So there are two solid Character sheets for D&D 5e campaigns, each with strengths. The Shaped Character Sheet is seeing lots of development focus from the community, while Actoba's awesome original Character Sheet hasn't been updated in awhile. Since I prefer the regular sheet for its simpler and less data-heavy setup process, I'd like to ask the community for a straight-forward comparison of the two sheets. I'd like to know: Is Actoba's sheet considered 'final form' insofar as it's simply a good sheet that achieved its design objectives, or did folks feel we needed a redesign for other reasons (such as the progression of Roll20 architecture, or attempts to create programmatic efficiency)? Are there 'bugs that matter' in the Regular Sheet? What breaks when you switch from the Regular Sheet to the Shaped Sheet? (In my own limited testing, it seems like lots of data is lost, esp. on the NPC side, which nukes my NPC stockpile.) Are some API sheet-dependent, for either PCs or NPCs? (esp. the API in the Script Index) It think that there's lots of value in being able to switch seamlessly from a simple, quick-to-complete character sheet to a more complex sheet as data tracking needs evolve during a campaign, and as players become more attuned to the... finer points... of D&D minutiae. Are there ways to mitigate data loss when migrating sheets (maybe through an API that collects and transfers the data)? Especially for DMs who like to stockpile NPC resources, it's a problem when sheet redesigns reconfigure all the data, such that you have to continually re-enter it. This defeats the whole purpose of character vaults. Thanks for helping!