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

[payn]

Will it? You already can't access the current versions of many races on D&D Beyond without buying Monsters of the Multiverse.

Suppose it depends on your sub level.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Suppose it depends on your sub level.

Nope.

You can't access the current versions unless one of two conditions is met:

1) You own MotM.

2) You "play"* in a campaign with someone with MotM who has a Master-tier sub (them not you) and they have content sharing on.

If you can see the non-legacy versions of things like Yuan-ti or Genasi, one of those is true.

* = This can be very much "technically" - i.e. you just have a PC in a campaign, don't need to actually play them.

 

[Scribe]

I think it will be.

1. Thats been the goal.
2. Its the most successful version of the game by far, and they know this.
3. What direction can they go, which wouldnt put their user base at risk?

They arent going to go into making the game more complex, and it cant get much simpler or more basic.

 

[Parmandur]

Nope.

You can't access the current versions unless one of two conditions is met:

1) You own MotM.

2) You "play"* in a campaign with someone with MotM who has a Master-tier sub (them not you) and they have content sharing on.

If you can see the non-legacy versions of things like Yuan-ti or Genasi, one of those is true.

* = This can be very much "technically" - i.e. you just have a PC in a campaign, don't need to actually play them.

Yeah, I'm very certain the whole "Legacy Content" and how it is handled is a test run for 2014 Core.

 

[Iosue]

Let me put it this way: I don’t expect it to be any less compatible than A5E. The core will remain the same. Some classes may be “better” than their 2014 counterparts, but in the end, you’ll be able to play 2014e adventures with the 2024e rules, and vice-versa.

 

[Orius]

I suspect no matter what they do, there'll be a certain amount of drift over time anyway. Kind of on the order of how things drifted from early 1e to late 2e. Likely whatever the game looks like 10 years from now will probably have some differences when compared to 2014.

 

[TerraDave]

So far in the play test, that isn't true.

They have nerfed the biggest options, like adding concentration to spiritual weapon.

And buff the weakest ones, like two weapon fighting.

Oh there will be all sorts of nerfing.

But if you have the old PCs with the new nerfs how will that go? And will it be compatible?

 

[Amrûnril]

I think the big area of non-compatibility will be subclasses for 2014 5e and subclasses for the same class in 1D&D.

The 3/6/10/14 sub class features in 1D&D means 5e subclasses that can’t fit that will take non trivial modification.

But a 2014 5e class using subclasses designed for that class will play fine in the same party alongside a 1D&D class using subclasses designed for it.

Class-subclass mixes could have also have issues if subclass-based features from the 2014 rules become class-based in the 2024 rules (or vice-versa). A Cleric built with the 2024 PHB and a subclass from Xanathar's, for instance could have both heavy armor training and bonus cantrip damage, while a Cleric built with the 2014 PHB and a subclass from a post-2024 supplement would have neither.

Still, I think this sort of issue should be easy to resolve as long as the players are aware of it. And if mixing 2014 and 2024 content never required adjustments, I wouldn't consider that a backwards compatible version of the game. I'd consider it the same version of the game.

 

[Osgood]

I think it all depends on how you define compatibility. If you expect yo be able to use every feat, subclass, and other player from 5E, I'd guess no. But I'm thinking most things a DM uses, magic items, monsters, and adventures will need little to no effort to use. Since the underlying math and terminology is the same, it should all work together fairly well.

I suspect most of the changes will be on the character building side, with the expectation that you can play any adventure with characters built under either ruleset--but you won't really mix and match when making characters due to the differences in how feats are built, the levels subclass abilities come up, etc.

 

[Clint_L]

They already acknowledged in their announcement for One that the game will continue to evolve. But they explicitly rejected the old editions paradigm where you needed to buy all new books at once. They'll just release updated versions over time, and when you feel like getting the new version, it'll be there. For new players it'll be the only option, so the game will gradually change, yet at no point will existing content become obsolete over night.

What this will look like on DDB is that, as a new version of a book comes out, the old one becomes legacy content that you can still access if you prefer, or if you haven't purchased the new thing. But once you purchase the new book, it'll become the default version unless/until you stipulate otherwise. And the legacy content won't be available in the DDB marketplace, so over time the new version will dominate.

The evolution analogy is quite apt.

 

[TerraDave]

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.

If they don’t fix the MM monster math, this is a total waste of time.

 

[dave2008]

If they don’t fix the MM monster math, this is a total waste of time.

@TerraDave What do you mean by that? What do you feel is wrong with the monster math? I have my issues, but I am guessing yours are different.

FYI, they have already previewed the '24 monster design, so...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

My definition of compatibility has far less to do with published adventures (which almost never run) and far more with how the rules of character creation and play (PC and DM side) actually work and interact.

Well we know character creation will be different - it already is with more recent supplements. So by that measure we are already incompatible!

I think that is to narrow of a definition of compatibility.

 

[Clint_L]

Well we know character creation will be different - it already is with more recent supplements. So by that measure we are already incompatible!

I think that is to narrow of a definition of compatibility.

I agree - look how much it has already changed since 2014. There has never been fixed character creation in 5e. Feats have gone from optional to expected to (soon) mandatory, there are way more sub-classes, a whole class has been added, new optional abilities for every class (some quite consequential - rangers), spells, etc.

DDB handles all of it quite smoothly. I haven't seen anything yet on the One tests that will be hard for it to incorporate.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Haven't seen anything one way or the other.

But I would lean towards not requiring a new purchase.

Pure guess though.

Pretty sure you will need to buy the next editions PHB.

There are enough notable changes I would consider it an edition change. However the material we have so far is backwards compatible, and I imagine it will stay that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well we know character creation will be different - it already is with more recent supplements. So by that measure we are already incompatible!

I think that is to narrow of a definition of compatibility.

Correct. By my definition they are already incompatible, and I expect it to get further away.

 

[Clint_L]

Pretty sure you will need to buy the next editions PHB.

There are enough notable changes I would consider it an edition change. However the material we have so far is backwards compatible, and I imagine it will stay that way.

I had to buy MotM, and I already owned Volo's and Mordenkainen's. It was super cheap, but I still kind of regret it as MotM didn't change much, except spell lists, and I preferred the old method so I mostly use the old versions of monsters.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I had to buy MotM, and I already owned Volo's and Mordenkainen's. It was super cheap, but I still kind of regret it as MotM didn't change much, except spell lists, and I preferred the old method so I mostly use the old versions of monsters.

I mostly prefer the newer style, and there are going to be further monster refinements. New Encounter Building and Revised Monsters are explicitly coming in the playtest.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mostly prefer the newer style, and there are going to be further monster refinements. New Encounter Building and Revised Monsters are explicitly coming in the playtest.

I'll definitely be interested to see those. It seems like they could be refined quite a bit.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Correct. By my definition they are already incompatible, and I expect it to get further away.

How are they incompatible when they can be easily used alongside current stuff, and the playtest is outright using them with current stuff?