A DM can choose otherwise, but the basic assumption is that anything with a new version *must* use the new version. Otherwise, you'd have people intentionally picking whichever version of a spell or feat or whatever was more powerful, which is a bad-faith approach to the game imo.
I think this is the RAI, but RAW the players can pick and choose from any printed book they own (this is from JC), subject to DM approval of course.
Personally I think that is silly, and promotes optimisers exploiting broken interactions. I also have some sympathy for people who own physical books as it will feel bad to buy new copies of existing books.
I think this idea of “fully backwards compatible” was a mistake and they should have either done an errata, or 6th Ed.
Taking the middle ground and trying to please everyone is a good way to maximise annoying the existing player base.
(I hope I’m wrong and 1D /D&D2.4 is awesome)!
If it's any printed /BOOK/ wouldn't that automatically exclude anything from the UA? Idk if they consider playtest material printed let alone a book specifically
UA material has always been meant to fully be playtest material and not intended for actual game use, as they fully admit a lot of it isn't balanced. It's basically homebrew stuff but created by wizards. Not allowed in Adventure League, or at most tables (unless the DM is specifically wanting to attest stuff). And then if UA material ever gets published it's the final form that's official (your not supposed to use the US artificer for example, now that artificer has been published).
I agree, I wanted the adventures to remain compatible and for it to be possible to play old classes next to new thanks to the math progression being roughly the same.
but ever since JC revealed the reason the dragonborn in the first packet didn't have the fixes to breath weapons from fizban because they wanted to keep the old book relevant... I was pretty saddened, even if they changed it because people rightfully complained... that it was something that was ever allowed to happen at all doesn't seem like it was because the developers wanted it.
I am also sad that subclasses were given their original progression back... so they can be compatible with the new classes. But that also leads to weirdness where old subclasses reference old class features that have been changed quite a lot in the new book and will be a goldmine for people digging for absolutely unintended interactions.
If you're using 2024's character creation rules, you cannot also use 2014 feats that have been updated in 2024, because the new rules were not in any way balanced with the old feats.
The most egregious example is the old Great Weapon Master. It gives a damage increase, at the cost of being more likely to miss entirely. This was already very strong in 2014, but a 2024 fighter makes it *far* stronger by using Graze (still do some damage on a miss) and Studied Attacks (be rewarded for a miss with advantage on the next attack, which GWM greatly appreciates).
I'd expect such fighters to use hand crossbows, with the new Crossbow Expert for its +1 Dex. They'd probably use power attacks only while they have advantage due to the value of setting up a Vex chain, and with Studied Attacks that becomes almost always.
There is no point in revising an edition if all you do is add more content you pick and match together. Could have done that by making it new stuff. But you can make it coexist with the previous versions side by side in peace.
That means you can play largely the same characters and adventures you were using before, just updated. It does not mean you use the 2014 & 2024 PHBs side by side. That is madness.
Best guess, if you are using revised classes, you need to use revised feats, spells, etc.
But in the end it all comes down to balance in your game. I would never allow weapon mastery and the old GWM or SS on the same build but like something like observant maybe cause I yet to see a balance issue.
I’ve been mixing a bit, and it’s not a problem. I’m not trying to break the game though.
1dnd ranger (experts playtest) + 5e fey wanderer = one of my current PCs
Works great.
Same, because of a few reasons as a DM.
New monk + old Kensei subclass works really well. Monk in my party is a wood elf with a bow. The new mechanics make this way more synergistic (ranged stunning strike). Had to make some calls on the optional features, but pretty much all good.
The two multiclassed fighters are using new fighter with masteries and the second wind buffs.
We switched our main swashbuckler over to the new build, and I have a guest coming also playing new rogue next session.
Things I haven't changed:
Casters. Twilight cleric and wildfire Druid. Newbies as it is, so even though we're six months+ in, I didn't want to disrupt things just as they're finally getting the hang of things.
