If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
Given WotC went through a long playtest cycle, produced new art and are selling new books... I think calling it an errata is a pretty big stretch.
If you own a Tesla and Elon Musk replaces it with the bottom half of a Cybertruck he can't go "Actually I renamed it Tesla model 5.5, so actually this is a helpful free update for you! Also feel free to buy the rest of the truck at any time"
Just wanting to put this out there for the record - you complained about someone's somewhat sensible analogy... and then had the audacity to post a completely nonsensical one. A better analogy would be owning a Tesla and getting a software update that fixes some performance issues for free which... actually does happen and owners are generally fairly happy about getting free fixes to known issues.
The reality? This is a win-win situation for everyone. Everyone gets free upgrades to spells. Those who want to use the old version still have access to the rules text and can easily homebrew them into their game if they want. There is no real downside to this... other than people whining about change because they simply fear change.
But, of course, complaining about something that is good for the health of the game and does not really have a downside is very on brand for the panic-prone, and easily misled by intentional fearmongering, vocal minority of the D&D community.
Well the analogy i don't think was sensible, because tabletop games are not structured at all like ongoing MMOs. They're finished products. (In fact to add another reason to why that analogy is wrong- you typically can still play with old content when a new expansion hits an MMO)
But sure I'll update the analogy.
Musk replaces your car and goes "Actually it's much better! Our user Caerwyn swears they like it better in every way and you should to!"
It's not the product we paid for Caerwyn. You liking it better doesn't mean we should have to use it.
You can pretend “this is a static game” all you want, but that does not make you right - this game has been getting small errata since it was first released. This is even less intrusive on your imaginary “rights” than errata is - with errata, the old is gone, scrubbed from D&D Beyond. Here, you still have the old, you just need to spend a couple seconds making it work again.
You are throwing a fit because you are afraid of a change you could easily avoid with a modicum of effort. With the amount of time you put into bad analogies and attacking people, you could have already solved your concerns.
If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
Given WotC went through a long playtest cycle, produced new art and are selling new books... I think calling it an errata is a pretty big stretch.
If you own a Tesla and Elon Musk replaces it with the bottom half of a Cybertruck he can't go "Actually I renamed it Tesla model 5.5, so actually this is a helpful free update for you! Also feel free to buy the rest of the truck at any time"
Just wanting to put this out there for the record - you complained about someone's somewhat sensible analogy... and then had the audacity to post a completely nonsensical one. A better analogy would be owning a Tesla and getting a software update that fixes some performance issues for free which... actually does happen and owners are generally fairly happy about getting free fixes to known issues.
The reality? This is a win-win situation for everyone. Everyone gets free upgrades to spells. Those who want to use the old version still have access to the rules text and can easily homebrew them into their game if they want. There is no real downside to this... other than people whining about change because they simply fear change.
But, of course, complaining about something that is good for the health of the game and does not really have a downside is very on brand for the panic-prone, and easily misled by intentional fearmongering, vocal minority of the D&D community.
Well the analogy i don't think was sensible, because tabletop games are not structured at all like ongoing MMOs. They're finished products. (In fact to add another reason to why that analogy is wrong- you typically can still play with old content when a new expansion hits an MMO)
But sure I'll update the analogy.
Musk replaces your car and goes "Actually it's much better! Our user Caerwyn swears they like it better in every way and you should to!"
It's not the product we paid for Caerwyn. You liking it better doesn't mean we should have to use it.
You can pretend “this is a static game” all you want, but that does not make you right - this game has been getting small errata since it was first released. This is even less intrusive on your imaginary “rights” than errata is - with errata, the old is gone, scrubbed from D&D Beyond. Here, you still have the old, you just need to spend a couple seconds making it work again.
You are throwing a fit because you are afraid of a change you could easily avoid with a modicum of effort. With the amount of time you put into bad analogies and attacking people, you could have already solved your concerns.
Hang on which of us is pretending here? This is not an errata c'mon. We've been through months of playtests, there's entirely new books launching and whole marketing campaigns. That's not a small rules clarification update in an obscure pdf. Like if we're going to talk at all you have to engage with the fact that's disingenuous.
