Honesty, if it stays close to the current 1dnd rules, my tables will probably take some of the updated glossary items but keep 5e as the basic play standard. they are not a fan of alot of the bard, ranger and rogue balance changes.
The main thing is the adventures, and they'll be fine at the moment.
You can have a mixture of edition classes in the party.
You can't really pick 'n' mix your class and subclass...but that's not really a biggie, is it?
The main thing that will be obsolete will be the PHB, possibly some of the DMG and maybe the MM? If you're worried about that, the free stuff will see you through.
The big concern I have is if I don't like the final product. My local group will likely switch regardless of my feeling, so I'll be forced to play those rules. If I don't like them, that will suck. However, no one can reasonably expect 5e to be eternal and unchanging, I knew 5e was getting long in the tooth when I bought it last year, it was a risk I took. Luckily, unlike say a certain war game, the vast majority of my investments will still be viable regardless of edition.
I'm not sure there's a lot to get angry about here. If they release another version in 2026, then I'll get my pitchforks out.
I’m especially worried about the PHB and the like. I’m a little upset because I know at least one of my friends is going to immediately buy the newest books and use the newest rules. I just like D&D where it is. I’m fairly new to the community, and I have just established myself as a DM who has run a full and fun campaign. I don’t want to have to do all that again. My main concern is if I can afford the new books, money or storage wise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
The main thing is the adventures, and they'll be fine at the moment.
You can have a mixture of edition classes in the party.
You can't really pick 'n' mix your class and subclass...but that's not really a biggie, is it?
The main thing that will be obsolete will be the PHB, possibly some of the DMG and maybe the MM? If you're worried about that, the free stuff will see you through.
The big concern I have is if I don't like the final product. My local group will likely switch regardless of my feeling, so I'll be forced to play those rules. If I don't like them, that will suck. However, no one can reasonably expect 5e to be eternal and unchanging, I knew 5e was getting long in the tooth when I bought it last year, it was a risk I took. Luckily, unlike say a certain war game, the vast majority of my investments will still be viable regardless of edition.
I'm not sure there's a lot to get angry about here. If they release another version in 2026, then I'll get my pitchforks out.
I’m especially worried about the PHB and the like. I’m a little upset because I know at least one of my friends is going to immediately buy the newest books and use the newest rules. I just like D&D where it is. I’m fairly new to the community, and I have just established myself as a DM who has run a full and fun campaign. I don’t want to have to do all that again. My main concern is if I can afford the new books, money or storage wise.
Just tell your friends that you'd rather stick with 5E for the time being (remember, the release is still 2 years away). If they quit your game because of that, they weren't very good friends to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
PHB is obsolete, if you want to play 1D&D and not 5e (which I agree is a bigger deal than some posters are trying to intimate). Beyond that... there's not a lot that can go obsolete really. They rereleased XGtE and TCoE with MotM, which was explicitly tied to 1D&D as well as 5e, so they have to stay usable or it'll go down like a lead balloon. DMG could be problematic. MM should be fine.
I don't think they're messing with CR much. I mean they could, but the idea is that PCs are roughly as powerful (in a general sense) in either...so I doubt they'd mess with CRs. It would be detracting from their backwards compatibility claim while not really gaining much in return. A Goblin is likely to be roughly the same power in either version. That'd mean that the MM will be usable. Different, but you could probably use either MM with adventures.
The various setting books? Well, the mechanical stuff there are mainly subclasses...that still work. The lore may not be kept, depends on how they're viewing this change. I'd like them to come out and confirm that they're keeping the lore or if they're resetting it. I imagine they're keeping it though.
The only books I'm thinking will be obsolete will be the PHB and DMG, with maybe parts of the settings books.
I'm just saying I have my doubts. If they manage to make it backward compatible, my congratulations to the design team. But I've already experienced this, and it never works well.
In fact, I have played two short adventures with the playtest material. In one we only used the material from the play test (and obviously the current PHB for which it was not covered by the UA). The adventure worked more or less well, except for a few things (which I wrote in the survey that it is for). The normal and expected. In the other we mix things from everything that exists, and some things are unbalanced. Which is also normal.
