PDA

View Full Version : Farnaby's PFRPG Spellbook



Farnaby
June 7th, 2015, 22:45
Farnaby's PFRPG Spellbook

Update: V.2.01 Fixed Dispel Evil in all 3 books.

Update: V.2.0 Added the level 4 spells, split the book into 3 versions, reworked the optional conditions and did various bugfixes.

Update: V.1.4 Added all remaining level 3 spells including the new occult classes, also added the text for the mythic versions. The Occultist is split into alphabetical and by school. Added a Lite version that only lists the Occultist spells alphabetically. Still didn't check the optional conditions.

Update: V.1.3.1 Added Level 3 Witch spells and some level 2 spells I missed.
I will now go through and check the syntax for the optional conditions that are now part of FG.

Update: V.1.2 Added all level 2 spells and the Unchained Summoner spell list.

Update: V.1.1 Added Community Use Statement and alphabetical All Spells list.

NEW for v. 2.0: There are now 3 different spell books. The first is PFRPG and contains all the spells apart from Mythic, the second is PFS-Classic
which donates Pathfinder Society Classic play and the last is PFS-Core which is of course Pathfinder Society Core play.

All spells now use optional conditions as it is built in. These read the 1st field, called type, in the npc/monster sheet where you see the general characteristics of the monster.
The type, alignment, size, etc. Here an example: For prot. vs. chaos the effect is now Prot. vs. Chaos;IFT:ALIGN(chaotic); AC: 2; SAVE: 2 resistance
So as long as the Type field of the opponent has chaotic, chaotic good, chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, CG, CN, or CG in it, the effect will work.

Some of these effects are dependent on giving either the caster, the target or both a tag for the effect to work, this has been integrated into the spell effects.
e.g. Vex Giant, you get a +4 bonus on all combat maneuver checks against 1 single opponent. So there are 2 effects, 1 gives the opponent a tag, the other is to activate the bonus.
1st effect: Vex Giant;VGTgt
2nd effect: Vex Giant;IFT:CUSTOM(VGTgt);CMB:4 insight

This might look complicated, but just hit the effect buttons.

Some bonuses could not be calculated automatically so in the spell description I have added instructions in the square brackets.
e.g. [Add 2 bonus damage & sacred to weapon] Here you should make a copy of your weapon and add these bonuses to it,
[edit RESIST to 12 x CL, subtract DMG done after attack] This spell adds a resist bonus to 12 times caster level and can resist up to 120 hit points.

Again, if you have a spell that effects a weapon, then add the weapon to your weapon list with the added spell bonuses in advance, it's a lot easier.

This spellbook has all the current spells of the following levels (0 - 4) for all characters in it apart from the newest 3 or so books.

Also, when you drag the spell from the library, the proper effects are added.

I have gone through the D20pfrd, the Paizo PRD and the Archives of Nethys as my sources.
I have added the source book for the spell at the bottom of the description.

I make use of the player effect removal extension. http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?21546-Player-Effect-Removal-Extension
It does not matter if you do not use this extension, all you have to do is remove the effects manually as usual.

I use several footnotes in the spell names, these are as follows:

(M) & (F)
Denotes a material or focus component that is valuable and not a normal part of a spell component pouch

(RACE)
These spells are denoted with the name of the race in parentheses after the spell's name.
It is at the GM's discretion if other races can use these spells.
It is not PFS-legal to use these spells if you are not of that particular race.

(GOD)
These spells are denoted with the godís name in parentheses after the spellís name.
Worshipers of a spellís associated deity always treat the spell as common, and need not research it in order to prepare
or learn it. Despite this, all the spells are available to members of other faiths, though some temples
or religious organizations may proscribe the use of specific spells. Additionally, arcane spellcasters have unlocked the
secrets of casting particular spells.

Make sure you have the latest version of these extensions loaded:

DCPlus: http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?23178-DCPlus



And now how you can help!
If you use this library and notice a mistake, please reply to this thread so that I can correct it.
If you think I have effects set up wrongly, then reply to this thread.
If you want different effects set up for a spell because you use FG differently, reply to this thread.

I hope you find this useful.
I have no problem seeing 2 or 3 different versions of the same spell with different effects set up as to how people use them.

I hope you find this useful.

Farnaby
June 7th, 2015, 22:57
And now if any one is interested :),

I created all the level 1 pregens for PFS play and I noticed that dragging the spells from the library sometimes didn't get the effects right.
Also, there were lots and lots of spells missing from the newer books.

