I don't think there is much real difference between a homebrew "Acid Splash (Legacy)" and them reworking their database to do that. You can have that now - https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2595165-alter-self-legacy as one example I did as proof of concept
That works apart from the matter of links where you can't edit them like in adventure modules etc. If you want the old spell on your character sheet there it is for you to pick. Realistically no company was ever going to default to the old stuff for those when they have new stuff. Its going to default to the new rules. It just creates future problems for them and future migration issues to worry about.
With the energy that has gone into these discussions we could have had a full set of homebrew spells by now. I was just playing with it to prove its workable. I STILL think the Beyond team dropped the ball by not doing that for us but there you have it. They have a bunch of vacancies open - my guess is they are understaffed and overstretched but still had to hit the deadlines for the books dropping.
You're right, they could make an Acid Splash (Legacy) fairly easily, but it wouldn't fix the issues with the character sheet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
This change doesn't bother me in any way shape or form. Every single video game or sub/web based service I use get's updated all the time. I (we) asked for these changes. Complained at the lack of new rules and updates to spells etc...
I can't help but think about how much overlap there probably is between the people who're most mad about this who also constantly bemoan the fact that people don't know how to use character sheets anymore. Time to pull out your pencils folks.
And people aren't thinking about things like hyperlinks etc... I imagine stuff like that is much more complicated then people assume to deal with. Like if you look at subclass given spells which list of spells should they link to? That kind of thing seems complicated to me. Much more then just a toggle.
Yes keep imagining, this is not a video game, and this effects games that have been going on for years in some cases. this is not a genre of gaming where forcing changes mid game is or has been done until this instance. It is a shameful abuse of the players that do not want to change at this time. IT has a very simple though maybe not easy solution, the toggle and legacy tags. Since WotC chose the ruin everyone's game path and waited until there is no time to implement a reasonable solution this storm is theirs to deal with, choices have consequences, per my post above it appears those in the know are unashamed of letting us how WotC views it's customer base that just wants to play the game they are in and then decide which ruleset to use next. They seem to want livestock not customers.
Totally disagree. MMO's or really any online game really can also be played for years and can at any time change their rules for balancing issues etc.... and we ASKED for these changed.
All this IMO hyperbolic language around this is just silly to me. It makes it literally impossible for me to take it seriously. There's no "abuse" going on here? "Livestock?" I mean come on! This stuff is just so over the top.
Just print out a character sheet and write the spells down. Or open the compendium on the website and have them up.
Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Wizards of the Cost you need to not mess with us like this. WHY wouldn't you just keep DNDBeyond with the 5e format - and create DNDBeyondONE - for the new stuff.
Something - or the very least - don't take EVERYTHING away - keep things with Legacy so we can access it - don't make it so we can't access the books we already paid for and the stuff we don't want changed.
Allow us to use 5e or One - just make it a toggle - do you want 5e to be your primary or One to be your primary.
You screw the people who are keeping you in business, not really very smart.
but it is objectively true to say that DnD is NOT an MMO
What is DND beyond though? This is about "dnd" if it were about DND then you all would admit that there is no problem here and you can just use a pencil?
All subscription based websites go through updates.
You are paying to license this stuff not even own it. You can be mad when Netflix loses a show you were paying for but you have no say in if they remove it.
now if you’re interested in that or not… is very much up to you, but if you’re not interested - then why are you here commenting?
I would love to ask the same thing of all the people who continue to threaten to leave this game and never play again who show up every 6 months to complain about their rights being "violated" There's only so many "and this is the last straws" I can take.
If you're going to use the netflix analogy. Imagine if you could create a free account with netflix and all you get is their free content (Basic Rules set in DND Beyond). You got season 1 of series X for free with the free subscription. But you went ahead and paid money to get the rest of the seasons of series X. But now netflix is coming out with series Y which is a remake of series X. They have announced that because series Y is a better remake, they will be deleting series X from the server, you still get season 1 of series Y for free, but if you want all of the seasons of series Y if you buy it again.
