I am just glad that the book I bought on here is finally fully integrated with the character sheet. I am seriously considering waiting to see if the CFV actually come out with the book on here before buying as waiting almost a year for the Spells of the Mark to be done was a bit frustrating.
HOWEVER
I am glad they got them out before the CFV as that is only the right thing to do as they had books not being implemented fully.
I guess what always bugged me is that there are free, javascript/PDF character builders that manage to add all the new content with the help of a few community programmers. Certainly not as pretty, but very practical and functional, and more importantly new content and UA is coded very quickly.
I understand that a web-based database application is a different beast, but it seems like a work-around for class feature variants shouldn't be taking this long. There are already class features that involve making a choice. Why is it so difficult to change a previously static class feature to something that requires a choice? Having a prompt at level up that says 'Do you choose ranger feature A or the variant B (UA)?' if the UA content is turned on seems like it shouldn't be all that different from 'Do you choose Eldritch invocation A or B or C(UA)?'.
I guess what always bugged me is that there are free, javascript/PDF character builders that manage to add all the new content with the help of a few community programmers. Certainly not as pretty, but very practical and functional, and more importantly new content and UA is coded very quickly.
I understand that a web-based database application is a different beast, but it seems like a work-around for class feature variants shouldn't be taking this long. There are already class features that involve making a choice. Why is it so difficult to change a previously static class feature to something that requires a choice? Having a prompt at level up that says 'Do you choose ranger feature A or the variant B (UA)?' if the UA content is turned on seems like it shouldn't be all that different from 'Do you choose Eldritch invocation A or B or C(UA)?'.
Because it doesn’t happen at level up. It happens at character creation. CFVs are all-or-nothing, not mix-and-match. They have to code an entirely whole brand new level of options for the server’s tree, and then shift everything down one. They have to create an option level 0.5 as the first level of the tree, when currently everything is hard set to use level 1 as that first layer. That’s a massive undertaking.
I guess what always bugged me is that there are free, javascript/PDF character builders that manage to add all the new content with the help of a few community programmers. Certainly not as pretty, but very practical and functional, and more importantly new content and UA is coded very quickly.
I understand that a web-based database application is a different beast, but it seems like a work-around for class feature variants shouldn't be taking this long. There are already class features that involve making a choice. Why is it so difficult to change a previously static class feature to something that requires a choice? Having a prompt at level up that says 'Do you choose ranger feature A or the variant B (UA)?' if the UA content is turned on seems like it shouldn't be all that different from 'Do you choose Eldritch invocation A or B or C(UA)?'.
I asked the same questions and got:
1. Its more work than you think when you include character sheet integration.
2. Original design of the database/build was built to be rigid.
I dont have enough technical expertise to answer but when I have asked coders I have gotten answers that range from:
"Thats stupid they should have known to build it better and its embarrassing they have taken this long to fix it. DnD Beyond is a joke anyway"
to
"You have no idea how long it takes to backload this kind of data in an existing structure without losing all the characters built in it already. Be grateful they are doing it at all!"
And everywhere in between. Honestly I have no idea why its takes so long but the responses from BadEye have stated they will and that they will likely never put a timeline in when they will be completed.
Several people mention their other projects (encounter builder, combat tracker, digital dice, etc...) and ask if that is impacting the work to which they have consistently said it hasn't.
Overall I have no idea what to believe...it appears that there is little reliable information on how long something like this SHOULD take to do and even less information on if these other projects do have an impact on the completion of the CFV content. They have handled it "okay" I would say and for a while actually talked more about the technical limitations on a Dev Update but it still didn't leave people with a good impression.
I am grateful they finally got the Spells of the Mark features to work....I was upset about that for a while when I realized after I bought the book digitally that they were not supported in the character sheet. To me they should have absolutely mentioned they would not be supported when they released the book but apparently thats not "Industry Norm" to do so? I still found it to be a bit distasteful and because of that will NOT pre-order the new book until its confirmed that the CFV will be available day 1. I would highly encourage everyone to do the same.
Instead support your FLGS and buy a copy from them!
There's likely no one single answer as to why this is the way it is. It's possible DDB had an overriding need top get off the ground as quickly as possible. Adam had said before that the company believed 5e was stabilizing and wouldn't see significant rules alterations. There might have been behind-the-scenes stuff with Wizards; Adam has also said that he had to actively fight for UA and homebrew on the tool, Wizards' original desire was for DDB to be hard-locked to RAW with no room for customization at all. They were worried about all the new players coming in from Critical Role and such getting confused by the Sea of Infinite Bullshit that is any public homebrew space, and that is a valid concern.
