What do you feel is an acceptable level of change to still be considered backwards compatible?
As long as characters made the 5e way can play with characters made with the 1D&D way, it is compatible to me. Currently, characters can already use lots of different sets of optional rules and still play together. Characters created the super traditional way (static racial ASIs, no feats, rolled stats, rolled HP, spell slots, and backgrounds with features) can already be played with a characters with more modern options (floating ASIs, feats, point buy, average HP, spell points, and backgrounds with feats).
Hell, characters can even use different expierence, healing, and resting rules and still play together. The super traditional character can level up by experience points, have slow natural healing, and gritty realism rest, while the newer character can level up every automatically every 3 sessions, have healing surges, and go by epic heroism rest. The characters will level up at different rates and will feel very different power wise, but they can still be played together. I agree this should not be recommended for most tables and campaigns, but the GM and players can totally make it work if they do not mind the imbalance in power. Or maybe that imbalance in power is exactly what the group is looking for. Imagine a fantasy adventure spiced up with a love triangle and lots of romantic comedy, and the campaign is called Twilight Gaiden: the story stars a pair of really strong strawberry blonde bombshell dhampir arcana cleric twins who can bend reality with their wish, competing for the affection, caress, licks, and love of a pitifully weak, but brave and honorable, shifter champion fighter.
Both traditional and new characters still roll dice the same way: initiative, attack, damage, saving throw, and skill checks. The example above would be horribly balanced, but that does not mean they are not playable together. As long as the core framework of rolling the dice is the same, how the characters are made does not matter.
What rules are open to updating? Which ones are off limits? Are the class updates okay but the feats aren't? Can they change the hide rules as long as your old character plays the same way? Can they change the level you get an ability? Can a monster have a new attack? Is it okay to need a new Players Handbook and DMG? I'd like to know what everyone thinks is the bridge too far. Because it sounds like everyone has their own expectations but I not clear on what those are.
I think all rules are open to updates, none are off limits. I think it is narrowminded and nonsensical to hostilely see new rules as absolute replacements for old rules, when in fact GMs and players can just treat it like any other optional rule in the PHB and DMG, and people can mix and match as they please. Do not like feats? Do not use it. Want gritty realism rest? Use gritty realism rest. Some players want spell slots while some want spell points? Players can choose whichever system they want for their characters. One player really like the old ranger while another one wants to play the new one from TCOE? Basically same question, so yes, players can have their cake and eat it too. There is nothing 1D&D can throw at 5e that 5e cannot handle. I think it is an unwillingness to accept change that stops people from incorporating new options.
We already have class updates in TCOE in the form of OCF and more elaborate feat trees in S:COC. I do not see why we cannot have more updates to classes and feats. I do not care if they change what level you get an ability as long as we still get to use the old option.
Give me more hide rules, so I can choose which one I want to apply depending on the situation. Heck, I can probably even let my players pick which one they want to use if I am feeling frisky.
Some monsters have new updates in MP:MOTM, and they are compatible with monsters from VGTM and MTOF. It is totally possible to run a legacy and updated versions side by side in the same encounter.
The core three rulebooks have NEVER, EVER, EVER been necessary. People need to stop putting those three books on a pedastal and stop thinking they need to buy them. People do not have to pay a single penny to Wizards. All you need to play D&D is the BR/SRD, and there is also some free official stuff from EEPC, MCV1:SC, etc. If you want even more free stuff and you do not mind it not being publication official, there is a massive archive of UA on Wizards' website and practically infinite free third party homebrew online.
XXXGammaRay said it beautifully. Change is necessary, not only to improve bad mechanics, but to strengthen good mechanics and make them even better. While change could potentially lead to worse mechanics, the whole purpose of the UAs is making sure that doesn't happen. And you can't make anything better if you refuse change for fear of making it worse.
