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.
I used to do this at work. Microsoft Excel has a feature called "Find and Replace" that allows the addition of a tag such as (legacy) behind all current spell names. Then when new ones are created and added, the old ones would remain available for use.
Personally I prefer the toggle system that is already in place for home brew, Ravnica, Critical Role, and more. I had hoped they would expand the list to include all their books so that players could select the list that is allowed in a specific campaign and only see those options displayed.
Yes, but just making duplicates doesn't solve all the problems of tying those duplicates into the rules engine in a meaningful way, which I've explained in detail.
If anyone has had time to work on getting a better solution to fit in the release timeline it is hands down wizbro, they have known this was coming the longest and are in complete control of how and when it rolls out. They are the ones that have painted us into this corner not the other way round, making excuses for them at this point is laughable.
I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining my educated guess on the reality of the situation in the hopes that people thinking there's just some magical fix for DDB that they're just refusing to do out of some perceived malice understand that that's likely not the case.
I'm not looking to exonerate them for making bad assumptions or choices and I've even offered a super-simple solution that solves all their problems with very little actual dev work based on the assumption they don't have the bandwidth to do anything better right now. #DDBClassic
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
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
Again we need an absolutely, crystal clear statement saying character sheets are not going to be impacted by this. We need to be able to turn this 2024 BS off.
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.
I used to do this at work. Microsoft Excel has a feature called "Find and Replace" that allows the addition of a tag such as (legacy) behind all current spell names. Then when new ones are created and added, the old ones would remain available for use.
Personally I prefer the toggle system that is already in place for home brew, Ravnica, Critical Role, and more. I had hoped they would expand the list to include all their books so that players could select the list that is allowed in a specific campaign and only see those options displayed.
Yes, but just making duplicates doesn't solve all the problems of tying those duplicates into the rules engine in a meaningful way, which I've explained in detail.
If anyone has had time to work on getting a better solution to fit in the release timeline it is hands down wizbro, they have known this was coming the longest and are in complete control of how and when it rolls out. They are the ones that have painted us into this corner not the other way round, making excuses for them at this point is laughable.
I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining my educated guess on the reality of the situation in the hopes that people thinking there's just some magical fix for DDB that they're just refusing to do out of some perceived malice understand that that's likely not the case.
I'm not looking to exonerate them for making bad assumptions or choices and I've even offered a super-simple solution that solves all their problems with very little actual dev work based on the assumption they don't have the bandwidth to do anything better right now. #DDBClassic
I think the main takeaway is that there are some short term solutions to this problem that aren't too hard to implement and would satisfy a lot of people as long as it comes with a committment to go back and implement a proper solution after release. But they really need to start communicating and listening to the community before it's too late.
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.
I used to do this at work. Microsoft Excel has a feature called "Find and Replace" that allows the addition of a tag such as (legacy) behind all current spell names. Then when new ones are created and added, the old ones would remain available for use.
Personally I prefer the toggle system that is already in place for home brew, Ravnica, Critical Role, and more. I had hoped they would expand the list to include all their books so that players could select the list that is allowed in a specific campaign and only see those options displayed.
Yes, but just making duplicates doesn't solve all the problems of tying those duplicates into the rules engine in a meaningful way, which I've explained in detail.
If anyone has had time to work on getting a better solution to fit in the release timeline it is hands down wizbro, they have known this was coming the longest and are in complete control of how and when it rolls out. They are the ones that have painted us into this corner not the other way round, making excuses for them at this point is laughable.
I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining my educated guess on the reality of the situation in the hopes that people thinking there's just some magical fix for DDB that they're just refusing to do out of some perceived malice understand that that's likely not the case.
I'm not looking to exonerate them for making bad assumptions or choices and I've even offered a super-simple solution that solves all their problems with very little actual dev work based on the assumption they don't have the bandwidth to do anything better right now. #DDBClassic
I think the main takeaway is that there are some short term solutions to this problem that aren't too hard to implement and would satisfy a lot of people as long as it comes with a committment to go back and implement a proper solution after release. But they really need to start communicating and listening to the community before it's too late.
Agreed.
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
With so many people (Easily the 'vast majority' or, in DDB's terminology, the 'vocal minority') expressing their desire to maintain the toolset functionality for the 2014 edition they paid for, it's made me question why they are taking this crazy approach.
DDB, WotC and Hasbro must be worried about the mass reluctance of people to switch to the 2024 edition and are worried about sales numbers so are looking for ways to force people into playing it.