But beyond that. What WoTC wants is to sell you his books. It is not an NGO, nor is its goal to altruistically entertain fans. They want to make money, of course. So little by little the old manuals are going to become obsolete. This is what happened with Volo's and Mordenkainen when Monsters of the Multiverse came out. And we will see it with other manuals.
Regarding adventures, compatibility is easier for obvious reasons. However, it is difficult for the CR to remain as it is. In fact, that is already the case. If you play some of the campaigns that came out right after D&D Next with Tasha's stuff, you'll notice that it's not leveled. That's because of the inevitable power creep. And the power creep exists because if not, they wouldn't sell the new material. Etc... It's normal, it's what has always happened, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen.
But hey, who knows, maybe there really is that 100% backward compatibility. I am skeptical, but of course I could be wrong.
The only way a new edition could be 100% backwards compatible is... if nothing changed. They could just keep printing what we have. We could all continue to play with rules that don't really get used very often (rangers, weak subclasses, exhaustion, inspiration), rules that imbalance a party power (the optimized character with Sharpshooter vs everyone else), and rules that no one seems to understand (hiding and influence).
Maybe it's just because I also play a certain miniature wargame, but I think new editions are a part of the process. If not exciting, they are at least expected. In the case of 1DnD, this edition is going to be one of the least changed version of the rules ever done.
Overall I'm pretty happy with where it is going. The places where I'm not, I'm going to provide feedback. If it makes it in the game anyway, I'll just house rule it back. I understand the frustration of feeling like you have to change, especially if you just got in the game. I really do. We've got at least 2 years to keep playing with what we have. They might have made MoM to replace Mordenkainen's and Xanathar's, but I own all three and use them all in every game. If they can make this edition still mostly usable with old adventures and the more recent books, that's about as much backwards compatibility as I could reasonable hope for.
It won't be obsolete, per se. The upcoming content is designed to be backwards compatible, and isn't likely to be released officially for quite a while. People will continue to play 5th edition, and many people still play 3.5e and older editions as well.
They said it would be backward compatible but the things coming out of the UA it seems like it is not. This seems more like a change to a new edition than a 5.5e. The errata and rules clarification from 3e to 3.5e is a perfect example of a backwards compatible as the majority of both the PHB is the same in both versions. This is a complete rules overhaul like 4e was.
We've seen almost nothing so far and its not like its coming next month. While I suspect very little will be backwards compatible, even the most recent rules supplement you will get years of use from. And yes, you can stick with 5e. Though having lived through tons of edition changes in multiple systems I get that is easier said than done. Finding tables for old editions can be hard, and without steady material coming out its not as easy to keep a game going for many tables. Sometimes a new edition is such a dud only some of that is a concern.
It won't be obsolete, per se. The upcoming content is designed to be backwards compatible, and isn't likely to be released officially for quite a while. People will continue to play 5th edition, and many people still play 3.5e and older editions as well.
They said it would be backward compatible but the things coming out of the UA it seems like it is not. This seems more like a change to a new edition than a 5.5e. The errata and rules clarification from 3e to 3.5e is a perfect example of a backwards compatible as the majority of both the PHB is the same in both versions. This is a complete rules overhaul like 4e was.
Its does not look as big as the jump to 4e but it looks enough bigger than 3 to 3.5 that yeah, its a new edition. Adventures with work will be usable, and setting stuff for the most part will be but like /12 of spell jammer for example probably wont be, at least easily.
But beyond that. What WoTC wants is to sell you his books. It is not an NGO, nor is its goal to altruistically entertain fans. They want to make money, of course. So little by little the old manuals are going to become obsolete. This is what happened with Volo's and Mordenkainen when Monsters of the Multiverse came out. And we will see it with other manuals.
You're assuming that incompatible=higher profits due to higher new sales of books. This isn't necessarily true. I'm one of WotC's dreams come true in many ways. I generally buy my adventures and add a little homebrew twist. They make a ton of money because I'll buy most things going. They really don't want to lose me as a customer (or at least, my type of customer).
