There's also a need in eCommerce/content sales platforms that has to convey a level of stability. If I buy content from you, and I have spent over $200 buying piecemeal over just the last few months (and was planning to buy more because I like the convenience of a digital environment), it makes me very hesitant to continue my purchases because I intuit that policy is fully committed to turning off services/content I've paid for -- without recourse.
As at now, like many others, I can't consider buying anything because I don't know what will happen to it if it somehow fails to work commercially. TBH, while your commercials have to work, it's not a problem you can foist on customers.
Again, not making this personal, but the take away, should be that fostering online services necessitates taking on the role of being reliable and trustworthy. An simple analogy: You wouldn't sign up for any online service, and pay them, if you didn't have some sense they would exist shortly thereafter. You wouldn't even order a birthday cake from a brick and mortar if you didn't expect them to be there by the time the party rolled around. Drastically altering the terms of engagement, as legal as it may be, breaks trust.
I will also be adopting a wait and see for now, and will probably look around to see if there's decent replacement services/software. Even if this/these decisions on piecemeal are reversed I'm not sure I have the confidence to buy like before -- I have developed a very real concern that Hasbro/WoTC may change things on a whim (from my perspective) and the latest quarterly results.
But I think it's a fair point. When Independant creators are able to churn out well balanced subclasses, Feats, magic items, and even adventures with a high degree of regularity, why can't WOTC, with their *significantly* higher degree of resources do the same? Yes there are only so many books you can release before you cause fatigue. But they could provide much better content within the ones they have.
Are they really better than Wizards' stuff though? What about them makes it better than Wizards' content? I do not see this perceived quality increase that third party content has over official content. Granted I do not care much for third party content in general so I have not seen much, but I have not seen anything that amazed me either out of the stuff that I do see. If anything, I find more interesting things and get more inspirations outside of the TTRPG space than in it. The only two things that third party can potentially do better than Wizards is on price of content, and the organization of the content.
Another thing to consider is convenience and quality of life experience. Wizards and Paizo can provide everything you need to run a game smoothly and easily. As a GM, one of my most important tools are monster cards and Beyond's monster database. Paizo got a database and cards too, but I am not aware of any other game that has their own database of monsters or sell their own monster cards. Additionally, looking up rules is way easier with Beyond, and while Beyond's search does suck, with how popular D&D is, you will have an easier time looking things up on Google compared to another game. And as horribly monolingual Beyond is, Wizards as a whole is not, and you can share the joys of D&D with people who speak a different language than you with the physical books in different languages. It is going to be extremely difficult to communicate, but you can do hack-and-slash and dungeon crawling games and rely on the boardgame aspect of D&D.
And most uniquely, I do not know of any other TTRPG that lets you purchase piecemeal content at Beyond's level of granularity and scale. D&D and Beyond no longer has it either, hence this sad PSA thread, but it did have it at one point!
I think when you look at better and worse it's a bit of a subjective take on things. When you look at things like classes, subclasses, spells, Feats and the like... It is hard to quantify.
To clarify, I am explicitly talking about content compatible with 5e here.
What I will say is that in my opinion, there are far more creators out there who can produce reliable balanced content, at a significantly higher pace than WOTC can, with a relatively similar ratio of hits to misses. Just because it has the wizards of the coast stamp on it does not make it inherently better than a third party - it just means it got through their QA process.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
And to be clear, I'm not naysaying the Dndbeyond tool - it's incredible. It's why I'm so invested (financially and emotionally :D)
What I am saying is that the quality of dndbeyond as a resource is entirely separate to the ability to produce content for it. If Wizards don't produce good quality books, with resources worth purchasing, then the tool starts to loose Its lustre.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
In a 50 year old, still very popular game? They clearly have gotten enough right to get this far.
Edit: And this is a luxury product. It is not like anyone will end up with malnutrition from any imbalances. Nor will their homes be too cold or too hot or the air or water somehow toxic. Perspective here. If you do not like the product, you are not obligated to buy it. Never have been.
I can't consider buying anything because I don't know what will happen to it if it somehow fails to work commercially.
I'm sorry, but... what are you talking about? Your existing purchases aren't going anywhere. DDB isn't going anywhere. D&D isn't going anywhere
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
In a 50 year old, still very popular game? They clearly have gotten enough right to get this far.
