PDA

View Full Version : Effects and visibility



Zacchaeus
December 26th, 2014, 18:46
I was trying to add an effect which would give a player a disease; however I didn't want the player to know that he actually had this disease. I remember watching a video about effects and the author was saying that effects could be hidden from the player and indeed they can. BUT, only if I go into the Combat Tracker and set the little blue button from 'VSBL' to 'GM'. When I apply an effect it is apparent to the player immediately as well as putting a string into chat describing that an effect has been applied and who applied it. So I looked in the options and I found the 'Show Effects' option. However this appears to do nothing at all; i.e. effects are visible always, whether this is on or off. Additionally there is a little eye button on the effects panel next to each effect. Again whether this is on or off when the effect is applied doesn't seem to make any difference.

So the question is; can an effect be applied to a PC (or anything else I suppose) which is invisible from the outset? It looks to me that this should be the case and indeed I'm pretty sure in one of the videos I watched the author was saying just that. Is it the case that this isn't working as expected.

(Might this also be related to the IF and IFT effects not working as well?)

damned
December 26th, 2014, 23:21
I just tried adding it every possible way I could think of and it always displayed in chat window when applied from effects.

i could manually create a new one that was visible only to GM directly on the CT.

Zacchaeus
December 27th, 2014, 12:52
I just tried adding it every possible way I could think of and it always displayed in chat window when applied from effects.

i could manually create a new one that was visible only to GM directly on the CT.

Ah, damned I believe that you have hit upon the solution; the only damned (see what I did there?) thing I didn't try :)
And thinking about it this is the way I'd want to go anyway. However I still think that the developers meant for effects to be drag/dropped without being visible (which would be handy). So, do we think it's a bug, that we can't do that, and that it shows up in chat?

damned
December 27th, 2014, 14:02
its not a bug - C&C works the same way... it is worthy of requesting as a change though...

Zacchaeus
December 27th, 2014, 14:13
its not a bug - C&C works the same way... it is worthy of requesting as a change though...

Done!

Zetesofos
July 3rd, 2015, 17:12
Found this thread by search, and update on this request?

Zacchaeus
July 3rd, 2015, 17:45
Well, looking at the list my suggestion got 2 votes so far, so I'm not hugely hopeful :)

Griogre
July 3rd, 2015, 19:25
...
So the question is; can an effect be applied to a PC (or anything else I suppose) which is invisible from the outset? It looks to me that this should be the case and indeed I'm pretty sure in one of the videos I watched the author was saying just that. Is it the case that this isn't working as expected.


Hmm this post is old and I missed the original one. Yes, you should already be able to do what you want. This is where you use the seldom used Campaign Effects window. In the top right of the FG desktop is a button with the "Effects" tooltip. Click it to open the campaign effects pop up. At the bottom right click the / to open the + and to add an effect (or right click the custom list and select: Add). Add a custom effect but leave it blank, then at the very end of the effect line is an "Eye" icon. Click the icon so it changes from "visible" to "invisible." Add the rest of the effect. Player's can't see "invisible" effects on the custom list or when you drop them. By making the effect invisible first before filling out the details if you had players connected, even if they had the window open they couldn't see the actual effect.

Zacchaeus
July 3rd, 2015, 22:36
Griogre, you got me excited there for a moment, you naughty person! :)

I'm afraid this doesn't work - at least not in 5e. Following your instruction I created a "diseased" effect, but as soon as it's dragged onto the player it pops up on the Combat Tracker and also tells them in the chat window exactly what has happened just in case they missed it on the CT. :)

You are correct about one thing though. If the effect is hidden on the DM's effect window, the players don't see it on the list of effects.

Griogre
July 4th, 2015, 01:41
Damn, I thought I checked, but today was hectic. Sorry.

Zetesofos
July 4th, 2015, 12:36
That's too bad, but I think I at least found a work around. I ended up making a PC character simply named GM, following some other suggestions, and put effects I want to be invisible on it's power sheet. As long as this character is neutral, and I set it's visibility to off on the CT, whenever it applies an effect to the target, that effect initially is added as visible to GM only.

