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

[Clint_L]

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.

I voted yes, because they aren't going to break DnDBeyond. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. Whatever they settle on will have to be compatible with existing content on the $146 million digital platform that is the linchpin of their planning, and which millions of players already rely upon. They are more likely to cancel the OneD&D project altogether and start over than they are to jeopardize DnDBeyond.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean, to me it looks like you wildly overreacted to a relatively innocuous comment but YMMV.

I am reminded of the Pitch Meeting guy's "I'm gonna need you to go ahead and get aaaaaaaaaaaaallll the way off my back!" though so there's that!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Ok, but you literally said it wasn't. You even used the word "literally"!

And hopefully all the problems are solvable! If they aren't, that's when we're getting into full-on incompatibility. So I don't think a problem being solvable means it's not a problem. It's best to honestly outline the issues so they can be addressed, rather than minimizing them, if one actually wants compatibility rather than just people shutting up.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

If I can solve it in five minutes, shouldn't be a significant challenge.

 

[Parmandur]

Ok, but you literally said it wasn't. You even used the word "literally"!

And hopefully all the problems are solvable! If they aren't, that's when we're getting into full-on incompatibility. So I don't think a problem being solvable means it's not a problem. It's best to honestly outline the issues so they can be addressed, rather than minimizing them, if one actually wants compatibility rather than just people shutting up.

I'm being generous: it literally isn't a significant problem, as a hone fix is simple and seamless. An official sidebar isn't a high expectation.

 

[Maxperson]

If I can solve it in five minutes, shouldn't be a significant challenge.

First, can and will are two completely different things. Second, coming up with the method in 5 minutes, and then having to do it over and over and over and over again, each time you have a player mix class and subclass are also two different things. The latter takes a lot more than 5 minutes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm being generous: it literally isn't a significant problem, as a hone fix is simple and seamless. An official sidebar isn't a high expectation.

This is my point though - you're totally dismissive of this kind of thing. How are we supposed to enumerate and evaluate problems when they're dismissed like this?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

First, can and will are two completely different things. Second, coming up with the method in 5 minutes, and then having to do it over and over and over and over again, each time you have a player mix class and subclass are also two different things. The latter takes a lot more than 5 minutes.

What are you doing every time? You’re applying a rule, same as every other rule. Not even a complex rule.

In play, from experience, it does not take any time. At all. You just look at your class table, and take what it tells you to take that level.

This is my point though - you're totally dismissive of this kind of thing. How are we supposed to enumerate and evaluate problems when they're dismissed like this?

I mean…you can just disagree.

Seriously what is the issue here? We don’t think the subclass case is problematic. You do. Okay.

 

[Maxperson]

What are you doing every time? You’re applying a rule, same as every other rule. Not even a complex rule.

In play, from experience, it does not take any time. At all. You just look at your class table, and take what it tells you to take that level.

I'm not sure it's that simple. I really doubt that they changed the levels of the new subclasses arbitrarily. There's probably a balance reason why they happen at the levels that they do.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure it's that simple. I really doubt that they changed the levels of the new subclasses arbitrarily. There's probably a balance reason why they happen at the levels that they do.

I wouldn't assume that, particularly. Changing every Class to vetting their Subclass at Level 3 was to make Multiclassing more of a commitment to get a payoff, but the other three slots are probavly Tier related...but if you look at the current Class set-ups, they are basically at about the same Levels anyway.