Edit: And this is a luxury product. It is not like anyone will end up with malnutrition from any imbalances. Nor will their homes be too cold or too hot or the air or water somehow toxic. Perspective here. If you do not like the product, you are not obligated to buy it. Never have been.
I mean, I do agree with what you're saying - it certainly isn't life or death here - but I don't think anyone's arguing that it is. I don't however agree that we can't critique a product, simply by merit of it being a luxury product.
And even then, I'm not complaining so much as pointing out they clearly don't feel passionately about a balanced system. It isn't the robust QA process that prevents them from releasing content for players to use - it's a lack of content that prevents that.
And even then, I'm not bemoaning the lack of content in and of itself - I'm Just saying - that if WOTC want players to buy more stuff (One of their core goals) then they should release books with enough content they will use to tempt them, and not some of the player-option-anaemic books they have, as of late.
Edit: I should clarify, I am a DM, and I own most of the books (Up until about the last year - bit light on the newest ones I have to admit). But if we look at a recent example - The Book of Many Things. $30 - and total player options? 2 backgrounds, 1 feat, 3 spells. What player would spend $30 for those? If they were a completionist and wanted the full book? sure. But that's a relatively small number of the player base. Add in a few more spells, feats and subclasses - and it actually starts looking like a tempting buy (See Tashas, Xanathars, etc).
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
In a 50 year old, still very popular game? They clearly have gotten enough right to get this far.
Edit: And this is a luxury product. It is not like anyone will end up with malnutrition from any imbalances. Nor will their homes be too cold or too hot or the air or water somehow toxic. Perspective here. If you do not like the product, you are not obligated to buy it. Never have been.
I mean, I do agree with what you're saying - it certainly isn't life or death here - but I don't think anyone's arguing that it is. I don't however agree that we can't critique a product, simply by merit of it being a luxury product.
And even then, I'm not complaining so much as pointing out they clearly don't feel passionately about a balanced system. It isn't the robust QA process that prevents them from releasing content for players to use - it's a lack of content that prevents that.
And even then, I'm not bemoaning the lack of content in and of itself - I'm Just saying - that if WOTC want players to buy more stuff (One of their core goals) then they should release books with enough content they will use to tempt them, and not some of the player-option-anaemic books they have, as of late.
Edit: I should clarify, I am a DM, and I own most of the books (Up until about the last year - bit light on the newest ones I have to admit). But if we look at a recent example - The Book of Many Things. $30 - and total player options? 2 backgrounds, 1 feat, 3 spells. What player would spend $30 for those? If they were a completionist and wanted the full book? sure. But that's a relatively small number of the player base. Add in a few more spells, feats and subclasses - and it actually starts looking like a tempting buy (See Tashas, Xanathars, etc).
I was really wondering about their logic with the Deck of Many Things book. The one item most experienced DM's learn to avoid at all costs and they want to write a whole rule book around it? WHY??? sigh...
And you are right about player options being far greater as selling points than other things, but then there are the 'More settings' folks who might be an influence there?
I was really wondering about their logic with the Deck of Many Things book. The one item most experienced DM's learn to avoid at all costs and they want to write a whole rule book around it? WHY??? sigh...
And you are right about player options being far greater as selling points than other things, but then there are the 'More settings' folks who might be an influence there?
And I admit, I'm a sucker for a good setting book too. I'm still itching for a Dark Sun book. I think WOTC would do well to understand the value of seeing what each side of their consumer base want - Some are after monsters, settings, lore, adventures - and others are after options, and mechanics. Its not perfectly split down the middle between DM's and Players there - but I suspect the demographics lean in that way.
To me, the A la carté stuff was the perfect solution to that - A book that holds almost no appeal to a player could still generate some revenue from a person, if there was a particular feat, background or spell that leapt out. I would even understand it more if they stopped the 'micro' buys, if the card transaction fees are really a big deal - and switched to mini-bundles for each book. Varying degrees of "Buy all the player options" or "buy all the Feats" as opposed to allowing people to buy specific spells.
I would even understand it more if they stopped the 'micro' buys, if the card transaction fees are really a big deal - and switched to mini-bundles for each book. Varying degrees of "Buy all the player options" or "buy all the Feats" as opposed to allowing people to buy specific spells.
