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

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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.

Why did you immediately move those goal-posts? I have published DnD Rules, per your definition, but I never called them "Official DnD Rules" because they are not official. But since when have I ever once claimed that? I claimed you could make DnD Rules, not that you could make Official DnD Rules.

Just like I can write an Iron Man story, but I can't write an Official Iron Man story.

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

No, I actually had a whole paragraph explaining why I did it. Good reading.

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

In the 2014 rules, feats are an optional rule. Additionally, what is the value in copying a feat verbatim that you already have? It would be noted that both Tasha's and Xanathars reprinted zero feats from the 2014 PHB and only printed anything regarding to the subclasses when altering them, such as Tasha's revised Beastmaster Ranger.

The "subset" then excludes the material most useless to someone who is offering a new product. You'd note that, despite being in the SRD, no one who makes 5e compatible products has reprinted the Evoker Wizard. Because there is no point in doing so. That is already available and owned by their target audience.

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.

And I have never really been making a "legal" argument. You can make the claim that it is illegal to make a game based on the DnD ruleset without the SRD in place... but that claim has never once been tested in a court of law. We do not actually know if it is illegal, because no one has taken anyone to court over it. In part because the little guys can't afford it, but also because the big guys can't afford it. If it is ever found to not be illegal to copy rules, things get very very messy for companies like WotC.

But again, I've never been terribly interested in this from a legal perspective.

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

I again disagree with the statement that 5e is seperate from D&D 5e. It is a rather simple problem. 5e stands for "5th edition". We then would need to ask "the fifth edition of what?" It isn't the 5th edition of Nancy Drew's Cookbook for Detectives. It is the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons. The 5e SRD is the core rules, stripped to the fundamental system, of Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, it is not a seperate entity that D&D 5e just so happens to be compatible with.

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

What do you mean "under the name D&D"? IF I were to claim "this is an official DnD product" then sure, I could get in trouble for that. But I've never said that, it would be a demonstrable false claim. It is however, a set of rules for running the TTRPG DnD 5th edition. That is true, while not being an officially licensed product. And it is much, much murkier if I can get in trouble for making something to be used with a system, while not claiming it was officially sanctioned.

I can get in trouble for selling Acetaminophen and calling it Tylenol, if I am not the company behind Tylenol. But I can't get in trouble for selling a generic Acetaminophen (assuming I am properly licensed to sell drugs in the US at all.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Yes it is. You literally just demonstrated how it is compatible. There is no "backwards" here, because the 2024 rules ALSO use the same armor system as 2014. The rules you just presented are compatible with DnD 5e 2014 and 2024. So it is equally compatible now as it was if you made those exact rules in 2017.

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.

Right, so you can change the numbers. The Kibblestasty crafting rules designed for DnD 5e were not using the same crafting rules as the 2014 PHB, and they are as equally compatible with DnD 2024 as they were with DnD 2014. You are essentially trying to say that all rules made for DnD 5e must always be the exact same as the rules for DnD 5e... which means you are trying to claim no alternate rules can possibly be made for the game at all, because people demanded backwards compatibility from 2024. And that is demonstrably untrue. Trivially so.

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

Imagine if 2024 was a real 5.5e?

Again, if I am making a rule set for DnD 5e, and I'm not selling it on DnD Beyond, why do I care about DnD Beyond's struggles with my rule set? Am I not allowed to make and sell rules unless DnD Beyond tells me it can support them? Was that suddenly added to by-laws of Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Minigiant]

Yes it is. You literally just demonstrated how it is compatible. There is no "backwards" here, because the 2024 rules ALSO use the same armor system as 2014. The rules you just presented are compatible with DnD 5e 2014 and 2024. So it is equally compatible now as it was if you made those exact rules in 2017

That's my point.

They didn't change the armor system in 2024 because they couldn't change the armor system and still be backwards compatible.

Right, so you can change the numbers. The Kibblestasty crafting rules designed for DnD 5e were not using the same crafting rules as the 2014 PHB, and they are as equally compatible with DnD 2024 as they were with DnD 2014. You are essentially trying to say that all rules made for DnD 5e must always be the exact same as the rules for DnD 5e... which means you are trying to claim no alternate rules can possibly be made for the game at all, because people demanded backwards compatibility from 2024. And that is demonstrably untrue. Trivially so

Crafting was optional in 5th edition.

