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

[UngeheuerLich]

An interesting poll!

I voted "I can use content from 5E and 1D&D in the same PC" because that's genuinely what I'm hoping for, and it's really the only way I can use the new material. I need these new updates to work in 5th Edition.

As of now, my halfling monk, if I use tavern brawler as 1st level feat and the new grapple rules just got a big upgrade. I would say, it would make him better balanced with other classes than he is in core 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really wish people would come with a different word for these kinds of changes than "errata". Errata implies the correction of a mistake; I mean, its derived from the same root word as "error". What is called errata in RPGs is, in large part, not correcting errors in the text, but actually changing things.

4e had it backwards. They called some things rules updates, that were factually errata...

later on however they were indeed rules updates. So many, that even without essentials, the PHB1 and MM1 had more or less nothing to do with the current rules of the game.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

@Maxperson just to inform you, stuff does not need to be balanced against old stuff to be backwards compatible.

Nothing shown so far breaks backwards compatibility. Everything works using the old version still.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson just to inform you, stuff does not need to be balanced against old stuff to be backwards compatible.

Nothing shown so far breaks backwards compatibility. Everything works using the old version still.

Old backgrounds and new backgrounds cannot be used together without either modifying the old backgrounds or gimping the old background player in effectiveness. That's not backwards compatible.

 

[Cadence]

This thread is much easier to read when I check the title and note everything is under the auspice of "too you".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Old backgrounds and new backgrounds cannot be used together without either modifying the old backgrounds or gimping the old background player in effectiveness. That's not backwards compatible.

So for you "backwards compatible" = "exactly the same" ?

If you do it exactly as before, why bother making a new rulebook? Just as a "best of" compilation of older material, or at least something new which is exactly like the things before?

I think, at some point we are out of sensible design space, and other 3rd Parties have shown, that there is room for improvement. Not improving your core is just giving up.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Old backgrounds and new backgrounds cannot be used together without either modifying the old backgrounds or gimping the old background player in effectiveness. That's not backwards compatible.

No it is, using an old background is not as good as using a new one, but that does not mean it breaks backwards compatibility. Backwards Compatibility has nothing to do with balance.

 

[Maxperson]

So for you "backwards compatible" = "exactly the same" ?

That isn't what I just said.

 

[Maxperson]

No it is, using an old background is not as good as using a new one, but that does not mean it breaks backwards compatibility. Backwards Compatibility has nothing to do with balance.

Backwards compatibility means works without any modification needed. If using backgrounds as is makes an old 5e PC weaker than the new 5e PC that is in the party, I have to modify it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Backwards compatibility means works without any modification needed. If using backgrounds as is makes an old 5e PC weaker than the new 5e PC that is in the party, I have to modify it.

This is not what compatibility means.
Your example of feats vs no feat works well enough. The difference is no bigger than the differences which you have when ising the default generation method: rolling stats. So no modification needed.

But of course: allowing 2014 characters to chose an extra feat would be fair.
But is that so much work that youvd call that incompatible?

Until Windows 7 was backwards compatible to dos... and later windows were backwards compatible towards win 95... i think there were a lot more problems than just telling every player, here is a freeby.