FoundryVTT

280 readers

1 users here now

An alternative to the r/FoundryVTT subreddit.

Discussion about the virtual tabletop Foundry. This is an UNOFFICIAL, authorized, Fan-operated community.

For Official Foundry support, join the Discord server.

Other FoundryVTT Sites:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What did you prioritize on the V12 Patreon poll, and why? (self.foundryvtt)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jasparagus to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My top two ended up being measured templates and placeable items. The former because of how valuable I think it is to have spell auras automatically appear (without having to make a macro using Token Auras). The latter was because I often want to put items on the map for players, but have to make a journal container for them, which is decently annoying.

I also threw terrain and cover in there, because it's a little annoying to determine, and I'm starting to play more PF2e, and that's a really cool aspect of that system.

Curious to hear about others' use cases and priorities, or what workarounds they use for the issues I mentioned above.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PriorProject 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Here's the proposed feature list for anyone that missed it: https://foundryvtt.com/article/v12-patreon-vote/

I'm not a Patreon voter, but my take is that I'm much more interested in the 11.5 stuff than the 12 stuff. My experience is that the parts of Foundry that frustrate me are WAY disproportionately oriented around module management... Running the game is already pretty great. The module-compatibility-checker and built-in backups seem welcome additions on this front. Though I think it hasn't gone far enough until the compatibility checker is driven by user-compatibility reports, similar to https://appdb.winehq.org/ . What we need to see from the version-checker is the summary of user reports for a given module/Foundry version pair. I'm hopeful that they'll improve the compatibility checker in future releases, but I'd love to see them jump straight to a proper user-report-driven compatibility db.

For the 12 features, I'm most excited about...

(5), manual fog-of-war. This solves so many visibility frustrations when calculated vision causes some problem.
(6), placeable items. Though without the stretch goal of bundles I find it of limited use. Fantasy Grounds has item parcels that provide similar functionality, and they made prepping and distributing loot a breeze.

I'm cool with additional media features and will use them occasionally, but Foundry is already beyond the limits of the "production values" I can support for my game. Using all the existing lighting, sound, and media features overwhelms my prep time. After having experimented with a few high-production set pieces (that the players and I really enjoyed), I'm scaling back to rely most on basic maps/tokens and imagination. This streamlines the media side of my prep a lot and is a lot more sustainable for me as a GM. I'll still do big productions occasionally, but a few times a year as a memorable event. And Foundry provides 95% of what I want for that already.

[–] Ekpu 4 points 1 year ago

I am on the same side regarding the "production values". As much as i like nice features, in the end I have limited prep time. If I can spare prep time though usability features I would rather use it to prep more content than to use more features. This also extends to the actual play session. If there are too many features I often have to think about how to use them and that is distracting during the session.

Therefore I like the improved fog of war and I like the scene types.

load more comments (3 replies)