Do you think they will realease a playable mystic class on ddb soon?
If Wizards of the Coast release a Mystic class, either as an official book, or as new Unearthed Arcana, then yes - it will be added to D&D Beyond.
Sooo... is there a reason why older UA stuff isn't added to the database?
According to the explanation given by the staff upon launch of the UA content here on DDB, is because WotC considers content past a certain amount of time and not included in any official book or with no new version in UA as archived, and therefore its time for playtesting to be over.
While I agree this could be frustrating, it is well in the right of WotC to choose to do so, and not permit DDB to publish such content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
This basically means that revised ranger is 100 percent incompatible with D&D Beyond, doesn't it? I have two ranger PCs in my main group, and we use the UA rules. I just threw away $70 on a service I can't use with one-third of them.
My workaround might be to try and write alternate subclasses for the ranger that are closer to the revised versions. I like more of a hybrid anyway. Not ideal, but best we can do with the tools, and what WotC has allowed DDB to publish.
My workaround might be to try and write alternate subclasses for the ranger that are closer to the revised versions. I like more of a hybrid anyway. Not ideal, but best we can do with the tools, and what WotC has allowed DDB to publish.
This is what I'm doing for my Horizon Walker. Not the best, but better than the magic item solution I was using before!
Yeah... no... I've watched an interview with Jeremy Crawford and it seems as if they aren't really looking into the mechanics of the ranger anymore, so it seems as if the DDB Ranger will be a piece of shit indefinitely.
Yeah... no... I've watched an interview with Jeremy Crawford and it seems as if they aren't really looking into the mechanics of the ranger anymore, so it seems as if the DDB Ranger will be a piece of shit indefinitely.
Thanks, Obama.
The last I saw was that they said the Revised Ranger was an overfix of the problem, and that they will be approaching a more piecemeal system style fix for the Ranger on the next pass.
Base ranger isn't even bad, I don't know why it's being complained about so much. I play rangers somewhat frequently, as it's my favorite class, and I still make myself a powerhouse and pretty utilitarian.
I guess the main problem people might have with the Ranger (didn't really follow the whole extent of it to be honest, just speaking of my impression) is Thefavored Enemy being non-combat relevant anymore.
Aside from that (which I can kind of agree with) I do not really see any other glaring problem with the class (aside from beast Master which could use some fixing, imho)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I had read the DDB article on the Beast Master a while ago and realised it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. The health makes it still pretty squishy, but if you grab something like a giant badger or velociraptor and get multiattack, with your proficiency bonus added to all attacks and damage, that sways action economy in your favor a good amount. But yeah, there are some things that need to ironed out, at least there. But Ranger over all isn't trash as apparently some people think it is.
The Problem with the ranger isn't the damage output or something trivial like this.
The problem is that basically the Background: Outlander Feature makes most of the vanilla class features irrelevant because the background is better than the class.
Adding to this is the whole mess with primeval awareness costing a spell slot for "get into the DM lottery" information, because based on the description, you might get to know bullshit from this feature. You could as well don't get this feature and it won't make any difference.
And that's the problem with the vanilla ranger. While every other class feel cool and unique and flavourful as it is, the ranger needs massive houseruling to be on par. I've played rangers for 20 years now, and in 5e it was the first time that I wasn't excited to create my first ranger.
I fail to see how recognizing places you've been or heard about and finding food for people defeats almost the entire class. You recall the general information. Meaning you've had to already be there or heard general information on it. You're not coming in level 1 with expertise on all terrain everywhere.The food is really the only thing is has going for it. Saving up to 2.5 gold (5 player party, a day of rations for each) is only really a big thing early levels, sometimes not that great at level 1. And I wouldn't cast off damage as trivial, as combat is one of the three main pillars of adventuring.
Is there still no custom class functionality on the roadmap? If not, that's pretty bad.
I always homebrew classes for campaigns I run because I enjoy it and there's no reason not to. I don't care if you can fit a lot of concepts into a subclass for one of the arbitrary 12 core classes - that doesn't mean it's always the best way to bring a concept to life, and WotC needs to stop acting like it is. If it was, we we wouldn't even have the 12 classes we have since most of them could just be subclasses also. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 archetype concepts that are broad enough to easily be made into a full class with a host of subclass options - and that's just ones that are generic enough for everyone to be familiar with (shamans, witches, etc.).
