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

[mamba]

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.

agreed, has 5e reached that point? No idea, personal opinion after all, but assuming it has not and 1DD has the same disparity that 5e already has, then this does not change it

If 5e reduces that disparity by moving the lower end up while keeping the upper end in place (or moving both extremes to the center, which I would prefer but doubt will happen), even better

 

[mamba]

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

yes, and the rest of my post tried to point out why your analogy does not work from my perspective

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well, WotC's margin for error in regards to power creep is considerably wider than most fans I seen talk about it. It's clear to me they don't consider it a big deal.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, WotC's margin for error in regards to power creep is considerably wider than most fans I seen talk about it. It's clear to me they don't consider it a big deal.

Yes. I don't think they consider it to be a big deal. That's why the feats and rules are so important. If 2024 has power creep, then adding a feat on top of things widens that gap.

 

[Iosue]

Explicitly you mean. Because implicitly if the 5e adventure and supplements work as is in 5.5e then characters built in 5e should work alongside 5.5e ones as well.

That doesn’t exactly follow. As I said, we can generally expect that to be the case, but there are going to be edge cases, rough edges, and moments of friction. All I’m noting is that Wizards has never promised that they would design such things away. That’s just par for the course when you’re using two different rule-sets at the same time at the same table.

 

[Iosue]

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.

Power creep is a separate issue from compatibility, at least in the margins we’re talking about. 1D&D baseline characters may indeed be on average more powerful than their 5e counterparts, but if Wizards is designing them so that they fit in with 5e adventures, we can expect them to be within certain tolerances.

But frankly, given what we see in the playtest, I expect most changes to be cosmetic. The floor might be raised as the least successful 5e classes get revised, but the ceiling is going to remain largely the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Power creep is a separate issue from compatibility, at least in the margins we’re talking about. 1D&D baseline characters may indeed be on average more powerful than their 5e counterparts, but if Wizards is designing them so that they fit in with 5e adventures, we can expect them to be within certain tolerances.

It's only a separate issue in isolation. Power creep in 5e was not a compatibility issue, but it was something DMs who didn't like it had to mitigate. Power creep from one edition to another is a compatibility issue, because if there is creep and we're supposed to be using both edition together, many DMs will need to figure out how to mesh the editions into one cohesive system that mitigates the increase.

But frankly, given what we see in the playtest, I expect most changes to be cosmetic. The floor might be raised as the least successful 5e classes get revised, but the ceiling is going to remain largely the same.

Between the class changes and feats, these aren't cosmetic changes. Cosmetic changes don't affect the underlying mechanics. Taking a rogue scout and flavoring it as a wilderness pathfinder(ranger archetype) is a cosmetic change.

 

[mellored]

Not sure if you actually ran any of the new classes. But they are more balanced, not less balanced.

Except the bard ability, but that's only because the 0 hp rules are abusable. 0hp rules need fixed on it's own.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, the DM is a human being at the table, not a machine. I mean, by that logic, third edition would be backwards compatible with 1e and 2e. And 4e would be backwards compatible with 3e, etc. And 5e would be backwards compatible with 4e, all previous editions of dnd, and perhaps even scrabble, chess and monopoly. As long as the DM is slaving away to make it possible, that is!

I can atest on the npc.monster side I was able to make 2e and 3e and 4e style characters with some work

 

[Autumnal]

I voted no, without presuming any sinister intent. It’s just preserving compatibility while making any changes at all is very, very hard, and I’ve seen people I know in gaming set forth with intentions I know were sincere but not make it. D&D needs some significant though not huge tweaks and has room for many more nips and tucks, and I think they’ll find that in the end, preserving compatibility would mean leaving unacceptable flaws in place. And no defect in good will or design skill is involved in any of that.

if they pull it off, it’ll be amazing and I will gladly admit to being too skeptical in this case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Whatever the rules the DM says apply to you, apply to you. I'm not sure what kind of shenanigans you're expecting to get away with here lol.

