I can buy old reprints of Oriental adventures, but I can't buy Volo's? This is ridiculous! I am downgrading my monthly account and not purchasing further WotC products until this is rectified! Have fun without me.

Quote from VanDragon >>

I can buy old reprints of Oriental adventures, but I can't buy Volo's? This is ridiculous! I am downgrading my monthly account and not purchasing further WotC products until this is rectified! Have fun without me.

 I'm sure you can acquire Volo's through similar channels to the ones by which you acquire other books. But I'm fully in support of you voting with your wallet. You absolutely should.

I'd like to draw attention back to my earlier question, though I'm sure it's fruitless: Why was there such a delay in this announcement? I can't pretend I'm angry, but at the same time, I get the sense that I *should* be.

Why did Wizards Of The Coast make this insult to D&D lore of a book?

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

Why did Wizards Of The Coast make this insult to D&D lore of a book?

 They've been very adamant that they want to be as setting neutral as possible lately. If a book isn't made for a specific setting, they're going to back as far away from details as possible.

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

Why did Wizards Of The Coast make this insult to D&D lore of a book?

 They've been very adamant that they want to be as setting neutral as possible lately. If a book isn't made for a specific setting, they're going to back as far away from details as possible.

 setting neutral = setting incompatible
Which means it is useless and worthless for all D&D campaigns.

I don't understand why the 2 older books are not purchaseable anymore, what if I didn't buy them but would prefer using the legacy version of a race in the future? It cuts options for players. Worst case D&d beyond would make money by offering more options. 

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

Quote from ElayneTrakand >>

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

 (Just a tip, since I also just figured this out in this thread: If you wanna respond to someone, hit "quote" instead of reply. Anyway, on to my own response...)

While I think his take is a bit extreme, I do believe that setting neutrality is a downgrade. In the previous versions, I could look at an entry for a monster and use it as inspiration, or to carry a bit of the load while worldbuilding. I remember doing that when I was planning a session involving the Aarakocra, and it really came in handy at a time when I already had a lot of other things to juggle. However, if there's a monster I like the mechanics of but not the lore, I can simply ignore that lore and replace it with my own, which I do whenever I want to use Stone Cursed. You are never obligated to use the lore they give you, but you ARE obligated to use lore in some form, and now WotC expects us to make it ourselves every time. Having the option of using something premade is a benefit a lot of people are going to miss.

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from ElayneTrakand >>

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

 (Just a tip, since I also just figured this out in this thread: If you wanna respond to someone, hit "quote" instead of reply. Anyway, on to my own response...)

While I think his take is a bit extreme, I do believe that setting neutrality is a downgrade. In the previous versions, I could look at an entry for a monster and use it as inspiration, or to carry a bit of the load while worldbuilding. I remember doing that when I was planning a session involving the Aarakocra, and it really came in handy at a time when I already had a lot of other things to juggle. However, if there's a monster I like the mechanics of but not the lore, I can simply ignore that lore and replace it with my own, which I do whenever I want to use Stone Cursed. You are never obligated to use the lore they give you, but you ARE obligated to use lore in some form, and now WotC expects us to make it ourselves every time. Having the option of using something premade is a benefit a lot of people are going to miss.

This is the same reason I dislike the erosion of flavour details on races as well; we used to get a suggested alignment, range of typical ages, heights and weights, and you could argue that default ability score increases helped inform natural aptitudes for a race. Now we have nothing on all of these, and it means more work for the DMs and players if you need any of these details.

Wizards of the Coast seem to be on this weirdly twisted trend of "suggested characteristics are racist" but it's almost a form of anti-anti-racism where they're actually erasing things that made creatures/races more interesting and unique, resulting in less diversity not more.

Like you say, we've always been free to change whatever we want in the game (with the DM's permission), but now we're being told we have to come up with this stuff ourselves; it makes the game harder to play, as many people would prefer to be given a starting point they can use as-is, or modify, rather than having to come up with everything themselves.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from ElayneTrakand >>

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

 (Just a tip, since I also just figured this out in this thread: If you wanna respond to someone, hit "quote" instead of reply. Anyway, on to my own response...)

While I think his take is a bit extreme, I do believe that setting neutrality is a downgrade. In the previous versions, I could look at an entry for a monster and use it as inspiration, or to carry a bit of the load while worldbuilding. I remember doing that when I was planning a session involving the Aarakocra, and it really came in handy at a time when I already had a lot of other things to juggle. However, if there's a monster I like the mechanics of but not the lore, I can simply ignore that lore and replace it with my own, which I do whenever I want to use Stone Cursed. You are never obligated to use the lore they give you, but you ARE obligated to use lore in some form, and now WotC expects us to make it ourselves every time. Having the option of using something premade is a benefit a lot of people are going to miss.