Making a concept into a full class is a way to represent that it's fully realized, fully integrated, and a major part of the lore of a setting - something that can't be done on nearly the same level with a subclass. And that's ignoring how thematically shoehorning some of them would feel (i.e. making witch or shaman subclasses for wizard/warlock or druid. It just doesn't really fit.)
It doesn't really seem like this should be as difficult as they're making it out to be. The design of this app should be (or should have been done) in such a way that class features were modular and we could easily modify what features appear on what classes at what levels, which would establish the base framework for creating homebrew classes.
Is there still no custom class functionality on the roadmap? If not, that's pretty bad.
I always homebrew classes for campaigns I run because I enjoy it and there's no reason not to. I don't care if you can fit a lot of concepts into a subclass for one of the arbitrary 12 core classes - that doesn't mean it's always the best way to bring a concept to life, and WotC needs to stop acting like it is. If it was, we we wouldn't even have the 12 classes we have since most of them could just be subclasses also. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 archetype concepts that are broad enough to easily be made into a full class with a host of subclass options - and that's just ones that are generic enough for everyone to be familiar with (shamans, witches, etc.).
Making a concept into a full class is a way to represent that it's fully realized, fully integrated, and a major part of the lore of a setting - something that can't be done on nearly the same level with a subclass. And that's ignoring how thematically shoehorning some of them would feel (i.e. making witch or shaman subclasses for wizard/warlock or druid. It just doesn't really fit.)
It doesn't really seem like this should be as difficult as they're making it out to be. The design of this app should be (or should have been done) in such a way that class features were modular and we could easily modify what features appear on what classes at what levels, which would establish the base framework for creating homebrew classes.
I agree that it would be a great piece of functionality, and I would absolutely use it (if nothing else than for the pugilist, I love that class!). However, as someone who programs database-driven web applications for a career (and isn't a Curse employee, so no accusations of toeing-the-party-line ;) ), I can assure you that if done right it would be as complicated as they say it is. The problem isn't modularity but open-endedness. Classes can do pretty much anything and are the absolutely the most open-ended and varied aspect of 5e design. A homebrew class system is certainly possible, of course, but it's just a matter of resources. (As I'm constantly telling my management and users, pretty much anything is technologically possible, the real question is how much resources do we want to spend on it?) It would be more complicated than anything else they have built so far, especially with trying to make it both user-friendly and flexible enough to handle a wide variety of options. That makes it extremely resource intensive to build.
So they certainly could build it, but it's all a matter of trade-offs. Any time spent on that is time not spent on other features, and something as massively complex as that would require a lot of resources dedicated to it which would mean a lot of other features (if not most all the rest of the list) would be on hold. So it's not a limitation of technical feasibility, but of resource management. As much as some of us would love this feature, I agree with Curse that the overall community would be better served working on other features instead.
Now, if we keep requesting it, maybe in the long term (couple years?) it might be worth Curse spending the resources on it. Unfortunately, in the short term, there are higher priority features that deserve attention first rather than anyone claiming that homebrew subclasses are all you need.
(Although I wonder how far a lot of us power-users could get if they had an empty class as "Advanced Homebrew" content that we could hang a homebrew subclass onto and basically homebrew up something for every level that way. It would certainly still be limited and far from a full homebrew class system - in fact it couldn't have it's own subclasses, but you could create a version for each. Also with plenty of "Not for the faint of heart, no warranties, advanced users only, experimental, blah blah blah" disclaimers in order to even enable it as an options, it might go a little ways in addressing your wants. However, in my experience, there is a massive risk in letting something out there publicly even with all the disclaimers you can find will still lead to users making support demands and feature requests for it. If you give a mouse a cookie, after all. So it still might not be worth the hassle to open that can of worms unless they had something far more complete. But maybe they could consider that as a possibility.)
Is there still no custom class functionality on the roadmap? If not, that's pretty bad.
I always homebrew classes for campaigns I run because I enjoy it and there's no reason not to. I don't care if you can fit a lot of concepts into a subclass for one of the arbitrary 12 core classes - that doesn't mean it's always the best way to bring a concept to life, and WotC needs to stop acting like it is. If it was, we we wouldn't even have the 12 classes we have since most of them could just be subclasses also. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 archetype concepts that are broad enough to easily be made into a full class with a host of subclass options - and that's just ones that are generic enough for everyone to be familiar with (shamans, witches, etc.).
