D&D 5E (2024) Character Sheet & Builder by Roll20

After our last level-up, one character received extra HP rolls at level 4 and cannot remove them. To correct the max HP, we had to manually apply a negative modifier.

(In the builder, only one roll is displayed, but the total HP is incorrect.)

There is no Spell_Save_DC attribute.  This effects some of the mods from working correctly.  Or using any macro to pull that stat.

Nicole B. said:

Inspector said:

There is no Spell_Save_DC attribute.  This effects some of the mods from working correctly.  Or using any macro to pull that stat.

Thanks for the feedback! I've tossed that attribute (and a few other spellcasting-related ones) into a ticket to get read status next week. I can't guarantee it'll be through dev, review, and QA by next week but we'll at least have it on the board.

Thanks for the reply.  I'll keep my eye out for an update.

Nicole B. said:

Tuo said:

It appears my comment here was eaten by the forum. Ah well.

The way death saves are only shown at 0 hit points is very indicative of the anti-homebrew design approach of this sheet. Say you want to make the combat of your game deadlier, by not having failed death saves reset when you stabilize (so if you're healed up at 2 failed death saves and then go down again, you still have 2 failed death saves) - well, tough luck, because this sheet won't have your back. Play a very specific and narrow way or don't play.

In the realm of "homebrew rules we can imagine but don't know of people actually using", there would be many that the 2014 sheet doesn't support but the 2024 sheet does - such as anything that relies on more than one speed field, spells or weapons with multiple attacks associated with them, attacks with more than 2 damages associated with them, etc. Is the 2014 sheet anti-homebrew because you can't rename currencies to your homebrew world's names like you can on the 2024 sheet? Or because you can't remove default skills that don't apply to your homebrew ruleset? I would argue no, personally, but you may believe so.

Just like the 2014 sheet, there are limits to what we can support. For example, neither sheet currently supports inspiration stacking, which I would guess has become more common with its usage in Baldur's Gate 3. If there are use cases for homebrew that aren't currently possible on the sheet, for example the crit damage homebrew rule that we're working on now, we're happy to add more flexibility in those areas on the roadmap. But the nature of a character sheet that isn't just a series of loose inputs on a page, that allows rolling, lists, automation, building characters, leveling, etc., means that we will have to make some choices on where to apply rules, like we did on the 2014 sheet and like all character sheets do.

I encourage anyone who is using a homebrew rule that the 2024 sheet doesn't support to either post here or send in a ticket describing that rule and how it was supported on the 2014 sheet. That will really help us prioritize places where improved flexibility would be most useful!

Coming across a little hostile there - either way, you absolutely can, and easily, use weapons and spells with multiple attacks with the 2014 sheet, as you can manually add attacks to the list. Just as you can easily control when various checkboxes such as death saves are checked, as the control isn't automated away from you. That is the point I'm making. When you automate processes at the cost of taking away the control of those processes, you alienate people who needed that control to play their own way. The ideal solution is, make the automation optional. Have settings for additional control over the sheet functions. You could have the best of both worlds.

But the showing is that the priorities are not with the users having control over their games. And that is an issue.

... and some of the features that are mentioned as not being available in 2014 are either available (in some cases) or were available (in most others) before Roll20 took the sheet in-house. 

On the other end for anyone that is using "standard" DND and/ or a simple or just social player with minimal or no customization the new sheet is an huge improvement as clearly helps a lot in discriminating what you can do in the different moments.

I have been playing dnd for over 40 years and one of my player is one of the friends with whom we started playing in '83-'84.

A dnd meet is mostly the chatting and the jokes and the having fun with friends, not in the same city anymore, as a side night so a sheet that guides you in remembering what are your possible actions is very useful

Nicole B. said:

tasos t. said:

After our last level-up, one character received extra HP rolls at level 4 and cannot remove them. To correct the max HP, we had to manually apply a negative modifier.

(In the builder, only one roll is displayed, but the total HP is incorrect.)

We used to have this problem commonly, but it's been a while since I've seen it. Can you give me more details on what your player was doing when it happened? Was the sheet open in two places at one (ex. DM and player both have it open)? Was the roll button clicked/undone multiple times, or just once?

This can be fixed by clicking Level Up to get back into the builder, editing HP, and then clicking "Undo" on the roll 3-4 times. 3 times if you just want to take the first roll that it logged (which is the 9 total, last in the list), 4 if you want to just clear it out entirely (which will default to 8, first in the list). Then you won't need the modifier anymore. Then you can click review character and save it, it won't actually level you up if you don't click your level up to 5, it will just update your choices at the level you're currently at.

We also have a ticket on the board to allow for manually deleting any duplicate HP values in case of this problem, but it hasn't been picked up yet since it's a bit of a lower priority with the modifier and undo workarounds.

Only the player have the sheet open, he went back through the level-up steps to change his hp from average to rolled.

There's no question about that.

I think what people are saying is that the automation, and restrictions currently built into the sheet, should be OPTIONAL, so that others who play a different way, can also use the sheet and play it their way.

