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

 

[mamba]

Right, you are the one cedeing all control over the name "DnD"

I am acknowledging that I have no control over the name, not sure what there is to cede

Now, sure, you could go forth claiming that the only things that count as DnD are the things that are officially made by WotC...

they are the only things that can have that name

but then none of us have ever played a single game of Dungeons and Dragons.

technically you might not have, but chances are you stayed pretty close to it.

This is a legal argument though, I am sure you consider what you are playing to be D&D, where that falls flat is if you want to either publish your complete ruleset or your changes under the name D&D.

what about our own lore and stories, is that an exception? Is any game that takes place in a setting not published by WoTC not DnD?

not part of the ruleset, so not relevant. Yes, you can play D&D in a homebrew setting, no one ever claimed otherwise. You go off on all these wild tangents…

But you aren't getting a new foundation, because you claim the foundation is the Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition System Reference Document is the foundation of those books. That means those books don't create a new foundation.

I said the D&D core books are the foundation of D&D, repeatedly. So A5e and ToV are a separate foundation as they have their own core books.

They are compatible because they are compatible with the SRD.

If the goal is profit and selling a product, then sure the SRD is a useful tool. But people were making new monsters before that SRD was created. I myself was creating a new monster statblock for DnD 5e before DnD Next was finished being playtested. No SRD required.

if the goal is publishing… then the SRD is important, regardless of whether you charge any money or not. Profit has nothing to do with it.

For homebrew you use at your table only it does not matter

All the SRD did was say "you are free to copy these parts of DnD 5th edition to use in the products you are selling"

publishing…

But people keep putting forth this idea that now that the SRD exists and all these other alternative rule sets exist, 5e doesn't refer to the system created for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition.

who is putting that forth? We are saying 5e now encompasses more than just D&D 5e, not that it does not include D&D 5e

 

[Minigiant]

Funny that you say the rules I've seen, which I never stated directly, don't address the main complaint of Armor in DnD 5e

What do you think the main complaint about the 5e armor system is?

 

[Chaosmancer]

What do you think the main complaint about the 5e armor system is?

It doesn't matter. I wouldn't judge that a ruleset didn't address it without knowing what that rule set DID. And before you say "Tales of the Valiant and Level Up don't address it" I never said those were the rules I was talking about. Hence my point about your assumption.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am acknowledging that I have no control over the name, not sure what there is to cede

I would suppose it is control and power, since that is what I keep getting accused of cedeing to WoTC for saying that the 5e SRD is directly refencing Dungeons and Dragons, and products built off of it are built off of Dungeons and Dragons.

they are the only things that can have that name

Depends on what you mean by that.

technically you might not have, but chances are you stayed pretty close to it.

This is a legal argument though, I am sure you consider what you are playing to be D&D, where that falls flat is if you want to either publish your complete ruleset or your changes under the name D&D.

What do you mean by Publish? Because, I have created many posts in written form laying out changes. I haven't had a chance to utilize the Combat Arts system I came up with here: D&D (2024) - Chaosmancer Martial Brews but... is it not published in a manner of speaking? It is out there, in text form, for people to utilize and riff off of.

If I wrote changes to the system on a blog, or as part of rule changes for a story on a fanfiction website (which I have) is that considered "published"? What if my systems for that story (as an example, defeating an enemy gives you points of proficiency equal to their CR to add to your skills, attacks, ect. Being defeated gives you half with a minimum) was adopted by a second person making a different story, and credited to me? Are these things not "published" just because I am not selling them on a major website?

not part of the ruleset, so not relevant. Yes, you can play D&D in a homebrew setting, no one ever claimed otherwise. You go off on all these wild tangents…

I go off on these tangents for a purpose. One of the major elements of WoTC books that are not included in the SRD are the lore and story elements. So, every time someone has claimed that "only a subset" of the DnD 5e rules are present in the SRD... in large part the part that was excluded doesn't apply to your argument. Because they are not part of the ruleset. But, if we can change those and it still be DnD... why can't we change other parts and it still be DnD?

I said the D&D core books are the foundation of D&D, repeatedly. So A5e and ToV are a separate foundation as they have their own core books.

They are compatible because they are compatible with the SRD.

So if you wanted to state that Level Up and Tales of the Valiant are 5e compatible, but not 5e itself, then I would agree. However, the claim which started this debate was that 5e is separate from Level Up, Tales of the Valiant, AND Dungeons and Dragons. Which caused the initial disagreement.

if the goal is publishing… then the SRD is important, regardless of whether you charge any money or not. Profit has nothing to do with it.

