D&D (2024) Its The Same Game Right? 5.0 Options in 5.5

EzekielRaiden said:

Whether that is true or not, and indeed whether I agree with it or not, isn't really my interest here.

My interest is the specific claim that that is not only what we should currently understand "compatible" to mean, but that this was always what "compatible" meant. More or less, that no one does or would have reasonably argued otherwise.

That is the thing that is both interesting and useful to me. I should be extremely pleased to have even one person on this forum who holds to that position.

Click to expand...

DEFCON 1 said:

Useful how?

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

Because I was told frequently by others something completely contradictory. It would be extremely useful to me to be able to say: "No, your position not only is not the only reasonable one, there are other positions which specifically assert that yours is and has always been the unreasonable one."

Hence why I have been asking if that's really what this person actually means to say, or they actually mean something rather weaker (e.g. "we now understand that this is what 'compatibility' meant, even if we could not have known before release'.") I want to be sure that I am fully, properly understanding them so that I can point to this later with unequivocal verification--so that no one can say I somehow misunderstood, or somehow took someone's position too far, or that I invented a strawman, or any other such argument dismissal without engaging with the substance of a point.

And, to be clear, this is far from the first time I have said such. Not on this specific topic, mind. But I always do so with the specific intent that, if the person instead says, "no, I didn't mean something that strong", they are fully within their rights to do so, and I won't hold that against them. It would be extremely discourteous to say, effectively, "are you sure?" and then skewer them for choosing to be more cautious about the breadth of any given claim. But, if they are sure, and say as such, then that may significantly simplify future discussions with other people.

Click to expand...

Remathilis said:

I'm a bigger fan of relative compatibility. As in 5e 14 is relatively compatible with 24, with hiccups that will occur.

People say all the time 1e and 2e are compatible, until they try to run Against the Giants with 2e giant stats and see how much more deadly that module gets. Or how 3e and 3.5 are compatible until you find a prestige class that calls for ranks Animal Empathy or Scry to qualify. If something doesn't break, then you didn't update the rules, you changed the book covers.

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

I was explicitly assured, by several people, in a thread perhaps a year ago at most, that "compatible" literally did mean just making extremely small tweaks (of the tune "you get feature A at level 3, not level 2" or similar--bookkeeping tweaks, nothing more) in order to directly use all options from 5.0 in 5.5. Moreover, that it would make no difference whatsoever that some people used options from 5.0, and others used options from 5.5, and a few might even use a mixture of options from either one, without issue.

Is it your position that this is not the case, nor has it ever been the case? That, in fact, "compatible" actually means, and has always meant, "you must review each not-yet-translated option with a fine-toothed comb", because there could easily be significant problems due to failing to take into account rules differences?

Because it would be exceedingly useful to me if I could cite this as being not only the current understanding, but that it was always the understanding that "compatibility" between 5.0 and 5.5e merely meant that you wouldn't have to ground-up rebuilding, but would still need to carefully review for the possibility of game-harming consequences. That would, in fact, be something I would eagerly accept and run with--should you really mean what it seems you are saying here.

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

I was explicitly assured, by several people, in a thread perhaps a year ago at most, that "compatible" literally did mean just making extremely small tweaks (of the tune "you get feature A at level 3, not level 2" or similar--bookkeeping tweaks, nothing more) in order to directly use all options from 5.0 in 5.5. Moreover, that it would make no difference whatsoever that some people used options from 5.0, and others used options from 5.5, and a few might even use a mixture of options from either one, without issue.

Is it your position that this is not the case, nor has it ever been the case? That, in fact, "compatible" actually means, and has always meant, "you must review each not-yet-translated option with a fine-toothed comb", because there could easily be significant problems due to failing to take into account rules differences?

Because it would be exceedingly useful to me if I could cite this as being not only the current understanding, but that it was always the understanding that "compatibility" between 5.0 and 5.5e merely meant that you wouldn't have to ground-up rebuilding, but would still need to carefully review for the possibility of game-harming consequences. That would, in fact, be something I would eagerly accept and run with--should you really mean what it seems you are saying here.

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

You have to do this for sourcebooks... why would a revision be different. My question would be... who are these people you have been getting (incorrect??) info about 5e from?

Edit: i guess I'd also suggest you stop listening to them.

Click to expand...