We've been asking for years, they've been saying no for years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
They used to say maybe, then they stopped saying anything. Now WotC wants us to playtest new base classes, but the tens of millions of d&d players that uses DDB for character sheets can't do that conveniently even though it would take only an hour or 2 per class to build with the homebrew tools.
I reeeally want this feature too, but clearly you aren't a programmer if you say it would take an hour or two per class to support Unearthed Arcana. (I'm a programmer)
They used to support UA but it was too much work and they decided to ditch it in favour of other, more relevant stuff.
That said, even though it will be a lot of work, I think they SHOULD support this set of UA as it's a big deal. Now that DDB are WotC maybe they can get some more devs to do this.
This is a sentiment I've been hearing a lot, but there seems to be a full hiatus when it comes to development of DDB atm.
That said, they've said that the General Feature System that they have been working on would make supporting classes and new types of class features much easier. That's not a guarantee that there will be custom classes (in fact DDB has implied that they don't ever intend to support the feature) but it makes it more likely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
I reeeally want this feature too, but clearly you aren't a programmer if you say it would take an hour or two per class to support Unearthed Arcana. (I'm a programmer)
They used to support UA but it was too much work and they decided to ditch it in favour of other, more relevant stuff.
That said, even though it will be a lot of work, I think they SHOULD support this set of UA as it's a big deal. Now that DDB are WotC maybe they can get some more devs to do this.
No I am not a programmer (though I do have a general understanding of it), but it doesn't really require any/much programming. The tools for building classes have already been programmed. I've used the homebrew tools to add playtest to DDB before, it takes a few minutes per feature to copy/paste the description then quickly set the modifiers. My 2 hour estimate was based on how long it would take me to do it if the tools weren't dev exclusive.
You're still assuming that the classes are built with an API like the one given to us for homebrew. The fact they haven't given us homebrew classes tells me that they haven't done this. The API they have provided us for subclasses is very limited even though subclasses tend to follow a structure and the forums are full of "How do I make my subclass do X" with the response being "You can't".
It's likely that they have built classes with custom code for each one since they work drastically different to each other. If you consider how big the form is for creating subclasses and the limited customisation it has, you will realise what the equivalent would need to be to create any class one can think of. This is basically the Generic Feature System, which they are hopefullystill hard at work on.
I'm pretty passionate about this because we programmers are forever being told "Add this, it can't be much work" when the user has no idea of the complexity behind what they're asking. It would be flattering that we make things look so simple and easy if it weren't so annoying xD
Yeah, I think the Generic Feature System is planned to include homebrew classes eventually but I can imagine how much work this GFS must be. I really hope they are still making lots of progress on it and the acquisition isn't having too much impact on the dev's lives!
I fully agree that the lack of communication around Dev Upldates is awful!!!
Really want the ability to create my own classes!!
We've been asking for years, they've been saying no for years.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
They used to say maybe, then they stopped saying anything. Now WotC wants us to playtest new base classes, but the tens of millions of d&d players that uses DDB for character sheets can't do that conveniently even though it would take only an hour or 2 per class to build with the homebrew tools.
No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?
I reeeally want this feature too, but clearly you aren't a programmer if you say it would take an hour or two per class to support Unearthed Arcana. (I'm a programmer)
They used to support UA but it was too much work and they decided to ditch it in favour of other, more relevant stuff.
That said, even though it will be a lot of work, I think they SHOULD support this set of UA as it's a big deal. Now that DDB are WotC maybe they can get some more devs to do this.
This is a sentiment I've been hearing a lot, but there seems to be a full hiatus when it comes to development of DDB atm.
That said, they've said that the General Feature System that they have been working on would make supporting classes and new types of class features much easier. That's not a guarantee that there will be custom classes (in fact DDB has implied that they don't ever intend to support the feature) but it makes it more likely.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
No I am not a programmer (though I do have a general understanding of it), but it doesn't really require any/much programming. The tools for building classes have already been programmed. I've used the homebrew tools to add playtest to DDB before, it takes a few minutes per feature to copy/paste the description then quickly set the modifiers. My 2 hour estimate was based on how long it would take me to do it if the tools weren't dev exclusive.
You're still assuming that the classes are built with an API like the one given to us for homebrew. The fact they haven't given us homebrew classes tells me that they haven't done this. The API they have provided us for subclasses is very limited even though subclasses tend to follow a structure and the forums are full of "How do I make my subclass do X" with the response being "You can't".
It's likely that they have built classes with custom code for each one since they work drastically different to each other. If you consider how big the form is for creating subclasses and the limited customisation it has, you will realise what the equivalent would need to be to create any class one can think of. This is basically the Generic Feature System, which they are hopefully still hard at work on.
I'm pretty passionate about this because we programmers are forever being told "Add this, it can't be much work" when the user has no idea of the complexity behind what they're asking. It would be flattering that we make things look so simple and easy if it weren't so annoying xD
@Z3DT
Yeah, I think the Generic Feature System is planned to include homebrew classes eventually but I can imagine how much work this GFS must be. I really hope they are still making lots of progress on it and the acquisition isn't having too much impact on the dev's lives!
I fully agree that the lack of communication around Dev Upldates is awful!!!