Combat tracker, as I stated, would be for IRL sessions where we do not use a VTT. A lot of people do not even use a VTT for play but use DnD Beyond for their sheets and monsters so many people would want this and is evident by the amount of feedback for both features in their respective feedback threads.
This is definitely me - using a robust Combat Tracker is the only serious thing that me personally as a DM would make playing the game far easier than what I have. Basic monsters is fine but having ANY kind of spellcasting creature with slots/consumable features is a pain to manage. Put simply, a complete CT would revolutionise my games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
All I know is that DDB is doing a good job at what it was meant to be a place to create and manage your characters whether as a player or a DM and now we have the ability to download our books we buy here on an app and read them offline, now we can do that with our characters as well.
I'm not sure if Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds let us Download our books to read offline or our characters for that matter can we do that with either of those companies, that is an actual question if you cannot do that with them they are really dropping the ball lol. This company was created to help us at the gaming table and has grown farther then what they expected they would need to do and they are doing it quite well.
DDB has spent the last 2 years basically doing a nearly complete overhaul (software and hardware) to redesign the system so that they can fix all of this stuff. Now that all of that is mostly done they can finally make the necessary improvements.
DDB has spent the last 2 years basically doing a nearly complete overhaul (software and hardware) to redesign the system so that they can fix all of this stuff. Now that all of that is mostly done they can finally make the necessary improvements.
This is what I was hoping for and it just seems they have been caught in a riptide of back load then....can't keep up with the releases thanks to the overhaul. I do not blame them per say...just more wondering if these things are going to be finished or if they will just move on from them and move back to a core focus.
Well, first they overhauled the character sheet framework for 10.5 months. Then there was about a month, month & a half of troubleshooting for that. Then they had to very carefully untangle the creation software from the content (including all of the Homebrew) and move that content to a different server. Before everything was on a monolith, which is why it was faster before but they couldn’t fix anything because the system could barely tell the content from the software used to program it since it was basically all the same thing before. Now that the content is on a separate server is why any updates to homebrews take longer to filter through, but stuff is less likely to crash a character sheet.
For example, take a look at the Eldritch Adept feat. It works, but with no clear indication how. Use it as a template for another feat and there’s apparently nothing actually making it function, yet it does. All it needs is a number of options set and it will grant that many Invocations. Yet there are no visible options attached whatsoever. That means something is going on behind the visible fields. That wasn’t even possible for them to do before unless they attached it to a feature name like “Spellcasting.” Also, before they couldn’t have added something like that to the creation software without it affecting every existing feat, official and Homebrew.
So they have made all of these upgrades which allow them to finally implement changes, and the most impressive part of it is that nobody has really noticed unles you live here like I do. The fact that it’s all invisible is not a sign that they aren’t doing anything, it is instead a sign that they’re doing it so well it isn’t adversely affecting the user experience. (In other words, it’s a good thing.)
Well, first they overhauled the character sheet framework for 10.5 months. Then there was about a month, month & a half of troubleshooting for that. Then they had to very carefully untangle the creation software from the content (including all of the Homebrew) and move that content to a different server. Before everything was on a monolith, which is why it was faster before but they couldn’t fix anything because the system could barely tell the content from the software used to program it since it was basically all the same thing before. Now that the content is on a separate server is why any updates to homebrews take longer to filter through, but stuff is less likely to crash a character sheet.
For example, take a look at the Eldritch Adept feat. It works, but with no clear indication how. Use it as a template for another feat and there’s apparently nothing actually making it function, yet it does. All it needs is a number of options set and it will grant that many Invocations. Yet there are no visible options attached whatsoever. That means something is going on behind the visible fields. That wasn’t even possible for them to do before unless they attached it to a feature name like “Spellcasting.” Also, before they couldn’t have added something like that to the creation software without it affecting every existing feat, official and Homebrew.
So they have made all of these upgrades which allow them to finally implement changes, and the most impressive part of it is that nobody has really noticed unles you live here like I do. The fact that it’s all invisible is not a sign that they aren’t doing anything, it is instead a sign that they’re doing it so well it isn’t adversely affecting the user experience. (In other words, it’s a good thing.)
I mean...I noticed when it wasn't available for months.
Eberron didn't have support for spells of the mark for that 10.5 month period. People constant asked why it wasn't working and they said it's coming.
The CFV UA was released and never implimented as they just waited until Tashas.
People for sure noticed.
I'm not saying they aren't doing any work... Just it's taking a long time to just impliment the books alone.
Based on that I wouldn't be surprised if the tools were not updated for another year or more
I think they didn't want to code the CFV UA unless they had to (in an official book) because it was a bit of a lift for something that could theoretically only be around for a month till it goes on the drawing board.
