D&D (2024) Review of 1D &D VTT

[Oofta]

Yeah. That can be especially tricky if you start working with sight lines on the map. Getting the sight lines on different, overlapping maps (if you want to do a multi-story location) is honestly more trouble than it's worth. Much better to just have the different levels on the same "map" and then jump from section to section, if you follow what I mean.

You could do it if the sight perspectives are only from that of an individual, but that has it's own issues. It kind of depends what kind of experience you want, do you just want a digital tabletop which seems like what they're going for, or keep things hidden unless you can see it. Keeping things hidden from the players was one of the few advantages of Roll20 and it was kind of cool to literally keep them in the dark. I think at least at first they're going for the digital tabletop.

But even then there are issues because the DM needs to see everything. Line of sight works okay at the individual player level but it's much more difficult if the DM needs to track multiple minis for both monsters and PCs on multiple levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah. That can be especially tricky if you start working with sight lines on the map. Getting the sight lines on different, overlapping maps (if you want to do a multi-story location) is honestly more trouble than it's worth. Much better to just have the different levels on the same "map" and then jump from section to section, if you follow what I mean.

Nah it's pretty easy in a 3d vtt. I use one that runs in unity (arkenforge) & can even toggle if lower levels are visible or not. It's just a matter of clicking the level up/down button or telling it to move a token up/down a level as appropriate.


Ime the bigger hurdle tends to be excessive ranges and lack of useful concealment/soft cover rules to cover for circumstance of the moment & the fact that the map can only be so detailed.

 

[MNblockhead]

Of course, if you turn off the automation then you'll have to do everything by hand instead. Many groups will decide that having the automation features available is more valuable than playing with their preferred house rules, so end up running RAW.

The ideal would be a VTT with automation that can be extended with plugins and mods so that dedicated users can make it work exactly like they want it to.

Which is what I originally loved about Foundry. But the issue with Foundry is that, out-of-the-box, there is very little automation in most of the game systems I've used or tested and with 5e, while there is a wealth of community mods, I just got mod fatique and gave up on trying to keep everything updated, troubleshoot conflicts, and start over after major core upgrades--only to have inconsistent automation. While I'm all for customization and extensibility, I really hope they focus first on excellent support of RAW.

 

[Clint_L]

WotC is probably paying 20 times more for their VTT than the competition, and that is a conservative estimate. So I’d expect features others do not have, mostly in the form of polish (they are not the first 3d vtt, but it is rare still), but I would not expect any glaring gaps.

They might not support every single feature any other vtt has, and them not having the same priorities as others is trivially true (they prioritize D&D), but I would not expect any missing big features, or neglect of one area (eg support for houserules) altogether.

We know for sure that it will be integrated with DnDBeyond. I have not had a problem both using DnDBeyond and using house rules.

Of course, there will be limits - no VTT will be able to visually incorporate everything a DM can imagine. So, if you have a house rule that drastically alters a spell effect or something, the visual elements of that aren't going to be reflected in any VTT. But, again, that's no different than using physical media.

Some things will always need theatre of the mind.