Why they ****ed up so severely as to code their entire tool wrong, we will never know. We can only hope they fix it before the deadline, or they'll be in trouble.
Funny thing about that he says VTT is the #1 request but that is based on a feature system that no one remembers from 3 years ago.
They need to do a survey now on what people want.
They are much too far behind in the VTT game to have an impact.
I'd say fi they take their time and do it right, with all the bells and whistles, including a full suite of campaign creation and management tools, and also manage to integrate everything else from the dice roller to the character sheets to the encounter builder... they could immediately sweep the market. Assuming such a thing would be priced affordably (which who are we kidding, it won't).
Adam himself has said a number of times, we have many routes of feedback - forums, twitter, discord, support tickets, emails, as well as a lot of other data.
We frequently check whether our current priorities are the correct ones, and if they're not, we change.
Don't worry - business decisions aren't being made based on some requests from 3 years ago!
Adam himself has said a number of times, we have many routes of feedback - forums, twitter, discord, support tickets, emails, as well as a lot of other data.
We frequently check whether our current priorities are the correct ones, and if they're not, we change.
Don't worry - business decisions aren't being made based on some requests from 3 years ago!
He mentions it but then directly links to the Feature Request Zendesk site as the basis for proof that people want a VTT. I guess pulling from the other input devices is mentioned but I engage on every level of these (Twitter, Forums, DnDBeyond, etc...) and to be honest I have never seen anyone ask for the VTT except for the Zendesk site he linked. That is the item that is 3 years old with comments from over a year ago.
Now I am not calling you a liar or anything but its hard when people who engage in all the social platforms notice that their concerns (Class Feature Variants, Homebrew Class Support, Etc...) go without update but we hear that the community is begging for VTT.
I see a 14 page thread in which we are STILL actively discussing CFV as a desire but the feedback/request forums have 0 requests for VTT elements in the first two pages.
So to be fair if the "community" is asking for these things its really really hard to see where they are asking for it.
I guess what always bugged me is that there are free, javascript/PDF character builders that manage to add all the new content with the help of a few community programmers. Certainly not as pretty, but very practical and functional, and more importantly new content and UA is coded very quickly.
I understand that a web-based database application is a different beast, but it seems like a work-around for class feature variants shouldn't be taking this long. There are already class features that involve making a choice. Why is it so difficult to change a previously static class feature to something that requires a choice? Having a prompt at level up that says 'Do you choose ranger feature A or the variant B (UA)?' if the UA content is turned on seems like it shouldn't be all that different from 'Do you choose Eldritch invocation A or B or C(UA)?'.
Because it doesn’t happen at level up. It happens at character creation. CFVs are all-or-nothing, not mix-and-match. They have to code an entirely whole brand new level of options for the server’s tree, and then shift everything down one. They have to create an option level 0.5 as the first level of the tree, when currently everything is hard set to use level 1 as that first layer. That’s a massive undertaking.
CFVs definitely are mix and match.
"Here you’ll find features that replace or enhance the normal features of your character’s class. The class feature variants each specify which feature they replace or enhance, as summarized in the Class Feature Variants table (see page 2). If a feature is replaced, you gain no benefit from it and don’t qualify for anything in the game that requires it. If a feature is enhanced, you continue to enjoy its benefits but now with new capabilities. The DM decides which of these options are available to the characters in a campaign. A DM is free to prohibit these variants, allow all of them, or make a subset of them available to you."
It specifies that the DM can allow all or a subset. There is nothing that says you can't replace one ranger feature, but leave another unchanged. They were designed only to replace a specific feature. They aren't like the Revised Ranger that was an all or nothing package. They are specific OPTIONS that can replace specific features that you get at specific levels.
What Sposta meant was that until DDB gets its shit together and fixes its codebase, the only practical way they'd be able to manage CFVs is by basically cloning each class as a new, separate class in their database - one with no CFVs, and one with all CFVs. Pick which version you use.
Trust me, we're all well aware CFVs are an opt-in case-by-case thing in the UA document. DDB can't do that, and has ostensibly been working for well over a year at this point to give themselves the ability to do it. Spells of the Mark being in and getting Optimus off our case is a sign that the work is, indeed, progressing. But man, the clock is ticking on these things, DDB...
