Today we published a changelog detailing how the D&D Beyond site is going to be updated for the 2024 Player's Handbook. You can take a look at all the details at this link.
Happy adventuring!
EDIT: This changelog has received an important update based on player feedback. You can read about the update in this article.
I already wasn't a fan of the recent changes to the UI under the Game Rules section, but making the choice to play under the 2014 rule set so finicky and annoying doesn't make using Beyond appealing for the 2014 players such as myself and my players.
A simple switch in settings to toggle whether you want to use 2014 or 2024 ruleset would make so many of these changes far more tolerable.
From a 2014 to 2024 standpoint, what was the process that went into deciding not to offer blanket legacy versions of spells alongside their 2024 counterparts, if they were changed?
This is probably the biggest change I can see where older content is just being updated wholesale, and the solution is "Create a Homebrew" version of it if you want the older version.
WHAT IF I WANT TO USE THE 2014 VERSION OF A SPELL OR MAGIC ITEM?
If you wish to use the old version of a magic item or spell that has been replaced by its 2024 counterpart, you will need to create a homebrew copy of it and enable homebrew content on your character sheet. Then, you can add it to your character sheet.
This is, quite frankly, BS.
If instead of replacing current spells/items with 5.5 versions they simply put a legacy tag over the current ones that would be fine. We've already seen that with Staff of Defense for example. And adding a legacy or source note when trying to add the item/spell would be a quality improvement.
But one of the biggest selling points of buying digital versions of books on DDB is the ease of use in the character creator. And forcing the tedium of needing to homebrew-copy spells/items that we've already been able to use without issue detracts from that. It makes a lot of purchases that have been made on this site suddenly lose a part of their selling point by adding a layer of inconvenience to using materials we've already owned.
It would be fine to add a legacy note. But removing them from easy add is not good. I would've preferred something similar to the current non-core toggles where you had to toggle an option in the character builder to allow current versions or disallow upcoming versions.
I have to say, I'm quite disappointed. A toggle on a character sheet between '2014' and '2024' would have been simple and logical, but we get this instead. The main issue is of course that 'legacy' spells and items will no longer be supported. The spells and items could have simply been ported over, and instead we're being asked to make homebrew versions. It's more effort than it's worth to spend hours of my (or anyone's) life recreating tens of spells and magic items that already exist, just to use the main functionality of this website with one's preferred ruleset.
This is probably the biggest change I can see where older content is just being updated wholesale, and the solution is "Create a Homebrew" version of it if you want the older version.
It also breaks tradition.
When Volo's was legacy's by Multiverse the Aasimar, goblin, kobold from Volo's were no longer purchaseable. So anyone new wanting to use them had to resort to homebrew. But those that already had Volo's were perfectly able to use the legacy Aasimar without issue.
That kind of system is a better one than "Hey the current stuff you can use fine? Lol, gotta homebrew it now."
EDIT: BIG Question
With the homebrew copy, will it even be as simple as the current method of "Create a copy of X_SPELL" or would it require making it wholesale from the ground up to copy it?
This is probably the biggest change I can see where older content is just being updated wholesale, and the solution is "Create a Homebrew" version of it if you want the older version.
It also breaks tradition.
When Volo's was legacy's by Multiverse the Aasimar, goblin, kobold from Volo's were no longer purchaseable. So anyone new wanting to use them had to resort to homebrew. But those that already had Volo's were perfectly able to use the legacy Aasimar without issue.
That kind of system is a better one than "Hey the current stuff you can use fine? Lol, gotta homebrew it now."
EDIT: BIG Question
With the homebrew copy, will it even be as simple as the current method of "Create a copy of X_SPELL" or would it require making it wholesale from the ground up to copy it?
Being "fair", and I'm gonna use that term loose. The tradition of legacy tags was started two admins ago.
I agree with the Staff of Defense example for legacy item tagging. A new one was made, and they figured a way to keep the original. I don't see why they couldn't just just tag the spell lists to their associated classes. Give 2014 characters the option for 2014 and 2024 spells, but 2024 characters the options for 2024 spells only. That's the intent by Wizards, so it would make sense that it was the intent here.
It's why I am curious on the why of that decision.
This is a thorough and fantastic update, thank you!
