D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Maxperson]

says nothing about adventures not being forward compatible

You seriously think that when they say backwards that they mean forwards. That's not how language works. If they specify backwards, that's the ONLY claim being made. There is no claim implied or otherwise of forward compatibility. Had they meant forward, they would have said fully compatible with or use other similar language. You're grasping at straws here.

Will have to see what I find about mixing 2014 and 2024 chars

I just quoted it, and it SHOWS that forward compatibility isn't a thing. I'll quote it again.

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

You don't have to change something that won't work with the new stuff if it was forward compatible to begin with.

 

[mamba]

This is all that has been said on it to my knowledge.

“Here is what the team is thinking won’t need conversions:

• One character at the table decides to play a druid and chooses to prepare the spell barkskin. They could prepare either the 2014 or 2024 version, and the game works fine. (A DM might even allow both to be prepared, but that’s a DM call.)
• A character could play a 2024 wizard and choose a subclass at 3rd level. Another character could play a 2014 wizard and choose the abjurer subclass at 1st level. The game still works.
• A character could play a 2024 cleric, but choose a 2014 subclass and just move the subclass levels to the 2024 subclass levels. The game still works.
• The DM can run a 2014 adventure, and if the monsters have been updated you can update them or not, as desired.”

“The team says that for 2024 to remain compatible , elements with numbers such as levels will not change. For example, if a monster’s CR is 12, that monster’s CR won’t change even if it is updated. This way, you can use either version.”

Wizards Redefines One D&D at the Creator Summit

My D&D Summit review ends with the 2024 core rules presentation. Here is how it redefines One D&D.

alphastream.org

 

[mamba]

You seriously think that when they say backwards that they mean forwards.

No, I think they said nothing about this case at all, so I cannot draw any conclusion for it

That's not how language works.

agreed, but concluding one thing from something unrelated is not how logic works either

If I tell you that my house is red, that tells you nothing about the color of my neighbor’s house. Likewise saying that the 2024 rules will be compatible with the 2014 adventures tells me nothing about the 2024 adventures played by 2014 chars.

The fact that I can mix and match 2014 and 2024 chars in the same party and monsters keep their CR tells me a lot more about this however

 

[Maxperson]

No, I think they said nothing about this case at all, so I cannot draw any conclusion for it

Backwards = backwards, so I can draw a conclusion about what they said about compatibility.

If I tell you that my house is red, that tells you nothing about the color of my neighbor’s house. Likewise saying that the 2024 rules will be compatible with the 2014 adventures tells me nothing about the 2024 adventures played by 2014 chars.

If you tell me that your house(5.5e) is red(backwards compatible), that means that it's not both red(backwards compatible) and blue(forward compatible), because if it was you'd have told me that your house was red and blue. It means that it's just red(backwards compatible).

And you keep ignoring this quote that proves that it's not forward compatible.

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

I mean, feel free not to draw a conclusion, but they've said straight out with that quote that 5e is not forward compatible with 5.5e. It can't be if it has stuff that simply won't work with 2024 rules and needs a 2024 version in order to work.

 

[Hussar]

Then why wouldn't they just say that the editions are compatible with one another instead of the new one being backwards compatible, and not backwards compatible with the older books, but rather just with the 2014 adventures?

I expect we will have to do work to make the new adventures work with the old rules. Perhaps not much(or maybe there will be a lot), but we will have to do it so there isn't forward compatibility.

Because they aren't expecting people to be ridiculously pedantic and over analyze every single thing they say with a microscope?

I know, I know. By now they should know that people will do exactly that just so they can catch them on the hop, but, hope springs eternal.

 

[Maxperson]

“Here is what the team is thinking won’t need conversions:

• One character at the table decides to play a druid and chooses to prepare the spell barkskin. They could prepare either the 2014 or 2024 version, and the game works fine. (A DM might even allow both to be prepared, but that’s a DM call.)
• A character could play a 2024 wizard and choose a subclass at 3rd level. Another character could play a 2014 wizard and choose the abjurer subclass at 1st level. The game still works.
• A character could play a 2024 cleric, but choose a 2014 subclass and just move the subclass levels to the 2024 subclass levels. The game still works.
• The DM can run a 2014 adventure, and if the monsters have been updated you can update them or not, as desired.”

That's not a very ringing endorsement. I mean, I could play a 3.5 wizard using 3.5 spells in 5e and the game would still work. I could use a fully 5e wizard, but use the 3.5 version of wish and the game would still work. That it doesn't collapse and end play doesn't equate to compatibility.

That the game "still works" or "the DM can allow it," doesn't mean that the game will be backwards compatible, and we already know that it won't be forward compatible.

“The team says that for 2024 to remain compatible , elements with numbers such as levels will not change. For example, if a monster’s CR is 12, that monster’s CR won’t change even if it is updated. This way, you can use either version.”

Sure. Again, that they aren't changing the number doesn't mean that the CR level didn't change. It only means that they didn't change the number. WotCs rather large failure in quite literally every edition they've made to be able to accurately rate monsters by CR doesn't inspire faith that this claim of theirs is accurate.

 

[Maxperson]

Because they aren't expecting people to be ridiculously pedantic and over analyze every single thing they say with a microscope?

I know, I know. By now they should know that people will do exactly that just so they can catch them on the hop, but, hope springs eternal.

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

They've said with this quote that it's not forward compatible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

just quoted it, and it SHOWS that forward compatibility isn't a thing. I'll quote it again.

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

You don't have to change something that won't work with the new stuff if it was forward compatible to begin with.

I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion from that quote.

They say that if there is a discrepancy, they’ll resolve it. There’s nothing there about the answer always being to replace the subclass, or that the finished product won’t be compatible in the sense of using 2014 subclasses with 2024 classes, or anything else you’re trying to claim it says.

It just says that some subclasses might not work with the playtest versions of new stuff, and if the new stuff goes to print, they’ll resolve that discrepancy.

That…means the opposite of what you claim. It means they don’t want there to be those discrepancies, and they will make sure that there aren’t any, barring design oversights.

 

[Hussar]

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

They've said with this quote that it's not forward compatible.

They said in this quote that there might be a problem using a subclass. As in maybe. And it's not all classes or all features.

That is most certainly not claiming that it's not forward compatible.

 

[Hussar]

That's not a very ringing endorsement. I mean, I could play a 3.5 wizard using 3.5 spells in 5e and the game would still work. I could use a fully 5e wizard, but use the 3.5 version of wish and the game would still work. That it doesn't collapse and end play doesn't equate to compatibility.

Actually, no it wouldn't. the 3.5 e version of Wish has an Xp cost. There is no corresponding mechanic for that in 5e. And the xp tables are completely different. A 5000 xp cost in 3.5 is completely different than the same cost in 5e. Additionally, 3.5 Wish that duplicates spells invokes the 3.5 Spell Resistance which doesn't exist in 5e. Additionally, any effect created by a 3.5 Wish that had a saving throw would be incompatible with the 5e rules, since you can't calculate the DC and the saving throw values flat out don't exist in 5e. There is no comparable Will save in 5e.

What is the xp cost to create a magic item in 5e? After all, a 3e Wish allows me to create magic items at double the XP cost.

So, flat out no, you can't play a 3.5 wizard using 3.5 spells in 5e. It actually won't work.