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

[Maxperson]

I mean, from what we've seen in the playtrst, there's basically zero work involved...?

Well, no. If I don't want to be running two simultaneous games(and I don't) there is considerable work. It's just not hard. I have to decide which classes will be used. Do I use 2014, 2024 or a combination such as 2014 cleric, 2024 ranger, 2024 barbarian, 2014 rogue, etc. Then I have to decide which feats to use. Do I use 2014, 2024 or a combination. Then the same with spells. And then the same with the rules we use. And then the same with races. And so on. It's not tough, but it's quite a bit of work.

Edit: And the granularity may be even finer than that. I may like the 2024 ranger better, but like one of the 2014 abilities better and swap that into the 2024 class, though that's more into house rule territory.

 

[Maxperson]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

Feats are already an issue. X+feat is objectively better than X. And before someone comes and says yet again that they are playing the mix together just fine, that's anecdotal. Just because you guys don't mind the disparity, doesn't mean that the disparity is not an issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards has never made this claim. They've only defined backward compatibility as "fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D." Cross-pollination of characters, per se, never enters into it. Inasmuch as 5e adventures working with the 1D&D core rules, we can assume that character power will stay largely at the same level, and thus while 5e characters and 1D&D characters sharing a table shouldn't generally be a problem, as near as I can tell, Wizards expects groups to essentially use one of either set of rules for all characters.

I don't think we can assume that. Power creep has already been seen multiple times in 5e. There's no reason to think that it specifically is or is not going to be in 5.5e.

 

[mamba]

Well, no. If I don't want to be running two simultaneous games(and I don't) there is considerable work. It's just not hard. I have to decide which classes will be used. Do I use 2014, 2024 or a combination such as 2014 cleric, 2024 ranger, 2024 barbarian, 2014 rogue, etc.

why, you run the 2024 version, so that is where you take the monsters from, etc. The player can decide to play a 2014 char or a 2024 char, no mixing across those lines

Then I have to decide which feats to use. Do I use 2014, 2024 or a combination. Then the same with spells. And then the same with the rules we use. And then the same with races. And so on. It's not tough, but it's quite a bit of work.
Edit: And the granularity may be even finer than that. I may like the 2024 ranger better, but like one of the 2014 abilities better and swap that into the 2024 class, though that's more into house rule territory.

all of this is houseruling

 

[mamba]

Feats are already an issue. X+feat is objectively better than X. And before someone comes and says yet again that they are playing the mix together just fine, that's anecdotal. Just because you guys don't mind the disparity, doesn't mean that the disparity is not an issue.

if the disparity is an issue for one player, then they should have chosen the other edition as their base

There is disparity between classes / subclasses already, not sure the upper end in 2024 will be different from the one we have today between PHB and Tasha

 

[mamba]

I don't think we can assume that. Power creep has already been seen multiple times in 5e. There's no reason to think that it specifically is or is not going to be in 5.5e.

it is my operating assumption because otherwise it would not really stay compatible with published adventures.

Sure, you could run them, but if they become much too easy or much too hard, then 1DD is not really compatible with them

 

[Maxperson]

why, you run the 2024 version, so that is where you take the monsters from, etc. The player can decide to play a 2014 char or a 2024 char, no mixing across those lines

If you can choose 2014 or 2024, mixing has already happened.

all of this is houseruling

No it's not. It's required in order for me to make things compatible. I will not run two different rule sets simultaneously.

 

[Maxperson]

if the disparity is an issue for one player, then they should have chosen the other edition as their base

Hey, then 3e was balanced! If you don't like the disparity between fighter and quadratic wizards, they shouldn't have chosen fighter.

There is disparity between classes / subclasses already, not sure the upper end in 2024 will be different from the one we have today between PHB and Tasha

The disparity is not that great and that doesn't make further disparity okay.

 

[mamba]

If you can choose 2014 or 2024, mixing has already happened.

not within one char, but within the game you run, anything below this was mixing within one char, which is why I consider it houseruling

No it's not. It's required in order for me to make things compatible. I will not run two different rule sets simultaneously.

WotC made them compatible, you are dismantling them and reassembling them differently…

 

[Maxperson]

it is my operating assumption because otherwise it would not really stay compatible with published adventures.

Sure, you could run them, but if they become much too easy or much too hard, then 1DD is not really compatible with them

Compatibility is a pipe dream. WotC has shown no indication in the time they have owned D&D that they can live up to that claim.

 

[mamba]

Hey, then 3e was balanced! If you don't like the disparity between fighter and quadratic wizards, they shouldn't have chosen fighter.

agreed, this is my point…

The disparity is not that great and that doesn't make further disparity okay.

no, but if the level of disparity stays the same, then the two are compatible because it did not make Tasha incompatible with the PHB either

 

[Maxperson]

WotC made them compatible, you are dismantling them and reassembling them differently…

There are two different rule sets. I will not use two different rule sets simultaneously. That is not compatible. That is literally incompatible. Compatible mixes. If they are separate, no mixing has happened.

Therefore, I have to make them compatible myself.

 

[mamba]

Compatibility is a pipe dream. WotC has shown no indication in the time they have owned D&D that they can live up to that claim.

that might turn out to be true, I took it as the premise of my conclusion. If the premise ends up not being met then the rest does not follow either. To me that is too early to tell however

 

[Maxperson]

agreed, this is my point…

I love 3e. It was my favorite edition, but if you think it was balanced, perhaps we will never be able to come to an agreement here.

no, but if the level of disparity stays the same, then the two are compatible because it did not make Tasha incompatible with the PHB either

It can't stay the same. X+feat is objectively greater than X.

 

[mamba]

There are two different rule sets. I will not use two different rule sets simultaneously. That is not compatible. That is literally incompatible.

if it were one ruleset then we would not be talking about compatibility…

Compatible mixes. If they are separate, no mixing has happened.

they both are in your game at the same time, that is mixing. Also just two posts or so ago you said

If you can choose 2014 or 2024, mixing has already happened.

 

[Maxperson]

if it were one ruleset then we would not be talking about compatibility…


they both are in your game at the same time, that is mixing. Also just two posts or so ago you said

I can put oil and water in the same cup. Being in the same vessel doesn't make it compatible. Mixing and meshing are two different things.

 

[mamba]

I love 3e. It was my favorite edition, but if you think it was balanced, perhaps we will never be able to come to an agreement here.

that is not what I was saying. I said that if you choose a fighter when knowing that a wizard will become more powerful, then you cannot really complain about it

It can't stay the same. X+feat is objectively greater than X.

not necessarily. Is A less than X + Y? You cannot say either way, you need specific values first.

If this were the same X in your equation then yes, but that still relies on all else staying the same or you are back to not knowing

 

[mamba]

I can put oil and water in the same cup. Being in the same vessel doesn't make it compatible. Mixing and meshing are two different things.

and characters are not liquids

Can you have a 5e char and a 1DD char in the same game? definitely, will the power levels be similar? probably…

 

[Maxperson]

that is not what I was saying. I said that if you choose a fighter when knowing that a wizard will become more powerful, then you cannot really complain about it

At a certain point, built in disparity is wrong. It's okay to have it to a degree, but someone shouldn't be forced to be way under someone else in order to play a class that they love, or else be forced not to play that class.

 

[Maxperson]

and characters are not liquids

So you know that was an analogy, right? I wasn't saying that the two rules sets were literally liquids.