Looks like the extent of backwards compatibility goes to basic framework only. Subclasses don't seem to be always compatible, judging by bard subclass features. And I'm fine with it. Backwards compatibility shouldn't become a constraint.
Looks like the extent of backwards compatibility goes to basic framework only. Subclasses don't seem to be always compatible, judging by bard subclass features. And I'm fine with it. Backwards compatibility shouldn't become a constraint.
Who mentioned homebrewing anything? I was quoting from the UA itself.
Pastorbarndog. Filling in the holes by taking features from other subclasses is homebrew.
How is it homebrewing to do exactly what the UA document suggests. The playtest explicitly says you can use old subclasses with no changes whatsoever with the new class frameworks. Sure it will be a bit janky with some multiple features being obtained at certain levels and none at others. I wouldn't really expect too many people to do that, though. The main thing is that so far, I think you could play any of the 5e classes with their 5e subclass alongside UA classes/subclasses in the same game. Yet again, I don't think many will do this once all the new classes and subclasses are out, but it certainly wouldn't break the game.
I also find the attitude (and I am not necessarily referring to you here, Golaryn) that even the slightest bit of homebrew means that something is not compatible. I have never played in any game of D&D that hasn't included some amount of homebrewed rules/rulings. As any game system expands, there will be unexpected consequences from the interaction of features, and in D&D this has been true even within 5e with the introduction of new books.
In the end, it isn't even that much of an issue. Maybe a few people will continue on using the 5e rules even after the new core books come out, some groups may integrate the two systems for a while if they continue playing campaigns that stretch through the introduction period, but once there is enough material to support a rich, intricate version of the new, but very similar edition everyone will use that. This may either be because experienced folks have played enough 5e to have tapped out all the possible character creation directions it offers that they want to explore or new players will want to play the latest version.
Who mentioned homebrewing anything? I was quoting from the UA itself.
Pastorbarndog. Filling in the holes by taking features from other subclasses is homebrew.
How is it homebrewing to do exactly what the UA document suggests. The playtest explicitly says you can use old subclasses with no changes whatsoever with the new class frameworks. Sure it will be a bit janky with some multiple features being obtained at certain levels and none at others. I wouldn't really expect too many people to do that, though. The main thing is that so far, I think you could play any of the 5e classes with their 5e subclass alongside UA classes/subclasses in the same game. Yet again, I don't think many will do this once all the new classes and subclasses are out, but it certainly wouldn't break the game.
I also find the attitude (and I am not necessarily referring to you here, Golaryn) that even the slightest bit of homebrew means that something is not compatible. I have never played in any game of D&D that hasn't included some amount of homebrewed rules/rulings. As any game system expands, there will be unexpected consequences from the interaction of features, and in D&D this has been true even within 5e with the introduction of new books.
In the end, it isn't even that much of an issue. Maybe a few people will continue on using the 5e rules even after the new core books come out, some groups may integrate the two systems for a while if they continue playing campaigns that stretch through the introduction period, but once there is enough material to support a rich, intricate version of the new, but very similar edition everyone will use that. This may either be because experienced folks have played enough 5e to have tapped out all the possible character creation directions it offers that they want to explore or new players will want to play the latest version.
I could be miss reading, but "Seems an easy fix for that is alternate class features from Tasha's." sounds like they want to use these in place of the missing 4th feature.
You can certainly use an old subclass and just miss out on an entire feature that everyone else is going to get, but that doesn't make it a good idea or good rules.
Edit: And just to be clear. I don't care if any of it is backwards compatible. I am just acknowledging that there is a lot of stuff left to test and we are already seeing that things aren't going to fit neatly together with what has come before.
I think it's worth pointing out that having to "go under the hood" is a negative thing. Some call that home-brewing, others wouldn't classify it as that as you're given explicit permission and are instructed to do so, but that's just classification and of major import. There's an attitude that's been quite common on the forum that when WotC releases content that requires "going under the hood" to make it work, it's absolutely fine, and I think that attitude is harmful because it provides cover for WotC to continue to release low quality material.
However, in this case, I'm not that bothered by it. Yes, it's annoying in its way. If I want to try out the latest Bard subclass, I either have to buy more stuff than I would have had to otherwise (1D&D PHB for the class) or spend time under the hood trying to bodge it into the 2014 class. Neither is ideal. However, it's not a major issue for me, I'm not classing "I can't pick and mix 5e and 1D&D classes and subclasses without any fuss" as being not backwards compatible. Someone can take a 1D&D Bard and college and drop it into my 5e adventure and it's not going to cause major issues.