You and your watch group are only halfway through series X and you don't have time to finish it before this changeover happens. Yes, I think people would be justifiably upset that netflix is doing this. They paid money for series X and the ability to watch it. Sure, they could of bought the paperback, but they wanted to watch it and that is the reason they paid netflix for it instead of just buying the paperback.
Wizards of the Cost you need to not mess with us like this. WHY wouldn't you just keep DNDBeyond with the 5e format - and create DNDBeyondONE - for the new stuff.
Something - or the very least - don't take EVERYTHING away - keep things with Legacy so we can access it - don't make it so we can't access the books we already paid for and the stuff we don't want changed.
Allow us to use 5e or One - just make it a toggle - do you want 5e to be your primary or One to be your primary.
You screw the people who are keeping you in business, not really very smart.
Your books aren't going anywhere. It's the character sheet-linked items that are being updated to the latest 5E rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Yeh this was exactly what I was trying to explain but I think you did it better than I did.
Fundementally I’m not making excuses for WotC, I just think all the “just add a legacy toggle” comments are a bit trite because I genuinely don’t think it’s that easy.
do I care how easy it is? No… because as I said that’s not our problem, that’s WotC’s problem and that’s why we give them our money.
i genuinely do think that keeping two databases is the best solution personally. They can go ahead with what they said they intend to do and then that forms the basis of the 2024 version and not implement those changes and leave the site as is on the other version and that leaves us with the site and we know and love today.
no extra internal database messing about… it just leaves you with database’s to manage which might be an issue. (It’s certainly not an issue of size or load though because if it was they wouldn’t be telling people to homebrew everything)
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Yeh this was exactly what I was trying to explain but I think you did it better than I did.
Fundementally I’m not making excuses for WotC, I just think all the “just add a legacy toggle” comments are a bit trite because I genuinely don’t think it’s that easy.
do I care how easy it is? No… because as I said that’s not our problem, that’s WotC’s problem and that’s why we give them our money.
i genuinely do think that keeping two databases is the best solution personally. They can go ahead with what they said they intend to do and then that forms the basis of the 2024 version and not implement those changes and leave the site as is on the other version and that leaves us with the site and we know and love today.
no extra database messing about… it just leaves you with database’s to manage which might be an issue. (It’s certainly not an issue of size or load though because if it was they wouldn’t be telling people to homebrew everything)
Agreed, I think a DDB Classic site is the easiest and best option at this point, at least until they can work a redesign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Right yes there would need to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things. But my point was that 2014 versions already exist, and they are already making 2024 versions of all the things (besides items and spells). So all the 2014 versions of things already refer to the 2014 versions of the spells. And when they created the 2024 versions of things they can point them specifically to the 2024 versions of spells. There's no need for a rules engine, it's just a series of links and references.
In your example, where there's a "Staff of Power” and "Staff of Power (2024)" the "Staff of Power" is already referencing "Fireball" and when the "Staff of Power (2024)" item is created it is instead referencing "Fireball (2024)". Again I want to point out I'm tagging the new item with 2024 for simplicity's sake, and the reverse can be done albeit with more work
By default both Staves of Power are available for a user to choose in the Inventory Management tab. Then a 2014/2024 toggle/filter can be added to the Inventory Management tab that changes what is available to choose. This is independent of what Class/Subclass/Species etc you have chosen during character creation.
Yesterday, we released a Changelog detailing the upcoming updates to the D&D Beyond site. We have been listening to your feedback and want to provide some important clarifications regarding spells, magic items, and access to the 2014 Core Rulebook compendiums. We also would like to provide clarity on the partnered content we’ve brought to D&D Beyond.
2014 Rulebook Compendiums
Players will not lose access to their 2014 content in the Compendium. 2014 content will continue to be accessible on the D&D Beyond site and available for purchase after the release of the 2024 Core Rulebook. The information in them will remain unchanged, and players will not lose access to any of their 2014 content.