I'm curious if it will be possible to "upgrade" an existing PHB 2014 character to the 2024 ruleset, or if we will have to recreate them from scratch (including inventory, spell choices, etc)? I didn't see that mentioned, and I did see that there are Legacy versions of each class, which makes me feel like we can't.
Very disappointed to see the not so subtle push to force everyone into playing the new ruleset, and that's coming from someone excited to use the new spell changes. If EVERYTHING ELSE gets a legacy version, do the same for spells. Surely it's possible and this homebrew workaround is needless.
I can already see the cases of red flag players making tweaks to spells and claiming its the 2014 version and its avoidable by just making 2014 spells have a legacy tag or (2014) or both.
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells? The vast majority very much needed the changes. Could just treat it as errata, no?
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells? The vast majority very much needed the changes. Could just treat it as errata, no?
I'm interested in using the older version of those spells, as are many other people. Just as some people like the new versions, some are indifferent and some dislike them. There's no reason to dismiss a legitimate gripe just because you believe that no one actually has such a gripe.
I'll be updating mine. But I have spoken with people who want to use the new versions of MOST but not all spells. Such as a DM who wanted to updated but told me they'd be using the old counterspell/dispel magic because the upcasting mechanic against someone's spellcasting check felt cool to them.
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells?
Me. And lots of people that aren't planning switch over to 5.5 too.
I purchased the PHB/MM/DMG for ease of use with my current group. They have a hard enough time with the current rules too. No way I'd recommend to them we switch over.
There's also going to be a lot of ongoing campaigns too that aren't switching.
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells? The vast majority very much needed the changes. Could just treat it as errata, no?
I'm interested in using the older version of those spells, as are many other people. Just as some people like the new versions, some are indifferent and some dislike them. There's no reason to dismiss a legitimate gripe just because you believe that no one actually has such a gripe.
But why though? The only spell I've heard any complaints about is Inflict Wounds, and off cases like that is exactly what their proposal can handle well.
But why though? The only spell I've heard any complaints about is Inflict Wounds, and off cases like that is exactly what their proposal can handle well.
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells? The vast majority very much needed the changes. Could just treat it as errata, no?
Errata implies it's a free update. It's not. It's an actual paid revision.
But why though? The only spell I've heard any complaints about is Inflict Wounds, and off cases like that is exactly what their proposal can handle well.
Because we're happy with the current rules.
Honestly, I really do like a lot of the 2024 changes but I also see value in playing in 2014 rules(at least until we're fully in the PHB/DMG/MM landscape).
D&D Beyond has never made changes that would affect purchased content before with two exceptions: The first Eberron book, but the former admin made homebrew versions of the things that would be removed when the Wizards one came out, giving for free the options that people paid for that was essentially a UA book and Strahd, which was errata and Wizards also made those changes from a social standpoint.
These aren't errata. We've been told that over and over and over. These are rule revisions.
I was always curious but maintained a benefit of the doubt because D&D Beyond as a website was *NEVER* flexible and it was never meant to be flexible. It was built very rigid because that's what 5e was at the time, and over its lifecycle the design team, who was not integrated with D&D Beyond at its inception started to make it more flexible. We saw that in the posts by the admin that a lot of them were essentially blindsided by what Tashas was going to do from a character creation standpoint and supporting that was going to take time.
I'd postulate that what we're seeing is that the tools can't easily handle running two rulesets at once, so they aren't trying. This makes sense to me, because of that rigidity. What I can't understand is why things like Spells and Items. We're clearly tagging classes as legacy classes. Why can't those spell lists be tagged as a legacy spell list? Why can't items be tagged as legacy items?
What happens with updated spells once PHB24 drops - can I use Healing Word in the future without purchasing the new book or will it be unavailable until the SRD24 / Basic Rules 2024 drops? In the latter case, DDB ceases to be free to use for a few months as you'd have no spells left.
Yea I plan on jumping straight over to 5.5 once I finish my current campaign but honestly, disappointing and sad to see how you're choosing to handle legacy magic items
I agree with much of the sentiment here, why cant there be a toggle on a character to choose 2014 or 2024 content?
Species, monsters, classes have legacy tags, why the decision to remove magic items instead of adding the 2014 tag? The homebrew option is a horrible decision and theres no way people haven't said this internally
I can only see this being annoying as hell for groups that are still running 5e campaigns during this switch which I imagine are more than a few
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond StaffHello and well met!