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
D&D Beyond works for me. Sure I'd love the ability to custom design classes as would everyone else in homebrew world, but I don't know where I else I can do that either. Is DDB a perfect product? No, but it seems to do a fair job keeping up, I wish it was better resourced so it could accomplish some of the things that have been on various iterations of the drawing board to the point but some of the VTT trajectory stuff like the combat tracker are meh for me. I'd like a better encounter builder, and I'd really like that encounter builder integrating with published adventures, but regardless the product still helps my game and I feel I'm getting my money's worth as my subscription is up for renewal.
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
I'm not sure, but there might be something about this in the licencing agreement for 'the official toolset of D&D' requiring DDB to make playtest content available insofar as possible within reasonable limits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
I'm not sure, but there might be something about this in the licencing agreement for 'the official toolset of D&D' requiring DDB to make playtest content available insofar as possible within reasonable limits.
Yeah it's just hugely popular to do it too...
It's generally a customer satisfaction thing I think
So 5e is a nightmare to code, because the choices made by WotC favor the story and the characters roles in general, not its technical implementation.
That’s not the problem. DDB’s issue is that certain technical design choices were made when implementing the original ruleset and those choices don’t mesh with some of the new additions from later releases (which doesn’t make them mistakes necessarily, you can only make choices based on the information you have - 20/20 hindsight doesn’t count). The overhaul should help with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I personally choose to look at it from the other side, because I'm really tired of hearing nothing but complaints, especially from people who don't want to play the system as it has been intended to play. DDB has millions of users. Complaints and requests to support very minor evolutions and options are what, coming from about 10 people on these forums, always the same ?
If there was a massive demand for this, these complaints would receive more support than this, but they don't. I have been using DDB for years (ever since it was launched, actually), for long campaigns, with multiple groups and DMs, and NOT ONE of us has EVER requested something that the site did not support, and support correctly, in actual play, for two long sessions each week. We are not great fans of digital dices, but a number of us buy them all the same because we have the means to support the hobby, we don't even use most of them.
Moreover, the complainers clearly have absolutely no idea what it means to support a site with millions of users, on something which is not designed to be digital. And yes, this is a "regression" from 4e or PF2, which were designed from the ground up to be digitally supported despite their complexity, but which, in the end are simply not as good roleplaying games because they focus on the mechanics instead of the story and the roleplaying. I had some hope for Pathfinder at start, because they produced fantastic adventure paths focussing on the story but like most companies, they got drawn in to the cheap "technical supplement" trap which gamers like but which disgusts players who just want to play the game as intended, more casually, with friends. having adventures and telling stories. And the result is obvious. Yes, it's only Roll20 stats, but it's still the most widely used VTT and it shows a MASSIVE difference between 5e and all systems, in particular pathfinder, by a factor of almost 10:
So 5e is a nightmare to code, because the choices made by WotC favor the story and the characters roles in general, not its technical implementation. And I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to compare small sites with what, hundreds of users doing a simple job of maintaining simple databases (I have done that for our complex multi-DMs 3e campaign without too much trouble based on a wiki) with companies like DDB maintaining a hard to implement system for millions of users. Any new option coming up will contradict lots of previous efforts and coding and needs to be tested for its cross effects to all the other combinations. I did this for PCGen and it's a real nightmare to do. And I much prefer having a stable DDB to play with to support my established games than risking having bugs because someone wants to show off his half-bunny characters to his friends for five minutes to boost his ego and never think about it again.
Keep up the quality, keep up the stability, don't feel any pressure to inject new technical features quickly, no real player of the game needs them urgently, at least those who play in the spirit of the game, as intended: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice."
And for the complainers who think that they need to complain to keep up the pressure, it's obvious that you have never been in a serious software company delivering quality software.
So. DDB Staff, keep up the really good work and don't listen (too much) to the voices of the complainers. I am really happy to have Candlekeep stories available here from day one, because this is something that I can use for my campaign today, and so do our other DMs (I just sent a message this morning to make sure that no-one read anything and that we allocate the various mysteries on a case-by-case basis so that we can enjoy most of them either as players or DMs without spoilers, and all the DMs have already answered that this was what they intended as well).
We don't care about new classes and powers because we play long campaigns, so we don't need new characters and archetypes and "races", having them from day 1 has zero attractiveness to us. Actually, it only matters to people who don't play the game, they just want to minmax new possibilities and show their knowledge of the game to other minmaxers, and how clever they are to invent something that will never see play. This is not the spirit of the game, not its intention. Good for you if you also have fun that way, but please stop claiming that you are the majority of players, please stop harassing everyone who uses the game and DDB in their intended use by trying to claim that you know how D&D has to be played and how having silly UA implementations available from the day they are published is going to massively benefit the game. It will not, I can guarantee that only a very, very small fraction of half-bunnies characters will ever be played by anyone.
