Do you need to be reminded that you are on those message boards? How when the OGL debacle was in full swing you and others here acted as if your dominating the General Discussion boards magically meant the "majority" of people in the hobby here and beyond agreed with you?
Broader sentiment regarding that beyond these forums was overwhelmingly negative. And remains so. The very same might be said for this decision. But keep your head in the sand.
I didn't "dominate" anything, and wouldn't care if I did. I don't need Appeal To Popularity to point out the simple fact that there are hundreds more spells in the game than feats and classes. Them deciding to Legacy the latter and not the former is justifiable, no matter how many upvotes you gesture at that believe otherwise.
It may be a "nontroversy" in your own mind and in those of the usual suspects who defend every single decision the company makes but when posts critical of this decision are getting 100 likes in the [News] Updating the D&D Beyond Toolset for the 2024 Core Rulebooks thread anyone with any semblance of sense can plainly see you have your head buried in the sand.
You were asked if you would do what you expect of others and you had to move the goalposts to say Well I might only dislike one or two spells and homebrewing that is nothing. No. Some people want to finish campaigns using the 2014 ruleset. You expect them to homebrew every spell and item that has been changed. You would be in fits if you were expected to do that.
I'm expecting no such thing, they should only homebrew the changes they dislike. Anything more than that is unnecessary effort. I believe that for most people, that's going to be a much, much smaller quantity than you seem to think.
And there's no need for oblique insults like "anyone with any semblance of sense." That's flaming.
How many users of this site have to say it has now become useless because spells, etc. on their groups' character sheets are all going to automatically update to the new ruleset when they aren't planning on switching right away before people defending how Beyond is handling this get it?
It's not rocket science why many are complaining. The usual suspects are muddying the waters to make it sound as if there is nothing to complain about.
So if those spells had been errataed instead with the exact same changes and the toolset was automatically updated accordingly, just like they've done many times in the past, would you consider that indefensible too?
You are STILL doing it. Some players want to continue using the 2014 ruleset. Not just not use the changes they "don't like." They don't want to use ANY changes.
Then those players should play exclusively with paper books. Digital tools always carry a risk of updates making older tooltips/descriptions inaccessible.
And I guess my next question is would you do that? Just use your physical books? Or is this yet another case of your expecting others to do things you would be in fits about were it you?
If it were me, as you keep asking, I would take the rational step of actually looking at the new material and seeing what changed in the spells, then basing my decision of whether this site is the right toolset for me on what those changes are. You can either wait until you have the new books, ask someone who got an early copy at GenCon, or check content creators like Joefudge who have gone through them all already.
If that answer is too nuanced for you, I don't have any other to offer.
My groups don't have physical copies of the books we use. We would have to still go to DND Beyond to look at the old versions of things. If this change goes through each DM will have to decide what version of spells they want to use and we will look to see what other digital tools are available to host our character sheets. If it's less effort to rebuild the characters somewhere else than to homebrew a bunch of spells that's what will happen.
If wotc wants to make going digital only risky in this way. Then players will have to decide if the risk is worth it. Many will decide it's not and will make other choices. Those choices will inevitably mean less money for wotc.
You are doing it again. Inserting your own convenient personal touches to the question. I am SPECIFICALLY talking about people who want to finish current campaigns using the current ruleset. Were you in their shoes would you be perfectly happy doing what you expect them to do? Is putting yourself in others' shoes an entirely foreign concept to you?
I don't consider an inability/unwillingness to even evaluate the new material before making a decision to be reasonable. So no, I can't and won't put myself in the shoes of people that insist on an unreasonable stance.
And I guess my next question is would you do that? Just use your physical books? Or is this yet another case of your expecting others to do things you would be in fits about were it you?
If it were me, as you keep asking, I would take the rational step of actually looking at the new material and seeing what changed in the spells, then basing my decision of whether this site is the right toolset for me on what those changes are.
How do I do that when the switchover is Sept 3rd, and the book release is Sept 17th? I shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party articles and videos to know what I'm being forced to use.
You are doing it again. Inserting your own convenient personal touches to the question. I am SPECIFICALLY talking about people who want to finish current campaigns using the current ruleset. Were you in their shoes would you be perfectly happy doing what you expect them to do? Is putting yourself in others' shoes an entirely foreign concept to you?
I don't consider an inability/unwillingness to even evaluate the new material before making a decision to be reasonable. So no, I can't and won't put myself in the shoes of people that insist on an unreasonable stance.
Can you at least agree that switching to the new rules is going to take time. DM's need to read & learn the new rules, rebalance encounters and get familiar with updated characters, while players also have to learn the new rules, rebuild their character sheets and potentially change their playstyles.
