I have seen many folks say that, since 5e SRD is in CC now, that One D&D will certainly not be backwards compatible, because if it is, there is no point in a new more stringent license for One D&D going forward. This is based on WotC's poor handling of 4e 15 years ago and their poor handling of the OGL crisis. But history never repeats in exactly the same way because its actors (in this case WotC) know what happened before. It is highly unlikely that WotC will make the EXACT SAME mistake twice, especially since the creative team of 4e really thought that they were making a better game, while the creative team for One D&D is the same as for 5e, and is a team that so far has been making One D&D backwards compatible and promised that compatibility again and again. So if Wizards, a company under heavy scrutiny by the public and investors, wants an edition that isn't backwards compatible, they have to go directly against their creators. I don't think that's a decision that is being seriously considered.

Quote from Dindomir_Eagleshield >>

I have seen many folks say that, since 5e SRD is in CC now, that One D&D will certainly not be backwards compatible, because if it is, there is no point in a new more stringent license for One D&D going forward. This is based on WotC's poor handling of 4e 15 years ago and their poor handling of the OGL crisis. But history never repeats in exactly the same way because its actors (in this case WotC) know what happened before. It is highly unlikely that WotC will make the EXACT SAME mistake twice, especially since the creative team of 4e really thought that they were making a better game, while the creative team for One D&D is the same as for 5e, and is a team that so far has been making One D&D backwards compatible and promised that compatibility again and again. So if Wizards, a company under heavy scrutiny by the public and investors, wants an edition that isn't backwards compatible, they have to go directly against their creators. I don't think that's a decision that is being seriously considered.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that aren't really true.

For one, the One D&D team is completely different than the 5e team was.  The bulk of the creative team, in particular, those with the most influence on 5e were consultants drawn from the 3rd party community none of which are part of the One D&D team.  Wizards of the Coast was under different management and the philosophy of 5e development was "returning to classic D&D".

That doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome will be different, meaning that they may keep to their promise and remain "compatible", but the issue here is the word compatible.  From the perspective of Wizards of the Coast 3rd edition and 3.5 were compatible, they were not as was 4th edition and Essentials, which also a big ...sort of.  The term compatible by the definition being promised at least in how the community is assuming it will be is that you can use your 5th edition books to play One D&D content and vice versus.  That is a tall order and I suspect that "compatibility" here really means more along the lines of the way 3rd and 3.5 is compatible, meaning its similar enough to convert to but not exactly compatible by this particular definition.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from Dindomir_Eagleshield >>

I have seen many folks say that, since 5e SRD is in CC now, that One D&D will certainly not be backwards compatible, because if it is, there is no point in a new more stringent license for One D&D going forward. This is based on WotC's poor handling of 4e 15 years ago and their poor handling of the OGL crisis. But history never repeats in exactly the same way because its actors (in this case WotC) know what happened before. It is highly unlikely that WotC will make the EXACT SAME mistake twice, especially since the creative team of 4e really thought that they were making a better game, while the creative team for One D&D is the same as for 5e, and is a team that so far has been making One D&D backwards compatible and promised that compatibility again and again. So if Wizards, a company under heavy scrutiny by the public and investors, wants an edition that isn't backwards compatible, they have to go directly against their creators. I don't think that's a decision that is being seriously considered.

 

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that aren't really true.

For one, the One D&D team is completely different than the 5e team was.  The bulk of the creative team, in particular, those with the most influence on 5e were consultants drawn from the 3rd party community none of which are part of the One D&D team.  Wizards of the Coast was under different management and the philosophy of 5e development was "returning to classic D&D".

That doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome will be different, meaning that they may keep to their promise and remain "compatible", but the issue here is the word compatible.  From the perspective of Wizards of the Coast 3rd edition and 3.5 were compatible, they were not as was 4th edition and Essentials, which also a big ...sort of.  The term compatible by the definition being promised at least in how the community is assuming it will be is that you can use your 5th edition books to play One D&D content and vice versus.  That is a tall order and I suspect that "compatibility" here really means more along the lines of the way 3rd and 3.5 is compatible, meaning its similar enough to convert to but not exactly compatible by this particular definition.

 The playtest is almost fully compatible, and can be made even more compatible as it goes along. Also, you absolutely can play 3.0 with even Pathfinder 1e with minimal issue, you just can't use Pathfinder adventures with 3.0 base classes.