And that's my redline for this. That's when I start raising eyebrows, because my major concern is that I'll find I'm being forced to have two systems: 5e for my current adventures, and 1D&D for new ones. That I can't simply mix 'n' match classes and subclasses is annoying to be sure, but it's a necessary step to doing substantial improvements to the game. And let's be honest, this was predictable. If they were simply boosting certain features, changing order of progression but keeping the levels the same etc, we wouldn't be getting 1D&D. That could easily be done in a supplement, like they did with the Ranger in Tasha's. So, this kind of thing was obviously coming. Indeed my question has been whether we can mix the two rules (in the end product, not the UA), or whether backwards compatible means we have to pick one set of rules, but we do get to pick when running a certain adventure.
TL;DR: It shouldn't be a major surprise or issue that you can't easily mix 'n' match classes and subclasses, but perhaps we do need to keep an eye on what's being released, as WotC may push limits more and more until it's not really backwards compatible in a meaningful sense.
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.
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.
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".
Listened a bit again to them talking about backwards compatibility in the videos they released when they announced the playtest. And when they mention backwards compatibility all they talk about is that you can still run adventure modules from 5e using the new rules.
So there might be a gap between what WOTC and many people in the community think about when Backwards Compatibility is mentioned.
Any backwards compatibility issues with modules seem to be rooted in the power level changes due to the various changes to feats, monster rechargeable powers in place of crits, and other rules changes like grappling and extra inspiration. 5e modules were hypothetically balanced for characters without 1st level feats (except variant humans) and with the full selection of feats (some op and earlier feat combinations for variant humans) at any level. Will low level modules be easier? Will mid-level modules be harder?
It seems the power level at levels 1-3 are stronger and levels 4-7 are weaker, getting closer to even at level 12, and stronger again at levels 18+. How much of an impact this has will likely vary from table to table and module to module. But compatability just means that the modules will be playable, not that the existing modules will remain balanced when used with the new rules. If I were going to DM a 5e module with the new rules, I would give it a similar review and modifications as I would a module from another edition.
This is very similar to when Essentials came out for 4e. New classes, but you can mix and match with old stuff. People are making mountains out of molehills (On the Internet? Shocking, I know!), warning of the sky falling. The only possible way this could ruin the game for anyone is if WotC pulls away from their current promise, and makes Adventure League and other organized play ONLY use the new material. But that has no effect on home games, and I honestly think it would be a big mistake for them to do so (and I don't see them doing it). If they have learned anything from 3rd, to 4th, to 5th, it is that it is bad to fracture the gaming community. If they can pull off a new PHB with all new versions of the classes and subclasses while at the same time keeping everything working with the original material...the game will only be the better for it!
I keep thinking about the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, and I expect, for player-facing material, at least, to see a similar dynamic. One D&D materials will become the de facto standard. Old material will all have to be vetted and allowed on a case-by-case basis, and will be set aside as soon as there are new supplements to override it. So if you want to make a College of Glamour bard in One D&D, you will need your DM's explicit permission (and they will need to decide what modifications are necessary to make it work), until WotC releases a new version at some point down the road.
This is probably inevitable, as others have pointed out, because even with the relatively minor tweaks we've been seeing so far, they would still be hamstrung if they had to make it fit in perfectly with 5e material. Certainly they've already demonstrated that they're willing to relegate lore-focused materials to "legacy content." Adventure modules, of course, will still work, because the basic math of the system is being preserved.
Who mentioned homebrewing anything? I was quoting from the UA itself.
Pastorbarndog. Filling in the holes by taking features from other subclasses is homebrew.
Yes but it was using an official source to do so. That is assuming that you find only getting 3 features problematic when the new subclasses get 4. Its a way within the existing framework to adjust.
This is very similar to when Essentials came out for 4e. New classes, but you can mix and match with old stuff. People are making mountains out of molehills (On the Internet? Shocking, I know!), warning of the sky falling. The only possible way this could ruin the game for anyone is if WotC pulls away from their current promise, and makes Adventure League and other organized play ONLY use the new material. But that has no effect on home games, and I honestly think it would be a big mistake for them to do so (and I don't see them doing it). If they have learned anything from 3rd, to 4th, to 5th, it is that it is bad to fracture the gaming community. If they can pull off a new PHB with all new versions of the classes and subclasses while at the same time keeping everything working with the original material...the game will only be the better for it!