That being said, personally, I think that books shouldn't be discontinued, neither physically nor digitally, because if you want someone to be able to use something from a previous edition, and mix and match rules from an edition they didn't have a book of, those books should still be printed so they can remain accessible. For example, though I am against M3 in general, DDB could have marked Volo's and Mordenkainen's as "Legacy" and still have them on their website, available for purchase, so that players who primarily use DDB and didn't already have a copy could make a choice on whether to use the M3 version or the version from those two books. I may be crazy, but when 1DD is released, I want versions of the core 5e books to still be printed, just with lower supply to match the lower demand.
Anyways, though the definition of "backwards compatible" is different to some, I agree with XXXGammaRay that as long as you are able to use the two editions together, and they work relatively well, then I think that would mean they are compatible.
Also, just wondering: XXXGammaRay, what do you mean by having the 1DD characters level up every three sessions? Is that something I missed in the UA? Because it would make much more sense for them for level up with the 5e characters.
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.
I believe leveling up every 3 sessions is how Adventurer's League handles experience, and is a convenient way to lock level progression to a real world timeline. The point being made was that being "compatible" doesn't mean they have to be "equal". Tables can use existing optional rules with more granularity to enjoy more complicated play.
Most tables assume all characters are equal, so they should progress the same. However, if you want to play a story where one or more characters are different, then you could use a faster experience track to represent a more "heroic" character. (E.g. Frodo being accompanied by Merry and Pippin.) Or you could have one character be on Milestone progression to tie their progression to major in-game events. Or each character could have different milestones.
It would be pretty unconventional to do this, but could make for a very interesting story.
Edit: It could also be used to give more experienced players an in-game handicap, so that they have to be more creative to keep up with newer players.
What do you feel is an acceptable level of change to still be considered backwards compatible?
What rules are open to updating? Which ones are off limits? Are the class updates okay but the feats aren't? Can they change the hide rules as long as your old character plays the same way? Can they change the level you get an ability? Can a monster have a new attack? Is it okay to need a new Players Handbook and DMG? I'd like to know what everyone thinks is the bridge too far. Because it sounds like everyone has their own expectations but I not clear on what those are.
That's a great question.
To me, any of the options in the Player's Handbook can change. Which means feats, classes, spells, etc. Because you're not going going to be mix-and-matching core books at a table. Which means you can revise the wording on many class features, all feats, all spells, etc. Ditto anything in the Monster Manual *.
But, when you can't easily take a subclass or other option from a sourcebook and use it as written, that's when it stops being backwards compatible.
For example, the races in Package One were fine. Existing additive subraces didn't match exactly as racial bonuses were moved, but that's easy to fix. It might trip up a brand new DM unfamiliar with that change, but for everyone else it's effortless to convert. You just need to ignore that one line, not add or rewrite anything. But something like the bard College of Spirits released just over a year ago is harder. It lacks a 10th level subclass feature. Or the Soulknife from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as the rogue gets nothing at 6th level or 14th level. (The bard at least gets a Inspiration die boost and a new spell.) Those features get delayed by 3 levels. Similarly, if the RULES change to invalidate an option that's a problem. Like the Grave Cleric's ability to negate monster crits.
It's still possible to use that content... if you're willing to rewrite and rebalance the options. But largely the old content becomes no longer valid and useable, and you need to buy updates to use those options. Which may or may not ever exist (as WotC seldom updates 100% of options with an edition change). Which is very problematic if new players or DMs spend their money on that outdated content believing it is still usable. Which can easily happen if said books are still readily available on store shelves right beside the new books.
* And while you can change and rewrite monsters in the Monster Manual to make them easier to run or more interesting, the general power level of said monsters shouldn't change. A galeb duhr shouldn't go from CR 6 to 10 or a storm giant from CR 13 to 8. Because that makes it harder to run published adventures. You need to suddenly vet every encounter to make sure a stealth change doesn't lead to an accidental TPK. Which isn't a theoretical problem, as a shift in an NPC's CR led to a deadly fight in the initial printing of Hoard of the Dragon Queen after it changed before the MM was published.
