D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

The 2024 5R rules changed a lot across the Unearthed Arcana surveys. After a certain point, however, the more experimental rules were rolled back to go back to classic 2014 paradigms. This was done in the name of backwards compatibility -- the ability to use old subclasses and adventures with the game.

However, was that goal actually worth anything?

First, the subclasses. WotC has been reprinting old subclasses with new shine, bringing them up to date with their modern design sensibilities. There weren't that many subclasses released in 2014 in the first place, and the ones released could have been given an appendix on "converting old subclasses" for those that started before Level 3. Thus, the reasoning for wanting to use old subclasses completely doesn't matter.

Next, the adventures of the game. The thing is, the UA versions of 2024 kept the core things necessary to use those old adventures: hit points, conditions, AC, Abilities, and Skills were all the same. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered if the game was redesigned to have Class Groups and Class Group Spell Lists, or if Bard could choose its spell list and Warlock its spellcasting ability; none of these things have any impact on using old adventures at all.

Also, the math of the game changed, which means that 2024 characters are already overtuned for 2014 adventures in the first place. You can still run them relatively fine, but you'll have to either tune-up your stat blocks or put more effort into encounter design to match the stronger PCs.

Lastly, even though some people are mixing-and-matching, a lot of people are showing clear hesitation at using old materials with new materials. A lot of people are also talking about how they only want to use new materials, either because they are new or because they are better. So it sounds like a lot of people don't even benefit from backwards compatibility anyway.

I recall WotC saying that surveys and demand was pushing them to maintain backwards compatibility...but doesn't that seem kind of silly given the above information? I'm not sure what benefit there was to removing standardized class levels for old subclasses if old subclasses are going to be reprinted anyway. I'm not sure what benefit there was to maintaining this half-done backwards compatibility at all.

Thoughts? Opposing opinions?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I'm playing a mostly 2024 game, with one 2014 subclass (Bladesinger), in Curse of Strahd, with no issues.

As much as I would of like some deeper changes (ability score vs modifiers), the goal of backwards compatibility worked out pretty well.
I'm not sure you groked my point.

I never said there would be issues.

But there wouldn't be issues if we had standardized subclasses too, as well as a short guide for when to gain old subclass features.

Backwards compatibility to keep the subclass levels at the same is a total non-argument IMO.
 

One of my groups is playing 2024 characters in a mod I created using the 2014 rules. Haven't had to do much except bump up the encounters a bit (usually it's just something small like adding an extra monster). I am one of the people you mentioned who hasn't allowed mixing in of old subclasses and spells so far, mostly because I'm trying to keep the game "clean" to assimilate all of the changes in the new ruleset. Personally I'm glad they put such an emphasis on backwards compatibility because I have a ton of 5e 2014 content that I can still use with minor tweaks.
 


That so little changed from the half-baked bastion rules to what we got in the DMG, I think WotC was gaslighting the public rather than the other way around. I don’t think there was any honesty in listening to the fans this time around, and at best the squeaky wheels were listened to instead of the actual user base. I think the designers long had I mind what changes they were going to actually make, and short of a revolt by the player base, were going to put in what changes they wanted, regardless of the survey results.

If anything, after playtesting and reviewing the results of those play tests, they should have put the changes into an options book (akin to the 2E player’s option series) rather than what they ended up with. Instead of doing an evergreen revision, they ended up with a half-step edition change.

Also, did they even do any surveys on the monster changes at all? I don’t remember there being any.
 

Backwards compatibility to keep the subclass levels at the same is a total non-argument IMO.
But what would that gain?

Many of subclasses require base class features (i.e. Assassin improves poison sneak attack).

And for the things that don't have class specific prerequisite, there are feats.
 

To be honest, I think a lot of thst stuff such as Class Groups, just didn't spark joy for people. They failed on their own merits as interesting changes, most likely, no backwards compatibility fears. Though I do think unified Subclass progression scared players way more than it should have: theybshowed with the first couple examples thst it would have worked fine with backwards compatibility.
 

I think the biggest thing is that they wanted to maintain compatiblitly with 3rd party content, especially subclasses. When you change the numbers and levels of subclass features, it requires more effort to convert than just changing the first/second level to third.

Having written and converted a bunch of subclasses for 2024, A5E, and TOTV, I can see why they'd want to minimize that. There are already people hesitant to use old material with the new classes or insist that it's not backwards compatible enough as it is. I think they would have had a lot harder time getting people on board with the original, more substantial changes in the UA.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top