Players Making Saving Throws

[mattcolville]

I think I basically know the answer to this, but it's worth a shot in case I'm wrong.

If an NPC uses a spell on a PC that requires a saving throw, is there any way to both allow the player to make the roll and have FG automatically parse the result?

So for instance if I cast finger of death on a player, they roll the constitution save and FG knows A: whether they beat the DC and then B: uses that result when I roll damage to automatically halve it if they saved.

I think I know the answer is "nope," but I'm not 100% sure.

[LordEntrails]

Well, not my region of knowledge, but I'm pretty sure you're right.

I don't know of anyway to do it. Maybe something with the manual roll option? But I've never used it so it's only a vague idea.

[Zacchaeus]

Actually when an NPC casts a spell at a PC it is the PC who is making the saving throw. It's being done automatically of course; whilst you want to do it manually. FG can only deal with automation following a saving throw if it has been forced on the player or NPC. By that I mean the save is being made as part of an attack action either through a spell or weapon attack from the action tab of the PC or from the Combat Tracker. This is a long winded way of saying 'nope'. If the PC makes the roll manually then you will have to deal with the consequences manually.

[mattcolville]

Actually when an NPC casts a spell at a PC it is the PC who is making the saving throw. It's being done automatically of course; whilst you want to do it manually.

That is literally what I asked. I didn't ask if the PC could do it, I asked if the player could do it, and have FG parse the result.

Probably because I used FG for 4E which works very differently, I find the idea that the attacker is making the saving throw for the defender really offensive and I'm surprised it works this way, as it's literally the opposite of how D&D works.

Obviously, or "Actually" if we have to mansplain to communicate, I could just ditch the automation and have the player roll manually and then deal with the results manually. But this reduces the advantages of FG enough for me to consider other options.

Is there any way for the DM to, like...set various players to "they saved" before a damage roll? So for instance with Fireball (a pretty common spell in D&D and indicative of how many spells in the game work) the players can each make their own saving throw, then I can drop "he saved" onto the PCs who saved, and then roll damage for all of them and have it automatically halve the damage on the PCs who saved? That would be a workaround I could deal with.

[Stitched]

I pointed Matt to the "Manual Dice Roll" Extension. Maybe I am missing something critical from his request but was able to save vs. breath weapons, regular spells/effects, like the above using Trenloe's mod/extension.

[Zacchaeus]

Nope. As I said the saving throw is only made when there is an incoming spell or attack that requires a saving throw. It is the way the automation works so that things like half damage etc can be automated. If this doesn't suit your style of play then your only option is to do all of the dice rolls manually and work everything out in your head.

[Zacchaeus]

I pointed Matt to the "Manual Dice Roll" Extension. Maybe I am missing something critical from his request but was able to save vs. breath weapons, regular spells/effects, like the above using Trenloe's mod/extension.

The manual dice roll extension should not be used. It is now built into FG. And I'm not sure whether that could be used or not. The attack roll would still need to be made by the attacker before a save can be forced. A saving throw made in isolation is not taken into consideration by FG for any particular purpose.

[mattcolville]

Nope. As I said the saving throw is only made when there is an incoming spell or attack that requires a saving throw. It is the way the automation works so that things like half damage etc can be automated. If this doesn't suit your style of play then your only option is to do all of the dice rolls manually and work everything out in your head.

This sorta blows my mind. The software obviously is saving some state that means "The target saved" that is then factored into things like the following damage roll. But there's no way for the DM to designate that on a target-by-target basis without actually making the roll? We have all these effects we can drag and drop but we don't have "the target saved?" Something the software already tracks?

That's too bad, I was planning on featuring Fantasy Grounds as the combat solution in my next D&D stream. But the players making rolls is a huge part of the game. If we have to do it manually that significantly reduces the utility of the software.

[Stitched]

"A saving throw made in isolation is not taken into consideration by FG for any particular purpose."

You could force a DC check using the Party Sheet and choosing the DC # and what stat to roll the check against, then apply effect / damage that way. I showed Matt how I calculated a fireball spell save / damage application to success/fail. Hopefully, it's more in line with what he was looking for

[Stitched]

One thing that is annoying, that I would like to request...somewhere...

It would be nice if there was a hot-key (or chat command) to switch between manual dice roll and not manual.

[Zacchaeus]

"A saving throw made in isolation is not taken into consideration by FG for any particular purpose."

You could force a DC check using the Party Sheet and choosing the DC # and what stat to roll the check against, then apply effect / damage that way. I showed Matt how I calculated a fireball spell save / damage application to success/fail. Hopefully, it's more in line with what he was looking for

Can you expand on this? I thought the OP wanted the players to roll the dice rather than the DM?

[Zacchaeus]

One thing that is annoying, that I would like to request...somewhere...

It would be nice if there was a hot-key (or chat command) to switch between manual dice roll and not manual.

Add it to the wish list here (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/)

[Stitched]

Can you expand on this? I thought the OP wanted the players to roll the dice rather than the DM?

His last response to me on Twitter "Yep, I just found a video that explains it. This works, but now there's a dialog box before every roll which isn't what I want." I explained you can use the chest icon to let FG roll as per usual but I guess having more refinement when to use Manual vs. Automagic needs to looked at.

Now it looks like the stream he had planned, using Fantasy Grounds, is now not going to go through. Not sure what hurdle was insurmountable with dice rolling but that's a shame, regardless.

You *can* run FG with the option window on and toggle it that way but have something either on the Dice Tower or Chat Window would be preferable.

[Stitched]

I think I basically know the answer to this, but it's worth a shot in case I'm wrong.

If an NPC uses a spell on a PC that requires a saving throw, is there any way to both allow the player to make the roll and have FG automatically parse the result?

I think I know the answer is "nope," but I'm not 100% sure.

I would use that Manual Dice input and have players roll (either in FG Chat) or real-world, drag that number into the manual box (or hand key it in) then resolve normally. After that, toggle the manual dice roller off until needed again.

[spite]

One thing that is annoying, that I would like to request...somewhere...

It would be nice if there was a hot-key (or chat command) to switch between manual dice roll and not manual.

You can just leave it on, and press the dice above the tick. That will roll the dice using the in-program entry as normal. https://puu.sh/vdUdR/34fe3148f8.jpg That button there.

