Tokens, best technical size?

[Blacky]

Question for moon:

With 3.0.0, is there a specific token size better than another?

For example, is the power of 2's size (16px, 32px, 64px, 128px, etc.) still better handled by FG (if it was the case, maybe it's urban legend)?

For example, apart from zoom capability and weight and such, would 64px token be better than 59px token?

[Trenloe]

I think the base 2 sizes were a preference from a lot of users - I don't think it is based in anything that works better with FG. Base 2 sizing hits a slight problem with the 64 -> 128 -> 256 progression with d20 based games whose huge size is 3 times that of a medium creature - the size should be 192. Not a major issue, just needs to be taken into account.

To muddy the water a bit - in 3.0 the CoreRPG portrait_token_mask.png file is 46x46 - so this is the size that PC tokens are created if the portrait is dragged onto the token icon in the character sheet. From this, to keep all tokens in the same size shouldn't we be looking at tokens being multiples of 46? If the GM then uses 46 pixels per map square and uses monster tokens that are 46x46 for medium, 92x92 for large, etc. there won't be any need to resize any of the tokens. Or, if the map is not 46 pixels per square then the "lock token size" can be used to make the 46x46 reference token size of the square and all other tokens fall into line - both PC and NPCs.

I've never really seen a problem with lock token size creating a difference in size from my PC and NPC tokens. But, I use 50x50 for NPC tokens, so this is very close to the 46x46 used for PC tokens.

[unerwünscht]

To muddy the water a bit - in 3.0 the CoreRPG portrait_token_mask.png file is 46x46 - so this is the size that PC tokens are created if the portrait is dragged onto the token icon in the character sheet. From this, to keep all tokens in the same size shouldn't we be looking at tokens being multiples of 46? If the GM then uses 46 pixels per map square and uses monster tokens that are 46x46 for medium, 92x92 for large, etc. there won't be any need to resize any of the tokens. Or, if the map is not 46 pixels per square then the "lock token size" can be used to make the 46x46 reference token size of the square and all other tokens fall into line - both PC and NPCs.

FINALLY! Someone else gets it, I have been pointing this out for close to 3 years now to a deaf audience here.

And I also use 50x50 as the base (medium) size for NPCs, Creatures, and Custom made top town tokens for for PCs. It comes out to 46x46 once you add in a bevel on the base.

[Trenloe]

And I also use 50x50 as the base (medium) size for NPCs, Creatures, and Custom made top town tokens for for PCs. It comes out to 46x46 once you add in a bevel on the base.

Ah yes, I had forgot about the bevel - that would make it 50x50 pixels for the final PC token. That explains why my 50 pixels per square and medium sized NPCs works perfectly with the PC tokens.

In rulesets prior to 3.0 this PC token size more often than not differed from 50x50 pixels - and some themes changed it from what was defined in the ruleset (e.g. the 3.5e Wood theme).

With 3.0 rulesets being based off the CoreRPG ruleset, which uses 50x50 pixels for the PC token, we will hopefully see a more constant PC token size, allowing GMs to resize their other tokens appropriately. As long as people who write theme extensions don't mess with it!

[unerwünscht]

With 3.0 rulesets being based off the CoreRPG ruleset, which uses 50x50 pixels for the PC token, we will hopefully see a more constant PC token size, allowing GMs to resize their other tokens appropriately. As long as people who write theme extensions don't mess with it!

Not to toot my own horn here, but I honestly think I have made more themes for FG than anyone else has, and I promise that I won't change the default token sizes in my themes ever again. ... and historically have only changed them to make them 50x50.

[phantomwhale]

Any idea what size the new Fantasy Grounds "provided" tokens / pogs are ?

Always happy to follow a Smitework recommended standard - alas, Savage Worlds (as inherited) used a 64 pixel base, so I've been working off 32 / 64 / 128 for my tokens. By finally adding a PC token box to the character sheets in the latest version, at least users can override all the tokens as they choose, so matching the "portrait default" becomes less essential.

[Griogre]

Unfortunately, Raymond's FG "pogs" are not scaled or more correctly all animals, monsters and characters are scaled to the "pog" so they are all 128 pixels square - cat, dragon or halfling. The non-pog versions are all either 128 pixel squares or 256 pixel squares. Typically, top down tokens are much larger than portrait style though.

The letter token pogs supplied with FG come in two sizes: Small which are 32 pixel squares; Medium which are 70 pixel squares.

[phantomwhale]

I guess one of the interesting points here then is that the two "default" sizes being implicitly promoted by the core FG offering are 50x50 (generated token from portrait) or 128x128 / Base2 sizing (supplied token packs) - which are not easily happy bedfellows.

And, to muddy the waters, Savage Worlds ruleset supports 32x32, 64x64, 96x96 and 128x128 generated tokens from portraits, and comes with the letter tokens built in, which I had assumed were 32x32 and 64x64 - but am interested to read the larger ones are actually 70x70 !

In all cases, this disparity is side-stepped by not using portrait generated tokens, and as long as all your tokens comes from the same source, things should be good in token to token comparison. Although I believe there is a slight issue with scaling maps for modules, which often benefit from being tweaked a little to ensure a nice grid can be added, esp. with maps that are quite grid-focused, like dungeons.

None of the above is saying whats right and wrong, just summing up what I understand the state of the landscape to be.

[Blacky]

My real question for the FG devs was more: is there a technical advantage to using certain sizes of tokens (specific to Fantasy Grounds, apart from the obvious costs&benefices).

[Trenloe]

My real question for the FG devs was more: is there a technical advantage to using certain sizes of tokens (specific to Fantasy Grounds, apart from the obvious costs&benefices).

I think we've covered that above, haven't we?

Or, what other technical advantages were you thinking of?