Do they need the updated SRD to make 2024 versions?

so, it's a money thing?

Quote from IDontCare90129 >>

so, it's a money thing?

 No one said or implied that. You'd have to ask each third party publisher as to what the limiting factors are for them

you really dont think its about money?  come on. 

[REDACTED]

Quote from IDontCare90129 >>

you really dont think its about money?  come on. 

[REDACTED]

I simply said "No one said or implied that" and "You'd have to ask each third party publisher as to what the limiting factors are for them"

I wasn't expressing any of my opinions on the matter.

[REDACTED]

I do think it needs to be a requirement enforced by DDB/WotC that any third-party book published on DDB needs to make the compatibility status very clear before purchasing the book. There have already been a few books released that caused confusion, or even been outright misleading about whether or not they are compatible with 2024 rules.

There needs to be a standardized icon, symbol, or tag that is in the same place on every book's page in the market place, and this needs to be a requirement to publish on DDB.
It also can't be buried in the description or hidden at the end a scrolling bar, as that would completely defeat the purpose.

Did I get it right from the description of the book, that the "Crooked Moon" is fully 2024 compatible? Are the new subclasses in there 2024 compatible as well or just the adventure. Sorry if it's clear, I'm no native speaker and didn't get it from the description.

I don't know where else to post this, but Thank You! Thank you to WotC for publishing the updated SRD. This was an important issue for me, I didn't care for the way the OGL got handled, but you delivered on your promise to make it better. I appreciate that you listened to the community. I hope whoever was involved sees this or gets some other gratitude thrown their way.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Quote from spamandtuna >>

Crooked Moon is built for the 2024 core rules. Its subclasses will be available for use on DDB only by selecting the 2024 classes.  All other character options should be available regardless of class version.

From the official Pre-Order pitch:

 The Crooked Moon is written for the new fifth edition core rules, and **fully compatible** with your 2014 content.

This makes it sound like Crooked Moon subclasses will be usable with 2014 classes. Might want to saw off that last bit if they aren't coming to both.

 That's exactly why I believe a clear label/icon needs to be enforced in DDB's marketplace pages in the same way that the content is made clear. That sentence makes it sound like that book is only compatible with the 2014 rules. "The new fifth edition core rules" doesn't exactly scream "OneD&d".

I fully dismissed that book from my mind since I thought it was only compatible with 2014 rules, since those are the only rules that are explicitly called out.

If you aren't providing a way to toggle play with just the 2014 rule set for the system I am no longer interested in using DND Beyond in any capacity and neither should anyone else. This site is basically useless now. It was made to help with making it easier to manage my characters for play and as a dm but now its forcing me to use new rules that I do not want and even if I had been open to it am now staunchly against ever purchasing since they broke every campaign I was playing and running. Please provide the toggle or I will move off your system permanently. 

There wouldn't seem to be any financial incentive for 3rd parties to update their content since it would cost them money and not result in many new sales. I think they would want an incentive to do those updates. Has anything been offered? WOTC benefits the most from updating content to the new rules so it seems fair to share the burden or pay for it. I suppose the homebrew option allows the public to do the work and it costs WOTC nothing. Unfortunately, that doesn't work with Invocations. Perhaps filtering for homebrew could be improved to make it easier to find the homebrew versions. 

