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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 6658891" data-attributes="member: 20564">Here's a bit of a sideways review.I was in a long running 4e campaign using MapTools.  It was good, we handled all mechanics outside of it.  Players who used both Roll20 and MapTools said Roll20 was superior.  Again, this was for a game where we handled mechanics outside the system.I am recently in a FG game, where the GM runs a server and purchased everything and we don't have to spend a dime.  It's a bit clunkier to use as a player than MapTools, and it's horribly in-efficient in use of real estate - I had it stretched across 1 + 2/3 monitors (that last 1/3 was for skype video) and still didn't have enough space.  Also it feels like a new product that didn't have a lot of things and still has simple errors (like Oath of Vengance channel divinity test under Oath of Ancients).  All of that said, it seemed remarkably easy for the DM to add in things (effects or rage and reckless attack, paladin smites damage, etc.), and the system was pretty good at automating 90% of the bookkeeping during combat.  That part was pretty impressive.So, as a pure battle map, dice roller and chat MapTools beats FG due to better interface and less clunky, and MapTools seems inferior to Roll20.  But FG has a good amount of handling the mechanics and looks like it can easily be expanded for more which gives it a lot of potential.  It could also easily show "hand-out" images and the like.  When FG gets more mature in handling of rules plus improves the inefficient use of space and all the swapping back and forth between pages (skills and actions on PC, combat tracker, party tracker, combat map) it'll be very impressive.</blockquote>

Verification