What do you want most in D&D Beyond?

I (used to) copy the spell information into a note or word-processing app, re-format if necessary, then print onto faux-vellum sheet so that it looks like a page out of a spell book, then give to the player for their character. In addition, this can be done for scrolls using the technique, but print SCROLL at the top and have the player give the DM back the sheet when the scroll is used. For rituals, just print RITUAL ONLY at the top instead of SCROLL. 

By the way, when it comes to RITUAL spells, I allow my player's character to prepare and perform ritual spells from a ritual spell book, but only if that ritual spell is a spell the character class could cast and at a level the character could cast, without counting as part of their list of spells known. Obviously this can only be done from a secure(d) location for the entire time of the ritual casting, such as in a bastion. (This was prior to the 2014 edition.)

To forget that aesthetics even exists and maximize all effort on functionality. Give us a more robust but well-guided homebrewing system that doesn't lock us into pre-cut concepts. As it is, I use Chat all the time to help me get through mechanical slog of my creation ideas. That also helps me with balance, because it can do math and apples to apples translations easily. Add a layer selector to stickers and tokens in maps along with some pre-built AOE and more robust condition marking options than plain colored rings.  Also allow users to add any images for stickers or token markers. Allow for token scale to shrink more against a map that can't get any bigger. That's all I've got this very moment.

Quote from CaptainSass >>

I have been DMing since about 2018 and went from playing mostly in person to online for the last few years to recently rediscovering pen-and-paper. I have a new game with almost entirely new players and I have outlawed laptops and tablets. Boy has that been a great decision for focus at the table! but it is a downside for my casters.

It would be great if some support could be given for the pen-and-paper crowd like printing out spells in their entirety rather than just the list of names like the current character sheet does. Or adding a PDF of the magic items/monsters to adventures so I can print the stat blocks I need without having to flip through my monster manual. Even book marked, if you have multiple monster types in your encounter, it's a little bit of a pain point where I find myself reducing encounter complexity to limit page flipping. Right now I'm screen shotting and printing everything but it would be great to just print the content I own (wouldnt even mind a massive water mark) for myself and my players that are specific to our adventures or in the case of spells, specific to the characters. Would be a massive quality of life update for my prep. 

 I've been using 5e-spellbook.app to build spell lists for new players who want to use paper.  But that doesn't include extra books etc.

GOAT- thanks for the tip, I'll try it!

I want the return of random character generation. Why was it even removed???

Stop with the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" monetization.

I am speaking specifically about the Starter Packs.  https://marketplace.dndbeyond.com/BB-2026-StarterPacks-Apr

As a stockholder, this tactic bothers me because it erodes the trust of the player base.  This tactic has been employed by other properties such as MTG, Yu-gi-o, Pokémon, and video games in the past, and everyone is familiar with it as as result.  Players aren't blind.  They see this as an attempt to milk them for revenue in a MTG / WOW "add-on" scheme.  If you think this IS something they'll embrace then you have grossly misinterpreted your ICP.

There's are a few BIG problems with this approach with respect to D&D:  This isn't a video game.  It isn't Magic the Gathering.  This is a role playing game that all you need to do in order to build a competing product is pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and get creative.  You're dealing with an 50-year+ old intellectual property that is, in many meaningful ways, co-owned by the player base. 

And if I may turn a phrase, "They made you... they can break you."

D&D Players do NOT want to be milked piecemeal for revenue.  It makes them want to give their money to quite literally ANYONE else; or, quite simply, replace you.  The switching costs here are negligible if not completely non-existent. 

I'm a Hasbro stockholder and as a player, I can tell you, I don't want it either.  And I am fully aware that telling Hasbro to STOP doing this is literally taking money out of my own pocket, but your  tactic is "short-term gains for long-term losses". 

The players are gonna turn on you for things like this. 

Why?  Because it isn't the way these kinds of games are bought, played, adopted, and popularized.  Quite the opposite.  If they wanted that kind of game, they'd play MTG.   If they saw "pay to win" as advantageous, they'd play WOW.  If they wanted to wait around and drool over the next "booster pack", they'd play Pokémon.  Those properties were born to, and started with, this type of "add-on/FOMO" economy virtually from day one. 

D&D did not.  Consequently, you're not creating FOMO - you're creating resentment. 

As a player for over 50 years of this game, and as a stockholder in the company, I urge you to abandon this strategy.  It will be the brand's undoing.

Or... ignore me and pursue this course to its obvious and avoidable destination.

Quote from KDinLA >>

Stop with the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" monetization.

I am speaking specifically about the Starter Packs.  https://marketplace.dndbeyond.com/BB-2026-StarterPacks-Apr

As a stockholder, this tactic bothers me because it erodes the trust of the player base.  This tactic has been employed by other properties such as MTG, Yu-gi-o, Pokémon, and video games in the past, and everyone is familiar with it as as result.  Players aren't blind.  They see this as an attempt to milk them for revenue in a MTG / WOW "add-on" scheme.  If you think this IS something they'll embrace then you have grossly misinterpreted your ICP.

There's are a few BIG problems with this approach with respect to D&D:  This isn't a video game.  It isn't Magic the Gathering.  This is a role playing game that all you need to do in order to build a competing product is pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and get creative.  You're dealing with an 50-year+ old intellectual property that is, in many meaningful ways, co-owned by the player base. 

And if I may turn a phrase, "They made you... they can break you."

D&D Players do NOT want to be milked piecemeal for revenue.  It makes them want to give their money to quite literally ANYONE else; or, quite simply, replace you.  The switching costs here are negligible if not completely non-existent. 

I'm a Hasbro stockholder and as a player, I can tell you, I don't want it either.  And I am fully aware that telling Hasbro to STOP doing this is literally taking money out of my own pocket, but your  tactic is "short-term gains for long-term losses". 

