D&D 5E D&D Beyond No Longer Supporting Unearthed Arcana

Announced on their livestream Dev Update, D&D Beyond will be refocusing development on new features and content, citing an inability to keep up with Unearned Arcana in a timely fashion. We at D&D Beyond regret to inform you that we will no longer be supporting Unearthed Arcana content on our platform. While we have loved giving users the opportunity to use new Unearthed Arcana playtest...

Announced on their livestream Dev Update, D&D Beyond will be refocusing development on new features and content, citing an inability to keep up with Unearned Arcana in a timely fashion.


We at D&D Beyond regret to inform you that we will no longer be supporting Unearthed Arcana content on our platform.

While we have loved giving users the opportunity to use new Unearthed Arcana playtest material offered by Wizards of the Coast on D&D Beyond, there are a multitude of factors that have made it difficult for us to do so in a way that presents the content the way it was intended, and in a timely way that does not divert our development resources.




 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Xotli

Explorer
@Nathaniel Lee, I think the majority of your points are good ones, and I certainly don't mean to start an argument. But I would like to dive down just a bit on this one part:
Again, not really, since the majority of players don't use homebrew classes in the first place. ...
I still don't quite buy this ... I wish there was some statistic we could consult that would settle the question, but I don't believe there is. In the end, we mostly have to agree to disagree, but there are a couple of points that seem salient.

In my very first game of D&D (this woud have been Basic rules, I believe), we homebrewed. Then I moved on to 1e, and we homebrewed. Then 2e, and then 3e, and then 3.5e, and then Pathfinder: homebrewing every time. Now we're on 5e, and we're still homebrewing. I don't think I ever even met anyone who wasn't doing at least some homebrewing in their games. Now, as you point out, the majority of current 5e players aren't like me (or most of us on this site, I suspect): they haven't been playing forever, and thus homebrewing forever. But a significant number of these players—perhaps even a majority—are learning about D&D from streams and podcasts. What DMs are they watching/listening to that don't do any homebrewing? Not Mercer, Colville, or McElroy(s); not Iyengar or Woll or Walters; not Phoenix, nor Mulligan, nor Hulmes, nor Vorpahl, nor Tang. Maybe they're not learning from actual play, but more from advice streams? Dungeon Coach talks about homebrewing a lot, as does Nerdarchy, or Dael Kingsmill .... It just seems to me that, even if you're brand new, you would have been exposed to the concept of homebrewing, and you've explicitly been sold on D&D being a game where you can play whatever you like. So I'm not sure why the majority of these new players wouldn't be homebrewing.

As far as whether not having this feature will prevent them from "winning" the market in the long run, what I can say with a lot of confidence is that Curse is going to prioritize features that users have actually indicated that they wanted since they want to, you know, make money. If everyone and their mother wanted a homebrew class feature for the platform, they would be prioritizing that. They aren't.
I hope you're right. Whether a company actually produces what their customer wants isn't a given, though. Especially at the scale DDB is now ... it's possible (and I stress I'm not saying this is true, just that it's possible, based on my experience in the industry) that the folks at the bottom (devs, customer support, etc) are telling the higher-ups that this is what customers want, but the higher-ups aren't listening. Unless they're doing some focus group testing or that sort of thing, corporate executives can be sadly unaware of what their customers actually want.

On the other hand, I know Morrus is on this site every day, and he knows what his customers want, and he's producing homebrew material. And I know that Colville is doing surveys asking his customers what they want, and he's producing homebrew material. So somebody must be asking for it. :)

You mention that you tried to create your own character builder more than once and acknowledge the difficulty that lies in such a project — imagine that's what you're trying to do with a team of 2-3 developers and no real financial backing in the hopes of getting something out the door that people would be willing to actually pay money for with the ability to scale as an open, web-based application would need to. Like you said, not even remotely easy to accomplish.
This is another excellent point that you make. I do want to clarify, though, that my lack of resources had nothing to do with being able to handle homebrew: that's a question of designing for that up front, which I have always done in every one of my attempts. My lack of resources mean that none of my results have been scalable, which as you (and Umbran) noted, is crucial to producing something that people can actually use. Otherwise, you're just producing toy software ... which is, sadly, all I've ever managed to produce. :confused:

So the DDB devs managed to produce something scalable which doesn't handle homebrew very well, which, from my perspective, feels like they got the hard part right and whiffed the easy bit. But I do concede that I don't have any special knowledge of their challenges, so obviously I'm just projecting my own mindset onto them.

Counterintuitively adding engineers makes a project take LONGER.
Heheh. Yes, that's the main thesis of The Mythical Man-Month, which should be required reading for all developers. :) But Brooks also tells us how to address those problems, which is the real point of the book.
 

@LordEntrails i can’t find any news of it not any commentary. Like it never happened or no one cares.
Never used the UA myself, but I have the module in FG and it looks like Strixhaven is there. If you want me to look for anything specific, just let me know;
1628399885140.png

As far as Fantasy Grounds being able to have features ready much more quickly, a lot of that is due to the relationship between Wizards and Smiteworks. They undoubtedly get a huge heads up on what’s coming, while the D&D Beyond team finds out what they may need to support the same day the rest of us do.
All the digital partners get pre-release copies of new content. I suspect they all get it when the final copy goes to the printer. Part of how we know that DDB does indeed get pre-release info is some of the upcoming release spoilers are directly done because people interrogate the DDB API and find new stuff. For instance; shows how this method was used to discover the Name of Fizban's book.
 