1. Your graph is % which means nothing without the overall numbers. It also has a huge amount of questions on it....what % of those games are active? What % of those games are closed within 1 month?
2. This is Roll20 data and has no direct correlation with DnD Beyond so the data is almost useless in discussing what tools/features are vital for use. There could be no overlap or complete overlap but you have no data to tie this with Beyond in any way so its completely useless for this discussion.
3. Foundry VTT is more tailored for the PF2e crowd as the features are more robust and inclusive compared to roll20. In fact the VTT market is more split now than ever so its really inconclusive to suggest any one VTT has the full market at this point. So you are taking a percentage of a percentage and it hardly proves anything.
4. As for technical tools....that's your opinion and I think there are a LOT of people wanting more tools. VTT was their #1 asked for feature and this was confirmed by Adam before he left.
5. 5e is no worse than any other TTRPG to code and people have been doing that for years. PF2e, Shadowrun, and the like all have digital tools that function about 90% of the same as DnD beyond and integrate new books/modules at a much faster pace. These systems are just as complex to code. PF2e is a great example for this and Herolab Online is a very fair comparison. It has an active character sheet that updates with conditions, has build in rolling, and trackable HP/death saves/spell slots. It mirror DND Beyond very closely. This is not a 5e problem and a "how the database was built in the first place" problem which Adam even admitted and it is the reason the massive overhaul was required.
6. New Classes and the like is outside this discussion and is off-topic.
7. Feedback is not complaining and the DnD Beyond staff just LITERALLY ASKED FOR FEEDBACK so you can't be more incorrect as they are directly asking about peoples concerns literally ONE post above yours. The amount of intentional blindness to this is astonishing.
I personally choose to look at it from the other side, because I'm really tired of hearing nothing but complaints, especially from people who don't want to play the system as it has been intended to play. DDB has millions of users. Complaints and requests to support very minor evolutions and options are what, coming from about 10 people on these forums, always the same ?
If there was a massive demand for this, these complaints would receive more support than this, but they don't. I have been using DDB for years (ever since it was launched, actually), for long campaigns, with multiple groups and DMs, and NOT ONE of us has EVER requested something that the site did not support, and support correctly, in actual play, for two long sessions each week. We are not great fans of digital dices, but a number of us buy them all the same because we have the means to support the hobby, we don't even use most of them.
Moreover, the complainers clearly have absolutely no idea what it means to support a site with millions of users, on something which is not designed to be digital. And yes, this is a "regression" from 4e or PF2, which were designed from the ground up to be digitally supported despite their complexity, but which, in the end are simply not as good roleplaying games because they focus on the mechanics instead of the story and the roleplaying. I had some hope for Pathfinder at start, because they produced fantastic adventure paths focussing on the story but like most companies, they got drawn in to the cheap "technical supplement" trap which gamers like but which disgusts players who just want to play the game as intended, more casually, with friends. having adventures and telling stories. And the result is obvious. Yes, it's only Roll20 stats, but it's still the most widely used VTT and it shows a MASSIVE difference between 5e and all systems, in particular pathfinder, by a factor of almost 10:
So 5e is a nightmare to code, because the choices made by WotC favor the story and the characters roles in general, not its technical implementation. And I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to compare small sites with what, hundreds of users doing a simple job of maintaining simple databases (I have done that for our complex multi-DMs 3e campaign without too much trouble based on a wiki) with companies like DDB maintaining a hard to implement system for millions of users. Any new option coming up will contradict lots of previous efforts and coding and needs to be tested for its cross effects to all the other combinations. I did this for PCGen and it's a real nightmare to do. And I much prefer having a stable DDB to play with to support my established games than risking having bugs because someone wants to show off his half-bunny characters to his friends for five minutes to boost his ego and never think about it again.
Keep up the quality, keep up the stability, don't feel any pressure to inject new technical features quickly, no real player of the game needs them urgently, at least those who play in the spirit of the game, as intended: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice."
And for the complainers who think that they need to complain to keep up the pressure, it's obvious that you have never been in a serious software company delivering quality software.
So. DDB Staff, keep up the really good work and don't listen (too much) to the voices of the complainers. I am really happy to have Candlekeep stories available here from day one, because this is something that I can use for my campaign today, and so do our other DMs (I just sent a message this morning to make sure that no-one read anything and that we allocate the various mysteries on a case-by-case basis so that we can enjoy most of them either as players or DMs without spoilers, and all the DMs have already answered that this was what they intended as well).
