# What does Backward compatibility mean to you?



## Vael (Aug 29, 2022)

I've limited the scope of the poll to players, because I assume as DMs, we hack and alter the system already as necessary, so I'd guess ease of translation is most important to DMs.

But I do want to know, what does it mean to have ... not a new edition to you? How close do they need to be to be compatible?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Vael said:


> I've limited the scope of the poll to players, because I assume as DMs, we hack and alter the system already as necessary, so I'd guess ease of translation is most important to DMs.
> 
> But I do want to know, what does it mean to have ... not a new edition to you? How close do they need to be to be compatible?



This really seems like it should be multiple choice, since all the provided statements are true...?


----------



## Vael (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> This really seems like it should be multiple choice, since all the provided statements are true...?



That's why I said "matters *most*", because all of the above feels like a cop out answer.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Vael said:


> That's why I said "matters *most*", because all of the above feels like a cop out answer.



OK, I went with "Other" then.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

If I can't use a subclass from Xanathar's, a feat from Tasha's, a race from MotM, and a class from the new PHB for one character, then the revision has failed its "backwards compatibility" claims.

The only exception would be if any of those rules pieces were reprinted in a new form; I'm OK with the revision acting as functional errata.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> If I can't use a subclass from Xanathar's, a feat from Tasha's, a race from MotM, and a class from the new PHB for one character, then the revision has failed its "backwards compatibility" claims.
> 
> The only exception would be if any of those rules pieces were reprinted in a new form; I'm OK with the revision acting as functional errata.



I thinknitnwould be extremely doable to reprint every single Subclass from 5E, revised to fit any new Class rules.


----------



## Ringtail (Aug 29, 2022)

"Backwards Compatible" to me implies that both games can be used together with no (or minimal) issues or adaptations. Already I feel that One D&D does not fit that mark, as the way you generate stats and racial features means that 5e and One D&D characters at this moment are fundamentally different.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Ringtail said:


> "Backwards Compatible" to me implies that both games can be used together with no (or minimal) issues or adaptations. Already I feel that One D&D does not fit that mark, as the way you generate stats and racial features means that 5e and One D&D characters at this moment are fundamentally different.



The procedure differs, the functional math remains intact.


----------



## Ringtail (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The procedure differs, the functional math remains intact.



Characters from both might be equally powered, but I don't believe you'll be able to mix features from both books together without work. IMO, that's not backwards compatible. "Backwards adaptable?" Maybe. We'll have to see what future playtest releases hold.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

I picked other because backwards compatibility means to me what it means in computer programs where the term comes from.  The new edition can use the old stuff with absolutely no work on the part of the user.  In the case of 5.5 that means that the power levels have to be roughly equal, or I will have to modify the older stuff which removes backwards compatibility.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Ringtail said:


> Characters from both might be equally powered, but I don't believe you'll be able to mix features from both books together without work. IMO, that's not backwards compatible. "Backwards adaptable?" Maybe. We'll have to see what future playtest releases hold.



It's not just your opinion, but also definitionally not backwards compatible.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I picked other because backwards compatibility means to me what it means in computer programs where the term comes from.  The new edition can use the old stuff with absolutely no work on the part of the user.  In the case of 5.5 that means that the power levels have to be roughly equal, or I will have to modify the older stuff which removes backwards compatibility.



Well, by that standard, backwards compatibility is impossible by definition, for an analog system like a TTRPG. In terms of the usual definition of the term, pwr Wikipedia, "Backward compatibility (sometimes known as backwards compatibility) is a property of an operating system, product, or technology that allows for interoperability with an older legacy system, or with input designed for such a system". By that definition, backwards compatibility is clearly in play since the design is centered on facilitating interoperability and interfacing with older material.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

Ringtail said:


> "Backwards Compatible" to me implies that both games can be used together with no (or minimal) issues or adaptations. Already I feel that One D&D does not fit that mark, as the way you generate stats and racial features means that 5e and One D&D characters at this moment are fundamentally different.



I literally see no incompatibility between using a 2014 race and a 2024 background.  The only real problem is using a 2024 race with a 2014 background, and they should simply solve that by having the stat adjustment be its own step, unconnected to either race OR background.


----------



## aco175 (Aug 29, 2022)

I feel that I can ,make a PC using the old, crappy 5.0 PHB and still be able to play with the cool kids who ran out and bought the new, shiny.  I should be able to pick feats and spells from the new edition PHB and not fell like I'm a second class PC.  

I do not expect that I can cherry pick cool things from the new edition PHB and cherry pick the old PHB to make crazy combos and that the spirit should be to stick with one.  

I do see most all the people buying the new PHB and crossing over with few it any problems and that the Earth will not fall off the stick that keeps it spinning on top of.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

I really _don't_ agree that "all of the above" is a cop-out. All of the above is a perfectly reasonable answer, because all of them are true. I also don't agree with @Maxperson that there has to be NO work involved for it to qualify, but I DO agree that the work involved ought to be minimal. OR easily understood, such as "You can make a 2014 PC OR a 2024 PC and play together but you can't mix-and-match". OR everything has errata that gets whatever needs changing in-line, but is easily understood.

As long as those things are true, it might not be _perfectly_ backwards compatible, but I don't believe in perfection, so it would be _close enough_ to backwards compatible (I agree that backwards adaptable is a more acceptable term, but words are often less than perfect). Close enough for me, at any rate.

As long as I can keep selling all the 5e books that I have in stock at my game store, I'm happy! (I expect it to be worth paring down the old DMG, MM, and to a lesser extent PHB, of course).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I really _don't_ agree that "all of the above" is a cop-out. All of the above is a perfectly reasonable answer, because all of them are true. I also don't agree with @Maxperson that there has to be NO work involved for it to qualify, but I DO agree that the work involved ought to be minimal. OR easily understood, such as "You can make a 2014 PC OR a 2024 PC and play together but you can't mix-and-match". OR everything has errata that gets whatever needs changing in-line, but is easily understood.
> 
> As long as those things are true, it might not be _perfectly_ backwards compatible, but I don't believe in perfection, so it would be _close enough_ to backwards compatible (I agree that backwards adaptable is a more acceptable term, but words are often less than perfect). Close enough for me, at any rate.
> 
> As long as I can keep selling all the 5e books that I have in stock at my game store, I'm happy! (I expect it to be worth paring down the old DMG, MM, and to a lesser extent PHB, of course).



The example they use for what they mean by "Backwards Compatibility" in the playtest FAQ is specifically running Curse of Strahd with just the new Core books, so most of the back catalog should still be viable.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, by that standard, backwards compatibility is impossible by definition, for an analog system like a TTRPG.



Exactly.  They shouldn't be using the term since they can't possibly achieve backwards compatibility.


Parmandur said:


> In terms of the usual definition of the term, pwr Wikipedia, "Backward compatibility (sometimes known as backwards compatibility) is a property of an operating system, product, or technology that allows for interoperability with an older legacy system, or with input designed for such a system". By that definition, backwards compatibility is clearly in play since the design is centered on facilitating interoperability and interfacing with older material.



Right, but that interoperability comes without the user having to do anything, which is a property of backwards compatibility.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  They shouldn't be using the term since they can't possibly achieve backwards compatibility.
> 
> Right, but that interoperability comes without the user having to do anything, which is a property of backwards compatibility.



Well, in this case...the user is the players, the DM is part of the system. As long as the difference is fairly smooth for non-DMs, I would say the metaphor is pretty exact.

But what they mean colloquially is "you can keep using your old books, amd we'll facilitate thst on Beyond." And with Beyond, actual technical backwards compatibility is quite doable.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The example they use for what they mean by "Backwards Compatibility" in the playtest FAQ is specifically running Curse of Strahd with just the new Core books, so most of the back catalog should still be viable.



Just not the important stuff like the feats, classes, subclasses, races, etc.  If you want to run an adventure, you're good!  Anything else? Nope!  

And for the record, I don't believe them with the adventure claim, either.  Not because I think that they are lying, but I think they are mistaken.  The modifications we already see will necessitate monster changes, which means having my having to modify the pre 2024 adventures to take those changes into account.  If they don't make these changes, then the increased power level for the PCs(all get bonus feats and better racial abilities) and loss of power for the monsters(no crits) will mean that I have to modify the number and/or power level of the monsters in those adventures. No matter which way they go, I will have to work to change those adventures, removing backwards compatibility.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Just not the important stuff like the feats, classes, subclasses, races, etc.  If you want to run an adventure, you're good!  Anything else? Nope!
> 
> And for the record, I don't believe them with the adventure claim, either.  Not because I think that they are lying, but I think they are mistaken.  The modifications we already see will necessitate monster changes, which means having my having to modify the pre 2024 adventures to take those changes into account.  If they don't make these changes, then the increased power level for the PCs(all get bonus feats and better racial abilities) and loss of power for the monsters(no crits) will mean that I have to modify the number and/or power level of the monsters in those adventures. No matter which way they go, I will have to work to change those adventures, removing backwards compatibility.



We're already mixing the old and new with raves and Monsters, and habe for a long while now (Ravenloft, Steixhaven MotM, Spelljammer...)

The Adventures are already pretty loose in the combat challenge department. Designing the MM around mainta8ning the basic Monster math (as they already have done for MotM) should make it rather unproblematic to run, anymore than already needing to adjust for group specifics.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, in this case...the user is the players, the DM is part of the system. As long as the difference is fairly smooth for non-DMs, I would say the metaphor is pretty exact.



Well, no.  The DM is explicitly a player of the game, he's just not a Player.  The program consists of the books, not the DM.  The DM is the primary user of the program(the books), and the Players are minority users of the program(PHB and other PC rules).  If I have to modify the program as a user, backwards compatibility has failed.


Parmandur said:


> But what they mean colloquially is "you can keep using your old books, amd we'll facilitate thst on Beyond." And with Beyond, actual technical backwards compatibility is quite doable.



That automatically fails the backwards compatibility smell test.  Many, if not most players do not use Beyond.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Well, no.  The DM is explicitly a player of the game, he's just not a Player.  The program consists of the books, not the DM.  The DM is the primary user of the program(the books), and the Players are minority users of the program(PHB and other PC rules).  If I have to modify the program as a user, backwards compatibility has failed.
> 
> That automatically fails the backwards compatibility smell test.  Many, if not most players do not use Beyond.



The DM is the "computer," not just a user, in terms of the system. The rules need to be compiled and put into action, and the DM is not simply a user, and the system doesn't work without yhat interpretive matrix.

About 10 million active users on Beyond bow, and they clearly want to grow that. Thing is, if Beyond can manage it, so can any human DM in practice.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The DM is the "computer," not just a user, in terms of the system. The rules need to be compiled and put into action, and the DM is not simply a user, and the system doesn't work without yhat interpretive matrix.
> 
> About 10 million active users on Beyond bow, and they clearly want to grow that. Thing is, if Beyond can manage it, so can any human DM in practice.



The DM is not the computer.  Everyone is using the computer(the rule books). The DM just uses aspects of the computer program to design adventures and such that are not available to the Players.


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2022)

If they stick to the backwards compatibility claim* then I expect to be able to use any 5e adventure and _almost _any 5e supplement with minimal effort on my part - and I expect that effort to be detailed in a revision document available _for download_ from one of their sites (a PDF from D&D Beyond is fine; having to actually visit DDB is not, for reasons I've detailed in other threads).

So if I can run "Curse of Strahd", but have to use a revised stat block for Strahd then that's fine by me, provided they provide the replacement.

By _almost_ any supplement I mean anything except "Volo's Guide to Monsters" and "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes", as those two have been explicitly deprecated. And I have no problem completely switching out the core rulebooks.

* Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have a problem if they end up allowing scope creep to move this closer to a 5.5e edition than has previously been indicated, and thus abandoning backwards compatibility... provided they state that up-front. Just don't claim it and fail to deliver!


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2022)

Speaking as a DM, if I'm having to act as a translator for the supplements between the old and the new, then that fails the backwards compatibility test. I'm not a computer and I'm not part of their system, so don't treat me as such!


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 29, 2022)

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.