Free Rules
We will be releasing D&D Free Rules (2024) covering similar content as the 2014 Free Basic Rules, with more details to come pending the release of the Player’s Handbook. Players will not need to buy the 2024 Core Rulebooks to access Free Rules (2024). The Free Rules (2024) will not require an account or purchase to use or view. Content that was free in the 2014 Free Basic Rules will remain free when the D&D Free Rules (2024) are released. We will also add new Spells and Feats in the D&D Free Rules (2024).
Spells
When updated, Spell descriptions on character sheets will default to 2024 Core Rulebook descriptions. All users, regardless of whether they have purchased the 2024 Player’s Handbook, will be able to access these updated Spells for free if they previously purchased the 2014 Player’s Handbook. All 2014 versions of Spells will still be accessible in the D&D Beyond Compendium and available for players to access.
Magic Items
All users, regardless of whether they have purchased the 2024 rulebooks, will be able to access updated magic items for free if they have previously purchased the 2014 Player’s Handbook.
Only two magic items are impacted by the 2024 update, with minor changes to their text: Potion of Healing and Spell Scroll. The 2014 versions of these items will still be accessible in the D&D Beyond Compendium. We will evaluate upcoming changes to other magic items with the release of the 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Partnered Content
We have been working with our partners ahead of these changes to ensure that their content will remain compatible with D&D Beyond’s updates. Our partners have made amazing content that we are proud to have on D&D Beyond, and we will continue to work to create compatibility.
Why did a WotC employee reject my home brew version of Acid Arrow after I created it with enough flavor changes to bypass the automated system?
i genuinely do think that keeping two databases is the best solution personally.
The one question I have about this theory is (and I genuinely don't know the answer) would this work and still allow people to use content easily from both? Like, I want to be able to use the new class options with older subclasses or use older classes with the new spells.
It just seems like at a certain point it might be too confusing and convoluted to keep track of and deal with for them.
There is a lot of jargon here that I'm just not familiar with or able to keep up within my tiny brain so I have a simple yes/no question;
Should I start making homebrew copies of all spells/magical items that I have available to me now so I don't lose access to these things within the character sheet?
I'm DMing my first campaign with all brand new players to D&D. None of us are experts in the current 5e mechanics but I know we all will be turned away if we can't continue in the 5e vein.
Having my content on my character sheet, and sharing the content that I purchased, in Campaigns with my other players, is the only reason I pay for a subscription.
I will be canceling my subscription as soon as this change goes live.
The only way to prevent a mass exodus of subscriptions IMO is to give us (Legacy) versions of all the things (items, spells, classes, backgrounds, ALL of it) that can still be used in character sheets.
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Right yes there would need to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things. But my point was that 2014 versions already exist, and they are already making 2024 versions of all the things (besides items and spells). So all the 2014 versions of things already refer to the 2014 versions of the spells. And when they created the 2024 versions of things they can point them specifically to the 2024 versions of spells. There's no need for a rules engine, it's just a series of links and references.
In your example, where there's a "Staff of Power” and "Staff of Power (2024)" the "Staff of Power" is already referencing "Fireball" and when the "Staff of Power (2024)" item is created it is instead referencing "Fireball (2024)". Again I want to point out I'm tagging the new item with 2024 for simplicity's sake, and the reverse can be done albeit with more work
By default both Staves of Power are available for a user to choose in the Inventory Management tab. Then a 2014/2024 toggle/filter can be added to the Inventory Management tab that changes what is available to choose. This is independent of what Class/Subclass/Species etc you have chosen during character creation.
