Understand the position, however just let's me know to cancel my subscription and rely on my print books going forward..

The fact is we are not customers of Wizards of the Coast. We're customers of D&D Beyond. Our remedy in case of a problem is, therefore, with DDB.

To use a more straightforward example, if I purchase a Smart Stuff Smart Kettle from Supermarkets R Us, and Smart Stuff releases a mandatory upgrade that completely bricks their Smart Kettles, I am legally entitled to a refund from Supermarkets R Us. Not from Smart Stuff. Because my commercial relationship was with SRU.

I might be more sympathetic if DDB was made it clear that:

(a) the terms of their agreement require that they update with the latest errata and only present the latest errata (something that I have not seen DDB make explicitly clear so far, but I would not be too surprised to hear it is the case), and
(b) they are pressuring WotC to allow them to present the pre-culling version. DDB is probably one of WotC's biggest licencees, and their weight behind something like this would be significant.

If DDB is doing what it can and still unable to achieve a customer-friendly result, then morally at least DDB will be in the clear.

Without both of these factors, DDB does not get to hide behind the disingenuous excuse that "it's just WotC's decision and we're following along".

The terms of sale actually do state that the license provider (Wizards of the Coast) may mandate updates.

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 would also avoid drawing analogous comparisons to physical products, as the means and regulations of sales between physical and digital are vastly different and this may lead to incorrect assumptions. D&D Beyond is explicitly clear about the finality of digital sales, both in the terms of sale and in the checkout process.

Quote from Davyd >>

The terms of sale actually do state that the license provider (Wizards of the Coast) may mandate updates.

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 would also avoid drawing analogous comparisons to physical products, as the means and regulations of sales between physical and digital are vastly different and this may lead to incorrect assumptions. D&D Beyond is explicitly clear about the finality of digital sales, both in the terms of sale and in the checkout process.

So you are staying that dnd beyond's official stance is that this is all WOTC fault and that DDB is legally obligated to force the change and is legally prevented from allowing their customers older revisions?

Yes, let's get it on record that dndbeyond is stating that they have a contractual legal obligation to update the errata AND are not allowed under the terms of the contract to retain prior versioning or fork the errata's availability. I really doubt they have a contractual restriction on retaining the errata separately and are using this as a dodge, but let's see them say it clearly.

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(this has been determined to be a lie) which lines of text are of such vital importance that people beat their chests and pull their hair wild over this.

Maybe the mountains of text on the previously canonical lore and delving into the personalities of various monstrous races that are often directly tied to their very creation and existence, frequently in part due to the machinations of (generally evil) gods that play an active hand in their development (who have drastically influenced the overall development of that entire world) which genuinely set them apart from the humanoid races? Which not only created a simple encounters in which players could have fights with no need to feel morally conflicted, and also allowed a very clear path for subverting those trends in order to make players actively think and consider moral ramifications  and question the stereotypes that they had come to accept as standard.

I understand that you might personally see very little value in this, but I was introduced to D&D through the original Baldur's Gate PC games, in which a great deal of the mythos currently being torn out was established and popularized, and from experience the very content being targeted was almost explicitly used to shine light on and provide an unbiased look at the difficulties those issues carried and how they needed to be fought against, and even the dangers involved in taking up that fight. These attempts to "sanitize" those aspects are frankly personally insulting, and the idea that I will have them taken from me because someone else can't be bothered to read the line that says "you can ignore this if it doesn't work for you" is outrageous.
A page from a book I just bought is being ripped out of my hands and being shredded, and future updates are being held hostage if I don't allow that to happen. I don't care if you're working for a business instead of a government, I don't care if it's virtual instead of physical; fascist tactics are still fascist tactics, and I find that morally repugnant. (and while DnDBeyond may not be the source of those tactics, capitulating to those tactics is something that also happened historically, and was not a good look)

For perspective, lets say WotC found out that Fundamental Religious groups have gotten over their whole D&D devil worship paranoia and are the newest, biggest consumers of D&D, so to make them feel more "comfortable" they decided to remove the passages referencing the ability to play any gender or lack of gendered character you want? I mean, they wouldn't be replacing it with any text that says you CAN'T play those types of characters, so is it really all that important to include? People can still CHOOSE to play characters like that if they want, but there's no real NEED for it to be canon, is there? And If you back it up, you can still keep that version that justifies your choices, you'll just never get any updates.