Also, if you want the player to input the result, if the DM has the manual dice roll entry on, then he is prompted to put in a result, the player can then roll and you can put in the dice value into the prompt box you get and it'll do all the cool "background" magic that you're used to. Only thing is it it'll show in chat twice (once as basic roll for player, again for the input value the DM did).

For example, as a DM I have the manual entry activated, I see this when I "cast" a save spell at my unnamed player https://puu.sh/vdTZM/625fb14f73.jpg
Then the player rolls, shows like this https://puu.sh/vdU2t/2fecf7ed3b.jpg a save in a vacuum, if you will.
Then I input his roll to the first window that I had and get this result https://puu.sh/vdUaP/0647a87816.jpg where you see they've failed/passed vs DC, and if it's a half on success, that'll work as intended also.



EDIT: Bleh, didnt see the second page. Oh well, will still leave my post *shrug*

[ddavison]

The best you could probably do would be something like the following:

1. Don't target the PCs
2. Ask all players to roll a Strength Save (or whatever)
3. Drag the save action to the chat window so everyone sees what the target value was.
4. Target all players that failed the save and then roll the damage and apply the effects for those same people since they failed
5. After failed save effects are applied, right-click on the damage and choose 1/2 damage (if it applies). Drag this to each person who made their save

It is not quite as automated but really it is almost the same number of steps - just in a different order. The half-damage portion is all that takes an extra step and even then, you are CTRL-Clicking on fewer people anyway.

[Stitched]

The best you could probably do would be something like the following:

1. Don't target the PCs
2. Ask all players to roll a Strength Save (or whatever)
3. Drag the save action to the chat window so everyone sees what the target value was.
4. Target all players that failed the save and then roll the damage and apply the effects for those same people since they failed
5. After failed save effects are applied, right-click on the damage and choose 1/2 damage (if it applies). Drag this to each person who made their save

It is not quite as automated but really it is almost the same number of steps - just in a different order. The half-damage portion is all that takes an extra step and even then, you are CTRL-Clicking on fewer people anyway.

He wanted to run the game live/streaming. Not sure why this was a deal-breaker as I couldn't get an answer how this slows things down. I play a mix of manual / automation in my face-to-face games and never felt it slowed down things. Maybe harder with multiple players and trying to do things quickly within a set time.

[mattcolville]

4. Target all players that failed the save and then roll the damage and apply the effects for those same people since they failed
5. After failed save effects are applied, right-click on the damage and choose 1/2 damage (if it applies). Drag this to each person who made their save

It is not quite as automated but really it is almost the same number of steps - just in a different order. The half-damage portion is all that takes an extra step and even then, you are CTRL-Clicking on fewer people anyway.

I'll give this a shot, it seems pretty straightforward.

[mattcolville]

He wanted to run the game live/streaming. Not sure why this was a deal-breaker as I couldn't get an answer how this slows things down. I play a mix of manual / automation in my face-to-face games and never felt it slowed down things. Maybe harder with multiple players and trying to do things quickly within a set time.

I just want it to work, man. I don't want to have to remember to turn an option on before I do some things, and then remember to turn it off before I do something else. Because obviously that's more steps than I expected and eventually I'll forget to manually turn something on. Or I'll forget which players told me they saved, or I'll mis-click on a player and they'll take full damage when they should have taken half damage and now we have to stop and do some math. Which is sort of the thing I use FG to avoid in the first place.

My expectation is that if I select a group of PCs and click "save" the players will be prompted to make saving throws and the system will understand which ones saved and which ones failed. I expect this because this is how D&D works and the fact that FG assumes the DM makes saving throws for players sort of blows my mind. I'm surprised folks are ok with this.

Failing that--and I understand FG is weird, I don't expect miracles--I would be happy with the players rolling manually and reporting the results to me, and I just drag a "saved" or "failed" effect onto either the players who made it or the ones who failed. Then I want to click the spell result and have it automatically apply the success to the PCs who saved and the failure to the ones who failed.

Manually managing the difference between "those who saved" and "those who failed" and then manually managing the application of the effect or damage is a lot more work than I expected to do, and obviously prone to human error.

If attacking worked this way, folks would think FG was much less valuable than it is. If it didn't check for hits and misses and only apply damage to the folks who got hit, people would find the software less useful. The fact that it treats "make a save" as just another form of attack where the player doesn't get to roll their own saves is super weird to me.

[LordEntrails]

...
My expectation is that if I select a group of PCs and click "save" the players will be prompted to make saving throws and the system will understand which ones saved and which ones failed. I expect this because this is how D&D works and the fact that FG assumes the DM makes saving throws for players sort of blows my mind. I'm surprised folks are ok with this....
The way I think of how FG performs the saves is that when an action happens and a save is required, the save is automatically rolled. Whether it is the PC's or NPCs who need to make the roll.

In a way this is different than how we play on table top. But, since FG rolls all the dice virtually anyway, it's just doing something automatically that is required anyway rather than having the players click a button that does the same thing.

So yes, it does take away a little bit of player agency, in that the player doesn't actually click to make a save, but it's not something they really have control over anyway (since the DM is normally going to require they make the save, and the die rolled are going to be virtual FG dice anyway).

In short, I can see where you're coming from. But I think if you adjust your perspective, and the expectations of the players, it really won't matter to any of you.

[LordEntrails]

...
My expectation is that if I select a group of PCs and click "save" the players will be prompted to make saving throws and the system will understand which ones saved and which ones failed. I expect this because this is how D&D works and the fact that FG assumes the DM makes saving throws for players sort of blows my mind. I'm surprised folks are ok with this....
The way I think of how FG performs the saves is that when an action happens and a save is required, the save is automatically rolled. Whether it is the PC's or NPCs who need to make the roll.

In a way this is different than how we play on table top. But, since FG rolls all the dice virtually anyway, it's just doing something automatically that is required anyway rather than having the players click a button that does the same thing.

So yes, it does take away a little bit of player agency, in that the player doesn't actually click to make a save, but it's not something they really have control over anyway (since the DM is normally going to require they make the save, and the die rolled are going to be virtual FG dice anyway).

In short, I can see where you're coming from. But I think if you adjust your perspective, and the expectations of the players, it really won't matter to any of you.

[mattcolville]

But I think if you adjust your perspective, and the expectations of the players, it really won't matter to any of you.

Did you know that in the original version of D&D, the Dungeon Master made all the rolls? They rolled for your characters stats during character creation. They made your attack rolls and saving throws. The players didn't roll any dice.

