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

[glass]

Before the recent upheaval, I was pretty convinced that it would be firmly in the "not actually compatible, but similar enough that you can paper of the incompatibilities fairly easily" range (similar to 3.0 => 3.5, maybe a little worse but still definitely a "5.5").

I still think that is probably the most likely outcome, but I am considerably less sure about it!

 

[Jer]

They don’t seem big to me, not a change that prevents compatibility

This is the thing that makes this question impossible to survey. One person's massive change is another person's minor tweaks.

Like saying "it won't be much different than 1e vs. 2e" can mean very different things to different people as far as compatibility goes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip

More than likely, I think they're preparing to sell it or spin it off. I don't really expect to see 6E/OneD&D at this point.
The best way to achieve the goal of a legacy product that has been around since 5E was created was probably to put it in the Creative Commons, where no future business changes can impact it.

I don' t think you will be correct. But if it will turn out like this, then I would hate that they added SRD5.1 to CC. Then I think harm has been done to me and many people who were looking forward to a consolidated 5e.

But as I said: very unlikely that they just give up and sell it.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm going to disagree there about the Monsters. I guess it depends on what you mean by "greater," but I think they are trying to make monsters easier to play / more interesting, but the don't seem more powerful.

Yeah, we already have a couple years of OneD&D Monsters at this point since they steal changed their Monster building a while back. New presentation, streamlined a bit...same deal.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it will be compatible in the sense that the core rules of the game aren't going to change. And by core rules I mean the rules they were originally going to put under CC-BY with their 1.2 OGL talk in the DDB survey. The changes will be in the other parts - classes, monsters, spells, magic items will all probably get a tweak to one level or another, some more, some less, but the basic structures aren't going to change.

This is what I see occurring in front of our eyes, yes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2 weeks ago? Yes. Now? Only partly. Sure, it will be compatible, but you're gonna have to do some work to make that way. Kind of like B/X to AD&D. Sure, it can work, but you're going to have to make some changes to have a true conversion. I suspect mostly there will be name changes to old terms. No surprise there, as we've already seen them in playtest docs.

 

[Parmandur]

My thoughts too. Who knows what compatible means. I suspect adventures and monsters can be used pretty easily but not classes/subclasses. The next play test document might add some clarity.

The last playtest packet they said the goal was for the final product to allow any old Subclass to work with the new base Class. I think they can achieve that with some simple.guidelines, once they've nailed down the base designs.

 

[MarkB]

I voted Yes. I don't think they're going to change their design plans at this point, and their current design is compatible to the point that you could mix'n'match 5e and 1d characters in the same party, and play 1d characters through a 5e campaign.

I do think this may result in them shortening the timeline on building a true new edition, and they'll probably try to low-key it as a variant system that could exist alongside 1D&D, most likely "enhanced to make the best use of online digital tools" and built only for use through DDB and their VTT.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'm a OneD&D detractor on most points, and I think there will be a certain degree of needless incompatibility (I guess because I consider the OneD&D project about 90% needless), but fundamentally, I've seen nothing so far to indicate that adventures won't be nearly completely compatible, or that should someone wish to use a 5e era monster book in a OneD&D game there would be more than occasional issues requiring simple adjustments for compatibility.

 

[delericho]

Had you asked me a month ago, I would have said yes... ish. It looks to me like they're changing a good bit more than I had previously expected, so we're seeing something of the scale of a 3.0e -> 3.5e change, rather than a 4e -> Essentials non-change. (I should note that I generally consider the complaints about 3.0e -> 3.5e lack of compatibility to be overblown.) So I'd expect existing adventures to run fine with the new books, possibly with a small web enhancement to update some monster stat-blocks, but I wouldn't expect to run 2014-vintage characters alongside 2024-vintage ones without issue, and might find older supplements have some teething problems.

Following the OGL debacle, I think all bets are off. If they want to create a walled garden with tighter licensing, that would necessitate more extensive changes, which would lead to incompatibility. But it would also mean essentially abandoning the ongoing design work and the playtest and starting over.

Gut feeling... yes-ish. But I wouldn't be at all surprised by the opposite.