That's far too reasonable an idea for WotC to implement.
In seriousness, I might've been fine with that provided they actually announce their damned changes to begin with.
I can't consider buying anything because I don't know what will happen to it if it somehow fails to work commercially.
I'm sorry, but... what are you talking about? Your existing purchases aren't going anywhere. DDB isn't going anywhere. D&D isn't going anywhere
I don't mean they are disappearing -- they are still here, but, to me, non-game policies clearly dictate what's supported and what works going forward.
This instance with the marketplace demonstrates a willingness to change/upset something that has been working without notice. Say you signed up for hero subs which currently has unlimited character creation. Next week, you find this has been limited to 50 -- same price. It's a legal move, but there's something clearly incorrect about it, no? This isn't any different, piecemeal purchases was a "feature" of DDB that worked in the context of making parts of D&D easier to access and play, now it is gone, and I cannot extend new conveniences with new content (and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
So for me, and I suspect a decent number of others, that we'll stop [digital] purchases of things we liked for now (or maybe for good). Even if this is reversed, which is unlikely, I'd still be concerned if this might circle back as an issue. Rationally, it would make sense for me to invest in another platform that isn't so whimsical, and on some level this can't be good for WoTC. Or maybe the P&L they've projected says different and this is how the maximize revenue.
In the end, I don't think I can rely on parking DDB for a few months between games and have the confidence that I can come back and play the way that I want without the risk of how I buy things to be predicable.
(and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
(and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
At this point I have no confidence in this platform moving forward, as they have made things worse at any given opportunity.
DDB has just gone down hill since it was sold.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Please give us back the option to buy a-la carte. I have bought the books but i found no reason to buy them again digitally... But i have done a lot of individual purchase for the charcater builder, it was very handy. I hope the d&d beyond team is going to reconsider this choice. If not i simply have no reason anymore to use d&d beyond
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
This mischaracterization of the Deck of Many Things discussion is a great example of something I touched on earlier.
One of the big problems with lack of communication from Wizards is the fact the burden of communication often falls on more discerning players who require actual evidence before engaging in rampant, barely supported speculation. That is a really hard job for the community. All the things that make official announcements hard - things are harder for players to do.
Let us look at this situation - the actual argument presented was not “DoMT is a one-off” but “DoMT has some oddities - it may be a one-off, it may not be, but the data point is so weird we cannot extrapolate anything. We will have to wait to see what happens with Vecna before any meaningful predictions have been made.” That second point is very different from the first… but that does not stop angry people, who do not want to admit they are engaging in unsupported speculation, from seeing “wait and see” as “this is unique.” It does not stop people with poor reading comprehension from misreading the entire thesis and reading “weird data point that MIGHT be a one off” as “this is a one off.” It does not stop scared from buying into the baseless speculation because human nature is to see things which support our fears rather than internalize anything which might say they are presently unwarranted.
Wizards has all those problems as well - angry, communications challenged, or afraid people misreading their statements… but Wizards at least has actual information about what the future holds. They do not have to make “wait and see, we as players do not have data” statements to cool down temperatures because Wizards actually has the data.
Wizards ultimately dropped the ball on the DoMT and ultimate removal of piecemeal transactions, but they do not need to drop the ball for future changes.
Already, there are conspiratorial, fear mongering, or otherwise just afraid posts worried about what might happen to “Legacy” content. The community is trying to keep the level of fear low, but the community can only speculate. And a lot we cannot speculate on because we do not have enough data to make a meaningful extrapolation.
Will old subclasses not yet superseded be considered “Legacy” even though they work for 5e, or will only things like Soul Knife get the “Legacy” tag since a new version will be out? If a book is moved to legacy, but contains content that has not been superseded, will there be some way to get that content? There was not with some of the Tiefling variants; will a better system be used moving forward? How will D&D Beyond update subclasses for Classes that might have some of the subclass feature levels moved about (like Warlock moving subclass choice to a higher level)?
Wizards might not know the answer to some of those questions - but they probably know the answer to others. The sooner we get those answers, even if they are only answers to some questions, the sooner some folks can stop worrying and some others can stop trying to keep folks from worrying—and can start planning for what the future might bring.
