Grim Hollow to update Carrion Raven Barbarian & Blade Breaker Fighter for 2024 All 2014 Partnered Content to be updated to 2024 Hasbro to hire & retain a fleet of Beyond programmers as full employees w/full benefits, not Uberified contractors, to fix all the issues WotC to be given back their pre-2021 independence of Hasbro micromanagement An editorial cleanup of Cthulhu by Torchlight Clarifications on which Unearthed Arcana have been dropped from consideration Letting Larian Studios work on the Baldur's Gate show on HBO
None of these are feedback pertaining to D&D Beyond.
For existing devs to employ a test server so users don't have to find issues
They do, it's just the nature of development that bugs will slip through. 100,000 users will run into bugs in a fraction of the time it takes 100 testers.
A general forum sweep to read & address ALL un/minimally addressed bug threads & unfixed bugs
That's an absurdly unreasonable request. Like not even remotely possible
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
Grim Hollow to update Carrion Raven Barbarian & Blade Breaker Fighter for 2024 All 2014 Partnered Content to be updated to 2024 Hasbro to hire & retain a fleet of Beyond programmers as full employees w/full benefits, not Uberified contractors, to fix all the issues WotC to be given back their pre-2021 independence of Hasbro micromanagement An editorial cleanup of Cthulhu by Torchlight Clarifications on which Unearthed Arcana have been dropped from consideration Letting Larian Studios work on the Baldur's Gate show on HBO
None of these are feedback pertaining to D&D Beyond.
For existing devs to employ a test server so users don't have to find issues
They do, it's just the nature of development that bugs will slip through. 100,000 users will run into bugs in a fraction of the time it takes 100 testers.
A general forum sweep to read & address ALL un/minimally addressed bug threads & unfixed bugs
That's an absurdly unreasonable request. Like not even remotely possible
Cthulhu by Torchlight's copyediting issues are entirely on Beyond staff for cutting text on Feline Chaos, cutting Hastur's stat block and more, yet refusing to fix what they've been handed by Chaosium & fans alike. Wanting more permanent, cared for programming staff is, in fact, quite relevant to Beyond's improvement. & wanting Beyond to push Partners to update 2014 content to 2024, & obtaining 2014 versions of such, is also quite "In Beyond", because it's part of the need to be a good steward of the Beyond brand by making it the best it can be.
I just want the bug thread necros to slow down. That's why they need to address(As in, respond to) all of them to stop that from being the single thing accounts post/revive their forums accounts for. So responding on ALL the threads where people do the "[time period] & its still not fixed/implemented, [insult, left-field conspiracy theory and/or assumption of constant state of open & enthusiastic personalized malice, bending the rules on respect and/or tolerated frustration degrees]" is what I mostly want in this regard.
For existing devs to employ a test server so users don't have to find issues
They do, it's just the nature of development that bugs will slip through. 100,000 users will run into bugs in a fraction of the time it takes 100 testers.
While I'm quite sure that they have non-production versions of the site, I think what was probably meant by this was having an actual QA process for new content prior to releases.
If you look at the release support threads for newer content like Eberron: Forge of the Artificer, Exploring Eberron, and the Pugilist class, you'll see that there are a lot of basic, fundamental things that didn't work at all on release day — the kind of things that would found instantly by someone just adding a new class/subclass/species to a character in the character builder and then looking at the online character sheet. The sheer number of issues like this with every single release really suggests that no one is actually doing that — the most basic level of QA possible for something like this — prior to the actual release.
For existing devs to employ a test server so users don't have to find issues
They do, it's just the nature of development that bugs will slip through. 100,000 users will run into bugs in a fraction of the time it takes 100 testers.
While I'm quite sure that they have non-production versions of the site, I think what was probably meant by this was having an actual QA process for new content prior to releases.
If you look at the release support threads for newer content like Eberron: Forge of the Artificer, Exploring Eberron, and the Pugilist class, you'll see that there are a lot of basic, fundamental things that didn't work at all on release day — the kind of things that would found instantly by someone just adding a new class/subclass/species to a character in the character builder and then looking at the online character sheet. The sheer number of issues like this with every single release really suggests that no one is actually doing that — the most basic level of QA possible for something like this — prior to the actual release.