As a programmer and game designer, let me put the problem this way….

some things are easy for computers to understand, but hard for people.
some things are impossible for computers to understand, but simple for people.

this rule cannot be be more true than in the rpg industry. Many rules and simple concepts in rpg games using paper and pencil are impossible for a computer to follow.

example. Fate core is an rpg that simplifies all gameplay into narrative tropes based on the keywords chosen by each character for its aspects. It is one of the simplest rpg systems on the market (one of, not the), and is very human usable.

computers would have no idea how to parse and use it in a computer game. what is a small simple rule set for a human, is a massive tree of if this then do that instructions attached to the whole of human knowledge…

every rules that is even slightly differing from the rules that came before have to be reworked. Not only to add the new feature, but to make sure every feature still works eight after it’s added. This becomes exponentially more complicated as development progresses.
 

As a programmer and game designer, let me put the problem this way….

some things are easy for computers to understand, but hard for people.
some things are impossible for computers to understand, but simple for people.

...

every rules that is even slightly differing from the rules that came before have to be reworked. Not only to add the new feature, but to make sure every feature still works eight after it’s added. This becomes exponentially more complicated as development progresses.
Yes but...
As already mentioned, other software (FG specifically) is faced with the same challenges DDB is faced with, and somehow FG has managed to do what DDB has decided it can't or won't do anymore. So we do know its possible for DDB to solve the issue, if their application architecture was designed appropriately.

I think the key take-away or argument in this thread is that DDB has not built themselves a viable architecture. And as such they have been unable to implement all the rules and variations that have come out for D&D. (But again, others face those same challenges and have managed to succeed.)
 

Yes but...
As already mentioned, other software (FG specifically) is faced with the same challenges DDB is faced with, and somehow FG has managed to do what DDB has decided it can't or won't do anymore. So we do know its possible for DDB to solve the issue, if their application architecture was designed appropriately.

I think the key take-away or argument in this thread is that DDB has not built themselves a viable architecture. And as such they have been unable to implement all the rules and variations that have come out for D&D. (But again, others face those same challenges and have managed to succeed.)
Yup. I was responding to the more generic programming theory discussion.

in the case of this, yeah, looks like they may have painted themselves into a corner. It‘s real easy for a programmer to do, and why rebuilds of a project from scratch happen so often.

but… doing it “properly” is not the only issue. Sometimes, it’s about hindsight being 20/20, and not having the experience to know a problem could come to roost in the future.

the y2k bugs are the most famous of those kinds of planning failure. They were not doing it to save time, or make it easier to program. They just didn’t see the flaw in doing the way they did, or thought the code would be replaced before the problem would trigger…
 

darjr

I crit!
Never used the UA myself, but I have the module in FG and it looks like Strixhaven is there. If you want me to look for anything specific, just let me know;
View attachment 141831

All the digital partners get pre-release copies of new content. I suspect they all get it when the final copy goes to the printer. Part of how we know that DDB does indeed get pre-release info is some of the upcoming release spoilers are directly done because people interrogate the DDB API and find new stuff. For instance; shows how this method was used to discover the Name of Fizban's book.
Is that mechanics built in or just the articles? I wonder why they don't advertise that. Is that in their app? I couldn't find it on their website and a google search was rather futile.
 

lkj

Hero
Just a note that DDB have spent substantial effort in upgrading and re-working their back end over the last year and a half to make it more flexible for adding new features. There was some huge upgrade to the back end on the character sheet side some months ago, and they've regularly talked about development on their 'general features' system which is supposed to add additional flexibility. In other words, I don't think it's accurate to say that they're just building on a flimsy base and not addressing underlying structure. However, I do think it is fair to say that the retooling to add flexibility to that underlying structure has slowed down their feature development substantially. But it was almost certainly the right long term move. And it's not like they haven't been successful as a rules reference and character generation tool, even with the limitations (which, in my opinion, are pretty minor against the extreme ease of use).

I do wonder if the FG-DDB comparisons are apt. I've used both (though I'll admit it's been awhile for FG). FG is a better tool as a VT. Obviously. But I found DDB far better for character creation and rules reference. FG isn't trying to be DDB or vice versa.

Now, we'll see what happens when DDB moves further into their 'shared game space'. (They won't call it a VT, and I think they have their reasons for that-- they are positioning themselves as a suite of tools rather than as a tabletop) Right now that's just a die rolling log and some alpha an beta tools. They have a lot of work to do there. But I think they're in a good position, because a lot of people are already using DDB for game play. And FG tends to be a little more intimidating for folks who aren't a little technically savvy. What we may see are FG folks saying 'But FG already did that!' And they'll be right. But that's kind of how Apple did their thing-- do something others have done in a way that is just slick enough and just enough easier to use to bring in a bigger audience.

I know people will point out that FG isn't that hard to use. Or Roll20. They're not. But, as a person with gaming groups with non tech savvy players, I can tell you that the barrier to entry does not have to be that high to bounce quite a lot of people. There's a reason I'm not using Roll20 or FG much anymore. And it's not because I was having trouble using them. It's because adoption was much faster with DDB by the rest of my group.

AD
 


Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Pathbuilder 2 is effective at keeping up with the vast amount of PF2 material not because of their engineering expertise (although that is definitely a factor), but because Pathfinder Second Edition has a remarkably consistent structure and set of interfaces for its material. One of the games lead designers was pursuing a PhD in Computer Science at MIT before they quit to join Paizo. Adding new content really is mostly a matter of database entries.

Expecting similar results from a game where every feature, race, class and subclass is structured differently would be insane. 5e material often defines entirely new structures into the game on a regular basis. Every supplement the D&D Beyond team needs to implement probably involves vast swathes of custom code because the underlying structure of the game is constantly shifting or being added to. There's a ton of passive effects to reflect on character sheets. The engineering challenge is just a lot more massive.

Please don't mistake this for a commentary on the individual games. Just one software engineer's take on the technical issues involved in the disparity between the two applications.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top