D&D Tomb of Annihilation is now available

[Full Bleed]

Any help spreading the word across various RPG communities would be greatly appreciated. Since the price is only 41% of the price it would normally be, we really hope to make up for it in total volume of sales. The TOA module is the same price as it is on DNDBeyond and less than half the price of Roll20's version. It's only a third of the price if you get it as part of a bundle.

Sales have been very brisk so far, but we just have a lot of ground to make up in order to show WOTC that the pricing is "correct" at this level.

Interesting dilemma. If you don't cover the expected ground I hope some other factors are considered before they press for price increases...

If sales don't hit the numbers anticipated, you have to wonder if the problem isn't with the pricing but with the product (i.e. not *everyone* wants to run an adventure that is a retread of some classic adventures) or if enhanced competition could be adding some new pressure (isn't this the first major WotC release since the official Paizo product releases started happening?)

[Grimlore]

Hi, I just grabbed ToA and am loving what I see so far, except for the low resolution of the Player's Battlemaps.

I use FG at the table, with the players maps displayed on a horizontally mounted HDTV at full size (1 inch to 1 inch), which I realise makes my usage somewhat of an edge-case, but, with FG providing almost everything for face to face, table-top play that people are clamouring for on the DnDBeyond forums (apart from its, in my opinion, far superior UI), it's possibly an edge case that would be worth embracing?

With previous adventures I've happily spent the extra to buy hi-resolution versions of maps from the artists themselves and then down converted them to a very workable size, that is still much higher resolution than the player maps provided in FG. Unfortunately it seems that the map artist for ToA is unable to make available the high resolution versions of the maps until early December, for contractual reasons, so at this point it looks like I'll have to wait that long to DM the adventure at my table.

I realise that there is concern about bandwidth, file sizes etc. and that the smaller footprint is probably better for most users, but for those of us who would like higher resolution options (maybe just 100ppi) is this something that can be looked into?

Cheers, and thanks for all your work. S.G.

Honestly, I dont think wanting high resolution battle maps is an edge case any longer. Personally, I think the default module download should be much higher resolution and if you want a smaller download size (and thus a lower resolution), that should be an optional download. Some of the published WotC module battle maps are very low resolution - technology today can certainly allow us to increase the standard set years ago.

[Nylanfs]

Hi, I just grabbed ToA and am loving what I see so far, except for the low resolution of the Player's Battlemaps.

I use FG at the table, with the players maps displayed on a horizontally mounted HDTV at full size (1 inch to 1 inch), which I realise makes my usage somewhat of an edge-case, but, with FG providing almost everything for face to face, table-top play that people are clamouring for on the DnDBeyond forums (apart from its, in my opinion, far superior UI), it's possibly an edge case that would be worth embracing?

With previous adventures I've happily spent the extra to buy hi-resolution versions of maps from the artists themselves and then down converted them to a very workable size, that is still much higher resolution than the player maps provided in FG. Unfortunately it seems that the map artist for ToA is unable to make available the high resolution versions of the maps until early December, for contractual reasons, so at this point it looks like I'll have to wait that long to DM the adventure at my table.

I realise that there is concern about bandwidth, file sizes etc. and that the smaller footprint is probably better for most users, but for those of us who would like higher resolution options (maybe just 100ppi) is this something that can be looked into?

Cheers, and thanks for all your work. S.G.

Welcome to the forums and FG community Ludd, Trenloe(?) has an extension inthe main forums for sizing maps to monitors.

[Myrdin Potter]

I looked at digital pricing.

Fantasy Grounds, with the complete the bundle pricing, is the least expensive. Otherwise, same as D&D Beyond (we all know different functionality).

The "free" Roll20 is $50 or twice the price.

I posted the price comparison here (you need to belong to the Facebook 5e group).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/DnD5...7841946726647/

[ddavison]

Yeah, you can essentially get the TOA module plus the PHB module for FG for the same price as just TOA on Roll20. That is something not available for Roll20 at the moment. When you look to add the DMG or Volo's Guide, it shifts even further. We also feature some functionality which is unique to Fantasy Grounds, such as the Story Templates, Random Treasure generation (for DMG), character leveling (PHB), etc.

[Zacchaeus]

I'm hesitant to enter into this debate once again but the constraint is that maps be kept to a resolution of less than 2048x2048 and be less than 1Mb in size - the resolution being more acute than the size. All of the maps in ToA are the best compromise that I could make given those constraints.

[Myrdin Potter]

You don't even have access to the super hi resolution files from the artist anyways, right?

I have not found much difference in the client for the size of the file (except upload/download time) but the pixel count seems to be key.

[RocketDad]

The maps look great to me. Beats hand drawn on graph paper all day!!! I have only recently come into the FG community and started using the product. I have been able to use this to reconnect with people I grew up with 30 years ago and play some good ole DnD. Please keep up the good work, I am sure there are a lot of us out there that are fully satisfied and just don't speak up about it.

[Ludd_G]

I'm hesitant to enter into this debate once again but the constraint is that maps be kept to a resolution of less than 2048x2048 and be less than 1Mb in size - the resolution being more acute than the size. All of the maps in ToA are the best compromise that I could make given those constraints.

Hi Zacchaeus, I was just wondering where this constraint is being mandated from? Is it self imposed for technical reasons? Is it coming from WotC? I'm not saying these shouldn't be the standard map sizes, but for those of us with different usage patterns and with setups that we know can handle it, it'd be nice to have some higher resolution options?

Just as an example I used a map of Cragmaw Castle downsized from Mike Schley's high res version that was 2.09MB and 5510 x 5510 pixels @ 100ppi and it ran flawlessly for 2 long sessions, and looked great on the screen (with miniatures aplenty!). We're going to be hitting the 905KB, 3724 X 5078 pixel (again @ 100ppi) map of Wave Echo Cave next and again that has created no issues through my prep and play.

LMoP Session (3).jpg

I do really appreciate your engagement, and as this seems to keep coming up maybe a solution could be found that works for us all?

Cheers, Ludd

[Myrdin Potter]

The issue on map size is what is shared and what is going on. If your client does not crash and you are not supporting other players in server mode and you do not have to worry about their machines, you can often get away with bigger and nicer maps.

I think the WoTC artists have their own and higher versions that they sell for extra and do not come with any of the other digital versions being sold.

From what I can see so far, they did a good job with the maps provided but if you can get away with it, there are better maps available from the artists.