They have said that 1DnD material will be backwards compatible with 5e adventures. My group has been playtesting with printed 5e adventures and nothing has needed to be changed. It is unlikely even the monsters will be very different in the end. We can look at MoM to see how they'll probably appear.
They have said they will provide ways to convert older subclasses into the new classes when needed. The UA documents themselves say how to do it when playtesting -
When playtesting the new version of a Class, you can use a Subclass from an older source, such as the 2014 Player’s Handbook or Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. If the older Subclass offers features at levels that are different from the Subclass levels in the Class, follow the older Subclass’s level progression after the Class lets you gain the Subclass.
In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy.
I don't think this is really going to be as hard as some people fear. I would personally be fine starting all over. I've done it since 1st edition. But I understand why some people might be wary of that. I think everyone can rest easy knowing this is the least amount of change from one (full) edition to the next ever. And this time they are actually trying to make most of it work with newer sourcebooks.
Give an explicit list of what will be kept compatible, and what won't.
This is easier said than done, as they could have a mechanic that makes something incompatible, and then they might change that mechanic and it might alter what is incompatible and what isn't. In short, the answer to this question is likely not fully set, and thusly, a clear answer to it cannot easily be given. However, I do agree with most of the rest of what you said. In particular, having a guide on how to combine aspects from 5e and 1DD and would make using them together a lot easier.
On a less related note, the definition of "backwards-compatible" is somewhat subjective, since it means different things to different people. This, and a combined poor explanation by the devs on what they might when they used this phrase has led people to make up what they think backwards compatibility means. Then, when the definition they made for themselves is inaccurate, they get upset. So, in short, we have a combination of poor explanations by WotC and people leaping to conclusions to blame for all the discussions and complaints about this part of the next edition of the game.
The thing is, they've already said everything will be compatible bar the core rules. They just dropped a 30 second mention in an hour plus long video that isn't well publicised. If they just said it bolder, it would reassure a lot of people. That said, my concern is the definition of backwards compatible - plug 'n' play v bodging. That is very subjective and I agree with your assessment if how that could be a minefield. It's also what I see as being the problem with making a statement - they want to say plug 'n' play, but that's very constraining so they don't want to raise expectations in case they abandon it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The thing is, they've already said everything will be compatible bar the core rules. They just dropped a 30 second mention in an hour plus long video that isn't well publicised. If they just said it bolder, it would reassure a lot of people. That said, my concern is the definition of backwards compatible - plug 'n' play v bodging. That is very subjective and I agree with your assessment if how that could be a minefield. It's also what I see as being the problem with making a statement - they want to say plug 'n' play, but that's very constraining so they don't want to raise expectations in case they abandon it.
Yeah, they certainly should have made their intentions about compatibility more clear. I am glad that we can agree that backwards compatibility is hard to define. Personally, I think something is backwards-compatible if it can be used in conjunction with the previous parts of the game, even if you have to do some work to make those those things usable together. Though I know a lot of people would disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The thing is, they've already said everything will be compatible bar the core rules. They just dropped a 30 second mention in an hour plus long video that isn't well publicised. If they just said it bolder, it would reassure a lot of people. That said, my concern is the definition of backwards compatible - plug 'n' play v bodging. That is very subjective and I agree with your assessment if how that could be a minefield. It's also what I see as being the problem with making a statement - they want to say plug 'n' play, but that's very constraining so they don't want to raise expectations in case they abandon it.
Yeah, they certainly should have made their intentions about compatibility more clear. I am glad that we can agree that backwards compatibility is hard to define. Personally, I think something is backwards-compatible if it can be used in conjunction with the previous parts of the game, even if you have to do some work to make those those things usable together. Though I know a lot of people would disagree.
I agree with you. If I can run an adventure and just need to use the new version of the monsters in it, or if I can make a new Cleric with an old subclass just by moving the levels for the subclass features, then I consider that pretty good. The only way the game could be 100% backwards compatible is if nothing at all changes. And I really don't want that.
