• 0

    posted a message on Party of 5-All same class

    Man, now I really want to play an all-bard party.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on A question about content sharing with the different purchase options available

    With a Master Tier subscription, and content sharing turned on in a campaign, any content purchased by any of the players/GM in the campaign is available to everyone, whether it be an entire book or only part of it.

    Posted in: Bugs & Support
  • 0

    posted a message on I just had an amazingly frilliant (freaking brilliant) idea!
    Quote from dropbear8mybaby >>
    Quote from LtDarien >>

    In Chrome settings, right below where you select your default search engine, there's a link to "manage search engines" where you can enter a keyword and a search string, simply entering the URL of the search results page generated by whatever site you want to use with '%s' in place of the search query. For DDB it's this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/search?q=%s

     

    I can't get that to work for me which is why people like me need extensions.

     I'm quite curious as to why you can't get this to work for you.  

    Posted in: D&D Beyond Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on Homebrew - Changing a weapon's dice or damage type

    Yep, there's nothing I want more at this point more than to be able to homebrew mundane items.  Literally nothing.  

    Posted in: D&D Beyond Feedback
  • 2

    posted a message on I just had an amazingly frilliant (freaking brilliant) idea!

    Many browsers let you shortcut to search functions from other websites.

    I have DDB set up like this in chrome, so when I type 'ddb' in the address bar and hit space, anything I type after that is run as a search on DDB.

    In Chrome settings, right below where you select your default search engine, there's a link to "manage search engines" where you can enter a keyword and a search string, simply entering the URL of the search results page generated by whatever site you want to use with '%s' in place of the search query. For DDB it's this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/search?q=%s

    Posted in: D&D Beyond Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on Moonbeam

    It doesn't work that way.  Creatures don't take damage when the area is moved onto  them, only when they move into it or start they're turn there.  A creature will only ever take at most 2d10 radiant damage per round.

    Posted in: Rules & Game Mechanics
  • 1

    posted a message on D&D Toolbox Chrome Extension
    Quote from mouse0270 >>
    Quote from LtDarien >>

    The way I run combat, which is the way described in the PHB, monsters are grouped by type.  A group consists of any number of identical monsters and rolls initiative separately.  So if I have a combat with 2 Goblins, and Orc, and a Hobgoblin, that's three separate initiative counts.  So now I have create 3 'encounters' during my prep, one for the goblins, one for the orc, and one for the hobgoblin.  Then, during the game, I have to find each 'encounter' from the list and add it into the initiative tracker separately, which completely defeats the purpose of creating encounters ahead of time.

    Quote from mouse0270 >>

    I guess it would be annoying if your encounter only had 1 monster in it. Is that what you're referring to?

    If you run combat the way it is described in the PHB, you would never have more than one type of monster in an 'encounter', which essentially makes encounters pointless.

     
    Yeah, I don't run each group of monster individually. I play with either 5 - 8 people. So I've never really thought to run an initiative like that. I am looking at ways to improve the initiative tracker, its just not as high on my list since I am mostly happy with how it works. Whatever I do, I want to be fast and easy.

    Maybe It's just me, but I've always found having all monsters go on a single initiative just makes combat far too swingy, and doesn't really make combat any faster, easier, or smother to run.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on D&D Toolbox Chrome Extension

    The way I run combat, which is the way described in the PHB, monsters are grouped by type.  A group consists of any number of identical monsters and rolls initiative separately.  So if I have a combat with 2 Goblins, and Orc, and a Hobgoblin, that's three separate initiative counts.  So now I have create 3 'encounters' during my prep, one for the goblins, one for the orc, and one for the hobgoblin.  Then, during the game, I have to find each 'encounter' from the list and add it into the initiative tracker separately, which completely defeats the purpose of creating encounters ahead of time.

    Quote from mouse0270 >>

    I guess it would be annoying if your encounter only had 1 monster in it. Is that what you're referring to?

    If you run combat the way it is described in the PHB, you would never have more than one type of monster in an 'encounter', which essentially makes encounters pointless.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on D&D Toolbox Chrome Extension
    Quote from mouse0270>>
    Quote from LtDarien>>

    The more I think about it, I actually like the way encounters are build currently.  Adding monsters to a group that I can add to the initiative tracker at once is great.  This lets me build and store all of my encounters for a session ahead of time, as adding individual monsters to the initative tracker during the game would be cumbersome and time-consuming. The only drawback is that this limits the 'encounter' to a single initiative, which I vehemently do not like, as all the monsters going on a single initiative makes for really swingy combats.

    Dream scenario is that I can build encounters with multiple types and groups of monsters, that are stored as a unit to be added to the Initiative tracker together, but can have different initiative counts for each monster (or group of like monsters).


    Yeah, that is kinda how it was meant to run. You would build all of your encounters prior to your session so you could easily add them as you play. 

    You are able to add different monsters to the same encounter, all you have to do is select the encounter from the dropdown when adding the monsters. It will merge those monsters together.

     

     Right, but then you're stuck with all the monsters in the encounter acting on the same initiative, which I absolutely do NOT want.  It's pretty essential for me that I can have different monsters within the encounter to act on different initiative counts.  

