D&D 5E D&D Beyond Announces Combat Tracker

"We're happy to announce the Alpha release of the Combat Tracker tool to subscribers of D&D Beyond! Try it out in your D&D games and your feedback will be used to make this the best it can be!"

D&D Beyond has just announced the alpha development version of a combat tracker. You can track monsters, initiative, and access quick reference information. This functionality is similar to that offered by Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.

You can read more about the combat tracker here. The Alpha version is available to DDB subscribers.

"We have been using the Combat Tracker in our home games for a few weeks, and although it is certainly not in a finished state yet, we experienced enough value that we have decided to go ahead and release it now - even in its unfinished state - to both 1) let subscribers gain some of that value and 2) get feedback as early as possible.

Please keep in mind that this is not a finished product, and we invite subscribers to help us make it the best it can be!

Who can use the Combat Tracker?

All D&D Beyond Subscribers. The Combat Tracker is in full active development right now. We will be allowing early access to NEW Combat Tracker features to our Subscribers first, to prove out concepts and new functionality. We took the same approach with the Alpha version of the Encounter Builder with much success. This delivery method allows us to digest feedback in bite sized chunks and perform testing to figure out the best user experience possible.

What is a Development Alpha?

The Development Alpha of the Combat Tracker allows us to test features and user experience.

• Functional but expecting a lot of bugs
  • Should be no core functionality bugs
• Core functionality could change with feedback
• Functionality could appear or disappear at any time

We will be working on validating bug reports and cleaning up the Combat Tracker. Once these tasks have been completed we will release to Beta, essentially meaning the Combat Tracker tool is complete."

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Sorry for jumping in late, but what game or edition are you talking about? I have never found a software program a necessity in any version of D&D that I have played (1e, 4e, & 5e). As a DM I have found software helpful in many areas of game prep though.

Mostly thinking of 3E as the d20 SRD was referenced specifically. Right in the back of the first printing PH's was a CD with character creation software. It wasn't awesome software as such things go but it was cool to have that. It morphed into different software, and other people made their own software doing some of the same stuff. This was all just for creating characters and keeping character sheets updated at this point for us. I didn't need campaign management or combat management software. Players RELIED on having that for their characters though.

We sometimes gamed where we had no computers or internet to maintain or update digital copies of character sheets. But EVERY player had a players handbook. I provided them a spare if they didn't. But they NEEDED that software to alter anything about their PC if they gained a level or something about their PC substantially changed. If they didn't have it they didn't even know where to start the level-up process. Unless I held their hands through it (which I quickly stopped doing) they would play entire sessions without leveling up, so they could go home, level up their character using the software, and then come back next session. They just did not know even basic things about what would change when their PC gained a level, and with the book in front of them wouldn't learn it - because they NEEDED the software to do it for them. I tolerated it all without much comment at the time, but I let them disadvantage themselves when they could have simply spent a few hours RTFM.

After a while I actually sympathized somewhat more with them. The list of things their PC's could do just got tediously long and they rarely used MOST of it, and much of it wasn't important. They found the skills and abilities they liked, used strategies and tactics that employed those select things, and ignored the rest - again, while they had software keeping track of all of it for them. On infrequent occasion they would go over their character sheet and maybe look up IN THE BOOK a thing or two and were repeatedly flabbergasted by all the things their PC could do. But they still never took advantage of it because the game itself had at that point become bloated and unwieldly for them. Using software was a crutch just to keep up. In later years, when 3E had gone out of print and nobody knew where to find the same software or cared to try, I still ran some 3E games - and players used the books. They learned the rules they hadn't learned before. They occasionally used the d20 SRD to look up information at home for updating a character, but at the table they almost entirely used the PH (and my own printed house rules).

