What do you want most in D&D Beyond?

Quote from Brian_Womack_the_DM >>

Very simply

1) in Marketplace, clearly show me which products I already own (this happens on the app, but not on the website)

2) very clearly label which content supports 2024 rules. You are advertising a number of third party content providers products (that is great!), but I know many of the products were produced before 2024 rules came out. Are they updated to use 2024 rules or is it still 2014. This isn’t a big deal for adventures, but it’s certainly necessary for things with new subclasses and species.

 at this time, there are no 2024 products on Dnd Beyond aside from the 3 core books.  They are  developing some things obviously, but all other content is 2014.  I do agree though that it should be clearly labeled especially once there starts to be a mix of the two.

Also I would STRONGLY encourage third party content creators to provide free or cheap 2024 updates for existing material.  Changes could just minor things like renaming of keywords to match 2024 and changing the levels things happen like when wizards and clerics get their subclasses.  Generally these things don't require huge sweeping changes or rebalancing, though such things would be appreciated where beneficial.

Updating 2014 races to 2024 species is even easier.  Just remove the stats from them. 

2024 content toggle. Unbelievable that it is 2025 and we are still being forced to endure this UI clutter and mess of clashing features. DO NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL WE HAVE A TOGGLE. 

I know it is not going to happen, but I am going to add my drop of water to the ocean right here anyway. 

I want D&D Beyond to support and start selling older editions of D&D.

Right now I see a multitude of systems that are making millions off the D&D ruleset. Why is WotC not flat out putting them out of business by supporting the older editions? It doesn't even have to be the original rules. You can take the best features of all these games but release your own simplified and polished versions of B/X, BECMI, 1E/2E, 3E, 4E, etc.

There is OSRIC - why not an official WotC version? There are plenty of B/X clones - where is the official B/X release by WotC? There is Shadowdark - why not the exact same rules but released officially on D&D Beyond? OSE classic fantasy is just the exact same original rules from the games you own but reformatted - you have professionals who could do a better job. Draw Steel makes millions peddling their 4E derivative - why not just kill it off by releasing a 4E ruleset? They don't own the older rules so you can quite literally put out the same game just worded differently. 

The difference is that with official support on D&D Beyond every indie publisher that wants to make money would refer to your ruleset, not these clones. You have a good maps tool working. You have the IP to back it all up. Just give people the rules they want. Start with something simple, just go an copy Shadowdark. Call it 5E Lite or something. A one book purchase available on D&D Beyond, backed up by the online character builder and access to the VTT tools. 

Ok ramble over. I will go back to giving other people money who are doing nothing but leeching off the D&D ruleset. 

Would love a list view for campaigns.

more titles

A Search feature that isn't completely stupid and incompetent. I have never seen a worse Search than there is here.

A clear, public road map for what they're working on.

To be able to use my physical books with the D&D beyond app

at the current point, the ability to homebrew full classes. And with the addition of the lord of the ring classes, the illrigger, and the upcoming artificer and psion, dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

Quote from Enrif >>

dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

DDB has always had the capability to add classes, but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that it has the capability for homebrewing classes. From what's been historically mentioned, classes are added "programatically". What I mean by this is that unlike subclasses or magic items or spells which are added by filling out a form-based system, they're added by going into the code of the site and writing in new functions to support what the class does. For example, before the Artificer existed, there was no infusion system in the site. That had to be written into the site so the class could be supported.

I would consider it exceedingly unlikely that DDB will expose backend-level editing to users for the implementation of homebrew base classes. That just sounds like a great way for things to break in new, exciting, and potentially catastrophic ways.

Back again a year later just to say I still really want a la carte purchasing back and I would also really appreciate a toggle to NOT use 2024 content in a character sheet at all. It is ridiculous that you can toggle off Legacy content but you can't choose to only use it. Both of these things have made running the game unnecessarily harder, and from my perspective the whole point of D&D Beyond from day one was to make running the game easier.

The rest system should be adaptable to the needs of different campaigns. My group comes from Ad&D (we had a long playing pause) and we're playing on homebrew worlds with a darker flair and style. We don't have 5-8 combat encounters per day. In Ad&D there was only low natural healing (1-3 TP per day) or magic healing. In 5e fights feel meaningless....if you survive them, you can take a long rest and just be fine again. I don't want to keep giving flimsy reasons why a long rest isn't possible at the moment. The ability to implement alternative resting systems/rules would be great.