I'm kicking off a new D&D campaign this October and it's three years in the making.  Everything's already written, and all of the materials have been acquired and configured to run on Roll20.  So if 2024 rolls around and I can't drop the updated material into my existing 5E Roll20 game, it's not going to be used.  (Not until my next campaign, anyway, which could be 3-5 years.)  It's not personal; it's just an unfeasible amount of work and money for me to change game editions at this point in time.

(I think we'll be fine, for the most part:  _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything _came out just in time for me to incorporate into the campaign, get it added to the Compendium, etc.  It sounds like that, along with _Xanathar's Guide to Everything,_ will cover a large portion of these rules revisions.)


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The DM is not the computer.  Everyone is using the computer(the rule books). The DM just uses aspects of the computer program to design adventures and such that are not available to the Players.



The books are software, the DM is the hardware. At least of we are going to insist on a highly liberal reading of "backwards compatibility," otherwise the metaphor makes no sense.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

delericho said:


> If they stick to the backwards compatibility claim* then I expect to be able to use any 5e adventure and _almost _any 5e supplement with minimal effort on my part - and I expect that effort to be detailed in a revision document available _for download_ from one of their sites (a PDF from D&D Beyond is fine; having to actually visit DDB is not, for reasons I've detailed in other threads).
> 
> So if I can run "Curse of Strahd", but have to use a revised stat block for Strahd then that's fine by me, provided they provide the replacement.
> 
> ...



So far, we've seen that theybare willing to provide sidebars at the relevant juncture thst explain how to make the rulesnwork, like using a SCAG Race.option with a new Background. Adventures are easier, because the old Monster stat blocks work fine, we've been mixing them in practice for years now. The bolded monster entries can be easily keyed to a nee Mosnter Manual, but a few old style Mosnters will work fine in practice.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 29, 2022)

I will be satisfied if the old adventure content in compatible with the new core books and new adventure content is more or less compatible with the old core books. I don't expect slight math tweaks in character generation or monsters to significantly effect bounded accuracy.

I don't mind a little bit of adjustment to convert old characters to new characters. If old PHB characters can play alongside new PHB characters, that's a bonus.

They put out 5e and essentially left it alone for 10 years, come 2024. To me, they've earned the right to shake things up _a little bit_.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The books are software, the DM is the hardware. At least of we are going to insist on a highly liberal reading of "backwards compatibility," otherwise the metaphor makes no sense.



It makes perfect sense.  The system(the rulebooks) have to do all the work for me or they are not backwards compatible.  5e explicitly says that the DM is a player, so he is.  He's using the system just like everyone else is, but he has access to restricted portions that the other players do not.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It makes perfect sense.  The system(the rulebooks) have to do all the work for me or they are not backwards compatible.  5e explicitly says that the DM is a player, so he is.  He's using the system just like everyone else is, but he has access to restricted portions that the other players do not.



The rules are a set of procedures (software), not hardware. The game doesn't run itself, it needs Human hardware.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The rules are a set of procedures (software), not hardware. The game doesn't run itself, it needs Human hardware.



Yes! It's software that must be backwards compatible.  That's where the term came from. Software. The hardware would be Apple and IBM, which are not compatible with one another, but both have versions of Word made for it.  In D&D terms the different hardware are DMs with different playstyles, both using the software(rule books) that need to be backwards compatible.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 29, 2022)

One thing I think we all need to remember here... before the books finally get released in 2024 and whole swathes of people start screaming "THEY SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!  BUT IT ISN'T!  THEY LIED TO US"...

...is that there's whole crapton of people who don't believe everything _in just the 2014 PHB_ is balanced and compatible.  We have people here in this thread saying they want to integrate the 2024 books with no work?  Heh heh... well, we have all manner of people on EN World saying they can't use the Beastmaster, 4 Elements, or Wild Mage _right now_ without having to do work, OR using any number of the adventure path books without re-writing huge chunks of it.

So just remember that in 2 years.  If you are doing any sort of work at this moment to run your games using just the products we have already in our possession... that ain't gonna STOP happening when the 2024 books get released.  You better be prepared for it.  That 4 Element Monk you think sucks eggs right now is going to continue to suck eggs, if not suck even more eggs when compared to the 2024 Monk that gets released.  So yeah, you're going to have to continue to fix it if you really want to use it that badly.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes! It's software that must be backwards compatible.  That's where the term came from. Software. The hardware would be Apple and IBM, which are not compatible with one another, but both have versions of Word made for it.  In D&D terms the different hardware are DMs with different playstyles, both using the software(rule books) that need to be backwards compatible.



So, yea, the DM is the hardware. And they are writing the rules with procedures (software) for using older material, that the DM (hardware) can run to make a seamless experience using older material.


----------



## Blue (Aug 29, 2022)

Backwards compatible means to me that I can continue to use all the old stuff that hasn't been replaced with the new stuff.  It's a lot looser than "compatible" which implies both ways, all the old stuff and all the new stuff can play together, and "fully compatible", which is even a higher degree.

Things will change from the playtest, but even with what they have right now there are a few places that aren't backwards compatible.  Say I wanted to play an wood elf tribesman.  I pick the new Elf race, but want the feature from the old Outlander background so I pick that.  Because ability scores modifiers have been moved, I end up with a character with a +2/+1 anywhere.

But this is a playtest, an errata to the 2014PHB could resolve this.  But we've only seen a bit of the playtest, I expect there to be other issues that come up.

From the little I've seen, this seems like it will be a half-edition shift like 3.0 and 3.5, and while that promised backwards compatibility there were some jagged edges and over 80% of the additional-book content for 3.0 later had it redo and republished as 3.5 content.


----------



## Vael (Aug 29, 2022)

I think using the strict interpretation of DnD as the same as software is inviting disappointment, because while the two may be analogous, DMs aren't strictly the same as a computer.

As for myself, I'll break it down.

As a DM, I'd like to any adventure to be more or less runnable with minimal issues. If an encounter in the adventure calls for using *3 Thugs*, for example, I should be able to use either the 5e or 1DnD Monster Manual and not throw the encounter completely out of whack power level wise. A DC 15 check should be equivalent between editions.

As a PC ... I don't think I should be able to 100% crossover material, but I expect I can play a race from Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse without issue, for example. Other things like racial feats from Xanathars might need some massaging or revision, and spells may also be superceded by the new material.

As a fan of DnD ... I'd like to not force players to rebuy books. So yes, I'd like to have someone with a 5e PHB be able to sit at the same table as a player with the 1DnD PHB.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I really _don't_ agree that "all of the above" is a cop-out. All of the above is a perfectly reasonable answer, because all of them are true. I also don't agree with @Maxperson that there has to be NO work involved for it to qualify, but I DO agree that the work involved ought to be minimal. OR easily understood, such as "You can make a 2014 PC OR a 2024 PC and play together but you can't mix-and-match". OR everything has errata that gets whatever needs changing in-line, but is easily understood.
> 
> As long as those things are true, it might not be _perfectly_ backwards compatible, but I don't believe in perfection, so it would be _close enough_ to backwards compatible (I agree that backwards adaptable is a more acceptable term, but words are often less than perfect). Close enough for me, at any rate.
> 
> As long as I can keep selling all the 5e books that I have in stock at my game store, I'm happy! (I expect it to be worth paring down the old DMG, MM, and to a lesser extent PHB, of course).



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.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The example they use for what they mean by "Backwards Compatibility" in the playtest FAQ is specifically running Curse of Strahd with just the new Core books, so most of the back catalog should still be viable.



Just adventures though, it seems.  Show me backwards compatibility with a rules supplement if you want me to buy backwards compatibility.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It makes perfect sense.  The system(the rulebooks) have to do all the work for me or they are not backwards compatible.  5e explicitly says that the DM is a player, so he is.  He's using the system just like everyone else is, but he has access to restricted portions that the other players do not.



Maybe the DM won't be a player anymore in the new rulebooks.  Just a facilitator for the real players.

Not likely, of course, but the changes they're proposing definitely would require more effort from the GM to convert.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

I doubt 5.5 or 6 or what ever will be... but here is what I would say:

If I walk to a table and can have my character be made using the 2024+ rules, the player next to me be made using the 2014 (without adding or subtracting) phb and a 3rd player has a mix of those...

basically it has to play like essentials and PHB1 and PHB2 from 4e did together.


----------



## Blue (Aug 29, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing I think we all need to remember here... before the books finally get released in 2024 and whole swathes of people start screaming "THEY SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!  BUT IT ISN'T!  THEY LIED TO US"...



Look, if I go and buy new books this year and next assuming they will be compatible because they say "It's 'Just D&D', it's the same edition" and then find out that some of the mechanics are no longer applicable, and others need to be reworked, then yes I will be vocal to say that they lied - *and correct to do so*_*.*_  Because they made a statement and it turned out that they were saying something untrue that decreased the value to me of what I purchased from them.

This isn't something about sayig the 2014 is balanced or complete or anything like this.  It's a statement of direction so we can properly gauge the value to us of the books coming out between now and then.  They are saying it's "Just D&D" and they will keep the full value.  It's understandable, when 5e was anounced 4e sales dried up.  But if it ends up being a case of corporate greediness, and mechanics fromt hese books need to be reworked or just don't fit - then people have a right to yell.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> And for the record, I don't believe them with the adventure claim, either.  Not because I think that they are lying, but I think they are mistaken.  The modifications we already see will necessitate monster changes, which means having my having to modify the pre 2024 adventures to take those changes into account.  If they don't make these changes, then the increased power level for the PCs(all get bonus feats and better racial abilities) and loss of power for the monsters(no crits) will mean that I have to modify the number and/or power level of the monsters in those adventures. No matter which way they go, I will have to work to change those adventures, removing backwards compatibility.



I think that's a bit of a stretch.  The delta of capability between a party having 5 PCs compared to 4 is a lot greater than any of the proposed changes so far, and I don't think anyone is advocating that you have to redo the entire adventure depending on if that 5th person shows up.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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.



Sure, sure. But they use the same system of errata to make rules "corrections" when it's changes that bring certain elements in line with other elements of the game, even if there was nothing technically "wrong" with the old version. What becomes "wrong" is that it is out-of-date or no-longer-jives.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Just adventures though, it seems.  Show me backwards compatibility with a rules supplement if you want me to buy backwards compatibility.



So far, they have provided backwards compatibility for all Race options in a simple sidebar. We'll see what they come up with for Classes, but no doubt there will be something.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I doubt 5.5 or 6 or what ever will be... but here is what I would say:
> 
> If I walk to a table and can have my character be made using the 2024+ rules, the player next to me be made using the 2014 (without adding or subtracting) phb and a 3rd player has a mix of those...
> 
> basically it has to play like essentials and PHB1 and PHB2 from 4e did together.



Seems doable based off of what we have so far. Indeed, with the releases aixe Tasha's we have had that in fact for years.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

Blue said:


> When 5e was announced 4e sales dried up.



That's true of _announcements_.

But there's a weird phenomenon that I have experienced as a Game Store owner what is it... FOUR times now?:

Every time a new edition comes out, the old one suddenly moves again. Not in nearly the numbers it did when IT was the new edition, but in numbers far greater than its own recent sales. It happened when 2e switched to 3e (all the sudden our 2e stock moved after languishing for a few years). It happened when 3.0 switched to 3.5, and when 3.5 switched to 4e (the 3.5 PHB even suddenly went for big money on the aftermarket!) AND YES, even 4e had a big resurgence when 5e came out. I quickly blew through all my store copies, AND all my player's copies (my group of 8 players all had their own books, and they all "gave" them back to me to sell).

It's a weird thing, that until now I've tended to forget would happen, because I don't personally understand it. But then, I've always adopted whatever the NEW HAWT version of the game is, for better or worse. (It makes sense, of course, to play and promote the edition that currently has books in print!)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Seems doable based off of what we have so far. Indeed, with the releases aixe Tasha's we have had that in fact for years.



if nothing changes from current rules and playtest (again they will be making more changes I'm sure) that isn't true. we already have lucky feat being diffrent, you can't play a character with lucky from the 2014 PHB and one with the lucky form the playtest togather.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if nothing changes from current rules and playtest (again they will be making more changes I'm sure) that isn't true. we already have lucky feat being diffrent, you can't play a character with lucky from the 2014 PHB and one with the lucky form the playtest togather.



