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

[Blue]

Well, all reports from people actually mixing and matching UA content and new style monsters with 2014 material say that there aren't any issues Greely doing so, thus it seems reasonable to conclude thst is plausible.

So far we've seen a chunk of character creation, and a few spell and rule changes. Even there we have differences.

Can I pick a 5e feat that hasn't been reprinted? Since it has no prerequisite can I take it as a 1st level feat even though are noticeably less powerful than the 4th+ level feats?

Is a 5e melee rogue using the OD&D light weapon ruling more powerful than one using the 5e light weapon ruling? Definitely, as it would free up a bonus action that the rogues have a lot of use for while still giving two chance to land Sneak Attack.

If all of the casters in OneD&D are moving to preparation and a lot more spells known, it seems like they will be getting a large boost in flexibility, which makes them more powerful than the 5e equivalents.

Remember, the distinction between the two categories is "math is close enough they can work" vs. "freely mixing and matching pieces from both". Feats without prerequisites is one of the places where it breaks down in the second category.

And we haven't seen most of the rest of the game to make judgements on.

 

[Parmandur]

Can I pick a 5e feat that hasn't been reprinted? Since it has no prerequisite can I take it as a 1st level feat even though are noticeably less powerful than the 4th+ level feats?

Feats without prerequisites is one of the places where it breaks down in the second category.

Feats are probably one of the biggest changes, granted, but here's the deal: most people aren't using Feats in 5E as it srand. It's an optional system. I've ever seen Feats used in 5E in person, only livestream shows and Internet chatter. Is a first Level Feat a power boost? Sure, but that's been standard in 5E books since 2020. Evolutionary more, it doesn't break backwards compatibility to throw out an optional system and replace it.

 

[Velderan]

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.

If we're measuring growth based on new copies of the 2014 PHB selling, yes they're definitely growing just based on Amazon PHB sales. The thing is that's not the growth their management seems to want and the only way to achieve that growth at this point is to release a new PHB so both new players AND existing players have a reason to buy it.

To the point of the thread, I'd think WotC would want 1D&D to be completely compatible with existing material so they can continue to draw in new players and sell them products that they've already made while continuing to make new stuff that works with it. 5e has seemed to crack the code on just how much crunch the average person wants and they'd be foolish to deviate too much IMO. That having been said, the last few weeks have me seriously questioning how much current management actually understands their customers and certainly shows they're not above a short-sighted stupid move if they think there's money to be made so I'm less confident in my answer now than I was a few weeks ago.

 

[Maxperson]

Sharpshooter (2014)
Sharpshooter (2024)

Not sure why this is extra DM work.

Because they are very different. There needs to be one sharpshooter.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. I will have to ask my DM to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like he is putting inn any extra work as we’re play testing. So from that perspective, the play test changes are compatible.

A playtest is different than the final product. We are testing small parts at a time to see if we like them. Once we have the whole enchilada, how we deal with the new rules will be different. Then there's the fact that some people just don't care about power level disparity or having two different everything in the same game.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

Yes, they don’t need a new edition. That is why they are saying to is not a new edition. They have been clear that is their intent. What the want is more money. They can do that with the same sales growth they have had by guiding people to DDB and the eventual VTT.

 

[Maxperson]

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.”

feat vs. no feat is pretty big. Try sitting down to DM a group and then giving only one of the players a free feat. See how the rest of the players react to that. I'm going to guess that most people won't be happy that one person was singled out for a free feat that the others don't get.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because they are very different. There needs to be one sharpshooter.

While I disagree that there needs to be one version, if you do believe that can’t you just pick one? I mean all it would take is to say we will use the ‘24 version of any and all feats, fighting styles, etc. pretty easy

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

feat vs. no feat is pretty big. Try sitting down to DM a group and then giving only one of the players a free feat. See how the rest of the players react to that. I'm going to guess that most people won't be happy that one person was singled out for a free feat that the others don't get.

It wasn’t an issue for us, but we knew we were testing it going in. we ran many different scenarios and combinations of ‘14 and playtest classes and rules and they all mixed well for us.

I mean the free feats don’t really change much. I know I’m play it was not apparent who had them and who didn’t.

If it is really an issue for your group, just give ‘14 PHB classes a free 1st level feat. This is already an option now in several supplements.

 

[TwoSix]

Feats are probably one of the biggest changes, granted, but here's the deal: most people aren't using Feats in 5E as it srand. It's an optional system. I've ever seen Feats used in 5E in person, only livestream shows and Internet chatter. Is a first Level Feat a power boost? Sure, but that's been standard in 5E books since 2020. Evolutionary more, it doesn't break backwards compatibility to throw out an optional system and replace it.

Honestly, I feel like it's a weird Internet thing when I hear about people that don't use feats. I've never played at a table that didn't use feats; I'm never even played at a table where "Do we use feats?" was a question that was asked, it was simply assumed.