[damned]

I just want it to work, man. I don't want to have to remember to turn an option on before I do some things, and then remember to turn it off before I do something else. Because obviously that's more steps than I expected and eventually I'll forget to manually turn something on. Or I'll forget which players told me they saved, or I'll mis-click on a player and they'll take full damage when they should have taken half damage and now we have to stop and do some math. Which is sort of the thing I use FG to avoid in the first place.

My expectation is that if I select a group of PCs and click "save" the players will be prompted to make saving throws and the system will understand which ones saved and which ones failed. I expect this because this is how D&D works and the fact that FG assumes the DM makes saving throws for players sort of blows my mind. I'm surprised folks are ok with this.

Failing that--and I understand FG is weird, I don't expect miracles--I would be happy with the players rolling manually and reporting the results to me, and I just drag a "saved" or "failed" effect onto either the players who made it or the ones who failed. Then I want to click the spell result and have it automatically apply the success to the PCs who saved and the failure to the ones who failed.

Manually managing the difference between "those who saved" and "those who failed" and then manually managing the application of the effect or damage is a lot more work than I expected to do, and obviously prone to human error.

If attacking worked this way, folks would think FG was much less valuable than it is. If it didn't check for hits and misses and only apply damage to the folks who got hit, people would find the software less useful. The fact that it treats "make a save" as just another form of attack where the player doesn't get to roll their own saves is super weird to me.

How did you do it at the table?
You did a roll and then some players did a roll and then you rolled some more stuff and did different rolls for different folks because they rolled different results and then some of them made further adjustments to one or more of the rolls because well, because rpgs are full of exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. And it took a bit of effort and everyone had to remember stuff and often times really we did the wrong roll or made the wrong calc well because we are human and there is a lot to remember and sometomes I remembered that rule that you informed me about three weeks ago that Id never been aware of after playing the game for hundreds of hours but mostly i forgot and so did you because you too only learnt that rule about 9 weeks ago and you forget it most of the time too and one time you even used the rule at the wrong time.
And none of it mattered much at all. We all still threw some dice, laughed or grimaced when we failed and cheered when against all odds, or did the GM fudge something there you know I think he did but Ill never really know for sure, we survived and not we did the world did but the very next day a bigger and badder and uglier threat turned up. We just had fun.

I may have misread, misunderstood or whatever but I fear your perception of what should and what should not and how important or even relevant any of it is, is a little awry....

[Talyn]

Congrats, guys... (https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/64bca7/fantasy_grounds_and_the_next_dd_stream/) :(

5E character sheets have an entire SAVES column with rollable saves. I'm playing PFS all weekend and we are rolling all our saves there, too. I'm not getting why you all are saying players don't roll saves?

Yes, I think it's a little bit of work for the GM having to right-click the damage and select half damage then drag that to the character.

Sure, I absolutely believe FG's parsing should save that data (because FG works via XML which is data organizational markup!) to handle it automagically without the GM needing to fiddle with it, which I think is what Matt is asking to begin with.

[Stitched]

Congrats, guys... (https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/64bca7/fantasy_grounds_and_the_next_dd_stream/) :(

5E character sheets have an entire SAVES column with rollable saves. I'm playing PFS all weekend and we are rolling all our saves there, too. I'm not getting why you all are saying players don't roll saves?

Yes, I think it's a little bit of work for the GM having to right-click the damage and select half damage then drag that to the character.

Sure, I absolutely believe FG's parsing should save that data (because FG works via XML which is data organizational markup!) to handle it automagically without the GM needing to fiddle with it, which I think is what Matt is asking to begin with.

Rolling for saves and the DM *asking* for the roll are two different things - FG doesn't, by default, ask.

However, noodling around with the manual roll box and having a player log in to my server, I was able to achieve what was being requested.

On the DM side, you can shut off "Roll Manually" - No annoying pop-ups for the DM for every roll.
If each PLAYER turns "Roll Manually" ON - they will prompted with a roll for all rolls; they can still grab a dice, roll manually or use the dice tower and you can drag that value into the values box OR they can click the dice icon and FG will roll the appropriate dice like it always has/does (this will also cut down user error because FG will select the right dice every time).

When the results of each player's save have been rolled, the DM would then roll the damage dice (double click or drag and drop into chat) and half/full will be calculated properly, as per usual.

Sure, this is slower than having FG do everything automagically, but I felt that the issue was one of "hey, my players want to roll dice" and "I want the saves to calculate automagically".

This method does this and puts the rolling onus on the Players - which is what I thought Matt was angling for. They just will be prompted to make that manual roll every time, for attacks, damage, saves, checks ... : which you would do at the table when the DM asks for one, in real-life, anyways; but with the added bonus of FG always using the correct dice and adding the correct bonuses at the touch of a single button.

[mattcolville]

How did you do it at the table?

Without spending $150 on Fantasy Grounds.

[Zacchaeus]

Well done Stitched. I wasn't aware that the players could have the manual dice roller switched on independently of the DM. Now that I know that I will certainly not be allowing them to do so given the scope for rampant cheating :)

This thread and the other recent one on NPCs with items (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?37696-NPCs-(monsters)-with-items) illustrates perfectly the point that someone, I can't remember who now, from Bioware said. "If you could package up a game with a big button on it that when pressed would give you everything you ever wanted in an RPG - people would be arguing over the colour of the button." :)

Everyone wants something different and it is always so interesting when someone comes along and points to something which they have a problem with and which no-one (or very few others at least) have even considered to be a problem. :)

[Stitched]

I'm going to take a look at the "giving an NPC an item" thing. I thought you could do this, using FG's templates?

As I expected, you create a "New" copy of the monster, then have to work out, on paper, what the relevant to hit bonuses and damage.

Have to agree with Matt - this could be a lot easier/friendlier for DM's to build encounters, in the way that we can mix/match/forge items.

[Stitched]

Well done Stitched. I wasn't aware that the players could have the manual dice roller switched on independently of the DM. Now that I know that I will certainly not be allowing them to do so given the scope for rampant cheating :)


Make a tool request where the GM can *lock* the manual rolling box out for the PC's >:)

[Talyn]

Make a tool request where the GM can *lock* the manual rolling box out for the PC's >:)

And for the chat window to specifically state that it was a manual roll. (If it doesn't already, I've never used it yet.)