That's what I meant to say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I want a way to sort/filter Monsters by their STR/DEX/CON attributes. We can already filter by a range of AC values, so it should be pretty easy to implement.
Given that some game elements like Polymorph and Wild Shape still make use of Monster stat blocks, having a better way to filter those stat blocks for the attributes you are looking for would be a major benefit to players using these elements. One of the rationales for using templated creatures so commonly was to reduce the time and effort needed to go "Monster Manual Diving"; having more detailed Monster stat block filters is another way to meet that objective.
(I know there's a whole laundry list of things we want to see to improve how DDB manages templated creature/spells, but I'm not getting into that here, in the interest of keeping the request simple. Just add attribute filters to the monsters, please)
Yeah, and an initial log of what is different between paper and online.
The Borderlands kit use of cards caused all kinds of changes for the online version like rolling dice for magic items with an awkward reroll dupes rule...
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
Given the scale and complexity of the changes in the 2024 rules, that seems vastly more difficult and time-consuming than the way they did it.
Really, the most user-friendly way to do this would've been to have two separate character builder apps entirely, but that'd be a nightmare for ongoing maintenance.
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
Given the scale and complexity of the changes in the 2024 rules, that seems vastly more difficult and time-consuming than the way they did it.
Really, the most user-friendly way to do this would've been to have two separate character builder apps entirely, but that'd be a nightmare for ongoing maintenance.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
I'd love to be able to filter out items I already own on the Marketplace so I can see what I'm missing before adding stuff willy-nilly to my shopping cart.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
That would be an objectively incorrect way to handle it though. And 2024 content SHOULD be the front-and-center focus moving forward.
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
Given the scale and complexity of the changes in the 2024 rules, that seems vastly more difficult and time-consuming than the way they did it.
Really, the most user-friendly way to do this would've been to have two separate character builder apps entirely, but that'd be a nightmare for ongoing maintenance.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
2024 rules are the default, why would they make them optional rules when it's the system that WotC is primarily selling moving forward?
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
Given the scale and complexity of the changes in the 2024 rules, that seems vastly more difficult and time-consuming than the way they did it.
Really, the most user-friendly way to do this would've been to have two separate character builder apps entirely, but that'd be a nightmare for ongoing maintenance.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
2024 rules are the default, why would they make them optional rules when it's the system that WotC is primarily selling moving forward?
They can literally just rename the public-facing class to be 2024 and move things around, but the reason is because there is significantly more content tied into 2014 than there is 2024. It's a workload issue.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
That would be an objectively incorrect way to handle it though. And 2024 content SHOULD be the front-and-center focus moving forward.
The objectively correct way to handle it is to do so with the smallest workload possible, and that includes dressing up 2014 in a 2024 hat and making the 2024 settings default. There's way more content linked to 2014 than there is 2024, and [anecdotally] with the rejection rate I've been experiencing with 2024 rules I personally have no reason to believe that gap will shrink.
The objectively correct way to handle it to reduce confusion is to have the currently promoted system portrayed as the default or to have 2 separate and distinct systems.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
That would be an objectively incorrect way to handle it though. And 2024 content SHOULD be the front-and-center focus moving forward.
The objectively correct way to handle it is to do so with the smallest workload possible, and that includes dressing up 2014 in a 2024 hat and making the 2024 settings default. There's way more content linked to 2014 than there is 2024, and [anecdotally] with the rejection rate I've been experiencing with 2024 rules I personally have no reason to believe that gap will shrink.
You're misusing "objectively". Your suggestion had the 2024 class features as optional class features on the 2014 classes, but that's wrong. Not only are many of the features completely reworked, NONE of the features in the new classes are optional. Consider this: You're suggesting that wizards, clerics, warlocks, and more should have to activate a toggle to get their subclasses at the correct level rather than it just working with the most front-facing options available moving forward.
Also, anecdotally, I've seen a higher rate of conversion to 2024 systems. A lot of people actually like the majority of changes made.
Anyway, with 2024 being the focus from now until the next edition and 2014 never getting new content again, making 2024 classes the focus is the right move.