PC's didn't get to the same high levels either in those games that they did in the earlier games. Characters were simpler to create and manage because they knew the rules, their list of abilities remained more manageable and relevant, etc. It all turned me off the idea of using software as a player to play the game, without first learning the rules. It also sold me solidly on the E6 treatment of the 3E rules. The game itself is kept more manageable, so software is FAR less of a necessity to cope. It becomes what advocates want to say it is - a convenience for playing but not something a player would come to ever rely on as heavily. And as a DM the burden in that kind of situation is also reduced because less complexity in terms of sheer volume of stuff requires less planning (and little or no software) to manage it in a campaign.

And that has been my experience.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

okay but people are saying this isn't necessarily the case. even if it's in your experience that's not always the case. but just because this has been the case for you doesn't mean you can say digital tabletop assistance is going to lead everyone to not know the rules.

I DIDN'T.

uhhhhhh, keeping track of an exact order of 5+ things is hard to do? especially when things take a long time to resolve and there's a thousand different variables to consider? pre-3rd edition combat had the advantage of not lasting as long and you get a new order to go through once every turn. that's not the case in a post-3.x world where you cycle through the same order over and over and things like status effects last for a specified number of rounds. I've seen countless solutions to keep track of initiative. hell, one of the best regarded products Paizo ever made was this combat pad, even I bought one (to use in 4e lmao).

Q.E.D.

 

[dave2008]

Mostly thinking of 3E as the d20 SRD was referenced specifically. Right in the back of the first printing PH's was a CD with character creation software. It wasn't awesome software as such things go but it was cool to have that. It morphed into different software, and other people made their own software doing some of the same stuff. This was all just for creating characters and keeping character sheets updated at this point for us. I didn't need campaign management or combat management software. Players RELIED on having that for their characters though.

We sometimes gamed where we had no computers or internet to maintain or update digital copies of character sheets. But EVERY player had a players handbook. I provided them a spare if they didn't. But they NEEDED that software to alter anything about their PC if they gained a level or something about their PC substantially changed. If they didn't have it they didn't even know where to start the level-up process. Unless I held their hands through it (which I quickly stopped doing) they would play entire sessions without leveling up, so they could go home, level up their character using the software, and then come back next session. They just did not know even basic things about what would change when their PC gained a level, and with the book in front of them wouldn't learn it - because they NEEDED the software to do it for them. I tolerated it all without much comment at the time, but I let them disadvantage themselves when they could have simply spent a few hours RTFM.

After a while I actually sympathized somewhat more with them. The list of things their PC's could do just got tediously long and they rarely used MOST of it, and much of it wasn't important. They found the skills and abilities they liked, used strategies and tactics that employed those select things, and ignored the rest - again, while they had software keeping track of all of it for them. On infrequent occasion they would go over their character sheet and maybe look up IN THE BOOK a thing or two and were repeatedly flabbergasted by all the things their PC could do. But they still never took advantage of it because the game itself had at that point become bloated and unwieldly for them. Using software was a crutch just to keep up. In later years, when 3E had gone out of print and nobody knew where to find the same software or cared to try, I still ran some 3E games - and players used the books. They learned the rules they hadn't learned before. They occasionally used the d20 SRD to look up information at home for updating a character, but at the table they almost entirely used the PH (and my own printed house rules).

PC's didn't get to the same high levels either in those games that they did in the earlier games. Characters were simpler to create and manage because they knew the rules, their list of abilities remained more manageable and relevant, etc. It all turned me off the idea of using software as a player to play the game, without first learning the rules. It also sold me solidly on the E6 treatment of the 3E rules. The game itself is kept more manageable, so software is FAR less of a necessity to cope. It becomes what advocates want to say it is - a convenience for playing but not something a player would come to ever rely on as heavily. And as a DM the burden in that kind of situation is also reduced because less complexity in terms of sheer volume of stuff requires less planning (and little or no software) to manage it in a campaign.

And that has been my experience.

OK, sorry for not reading your post but I have no experience with 3e and the situation you are referring to. In every edition I a have played, only the DM (me) has used any software. The players have always used the books (or handouts I give them), pen, and paper.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know it's the internet, so this kind of uninformed dismissive attitude is par for the course. I don't have to like it though.


