Better start backing up the entire enchantment table now. You all know that'll be next on the chopping block.
"just needs a little initiative"
Yeah, BEFORE the changes. Try hunting down the removed negative racial modifiers. I damn near gaslit myself before I finally discovered a mere reddit post that referenced the fact they had existed at some point, no actual content, and certainly not in a citeable format.
It's so weird that we're talking about PAGES of descriptions for MONSTERS, with decades of in-universe lore behind it, who were created literally for the sake of having no uncertainties about whether it was okay to kill that thing, (which made it genuinely interesting when there was an exception to that certainty) but "no one is losing anything of any importance, not by MY standards anyway, which apparently apply to everyone. You have a campaign that is based on that lore, and you don't religiously follow errata updates and the DnDbeyond forums? Sucks to be you when it's gone"
When did the name of the game is "nobody's fun is wrong" change to "hey, this fun you've been enjoying for years? that fun is wrong. No, they can't handle the idea that lore exists and they can just choose not to use it, instead they need to have it removed and you have to cobble together some 3rd party backup solution to still get to keep it."
Where is wotc officially archiving these things to prevent them for ever being lost?
WotC has not to date ever made "archives" of errata'd content. The closest would be unerrata'd books still on retailers shelves.
Where is the official public digital versions of this lore?
There will not be any such version. WotC has three digital partners (D&D Beyond, Fantasy Grounds, and roll20). All three such partners will be updating to the latest errata as they have done so previously.
Can I pay to roll back the errata!?
No, all purchases are for the latest digital version of any content, including any and all errata put out by WotC as part of D&D Beyonds licensing arrangement to offer the most up to date versions of all content.
Also, for those who would seek refunds due to dissatisfaction with the errata, I'd like to highlight the following; below each and every transaction is the following statement
Digital items are not returnable or refundable. By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Sale.
Which has always been D&D Beyonds policy on digital sales
Also, for those who would seek refunds due to dissatisfaction with the errata, I'd like to highlight the following; below each and every transaction is the following statement
Digital items are not returnable or refundable. By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Sale.
Which has always been D&D Beyonds policy on digital sales
I'm not asking for a refund. But I find your attitude of "If you don't like, too bad, no refunds" to be highly unprofessional. I'm asking for D&D Beyond to do what their name suggests and go beyond what is simply required of them by terms of sale and implement a request. I'm not saying don't add the errata, I'm just asking for the choice to view pre-errata'd content. Not sure why implementing this as an option or a choice is so controversial or couldn't be done.
Apologies if my point was misconstrued, I was providing that line for those other than yourself that have been enquiring about refunds as it's pertinent information.
I wasn't, nor would I ever, try to imply "you don't like, too bad, no refunds"
The second reason for link that line was it takes you to the terms of sale which clarify D&D Beyond's position on such things as errata. Specifically:
Fandom and its suppliers and licensors continually upgrade and revise the Service to provide you with new Ancillary Products and Services. Fandom may revise, discontinue or modify Ancillary Products and Services at any time without prior notice to you, and Ancillary Products and Services may become unavailable without notice.
I was merely trying to surface relevant information, and once again, I'm sorry for any miscommunication of tone or intent on my part
Here's the dicey situation DnDBeyond (and other digital providers) are in right now; The terms and services "technically" cover you on a legal aspect, except for the tiny little problem that it will be very easy to make a case of "fair and reasonable expectations" that, unless those digital providers take the initiative to make proactively, will end up being made in court instead.
It will not be hard to convince a judge in at least some countries, that the expectations on "signing" the terms of services carried the implication that "future updates" would include only edits to notation, and not complete redaction and removal of access to entire pages of material.(because seriously; where does that "legally" end?) Once that ruling is inevitably made. At that point you are looking at a lot of backpedaling, digging up of "old" information to add it BACK in, and expensive court costs, which could have been saved simply by taking a few extra seconds to pull your heads out of your legalese butts and implement a few extra webpages containing the "removed" data so the people who DO care have some recourse sans-lawyers. (If you can manage implementing Tasha's Optional rules and homebrew content, if you can make the SRD available at the same time as the PHB, you know damn well you could make the old version of VgtM and the other drastically cut resources available WITHOUT these baloney claims of "oh well, you can save it, but you'll never get any updates ever again!")
Now I am merely trying to manage expectations going forward. I'm not, nor would I ever try to imply that I would personally sue over this, just as you didn't, nor would you ever, try to imply "you don't like, too bad, no refunds"
Try saying this to yourselves before you post replies to this topic in the future; "whoa, maybe if we want to KEEP making money, we shouldn't alienate an entire userbase. Do we really want to show ourselves to be a typical corporation that will screw over its customers, when the only reason we have customers is on the basis that they trust that the information they have paid money for will remain accessible?"
I can guarantee you, that if the current attitude persists unchecked, the money I did spend thus far will be that last dime this company ever gets from me.
So I actually came to the forums to see if this request had already been posted, and what the response would be. It is, as I expected, unlikely/not possible for Fandom and its subordinates (DnDBeyond) to archive the errata. So, for what its worth I also would love for DnDBeyond to retain this errata as a toggable option due to the shear amount of information being lost.
