Please make all content shareable with a Master Tier subscription.

I hate to be the "well, actually..." guy, Caerwyn, but there was the digital-only Dragon+ magazine for a while. I really liked it while it was around. I wouldn't mind if they brought it back.

In my opinion, making player options unsharable devalues the Master tier subscription because it’s biggest draw was being able to share your library with others who aren’t paying for a subscription 

I have a master tier subscription. I created a character in a campaign that had all the infernal feats and the new spells, unassigned it, and one of my players claimed it. They have access to the drop content on the sheet. I also had a player unassign one of their characters. I claimed it, added drop content, and gave it back with zero issues. As others in the thread mentioned,  homebrew is also an easy way to share the character options. For my home game,  if a player wants one of the drop feats or spells they can just write them on their sheets. I don't understand why there is so much anger over something that can easily be worked around. I've had a subscription for a while,  and was always underwhelmed with the monthly perks. I really like this new direction. I'd like to see them add all the old cosmetic options from pre-sale perks like they started to when they gave us the nine hells frame from BGDIA and the spore cloud and arcane mist frames from ERFTLW. I didn't start pre-ordering until the Wildmount book so I missed out on the earlier perks. My hope with the new subscriber character options is that they compile them into a book that can be purchased later,  like an annual compilation. I use DDB every day,  but I love physical books and am sad when options are digital only. 

One question I do have is can we access the Drop stuff through the app? Looking at the library section there’s not a “download now” option for Drops and when I searched the new feats I couldn’t find them under listings 

The fact that we need these work arounds proves my point 

Quote from Pheralanpathfinder >>

Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Pheralanpathfinder >>

 

 

If you refused to let your friends use the Elf Handbook because you are the only person who bought it, we have a different definition of sharing. 

I guess my friends were strange because we always shared our physical books with others in the group. 

I don't judge those who believe only the person who buys a book should be able to use it. Why do you need to complain about those of us who want all the books to be shared with everone at their table?

 I have no idea what you are commenting on. Back in 2nd ed days, if you owned the book you could use that book to make a character. If your DM owned the book and you didn't often times the DM would share the book with you, it was not a requirement. Many D&D groups had a price of entry of bring your own books. Sharing had nothing to do with it, nor are you as an adult required to share with others. 

As a DM at over 50, who owns nearly everthing on D&D beyond and who has a Master Tier, I do share with my players, that is a perk of being in my games, that is a gift I do because I want to not because I am required to. If someone has content they want to play I do not own, all I ask is to review it to ensure it is not broken, and so I can balance the game to what you can do. 

If drops can't be shared, it's disapointing, but I'm not worried as not everyone had every handbook in AD&D ... well I do, but players usually just got the ones for the things they were interested in. 

Quote from Buzzardoftheages >>

I have a master tier subscription. I created a character in a campaign that had all the infernal feats and the new spells, unassigned it, and one of my players claimed it. They have access to the drop content on the sheet. I also had a player unassign one of their characters. I claimed it, added drop content, and gave it back with zero issues. As others in the thread mentioned,  homebrew is also an easy way to share the character options. For my home game,  if a player wants one of the drop feats or spells they can just write them on their sheets. I don't understand why there is so much anger over something that can easily be worked around. I've had a subscription for a while,  and was always underwhelmed with the monthly perks. I really like this new direction. I'd like to see them add all the old cosmetic options from pre-sale perks like they started to when they gave us the nine hells frame from BGDIA and the spore cloud and arcane mist frames from ERFTLW. I didn't start pre-ordering until the Wildmount book so I missed out on the earlier perks. My hope with the new subscriber character options is that they compile them into a book that can be purchased later,  like an annual compilation. I use DDB every day,  but I love physical books and am sad when options are digital only. 

Heck, I didn't even think of that. I just made copies of everything in the Homebrew creater for my players to use. 

Quote from Buzzardoftheages >>

I have a master tier subscription. I created a character in a campaign that had all the infernal feats and the new spells, unassigned it, and one of my players claimed it. They have access to the drop content on the sheet. I also had a player unassign one of their characters. I claimed it, added drop content, and gave it back with zero issues. As others in the thread mentioned,  homebrew is also an easy way to share the character options. For my home game,  if a player wants one of the drop feats or spells they can just write them on their sheets. I don't understand why there is so much anger over something that can easily be worked around. I've had a subscription for a while,  and was always underwhelmed with the monthly perks. I really like this new direction. I'd like to see them add all the old cosmetic options from pre-sale perks like they started to when they gave us the nine hells frame from BGDIA and the spore cloud and arcane mist frames from ERFTLW. I didn't start pre-ordering until the Wildmount book so I missed out on the earlier perks. My hope with the new subscriber character options is that they compile them into a book that can be purchased later,  like an annual compilation. I use DDB every day,  but I love physical books and am sad when options are digital only. 

 This is a convoluted workaround. You can either make Homebrew content of the stuff OR you can as the DM just edit the players sheets in your campaign, no one needs to swap ownership of the PC.

