Ability to easily turn old characters into NPCs for campaigns
There are no rules for this, so there'd be no way for D&D Beyond to automate this. If you want the ability to make NPCs from characters, there are the homebrew tools which allow you to make monsters.
I should have worded that better, I mean being able to convert a character sheet into a homebrew npc with just a click. The character builder is more streamlined then the homebrew builder and I have old player characters in my previous campaigns that would be fun for my players to run into now.
I should have worded that better, I mean being able to convert a character sheet into a homebrew npc with just a click. The character builder is more streamlined then the homebrew builder and I have old player characters in my previous campaigns that would be fun for my players to fun into now.
Yeah, I assumed that's what you meant. The issue with wanting that as a feature on D&D Beyond is that there are no rules (only loose, homebrew guidelines) for such a conversion. As such, there's no way for D&D Beyond to perform that "with just a click".
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
It's been said that yes, the homebrew tools are a stripped down/simplified/limited version of the content entry tools, but they're not the same tools and not the only tools the content entry team has been stated to use. When adding things like classes, mundane items, or base class features such as Eldritch Invocation or Fighting Styles, it's been stated that those things things requiring directly modifying the site code itself rather than filling out a form.
In fact, have you ever noticed that sometimes after a new official option releases, there'll be a new option in the homebrew tools? That's because in the process of supporting that official option, in order for the option to work, the team has modified the site to add a new variable or dropdown or whatever and that propagates to the homebrew tools. Homebrew classes 99% those kinds of features, requiring the backend of the site to be edited to make them work.
Let's think about the structure of a class, what's universal across all classes?
Hit point dice, between a d6 and d12 currently. It may very well be hardcoded that only those four options are available. What if you want to make a d4 or d20 hit point dice class? Or 2d6?
Level progression from 1 to 20. I think it's reasonable to expect anyone homebrewing a class to make it within that range. No level 0 or level 30 etc
Proficiencies and armor training are fairly universal as mechanical concepts
Feat selection
Fighting style selection
Beyond that, it's all bespoke to that class. When we're talking homebrew, the sky's the limit and there's no way D&D Beyond can support that. People already push right up against the limits of the currently supported homebrew tools (which follow the rules of the game) and lament those "restrictions" to their creativity.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
It's been said that yes, the homebrew tools are a stripped down/simplified/limited version of the content entry tools, but they're not the same tools and not the only tools the content entry team has been stated to use. When adding things like classes, mundane items, or base class features such as Eldritch Invocation or Fighting Styles, it's been stated that those things things requiring directly modifying the site code itself rather than filling out a form.
In fact, have you ever noticed that sometimes after a new official option releases, there'll be a new option in the homebrew tools? That's because in the process of supporting that official option, in order for the option to work, the team has modified the site to add a new variable or dropdown or whatever and that propagates to the homebrew tools. Homebrew classes 99% those kinds of features, requiring the backend of the site to be edited to make them work.
Let's think about the structure of a class, what's universal across all classes?
Hit point dice, between a d6 and d12 currently. It may very well be hardcoded that only those four options are available. What if you want to make a d4 or d20 hit point dice class? Or 2d6?
Level progression from 1 to 20. I think it's reasonable to expect anyone homebrewing a class to make it within that range. No level 0 or level 30 etc
Proficiencies and armor training are fairly universal as mechanical concepts
Feat selection
Fighting style selection
Beyond that, it's all bespoke to that class. When we're talking homebrew, the sky's the limit and there's no way D&D Beyond can support that. People already push right up against the limits of the currently supported homebrew tools (which follow the rules of the game) and lament those "restrictions" to their creativity.
other sites and vtts have figured that out. I'm currently using a different site to make my homebrew classes (and consider swapping my whole group over from DDB), and it is rather simple. But to add to your "whats universal on all classes"
Fighting Styles are now feats, so these can be covered there instead. I don't see there anything that would be so different to most other homebrew entries we can edit. At best, the subclass homebrew system would have to struggle if it can't find what class it is a subclass for. But that could be resolved to put the homebrew subclass on the classes directly, instead of making them seperate.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
It's been said that yes, the homebrew tools are a stripped down/simplified/limited version of the content entry tools, but they're not the same tools and not the only tools the content entry team has been stated to use. When adding things like classes, mundane items, or base class features such as Eldritch Invocation or Fighting Styles, it's been stated that those things things requiring directly modifying the site code itself rather than filling out a form.