Let's say, hypothetically, that I try 1D&D and absolutely hate it. Or at least, I love 5e enough that I refuse to switch. If they release a new edition that I cannot use the materials without switching, what do I do? I either go into homebrew or I stop playing; either way, they lose a large source of profits.
People like that (high profits, high refusal to switch editions) are more likely to be present in higher numbers if the edition is popular relative to previous editions. This is because people are new, which gives them a lot more nostalgia factor in whether they'll switch, and just sheer numbers of people who actually like it, making it much harder for the next edition to be attractive enough to pull them over. In other words, if the edition is unpopular, you kill it. Nobody is particularly attached to it like my hypothetical example, and a new edition with new rules gives you the opportunity to try again and hopefully get more customers. If it's popular, you want to drag it out, get a larger customer base and of course you can just keep selling the same books without the expensive development work that goes on to create them, so more profits.
So where does 5e sit on that spectrum? Well, there's a reason why it's the longest running edition (with the exception of AD&D, which I'm not sure is really comparable, given they had multiple parallel versions running alongside it). They're not going to want to lose or even risk that massive cash cow by cutting off compatibility if they can help it. By keeping compatibility, even if I decide not to switch, I can still buy adventures and other materials. Sure, they lose their sales of an additional PHB...but given that I wasn't going to buy it anyway, that's no big deal. Given their promises of compatibility, they evidently feel my logic is sound.
How businesses work isn't as straightforward as "screw the customers over". They want the most profits, and while that does sometimes involve being predatory, it most often involves working in the customer's interest. .
But hey, who knows, maybe there really is that 100% backward compatibility. I am skeptical, but of course I could be wrong.
It won't be 100% compatible. We've already seen that pick 'n' mixing classes and subclasses will be problematic at best, and possibly nigh on impossible at worst. However, that doesn't render anything (beyond the PHB and DMG) obsolete. You can have a new Ranger and an old Wizard can still be in a party, at least how things work currently. If they're going to keep that promise of compatibility, then that will most likely stay true.
Most things will work fine. There will be restrictions, at least if you want plug-and-play, but there won't be mass obsolescence either. Two books, plus bits and pieces.
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.
It looks like it will (mostly) be a better version of the game, but I probably won't convert. Sunk cost fallacy: I have too many existing 5e books.
At this point it looks like they're going to miss the goal of backwards compatibility and instead just have backwards convertibility. So you can use the old subclasses if you're willing to partially redesign them, shuffling features around and accepting potential dead levels.
But the number of small and subtle changes really put me off. That just creates a headache as I need to laboriously read the rules and find out what the actual rule is and not just assume every rule is the same. I don't just have to learn the rules, I also need to forget the old rules. I did that before with the change from 3.0 to 3.5 and again from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and each time it was a headache. Each time I spent months going "no, no, that's not how it works anymore" or stumbling over a missed change while reading the books. It's almost easier to learn a brand new unrelated game.
In any case, beyond whether it will be truly compatible or not, which will be seen, what does seem clear is that this new edition is going to be better. Obviously there will be people who will not like to have x thing taken away from their favorite class, or that some rule that they abused be changed. And of course, there are always the born grumps to whom all change seems for the worse. But in general terms the new edition is on the right track. That will make most players switch naturally.
There are many people who mention the change from 3.5 to 4e as an argument to say that many people are not going to change. But that change was made wrong. I'm actually one of those players who didn't switch to 4e, and then switched to Pathfinder. And I didn't change not because 4e was bad (although I don't like it), but because it radically changed the philosophy of the game. That is not happening now. The gameplay is the same, the design philosophy is the same, and great care is being taken to make the changes feel organic and natural. In my opinion most players are going to switch to the new edition, and buy the new manuals as they are doing now.
It looks like it will (mostly) be a better version of the game, but I probably won't convert. Sunk cost fallacy: I have too many existing 5e books.
