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]

Interesting view, but software, and other things that make the game easier, are part of the reason 5E has more players than any other RPG. Accessibility and not Gatekeeping is what brings more people into the game.

Wanting players to actually read, and understand the rules of the game they are playing rather than just following what software tells them to do is not, AFAIK, considered gatekeeping. Look, you're mistaking the point I've made and am still making - it isn't that the digital tools have no use, nor that they never work for anyone. It is that in my incontrovertible personal experience digital tools have resulted in players that actually don't know the rules and for that reason I prefer players to use books, both to learn and to play the game.

Look, I still get frustrated when a player takes more than a couple second to calculate the total of a 8d6+12 roll. But I keep my mouth shut because the game doesn't need such artificial and elitist gatekeeping.

Agreed. They should game and be happy. I'm not saying that a player has no business playing D&D if they don't know how to roll 8d6+12 or even which ones are the d6's . I've DM'd (albeit briefly) for children and would extend full patience, understanding, tolerance and compassion for a player with learning disabilities. But short of that sort of exception I ABSOLUTELY expect an otherwise intelligent and able player to learn the game rules and not NEED software to do it for them, even if software can then make playing the game easier to some degree. When you assume that the SRD is as good as a physical PH in all respects, if not better, then you invite just such players who can play, but don't really know or understand the rules they're playing by. People can play baseball without knowing or understanding an infield fly rule, balk pitches, or the ground rule double. But I don't have to accept them never learning that if we're gonna play a game in my back yard.

More importantly and more to my original point, I have as many issues WITH THE GAME as with the players when it is complex enough that software BECOMES A SEEMING NECESSITY in order to keep up with play, and is then understandably used by players to avoid actually learning the rules.

But that's just me.

 

[Oofta]

...
If it was a code issue, and not a load issue, why did the system work for the first 20 minutes as word was getting out that the Alpha had been released?

There are several things that could cause an issue under load including database and thread contention. It's difficult to set up proper load testing, especially if multiple pieces of the software hit the same resources.

Without know more of the internals of the app and how it works I can't give a more specific answer, but concurrency issues are always going to be a potential cause of crashes.

 

[Fenris447]

So I guess my question for the person/people arguing that this is a huge deal is....what are you going to do about it?

Because sitting here carrying on about how catastrophic this whole thing is kinda just makes you look foolish. So are you going to cancel your D&D Beyond account? Because that's really the only meaningful thing you can do. You clearly aren't going to convince the rest of us that this molehill is a mountain, so the only recourse to integrity you have is to take personal action against it.

 

[Umbran]

Terms like Alpha and Beta in the context of quality assurance testing have definitions. They aren't my definitions. They are industry standard definitions.

Oh, no! Someone has used a term in a non-industry-standard way! Call the Industry Standard Police!

Wait... the industry has no standard for policing. Whoops!

Industry standard terms are for use between members of the industry. If WotC were under contract to prepare applications to be used by other industry professionals, and misused those terms, they might be in breach of contract.

But that's not what happened here. Those terms were used for setting expectations with end users - who aren't in the industry, who have a different kind of contract iwth WotC, and who are not using the terms strictly in the industry manner.

That last is key - what version of a term is being used is context dependent. The fact that an industry standard version of the term exists does not mean that is the only one that can ever be used by anyone ever!

 

[Prakriti]

ITT: People complain that there are bugs in an alpha test.

And I thought I had seen everything in life.

 

[Panda-s1]

You wouldn't think so at first glance, but YES, it is. Moreso for those who were gaming PRIOR to the internet, smart phones, tablets, etc. Books ARE different to use. IF, however, the book is badly organized that is when digital approaches work better.

so basically if any format has bad organization it's bad?

No. It is my personal experience. It is also not a matter of the software being in error but of players being SO dependent upon it that they never actually learn the game - the software does all the math for you and tells you when you have new choices to make - and it makes so that the PLAYERS never actually learn it. The software always holds their hand through playing the game.

can you give me an example of this? in my experience software will do math for you, but also show you the underlying math.

also, if players only ever play using the software does it really matter?

