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

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Not exactly the same. Just compatible. I need to be able to use it without it being unbalanced and without having to put in effort to make it work. If I have to put in effort to make it work, I'M making it compatible, not them.

If that is your measure, balance, then the game was not compatible with itself off the shelf. What I think is reasonable is that the new/revised classes are no more out of balance than the original classes are with each other.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The playtest moving feats into backgrounds is going to be a major change. Removing stat bonuses from race and moving them to background is going to be a minor change. The changes to the classes themselves have been pretty significant.

None those seem like major changes to me. They definitely had little to no affect on how we played the game. If you don’t notice the change at the table, I have a hard time calling it “major.”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

None those seem like major changes to me. They definitely had little to no affect on how we played the game. If you don’t notice the change at the table, I have a hard time calling it “major.”

I the spell preparation change is probably the biggest change we've seen so far, because that will be noticed at the table, in a serious way. That a major change for sure (assuming they don't randomly revert it in the second-from-last packet or something lol). It will also confuse the hell out of some players, and other ones will blissfully not notice it was even changed and be confused when you tell them this wasn't how Sorcerers always worked lol.

I'd also say that stuff like the grappling changes will both be felt at the table and impact how people play certain classes/subclasses.

I think there will be more stuff too. I tend to agree the Feat and stat changes are more minor because they're mainly something that impacts chargen/advancement, which is often between sessions and tends to have less table impact.

 

[dave2008]

The numbers in the book often don't match that table in the DMG, and are frequently lower.

Oh, there are some issues IME, but most of them are minor and they have been correcting them as they go. Most monsters in the MM are very close to the CR calculation you get from the DMG (I've check a bunch of them over the years). If that is the thing you are talking about, again, they have already been making those type of small changes in the newer monster book "previews."

I thought you were talking about the math in the DMG.

There is also the bigger issue of encounter building and stuff per day, which almost certainly will be touched on. But there is also MM math.

I also thought you might be talking about encounter design, which is completely different from monster math. There are clearly making some small changes to individual monsters, but not wholesale changes to monster math. That isn't needed IMO. The math works, just a few monsters need to be tweaked a bit.

Preview? You mean in some recent book(s)?

Yes, the specifically said the revisions in MotM previewed the plans for monsters in the 2024 MM. But those revisions were very minor and sometimes nothing changed. They typically didn't change the math, but how they operated (like removing spell slots and making all casters innate casters). A few monsters got a couple more or less hit points and some did more or less damage, but not a lot and not by much.

And they still have to deal with MM monsters.

Yes, they will update the MM monsters, they have said that. My point is simply that the monster math will not change, just a few monsters will have revisions to be in line with the existing math better. Most of the changes will be to spellcasting and, hopefully as was hinted at, to add more interesting actions and traits. More in line with post MM monsters (which use the same math as MM monsters).

They have said monsters will be in the playtest. And they will want people to buy the new MM--or the D&D beyond equivalent, so there has got to be changes.

There will be changes as I have noted above, but less with regard to the math IMO.

However, I want to stress this, if people want to buy a MM at the end of 2024, they will have to buy the '24 MM. There will no longer be a '14 MM. This is more of a reprinting with a errata than a new book. They do not need to make changes so much as replace one with the other. The MM is still selling well. A little bump from people repurchasing is nice, but the focus is maintaining the flow IMO. Just sell to new buyers.

 

[Raith5]

There has to be something new here to give a reason for people to buy it - but as others have said not too much new stuff to wipe out expectations. So I reckon the core rules and mechanics will be 100% compatible but there will be some extra elements - 'modules' (ahem) as they could be called - that could be incompatible. There could be a resting module which alters the assumptions in PHB2104 and tactics module that lifts the complexity and power of martial PCs and monsters, a magic module that increases the prevalence of magic items, rituals and magic effects. At the table these kinds of modules could be ignored and at the VTT toggled on of off.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There has to be something new here to give a reason for people to buy it - but as others have said not too much new stuff to wipe out expectations. So I reckon the core rules and mechanics will be 100% compatible but there will be some extra elements - 'modules' (ahem) as they could be called - that could be incompatible. There could be a resting module which alters the assumptions in PHB2104 and tactics module that lifts the complexity and power of martial PCs and monsters, a magic module that increases the prevalence of magic items, rituals and magic effects. At the table these kinds of modules could be ignored and at the VTT toggled on of off.

I suspect they'll go in the opposite direction myself re: modularity. I.e. less not more. More rules that are just rules, not vague suggestions in the DMG. More "this is the way this works". Modules don't align well with their apparent goals with the VTT, I would suggest. They add extra complexity to the design of the VTT, they balkanize the audience (because some people will like certain modules, but others won't, even within a group), and they make the game less accessible and consistent as an experience, not more.

 

[Jer]

There has to be something new here to give a reason for people to buy it - but as others have said not too much new stuff to wipe out expectations.

I mean, do they? Part of what's going on right now is the PHB is still selling in good numbers. So they actually need to make sure people continue to buy their PHB when they drop a new version of it out there, rather than trying to find ways to get people to buy another one.

It's a different dynamic than Wizards is used to with D&D. They actually don't really need all of us who own a 5e PHB to buy another one. What they need us to do is make sure that DMs can allow players to use the new book at their table if the player decides to buy on. Or when our binding wears out and we need to replace the book because we've lost some pages, buy the new book instead of scrounging around for a used one in good condition.

Edit: And of course subscribe to DDB. They really want us all to subscribe to DDB.

 

[Velderan]

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.

Beyond20 Chrome extension which allows DDB content to be used with Roll20 has 400k+ users according to the Chrome Web Store. I wouldn't consider that tiny considering a five figure number was enough to get WotC to pause their entire plan when they suddenly cancelled their subscription.

 

[MarkB]

I mean, do they? Part of what's going on right now is the PHB is still selling in good numbers. So they actually need to make sure people continue to buy their PHB when they drop a new version of it out there, rather than trying to find ways to get people to buy another one.

It's a different dynamic than Wizards is used to with D&D. They actually don't really need all of us who own a 5e PHB to buy another one. What they need us to do is make sure that DMs can allow players to use the new book at their table if the player decides to buy on. Or when our binding wears out and we need to replace the book because we've lost some pages, buy the new book instead of scrounging around for a used one in good condition.

Edit: And of course subscribe to DDB. They really want us all to subscribe to DDB.

That's just sustaining their current sales. They don't need a new edition to do that. What they want from a new edition is sales growth, and that means getting people who already own the current edition to buy the new one as well.

 

[Jer]

That's just sustaining their current sales. They don't need a new edition to do that. What they want from a new edition is sales growth, and that means getting people who already own the current edition to buy the new one as well.

IIRC their current sales were still growing. This push for a new edition likely exists not because of a need to boost sales on books but because it's the 50th anniversary and they don't want to waste it. Sure growth in book sales would be nice, but it's pretty clear that they want growth in other areas and digital is their real focus, and you don't grow the digital market by creating a schism in the game's player base on purpose by releasing a new edition that makes it harder for DMs to introduce new people into their games.