It's important to realize that what Wizards has said about compatibility of 2014 content with the 2024 rules is not in fact a statement about what will work on D&D Beyond.
It's important to realize that what Wizards has said about compatibility of 2014 content with the 2024 rules is not in fact a statement about what will work on D&D Beyond.
That's a fair point actually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click me to get rickrolled. If I ever say something that offends you or someone else, please know that I didn't mean it. I'm always open to joining a PBP group, preferably as a player, since I'm DMing several groups right now.
When I started with D&D beyond, it was owned by Fandom. I bought my Legendary Bundle from Fandom. Now that it is owned by WoTC, it is a completely different animal.
With WoTC in command, Animal Handling checks are worthless even if I roll a 35. Speak with Animals might work, but only if it is multi-cast by about 10 million adventurers simultaneously.
The almighty platinum is all that really sways such beasts. Should we really be surprised? As a Rouge with Alert, I am not. Disappointed, yes; but surprised, no.
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
The new MM isn't out yet.... most of the modules will be super easy to play with the new creature CRs and easy enough to amp up as it stands anyway for any half decent DM.
There's nothing unethical about how they've handled backwards compatibility. And lets face it. If they force the hyperlinks from the modules to update to the new MM stat block automatically people on here will lose their minds.
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
Not saying you're wrong. But if it is true this information was available can you not show us it? The other poster has just said with some degree of certainty there was no mention of what would not be backwards compatible in all those articles. You say this information was available. Instead of just insulting the other poster show us. If that information was available you would be able to do that. And that not only would be far more useful but also far more convincing than just using this as an attempt to pettily insult someone.
Here's an official video of JC talking about how building a 2024 character works. I've set the timestamp to the relevant point where he begins talking about it. (The line before is him mentioning a sidebar explaining what's new.) The basic paraphrasing: If you play a 2024 character, you follow ALL the 2024 rules. It's not mix-and-match. Which would mean any feature that's been replaced is replaced in full. It's why 2024 characters don't have access to old versions of spells, for instance. And the backwards compatibility is that 2024 characters can be played in the same game as 2014 characters, but both characters should be working with the 2024 rules when this happens.
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
The new MM isn't out yet.... most of the modules will be super easy to play with the new creature CRs and easy enough to amp up as it stands anyway for any half decent DM.
There's nothing unethical about how they've handled backwards compatibility. And lets face it. If they force the hyperlinks from the modules to update to the new MM stat block automatically people on here will lose their minds.
We have very different standards when it comes to what is and what is not ethical. A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were. [Redacted]
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
Not saying you're wrong. But if it is true this information was available can you not show us it? The other poster has just said with some degree of certainty there was no mention of what would not be backwards compatible in all those articles. You say this information was available. Instead of just insulting the other poster show us. If that information was available you would be able to do that. And that not only would be far more useful but also far more convincing than just using this as an attempt to pettily insult someone.
Here's an official video of JC talking about how building a 2024 character works. I've set the timestamp to the relevant point where he begins talking about it. (The line before is him mentioning a sidebar explaining what's new.) The basic paraphrasing: If you play a 2024 character, you follow ALL the 2024 rules. It's not mix-and-match. Which would mean any feature that's been replaced is replaced in full. It's why 2024 characters don't have access to old versions of spells, for instance. And the backwards compatibility is that 2024 characters can be played in the same game as 2014 characters, but both characters should be working with the 2024 rules when this happens.
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible. They could have been much more transparent about what that would mean and been so throughout the development of "One D&D."
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
The new MM isn't out yet.... most of the modules will be super easy to play with the new creature CRs and easy enough to amp up as it stands anyway for any half decent DM.
There's nothing unethical about how they've handled backwards compatibility. And lets face it. If they force the hyperlinks from the modules to update to the new MM stat block automatically people on here will lose their minds.
We have very different standards when it comes to what is and what is not ethical. A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were. [Redacted]
You have to show what about THIS instance in unethical behavior. The books are compatible. I'm running games with the 2024 rules using tons of material from the older books right now. Works just fine. All [the] other instances of things they've done that you disagree with are irrelevant to what's happening in THIS situation.
Also, you didn't respond to my claim that if they changed the hyperlinks in all the old books to connect to the new items/spells/monsters in the new MM, people on here would flip their lid. Because they certainly would. Which makes total sense because those books came out well before this new material.
