ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
It is obvious they still want people to be able to use options from Tasha's and Xanathar's and other prior publications, and they want folks to be able to use their homebrew built off the old rules. Obvious because they are trying to figure out how to make that happen, and they did not, in fact, just shut down all the 2014 content.
the same argument for keeping 2014 around is the basic argument that says they should add every edition of the game into the website. Want to play 3.5 on DDB? Cool! Yay! Want to play 0e? Cool, yay. Want to play the completely dropped and kicked to the side Basic series? Sure, fine, go for it.
Notice how that isn't in the works, how no one is really calling for that? Where are the threats to boycott because you can't play 4e on DDB?
I don't mean in the past, I mean now.
If you don't think they should do that, should put in the effort to support old versions of D&D, then it seems to me that folks should feel the same way about the 2014 version. It is the Old Version of the game. It did its time, it served its role.
Just me. But I prefer my saltiness mixed with sweetness, i guess.
I would 100% support doing it that way if this were a new edition and if the marketing for the 2024 core rulebooks hadn't hammered home that they work with 5E because they are 5E. Would some sliders and checkboxes to keep the two different PHB versions separated be nice? Sure, I guess. I'm not getting bent out of shape about it either way though.
I never said anything about negating prior purchases.
I certainly did not say anything about people only being able to play a particular version of the game.
People who purchased other older versions of the game, 0e or 1e or 2e or 2eR, or 3e, or 3.5e, or 4e , etc are not being allowed to use their material here.
Now, as a final bit, I never gave my opinion on how the site should work. So how you can make a statemen about my opinion without knowing it is somewhat troublesome.
I said my feelings about things are that the character builder should only work with 2024 material. I never even explained why.
The character builder is not the entire site, it isn't even the entire game. I said nothing about access to previously purchased materials other than that it would be reasonable to ask for inclusion of older rule sets in the site if someone is asking for a free function that one does not need to spend money on to use is going to include an older rule set.
So, questions:
Are you saying that not allowing older editions the same thing you are asking for is gatekeeping as well?
Is there are reason you opted to invent something I said in order to have a position to speak from?
Why aren't you hollering for DDB to include 1e, 2e, 3e, etc?
How is that gatekeeping if it doesn't affect access to the materials?
Are you suggesting that older rulesets should not be included in DDB?
Please do not lie about what I say. If you suspect that I mean something other than what I say, ask for clarification before making an assumption.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Having the rules combined in the character generator is an annoyance to me, but not a major one.
Once I learned that there might be two different versions of a feat,, spell, whatever and that I need to be sure to select the right one, I had no big issue with it.
The only thing that crossed a line for me was discovering that DnDB’s position is that, even after I buy an item, they reserve the right to take it away from me without notification, justification, or compensation.
But, as is usually the case, there’s a simple solution 1.) spread the word that that is DnDB’s position and will stay their position until a court rules it a violation of contract law and 2.) let it be known that, as a result of this position, I will purchase no more digital content and encourage other players to take the same stance.
Beyond that, there’s no hard feelings.
It's not a violation of contract law. Being able to modify the content or restrict access to it is boilerplate EULA and TOS language for digital goods and has been for close to thirty years now. The default with most digital purchases is that you don't own what you're buying; you're essentially just paying for a license to use it within certain parameters. Maybe you've been incredibly lucky to not previously have run into this kind of situation where access to a digital good or service changes. But if you find this irksome I strongly suggest you either swear off buying any and all digital goods or read every purchase agreement more carefully than you did here with D&D Beyond, because it's bog standard.
[Redacted] I was saying that my feelings on this are that they should just make the character builder only work with 2024 rules.\
They won't, of course; as I noted they demonstrate ample evidence of having no desire or intent to do so.
Nevertheless, since they are trying to make it work with one older ruleset, why not make it work with all the older rulesets?
At the very least, it would enable me to continue my undying passion for talking smack about 3.x.
2014 and 2024 are both 5th Edition, and are therefore both "current". WotC has been very clear on that. Therefore, could you explain why you feel part of the current edition should be removed/depreciated from the site (which includes the Compendium *and* the character builder)?
Older editions are a completely different subject as they have never been on the site and would have to be programmed from scratch. 2014 on the other hand is already here (mostly), but is actively being removed/downgraded.
All that is needed is a functional way to segregate the two rulesets and/or filter the sources you want to use, including turning off 2024 if you aren'tusing it. Not just in the compendium and builder though, but also on the sheet itself. That way everyone can use exactly what they want.
