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

[Maxperson]

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.

The difference is significantly better than rolling. +1 or +2 is pretty insignificant. You generally can't tell the difference during game play. Feats on the other hand are very noticeable and helpful. I would have to modify or it's very unfair to the 2014 characters.

Similarly, if I allow the 2014 characters to crit, including smite and sneak attack, but deny the 2024 PCs, that's unfair to the latter.

Being able to crit the 2014 PCs, but not the 2024 PCs is going be super unfair to the 2014 PCs, especially since it's likely that monsters will be modified to do more damage to compensate, so those crits are going to hurt more.

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?

By definition ANY work makes it not backwards compatible. That's different from being partially compatible, which is what the game becomes. I will have to modify the game to make both work nicely together.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The difference is significantly better than rolling. +1 or +2 is pretty insignificant. You generally can't tell the difference during game play. Feats on the other hand are very noticeable and helpful. I would have to modify or it's very unfair to the 2014 characters.

1. The difference can be way bigger:

My worst character in 5e had a total bonus of +3 i guess with main stat a 14, my best character had a bonus of +12 or so.

If +1 was insignificant then just pick a feat instead of attribute increase at level 4 and now tgere is no difference?

Also, play station 2 was backwards compatible to playstation 1. The old games worked, but the graphics did not improve...

Maybe your definition of backwards compatible is slightly off.

 

[Maxperson]

1. The difference can be way bigger:

My worst character in 5e had a total bonus of +3 i guess with main stat a 14, my best character had a bonus of +12 or so.

+9 is different than +1 or +2, which isn't noticeable.

If +1 was insignificant then just pick a feat instead of attribute increase at level 4 and now tgere is no difference?

I do. I rarely use more than one ASI and sometimes none. Feats are the way to go if you want to have something useful to do. The problem is that 2014 PC is gimped for the first 4 levels until he gets that feat AND the 2024 can take a feat and be ahead still. This is not a solution.

Maybe your definition of backwards compatible is slightly off.

No. I'm using the definition as provided by where it came from. Programming. Backwards compatible means that you can use the prior stuff without making an effort to make it work. If I have to modify things to make the two editions compatible(one side isn't being unfairly gimped), then it's not backwards compatible. At best it's partially compatible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. I'm using the definition as provided by where it came from. Programming. Backwards compatible means that you can use the prior stuff without making an effort to make it work. If I have to modify things to make the two editions compatible(one side isn't being unfairly gimped), then it's not backwards compatible. At best it's partially compatible.

Then your definition of "working" needs an overhaul.
The old PCs work. But are not good enough for you.

If I make a program backwards compatible, all the old stuff that still works does not suddenly look fresh and new. Usually it is still better to update old programms to utilize the new enviroment.

 

[Maxperson]

Then your definition of "working" needs an overhaul.
The old PCs work. But are not good enough for you.

By that definition playing a commoner along side 20th level PCs also works, but is not good enough, so why bother with balance at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

By that definition playing a commoner along side 20th level PCs also works, but is not good enough, so why bother with balance at all.

A bit hyperbole isn't it?

 

[Maxperson]

A bit hyperbole isn't it?

In this case no. All my example was, was your statement to a greater degree. If the commoner playing along side a 20th level character doesn't work, where is the exact line for when disparity becomes too great and the game ceases to work? If you can't give me the exact spot, then you also cannot say that the disparity caused when 2024 background works along side a 2014 background "works."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In this case no. All my example was, was your statement to a greater degree. If the commoner playing along side a 20th level character doesn't work, where is the exact line for when disparity becomes too great and the game ceases to work? If you can't give me the exact spot, then you also cannot say that the disparity caused when 2024 background works along side a 2014 background "works."

No, this was not my example. I was speaking about the difference of 1 feat.

So. You took my statement and added a lot of hyperbole. A very lot of hyperbole.

 

[Maxperson]

No, this was not my example. I was speaking about the difference of 1 feat.

Show me where in the D&D rules the line that says what amount of disparity represents "The old PCs work. But are not good enough" is. If you can show that disparity to objectively be "after the difference of 1 feat", I will concede the point. Because as far as I can see "the old PCs work" is very subjective and the feat disparity is significant enough. It's just your personal opinion that they "work, but are not good enough for me."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Show me where in the D&D rules the line that says what amount of disparity represents "The old PCs work. But are not good enough" is. If you can show that disparity to objectively be "after the difference of 1 feat", I will concede the point. Because as far as I can see "the old PCs work" is very subjective and the feat disparity is significant enough. It's just your personal opinion that they "work, but are not good enough for me."

As I already said: default rule is rolling.
So the disparity can be way bigger than what equals a feat.
You can chose human or variant human for your extra feat at level 1.

Even when using the default array, at level one we are looking at 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9 for the standard human, and 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 and a skill and a feat.

If you look at the stat bonuses, both are exactly equal, both characters use the 2014 rules and the difference is even more than one (1st level) feat.
Both are obviously close enough to play at the same table.
So even 5e is not backwards compatible to 5e by your definition.