Roll20 is a tool and should remain a tool. The staff should not be dictating how people play, putting in text or automation into the sheet that takes away agency from the players or the DM.

Andrea L. said:

On the other end for anyone that is using "standard" DND and/ or a simple or just social player with minimal or no customization the new sheet is an huge improvement as clearly helps a lot in discriminating what you can do in the different moments.

I have been playing dnd for over 40 years and one of my player is one of the friends with whom we started playing in '83-'84.

A dnd meet is mostly the chatting and the jokes and the having fun with friends, not in the same city anymore, as a side night so a sheet that guides you in remembering what are your possible actions is very useful

I wonder if the answer here is to have two different sheets: one fully automated and another with all options customizable, with both usable within the same game.

Saul J. said:

There's no question about that.

I think what people are saying is that the automation, and restrictions currently built into the sheet, should be OPTIONAL, so that others who play a different way, can also use the sheet and play it their way.

Roll20 is a tool and should remain a tool. The staff should not be dictating how people play, putting in text or automation into the sheet that takes away agency from the players or the DM.

I don't know. The 2014 sheet was very, very flexible once you understood how it worked. There wasn't a lot automated. That being said, there were some things I wish were automated when I was playing that wasn't.

What I'd really like is one sheet (to avoid confusion) that is flexible and has automation that can be turned on or off depending on the user's wishes. For example, as a fighter I might want certain automations, and as a wizard I might want different automations, and as a bladelock I might want a different set - some of the weapon automations, and some of the spell automations... but I might not want everything automated that is available for automation. So, for example, I might not want spell preparation automated but I might want spell slot tracking automated. Or something different for a different character.

The sheet should be adjustable to my wants/needs, not the wants/needs of anyone else, including the staff of Roll20. It should work for how I play the game, and be a tool that I can use for my character to track and automate what I want it to track and automate.

I know that is a lot to ask but, it's what I feel would be ideal. The 2014 sheet came very close to what I would want. The 2024 sheet, not so much.

Rick A. said:

I wonder if the answer here is to have two different sheets: one fully automated and another with all options customizable, with both usable within the same game.

Saul J. said:

There's no question about that.

I think what people are saying is that the automation, and restrictions currently built into the sheet, should be OPTIONAL, so that others who play a different way, can also use the sheet and play it their way.

Roll20 is a tool and should remain a tool. The staff should not be dictating how people play, putting in text or automation into the sheet that takes away agency from the players or the DM.

Tuo said:

But the showing is that the priorities are not with the users having control over their games. And that is an issue.

I'd disagree with that. The initial release had very limited flexibility, and that caused a lot of problems for sure, but every addition to the change log since has shown more customization being added to give more power to the user. There are still a good amount of changes to be made to bring it to 2014 levels of flexibility, but it's unfair to say that their priorities aren't on making those changes when they quickly pivoted so that it's high priority because we asked for it. 

I also agree that being able to disconnect features and parts of the sheet from automation is very important, and have voiced this several times in 1on1s, so I hope that they take that on board eventually. Automation is great until it makes things slower due to having to create workarounds. 

P.s. My weekly bug reports haven't stopped, we simply haven't come across anything recently which needs fixing and isn't already being fixed or implemented. We're all much happier at the moment, and most of our group are at the point of preferring the 2024 sheets. 

using 2024 sheet builder for Dragon Born Warlock 20th Lvl. The breath weapon isn't working properly, instead of 4 d10 it shows 2 d10, and can't be changed. Same with Eldritch Blast, shows 2 d10 and can't be changed. This was last night around 1030 PM PST.

Nicole B. said:

tasos t. said:

Only the player have the sheet open, he went back through the level-up steps to change his hp from average to rolled.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for this.

I am happy to report that a lot of "spell lists in the builder don't load" bugs have been fixed! For anyone who's been waiting on Pact of the Tome, Magical Secrets, or Shadow-Touched.

Pact of the Tome is still broken. Not just grey rectangles; you can at least choose spells now. BUT you can only choose Warlock spells, and that is not how that Invocation works. It's very clear in the writeup that you can choose from ANY CLASS for the spells. Also, where are we with the duplication of things like Magic Initiate? That's still not working.

I don't often play martial classes, so I haven't encountered this one before. The unarmed fighting style gives the character a combat action of Unarmed Strike (Unarmed Fighting) which does 1d6 + str bludgeoning damage. So far, so good. If you're not holding any weapons or shield, the damage goes up to 1d8 + str. The feat creates an effect toggle called No Weapons or Shield (Unarmed Fighting), which I assume is intended to change the damage of the unarmed strike to 1d8. Except, it doesn't seem to have any effect at all. The character also has the tavern brawler origin feat, which creates its own unarmed strike attack, so I thought maybe that's what broke the toggle. So I created a test character who didn't have tavern brawler and gave him unarmed fighting style and...I think I made it worse! Now, when I toggle on the No Weapon or Shield effect, the damage disappears from the unarmed strike in the combat screen. I used the attack just to see what would happen, and it outputs 1d6 damage with no str modifier.