I keep thinking about the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, and I expect, for player-facing material, at least, to see a similar dynamic. One D&D materials will become the de facto standard. Old material will all have to be vetted and allowed on a case-by-case basis, and will be set aside as soon as there are new supplements to override it. So if you want to make a College of Glamour bard in One D&D, you will need your DM's explicit permission (and they will need to decide what modifications are necessary to make it work), until WotC releases a new version at some point down the road.
This is probably inevitable, as others have pointed out, because even with the relatively minor tweaks we've been seeing so far, they would still be hamstrung if they had to make it fit in perfectly with 5e material. Certainly they've already demonstrated that they're willing to relegate lore-focused materials to "legacy content." Adventure modules, of course, will still work, because the basic math of the system is being preserved.
DnDBeyond already has flagged some races as "Legacy" since the addition of Monsters of the Multiverse.
Looks like the extent of backwards compatibility goes to basic framework only. Subclasses don't seem to be always compatible, judging by bard subclass features. And I'm fine with it. Backwards compatibility shouldn't become a constraint.
Exactly
Also agreed!
I'm very confused by this.
Here are the new Lore College features. Which of them are not compatible with Original PHB bard?
3rd Level: Bonus skill Proficiencies and a new way to use Bardic Inspiration.
6th Level: Your Inspiration dice can be rerolled.
10th Level: Boost to the level 3 feature.
14th Level: New use for Bardic Inspiration.
Here are the Original D&D College features. Do any of them not work with the UA Bard?
Lore: bonus skill Proficiencies, new way to use Bardic Inspiration, add 2 spells to the Bard spell list, and new use for Bardic Inspiration.
Valor: bonus weapon/armor training, new use for Bardic Inspiration, extra attack, and attack as bonus action when you cast a bard spell.
All the needs to be done is a tiny bit of interpretation regarding how two of those features interact with the changes to UA Bard. For Lore College, just consider the new spells to be added to the list of allowed spells you can prepare. This is in line with how Magical Secrets works for the UA Bard. For Valor College, Combat Inspiration would be treated as "You can use your Bardic Inspiration to add to the weapon damage dealt by an ally. Alternatively, you can use your Inspiration to add to an ally's AC against an attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses." Again, entirely keeping with the intent of both original Combat Inspiration and the new way Bardic Inspiration works in the UA. None of this should be viewed as a homebrew, it is simply a quick and logical assumption of how old and new would work together.
This was just the PHB subclasses. If you find a feature from another book that isn't compatible, please post.
Honestly, (though this does get into homebrew territory and it seems that is a sore subject to some) you could easily play an Original Bard with the new Bardic Inspiration, or a New Bard with the original Inspiration.
As I said before, more options only makes the game more open to all. The problem only occurs if you view the old material as being replaced, rather than supplemented. I don't want to see the new stuff be the same as the old stuff, because then what is the point of a brand new book? And if it is different, then of course some people will like the new stuff better while others will like the original stuff better. And that is not only ok, it is good for the game! If everyone likes all the new stuff better than all the old stuff, then we are saying as a community that the old stuff is dead and gone. At that point, WotC might as well abandon all pretenses of backwards compatibility and really go all out making this a new edition. But the fact that they are constraining themselves in the design shows that they are taking it seriously, and that is good. Your old PHB is not gone, and nor is it useless, as evidenced by some posts I have seen. The UA bard doesn't let you make the bard you wanted, but the original bard does? Great, make an original bard. But you like the UA Lore College better than PHB version? Cool, take it. Want to prepare spells like the UA Bard? As your DM (I'm guessing most would say yes). Full and complete backward compatibility.
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.
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.
From what I can tell the backwards compatibility is with books other than the old Core books. You have to be ready for anything in the core books to be thrown away.
I saw someone posted that they had a party member who wanted to keep there old background. That’s fine. The new backgrounds give a first level feat. Find a feat that matches their background and give it to them.
The new exhaustion rules are simpler to remember and just better for play.
