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."

 

[Umbran]

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?

Not at all.

But, dude... you are way beyond "pointing out". You can point out an issue in a post or two. You are up to twenty five posts in this thread. That's beyond pointing out, and kinda into ranting. Look at how you are interacting with people - it isn't pleasant.

So, really, please, I'm now trying to suggest politely - chill out.

 

[HarbingerX]

Man. I posted about how I didn't come here to have a discussion of software methodology, and have returned 3 pages later to find it's still going on.

 

[ART!]

Yeah, there's something to be said for reading the room.

 

[slobster]

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

Nah, that's just me being wrong. Of interest though, is it out of beta yet?

 

[Azzy]

Well, that escalated quickly.

 

[Panda-s1]

Nah, that's just me being wrong. Of interest though, is it out of beta yet?

I'm... actually not sure. I haven't played in years either, but I still follow them on facebook. in the time since I stopped playing they're still not 100% concrete on naval combat, helicopters have been added to the game, and they're currently adding planes and tanks from the early 60's.

 

[lkj]

So a few observations (some repeated from the other thread):

1) I have found (my opinion) that the core functionality of DDB to be stable, very easy to use, and very helpful at the table. I use it as a rules reference all the time and barely crack the books anymore. The integration across the site has been very useful (for example, being able to pop up spells, conditions, etc. from a monster stat block or character sheet as a tool tip or pop out menu is invaluable). Last night one of my players was running a Djinni from a ring of Djinni summoning and could access everything he needed right from his character sheet, including casting its spells and tracking its hp.

2) My players love the character builder and the character sheet, especially my players who have less rules mastery. In fact, they like it so much, we basically transitioned away from Roll20 except as a dice roller and occasional battlemap (I do mostly TotM), despite it currently lacking VT capabilities.

3) They have methodically built out the platform. Started with the rules access. Polished out the character sheet. And they are now starting to add DM tools for running games. Because I'm sold on the first parts, I'm already getting hooked on using the Encounter Builder to manage combats (even in its beta form)-- in the sense of having a compact page where I can pull up statblocks quickly.

4) Once they implement their dice roller into the character sheet and statblocks, we'll barely ever look at Roll20.

5) The combat tracker is not where I need it for me to use it yet. They'll need to make the tracker persistent between sessions, auto-link to the character sheet info for HP, initiative, etc), and notify players when their turn is up. But that's probably all going to be there before the end of alpha.

6) However, because we are hooked on the basic functionality (which in my opinion is a step above other offerings), this is all just getting added like gravy.

7) They have done an excellent enough job with their base functionality, their willingness to listen to feedback, and their open communication that they have built up a fairly high level of trust. In other words, the early alpha combat tracker is NOT the basis on which to judge how well the company functions. We have a couple years of stellar performance (in my opinion) to base that on.

8) I like having alpha access to these things even in crude form in order to give feedback and try it out. I am unconcerned about the alpha product unexpectedly breaking the beta product for a couple of hours.

9) Different things are important to different people. This is all my opinion. I totally get that other people will find that the missing features are more important to them for their game. I also recognize that some groups will find other software better. I have no problem with that.

AD

 

[HarbingerX]

So a few observations (some repeated from the other thread):

1) I have found (my opinion) that the core functionality of DDB to be stable, very easy to use, and very helpful at the table. I use it as a rules reference all the time and barely crack the books anymore. The integration across the site has been very useful (for example, being able to pop up spells, conditions, etc. from a monster stat block or character sheet as a tool tip or pop out menu is invaluable). Last night one of my players was running a Djinni from a ring of Djinni summoning and could access everything he needed right from his character sheet, including casting its spells and tracking its hp.
AD

I agree with all your points. I've looked at various digital tools and find D&D Beyond to be the best for at the table utility. Their character sheet and rules cross referencing are highly functional and gave me confidence they know what they're doing and know how to deliver. I also like that they are not rushing out features to try to compete on breadth. There is a lot it doesn't do, but they are focused on getting high value features right.

 

[cbwjm]

I don’t get it. Does it just track initiative?

It does track initiative but it is an addon to their encounter builder. The encounter builder lets you easily put together an encounter using PCs from your campaign which you can now click on and run the encounter when it begins. It allows you to autoroll initiative for monsters and will have the ability to have the players roll their initiative to auto populate the tracker rather than you having to ask them. It also lets you track the hit points of each monster in the encounter.

Functionally, it might not be much different to whatever method you use now (I use a table and sort the list by initiative which works great in my opinion), however, if you make heavy use of the DnDBeyond encounter builder then this is a much anticipated addition.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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

That is not what I even suggested. If you want to take it that way, go ahead.

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

I just did.

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

The moment they don't have access to the software, yes.

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.*

As always, mileage varies. I never suggested I speak for everyone. Just relating MY experience. Not YOURS. Not the world at large. Not reciting the Gospel of Gygax. IT'S JUST ME. PLEASE don't suggest that when anyone does that - presents their OPINION, or PERSONAL experience that it is the same thing as demanding everyone play my way or that no other opinion or experience is possible.

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.

And once again, MY experience - which is all I'm presenting - is different. You believe differently. Great. Live and be well. Please don't insist anymore, however, that you actually know my experience better than I.

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.

And if more players actually read the manual...

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?

Oy. I never said that ever, nor suggested it. MY experience as a DM has been that players who start using software to play D&D cease reading the books, actually learning the rules, and even completely flounder when they don't have access to the internet or the particular software they lean on - all while the physical books are right in front of them.

I just prefer that players who are going to be in my campaigns use the book because of that experience. Not even DEMAND that they own the book. Prefer. Because as you say some people can do just fine without a book, some may spend money on software or get used to it, or whatever. It's not a hill I'm shouting that I shall die upon. I just want players to NOT want to depend on software to play - and I want a game that doesn't drive players to using software in order to COPE with the game.

And none of this even gets into the question of what's so complicated about the initiative order? Young whippersnapper DM's today got it easy compared to Ye Auld Dayes when initiative was rerolled every round and we had 10 players at the table, plus NPC's, henchmen, pets, AND all the opponents to track - and combat rounds went by faster than they do now.