I'm a big fan of Above VTT, but Roll20 does things that can't be done on AboveVTT. Same is true of Foundry. Insulting anyone who isn't 100% all in on AboveVTT sounds like something a fanboi would do.
What a colossal waste of time/money. AboveVTT has this and much, much more that is not locked behind a paywall. Stop recreating the wheel.
They are not recreating the wheel, they are trying to generate more revenue. I look forward to having WotC's version of AboveVTT but one that doesn't break whenever there is an update pushed.
Most of the breaking is probably my fault lol. DDB rarely pushes updates that break above (at least for the past while). I'm certainly bias having contributed to AboveVTT quite a bit but even I would like to see DDBs map tool catch up to AboveVTT and the other bigger VTTs. I don't know what their plans are past their current roadmap.
Even if it doesn't end up being the tool for me I'm glad its here and to see things being worked on. For now I'm going to stick to other tools since it's pretty sparse on features (ofc given it's alpha that makes sense) - a little more hopeful when it comes to the future of ddb though. I do also like to see that this option is going to be available along side their other planned 3D VTT.
LOL! I haven't used it in over a year. I believe when I did, my table was grumbling that DDB devs were deliberately tweaking things to make it not work as intended. One of my players swears by it still and uses it for any game he DMs (he hasn't DMd in a long time though), but we just use Discord and Owlbear at the moment. I agree that Maps is a welcome addition though. Just the other day I was asking myself whether the 'early access to all tools' should still be listed on the Master Tier perk list.
I feel like its a really scummy thing to put the maps behind Phandelver and below instead of having it be available both in lost mines of phandelver and phandelver and below. You called it starterset but you do not make it accessible on maps and put it behind a second paywall (first the master tier subscription and then the adventure).
I feel like its a really scummy thing to put the maps behind Phandelver and below instead of having it be available both in lost mines of phandelver and phandelver and below. You called it starterset but you do not make it accessible on maps and put it behind a second paywall (first the master tier subscription and then the adventure).
It's not "behind" Phandelver and Below. Maps is launching with a limited selection of the most recent books that include maps. Future releases will support maps from release and older titles, including Lost Mine of Phandelver, will be backfilled over time.
Who asked for maps? This can not be the number 1 or even the top 100th thing asked for.
Before it was depreciated, D&D Beyond had a zendesk portal where users could suggest and vote on features for the site. An integrated VTT/digital map tool was the number one requested feature by a wide margin (like 1.2 times the number of votes of the next highest feature) for the entirety of the time that feedback portal was active. I have been active on D&D Beyond since day one and I can assure you, maps is the most requested feature with the only thing coming close being full class homebrew.
So to answer your questions:
Literally hundreds of people, as in a non-trivial percentage of the userbase
Yes, it can. Number 1 requested feature over the lifetime of DDB
I wonder how requests for a maps feature would compare in number to requests to finish features currently in alpha (or beta) like the combat tracker and encounter manager. I have no confidence whatsoever that maps will ever leave beta, and even if I did, I would have preferred a finished combat tracker, an improved homebrew system, and refined character sheet.
I can't think of a VTT that lacks a combat tracker, with the notable exception of Maps, which isn't advertised as a full VTT. The encounter builder is working fairy good and is available to free accounts. Removing the "beta" label doesn't do much for me. Adding a condition and HP tradker to the encounter manager would be welcome, as would connecting it to tokens and initiative trackers. But both of those things are much more difficult when trying to work with a dozen different VTTs. The creation of Maps could make integration easier as DDB would only be responsible for making it work with Maps. Then the other VTTs can choose to integrate it through Beyond 20, or not mesh it to their system.
By far my favorite thing about Maps is having access to digital player maps for the modules I buy in the future. I can then upload the map to my favorite VTT and be ready to go, rather than scour the internet for third party generated maps that might bend copyright law, or not really fit the scenario described in the module being played.
If DBB asked me to choose option, I would go with option two.
1. Invest resources into a VTT while not fixing any current problems or adding other high value features
2. Fix the various new abilities added over the past half decade that were done before the book was released and add many other cool features that work with existing VTTs, such as releasing digital map packs for all existing a future modules.
But it doesn't have to be an either or question. WotC has the cash and profits to develop both at the same time. Their failures in one area don't prevent success in another. That said I have doubts about their full VTT and much bigger reservations about One D&D. If WotC somehow destroys 5e I can always go to a competitor or return to 4e which has an incredibly balanced system optimized for online play.