Making a concept into a full class is a way to represent that it's fully realized, fully integrated, and a major part of the lore of a setting - something that can't be done on nearly the same level with a subclass. And that's ignoring how thematically shoehorning some of them would feel (i.e. making witch or shaman subclasses for wizard/warlock or druid. It just doesn't really fit.)
It doesn't really seem like this should be as difficult as they're making it out to be. The design of this app should be (or should have been done) in such a way that class features were modular and we could easily modify what features appear on what classes at what levels, which would establish the base framework for creating homebrew classes.
I agree that it would be a great piece of functionality, and I would absolutely use it (if nothing else than for the pugilist, I love that class!). However, as someone who programs database-driven web applications for a career (and isn't a Curse employee, so no accusations of toeing-the-party-line ;) ), I can assure you that if done right it would be as complicated as they say it is. The problem isn't modularity but open-endedness. Classes can do pretty much anything and are the absolutely the most open-ended and varied aspect of 5e design. A homebrew class system is certainly possible, of course, but it's just a matter of resources. (As I'm constantly telling my management and users, pretty much anything is technologically possible, the real question is how much resources do we want to spend on it?) It would be more complicated than anything else they have built so far, especially with trying to make it both user-friendly and flexible enough to handle a wide variety of options. That makes it extremely resource intensive to build.
So they certainly could build it, but it's all a matter of trade-offs. Any time spent on that is time not spent on other features, and something as massively complex as that would require a lot of resources dedicated to it which would mean a lot of other features (if not most all the rest of the list) would be on hold. So it's not a limitation of technical feasibility, but of resource management. As much as some of us would love this feature, I agree with Curse that the overall community would be better served working on other features instead.
Now, if we keep requesting it, maybe in the long term (couple years?) it might be worth Curse spending the resources on it. Unfortunately, in the short term, there are higher priority features that deserve attention first rather than anyone claiming that homebrew subclasses are all you need.
(Although I wonder how far a lot of us power-users could get if they had an empty class as "Advanced Homebrew" content that we could hang a homebrew subclass onto and basically homebrew up something for every level that way. It would certainly still be limited and far from a full homebrew class system - in fact it couldn't have it's own subclasses, but you could create a version for each. Also with plenty of "Not for the faint of heart, no warranties, advanced users only, experimental, blah blah blah" disclaimers in order to even enable it as an options, it might go a little ways in addressing your wants. However, in my experience, there is a massive risk in letting something out there publicly even with all the disclaimers you can find will still lead to users making support demands and feature requests for it. If you give a mouse a cookie, after all. So it still might not be worth the hassle to open that can of worms unless they had something far more complete. But maybe they could consider that as a possibility.)
I didn't mean to suggest that it was simple, and I understand that resources are not unlimited, however, in my mind this should be a high priority feature. What features on the roadmap, in your mind, deserve to be higher priority?
I didn't mean to suggest that it was simple, and I understand that resources are not unlimited, however, in my mind this should be a high priority feature. What features on the roadmap, in your mind, deserve to be higher priority?
The character sheet revamp and mobile app features, without a doubt. Those are both far more important, in my opinion. Even things like Campaign Management would probably be of more widespread benefit than homebrew classes.
It would be interesting to see just how often homebrew material is actually used. Even with nearly 1 million users, the most popular public homebrew race is only being used by 580 people, and the most added magic item and subclass being about half that many each. I can understand for some of us, homebrew base classes would be extremely useful if not vital to our games, but I'm confident that we are in an incredibly small minority. (This also fits my anecdotal experiences with the vast majority of gamers I have played with having no interest in homebrew material at all beyond a magic item or two.) So it's a trade-off of it being a massive benefit for very few people as opposed to features that would be large benefits to the majority of users.
As those widely beneficial features get finished, however, I do hope they create a homebrew class system someday, and I can sympathize for those like you who really need it. But with the small audience that would use it (let alone the even smaller audience that absolutely needs it), I can entirely understand it being a low priority.
So I don't want to say homebrew classes are not important, and I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I think your original last paragraph just hit my IT programmer side wrong since it's very common for us to hear "That shouldn't be that difficult, why haven't you done it already?". :) So I am with you that homebrew classes would be a great feature, and bugs me when WotC or others try cramming concepts into an existing class where they don't belong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Wait... what?
