Right now I still use Forged Anvil printed sheets which have the absolute bestformat bar none.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Right now I still use Forged Anvil printed sheets which have the absolute bestformat bar none.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
Really? That's a first for sure! I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong for not liking the layout as that is completely subjective. Everyone at the tables I have played at who has seen my sheet has been amazed with the amount of information and ease of navigating it (on paper). I've never tried to use it as a reference in excel while playing so I'll have to take your word for the speed part, but I like pencil and paper better anyway. Some of us old farts will always want to roll them physical dice cuz they are fun and subtract those HPs as they drop!
Right now I still use Forged Anvil printed sheets which have the absolute bestformat bar none.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
Really? That's a first for sure! I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong for not liking the layout as that is completely subjective. Everyone at the tables I have played at who has seen my sheet has been amazed with the amount of information and ease of navigating it (on paper). I've never tried to use it as a reference in excel while playing so I'll have to take your word for the speed part, but I like pencil and paper better anyway. Some of us old farts will always want to roll them physical dice cuz they are fun and subtract those HPs as they drop!
I agree the FA sheet is ugly as sin, it just has good info. Hopefully we get a sheet here that looks nice and is easy to find the right info.
Right now I still use Forged Anvil printed sheets which have the absolute bestformat bar none.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
Right now I still use Forged Anvil printed sheets which have the absolute bestformat bar none.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
Really? That's a first for sure! I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong for not liking the layout as that is completely subjective. Everyone at the tables I have played at who has seen my sheet has been amazed with the amount of information and ease of navigating it (on paper). I've never tried to use it as a reference in excel while playing so I'll have to take your word for the speed part, but I like pencil and paper better anyway. Some of us old farts will always want to roll them physical dice cuz they are fun and subtract those HPs as they drop!
I like rolling the physical dice too and will even with DDB, when it cover my needs even if it comes with a roller. Like you said, I just like the feel of the dice at the table. In the interim I am using MPMB and like it. Its like you said, its up to opinion and I don't use it in order, pull it out and organize it differently in a binder with tabs and page covers I write on with dry erase markers to track spells etc. The MPMB is not efficiently written as far as feet text and class/sub class skills but all the auto fill options and the up coming addition of magic items drop downs will mean that it fills all my needs and makes it quick and easy to make pen and paper sheets... however it does not connect us online, it does not have efficient text for feats/skills/items etc, as I said before, and a lot of what makes it functional over DDB right now is its text based that I can edit, write in, and print and write on …. so basically is pen and paper and you can write anything on paper, lol. I 100% believe DDB will be a better option at some point moving forward. I am not sure which design has the best layout when you print them and put them side by side but I have already seen requests on the MPMB forums for DDB designs which is a good sign they are heading in the right direction and I only think it natural that they might look and consider design aspects of the more successful existing pen and paper designs if only to improve them. Just like these sheets people will have differences of opinion on what is good and bad, I think DDB is a stand out already though because of their willingness and in fact desire to listen to customer feed back, then implement options to accommodate multiple styles of play all while having a more free platform and a large enough team to incorporate ideas that are simple too technically complex for smaller teams and/or held back by the platforms that other systems are based off of. I mean don't get me wrong they are doing some amassing things with pdf scripts but DDB has the potential to have two players with extremely different character sheet formats and needs connecting to and through the same database to share data and play together. I am exited. : )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I don't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I've said before that the thing about fully digitizing any open-ended game such as a TTRPG is I think that there's only so far they can go without making it too videogamey. Either it's fully comprehensive and rigid, or on the other end, it's too open-ended and it's basically a glorified notepad where you're still doing most of the work (I feel like this was my issue with MPMB. If you forget a step, there's nothing to remind you). I think they're doing a great job of striking that balance, but even at its best, there's no way they'll be able to account for every possible style of play. I think ad hoc additions are a solid step towards that compromise.
So I think when someone refers to "most groups", there is a certain lowest common denominator that has to be catered to with this kind of thing. I don't think anyone is saying every group has to fit that mold, but rather that this is going to be a continuously living product that keeps adding more features per popular demand, and right now, DDB caters more to certain types of play. There is no right or wrong way, but there is a "system-friendly" way when it comes to this based on the most common user feedback, and right now, even features in the PHB aren't fully supported yet. Of course, you have every right to demand any features that would benefit your table, but we have to be reasonable when it comes to expectations of when those get implemented.
