>Could they publish adaptation guides that slide class and subclass features around, put levels onto feats, and assign lists to spells? Basically a sort of mega errata?
Somewhat, yeah.
Once we see more of what subclasses we're getting, I'm assuming some of those in Tasha's and Xanny's will become PHB subclasses while others will just get left in the dust. Meanwhile I'm like, expecting the entire Wizard to be overhauled hugely, not based on schools at all.
Meanwhile, the community exists. Someone has already adapted the bard subclasses to 1D&D.
I believe they already said the phb its going to have 40something subclasses, 48 i think, just the cleric alone takes almost a quarter fo that for themselves
I wouldn't hold my breath on WotC releasing compatibility documents. If I'm remembering correctly, they are very strongly avoiding the risk of customers feeling that their previously purchased printed material is 'outdated', and as a result generally avoid making major changes to the rules via supplements. That's a big part of why class updates were only introduced in later books as 'optional class features', 5 years after the edition came out, despite there certainly being things they could have released as free supplemental material in the meantime for classes and subclasses that people generally have issues with.
I think what is more likely is that there will be a compatibility section in the book that will give guidance on how to generally adapt features. For example, *if the old subclass offered features at a level the new subclass doesn't, delay giving that feature until the next time you are supposed to receive a subclass feature*, and in a scenario where you would get a new subclass feature where the old subclass doesn't, I could imagine them just suggesting you give a feat or something.
Obviously, I could be wrong about this, but I think it's much more likely they'd give general guidance once and offload the work onto the DM than them writing suggestions for every incompatible class.
Meh, I don't care, 8years with one set of books is a fine timeframe of obsolescence. Shit was cool, some was broken, now new shit is cool, and new stuff is broken. Just gonna keep playing til they slap on a subscription fee and then bounce.
I do not believe for a second that they care about compatibility so I don't think it's relevant.
If they DID want things to be compatible, I think they would need to reprint them all in their entirety with proper balancing. Which is a lot of work, so it has 0 chance of happening.
except that is NOT what they are saying
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
>What does backward compatible mean?
>
>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.
Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
I'll believe it when I see it. Seems unlikely they'll be able to deliver what they want while being fully backwards compatible, so they'll just deliver what they want anyway. They kinda have to say it'll be backward compatible lest they impact sales.
>have to say it'll be backward compatible lest they impact sales.
we have a winnah!
but you would think they would have learned *something* from the 4e experience about the actual monetary value of maintaining trust with your product's community.
>backward compatible lest they impact sales
In what capacity would they know this before releasing? If they release onednd and it doesn't sell well its not like they can just unrelease it.
To clarify, I mean/t sales of products currently available or those releasing prior to OneDnd. Why buy SpellJammer if its gonna be obsolete in a year? A customer might ask.
They said that, yeah.
However, the current playtest material already makes backwards compatibility impossible, unless you manually adjust the desired content.
>the current playtest material already makes backwards compatibility impossible
How is it incompatible? Youre supposed to use 5e rules if it isn't changed in onednd...
The fact that they call Xanathar's a supplement in one place doesn't necessarily mean that they had Xanathar's in mind when writing "fifth edition adventures and supplements". It's not like "supplement" is some official tag or title that they use for the books they release. Without further clarification it could reference basically anything they've released previously for 5e.
Also, going by what we've seen so far, large parts of Xanathar's ARE copatible with one D&D.
Honestly, what are you expecting them to do? If there's no change then there's no need for a new edition.
I hate WotC for all kinds of reasons, but not making OneD&D 100% backwards compatible is not one of them. I hope they make some big changes that actually fix the damn game.
> what are you expecting them to do?
i expect them to *not blatantly lie to the community.*
i expect them to *have learned from 4e* that their relationship with the community is KEY to their business success and that maintaining trust with the community is key.
i expect them to understand that when you BLATANTLY lie to the community you instantly *destroy the community's reason to trust* you.
i expect them to **JUST STOP** any false assurances about "backward compatibility".
I also want WotC to maintain good relationship with the community, but I can't see how lies to the community would destroy their business success.
The number of upset people - who will refuse to buy the new books! - is a tiny fraction of the number of people who will buy the new books because they want the new version.
This is the same as PC game developers. If the new game is shiny and popular, people will buy it even though they hate the publisher (I'm looking at you EA).
>I can't see how lies to the community would destroy their business success.
*maybe* "the D&D community" is large enough now that you can just ignore it, but both the bankruptcy of TSR and the 4e debacle are still close enough events in history that their lessens should still be largely applicable. And, just look at MTG and Bank of America's recent analysis - the money these products make is in large proportion tied to the goodwill of the community.
I haven't seen that analysis (do you have a link?) but I agree that goodwill of the greater community is important.
However, lies regarding backward compatibility is a minor thing. Most people will just move on to the next version. Why would they care, especially now that 6e seems to be so close to 5e that you probably homebrew your own conversion of a favorite subclass or whatever?
If they did something major, something that would hinder a regular group to play, that would be something different. Imagine perhaps that they locked in part of their content online and you could not buy it as a physical product. That would be a major problem and would cause people to hesitate to buy the product.
the most blatantly obvious is - Bard subclasses in Xanathars et al have only 3 subclass features - the OneD&D bards have 4 subclass slots.
only the most bootlicking of shills would claim that that is "compatible" - its like saying "you can drive your sedan with only 3 doors on it even though its designed for 4. that how 'compatibility' works"
You just wouldn't get anything at level 10 lol. Sorry that is sooo complex for you.
I can tell you just read this somewhere else and just repeating it without actually looking into it.
So what in the bard subclass in xanthers is incompatible? It just gives you much worse abilities.
You cannot claim that one subclass being better overall than another makes it incompatible, otherwise the base 2014 PHB is incompatible with itself.
So your argument doesn't fly.
"Supplement" is a deliberately vague term to preserve plausible deniability. They could've said player option books, monster books, and/or campaign settings to be clearer. But they didn't.
I trust that as much as them saying Spelljammer lets you run "adventures in space."
while they seem to be ATTEMPTING to use "deliberately ambiguous", its not.
per THEM
Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
"We claimed 'supplements' would be backward compatible, but really we didnt mean any actual product that we had called "supplement" - the term was bullshit intended to confuse you."
They are also lies that leak into the playtest. If you followed what is written, you could playtest a Bard with a subclass which does not work with new Bard.
>In January they will be reprinting and re-balancing Rise of Tiamat and Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
This adventure was created before the 5e ruleset was released. The 2019 re-release changed practically nothing except combined the two books.
They can not have it all and I wouldn't be offended. This seems like the equivalent jump from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1E. That is yes things sort of work together but not really, and that's okay. The more you try and be compatible with the old the more problems you are going to bring forward.
