You wouldn't need dozens of variations of the whole rule sets just blurbs like so (see spoiler):
You could even add a single toggle to show errata areas at all for those who don't want to see them what so ever. The actual errata would be hidden except when you click to view it. Similar to post-it notes in a real book except you can hide them.
Errata'd content that would be integrated into the tools would be no different than what it looks like to everyone making copies of it in their homebrew. However I understand not wanting to see it which is why again I'd propose a single toggle for toggling pre errata content. You wouldn't need dozens of copies of things just one for each errata - which they do anyway since the old stuff gets archived and people who have it on their characters can continue to use it.
Obviously DDB can't do this unless WotC change thier minds but it wouldn't be as confusing/cluttered as people make it out to be.
The problem I have with allowing access to non-errata'ed content is simply organizing things. While most errata is pretty minor, and there are some errata changes I don't like, consistency is important for me as a DM. I don't want players to be unclear about the version of the rules I'm using, and I'm going to be using the most recent errata almost all the time. I have no problem with errata getting rid of the "original" version of content because it usually fixes things, and if I don't like errata, I still prefer the consistency most of the time.
That's exactly why both sets of books should be available. You can tell your players that the current copy is what you are using and not to use the archived copy.
I on the other hand am NOT going to be using much of the current errata, and also want to make sure MY players have access to the rules I am working with too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
To be clear, are you suggesting keeping the old versions of the books archived or are you suggesting having multiple versions of every applicable option across the board?
If it's just keeping the books, sure, that would take very little work and storage space to deal with. If you're talking about all of the options, then no, that is a lot of work dedicated to giving a variety of versions of things that ultimately would barely be used and could much better be spend on new features.
I'm just talking about the books. I have PHB unlocked for example. I want to be able to read the most current version, and also the version as it was 10 years ago (or whenever it first got released). The DDB tools should all be one set, obviously, not multiple sets of tools; but their current tools already allow for homebrewing, and in many cases, all I need is a reference to know what I need to homebrew backwards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
With the fact that over years of changes, keeping track of each iteration and having people be able to pick and choose which they want to follow or not would be very cumbersome. Do I dislike the way some subclasses have changed etc? Sure, but I don't wnat to keep track of multiple iterations. If I really dislike something (ie the state of the sorceror class) then I just use the Homebrew options to make it work as I need.
First and last only is the suggestion. Ignore the middle ones. It may be cumbersome to keep track of bunches of iterations. Not so much to keep track of 2 of 'em.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
You want your new race versions or monster stats? Great, have fun! But why say no to letting me have the old versions while you enjoy the new versions? It literally doesn't affect you for me to use the old version!
First of all, what we think doesn't matter in the slightest. I'll come back to that. Secondly, everything has an opportunity cost. In this case a major one is the work that would have to go into the site. The dev team is already absolutely underwater and there are several aspects of published content that still have not been implemented in the builder.
Supporting two versions of everything takes work and time. Things they have clearly shown to be short on already. And every hour spent on this is an hour not spent on fixing the existing list of missing/broken features.
Alternately, this could be entirely a WotC decision. Having two versions of their game out there is confusing to the newbie players that 5e was made to draw in. And of course making old books obsolete is a tried-and-true method of selling new books (although I personally don't think it's fair to characterize updating a 10-year old book as profit-grubbing). At any rate, they may very well have told DDB exactly how this is to be implemented if they want to continue doing business together. We don't know.
Which brings me back to my first point. We don't know the variables here, but I really don't think this decision is going to be made on a level that checks the DDB forums before it makes the final call. I absolutely want you to have the game you want to play. I hope you will be able to use DDB to play it. But it costs me nothing to think that. What it costs DDB to do that, we don't know. But it ain't nothin.
To be clear, are you suggesting keeping the old versions of the books archived or are you suggesting having multiple versions of every applicable option across the board?
If it's just keeping the books, sure, that would take very little work and storage space to deal with. If you're talking about all of the options, then no, that is a lot of work dedicated to giving a variety of versions of things that ultimately would barely be used and could much better be spend on new features.
I'm talking about not only having the previous editions available, but previous versions of monsters and races, and have them work in the character builder.
If my group doesn't like the way the playable races have been changed, we want to be able to use the previous versions when we build characters. People will tell me "just homebrew it", but if it can be done via homebrew, then it is also possible for the DDB team to have it available!
I also don't like the changes they've made to monster stats and monsters who use magic. I want to keep my OG monster stats.
These are really big changes to the game, and while I understand how in practice online use of IP works, it doesn't have to be that way. When I bought these books online originally I paid for X, now what I paid for is being changed to Y. If this happened IRL with a real object, we'd rightly call it Bait and Switch, but because it's online we all shrug our shoulders and say "Well, you're just paying for a license to access content, not the content, so suck it up." It doesn't have to be that way.
