Item entires

[TR0LL]

Would it be possible for someone to assist me in creating an item entry for d20_JPG similar to the one in 4e? I would really appreciate this for my campaign as the default item window is near useless.

[cpbs]

I was thinking of create this option as well but I think moon wizard said that it is on the list for things added on a later updated for d20. As of right now I dont have the time to work on this but it would be nice to have. So I can make drag and drop items from the list, into a character sheet.

[TR0LL]

ya its pretty sad how little love d20 is getting.

[Leonal]

AFAIK, Since d20_JPG is in the process of being integrated with the 3.5E ruleset and FG with updated stuff similar to the 4E ruleset, I'm sure it'll come eventually. Though you might of course want it before that time.^^

[Moon Wizard]

It's coming slowly but surely. The challenge is that there has been so much evolution of not only the features, but the amount of data available. (such as the item windows.)

I've rebuilt the core campaign components already with the new skin. I'm working on the character sheet rebuild right now. I still need to finalize NPC sheet, module drag and drop, combat tracker, and effects. Then, test it all.

Since I'm not running a 3.5E game right now, I'll be releasing in the Laboratory via the Test Mode Manager tool when it's ready. It's still at least a few weeks out if not more.

Cheers,
JPG

[TR0LL]

Thanks for the update moon, I appreciate it. and i know my group will too.

[Valarian]

This may be in the long term plans, but wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade the Foundation and to release both 4e and 3.5e as extensions to this ruleset? Here you're maintaining two completely separate code streams for even the basic functionality.

[Leonal]

If that were the case, could one apply an extension to a 3.5 extension? (For Pathfinder users)

[StuartW]

If that were the case, could one apply an extension to a 3.5 extension? (For Pathfinder users)

Sure, extensions were invented to allow that, and you could use the <dependency> tag to ensure the Pathfinder extension could only be loaded if the d20 extension was loaded.

Stuart

[Moon Wizard]

I found that the extensions were designed more for adding/removing features from a ruleset; rather than building rulesets off of a core. I came to this conclusion after I looked at combining the d20_JPG and 4E_JPG code bases a while back.

A couple of the items that led me to that conclusion:
* Modules are ruleset dependent, not extension dependent.
* Changing the core ruleset would force all the rulesets to be updated and tested simultaneously.

For me, it's easier to manage them separately, and build the "core" components so they are transportable.

Part of my d20_JPG overhaul is making the ruleset more modular at the code level. It will make future improvements easier to port across rulesets when those rulesets are ready.

Cheers,
JPG

[StuartW]

I agree JPG, but you can make modules extension-dependent (sort of) by using importinfo/acceptfrom in the extension and specifying a new unique 'ruleset' name. The modules then also specify that ruleset name (which needn't otherwise exist as a stand-alone ruleset), and then the modules will only be available if the extension is loaded.

On the whole though, rulesets have far more bespoke code than generic code, whereas extensions are usually quite light-weight, so it doesn't really make sense to put all of a ruleset into an extension. I am, however, a bit of a fan of creating core systems (such as BRP and WoD) as rulesets and then implementing settings/flavours (such as CoC, RQ, Vampire etc) as extensions. WoD is implemented like this, and BRP is part-way there.

Stuart

[Moon Wizard]

I agree completely. When the system is the same, use the same ruleset with extensions.

Cheers,
JPG

[Valarian]

So, is the Foundation core concept a dead one?