# What is "compatible"?



## TerraDave (Sep 27, 2021)

Some initial thoughts. Compatible can mean a lot of things, and allow for a lot of change. But not all changes.

*Changes that are clearly compatible:*

Options already introduced in latter books*
New stuff that is 5e compatible
Reinterpreting alignment or making it optional
Detailed revisions to existing spells and class features
Feat revisions, perhaps major ones, but feats stay
Clarifying stealth, surprise, and (other) ability checks
Monster math, as long as the intended power level of the creature is the same
Magic item revisions, optional rules, DM advice
Rewriting non-rules text
New art
Books that don’t fall apart.

*Changes that may be compatible*

Rebalancing the adventure day or approaching it in a different way…
…like the short-long rest balance of classes
…and or major changes to healing and death
Tweaking the combat action economy
More substantial revisions to higher level play
Subclasses that work with more than 1 class
Total rewrite of multiclassing and feat rules
Total rewrite of inspiration or similar system
Rewrite of skills/ability checks
New non-combat subsystems for exploration or NPC interaction.

*Not compatible(?)*

Big changes to intended monster power levels
Big changes to PC power levels (e.g. first level characters with 20 hp)
Big changes to saving throws or ability checks
Big changes to the action economy…
…including bonus actions and reactions
Going outside any D&D isms (there will still be d20 mechanic, ability scores, classes, hits points, something like races, monsters etc)

*Edit: though compatibility with pre-2024 options and new core books might be an issue.


----------



## HippyCraig (Sep 27, 2021)

I’m also wondering how this will play out on dndbeyond.  wen looking up Stuff in a players handbook will it merge the two related aticles with markings for each in the document etc.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 27, 2021)

I
In terms of the upcoming revision: being able to run existing Adventures as written while referencing the new MM and with PCs from the new PHB, or a new Adventure with PCs and Monsters from the older books. Or have a mix of PCs from the 2014 and 2024 core books working together.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 27, 2021)

Parmandur said:


> I
> In terms of the upcoming revision: being able to run existing Adventures as written while referencing the new MM and with PCs from the new PHB, or a new Adventure with PCs and Monsters from the older books. Or have a mix of PCs from the 2014 and 2024 core books working together.






HippyCraig said:


> I’m also wondering how this will play out on dndbeyond.  wen looking up Stuff in a players handbook will it merge the two related aticles with markings for each in the document etc.




So you could have the revised warlock and the classic warlock? 

I am guessing one would replace the other. But its possible.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 27, 2021)

It's not compatible if people with different PHBs can't be at the same table. 

So what is compatible? Having different options. 2014 Fighter and 2024 Fighter can be different as long as both could be played at the same table and have the game run just fine.

It's also not compatible if I can't play future adventures with a 2014 Monster Manual.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 27, 2021)

ad_hoc said:


> It's not compatible if people with different PHBs can't be at the same table.
> 
> So what is compatible? Having different options. 2014 Fighter and 2024 Fighter can be different as long as both could be played at the same table and have the game run just fine.
> 
> It's also not compatible if I can't play future adventures with a 2014 Monster Manual.



Yeah, this. The exceptions based design of 5E makes this very doable.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 27, 2021)

Finally listing to the event.

Its an "evolution". The next evolution. Its clearly a big change--a multi-year project. 

But completely compatible with all 5e books.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 27, 2021)

Parmandur said:


> I
> In terms of the upcoming revision: being able to run existing Adventures as written while referencing the new MM and with PCs from the new PHB, or a new Adventure with PCs and Monsters from the older books. Or have a mix of PCs from the 2014 and 2024 core books working together.



Not only that, but being able to play a newPHB Ranger with a Tasha’s or whatever subclass. Being able to take fears from any official 5e D&D book regardless of which PHB you built the character from.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 27, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> Finally listing to the event.
> 
> Its an "evolution". The next evolution. Its clearly a big change--a multi-year project.
> 
> But completely compatible with all 5e books.



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.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 27, 2021)

There are two "tiers" of compatible to me.

1) Two Systems, One Table: This is the standard level up is attempting. Aka I can play 2024 fighter and you can player 2014 fighter and we both feel reasonably good with no obvious problems, imbalances, or rules conflicts. I consider this one the higher standard and is the most restricting.

