Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product and aren’t interested in the adaptations have to have their stuff changed?
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
I mean, we can keep going around on this, but that's the crux of it. There's people who don't want to have changes forced on them because maybe they don't like every change, and there's others who don't want to have to pay for changes because that's not what they were promised when they bought a digital ruleset. Everyone wants what they want for their own reasons, nobody wants what they want just so others can't have what they want. "Why do some of us have to get what we don't want" is the wrong question. The question is why some of us can't get what we want, and the unfortunate answer is that it's so others can. Not everyone can get what they want, because some things some people want are incompatible with other things other people want. The implication that this is somehow unacceptable or not right by asking why is silly. It's life. We can't always get what we want. That's why.
Fine. That’s true. [REDACTED] You’re right, not everyone can be have it their way. But for those of us who lose out we have the right to be unhappy and to complain about it. After all, many of the changes came because others were unhappy and complained.
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
You don't have to pay to get your stuff changed. You can still get it changed for free; or you know, for the subscription fee or book prices you've already paid. They just can add the changes for you without also removing the preexisting content from me. This isn't a case where we both can't have what we want - at least WoTC contracts not withstanding. That's what OG guy keeps trying to say. You wont loose access to the updates just because I won't loose access to what was already there; and you can tell your table to stick with the default, so there really is no extra I.T. for you afterall. atm, there is extra I.T. for me, and I don't even have the reference materials to do it all from. An 'as-it-was' toggle will save 'me' some I.T. work. That really would be lovely, and a gesture I'm sure would inspire in the likes of I and mine an increased willingness to spend more money.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
You don't have to pay to get your stuff changed. You can still get it changed for free; or you know, for the subscription fee or book prices you've already paid. They just can add the changes for you without also removing the preexisting content from me. This isn't a case where we both can't have what we want - at least WoTC contracts not withstanding. That's what OG guy keeps trying to say. You wont loose access to the updates just because I won't loose access to what was already there; and you can tell your table to stick with the default, so there really is no extra I.T. for you afterall. atm, there is extra I.T. for me, and I don't even have the reference materials to do it all from. An 'as-it-was' toggle will save 'me' some I.T. work. That really would be lovely, and a gesture I'm sure would inspire in the likes of I and mine an increased willingness to spend more money.
Except I do? I mean, I'm not getting the changes of M³ for free, am I? WotC could do that if they wanted, but they don't, so here we are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product and aren’t interested in the adaptations have to have their stuff changed?
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
I mean, we can keep going around on this, but that's the crux of it. There's people who don't want to have changes forced on them because maybe they don't like every change, and there's others who don't want to have to pay for changes because that's not what they were promised when they bought a digital ruleset. Everyone wants what they want for their own reasons, nobody wants what they want just so others can't have what they want. "Why do some of us have to get what we don't want" is the wrong question. The question is why some of us can't get what we want, and the unfortunate answer is that it's so others can. Not everyone can get what they want, because some things some people want are incompatible with other things other people want. The implication that this is somehow unacceptable or not right by asking why is silly. It's life. We can't always get what we want. That's why.
Fine. That’s true. But for Yurei to constantly belittle others for not seeing things the same way and constantly over exaggerate every detail about something as if everyone else is an idiot for disagreeing gets old and is frankly insulting. You’re right, not everyone can be have it their way. But for those of us who lose out we have the right to be unhappy and to complain about it. After all, many of the changes came because others were unhappy and complained.
I don't mind the complaints. I mind the implication from some of the complaints that people just don't want others to have what they want. That's simply not the case, and it's an ugly way of painting people. Complain all you want, just make it about the issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fair enough I suppose, but that's a "new book" apparently is their claim.
Like I don't have the alternate class features yet from Tasha's, they didn't back add them to the PHB so I need to wait until I can unlock Tasha's to fiddle with some of my builds.
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
You don't have to pay to get your stuff changed. You can still get it changed for free; or you know, for the subscription fee or book prices you've already paid. They just can add the changes for you without also removing the preexisting content from me. This isn't a case where we both can't have what we want - at least WoTC contracts not withstanding. That's what OG guy keeps trying to say. You wont loose access to the updates just because I won't loose access to what was already there; and you can tell your table to stick with the default, so there really is no extra I.T. for you afterall. atm, there is extra I.T. for me, and I don't even have the reference materials to do it all from. An 'as-it-was' toggle will save 'me' some I.T. work. That really would be lovely, and a gesture I'm sure would inspire in the likes of I and mine an increased willingness to spend more money.