I, for one, at very excited about the 2024 revisions - it makes me a bit sad that others cannot share in my excitement because they are afraid of the uncertainty of what 2024 might bring. For their sake, I hope they get the answers they seek sooner, rather than later. The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
Honestly, I find that the decision hurts individual players more than anything.
I'd love to see a la carte purchases come back in some form or fashion, same with bundle purchases, because this 1. Helps players who only want certain things and certain classes and don't want to invest in the whole book, and who don't have a dm who can financially provide all of those books for content sharing purposes. 2. Bundles makes larger purchases more feasible for a dm. I wouldn't have half the library that I do if I hadn't purchased it from the legendary bundle.
Additionally, I have my complaints about the marketplace as is in general, but that's not why I came here to complain. I just wish I had more time to buy the Spacejammers stuff because I just got back into DnD last month and have been trying to catch back up from two years off. The sudden change without any wording is just bad business.
The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
I really hope for this as well. While I never bought things à la carte, I certainly understand and appreciate why it's so important to so many people. I just wish that Wizards would be more open and transparent about decisions/directions whenever possible before changes, etc. happen.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
The fact that they can't fix the martial/caster divide has nothing to do with their QA process, or the skills of their designers.
It is deeply baked into the basic assumptions of the game.
They actually did fix it. In 4e. It required a radical reworking of how things were, and we know how popular that was among large swathes of the player base. Any such attempt is going to need fundamental reimagining, and even if one can do it without hacking off a lot of the ways that people play D&D, it's going to end up feeling a lot less D&D-like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Repost below...
Just to follow on Linkite's post:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/196284-psa-the-marketplace-got-rid-of-individual?comment=128
There's also a need in eCommerce/content sales platforms that has to convey a level of stability. If I buy content from you, and I have spent over $200 buying piecemeal over just the last few months (and was planning to buy more because I like the convenience of a digital environment), it makes me very hesitant to continue my purchases because I intuit that policy is fully committed to turning off services/content I've paid for -- without recourse.
As at now, like many others, I can't consider buying anything because I don't know what will happen to it if it somehow fails to work commercially. TBH, while your commercials have to work, it's not a problem you can foist on customers.
Again, not making this personal, but the take away, should be that fostering online services necessitates taking on the role of being reliable and trustworthy. An simple analogy: You wouldn't sign up for any online service, and pay them, if you didn't have some sense they would exist shortly thereafter. You wouldn't even order a birthday cake from a brick and mortar if you didn't expect them to be there by the time the party rolled around. Drastically altering the terms of engagement, as legal as it may be, breaks trust.
I will also be adopting a wait and see for now, and will probably look around to see if there's decent replacement services/software. Even if this/these decisions on piecemeal are reversed I'm not sure I have the confidence to buy like before -- I have developed a very real concern that Hasbro/WoTC may change things on a whim (from my perspective) and the latest quarterly results.
WotC is ruining dnd beyond, greedy pigs. Nothing improves, it gets worse actually, and they ask for more. Time to use something else I guess.
I think when you look at better and worse it's a bit of a subjective take on things. When you look at things like classes, subclasses, spells, Feats and the like... It is hard to quantify.
To clarify, I am explicitly talking about content compatible with 5e here.
What I will say is that in my opinion, there are far more creators out there who can produce reliable balanced content, at a significantly higher pace than WOTC can, with a relatively similar ratio of hits to misses. Just because it has the wizards of the coast stamp on it does not make it inherently better than a third party - it just means it got through their QA process.
I think the martial/caster divide sums up the effectiveness of that QA process, but I digress.
And to be clear, I'm not naysaying the Dndbeyond tool - it's incredible. It's why I'm so invested (financially and emotionally :D)
What I am saying is that the quality of dndbeyond as a resource is entirely separate to the ability to produce content for it. If Wizards don't produce good quality books, with resources worth purchasing, then the tool starts to loose Its lustre.
When in the entire history of the game, going right back to 0e, has this been any different? Casters used to be squishier at level 1 sure, and there were no cantrips yet, but once they got established, it was the same thing.
Is your argument that because they've never got something right, they shouldn't bother even trying? Because these are design teams being paid actual money to work on this stuff.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In a 50 year old, still very popular game? They clearly have gotten enough right to get this far.
