I was in the camp that the overwrite of the 2014 spells on this platform was a good thing. I made my opinion known, and I made predictions.
Honestly, there are so many reasons for this. The first being ease of use, now we have to deal with an insane amount of clutter when choosing spells. I thought from the beginning that having both available at the same time would be incredibly confusing for new players to navigate, and over all messy. Taking the amount of options available and nearly doubling them, all because you wanted to play a Firbolg or some other "Species" not in the new book. Which would force you to turn on the "Legacy" slider. I was right. You cannot have access to one aspect of legacy content, without being bombarded by all other legacy content.
The second and even more egregious. Magic items. Because we did not allow those spells to be over written. ALL magic items from the 2014 rules that reference a spell with a tooltip. Now only reference 2014 rules. If the spells had been overwritten, the tooltips would have updated. Now if you want for example; a Staff of healing, to use the 2024 healing spells. We either have to wait for it to be revised in the 2024 DMG or homebrew it.
The third, and likely just an oversight: Artificer. I am making an assumption here, but as of right now (still launch day, so I understand this will change very soon) Artificer cannot access the 2024 spells at all. I assume this is just an oversight, because in order for their spell list to show the 2024 rules as a choice. Their entire spell list needs to have the 2024 versions added to it on the back end. The reason I am noting this.... because if the overwrite would have happened. This would not be the case.
A similar issue: Any legacy feature that provides spells. Example: Mark of Healing Halfling. The spells referenced with tooltips are the 2014 versions, not the 2024 versions. With magic items, I could see an update in the near future with the DMG, but I can't even imagine how far out a replacement for this lineage would be?
I just really wish we, as a community did not attack WOTC for "Taking things away" which in all honesty it wouldn't have. because what we have here is a mess, and I feel like we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I definitely get that, and I am with you there. I have multiple campaigns active right now. Some want to use the new rules, and others don't. Unfortunately, there is no way to turn off the 2024 options like there is to turn off legacy. So issue 1 is now present regardless of if you're using the 2024 rules or not. If there was a toggle for spells specifically, I would be immensely happy. At the end of the day, the issues I raised here are going to take far more work both on the back end, and on the user to come up with resolutions.
The amount of spells that received notable changes in the new book outside of text clarifications is very small in comparison to the amount that stayed almost identical from what I have read of the spells chapter.
I would be much happier with not having to homebrew a bunch of magic items, races, subclasses, and feats. Just to make things work properly. Than to have to homebrew the 3 spells my players wanted to keep to 2014 lol.
I am fine with being the minority here, but I can almost guarantee you as more people get their hands on the builder in the next few weeks. That minority will grow.
All of these issues were apparent to anyone exercising a modicum of common sense back when this was initially announced. However, the few folks pointing out that the systems likely could not handle items and spells in the same way as classes and subclasses were accused of being corporate shills and other nonsense. Those voices, as they often are, were drowned out by folks who decided anger was an acceptable substitute for critical thinking... and, as they far too often do, Wizards decided to backpedal and appease the vocal members of their community.
From the very start, Wizards should have been upfront with players. Instead of just announcing "this is going to happen" with no official explanation, they should have made a simple post explaining that there were unique issues with D&D Beyond integration, that they were making the tough choice to treat any new versions of spells as errata to the old, and giving players a list of spells so they could easily homebrew copy them during the interim period. There still would have been angry folks - and folks who are rabble rousing because they have other motives - but an official explanation, an apology, and some guidance on how to mitigate the transition would have appeased a whole lot of folks. This was a self-inflicted wound that Wizards decided to retreat from... and now, instead of whatever system they were working on, we have a system mired in faults their original proposal could have easily fixed.
All of this could have been easily avoidable, but for one far-too-well-established reality: Wizards' D&D PR team is terrible - frankly, with their repeated failures to articulate basic reasoning behind decisions and allowing the rabid members of the community to consistently control the narrative, it is clear Wizards' PR team is out of touch and has no idea how to manage their own community. If I were the new CEO, I would be firing large segments of the PR team and elevating staff, like LaTiaJacquise, who seem to actually know how to talk to D&D players. As things currently stand, far too often the front line of Wizards' damage control is not Wizards' PR team... but regular players who have a basic understanding of Hanlon's razor and a rudimentary ability to derive the likely reasons why Wizards' is making a decision.