Except I do? I mean, I'm not getting the changes of M³ for free, am I? WotC could do that if they wanted, but they don't, so here we are.
Myself I want every free errata fix to every book I purchased here at DDB as I do download the errata pdf for my physical books, but considering that M3 is from everything I can tell is not being considered errata by WotC DDB has no reason to update any of the stuff that is in both one book and changed in M3 as it will be considered in the eyes of WotC as new material. If it turns out to be considered errata then that part should be updated as errata is done here at DDB like in the past. But do note that all of this I'm talking about is in the hands of WotC not DDB so I am not having any issues with them as they (DDB) have to wait until WotC make up their mind on what is going on. Now everything being decided behind the curtain so to speak if we wait and see what happens will I believe be a prime example of what will happen in 2024 with the major update to the core rules of the game, will the changes be considered errata or new materials. If new materials are you a Barbarian 5.0 or 5.5 and requiring 2 Player Handbooks and 2 monster manuals and 2 dungeon master guides potentially to play the game. These are things that really no one can answer at this time including WotC as they are risking the alienation of their player base with the coming changes.
Fair enough I suppose, but that's a "new book" apparently is their claim.
Like I don't have the alternate class features yet from Tasha's, they didn't back add them to the PHB so I need to wait until I can unlock Tasha's to fiddle with some of my builds.
Well, you do have have the changes from Tasha's (like the updated Bladesinger and Artificer). Those were treated as free-and-automatic errata. What you don't have is the optional extras from Tasha's. M³'s content, or at least the part we're talking about, isn't optional extras though. Nobody complains about paying for extra content; the issue revolves around paying for changes to existing, already-owned content. I appreciate the "new book" argument, but Tasha's was also a new book and it handled this the opposite way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't have any access to Artificer or Bladesinger yet at all.
Is M3 still in pre-release though? They may still do a set of updates by May perhaps of some things, and are currently just giving us a few months to acclimate -and to buy the book?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I don't have any access to Artificer or Bladesinger yet at all.
Is M3 still in pre-release though? They may still do a set of updates by May perhaps of some things, and are currently just giving us a few months to acclimate -and to buy the book?
Monsters of the Multiverse is still in pre-order and can be found here.
It's been stated that the content of Monsters of the Multiverse will not be replacing/updating existing content you own, but the specifics of how this will work haven't been finalised yet.
Because there is a line between reasonable requests and expectations versus unreasonable ones.
I'd consider myself fortunate, lucky and appreciated as a client by WoTC and DDB if there was just the one toggle between default mode (most current version) and original mode (initial release version). Asking for more than that seems unlikely at best to get any kind of a positive response from dev teams and site administrators.
What counts as "Original Mode", Shepherd? Which errata gets to be locked behind the 'OG' mode, and which is pushed as part of DDB's contractual obligation to keep the game current? How far back does "Original Mode" go? Gonna overturn the existing errata and restore the -2s to the Volo's species? Gonna go back and overturn every change and errata ever, have "Original Mode" be "as printed in 2014"? You talk about reasonable vs. unreasonable requests as if it's just so easy to create an entire second version of the DDB digital toolset for people who hate change, and even if they did exactly that for you? Someone else would say it's just as reasonable to create a third entire separate version of the toolset to accomodate their desire for "As originally printed except for this one thing...". And then someone will want a fourth. And then a fifth.
Where does it end? When is DDB allowed to put their foot down and say "we offer THIS digital toolset; we're not going to make a custom version of our toolset tailor-made to every last consumer's personal hang-ups and issues, you all have access to the homebrew tools for a reason."
Everybody has different standards of reasonable. For you? "As printed in 2014" would be enough. For October, Jay Lane, and Mayhem? That wouldn't be nearly enough, it's not remotely reasonable to them to expect DDB to stop there when the entire system could be scrapped and rebuilt to accomodate Build-Your-Own-DDB - no matter how disastrous that would be in reality. For me it's not really reasonable at all - even one "let's clone the entire DDB toolset except without ANYTHING that's been printed since 2014" is too many. I don't even like that DDB lets you get away with that shit with other player's submitted homebrew - player-submitted homebrew works exactly the way you and October and everyone else want the official books to work, where a player can dig through the revision history of the homebrew thing in question and actively pick out the worst, least refined, error-riddled version of whatever somebody's been spending a lot of time and effort to try and get right and use that instead. Players can choose to just outright ignore the homebrew author's attempts to refine and improve their homebrew and use whichever shitty terrible "O G Version" they want to.
And everybody ******* HATES IT.