2) Adventure Module compatible. Basically a DM who reads through an adventure module written before 2024 could run it using 2024 books without issue. Aka no terms are used for completely different things, no monsters are so fundamentally changed that a "medium" encounter in the book becomes deadly with the 2024 versions, etc.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 27, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not only that, but being able to play a newPHB Ranger with a Tasha’s or whatever subclass. Being able to take fears from any official 5e D&D book regardless of which PHB you built the character from.




I can't decide how hard it will be to be compatible with the supplements, or how much that limits changing the core books.

The ranger is such a special case that it can have its own treatment. But, if, say, the new PHB rogue has some long-rest recharge abilities, but most rogue archetypes in Tasha's or Xanathar's doesn't, does this matter?

And at some point, they will want to supplement the supplements. Maybe many years from now, or maybe sooner. But it will come up. With the monster books they are already doing it, before releasing the new core books.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 27, 2021)

Or, in revising the core books, they just find stuff in the supplements that also need to change.


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2021)

If you are talking about the 2024 announcement the wording wasn't "compatible", it was "fully compatible".

I read that to mean that you can 100% create any existing character.  No grandfathered characters will need a single change.  So changes like recalibrating the encounters-per-day, as much as I would dreadfully love such a thing, can not be on the table.

I think we'll get exactly what they have shown us with Tasha's.  Races with ability scores assignable, and possibly changing the name from "race".

Classes with purely optional (so not required on existing characters) new features, like existing sorcerer subclasses getting free spells.  Classes with more choices for features, allowing you to replace problematic ones as well as just give new options.  Both of these were in Tasha's as well.

In other words, I read "fully compatible" as "you can create the exact same character as before and run it with other characters with no more problem then right now (which might be a level of problem), but there will be new options that might make you want to create it a different way".


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2021)

Blue said:


> I read that to mean that you can 100% create any existing character.




I wouldn't read it that way.  I think it means that if you have an existing character next to a new one, nothing is going to break.



Blue said:


> No grandfathered characters will need a single change.  So changes like recalibrating the encounters-per-day, as much as I would dreadfully love such a thing, can not be on the table.




I disagree.  If they've decided that the current number of encounters per day is off _for the classes already extant_, then they could update that.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 27, 2021)

HippyCraig said:


> I’m also wondering how this will play out on dndbeyond.  wen looking up Stuff in a players handbook will it merge the two related aticles with markings for each in the document etc.



Their current approach is to use the original version of a thing when you access it from a particular book (subject to errata), but the most current version when accessing content outside of books (i.e. looking at the full list of character classes).


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 27, 2021)

Can I pick up and use my old adventures with the new rules, and run the new adventures with the old rules?  If yes, then it is compatible.  If no, then I lament it is not compatible, gnash my teeth, cry at the storms of despair, and then spend a couple minutes making the necessary modifications.  

Honestly, it is a non-issue.  I can take Age of Worms, Shackled City, and other 3E adventures and run them in 5E with little or no preparation outside reading the 3E version and spending a couple minutes with the encounter builder on D&D beyond for a few of the encounters.  The core of the game is storytelling, and the only change in editions that complicated the storytelling was into and out of 4E (and it wasn't terribly complicated either - just different enough to note).  Beyond that, we're just talking minor tweaks to maintain balance.  

I imagine that these new 5.5 rules will rebalance a few things that could be better (GWM, SS), clarify a few vague rules (stealth), rebalance a few class features (as we saw with the ranger already), etc...  you'll likely be able to run with the old version of the feats or the new ones without breaking the game.  You'll likely be able to use the old version of the vague rules or the clarified ones with no real difficulty.  You'll likely be able to run either the old or new version of the ranger.  All in all, it'll be fine and we'll make a bunch of hullabaloo about things that do not really change the game.


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I wouldn't read it that way.  I think it means that if you have an existing character next to a new one, nothing is going to break.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  If they've decided that the current number of encounters per day is off _for the classes already extant_, then they could update that.



If what you were saying was the case, they'd call it "compatible".  I think that by calling it "fully compatible" that they are making a stronger statement.  For example, changing number of spell slots per level, part of reducing the expected number of encounters per day to more where people run it, is not "fully compatible".