Is this a known issue, or have I stumbled onto something new?

Quick followup: After closing and reloading the test character, the toggle no longer makes the damage disappear; now it does nothing at all just like the first character.

Jay W. said:

Quick followup: After closing and reloading the test character, the toggle no longer makes the damage disappear; now it does nothing at all just like the first character.

Are you using query for advantage and disadvantage that was a bug where it would not apply toggleable roll effects, not sure if this has been patched yet.

David Q. said:

Jay W. said:

Quick followup: After closing and reloading the test character, the toggle no longer makes the damage disappear; now it does nothing at all just like the first character.

Are you using query for advantage and disadvantage that was a bug where it would not apply toggleable roll effects, not sure if this has been patched yet.

It's set to Automatic. I just loaded the character and tried switching to all the other modes, but the toggle still has no effect.

Jay W. said:

I don't often play martial classes, so I haven't encountered this one before. The unarmed fighting style gives the character a combat action of Unarmed Strike (Unarmed Fighting) which does 1d6 + str bludgeoning damage. So far, so good. If you're not holding any weapons or shield, the damage goes up to 1d8 + str. The feat creates an effect toggle called No Weapons or Shield (Unarmed Fighting), which I assume is intended to change the damage of the unarmed strike to 1d8. Except, it doesn't seem to have any effect at all. The character also has the tavern brawler origin feat, which creates its own unarmed strike attack, so I thought maybe that's what broke the toggle. So I created a test character who didn't have tavern brawler and gave him unarmed fighting style and...I think I made it worse! Now, when I toggle on the No Weapon or Shield effect, the damage disappears from the unarmed strike in the combat screen. I used the attack just to see what would happen, and it outputs 1d6 damage with no str modifier.

Is this a known issue, or have I stumbled onto something new?

Also tested it out with a brand new fighter + unarmed fighting. Had the exact same issue where the damage disappeared when toggling on, which fixed itself after reloading the sheet (same as you). Seems like it's a problem with the baked in 'Unarmed Fighting Unarmed Strike Damage 2' modifier not doing what it's meant to do. Weird that it has '2' at the end instead of saying D8 for example, could just be set up wrong on the backend.

Nicole B. said:

Jay W. said:

I don't often play martial classes, so I haven't encountered this one before. The unarmed fighting style gives the character a combat action of Unarmed Strike (Unarmed Fighting) which does 1d6 + str bludgeoning damage. So far, so good. If you're not holding any weapons or shield, the damage goes up to 1d8 + str. The feat creates an effect toggle called No Weapons or Shield (Unarmed Fighting), which I assume is intended to change the damage of the unarmed strike to 1d8. Except, it doesn't seem to have any effect at all. The character also has the tavern brawler origin feat, which creates its own unarmed strike attack, so I thought maybe that's what broke the toggle. So I created a test character who didn't have tavern brawler and gave him unarmed fighting style and...I think I made it worse! Now, when I toggle on the No Weapon or Shield effect, the damage disappears from the unarmed strike in the combat screen. I used the attack just to see what would happen, and it outputs 1d6 damage with no str modifier.

Is this a known issue, or have I stumbled onto something new?

You've found something new, I fear. I'm going to look into this, I wasn't able to find an immediate answer to why this is happening, but it appears to also have something to do with our modification system, like the breath weapon.

Thanks for confirming. As always, I'm glad to help find those sneaky bugs hiding in obscure places!

Nicole B. said:

In the realm of "homebrew rules we can imagine but don't know of people actually using", there would be many that the 2014 sheet doesn't support but the 2024 sheet does - such as anything that relies on more than one speed field, spells or weapons with multiple attacks associated with them, attacks with more than 2 damages associated with them, etc. Is the 2014 sheet anti-homebrew because you can't rename currencies to your homebrew world's names like you can on the 2024 sheet? Or because you can't remove default skills that don't apply to your homebrew ruleset? I would argue no, personally, but you may believe so.

For the fun of it, I decided to take another look at this comment.

Additional speed field, check (achieved by using custom resource tracker)

Weapon with multiple attack options (directly drawn from compendium)

Attack with more than 2 different damages (custom ability injected into the attack template via the description field)

These are all things made possible because the user has control over the sheet. Now show me yours.

Starr Saphyre said:

Pact of the Tome is still broken. Not just grey rectangles; you can at least choose spells now. BUT you can only choose Warlock spells, and that is not how that Invocation works. It's very clear in the writeup that you can choose from ANY CLASS for the spells. Also, where are we with the duplication of things like Magic Initiate? That's still not working.

FWIW, I just tried creating a new Warlock character, choosing Pact of the Tome as my first invocation. The list seemed to include all spells, not just Warlock spells. For example, Guidance was one of the choices for the cantrip, and that's not a Warlock cantrip. I didn't compare the list against all possible cantrips. Same thing for 1st level spells - there were more on the list than just Warlock spells, but I didn't compare the list against all possible 1st level spells.