The fact that DDB doesn't enforce updates on player-submitted homebrew is why I submit very little homebrew and why I never bother with new versions or updates for anything I do submit, even in the occasional case where I'd love to update something. Why bother? Nobody will use it, people will just fish for the original, terrible version of whatever it is I wrote anyways. Threads pop up a few times a year where people ask if they can change or delete their submitted homebrew, it's answered "no but you can make a new version", it's asked in turn "would the new version actually accomplish anything or be used by anybody?" and DDB is deafeningly silent on the issue. Why in the name of whichever god you like the best would DDB believe it would be allowed to do that to Wizards of the Coast? Tell them "no - whichever old shitty terrible version of your books you printed first is the only version you get to publish, we're not gonna allow you to change or muck with ANYTHING."
And finally, because it came up elsewhere: A brief interview Gizmodo did with Jeremy Crawford. In it, he bold-facedly, baldly states that Wizards does not like that Ye Olde Guarde style ruleset makes players feel like they're forced to pair certain species with certain classes. They consider it an undesireable outcome of the existing system. Direct quote from J-Craw:
"For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class. Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed."
And yet, every time the design team tries to fix that over-strong connection, a particular splinter of the playerbase pitches an absolute tantrum and starts throwing around ugly words and accusing both Wizards and the players who appreciate those changes of some pretty outright terrible things.
This ain't about wokeness or unwokeness. This ain't about some folks being fun-hating Grinches that want to spoil everybody's game. This is about Wizards changing their game to offer improved freedom for a majority of their current audience, and the subset of that audience that enjoys telling anyone who finds that increased freedom valuable that they're outright evil for doing so.
[REDACTED]
Notes: All users are expected to remain polite and civil in their exchanges no matter how passionately they may feel about a subject
I'd like to address the assertion that I have been slinging crap about people, or have accused people of trying to stop the fun of other people: I would argue that we got the final decision we did from WotC and DDB partially because of the loud debates here. If not for the ongoing threads on this topic, things might have gone differently. Some people in this forum have argued very loudly, and with much invective, that the changes from MMM should be rolled back to the previous books, and that there should be only one "official" way to play D&D. I steadfastly maintain that this is not a good way to go. As far as I am concerned, the existing books pre-MMM are part of the "official" way to play, and MMM provides us with new options that will be great for many people. I say that some people are trying to hurt the fun of others, because they loudly champion the idea of the "one true right good" way of playing D&D. I stand by what I've said. There are people in this forum who, if they had their way, would make it so that other DDB users who paid for X would no longer be able to use DDB to play their games with X.
To address some of the specific points that have been brought up by certain users:
1. No, I don't believe, nor do I think there would be, a switch, toggle, or button to undo EVERY errata every published. Let's be clear, if WotC needs to correct an actual error then they should, and it should roll back. Honestly, I wish I could trade in my physical original printing of the PHB to get the most up to date version, but I can't. No one is saying that every errata should have a switch to undo, suggesting otherwise is hyperbole. If it is errata, fix it. If it's a different way of playing the game then it should be offered as an option, NOT the "one true right good way to play".
2. DEV workload or ability: That they can offer Homebrew, and that they have decided that MMM will not overwrite the OG books, means that technically this is possible to do. The amount of work this makes for the DEVs is none of our concern. DDB isn't a charity, and I don't pay for books and a subscription as charity, I do it to get a product.
3. Wokeness: I totally support equality in gaming, and that all people are welcome to play. Period. We will, however, disagree on what that means, and I am not going to rehash the argument here, but we need to be careful we don't stray too far in to the idea that there is only "one true right way" to play D&D.
I understand that some DMs like to limit their players' choices. I disagree, but it's not up to me how other DMs run their tables, just like it's not up to other DMs how I run mine.
Finally I want to talk about the new edition of D&D coming out in 2024.
In ye olde days of 3.5e, towards the end, there was a book released called Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords, which introduced some new options for martial classes. Many people felt that this book was a sort of preview of what was coming in 4th edition. There was an article (which I can't find atm but will keep looking for) that even suggested ToB:Bo9S was released by WotC to test the waters for ideas they had for 4e.
I would argue that MMM is similarly WotC testing new ideas for the new version of D&D expected in 2024. Which brings up the question of... what happens to D&D Beyond when 6th Edition arrives in 2024?
QUESTION: Will D&D Beyond launch a new site for 6th Edition, and keep the 5th Edition site as well? Will there just be a new 6th Edition D&D Beyond, and the 5th Edition site goes away? Or will 6th Edition overwrite all of the current version of the game?