We don't care about new classes and powers because we play long campaigns, so we don't need new characters and archetypes and "races", having them from day 1 has zero attractiveness to us. Actually, it only matters to people who don't play the game, they just want to minmax new possibilities and show their knowledge of the game to other minmaxers, and how clever they are to invent something that will never see play. This is not the spirit of the game, not its intention. Good for you if you also have fun that way, but please stop claiming that you are the majority of players, please stop harassing everyone who uses the game and DDB in their intended use by trying to claim that you know how D&D has to be played and how having silly UA implementations available from the day they are published is going to massively benefit the game. It will not, I can guarantee that only a very, very small fraction of half-bunnies characters will ever be played by anyone.
1. Your graph is % which means nothing without the overall numbers. It also has a huge amount of questions on it....what % of those games are active? What % of those games are closed within 1 month?
What do you care, the percentage is probably equivalent in all campaigns so it's still 10 times more.
2. This is Roll20 data and has no direct correlation with DnD Beyond
Yeah, like DDB would be relevant for pathfinder... :p
so the data is almost useless in discussing what tools/features are vital for use. There could be no overlap or complete overlap but you have no data to tie this with Beyond in any way so its completely useless for this discussion.
This just shows that geek games with complex rules are much less popular than simpler more story focussed games.
3. Foundry VTT is more tailored for the PF2e crowd as the features are more robust and inclusive compared to roll20. In fact the VTT market is more split now than ever so its really inconclusive to suggest any one VTT has the full market at this point. So you are taking a percentage of a percentage and it hardly proves anything.
Foundry did not exist at the time of the poll. Irrelevant.
4. As for technical tools....that's your opinion and I think there are a LOT of people wanting more tools. VTT was their #1 asked for feature and this was confirmed by Adam before he left.
Provide numbers, please. Even though my numbers are indirect about game popularity, they are still much better than what you think, as demonstrated.
5. 5e is no worse than any other TTRPG to code and people have been doing that for years.
Have you tried to code for a TTRPG ? Because I have, extensively, for both 3.5 and pathfinder. You did not even know what Iamsposta explained to you. So please, confine your opinions to what you really know about. Professionals at DDB had to change their codes for months to adapt to idiosyncrasies in the new 5e mechanics. Does this even mean something to you ?
PF2e, Shadowrun, and the like all have digital tools that function about 90% of the same as DnD beyond and integrate new books/modules at a much faster pace.
And still you whine when DDB only implement 99.9% of the 5e ruleset and does not implement UA on the day it goes out. I really hope that your complaints to the other tools is 100 stronger, that really must be something...
These systems are just as complex to code. PF2e is a great example for this and Herolab Online is a very fair comparison. It has an active character sheet that updates with conditions, has build in rolling, and trackable HP/death saves/spell slots. It mirror DND Beyond very closely.
And still it implements only 90% of PF2e because, the last percentages are the hardest to do and to integrate properly and to test.
This is not a 5e problem and a "how the database was built in the first place" problem which Adam even admitted and it is the reason the massive overhaul was required.
Oh, I'm sure that you would have done a much better job initially, coding seems so natural to you.
6. New Classes and the like is outside this discussion and is off-topic.
Hrrmm... remind me who, in this thread, started speaking about CFV UA ? Certianly not me, I don't care about UA.
7. Feedback is not complaining and the DnD Beyond staff just LITERALLY ASKED FOR FEEDBACK so you can't be more incorrect as they are directly asking about peoples concerns literally ONE post above yours. The amount of intentional blindness to this is astonishing.
And I did give them feedback, did you actually read my post like you read the rules ? Who is intentionally blind now ?
And I notice than rather than answering the direct question about what additional transparency you would like, you much preferred not reading my post and answering anyway...
1. Overall numbers matter...the content of those percentages matter more. You can have 100x more games but if most of those are empty games that have not been played vs. all of the PF2e games are routinely played it would paint a very different picture.
2. Herolab Online is a completely valid comparison to DnD Beyond which is my point bringing pathfinder in. Once again missing the mark here.
3. PF2e Released in late 2019 so your data is also completely irrelevant as a comparison then....
So yes it is a top priority for them....I don't agree with the approach for the VTT but that is straight from Adam so I believe him over you.
5. Again this is a "How the database was built" problem not a "5e" problem. That is my point and its is very clear why they had to do so much work to update the product.
6. I gave feedback on the disappointment and lack of transparency of what would be available at the launch of the book. That is much different....if you are buying a product you expect 100% integration unless other wise stated....not 90% integration so its a fair ask that they simply state what will not be supported BEFORE the book launches. That is not much to ask.
7. You are being needlessly aggressive in these points....I do not know why but is completely off topic and not contributing to the discussion.