As a aside, the other thing I figured out was if I continually need to add an effect round after round, once I set the GM's targets, I can set the effects to hotbar, and they work no matter who has a turn in the CT, so there is that.

Minty23185Fresh
May 13th, 2016, 05:00
I just noticed this today. In v3.1.7 it still seems to be an issue (for 5E at least), true?

Along these same lines, if an orc mage is casting a spell, he/she usually doesn't grab a handy megaphone and announce, "I am casting a curse spell now!" The target character might know he/she was affected, for a most effects anyway, but the other PCs shouldn't see it.

If the effect had a default value of GM (only), right now it is ALL, I think the problem is solved. Agreed?
Though an additional choice of "TAR" (GM and Target only) might be in order.

Wow. This seems like a perfect next exercise for my "A Neophyte Tackles the FG Extension" blog.

Opinions?

LordEntrails
May 13th, 2016, 05:31
Do note, that RAW indicates that all the players have perfect knowledge of all effects. On a VTT we don't have to allow that, but just keep in mind doing so is an exception/house-rule and perhaps not something SW wants to try and always support.

Minty23185Fresh
May 13th, 2016, 08:07
Do note, that RAW indicates that all the players have perfect knowledge of all effects. On a VTT we don't have to allow that, but just keep in mind doing so is an exception/house-rule and perhaps not something SW wants to try and always support.

Okay. Rules as Written. I had to ask, I was ignorant of what that acronym meant. So, my reaction is one of .... Incredulity.

FG already provides the means of removing the visibility of an effect from the players: the little GM only / All button on the CT. The current default is All. I was merely suggesting an extension that changed the default to GM only, and possibly added a third option, GM + Target. So are you suggesting because of RAW that little button might go away in a future release of FG? That's unfortunate.

And regarding RAW: again I was ignorant, but still am. I find no such "perfect knowledge of all effects" in either the PHB or DMG. But I'll grant that it might exist somewhere in the volumns of DnD rules out there. The one "rule" stated over and over in both the PHB and DMG is, the books are simply guidelines, it is the DM's or GM's table. That said, as a DM I find the idea of perfect knowledge of effects simply ludicrous. WotC blew it on that one! Just by standing next to me you have perfect knowledge of my pancreatic cancer? When I don't even know I have it! Preposterous. That in itself is a conundrum: how could I not know that I have cancer, when I have perfect knowledge that I do? The paradox of absolutes.

Lord Entrails, I must thank you. Sincerely. Some rule lawyer is just waiting out there to bust my chops on this. Now I know. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was completely ignorant such a rule existed.

damned
May 13th, 2016, 09:03
I have no idea if this is a rule or not but do bear in mind that just because a player knows it doesnt mean the character knows and you can and should enforce that if its not working for you.

I like the idea of a player having an effect on them that they are unaware of - it is hard to hide for long because observant players will notice the dice results and have an ahah moment.

In regards to your extension idea - I think you should definitely investigate it.

Zacchaeus
May 13th, 2016, 11:50
I, too , can't find anything that specifically says that the PCs would have perfect knowledge of effects, unless I am misunderstanding what LordEntrails is saying. In the Spellcasting section of the PHB under targets it actually says there that the target might not know that they have been affected by a spell if it is a subtle one (such as mind reading). Clearly they are going to be a bit more aware of a fireball being sent in their direction. I think the point is though that there is no global right or wrong since the DM always has final say. My original post wasn't actually concerned with spells so much as the players contracting a disease following on from a failed save vs some disease ridden animal or contact with something nasty. It would be nice to be able to have a method of having an effect on the PC that the PC didn't know was actually on them. One way I did think of doing this was to place the effect on them when they weren't online and make it invisible and non-effective. Then when they came across the beastie/situation that might cause them to contract a disease make it effective but still invisible.

Nylanfs
May 13th, 2016, 13:05
For spells with verbal &/or somatic components it's harder, but I would allow a Bluff or other skill check to try and hide that you are casting a spell.