TL;DR: If you are unhappy about the changes with the errata, and DnDBeyond changing the digital compendium to match that errata, than don't subscribe and don't purchase the products here. The way that DnDBeyond is set up is that they will always match their offered product with WoTC's most current version/errata, to the appreciation of some in the community and the consternation of others.
To those who are upset about this decision, the issue is not DnDBeyond everyone. DnDBeyond's agreement has always been to provide the most up to date (where possible) information and accessibility for the current ruleset of D&D. When 5.5 comes out in a few years it is very very likely that all aspects of the digital compendium and functionality will shift to match the current rules, and the 5.0 rules will be dropped.
For those that are excited about the changes, both mechanically and lore wise within D&D, this is great thing and confirms the value of the digital book "purchases" and the monthly subscription cost. For those that are less enthusiastic about the shifts within D&D; obviously its the opposite.
I've supported DnDBeyond from the beginning, but from my perspective recent changes within the company have aligned it much more closely with WoTC in their push to shift the perceived climate within the TTRPG industry. For me, that means that the focus of DnDBeyond has shifted from building towards empowering all players and their games, to meeting (likely contractual) obligations with WoTC. Remember, as much as the employees of DnDBeyond are passionate about D&D, this is also their paycheck and everyone wants to continue to make a good living. No harm, just means that DnDBeyond may not be the tool for some people anymore.
I personally have dropped around $1000 into DnDbeyond, and done so with the understanding that should they change their product, their offerings or even shut down, I no longer will get any further value from prior money spent. I'm leasing access to their database and services. If/When that no longer meets my needs, i'll stop doing so and I will get no further return on my leasing payments. Until then, I will get what they are willing to offer.
Finally, despite the incredible value I currently find in DnDBeyond, I highly recommend everyone purchase PDF's from DMSguild of the product or the physical book. As I flip through prior editions, there are always changes to lore (both good and bad), so having more information is always better. I strongly disagree with WoTC on their decision to remove lore, especially without at least attempting to replace it with something else.
Where is wotc officially archiving these things to prevent them for ever being lost?
WotC has not to date ever made "archives" of errata'd content. The closest would be unerrata'd books still on retailers shelves.
Where is the official public digital versions of this lore?
There will not be any such version. WotC has three digital partners (D&D Beyond, Fantasy Grounds, and roll20). All three such partners will be updating to the latest errata as they have done so previously.
Can I pay to roll back the errata!?
No, all purchases are for the latest digital version of any content, including any and all errata put out by WotC as part of D&D Beyonds licensing arrangement to offer the most up to date versions of all content.
Also, for those who would seek refunds due to dissatisfaction with the errata, I'd like to highlight the following; below each and every transaction is the following statement
Digital items are not returnable or refundable. By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Sale.
Which has always been D&D Beyonds policy on digital sales
Well that is something a ds would call a recruit.
I guess I gotta find a way to make my cost on the service to be a net neg negative on revenue to at least get my money's worth since dndbeyond and wotc really screwed the pooch on this and many things recently.
Honestly these erratas are lesser products it is like Cisco updating their ccna to only test on a single question what are the 7 layers of the OSI model. It would be deemed an useless cert
If it was updating rules, or clarifying mechanics, or fixing painful balance issues, etc., I absolutely agree we should have the latest errata applied to DNDbeyond content. This is not what happened. WotC took a poor approach to addressing the issues they were trying to correct by lazily deleting paragraphs of content and replacing all of that lore with a sentence or two. I don't believe this reflects the level of quality DNDBeyond should offer to their PAYING user base. I paid for the lore, I paid for the mechanics, I didn't pay for pages of lore to be burned down by someone who disagrees with it.
I feel it needs to be restated that to those who take issue with this decision, your beef is with WotC, not DDB, which has no choice but to update content to reflect WotC’s wishes.
Looking at the paragraphs that have been removed though, I cannot help but think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. What text has been removed that is even important? I am genuinely curious which lines of text are of such vital importance that people beat their chests and pull their hair wild over this.
I feel it needs to be restated that to those who take issue with this decision, your beef is with WotC, not DDB, which has no choice but to update content to reflect WotC’s wishes.
Looking at the paragraphs that have been removed though, I cannot help but think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. What text has been removed that is even important? I am genuinely curious which lines of text are of such vital importance that people beat their chests and pull their hair wild over this.
I'm going to guess it has to do with many people here not being versed in how the offered digital content works. Yes, WotC is almost definitely making the decision. There are many age groups - both young and old that may not be versed in the digital licensing agreements. Nor should anyone have to be versed in them outside of the DNDBeyond team. They may be used to physical medium or PDF's where updates aren't forced (aka no one comes in your house to change it).
It really just seems to be X amount of money left my bank and went to DNDBeyond for Y amount of written lore - now I have less than Y amount of written lore but you're keeping my X amount of money. I do understand that's not what the actual purchase agreement is - but this isn't a common type of book purchase - akin to purchasing (not subscribing to) a movie on XYZ streaming service then them changing it out to the directors cut that removes a chunk of the movie instead of releasing a separate directors cut. If the purchase didn't appear to be directly for the product and was subscription based the view would likely be different.