The biggest change is with subclasses. The old one will all need updates over the years, but can be playable as they are in the books now. It will be messy using them though. I believe One D&D will see a return of prestige classes and/or something like what they tried in the strixhaven UA were multiple classes could take the same subclass. That’s why they are attempting to align everyone’s class feature levels in my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
A few things. 1. This is UA so it may not be as adaptable as the final release will be. 2. There may be separate rules about how to bring in that older material. 3. "backwards compatible" may mean something different than you are thinking. Rather than All existing things will work with the One DnD stuff. It may be more like, The older stuff is relatively easy to transfer to the new rules or the new rules aren't so different that something that doesn't have a rewrite yet can still be used. i.e. You can play as 5e Wizard along side One DnD Ranger. Or a 5e Ranger along side a One DnD Ranger.
It seems quite clear that the change in this edition is not like how 3.5 went to 4e where trying to migrate things that existed in 3.5 would be basically home brewing it. Likewise when 4e went to 5e.
Most likely I think the "Backwards compatibility" is about how things that exist now will continue to be used UNTIL a replacement is introduce for One DnD. Bonus 4. "Backwards compatible," may actually refer to the digital things you own carrying over to the new edition, i.e. when One DnD is officially released, all of your 5e content is inaccessible. - From a business perspective this is what they likely mean, this way they don't cut off all their current players who, like 3.5e, will abandon the new edition and just do 5e off DnDBeyond. Additionally, it allows a more "full" library of content since the original book drops may only include a limited number of options, but it can appear to have a lot more as older content can be easily adapted to the new system.
I don't see much that would prevent any backwards comparability right now. Levels have changed for some things, and thus some subclass things have to change levels as well, but that would only apply to people playing the new version. i.e. 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).
Only CORE rules would be a factor. At this point I see little of that. Dual Wielding is probably the most significant change of this (no longer needing a bonus action). The nat20 is basically back to default, (where it should stay) Critical spells are back now, so that wouldn't impact anything (although it won't be much different anyways).
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. Races are easy to translate anyways. just strip the stats off them, the rest could stay the same (although Dwarves and others won't have weapon / armor prof. in the new stuff but that could be player choice).
Most likely, the older things will eventually be tagged as "Legacy" like they have done with races as well as monsters, directing players to the new one, but not erasing it. Also I was not here for DnD Next so I don't know if the talk about 48 subclasses (more than we have now) is referring to the initial release or not. If it is the initial release, you'll see this as a large replacement and the "backward compatible" could refer to as WoTC will be converting a ton of stuff for us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Who mentioned homebrewing anything? I was quoting from the UA itself.
Pastorbarndog. Filling in the holes by taking features from other subclasses is homebrew.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Exactly
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Also agreed!
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
How is it homebrewing to do exactly what the UA document suggests. The playtest explicitly says you can use old subclasses with no changes whatsoever with the new class frameworks. Sure it will be a bit janky with some multiple features being obtained at certain levels and none at others. I wouldn't really expect too many people to do that, though. The main thing is that so far, I think you could play any of the 5e classes with their 5e subclass alongside UA classes/subclasses in the same game. Yet again, I don't think many will do this once all the new classes and subclasses are out, but it certainly wouldn't break the game.
I also find the attitude (and I am not necessarily referring to you here, Golaryn) that even the slightest bit of homebrew means that something is not compatible. I have never played in any game of D&D that hasn't included some amount of homebrewed rules/rulings. As any game system expands, there will be unexpected consequences from the interaction of features, and in D&D this has been true even within 5e with the introduction of new books.
In the end, it isn't even that much of an issue. Maybe a few people will continue on using the 5e rules even after the new core books come out, some groups may integrate the two systems for a while if they continue playing campaigns that stretch through the introduction period, but once there is enough material to support a rich, intricate version of the new, but very similar edition everyone will use that. This may either be because experienced folks have played enough 5e to have tapped out all the possible character creation directions it offers that they want to explore or new players will want to play the latest version.
I could be miss reading, but "Seems an easy fix for that is alternate class features from Tasha's." sounds like they want to use these in place of the missing 4th feature.
You can certainly use an old subclass and just miss out on an entire feature that everyone else is going to get, but that doesn't make it a good idea or good rules.
Edit: And just to be clear. I don't care if any of it is backwards compatible. I am just acknowledging that there is a lot of stuff left to test and we are already seeing that things aren't going to fit neatly together with what has come before.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think it's worth pointing out that having to "go under the hood" is a negative thing. Some call that home-brewing, others wouldn't classify it as that as you're given explicit permission and are instructed to do so, but that's just classification and of major import. There's an attitude that's been quite common on the forum that when WotC releases content that requires "going under the hood" to make it work, it's absolutely fine, and I think that attitude is harmful because it provides cover for WotC to continue to release low quality material.