Yet, once again, those voices got ignored and all of the problems those players said might be the non-malicious explanation for the changes have come to pass.
The Engine for the character sheets probably need an overhaul from scratch to have into consideration all the new ways all the spells, features, classes, subs and items work with each other with a foundation for more customization taking the future into consideration.
The way I see it it was a mistake to try and replace 2014 with 2024 stuff as those can run and ARE run as separate by many, hell this site could run old Editions of the game with a bit of work and that would produce more money for the company. Why replace the old stuff if that can still be bought for those who want the extra options in the current edition since the core rules did not chance pretty much.
All of these issues were apparent to anyone exercising a modicum of common sense back when this was initially announced. However, the few folks pointing out that the systems likely could not handle items and spells in the same way as classes and subclasses were accused of being corporate shills and other nonsense. Those voices, as they often are, were drowned out by folks who decided anger was an acceptable substitute for critical thinking.
The fact of the matter is that DDB actually was able to handle keeping legacy versions of spells. And legacy items, limited as they are, are also working quite well.
Those of us that didn't want the replacements were shown to be correct with our assertions that DDB could add 5.5 without deleting current content from the character sheet.
I was in the camp that the overwrite of the 2014 spells on this platform was a good thing. I made my opinion known, and I made predictions.
Honestly, there are so many reasons for this. The first being ease of use, now we have to deal with an insane amount of clutter when choosing spells. I thought from the beginning that having both available at the same time would be incredibly confusing for new players to navigate, and over all messy. Taking the amount of options available and nearly doubling them, all because you wanted to play a Firbolg or some other "Species" not in the new book. Which would force you to turn on the "Legacy" slider. I was right. You cannot have access to one aspect of legacy content, without being bombarded by all other legacy content.
Those of us that wanted to continue using 5.0 spells were aware we'd be dealing with the 5.5 versions also being listed. Personally it'd be nice if there was a way to limit it at some time in the future, but it's something I can live with.
As for the part about needing to keep the legacy toggle on just because you're using a legacy race, I have a suggestion. In the past when I've wanted to add a single homebrew thing to a character I've enabled homebrew, added that spell/item/whatever, and then disabled homebrew afterwards. This has allowed me to add the homebrew I wanted without homebrew cluttering my options the rest of the time.
While I haven't made a 5.5 character I imagine it would work similarly. Just turn on legacy when you're choosing your race and then you can toggle it back off for the rest of the character's runtime.
If the spells had been overwritten, the tooltips would have updated. Now if you want for example; a Staff of healing, to use the 2024 healing spells. We either have to wait for it to be revised in the 2024 DMG or homebrew it.
I think that's fine. How many items do you expect to be using in the interim between now and getting the DMG? For a short time where there's a minor inconvenience (and you can also just reference the 5.5 PHB spell descriptions, which was the original official answer to those of us continuing to use 5.0) followed by a long runtime where it'll function as you want.
The third, and likely just an oversight: Artificer. I am making an assumption here, but as of right now (still launch day, so I understand this will change very soon) Artificer cannot access the 2024 spells at all. I assume this is just an oversight, because in order for their spell list to show the 2024 rules as a choice. Their entire spell list needs to have the 2024 versions added to it on the back end. The reason I am noting this.... because if the overwrite would have happened. This would not be the case.
It's been less than 24 hours since the 5.5 PHB dropped. Given how important it is, and that they'll really want to have their ducks in a row by the time general release hits, I'd imagine they'll fix that soon enough. I am curious how the 5.5 PHB's troubleshooting thread is compared to other big releases though.
Oh, 1000% the issue HERE is that this "Edition" is meant to play alongside the previous iteration. If it was it's own standalone edition, it could be just as simple as two separate engines. Unfortunately we are in a position here where overall, the existence of both simultaneously brings up so many issues with how the software creates things.
Tooltips can only reference one instance of a phrase, sure... it COULD be re-worked to reference both instances of "Cure Wounds" but if it did, it becomes another point of contention when choosing which to use at your specific table. If the system only had one point of reference that would not be an issue any longer.