Also, just wondering: XXXGammaRay, what do you mean by having the 1DD characters level up every three sessions? Is that something I missed in the UA? Because it would make much more sense for them for level up with the 5e characters.
I have not really mentioned much mechanics from the UA, and I am just highlighting all the different things you can do in 5e alone right now. In the DMG, they mentioned two main ways to level up: with XP points and without XP points.
With XP, there are several ways to give those points: - Good old fashioned way of getting it from defeating each individual monster - Getting an arbitrary amount for each encounter (the book mentions this specifically for noncombat encounter, but I imagine you can do this for combat encounters too) - Getting an arbitrary amount for completing a milestone (such as completing a quest, discovering critical information to advance the plot, arriving at a destination, etc.; basically the same idea as awarding XP based on encounters, but these events are not necessarily encounter based) - Injecting XP into specific characters directly (the DMG mentions this way to help players who missed a session to keep pace, but you can also use this to create and magnify a gap between characters)
Without XP, the book mentions two ways to level up: - Characters level up based on the amount of session they play (the book provides a suggestion of one session to advance from levels 1-2 and 2-3, two sessions for 3-4, and two or three sessions from level 4 onwards) - Characters level up based on achieving certain goals in the story (basically same idea as milestone in the XP section, except that you are giving out an entire level at a time)
Out of the class groups, why tackle Experts first? I honestly would have thought Warriors myself.
IMO. One part is "ranger was the least developed class in the phb" is a common speculation in the community. Assassin was another common complaint but with the new rules we can extrapolate how it might be fixed. (Suprise seems changed)
IMO. Another is how they said "experts pull from other classes" I think this let's them test the waters for areas of adjustment. so if something "up and coming" is going to be upset, it gives them time to change it early. It also give a well rounded overview of the others.
Out of the class groups, why tackle Experts first? I honestly would have thought Warriors myself.
It might just be random.
Though I would guess there are a number of reasons.
Mages and Priests will take a lot of work. They have the most subclasses in 5e (which might get a complete rework), many spells to update, and need the rules glossary part to really work first. Warriors will probably get a lot of changes to counteract the perceived imbalance between martials and spellcasters.
Comparatively, expertise is a pretty narrow focus. We all know how it works. The classes are mostly straightforward. Rangers needed the most work but I think they felt they were already close with Tasha's. Rogues are really simple. And people were happy with Bards already. It's also the group that people probably wondered the most about. What does it mean to be an Expert? So answering that question out of the gate was maybe something they wanted to do to clear things up.
Out of the class groups, why tackle Experts first? I honestly would have thought Warriors myself.
It might just be random.
Though I would guess there are a number of reasons.
Mages and Priests will take a lot of work. They have the most subclasses in 5e (which might get a complete rework), many spells to update, and need the rules glossary part to really work first. Warriors will probably get a lot of changes to counteract the perceived imbalance between martials and spellcasters.
Comparatively, expertise is a pretty narrow focus. We all know how it works. The classes are mostly straightforward. Rangers needed the most work but I think they felt they were already close with Tasha's. Rogues are really simple. And people were happy with Bards already. It's also the group that people probably wondered the most about. What does it mean to be an Expert? So answering that question out of the gate was maybe something they wanted to do to clear things up.
Or maybe they just pulled a name from a hat haha.
It might also be because it was the only group to include a full caster, half caster, and full martial class in the group, in some ways making it the most varied.
Out of the class groups, why tackle Experts first? I honestly would have thought Warriors myself.
Experts are first alphabetically and probably take a lot less work than some of the other class groups. But the process for picking what group goes first could just have been arbitrary. Anyways, there is not a clear cut answer to your question, we really don't know why Expert went first.
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.