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?
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
Do you take in homeless people? No? I guess that means you don't want them to have shelter. That's the sort of false equivalence you're making when you imply doing what's right for the company means wanting to deny their customers something. They're not the same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
Do you take in homeless people? No? I guess that means you don't want them to have shelter. That's the sort of false equivalence you're making when you imply doing what's right for the company means wanting to deny their customers something. They're not the same thing.
You are making the assumption about what is "right" for the company. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.
It is technically possible for them to move the existing monsters and races to an archived or "official homebrew" version that can still be chosen in the character builder. If I can do it, they can do it, and they should do it. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why they should deny users access to the existing races and monster stats that are changed in the new book.
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?
First and most recent version would only work if all players are using DDB exclusively.
Anybody using a printed copy may well have a revision of the rules which don't match either the "first" or "most recent"
Why exclusively as opposed to just at all? What does it matter what other sites are doing? We are all using DDB at the very least, whether or not we are also using d20 or whatever else. If the question is should DDB grant access to the initial printing in addition to the most current version, that has no bearing on whether or not you have other sources of information at your disposal. In fact, DDB having it would mean less incentive go seeking after other sources of information rather than spending more time on this site.
So what if someone does have a hardcopy of a revised printing? If they are using DDB, their digital copy is of the most current version anyway. Their book is technically just as obsolete as the first printing is. First and last just gives you the widest view of the changes made over the duration of the editions run.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
Do you take in homeless people? No? I guess that means you don't want them to have shelter. That's the sort of false equivalence you're making when you imply doing what's right for the company means wanting to deny their customers something. They're not the same thing.
1) You are making the assumption about what is "right" for the company. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.
2) It is technically possible for them to move the existing monsters and races to an archived or "official homebrew" version that can still be chosen in the character builder. If I can do it, they can do it, and they should do it. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why they should deny users access to the existing races and monster stats that are changed in the new book.
1) Even so, that doesn't mean you're not positing a false equivalence.
2) The prevailing theory is currently that they will make both versions available next to each other, but not for free. They'll be separate products, to be bought separately if you want access. If that's the case, that means WotC has decreed these are not errata and can't be folded into one purchase, tying DDB's hands.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
2) The prevailing theory is currently that they will make both versions available next to each other, but not for free. They'll be separate products, to be bought separately if you want access. If that's the case, that means WotC has decreed these are not errata and can't be folded into one purchase, tying DDB's hands.
If that's what happens, that's great! I have ZERO desire to buy the new book, and I DON'T want the new changes over-writing the content I've already paid for and want to continue using.
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?
2) The prevailing theory is currently that they will make both versions available next to each other, but not for free. They'll be separate products, to be bought separately if you want access. If that's the case, that means WotC has decreed these are not errata and can't be folded into one purchase, tying DDB's hands.
If that's what happens, that's great! I have ZERO desire to buy the new book, and I DON'T want the new changes over-writing the content I've already paid for and want to continue using.
Like I said, you'd get your wish.
People who feel like this isn't new content but rather improvements on existing content they already paid for might feel differently though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Personally (and understanding that contracts may limit/prohibit this), I think that anything officially published in a book should be standalone for that book and continually accessible unless it is a direct reprint. "Changes" to a race/monster/etc would therefore never overwrite something that previously existed (so the monsters /races in the upcoming MMM would not override the original versions of monsters/ races in Volos, MToF, MM, etc).
Errata is the fixing of mistakes, either in formatting or design. Those should overwrite, always.
Personally (and understanding that contracts may limit/prohibit this), I think that anything officially published in a book should be standalone for that book and continually accessible unless it is a direct reprint. "Changes" to a race/monster/etc would therefore never overwrite something that previously existed (so the monsters /races in the upcoming MMM would not override the original versions of monsters/ races in Volos, MToF, MM, etc).
Errata is the fixing of mistakes, either in formatting or design. Those should overwrite, always.
From what little I've seen, they appear to fixing a mistake in their design, whereby high level monsters were too complex to be run efficiently during combat, so they are simplifying them as part of their errata - less spells and more simple action abilities.
1 person's errata is another person's undesired changes.
Personally (and understanding that contracts may limit/prohibit this), I think that anything officially published in a book should be standalone for that book and continually accessible unless it is a direct reprint. "Changes" to a race/monster/etc would therefore never overwrite something that previously existed (so the monsters /races in the upcoming MMM would not override the original versions of monsters/ races in Volos, MToF, MM, etc).
Errata is the fixing of mistakes, either in formatting or design. Those should overwrite, always.
From what little I've seen, they appear to fixing a mistake in their design, whereby high level monsters were too complex to be run efficiently during combat, so they are simplifying them as part of their errata - less spells and more simple action abilities.
