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

[doctorbadwolf]

Whatever the rules the DM says apply to you, apply to you. I'm not sure what kind of shenanigans you're expecting to get away with here lol.

My expectation is that most tables will do it like this:

1) General rules - all from 1D&D (grappling, skill DCs, etc. etc.).

2) Class/subclass-specific rules - all from either 5E or 1D&D as appropriate to the version of the class. As a DM I would not personally let people "cross the streams" and take a 1D&D subclass with a 5E class or vice-versa, or not without checking it carefully.

3) Spells - Depends on the DM but I expect most DMs will just use "all from 1D&D" except where spells aren't present in 1D&D.

Well yeah, it’s like reprints and errata.

You use the most current version of anything that’s been updated or reprinted.

But I see no issues so far with existing subclasses and new classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But I see no issues so far with existing subclasses and new classes.

Um, buddy, they're literally a mismatch. All 1D&D subclasses have the same subclass pattern as Barbarians. Whereas all other classes are a mismatch (too many, different pattern, different levels, etc.). A severe mismatch in some cases. So if you're seeing "no issues", you've either not looked into it or are doing Nelson's "I see no ships".

 

[Olrox17]

I can atest on the npc.monster side I was able to make 2e and 3e and 4e style characters with some work

Yeah, sure. I’ve managed to convert ACKS’ systems for domain management and mass battles to 5e. It took a decent amount of (well worth) time and effort, but it worked.
I wouldn’t dream to claim actual backwards compatibility between 5e and ACKS, obviously.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Um, buddy, they're literally a mismatch. All 1D&D subclasses have the same subclass pattern as Barbarians. Whereas all other classes are a mismatch (too many, different pattern, different levels, etc.). A severe mismatch in some cases. So if you're seeing "no issues", you've either not looked into it or are doing Nelson's "I see no ships".

Yeah the condescension is misplaced, which ends up reflect more on you than your target there, bud.

You literally just take the subclass feature levels in the order prescribed by your class, and take a bonus feat at the end of a bard, or simply get a bonus subclass feature if one of the classes with more feature levels.

It literally isn’t an issue, which I am saying both from having “looked into it” and from having played with the damn options to test it.

So keep your white room doomcrafting to yourself, next time you get the urge to talk down to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah the condescension is misplaced, which ends up reflect more on you than your target there, bud.

You literally just take the subclass feature levels in the order prescribed by your class, and take a bonus feat at the end of a bard, or simply get a bonus subclass feature if one of the classes with more feature levels.

It literally isn’t an issue, which I am saying both from having “looked into it” and from having played with the damn options to test it.

So keep your white room doomcrafting to yourself, next time you get the urge to talk down to me.

It's literally and undeniably issue, and being completely dismissive about it is part of the problem with this entire discussion re: compatibility. You're just shutting down the discussion with this attitude. Also, condescending whilst complaining about condescension is pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

It's literally and undeniably issue, and being completely dismissive about it is part of the problem with this entire discussion re: compatibility. You're just shutting down the discussion with this attitude. Also, condescending whilst complaining about condescension is pretty amazing stuff.

Putting any emotive language aside, if you try and build and run character, say a Bard with the new Clre Class with a Xanathar's or Tasha's Subass, it literally isn't a problem in practice. It is quite clear that if this approach goes through that a straightforward translation is doable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Putting any emotive language aside, if you try and build and run character, say a Bard with the new Clre Class with a Xanathar's or Tasha's Subass, it literally isn't a problem in practice. It is quite clear that if this approach goes through that a straightforward translation is doable.

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

Discuss away? No one is stopping you?

Just don’t jump on my back when I say something you disagree with and try to talk to me like I’m some bumbling noob and you’re here to correct me.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, this is a definition of problem which just means nothing can be discussed as a problem, so cool I guess.

I will grant that it is anproblem...but an entirely solvable one that the playtest documents have explicitly states will be addressed head on when the terms on the final side of the "=" are decided upon.

 

[Maxperson]

I will grant that it is anproblem...but an entirely solvable one that the playtest documents have explicitly states will be addressed head on when the terms on the final side of the "=" are decided upon.

We will see if it is solved or not. WotC has a history of not living up to what it says it is going to accomplish. For now and until they actually change it, it remains a problem.