Yes, the Staff of Power is referencing Fireball. What you're suggesting is that they now have to have a Staff of Power, a Staff of Power 2024, a Fireball, a Fireball 2024 and they have to plug all those things into one another and, in addition, make sure that any real mechanics tied to any of that are also versioned and linked up correctly and then they have to make sure that when your 2014 character grabs a Staff of Power, it uses the correct version with all the correct things linked up to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
im not saying this to defend WotC - I genuinely think that’s a THEM problem, not an US problem. They want more money, they want to sell more books, they decided to buy DnD beyond… like ultimately that’s for them to sort out while not inconveniencing us. I have no sympathy for them or this nonsense they’re trying to pull now.
what they seem to have decided instead is to just be like “screw it… we’ll just update everything as it’s easiest for us going forward and we’ll take the losses now, in the hopes that this forms a solid bedrock for the next 10 years for the new version” - I don’t think it’s trying to drive us to 2024 purchases, I think they are genuinely just ambivalent to the impact to the community now.
now their is a fix to the database, however it would probably take a lot of recoding on the backend, so that instead of using names for spell links and pages, they instead used database ID’s (which is the superior choice), but that again would mean going through every page with a link on it and completely remapping them to their new locations - which WotC clearly have no interest in doing because it’s time and labour intensive.
You seem to forget: They wouldn't need to worry about the names. They'd just need the default behavior to point to the current list, and the toggle would point to an entirely separate Legacy list. They have the Legacy tagging system in place in the site already with identically-named entries existing side by side.
Well I’ve not forgotten that… I just don’t think it’s relevant.
like this isn’t me running defence for them… have a look at how outraged I am in other posts. But I just don’t think the legacy toggle work’s in the way you’re proposing.
I can’t think of any content toggle that exists in DDB currently that isn’t just a show/hide option. So genuinely I’m asking how you think this toggle would work?
like say I’m running a 2014 adventure, I’ve got the legacy toggle turned on… I have a look, as I’m a dm, to see what spells the enemy wizard can cast and look at its spell list. In what way do you think the legacy toggle would work to ensure the spell links on the enemy stat page would link to the 2014 versions of the spells, rather than the 2024 versions?
(this isn’t me being shady either, I’m genuinely trying to understand your point)
-Add a toggle in the Character Builder that allows a person to use Legacy spells -If the toggle is on, any spell that has a Legacy version gets a checkbox in the corner of its description allowing a person to switch to the Legacy printing of the spell -Checkbox being checked means it looks at the Legacy list for the spell name instead (with Befuddlement/Feeblemind being specified in the backend for renaming reasons, same with Summon Dragon/Summon Draconic Spirit)
This would have the benefit of not having to worry about what happens with subclasses, feats, etc. because it's managed in the spell flow itself.
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Right yes there would need to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things. But my point was that 2014 versions already exist, and they are already making 2024 versions of all the things (besides items and spells). So all the 2014 versions of things already refer to the 2014 versions of the spells. And when they created the 2024 versions of things they can point them specifically to the 2024 versions of spells. There's no need for a rules engine, it's just a series of links and references.
In your example, where there's a "Staff of Power” and "Staff of Power (2024)" the "Staff of Power" is already referencing "Fireball" and when the "Staff of Power (2024)" item is created it is instead referencing "Fireball (2024)". Again I want to point out I'm tagging the new item with 2024 for simplicity's sake, and the reverse can be done albeit with more work
By default both Staves of Power are available for a user to choose in the Inventory Management tab. Then a 2014/2024 toggle/filter can be added to the Inventory Management tab that changes what is available to choose. This is independent of what Class/Subclass/Species etc you have chosen during character creation.
FYI, staff of power currently has the tag Basic Rules (2014)
I initially thought this was fake news to stir people up because they were clearly taking steps ahead of the release of the new to facilitate full backwards capability like they said they were.
i genuinely do think that keeping two databases is the best solution personally.
The one question I have about this theory is (and I genuinely don't know the answer) would this work and still allow people to use content easily from both? Like, I want to be able to use the new class options with older subclasses or use older classes with the new spells.
It just seems like at a certain point it might be too confusing and convoluted to keep track of and deal with for them.