I don't think the last option is realistic at all, and I'm sure even certain people on this forum will agree. There is NO WAY in heck that WotC will give existing DDB users all of 6th edition for free. Yes, the classes may have the same names, but the 6e PHB won't be free. The Monsters will have the same names, but the 6e MM won't be free. It won't be errata, it will be a new version of the game.
When 6e comes out in 2024, you will have to buy all the new books. You won't be getting it from free. It won't roll out as an auto-update to your existing books.
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?
I don't have any access to Artificer or Bladesinger yet at all.
Well, if you had bought them pre-Tasha's you'd now have the post-Tasha's versions. The updates would have been free but unavoidable. So "new book" doesn't count as an argument, or at least it didn't use to count - Tasha's was that new book back then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Which errata gets to be locked behind the 'OG' mode, and which is pushed as part of DDB's contractual obligation to keep the game current?
How far back does "Original Mode" go?
Gonna overturn the existing errata and restore the -2s to the Volo's species?
Gonna go back and overturn every change and errata ever, have "Original Mode" be "as printed in 2014"?
You talk about reasonable vs. unreasonable requests as if it's just so easy to create an entire second version of the DDB digital toolset for people who hate change, and even if they did exactly that for you? Someone else would say it's just as reasonable to create a third entire separate version of the toolset to accomodate their desire for "As originally printed except for this one thing...". And then someone will want a fourth. And then a fifth.
Where does it end? When is DDB allowed to put their foot down and say "we offer THIS digital toolset; we're not going to make a custom version of our toolset tailor-made to every last consumer's personal hang-ups and issues, you all have access to the homebrew tools for a reason."
Everybody has different standards of reasonable. For you? "As printed in 2014" would be enough. For October, Jay Lane, and Mayhem? That wouldn't be nearly enough, it's not remotely reasonable to them to expect DDB to stop there when the entire system could be scrapped and rebuilt to accomodate Build-Your-Own-DDB - no matter how disastrous that would be in reality. For me it's not really reasonable at all - even one "let's clone the entire DDB toolset except without ANYTHING that's been printed since 2014" is too many. I don't even like that DDB lets you get away with that shit with other player's submitted homebrew - player-submitted homebrew works exactly the way you and October and everyone else want the official books to work, where a player can dig through the revision history of the homebrew thing in question and actively pick out the worst, least refined, error-riddled version of whatever somebody's been spending a lot of time and effort to try and get right and use that instead. Players can choose to just outright ignore the homebrew author's attempts to refine and improve their homebrew and use whichever shitty terrible "O G Version" they want to.
And everybody ******* HATES IT.
The fact that DDB doesn't enforce updates on player-submitted homebrew is why I submit very little homebrew and why I never bother with new versions or updates for anything I do submit, even in the occasional case where I'd love to update something. Why bother? Nobody will use it, people will just fish for the original, terrible version of whatever it is I wrote anyways. Threads pop up a few times a year where people ask if they can change or delete their submitted homebrew, it's answered "no but you can make a new version", it's asked in turn "would the new version actually accomplish anything or be used by anybody?" and DDB is deafeningly silent on the issue. Why in the name of whichever god you like the best would DDB believe it would be allowed to do that to Wizards of the Coast? Tell them "no - whichever old shitty terrible version of your books you printed first is the only version you get to publish, we're not gonna allow you to change or muck with ANYTHING."
And finally, because it came up elsewhere: A brief interview Gizmodo did with Jeremy Crawford. In it, he bold-facedly, baldly states that Wizards does not like that Ye Olde Guarde style ruleset makes players feel like they're forced to pair certain species with certain classes. They consider it an undesireable outcome of the existing system. Direct quote from J-Craw:
"For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class. Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed."
And yet, every time the design team tries to fix that over-strong connection, a particular splinter of the playerbase pitches an absolute tantrum and starts throwing around ugly words and accusing both Wizards and the players who appreciate those changes of some pretty outright terrible things.
This ain't about wokeness or unwokeness. This ain't about some folks being fun-hating Grinches that want to spoil everybody's game. This is about Wizards changing their game to offer improved freedom for a majority of their current audience, and the subset of that audience that enjoys telling anyone who finds that increased freedom valuable that they're outright evil for doing so.
[REDACTED]
Initial release version.
By definition, initial release version would have no errata in it at all as any errata are by default something which is done after a products initial release.
As far back as when any given book was initially released. In the case of the PHB, if it was initially released in 2014, it would go as far back as 2014.
Yes.
