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?
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.
If you had read back, then you would have found me saying that it is my understanding that they inherited code from a third party which was not designed for further development. I offered a "thanks" for the work that they did. I do not appreciate someone now coming in and taking my words as a criticism of their work.
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?
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)
Personally, I approached the new book releases like this with great optimism: i preordered them from Amazon since I decided not to use the Revised 2024 rules on D&D Beyond. I foolishly believed what Perkins was saying on youtube that the 2014 and 2024 books would be SEPERATE but COMPATIBLE. I decided 2014 campaigns would be on D&D Beyond and if we did a 2024 campaign it would be pencil & paper mainly because i already have problems enforcing sources of material as it is. Players turn on Eberron or Minecraft and pick material that's not being used and then I have to get them to change their settings, stivk to the source naterial we're ACTUALLY using .. yada yada. HOWEVER now it's clear D&D Beyond is defaulting to the new Revised rules with NO OPTION to turn off the revised rules and only use 2014 rules. That's why all my current campaigns are ending in December and in January I'm not going to use D&D Beyond anymore. I'll be cancelling my Master tier subscription I've had since the beginning of D&D Beyond and I'm done. I'll only be using paper & pencil from the New Year. D&D is confusing enough for new players. Using D&D Beyond is confusing enough for new players. But muddying the waters and complicating things with mixing 2014 with 2024 with no option to choose which to use or not use is not appealing to me. Period. Most of us own hard copies of the 2014 rules. We want to use D&D Beyond to keep using the 2014 rules. I'm only buying the 2024 books because I'm a collector who started playing in 1987 and own almost every book I've been sble to get my hands on. I own six copies of the Dungeoneering Handbook, for example. But what Perkins promised has not come true. D&D Beyond is determined to "force" the 2024 rules as the default. I'm just not going to continue paying to use a website that makes teaching the 2014 rules more complicated. Honestly, I'm suggesting to my players to crack open good old fashion BECMI and return to the good old days. 7 year plus member of D&D Beyond giving up on the program/app because the promise of being sble to choose to use either/or 2014 or 2024 was a lie. 😉👍
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.
If you had read back, then you would have found me saying that it is my understanding that they inherited code from a third party which was not designed for further development. I offered a "thanks" for the work that they did. I do not appreciate someone now coming in and taking my words as a criticism of their work.
I didn't portray anything you said as criticism. You've misunderstood my post.
Setting that aside, DDB itself was a third-party tool for D&D 5E, but WotC acquired it from Fandom (who had previously acquired it from Curse). But there's no evidence to suggest that DDB is dealing with orphan code they inherited from a third party.
They made MCDM and Koblod Press toggles. Code argument invalid.
That’s a very good point.
However, it only applies to things that don’t fundamentally change the game. Putting stat bonuses in backgrounds is an example of something that fundamentally changes the game.
They made MCDM and Koblod Press toggles. Code argument invalid.
That’s a very good point.
However, it only applies to things that don’t fundamentally change the game. Putting stat bonuses in backgrounds is an example of something that fundamentally changes the game.
They had the ability to put feats in backgrounds already and feats can give stats. And the 2014 backgrounds are still there and still are useable (and are separately categorized).
Guys, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but when you create a new character, you can choose to create it under the 2024 rules or the 2014 rules.
When you land on the "1.Class" page, the list of 2024 classes is expended by default, so you have to scroll down or toggle off the 2024 list to see the 2014 list when you choose your class. Also, make sure you have the "2014 Core Rules" checked on the previous page (the "Home" page of the character creation process).
I guess you have to own the 2014 Player's Handbook to see this option.
@greengaroo I am sorry, but there is no option to disable the 2024 content, not for new, not for existing characters. They choose to hardcode and force more people buying the physical books to match, my guess.
Fyi, the legacy tag came after DDb had started to legacy content like SCAG and EEPG and did what wotc was supposed to do with 2014 rules, cut it to only compendium reference. But when people noticed the inability to access the content, DDB decided to toss what it could into the basic rules version on DDB.( this was before the site was bought by WotC in 2022.
In, i think not exactly sure, 2020-21, DDbeyond had begun using the tag [legacy] on the already established content that had been created and enabled for use on the site, and especially the character generator content that many people like. That’s because WotC had begun publishing newer content and that content was considered “revised” content. ( Lost Mines of Phandelver: Shattered Obelisk, member )
So the ability to toggle the difference between different content has been a thing the developers of DDbeyond have been able to make in the code.
the reason why a 2014 rules only toggle, one that would exclude all 2024 “revised” content, is “difficult” is because WotC would probably need to build a new database solely for 2024 content, to maintain separation, and the cost benefit of such more than just rebuilding the database. ( as the majority of the work needed to design a system that is already developed to enter database entries that can apply to a character have been built.[ hum, homebrew tools anyone?])
They, WotC / DDbeyond devs, can still make and create a 2014 rules only toggle.
( or did they already cross the no going back line?[ no, i think they still have the ability to keep the two completely separate. But will they EVER make a 2014 rules only toggle? )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Except that a lot of people are upset about them not being here.
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
Except that a lot of people are upset about them not being here.
I'm sure there are SOME people that would like pre 5E editions included for the site. But it is a stretch to say A LOT in comparison to the percentage using 5E.
I know there are people still playing basic and 1st ed. I doubt there are that many that care about it being on DDB.