No, that's what DDB is going to be come September 3rd by default. The "Classic" idea I keep harping on would only be for folks wanting to stay in 2014 land.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
I just don't understand the lack of transparency on WHY they are doing this. There's clearly a specific reason why only spells and magic items are affected but they haven't explained it.
Fully done in full concience to push thier 2024 down everyones throat, claiming backwards compability (where is none) hoping they can sell a rushed unfinished product that has even more problems than the prior version.
I genuinely just don’t think that’s true.
like honestly I get the desire to assume the worst… I’m not pro WotC at all, but I really don’t think that’s it.
i think much more likely is that the backend of the database was never written with the concept of being updated like this and so the spells and magic items have been saved under actual names, rather than id’s and so updates like this become a lot more problematic. That’s not me defending them because a fix is not impossible, it’s just a lot more labour intensive and instead I think they’ve chosen the option that’s easiest for THEM and decides we should all have to front the work load for them in fixing a problem they created.
like let’s look at healing word as just an example… 2014 healing word heals for less than 2024 healing word. The way the database works is that not only does the character sheet point to 2014 healing word currently, all instances that use healing word in the game point to the 2014 version, so that would include subclasses, feat, monsters who use the spell, magical items that use the spell and so on and so forth.
to maintain a functional 2014 database at this junction they would need a healing word (2014) version, which would probably be named something like “Healing Word (Legacy)”and a healing word (2024) version, that would just be called healing word (because most up to date version always takes precedence). They would then need to duplicate all entries on the database and have one version that points to the 2024 version of the spell and one that points to the 2014 version of the spell. So that would kind that say you had a cleric enemy - you would need to have a 2024 and 2014 version of both pages because the spell links inside creature page would be pointing to different version of the spell.
now replicate that for literally everything in the game.
so I know people keep saying “just add a toggle” but it really isn’t as simple as that because of how the database currently works.
...
I don't think it would be as difficult as you say to make this work. Let's break it down.
Let's assume everything is coded to refer to spells using names and not IDs.
Their database already contains the 2014 version of Healing Word under the name "Healing Word". Now Healing Word has changed in 2024 so one way or another the database needs to be touched to either add a new entry or edit the existing entry's description. From a database update perspective both are equally simple and easy.
So let's take the route less disruptive to the data, and add a new entry for "Healing Word (2024)". Note I am choosing to name the new spells "2024" for least disruption, but renaming the old spells to 2014/Legacy isn't too bad either just slightly more work to go through and update existing references, so that is also a possibility and can also be done as a second stage update as well.
So far nothing is impacted, everything existing is using the Healing Word name and refers to the 2014 version.
Ok so now the 2024 version needs to be referenced in a few places.
1. The new PHB, this is easy as it's also a new entry in their data store so nothing old is impacted.
2. Spell Search page: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search, with the new one clearly labeled 2024. If desired a user can filter by sourcebook already to only see 2014 or 2024 version of the spell as desired.
3. 2024 Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Species, Backgrounds: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Keep in mind they have already implemented toggles for the 2014 vs 2024 character options mentioned.
4. 2024 monsters: These are all new entries and therefore need to be created from scratch and can therefore be made to reference "Healing Word (2024)", again nothing old is impacted. Again they have already implemented toggles for 2014 vs 2024 monsters.
5. Character Sheet spells management: Since we have two entries in the database they will both appear in the spell search. As there are currently no filters in that tab, If they want to improve the user experience they can add a toggle that will filter out the 2014 or 2024 versions of Healing Word.
That's is it, this is the most basic thing they could have done which causes least disruption and makes both sets of spells available to 2014 and 2024 characters respectively. And this may seem hacky, but it should have been at least a first step in the update process, and as development continues and they get past the PHB 2024 release deadline, they could then focus on making this more robust and redesigning the site so it can support multiple versions seamlessly.
And then the entire DDB rules engine has to be updated to use all those new names appropriately. It's, presumably, not an easy lift.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the DDB rules engine?
Sure! The set of computer code that knows what to display when and where and how to calculate dice rolls, etc.
