The basic functionality is ace. When I level up a character, I merely need to keep hitting next step, make a choice, next step, make a choice, and so on. This, for me, is superb.
There are some odd quirks with the UI. When I load the program, don't give me a splash screen saying there are no updates and THEN prompt me the load the builder. If there are no updates, I don't care.
The shopping mode is pretty solid, but I'd love to have a "Total Value" somewhere that indicates what my net value is. Finding where to level up the character was counter-intuitive.
Nevertheless, this turns a 15 minute process of adding up numbers into a 5 minute "pick one of the following." The making of power cards is brilliant. As a GM, I sit my n00b players down in front of the screen, say "pick one of these" and then keep hitting "next" until we're done the levelup, hit print, and that's all she wrote.
However, evaluating this as a programmer, I can see a few issues. The use of .net is puzzling. .net? Really? .net? You guys chose the one platform which limits you to windows only?
There's no default output to PDF, but this is easily rectified.
I'm personally wishing that the program was a web-app. Maybe it's because I'm a Ruby on Rails developer, but I can't think of a single good reason to make this an offline/downloadable program except for ensuring the ability to run it without internet. That hardly seems an issue to me. It might be to other people.
The real thing that I'm finding is that the subscription is cannibalizing my desire to buy books. Buying books is expensive enough, and I'm already regretting the rush to get the paper copies considering how rapidly they got erattaed. Even DMG page 42 got a re-write!
The character builder! I'm paying for my DDI subscription anyway, but my year-old Macbook is powerful enough to parallelize windows XP and run the character builder, so yay. (Note to other mac users, make sure you have at least 2 gigs of ram before you try this.)
Suddenly, my copy of Martial Power has no purpose except to give my players something to flip through while they're waiting for their turn at the computer. There's -nothing- which isn't replicated in some form or another in the character builder, except maybe for for the pictures, and those end up on the web site half the time anyway!
Divine power and Arcane power had better have crunchy rules instead of just power, feat, and item selections, or I'm not going to see the point.
Like most things about 4e, the character builder shows bold promise and excellent design, but the idea needs refinement. Nevertheless, I currently find it an excellent and compelling reason for anyone to sign up for an account, especially if you're a GM with friends who hate number crunching.
Good write up otherwise.
As a student of IS development and future programmer I don't find the choice of .NET to be baffling at all. It is a great development platform catering to the largest OS installed base currently available. It is a logical choice in that sense. It gives them a great tool to work with as Visual Studio does help with productivity. And with Windows you have a large potential customer base. I fully understand the frustrations that come with not having a client for every platform on the market, but in terms of market share and from a productivity standpoint, Windows makes sense. Porting the app to ASP.NET will probably also go rather fast if they ever decide on making it a web app (which I think would be a great idea).
Good write up otherwise.
Err you might like Net, it might even be good in your opinion.
I have a Windows OS and I do not even know if I have .Net, I do know I have DirectX6 hiding on my system.
The 3.5 Net clearly is not all Window system, clearly does not follow W3C founding principle of backward compatibility. Clearly denies a sizable minority of any access to using the application.
It clearly works for you and might work for 80 percent of the people connected to the internet, however I can not clearly see any advantage of telling 20 percent are not allowed unless they buy a specific OS that can run a specific application (NET).
I'm pretty sure that for the cost (currently) of 2 books (3 from Amazon) a year is worth it. For everyone who continues to resist (it's futile, remember) based on subscription cost, think of what you spend on rule books that see little or no actual use "in game". That's a way to pay for your sub.
Maybe you can't take the CB with you everywhere you can take a book but it makes carrying your entire library of D&D books a lot lighter (depending on the weight of your PC).
Err you might like Net, it might even be good in your opinion.
I have a Windows OS and I do not even know if I have .Net, I do know I have DirectX6 hiding on my system.
The 3.5 Net clearly is not all Window system, clearly does not follow W3C founding principle of backward compatibility. Clearly denies a sizable minority of any access to using the application.
It clearly works for you and might work for 80 percent of the people connected to the internet, however I can not clearly see any advantage of telling 20 percent are not allowed unless they buy a specific OS that can run a specific application (NET).
If you have Win XP or Vista you are able to install .NET 3.5 and run applications that are dependant on it. If you have DirectX 6, I suspect you are probably running Win98 or ME, which is, to be honest, very old OS's. As I said, I fully understand the frustrations felt by those that don't have access to a Windows environment, but again, from a businesses standpoint I can understand why the decision was made. It isn't ideal, and the major drawback with .NET is that it currently only caters to Windows. There are other implementations of it for other platforms (such as Mono which is up to .NET 2.0 if I remember correctly).
