Quote from: estar on September 05, 2024, 11:59:24 AMD&D 2024 is as backward compatible as the latest magic the gathering card set is to the previous. Same mechanics but different lists with different exceptions.

Except they have changed how races work, backgrounds, classes, subclasses, spells.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2024, 01:12:05 PMEh, having looked at all the changes its backwards compatible by any reasonable person's measure. It's frankly less than the 3e to 3.5e changes from to look of it and people used 3e, 3.5e, and 3.PF stuff pretty much interchangeably in my experience.

You people have a completely fucked up concept of what backwards compatible is supposed to be then.

Quote from: Omega on September 06, 2024, 04:31:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2024, 01:12:05 PMEh, having looked at all the changes its backwards compatible by any reasonable person's measure. It's frankly less than the 3e to 3.5e changes from to look of it and people used 3e, 3.5e, and 3.PF stuff pretty much interchangeably in my experience.

You people have a completely fucked up concept of what backwards compatible is supposed to be then.

Either that or you do.

Chris laid out a reasonable set of parameters for what is and is not backwards compatible. It doesn't mean zero work required on the part of the GM who wants to use old rulebooks. If it did, it would be the exact same ruleset.

Now, it's your money. If you don't want to buy the new product because it isn't zero-work-required, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to keep your money in your pocket. Considering the preponderance of people on this forum playing with the B/X ruleset, it seems like a losing proposition to try to argue that you should totally change from 5E to this new thing that we're definitely not calling 6E. However, it's unrealistic to think that "backwards compatibility" = "I don't have to do any work to use old stuff" and it strikes me as arguing in bad faith. Basically, it's not the thing that turned you off of new thing that we're definitely not calling 6th edition. Rather, you had already decided you weren't going to play it for some other reason, and this is something you came up with to Win An Argument On The Internet.

I don't blame you for not wanting to play this new thing that we're definitely not calling 6E. I don't have any interest in it, either. I'm just not pretending that, "Oh, it's not backwards compatible," is in any way relevant to my lack of interest. Because of course it's backwards compatible. WotC got rid of everyone that can design a game. They don't have the resources to make the kind of changes that would prevent backwards compatibility. They moved attribute bonuses from race to background to make the leftoids happy, and monkeyed with some class abilities.

So, one of the players at my game last night actually popped for the 2024 PHB and since my PC was out of action for most of the night I actually got to take a closer look at it as a whole and not just the changes. That just reinforced my conclusion that, terrible art aside, it IS actually fully backwards compatible and is closest in feel to the Essentials line for 4E than anything else.

In actual play you can absolutely use 2014 PCs and 2024 PCs in the same party and run them through any 2014-present module without having to change anything. With the aforementioned caveat of choosing whether you get your ability bonuses from race or background you can even mix and match 2014 and 2024 races, classes, backgrounds, spells and feats without any issues.

2e Skills & Powers had far greater differences from baseline 2e than 2024 has from 2014. 3.5e and 4E's errata documents changed their rules more than is different here.

The biggest complaint I'd claim against 2024 is that it's wholly unnecessary and could have been an errata document for all the actual changes it made. It even reverted a number of the mild changes from the last round of Unearthed Arcana playtests back to the 2014 versions.

No one who has the 2014 books should be rushing to get the 2024 version. They already have 99% of the content in their 2014 era books and the art and layout are, imho, a step down in quality.

Jesus wept.

So 6e is "backwards compatible" with OD&D now by this logic, or lack thereof.

Quote from: Omega on September 09, 2024, 11:19:30 PMJesus wept.

So 6e is "backwards compatible" with OD&D now by this logic, or lack thereof.

Hyperbolic statements don't make a claim true. I get not admitting to being wrong on the internet, but this is ridiculous.

The 2024 PHB is exactly as compatible with OD&D as the 2014 PHB is, because outside of minor tweaks its the same damnably mediocre system.

Also the claim was not backwards compatible with OD&D... it was that the 2024 material would be backwards compatible with the 2014-23 material. It is backwards compatible by even strict standards (if you can freely use adventures, monsters, treasures, and PCs from either with no changes required and even mix and match options from 2014 and 2024 onto the same PC with just a note about only getting attribute bonuses from your race or background not both... that is absolutely backwards compatible because it's the same edition by any RPG standard.

It's not like the attribute change is even a new thing for 5e. Attribute bonuses independent of race started as an option in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything back in 2020.

A question to clarify your position; do you call 2e Skills & Powers "Third Edition"?