Which I assume is exactly the conclusion they came to when deciding how they would proceed with the launch. I just don't know how long this issue is going to take to be resolved, or if it ever will be. It all could have been avoided if people weren't upset they had to homebrew counterspell lol.
Tooltips can only reference one instance of a phrase, sure... it COULD be re-worked to reference both instances of "Cure Wounds" but if it did, it becomes another point of contention when choosing which to use at your specific table. If the system only had one point of reference that would not be an issue any longer.
Which I assume is exactly the conclusion they came to when deciding how they would proceed with the launch. I just don't know how long this issue is going to take to be resolved, or if it ever will be. It all could have been avoided if people weren't upset they had to homebrew counterspell lol.
With tooltips I think there's a source option you can toggle. Since I've seen spell tooltips within the 5.5 PHB (seen it via content sharing) that reference the 5.5 versions of spells. I'm not an expert on how to create that if you're trying to get cure wounds to point at the 5.5 version and not the 5.0 version, but I've seen cases where it works.
I am glad that there is an option to edit the tooltips, The issue still stands that each tooltip will need to be restructured on anything that references 2014 spells. How likely is it going to be that the DMG is going to bring updated tooltips to all items released that reference spells that have been released in the last 10 years?
I understand that there are workarounds, I understand that it is as simple as looking at the compendium and looking up the 2024 version of a spell.
My issue is that if the spells had been overwritten, this would not be a problem.
The tooltips are there for ease of use, and they are no longer relevant for those of us playing with both 2014 and 2024 rules, as intended by the designers.
I am happy that some of my players as well as the people who want to continue to use the 2014 rules as written can do so, with no changes.
The unfortunate fact of this is, that as it stands. The backwards compatibility of this revision is suffering because of it.
If the intent was a seamless transition, they have missed the mark. And almost every issue I have in that regard is in relation to the spells. Each of which would not have been an issue in the first place had the revision been an overwrite.
I think the problems stem from expectations of a library vs a bookshop. We accept that digital libraries like Netflix change their catalogues, so our access to a particular piece of media isn't guaranteed. But DDB charged people for individual books, so the backlash against those books changing is understandable. And it really is a matter of preference - some people are okay with what they see as a free upgrade to the book they bought. Others purposefully bought a particular edition of a book, so see the changes as unwanted and ruining their purchase.
If DDB wants people to invest in personal digital libraries where customers have to pay for books individually, they really needs to provide stable access to each and every one of those books - including the digital character sheet and toolset compatibility that was an implicit part of the purchase, because that's how they marketed it. I really don't trust DDB as a safe place to buy the books, since they don't provide an actual digital copy for you to keep, and the hosted content is subject to change at DDB's whim.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently homebrewing the Mistveil Rogue, an elusive infiltrator that can vanish into thin air.
I think the problems stem from expectations of a library vs a bookshop. We accept that digital libraries like Netflix change their catalogues, so our access to a particular piece of media isn't guaranteed. But DDB charged people for individual books, so the backlash against those books changing is understandable. And it really is a matter of preference - some people are okay with what they see as a free upgrade to the book they bought. Others purposefully bought a particular edition of a book, so see the changes as unwanted and ruining their purchase.
If DDB wants people to invest in personal digital libraries where customers have to pay for books individually, they really needs to provide stable access to each and every one of those books - including the digital character sheet and toolset compatibility that was an implicit part of the purchase, because that's how they marketed it. I really don't trust DDB as a safe place to buy the books, since they don't provide an actual digital copy for you to keep, and the hosted content is subject to change at DDB's whim.
It also comes down to the digital data ownership debate and digital rights on a digital service. The reality is that you cannot own digital data nor do you have any rights of any kind on this website, there is no legal recourse or accountability of any kind. You literally sign a waver that says "I own nothing and surrender all my rights to everything on this site". You don't even own your words on this forum, a moderator can come along and quite literally edit your posts without even telling you they did so.
As such anything DnD Beyond or Wizards of the Coast does or doesn't do so far as content is concerned regardless of whether you paid for it or not is 100% up to them, they owe you absolutely nothing. They could simply decide to remove DnD Beyond tomorrow without warning and they would be perfectly within their right to do so. They could just delete your account because they felt like it and you would have no recourse of any kind.