I like the crunch of what I am reading so far, but I do not like the fluff. No shocker there, WotC is terrible with fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You want around 6:20. They explicitly said that all the adventures and supplements will be able to be used in the new 1D&D, the only things that are changing are the PHB, MM and DMG. Even then...I imagine that the MM will still be usable.
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.
There is two problem I think will be difficult to solve. Firstly 5E compatibility means that all of the classes sub classes and backgrounds will needed a way to be represented. Other wise a new edition will seem like an downgrade. Also if One DND is the final form, they can’t just put it out in books. Especially now that they have merged with DND beyond, they will have to put it online. So does that mean we are heading for a website with a subscription that gets edited without notice?
There is two problem I think will be difficult to solve. Firstly 5E compatibility means that all of the classes sub classes and backgrounds will needed a way to be represented. Other wise a new edition will seem like an downgrade. Also if One DND is the final form, they can’t just put it out in books. Especially now that they have merged with DND beyond, they will have to put it online. So does that mean we are heading for a website with a subscription that gets edited without notice?
I believe that will be the case. I think, though I am not certain, that they are planning to move away from physical printed books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There is two problem I think will be difficult to solve. Firstly 5E compatibility means that all of the classes sub classes and backgrounds will needed a way to be represented. Other wise a new edition will seem like an downgrade. Also if One DND is the final form, they can’t just put it out in books. Especially now that they have merged with DND beyond, they will have to put it online. So does that mean we are heading for a website with a subscription that gets edited without notice?
I believe that will be the case. I think, though I am not certain, that they are planning to move away from physical printed books.
While it may be their plan, its a bad one, they'd likely lose 30-40% of their audience. Its a group of people that likes books.
I believe that will be the case. I think, though I am not certain, that they are planning to move away from physical printed books.
While it may be their plan, its a bad one, they'd likely lose 30-40% of their audience. Its a group of people that likes books.
30-40%? In the grand scheme of things, most D&D players don't use DDB, they buy the physical versions of books. If WotC stopped printing those books, then they'd lose almost all of their customers. They have no incentive "to move away from physical printed books" and stop a large portion of their customers from wanting to buy their product.
Firstly 5E compatibility means that all of the classes sub classes and backgrounds will needed a way to be represented.
Reproducing every single class, subclass, and background so that they can be "represented" in 1DD would take years and would prevent WotC from adding much, if any, new content for either of those three things. You can modify the 5e versions of the classes, subclasses, and backgrounds and it will work with the next edition.
Especially now that they have merged with DND beyond, they will have to put it online. So does that mean we are heading for a website with a subscription that gets edited without notice?
My guess is that DDB would notify you and give you time to unsubscribe before changing how subscriptions work. That being said, while it is not a good thing, it is certainly not too uncommon for companies to change how their subscriptions work without alerting their customers.
Wizards estimate that there are 50million people who play D&D. There are 10million DDB users (including those who got an account but don't use it or even play D&D etc). That would leave around 80% of the player base being alienated if they went digital only. That's not accounting for people like me who has an account and bought some stuff, but firmly wants at least some books and probably wouldn't buy anything if I didn't have the choice.
It would wreck them if they went digital only, as much as they'd like to.
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.
There is about 0 chance they go digital only. Adding new features to digital, making dndbeyond more and more useful, to the point that digital looks more and more attractive, sure. Finding incentives to make people want digital over print, maybe. Digital only, no.
As long as characters made the 5e way can play with characters made with the 1D&D way, it is compatible to me. Currently, characters can already use lots of different sets of optional rules and still play together. Characters created the super traditional way (static racial ASIs, no feats, rolled stats, rolled HP, spell slots, and backgrounds with features) can already be played with a characters with more modern options (floating ASIs, feats, point buy, average HP, spell points, and backgrounds with feats).