Personally I have zero interest in a 3D unreal engine VTT, but I would potentially switch to Maps from Roll20/Foundry if it had the same features available. I need a high level of customization, and it's a lot easier to make a custom token or map than it is a custom blender model for creatures or environments that actually looks good.
Personally I have zero interest in a 3D unreal engine VTT, but I would potentially switch to Maps from Roll20/Foundry if it had the same features available. I need a high level of customization, and it's a lot easier to make a custom token or map than it is a custom blender model for creatures or environments that actually looks good.
Same. While I am happy with Foundry and tolerant of Roll20, if there was another option (I tried AboveVTT and it was nice but a bit unstable for us) that comes out of Maps and is good then I'd definitely look at it.
There is almost nothing that would make me want to use the Unreal engine VTT, and I can't imagine how hard it would to be to do anything custom.
One issue I would have with switching to Maps though from Foundry (assuming Maps becomes a full fledged VTT) is the ability to get 3rd party content. If it was a closed system where I can only have DDB content I'd lose interest. I like using bestiaries from Kobold Press and can access that content on FoundryVTT. I even can easily import stat blocks from PDF there (giving me access to MCDM Flee Mortals stat blocks with only a little extra work).
The Homebrew monster creator is very nice and easy to use. That said, it is time consuming to port 3rd party monsters in the DBB. I'm surprised there isn't more desire for added monsters. Most prior editions had at least a second monster manual in the first 5 years or so of a new edition. I would have brought in some of the most popular third party monster manuals before things like Acquisitions.
I see major opportunities for taking a cut of profits from selling third party content. Such profits are low cost high reward options. Many internet companies have made a fortune by being the platform and letting others invest the time, money, and resources to develop content. While I don't see D&D embracing that path under WotC, selling the most popular third party content is an easy way to help the bottom line for WotC without having to financially invest in projects that are likely to have a low profit margin.
DM's Guild was a great idea to give fans a chance to be creators and develop a reputation for quality. DDB could fully embrace that model, but I think they will probably keep a much stronger level of control over the content. Having a minimum threshold of sales to be invited to sell your content through DDB makes sense from a quality contral standpoint while still allowing a profitable way to give players more of what they want.
Any move in this direction should be done with the release of tools that let the DM easily set restrictions on allowed content when they create a campaign, as third party content is often not balanced well against existing WotC content.
Most prior editions had at least a second monster manual in the first 5 years or so of a new edition.
Pretty sure Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016) and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes (2018) count as monster manuals. They did include some non-monster content (which was stripped when the monsters were reprinted in Monsters of the Multiverse) but they were still primarily monster manuals.
The Homebrew monster creator is very nice and easy to use. That said, it is time consuming to port 3rd party monsters in the DBB. I'm surprised there isn't more desire for added monsters. Most prior editions had at least a second monster manual in the first 5 years or so of a new edition. I would have brought in some of the most popular third party monster manuals before things like Acquisitions.
I see major opportunities for taking a cut of profits from selling third party content. Such profits are low cost high reward options. Many internet companies have made a fortune by being the platform and letting others invest the time, money, and resources to develop content. While I don't see D&D embracing that path under WotC, selling the most popular third party content is an easy way to help the bottom line for WotC without having to financially invest in projects that are likely to have a low profit margin.
DM's Guild was a great idea to give fans a chance to be creators and develop a reputation for quality. DDB could fully embrace that model, but I think they will probably keep a much stronger level of control over the content. Having a minimum threshold of sales to be invited to sell your content through DDB makes sense from a quality contral standpoint while still allowing a profitable way to give players more of what they want.
Any move in this direction should be done with the release of tools that let the DM easily set restrictions on allowed content when they create a campaign, as third party content is often not balanced well against existing WotC content.
One of my favorite foundry modules lets you copy/paste a monster stat description and as long as it is in the "standard" format it will create a stat block for you (and it is darn good at getting it right). Really opens up options for making homebrew or borrowing content from other creators (published or not).
I didn't know about that foundry feature. Thanks for sharing.
I almost exclusively use monsters I created. DDB is very welcoming with the ability to create monsters from scratch or as variations of existing creatures. It is one of the features that encourages me to spend and use within DDB. However, copying third party content into my homebrew collection creates zero direct revenue for WotC. As a DM I would be more tempted to buy third party monsters from reputable sources than modules, although the marketing team at WotC has a great amount of confidence that I am the exception not the rule, or else we would see more monsters and fewer modules.
I didn't know about that foundry feature. Thanks for sharing.
