So the initial launch of One D&D included the goal of backwards compatible.
In the first few weeks my social media was flush with cynical claims that this was a completely new edition and money grab. How things are completely changing. With the first batch of Playtest material with races and backgrounds there was nothing that I felt wasn't easily hot swappable. The changes didn't feel different or greater changes to things than had already occurred in Tasha's, Fizban's, or Monsters of the Multiverse even more I didn't think that the game would change much at all if a new Playtest character joined an already existing game with little to no change.
This time around some of the changes seem bigger more definitions of established terms changed and so on. I still see lots of backwards compatibility but particularly the spellcasting changes feel very different.
Is anyone experimenting with running these characters side by side? How disruptive to the existing rules are the are new definitions and changes?
Too late! People have already gotten a taste with UA and now have no choice! They have eaten from the forbidden tree! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Jokes aside, I have played the first UA at my table along with 5e rules. I had one player completely uninterested in giving up his archeologist background because it had, to date, served him exceptionally well. The rest played with the new rules. There was no disruption but keep in mind that it was only the very first UA. Also, we rejected the inspiration on 20s and auto-failure/success as a table from the start. Overall, the changes we used were either positive or had a net neutral impact in terms of the UA being pasted over 5e.
We have not yet used the new UA, but we plan to put in a one shot for it later.
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".
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".
Perhaps they realized backwards compatible may only be achieved at the end with a lot of effort. So to address this, they are attempting to seduce consumers with some changes. With the changes to the rangers and the bards (everything for rangers and magical secrets swapped on LR, YES PLEASE!), you can consider me effectively seduced.
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".
Perhaps they realized backwards compatible may only be achieved at the end with a lot of effort. So to address this, they are attempting to seduce consumers with some changes. With the changes to the rangers and the bards (everything for rangers and magical secrets swapped on LR, YES PLEASE!), you can consider me effectively seduced.
I agree! ...but then again, I have never really cared about things being backward compatible lol.
Too late! People have already gotten a taste with UA and now have no choice! They have eaten from the forbidden tree! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Jokes aside, I have played the first UA at my table along with 5e rules. I had one player completely uninterested in giving up his archeologist background because it had, to date, served him exceptionally well. The rest played with the new rules. There was no disruption but keep in mind that it was only the very first UA. Also, we rejected the inspiration on 20s and auto-failure/success as a table from the start. Overall, the changes we used were either positive or had a net neutral impact in terms of the UA being pasted over 5e.
We have not yet used the new UA, but we plan to put in a one shot for it later.
The first UA was pretty compatible. This second one... isn't really. I mean, it's more so than, say, Warhammer 40k, but there are some real sticking points.
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".
I don't know about your example. They're different, but I'd say with classes, you assess it as a whole. Could we not take UA Bard of Lore and plonk him in a 5e campaign without much issue? Maybe you're seeing something that I'm not, but having different internal mechanisms won't render them not backwards compatible - I think it's fine to be unable to mix 'n' match class features from 5e and 1D&D and still consider them compatible.
The real question is the rules. Everyone being able to cast rituals is one of those issues. So is the more generic spell lists.
I suspect that "backwards compatible" will mean that, rather than being able to play both rulesets simultaneously or being able to have classes from either rules in the same party, it will mean that we can keep using adventures from 5e and play them in 1D&D (and hopefully vice versa). That's not perfect, but it's still acceptable. At least, to me.
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.
The more of these UAs that I see, the more I think backwards compatibility might be a trap.
All the feedback seems to be "this isn't the same as it used to be" or "this is a marginal nerf so I hate it." That feedback doesn't matter for a new game, but is all they'll get when people think the playtest is essentially for a patch to an old game.
They really should be writing a (whole) new game, and letting us play test that and just taking a solid step away from the old rules.
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.
I've always assumed this would be the case. The core chassis (now called the "d20 tests") and core terms/rules won't be changing, but everything else is subject to change.
So "backwards compatible" just means they're not making a core mechanic shift like there was from 2E to 3E. I suspect canon monsters from books published between 2014 and 2023 will work just fine, for the most part, in One D&D.
I suspect getting characters from 5E to work in One D&D and vice versa might take some work, but won't be impossible.