Today we published a changelog detailing how the D&D Beyond site is going to be updated for the 2024 Player's Handbook. You can take a look at all the details at this link.
Happy adventuring!
EDIT: This changelog has received an important update based on player feedback. You can read about the update in this article.
D&D Beyond Community Manager
They/Them
Site Rules And Guidelines | Fan Content Policy | Wizards Terms of Service
poorly handled, honestly.
I already wasn't a fan of the recent changes to the UI under the Game Rules section, but making the choice to play under the 2014 rule set so finicky and annoying doesn't make using Beyond appealing for the 2014 players such as myself and my players.
A simple switch in settings to toggle whether you want to use 2014 or 2024 ruleset would make so many of these changes far more tolerable.
Free Palestine.
they/it/ey
From a 2014 to 2024 standpoint, what was the process that went into deciding not to offer blanket legacy versions of spells alongside their 2024 counterparts, if they were changed?
This is probably the biggest change I can see where older content is just being updated wholesale, and the solution is "Create a Homebrew" version of it if you want the older version.
This is, quite frankly, BS.
If instead of replacing current spells/items with 5.5 versions they simply put a legacy tag over the current ones that would be fine. We've already seen that with Staff of Defense for example. And adding a legacy or source note when trying to add the item/spell would be a quality improvement.
But one of the biggest selling points of buying digital versions of books on DDB is the ease of use in the character creator. And forcing the tedium of needing to homebrew-copy spells/items that we've already been able to use without issue detracts from that. It makes a lot of purchases that have been made on this site suddenly lose a part of their selling point by adding a layer of inconvenience to using materials we've already owned.
It would be fine to add a legacy note. But removing them from easy add is not good. I would've preferred something similar to the current non-core toggles where you had to toggle an option in the character builder to allow current versions or disallow upcoming versions.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | DraĂocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim | Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve
Bombil, Hunt for Yeenoghu | Cherry Littleoak, Stormwreck | Phait, Lost Mine of Phandelver
Beneath the Mountain | Let's Test Monsters!
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 36, 10/3/24, How Can I Keep From Singing?
I have to say, I'm quite disappointed. A toggle on a character sheet between '2014' and '2024' would have been simple and logical, but we get this instead. The main issue is of course that 'legacy' spells and items will no longer be supported. The spells and items could have simply been ported over, and instead we're being asked to make homebrew versions. It's more effort than it's worth to spend hours of my (or anyone's) life recreating tens of spells and magic items that already exist, just to use the main functionality of this website with one's preferred ruleset.
N/A
It also breaks tradition.
When Volo's was legacy's by Multiverse the Aasimar, goblin, kobold from Volo's were no longer purchaseable. So anyone new wanting to use them had to resort to homebrew. But those that already had Volo's were perfectly able to use the legacy Aasimar without issue.
That kind of system is a better one than "Hey the current stuff you can use fine? Lol, gotta homebrew it now."
EDIT: BIG Question
With the homebrew copy, will it even be as simple as the current method of "Create a copy of X_SPELL" or would it require making it wholesale from the ground up to copy it?
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | DraĂocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim | Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve
Bombil, Hunt for Yeenoghu | Cherry Littleoak, Stormwreck | Phait, Lost Mine of Phandelver
Beneath the Mountain | Let's Test Monsters!
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 36, 10/3/24, How Can I Keep From Singing?
Being "fair", and I'm gonna use that term loose. The tradition of legacy tags was started two admins ago.
I agree with the Staff of Defense example for legacy item tagging. A new one was made, and they figured a way to keep the original. I don't see why they couldn't just just tag the spell lists to their associated classes. Give 2014 characters the option for 2014 and 2024 spells, but 2024 characters the options for 2024 spells only. That's the intent by Wizards, so it would make sense that it was the intent here.
It's why I am curious on the why of that decision.
This is a thorough and fantastic update, thank you!
I'm curious if it will be possible to "upgrade" an existing PHB 2014 character to the 2024 ruleset, or if we will have to recreate them from scratch (including inventory, spell choices, etc)? I didn't see that mentioned, and I did see that there are Legacy versions of each class, which makes me feel like we can't.
Thanks!