I'm sure we'll also be unable to share the old lore with each other as it is WotC content. Which sucks for those that will look for it after the errata happens. The other complaints here seem to be the quality of the errata - removing paragraphs and replacing it with a couple sentences (how true this is I don't know I didn't compare the old lore) does sound pretty bad. Especially for those less creative that want their lore to be prewritten. Yes, this a WotC decision/problem but again many people do not understand that and people come to forums to get answers and make requests. We shouldn't be expecting everyone to know all of this information before asking the question. The only people whose job it is to know this information here are part of the DNDBeyond team.
To be clear the only thing that was upsetting in this thread or about the errata to me was Sedge's response(s). Maybe it's my fault for holding mods to a higher standard than a regular community member. I expect a level of customer service I would expect from the company I work at. I don't like the "gotcha" feel of their posts (in this thread), and what feels like purposefully getting under peoples skin instead of doing what Davyd did here and explain things and even apologize for any potential miscommunication. I even felt "clip" quoted on my question to imply something completely different to what I was saying - without answering the question directly and turning it back on me.
All in all the answer probably comes down to money and the money transaction was with DNDBeyond not WotC even if WotC is making the decision. Not to mention we know how many people confuse DNDBeyond for being owned or operated by WotC based on their logo alone let alone the sometimes claim of being the official toolset - people often conflate, my past self included, "official" with WotC both for game content and ownership.
Edit: The thing that could potentially make me personally upset about the errata itself is if any of the removed lores space is filled in by Multiverse instead of included in the errata. Obviously WotC would be the one to upset with for that and I'm not saying it's going to happen.
I feel it needs to be restated that to those who take issue with this decision, your beef is with WotC, not DDB, which has no choice but to update content to reflect WotC’s wishes.
Looking at the paragraphs that have been removed though, I cannot help but think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. What text has been removed that is even important? I am genuinely curious which lines of text are of such vital importance that people beat their chests and pull their hair wild over this.
The tagline for Volo's is "Immerse yourself in monster lore" The psychology of Beholders seems like important lore, especially for DM that wants to use one of D&D's iconic monsters. The origins of the Yuan-Ti seems like significant, relevant lore. etc.
And lets be clear, this isn't an "Errata." Nothing was clarified, no rules issues were cleaned up or balanced. This was deletion of content. As to whether the issue should be with DDB/Fandom or WotC, ultimately the people here are customers of DDB. While DDB may be constrained by their deal with WotC, I'm pretty sure they also supply enough revenue to WotC to not be ignored if they wanted to stand up for their users.
I cancelled the upcoming renewal for my master tier subscription today and won't be purchasing anything else from dndbeyond. I also own the legendary bundle. I'm not going to complain about what I already purchased because we got two years or more usage out of this site and I knew going into it that this wasn't going to be permanent. I'm also not going to post a long explanation about how ridiculous the changes are and the general direction of the game because no one here cares. I just want it clear that this volo errata cost dndbeyond any future revenue from me. The only thing WOTC or partners will understand is lost revenue. If you want to show them you don't approve of this stuff, stop giving them money. If you enjoy it, keep giving them money.
It really just seems to be X amount of money left my bank and went to DNDBeyond for Y amount of written lore - now I have less than Y amount of written lore but you're keeping my X amount of money. I do understand that's not what the actual purchase agreement is - but this isn't a common type of book purchase - akin to purchasing (not subscribing to) a movie on XYZ streaming service then them changing it out to the directors cut that removes a chunk of the movie instead of releasing a separate directors cut. If the purchase didn't appear to be directly for the product and was subscription based the view would likely be different.
To be clear the only thing that was upsetting in this thread or about the errata to me was Sedge's response(s).
There is precedent for such type of activity. Any digital live/online game purchase comes with reoccurring patches - these patches add functionality, remove functionality, etc. The publisher changes the content included within a license on a regular basis. What if one bought "World of Warcraft" solely on the 'Fireball' spell, then found the damage reduced or the spell removed? Is this not the same instance of publisher control or interference on a published product? The error with citing a movie is that we find the movie carries a different SKU than the director's cut, extended addition, etc. These are not the same products, as each is appended with a different item number. I would find a similar issue if one purchased a 'director's cut' edition of a movie and was delivered the non-director's cut, not if a director decided that a certain scene was unwanted from their 'cut'.
In this case, the publisher issued a license for the book title. The book title remains active, remains available, and remains accessible. The publisher decided they needed to alter the content of the book for x/y/z reason. Title remains active/available/accessible, but now with their determined content. The content itself wasn't licensed, nor the words, the paragraphs, or sections. We purchased a book. We have a book. This is what I have attempted to explain. There is no "gotcha" here, as D&D Beyond is a reseller of WOTC - what they demand, D&D Beyond provides. I'm not holding a debate on this of to who agrees/disagrees, these are just facts. Would it be nice to hold onto said content? Sure would - I'm not arguing that fact. To request, demand, or threaten that D&D Beyond be held liable, accountable, or responsible for these actions though is quite ridiculous. The intellectual property owner remains such. We have only purchased a book/title - a license to the book as deemed complete by the publisher.
As of today, this has been deemed complete. Tomorrow? Who knows. We are not entitled to anything more. I would implore anyone to set emotion aside and evaluate such business as such - what "is", not what "is wanted".