My expectation is that most tables will do it like this:

1) General rules - all from 1D&D (grappling, skill DCs, etc. etc.).

2) Class/subclass-specific rules - all from either 5E or 1D&D as appropriate to the version of the class. As a DM I would not personally let people "cross the streams" and take a 1D&D subclass with a 5E class or vice-versa, or not without checking it carefully.

3) Spells - Depends on the DM but I expect most DMs will just use "all from 1D&D" except where spells aren't present in 1D&D.

Well yeah, it’s like reprints and errata.

You use the most current version of anything that’s been updated or reprinted.

But I see no issues so far with existing subclasses and new classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But I see no issues so far with existing subclasses and new classes.

Um, buddy, they're literally a mismatch. All 1D&D subclasses have the same subclass pattern as Barbarians. Whereas all other classes are a mismatch (too many, different pattern, different levels, etc.). A severe mismatch in some cases. So if you're seeing "no issues", you've either not looked into it or are doing Nelson's "I see no ships".

 

[Olrox17]

I can atest on the npc.monster side I was able to make 2e and 3e and 4e style characters with some work

Yeah, sure. I’ve managed to convert ACKS’ systems for domain management and mass battles to 5e. It took a decent amount of (well worth) time and effort, but it worked.
I wouldn’t dream to claim actual backwards compatibility between 5e and ACKS, obviously.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Um, buddy, they're literally a mismatch. All 1D&D subclasses have the same subclass pattern as Barbarians. Whereas all other classes are a mismatch (too many, different pattern, different levels, etc.). A severe mismatch in some cases. So if you're seeing "no issues", you've either not looked into it or are doing Nelson's "I see no ships".

Yeah the condescension is misplaced, which ends up reflect more on you than your target there, bud.

You literally just take the subclass feature levels in the order prescribed by your class, and take a bonus feat at the end of a bard, or simply get a bonus subclass feature if one of the classes with more feature levels.

It literally isn’t an issue, which I am saying both from having “looked into it” and from having played with the damn options to test it.

So keep your white room doomcrafting to yourself, next time you get the urge to talk down to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah the condescension is misplaced, which ends up reflect more on you than your target there, bud.

You literally just take the subclass feature levels in the order prescribed by your class, and take a bonus feat at the end of a bard, or simply get a bonus subclass feature if one of the classes with more feature levels.

It literally isn’t an issue, which I am saying both from having “looked into it” and from having played with the damn options to test it.

So keep your white room doomcrafting to yourself, next time you get the urge to talk down to me.

It's literally and undeniably issue, and being completely dismissive about it is part of the problem with this entire discussion re: compatibility. You're just shutting down the discussion with this attitude. Also, condescending whilst complaining about condescension is pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

It's literally and undeniably issue, and being completely dismissive about it is part of the problem with this entire discussion re: compatibility. You're just shutting down the discussion with this attitude. Also, condescending whilst complaining about condescension is pretty amazing stuff.

Putting any emotive language aside, if you try and build and run character, say a Bard with the new Clre Class with a Xanathar's or Tasha's Subass, it literally isn't a problem in practice. It is quite clear that if this approach goes through that a straightforward translation is doable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Putting any emotive language aside, if you try and build and run character, say a Bard with the new Clre Class with a Xanathar's or Tasha's Subass, it literally isn't a problem in practice. It is quite clear that if this approach goes through that a straightforward translation is doable.

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

Discuss away? No one is stopping you?

Just don’t jump on my back when I say something you disagree with and try to talk to me like I’m some bumbling noob and you’re here to correct me.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

I will grant that it is anproblem...but an entirely solvable one that the playtest documents have explicitly states will be addressed head on when the terms on the final side of the "=" are decided upon.

 

[Maxperson]

I will grant that it is anproblem...but an entirely solvable one that the playtest documents have explicitly states will be addressed head on when the terms on the final side of the "=" are decided upon.

We will see if it is solved or not. WotC has a history of not living up to what it says it is going to accomplish. For now and until they actually change it, it remains a problem.