Edit: And this is a luxury product. It is not like anyone will end up with malnutrition from any imbalances. Nor will their homes be too cold or too hot or the air or water somehow toxic. Perspective here. If you do not like the product, you are not obligated to buy it. Never have been.
I'm sorry, but... what are you talking about? Your existing purchases aren't going anywhere. DDB isn't going anywhere. D&D isn't going anywhere
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, I do agree with what you're saying - it certainly isn't life or death here - but I don't think anyone's arguing that it is. I don't however agree that we can't critique a product, simply by merit of it being a luxury product.
And even then, I'm not complaining so much as pointing out they clearly don't feel passionately about a balanced system. It isn't the robust QA process that prevents them from releasing content for players to use - it's a lack of content that prevents that.
And even then, I'm not bemoaning the lack of content in and of itself - I'm Just saying - that if WOTC want players to buy more stuff (One of their core goals) then they should release books with enough content they will use to tempt them, and not some of the player-option-anaemic books they have, as of late.
Edit: I should clarify, I am a DM, and I own most of the books (Up until about the last year - bit light on the newest ones I have to admit).
But if we look at a recent example - The Book of Many Things. $30 - and total player options? 2 backgrounds, 1 feat, 3 spells. What player would spend $30 for those? If they were a completionist and wanted the full book? sure. But that's a relatively small number of the player base.
Add in a few more spells, feats and subclasses - and it actually starts looking like a tempting buy (See Tashas, Xanathars, etc).
I was really wondering about their logic with the Deck of Many Things book. The one item most experienced DM's learn to avoid at all costs and they want to write a whole rule book around it? WHY??? sigh...
And you are right about player options being far greater as selling points than other things, but then there are the 'More settings' folks who might be an influence there?
And I admit, I'm a sucker for a good setting book too. I'm still itching for a Dark Sun book. I think WOTC would do well to understand the value of seeing what each side of their consumer base want - Some are after monsters, settings, lore, adventures - and others are after options, and mechanics. Its not perfectly split down the middle between DM's and Players there - but I suspect the demographics lean in that way.
To me, the A la carté stuff was the perfect solution to that - A book that holds almost no appeal to a player could still generate some revenue from a person, if there was a particular feat, background or spell that leapt out. I would even understand it more if they stopped the 'micro' buys, if the card transaction fees are really a big deal - and switched to mini-bundles for each book. Varying degrees of "Buy all the player options" or "buy all the Feats" as opposed to allowing people to buy specific spells.
That's far too reasonable an idea for WotC to implement.
In seriousness, I might've been fine with that provided they actually announce their damned changes to begin with.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].I don't mean they are disappearing -- they are still here, but, to me, non-game policies clearly dictate what's supported and what works going forward.
This instance with the marketplace demonstrates a willingness to change/upset something that has been working without notice. Say you signed up for hero subs which currently has unlimited character creation. Next week, you find this has been limited to 50 -- same price. It's a legal move, but there's something clearly incorrect about it, no? This isn't any different, piecemeal purchases was a "feature" of DDB that worked in the context of making parts of D&D easier to access and play, now it is gone, and I cannot extend new conveniences with new content (and who knows if older content will eventually face some kind of reckoning -- I don't see any meaningful guarantees long term).
So for me, and I suspect a decent number of others, that we'll stop [digital] purchases of things we liked for now (or maybe for good). Even if this is reversed, which is unlikely, I'd still be concerned if this might circle back as an issue. Rationally, it would make sense for me to invest in another platform that isn't so whimsical, and on some level this can't be good for WoTC. Or maybe the P&L they've projected says different and this is how the maximize revenue.
In the end, I don't think I can rely on parking DDB for a few months between games and have the confidence that I can come back and play the way that I want without the risk of how I buy things to be predicable.
Yeah, you keep talking in these apocalyptic terms, with zero evidence to support your assertions
DDB already has legacy content. Books that are no longer sold on the marketplace are still supported. There is no reason other than doomsaying to believe that will change post-5.5
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well to be honest, many used the same argument when the book of many things had no piece meal purchases, and lots made the argument it was a one off due to the nature of the book, yet here we are now no piece meal at all, and you have to jump through hoops to get credit for piece meal purchases already made.
At this point I have no confidence in this platform moving forward, as they have made things worse at any given opportunity.
