D&D Beyond admits that blocking Drops sharing "was not the right decision," will release yearly bundles of Drops content for sale for non-subscribers

D&D Beyond is addressing complaints about its new Drops programs. Today, D&D Beyond made a new post providing some updates about its D&D Beyond Drops program, which releases weekly content exclusive to subscribers. The updates were intended to address major complaints about the new program, namely that subscribers could not share the content with their campaigns and that non-subscribers had no way to purchase Drops content outside of a subscription. "It’s become clear from your feedback that there were two main things we got wrong with D&D Beyond Drops: content sharing and non-subscriber access," the post reads.

In the post, D&D Beyond admitted that not allowing Drops content to be shared via campaigns "was not the right decision." Although no immediate solution was announced, D&D Beyond stated that they expected to have more information about content sharing in the coming weeks. Additionally, D&D Beyond also announced that they would be releasing Drops content on their marketplace for sale via a yearly bundle, with the first bundle set to be released next May. This content will be available to all D&D Beyond users, regardless of their subscription status.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So they are still not allowing people to share, but are now letting people buy the stuff instead if they don't want a subscription? Seems like nothing was really resolved then.

Ah yes, "significant but not total" is totally the same as "nothing at all".

But if an issue is that people don't want to buy it in the first place then that's not really resolving it. I'll believe that changes are coming when I see it.

will you?

 

[Selas]

They said changes to content sharing are coming, and that they will be offering the Drops in a collection at least once a year for sale.

It's a complete 180 based on consumer feedback, now hopefully they also print the collected sets too.

The WotC lead for drops already mentioned in an earlier post some of these may make it to printed books, depending on development timelines. Realistically, only a few may make it to print

 

[Blue]

It was a feature that was free for subscribers. On top. To give a bit more reasons for players to subscribe. They did not take anything away...

They have a higher tier where you share everything you have with your group. They partially took that ability away from that tier. They couldn't share Drops. So the concept is that instead of everyone getting the lower tier subscription one person gets the higher one which they had been pushing now didn't work consistently.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They have a higher tier where you share everything you have with your group. They partially took that ability away from that tier. They couldn't share Drops. So the concept is that instead of everyone getting the lower tier subscription one person gets the higher one which they had been pushing now didn't work consistently.

No. They did not take anything away. That is a weird way of looking at that.

On top, you vould manually add all those drops to a character in your campaign.

 

[SothFan]

I was playing D&D in the 1980. I know what formats Dragon came in. And regardless of who made the point originally, it's still a hair splitting argument.

Only in so much if you wish to dismiss the arguement. I think digital versus physical came to head in a "recent" Ebay controversy. Is snail mail better than e-mail? Or vices verses? The person thought they were buying a Microsoft console that should have come in the mail. I think after winning, they were sent a photo in e-mail.

Not to get into the bidding or listing, the point is that you can do more with a physical item you own (Dragon), granted and upheld by the law; while digital things you rent (DNDBeyond), offers the consumer little to no protections under the law.

This is the very reason companies wish to translate to LaaS for the control of the product, as well they can ban you multiple times, but let you make a new account to rebuy the things all over again.

So it is much more than splitting hairs unless you are a CS:GO skin seller, or using Second Life where you can sell your digital assets for real money like a physical book; but most EULA/TnCs forbid this to prevent a secondary market that things like MtG thrive on, and without MtG would die quickly as a money printing press for the same company.

 

[Imaro]

They have a higher tier where you share everything you have with your group. They partially took that ability away from that tier. They couldn't share Drops. So the concept is that instead of everyone getting the lower tier subscription one person gets the higher one which they had been pushing now didn't work consistently.

A higher tier where you can share any books you purchased with your group... Drops are not purchased books. They didnt take anything away, they added a new type of digital resource for subscribers that would be made even more functional by having an automated ability to be shared... though to be fair sharing the player options manually takes very little work.

This is a prime example of the type of hyperbolic complaint that was mentioned earlier.

 

[Desdichado]

Only in so much if you wish to dismiss the arguement.

Yes, of course. Because it's a trivial distinction that only matters in strange edge cases that don't apply to normal people's use of the product. As your own convoluted example demonstrates.

 

[EthanSental]

However they decide to handle it, it’s only an issue online as our group doesn’t even talk about this cause most aren’t online in D&D forums and won’t even know. I’ll just print them out and see if anyone uses the various playing facing options. When they ask where is this from, I’ll let them know it was drops on dndbeyond and I can’t share them via the site and see how the discussion goes. I’ll edit this with their feedback/concerns or non-concerns.

 

[Distracted DM]

However they decide to handle it, it’s only an issue online as our group doesn’t even talk about this cause most aren’t online in D&D forums and won’t even know. I’ll just print them out and see if anyone uses the various playing facing options. When they ask where is this from, I’ll let them know it was drops on dndbeyond and I can’t share them via the site and see how the discussion goes. I’ll edit this with their feedback/concerns or non-concerns.

It's your own game ofc, but the balance on the content is ... uneven. If you allow everything then go for it, but if you restrict some content due to poor design etc, give it a lookover first.

Post in thread 'Dungeons & Dragons brings back three classic 1st edition spells via new D&D Beyond Drops feature'

May 9, 2026

I think the are deliberately not very good, to try and dodge "pay to win" accusations, at least at this point. What are the feats like?

This spell is in for 1st edition nostalgia purposes, which was itself something of a joke, being based on an incident in the Old Testament (Exodus). Personally, I would have made it more like Summon Beast, turning a staff into a single medium snake based on the giant venomous snake, with scaling stats, or a pile of sticks into a single medium swarm of snakes, again with scaling stats.

The feats are interesting- though I'm not an expert on 5.5e...

• Distracted DM

• 

 

[Blue]

No. They did not take anything away. That is a weird way of looking at that.

Okay, let's take a look at the more expensive Master Tier. This is from their subscriptions page.

Do you see the very first bullet point?

There is literally no honest way to look at that and say "if we take away sharing all you content with friends", we aren't taking anything away.

It's not "weird", it's the very first point that DnDBeyond makes to sell you the Master tier as opposed to the cheaper Hero tier.

Sorry, the facts are quite clear.