Been a Master Tier subscriber for years, that ends today. Cancelled it this morning. It's been real D&D beyond. I'll miss you. You were a great tool that has been on a downward trajectory since you got bought out, but now it's time for me to say goodbye.
Do not remove my old content. There are legitimate reasons to use both versions of the content. Many players and DMs are in middle of campaigns, and will not be changing the rules mid journey. Many others might just prefer the old rules to the new.
I'm coming here to at least add my voice in that the 2024 thing is crap, I won't be buying the new 2024 books (Physical or Digital). Now that D&DBeyond has forced the 2024 rulesets on all the characters I will be cancelling my subscription (again) as well. This change has practically ruined my campaigns which are using the 2014 rules, and now we have to go back to paper-and-pencil. I am displeased that they chose to go this direction. WotC didn't learn their lesson from last year.
One this is how their system has always worked for spells and items. Swordcoast content got updated in guides to everything and if you wanted the old content you had to homebrew it to reference it in the sheet.
greenflame blade for example
they should have fixed the problem …
this isn’t a masterful evil plan to ger players to buy the new books. It’s years of tech debt causing the problem and either the devs don’t know a quick easy way to fix it in time or they don’t want to risk it without breaking something.
easy worknaround/band-aid is for someone on the dev team to just do a batch copy of all the spells & items into the homebrew content and let players add it to their personal homebrew instead of each individual person havin to do it themselves
Sorry, but anyone who has ever done even rudimentary coding, or database work (which I did back in the early 2000's) knows that this is entirely nonsense. They have existing data in their database. To update said data to the new versions they've had two options - first they could simply save themselves work by editing the existing entries and in doing so lose all the information they intend to depricate, second they create all new entries for the updated information and depricate the old entries.
Organisations like Unicode take the second option with the idea that everything should always be compatible in the future. Symbols within unicode may get depricated but never overwritten or removed. This was a foundational principle back when I learnt to code. It's always better to depricate and retain than simply replace. I know that the coding landscape has changed a lot, but it will have been just as much work to edit all the entries in their database and verify the integrity of all the links and shortcodes and other such stuff. Genuinely it would have been just as much work as simply adding the new versions of the data. This happens in publishing for example, every new edition of a book is associated with a new ISBN. The precedent to do the opposite to what the devs at DDB have done exists.
So, then if the workload would be similar, and the precedent is the opposite of what they've chosen to do - why would they be taking this path?!
Simple - money. WotC/Hasbro consistently ramble about wanting to extract more money from the playerbase of D&D. The reception to the 2024 books has been lukewarm to say the least, this path forces us to purchase the new content. It really is that simple. This is a money making exercise and it's so blatant that it is not even funny.
That said, let's assume that you're correct. Let's assume that the devs behind the site are so incompetent as to have created a system as broken as you suggest. Well, in that case why would they still be in employment? You don't keep incompetent staff if they are posing a risk to your bottom line. And if you are correct then the devs are - incompetent I mean. They've been able to tag depricated data (Mordenkienen's Tome of Foes) as legacy previously, so we know that they're able to keep the old data alongside the new data for those who own it. If they're now saying they can't then it is either incompetence, orders from above, or genuine laziness.
I don't enjoy ripping apart other people's statements, but in this case it does need to be done. This isn't an example of an overworked coding team. This is blatant orders from management who are attempting to get more money from a product at the cost of the user experience. Sadly, that happens all the time in such projects.
Have to agree with everyone here. A Master Tier subscriber here and I’m disappointed and disgusted this is the way they are handling magic items and spells. We have paid you so much money to have this content and because you are lazy, you choose not to create a legacy tab in spells and magic items. Does it require effort and time? Yes. But that’s literally your job. We are in the middle of a campaign and don’t want to shift half way through. We will even likely move to 2024 versions in future campaigns but not at the moment. In the long run we have also paid for this content and deserve to have access to it regardless - as that is what the description said when we purchased it. DnDBeyond lift your game or there is absolutely no point in us running our campaign on your site and therefore we are not required to have our sub.
The thing is they already have examples on this site that adding Legacy to magic items isn't a problem or that confusing. There are several they already did that to between Lost Mine of Phandelver and Phandelver & Below: Shattered Obelisk. Dragonguard, Hew, Lightbringer, Spider Staff, and Staff of Defence.
Either version can be selected if you have the Legacy content toggled on. So no clue why they are claiming it will be complicated for users to have both, especially saying we can do the more complicated and time consuming method of homebrewing everything compared to picking a new or old version. Even Roll20 is saying they will let users pick either.
Massive agree with everyone here. There needs to be a toggle function that allows you to toggle the new content or not just like how there is a toggle for everything else. We shouldn’t be forced to use the new ruleset if we don’t want to. please change
I've bought so many of the books here just so that I could have access to all these things they promised.