However, in this case, I'm not that bothered by it. Yes, it's annoying in its way. If I want to try out the latest Bard subclass, I either have to buy more stuff than I would have had to otherwise (1D&D PHB for the class) or spend time under the hood trying to bodge it into the 2014 class. Neither is ideal. However, it's not a major issue for me, I'm not classing "I can't pick and mix 5e and 1D&D classes and subclasses without any fuss" as being not backwards compatible. Someone can take a 1D&D Bard and college and drop it into my 5e adventure and it's not going to cause major issues.
And that's my redline for this. That's when I start raising eyebrows, because my major concern is that I'll find I'm being forced to have two systems: 5e for my current adventures, and 1D&D for new ones. That I can't simply mix 'n' match classes and subclasses is annoying to be sure, but it's a necessary step to doing substantial improvements to the game. And let's be honest, this was predictable. If they were simply boosting certain features, changing order of progression but keeping the levels the same etc, we wouldn't be getting 1D&D. That could easily be done in a supplement, like they did with the Ranger in Tasha's. So, this kind of thing was obviously coming. Indeed my question has been whether we can mix the two rules (in the end product, not the UA), or whether backwards compatible means we have to pick one set of rules, but we do get to pick when running a certain adventure.
TL;DR: It shouldn't be a major surprise or issue that you can't easily mix 'n' match classes and subclasses, but perhaps we do need to keep an eye on what's being released, as WotC may push limits more and more until it's not really backwards compatible in a meaningful sense.
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.
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.
Listened a bit again to them talking about backwards compatibility in the videos they released when they announced the playtest.
And when they mention backwards compatibility all they talk about is that you can still run adventure modules from 5e using the new rules.
So there might be a gap between what WOTC and many people in the community think about when Backwards Compatibility is mentioned.
Any backwards compatibility issues with modules seem to be rooted in the power level changes due to the various changes to feats, monster rechargeable powers in place of crits, and other rules changes like grappling and extra inspiration. 5e modules were hypothetically balanced for characters without 1st level feats (except variant humans) and with the full selection of feats (some op and earlier feat combinations for variant humans) at any level. Will low level modules be easier? Will mid-level modules be harder?
It seems the power level at levels 1-3 are stronger and levels 4-7 are weaker, getting closer to even at level 12, and stronger again at levels 18+. How much of an impact this has will likely vary from table to table and module to module. But compatability just means that the modules will be playable, not that the existing modules will remain balanced when used with the new rules. If I were going to DM a 5e module with the new rules, I would give it a similar review and modifications as I would a module from another edition.
I keep thinking about the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, and I expect, for player-facing material, at least, to see a similar dynamic. One D&D materials will become the de facto standard. Old material will all have to be vetted and allowed on a case-by-case basis, and will be set aside as soon as there are new supplements to override it. So if you want to make a College of Glamour bard in One D&D, you will need your DM's explicit permission (and they will need to decide what modifications are necessary to make it work), until WotC releases a new version at some point down the road.
This is probably inevitable, as others have pointed out, because even with the relatively minor tweaks we've been seeing so far, they would still be hamstrung if they had to make it fit in perfectly with 5e material. Certainly they've already demonstrated that they're willing to relegate lore-focused materials to "legacy content." Adventure modules, of course, will still work, because the basic math of the system is being preserved.
Yes but it was using an official source to do so. That is assuming that you find only getting 3 features problematic when the new subclasses get 4. Its a way within the existing framework to adjust.
DnDBeyond already has flagged some races as "Legacy" since the addition of Monsters of the Multiverse.
I'm very confused by this.
Here are the new Lore College features. Which of them are not compatible with Original PHB bard?
Here are the Original D&D College features. Do any of them not work with the UA Bard?
All the needs to be done is a tiny bit of interpretation regarding how two of those features interact with the changes to UA Bard. For Lore College, just consider the new spells to be added to the list of allowed spells you can prepare. This is in line with how Magical Secrets works for the UA Bard. For Valor College, Combat Inspiration would be treated as "You can use your Bardic Inspiration to add to the weapon damage dealt by an ally. Alternatively, you can use your Inspiration to add to an ally's AC against an attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses." Again, entirely keeping with the intent of both original Combat Inspiration and the new way Bardic Inspiration works in the UA. None of this should be viewed as a homebrew, it is simply a quick and logical assumption of how old and new would work together.