They can just turn off the Feat variant from the 2014 book while allowing the core options. Feats are not a standard part of the rules.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I think that's a bit of a stretch.  The delta of capability between a party having 5 PCs compared to 4 is a lot greater than any of the proposed changes so far, and I don't think anyone is advocating that you have to redo the entire adventure depending on if that 5th person shows up.




It's interesting that for some people, the entirety of the Adventure can be perfectly playable under the "new" rules, but if a race, subclass, background, or monster in the short chapter in the back of the book does not line-up, then that book is NOT COMPATIBLE and is essentially garbage now!

(Or at least, that's what it often appears like they are suggesting).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's true of _announcements_.
> 
> But there's a weird phenomenon that I have experienced as a Game Store owner what is it... FOUR times now?:
> 
> ...



Fire sale effect.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Fire sale effect.




It happens whether we're blowing the old stuff out or not. (In fact, it's generally a mistake to blow the old stuff out, barring superfluous splat-books).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They can just turn off the Feat variant from the 2014 book while allowing the core options. Feats are not a standard part of the rules.



no, you can't turn off feats, 2024 appears not to be optional.

if a new player buys the 2014 phb from a garage sale or used book store and comes to the table, no one is going to say "That's okay play that character" they are going to say "That's out of date, here is the updated one"


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> It happens whether we're blowing the old stuff out or not. (In fact, it's generally a mistake to blow the old stuff out, barring superfluous splat-books).



Right, bit a lot of people realize that it is the last time they can ever buy it new. FOMO.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no, you can't turn off feats, 2024 appears not to be optional.
> 
> if a new player buys the 2014 phb from a garage sale or used book store and comes to the table, no one is going to say "That's okay play that character" they are going to say "That's out of date, here is the updated one"



In 201r, the Feat rules are options. So they can ignore that section entirely.

We always mixed 3.0 and 3.5 books without the world exploding, and I'm sure more people did.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> It's interesting that for some people, the entirety of the Adventure can be perfectly playable under the "new" rules, but if a race, subclass, background, or monster in the short chapter in the back of the book does not line-up, then that book is NOT COMPATIBLE and is essentially garbage now!



this appears to be a strawman (I hope one made in good faith) nobody is saying that the book is not compatible but some level of the rules are not. 

so far it appears no background will be
no race will be


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Right, bit a lot of people realize that it is the last time they can ever buy it new. FOMO.



Yes. That has got to be the reason. It also explains why my brain doesn't get it - when everyone wants to go one way, I automatically have the urge to go the other way. I have to be coaxed into it. Makes me resistant to FOMO.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In 201r, the Feat rules are options. So they can ignore that section entirely.



if you are ignoreing sections you are not backwards compatible 
(and as of right now it's race, background, and feats... and we know they are considering spells, classes and status effects)


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this appears to be a strawman (I hope one made in good faith) nobody is saying that the book is not compatible but some level of the rules are not.
> 
> so far it appears no background will be
> no race will be



Literally every Race is compatible in the playtest as is, with the wave of a simple sidebar. Old Backgrounds can be fixed by allowing the choice of a Feat. It's really not hard.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you are ignoreing sections you are not backwards compatible
> (and as of right now it's race, background, and feats... and we know they are considering spells, classes and status effects)



It's not really a section of the rules. I've never seen them used in actual play.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I think that's a bit of a stretch.  The delta of capability between a party having 5 PCs compared to 4 is a lot greater than any of the proposed changes so far, and I don't think anyone is advocating that you have to redo the entire adventure depending on if that 5th person shows up.



You do have to modify the encounters, though, if a 5th PC shows up. If you don't, the adventure will be too easy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Literally every Race is compatible in the playtest as is, with the wave of a simple sidebar. Old Backgrounds can be fixed by allowing the choice of a Feat. It's really not hard.



I do not care what you have or have not seen... feats, backgrounds, race   those 3 things already getting changed. Spells, Classes, Subclasses, and Conditions all appear to be up next


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this appears to be a strawman (I hope one made in good faith) nobody is saying that the book is not compatible but some level of the rules are not.
> 
> so far it appears no background will be
> no race will be



Oh, it's in good faith all right! That's why I said that it "appears" to be that way. Because I don't believe that anyone is honestly meaning to suggest that the whole book is ruined. I also really DO find it interesting. It's part of the weakness of typed discussions, I think. Even the smallest bit of hyperbole "sounds" like the biggest part of a person's intent. Take how you nearly took my post, for example, in spite of me taking pains to point out that I didn't mean it strongly.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I do not care what you have or have not seen... feats, backgrounds, race   those 3 things already getting changed. Spells, Classes, Subclasses, and Conditions all appear to be up next



Change is fine. The changes are systemically compatible.

Feats are an option, not part of the rules.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In 201r, the Feat rules are options. So they can ignore that section entirely.



Not while retaining backwards compatibility. The 2014 gives ME the option to engage it or not.  If the new rules are backwards compatible, that option will remain to me.  If they remove it, the option that I have engaged in since I started 5e is gone and I *have* to modify my game in order to use feats.  Either I modify it and put that rule back in place, or I modify it to the new feat system.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> You do have to modify the encounters, though, if a 5th PC shows up. If you don't, the adventure will be too easy.



Sure, and you might have to change some stuff if the party has a twilight cleric, a bladesinger, and a sorcadin, compared to a party with a Four Element monk, a beast master ranger, and a wild magic sorcerer.  

Adventures are designed to be used with a pretty fungible amount of PC power, is my point.  The power delta between 2014 and our early impressions of 2024 barely moves the needle compared to the power deltas that already exist in the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Sure, and you might have to change some stuff if the party has a twilight cleric, a bladesinger, and a sorcadin, compared to a party with a Four Element monk, a beast master ranger, and a wild magic sorcerer.
> 
> Adventures are designed to be used with a pretty fungible amount of PC power, is my point.  The power delta between 2014 and our early impressions of 2024 barely moves the needle compared to the power deltas that already exist in the game.



Yes, but the difference is with why I have to make the changes.  Backwards compatible means that I don't have to make any changes due to the new rules(program).  If I have to make changes due to the 2024 rules, I'm not saying it will be more difficult than say adding a 5th PC, but it will be as a result of the 5.5 not being backwards compatible with 5e.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, but the difference is with why I have to make the changes.  Backwards compatible means that I don't have to make any changes due to the new rules(program).  If I have to make changes due to the 2024 rules, I'm not saying it will be more difficult than say adding a 5th PC, but it will be as a result of the 5.5 not being backwards compatible with 5e.



OK, that's fair.  My pushback would be that modifying the adventure based on overall party power is a choice, not a necessity.  The adventure will run fine without modifications, it's simply not optimal.  (Just as any current adventure is often not optimal based on other party composition factors.)

If my app runs 20% slower on Windows 11 than it does on Windows 10, that doesn't mean that it isn't backwards compatible.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Oh, it's in good faith all right! That's why I said that it "appears" to be that way.



okay fair


FitzTheRuke said:


> Because I don't believe that anyone is honestly meaning to suggest that the whole book is ruined.



all I am saying is that I can take my 2e "tales of the comet" and use it in 4e... that doesn't mean I think 4e is backwards compatible with 2e


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Change is fine. The changes are systemically compatible.
> 
> Feats are an option, not part of the rules.



the more they change the less compatible they are


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Not while retaining backwards compatibility. The 2014 gives ME the option to engage it or not.  If the new rules are backwards compatible, that option will remain to me.  If they remove it, the option that I have engaged in since I started 5e is gone and I *have* to modify my game in order to use feats.  Either I modify it and put that rule back in place, or I modify it to the new feat system.



exactly


----------



## niklinna (Aug 29, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if nothing changes from current rules and playtest (again they will be making more changes I'm sure) that isn't true. we already have lucky feat being diffrent, you can't play a character with lucky from the 2014 PHB and one with the lucky form the playtest togather.



Why not? Each player could refer to the corresponding book.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Sure, and you might have to change some stuff if the party has a twilight cleric, a bladesinger, and a sorcadin, compared to a party with a Four Element monk, a beast master ranger, and a wild magic sorcerer.



this is the argument I use in other threads in how the game isn't balanced.  If you throw 2 fighters and 2 rogues into an adventure, then take the same adventure and throw a swordbard, twilight cleric, bladesinger wizard, and hexblade through the same adventure and it SHOULD be equally difficult


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Why not? Each player could refer to the corresponding book.



how many DMs/Tables do you expect to do this?

I mean by that logic I can make a 4e warlord, you can make a Guardian Jedi, and my buddy can make a 2e specialist cleric of MYstra... and we can find a 5e table to sit at


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 29, 2022)

Blue said:


> Look, if I go and buy new books this year and next assuming they will be compatible because they say "It's 'Just D&D', it's the same edition" and then find out that some of the mechanics are no longer applicable, and others need to be reworked, then yes I will be vocal to say that they lied - *and correct to do so*_*.*_  Because they made a statement and it turned out that they were saying something untrue that decreased the value to me of what I purchased from them.
> 
> This isn't something about sayig the 2014 is balanced or complete or anything like this.  It's a statement of direction so we can properly gauge the value to us of the books coming out between now and then.  They are saying it's "Just D&D" and they will keep the full value.  It's understandable, when 5e was anounced 4e sales dried up.  But if it ends up being a case of corporate greediness, and mechanics fromt hese books need to be reworked or just don't fit - then people have a right to yell.



But how reasonable are you going to be?

Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed.  If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all.  There could very well be countless times in all these books where creatures will suffer from things that cause them to be slowed down, but none of them will impart the Slowed condition (even though they now probably should.)  Are you going to say therefore that none of these books are backwards compatible?  Or are you going to be reasonable and yes, have to put in a _slight_ amount of work and make the decision to say these creatures all will suffer the Slowed condition so that it matches the game play of 2024 (if that's indeed what you feel should happen)?

And this is just one rule change.  There are going to be hundreds of others.  Tiny rules that will be different in 2024 that will not be able to be retroactively reflected in any of the books up to this point because maybe just terms have changed.  Now if we are lucky... these rules differences will be so minor that it will take _almost no effort_ to just toss off a quick DM call when using an older book to align it to the new paradigm.  But by definition that is going to be _some_ work.  A very small amount yes... but we've already seen people here stating they don't want to do ANY work.  And if that's the case... then I think you might as well just accept you're being lied to right now.


----------



## Blue (Aug 29, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But how reasonable are you going to be?
> 
> Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed.  If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all.



That's fine.  I could pick up a monster manual and if not a single creature in it affected the exhaustion track that doesn't mean it's not compatible.  It means it just doesn't interact with it.

But if, for example, I get a bunch of feats without levels, and when 2024 comes out there's no errata to add levels to them, then I've got a rule that needs some rework.  And if t




DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is just one rule change.  There are going to be hundreds of others.  Tiny rules that will be different in 2024 that will not be able to be retroactively reflected in any of the books up to this point because maybe just terms have changed.  Now if we are lucky... these rules differences will be so minor that it will take _almost no effort_ to just toss off a quick DM call when using an older book to align it to the new paradigm.  But by definition that is going to be _some_ work.  A very small amount yes... but we've already seen people here stating they don't want to do ANY work.  And if that's the case... then I think you might as well just accepting you're being lied to right now.



That's my exact point.  I like the rule changes so far.  But if you are going to, for example, retool the primary player facing rules by redoing character creation and advancement plus a bunch of changes in combat, casting and the like, then we have a precedent for it with the D&D 3ed to 3.5.  They eventually republished most of the 3.0 content updated for 3.5.  So say that upfront.

On the other hand, if it's like 4e Essentials where it's new rules but all of the old rules are still in play unchanged, that's the same edition.