There is precedent for such type of activity. Any digital live/online game purchase comes with reoccurring patches - these patches add functionality, remove functionality, etc. The publisher changes the content included within a license on a regular basis. What if one bought "World of Warcraft" solely on the 'Fireball' spell, then found the damage reduced or the spell removed? Is this not the same instance of publisher control or interference on a published product? The error with citing a movie is that we find the movie carries a different SKU than the director's cut, extended addition, etc. These are not the same products, as each is appended with a different item number. I would find a similar issue if one purchased a 'director's cut' edition of a movie and was delivered the non-director's cut, not if a director decided that a certain scene was unwanted from their 'cut'.
In this case, the publisher issued a license for the book title. The book title remains active, remains available, and remains accessible. The publisher decided they needed to alter the content of the book for x/y/z reason. Title remains active/available/accessible, but now with their determined content. The content itself wasn't licensed, nor the words, the paragraphs, or sections. We purchased a book. We have a book. This is what I have attempted to explain. There is no "gotcha" here, as D&D Beyond is a reseller of WOTC - what they demand, D&D Beyond provides. I'm not holding a debate on this of to who agrees/disagrees, these are just facts. Would it be nice to hold onto said content? Sure would - I'm not arguing that fact. To request, demand, or threaten that D&D Beyond be held liable, accountable, or responsible for these actions though is quite ridiculous. The intellectual property owner remains such. We have only purchased a book/title - a license to the book as deemed complete by the publisher.
As of today, this has been deemed complete. Tomorrow? Who knows. We are not entitled to anything more. I would implore anyone to set emotion aside and evaluate such business as such - what "is", not what "is wanted".
My post you are quoting is giving my thoughts on why people are upset. Based on my user experience and how/what I've learned since joining this site.
I explained the perception would be different if a subscription based model like netflix (or an MMO) and yes people get upset and cancel their subscription or quit 1 time fee games when content gets removed/changed in video games/other services too. Not spending money here anymore is a reasonable reaction if the content/terms are not what they want. I agree any legal or moral responsibilities do not fall on DNDBeyond and no legal responsibilities fall on WotC. I added I would only be upset if the removed content ends up in multiverse instead of included with the Errata but I wouldn't but upset with DNDBeyond nor hold them responsible. I've already explained multiple times how I agree about the licensing.
It is a good thing to explain to those who need it though.
People go to the stores they purchased items from to complain. They also go to the manufacturer. Online or otherwise. The original post was a request and a statement that they wouldn't spend money if this is what the terms are. They might choose not to spend money on DNDBeyond (or dnd in general) now even if it's WotC decision - that's reasonable.
The movie example was what it feels like to purchase books here. I also mentioned it is not a common experience to buy books that update. At least DNDBeyond is the first (and only) time I've experienced it . The user experience when purchasing is similar to picking a movie to buy online. A library of individual items and again I mentioned the subscription model having a different perception. Not everyone reads the terms/looks up licensing prior to purchase and many will base their opinions on past similar user experiences even if factually incorrect. It doesn't change what they will choose to spend their money on going forward. That's all that was - I too was (pleasantly) surprised when I found out DNDBeyond actually updates the older books as not having to keep track of mechanical rule revisions was awesome.
The gotcha I was referencing was not by DNDBeyond or WotC.
To be clear the only thing that was upsetting in this thread or about the errata to me was Sedge's response(s). Maybe it's my fault for holding mods to a higher standard than a regular community member. I expect a level of customer service I would expect from the company I work at. I don't like the "gotcha" [imposing meaning on someone words based on literal instead of intended meaning such as your first post (This might have been accidental which is why I asked the original question but it is feeling less accidental). Or removing context to change the perception of intended meaning, your quote of me the first time and the above - also claiming people are emotional(x2) isn't great when interacting with customers.]feel of their posts (in this thread), and what feels like purposefully getting under peoples skin instead of doing what Davyd did here and explain things and even apologize for any potential miscommunication. I even felt "clip" quotedon my question to imply something completely different to what I was saying - without answering the question directly and turning it back on me.
I'm going to guess it has to do with many people here not being versed in how the offered digital content works. Yes, WotC is almost definitely making the decision. [the first sentence in the post your quoting and questioning me on (see: What if one bought...? Is this not the same instance...?)]
So I agree with everything your saying. I have from the beginning. I agree trying to hold Dndbeyond legally or morally in the wrong isn't going to go anywhere.
When you said "It will be available to view here: [insert link]" as I've explained in a prior post my original question essentially was: Are you saying both the old and new will be available [as they were requesting] or pointing out that they will still have access to their book (with errata updates)?
Again given the thread title and the intent of what you were replying to I was curious if something had changed to how Dndbeyond was doing things or you were just taking the words literally of the post you quoted. Obviously I have that answer at this point.
To the last part of your post I only have to say it's a request thread it's only about what is wanted. If what is wanted from DndBeyond isn't possible due to nearly any reason (especially contractual requirements) that's a completely acceptable answer but so is the user choosing not to spend any more money. Rereading the thread most have put the blame on WotC or agreed it's WotC fault after an explanation but it'll still impact how they spend money. I assure you I'm not looking at this errata, dndbeyonds or even WotC decisions emotionally and am fully aware of the facts. I personally will likely continue to spend money here at least while there is no (in my opinion) better alternative for my games.