If we were losing access to the character creator stuff because they were shutting down the service would be one thing but to keep the service up and remove the content is a slap to the player base and consumers of the site.
But the fact they are STILL SELLING the source books as of me typing this while advertising they unlock the features they are removing soon should downright be an FTC investigation for false advertisement.
I clearly didn't read the previous 9 pages of responses, but just to put in my +1 here... I have had a master tier subscription for years. I am also a developer, so I understand that backwards compatibility can be hard.... but the fact that there are legacy versions of everything else means there can be legacy spells as well.
I mostly just think this is a very customer-unfriendly move that is completely unnecessary. Even if you think that everyone should update to 2024, there are a lot of people who are mid-campaign who want to finish out their current campaign with the current rules. A lot of people are not going to buy the book on day one. They're just not. So now their character sheet on D&D beyond is going to say something different than what's printed in the book they bring to the table. It'll be confusing, especially for people who aren't reading every last thing on the internet about D&D. They'll get a new level in their class, choose some spells, and then realize the spells as written in DDB are different than what their PHB says....
I don't even care that much about the "Access to the Stuff I Bought" argument. It's just a bad user experience from the most basic level.
Please keep old spells marked as legacy. I know it's probably a ton more work, but I am sure you know it's the right way to make this transition.
To the mods: I'm sorry this becomes your burden to bear.
To WotC: The decision to stop providing support for specifically magic items and spells stinks. You then put the burden on GMs to fix the problem. I went into this process thinking that we would have access to both to decide which options are the best. Backwards compatibility and choice are touted throughout your videos. I'm not trying to be reactionary. But this is a terrible look and I am incredibly disappointed: in you for making these odd decisions and in me for believing you'd follow through with what you stated.
When I read this, I was so disappointed. It cannot be that hard to format these as legacy content. Please, for the users who either have ongoing 5e campaigns, or need access to spells in general, make a legacy tag in the spell lists. I've been on board for a lot of changes dndbeyond has made over the years, but this one is a major step back. It also is not in line with what we've seen in the transition from the 2014 content to new content of today. Please stick with the format you have used and give users the ability to use legacy spells!
I hope they're seeing this. They need to remember what happened when they announced the OD&D content licence changes because this is going to be even worse.
I hope they're seeing this. They need to remember what happened when they announced the OD&D content licence changes because this is going to be even worse.
I think if everybody that is irritated is also canceling their subscriptions like we did with the OGL nightmare, it will be worse. Some people, though, are waiting to make that choice until they see if WoTC will backtrack on the proposed change and make sure 2014 content can be used.
So I guess this is a bit of a call to action to all those people sitting on the proverbial fence about canceling subscriptions or not. Cancel now, it sends the only message they'll hear. You can always reactivate before the next billing cycle if they change their minds. I canceled mine right away, and left my notes in the feedback that this is exactly why.
My group has decided to completely move away from 5e as a result of this. None of us will use this platform anymore after the completion of our current campaign, and tbh we will probably switch before then too. What on earth is Wizards thinking.
I'm very disappointed by Wizard's decision to abandon support for existing campaigns by forcing a mid-campaign rules migration. I don't want the 2024 rules interfering with my existing 2014 campaigns. I'm scornful they intentionally didn't include a toggle to turn off 2024 rules. As the DM, I should be able to disable 2024 rules on 2014 characters. They even said that 2014 characters couldn't use 2024 rules, yet they are requiring that 2014 characters do just that by replacing all of the spells and magic items. As someone who makes software tools for a living, it saddens me to see a good tool render unfit-for-purpose by high level design choices like this.
And I should mention, I am interested in trying the new rules, but as part of new campaigns, and not until all the rule books are released.
I have bought all the core books and nearly every adventure book on dndbeyound. I have also been a master tier subscriber for 5 years sharing it with friends i play with across many campaigns.
How can you justify removing spells that i paid for? Some of which I bought individually from certain books? You do realize your taking away access to content I directly paid for right? This possibly could be against consumer laws in the UK and the EU.
I currently have no interest in the 2024 rules changes at this time. Why would I change to them rules if your only going to release a new rules in the future which will remove my access to content I paid for AGAIN?
I can imagine 6 years from now they release a 2030 rules set which removes our access to the 2024 content. Why would we give you money again if this is your business plan for us? Your plan is to remove access to books we paid for from older editions or older rules sets to force us to use new ones. Every 5 years forcing us to rebuy the same content, forcing us to use new rules while removing our access to all the books we paid for?
You can't force us to buy the new books. All you will be doing is removing OUR access to digital products we paid for and making the entire community leave this site.
I am extremely angry about this and nothing short of allowing us to keep the content we paid for is acceptible.