Not at all my point. It is just fine for what it is. But what it is, IME and IMO, isn't a seamless replacement for a physical book in learning the game. Players find it a great resource to use when creating and updating characters and character sheets. When it came to playing the game they tended to use it to quote rules at me out of context when they did use it because it just states rules rather than explains them - as a physical PH needs to do.

idk I managed to play 3.5 only using the SRD. I did eventually get a book, but I think 1) you put too much faith into written explanations, not everyone learns best that. I certainly don't, I learn better through irl example. 2) I don't think I know a lot of people who actually read rulebooks from beginning to end.*

Wanting players to actually read, and understand the rules of the game they are playing rather than just following what software tells them to do is not, AFAIK, considered gatekeeping. Look, you're mistaking the point I've made and am still making - it isn't that the digital tools have no use, nor that they never work for anyone. It is that in my incontrovertible personal experience digital tools have resulted in players that actually don't know the rules and for that reason I prefer players to use books, both to learn and to play the game.

again, I don't see why this is exclusive to digital tools. if you honestly believe owning and reading physical books tends towards people accurately understanding rules then you're sorely mistaken. critical success/fail on skill checks is a great example of this, a lot of people have assumed that's RAW since 3rd edition first came out, and that very much includes people who own every 3.x d&d book printed.

More importantly and more to my original point, I have as many issues WITH THE GAME as with the players when it is complex enough that software BECOMES A SEEMING NECESSITY in order to keep up with play, and is then understandably used by players to avoid actually learning the rules.

But that's just me.

okay look, plenty of people have been playing 5e for over five years now, why is the sudden inclusion of an initiative tracker (a digital initiative tracker) suddenly means it's a necessity to play d&d and without it people won't actually learn the rules?

Some games like War Thunder spent years in Beta and was eventually retired, never having been officially "released" in a final version, iirc.

uh, pretty sure War Thunder is still very active, unless I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

 

[Panda-s1]

So I guess my question for the person/people arguing that this is a huge deal is....what are you going to do about it?

Because sitting here carrying on about how catastrophic this whole thing is kinda just makes you look foolish. So are you going to cancel your D&D Beyond account? Because that's really the only meaningful thing you can do. You clearly aren't going to convince the rest of us that this molehill is a mountain, so the only recourse to integrity you have is to take personal action against it.

ummm this is indeed incredibly catastrophic, didn't you see my post about John the rules lawyer? you need to be more sensitive about these things [/s]

 

[LordEntrails]

Wanting players to actually read, and understand the rules of the game they are playing rather than just following what software tells them to do is not, AFAIK, considered gatekeeping. Look, you're mistaking the point I've made and am still making - it isn't that the digital tools have no use, nor that they never work for anyone. It is that in my incontrovertible personal experience digital tools have resulted in players that actually don't know the rules and for that reason I prefer players to use books, both to learn and to play the game.

I don't think it is digital tools that has caused this. I used to run Encounters in stores back in the 4E days. I often would have 'regular/frequent' players that did not know the rules. And that was ok to some extent. Yes it can be frustrating, but I tried training those players to simple tell me what they wanted to do, then I would tell them how to accomplish that (die roll, what to look at on their character sheet, etc).

It's very different from a group of long time players in the same group where they know what roll I want them to make and when, because not only do they know the rules, but they know how I run my table.

So its no different than it was before digital tools (yes, their were digital tools in the 4E era, that's not the point or relevant to the example). It may just be that you/we are seeing more of it now because the player base has grown exponentially, and a large part of that new player base is casual gamers. They are not worried about the rules, they are their for fun and let the DM decide the rules.

Even look at campaign 1 of Critical Role, many of those players did not know the rules. It really didn't hamper the game. As long as everyone at the table has the same expectations.