Saying that you've spent a large amount of money already and therefore you're not going to spend more money is the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy is where you keep spending money in pursuit of a goal past the point where you'd be better off quitting so that your spent money isn't "wasted."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It looks like it will (mostly) be a better version of the game, but I probably won't convert. Sunk cost fallacy: I have too many existing 5e books.
Saying that you've spent a large amount of money already and therefore you're not going to spend more money is the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy is where you keep spending money in pursuit of a goal past the point where you'd be better off quitting so that your spent money isn't "wasted."
The definition from Google is: the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
I'm reluctant to abandon 5.0 despite 5.5 likely being better in many ways because I'm heavily invested and so that won't be wasted. I applies. As the sunk cost fallacy can apply to any cost, including time. I've sunk a lot of time and money into 5.0 and I want my money's worth so I'm sinking MORE time in.
In any case, beyond whether it will be truly compatible or not, which will be seen, what does seem clear is that this new edition is going to be better. Obviously there will be people who will not like to have x thing taken away from their favorite class, or that some rule that they abused be changed. And of course, there are always the born grumps to whom all change seems for the worse. But in general terms the new edition is on the right track. That will make most players switch naturally.
"Better" is subjective and an opinion. If you call people who have a different opinion from you "born grumps" you're showing you not only are willing to hear their side and opinion, but are dismissing them entirely.
There are many people who mention the change from 3.5 to 4e as an argument to say that many people are not going to change. But that change was made wrong. I'm actually one of those players who didn't switch to 4e, and then switched to Pathfinder. And I didn't change not because 4e was bad (although I don't like it), but because it radically changed the philosophy of the game. That is not happening now. The gameplay is the same, the design philosophy is the same, and great care is being taken to make the changes feel organic and natural. In my opinion most players are going to switch to the new edition, and buy the new manuals as they are doing now.
And there are many, many people who think the changes from 3.5 to 4e were good and right. To them, the 3.5 holdouts were the "born grumps."
It looks like it will (mostly) be a better version of the game, but I probably won't convert. Sunk cost fallacy: I have too many existing 5e books.
Saying that you've spent a large amount of money already and therefore you're not going to spend more money is the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy is where you keep spending money in pursuit of a goal past the point where you'd be better off quitting so that your spent money isn't "wasted."
The definition from Google is: the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
I'm reluctant to abandon 5.0 despite 5.5 likely being better in many ways because I'm heavily invested and so that won't be wasted. I applies. As the sunk cost fallacy can apply to any cost, including time. I've sunk a lot of time and money into 5.0 and I want my money's worth so I'm sinking MORE time in.
"Even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial" is the active part of the fallacy. It is never clear that abandoning a game you've already paid for and have no more recurring costs for in favor of spending more money for a new game is beneficial, especially if you can still find people willing to play the first game. Which you almost certainly will for a few years after One D&D releases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm honestly curious about something. And I do mean it's a genuine question, not sarcasm or a setup for an argument. Because I do want to understand where people are coming from.
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.
My thoughts on 1DD is that it may have some things I don't like, but overall, I really like it. The new background system and way they do feats are great, and I can, and have, spent paragraphs upon paragraphs on these very forums lauding 1DD for the things it has done well. While it is almost certain that not all of 1DD is going to be backwards compatible, most of it will be, and as long as we have 5e's crit rules, then I'm mostly fine with 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.
I'm honestly curious about something. And I do mean it's a genuine question, not sarcasm or a setup for an argument. Because I do want to understand where people are coming from.
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.
The problem is that you haven't answered a key part - for what?
For example, if my objective is to play 5e but with new adventures (post-2024), then requiring that I buy a new PHB to make it work is obviously unacceptable. If I want to play 1D&D rules, then I have to be reasonable and expect to have to buy it. If my objective is to be able to use classes and subclasses interchangeably, then it'll be different. Different objectives give different expectations and redlines.
Personally, my expectations (as in, what I want) is that the 5e and 1D&D adventures are interchangeable. If there are alterations necessary, then the rules need to be really simple, ones I can memorise and implement at a glance - eg, add one monster for every four that are in an encounter. Nothing more complex than that, really. That's my redline. If they don't provide that, then they've lied to us, in my opinion.
