Overall, this errata really helped show me that I joined the hobby late and at the cusp of 5e's decline. Lore is getting trashed, the races are bland, and the subclasses, spells, and magic items are being made even more and more overpowered just to keep everyone's attention. Initially I was very adverse to 6e and people thinking it was coming in 2024, but know I kinda hope it does and also dread it and how bland and generic it will be.
Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic
I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.
This is the one place where I agree with Yurei, FR should not have been the default setting for 5e. We could have had some generic fantasy default as neutral as possible to teach mechanics, and then each Campaign book could establish its reality. Would have made a lot of this less messy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The changes posted thus far are not what I had been presented in other discussions, where the inherent Evil of different sects had been erased. Adding the truth that there are regions and areas where the "norm" (evil Orcs or Drow) doesn't apply, shouldn't be a big issue. My opposition is/was the removal of lore that stated creatures from X region are generally of Evil alignment.
This has been the problem with this thread from the very start. The lore has neither been changed or removed. Someone somewhere said it, and rather than read the errata for themselves, people jump on the internet with their torches and pitchforks looking to fight.
Removing the Alignment block from the Racial Traits section doesn't change the lore for the Forgotten Realms at all.
" "Yuan-ti are emotionless, yet feel completely superior to humanoids, in the same way that a human can feel superior to chickens or rabbits — in a matter-of-fact, completely objective way that doesn’t brook any second-guessing. To a yuan-ti, there are only three categories of creature: threat, yuan-ti, or meat. Threats are powerful creatures such as demons, dragons, and genies. Yuan-ti are any of their own kind, regardless of caste; although a rival yuan-ti might be dangerous, and a weak or dead one might be potential food, it is first and foremost one of the true people and deserving of some respect. Meat includes any creature that is neither a threat nor a yuan-ti, possibly useful for a base purpose but not worthy of other consideration.Most yuan-ti consider it beneath themselves to speak to meat. Abominations and malisons rarely communicate directly with slaves except in emergencies (such as for giving battle orders); at other times, slaves are expected to constantly be aware of the master’s mood, anticipate the master’s needs, and recognize subtle gestures of hands, head, and tail that indicate commands****y purebloods — which walk among humanoids and therefore have to learn how to speak to them civilly — practice interacting with meat-creatures. Much of their training involves suppressing their innate annoyance at having to speak to lesser beings as though they were equals, or being obliged to kowtow to a humanoid ruler as if the pureblood were merely an advisor. Pureblood spies feel a sort of aloof contempt toward meat-creatures, but they can affect a pleasant tone, and speak to such creatures with a silver tongue that disguises their true feelings.Under normal circumstances, yuan-ti are always calmly deferential to those of higher rank. They tend to be curt and formal with those of lower rank, for the differences between them aren’t a source of anger or disgust (emotions that the yuan-ti don’t feel anyway), merely a fact of the natural order, and their culture long ago realized that treating the lower castes with a measure of detached respect prevents rebellion and advances the cause of the entire race.The ritual that produced the first yuan-ti required the human subjects to butcher and eat their human slaves and prisoners. This act of cannibalism had several ramifications. It broke a long-standing taboo among civilized humanoids and set the yuan-ti apart from other civilizations as creatures not beholden to moral values. It corrupted their flesh, making the yuan-ti receptive to dark magic. It emulated the dispassionate viewpoint of the reptilian mind, a trait the yuan-ti admired. Today, cannibalism is practiced by the most fervent of yuan-ti cultists, including those who aspire to transform into yuan-ti themselves. In yuan-ti cities, the activity persists in the form of human sacrifice — not strictly cannibalism anymore, but still serving as a repudiation of what it is to be human and a glorification of what it is to be yuan-ti. Yuan-ti don’t have a taboo against eating their own kind; a starving yuan-ti would kill and eat a lesser without a second thought, and a group of them would choose the weakest among them to be killed and eaten. Under normal circumstances, however, they bury or cremate their dead rather than eating them, but a great hero or someone of status might be ritually consumed as a form of tribute.""