If Wizards removes all the Spells & Items I paid for I will never support them EVER again.
Been a Master Tier subscriber for years, that ends today. Cancelled it this morning. It's been real D&D beyond. I'll miss you. You were a great tool that has been on a downward trajectory since you got bought out, but now it's time for me to say goodbye.
Just want to add another voice
I pay so i can share the stuff i already bought, so now im getting ****ed? BS
I too am canceling over this change.
Do not remove my old content. There are legitimate reasons to use both versions of the content. Many players and DMs are in middle of campaigns, and will not be changing the rules mid journey. Many others might just prefer the old rules to the new.
[REDACTED]
Do you have a link to the change log? I'd like to be able to read it and haven't been able to find it.
If what's being speculated is true it's a bit of a violation of what we've already paid for. Especially as Master tier subs.
I'm coming here to at least add my voice in that the 2024 thing is crap, I won't be buying the new 2024 books (Physical or Digital). Now that D&DBeyond has forced the 2024 rulesets on all the characters I will be cancelling my subscription (again) as well. This change has practically ruined my campaigns which are using the 2014 rules, and now we have to go back to paper-and-pencil. I am displeased that they chose to go this direction. WotC didn't learn their lesson from last year.
Sorry, but anyone who has ever done even rudimentary coding, or database work (which I did back in the early 2000's) knows that this is entirely nonsense. They have existing data in their database. To update said data to the new versions they've had two options - first they could simply save themselves work by editing the existing entries and in doing so lose all the information they intend to depricate, second they create all new entries for the updated information and depricate the old entries.
Organisations like Unicode take the second option with the idea that everything should always be compatible in the future. Symbols within unicode may get depricated but never overwritten or removed. This was a foundational principle back when I learnt to code. It's always better to depricate and retain than simply replace. I know that the coding landscape has changed a lot, but it will have been just as much work to edit all the entries in their database and verify the integrity of all the links and shortcodes and other such stuff. Genuinely it would have been just as much work as simply adding the new versions of the data. This happens in publishing for example, every new edition of a book is associated with a new ISBN. The precedent to do the opposite to what the devs at DDB have done exists.
So, then if the workload would be similar, and the precedent is the opposite of what they've chosen to do - why would they be taking this path?!
Simple - money. WotC/Hasbro consistently ramble about wanting to extract more money from the playerbase of D&D. The reception to the 2024 books has been lukewarm to say the least, this path forces us to purchase the new content. It really is that simple. This is a money making exercise and it's so blatant that it is not even funny.
That said, let's assume that you're correct. Let's assume that the devs behind the site are so incompetent as to have created a system as broken as you suggest. Well, in that case why would they still be in employment? You don't keep incompetent staff if they are posing a risk to your bottom line. And if you are correct then the devs are - incompetent I mean. They've been able to tag depricated data (Mordenkienen's Tome of Foes) as legacy previously, so we know that they're able to keep the old data alongside the new data for those who own it. If they're now saying they can't then it is either incompetence, orders from above, or genuine laziness.
I don't enjoy ripping apart other people's statements, but in this case it does need to be done. This isn't an example of an overworked coding team. This is blatant orders from management who are attempting to get more money from a product at the cost of the user experience. Sadly, that happens all the time in such projects.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Changelog link! https://www.dndbeyond.com/changelog
Have to agree with everyone here. A Master Tier subscriber here and I’m disappointed and disgusted this is the way they are handling magic items and spells. We have paid you so much money to have this content and because you are lazy, you choose not to create a legacy tab in spells and magic items. Does it require effort and time? Yes. But that’s literally your job. We are in the middle of a campaign and don’t want to shift half way through. We will even likely move to 2024 versions in future campaigns but not at the moment. In the long run we have also paid for this content and deserve to have access to it regardless - as that is what the description said when we purchased it. DnDBeyond lift your game or there is absolutely no point in us running our campaign on your site and therefore we are not required to have our sub.
The thing is they already have examples on this site that adding Legacy to magic items isn't a problem or that confusing. There are several they already did that to between Lost Mine of Phandelver and Phandelver & Below: Shattered Obelisk. Dragonguard, Hew, Lightbringer, Spider Staff, and Staff of Defence.
Either version can be selected if you have the Legacy content toggled on. So no clue why they are claiming it will be complicated for users to have both, especially saying we can do the more complicated and time consuming method of homebrewing everything compared to picking a new or old version. Even Roll20 is saying they will let users pick either.
Massive agree with everyone here. There needs to be a toggle function that allows you to toggle the new content or not just like how there is a toggle for everything else. We shouldn’t be forced to use the new ruleset if we don’t want to. please change
I've bought so many of the books here just so that I could have access to all these things they promised.
