D&D (2024) Wizards of the Coast Backtracks on D&D Beyond and 2014 Content

457249269_918504900314811_875922287646718169_n.jpg

Wizards of the Coast posted an overnight update stating that they are not going forward with previously released plans to require those wishing to use some 2014 content on D&D Beyond to use the Homebrew function to manually enter it. Instead, all the content including spells and magic items will be included. From the update:


Last week we released a Changelog detailing how players would experience the 2024 Core Rulebooks on D&D Beyond. We heard your feedback loud and clear and thank you for speaking up.

Our excitement around the 2024 Core Rulebooks led us to view these planned updates as welcome improvements and free upgrades to existing content. We misjudged the impact of this change, and we agree that you should be free to choose your own way to play. Taking your feedback to heart, here’s what we’re going to do:

Players who only have access to the 2014 Player’s Handbook will maintain their character options, spells, and magical items in their character sheets. Players with access to the 2024 and 2014 digital Player’s Handbooks can select from both sources when creating new characters. Players will not need to rely on Homebrew to use their 2014 player options, including spells and magic items, as recommended in previous changelogs.

Please Note:

Players will continue to have access to their free, shared, and purchased items on D&D Beyond, with the ability to use previously acquired player options when creating characters and using character sheets.

We are not changing players’ current character sheets, except for relabeling and renaming. Examples include Races to Species, Inspiration to Heroic Inspiration, and Cast Spell to Magic.

We’re dedicated to making D&D Beyond the ultimate digital toolset for Dungeons & Dragons, continuously enhancing the platform to ensure you can create, customize, and play your game just as you envision it. From your first one-shot to multi-year campaigns and everything in between, we're grateful to be on this journey with you.

- The D&D Studio
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Darryl Mott

Darryl Mott

Insurance companies require it because otherwise people will do it.
Again, not entirely true. Insurance companies can demand it when it happened once, or only in situations where a label wouldn't have made any difference at all.

Now, I'm sure you're right that the first time a label was ever added to anything to prevent something that was obviously stupid, it was done under the assumption that it might prevent the stupid thing from happening again. And perhaps, there is some statistics that say that, for example, putting "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" in bigger and bigger letters on every pack of cigarettes helped to stop people from smoking, but it's not like they didn't know that it caused cancer before, right?

Getting back to the topic - it's not like people who buy content on DDB actually think that they own that content in perpetuity. That's not the actual, real problem. They'll buy it in spite of knowing and they'll complain if it gets taken away anyhow. It doesn't even take a stupid person to do this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You could argue optics here.

I think the reason this argument works, is that legally creative commons removes most, if not all, incentive for WotC to do it in regards to SRD 5.1. It would essentially be terrible press just to force other publishers to do paper work.
So you think Paizo issued a revision to PF2e so shortly after initial release just to look good to their customer base?
 

Really?? So was this phrasing also, IYO, stated as fact? If not what's the difference and if so...why didn't you call it out?

Are you implying Wizards has not, and does not continue to, make mistakes and/or attempt to screw people over? Or that people do not attempt to downplay it? :LOL:

My statement wasnt called out, because its objectively, and factually, correct.
 

If a company keeps making decisions that it has to rollback, that may make the executives smarter than the ones who simply think they know best no matter what (I can think of examples), but it doesn’t mean that their overall intent is what you want as a consumer of their product. You don’t have to give them a cookie for rolling back a bad decision. These are not dogs looking for belly rubs.
 


If you're right, why did many publishers, including Paizo, decide to re-work their entire system to remove any connection to the OGL? Surely they wouldn't bother if WotC admitted they had no ability to revoke it, right?
WotC had no ability to revoke the OGL. They tried it anyway, and their 3PP chose to distance themselves. I'm not in their heads, and there's a LOT of reasons why they might have made that decision. Only one of those reasons (admittedly a big one) is fear of it happening again, but it doesn't have to be a reasonable fear for it to be a chosen direction.
 


If you're right, why did many publishers, including Paizo, decide to re-work their entire system to remove any connection to the OGL? Surely they wouldn't bother if WotC admitted they had no ability to revoke it, right?
Because it allowed them to resell their corebooks with little to no updating or revising....

EDIT: In reference to Paizo...
 

So you think Paizo issued a revision to PF2e so shortly after initial release just to look good to their customer base?

Oh no. Paizo 100% did it to cash in on goodwill. That was a financial decision.

The creative commons release makes any argument for WotC to try the OGL again very difficult to make. These other publishers know that. So you should judge their actions in that context. Some did it for optics.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top