All of that was removed from the lore of 5e, old books and online are not valid sources for 5e content as they are not listed here.
All of this is still part of the lore. Did you read any of the rest of the Yuan-ti section of the book?
No it isn't there, check for your self, some of it might be but not all of it and not in the same level of detail.
The changes posted thus far are not what I had been presented in other discussions, where the inherent Evil of different sects had been erased. Adding the truth that there are regions and areas where the "norm" (evil Orcs or Drow) doesn't apply, shouldn't be a big issue. My opposition is/was the removal of lore that stated creatures from X region are generally of Evil alignment.
This has been the problem with this thread from the very start. The lore has neither been changed or removed. Someone somewhere said it, and rather than read the errata for themselves, people jump on the internet with their torches and pitchforks looking to fight.
Removing the Alignment block from the Racial Traits section doesn't change the lore for the Forgotten Realms at all.
" "Yuan-ti are emotionless, yet feel completely superior to humanoids, in the same way that a human can feel superior to chickens or rabbits — in a matter-of-fact, completely objective way that doesn’t brook any second-guessing. To a yuan-ti, there are only three categories of creature: threat, yuan-ti, or meat. Threats are powerful creatures such as demons, dragons, and genies. Yuan-ti are any of their own kind, regardless of caste; although a rival yuan-ti might be dangerous, and a weak or dead one might be potential food, it is first and foremost one of the true people and deserving of some respect. Meat includes any creature that is neither a threat nor a yuan-ti, possibly useful for a base purpose but not worthy of other consideration.Most yuan-ti consider it beneath themselves to speak to meat. Abominations and malisons rarely communicate directly with slaves except in emergencies (such as for giving battle orders); at other times, slaves are expected to constantly be aware of the master’s mood, anticipate the master’s needs, and recognize subtle gestures of hands, head, and tail that indicate commands****y purebloods — which walk among humanoids and therefore have to learn how to speak to them civilly — practice interacting with meat-creatures. Much of their training involves suppressing their innate annoyance at having to speak to lesser beings as though they were equals, or being obliged to kowtow to a humanoid ruler as if the pureblood were merely an advisor. Pureblood spies feel a sort of aloof contempt toward meat-creatures, but they can affect a pleasant tone, and speak to such creatures with a silver tongue that disguises their true feelings.Under normal circumstances, yuan-ti are always calmly deferential to those of higher rank. They tend to be curt and formal with those of lower rank, for the differences between them aren’t a source of anger or disgust (emotions that the yuan-ti don’t feel anyway), merely a fact of the natural order, and their culture long ago realized that treating the lower castes with a measure of detached respect prevents rebellion and advances the cause of the entire race.The ritual that produced the first yuan-ti required the human subjects to butcher and eat their human slaves and prisoners. This act of cannibalism had several ramifications. It broke a long-standing taboo among civilized humanoids and set the yuan-ti apart from other civilizations as creatures not beholden to moral values. It corrupted their flesh, making the yuan-ti receptive to dark magic. It emulated the dispassionate viewpoint of the reptilian mind, a trait the yuan-ti admired. Today, cannibalism is practiced by the most fervent of yuan-ti cultists, including those who aspire to transform into yuan-ti themselves. In yuan-ti cities, the activity persists in the form of human sacrifice — not strictly cannibalism anymore, but still serving as a repudiation of what it is to be human and a glorification of what it is to be yuan-ti. Yuan-ti don’t have a taboo against eating their own kind; a starving yuan-ti would kill and eat a lesser without a second thought, and a group of them would choose the weakest among them to be killed and eaten. Under normal circumstances, however, they bury or cremate their dead rather than eating them, but a great hero or someone of status might be ritually consumed as a form of tribute.""
All of that was removed from the lore of 5e, old books and online are not valid sources for 5e content as they are not listed here.