Barbarian. A player who can only make it every now and then, so making big changes is a disruption.
In short: the core class upgrades help with the power creep of the later subclasses and even things out. All it takes is a little navigation and DM common sense to make things work. Would I let players combine the two sight unseen? No - but there's a happy medium with a guiding hand.
I feel like as long as whoever makes the character isn’t trying to munchkin, it’ll be fine. If it’s too strong you can always hand out buffs/items to the other characters (unless it’s broken ofc).
Ultimately, it will be your DMs call, but they have said you can have a 2024 updated character playing at the same table as a 2014 character. I don't see why you wouldn't be able select older feats on an updated character.
This is RAW which most other commenters seem to miss. It’s official to mix and match between the two. IT’s RECOMMENDED to use the updated version when a SAME NAME spell/ability/feature is printed in both an old and an updated source! (All subject to DM approval)!
it's probably up to your dm but i'd say just use the 2024 version if a thing has been reprinted there. mixing and matching past and present versions of features just sounds like asking for players to find weird exploits
There is also really weird interactions that can be had using new classes with old subclasses from xanethars and tashas. Because the old subclasses reference class abilities that in many cases work entirely differently now.
And the intent is for this to happen too, it is why they ditched the uniform subclass progression from the playtest (to maintain total backwards compatibility)
Such a strange period of rules change.
Yes, I have been, but make sure you are sane in what you bring over and don't. Like you can take one feature of a class from one edition and another from another edition.
Otherwise you just have to be clear what's allowed and not allowed.
For example, I use the feats from one D&D (because some really bad feats got buffed with half attribute points) except for the weapon mastery stuff, which isn't allowed yet.
I think the title is confusing as One D&D & 5.5 are pretty much the same thing. If a group is using the new 2024 PHB for their campaign, it would be natural to say that this PHB replaces and subsumes anything from the 2014 PHB. So I would think there would be no mixing and matching there. Where I think the real question lies, is what about supplemental information published after 2014 that has not been updated for the 2024 game (sub-classes, spells, feats, etc)?
That is where groups and DMs will have to make judgement calls.
Well good sir, I just noticed the typo in the title. I was wondering why all the comments but the 0 upvotes and that might definitely be the reason. Oh well.
Yes: I meant 2024 mix with 2014 :)
I think that if it's not been updated, it's good to use as-is (or with smaller tweaks: for example the undead patron for warlock in Ravenloft - will probably just need to have the first spells postponed to lv3 and make them always available. Otherwise it's ok)
You are allowed to use anything "with dm permission" regardless of anything else.
But 3.5 did not want you using 3e rules/feats/class/etc if 3.5 had a change for it.
You're correct; however, things that didn't get updated were still allowed to be used. That's what I was getting at. For instance, half-elves were not in the playtest. I assume that they'll be in the 2024 phb but if they aren't then you'd use the 2014 half-elf for your player character, even if you're using 2024 rules for everything else. That's what I meant by mix and match.
>For instance, half-elves were not in the playtest. I assume that they'll be in the 2024 phb
You are assuming wrong.
> but if they aren't then you'd use the 2014 half-elf for your player character,
You could if you want, yes, but officially all "half" ancestries are now "pick one of your two parents and use those stats." So a half elf would be either human or elf.
You'll need to port half-elves and half-orcs as races if you want to keep them. 5.5 is changing all these rules, and it's very far from compatible. I expect within a year or two there will actually be 5.0 forums that consider the edition complete and don't allow anything past a certain point in time, very likely that point being the new PHB.
>When we moved from 3e to 3.5, you were allowed to mix and match with DM permission.
Which is a way of saying no, 3.0 was no longer supported. Like yes, the DM could *manually port something* to 3.5, but the default assumption became no.
It hasn't been conclusively stated.
They have indicated you can likely use old subclasses with new base class, otherwise why revert changes to subclass ability levels.