If we were losing access to the character creator stuff because they were shutting down the service would be one thing but to keep the service up and remove the content is a slap to the player base and consumers of the site.
But the fact they are STILL SELLING the source books as of me typing this while advertising they unlock the features they are removing soon should downright be an FTC investigation for false advertisement.
I clearly didn't read the previous 9 pages of responses, but just to put in my +1 here... I have had a master tier subscription for years. I am also a developer, so I understand that backwards compatibility can be hard.... but the fact that there are legacy versions of everything else means there can be legacy spells as well.
I mostly just think this is a very customer-unfriendly move that is completely unnecessary. Even if you think that everyone should update to 2024, there are a lot of people who are mid-campaign who want to finish out their current campaign with the current rules. A lot of people are not going to buy the book on day one. They're just not. So now their character sheet on D&D beyond is going to say something different than what's printed in the book they bring to the table. It'll be confusing, especially for people who aren't reading every last thing on the internet about D&D. They'll get a new level in their class, choose some spells, and then realize the spells as written in DDB are different than what their PHB says....
I don't even care that much about the "Access to the Stuff I Bought" argument. It's just a bad user experience from the most basic level.
Please keep old spells marked as legacy. I know it's probably a ton more work, but I am sure you know it's the right way to make this transition.
To the mods: I'm sorry this becomes your burden to bear.
To WotC: The decision to stop providing support for specifically magic items and spells stinks. You then put the burden on GMs to fix the problem. I went into this process thinking that we would have access to both to decide which options are the best. Backwards compatibility and choice are touted throughout your videos. I'm not trying to be reactionary. But this is a terrible look and I am incredibly disappointed: in you for making these odd decisions and in me for believing you'd follow through with what you stated.
Be better. Do Better.
When I read this, I was so disappointed. It cannot be that hard to format these as legacy content. Please, for the users who either have ongoing 5e campaigns, or need access to spells in general, make a legacy tag in the spell lists. I've been on board for a lot of changes dndbeyond has made over the years, but this one is a major step back. It also is not in line with what we've seen in the transition from the 2014 content to new content of today. Please stick with the format you have used and give users the ability to use legacy spells!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/changelog#UpdatingtheDDBeyondToolsetforthe2024CoreRulebooks
Replying for link for people that saw the thread before the changelog.
I hope they're seeing this. They need to remember what happened when they announced the OD&D content licence changes because this is going to be even worse.
I think if everybody that is irritated is also canceling their subscriptions like we did with the OGL nightmare, it will be worse. Some people, though, are waiting to make that choice until they see if WoTC will backtrack on the proposed change and make sure 2014 content can be used.
So I guess this is a bit of a call to action to all those people sitting on the proverbial fence about canceling subscriptions or not. Cancel now, it sends the only message they'll hear. You can always reactivate before the next billing cycle if they change their minds. I canceled mine right away, and left my notes in the feedback that this is exactly why.
My group has decided to completely move away from 5e as a result of this. None of us will use this platform anymore after the completion of our current campaign, and tbh we will probably switch before then too. What on earth is Wizards thinking.
I'm very disappointed by Wizard's decision to abandon support for existing campaigns by forcing a mid-campaign rules migration. I don't want the 2024 rules interfering with my existing 2014 campaigns. I'm scornful they intentionally didn't include a toggle to turn off 2024 rules. As the DM, I should be able to disable 2024 rules on 2014 characters. They even said that 2014 characters couldn't use 2024 rules, yet they are requiring that 2014 characters do just that by replacing all of the spells and magic items. As someone who makes software tools for a living, it saddens me to see a good tool render unfit-for-purpose by high level design choices like this.
And I should mention, I am interested in trying the new rules, but as part of new campaigns, and not until all the rule books are released.
I have bought all the core books and nearly every adventure book on dndbeyound. I have also been a master tier subscriber for 5 years sharing it with friends i play with across many campaigns.
How can you justify removing spells that i paid for? Some of which I bought individually from certain books? You do realize your taking away access to content I directly paid for right? This possibly could be against consumer laws in the UK and the EU.
I currently have no interest in the 2024 rules changes at this time. Why would I change to them rules if your only going to release a new rules in the future which will remove my access to content I paid for AGAIN?
I can imagine 6 years from now they release a 2030 rules set which removes our access to the 2024 content. Why would we give you money again if this is your business plan for us? Your plan is to remove access to books we paid for from older editions or older rules sets to force us to use new ones. Every 5 years forcing us to rebuy the same content, forcing us to use new rules while removing our access to all the books we paid for?
You can't force us to buy the new books. All you will be doing is removing OUR access to digital products we paid for and making the entire community leave this site.
I am extremely angry about this and nothing short of allowing us to keep the content we paid for is acceptible.
If Wizards removes all the Spells & Items I paid for I will never support them EVER again.