It would be awesome if you could use the filters to exclude certain items/monsters. For example, you could look up all Rare Magic Items that aren't armor.
I'm kind of hoping to necro this thread. The lack of Exclusion filters has rather bothered me since I bought the "Every Book" package and am now constantly flooded by irrelevant entries in my searches.
Yes, I'd love to Exclude armor and weapons from my magic items searches, especially because it brings up every possible variation of each (Smoldering Splint Mail, Smoldering Breastplate, Smoldering augh I don't need each one listed)
But also I'd *love* to be able to go "Hmm, I wonder what <cleric><necromancy> spells I have that <are not wizard> spells."
ALSO, for monster searches, I see that NPCs are tagged as such, but that means you can make searches for exclusively NPCs. Well, what if I want to do a search for humanoid races but not for the swarm of NPC good guys and bad guys from campaigns? Bah humbug!
Many monster searches return specific NPCs (ie from the adventures) that are not expected in a generic monster search. It would useful to cut down on sifting through unneeded results by excluding named npcs.
As a web developer by trade, I know how easy it is to incorporate exclusion filters, and the fact that this hasn't been done after customershave been asking for it for TWO YEARS is unconscionable! Your interface is incomplete without the ability to finely exclude individual sources.
There are those who will say, "you can just select the specific books you want to filter from." Yes, you can, but there is so much content now that this is HUGE time-sink, and since you cannot also SAVE search criteria to use across the website in all pages, every time you go to another page you'd have to select all your sources again!
This feature should have been included in Version 1 of the product.
(In case my position wasn't clear, +1 for this feature, and thanks to OP for suggesting it!)
As a web developer by trade, I know how easy it is to incorporate exclusion filters, and the fact that this hasn't been done after customershave been asking for it for TWO YEARS is unconscionable! Your interface is incomplete without the ability to finely exclude individual sources.
There are those who will say, "you can just select the specific books you want to filter from." Yes, you can, but there is so much content now that this is HUGE time-sink, and since you cannot also SAVE search criteria to use across the website in all pages, every time you go to another page you'd have to select all your sources again!
This feature should have been included in Version 1 of the product.
(In case my position wasn't clear, +1 for this feature, and thanks to OP for suggesting it!)
Yeah, I have been commenting here and there how much it bothers me that this site is missing features that were commonplace in forums and search engines from over a decade ago.
As a web developer by trade, I know how easy it is to incorporate exclusion filters, and the fact that this hasn't been done after customershave been asking for it for TWO YEARS is unconscionable! Your interface is incomplete without the ability to finely exclude individual sources.
There are those who will say, "you can just select the specific books you want to filter from." Yes, you can, but there is so much content now that this is HUGE time-sink, and since you cannot also SAVE search criteria to use across the website in all pages, every time you go to another page you'd have to select all your sources again!
This feature should have been included in Version 1 of the product.
(In case my position wasn't clear, +1 for this feature, and thanks to OP for suggesting it!)
As a developer myself, I know that assuming the feasibility of a job without knowing what's behind is a big mistake but I support the request because it'd be very useful.
The search functionality of the site is terrible in general, so I hope it's fixed at some point.
As an example, imagine you want to search for the Dragon's Breath spell, but you only vaguely remember the spell and what it's called. Searching for "dragon breath", "dragons breath", "dragonbreath", or "dragonsbreath" do not bring up the relevant spell, even with the spell filter on. It's totally unusable, especially when you want to search quickly in game.
The search functionality of the site is terrible in general, so I hope it's fixed at some point.
As an example, imagine you want to search for the Dragon's Breath spell, but you only vaguely remember the spell and what it's called. Searching for "dragon breath", "dragons breath", "dragonbreath", or "dragonsbreath" do not bring up the relevant spell, even with the spell filter on. It's totally unusable, especially when you want to search quickly in game.
Agree, something like elastic search or solr would be greatly beneficial.
Was going to post something similar, but then found this old thread. Popping in to add my voice. Being able to exclude in filters would be extremely helpful. Was just trying to filter feats and specifically not include Ravnica, Rick & Morty, Acquisitions, and Eberron. Way too frustrating to try and do that with the include only filter setup.
