PDA

View Full Version : 3.5e (d20_JPG) cannot identify items in modules



blondejohn
April 1st, 2011, 08:29
I am not sure if this is a bug or by design.
I have the latest version (2.7.4) and have been testing various aspects of the game and found a problem. My aim is to have each level of the dungeon to be a separate module, to minimize memory usage and load times. I want to allow players to set links to items found.
(When creating the module, if the item data is set to "host", players can only see the "shared" item page and it must be re-shared if the client closes that window. No links to the item can be created.
If the data is set to "common", links to item information can be created and work as long as the host has the module open. If the data is exported as "client", permanent links to the data can be made.)

I have found that items can only be "identified" if the item dataset if left as "host" for exporting. In other words, if one sets the item dataset as "common" or "client" for exporting, the "identified" portion of the item information cannot be accessed by the clients, even if the item is re-shared to the clients after click the identified box.

Of course, I can conceive of several workarounds to this issue but it I think this is not working as expected.

Moon Wizard
April 3rd, 2011, 09:34
Well, it's working as expected, but probably not how you want.

The client and common data types are read-only since they reside on the client machine. The host data type is modifiable, but lives on the host machine. The only host data visible to the clients is data that is explicitly shared to each client.

The item code was implemented in the d20 ruleset, and inherited by the 3.5E ruleset. It only stores the name of the item, and a link to the details, on the character sheet. I have some ideas for the next version that may help out.

One way to workaround now is to have identified and unidentified versions of each item in your module. Or just use host data modules.

Regards,
JPG

blondejohn
April 4th, 2011, 13:59
Thanks for the explanation, Moon.