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
That would be an objectively incorrect way to handle it though. And 2024 content SHOULD be the front-and-center focus moving forward.
The objectively correct way to handle it is to do so with the smallest workload possible, and that includes dressing up 2014 in a 2024 hat and making the 2024 settings default. There's way more content linked to 2014 than there is 2024, and [anecdotally] with the rejection rate I've been experiencing with 2024 rules I personally have no reason to believe that gap will shrink.
You're misusing "objectively". Your suggestion had the 2024 class features as optional class features on the 2014 classes, but that's wrong. Not only are many of the features completely reworked, NONE of the features in the new classes are optional. Consider this: You're suggesting that wizards, clerics, warlocks, and more should have to activate a toggle to get their subclasses at the correct level rather than it just working with the most front-facing options available moving forward.
Also, anecdotally, I've seen a higher rate of conversion to 2024 systems. A lot of people actually like the majority of changes made.
Anyway, with 2024 being the focus from now until the next edition and 2014 never getting new content again, making 2024 classes the focus is the right move.
I'm not, and I suggest to look up what "objective" means if you believe that. The objective section remained objective while I intentionally labeled the anecdotal part.
In regards to character creation, the classes specifically can easily be optional. I'm not referring to the rule changes as a whole. The point is that features would swap, much like how some features on the Ranger swaps out with optional features. And yeah, an optional feature that drops the level 1/2 versions and moves it to level 3.
I have made it a point not to take anecdotal evidence from people with over 1000 posts on places like this. Their views tend to be skewed towards the place they post in, and DND Beyond's community has a bias for 2024. Good on you for seeing more 2024 games, but your anecdote holds no water for me.
At this rate, the continued force into 2024 is just going to widen a rift that could easily be mended, but I have no doubt they will continue to push 2024 content while losing more and more people to Daggerheart and Pathfinder.
The objectively correct way to handle it to reduce confusion is to have the currently promoted system portrayed as the default or to have 2 separate and distinct systems.
And you can do that. I'm talking about on the back end.
Take the 2014 (which has more content synced to it), rename it, move the abilities around to appease whichever side is going to make more noise about their ruleset not being default, and have the optional replacement features move things around to the other side.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
None of these are feedback pertaining to D&D Beyond.
They do, it's just the nature of development that bugs will slip through. 100,000 users will run into bugs in a fraction of the time it takes 100 testers.
That's an absurdly unreasonable request. Like not even remotely possible
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I would like for 2024 to tangibly go away and just be the Optional Class Changes, like all of the Ranger stuff they added to 2014.
You can still sell the 2024 books, you can even set 2024 to the default setting. But having them be functionally separate classes only breeds confusion and incompatibility.
Cthulhu by Torchlight's copyediting issues are entirely on Beyond staff for cutting text on Feline Chaos, cutting Hastur's stat block and more, yet refusing to fix what they've been handed by Chaosium & fans alike.
Wanting more permanent, cared for programming staff is, in fact, quite relevant to Beyond's improvement.
& wanting Beyond to push Partners to update 2014 content to 2024, & obtaining 2014 versions of such, is also quite "In Beyond", because it's part of the need to be a good steward of the Beyond brand by making it the best it can be.
I just want the bug thread necros to slow down. That's why they need to address(As in, respond to) all of them to stop that from being the single thing accounts post/revive their forums accounts for. So responding on ALL the threads where people do the "[time period] & its still not fixed/implemented, [insult, left-field conspiracy theory and/or assumption of constant state of open & enthusiastic personalized malice, bending the rules on respect and/or tolerated frustration degrees]" is what I mostly want in this regard.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
While I'm quite sure that they have non-production versions of the site, I think what was probably meant by this was having an actual QA process for new content prior to releases.
If you look at the release support threads for newer content like Eberron: Forge of the Artificer, Exploring Eberron, and the Pugilist class, you'll see that there are a lot of basic, fundamental things that didn't work at all on release day — the kind of things that would found instantly by someone just adding a new class/subclass/species to a character in the character builder and then looking at the online character sheet. The sheer number of issues like this with every single release really suggests that no one is actually doing that — the most basic level of QA possible for something like this — prior to the actual release.
pronouns: he/she/they
That's what I meant to say.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
This is an easy one, relatively.