As of today, this has been deemed complete. Tomorrow? Who knows. We are not entitled to anything more. I would implore anyone to set emotion aside and evaluate such business as such - what "is", not what "is wanted".
Sorry you won't get that from me as I am a human and I naturally have emotions and I am under no legal requirement to be an emotionless robot that you want me to be.
How about just use less words and be "This is legally required for us to do and we can't let you have access to pre errata content without getting in trouble with wotc" it would save you so much more work with the community
Look, I understand that the Terms and Conditions we all signed says that DDB has the right to change the content to keep up with errata from Wizards of the Coast. We all agreed to those Ts&Cs.
But that agreement was signed under the good faith understanding that such errata would be just that: errata. This latest change goes back on that in a big way. It removes significant amounts of the content that we paid for.
And I have to agree with Jay. The responses in this thread so far from moderators have been wholly inappropriate and unprofessional, and I would have expected better from someone officially representing DDB.
To those asking "what content was removed that you care about", that's not really the point. The point is that substantial non-errata alterations have been made in violation of the implied understanding under which the Ts&Cs were agreed to. And I would appreciate it if any replies would be very clear that nitpicking individual cases is not the point, and the consumer rights implications are pretty severe.
However, I'll provide one change that bothers me. I'll pick one from the PHB, because the much larger changes from Volo's Guide have been explained many times by many people in various threads online already.
tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there
That's from the alignment section of tieflings. Or used to be, anyway. This one short phrase was so important. Ironically, removing it probably has the exact opposite effect that WotC intended. This phrase so clearly tells the reader that tieflings aren't innately any different from humans. But it says a whole lot about how society's treatment of someone can affect them. It was a powerful evocative and surprisingly nuanced statement. By removing it, they may inadvertently be telegraphing "actually, tieflings are kinda just evil". At the very least, they're removing the beautiful succinct evocative summary placed somewhere every player will read it, and replacing it with exactly nothing.
Personally, I shall be asking DDB for a refund on all books affected by this latest round of errata, if they cannot provide a switch to re-enable the content. Failing that, I shall be reporting them to the ACCC, my country's national consumer rights organisation. I would encourage others to do the same.
To those asserting these latest changes do not qualify as errata.
Wizards of the Coast defines these changes as errata and therefore D&D Beyond treats them as such. A lot of the feedback in this thread would be best given to WotC who are the ones who have decided on what content will be errata'd.
D&D Beyond always has, and always will, honour the changes that WotC makes.
Hello MidnightPlat,
I agree. The response here is wild and the rage is absolutely misdirected.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
"objectionable content"
Better start backing up the entire enchantment table now. You all know that'll be next on the chopping block.
"just needs a little initiative"
Yeah, BEFORE the changes. Try hunting down the removed negative racial modifiers. I damn near gaslit myself before I finally discovered a mere reddit post that referenced the fact they had existed at some point, no actual content, and certainly not in a citeable format.
It's so weird that we're talking about PAGES of descriptions for MONSTERS, with decades of in-universe lore behind it, who were created literally for the sake of having no uncertainties about whether it was okay to kill that thing, (which made it genuinely interesting when there was an exception to that certainty) but "no one is losing anything of any importance, not by MY standards anyway, which apparently apply to everyone. You have a campaign that is based on that lore, and you don't religiously follow errata updates and the DnDbeyond forums? Sucks to be you when it's gone"
When did the name of the game is "nobody's fun is wrong" change to "hey, this fun you've been enjoying for years? that fun is wrong. No, they can't handle the idea that lore exists and they can just choose not to use it, instead they need to have it removed and you have to cobble together some 3rd party backup solution to still get to keep it."
Where is wotc officially archiving these things to prevent them for ever being lost?
Where is the official public digital versions of this lore?
Can I pay to roll back the errata!?
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
WotC has not to date ever made "archives" of errata'd content. The closest would be unerrata'd books still on retailers shelves.
There will not be any such version. WotC has three digital partners (D&D Beyond, Fantasy Grounds, and roll20). All three such partners will be updating to the latest errata as they have done so previously.
No, all purchases are for the latest digital version of any content, including any and all errata put out by WotC as part of D&D Beyonds licensing arrangement to offer the most up to date versions of all content.
Also, for those who would seek refunds due to dissatisfaction with the errata, I'd like to highlight the following; below each and every transaction is the following statement
Which has always been D&D Beyonds policy on digital sales
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm not asking for a refund. But I find your attitude of "If you don't like, too bad, no refunds" to be highly unprofessional. I'm asking for D&D Beyond to do what their name suggests and go beyond what is simply required of them by terms of sale and implement a request. I'm not saying don't add the errata, I'm just asking for the choice to view pre-errata'd content. Not sure why implementing this as an option or a choice is so controversial or couldn't be done.
Apologies if my point was misconstrued, I was providing that line for those other than yourself that have been enquiring about refunds as it's pertinent information.