Can you then not understand why people don't want to do that in the middle of a campaign (and short notice too). Even if the DM liked the new rules and wanted to switch, is it not reasonable to wait until the end of the campaign, or even a break in a campaign. Otherwise they've got to find time to make the switchover whilst also prepping their ongoing sessions (and probably fitting it in around work, family life, other socialising etc).
This why I am not switching yet. I followed some of the early OneDnD playtests and was happy overall. I knew I didn't have the time to make the switch in the near future however so I have not followed anything about the finalised rules. I'm now being told that I have to switch in two weeks time, or stop using the site, despite reassurances from DDB that both rules would be supported.
If it were me, as you keep asking, I would take the rational step of actually looking at the new material and seeing what changed in the spells, then basing my decision of whether this site is the right toolset for me on what those changes are.
How do I do that when the switchover is Sept 3rd, and the book release is Sept 17th? I shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party articles and videos to know what I'm being forced to use.
If you're not willing to rely on previews from the folks they gave preview copies to for that very reason, then simply wait and review the changes then. This is a hobby, not an operating system patch, you're allowed to keep using the current toolset in the meantime.
Can you at least agree that switching to the new rules is going to take time. DM's need to read & learn the new rules, rebalance encounters and get familiar with updated characters, while players also have to learn the new rules, rebuild their character sheets and potentially change their playstyles.
Updated tooltips on spells and items is not going to stop you from sticking with the old rules. Anything that you want to use the 2014 version of, just open your 2014 book in a different tab. IT's not like there's a VTT or rules engine of some kind that's going to throw error messages all over the place if you try to do things a 2014 way.
If it were me, as you keep asking, I would take the rational step of actually looking at the new material and seeing what changed in the spells, then basing my decision of whether this site is the right toolset for me on what those changes are.
How do I do that when the switchover is Sept 3rd, and the book release is Sept 17th? I shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party articles and videos to know what I'm being forced to use.
If you're not willing to rely on previews from the folks they gave preview copies to for that very reason, then simply wait and review the changes then. This is a hobby, not an operating system patch, you're allowed to keep using the current toolset in the meantime.
Can you at least agree that switching to the new rules is going to take time. DM's need to read & learn the new rules, rebalance encounters and get familiar with updated characters, while players also have to learn the new rules, rebuild their character sheets and potentially change their playstyles.
Updated tooltips on spells and items is not going to stop you from sticking with the old rules. Anything that you want to use the 2014 version of, just open your 2014 book in a different tab. IT's not like there's a VTT or rules engine of some kind that's going to throw error messages all over the place if you try to do things a 2014 way.
OK, so it *is* reasonable not to switch straightaway, but not reasonable to expect DDB to support the rules that they told us would be available and usable?
I will point out again that I have paid for DDB, the Official *Toolkit* of D&D, I.e. the character builder, not the compendium.
You took one point out of my post in which a number had been made. And misconstrued it. The point is elsewhere you insulted people who wanted to continue to play the current version of the game. Or any version of the game older than the newest one.
1) I haven't insulted anyone; my "cobwebs" comment was directed at the decade-old outdated ruleset, not anyone posting. You meanwhile have been repeatedly throwing out things like "head in the sand", "semblance of sense" etc that are aimed squarely at people who disagree with you rather than with the game, then accusing them of attacking you when it's the other way around.
2) I focused on that point because I already addressed the others. The message board represents a fraction of BOTH the overall playerbase AND the site's userbase, so you switching from one to the other doesn't change my point. And the folks who want their games to be completely immune from changes to the tooltips is still an unreasonable stance to me, when (a) errata does the same thing, and (b) they haven't even evaluated the changes to spells yet to determine how much work it would actually be.
OK, so it *is* reasonable not to switch straightaway, but not reasonable to expect DDB to support the rules that they told us would be available and usable?
I will point out again that I have paid for DDB, the Official *Toolkit* of D&D, I.e. the character builder, not the compendium.
Yes, if they had taken your books away I'd agree with you that was unreasonable. They haven't done that.
As for the character builder - changing the tooltip under a spell won't stop that spell from being put into your character, so just do that and then get the spell text from your 2014 book.
It's kinda crazy how some people think this is a non-issue. It makes sense if you're wanting the new rules, but being forced to use the new stuff when you paid for the old stuff and you don't want to switch is scummy no matter how you look at it.
You described someone who wants to continue to play the current version of the game as "clinging to cobwebs." What you call "outdated" many are perfectly happy with.
