I don't know if this has been answered elsewhere, but my question is: Will D&D Beyond be working with WoTC to implement planned changes to the core rule books in 2024?
Not being allowed to publish the UA content as homebrew and forcing people to just repeatedly make the new stuff over and over is unfair.
Not sure what's unfair about it. You're still allowed to copy someone else's creative work, at least. Not being allowed to publish such a copy might be a requirement from WotC for DDB's licence too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't know if this has been answered elsewhere, but my question is: Will D&D Beyond be working with WoTC to implement planned changes to the core rule books in 2024?
Kind regards,
Scott
A little off-topic for this thread, but something I feel should be answered as best we can.
Fandom (the company that owns and runs the D&D Beyond site) are business partners with Wizards of the Coast. This partnership, as is normal, is defined by a contract. I can assure you that Fandom & WotC discuss the impact and direction of major changes in the game.
For hopefully obvious reasons, I cannot share details of what is being discussed.
What I can definitely share though, is that the D&D Beyond team are continuing to plan ahead. 2024 is over 2 years away, so I strongly expect that there will be more news closer to the time. 😊
Not being allowed to publish the UA content as homebrew and forcing people to just repeatedly make the new stuff over and over is unfair.
Not sure what's unfair about it. You're still allowed to copy someone else's creative work, at least. Not being allowed to publish such a copy might be a requirement from WotC for DDB's licence too.
There are multiple reasons why D&D Beyond no longer publishes Unearthed Arcana playtest rules. That decision was one that was made jointly between us and Wizards of the Coast.
With regards to publishing UA as homebrew - I will draw attention to one of the main rules of our homebrew publishing system, "Do not submit (content you didn't design)"
This is especially important when we're talking about content from either Wizards of the Coast, or 3rd party D&D producers like Kobold Press.
I don't know if this has been answered elsewhere, but my question is: Will D&D Beyond be working with WoTC to implement planned changes to the core rule books in 2024?
Kind regards,
Scott
A little off-topic for this thread, but something I feel should be answered as best we can.
Fandom (the company that owns and runs the D&D Beyond site) are business partners with Wizards of the Coast. This partnership, as is normal, is defined by a contract. I can assure you that Fandom & WotC discuss the impact and direction of major changes in the game.
For hopefully obvious reasons, I cannot share details of what is being discussed.
What I can definitely share though, is that the D&D Beyond team are continuing to plan ahead. 2024 is over 2 years away, so I strongly expect that there will be more news closer to the time. 😊
Not being allowed to publish the UA content as homebrew and forcing people to just repeatedly make the new stuff over and over is unfair.
Not sure what's unfair about it. You're still allowed to copy someone else's creative work, at least. Not being allowed to publish such a copy might be a requirement from WotC for DDB's licence too.
There are multiple reasons why D&D Beyond no longer publishes Unearthed Arcana playtest rules. That decision was one that was made jointly between us and Wizards of the Coast.
With regards to publishing UA as homebrew - I will draw attention to one of the main rules of our homebrew publishing system, "Do not submit (content you didn't design)"
This is especially important when we're talking about content from either Wizards of the Coast, or 3rd party D&D producers like Kobold Press.
So, according to this last point, until WOTC publishes official Owlfolk, I can't make hombrew Owlfolk race using the UA statblock as my base for them, I can only use characters that were already made using the UA back when you supported it.
I have to permanently keep around characters using the Owlfolk race as it was then and .. I don't know, repurpose them for new campaigns? If I delete one of them it is gone forever, no way to use the race ever again?
That is basically unfair and annoying. ( I use Owlfolk statblock with DMs permission for Avariel Elves, the winged elves from older editions.)
So, according to this last point, until WOTC publishes official Owlfolk, I can't make hombrew Owlfolk race using the UA statblock as my base for them, I can only use characters that were already made using the UA back when you supported it.
No, you absolutely can. What you're not allowed to do is publish your homebrew of something you didn't design yourself. You don't have to publish homebrew in order to use it or share it with others in your campaign though, as the rules Stormknight linked to explain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You can create homebrew out of UA and third party material to your heart's content. You can make characters with that homebrew and bring them into other member's campaigns. You can also content share so other folks in campaigns you're in can make Owlfolk. What you can not do is press the "publish button" that would make your homebrew discoverable via search.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have two question on direction that I would really love to have answered if anyone at ddb can provide feedback -
1) would it be more possible to include UA content if ddb had more money or hired more people? in other words, how much of this is cutting out something useful because of a lack of resources and how much of it is deciding that UA is not something that is worth pursuing at all?
