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
And prior to Xanathar’s there weren’t any “setting agnostic” classes outside of the PHB, and yet somehow people managed to homebrew settings just fine.
That’s a fair point, but in this instance it at least seems to be a solid body of general purpose subclasses, magic items, and possibly a secondary background system to work with rather than just one or two subclasses.
I genuinely think that this is really about the mild inconvenience of 2014 Swashbuckler-centric 2024 Rogue "builds" no longer being RAW in general and/or supported by DND Beyond.
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.
Again, there were 10 years where 5e was the primary system. Swashbuckler was released in 2015. Tashas came out in 2022. The vast majority of that time, the Swashbuckler was a "setting-specific" subclass, to use your inaccurate terminology. It stil hasn't been setting agnostic for longer than it was only in SCAG.
And just like when it was in SCAG, you can use it in any setting without having to use that setting. I've got a new Hollow Warden in one of my FR games, and she's certainly not in a Domain of Dread, yet it works just fine.
While I would like more settings agnostic books, that's because I want more mechanical content, instead of pages of lore. Having subclasses in settings books in no way at all prevents them from being used wherever you feel like it. It's a non-issue that people are desperate to be outraged about. Azeroth is probably one of the most D&D-esque third party settings you'll ever find.
We already have precedent on that subject, and you can still select legacy bladesinger on a wizard. It seems not unreasonable to assume this will continue.
We have precedent, & that the newest official version must be used at a RAW/AL table. There's a not-insignificant amount of people who feel Swashbuckler's 2024 update being locked behind giving Microsoft money in residuals will hurt their meta build(& internet reputation), & that this move by WotC is targeting their wallets because of their commitment to RAW(& commitment to minimal harm(sic).
They think that they can't play 2014 Swashbuckler at their RAW table if the new RAW is locked in a collab w/a(nother, given that WotC isn't exactly liked by some due to the Hasbro connection(Personally, guilt by association is BS)) bad company(That makes them look bad to others by association).
In the end, it's not just the RAW tables being affected. It's also a possible source of guilt by association(Which is BS) for some people because of the Microsoft connection.
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.
I think there's a lot of people who are both massiverly overthinking it, and also overhyping the "issue".
I don't see people abandoning Candy Crush editions because "Microsoft residuals".
Yeah, while Maedra's experience might obviously be different I don't see a lot of people gnashing their teeth with guilt over using Microsoft products considering they're the largest supplier of the type of software we all use at work and one of the main producers of entertainment software.
Will the WoW book be allowed in AL at all? Answer hazy, ask again later.
As for "RAW tables". I'm sure they exist.
I also don't care about either one. They're an extremely tiny subset of actual play, of people playing under weird (and in at least one case, impossible) constraints.
If people want to play in such a way that they force themselves to use only the version in the WoW book, they can get the WoW book.
In normal play, either somebody will have the book, and you can use the subclass, or nobody will say boo about you using the old one.
...
What?
If you have principles that require you to boycott everything Microsoft-connected, then don't play new swashbuckler. Given everything else you've got to do to do so, avoiding a single D&D subclass is small potatoes. Having principles isn't free.
Critical role made sense as they were closely aligned. The rest I was not thrilled about.
Starwars was also a good stand alone system that was not part of the D&D ecosystem. I'm aware they crossed over (been playing decades) and wasn't thrilled then either.
The D&D community has the unique benefit of being able to recognize, in real time, how the D&D: Universes Beyond business model could ultimately affect the future of the game. We have an opportunity to learn from what we are seeing now rather than waiting until the consequences become irreversible.
Only by working together as a community—and collectively rejecting a business model that prioritizes monetization over the health, accessibility, creativity, and longevity of the game—can we make our voices heard. If players, Dungeon Masters, creators, and retailers stand together and make informed choices about where we spend our money and what products we support, we can demonstrate that the D&D community values the game itself more than an endless cycle of monetized content and crossover products.
The future of D&D should be shaped by the people who play, run, create, and love the game—not solely by the business strategies designed to maximize revenue from it.