In fact, have you ever noticed that sometimes after a new official option releases, there'll be a new option in the homebrew tools? That's because in the process of supporting that official option, in order for the option to work, the team has modified the site to add a new variable or dropdown or whatever and that propagates to the homebrew tools. Homebrew classes 99% those kinds of features, requiring the backend of the site to be edited to make them work.
Let's think about the structure of a class, what's universal across all classes?
Hit point dice, between a d6 and d12 currently. It may very well be hardcoded that only those four options are available. What if you want to make a d4 or d20 hit point dice class? Or 2d6?
Level progression from 1 to 20. I think it's reasonable to expect anyone homebrewing a class to make it within that range. No level 0 or level 30 etc
Proficiencies and armor training are fairly universal as mechanical concepts
Feat selection
Fighting style selection
Beyond that, it's all bespoke to that class. When we're talking homebrew, the sky's the limit and there's no way D&D Beyond can support that. People already push right up against the limits of the currently supported homebrew tools (which follow the rules of the game) and lament those "restrictions" to their creativity.
Thanks for the response. “Not being able to support it” doesn’t hold up for two key reasons:
Most class mechanics—hit dice, proficiencies, spell progression, feature unlock levels—are structured values already defined (or easily definable) in the system. These aren’t unpredictable variables, directly supporting #2.
The system clearly supports class creation internally, so the limitation isn’t the platform—it’s the choice not to extend those tools to the community. Most homebrewers would gladly build within a structured framework if given the chance. We’re not asking to break the system—we’re just asking to use it.
Basing decisions on the most extreme “sky’s the limit” homebrews sets the wrong priority. Most users just want to make functional, modular classes using the same components and general boundaries that official content already uses. Ignoring the average homebrewer because someone wants their anime-inspired super-class with 14 subclasses that class feats at every level and has a transformation mechanic to go unchecked, only limits creativity for the broader community.
Support the 80% use case first—then worry about the edge cases.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
It's been said that yes, the homebrew tools are a stripped down/simplified/limited version of the content entry tools, but they're not the same tools and not the only tools the content entry team has been stated to use. When adding things like classes, mundane items, or base class features such as Eldritch Invocation or Fighting Styles, it's been stated that those things things requiring directly modifying the site code itself rather than filling out a form.
In fact, have you ever noticed that sometimes after a new official option releases, there'll be a new option in the homebrew tools? That's because in the process of supporting that official option, in order for the option to work, the team has modified the site to add a new variable or dropdown or whatever and that propagates to the homebrew tools. Homebrew classes 99% those kinds of features, requiring the backend of the site to be edited to make them work.
Let's think about the structure of a class, what's universal across all classes?
Hit point dice, between a d6 and d12 currently. It may very well be hardcoded that only those four options are available. What if you want to make a d4 or d20 hit point dice class? Or 2d6?
Level progression from 1 to 20. I think it's reasonable to expect anyone homebrewing a class to make it within that range. No level 0 or level 30 etc
Proficiencies and armor training are fairly universal as mechanical concepts
Feat selection
Fighting style selection
Beyond that, it's all bespoke to that class. When we're talking homebrew, the sky's the limit and there's no way D&D Beyond can support that. People already push right up against the limits of the currently supported homebrew tools (which follow the rules of the game) and lament those "restrictions" to their creativity.
Thanks for the response. “Not being able to support it” doesn’t hold up for two key reasons:
Most class mechanics—hit dice, proficiencies, spell progression, feature unlock levels—are structured values already defined (or easily definable) in the system. These aren’t unpredictable variables, directly supporting #2.
The system clearly supports class creation internally, so the limitation isn’t the platform—it’s the choice not to extend those tools to the community. Most homebrewers would gladly build within a structured framework if given the chance. We’re not asking to break the system—we’re just asking to use it.
Basing decisions on the most extreme “sky’s the limit” homebrews sets the wrong priority. Most users just want to make functional, modular classes using the same components and general boundaries that official content already uses. Ignoring the average homebrewer because someone wants their anime-inspired super-class with 14 subclasses that class feats at every level and has a transformation mechanic to go unchecked, only limits creativity for the broader community.
Support the 80% use case first—then worry about the edge cases.
Giving programmatic access to the site backend would be a terrible idea from the perspective of stability and security.
Giving programmatic access to the site backend would be a terrible idea from the perspective of stability and security.
I believe this request is being misunderstood—or perhaps unintentionally portrayed in the worst possible light. No one here is asking for programmatic or backend access, which would obviously pose risks to site stability and security. What we’re asking for is broader access—on the user side—to the same structured tools already used for official class creation. These are proven, stable systems that already exist within the platform. We’re not trying to break anything—just hoping to move past needless gatekeeping that limits creativity for no valid technical reason.
