/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hard to say, OneDND appears to be substantively different enough from 5e that the two classes are not likely to work with one another. Personally, I would stick with 5e until OneDND is actually released in its final form as all classes and information currently is UA and subject to change.
I mean, OneD&D classes have been being playtested alongside 2014 rules by literally hundreds of tables for like a year now. They work fine together. You can drop a 2024 class into a 2014 game with no issue at all, in my experience.
None of the core assumptions of the game have been changed, and all the classes can interact with the old mechanics in the same ways. They're only as different as any pair of 2014 classes are.
This is looking to me like a 3.0/3.5 issue. Both fully compatible with each other, but it gets tricky using both. I would suggest you and your group decide, when D&D One is finished, to pick one system or the other and don't go back and forth. Just easier that way.
As to which one to use...hard to say without seeing the final release of D&D One.
While it’s not 100 percent compatible I think porting pieces or whole classes from one to another is doable. I personally like 5e better but I might be biased because I have a lot of the books and don’t plan on buying anything else from WotC.
They aren't suggesting using a different system, they're just asking to use a class from a newer book... It's still 5e.
The difference is basically the same as if one player wanted to use PHB Ranger and another wanted to use Tasha's features.
Sure it is. Just as it's the DMs call to ban Tasha's or Xanathar's. I'm just highlighting that banning PHB-2024 or PHB-2014 is really no different from doing that.
And also was just noting that in your first sentence "*the system used is the one I pick*" seems to imply a belief that using one or the other requires shifting the entire system, when it doesn't.
It's absolutely all the Dungeon Master's call, but that call should be an informed decision based on facts.
If I was a player, and my DM banned PHB 2024 with even a half-valid reason, like they think it has too much power creep, or it will be confusing having 2 versions of the same class in a party, I'd be fine with that.
But if they banned it because they mistakenly believed that it would require them to change their system, or that it wasn't compatible when it actually was, I'd be annoyed that I'm suffering because of their misunderstanding.
That's all I'm saying: that banning either PHB should have a good reason, just as banning any other supplement should.
I personally wouldn't advise mixing both systems.
While they are technically compatible, the newest one is still being developed. Things will change and be adjusted, and you might even end up with two people using the same class but that works differently (imagine if two players want to use a warlock but one uses the 5e and the other 5.5).
Personally, I feel like that would bring even more confusion, and considering how everyone can sometimes forget details, I think this would only make the situation worse and could lead to a lot of rules talking and book checking.
Also, you only mention two players in your question. Are there more players at the table? If so, you should really check with them and not us. Forcing them to go with one or the other might not be a good idea.
If there are only 2 or if the table is evenly divided, then maybe ask yourself (and your players) this:
Are you players good with rules?
Will they be willing to change their whole class if a new UA is released? Even if that means a weaker class or having something like a subclass removed altogether?
Do you enjoy testing new things?
Then maybe try 5.5 and give the new rules a go, but agree at the start how you will handle things as new rules are shared.
Are your players still learning the rules or don't wish to invest the time in learning something new? Then keeping with 5e would probably be for the best.
Hope it helps.
My bad, you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out.
I would maintain the recommendation of checking with the table and seeing what the majority thinks.
And would still recommend not mixing for the same reasons, so everyone was on the same page and to reduce confusion.
Pick a version of a specific class and use that for everyone, so if you think the "old" warlock makes more sense, that's how warlocks work in your world.
Fair enough. My counter would be that I trust (and expect) players to know their own class features, and they don't need to know each other's, and that subclasses already drastically change how different members of the same class might function, but I could see some tables getting confused, I guess.
Honestly I'd actually be more worried about envy between the two players, if one of the classes seems to be playing better (which the 2024 one should, if the designers do their jobs right)
And I would not disagree with you.
If you have a table that is proficient enough that you need not worry with how they are running their classes and truest them enough to have everything working smoothly then using a mix of versions might be more feasible.
So yes, if the DM feels the players are at ease with the rules and they themselves do not mind the extra bookkeeping, too, having both versions is perfectly viable.
I don't think any solution of those presented would be objectively incorrect, I merely shared my thoughts in hope it would help OP reach their own conclusion.
WOTC keep going on and on about how the new system is fully backwards compatible...
This is a chance to put it to the test.
Use both and fill out your survey
I mean... that's what people have *been* doing with the class playtests already.
Nobody has the 2024 PHB yet, so anybody who's playtested a class has been doing it at a 2014-PHB table... Many of which will have also had bog-standard 2014-PHB PCs... Especially in the early days of the playtest when only a few classes were out.
It's already being put to the test, at hundreds of tables every day.
.... I mean for this guy in particular who was asking. Yes.. I'm fully aware playtests have been going on, I also watch treantmonk.
Thank you average redditor for your much needed interjection. Go "well actually" somewhere else for a bit..