Maybe it's not working on previously created characters?

Nicole B. said:

SNIP

I think where we differ is that you're looking at what you, as roll20, can provide for the sheet, while I am looking at what the community can do with the sheet. As despite nearly a decade of requesting custom compendium still isn't a thing, how the compendium data interacts with the sheet isn't at all relevant to what the users can make happen on their own initiative with the sheet. The community is cleverer by half than what you think, and if the users are given the keys to the functions of the sheet, most problems can be solved by simply asking for help from the community. As I quite enjoy helping people with problems, to me it's far more valuable to be able to apply my knowledge to the sheet in ways that the designers may not have thought of, than whatever it is that makes the data easier to work with behind the curtain where it's inaccessible to the user beyond the very specific intended way. You might think that ideally you would leave no gaps in the system to fill, no problems to fix, but we both know that isn't reality. So it's better to give the users the tools to make the game their own.

PS, I'm a big fan of Toll the Dead too, and I've found the two damage fields served by the attack entry of the 2014 sheet to be perfectly serviceable for the two different damage modes of the spell (and I got so used to it being that way that I completely forgot it wasn't set up like that in the compendium). But you can also make it work with a query for the different die size, and the cantrip dice scaling will play ball with the 2014 sheet.

This sheet is like a phone that cannot make phone calls.. then saying how great it does (or will do, in theory) all the extra stuff when all I want to do is make a phone call.  Keep sight of what the users want, please.  If you sent me a copy of the last 2014 sheet before it was taken in house I'd be happy!

Just checking in again on the feedback that I've given before (February 13, 2024; June 18, 2024; November 11, 2024). My caveat is that I haven't done any testing over the past few months, and I just opened up my 2024 test game (from cold storage) and took a quick look through these items.

Out of 18 suggestions/requests, it looks like 6 are fully or almost fully implemented, 5 are at least partially implemented or still need some refinement, and 7 have not been implemented in any way whatsoever.

For me, #1, #2, and #10 are deal-breakers for me using the new sheet.  #1 and #2 relate to creating a 2024 version of my Statblock Macromule, and #10 is something that I'm not going to deal with not being able to easily hide the Journal name of NPCs.  If I create an NPC named John who is secretly a Vampire Lord, and I need to have them make a roll, what shows up in chat is 'Vampire Lord' because that is the name of the character sheet.  Changing the name on the Manage Info tab also changes the Character Name!  There's no way to make a roll that displays as 'John'.  I honestly don't understand how the 'npc_name' field isn't part of the 2024 sheet in a way that is editable separate from the 'character_name'.