Yes. The idea is to read it, and also read the current version; and between the two, to cherry-pick what I like best from each for use in homebrew.
It doesn't require a whole second version of the toolset Yurei. The toolset as it stands manages to allow for the incorporation of: Homebrew Content, Critical Role Content, Magic: The Gathering Content, Eberron Content, Rick and Morty Content, Noncore D&D Content; and also digital dice rolling enable vs disable, optional class features enable or disable, custom origins enable or disable; advancement by milestone or XP, HP gains by a fixed rate or manually, use of feats or not, use of requirements for multiclassing or not, use of encumbrance mechanics or not, whether or not your coins have weight; and whether you want your ability scores or their modifiers to be displayed in the big boxes on your character sheet. A 'pre-errata toggle would be akin to all of these. It just splices in the missing bits or doesn't based on whether toggled gray for default or red for ... what's a better word for initial? ... Legacy? "Except for this one thing" is what the homebrew is for. It's only a base of reference that is needed.
? I don't know what the reason is they didn't say that to Rick and Morty. I suppose it ends when a poll such as this asking for more access to lost content doesn't garner a 2/3 affirmative response. i.e. when they can be reasonably sure that the majority of their client base is satisfied with what is on offer and feels no need to go looking for more information elsewhere. It's the information that's the key thing here so we can best make use of the homebrew feature; without the information, we are kind of flying blind trying to imagine what might be missing rather than knowing what is.
I'm sure whoever is actually in charge has their own definition of reasonable, and all of ours will fall on one side or the other of theirs. I find it best to simply state what I think is reasonable, then let whomever it may concern decide just 'how' reasonable it is. ... Re DDB talking to WoTC; it would be more like "Hey our client base is asking to see the pre and post errata pages simultaneously, anything we can work out to accommodate them"? If you prefer a little more assertive: "Hey, our client base is demanding to see both pre-and post-errata pages simultaneously; and going elsewhere for the missing information; anything we can do to accommodate them here instead"? It's all in the delivery.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can get myself into a position to directly argue with J. Crawford about why he is wrong ;-P.
I find to the best way to do character generation is to pick your ability scores first, prioritizing whether you want to play someone strong versus nimble versus resilient versus brainy, versus wise, versus charismatic, etc. then peruse the backgrounds and decide where you are coming from first, then pick your class - what you want to do and decide how that sprung from your background; then lastly, to choose your race, presuming the background didn't speak at all to the concept such as clan crafter does - the first question is: Human Being? It meshes with every class, is easiest to rp as you are already one in rl and so already know the ropes about being human; if you are a newbie to the genre or game, it a good recommendation for first character until you can see some other creature types being played to give you inspiration for your next character. If your answer to 'Human Being?' is "NO!" and you aren't someone who already is familiar with the D&D races and happens to favor one in particular for your concept, then one way to approach the situation is to list the races by features (including ASI's&P's), but cover up the names and pictures, so you choose what features are most complimentary to your build; then see what race you have chosen and go read up on that particular race for the flavor context.
A lot of people, I presume J. Crawford included, tend to assume you are going to pick your race first, and then build your character around that race as it's foundational concept. The trick is not to do that, but pick your Role first, largely based on which attribute you favor using most often, taking a class that does that role and making race the final touch of optimizing around that chosen role. This de-emphasizes the importance of race as a choice for casual creators who don't know or have access to all the materials and lore-building aspects of each race.
I suppose it's like trying to 'fix' the attribute system or the d20 vs 2d10 thing. There are pro's to it, but you are nevertheless intruding into 'sacred-cow' territory, and many will not appreciate that; especially if you purposefully deny the means of capability to compensate around the intrusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I don't have any access to Artificer or Bladesinger yet at all.
Well, if you had bought them pre-Tasha's you'd now have the post-Tasha's versions. The updates would have been free but unavoidable. So "new book" doesn't count as an argument, or at least it didn't use to count - Tasha's was that new book back then.
Ah, fair enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fine. That’s true. [REDACTED] You’re right, not everyone can be have it their way. But for those of us who lose out we have the right to be unhappy and to complain about it. After all, many of the changes came because others were unhappy and complained.