What folks often underestimate is exactly how rigidly DDB got structured 3 years ago. It was bad, and on Monolith. Now that things are getting split up and made more modular, it will be easier moving forward. But first they gotta finish making all the upgrades to put “realistic articulation and a Kung Fu grip!!” on their toys before it can actually do anything other than stand there and look pretty.
Basically. An expedient, 'easy' decision early in the digital tools' development has been firmly chewing on DDB's keister for 'bout a year and a half now, and only getting their code set up to work the way it probably should have worked from the start will get those chompers outta those buttcheeks
Basically. An expedient, 'easy' decision early in the digital tools' development has been firmly chewing on DDB's keister for 'bout a year and a half now, and only getting their code set up to work the way it probably should have worked from the start will get those chompers outta those buttcheeks
Yeah the best description of what happened there is....
Overall they went the quicker route to start which worked well to get a feature out there and capture the market which is a good idea for a business. But yeah it came back to be an issue later on.
I am just glad that the book I bought on here is finally fully integrated with the character sheet. I am seriously considering waiting to see if the CFV actually come out with the book on here before buying as waiting almost a year for the Spells of the Mark to be done was a bit frustrating.
HOWEVER
I am glad they got them out before the CFV as that is only the right thing to do as they had books not being implemented fully.
Heck, the PHB isn’t even fully implemented.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This. Ding ding ding ding.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I guess what always bugged me is that there are free, javascript/PDF character builders that manage to add all the new content with the help of a few community programmers. Certainly not as pretty, but very practical and functional, and more importantly new content and UA is coded very quickly.
I understand that a web-based database application is a different beast, but it seems like a work-around for class feature variants shouldn't be taking this long. There are already class features that involve making a choice. Why is it so difficult to change a previously static class feature to something that requires a choice? Having a prompt at level up that says 'Do you choose ranger feature A or the variant B (UA)?' if the UA content is turned on seems like it shouldn't be all that different from 'Do you choose Eldritch invocation A or B or C(UA)?'.
Because it doesn’t happen at level up. It happens at character creation. CFVs are all-or-nothing, not mix-and-match. They have to code an entirely whole brand new level of options for the server’s tree, and then shift everything down one. They have to create an option level 0.5 as the first level of the tree, when currently everything is hard set to use level 1 as that first layer. That’s a massive undertaking.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I asked the same questions and got:
1. Its more work than you think when you include character sheet integration.
2. Original design of the database/build was built to be rigid.
I dont have enough technical expertise to answer but when I have asked coders I have gotten answers that range from:
"Thats stupid they should have known to build it better and its embarrassing they have taken this long to fix it. DnD Beyond is a joke anyway"
to
"You have no idea how long it takes to backload this kind of data in an existing structure without losing all the characters built in it already. Be grateful they are doing it at all!"
And everywhere in between. Honestly I have no idea why its takes so long but the responses from BadEye have stated they will and that they will likely never put a timeline in when they will be completed.
Several people mention their other projects (encounter builder, combat tracker, digital dice, etc...) and ask if that is impacting the work to which they have consistently said it hasn't.
Overall I have no idea what to believe...it appears that there is little reliable information on how long something like this SHOULD take to do and even less information on if these other projects do have an impact on the completion of the CFV content. They have handled it "okay" I would say and for a while actually talked more about the technical limitations on a Dev Update but it still didn't leave people with a good impression.
I am grateful they finally got the Spells of the Mark features to work....I was upset about that for a while when I realized after I bought the book digitally that they were not supported in the character sheet. To me they should have absolutely mentioned they would not be supported when they released the book but apparently thats not "Industry Norm" to do so? I still found it to be a bit distasteful and because of that will NOT pre-order the new book until its confirmed that the CFV will be available day 1. I would highly encourage everyone to do the same.
Instead support your FLGS and buy a copy from them!
Adam Bradford explained it himself in this thread:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/d-d-beyond-feedback/62136-a-question-of-priority
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's likely no one single answer as to why this is the way it is. It's possible DDB had an overriding need top get off the ground as quickly as possible. Adam had said before that the company believed 5e was stabilizing and wouldn't see significant rules alterations. There might have been behind-the-scenes stuff with Wizards; Adam has also said that he had to actively fight for UA and homebrew on the tool, Wizards' original desire was for DDB to be hard-locked to RAW with no room for customization at all. They were worried about all the new players coming in from Critical Role and such getting confused by the Sea of Infinite Bullshit that is any public homebrew space, and that is a valid concern.
