If you are playing One DnD Bard, you can't use the sub-classes for 5e bard, unless you tweak a little bit and DM allows it (falling under a homebrew judgement).
I'd say, going off what I have seen, if a player plays a class using the 5e model, then 5e feats would apply. If they play the new one then new feats do.
This is from the Playtest Document:
"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."
Official rules, not homebrew at all. They are clearly and unequivocally saying that old stuff can be used with new stuff, no tweaking or adjustment needed. Just take the features at the levels it says in the books.
Same with feats. I don't see any reason to restrict them to only the new classes. Playtest them with anything you want!
You chose a really strange post to reply with this message. I get the sense you just really had something to say and I was the person you chose at random to @. My agreement with Golaryn and Kamchatmonk was specifically on the idea that 'backwards compatibility' need not weigh 1DD down; if they have to choose between some cool new feature and making sure it works with 5e, I hope they choose the new feature. The comment about the new bard not being fully compatible with 5e is that 5e bard has only 3 subclass features while UA bard has 4. Can it work still? Sure. Is it, strictly speaking, a perfect fit? No, and none of the three you included in that quote have a problem with that.
We haven't playtested the latest UA yet, but there are a few obvious things that are not backwards compatible. For example ALL Bard Subclasses. The playtest Bard gets 4 subclass Features while all current Bard subclasses only give 3. I don't think this is a problem, but it is a pretty obvious example that WotC might be playing fast and loose with the term "Backwards Compatible".
It looks like I was suspecting from the start, for the most part you will be able to use adventures and setting materials fine, feats, classes, sub classes not so much. They are a business and you can't sell me a supplement if the old supplement just works. This isn't a bad thing, games need to start fresh now and then as they keep piling on new supplements. And odds are the changes will keep getting bigger.
I'm not convinced that this is even about greed and desire to wring profits. I mean, sure, they want profits, but if that's what it was really about (and only that), they'd have just finished 5e. 5e has had the longest run since before 3e, so it's not like they wouldn't have been able to say that it hadn't had a good run already.
Instead, they want to overhaul the engine, and to do it properly, some things just aren't going to work well in both engines.
I don't think wanting to make a profit and a better system are mutually exclusive or bad.
I didn't say that. However, while simply having a profit motive isn't in and of itself bad, if they were changing editions (that aren't compatible) just to pressure consumers into rebuying their materials, that would be anticonsumer. If, despite 1D&D being a success, they released yet another (incompatible) edition in 2026 just or pressure people into buy yet more books, then that would be wrong.
I don't see those dynamics in 1D&D. Sure, they're trying to make money, but it's by actually improving things, and they seem to be at least trying to not invalidate our previous purchases. I don't think there is any undue to pressure here to buy it. If you want the news.stuff, great, if not, well there will inevitable be problems, but it's not like there'll be massive problems. I can still keep using 5e with new adventures, and I can still use my old adventures with 1D&D.
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.
So the initial launch of One D&D included the goal of backwards compatible.
Can we all be clear about what WotC means when they say back compatible? Nowhere do they ever say that ODnD will be fully back compatible with 5e. They say that ODnD will be back compatible with 5e published adventures. Someone quoted this already, sorry for the lack of attribution.
That's it. New/revised classes, subclasses, feats, spells, encounter building, and monsters. All WotC is promising is that the new content will be back compatible for play in existing 5e adventures. They aren't promising or even suggesting anything else.
I think some folks are seeing "back compatible", assigning their own meaning to it and getting upset when their definition doesn't match WotC's.
So the initial launch of One D&D included the goal of backwards compatible.
Can we all be clear about what WotC means when they say back compatible? Nowhere do they ever say that ODnD will be fully back compatible with 5e. They say that ODnD will be back compatible with 5e published adventures. Someone quoted this already, sorry for the lack of attribution.
That's it. New/revised classes, subclasses, feats, spells, encounter building, and monsters. All WotC is promising is that the new content will be back compatible for play in existing 5e adventures. They aren't promising or even suggesting anything else.