Hell, characters can even use different expierence, healing, and resting rules and still play together. The super traditional character can level up by experience points, have slow natural healing, and gritty realism rest, while the newer character can level up every automatically every 3 sessions, have healing surges, and go by epic heroism rest. The characters will level up at different rates and will feel very different power wise, but they can still be played together. I agree this should not be recommended for most tables and campaigns, but the GM and players can totally make it work if they do not mind the imbalance in power. Or maybe that imbalance in power is exactly what the group is looking for. Imagine a fantasy adventure spiced up with a love triangle and lots of romantic comedy, and the campaign is called Twilight Gaiden: the story stars a pair of really strong strawberry blonde bombshell dhampir arcana cleric twins who can bend reality with their wish, competing for the affection, caress, licks, and love of a pitifully weak, but brave and honorable, shifter champion fighter.
Both traditional and new characters still roll dice the same way: initiative, attack, damage, saving throw, and skill checks. The example above would be horribly balanced, but that does not mean they are not playable together. As long as the core framework of rolling the dice is the same, how the characters are made does not matter.
I think all rules are open to updates, none are off limits. I think it is narrowminded and nonsensical to hostilely see new rules as absolute replacements for old rules, when in fact GMs and players can just treat it like any other optional rule in the PHB and DMG, and people can mix and match as they please. Do not like feats? Do not use it. Want gritty realism rest? Use gritty realism rest. Some players want spell slots while some want spell points? Players can choose whichever system they want for their characters. One player really like the old ranger while another one wants to play the new one from TCOE? Basically same question, so yes, players can have their cake and eat it too. There is nothing 1D&D can throw at 5e that 5e cannot handle. I think it is an unwillingness to accept change that stops people from incorporating new options.
We already have class updates in TCOE in the form of OCF and more elaborate feat trees in S:COC. I do not see why we cannot have more updates to classes and feats. I do not care if they change what level you get an ability as long as we still get to use the old option.
Give me more hide rules, so I can choose which one I want to apply depending on the situation. Heck, I can probably even let my players pick which one they want to use if I am feeling frisky.
Some monsters have new updates in MP:MOTM, and they are compatible with monsters from VGTM and MTOF. It is totally possible to run a legacy and updated versions side by side in the same encounter.
The core three rulebooks have NEVER, EVER, EVER been necessary. People need to stop putting those three books on a pedastal and stop thinking they need to buy them. People do not have to pay a single penny to Wizards. All you need to play D&D is the BR/SRD, and there is also some free official stuff from EEPC, MCV1:SC, etc. If you want even more free stuff and you do not mind it not being publication official, there is a massive archive of UA on Wizards' website and practically infinite free third party homebrew online.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
XXXGammaRay said it beautifully. Change is necessary, not only to improve bad mechanics, but to strengthen good mechanics and make them even better. While change could potentially lead to worse mechanics, the whole purpose of the UAs is making sure that doesn't happen. And you can't make anything better if you refuse change for fear of making it worse.
That being said, personally, I think that books shouldn't be discontinued, neither physically nor digitally, because if you want someone to be able to use something from a previous edition, and mix and match rules from an edition they didn't have a book of, those books should still be printed so they can remain accessible. For example, though I am against M3 in general, DDB could have marked Volo's and Mordenkainen's as "Legacy" and still have them on their website, available for purchase, so that players who primarily use DDB and didn't already have a copy could make a choice on whether to use the M3 version or the version from those two books. I may be crazy, but when 1DD is released, I want versions of the core 5e books to still be printed, just with lower supply to match the lower demand.
Anyways, though the definition of "backwards compatible" is different to some, I agree with XXXGammaRay that as long as you are able to use the two editions together, and they work relatively well, then I think that would mean they are compatible.
Also, just wondering: XXXGammaRay, what do you mean by having the 1DD characters level up every three sessions? Is that something I missed in the UA? Because it would make much more sense for them for level up with the 5e characters.