This was just the PHB subclasses. If you find a feature from another book that isn't compatible, please post.
Honestly, (though this does get into homebrew territory and it seems that is a sore subject to some) you could easily play an Original Bard with the new Bardic Inspiration, or a New Bard with the original Inspiration.
As I said before, more options only makes the game more open to all. The problem only occurs if you view the old material as being replaced, rather than supplemented. I don't want to see the new stuff be the same as the old stuff, because then what is the point of a brand new book? And if it is different, then of course some people will like the new stuff better while others will like the original stuff better. And that is not only ok, it is good for the game! If everyone likes all the new stuff better than all the old stuff, then we are saying as a community that the old stuff is dead and gone. At that point, WotC might as well abandon all pretenses of backwards compatibility and really go all out making this a new edition. But the fact that they are constraining themselves in the design shows that they are taking it seriously, and that is good. Your old PHB is not gone, and nor is it useless, as evidenced by some posts I have seen. The UA bard doesn't let you make the bard you wanted, but the original bard does? Great, make an original bard. But you like the UA Lore College better than PHB version? Cool, take it. Want to prepare spells like the UA Bard? As your DM (I'm guessing most would say yes). Full and complete backward compatibility.
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 completely agree
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
From what I can tell the backwards compatibility is with books other than the old Core books. You have to be ready for anything in the core books to be thrown away.
I saw someone posted that they had a party member who wanted to keep there old background. That’s fine. The new backgrounds give a first level feat. Find a feat that matches their background and give it to them.
The new exhaustion rules are simpler to remember and just better for play.
The biggest change is with subclasses. The old one will all need updates over the years, but can be playable as they are in the books now. It will be messy using them though. I believe One D&D will see a return of prestige classes and/or something like what they tried in the strixhaven UA were multiple classes could take the same subclass. That’s why they are attempting to align everyone’s class feature levels in my opinion.
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.
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 don't think wanting to make a profit and a better system are mutually exclusive or bad.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A few things.
1. This is UA so it may not be as adaptable as the final release will be.
2. There may be separate rules about how to bring in that older material.
3. "backwards compatible" may mean something different than you are thinking. Rather than All existing things will work with the One DnD stuff. It may be more like, The older stuff is relatively easy to transfer to the new rules or the new rules aren't so different that something that doesn't have a rewrite yet can still be used. i.e. You can play as 5e Wizard along side One DnD Ranger. Or a 5e Ranger along side a One DnD Ranger.
It seems quite clear that the change in this edition is not like how 3.5 went to 4e where trying to migrate things that existed in 3.5 would be basically home brewing it. Likewise when 4e went to 5e.
Most likely I think the "Backwards compatibility" is about how things that exist now will continue to be used UNTIL a replacement is introduce for One DnD.
Bonus
4. "Backwards compatible," may actually refer to the digital things you own carrying over to the new edition, i.e. when One DnD is officially released, all of your 5e content is inaccessible.
- From a business perspective this is what they likely mean, this way they don't cut off all their current players who, like 3.5e, will abandon the new edition and just do 5e off DnDBeyond. Additionally, it allows a more "full" library of content since the original book drops may only include a limited number of options, but it can appear to have a lot more as older content can be easily adapted to the new system.
I don't see much that would prevent any backwards comparability right now. Levels have changed for some things, and thus some subclass things have to change levels as well, but that would only apply to people playing the new version. i.e. 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).
Only CORE rules would be a factor. At this point I see little of that. Dual Wielding is probably the most significant change of this (no longer needing a bonus action). The nat20 is basically back to default, (where it should stay) Critical spells are back now, so that wouldn't impact anything (although it won't be much different anyways).
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.
Races are easy to translate anyways. just strip the stats off them, the rest could stay the same (although Dwarves and others won't have weapon / armor prof. in the new stuff but that could be player choice).
Most likely, the older things will eventually be tagged as "Legacy" like they have done with races as well as monsters, directing players to the new one, but not erasing it. Also I was not here for DnD Next so I don't know if the talk about 48 subclasses (more than we have now) is referring to the initial release or not. If it is the initial release, you'll see this as a large replacement and the "backward compatible" could refer to as WoTC will be converting a ton of stuff for us.