Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8517939" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't know how FG works, so I can't really comment on that. It does suggest the "duplicate monsters" approach will be the one, but I dunno how FG handled the Artificer or Bladedancer changes for example. Does it have two different Bladedancers if you own SCAG and Tashas for example? If so their approach is fundamentally different.They're still specifically claiming that some sort of legal or contractual impediment is preventing them from saying which approach they'll take (which is contradictory to an earlier statement where they said they literally didn't know). I mean, given FG has said, I suspect them of being liars re: legal/contractual/WotC being the issue. And yeah, that would mean they themselves are trying to work it out, whilst blaming others (which is not exactly "honest" behaviour).As previously noted, at least since their most recent ownership change, Beyond have been a "minimal effort" company. If you have two versions, the minimum effort approach is just to create a whole bunch of new races and monsters, write (MotM) after their name, and add them to the databases for people who own MotM. Presumably on the races screen for example there'd be an MotM heading with 30 races under it, all with the same name as another race, but for (MotM).A more elegant way would be to have a "Use MotM replacements" toggle, but given how the Beyond people have explicitly refused to, for example, allow you to default or one-click-exclude books you don't own from the Monster search (you have to carefully, with a bad interface, instead click the books you do own (or have access to, either would help), from the dozens that exist - because every adventure is on the list - every single time you start using it, and if you press Back at the wrong time, it loses all your settings), I would be shocked if they were willing to build an actually-useful feature like that.</blockquote>

Verification