8. I brought up the CFV UA as an example of unable to keep up with demand on a techincal aspects of the UA. It was clear the database they build did not allow for baseline changes like this....and they admitted the mistake and worked on it but it took about a year to address. This is why I think tools and the like will be significantly delayed as its pretty clear they are relatively slow on implementing large changes and the tools would likely represent a lift of similar magnitude. This puts them even further behind in the VTT realm and tools realm.
9. You are purposefully saying people are "Whining" when they are providing specific examples for feedback....which neither contributes to the discussion nor is appreciated by anyone.
This just shows that geek games with complex rules are much less popular than simpler more story focussed games.
There's plenty of much more straightforward and story focused ttrpgs than D&D out there, like Mouse Guard or Cthulhu Dark or Lady Blackbird or, if you want to stay closer to D&D, Dungeon World . There are other, arguably far more significant, reasons for D&D's popularity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
I'm not sure, but there might be something about this in the licencing agreement for 'the official toolset of D&D' requiring DDB to make playtest content available insofar as possible within reasonable limits.
Adam actually had to fight to be allowed to implement UA on DDB. Wizards didn't want to let him do it, for the same reason Wizards originally wanted the DDB toolset to be strictly RAW ONLY with absolutely no flex, give, or customization allowed - Wizards is mordibly terrified of new people bouncing off of the least tiniest bit of complexity and assumes everyone who plays TTRPGs is the next best thing to functionally braindead. They didn't want anything that wasn't Completely Official Content on the toolset, and only after years of operation after Adam fought for homebrew inclusion in the first place have people realized that Making Your Own Shit is kinda at the heart of D&D.
Wizards and 5e content is kinda like a grade schooler with promise and the smothering, hyper-protective mother that breaks up all her kid's friendships and has a twenty-point checklist before the kid is allowed to leave his bedroom. Attaining (and retaining) that 'Official Digital Toolset' title requires DDB to comply with a much stricter regulatory burden than programs like World Anvil, with all the slowness and secrecy that entails.
Does it suck? Immensely. I'm sick unto death of the lack of progress on some of my own brain caltrops. But given the fact that DDB's had to basically scrap and redo their entire service twice now, and do so without an y service interruptions? Given that everybody is screeching at DDB to implement a fully-featured VTT, Everything Trackers, and basically become a D&D One-Stop-Shop Holodeck Simulation despite that never being the intent of the tool? I can understand why they're not as responsive as other teams.
Would still be nice if they could pick up the bloody pace. Stormknight wants to know specific pieces of feedback, basically looking for actionable shit rather than general discontent. All right.
Our campaign had to abandon Slow Natural Healing because, despite the DM very much wanting to use it, it was prohibitively impractical to run with the DDB character sheet. It swiftly proved more annoying than it was worth to try and remember to log your HP every time you wanted to utilize long rests and reset your score after each click, and a single ****-up ruined the whole thing and gave somebody 'free' healing they weren't entitled to. We ended up switching to standard long rests simply because the system soft-dispermitted this valid, official optional rule.
The core Honor and Sanity rules are still not implementable in your sheet, outside of a jank workaround using custom skills. There is currently no way to modify core stats or add new ones, which not only precludes Honor or Sanity, but also any campaign-specific score the DM might want to keep track of.
And of course, Inventory Management has been a bugbear for forever. As it currently stands, players have to use all manner of bizarre customizations and workarounds to keep their inventory even slightly organized. The sheet assumes that every last single thing you own is directly on your person at all times - you can, for example, own a chest, but DDB's character sheet not only assumes you're hauling that chest around on your back at all times, it assumes there's nothing in that chest. There is no reason, short of DM insistence, for a character to own any sort of container or carrying assist, nor is there any way for a character to own anything that isn't directly and immediately on their person save for animals.
There are dozens and dozens of optional rules or sideline content that DDB has not implemented yet. Each one is a small thing, a bit of side flotsam that The Average Player won't ever use...but over time there's been enough of these things that DDB's opted to ignore in its pursuit of chasing backend improvements and focusing on core content implementation that I bet many "The Average Players" have encountered at least one optional rule they simply can't use because DDB provides no way for them to track or interface with it.
People have varying degrees of tolerance for all this 'little pointless shit' slippage. SOme folks have very little tolerance, and start threads looking for alternatives to DDB (which, if I were a Community Manager, would be the sort of thread I'd pay attention to). Other folks have a lot of tolerance, and defend the design team in threads looking for alternatives to DDB. But nobody's tolerance is infinite. Eventually, implementing only eightyish percent of every book and leaving the rest to Vague Future Updates is going to exhaust that tolerance. Especially when somebody eventually decides to enter the market in a way that competes with DDB directly, rather than trying to compete in the glutted, pointless VTT field.