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2021)

jgsugden said:


> Can I pick up and use my old adventures with the new rules, and run the new adventures with the old rules?  If yes, then it is compatible.  If no, then I lament it is not compatible, gnash my teeth, cry at the storms of despair, and then spend a couple minutes making the necessary modifications.
> 
> Honestly, it is a non-issue.  I can take Age of Worms, Shackled City, and other 3E adventures and run them in 5E with little or no preparation outside reading the 3E version and spending a couple minutes with the encounter builder on D&D beyond for a few of the encounters.  The core of the game is storytelling, and the only change in editions that complicated the storytelling was into and out of 4E (and it wasn't terribly complicated either - just different enough to note).  Beyond that, we're just talking minor tweaks to maintain balance.
> 
> I imagine that these new 5.5 rules will rebalance a few things that could be better (GWM, SS), clarify a few vague rules (stealth), rebalance a few class features (as we saw with the ranger already), etc...  you'll likely be able to run with the old version of the feats or the new ones without breaking the game.  You'll likely be able to use the old version of the vague rules or the clarified ones with no real difficulty.  You'll likely be able to run either the old or new version of the ranger.  All in all, it'll be fine and we'll make a bunch of hullabaloo about things that do not really change the game.



What you want is one thing.  But if they are claiming to deliver something "fully compatible" (and carry through on their claims), then they aren't providing something that will _need _modification. For example there might be new, additional feats that are like GWM and SS that you call out, but they won't invalidate the existing GWM or SS and still be fully compatible, since that will require changes on existing characters.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2021)

Blue said:


> If what you were saying was the case, they'd call it "compatible".  I think that by calling it "fully compatible" that they are making a stronger statement.




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.


----------



## Lyxen (Sep 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


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




It turned out very well as far as I know, so I have high hopes for full compatibility.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 27, 2021)

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 (Sep 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2021)

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 (Sep 27, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2021)

Blue said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2021)

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 (Sep 27, 2021)

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 (Sep 27, 2021)

Blue said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2021)

Charlaquin said:


> 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!


----------



## Krachek (Sep 27, 2021)

We got two cases in DnD history.
3 to 3.5 not compatible.
4Ed then 4ed essential, fully compatible.

For now is a marketing announce.
But I guess it’s really straight forward to rebuild the classes and keep them compatible as the 4ed Essential. Clean up races, feats, spells, monsters, magic items, can be done with 100% compatibility.  For resting they can rebuild classes and not using short rest features, they will become pretty much like actual rogue, and be 100% compatible. They won’t touch skills, action, reaction, possibly use less bonus action.

For sure we gonna have a lot of UA and survey on the subject.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 28, 2021)

So they rewrite the PHB keeping the broad power levels of characters the same, and core rules the same. All the classes and races stay. So compatible. 

But they spend years making it _better_. One implication is that stuff from other sources may be "compatible", but new material is "better". 

Whatever that means.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 28, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> So they rewrite the PHB keeping the broad power levels of characters the same, and core rules the same. All the classes and races stay. So compatible.
> 
> But they spend years making it _better_. One implication is that stuff from other sources may be "compatible", but new material is "better".
> 
> Whatever that means.



To be honest, it's probably more about refraining issues like Race than game balance. Also, based on how they are talking, a radical overhaul of the DMG advice and MM layout based on the past many years of feedback. The PHB might be the least changed portion, in the end


----------



## Malmuria (Sep 28, 2021)

From reading/listening to reviews of Tasha's, it seems like it increases the power level of subclasses significantly, so that a PHB and Tasha's characters would not fit well in the same party.  Is this the case, for those of you who have played with those rules?  It seems that powercreep make editions somewhat not compatible with themselves, because while everything might use the same underlying structure, the amount of options make the play experience very uneven. 

Reading over Tasha's, I also wonder if there is only so much one can do with exception based design.  The subclass abilities and options strike me as overly fiddly and complicated, and make it so there is a lot more to track (per rest abilities, temporary hp, etc).  There seems to be an attempt to fill out the action economy for each class, so that there is constantly uses for bonus actions and reactions and pet actions.  This is not from play experience, however.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 28, 2021)

Parmandur said:


> To be honest, it's probably more about refraining issues like Race than game balance. Also, based on how they are talking, a radical overhaul of the DMG advice and MM layout based on the past many years of feedback. The PHB might be the least changed portion, in the end



Could be. But they have done on all these surveys, and are spending years on it. They are probably going to do _something_,


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 28, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> Could be. But they have done on all these surveys, and are spending years on it. They are probably going to do _something_,



Yes, buy the modular, exception based design allows them to retool the feel of an option, without necessarily being out of balance in their spreadsheets.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 28, 2021)