Why else would they not implement the simple toggle system that most are asking for?
With so many people (Easily the 'vast majority' or, in DDB's terminology, the 'vocal minority') expressing their desire to maintain the toolset functionality for the 2014 edition they paid for, it's made me question why they are taking this crazy approach.
DDB, WotC and Hasbro must be worried about the mass reluctance of people to switch to the 2024 edition and are worried about sales numbers so are looking for ways to force people into playing it.
Why else would they not implement the simple toggle system that most are asking for?
I understand their logic, but it feels shortsighted. Keeping in mind that they arent doing nearly enough to warn everyone of what is happening soon (a few forum posts instead of a big bold popup whenever you open a character for example) they are going to make many more people angry if the change goes through.
Many will do research of what is happening, and many of those will feel anger and actively avoid buying 5e24 instead of just delaying their purchase. It feels to me that this will end up harming the sales even if this decision is made purely by greed. i do wonder if they thought about any of that when deciding this.
It feels to me that this will end up harming the sales even if this decision is made purely by greed.
I would suggest that if this is the case then you should take it as evidence of the opposite. That they made this decision not out of "greed" but because it's much harder to implement. More evidence suggesting this is the fact that they're not stopping you from using 2014 classes, subclasses and races with the new content.
The charge of greed etc... IMO doesn't make much sense.
The issue is... character SHEETS. This makes work twice as hard for players and DMs. My players now have to go searching for the version of the spells we use in our game. I pay for a master subscription so they have access to the stuff I want them having access to... I don't want to have to make all these changes mid-campaign because it will take twice as long during combat especially for them to find their spells.
Quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers.
"
As for losing players, I can guarantee Beyond will gain more players than the lose. It is all but certain the hype surrounding a rules update will outweigh the people who are unwilling to accept errata. As anyone with a modicum of common sense can see, this decision was made to help new players - spell lists are already oppressively long, drastically increasing the length with spells that, for the most part, are functional equivalents only makes that harder on new players.
And, here is the reality most of the people rage quitting want to ignore.. and that Wizards almost certainly has thought about and will never vocalize - those players? The game is probably better off without them. There is an element of entitled laziness (if they spent half the time homebrewing as they spent whining, their problem would be solvedp by now), many of them have used personal attacks against anyone who disagrees, a number of them are the same people who have been throwing a fit since Wizards announced this would be the least bigoted version of D&D in history, etc. D&D is a community based game - Wizards probably is not all too broken up over toxic people ragequitting.
Plus, they are financially useless to Wizards. New players means new purchases - that’s the group whose user experience Wizards should care about. People who are so adamantly against the rules update that they’re unwilling to spend a couple minutes hitting the “copy spell” button few times, and are willing to ragequit over such a petty issue? Probably not going to purchase anything anytime soon - and, even if Wizards did appease them, anyone who throws a fit over something so small will probably throw another fit and threaten to ragequit sometime in the future. Not exactly the kind of customer you want to deal with."
I feel the need to point out this came from a random forum user and not anyone associated with D&D Beyond OR WotC OR even Hasbro.
I started home brewing spells and a WotC employee denied them. How long until the incredibly difficult to support home brew toggle is removed from the character sheet causing me to have wasted 100 hours copying all the old content to finish off my current campaigns?
If we aren't allowed to collaborate to overcome a technological problem that WotC can't financially afford to solve, it becomes hard to believe that this isn't a direct attack against players who want to finish current campaigns using current rules as has been implied by the marketing of 2024.
That's neither here nor there. The post cited as "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone from the company and is merely conjecture and speculation.
A WotC employee manually shutting down my collaborative attempt to home brew 2014 isn't conjecture by some random player. Its an actual fact to which I provided a link in the prior post. If we aren't allowed to work together as a community to solve a technological problem, that implies the accusations against WotC are true.
What technological limitation does my collaborative effort create?
With so many people (Easily the 'vast majority' or, in DDB's terminology, the 'vocal minority') expressing their desire to maintain the toolset functionality for the 2014 edition they paid for, it's made me question why they are taking this crazy approach.
DDB, WotC and Hasbro must be worried about the mass reluctance of people to switch to the 2024 edition and are worried about sales numbers so are looking for ways to force people into playing it.
Why else would they not implement the simple toggle system that most are asking for?
