D&D (2024) What does Backward compatibility mean to you?

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't like it because it implies that everything pre-errata was an error, and now they've "improved" the old rule by correcting that error. I strongly disagree with the idea that everything newer is better, and this nomenclature supports that bogus (to me) philosophy.

I get what you mean, but it's probably not meant to be quite so... insidious.

Though, I suppose that if they didn't feel that the text needed "correcting" then they would just leave it alone. T

I think where mistakes are made ("corrections" that don't lead to improvements, which you are right absolutely happens) is probably when something is implemented broadly to fix a smaller problem (we can see this potentially happening, say, if Leveled Feats turn out to be not-as-good-as-intended, when they were almost certainly created to stop people taking GWM et al. as their background feat.)

Or other cascading effects that can happen when you make one change here and it breaks something over there. Edition changes seem to always do that. I call it "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Time will tell when it comes to 1D&D.

 

[Parmandur]

WotC really abused errata hard in 3.x and even more egregiously in 4E. 5E has been much more sedate, actually fixing errors like noting that Thunderstep makes audible noise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get what you mean, but it's probably not meant to be quite so... insidious.

Though, I suppose that if they didn't feel that the text needed "correcting" then they would just leave it alone. T

I think where mistakes are made ("corrections" that don't lead to improvements, which you are right absolutely happens) is probably when something is implemented broadly to fix a smaller problem (we can see this potentially happening, say, if Leveled Feats turn out to be not-as-good-as-intended, when they were almost certainly created to stop people taking GWM et al. as their background feat.)

Or other cascading effects that can happen when you make one change here and it breaks something over there. Edition changes seem to always do that. I call it "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Time will tell when it comes to 1D&D.

Beyond unintended side-effects like that though, a lot of "corrections" are just subjective in quality. We certainly don't have complete agreement that the new monster format or the changes to races and ASIs are all improvements.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC really abused errata hard in 3.x and even more egregiously in 4E. 5E has been much more sedate, actually fixing errors like noting that Thunderstep makes audible noise.

Yeah, the extra book of rules changes they created in 4e (sometimes changing the same rules element multiple times) was just unconscionable.

 

[Krachek]

Even if mixing both phb would be possible, most table will stick to a single one for convenience.
Compatibility will be used mainly for monster, adventure and the like.

mixing both phb, will introduce shenanigans way above the tolerance here.
and I suspect that the new phb will give characters just a line more cool and playable than the actual ones. And most people won’t tolerate to play an undermine character even if it is just by a thin line.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, the extra book of rules changes they created in 4e (sometimes changing the same rules element multiple times) was just unconscionable.

Not best practice, and it hit them in the butt longterm.

 

[Azzy]

If I can use existing adventures and supplements with minimal or no conversion, it's backwards compatible in a sense that's meaningful to the tabletop RPG experience.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

to me, backwards compatibility (unless further specified) means that anything that is not revisited works with what is revisited without issue. nothing more, nothing less.

i don't think we'll be getting that.

 

[TerraDave]

So what does 1D&D mean?

In D&D Beyond, they can seamlessly mesh the 2024 PHB material with the Tasha's and XGtE material incorporating their inevitable 2024 errata. They will probably have some automatically way to "update" older characters.

This is how it will work. Is it "backwards compatible"?

 

[Raith5]

I voted for minimal work. I dont expect that classes (or monsters) designed 10 years apart should be expected to play easily at the same table. I just think that is unreasonable and leads to the question of why bother to make really minimal changes. I want to keep the spirit of 2014 intact but I dont want designers to be shackled too much to make changes that need to be made or to address the lessons from the last 10 years of experience.