I just can not wrap my head around how angry people are about this. Pretty much every other company (in America, at least) is practicing shrinkflation where you pay the same amount for a smaller package. And here wizards is doing the opposite, you pay the same amount and the package gets bigger. And now people are mad about that? Getting more stuff for the same price is a problem? Because people who don’t pay don’t get it? (Unless you use any of a number of trivially simple work arounds.) The sharing policy here is super-generous, but they’ve got to draw a line somewhere.

If it bothers you all that much, just pretend you don’t have it. Ignore the new content. You’ll be in the same shape you were in a few days ago. Problem solved.

The wierd thing is, if they’d said they were increasing sub costs and not giving anything more, I don’t think people would have been this upset. Grumbled a little, sure, but people expect costs to go up sometimes. Or if they introduced a new sub tier that included this, but said it was not shareable, I wonder if people would have been upset. Do we just not know how to handle getting more for our money? There’s a business school case study in here somewhere. 

See my comment about this devaluing master tier subscription 

Quote from bthec18 >>

See my comment about this devaluing master tier subscription 

Considering it doesn't interact with anything master tier already offers, then by definition it cannot devalue it. It doesn't add to the value either, but that's not the same thing as making master tier less desirable from an objective analysis of what it costs vs what it gives you. This is just people making a bunch of noise because what is currently an extremely small segment of content was not added to Master Tier's already impressively high value.

Quote from bthec18 >>

See my comment about this devaluing master tier subscription 

 It can't devalue the subscription because it's included in the subscription at no additional cost. At most it adds zero value if you don't want to use it, but it logically cannot devalue your subscription because it's not taking anything away.

Quote from Xalthu >>

I just can not wrap my head around how angry people are about this. Pretty much every other company (in America, at least) is practicing shrinkflation where you pay the same amount for a smaller package. And here wizards is doing the opposite, you pay the same amount and the package gets bigger. And now people are mad about that? Getting more stuff for the same price is a problem? Because people who don’t pay don’t get it? (Unless you use any of a number of trivially simple work arounds.) The sharing policy here is super-generous, but they’ve got to draw a line somewhere.

If it bothers you all that much, just pretend you don’t have it. Ignore the new content. You’ll be in the same shape you were in a few days ago. Problem solved.

The wierd thing is, if they’d said they were increasing sub costs and not giving anything more, I don’t think people would have been this upset. Grumbled a little, sure, but people expect costs to go up sometimes. Or if they introduced a new sub tier that included this, but said it was not shareable, I wonder if people would have been upset. Do we just not know how to handle getting more for our money? There’s a business school case study in here somewhere. 

It's the existence of haves & have-nots that brings out feelings akin to class resentment, as any political psychology aficionado could have told whomever/whatever specifically made the critical mistake of player options being behind paywalls that don't even have a functioning license to freely use on DND Beyond w/paying continuously, while gating said options recurring expensive spending that is more expensive than a 1-time purchase in the long term(Causing poor or limited spenders to be shut out of them), or site-specific workarounds that not everyone is necessarily computer-literate enough to perform, at the inception of Drops.

For me, it's the lack of managerial foresight that all it takes to avoid Pseudo-class resentment in the DND Fandom w/Drops is for Master Tier subs to be able to share the player options to others, but the objectively worse for PR & profit actions were chosen because of short-sighted & slightly spammy-sounding feedback being prioritized over more thoughtful suggestions.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

It's the existence of haves & have-nots that brings out feelings akin to class resentment, as any political psychology aficionado could have told whomever/whatever specifically made the critical mistake of player options being behind paywalls that don't even have a functioning license to freely use on DND Beyond w/paying continuously, while gating said options recurring expensive spending that is more expensive than a 1-time purchase in the long term(Causing poor or limited spenders to be shut out of them), or site-specific workarounds that not everyone is necessarily computer-literate enough to perform, at the inception of Drops.

For me, it's the lack of managerial foresight that all it takes to avoid Pseudo-class resentment in the DND Fandom w/Drops is for Master Tier subs to be able to share the player options to others, but the objectively worse for PR & profit actions were chosen because of short-sighted & slightly spammy-sounding feedback being prioritized over more thoughtful suggestions.

 To turn that around, the community could actually show gratitude for once, and then say "Hey would you be able to share the player options if you're a DM tier, because otherwise I can't get my players to use this."

The instant rage occurs no matter what they do, good or bad, so why would management need to care any more.  People are literally making the case that nothing they can do will please the community, so why try.  Now they can just do whatever they want, the community will rage, no-one will stop buying the product, and the world will move on in 5 minutes.

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 

Quote from bthec18 >>

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.

Quote from bthec18 >>

See my comment about this devaluing master tier subscription 

 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?

Quote from bthec18>>

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?

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from bthec18>>

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.

 

 Except that I'm able to share other free claimed content - the Honor Among Thieves NPCs, or Monstrous Compendium, or Hold Back the Dead