Just curious, after reading the latest changelog drop, how many would be interested in paying extra for access to what we have now?
I would expect it to:
1) Require a master tier subscription
2) Not be updated with new books
3) No further development on the tools just a hop of the train and stay live
I also understand the likelihood of this ever being an option is functionally 0.
Per the latest update this is now a moo point, like a cows opinion it doesn't matter!
Also a the thread on this topic in the News & Announcements forum can be found HEREif you want to leave your comments on the upcoming changes to the tools.
This thread is for discussion about paying to keep what we have with no further updates to it and expectations on how that might look/work.
I'm not interested in giving DDB or, by extension, WotC more money at this point in time. I'm not planning to use the 2024 rules at all. If it becomes too onerous to use the toolset here with the shift, then I guess I'm leaving the platform. Not a big loss to me at this point.
Just curious, after reading the latest changelog drop, how many would be interested in paying extra for access to what we have now?
I would expect it to:
1) Require a master tier subscription
2) Not be updated with new books
3) No further development on the tools just a hop of the train and stay live
I also understand the likelihood of this ever being an option is functionally 0.
Also a the thread on this topic in the News & Announcements forum can be found HEREif you want to leave your comments on the upcoming changes to the tools.
This thread is for discussion about paying to keep what we have with no further updates to it and expectations on how that might look/work.
To me, that question feels like one of the steps grieving process. I'm not sure that i want to reward what I consider to be poor behavior, by paying more in subscription fees, for something that sounds pretty "less than" what we have prior to the release. Perhaps, (I hope) there is some other train that is better, that we might hop on, instead.
If it becomes too onerous to use the toolset here with the shift, then I guess I'm leaving the platform. Not a big loss to me at this point.
Feels less like WotC trying to sell 5.5 as "See these new rules? Aren't they so awesome you want to switch over to them?"
And more like, "You don't want to use the new rules? Well what if I told you we were going to break some of the tools you've been using, like spells and magic items, so that you have to."
Some of the things like changing "race" to "species" in DDB tools was something I expected. But that's a change of terminology not functionality.
Whereas things like saying we'll have to homebrew the spells/items we already purchased, where the big benefit for purchasing them is not having to homebrew them on this site, really rubs me the wrong way. And I'll see about transitioning away from DDB for my character sheet in a campaign I've been playing with friends.
No, I wouldn't. In terms of use, I'm not that bothered. If anything, it will probably suit me best. Even if I wanted to keep the old stuff being used how it is now...I'm not going to pay for what I've already paid for.
Which is what is annoying about this. Like, if someone has bought the original PHB, they've effectively removed paid-for content - and the only remedy they've offered is what was available whether you'd bought it or not, homebrew.
I also have a question. Let's say someone has bought 2014 content. Part of that content, specifically like a spell (which is being forced to be upgraded if you want to add it) is redone in 2024e. Is that new content going to be unlocked for them? That's going to mean a lot of freebies. On the other hand, if they don't...well that's going to upset a lot of people because they can no longer access their spells that they paid for.
That's going to result in weirdness.
I'm not sure why they're doing it this way, to be honest. They're still going to have to keep the coding on the system, so they're not really going to gain anything. Perhaps they decided that adding a toggle was too complicated to code and having them alongside each other would be too messy (I do sympathise with latter concern...my app is already way too cluttered with options I don't want).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm not sure why they're doing it this way, to be honest. They're still going to have to keep the coding on the system, so they're not really going to gain anything. Perhaps they decided that adding a toggle was too complicated to code and having them alongside each other would be too messy (I do sympathise with latter concern...my app is already way too cluttered with options I don't want).
I think it makes a lot of sense for them to do it this way. The reality is that spell lists are already oppressively long and most of the spells are not changing. I have had plenty of new players be interested in playing a spellcaster… only to start looking at how long the spell options are and deciding “that is too much to read.”
That problem gets worse when your list contains Fireball and Fireball [Legacy]]… when both are mechanically equivalent. Suddenly you have a lot of redundant information cluttering up an already cluttered field.
While there might be some more complicated, elegant solutions than “if there is a new version of a spell, the new version controls” - the reality is all those scalpel solutions would take effort and additional programming. If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
Except this isn't a case of errata. This is a case where they are being changed to a separate ruleset.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
Except this isn't a case of errata. This is a case where they are being changed to a separate ruleset.