Don’t forget that among the things they can do is revoke a license for banning, or even for closing a membership account.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I did not say that I felt part of the current edition should be removed or deprecated from the site.
please do not lie about what I said. It is a bad faith argument. Since I did not say that, I cannot respond to your question, since it has nothing to do with what I did say.
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
I did not say that I felt part of the current edition should be removed or deprecated from the site.
please do not lie about what I said. It is a bad faith argument. Since I did not say that, I cannot respond to your question, since it has nothing to do with what I did say.
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
hmmm…
The quoted part is what I said earlier. It makes no mention of methodology or process.
How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
I am not a programmer. How they do it is not something I am speaking to. So I make no proposal on how they do it now, nor did I do so then. I did note they are obviously trying to accommodate people, however.
This does not seem to be a mea culpa for having lied about what I said.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
If I disagreed, then it seems to me to be obvious that I do not think there is a difference, since they are adding the new rules anyway, and they did not exist in the site earlier, and were, we are told, made from scratch.
Addition is happening either way. Retention of outdated rulesets seems to be the goal, so it is not an unreasonable query in regards older rulesets being retained as well. The same underlying concerns exist — the desire of people to persist in playing with older rulesets to use a free service that is available without cost, to be able to have that service perform the same tracking, updating, etc features as it does for the current ruleset, and the fact that their not doing so is offensive to customers of theirs, an example of bad business planning, and so forth.
The 2014 PHB is an old ruleset, just like any other ruleset produced previously. The treatment and retention of players who enjoy any of the rulesets should be of equal import and value, and the arguments given in this thread so far are all equally supportive and proffer the same reasoning to retain the older ones.
with not one iota less anger and frustration than in previous years of change, I will add.
so, if they are interested in preserving 2014 rules, they should be demanding other outdated, old rulesets — to build up solidarity, boost the strength of their argument, and increase the number of customers supportive of including old, superseded rulesets in the current free service who just want to play with the rules they like and not the latest rules.
lest you think I am being supercilious, note that I played 2e for 25 years, and consider 3.x the most useless trash of a version ever created. I would love for them to completely ignore 3.x — but that would be hypocritical if I sought retention of outdated, replaced rulesets, since it is an outdated, replaced ruleset. Singling one out for retention is equally hypocritical, and comes across as overly entitled and bitter about changes, but unconcerned with others in a similar situation. It is, then, selfish and juvenile.
so, no, I do not see a difference, since those other outdated, replaced, old, superseded, that already exist, just like the 2014 PHB (for now), would be added into the service that is provided without cost.
i do not care about excuses, either — how they achieve that is neither a problem I have to solve, nor one I am genuinely capable of addressing with a degree of competence I find acceptable. That the site already has one old ruleset no longer current is merely a point in favor of bringing on other old rulesets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Remember that we do not allow any solicitation or offering of legal advice, nor is that on topic for the thread at hand.
This thread is to discuss what content is automatically included in character creation and rules, and the pros and cons of how to include those changes. Further digression will result in the thread being locked.
I don't think going straight to the nuclear option is the best route to produce helpful results for getting the site sorted to separate 2014 and 2024 content.
Admittedly I'm not riled up about this because most of the content is already separated and the bits that aren't register as mild inconvenience to me.
I don't think going straight to the nuclear option is the best route to produce helpful results for getting the site sorted to separate 2014 and 2024 content.
Admittedly I'm not riled up about this because most of the content is already separated and the bits that aren't register as mild inconvenience to me.
Would you mind telling us if you bought into the new rule set? That seems to be the divide, those that bought in don't seem to mind as much as those that didn't. At least that is my theory based on the posts I have read. I am just curious. The tables I play at that have started the transition, while a little frustrated, are not as put off as the tables that were planning to wait a while if ever to switch. Personally I would love a toggle as so much time has/is being wasted over the hot mess WotC has served us with this roll out. It would be a big laugh if so much game time hadn't been wasted over this in my games.
Bought the 2024 PHB, but haven't finished the campaign with 2014 PHB characters yet. I'm so accustomed to rolling with edition changes that a smaller rule update like this feels easier to adjust to.
