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

[Hussar]

The aspects of the game I mentioned form what actual players interact with, so yeah, I think they are pretty important compatibility factors.

If it's not the lore aspect, and it's not the math, then I really don't know what you're talking about. Again, what, specifically, is it about, say, monsters that makes the game incompatible?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it's not the lore aspect, and it's not the math, then I really don't know what you're talking about. Again, what, specifically, is it about, say, monsters that makes the game incompatible?

Well, I never liked the whole cutting down on spellcasting monsters thing they've been doing since MMotM, but that may be personal taste, since I strongly dislike removing content.

But the bottom line is, if races, classes, monsters, archetypes and feats having different rules but the same names doesn't speak to compatibility to you, then we're just not going to see eye to eye.

 

[Hussar]

Again you’re just insisting on general statements. Switching from spell slots to powers in no way applies to compatibility.

So, again, specifically, what monster changes do you feel are inconsistent)

 

[mellored]

Races, classes, archetypes, spells, monsters, any rules not directly affecting or affected by the base math. In short, the most visible parts of the game when you're creating characters or in play at the table.

If you have a splat book with new races, new classes, new archetypes, new spells, new monsters....

Would you consider that compatible?

Would adding a "homosapien priest" who could cast "spiritual armament"
to the game cause incompatibilities?

 

[mamba]

But the bottom line is, if races, classes, monsters, archetypes and feats having different rules but the same names doesn't speak to compatibility to you, then we're just not going to see eye to eye.

well, then we aren’t, and that is ok. What you are looking for is not compatibility but being identical, plus added options, so a new Tasha’s, not a set of revised core books

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you have a splat book with new races, new classes, new archetypes, new spells, new monsters....

Would you consider that compatible?

Would adding a "homosapien priest" who could cast "spiritual armament"
to the game cause incompatibilities?

Yeah, if they were considered a separate rules element I would consider them far more compatible.

 

[teitan]

I say yes to start. Like what @eyeheartawk said, I think it will be a jump to an actual 6e. I could see testing the 5.5e for a couple years to see how all of this affects the bottom line and if they really need to go 6e and cut the OGL.

They already cut the OGL. It is essentially pointless for them to work with it now that the CC-BY is released and they have no plans to return to D20 system. So far based on the playtest there aren’t a lot of conflicts with what is in the SRD that would hurt backwards compatibility. I still hate the feats as a core rule thing though.