I never made a comparison in terms of percentage -- that's something you did.
The argument still stands.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
If you had read back, then you would have found me saying that it is my understanding that they inherited code from a third party which was not designed for further development. I offered a "thanks" for the work that they did. I do not appreciate someone now coming in and taking my words as a criticism of their work.
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.
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)
Personally, I approached the new book releases like this with great optimism: i preordered them from Amazon since I decided not to use the Revised 2024 rules on D&D Beyond. I foolishly believed what Perkins was saying on youtube that the 2014 and 2024 books would be SEPERATE but COMPATIBLE. I decided 2014 campaigns would be on D&D Beyond and if we did a 2024 campaign it would be pencil & paper mainly because i already have problems enforcing sources of material as it is. Players turn on Eberron or Minecraft and pick material that's not being used and then I have to get them to change their settings, stivk to the source naterial we're ACTUALLY using .. yada yada. HOWEVER now it's clear D&D Beyond is defaulting to the new Revised rules with NO OPTION to turn off the revised rules and only use 2014 rules. That's why all my current campaigns are ending in December and in January I'm not going to use D&D Beyond anymore. I'll be cancelling my Master tier subscription I've had since the beginning of D&D Beyond and I'm done. I'll only be using paper & pencil from the New Year. D&D is confusing enough for new players. Using D&D Beyond is confusing enough for new players. But muddying the waters and complicating things with mixing 2014 with 2024 with no option to choose which to use or not use is not appealing to me. Period. Most of us own hard copies of the 2014 rules. We want to use D&D Beyond to keep using the 2014 rules. I'm only buying the 2024 books because I'm a collector who started playing in 1987 and own almost every book I've been sble to get my hands on. I own six copies of the Dungeoneering Handbook, for example. But what Perkins promised has not come true. D&D Beyond is determined to "force" the 2024 rules as the default. I'm just not going to continue paying to use a website that makes teaching the 2014 rules more complicated. Honestly, I'm suggesting to my players to crack open good old fashion BECMI and return to the good old days. 7 year plus member of D&D Beyond giving up on the program/app because the promise of being sble to choose to use either/or 2014 or 2024 was a lie. 😉👍
I didn't portray anything you said as criticism. You've misunderstood my post.
Setting that aside, DDB itself was a third-party tool for D&D 5E, but WotC acquired it from Fandom (who had previously acquired it from Curse). But there's no evidence to suggest that DDB is dealing with orphan code they inherited from a third party.
They made MCDM and Koblod Press toggles. Code argument invalid.
That’s a very good point.
However, it only applies to things that don’t fundamentally change the game. Putting stat bonuses in backgrounds is an example of something that fundamentally changes the game.
They had the ability to put feats in backgrounds already and feats can give stats. And the 2014 backgrounds are still there and still are useable (and are separately categorized).
So, again, the coding was, and still is, there.
The duplication of spells in my spelllist is a major annoyance.
The entire thing is annoying. A button to turn on and turn off 2024 content would be logical and reasonable. Hence, it's not available.
Guys, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but when you create a new character, you can choose to create it under the 2024 rules or the 2014 rules.
When you land on the "1.Class" page, the list of 2024 classes is expended by default, so you have to scroll down or toggle off the 2024 list to see the 2014 list when you choose your class. Also, make sure you have the "2014 Core Rules" checked on the previous page (the "Home" page of the character creation process).
I guess you have to own the 2014 Player's Handbook to see this option.
Hope this help!
@greengaroo I am sorry, but there is no option to disable the 2024 content, not for new, not for existing characters. They choose to hardcode and force more people buying the physical books to match, my guess.
Fyi, the legacy tag came after DDb had started to legacy content like SCAG and EEPG and did what wotc was supposed to do with 2014 rules, cut it to only compendium reference.
But when people noticed the inability to access the content, DDB decided to toss what it could into the basic rules version on DDB.( this was before the site was bought by WotC in 2022.
In, i think not exactly sure, 2020-21, DDbeyond had begun using the tag [legacy] on the already established content that had been created and enabled for use on the site, and especially the character generator content that many people like.
That’s because WotC had begun publishing newer content and that content was considered “revised” content. ( Lost Mines of Phandelver: Shattered Obelisk, member )
So the ability to toggle the difference between different content has been a thing the developers of DDbeyond have been able to make in the code.
the reason why a 2014 rules only toggle, one that would exclude all 2024 “revised” content, is “difficult” is because WotC would probably need to build a new database solely for 2024 content, to maintain separation, and the cost benefit of such more than just rebuilding the database. ( as the majority of the work needed to design a system that is already developed to enter database entries that can apply to a character have been built.[ hum, homebrew tools anyone?])
They, WotC / DDbeyond devs, can still make and create a 2014 rules only toggle.
( or did they already cross the no going back line?[ no, i think they still have the ability to keep the two completely separate. But will they EVER make a 2014 rules only toggle? )
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Except that a lot of people are upset about them not being here.
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
A few people use them as a strawman for other arguments about the site.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm sure there are SOME people that would like pre 5E editions included for the site. But it is a stretch to say A LOT in comparison to the percentage using 5E.
I know there are people still playing basic and 1st ed. I doubt there are that many that care about it being on DDB.
irrelevant and a strawman.
I never made a comparison in terms of percentage -- that's something you did.
The argument still stands.
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