Is this putting a little perspective on the matter now? I understand you might feel there is a different level of morals at play here, but for me and many others this is something precious that is being attacked, and for completely backassward reasons. Your hamhanded attempts to dismiss and invalidate these feelings, unintentional though they may be, is less than appreciated.

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".

Well, that's not exactly a stables sales platform, now is it?

"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.

Exactly this. I have a character who I absolutely love; Derrik Darkluster, Gentleman Adventurer! A Tiefling Swashbuckler/Hexblade Folk Hero (who kind of fell into it, Rango style, but a bit more competently) and despite the fact that neither his nature nor his profession lend well to being "virtuous and heroic" he has made a point to continue doing great deeds, helping those in need, specifically for the sake of improving the reputation of his fellow teiflings and help inspire them to also strive against those pressures and achieve success in spite of them.
He even has a themepark; Lusterland, with attractions based on his various adventures, with a talking Action Figure line (using Magic Mouth to record his voice into them)
Now it's difficult to justify running him in a game, because without the bias, there's nothing he's striving to overcome.

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.

Perhaps you could just pass along some of that feedback to them yourselves, seeing as how you have actual numbers of sales to show dropping off, it might have a bit more of an impact.

Hello GreyAcumen,

I apologize, but I did not feel your comment was worth reading. Thank you for your time, however. 

So much for being "genuinely curious"

Quote from GreyAcumen >>

So much for being "genuinely curious"

I can see why you were confused. Would it be helpful if I amended my comment to be genuinely curious, limited to those who actually intend to talk about the text that was of vital importance without the passive-aggressive comments, veiled attacks, and indignation? Because, just for you, I would be willing to make that amendment. A quick skim of your post contained so much charged language, I felt that there could be nothing in that post worth my time. Are you prepared to try again or can we just go our separate ways?

Oh, my apologies, I'm sorry if I spoke about something important as if it was actually important. I see the conflict now.

Quote from GreyAcumen >>

Oh, my apologies, I'm sorry if I spoke about something important as if it was actually important. I see the conflict now.

You cannot speak about something important with the intention to gain understanding? Remarkable. 

CLARIFYING OUR RECENT ERRATA

Updated 12/16/21 by Ray Winninger

We recently released a set of errata documents cataloging the corrections and changes we’ve made in recent reprints of various titles. I thought I’d provide some additional context on some of these changes and why we made them. 

First, I urge all of you to read the errata documents for yourselves. A lot of assertions about the errata we’ve noticed in various online discussions aren’t accurate. (For example, we haven’t decided that beholders and mind flayers are no longer evil.)

We make text corrections for many reasons, but there are a few themes running through this latest batch of corrections worth highlighting. 

1) The Multiverse: I’ve previously noted that new setting products are a major area of focus for the Studio going forward. As part of that effort, our reminders that D&D supports not just The Forgotten Realms but a multitude of worlds are getting more explicit. Since the nature of creatures and cultures vary from world to world, we’re being extra careful about making authoritative statements about such things without providing appropriate context. If we’re discussing orcs, for instance, it’s important to note which orcs we’re talking about. The orcs of Greyhawk are quite different from the orcs you’ll find in Eberron, for instance, just as an orc settlement on the Sword Coast may exhibit a very different culture than another orc settlement located on the other side of Faerûn. This addresses corrections like the blanket disclaimer added to p.5 of VOLO’S GUIDE. 

