MS Excel does have a number of VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) built-in functions such as RND, INT, SUM, MIN and MAX that will let you create a spreadsheet that will generate random numbers in the range of 8 to 18 for the purpose of using the 4d6 method of creating a character.
The issue there is that the range 8-18 is not equally weighted for chance, it's a bell curve. If you randomly choose a number in that range, you will have more extremes.
Whether or not one can use Excel to make a character builder is a bit off topic.
But yes, you can. The thing's Turing complete, with a viable scripting language. (And, I believe it even has Python these days, though maybe only for some stuff.)
(IMO, you shouldn't, but I'm not a Spreadsheet Person.)
The thing is, there's a lot of work involved, and you'd end up doing exactly what D&D Beyond did: wiring in assumptions about how things work.* And the moment they change the assumptions out from under you, you'd be in the same position as DDB is, where the guts of your code just do not support the thing you need to do.
And yes, you can often (but not always) manage workarounds, but each workaround makes future problems that much worse.
And once you have an installed base, changing up the underlying abstraction without breaking everything is Hard.
I don't know why AB is difficult to make work (though I have suspicions), but it self-evidently is.
* Yes, even if you do it that way. Or that way. I've thought about this some, and it's the sort of thing I've done before. There's a trade-off to make between flexibility in general, and ease of implementation of the specifics. DDB seem to have started out too far on the "easy" path, but there is no choice where it's impossible to get stuck.
I used to comment on their instagram posts, particularly those where they promoted a collaboration with another brand, cause it looks really bad, but I've given up on giving them free engagement. If anyone wants to take over, it's definitely better with more people.
Whether or not one can use Excel to make a character builder is a bit off topic.
But yes, you can. The thing's Turing complete, with a viable scripting language. (And, I believe it even has Python these days, though maybe only for some stuff.)
(IMO, you shouldn't, but I'm not a Spreadsheet Person.)
The thing is, there's a lot of work involved, and you'd end up doing exactly what D&D Beyond did: wiring in assumptions about how things work.* And the moment they change the assumptions out from under you, you'd be in the same position as DDB is, where the guts of your code just do not support the thing you need to do.
And yes, you can often (but not always) manage workarounds, but each workaround makes future problems that much worse.
And once you have an installed base, changing up the underlying abstraction without breaking everything is Hard.
I don't know why AB is difficult to make work (though I have suspicions), but it self-evidently is.
* Yes, even if you do it that way. Or that way. I've thought about this some, and it's the sort of thing I've done before. There's a trade-off to make between flexibility in general, and ease of implementation of the specifics. DDB seem to have started out too far on the "easy" path, but there is no choice where it's impossible to get stuck.
This is somewhat off topic, I will admit, but when Wizards and their various software teams fumbled the ball midway through the life cycle of edition 4.0, I, as a grey hat hacker, developed my own style of character sheet. Since I only needed a character sheet for my gaming sessions, I played around with MS Excel and MS Word until I had something that looked nice. Since I was content to rely on the current PHB for the content, I did not build an MS Access data base to hold all of the occasionally contradictory data. Code Monkey Publishing did it right with e-Tools for 3.0 and 3.5 editions. I have commented on other threads about the occupational insanity that occurs with maintaining two (or more?) slightly misaligned software products that use the same user interface and I do not blame the teams for the occasional fumble. I have been there--oh boy have I been there!
Ok, I'm cranky today, so I've started posting rhymes about this as a comment on every single Instagram post D&D Beyond puts out, and a couple from D&DWizards. Anyone care to join?
Not quite....the D&D Beyond team is trying to use the same User Interface to handle two (or more) incompatible rules sets. In D&D 5.0, Agonizing Blast could ONLY be applied to the cantrip Eldritch Blast. In D&D 5.5, Agonizing Blast can be applied to ANY warlock cantrips that deals damage. There are other incompatibilities as well: Blight does one thing in 5.0, but it is slightly different in 5.5. I shudder to think what will happen in another eight or nine years, when another D&D edition slithers out and Wizards or Hasbro loads THAT edition into D&D Beyond, with the 2014 rules set, the 2024 rules set, the so-called Free rules set and the possible 2034 rules set, all sharing the same User Interface. Software danger words like 'kludge', 'SNAFU' and 'SUSFU' fill my head at that thought.
Lazy? No. Incompetent? No. Jet propelled into Insanity? YES!
