Questions about the 5e Ruleset, why were somethings done the way they were?

[celestian]

So, I've been wondering. The 5e ruleset makes use of a lot of specific "text" for things like saves/abilities and spells. This text is a very specific format. Why did you guys go that method instead of having a configuration option for it (like "save" and save type, modifiers, damage, what happens on failed save)? My guess is the 5e spells/npcs/etc are very specifically generated and the text recognition matched that?

I've been trying to come up with a easy way for DMs to add a creature/spell/etc that was a little easier to do. Add a save, which type, any modifiers/etc within the NPC entry (sorta like how you add weapons/spells in the character action tab) and then that data would be used when dropped into the CT. From my perspective it seems better in the long run because I'll never have a bulk of the data already generated in a specific format to use text recognition for... and I think in DMs would have an easier time dealing with it.

I really like the "effects" text strings as they are more uniform and was considering adding a string field like that to the NPC entry and then apply it when dropped onto the CT as well. For me it seems easier to use that to apply resistances/etc than using the text strings in conditions/etc. Much more specific... and easier to deal with at least for me.

Anyway, I was just curious the thought process. Maybe I'm missing something and should continue doing the same thing.

[LordEntrails]

Moon or one of the demi-gods will probably jump in here and correct me.

But my impression and assumptions are because the rules and resources were already written and published before SW built the ruleset (or Damned or whoever did it). SW didn't create the rules, rather they have to make something that interprets what rules have already been written and published. And they have to interpret them from the text of the published rulebooks.

And the 5E rules are not written uniformly or in a format like "spell" = "Name" + Effect + save + ... Instead (as you know) they are written in some sort of 'natural language' and many of them are unique.

So, I think that meant that automation had to be based upon string recognition, rather than upon something where an effect and it's attributes could just be put into various fields.

I know that's not the official answer, and maybe not the right one, but hopefully it helps.

[celestian]

I know that's not the official answer, and maybe not the right one, but hopefully it helps.

It's more or less what I expected. I was guessing that WoTC had the text for the spells/npcs already (which is fairly uniform when compared to what I'm dealing with) and they just wrote a recognition tool for those.

[damned]

Hah! Id love to claim some responsibility.
The 5e ruleset was built a long time before the Wizards license was gained.
The process was an evolutionary one and designed I believe to complement the work being done on Par5e at the same time - and as Lord Entrails points out to take advantage of the way the Wizards presented the data in the first place without reworking the input data.

[leozelig]

My guess...

Because it's fancy

[Zacchaeus]

I would think that functionality comes into it. It's a lot easier for the user if you drop a character or NPC into the CT and the effects all get parsed automatically rather than having to build all the effects manually. Or am I missing the point of your post?

[celestian]

I would think that functionality comes into it. It's a lot easier for the user if you drop a character or NPC into the CT and the effects all get parsed automatically rather than having to build all the effects manually. Or am I missing the point of your post?

It certainly works out if the creatures all use similar text descriptions/fields. My problem with using it when creating creatures manually. I have to go look up the format and if you mess up slightly it's wrong. If you have the fields built into the NPC in a way that works like the "actions tab" it would be a lot less confusing and certainly less prone to mistakes. As far as dropping it into the CT that part would work the same.

Again, I'm not coming from a position where I have stacks of creatures that all used similar descriptive text to parse. I wrote a parse tool in perl to try and deal with all the various AD&D creatures to grab the saves/attacks/etc and while it works "generally" you would not believe the variances in all the different creatures. Not to mention how some describe resistances to say, magic items, or silver... Some do not even mention saves in the descriptions to grab when they clearly have saves involved in their attacks.

I was just curious how the text recognition came to be. Works great for the 5e setup for sure. Just a bit more twitchy when you create custom entries unless you have a link to your "how to" post

[Zacchaeus]

Indeed, and this is the problem that some developers have hit upon with third party stuff. The internal parsing, as has been said, was developed as time went on and wasn't part of the original ruleset but it was gradually added. This was fine until third party stuff started to come online after the SRD was published. A lot of that stuff didn't 'conform' to the WotC 'standard' and so attacks, damage and saving throws wouldn't parse. Much rewording was required.