I think the instruction to "Go look it up and make it yourself" is kind of missing the issue of the complaint there... We all could have done that when we signed up. We paid so we didn't have to do it. The ad-reads all focused sheet integration, the marketing language for the 2014 book still says right now "For integration with our toolkit." people bought things on this website specifically to use them on this websites toolkit because that was the whole point of the website.
What's more there is no wind-down period. Snipping functionality the moment of launch interrupts campaigns.
I'm sure you're swapping immediately so you wont be affected but my tables are. This to me means having to swap a dozen folk off of D&D Beyond because the alternate is weeks of "it says bonus action- But we've been doing action which do I..." "Wait... Conjure elemental makes a cube?" "Hang on which of your homebrew versions do I add?" the site for our tables is going from a helpful shorthand to a hindrance. It's not going to do the one thing we've been using it for- Making the game easier to run.
And genuinely sorry if you feel attacked, I do try to keep all my comments civil and opinion only. But your position here is genuinely "Everyone should play the way I (and the corporation) want them to, and if they don't they should STFU" and I just can't get behind that.
If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
Given WotC went through a long playtest cycle, produced new art and are selling new books... I think calling it an errata is a pretty big stretch.
If you own a Tesla and Elon Musk replaces it with the bottom half of a Cybertruck he can't go "Actually I renamed it Tesla model 5.5, so actually this is a helpful free update for you! Also feel free to buy the rest of the truck at any time"
Just wanting to put this out there for the record - you complained about someone's somewhat sensible analogy... and then had the audacity to post a completely nonsensical one. A better analogy would be owning a Tesla and getting a software update that fixes some performance issues for free which... actually does happen and owners are generally fairly happy about getting free fixes to known issues.
The reality? This is a win-win situation for everyone. Everyone gets free upgrades to spells. Those who want to use the old version still have access to the rules text and can easily homebrew them into their game if they want. There is no real downside to this... other than people whining about change because they simply fear change.
But, of course, complaining about something that is good for the health of the game and does not really have a downside is very on brand for the panic-prone, and easily misled by intentional fearmongering, vocal minority of the D&D community.
Well the analogy i don't think was sensible, because tabletop games are not structured at all like ongoing MMOs. They're finished products. (In fact to add another reason to why that analogy is wrong- you typically can still play with old content when a new expansion hits an MMO)
But sure I'll update the analogy.
Musk replaces your car and goes "Actually it's much better! Our user Caerwyn swears they like it better in every way and you should to!"
It's not the product we paid for Caerwyn. You liking it better doesn't mean we should have to use it.
You can pretend “this is a static game” all you want, but that does not make you right - this game has been getting small errata since it was first released. This is even less intrusive on your imaginary “rights” than errata is - with errata, the old is gone, scrubbed from D&D Beyond. Here, you still have the old, you just need to spend a couple seconds making it work again.
You are throwing a fit because you are afraid of a change you could easily avoid with a modicum of effort. With the amount of time you put into bad analogies and attacking people, you could have already solved your concerns.
Attacking people? An entire book could be filled with the number of times on these forums you have implied others "can't read English," are "unintelligent," must be "bigots," etc., etc., etc. It is all you ever do when you encounter people who disagree with you. Attack them.
Much of your defense of the decision being made is to resort to ad hominem nonsense about how those opposed are just some "horrible" segment of the community. That's just another example of you attacking people. Another example of you doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You would be demolished in an open debate because you engage it that constantly.
Name one spell you prefer the old version. Is it the broken spiritual weapon, which should always have had concentration? Healing spells that were laughably underpowered when compared to monster damage output? Cantrips that no one ever took because they were vastly inferior to other options?
Here is the reality, this isn’t a big deal - and anything you desperately want to keep you still will have access to the rules text and can fix with a homebrew spell of item.
With the amount of effort people are putting into making a mountain out of this insignificant molehill, they could have solved their own problem on the homebrew system.
For preferring old versions, so what if I prefer a concentration-free spiritual weapon? So what if I prefer healing spells to be best-used for getting people up from zero?
Heck, I could argue preferring the 5.5 conjure minor items elementals is just preferring a broken spell that should be fixed.