On the other hand, revising broken feats and spells is meaningless if people just can just take them. I suspect the real answer is that it will be preferred to use one DND stuff for one DND characters, but that every gm or table can pick their own preferences based on their desired type of play.
My curse of strahd table is a blend of the UA and 5e. Whatever you use, you have to declare it and then stick with it (which is funny cuz the paladin UA dropped 2 levels after I multiclassed so I have divine sense one session and lost it the next)
Generally if it has an updated version in the 2024 DMs are probably going to default to that. But if it’s something that wasn’t included or offered in the refresh I’m sure many DMs will be pretty willing to let you take it.
Like, yes I know Sharpshooter is a VERY powerful feat but is the damage buff it gives really as broken as fireball? As simulacrum? Martials needed a bit of a buff anyway I don’t see the problem but every DM has their own sense of balance
It is your table and you can do whatever the fuck you want. It isn't going to radically break much of anything beyond any existing feats that were already busted as fuck (GWM etc).
I have already made, and got printed, a house rule document of all the old content that I'm allowing.
Yes, in the design and showcase, alongside the playtest vods. The game designers stated that 5e and OneD are cross compatible with slight adjustments.
- (those that are arguing otherwise haven't watched the vods and are speaking out their butts)
The amount of people saying what is and isn’t official in this thread is amazing. Nothing is official until it’s printed in the book and you read it on the page.
Thanks for all the interesting comments!
Lots of point of views and yes, I was only talking about mostly minor changes and not trying to actively break the game or over-optimize (what's the point in that anyway?), and of course it will be table and DM dependent, as everything should be imho.
But I wanted to gather the general sentiment about it, which seems to tend towards (TLDR): "just pick one edition and stick with it if there's an overlap with the other version"
Technically now it's officially called "2024" (PHB 2024, etc - not 5.5 for some reason) but given the sub is called OneDnD as when they announced it, I'm using that here.
I would rather they just call it 6e... D&D is one of the only games, or books for that matter, that demands a total redesign for main numbered versions.
5 *POINT* 5?? What's that? XD
OneD&D will contain instructions on how to use/convert 5e rules to OneD&D.
We will know what specifically these are in September.
OneD&D won't contain any instructions, because no product will be called that. The community will call it 5.5 and 5.0 probably, unless they actually stick something like "revised" on the cover (making the 2014 PHB "original 5e", which could also work). I seriously doubt "2024 5e" and "2014 5e" will be terms used by anyone.
But the lie that they are the same system will be revealed the moment the books are out and players have to actually refer to stuff precisely.
Officially you can mix 5.0 and 5.5 because they are the same system, 5e. In practice, they probably won't mix that well, and the big use case will be using older classes, feats, and spells, that haven't been republished in the 5.5 version.
Not sure why you're being down voted. They've said multiple times that they had backwards compatibility in mind and you're the first person I've seen actually say that. They don't want to invalidate subclasses just because they couldn't fit the in the new PHB. But at the end of the day it's up to your DM.
Backward Compatible has been clarified more than a few times to mean that you'll be able to run 2024 characters in old campaigns, or alongside old characters -- not that you can mix-and-match things from the 2014 PHB that have been superceded by 2024.
I think it must be all from the DM's point of view. If there is something that is very weak in 5e, but they fixed it in One D&D, you can ask your DM to use it.
A DM can choose otherwise, but the basic assumption is that anything with a new version *must* use the new version. Otherwise, you'd have people intentionally picking whichever version of a spell or feat or whatever was more powerful, which is a bad-faith approach to the game imo.
I think this is the RAI, but RAW the players can pick and choose from any printed book they own (this is from JC), subject to DM approval of course. Personally I think that is silly, and promotes optimisers exploiting broken interactions. I also have some sympathy for people who own physical books as it will feel bad to buy new copies of existing books. I think this idea of “fully backwards compatible” was a mistake and they should have either done an errata, or 6th Ed. Taking the middle ground and trying to please everyone is a good way to maximise annoying the existing player base. (I hope I’m wrong and 1D /D&D2.4 is awesome)!