Why they ****ed up so severely as to code their entire tool wrong, we will never know. We can only hope they fix it before the deadline, or they'll be in trouble.
Please do not contact or message me.
Funny thing about that he says VTT is the #1 request but that is based on a feature system that no one remembers from 3 years ago.
They need to do a survey now on what people want.
They are much too far behind in the VTT game to have an impact.
I'd say fi they take their time and do it right, with all the bells and whistles, including a full suite of campaign creation and management tools, and also manage to integrate everything else from the dice roller to the character sheets to the encounter builder... they could immediately sweep the market. Assuming such a thing would be priced affordably (which who are we kidding, it won't).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAdam himself has said a number of times, we have many routes of feedback - forums, twitter, discord, support tickets, emails, as well as a lot of other data.
We frequently check whether our current priorities are the correct ones, and if they're not, we change.
Don't worry - business decisions aren't being made based on some requests from 3 years ago!
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!"🔊
He mentions it but then directly links to the Feature Request Zendesk site as the basis for proof that people want a VTT. I guess pulling from the other input devices is mentioned but I engage on every level of these (Twitter, Forums, DnDBeyond, etc...) and to be honest I have never seen anyone ask for the VTT except for the Zendesk site he linked. That is the item that is 3 years old with comments from over a year ago.
Now I am not calling you a liar or anything but its hard when people who engage in all the social platforms notice that their concerns (Class Feature Variants, Homebrew Class Support, Etc...) go without update but we hear that the community is begging for VTT.
Honestly I just dont see it...maybe I am missing it but I see a thread/poll with over 2800 votes to add Homebrew Classes that has existed since 2018. But no support or even mention of this in the Dev talks.
I see a 14 page thread in which we are STILL actively discussing CFV as a desire but the feedback/request forums have 0 requests for VTT elements in the first two pages.
So to be fair if the "community" is asking for these things its really really hard to see where they are asking for it.
CFVs definitely are mix and match.
"Here you’ll find features that replace or enhance the normal features of your character’s class. The class feature variants each specify which feature they replace or enhance, as summarized in the Class Feature Variants table (see page 2). If a feature is replaced, you gain no benefit from it and don’t qualify for anything in the game that requires it. If a feature is enhanced, you continue to enjoy its benefits but now with new capabilities. The DM decides which of these options are available to the characters in a campaign. A DM is free to prohibit these variants, allow all of them, or make a subset of them available to you."
It specifies that the DM can allow all or a subset. There is nothing that says you can't replace one ranger feature, but leave another unchanged. They were designed only to replace a specific feature. They aren't like the Revised Ranger that was an all or nothing package. They are specific OPTIONS that can replace specific features that you get at specific levels.
What Sposta meant was that until DDB gets its shit together and fixes its codebase, the only practical way they'd be able to manage CFVs is by basically cloning each class as a new, separate class in their database - one with no CFVs, and one with all CFVs. Pick which version you use.
Trust me, we're all well aware CFVs are an opt-in case-by-case thing in the UA document. DDB can't do that, and has ostensibly been working for well over a year at this point to give themselves the ability to do it. Spells of the Mark being in and getting Optimus off our case is a sign that the work is, indeed, progressing. But man, the clock is ticking on these things, DDB...
Please do not contact or message me.
Thank you Yurei.
What folks often underestimate is exactly how rigidly DDB got structured 3 years ago. It was bad, and on Monolith. Now that things are getting split up and made more modular, it will be easier moving forward. But first they gotta finish making all the upgrades to put “realistic articulation and a Kung Fu grip!!” on their toys before it can actually do anything other than stand there and look pretty.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Basically. An expedient, 'easy' decision early in the digital tools' development has been firmly chewing on DDB's keister for 'bout a year and a half now, and only getting their code set up to work the way it probably should have worked from the start will get those chompers outta those buttcheeks
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah the best description of what happened there is....
Overall they went the quicker route to start which worked well to get a feature out there and capture the market which is a good idea for a business. But yeah it came back to be an issue later on.
So the book is out but I don't see how to implement the varient class features. Did I miss something or is it still not out?
According to this thread, it should be functional later this morning: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/bugs-support/87774-tashas-cauldron-of-everything-issues-and-support