Giving programmatic access to the site backend would be a terrible idea from the perspective of stability and security.
I believe this request is being misunderstood—or perhaps unintentionally portrayed in the worst possible light. No one here is asking for programmatic or backend access, which would obviously pose risks to site stability and security. What we’re asking for is broader access—on the user side—to the same structured tools already used for official class creation. These are proven, stable systems that already exist within the platform. We’re not trying to break anything—just hoping to move past needless gatekeeping that limits creativity for no valid technical reason.
I feel I'm being misunderstood. Based on our understanding of how class creation works (primarily shared during the first implementation of the artificer playtest), adding new classes necessitates programmatic access to the backend because that's how new classes are added for the vast majority of their features.
One thing i really want to have on dndbeyond is the ability to add like the weapons mastery and a version of the new sub-classes that are only being put to a 2024 format to a 2014 version so my players and myself could make them with the original 5e stuff and not have to use the new version of the classes. They could easily add a tab like they did with the Tasha book to add new things to the sheets or switch out things with another like they did to the original ranger.
Thanks for the clarification—I appreciate the perspective. But if DDB truly can’t support it, then it’s time to fix that. It’s 2025. It’s been three years. We have the technology.
I can’t speak for your internal tools, but I’ve been creating classes long before the Artificer playtests—across both 2014 and 2024 Unearthed Arcana—and we know the platform already can output custom classes (artificer, illrigger and now gunslinger). That tells me it’s capable, or at least it should be.
To be clear, no one’s asking for backend access or a postmortem on the legacy codebase (to wit: blaming bad code). We’re asking for the ability to build full classes—whether through a streamlined version of the dev tools or by enabling a structured, user-facing framework for those flagged for homebrew. Let us use the system the same way it already proves it can be used.
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
Simple example: The Origin Feats, Fighting Styles and Epic Boons are hard coded lists because the current infrastructure wasn't built to support anything but General Feats. They can add new classes, but it's all bespoke at this point. They're building out classes, then adjusting manually to get the unique elements to work.
So you might be able to homebrew a Fighter clone, but you couldn't build your own Witchfinder with unique features.
Is this bad? Yes.
Do they need to rebuild the website to be more flexible? Definitely.
Are Hasbro willing to invest that amount of money just for homebrew? Definitely not.
For now just to be able to toggle between 2014 and 2024 ruleset on a character. We are still playing an adventure with the 2014 rules and having to check each spell is annoying
I just realized they have already done some changes, I will gladly check them out
Ability to easily turn old characters into NPCs for campaigns
There are no rules for this, so there'd be no way for D&D Beyond to automate this. If you want the ability to make NPCs from characters, there are the homebrew tools which allow you to make monsters.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I should have worded that better, I mean being able to convert a character sheet into a homebrew npc with just a click. The character builder is more streamlined then the homebrew builder and I have old player characters in my previous campaigns that would be fun for my players to run into now.
Yeah, I assumed that's what you meant. The issue with wanting that as a feature on D&D Beyond is that there are no rules (only loose, homebrew guidelines) for such a conversion. As such, there's no way for D&D Beyond to perform that "with just a click".
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Custom, Homebrew classes (not that WOTC really dives a damn about what we want)
From what has been said by people investigating the client facing code, it's more about "D&D Beyond would need to rebuild how the website works" than "Hasbro wants to prevent homebrew classes". But we can hope that with all the reshuffle and a move towards digital publishing and support now that the "old guard" has moved on, that this sort of thing will happen.
I still want the Encounter Builder updated. Maps is nice and all, but the Encounter Builder is more useful for in person games.
1. To be able to delete entries from the homebrew library, even after publishing.
2. Ala cart purchasing
Staff have previously hinted—or outright stated (on discord)—that we use the same core system they do when creating content, and they clearly can make new classes. D&D Beyond has been under Wizards' direction for years now. At some point, the “we got bad code from the last guys” explanation needs to stop being an excuse. It’s 2025—we have the tools, platforms, and technical resources to fix these kinds of limitations, even without needing to throw money at it. The ability to support homebrew classes shouldn’t be treated like a moonshot—it should be on the roadmap by now.
It's been said that yes, the homebrew tools are a stripped down/simplified/limited version of the content entry tools, but they're not the same tools and not the only tools the content entry team has been stated to use. When adding things like classes, mundane items, or base class features such as Eldritch Invocation or Fighting Styles, it's been stated that those things things requiring directly modifying the site code itself rather than filling out a form.