All of this is still part of the lore. Did you read any of the rest of the Yuan-ti section of the book?
To expand on their point, and just looking at the first sentence of the text that was removed. (see red section in Orthusaku's comment)
Page 92 - Humans transformed
Line 6: "They developed a philosophy of separating emotion from intellectual pursuits..."
Line 9: "They believed themselves to be the most enlightened mortals in the world"
Line 39: "The yuan-ti have abandoned their humanity and consider non-serpentine humanoids to be lesser creatures, barely more civilized than common apes"
That is 3 lines for a single line that was snipped way. I am not going to go through every line of the snipped paragraphs, but despite 4 paragraphs being removed there are still 10 pages worth of lore to learn everything there is to know about Yuan Ti and their history
Erriku, what I meant is that dndbeyond or more accurately should have said fandom could expand the capabilities of dndbeyond and create say pathfinderbeyond with the same back-end.
Now correct me if I am wrong but where does wanting to use older versions of released content for 5e mean one would not buy new books for 5e. But as one that wants the ability to use older content in the tools of dndbeyond, I try not to harass dndbeyond other than just try and get for the record information as why they can not do so, so I can at least try and figure out a suggestion that works around the limitations. Like by them specifying what the legal obligations they are under, it would be possible that a crowd sourced work around could be figured out.
How would it not be a benefit to be able to pick and choose which revision you wish to use, or say you are the game master and using content sharing, you could specify the books that are allowed in the campaign, the revision, any sage advice, etc and when shared with players and as they create characters and play in the campgain they are referencing the same info the game master is using for the campaign.
I would like to note that not all negotiations or requests require giving something up for the most part sure they do but sometimes you just need to ask. Like one work contract I had, I was able to double my compensation just by bringing up the topic while at the same time also reducing my responsibilities to be more focused.
DDB could do a great many things. Pathfinder Beyond is less likely than D&D 5e archives, thanks to Demiplane. If you are a Pathfinder fan, I invite you to join us there. That aside, Fandom creating a separate site to host third-party material still does not get you archived D&D content.
The people who are pounding the table for this feature are (as far as I have seen on this site) mostly those who are venomously opposed to the removal of harmful, racist stereotypes and exclusionary tropes, and the addition of representation and any other changes that make these people shout "gEt WoKe Go BrOkE!!!" Those people will not be buying new content because that is the direction that WotC is going with its IP. Now, you may not be part of this group of people, but you are seemingly in a minority among those who are even asking for demanding this feature. As far as you offering suggestions about DDB's contractual arrangements with WotC, I do not see them tapping you for advice as being very realistic. Even if this was your profession, you are unlikely to get any information that is not already being shared and if contractual negotiations were your area of expertise, you likely would know not to ask for a seat at the table on a public forum anyway.
I do not believe that I have suggested that it would not be a personally beneficial feature for you to have. You have made it clear that it is of great importance and of great personal benefit to you. It is still unlikely to happen. WotC has made it clear what their direction forward is. Why would they allow other companies to host their content that no longer is in alignment with their chosen path? Is there any organization that has done this with any IP? I cannot think of any. I understand why you want this content. No digital hosting platform will be giving it to you. Not DDB, not Roll20, not the Foundry. None. I encourage you to think of personal solutions that are attainable. Anything else is really just a waste of time. For some, that means finding old hardbacks to buy and abandoning the digital platform entirely. I have seen some here make this declaration as they announce the cancellation of their subscription. For others, it means accepting changes to official content and moving on.
Well, I am sure that DDB has more experienced business and legal consultants than either of us. It stands to reason that if DDB was interested in hosting old content, they would have explored it already. It is entirely possible that WotC has no interest in permitting this move and DDB has no interest in asking for it also.
Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic
I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.
Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.
Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic
I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.
Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic
I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.
Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
That's what setting books are for. Like a Typhon, or a Woe Strider.
Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic
I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.
Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
That are only in a single setting but found in a setting agnostic book?