[mattcolville]

This thread and the other recent one on NPCs with items (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?37696-NPCs-(monsters)-with-items) illustrates perfectly the point that someone, I can't remember who now, from Bioware said. "If you could package up a game with a big button on it that when pressed would give you everything you ever wanted in an RPG - people would be arguing over the colour of the button." :)

Everyone wants something different and it is always so interesting when someone comes along and points to something which they have a problem with and which no-one (or very few others at least) have even considered to be a problem. :)

This is the problem I've always had with Fantasy Grounds. When I encounter some core functionality in D&D that FG does not support, and come to the forums hoping there's a way to do it I just haven't thought of, I get a variety of responses all along the theme of "why would you want that?"

I just want to give a monster an item. This is core D&D. Monsters have items. The fact that A: this is impossible and B: folks are acting like I'm asking for "a game with a big button on it that when pressed would give you everything you ever wanted" is insane.

I expect, given FG's automation (which SOME PEOPLE consider a feature of the software) that players would be making their own saving throws and the system would parse the result. They make their own attack rolls, and the system parses the result. Why is this even considered controversial?

I made a video extolling the virtues of Fantasy Grounds based on my experience with it from 4E and I see now that was a mistake. I didn't realize how poor the 5E experience was by comparison. I hope folks are getting good use out of the software based on my recommendation, but it's clear to me now there's no good VTT solution for 5E.

[Stitched]

And for the chat window to specifically state that it was a manual roll. (If it doesn't already, I've never used it yet.)

It USED to say [Manual Roll] but they removed that. Not sure why...

[ddavison]

Like with anything else, there are compromises on what and where we spend time developing. We often agree with players and DMs when they request features, but it sometimes takes time to implement things like this in a satisfactory manner -- and sometimes things never get implemented. There is always something new getting worked out, modified or built.

A lot of the automation for the 5E rulese was derived from the 4E ruleset and the saves were definitely an area where this was borrowed. The options were a) automated it just like with 4E but this clearly moves the saves to the attacker or b) let players roll their own dice for saves and then manually apply the damage or effects. You can still multi-target before dropping on effects, so it is not 100% automation but pretty close. We play with the D&D Adventure League coordinator and a WOTC staff member and we actually opted for the more fully automated version. This is akin to saying that you have a house-rule in effect to speed up play. You can choose whether or not it works for you and your players. Did you hate that rule and mechanic in 4E?

I'm not attempting to marginalize the request for better automation here, I'm just explaining the reasoning. I'm sure others have thought the same thing when they tried 5E but we don't have major threads about it after 2 years of having an official license. This either means that people were so upset that they dropped it and didn't even tell us why or they were upset by it or they tried it and found that it wasn't as bad as thought once they used it. I highly suspect the latter.

Some of the other things that were requested in the reddit thread linked above:

Drag and drop population of NPC spells. This works pretty well. Look at any of the spellcasting monsters in the MM and they are already set up with the appropriate DC and attack strings. You can also drag over new spells but then you have to add the bolded sections to the text. Examples for Acid Splash and Chromatic Orb: "A target must succeed on a DC 20 Dexterity saving throw" or "Make a ranged spell attack (+12 to hit) against the target", respectively. Interestingly enough, if you add in the entire Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting section in a format that matches the book, it will look up and add all the spells to the creature with the proper DC and attack values for you when you close and reopen the NPC. (see video link below)
Drag and drop of items for NPCs (and somewhat players). This is actually harder to do than most people think.
Adding a class to an NPC, changing a race, etc. This wasn't specifically mentioned by Matt by was implied by others. I wrote a template system for 3.5E and Pathfinder for the Advanced Bestiary and this is very complex to do very quickly. I was never 100% satisfied with how complete it was. 5E might be easier or might be harder to do, but some of the challenges were taking existing bonuses and trying to decide if a new bonus stacks or replaces any part of the old bonus or penalty. You essentially have to have very detail information on how the numbers in the statblock were achieved and it is much harder to reverse engineer that consistently than it appears at first glance. Then there are all the exceptions to the rules. D&D editions were not built by data experts or programmers and quite frankly, they don't always even follow their own rules.


With Fantasy Grounds, it doesn't automate the entirety of the game, but it does automate large portions of it. If you are coming from 4E, the stuff that you may not have noticed within FG are things like these:

Treasure horde generation to parcels from the DMG
Story Templates that build dynamic content, adventure hooks, etc. There are even more on the DMs Guild and on the forums here, such as the Tavern Generator, complete with customizable menus, patrons, etc.
The party sheet - perfect for awarding XP and treasure, tracking the party loot, seeing who has what at a glance, performing hidden rolls against the party, etc.
Character leveling is much easier - just drag the next level's class back over to the class section of your character. When building from scratch, do stats, then race, then class


Even if you used miniatures and dice at the table, I can't imagine not using FG to prep and manage the campaign due to all the things it does automate.


Videos:
auto-lookup and editing of spells for Spellcasting NPCs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uOdhB2GDoU&list=PL3h0dIaiayC_AW7djpTlriZEtg2WBCCvp&index=8

DMG feature walk-through
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1At-msmds&list=PL3h0dIaiayC_AW7djpTlriZEtg2WBCCvp&index=20

[Talyn]

I gotta say, I'm disappointed in a lot of the commentary here. [Not counting Doug; I was typing while Doug did his.] Since I've been around (coming up on a year now) we collectively pride ourselves on how helpful we are. If Matt had strolled in and made a thread about being a brand-new user asking for help, everyone would have jumped on that, provided the typical list of YouTube videos and forum sticky threads that get trotted out, but the behavior would have been overly generous and welcoming.

However, Matt came in, having used the software for quite awhile, and is (in my opinion) asking how to do things that we do multiple times per session face to face, and why the client doesn't have a clue about that. The response wasn't exactly generous and welcoming. And sure, I'm new-ish too with nowhere near the experience GMing that you guys have with this client. But that also means I haven't been beaten into submission by its limitations and exhibiting Stockholm Syndrome defending those limitations.

It's stuff that needs to be considered and included someday. And I know... the first rule of Unity club is we don't talk about Unity club... but still... ffs guys...

[ddavison]

I don't think anything Matt has asked for is unreasonable. I would personally like those same features.