Honestly, I love seeing the passion this community has for this hobby, which is where I think a lot of the frustration comes from. We all want as perfect of a game to us as we can get. Which is why I try to not let myself get heated in these discussions, as we all share a common bond (or maybe I'm just nostalgic about my metalhead days lol).
I guess what I'm saying is, have faith guys. The developers aren't clueless suits. They play the same game we all do, probably even with their own house rules that aren't the most system-friendly. They know first hand what DDB needs to improve upon. If you want improvements, I think it's best to be constructive. "This feature would be great!" instead of "Ugh I can't believe you con artists took my money without giving me this feature!" Obviously I'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point.
I guess what I'm saying is, have faith guys. The developers aren't clueless suits. They play the same game we all do, probably even with their own house rules that aren't the most system-friendly. They know first hand what DDB needs to improve upon. If you want improvements, I think it's best to be constructive. "This feature would be great!" instead of "Ugh I can't believe you con artists took my money without giving me this feature!" Obviously I'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point.
Well said. The new sheet looks fantastic and I cannot wait until we can get access to it. I've been using D&D Beyond exclusively since it launched last August, and even the original character sheet has been a huge help for me and the rest of my group. There have been countless little mistakes we had been making on our original paper sheets, and having D&D Beyond avoid those has been great.
I don't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I've said before that the thing about fully digitizing any open-ended game such as a TTRPG is I think that there's only so far they can go without making it too videogamey. Either it's fully comprehensive and rigid, or on the other end, it's too open-ended and it's basically a glorified notepad where you're still doing most of the work (I feel like this was my issue with MPMB. If you forget a step, there's nothing to remind you). I think they're doing a great job of striking that balance, but even at its best, there's no way they'll be able to account for every possible style of play. I think ad hoc additions are a solid step towards that compromise.
So I think when someone refers to "most groups", there is a certain lowest common denominator that has to be catered to with this kind of thing. I don't think anyone is saying every group has to fit that mold, but rather that this is going to be a continuously living product that keeps adding more features per popular demand, and right now, DDB caters more to certain types of play. There is no right or wrong way, but there is a "system-friendly" way when it comes to this based on the most common user feedback, and right now, even features in the PHB aren't fully supported yet. Of course, you have every right to demand any features that would benefit your table, but we have to be reasonable when it comes to expectations of when those get implemented.
Honestly, I love seeing the passion this community has for this hobby, which is where I think a lot of the frustration comes from. We all want as perfect of a game to us as we can get. Which is why I try to not let myself get heated in these discussions, as we all share a common bond (or maybe I'm just nostalgic about my metalhead days lol).
I guess what I'm saying is, have faith guys. The developers aren't clueless suits. They play the same game we all do, probably even with their own house rules that aren't the most system-friendly. They know first hand what DDB needs to improve upon. If you want improvements, I think it's best to be constructive. "This feature would be great!" instead of "Ugh I can't believe you con artists took my money without giving me this feature!" Obviously I'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point.
I agree with most of what you said, but when comments come out against the implementation or even you being exited about a feature the developers have acknowledged a large number people have requested and developers intend to implement , saying your feature as not "most groups", and implying its not needed at all instead of "it could be a later option" they are ridiculing that type of play. I will agree is a think line between disagreement based on your needs and dismissiveness belittling an idea because you don't need it so you don't care. However, you can usually see the difference when in the same breath they apologize for your GM and say they feel sorry for you a having to deal with those conditions as if your style is diseased. Anytime, another person assumes your unhappy and would be happier if you would just play so the current functions would be enough instead of recognizing your have your own desires and style they are belittling you. It makes absolute since that the most requested features get taken care of first but what does it say that these professional developers with first hand experience said themselves that inventory management is on their short list and they have gotten a lot of requests for it. Its pretty clear to me that people using the "most groups" example for a feature like this really mean "my group" because their is enough support on the forums to say inventory management IS a "most groups" desired feature. I can't prove that and have not tried, but the same it true about the inverse. People using that argument aren't looking to back up or verify the claim that your not "most groups" and ensure THEY are not the ones outside of the lowest common denominator, they are just dismissing another's position as not theirs. Their may not be anyone not expecting updates and improvement on a living continuously living product, but their are some saying that the improvements they want are important and the ones I or you want are not and that we should just change so its not and issue so we don't waste the developer's time working on those features. Like you said, their is a lowest common denominator that has to be catered to and we should trust the developers who have much further reaching feed back with first hand experience to make that call of what updates should be priorities. Even if your saying your want a feature no one else wants, if it can be implemented as an option without hurting the UI or play of someone else then there is no reason to tell them "most groups are fine without this so you can live without it"... That's not the point and dismissive. The DDB team has already shown they are better than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
MPMB isn't bad and looks really good, but I like more utility than flash and having less sheets to look through. FA gives you half as many sheets for the same amount of information. I think if DNDB goes with a layout similar to FA but spices it up a bit like MPMB we could have a really amazing sheet. I guess it's like those people who roll to hit and then roll damage as opposed to those who roll damage along with their to hit. Neither is correct, one is just faster while the other you get the joy of rolling more. I'm a to hit and damage dice at the same time so my combat round sometimes is as quick as the 6 second round lol. Kill the bad guys and get to the RP in RPG!