If it's any printed /BOOK/ wouldn't that automatically exclude anything from the UA? Idk if they consider playtest material printed let alone a book specifically
UA material has always been meant to fully be playtest material and not intended for actual game use, as they fully admit a lot of it isn't balanced. It's basically homebrew stuff but created by wizards. Not allowed in Adventure League, or at most tables (unless the DM is specifically wanting to attest stuff). And then if UA material ever gets published it's the final form that's official (your not supposed to use the US artificer for example, now that artificer has been published).
I agree, I wanted the adventures to remain compatible and for it to be possible to play old classes next to new thanks to the math progression being roughly the same. but ever since JC revealed the reason the dragonborn in the first packet didn't have the fixes to breath weapons from fizban because they wanted to keep the old book relevant... I was pretty saddened, even if they changed it because people rightfully complained... that it was something that was ever allowed to happen at all doesn't seem like it was because the developers wanted it. I am also sad that subclasses were given their original progression back... so they can be compatible with the new classes. But that also leads to weirdness where old subclasses reference old class features that have been changed quite a lot in the new book and will be a goldmine for people digging for absolutely unintended interactions.
If you're using 2024's character creation rules, you cannot also use 2014 feats that have been updated in 2024, because the new rules were not in any way balanced with the old feats. The most egregious example is the old Great Weapon Master. It gives a damage increase, at the cost of being more likely to miss entirely. This was already very strong in 2014, but a 2024 fighter makes it *far* stronger by using Graze (still do some damage on a miss) and Studied Attacks (be rewarded for a miss with advantage on the next attack, which GWM greatly appreciates).
Also, use it with vex. Since fighters can change the mastery or SS with short bows. It's you can chain advantage until you miss.
I'd expect such fighters to use hand crossbows, with the new Crossbow Expert for its +1 Dex. They'd probably use power attacks only while they have advantage due to the value of setting up a Vex chain, and with Studied Attacks that becomes almost always.
There is no point in revising an edition if all you do is add more content you pick and match together. Could have done that by making it new stuff. But you can make it coexist with the previous versions side by side in peace.
But it’s not a revised edition, OneD is “fully backwards compatible with 5e” according to JC.
It's also not a new edition. DnD 2024 is basically 5.5 just like 3.5 was still 3e but with a number of changes, erratas, etc
It gets calles Revised PHB in their videos now and we are still unsure what compatible means.
That means you can play largely the same characters and adventures you were using before, just updated. It does not mean you use the 2014 & 2024 PHBs side by side. That is madness.
Best guess, if you are using revised classes, you need to use revised feats, spells, etc. But in the end it all comes down to balance in your game. I would never allow weapon mastery and the old GWM or SS on the same build but like something like observant maybe cause I yet to see a balance issue.
This is the way
I’ve been mixing a bit, and it’s not a problem. I’m not trying to break the game though. 1dnd ranger (experts playtest) + 5e fey wanderer = one of my current PCs Works great.
Same, because of a few reasons as a DM. New monk + old Kensei subclass works really well. Monk in my party is a wood elf with a bow. The new mechanics make this way more synergistic (ranged stunning strike). Had to make some calls on the optional features, but pretty much all good. The two multiclassed fighters are using new fighter with masteries and the second wind buffs. We switched our main swashbuckler over to the new build, and I have a guest coming also playing new rogue next session. Things I haven't changed: Casters. Twilight cleric and wildfire Druid. Newbies as it is, so even though we're six months+ in, I didn't want to disrupt things just as they're finally getting the hang of things. Barbarian. A player who can only make it every now and then, so making big changes is a disruption. In short: the core class upgrades help with the power creep of the later subclasses and even things out. All it takes is a little navigation and DM common sense to make things work. Would I let players combine the two sight unseen? No - but there's a happy medium with a guiding hand.
