Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
Racial limits don't seem like they would be any harder to implement than class or subclass limits, but I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
Bingo on the second part of your sentence. I'm a front end web software engineer whose professional career is now old enough to legally drink, and even I can't tell you how easy it would be to implement simply because we have no awareness as to what the architecture design of the system is like or even how many developers they have on their team. Consider all the features that they're working on that would make the greatest amount of users happy... and then consider all the bugs that have been reported, most of which are probably of graver concern than this one...
And specifically in this case, I've had the opportunity to chat in person with some of the developers at the PAX Unplugged conventions the past couple of years, and it seems like there's a bit more complexity when it comes to the classes and sub-classes (especially the classes seeing as how they've expressed that giving us the ability to homebrew entire classes is an incredibly significant lift for them). I do feel like this might have been the product of some poorer architecture decisions early on in the development of the platform, but it is what it is now.
This is exceptionally frustrating. If a wizard happens to find these spells they still can't add them to their spellbook without creating homebrew copies of these spells. That's honestly a pretty trash experience to enforce on DMs and Players.
It takes very little time and effort to homebrew spells. There is an easy workaround right now. Heck, you could even use that workaround to have spells from other sources without even buying them on this platform, if you were so inclined. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things this is probably not really that big a deal, so as much as you might want to complain about this, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the team to address it. :shrug:
You are right in that it doesn't take much effort to duplicate them into homebrew, but there is also nothing to indicate they are so limited when you purchase them either, I would be frustrated if I bought only the spells and then found out I had to homebrew them to work.
I can definitely understand the perspective, but I feel like a significant percentage of the onus, if not all of it, is on the user to understand the rules of the game that this platform is designed to support.
Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
If you read my post and thread, I'm not spending my time complaining so much as trying to be constructive, building class lists that should have been included in the book in the first place. I acknowledge repeatedly that it's not the fault of Beyond.
Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
If you read my post and thread, I'm not spending my time complaining so much as trying to be constructive, building class lists that should have been included in the book in the first place. I acknowledge repeatedly that it's not the fault of Beyond.
But this is the “D&D Beyond feedback forum.” The whole point of this forum is to give feedback to DDB. If your feedback is about the book in the first place, this is not the place for it.
Just want to point out the book says you can learn them from scroll rewards and spells learned from wizards from wizards that have them. Read the side bar dunamancy for non-dunamacers. There should be some check box on the gm side to allow this. For instance I have a scroll for one the spells and am an abj wizard.
Dunamancy spells are readily available to the wizard subclasses in this chapter and should not be simply added to the full spell lists of other spellcasting classes. However, the Dungeon Master can consider allowing other spellcasting classes opportunities throughout the campaign to learn a handful of dunamancy-themed spells as rewards. Perhaps the characters uncover a cache of magical contraband, among which is a couple of spell scrolls, or a traveling acolyte takes some downtime with a friendly cleric character and opens their mind to some of the stranger secrets of the universe, unlocking a spell or two. There are many unique ways to bring these spells into your game without requiring any specific dunamis-wielding subclasses to be present in the adventuring party.
The bit you mention is not a rule that allows other classes to access dunamancy spells, it is a suggestion on how a DM could allow them to access the spells, should they decide to homebrew that they can.
Currently spell scrolls have no functional effect on what spells your character can access in the character sheet (they're not tied to specific spells).
If you want to grant access to a dunamis spell per the homebrew suggestion in the sidebar, you can make a copy of the spell using the homebrew tools and change what classes it is available for.
I am not if it isn't considered an optional rule. Matt said in a few of the interviews about use of the book for both inside the settin and out that PCs could learn them as rewards.
I think we can all agree that while it's FAR from being any kind of a priority, but at the same time - it's not a great UX, no matter how you frame it, no matter how short time it takes of a user to create a homebrew. Being a software engineer myself, I can see that it's a problematic issue, but since you are, or you were lately working on character sheets revamp and things around that, it is somehow relevant.
It is a DM discretion kind of a situation, but even being a DM and having tons of stuff to do anyway, having a per campaign switch for optional content does not seem unreasonable. I understand that it might be an edge case but if you are offering spells to purchase that might end up being unusable until worked on. it is a hint that your system is lacking the means to handle such situations and with more specific new content there might be more of them.
Again, I'm cool with homebrewing this for my player, but saying that this is AS INTENTED within D&D Beyond seems... just weird.
Again, I'm cool with homebrewing this for my player, but saying that this is AS INTENTED within D&D Beyond seems... just weird.