I would venture a guess and say that WotC took the decision to target the Windows platform primarily because they don't have the same sort of resources that a fully fledged software company has. They chose the path that would give them the largest possible market with the least amount of trouble. In the future I hope they implement a more widely accessible application, since I think everyone would benefit from that.
Oh, and W3C is primarily working on web standards, so WotC really wouldn't benefit much from adhering to their guidelines unless they were making a web-app.
Oh, and W3C is primarily working on web standards, so WotC really wouldn't benefit much from adhering to their guidelines unless they were making a web-app.
The promised jewel "When it is ready" will be a web interface (which requires NET 3.5 and DirectX9). So the final product should meet W3C standards of accessibility. Of course over the years I have watched W3C endorse things that does not work with HTML 4.X.
These forums hardly come close to meeting them (W3C) and if this is not the web, nothing is.
Should move on, though will admit I have an older system, but also note WotC indicated that they decided to use NET because they already owned it (it appears they thought it would be quicker that way). They also did indicate that indeed if things went well they would cross platform one way or another.
They also did indicate that indeed if things went well they would cross platform one way or another.
Which is what I hope for too.
I love that cb gives you access to all the supplements, but I also know for a fact that my players will stop buying books. I would too, if I didn't have the book addiction.
Also, take a look at Open Grave. There are quite a few things in there that won't be in the compendium. The Lairs in particular caught my eye. Dungeon Delve is another one that won't have a lot of info in the Compendium, so i wouldn't be too concerned.
WotC has already taken the magazines away from dead-tree publishing. They may someday do the same with the rule books as well.
I would venture a guess and say that WotC took the decision to target the Windows platform primarily because they don't have the same sort of resources that a fully fledged software company has. They chose the path that would give them the largest possible market with the least amount of trouble. In the future I hope they implement a more widely accessible application, since I think everyone would benefit from that.
well, actually they chose the platform where they could most easily build eyecatchers with middle-class programmers. wotc software is far from top notch - the CB is a proof of that. inspired, yes. practical - partially, but mostly due to the fact that they have all the data, not to the particular usability of the builder (lots of things are at strange places - really not very intuitive to find lots of your options)
the main thing that irks me is the usage of .net 3.5 - they could have easily stayed 2.0 compatible, i believe there is not much in there that they'd really need. by staying 2.0 compatible,. they could have had 98% of people who can install the required framework or some open source port of it, instead of like 70...
If the company can generate the same cash flow with fewer physical products, I don't see this being a bad thing. The downside comes if you have a loss of data or discontinue service (I didn't play for quite a while but my books on the shelf were still perfectly good) and only want to jump back in a couple of weeks out of the year.
I suppose there will always be two sides of the problem but for now I can enjoy the CB and not feel the need to buy a bunch of books that will be collecting dust two weeks after purchase.
well, actually they chose the platform where they could most easily build eyecatchers with middle-class programmers. wotc software is far from top notch - the CB is a proof of that. inspired, yes. practical - partially, but mostly due to the fact that they have all the data, not to the particular usability of the builder (lots of things are at strange places - really not very intuitive to find lots of your options)
the main thing that irks me is the usage of .net 3.5 - they could have easily stayed 2.0 compatible, i believe there is not much in there that they'd really need. by staying 2.0 compatible,. they could have had 98% of people who can install the required framework or some open source port of it, instead of like 70...
As to your first paragraph, I agree to some extent. The usability aspects could be improved. I doubt employing "upper-class" programmer would solve that issue though. Usability experts might, but that is a whole other discussion I feel.
Second paragraph; is Windows versions older than XP really that common? A genuine question, because it is quite baffling really. Win 98 is old and ME wasn't, from what I understand, very common even back when it was launched.
Again I feel the need to re-iterate that I agree that it would have been wonderful with a cross-platform application that could reach every D&D fan out there. I'm just saying that I fully understand why they chose the path they did. It might not have panned out like they wanted, but I understand the reasoning. That is all.
Again I feel the need to re-iterate that I agree that it would have been wonderful with a cross-platform application that could reach every D&D fan out there. I'm just saying that I fully understand why they chose the path they did. It might not have panned out like they wanted, but I understand the reasoning. That is all.
it's not just win98 and ME. it's windows 2000, macos, all linux - while e.g. win2k can run .net in general, it can't do so with 3.5. While macosx and linux have options to run windows emulation in general, they can run and install mono natively, which is at the current stages of development compatible to .net 2.0
One thing i did notice was missing only a minor thing so far, is the RITUAL from the AV called TRANSFER ENCHANTMENT, couldnt find that when adding rituals to my book...
GREAT JOB ALL ROUND