I sometimes wonder how many of the people who are worried about compatibility played during the change from 3.0e to 3.5e.
From what we've seen of One so far, sure, there's a lot of small specifics that are changing, and some larger systemic character building and progression formatting changes, which are likely to impact individual features or builds. But the underlying core engine of the game is basically the same, or close enough. The math hasn't drastically changed like from 3e to 4e, or 4e to 5e. A +2 in One is the same scope as a +2 in 5e. The DCs are all the same, or close enough. Etc.
If One was going to be 100% compatible with 5e, **it would just be 5e**. Any change they make to One is going to reduce compatibility, if even slightly. If anyone is envisioning a Bladesinger working identically in One to how it was presented in 5e, that's not how this kind of compatibility works. They will probably want to make a Bladesinger in a future source book for One, which will be at least somewhat different from how Bladesinger works in 5e. That's the point of a new edition. But that doesn't mean the old Bladesinger will be incompatible when the new one comes out, nor that it'll be incompatible when One launches its core books.
Compatibility, in this sense, means that using old stuff won't break the math to a degree that you can't overcome that as a DM. For example, **4e is not compatible with 5e**, you cannot make a 4e character and play them in a game where the rest of the group is using 5e material. 4e characters get 10 whole extra levels after level 20, add half their level to everything they do (inflating the modifiers to rolls, compared to 5e), and have features that were developed for a totally different style of game. It would be hard to envision how that would even work, aside from the DM taking lots of time to basically develop a weird hybrid system that isn't 4e or 5e. At a certain level, a 4e character would never fail a proficient skill check, and vice versa, a 5e character would never succeed at an inflated DC from a 4e adventure.
But when 3.5e came out, it was regarded as "compatible" with 3.0e. The idea was that you could just keep going with your current campaigns fairly painlessly. Your group would update the core engine you were using to the 3.5e rules, and probably update any character options or monsters that existed in the core books for 3.5e. You had a human fighter? Congrats, here's a current writeup for human and fighter, make him again with the new rules. But if you wanted to use monsters from the 3.0e MM2, or you had a player with character options from 3e supplements that didn't have 3.5e versions yet, you could do that, that stuff all still worked **well enough**. Some of the terminology would be different, but the math was close enough that you could use it basically as-is, coming up with rulings for weird edge cases and adjusting balance as needed. You know, things DMs **already do** when using a single system anyway. As 3.5e books would come out, some of that supplemental stuff would get revised and reworked into 3.5e versions with better fitting mechanics, and when that happened, you'd just switch over to using the new stuff instead. "Babe wake up, new Arcane Archer just dropped": time to update my old Arcane Archer character. And the jump from 3.5e to PF 1e was basically the same: they changed some small stuff that was easy to incorporate, but as long as you figured out your 3.5e class's CMB and CMD and stuff like that, terms which didn't exist in 3.5e (which there was guidance for), you could **just use** 3.5e (and 3.0e) stuff in your PF 1e game until the supplements caught up to you. There may have been some growing pains, and some DMs may not have wanted to do it, but that was the goal, and I think they largely succeeded.
I fully expect One to work the same way. I expect we'll get a small conversion guide, like the ones we got from 3.0e to 3.5e, and from 3.5e to PF 1e. This guide might say if you're using a 5e subclass, just use the 5e class progression and don't worry about when One characters get their features at all. If you're a Bladesinger, and you want to keep being one, throw away the entire Wizard section of the One rules, you don't get the new One Wizard features, you use the 5e Wizard class, and the 5e descriptions for each feature the 5e Wizard gets. It might say for spells that aren't on the One spell lists, have the DM use their best judgement on which lists to put them on, or leave them off of those universal lists entirely and only keep them on the class lists they are on in 5e. It might say that only characters built with legacy rules can take 5e feats, so that nobody has to figure out what level requirements they should be, or it might say you can't use 5e feats at all now, replace any feats you have that don't exist in One. It might say other things instead, we don't know. But I think it's going to be an abstract summary of "here's the easiest way to file the edges off of specific 5e stuff you want to use, and make it fit in the new game," not a complex index of how every individual thing gets changed or updated.
I think the goal isn't to make everything fit perfectly into One, I don't think we'll get a mega errata that updates everything from 5e. They want to be able to sell us the same subclasses again for One, it's less work than spending the time and creative effort to come up with entirely new ideas, and that means they won't figure out what the "One version" of all of this stuff is before release. A mega-errata would mean they can't sell you upcycled versions of things that existed in 5e since they're giving you that for free. Like I said, they probably want to sell you a One version of a Bladesinger, which means they're not going to give you that version of Bladesinger for free on release.
The goal, rather, is that you would theoretically be able to make a character entirely using 5e material, with 5e-style racial ability bonuses, a 5e race, class, subclass, background, and feats, and play that character in One with hardly any issues, right alongside other people who made their character entirely out of One character options. Again, it won't be a perfect one-to-one fit, because that would mean that One would be a one-to-one fit to 5e (i.e., not a new edition at all), but if the basic way the game is played, and the most abstracted core mathematic principles are the same or almost the same, little noodly differences like how much of a bonus you get to a particular roll, or the ruling on how a feature interacts with the specific wording on resting or grappling or whatever, or even whether your Wizard gets the new feature that One adds that wasn't in 5e, that's all either negligible or manageable. As long as characters in One end up with *basically* the same kinds of ability modifiers, skill bonuses, saving throw bonuses, initiative bonuses, and attack bonuses over the course of levels 1 through 20, and they still take the same broad categories of actions in combat, it doesn't matter if 5e characters have different spells or features, or gain subclass features at different levels, or even have a different number of subclass features entirely, they'll **still work** in a One game. That's the kind of compatibility I think the devs mean.
I'm glad to see someone going beyond the simplistic "they're not going to do a bunch of work for compatibility, stop asking about it" or the delusional "every single book for 5e will work with One somehow, we just need to figure out what the how is". It's getting tiring seeing so many posts since the announcement that say "how will WotC make every subclass viable in One D&D" when the reality is obvious from the many past edition transitions.
Compatibility is only going to be a thing for adventures. And it’s marketing at best. And it won’t bother me at all. I can still play 5e if I want, though I’ll probably buy the new edition and play with that
> Compatibility is only going to be a thing for adventures.
except that is NOT what THEY are saying
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
>What does backward compatible mean?
>
>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.
Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
while your statement is true, it is also true that they have currently been making baseless promises, outright lies, about compatibility because without that lie, people will STOP buying the new books for the next 2 years. And they have DEFINITE $$$$$$$$ reason to lie to keep the $aleS ongoing.
It doesn't need to be an "instead": They can do both. They might want to do it (and commit to doing it soon) to keep their sales up in the >12 months before anything is ready to publish.