I think it means you can use an old PC or an old Monster at the same table as a new PC or a new Monster. So you could have a combat which involves an old version of a Githzari, and a new version fo the Githzari, and it will all work fine. Similarly, you could have a PC with the old version of a Champion and a PC with the new version of the Champion. They might not all be as balanced as each other, but they will all still function OK as they're all based on the same basic rules behind them.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> From reading/listening to reviews of Tasha's, it seems like it increases the power level of subclasses significantly, so that a PHB and Tasha's characters would not fit well in the same party.  Is this the case, for those of you who have played with those rules?  It seems that powercreep make editions somewhat not compatible with themselves, because while everything might use the same underlying structure, the amount of options make the play experience very uneven.
> 
> Reading over Tasha's, I also wonder if there is only so much one can do with exception based design.  The subclass abilities and options strike me as overly fiddly and complicated, and make it so there is a lot more to track (per rest abilities, temporary hp, etc).  There seems to be an attempt to fill out the action economy for each class, so that there is constantly uses for bonus actions and reactions and pet actions.  This is not from play experience, however.




These are classic issues with player supplements. (You can even go back to the original barbarian or cavalier, and don't get me started on 2e) Then a new edition comes and cleans everything up, until it gets all messy again,

Now we getting that while the supplements are still out there. One possibility is just that a very solid ranger, a better elemental monk, etc, etc, will just make the supplements redundant for a lot of players. Until new supplements come along.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Sep 28, 2021)

Back in the day, we freely mixed and matched stuff from 1e and 2e, so I'd consider that level of difference to be "fully compatible".


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 28, 2021)

I still think it's compatible if a CR 14 monster becomes a CR 20 monster.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 28, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> 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.



Bingo!

After all, I have mostly used 1e, 2e and 3e adventures in 5e. I use 5e version of monsters and equipment but otherwise the story, the characters, the locations, they all work... I discovered that ALL editions are compatible! 

For me compatibility can be summarized as: does this new rulebook work TOGETHER with the entirety of the rulebooks I already have? 

If using a new rulebook means that I will stop using some of my previous rulebooks even partially, then they are NOT compatible. 

And that only applies to rules including character material. It doesn't apply to fiction and props.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 28, 2021)

HippyCraig said:


> I’m also wondering how this will play out on dndbeyond.  wen looking up Stuff in a players handbook will it merge the two related aticles with markings for each in the document etc.



We’ve already seen how it works.
First we got Orc of Eberron, and then Orc of Exandria (even though these were identical), as additional options to the Orc stats in VGtM.

Then WotC clarifies that the Orcs in Eberron and Wildemount were intended as soft errata to address issues. Then WotC puts out errata with them for Volo’s. Then EVENTUALLY DDB merges them into the original Orc document.

At least with Tritons and Goliaths their updates were just merged in rather than creating a whole new option in the lineage lists on the site/app. Though I remember that Triton was merged in poorly. And I can’t recall if they ever fixed Tieflings to merge in “Feral” Tiefling or if you still have to choose either Tiefling or Feral Tiefling and still can’t mix and match the features from PHB, SCAG, and MToF.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Sep 28, 2021)

My definition of compatible is as follows: if player A can make a character using ruleset A, and sit down at a table where referee B is running ruleset B, and _nobody notices any discrepancies for a long time_, rulesets A and B are compatible.

In that respect, the TSR editions are all fairly inter-compatible if just the core material is used (but the more optional add-ons you tack on, the more likely you are to run into conflicts), and likewise for the 3Es (3.0, 3.5, and PF1). But 4e and 5e stand alone as separate games, with their own mechanics and jargon that make cross-compatible play impossible.

"Save vs breath weapon!" vs. "Make a Reflex save!" vs. "This attack targets your Reflex Defense!" vs. "Make a Dexterity save!" … If the DM says something like this, and you can look down at your character sheet and agree that it makes sense, compatible. Otherwise, not compatible.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> My definition of compatible is as follows: if player A can make a character using ruleset A, and sit down at a table where referee B is running ruleset B, and _nobody notices any discrepancies for a long time_, rulesets A and B are compatible.



This is a reasonably good way to look at it. I think there may be individual subsystems that are different - like surprise moving to a d10 - that can be modularly updated with the later edition without saying they're incompatible. 

The shift from 3.0 to 3.5 had one glaring shift that failed this easy level of compatibility - weapon sizing. That stuck out like a sore thumb and would have been an obvious tell if someone brought an affected character into the unaffected edition.