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
I'm not sure, but there might be something about this in the licencing agreement for 'the official toolset of D&D' requiring DDB to make playtest content available insofar as possible within reasonable limits.
Adam actually had to fight to be allowed to implement UA on DDB. Wizards didn't want to let him do it, for the same reason Wizards originally wanted the DDB toolset to be strictly RAW ONLY with absolutely no flex, give, or customization allowed - Wizards is mordibly terrified of new people bouncing off of the least tiniest bit of complexity and assumes everyone who plays TTRPGs is the next best thing to functionally braindead. They didn't want anything that wasn't Completely Official Content on the toolset, and only after years of operation after Adam fought for homebrew inclusion in the first place have people realized that Making Your Own Shit is kinda at the heart of D&D.
I believe you, but it's really weird they chose to make UA public in the first place then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This just shows that geek games with complex rules are much less popular than simpler more story focussed games.
There's plenty of much more straightforward and story focused ttrpgs than D&D out there, like Mouse Guard or Cthulhu Dark or Lady Blackbird or, if you want to stay closer to D&D, Dungeon World . There are other, arguably far more significant, reasons for D&D's popularity.
Yeah about 90% of class/racial features are related to combat so to say its an overt story focused TTRPG is pretty misleading. If it was very story focused then it would be EASIER to implement as it could be a wiki page instead of a character sheet that integrates all the interacting status/features/abilities/spells that are related to combat.
IF 5e is hard to code its precisely because its a "rules medium" experience that pulls back on crunch but still has a lot of it compared to things like Dungeon World.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is definitely me - using a robust Combat Tracker is the only serious thing that me personally as a DM would make playing the game far easier than what I have. Basic monsters is fine but having ANY kind of spellcasting creature with slots/consumable features is a pain to manage. Put simply, a complete CT would revolutionise my games.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
All I know is that DDB is doing a good job at what it was meant to be a place to create and manage your characters whether as a player or a DM and now we have the ability to download our books we buy here on an app and read them offline, now we can do that with our characters as well.
I'm not sure if Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds let us Download our books to read offline or our characters for that matter can we do that with either of those companies, that is an actual question if you cannot do that with them they are really dropping the ball lol. This company was created to help us at the gaming table and has grown farther then what they expected they would need to do and they are doing it quite well.
DDB has spent the last 2 years basically doing a nearly complete overhaul (software and hardware) to redesign the system so that they can fix all of this stuff. Now that all of that is mostly done they can finally make the necessary improvements.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is what I was hoping for and it just seems they have been caught in a riptide of back load then....can't keep up with the releases thanks to the overhaul. I do not blame them per say...just more wondering if these things are going to be finished or if they will just move on from them and move back to a core focus.
Well, first they overhauled the character sheet framework for 10.5 months. Then there was about a month, month & a half of troubleshooting for that. Then they had to very carefully untangle the creation software from the content (including all of the Homebrew) and move that content to a different server. Before everything was on a monolith, which is why it was faster before but they couldn’t fix anything because the system could barely tell the content from the software used to program it since it was basically all the same thing before. Now that the content is on a separate server is why any updates to homebrews take longer to filter through, but stuff is less likely to crash a character sheet.
For example, take a look at the Eldritch Adept feat. It works, but with no clear indication how. Use it as a template for another feat and there’s apparently nothing actually making it function, yet it does. All it needs is a number of options set and it will grant that many Invocations. Yet there are no visible options attached whatsoever. That means something is going on behind the visible fields. That wasn’t even possible for them to do before unless they attached it to a feature name like “Spellcasting.” Also, before they couldn’t have added something like that to the creation software without it affecting every existing feat, official and Homebrew.
So they have made all of these upgrades which allow them to finally implement changes, and the most impressive part of it is that nobody has really noticed unles you live here like I do. The fact that it’s all invisible is not a sign that they aren’t doing anything, it is instead a sign that they’re doing it so well it isn’t adversely affecting the user experience. (In other words, it’s a good thing.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Do wish they could be a little more transparent on it so the average person could know it's a good thing.
Then we would have less forums like this.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I mean...I noticed when it wasn't available for months.
Eberron didn't have support for spells of the mark for that 10.5 month period. People constant asked why it wasn't working and they said it's coming.
The CFV UA was released and never implimented as they just waited until Tashas.
People for sure noticed.
I'm not saying they aren't doing any work... Just it's taking a long time to just impliment the books alone.
Based on that I wouldn't be surprised if the tools were not updated for another year or more
I think they didn't want to code the CFV UA unless they had to (in an official book) because it was a bit of a lift for something that could theoretically only be around for a month till it goes on the drawing board.