In fact, have you ever noticed that sometimes after a new official option releases, there'll be a new option in the homebrew tools? That's because in the process of supporting that official option, in order for the option to work, the team has modified the site to add a new variable or dropdown or whatever and that propagates to the homebrew tools. Homebrew classes 99% those kinds of features, requiring the backend of the site to be edited to make them work.
Let's think about the structure of a class, what's universal across all classes?
Beyond that, it's all bespoke to that class. When we're talking homebrew, the sky's the limit and there's no way D&D Beyond can support that. People already push right up against the limits of the currently supported homebrew tools (which follow the rules of the game) and lament those "restrictions" to their creativity.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
other sites and vtts have figured that out. I'm currently using a different site to make my homebrew classes (and consider swapping my whole group over from DDB), and it is rather simple. But to add to your "whats universal on all classes"
Fighting Styles are now feats, so these can be covered there instead. I don't see there anything that would be so different to most other homebrew entries we can edit. At best, the subclass homebrew system would have to struggle if it can't find what class it is a subclass for. But that could be resolved to put the homebrew subclass on the classes directly, instead of making them seperate.
Thanks for the response. “Not being able to support it” doesn’t hold up for two key reasons:
Most class mechanics—hit dice, proficiencies, spell progression, feature unlock levels—are structured values already defined (or easily definable) in the system. These aren’t unpredictable variables, directly supporting #2.
The system clearly supports class creation internally, so the limitation isn’t the platform—it’s the choice not to extend those tools to the community. Most homebrewers would gladly build within a structured framework if given the chance. We’re not asking to break the system—we’re just asking to use it.
Basing decisions on the most extreme “sky’s the limit” homebrews sets the wrong priority. Most users just want to make functional, modular classes using the same components and general boundaries that official content already uses. Ignoring the average homebrewer because someone wants their anime-inspired super-class with 14 subclasses that class feats at every level and has a transformation mechanic to go unchecked, only limits creativity for the broader community.
Support the 80% use case first—then worry about the edge cases.
Giving programmatic access to the site backend would be a terrible idea from the perspective of stability and security.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I believe this request is being misunderstood—or perhaps unintentionally portrayed in the worst possible light. No one here is asking for programmatic or backend access, which would obviously pose risks to site stability and security. What we’re asking for is broader access—on the user side—to the same structured tools already used for official class creation. These are proven, stable systems that already exist within the platform. We’re not trying to break anything—just hoping to move past needless gatekeeping that limits creativity for no valid technical reason.
I feel I'm being misunderstood. Based on our understanding of how class creation works (primarily shared during the first implementation of the artificer playtest), adding new classes necessitates programmatic access to the backend because that's how new classes are added for the vast majority of their features.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
One thing i really want to have on dndbeyond is the ability to add like the weapons mastery and a version of the new sub-classes that are only being put to a 2024 format to a 2014 version so my players and myself could make them with the original 5e stuff and not have to use the new version of the classes.
They could easily add a tab like they did with the Tasha book to add new things to the sheets or switch out things with another like they did to the original ranger.
Thanks for the clarification—I appreciate the perspective. But if DDB truly can’t support it, then it’s time to fix that. It’s 2025. It’s been three years. We have the technology.
I can’t speak for your internal tools, but I’ve been creating classes long before the Artificer playtests—across both 2014 and 2024 Unearthed Arcana—and we know the platform already can output custom classes (artificer, illrigger and now gunslinger). That tells me it’s capable, or at least it should be.
To be clear, no one’s asking for backend access or a postmortem on the legacy codebase (to wit: blaming bad code). We’re asking for the ability to build full classes—whether through a streamlined version of the dev tools or by enabling a structured, user-facing framework for those flagged for homebrew. Let us use the system the same way it already proves it can be used.
Simple example: The Origin Feats, Fighting Styles and Epic Boons are hard coded lists because the current infrastructure wasn't built to support anything but General Feats. They can add new classes, but it's all bespoke at this point. They're building out classes, then adjusting manually to get the unique elements to work.
So you might be able to homebrew a Fighter clone, but you couldn't build your own Witchfinder with unique features.
Is this bad? Yes.
Do they need to rebuild the website to be more flexible? Definitely.
Are Hasbro willing to invest that amount of money just for homebrew? Definitely not.
For now just to be able to toggle between 2014 and 2024 ruleset on a character. We are still playing an adventure with the 2014 rules and having to check each spell is annoyingI just realized they have already done some changes, I will gladly check them out
the money is already being funneled, via paywall to access the homebrew library, at large, it's already being collected under the subscriptions.