Really?
What happened to the Revised Ranger then?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Yup, confirmed - they have new ideas they are working on for the Ranger class.
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!"🔊
This basically means that revised ranger is 100 percent incompatible with D&D Beyond, doesn't it? I have two ranger PCs in my main group, and we use the UA rules. I just threw away $70 on a service I can't use with one-third of them.
Author of The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters, MOAR! Monsters Know What They're Doing, Live to Tell the Tale: Combat Tactics for Players and How to Defend Your Lair (Saga Press).
My workaround might be to try and write alternate subclasses for the ranger that are closer to the revised versions. I like more of a hybrid anyway. Not ideal, but best we can do with the tools, and what WotC has allowed DDB to publish.
Yeah... no... I've watched an interview with Jeremy Crawford and it seems as if they aren't really looking into the mechanics of the ranger anymore, so it seems as if the DDB Ranger will be a piece of shit indefinitely.
Thanks, Obama.
The last I saw was that they said the Revised Ranger was an overfix of the problem, and that they will be approaching a more piecemeal system style fix for the Ranger on the next pass.
Base ranger isn't even bad, I don't know why it's being complained about so much. I play rangers somewhat frequently, as it's my favorite class, and I still make myself a powerhouse and pretty utilitarian.
I guess the main problem people might have with the Ranger (didn't really follow the whole extent of it to be honest, just speaking of my impression) is Thefavored Enemy being non-combat relevant anymore.
Aside from that (which I can kind of agree with) I do not really see any other glaring problem with the class (aside from beast Master which could use some fixing, imho)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I had read the DDB article on the Beast Master a while ago and realised it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. The health makes it still pretty squishy, but if you grab something like a giant badger or velociraptor and get multiattack, with your proficiency bonus added to all attacks and damage, that sways action economy in your favor a good amount. But yeah, there are some things that need to ironed out, at least there. But Ranger over all isn't trash as apparently some people think it is.
The Problem with the ranger isn't the damage output or something trivial like this.
The problem is that basically the Background: Outlander Feature makes most of the vanilla class features irrelevant because the background is better than the class.
Adding to this is the whole mess with primeval awareness costing a spell slot for "get into the DM lottery" information, because based on the description, you might get to know bullshit from this feature. You could as well don't get this feature and it won't make any difference.
And that's the problem with the vanilla ranger. While every other class feel cool and unique and flavourful as it is, the ranger needs massive houseruling to be on par. I've played rangers for 20 years now, and in 5e it was the first time that I wasn't excited to create my first ranger.
I fail to see how recognizing places you've been or heard about and finding food for people defeats almost the entire class. You recall the general information. Meaning you've had to already be there or heard general information on it. You're not coming in level 1 with expertise on all terrain everywhere.The food is really the only thing is has going for it. Saving up to 2.5 gold (5 player party, a day of rations for each) is only really a big thing early levels, sometimes not that great at level 1. And I wouldn't cast off damage as trivial, as combat is one of the three main pillars of adventuring.
(Hey guys - maybe take the ranger discussion to another thread?)
Is there still no custom class functionality on the roadmap? If not, that's pretty bad.
I always homebrew classes for campaigns I run because I enjoy it and there's no reason not to. I don't care if you can fit a lot of concepts into a subclass for one of the arbitrary 12 core classes - that doesn't mean it's always the best way to bring a concept to life, and WotC needs to stop acting like it is. If it was, we we wouldn't even have the 12 classes we have since most of them could just be subclasses also. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 archetype concepts that are broad enough to easily be made into a full class with a host of subclass options - and that's just ones that are generic enough for everyone to be familiar with (shamans, witches, etc.).
Making a concept into a full class is a way to represent that it's fully realized, fully integrated, and a major part of the lore of a setting - something that can't be done on nearly the same level with a subclass. And that's ignoring how thematically shoehorning some of them would feel (i.e. making witch or shaman subclasses for wizard/warlock or druid. It just doesn't really fit.)
It doesn't really seem like this should be as difficult as they're making it out to be. The design of this app should be (or should have been done) in such a way that class features were modular and we could easily modify what features appear on what classes at what levels, which would establish the base framework for creating homebrew classes.