You don't have to pay to get your stuff changed. You can still get it changed for free; or you know, for the subscription fee or book prices you've already paid. They just can add the changes for you without also removing the preexisting content from me. This isn't a case where we both can't have what we want - at least WoTC contracts not withstanding. That's what OG guy keeps trying to say. You wont loose access to the updates just because I won't loose access to what was already there; and you can tell your table to stick with the default, so there really is no extra I.T. for you afterall. atm, there is extra I.T. for me, and I don't even have the reference materials to do it all from. An 'as-it-was' toggle will save 'me' some I.T. work. That really would be lovely, and a gesture I'm sure would inspire in the likes of I and mine an increased willingness to spend more money.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Except I do? I mean, I'm not getting the changes of M³ for free, am I? WotC could do that if they wanted, but they don't, so here we are.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't mind the complaints. I mind the implication from some of the complaints that people just don't want others to have what they want. That's simply not the case, and it's an ugly way of painting people. Complain all you want, just make it about the issue.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fair enough I suppose, but that's a "new book" apparently is their claim.
Like I don't have the alternate class features yet from Tasha's, they didn't back add them to the PHB so I need to wait until I can unlock Tasha's to fiddle with some of my builds.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Myself I want every free errata fix to every book I purchased here at DDB as I do download the errata pdf for my physical books, but considering that M3 is from everything I can tell is not being considered errata by WotC DDB has no reason to update any of the stuff that is in both one book and changed in M3 as it will be considered in the eyes of WotC as new material. If it turns out to be considered errata then that part should be updated as errata is done here at DDB like in the past. But do note that all of this I'm talking about is in the hands of WotC not DDB so I am not having any issues with them as they (DDB) have to wait until WotC make up their mind on what is going on. Now everything being decided behind the curtain so to speak if we wait and see what happens will I believe be a prime example of what will happen in 2024 with the major update to the core rules of the game, will the changes be considered errata or new materials. If new materials are you a Barbarian 5.0 or 5.5 and requiring 2 Player Handbooks and 2 monster manuals and 2 dungeon master guides potentially to play the game. These are things that really no one can answer at this time including WotC as they are risking the alienation of their player base with the coming changes.
Well, you do have have the changes from Tasha's (like the updated Bladesinger and Artificer). Those were treated as free-and-automatic errata. What you don't have is the optional extras from Tasha's. M³'s content, or at least the part we're talking about, isn't optional extras though. Nobody complains about paying for extra content; the issue revolves around paying for changes to existing, already-owned content. I appreciate the "new book" argument, but Tasha's was also a new book and it handled this the opposite way.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't have any access to Artificer or Bladesinger yet at all.
Is M3 still in pre-release though? They may still do a set of updates by May perhaps of some things, and are currently just giving us a few months to acclimate -and to buy the book?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Monsters of the Multiverse is still in pre-order and can be found here.
It's been stated that the content of Monsters of the Multiverse will not be replacing/updating existing content you own, but the specifics of how this will work haven't been finalised yet.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
[REDACTED]
What counts as "Original Mode", Shepherd? Which errata gets to be locked behind the 'OG' mode, and which is pushed as part of DDB's contractual obligation to keep the game current? How far back does "Original Mode" go? Gonna overturn the existing errata and restore the -2s to the Volo's species? Gonna go back and overturn every change and errata ever, have "Original Mode" be "as printed in 2014"? You talk about reasonable vs. unreasonable requests as if it's just so easy to create an entire second version of the DDB digital toolset for people who hate change, and even if they did exactly that for you? Someone else would say it's just as reasonable to create a third entire separate version of the toolset to accomodate their desire for "As originally printed except for this one thing...". And then someone will want a fourth. And then a fifth.
Where does it end? When is DDB allowed to put their foot down and say "we offer THIS digital toolset; we're not going to make a custom version of our toolset tailor-made to every last consumer's personal hang-ups and issues, you all have access to the homebrew tools for a reason."
Everybody has different standards of reasonable. For you? "As printed in 2014" would be enough. For October, Jay Lane, and Mayhem? That wouldn't be nearly enough, it's not remotely reasonable to them to expect DDB to stop there when the entire system could be scrapped and rebuilt to accomodate Build-Your-Own-DDB - no matter how disastrous that would be in reality. For me it's not really reasonable at all - even one "let's clone the entire DDB toolset except without ANYTHING that's been printed since 2014" is too many. I don't even like that DDB lets you get away with that shit with other player's submitted homebrew - player-submitted homebrew works exactly the way you and October and everyone else want the official books to work, where a player can dig through the revision history of the homebrew thing in question and actively pick out the worst, least refined, error-riddled version of whatever somebody's been spending a lot of time and effort to try and get right and use that instead. Players can choose to just outright ignore the homebrew author's attempts to refine and improve their homebrew and use whichever shitty terrible "O G Version" they want to.
And everybody ******* HATES IT.