Let me tell you something. I was seriously thinking of buying the 2024 digital version so I could make some characters to play in my local group. What DDB/WotC/Hasbro have done is convinced me NOT to do that, especially on DDB. Their machinations have left a very bad taste in my mouth. One that may even lead to me cancelling my master tier subscription, and convincing both my husband and daughter into also following suit. Now, $200 (including the 2024 PHB I was intending to buy) may not sound like much, but add that to the multiple number of folks doing the same thing and that adds up and will adversely affect their bottom line in the long run. It is in their best interest to resolve this quickly, and in a manner that would allow folks to keep using the 2014 material as it currently is being used. The toggle system makes the most sense and is the most suggested option by those voicing their displeasure. There are also other sites already offering this option, so we know it is possible for them to offer it as well.
Quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers.
"
As for losing players, I can guarantee Beyond will gain more players than the lose. It is all but certain the hype surrounding a rules update will outweigh the people who are unwilling to accept errata. As anyone with a modicum of common sense can see, this decision was made to help new players - spell lists are already oppressively long, drastically increasing the length with spells that, for the most part, are functional equivalents only makes that harder on new players.
And, here is the reality most of the people rage quitting want to ignore.. and that Wizards almost certainly has thought about and will never vocalize - those players? The game is probably better off without them. There is an element of entitled laziness (if they spent half the time homebrewing as they spent whining, their problem would be solvedp by now), many of them have used personal attacks against anyone who disagrees, a number of them are the same people who have been throwing a fit since Wizards announced this would be the least bigoted version of D&D in history, etc. D&D is a community based game - Wizards probably is not all too broken up over toxic people ragequitting.
Plus, they are financially useless to Wizards. New players means new purchases - that’s the group whose user experience Wizards should care about. People who are so adamantly against the rules update that they’re unwilling to spend a couple minutes hitting the “copy spell” button few times, and are willing to ragequit over such a petty issue? Probably not going to purchase anything anytime soon - and, even if Wizards did appease them, anyone who throws a fit over something so small will probably throw another fit and threaten to ragequit sometime in the future. Not exactly the kind of customer you want to deal with."
I feel the need to point out this came from a random forum user and not anyone associated with D&D Beyond OR WotC OR even Hasbro.
I started home brewing spells and a WotC employee denied them. How long until the incredibly difficult to support home brew toggle is removed from the character sheet causing me to have wasted 100 hours copying all the old content to finish off my current campaigns?
If we aren't allowed to collaborate to overcome a technological problem that WotC can't financially afford to solve, it becomes hard to believe that this isn't a direct attack against players who want to finish current campaigns using current rules as has been implied by the marketing of 2024.
That's neither here nor there. The post cited as "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone from the company and is merely conjecture and speculation.
A WotC employee manually shutting down my collaborative attempt to home brew 2014 isn't conjecture by some random player. Its an actual fact to which I provided a link in the prior post. If we aren't allowed to work together as a community to solve a technological problem, that implies the accusations against WotC are true.
What technological limitation does my collaborative effort create?
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
It feels to me that this will end up harming the sales even if this decision is made purely by greed.
I would suggest that if this is the case then you should take it as evidence of the opposite. That they made this decision not out of "greed" but because it's much harder to implement. More evidence suggesting this is the fact that they're not stopping you from using 2014 classes, subclasses and races with the new content.
The charge of greed etc... IMO doesn't make much sense.
If it's that much harder to offer the toggle option so many have suggested, then why is it not so difficult for other sites to do so?? Your logic is invalid.
Right now its just the PHB that needs to be dealt with. We aren't getting a monster manual for several months. They could provide legacy content in the character sheets until 12/31/2024 and then completely delete 2014 from existence. That would give me four full months to wrap up all of my DND Beyond campaigns. Not ideal, but much better than having two weeks of vague statements about home brewing the spells, then not allowing us to collaboratively home brew the spells.
A WotC employee literally shut down a home brew version of Acid Arrow that made it through the automated filters. If this isn't intentionally malicious, why not let us build a short term fix to a short term problem?
If it's that much harder to offer the toggle option so many have suggested, then why is it not so difficult for other sites to do so?? Your logic is invalid.
Because different websites are completely different? I can easily counter that no other website has nearly the integration with their system as dnd beyond does and that different websites are made differently lol.
Why didn't they just make it so that you couldn't use 2014 classes with the character creator if their goal was "greed" and trying to push people into just the new content? Maybe because (as it's been explained well by others) one thing is much easier to do then another.
The people who code for dndbeyond and make the game/rules LOVE the game. They want people to like what they're doing.
Quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers.