So I went and created a PC in FG for each caster type and manually added the spells by hand with the effects.
I took the basic PFRPG Spells library module and copied the xml spell blocks from the PC file into the skeleton of the library xml file.
All the spells had to have their xml tag changed from <id-00145> to <shieldoffaith> for example and the
description text had to be changed from string to formattedtext which changed the format from extended expressions (\n, \t, etc.)
to HTML formatting (<p>, <b>), etc. Also the index had to be setup, but I managed that with the mail merge in Word.

When you drag the spell onto your character though, the formatting changes back to extended and loses all it's formatting.
If anyone can devise a solution, that'd be great.

I will add cleric domains, but later.
I don't know if there is a need for a wizard by school list though.

dulux-oz
June 8th, 2015, 02:52
Certainly not trying to discourage anyone because we need people to do things like this - but I hope all of the info in this Module is either Open Source, your own work or you have permission to redistribute it.

Because if not you are probably in violation of Copyright, and SW and the Community can not have copyright violations posted on these forums

If in doubt, I suggest you ask.

Having said that - well done! :)

Cheers

darrenan
June 8th, 2015, 03:26
As long as it's OGL content (i.e. anything you can find d20pfsrd), and the module contains the legal boilerplate, it should be ok. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding from previous similar efforts.

dulux-oz
June 8th, 2015, 03:48
As long as it's OGL content (i.e. anything you can find d20pfsrd), and the module contains the legal boilerplate, it should be ok. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding from previous similar efforts.

Yeap, that's my understanding as well - I was just trying to ensure that others were aware of things, because mistakes have been made in the past :)

Cheers

damned
June 8th, 2015, 03:52
if its in the OGL and you include the License message youre all good.
Awesome work Farnaby - adding Effects!

Farnaby
June 8th, 2015, 06:51
Thanks for the info.

I copied and pasted all the spells from the D20pfsrd so I think that they're all legal.
If any of you find something that is not OGL, let me know and I'll take it out immediately.

Nylanfs
June 8th, 2015, 12:15
Just a note, that sometimes the wording on d20PFSRD is going to be slightly different between the actual PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) and book because John can't use the Community Use Policy (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/communityUsePolicy) and can't reference Paizo's IP because he has a store now.

Trenloe
June 8th, 2015, 18:48
This is absolutely amazing work! :)

You're covered for the OGL stuff with the comprehensive OGL you've included.

EDIT: However, as you've used Paizo IP (e.g. deity names) you'll need to include the Community Use Statement (http://paizo.com/paizo/about/communityuse) as well:


<p>This<i>Fantasy Grounds Module</i> uses trademarks and/or copyrights owned by Paizo Publishing, LLC, which are used under Paizo's Community Use Policy. We are expressly prohibited from charging you to use or access this content. This<i>Fantasy Grounds Module</i> is not published, endorsed, or specifically approved by Paizo Publishing. For more information about Paizo's Community Use Policy, please visit paizo.com/communityuse. For more information about Paizo Publishing and Paizo products, please visit paizo.com.</p>

Additionally - do you have any plans on creating an "All Spells" entry? I find this very useful to be able to quickly search for a spell without having to know which class spell list it is on.

Farnaby
June 8th, 2015, 18:57
Thanks Trenloe.

I'll add that statement in v. 1.1
I can create an All Spells entry, it shouldn't be too much work.
Do you want it per level or alphabetical?

Trenloe
June 8th, 2015, 19:11
I can create an All Spells entry, it shouldn't be too much work.
Do you want it per level or alphabetical?
Just purely alphabetical. The main reason for it is to allow searching on a spell name using the filter, so level doesn't matter.

Farnaby
June 8th, 2015, 23:11
Updated library, see post #1

Draca
June 8th, 2015, 23:14
Farnaby , should you find a need for any condition tags that are not included in the OC ext. please let me know and ill add them!

Great work on this by the way!

Farnaby
June 9th, 2015, 20:00
Thanks Draca,

I'll let you know.

Farnaby
July 26th, 2015, 16:47
Updates to V.1.2

Added all level 2 spells and the Unchained Summoner spell list.

Nickademus
July 30th, 2015, 23:08
I assume you will be redoing this to use the new FG conditional operators.