I think some folks are seeing "back compatible", assigning their own meaning to it and getting upset when their definition doesn't match WotC's.
Quoted from the FAQ
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.
What do you think Supplements are if not books like Tasha's and Xanathar's?
Also, I don't think anyone is upset in this thread.
We haven't playtested the latest UA yet, but there are a few obvious things that are not backwards compatible. For example ALL Bard Subclasses. The playtest Bard gets 4 subclass Features while all current Bard subclasses only give 3. I don't think this is a problem, but it is a pretty obvious example that WotC might be playing fast and loose with the term "Backwards Compatible".
It looks like I was suspecting from the start, for the most part you will be able to use adventures and setting materials fine, feats, classes, sub classes not so much. They are a business and you can't sell me a supplement if the old supplement just works. This isn't a bad thing, games need to start fresh now and then as they keep piling on new supplements. And odds are the changes will keep getting bigger.
I'm not convinced that this is even about greed and desire to wring profits. I mean, sure, they want profits, but if that's what it was really about (and only that), they'd have just finished 5e. 5e has had the longest run since before 3e, so it's not like they wouldn't have been able to say that it hadn't had a good run already.
Instead, they want to overhaul the engine, and to do it properly, some things just aren't going to work well in both engines.
I don't think wanting to make a profit and a better system are mutually exclusive or bad.
I didn't say that. However, while simply having a profit motive isn't in and of itself bad, if they were changing editions (that aren't compatible) just to pressure consumers into rebuying their materials, that would be anticonsumer. If, despite 1D&D being a success, they released yet another (incompatible) edition in 2026 just or pressure people into buy yet more books, then that would be wrong.
I don't see those dynamics in 1D&D. Sure, they're trying to make money, but it's by actually improving things, and they seem to be at least trying to not invalidate our previous purchases. I don't think there is any undue to pressure here to buy it. If you want the news.stuff, great, if not, well there will inevitable be problems, but it's not like there'll be massive problems. I can still keep using 5e with new adventures, and I can still use my old adventures with 1D&D.
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I was not trying to say that you were implying anything. I was just saying that they can do both and are likely trying to do just that.
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.
What do you think Supplements are if not books like Tasha's and Xanathar's?
Also, I don't think anyone is upset in this thread.
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure someone will appreciate the irony of you selectively bolding and underlining text at me like I'm too ignorant to read words juxtaposed with your assertion that you're not upset.
But since you asked what I think, I would say that whereas: 1) they have a deliberately narrow definition of "backwards compatible"; 2) they have stated a desire to revise classes, subclasses, spells, feats, encounter math, and monsters; and 3) they can be expected to continue to pursue future revenue streams; therefore I expect replacement of the core rules content in a format which is built for an integrated subscription service, and with power levels roughly equivalent to existing gameplay, and not much else.
What do you think Supplements are if not books like Tasha's and Xanathar's?
Also, I don't think anyone is upset in this thread.
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure someone will appreciate the irony of you selectively bolding and underlining text at me like I'm too ignorant to read words juxtaposed with your assertion that you're not upset.
But since you asked what I think, I would say that whereas: 1) they have a deliberately narrow definition of "backwards compatible"; 2) they have stated a desire to revise classes, subclasses, spells, feats, encounter math, and monsters; and 3) they can be expected to continue to pursue future revenue streams; therefore I expect replacement of the core rules content in a format which is built for an integrated subscription service, and with power levels roughly equivalent to existing gameplay, and not much else.
I highlighted the portion of the FAQ that you conveniently left out. Nothing more.
If you are playing One DnD Bard, you can't use the sub-classes for 5e bard, unless you tweak a little bit and DM allows it (falling under a homebrew judgement).
I'd say, going off what I have seen, if a player plays a class using the 5e model, then 5e feats would apply. If they play the new one then new feats do.
This is from the Playtest Document:
"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."
Official rules, not homebrew at all. They are clearly and unequivocally saying that old stuff can be used with new stuff, no tweaking or adjustment needed. Just take the features at the levels it says in the books.