This is the same reason I dislike the erosion of flavour details on races as well; we used to get a suggested alignment, range of typical heights and weights, and you could argue that default ability score increases helped inform natural aptitudes for a race. Now we have nothing on all of these, and it means more work for the DMs and players if you need any of these details.

Wizards of the Coast seem to be on this weirdly twisted trend of "suggested characteristics are racist" but it's almost a form of anti-anti-racism where they're actually erasing things that made creatures/races more interesting and unique, resulting in less diversity not more.

Like you say, we've always been free to change whatever we want in the game (with the DM's permission), but now we're being told we have to come up with this stuff ourselves; it makes the game harder to play, as many people would prefer to be given a starting point they can use as-is, or modify, rather than having to come up with everything themselves.

 
Agreed. I have never wanted to “thank” an article comment more.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from ElayneTrakand >>

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

 (Just a tip, since I also just figured this out in this thread: If you wanna respond to someone, hit "quote" instead of reply. Anyway, on to my own response...)

While I think his take is a bit extreme, I do believe that setting neutrality is a downgrade. In the previous versions, I could look at an entry for a monster and use it as inspiration, or to carry a bit of the load while worldbuilding. I remember doing that when I was planning a session involving the Aarakocra, and it really came in handy at a time when I already had a lot of other things to juggle. However, if there's a monster I like the mechanics of but not the lore, I can simply ignore that lore and replace it with my own, which I do whenever I want to use Stone Cursed. You are never obligated to use the lore they give you, but you ARE obligated to use lore in some form, and now WotC expects us to make it ourselves every time. Having the option of using something premade is a benefit a lot of people are going to miss.

This is the same reason I dislike the erosion of flavour details on races as well; we used to get a suggested alignment, range of typical heights and weights, and you could argue that default ability score increases helped inform natural aptitudes for a race. Now we have nothing on all of these, and it means more work for the DMs and players if you need any of these details.

Wizards of the Coast seem to be on this weirdly twisted trend of "suggested characteristics are racist" but it's almost a form of anti-anti-racism where they're actually erasing things that made creatures/races more interesting and unique, resulting in less diversity not more.

Like you say, we've always been free to change whatever we want in the game (with the DM's permission), but now we're being told we have to come up with this stuff ourselves; it makes the game harder to play, as many people would prefer to be given a starting point they can use as-is, or modify, rather than having to come up with everything themselves.

 
Agreed. I have never wanted to “thank” an article comment more.

 I am glade my comment caused this.

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from ElayneTrakand >>

What!?! How does setting neutral = setting incompatible? I am a new dm and it is very handy being able to just filter monsters by type and difficulty then flavor them and add lore for my world without having to figure out how to learn all of the surrounding lore and setting just to distill it to concepts and come up with surrounding lore basically from scratch for my world anyway. I appreciate not having the pile of content that I have to Google just to understand what it's saying. 

 (Just a tip, since I also just figured this out in this thread: If you wanna respond to someone, hit "quote" instead of reply. Anyway, on to my own response...)

While I think his take is a bit extreme, I do believe that setting neutrality is a downgrade. In the previous versions, I could look at an entry for a monster and use it as inspiration, or to carry a bit of the load while worldbuilding. I remember doing that when I was planning a session involving the Aarakocra, and it really came in handy at a time when I already had a lot of other things to juggle. However, if there's a monster I like the mechanics of but not the lore, I can simply ignore that lore and replace it with my own, which I do whenever I want to use Stone Cursed. You are never obligated to use the lore they give you, but you ARE obligated to use lore in some form, and now WotC expects us to make it ourselves every time. Having the option of using something premade is a benefit a lot of people are going to miss.

This is the same reason I dislike the erosion of flavour details on races as well; we used to get a suggested alignment, range of typical heights and weights, and you could argue that default ability score increases helped inform natural aptitudes for a race. Now we have nothing on all of these, and it means more work for the DMs and players if you need any of these details.

Wizards of the Coast seem to be on this weirdly twisted trend of "suggested characteristics are racist" but it's almost a form of anti-anti-racism where they're actually erasing things that made creatures/races more interesting and unique, resulting in less diversity not more.

Like you say, we've always been free to change whatever we want in the game (with the DM's permission), but now we're being told we have to come up with this stuff ourselves; it makes the game harder to play, as many people would prefer to be given a starting point they can use as-is, or modify, rather than having to come up with everything themselves.

 
Agreed. I have never wanted to “thank” an article comment more.

 I am glade my comment caused this.

