I got one question.. why does the Find Steed paladin ability far exceed the Drakewarden Dragon? This needs serious consideration. You have to play to level 15 for the Drake to be even interesting. Just a side note. 

Can you PLEASE merge these two better. I love the Drakewarden but the Ranger class is so down trodden. It aint right. 

I may be the only one that wants this, but I'd like to see D&D Beyond sell packs of previously available Frames and Backgrounds. I mean, it seems like easy money for them. 

Quote from Dragonbone63 >>

I may be the only one that wants this, but I'd like to see D&D Beyond sell packs of previously available Frames and Backgrounds. I mean, it seems like easy money for them. 

 Good idea...maybe throw old dice in there too, assuming they have and/or can get the files.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Quote from Dragonbone63 >>

I may be the only one that wants this, but I'd like to see D&D Beyond sell packs of previously available Frames and Backgrounds. I mean, it seems like easy money for them. 

 Good idea...maybe throw old dice in there too, assuming they have and/or can get the files.

 We all still have the dice, so they definitely have the files.

> We're building a game that honors the past, listens in the present, and opens new doors for the future. Together.

I do hope that this means you're not going to throw all the old Forgotten Realms (and other settings) out like the baby with the bathwater? 

Quote from Khel >>

Quote from amybranch >>

The new Core Rulebooks were shaped by ten years of community play, feedback, and love for fifth edition.

This upgrade doesn’t replace the previous rules; it enhances them. It makes this beloved system more player-friendly, better to create content for, and evolve rather than replace the fifth edition books you already own.

No. The 2024 releases explicitly replace existing content. Items, feats, and subclasses that are revised for the 2024 books purposefully make the original content obsolete and non-valid for organized play. 

And the new books weren't shaped by community feedback. They were built entirely around a tiny minority of players who responded, if not took advantage of, a dozen or so online surveys.

The 2024 rules were effectively made by, and as a result made for, a small segment of the playerbase. Every player who has had player and character options taken away from them in your "enhanced" rules is fully aware of how empty these platitudes are.

 

Remember when they were ensuring us it was going to be backwards compatible with all our old books? Good times. Wonder why that quietly went away. Oh wait it's because it's not actually true.

In what way are they not compatible?

Quote from RedRogue17 >>

I prefer the 2014 rules over the 2024 ones, instead of "enhancing" the game they make it more complicated and less interesting. Please, if you can, as the Wizards of the Coast to change them back.

  What on earth are you talking about? This is objectively untrue. The 2024 ruleset has been SIMPLIFIED and it's cohesion increased, not decreased. Also how does less complex = more interesting?

Loving to hear this. Just a few things off the bat.

The spellcaster Dragonlance feats still only show the 2014 version of False Life and none of the other spells they should and this issue has been known about since the books release on Beyond with no fix. The feats also show none of the new 2024 versions of these spells.

Maps STILL has no grid feature, which is a basic function of every VTT that has ever existed for D&D and whether you use it or not *MUST* be made available.

Lastly I would like to propose, since the theme here seems to be "bringing D&D back to the table" that you bring further support into LGS stores by including digital keys or codes inside of physical content. Let's incentivize people to get out and support their LGS while also giving them incentive to come to beyond and use it for organizing, creating, and running their games through maps and content sharing.

Glad to see that someone reasonable appears to be taking the reigns, now lets see if you can beat the DC on that performance check and *prove* you're going to make a real difference.

Thanks for the intro and the direction/mission statement. And wishing you best of luck! It's not an easy job, but could be a very rewarding one. I'd urge continued development of a VTT (or the acquisition of one) and serious investment into making it user friendly. Most of the ones out there now are way, way too fiddly to be truly useful. What you have with Maps and D&D Beyond is a GREAT start. Keep going. And please do not allow Chris Cao, or any of his acolytes, anywhere near anything you want to be successful.

Bunch of entitled haters in these comments. I actually wish ogl was never a thing. We would probably see more innovation out there right now then a bunch of d20 based games pretending to be original 

You should really look back at Fandom's roadmap of promises that were all supposed to come to this site, before WotC acquired it and scrapped every good idea.

Quote from Ging3rsnap >>

You should really look back at Fandom's roadmap of promises that were all supposed to come to this site, before WotC acquired it and scrapped every good idea.