I wasn't, nor would I ever, try to imply "you don't like, too bad, no refunds"
The second reason for link that line was it takes you to the terms of sale which clarify D&D Beyond's position on such things as errata. Specifically:
I was merely trying to surface relevant information, and once again, I'm sorry for any miscommunication of tone or intent on my part
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Here's the dicey situation DnDBeyond (and other digital providers) are in right now; The terms and services "technically" cover you on a legal aspect, except for the tiny little problem that it will be very easy to make a case of "fair and reasonable expectations" that, unless those digital providers take the initiative to make proactively, will end up being made in court instead.
It will not be hard to convince a judge in at least some countries, that the expectations on "signing" the terms of services carried the implication that "future updates" would include only edits to notation, and not complete redaction and removal of access to entire pages of material.(because seriously; where does that "legally" end?) Once that ruling is inevitably made. At that point you are looking at a lot of backpedaling, digging up of "old" information to add it BACK in, and expensive court costs, which could have been saved simply by taking a few extra seconds to pull your heads out of your legalese butts and implement a few extra webpages containing the "removed" data so the people who DO care have some recourse sans-lawyers. (If you can manage implementing Tasha's Optional rules and homebrew content, if you can make the SRD available at the same time as the PHB, you know damn well you could make the old version of VgtM and the other drastically cut resources available WITHOUT these baloney claims of "oh well, you can save it, but you'll never get any updates ever again!")
Now I am merely trying to manage expectations going forward. I'm not, nor would I ever try to imply that I would personally sue over this, just as you didn't, nor would you ever, try to imply "you don't like, too bad, no refunds"
Try saying this to yourselves before you post replies to this topic in the future; "whoa, maybe if we want to KEEP making money, we shouldn't alienate an entire userbase. Do we really want to show ourselves to be a typical corporation that will screw over its customers, when the only reason we have customers is on the basis that they trust that the information they have paid money for will remain accessible?"
I can guarantee you, that if the current attitude persists unchecked, the money I did spend thus far will be that last dime this company ever gets from me.
So I actually came to the forums to see if this request had already been posted, and what the response would be. It is, as I expected, unlikely/not possible for Fandom and its subordinates (DnDBeyond) to archive the errata. So, for what its worth I also would love for DnDBeyond to retain this errata as a toggable option due to the shear amount of information being lost.
TL;DR: If you are unhappy about the changes with the errata, and DnDBeyond changing the digital compendium to match that errata, than don't subscribe and don't purchase the products here. The way that DnDBeyond is set up is that they will always match their offered product with WoTC's most current version/errata, to the appreciation of some in the community and the consternation of others.
To those who are upset about this decision, the issue is not DnDBeyond everyone. DnDBeyond's agreement has always been to provide the most up to date (where possible) information and accessibility for the current ruleset of D&D. When 5.5 comes out in a few years it is very very likely that all aspects of the digital compendium and functionality will shift to match the current rules, and the 5.0 rules will be dropped.
For those that are excited about the changes, both mechanically and lore wise within D&D, this is great thing and confirms the value of the digital book "purchases" and the monthly subscription cost. For those that are less enthusiastic about the shifts within D&D; obviously its the opposite.
I've supported DnDBeyond from the beginning, but from my perspective recent changes within the company have aligned it much more closely with WoTC in their push to shift the perceived climate within the TTRPG industry. For me, that means that the focus of DnDBeyond has shifted from building towards empowering all players and their games, to meeting (likely contractual) obligations with WoTC. Remember, as much as the employees of DnDBeyond are passionate about D&D, this is also their paycheck and everyone wants to continue to make a good living. No harm, just means that DnDBeyond may not be the tool for some people anymore.
I personally have dropped around $1000 into DnDbeyond, and done so with the understanding that should they change their product, their offerings or even shut down, I no longer will get any further value from prior money spent. I'm leasing access to their database and services. If/When that no longer meets my needs, i'll stop doing so and I will get no further return on my leasing payments. Until then, I will get what they are willing to offer.
Finally, despite the incredible value I currently find in DnDBeyond, I highly recommend everyone purchase PDF's from DMSguild of the product or the physical book. As I flip through prior editions, there are always changes to lore (both good and bad), so having more information is always better. I strongly disagree with WoTC on their decision to remove lore, especially without at least attempting to replace it with something else.
Well that is something a ds would call a recruit.
I guess I gotta find a way to make my cost on the service to be a net neg negative on revenue to at least get my money's worth since dndbeyond and wotc really screwed the pooch on this and many things recently.
Honestly these erratas are lesser products it is like Cisco updating their ccna to only test on a single question what are the 7 layers of the OSI model. It would be deemed an useless cert
.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
This is not okay.
If it was updating rules, or clarifying mechanics, or fixing painful balance issues, etc., I absolutely agree we should have the latest errata applied to DNDbeyond content. This is not what happened. WotC took a poor approach to addressing the issues they were trying to correct by lazily deleting paragraphs of content and replacing all of that lore with a sentence or two. I don't believe this reflects the level of quality DNDBeyond should offer to their PAYING user base. I paid for the lore, I paid for the mechanics, I didn't pay for pages of lore to be burned down by someone who disagrees with it.
I feel it needs to be restated that to those who take issue with this decision, your beef is with WotC, not DDB, which has no choice but to update content to reflect WotC’s wishes.