That's why so many 5e compatible books have crafting. Or pets. Or allies. Or diseases. Or some other aspect of 5e that 2014 5e barely supported.

Or they touch something that's very peripheral like feets or spells.

But how many truly touch armor? Almost none. None of the big money makers or popular ones anyway.

Because if you touch armor, if you touch weapons, if you touch skills .. You don't stay compatible with other 5e products and that's your money maker

Like your other posts says, everything hangs from D&D 5e galaxy.

We will see how well products that stray off the numbers or design of 5e do.

 

[mamba]

Why did you immediately move those goal-posts? I have published DnD Rules, per your definition, but I never called them "Official DnD Rules" because they are not official.

and that is my point, you said you play D&D despite having done some extensive (?) homebrewing and I replied saying you can call it D&D, but technically it is not. I am not shifting goalposts, I am staying consistent.

In the 2014 rules, feats are an optional rule. Additionally, what is the value in copying a feat verbatim that you already have?

it is not limited to feats, and whether copying something makes sense or not depends on your use case, as it is you simply cannot do so anyway

And I have never really been making a "legal" argument. You can make the claim that it is illegal to make a game based on the DnD ruleset without the SRD in place... but that claim has never once been tested in a court of law.

my claim is you cannot call it D&D…

I again disagree with the statement that 5e is seperate from D&D 5e.

and I can disagree with you disagreeing

To me the SRD is something else than D&D 5e, hence two separate entities

What do you mean "under the name D&D"? IF I were to claim "this is an official DnD product" then sure, I could get in trouble for that. But I've never said that, it would be a demonstrable false claim. It is however, a set of rules for running the TTRPG DnD 5th edition. That is true, while not being an officially licensed product.

then these are rules for / compatible with D&D, not D&D rules.

And what if I told you that I didn't intend any of it to be a new game system, separate from DnD, but to be DnD?

 

[Quickleaf]

My friends using DNDBeyond find the "integration" of the 2024 and legacy rules unwieldy... many rules entries are effectively doubled in length, with 2024 being given priority so you need to scroll down to find the 2014 "legacy" definition.

Here are 2 screen caps demonstrating the issue: (1) is the Incapacitated condition, and (2) is the spell list.

Hopefully DNDBeyond checks this thread or a community rep who's in contact with DNDBeyond can pass this concern along. I'm not sure how to reach the right folks over at DNDBeyond myself.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's my point.

They didn't change the armor system in 2024 because they couldn't change the armor system and still be backwards compatible.

... and? I've been talking this entire time about someone else writing armor rules. If someone else is doing it, who cares that 2024 didn't? How does "DnD 2024 did not change armor" apply to the discussion about how we look at and consider 3rd party rules?

Crafting was optional in 5th edition.

That's why so many 5e compatible books have crafting. Or pets. Or allies. Or diseases. Or some other aspect of 5e that 2014 5e barely supported.

Or they touch something that's very peripheral like feets or spells.

But how many truly touch armor? Almost none. None of the big money makers or popular ones anyway.

Because if you touch armor, if you touch weapons, if you touch skills .. You don't stay compatible with other 5e products and that's your money maker

Like your other posts says, everything hangs from D&D 5e galaxy.

We will see how well products that stray off the numbers or design of 5e do.

Sure, it isn't the most common thing to change. But people HAVE tackled it and they DO make things that tackle it. Just because it is uncommon doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And, sure, if you want to make big money that might change things... but I've never made a single red cent off my DnD homebrew rules, which doesn't speak in any way towards the existence of those rules or how much effort I put into them. I didn't tackle armor because I'm fine with how it works, not because doing so would make me less than zero money somehow.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My friends using DNDBeyond find the "integration" of the 2024 and legacy rules unwieldy... many rules entries are effectively doubled in length, with 2024 being given priority so you need to scroll down to find the 2014 "legacy" definition.

Here are 2 screen caps demonstrating the issue: (1) is the Incapacitated condition, and (2) is the spell list.

View attachment 379517
View attachment 379518

Hopefully DNDBeyond checks this thread or a community rep who's in contact with DNDBeyond can pass this concern along. I'm not sure how to reach the right folks over at DNDBeyond myself.

I mean... yeah, that's about what you should have expected to happen. You can't have both sets of the rules as options and not have the information doubled. Especially since people would complain about not being able to mix and match.

Of course they will complain about this, and any other solution the team could have possibly come up with, but still, this was the obvious solution.

