NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8998129" data-attributes="member: 5889">The issue of course is that backwards compatibility has never been defined, so there are several reasonable interpretations of it.The simplest version is that the words used in the old stuff still mean the same thing. If something tells me to take an action.....actions haven't changed. A saving throw hasn't changed etc. If a spell has the same name as an old spell, it does the same thing. If a 2024 class wants to use a new mechanic they can, but it needs a new word. You can't take an old mechanic and mean something different with it.The more restrictive version is a notion of "equivalency", the idea that old and new stuff can not only be used at the same table from a mechanics standpoint, but there is an expectation they will play in a similar way with a similar power level. Ie a 2014 fighter and a 2024 fighter at the same table should both feel like they are reasonably contributing to "fighter stuff" in roughly equal ways. Not exactly equal of course, but neither player feels their version "sucks".The first version is honestly pretty open. As long as your willing to create new terms you can generate whatever new mechanics you want. However, I think a lot of people ascribe to version 2, which is where a lot of the argument about the new druid is coming from (the new moon druid is clearly inferior in terms of combat strength to the old one.....and so is that actually "backwards compatible"? The answer lies in which definition you use.</blockquote>

Verification