With errata being expanded to change game mechanics, remove/alter lore and content, and other design decisions. I request the ability to see content in its original state when it was printed/purchased in addition to the new errata. I can understand if this content is deemed unsuitable for some groups. But others don't have an issue with this content and would like the choice to view and use that content.
Removing/altering purchased content is fundamentally consumer-unfriendly and will affect my decisions to purchase future content and continue my subscription.
D&D Beyond has always been committed to providing the latest, accurate versions of content as dictated by Wizards of the Coast. DDB hasn't provided such pre-errata content in the past per this commitment and I would hazard that they're unlikely to do so in the future.
On WotC site it specifically calls out that Dndbeyond will be updating the books to the Errata. So are you saying Dndbeyond will be creating a separate space to include the new errata or are you just pointing out that they can view the content they paid for with the errata update (when it's applied)?
It's pretty obvious the latter is not what they were asking for. It would be a first for DNDBeyond to not update content to the errata (to my knowledge) or keep the original separate.
I actually came here specifically to write a request post about this, so I'm happy to see there already is one.
I disagree with a lot of the changes (read: removals) Wizards is making to the culture and identity of monsters and PC races, but that's immaterial. If we have to debate the validity of every little change they make, we'll never get anywhere.
The problem is that we're talking about straight up cutting a significant amount of content that I paid for. Pages' worth of lore content is being removed from the beholders, gnolls, orcs, and others. It's one thing for Wizards to change this for future printings, I can just not buy those new book editions. But this would be DDB swooping in and taking an eraser to books that I already bought, to content that I already paid for.
That, I find unacceptable, and hope DDB can present a solution for. I won't be buying anything else here if it means Wizards can just modify stuff that I paid for.
the content they paid for with the errata update (when it's applied)?
The content paid for is the sourcebook. As errata is released, this becomes said sourcebook. Said sourcebook remains what was paid for. I'm confused at how old or obsolete sections of text (per publisher) have licensed ownership when it is no longer official content?
the content they paid for with the errata update (when it's applied)?
The content paid for is the sourcebook. As errata is released, this becomes said sourcebook. Said sourcebook remains what was paid for. I'm confused at how old or obsolete sections of text (per publisher) have licensed ownership when it is no longer official content?
I suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. However, if you genuinely can't understand why we might disagree with having paragraphs of content removed from our books, then I'm confused on what you think you have to contribute to this discussion other than simply playing devil's advocate and/or trying to incite aggressive responses.
The content paid for is the sourcebook. As errata is released, this becomes said sourcebook. Said sourcebook remains what was paid for. I'm confused at how old or obsolete sections of text (per publisher) have licensed ownership when it is no longer official content?
I wasn't arguing that. The point of this thread was a request to be able to see the lore/content as is before the errata and they were asking for that. You answered they would be able to view it at that link without stating whether it was pre or post errata so I was asking for clarification. They were asking to be able to view pre errata content (obviously implied).
Thread topic: Ability to view content altered/removed in errata.
You replied to someone hoping to have the removed content still viewable with: It will remain viewable at [insert link].
You might see how that was confusing to me.
I don't know why you're asking me about licensing or official content - I didn't argue, ask or bring it up. Nor did I imply anything to the contrary.
I happen to agree with you that it is the official update and Dndbeyond should support those (probably are required to). I was honestly curious what you were saying - I was interested if there was going to be a change in how things have been done. If you want to be snarky or alternatively claim you didn't understand what they wanted that's fine. I was literally just asking for clarification.
Maybe you didn't understand my words either so I will also clarify what you quoted (without context) below. If you still would like more information on what I meant by the below I'm happy to clarify further. It was a question and as part of the Dndbeyond team maybe you had information we don't (I know you're only a mod but still there's a chance).
So are you saying Dndbeyond will be creating a separate space to include the new errata [are both going to be available as requested]or are you just pointing out that they can view the content they paid for [the book (which for digital content includes all future official updates to my knowledge)] with the errata update [official update to the book] (when it's applied)?
I suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. However, if you genuinely can't understand why we might disagree with having paragraphs of content removed from our books, then I'm confused on what you think you have to contribute to this discussion other than simply playing devil's advocate and/or trying to incite aggressive responses.
I asked a question regarding the correlation of licensed ownership to official content, not about who might disagree with anything. As you have implied, this seems to be a bit more emotional discussion than fact-oriented, so I'll leave it at that then, I suppose.
I suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. However, if you genuinely can't understand why we might disagree with having paragraphs of content removed from our books, then I'm confused on what you think you have to contribute to this discussion other than simply playing devil's advocate and/or trying to incite aggressive responses.
I asked a question regarding the correlation of licensed ownership to official content, not about who might disagree with anything. As you have implied, this seems to be a bit more emotional discussion than fact-oriented, so I'll leave it at that then, I suppose.
Just chalk it up as someone being "emotional" and leave instead of answering the question properly for the customer. Seems to be the way its done here, sadly.
DnDBeyond: "Hey, buy our stuff, it's JUST as good as having a physical book, and way more convenient, because you'll get all the fixes automatically" WotC: "Hey, we've decided this content doesn't count" Physical Book Owners:"Well, I've still got my book, so it's fine if it's not official, as long as I still have it for reference." DnDBeyond: "Hey, Merry Christmas, we're going to tear some pages out of your books, but remember you don't technically own them." Hypothetical Strawman WotC: "Hey, we've decided that all the races being different is just too divisive and outdated, so now everything is non-offensive abstract shapes of indeterminate dimensions and orientation." Physical Book Owners: "Whew, glad I didn't sell mine off. Heck, they're worth a fortune now that no more are being printed and it's the only way for online-only players to get access to this content." Hypothetical Strawman DnDBeyond that will never get another customer because no one can count on being able to retain the product they paid for:"Hey, looks like your books are all empty now, but remember you don't own them!"
Emotional or not, this is how this situation pans out.
I suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. However, if you genuinely can't understand why we might disagree with having paragraphs of content removed from our books, then I'm confused on what you think you have to contribute to this discussion other than simply playing devil's advocate and/or trying to incite aggressive responses.
I asked a question regarding the correlation of licensed ownership to official content, not about who might disagree with anything. As you have implied, this seems to be a bit more emotional discussion than fact-oriented, so I'll leave it at that then, I suppose.
🙄 If by "fact-oriented" you mean "semantics-oriented," then yes I'm not interested in that.
I'm not interested in discussing if people like or dislike the recent changes. I just want to keep the original content in a form that is accessible in the digital format. While errata has always been implemented, errata has never removed entire sections of material. With entire sidebars, sections and descriptions deleted. The purpose of errata is to correct editorial mistakes, misprints, and errors. Regardless of your thoughts on these changes, these changes are not errata, but a shift in game ideals, lore, and design.
I'm a little confused over the errata rage. While reasonable observers of tact may deem Sedge's entry into the conversation a little too cute in its obtuse circumspection. whether it was made from either a customer service standpoint or a plain making an argument standpoint (it's difficult to tell when mods are speaking in some sort of official customer service capacity and when they're just posting as a community member, orange is triggering basically), the fact remains: when you buy a book from D&D Beyond, your are paying for the current version of the text provided by WotC. That comes as a shock to some, but it's been in practice since (I believe) 5e started producing errata. The user always has the most current rules.
Now if anyone on this thread is particularly attached to what's been removed. If you're upset over the content not being there, you likely know what you're missing and can literally make note of it, you can even go so far as copying the monster in homebrew and changing the descriptors anyway you see fit. No one's stopping you from running the monsters your way, your way just is no longer reflective of the present rules or lore or tone reflected in the sourcebook (which is licensed to your use).
Curiously, and a tangent but related to this topic, I own a first printing of Volo's so I actually have a book with none of the errata in it (actually I do have notes in it, but none of the errata was published in my copy). I bought it about a year ago from a well stocked game store. My understanding this is the case with a lot of errata, they just won't make it into stores till distributors and retailers burn through the "incorrect" texts because WotC isn't going through the costly measure of recalling "incorrect" texts and pulping them. Correct physical books will exist and circulate some day, but for now it relies on online dissemination of the correct texts.