2) Alignment: The only real changes related to alignment were removing the suggested alignments previously assigned to playable races in the PHB and elsewhere (“most dwarves are lawful;” “most halflings are lawful good”). We stopped providing such suggestions for new playable races some time ago. Since every player character is a unique individual, we no longer feel that such guidance is useful or appropriate. Whether or not most halflings are lawful good has no bearing on your halfling and who you want to be. After all, the most memorable and interesting characters often explicitly subvert expectations and stereotypes. And again, it’s impossible to say something like “most halflings are lawful good” without clarifying which halflings we’re talking about. (It’s probably not true that most Athasian halflings are lawful good.) These changes were foreshadowed in an earlier blog post and impact only the guidance provided during character creation; they are not reflective of any changes to our settings or the associated lore.  

3) Creature Personalities: We also removed a couple paragraphs suggesting that all mind flayers or all beholders (for instance) share a single, stock personality. We’ve long advised DMs that one way to make adventures and campaigns more memorable is to populate them with unique and interesting characters. These paragraphs stood in conflict with that advice. We didn’t alter the essential natures of these creatures or how they fit into our settings at all. (Mind flayers still devour the brains of humanoids, and yes, that means they tend to be evil.) 

The through-line that connects these three themes is our renewed commitment to encouraging DMs and players to create whatever worlds and characters they can imagine. 

Happy holidays and happy gaming. 

You cannot speak about something important with the intention to gain understanding? Remarkable. 

You are the one supposedly trying to gain understanding. I am the one sharing that understanding with you. I have no need to gain any understanding why you don't share these feelings as they have no bearing on my own feelings or stance.
If you're as genuinely curious as you claim about the mindset of the people who are upset by the removal of these things, then you need look no further, as I have explicitly provided the exact reasoning to why these changes upset me. If you are upset by the things written there, then it only stands to reason as they are describing something I am upset by.

The more I read the above wall of text from GreyAcumen (postes that keeps being updated and changed by the time one replies which i found quite in accord to the subject!), the more I get that there is a frustration about paying for something and having it changed under you.

That's understandable and I can relate - having something change what you worked hard on is upsetting - however that is the Terms of Service and Terms of Sale for the digital content here. You are free to buy a physical book if you do not agree to those terms (which is your right). Perhaps you'd be best with using the best of both world (physical books as reference, digital ones for updates, balance change and conveniency)?

Quote from Golaryn >>

CLARIFYING OUR RECENT ERRATA

Updated 12/16/21 by Ray Winninger

We recently released a set of errata documents cataloging the corrections and changes we’ve made in recent reprints of various titles. I thought I’d provide some additional context on some of these changes and why we made them. 

First, I urge all of you to read the errata documents for yourselves. A lot of assertions about the errata we’ve noticed in various online discussions aren’t accurate. (For example, we haven’t decided that beholders and mind flayers are no longer evil.)

We make text corrections for many reasons, but there are a few themes running through this latest batch of corrections worth highlighting. 

1) The Multiverse: I’ve previously noted that new setting products are a major area of focus for the Studio going forward. As part of that effort, our reminders that D&D supports not just The Forgotten Realms but a multitude of worlds are getting more explicit. Since the nature of creatures and cultures vary from world to world, we’re being extra careful about making authoritative statements about such things without providing appropriate context. If we’re discussing orcs, for instance, it’s important to note which orcs we’re talking about. The orcs of Greyhawk are quite different from the orcs you’ll find in Eberron, for instance, just as an orc settlement on the Sword Coast may exhibit a very different culture than another orc settlement located on the other side of Faerûn. This addresses corrections like the blanket disclaimer added to p.5 of VOLO’S GUIDE. 