Looking at the paragraphs that have been removed though, I cannot help but think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. What text has been removed that is even important? I am genuinely curious which lines of text are of such vital importance that people beat their chests and pull their hair wild over this.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm going to guess it has to do with many people here not being versed in how the offered digital content works. Yes, WotC is almost definitely making the decision. There are many age groups - both young and old that may not be versed in the digital licensing agreements. Nor should anyone have to be versed in them outside of the DNDBeyond team. They may be used to physical medium or PDF's where updates aren't forced (aka no one comes in your house to change it).
It really just seems to be X amount of money left my bank and went to DNDBeyond for Y amount of written lore - now I have less than Y amount of written lore but you're keeping my X amount of money. I do understand that's not what the actual purchase agreement is - but this isn't a common type of book purchase - akin to purchasing (not subscribing to) a movie on XYZ streaming service then them changing it out to the directors cut that removes a chunk of the movie instead of releasing a separate directors cut. If the purchase didn't appear to be directly for the product and was subscription based the view would likely be different.
I'm sure we'll also be unable to share the old lore with each other as it is WotC content. Which sucks for those that will look for it after the errata happens. The other complaints here seem to be the quality of the errata - removing paragraphs and replacing it with a couple sentences (how true this is I don't know I didn't compare the old lore) does sound pretty bad. Especially for those less creative that want their lore to be prewritten. Yes, this a WotC decision/problem but again many people do not understand that and people come to forums to get answers and make requests. We shouldn't be expecting everyone to know all of this information before asking the question. The only people whose job it is to know this information here are part of the DNDBeyond team.
To be clear the only thing that was upsetting in this thread or about the errata to me was Sedge's response(s). Maybe it's my fault for holding mods to a higher standard than a regular community member. I expect a level of customer service I would expect from the company I work at. I don't like the "gotcha" feel of their posts (in this thread), and what feels like purposefully getting under peoples skin instead of doing what Davyd did here and explain things and even apologize for any potential miscommunication. I even felt "clip" quoted on my question to imply something completely different to what I was saying - without answering the question directly and turning it back on me.
All in all the answer probably comes down to money and the money transaction was with DNDBeyond not WotC even if WotC is making the decision. Not to mention we know how many people confuse DNDBeyond for being owned or operated by WotC based on their logo alone let alone the sometimes claim of being the official toolset - people often conflate, my past self included, "official" with WotC both for game content and ownership.
Edit: The thing that could potentially make me personally upset about the errata itself is if any of the removed lores space is filled in by Multiverse instead of included in the errata. Obviously WotC would be the one to upset with for that and I'm not saying it's going to happen.
The tagline for Volo's is "Immerse yourself in monster lore"
The psychology of Beholders seems like important lore, especially for DM that wants to use one of D&D's iconic monsters. The origins of the Yuan-Ti seems like significant, relevant lore. etc.
And lets be clear, this isn't an "Errata." Nothing was clarified, no rules issues were cleaned up or balanced. This was deletion of content.
As to whether the issue should be with DDB/Fandom or WotC, ultimately the people here are customers of DDB. While DDB may be constrained by their deal with WotC, I'm pretty sure they also supply enough revenue to WotC to not be ignored if they wanted to stand up for their users.
I cancelled the upcoming renewal for my master tier subscription today and won't be purchasing anything else from dndbeyond. I also own the legendary bundle. I'm not going to complain about what I already purchased because we got two years or more usage out of this site and I knew going into it that this wasn't going to be permanent. I'm also not going to post a long explanation about how ridiculous the changes are and the general direction of the game because no one here cares. I just want it clear that this volo errata cost dndbeyond any future revenue from me. The only thing WOTC or partners will understand is lost revenue. If you want to show them you don't approve of this stuff, stop giving them money. If you enjoy it, keep giving them money.
There is precedent for such type of activity. Any digital live/online game purchase comes with reoccurring patches - these patches add functionality, remove functionality, etc. The publisher changes the content included within a license on a regular basis. What if one bought "World of Warcraft" solely on the 'Fireball' spell, then found the damage reduced or the spell removed? Is this not the same instance of publisher control or interference on a published product? The error with citing a movie is that we find the movie carries a different SKU than the director's cut, extended addition, etc. These are not the same products, as each is appended with a different item number. I would find a similar issue if one purchased a 'director's cut' edition of a movie and was delivered the non-director's cut, not if a director decided that a certain scene was unwanted from their 'cut'.
In this case, the publisher issued a license for the book title. The book title remains active, remains available, and remains accessible. The publisher decided they needed to alter the content of the book for x/y/z reason. Title remains active/available/accessible, but now with their determined content. The content itself wasn't licensed, nor the words, the paragraphs, or sections. We purchased a book. We have a book. This is what I have attempted to explain. There is no "gotcha" here, as D&D Beyond is a reseller of WOTC - what they demand, D&D Beyond provides. I'm not holding a debate on this of to who agrees/disagrees, these are just facts. Would it be nice to hold onto said content? Sure would - I'm not arguing that fact. To request, demand, or threaten that D&D Beyond be held liable, accountable, or responsible for these actions though is quite ridiculous. The intellectual property owner remains such. We have only purchased a book/title - a license to the book as deemed complete by the publisher.