If you're counting every time a core book changed up anything, then I hope you're calling 3.5e at least Fourth Edition (more if you include OD&D, the versions of Basic, and Skills & Powers as editions) and Essentials as at least 6th Edition, making 2014 at least Seventh and 2024 at minimum Eighth Edition. 

Skills & Powers, 3.5e, and (arguably) Essentials, changed PCs creation far more radically than anything the 2024 PHB has done. Hell, 3e and definitely 4E's errata documents changed their core books more extensively than anything included in 2024 PHB has to 5e.

Again, I get not liking it. There is a ton not to like, but picking THIS hill to fight from (a demonstrably false claim that the new material can't be used with the 2014 material) when it is so easily undermined (it literally requires ZERO changes to use modules, monsters, magic tems, etc. from either) is silly. The more people get the book the more obviously ridiculous your position will be to everyone.

I like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

It's possible that WotC is just evil they can do both.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

For me, reminds me of 3.0 -> 3.5.  They didn't change a lot, but changed enough to invalidate the prior books and republish them.

Or, basically the Games Workshop school of thought.  Change just enough to sell a new edition, redo all the books, then do it all over again.

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 11, 2024, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

For me, reminds me of 3.0 -> 3.5.  They didn't change a lot, but changed enough to invalidate the prior books and republish them.

Or, basically the Games Workshop school of thought.  Change just enough to sell a new edition, redo all the books, then do it all over again.

If it invalidates anything, it would be portions of Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron. However, as the vast majority of the books in print are adventures, most of these could be used with minimal (if any) adjustment required. Setting books would generally require little alteration aside from the player-facing sections, and even these adjustmens are largely optional (you can still use an unaltered Artificer from Eberron if you wish).

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 11, 2024, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 11, 2024, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

For me, reminds me of 3.0 -> 3.5.  They didn't change a lot, but changed enough to invalidate the prior books and republish them.

If it invalidates anything, it would be portions of Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron. However, as the vast majority of the books in print are adventures, most of these could be used with minimal (if any) adjustment required. Setting books would generally require little alteration aside from the player-facing sections, and even these adjustmens are largely optional (you can still use an unaltered Artificer from Eberron if you wish).

I don't have the 2024 rules and doubt I'll buy it any time soon, so I don't have any opinion on how backwards-compatible it is.

As a question, then... Nobleshield - are you saying that the 5E adventures are now invalid and I wouldn't be able to play a previously-published 5E adventure using the new 2024 rules? Or are you saying something else? I never bought into 3.5 either, so that analogy isn't very useful for me.

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2024, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 11, 2024, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 11, 2024, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

For me, reminds me of 3.0 -> 3.5.  They didn't change a lot, but changed enough to invalidate the prior books and republish them.

If it invalidates anything, it would be portions of Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron. However, as the vast majority of the books in print are adventures, most of these could be used with minimal (if any) adjustment required. Setting books would generally require little alteration aside from the player-facing sections, and even these adjustmens are largely optional (you can still use an unaltered Artificer from Eberron if you wish).

I don't have the 2024 rules and doubt I'll buy it any time soon, so I don't have any opinion on how backwards-compatible it is.

As a question, then... Nobleshield - are you saying that the 5E adventures are now invalid and I wouldn't be able to play a previously-published 5E adventure using the new 2024 rules? Or are you saying something else? I never bought into 3.5 either, so that analogy isn't very useful for me.

There was a lot of bellyaching about the changes from 3.0 to 3.5. The complaints are mostly overblown, but it was extensive enough that you really did want a new player's handbook so that you didn't have to keep referencing the free update document.

There were some prestige classes in expanded splatbooks (Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, etc.) that didn't get reprinted, but that had more to do with those prestige classes being busted than actual rules changes. Likewise the reprints put several softcover books into a single hardcover volume.

So yes, WotC certainly jumped at an opportunity to repackage and reprint existing content. However, from a customer perspective the reason you bought the reprinted material was convenience rather than incompatibility.

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2024, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 11, 2024, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 11, 2024, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on September 10, 2024, 03:23:07 PMI like how WotC simultaneously didn't change enough to justify a new release of books and are just money-grubbing whores who want to squeeze their customers for every last dollar, but also changed so much that the new release isn't backwards-compatible.

For me, reminds me of 3.0 -> 3.5.  They didn't change a lot, but changed enough to invalidate the prior books and republish them.

