Reportedly, Windows 11 will run Android apps off the bat so that'll solve it.
There are also more immediate workarounds, including running Android apps on Win 10 (although you'll want to Google that, it seems a bit more involved than a quick forum post can get into.)
Other options include:
- Use Mozilla Firefox, turn on their "Work Offline" mode, and browse through the desired source book while online. A cache of the pages will then be available while offline.
- Use Internet Explorer, add the page with your source book to the Favorites menu, and select "Make Available Offline."
- Save the individual pages via your browser, and open them from files when offline (an app like HTTrack or Cyotek WebCopy can help with this.)
So let me confirm, they will stick with something they KNOW to be incorrect based upon their own description because there is a lack of specificity as to the exactly correct value?
Also, I stated that I -do- use the customize feature in all games that have DMs and campaigns where weight and encumbrance aren’t big issues.
I bring this up because many people play RAW, and the way the descriptions are written are that Mithral weighs less than steel, yet according to item statistics they do not. So the RAW are in conflict with themselves, so being the same weight can only be made more wrong by making the item weigh more than their steel counterparts, but even one ounce less and then the rules are back to being in line. Genuine question: Do those in Adventurer’s League that use DnDBeyond handle this on a case by case basis or just accept that mithral is only good for not having strength requirements, but nothing more?
Yes, there are bigger issues out there, but not many that could be fixed in 30 minutes or less by 1 person.
So let me confirm, they will stick with something they KNOW to be incorrect based upon their own description because there is a lack of specificity as to the exactly correct value?
Also, I stated that I -do- use the customize feature in all games that have DMs and campaigns where weight and encumbrance aren’t big issues.
I bring this up because many people play RAW, and the way the descriptions are written are that Mithral weighs less than steel, yet according to item statistics they do not. So the RAW are in conflict with themselves, so being the same weight can only be made more wrong by making the item weigh more than their steel counterparts, but even one ounce less and then the rules are back to being in line. Genuine question: Do those in Adventurer’s League that use DnDBeyond handle this on a case by case basis or just accept that mithral is only good for not having strength requirements, but nothing more?
Yes, there are bigger issues out there, but not many that could be fixed in 30 minutes or less by 1 person.
D&D Beyond reflects the rules as presented in the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Nothing in the description of mithral armor says that a specific weight reduction to the armor is applied, there is only a description that the material is lighter. As such, DDB reproduces that description, and does not modify the weight of the armor because there is no information that weight should be modified, or by how much. DDB cannot, and will not, make up rules where they don't exist.
If you can point to a rule printed in a book that specifies how much weight reduction mithral applies, I will happily pass that along to the relevant team. But I do not believe such a rule exists; there is only a vague description of the material.
You would have to ask in an Adventurer's League forum as to how AL handles mithral armor, but I believe it's handled exactly the same as that's RAW. The rules don't say you get a weight reduction on the armor, so you don't.
So what is the point of having a Mithral chain shirt if there is absolutely no difference between the mithral and normal versions?
I will not blame DnDBeyond for any issues in the future as apparently it is most likely the original publisher’s fault and rather than asking them for clarity over the two years this was first brought up on this site by Wtfdndad, blame will be placed and the matter forgotten.
Thanks for your time spent so far, I won’t bring it up for another few months since it’ll be easier to drop that campaign than have anyone ask WotC to clarify through a tweet.
So what is the point of having a Mithral chain shirt if there is absolutely no difference between the mithral and normal versions?
I will not blame DnDBeyond for any issues in the future as apparently it is most likely the original publisher’s fault and rather than asking them for clarity over the two years this was first brought up on this site by Wtfdndad, blame will be placed and the matter forgotten.
Thanks for your time spent so far, I won’t bring it up for another few months since it’ll be easier to drop that campaign than have anyone ask WotC to clarify through a tweet.
