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 be included. From the update:

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...

www.enworld.org

Last week we released a Changelog detailing how players would experience the 2024 Core Rulebooks on D&D Beyond. We heard your feedback loud and clear and thank you for speaking up.

Our excitement around the 2024 Core Rulebooks led us to view these planned updates as welcome improvements and free upgrades to existing content. We misjudged the impact of this change, and we agree that you should be free to choose your own way to play. Taking your feedback to heart, here’s what we’re going to do:

Players who only have access to the 2014 Player’s Handbook will maintain their character options, spells, and magical items in their character sheets. Players with access to the 2024 and 2014 digital Player’s Handbooks can select from both sources when creating new characters. Players will not need to rely on Homebrew to use their 2014 player options, including spells and magic items, as recommended in previous changelogs.

Please Note:

Players will continue to have access to their free, shared, and purchased items on D&D Beyond, with the ability to use previously acquired player options when creating characters and using character sheets.

We are not changing players’ current character sheets, except for relabeling and renaming. Examples include Races to Species, Inspiration to Heroic Inspiration, and Cast Spell to Magic.

We’re dedicated to making D&D Beyond the ultimate digital toolset for Dungeons & Dragons, continuously enhancing the platform to ensure you can create, customize, and play your game just as you envision it. From your first one-shot to multi-year campaigns and everything in between, we're grateful to be on this journey with you.

- The D&D Studio

 

[Imaro]

there is no difference between a half edition and an edition, in both cases it is a new set of books and you either use the old or the new ones.

They just decided for whatever non-technical reason to not fully separate them and have them share spells instead.

They can distinguish between spells by source and have you be able to either enable or disable them, because they already do so eg for the Kobold Press spells

You're assuming here. Just because something added later has certain functionality doesn't mean legacy code/data can have the same or even have it added later.

 

[Imaro]

My guess is

DNDB is so stupid it can't tell the difference between Sleep (2014) and Sleep (2024) when both are available to pick.

Remember the sole problem is the Char builder. The 2014 spells would still be in the compendium.

The sole issue was the Character Builder.

The Char Builder likely has spaghetti code that can't handle 2 spells of the same exact name.

Especially if name is the key being searched on when filtering.

 

[mamba]

My guess is

DNDB is so stupid it can't tell the difference between Sleep (2014) and Sleep (2024) when both are available to pick.

Remember the sole problem is the Char builder. The 2014 spells would still be in the compendium.

The sole issue was the Character Builder.

The Char Builder likely has spaghetti code that can't handle 2 spells of the same exact name.

that would be pretty bad, but maybe it is why they are renaming them to X (legacy).

Either way they have a week to get it done, so it cannot be that much work - unless you expect that they just agreed to this to stop the complaints and fully intent to miss the deadline, in which case they will get a whole new bunch of complaints in a few days…

 

[mamba]

You're assuming here. Just because something added later has certain functionality doesn't mean legacy code/data can have the same or even have it added later.

We are all assuming here. The one fact is that they reversed course and have one week to get it done. So if that is a feasible timeline, then it cannot be all that much effort

I do not really need more than that to make my case, which is that the unfounded speculation that it is due to how complex that change is, and that is why WotC decided against it, is contradicted by the reversal of course… If it takes them a week or less to do so, then it is not that complex

 

[Minigiant]

Especially if name is the key being searched on when filtering.

That's my guess.

Someone asked the DNDB team to add the 2024 spells and items and they said it can't be done in time because the system can't differentiate two spells or items with the same name in a search.

And when pushed, they spent all weekend trying to to figure out a workaround.

 

[Imaro]

We are all assuming here. The one fact is that they reversed course and have one week to get it done. So if that is a feasible timeline, then it cannot be all that much effort

How are you figuring this? How many people are working on this? Are they working overtime? How many new bugs will be introduced? Will there be a delay in completion?

Maybe because I work in IT, and have seen this sentiment from management so many times when they have no grasp of the scope of what's really involved in what they are asking for yet are sure it's "just adding a button...right?"

I do not really need more than that to make my case, which is that the unfounded speculation that it is due to how complex that change is, and that is why WotC decided against it, is contradicted by the reversal of course… If it takes them a week or less to do so, then it is not that complex

You don't have a case because you don't know anything about what is happening behind the scenes. Management can ask for all sorts of things from their developers as well as demand unreasonable timelines... all while being uninformed about the complexity, scope, etc. of what they are asking for. Even when you explain it in plain english.

 

[Imaro]

That's my guess.

Someone asked the DNDB team to add the 2024 spells and items and they said it can't be done in time because the system can't differentiate two spells or items with the same name in a search.

And when pushed, they spent all weekend trying to to figure out a workaround.

This... and hopefully it doesn't break anything with the added complexity of rolling out the 2024 functionality at the same time... smh I don't envy them or the task they have.

 

[mamba]

How are you figuring this? How many people are working on this? Are they working overtime? How many new bugs will be introduced? Will there be a delay in completion?

apart from the delay in completion, which I already called out, none of these matter.

A week of a bunch of people working on something, which is just you speculating by the way, still does not amount to a lot of effort

Maybe because I work in IT, and have seen this sentiment from management so many times when they have no grasp of the scope of what's really involved in what they are asking for yet are sure it's "just adding a button...right?"

well, I work in IT too, neither of us know the DDB codebase, so you are speculating just as much as me, but I have at least the decision to change course to point to, you do not even have that

 

[Imaro]

apart from the delay in completion, which I already called out, none of these matter.

A week of a bunch of people working on something, which is just you speculating by the way, still does not amount to a lot of effort

I consider overtime...forcing people to work outside their normal hours... definitely speaks to complexity. When was this notice posted? Someone worked over the weekend already analyzing this... if it was simple I think it would have been announced sooner and during regular business hours.

well, I work in IT too, neither of us know the DDB codebase, so you are speculating just as much as me, but I have at least the decision to change course to point to, you do not even have that

No you don't have anything to point to. I work on enterprise applications and the developers and management are two different entities and often at odds on things like this. Business needs to make sure the consumer is happy and they will throw the developers to the wolves to do that. Your reversal only shows that it was important to business for whatever reason... not that it is a simple implementation.

EDIT: In a corporate environment, very rarely are the developers in any type of position to say... no we can't do this, it's too complex. I mean I guess they can... if they don't want a job. But it's business/management that makes these calls after hearing the devs assess it and if they want to impress or feel it's too important to drop... it's getting done.

 

[mamba]

I consider overtime...forcing people to work outside their normal hours... definitely speaks to complexity.

no, it speaks to urgency because they dropped the ball, and again, that is you speculating. Do you have any indication that they are working overtime?

if it was simple I think it would have been announced sooner and during regular business hours.

again, urgency, not complexity. The whole thing blew up when? Friday or Saturday and they replied on Sunday