As I said a while ago, while the current situation doesn't bug me, I'm not opposed to a more effective toggle.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that even though I like the idea of breaking down the PHB2014 vs PHB2024 content even more, nobody has any idea how much work that will take given we don't have any insight to the backend. If I had to guess I'd think there's internal discussion going on that we're just not privy to. C'est la vie.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
You still have all your paid content.
Not strictly true. Non-magical weapons and armor are all the 2024 versions, with the 2024 weapon properties. There are no legacy versions.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
I'm fairly certain I was quite clear above how the car analogy was both silly and wrong, and I'm not sure why you thought replying to it would be helpful at all.
Also, because I'd rather not start a long quote chain from information you posted afterwards, I was very much able to open the 2014 PHB and see that none of the information in it has been changed.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
I'm fairly certain I was quite clear above how the car analogy was both silly and wrong, and I'm not sure why you thought replying to it would be helpful at all.
Also, because I'd rather not start a long quote chain from information you posted afterwards, I was very much able to open the 2014 PHB and see that none of the information in it has been changed.
2014 Weapons:
They did not edit the 2014 PHB but they did remove all references from the equipment pages, such that characters made using DDB can only use those referencing the 2024 rules. This is also true for armor, but not sure there are any changes there.
From what I understand, the developers inherited code that was written by a third party and wasn’t particularly architected very well, certainly not designed for future development.
If that is true, then the developers deserve gratitude and praise. Having been in that position myself, I know how hard their task was to integrate 2024 content with the 2012 material. It was a bit like an open hand monk fighting black pudding.
So, I want to take a break from what seems like a thread of never-ending criticism to say “thanks,”
Except they have for other items on the list, so I am skeptical the code is the reason. After all, someone had to have added the 2024 versions and that had to have happened relatively recently. It is more that they retroactively changed the data entries on the original official position is that the 2024 rules overwrite the 2014 rules wherever they overlap.
Which was problematic for a ton of reasons already discussed endlessly, in this and in other threads.
They could make new entries without the 2024 flags (the ability to make new entries seems not any sort coding problem) and flag them 'legacy' but that would cost time and thus money. I do suppose they could have literally fired everyone who set up the new 2024 rules and replaced them all and that causing some issues, but I am skeptical that any such thing happened.
Invoking Say or the inevitable discussions of Malthus and Keynes that invocation leads to isn't terribly germane to the topic of toggling 2024 PHB settings on D&D Beyond.
I'm not comfortable making baseless assumptions about how easy or hard it may be for the dev team to update code on the back end. None of us have access to the code or to inside information about the code or the project. I'm skeptical of any suppositions because we just don't have anything to base such assertions on.
At any rate, I think the devs did a good job at separating the 2024 PHB content from the 2014 PHB content as much as they did. Sure, it would have been nice to have an option to toggle the site to "2014 Only Mode" in the vein of World of WarCraft Classic - especially for a handful of folks who really want to keep 2014 and 2024 separate and never the twain shall meet. But I'd question whether that would even be the right thing to do long-term anyway.
From what I understand, the developers inherited code that was written by a third party and wasn’t particularly architected very well, certainly not designed for future development.
If that is true, then the developers deserve gratitude and praise. Having been in that position myself, I know how hard their task was to integrate 2024 content with the 2012 material. It was a bit like an open hand monk fighting black pudding.
So, I want to take a break from what seems like a thread of never-ending criticism to say “thanks,”
No code is ever truly designed for future development because you can’t predict what the future will bring.
From what I understand, the developers inherited code that was written by a third party and wasn’t particularly architected very well, certainly not designed for future development.
If that is true, then the developers deserve gratitude and praise. Having been in that position myself, I know how hard their task was to integrate 2024 content with the 2012 material. It was a bit like an open hand monk fighting black pudding.
So, I want to take a break from what seems like a thread of never-ending criticism to say “thanks,”
Except they have for other items on the list, so I am skeptical the code is the reason. After all, someone had to have added the 2024 versions and that had to have happened relatively recently. It is more that they retroactively changed the data entries on the original official position is that the 2024 rules overwrite the 2014 rules wherever they overlap.
Which was problematic for a ton of reasons already discussed endlessly, in this and in other threads.
They could make new entries without the 2024 flags (the ability to make new entries seems not any sort coding problem) and flag them 'legacy' but that would cost time and thus money. I do suppose they could have literally fired everyone who set up the new 2024 rules and replaced them all and that causing some issues, but I am skeptical that any such thing happened.