Was going to post something similar, but then found this old thread. Popping in to add my voice. Being able to exclude in filters would be extremely helpful. Was just trying to filter feats and specifically not include Ravnica, Rick & Morty, Acquisitions, and Eberron. Way too frustrating to try and do that with the include only filter setup.
Ravnica, Rick & morty, and acquisitions Inc don't have any feats. Only PHB, XGtE, Eberron, and UA have feats, so that should make things easy.
They don't have any feats, and yet they're in the dropdown menu. Clearing out the books that don't actually have feats (or backgrounds, or whichever page you're on) would be another massive help.
They don't have any feats, and yet they're in the dropdown menu. Clearing out the books that don't actually have feats (or backgrounds, or whichever page you're on) would be another massive help.
It would be awesome if you could use the filters to exclude certain items/monsters. For example, you could look up all Rare Magic Items that aren't armor.
PBP: DM of Titans of Tomorrow
PBP: Lera Zahuv in Whispers of Dissent
PBP: Evaine Brae in Innistrad: Dark Ascension
PBP: Cor'avin in Tomb of Annihilation
I like this idea.
It would also help to do searches such as "all spells that aren't Necromancy", for example, without having to select seven filters.
I too, would appreciate this functionality.
I'm kind of hoping to necro this thread. The lack of Exclusion filters has rather bothered me since I bought the "Every Book" package and am now constantly flooded by irrelevant entries in my searches.
Yes, I'd love to Exclude armor and weapons from my magic items searches, especially because it brings up every possible variation of each (Smoldering Splint Mail, Smoldering Breastplate, Smoldering augh I don't need each one listed)
But also I'd *love* to be able to go "Hmm, I wonder what <cleric><necromancy> spells I have that <are not wizard> spells."
ALSO, for monster searches, I see that NPCs are tagged as such, but that means you can make searches for exclusively NPCs. Well, what if I want to do a search for humanoid races but not for the swarm of NPC good guys and bad guys from campaigns? Bah humbug!
+1
Would be awesome if I could search for Feats and esclude all the other races except for mine.
+1
Many monster searches return specific NPCs (ie from the adventures) that are not expected in a generic monster search. It would useful to cut down on sifting through unneeded results by excluding named npcs.
As a web developer by trade, I know how easy it is to incorporate exclusion filters, and the fact that this hasn't been done after customers have been asking for it for TWO YEARS is unconscionable! Your interface is incomplete without the ability to finely exclude individual sources.
There are those who will say, "you can just select the specific books you want to filter from." Yes, you can, but there is so much content now that this is HUGE time-sink, and since you cannot also SAVE search criteria to use across the website in all pages, every time you go to another page you'd have to select all your sources again!
This feature should have been included in Version 1 of the product.
(In case my position wasn't clear, +1 for this feature, and thanks to OP for suggesting it!)
Yeah, I have been commenting here and there how much it bothers me that this site is missing features that were commonplace in forums and search engines from over a decade ago.
As a developer myself, I know that assuming the feasibility of a job without knowing what's behind is a big mistake but I support the request because it'd be very useful.
The search functionality of the site is terrible in general, so I hope it's fixed at some point.
As an example, imagine you want to search for the Dragon's Breath spell, but you only vaguely remember the spell and what it's called. Searching for "dragon breath", "dragons breath", "dragonbreath", or "dragonsbreath" do not bring up the relevant spell, even with the spell filter on. It's totally unusable, especially when you want to search quickly in game.
Agree, something like elastic search or solr would be greatly beneficial.
Was going to post something similar, but then found this old thread. Popping in to add my voice. Being able to exclude in filters would be extremely helpful. Was just trying to filter feats and specifically not include Ravnica, Rick & Morty, Acquisitions, and Eberron. Way too frustrating to try and do that with the include only filter setup.
Ravnica, Rick & morty, and acquisitions Inc don't have any feats. Only PHB, XGtE, Eberron, and UA have feats, so that should make things easy.
They don't have any feats, and yet they're in the dropdown menu. Clearing out the books that don't actually have feats (or backgrounds, or whichever page you're on) would be another massive help.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
That's a good idea.
3 years and half passed, and we are still here asking for exclusion filters!
I think we should stop paying untill we will have them. :(