"
As for losing players, I can guarantee Beyond will gain more players than the lose. It is all but certain the hype surrounding a rules update will outweigh the people who are unwilling to accept errata. As anyone with a modicum of common sense can see, this decision was made to help new players - spell lists are already oppressively long, drastically increasing the length with spells that, for the most part, are functional equivalents only makes that harder on new players.
And, here is the reality most of the people rage quitting want to ignore.. and that Wizards almost certainly has thought about and will never vocalize - those players? The game is probably better off without them. There is an element of entitled laziness (if they spent half the time homebrewing as they spent whining, their problem would be solvedp by now), many of them have used personal attacks against anyone who disagrees, a number of them are the same people who have been throwing a fit since Wizards announced this would be the least bigoted version of D&D in history, etc. D&D is a community based game - Wizards probably is not all too broken up over toxic people ragequitting.
Plus, they are financially useless to Wizards. New players means new purchases - that’s the group whose user experience Wizards should care about. People who are so adamantly against the rules update that they’re unwilling to spend a couple minutes hitting the “copy spell” button few times, and are willing to ragequit over such a petty issue? Probably not going to purchase anything anytime soon - and, even if Wizards did appease them, anyone who throws a fit over something so small will probably throw another fit and threaten to ragequit sometime in the future. Not exactly the kind of customer you want to deal with."
I feel the need to point out this came from a random forum user and not anyone associated with D&D Beyond OR WotC OR even Hasbro.
I started home brewing spells and a WotC employee denied them. How long until the incredibly difficult to support home brew toggle is removed from the character sheet causing me to have wasted 100 hours copying all the old content to finish off my current campaigns?
If we aren't allowed to collaborate to overcome a technological problem that WotC can't financially afford to solve, it becomes hard to believe that this isn't a direct attack against players who want to finish current campaigns using current rules as has been implied by the marketing of 2024.
That's neither here nor there. The post cited as "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone from the company and is merely conjecture and speculation.
A WotC employee manually shutting down my collaborative attempt to home brew 2014 isn't conjecture by some random player. Its an actual fact to which I provided a link in the prior post. If we aren't allowed to work together as a community to solve a technological problem, that implies the accusations against WotC are true.
What technological limitation does my collaborative effort create?
The post I cited did not come from a WotC employee.
This entire thread was started by a clarification of the deletion of all 2014 spells. It is literally the topic we are all discussing.
I actually offered a short term solution for the people complaining about losing their 2014 spells and a WotC employee shut it down. That isn't conjecture. Its not haters with free accounts trying to get people to switch to a competing product. Its WotC employees preventing us from doing the very thing they suggested.
Quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers.
"
As for losing players, I can guarantee Beyond will gain more players than the lose. It is all but certain the hype surrounding a rules update will outweigh the people who are unwilling to accept errata. As anyone with a modicum of common sense can see, this decision was made to help new players - spell lists are already oppressively long, drastically increasing the length with spells that, for the most part, are functional equivalents only makes that harder on new players.
And, here is the reality most of the people rage quitting want to ignore.. and that Wizards almost certainly has thought about and will never vocalize - those players? The game is probably better off without them. There is an element of entitled laziness (if they spent half the time homebrewing as they spent whining, their problem would be solvedp by now), many of them have used personal attacks against anyone who disagrees, a number of them are the same people who have been throwing a fit since Wizards announced this would be the least bigoted version of D&D in history, etc. D&D is a community based game - Wizards probably is not all too broken up over toxic people ragequitting.
Plus, they are financially useless to Wizards. New players means new purchases - that’s the group whose user experience Wizards should care about. People who are so adamantly against the rules update that they’re unwilling to spend a couple minutes hitting the “copy spell” button few times, and are willing to ragequit over such a petty issue? Probably not going to purchase anything anytime soon - and, even if Wizards did appease them, anyone who throws a fit over something so small will probably throw another fit and threaten to ragequit sometime in the future. Not exactly the kind of customer you want to deal with."
I feel the need to point out this came from a random forum user and not anyone associated with D&D Beyond OR WotC OR even Hasbro.
I started home brewing spells and a WotC employee denied them. How long until the incredibly difficult to support home brew toggle is removed from the character sheet causing me to have wasted 100 hours copying all the old content to finish off my current campaigns?
If we aren't allowed to collaborate to overcome a technological problem that WotC can't financially afford to solve, it becomes hard to believe that this isn't a direct attack against players who want to finish current campaigns using current rules as has been implied by the marketing of 2024.
That's neither here nor there. The post cited as "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone from the company and is merely conjecture and speculation.