The UA says it is fine to just use the old subclasses if you want. Sure, you get one fewer feature. Not exactly something that will break the game, or even make your character noticeably weaker in any way.
I think the main problem is mindset: many people seem to be evaluating the new material as if it was a replacement for the old material. "I can't make this, or that, anymore." The old material isn't going away. We just have MORE options now. How is that a bad thing? Want to make an original bard with the original Lore College, original spell list, etc? Go for it. Want a brand new bard? You can do that too. Want a PHB bard but with the new Lore college? Sure. New bard with old subclass? Of course.
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!
So instead of worrying, why not try it out? Make an original flavor Bard with the UA subclass, and a new Bard with the original subclass. See which one you like better!
It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.
I do not take this to mean that "Backwards compatible" means you can mix and match content (5e and 1dnd at the same table) but rather that it "works." Can I run 2e modules with 5e? sure I can make it "work."
for subclasses this is what they mean by works
When playtesting the new version of a Class, you can use a Subclass from an older source, such as the 2014 Player’s Handbook or Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. If the older Subclass offers features at levels that are different from the Subclass levels in the Class, follow the older Subclass’s level progression after the Class lets you gain the Subclass
Wotc staff are deliberately using marketing tactics. good for them for attempting to monitor the reactionaries but I rather live in a world where we can act like adults and face the truth.
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".
Seems an easy fix for that is alternate class features from Tasha's.
The UA Bard can't effectively make use of any previous subclass. That means that it is not backwards compatible with them.
Why? Even without just using an alternate class feature from Tasha's. Why can't you just roll with the new bard and add the college of swords features at the level prescribed. Its the base class features that have changed.
The more of these UAs that I see, the more I think backwards compatibility might be a trap.
All the feedback seems to be "this isn't the same as it used to be" or "this is a marginal nerf so I hate it." That feedback doesn't matter for a new game, but is all they'll get when people think the playtest is essentially for a patch to an old game.
They really should be writing a (whole) new game, and letting us play test that and just taking a solid step away from the old rules.
Nah. Pathfinder exists because the jumped away from 3.5 too early. They don't want to do that again. Also this version of the ruleset is the one they aim to keep. I think they are fiddling with things around the edges. Tweak some things with races, classes and such. But it isn't and by no means needs to be a whole new thing.
Also I think backwards compatible has a lot to do with, you can run 5e adventures, items and content with One D&D changes. If you still want to play Descent to Avernus with the new hotness you can.
I think people are seeing "change" and assuming it won't work with what already exists. Tasha's introduced custom lineages which was a big change to races, with no issues. Monsters of the Multiverse straight up re-wrote many playable races, still compatible. So some of this change is adjustments not a brand new thing.
So the initial launch of One D&D included the goal of backwards compatible.
In the first few weeks my social media was flush with cynical claims that this was a completely new edition and money grab. How things are completely changing. With the first batch of Playtest material with races and backgrounds there was nothing that I felt wasn't easily hot swappable. The changes didn't feel different or greater changes to things than had already occurred in Tasha's, Fizban's, or Monsters of the Multiverse even more I didn't think that the game would change much at all if a new Playtest character joined an already existing game with little to no change.
This time around some of the changes seem bigger more definitions of established terms changed and so on. I still see lots of backwards compatibility but particularly the spellcasting changes feel very different.
Is anyone experimenting with running these characters side by side? How disruptive to the existing rules are the are new definitions and changes?
Too late! People have already gotten a taste with UA and now have no choice! They have eaten from the forbidden tree! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Jokes aside, I have played the first UA at my table along with 5e rules. I had one player completely uninterested in giving up his archeologist background because it had, to date, served him exceptionally well. The rest played with the new rules. There was no disruption but keep in mind that it was only the very first UA. Also, we rejected the inspiration on 20s and auto-failure/success as a table from the start. Overall, the changes we used were either positive or had a net neutral impact in terms of the UA being pasted over 5e.
We have not yet used the new UA, but we plan to put in a one shot for it later.