Right, none of those adjectives were referring to any person or group of people. If you want to take my views on the 10-year-old ruleset of a hobby game personally, that's on you, not me.
And how many times have you been asked your thoughts on Japanese hobbyists who choose to play older versions of D&D or CoC or other games and systems and have just acted as if you were never asked this? Not once have you said anything in response to that specific point because you know your whole "outdated" line of argument is not an argument.
I literally did respond to that specific point when I said "you can still do that." 2024 tooltips in a 5e character builder don't stop anyone from playing 2014 5e, or 4th edition, or 3rd edition, or CoC or anything else. The books are what you need to play a TTRPG, not tooltips.
You have spent how many years getting thrown into fits when people have insulted 5E? You take it personally. You take it personally when people say anything bad about Wizards of the Coast!
Incorrect. I don't care about other people's opinions of anything, least of all 5e or Wizards of the Coast.
I suppose you believe Classic Traveller isn't the best version of that game? That you believe the latest edition of Warhammer must be the best version?
I neither believe nor care anything about those games. This is a D&D forum.
"Mindless" - see, you can't make a single point without injecting a personal attack. Your approach doesn't exactly lend itself to sympathy.
I'll defend whatever decisions I feel like defending. And "Retro gaming is a thing" does not mean the official toolset needs to support everything that came before. If I want to play my old NES games, sure some of them might be purchasable on Switch, but I know I need to go find an emulator for the ones that aren't.
Maybe they'll figure out some kind of toggle that keeps the legacy versions from clogging up search results or the character builder when I'm reading through/picking spells. If they do great. But for the vast, vast majority of the spells I'm going to be using the updated versions, so their plan to not support them doesn't affect me.
"for the vast, vast majority of the spells I'm going to be using the updated versions, so their plan to not support them doesn't affect me."
Congrats. You're using the new system.
A LOT of people aren't going to use the new system and paid for the old system. Naturally, someone going to use it doesn't see the issue as a big deal.
I'm in 3 different groups that use dndbeyond and only 1 of them wants to try the new rules on release. 1 of the other two are going to start Eve of Ruin in less than a week and are wanting to use the 2014 rules. That's a long-stake campaign where 5 people plus the dm are wanting to use the old rules and old spells for the campaign, then do Chains of Asmodeus with the new rules after to get a feel for the change by switching to the 2024 rules, and, I'm not even kidding, one of the players is specifically wanting to play a Conjuration Wizard in both to see the major differences, but now can't fully use his character sheet when it gets implemented. Do you see how frustrating that is? Sure, anecdotal, whatever, but still, that's frustrating as hell.
If it's not mindless consumerism how is it exactly that a 5E you sang the praises of until just recently is all of a sudden such a bad game in need of replacing and urgently? And again, you routinely like comments in which the poster has questioned someone's English ability or even intelligence. You can stop pretending you find insults oh-so-unacceptable when it is so obvious you are okay with them when they are directed at those with whom you disagree. I'm old enough to remember when being a hypocrite was deemed to be an awful thing. Pity we now live in a time when it's acceptable just as long as it's expedient. Also again, I am not talking about Beyond or any online toolkit when I mention retro gaming. This is in response to your insisting "new is better." You might prefer the newer version of something. Insisting it is better when better is subjective is puerile. It's like how the little rich kid at school tells others he has the best thing because his is the newest thing.
If Beyond did that it would be much better for the site than having scores of homebrew versions of the same spells and same items clogging up their databases. At the Checkout buyers were told buying a book guaranteed access to that book's content using their toolkit. They can uphold that promise by putting in the work to ensure that content is still a part of the toolkit. Not expect players to do their work for them.
1) My upvoting someone else's comment means I agree with the overarching point it's making, not necessarily every single word choice they chose to make within it.
2) I've been in support of the rules revision since before the playtest even started. My support for 5e doesn't mean I don't think it was deeply flawed and badly in need of said revision after 10 years.
3) I think the new thing is better because... I think it's better... not merely because it's new. I've read the new spells, the new species, the new classes and feats etc, and overwhelmingly, I do find them to be superior to what we had before.
If it's not mindless consumerism how is it exactly that a 5E you sang the praises of until just recently is all of a sudden such a bad game in need of replacing and urgently? And again, you routinely like comments in which the poster has questioned someone's English ability or even intelligence. You can stop pretending you find insults oh-so-unacceptable when it is so obvious you are okay with them when they are directed at those with whom you disagree. I'm old enough to remember when being a hypocrite was deemed to be an awful thing. Pity we now live in a time when it's acceptable just as long as it's expedient. Also again, I am not talking about Beyond or any online toolkit when I mention retro gaming. This is in response to your insisting "new is better." You might prefer the newer version of something. Insisting it is better when better is subjective is puerile. It's like how the little rich kid at school tells others he has the best thing because his is the newest thing.