Beyond is just following what Wizards published, and I prefer Beyond to follow what Wizards says than injecting their own interpretation of the rules. The spells are strictly for certain wizard subclasses, and wanting to remove that restriction is no different from wanting class/subclass restrictions on other spells to be removed. If DMs and players who want to break away from RAW, then they can do so with homebrew. For DMs who want to stick with RAW, limiting the spell option by default helps DMs better manage their campaign as it is one less restriction that they have to remind their players about.
I disagree. DNDB is a consumer product and as such should follow proper UX. This is not against what RAW says in ANY way. It's a DM related feature and could only be available for DMs who are running their campaigns here. It's a matter of DM only set of settings they could update for all their players within a given campaign.
Again, you cannot honestly believe that being able to buy a spell without a subclass that is the only one or one of two able to use it, by a player, is how it should be ;)
I'm not disagreeing with you that players should have access to stuff that RAW dictates, you are 100% right. Just as is the fact that they are working on many things and I wouldn't even want them to sacrifice what they are working on to do a switch.
Then again, we are here given a platform to 'vocalise' our opinions and I believe that a good, friendly discussion is always good and invigorating. Personally, I'm using homebrew here A LOT since I'm running a homebrew setting I needed to add monsters, spells, items and even a race and I'm sure you know that it can be tricky and exhausting ;)
P.S. I forgot to mention - yes, RAW should always stay the default. I'm talking about being able to more easily update defaults if you will.
Again, you cannot honestly believe that being able to buy a spell without a subclass that is the only one or one of two able to use it, by a player, is how it should be ;)
There is nothing wrong with that. It is no different from selling parts separately from the main product, like razor blades, filters, batteries, etc. If you want the subclass and spells without purchasing the whole book, you have to buy them separately.
I disagree. DNDB is a consumer product and as such should follow proper UX. This is not against what RAW says in ANY way. It's a DM related feature and could only be available for DMs who are running their campaigns here. It's a matter of DM only set of settings they could update for all their players within a given campaign.
P.S. I forgot to mention - yes, RAW should always stay the default. I'm talking about being able to more easily update defaults if you will.
I agree that would be nice. Being able to toggle a switch to disable class restrictions for spells could be fun.
Personally, I want an option to disable attunement restrictions.
can we get a character sheet toggle that just allows them for that character?
The solution is detailed here and only requires a few clicks to do.
For all the dunamacy spells with the current homebrew tool with the excruciatingly slow website (at least in the past months) this takes easy the better part of an hour, and I would probably not lie if I say that I have a beast of a PC.
This might be a very different problem though.
I added all the spells to a feat, as additional spells, and just give the feat to a character when i want to learn the spells. Weirdly enough this worked fine on my cleric, but not on my wizard.
can we get a character sheet toggle that just allows them for that character?
The solution is detailed here and only requires a few clicks to do.
For all the dunamacy spells with the current homebrew tool with the excruciatingly slow website (at least in the past months) this takes easy the better part of an hour, and I would probably not lie if I say that I have a beast of a PC.
This might be a very different problem though.
I added all the spells to a feat, as additional spells, and just give the feat to a character when i want to learn the spells. Weirdly enough this worked fine on my cleric, but not on my wizard.
That’s because Clerics are “prepared spellcasters” and Wizards are a wired hybrid of “known” and prepared.
It would be easier to make a homebrewed version of the subclass and add all of the spells to a custom spell list all at once, easy peasy lemon squeezie.
Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
can we get a character sheet toggle that just allows them for that character?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe solution is detailed here and only requires a few clicks to do.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Bingo on the second part of your sentence. I'm a front end web software engineer whose professional career is now old enough to legally drink, and even I can't tell you how easy it would be to implement simply because we have no awareness as to what the architecture design of the system is like or even how many developers they have on their team. Consider all the features that they're working on that would make the greatest amount of users happy... and then consider all the bugs that have been reported, most of which are probably of graver concern than this one...
And specifically in this case, I've had the opportunity to chat in person with some of the developers at the PAX Unplugged conventions the past couple of years, and it seems like there's a bit more complexity when it comes to the classes and sub-classes (especially the classes seeing as how they've expressed that giving us the ability to homebrew entire classes is an incredibly significant lift for them). I do feel like this might have been the product of some poorer architecture decisions early on in the development of the platform, but it is what it is now.
It takes very little time and effort to homebrew spells. There is an easy workaround right now. Heck, you could even use that workaround to have spells from other sources without even buying them on this platform, if you were so inclined. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things this is probably not really that big a deal, so as much as you might want to complain about this, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the team to address it. :shrug:
I can definitely understand the perspective, but I feel like a significant percentage of the onus, if not all of it, is on the user to understand the rules of the game that this platform is designed to support.
If you read my post and thread, I'm not spending my time complaining so much as trying to be constructive, building class lists that should have been included in the book in the first place. I acknowledge repeatedly that it's not the fault of Beyond.