EDIT: having looked up what's been removed in my print copy, I really see no harm to anyone's play in their removal. I can only see a flimsy "I have to use this objectionable content in my characterization of the such and such ... it's in the rules!" otherwise numerous iterations of the "lost lore" exist in wikis and prior edition markets etc. Anything lost to the current ruling is easily recovered with a little initiative.
I'm also pretty darn sure this is the (contractual/licensed) case with every other online purveyor of 5e material.
With errata being expanded to change game mechanics, remove/alter lore and content, and other design decisions. I request the ability to see content in its original state when it was printed/purchased in addition to the new errata. I can understand if this content is deemed unsuitable for some groups. But others don't have an issue with this content and would like the choice to view and use that content.
Removing/altering purchased content is fundamentally consumer-unfriendly and will affect my decisions to purchase future content and continue my subscription.
I would second this. Rules changes are one thing. Content changes another.
Also my vote. Pre-Errata content should be still useable, as all our physical books would still be useable no matter the errata
D&D Beyond has always been committed to providing the latest, accurate versions of content as dictated by Wizards of the Coast. DDB hasn't provided such pre-errata content in the past per this commitment and I would hazard that they're unlikely to do so in the future.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Volo's errata is outrageous. I hope dndbeyond team will make it possible to view content I payed for.
It will remain here for viewing: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/vgtm
But a lot of content will propably be deleted forverer if errara is to be implemented.
On WotC site it specifically calls out that Dndbeyond will be updating the books to the Errata. So are you saying Dndbeyond will be creating a separate space to include the new errata or are you just pointing out that they can view the content they paid for with the errata update (when it's applied)?
It's pretty obvious the latter is not what they were asking for. It would be a first for DNDBeyond to not update content to the errata (to my knowledge) or keep the original separate.
How to get your dice to look like the ones in my profile picture and a full site dark mode.
Tutorial thread by Hyrkali
I actually came here specifically to write a request post about this, so I'm happy to see there already is one.
I disagree with a lot of the changes (read: removals) Wizards is making to the culture and identity of monsters and PC races, but that's immaterial. If we have to debate the validity of every little change they make, we'll never get anywhere.
The problem is that we're talking about straight up cutting a significant amount of content that I paid for. Pages' worth of lore content is being removed from the beholders, gnolls, orcs, and others. It's one thing for Wizards to change this for future printings, I can just not buy those new book editions. But this would be DDB swooping in and taking an eraser to books that I already bought, to content that I already paid for.
That, I find unacceptable, and hope DDB can present a solution for. I won't be buying anything else here if it means Wizards can just modify stuff that I paid for.
The content paid for is the sourcebook. As errata is released, this becomes said sourcebook. Said sourcebook remains what was paid for. I'm confused at how old or obsolete sections of text (per publisher) have licensed ownership when it is no longer official content?
I suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. However, if you genuinely can't understand why we might disagree with having paragraphs of content removed from our books, then I'm confused on what you think you have to contribute to this discussion other than simply playing devil's advocate and/or trying to incite aggressive responses.
I wasn't arguing that. The point of this thread was a request to be able to see the lore/content as is before the errata and they were asking for that. You answered they would be able to view it at that link without stating whether it was pre or post errata so I was asking for clarification. They were asking to be able to view pre errata content (obviously implied).
Thread topic: Ability to view content altered/removed in errata.
You replied to someone hoping to have the removed content still viewable with: It will remain viewable at [insert link].
You might see how that was confusing to me.
I don't know why you're asking me about licensing or official content - I didn't argue, ask or bring it up. Nor did I imply anything to the contrary.
I happen to agree with you that it is the official update and Dndbeyond should support those (probably are required to). I was honestly curious what you were saying - I was interested if there was going to be a change in how things have been done. If you want to be snarky or alternatively claim you didn't understand what they wanted that's fine. I was literally just asking for clarification.