More like they are in the process of changing servers, and are building a new RDBMS to support the new rules. That would be the best option, as then the ability to change the way certain elements work in the number of services that are available can be better understood and implemented.
But it would and can come at the cost of having to breakdown the older code to understand how they implemented certain elements, and the changes needed. With some changes requiring a completely different approach, that the old code ether can’t effectively handle the changes, or the code potentially used so spaghettied that it’s best just to rebuild it from the ground up.
The fact that the older material is still intact for use as reference access, and currently available for use in the services still provided for that material means a way to separate the two is still possible.
Question is will that separation occur allowing the older material to be used for a time beyond the complete release of the new, or will the older material be mothballed as soon as the new is implemented?
We shall find out more in due time, but IMHO the possibility of the community getting that ability to disconnect the 2024 from 2014 via a choice is looking not so great.
These are database entries. We know they have a searchable 'Legacy flag' and we know that new entries can be made. So what coding problems are involved here?
From what I understand, the developers inherited code that was written by a third party and wasn’t particularly architected very well, certainly not designed for future development.
If that is true, then the developers deserve gratitude and praise. Having been in that position myself, I know how hard their task was to integrate 2024 content with the 2012 material. It was a bit like an open hand monk fighting black pudding.
So, I want to take a break from what seems like a thread of never-ending criticism to say “thanks,”
No code is ever truly designed for future development because you can’t predict what the future will bring.
From what I understand, the developers inherited code that was written by a third party and wasn’t particularly architected very well, certainly not designed for future development.
If that is true, then the developers deserve gratitude and praise. Having been in that position myself, I know how hard their task was to integrate 2024 content with the 2012 material. It was a bit like an open hand monk fighting black pudding.
So, I want to take a break from what seems like a thread of never-ending criticism to say “thanks,”
Except they have for other items on the list, so I am skeptical the code is the reason. After all, someone had to have added the 2024 versions and that had to have happened relatively recently. It is more that they retroactively changed the data entries on the original official position is that the 2024 rules overwrite the 2014 rules wherever they overlap.
Which was problematic for a ton of reasons already discussed endlessly, in this and in other threads.
They could make new entries without the 2024 flags (the ability to make new entries seems not any sort coding problem) and flag them 'legacy' but that would cost time and thus money. I do suppose they could have literally fired everyone who set up the new 2024 rules and replaced them all and that causing some issues, but I am skeptical that any such thing happened.
More like they are in the process of changing servers, and are building a new RDBMS to support the new rules. That would be the best option, as then the ability to change the way certain elements work in the number of services that are available can be better understood and implemented.
But it would and can come at the cost of having to breakdown the older code to understand how they implemented certain elements, and the changes needed. With some changes requiring a completely different approach, that the old code ether can’t effectively handle the changes, or the code potentially used so spaghettied that it’s best just to rebuild it from the ground up.
The fact that the older material is still intact for use as reference access, and currently available for use in the services still provided for that material means a way to separate the two is still possible.
Question is will that separation occur allowing the older material to be used for a time beyond the complete release of the new, or will the older material be mothballed as soon as the new is implemented?
We shall find out more in due time, but IMHO the possibility of the community getting that ability to disconnect the 2024 from 2014 via a choice is looking not so great.
These are database entries. We know they have a searchable 'Legacy flag' and we know that new entries can be made. So what coding problems are involved here?
Do we know that they have a searchable 'Legacy flag'? How do we know that? When was it inserted into the code?
Had to have been post 2024 rule development or else there is no point to it
Check a search for Torch. Note they have a 2024 version and a 2014 version flagged 'Legacy.'
For those two entries to both exist, they had to have access to the ability to give one item that flag and the other not. The non-legacy version references the 2024 rules. The legacy version references the 2014 rules.
We know they can make new weapon entries using the normal interface or there would never be any. It is only if there is some new game effect that extra code is needed and since DDB does not do the Avrae coding, anything new would at most include some sort of flag or other hook that Avrae (Or any other similar system) can reference. We know the tag exists.
( Note: I have no knowledge about what’s happening behind the scenes at DDB, but it has to be crunch time and we can be confident they are doing this short handed. Kudos to those whose insanity is being tested in that dev team, I can’t imagine it being easy. )
Except all these really need is a separate database entry for versions without the new tags. They can just add a (l) to the name if for some insane reason they cannot use the legacy tag with weapons or armor. Someone had to have manually changed those links in the first place from pointing at the 2014 descriptions to pointing at the 2024 descriptions. They clearly still know how to do that.
