Can we please get an update on the content sharing issue? I still cannot share the optional class features through my Master Tier subscription. It's getting increasingly frustrating that this is flat-out broken, this really should've been working from day one (and if it was broken, I would've thought this was a high priority to fix quickly).
Public Mod Note(Stormknight): The Mind Sliver spell is designated as being on the Sorcerer, Warlock & Wizard spell lists in chapter 3. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tcoe/magical-miscellany#Spells
I asked a question earlier about the optional features for spells but found out it's way worse than I thought. I used the example of Mind Sliver for Warlocks. The optional features shows Mind Sliver on the list for Warlocks, but even with the feature disabled it can be picked by that character. Why put it in the optional box if the box being disabled doesn't prevent it from being picked? It's not coming from another source since the cantrip is new to Tasha's.
In fact, I temporarily changed the level of the character to 20, and it found that every spell from the Additional Warlock Spells optional feature that has an asterisk is available even if the feature is disabled! I don't know if this applies to other classes, but if the book says these spells should only be added if the feature is enabled, then no spell on that list should be available unless the feature is enabled... (excluding stuff already in other books like the 4 melee/close range cantrips from the EE Companion)
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
The Mind Sliver spell is designated as being on the Sorcerer, Warlock & Wizard spell lists in chapter 3. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tcoe/magical-miscellany#Spells
Is there a reason that there was no update yesterday on what was resolved, and can we get a roadmap as to when the existing issues will be addressed?
Honestly, when you finally put up a pre-order for Tasha's I figured you had decided you could actually get the book coded on time. Now, it has become glaringly obvious that you decided to take our money first, and just get as much done as possible, which has left us with a partially finished product. When updates and fixes then followed on a daily basis, with detailed notes, I was willing to accept this. But now we've had a day go by with no fixes posted to the forum, and other fixes left with nebulous answers (such as the ranger's beast companion, is an entitlement fix a one day problem, a one week problem, etc). So I feel at this point we need:
1. An official apology.
2. An official statement where you agree not to release grossly unfinished products, even if it means missing the physical book's street date.
3. A daily post where you discuss what was fixed on that day, even if the post is simply to say, X was worked on but nothing was resolved.
4. An official roadmap for fix implementation, tagging every items as being fixed as being fixed today, tomorrow, this week, or within 30 days.
they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous.
to say, " they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous." is a rather fatuous and misleading statement.
To my reckoning, a very very large percentage of what people are frustrated with on the 49 (and counting) pages of this thread is linked to the optional class variant features and related aspects, most if not all of which were STRUCTURALLY conveyed in the UA release last November! Therefore, please, please don't even go there with that absurd 3 weeks bollocks. That would have been a good defence in December or January of course, when the concept behind the UA was still new. But not now.
Having said this, I am also fully willing to give DDB the benefit of the doubt on how complex and tricky it might be to retrofit some of the new structure contained in the class variant features. I couldn't do it but then I don't make my living coding IT. The poster Devan Avalon is, in his/her capacity as a PAYING CUSTOMER, well within rights to expect a reasonable level of customer service and clear communication on the topic. That includes acknowledgement of things that are amiss and an expected timeline wherever possible for fixing.
For anyone to suggest otherwise, well, that is more than a 'tad ridiculous', it's more like total BS.
Also, it's Thanksgiving week in the US. Some employees might have some days off, especially if they put extra hours to make the initial deadline, hence perhaps the lack of recent updates.
As someone who has purchased/unlocked everything on this site and has been waiting for years now for (among other things) some updates on the homebrew collection/creation management front, I understand the frustration of "the wait". However, I also understand D&D Beyond is a relatively small team, and its Developer and members genuinely seem to care about developing things as fast as humanly possible -- while making sure the system doesn't get too buggy.
So... Nope. If I bought a a car, and they said it would be ready on Tuesday, and then on that day, they said, oh, by the way, the air conditioning doesn't work yet and the parking break won't be implemented until some point in the future, that would be unacceptable. They had a very simple option on the table which was to either a. Not release the book until it was done, or b. state before release the specific features that would not be implemented at launch. They chose to take my money and do neither. I think that based on their behavior, the response I am requesting (apology, policy change, daily updates, and an implementation roadmap), are entirely reasonable. I am in no way asking for a refund or financial compensation. I'm also not asking that everything be fixed by a particular date. Just the four mentioned items.