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible.
They have never said that new books would be backwards compatible. They have said that old books would be usable with the new ones.
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible.
They have never said that new books would be backwards compatible. They have said that old books would be usable with the new ones.
That's the literal definition of backwards compatible, though?
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible.
They have never said that new books would be backwards compatible. They have said that old books would be usable with the new ones.
That's the literal definition of backwards compatible, though?
Yep. It's easier to define with a piece of equipment, say the PS2 being able to play PS1 games. Nowhere did Sony ever said you could play PS2 games on a PS1. Backwards compatible means it can take what came before and incorporate it into the new hardware/system.
I'm not sure there's a case to be made for a class-action any more, since they're no longer replacing the old features (such as spells) in the character builder for 2014-rules characters. All the options still exist for 2014 characters. There's site bugs, and maybe a small case could be made for that because of the impact it's had.
WotC never said there would be 100% compatibility of every last feature moving forward. They said 2014 characters could still be played under the 2024 rules, 2024 characters and rules would be the new norm, and adventure modules would still be playable under the rules revisions. Additionally, some features (such as subclasses and old backgrounds) are still usable under the 2024 rules.
WotC exploited the expectation created from context clues.
They had multiple articles about how things could and would be backwards compatible, but there was no mention of what wouldn't be. So when all the media the average customer reads says the edition is backwards compatible and nothing says you can't do something, people will believe the edition is backwards compatible.
The information was available. Anyone who makes assumptions without reading the details is fully at fault. Especially when it's about a game where, guess what? You're gonna have to read a good amount to know how to play.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
The new MM isn't out yet.... most of the modules will be super easy to play with the new creature CRs and easy enough to amp up as it stands anyway for any half decent DM.
There's nothing unethical about how they've handled backwards compatibility. And lets face it. If they force the hyperlinks from the modules to update to the new MM stat block automatically people on here will lose their minds.
We have very different standards when it comes to what is and what is not ethical. A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were. [redacted]
You have to show what about THIS instance in unethical behavior. The books are compatible. I'm running games with the 2024 rules using tons of material from the older books right now. Works just fine. All [the] other instances of things they've done that you disagree with are irrelevant to what's happening in THIS situation.
Also, you didn't respond to my claim that if they changed the hyperlinks in all the old books to connect to the new items/spells/monsters in the new MM, people on here would flip their lid. Because they certainly would. Which makes total sense because those books came out well before this new material.
[Redacted]
I articulated what was unethical about it.
Read it again. It is about THIS. Just because I mention other things they have done does not mean what I have said is entirely unrelated.
A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were.
The 2014 and 2024 rulesets are not 100 percent compatible. No matter how how easily you are finding it to use "tons of material" from the older books. I use material from 1st. Edition AD&D books. So what? It was only three months ago when Crawford made clear mixing and matching features from different versions of a class would not at all be possible. (Not without some serious homebrewing or risking under- or over- powering things. If balance is of such importance at your table.)
Crawford even suggested in an interview he gave on the new ruleset that any character made using the 2014 rules should be updated for any campaign using the 2024 ruleset.
Why would he say such a thing if these rulesets are so compatible?
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible.
They have never said that new books would be backwards compatible. They have said that old books would be usable with the new ones.
A lot of content in 1st. Edition books is still usable with the latest edition. But that's not what this is about.
They pushed time and time again the notion that this is not a new edition. And said we would still be able to use our 2014 books with our 2024 books.
The messaging in place was in place to give people the impression things would be backwards compatible. That nothing would be made so obsolete it would require a lot of work to make it usable.
I'm not sure there's a case to be made for a class-action any more, since they're no longer replacing the old features (such as spells) in the character builder for 2014-rules characters. All the options still exist for 2014 characters. There's site bugs, and maybe a small case could be made for that because of the impact it's had.
WotC never said there would be 100% compatibility of every last feature moving forward. They said 2014 characters could still be played under the 2024 rules, 2024 characters and rules would be the new norm, and adventure modules would still be playable under the rules revisions. Additionally, some features (such as subclasses and old backgrounds) are still usable under the 2024 rules.