The clause in the terms of use (7.4) is literally called "No Ownership" and its super explicit that you do not own anything on this site, even if you paid for it.
This is why I have never given DnD Beyond a single penny.. ever, nor will I ever. If I pay for something, I own it, if the contract says otherwise, you don't get to make any money.
I am glad that there is an option to edit the tooltips, The issue still stands that each tooltip will need to be restructured on anything that references 2014 spells. How likely is it going to be that the DMG is going to bring updated tooltips to all items released that reference spells that have been released in the last 10 years?
My assumption is that campaign-specific things won't have the automatic tooltips updated most likely. But I could definitely see them gradually getting more and more of the generic items. (ex: The magic items from Xanathar's and Tasha's) over the years, particularly since they've already incorporated some Xan/Tash stuff already.
All three of the objections are about execution rather than principle.
That you have the magic items linking to the old rules is because rather than creating two instances, one compatible with the old rules and one with new (which, with any sane system that had been designed with a tiny amount of foresight would be very easy for them to do - not much slower than updating everything to the new rules anyhow), they've tried to stick to one. If they did it the obvious way, you'd one set that would appear under old rules, another one set under the new. Neither would appear under the other, so it would be easy to use, no irrelevant clutter, everyone is happy. Under the mixed rules, you'd see both, for those who want to brave that. Instead, we got what we got. As I said, execution, not principle.
As for Artificer...welcome to modern technology. I guarantee you that bugs like that were going to happen regardless - especially with things like Artificer, which aren't core rules and therefore less present in the consciousness. This isn't even about DDB - it's about being on a website being run by people.
The alternative to these bugs (or at least, some of them), would have been to have rendered this premium service rather useless to a lot of people. I would have been one of the lucky ones - my campaign is coming to a close, so it would have sucked for the next couple of months, then when I started the new one, I could get everyone on board with the new rules and it would have been fine, after some rough sailing (and a bit of annoyance that DDB went out of their way to sell me the 2014 PHB on here only to take away the parts I wanted). A lot of people aren't in that situation, they either don't want to update (which they've been told over and over by WotC, DDB and many users here that they don't have to) or they want to wait until a convenient point to do so (and unlike me, that's not in the near future). Yeah I get it, it didn't run perfectly for you. On the other hand, this is helping a lot of people too. It should also be reassuring that, if they release another update or whatever, and you happen to despise it, DDB isn't about to tell you to either upgrade or pound sand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was in the camp that the overwrite of the 2014 spells on this platform was a good thing. I made my opinion known, and I made predictions.
Honestly, there are so many reasons for this. The first being ease of use, now we have to deal with an insane amount of clutter when choosing spells. I thought from the beginning that having both available at the same time would be incredibly confusing for new players to navigate, and over all messy. Taking the amount of options available and nearly doubling them, all because you wanted to play a Firbolg or some other "Species" not in the new book. Which would force you to turn on the "Legacy" slider. I was right. You cannot have access to one aspect of legacy content, without being bombarded by all other legacy content.
The second and even more egregious. Magic items. Because we did not allow those spells to be over written. ALL magic items from the 2014 rules that reference a spell with a tooltip. Now only reference 2014 rules. If the spells had been overwritten, the tooltips would have updated. Now if you want for example; a Staff of healing, to use the 2024 healing spells. We either have to wait for it to be revised in the 2024 DMG or homebrew it.
The third, and likely just an oversight: Artificer. I am making an assumption here, but as of right now (still launch day, so I understand this will change very soon) Artificer cannot access the 2024 spells at all. I assume this is just an oversight, because in order for their spell list to show the 2024 rules as a choice. Their entire spell list needs to have the 2024 versions added to it on the back end. The reason I am noting this.... because if the overwrite would have happened. This would not be the case.
A similar issue: Any legacy feature that provides spells. Example: Mark of Healing Halfling. The spells referenced with tooltips are the 2014 versions, not the 2024 versions. With magic items, I could see an update in the near future with the DMG, but I can't even imagine how far out a replacement for this lineage would be?