Basically, there seems to be this "it's one edition" AND "there will be thousands of tiny changes".  I say those two concepts are pretty exclusive.  If there really is a huge slew of tiny changes that means I need to discard or rework a lot of the mechanics in the new books, then they have a lot less value for me.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Case in point... there looks to be a new condition being added to the game-- Slowed.  If that sticks around in the 2024 game, we will have every single book prior to those 2024 books not referencing that condition at all.  There could very well be countless times in all these books where creatures will suffer from things that cause them to be slowed down, but none of them will impart the Slowed condition (even though they now probably should.)  Are you going to say therefore that none of these books are backwards compatible?  Or are you going to be reasonable and yes, have to put in a _slight_ amount of work and make the decision to say these creatures all will suffer the Slowed condition so that it matches the game play of 2024 (if that's indeed what you feel should happen)?



Anybody who says that a new condition would somehow make the games incompatible is being ridiculous.  You can apply Slowed to any monster from the 2014 MM; likewise, you can use any 2014 MM monster against a 2024 party with no mechanical issues.  Having 2 different mechanical expressions of an in-fiction concept is NOT an incompatibility.  

The issue of incompatibility would arise if they REMOVE conditions, that would be a much bigger problem for any compatibility claims.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 29, 2022)

Blue said:


> They eventually republished most of the 3.0 content updated for 3.5.  So say that upfront.
> 
> On the other hand, if it's like 4e Essentials where it's new rules but all of the old rules are still in play unchanged, that's the same edition.



Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly now, then I may have misunderstood you before.

So it's not that there will be changes or won't be changes within the base game or whatever on their own that would be an issue... but that if the changes are substantial enough that WotC feels like they want/need to update all their previous book and sell them to us _again_... that's where you're looking for them to tell us that now up front (like how they reprinted 3.0 splatbooks like _Sword and Fist_ and turned them into 3.5 _Complete Warrior_ for example.)

If that's the kind of thing you mean, then yeah, I understand.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Anybody who says that a new condition would somehow make the games incompatible is being ridiculous.



You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't _someone_ out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So it's not that there will be changes or won't be changes within the base game or whatever on their own... but that if the changes are substantial enough that WotC feels like they want/need to update all their previous book and sell them to us _again_... that's where you're looking for them to tell us that now up front (like how they reprinted splatbooks like _Sword and Fist_ and turned them into _Complete Warrior_ for example.)



As a total aside, I don't think the problem with the 3.5 change was the core books, really.  The problem was them immediately publishing _Complete Warrior_ and revising 90% of the material from _Sword and Fist_, thus immediately telegraphing that the company viewed existing 3.0 splat as problematic.  

If _Complete Warrior_ had been 100% new PrCs, thus indicating _Sword and Fist_ was still fine to use, I think people would have been a lot less sour over the change.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't _someone_ out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.



Well, any long-term D&D community is comprised of about 90% salt.


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> So far, we've seen that theybare willing to provide sidebars at the relevant juncture thst explain how to make the rulesnwork, like using a SCAG Race.option with a new Background. Adventures are easier, because the old Monster stat blocks work fine, we've been mixing them in practice for years now. The bolded monster entries can be easily keyed to a nee Mosnter Manual, but a few old style Mosnters will work fine in practice.



3.5e was going to be backwards compatible, until it wasn't. So I'll reserve judgement on what we're getting in 2024 until we actually get it.

The one thing I'll note is that I'm not particularly bothered whether we end up with a 5.01e, 5.5e, or 6e. I've skipped most of the recent WotC books anyway, so if we lose backwards compatibility then for me that won't be a great loss. That will vary for others, of course. And I also like the core experience of 5e, so if they stick close to that, that's good too.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> OK, that's fair.  My pushback would be that modifying the adventure based on overall party power is a choice, not a necessity.  The adventure will run fine without modifications, it's simply not optimal.  (Just as any current adventure is often not optimal based on other party composition factors.)
> 
> If my app runs 20% slower on Windows 11 than it does on Windows 10, that doesn't mean that it isn't backwards compatible.



Speed is an issue with backwards compatibility. If you were upgrading a videogame system that promised backwards compatibility with your current systems games, and a game ran 20% slower, it would be virtually unplayable, especially in a game like Halo.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

By the way @Parmandur, I looked at the wiki you got your backwards compatibility definition from and found this in the programs section.

"A data format is said to be backward compatible with its predecessor if every message or file that is valid under the old format is still valid, retaining its meaning, under the new format."

Every old file(rule) is valid, retaining its meaning.  If I have to change portions of 5e because of 5.5 rules, it fails the backwards compatibility test, and that's from the place you provided.


----------



## MockingBird (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Not while retaining backwards compatibility. The 2014 gives ME the option to engage it or not.  If the new rules are backwards compatible, that option will remain to me.  If they remove it, the option that I have engaged in since I started 5e is gone and I *have* to modify my game in order to use feats.  Either I modify it and put that rule back in place, or I modify it to the new feat system.



This right here. I only recently picked up Tashas so keep that in mind. Once I saw feats were in fact not optional I knew immediately that this update wasn't going to be as compatible as I was hoping it to be. Like @Maxperson says, if the option doesn't remain then they took it away and it doesn't jive with the 2014 book. We shall see how the playtest goes but I dunno man.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Sure, sure. But they use the same system of errata to make rules "corrections" when it's changes that bring certain elements in line with other elements of the game, even if there was nothing technically "wrong" with the old version. What becomes "wrong" is that it is out-of-date or no-longer-jives.



That's right.  Being "out of date" (whatever that means) is not the same thing as an error, which is what "errata" should be used for.  If you're going to change the rules, call it what it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's true of _announcements_.
> 
> But there's a weird phenomenon that I have experienced as a Game Store owner what is it... FOUR times now?:
> 
> ...



If you have a financial stake, sure.  But otherwise, it only makes sense if its your group's preference to switch.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's right.  Being "out of date" (whatever that means) is not the same thing as an error, which is what "errata" should be used for.  If you're going to change the rules, call it what it is.



Yeah, but that's not really how language works. It morphs. Errata may start with a root meaning "error" (and fixing them) but then it goes on to mean "corrections" which itself goes on to mean "any changes to a print job, for any reason". 

It's not _technically correct_ to call "updates" errata, you are absolutely right, but it IS how the word is used, and not just for WotC or D&D. You might not like it (I feel ya!) but it's how it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 30, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't _someone_ out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.



I have plenty of other reasons to decry Wizards of the Coast, if I'm so inclined.  

For myself, it does feel like a new edition to me, and I will treat it as such. Even so, none of the changes proposed or speculated on as of yet are worth re-buying any material to me.  We'll have to see if they actually change anything in a worthwhile fashion going forward.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 30, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> As a total aside, I don't think the problem with the 3.5 change was the core books, really.  The problem was them immediately publishing _Complete Warrior_ and revising 90% of the material from _Sword and Fist_, thus immediately telegraphing that the company viewed existing 3.0 splat as problematic.
> 
> If _Complete Warrior_ had been 100% new PrCs, thus indicating _Sword and Fist_ was still fine to use, I think people would have been a lot less sour over the change.



That's a good point.  What you really want to see is the first supplement after the 6e corebooks.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, but that's not really how language works. It morphs. Errata may start with a root meaning "error" (and fixing them) but then it goes on to mean "corrections" which itself goes on to mean "any changes to a print job, for any reason".
> 
> It's not _technically correct_ to call "updates" errata, you are absolutely right, but it IS how the word is used, and not just for WotC or D&D. You might not like it (I feel ya!) but it's how it is.



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.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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 (Aug 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 30, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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 (Aug 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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 (Aug 30, 2022)

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.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 30, 2022)

To me:

Backwards compatibility is not full compatability.

It does not mean mix and match.

It means I can play a Game Boy cartridge on a GBC or GBA; I can play a GBA cart on my Nintendo DS (2004 model); I can play my DS cart on my Nintendo 3DS (any model); I can boot up a Wii disk on a Wii U and still play it. 

It does not mean my 3DS will recognise the DS Wi-Fi Connection and let me play Pokémon Black and White on 3DS servers. It does not mean that I have perpetual access to the browser-based Pokémon Dream World, despite that being a selling point of the DSi Pokémon titles. 

Likewise, One D&D should be able to “boot up” a 5e module, even perhaps run with PCs from the 2014 PHB. But I wouldn’t expect it to cleanly allow mixing and matching of player options, nor would I expect it to easily balance 2014-2019 PCs with 2020-2023 PCs with 2024-onward PCs. 

I would expect every 2014 PHB character archetype, if not in the 2024 PHB, would have a very close equivalent option and an errata/update guide to show how to rekit the your character.

And I’m still not sure if I should expect Tasha’s onwards (incl errata for Xanathar’s in the Rules Expansion) to be fully compatible. I expect them to be a heck of a lot compatible, at least, than the 2014 and 2017 versions.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 30, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> 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"?



That is, assuming that you play with sticky note errata on your physical books, or play with D&D Beyond.

I would not expect errata documents for the 2014 books to be inclusive of the 2024 rules. I would expect upon August 2024, the 2014 rules will become Legacy Content in Dndbeyond and will be retired from errata, while Tasha’s and Xanathar’s and Mordenkainen Presents, at least, will get errata.

I would also expect that campaign settings will continue to get errata, as it doesn’t make sense to try to replace Ravnica or Eberron or Critical Role books wholescale, so much as include the errata in any reprintings. They don’t want to reinvent the wheel where you have to buy whole new books of 90% the same content.

The Core Rules are special because everything builds on them, and we can probably see this new DMG as a sort of DMG II akin to in past editions - they want to rewrite it to provide a lot better guidance to new DMs. So the core rules may double down on a lot of legacy content, but I wouldn’t expect to see Loxodons or Vedalken again until we visit another M:tG world that features them. At which point they will be published with the new stats, and Ravnica will likely be errata’d at that time, and that time only.


----------



## MockingBird (Aug 30, 2022)

I think I'm wanting full compatibility but realizing I'm probably only gonna get backwards compatibility. I think I'm going to be okay still don't know haha


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I think I'm wanting full compatibility but realizing I'm probably only gonna get backwards compatibility. I think I'm going to be okay still don't know haha



Hang in there. There’s lot of great content on DM’s Guild and that’s not going away after the shift. If you have to ignore 2024 onward, you’ve probably got a lifetime’s worth of quality game materials published in the last 10 years. 

But if you’re willing to keep moving forward with the changes, be prepared for a lot of errata stickies


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 6, 2022)

"Backward compatibility" is when you don't have faith in your changes to actually stand on their own merits as important, necessary, and worthy, and you want to convince existing players that your changes _won't actually be significant_, and therefore they won't be upset by them.

NO edition has an expiration date...


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 6, 2022)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> "Backward compatibility" is when you don't have faith in your changes to actually stand on their own merits as important, necessary, and worthy, and you want to convince existing players that your changes _won't actually be significant_, and therefore they won't be upset by them.
> 
> NO edition has an expiration date...



Or they just want people to be able to play the vast and deep offerings from the DM’s Guild, Adventurer’s League, and WotC published adventures when you build a character and party using 2024 rules?

Like, do you REALLY want them to redo Elemental Evil, Rage of Demons, Theros, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc all over again and have to wait until 2030 before we get to Dark Sun and Mystara and Birthright and Council of Wyrms, etc?

This lets them not have to reinvent the wheel with core types of adventures. You want a jungle horror adventure with undead and dinos? Play Tomb of Annihilation. You want an urban romp? Dragon Heist. You want a classic dungeon crawl? Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Dragons? Tyranny of Dragons. Demons or Underdark rules? Out of the Abyss. 

They don’t need to revisit those outside of some errata. They can give us brand new adventures going forward and keep the old materials as accessible!


----------



## glass (Sep 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's right.  Being "out of date" (whatever that means) is not the same thing as an error, which is what "errata" should be used for.  If you're going to change the rules, call it what it is.






Micah Sweet said:


> 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.



If what they printed originally is incompatible with what they want to do now, then it is not unreasonable for them to consider that a mistake (closing off design space or whatever), even if it could not reasonably have been known to be one at the time. Regardless of whether your or I agree with them.