----------



## AtomicPope (Sep 29, 2021)

Saying "compatible" is a way to sell this to their current audience - that's us.  Even going from 3.0 to 3.5 had some big changes.  Fighters changed from being crit machines to dip-classes, while Barbarians and Rangers were no longer dip-classes.  Compatible for most people means they can use their old books and their new books together.  To a lesser extent you could mix and match with 3.x, taking from the splat books and using them in the game if the DM allowed.  Eventually everything was remade so it didn't matter, and it was just as bad.

Personally, I like what they did with 5e and since I love converting old modules (2e had some of the best modules ever made for any RPG) 5e has proved itself quite compatible in this regard.  One module, which I consider the best ever made, The Return to the Keep on the Borderlands, is nearly 100% compatible where you just use 5e versions of the same monsters with the same amount.  The only thing that doesn't fit (SPOILER ALERT) is the Gargantuan Mimic.  During a 4e conversion I changed the tower into a haunted place and kept that as my Official Conversion™.

I'm guessing 5e will follow the same path as 3e, where the compatibility means you can use an old class, subclass, feat, monster, etc, rather than the new one and the rules will be similar enough to make it work.  That's good enough for me.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 29, 2021)

I hope is is not like Magic card where my cards from 20 years ago do not fit into today's game.  I can still use my Sera Angel and I say it has a power that does not make it tap. 
"That's called vigilance now." oh, ok.
"I have a card that takes away vigilance, so it works on that card."  Oh, ok.
"In the new edition there is a super Sera Angel that has vigilance, a +1/+1, and deathtouch for the same casting cost, so your cheating yourself if you do not play that one."  Oh, ok
"I also have this new commander that gives my angels super awesomness, so I'll win in 3 turns."  Oh, ok This game is just how I remember.

It might not matter that much to me though since I will likely buy the books.  If the new changes make the game play better and makes prep easier, than why wouldn't I?  There may be a convention where someone shows up with an old book PC and feel more like my poor Sera Angel compared to some of the new min/max combos there is sure to be.


----------



## ECMO3 (Sep 30, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> Some initial thoughts. Compatible can mean a lot of things, and allow for a lot of change. But not all changes.
> 
> *Changes that are clearly compatible:*
> 
> ...



I don't think any of the "may be compatible" is compatible, I think that is a departure.  I think what you have here is what it will mostly be although I do not think there will be detailed revisions of spells or class features, I think these  wil  be limited to  tweaks.

I could also see changes to a lot of the optional actions in the DMG.  Stuff like disarm, shove aside, tumble and mark.  I think we could get revised rules on those, allowing some of them as a bonus action or allowing mark to make more than one reaction is not really in line with the PHB.

Finally I don't think the basic action economy is going to change but I could see more clarity or minor changes on certain things, for example allowing a potion to be drank as a bonus action or an action.  I think we will see most magic items rewritten so it is clear if they constitute "use an object" action or a different action.  Right now parts the book says using a magic item is "use an object" and sage advice says it isn't.

Also wizards has already recalibrated  encounters per day.  They have stated new campaigns, including WBW, will be able to be completed without any combat at all.  This takes the "6-8 per day" down to an official floor of 0 as part of a normal adventuring day.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 30, 2021)

For me, there are two elements which make a new book "fully compatible" with the 5e core rules:


The only thing I need in order to use the elements introduced in the new book are that book, and the 5e core books.
Nothing in the existing 5e rules will be invalidated or made unusable if I use the contents of the new book.

It's fine if the new books introduce, for instance, a new implementation of a class, such as the ranger or warlock. But if they introduce elements which make the original versions of those classes no longer playable, that's not "fully compatible".


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 1, 2021)

ECMO3 said:


> I don't think any of the "may be compatible" is compatible, I think that is a departure.  I think what you have here is what it will mostly be although I do not think there will be detailed revisions of spells or class features, I think these  wil  be limited to  tweaks.
> 
> .....
> 
> Also wizards has already recalibrated  encounters per day.  They have stated new campaigns, including WBW, will be able to be completed without any combat at all.  This takes the "6-8 per day" down to an official floor of 0 as part of a normal adventuring day.




A multi-year project declared to be the next evolution  of the game won't just be tweaks.

In no way have they "recalibrated" encounters per day. At least not yet. But very few games have 6-8 encounters per day, most day, and hopefully they are taking that into account. 