In order for what you're proposing to actually work, there would have to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then the engine would have to know there are both 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things, then it would have to know if a character is 2014 or 2024, then it would have to be able to use that knowledge to link to and display all of the things that are flagged as 2014 or 2024 respectively. Just adding a toggle to show/hide wouldn't do anything, especially for anything outside of the basic character sheet info.
As an example, let's use a Staff of Power. If I have a 2014 character, the engine would need to know that so that it could grab a 2014 staff. The 2014 staff would need to know to link to the 2014 version of the spells. The character sheet would need to know that any dice rolls or mechanics involved needed to link to the 2014 versions, and etc. down the chain for everything connected to the character.
Right yes there would need to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things. But my point was that 2014 versions already exist, and they are already making 2024 versions of all the things (besides items and spells). So all the 2014 versions of things already refer to the 2014 versions of the spells. And when they created the 2024 versions of things they can point them specifically to the 2024 versions of spells. There's no need for a rules engine, it's just a series of links and references.
In your example, where there's a "Staff of Power” and "Staff of Power (2024)" the "Staff of Power" is already referencing "Fireball" and when the "Staff of Power (2024)" item is created it is instead referencing "Fireball (2024)". Again I want to point out I'm tagging the new item with 2024 for simplicity's sake, and the reverse can be done albeit with more work
By default both Staves of Power are available for a user to choose in the Inventory Management tab. Then a 2014/2024 toggle/filter can be added to the Inventory Management tab that changes what is available to choose. This is independent of what Class/Subclass/Species etc you have chosen during character creation.
Yes, the Staff of Power is referencing Fireball. What you're suggesting is that they now have to have a Staff of Power, a Staff of Power 2024, a Fireball, a Fireball 2024 and they have to plug all those things into one another and, in addition, make sure that any real mechanics tied to any of that are also versioned and linked up correctly and then they have to make sure that when your 2014 character grabs a Staff of Power, it uses the correct version with all the correct things linked up to it.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting because that is basically what they are asking us to do with homebrew, when it should be their job to do the same.
That is sick and overly selfish. The only thing they see when look at us loyal consumers of their products is money and now they are showing off their true colors. After this insult, I’m goin to wait until someone else makes a website or something that remakes what they are removing against our wills. For now, I’m unsubscribing from their master teir
Anyone got any ideas for replacements for DDB? Since this service is unusable now.
Depends on what you're using D&D Beyond for and how much work you want to put in to setting up on a new platform versus trying to make the janky homebrew solution work here. Like if you're using D&D Beyond and an external VTT (with the widget to click on the D&D Beyond character sheet & roll on the external VTT), you might want to see if the character sheet tools within the VTT work better for you.
Demiplane (who brought on some D&D Beyond people like Adam Bradford early on) started as essentially the D&D Beyond for other ttrpgs and after the OGL stuff announced they would start doing 5E. I think it is still technically in open beta but you can buy 3rd party 5E products for it and get the SRD. But they're not an official licensee so you would have to manually import any official product you own.
Roll20 is doing a big update to the functionality of their standalone character sheets and compendiums; they just purchased Demiplane but said they're keeping it as separate platform from their VTT & character sheets. Roll20 is an official Wizards licensee so you have the option of paying money for sourcebooks instead of manually importing everything. Roll20 is out there marketing hard about how you won't lose functionality with them and can just pick between the 2014 & 2024 character sheets.
I like Foundry as a VTT more than Roll20 in terms of functionality & a one-time payment but I wouldn't use it as a standalone character sheet. Like Demiplane, they're not an official licensee for the 2014 core rulebooks so there's no option to pay for a bunch of stuff to be setup for you (you just get the SRD). But I think there are better guides on how to import what you own and unlike Roll20, you don't have to pay for a monthly membership to get some automation (like you need the Roll20 Pro membership for API access).