Maybe you didn't understand my words either so I will also clarify what you quoted (without context) below. If you still would like more information on what I meant by the below I'm happy to clarify further. It was a question and as part of the Dndbeyond team maybe you had information we don't (I know you're only a mod but still there's a chance).
How to get your dice to look like the ones in my profile picture and a full site dark mode.
Tutorial thread by Hyrkali
I asked a question regarding the correlation of licensed ownership to official content, not about who might disagree with anything. As you have implied, this seems to be a bit more emotional discussion than fact-oriented, so I'll leave it at that then, I suppose.
I am just going to throw this down; If DnDBeyond Errata's my volo's guide, and doesn't offer access to the base version, I'm demanding a refund.
Just chalk it up as someone being "emotional" and leave instead of answering the question properly for the customer. Seems to be the way its done here, sadly.
DnDBeyond: "Hey, buy our stuff, it's JUST as good as having a physical book, and way more convenient, because you'll get all the fixes automatically"
WotC: "Hey, we've decided this content doesn't count"
Physical Book Owners: "Well, I've still got my book, so it's fine if it's not official, as long as I still have it for reference."
DnDBeyond: "Hey, Merry Christmas, we're going to tear some pages out of your books, but remember you don't technically own them."
Hypothetical Strawman WotC: "Hey, we've decided that all the races being different is just too divisive and outdated, so now everything is non-offensive abstract shapes of indeterminate dimensions and orientation."
Physical Book Owners: "Whew, glad I didn't sell mine off. Heck, they're worth a fortune now that no more are being printed and it's the only way for online-only players to get access to this content."
Hypothetical Strawman DnDBeyond that will never get another customer because no one can count on being able to retain the product they paid for: "Hey, looks like your books are all empty now, but remember you don't own them!"
Emotional or not, this is how this situation pans out.
+1 to keeping the content that was originally paid for.
🙄
If by "fact-oriented" you mean "semantics-oriented," then yes I'm not interested in that.
I'm not interested in discussing if people like or dislike the recent changes. I just want to keep the original content in a form that is accessible in the digital format. While errata has always been implemented, errata has never removed entire sections of material. With entire sidebars, sections and descriptions deleted. The purpose of errata is to correct editorial mistakes, misprints, and errors. Regardless of your thoughts on these changes, these changes are not errata, but a shift in game ideals, lore, and design.
I'm a little confused over the errata rage. While reasonable observers of tact may deem Sedge's entry into the conversation a little too cute in its obtuse circumspection. whether it was made from either a customer service standpoint or a plain making an argument standpoint (it's difficult to tell when mods are speaking in some sort of official customer service capacity and when they're just posting as a community member, orange is triggering basically), the fact remains: when you buy a book from D&D Beyond, your are paying for the current version of the text provided by WotC. That comes as a shock to some, but it's been in practice since (I believe) 5e started producing errata. The user always has the most current rules.
Now if anyone on this thread is particularly attached to what's been removed. If you're upset over the content not being there, you likely know what you're missing and can literally make note of it, you can even go so far as copying the monster in homebrew and changing the descriptors anyway you see fit. No one's stopping you from running the monsters your way, your way just is no longer reflective of the present rules or lore or tone reflected in the sourcebook (which is licensed to your use).
Curiously, and a tangent but related to this topic, I own a first printing of Volo's so I actually have a book with none of the errata in it (actually I do have notes in it, but none of the errata was published in my copy). I bought it about a year ago from a well stocked game store. My understanding this is the case with a lot of errata, they just won't make it into stores till distributors and retailers burn through the "incorrect" texts because WotC isn't going through the costly measure of recalling "incorrect" texts and pulping them. Correct physical books will exist and circulate some day, but for now it relies on online dissemination of the correct texts.
EDIT: having looked up what's been removed in my print copy, I really see no harm to anyone's play in their removal. I can only see a flimsy "I have to use this objectionable content in my characterization of the such and such ... it's in the rules!" otherwise numerous iterations of the "lost lore" exist in wikis and prior edition markets etc. Anything lost to the current ruling is easily recovered with a little initiative.
I'm also pretty darn sure this is the (contractual/licensed) case with every other online purveyor of 5e material.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.