It's okay if you prefer the 5.5 spells. I'm never going to say your preference for using 5.5 rules at your tables is wrong. As the old saying goes, "In matters of taste, the customer is always right." Our tastes might be different and that's fine. You like the 5.5 spells and that's fine and dandy. I honestly hope you enjoy your games with those rules.
But by that same token, just as it doesn't matter to me which versions of spells you prefer, should it matter to you which versions of spells I prefer?
It's not a sound argument to essentially say we're wrong for preferring the wrong thing. And it's not unreasonable for us, who prefer a different thing and paid for that thing, to want to keep using that thing.
WotC has the ability to have legacy magic items. We've seen that with LMoP and Shattered Obelisk items. And by that same token it should be fine for them to have legacy spells.
For preferring old versions, so what if I prefer a concentration-free spiritual weapon? So what if I prefer healing spells to be best-used for getting people up from zero?
Heck, I could argue preferring the 5.5 conjure minor items elementals is just preferring a broken spell that should be fixed.
It's okay if you prefer the 5.5 spells. I'm never going to say your preference for using 5.5 rules at your tables is wrong. As the old saying goes, "In matters of taste, the customer is always right." Our tastes might be different and that's fine. You like the 5.5 spells and that's fine and dandy. I honestly hope you enjoy your games with those rules.
But by that same token, just as it doesn't matter to me which versions of spells you prefer, should it matter to you which versions of spells I prefer?
It's not a sound argument to essentially say we're wrong for preferring the wrong thing. And it's not unreasonable for us, who prefer a different thing and paid for that thing, to want to keep using that thing.
WotC has the ability to have legacy magic items. We've seen that with LMoP and Shattered Obelisk items. And by that same token it should be fine for them to have legacy spells.
EDIT: grammar
It is very much about preference.
It's why people need to be constantly reminded that there is no right or wrong way to play the game. Cue a new version of the game however and suddenly people are saying there is a "better" way to play and if you're unconvinced and not eager to adopt all of the revisions or would rather wait until any current campaigns have concluded you're doing it "wrong."
Okay, I may be missing something important here, but if I bought 2014 books but haven't bought PHB 2024 - will I even have access to all the spells on my character sheet? They say I will see the updated spells - will I see them if I haven't bought the new book? Usually when I try to access material in a book or supplement I haven't bought, it sends me to marketplace and tells me I need to buy the thing first.
Also, to people saying "what's the big deal" - WotC specifically said that you can easily run 2024 rules and keep using some 2014 elements, but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because 2024 elements will reference rules which didn't exist in 2014 or worked in a different way.
So if I try to use 2024 spells in my 2014 campaign, I'll be constantly running into rules conflicts and gaps. So overwriting all spells means our character sheets are going to be UNUSABLE without extensive homebrewing.
I'm running three long campaigns, currently around level 13-14. We're not switching to 2024 this close to the finish line, and we're not going to homebrew the entire cleric's spell list just to finish up the campaign. What we WILL do is cancel our subscriptions, because it makes no sense to keep paying for a tool we can't use anymore without sinking days of work into it first.
Name one spell you prefer the old version. Is it the broken spiritual weapon, which should always have had concentration? Healing spells that were laughably underpowered when compared to monster damage output? Cantrips that no one ever took because they were vastly inferior to other options?
Here is the reality, this isn’t a big deal - and anything you desperately want to keep you still will have access to the rules text and can fix with a homebrew spell of item.
With the amount of effort people are putting into making a mountain out of this insignificant molehill, they could have solved their own problem on the homebrew system.
Spiritual weapon overpowered are you mad ? 1d8+3/4 damage on a bonus action for a 2nd level spell is pathetic, only reason spiritual weapon was ever used was couse it lacked concentration and could be combined with actually better spells.... you would need 3 rounds for it to have done the same damage as a first level spell like prismatic orb . guiding bolt... or inflict wounds(for which the new version is worthless), but since it was not concentration it could be combined with way better spells like bless or spirit guardians, ill have a hard time justifying casting the new spiritual weapon over almost anything else that would require concentration
Okay, I may be missing something important here, but if I bought 2014 books but haven't bought PHB 2024 - will I even have access to all the spells on my character sheet? They say I will see the updated spells - will I see them if I haven't bought the new book? Usually when I try to access material in a book or supplement I haven't bought, it sends me to marketplace and tells me I need to buy the thing first.