1. Consistency between roll templates
• Partial - Roll templates are have been partially implemented, and devs have said that more will be added. They also don't use a narrow fixed width.
• However, it's not clear to me how much of the roll template syntax will be available for custom macros.
2. Attributes
• Partial - Some attributes on the sheet are now manually editable, but it appears that there are still a lot of duplication of values that could easily be a single value ('ac' versus 'npc_ac')
• I'm guessing that a lot of the attributes are not going to change (there's no reason to change the 'experience' attribute that I can think of), but there is definitely a lot of bloat and unused 'legacy' attributes on the current character sheet.  For instance, there are a ton of 'npc_*****' attributes on the sheet, that may as well be the same as the non-NPC values and just have a single attribute that is used whether the sheet is set to PC or NPC. There are other issues, such as the 'class' versus 'multiclass1' attributes and they show on the sheet versus how they combine into 'class_display'.
3. Allow 'numerical' fields to accept non-numerical inputs or attribute calls
• No - Does not appear to be possible
• That way features could accept a modifier, such as Initiative adding Dex plus Proficiency Bonus.
4. Whisper Type
• No - I'm not seeing this
• Please include a 'GM only' whisper setting into the sheet/sheetworkers.  It sounds like that is included on the Pathfinder 2E sheet now, so I'm guessing this is already on the roadmap, but I want to highlight it just in case it's not.
5. Standardized PC versus NPC layout
• Yes - I think? I haven't tested the sheet enough to see if there are edge cases, but it appears to have more functionality, and the difference between PC and NPC layout is likely intentional and useful.
6. Output for all repeating items
• Yes - it appears that most things have an 'output' roll.  It looks like there are a few edge cases where that isn't true (such as PC Proficiencies & Languages)
7. Item Mods
• Yes. But I haven't tested enough to know if they are all functioning correctly or not.
8. Custom skill rolls / Alternate Skill Checks
• Yes! 
• The interface for rolling a custom skill check is still very clunky.  I hope this gets cleaned up and made easier.  If I want to roll a Strength (Acrobatics) check then I would like to quickly click on the 'Dex' button that is listed as the Mod for a quick one-off or to make the change, instead of going through the Settings Cog to the right.
9. Vision & speed settings
• Yes! 
• The interface for adjusting speed is still clunky, but it vastly improved.
10. Name options
• No. This is even worse than the 2014 sheet, because there's no way to set the 'npc_name' separately from the 'character_name'.
• I would love it if there was a field for a 'true name' or 'nickname' so that PCs could have their full name listed in one place, but a shortened name referenced elsewhere.  Similarly, for named NPCs, it would be possible to have the nickname display show 'Nobleman' until the players meet the NPC and learn his name is Lord Leremon III.
• If I have a PC or NPC that I want to 'hide' their true identity from my players, I have no easy way of doing that other than changing the name of the character in the Journal.
11. Conditions / Spell effects
• Yes! But...
• It looks like there is the option to add custom Conditions, and Modifiers. It would be nice to have others, e.g. it would be cool if the 'Blinded' condition could adjust the 'Vision' stat automatically.
• It still doesn't look like there's any way to add a 1d4 roll to Saving Throws from Bless.
• This relates to #3 above: Allow 'numerical' fields to accept non-numerical inputs or attribute calls.
• This looks like it is possible and it was user error on my part (I think I had an old 'Bless' on my test character).
12. Vehicles
• No.
• Vehicles are not currently supported in any meaningful way.  
13. Colored indicators/tags for spells, traits, etc.
• No. I'm not seeing any clear indicators in the spell list for Ritual, Concentration, etc.
• This idea for different colored 'prepared' icons for spells, and likewise for traits or other repeating items. Or some other way of identifying/distinguishing items in these lists.  That would be easier than modifying each one individually with emojis. It would also be really nice to have some kind of indication if a spell is 'always prepared' due to a clas/subclass feature (e.g. a Paladin Oath spell) or if the item is on the sheet due to an item, etc.
• And even in List view, the Spells tab still takes up too much space. There really needs to be a more 'Ultra Compact' view. But it is much better than it used to be.
14. Attunement
• Yes!
15. DM-Only fields within description fields for spells, attacks, etc.
• No.
• It would be really nice to have a DM-only section of descriptions for pretty much everything.  A good example is a Giant Spider's Web feature.  If the description is shown, then players will see in chat when the attack is rolled what they have to do to get out of the Web.
16. Inventory 'Containers'
• No.
• Please include a way for inventory to be 'placed' inside another item, such as a sack, or a Bag of Holding, and allow for the weight to be modified automatically as needed. 
17. List Ordering for Language Translation
• Please ensure that list ordering according to language is implemented.
• No. I'm not seeing this...
• But as users we likely won't ever see this directly because it will be embedded into the code itself.
18. Alternative Critical Damage Calculations
• Many tables allow for alternative critical rules, such as 'brutal criticals'. It would be great if there was an option for that.
• No, but maybe? I played around with modifying a standard Dagger attack for a bit, and I honestly can't tell what is happening with the Critical Damage roll. This might just be bugged and need to be logged and fixed.
• I changed the Crit Override to d4, 0 , 4 and was getting a 2d4+3 roll for some reason. Character has an 8 strength for a -1 strength mod, clicking on the Crit Damage button should have given a roll of 1d4-1 for the regular damage, and 4 for the crit damage.
• 
• 

Starr Saphyre said:

Pact of the Tome is still broken. Not just grey rectangles; you can at least choose spells now. BUT you can only choose Warlock spells, and that is not how that Invocation works. It's very clear in the writeup that you can choose from ANY CLASS for the spells. Also, where are we with the duplication of things like Magic Initiate? That's still not working.

I'm not able to replicate this - the choices that are presented to me under "Pact of the Tome Spell Choice" are not the same as what's presented to me as "Level 1 Spells". Can you log out/back in and then share a screenshot of what you're seeing? The only theory the team and I could come up with was that the request for spells failed and it fell back to the last spell request you made, which may have been choosing a Warlock spell.

Could you clarify what you mean by "duplication of things like Magic Initiate"? I brought that phrase back to the team and there were 2-3 guesses as to what this might be in reference to.

Okay, so looking at Pact of the Tome, it actually IS working, but the header reads "Warlock - Cantrip", which threw me. Sorry on that one. As for Magic Initiate, build a character who is Human (species) and Acolyte (background). Select Magic Initiate as the Human Feat, which now means you have two occurrences of that Feat. When you get to spell selection, it only processes one of the Magic Initiate Feats, and doesn't let you select spells for the other. (And if you take it again at higher level, same problem; Spell Selection in the builder is only taking one occurrence of Magic Initiate, not multiple.)

Why is there no Custom Race option in the 2024 sheet? That was a great feature of the old 2014 sheets which allowed for those instances where you need to use a non-standard species. We are just starting a Dark Sun campaign and it would be great if we could add in the setting races such as Mul or Half Giant.

Reposting what I said about a week ago, and has not been fixed, or even acknowledged:

The Monk's Deflect Attack ability is wrong on the character sheet. The amount deflected is supposed to be 1d10+Dex modifier+Monk level but the button that is supplied on the sheet only rolls 1d10+level.  And, there's no button on there for the amount of damage that is redirected which should be 2 rolls of the Martial Arts die + Dex modifier.