For homebrew you use at your table only it does not matter

So, depending on how you define publishing, the SRD may or may not matter. But for the goal of making rules to use with the DnD system, or crafting a system of rules that are not quite DnD but something similar... the SRD was never necessary. IT all depends on your goals and perspectives how this all shakes out.

who is putting that forth? We are saying 5e now encompasses more than just D&D 5e, not that it does not include D&D 5e

"We are saying [Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition] now encompasses more than just [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition], not that it does not include [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition]."

This was either always true (DnD the game encompassing more than just what WotC published for it) or is nonsensical.

 

[Minigiant]

It doesn't matter. I wouldn't judge that a ruleset didn't address it without knowing what that rule set DID. And before you say "Tales of the Valiant and Level Up don't address it" I never said those were the rules I was talking about. Hence my point about your assumption.

It does matter to my argument.

Publishers striving to make money of 5e could not address major complaints about 5e because currently people were pushing for backwards compatibility.

There was no way currently for wizards to provide a product that would grant people access to what they wanted because the majority of the 5e community either want something that would make Wizards no money or want something that would not be backwards compatible

There was no winning for WOTC, KP, or any other publishers for a new half edition.

 

[gban007]

"We are saying [Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition] now encompasses more than just [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition], not that it does not include [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition]."

This was either always true (DnD the game encompassing more than just what WotC published for it) or is nonsensical.

It is your adherence to the view that 5e means D&D 5e that leads to that nonsensical declaration.

If view 5e as not D&D 5e, then it does make sense. I guess it comes down to whether considering D&D 5e a brand, or an overall system.

I'm more aligned with Mamba, seeing it as a brand as others (such as ToV and Level Up) can't describe their systems as D&D, and so I sort of see it in a Venn diagram:

Initially was jsut one circle, D&5e. Part of that circle then became the SRD. Lots of other circles then emerged, having the SRD within them but no other part of D&D 5e (whereas others on DMs guild may have included more) - and has now got to the point they ahve split off their own SRDs within their own circles, creating more brances with some circles not touching the D&D5e SRD at all.

Then it becomes a question of how do you differentiate the different parts, while also describing the entire as one thing.

So if consider D&D as a brand, then D&D circle is D&D 5e, the whole system is 5e, and the other offshoots may have own names, such as Level Up, ToV etc.

2024 has created a new lot of D&D 5e as such, with a reasonable overlap with the original.

Otherwise how do you label it? Can label it all as D&D, but that feels inaccurate as can't legally call a lot of the products D&D, they can only reference 5e, calling it all D&D 5e compatible feels weird, as means D&D is D&D compatable, somewhat redundant.

Can label all non D&D as D&D compatible, but how do you then group the two together? that is where I'd label them all as 5e, but intentionally not labelling them all as D&D 5e.

 

[mamba]

What do you mean by Publish?

make available to the public in some form (digital download / print) as a product, for free or for a price

Because, I have created many posts in written form laying out changes.

Did you call them official D&D rules? Even if you did and nothing happened, that is not the criteria that decides whether something is legal.

I go off on these tangents for a purpose.

to confuse the issue? This is not the first time you did, just the first time I am mentioning it

One of the major elements of WoTC books that are not included in the SRD are the lore and story elements. So, every time someone has claimed that "only a subset" of the DnD 5e rules are present in the SRD...

lore and story are not rules, the subset refers to only having an example feat and one example subclass per class, etc.

But, if we can change those and it still be DnD... why can't we change other parts and it still be DnD?

because the setting is not part of the ruleset and D&D was always setting agnostic. Changing the rules however means it no longer is D&D, but probably something close enough that you calling it D&D is fine, you publishing it under that name is not however. As I said, this is a legal argument.

So if you wanted to state that Level Up and Tales of the Valiant are 5e compatible, but not 5e itself, then I would agree. However, the claim which started this debate was that 5e is separate from Level Up, Tales of the Valiant, AND Dungeons and Dragons. Which caused the initial disagreement.

yea, 5e is separate from all of them and they are all compatible with it, including D&D 5e.

So, depending on how you define publishing, the SRD may or may not matter. But for the goal of making rules to use with the DnD system, or crafting a system of rules that are not quite DnD but something similar... the SRD was never necessary. IT all depends on your goals and perspectives how this all shakes out.

what you do at your table is only of interest to your table, once you go beyond that, you will get in trouble if you distribute something under the name D&D, assuming WotC notices it

"We are saying [Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition] now encompasses more than just [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition], not that it does not include [Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition]."

that is not what I said, there seems to be no point in continuing this if you gloss over the distinctions I made and misrepresent what I wrote. You can disagree with my point, but not misrepresent it, and you continue to do the latter

 

[Chaosmancer]

It does matter to my argument.

