Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
A.) Why not post this in the Feedback forum, where the DDB team expects and looks for feedback?
2.) It sounds like you think you single-handedly made them add legacy tags to the original 5E content and I strongly suspect that wasn't the case.
huh?!? That makes no sense to me.
Hey as the Driver of a bus I ride share my friends to the park, but one friend got a skateboard so no more free rides.
That's what your post sounds like to me. Also why are you using the DnDB VTT... it's kind of not the best choice. I own everything on DnDB I share everything to my players, they use DnDB for charactersheet management, and that is great, then we join my Foundry Server and play D&D, where I can have custom maps, monsters, all the toolsets needed to run a full DnD game, even share music to the group while we use Discord to talk.
The local VTT is like a starter set of VTTs and is too limited to be really useful.
You can purchase anything you want, but if i ban some book, then you cant use it in my campaign.
Just because someone printed it, doesnt mean dm's have to allow it.
Every table has different rules regarding 3rd party content, homebrew options, and which official books are allowed at the table. Since I was in elemntary school my rule is if one player gets to use a book, every player gets to use the book.
I play on Fantasy Grounds, Foundry, Roll20, AboveVTT and occasionally Maps. AboveVTT is my favorite but every VTT has good and bad points. Any VTT that is using DNDBeyond for PCs will have the same sharing restrictions.
In hindsight feedback may have been the better place for this discussion. i made the original post out of disappointment that the amazing new stuff had a substantial flaw which limited it's value for many groups.
You do you, I've never used that rule at my tables as DM in the last 20 years, nor have I heard of it used in the last 40 years of playing D&D. But then, generally the rule is the DM owns the books, and the players use the DM's books, and if someone gets a new book before the DM, cool.
I remember getting the PHB 2.5 (2nd ed updated) and the DM liked the design... sure there were some minor changes no big deal. I also owned the Elf Handbook because I wanted one of the kits in the book. No big deal, someone else had the Bard book, and the Dwarf player had the Fighter book. We were allowed to buy the books we wanted to use because we were grow adults and didn't need to learn about sharing, or financial responsibility. If D&DB has paid perks, and someone has a free accound, I'm not punishing people for having a paid account because someone else only does free. That falls entirily into personal financial responsibility. My only rule on a table as DM is I have to check the rules used if it's not one I own. Just so I can balance around it, or veto it because it's a busted homebrew.
The DnD drops are cute and not op but have some out of combat utility. Only one of the spells is a combat spell, and it's mor fuff than good.
I'm still confused that because one player might have access to a single feat or spell (and that's what we're talking about, these are bonuses not full books) that you're stopping everyone have using anything except the free rules. That's got to qualify as one of the biggest over reactions in the history of the world. Just tell them not to use Drop releases if equality is what you're worried about.
This is a move designed to give better value for a subscription, you don't even need a Master Tier just the Hero will do, so it loses a lot of it's purpose if it's share able
Yes, it's meant to provide better value. However, one of the benefits of the Master Sub used to be that any player could have it and bring the benefits to the table for everyone. In my group, one of my players has a Master Sub and that's his way of "paying" his way. I DM, he gets me (and everyone else) a bunch of stuff to use for free on DDB. He also gets the unlimited character slots which he benefits from as a player and I don't really.
This is continuing to on down the path of "the subscriber is the one who gets the benefits" that DDB has headed down lately. It splits the utility. To get some of the benefits, the table needs the DM to be a subscriber. But others, like the character slots, are a player thing. Most people are one or the other (or at least, are in few enough campaigns as a player that six slots are plenty).
Personally, this brings zero value to our table. Even if that player were to bow out of providing the sub... it's then just become pressure for me to be the one subbing. Even though I'm already the one bringing the most to the table, being the organiser, the story bringer, the rule master, the guy who doesn't get to be a player, the guy that brings most of the books to the table...I have to be the one that pays for the sub (or coax money out of everyone each time a payment is scheduled) to get the most value out of it for everyone.
Meh.
It's not a loss really (beyond the development time that could have been used to bring something that actually was an improvement), but it's pretty much relegated to the list of "whatever". It's a shame, because it's something that could have brought value to the sub for everyone, but instead it's just for some.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
"Thank you from a 40 year fan of D&D."