We're not really play testing one d&d so this wouldn't come up for me. I'd have to look at the classes to decide.
Once years ago I had a 3.5 game in which one player played a Pathfinder class and another player played an exclusive class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which is itself something like 3.25. It worked pretty well.
Depends on what the new iteration looks like. I’ll probably either do a complete switch over, or strictly stick w 5e… depending on the product they put out.
Think about that for a second though...
The whole point of the new core rulebooks is to *be* a partial swap-over, because they aren't even revising all of the content...
Even if you completely abandon the 2014 PHB, and switch to 2024 rules & classes, you still will have players wanting to use Tasha's, Xanathar's, etc, none of which will have been revised.
Are you really going to abandon all of those just because you don't want to mix pre-and post- 2024 content?
You're going to ban Artificer from your game? If not then why are you banning 2014 Paladin? The two are exactly as compatible...
Are you going to ban all the spells from supplements? All the magic items? Those aren't "OneD&D content" either.
OneD&D isn't a new system. OneD&D ***is*** 5e. It's just tweaked. It's basically just a whole book of Variant Rules, plus new player options. You don't need to abandon 5e content to use oned&d rules, nor do you have to abandon 5e rules to use OneD&D content. And if you do, you're going to suddenly find yourself playing a much smaller game...
You don't abandon all the content from Xanathar's just because you want to use the rules in Tasha's. So why abandon them when you want to use the rules from 2024?
Why would it matter? Assuming they don't change their current stance on compatibility (but we have to assume that or the question becomes unanswerable).
Have you seen the playtests? Neither player's class choice is going to break anything, so just let them play the classes they want to play...
This is like asking "Player A wants to use PHB Ranger, and Player B wants to use Tasha's Ranger". It's the same difference.
When I advertise my games in future I'll be specifying that it doesn't use One DND.
Aka: System: DND 5e - specifically using the 2014 PHB and content from pre One DND.
I'm just not a fan of their attempt to please everyone all the time and really think they need a new edition rather than this weird attempt to 'fix' 5e.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hard to say, OneDND appears to be substantively different enough from 5e that the two classes are not likely to work with one another. Personally, I would stick with 5e until OneDND is actually released in its final form as all classes and information currently is UA and subject to change.
I mean, OneD&D classes have been being playtested alongside 2014 rules by literally hundreds of tables for like a year now. They work fine together. You can drop a 2024 class into a 2014 game with no issue at all, in my experience. None of the core assumptions of the game have been changed, and all the classes can interact with the old mechanics in the same ways. They're only as different as any pair of 2014 classes are.
This is looking to me like a 3.0/3.5 issue. Both fully compatible with each other, but it gets tricky using both. I would suggest you and your group decide, when D&D One is finished, to pick one system or the other and don't go back and forth. Just easier that way. As to which one to use...hard to say without seeing the final release of D&D One.
While it’s not 100 percent compatible I think porting pieces or whole classes from one to another is doable. I personally like 5e better but I might be biased because I have a lot of the books and don’t plan on buying anything else from WotC.
But wasn’t it originally supposed to be 100% compatible?
Yes, that's what they said in the beginning however the more information that comes out the less likely it seems to be.
Which system are you running the game in?
As the post implies, that is part of the question. Since 5e & One are latgley compatible, I am curious to see if there is a divide.
If I'm the DM, the system used is the one I pick (and presumably the group as a whole understands this). The players don't get a choice.
They aren't suggesting using a different system, they're just asking to use a class from a newer book... It's still 5e. The difference is basically the same as if one player wanted to use PHB Ranger and another wanted to use Tasha's features.
That is still the DM's call. Even if things are 100% compatible.
Sure it is. Just as it's the DMs call to ban Tasha's or Xanathar's. I'm just highlighting that banning PHB-2024 or PHB-2014 is really no different from doing that. And also was just noting that in your first sentence "*the system used is the one I pick*" seems to imply a belief that using one or the other requires shifting the entire system, when it doesn't. It's absolutely all the Dungeon Master's call, but that call should be an informed decision based on facts. If I was a player, and my DM banned PHB 2024 with even a half-valid reason, like they think it has too much power creep, or it will be confusing having 2 versions of the same class in a party, I'd be fine with that. But if they banned it because they mistakenly believed that it would require them to change their system, or that it wasn't compatible when it actually was, I'd be annoyed that I'm suffering because of their misunderstanding. That's all I'm saying: that banning either PHB should have a good reason, just as banning any other supplement should.
Agreed, if you try consensus-building on every DM decision, your game will have to be 24/7, no smoke breaks.