Not really. The spells still work exactly the same - they’re just an updated version of them.
The reality? If Wizards said “we realized healing spells are useless in 5e since monster damage scales faster than them, we are doing errata to double their healing output” or “we realized it was silly for clerics to be able to stack two really potent ongoing damage effects, so we are making some errata to fix spiritual weapon” no one would care. That’s basically what they are doing with the spells.
But, of course, there’s going to be people making a mountain out of a molehill, trying to spin this into some bigger disaster than the fairly minor errata that is actually occurring to spells.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
This is not eratta, this is the spells are gone unless you homebrew them back or buy the new book.
Considering how piecemeal went, I expect this is how they are going to remove content that has been paid for to force people to buy the new books in the future.
It is theft, it may be legal theft, but theft just the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
Except this isn't a case of errata. This is a case where they are being changed to a separate ruleset.
Not really. The spells still work exactly the same - they’re just an updated version of them.
The reality? If Wizards said “we realized healing spells are useless in 5e since monster damage scales faster than them, we are doing errata to double their healing output” or “we realized it was silly for clerics to be able to stack two really potent ongoing damage effects, so we are making some errata to fix spiritual weapon” no one would care. That’s basically what they are doing with the spells.
But, of course, there’s going to be people making a mountain out of a molehill, trying to spin this into some bigger disaster than the fairly minor errata that is actually occurring to spells.
It would be fine if it was eratta, but it is not it is removing content people paid for and forcing them to homebrew or buy a whole book to be able to use it. Even if piecemeal was still around it would be wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
This is not eratta, this is the spells are gone unless you homebrew them back or buy the new book.
Considering how piecemeal went, I expect this is how they are going to remove content that has been paid for to force people to buy the new books in the future.
It is theft, it may be legal theft, but theft just the same.
With errata, the old content is gone - Wizards scrubs the old content from the system and replaces it with the new. Here, your old information stays - and you can easily recreate it into your game with a few clicks of a button. The effect is akin to errata - the new version controls - but, in another way, it is even less “theft” than errata would be. Really not sure why people would accept errata… but throw a hissy fit over something that is even less invasive to them
The reality is that this is a non-issue that you are trying to turn into an issue.
It is gone from the creation tools and that is the only reason to buy anything on DDB. So it is effectively gone. Without the character creation tools there is no DDB.
It is gone from the creation tools and that is the only reason to buy anything on DDB. So it is effectively gone. Without the character creation tools there is no DDB.
If you want your old version of the very few spells that are being substantively changed, you can get them in the creation tools through homebrew. You are basically asking Wizards to waste their time and effort on appealing to people who can easily solve their own problem.
I, for one, would rather Wizards focus on making the game and tools actually better for the long-term health of the game, rather than waste their resources appeasing Luddites who regularly threaten to quit over whatever the non-issue of the day is.
And I say this as someone who kept using 4e’s digital tools long after they stopped receiving support. I liked 4e; I liked their digital tools… but, guess what? I understand that the game’s health depended on me being sacrificed on the alter of progress.. and that was fine with me.
It is gone from the creation tools and that is the only reason to buy anything on DDB. So it is effectively gone. Without the character creation tools there is no DDB.
If you want your old version of the very few spells that are being substantively changed, you can get them in the creation tools through homebrew. You are basically asking Wizards to waste their time and effort on appealing to people who can easily solve their own problem.
I, for one, would rather Wizards focus on making the game and tools actually better for the long-term health of the game, rather than waste their resources appeasing Luddites who regularly threaten to quit over whatever the non-issue of the day is.
And I say this as someone who kept using 4e’s digital tools long after they stopped receiving support. I liked 4e; I liked their digital tools… but, guess what? I understand that the game’s health depended on me being sacrificed on the alter of progress.. and that was fine with me.
They are happy to waste their customers time forcing them to homebrew in something they paid for or buy the new book they obviously don't want to get it.
Comparing this to what happened in 4e is a false equivalency, this as we have been told is not a new edition, and the new books are not eratta.
They are breaking the tools in a way to make it difficult to continue using what you have paid for and the easy fix is by the new books.
This has nothing to do with the long term health of the game, and everything to do with short term profits.
Talk about not having faith in their new product to resort to this kinda shenanigans to garner sales.
It is gone from the creation tools and that is the only reason to buy anything on DDB. So it is effectively gone. Without the character creation tools there is no DDB.
