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]

Yeah, well, I am not sure this discussion is meaningful if it is only in the abstract.

This thread is ultimately about how D&D beyond handles access to old rules - it is NOT about how they failed to make changes that you want to see

Again

This has nothing to do with my wants.

What I am saying is

The 5e customer base will over time ask for product that will be harder and hard to remain backwards compatible.

And thus DNDB will have a harder and harder time granting access to these incompatible wants

Until it either can't or 6e happens.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes, and if you ask seven gamers what is unpopular, you'll get eight different answers. Everyone on the internet thinks they know what the fans want.

Fans seem to turn on or off of something with the throw of a switch. Even when they're buzzing, they oscillate back and forth between sides. I'll admit, some fans are cool, but other just seem to blow hot air. Anyways, that's my spin on things.

(Sorry)

 

[Umbran]

(Sorry)

No. You apologize. You aren't sorry.

 

[SkidAce]

... So they rather hold on to the flawed benchmarks of 2014 and houserule it rather than let skilled designers evolve it.

I have ever and always houseruled every edition, and if the skilled designer fixes something in a way we like, we adopt it. If the skilled designer messes up, we ignore it. Like racial level limts, threw that out first day. In fact, I think the skilled designers quite often take the popular houserules we came up with and incorporate them into the next editions. (I mean we changed AC to be ascending and did a math thing substitute for THACO a long time ago)

I should make that meme where a guy is looking at earth and the guy behind him says "it always has been"

i.e. "D&D is a toolkit, you're suppossed to pick and chose" "Always has been".


The fact that the 2nd guy is pointing a gun as the 1st guy might not fit my meme though....lol.

 

[Belen]

Meh.

Feels like a lot of argument over a name.

Especially for something that will last only 5 more years.

5e and anything claiming to be 5e is running on sunken cost fallacy. The investment of time learning it and money buying for it is mostly what's keeping all of the game together.


Hot Take: The demand to be backwards compatible, compatible with 3pp, and the unwillingness to feed WOTC is the only things keeping 5e afloat. 5e fans know what is wrong with 5e but are unwilling to lose the investment. So they rather hold on to the flawed benchmarks of 2014 and houserule it rather than let skilled designers evolve it.

The designers have a mixed track record and you do not need a lot of training to do it well. You can see a lot of people become professional designers without formal training.

I have been designing content for a long time too.

If they evolve it in a way that I do not enjoy, then I will not move with it. 4e taught me that lesson.

 

[Minigiant]

Skilled designers?

Maybe….

They have a mixed track record and you do not need a lot of training to do it well. You can see a lot of people become professional designers without formal training.

I have been designing content for a long time too.

If they evolve it in a way that I do not enjoy, then I will not move with it. 4e taught me that lesson.

You see this is what I'm talking about about.

Focus on the personal rather that the meat of the statement.

The skilled designers could be you.
The argument is that there are vocal and influential part of the community who hold tight visegrips to old product and another vocal and influential part of the community who complains about game flaws. Then there is ANOTHER group who prioritize new product or conversion of old products. And some fans are parts of multiple factions

So how could you blame WOTC for moving via the mixed signals we give?

 

[Umbran]

Skilled designers?

Maybe….

They have a mixed track record and you do not need a lot of training to do it well.

Mod Note:
Insults and mudslinging do not and will not improve this discussion, are apt to get you removed from it, and earn you a warning point as well.

So maybe, you know, don't?

 

[Belen]

The argument is that there are vocal and influential part of the community who hold tight visegrips to old product

This is common and I agree; however, those folks tend to be people with stable groups that do not want change. I have also noticed that my own appetite for new content, at least in TV and video games, has grown less as I age and I spend more time watching older content.

Of course, that may be because newer content is poor.

Another vocal and influential part of the community who complains about game flaws.

I think this group is diverse but the loudest voices tend to be those who want a different game entirely and want to argue that the game should suit their specific playstyle. Maybe because they cannot find enough people to for their preferred style because D&D is so huge.

I like basic, 1e, 2e, 3e (not 3.5), and 5e because the game can accommodate so many different player and campaign styles. 4e rules locked players into a gamist approach and I detested it. I was vocal about it, at first, then I moved on and eventually quit the hobby for a while after my kids were born.

Then there is ANOTHER group who prioritize new product or conversion of old products. And some fans are parts of multiple factions

So how could you blame WOTC for moving via the mixed signals we give?

I do not blame WOTC, per se, however, they could have achieved the same effect by creating optional sub-systems that were compatible with 5e core.

Hell, I would not have complained, at all, if they added weapon masteries as an optional track. For example, the weapon mastery could be replaced by a permanent +1 to hit and damage or a bonus feat.

That would have provided options for tables and that could have revised the core books to add some of these optional subsystems to enhance styles of play.

It may fragment games but they fragmented anyway because people are now choosing which edition to stick with.

At least with the optional subsystems, they could evaluate to see if most people like one versus another and when 6e arrived, if ever, then move to a new standard.

 

[Minigiant]

do not blame WOTC, per se, however, they could have achieved the same effect by creating optional sub-systems that were compatible with 5e core.

Hell, I would not have complained, at all, if they added weapon masteries as an optional track. For example, the weapon mastery could be replaced by a permanent +1 to hit and damage or a bonus feat.

That would have provided options for tables and that could have revised the core books to add some of these optional subsystems to enhance styles of play.

It may fragment games but they fragmented anyway because people are now choosing which edition to stick with.

At least with the optional subsystems, they could evaluate to see if most people like one versus another and when 6e arrived, if ever, then move to a new standard.

Well their playtest survey told them to remove the simple +1 option.

Not be ause it was simple but because it negated Versatile.

But I'm sure only 0.001% of responders pill the reasoning why they down voted the simple option.

 

[OB1]

Running my first post 24 release session tonight in a QFtIS campaign using DDB. Have 2 players updating to 2024 characters and one sticking with 2014 for now. Will be using 2024 Unarmed Strike rules and the new Hide rules as well. Will report back on how everyone felt the conversion of their characters went as well as how the mix of 14 and 24 worked in DDB.