I mean, do any of the other digital "competitors" Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, deliver UA to its users? I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I really don't know the answer to that.
D&D Beyond works for me. Sure I'd love the ability to custom design classes as would everyone else in homebrew world, but I don't know where I else I can do that either. Is DDB a perfect product? No, but it seems to do a fair job keeping up, I wish it was better resourced so it could accomplish some of the things that have been on various iterations of the drawing board to the point but some of the VTT trajectory stuff like the combat tracker are meh for me. I'd like a better encounter builder, and I'd really like that encounter builder integrating with published adventures, but regardless the product still helps my game and I feel I'm getting my money's worth as my subscription is up for renewal.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not sure, but there might be something about this in the licencing agreement for 'the official toolset of D&D' requiring DDB to make playtest content available insofar as possible within reasonable limits.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah it's just hugely popular to do it too...
It's generally a customer satisfaction thing I think
That’s not the problem. DDB’s issue is that certain technical design choices were made when implementing the original ruleset and those choices don’t mesh with some of the new additions from later releases (which doesn’t make them mistakes necessarily, you can only make choices based on the information you have - 20/20 hindsight doesn’t count). The overhaul should help with that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersCan you expand on that please, in terms of what you feel "more transparent" would look like?
We're always looking to make sure we engage and serve our global community.
Currently, we have:
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 just want dark mode
1. Your graph is % which means nothing without the overall numbers. It also has a huge amount of questions on it....what % of those games are active? What % of those games are closed within 1 month?
2. This is Roll20 data and has no direct correlation with DnD Beyond so the data is almost useless in discussing what tools/features are vital for use. There could be no overlap or complete overlap but you have no data to tie this with Beyond in any way so its completely useless for this discussion.
3. Foundry VTT is more tailored for the PF2e crowd as the features are more robust and inclusive compared to roll20. In fact the VTT market is more split now than ever so its really inconclusive to suggest any one VTT has the full market at this point. So you are taking a percentage of a percentage and it hardly proves anything.
4. As for technical tools....that's your opinion and I think there are a LOT of people wanting more tools. VTT was their #1 asked for feature and this was confirmed by Adam before he left.
5. 5e is no worse than any other TTRPG to code and people have been doing that for years. PF2e, Shadowrun, and the like all have digital tools that function about 90% of the same as DnD beyond and integrate new books/modules at a much faster pace. These systems are just as complex to code. PF2e is a great example for this and Herolab Online is a very fair comparison. It has an active character sheet that updates with conditions, has build in rolling, and trackable HP/death saves/spell slots. It mirror DND Beyond very closely. This is not a 5e problem and a "how the database was built in the first place" problem which Adam even admitted and it is the reason the massive overhaul was required.
6. New Classes and the like is outside this discussion and is off-topic.
7. Feedback is not complaining and the DnD Beyond staff just LITERALLY ASKED FOR FEEDBACK so you can't be more incorrect as they are directly asking about peoples concerns literally ONE post above yours. The amount of intentional blindness to this is astonishing.
The beginning of this thread reminds me of people using Internet Explorer to install Google Chrome right in front of Internet Explorer lol
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
1. Overall numbers matter...the content of those percentages matter more. You can have 100x more games but if most of those are empty games that have not been played vs. all of the PF2e games are routinely played it would paint a very different picture.
2. Herolab Online is a completely valid comparison to DnD Beyond which is my point bringing pathfinder in. Once again missing the mark here.
3. PF2e Released in late 2019 so your data is also completely irrelevant as a comparison then....
4. Adam stated it here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/d-d-beyond-feedback/62136-a-question-of-priority He pointed towards this feature request page: https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/topics/115000209847-Feature-Requests?sort_by=votes
So yes it is a top priority for them....I don't agree with the approach for the VTT but that is straight from Adam so I believe him over you.
5. Again this is a "How the database was built" problem not a "5e" problem. That is my point and its is very clear why they had to do so much work to update the product.
6. I gave feedback on the disappointment and lack of transparency of what would be available at the launch of the book. That is much different....if you are buying a product you expect 100% integration unless other wise stated....not 90% integration so its a fair ask that they simply state what will not be supported BEFORE the book launches. That is not much to ask.
7. You are being needlessly aggressive in these points....I do not know why but is completely off topic and not contributing to the discussion.
8. I brought up the CFV UA as an example of unable to keep up with demand on a techincal aspects of the UA. It was clear the database they build did not allow for baseline changes like this....and they admitted the mistake and worked on it but it took about a year to address. This is why I think tools and the like will be significantly delayed as its pretty clear they are relatively slow on implementing large changes and the tools would likely represent a lift of similar magnitude. This puts them even further behind in the VTT realm and tools realm.