If you want your old version of the very few spells that are being substantively changed, you can get them in the creation tools through homebrew. You are basically asking Wizards to waste their time and effort on appealing to people who can easily solve their own problem.
It'd probably help if WotC would release a list of the spells and items with substantial changes. I'm guessing it's around 10% of the spells and maybe 5% of the items.
And even fewer of them are going to be changes people care about. IIRC, Cloud of Daggers is getting an improvement. This will matter to both the people who use cloud of daggers in its original form.
Somebody's going to do the list regardless. It'd've been nice if they'd saved whoever it is the effort.
I, for one, would rather Wizards focus on making the game and tools actually better for the long-term health of the game, rather than waste their resources appeasing Luddites who regularly threaten to quit over whatever the non-issue of the day is.
I wish they'd spend the time and money to make the backend of DDB work better, probably by replacing it. This is not by any means a trivial task, but it badly needs doing, and might even have let them avoid this kerfuffle.
And I say this as someone who kept using 4e’s digital tools long after they stopped receiving support. I liked 4e; I liked their digital tools… but, guess what? I understand that the game’s health depended on me being sacrificed on the alter of progress.. and that was fine with me.
IIRC, they only shut them down when Microsoft discontinued Silverlight so it really was nothing to do with the game's health.
Just curious, after reading the latest changelog drop, how many would be interested in paying extra for access to what we have now?I would expect it to:1) Require a master tier subscription2) Not be updated with new books3) No further development on the tools just a hop of the train and stay liveI also understand the likelihood of this ever being an option is functionally 0.Per the latest update this is now a moo point, like a cows opinion it doesn't matter!
Also a the thread on this topic in the News & Announcements forum can be found HERE if you want to leave your comments on the upcoming changes to the tools.This thread is for discussion about paying to keep what we have with no further updates to it and expectations on how that might look/work.CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm not interested in giving DDB or, by extension, WotC more money at this point in time. I'm not planning to use the 2024 rules at all. If it becomes too onerous to use the toolset here with the shift, then I guess I'm leaving the platform. Not a big loss to me at this point.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
To me, that question feels like one of the steps grieving process. I'm not sure that i want to reward what I consider to be poor behavior, by paying more in subscription fees, for something that sounds pretty "less than" what we have prior to the release. Perhaps, (I hope) there is some other train that is better, that we might hop on, instead.
Feels less like WotC trying to sell 5.5 as "See these new rules? Aren't they so awesome you want to switch over to them?"
And more like, "You don't want to use the new rules? Well what if I told you we were going to break some of the tools you've been using, like spells and magic items, so that you have to."
Some of the things like changing "race" to "species" in DDB tools was something I expected. But that's a change of terminology not functionality.
Whereas things like saying we'll have to homebrew the spells/items we already purchased, where the big benefit for purchasing them is not having to homebrew them on this site, really rubs me the wrong way. And I'll see about transitioning away from DDB for my character sheet in a campaign I've been playing with friends.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
The changes arent significant enougn to me to be worth spending money to to access an old version.
No. But I would continue to pay to keep them. Otherwise I'll cancel the sub and just use ddb as a quick reference to the resources I've purchased.
Would I pay more?
No, I wouldn't. In terms of use, I'm not that bothered. If anything, it will probably suit me best. Even if I wanted to keep the old stuff being used how it is now...I'm not going to pay for what I've already paid for.
Which is what is annoying about this. Like, if someone has bought the original PHB, they've effectively removed paid-for content - and the only remedy they've offered is what was available whether you'd bought it or not, homebrew.
I also have a question. Let's say someone has bought 2014 content. Part of that content, specifically like a spell (which is being forced to be upgraded if you want to add it) is redone in 2024e. Is that new content going to be unlocked for them? That's going to mean a lot of freebies. On the other hand, if they don't...well that's going to upset a lot of people because they can no longer access their spells that they paid for.
That's going to result in weirdness.
I'm not sure why they're doing it this way, to be honest. They're still going to have to keep the coding on the system, so they're not really going to gain anything. Perhaps they decided that adding a toggle was too complicated to code and having them alongside each other would be too messy (I do sympathise with latter concern...my app is already way too cluttered with options I don't want).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think it makes a lot of sense for them to do it this way. The reality is that spell lists are already oppressively long and most of the spells are not changing. I have had plenty of new players be interested in playing a spellcaster… only to start looking at how long the spell options are and deciding “that is too much to read.”