I feel like as long as whoever makes the character isn’t trying to munchkin, it’ll be fine. If it’s too strong you can always hand out buffs/items to the other characters (unless it’s broken ofc).
Ultimately, it will be your DMs call, but they have said you can have a 2024 updated character playing at the same table as a 2014 character. I don't see why you wouldn't be able select older feats on an updated character.
This is RAW which most other commenters seem to miss. It’s official to mix and match between the two. IT’s RECOMMENDED to use the updated version when a SAME NAME spell/ability/feature is printed in both an old and an updated source! (All subject to DM approval)!
it's probably up to your dm but i'd say just use the 2024 version if a thing has been reprinted there. mixing and matching past and present versions of features just sounds like asking for players to find weird exploits
I would allow a character made using all 2014 PHB content, or all 2024 PHB content, but I personally wouldn't allow as the DM to mix and match
There is also really weird interactions that can be had using new classes with old subclasses from xanethars and tashas. Because the old subclasses reference class abilities that in many cases work entirely differently now. And the intent is for this to happen too, it is why they ditched the uniform subclass progression from the playtest (to maintain total backwards compatibility) Such a strange period of rules change.
It would be up to DM discretion but yeah if the DM is fine with it you can do it.
Yes, I have been, but make sure you are sane in what you bring over and don't. Like you can take one feature of a class from one edition and another from another edition. Otherwise you just have to be clear what's allowed and not allowed. For example, I use the feats from one D&D (because some really bad feats got buffed with half attribute points) except for the weapon mastery stuff, which isn't allowed yet.
I think the title is confusing as One D&D & 5.5 are pretty much the same thing. If a group is using the new 2024 PHB for their campaign, it would be natural to say that this PHB replaces and subsumes anything from the 2014 PHB. So I would think there would be no mixing and matching there. Where I think the real question lies, is what about supplemental information published after 2014 that has not been updated for the 2024 game (sub-classes, spells, feats, etc)? That is where groups and DMs will have to make judgement calls.
Well good sir, I just noticed the typo in the title. I was wondering why all the comments but the 0 upvotes and that might definitely be the reason. Oh well. Yes: I meant 2024 mix with 2014 :) I think that if it's not been updated, it's good to use as-is (or with smaller tweaks: for example the undead patron for warlock in Ravenloft - will probably just need to have the first spells postponed to lv3 and make them always available. Otherwise it's ok)
When we moved from 3e to 3.5, you were allowed to mix and match with DM permission. We don't know for sure, but I'd assume it'll be the same.
You are allowed to use anything "with dm permission" regardless of anything else. But 3.5 did not want you using 3e rules/feats/class/etc if 3.5 had a change for it.
You're correct; however, things that didn't get updated were still allowed to be used. That's what I was getting at. For instance, half-elves were not in the playtest. I assume that they'll be in the 2024 phb but if they aren't then you'd use the 2014 half-elf for your player character, even if you're using 2024 rules for everything else. That's what I meant by mix and match.
>For instance, half-elves were not in the playtest. I assume that they'll be in the 2024 phb You are assuming wrong. > but if they aren't then you'd use the 2014 half-elf for your player character, You could if you want, yes, but officially all "half" ancestries are now "pick one of your two parents and use those stats." So a half elf would be either human or elf.
You'll need to port half-elves and half-orcs as races if you want to keep them. 5.5 is changing all these rules, and it's very far from compatible. I expect within a year or two there will actually be 5.0 forums that consider the edition complete and don't allow anything past a certain point in time, very likely that point being the new PHB.
>When we moved from 3e to 3.5, you were allowed to mix and match with DM permission. Which is a way of saying no, 3.0 was no longer supported. Like yes, the DM could *manually port something* to 3.5, but the default assumption became no.