Also, to people saying "what's the big deal" - WotC specifically said that you can easily run 2024 rules and keep using some 2014 elements, but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because 2024 elements will reference rules which didn't exist in 2014 or worked in a different way.
So if I try to use 2024 spells in my 2014 campaign, I'll be constantly running into rules conflicts and gaps. So overwriting all spells means our character sheets are going to be UNUSABLE without extensive homebrewing.
I'm running three long campaigns, currently around level 13-14. We're not switching to 2024 this close to the finish line, and we're not going to homebrew the entire cleric's spell list just to finish up the campaign. What we WILL do is cancel our subscriptions, because it makes no sense to keep paying for a tool we can't use anymore without sinking days of work into it first.
this is my exact concern
they're basically like "sorry guys, you gotta change the mechanics of your entire campaign now if you want to keep using our site, sorrynotsorry"
Yeah, if I have to manually look up things in the Compendium, I can just as well look them up in the physical books. I don't have to pay a subscription for those.
I have yet to see a citation that clearly states that if you _don't_ buy the 2024 PHB you will still be able to use the new 2024 versions of the spells.
Do we have a source that actually says you will be able to use the new versions even if you haven't bought the new book?
To be clear, sources that say the new version will replace the old version DON'T stipulate whether they are referring to people who own the new book, or everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
I don’t know if it was a massive backlash (don’t think this one has been “massive” either, not like the OGL) but there was some with Healing Spirit. And some glad for the change. Same here for the conjure spells imo, for and against.
If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
Given WotC went through a long playtest cycle, produced new art and are selling new books... I think calling it an errata is a pretty big stretch.
If you own a Tesla and Elon Musk replaces it with the bottom half of a Cybertruck he can't go "Actually I renamed it Tesla model 5.5, so actually this is a helpful free update for you! Also feel free to buy the rest of the truck at any time"
Just wanting to put this out there for the record - you complained about someone's somewhat sensible analogy... and then had the audacity to post a completely nonsensical one. A better analogy would be owning a Tesla and getting a software update that fixes some performance issues for free which... actually does happen and owners are generally fairly happy about getting free fixes to known issues.
The reality? This is a win-win situation for everyone. Everyone gets free upgrades to spells. Those who want to use the old version still have access to the rules text and can easily homebrew them into their game if they want. There is no real downside to this... other than people whining about change because they simply fear change.
But, of course, complaining about something that is good for the health of the game and does not really have a downside is very on brand for the panic-prone, and easily misled by intentional fearmongering, vocal minority of the D&D community.
While I agree with you, saying no downside isn’t quite right. Making them Legacy like the 2014 fighter and all the subclasses not being updated would truly be no downside.
Saying you can spend time homebrewing it is a downside. I’m not sure how many spells have actually changed but much like the feats I’m pretty sure they said they basically touched on every one, even if it was just cleanup and slight wording changes.
Okay, I may be missing something important here, but if I bought 2014 books but haven't bought PHB 2024 - will I even have access to all the spells on my character sheet? They say I will see the updated spells - will I see them if I haven't bought the new book? Usually when I try to access material in a book or supplement I haven't bought, it sends me to marketplace and tells me I need to buy the thing first.
Also, to people saying "what's the big deal" - WotC specifically said that you can easily run 2024 rules and keep using some 2014 elements, but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because 2024 elements will reference rules which didn't exist in 2014 or worked in a different way.
So if I try to use 2024 spells in my 2014 campaign, I'll be constantly running into rules conflicts and gaps. So overwriting all spells means our character sheets are going to be UNUSABLE without extensive homebrewing.