What features we work on next are based on perceived customer demand (i.e. threads like this), how well it will impact the business bottom line, how it relates with other critical features being worked on, our ability to do it well and in a timely fashion and also whether or not the developer building it (mostly John on the ruleset) has the creative spark to implement a cool way of accomplishing it. Software development is a mix of creativity and technical know-how. If you do it poorly, you can create a bunch of work with little gain.

[L. R. Ballard]

I don't think anything Matt has asked for is unreasonable. I would personally like those same features.

Agreed. Same here.

[ddavison]

Well, another possible solution that won't delay the DMing of the game is to drop the save target to the chat window and then immediately drop the damage and effects in. The players roll their own saves and then the players add in their own wounds. Remember, the DM or the players can update their current wounds. If they drag the damage over to their token or portrait, it should be pretty quick and simple. See the video below showing the process.

Here is a video that should showcase the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFXz0_EBTo

[LordEntrails]

I gotta say, I'm disappointed in a lot of the commentary here. [Not counting Doug; I was typing while Doug did his.] Since I've been around (coming up on a year now) we collectively pride ourselves on how helpful we are. If Matt had strolled in and made a thread about being a brand-new user asking for help, everyone would have jumped on that, provided the typical list of YouTube videos and forum sticky threads that get trotted out, but the behavior would have been overly generous and welcoming.

However, Matt came in, having used the software for quite awhile, and is (in my opinion) asking how to do things that we do multiple times per session face to face, and why the client doesn't have a clue about that. The response wasn't exactly generous and welcoming. And sure, I'm new-ish too with nowhere near the experience GMing that you guys have with this client. But that also means I haven't been beaten into submission by its limitations and exhibiting Stockholm Syndrome defending those limitations.

It's stuff that needs to be considered and included someday. And I know... the first rule of Unity club is we don't talk about Unity club... but still... ffs guys...

Hmm, interesting. I interpreted the responses to Mr. Colville's requests in this thread and the others as all being in an attempt to help him. Not in a vein to belittle his requests, his views, or himself. Nor did I see them as a a defensive response.

Yes, some were presenting a view of why FG does what it does. Which apparently he took as a challenge to his intelligence or ego rather than an honest attempt to present information to him that he may not have been aware of. And, there were a comments by people who imo seemed to try to present things to him with a sense of humor or satire that he found offensive. But, imo, rather than try to understand what people were trying to get across, rather than ignoring those comments that he found offensive. He reacted as he did.

That being said, since you see things differently than I do Talyn, I will endeavor to try to see this other perspective of such threads in the future.

[Zacchaeus]

Right, well I learned a lot from this. Thanks Doug.

[damned]

I certainly wasnt intending my response to be an attack but it could be viewed as such.

What I am trying to convey is that the automation works in proscribed way.
If you dont want to use teh automation you dont have to.
What you cant do (well you can in some places) is use the automation to a point and then stop the process and do something manual and then tell the automation to take over again.

Whilst that would be nice, the point that one group wants to stop and start things may be different to the point the next group wants to start and stop.
When you code for one eventuality (and its not really because there are dozens and dozens of things that the system is already looking at like race, and AC, stats, and effects etc which all multiple complexity) it requires a certain effort, when you add more variations in there you dont add just a little bit of extra code or logic because you have to also code for all the other variations again and how they may differ in this approach so the complexity grows vary quickly.

You can do it all manually. You can do it mostly manual. You can do it the way the programmers wrote it but you dont have options to change it at every point along the way.

My apologies to all involved if my comments were taken as an attack.

[Moon Wizard]

Matt,

I perform development on the current version of Fantasy Grounds, and all of the things you ask for are on our working list. However, they haven't bubbled to the top yet in terms of priorities (whether due to business priorities or due to lack of user demand), or are not possible with our current architecture. That's why we have Carl working on the next major version to create a new version which can more easily be updated graphically, as well as eventually add in a bunch more map features.

I haven't chimed in yet, because I thought that Doug and the community had offered reasonable alternatives to things we haven't been able to implement yet. While we are always striving to improve the product, we aim for about 80-90% automation, since RPG systems are so complex and we are trying to support as many as we can. There are always some things that are harder to implement than others due to GM discretion, workflow considerations or rarely used rules.

If you would like to reach out to us directly to get your questions answered now or in the future, please send us an e-mail anytime at [email protected]. Both Doug and I are on that e-mail alias, and we will answer to the best of our ability.

Regards,
JPG

[Talyn]

But, imo, rather than try to understand what people were trying to get across, rather than ignoring those comments that he found offensive. He reacted as he did.

I would have, too. I read damned's comment that upset Matt and I read it exactly the same way Matt did. Now, the little bit of off-forum interaction I've had with damned, I knew he most likely didn't intend for it to be read that way, but here's two of us saying that's how we read it... and some other comments.

To shift perspectives somewhat—and disclaimer: I don't go seeking out Fantasy Grounds streamers so maybe there are more—but the only two really, really popular YouTube and Twitch personalities who are constantly saying how great and wonderful Fantasy Grounds is, are Dave (Digital Dungeon Master) and Matt. Now we've went and pissed Matt off. FG does precious little marketing or getting the word out that I see, anyway. Everything is "Roll 20 this, Roll 20 that." Roll20 even sponsors some popular RPG podcasts, so of course those podcasts will mention Roll 20 and ignore everything else. I'm also not saying that everyone here should just automatically know who Matt and Dave are, that's ludicrous, we all have our own interests and our own lives. But Jesus Christ, talk about shooting ourselves in the foot with one of the only people who gets word of mouth marketing to a lot of people not in this little forum clique...

Thank you, Doug and John, for your responses though. I hope Matt contacts you in private.

[LordEntrails]

I would have, too. I read damned's comment that upset Matt and I read it exactly the same way Matt did. Now, the little bit of off-forum interaction I've had with damned, I knew he most likely didn't intend for it to be read that way, but here's two of us saying that's how we read it... and some other comments.

Hmm, I didn't. But maybe that's because I always assume the best of intentions with people who post on this forum. But, myself and probably many others, appreciate the perspective.