Parmandur said:


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



The reason that 4e's errata seemed so large is that they reprinted in full any power, feat, or other elements that was receiving errata. Which I would say is very good practice. You were right about its "hit[ting] them in the butt", in that it created a false impression (and of course gave edition warriors yet another thing to seize on and bash 4e with - not that they needed an excuse).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 7, 2022)

glass said:


> If what they printed originally is incompatible with what they want to do now, then it is not unreasonable for them to consider that a mistake (closing off design space or whatever), even if it could not reasonably have been known to be one at the time. Regardless of whether your or I agree with them.
> 
> 
> The reason that 4e's errata seemed so large is that they reprinted in full any power, feat, or other elements that was receiving errata. WHich I would say is very good practice. You were right about its "hit[ting] them in the butt", in that it created a false impression (and of course gave edition warriors yet another thing to seize on and bash 4e with - not that they needed an excuse).



Just call it an update.  That way you're not implying that your previous design work (which is likely favored by some segment of your fanbase) was a mistake.  To make changes and just assume everything's an improvement is basically what George Lucas did when he re-issued the Star Wars films.


----------



## glass (Sep 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Just call it an update. That way you're not implying that your previous design work (which is likely favored by some segment of your fanbase) was a mistake.



Of course it does. Whatever you call it, the fact that you are changing it implies that.



Micah Sweet said:


> To make changes and just assume everything's an improvement is basically what George Lucas did when he re-issued the Star Wars films.



Presumably Lucas thought all the changes he made were improvements, otherwise why would he have made them? And let's be fair, the vast majority of them were - there are only a handful that most of use disagree with (even if we disagree _quite strongly_).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 7, 2022)

glass said:


> Of course it does. Whatever you call it, the fact that you are changing it implies that.
> 
> 
> Presumably Lucas thought all the changes he made were improvements, otherwise why would he have made them? And let's be fair, the vast majority of them were - there are only a handful that most of use disagree with (even if we disagree _quite strongly_).



You can make changes without implying that the previous version was an error.  Small changes, mostly.  For bigger ones, you're better off replacing the whole thing.


----------



## glass (Sep 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> You can make changes without implying that the previous version was an error.



I don't believe you can. And I just told you, in the post that you quoted, that I do not believe you can. Do you really think that contradicting me, without any backup or argument, is going to be in any way persuasive? _EDIT: In some circumstances you can. To circle back to the _Star Wars_ example, it was not an error not to use 2000s effects technology that did not exist in the 1970s. But changing the Han & Greedo scene absolutely indicated the Lucas felt the original version was an error. You may disagree (I certainly do), but has no bearing on the connotations of his making the change._


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 8, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Like, do you REALLY want them to redo Elemental Evil, Rage of Demons, Theros, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc all over again and have to wait until 2030 before we get to Dark Sun and Mystara and Birthright and Council of Wyrms, etc?



How about an _original_ setting?  Do they really not have more NEW setting ideas of their own to try?  Just redoing old settings?  Not saying any setting redux is BAD... I'm just asking.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 8, 2022)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> How about an _original_ setting?  Do they really not have more NEW setting ideas of their own to try?  Just redoing old settings?  Not saying any setting redux is BAD... I'm just asking.



Critical Role // Exandria // Wildemount is technically an original setting.

As are the Magic: the Gathering settings (especially the ones that seem to have been as much created for D&D as they were for the card game, such as Strixhaven // Arcavios).

Hasbro is a toy and game company, and creating GOOD new IP is very, very challenging and costly. They’re going to want to utilise any NEW IP to the furthest extent they can. That means that new settings will almost certainly be one of the following:

1. A collaboration with a popular third-party D&D-promoting channel (Acquisitions, Incorporated; Critical Role; STRANGER THINGS; Rick & Morty).

2. Created for both D&D and another brand owned by WotC and/or Hasbro (M:tG settings; Power Rangers; potentially G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, and Transformers).

3. Is plug and play with an existing D&D setting (non-FR regions of Faerûn; the Feywild; the Radiant Citadel and its connected worlds IN the Ethereal Plane).


----------



## Horwath (Sep 8, 2022)

backward compatibility = excuse for making a halfarsed job of rebalancing the game


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 8, 2022)

Horwath said:


> backward compatibility = excuse for making a halfarsed job of rebalancing the game



The game is already balanced, so yes that is one of the main reasons they are maintaining the mathematical systems and structure.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 8, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Hasbro is a toy and game company, and creating GOOD new IP is very, very challenging and costly. They’re going to want to utilise any NEW IP to the furthest extent they can. That means that new settings will almost certainly be one of the following:



And yet TSR produced all these _original _settings that WotC is going back to the well for.  So MANY settings that TSR originally choked the sales of them all because customers could only buy and play limited numbers of them at any one time.


----------



## TheSword (Sep 8, 2022)

So while I do think being backward compatible shouldn’t require conversion work (otherwise every edition is backwards compatible - which they clearly aren’t). However I don’t expect every feat and subclass to work for new PCs.

If an old PC can participate alongside a new PC then that works for me.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 8, 2022)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> And yet TSR produced all these _original _settings that WotC is going back to the well for.  So MANY settings that TSR originally choked the sales of them all because customers could only buy and play limited numbers of them at any one time.



TSR also faced insolvency and was bought out by WotC (on the strength of Magic: the Gathering monies; this was before Pokémon Cards were a thing in the West). One could say the glut of competing _Original _settings (many of which overlapped in tone or niche or purpose) was a big part of why 2E failed financially in the mid-90s. 

A being could also suggest that 3E and 3.5E collapse over a glut of content that only built on the Core Rulebooks and thus often stepped on each others toes, were incompatible with each other, or were so compatible with each other that they BROKE the game. Some beings would call that a feature, not a bug. But financially, it was an impetus for a 4E reboot.

In 4E, we had 4 Settings: PoLand/Nentir Vale/_Nerath_/CoN/World Axis/Core Assumed Generalized Setting; _The Forgotten Realms_ (retrofitted into World Axis and crossed over with Abeir in order to attempt a reboot and incorporate parallel concepts to _Nerath_ and _Eberron_); _Eberron_ (also retrofitted into World Axis, though one could say World Axis was to begin with an elaboration on _Eberron_'s 3 Dragon Forebears); and _Dark Sun_ (also retrofitted to 4E World Axis concepts like the Shadowfell replacing the Grey, Dragonborn and Goliaths replacing Dray and Half-Giants respectively, Templars changing from being a type of evil Arcane Cleric to being a Warlock pact, and the inclusion of Eladrin and Tieflings much like FR and Eberron did). _Dragonlance_ was mentioned briefly, and showed up too, albeit only in one issue of _Dragon _magazine and only in the very last year of the Edition. _Planescape_ and _Spelljammer_ and _Ravenloft_ were all in the game to some extent but were merged into and modified to form aspects of the World Axis cosmology (mechanical elements of their core gameplay ideas did show up eventually in _Dragon_, such as _Planescape_ faction-based Heroic Themes in August 2012's _Dragon _#414). _Gamma World_ came back in a big way for its 7th Edition, and could almost be called a 5th setting if it wasn't it's own ruleset that was just mutually compatible and built on the framework of 4E. And _Greyhawk_, of course, was eliminated from the 4E so that _Nerath _could mine the best bits of it for its own assumed setting and leave the parts the devs didn't like on the chopping block (also has the benefit of not needing the endorsement of the Gygaxes since the best bits are all classic adventure modules that WotC has remade time and time again). Same thing with _Mystara _(Isle of Dread showed up in the Feywild in 4E). And finally, shudders,_ Oriental Adventures _showed up featuring Kara-Tur in _Dragon #404_ and _Dungeon #195_, October 2011. Mind you, I LOVE me some Asian-inspired fantasy stories and concepts; I'm shuddering at the continued use of that racist term by WotC in 20-sparking-11. And as with _Greyhawk_, _Mystara_, _Ravenloft_, _Spelljammer_, and _Planescape_, this was set within one of the BIG FOUR settings instead of its own world, just a different corner of Faerûn (the oft-considered problematic and MAYBE FR-canon, maybe not _Al-Qadim_ setting showed up similarly, albeit limited to character options ONLY, within February 2012's _Player's Option: Heroes of the Elemental Chaos_). _

Acquisitions, Incorporated _is sometimes considered its own micro-setting, running on the 4E engine since 2008 and appearing in May 2010's _Player's Strategy Guide _for illustrative purposes before getting its own sourcebook for 5E in 2019. In 4E, Acq., Inc. appeared however as part of and set within the Nentir Vale of _Nerath_, while in 5E they're suddenly in the _Forgotten Realms_ (eventually revealed that they've got multiversal offices in planes as far afield as _Ravnica_, so it's sort of a cross-setting plug-and-play like _Planescape,_ _Spelljammer_, _Ravenloft_, _Feywild, Radiant Citadel_, etc). 

One could say then, that 4E took the opposite extreme from 2E and 3E - it was attempting to be very slow and steady and methodical about what settings were added to the game, and what they brought that could only appear in that setting's verse, versus what could be incorprated instead into the generalized kitchen sinks of _Nerath _or _The Forgotten Realms _(or all of the above, as seen with the modifications made to all of their returning settings). 

5E started out similarly slow and methodical for its first 4 years, focusing ONLY on _The_ _Forgotten Realms_, though acknowledging the other core worlds of _Greyhawk_, _Dragonlance_, _Eberron_, and even _Nerath_ to an extent. But since 2018, 5E has been regularly churning out at least one new or returning setting every year. This is apparently based on customer data: we're drowning down the new settings like dwarves and elves playing tankard games at the local watering hole. 

The big difference here is that outside of _Forgotten Realms_, these settings are one-and-done. Yes, we had _Van Richten's Guide_ _to Ravenloft _4 years after _Curse of Strahd _(and half a year after _Curse of Strahd Revamped_). But _Curse of Strahd _was a module and _Ravenloft _is a special setting that functions as an extention of the Shadowfell and thus was incorprated at the time in 2016 into the ongoing _Forgotten Realms-_based _Adventurer's League_ modules set around the Moonsea. It was only in 2020 and onwards that _Ravenloft _got its own setting guide and eventually, it's own AL modules that are unlinked to FR (much like _Eberron_'s AL is). So in 5E, we now are getting a bunch of settings, but there's no official glut of products. WotC doesn't need to officially support these settings other than release a book and open it up to the DM's Guild. Yes, the DM's Guild products have the same issue of oft-mutual-incompatibility that 2E and 3E official products had. But none of these are "official" (though AL admin adventures and supplements and the old DM's Guild Adept program products were "semi-official"). So there isn't a GLUT of setting materials to self-compete. WotC doesn't have to maintain a line of _Eberron_ materials, because Keith Baker is doing that for them. It's actually surprising that WotC agreed to publish a second _Critical Role _book, but because Matt Mercer and team did most of the dev work, and because these are essentially like _Ravenloft _in reverse - a Setting Guide and an Adventure Module - it's not really that much off of their back. Besides, MOST of these setting books are now dedicating at least a third of the page count to an adventure. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually got a Keith Baker + WotC official _Eberron _adventure module, but otherwise, it's really left there for the DM's Guild and Adventurer's League as a sandbox to play in as you will.

It's NOT the same situation as what sank TSR, by a long shot. There's a reason _Greyhawk_ wasn't unlocked for DM's Guild in Spring 2019 with _Ghosts of Saltmarsh_, and a reason why we haven't seen _Nerath _outside of a sample pantheon in the 2014 DMG. Kitchensink High Fantasy is the sandbox of the _Forgotten Realms. _We'll see about _Dragonlance_; I think the idea is to really emphasize the different magic rules in _Shadows of the Dragon Queen _and also mass combat via _Warriors of Krynn_. Those two concepts, depending on how all-in they go, could set it as far apart from _FR _as _Eberron _is. But they're ONLY doing _Dragonlance _now, 8 years in, because rushing it and taking a half-sparked approach could have diluted the brand identity of _FR. _

That's why I kinda doubt we'll see _Greyhawk _in full - it's too kitchensink and lacks real-world synergy with an large established audience like _Dominaria _might have given its return in the next _M:tG _set. WE MIGHT see it as some folks have said, in 2024 as a special anniversary celebration commemorating the history of the game. I'd actually expect it more so in March 2025 - the 50th Anniversary of _Supplement I: Greyhawk_. Or they might (my hope) reprint the 40th anniversary OD&D box set with Supplements I-IV instead, and then just open _Greyhawk_ to the Guild to play with fully as a thank you for the last 50 years. I DOUBT we'll get a specialized player's guide, but if anything for One D&D we might get a Gazatteer of the areas immediately around Castle Greyhawk as well as a who's-who of major Greyhawk characters (Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otto, Rary, Tenser, Leomund, Nystul, Drawmij, Otiluke, Bucknard, Robilar, Vecna, Tasha/Iggwilv, and Iuz; maybe also the iconic 3E charactersters like Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, Regdar, Jozan, Hennet, and Nebin). Actually, come to think of it, a Circle of Eight + Castle Greyhawk adventure module might be the way to go for an official _Greyhawk _book. 