What they "never said" adds nothing to the discussion. Incessantly the messaging has been that the 2024 books are not a new edition and that any old books would still be usable. As someone who still uses books for 1st. Edition because they are still usable—containing a lot of great content and all—I can plainly see what they said is a fairly meaningless statement for them to be making unless they meant things would be compatible. What they said has given many newcomers in particular the impression they are essentially the same rules and no prior rules would be made obsolete and rendered unusable short of homebrewing things and risking under- or over- powering things. They put marketing spin and their desire to continue to sell old books before they did being open with their customers.
Will there be a way to turn off the new content so we only see stuff from the 2014 content. My campaign isn't going to be updating and we are playing a dynamic game with multiple characters and we were planning on making new characters as time passes in our world. I would like to be able to turn off the new content so I don't have verify if things are from the new content. Or will all of the old content, regardless of its compatibility, be tagged with the legacy badge?
No. The 2024 rules are the most up-to-date version of the Fifth Edition rules, and are the default, so it's unlikely we'll get a way to turn it off, as much as some of us would prefer the toggle.
I don't blame the devs for this fiasco. But if WotC management's solution is, "No" to being able to toggle off the 2024 rules, forcing the tool to be less convenient for 5e, then I won't return to my subscription.
And I recommend as many people do the same, until it's resolved. It's the only thing Hasbro will care about.
No. The 2024 rules are the most up-to-date version of the Fifth Edition rules, and are the default, so it's unlikely we'll get a way to turn it off, as much as some of us would prefer the toggle.
I don't blame the devs for this fiasco. But if WotC management's solution is, "No" to being able to toggle off the 2024 rules, forcing the tool to be less convenient for 5e, then I won't return to my subscription.
And I recommend as many people do the same, until it's resolved. It's the only thing Hasbro will care about.
Thank you. I'm most likely canceling my subscription. When we are done with current campaign, I'm most likely switching to Pathfinder. I wish I had listened to my friends and bought the physical books. This whole thing is so depressing.
It's important to realize that what Wizards has said about compatibility of 2014 content with the 2024 rules is not in fact a statement about what will work on D&D Beyond.
That's a fair point actually.
Click me to get rickrolled.
If I ever say something that offends you or someone else, please know that I didn't mean it. I'm always open to joining a PBP group, preferably as a player, since I'm DMing several groups right now.
When I started with D&D beyond, it was owned by Fandom. I bought my Legendary Bundle from Fandom. Now that it is owned by WoTC, it is a completely different animal.
With WoTC in command, Animal Handling checks are worthless even if I roll a 35. Speak with Animals might work, but only if it is multi-cast by about 10 million adventurers simultaneously.
The almighty platinum is all that really sways such beasts. Should we really be surprised? As a Rouge with Alert, I am not. Disappointed, yes; but surprised, no.
The WotC lawyers made sure they didn't say anything that would bring criminal or civil cases against them. Is that really the standard that customers should expect?
The backwards compatible marketing was specifically designed with the intention of misleading the customer in a way that would not leave WotC legally exposed.
My criticism of the backwards compatible claims isn't about legality, its about ethics. As far as I can tell the only things which are backwards compatible are the modules, maps, miniatures, and tokens.
I would be praising WotC if they had advertised that the new edition would be backwards compatible with the modules because the CR ratings for the new MM would provide updated stat blocks for all the creatures used in the old modules. That would have been a great selling point which could be clearly stated and advertised.
The new MM isn't out yet.... most of the modules will be super easy to play with the new creature CRs and easy enough to amp up as it stands anyway for any half decent DM.
There's nothing unethical about how they've handled backwards compatibility. And lets face it. If they force the hyperlinks from the modules to update to the new MM stat block automatically people on here will lose their minds.
Here's an official video of JC talking about how building a 2024 character works. I've set the timestamp to the relevant point where he begins talking about it. (The line before is him mentioning a sidebar explaining what's new.) The basic paraphrasing: If you play a 2024 character, you follow ALL the 2024 rules. It's not mix-and-match. Which would mean any feature that's been replaced is replaced in full. It's why 2024 characters don't have access to old versions of spells, for instance. And the backwards compatibility is that 2024 characters can be played in the same game as 2014 characters, but both characters should be working with the 2024 rules when this happens.
We have very different standards when it comes to what is and what is not ethical. A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were. [Redacted]
That is strictly about building a character using only one ruleset or the other. It's something. Which is better than nothing I suppose. It is however just three months old after a long and aggressive campaign in which Wizards had insisted the 2024 books are not at all a new edition and that the new books would be backwards compatible. They could have been much more transparent about what that would mean and been so throughout the development of "One D&D."