I have to say I zany fault them for being a little vague about exactly what backwards compatible will mean. They don’t want to put out something now, then have a really good idea in a year, but not be able to implement it because it will go against what they said. Plans can change. What they mean to do today and what they end up doing today n 2024 probably won’t be the same thing, but as long as the end result is a good game, that’s what matters more, imo, than if it’s backward compatible.
After see the released material for Clerics I was thinking that "Close Combat Cleric Style" are dead.
They create Holy Order class feature and the Protector Order, but even if you choose these, without expend resourses, cast a cantrip is safer and deals more damage than strike with an weapon. I Think that range attacks cantrips for clerics must be nerfed or they must create a cantrip for close combat style for divine casters... something like green flame blade or Shillelagh. Otherwise, choose the protector order, have a full plate armor and shoot Sacred Flame at distance is more advantageous tham a great sword strike for example.
This scenary only changes when the cleric consume slots of magic for smite magics.
Where are you getting that cantrips do more damage than weapons?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They have said that 1DnD material will be backwards compatible with 5e adventures. My group has been playtesting with printed 5e adventures and nothing has needed to be changed. It is unlikely even the monsters will be very different in the end. We can look at MoM to see how they'll probably appear.
They have said they will provide ways to convert older subclasses into the new classes when needed. The UA documents themselves say how to do it when playtesting -
When playtesting the new version of a Class,
you can use a Subclass from an older source,
such as the 2014 Player’s Handbook or Tasha’s
Cauldron of Everything. If the older Subclass
offers features at levels that are different from
the Subclass levels in the Class, follow the older
Subclass’s level progression after the Class lets
you gain the Subclass.
In some cases, you might find an older
Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in
the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the
new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that
discrepancy.
I don't think this is really going to be as hard as some people fear. I would personally be fine starting all over. I've done it since 1st edition. But I understand why some people might be wary of that. I think everyone can rest easy knowing this is the least amount of change from one (full) edition to the next ever. And this time they are actually trying to make most of it work with newer sourcebooks.
The thing is, they've already said everything will be compatible bar the core rules. They just dropped a 30 second mention in an hour plus long video that isn't well publicised. If they just said it bolder, it would reassure a lot of people. That said, my concern is the definition of backwards compatible - plug 'n' play v bodging. That is very subjective and I agree with your assessment if how that could be a minefield. It's also what I see as being the problem with making a statement - they want to say plug 'n' play, but that's very constraining so they don't want to raise expectations in case they abandon it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, they certainly should have made their intentions about compatibility more clear. I am glad that we can agree that backwards compatibility is hard to define. Personally, I think something is backwards-compatible if it can be used in conjunction with the previous parts of the game, even if you have to do some work to make those those things usable together. Though I know a lot of people would disagree.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I agree with you. If I can run an adventure and just need to use the new version of the monsters in it, or if I can make a new Cleric with an old subclass just by moving the levels for the subclass features, then I consider that pretty good. The only way the game could be 100% backwards compatible is if nothing at all changes. And I really don't want that.
I have to say I zany fault them for being a little vague about exactly what backwards compatible will mean. They don’t want to put out something now, then have a really good idea in a year, but not be able to implement it because it will go against what they said. Plans can change. What they mean to do today and what they end up doing today n 2024 probably won’t be the same thing, but as long as the end result is a good game, that’s what matters more, imo, than if it’s backward compatible.
After see the released material for Clerics I was thinking that "Close Combat Cleric Style" are dead.
They create Holy Order class feature and the Protector Order, but even if you choose these, without expend resourses, cast a cantrip is safer and deals more damage than strike with an weapon. I Think that range attacks cantrips for clerics must be nerfed or they must create a cantrip for close combat style for divine casters... something like green flame blade or Shillelagh. Otherwise, choose the protector order, have a full plate armor and shoot Sacred Flame at distance is more advantageous tham a great sword strike for example.
This scenary only changes when the cleric consume slots of magic for smite magics.
Where are you getting that cantrips do more damage than weapons?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.