Fandom is a heap of bloated banner ad heavy sites.  While WotC could definitely do more, bringing D&D Beyond under the Dungeons and Dragons banner is a lot better than leaving it with them.  Curse was destroyed by Fandom, and their sites are one of only places on the internet that I use an adblocker.

Nonsense.

I love the direction this appears to be going. I absolutely love pretty much anything DND. As someone who also doesn't pay for the subscription the maps sis something I definitely am excited for.

The new rulebooks are one step forward, three steps back. Some of the new stuff, like weapon mastery, is interesting but doesn't go far enough. A lot of stuff was just straight up removed. Art covers half a page or an entire page in an attempt to artificially inflate the page count so you can claim the books are bigger, falsely implying the system is crunchier when in reality the bulk of the "system" is "Uhh...Idunno, you make it up." The new Monster Manual is terribly organized. I get what you were trying to do but you failed. Grouping certain stat blocks by type was actually helpful. Now you've screwed it up.

This was not done well and I hope whatever comes next is dramatically different in every conceivable way, because this ain't it.

Quote from Wrathamon >>

Bunch of entitled haters in these comments. I actually wish ogl was never a thing. We would probably see more innovation out there right now then a bunch of d20 based games pretending to be original 

 Boot isn't a spice.

Quote from kona_boy >>

Quote from Khel >>

Quote from amybranch >>

The new Core Rulebooks were shaped by ten years of community play, feedback, and love for fifth edition.

This upgrade doesn’t replace the previous rules; it enhances them. It makes this beloved system more player-friendly, better to create content for, and evolve rather than replace the fifth edition books you already own.

No. The 2024 releases explicitly replace existing content. Items, feats, and subclasses that are revised for the 2024 books purposefully make the original content obsolete and non-valid for organized play. 

And the new books weren't shaped by community feedback. They were built entirely around a tiny minority of players who responded, if not took advantage of, a dozen or so online surveys.

The 2024 rules were effectively made by, and as a result made for, a small segment of the playerbase. Every player who has had player and character options taken away from them in your "enhanced" rules is fully aware of how empty these platitudes are.

 

Remember when they were ensuring us it was going to be backwards compatible with all our old books? Good times. Wonder why that quietly went away. Oh wait it's because it's not actually true.

 

In what way are they not compatible?

 2024 builds are more powerful, it's easier to min-max them, and they're generally more complicated. When one of them has a weapon, they check if they have mastery, but in 2014, we don't have those added bonuses. 2024 hits harder for rules that make it harder to hit. Some of the stuff in each book is great, but in no way are they completely compatible. Also, it's barely compatible with 2014 core rules (PHB, MM, DMG), only with Tasha's and Xanathar's.

Quote from Akra2358 >>

Quote from kona_boy >>

Quote from Khel >>

Quote from amybranch >>

The new Core Rulebooks were shaped by ten years of community play, feedback, and love for fifth edition.

This upgrade doesn’t replace the previous rules; it enhances them. It makes this beloved system more player-friendly, better to create content for, and evolve rather than replace the fifth edition books you already own.

No. The 2024 releases explicitly replace existing content. Items, feats, and subclasses that are revised for the 2024 books purposefully make the original content obsolete and non-valid for organized play. 

And the new books weren't shaped by community feedback. They were built entirely around a tiny minority of players who responded, if not took advantage of, a dozen or so online surveys.

The 2024 rules were effectively made by, and as a result made for, a small segment of the playerbase. Every player who has had player and character options taken away from them in your "enhanced" rules is fully aware of how empty these platitudes are.

 

Remember when they were ensuring us it was going to be backwards compatible with all our old books? Good times. Wonder why that quietly went away. Oh wait it's because it's not actually true.

 

In what way are they not compatible?

 2024 builds are more powerful, it's easier to min-max them, and they're generally more complicated. When one of them has a weapon, they check if they have mastery, but in 2014, we don't have those added bonuses. 2024 hits harder for rules that make it harder to hit. Some of the stuff in each book is great, but in no way are they completely compatible. Also, it's barely compatible with 2014 core rules (PHB, MM, DMG), only with Tasha's and Xanathar's.

"Backwards compatible" refers to the ability to port things forward RAW. Not literally move 2024 back into 2014 RAW. Are you not familiar with the software term in question(I think it should have been called something NOT software-related(Thanks Chris Cao))?

Power & complexity has zero to do with permission to port stuff forward or backward RAW anyway. RAW, you can.