LordEntrails
May 13th, 2016, 20:06
OK, I stated things a bit too... over-zealously :) The rules as written never state perfect knowledge that I know of. They do imply something similar in several cases though. (Mayhaps RAI, rules as intended, should have been used.) For example, invisibility, where even though a character or NPC can't see (or perhaps even know the location of) an invisible creature, the players do know it.

In general, the rules try to imply that metagaming such things is bad (I agree) and that people need to not worry so much about things and just play and have fun (I agree). Or, maybe that's just the way I play so I think the rules say that :)

No, I don't ever see FG loosing the abilities to hide effects from players per the options that already exist. I just don't worry about it as a GM if the players see the effects or not. If they meta-game it and it becomes a problem I beat them over the head with a black dragon *G* Just as you should do, IMO, if a rules lawyer shows up at your table :)

Minty23185Fresh
May 13th, 2016, 21:17
Here is something I found interesting. I was looking around in the 5E ruleset code. I noticed that some, if not all of the code, for the "Visible by GM" / "Visible by All" state button for Effects listed on the Combat Tracker, might be inherited from the CoreRPG. So I started playing around in there. Being able to set the initial visibility of an Effect that you are about to apply is implemented in the CoreRPG, but was lost along the way to 5E. (You all might have already known this, I'm just late to the table.)

Here is information as to how I discovered this: I created a campaign using the CoreRPG ruleset. Created an NPC. Added a couple of Effects to the campaign. Placed the NPC in the Combat Tracker and made it visible to all and set it as the current actor. Started a client instance of FG. Joined Game. Brought up the client's Combat Tracker. On the provided screenshot the host is on the left, the client on the right.

In the Effects window I set one Effect to invisible and the other to visible. (A big red ellipse encircles the controls on the screenshot.)

Then I applied the Effects, one at a time to my NPC. Note the initially invisible effect only shows up on the host chat and Tracker. And the initially visible Effect shows up on both.

14063

I fully intend to persue this on my FG blog and create a 5E extension. Because writing the blog posts takes me such a long time this may take a little while. But given that this thread was started almost a year ago, I suspect I'm not up against a deadline. ;)

damned
May 14th, 2016, 01:29
I fully intend to persue this on my FG blog and create a 5E extension. Because writing the blog posts takes me such a long time this may take a little while. But given that this thread was started almost a year ago, I suspect I'm not up against a deadline. ;)

Indeed... if your name is not Trenloe you will prolly find that writing an extension takes longer than you expect.
But it is a rewarding learning experience (once you get to the other side)...

Moon Wizard
May 16th, 2016, 22:07
This will be fixed for 5E in the next version (v3.2.0).

Cheers,
JPG

Zacchaeus
May 16th, 2016, 22:45
This will be fixed for 5E in the next version (v3.2.0).

Cheers,
JPG

You are a wonderful man :)

Minty23185Fresh
May 17th, 2016, 00:14
I fully intend to persue this on my FG blog and create a 5E extension. Because writing the blog posts takes me such a long time this may take a little while. But given that this thread was started almost a year ago, I suspect I'm not up against a deadline. ;)


This will be fixed for 5E in the next version (v3.2.0).

Aargh! I guess I was up against a deadline! :o I'd actually solved this with a single line of code!

I know! I know! "Sure you did!"

Nope I really did:

rNewEffect.nGMOnly = 1;
inserted as line 1 of the addEffect(...) function of the 5E\scripts\manager_effect.lua file

I was workiing on the encapsulation to bring it out into an extension, when I received this news.

So follow up question for Moon Wizard. In post 12 of the thread I suggest adding a third option (visible to target+GM) be added to the visibility button (circled here circled in red in this partial screenshot). Is that too in the works for v3.2.0 ?

14088

Minty23185Fresh
May 17th, 2016, 00:22
Oops! I didn't mean to imply that I was saddened by Moon Wizard's news.
It is always better to have the functionality in main line code than in an extension.
And even better to realize I wasn't way out in left field believing this issue deserved attention!
Thanks Moon Wizard!

Minty23185Fresh
July 8th, 2016, 04:16
Anyone still interested, and/or following, this thread?

I just uploaded an extension addressing this subject (here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?33093-Combat-Tracker-Effect-Visibility-Options-for-the-5E-Ruleset)).