Fantasy Grounds still exists (Adam Bradford just left Demiplane for them); like Foundry, it has standalone, offline functionality and like Roll20, it is an official Wizards licensee so you can purchase sourcebooks. It seems like Fantasy Grounds has a lot of purchasable add-ons while Foundry has way more free modding options (which is super useful if you're looking to play non-D&D systems that have basically no official support).
If you're looking for just character sheets, there are more options but I'm not sure how much integration there is with various VTTs. If you're using D&D Beyond on a tablet for in-person games & just want the spell look up, physical spell cards are not terrible and while it's definitely slower than the D&D Beyond spell search feature, I'm not sure it would be slower than thumbing through the digital compendium since the individual compendiums don't have great search features. I will also flag that it is unclear when Wizards will stop selling the 2014 core rulebooks on digital platforms; when Wizards pulled Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes from D&D Beyond, they also pulled it from their digital partners like Roll20 & Fantasy Grounds.
You're right, they could make an Acid Splash (Legacy) fairly easily, but it wouldn't fix the issues with the character sheet.
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Wizards of the Cost you need to not mess with us like this. WHY wouldn't you just keep DNDBeyond with the 5e format - and create DNDBeyondONE - for the new stuff.
Something - or the very least - don't take EVERYTHING away - keep things with Legacy so we can access it - don't make it so we can't access the books we already paid for and the stuff we don't want changed.
Allow us to use 5e or One - just make it a toggle - do you want 5e to be your primary or One to be your primary.
You screw the people who are keeping you in business, not really very smart.
Anyone got any ideas for replacements for DDB? Since this service is unusable now.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
If you're going to use the netflix analogy. Imagine if you could create a free account with netflix and all you get is their free content (Basic Rules set in DND Beyond). You got season 1 of series X for free with the free subscription. But you went ahead and paid money to get the rest of the seasons of series X. But now netflix is coming out with series Y which is a remake of series X. They have announced that because series Y is a better remake, they will be deleting series X from the server, you still get season 1 of series Y for free, but if you want all of the seasons of series Y if you buy it again.
You and your watch group are only halfway through series X and you don't have time to finish it before this changeover happens. Yes, I think people would be justifiably upset that netflix is doing this. They paid money for series X and the ability to watch it. Sure, they could of bought the paperback, but they wanted to watch it and that is the reason they paid netflix for it instead of just buying the paperback.
Your books aren't going anywhere. It's the character sheet-linked items that are being updated to the latest 5E rules.
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
Yeh this was exactly what I was trying to explain but I think you did it better than I did.
Fundementally I’m not making excuses for WotC, I just think all the “just add a legacy toggle” comments are a bit trite because I genuinely don’t think it’s that easy.
do I care how easy it is? No… because as I said that’s not our problem, that’s WotC’s problem and that’s why we give them our money.
i genuinely do think that keeping two databases is the best solution personally. They can go ahead with what they said they intend to do and then that forms the basis of the 2024 version and not implement those changes and leave the site as is on the other version and that leaves us with the site and we know and love today.
no extra internal database messing about… it just leaves you with database’s to manage which might be an issue. (It’s certainly not an issue of size or load though because if it was they wouldn’t be telling people to homebrew everything)
Agreed, I think a DDB Classic site is the easiest and best option at this point, at least until they can work a redesign.
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
Right yes there would need to be 2014 and 2024 versions of all the things. But my point was that 2014 versions already exist, and they are already making 2024 versions of all the things (besides items and spells). So all the 2014 versions of things already refer to the 2014 versions of the spells. And when they created the 2024 versions of things they can point them specifically to the 2024 versions of spells. There's no need for a rules engine, it's just a series of links and references.
In your example, where there's a "Staff of Power” and "Staff of Power (2024)" the "Staff of Power" is already referencing "Fireball" and when the "Staff of Power (2024)" item is created it is instead referencing "Fireball (2024)". Again I want to point out I'm tagging the new item with 2024 for simplicity's sake, and the reverse can be done albeit with more work
By default both Staves of Power are available for a user to choose in the Inventory Management tab. Then a 2014/2024 toggle/filter can be added to the Inventory Management tab that changes what is available to choose. This is independent of what Class/Subclass/Species etc you have chosen during character creation.