Also, the button on the sheet for the Uncanny Metabolism ability indicates a heal of 1 roll of the Martial Arts die + Monk level but it doesn't actually heal. I don't know if it's meant to or not but I had to do it manually. This should be done automatically.

Saul J. said:

Reposting what I said about a week ago, and has not been fixed, or even acknowledged:

The Monk's Deflect Attack ability is wrong on the character sheet. The amount deflected is supposed to be 1d10+Dex modifier+Monk level but the button that is supplied on the sheet only rolls 1d10+level.  And, there's no button on there for the amount of damage that is redirected which should be 2 rolls of the Martial Arts die + Dex modifier.

I confirm that the damage reducing part of the feature is incorrect; I have a player playing a monk. However, the redirected damage part does have a button, up in the attacks.

I see it, now. It's in the wrong place, then (IMO). It should not be listed in "Attacks" because you're not taking the Attack action and it's not an attack. You're taking a Reaction. It should be where the ability is described in the Reaction block.

keithcurtis said:

Saul J. said:

Reposting what I said about a week ago, and has not been fixed, or even acknowledged:

The Monk's Deflect Attack ability is wrong on the character sheet. The amount deflected is supposed to be 1d10+Dex modifier+Monk level but the button that is supplied on the sheet only rolls 1d10+level.  And, there's no button on there for the amount of damage that is redirected which should be 2 rolls of the Martial Arts die + Dex modifier.

I confirm that the damage reducing part of the feature is incorrect; I have a player playing a monk. However, the redirected damage part does have a button, up in the attacks.

Eh, it's dealing damage to someone and it requires a saving throw. There are plenty of things in the attack section that fit that pattern. I'm fine with it there, but the damage reduction part does need to be fixed.

Eh. Maybe. But, the sheet is so cluttered as it is with all the things (in some cases, unnecessary things) on the 2024 sheet, that condensing the two into one entry would help with the readability of the sheet, and make it easier to find the button.

keithcurtis said:

Eh, it's dealing damage to someone and it requires a saving throw. There are plenty of things in the attack section that fit that pattern. I'm fine with it there, but the damage reduction part does need to be fixed.

The 2024 character sheet is not letting me change the crit range values. It is automatically returning to 20 whenever I change it to less. I  have a player that's a champion fighter and I want it to crit on a 19 instead of us having to remember that a 19 is also crit but the sheet isn't recognizing or saving any other value besides a 20 as a the crit threshold 

Sadeke S. said:

The 2024 character sheet is not letting me change the crit range values. It is automatically returning to 20 whenever I change it to less. I  have a player that's a champion fighter and I want it to crit on a 19 instead of us having to remember that a 19 is also crit but the sheet isn't recognizing or saving any other value besides a 20 as a the crit threshold 

I cannot recreate this works as intended for me.

Edit: One thing I did notice is after setting the crit threshold and closing the sheet when I reopen the crit threshold doesn't reflect the correct number but it still functions. My advice is set the threshold to 1 run the attacks, close the sheet and reopen try attacks again and see if it works.

Hi all,

not sure if this was addressed already. While checking if I can select the EI Lessons of the first ones more than once in the Caracter builder by now (which I cannot - I still can only select the EI once), I found that in the EI drop down menu in the Character Builder some (or all - not sure) EIs are listed three times, so that the whole list of EIs is pretty long and replicated. This applies to all menus that allow the selection of any EI. Does that occur with anyone else, too?



 

Barbarian Unarmoured Defence - I've posted a bug report.  I previously sent in a report because the AC was not reflecting 10+Dex Mod+Con Mod and only showing 10+Dex Mod when the Un Def option had been toggled.  This has been fixed, but as far as I can tell, the token still shows just 10+Dex Mod?  I have a barbarian 10+Dex (+4)+ Con (+3) for a 17 AC, but although the character sheet shows 17, bar 2 shows 14.  I also note there does not appear to be a passive wisdom option in the drop down, which is a shame because we used that for bar 3 but I guess I can live with just having the modifier in there.  Only my second attempt to sell this to my players and we are not winning...

I'm at my wit's end. Our last session was a complete disaster. We started a new campaign with my players at 10th level when the new PHB was released. Like everyone, we struggled with the new character sheets, and probably should have just started the campaign after there was time for the sheets to get out of beta testing. But over the last few months have slowly found our groove...until Friday night. 

The players leveled up for the first time, and everything was broken. 3 out the 4 had their HP not calculate correctly. Both fighters had their Second Winds reduced from 4 to 3 per Long Rest. The Echo Knight Fighter had the PSi Warrior subclass randomly added to his sheet. The Arcane Trickster rogue had all her spells removed, and now after adding  them all in and marking them prepared, the Spell Slot View still reads "You've not set up your spells for the day. Perhaps you never had spells before? Click 'Manage Spells' to add some! It completely erased the Draconic Sorcerer's Draconic Resilience trait. And to top it off, every single character had a whole ton of redundant starting equipment added to their sheet. 

I think I have to requild every character sheet from scratch, but I'm already seeing the same problems arise. I rebuilt the Champion fighter, but when I leveled up to 11, she again lost a Second Wind use and had all the starting equipment readded. 