You have to show what about THIS instance in unethical behavior. The books are compatible. I'm running games with the 2024 rules using tons of material from the older books right now. Works just fine. All [the] other instances of things they've done that you disagree with are irrelevant to what's happening in THIS situation.
Also, you didn't respond to my claim that if they changed the hyperlinks in all the old books to connect to the new items/spells/monsters in the new MM, people on here would flip their lid. Because they certainly would. Which makes total sense because those books came out well before this new material.
[Redacted]
They have never said that new books would be backwards compatible. They have said that old books would be usable with the new ones.
That's the literal definition of backwards compatible, though?
Yep. It's easier to define with a piece of equipment, say the PS2 being able to play PS1 games. Nowhere did Sony ever said you could play PS2 games on a PS1. Backwards compatible means it can take what came before and incorporate it into the new hardware/system.
I'm not sure there's a case to be made for a class-action any more, since they're no longer replacing the old features (such as spells) in the character builder for 2014-rules characters. All the options still exist for 2014 characters. There's site bugs, and maybe a small case could be made for that because of the impact it's had.
WotC never said there would be 100% compatibility of every last feature moving forward. They said 2014 characters could still be played under the 2024 rules, 2024 characters and rules would be the new norm, and adventure modules would still be playable under the rules revisions. Additionally, some features (such as subclasses and old backgrounds) are still usable under the 2024 rules.
I articulated what was unethical about it.
Read it again. It is about THIS. Just because I mention other things they have done does not mean what I have said is entirely unrelated.
A multibillion dollar company and one with a history of unethical practices telling people things would be backwards compatible to give newcomers the impression they would not at all be wasting money to spend money on books that within a fleeting moment would no longer be compatible with the revised and updated rules so they could continue to make money from those books is greedy capitalist sh*tbaggery if ever there were.
The 2014 and 2024 rulesets are not 100 percent compatible. No matter how how easily you are finding it to use "tons of material" from the older books. I use material from 1st. Edition AD&D books. So what? It was only three months ago when Crawford made clear mixing and matching features from different versions of a class would not at all be possible. (Not without some serious homebrewing or risking under- or over- powering things. If balance is of such importance at your table.)
Crawford even suggested in an interview he gave on the new ruleset that any character made using the 2014 rules should be updated for any campaign using the 2024 ruleset.
Why would he say such a thing if these rulesets are so compatible?
A lot of content in 1st. Edition books is still usable with the latest edition. But that's not what this is about.
They pushed time and time again the notion that this is not a new edition. And said we would still be able to use our 2014 books with our 2024 books.
The messaging in place was in place to give people the impression things would be backwards compatible. That nothing would be made so obsolete it would require a lot of work to make it usable.
What they "never said" adds nothing to the discussion. Incessantly the messaging has been that the 2024 books are not a new edition and that any old books would still be usable. As someone who still uses books for 1st. Edition because they are still usable—containing a lot of great content and all—I can plainly see what they said is a fairly meaningless statement for them to be making unless they meant things would be compatible. What they said has given many newcomers in particular the impression they are essentially the same rules and no prior rules would be made obsolete and rendered unusable short of homebrewing things and risking under- or over- powering things. They put marketing spin and their desire to continue to sell old books before they did being open with their customers.
Will there be a way to turn off the new content so we only see stuff from the 2014 content. My campaign isn't going to be updating and we are playing a dynamic game with multiple characters and we were planning on making new characters as time passes in our world. I would like to be able to turn off the new content so I don't have verify if things are from the new content. Or will all of the old content, regardless of its compatibility, be tagged with the legacy badge?
I don't blame the devs for this fiasco. But if WotC management's solution is, "No" to being able to toggle off the 2024 rules, forcing the tool to be less convenient for 5e, then I won't return to my subscription.
And I recommend as many people do the same, until it's resolved. It's the only thing Hasbro will care about.
Thank you. I'm most likely canceling my subscription. When we are done with current campaign, I'm most likely switching to Pathfinder. I wish I had listened to my friends and bought the physical books. This whole thing is so depressing.
No there isn't.
One-off my players leveled up past night and he's furious he can't use his character anymore.
His pc immediately was changed and given new skills to one have heard of
This is ridiculous