Publishers striving to make money of 5e could not address major complaints about 5e because currently people were pushing for backwards compatibility.

There was no way currently for wizards to provide a product that would grant people access to what they wanted because the majority of the 5e community either want something that would make Wizards no money or want something that would not be backwards compatible

There was no winning for WOTC, KP, or any other publishers for a new half edition.

What are you even talking about? You can change armor to give DR and modify the to-hit of the armor while STILL being backwards compatible, because the armor rules didn't change so it just needs to be compatible.

The only way your "argument" makes sense is if you insist that "backwards compatible" means "completely identical with no changes" and that is not what those words mean.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is your adherence to the view that 5e means D&D 5e that leads to that nonsensical declaration.

If view 5e as not D&D 5e, then it does make sense. I guess it comes down to whether considering D&D 5e a brand, or an overall system.

I'm more aligned with Mamba, seeing it as a brand as others (such as ToV and Level Up) can't describe their systems as D&D, and so I sort of see it in a Venn diagram:

Initially was jsut one circle, D&5e. Part of that circle then became the SRD. Lots of other circles then emerged, having the SRD within them but no other part of D&D 5e (whereas others on DMs guild may have included more) - and has now got to the point they ahve split off their own SRDs within their own circles, creating more brances with some circles not touching the D&D5e SRD at all.

Then it becomes a question of how do you differentiate the different parts, while also describing the entire as one thing.

So if consider D&D as a brand, then D&D circle is D&D 5e, the whole system is 5e, and the other offshoots may have own names, such as Level Up, ToV etc.

Well, I think an initial disagreement here is that the brand of DnD is seperate from the game of Dungeons and Dragons (using different names to make it flow better). Because if it isn't, then I can "play DnD" by pulling up Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms, which is a DnD branded game. But I don't think anyone hear would agree that an idle mobile clicker is the same game as what we play at the table.

So, I think inherently the Brand and the TTRPG must be separate entities by pure virtue of category differences. The same way that the Brand of Lord of the Rings involves far, far more than the books which make up what people normally think of as "The Lord of the Rings"

I also think that a Venn Diagram is a bit too simplistic to convey the complexity of the relationship. My gut is to treat it more similarly to a Ring Mobile. This isn't a perfect image for what is in my head, but it should help a little bit with context

Imagine if instead of the knot of string at the top, there was a larger circle encompassing the "galaxy" in the above image. The large, original ring would be the 2014 TTRPG DnD 5e. The "galaxy" would be the SRD, and hanging from that are the various other products. They are all still connected, to each other, secured on the same foundation, regardless of any "overlapping". And you could connect or hang new pieces from anywhere you feel like.

2024 has created a new lot of D&D 5e as such, with a reasonable overlap with the original.

Otherwise how do you label it? Can label it all as D&D, but that feels inaccurate as can't legally call a lot of the products D&D, they can only reference 5e, calling it all D&D 5e compatible feels weird, as means D&D is D&D compatable, somewhat redundant.

Can label all non D&D as D&D compatible, but how do you then group the two together? that is where I'd label them all as 5e, but intentionally not labelling them all as D&D 5e.

You say it feels weird, but that is because you are including the origin within the set. Tales of the Valiant and Level up are DnD 5e compatible. That was how they were marketed, that is their origin. DnD isn't that, because it is the original game that led to the others.

I legitimately do not see an issue with saying that. It doesn't make those games lesser in anyway, they are off-shoots from a main branch. We don't need to make the branch something else so we can define DnD as just another off-shoot of the same branch, which was DnD 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

What are you even talking about? You can change armor to give DR and modify the to-hit of the armor while STILL being backwards compatible, because the armor rules didn't change so it just needs to be compatible.

The only way your "argument" makes sense is if you insist that "backwards compatible" means "completely identical with no changes" and that is not what those words mean.

Let me explain.

Chain Mail is heavy armor that provides 16 AC.

If your dwarf fighter PC, elf noble NPC, and 2014 hobgoblin monster wears chain mail and dons a shield they all have 18 AC.

You change Chain mail to be 13 AC and DR 6.

Your dwarf fighter has 13 AC and DR 6.
But the hobgoblin from the 2014 MM still has 18 AC and is still swinging for 5 damage. It deals 0 damage on a hit unless it triggers Martial Advantage. And then it only deals 6 damage.

That's not backwards compatible.

The community demanded backwards compatibility. Therefore anything numerical had to remain the same. How you derive to the same numbers could change but the numbers had to become the same unless something was underpowered or overpowered.

DNDB is struggling to keep up with sliding doors and paintjobs. The numbers were barely changed.

Imagine if 2024 was a real 5.5e?