2) Alignment: The only real changes related to alignment were removing the suggested alignments previously assigned to playable races in the PHB and elsewhere (“most dwarves are lawful;” “most halflings are lawful good”). We stopped providing such suggestions for new playable races some time ago. Since every player character is a unique individual, we no longer feel that such guidance is useful or appropriate. Whether or not most halflings are lawful good has no bearing on your halfling and who you want to be. After all, the most memorable and interesting characters often explicitly subvert expectations and stereotypes. And again, it’s impossible to say something like “most halflings are lawful good” without clarifying which halflings we’re talking about. (It’s probably not true that most Athasian halflings are lawful good.) These changes were foreshadowed in an earlier blog post and impact only the guidance provided during character creation; they are not reflective of any changes to our settings or the associated lore.  

3) Creature Personalities: We also removed a couple paragraphs suggesting that all mind flayers or all beholders (for instance) share a single, stock personality. We’ve long advised DMs that one way to make adventures and campaigns more memorable is to populate them with unique and interesting characters. These paragraphs stood in conflict with that advice. We didn’t alter the essential natures of these creatures or how they fit into our settings at all. (Mind flayers still devour the brains of humanoids, and yes, that means they tend to be evil.) 

The through-line that connects these three themes is our renewed commitment to encouraging DMs and players to create whatever worlds and characters they can imagine. 

Happy holidays and happy gaming. 

Yet they don't provide that information in settings books, they don't go over the various races and monsters of each setting and how they work.

Wasn't the part about create whatever they want or imagine always the case with 5e?

Quote from GreyAcumen >>

You cannot speak about something important with the intention to gain understanding? Remarkable. 

You are the one supposedly trying to gain understanding. I am the one sharing that understanding with you. I have no need to gain any understanding why you don't share these feelings as they have no bearing on my own feelings or stance.
If you're as genuinely curious as you claim about the mindset of the people who are upset by the removal of these things, then you need look no further, as I have explicitly provided the exact reasoning to why these changes upset me. If you are upset by the things written there, then it only stands to reason as they are describing something I am upset by.

I am under no obligation to endure your disrespect, implied attacks, or poor emotional regulation to gain that understanding, I am sorry to say. That is why your post did not find much time under my consideration. You are confused as to what my burden is in this discourse. Additionally, I can hold a genuine interest in what text is of vital important without caring why it upsets you. It seems that we have arrived at the conclusion that you did not bother to even understand my ask before you responded. This happens when people are responding out of anger, rather than form a rational standpoint For clarity, I do not care why you are upset. The reasons you list likely mirror those already listed by others, which I dismissed as a “the sky is falling” mindset, having misplaced ownership in the IP, and harmful change-averse behaviors. None of which I consider valid. Please read my posts more carefully. 

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.

You asked why they are important, I explained why they are important.
I also corrected your basic misunderstanding that it is only the content that is important, and not the act of removing that content in itself that has people upset.

The fact that you are now adding extra stipulations requiring me to justify feeling obligated for DnDBeyond to do something about it leads me to believe that you were being disingenuous in your "curiosity" and are simply looking for a means of dismissing those views you are opposed to. Your inability to recognize that I have been calling out your behaviors, and the actions of DnDBeyond, and not directly insulting either of you further supports this conclusion.

Thank you for your time, it seems that even without intending to, I have gained a great deal of understanding.

Quote from GreyAcumen >>

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.

You asked why they are important, I explained why they are important.
I also corrected your basic misunderstanding that it is only the content that is important, and not the act of removing that content in itself that has people upset.

The fact that you are now adding extra stipulations requiring me to justify feeling obligated for DnDBeyond to do something about it leads me to believe that you were being disingenuous in your "curiosity" and are simply looking for a means of dismissing those views you are opposed to. Your inability to recognize that I have been calling out your behaviors, and the actions of DnDBeyond, and not directly insulting either of you further supports this conclusion.

Thank you for your time, it seems that even without intending to, I have gained a great deal of understanding.

What and why are not synonyms. Please read the sentences you have bolded again.