I just really wish we, as a community did not attack WOTC for "Taking things away" which in all honesty it wouldn't have. because what we have here is a mess, and I feel like we have no one to blame but ourselves.
you are a brave person to say this out loud lol but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. if you only want the new stuff you could just make a new account and buy it all there again
all because you wanted to play a Firbolg or some other "Species" not in the new book
Reductive arguments help no one
The majority of people didn't want the overwrite because they are in the middle of campaigns and wanted to control how and when any conversion to 2024 took place
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Personally, I instead wish that the large and rich company behind D&D Beyond would have taken some steps to make this change, which they have known about for years, go over smoothly. There is no good reason for the clunky double tooltips, no good reason to only show 2024 rules on character sheets even if they're 2014 classes, and no good reason not to have a toogle.
The only reason is greed and an incredible anti-customer attitude on a company level.
Personally, I instead wish that the large and rich company behind D&D Beyond would have taken some steps to make this change, which they have known about for years, go over smoothly. There is no good reason for the clunky double tooltips, no good reason to only show 2024 rules on character sheets even if they're 2014 classes, and no good reason not to have a toogle.
The only reason is greed and an incredible anti-customer attitude on a company level.
Go online and read Greg Tito's comments about wotc. He just quit the company, and was the communications manager for D&D.
well, i said form day one the people begun to get their misinformed campaign that this will issues on the code. But no, all the NIMBY people who screamed "tHeY dElEtE oUr StUfF!1!" were unstoppable with their ill informed crusade. And now, so shortly before the release, they have to do a LOT of changes to the plans, to the backend structure, and we see this in all the bugs.
And people still think they are on the high ground with arguments like "they should have known before!, they have the money they can do that" and other nonsencials comments.
Anyone, with a least a passing view on code and software should understand what the issues will be.
Any and all issues right now, are to blame on the outrage mob.
I'm on the island with OP, apparently. We were also mid-campaign but I don't understand why that meant you can't switch. I think the core issue WotC faced was claiming backwards compatibility and not clarifying what that meant. They've used the word "revision" in multiple places so if their intent was to simply upgrade everything from one edition to the other once you buy the 2024 books, I would have been fine with that. Our group doesn't really want to see all the old 2014 stuff anymore, we want to commit to the new version and having to appeal to both crowds is creating quite the mess. Maybe someone else was on to something saying that I should have just created a new Account when buying the 2024 books but that would have meant paying for the sub twice for a certain period of time.
I kind of agree with OP but hope they continue and improve the current system. I made another post about the pain of searching things right now. When I DM, I use the search bar constantly to look up things- it's one of dndbeyond's main selling points IMHO. They need to make it better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was in the camp that the overwrite of the 2014 spells on this platform was a good thing. I made my opinion known, and I made predictions.
Honestly, there are so many reasons for this.
The first being ease of use, now we have to deal with an insane amount of clutter when choosing spells. I thought from the beginning that having both available at the same time would be incredibly confusing for new players to navigate, and over all messy. Taking the amount of options available and nearly doubling them, all because you wanted to play a Firbolg or some other "Species" not in the new book. Which would force you to turn on the "Legacy" slider.
I was right. You cannot have access to one aspect of legacy content, without being bombarded by all other legacy content.
The second and even more egregious. Magic items.
Because we did not allow those spells to be over written. ALL magic items from the 2014 rules that reference a spell with a tooltip. Now only reference 2014 rules.
If the spells had been overwritten, the tooltips would have updated. Now if you want for example; a Staff of healing, to use the 2024 healing spells. We either have to wait for it to be revised in the 2024 DMG or homebrew it.
The third, and likely just an oversight: Artificer.
I am making an assumption here, but as of right now (still launch day, so I understand this will change very soon)
Artificer cannot access the 2024 spells at all. I assume this is just an oversight, because in order for their spell list to show the 2024 rules as a choice. Their entire spell list needs to have the 2024 versions added to it on the back end.
The reason I am noting this.... because if the overwrite would have happened. This would not be the case.
A similar issue: Any legacy feature that provides spells. Example: Mark of Healing Halfling.
The spells referenced with tooltips are the 2014 versions, not the 2024 versions.
With magic items, I could see an update in the near future with the DMG, but I can't even imagine how far out a replacement for this lineage would be?
I just really wish we, as a community did not attack WOTC for "Taking things away" which in all honesty it wouldn't have.
because what we have here is a mess, and I feel like we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I definitely get that, and I am with you there. I have multiple campaigns active right now. Some want to use the new rules, and others don't.