The fact that DDB doesn't enforce updates on player-submitted homebrew is why I submit very little homebrew and why I never bother with new versions or updates for anything I do submit, even in the occasional case where I'd love to update something. Why bother? Nobody will use it, people will just fish for the original, terrible version of whatever it is I wrote anyways. Threads pop up a few times a year where people ask if they can change or delete their submitted homebrew, it's answered "no but you can make a new version", it's asked in turn "would the new version actually accomplish anything or be used by anybody?" and DDB is deafeningly silent on the issue. Why in the name of whichever god you like the best would DDB believe it would be allowed to do that to Wizards of the Coast? Tell them "no - whichever old shitty terrible version of your books you printed first is the only version you get to publish, we're not gonna allow you to change or muck with ANYTHING."
And finally, because it came up elsewhere:
A brief interview Gizmodo did with Jeremy Crawford. In it, he bold-facedly, baldly states that Wizards does not like that Ye Olde Guarde style ruleset makes players feel like they're forced to pair certain species with certain classes. They consider it an undesireable outcome of the existing system. Direct quote from J-Craw:
And yet, every time the design team tries to fix that over-strong connection, a particular splinter of the playerbase pitches an absolute tantrum and starts throwing around ugly words and accusing both Wizards and the players who appreciate those changes of some pretty outright terrible things.
This ain't about wokeness or unwokeness. This ain't about some folks being fun-hating Grinches that want to spoil everybody's game. This is about Wizards changing their game to offer improved freedom for a majority of their current audience, and the subset of that audience that enjoys telling anyone who finds that increased freedom valuable that they're outright evil for doing so.
[REDACTED]
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd like to address the assertion that I have been slinging crap about people, or have accused people of trying to stop the fun of other people: I would argue that we got the final decision we did from WotC and DDB partially because of the loud debates here. If not for the ongoing threads on this topic, things might have gone differently. Some people in this forum have argued very loudly, and with much invective, that the changes from MMM should be rolled back to the previous books, and that there should be only one "official" way to play D&D. I steadfastly maintain that this is not a good way to go. As far as I am concerned, the existing books pre-MMM are part of the "official" way to play, and MMM provides us with new options that will be great for many people. I say that some people are trying to hurt the fun of others, because they loudly champion the idea of the "one true right good" way of playing D&D. I stand by what I've said. There are people in this forum who, if they had their way, would make it so that other DDB users who paid for X would no longer be able to use DDB to play their games with X.
To address some of the specific points that have been brought up by certain users:
1. No, I don't believe, nor do I think there would be, a switch, toggle, or button to undo EVERY errata every published. Let's be clear, if WotC needs to correct an actual error then they should, and it should roll back. Honestly, I wish I could trade in my physical original printing of the PHB to get the most up to date version, but I can't. No one is saying that every errata should have a switch to undo, suggesting otherwise is hyperbole. If it is errata, fix it. If it's a different way of playing the game then it should be offered as an option, NOT the "one true right good way to play".
2. DEV workload or ability: That they can offer Homebrew, and that they have decided that MMM will not overwrite the OG books, means that technically this is possible to do. The amount of work this makes for the DEVs is none of our concern. DDB isn't a charity, and I don't pay for books and a subscription as charity, I do it to get a product.
3. Wokeness: I totally support equality in gaming, and that all people are welcome to play. Period. We will, however, disagree on what that means, and I am not going to rehash the argument here, but we need to be careful we don't stray too far in to the idea that there is only "one true right way" to play D&D.
I understand that some DMs like to limit their players' choices. I disagree, but it's not up to me how other DMs run their tables, just like it's not up to other DMs how I run mine.
Finally I want to talk about the new edition of D&D coming out in 2024.
In ye olde days of 3.5e, towards the end, there was a book released called Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords, which introduced some new options for martial classes. Many people felt that this book was a sort of preview of what was coming in 4th edition. There was an article (which I can't find atm but will keep looking for) that even suggested ToB:Bo9S was released by WotC to test the waters for ideas they had for 4e.
I would argue that MMM is similarly WotC testing new ideas for the new version of D&D expected in 2024. Which brings up the question of... what happens to D&D Beyond when 6th Edition arrives in 2024?
QUESTION: Will D&D Beyond launch a new site for 6th Edition, and keep the 5th Edition site as well? Will there just be a new 6th Edition D&D Beyond, and the 5th Edition site goes away? Or will 6th Edition overwrite all of the current version of the game?