I'm running three long campaigns, currently around level 13-14. We're not switching to 2024 this close to the finish line, and we're not going to homebrew the entire cleric's spell list just to finish up the campaign. What we WILL do is cancel our subscriptions, because it makes no sense to keep paying for a tool we can't use anymore without sinking days of work into it first.
this is my exact concern
they're basically like "sorry guys, you gotta change the mechanics of your entire campaign now if you want to keep using our site, sorrynotsorry"
I cancelled my subscription immediately
From the News and Announcement forum on this topic:
Your character has Healing Word prepared and you want to cast the spell. When you click on the spell on your character sheet, you will see the new version of Healing Word. However, you can still find the old version of Healing Word in your copy of the Basic Rules and the 2014 Player’s Handbook in the compendium.
So you will see the updated PHB spells if you don’t have the 2024 PHB. And it shouldn’t break anything if you are running a 2014 campaign after the release. There really shouldn’t be conflicts that cause significant issues from what I can tell.
I imagine most people use DnD Beyond site and app for convenience sake. With these forced changes DnD Beyond is removing convenience for those who prefer the 2014 rules or are in middle of campaigns and aren't going to make the switch right away. My DM uses the 2014 physical books, I'm not expecting him to purchase the 2024 books right away. These forced changes will only slow down the game.
I would like to point out the old spells and magic items are now currently flagged as coming from the Dungeon Master's Guide (2014) and Basic Rules (2014). The new spells and magic items will be tagged with Basic Rules (2024). So the entries could co-exist and their use could be facilitated with a switch in the character builder.
I am currently running a campaign and am playing in 3 others. I also plan on starting a new campaign with the new rules because I like the changes I've seen.
But this news upsets me because it will affect all of my current games that I expected to be able to finish out under the current rules.
To me it's like a magician trying to change out the table cloth on the table. Sure the new one is prettier, but I'm eating Thanksgiving dinner with my family right now and there's no way the meal won't be disrupted by the change.
IMO, this kind of change will make people look for something to use instead of DND Beyond for their current dungeons and dragons campaigns until those are complete and people change to a different system
Honebrew that replicates existing content can't be shared because it's "too similar to official content" which means every DM has to recreate the old content on an individual basis making it arduous at best
I've canceled my subscription over this. I'm just tired of the hyper-monetization of a tabletop roleplaying game. It seems clear to me that DNDBeyond is trying to make things as difficult as possible for people trying to finish out campaigns under 2014 rules so they will switch to 5.5. Which, ironically, makes me less likely to give it a fair chance.
And as a reminder basic rules are the rules you can use without having to own any of the books, so anything flagged as Basic Rules (2024) will be available to everyone regardless what they own
Okay, I may be missing something important here, but if I bought 2014 books but haven't bought PHB 2024 - will I even have access to all the spells on my character sheet? They say I will see the updated spells - will I see them if I haven't bought the new book? Usually when I try to access material in a book or supplement I haven't bought, it sends me to marketplace and tells me I need to buy the thing first.
Also, to people saying "what's the big deal" - WotC specifically said that you can easily run 2024 rules and keep using some 2014 elements, but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because 2024 elements will reference rules which didn't exist in 2014 or worked in a different way.
So if I try to use 2024 spells in my 2014 campaign, I'll be constantly running into rules conflicts and gaps. So overwriting all spells means our character sheets are going to be UNUSABLE without extensive homebrewing.
I'm running three long campaigns, currently around level 13-14. We're not switching to 2024 this close to the finish line, and we're not going to homebrew the entire cleric's spell list just to finish up the campaign. What we WILL do is cancel our subscriptions, because it makes no sense to keep paying for a tool we can't use anymore without sinking days of work into it first.
this is my exact concern
they're basically like "sorry guys, you gotta change the mechanics of your entire campaign now if you want to keep using our site, sorrynotsorry"
I cancelled my subscription immediately
From the News and Announcement forum on this topic:
Your character has Healing Word prepared and you want to cast the spell. When you click on the spell on your character sheet, you will see the new version of Healing Word. However, you can still find the old version of Healing Word in your copy of the Basic Rules and the 2014 Player’s Handbook in the compendium.
So you will see the updated PHB spells if you don’t have the 2024 PHB. And it shouldn’t break anything if you are running a 2014 campaign after the release. There really shouldn’t be conflicts that cause significant issues from what I can tell.