All that said, I do expect long term players to learn the rules, if not sit down and read the books, to at least learn by doing and remember what they learned before

... But short of that sort of exception I ABSOLUTELY expect an otherwise intelligent and able player to learn the game rules and not NEED software to do it for them, even if software can then make playing the game easier to some degree. When you assume that the SRD is as good as a physical PH in all respects, if not better, then you invite just such players who can play, but don't really know or understand the rules they're playing by. People can play baseball without knowing or understanding an infield fly rule, balk pitches, or the ground rule double. But I don't have to accept them never learning that if we're gonna play a game in my back yard.

I think we may be at a different degree on this, but not too far apart.

More importantly and more to my original point, I have as many issues WITH THE GAME as with the players when it is complex enough that software BECOMES A SEEMING NECESSITY in order to keep up with play, and is then understandably used by players to avoid actually learning the rules.

I don't think you are saying 5E is complex enough to require software...

I use software to enhance the game. And I guess I could say that I might not have some players understand how initiative is determined (i.e. what bonuses apply) because in my games they never need to, they click a button for a manual initiative roll or just let FG do it automatically. There are lots of thing like that, (i.e. how the damage for an attack is calculated etc) that really don't matter much, and don't hamper play if a player doesn't know the rules, because it is never something they need to do in my games, the software takes care of it all.

I don't see how that hampers the playing experience or impacts it at all really.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So I guess my question for the person/people arguing that this is a huge deal is....what are you going to do about it?

So the standard now is that no one can point out how something is wrong or broken, or bad unless they themselves specifically do something to address it?

Good luck with that. You've complained about things here about how D&D did or didn't do something you didn't like. Nice to know that you will refrain from complaining in the future unless you do something directly to address it.

Oh, no! Someone has used a term in a non-industry-standard way! Call the Industry Standard Police!

Wait... the industry has no standard for policing. Whoops!

Your dismissive attitude about something you were incorrect about, and rather than admit you were wrong, but instead double down on the sarcasm is noted. I don't think it speaks well of your consistency when you moderate others to not use snark, when many of your posts like this drip with it. There is no established police force that monitors how people use medical terms, but there are industry standards of medical process and definitions that people accept. But I know you know this. Have a good day. I won't be talking with you further.

ITT: People complain that there are bugs in an alpha test.

And I thought I had seen everything in life.

Once again, people aren't complaining about bugs in alpha test. They (or me) are complaining about existing functionality broke, which should have been detected before it ever got to public alpha testing (never mind how alpha testing is not supposed to be public anyway), and how looking at the process they seem to be using (which doesn't follow any accepted standard of quality assurance testing) is concerning. But I suppose it's much easier to make up a strawman to attack rather than address the points made.

 

[LordEntrails]

They are using terms differently than everyone in the industry uses. Terms like Alpha and Beta in the context of quality assurance testing have definitions. They aren't my definitions. They are industry standard definitions. I've mentioned this a few times, so I gotta ask. Why are you continuing to mischaracterize this and act like I'm the only one who uses those definitions?

lol I don't think those definitions are as widely accepted in the industry (which "industry by the way?) as you might think. I've spent much-o time-o listening to industry professionals argue about terms like alpha testing, smoke testing, development environment, UAT, etc.

I have found that even very strict legally binding trade definitions are not commonly used in those ways except in very specific cases, and then usually only with a referral to a specific definition. Just Google 'definition of alpha test' and I really think you need to give up the argument that the broader software industry has any one definition of alpha test or alpha software. (Edit: other than alpha testing comes before beta testing and beta testing comes before production release. That's about the only common, but near useless, definition their is.)

I'm sure your company in your industry has a common definition of what you mean, but the wider 'industry' does not.

Language is not static, it is dynamic and changing. Every word has connotations, and people have different connotations to words (and phrases) depending upon their experiences and other factors. All that matters is that those using a word/phrase and those who try to understand such do so in the context in which it is used. Any definition outside of that context is spurious.