If Beyond did that it would be much better for the site than having scores of homebrew versions of the same spells and same items clogging up their databases. At the Checkout buyers were told buying a book guaranteed access to that book's content using their toolkit. They can uphold that promise by putting in the work to ensure that content is still a part of the toolkit. Not expect players to do their work for them.
1) My upvoting someone else's comment means I agree with the overarching point it's making, not necessarily every single word choice they chose to make within it.
2) I've been in support of the rules revision since before the playtest even started. My support for 5e doesn't mean I don't think it was deeply flawed and badly in need of said revision after 10 years.
3) I think the new thing is better because... I think it's better... not merely because it's new. I've read the new spells, the new species, the new classes and feats etc, and overwhelmingly, I do find them to be superior to what we had before.
You can think it's better all you want, hell it could even be objectively better and i would still be against foisting it on people who may or may not be in the middle of a campaign (or maybe eve a session) when it happens and have to upend their entire game to accomodate it right then and there
5e could be the worst system to ever exist and i would still oppose this for that very reason
I didn't "dominate" anything, and wouldn't care if I did. I don't need Appeal To Popularity to point out the simple fact that there are hundreds more spells in the game than feats and classes. Them deciding to Legacy the latter and not the former is justifiable, no matter how many upvotes you gesture at that believe otherwise.
I'm expecting no such thing, they should only homebrew the changes they dislike. Anything more than that is unnecessary effort. I believe that for most people, that's going to be a much, much smaller quantity than you seem to think.
And there's no need for oblique insults like "anyone with any semblance of sense." That's flaming.
So if those spells had been errataed instead with the exact same changes and the toolset was automatically updated accordingly, just like they've done many times in the past, would you consider that indefensible too?
Then those players should play exclusively with paper books. Digital tools always carry a risk of updates making older tooltips/descriptions inaccessible.
"The old tooltip for {spell} is no longer accessible" has happened before. I don't recall seeing pitchforks then.
If it were me, as you keep asking, I would take the rational step of actually looking at the new material and seeing what changed in the spells, then basing my decision of whether this site is the right toolset for me on what those changes are. You can either wait until you have the new books, ask someone who got an early copy at GenCon, or check content creators like Joefudge who have gone through them all already.
If that answer is too nuanced for you, I don't have any other to offer.
My groups don't have physical copies of the books we use. We would have to still go to DND Beyond to look at the old versions of things. If this change goes through each DM will have to decide what version of spells they want to use and we will look to see what other digital tools are available to host our character sheets. If it's less effort to rebuild the characters somewhere else than to homebrew a bunch of spells that's what will happen.
If wotc wants to make going digital only risky in this way. Then players will have to decide if the risk is worth it. Many will decide it's not and will make other choices. Those choices will inevitably mean less money for wotc.
I don't consider an inability/unwillingness to even evaluate the new material before making a decision to be reasonable. So no, I can't and won't put myself in the shoes of people that insist on an unreasonable stance.
How do I do that when the switchover is Sept 3rd, and the book release is Sept 17th? I shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party articles and videos to know what I'm being forced to use.
Can you at least agree that switching to the new rules is going to take time. DM's need to read & learn the new rules, rebalance encounters and get familiar with updated characters, while players also have to learn the new rules, rebuild their character sheets and potentially change their playstyles.
Can you then not understand why people don't want to do that in the middle of a campaign (and short notice too). Even if the DM liked the new rules and wanted to switch, is it not reasonable to wait until the end of the campaign, or even a break in a campaign. Otherwise they've got to find time to make the switchover whilst also prepping their ongoing sessions (and probably fitting it in around work, family life, other socialising etc).
This why I am not switching yet. I followed some of the early OneDnD playtests and was happy overall. I knew I didn't have the time to make the switch in the near future however so I have not followed anything about the finalised rules. I'm now being told that I have to switch in two weeks time, or stop using the site, despite reassurances from DDB that both rules would be supported.
Could not disagree with you more
You can still do both.
If you're not willing to rely on previews from the folks they gave preview copies to for that very reason, then simply wait and review the changes then. This is a hobby, not an operating system patch, you're allowed to keep using the current toolset in the meantime.
Updated tooltips on spells and items is not going to stop you from sticking with the old rules. Anything that you want to use the 2014 version of, just open your 2014 book in a different tab. IT's not like there's a VTT or rules engine of some kind that's going to throw error messages all over the place if you try to do things a 2014 way.