Come on, how can you tell there won't be significant issues? Look at the 2014 paladin equipped with 2024 spells. Or try to guess how new versions of all the 2024 spells referencing new hiding/stealth/invisibility rules will work with a character class abilities built with 2014 rules. And that's just two examples.
If I buy a digital version of Mario Kart 64 and enjoy the broken ass glitches and shit textures it's not an improvement to "update" me to Mario Kart Wii.
The choice of whether or not to swap to a new product is a choice the consumer makes, not the company. That'd be true if the new game was improved in every conceivable metric.
It actually matters a lot.
2024 is basically an errata, and I don't recall a massive backlash to errata updates until today.
Given WotC went through a long playtest cycle, produced new art and are selling new books... I think calling it an errata is a pretty big stretch.
If you own a Tesla and Elon Musk replaces it with the bottom half of a Cybertruck he can't go "Actually I renamed it Tesla model 5.5, so actually this is a helpful free update for you! Also feel free to buy the rest of the truck at any time"
Just wanting to put this out there for the record - you complained about someone's somewhat sensible analogy... and then had the audacity to post a completely nonsensical one. A better analogy would be owning a Tesla and getting a software update that fixes some performance issues for free which... actually does happen and owners are generally fairly happy about getting free fixes to known issues.
The reality? This is a win-win situation for everyone. Everyone gets free upgrades to spells. Those who want to use the old version still have access to the rules text and can easily homebrew them into their game if they want. There is no real downside to this... other than people whining about change because they simply fear change.
But, of course, complaining about something that is good for the health of the game and does not really have a downside is very on brand for the panic-prone, and easily misled by intentional fearmongering, vocal minority of the D&D community.
It is not errata, WotC have been very clear on that. Errata is for correcting errors. These are, and have always been described as, new and updated rules, same as when MMotM was released. The way those have always been handled is to put the old content under a legacy tag. At no point had WotC said that these rules would be treated any differently.
As for the new spells being better, that is 100% a matter of opinion. I've not reviewed them all, but from what I've seen some are better, some are worse, some are too different to compare.
I'm not going to start listing examples, but to just go with Spiritual Weapon. Yes, the old one is a power boost, and yes *potentially* exploitable, but I have never had any issues either playing or dming for clerics. On the other hand, I've always liked that it gives clerics an extra attack, especially at low levels and on spellcasting clerics, with the tradeoff of using a spell slot.
With just that one spell I can see arguments for either version. I can't imagine going through the new list and deciding every single one is better, and I'm sure many of the new rules will have potential exploits. So, they should just do what they've done with every other updated rule and make both versions available using legacy tags.
I can understand why you and many others are happy with this update, especially as you will get the new content for free, but why are you so keen for the old content to be removed from those that still want to use it? Both can exist side by side.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can pretend “this is a static game” all you want, but that does not make you right - this game has been getting small errata since it was first released. This is even less intrusive on your imaginary “rights” than errata is - with errata, the old is gone, scrubbed from D&D Beyond. Here, you still have the old, you just need to spend a couple seconds making it work again.
You are throwing a fit because you are afraid of a change you could easily avoid with a modicum of effort. With the amount of time you put into bad analogies and attacking people, you could have already solved your concerns.
Hang on which of us is pretending here? This is not an errata c'mon. We've been through months of playtests, there's entirely new books launching and whole marketing campaigns. That's not a small rules clarification update in an obscure pdf. Like if we're going to talk at all you have to engage with the fact that's disingenuous.
I think the instruction to "Go look it up and make it yourself" is kind of missing the issue of the complaint there... We all could have done that when we signed up. We paid so we didn't have to do it. The ad-reads all focused sheet integration, the marketing language for the 2014 book still says right now "For integration with our toolkit." people bought things on this website specifically to use them on this websites toolkit because that was the whole point of the website.
What's more there is no wind-down period. Snipping functionality the moment of launch interrupts campaigns.
I'm sure you're swapping immediately so you wont be affected but my tables are. This to me means having to swap a dozen folk off of D&D Beyond because the alternate is weeks of "it says bonus action- But we've been doing action which do I..." "Wait... Conjure elemental makes a cube?" "Hang on which of your homebrew versions do I add?" the site for our tables is going from a helpful shorthand to a hindrance. It's not going to do the one thing we've been using it for- Making the game easier to run.