Look, I'm a old Planescape player. All this talk about "lore" and "alignments" is just amusing to me. Make cool stuff, make stuff agnostic lore-wise, mix it all together, play cool games. Settings can add that extra flavor to describe specific cultures within a race based on lore if they need to, but it's easier to do that from setting specific lore books.
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
Why should the Monster Manual be tuned for the Forgotten Realms? Eberron didn't get any special fancy entry in the Monster Manual. Neither did Greyhawk, or Athas. No Spelljammer monsters in the Monster Manual - but it's chock full of Forgotten Realms stuff that players exactly like you say shouldn't ever be used outside the Realms?
The hell good does that do anybody? And why should the Forgotten Realms get to take over all the core books and muscle every other equally valid setting away?
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
Why should the Monster Manual be tuned for the Forgotten Realms? Eberron didn't get any special fancy entry in the Monster Manual. Neither did Greyhawk, or Athas. No Spelljammer monsters in the Monster Manual - but it's chock full of Forgotten Realms stuff that players exactly like you say shouldn't ever be used outside the Realms?
The hell good does that do anybody? And why should the Forgotten Realms get to take over all the core books and muscle every other equally valid setting away?
So what I meant and clearly didn't communicate that clearly
Is that each setting should have its own individual monster manual. Or have a blander that covers a more saying agnostic approach but is in essence kind of bland, you would get only stat blocks with no fluff and no other information. Besides stats, spells attacks
Edit: fighting text to speech and mobile interface where enter doesn't move cursor to the new line.
I meant is that if you want a monster manual that is setting agnostic then you would get only monsters that are found in all settings with no fluff and ideally an averaged stat block where as you would also have a setting dependent monster manual that went in more depth of the monsters of the Lord of their culture of all the fluff and stat blocks that are more aligned with the setting
Erriku I guess got 7 I might just create a private website tool set to do what I need and just copy the books over to it for person archival
edit: How about Dungeon World Beyond or any other system beyond for my point.
edit 2: you seem like you personally don't want people using the versions they want to use. From some weird ass reason.
Do you think about your posts before you start swinging? Was this the approach you used to get that double pay for half the work? For someone who thinks their contributions are valued and necessary to DDB contracts, one would think you would do a better job selling yourself. Were this a negotiation, it would have ended here. I am sorry that providing you with grounded, rational responses causes you such emotional turmoil. I do not care what you play. I am just stating very plainly that the content you want will not be offered here or on any other website. I am not sure how you could possibly have interpreted that as me not wanting you to have a version of the game you want.
I'm 110% behind selling multiple books for a properly fleshed-out, well designed setting. Grim Hollow's going gangbusters selling a Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and no a Monster Grimoire for their setting, all meant to be used in conjunction with the base 5e set, and they're making millions. yeah, you may not be able to do that with a billion fifty-dollar hardprint books, but Wizards is going to have to accept that digital products exist at some point in their future. One of the big benefits of digital is allowing a higher volume of sales, and many other games (Savage Worlds comes to mind) do pretty well by themselves with selling multiple books tailored to individual settings within the broader scope of the game.
Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.
Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?
Yurei, I think it would be a wonderful idea to have proper fleshed out books for each setting that cover a phb, DMG, setting guide and mm for each setting cause it would allow me to invest deeply in the setting and know I have basically everything I need for that setting alone.
Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.
Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?
Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.
I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.
One was a person of mixed heritage who tried to get into D&D during older editions and felt drawn to half-orcs thematically, as a representation of his own heritage...but then he saw that half-orcs received a sharp penalty to Intelligence and Charisma simply for bearing orcish blood and bounced off the game entirely. For that player, the message was clear - mixed-heritage creatures were Bad, Undesirable, and Not Okay, and he didn't want to deal with that in the game when he dealt with it in everyday life. D&D was hostile to him, so he didn't engage with it. He was not welcome at the table.
