What a terrible spot to design for! I don't envy that task handed down from corporate.My guess is that will be changed just enough that you could use your old material with the 1D&D/5.X/6e core, but it would require just enough conversion that having a convenient electronic option available to do it for you would be really helpful.
I don't think 5e is fiddly enough to make that work though. I could see that for a 3e or a 4e revision, but 5e is not that tightly balanced.My guess is that will be changed just enough that you could use your old material with the 1D&D/5.X/6e core, but it would require just enough conversion that having a convenient electronic option available to do it for you would be really helpful.
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.If we consider 1E and 2E AD&D to be compatible, which personally I do, then I'd say "Yes", which is how I've voted.
Even in the playtest material we've seen there's already considerably more difference between 5E and 1D&D than 3E and 3.5E, but we're still well within tolerances for 1E to 2E.
I think in practical terms you could probably run a 5E adventure with 1D&D PCs, for example, without huge problems (based on how 1D&D is currently looking), or vice-versa. You could also have a mixed party of 5E and 1D&D PCs, but I feel like 1D&D PCs are generally going to be slightly more effective - then again, the same was true of 1E and 2E PCs.
Yeah that's the question. We don't have any evidence yet (unless a packet just dropped and I missed it), but it seems to me that they may well do this. If so we may end up with a 1D&D that's less compatible with 5E than 2E was with 1E, and that would be stretching the definition of compatible somewhat, I feel.
There are ways. Off the top of my head, they could adjust the levels subclasses get features (which they are already doing). They could adjust the overall impact of the subclass features, by either diluting or strengthening subclasses. They could fiddle with the skill lists, combine a few and split out some others, just enough to make a bunch of skill references in old books obsolete.I don't think 5e is fiddly enough to make that work though. I could see that for a 3e or a 4e revision, but 5e is not that tightly balanced.
They don’t seem big to me, not a change that prevents compatibilityWe've already seen some massive changes from 5e's design in terms of starting feats, shifting subclass levels, the new heritage/lineage/post-race rules, the spell groupings, etc. Those are some pretty big changes, IMHO, and some of them (the spell groupings especially) seem to be change for the sake of change. I'm not optimistic for real backward compatibility.