To shift perspectives somewhat—and disclaimer: I don't go seeking out Fantasy Grounds streamers so maybe there are more—but the only two really, really popular YouTube and Twitch personalities who are constantly saying how great and wonderful Fantasy Grounds is, are Dave (Digital Dungeon Master) and Matt. Now we've went and pissed Matt off. FG does precious little marketing or getting the word out that I see, anyway. Everything is "Roll 20 this, Roll 20 that." Roll20 even sponsors some popular RPG podcasts, so of course those podcasts will mention Roll 20 and ignore everything else. I'm also not saying that everyone here should just automatically know who Matt and Dave are, that's ludicrous, we all have our own interests and our own lives. But Jesus Christ, talk about shooting ourselves in the foot with one of the only people who gets word of mouth marketing to a lot of people not in this little forum clique...
But I don't think the community did anything blatantly wrong... (EDITED)



Thank you, Doug and John, for your responses though. I hope Matt contacts you in private.
I hope he does too... (EDITED)

As an example; take your own response to the situation. You have been completely reasonable. You have been polite. You have made an effort to present another side, another interpretation. And because of that, your opinion matters to me (and I suspect others). You have treated everyone with respect, hopefully you have felt you have been treated with respect in return.

EDITED: 2017-4-09 JPG

[Talyn]

Hmm, I didn't. But maybe that's because I always assume the best of intentions with people who post on this forum. But, myself and probably many others, appreciate the perspective.

That's actually part of the reason I chimed in. As I stated in my first post, the response to this was... "different." I interact with several of you over Discord, G+ and other mediums and I know everyone had the intent of being helpful. But the words used came across as more defensive in nature and ended up being less than helpful, at least the way I read it.


But I don't think the community did anything blatantly wrong... (EDITED)

I suspect it was less a matter of what was said and more how it was read. Matt is a videogame developer who has worked on and shipped several AAA titles, so he knows the ins and outs of software development. Doug and John themselves both stated they agreed with what he's asking for, and they've been on the official To Do list for some time. I've been busy with life and work so I'm not sure exactly what Matt has been spending so much time trying to do, but I have a vague clue and I do know he's spent a ton of time, money and effort setting stuff up for his viewers. So I understand how he's frustrated, and using emotional terms. Which you all took as an attack, just like I read your responses as being rather attacks as well. That's the thing about just cold-reading words on a screen without seeing the facial gestures for emotional context—everyone reacts to them differently.


As an example; take your own response to the situation. You have been completely reasonable. You have been polite. You have made an effort to present another side, another interpretation. And because of that, your opinion matters to me (and I suspect others). You have treated everyone with respect, hopefully you have felt you have been treated with respect in return.

Perfect example of my aforementioned statement! Thank you for saying I've been polite and respectful; I do try to do that around here. But I have also been intentionally more harsh with my words in this thread (and the other) than I usually am, too. Wouldn't be surprised at all if I've rubbed a few people the wrong way in doing so. In fact I know that's true in two cases. As I said, I haven't been figuratively beaten into submission by the limitations to the point I vigorously defend them via Stockholm Syndrome. I suspect if people had flat-out said "yeah, this is a limitation of the current software, here's a workaround," this thread probably wouldn't be on page... whatever it's on now. And several people did give workarounds, but with... "hostile" phrasing, I guess? Regardless, they didn't read well. Ad hominem attacks didn't help either, by the way.

Anyway, thank you for recognizing that the same words read by different people end up with drastically different perspectives and reactions.

[damned]

I would have, too. I read damned's comment that upset Matt and I read it exactly the same way Matt did. Now, the little bit of off-forum interaction I've had with damned, I knew he most likely didn't intend for it to be read that way, but here's two of us saying that's how we read it... and some other comments.

my comment was intended to highlight the vagaries and inaccuracies that regularly occur at the table top.
it was intended to be a counter point to the ease and accuracy that I see at the virtual table top.
none of it was about Matt it was just about rolling dice at the table and how convoluted it can be.

neither you nor Matt took my comments well so they were obviously poorly worded, poorly phrased, poorly delivered or whatever.
regardless I apologise for any offense.

[Seananigans]

It might be too late for this, but from what I understand, Matt's own suggestion was something along the lines of have players roll their saves, the DM has to apply a "saved" or "failed" to each player one by one, then rolls the damage/effect/whatever.

Might he simply be able to set up a "SAV: 20" and "SAV: -20" effect to accomplish this? Apply the former to the ones who saved, apply the latter to the ones who failed, and then roll the auto-save from the NPC's attack? Should be same exact number of steps/clicks, and should only require the players to ignore the fact that extra dice are being rolled, their own rolled saves are still what counts. This also should still account for 1's and 20's being auto loss/fail, as I don't believe FG actually does auto-loss/fail for saves (although I could be wrong). You'd just apply the -20 mod to anyone who rolled a 1, even if their mod got them above the DC.


*edit* note the value of 20 can easily be 40 or 100, I just chose something that should automatically save/fail under 99.9% of circumstances (it's not often players are squaring off with a god with DC 42 abilities or whatever).

[Nickademus]

You know, I was considering this for an extension...

As part of the spell/power automation, when a PC roll is required, a popup with a roll button would appear for the player(s). They could click the button to roll the roll or drag and drop it in the chat window like any other roll button. When the roll finished, it would transfer the result information to the same function that was originally used to process the roll. All the automation would be kept intact.

The GM would also have an option in the Option Window to switch between PC Prompting and Automatic rolls.

[Seananigans]

You know, I was considering this for an extension...

As part of the spell/power automation, when a PC roll is required, a popup with a roll button would appear for the player(s). They could click the button to roll the roll or drag and drop it in the chat window like any other roll button. When the roll finished, it would transfer the result information to the same function that was originally used to process the roll. All the automation would be kept intact.

The GM would also have an option in the Option Window to switch between PC Prompting and Automatic rolls.

Or rather than a toggle (or in addition to), make it so where if you're set to player rolls and some players don't care, are afk, whatever, the DM can just roll for them. Some sort of interactive box similar to vote functionality but with DM override capability? Dunno how this works on the back end.

The psychology of "Saving Throws" is funny. All it is, really, is a reverse attack roll. Rather than AC being hard and Attack being random, Attack is hard and AC is random, and the desired outcome is lower rather than higher. So really, enemies making the saving throws (automated via FG) isn't that technically different from attack rolls, and yet many players in practice do seem to be like "ARGH I wanna roll my saves!" My own players used to do this until I just said "you know what, it's just so much easier if I do this on my end, and you guys get to do it for my NPC's on YOUR spells/whatever, so it's all fair, eh?" And that went over fine.

[Nickademus]

In my experience, players like rolling dice, especially if the outcome matters. I always allow my players to roll their saves against any effect they are aware of.