1 person's errata is another person's undesired changes.
This. Take the new Bladesinger arcane tradition or the updated Ranger class. Are they changes or errata? Were the original versions mistakes or merely something that could be better? Is something a mistake if you later change your mind, or is it just that sometimes ideas evolve? The Bladesinger has been treated as an erratum, but looking at both versions I find it really hard to support the idea that the second version fixes something clearly wrong with the design of the first version. The Ranger on the other hand feels much more like something WotC felt needed changing because there was something wrong with it (not in the least because they outright said they made the changes because it was the class with the most dissatisfaction among the polled users), yet that one wasn't treated as an erratum - both versions are available, they were made optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
From WotC's own site about errata: "D&D books occasionally receive corrections and other updates to their rules and story."
I think my confusion comes from both errata and changes overlapping the category of "other updates". They've essentially made a full book of "other updates". It's poorly defined in my opinion which updates are which hence the general confusion surrounding this release. As pointed out above it's been done both ways in the past - which way is M3 going to be handled. If all it takes is them slapping a new title on "other updates" to make them changes instead of errata well it still feels like the same thing and I personally feel both should be treated the same way. That way being we should be able to access older versions regardless of whether we are charged for either type of updates.
I think the big issue is that whenever a change is made to already published rules or adventures and people don’t like it, the argument is always “you can always just run your table the way you want, it’s not like WoTC is coming into your house and taking away the pages in your book”, except that for anyone using DDB that’s EXACTLY what’s happening. Hence, how this post and it’s poll get started. It’s companies forcing their changes down your throat and your only recourse is to stop using the site entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You wouldn't need dozens of variations of the whole rule sets just blurbs like so (see spoiler):
You could even add a single toggle to show errata areas at all for those who don't want to see them what so ever. The actual errata would be hidden except when you click to view it. Similar to post-it notes in a real book except you can hide them.
Errata'd content that would be integrated into the tools would be no different than what it looks like to everyone making copies of it in their homebrew. However I understand not wanting to see it which is why again I'd propose a single toggle for toggling pre errata content. You wouldn't need dozens of copies of things just one for each errata - which they do anyway since the old stuff gets archived and people who have it on their characters can continue to use it.
Obviously DDB can't do this unless WotC change thier minds but it wouldn't be as confusing/cluttered as people make it out to be.
That's exactly why both sets of books should be available. You can tell your players that the current copy is what you are using and not to use the archived copy.
I on the other hand am NOT going to be using much of the current errata, and also want to make sure MY players have access to the rules I am working with too.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
To be clear, are you suggesting keeping the old versions of the books archived or are you suggesting having multiple versions of every applicable option across the board?
If it's just keeping the books, sure, that would take very little work and storage space to deal with. If you're talking about all of the options, then no, that is a lot of work dedicated to giving a variety of versions of things that ultimately would barely be used and could much better be spend on new features.
Me or the OP?
I'm just talking about the books. I have PHB unlocked for example. I want to be able to read the most current version, and also the version as it was 10 years ago (or whenever it first got released). The DDB tools should all be one set, obviously, not multiple sets of tools; but their current tools already allow for homebrewing, and in many cases, all I need is a reference to know what I need to homebrew backwards.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
With the fact that over years of changes, keeping track of each iteration and having people be able to pick and choose which they want to follow or not would be very cumbersome. Do I dislike the way some subclasses have changed etc? Sure, but I don't wnat to keep track of multiple iterations. If I really dislike something (ie the state of the sorceror class) then I just use the Homebrew options to make it work as I need.
First and last only is the suggestion. Ignore the middle ones. It may be cumbersome to keep track of bunches of iterations. Not so much to keep track of 2 of 'em.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
First of all, what we think doesn't matter in the slightest. I'll come back to that. Secondly, everything has an opportunity cost. In this case a major one is the work that would have to go into the site. The dev team is already absolutely underwater and there are several aspects of published content that still have not been implemented in the builder.
Supporting two versions of everything takes work and time. Things they have clearly shown to be short on already. And every hour spent on this is an hour not spent on fixing the existing list of missing/broken features.
Alternately, this could be entirely a WotC decision. Having two versions of their game out there is confusing to the newbie players that 5e was made to draw in. And of course making old books obsolete is a tried-and-true method of selling new books (although I personally don't think it's fair to characterize updating a 10-year old book as profit-grubbing). At any rate, they may very well have told DDB exactly how this is to be implemented if they want to continue doing business together. We don't know.
Which brings me back to my first point. We don't know the variables here, but I really don't think this decision is going to be made on a level that checks the DDB forums before it makes the final call. I absolutely want you to have the game you want to play. I hope you will be able to use DDB to play it. But it costs me nothing to think that. What it costs DDB to do that, we don't know. But it ain't nothin.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
First and most recent version would only work if all players are using DDB exclusively.