And genuinely sorry if you feel attacked, I do try to keep all my comments civil and opinion only. But your position here is genuinely "Everyone should play the way I (and the corporation) want them to, and if they don't they should STFU" and I just can't get behind that.
Attacking people? An entire book could be filled with the number of times on these forums you have implied others "can't read English," are "unintelligent," must be "bigots," etc., etc., etc. It is all you ever do when you encounter people who disagree with you. Attack them.
Much of your defense of the decision being made is to resort to ad hominem nonsense about how those opposed are just some "horrible" segment of the community. That's just another example of you attacking people. Another example of you doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You would be demolished in an open debate because you engage it that constantly.
For preferring old versions, so what if I prefer a concentration-free spiritual weapon? So what if I prefer healing spells to be best-used for getting people up from zero?
Heck, I could argue preferring the 5.5 conjure minor
itemselementals is just preferring a broken spell that should be fixed.It's okay if you prefer the 5.5 spells. I'm never going to say your preference for using 5.5 rules at your tables is wrong. As the old saying goes, "In matters of taste, the customer is always right." Our tastes might be different and that's fine. You like the 5.5 spells and that's fine and dandy. I honestly hope you enjoy your games with those rules.
But by that same token, just as it doesn't matter to me which versions of spells you prefer, should it matter to you which versions of spells I prefer?
It's not a sound argument to essentially say we're wrong for preferring the wrong thing. And it's not unreasonable for us, who prefer a different thing and paid for that thing, to want to keep using that thing.
WotC has the ability to have legacy magic items. We've seen that with LMoP and Shattered Obelisk items. And by that same token it should be fine for them to have legacy spells.
EDIT: grammar
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
It is very much about preference.
It's why people need to be constantly reminded that there is no right or wrong way to play the game. Cue a new version of the game however and suddenly people are saying there is a "better" way to play and if you're unconvinced and not eager to adopt all of the revisions or would rather wait until any current campaigns have concluded you're doing it "wrong."
Okay, I may be missing something important here, but if I bought 2014 books but haven't bought PHB 2024 - will I even have access to all the spells on my character sheet? They say I will see the updated spells - will I see them if I haven't bought the new book? Usually when I try to access material in a book or supplement I haven't bought, it sends me to marketplace and tells me I need to buy the thing first.
Also, to people saying "what's the big deal" - WotC specifically said that you can easily run 2024 rules and keep using some 2014 elements, but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because 2024 elements will reference rules which didn't exist in 2014 or worked in a different way.
So if I try to use 2024 spells in my 2014 campaign, I'll be constantly running into rules conflicts and gaps. So overwriting all spells means our character sheets are going to be UNUSABLE without extensive homebrewing.
I'm running three long campaigns, currently around level 13-14. We're not switching to 2024 this close to the finish line, and we're not going to homebrew the entire cleric's spell list just to finish up the campaign. What we WILL do is cancel our subscriptions, because it makes no sense to keep paying for a tool we can't use anymore without sinking days of work into it first.
Spiritual weapon overpowered are you mad ? 1d8+3/4 damage on a bonus action for a 2nd level spell is pathetic, only reason spiritual weapon was ever used was couse it lacked concentration and could be combined with actually better spells.... you would need 3 rounds for it to have done the same damage as a first level spell like prismatic orb . guiding bolt... or inflict wounds(for which the new version is worthless), but since it was not concentration it could be combined with way better spells like bless or spirit guardians, ill have a hard time justifying casting the new spiritual weapon over almost anything else that would require concentration
this is my exact concern
they're basically like "sorry guys, you gotta change the mechanics of your entire campaign now if you want to keep using our site, sorrynotsorry"
I cancelled my subscription immediately
Yeah, if I have to manually look up things in the Compendium, I can just as well look them up in the physical books. I don't have to pay a subscription for those.
I have yet to see a citation that clearly states that if you _don't_ buy the 2024 PHB you will still be able to use the new 2024 versions of the spells.
