D&D (2024) So Will 'OneD&D' (6E) Actually Be Backwards Compatible?

[Maxperson]

I think people will seamlessly continue buying the new ‘24 PHB in equal or more numbers as they do the ‘14 PHB, because it is a minor update to 5e, and that is what they (WotC) want. They want to maintain book sales while pushing more load into DND beyond

Why would I spend money on a minor update? I still don't own a 3.5 DMG. I didn't need it. The PHB and MM I bought, because the differences were significant enough to warrant the expenditure.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I think they already have, if the relevant parts of OneD&D match the

Gosh I disagree. In our playtest we have run 5e and playtest classes together with no issues. I think the differences are rally minor in play.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Why would I spend money on a minor update? I still don't own a 3.5 DMG. I didn't need it. The PHB and MM I bought, because the differences were significant enough to warrant the expenditure.

You wouldn’t. You are not the target. The target is mostly people who haven’t gotten a PHB yet who want to play D&D. The PHB is still selling like crazy and the just need to keep that going

 

[Staffan]

...and in the vast majority of cases there are right. There are things you can change without breaking compatibility, but not many and you have to be extremely careful.

My definition of compatible is "Can I use a 5e adventure with D1D without any more changes that I would normally make to the adventure and/or adjust things on the fly"? By that standard, I have no doubts that D1D will be compatible with 5e.

Will PCs look a bit different and have their stats generated in slightly different ways? Probably. But those stats still interact with the game engine in the same way.

 

[payn]

Why would I spend money on a minor update? I still don't own a 3.5 DMG. I didn't need it. The PHB and MM I bought, because the differences were significant enough to warrant the expenditure.

A lot of folks wont either, D&Dbeyond will just update for them.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think the big area of non-compatibility will be subclasses for 2014 5e and subclasses for the same class in 1D&D.

The 3/6/10/14 sub class features in 1D&D means 5e subclasses that can’t fit that will take non trivial modification.

But a 2014 5e class using subclasses designed for that class will play fine in the same party alongside a 1D&D class using subclasses designed for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My definition of compatible is "Can I use a 5e adventure with D1D without any more changes that I would normally make to the adventure and/or adjust things on the fly"? By that standard, I have no doubts that D1D will be compatible with 5e.

Will PCs look a bit different and have their stats generated in slightly different ways? Probably. But those stats still interact with the game engine in the same way.

My definition of compatibility has far less to do with published adventures (which almost never run) and far more with how the rules of character creation and play (PC and DM side) actually work and interact.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would expect playing in a mixed 5e/Onednd game to be compatible-but-annoying. As long as they keep proficiency bonus and ASI increases where they are now, it will be compatible. But character classes will have abilities added at different levels, and those abilities might work in slightly different ways. I can see tables familiar with 5e mistakenly using a 5e rule instead of a onednd rule without realizing it, and it won't break the game, but will cause confusion (even when I played 5e, I assumed things in 5e worked the same as in previous editions, and was surprised to find they had changed the rule).

One player still struggles with full round actions in 5e at times.
... so that at least is nothing news.

 

[lkj]

Unless they radically change course, what I've seen so far would let me use all my existing DM materials with barely a blink. And-- this might be shocking for those of us who are very hyperfocused on details (I count in that category)-- the changes on the player side wouldn't strike most of the people at my tables as being much more than different versions of what they have already. I suspect people playing the old and the new versions together, in the same adventure at the same table, wouldn't feel too put out. 'Does he have an extra feat? Hey, I want one of those' level of noticing.

Some of the rules stuff like light weapon property, changes to feats, etc.-- Yeah, we'll want to decide which versions we're using. As it happens, we're already doing that with the playtest material. Hasn't felt like a different edition to me.

Could they radically change course to try to ice out all the 3rd party publishers? I guess. Not clear to me why they would. The pie slices just don't seem big enough to make it worth the risk of losing existing players.

But hey, companies do dumb stuff sometimes. Obviously.

And to be clear-- we can define what 'backwards compatible' means differently. My being able to use my existing stuff (particularly DM stuff) without really having to do much to adjust is where my definition falls.

AD

 

[Clint_L]

That's a False Dichotomy. The option are not so close to 5e that it's not different enough and so radically different that it's another 4e. There are options in the middle where we still play the D&D that we know and love, but different enough from 5e that they could make a new OGL

They said that BEFORE their plans fell through on OGL 1.0a. Plans can and often do change when things like that occur.

A lot of those D&D beyond accounts have them because places like Foundry that do VTT better use D&D beyond content.

They have just given themselves an extra incentive to stick with 5e, not to move far enough away to make a competitor, using the very popular 5e rules, competitive. Why would they cede 5e?

Yeah - their plans falling through made keeping 5e as the chassis more vital than ever. So they don't create their own competition.

I'm profoundly doubtful that the tiny foundry user base contributes any meaningful users to DDB, but feel free to show me evidence to the contrary.

You haven't responded to my key ask: explain how they can change enough to lose backwards compatibility and make that work with DDB. That is the main question, and I suggest that if you (or anyone else) can't answer it, then you don't have an argument.

Edit: I suspect most of the "no backwards compatibility" arguments are coming from folks who don't use DDB. If you rely on it, the way millions of players do, and the way WotC clearly wants the game to go, then backwards compatibility seems like an obvious necessity.

I currently have dozens of books and a bunch of campaigns, encounters, home brew spells and items, characters, etc., all interlinked. Do you honestly think WotC is going to release a new PHB that doesn't work with all of that, on their coveted digital platform that they just spent $146 million on? What would I do with that PHB?

That's why a lot of these threads are nonsensical. WotC aren't going to remove a class or make fundamental changes to game mechanics, because they can't. They would break their own game. 5e is locked in. If you really want to understand this issue, you have to make an account on DDB and run a campaign through it. Just to understand the facts of what WotC is working with. This is fundamentally different than previous edition changes. There is a new paradigm.