Your correction is an opinion and one that I did not request. It seems that I was right that it was not worth reading. ;)

There is nothing extra being added. You bolded my text. In both cases, I asked for what, not why. I did offer to amend my statement to holding a genuine curiosity from those who have the ability to control themselves though. But you did not wish to take me up on that offer. Your projections are not motivations that I feel I need to adopt, thank you. Your issues are your own.

You are welcome. 

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Davyd >>

The terms of sale actually do state that the license provider (Wizards of the Coast) may mandate updates.

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 would also avoid drawing analogous comparisons to physical products, as the means and regulations of sales between physical and digital are vastly different and this may lead to incorrect assumptions. D&D Beyond is explicitly clear about the finality of digital sales, both in the terms of sale and in the checkout process.

So you are staying that dnd beyond's official stance is that this is all WOTC fault and that DDB is legally obligated to force the change and is legally prevented from allowing their customers older revisions?

Quote from DwarvenWiz >>

Yes, let's get it on record that dndbeyond is stating that they have a contractual legal obligation to update the errata AND are not allowed under the terms of the contract to retain prior versioning or fork the errata's availability. I really doubt they have a contractual restriction on retaining the errata separately and are using this as a dodge, but let's see them say it clearly.

Davyd and other mods and staff have already repeated this countless times, typing the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. You can read Davyd's last comment on the previous page. You know what, I will just copy and paste it here.

Quote from Davyd >>

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.

If you really want to complain, post it on Wizard's or Hasbro's social media page. At least Wizards or Hasbro might get some flak that way, and, you know, it reaches the right people and more of the public can take notice. Whining on Beyond's forum does absolutely jack squat. D&D may be growing, but it is still a niche hobby that most people do not find fun, let alone care about. Not every D&D player uses Beyond, and even those that do use Beyond rarely use the forums. You are yelling at the wrong people, and what few people who can hear you cannot do anything about it.

Complaining to Beyond is the equivalent of yelling at the cashier and manager at a physical retail store about whatever faulty product you bought, and they are telling you that there is nothing they can do but you can get your issue solved by contacting the manufacturer. The retail store is just a middleman, they cannot just change the product they are selling without permission.

If I buy a book and there is a spelling error in the book, I am not going to go back to Barnes and Noble or the local book store and complain about it. What the hell is the cahsier, manager, or store owner supposed to do? Crossout the mispelled word and write the right word on the margins? If you want to do that on Beyond, you can just download the webpage on to your computer and you can edit the HTML file to your hearts content, but that is about it.

— — — — — — —

Quote from GreyAcumen >>

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.

Perhaps you could just pass along some of that feedback to them yourselves, seeing as how you have actual numbers of sales to show dropping off, it might have a bit more of an impact.

You are complaining to the wrong person, and Davyd most likely is under no obligation to send feedback for you. I am guessing there is not a noticeable drop in sales, since none of the mods nor staff are panicking or care. If the minor PR fiasco from WGTE's changes did not seem to have much impact Beyond and Wizards, then some minor errata changes on alignment is going to cause even less of a stir. Even if Davyd did send feedback for you, what do you expect Wizards response is going to be? Wizards does not give a damn about a vocal minority of players that are not worth catering to, and they will just tell Beyond to freaking deal with it.

If you really want Wizards to change, you have to do it yourself and make a big stink on Wizard's and/or Hasbro's social media. No one is going to do it for you. I wish Beyond would keep the errata too; in fact, I wish Beyond did a lot of things. But at this point, I just stopped caring. If for some reason I really need the old unerrata version, I can always just buy the damn physical book, and in this case, at least I can also better justify it to myself that physical version and digital version is sufficiently different enough to be worth a lighter wallet.

Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and feedback regarding this issue.  As the conversation has taken a turn south, we will now be locking this thread.  For those interested, I would highlight the recent WOTC posting: Sage Advice Book Updates as it relates to errata and changes.  Any and all D&D Beyond features/updates, including altered content/errata policies, will be communicated appropriately as or should they come to fruition.

Thank you again for your contributions!