~ Did it make any difference to him, I wonder, to know that half-elves get a Charisma score increased by 2, and two other ability scores of their choice increased by 1? I could see someone saying that a mixed-race creature getting negatives applied to them would be off-setting.
Another player from back then is gay, and in a stable and healthy relationship with their beau. Until very recently, D&D had absolutely zero representation for non-straight, non-cisgendered folk, and it was considered good manners to simply not talk about those things at the table. That was, in fact, the argument thrown about many, many, many times when this buddy of mine (and myself, for that matter) were arguing in favor of the direction Wizards is taking, if not necessarily their specific execution. Players said "why does your sexual orientation or identity matter? Why do I have to put gay or trans or whatever characters in the game just so you can feel like you belong in it? Can't you just belong in it because you have a big sword and a quest list?" The harm was that Wizards' tacit approval, up until 'bout two or three years ago, of what amounted to Don't Ask Don't Tell meant a lot of folks felt offput by the game. My buddy had to learn to tolerate constant friction and pain points while playing if he wanted to enjoy his favorite game. He was welcome at the table...but only so long as he kept his sexual orientation to himself and didn't rise to the bait when people made light of 'Other' folks.
~ Was this other players making light of 'Other' folks in the game or IRL?
I wasn't made privy to the precise details of said buddy's history of pain, but I presume he woiuldn't have mentioned anything if it had been a random in-game riff by characters acknowledged as in-world bigots.
Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.
Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?
Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.
I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.
WotC isn't going to go for allowing multiple versions of their rulesets because giving old versions legitimacy is a bad idea. It's really that simple. It sends the wrong message about the errata process and it's a slippery slope. Right now they present a unified (stress on the uni- part) ruleset with the rule zero addendum that, of course, you're free to change what you want. Legitimizing a dozen versions of the rules pretty much screams "we don't know anymore, figure it out for yourselves". 'Here's a complete ruleset: use it as is, change it, add to it, delete from it, whatever you want - it's a complete ruleset ready to use out of the box for your convenience' is a good proposition to their customers. 'Here's a bunch of versions of a complete ruleset because we can't make up our mind about what makes the best standard, so you guys are going to have to do some work up front to figure out what you want' is a terrible proposition to their customers. It's not going to happen. One set of core rulebooks + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a yes; a bunch of fuzzy sets of core rulebooks nobody really knows exactly how, where or why they differ from all the others + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Overall, this errata really helped show me that I joined the hobby late and at the cusp of 5e's decline. Lore is getting trashed, the races are bland, and the subclasses, spells, and magic items are being made even more and more overpowered just to keep everyone's attention. Initially I was very adverse to 6e and people thinking it was coming in 2024, but know I kinda hope it does and also dread it and how bland and generic it will be.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
This is the one place where I agree with Yurei, FR should not have been the default setting for 5e. We could have had some generic fantasy default as neutral as possible to teach mechanics, and then each Campaign book could establish its reality. Would have made a lot of this less messy.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
No it isn't there, check for your self, some of it might be but not all of it and not in the same level of detail.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
To expand on their point, and just looking at the first sentence of the text that was removed. (see red section in Orthusaku's comment)
That is 3 lines for a single line that was snipped way. I am not going to go through every line of the snipped paragraphs, but despite 4 paragraphs being removed there are still 10 pages worth of lore to learn everything there is to know about Yuan Ti and their history
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
asking fordemanding this feature. As far as you offering suggestions about DDB's contractual arrangements with WotC, I do not see them tapping you for advice as being very realistic. Even if this was your profession, you are unlikely to get any information that is not already being shared and if contractual negotiations were your area of expertise, you likely would know not to ask for a seat at the table on a public forum anyway.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
Erriku I guess got 7 I might just create a private website tool set to do what I need and just copy the books over to it for person archival
edit: How about Dungeon World Beyond or any other system beyond for my point.
edit 2: you seem like you personally don't want people using the versions they want to use. From some weird ass reason.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.