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 believe leveling up every 3 sessions is how Adventurer's League handles experience, and is a convenient way to lock level progression to a real world timeline. The point being made was that being "compatible" doesn't mean they have to be "equal". Tables can use existing optional rules with more granularity to enjoy more complicated play.
Most tables assume all characters are equal, so they should progress the same. However, if you want to play a story where one or more characters are different, then you could use a faster experience track to represent a more "heroic" character. (E.g. Frodo being accompanied by Merry and Pippin.) Or you could have one character be on Milestone progression to tie their progression to major in-game events. Or each character could have different milestones.
It would be pretty unconventional to do this, but could make for a very interesting story.
Edit: It could also be used to give more experienced players an in-game handicap, so that they have to be more creative to keep up with newer players.
That's a great question.
To me, any of the options in the Player's Handbook can change. Which means feats, classes, spells, etc. Because you're not going going to be mix-and-matching core books at a table. Which means you can revise the wording on many class features, all feats, all spells, etc. Ditto anything in the Monster Manual *.
But, when you can't easily take a subclass or other option from a sourcebook and use it as written, that's when it stops being backwards compatible.
For example, the races in Package One were fine. Existing additive subraces didn't match exactly as racial bonuses were moved, but that's easy to fix. It might trip up a brand new DM unfamiliar with that change, but for everyone else it's effortless to convert. You just need to ignore that one line, not add or rewrite anything.
But something like the bard College of Spirits released just over a year ago is harder. It lacks a 10th level subclass feature. Or the Soulknife from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as the rogue gets nothing at 6th level or 14th level. (The bard at least gets a Inspiration die boost and a new spell.) Those features get delayed by 3 levels. Similarly, if the RULES change to invalidate an option that's a problem. Like the Grave Cleric's ability to negate monster crits.
It's still possible to use that content... if you're willing to rewrite and rebalance the options. But largely the old content becomes no longer valid and useable, and you need to buy updates to use those options. Which may or may not ever exist (as WotC seldom updates 100% of options with an edition change). Which is very problematic if new players or DMs spend their money on that outdated content believing it is still usable. Which can easily happen if said books are still readily available on store shelves right beside the new books.
* And while you can change and rewrite monsters in the Monster Manual to make them easier to run or more interesting, the general power level of said monsters shouldn't change. A galeb duhr shouldn't go from CR 6 to 10 or a storm giant from CR 13 to 8. Because that makes it harder to run published adventures. You need to suddenly vet every encounter to make sure a stealth change doesn't lead to an accidental TPK. Which isn't a theoretical problem, as a shift in an NPC's CR led to a deadly fight in the initial printing of Hoard of the Dragon Queen after it changed before the MM was published.
I have not really mentioned much mechanics from the UA, and I am just highlighting all the different things you can do in 5e alone right now. In the DMG, they mentioned two main ways to level up: with XP points and without XP points.
With XP, there are several ways to give those points:
- Good old fashioned way of getting it from defeating each individual monster
- Getting an arbitrary amount for each encounter (the book mentions this specifically for noncombat encounter, but I imagine you can do this for combat encounters too)
- Getting an arbitrary amount for completing a milestone (such as completing a quest, discovering critical information to advance the plot, arriving at a destination, etc.; basically the same idea as awarding XP based on encounters, but these events are not necessarily encounter based)
- Injecting XP into specific characters directly (the DMG mentions this way to help players who missed a session to keep pace, but you can also use this to create and magnify a gap between characters)
Without XP, the book mentions two ways to level up:
- Characters level up based on the amount of session they play (the book provides a suggestion of one session to advance from levels 1-2 and 2-3, two sessions for 3-4, and two or three sessions from level 4 onwards)
- Characters level up based on achieving certain goals in the story (basically same idea as milestone in the XP section, except that you are giving out an entire level at a time)
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I have a thought, though it's more a question.
Out of the class groups, why tackle Experts first? I honestly would have thought Warriors myself.