Sasmira
July 31st, 2015, 02:31
You are my hero !
Thx for your amazing work !!!

Trenloe
August 6th, 2015, 21:46
Note: I've updated the alignment conditions extension (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20505-Alignment-Condition-extension) to be compatible with FG v3.1.2. This is purely for backwards compatibility of the alignment conditions provided by that extension. I won't be maintaining it further, so future alignment conditions should be migrated to the new FG syntax.

HoloGnome
August 15th, 2015, 17:10
Looks great! Good job!

Note spelling of Shaman in the category headings.

Farnaby
November 7th, 2015, 21:08
Updated to v. 1.4.

Lots of changes and all the 0-3 level spells for the occult classes which is why it took so long.
As always, please give me feedback.

Sasmira
November 7th, 2015, 21:09
Thx a lot for your amazing work !

Nickademus
November 7th, 2015, 23:26
I'm curious, with the new update going live did any of the old extensions you are relying on break? I doubt they will be updated since their functionality is already in FG.

Farnaby
November 9th, 2015, 21:37
Well I haven't tested them extensively but none have broken so far.

HoloGnome
November 9th, 2015, 23:02
Hey Farnaby - really nice work on pulling together all the spells. I know there are a lot of people here who appreciate it, including me! :) If I see any problems, I'll let you know! And, in agreement with the above, I thought that alignment conditions, etc. were now built in.

Trenloe
November 9th, 2015, 23:13
Alignment conditions are now built into FG using the ALIGN(XXXX) conditional operator: http://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/3.5E_Effects#Conditional_Operators

As a result, there is no need for the alignment conditions extension (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20505-Alignment-Condition-extension) and as of the previous FG version (v3.1.2) I ceased to update it.

The alignment condition extension is not supported in FG v3.1.3, and will cause issues with some of the recent effect fixes/updates in the base ruleset. Everyone should not be using the effects condition extension with FG v3.1.3.

The very useful spells module should be updated. For example: IFT:chaotic; should now be: IFT:ALIGN(chaotic);

Sorry this causes extra work, but there is no point in maintaining an old extension when the functionality is included in the base FG ruleset.

Farnaby
November 10th, 2015, 18:28
Ah well, I now know what I'll be doing next....

Cheers Trenloe.

Blackfoot
November 12th, 2015, 01:00
The right search and replace should be able to fix this change.

Farnaby
November 12th, 2015, 19:35
Yeah, shouldn't be a problem.
I just need to try out the effects to see if they work first. :-)

Callum
December 17th, 2015, 14:04
I really appreciate all the work you've put into this, Fanaby - I've been wanting something like this to be available for years! I have a question, though - I see that youir spellbook depends on having three extensions loaded. If one of these stopped being updated with future releases of FG (in particular, the DCPlus extension), that might break the spells that depend on it - is that right? If so, what would be the fallback position?

kuthulu
December 17th, 2015, 17:43
I wanted to say thanks for all the hard work, Farnaby!

Blackfoot
December 17th, 2015, 20:07
I really appreciate all the work you've put into this, Fanaby - I've been wanting something like this to be available for years! I have a question, though - I see that youir spellbook depends on having three extensions loaded. If one of these stopped being updated with future releases of FG (in particular, the DCPlus extension), that might break the spells that depend on it - is that right? If so, what would be the fallback position?Without DCPlus the situation is as it is in the standard ruleset.. it doesn't build ALL the DCs quite correctly and some of them have to be adjusted manually. DCPlus (in case you haven't used it.. try it.. it's awesome and simple) is an extension that allows FG to build non-spell level based DCs. It adds the ability to have Caster Level based DCs instead. Which is more or less essential for many Special Abilities. This module loads just fine without it though. Most spells in the module don't rely on DCPlus.. as they are spells and use standard spell DC rules.

Farnaby
December 18th, 2015, 15:48
I really appreciate all the work you've put into this, Fanaby - I've been wanting something like this to be available for years! I have a question, though - I see that youir spellbook depends on having three extensions loaded. If one of these stopped being updated with future releases of FG (in particular, the DCPlus extension), that might break the spells that depend on it - is that right? If so, what would be the fallback position?

Good question Callum.

The spellbook does not depend on these 3 extensions.

If you noticed, some spells appear twice.
Only the spells marked (OC) [Optional Conditions] are dependent on the extensions and as they are broken at the moment, it doesn't matter.

