I love the compendium but I think there's unnecessary adherence to the restrictions of and divisions between the hardcovers. I mean, it makes sense for the Marketplace to be organized book by book. But once the digital content is purchased, I don't see any reason for it to continue to have these artificial divisions between, for example, the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters.
One of the clearest visual examples I can give you is the way the subclasses are presented on the Classes webpage:
At first glance, the domains appear to be alphabetically arranged. But Life, Arcana, and Death domains are seemingly out of order. I later realized why. Life comes from the Basic Rules, the next six from the Player's Handbook, Arcana from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and Death from the Dungeon Master's Guide. They're organized by book. I fail to see the reason for this order. It makes it harder to scan and looks unprofessional. I would ask, at this point when all the content is digital and hyperlinked, whether the source of the material matters other than to remind the user again and again of the hardcovers' existence. For those going digital, does it matter at all in which hardbook the subclass (or spell, monster, etc.) first appeared?
I see these unnecessary divisions derived from the separation of hardcovers again and again system-wide in D&D Beyond. Must the monster compendiums be separated by books? The spells and magic items? They aren't organized by book the sortable listings, but why are they anywhere on this site?
And, on a final note, why is the feral tiefling a wholly separate race from the tiefling? I know that the tiefling comes from the Player's Handbook and the feral tiefling comes from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. But I don't see a reason to separate them as if they were two disparate races. I see this as more evidence of slavish adherence to organizing D&D Beyond the way the books are organized.
I think it would be better to put all monsters in one place. All classes and subclasses in one place. All spells in one place. All magic items in one place. And in its place organized alphabetically for easy reference. Each element can still refer to its sourcebook for those who want to consult their hardcovers. But the overarching organization should be according to ease of use, not allusions to hardcovers that more and more D&DB users may not have in paper format.
I agree. It would be great if all of the content from all of the "unlocked" sources were available in the places you'd expect, not separate. It would be neat if each source had its own color associated with it, so when you are looking at something you can tell which source it came from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love the compendium but I think there's unnecessary adherence to the restrictions of and divisions between the hardcovers. I mean, it makes sense for the Marketplace to be organized book by book. But once the digital content is purchased, I don't see any reason for it to continue to have these artificial divisions between, for example, the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters.
One of the clearest visual examples I can give you is the way the subclasses are presented on the Classes webpage:
At first glance, the domains appear to be alphabetically arranged. But Life, Arcana, and Death domains are seemingly out of order. I later realized why. Life comes from the Basic Rules, the next six from the Player's Handbook, Arcana from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and Death from the Dungeon Master's Guide. They're organized by book. I fail to see the reason for this order. It makes it harder to scan and looks unprofessional. I would ask, at this point when all the content is digital and hyperlinked, whether the source of the material matters other than to remind the user again and again of the hardcovers' existence. For those going digital, does it matter at all in which hardbook the subclass (or spell, monster, etc.) first appeared?
I see these unnecessary divisions derived from the separation of hardcovers again and again system-wide in D&D Beyond. Must the monster compendiums be separated by books? The spells and magic items? They aren't organized by book the sortable listings, but why are they anywhere on this site?
And, on a final note, why is the feral tiefling a wholly separate race from the tiefling? I know that the tiefling comes from the Player's Handbook and the feral tiefling comes from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. But I don't see a reason to separate them as if they were two disparate races. I see this as more evidence of slavish adherence to organizing D&D Beyond the way the books are organized.
I think it would be better to put all monsters in one place. All classes and subclasses in one place. All spells in one place. All magic items in one place. And in its place organized alphabetically for easy reference. Each element can still refer to its sourcebook for those who want to consult their hardcovers. But the overarching organization should be according to ease of use, not allusions to hardcovers that more and more D&DB users may not have in paper format.
I'm on the DM's Guild: click here
I think being able to choose how the information is organized and presented would be incredibly helpful.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I agree. It would be great if all of the content from all of the "unlocked" sources were available in the places you'd expect, not separate. It would be neat if each source had its own color associated with it, so when you are looking at something you can tell which source it came from.