This is not a coding issue. Or at least it really shouldn't be. And even if it was, why would new database entries not be a viable solution, even if they do not actually cross reference formally? (and not completely sure how much if any of it does)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would 100% support doing it that way if this were a new edition and if the marketing for the 2024 core rulebooks hadn't hammered home that they work with 5E because they are 5E. Would some sliders and checkboxes to keep the two different PHB versions separated be nice? Sure, I guess. I'm not getting bent out of shape about it either way though.
That a mighty large leap of yours.
So, questions:
Please do not lie about what I say. If you suspect that I mean something other than what I say, ask for clarification before making an assumption.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It's not a violation of contract law. Being able to modify the content or restrict access to it is boilerplate EULA and TOS language for digital goods and has been for close to thirty years now. The default with most digital purchases is that you don't own what you're buying; you're essentially just paying for a license to use it within certain parameters. Maybe you've been incredibly lucky to not previously have run into this kind of situation where access to a digital good or service changes. But if you find this irksome I strongly suggest you either swear off buying any and all digital goods or read every purchase agreement more carefully than you did here with D&D Beyond, because it's bog standard.
2014 and 2024 are both 5th Edition, and are therefore both "current". WotC has been very clear on that. Therefore, could you explain why you feel part of the current edition should be removed/depreciated from the site (which includes the Compendium *and* the character builder)?
Older editions are a completely different subject as they have never been on the site and would have to be programmed from scratch. 2014 on the other hand is already here (mostly), but is actively being removed/downgraded.
All that is needed is a functional way to segregate the two rulesets and/or filter the sources you want to use, including turning off 2024 if you aren'tusing it. Not just in the compendium and builder though, but also on the sheet itself. That way everyone can use exactly what they want.
Don’t forget that among the things they can do is revoke a license for banning, or even for closing a membership account.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keep something that already exists, and asking to add something that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
hmmm…
The quoted part is what I said earlier. It makes no mention of methodology or process.
I am not a programmer. How they do it is not something I am speaking to. So I make no proposal on how they do it now, nor did I do so then. I did note they are obviously trying to accommodate people, however.
This does not seem to be a mea culpa for having lied about what I said.
If I disagreed, then it seems to me to be obvious that I do not think there is a difference, since they are adding the new rules anyway, and they did not exist in the site earlier, and were, we are told, made from scratch.
Addition is happening either way. Retention of outdated rulesets seems to be the goal, so it is not an unreasonable query in regards older rulesets being retained as well. The same underlying concerns exist — the desire of people to persist in playing with older rulesets to use a free service that is available without cost, to be able to have that service perform the same tracking, updating, etc features as it does for the current ruleset, and the fact that their not doing so is offensive to customers of theirs, an example of bad business planning, and so forth.
The 2014 PHB is an old ruleset, just like any other ruleset produced previously. The treatment and retention of players who enjoy any of the rulesets should be of equal import and value, and the arguments given in this thread so far are all equally supportive and proffer the same reasoning to retain the older ones.
with not one iota less anger and frustration than in previous years of change, I will add.
so, if they are interested in preserving 2014 rules, they should be demanding other outdated, old rulesets — to build up solidarity, boost the strength of their argument, and increase the number of customers supportive of including old, superseded rulesets in the current free service who just want to play with the rules they like and not the latest rules.
lest you think I am being supercilious, note that I played 2e for 25 years, and consider 3.x the most useless trash of a version ever created. I would love for them to completely ignore 3.x — but that would be hypocritical if I sought retention of outdated, replaced rulesets, since it is an outdated, replaced ruleset. Singling one out for retention is equally hypocritical, and comes across as overly entitled and bitter about changes, but unconcerned with others in a similar situation. It is, then, selfish and juvenile.
so, no, I do not see a difference, since those other outdated, replaced, old, superseded, that already exist, just like the 2014 PHB (for now), would be added into the service that is provided without cost.
i do not care about excuses, either — how they achieve that is neither a problem I have to solve, nor one I am genuinely capable of addressing with a degree of competence I find acceptable. That the site already has one old ruleset no longer current is merely a point in favor of bringing on other old rulesets.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorRemember that we do not allow any solicitation or offering of legal advice, nor is that on topic for the thread at hand.
