View Full Version : Manage Characters on the Lite version

January 13th, 2012, 13:14
When using the manage characters function of a lite license client (or any client for that matter) is there a way to choose to create a Pathfinder character rather than a standard 3.5 character?

When I create a campaign I get the pop up box and the skill lists are different etc, but I'm not seeing any way to get to the PFRPG character sheet from the manage characters area.

As a related note why were the Pathfinder specifics implemented as a prompt at campaign creation rather than as an extension?


January 13th, 2012, 13:21
Check this thread (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15846&highlight=pathfinder+character) for a recent discussion about this.

January 14th, 2012, 05:33
So the long and short of it is you can't because it was not implemented as an extension from what I'm reading. What is the advantage of implementing the Pathfinder character sheet as a toggle?

I don't understand why you would take all the time to develop the extension framework then not use it. Am I missing something or are extensions going away?


January 14th, 2012, 05:45
Am I missing something or are extensions going away?
Extensions are a way of expanding on a base ruleset to give additional functionality or allow someone to customise a ruleset - and as such are not going away.

I can't comment on the exact reasons behind the Smiteworks developers decision making. But, I would guess that Pathfinder was integrated into the 3.5E ruleset specifically so that it is not an extension and operates within a base ruleset.

Then, anyone who wants to write an extension on top of Pathfinder can do so without having to check both a base ruleset and an extension for code doubling up, etc., etc..

Yes, it causes the issue of not being able to use the Pathfinder specific options in Manage Characters at present. I'm hoping this may be addressed in a future release of the product...

January 14th, 2012, 05:49
Thanks, The idea of not being able to make extensions for an extension had not crossed my mind. Its not an optimal solution, but it makes a little more sense as to why.