2) would you (or could you) consider something that would enable UA while removing the burden from ddb that doesn't require people to create homebrew versions of all the content? like - could you crowdsource the definition of official content under ddb's license from wotc? could ddb staff have more of an oversight role over implementation details of ua content? or is there any other way this could happen?
I have two question on direction that I would really love to have answered if anyone at ddb can provide feedback -
1) would it be more possible to include UA content if ddb had more money or hired more people? in other words, how much of this is cutting out something useful because of a lack of resources and how much of it is deciding that UA is not something that is worth pursuing at all?
2) would you (or could you) consider something that would enable UA while removing the burden from ddb that doesn't require people to create homebrew versions of all the content? like - could you crowdsource the definition of official content under ddb's license from wotc? could ddb staff have more of an oversight role over implementation details of ua content? or is there any other way this could happen?
So they've already answered some of this.
1 was more they didn't want to support things that didn't end up making it to the official table. See the UA for Strixhaven that was eventually cancelled. That being said, they're never going to answer questions about financials. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask, but just know you aren't going to get that answer.
2 is a weirdly worded thing. The official stance is that UA isn't official, and therefore there is no official stance. When UA was going to publish then they have removed it as UA, because it was now official OR when it was announced it was out of playtest, it was removed. This is kind of an alternate ask of your first question though, and D&D Beyond has just said screw it, we're not doing it, the end. Could it happen? Sure, but will it? Doubtful.
I want UA back as much as the next person, but sadly there is no use pondering on if its coming back.
I have two question on direction that I would really love to have answered if anyone at ddb can provide feedback -
1) would it be more possible to include UA content if ddb had more money or hired more people? in other words, how much of this is cutting out something useful because of a lack of resources and how much of it is deciding that UA is not something that is worth pursuing at all?
2) would you (or could you) consider something that would enable UA while removing the burden from ddb that doesn't require people to create homebrew versions of all the content? like - could you crowdsource the definition of official content under ddb's license from wotc? could ddb staff have more of an oversight role over implementation details of ua content? or is there any other way this could happen?
So they've already answered some of this.
1 was more they didn't want to support things that didn't end up making it to the official table. See the UA for Strixhaven that was eventually cancelled. That being said, they're never going to answer questions about financials. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask, but just know you aren't going to get that answer.
2 is a weirdly worded thing. The official stance is that UA isn't official, and therefore there is no official stance. When UA was going to publish then they have removed it as UA, because it was now official OR when it was announced it was out of playtest, it was removed. This is kind of an alternate ask of your first question though, and D&D Beyond has just said screw it, we're not doing it, the end. Could it happen? Sure, but will it? Doubtful.
I want UA back as much as the next person, but sadly there is no use pondering on if its coming back.
So ... to clarify
1) isn't necessarily about financials as about the difference between the perceived value of UA as a feature. if resource limitations are an issue that says there's some value seen in UA content at all. if not the there's no value seen in UA. which you kind of answered when answering my second question
2) yeah i get wordy and confusing sometimes - apologies. really what i'm asking is if there can be something between homebrew and official that makes use of ddb's license on wotc content to allow sharable versions of UA content that doesn't count as homebrewing from "content that is not your own"
And this is tangential but related - as far as dealing with content that comes and goes like UA, it's not really different than existing classes that get modified by errata or subsequent sources. I'd suggest that the existing approach to patching content is what makes this difficult rather than versioning the official content and offering all versions to every one. It's odd that this is possible with homebrew but not done for official stuff as sometimes people might prefer classes or subclasses as originally published or even want the UA version of something was different than an official published version of the whatever it is. it would also be neat to see the differences between UA versions and published versions to understand what tweaking went into it from a game mechanics stand point (as a DM who wants to homebrew stuff).
Even if it's not officially published, UA content is still WotC's intellectual property. That means users are free to create a homebrew version of it for personal use, but not to publish that homebrew so others can use it too. That's just how it is - it's a general rule, doesn't apply to UA alone. And as such, crowdsourcing whatever effort it takes to put up UA content for all tp use is simply not allowed, as it would go against that policy. Some variants on this scheme have been proposed, but they all break down in some way or other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I believe they meant that DDB’s response is a weirdly worded answer that ends in a cyclical argument.