A WotC employee manually shutting down my collaborative attempt to home brew 2014 isn't conjecture by some random player. Its an actual fact to which I provided a link in the prior post. If we aren't allowed to work together as a community to solve a technological problem, that implies the accusations against WotC are true.
What technological limitation does my collaborative effort create?
The post I cited did not come from a WotC employee.
This entire thread was started by a clarification of the deletion of all 2014 spells. It is literally the topic we are all discussing.
I actually offered a short term solution for the people complaining about losing their 2014 spells and a WotC employee shut it down. That isn't conjecture. Its not haters with free accounts trying to get people to switch to a competing product. Its WotC employees preventing us from doing the very thing they suggested.
Look. I'm not talking about anything you said. I'm talking about the post I replied to that claimed "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" and proceeded to share something completely disconnected from WotC.
As far as what you're talking about, it's never been allowed in the homebrew to PUBLISH content that commits copyright infringement. You are able to create it and use it for yourself and share it to anyone you're in a campaign with but that's it. That's the rules. It's not malicious, it's the law.
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
they need to just delay the update and get a better solution for people who want to keep the 2014 characters the same, sure it sucks for those who pre-ordered but as many of the people who argue that it's like a video game and just an update, video games get delayed all the time due major issues. I've already started homebrewing all my stuff on other websites because if their solution to me using those spells is "homebrew" it, I'm not gonna do it here and once I am done I'm requesting a refund, nobody here buys the books to read them on here, we bought them for the use in character creation, there are better and cheaper options for just buying the book digitally than this site.
If it's that much harder to offer the toggle option so many have suggested, then why is it not so difficult for other sites to do so?? Your logic is invalid.
Because different websites are completely different? I can easily counter that no other website has nearly the integration with their system as dnd beyond does and that different websites are made differently lol.
Why didn't they just make it so that you couldn't use 2014 classes with the character creator if their goal was "greed" and trying to push people into just the new content? Maybe because (as it's been explained well by others) one thing is much easier to do then another.
The people who code for dndbeyond and make the game/rules LOVE the game. They want people to like what they're doing.
even if the ddb devs love the game its not their decision its hasbro and wotc both of which have a past of being greedy
Let me introduce you to my goblin NPC named Toggle.
Toggle is just a silly little guy. He is always switching back and forth between two things. My party has fallen in love with Toggle.
In my latest campaign, the party has run into a greedy BBEG that insists that their way is the right way. And like all the best villains, they’re maybe not WRONG, but the way they’re going about it hurts a lot of people.
The party has been beaten and battered going up against the BBEG for the last few sessions. They seem to be done for. From his safe hiding place, Toggle slowly steps out onto the battlefield.
/cue Lithonia by Childish Gambino
“Toggle… save… friends!”
Toggle needs an army (of developers) to save (or rather fix) his friends (problems most people are raising with the toolset).
I offered them an army of unpaid developers, and they shut me down.
I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining my educated guess on the reality of the situation in the hopes that people thinking there's just some magical fix for DDB that they're just refusing to do out of some perceived malice understand that that's likely not the case.
I'm not looking to exonerate them for making bad assumptions or choices and I've even offered a super-simple solution that solves all their problems with very little actual dev work based on the assumption they don't have the bandwidth to do anything better right now. #DDBClassic
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
All the links to all the spells on all the items and all the monsters; all the rules text people are complaining about changing; etc.
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
Again we need an absolutely, crystal clear statement saying character sheets are not going to be impacted by this. We need to be able to turn this 2024 BS off.
I think the main takeaway is that there are some short term solutions to this problem that aren't too hard to implement and would satisfy a lot of people as long as it comes with a committment to go back and implement a proper solution after release. But they really need to start communicating and listening to the community before it's too late.
Agreed.
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
With so many people (Easily the 'vast majority' or, in DDB's terminology, the 'vocal minority') expressing their desire to maintain the toolset functionality for the 2014 edition they paid for, it's made me question why they are taking this crazy approach.
DDB, WotC and Hasbro must be worried about the mass reluctance of people to switch to the 2024 edition and are worried about sales numbers so are looking for ways to force people into playing it.
Why else would they not implement the simple toggle system that most are asking for?
I understand their logic, but it feels shortsighted. Keeping in mind that they arent doing nearly enough to warn everyone of what is happening soon (a few forum posts instead of a big bold popup whenever you open a character for example) they are going to make many more people angry if the change goes through.
