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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="morepurplemorebetter" data-source="post: 6682542" data-attributes="member: 6788192">I appreciate the effort you put into this and the mockups really help to visualize what you are going for. However, I think very differently about two assumptions that form the basis of your redesign.Firstly, you want room for 8 feats, which is the (current) theoretical maximum number of feats a character can have. I would argue, as I've done before, that a character sheet shouldn't be designed about the theoretical maximums for anything as most people won't be using it. If you go on designing everything for these kind of approaches to the rules, the sheet will need a lot more adjustments: your suggested limitation of the proficiency section should then instead be an increase in space, the amount of space for saving throw advantages/disadvantages should be increased, there should be 10 more attack fields, place for many more companions/familiars, a couple more "ability save DC's" etc. etc. I'm sorry if I'm exaggerating a bit, but this is what providing room for 8 feats feels like to me.Secondly, you assume that everybody will be using all pages for their character. The idea behind the lay-out of this sheet is that all you need to play is on the first and second page. Pages three to six are there for the people who want more, but are not essential for everybody. I understand that with some classes the third page is used for some of the class features now that I've incorporated those texts, but I feel this shouldn't change one of the starting points for the design of this sheet.>> Also ideals/flaws/bonds should be plural, I think.Only "traits" is plural because, according to the PHB, you should pick two traits and only one ideal, flaw, and bond.Very cool that you've gotten a clear response from WotC about this! However, I never had any intention of putting in a choice for the Dragonborn's Draconic Ancestry. Currently the sheet supports none. You make it seem that the sheet currently links the Dragonborn's Draconic Ancestry to the Sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline Draconic Ancestry, but this is simply untrue. You get to select it for the Sorcerer, but you have to type it in yourself for the Dragonborn.Before I said the following in this thread (and I stand by it):Currently, the combat rules are organized by action type. The (second) list you suggests just changes the order of the action types to a non-alphabetical order and handles "1 action or bonus action" as a different type of action. I don't feel that your suggested changes to this would really be a significant improvement, sorry.Funny that you have to run into one of the few exceptions <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> As it is a rare case only applicable for 1 weapon, I think you should be able to manage with the weapon description field.</blockquote>

Verification