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

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean…you can just disagree.

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

Because it's such a clear-cut and inarguable case of an actual issue, that whilst largely solvable, shows that there are people here (including you two) who have such an elevated threshold for what qualifies as a "problem" with compatibility that discussing the problems is nearly impossible, because you'll just outright deny they exist, no matter how demonstrable they are. Denying things are demonstrably problems (even if solvable - which hopefully all are!) are problems is utterly toxic to any kind of reasonable discussion.

It's not a disagree thing. It's that you're outright dismissing things which are problems, and you know are problems, because they're solvable.

 

[Parmandur]

Because it's such a clear-cut and inarguable case of an actual issue, that whilst largely solvable, shows that there are people here (including you two) who have such an elevated threshold for what qualifies as a "problem" with compatibility that discussing the problems is nearly impossible, because you'll just outright deny they exist, no matter how demonstrable they are.

I'll grant that the Subclass compatibility is the thorniest issue, but what we seen so far shows it should be an easily handled issue. Other stuff, such as Race-to-species or Monsters, is so easy they already included the rules for using them togeter.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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!

To be fair though, and you may not realize this, you often come off has if your better than/ holier than others. Not saying that is the case, it is just the way you type sometimes

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Considering they also dropped class endcap abilities by several levels, I doubt it.

And no, that wouldn’t make them incompatible even if it did create balance issues, which it won’t.

Because it's such a clear-cut and inarguable case of an actual issue, that whilst largely solvable, shows that there are people here (including you two) who have such an elevated threshold for what qualifies as a "problem" with compatibility that discussing the problems is nearly impossible, because you'll just outright deny they exist, no matter how demonstrable they are. Denying things are demonstrably problems (even if solvable - which hopefully all are!) are problems is utterly toxic to any kind of reasonable discussion.

It's not a disagree thing. It's that you're outright dismissing things which are problems, and you know are problems, because they're solvable.

But it absolutely is a matter of opinion.

An extremely trivial conversion that can be explained in literally two lines of text, not even requiring a sidebar so much as those two lines of text in the “choosing a subclass” section of the class chapter, is not a problem. It does not make the game incompatible, at all.

Now, it does create a distinct design shift, sure. And I hope they address it more specifically in each class, with examples, to make things smooth, but “a bit awkward, sometimes, for like 3 classes”, isn’t a problem.

 

[Olrox17]

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.

You know, I also used to believe that WotC was a company ran by sensible, smart people that knew what they were doing, until about a month ago.
Now, I believe the company is run by total dullards that must be periodically set straight with swift and decisive kicks in the nuts.

So, in short, I wouldn't automatically assume they're going to make smart decisions in any given situation.

 

[Hussar]

Because it's such a clear-cut and inarguable case of an actual issue, that whilst largely solvable, shows that there are people here (including you two) who have such an elevated threshold for what qualifies as a "problem" with compatibility that discussing the problems is nearly impossible, because you'll just outright deny they exist, no matter how demonstrable they are. Denying things are demonstrably problems (even if solvable - which hopefully all are!) are problems is utterly toxic to any kind of reasonable discussion.

It's not a disagree thing. It's that you're outright dismissing things which are problems, and you know are problems, because they're solvable.

Claiming that a molehill is a mountain doesn't make it so. Again, you're presuming that people will want to play 2014 classes in a 2024 game. Right there, the problem largely solves itself over a fairly short time because, frankly, most people are just going to move on to the newer versions of the class, same way they moved on with errata'd versions of the class that came up from time to time. Moving a class power from one level to another is such a minor issue that no one is going to massively freak out over it.

But, even in a group that does mix their classes between 2014 and 2024, why would it be a problem? Very, very few groups have multiple players playing the same class, so, why would you care when Dave get's his ability? His character is different from yours. Ok. And?

Since the classes, in either version, are not terribly different power wise, can be used in the same adventures without any real problem, and don't step on each other's toes, your definition of an "actual issue" seems to be setting threshold for what is considered a "problem" very, very low. People who have ACTUALLY tested this in play are telling you, flat out, that this hasn't been an issue. Yet, you insist that their experience cannot possibly be true because you have identified an "actual issue".

And you wonder why people are getting dismissive?

 

[Shardstone]

Thread's getting a little bit romantic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Funny. Some people can solve little problems in less than 5 minutes themselves.
Other people need WotC to give them an explicit allowance and rulebook how to do that.
You can't always rely on other people solving every little problem for you. Use your own judgement. Good advice in general.

 

[Argyle King]

I think there will be incremental changes. Over time, it will become less compatible.

Eventually, you'll be playing a completely non-OGL version of the game without even knowing you made the change.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No one can agree on what "compatible" means in this context. Everyone has different beliefs on what they think a game has to have to be considered "compatible" with a previous version. Thus it is impossible to answer the question.

At the barest minimum... if a person thinks there has to be "game balance" between something in the 2024 book and something within the 2014 book, then they will never be considered compatible.

Of course... there are plenty of things in the 2014 book that aren't even balanced with other things within the 2014 book, which means by that measure the 2014 book isn't even compatible with itself. So thus any compatibility with 2024 would be statistically impossible.