If it invalidates anything, it would be portions of Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron. However, as the vast majority of the books in print are adventures, most of these could be used with minimal (if any) adjustment required. Setting books would generally require little alteration aside from the player-facing sections, and even these adjustmens are largely optional (you can still use an unaltered Artificer from Eberron if you wish).

I don't have the 2024 rules and doubt I'll buy it any time soon, so I don't have any opinion on how backwards-compatible it is.

As a question, then... Nobleshield - are you saying that the 5E adventures are now invalid and I wouldn't be able to play a previously-published 5E adventure using the new 2024 rules? Or are you saying something else? I never bought into 3.5 either, so that analogy isn't very useful for me.

I'm saying my guess is they have changed enough to claim backwards compatibility while redoing the books later.  The Games Workshop approach where a Warhammer edition changes, and they redo books, but while you're waiting for your book you can still use the old version (albeit it's probably not as good).

What's more mind boggling is the fact the updated monster manual is 5 months away, so you would have to buy the 2014 version and THEN buy the 2024 version in February.

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 11, 2024, 06:13:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2024, 02:09:53 PMI don't have the 2024 rules and doubt I'll buy it any time soon, so I don't have any opinion on how backwards-compatible it is.

As a question, then... Nobleshield - are you saying that the 5E adventures are now invalid and I wouldn't be able to play a previously-published 5E adventure using the new 2024 rules? Or are you saying something else? I never bought into 3.5 either, so that analogy isn't very useful for me.

I'm saying my guess is they have changed enough to claim backwards compatibility while redoing the books later.  The Games Workshop approach where a Warhammer edition changes, and they redo books, but while you're waiting for your book you can still use the old version (albeit it's probably not as good).

You say you are guessing. So you don't know how backwards-compatible it is? Are you like me and haven't bought or read it?

I'm not saying your guess is wrong. WotC has been hit-or-miss, in my experience.

But I'm more interested in hearing people who have read and/or tried it.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 06, 2024, 05:00:51 PM

Quote from: Omega on September 06, 2024, 04:31:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2024, 01:12:05 PMEh, having looked at all the changes its backwards compatible by any reasonable person's measure. It's frankly less than the 3e to 3.5e changes from to look of it and people used 3e, 3.5e, and 3.PF stuff pretty much interchangeably in my experience.

You people have a completely fucked up concept of what backwards compatible is supposed to be then.

Either that or you do.

Chris laid out a reasonable set of parameters for what is and is not backwards compatible. It doesn't mean zero work required on the part of the GM who wants to use old rulebooks. If it did, it would be the exact same ruleset.

Now, it's your money. If you don't want to buy the new product because it isn't zero-work-required, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to keep your money in your pocket. Considering the preponderance of people on this forum playing with the B/X ruleset, it seems like a losing proposition to try to argue that you should totally change from 5E to this new thing that we're definitely not calling 6E. However, it's unrealistic to think that "backwards compatibility" = "I don't have to do any work to use old stuff" and it strikes me as arguing in bad faith. Basically, it's not the thing that turned you off of new thing that we're definitely not calling 6th edition. Rather, you had already decided you weren't going to play it for some other reason, and this is something you came up with to Win An Argument On The Internet.

I don't blame you for not wanting to play this new thing that we're definitely not calling 6E. I don't have any interest in it, either. I'm just not pretending that, "Oh, it's not backwards compatible," is in any way relevant to my lack of interest. Because of course it's backwards compatible. WotC got rid of everyone that can design a game. They don't have the resources to make the kind of changes that would prevent backwards compatibility. They moved attribute bonuses from race to background to make the leftoids happy, and monkeyed with some class abilities.

So. Races, Classes, Spells, Equipment and backgrounds being different doesn't mean anything for a balance or gameplay point? Are you for real?

At least for 3e to 3.5 things where similar and the balance was mostly the same save for certain classes being objectively better then other classes. But with the differents between 5e and NuD&D the balance is tossed out the window. The only thing that's the same is the core mechanics (much like the core mechanics between 3e, 3.5 and pf), but due to the sweeping balance changes and new interactions, I wouldn't want to have a "mixxed" 5e and nud&d party as much as I wouldn't want a 3e and Pf party.

If wizards only changed some aspects of classes (rather then total re writes in most cases) and tweaked certain stats. I would call nud&d 5.5 and figure out which things are "better" so my players didn't fall for edition traps. But with what it is, I couldn't justify using 5e alongside nud&d.

As for modules, less combat focused 5e adventure's could easily be run for nud&d, but anything else would take alot of leg work for the GM to balance things out. It'd be likely more work then converting 3e modules to pf for balance.