Do we have a source that actually says you will be able to use the new versions even if you haven't bought the new book?
To be clear, sources that say the new version will replace the old version DON'T stipulate whether they are referring to people who own the new book, or everyone.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I don’t know if it was a massive backlash (don’t think this one has been “massive” either, not like the OGL) but there was some with Healing Spirit. And some glad for the change. Same here for the conjure spells imo, for and against.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You didn’t get to with Healing Spirit and maybe you were upset then, I don’t know. But it happened. I can understand your frustration though.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While I agree with you, saying no downside isn’t quite right. Making them Legacy like the 2014 fighter and all the subclasses not being updated would truly be no downside.
Saying you can spend time homebrewing it is a downside.
I’m not sure how many spells have actually changed but much like the feats I’m pretty sure they said they basically touched on every one, even if it was just cleanup and slight wording changes.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
From the News and Announcement forum on this topic:
So you will see the updated PHB spells if you don’t have the 2024 PHB. And it shouldn’t break anything if you are running a 2014 campaign after the release. There really shouldn’t be conflicts that cause significant issues from what I can tell.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I imagine most people use DnD Beyond site and app for convenience sake. With these forced changes DnD Beyond is removing convenience for those who prefer the 2014 rules or are in middle of campaigns and aren't going to make the switch right away. My DM uses the 2014 physical books, I'm not expecting him to purchase the 2024 books right away. These forced changes will only slow down the game.
I would like to point out the old spells and magic items are now currently flagged as coming from the Dungeon Master's Guide (2014) and Basic Rules (2014). The new spells and magic items will be tagged with Basic Rules (2024). So the entries could co-exist and their use could be facilitated with a switch in the character builder.
I am currently running a campaign and am playing in 3 others. I also plan on starting a new campaign with the new rules because I like the changes I've seen.
But this news upsets me because it will affect all of my current games that I expected to be able to finish out under the current rules.
To me it's like a magician trying to change out the table cloth on the table. Sure the new one is prettier, but I'm eating Thanksgiving dinner with my family right now and there's no way the meal won't be disrupted by the change.
IMO, this kind of change will make people look for something to use instead of DND Beyond for their current dungeons and dragons campaigns until those are complete and people change to a different system
Honebrew that replicates existing content can't be shared because it's "too similar to official content" which means every DM has to recreate the old content on an individual basis making it arduous at best
I've canceled my subscription over this. I'm just tired of the hyper-monetization of a tabletop roleplaying game. It seems clear to me that DNDBeyond is trying to make things as difficult as possible for people trying to finish out campaigns under 2014 rules so they will switch to 5.5. Which, ironically, makes me less likely to give it a fair chance.
And as a reminder basic rules are the rules you can use without having to own any of the books, so anything flagged as Basic Rules (2024) will be available to everyone regardless what they own
Come on, how can you tell there won't be significant issues? Look at the 2014 paladin equipped with 2024 spells. Or try to guess how new versions of all the 2024 spells referencing new hiding/stealth/invisibility rules will work with a character class abilities built with 2014 rules. And that's just two examples.
It is not errata, WotC have been very clear on that. Errata is for correcting errors. These are, and have always been described as, new and updated rules, same as when MMotM was released. The way those have always been handled is to put the old content under a legacy tag. At no point had WotC said that these rules would be treated any differently.
As for the new spells being better, that is 100% a matter of opinion. I've not reviewed them all, but from what I've seen some are better, some are worse, some are too different to compare.
I'm not going to start listing examples, but to just go with Spiritual Weapon. Yes, the old one is a power boost, and yes *potentially* exploitable, but I have never had any issues either playing or dming for clerics. On the other hand, I've always liked that it gives clerics an extra attack, especially at low levels and on spellcasting clerics, with the tradeoff of using a spell slot.
With just that one spell I can see arguments for either version. I can't imagine going through the new list and deciding every single one is better, and I'm sure many of the new rules will have potential exploits. So, they should just do what they've done with every other updated rule and make both versions available using legacy tags.
I can understand why you and many others are happy with this update, especially as you will get the new content for free, but why are you so keen for the old content to be removed from those that still want to use it? Both can exist side by side.