That'd be a question for Wizards of the Coast, rather than D&D Beyond. They make the rules, DDB just delivers them to your screen
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification? Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
Yes, you're entering complaining territory (which is fair enough, if you feel you have something to complain about,) but as has been pointed out, you're complaining to the wrong people. This isn't a problem of DDB's making, and without an official ruling (the closest of which seems to be a flat, "it's not different, and that's that," here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/847301042672775174) there's literally nothing DDB can do.
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification? Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
It's not within D&D Beyonds purview to evaluate every rule in D&D for consistency, logic, or if it meets expectations. We focus on delivering the rules as WotC designs them, and if WotC updates those rules, we reflect those updates.
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification? Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
It's not within D&D Beyonds purview to evaluate every rule in D&D for consistency, logic, or if it meets expectations. We focus on delivering the rules as WotC designs them, and if WotC updates those rules, we reflect those updates.
then again, DDB hasn't even completed the player handbook and the DMs guide book. many a thing are still missing from those books and yet in 4 years, none of it is in sight of being completed.
Rage, spell effects should have been added long ago into the player sheet. yet there is literally no sign from it. the only thing we have had in 4 years is the life cleric ability. If i were to be DDB, the basics should of been the first thing to be completed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification? Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
It's not within D&D Beyonds purview to evaluate every rule in D&D for consistency, logic, or if it meets expectations. We focus on delivering the rules as WotC designs them, and if WotC updates those rules, we reflect those updates.
then again, DDB hasn't even completed the player handbook and the DMs guide book. many a thing are still missing from those books and yet in 4 years, none of it is in sight of being completed.
Rage, spell effects should have been added long ago into the player sheet. yet there is literally no sign from it. the only thing we have had in 4 years is the life cleric ability. If i were to be DDB, the basics should of been the first thing to be completed.
It's actually been stated in the dev update several times that temporary effects require the concept of duration to be present mechanically within the sheet in order to be correctly implemented. This is something the combat tracker delivers, the ability to track duration. As it's also been stated previously, a data rework of the character sheet services to better silo character data and make it more efficiently accessible is required so that data can be pulled into the combat tracker. This will enable not just stuff like temporary effects, but also bringing in game statistics like Hp and passive scores.
As for the life domain disciple of life ability, that's a different scenario. That's a 'snowflake rule' (a rule unique to a single subclass or other game mechanic) and those require a different approach, one that will be made a lot easier once the general features system is complete.
Ultimately while this all may be simple on a "playing D&D" level, none of it is simple at an "automating digital character sheets as a robust, scalable web service level". The two are very much not the same.
Ultimately while this all may be simple on a "playing D&D" level, none of it is simple at an "automating digital character sheets as a robust, scalable web service level". The two are very much not the same.
While I don't agree with everything being complained about, it does make me wonder about things that aren't necessarily about the scale involved. Because most of these things (and much more) already exist in Foundry VTT. Foundry Core and the D&D 5E implementation is being done by about three people and they only have existed for two years.
Ultimately while this all may be simple on a "playing D&D" level, none of it is simple at an "automating digital character sheets as a robust, scalable web service level". The two are very much not the same.
While I don't agree with everything being complained about, it does make me wonder about things that aren't necessarily about the scale involved. Because most of these things (and much more) already exist in Foundry VTT. Foundry Core and the D&D 5E implementation is being done by about three people and they only have existed for two years.
Foundry VTT is a very different platform both from a technology perspective as well as the purpose it serves. This would be a more appropriate comparison once D&D Beyond actually steps into the VTT realm beyond (pun unintended) "just" a simple combat tracker.
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification? Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
It's not within D&D Beyonds purview to evaluate every rule in D&D for consistency, logic, or if it meets expectations. We focus on delivering the rules as WotC designs them, and if WotC updates those rules, we reflect those updates.
then again, DDB hasn't even completed the player handbook and the DMs guide book. many a thing are still missing from those books and yet in 4 years, none of it is in sight of being completed.
Rage, spell effects should have been added long ago into the player sheet. yet there is literally no sign from it. the only thing we have had in 4 years is the life cleric ability. If i were to be DDB, the basics should of been the first thing to be completed.
