D&D (2024) How D&D Beyond Will Handle Access To 2014 Rules

D&D Beyond has announced how the transition to the new 2024 edition will work on the platform, and how legacy access to the 2014 version of D&D will be implemented.

• You will still be able to access the 2014 Basic Rules and core rulebooks.
• You will still be able to make characters using the 2014 Player's Handbook.
• Existing home-brew content will not be impacted.
• These 2014 rules will be accessible and will be marked with a 'legacy' badge: classes, subclasses, species, backgrounds, feats, monsters.
• Tooltips will reflect the 2024 rules.
• Monster stat blocks will be updated to 2024.
• There will be terminology changes (Heroic Inspiration, Species, etc.)

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

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...

www.enworld.org

 

[Minigiant]

5e is a frame of a ruleset.
D&D 5e is the official example of the creator and main marketer of the 5e ruleset.
Level Up and YOV are other 5e games.

When WOTC shifts to 6e and if they don't misread the community, they will take a ton of 5e's audience and most of it's marketing.

 

[mamba]

If DnD is not a ruleset plus some examples, what am I playing at my table?

no idea, not every ruleset with examples is WotC's D&D... I am sure you can tell the difference between what is in the SRD and what is in PHB + DMG + MM. One of the two is D&D, the other is not. Just like the SRD is the standardized ruleset that everyone can use and D&D is more than that

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I could sort of see that, but then we get into weird differences.

For example, sure, a Unity game is a game made on the Unity engine. But I can't expect to take Subway Surfers mechanics and use them alongside Dog Simulator 3D. Those are different games.

But, if my players were fine with some discrepancies... I could have a 2024 Fighter using the Grimhollow fighter subclass playing at the same table a Witch Paladin from Pointy Hats Hexcraft book, and a Level Up Adept using the 2014 base rules all at the same table.

It is a framework... and the core of that framework are the DnD rules. None of those creators, to my knowledge, have fundamentally messed with the 5e design to the point where I can't include them in a game of "DnD". Because they are all the same "game". WoTC's DnD 5e, just with extra pieces and extra rules. And I don't see a categorization difference between my homebrewed Monk from 2020 and Level Up Adept, except one was sold and commercially successful. And modding and homebrewing a game has never altered that game to the point that the original creators still don't own that game.

The argument is, at it's core, one of semantics. You can define 5e as you wish, really. I used Unity because I think of the 5e SRD as an engine. Some use it as is, some build upon it. So I consider any game that uses it as 5e. Because, they are, by and large, interchangeable.

Sorry, I don’t understand the question.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand your comment to mean that it's common knowledge that it's beneficial for third party publishers to "piggy back" on 5e, by making compatible products. And that this is part of the reason why A5e is more popular than some others.

My question was just the extent of that benefit, in your estimation? Is it as large as the size of player base leads us to believe?

I hope that is more clear. Thanks for your time

 

[SlyFlourish]

I'm all caught up in the thread for the moment!

I have a few points I'd like to throw at the wall.

First, this incredible series of interviews with former creators of D&D for almost every edition is mind blowing and it gives inside views into a lot of the topics being discussed here. It's hosted by Peter Atkison, the former CEO of WOTC before Hasbro bought it. The interviews includes designers from 2nd edition to 5th edition talking about what happened and how their versions of D&D got made. It's totally fascinating. Both the 4th edition one and the 5th edition one have so many parallels and insights into what's happening at WOTC/Hasbro now.

Regarding this incredible thread, I see a couple of points shooting past each other in the thread and I have some general observations.

First, just because 5e came from D&D 5th edition to begin with doesn't mean it's the same thing now. Things can change. I argue 5e changed. 5e used to be the D&D 2014 rules and the 5.1 SRD and a bunch of D&D 5e compatible products. Now that has expanded. Now 5e means something different. Now 5e is an open platform for many different RPGs – independent core RPGs – generally compatible with one another including D&D 2014, D&D 2024, A5e, and Tales of the Valiant. These 5e variants operate independently from D&D 2014 and D&D 2024.

That's now I see it. And I choose to see that because I don't like the idea of any one company dictating my happiness with 5e and RPGs. I have lots of options. It doesn't matter to me which is the most popular. I own the books to all of these systems. I have one group very much enjoying Level Up Advanced 5e. I have another excited for Tales of the Valiant. I have a third still playing D&D 2014. None of us care what the market share for D&D 2014 or D&D 2024 is (ok, I care, but it doesn't matter for our own games).

You can decide to throw aside the idea of an independent 5e and demand that 5e == D&D but you're making that choice. You're choosing to tie the whole of 5e to just one company and whatever directions it takes with it. The rest of us aren't. I'm not – neither as a GM or as a publisher. I'll certainly be watching how the wind blows over the next year but I'm already writing products designed for 5e – all the 5es.

I hear some people tie all of 5e to D&D because they don't like D&D or WOTC or Hasbro and are fine throwing all of 5e out My guess is they're not fans of 5e anyway.

I hear others tying all of 5e to D&D because, I guess, they're huge fans of D&D, WOTC, and Hasbro regardless of how the company treated the brand and its customers in the past. They've tied their gaming identity to the whims of a single corporation. They have a playlist of layered defenses for Hasbro every time the company steps on a rake. That's fine, but you'll get what you get. You may love Hasbro but Hasbro doesn't love you back.

For me? I love 5e as an independent open platform on which several systems and thousands of awesome supplements exist. I love the D&D brand and have since I was a teenager many decades ago. I love many of the products published by WOTC. I don't trust Hasbro because we shouldn't trust big publicly traded companies, because of its previous behavior, and because of the clear indication that the suits want to turn D&D into a continuous subscription revenue stream. I definitely respect the designers, developers, editors, and art directors working on D&D. I bet they don't trust Hasbro either.