What I really want is to be able to use things somewhat interchangeably. For example, to use an old Ranger in 1D&D and vice versa, although I'm fine with having to bodge it a bit (a la the Playtest). I'm absolutely fine with subclasses having to go with their respective edition classes, though. Eg, a 5e Evocation has to be played with the 5e Wizard, and a 1D&D Evocation has to be played with 1D&D Wizard). While I wouldn't say they were lying, I'd probably think they're being disingenuous if they labelled that as being backwards compatible.
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'm playtesting 1DnD using a 5e module right now. So far there hasn't been anything that would change it dramatically (except the stupid hide rules). In fact I would say most of the new rules might balance it better. Because of a more linear progression of power.
I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative. I do really want to understand. Because I don't know what people mean when they don't think it's backwards compatible.
For the class and subclass example, do you mean that you would prefer if every class ability came at the same level it did in 5e so the subclasses can be swapped between editions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honesty, if it stays close to the current 1dnd rules, my tables will probably take some of the updated glossary items but keep 5e as the basic play standard. they are not a fan of alot of the bard, ranger and rogue balance changes.
I’m especially worried about the PHB and the like. I’m a little upset because I know at least one of my friends is going to immediately buy the newest books and use the newest rules. I just like D&D where it is. I’m fairly new to the community, and I have just established myself as a DM who has run a full and fun campaign. I don’t want to have to do all that again. My main concern is if I can afford the new books, money or storage wise.
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
Just tell your friends that you'd rather stick with 5E for the time being (remember, the release is still 2 years away). If they quit your game because of that, they weren't very good friends to begin with.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I like what I’ve seen of the playtests so far.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I'm just saying I have my doubts. If they manage to make it backward compatible, my congratulations to the design team. But I've already experienced this, and it never works well.
In fact, I have played two short adventures with the playtest material. In one we only used the material from the play test (and obviously the current PHB for which it was not covered by the UA). The adventure worked more or less well, except for a few things (which I wrote in the survey that it is for). The normal and expected. In the other we mix things from everything that exists, and some things are unbalanced. Which is also normal.
But beyond that. What WoTC wants is to sell you his books. It is not an NGO, nor is its goal to altruistically entertain fans. They want to make money, of course. So little by little the old manuals are going to become obsolete. This is what happened with Volo's and Mordenkainen when Monsters of the Multiverse came out. And we will see it with other manuals.
Regarding adventures, compatibility is easier for obvious reasons. However, it is difficult for the CR to remain as it is. In fact, that is already the case. If you play some of the campaigns that came out right after D&D Next with Tasha's stuff, you'll notice that it's not leveled. That's because of the inevitable power creep. And the power creep exists because if not, they wouldn't sell the new material. Etc... It's normal, it's what has always happened, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen.
But hey, who knows, maybe there really is that 100% backward compatibility. I am skeptical, but of course I could be wrong.
The only way a new edition could be 100% backwards compatible is... if nothing changed. They could just keep printing what we have. We could all continue to play with rules that don't really get used very often (rangers, weak subclasses, exhaustion, inspiration), rules that imbalance a party power (the optimized character with Sharpshooter vs everyone else), and rules that no one seems to understand (hiding and influence).
Maybe it's just because I also play a certain miniature wargame, but I think new editions are a part of the process. If not exciting, they are at least expected. In the case of 1DnD, this edition is going to be one of the least changed version of the rules ever done.
Overall I'm pretty happy with where it is going. The places where I'm not, I'm going to provide feedback. If it makes it in the game anyway, I'll just house rule it back. I understand the frustration of feeling like you have to change, especially if you just got in the game. I really do. We've got at least 2 years to keep playing with what we have. They might have made MoM to replace Mordenkainen's and Xanathar's, but I own all three and use them all in every game. If they can make this edition still mostly usable with old adventures and the more recent books, that's about as much backwards compatibility as I could reasonable hope for.