It's actually been stated in the dev update several times that temporary effects require the concept of duration to be present mechanically within the sheet in order to be correctly implemented. This is something the combat tracker delivers, the ability to track duration. As it's also been stated previously, a data rework of the character sheet services to better silo character data and make it more efficiently accessible is required so that data can be pulled into the combat tracker. This will enable not just stuff like temporary effects, but also bringing in game statistics like Hp and passive scores.
As for the life domain disciple of life ability, that's a different scenario. That's a 'snowflake rule' (a rule unique to a single subclass or other game mechanic) and those require a different approach, one that will be made a lot easier once the general features system is complete.
Ultimately while this all may be simple on a "playing D&D" level, none of it is simple at an "automating digital character sheets as a robust, scalable web service level". The two are very much not the same.
heres the thing... most of the people who uses beyond, aren't even asking for you to calculate everything...
as an exemple... back then we had only regular textbox for campaign management. we asked for simple rich text box, thats literally just a switch of a button. we got that and honestly, while i'm not entirely happy with it all... its that much better still and it didn't requires all the big coding you are talking about. the same is true for those effects we are asking about. we're not asking for them to be up and down on their own... we are asking for a simple addition to conditions. we will be the timer, after all we are the ones playing, so we have just that to check. we'rte not asking you guys to work on something that will take a long time to do, we're asking for a simple, add conditions to the list of already made conditions.
i know how hard it is to make something like this and even more when you have to take the esthetics of it all... but again... that's not what we are asking for ! we simply want an effect that adds the benefits to the sheet. this is something you already do with the sheet. there is literally not much else to program. just adding some effects as conditions. its as simple as that. unless you are telling me the condition system do not do what i think it does. i don'T know how you guys programmed it, but i doubt the condition system to be lacking.
Conditions we want added. no need to remove them on their own, like in the exhaustion system for exemple, its not removed on its own. Bless : adds +1d4 to saving throws and attack rolls Rage : adds barbarian rage damage if class is barbarian. as well as advantage on strength checks and resistances as a barbarian.
so on and so on. you catch my drift. it sure wouldn'T be a long term solution. but it sure would satisfy most of us about it and you'd gain all the time in the world to work on the rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I wanted to push or drop an old character to a new campaign I just created, is there any way to do it other than recreate it as unassigned character from inside the campaign?
I have a player who seems to be suffering from Dyslexia. She often complained that the character sheet and character creation seem to be confusing for her. I was wondering if there'd be an option to make the UI a bit friendlier to players suffering from this kind of condition.
I have a player who seems to be suffering from Dyslexia. She often complained that the character sheet and character creation seem to be confusing for her. I was wondering if there'd be an option to make the UI a bit friendlier to players suffering from this kind of condition.
That's an excellent suggestion, IMHO. My brother and my friend are dyslexic. You should ask her specifics: What exactly is difficult? Is there something she can't find? Is something that should be fast too slow?
I don't know if DDB has the capacity to make another character sheet but maybe they can work with one of the creators of a D&D character sheet for dyslexic people so they can export in that format. Now, that'll be a great way to do it.
I wanted to push or drop an old character to a new campaign I just created, is there any way to do it other than recreate it as unassigned character from inside the campaign?
If it is your character, remove it from the old campaign and add it to the new one. Or, if you want to keep it in the old campaign, make a copy of it and add the copy to the new one.
I have a player who seems to be suffering from Dyslexia. She often complained that the character sheet and character creation seem to be confusing for her. I was wondering if there'd be an option to make the UI a bit friendlier to players suffering from this kind of condition.
Sabre Runner is right on the money! Right now, you're asking for something vague. If you give them specifics, like "Skills should appear beside their ability score" they can work on it, as opposed to being told, "Do research to curb a condition you can't control." I'm also dyslexic, but I've yet to really run into many issues. My biggest problem is locating skills because alphabetical order with equal spacing makes them easier to move in my head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
thanks
There are also more immediate workarounds, including running Android apps on Win 10 (although you'll want to Google that, it seems a bit more involved than a quick forum post can get into.)