I am sympathetic to software development teams, from about 1977 over to about 2007, that is how I earned my living, as a software developer for a Midwestern public university. Usually, I only had to worry about ten to twenty people accessing the files and systems under my care, while the software team for Wizards probably has to worry about 50,000 (at a minimum) people using the systems under their care. I had it so v..e..r..y e...a...s...y.
MS Excel does have a number of VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) built-in functions such as RND, INT, SUM, MIN and MAX that will let you create a spreadsheet that will generate random numbers in the range of 8 to 18 for the purpose of using the 4d6 method of creating a character.
The issue there is that the range 8-18 is not equally weighted for chance, it's a bell curve. If you randomly choose a number in that range, you will have more extremes.
Whether or not one can use Excel to make a character builder is a bit off topic.
But yes, you can. The thing's Turing complete, with a viable scripting language. (And, I believe it even has Python these days, though maybe only for some stuff.)
(IMO, you shouldn't, but I'm not a Spreadsheet Person.)
The thing is, there's a lot of work involved, and you'd end up doing exactly what D&D Beyond did: wiring in assumptions about how things work.* And the moment they change the assumptions out from under you, you'd be in the same position as DDB is, where the guts of your code just do not support the thing you need to do.
And yes, you can often (but not always) manage workarounds, but each workaround makes future problems that much worse.
And once you have an installed base, changing up the underlying abstraction without breaking everything is Hard.
I don't know why AB is difficult to make work (though I have suspicions), but it self-evidently is.
* Yes, even if you do it that way. Or that way. I've thought about this some, and it's the sort of thing I've done before. There's a trade-off to make between flexibility in general, and ease of implementation of the specifics. DDB seem to have started out too far on the "easy" path, but there is no choice where it's impossible to get stuck.
Checked again. Still not working as of 23 June 2025.
Fr they need to fix it
Just fired up DnD Beyond amazed to find this bug and that his post is almost a year old... we should prepare to throw some sort of party.
I used to comment on their instagram posts, particularly those where they promoted a collaboration with another brand, cause it looks really bad, but I've given up on giving them free engagement. If anyone wants to take over, it's definitely better with more people.
Since September 18th, 2024 when this was posted, there have been SEVENTEEN updates. Seventeen. And not one of those fixed it
Still a problem on July 18th 2025...
This is somewhat off topic, I will admit, but when Wizards and their various software teams fumbled the ball midway through the life cycle of edition 4.0, I, as a grey hat hacker, developed my own style of character sheet. Since I only needed a character sheet for my gaming sessions, I played around with MS Excel and MS Word until I had something that looked nice. Since I was content to rely on the current PHB for the content, I did not build an MS Access data base to hold all of the occasionally contradictory data. Code Monkey Publishing did it right with e-Tools for 3.0 and 3.5 editions. I have commented on other threads about the occupational insanity that occurs with maintaining two (or more?) slightly misaligned software products that use the same user interface and I do not blame the teams for the occasional fumble. I have been there--oh boy have I been there!
Ok, I'm cranky today, so I've started posting rhymes about this as a comment on every single Instagram post D&D Beyond puts out, and a couple from D&DWizards. Anyone care to join?
It's really not considering how lazy the dnd beyond team is
Because the dev team is incompetent
Not quite....the D&D Beyond team is trying to use the same User Interface to handle two (or more) incompatible rules sets. In D&D 5.0, Agonizing Blast could ONLY be applied to the cantrip Eldritch Blast. In D&D 5.5, Agonizing Blast can be applied to ANY warlock cantrips that deals damage. There are other incompatibilities as well: Blight does one thing in 5.0, but it is slightly different in 5.5. I shudder to think what will happen in another eight or nine years, when another D&D edition slithers out and Wizards or Hasbro loads THAT edition into D&D Beyond, with the 2014 rules set, the 2024 rules set, the so-called Free rules set and the possible 2034 rules set, all sharing the same User Interface. Software danger words like 'kludge', 'SNAFU' and 'SUSFU' fill my head at that thought.
Lazy? No. Incompetent? No. Jet propelled into Insanity? YES!
I am sympathetic to software development teams, from about 1977 over to about 2007, that is how I earned my living, as a software developer for a Midwestern public university. Usually, I only had to worry about ten to twenty people accessing the files and systems under my care, while the software team for Wizards probably has to worry about 50,000 (at a minimum) people using the systems under their care. I had it so v..e..r..y e...a...s...y.