Cheers - Farnaby

Sasmira
April 23rd, 2016, 17:43
Hello Farnaby !

Are you alive ? :D You work again on your amazing spellbook ? :cheer

Farnaby
April 23rd, 2016, 20:51
Hi Sasmira,

Glad to hear you like it.

Thanks to a new job I haven't had much time but I've started again.
I have about 75% of all level 4 spells, it's taking forever. :(
I'll put it up then but I'm going to go through them all again to check for errors and
add the optional conditions which will take a long time as well.

hobit
April 24th, 2016, 06:37
Clueless newbee question from a player...

When I drag fireball from the library, I'm finding that A) it's got an attack roll, B) if I change it to a saving throw, the save seems to have to effect on the damage (no half damage etc.) and C) it's got a (Y) after it (as does burning hands and grease the only non-cantrips I've been playing with). Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Farnaby
April 24th, 2016, 08:10
Hi hobit,

you're doing nothing wrong at all. :)

Let's go through the different areas of the spell.

13839


(Y): This means that there is a Mythic version of the spell. See the lower part of the spell description. (I explain the different title add-ons in the first post.)

ATK: According to the spell description, "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack." This is why I added an attack button. You do not use this in a normal situation.

SAVE: Hit this button to see if the targets make their reflex save.

DMG: Hit this button to cause damage. Any target making it's save will not receive any damage.



So to recap, if you cast fireball you need to

A) Target all creatures in the area of effect.
B) Hit the Save button to see who gets effected
C) Hit the Dmg button, all targets that failed their save will receive that damage.
D) On the top right hit the +/- Modifiers icon and click on the Half damage button on the bottom of the new window.
E) Drag the full damage from the chat window onto the target that made it's saving throw in the combat tracker.
....This will cause them to receive the half damage from the successful reflex save.
F) Repeat steps D) and E) for every target that succeeded it's save.

Hope this helps!

- Farnaby

hobit
April 25th, 2016, 12:35
Hi hobit

Hope this helps!

- Farnaby
Thanks!
Coming from the 5e side, i was expecting something different. I appreciate the help!

Farnaby
June 3rd, 2016, 18:27
Version 2.0 available. Details are in the first post.

Sasmira
June 3rd, 2016, 18:30
You are The Best !

kuthulu
June 3rd, 2016, 20:16
Ah, you are the best! Thx for the update Farnaby!

Callum
June 3rd, 2016, 22:21
That's fantastic, Farnaby - thanks again! Can I ask what the restrictions are for the PFS-core and PFS-classic versions?

Sasmira
June 3rd, 2016, 22:31
That's fantastic, Farnaby - thanks again! Can I ask what the restrictions are for the PFS-core and PFS-classic versions?

PFS Core is Pathfinder Society with only the Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play may be utilized for character creation. (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lh0h)
PFS classic is the Standard rules of Pathfinder Society with some restrictions ... you can find all informations in the PFS guide ! (http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/playerResources) Free download !

Victor
June 14th, 2016, 22:23
Found an Omission.
Summon Nature's Ally I on the Shaman List.
Great work as always Farnaby

Ah, it seems none of the Summon Nature's Ally are in there for any level. That on purpose?

Farnaby
June 15th, 2016, 20:45
Yup, definitely on purpose </sarcasm> :p

Wow, that is weird. Nevermind, I'll update it tomorrow.

Thanks for the heads up.

Grey Mage
December 30th, 2016, 13:46
Just curious if you are currently working on this extension...?

Blackfoot
December 30th, 2016, 19:03
Farnaby seems to have gone AFK.. we haven't heard from him since before the last FG Con. :(

darrenan
May 17th, 2020, 01:12
This update of the module fixes all the places where DR: was being erroneously used instead of RESIST:
It also replaces all of the 'long' hyphens that don't display correctly in FG with ASCII hyphens that do.
Hopefully Farnaby won't sic his lawyers on me for doing this...

35584

tahl_liadon
May 17th, 2020, 01:58
.
wow. cool thx!

so are you picking up the mantle to manage farnaby's?

still wondering if higher level spells are gonna be added. this is best spell mod

dllewell
June 8th, 2020, 04:49
I'm working on updating Farnaby's Spell List.

This will consist of the following items being done in Phases.