My point really is that WotC are FULLY aware of what happened to TSR before they bought them, and are equally aware of the limitations of the cautious, few settings approach they took throughout 4E and the first half-decade of 5E. They'll figure it out. 

When it comes to backwards compatibility, that's the thing: they'll need errata for any character lineages but really shouldn't need a new _Ravnica_ book or something. Loxodons, Vedalken, and Leonin appear in other M:tG settings; they could easily republish them in an upcoming One D&D M:tG setting book that includes them. Or they could release a pan-planar M:tG book akin to the little gazatteer I have here "Planes of the Multiverse" - publish any and all M:tG specific peoples in that, and then the setting books can focus on adventure modules and plane-specific mechanics. In fact, the glaring absense of Loxodons, Leonin, Owlins, etc from_ MP:MotM _suggests to me that such a book is in-coming eventually, probably waiting for the final changes to how lineages work in One D&D before republishing them.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 8, 2022)

TheSword said:


> So while I do think being backward compatible shouldn’t require conversion work (otherwise every edition is backwards compatible - which they clearly aren’t). However I don’t expect every feat and subclass to work for new PCs.
> 
> If an old PC can participate alongside a new PC then that works for me.




Yeah, I think the trouble with Max's view of "absolutely no concessions whatsoever" (or at least it seems like that's what is being demanded of the term "backwards compatible" is... that is not a New Version that is Backwards Compatible. That's just new books for the old version.

There HAS to be some changes involved for it to be a New Thing (that therefore gets to be Backwards Compatible). They just have to work well enough with the old stuff that you can use both. There will have to be _some_ constrictions on how you do it. (Most likely "be careful how you mix them").

I do think the main thing they mean (beyond "You can still play the old adventures") will be "an old character and a new one can play at the same table". Fusions will likely be possible, but be fraught with troublesome overlaps. I think that's inevitable.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, I think the trouble with Max's view of "absolutely no concessions whatsoever" (or at least it seems like that's what is being demanded of the term "backwards compatible" is... that is not a New Version that is Backwards Compatible. That's just new books for the old version.
> 
> There HAS to be some changes involved for it to be a New Thing (that therefore gets to be Backwards Compatible). They just have to work well enough with the old stuff that you can use both. There will have to be _some_ constrictions on how you do it. (Most likely "be careful how you mix them").
> 
> I do think the main thing they mean (beyond "You can still play the old adventures") will be "an old character and a new one can play at the same table". Fusions will likely be possible, but be fraught with troublesome overlaps. I think that's inevitable.



So, like 3.5E and 4Essentials, then.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 10, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2022)

@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 (Sep 10, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> @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 (Sep 10, 2022)

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


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 10, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


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



That isn't what I just said.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 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.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 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.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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.



No you don't. You can if you want to, but it's not required and its still compatible.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 11, 2022)

Windows 10 is "backward compatible". It took much technical work to get certain aps to work, but eventually was doable.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Windows 10 is "backward compatible". It took much technical work to get certain aps to work, but eventually was doable.



If you did that work, then it wasn't backwards compatible.  If the new version of Windows did the work for you, then it is backwards compatible.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 11, 2022)

The issue of backwards compatibility is addressed in the FAQ on the playtest material on D&D Beyond. 


> *What does backward compatible mean?*
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.



That the 2014 PHB is not compatible, only the supplements and the adventures. Now personally I call the character generation ,material compatible enough for my purposes. At least with respect to the material we have seen so far.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If you did that work, then it wasn't backwards compatible.  If the new version of Windows did the work for you, then it is backwards compatible.




So, nothing to say about my post comparong human and variant human before?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So, nothing to say about my post comparong human and variant human before?



There's a reason that I've never seen a normal human played.  And why the Vhuman was considered by power gamers to be a top race.  Note that in the playtest the normal human was removed from the game. It was too weak in comparison.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There's a reason that I've never seen a normal human played.  And why the Vhuman was considered by power gamers to be a top race.  Note that in the playtest the normal human was removed from the game. It was too weak in comparison.




That is a fair assessment. My point still stands. The power differences of 1 feat are already in the 2014 rule set. So while the character of 2024 would be a bit more powerful, it is no bigger difference than 2 characters straight out of the 2014 book.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There's a reason that I've never seen a normal human played.  And why the Vhuman was considered by power gamers to be a top race.  Note that in the playtest the normal human was removed from the game. It was too weak in comparison.



I've never seen a Variant Human played, amd the standard Human is more common in actual play. Mathematically, they are equivalent, three ASI/Feat worth. W
Partly because they haven't published many Feats at all, WotC has kept the balance on them pretty tight. 

And yeah, frankly the luck of rolls can make a bigger difference than a Feat, which I hadn't considered.

Compatible ≠ identical, just that options work together in the same mathematical system. If I wrote up a 4E character and brought it to a tE table...it would have to be completely rewritten, because nothing past ability scores are the same, really. That's worlds away from "I dunno, maybe take a free Feat to achieve parity...or don't, whatever."


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Mathematically, they are equivalent, three ASI/Feat worth.



Then why don't normal humans make nearly as many lists as Vhuman?









						D&D 5e: The Best and Worst Playable Races, Ranked
					

With plenty of races to pick from in 5e, Dungeons & Dragons players may find it hard to decide which are worth taking to the table.




					screenrant.com
				











						Dungeons & Dragons: 13 Best Playable Races Ranked By Racial Benefits
					

There are a plethora of race options in Dungeons & Dragons. These are the best benefits to particular races, ranked.




					www.thegamer.com
				











						DnD 5E Optimized Race and Lineage Guide - Tabletop Builds
					

Tasha's Customizing Your Origin significantly changes how races are evaluated. In this guide, we rate each race and lineage for optimization using these rules.




					tabletopbuilds.com
				











						DnD 5e - The Human Handbook | RPGBOT
					

Character optimization guide to DnD 5e's Human race




					rpgbot.net
				






Parmandur said:


> Partly because they haven't published many Feats at all, WotC has kept the balance on them pretty tight.



There are a number of fantastic feats that just dwarf a few +1s that will usually fall into secondary stats that don't mean much.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Then why don't normal humans make nearly as many lists as Vhuman?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't put any stock in that sort of list or analysis, frankly. Overvaluing variant Human is one of the big reasons why.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I don't put any stock in that sort of list or analysis, frankly. Overvaluing variant Human is one of the big reasons why.



It's +1s to stats that are incredibly overvalued.  +1 more to hit is literally going to be 1 more hit every 20 attacks, which even for a PC with extra attack is going to on average be 1 time every 3-4 fights, assuming fights average 3 rounds.  +1 more to AC is going to matter a bit more, depending on how many attacks, but the vast majority of the time it's just not going to matter at all.  Nobody is going to notice the extra hits or misses.  Or extra successful saves(which are even less frequent than the extra hit every 3-4 fights).  

And that's if you're lucky enough turn an odd stat into an even one.  A lot of the time you're just turning a 12 into a 13 or something.

On the other hand, feats will be used a whole lot more, having a large impact on the game, and actually be seen to be working.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's +1s to stats that are incredibly overvalued.  +1 more to hit is literally going to be 1 more hit every 20 attacks, which even for a PC with extra attack is going to on average be 1 time every 3-4 fights, assuming fights average 3 rounds.  +1 more to AC is going to matter a bit more, depending on how many attacks, but the vast majority of the time it's just not going to matter at all.  Nobody is going to notice the extra hits or misses.  Or extra successful saves(which are even less frequent than the extra hit every 3-4 fights).
> 
> And that's if you're lucky enough turn an odd stat into an even one.  A lot of the time you're just turning a 12 into a 13 or something.
> 
> On the other hand, feats will be used a whole lot more, having a large impact on the game, and actually be seen to be working.



They really are about the same in terms of real impact. To be perfectly honest, I think the Variant Human gets a bit of the short stick for the things it uses to replace the third ASI.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They really are about the same in terms of real impact. To be perfectly honest, I think the Variant Human gets a bit of the short stick for the things it uses to replace the third ASI.



Do you really think that 1 extra hit every 3-4 fights(6-8 at 1st to 4th level) is worth the same as +5 to initiative every fight, immunity to surprise while conscious, and prevention of advantage by unseen creatures?  

That it's worth the ability to move and dash and then get +5 to damage if you moved at least 10 feet in a straight line?  

That it's equal to advantage on perception and investigation checks to find secret doors, advantage to all saves vs traps, and the ability to travel quickly without perception penalty?  

That a +1 is worth the ability to completely ignore fire resistance and do increased fire damage?  

That it's worth more than being lucky?

Hell, that +1 isn't even worth the ability to accurately recall everything your PC has seen and heard for the last month.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If you did that work, then it wasn't backwards compatible.  If the new version of Windows did the work for you, then it is backwards compatible.



It was more like I was able to get a hold of obscure tools, that with some juggling, was able to get the app to work.

Windows 10 did not do this by itself. But Microsoft (if I recall correctly) provided the obscure tools obscurely.

The breakthru was a tool that could create a virtual XP operating system inside the Windows 10 operating system. Then I could move the early app into the virtual environment, and from there move it to the normal Windows environment and delete the virtual XP. Luckily the app was able to work in the XP operating system.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It was more like I was able to get a hold of obscure tools, that with some juggling, was able to get the app to work.



Then that wasn't backwards compatible.


Yaarel said:


> Windows 10 did not do this by itself. But Microsoft (if I recall correctly) provided the obscure tools obscurely.



Still not backwards compatible.  


Yaarel said:


> The breakthru was a tool that could create a virtual XP operating system inside the Windows 10 operating system. Then I could move the early app into the virtual environment, and from there move it to the normal Windows environment and delete the virtual XP. Luckily the app was able to work in the XP operating system.



If it was backwards compatible, you would not have needed to find a tool or move anything.  The new Windows version would have just done everything for you and all you would have needed to do was to run the app.  Backwards compatibility is a goal of a lot of programs that fail to achieve it.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Do you really think that 1 extra hit every 3-4 fights(6-8 at 1st to 4th level) is worth the same as +5 to initiative every fight, immunity to surprise while conscious, and prevention of advantage by unseen creatures?
> 
> That it's worth the ability to move and dash and then get +5 to damage if you moved at least 10 feet in a straight line?
> 
> ...



I mean...yes, that's what I just said.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean...yes, that's what I just said.



Then I'm not sure what to say.  The +1 is clearly not worth those things in any sense of the word worth.  An extra few points of damage a fight and an extra hit ever 3-6 fights is just not even close to what those feats bring to the table.  The math just doesn't back it up.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Then I'm not sure what to say.  The +1 is clearly not worth those things in any sense of the word worth.  An extra few points of damage a fight and an extra hit ever 3-6 fights is just not even close to what those feats bring to the table.  The math just doesn't back it up.



All of those Feat effects are nice, amd as I said they are at least equivalent. But all Feat abilities are more situational and specific than bumping again attribute, which is always handy, repeatedly.  Beng 5% better in one's weak spots is very nice. I've rolled all odd numbers for abilities and played a standard Human: getting +6 to attributes was much nicer than a Feat, and came up literally all the time.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Then I'm not sure what to say.  The +1 is clearly not worth those things in any sense of the word worth.  An extra few points of damage a fight and an extra hit ever 3-6 fights is just not even close to what those feats bring to the table.  The math just doesn't back it up.