If we continue purchasing products released under the D&D: Universes Beyond model, we ultimately give Wizards of the Coast the green light to continue pursuing that business strategy. Every purchase sends a message about what we, as consumers, are willing to support.
If we genuinely want to influence the direction of D&D, one of the most effective tools we have is our collective purchasing power. We can make our position clear by choosing not to spend our hard-earned money on products that move the game further toward this model—and by demanding a return to the quality, depth, originality, and world-building that have historically defined D&D.
We should be demanding the kind of D&D products that made settings such as Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and countless others so memorable and enduring. These settings were more than names attached to products; they were rich worlds with history, lore, characters, cultures, conflicts, and stories that invited players and Dungeon Masters to invest in them for years.
The message is simple: If we don't support the business model, it cannot succeed.
As a community, we have the ability to influence what comes next. By standing together, making informed purchasing decisions, and clearly communicating what we expect from D&D, we can tell Wizards of the Coast that we want products that prioritize the quality and longevity of the game—not simply the next opportunity to monetize its name.
The future of D&D is ultimately influenced by what we choose to support. If we want better D&D, we have to be willing to demand better D&D—and vote with our wallets.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, nothing about Universes Beyond in any way jeopardizes the "the health, accessibility, creativity, and longevity" of D&D, any more than any other IP-based setting has done in the past. If Rick and Morty didn't do any of that, WoW certainly won't
Good luck with your thinly-veiled crusade, though
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Okay, in real time, here's now the Universes Beyond business model could ultimately affect the future of the game:
Shocking concept, a company making business decisions based on what they think people will buy.
"Better" DND...Rick & Morty, Minecraft, Stranger Things, Critical Role & Lego didn't kill Ed Greenwood, RA Salvatore & other authors' continuity.
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.
Your argument is built on an unfounded assumption. You haven't provided a convincing, well-supported argument that World of WarCraft, Star Wars, or other potential Universes Beyond franchise mashups aren't "better D&D." For all you know these books will introduce some amazing mechcanics that will be a lot of fun to play with. You've made the classic mistake of confusing "I don't like this thing" with "this thing is bad and no one should like it." Usually when you think it's the latter it's really the former.
Also - and I cannot stress this enough - D&D is not Pokemon. You do not, in fact, have to catch them all. When WotC announces a D&D product you don't want, you can just not buy it. I'll even model it for you: I don't particularly like Eberron, so I haven't bought any of the Eberron books for 5E / 5.5E. I'm not yumyucking folks who love Eberron; it's just not my cup of tea. And I'm not going to pretend Eberron is bad for the game or whatever just because it's not one of my favorites.
You are absolutely correct, after reading my original comment, I see it was not well written. The simple point I was trying to make was that each individual would have to decide what they really want out of this game.
Your initial post was greatly overblown for something that can be summed up as "don't buy products you don't want".
You're not the target audience.
I'm fairly sure that the point is not to sell this stuff to D&D players -- unless the UB books sell wildly better than any "normal" setting book, they wouldn't be worth it to WotC, given the extra hassle, licensing fees, etc.
They exist to get WoW/Star Wars/etc. fans to buy D&D. Their success will be primarily measured on that level.
Anyway, there's nothing about WoW that's any different from the Critical Role books. It's a very D&D setting that will fit right in.
(Star Wars seems a worse fit without mechanical changes. I'm wondering if they're trying to position 5e as a generic system in the way 3.5 became, and SW is the experiment to see if it works.)
And when you say:
Are you really claiming that Warcraft and Star Wars don't fit that description?
I think it already is. At least, in the 3rd party space there’s quite a few games that have converted their own game system to be a 5e version of their game. I think it could be WotC catching on and realizing they can do the same, and they have the resources do it with some of these very big, established IPs.
(Gazes nervously at miniatures collection)
But yeah, as others have outlined, what is on the surface an odious business practise coming into play, is actually just something that can be ignored if people want to; either way, D&D as we know it will plod along as normal.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.