Unfortunately, there is no way to turn off the 2024 options like there is to turn off legacy. So issue 1 is now present regardless of if you're using the 2024 rules or not.
If there was a toggle for spells specifically, I would be immensely happy.
At the end of the day, the issues I raised here are going to take far more work both on the back end, and on the user to come up with resolutions.
The amount of spells that received notable changes in the new book outside of text clarifications is very small in comparison to the amount that stayed almost identical from what I have read of the spells chapter.
I would be much happier with not having to homebrew a bunch of magic items, races, subclasses, and feats. Just to make things work properly.
Than to have to homebrew the 3 spells my players wanted to keep to 2014 lol.
I am fine with being the minority here, but I can almost guarantee you as more people get their hands on the builder in the next few weeks. That minority will grow.
All of these issues were apparent to anyone exercising a modicum of common sense back when this was initially announced. However, the few folks pointing out that the systems likely could not handle items and spells in the same way as classes and subclasses were accused of being corporate shills and other nonsense. Those voices, as they often are, were drowned out by folks who decided anger was an acceptable substitute for critical thinking... and, as they far too often do, Wizards decided to backpedal and appease the vocal members of their community.
From the very start, Wizards should have been upfront with players. Instead of just announcing "this is going to happen" with no official explanation, they should have made a simple post explaining that there were unique issues with D&D Beyond integration, that they were making the tough choice to treat any new versions of spells as errata to the old, and giving players a list of spells so they could easily homebrew copy them during the interim period. There still would have been angry folks - and folks who are rabble rousing because they have other motives - but an official explanation, an apology, and some guidance on how to mitigate the transition would have appeased a whole lot of folks. This was a self-inflicted wound that Wizards decided to retreat from... and now, instead of whatever system they were working on, we have a system mired in faults their original proposal could have easily fixed.
All of this could have been easily avoidable, but for one far-too-well-established reality: Wizards' D&D PR team is terrible - frankly, with their repeated failures to articulate basic reasoning behind decisions and allowing the rabid members of the community to consistently control the narrative, it is clear Wizards' PR team is out of touch and has no idea how to manage their own community. If I were the new CEO, I would be firing large segments of the PR team and elevating staff, like LaTiaJacquise, who seem to actually know how to talk to D&D players. As things currently stand, far too often the front line of Wizards' damage control is not Wizards' PR team... but regular players who have a basic understanding of Hanlon's razor and a rudimentary ability to derive the likely reasons why Wizards' is making a decision.
Yet, once again, those voices got ignored and all of the problems those players said might be the non-malicious explanation for the changes have come to pass.
The Engine for the character sheets probably need an overhaul from scratch to have into consideration all the new ways all the spells, features, classes, subs and items work with each other with a foundation for more customization taking the future into consideration.
The way I see it it was a mistake to try and replace 2014 with 2024 stuff as those can run and ARE run as separate by many, hell this site could run old Editions of the game with a bit of work and that would produce more money for the company. Why replace the old stuff if that can still be bought for those who want the extra options in the current edition since the core rules did not chance pretty much.
The fact of the matter is that DDB actually was able to handle keeping legacy versions of spells. And legacy items, limited as they are, are also working quite well.
Those of us that didn't want the replacements were shown to be correct with our assertions that DDB could add 5.5 without deleting current content from the character sheet.
Those of us that wanted to continue using 5.0 spells were aware we'd be dealing with the 5.5 versions also being listed. Personally it'd be nice if there was a way to limit it at some time in the future, but it's something I can live with.
As for the part about needing to keep the legacy toggle on just because you're using a legacy race, I have a suggestion. In the past when I've wanted to add a single homebrew thing to a character I've enabled homebrew, added that spell/item/whatever, and then disabled homebrew afterwards. This has allowed me to add the homebrew I wanted without homebrew cluttering my options the rest of the time.
While I haven't made a 5.5 character I imagine it would work similarly. Just turn on legacy when you're choosing your race and then you can toggle it back off for the rest of the character's runtime.