Also, Rome might not have been built in a day, but I also didn't buy Rome via a pre-order.
Then you should also know that if you buy a car "ON PRE ORDER" rather than off the lot, this kind of stuff can and DOEs happen. I know...i sell cars...have for years. VERY BAD analogy.
Is there a reason that there was no update yesterday on what was resolved, and can we get a roadmap as to when the existing issues will be addressed?
Honestly, when you finally put up a pre-order for Tasha's I figured you had decided you could actually get the book coded on time. Now, it has become glaringly obvious that you decided to take our money first, and just get as much done as possible, which has left us with a partially finished product. When updates and fixes then followed on a daily basis, with detailed notes, I was willing to accept this. But now we've had a day go by with no fixes posted to the forum, and other fixes left with nebulous answers (such as the ranger's beast companion, is an entitlement fix a one day problem, a one week problem, etc). So I feel at this point we need:
1. An official apology.
2. An official statement where you agree not to release grossly unfinished products, even if it means missing the physical book's street date.
3. A daily post where you discuss what was fixed on that day, even if the post is simply to say, X was worked on but nothing was resolved.
4. An official roadmap for fix implementation, tagging every items as being fixed as being fixed today, tomorrow, this week, or within 30 days.
they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous.
to say, " they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous." is a rather fatuous and misleading statement. Sorry, let me be frank-- it's complete and utter Bullsh*t, I'm sorry to say.
To my reckoning, a very very large percentage of what people are frustrated with on the 49 (and counting) pages of this thread is linked to the optional class variant features and related aspects, most if not all of which were STRUCTURALLY conveyed in the UA release last November! Therefore, please, please don't even go there with that absurd 3 weeks bollocks. That would have been a good defence in December or January of course, when the concept behind the UA was still new. But not now.
Having said this, I am also fully willing to give DDB the benefit of the doubt on how complex and tricky it might be to retrofit some of the new structure contained in the class variant features. I couldn't do it but then I don't make my living coding IT. The poster Devan Avalon is, in his/her capacity as a PAYING CUSTOMER, well within rights to expect a reasonable level of customer service and clear communication on the topic. That includes acknowledgement of things that are amiss and an expected timeline wherever possible for fixing.
For anyone to suggest otherwise, well, that is more than a 'tad ridiculous'.
but they literally only did receive the book 3 weeks before release ***and the optional class features worked*** (for the most part) ***on day 1.***
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I strongly suspect that WotC specified an availability date for the digital copy made available through DDB, and therefore they probably had no choice but to launch in the state they were in.
As others have pointed out, they only got their hands on the content 3 weeks from the release date, in which time, they had to:
Parse the contents of the whole book, down the the last letter
Design, from scratch, the origins editor system
Add the new content
Test the whole thing
Given they had 3 weeks to do this in (I would bet that WotC wouldn't even tell them what to expect, to avoid leaks), it's a miracle they managed to get done what they had on launch day.
Based on your response, I would guess you've never worked in software, or in test. To give you an example of how long things take, our company decided to remove a single button from a single page of the UI, and it's taken us an entire day to test.
1 button. 8 hours of testing.
Again, as I pointed out in my reply to the other post invoking the fatuous 3 week defence, that is simply not a valid excuse. The UA released in November of last year gave a very clear heads-up of where WotC was heading from a structural point of view. 80-90% of the relevant information was known. Sure, there were tweaks after play testing, but these were in most instances not material deviations from the UA. Certainly as far as the additional class spells were concerned, that was the case.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect those in a client-facing role, i.e. selling a product as a subcontractor (which is what DDB is doing) that they would be in weekly/ regular discussions with the authors of the primary material (WotC in this case) leading up to the final release. Good comms so that the product, when it is in the hands of the client, does not lead to disappointment, is just good business. I'm sorry I just don't buy that WotC are completely unavailable to DDB for the nearly 1 year between UA release 2019 and 2020 TGtE release.
Is there a reason that there was no update yesterday on what was resolved, and can we get a roadmap as to when the existing issues will be addressed?