Support for non-combat encounters would be a natural thing to put in a revised edition.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 1, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> A multi-year project declared to be the next evolution  of the game won't just be tweaks.
> 
> In no way have they "recalibrated" encounters per day. At least not yet. But very few games have 6-8 encounters per day, most day, and hopefully they are taking that into account.
> 
> Support for non-combat encounters would be a natural thing to put in a revised edition.




Actually I think it will be mostly tweaks.  I think they are going to combine alot into one manual, so you do not have to look across 4 different books to understand what subclasses, spells and invocations are available for Warlocks.  Then I think they will change the game rules on races to align with the new guidelines.

Right now the only official hard copy publication on the Orc as a playable race says they have a -2 intelligence and while the people on this board visit sage advice and listen to podcasts the vast majority of players don't.  The desire to clean that up and move on to more acceptable portrayals of race and stereotypes is going to be a big driver in what they print and will probably constitute the majority of changes from this version to  the next.

The 6-8 was actually combats per day, I don't think there is a calibration for non-combat encounters.  So with new campaigns being able to be completed with no combat at all this is going to have to come down to 0 combats per day as the lower end.  Even if we take the argument that combat encounters will be replaced with non-combat encounters, those non-combat encounters are not going to use the numbers of resources that a combat encounter uses.  You might cast a zone of truth or a charm person in a non combat encounter but you are not going to be casting multiple leveled spells like you do in combat.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 1, 2021)

ECMO3 said:


> Right now the only official hard copy publication on the Orc as a playable race says they have a -2 intelligence and while the people on this board visit sage advice and listen to podcasts the vast majority of players don't.  The desire to clean that up and move on to more acceptable portrayals of race and stereotypes is going to be a big driver in what they print and will probably constitute the majority of changes from this version to  the next.



Eberron Rising From the Last War removed the -2 Int from the Orc PC writeup. It's a campaign specific book, but so is Volo's Guide to some degree.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 17, 2022)

I think it is compatible if you can convert existing subclasses easily for the revised phb.
1/short rest -> prof bonus per long rest. Maybe at level 6 -> at level 7.


----------



## Krachek (Feb 17, 2022)

Blue said:


> If you are talking about the 2024 announcement the wording wasn't "compatible", it was "fully compatible".
> 
> I read that to mean that you can 100% create any existing character.  No grandfathered characters will need a single change.  So changes like recalibrating the encounters-per-day, as much as I would dreadfully love such a thing, can not be on the table.
> 
> ...



I read the « fully compatible » as you can bring an old PC  at a table that use the new ones.
or use old monster, or old part of an adventure, for a party mix with old and new PCs.
off course that can lead to some problems, if they rewrite a feat or spell can we choose which version to use? that will lead to funny situation.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 17, 2022)

Old character fitting into the new rules I can understand.
But the old monster, I mean why would it not. It might not be very effective, but a lot of the current monsters are pretty ineffective also.

As for feats and spell, run with the latest update, even on old characters.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 18, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think it is compatible if you can convert existing subclasses easily for the revised phb.
> 1/shorr rest -> prof bonus per long rest. Maybe at level 6 -> at level 7.



And they have made this change, at least for non core races. And at most tables the pb per day version will be better than the SR version. Are they still compatible?


----------



## beancounter (Feb 18, 2022)

Of course, we can continue playing 5E as it is now, and ignore any future changes.

There are people who still play 1E and 3.5E today, after all.


----------



## Lyxen (Feb 18, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> And they have made this change, at least for non core races. And at most tables the pb per day version will be better than the SR version. Are they still compatible?




On an changes, they have gone back and forth after testing things on UA, so we will see. But once more, I don't think that WotC is ready to slay the golden goose and kill an edition that is so profitable by doing something with real incompatibility.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 18, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> And they have made this change, at least for non core races. And at most tables the pb per day version will be better than the SR version. Are they still compatible?




But probably closer to the intended power level than the original version.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 18, 2022)

From the perspective of the fan and consumer, there is one important question regarding compatibility: how is this going to affect the value of what I use and own now? 

In other words, will I still be able to use my current books if I switch to the new stuff? How much extra work will I be needed to make the previous material usable? Or do I need to make a decision about whether to move forward or stay back? 

Understand that there are also degrees of compatibility. Just because it isn't 100% backwards doesn't mean it's not-compatible.


----------