I think that's fine. How many items do you expect to be using in the interim between now and getting the DMG? For a short time where there's a minor inconvenience (and you can also just reference the 5.5 PHB spell descriptions, which was the original official answer to those of us continuing to use 5.0) followed by a long runtime where it'll function as you want.
It's been less than 24 hours since the 5.5 PHB dropped. Given how important it is, and that they'll really want to have their ducks in a row by the time general release hits, I'd imagine they'll fix that soon enough. I am curious how the 5.5 PHB's troubleshooting thread is compared to other big releases though.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Oh, 1000% the issue HERE is that this "Edition" is meant to play alongside the previous iteration. If it was it's own standalone edition, it could be just as simple as two separate engines.
Unfortunately we are in a position here where overall, the existence of both simultaneously brings up so many issues with how the software creates things.
Tooltips can only reference one instance of a phrase, sure... it COULD be re-worked to reference both instances of "Cure Wounds" but if it did, it becomes another point of contention when choosing which to use at your specific table. If the system only had one point of reference that would not be an issue any longer.
Which I assume is exactly the conclusion they came to when deciding how they would proceed with the launch. I just don't know how long this issue is going to take to be resolved, or if it ever will be. It all could have been avoided if people weren't upset they had to homebrew counterspell lol.
With tooltips I think there's a source option you can toggle. Since I've seen spell tooltips within the 5.5 PHB (seen it via content sharing) that reference the 5.5 versions of spells. I'm not an expert on how to create that if you're trying to get cure wounds to point at the 5.5 version and not the 5.0 version, but I've seen cases where it works.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
I am glad that there is an option to edit the tooltips, The issue still stands that each tooltip will need to be restructured on anything that references 2014 spells.
How likely is it going to be that the DMG is going to bring updated tooltips to all items released that reference spells that have been released in the last 10 years?
I understand that there are workarounds, I understand that it is as simple as looking at the compendium and looking up the 2024 version of a spell.
My issue is that if the spells had been overwritten, this would not be a problem.
The tooltips are there for ease of use, and they are no longer relevant for those of us playing with both 2014 and 2024 rules, as intended by the designers.
I am happy that some of my players as well as the people who want to continue to use the 2014 rules as written can do so, with no changes.
The unfortunate fact of this is, that as it stands. The backwards compatibility of this revision is suffering because of it.
If the intent was a seamless transition, they have missed the mark. And almost every issue I have in that regard is in relation to the spells. Each of which would not have been an issue in the first place had the revision been an overwrite.
I have OPINIONS ya'll. I am sorry lol.
I think the problems stem from expectations of a library vs a bookshop. We accept that digital libraries like Netflix change their catalogues, so our access to a particular piece of media isn't guaranteed. But DDB charged people for individual books, so the backlash against those books changing is understandable. And it really is a matter of preference - some people are okay with what they see as a free upgrade to the book they bought. Others purposefully bought a particular edition of a book, so see the changes as unwanted and ruining their purchase.
If DDB wants people to invest in personal digital libraries where customers have to pay for books individually, they really needs to provide stable access to each and every one of those books - including the digital character sheet and toolset compatibility that was an implicit part of the purchase, because that's how they marketed it. I really don't trust DDB as a safe place to buy the books, since they don't provide an actual digital copy for you to keep, and the hosted content is subject to change at DDB's whim.
Currently homebrewing the Mistveil Rogue, an elusive infiltrator that can vanish into thin air.
It also comes down to the digital data ownership debate and digital rights on a digital service. The reality is that you cannot own digital data nor do you have any rights of any kind on this website, there is no legal recourse or accountability of any kind. You literally sign a waver that says "I own nothing and surrender all my rights to everything on this site". You don't even own your words on this forum, a moderator can come along and quite literally edit your posts without even telling you they did so.
As such anything DnD Beyond or Wizards of the Coast does or doesn't do so far as content is concerned regardless of whether you paid for it or not is 100% up to them, they owe you absolutely nothing. They could simply decide to remove DnD Beyond tomorrow without warning and they would be perfectly within their right to do so. They could just delete your account because they felt like it and you would have no recourse of any kind.
The clause in the terms of use (7.4) is literally called "No Ownership" and its super explicit that you do not own anything on this site, even if you paid for it.