Honestly, when you finally put up a pre-order for Tasha's I figured you had decided you could actually get the book coded on time. Now, it has become glaringly obvious that you decided to take our money first, and just get as much done as possible, which has left us with a partially finished product. When updates and fixes then followed on a daily basis, with detailed notes, I was willing to accept this. But now we've had a day go by with no fixes posted to the forum, and other fixes left with nebulous answers (such as the ranger's beast companion, is an entitlement fix a one day problem, a one week problem, etc). So I feel at this point we need:
1. An official apology.
2. An official statement where you agree not to release grossly unfinished products, even if it means missing the physical book's street date.
3. A daily post where you discuss what was fixed on that day, even if the post is simply to say, X was worked on but nothing was resolved.
4. An official roadmap for fix implementation, tagging every items as being fixed as being fixed today, tomorrow, this week, or within 30 days.
they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous.
to say, " they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous." is a rather fatuous and misleading statement. Sorry, let me be frank-- it's complete and utter Bullsh*t, I'm sorry to say.
To my reckoning, a very very large percentage of what people are frustrated with on the 49 (and counting) pages of this thread is linked to the optional class variant features and related aspects, most if not all of which were STRUCTURALLY conveyed in the UA release last November! Therefore, please, please don't even go there with that absurd 3 weeks bollocks. That would have been a good defence in December or January of course, when the concept behind the UA was still new. But not now.
Having said this, I am also fully willing to give DDB the benefit of the doubt on how complex and tricky it might be to retrofit some of the new structure contained in the class variant features. I couldn't do it but then I don't make my living coding IT. The poster Devan Avalon is, in his/her capacity as a PAYING CUSTOMER, well within rights to expect a reasonable level of customer service and clear communication on the topic. That includes acknowledgement of things that are amiss and an expected timeline wherever possible for fixing.
For anyone to suggest otherwise, well, that is more than a 'tad ridiculous'.
but they literally only did receive the book 3 weeks before release ***and the optional class features worked*** (for the most part) ***on day 1.***
ok then, talk to me about the Ranger's Favored Foe, Deft Explorer and Primal Companions. No material divergences on those OCF relative to the UA, and they are broken as of T+ 8 days. As far as the latter goes, citing a licensing issue is odd to say the least, and at worst insulting. They had a year to work on it.
I'm not hating on DDB at all and I'm sorry if it feels like that. They do a great job delivering a wonderful product that I'm happy to support. I'm simply saying in this case that if you sell something and it does not work to spec you need to make the people who bought it with their hard-earned cash feel as though there is some sense of urgency to deliver versus what was sold. And it does not feel to me (and others) that that sense of urgency and good communication is really there. Maybe that's just how the IT world rolls, and 'it's not them, it's us'.
Some of this conversation feels like it would be better suited to the Feedback forum rather than the Tasha's Bugs & Support thread. I understand this is Tasha's related, but you'll probably make a better case for your suggestions on how D&D Beyond should handle things in a proper thread in Feedback. Moving this discussion will also help the forum moderators from having to slog through it to locate additional bugs and issues.
Actually, I do work in software, and it's probably why I'm so aware of the fact that when you DO decide to launch an unfinished version of something, daily updates and a product roadmap are a necessity when it comes to customer support. Once again, I'm not saying that WOTC did not put them in a difficult position. What I'm saying is that in choosing to launch the product in an unfinished state, there needs to be apologies, new policies written to cover similar issues in the future, daily updates, and a feature roadmap that provides a time frame for the providing of missing features.
I disagree. This forum section needs to be updated daily, and all unresolved issues need to have time estimate as to their inclusion. Otherwise all this thread says is "These things are broken, we have no idea when they will be worked on or fixed." This should be core to their communication.
I disagree. This forum section needs to be updated daily, and all unresolved issues need to have time estimate as to their inclusion. Otherwise all this thread says is "These things are broken, we have no idea when they will be worked on or fixed." This should be core to their communication.
While I see and understand a desire for daily updates, it is not always possible to estimate how long technical "repairs" will take place. Especially in the IT field. Many times it like trying to be the first guy to solve a Rubics Cube, not the millionth one following a how to.
I understand what you are saying. Sometimes people want an estimate for "when are are you going to fix my printer" and if you have no clue what the issue is, or how to solve it, you can't give an accurate estimate. However... the majority of these issues are not that type of problem. There are enough specifics to provide an estimate. More importantly, if some of these (like the Ranger beasts) are actually of the "so complex and unknowable that we cant even manage a vague estimate" type. I want to know that. I want to know that it could take in excess of a month to fix. My fear is that many of these items are actually going to take several weeks, and they just don't want to admit that, as people will demand their money back.