It seems weird that we can't get a kludged together version of 2014 subclasses in 2024 character sheets at least. Like, Xanathar's and other 2014 content is ported over, and I don't think there's any "fixing" things for version compatibility going on there- and even some official legacy species have legacy versions of spells and features on their sheets when used in 2024, which seems like something that could be done with partnered content without too much pain.
While obviously there are some things that reference 2014 mechanics in those partnered content sources, for example the disadvantage from exhaustion interaction that Postal Knights have in Obojima, I would rather have a broken feature that doesn't work but a subclass I can choose than nothing. Pretty much nothing I've seen in partnered content (though I'm obviously not aware of all partnered content so I don't want to see it) is anything that couldn't either be implemented with the existing homebrew tools, which I assume are worse than the official in house content development tools in terms of robustness, or are just text that can be slapped into a feature with no mechanical implementation required for the character builder (though DMs will have to adjudicate some of the antiquated content in 2024 campaigns).
I don't like how D&D Beyond is trying to make it sound like "Those partnered content providers would have to fix it" when there is a third route where we might have some rough implementation but actually have access to the content. It's not like D&D Beyond hasn't done that with the 2014 versions of partnered content, or even the official implementations of complicated features (I remember the XGtE subclasses for sorcerer that could replace spells didn't get the ability to replace spells, despite that being entirely functional with homebrew if you're willing to do a lot of manual setup- and I'm sure the official tools could add "Any <school> spell" to the list in a way the homebrew tools can't which is what leads to the extra work for the homebrew implementation).
I mean, I get that the partners probably aren't going to update all content for 2024. Realistically, there isn't much reason to- some of them (Critical Role) have moved on to different systems that directly compete with 2024, others would get more mileage out of just releasing new versions of the sourcebooks for 2024 like WotC is doing for some sourcebooks like the Eberron content, and others just don't have the resources to go through and make SRD compliant updates for 2024 for basically no one to use. But having those features accessible, even in a rough way, would make it easier for us to play the game WotC publishes and use the content we purchase, and I have a hard time imagining remapping features to different levels is a huge technical hurdle or else we'd all have to buy Xanathar's Playbook for Anything next year to get access to all the XGtE character content again. 

They've made it pretty clear several times, including in this thread, that the problem is not a technical one, but a legal one. D&D Beyond doesn't have the legal right to do what you're suggesting.

Where are you getting that it's a legal thing? I don't think that makes sense nor is that the implication of the earlier posts. It very well *could* be, I suppose, but I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I doubt the contracts with, for example, 1985 Games, says "Don't let this content appear on 2024 sheets!"- if so, then for example using the spells and items from Obojima wouldn't be allowed on 2024 characters. Especially since using 2014 subclasses in 2024 is basically just "change the level for any subclass features granted before level 3 to level 3 and adjust higher level features to match the pacing of 2024 features". Changing the level you get things at doesn't seem like the kind of modification that would be legally problematic, and if it's just a partner rubber stamping "Yes, allow it" then it seems like that could be done. For example, 1985 Games is working on a 2024 compatible update of Obojima according to a comment on their Kickstarter campaign. Notably they're the ones having to adapt the content, not D&D Beyond, which I think more indicates that D&D Beyond isn't offering sufficient support to partners in porting content over. If the partners are willing, but either technical or procedural hurdles are getting in the way (because if this were a legal issue than why are they doing it at all?) then it feels more like an issue with D&D Beyond implementation that an update would take so long. 
There may be some other reason, but unless you actually have a source for something, it's just conjecture and not "pretty clear" that it's a legal issue. It seems a lot more like D&D Beyond just wants to have partners do the work to adapt the content, which *could* be a stipulation of contracts, but I'm certainly not seeing it from Jacquise's posts or anything else in a way that I would describe as clear. Given that WotC repeatedly stated that 2024 rules are compatible with 2014 content, and every other context outside of D&D Beyond there has never been any legal action taken to prevent the use of 2014 content on 2024 characters, I simply don't believe this without actual evidence and not "It's clear if you interpret extremely vague statements the way I do!" After all, WotC's official position is that 2024 D&D is a collection of broad updates compatible with 2014 content, it would be like saying that I'm not allowed to use a document I wrote in Generic Word Processing Software version 3 with Generic Word Processing Software version 4 because I only gave the company making the software permission to access the document in version 3. Obviously with some of the license and other shenanigans it could hypothetically be possible, but you're going to need an actual source to convince me and some vagaries of shifting the blame to the partners just feels like trying to avoid actually implementing compatibility features.

Where I’m getting it is the first post in this thread, and every other thread where they’ve answered this exact question over the course of the last year.

Where you're getting it is making it up, because that doesn't say what you're saying it says and I don't believe you if you won't bother to cite a source that actually says what you're saying.