I volunteered to implement the UA stuff that I can into DDB if they wanted to make it available for people. Others have made the same/similar offer. Others still have offered to donate to an escrow for it. DDB has chosen to not respod to any of those offers as far as I am aware.
I believe they meant that DDB’s response is a weirdly worded answer that ends in a cyclical argument.
I volunteered to implement the UA stuff that I can into DDB if they wanted to make it available for people. Others have made the same/similar offer. Others still have offered to donate to an escrow for it. DDB has chosen to not respod to any of those offers as far as I am aware.
That just opens up more problems around responsibility and accountability.
Also
UA often needs coding changes to be implemented correctly.
The timeframe of the surveys is very short these days and having the UA in DDB is a moot point by then.
Not for people who want to play them. And I only offered to do what I can. I was able to implement the UA Kobold and the UA Dragonborn (at least the Gem) before DDB rolled out all 4 of them. I had a workable version of the UA Thri-kreen the same day the UA dropped (within 24 hours at least), and the Astral Elf a day or two later. I didn’t bother with the others because I had no interest unless someone asked for it, but none of my players did, so meh. (If anyone wants to use them PM me.)
And I just offered to do the grunt work, they could have easily rejected anything they felt subpar or otherwise inadequate. I homebrew in that claptrap contraption of a content builder for fun (I know, right), so it was really a genuine offer.
Some people want to play the UA and when it gets integrated into a book (for instance fairies) it gets tweaked or changed and some people would rather play the UA version. You already had a bunch of the old UA working fine, why would you take it down spitefully... Why is there such a pushback if people are willing to volunteer or give resources towards future UA integration? I feel like it's really closed-minded of DDB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I imagine folks will continue to do so in the UA forum, where discussion of the UA will still happen.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Hello, Stormknight
I don't know if this has been answered elsewhere, but my question is: Will D&D Beyond be working with WoTC to implement planned changes to the core rule books in 2024?
Kind regards,
Scott
Not being allowed to publish the UA content as homebrew and forcing people to just repeatedly make the new stuff over and over is unfair.
Not sure what's unfair about it. You're still allowed to copy someone else's creative work, at least. Not being allowed to publish such a copy might be a requirement from WotC for DDB's licence too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersA little off-topic for this thread, but something I feel should be answered as best we can.
Fandom (the company that owns and runs the D&D Beyond site) are business partners with Wizards of the Coast. This partnership, as is normal, is defined by a contract. I can assure you that Fandom & WotC discuss the impact and direction of major changes in the game.
For hopefully obvious reasons, I cannot share details of what is being discussed.
What I can definitely share though, is that the D&D Beyond team are continuing to plan ahead. 2024 is over 2 years away, so I strongly expect that there will be more news closer to the time. 😊
There are multiple reasons why D&D Beyond no longer publishes Unearthed Arcana playtest rules. That decision was one that was made jointly between us and Wizards of the Coast.
With regards to publishing UA as homebrew - I will draw attention to one of the main rules of our homebrew publishing system, "Do not submit (content you didn't design)"
This is especially important when we're talking about content from either Wizards of the Coast, or 3rd party D&D producers like Kobold Press.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
So, according to this last point, until WOTC publishes official Owlfolk, I can't make hombrew Owlfolk race using the UA statblock as my base for them, I can only use characters that were already made using the UA back when you supported it.
I have to permanently keep around characters using the Owlfolk race as it was then and .. I don't know, repurpose them for new campaigns? If I delete one of them it is gone forever, no way to use the race ever again?
That is basically unfair and annoying. ( I use Owlfolk statblock with DMs permission for Avariel Elves, the winged elves from older editions.)
No, you absolutely can. What you're not allowed to do is publish your homebrew of something you didn't design yourself. You don't have to publish homebrew in order to use it or share it with others in your campaign though, as the rules Stormknight linked to explain.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You can create homebrew out of UA and third party material to your heart's content. You can make characters with that homebrew and bring them into other member's campaigns. You can also content share so other folks in campaigns you're in can make Owlfolk. What you can not do is press the "publish button" that would make your homebrew discoverable via search.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Will you guys add former ua back in if it is added to a book, like how drakwarden was added to fizban’s?