But the math only cares about damage, attack bonus, hit points, and AC, unfortunately. That's WotC's idea of "combat balance".  From what I understand, they've basically told us that themselves.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> But the math only cares about damage, attack bonus, hit points, and AC, unfortunately. That's WotC's idea of "combat balance".  From what I understand, they've basically told us that themselves.



And, lo and behold...it has worked. Thatwhy they are keeping with the same essential system after 10 years and for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> And, lo and behold...it has worked. Thatwhy they are keeping with the same essential system after 10 years and for the foreseeable future.



How many people have to complain about something before you can reasonably say a significant percentage of users don't think it's worked?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> All of those Feat effects are nice, amd as I said they are at least equivalent. But all Feat abilities are more situational and specific than bumping again attribute, which is always handy, repeatedly.  Beng 5% better in one's weak spots is very nice. I've rolled all odd numbers for abilities and played a standard Human: getting +6 to attributes was much nicer than a Feat, and came up literally all the time.



Yes.  Corner cases like rolling 6 odds numbers will bump a normal human up and if I did that, or even 5 stats, I'd consider playing one.  Short of that, though, a feat is better. 

 Also, feats are not quite as situational as you make them out to be.  They are used quite often, and are more often useful than the +1.  When a use for a feat comes up, it is almost always successful or has great impact on the roll.  The +1 is rarely useful as it only helps 1 time out of 20 on average.  That means that you need to encounter 20x more situations that rely on say con or int, than the feat does in order to equal the feat.  That virtually never happens. I also haven't even mentioned the feats that give you +1 to a stat.  Those modify that odd stat and give you the +1 AND a feat that is more useful than the +1 it gave or you got from being normal human.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> How many people have to complain about something before you can reasonably say a significant percentage of users don't think it's worked?



I dunno, about a million, two million? Which is way more than even signed up for the DndNext Subreddit or any other discussion forum. The proof is in the play, and in sales.

I work in customer support, and know from the numbers that even 98% satisfaction can mean a lot of grouchy noises. Bit that noise is not necessarily representative of any broad disasfaction.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Corner cases like rolling 6 odds numbers will bump a normal human up and if I did that, or even 5 stats, I'd consider playing one.  Short of that, though, a feat is better.
> 
> Also, feats are not quite as situational as you make them out to be.  They are used quite often, and are more often useful than the +1.  When a use for a feat comes up, it is almost always successful or has great impact on the roll.  The +1 is rarely useful as it only helps 1 time out of 20 on average.  That means that you need to encounter 20x more situations that rely on say con or int, than the feat does in order to equal the feat.  That virtually never happens. I also haven't even mentioned the feats that give you +1 to a stat.  Those modify that odd stat and give you the +1 AND a feat that is more useful than the +1 it gave or you got from being normal human.



The + 1 Feats are half Feats, they give an ability that is only worth half an ASI.

I have never seen any reason to believe that the balance is off: that's why more people choose ASIs.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> But the math only cares about damage, attack bonus, hit points, and AC, unfortunately. That's WotC's idea of "combat balance".  From what I understand, they've basically told us that themselves.



That's not relevant.  Feats are useful in and out of combat and hitting one more time out of 20 swings isn't as good as the Luck feat, Great Weapon Master, Alert, etc.  The game exists outside of combat, so the players have to weigh combat things AND out of combat things to see which is better.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The + 1 Feats are half Feats, they give an ability that is only worth half an ASI.



No.  They give an ability that's supposedly only worth half an ASI.  WotC is as good at balancing feats as they are at CR.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  They give an ability that's supposedly only worth half an ASI.  WotC is as good at balancing feats as they are at CR.



CR was an impossible ask from the beginning, and their balance there is actually better when you realize that the players are, by statistical design, the House...and the House always wins in the long run. But it has to feel swingy to keep the gamble exciting.

But with Feats I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the balance is anything other than tight.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I dunno, about a million, two million? Which is way more than even signed up for the DndNext Subreddit or any other discussion forum. The proof is in the play, and in sales.
> 
> I work in customer support, and know from the numbers that even 98% satisfaction can mean a lot of grouchy noises. Bit that noise is not necessarily representative of any broad disasfaction.



By that metric, I'm not even sure that any complaints about 5e are valid.  Is that why you seem to be in favor of everything WotC does?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> CR was an impossible ask from the beginning, and their balance there is actually better when you realize that the players are, by statistical design, the House...and the House always wins in the long run. But it has to feel swingy to keep the gamble exciting.
> 
> But with Feats I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the balance is anything other than tight.



Then why are they removing DM-side crits, which explicitly makes combat less swingy?


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Then that wasn't backwards compatible.
> 
> Still not backwards compatible.
> 
> If it was backwards compatible, you would not have needed to find a tool or move anything.  The new Windows version would have just done everything for you and all you would have needed to do was to run the app.  Backwards compatibility is a goal of a lot of programs that fail to achieve it.



The app did eventually work "as is". The problem was getting it into the new operating system.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The app did eventually work "as is". The problem was getting it into the new operating system.



"Eventually worked after going through a lot of effort" =/= backwards compatible.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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.




How about: 1D&D will allow for emulation of previous 5e characters and material with slight adjustments made for compatibility?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> By that metric, I'm not even sure that any complaints about 5e are valid.  Is that why you seem to be in favor of everything WotC does?



Sure there are valid complaints, for instance I am personally very upset that the Hadozee Race lore made it into print. Notice that they apologized for that nearly immediately, unlike the way they are keeping the same mathematical structure in place after ten years and for the foreseeable future. That shows you where the real swell of customer complaints and dissatisfaction is to be found.

Even the Ranger is overwhelmingly popular and people are satisfied with it (albeit less overwhlmingly than other Classes), according to WotC own numbers. That's one of the main reasons they were so reluctant to do any big changes: ticking off all the satisfied Ranger players was not something that they wanted to do.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> How about: 1D&D will allow for emulation of previous 5e characters and material with slight adjustments made for compatibility?



That would be partially compatible, which is fine if it's truly slight.  The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments.  It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible.  The background feats alone end that idea.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Then why are they removing DM-side crits, which explicitly makes combat less swingy?



Helps the House, and increases DM control over the situation. Probably makes CR a little easier to calculate.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That would be partially compatible, which is fine if it's truly slight.  The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments.  It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible.  The background feats alone end that idea.



5E characters already have Level 1 Feats in 4 published products (Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven, and Spelljammer), plus apparently every other 5E publication in the pipeline. Doesn't mean Theros isn't backwards compatible with the 5E Core from 2014.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> By that metric, I'm not even sure that any complaints about 5e are valid.  Is that why you seem to be in favor of everything WotC does?




No. This is just him belonging to the 98% people who are more happy than grumpy.
He is also one of the 2% that are here because they like the game and like talking online. Now if you look at the balance between those 2% and the unhappy 2% it looks like a 50 - 50 split.

Or maybe the happy side is even more underrepresented online, because they are actually playing the game instead of always complaing. A few peopsle here seem to not play and just complain about the game. So WotC does the right thing ad does not take every complain serious, because in the whole scheme, they are irrelevant.

Currently there are many examples of TV shows, movies and games who were review bombed because a few grumpy  people don't like diversity or evolution or mobile games. Those things still thrive, because people have learnt, that overly negative critic is just a concerted effort of jerks most of the time.

So back to the topic. I guess he just likes what he sees. No fanboy attitude, but just positive. It is no crime to like something new, because you think it is better and to say it in an online forum. It is just not trendy...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The background feats alone end that idea.



No... but it seems to be the hill you wanna die on.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. This is just him belonging to the 98% people who are more happy than grumpy.
> He is also one of the 2% that are here because they like the game and like talking online. Now if you look at the balance between those 2% and the unhappy 2% it looks like a 50 - 50 split.
> 
> Or maybe the happy side is even more underrepresented online, because they are actually playing the game instead of always complaing. A few peopsle here seem to not play and just complain about the game. So WotC does the right thing ad does not take every complain serious, because in the whole scheme, they are irrelevant.
> ...



It seems like WotC doesn't take any complaint seriously unless its about a social issue.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments.  It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible.



5e will have been around for 10 years. That is a long time for a D&D edition. How can there not be some evolution in the game by then?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> 5e will have been around for 10 years. That is a long time for a D&D edition. How can there not be some evolution in the game by then?



Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives.  Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> It seems like WotC doesn't take any complaint seriously unless its about a social issue.



You should probably look up "selection bias". And then ask wotc to have a look into their surveys.

And then ask yourself what they are doing all day asking themselves:

A "How can we screw up 98% of our players, because we secretly hate them?" 

OR

B "How can we make 98% of oir playerbase happy, so we can sell more books and still have the job we love 10 years from now?"


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives.  Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.



My impression is: They feel the ".5" of 3.5 was a mistake, when it forced players to buy new books. For 5e, they want players to still be able to use their old books. At the same time, that doesnt preclude OneD&D from introducing brand new options.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives.  Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.




Most of the people from 3.5 don't work at wotc anymore.
Your mileage might vary, but what I see is still backwards compatible enough and is an evolution in most regards. I am also missing too many parts to make a whole picture of it, so my assessment might change.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You should probably look up "selection bias". And then ask wotc to have a look into their surveys.
> 
> And then ask yourself what they are doing all day asking themselves:
> 
> ...



Again, by that metric, they shouldn't change anything, because everybody they care about seems pretty happy with the 5e we have.  They certainly aren't putting out new core books in response to millions of dissatisfied customers.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> My impression is: They feel the ".5" of 3.5 was a mistake, when it forced players to buy new books. For 5e, they want players to still be able to use their old books. At the same time, that doesnt preclude OneD&D from introducing brand new options.



Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books.  What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, by that metric, they shouldn't change anything, because everybody they care about seems pretty happy with the 5e we have.  They certainly aren't putting out new core books in response to millions of dissatisfied customers.




No. But at some point you need to evolve or everyone else around you evolves and you stay behind.
Also they already tested the waters with background feats and the response probably was overwhelmingly positive...

and they killed the standard human and made feats core. I guess this is what their data says how the game is mainly played.
Also the inspiration change seems to be a reaction to how the game is actually played... I can confirm that for my games. Inspiration as in core 5e does not work.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 5E characters already have Level 1 Feats in 4 published products (Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven, and Spelljammer), plus apparently every other 5E publication in the pipeline. Doesn't mean Theros isn't backwards compatible with the 5E Core from 2014.



No they don't.  They have them for those specific settings.  A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds.  Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds.  At least by default.  The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings.  And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books.  What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.



Remind me where they obsolete the 2014 core books? I dont recall that.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> It seems like WotC doesn't take any complaint seriously unless its about a social issue.



From what I can tell, WotC is a very simple organization. They take complaints seriously when it can impact their bottom line. Simple as that. If complaints about the game system Rose to the level of threatening their bottom line, they would respond (see also, the end of 4E).


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No they don't.  They have them for those specific settings.  A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds.  Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds.  At least by default.  The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings.  And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.



I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No they don't.  They have them for those specific settings.  A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds.  Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds.  At least by default.  The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings.  And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.




Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.

But the designers have given us 5e and it should never change, because in all their wisdom they did everything correctly in 2014...
Sorry, I don't buy that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books.  What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.



That sounds like a good business plan.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.



No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.



That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.



Yes.  I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward.  That's not what I am arguing, though.  I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.  

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.



Yes.  This is an easy fix.  It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility.  If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  This is an easy fix.  It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility.  If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.



To be honest, this seems more like semantics at a certain point. What we've seen already is that they are willing to put in sidebars providing the process to use 2014 options in OneD&D, and as long as they are as simple as that with a laid out process in the final book...that's backwards compatible in any meaningful sense of the term from where I sit.

Using any TTRPG book requires some legwork and adaptation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward.  That's not what I am arguing, though.  I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.
> 
> Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.




I still think your definition is way off the mark. At least you like it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Remind me where they obsolete the 2014 core books? I dont recall that.