I don't know what to do?

Hi Carnie DM!

If there is less work to do a Rollback than there is to rebuild, it sounds like that might be the way to go. I'd make a copy of the campaign first. It sounds like you had multiple issues hitting you at once.

One thing stands out, compare Hit Points on Sheet to Hit Points on Token. That attribute the token references is currently broken and doesn't reflect the sheet value.

keithcurtis said:

Hi Carnie DM!

If there is less work to do a Rollback than there is to rebuild, it sounds like that might be the way to go. I'd make a copy of the campaign first. It sounds like you had multiple issues hitting you at once.

One thing stands out, compare Hit Points on Sheet to Hit Points on Token. That attribute the token references is currently broken and doesn't reflect the sheet value.

I made a copy and then rolled back the original game. I still have the same issues when I try to level up characters. As a test I levelled up the Champion Fighter, since there's nothing simpler. HP is correct (It was never a token issue for us. The pages themselves were all wrong.) But it still dumped a truckload of starting equipment into her sheet, took away a use of Second Wind and now it adding 161 to an Indomitable roll. That's not a typo. 161!!!!

It think it is strange that when you press "Level UP" the character builder has all the same steps as creating a character from scratch. It feels like this is the whole start of the problem. But I really don't know how I'm going to get these character sheets levelled properly. 

Thanks for the response! I'll add some clarifications here as well:

Nicole B. said:

1. Consistency between roll templates

• However, it's not clear to me how much of the roll template syntax will be available for custom macros.

They should be available for custom macros just like anything else - can you clarify where exactly you're hoping this to work so I can double check? Unfortunately, many people use the word macros to encompass a lot of things, so while the intention is all of the syntax is available for custom macros, I'd definitely like to make sure exactly what you're asking for is covered here. If it helps you to look yourself, the simple roll template is the one that exists (attack is next but is getting a bit held up by indicating crits/fumbles at the moment).

With the 2014 sheet, there is fairly clear documentation for each roll template that allows a player to manually recreate/use the template. Just take the sections and fill in as desired, such as for the 'traits' template:

&{template:traits} {{name=Traits Name}} {{source=Source:Source type}} {{description=Trait description}}

You can even hover over the element while inspecting the HTML to see the component parts (this is inspecting the 2014 character sheet):

But the 2024 roll templates are designed in a completely different way that seems to obscure the individual parts of the template (this is inspecting the 2024 character sheet):

This is from inspecting the output that appears in chat:

As far as I can tell, the 2024 sheet uses roll templates, but it would be impossible for me to create a macro that uses the roll template manually. What syntax would be entered into chat to recreate a roll that comes from the sheet?

2. Attributes

• Partial - Some attributes on the sheet are now manually editable, but it appears that there are still a lot of duplication of values that could easily be a single value ('ac' versus 'npc_ac')
  I'm guessing that a lot of the attributes are not going to change (there's no reason to change the 'experience' attribute that I can think of), but there is definitely a lot of bloat and unused 'legacy' attributes on the current character sheet.  For instance, there are a ton of 'npc_*****' attributes on the sheet, that may as well be the same as the non-NPC values and just have a single attribute that is used whether the sheet is set to PC or NPC. There are other issues, such as the 'class' versus 'multiclass1' attributes and they show on the sheet versus how they combine into 'class_display'.

Unfortunately, this has to be how it is for macro reasons. We've gotten an ocean of requests of basically "we want every attribute that already existed", and this is the first piece of feedback I've ever seen that's actually taken into account that we could make the attributes cleaner, return more relevant data, and not return duplicate data if we didn't do that. But, if we stop returning `npc_name`, then that means that every macro that uses that will only work on the 2014 sheet. Because multi-sheet games are such a powerful tool for us, we don't want to split from the 2014 sheet on attributes and have macros only work on half of them. We could remove them from the token bar display though, that's one flexibility option we have on Beacon sheets that we don't have on older sheets.

Someday I dream of a future where we can add attributes that expose all the detail of our actual data structure and let people go wild with editing each piece individually and seeing how they all fit together, but we have to make all 2014 macros work first. Or at least, all the ones that make even a little sense in this new context.

I'm super confused by this response. I can't think of a situation where I want to use the same exact macro on a 2014 sheet as the 2024 sheet. Or maybe I'm not understanding what others have asked for when saying "we want every attribute that already existed".  If the 2024 sheet was at parity (with additional features) with the 2014 sheet, then I would forgo using the 2014 sheet altogether and just have characters and macros using the 2024 sheet.

Which leads me to another point: I also do not want roll template names to be reused for both 2014 and 2024 sheets.  That will break macros, just like how the 'default' template has been co-opted so that the legacy purple default template is no longer available and instead displays in the new format. I know this has been expressed by others in the forums as well.  