I mean, yes, because we can see that as an example in Fizban's.
Thank you for answering my question as best as you can.
Huh. Most unfortunate, this.
I was about to get the legendary bundle and a GM suscription, but this is Kind of a dealbreaker for me tbh.
I saw this as a way to save time, but having to essentially homebrew all the UA stuff...I guess I'll have to stick to FG after all.
supper bummed by this -
I have two question on direction that I would really love to have answered if anyone at ddb can provide feedback -
1) would it be more possible to include UA content if ddb had more money or hired more people? in other words, how much of this is cutting out something useful because of a lack of resources and how much of it is deciding that UA is not something that is worth pursuing at all?
2) would you (or could you) consider something that would enable UA while removing the burden from ddb that doesn't require people to create homebrew versions of all the content? like - could you crowdsource the definition of official content under ddb's license from wotc? could ddb staff have more of an oversight role over implementation details of ua content? or is there any other way this could happen?
So they've already answered some of this.
1 was more they didn't want to support things that didn't end up making it to the official table. See the UA for Strixhaven that was eventually cancelled. That being said, they're never going to answer questions about financials. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask, but just know you aren't going to get that answer.
2 is a weirdly worded thing. The official stance is that UA isn't official, and therefore there is no official stance. When UA was going to publish then they have removed it as UA, because it was now official OR when it was announced it was out of playtest, it was removed. This is kind of an alternate ask of your first question though, and D&D Beyond has just said screw it, we're not doing it, the end. Could it happen? Sure, but will it? Doubtful.
I want UA back as much as the next person, but sadly there is no use pondering on if its coming back.
So ... to clarify
1) isn't necessarily about financials as about the difference between the perceived value of UA as a feature. if resource limitations are an issue that says there's some value seen in UA content at all. if not the there's no value seen in UA. which you kind of answered when answering my second question
2) yeah i get wordy and confusing sometimes - apologies. really what i'm asking is if there can be something between homebrew and official that makes use of ddb's license on wotc content to allow sharable versions of UA content that doesn't count as homebrewing from "content that is not your own"
And this is tangential but related - as far as dealing with content that comes and goes like UA, it's not really different than existing classes that get modified by errata or subsequent sources. I'd suggest that the existing approach to patching content is what makes this difficult rather than versioning the official content and offering all versions to every one. It's odd that this is possible with homebrew but not done for official stuff as sometimes people might prefer classes or subclasses as originally published or even want the UA version of something was different than an official published version of the whatever it is. it would also be neat to see the differences between UA versions and published versions to understand what tweaking went into it from a game mechanics stand point (as a DM who wants to homebrew stuff).
Even if it's not officially published, UA content is still WotC's intellectual property. That means users are free to create a homebrew version of it for personal use, but not to publish that homebrew so others can use it too. That's just how it is - it's a general rule, doesn't apply to UA alone. And as such, crowdsourcing whatever effort it takes to put up UA content for all tp use is simply not allowed, as it would go against that policy. Some variants on this scheme have been proposed, but they all break down in some way or other.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I believe they meant that DDB’s response is a weirdly worded answer that ends in a cyclical argument.
I volunteered to implement the UA stuff that I can into DDB if they wanted to make it available for people. Others have made the same/similar offer. Others still have offered to donate to an escrow for it. DDB has chosen to not respod to any of those offers as far as I am aware.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That just opens up more problems around responsibility and accountability.
Also
Not for people who want to play them. And I only offered to do what I can. I was able to implement the UA Kobold and the UA Dragonborn (at least the Gem) before DDB rolled out all 4 of them. I had a workable version of the UA Thri-kreen the same day the UA dropped (within 24 hours at least), and the Astral Elf a day or two later. I didn’t bother with the others because I had no interest unless someone asked for it, but none of my players did, so meh. (If anyone wants to use them PM me.)
And I just offered to do the grunt work, they could have easily rejected anything they felt subpar or otherwise inadequate. I homebrew in that claptrap contraption of a content builder for fun (I know, right), so it was really a genuine offer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Some people want to play the UA and when it gets integrated into a book (for instance fairies) it gets tweaked or changed and some people would rather play the UA version. You already had a bunch of the old UA working fine, why would you take it down spitefully... Why is there such a pushback if people are willing to volunteer or give resources towards future UA integration? I feel like it's really closed-minded of DDB.