9. You are purposefully saying people are "Whining" when they are providing specific examples for feedback....which neither contributes to the discussion nor is appreciated by anyone.
There's plenty of much more straightforward and story focused ttrpgs than D&D out there, like Mouse Guard or Cthulhu Dark or Lady Blackbird or, if you want to stay closer to D&D, Dungeon World . There are other, arguably far more significant, reasons for D&D's popularity.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Adam actually had to fight to be allowed to implement UA on DDB. Wizards didn't want to let him do it, for the same reason Wizards originally wanted the DDB toolset to be strictly RAW ONLY with absolutely no flex, give, or customization allowed - Wizards is mordibly terrified of new people bouncing off of the least tiniest bit of complexity and assumes everyone who plays TTRPGs is the next best thing to functionally braindead. They didn't want anything that wasn't Completely Official Content on the toolset, and only after years of operation after Adam fought for homebrew inclusion in the first place have people realized that Making Your Own Shit is kinda at the heart of D&D.
Wizards and 5e content is kinda like a grade schooler with promise and the smothering, hyper-protective mother that breaks up all her kid's friendships and has a twenty-point checklist before the kid is allowed to leave his bedroom. Attaining (and retaining) that 'Official Digital Toolset' title requires DDB to comply with a much stricter regulatory burden than programs like World Anvil, with all the slowness and secrecy that entails.
Does it suck? Immensely. I'm sick unto death of the lack of progress on some of my own brain caltrops. But given the fact that DDB's had to basically scrap and redo their entire service twice now, and do so without an y service interruptions? Given that everybody is screeching at DDB to implement a fully-featured VTT, Everything Trackers, and basically become a D&D One-Stop-Shop Holodeck Simulation despite that never being the intent of the tool? I can understand why they're not as responsive as other teams.
Would still be nice if they could pick up the bloody pace. Stormknight wants to know specific pieces of feedback, basically looking for actionable shit rather than general discontent. All right.
Our campaign had to abandon Slow Natural Healing because, despite the DM very much wanting to use it, it was prohibitively impractical to run with the DDB character sheet. It swiftly proved more annoying than it was worth to try and remember to log your HP every time you wanted to utilize long rests and reset your score after each click, and a single ****-up ruined the whole thing and gave somebody 'free' healing they weren't entitled to. We ended up switching to standard long rests simply because the system soft-dispermitted this valid, official optional rule.
The core Honor and Sanity rules are still not implementable in your sheet, outside of a jank workaround using custom skills. There is currently no way to modify core stats or add new ones, which not only precludes Honor or Sanity, but also any campaign-specific score the DM might want to keep track of.
And of course, Inventory Management has been a bugbear for forever. As it currently stands, players have to use all manner of bizarre customizations and workarounds to keep their inventory even slightly organized. The sheet assumes that every last single thing you own is directly on your person at all times - you can, for example, own a chest, but DDB's character sheet not only assumes you're hauling that chest around on your back at all times, it assumes there's nothing in that chest. There is no reason, short of DM insistence, for a character to own any sort of container or carrying assist, nor is there any way for a character to own anything that isn't directly and immediately on their person save for animals.
There are dozens and dozens of optional rules or sideline content that DDB has not implemented yet. Each one is a small thing, a bit of side flotsam that The Average Player won't ever use...but over time there's been enough of these things that DDB's opted to ignore in its pursuit of chasing backend improvements and focusing on core content implementation that I bet many "The Average Players" have encountered at least one optional rule they simply can't use because DDB provides no way for them to track or interface with it.
People have varying degrees of tolerance for all this 'little pointless shit' slippage. SOme folks have very little tolerance, and start threads looking for alternatives to DDB (which, if I were a Community Manager, would be the sort of thread I'd pay attention to). Other folks have a lot of tolerance, and defend the design team in threads looking for alternatives to DDB. But nobody's tolerance is infinite. Eventually, implementing only eightyish percent of every book and leaving the rest to Vague Future Updates is going to exhaust that tolerance. Especially when somebody eventually decides to enter the market in a way that competes with DDB directly, rather than trying to compete in the glutted, pointless VTT field.
Please do not contact or message me.
I believe you, but it's really weird they chose to make UA public in the first place then.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah about 90% of class/racial features are related to combat so to say its an overt story focused TTRPG is pretty misleading. If it was very story focused then it would be EASIER to implement as it could be a wiki page instead of a character sheet that integrates all the interacting status/features/abilities/spells that are related to combat.
IF 5e is hard to code its precisely because its a "rules medium" experience that pulls back on crunch but still has a lot of it compared to things like Dungeon World.