Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8546594" data-attributes="member: 19857">This is still common in non-OSR games.&nbsp; I use my BECMI adventures with my 13th Age games and my AD&amp;D 1e books as inspiration for my 5e sessions.&nbsp; I think I've run some variation of Palace of the Silver Princess in every edition of the game.But there's a difference between &quot;using stuff from older editions&quot; and &quot;having the current set of rules&quot;.&nbsp; The 3e to 3.5e transition is the most notable of these I think - they claimed it wasn't a new edition and it's true that they didn't change everything, but they changed enough that it wasn't actually fully backwards compatible without houseruling. And so people mostly didn't - they bought the new books and moved on or they kept their table at the older edition.OTOH - I think they learned that lesson with 4e.&nbsp; The Essentials line actually was backwards compatible.&nbsp; You could mix 4e characters and Essentials characters at the same table and it didn't matter because they didn't muck with the core rules and they had a better system in place for modular class features than they had for 3e.I think they have the opportunity to do that again for 5e.&nbsp; 5e has a solid core rule base with a lot of modular pieces to it.&nbsp; If they don't have to go in and fiddle with the core rules but they can make the design changes in new subclasses and feats with possible a few pieces of &quot;errata&quot; incorporated into the new book they could possibly do it again and have a version of the game where one player could have an original PHB character, another could have an &quot;Anniversary Edition&quot; character, and everyone can play at the same table without having to come up with houserules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 8546594, member: 19857"] This is still common in non-OSR games. I use my BECMI adventures with my 13th Age games and my AD&D 1e books as inspiration for my 5e sessions. I think I've run some variation of Palace of the Silver Princess in every edition of the game. But there's a difference between "using stuff from older editions" and "having the current set of rules". The 3e to 3.5e transition is the most notable of these I think - they claimed it wasn't a new edition and it's true that they didn't change everything, but they changed enough that it wasn't actually fully backwards compatible without houseruling. And so people mostly didn't - they bought the new books and moved on or they kept their table at the older edition. OTOH - I think they learned that lesson with 4e. The Essentials line actually was backwards compatible. You could mix 4e characters and Essentials characters at the same table and it didn't matter because they didn't muck with the core rules and they had a better system in place for modular class features than they had for 3e. I think they have the opportunity to do that again for 5e. 5e has a solid core rule base with a lot of modular pieces to it. If they don't have to go in and fiddle with the core rules but they can make the design changes in new subclasses and feats with possible a few pieces of "errata" incorporated into the new book they could possibly do it again and have a version of the game where one player could have an original PHB character, another could have an "Anniversary Edition" character, and everyone can play at the same table without having to come up with houserules. [/QUOTE]

Verification