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
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".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Perhaps they realized backwards compatible may only be achieved at the end with a lot of effort. So to address this, they are attempting to seduce consumers with some changes. With the changes to the rangers and the bards (everything for rangers and magical secrets swapped on LR, YES PLEASE!), you can consider me effectively seduced.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I agree! ...but then again, I have never really cared about things being backward compatible lol.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The first UA was pretty compatible. This second one... isn't really. I mean, it's more so than, say, Warhammer 40k, but there are some real sticking points.
I don't know about your example. They're different, but I'd say with classes, you assess it as a whole. Could we not take UA Bard of Lore and plonk him in a 5e campaign without much issue? Maybe you're seeing something that I'm not, but having different internal mechanisms won't render them not backwards compatible - I think it's fine to be unable to mix 'n' match class features from 5e and 1D&D and still consider them compatible.
The real question is the rules. Everyone being able to cast rituals is one of those issues. So is the more generic spell lists.
I suspect that "backwards compatible" will mean that, rather than being able to play both rulesets simultaneously or being able to have classes from either rules in the same party, it will mean that we can keep using adventures from 5e and play them in 1D&D (and hopefully vice versa). That's not perfect, but it's still acceptable. At least, to me.
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.
The UA Bard can't effectively make use of any previous subclass. That means that it is not backwards compatible with them.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Why can't the UA Bard use old subclasses effectively?
The more of these UAs that I see, the more I think backwards compatibility might be a trap.
All the feedback seems to be "this isn't the same as it used to be" or "this is a marginal nerf so I hate it." That feedback doesn't matter for a new game, but is all they'll get when people think the playtest is essentially for a patch to an old game.
They really should be writing a (whole) new game, and letting us play test that and just taking a solid step away from the old rules.
All current bard subclasses have 3 subclass feature. The UA bard is designed around 4.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
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.
I've always assumed this would be the case. The core chassis (now called the "d20 tests") and core terms/rules won't be changing, but everything else is subject to change.
So "backwards compatible" just means they're not making a core mechanic shift like there was from 2E to 3E. I suspect canon monsters from books published between 2014 and 2023 will work just fine, for the most part, in One D&D.
I suspect getting characters from 5E to work in One D&D and vice versa might take some work, but won't be impossible.
The UA says it is fine to just use the old subclasses if you want. Sure, you get one fewer feature. Not exactly something that will break the game, or even make your character noticeably weaker in any way.
I think the main problem is mindset: many people seem to be evaluating the new material as if it was a replacement for the old material. "I can't make this, or that, anymore." The old material isn't going away. We just have MORE options now. How is that a bad thing? Want to make an original bard with the original Lore College, original spell list, etc? Go for it. Want a brand new bard? You can do that too. Want a PHB bard but with the new Lore college? Sure. New bard with old subclass? Of course.
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!
So instead of worrying, why not try it out? Make an original flavor Bard with the UA subclass, and a new Bard with the original subclass. See which one you like better!
This is from the FAQ
I do not take this to mean that "Backwards compatible" means you can mix and match content (5e and 1dnd at the same table) but rather that it "works." Can I run 2e modules with 5e? sure I can make it "work."
for subclasses this is what they mean by works
Wotc staff are deliberately using marketing tactics. good for them for attempting to monitor the reactionaries but I rather live in a world where we can act like adults and face the truth.
Derp. Learning the forum tricks.
Seems an easy fix for that is alternate class features from Tasha's.
Why? Even without just using an alternate class feature from Tasha's. Why can't you just roll with the new bard and add the college of swords features at the level prescribed. Its the base class features that have changed.
Nah. Pathfinder exists because the jumped away from 3.5 too early. They don't want to do that again. Also this version of the ruleset is the one they aim to keep. I think they are fiddling with things around the edges. Tweak some things with races, classes and such. But it isn't and by no means needs to be a whole new thing.
Also I think backwards compatible has a lot to do with, you can run 5e adventures, items and content with One D&D changes. If you still want to play Descent to Avernus with the new hotness you can.
I think people are seeing "change" and assuming it won't work with what already exists. Tasha's introduced custom lineages which was a big change to races, with no issues. Monsters of the Multiverse straight up re-wrote many playable races, still compatible. So some of this change is adjustments not a brand new thing.
If you have to homebrew fixes, it can't be considered backwards compatible
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master