I almost exclusively use monsters I created. DDB is very welcoming with the ability to create monsters from scratch or as variations of existing creatures. It is one of the features that encourages me to spend and use within DDB. However, copying third party content into my homebrew collection creates zero direct revenue for WotC. As a DM I would be more tempted to buy third party monsters from reputable sources than modules, although the marketing team at WotC has a great amount of confidence that I am the exception not the rule, or else we would see more monsters and fewer modules.
The coolest thing would be if you could join a session through the VTT or the Virtual Maps feature and still play in the same game. Mix and match clients so that some could get the whole animated VTT experience with a GPU and others would just see the simplified 2D top-down map view. If those synchronize at all it would be amazing.
I love that idea, as some computers struggle with 2D VTT options. But I suspect the coding required would be a significant issue, as I expect the full Unreal VTT will have elevation built into the system. That probably would not easily translate to a 2D map, especially when it is something the DM created, rather than a professionally generated map.
I admit I am "unreasonably" excited about the maps feature. I love Foundry, but I'm very much looking forward to an integrated experience. Having built games in Unreal, I have no interest in slowing down my campaign dev by having to generate tons of 3D assets. Tokens are fine by me.
It would be good to get some updates, as it doesn't appear any new features have been released.
It would be good to get some updates, as it doesn't appear any new features have been released.
It's in beta. The odds are extremely high that they put it out there like this to see how much interest there was (I'm thrilled). Now, they have to figure out a project budget, timelines, etc.
The fact that they are adding more content (maps) to Maps is a great sign.
Patience is the order of the day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a big fan of Above VTT, but Roll20 does things that can't be done on AboveVTT. Same is true of Foundry. Insulting anyone who isn't 100% all in on AboveVTT sounds like something a fanboi would do.
The virtue of competition is that it forces everyone to get better.
LOL! I haven't used it in over a year. I believe when I did, my table was grumbling that DDB devs were deliberately tweaking things to make it not work as intended. One of my players swears by it still and uses it for any game he DMs (he hasn't DMd in a long time though), but we just use Discord and Owlbear at the moment. I agree that Maps is a welcome addition though. Just the other day I was asking myself whether the 'early access to all tools' should still be listed on the Master Tier perk list.
[REDACTED]
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I feel like its a really scummy thing to put the maps behind Phandelver and below instead of having it be available both in lost mines of phandelver and phandelver and below.
You called it starterset but you do not make it accessible on maps and put it behind a second paywall (first the master tier subscription and then the adventure).
It's not "behind" Phandelver and Below. Maps is launching with a limited selection of the most recent books that include maps. Future releases will support maps from release and older titles, including Lost Mine of Phandelver, will be backfilled over time.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Before it was depreciated, D&D Beyond had a zendesk portal where users could suggest and vote on features for the site. An integrated VTT/digital map tool was the number one requested feature by a wide margin (like 1.2 times the number of votes of the next highest feature) for the entirety of the time that feedback portal was active. I have been active on D&D Beyond since day one and I can assure you, maps is the most requested feature with the only thing coming close being full class homebrew.
So to answer your questions:
Edit: Woo, thank you wayback machine:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I wonder how requests for a maps feature would compare in number to requests to finish features currently in alpha (or beta) like the combat tracker and encounter manager. I have no confidence whatsoever that maps will ever leave beta, and even if I did, I would have preferred a finished combat tracker, an improved homebrew system, and refined character sheet.
I can't think of a VTT that lacks a combat tracker, with the notable exception of Maps, which isn't advertised as a full VTT. The encounter builder is working fairy good and is available to free accounts. Removing the "beta" label doesn't do much for me. Adding a condition and HP tradker to the encounter manager would be welcome, as would connecting it to tokens and initiative trackers. But both of those things are much more difficult when trying to work with a dozen different VTTs. The creation of Maps could make integration easier as DDB would only be responsible for making it work with Maps. Then the other VTTs can choose to integrate it through Beyond 20, or not mesh it to their system.
By far my favorite thing about Maps is having access to digital player maps for the modules I buy in the future. I can then upload the map to my favorite VTT and be ready to go, rather than scour the internet for third party generated maps that might bend copyright law, or not really fit the scenario described in the module being played.
If DBB asked me to choose option, I would go with option two.
1. Invest resources into a VTT while not fixing any current problems or adding other high value features
2. Fix the various new abilities added over the past half decade that were done before the book was released and add many other cool features that work with existing VTTs, such as releasing digital map packs for all existing a future modules.