OK, so it *is* reasonable not to switch straightaway, but not reasonable to expect DDB to support the rules that they told us would be available and usable?
I will point out again that I have paid for DDB, the Official *Toolkit* of D&D, I.e. the character builder, not the compendium.
1) I haven't insulted anyone; my "cobwebs" comment was directed at the decade-old outdated ruleset, not anyone posting. You meanwhile have been repeatedly throwing out things like "head in the sand", "semblance of sense" etc that are aimed squarely at people who disagree with you rather than with the game, then accusing them of attacking you when it's the other way around.
2) I focused on that point because I already addressed the others. The message board represents a fraction of BOTH the overall playerbase AND the site's userbase, so you switching from one to the other doesn't change my point. And the folks who want their games to be completely immune from changes to the tooltips is still an unreasonable stance to me, when (a) errata does the same thing, and (b) they haven't even evaluated the changes to spells yet to determine how much work it would actually be.
Yes, if they had taken your books away I'd agree with you that was unreasonable. They haven't done that.
As for the character builder - changing the tooltip under a spell won't stop that spell from being put into your character, so just do that and then get the spell text from your 2014 book.
It's kinda crazy how some people think this is a non-issue. It makes sense if you're wanting the new rules, but being forced to use the new stuff when you paid for the old stuff and you don't want to switch is scummy no matter how you look at it.
Right, none of those adjectives were referring to any person or group of people. If you want to take my views on the 10-year-old ruleset of a hobby game personally, that's on you, not me.
I literally did respond to that specific point when I said "you can still do that." 2024 tooltips in a 5e character builder don't stop anyone from playing 2014 5e, or 4th edition, or 3rd edition, or CoC or anything else. The books are what you need to play a TTRPG, not tooltips.
I'm not "implying" it, I'm openly stating it. My opinion is that 2014 5e and prior editions are indeed inferior designs. I'm allowed to think that.
Incorrect. I don't care about other people's opinions of anything, least of all 5e or Wizards of the Coast.
I neither believe nor care anything about those games. This is a D&D forum.
"Mindless" - see, you can't make a single point without injecting a personal attack. Your approach doesn't exactly lend itself to sympathy.
I'll defend whatever decisions I feel like defending. And "Retro gaming is a thing" does not mean the official toolset needs to support everything that came before. If I want to play my old NES games, sure some of them might be purchasable on Switch, but I know I need to go find an emulator for the ones that aren't.
Maybe they'll figure out some kind of toggle that keeps the legacy versions from clogging up search results or the character builder when I'm reading through/picking spells. If they do great. But for the vast, vast majority of the spells I'm going to be using the updated versions, so their plan to not support them doesn't affect me.
you’re paying for me to own this shit? Thought I owned it. apparently not. Guess I’ll go to the other system that’s free.
You actually said it best in this comment.
"for the vast, vast majority of the spells I'm going to be using the updated versions, so their plan to not support them doesn't affect me."
Congrats. You're using the new system.
A LOT of people aren't going to use the new system and paid for the old system. Naturally, someone going to use it doesn't see the issue as a big deal.
I'm in 3 different groups that use dndbeyond and only 1 of them wants to try the new rules on release. 1 of the other two are going to start Eve of Ruin in less than a week and are wanting to use the 2014 rules. That's a long-stake campaign where 5 people plus the dm are wanting to use the old rules and old spells for the campaign, then do Chains of Asmodeus with the new rules after to get a feel for the change by switching to the 2024 rules, and, I'm not even kidding, one of the players is specifically wanting to play a Conjuration Wizard in both to see the major differences, but now can't fully use his character sheet when it gets implemented. Do you see how frustrating that is? Sure, anecdotal, whatever, but still, that's frustrating as hell.
1) My upvoting someone else's comment means I agree with the overarching point it's making, not necessarily every single word choice they chose to make within it.
2) I've been in support of the rules revision since before the playtest even started. My support for 5e doesn't mean I don't think it was deeply flawed and badly in need of said revision after 10 years.
3) I think the new thing is better because... I think it's better... not merely because it's new. I've read the new spells, the new species, the new classes and feats etc, and overwhelmingly, I do find them to be superior to what we had before.
You can think it's better all you want, hell it could even be objectively better and i would still be against foisting it on people who may or may not be in the middle of a campaign (or maybe eve a session) when it happens and have to upend their entire game to accomodate it right then and there
5e could be the worst system to ever exist and i would still oppose this for that very reason