DDB has just gone down hill since it was sold.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Please give us back the option to buy a-la carte. I have bought the books but i found no reason to buy them again digitally...
But i have done a lot of individual purchase for the charcater builder, it was very handy.
I hope the d&d beyond team is going to reconsider this choice.
If not i simply have no reason anymore to use d&d beyond
This mischaracterization of the Deck of Many Things discussion is a great example of something I touched on earlier.
One of the big problems with lack of communication from Wizards is the fact the burden of communication often falls on more discerning players who require actual evidence before engaging in rampant, barely supported speculation. That is a really hard job for the community. All the things that make official announcements hard - things are harder for players to do.
Let us look at this situation - the actual argument presented was not “DoMT is a one-off” but “DoMT has some oddities - it may be a one-off, it may not be, but the data point is so weird we cannot extrapolate anything. We will have to wait to see what happens with Vecna before any meaningful predictions have been made.” That second point is very different from the first… but that does not stop angry people, who do not want to admit they are engaging in unsupported speculation, from seeing “wait and see” as “this is unique.” It does not stop people with poor reading comprehension from misreading the entire thesis and reading “weird data point that MIGHT be a one off” as “this is a one off.” It does not stop scared from buying into the baseless speculation because human nature is to see things which support our fears rather than internalize anything which might say they are presently unwarranted.
Wizards has all those problems as well - angry, communications challenged, or afraid people misreading their statements… but Wizards at least has actual information about what the future holds. They do not have to make “wait and see, we as players do not have data” statements to cool down temperatures because Wizards actually has the data.
Wizards ultimately dropped the ball on the DoMT and ultimate removal of piecemeal transactions, but they do not need to drop the ball for future changes.
Already, there are conspiratorial, fear mongering, or otherwise just afraid posts worried about what might happen to “Legacy” content. The community is trying to keep the level of fear low, but the community can only speculate. And a lot we cannot speculate on because we do not have enough data to make a meaningful extrapolation.
Will old subclasses not yet superseded be considered “Legacy” even though they work for 5e, or will only things like Soul Knife get the “Legacy” tag since a new version will be out? If a book is moved to legacy, but contains content that has not been superseded, will there be some way to get that content? There was not with some of the Tiefling variants; will a better system be used moving forward? How will D&D Beyond update subclasses for Classes that might have some of the subclass feature levels moved about (like Warlock moving subclass choice to a higher level)?
Wizards might not know the answer to some of those questions - but they probably know the answer to others. The sooner we get those answers, even if they are only answers to some questions, the sooner some folks can stop worrying and some others can stop trying to keep folks from worrying—and can start planning for what the future might bring.
I, for one, at very excited about the 2024 revisions - it makes me a bit sad that others cannot share in my excitement because they are afraid of the uncertainty of what 2024 might bring. For their sake, I hope they get the answers they seek sooner, rather than later. The attention on this thread from the D&D Beyond team, ex post facto as it might be, has given me some optimism that communications might improve.
Honestly, I find that the decision hurts individual players more than anything.
I'd love to see a la carte purchases come back in some form or fashion, same with bundle purchases, because this 1. Helps players who only want certain things and certain classes and don't want to invest in the whole book, and who don't have a dm who can financially provide all of those books for content sharing purposes. 2. Bundles makes larger purchases more feasible for a dm. I wouldn't have half the library that I do if I hadn't purchased it from the legendary bundle.
Additionally, I have my complaints about the marketplace as is in general, but that's not why I came here to complain. I just wish I had more time to buy the Spacejammers stuff because I just got back into DnD last month and have been trying to catch back up from two years off. The sudden change without any wording is just bad business.
I really hope for this as well. While I never bought things à la carte, I certainly understand and appreciate why it's so important to so many people. I just wish that Wizards would be more open and transparent about decisions/directions whenever possible before changes, etc. happen.
The fact that they can't fix the martial/caster divide has nothing to do with their QA process, or the skills of their designers.
It is deeply baked into the basic assumptions of the game.
They actually did fix it. In 4e. It required a radical reworking of how things were, and we know how popular that was among large swathes of the player base. Any such attempt is going to need fundamental reimagining, and even if one can do it without hacking off a lot of the ways that people play D&D, it's going to end up feeling a lot less D&D-like.