Or rather than a toggle (or in addition to), make it so where if you're set to player rolls and some players don't care, are afk, whatever, the DM can just roll for them. Some sort of interactive box similar to vote functionality but with DM override capability? Dunno how this works on the back end.

For this I would create a popup on the GM side that contains all the roll buttons. If the GM click one, it will close the popup for that player and do the roll. That way afk players don't slow things down. Might even have a toggle button on each player where the GM can set it to always roll instead of a player popup for that player. Though, I've never known a player to not want to roll their save when given the chance.

[Stitched]

You know, I was considering this for an extension...

As part of the spell/power automation, when a PC roll is required, a popup with a roll button would appear for the player(s). They could click the button to roll the roll or drag and drop it in the chat window like any other roll button. When the roll finished, it would transfer the result information to the same function that was originally used to process the roll. All the automation would be kept intact.

The GM would also have an option in the Option Window to switch between PC Prompting and Automatic rolls.

This already exists using Player side Manual rolling.

What *doesn't* exist, is having unbounded asks for Saving Throws / Effects ; meaning separated from the NPC sheet.

I've already outlined a process/workaround/whatever that combines Player manual rolling, which feeds results to the Save Check, and allows the DM to apply damage or effects based on those results, using FG's built-in automation.

I am still unsure why nobody has checked / confirmed this.

[Stitched]

In my experience, players like rolling dice, especially if the outcome matters. I always allow my players to roll their saves against any effect they are aware of.



For this I would create a popup on the GM side that contains all the roll buttons. If the GM click one, it will close the popup for that player and do the roll. That way afk players don't slow things down. Might even have a toggle button on each player where the GM can set it to always roll instead of a player popup for that player. Though, I've never known a player to not want to roll their save when given the chance.

This is getting closer.

A pop that shows all the Players and as rolls are completed, it filled the box beside the Player with the roll and checks Success/Fail Status. If a player is AFK or a DM controlled NPC - they can then manually roll on Server side in this box. Once all rolls are in, they can apply damage / effect.

[Trenloe]

You know, I was considering this for an extension...

As part of the spell/power automation, when a PC roll is required, a popup with a roll button would appear for the player(s). They could click the button to roll the roll or drag and drop it in the chat window like any other roll button. When the roll finished, it would transfer the result information to the same function that was originally used to process the roll. All the automation would be kept intact.

The GM would also have an option in the Option Window to switch between PC Prompting and Automatic rolls.
I think you'd very quickly run into asynchronous issues - FG doesn't really do "pop ups", you'd have to do these as stand alone windows. So many issues you could run into here. What happens if the GM accidentally closes the window - how does he get it back? What happens if one of the players missed what they have to do, do other rolls instead of rolling the save, have to reroll the save (due to racial/class abilities or feats, or even just forgetting to add the correct bonus/penalties), have to roll another save first, etc., etc..

I think one of the main reasons this hasn't been done now is that there are just so many possible issues in the FG asynchronous nature of dice rolls and results. You can't force a player to just roll a save before anything else (and, to be honest, you wouldn't want to as there could be other things they need to do before the save). As has been frequently mentioned, FG attempts to match 80% of the possible automation. Multi player saves triggered by a GM can have so many things implicating it - Halfling "lucky" trait in 5E, Evasion and Improved Evasion in Pathfinder are just two quick examples of things that can impact saving throws).

But, hey, don't let me put you off Nickademus! ;-) Maybe you have a cool idea to get around all of the above (and more). Go for it!

[Stitched]

After seeing Doug's methods on Reddit, I recorded my own to show how I use Trenloe's Manual Rolling for PC saves, while still maintaining FG's automation for success/fail checks, damage/effect application, etc.


https://youtu.be/GjDLkF6GZqo

It probably doesn't matter at this point since Matt has other issues that can't be addressed by FG immediately (quick adding of items to NPCs, etc.)

[Trenloe]

I recorded my own to show how I use Trenloe's Manual Rolling for PC saves...
The base extension is no longer compatible, so shouldn't be used as is. Have you updated this to cover saves and use the most recent FG script versions?

[Stitched]

The base extension is no longer compatible, so shouldn't be used as is. Have you updated this to cover saves and use the most recent FG script versions?

Sorry, I meant the in-built version. I am not using any extension for manual rolling. The version of FG I am using is v 3.2.3 (was 3.2.3 Ultimate over the weekend for some reason).

Updated to cover saves? My example is a straight up Save vs Dex (20) vs. a Fireball spell.

[Trenloe]

Updated to cover saves?
My extension only covered attacks, as a proof of concept only. So, if you were using the old extension (rather than the built in ruleset functionality) it would have had to be coded for saves as well.

[Stitched]

My extension only covered attacks, as a proof of concept only. So, if you were using the old extension (rather than the built in ruleset functionality) it would have had to be coded for saves as well.

I am using whatever ships with FG. The players have set the option for Manual Dice to On. The DMs is off.

[Nickademus]

I think you'd very quickly run into asynchronous issues - FG doesn't really do "pop ups", you'd have to do these as stand alone windows. So many issues you could run into here.
It does, in a sense. And I already have popups in the extension I'm working on, so I have a template windowclass that I could use.


What happens if the GM accidentally closes the window - how does he get it back?
I'd set the popup to <softclose /> and have the window re-shown each time a PC save is handled. I could also have a button somewhere to open the window manually in case the GM wants to see the numbers again.


What happens if one of the players missed what they have to do, do other rolls instead of rolling the save, have to reroll the save (due to racial/class abilities or feats, or even just forgetting to add the correct bonus/penalties), have to roll another save first, etc., etc..
It doesn't matter if the player does other rolls since the popup would hold the save button until they interact with it. In the case of a reroll, I'd have the PC popup show the result instead of closing immediately. An Accept button would appear and the player could then click it to send the value to the GM or use roll button again (in case of Lucky feat, halfling trait, mistakes, etc.).