Very disappointed to see the not so subtle push to force everyone into playing the new ruleset, and that's coming from someone excited to use the new spell changes. If EVERYTHING ELSE gets a legacy version, do the same for spells. Surely it's possible and this homebrew workaround is needless.
I can already see the cases of red flag players making tweaks to spells and claiming its the 2014 version and its avoidable by just making 2014 spells have a legacy tag or (2014) or both.
It does suck to lose access to the spells, but who is actually interested in using the older version of those spells? The vast majority very much needed the changes. Could just treat it as errata, no?
I'm interested in using the older version of those spells, as are many other people. Just as some people like the new versions, some are indifferent and some dislike them. There's no reason to dismiss a legitimate gripe just because you believe that no one actually has such a gripe.
N/A
I'll be updating mine. But I have spoken with people who want to use the new versions of MOST but not all spells. Such as a DM who wanted to updated but told me they'd be using the old counterspell/dispel magic because the upcasting mechanic against someone's spellcasting check felt cool to them.
I'm ok with these changes. That is exactly the way my group was planning to play.
Me. And lots of people that aren't planning switch over to 5.5 too.
I purchased the PHB/MM/DMG for ease of use with my current group. They have a hard enough time with the current rules too. No way I'd recommend to them we switch over.
There's also going to be a lot of ongoing campaigns too that aren't switching.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | DraĂocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim | Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve
Bombil, Hunt for Yeenoghu | Cherry Littleoak, Stormwreck | Phait, Lost Mine of Phandelver
Beneath the Mountain | Let's Test Monsters!
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 36, 10/3/24, How Can I Keep From Singing?
But why though? The only spell I've heard any complaints about is Inflict Wounds, and off cases like that is exactly what their proposal can handle well.
Because we're happy with the current rules.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | DraĂocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim | Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve
Bombil, Hunt for Yeenoghu | Cherry Littleoak, Stormwreck | Phait, Lost Mine of Phandelver
Beneath the Mountain | Let's Test Monsters!
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 36, 10/3/24, How Can I Keep From Singing?
Errata implies it's a free update. It's not. It's an actual paid revision.
Honestly, I really do like a lot of the 2024 changes but I also see value in playing in 2014 rules(at least until we're fully in the PHB/DMG/MM landscape).
D&D Beyond has never made changes that would affect purchased content before with two exceptions: The first Eberron book, but the former admin made homebrew versions of the things that would be removed when the Wizards one came out, giving for free the options that people paid for that was essentially a UA book and Strahd, which was errata and Wizards also made those changes from a social standpoint.
These aren't errata. We've been told that over and over and over. These are rule revisions.
I was always curious but maintained a benefit of the doubt because D&D Beyond as a website was *NEVER* flexible and it was never meant to be flexible. It was built very rigid because that's what 5e was at the time, and over its lifecycle the design team, who was not integrated with D&D Beyond at its inception started to make it more flexible. We saw that in the posts by the admin that a lot of them were essentially blindsided by what Tashas was going to do from a character creation standpoint and supporting that was going to take time.
I'd postulate that what we're seeing is that the tools can't easily handle running two rulesets at once, so they aren't trying. This makes sense to me, because of that rigidity. What I can't understand is why things like Spells and Items. We're clearly tagging classes as legacy classes. Why can't those spell lists be tagged as a legacy spell list? Why can't items be tagged as legacy items?
What happens with updated spells once PHB24 drops - can I use Healing Word in the future without purchasing the new book or will it be unavailable until the SRD24 / Basic Rules 2024 drops? In the latter case, DDB ceases to be free to use for a few months as you'd have no spells left.
Yea I plan on jumping straight over to 5.5 once I finish my current campaign but honestly, disappointing and sad to see how you're choosing to handle legacy magic items
I agree with much of the sentiment here, why cant there be a toggle on a character to choose 2014 or 2024 content?
Species, monsters, classes have legacy tags, why the decision to remove magic items instead of adding the 2014 tag? The homebrew option is a horrible decision and theres no way people haven't said this internally
I can only see this being annoying as hell for groups that are still running 5e campaigns during this switch which I imagine are more than a few
In saying that, the changelog was really thorough and a great breakdown of the changes!
Overall the changes look really good and it was really clear, even if its not perfect it was a good read