As i said,, they were specific about what kind of books are backwards compatible with 2024, and it is not the 2014 core.  The new books are a replacement.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.
> 
> But the designers have given us 5e and it should never change, because in all their wisdom they did everything correctly in 2014...
> Sorry, I don't buy that.



To be frank, given the design intentions I've seen, I'd rather make the changes myself (and I have).  Still, it's interesting to see what their plans are.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> As i said,, they were specific about what kind of books are backwards compatible with 2024, and it is not the 2014 core.  The new books are a replacement.



Again, where did they specify this?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> To be honest, this seems more like semantics at a certain point. What we've seen already is that they are willing to put in sidebars providing the process to use 2014 options in OneD&D



I think those sidebars are for the playtest, since you cannot play the UA without using 2014 rules.  We will see how they handle 5.5 when it is released and not before then.  They might just give some small insert like they did with 3.5 for conversions.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> That sounds like a good business plan.



Like @Maxperson, I would like a little more honesty in their initial sales pitch.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Again, where did they specify this?



By saying the new core is backwards compatible with old adventures and supplements, but not saying its compatible with the old core.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

I suspect, they will have a clearer idea about what 5.5 will look like after they review the survey feedback.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> By saying the new core is backwards compatible with old adventures and supplements, but not saying its compatible with the old core.



Where did they say this?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I still think your definition is way off the mark. At least you like it.



It's not my definition. It's THE definition and I didn't have anything to do with deciding what it was.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Where did they say this?



In their presentation video.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Where did they say this?



On the FAQ for the playtest I posted a quote on it in this and other threads


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think those sidebars are for the playtest, since you cannot play the UA without using 2014 rules.  We will see how they handle 5.5 when it is released and not before then.  They might just give some small insert like they did with 3.5 for conversions.



I don't think they put any word.in there that they are not considering for the final text. They are super earnest about stil lselling old books, in print and on Beyond.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> By saying the new core is backwards compatible with old adventures and supplements, but not saying its compatible with the old core.



They didn't say old Core couldn't be used, though. They se to be designing for.mixing and matching being a working norm.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's not my definition. It's THE definition and I didn't have anything to do with deciding what it was.



In all fairness, it is clear that WotC and many players are using a different, less official but perhaps more widely used definition. If you're irritated about that (believe me I get it) that's ok, but I think you're going to have to accept that you and WotC are not on the same page in this area.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They didn't say old Core couldn't be used, though. They se to be designing for.mixing and matching being a working norm.



Where do you get that impression?  As has been said, people have to use the 2014 rules to use the UA.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> On the FAQ for the playtest I posted a quote on it in this and other threads



So this is what the FAQ on DnDBeyond states:

"
*What does backward compatible mean?*
It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.        

"


I see the design commitment is that DMs can use supplements − like Xanathars and Tashas − with the 5.5 core books.

At the same time, these also work with the 5.0 core books.

Presumably, 5.0 and 5.5 can both work at the same table, even if it requires 5.0 getting a free feat or 5.5 using 5.0 backgrounds instead.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Where do you get that impression?  As has been said, people have to use the 2014 rules to use the UA.



Yes, and that's largely because the framework will remain the same. This test specifies how to use 2014 Race options, and I see no reason that won't make it into the PHB. So someone who really wants to play a Half-Elf from the 2014 Core still can, and per the rules explicitly.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> So this is what the FAQ on DnDBeyond states:
> 
> "
> *What does backward compatible mean?*
> ...



5e core works with supplements.  6e core works with supplements.  That doesn't necessarily mean that 5e core works with 6e core, and they don't claim it's intended to, not without some work at least (other than the necessity of the playtest).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, and that's largely because the framework will remain the same. This test specifies how to use 2014 Race options, and I see no reason that won't make it into the PHB. So someone who really wants to play a Half-Elf from the 2014 Core still can, and per the rules explicitly.



Maybe, but I'm with @Maxperson on that disappearing upon release of 6e.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but I'm with @Maxperson on that disappearing upon release of 6e.



I dont think the 5.5 Players Handbook will mention the 5.0 half-elf.

But I do think, one can build a 5.0 half-elf and with minimal adjustments like a free feat, play alongside the 5.5 human-elf.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but I'm with @Maxperson on that disappearing upon release of 6e.



It doesn't make sense that it would: they want people to use D&D Bryond more and more, and they don't want anyone to nit be able to use their material. 

That's the real test of backwards compatibility: will Beyond allow painless mixing of material?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I dont think the 5.5 Players Handbook will mention the 5.0 half-elf.
> 
> But I do think, one can build a 5.0 half-elf and with minimal adjustments like a free feat, play alongside the 5.5 human-elf.



I will note that the text un the sidebar (and I will note that in the past, UA is often verbatim what gets printed I'm the end) mentions Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse as the options one might want (which is suggestive of what they plan to keep selling in 2024 fowards), but the rule allows any 2014 PHB compatible Rave option to be used with the new Backgrounds with no fuss.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It doesn't make sense that it would: they want people to use D&D Bryond more and more, and they don't want anyone to nit be able to use their material.
> 
> That's the real test of backwards compatibility: will Beyond allow painless mixing of material?



It didn't painlessly mix Volo's and Mordenkainen's with MMotM, so I don't see that it would with the 6e core.  I'm sure you will still be able to access the 5e core if you do now, but you'll have to do the work updating and modifying yourself.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> It didn't painlessly mix Volo's and Mordenkainen's with MMotM, so I don't see that it would with the 6e core.  I'm sure you will still be able to access the 5e core if you do now, but you'll have to do the work updating and modifying yourself.



People who purchased Volo's and Mordenkainen's still have access to those stat blocks, which is entirely my point.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I will note that the text un the sidebar (and I will note that in the past, UA is often verbatim what gets printed I'm the end) mentions Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse as the options one might want (which is suggestive of what they plan to keep selling in 2024 fowards)forwards, but the rule allows anyn20q4 PHB compatible Rave option to be used with the new Backgrounds with no fuss.



I have no doubt that Tasha's and MMotM were the supplements they had in mind for their backwards compatible explanation.  Other books may require a bit more work.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I have no doubt that Tasha's and MMotM were the supplements they had in mind for their backwards compatible explanation.  Other books may require a bit more work.



All 5E Races share the same balance principles, so no, not really.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

It occurs to me, the 5.5 DMs Guide might be the best place to mention how to convert 5.0 into 5.5.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I dont think the 5.5 Players Handbook will mention the 5.0 half-elf.
> 
> But I do think, one can build a 5.0 half-elf and with minimal adjustments like a free feat, play alongside the 5.5 human-elf.



We'll see.  I've been burned by WotC on promises not being kept too often for me to trust that it will end up that way.  If it does, I will be pleasantly suprised.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> We'll see.  I've been burned by WotC on promises not being kept too often for me to trust that it will end up that way.  If it does, I will be pleasantly suprised.



I agree it is a "we’ll see". The survey feedback will probably determine the outcome.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 12, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I see the design commitment is that DMs can use supplements − like Xanathars and Tashas − with the 5.5 core books.
> 
> At the same time, these also work with the 5.0 core books.
> 
> Presumably, 5.0 and 5.5 can both work at the same table, even if it requires 5.0 getting a free feat or 5.5 using 5.0 backgrounds instead.



I think that the degree to which 5.0 core material works with 5.5 will depend to a degree on how fussy a table is on intra party balance.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 12, 2022)

While I don't expect there will be a fully detailed compatibility list, this is what I suspect.

PHB/DMG/MM: Will be replaced by the 1D&D refresh
SCAG: Will be replaced shortly. At this point, there is a half-dozen subclasses and one subrace (ghostwise) that hasn't seen updating. The few options that haven't been redone (Long death monk, arcana domain, battlerager, and oath of the crown) could all be added to a Faerun book or even be part of a compilation book (like Many Things?)
Volos and Tome of Foes: Already replaced.
Xanathar: I wager this book will see some of its popular options reprinted eventually with updates ala MotM did for the above. I think it will give them a chance to clean up a few, remove some (goodbye samurai and knight) and upgrade the ones which need it (such as giving sorcerer bonus spells). They will also do some work on the racial feats I wager. 
Tasha's: We're going to get an errata document giving the feats levels and maybe some minor things. 
MotM: This is already a 1D&D books masquerading as a 5e book. 
Ravnica, Theros: I wouldn't be surprised if a new MTG book comes out that touches on the broader setting and allows them to grab-bag updates and new material without a singular focus on one plane. A Planeswalker's Guide or somesuch. That way, they can update the Guilds of Ravnica to having proper background feats and update the few MTG exclusive races to the new standard. I don't expect it will be a high-priority item though.
Eberron: They are going to need a new pass at warforged (compared to autognome and glitchling), kalashtar, and most importantly the dragonmarked houses. My guess is we will see an Eberron module with a small compendium in the back to provide updated rules for these options. 
Spelljammer: No changes beyond the new errata.
Ravenloft: No major changes, beyond errata and probably adding back alignments to monster stat blocks.
Dragonlance: No changes. Designed with 1D&D in mind.
Acquisitions Incorporated: Probably not getting a reprint, redo, or update. A handful of PC options will need to be done by DMs who are interested in doing it.
Wildmonte: I don't think this book needs much errata. I guess a few subraces might need updates, but I wager everything else is good unless they want to tone down dunamancy subclasses. That said, I can't see an avenue for them to do it, so maybe Mercer does it himself 3pp at some point. 
Adventures and APs: The modules themselves work 90% of the time, with the older modules needing a touch more work than the newer due to monster statblock design changes. The ones produced before 2019 might need a few touch ups, but they seem the kind of work a DM who understands the game can do. As to supplmemental rules included in various modules:
EE: Genasi and elemental magic have already seen reprints. 
Cos: The single background was redone for VGR anyway, and since backgrounds are designed ala-carte anyway, I don't think they will care to update any book solely on old background design. That is true of other modules (ToA, GoS, BGIA) which primarily introduced a background or background modification as the main PC facing rules update. WotC will probably look at Haunted One, Anthropologist, Fisher, or Faceless and say "design a background using the 1D&D rules that best emulates what you want from old background, and then pick a feat". 
SKT: The rune rules are getting revised in the new Giants book anyway.
WBTW: The fairy and haregon already were reprinted, and see CoS above on backgrounds
Essentials Kit: I fully expect a new version of this after 1D&D releases to replace the current one. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Starter is out as well, as the 2022 one is firmly rooted in the 2014 races and classes.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 12, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Eberron: They are going to need a new pass at warforged (compared to autognome and glitchling), kalashtar, and most importantly the dragonmarked houses. My guess is we will see an Eberron module with a small compendium in the back to provide updated rules for these options.



Given that the vast majority of Race options in 5E that aren't in the new PHB and MotM are Eberron specific (Dragomarks make up like 2/3 of remaining options), I think a Dragonlance style Eberron Adventure set outside Korvaire with new mechanics would make a lot of.sense for Eberron's 20th anniversary...in 2024.

Almost all the rest could be handled in a Magic the Gathering book, in fact just leaving the AI Race untouched...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 12, 2022)

Can't. Resist. the typo....


Parmandur said:


> Almost all the rest could be handled in a Magic the Gathering book, in fact juat leaving the AI Rave untouched...



But would the music played at an AI Rave be electronic?




OK!   OK! .... I'll see myself out.......


----------



## Nefermandias (Sep 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The example they use for what they mean by "Backwards Compatibility" in the playtest FAQ is specifically running Curse of Strahd with just the new Core books, so most of the back catalog should still be viable.



If we are only talking about modules, I'd argue that most Basic, 1e and 2e AD&D modules are "compatible" with 5e.

I know by personal experience that any DM should be able to crack open Into the Unknown or The Night Below and run it in 5e without having to modify anything.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 13, 2022)

Nefermandias said:


> If we are only talking about modules, I'd argue that most Basic, 1e and 2e AD&D modules are "compatible" with 5e.
> 
> I know by personal experience that any DM should be able to crack open Into the Unknown or The Night Below and run it in 5e without having to modify anything.



True enough, I agree. But I would predict that every bolded Monster reference in a 5EModule will be keyed to an entry I'm the new MM, for example,.


----------

