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]

Surveys are considered a wild success if they get 5% return rate.

The loudest, most active people flood the channels. They are usually representative of a piece of the community. We saw with 4e what happens when a game is designed for this subset and the quiet majority moved to another game.

Again

This makes the mistake that

"This part of 5e doesn't work" or "This part of 5e is unbalanced"

is the same as

"I hate 5e"

Like the 5e tools. They were made as fluff and ribbons abilities.

So you can NEVER make 5e tools into a serious mechanic and still be backwards compatible.

People complain that Armor system is boring and has false choices. Well you likely have to break backwards compatibility to make leather and hide armor valid choice.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not talking about me I'm talking about the community.

You are speaking as if "the community" as if it were a united whole, which it very much is not.

The community constantly complained about aspects of 2014 but they demand that all of the games be compatible to 2014 because they bought material that is compatible to 2014.

Have you not considered the possibility that we each have a large hierarchy of desires, and the things we complain about may be LOW in that hierarchy, such that change isn't called for.

If you listen to a lot of podcasts, blogs, and videos for the last past 2 months all you hear all you hear is complaining about how they wanted more changes.

Podcasts, blogs, and videos, have flaws as sources of the temperature of the players:
1) They aren't statistically relevant. They represent themselves, not the masses.
2) They typically have a vested interest in getting clicks, and that means angry or controversial "clickbait" is a thing.

But if you go back a year all you hear all you hear is about how they want backwards compatibility.

It is not surprising that a human being, at two different times, holds or presents ideas that are in conflict. Consistency isn't always our strong suit.

 

[Minigiant]

You are speaking as if "the community" as if it were a united whole, which it very much is not.



Have you not considered the possibility that we each have a large hierarchy of desires, and the things we complain about may be LOW in that hierarchy, such that change isn't called for.



Podcasts, blogs, and videos, have flaws as sources of the temperature of the players:
1) They aren't statistically relevant. They represent themselves, not the masses.
2) They typically have a vested interest in getting clicks, and that means angry or controversial "clickbait" is a thing.



It is not surprising that a human being, at two different times, holds or presents ideas that are in conflict. Consistency isn't always our strong suit.

Well this is precisely what I keep seeing and I keep getting push back

I keep saying the current priority is Backwards Compatibility as the top. New Stuff and Fixes are below that

1. Backwards Compatibility
2. New Material
3. Fixes on Old Material

I constantly get pushed back that number two and number three don't exist because people like 5e. And that the current number one backwards compatibility will always be the number one.

 

[Minigiant]

the community is large enough that the two groups can easily be different persons

Sure.

But there are some people who are in both groups.

They just prioritize one over the other at different times.

 

[mamba]

Compatibility as the top. New Stuff and Fixes are below that

1. Backwards Compatibility
2. New Material
3. Fixes on Old Material

I constantly get pushed back that number two and number three don't exist because people like 5e.

your order seems correct to me, 2 and 3 obviously exist or there would be no ‘of Everything’ books or 2024 books

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well this is precisely what I keep seeing and I keep getting push back

I keep saying the current priority is Backwards Compatibility as the top. New Stuff and Fixes are below that

1. Backwards Compatibility
2. New Material
3. Fixes on Old Material

I constantly get pushed back that number two and number three don't exist because people like 5e. And that the current number one backwards compatibility will always be the number one.

It is not just that, all possible future version of D&D will have flaws that some particular person will not like. if it is just good enough that is fine also.
If one want a new game, then go to the new games being developed. The new game you want may not be the game I want.

 

[Minigiant]

It is not just that, all possible future version of D&D will have flaws that some particular person will not like. if I is just good enough that is fine also.
If one a new game, then go to the new games being developed. The new game you want may not be the game I want.

Sure but that's not the conversation being had.

The conversation is what is and isn't 5e.

Because if you fix a widely complained about part of 5e but keep everything else, you might result in something no longer compatible with 5e.

2024 D&D, TOV and A5e barely touched some widely negative aspects of 5e in order to remain compatible.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sure but that's not the conversation being had.

The conversation is what is and isn't 5e.

Because if you fix a widely complained about part of 5e but keep everything else, you might result in something no longer compatible with 5e.

2024 D&D, TOV and A5e barely touched some widely negative aspects of 5e in order to remain compatible.

Yes because at some point a change will split the market. A5e and ToV want to play in WotC's 5e market. If WoTC wants to split their own market that is on them. At the moment they do not, so we have backward compatible, which is really about running the Tyranny of Dragons under the new rules.
In ten years or so they may be willing to bring out a version that breaks with 2014 but not with 2024. They only way (at the moment, IMHO) we will see radical change is if some outside makes real inroads into the market.
Last night I was listening to Shawn Merwin grumbling about attribute scores being still in the game but that is a defining characteristic of D&D, the backlash is potentially terrifying.
I say again, if one wants radical change then look to third parties with nothing much to lose by taking a punt.

 

[Umbran]

I keep saying the current priority is Backwards Compatibility as the top.

So, I don't know if that's really as true as it may seem.

We talk about backwards compatibility, and there are good things about that. But it is possible that's more like a happy result of other goals.

New Stuff and Fixes are below that

1. Backwards Compatibility
2. New Material
3. Fixes on Old Material

So, the problem with that is that none of those are well-defined. If you ask a half dozen gamers what it really means for a game to be backwards compatible, you'll get seven answers. And whether a change "fixes" something depends on whether you think the thing needed fixing in the first place!

I constantly get pushed back that number two and number three don't exist because people like 5e. And that the current number one backwards compatibility will always be the number one.

Well, as far as we can tell, tens and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people do like 5e. But that suggests a goal that isn't "backwards compatibility". The goal may be more like, "Don't lose the current large player base."

If you make a soft drink, and it is currently dominating the market and more successful than it has ever been, changing the formula... would be kinda dumb, from a business perspective. A very "New Coke" kind of situation.

Backwards compatibility kind of falls out of that goal - if you don't change the formula much, it is backwards compatible as a basic consequence.

Sure, there may be some people in the market with criticism of the current offering, but overall, the sales numbers (that we don't have) and corporate strategy (that we also don't have) will and should speak more strongly than people posting on messageboards or making videos on the internet.

 

[smerwin29]

Yes because at some point a change will split the market. A5e and ToV want to play in WotC's 5e market. If WoTC wants to split their own market that is on them. At the moment they do not, so we have backward compatible, which is really about running the Tyranny of Dragons under the new rules.
In ten years or so they may be willing to bring out a version that breaks with 2014 but not with 2024. They only way (at the moment, IMHO) we will see radical change is if some outside makes real inroads into the market.
Last night I was listening to Shawn Merwin grumbling about attribute scores being still in the game but that is a defining characteristic of D&D, the backlash is potentially terrifying.
I say again, if one wants radical change then look to third parties with nothing much to lose by taking a punt.

I don't grumble. I whine! ;-)

And I completely understand why WotC doesn't get rid of alignment, ability scores, and other aspects of the game that add very little to the game play (in my opinion). If I was a marketing person worrying about upsetting long-time players who don't want to see their game drastically changed, I would definitely not be as cavalier as I am in calling for those elements to be removed. Thankfully I am not a marketing person.