But my initial feedback point was that the 2024 sheet should absolutely have "attributes cleaner, return more relevant data, and not return duplicate data". I'd be curious to see examples of feedback or suggestions you have received that is implicitly or explicitly asking for the attributes to remain in the same format that they currently do, such as having both 'ac' and 'npc_ac' on a single character sheet, or what the use case is for that to be set up that way.  Personally, if I had a PC character that I needed to convert into an NPC (and have different stats for some reason), it seems that it would be much easier to simply duplicate the character and create an NPC version, instead of using a single character that toggles back and forth between PC and NPC with different stats.

Allow 'numerical' fields to accept non-numerical inputs or attribute calls

This is still under development - we need to do some Beacon work to make it return something other than just the result. Right now, everything in roll syntax works with Beacon (except grouping, I believe), but the problem is the sheet isn't getting enough data to actually show the details of your roll. For example, if we passed in 3d10r<5, we would get "here are all your rolls: 10, 2, 3, 5, 7" and "here's your result: 22" and, since the parsing of the syntax is done on the VTT side and not on the sheet side, we wouldn't know how to work with those rolls. We're working on a better solution right now so the sheet can display these things accurately. It's a big project that has to be touched by a lot of people that all have more projects than time, but we're making progress on that front.

No. This is even worse than the 2014 sheet, because there's no way to set the 'npc_name' separately from the 'character_name'.

Working on this. It was just an NPC oversight that we haven't circled back to fix yet.

Yay!

It still doesn't look like there's any way to add a 1d4 roll to Saving Throws from Bless.

Have you tried adding a Saving Throw Effect? If you drag & drop Bless onto your sheet, you can see exactly how it's set up. The effect section is specifically designed with Bless in mind.

Hmm, I think I had an old 'Bless' effect on the sheet or something because it does look different now that I deleted it and added a new one. I'll edit this above, thanks! Yay!

No. I'm not seeing any clear indicators in the spell list for Ritual, Concentration, etc.

While this won't match the entirety of this feature request, we are working on a new version of the spells view that will at least cover your desire for an ultra-compact view, always prepared, and some chip separation/distinguishing.

Yay!

No, but maybe? I played around with modifying a standard Dagger attack for a bit, and I honestly can't tell what is happening with the Critical Damage roll. This might just be bugged and need to be logged and fixed.

We recently put in a feature to update an attack's critical damage, specifically to support common homebrew crit rules and other crit-related things, but it seems to have been the victim of a bad code merge and isn't fully functional yet. Another thing I'm looking into today. I looked into a workaround of adding an effect that adds what you need for a brutal critical and turning it on before clicking damage, but because critical damage doubles all dice, that means that adding one results in adding two when you click the crit damage button. So, not ideal.

Yay!

There are a few I skipped here - mostly the feature requests which I've logged but they have to go in the priority list around what we already have planned and our ongoing bug fixes. I do appreciate the requests for new features to move the sheet forward mixed in with bug reports to shore up what we already have, though. Especially feature requests for things that didn't exist on the 2014 sheet. It's nice to see enthusiasm about what we can do that extends beyond what we already had :) Thank you!

Yay! Thank you for the response!

Carnie DM said:

It think it is strange that when you press "Level UP" the character builder has all the same steps as creating a character from scratch. It feels like this is the whole start of the problem. But I really don't know how I'm going to get these character sheets levelled properly. 

If the tab name for the slide is green, you can just ignore it if you wish. I can see what I can do to recreate, if you want to send me any specs (how the characters were originally built, in Roll20Character or in-game, the sorts of in-play modifications that might have been done, species, class, and so on. I have leveled up dozens of characters from 1 to 20, and admittedly most of these were during the pre-launch debugging days and had many problems, but we have not run into errors as severe as what you are experiencing in the half-dozen or so that have seen actual play.

Hey Keith,

I'm not sure exactly how to fully explain how the characters were created, so let me try this to start. I just recreated the Draconic Sorcerer. 

- built in game

- human (lucky for extra origin feat)

- sorcerer: draconic sorcery (level 10)

- background: criminal (for the Alert feat)

- I chose spells in the builder even though it so tedious and doesn't let you change spells at higher levels. 

- Feats at 4th & 8th level: Spell Sniper, Elemental Adept (lightning)

- for equipment both from class and background I chose the gold option. (so at 10th level, the character has no equipment)

Upon completing the build, the character looked correct. The AC was wrong until I switched on Unarmored Defense (which is the wrong name for the trait, but worked).

Then I leveled up to 11 to replicate the problem. This time the AC didn't get messed up as the Unarmored Defense field didn't disappear, which it did last time. 

However, like before now the character has a whole bunch of equipment that wasn't there before.

I don't have the time to keep replicating each build to log every mistake. I can tell that the equipment issue is universal every single time I level up. I have also seen the Fighters drop from 4 uses of Second Wind to 3 multiple times.  

Nicole,

Spell save DC would be another to put on your attribute list.

Thanks!

Nicole B. said:

I've added passive wisdom to the list of attributes coming in next! Really appreciate you coming here to request a specific one so we don't have to go through adding random ones like character weight hoping we're getting the most important ones first.