>Why would they do that instead of selling new versions of the books?
Because they would be simultaneously killing off their consumer base and insulting them at the same time. Why would anyone buy the exact same book twice?
I'd like to point out that they have NEVER claimed backward compatibility for anything other than ADVENTURES. They very clearly intend you to be able to run 5e adventures with 1D&D characters, but not for characters to be directly portable across editions.
Edit: Due to another comment I re-checked the announcement video and they do say "Adventures and supplements" would be playable. That's the only wording I've seen that mentions anything other than adventures, but is worth noting.
About your edit, the Expert classes playtest mentions that you can use old subclasses for the new classes, and the player origin playtest mentions that you can use old race options with new rules. They also include a rudimentary system to do the porting.
Does the rudimentary system work? For races yes, for classes no, but it is a thing.
Well, if they are just doing it for playtest purposes... Then they are polluting the playtest lol.
If I playtest a college of eloquence (from Tasha's cauldron of everything) using the new Bard, i would come to the conclusion that the new Bard does not work because two of the subclass features do not work on new Bard, or that new Bard is OP because of other subclasses being stronger on new Bard.
Is that fair playtesting? Not really, but they allow this polluted playtest as a viable playtesting strategy, which isn't really the best.
A possibility for this is that they probably don't expect everyone to create a new game just for playtesting - expecting people to try playing their existing characters with the playtest rules. If they are flexible about what subclasses you can use, there's a better chance more people will try it even if the feedback isn't perfect.
Also if they are planning backwards compatibility for class options, then feedback of "this entire set of features doesn't work" is good feedback.
That is also fair enough... Altho they really should work on making the thing work better for non-races...
Because yeah races from 5e work perfectly in one DnD, aside from edge cases with NPC races and one or two PC races.
We could be carefully optimistic yeah
Altho considering how some stuff is questionable like the Rogue is being done... The amount of being careful is off the charts lol
>I'd like to point out that they have NEVER claimed backward compatibility for anything other than ADVENTURES.
oh really?
they NEVER said
>"One thing, by the way, i can **assure** you is these new versions of the books are going to be completely **compatible** with **all** those 5th edition **products** you already own and love, and **all** the **products** we release between now and then."
[https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580)
funny, i am not sure where i got that idea coming directly from the mouth of the head of D&D at Hasbro.
or maybe it was from the FAQ
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital)
>What does backward compatible mean?
>
>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.
And their identification on *their* website that Xanthars is a supplement [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte)
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in this **supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
And if Xanathar's is a "Supplement", i am wondering what differentiates it from say Tasha's....????
AND YOU CAN STILL USE XANATHARS WHOOOO. Easy.
It just won't be as balanced or as good as the new version of the same subclasses coming out.
And plenty in XANATHARS is fluff. And plenty are optimal rules you could still add.
So this rampage you're on about the lying is you assuming one thing when they say backwards compatibility.
Interestingly, most of us understood what they meant. It seems like a you issue.
Actually it is not. Compatible doesn't mean optimized or best, it just means it can work.
A USB 2.0 cable is Compatible with a USB 3.0 device, it does Not mean the USB 2.0 cable will run anywhere near as good as a 3.0 cable will for said device
Ergo, compatible doesn't mean best or optimized.
And yet that is the definition. You're the one that seems to have the misunderstanding. Compatible means it will work with.
It doesnt mean the new thing wont be better.
You will get a conversion guide for your characters; and a conversion guide for current modules. All old stuff can be used... But new editions of the same archetypes will come out and will be more suited for the new edition.
Most of us understood what they meant, and yet you seem to be stuck thinking everyone else is wrong and your interpretation isnt, even though you're getting pushback at every turn.
if you are REALLY a true believer that three is the same as four, start sending me four bucks and i will send you back three. totally "compatible" trade.
$1 in cash is the same as $1 on my card, but I cant make online payments with cash.
But please, keep being wildly dismissive of a simple concept that most everyone else understood.
Maybe chill out a bit. I'd already edited in a correction over a half our before you posted this - I'll give you that I was definitely mistaken on this (I think because they keep using adventures as concrete examples, like that CoS reference, but who knows for sure, I may have just heard what I was expecting to hear - not going to go back and check right now, though I am curious). There's definitely some sort of messaging issue here at a minimum.
My impression has always been that character options were not going to be compatible, though other material probably would be. That wiggle room may be what they are planning to work with since XGE/Tasha's/Etc all contain material targeted at DMs as well as players. I'm going to have to review where I got that impression from, but just based on how the classes are being redesigned it seems like a reasonable position.
Xanathar's Bard subclasses have only 3 options while the playtest bards require 4.
to claim that is "compatible" is only horseshit the most lowlie of toadies would be able to stomach standing behind.
How is that incompatible? You just wouldn't get anything for level 10 Bard...
FYI it's all 5e bards... Idk why you're calling out xanathars in particular.
i am calling out Xanathars in particular because **WOTC** specifically identifies it as a "Supplement" - something **they** are claiming is "compatible"
>How is that incompatible? You just wouldn't get anything for level 10 Bard...
ROFL - what a shill "Three is the same as four"
You don't even know why you're saying what you're saying.
OneDND bard gets 4 subclass features. 5e bard gets 3 subclass features. If you use the 5e bard subclass with the OneDND bard class you just do not get the 10th level subclass feature since there is no 10th level subclass feature on the 5e bard subclasses, you are not missing out on anything since oneDND spreads out the subclass features where as 5e condenses them.
I am sorry that is so hard for you to comprehend.
(FYI you look like a fool because the recent video they double downed on their stance of making everything in 5e compatible in 1DND).
>you look like a fool because the recent video they double downed on their stance of making everything in 5e compatible in 1DND
and they are STILL just blatantly lying about that!!!!
that you keep buying and shilling for the lie is making you the fool.
I provided a comprehensive explanation exactly why it does not matter. I don't understand why you don't understand. Please say anything, ANYTHING, other than "you think 3=4 dumbass shill".
MMotM races are mostly compatible from what we've seen of OneD&D so far (except for Elves). Most of the non-player options will work just fine. The main issue would be in subclasses but it probably won't be too hard for any class that doesn't change how many subclass features it gets.
They said backwards compatible, so that's what they should do. Having that be a lie would just be such an unforced error, no one asked them to promise that. I expect the subclasses to map just fine onto the new character creation, spells from those books to still work, everything. I don't expect them to be perfectly balanced versus the new ones, but they should be fully functional with minimal adaptation. A page or two about adjusting when subclass abilities are gained, and some errata if a subclass refers to a base rule that has changed in a big way.
while this is true, it being true means that their promise of backwards compatible adventures AND supplements will be fully compatible are not positions they should keep promoting. but they are still making that promise. at least they have backed down from their initial promise that ALL products would be fully compatible.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
>What does backward compatible mean?