Same with feats. I don't see any reason to restrict them to only the new classes. Playtest them with anything you want!
I bolded the key word you seem to be ignoring. "Playtest"
What do you think Supplements are if not books like Tasha's and Xanathar's?
Also, I don't think anyone is upset in this thread.
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure someone will appreciate the irony of you selectively bolding and underlining text at me like I'm too ignorant to read words juxtaposed with your assertion that you're not upset.
But since you asked what I think, I would say that whereas: 1) they have a deliberately narrow definition of "backwards compatible"; 2) they have stated a desire to revise classes, subclasses, spells, feats, encounter math, and monsters; and 3) they can be expected to continue to pursue future revenue streams; therefore I expect replacement of the core rules content in a format which is built for an integrated subscription service, and with power levels roughly equivalent to existing gameplay, and not much else.
1) Not everything was going to work perfectly compatibly, that's just impossible. They had to redesign different elements of the game so it would work. Is it annoying that the level of backwards compatibility is slightly limited? Yeah, sure it is, but the fact that the two different versions of the game can even work somewhat well together is a great accomplishment in itself, and I would like to remind you that this is just one UA, the ultimate product may be much more backwards compatible than this.
2) Yeah, when you make a new edition of the game some things are going to be revised. That's what the definition of changing the game is.
3) Power levels in 1DD are "roughly equivalent" to what they were in 5e. I mean, you have a lot more expanded versatility, and a bit more power at low levels, but there is not that much of a big difference in terms of power level between the two editions. In addition, you can just scale the power level of monsters up a bit to adjust for the new edition, and 1DD may even have rules on how to do that. And we have no idea how the rules will be formatted and integrated into DDB yet, and we don't really have much evidence to speculate off for that.
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.
If I come off as overly argumentative with you Golaryn, I'm sorry, but I really think that things can be backwards compatible without being exactly equivalent. IYeah, the old subclass would miss out on an entire feature, but in all likelihood the 3 features the old bards do get will be roughly equivalent in power to the 4 in the new version, as not all features are equivalent. Taking the Lore Bard example, the UA version gets Cunning Inspiration at 6th level, which is not particularly powerful (essentially advantage on Bardic Inspiration rolls), while the old version gets Magical Secrets at the same level and can chuck around fireballs.
Linklite, I don't think it is unreasonable to be expected to pay for a new basic rulebook for an RPG after it has been out for 10 years. I don't know about all the other popular RPGs but it seems like 10 years is the absolute maximum lifetime of a version of D&D so far.
If there is not meaningful change people will not buy it...and it can leave an opening for other publishers to step in.
In general I need to see more/all game info to have a good idea if the "backwards compatible" term fits for me and the people who I know play the game.
Too late! People have already gotten a taste with UA and now have no choice! They have eaten from the forbidden tree! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Jokes aside, I have played the first UA at my table along with 5e rules. I had one player completely uninterested in giving up his archeologist background because it had, to date, served him exceptionally well. The rest played with the new rules. There was no disruption but keep in mind that it was only the very first UA. Also, we rejected the inspiration on 20s and auto-failure/success as a table from the start. Overall, the changes we used were either positive or had a net neutral impact in terms of the UA being pasted over 5e.
We have not yet used the new UA, but we plan to put in a one shot for it later.
So a subtle change now, a nat 1 now gives inspiration not a nat 20.
They addressed the Issue Golaryn stating that in the end all subclasses will have four features and until then you address it by adding a feature at the missing lvl. It is a process that will have adjustments as a playtest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is from the Playtest Document:
"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."
Official rules, not homebrew at all. They are clearly and unequivocally saying that old stuff can be used with new stuff, no tweaking or adjustment needed. Just take the features at the levels it says in the books.
Same with feats. I don't see any reason to restrict them to only the new classes. Playtest them with anything you want!
