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

[Blue]

Sure, but "we're using the 2024 Feat rules" is no more weird

Gotta cut you off right there. We are comparing backwards compatibility. Arbitrarily removing subsystems that aren't compatible cannot prove the point that the system is backwards compatible. It's not like Theros is removing a subsystem from core 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

Gotta cut you off right there. We are comparing backwards compatibility. Arbitrarily removing subsystems that aren't compatible cannot prove the point that the system is backwards compatible. It's not like Theros is removing a subsystem from core 5e.

Feats aren't a system in Core 5E, they are a variant rule, a variant that most tables and characters aren't using. Abandoning an unused variant rule and making a new system is reasonable, and has no effect on compatibility.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Having the same class, with the same spells, with the same subclasses, have different results based on the rule set or version being used, is a bad look.

We're gonna have to disagree about that, I guess.

There are so many rules in D&D that, IMO, your character does what your character says it does. The number of exception-based combos that already exist makes it so that I HAVE to (as your DM, say) accept that what you tell me you can do, you can do. I can audit it later, sure. And I can say, "Nah, I'd like you to use Book X only (or this errata; or whatever).

Spiritual Weapon having concentration or not is significantly smaller a deal (to me) than a LOT of extant errata or splat-book subclasses, spells, or anything else that I haven't memorized the precise wording of. It'll be a table discussion like any of those. Assuming it even makes it into the game.

 

[Clint_L]

Feats aren't a system in Core 5E, they are a variant rule, a variant that most tables and characters aren't using. Abandoning an unused variant rule and making a new system is reasonable, and has no effect on compatibility.

I question the assertion that feats aren't being widely used. Every campaign I know uses them, which is totally anecdotal, but tracks with what WotC tells us: feats are extremely popular. That said, I don't see the new proposals with feats being a big problem for compatibility. To me, this isn't a lot different from the optional class abilities that were added in Tasha's.

 

[Parmandur]

I question the assertion tat feats aren't being widely used. Every campaign I know uses them, which is totally anecdotal, but tracks with what WotC tells us: feats are extremely popular.

Nooooo, per WotC most tables don't use Feats, which was also backed up by Beyond data. Tons of tables do use them...but it's a minority. And optional. As an option, replacing the system wholesale doesn't impact compatibility...since it's already an inessential module.

 

[Scribe]

We're gonna have to disagree about that, I guess.

There are so many rules in D&D that, IMO, your character does what your character says it does. The number of exception-based combos that already exist makes it so that I HAVE to (as your DM, say) accept that what you tell me you can do, you can do. I can audit it later, sure. And I can say, "Nah, I'd like you to use Book X only (or this errata; or whatever).

Spiritual Weapon having concentration or not is significantly smaller a deal (to me) than a LOT of extant errata or splat-book subclasses, spells, or anything else that I haven't memorized the precise wording of. It'll be a table discussion like any of those. Assuming it even makes it into the game.

I guess I just come at it from the other direction. There is going to be consensus on the books/spells/errata, being used from day 0.

 

[Olrox17]

Add me to the pile of people that are skeptical about the "official" data about feats. Never met a group that didn't use them. Anecdotal, etc.
Besides, Beyond data is hardly the be-all end-all. My group and most others I know don't use Beyond. Again, anecdotal, but I see no compelling reason to believe that Beyond represents the vast majority of D&D players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm terribly sorry, but the community isn't going to change its ways for you. You'd probably do well to resign yourself to that.

If discussions of 6e were separate (as they tend to be with every previous edition) i would basically get what I want. My issue is WotC's insistance that this is still 5e.

 

[Umbran]

Having the same class, with the same spells, with the same subclasses, have different results based on the rule set or version being used...

...is a hypothetical edge case that probably doesn't mean a lot in practice.

I am sure one can cherrypick examples that have weird end results. If your position is based on those items, rather than workaday play, maybe we need to note that.

 

[OB1]

Add me to the pile of people that are skeptical about the "official" data about feats. Never met a group that didn't use them. Anecdotal, etc.
Besides, Beyond data is hardly the be-all end-all. My group and most others I know don't use Beyond. Again, anecdotal, but I see no compelling reason to believe that Beyond represents the vast majority of D&D players.

IIRC feat use percentages line up pretty well with the percentage of characters on DDB under 8th level. So it's not so much that feats aren't widely used, it's that most DDB characters aren't at the level where feats start coming into play. Would be interesting to know the percentage of DDB PCs over 8th and 12th level that have feats.