Look Mistwell, no one is "flipping out". However when you introduce something that completely breaks an existing core function of the application, it's a big deal. Because it's not just the new functionality that's buggy. It broke the entire encounter building aspect of the application.

Also, if you read my posts, I'm actually held to a much higher standard for the same work at my job as I'm holding toward them and their testing team.

Okay, but you aren’t holding them to a standard, you’re misunderstanding the situation by applying the thinking of your industry to a different industry.

Early access to test the thing in alpha isn’t a release. The product has not been released. As a subscriber, you have the option to take part in a wide-net alpha test, or to ignore it until it is actually launched, or at least in open beta.

An alpha test will have major bugs. Individuals will have the entire thing crash on them. I have literally never alpha tested something where this wasn’t the case.

This is like criticizing the D&D team for their design mistakes during the Next playtest.
Reporting issues and bugs is good. Acting like they’re trying to “get away with” something really isn’t.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, but it begs the question of their ability to pay attention to detail.

Not really, no.

It just means you shouldn’t try to apply the reasoning of your industry to a very different industry, just because both have software.

 

[Oofta]

True, but it begs the question of their ability to pay attention to detail.

LOL. Is this a competition to see who can make the biggest mountain out of a molehill day?

Did they goof? Yes. Either it was an issue caused by number of transactions or volume. Perhaps both.

Did a plane fall out of the sky? Is there any indication whatsoever that there are major issues with the site? Did they not warn people this was alpha software?

For all of the above: no. Alpha software broke. It caused a problem with beta software. For a couple of hours.

Next up ... people occasionally make incredibly minor mistakes ... news at 11!

 

[OB1]

Yes. For something as obvious as just running the new software and seeing it has broken existing functionality. The math don't work right, or it's swapping initiative order 1 time out of 20 - no big deal. But to break existing functionality because you didn't do a quick check before releasing is just plain lazy, stupid, or both.

A) What went down was existing BETA functionality. It did not affect any of the core functionality.
B) It was functioning when it was initially released, then went down about 20 min after release.

 

[3catcircus]

Not really, no.

It just means you shouldn’t try to apply the reasoning of your industry to a very different industry, just because both have software.

I don't care what industry. It doesn't have to be software. You're building widgits. Or selling real estate. Or baking cakes.

You're telling me it's ok if the widgits aren't the right size? Or that it doesn't matter what property is listed on the county rolls that you've sold? Or that the cake can be made without, you know, cake ingredients?

 

[3catcircus]

A) What went down was existing BETA functionality. It did not affect any of the core functionality.
B) It was functioning when it was initially released, then went down about 20 min after release.

Beta is core functionality. A beta is a public release. Stability may be an issue. There may be some bugs. But it works.

 

[Panda-s1]

I DIDN'T.

uhhh

Q.E.D.

qed on what? so written/physical initiative tracking: good, teaches u a discipline, makes sure you never forget the rules, but digital initiative tracking: bad, makes you hang out with the wrong crowd, somehow makes the rules obscure to you.

OK, sorry for not reading your post but I have no experience with 3e and the situation you are referring to. In every edition I a have played, only the DM (me) has used any software. The players have always used the books (or handouts I give them), pen, and paper.

4e had that character creator you got when you subscribed to... whatever that service was called. I had a subscription but only ever used it to get access to Dragon and Dungeon. but some people I knew used the character creator extensively, like every character they did was through that service, and sometimes they'd make characters for no reason other than they had an idea for one in their head.

even then it had every option available in a print book and put your character's information onto the exact same character sheet they put in the PHB.

Yes. For something as obvious as just running the new software and seeing it has broken existing functionality. The math don't work right, or it's swapping initiative order 1 time out of 20 - no big deal. But to break existing functionality because you didn't do a quick check before releasing is just plain lazy, stupid, or both.

I like how it went from "they should have done extensive regression testing" to "they didn't do a quick check", like which is it? I'm pretty sure they tested it a lot, but also they didn't take something into account and it led to a crash. like others have said the rest of the website was fine. it's not like they have a long history of this sort of thing either, that just happens sometimes.