As of today, this has been deemed complete. Tomorrow? Who knows. We are not entitled to anything more. I would implore anyone to set emotion aside and evaluate such business as such - what "is", not what "is wanted".
My post you are quoting is giving my thoughts on why people are upset. Based on my user experience and how/what I've learned since joining this site.
I explained the perception would be different if a subscription based model like netflix (or an MMO) and yes people get upset and cancel their subscription or quit 1 time fee games when content gets removed/changed in video games/other services too. Not spending money here anymore is a reasonable reaction if the content/terms are not what they want. I agree any legal or moral responsibilities do not fall on DNDBeyond and no legal responsibilities fall on WotC. I added I would only be upset if the removed content ends up in multiverse instead of included with the Errata but I wouldn't but upset with DNDBeyond nor hold them responsible. I've already explained multiple times how I agree about the licensing.
It is a good thing to explain to those who need it though.
People go to the stores they purchased items from to complain. They also go to the manufacturer. Online or otherwise. The original post was a request and a statement that they wouldn't spend money if this is what the terms are. They might choose not to spend money on DNDBeyond (or dnd in general) now even if it's WotC decision - that's reasonable.
The movie example was what it feels like to purchase books here. I also mentioned it is not a common experience to buy books that update. At least DNDBeyond is the first (and only) time I've experienced it . The user experience when purchasing is similar to picking a movie to buy online. A library of individual items and again I mentioned the subscription model having a different perception. Not everyone reads the terms/looks up licensing prior to purchase and many will base their opinions on past similar user experiences even if factually incorrect. It doesn't change what they will choose to spend their money on going forward. That's all that was - I too was (pleasantly) surprised when I found out DNDBeyond actually updates the older books as not having to keep track of mechanical rule revisions was awesome.
The gotcha I was referencing was not by DNDBeyond or WotC.
So I agree with everything your saying. I have from the beginning. I agree trying to hold Dndbeyond legally or morally in the wrong isn't going to go anywhere.
When you said "It will be available to view here: [insert link]" as I've explained in a prior post my original question essentially was: Are you saying both the old and new will be available [as they were requesting] or pointing out that they will still have access to their book (with errata updates)?
Again given the thread title and the intent of what you were replying to I was curious if something had changed to how Dndbeyond was doing things or you were just taking the words literally of the post you quoted. Obviously I have that answer at this point.
To the last part of your post I only have to say it's a request thread it's only about what is wanted. If what is wanted from DndBeyond isn't possible due to nearly any reason (especially contractual requirements) that's a completely acceptable answer but so is the user choosing not to spend any more money. Rereading the thread most have put the blame on WotC or agreed it's WotC fault after an explanation but it'll still impact how they spend money. I assure you I'm not looking at this errata, dndbeyonds or even WotC decisions emotionally and am fully aware of the facts. I personally will likely continue to spend money here at least while there is no (in my opinion) better alternative for my games.
Sorry you won't get that from me as I am a human and I naturally have emotions and I am under no legal requirement to be an emotionless robot that you want me to be.
How about just use less words and be "This is legally required for us to do and we can't let you have access to pre errata content without getting in trouble with wotc" it would save you so much more work with the community
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Look, I understand that the Terms and Conditions we all signed says that DDB has the right to change the content to keep up with errata from Wizards of the Coast. We all agreed to those Ts&Cs.
But that agreement was signed under the good faith understanding that such errata would be just that: errata. This latest change goes back on that in a big way. It removes significant amounts of the content that we paid for.
And I have to agree with Jay. The responses in this thread so far from moderators have been wholly inappropriate and unprofessional, and I would have expected better from someone officially representing DDB.
To those asking "what content was removed that you care about", that's not really the point. The point is that substantial non-errata alterations have been made in violation of the implied understanding under which the Ts&Cs were agreed to. And I would appreciate it if any replies would be very clear that nitpicking individual cases is not the point, and the consumer rights implications are pretty severe.
However, I'll provide one change that bothers me. I'll pick one from the PHB, because the much larger changes from Volo's Guide have been explained many times by many people in various threads online already.
That's from the alignment section of tieflings. Or used to be, anyway. This one short phrase was so important. Ironically, removing it probably has the exact opposite effect that WotC intended. This phrase so clearly tells the reader that tieflings aren't innately any different from humans. But it says a whole lot about how society's treatment of someone can affect them. It was a powerful evocative and surprisingly nuanced statement. By removing it, they may inadvertently be telegraphing "actually, tieflings are kinda just evil". At the very least, they're removing the beautiful succinct evocative summary placed somewhere every player will read it, and replacing it with exactly nothing.
Personally, I shall be asking DDB for a refund on all books affected by this latest round of errata, if they cannot provide a switch to re-enable the content. Failing that, I shall be reporting them to the ACCC, my country's national consumer rights organisation. I would encourage others to do the same.
Fully agree that this is not by definition erata and should allow an option to view pre-erata content.
To those asserting these latest changes do not qualify as errata.
Wizards of the Coast defines these changes as errata and therefore D&D Beyond treats them as such. A lot of the feedback in this thread would be best given to WotC who are the ones who have decided on what content will be errata'd.
D&D Beyond always has, and always will, honour the changes that WotC makes.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here