Phase 1 - Should be completed in a few days.
- Add all spells for all levels from 'Archives of Nethy's'. This includes any new 1st - 4th level spells since Farnaby's last update and all 5th - 9th level spells. Initial the new spells that have been added will not have Actions on them.
- Update Spell Level information for all existing 1st - 4th level spells.
- Update the Spell Lists for all Spells and all Classes

Phase 2 - This will probably take a few months. As each level is updated I will release a new version.
- Add Actions for all newly added 1st-4th level spells. I will not be touching the spells that have already been added by Farnaby.

Phase 3 - This will probably take a few months. As each level is updated I will release a new version.
- Add Actions for all the 5th - 9th level spells that were added.

I have a question for those who have been around longer than I have.

Do you think it would be better to update Farnaby's mod and just add new version information?
Or would it be better to create a new forked version of Farnaby's mod, thus keeping 2 separate mods (Farnaby's original mod and an updated forked copy of Farnaby's mod)?

Initially, I was just going to update the original mod but then I started to think about the fact that there will be some differences from his original mod. Mainly the fact that before phases 2 and 3 are complete there will be spells without Actions, which is really what made Farnaby's mod different than the other spell mods.

tahl_liadon
June 8th, 2020, 14:27
.
@dllewell, this is really great! thx in advance for committing to this.

your systematic phased plan sounds really good.

here's my suggestions to your question: if if ain't broken, don't fix it. (maybe a little lol)

- that said, i have used farnaby's quite often and not noticed any big errors. if there were, they were so few and far in between that can't even recall where they were -- so it's like a non-issue.

- i would leave the current farnaby's content as-is, and just systematically continue where it was left off. after completion of all spell levels, you can revisit and update farnaby's 1st - 4th.

- speaking from a selfish point of view :-) -- i would love to have new spells above 4th for play sooner than later. i think it would make more sense to complete out each level at a time, with effects/actions completely fleshed out. there is no reason really to create all spells for each level then come back and add effects/actions. there are other spell modules available if you just want the spells without them.

- in regards to whether creating one big module (i.e. append to farnaby's module), i would suggest creating a separate module for load optimization. also, i imagine keeping the new set (i.e. 5th - 9th) separate might help for a better code management.

i volunteer to help contribute to this efforts in any way i can. just let me know how.

Kelrugem
June 8th, 2020, 15:48
I'm working on updating Farnaby's Spell List.

This will consist of the following items being done in Phases.

Phase 1 - Should be completed in a few days.
- Add all spells for all levels from 'Archives of Nethy's'. This includes any new 1st - 4th level spells since Farnaby's last update and all 5th - 9th level spells. Initial the new spells that have been added will not have Actions on them.
- Update Spell Level information for all existing 1st - 4th level spells.
- Update the Spell Lists for all Spells and all Classes

Phase 2 - This will probably take a few months. As each level is updated I will release a new version.
- Add Actions for all newly added 1st-4th level spells. I will not be touching the spells that have already been added by Farnaby.

Phase 3 - This will probably take a few months. As each level is updated I will release a new version.
- Add Actions for all the 5th - 9th level spells that were added.

I have a question for those who have been around longer than I have.

Do you think it would be better to update Farnaby's mod and just add new version information?
Or would it be better to create a new forked version of Farnaby's mod, thus keeping 2 separate mods (Farnaby's original mod and an updated forked copy of Farnaby's mod)?

Initially, I was just going to update the original mod but then I started to think about the fact that there will be some differences from his original mod. Mainly the fact that before phases 2 and 3 are complete there will be spells without Actions, which is really what made Farnaby's mod different than the other spell mods.

I have some suggestion if you want: I wrote some extension, save versus tags (you can view it also at the link in my signature). It adds automatically new information to spells in form of tags, but only when the spell/action does not come from exported modules like Farnaby's, i.e. spells with custom actions are ignored by the parser. That leads to that my automatic parser will not work for such modules and then one needs to add the tags manually sadly.