Why did a WotC employee reject my home brew version of Acid Arrow after I created it with enough flavor changes to bypass the automated system?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/204164-publishing-2014-spells-and-homebrew
The one question I have about this theory is (and I genuinely don't know the answer) would this work and still allow people to use content easily from both? Like, I want to be able to use the new class options with older subclasses or use older classes with the new spells.
It just seems like at a certain point it might be too confusing and convoluted to keep track of and deal with for them.
There is a lot of jargon here that I'm just not familiar with or able to keep up within my tiny brain so I have a simple yes/no question;
Should I start making homebrew copies of all spells/magical items that I have available to me now so I don't lose access to these things within the character sheet?
I'm DMing my first campaign with all brand new players to D&D. None of us are experts in the current 5e mechanics but I know we all will be turned away if we can't continue in the 5e vein.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Si1vertheBear
Having my content on my character sheet, and sharing the content that I purchased, in Campaigns with my other players, is the only reason I pay for a subscription.
I will be canceling my subscription as soon as this change goes live.
The only way to prevent a mass exodus of subscriptions IMO is to give us (Legacy) versions of all the things (items, spells, classes, backgrounds, ALL of it) that can still be used in character sheets.
Yes, the Staff of Power is referencing Fireball. What you're suggesting is that they now have to have a Staff of Power, a Staff of Power 2024, a Fireball, a Fireball 2024 and they have to plug all those things into one another and, in addition, make sure that any real mechanics tied to any of that are also versioned and linked up correctly and then they have to make sure that when your 2014 character grabs a Staff of Power, it uses the correct version with all the correct things linked up to it.
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
-Add a toggle in the Character Builder that allows a person to use Legacy spells
-If the toggle is on, any spell that has a Legacy version gets a checkbox in the corner of its description allowing a person to switch to the Legacy printing of the spell
-Checkbox being checked means it looks at the Legacy list for the spell name instead (with Befuddlement/Feeblemind being specified in the backend for renaming reasons, same with Summon Dragon/Summon Draconic Spirit)
This would have the benefit of not having to worry about what happens with subclasses, feats, etc. because it's managed in the spell flow itself.
FYI, staff of power currently has the tag Basic Rules (2014)
I initially thought this was fake news to stir people up because they were clearly taking steps ahead of the release of the new to facilitate full backwards capability like they said they were.
No, that's what DDB is going to be come September 3rd by default. The "Classic" idea I keep harping on would only be for folks wanting to stay in 2014 land.
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
That's exactly what I'm suggesting because that is basically what they are asking us to do with homebrew, when it should be their job to do the same.
That is sick and overly selfish. The only thing they see when look at us loyal consumers of their products is money and now they are showing off their true colors. After this insult, I’m goin to wait until someone else makes a website or something that remakes what they are removing against our wills. For now, I’m unsubscribing from their master teir
Depends on what you're using D&D Beyond for and how much work you want to put in to setting up on a new platform versus trying to make the janky homebrew solution work here. Like if you're using D&D Beyond and an external VTT (with the widget to click on the D&D Beyond character sheet & roll on the external VTT), you might want to see if the character sheet tools within the VTT work better for you.
If you're looking for just character sheets, there are more options but I'm not sure how much integration there is with various VTTs. If you're using D&D Beyond on a tablet for in-person games & just want the spell look up, physical spell cards are not terrible and while it's definitely slower than the D&D Beyond spell search feature, I'm not sure it would be slower than thumbing through the digital compendium since the individual compendiums don't have great search features. I will also flag that it is unclear when Wizards will stop selling the 2014 core rulebooks on digital platforms; when Wizards pulled Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes from D&D Beyond, they also pulled it from their digital partners like Roll20 & Fantasy Grounds.
(Edit: fixed typos)