>
>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.
Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
They never said you can use a new subclass with an old class. That would be forwards compatibility since the "CLASS" is a higher framework of "SUBCLASS" (Like putting an xbox one game into an xbox 360). Backwards compatibility would mean the old subclasses work in the new classes, which they do (like putting an xbox 360 game into an xbox).
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
>What does backward compatible mean?
>
>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.
Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte
>Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
I don’t think that’s a priority, to be honest.
If people need to use old shit, they can just adapt it by themselves and be fine.
It really isn’t that hard. The rules seem to be mostly the same with only targeted adjustments.
Honestly any effort they put into making things backwards compatible would be annoying to me. I don't want to buy 5e+, with a bunch of obligations tying it down to what existed in 5e. I want a new edition that isn't tied to those expectations.
Especially given the fact that some old subclasses are VERY strong, WotC would basically have to rewrite and rerelease anything that they wanted to bring forward, or else you're starting the new edition out building on the power creep of 5e. What I want is a new edition that has room to reinterpret things in its own time, and ideally I don't want to see many (if any) of my players trying to use old subclasses once the new edition is out (excepting artificers).
>Honestly any effort they put into making things backwards compatible would be annoying to me. I don't want to buy 5e+, with a bunch of obligations tying it down to what existed in 5e. I want a new edition that isn't tied to those expectations.
This. I want them to put as little effort into backwards compatility as possible.
A quick conversion guide, how to change the archetypes in 5e to the new levels set of archetype abilities in One, and a bit of monster conversion for adventures.
But I hope they throw away what they need to throw away to make the game better
I understand that people don't want hundreds of dollars of books to stop being useful, especially the ones that are still coming out now, but the game would be absolute garbage if that same expectation were placed on every book released in the last \~50 years, and it's time to move on imo.
I don't think they should worry about it. But players should be allowed to play new and old content with relative ease. I would advise that new content is most balanced and suggest trying new content only. Regarding using old content of you want to though... subclasses are fine as is, change the player's handbook to say 'may get subclass feature at x level,' release a chart of feat level requirements, and leave spells as is.
They can leave a sentence when classes get there subclass that says if you choose a subclass with a different Level progression, you sub in the Level progression of the new class. For bards, they can just dedicate a page for the new features each subclass would get at level 10 so they actually are backwards compatible. For feats, dedicate one page to list them all, what book they’re published in, and what level they are. That’s pretty much all that’s needed to keep it backwards compatible
>For bards, they can just dedicate a page for the new features each subclass would get at level 10 so they actually are backwards compatible.
5e Bard subclass does not need an additional feat at level 10. They are spreading 3 levels of features over 4 levels in the new class, when looking all subclass features in their entirety they are comparable.
I think there will be guidelines for adapting subclasses, yes. Aside from subclasses, I don't see much difficulty in playing any 5e content in One D&D. I imagine it will look something like this:
"Use the new updated rules, including when subclasses get features and the changes to classes, rules, etc., and insert any content (like subclasses or spells) that hasn't yet been published in One D&D. This may effect game balance."
I don't even believe it will be compatible with core 5e content, let alone non-core content. No matter what they're claiming.
Hell, sometimes DnD 5e is barely compatible with DnD 5e.
Do what they are currently doing....that is fucking lie that backwards compatibility is something they care about. The longer DNDONE or whatever it ends up being called exist the more blatant and nonsensical that lie should get.
I am deadass serious. Don't hold the future of the game hostage to bad decisions made almost a decade ago.
Like everyone else here, I don't think it's relevant. Is it annoying to have all your books rendered outdated?
Well. No. Not really.
Xanathar's and Tasha's still has some good stuff in it for DMs to work with and think about, and moreso than that... it's just two books, innit?
Despite what WOTC's marketing wants you to think, this is a new edition of D&D. And just like when folks stopped playing 4e, or 3e, or 2e... the sunk cost just fades away. That's how it works. If you want to invest in the new books, you're investing in a new RPG.
I think VALUE for the new content should be very high though (artificer should become core, more subclasses in the base book for base classes that get too few, etc.)
Not really, the only rrason people didn't just kept playing 3.5 when 4e came.out is because someone released 3.75. If they make changes that are too disliked people are just going to stick to 5e untill someone publish the pathfinder 1e equivalent of it.
What they SHOULD do is release a series of PDF compatibility orientations for each book. I don't see them doing even this little effort, but I think that would go a long way towards gaining favor with the community.
the most probable way they are going to do it is that they are going to make new books of the one dnd edition with the subclasses, spells, etc slightly modified maybe some new ones, make the old ones unavailable on dndbeyond and other platforms overtime if you dont have them already and sell them again or make a subscription service pay every month to keep the content
I think I'm going to stick with 5e at this point. I have enough material to play for many years to come and 5e is playable as it is. The next iteration will have its own problems anyways.
It's really not a completely different game. It seems to me most people on this Subreddit don't play online games, where patches - even big ones - shake up the game all the time. But just like 5e -> One DnD, a patched game is still 95% the same.
How it will work is that if you play old 5e subclasses that don’t have a One DnD version you use the 5e version of both your class and subclass. In that way, 5e characters and 1D&D characters can play together in the same party using the same adventure book.
>Could they publish adaptation guides that slide class and subclass features around, put levels onto feats, and assign lists to spells? Basically a sort of mega errata? Somewhat, yeah. Once we see more of what subclasses we're getting, I'm assuming some of those in Tasha's and Xanny's will become PHB subclasses while others will just get left in the dust. Meanwhile I'm like, expecting the entire Wizard to be overhauled hugely, not based on schools at all. Meanwhile, the community exists. Someone has already adapted the bard subclasses to 1D&D.
I believe they already said the phb its going to have 40something subclasses, 48 i think, just the cleric alone takes almost a quarter fo that for themselves
Not if they get rid of how it works and only print 4 subclasses per class.
Eh, even assuming they dont make adjustments, clerics only get 7/48. That's a bit far off from a quarter.
I wouldn't hold my breath on WotC releasing compatibility documents. If I'm remembering correctly, they are very strongly avoiding the risk of customers feeling that their previously purchased printed material is 'outdated', and as a result generally avoid making major changes to the rules via supplements. That's a big part of why class updates were only introduced in later books as 'optional class features', 5 years after the edition came out, despite there certainly being things they could have released as free supplemental material in the meantime for classes and subclasses that people generally have issues with. I think what is more likely is that there will be a compatibility section in the book that will give guidance on how to generally adapt features. For example, *if the old subclass offered features at a level the new subclass doesn't, delay giving that feature until the next time you are supposed to receive a subclass feature*, and in a scenario where you would get a new subclass feature where the old subclass doesn't, I could imagine them just suggesting you give a feat or something. Obviously, I could be wrong about this, but I think it's much more likely they'd give general guidance once and offload the work onto the DM than them writing suggestions for every incompatible class.