This thread is to discuss what content is automatically included in character creation and rules, and the pros and cons of how to include those changes. Further digression will result in the thread being locked.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
I don't think going straight to the nuclear option is the best route to produce helpful results for getting the site sorted to separate 2014 and 2024 content.
Admittedly I'm not riled up about this because most of the content is already separated and the bits that aren't register as mild inconvenience to me.
Bought the 2024 PHB, but haven't finished the campaign with 2014 PHB characters yet. I'm so accustomed to rolling with edition changes that a smaller rule update like this feels easier to adjust to.
As I said a while ago, while the current situation doesn't bug me, I'm not opposed to a more effective toggle.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that even though I like the idea of breaking down the PHB2014 vs PHB2024 content even more, nobody has any idea how much work that will take given we don't have any insight to the backend. If I had to guess I'd think there's internal discussion going on that we're just not privy to. C'est la vie.
I have paid for a bunch of content. Now Instead of that I'm getting the new free stuff. How does that make sense? You bought this vintage Ferrari but now we're giving you this brand new Honda Civic, so you get to drive that. Except the Honda only has parts of the engine so we connected it to the Ferrari transmission and the front wheels. But the radio does bluetooth so you're welcome.
You still have all your paid content.
pronouns: he/she/they
Not strictly true. Non-magical weapons and armor are all the 2024 versions, with the 2024 weapon properties. There are no legacy versions.
I'm fairly certain I was quite clear above how the car analogy was both silly and wrong, and I'm not sure why you thought replying to it would be helpful at all.
Also, because I'd rather not start a long quote chain from information you posted afterwards, I was very much able to open the 2014 PHB and see that none of the information in it has been changed.
2014 Weapons:
They did not edit the 2014 PHB but they did remove all references from the equipment pages, such that characters made using DDB can only use those referencing the 2024 rules. This is also true for armor, but not sure there are any changes there.
Except they have for other items on the list, so I am skeptical the code is the reason. After all, someone had to have added the 2024 versions and that had to have happened relatively recently. It is more that they retroactively changed the data entries on the original official position is that the 2024 rules overwrite the 2014 rules wherever they overlap.
Which was problematic for a ton of reasons already discussed endlessly, in this and in other threads.
They could make new entries without the 2024 flags (the ability to make new entries seems not any sort coding problem) and flag them 'legacy' but that would cost time and thus money. I do suppose they could have literally fired everyone who set up the new 2024 rules and replaced them all and that causing some issues, but I am skeptical that any such thing happened.
Invoking Say or the inevitable discussions of Malthus and Keynes that invocation leads to isn't terribly germane to the topic of toggling 2024 PHB settings on D&D Beyond.
I'm not comfortable making baseless assumptions about how easy or hard it may be for the dev team to update code on the back end. None of us have access to the code or to inside information about the code or the project. I'm skeptical of any suppositions because we just don't have anything to base such assertions on.
At any rate, I think the devs did a good job at separating the 2024 PHB content from the 2014 PHB content as much as they did. Sure, it would have been nice to have an option to toggle the site to "2014 Only Mode" in the vein of World of WarCraft Classic - especially for a handful of folks who really want to keep 2014 and 2024 separate and never the twain shall meet. But I'd question whether that would even be the right thing to do long-term anyway.
These are database entries. We know they have a searchable 'Legacy flag' and we know that new entries can be made. So what coding problems are involved here?
Had to have been post 2024 rule development or else there is no point to it
Check a search for Torch. Note they have a 2024 version and a 2014 version flagged 'Legacy.'
For those two entries to both exist, they had to have access to the ability to give one item that flag and the other not. The non-legacy version references the 2024 rules. The legacy version references the 2014 rules.
We know they can make new weapon entries using the normal interface or there would never be any. It is only if there is some new game effect that extra code is needed and since DDB does not do the Avrae coding, anything new would at most include some sort of flag or other hook that Avrae (Or any other similar system) can reference. We know the tag exists.
What here is scary, difficult stuff?
Except all these really need is a separate database entry for versions without the new tags. They can just add a (l) to the name if for some insane reason they cannot use the legacy tag with weapons or armor. Someone had to have manually changed those links in the first place from pointing at the 2014 descriptions to pointing at the 2024 descriptions. They clearly still know how to do that.
This is not a coding issue. Or at least it really shouldn't be. And even if it was, why would new database entries not be a viable solution, even if they do not actually cross reference formally? (and not completely sure how much if any of it does)