Other options include:
- Use Mozilla Firefox, turn on their "Work Offline" mode, and browse through the desired source book while online. A cache of the pages will then be available while offline.
- Use Internet Explorer, add the page with your source book to the Favorites menu, and select "Make Available Offline."
- Save the individual pages via your browser, and open them from files when offline (an app like HTTrack or Cyotek WebCopy can help with this.)
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
thanks for the info!
So let me confirm, they will stick with something they KNOW to be incorrect based upon their own description because there is a lack of specificity as to the exactly correct value?
Also, I stated that I -do- use the customize feature in all games that have DMs and campaigns where weight and encumbrance aren’t big issues.
I bring this up because many people play RAW, and the way the descriptions are written are that Mithral weighs less than steel, yet according to item statistics they do not. So the RAW are in conflict with themselves, so being the same weight can only be made more wrong by making the item weigh more than their steel counterparts, but even one ounce less and then the rules are back to being in line.
Genuine question: Do those in Adventurer’s League that use DnDBeyond handle this on a case by case basis or just accept that mithral is only good for not having strength requirements, but nothing more?
Yes, there are bigger issues out there, but not many that could be fixed in 30 minutes or less by 1 person.
D&D Beyond reflects the rules as presented in the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Nothing in the description of mithral armor says that a specific weight reduction to the armor is applied, there is only a description that the material is lighter. As such, DDB reproduces that description, and does not modify the weight of the armor because there is no information that weight should be modified, or by how much. DDB cannot, and will not, make up rules where they don't exist.
If you can point to a rule printed in a book that specifies how much weight reduction mithral applies, I will happily pass that along to the relevant team. But I do not believe such a rule exists; there is only a vague description of the material.
You would have to ask in an Adventurer's League forum as to how AL handles mithral armor, but I believe it's handled exactly the same as that's RAW. The rules don't say you get a weight reduction on the armor, so you don't.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
So what is the point of having a Mithral chain shirt if there is absolutely no difference between the mithral and normal versions?
I will not blame DnDBeyond for any issues in the future as apparently it is most likely the original publisher’s fault and rather than asking them for clarity over the two years this was first brought up on this site by Wtfdndad, blame will be placed and the matter forgotten.
Thanks for your time spent so far, I won’t bring it up for another few months since it’ll be easier to drop that campaign than have anyone ask WotC to clarify through a tweet.
That'd be a question for Wizards of the Coast, rather than D&D Beyond. They make the rules, DDB just delivers them to your screen
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
(I tried sending this as a personal message rather than on the board, as I feel my part in this has gone from a request to complaining territory, but errors occurred.)
So in two years, nobody in the company making money off of subscription services could send a tweet towards WotC for clarification?
Seems a bit lazy to just blame the company all the material is coming from without actually trying to get clarification. Is this a work ethic worthy of emulating?
How do you know they didn't?
Yes, you're entering complaining territory (which is fair enough, if you feel you have something to complain about,) but as has been pointed out, you're complaining to the wrong people. This isn't a problem of DDB's making, and without an official ruling (the closest of which seems to be a flat, "it's not different, and that's that," here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/847301042672775174) there's literally nothing DDB can do.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
It's not within D&D Beyonds purview to evaluate every rule in D&D for consistency, logic, or if it meets expectations. We focus on delivering the rules as WotC designs them, and if WotC updates those rules, we reflect those updates.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
then again, DDB hasn't even completed the player handbook and the DMs guide book. many a thing are still missing from those books and yet in 4 years, none of it is in sight of being completed.
Rage, spell effects should have been added long ago into the player sheet. yet there is literally no sign from it. the only thing we have had in 4 years is the life cleric ability.