Also, Dungeons & Dragons is neither inherently competitive nor is it meant to strictly have "win/lose/high score" states. "Balance" is easily dealt with by the DM & players communicating clearly about table expectations & intentions. YMMV, though.

Hi Dan and D&D team,

You give us the chance to comment on this announcement, and hopefully you will at least read all of them on your first attempt in your role to show you are listening to the players. I, like anyone out there, have my opinion and preferences on what I like or dislike in the game. I could try to influence you my way... I won't pretend it will work. Instead, I will try to be objective and put some of the facts and truths forward for all to see and think about, you included.

First, the system does not belong to us, it belongs to Wizard of the Coast. When you say this, you are referring to the fact that comments from forums, playtesting or other community feedback is taken into account when making design and strategic decisions at WotC. However, it is clear that the community is far from a consensus on what is good, bad, expected, wished or desired in the game. This means that you have to make the decision as to where the game goes knowing that many will be disappointed. Sadly for some of us, but quite understandable for WotC, the decisions will most probably be taken in the direction of the majority of the feedback, or at least following the business intelligence reports that take this and other things into account in order to make the decision that WotC expects will sell the most. I will not believe it is not the truth, unless concrete proofs are provided. This does not mean that your business intelligence team has divination powers, they can and did make mistakes, sometimes hoping to get more new players, sometimes listening too much on the more vocal and forum active members of the community. But without knowledge about if these pieces of feedback are representative of the demographic that gets you the highest sales, it can rapidly backfire. So no, it is not our game (at least not mine since I never felt my voice was heard, no matter how many comments I posted or playtest feedback I provided). When you say it is, this is a charming tactic to get us to be hopeful, but my insight is too high since my wisdom increased over the years.

Second, regarding the SRD and maps on Beyond, I see this as normal expected improvements. So thanks.

Third, I am not convince your new "from the community" initiative will bring anything more that what already exists, at least from the gamers side. My understanding of this initiative is that you will create a platform with a good marketting plan. The platform will make it easier for you to consolidate the feedback recorded and your marketting will try to bring as much people to feed the machine while trying to quash discontent. That's what I would do in your position, it is a good business strategy, but again a good insight check will make you see that it won't change much for the under-represented among us. You say that you are committed to more transparency... well true transparency would be to explain the business decisions RAW. Of course this will lead to harsh feedback, but at least it would be true. However, I would'nt do that because a lot of people do not agree or understand the high level game. What I would do is being more specific. What do you mean by more transparency? Is it more playtesting? Is it detailed explanations (real ones, not only polished presentations) regarding design choices? It is easy to say "We have heard you, we will be better" (all politicians do that and you can see the results), but much harder to be specific on how you will be better. There is nothing better than showing by examples.

WotC is a company looking for profit, like all other companies. There are many strategies to try and maximize profits, short term vs long term, there are also strategies to decide not to maximize profit but make a decent amount while aiming for something else in the vision. What has been the biggest issue with DnD in the last 10-20 years is that, from our perspective, many of us feel that WotC mostly tried to maximize profits and this affected quality. Some of us also feel that WotC lacked vision for the development and future of the game. For example, it was clear that the game needed an electronic support, yet 5e was launched without it, with no plans to have any (from what I know). Without the work of the original team behind DnD Beyond, I am not sure we would have one today. If you indeed come with a new vision, these are the things that need to change. Do not hide the fact that profit are necessary and part of the decisions, but do not let that reduce the quality level of what you publish. Present a strategy with a concrete plan for where the game is going, when the next edition will be in the works (because there will be one, there is always one). Define the consumer group you are targeting, and if you wish to include as much of us as possible, the game rules needs to be flexible. And I do not mean flexible like "the DM can change wathever he wants" since the DM will always be able to do that, even create his own game altogether, I mean flexibility built-in your rulebooks. This is more work for you, but this is how it is if you want to accomodate as much of us as possible.

Now that is enough of what I think, I said I would not do this and yet some of it got out anyway. The facts and the truth matter, the future of the game cannot be isolated from the business realities. If you really mean full transparency, step in the zone of truth and consciously fail your save. And if you want a better divination tool, try not to listen too much to the very vocal members of the community but try instead to reach out to your good and faithful clientele, as hard as it can be. I will hope that it is your plan already.

Good luck with the new role, I will remain hopeful unless facts show me another story.
Best regards,

Christian
Quebec Canada