I think one of the main reasons this hasn't been done now is that there are just so many possible issues in the FG asynchronous nature of dice rolls and results. You can't force a player to just roll a save before anything else (and, to be honest, you wouldn't want to as there could be other things they need to do before the save). As has been frequently mentioned, FG attempts to match 80% of the possible automation. Multi player saves triggered by a GM can have so many things implicating it - Halfling "lucky" trait in 5E, Evasion and Improved Evasion in Pathfinder are just two quick examples of things that can impact saving throws).
The 5e ruleset deals with evasion as an effect and automates it. This is a good solution that other rulesets would benefit from. Barring that, and the UI of the ruleset not being updated to offer the same targeting and save-damage alterations that other rulesets have, I could include a button on the GM popup next to the result that allows a toggle between full damage on save, half damage on save, half damage and no damage on save, etc. Though I'd prefer not to do this as it gives more reason for the ruleset not to just employ the bit of code from the 5e ruleset that handles the idea of half or no damage without untargeting targets.


But, hey, don't let me put you off Nickademus! ;-) Maybe you have a cool idea to get around all of the above (and more). Go for it!
By all means, keep the problems coming. Ironing things out in the brainstorming phase is much better.

I'm not saying I'm going to make this extension. I dislike changing ruleset code (and avoid doing so in my current extensions), though I have an idea that could merely hijack the flow of the roll without altering an ruleset files... Still, I don't use a lot of the automation in my games, so this extension wouldn't benefit me at all; that puts it pretty low on my list of potential projects. And there is the aspect of Manual Rolls which I know nothing about since I've never used them. (Though I am now curious to know if the GM can completely block them or if a player could potentially use it to cheat.)

[vodokar]

I can answer that question, Nickademus. The manual roll is set by each player and not by the GM. This means that, yes, indeed, it is possible for the player to "sneak one by" a GM who isn't paying attention. The roll is clearly marked as being manual, but, still, it is definitely possible for the GM not to notice it.

I speak from experience here, as I play with my "jolly joker" of a 16 year old son. He thought it was funny when he rolled a critical hit at a most opportune time and I didn't notice the manual roll. One of the other players did though and spoke up. Most all of us are grown ups here. We can rely on each other to police this easily enough, especially when we know that one of the players isn't a grown up and needs to be supervised.

Manual roll is a great feature and really opens the game up for a lot of people that might not have considered using Fantasy Grounds, because they just love rolling their own dice -- and in fact, I had a situation where a player actually got booted from the tabletop and couldn't get back in due to technical issues and being able to toggle on Manual rolls in order for the GM to input her dice rolls allowed the player to continue playing by voice only and rolling their own real dice. It's really a wonderful feature. In order to give individual control to each player though, which is really necessary to make it useful, there were some compromises that needed to be made, clearly, but overall, it is worth it.

[Nickademus]

I can answer that question, Nickademus. The manual roll is set by each player and not by the GM. This means that, yes, indeed, it is possible for the player to "sneak one by" a GM who isn't paying attention. The roll is clearly marked as being manual, but, still, it is definitely possible for the GM not to notice it.
As long as it states in chat that it was manual, I'm fine with that.

Thanks for the info.

[Stitched]

As long as it states in chat that it was manual, I'm fine with that.

Thanks for the info.

In my example, I used the "dice icon" in the manual pop-up so no room to "fudge" the dice but I am sure it is possible to cheat using the numbered input. Again, would be nice if there was the option to *block* that via sub-options.

[marcusrife]

So I don't know how it works behind the scenes in the code so forgive me, but it seems like this could be doable and would be an improvement. I have found the saving throw system to be awkward as well. It works great when it is a player attacking an NPC but when it is the other way it is problematic. FG already links the saving throw roll and the damage roll for the purposes of half damage. Can't there be a special "attack roll" for Fireball for example that doesn't roll any dice but establishes the DC for the saving throw which is then linked to the next roll (a saving throw) which makes the comparison and parses success or failure which then links to the next roll for damage as it does now?

As for my two cents on the the drama, it seems like it was handled poorly by both sides at times. It seems Matt made some assumptions about the way FG worked and waited till the last minute to test those assumptions and when they turned out to be not true it upset his plans which led to him being a little impatient and testy. That being said, I think his request makes sense and some of the responses to the request could have been better.

[LordEntrails]

So I don't know how it works behind the scenes in the code so forgive me, but it seems like this could be doable and would be an improvement. I have found the saving throw system to be awkward as well. It works great when it is a player attacking an NPC but when it is the other way it is problematic. FG already links the saving throw roll and the damage roll for the purposes of half damage. Can't there be a special "attack roll" for Fireball for example that doesn't roll any dice but establishes the DC for the saving throw which is then linked to the next roll (a saving throw) which makes the comparison and parses success or failure which then links to the next roll for damage as it does now?

As for my two cents on the the drama, it seems like it was handled poorly by both sides at times. It seems Matt made some assumptions about the way FG worked and waited till the last minute to test those assumptions and when they turned out to be not true it upset his plans which led to him being a little impatient and testy. That being said, I think his request makes sense and some of the responses to the request could have been better.

See posts #33 & 41. They are from the developers of FG and explain why FG does saving throws the way it does.

[marcusrife]

See posts #33 & 41. They are from the developers of FG and explain why FG does saving throws the way it does.

I saw those. I get it, it takes time. That is what I mean when I said Matt got impatient. It just seemed like other people were suggesting other ways of implementing it. To me what I said seems simplest.

[Stitched]

I am almost 100% confident that Matt ain't coming back. Hearing him on Twitter, it sounds like he has bent the ear of the guys at DND Beyond and is hopeful that they will eventually provide a solution that cater to his style of his play.

[Talyn]

D&D Beyond isn't a VTT, though, and Matt is fully aware of that.

But it looks like (for now) he's no longer advocating Fantasy Grounds and took down his recent video about it.

[Trenloe]

And, unfortunately, he hasn't been on the forums recently and has missed the detailed responses from the SmiteWorks folks.

[Stitched]

I sent him a direct link to my video, outlining out I would do "manual PC saves" while still maintaining FG automation for the DM and he never responded so I think that's the end of that chapter.

[Stitched]

D&D Beyond isn't a VTT, though, and Matt is fully aware of that.

But it looks like (for now) he's no longer advocating Fantasy Grounds and took down his recent video about it.

I thought he took down ALL of his 5e Fantasy Grounds videos; his 4e stuff is still up.

[JohnD]

I should know better than to stick my nose in, but usually in my experience after 7-ish years anyone would have a nominal familiarity with the program.

That said, if any program doesn't meet someone's needs, move on.

Given all that FG does to facilitate a game, it seems like missing the forest in the trees, but to each their own regardless.

[ddavison]

Thanks for all the feedback and comments everyone. I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread for now.