Arithezoo,
You chose a really strange post to reply with this message. I get the sense you just really had something to say and I was the person you chose at random to @. My agreement with Golaryn and Kamchatmonk was specifically on the idea that 'backwards compatibility' need not weigh 1DD down; if they have to choose between some cool new feature and making sure it works with 5e, I hope they choose the new feature. The comment about the new bard not being fully compatible with 5e is that 5e bard has only 3 subclass features while UA bard has 4. Can it work still? Sure. Is it, strictly speaking, a perfect fit? No, and none of the three you included in that quote have a problem with that.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I didn't say that. However, while simply having a profit motive isn't in and of itself bad, if they were changing editions (that aren't compatible) just to pressure consumers into rebuying their materials, that would be anticonsumer. If, despite 1D&D being a success, they released yet another (incompatible) edition in 2026 just or pressure people into buy yet more books, then that would be wrong.
I don't see those dynamics in 1D&D. Sure, they're trying to make money, but it's by actually improving things, and they seem to be at least trying to not invalidate our previous purchases. I don't think there is any undue to pressure here to buy it. If you want the news.stuff, great, if not, well there will inevitable be problems, but it's not like there'll be massive problems. I can still keep using 5e with new adventures, and I can still use my old adventures with 1D&D.
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.
Can we all be clear about what WotC means when they say back compatible? Nowhere do they ever say that ODnD will be fully back compatible with 5e. They say that ODnD will be back compatible with 5e published adventures. Someone quoted this already, sorry for the lack of attribution.
That's it. New/revised classes, subclasses, feats, spells, encounter building, and monsters. All WotC is promising is that the new content will be back compatible for play in existing 5e adventures. They aren't promising or even suggesting anything else.
I think some folks are seeing "back compatible", assigning their own meaning to it and getting upset when their definition doesn't match WotC's.
Quoted from the FAQ
What do you think Supplements are if not books like Tasha's and Xanathar's?
Also, I don't think anyone is upset in this thread.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I was not trying to say that you were implying anything. I was just saying that they can do both and are likely trying to do just that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Fair enough! :)
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.
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure someone will appreciate the irony of you selectively bolding and underlining text at me like I'm too ignorant to read words juxtaposed with your assertion that you're not upset.
But since you asked what I think, I would say that whereas: 1) they have a deliberately narrow definition of "backwards compatible"; 2) they have stated a desire to revise classes, subclasses, spells, feats, encounter math, and monsters; and 3) they can be expected to continue to pursue future revenue streams; therefore I expect replacement of the core rules content in a format which is built for an integrated subscription service, and with power levels roughly equivalent to existing gameplay, and not much else.
I highlighted the portion of the FAQ that you conveniently left out. Nothing more.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I bolded the key word you seem to be ignoring. "Playtest"
1) Not everything was going to work perfectly compatibly, that's just impossible. They had to redesign different elements of the game so it would work. Is it annoying that the level of backwards compatibility is slightly limited? Yeah, sure it is, but the fact that the two different versions of the game can even work somewhat well together is a great accomplishment in itself, and I would like to remind you that this is just one UA, the ultimate product may be much more backwards compatible than this.
2) Yeah, when you make a new edition of the game some things are going to be revised. That's what the definition of changing the game is.
3) Power levels in 1DD are "roughly equivalent" to what they were in 5e. I mean, you have a lot more expanded versatility, and a bit more power at low levels, but there is not that much of a big difference in terms of power level between the two editions. In addition, you can just scale the power level of monsters up a bit to adjust for the new edition, and 1DD may even have rules on how to do that. And we have no idea how the rules will be formatted and integrated into DDB yet, and we don't really have much evidence to speculate off for that.
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.If there is not meaningful change people will not buy it...and it can leave an opening for other publishers to step in.
In general I need to see more/all game info to have a good idea if the "backwards compatible" term fits for me and the people who I know play the game.
So a subtle change now, a nat 1 now gives inspiration not a nat 20.
They addressed the Issue Golaryn stating that in the end all subclasses will have four features and until then you address it by adding a feature at the missing lvl. It is a process that will have adjustments as a playtest.