If i were to be DDB, the basics should of been the first thing to be completed.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It's actually been stated in the dev update several times that temporary effects require the concept of duration to be present mechanically within the sheet in order to be correctly implemented. This is something the combat tracker delivers, the ability to track duration. As it's also been stated previously, a data rework of the character sheet services to better silo character data and make it more efficiently accessible is required so that data can be pulled into the combat tracker. This will enable not just stuff like temporary effects, but also bringing in game statistics like Hp and passive scores.
As for the life domain disciple of life ability, that's a different scenario. That's a 'snowflake rule' (a rule unique to a single subclass or other game mechanic) and those require a different approach, one that will be made a lot easier once the general features system is complete.
Ultimately while this all may be simple on a "playing D&D" level, none of it is simple at an "automating digital character sheets as a robust, scalable web service level". The two are very much not the same.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
While I don't agree with everything being complained about, it does make me wonder about things that aren't necessarily about the scale involved. Because most of these things (and much more) already exist in Foundry VTT. Foundry Core and the D&D 5E implementation is being done by about three people and they only have existed for two years.
Check out all my important links here.
May we live in Less Interesting Times
Foundry VTT is a very different platform both from a technology perspective as well as the purpose it serves. This would be a more appropriate comparison once D&D Beyond actually steps into the VTT realm beyond (pun unintended) "just" a simple combat tracker.
heres the thing...
most of the people who uses beyond, aren't even asking for you to calculate everything...
as an exemple...
back then we had only regular textbox for campaign management.
we asked for simple rich text box, thats literally just a switch of a button. we got that and honestly, while i'm not entirely happy with it all... its that much better still and it didn't requires all the big coding you are talking about. the same is true for those effects we are asking about. we're not asking for them to be up and down on their own... we are asking for a simple addition to conditions. we will be the timer, after all we are the ones playing, so we have just that to check. we'rte not asking you guys to work on something that will take a long time to do, we're asking for a simple, add conditions to the list of already made conditions.
i know how hard it is to make something like this and even more when you have to take the esthetics of it all... but again... that's not what we are asking for !
we simply want an effect that adds the benefits to the sheet. this is something you already do with the sheet. there is literally not much else to program.
just adding some effects as conditions. its as simple as that. unless you are telling me the condition system do not do what i think it does.
i don'T know how you guys programmed it, but i doubt the condition system to be lacking.
Conditions we want added. no need to remove them on their own, like in the exhaustion system for exemple, its not removed on its own.
Bless : adds +1d4 to saving throws and attack rolls
Rage : adds barbarian rage damage if class is barbarian. as well as advantage on strength checks and resistances as a barbarian.
so on and so on.
you catch my drift.
it sure wouldn'T be a long term solution. but it sure would satisfy most of us about it and you'd gain all the time in the world to work on the rest.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I wanted to push or drop an old character to a new campaign I just created, is there any way to do it other than recreate it as unassigned character from inside the campaign?
I have a player who seems to be suffering from Dyslexia. She often complained that the character sheet and character creation seem to be confusing for her. I was wondering if there'd be an option to make the UI a bit friendlier to players suffering from this kind of condition.
That's an excellent suggestion, IMHO. My brother and my friend are dyslexic. You should ask her specifics: What exactly is difficult? Is there something she can't find? Is something that should be fast too slow?
I don't know if DDB has the capacity to make another character sheet but maybe they can work with one of the creators of a D&D character sheet for dyslexic people so they can export in that format. Now, that'll be a great way to do it.
Check out all my important links here.
May we live in Less Interesting Times
If it is your character, remove it from the old campaign and add it to the new one. Or, if you want to keep it in the old campaign, make a copy of it and add the copy to the new one.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
Sabre Runner is right on the money! Right now, you're asking for something vague. If you give them specifics, like "Skills should appear beside their ability score" they can work on it, as opposed to being told, "Do research to curb a condition you can't control." I'm also dyslexic, but I've yet to really run into many issues. My biggest problem is locating skills because alphabetical order with equal spacing makes them easier to move in my head.