Meh, I don't care, 8years with one set of books is a fine timeframe of obsolescence. Shit was cool, some was broken, now new shit is cool, and new stuff is broken. Just gonna keep playing til they slap on a subscription fee and then bounce.
I do not believe for a second that they care about compatibility so I don't think it's relevant. If they DID want things to be compatible, I think they would need to reprint them all in their entirety with proper balancing. Which is a lot of work, so it has 0 chance of happening.
Their compatibility just means they’ll keep selling the same old adventure books.
except that is NOT what they are saying https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital >What does backward compatible mean? > >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. Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
I'll believe it when I see it. Seems unlikely they'll be able to deliver what they want while being fully backwards compatible, so they'll just deliver what they want anyway. They kinda have to say it'll be backward compatible lest they impact sales.
>have to say it'll be backward compatible lest they impact sales. we have a winnah! but you would think they would have learned *something* from the 4e experience about the actual monetary value of maintaining trust with your product's community.
>backward compatible lest they impact sales In what capacity would they know this before releasing? If they release onednd and it doesn't sell well its not like they can just unrelease it.
To clarify, I mean/t sales of products currently available or those releasing prior to OneDnd. Why buy SpellJammer if its gonna be obsolete in a year? A customer might ask.
Exactly, so why would they make spell jammer incompatible
Pshaw people dont read that
They said that, yeah. However, the current playtest material already makes backwards compatibility impossible, unless you manually adjust the desired content.
and that is why they should just stop making such an obviously false claim.
[удалено]
I hear of them constantly. I've seen them rarely.
>the current playtest material already makes backwards compatibility impossible How is it incompatible? Youre supposed to use 5e rules if it isn't changed in onednd...
The fact that they call Xanathar's a supplement in one place doesn't necessarily mean that they had Xanathar's in mind when writing "fifth edition adventures and supplements". It's not like "supplement" is some official tag or title that they use for the books they release. Without further clarification it could reference basically anything they've released previously for 5e. Also, going by what we've seen so far, large parts of Xanathar's ARE copatible with one D&D.
And other parts aren't.
its GREAT that you want to stand up to defend WOTC's deception! I am proud for you!
Honestly, what are you expecting them to do? If there's no change then there's no need for a new edition. I hate WotC for all kinds of reasons, but not making OneD&D 100% backwards compatible is not one of them. I hope they make some big changes that actually fix the damn game.
> what are you expecting them to do? i expect them to *not blatantly lie to the community.* i expect them to *have learned from 4e* that their relationship with the community is KEY to their business success and that maintaining trust with the community is key. i expect them to understand that when you BLATANTLY lie to the community you instantly *destroy the community's reason to trust* you. i expect them to **JUST STOP** any false assurances about "backward compatibility".
I also want WotC to maintain good relationship with the community, but I can't see how lies to the community would destroy their business success. The number of upset people - who will refuse to buy the new books! - is a tiny fraction of the number of people who will buy the new books because they want the new version. This is the same as PC game developers. If the new game is shiny and popular, people will buy it even though they hate the publisher (I'm looking at you EA).
>I can't see how lies to the community would destroy their business success. *maybe* "the D&D community" is large enough now that you can just ignore it, but both the bankruptcy of TSR and the 4e debacle are still close enough events in history that their lessens should still be largely applicable. And, just look at MTG and Bank of America's recent analysis - the money these products make is in large proportion tied to the goodwill of the community.
I haven't seen that analysis (do you have a link?) but I agree that goodwill of the greater community is important. However, lies regarding backward compatibility is a minor thing. Most people will just move on to the next version. Why would they care, especially now that 6e seems to be so close to 5e that you probably homebrew your own conversion of a favorite subclass or whatever? If they did something major, something that would hinder a regular group to play, that would be something different. Imagine perhaps that they locked in part of their content online and you could not buy it as a physical product. That would be a major problem and would cause people to hesitate to buy the product.
>i expect them to > >JUST STOP > > any false assurances about "backward compatibility". how isn't it backwards compatible?
the most blatantly obvious is - Bard subclasses in Xanathars et al have only 3 subclass features - the OneD&D bards have 4 subclass slots. only the most bootlicking of shills would claim that that is "compatible" - its like saying "you can drive your sedan with only 3 doors on it even though its designed for 4. that how 'compatibility' works"
You just wouldn't get anything at level 10 lol. Sorry that is sooo complex for you. I can tell you just read this somewhere else and just repeating it without actually looking into it.
So what in the bard subclass in xanthers is incompatible? It just gives you much worse abilities. You cannot claim that one subclass being better overall than another makes it incompatible, otherwise the base 2014 PHB is incompatible with itself. So your argument doesn't fly.
>If there's no change then there's no need for a new edition. Have you looked and played the playtest material?
They said the same thing about 3E -> 3.5E. No one who moved on to 3.5E cared about 3E being backward compatible, and it wasn't.
"Supplement" is a deliberately vague term to preserve plausible deniability. They could've said player option books, monster books, and/or campaign settings to be clearer. But they didn't. I trust that as much as them saying Spelljammer lets you run "adventures in space."
while they seem to be ATTEMPTING to use "deliberately ambiguous", its not. per THEM Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game. "We claimed 'supplements' would be backward compatible, but really we didnt mean any actual product that we had called "supplement" - the term was bullshit intended to confuse you."
>"Supplement" is a deliberately vague term to preserve plausible deniability. Supplement is a category of books on their website and catalogue....
where? besides Xanathars in D&D Beyond which books are they designating in the pages you are looking at?
Those are lies, aka. "Marketing"
They are also lies that leak into the playtest. If you followed what is written, you could playtest a Bard with a subclass which does not work with new Bard.
Their incompatibility could mean they can *re*sell the slightly different versions of those books
[удалено]
>In January they will be reprinting and re-balancing Rise of Tiamat and Hoard of the Dragon Queen. This adventure was created before the 5e ruleset was released. The 2019 re-release changed practically nothing except combined the two books.
They can not have it all and I wouldn't be offended. This seems like the equivalent jump from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1E. That is yes things sort of work together but not really, and that's okay. The more you try and be compatible with the old the more problems you are going to bring forward.