 

[Minigiant]

... and? I've been talking this entire time about someone else writing armor rules. If someone else is doing it, who cares that 2024 didn't? How does "DnD 2024 did not change armor" apply to the discussion about how we look at and consider 3rd party rules?



Sure, it isn't the most common thing to change. But people HAVE tackled it and they DO make things that tackle it. Just because it is uncommon doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And, sure, if you want to make big money that might change things... but I've never made a single red cent off my DnD homebrew rules, which doesn't speak in any way towards the existence of those rules or how much effort I put into them. I didn't tackle armor because I'm fine with how it works, not because doing so would make me less than zero money somehow.

We've been taking about different things then

I've always been taking about people creating content for sale.

Be it WOTC, ENpublishing, Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming, etc.

Of course you can do freaking anything if you aren't selling content.

But if you are more making content for sale and want people to access it, you don't want to touch some things

 

[Chaosmancer]

and that is my point, you said you play D&D despite having done some extensive (?) homebrewing and I replied saying you can call it D&D, but technically it is not. I am not shifting goalposts, I am staying consistent.

I can read a Star Wars story without reading an Official Star Wars story. Official is an adjective. DnD exists without the adjective and is subtly but importantly different than Official DnD. You know this, hence adding the adjective to modify the word,

it is not limited to feats, and whether copying something makes sense or not depends on your use case, as it is you simply cannot do so anyway

Sure you can. I copied feats into the documents I made, to consolidate them all into one document. They moved over just fine.

Here, I can copy them into this post too:

Heavy Glider: HWCS p47
Prerequisite: Glide trait

You were either born with great strength, or trained hard to allow yourself to glide under circumstances most would find impossible. You gain the following benefits:

• You may glide while holding a heavy weapon and wearing heavy armor as long as you aren't encumbered.
• You may choose to land your glide in a space occupied by a hostile creature that is Large or smaller. If you do so, you may roll an opposed Strength check against the creature. On a success, you push them 10 feet away and knock them prone with the force of your impact. On a failure you land in the nearest un-occupied space.

That one isn't even from a WoTC product. Here is one that is.

Revenant Blade: ERLW p22
Prerequisite: Elf

You are descended from a master of the double-bladed scimitar, and some of that mastery has passed on to you. You gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• While you are holding a double-bladed scimitar with two hands, you gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
• A double-bladed scimitar has the finesse property when you wield it.

Nothing stopped me from doing this.

my claim is you cannot call it D&D…

What do you mean by "Call it DnD"? Sure, I wouldn't call these rules "DnD":

[Taken from below a chart] First number is minimum lift, Strength score^X determinedby sixe.

• Tiny^1
• Small^1.5
• Medium ^2
• Large^2.5
• Huge^3
• Gargantuan^3.5

Second number is maximum lift/push/drag, First score x 2

Movement
While carrying more than the first number, your speed is reduced to 10 ft.

Lifting More
You may attempt to Lift/Push/Drag more with the following Athletics rolls

• DC 15 = Maximum Lift/Push/Drag x 1.25
• DC 20 = Maximum Lift/Push/Drag x 1.50
• DC 25 = Maximum Lift/Push/Drag x 2.00

But they are absolutely rules meant to be used with the game Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. But they are not the game itself, most obviously.

To me the SRD is something else than D&D 5e, hence two separate entities

And other than "because they are not exactly identical" and "because the SRD allows you to legally copy it" you have never made a claim for WHY they are seperate. And neither of those is a reason why we should consider them seperate, when the SRD is the System Reference Document for 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.

Then these are rules for / compatible with D&D, not D&D rules.

Fair enough, but they are rules for DnD 5e, not for 5e which is a legally distinct entity so we can claim that our new games are not based in DnD 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We've been taking about different things then

I've always been taking about people creating content for sale.

Be it WOTC, ENpublishing, Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming, etc.

Of course you can do freaking anything if you aren't selling content.

But if you are more making content for sale and want people to access it, you don't want to touch some things

Whether or not you WANT to is a matter of... wanting to. Here is someone selling new armor and weapon rules right now.

Armory Remix - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Armory Remix - Armory Remix (5e) A reimagining of the weapons and armor listed in the D&D 5e Player's Handbook to provide more flav

www.dmsguild.com

I haven't read their specific product, I just did a search. But whether or not someone has the will to make and sell a product is merely a case of individual desire. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.