And please...let us implement own languages of our worlds. With the ability to deactivate default languages that don`t exist in our homebrewed worlds.

Custom class creation is all I need... Everything else is manageable but I would use dnd beyond so much more if I could create custom HB classes.

I'd really like to

1. be able to make homebrew basic weapons. Like picking the damage die and everything. 

2. be able to enable/disable all features and traits in magic items such as changing the range of a weapon, or switching the mastery properties of weapons for a unique magic weapon.

and 3. i'd be very happy with a way to change the damage dice for a spell as in toll the dead.

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Enrif >>

dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

DDB has always had the capability to add classes, but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that it has the capability for homebrewing classes. From what's been historically mentioned, classes are added "programatically". What I mean by this is that unlike subclasses or magic items or spells which are added by filling out a form-based system, they're added by going into the code of the site and writing in new functions to support what the class does. For example, before the Artificer existed, there was no infusion system in the site. That had to be written into the site so the class could be supported.

I would consider it exceedingly unlikely that DDB will expose backend-level editing to users for the implementation of homebrew base classes. That just sounds like a great way for things to break in new, exciting, and potentially catastrophic ways.

 There is no need for access to the backend. Most things custom classes would need is already available through the other homebrew features, and the features that are not support don't matter, as there are not supported features on dndbeyond for official stuff like dark gifts or other things that simply don't work. So why would it matter that a feature is just a text box instead of a full integrated thing? There is no need to build in functionality for new features. But letting payers create homebrew classes would dndbeyond stand out even more amongst its competitors. There is no down side to allowing it. And talks about backend access are a smokescreen that is a distraction, not a real reason.

Quote from Enrif >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Enrif >>

dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

DDB has always had the capability to add classes, but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that it has the capability for homebrewing classes. From what's been historically mentioned, classes are added "programatically". What I mean by this is that unlike subclasses or magic items or spells which are added by filling out a form-based system, they're added by going into the code of the site and writing in new functions to support what the class does. For example, before the Artificer existed, there was no infusion system in the site. That had to be written into the site so the class could be supported.

I would consider it exceedingly unlikely that DDB will expose backend-level editing to users for the implementation of homebrew base classes. That just sounds like a great way for things to break in new, exciting, and potentially catastrophic ways.

 There is no need for access to the backend. Most things custom classes would need is already available through the other homebrew features, and the features that are not support don't matter, as there are not supported features on dndbeyond for official stuff like dark gifts or other things that simply don't work. So why would it matter that a feature is just a text box instead of a full integrated thing? There is no need to build in functionality for new features. But letting payers create homebrew classes would dndbeyond stand out even more amongst its competitors. There is no down side to allowing it. And talks about backend access are a smokescreen that is a distraction, not a real reason.

I feel like maybe you're overlooking how/why people use the D&D Beyond homebrew tools, or possibly even DDB in general. The point for a lot of people is the integration and automation that DDB provides, so text boxes wouldn't cut it.

Also you'd need programmatic/backend access for even the most basic aspects of a class, such defining the subclass feature levels. This is fundamentally required because the subclass editor needs to know the level mapping of the base class. Or defining other externally referenced data points. Those all need to be accessible outside the class itself and thus need to be written into the sites backend.

There is no down side to allowing it

In development this is literally never the case. There is always a downside, even ifs as simple as resources allocated to this cannot be allocated elsewhere.

Quote from Davyd>>

Quote from Enrif>>

Quote from Davyd>>

Quote from Enrif>>

dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

DDB has always had the capability to add classes, but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that it has the capability for homebrewing classes. From what's been historically mentioned, classes are added "programatically". What I mean by this is that unlike subclasses or magic items or spells which are added by filling out a form-based system, they're added by going into the code of the site and writing in new functions to support what the class does. For example, before the Artificer existed, there was no infusion system in the site. That had to be written into the site so the class could be supported.