"Since I was in elemntary school my rule is if one player gets to use a book, every player gets to use the book"
But the dndbeyond website wasnt a thing owned by wotc until.2022, just four years ago. 40 years ago, the internet consisted of 12 websites people acvessed with 300 baud modems
So, 40 years ago, I assume if one person in your campaign purchased a book, say. "D&D Immortals Rules (Set 5)" or maybe an article from Dragon Magazine, then you must have forced that person to share their book with all the other players in your campaign?
How else could you have enforced your rule "if one player gets to use a book, every player gets to use the book" for 40 years? Seems like that was a much better approach for you. Maybe go back to doing that?
Interesting catch.
I was thinking they were like 30 and had used the old D&D 4th edition online tools (Ironically D&DB is based on something WotC had for 4th edition, which IMO was marginally better than DnDB is now.)
4th ed was almost 20 years ago now, and a 10 year old playing DnD online with Teamspeak and the 4th ed website was a thing. Not that I joined such games, but I heard about them. Also and this is fun/funny, the earliest online game I know of was during the IRC days in the late 90s so almost 35 years ago now. And while I didn't play D&D that way, I was playing VTM on IRC with my VTM LARP group. Yeah I was a nerd back then.
I'm sure that advocates here don't actually care, but personally I hate the you own nothing, just rent it from corparations that do, approach the world is shifting too. I guess it was inevitable for D&D to go that direction one day. Maybe I am just getting old.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
DDB has been like that from the beginning though? I don't like it, but DDB has always been "it belongs to DDB and we can do with it as we please".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And when, outside of hypothetical handwringing scenarios, have they actually taken anything away from people? Something that was actually purchased, not just changing a business model going forward.
4th edition's online tools being taken from users by WotC was never a hypothetical handwringing scenario. It's the precedent people are running with.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
This is an inapplicable example for two different reasons.
First, you never purchased anything with 4e's digital tools. The 4e tools were funded entirely through a monthly subscription that provided access to the totality of 4e's content, and as soon as you stopped paying for that subscription, your access ended. You never "owned" anything--not even in the colloquial sense folks use when they say they "own" content on D&D Beyond. That was the business model from the very first day. At no point during the lifetime of the 4e toolset was there a period where someone (a) paid for their month of access and (b) could not access that content and thus, 4e's digital tools cannot be used to answer The_Ace_of_Rogue's question.
Second, the loss of the 4e digital tools was not due to anything Wizards did. Microsoft discontinued support and killed off Silverlight, the system the 4e tools were built on. Once that went down, Wizards could not really keep the system running. Wizards actually deserves a LOT of credit for how they handled 4e's tools, keeping them running far, far after 5e came out and even still providing customer support for those who continued to use the tools, right up until Microsoft killed it.
Yeah, but at the same time, I could always walk into a game store and buy a PHB. The same can't be said for digital exclusives locked behind a subscription.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
And you couldn't walk into a game store and buy the special D&D Beyond dice either, I would expect. I doubt that ever had an appreciable effect on your gaming experience. This is a small boondoggle to draw a bit more interest to subscriptions, not some massive paradigm shift that's been gated behind online only.
They hinted in the AMA on Reddit that subclasses & species are going to be Drops, on top of other player options, & even monsters.
That's more than a boondoggle. Those change the power dynamic of the actual game by default. ESPECIALLY at tables that optimize, powergame, & minmax.
ALL they need to do to fix this is make these sharable after a year or so of Drops exclusivity. Timed exclusives are infinitely better than forever exclusives.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
That would be a start.
Comparing Character options to dice is a bit of a stretch. They are in no way the same thing.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I hope that at some point over time they will take the best/most used player facing content and put it into a book at some point as I would love to have player content that has been play tested and is well liked in (dead tree) book format. (Yes, I know that player testing/feedback is what UA is for, but this might be another way of looking at it.) That said, I find it a bit surprising that so many people are upset that it's behind the paywall of a subscription. They are creating and offering a LOT of content, and people have to spend time creating all that content and those people have to get paid. I frequently see people complaining about slow releases and wanting more player content from WotC, well, here it is.
(Edit for typo.)
I'm going to have to agree with Tilda here. Dice are in the same catigory as pencils or paper, not game mechanics such as the player options in the Drops.