Kizuna's Profile

On top of consolidating the variations on the magic items (see: "Armor of..." and a "[Insert Weapon +1/2/3]"), I think the ability to exclude terms from the search would be really useful.  That way, if I want to look at rare armors, but not armors of poison resistance or whatever, then I can cut down on my results.  I'm no search engine guru, so this may be possible and I just don't know how.  Anything I tried didn't work.

Yeah, I can definitely see the benefit of actually inscribing it all by hand since you get a better understanding of the item...  But as someone who's working on some one-shots to publish, and is maintaining twelve character sheets that jump levels, some of which have various other character sheets (see: Wild Shape), and will be getting magic items in some of the episodes...  Well, I'll take anything that I don't have to draft up and organize into a presentable manner XD

I think that having a streamlined, printable version of all of the item listings would be super useful, seeing as how many of us will be using Beyond in conjunction with real-life campaigns.  A version of the sheet that minimizes ink usage and fits everything neatly onto a page for printing would be very much appreciated!

Right, you are.  I edited my post.  Thanks!

Like the title says, I spent a few hours rooting around, looking up beast stats for a druid's Wild Shape and spells for several classes.  Here are a list of improvements I could think of:

1.)  Have the search bar filter in real-time.  This is a small nitpick, but one thing that I appreciate about other sites is when searches filter as you type.  I don't know what the logistics are on this, but it'd be a nice improvement,

2.)  Some spells list casting time as "Special."  Specifically in the case of Plant Growth, I don't see why the "1 action or 8 hours" in the book wouldn't suffice.  So long as the system can show it for searches for both "1 action" or "8 hours."  If it can't do that, then I can see why a "Special" category might be necessary, but I'm all for preserving things as closely to the books as possible, so that things don't get messy when translating them onto character sheets, and then perhaps referencing back to a physical book.  To conclude, I also don't see many cases in which someone would want to see exclusively spells with wonky casting times, but I may be wrong.

3.)  Another smaller nitpick: I couldn't find material components for a bit when I first was searching around (they're featured at the bottom of the spell's info in small, italicized text).  I can understand why these might not fit into the Components box because they'd mess up searching, but I'd personally like to see them featured nearby considering their close connection to the M tag.

4.)  I think it would be cool to have page numbers listed for spells and monsters, pointing to where they can be found in their respective texts.  Makes it simpler if I wanted to bookmark something in the book.  This might take more work than it's worth, seeing as how spells are in alphabetical order in the books, and the Monsters section does list the section that the monster would be under in the Monster Manual.

5.)  You mentioned this in one of the stickied posts, but a completely searchable Compendium would be super useful.  Just want to reinforce a desire for that feature.

6.)  My biggest complaint is this: You have the ability to go to a Monster Page, but when you do so, you lost the ability to see the Type, Size, and Alignment.  The Tags (such as environments) also become less prominently featured.  These bits are really useful, and I was forced to stick to the search page, rather than being able to set aside Monster Pages for later use.  Spell Pages do not suffer from this, as everything that's listed in their bar in the search page also appear on their Spell Pages.  Adding an section into Monster Pages that list the above information would easily solve this.  Apologies if I was just overlooking it.

Hope this is helpful.  A lot of it's nitpicky, but I figure more feedback is better than less.  Thanks!