This is why I have never given DnD Beyond a single penny.. ever, nor will I ever. If I pay for something, I own it, if the contract says otherwise, you don't get to make any money.
My assumption is that campaign-specific things won't have the automatic tooltips updated most likely. But I could definitely see them gradually getting more and more of the generic items. (ex: The magic items from Xanathar's and Tasha's) over the years, particularly since they've already incorporated some Xan/Tash stuff already.
Unforgiveable!
;p
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
All three of the objections are about execution rather than principle.
That you have the magic items linking to the old rules is because rather than creating two instances, one compatible with the old rules and one with new (which, with any sane system that had been designed with a tiny amount of foresight would be very easy for them to do - not much slower than updating everything to the new rules anyhow), they've tried to stick to one. If they did it the obvious way, you'd one set that would appear under old rules, another one set under the new. Neither would appear under the other, so it would be easy to use, no irrelevant clutter, everyone is happy. Under the mixed rules, you'd see both, for those who want to brave that. Instead, we got what we got. As I said, execution, not principle.
As for Artificer...welcome to modern technology. I guarantee you that bugs like that were going to happen regardless - especially with things like Artificer, which aren't core rules and therefore less present in the consciousness. This isn't even about DDB - it's about being on a website being run by people.
The alternative to these bugs (or at least, some of them), would have been to have rendered this premium service rather useless to a lot of people. I would have been one of the lucky ones - my campaign is coming to a close, so it would have sucked for the next couple of months, then when I started the new one, I could get everyone on board with the new rules and it would have been fine, after some rough sailing (and a bit of annoyance that DDB went out of their way to sell me the 2014 PHB on here only to take away the parts I wanted). A lot of people aren't in that situation, they either don't want to update (which they've been told over and over by WotC, DDB and many users here that they don't have to) or they want to wait until a convenient point to do so (and unlike me, that's not in the near future). Yeah I get it, it didn't run perfectly for you. On the other hand, this is helping a lot of people too. It should also be reassuring that, if they release another update or whatever, and you happen to despise it, DDB isn't about to tell you to either upgrade or pound sand.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
you are a brave person to say this out loud lol but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. if you only want the new stuff you could just make a new account and buy it all there again
To the OP. NO. We paid for that, and also if we are still running 2014 games we need access to the correct versions for the game.
Yours life long DMs.
Reductive arguments help no one
The majority of people didn't want the overwrite because they are in the middle of campaigns and wanted to control how and when any conversion to 2024 took place
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Personally, I instead wish that the large and rich company behind D&D Beyond would have taken some steps to make this change, which they have known about for years, go over smoothly. There is no good reason for the clunky double tooltips, no good reason to only show 2024 rules on character sheets even if they're 2014 classes, and no good reason not to have a toogle.
The only reason is greed and an incredible anti-customer attitude on a company level.
Go online and read Greg Tito's comments about wotc. He just quit the company, and was the communications manager for D&D.
well, i said form day one the people begun to get their misinformed campaign that this will issues on the code. But no, all the NIMBY people who screamed "tHeY dElEtE oUr StUfF!1!" were unstoppable with their ill informed crusade. And now, so shortly before the release, they have to do a LOT of changes to the plans, to the backend structure, and we see this in all the bugs.
And people still think they are on the high ground with arguments like "they should have known before!, they have the money they can do that" and other nonsencials comments.
Anyone, with a least a passing view on code and software should understand what the issues will be.
Any and all issues right now, are to blame on the outrage mob.
I'm on the island with OP, apparently. We were also mid-campaign but I don't understand why that meant you can't switch. I think the core issue WotC faced was claiming backwards compatibility and not clarifying what that meant. They've used the word "revision" in multiple places so if their intent was to simply upgrade everything from one edition to the other once you buy the 2024 books, I would have been fine with that. Our group doesn't really want to see all the old 2014 stuff anymore, we want to commit to the new version and having to appeal to both crowds is creating quite the mess. Maybe someone else was on to something saying that I should have just created a new Account when buying the 2024 books but that would have meant paying for the sub twice for a certain period of time.
I kind of agree with OP but hope they continue and improve the current system. I made another post about the pain of searching things right now. When I DM, I use the search bar constantly to look up things- it's one of dndbeyond's main selling points IMHO. They need to make it better.