That problem gets worse when your list contains Fireball and Fireball [Legacy]]… when both are mechanically equivalent. Suddenly you have a lot of redundant information cluttering up an already cluttered field.
While there might be some more complicated, elegant solutions than “if there is a new version of a spell, the new version controls” - the reality is all those scalpel solutions would take effort and additional programming. If I were in Wizards’ shoes, I would take the sledgehammer approach also - it is the easiest option for supporting new players and, supporting new players is a far better use of resources than trying to appease people who are disinclined to buy your future products.
Do bear in mind that one if the ways you get future payers is by not ticking off your current base.
For example I'd been considering purchasing Xanathar's and Tasha's down the line. Part of that being spells and magic items in them being pre-coded for ease of use.
But now I'm looking at it like, "If they're just going to remove some of those reasons for buying the books. Then why?"
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
We've already been through this with errata. The number of people who are ticked off by the digital tools they are paying to be automatically kept up to date being automatically kept up to date is negligible.
Except this isn't a case of errata. This is a case where they are being changed to a separate ruleset.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Not really. The spells still work exactly the same - they’re just an updated version of them.
The reality? If Wizards said “we realized healing spells are useless in 5e since monster damage scales faster than them, we are doing errata to double their healing output” or “we realized it was silly for clerics to be able to stack two really potent ongoing damage effects, so we are making some errata to fix spiritual weapon” no one would care. That’s basically what they are doing with the spells.
But, of course, there’s going to be people making a mountain out of a molehill, trying to spin this into some bigger disaster than the fairly minor errata that is actually occurring to spells.
This is not eratta, this is the spells are gone unless you homebrew them back or buy the new book.
Considering how piecemeal went, I expect this is how they are going to remove content that has been paid for to force people to buy the new books in the future.
It is theft, it may be legal theft, but theft just the same.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It would be fine if it was eratta, but it is not it is removing content people paid for and forcing them to homebrew or buy a whole book to be able to use it. Even if piecemeal was still around it would be wrong.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
With errata, the old content is gone - Wizards scrubs the old content from the system and replaces it with the new. Here, your old information stays - and you can easily recreate it into your game with a few clicks of a button. The effect is akin to errata - the new version controls - but, in another way, it is even less “theft” than errata would be. Really not sure why people would accept errata… but throw a hissy fit over something that is even less invasive to them
The reality is that this is a non-issue that you are trying to turn into an issue.
It is gone from the creation tools and that is the only reason to buy anything on DDB. So it is effectively gone. Without the character creation tools there is no DDB.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you want your old version of the very few spells that are being substantively changed, you can get them in the creation tools through homebrew. You are basically asking Wizards to waste their time and effort on appealing to people who can easily solve their own problem.
I, for one, would rather Wizards focus on making the game and tools actually better for the long-term health of the game, rather than waste their resources appeasing Luddites who regularly threaten to quit over whatever the non-issue of the day is.
And I say this as someone who kept using 4e’s digital tools long after they stopped receiving support. I liked 4e; I liked their digital tools… but, guess what? I understand that the game’s health depended on me being sacrificed on the alter of progress.. and that was fine with me.
i literally ******* pay them for the content and the service . And i do that for the content i CHOOOSE.
They are happy to waste their customers time forcing them to homebrew in something they paid for or buy the new book they obviously don't want to get it.
Comparing this to what happened in 4e is a false equivalency, this as we have been told is not a new edition, and the new books are not eratta.
They are breaking the tools in a way to make it difficult to continue using what you have paid for and the easy fix is by the new books.
This has nothing to do with the long term health of the game, and everything to do with short term profits.
Talk about not having faith in their new product to resort to this kinda shenanigans to garner sales.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It'd probably help if WotC would release a list of the spells and items with substantial changes. I'm guessing it's around 10% of the spells and maybe 5% of the items.
And even fewer of them are going to be changes people care about. IIRC, Cloud of Daggers is getting an improvement. This will matter to both the people who use cloud of daggers in its original form.
Somebody's going to do the list regardless. It'd've been nice if they'd saved whoever it is the effort.
I wish they'd spend the time and money to make the backend of DDB work better, probably by replacing it. This is not by any means a trivial task, but it badly needs doing, and might even have let them avoid this kerfuffle.
IIRC, they only shut them down when Microsoft discontinued Silverlight so it really was nothing to do with the game's health.