    The way I wish it would work is when you add an encounter to the initiative tracker, the monsters (or groups of like monsters - 3 goblins, etc.) are added individually instead of as a whole encounter.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on D&D Toolbox Chrome Extension

    The more I think about it, I actually like the way encounters are build currently.  Adding monsters to a group that I can add to the initiative tracker at once is great.  This lets me build and store all of my encounters for a session ahead of time, as adding individual monsters to the initative tracker during the game would be cumbersome and time-consuming. The only drawback is that this limits the 'encounter' to a single initiative, which I vehemently do not like, as all the monsters going on a single initiative makes for really swingy combats.

    Dream scenario is that I can build encounters with multiple types and groups of monsters, that are stored as a unit to be added to the Initiative tracker together, but can have different initiative counts for each monster (or group of like monsters).

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on D&D Toolbox Chrome Extension

    While I like this tool quite a bit, I must say I'm a little discouraged by the method monsters are added to the Initiative tracker.  The requirement that monsters first be added into "encounters" before they can be added into the initiative works well for groups of like monsters, but is troublesome when you're adding multiple single monsters that act on their own initiative. This results in a bunch of encounters consisting only of a single monster.  The way I run combat, no encounter would ever contain more than a single type of monster (though perhaps multiple instances of that particular monster).  This really defeats the purpose of having encounters, which would be to save a group of monsters ahead of time and add them to the initiative all at once when I run that encounter in a game.

    Being able to add single monsters directly into the Initiative Tracker without first adding them to an encounter would be a huge improvement.  Alternatively, being able to assign different initiatives to monsters within an encounter is a must.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Search Results

    Also, the link to Tenser's Floating Disk in the search results for the compendium is wrong.  The search results link to #Tenser’sFloatingDisk but the actual id of the entry is #TensersFloatingDisk.

    Posted in: Bugs & Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Search Results

    Please fix the search results page so the individual item page comes up before the compendium entry for the subject.

    If you search for a spell, the top result is the spells compendium page.  So when you click it it loads the entire page instead of just the spell you're looking for.  This is ridiculous.

    This has been fixed for classes for a while, but monsters, spells and feats still have the compendium entry appear first.

    Search results

    Posted in: Bugs & Support
  • 1

    posted a message on D&D Beyond - Pricing & Purchase FAQ & Discussion
    Quote from LukeS7>>
    Quote from LtDarien>>

     I think this is completely off base.  I'm sure Curse would love to offer a content subscription option, if WotC would let them, they would make a lot more money that way.  This is because, eventually, users will end up spending more with a subscription than buying content outright.  

    Quote from LtDarien>>

    Your logic about Curse's break even point is also a little off.  You're using a user's break even point as Curse's.  This isn't the case.  Yes, it would take a user 3 years to reach the point where they're paying more than they would had they purchased the content outright, but it's disingenuous to say that Curse doesn't break even until this point.  They break even at that point compared to purchasing, but they would certainly be making a profit long before that point.  

     In order for Curse to make the same amount of money off of an individual user, yes, that's the break even point, if not longer. $10/month for x amount of months would need to equal the cost of the Legendary bundle (~$360) + approximately 3 source books per year ($25.5 each ($30 minus the discount)). so 10x = 360 + (76.5 * (x/12)). That's 8.275 years to break even on the cost for that user. Even doubling the price of the subscription results in 2.2 years being that point.

    Yes, this is exactly the point I was making.  Your original post implied that Curse wouldn't realize profit at this point, which is not true. 

    Quote from LtDarien>>

    To start, your assumption that Curse would offer an unlimited content subscription for $10/month is way off.  Much more likely that it would be priced at $20/month, (with possible reductions for annual or semi-annual payments).  

     The assumption of $10/month is off for what they would realistically charge, but it is not off for what I've seen suggested by people in this very thread (and others). Many of the suggestions have been for "A few bucks more than master tier". 2.5 times the price wouldn't be "a few bucks more".

    Sure, but there is zero chance Curse would offer a subscription at that price.  If you're simply explaining why Curse won't do that, then I have no disagreement.  I'm only pointing out that a subscription would cost the user more, long-term.  We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes.

    It's also worth noting that a content subscription would very likely be incompatible with content sharing.

    Quote from LtDarien>>

    Now there is certainly a minimum subscription length that would represent Curse's break-even point, but it would be far shorter than 3 years, probably on the order of 4-6 months for the average subscription length, possibly even less, since DDB would likely have more customers that way.

     Given my previous point, I find it unlikely that a $20/month price point would garner as many customers as you think it would. It would also lose them sales on additional source books released on the platform.

    You're assuming that they replace the purchase option.  Which I am not.  Savvy customers would continue to purchase content, because it is a better deal for them.

    Quote from LtDarien>>

    Make no mistake.  A content subscription is always, always a better deal for the seller in the long term.  It's better in the short term for the buyer, but because you're trading equity (getting perpetual use of the product) for full access the product now, but that will catch up with you eventually

     MoviePass begs to differ. Price point factors heavily into that, and I doubt enough people would jump at paying twice the cost of Netflix for D&D source books, and lowering that price point would make it unprofitable.

    EDIT: Also, those timeframes get even worse if you factor in a master tier subscription the right side of that equation.

     Of course price point factors heavily into whether a subscription is a good deal or not.  My point is that any price point that Curse puts a subscription is going to be better, long term, for Curse than it will be for users, because the annual cost, would need to be more than the purchase cost for a typical year's worth of books. 

     

    We're essentially saying the same thing.  a $10/month subscription isn't viable for Curse.

    Posted in: D&D Beyond Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on Suggestion: blank base class(es)

    This is a really interesting idea.

    Posted in: D&D Beyond Feedback
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.