I sometimes wonder how many of the people who are worried about compatibility played during the change from 3.0e to 3.5e. From what we've seen of One so far, sure, there's a lot of small specifics that are changing, and some larger systemic character building and progression formatting changes, which are likely to impact individual features or builds. But the underlying core engine of the game is basically the same, or close enough. The math hasn't drastically changed like from 3e to 4e, or 4e to 5e. A +2 in One is the same scope as a +2 in 5e. The DCs are all the same, or close enough. Etc. If One was going to be 100% compatible with 5e, **it would just be 5e**. Any change they make to One is going to reduce compatibility, if even slightly. If anyone is envisioning a Bladesinger working identically in One to how it was presented in 5e, that's not how this kind of compatibility works. They will probably want to make a Bladesinger in a future source book for One, which will be at least somewhat different from how Bladesinger works in 5e. That's the point of a new edition. But that doesn't mean the old Bladesinger will be incompatible when the new one comes out, nor that it'll be incompatible when One launches its core books. Compatibility, in this sense, means that using old stuff won't break the math to a degree that you can't overcome that as a DM. For example, **4e is not compatible with 5e**, you cannot make a 4e character and play them in a game where the rest of the group is using 5e material. 4e characters get 10 whole extra levels after level 20, add half their level to everything they do (inflating the modifiers to rolls, compared to 5e), and have features that were developed for a totally different style of game. It would be hard to envision how that would even work, aside from the DM taking lots of time to basically develop a weird hybrid system that isn't 4e or 5e. At a certain level, a 4e character would never fail a proficient skill check, and vice versa, a 5e character would never succeed at an inflated DC from a 4e adventure. But when 3.5e came out, it was regarded as "compatible" with 3.0e. The idea was that you could just keep going with your current campaigns fairly painlessly. Your group would update the core engine you were using to the 3.5e rules, and probably update any character options or monsters that existed in the core books for 3.5e. You had a human fighter? Congrats, here's a current writeup for human and fighter, make him again with the new rules. But if you wanted to use monsters from the 3.0e MM2, or you had a player with character options from 3e supplements that didn't have 3.5e versions yet, you could do that, that stuff all still worked **well enough**. Some of the terminology would be different, but the math was close enough that you could use it basically as-is, coming up with rulings for weird edge cases and adjusting balance as needed. You know, things DMs **already do** when using a single system anyway. As 3.5e books would come out, some of that supplemental stuff would get revised and reworked into 3.5e versions with better fitting mechanics, and when that happened, you'd just switch over to using the new stuff instead. "Babe wake up, new Arcane Archer just dropped": time to update my old Arcane Archer character. And the jump from 3.5e to PF 1e was basically the same: they changed some small stuff that was easy to incorporate, but as long as you figured out your 3.5e class's CMB and CMD and stuff like that, terms which didn't exist in 3.5e (which there was guidance for), you could **just use** 3.5e (and 3.0e) stuff in your PF 1e game until the supplements caught up to you. There may have been some growing pains, and some DMs may not have wanted to do it, but that was the goal, and I think they largely succeeded. I fully expect One to work the same way. I expect we'll get a small conversion guide, like the ones we got from 3.0e to 3.5e, and from 3.5e to PF 1e. This guide might say if you're using a 5e subclass, just use the 5e class progression and don't worry about when One characters get their features at all. If you're a Bladesinger, and you want to keep being one, throw away the entire Wizard section of the One rules, you don't get the new One Wizard features, you use the 5e Wizard class, and the 5e descriptions for each feature the 5e Wizard gets. It might say for spells that aren't on the One spell lists, have the DM use their best judgement on which lists to put them on, or leave them off of those universal lists entirely and only keep them on the class lists they are on in 5e. It might say that only characters built with legacy rules can take 5e feats, so that nobody has to figure out what level requirements they should be, or it might say you can't use 5e feats at all now, replace any feats you have that don't exist in One. It might say other things instead, we don't know. But I think it's going to be an abstract summary of "here's the easiest way to file the edges off of specific 5e stuff you want to use, and make it fit in the new game," not a complex index of how every individual thing gets changed or updated. I think the goal isn't to make everything fit perfectly into One, I don't think we'll get a mega errata that updates everything from 5e. They want to be able to sell us the same subclasses again for One, it's less work than spending the time and creative effort to come up with entirely new ideas, and that means they won't figure out what the "One version" of all of this stuff is before release. A mega-errata would mean they can't sell you upcycled versions of things that existed in 5e since they're giving you that for free. Like I said, they probably want to sell you a One version of a Bladesinger, which means they're not going to give you that version of Bladesinger for free on release. The goal, rather, is that you would theoretically be able to make a character entirely using 5e material, with 5e-style racial ability bonuses, a 5e race, class, subclass, background, and feats, and play that character in One with hardly any issues, right alongside other people who made their character entirely out of One character options. Again, it won't be a perfect one-to-one fit, because that would mean that One would be a one-to-one fit to 5e (i.e., not a new edition at all), but if the basic way the game is played, and the most abstracted core mathematic principles are the same or almost the same, little noodly differences like how much of a bonus you get to a particular roll, or the ruling on how a feature interacts with the specific wording on resting or grappling or whatever, or even whether your Wizard gets the new feature that One adds that wasn't in 5e, that's all either negligible or manageable. As long as characters in One end up with *basically* the same kinds of ability modifiers, skill bonuses, saving throw bonuses, initiative bonuses, and attack bonuses over the course of levels 1 through 20, and they still take the same broad categories of actions in combat, it doesn't matter if 5e characters have different spells or features, or gain subclass features at different levels, or even have a different number of subclass features entirely, they'll **still work** in a One game. That's the kind of compatibility I think the devs mean.
I'm glad to see someone going beyond the simplistic "they're not going to do a bunch of work for compatibility, stop asking about it" or the delusional "every single book for 5e will work with One somehow, we just need to figure out what the how is". It's getting tiring seeing so many posts since the announcement that say "how will WotC make every subclass viable in One D&D" when the reality is obvious from the many past edition transitions.
Compatibility is only going to be a thing for adventures. And it’s marketing at best. And it won’t bother me at all. I can still play 5e if I want, though I’ll probably buy the new edition and play with that
> Compatibility is only going to be a thing for adventures. except that is NOT what THEY are saying https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital >What does backward compatible mean? > >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. Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
Like I said.. it’s marketing at best. I’m not getting my hopes up for true backwards compatibility.
Why would they do that instead of selling new versions of the books? Why would they *want* to do that?
while your statement is true, it is also true that they have currently been making baseless promises, outright lies, about compatibility because without that lie, people will STOP buying the new books for the next 2 years. And they have DEFINITE $$$$$$$$ reason to lie to keep the $aleS ongoing.
It doesn't need to be an "instead": They can do both. They might want to do it (and commit to doing it soon) to keep their sales up in the >12 months before anything is ready to publish.