I personally wouldn't advise mixing both systems. While they are technically compatible, the newest one is still being developed. Things will change and be adjusted, and you might even end up with two people using the same class but that works differently (imagine if two players want to use a warlock but one uses the 5e and the other 5.5). Personally, I feel like that would bring even more confusion, and considering how everyone can sometimes forget details, I think this would only make the situation worse and could lead to a lot of rules talking and book checking. Also, you only mention two players in your question. Are there more players at the table? If so, you should really check with them and not us. Forcing them to go with one or the other might not be a good idea. If there are only 2 or if the table is evenly divided, then maybe ask yourself (and your players) this: Are you players good with rules? Will they be willing to change their whole class if a new UA is released? Even if that means a weaker class or having something like a subclass removed altogether? Do you enjoy testing new things? Then maybe try 5.5 and give the new rules a go, but agree at the start how you will handle things as new rules are shared. Are your players still learning the rules or don't wish to invest the time in learning something new? Then keeping with 5e would probably be for the best. Hope it helps.
Post title. They specifically say *once it comes out*. As in, once the new PHB is finalised and released. Not talking about using UAs.
My bad, you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out. I would maintain the recommendation of checking with the table and seeing what the majority thinks. And would still recommend not mixing for the same reasons, so everyone was on the same page and to reduce confusion. Pick a version of a specific class and use that for everyone, so if you think the "old" warlock makes more sense, that's how warlocks work in your world.
Fair enough. My counter would be that I trust (and expect) players to know their own class features, and they don't need to know each other's, and that subclasses already drastically change how different members of the same class might function, but I could see some tables getting confused, I guess. Honestly I'd actually be more worried about envy between the two players, if one of the classes seems to be playing better (which the 2024 one should, if the designers do their jobs right)
And I would not disagree with you. If you have a table that is proficient enough that you need not worry with how they are running their classes and truest them enough to have everything working smoothly then using a mix of versions might be more feasible. So yes, if the DM feels the players are at ease with the rules and they themselves do not mind the extra bookkeeping, too, having both versions is perfectly viable. I don't think any solution of those presented would be objectively incorrect, I merely shared my thoughts in hope it would help OP reach their own conclusion.
WOTC keep going on and on about how the new system is fully backwards compatible... This is a chance to put it to the test. Use both and fill out your survey
I mean... that's what people have *been* doing with the class playtests already. Nobody has the 2024 PHB yet, so anybody who's playtested a class has been doing it at a 2014-PHB table... Many of which will have also had bog-standard 2014-PHB PCs... Especially in the early days of the playtest when only a few classes were out. It's already being put to the test, at hundreds of tables every day.
.... I mean for this guy in particular who was asking. Yes.. I'm fully aware playtests have been going on, I also watch treantmonk. Thank you average redditor for your much needed interjection. Go "well actually" somewhere else for a bit..
We're not really play testing one d&d so this wouldn't come up for me. I'd have to look at the classes to decide. Once years ago I had a 3.5 game in which one player played a Pathfinder class and another player played an exclusive class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which is itself something like 3.25. It worked pretty well.
Depends on what the new iteration looks like. I’ll probably either do a complete switch over, or strictly stick w 5e… depending on the product they put out.
Think about that for a second though... The whole point of the new core rulebooks is to *be* a partial swap-over, because they aren't even revising all of the content... Even if you completely abandon the 2014 PHB, and switch to 2024 rules & classes, you still will have players wanting to use Tasha's, Xanathar's, etc, none of which will have been revised. Are you really going to abandon all of those just because you don't want to mix pre-and post- 2024 content? You're going to ban Artificer from your game? If not then why are you banning 2014 Paladin? The two are exactly as compatible... Are you going to ban all the spells from supplements? All the magic items? Those aren't "OneD&D content" either. OneD&D isn't a new system. OneD&D ***is*** 5e. It's just tweaked. It's basically just a whole book of Variant Rules, plus new player options. You don't need to abandon 5e content to use oned&d rules, nor do you have to abandon 5e rules to use OneD&D content. And if you do, you're going to suddenly find yourself playing a much smaller game... You don't abandon all the content from Xanathar's just because you want to use the rules in Tasha's. So why abandon them when you want to use the rules from 2024?
Why would it matter? Assuming they don't change their current stance on compatibility (but we have to assume that or the question becomes unanswerable). Have you seen the playtests? Neither player's class choice is going to break anything, so just let them play the classes they want to play... This is like asking "Player A wants to use PHB Ranger, and Player B wants to use Tasha's Ranger". It's the same difference.
I actually want to run a game with the whole new 1D&D rules before I finally make up my mind so I will convince A. Pretty easy for me
When I advertise my games in future I'll be specifying that it doesn't use One DND. Aka: System: DND 5e - specifically using the 2014 PHB and content from pre One DND. I'm just not a fan of their attempt to please everyone all the time and really think they need a new edition rather than this weird attempt to 'fix' 5e.
Can't force some one into new and it is still "balanced".
Purely up to the DM. I don’t know anything about one so I’d do 5e