IMO. One part is "ranger was the least developed class in the phb" is a common speculation in the community. Assassin was another common complaint but with the new rules we can extrapolate how it might be fixed. (Suprise seems changed)
IMO. Another is how they said "experts pull from other classes" I think this let's them test the waters for areas of adjustment. so if something "up and coming" is going to be upset, it gives them time to change it early. It also give a well rounded overview of the others.
I expect warriors to be next but won't bet on it.
It might just be random.
Though I would guess there are a number of reasons.
Mages and Priests will take a lot of work. They have the most subclasses in 5e (which might get a complete rework), many spells to update, and need the rules glossary part to really work first. Warriors will probably get a lot of changes to counteract the perceived imbalance between martials and spellcasters.
Comparatively, expertise is a pretty narrow focus. We all know how it works. The classes are mostly straightforward. Rangers needed the most work but I think they felt they were already close with Tasha's. Rogues are really simple. And people were happy with Bards already. It's also the group that people probably wondered the most about. What does it mean to be an Expert? So answering that question out of the gate was maybe something they wanted to do to clear things up.
Or maybe they just pulled a name from a hat haha.
It might also be because it was the only group to include a full caster, half caster, and full martial class in the group, in some ways making it the most varied.
Experts are first alphabetically and probably take a lot less work than some of the other class groups. But the process for picking what group goes first could just have been arbitrary. Anyways, there is not a clear cut answer to your question, we really don't know why Expert went first.
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.It feels like a less diverse version of 5e.
Like the developers think "sameness = good".
For me sameness = less diverse.
I like the crunch of what I am reading so far, but I do not like the fluff. No shocker there, WotC is terrible with fluff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Since this was a discussion about compatibility, it came to mind when one of the mods posted this video:
https://youtu.be/XGT6kn_DYJM
You want around 6:20. They explicitly said that all the adventures and supplements will be able to be used in the new 1D&D, the only things that are changing are the PHB, MM and DMG. Even then...I imagine that the MM will still be usable.
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.
There is two problem I think will be difficult to solve. Firstly 5E compatibility means that all of the classes sub classes and backgrounds will needed a way to be represented. Other wise a new edition will seem like an downgrade. Also if One DND is the final form, they can’t just put it out in books. Especially now that they have merged with DND beyond, they will have to put it online. So does that mean we are heading for a website with a subscription that gets edited without notice?
I believe that will be the case. I think, though I am not certain, that they are planning to move away from physical printed books.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
While it may be their plan, its a bad one, they'd likely lose 30-40% of their audience. Its a group of people that likes books.
30-40%? In the grand scheme of things, most D&D players don't use DDB, they buy the physical versions of books. If WotC stopped printing those books, then they'd lose almost all of their customers. They have no incentive "to move away from physical printed books" and stop a large portion of their customers from wanting to buy their product.
Reproducing every single class, subclass, and background so that they can be "represented" in 1DD would take years and would prevent WotC from adding much, if any, new content for either of those three things. You can modify the 5e versions of the classes, subclasses, and backgrounds and it will work with the next edition.
What? Why couldn't they?
My guess is that DDB would notify you and give you time to unsubscribe before changing how subscriptions work. That being said, while it is not a good thing, it is certainly not too uncommon for companies to change how their subscriptions work without alerting their customers.
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.Wizards estimate that there are 50million people who play D&D. There are 10million DDB users (including those who got an account but don't use it or even play D&D etc). That would leave around 80% of the player base being alienated if they went digital only. That's not accounting for people like me who has an account and bought some stuff, but firmly wants at least some books and probably wouldn't buy anything if I didn't have the choice.
It would wreck them if they went digital only, as much as they'd like to.
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.
There is about 0 chance they go digital only.
Adding new features to digital, making dndbeyond more and more useful, to the point that digital looks more and more attractive, sure. Finding incentives to make people want digital over print, maybe. Digital only, no.
Books = money. Everyone likes money. Even WotC.