Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 8634619" data-attributes="member: 6796661">I am kinda that DM.  I own most of the non-adventure books on D&D Beyond. My players have access to all the materials I've bought. I synchronize DDB character sheets to Foundry. Building a completely new character class and even certain types of tweaks are not possible or are a lot of work on DDB (though its own their roadmap to better support homebrew classes). While almost anything is possible in Foundry, it can be quite complicated. I'm not interested in spending the time trying to get highly customized classes, feats, etc. working in DDB or Foundry. So I limit options to what is supported, with rare exceptions (mostly feats and magic items). The Acquisitions Inc and the Critical Role books are the only rules and setting books I don't own. But I do not own most of the adventure books, so options available in them are not available to my players. I suppose if they were able to figure out a way to create them so that they worked with DDB and Foundry I might consider it. But none of my players have shown any interest in this and they haven't had an issue with these limitations. I suppose that's an argument for old fashioned pen-and-paper mode. You don't have to worry about software support. But as my players are moving into tier 4 levels, I have even less interest in looking over character sheets and trying to balance things out. Even with all of the digital aids, combat can get sloggy as players have to look up and make decisions on what to do when there are so many options, buffs, debuffs, etc. in play.I'm not saying I would choose this hill to die on. But I'm not going expend a great deal of effort on something that detracts a lot from my fun.  I would be far more likely to experiment for short, low-level campaigns, using pen-and-paper (or PDFs).  For a long campaign expected to get into tier 3? Nah, I would rather not.</blockquote>

Verification