I don't think the last option is realistic at all, and I'm sure even certain people on this forum will agree. There is NO WAY in heck that WotC will give existing DDB users all of 6th edition for free. Yes, the classes may have the same names, but the 6e PHB won't be free. The Monsters will have the same names, but the 6e MM won't be free. It won't be errata, it will be a new version of the game.
When 6e comes out in 2024, you will have to buy all the new books. You won't be getting it from free. It won't roll out as an auto-update to your existing books.
"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?
Well, if you had bought them pre-Tasha's you'd now have the post-Tasha's versions. The updates would have been free but unavoidable. So "new book" doesn't count as an argument, or at least it didn't use to count - Tasha's was that new book back then.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Initial release version.
By definition, initial release version would have no errata in it at all as any errata are by default something which is done after a products initial release.
As far back as when any given book was initially released. In the case of the PHB, if it was initially released in 2014, it would go as far back as 2014.
Yes.
Yes. The idea is to read it, and also read the current version; and between the two, to cherry-pick what I like best from each for use in homebrew.
It doesn't require a whole second version of the toolset Yurei. The toolset as it stands manages to allow for the incorporation of: Homebrew Content, Critical Role Content, Magic: The Gathering Content, Eberron Content, Rick and Morty Content, Noncore D&D Content; and also digital dice rolling enable vs disable, optional class features enable or disable, custom origins enable or disable; advancement by milestone or XP, HP gains by a fixed rate or manually, use of feats or not, use of requirements for multiclassing or not, use of encumbrance mechanics or not, whether or not your coins have weight; and whether you want your ability scores or their modifiers to be displayed in the big boxes on your character sheet. A 'pre-errata toggle would be akin to all of these. It just splices in the missing bits or doesn't based on whether toggled gray for default or red for ... what's a better word for initial? ... Legacy? "Except for this one thing" is what the homebrew is for. It's only a base of reference that is needed.
? I don't know what the reason is they didn't say that to Rick and Morty. I suppose it ends when a poll such as this asking for more access to lost content doesn't garner a 2/3 affirmative response. i.e. when they can be reasonably sure that the majority of their client base is satisfied with what is on offer and feels no need to go looking for more information elsewhere. It's the information that's the key thing here so we can best make use of the homebrew feature; without the information, we are kind of flying blind trying to imagine what might be missing rather than knowing what is.
I'm sure whoever is actually in charge has their own definition of reasonable, and all of ours will fall on one side or the other of theirs. I find it best to simply state what I think is reasonable, then let whomever it may concern decide just 'how' reasonable it is. ... Re DDB talking to WoTC; it would be more like "Hey our client base is asking to see the pre and post errata pages simultaneously, anything we can work out to accommodate them"? If you prefer a little more assertive: "Hey, our client base is demanding to see both pre-and post-errata pages simultaneously; and going elsewhere for the missing information; anything we can do to accommodate them here instead"? It's all in the delivery.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can get myself into a position to directly argue with J. Crawford about why he is wrong ;-P.
I find to the best way to do character generation is to pick your ability scores first, prioritizing whether you want to play someone strong versus nimble versus resilient versus brainy, versus wise, versus charismatic, etc. then peruse the backgrounds and decide where you are coming from first, then pick your class - what you want to do and decide how that sprung from your background; then lastly, to choose your race, presuming the background didn't speak at all to the concept such as clan crafter does - the first question is: Human Being? It meshes with every class, is easiest to rp as you are already one in rl and so already know the ropes about being human; if you are a newbie to the genre or game, it a good recommendation for first character until you can see some other creature types being played to give you inspiration for your next character. If your answer to 'Human Being?' is "NO!" and you aren't someone who already is familiar with the D&D races and happens to favor one in particular for your concept, then one way to approach the situation is to list the races by features (including ASI's&P's), but cover up the names and pictures, so you choose what features are most complimentary to your build; then see what race you have chosen and go read up on that particular race for the flavor context.
A lot of people, I presume J. Crawford included, tend to assume you are going to pick your race first, and then build your character around that race as it's foundational concept. The trick is not to do that, but pick your Role first, largely based on which attribute you favor using most often, taking a class that does that role and making race the final touch of optimizing around that chosen role. This de-emphasizes the importance of race as a choice for casual creators who don't know or have access to all the materials and lore-building aspects of each race.
I suppose it's like trying to 'fix' the attribute system or the d20 vs 2d10 thing. There are pro's to it, but you are nevertheless intruding into 'sacred-cow' territory, and many will not appreciate that; especially if you purposefully deny the means of capability to compensate around the intrusion.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Ah, fair enough.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.