They said it would be backward compatible but the things coming out of the UA it seems like it is not. This seems more like a change to a new edition than a 5.5e. The errata and rules clarification from 3e to 3.5e is a perfect example of a backwards compatible as the majority of both the PHB is the same in both versions. This is a complete rules overhaul like 4e was.
We've seen almost nothing so far and its not like its coming next month. While I suspect very little will be backwards compatible, even the most recent rules supplement you will get years of use from. And yes, you can stick with 5e. Though having lived through tons of edition changes in multiple systems I get that is easier said than done. Finding tables for old editions can be hard, and without steady material coming out its not as easy to keep a game going for many tables. Sometimes a new edition is such a dud only some of that is a concern.
Its does not look as big as the jump to 4e but it looks enough bigger than 3 to 3.5 that yeah, its a new edition. Adventures with work will be usable, and setting stuff for the most part will be but like /12 of spell jammer for example probably wont be, at least easily.
You're assuming that incompatible=higher profits due to higher new sales of books. This isn't necessarily true. I'm one of WotC's dreams come true in many ways. I generally buy my adventures and add a little homebrew twist. They make a ton of money because I'll buy most things going. They really don't want to lose me as a customer (or at least, my type of customer).
Let's say, hypothetically, that I try 1D&D and absolutely hate it. Or at least, I love 5e enough that I refuse to switch. If they release a new edition that I cannot use the materials without switching, what do I do? I either go into homebrew or I stop playing; either way, they lose a large source of profits.
People like that (high profits, high refusal to switch editions) are more likely to be present in higher numbers if the edition is popular relative to previous editions. This is because people are new, which gives them a lot more nostalgia factor in whether they'll switch, and just sheer numbers of people who actually like it, making it much harder for the next edition to be attractive enough to pull them over. In other words, if the edition is unpopular, you kill it. Nobody is particularly attached to it like my hypothetical example, and a new edition with new rules gives you the opportunity to try again and hopefully get more customers. If it's popular, you want to drag it out, get a larger customer base and of course you can just keep selling the same books without the expensive development work that goes on to create them, so more profits.
So where does 5e sit on that spectrum? Well, there's a reason why it's the longest running edition (with the exception of AD&D, which I'm not sure is really comparable, given they had multiple parallel versions running alongside it). They're not going to want to lose or even risk that massive cash cow by cutting off compatibility if they can help it. By keeping compatibility, even if I decide not to switch, I can still buy adventures and other materials. Sure, they lose their sales of an additional PHB...but given that I wasn't going to buy it anyway, that's no big deal. Given their promises of compatibility, they evidently feel my logic is sound.
How businesses work isn't as straightforward as "screw the customers over". They want the most profits, and while that does sometimes involve being predatory, it most often involves working in the customer's interest. .
It won't be 100% compatible. We've already seen that pick 'n' mixing classes and subclasses will be problematic at best, and possibly nigh on impossible at worst. However, that doesn't render anything (beyond the PHB and DMG) obsolete. You can have a new Ranger and an old Wizard can still be in a party, at least how things work currently. If they're going to keep that promise of compatibility, then that will most likely stay true.
Most things will work fine. There will be restrictions, at least if you want plug-and-play, but there won't be mass obsolescence either. Two books, plus bits and pieces.
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.
It looks like it will (mostly) be a better version of the game, but I probably won't convert. Sunk cost fallacy: I have too many existing 5e books.
At this point it looks like they're going to miss the goal of backwards compatibility and instead just have backwards convertibility. So you can use the old subclasses if you're willing to partially redesign them, shuffling features around and accepting potential dead levels.
But the number of small and subtle changes really put me off. That just creates a headache as I need to laboriously read the rules and find out what the actual rule is and not just assume every rule is the same. I don't just have to learn the rules, I also need to forget the old rules. I did that before with the change from 3.0 to 3.5 and again from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and each time it was a headache. Each time I spent months going "no, no, that's not how it works anymore" or stumbling over a missed change while reading the books.
It's almost easier to learn a brand new unrelated game.