I want a way to sort/filter Monsters by their STR/DEX/CON attributes. We can already filter by a range of AC values, so it should be pretty easy to implement.
Given that some game elements like Polymorph and Wild Shape still make use of Monster stat blocks, having a better way to filter those stat blocks for the attributes you are looking for would be a major benefit to players using these elements. One of the rationales for using templated creatures so commonly was to reduce the time and effort needed to go "Monster Manual Diving"; having more detailed Monster stat block filters is another way to meet that objective.
(I know there's a whole laundry list of things we want to see to improve how DDB manages templated creature/spells, but I'm not getting into that here, in the interest of keeping the request simple. Just add attribute filters to the monsters, please)
Yeah, and an initial log of what is different between paper and online.
The Borderlands kit use of cards caused all kinds of changes for the online version like rolling dice for magic items with an awkward reroll dupes rule...
if anything, it'd be 2014 that went away because 2024 is the new default.
I already made that point, but more content connects to 2014 content than it does 2024. It makes more sense on the backend to drop 2024 into optional check boxes.
Given the scale and complexity of the changes in the 2024 rules, that seems vastly more difficult and time-consuming than the way they did it.
Really, the most user-friendly way to do this would've been to have two separate character builder apps entirely, but that'd be a nightmare for ongoing maintenance.
pronouns: he/she/they
I'm going to hard disagree on this one. There's nothing in the 2024 changes to classes that can't be an Optional Class Feature. Creating a separate class for something that is more or less the same thing is significantly more difficult and time-consuming (not to mention confusing)
I'd love to be able to filter out items I already own on the Marketplace so I can see what I'm missing before adding stuff willy-nilly to my shopping cart.
That would be an objectively incorrect way to handle it though. And 2024 content SHOULD be the front-and-center focus moving forward.
2024 rules are the default, why would they make them optional rules when it's the system that WotC is primarily selling moving forward?
They can literally just rename the public-facing class to be 2024 and move things around, but the reason is because there is significantly more content tied into 2014 than there is 2024. It's a workload issue.
The objectively correct way to handle it is to do so with the smallest workload possible, and that includes dressing up 2014 in a 2024 hat and making the 2024 settings default. There's way more content linked to 2014 than there is 2024, and [anecdotally] with the rejection rate I've been experiencing with 2024 rules I personally have no reason to believe that gap will shrink.
The objectively correct way to handle it to reduce confusion is to have the currently promoted system portrayed as the default or to have 2 separate and distinct systems.
You're misusing "objectively". Your suggestion had the 2024 class features as optional class features on the 2014 classes, but that's wrong. Not only are many of the features completely reworked, NONE of the features in the new classes are optional. Consider this: You're suggesting that wizards, clerics, warlocks, and more should have to activate a toggle to get their subclasses at the correct level rather than it just working with the most front-facing options available moving forward.
Also, anecdotally, I've seen a higher rate of conversion to 2024 systems. A lot of people actually like the majority of changes made.
Anyway, with 2024 being the focus from now until the next edition and 2014 never getting new content again, making 2024 classes the focus is the right move.
I'm not, and I suggest to look up what "objective" means if you believe that. The objective section remained objective while I intentionally labeled the anecdotal part.
In regards to character creation, the classes specifically can easily be optional. I'm not referring to the rule changes as a whole. The point is that features would swap, much like how some features on the Ranger swaps out with optional features. And yeah, an optional feature that drops the level 1/2 versions and moves it to level 3.
I have made it a point not to take anecdotal evidence from people with over 1000 posts on places like this. Their views tend to be skewed towards the place they post in, and DND Beyond's community has a bias for 2024. Good on you for seeing more 2024 games, but your anecdote holds no water for me.
At this rate, the continued force into 2024 is just going to widen a rift that could easily be mended, but I have no doubt they will continue to push 2024 content while losing more and more people to Daggerheart and Pathfinder.
And you can do that. I'm talking about on the back end.
Take the 2014 (which has more content synced to it), rename it, move the abilities around to appease whichever side is going to make more noise about their ruleset not being default, and have the optional replacement features move things around to the other side.