proficiency bonus, the six-saves based on ability scores, the class/species/background character design paradigm, spell slots and upcasting, advantage/disadvantage, stuff like that. But I could see a version where subclasses no longer align to the levels of 14/24 for example. General compatibility due to running on the same engine, but not carrying if things line up 1:1 like 2024 was.

Maybe: I think more time makes further changes even less and less likely. There is no ROI reason for WotC to make those changes: future fans won't care, and itnwould tick off people who had been playing for at that point theoretically decades. I'm sticking to 2024 being the most radical departure D&D rules will see moving forward, not a stop-gap to some future changes.