D&D (2024) What is "compatible"?

[Ath-kethin]

According to WotC, 3.5 was "fully compatible" with 3.0.

And it was, for roughly a month after it came out. But the further into 3.5 we got, the less the new stuff resembled the original stuff. You could still use it, but then, I can still use my old 2e stuff too. So by that logic all editions and versions are "fully compatible" with one another.

 

[Blue]

Eh. They are making a MARKETING statement. They were also saying that 5e would be "modular" and we know how that turned out.

Don't hang much import on specific word choice years before release.

Sure, I don't hold too much to it but it's the direction we have. Making as assumption that it can't be true and coming up with ideas along those lines is just as prognosticating, but now it's also assuming they will not fulfill what their goal is.

They have shown us with Tasha's that they can make large changes and still be fully compatible, and have had a long history of not making changes that will invalidate existing characters (like the many-years-suffering beastmaster ranger). So what they are saying is possible to be done and is a direction they have shown us they normally follow.

So I feel that predictions based that what they are saying must be false (like non-optional rebalancing long rest recovery model changes to classes) are less likely to occur continuing to be being fully compatible - meaning that existing characters need no changes, not that there aren't new options that would allow you to build them other ways that may work better, like the beastmaster ranger new options.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

My assumption is that is will be 'compatible'.

As in you can run a human fighter from 2014 in the same game as a human fighter from 2024, and it will work. But the balance will just be off and the 2014 one will just feel less fun. Like comparing a tasha's beastmaster ranger to a PHB beastmaster ranger, but even more extreme.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is why I think what I said above is true.

compatible with all 5e books requires that the warlock still be a short rest based class, gain its subclass features at the same level, etc.

It doesn’t require that the Ranger learn spells, though, just that it has spell slots with which to cast any subclass or alt feature spells it might gain. So a variant option that uses spells slots to power exploration themed stuff with a short list, ranging from “poultices” to increased short rest healing, to forced march travel without exhaustion, to a specialized “trolls gift”/wolfsbane style poison system.

That would be dope as hell!

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, I don't hold too much to it but it's the direction we have. Making as assumption that it can't be true and coming up with ideas along those lines is just as prognosticating, but now it's also assuming they will not fulfill what their goal is.

They have shown us with Tasha's that they can make large changes and still be fully compatible, and have had a long history of not making changes that will invalidate existing characters (like the many-years-suffering beastmaster ranger). So what they are saying is possible to be done and is a direction they have shown us they normally follow.

So I feel that predictions based that what they are saying must be false (like non-optional rebalancing long rest recovery model changes to classes) are less likely to occur continuing to be being fully compatible - meaning that existing characters need no changes, not that there aren't new options that would allow you to build them other ways that may work better, like the beastmaster ranger new options.

I think you’re reading a lot into one filler word that I doubt anywhere near as much thought went into choosing.

 

[Morrus]

There are some limits on how far WotC might be able to go -- rendering the entirety of the DMs Guild incompatible with the current rules would be disastrous, for example. So I suspect we won't see any foundational changes.

 

[Zi Mishkal]

Honestly? We don't know. 2e started out as clarification to 1e. You can pick up a 1e module and play it pretty easily in 2e. And you could pick up a BECMI module and play it in either 1e and 2e. But 2e wound up being a major change to the game, and being quite divisive in its time.
3.0, 3.5, PF1 are all similar to each other as well and you could mix together most of them with each other. But again, there's lines drawn - sometimes deep, bitter lines between each of those rulesets.
In all the above cases, players were strongly encouraged to "convert" their characters over to the 'new' system. Once converted over, the problem of editions falls squarely in the lap of the DM.

I feel that similar rules, which allow a DM (with a moderate amount of work) to run a 5e module in 5.5e is probably the absolute best case scenario anyone can hope for.

I also feel that whatever happens, it's going to split the community. This situation is more than passingly similar to the 1e-2e, 3e-3.5e situation. You have a large percentage of the community who feel that 5e is the only edition, because its the only edition they've played (for years). Any significant change to that edition is going to cheese some people off.

Giving them two plus years to fret over it isn't going to help matters either. We're a screwy species. Under the best cases, a whole bunch of us will automatically look for the worst case outcome. Some are very vocal against any change whatsoever. If WotC only loses 10-15% of their player base from this, they will be extremely fortunate. Depending on what they change, it could be a lot worse.

And I don't buy into the idea that they will "listen to the people". Any meaningful change will be baked into the new rules. You can do all the internal/limited ext. playtesting you want beforehand, but its only when you release it to the world do you really know whether you've screwed up. And at that point, you already have the next couple years' worth of products planned and partly written. You are locked into those rules.

I hope everyone had a restful summer, because the next three years are going to be a vitriolic mess.

 

[Umbran]

So I feel that predictions based that what they are saying must be false

I think prognostication wither way, several years out, is unlikely to bear any particularly useful (or even entertaining) fruit.

Having observed close up how people tend to behave around changes, it is likely to cause acrimony. Yay!

 

[Blue]

I think you’re reading a lot into one filler word that I doubt anywhere near as much thought went into choosing.

If it was just one filler word you would have a point. But as mentioned we have a de facto statement of direction that they would not correct things the player base saw as wrong, such as the beastmaster ranger, if it would invalidate characters. I don't see any reason why they must change direction on that now, and since they are using verbiage that matches that existing direction they have been doing, it's a safe bet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That would be dope as hell!

Thanks! I think it would be a really clean model for Rangers to serve a lot of different preferences. Heck, include way to buff an ally in those uses, and it serves the Beastmaster!