But it doesn't have to be an either or question. WotC has the cash and profits to develop both at the same time. Their failures in one area don't prevent success in another. That said I have doubts about their full VTT and much bigger reservations about One D&D. If WotC somehow destroys 5e I can always go to a competitor or return to 4e which has an incredibly balanced system optimized for online play.
Personally I have zero interest in a 3D unreal engine VTT, but I would potentially switch to Maps from Roll20/Foundry if it had the same features available. I need a high level of customization, and it's a lot easier to make a custom token or map than it is a custom blender model for creatures or environments that actually looks good.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Same. While I am happy with Foundry and tolerant of Roll20, if there was another option (I tried AboveVTT and it was nice but a bit unstable for us) that comes out of Maps and is good then I'd definitely look at it.
There is almost nothing that would make me want to use the Unreal engine VTT, and I can't imagine how hard it would to be to do anything custom.
One issue I would have with switching to Maps though from Foundry (assuming Maps becomes a full fledged VTT) is the ability to get 3rd party content. If it was a closed system where I can only have DDB content I'd lose interest. I like using bestiaries from Kobold Press and can access that content on FoundryVTT. I even can easily import stat blocks from PDF there (giving me access to MCDM Flee Mortals stat blocks with only a little extra work).
The Homebrew monster creator is very nice and easy to use. That said, it is time consuming to port 3rd party monsters in the DBB. I'm surprised there isn't more desire for added monsters. Most prior editions had at least a second monster manual in the first 5 years or so of a new edition. I would have brought in some of the most popular third party monster manuals before things like Acquisitions.
I see major opportunities for taking a cut of profits from selling third party content. Such profits are low cost high reward options. Many internet companies have made a fortune by being the platform and letting others invest the time, money, and resources to develop content. While I don't see D&D embracing that path under WotC, selling the most popular third party content is an easy way to help the bottom line for WotC without having to financially invest in projects that are likely to have a low profit margin.
DM's Guild was a great idea to give fans a chance to be creators and develop a reputation for quality. DDB could fully embrace that model, but I think they will probably keep a much stronger level of control over the content. Having a minimum threshold of sales to be invited to sell your content through DDB makes sense from a quality contral standpoint while still allowing a profitable way to give players more of what they want.
Any move in this direction should be done with the release of tools that let the DM easily set restrictions on allowed content when they create a campaign, as third party content is often not balanced well against existing WotC content.
Pretty sure Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016) and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes (2018) count as monster manuals. They did include some non-monster content (which was stripped when the monsters were reprinted in Monsters of the Multiverse) but they were still primarily monster manuals.
One of my favorite foundry modules lets you copy/paste a monster stat description and as long as it is in the "standard" format it will create a stat block for you (and it is darn good at getting it right). Really opens up options for making homebrew or borrowing content from other creators (published or not).
I didn't know about that foundry feature. Thanks for sharing.
I almost exclusively use monsters I created. DDB is very welcoming with the ability to create monsters from scratch or as variations of existing creatures. It is one of the features that encourages me to spend and use within DDB. However, copying third party content into my homebrew collection creates zero direct revenue for WotC. As a DM I would be more tempted to buy third party monsters from reputable sources than modules, although the marketing team at WotC has a great amount of confidence that I am the exception not the rule, or else we would see more monsters and fewer modules.
Yeah it is a pretty handy module: https://foundryvtt.com/packages/5e-statblock-importer
The coolest thing would be if you could join a session through the VTT or the Virtual Maps feature and still play in the same game. Mix and match clients so that some could get the whole animated VTT experience with a GPU and others would just see the simplified 2D top-down map view. If those synchronize at all it would be amazing.
I love that idea, as some computers struggle with 2D VTT options. But I suspect the coding required would be a significant issue, as I expect the full Unreal VTT will have elevation built into the system. That probably would not easily translate to a 2D map, especially when it is something the DM created, rather than a professionally generated map.
I admit I am "unreasonably" excited about the maps feature. I love Foundry, but I'm very much looking forward to an integrated experience. Having built games in Unreal, I have no interest in slowing down my campaign dev by having to generate tons of 3D assets. Tokens are fine by me.
It would be good to get some updates, as it doesn't appear any new features have been released.
~~~
May All Your Sequences Converge
It's in beta. The odds are extremely high that they put it out there like this to see how much interest there was (I'm thrilled). Now, they have to figure out a project budget, timelines, etc.
The fact that they are adding more content (maps) to Maps is a great sign.
Patience is the order of the day.