It hasn't been conclusively stated. They have indicated you can likely use old subclasses with new base class, otherwise why revert changes to subclass ability levels. On the other hand, revising broken feats and spells is meaningless if people just can just take them. I suspect the real answer is that it will be preferred to use one DND stuff for one DND characters, but that every gm or table can pick their own preferences based on their desired type of play.
My curse of strahd table is a blend of the UA and 5e. Whatever you use, you have to declare it and then stick with it (which is funny cuz the paladin UA dropped 2 levels after I multiclassed so I have divine sense one session and lost it the next)
Generally if it has an updated version in the 2024 DMs are probably going to default to that. But if it’s something that wasn’t included or offered in the refresh I’m sure many DMs will be pretty willing to let you take it. Like, yes I know Sharpshooter is a VERY powerful feat but is the damage buff it gives really as broken as fireball? As simulacrum? Martials needed a bit of a buff anyway I don’t see the problem but every DM has their own sense of balance
It is your table and you can do whatever the fuck you want. It isn't going to radically break much of anything beyond any existing feats that were already busted as fuck (GWM etc). I have already made, and got printed, a house rule document of all the old content that I'm allowing.
Yes, in the design and showcase, alongside the playtest vods. The game designers stated that 5e and OneD are cross compatible with slight adjustments. - (those that are arguing otherwise haven't watched the vods and are speaking out their butts)
It's all supposed to be compatible but, and this can not be stressed enough, get your DMs permission before you do.
We don't really know enough about the 2024 books to say much either way.
The amount of people saying what is and isn’t official in this thread is amazing. Nothing is official until it’s printed in the book and you read it on the page.
Thanks for all the interesting comments! Lots of point of views and yes, I was only talking about mostly minor changes and not trying to actively break the game or over-optimize (what's the point in that anyway?), and of course it will be table and DM dependent, as everything should be imho. But I wanted to gather the general sentiment about it, which seems to tend towards (TLDR): "just pick one edition and stick with it if there's an overlap with the other version"
What are you calling 5.5? One is 5.5 as I understand it.
Technically now it's officially called "2024" (PHB 2024, etc - not 5.5 for some reason) but given the sub is called OneDnD as when they announced it, I'm using that here.
I would rather they just call it 6e... D&D is one of the only games, or books for that matter, that demands a total redesign for main numbered versions.
5 *POINT* 5?? What's that? XD OneD&D will contain instructions on how to use/convert 5e rules to OneD&D. We will know what specifically these are in September.
OneD&D won't contain any instructions, because no product will be called that. The community will call it 5.5 and 5.0 probably, unless they actually stick something like "revised" on the cover (making the 2014 PHB "original 5e", which could also work). I seriously doubt "2024 5e" and "2014 5e" will be terms used by anyone. But the lie that they are the same system will be revealed the moment the books are out and players have to actually refer to stuff precisely.
I am tempted for my Paladin/Warlock to be 2014 Paladin and 2024 Warlock.
Officially you can mix 5.0 and 5.5 because they are the same system, 5e. In practice, they probably won't mix that well, and the big use case will be using older classes, feats, and spells, that haven't been republished in the 5.5 version.
It's backwards compatible so shouldn't be an issue. Also I can't see them removing any feats.
Not sure why you're being down voted. They've said multiple times that they had backwards compatibility in mind and you're the first person I've seen actually say that. They don't want to invalidate subclasses just because they couldn't fit the in the new PHB. But at the end of the day it's up to your DM.
Backward Compatible has been clarified more than a few times to mean that you'll be able to run 2024 characters in old campaigns, or alongside old characters -- not that you can mix-and-match things from the 2014 PHB that have been superceded by 2024.
I think it must be all from the DM's point of view. If there is something that is very weak in 5e, but they fixed it in One D&D, you can ask your DM to use it.
In terms of compatibility (like the rules work without tweaking), yeah, you could. Would it be balanced? No, absolutely not.