So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
That's what setting books are for. Like a Typhon, or a Woe Strider.
Look, I'm a old Planescape player. All this talk about "lore" and "alignments" is just amusing to me. Make cool stuff, make stuff agnostic lore-wise, mix it all together, play cool games. Settings can add that extra flavor to describe specific cultures within a race based on lore if they need to, but it's easier to do that from setting specific lore books.
Why should the Monster Manual be tuned for the Forgotten Realms? Eberron didn't get any special fancy entry in the Monster Manual. Neither did Greyhawk, or Athas. No Spelljammer monsters in the Monster Manual - but it's chock full of Forgotten Realms stuff that players exactly like you say shouldn't ever be used outside the Realms?
The hell good does that do anybody? And why should the Forgotten Realms get to take over all the core books and muscle every other equally valid setting away?
Please do not contact or message me.
So what I meant and clearly didn't communicate that clearly
Is that each setting should have its own individual monster manual. Or have a blander that covers a more saying agnostic approach but is in essence kind of bland, you would get only stat blocks with no fluff and no other information. Besides stats, spells attacks
Edit: fighting text to speech and mobile interface where enter doesn't move cursor to the new line.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I meant is that if you want a monster manual that is setting agnostic then you would get only monsters that are found in all settings with no fluff and ideally an averaged stat block where as you would also have a setting dependent monster manual that went in more depth of the monsters of the Lord of their culture of all the fluff and stat blocks that are more aligned with the setting
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Do you think about your posts before you start swinging? Was this the approach you used to get that double pay for half the work? For someone who thinks their contributions are valued and necessary to DDB contracts, one would think you would do a better job selling yourself. Were this a negotiation, it would have ended here. I am sorry that providing you with grounded, rational responses causes you such emotional turmoil. I do not care what you play. I am just stating very plainly that the content you want will not be offered here or on any other website. I am not sure how you could possibly have interpreted that as me not wanting you to have a version of the game you want.
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
...you're acting like that's a bad idea?
I'm 110% behind selling multiple books for a properly fleshed-out, well designed setting. Grim Hollow's going gangbusters selling a Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and no a Monster Grimoire for their setting, all meant to be used in conjunction with the base 5e set, and they're making millions. yeah, you may not be able to do that with a billion fifty-dollar hardprint books, but Wizards is going to have to accept that digital products exist at some point in their future. One of the big benefits of digital is allowing a higher volume of sales, and many other games (Savage Worlds comes to mind) do pretty well by themselves with selling multiple books tailored to individual settings within the broader scope of the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.
Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?
Yurei, I think it would be a wonderful idea to have proper fleshed out books for each setting that cover a phb, DMG, setting guide and mm for each setting cause it would allow me to invest deeply in the setting and know I have basically everything I need for that setting alone.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.
I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.
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 wasn't made privy to the precise details of said buddy's history of pain, but I presume he woiuldn't have mentioned anything if it had been a random in-game riff by characters acknowledged as in-world bigots.
Please do not contact or message me.
WotC isn't going to go for allowing multiple versions of their rulesets because giving old versions legitimacy is a bad idea. It's really that simple. It sends the wrong message about the errata process and it's a slippery slope. Right now they present a unified (stress on the uni- part) ruleset with the rule zero addendum that, of course, you're free to change what you want. Legitimizing a dozen versions of the rules pretty much screams "we don't know anymore, figure it out for yourselves". 'Here's a complete ruleset: use it as is, change it, add to it, delete from it, whatever you want - it's a complete ruleset ready to use out of the box for your convenience' is a good proposition to their customers. 'Here's a bunch of versions of a complete ruleset because we can't make up our mind about what makes the best standard, so you guys are going to have to do some work up front to figure out what you want' is a terrible proposition to their customers. It's not going to happen. One set of core rulebooks + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a yes; a bunch of fuzzy sets of core rulebooks nobody really knows exactly how, where or why they differ from all the others + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a no.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].