I'm not a fan of a digital sheet that tries to emulate a paper sheet, since in that case I'd rather just use a paper sheet. That's why I prefer DDB over FA or MPMB. DDB doesn't look like a sheet of paper, and that's a good thing imo. While the current sheet has its functional flaws, I like the overall look of it and find it easy to use at the table (other than grabbing buried features, which I know is going to be fixed so I'm not gonna harp on it)
The new sheet looks similarly fantastic, and takes advantage of the possibilities you can only get through digital (the info anchoring looks super handy), so I'm very pumped for that to finally be released. I'm very glad they aren't going the direction of FA or MPMB in layout. If you want that sheet, those options exist. I'm sure the updated pdf export will be a good fit for those seeking a similar option, but what we've seen of the revamp continues with digital functionality and style.
I'm sure the updated pdf export will be a good fit for those seeking a similar option, but what we've seen of the revamp continues with digital functionality and style.
That's what I am hoping for as well. The digital version of DDB is much better than anything else out there in that type of format for sure. The export to PDF for we old timers is what I want to see improved as the current one based on the WOTC template is just bad.
They have shown the PDF export a little on the May developer update. It looked pretty darn good, though I like using my tablet when I play so I'll be using the on-site version.
They have shown the PDF export a little on the May developer update. It looked pretty darn good, though I like using my tablet when I play so I'll be using the on-site version.
You darn youngins with your fancy tablets and interwebs! :)
The whole sidebar interactivity on the new sheet means it is very much worth using the online version - you can pretty much play your entire game from the character sheet without needing to go check a rulebook, as you can check all of the detailed wording by clicking on something in the sheet and reading the sidebar that pops up.
The whole sidebar interactivity on the new sheet means it is very much worth using the online version - you can pretty much play your entire game from the character sheet without needing to go check a rulebook, as you can check all of the detailed wording by clicking on something in the sheet and reading the sidebar that pops up.
Abilities, feats, spells, items - everything. :)
Storm, you're killing me over here!! I can't wait.
I only got access to the test version 2 days ago, but I can confirm it's almost ready for you all!
It's worth noting that, whilst this will be a MASSIVE improvement over the current sheet, the D&D Beyond team will remain receptive to feedback for further improvements - things can always be made better! :)
Didn't BadEye say that the website navigation changes are coming with the new sheet too? So once it's live, we shouldn't even need to check the changelog. If things look different when we first hit the homepage, that should mean the new sheet is here.
The whole sidebar interactivity on the new sheet means it is very much worth using the online version - you can pretty much play your entire game from the character sheet without needing to go check a rulebook, as you can check all of the detailed wording by clicking on something in the sheet and reading the sidebar that pops up.
Abilities, feats, spells, items - everything. :)
Thanks for the info Storm. Any chance you could tell us if this functionality works with mobile/tablet view as well? The tooltips are awesome and I wish there was some kind of modal box for mobile that worked similarly.
I only got access to the test version 2 days ago, but I can confirm it's almost ready for you all!
It's worth noting that, whilst this will be a MASSIVE improvement over the current sheet, the D&D Beyond team will remain receptive to feedback for further improvements - things can always be made better! :)
Any idea if the sidebar stuff takes advantage of larger resolutions? Something like having multiple of them? I don't often have windows fullscreen on my 1440p monitors, but it would be nice to have a reason to. :P
I'm doing my best to wait for the new sheets and mobile but my excitement level is high right now after seeing the stream. My groups are chomping at the bit to get their hands on the new hotness. Very jealous of those in the beta!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it's the most horrible sheet ever made, even worse than MPMB's. Terrible layout, hard to reference and use at the table, agonisingly slow in Excel, and just plain ugly.