The players are gonna turn on you for things like this. 

Why?  Because it isn't the way these kinds of games are bought, played, adopted, and popularized.  Quite the opposite.  If they wanted that kind of game, they'd play MTG.   If they saw "pay to win" as advantageous, they'd play WOW.  If they wanted to wait around and drool over the next "booster pack", they'd play Pokémon.  Those properties were born to, and started with, this type of "add-on/FOMO" economy virtually from day one. 

D&D did not.  Consequently, you're not creating FOMO - you're creating resentment. 

As a player for over 50 years of this game, and as a stockholder in the company, I urge you to abandon this strategy.  It will be the brand's undoing.

Or... ignore me and pursue this course to its obvious and avoidable destination.

 The amount of stock you own compared to The Vanguard Group, BlackRock & other money piles is likely negligible in regards to the amount of influence you can peddle with this lean.

Also, why is it the starter packs are unacceptable(They're not THAT kind of pack, they're just for people who don't want anything but player options from the big books) , but charging for a digital book on top of a physical book is considered perfectly fine? Why are you not upset at that, if your concern is monetization?

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Quote from KDinLA >>

Stop with the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" monetization.

I am speaking specifically about the Starter Packs.  https://marketplace.dndbeyond.com/BB-2026-StarterPacks-Apr

As a stockholder, this tactic bothers me because it erodes the trust of the player base.  This tactic has been employed by other properties such as MTG, Yu-gi-o, Pokémon, and video games in the past, and everyone is familiar with it as as result.  Players aren't blind.  They see this as an attempt to milk them for revenue in a MTG / WOW "add-on" scheme.  If you think this IS something they'll embrace then you have grossly misinterpreted your ICP.

There's are a few BIG problems with this approach with respect to D&D:  This isn't a video game.  It isn't Magic the Gathering.  This is a role playing game that all you need to do in order to build a competing product is pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and get creative.  You're dealing with an 50-year+ old intellectual property that is, in many meaningful ways, co-owned by the player base. 

And if I may turn a phrase, "They made you... they can break you."

D&D Players do NOT want to be milked piecemeal for revenue.  It makes them want to give their money to quite literally ANYONE else; or, quite simply, replace you.  The switching costs here are negligible if not completely non-existent. 

I'm a Hasbro stockholder and as a player, I can tell you, I don't want it either.  And I am fully aware that telling Hasbro to STOP doing this is literally taking money out of my own pocket, but your  tactic is "short-term gains for long-term losses". 

The players are gonna turn on you for things like this. 

Why?  Because it isn't the way these kinds of games are bought, played, adopted, and popularized.  Quite the opposite.  If they wanted that kind of game, they'd play MTG.   If they saw "pay to win" as advantageous, they'd play WOW.  If they wanted to wait around and drool over the next "booster pack", they'd play Pokémon.  Those properties were born to, and started with, this type of "add-on/FOMO" economy virtually from day one. 

D&D did not.  Consequently, you're not creating FOMO - you're creating resentment. 

As a player for over 50 years of this game, and as a stockholder in the company, I urge you to abandon this strategy.  It will be the brand's undoing.

Or... ignore me and pursue this course to its obvious and avoidable destination.

 The amount of stock you own compared to The Vanguard Group, BlackRock & other money piles is likely negligible in regards to the amount of influence you can peddle with this lean.

Also, why is it the starter packs are unacceptable(They're not THAT kind of pack, they're just for people who don't want anything but player options from the big books) , but charging for a digital book on top of a physical book is considered perfectly fine? Why are you not upset at that, if your concern is monetization?

 Hell, the starter packs aren't even meant for the average player, they're literally meant as starter packs for new players to try out options beyond the basic rules for cheap before committing to purchasing more expensive full books

I'm disgusted how many threads full of contempt, save this one, get deleted. I get that new drops are unpopular but removing people's opinions outright feels kinda slimy.

Adding to this current conversation. These starter packs are weird, they should just give us back a la carte by that logic of it being an affordable option for a player to test a single element of the game.

I would like DnD Beyond to craft a Homebrew Class Creator, so people can make their own homebrew classes.

*sure I haven't said it again...*

Quote from Drake_Hornbridge >>

I'm disgusted how many threads full of contempt, save this one, get deleted. I get that new drops are unpopular but removing people's opinions outright feels kinda slimy.

 

Adding to this current conversation. These starter packs are weird, they should just give us back a la carte by that logic of it being an affordable option for a player to test a single element of the game.

 The devs have said that ala carte was literally breaking the backend code and the site couldn't handle individual licenses for so many items.

CLASS BUILDER, CLASS BUILDER, CLASS BUILDER!!!!!

Quote from Fenrys87 >

 The devs have said that ala carte was literally breaking the backend code and the site couldn't handle individual licenses for so many items.

 I can't help but find that dev response as somewhat ironic then given what the starter packs are trying to accomplish.

Quote from Drake_Hornbridge >>

Quote from Fenrys87 >

 The devs have said that ala carte was literally breaking the backend code and the site couldn't handle individual licenses for so many items.

 I can't help but find that dev response as somewhat ironic then given what the starter packs are trying to accomplish.

The statement they made about this was that they were going to try to bring back a la carte purchasing in a limited capacity. The starter packs are what they described.

Quote from Drake_Hornbridge >>

 

Quote from Fenrys87 >

 The devs have said that ala carte was literally breaking the backend code and the site couldn't handle individual licenses for so many items.

 I can't help but find that dev response as somewhat ironic then given what the starter packs are trying to accomplish.

 The starter packs represent one toggle, to gain roughly 25 total options in each.  So yeah, it's a far less concerning method for management.