Proposal: Allow Character Builder summary sheets in place of EW templates

H.M.Gimlord · Feb 22, 2010

ScorpiusRisk said:
And of course no one here read the above post because the ddi liscence covers only one user.

As someone who has access to the CB and is actively using it to review characters I am opposed to this. DMs should be able to DM a player without having the CB, and we need to be able to view a sheet for that. As a DM I also like to have multiple sheets open at once.

The license covers one user, but (though I'm no lawyer, and I don't work with or for WotC) there is nothing in the license to prevent one user opening multiple copies of CB on a single machine. The software supports at least 15 simultaneous instances of the software on a single machine (this was arrived at by experimentation up to the point I was running out of RAM).

elecgraystone said:
Then the whole 'legal' checkbox fails after 5th since we add free expertise in.

Actually, the *Houseruled* status shows up immediately after you use 25 points for your ability scores instead of 22.

All said, I'm with r1. I use CB all the time to check and generate characters. If you use CB and you submit a character for approval, it would be helpfull (not to mention expeditious) to attach the *.dnd4e document to the post.

I actually share some of the sentiment around here concerning the math. Though the CB screens themselves show calculations for power bonuses, there is no "Math" section showing the explicit calculations for all features. Personally, I think WotC would do well to put this into CB, but *sigh*.

That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with people posting a screen shot of their CB character sheet for the summary section (math would still need to be added). Of course, there would be some formatting requirements, such as including the power cards, basic attacks, showing all weapons for all powers, etc... but that's getting ahead of myself.

covaithe · Feb 22, 2010

ScorpiusRisk said:
DMs should be able to DM a player without having the CB.

This is key.

Also, using the character builder and just looking for the "legal" checkbox doesn't work, because L4W uses a nonstandard 25-pt buy. No L4W characters are "legal", according to CB. You'd still have to check the math.

Dunamin · Feb 22, 2010

I certainly agree that the current system is cumbersome and time consuming, though I don’t see any easy way around math-checking for judges without the Character Builder.

I like the option of letting players send the CB file for approval, as a support rather than replacement. Then those checkers who do have CB can quickly verify while the player in question works on her/his sheet.

Can CB files be uploaded to the wiki? That would be really really nice to have on your sheet.

Dunamin · Feb 22, 2010

H.M.Gimlord said:
Actually, the *Houseruled* status shows up immediately after you use 25 points for your ability scores instead of 22.

covaithe said:
Also, using the character builder and just looking for the "legal" checkbox doesn't work, because L4W uses a nonstandard 25-pt buy. No L4W characters are "legal", according to CB. You'd still have to check the math.

This is not an issue, actually, since the CB points out which elements are houseruled under the Manage tab. If Ability Scores is the only one listed (and the discrepancy is 3 points), you should be good to go.

Phoenix8008 · Feb 22, 2010

On Puget Sound said:
I'm not suggesting players be required to have CB, but that those who have it be allowed to use it. GMs should have access to the program, and judges definitely should, but don't they already? I don't know any serious 4E players without it.

I don't have DDI/CB and don't plan to any time soon.

I'm not a judge, but I have been a PBP DM here via ENworld for years. And with nearly 5000 posts over the last several years, I would have considered myself a serious player (currently of 4E). Imagine my surprise to find out that I'm not. Then again, OPS's statement isn't exactly false since he doesn't 'know' me.

That bit of irritable reaction on my part aside, as has been pointed out by others the CB still doesn't show enough math and as a DM I wouldn't have access to character sheets if some of my players used the CB instead of the wiki. But linking to it in addition to the wiki for ease of use for those who have it sounds good, it just doesn't solve the problem which OPS was concerned about. Sadly, we haven't found a better solution than the wiki yet or we'd surely be using it.

elecgraystone · Feb 22, 2010

ScorpiusRisk said:
And of course no one here read the above post because the ddi liscence covers only one user.

Not an issue since I'm the only user.

My friend got tired of my complaints about WOTC being totally inept and being unable to fix my password problem so he signed up and gave it to me for my birthday. I'd have done it long ago but somehow they are unable to give me a password that works more than once... :hmm:

Back to the issue. I'd be VERY happy to simplify the wiki in any way possible. I just don't think this is it.

ryryguy · Feb 22, 2010

I guess I just don't understand why a CB file (or summary that then gets imported into the program) cannot take the place of the math template. Basically, the CB is checking the math for you at that point. The checker/judge can quickly check the houserule flags in the CB to make sure ability points, etc. are correct, open the character sheet in CB, and compare the wiki Summary to the CB sheet.

Again, the wiki still contains the complete Summary for reference during play without the need to use CB. My understanding was that the only purpose of the Math section was to help checkers verify that the Summary is correct. Do DMs actually look at the Math section during play? Or is there something that the Math templates verify that the CB would not?

ScorpiusRisk · Feb 22, 2010

I think people's fear is that the Character Builder can be wrong. I for one, don't have an issue with the CB summary replacing the math section. I think people correctly interpreted me earlier, in what I do think needs to stay is the top summary. It seems most people agree with me.

Of course, the other thing this wouldn't cover is tracking once things get going.

CaBaNa · Feb 23, 2010

I have one simple request for any proposal, if I retire a level 2 character, allow me to create a level 2 character, with at least 1 item, of level 3 or lower.

That is all I hope for with retirement.

After level 2 everyone's system seems to look nice...

But working really hard to get to level 2, and then getting forced back to 1... ~~sucks.~~ is frustrating.