So, you know, really hoping DDB's sheet doesn't take it's cues from either FA or MPMB.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Really? That's a first for sure! I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong for not liking the layout as that is completely subjective. Everyone at the tables I have played at who has seen my sheet has been amazed with the amount of information and ease of navigating it (on paper). I've never tried to use it as a reference in excel while playing so I'll have to take your word for the speed part, but I like pencil and paper better anyway. Some of us old farts will always want to roll them physical dice cuz they are fun and subtract those HPs as they drop!
I agree the FA sheet is ugly as sin, it just has good info. Hopefully we get a sheet here that looks nice and is easy to find the right info.
I like rolling the physical dice too and will even with DDB, when it cover my needs even if it comes with a roller. Like you said, I just like the feel of the dice at the table. In the interim I am using MPMB and like it. Its like you said, its up to opinion and I don't use it in order, pull it out and organize it differently in a binder with tabs and page covers I write on with dry erase markers to track spells etc. The MPMB is not efficiently written as far as feet text and class/sub class skills but all the auto fill options and the up coming addition of magic items drop downs will mean that it fills all my needs and makes it quick and easy to make pen and paper sheets... however it does not connect us online, it does not have efficient text for feats/skills/items etc, as I said before, and a lot of what makes it functional over DDB right now is its text based that I can edit, write in, and print and write on …. so basically is pen and paper and you can write anything on paper, lol. I 100% believe DDB will be a better option at some point moving forward. I am not sure which design has the best layout when you print them and put them side by side but I have already seen requests on the MPMB forums for DDB designs which is a good sign they are heading in the right direction and I only think it natural that they might look and consider design aspects of the more successful existing pen and paper designs if only to improve them. Just like these sheets people will have differences of opinion on what is good and bad, I think DDB is a stand out already though because of their willingness and in fact desire to listen to customer feed back, then implement options to accommodate multiple styles of play all while having a more free platform and a large enough team to incorporate ideas that are simple too technically complex for smaller teams and/or held back by the platforms that other systems are based off of. I mean don't get me wrong they are doing some amassing things with pdf scripts but DDB has the potential to have two players with extremely different character sheet formats and needs connecting to and through the same database to share data and play together. I am exited. : )
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I don't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I've said before that the thing about fully digitizing any open-ended game such as a TTRPG is I think that there's only so far they can go without making it too videogamey. Either it's fully comprehensive and rigid, or on the other end, it's too open-ended and it's basically a glorified notepad where you're still doing most of the work (I feel like this was my issue with MPMB. If you forget a step, there's nothing to remind you). I think they're doing a great job of striking that balance, but even at its best, there's no way they'll be able to account for every possible style of play. I think ad hoc additions are a solid step towards that compromise.
So I think when someone refers to "most groups", there is a certain lowest common denominator that has to be catered to with this kind of thing. I don't think anyone is saying every group has to fit that mold, but rather that this is going to be a continuously living product that keeps adding more features per popular demand, and right now, DDB caters more to certain types of play. There is no right or wrong way, but there is a "system-friendly" way when it comes to this based on the most common user feedback, and right now, even features in the PHB aren't fully supported yet. Of course, you have every right to demand any features that would benefit your table, but we have to be reasonable when it comes to expectations of when those get implemented.
Honestly, I love seeing the passion this community has for this hobby, which is where I think a lot of the frustration comes from. We all want as perfect of a game to us as we can get. Which is why I try to not let myself get heated in these discussions, as we all share a common bond (or maybe I'm just nostalgic about my metalhead days lol).
I guess what I'm saying is, have faith guys. The developers aren't clueless suits. They play the same game we all do, probably even with their own house rules that aren't the most system-friendly. They know first hand what DDB needs to improve upon. If you want improvements, I think it's best to be constructive. "This feature would be great!" instead of "Ugh I can't believe you con artists took my money without giving me this feature!" Obviously I'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point.
Well said. The new sheet looks fantastic and I cannot wait until we can get access to it. I've been using D&D Beyond exclusively since it launched last August, and even the original character sheet has been a huge help for me and the rest of my group. There have been countless little mistakes we had been making on our original paper sheets, and having D&D Beyond avoid those has been great.