 I’m glad that it’s on an officially owned WotC site so they can’t pretend they don’t see us saying it.

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

Quote from momiedomie >>

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

You could always create your own Homebrew copy of the Tiefling race; change the +1 score (or customise origin on the character) and swap the spells around?

Personally I created a homebrew Tiefling race that combines all the variants together into a set of options (with more control over the racial spells) but I'm not sure on whether it'd be allowed to publish it or not; the only official content that it's reproducing would be the Tiefling race (which is in the free basic rules/system reference document, and I can supply my own flavour text and such) the options are all generically named and not as they used to be published.

Can I turn off the Legacy content? Similarly, can I turn off the Basic Rules?

As someone who owns the whole kit and caboodle, there's often too much to look at and this addition just makes it worse. It would be nice if I could select a source to be specifically excluded.

Quote from ZorkFox >>

Can I turn off the Legacy content? Similarly, can I turn off the Basic Rules?

As someone who owns the whole kit and caboodle, there's often too much to look at and this addition just makes it worse. It would be nice if I could select a source to be specifically excluded.

 Unfortunately that's a no to the basic rules question. At least last I knew uninstalling the basic rules for some reason messes up the app. Anything that's included in it even if you own it somewhere else causes it to constantly ask you to install it again. I have no idea why the app doesn't recognize and supersede it with your other sources but last I knew you can't.

Quote from momiedomie >>

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

 For some reason these subraces weren't included in MotM nor were quite a few other things from the old books. It's possible that they're waiting to just include them in the core rulebook revisions (which god help me if we're forced to pay for those I'll lose it and never use DDB again mark my words) but it sucks people have to wait 2 years to potentially get those back because it isn't coming until 2024.

Quote from Trexdrew >>

Quote from momiedomie >>

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

 For some reason these subraces weren't included in MotM nor were quite a few other things from the old books. It's possible that they're waiting to just include them in the core rulebook revisions (which god help me if we're forced to pay for those I'll lose it and never use DDB again mark my words) but it sucks people have to wait 2 years to potentially get those back because it isn't coming until 2024.

 My understanding is that past editions of Tieflings were heavily customizable, and seeing as WotC is trying to run away from subraces, my theory is that they're going to try to make a quick, catchall version that says "You gain resistance. Pick one cantrip, one first level spell, and one second level spell." 

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from Trexdrew >>

Quote from momiedomie >>

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

 For some reason these subraces weren't included in MotM nor were quite a few other things from the old books. It's possible that they're waiting to just include them in the core rulebook revisions (which god help me if we're forced to pay for those I'll lose it and never use DDB again mark my words) but it sucks people have to wait 2 years to potentially get those back because it isn't coming until 2024.

 My understanding is that past editions of Tieflings were heavily customizable, and seeing as WotC is trying to run away from subraces, my theory is that they're going to try to make a quick, catchall version that says "You gain resistance. Pick one cantrip, one first level spell, and one second level spell." 

 Ew, I really hope you're wrong. Eliminates all the flavor those subraces had that made them interesting in the first place. Goes back to setting neutral removing actual interest and diversity

Quote from Trexdrew >>

Quote from ClickClackTheBlueGuy >>

Quote from Trexdrew >>

Quote from momiedomie >>

Can you guys bring back the old books, to make them purchasable again, please? I recently got back into D&D, and I had an idea for a Zariel Tiefling Paladin that I was really attached to, and now I can't make them anymore. Is there any way to bring it back?

 For some reason these subraces weren't included in MotM nor were quite a few other things from the old books. It's possible that they're waiting to just include them in the core rulebook revisions (which god help me if we're forced to pay for those I'll lose it and never use DDB again mark my words) but it sucks people have to wait 2 years to potentially get those back because it isn't coming until 2024.

 My understanding is that past editions of Tieflings were heavily customizable, and seeing as WotC is trying to run away from subraces, my theory is that they're going to try to make a quick, catchall version that says "You gain resistance. Pick one cantrip, one first level spell, and one second level spell." 

 Ew, I really hope you're wrong. Eliminates all the flavor those subraces had that made them interesting in the first place. Goes back to setting neutral removing actual interest and diversity

 I got a feeling they're ganna go the route they went with the Ganasi and the Duergar, instead of a 'base' race with several sub race options, they'll each be a self contained race connected only by lore. So like when they go and redo the handbook each of the elf subraces will be their own 'race' of elf. No more "Ok so all elves get these traits, and then you get these extra traits from your subrace. It's "Wood Elves get this, High elves get this, Drow get this" et cetera et cetera. So each tielfing will probably basically become it's own 'race' like the above examples from Monsters of the Multiverse.