But when you create the spells while having this extension then all the tags will be automatically added when coming from the SRD modules for example :) (I think you just drag&drop a spell from an SRD module and then edit that when you do the actions method? Then the tags will be automatically created) So, no extra work, but the created module would contain tags, too :) (and the module will be still usable for users who do not use the extension, so, really no disadvantage here :) ) Hence, would be really cool when you would have that extension turned on while you create these spells :)

EDIT: That should work for all your phases; when you create custom actions then probably by drag&dropping some spell of the SRD => Custom tags. When you create the spells as text-only directly in the spells' windowlist then the parser will also look onto them when they're dragged and dropped to some sheet, I guess :) (for that method you would not even need the extension)

darrenan
June 8th, 2020, 18:03
The current Farnaby's module is still under 1MB. I don't know what the guidance for module sizes are, but I would try to keep it all in one module if possible. If you complete all the spells, they are going to take up a certain amount of memory. Whether that is in one module or many, the effect is the same. Breaking it up into multiple modules gives flexibility to only load what you need I suppose, but in practice I tend to need all levels of level N and less, where N depends on which book in an AP I'm preparing. Once you get to book 6 you're typically using almost all of the levels to add to NPCs.

I agree that it is less useful to add spells without actions. I use Farnaby's because every spell in there has the correct actions associated with it. If that becomes a 'maybe' proposition, that just adds confusion about which module I should be using and means I now need to load additional modules. I currently keep three different spell modules loaded, although I could probably get away with two. If we could get that down to one, then the memory usage of that one becomes less of an issue.

Also, I second Kelrugem's suggestion in the previous post. I use his IFTAG functionality extensively, and if all the spells in Farnaby's also had all the appropriate tags applied that would be super! You may have noticed that the last copy of Farnaby's I uploaded does have a few types of tags applied, but you need to have one of Kelrugem's extensions loaded to see them (or just look for <othertags> in the raw XML). For example:



<unwittingally>
<actions>
<id-00001>
<atkmod type="number">0</atkmod>
<clcmod type="number">0</clcmod>
<savedcmod type="number">0</savedcmod>
<savetype type="string">will</savetype>
<srnotallowed type="number">0</srnotallowed>
<type type="string">cast</type>
<stype type="string">spell</stype>
<school type="string">enchantment</school>
<othertags type="string">charm;mind-affecting</othertags>
</id-00001>
</actions>

darrenan
June 8th, 2020, 18:11
@Kelrugem: I still think your extensions should not be checking for <actions> to determine whether to add tags or not, but rather, check specifically for any cast actions without <othertags>. It's a little extra logic, but shouldn't be too hard I think. That would mean it could always be added no matter what source the spell is coming from. And simplifies the work that @dllewell needs to do.

Kelrugem
June 8th, 2020, 18:31
@Kelrugem: I still think your extensions should not be checking for <actions> to determine whether to add tags or not, but rather, check specifically for any cast actions without <othertags>. It's a little extra logic, but shouldn't be too hard I think. That would mean it could always be added no matter what source the spell is coming from. And simplifies the work that @dllewell needs to do.

Yeah, that is right :) I didn't forget your advice on this (thanks again :) ). I simply had no time yet to code again, but I really should add this the next time when I code, I think :)

(about the extra work: I think one only needs to activate the extension, I didn't ask for extra work; I hope it didn't sound like that :) But when I added your request and advice then it is indeed not important anymore whether one had the extension while creating the module :) )

tahl_liadon
June 8th, 2020, 20:26
.
one thing i would say about the "extension coupling" idea: it would prob be better to keep the new spells module independent like current farnaby's.

as much as i might be useful, i'm not sure it's wise to tie it to another extension. it should be a simple thing like all the other "core" modules -- simple for everyone to just download and use. things can get messy down the road when there's such dependencies.

Kelrugem
June 8th, 2020, 20:32
.
one thing i would say about the "extension coupling" idea: it would prob be better to keep the new spells module independent like current farnaby's.

as much as i might be useful, i'm not sure it's wise to tie it to another extension. it should be a simple thing like all the other "core" modules -- simple for everyone to just download and use. things can get messy down the road when there's such dependencies.

Yes, therefore darrenan and I said that the info about the tags would not disturb anything when loaded in a campaign without the extension :)

The additional information of tags would just be added as separate component in the xml which gets simply ignored when not using the extension :) Thence, the tags become visible when the extension is loaded, but is invisible otherwise and nothing disturbed :) Otherwise I would not have suggested that because I am on your side when it is about that :) (so, I would not suggest adding separate effects using IFTAG for example :) )

dllewell
June 9th, 2020, 02:42
Based on the answers so far I think the best bet is to create a fork of the original module. It sounds like the way I am going to be implementing this in phases would make if different enough from Farnaby's current module that a forked version of the module would be best. Once I am fully complete with the updates, and all spells have actions, I can then rename it back to Farnaby's Spellbook.