In any case, beyond whether it will be truly compatible or not, which will be seen, what does seem clear is that this new edition is going to be better. Obviously there will be people who will not like to have x thing taken away from their favorite class, or that some rule that they abused be changed. And of course, there are always the born grumps to whom all change seems for the worse. But in general terms the new edition is on the right track. That will make most players switch naturally.
There are many people who mention the change from 3.5 to 4e as an argument to say that many people are not going to change. But that change was made wrong. I'm actually one of those players who didn't switch to 4e, and then switched to Pathfinder. And I didn't change not because 4e was bad (although I don't like it), but because it radically changed the philosophy of the game. That is not happening now. The gameplay is the same, the design philosophy is the same, and great care is being taken to make the changes feel organic and natural. In my opinion most players are going to switch to the new edition, and buy the new manuals as they are doing now.
Saying that you've spent a large amount of money already and therefore you're not going to spend more money is the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy is where you keep spending money in pursuit of a goal past the point where you'd be better off quitting so that your spent money isn't "wasted."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The definition from Google is: the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
I'm reluctant to abandon 5.0 despite 5.5 likely being better in many ways because I'm heavily invested and so that won't be wasted. I applies. As the sunk cost fallacy can apply to any cost, including time. I've sunk a lot of time and money into 5.0 and I want my money's worth so I'm sinking MORE time in.
"Better" is subjective and an opinion. If you call people who have a different opinion from you "born grumps" you're showing you not only are willing to hear their side and opinion, but are dismissing them entirely.
And there are many, many people who think the changes from 3.5 to 4e were good and right. To them, the 3.5 holdouts were the "born grumps."
"Even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial" is the active part of the fallacy. It is never clear that abandoning a game you've already paid for and have no more recurring costs for in favor of spending more money for a new game is beneficial, especially if you can still find people willing to play the first game. Which you almost certainly will for a few years after One D&D releases.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm honestly curious about something. And I do mean it's a genuine question, not sarcasm or a setup for an argument. Because I do want to understand where people are coming from.
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.
My thoughts on 1DD is that it may have some things I don't like, but overall, I really like it. The new background system and way they do feats are great, and I can, and have, spent paragraphs upon paragraphs on these very forums lauding 1DD for the things it has done well. While it is almost certain that not all of 1DD is going to be backwards compatible, most of it will be, and as long as we have 5e's crit rules, then I'm mostly fine with 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.The problem is that you haven't answered a key part - for what?
For example, if my objective is to play 5e but with new adventures (post-2024), then requiring that I buy a new PHB to make it work is obviously unacceptable. If I want to play 1D&D rules, then I have to be reasonable and expect to have to buy it. If my objective is to be able to use classes and subclasses interchangeably, then it'll be different. Different objectives give different expectations and redlines.
Personally, my expectations (as in, what I want) is that the 5e and 1D&D adventures are interchangeable. If there are alterations necessary, then the rules need to be really simple, ones I can memorise and implement at a glance - eg, add one monster for every four that are in an encounter. Nothing more complex than that, really. That's my redline. If they don't provide that, then they've lied to us, in my opinion.
What I really want is to be able to use things somewhat interchangeably. For example, to use an old Ranger in 1D&D and vice versa, although I'm fine with having to bodge it a bit (a la the Playtest). I'm absolutely fine with subclasses having to go with their respective edition classes, though. Eg, a 5e Evocation has to be played with the 5e Wizard, and a 1D&D Evocation has to be played with 1D&D Wizard). While I wouldn't say they were lying, I'd probably think they're being disingenuous if they labelled that as being backwards compatible.
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'm playtesting 1DnD using a 5e module right now. So far there hasn't been anything that would change it dramatically (except the stupid hide rules). In fact I would say most of the new rules might balance it better. Because of a more linear progression of power.
I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative. I do really want to understand. Because I don't know what people mean when they don't think it's backwards compatible.
For the class and subclass example, do you mean that you would prefer if every class ability came at the same level it did in 5e so the subclasses can be swapped between editions?