None of these opinions are in opposition for me. They all exist in superposition. I can love 5e. I can love D&D. I can respect the creative staff at WOTC. I can not trust Hasbro.

I can love the RPG hobby.

And I do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

those will exist, that was never in doubt, the question is whether those that do not switch to 6e stick with 5e or not, and if not, whether they move over to something compatible and supported or not, which is exactly what happened with 3e/PF1 vs 4e


DW is not 5e compatible and 5e is still the current edition.

Right, 5e is the current edition, and it is getting an update with the 2024 rules. Will Tales of the Valiant still be what people are looking for then? You say it will still be supported, but what will that support look like going forward?

I think you are wrong in comparing some future 6e change to the change of 3.5 to 4e, because those were some rather unique circumstances, and the circumstances now are not really like those then.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know I was using a different term, that is why I said I would not be using the car… also, I never said WotC is not owning D&D, I said for all intents and purposes that is irrelevant for the part in the SRD

Okay, but I'm not saying it is relevant to the legal existence of the SRD. I'm saying that when people say "my game is 5e compatible" that they are saying "My game is an add-on or modification to Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition" not that you can somehow have 5e and that be completely different and separate from DnD as it currently stands.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

None of these opinions are in opposition for me. They all exist in superposition. I can love 5e. I can love D&D. I can respect the creative staff at WOTC. I can not trust Hasbro.

The real question, in my mind, is where you draw the line on what is 5e and what is not. Because just drawing it at using the SRD to any extent is a pretty big umbrella. But limiting it to just WotC seems overly simple.

Is Shadowdark "5e?" I assume not because it doesn't use the SRD.

Is ToV "5e?" I assume it is because it does?

But is a game that uses the SRD but is not compatible with WotC's 5e also 5e? Does the line fall at compatibility or SRD usage?

 

[SlyFlourish]

The real question, in my mind, is where you draw the line on what is 5e and what is not. Because just drawing it at using the SRD to any extent is a pretty big umbrella. But limiting it to just WotC seems overly simple.

Is Shadowdark "5e?" I assume not because it doesn't use the SRD.

Is ToV "5e?" I assume it is because it does?

But is a game that uses the SRD but is not compatible with WotC's 5e also 5e? Does the line fall at compatibility or SRD usage?

Shadowdark actually uses the 5.1 SRD but I don't consider it "5e" because its generally not compatible. It doesn't have subclasses and the same monsters.

For me, 5e compatibility means I can grab a monster from one book and run it in another. I've used TOV Monster Vault monsters in my A5e game. I've used A5e treasures in my D&D 2014 game. I'm betting I can use my Forge of Foes quick-build monsters in a D&D 2024 game. There's a general loose compatibility between the various 5e systems and supplements. It's not perfect. Sometimes its just a mess. But 2014 D&D was barely compatible with itself. Remember when backgrounds in Spelljammer had feats but none of the others did? There's such a stark difference between vanilla D&D 2014 characters and D&D 2014 + Tashas + Xanathars. So yeah, I don't think I have trouble seeing a 5e variant system or 5e supplements working side by side. I've been doing it for the past 10 years.

 

[mamba]

Right, 5e is the current edition, and it is getting an update with the 2024 rules. Will Tales of the Valiant still be what people are looking for then? You say it will still be supported, but what will that support look like going forward?

again, the scenario is a hypothetical 6e from WotC, there will be people staying with 5e at that point, and many of those will look for a product that is still supported, if that exists. Happened with 3e/PF1 vs 4e, I see no reason why it would be any different for 5e vs 6e.

I think you are wrong in comparing some future 6e change to the change of 3.5 to 4e, because those were some rather unique circumstances, and the circumstances now are not really like those then.

nothing unique about them, it took a 4e that was not well liked and a product that was largely compatible with 3e thanks to its SRD. 5e has such compatible products already, all that is missing is a 6e dud

 

[Chaosmancer]

You failed. And why not try kind, rather than insulting? What does ‘blunt/insulting’ gsin you?

I wasn't going for insulting. I was going for blunt. And what that gains me is cutting through the fluff to the heart of the matter. I could be "kind" but I don't see how I'm being cruel. I'm just stating things as I see them.

They are not ‘honebrew’ any more than WotC’s work is honebrew. It is a professionally produced game.

Again, what’s with the random insulting language? What are you hoping to gain here? The only possible outcome of your “blunt” (insulting) language is a negative one. Insulting people’s work is not a great way to conduct oneself.

I never considered my words to imply that the game was not professionally made. Perhaps we need a different term then. But, let me ask you this, what is the difference between professionally made paintings and amateur paintings? Both are still paintings, are they not? Technical skill could be seen as a difference... but then again, I've seen some people paint for hobbies who are just as good if not better than some professional artists. So what is the difference?

By homebrew, I mean you went through the same process that I did. You took a class. You kept what you liked. You got rid of or changed what you did not like. Your fighter still goes to level 20, it still uses proficiency, it still has the same armor and weapon proficiencies, two proficient saving throws, two proficient skills which look like an identical list of skills. You have some new items, but also some items I'm familiar with. You have fighting styles, some of which are identical and some which are new. Your fighter gets extra attack at levels 5 and 11, indomitable at 9, though you added to it...

Yours is different than mine, and both of ours is different than Laser Llamas, and all three are different from Kibblestasty's fighter... but all are still predicated on the DnD 5e fighter, just altered with what we think would make it better. We all did the same, fundamental action. We took the existing rules and altered them.

Sure. So?

So your product is still a modification for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition is still the core of your product, which is why you assure people that it is the same game. You can't have 5e separate from that, because 5e stands for "Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition" and it doesn't make sense to claim you have 5e DnD without 5e DnD in it.