3.5/PF Module Creation

[ShadeRaven]

I've seen a lot of listed modules I could download and use, but I am struggling to find information on what's being used for creating modules (other than I see a creature parser).

I am very familiar with Tenian's work in 4E as I used it to create dozens of modules for that system. Because I like to tweak and homebrew some information, I don't want to be limited to just spells, equipment, etc., that's out of the box unless that's all there is.

I would greatly appreciate any directions towards the information that would allow me to create a spells module and other creations for use in the 3.5/PF portion of FG2.

Thank you,
SR

[Mgrancey]

Modules are typically either made in FG, made by hand, or for more rote work have parsers for creatures and spells.

If you want to figure it out, there is a pdf that helps with a good initial breakdown, from there you need to look at templates built into the ruleset or make you own (more complicated and probably not really needed).

The easiest way to find what information for various bits of content is to make unique items of everything you would need (notes, NPCs, weapons, items, armor, spells, etc) and export it as a module. Though I only suggest this if you are comfortable with XML and analysis of other documents.

The most efficient method would be determined by what work you want to do, and what source you have for the data or information.

[ShadeRaven]

I toyed around with creating and editing XML files tonight, as that's always an option. I just wasn't sure if there was a "cleaner" parser version similar to what we got in 4E.

I am guessing not. Back to the code I suppose! :)

Thanks for the response.

[Trenloe]

I've messed around and created my own parser code for things like spells and magic items - using the exportable databases from d20pfsrd.com.

The code isn't ready to release - and the exportable databases at d20pfsrd need some messing around with as there are the odd error in the formatting.

So, short answer is - no, there isn't really anything like Tenion's parser for PF/3.5E- mostly because there isn't a single, unified source for data like the online Compendium for 4E.

EDIT: And, as a lot of the 3.5E/PFRPG "stuff" can be released under the OGL, we don't specifically need a full blown parser for everything, we just need someone to make a module one and distribute it. Making and keeping Tenion's parser up-to-date with the changing WotC website has been a major mission for all involved (just see how long the thread for the parser is) - the reason that is needed is that we can't distribute 4E modules - as it doesn't use the OGL. So, from my point of view, I don't want to spend most of my time writing a universal parser and updating it every time the source website changes - especially as the parser would basically be a one-use "someone makes the module and distributes it" thing.

[Blahness98]

When I made my Warcraft RPG library file, everything was entered by hand using notepad++. The spells section was pretty easy to enter as the code for each of the spells used the same format, only the data was different. It was time consuming, but everything did get entered and it looks like the spell library that has been included with the 3.5e rule set.

[ShadeRaven]

Yeah... it's not bad doing the hand editing, but it sure was convenient with a one-parser-to-rule-them-all program.

It's not really about wanting something to automate data from a website, but that with the 4E, I could also add new entries to a source, edit or update an entry, etc., in a very easy-to-read format. It allowed quick, clean customization without all the tags and concerns about formatting. If a player sends me a spell that I approve or I add a new customized magic item, it was easy.

So, yeah, I know... maybe this sounds lazy, but there is a lot to love about the community efforts that enhance our FG2 experience and I just wanted to find out if 3.5/PF got any of that love before I dove into XML code.

Thanks again for the replies :)

PS: In a related topic, how deep would I have to go to create a rule-set, complete with character sheets, associated modules, etc., for FG2?

[Trenloe]

PS: In a related topic, how deep would I have to go to create a rule-set, complete with character sheets, associated modules, etc., for FG2?
Check the Foundations Core ruleset for a baseline to stat from: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15866

But, to answer your question "How deep would I have to go?" I'll reply with "how long is a piece of string?" ;-) Basically, it all depends on how much you want to do - and how closely your ruleset aligns with an already created one. For example, if it is d20 based, then you can start with the 3.5E ruleset.

[ShadeRaven]

Check the Foundations Core ruleset for a baseline to stat from: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15866

But, to answer your question "How deep would I have to go?" I'll reply with "how long is a piece of string?" ;-) Basically, it all depends on how much you want to do - and how closely your ruleset aligns with an already created one. For example, if it is d20 based, then you can start with the 3.5E ruleset.
Awesome! Thanks.

It shouldn't require too much, and to be honest, it's partially just a curiosity thing going forward. D&D Next (5E) has some minor adjustments to it but does resemble 3.5 in many ways so that would be the launching point.

It was easy enough to create Modules for Spells, Skills, Equipment, etc., but getting the minor modifications to spell casting, critical strikes, and some basic character sheet differences I figure is a whole different beast and one I'd want to carefully approach.

[Griogre]

I wouldn't spend too much time with a 5E ruleset other than for fun. Smiteworks is planning to make one. For the playtest either the 3.5/Pathfinder or 4E ruleset will work. The monsters are more like 3.5/Pathfinder ones but the crits are more like 4E. Either will work, I'd just use the one you are more familiar with.

[Mgrancey]

Yeah, I'm only putting in content for 5e, not going to mess around with rulesets and that's just for playtest. Monsters I'll probably do in FG

[ShadeRaven]

It was pretty simple to put all the spells in, and that made it so much quicker for the Clerics to swap out spells if they decided to change their daily prayers.

I figured they were working on a 5E ruleset, but I tend to get fidgetty and if 5E doesn't come out for another, say, 15 months, that's a long time to wait to have a ruleset that works with what we are playing half the time here.

I am _so_ much more familiar with 4E for FG2, but really struggled to get the spellcasting to work like it does in Next or older version. I'd probably stick to 4E if I could find a comfortable way to make spellcasting look and feel like AD&D/3.5/Next.