D&D (2024) WotC should have stuck to it's guns with the 2024 Beyond Update

[Belen]

Yes, that would be nice. It would also be nice if we could filter player access to specific content. For instance, I own the Acq Inc book but can’t stop my players from choosing its content without turning off all expanded rules content.

You can in your campaign menu by choosing which books they have access too.

 

[Belen]

It's likely a bad database design, although without insider info we can't be sure. In any case, that would be the fault of the company that originally built DDB, Curse LLC.

It is the fault of WOTC at this point. They have owned it long enough and they knew that 2024 was on the horizon. They originally intended to force people to use 5.5 by removing the options in the character builder while telling everyone that the content was backwards compatible.

Their original plan was to make everyone who wanted to stay in 5.0 turn copy all the spells and magic items as homebrew content in order to keep the content that we purchased.

They should create a toggle that switches between versions but they did not want to pay for it.

It was also not a small, loud minority. They reacted because they were loosing large numbers of subs.

 

[Staffan]

Yeah, it's annoying. I really wish I could just toggle a setting to not use the 2014 rules.

Or vice versa. Currently the only campaign I'm in for 5e is a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign where we meet about once a month, and we don't have any plans to switch to 2024. From what I can tell, they are an upgrade, but not enough of one that we're willing to shell out for a new set of rules. So it would be neat to only see the things from the 2014 version – and ideally, to not have 2024 or non-available things even come up in searches

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it's annoying. I really wish I could just toggle a setting to not use the 2014 rules.

That should have been their plan from the beginning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D Beyond is better digital tools for D&D than we've ever had before - but it's still a mess and full of awkward, slow, and frustrating methods of doing things. (And is apparently impossible or near impossible for them to make any better than it is).

I'd love an overhaul, but I don't expect that we'll get it. It's a cash-cow for what it is. WotC has little incentive to fix it.

An argument that could be made for the official game in general.

 

[billd91]

I really wish they had gone ahead with their original plan to keep the old rules available for reference but default the interface to the new rules (even though my current campaign has a mix of 14 and 24 PCs). While you can manually turn off different pieces (every single time you look something up) my players (especially the Wizard) is struggling sorting through all of the duplicate spells.

No, that was a boneheaded decision considering how many ongoing campaigns there likely are (and will be for years). And making that bad decision probably kept them from making better design and coding decisions which are why the implementation is so bad.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The bad database design is their own fault.

Well no it was Curses fault for making it that way. WotC inherited it they didn’t make it.

 

[Belen]

Well no it was Curses fault for making it that way. WotC inherited it they didn’t make it.

They have owned it long enough to make improvements, especially with an edition update.

It was not their fault when they bought it but it is their fault now.

 

[pukunui]

You can in your campaign menu by choosing which books they have access too.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way:

 

[TiQuinn]

Sounds to me the problem is a lot deeper than “a simple toggle.”