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
It devalues it because it’s biggest draw is the ability to share player options with people who don’t pay a monthly fee and adding options that can’t be shared unless you perform some workaround kills the incentive to subscribe
That’s rather hyperbolic and again misses the point that none of the existing value of Master Tier is impacted by an additional offering that doesn’t integrate with the sharing- it doesn’t add to the shared pool, but it also doesn’t remove anything that’s already shareable. Ergo, by definition, objective value is not lost.
Getting more stuff for the same money is devaluing something? That’s some Orwellian logic right there.
So if you subscribe to a streaming service and you pay extra to not have ads and one day the service decides to include ads no matter how much you pay and you have no way to get rid of them, would you still pay for that tier?
That analogy makes no sense. The relevant feature of a master tier subscription is paying to share purchased content. Given that subscriber drops are not purchased, not being able to share them doesn't interact with that feature. The ability to share the content you have purchased has not changed.
To fix your tortured analogy, this would be like claiming your Disney+ subscription has less value because they added Zootopia 2 and you're not interested in it because you only watch Marvel and Star Wars movies.
Additional content that costs you nothing does not devalue your subscription if the subscription doesn't change in price.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Except that I'm able to share other free claimed content - the Honor Among Thieves NPCs, or Monstrous Compendium, or Hold Back the Dead
Read my D&D thoughts at FullMoonStorytelling.com
Value isn’t based solely on price but what you get for the price. If these drops were just maps and cosmetic stuff you wouldn’t have nearly as many people upset because that would still be inline with what you’d usually get two weeks ago, in fact the maps would be a bonus for most people. But since we now have spell, feats, backgrounds, and as the recent Reddit AMA suggested subclasses and species behind monthly paywall unless the DM does extra work then you’re getting less than what you pay for
And if you couldn't, my point would still stand
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Aren't you getting more value because you're getting character options without an increase in subscription price?
Worst case scenario you're a DM, never a player, and these character options don't give you any value. But they can't possibly decrease the value of the subscription because nothing is be taken away and the price isn't being increased.
As I've said before, I totally understand the frustration people may have with the content not being automatically shared. I also get why it's not—the whole point is to add value to subscriptions without it just being another burden on the DM to cover costs. But claiming it subtracts value from the subscription doesn't make any sense
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It does lower the value if the main reason you got the subscription is to share content with the other people in your group(s). Which, again, is the primary draw of the master tier
You're still able to share all the stuff you had before, though.
pronouns: he/she/they
You can assert that you’re not getting something you think you deserve, but by any objective standard nothing that you actually had before this was introduced has been lost or changed, so outside of the wholly qualitative realm of your personal opinion, there is no way to accurately describe the change as one that decreases value. Something that was not present before has been added, and it has not removed, displaced, or reduced the utility of anything the tier had the month before.
One of the primary reasons to play a Life Domain cleric is Blessed Healer. That nifty little ability allows you to share healing between yourself and an ally - whenever you heal the ally, you also get some hit points. It helps reduce the overall burden on the party and better manage resources, making it quite the handy effect.
The DM gives the cleric an item that does not require attunement and allows the cleric to cast Heroism without spending resources. This sounds really great, but the cleric throws a hissy fit. Why? Temporary hit points do not “restore” hit points, so the item does not interact with Blessed Healer. The cleric complains that Blessed Healer is devalued - never mind the fact it functions exactly as it always has. Never mind the DM only gave something to the player and did not take anything from the player. Never mind the player can still share in the exact same healing they always could share in by doing what they had always done previously.
If that cleric came on the D&D Beyond forums and posted an AITA thread, I guarantee most folks would say “absolutely you are the problem. Your DM did something nice for you, and you are crying about getting more without getting any less.”
Yet, when Wizards does the effective equivalent, suddenly they, in the shoes of the allegorical DM, are the bad guy, and the cleric nonsensically complaining that his no-additional-cost content “devalues” an ability that has not changed is the hero.
That’s part of why they’re doing this, is to make master tier more of a draw. To give other reasons to subscribe. You can still share everything you could before, and now you get more stuff as well. It adds new features for the same price.
If that were the case then the various work arounds wouldn’t work
Unless we’re paying the DM every month and are incapable of giving that item to another player without doing a side quest, this isn’t a good allegory
The hypothetical is not actually about money or other methods of delivery. It merely was responding to the simple matter of “does giving someone something extra that is parallel to other content devalue the original content.”
As such, neither payment nor other delivery methods are relevant to the hypothetical. Accordingly, your dismissal of the hypothetical is without merit as it fails to respond to the substance being addressed.
Ignoring the real world events that inspired your hypothetical discredited it, not me