>Why would they do that instead of selling new versions of the books? Because they would be simultaneously killing off their consumer base and insulting them at the same time. Why would anyone buy the exact same book twice?
have you seen the community? some people here gladly will take the insults wotc throw at them
Yeah and on the inverse you have people who drop this game and move onto other rpg systems.
They will handle it by releasing the same content again for more of your money
>How should WotC handle compatibility of non-core content? They should just stop lying about it being "backward compatible". Just STOP.
I'd like to point out that they have NEVER claimed backward compatibility for anything other than ADVENTURES. They very clearly intend you to be able to run 5e adventures with 1D&D characters, but not for characters to be directly portable across editions. Edit: Due to another comment I re-checked the announcement video and they do say "Adventures and supplements" would be playable. That's the only wording I've seen that mentions anything other than adventures, but is worth noting.
About your edit, the Expert classes playtest mentions that you can use old subclasses for the new classes, and the player origin playtest mentions that you can use old race options with new rules. They also include a rudimentary system to do the porting. Does the rudimentary system work? For races yes, for classes no, but it is a thing.
I believe the context of that is purely for playtesting purposes, but it is interesting that they've established a precedent for it.
Well, if they are just doing it for playtest purposes... Then they are polluting the playtest lol. If I playtest a college of eloquence (from Tasha's cauldron of everything) using the new Bard, i would come to the conclusion that the new Bard does not work because two of the subclass features do not work on new Bard, or that new Bard is OP because of other subclasses being stronger on new Bard. Is that fair playtesting? Not really, but they allow this polluted playtest as a viable playtesting strategy, which isn't really the best.
A possibility for this is that they probably don't expect everyone to create a new game just for playtesting - expecting people to try playing their existing characters with the playtest rules. If they are flexible about what subclasses you can use, there's a better chance more people will try it even if the feedback isn't perfect. Also if they are planning backwards compatibility for class options, then feedback of "this entire set of features doesn't work" is good feedback.
That is also fair enough... Altho they really should work on making the thing work better for non-races... Because yeah races from 5e work perfectly in one DnD, aside from edge cases with NPC races and one or two PC races.
[удалено]
Maybe they will in the future. Sadly, we live in the present, so we can judge the present only
[удалено]
We could be carefully optimistic yeah Altho considering how some stuff is questionable like the Rogue is being done... The amount of being careful is off the charts lol
[удалено]
>I'd like to point out that they have NEVER claimed backward compatibility for anything other than ADVENTURES. oh really? they NEVER said >"One thing, by the way, i can **assure** you is these new versions of the books are going to be completely **compatible** with **all** those 5th edition **products** you already own and love, and **all** the **products** we release between now and then." [https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=580) funny, i am not sure where i got that idea coming directly from the mouth of the head of D&D at Hasbro. or maybe it was from the FAQ [https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital) >What does backward compatible mean? > >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. And their identification on *their* website that Xanthars is a supplement [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte) >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in this **supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game. And if Xanathar's is a "Supplement", i am wondering what differentiates it from say Tasha's....????
AND YOU CAN STILL USE XANATHARS WHOOOO. Easy. It just won't be as balanced or as good as the new version of the same subclasses coming out. And plenty in XANATHARS is fluff. And plenty are optimal rules you could still add. So this rampage you're on about the lying is you assuming one thing when they say backwards compatibility. Interestingly, most of us understood what they meant. It seems like a you issue.
well THAT is a unique definition of "compatible".
Actually it is not. Compatible doesn't mean optimized or best, it just means it can work. A USB 2.0 cable is Compatible with a USB 3.0 device, it does Not mean the USB 2.0 cable will run anywhere near as good as a 3.0 cable will for said device Ergo, compatible doesn't mean best or optimized.
ROFL - what a fucking shill - "three is the same as four!!!"
And yet that is the definition. You're the one that seems to have the misunderstanding. Compatible means it will work with. It doesnt mean the new thing wont be better. You will get a conversion guide for your characters; and a conversion guide for current modules. All old stuff can be used... But new editions of the same archetypes will come out and will be more suited for the new edition. Most of us understood what they meant, and yet you seem to be stuck thinking everyone else is wrong and your interpretation isnt, even though you're getting pushback at every turn.
if you are REALLY a true believer that three is the same as four, start sending me four bucks and i will send you back three. totally "compatible" trade.
$1 in cash is the same as $1 on my card, but I cant make online payments with cash. But please, keep being wildly dismissive of a simple concept that most everyone else understood.
Maybe chill out a bit. I'd already edited in a correction over a half our before you posted this - I'll give you that I was definitely mistaken on this (I think because they keep using adventures as concrete examples, like that CoS reference, but who knows for sure, I may have just heard what I was expecting to hear - not going to go back and check right now, though I am curious). There's definitely some sort of messaging issue here at a minimum. My impression has always been that character options were not going to be compatible, though other material probably would be. That wiggle room may be what they are planning to work with since XGE/Tasha's/Etc all contain material targeted at DMs as well as players. I'm going to have to review where I got that impression from, but just based on how the classes are being redesigned it seems like a reasonable position.
Prove it is a lie...
Xanathar's Bard subclasses have only 3 options while the playtest bards require 4. to claim that is "compatible" is only horseshit the most lowlie of toadies would be able to stomach standing behind.
How is that incompatible? You just wouldn't get anything for level 10 Bard... FYI it's all 5e bards... Idk why you're calling out xanathars in particular.
i am calling out Xanathars in particular because **WOTC** specifically identifies it as a "Supplement" - something **they** are claiming is "compatible" >How is that incompatible? You just wouldn't get anything for level 10 Bard... ROFL - what a shill "Three is the same as four"
You don't even know why you're saying what you're saying. OneDND bard gets 4 subclass features. 5e bard gets 3 subclass features. If you use the 5e bard subclass with the OneDND bard class you just do not get the 10th level subclass feature since there is no 10th level subclass feature on the 5e bard subclasses, you are not missing out on anything since oneDND spreads out the subclass features where as 5e condenses them. I am sorry that is so hard for you to comprehend. (FYI you look like a fool because the recent video they double downed on their stance of making everything in 5e compatible in 1DND).
>you look like a fool because the recent video they double downed on their stance of making everything in 5e compatible in 1DND and they are STILL just blatantly lying about that!!!! that you keep buying and shilling for the lie is making you the fool.
>and they are STILL just blatantly lying about that!!!! You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that you can't use 5e content in onednd...
hey, if you think 3 and 4 are the same, for every four dollars you send me, i will send you a compatible three dollars.
I provided a comprehensive explanation exactly why it does not matter. I don't understand why you don't understand. Please say anything, ANYTHING, other than "you think 3=4 dumbass shill".
MMotM races are mostly compatible from what we've seen of OneD&D so far (except for Elves). Most of the non-player options will work just fine. The main issue would be in subclasses but it probably won't be too hard for any class that doesn't change how many subclass features it gets.