I agree with most of what you said, but when comments come out against the implementation or even you being exited about a feature the developers have acknowledged a large number people have requested and developers intend to implement , saying your feature as not "most groups", and implying its not needed at all instead of "it could be a later option" they are ridiculing that type of play. I will agree is a think line between disagreement based on your needs and dismissiveness belittling an idea because you don't need it so you don't care. However, you can usually see the difference when in the same breath they apologize for your GM and say they feel sorry for you a having to deal with those conditions as if your style is diseased. Anytime, another person assumes your unhappy and would be happier if you would just play so the current functions would be enough instead of recognizing your have your own desires and style they are belittling you. It makes absolute since that the most requested features get taken care of first but what does it say that these professional developers with first hand experience said themselves that inventory management is on their short list and they have gotten a lot of requests for it. Its pretty clear to me that people using the "most groups" example for a feature like this really mean "my group" because their is enough support on the forums to say inventory management IS a "most groups" desired feature. I can't prove that and have not tried, but the same it true about the inverse. People using that argument aren't looking to back up or verify the claim that your not "most groups" and ensure THEY are not the ones outside of the lowest common denominator, they are just dismissing another's position as not theirs. Their may not be anyone not expecting updates and improvement on a living continuously living product, but their are some saying that the improvements they want are important and the ones I or you want are not and that we should just change so its not and issue so we don't waste the developer's time working on those features. Like you said, their is a lowest common denominator that has to be catered to and we should trust the developers who have much further reaching feed back with first hand experience to make that call of what updates should be priorities. Even if your saying your want a feature no one else wants, if it can be implemented as an option without hurting the UI or play of someone else then there is no reason to tell them "most groups are fine without this so you can live without it"... That's not the point and dismissive. The DDB team has already shown they are better than that.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
MPMB isn't bad and looks really good, but I like more utility than flash and having less sheets to look through. FA gives you half as many sheets for the same amount of information. I think if DNDB goes with a layout similar to FA but spices it up a bit like MPMB we could have a really amazing sheet. I guess it's like those people who roll to hit and then roll damage as opposed to those who roll damage along with their to hit. Neither is correct, one is just faster while the other you get the joy of rolling more. I'm a to hit and damage dice at the same time so my combat round sometimes is as quick as the 6 second round lol. Kill the bad guys and get to the RP in RPG!
I'm not a fan of a digital sheet that tries to emulate a paper sheet, since in that case I'd rather just use a paper sheet. That's why I prefer DDB over FA or MPMB. DDB doesn't look like a sheet of paper, and that's a good thing imo. While the current sheet has its functional flaws, I like the overall look of it and find it easy to use at the table (other than grabbing buried features, which I know is going to be fixed so I'm not gonna harp on it)
The new sheet looks similarly fantastic, and takes advantage of the possibilities you can only get through digital (the info anchoring looks super handy), so I'm very pumped for that to finally be released. I'm very glad they aren't going the direction of FA or MPMB in layout. If you want that sheet, those options exist. I'm sure the updated pdf export will be a good fit for those seeking a similar option, but what we've seen of the revamp continues with digital functionality and style.
That's what I am hoping for as well. The digital version of DDB is much better than anything else out there in that type of format for sure. The export to PDF for we old timers is what I want to see improved as the current one based on the WOTC template is just bad.
They have shown the PDF export a little on the May developer update. It looked pretty darn good, though I like using my tablet when I play so I'll be using the on-site version.
You darn youngins with your fancy tablets and interwebs! :)
The whole sidebar interactivity on the new sheet means it is very much worth using the online version - you can pretty much play your entire game from the character sheet without needing to go check a rulebook, as you can check all of the detailed wording by clicking on something in the sheet and reading the sidebar that pops up.
Abilities, feats, spells, items - everything. :)
Pun-loving nerd | 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!"🔊
Storm, you're killing me over here!! I can't wait.
I only got access to the test version 2 days ago, but I can confirm it's almost ready for you all!
It's worth noting that, whilst this will be a MASSIVE improvement over the current sheet, the D&D Beyond team will remain receptive to feedback for further improvements - things can always be made better! :)
Pun-loving nerd | 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!"🔊
Didn't BadEye say that the website navigation changes are coming with the new sheet too? So once it's live, we shouldn't even need to check the changelog. If things look different when we first hit the homepage, that should mean the new sheet is here.
Thanks for the info Storm. Any chance you could tell us if this functionality works with mobile/tablet view as well? The tooltips are awesome and I wish there was some kind of modal box for mobile that worked similarly.
Any idea if the sidebar stuff takes advantage of larger resolutions? Something like having multiple of them? I don't often have windows fullscreen on my 1440p monitors, but it would be nice to have a reason to. :P
Work isn't complete yet, so I wouldn't feel safe giving any sort of definitive answer until release.
Pun-loving nerd | 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'm doing my best to wait for the new sheets and mobile but my excitement level is high right now after seeing the stream. My groups are chomping at the bit to get their hands on the new hotness. Very jealous of those in the beta!