But this is the “D&D Beyond feedback forum.” The whole point of this forum is to give feedback to DDB. If your feedback is about the book in the first place, this is not the place for it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just want to point out the book says you can learn them from scroll rewards and spells learned from wizards from wizards that have them. Read the side bar dunamancy for non-dunamacers. There should be some check box on the gm side to allow this. For instance I have a scroll for one the spells and am an abj wizard.
The side bar says
The bit you mention is not a rule that allows other classes to access dunamancy spells, it is a suggestion on how a DM could allow them to access the spells, should they decide to homebrew that they can.
Currently spell scrolls have no functional effect on what spells your character can access in the character sheet (they're not tied to specific spells).
If you want to grant access to a dunamis spell per the homebrew suggestion in the sidebar, you can make a copy of the spell using the homebrew tools and change what classes it is available for.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I am not if it isn't considered an optional rule. Matt said in a few of the interviews about use of the book for both inside the settin and out that PCs could learn them as rewards.
Yes, exactly as described in the sidebar, if the Dungeon Master considers it appropriate, not as RAW.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersYes, that is correct, in the same way that a DM could grant a player a new feat, or any other spell as a reward.
I have run a game where I granted a cleric the ability to caste haste and a couple of other wizard spells.
All such things are at the DM's discretion and are homebrew and that's totally ok. 😊
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I think we can all agree that while it's FAR from being any kind of a priority, but at the same time - it's not a great UX, no matter how you frame it, no matter how short time it takes of a user to create a homebrew. Being a software engineer myself, I can see that it's a problematic issue, but since you are, or you were lately working on character sheets revamp and things around that, it is somehow relevant.
It is a DM discretion kind of a situation, but even being a DM and having tons of stuff to do anyway, having a per campaign switch for optional content does not seem unreasonable. I understand that it might be an edge case but if you are offering spells to purchase that might end up being unusable until worked on. it is a hint that your system is lacking the means to handle such situations and with more specific new content there might be more of them.
Again, I'm cool with homebrewing this for my player, but saying that this is AS INTENTED within D&D Beyond seems... just weird.
Beyond is just following what Wizards published, and I prefer Beyond to follow what Wizards says than injecting their own interpretation of the rules. The spells are strictly for certain wizard subclasses, and wanting to remove that restriction is no different from wanting class/subclass restrictions on other spells to be removed. If DMs and players who want to break away from RAW, then they can do so with homebrew. For DMs who want to stick with RAW, limiting the spell option by default helps DMs better manage their campaign as it is one less restriction that they have to remind their players about.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I disagree. DNDB is a consumer product and as such should follow proper UX. This is not against what RAW says in ANY way. It's a DM related feature and could only be available for DMs who are running their campaigns here. It's a matter of DM only set of settings they could update for all their players within a given campaign.
Again, you cannot honestly believe that being able to buy a spell without a subclass that is the only one or one of two able to use it, by a player, is how it should be ;)
I'm not disagreeing with you that players should have access to stuff that RAW dictates, you are 100% right. Just as is the fact that they are working on many things and I wouldn't even want them to sacrifice what they are working on to do a switch.
Then again, we are here given a platform to 'vocalise' our opinions and I believe that a good, friendly discussion is always good and invigorating. Personally, I'm using homebrew here A LOT since I'm running a homebrew setting I needed to add monsters, spells, items and even a race and I'm sure you know that it can be tricky and exhausting ;)
P.S. I forgot to mention - yes, RAW should always stay the default. I'm talking about being able to more easily update defaults if you will.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is no different from selling parts separately from the main product, like razor blades, filters, batteries, etc. If you want the subclass and spells without purchasing the whole book, you have to buy them separately.
I agree that would be nice. Being able to toggle a switch to disable class restrictions for spells could be fun.
Personally, I want an option to disable attunement restrictions.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
For all the dunamacy spells with the current homebrew tool with the excruciatingly slow website (at least in the past months) this takes easy the better part of an hour, and I would probably not lie if I say that I have a beast of a PC.
This might be a very different problem though.
I added all the spells to a feat, as additional spells, and just give the feat to a character when i want to learn the spells. Weirdly enough this worked fine on my cleric, but not on my wizard.
That’s because Clerics are “prepared spellcasters” and Wizards are a wired hybrid of “known” and prepared.
It would be easier to make a homebrewed version of the subclass and add all of the spells to a custom spell list all at once, easy peasy lemon squeezie.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Good grief - the amount of salt in this thread over DDB following RAW is mindblowing.
I want DDB to follow RAW - we have tools to change from RAW if we want, but the product shouldn't violate RAW as a default.
FFS
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0