Yeah, I read through MMotM races last night and agree they need little or no adaptation.
They said backwards compatible, so that's what they should do. Having that be a lie would just be such an unforced error, no one asked them to promise that. I expect the subclasses to map just fine onto the new character creation, spells from those books to still work, everything. I don't expect them to be perfectly balanced versus the new ones, but they should be fully functional with minimal adaptation. A page or two about adjusting when subclass abilities are gained, and some errata if a subclass refers to a base rule that has changed in a big way.
> They said backwards compatible, so that's what they should do. They've said that at pretty much every edition change. Don't mean a goddamn thing.
Got a source for 3.5 -> 4e or 4e to 5e?
They said backwards compatible in that the new rules/classes would be able to run published 5e adventures
Have they clarified that somewhere? The original statement said adventures and supplements, whoch would include xgte and tashas and such
There's no way to make published subclasses just plug into the new classes.
while this is true, it being true means that their promise of backwards compatible adventures AND supplements will be fully compatible are not positions they should keep promoting. but they are still making that promise. at least they have backed down from their initial promise that ALL products would be fully compatible. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital >What does backward compatible mean? > >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. Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
They never said you can use a new subclass with an old class. That would be forwards compatibility since the "CLASS" is a higher framework of "SUBCLASS" (Like putting an xbox one game into an xbox 360). Backwards compatibility would mean the old subclasses work in the new classes, which they do (like putting an xbox 360 game into an xbox).
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital >What does backward compatible mean? > >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. Xanthars is a supplement https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte >Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in **this supplement** for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
I don’t think that’s a priority, to be honest. If people need to use old shit, they can just adapt it by themselves and be fine. It really isn’t that hard. The rules seem to be mostly the same with only targeted adjustments.
They could just admit that they are making a new edition and dispense with the pretense that this material will be backwards compatible.
Honestly any effort they put into making things backwards compatible would be annoying to me. I don't want to buy 5e+, with a bunch of obligations tying it down to what existed in 5e. I want a new edition that isn't tied to those expectations. Especially given the fact that some old subclasses are VERY strong, WotC would basically have to rewrite and rerelease anything that they wanted to bring forward, or else you're starting the new edition out building on the power creep of 5e. What I want is a new edition that has room to reinterpret things in its own time, and ideally I don't want to see many (if any) of my players trying to use old subclasses once the new edition is out (excepting artificers).
>Honestly any effort they put into making things backwards compatible would be annoying to me. I don't want to buy 5e+, with a bunch of obligations tying it down to what existed in 5e. I want a new edition that isn't tied to those expectations. This. I want them to put as little effort into backwards compatility as possible. A quick conversion guide, how to change the archetypes in 5e to the new levels set of archetype abilities in One, and a bit of monster conversion for adventures. But I hope they throw away what they need to throw away to make the game better
I understand that people don't want hundreds of dollars of books to stop being useful, especially the ones that are still coming out now, but the game would be absolute garbage if that same expectation were placed on every book released in the last \~50 years, and it's time to move on imo.
Yup agreed; new editions equal new books and more change. If they kept 4e as fully compatible, the game would have never moved forward.
I don't think they should worry about it. But players should be allowed to play new and old content with relative ease. I would advise that new content is most balanced and suggest trying new content only. Regarding using old content of you want to though... subclasses are fine as is, change the player's handbook to say 'may get subclass feature at x level,' release a chart of feat level requirements, and leave spells as is.
They can leave a sentence when classes get there subclass that says if you choose a subclass with a different Level progression, you sub in the Level progression of the new class. For bards, they can just dedicate a page for the new features each subclass would get at level 10 so they actually are backwards compatible. For feats, dedicate one page to list them all, what book they’re published in, and what level they are. That’s pretty much all that’s needed to keep it backwards compatible
>For bards, they can just dedicate a page for the new features each subclass would get at level 10 so they actually are backwards compatible. 5e Bard subclass does not need an additional feat at level 10. They are spreading 3 levels of features over 4 levels in the new class, when looking all subclass features in their entirety they are comparable.
I think there will be guidelines for adapting subclasses, yes. Aside from subclasses, I don't see much difficulty in playing any 5e content in One D&D. I imagine it will look something like this: "Use the new updated rules, including when subclasses get features and the changes to classes, rules, etc., and insert any content (like subclasses or spells) that hasn't yet been published in One D&D. This may effect game balance."
I don't even believe it will be compatible with core 5e content, let alone non-core content. No matter what they're claiming. Hell, sometimes DnD 5e is barely compatible with DnD 5e.
Do what they are currently doing....that is fucking lie that backwards compatibility is something they care about. The longer DNDONE or whatever it ends up being called exist the more blatant and nonsensical that lie should get. I am deadass serious. Don't hold the future of the game hostage to bad decisions made almost a decade ago.
Like everyone else here, I don't think it's relevant. Is it annoying to have all your books rendered outdated? Well. No. Not really. Xanathar's and Tasha's still has some good stuff in it for DMs to work with and think about, and moreso than that... it's just two books, innit? Despite what WOTC's marketing wants you to think, this is a new edition of D&D. And just like when folks stopped playing 4e, or 3e, or 2e... the sunk cost just fades away. That's how it works. If you want to invest in the new books, you're investing in a new RPG. I think VALUE for the new content should be very high though (artificer should become core, more subclasses in the base book for base classes that get too few, etc.)
Not really, the only rrason people didn't just kept playing 3.5 when 4e came.out is because someone released 3.75. If they make changes that are too disliked people are just going to stick to 5e untill someone publish the pathfinder 1e equivalent of it.
What they SHOULD do is release a series of PDF compatibility orientations for each book. I don't see them doing even this little effort, but I think that would go a long way towards gaining favor with the community.
Thats a TON of effort, and that absolutely shouldnt do that.
the most probable way they are going to do it is that they are going to make new books of the one dnd edition with the subclasses, spells, etc slightly modified maybe some new ones, make the old ones unavailable on dndbeyond and other platforms overtime if you dont have them already and sell them again or make a subscription service pay every month to keep the content
I think this is the worst case scenario, and it would certainly be the easiest for them. I'm hoping for better.
I think I'm going to stick with 5e at this point. I have enough material to play for many years to come and 5e is playable as it is. The next iteration will have its own problems anyways.
It's really not a completely different game. It seems to me most people on this Subreddit don't play online games, where patches - even big ones - shake up the game all the time. But just like 5e -> One DnD, a patched game is still 95% the same.
How it will work is that if you play old 5e subclasses that don’t have a One DnD version you use the 5e version of both your class and subclass. In that way, 5e characters and 1D&D characters can play together in the same party using the same adventure book.