Anybody using a printed copy may well have a revision of the rules which don't match either the "first" or "most recent"
I'm talking about not only having the previous editions available, but previous versions of monsters and races, and have them work in the character builder.
If my group doesn't like the way the playable races have been changed, we want to be able to use the previous versions when we build characters. People will tell me "just homebrew it", but if it can be done via homebrew, then it is also possible for the DDB team to have it available!
I also don't like the changes they've made to monster stats and monsters who use magic. I want to keep my OG monster stats.
These are really big changes to the game, and while I understand how in practice online use of IP works, it doesn't have to be that way. When I bought these books online originally I paid for X, now what I paid for is being changed to Y. If this happened IRL with a real object, we'd rightly call it Bait and Switch, but because it's online we all shrug our shoulders and say "Well, you're just paying for a license to access content, not the content, so suck it up." It doesn't have to be that way.
"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?
Do you take in homeless people? No? I guess that means you don't want them to have shelter. That's the sort of false equivalence you're making when you imply doing what's right for the company means wanting to deny their customers something. They're not the same thing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You are making the assumption about what is "right" for the company. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.
It is technically possible for them to move the existing monsters and races to an archived or "official homebrew" version that can still be chosen in the character builder. If I can do it, they can do it, and they should do it. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why they should deny users access to the existing races and monster stats that are changed in the new book.
"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?
Why exclusively as opposed to just at all? What does it matter what other sites are doing? We are all using DDB at the very least, whether or not we are also using d20 or whatever else. If the question is should DDB grant access to the initial printing in addition to the most current version, that has no bearing on whether or not you have other sources of information at your disposal. In fact, DDB having it would mean less incentive go seeking after other sources of information rather than spending more time on this site.
So what if someone does have a hardcopy of a revised printing? If they are using DDB, their digital copy is of the most current version anyway. Their book is technically just as obsolete as the first printing is. First and last just gives you the widest view of the changes made over the duration of the editions run.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
1) Even so, that doesn't mean you're not positing a false equivalence.
2) The prevailing theory is currently that they will make both versions available next to each other, but not for free. They'll be separate products, to be bought separately if you want access. If that's the case, that means WotC has decreed these are not errata and can't be folded into one purchase, tying DDB's hands.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If that's what happens, that's great! I have ZERO desire to buy the new book, and I DON'T want the new changes over-writing the content I've already paid for and want to continue using.
"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?
Like I said, you'd get your wish.
People who feel like this isn't new content but rather improvements on existing content they already paid for might feel differently though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Personally (and understanding that contracts may limit/prohibit this), I think that anything officially published in a book should be standalone for that book and continually accessible unless it is a direct reprint. "Changes" to a race/monster/etc would therefore never overwrite something that previously existed (so the monsters /races in the upcoming MMM would not override the original versions of monsters/ races in Volos, MToF, MM, etc).
Errata is the fixing of mistakes, either in formatting or design. Those should overwrite, always.
From what little I've seen, they appear to fixing a mistake in their design, whereby high level monsters were too complex to be run efficiently during combat, so they are simplifying them as part of their errata - less spells and more simple action abilities.
1 person's errata is another person's undesired changes.
This. Take the new Bladesinger arcane tradition or the updated Ranger class. Are they changes or errata? Were the original versions mistakes or merely something that could be better? Is something a mistake if you later change your mind, or is it just that sometimes ideas evolve? The Bladesinger has been treated as an erratum, but looking at both versions I find it really hard to support the idea that the second version fixes something clearly wrong with the design of the first version. The Ranger on the other hand feels much more like something WotC felt needed changing because there was something wrong with it (not in the least because they outright said they made the changes because it was the class with the most dissatisfaction among the polled users), yet that one wasn't treated as an erratum - both versions are available, they were made optional.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
From WotC's own site about errata: "D&D books occasionally receive corrections and other updates to their rules and story."
I think my confusion comes from both errata and changes overlapping the category of "other updates". They've essentially made a full book of "other updates". It's poorly defined in my opinion which updates are which hence the general confusion surrounding this release. As pointed out above it's been done both ways in the past - which way is M3 going to be handled. If all it takes is them slapping a new title on "other updates" to make them changes instead of errata well it still feels like the same thing and I personally feel both should be treated the same way. That way being we should be able to access older versions regardless of whether we are charged for either type of updates.
I think the big issue is that whenever a change is made to already published rules or adventures and people don’t like it, the argument is always “you can always just run your table the way you want, it’s not like WoTC is coming into your house and taking away the pages in your book”, except that for anyone using DDB that’s EXACTLY what’s happening. Hence, how this post and it’s poll get started. It’s companies forcing their changes down your throat and your only recourse is to stop using the site entirely.