@Kelrugem:
Based on the way I am coding this I don't think I can use your extension.

If I'm understanding your process correctly I would need to create the spell in Fantasy Grounds and when I drag and drop it to the sheet it would add the tags?
Let me know if I am not understanding correctly.

But that is not the way I am creating the module. I'm not adding new spells into Fantasy Grounds and then exporting the module.
I'm modifying the XML file directly to add new spells. To be more specific I'm generating XML from data stored in a database and using that to create the XML file.

Having said that if you can let me know the logic for getting the <othertags> I might be able to program that into my process that generates the XML data.

Full Spell List - @darrenan and tahl_liadon
I understand what you are saying about mixing spells with actions and spells without actions. Which is the primary reason why I think it's best to fork the module at this stage.

Ironically, the reason I'm doing this is that, as darrenan talked about, I'm trying to only have to use 1 Spell Module. By creating a module that has every single spell in it and updating them with Actions as I go I can accomplish this goal.

If I keep this module to only Spells that have Actions then I have to use 2 Spell modules. This one that has Spell with Actions for 1st - 4th level spells. And another module that has spells from 5th - 9th level as well as the 1st - 4th level spells that don't have Actions added to them yet.

Unless I'm missing it, I don't think there is any Spell Module that currently has all the spells? The only other Spell Module I'm seeing is the 'Complete Paizo Spells' by trenloe. And it appears that it was last updated on September 2015 which means it's missing quite a few new spells. It states that it has 2036 spells, while the one I'm working on has 3024 spells.

If there is another Spell Module that does have all the most current spells, please point me to it.

Again, once this is all complete (all spells have been updated with actions) I can rename the forked version back to 'Farnaby's Spellbook' and just have that 1 version.

Kelrugem
June 9th, 2020, 09:40
Based on the answers so far I think the best bet is to create a fork of the original module. It sounds like the way I am going to be implementing this in phases would make if different enough from Farnaby's current module that a forked version of the module would be best. Once I am fully complete with the updates, and all spells have actions, I can then rename it back to Farnaby's Spellbook.

@Kelrugem:
Based on the way I am coding this I don't think I can use your extension.

If I'm understanding your process correctly I would need to create the spell in Fantasy Grounds and when I drag and drop it to the sheet it would add the tags?
Let me know if I am not understanding correctly.

But that is not the way I am creating the module. I'm not adding new spells into Fantasy Grounds and then exporting the module.
I'm modifying the XML file directly to add new spells. To be more specific I'm generating XML from data stored in a database and using that to create the XML file.

Having said that if you can let me know the logic for getting the <othertags> I might be able to program that into my process that generates the XML data.

Full Spell List - @darrenan and tahl_liadon
I understand what you are saying about mixing spells with actions and spells without actions. Which is the primary reason why I think it's best to fork the module at this stage.

Ironically, the reason I'm doing this is that, as darrenan talked about, I'm trying to only have to use 1 Spell Module. By creating a module that has every single spell in it and updating them with Actions as I go I can accomplish this goal.

If I keep this module to only Spells that have Actions then I have to use 2 Spell modules. This one that has Spell with Actions for 1st - 4th level spells. And another module that has spells from 5th - 9th level as well as the 1st - 4th level spells that don't have Actions added to them yet.

Unless I'm missing it, I don't think there is any Spell Module that currently has all the spells? The only other Spell Module I'm seeing is the 'Complete Paizo Spells' by trenloe. And it appears that it was last updated on September 2015 which means it's missing quite a few new spells. It states that it has 2036 spells, while the one I'm working on has 3024 spells.

If there is another Spell Module that does have all the most current spells, please point me to it.

Again, once this is all complete (all spells have been updated with actions) I can rename the forked version back to 'Farnaby's Spellbook' and just have that 1 version.

Aah, okay, I see :) Yeah, then loading the extension won't work, one would need to add the tags then; there are some tags for it like othertags and I get these tag informations from the school entry for example. But I'd say ignore these tags then (otherwise you would just have more work to do and then I would feel bad for that) :) When I have time coding again then I try to change my extension in such a way that the parsing of tags also happens with such modules :)

dllewell
June 10th, 2020, 22:56
I've forked a new version of the Module. You can find it at https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?58962-PFRPG-Spellbook

I'm working on adding actions for all the spells but it's going to take a while for that to be completely done.