I would consider it exceedingly unlikely that DDB will expose backend-level editing to users for the implementation of homebrew base classes. That just sounds like a great way for things to break in new, exciting, and potentially catastrophic ways.

 There is no need for access to the backend. Most things custom classes would need is already available through the other homebrew features, and the features that are not support don't matter, as there are not supported features on dndbeyond for official stuff like dark gifts or other things that simply don't work. So why would it matter that a feature is just a text box instead of a full integrated thing? There is no need to build in functionality for new features. But letting payers create homebrew classes would dndbeyond stand out even more amongst its competitors. There is no down side to allowing it. And talks about backend access are a smokescreen that is a distraction, not a real reason.

I feel like maybe you're overlooking how/why people use the D&D Beyond homebrew tools, or possibly even DDB in general. The point for a lot of people is the integration and automation that DDB provides, so text boxes wouldn't cut it.

That apeal for integration is only for official stuff. No one cares if homebrew things don't have perfect integration. Just browse through any homebrew already and you see that integration is not the main appeal of homebrew, and never was.

And homebrew classes is the reason i begun looking for other platforms, who are on par with DDB and allow much freer homebrewing.

Quote from Enrif>>

Quote from Davyd>>

Quote from Enrif>>

Quote from Davyd>>

Quote from Enrif>>

dndbeyond has the capabilities for adding classes, so they also have the capabilities for allowing us to homebrew classes.

DDB has always had the capability to add classes, but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that it has the capability for homebrewing classes. From what's been historically mentioned, classes are added "programatically". What I mean by this is that unlike subclasses or magic items or spells which are added by filling out a form-based system, they're added by going into the code of the site and writing in new functions to support what the class does. For example, before the Artificer existed, there was no infusion system in the site. That had to be written into the site so the class could be supported.

I would consider it exceedingly unlikely that DDB will expose backend-level editing to users for the implementation of homebrew base classes. That just sounds like a great way for things to break in new, exciting, and potentially catastrophic ways.

 There is no need for access to the backend. Most things custom classes would need is already available through the other homebrew features, and the features that are not support don't matter, as there are not supported features on dndbeyond for official stuff like dark gifts or other things that simply don't work. So why would it matter that a feature is just a text box instead of a full integrated thing? There is no need to build in functionality for new features. But letting payers create homebrew classes would dndbeyond stand out even more amongst its competitors. There is no down side to allowing it. And talks about backend access are a smokescreen that is a distraction, not a real reason.

I feel like maybe you're overlooking how/why people use the D&D Beyond homebrew tools, or possibly even DDB in general. The point for a lot of people is the integration and automation that DDB provides, so text boxes wouldn't cut it.

That apeal for integration is only for official stuff. No one cares if homebrew things don't have perfect integration.

Just browse through any homebrew already and you see that integration is not the main appeal of homebrew, and never was.

And homebrew classes is the reason i begun looking for other platforms, who are on par with DDB and allow much freer homebrewing.

In development this is literally never the case. There is always a downside, even ifs as simple as resources allocated to this cannot be allocated elsewhere.

 DNDBeyond has no development ongoing outside of integrating books and MAPs. But fixing the broken homebrew system, and adding much wanted stuff that is requested for YEARS, would be more beneficial than continuously ignoring that. Heck, there isn't even a way to permanently delete created homebrew! Which is just wasting data space for the comapany, AND user unfirendly for the people. 

So, adding homebrew subclasses, and fixing the homebrew system on the way, is a worthwhile thing to allocate developement time. Much more so than more digital dice or frames.

Are you talking about subclasses (which are already supported) or classes? Also the team that does site development isn't the same that does the art and modelling for dice or frames. Those would be two entirely different teams and work allocated to one would not affect the available bandwidth of the other.

-fin

Gee, if only Hasbro weren't cheap & would hire more full-time staff to get all the things done.

That's what I want. Hasbro to stop being cheap with staffing on DND Beyond.

Because almost EVERY problem on this site would be mitigated, if not solved, by more staff retained full-time.

It was about class, it was a mistake to write subclass, but the broken edit button did not work, and i couldn't fix it. Another thing that needs fixing on this site. Like the horrendous quoting function. The whole homebrew system. And that people sometimes loose access to their purchased stuff.