Hey thanks for adding the attacks for the Way of the Astral Self monk, but I'm afraid they still aren't working correctly yet. I tried to test build a multiclass character of Ranger, Way of the Astral Self Monk and Soulknife Rogue, and I noticed that:
1) though my character had 6 levels of monk, the Arms of the Astral Self and normal unarmed strikes are still showing a d4 damage die while it should be a d6 due to martial arts.
2) Furthermore I had hoped there would be a function similar to Hexblade weapon or pact of blade weapon customization feature for a equipped monk weapon. I wanted to test out if the Psychic blades of the Soulknife Rogue could be counted as Monk weapons as they appear to fit the requirements for Martial arts.
I hoped this is helpful and I eagerly await any fixes. Thank you kindly.
So I was messing around with the character builder last night and did a level 6 multi class of Psi warrior and Soulknife.
I noticed that it gave me 12 psi dice. Which I'm pretty sure it should only be six correct? Or would psi dice double ?
Both features are called “Psionic Power,” so they shouldn’t stack (like how paladin and cleric Channel Divinity uses don’t stack), so either this is an oversight on the part of DDB, or DDB are waiting for more specific multiclassing guidance from WotC.
I activated "Harness Divine Power" on a Rouge/Cleric of mine, but I saw a "scalevalue - No level scale data available" where the number of uses should be.
Can we please get an update on the content sharing issue? I still cannot share the optional class features through my Master Tier subscription. It's getting increasingly frustrating that this is flat-out broken, this really should've been working from day one (and if it was broken, I would've thought this was a high priority to fix quickly).
I asked a question earlier about the optional features for spells but found out it's way worse than I thought. I used the example of Mind Sliver for Warlocks. The optional features shows Mind Sliver on the list for Warlocks, but even with the feature disabled it can be picked by that character. Why put it in the optional box if the box being disabled doesn't prevent it from being picked? It's not coming from another source since the cantrip is new to Tasha's.
In fact, I temporarily changed the level of the character to 20, and it found that every spell from the Additional Warlock Spells optional feature that has an asterisk is available even if the feature is disabled! I don't know if this applies to other classes, but if the book says these spells should only be added if the feature is enabled, then no spell on that list should be available unless the feature is enabled... (excluding stuff already in other books like the 4 melee/close range cantrips from the EE Companion)
to say, " they received the book 3 weeks before release to try and implement everything. This is a tad ridiculous." is a rather fatuous and misleading statement.
To my reckoning, a very very large percentage of what people are frustrated with on the 49 (and counting) pages of this thread is linked to the optional class variant features and related aspects, most if not all of which were STRUCTURALLY conveyed in the UA release last November! Therefore, please, please don't even go there with that absurd 3 weeks bollocks. That would have been a good defence in December or January of course, when the concept behind the UA was still new. But not now.
Having said this, I am also fully willing to give DDB the benefit of the doubt on how complex and tricky it might be to retrofit some of the new structure contained in the class variant features. I couldn't do it but then I don't make my living coding IT. The poster Devan Avalon is, in his/her capacity as a PAYING CUSTOMER, well within rights to expect a reasonable level of customer service and clear communication on the topic. That includes acknowledgement of things that are amiss and an expected timeline wherever possible for fixing.
For anyone to suggest otherwise, well, that is more than a 'tad ridiculous', it's more like total BS.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
Also, it's Thanksgiving week in the US. Some employees might have some days off, especially if they put extra hours to make the initial deadline, hence perhaps the lack of recent updates.
As someone who has purchased/unlocked everything on this site and has been waiting for years now for (among other things) some updates on the homebrew collection/creation management front, I understand the frustration of "the wait". However, I also understand D&D Beyond is a relatively small team, and its Developer and members genuinely seem to care about developing things as fast as humanly possible -- while making sure the system doesn't get too buggy.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
Then you should also know that if you buy a car "ON PRE ORDER" rather than off the lot, this kind of stuff can and DOEs happen. I know...i sell cars...have for years. VERY BAD analogy.