Many will do research of what is happening, and many of those will feel anger and actively avoid buying 5e24 instead of just delaying their purchase.
It feels to me that this will end up harming the sales even if this decision is made purely by greed.
i do wonder if they thought about any of that when deciding this.
I would suggest that if this is the case then you should take it as evidence of the opposite. That they made this decision not out of "greed" but because it's much harder to implement. More evidence suggesting this is the fact that they're not stopping you from using 2014 classes, subclasses and races with the new content.
The charge of greed etc... IMO doesn't make much sense.
The issue is... character SHEETS. This makes work twice as hard for players and DMs. My players now have to go searching for the version of the spells we use in our game. I pay for a master subscription so they have access to the stuff I want them having access to... I don't want to have to make all these changes mid-campaign because it will take twice as long during combat especially for them to find their spells.
A WotC employee manually shutting down my collaborative attempt to home brew 2014 isn't conjecture by some random player. Its an actual fact to which I provided a link in the prior post. If we aren't allowed to work together as a community to solve a technological problem, that implies the accusations against WotC are true.
What technological limitation does my collaborative effort create?
Let me tell you something. I was seriously thinking of buying the 2024 digital version so I could make some characters to play in my local group. What DDB/WotC/Hasbro have done is convinced me NOT to do that, especially on DDB. Their machinations have left a very bad taste in my mouth. One that may even lead to me cancelling my master tier subscription, and convincing both my husband and daughter into also following suit. Now, $200 (including the 2024 PHB I was intending to buy) may not sound like much, but add that to the multiple number of folks doing the same thing and that adds up and will adversely affect their bottom line in the long run. It is in their best interest to resolve this quickly, and in a manner that would allow folks to keep using the 2014 material as it currently is being used. The toggle system makes the most sense and is the most suggested option by those voicing their displeasure. There are also other sites already offering this option, so we know it is possible for them to offer it as well.
The post cited did not come from a WotC employee.
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
If it's that much harder to offer the toggle option so many have suggested, then why is it not so difficult for other sites to do so?? Your logic is invalid.
Right now its just the PHB that needs to be dealt with. We aren't getting a monster manual for several months. They could provide legacy content in the character sheets until 12/31/2024 and then completely delete 2014 from existence. That would give me four full months to wrap up all of my DND Beyond campaigns. Not ideal, but much better than having two weeks of vague statements about home brewing the spells, then not allowing us to collaboratively home brew the spells.
A WotC employee literally shut down a home brew version of Acid Arrow that made it through the automated filters. If this isn't intentionally malicious, why not let us build a short term fix to a short term problem?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/204164-publishing-2014-spells-and-homebrew
Because different websites are completely different? I can easily counter that no other website has nearly the integration with their system as dnd beyond does and that different websites are made differently lol.
Why didn't they just make it so that you couldn't use 2014 classes with the character creator if their goal was "greed" and trying to push people into just the new content? Maybe because (as it's been explained well by others) one thing is much easier to do then another.
The people who code for dndbeyond and make the game/rules LOVE the game. They want people to like what they're doing.
This entire thread was started by a clarification of the deletion of all 2014 spells. It is literally the topic we are all discussing.
I actually offered a short term solution for the people complaining about losing their 2014 spells and a WotC employee shut it down. That isn't conjecture. Its not haters with free accounts trying to get people to switch to a competing product. Its WotC employees preventing us from doing the very thing they suggested.
Look. I'm not talking about anything you said. I'm talking about the post I replied to that claimed "quite an eye-opening view on how WotC is purported to view it's customers" and proceeded to share something completely disconnected from WotC.
As far as what you're talking about, it's never been allowed in the homebrew to PUBLISH content that commits copyright infringement. You are able to create it and use it for yourself and share it to anyone you're in a campaign with but that's it. That's the rules. It's not malicious, it's the law.
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
they need to just delay the update and get a better solution for people who want to keep the 2014 characters the same, sure it sucks for those who pre-ordered but as many of the people who argue that it's like a video game and just an update, video games get delayed all the time due major issues. I've already started homebrewing all my stuff on other websites because if their solution to me using those spells is "homebrew" it, I'm not gonna do it here and once I am done I'm requesting a refund, nobody here buys the books to read them on here, we bought them for the use in character creation, there are better and cheaper options for just buying the book digitally than this site.
even if the ddb devs love the game its not their decision its hasbro and wotc both of which have a past of being greedy
I offered them an army of unpaid developers, and they shut me down.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/204164-publishing-2014-spells-and-homebrew