but they literally only did receive the book 3 weeks before release ***and the optional class features worked*** (for the most part) ***on day 1.***
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Again, as I pointed out in my reply to the other post invoking the fatuous 3 week defence, that is simply not a valid excuse. The UA released in November of last year gave a very clear heads-up of where WotC was heading from a structural point of view. 80-90% of the relevant information was known. Sure, there were tweaks after play testing, but these were in most instances not material deviations from the UA. Certainly as far as the additional class spells were concerned, that was the case.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect those in a client-facing role, i.e. selling a product as a subcontractor (which is what DDB is doing) that they would be in weekly/ regular discussions with the authors of the primary material (WotC in this case) leading up to the final release. Good comms so that the product, when it is in the hands of the client, does not lead to disappointment, is just good business. I'm sorry I just don't buy that WotC are completely unavailable to DDB for the nearly 1 year between UA release 2019 and 2020 TGtE release.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
Where did they announce they only got the material 3 weeks before launch exactly?
ok then, talk to me about the Ranger's Favored Foe, Deft Explorer and Primal Companions. No material divergences on those OCF relative to the UA, and they are broken as of T+ 8 days. As far as the latter goes, citing a licensing issue is odd to say the least, and at worst insulting. They had a year to work on it.
I'm not hating on DDB at all and I'm sorry if it feels like that. They do a great job delivering a wonderful product that I'm happy to support. I'm simply saying in this case that if you sell something and it does not work to spec you need to make the people who bought it with their hard-earned cash feel as though there is some sense of urgency to deliver versus what was sold. And it does not feel to me (and others) that that sense of urgency and good communication is really there. Maybe that's just how the IT world rolls, and 'it's not them, it's us'.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
Some of this conversation feels like it would be better suited to the Feedback forum rather than the Tasha's Bugs & Support thread. I understand this is Tasha's related, but you'll probably make a better case for your suggestions on how D&D Beyond should handle things in a proper thread in Feedback. Moving this discussion will also help the forum moderators from having to slog through it to locate additional bugs and issues.
Actually, I do work in software, and it's probably why I'm so aware of the fact that when you DO decide to launch an unfinished version of something, daily updates and a product roadmap are a necessity when it comes to customer support. Once again, I'm not saying that WOTC did not put them in a difficult position. What I'm saying is that in choosing to launch the product in an unfinished state, there needs to be apologies, new policies written to cover similar issues in the future, daily updates, and a feature roadmap that provides a time frame for the providing of missing features.
I disagree. This forum section needs to be updated daily, and all unresolved issues need to have time estimate as to their inclusion. Otherwise all this thread says is "These things are broken, we have no idea when they will be worked on or fixed." This should be core to their communication.
Looks like the Palm Pistol is missing the Ammunition property so it can't be selected for the Repeating Shot artificer infusion.
While I see and understand a desire for daily updates, it is not always possible to estimate how long technical "repairs" will take place. Especially in the IT field. Many times it like trying to be the first guy to solve a Rubics Cube, not the millionth one following a how to.
I understand what you are saying. Sometimes people want an estimate for "when are are you going to fix my printer" and if you have no clue what the issue is, or how to solve it, you can't give an accurate estimate. However... the majority of these issues are not that type of problem. There are enough specifics to provide an estimate. More importantly, if some of these (like the Ranger beasts) are actually of the "so complex and unknowable that we cant even manage a vague estimate" type. I want to know that. I want to know that it could take in excess of a month to fix. My fear is that many of these items are actually going to take several weeks, and they just don't want to admit that, as people will demand their money back.
Hey thanks for adding the attacks for the Way of the Astral Self monk, but I'm afraid they still aren't working correctly yet. I tried to test build a multiclass character of Ranger, Way of the Astral Self Monk and Soulknife Rogue, and I noticed that:
1) though my character had 6 levels of monk, the Arms of the Astral Self and normal unarmed strikes are still showing a d4 damage die while it should be a d6 due to martial arts.
2) Furthermore I had hoped there would be a function similar to Hexblade weapon or pact of blade weapon customization feature for a equipped monk weapon. I wanted to test out if the Psychic blades of the Soulknife Rogue could be counted as Monk weapons as they appear to fit the requirements for Martial arts.
I hoped this is helpful and I eagerly await any fixes. Thank you kindly.
I thought as much. :)
I activated "Harness Divine Power" on a Rouge/Cleric of mine, but I saw a "scalevalue - No level scale data available" where the number of uses should be.
The section for feats isn’t showing up at all on the mobile version.
ROLL DEM BONES
Minor text error: Summon Undead is still listed as a conjuration spell under the Additional Wizard Spells optional class feature.