C&C Developer Wishlist

[Frankison]

First of all I just want to say thank you for all of the work that has been put into the C&C rule set the past few months. Its obvious you guys have been working hard. Below is a list of things other Rule sets have that C&C could really benefit from.

Weapons and Damage

Please add damage types to weapons (Piercing, Blunt, Slashing, Fire, Etc...) currently there is no way to add a resistance effect even though the wiki has it as an option.


Spells & Abilities

Please add damage for spells with damage types so spells can be used more efficiently.
Please add effects to spells so that players and castle keepers can add effects during combat quicker.
Please add a spell tab to NPC sheets that also includes damage and effects.
Need the ability to add additional spell lists to the Character Sheet alleviates confusion of tracking abilities and spells if multi classing.


Misc. Character and NPC Sheet Additions

Please add a modifiers box to the abilities section of the character sheet. There are a lot of instances for modifiers (Racial, Class, Item, etc...)
Please allow right click add item functionality on the character sheet inventory for both players and castle keepers. (right now players and castle keepers have to add items by dragging "New Item" from the item list.)
Please add multiple Armor Class types for NPC's. Right now it does not calculate an NPC's Armor class correctly in the combat tracker. AC and -Dex AC are always the same, it has to be changed manually.

[JohnD]

Damage types and resistances.
Multiple spells lists segregated from each other on the Spells tab.
Effects/Damage to each spell as in 3.5/Pathfinder.
Multiple AC fields for NPCs which recognize the attack type incoming (i.e. Touch).
Rollable entries on NPC sheets for racial/class/special abilities.

[Talyn]

I'll agree with all those. If/when the ruleset supports this stuff, I can make a pass through the PHB and other reference DLC to add the damage types, etc. I'd like, bare minimum, the ruleset to have the features we see in the PFRPG ruleset (all the effects, spell casting mechanics, etc.)

[Andraax]

Please add a modifiers box to the abilities section of the character sheet. There are a lot of instances for modifiers (Racial, Class, Item, etc...)

This already exists. You can hover over the top right corner of the dice button, and "Ctrl-Mouse Wheel" to add a modifier. This actually exists on many of the dice buttons in the CnC ruleset.

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/AbilityMod.JPG


Please allow right click add item functionality on the character sheet inventory for both players and castle keepers. (right now players and castle keepers have to add items by dragging "New Item" from the item list.)

There is already an "Add Item" button on the inventory tab. Click the brown "/" button to open the edit buttons.

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/AddItem.JPG


Please add multiple Armor Class types for NPC's. Right now it does not calculate an NPC's Armor class correctly in the combat tracker. AC and -Dex AC are always the same, it has to be changed manually.

This only applies to "Character" type NPCs - the rules do not define Dex adjustments for monsters. However, it does appear broken. Character NPCs apply modifiers correctly for generic rolls from that NPC, but the AC does *not* adjust automatically. I've added this to the list to fix.

Multi-classing and damage types are already on the list to be added.

[Frankison]

The items in Bold I feel are the more important additions the other items are simply quality of life improvements.

I was made aware of the Control + Mouse wheel functionality a couple months ago (I believe Moon told me about them). its just not something most people know about, and every other Rule set I use has a modifier box. Just figured it would be more intuitive.

Didn't notice the Edit button on the inventory sheet. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thanks for noting the AC, I should have specified the Character portion of the NPC sheet.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this and your timely response. I hope more people will soon realize that C&C gives more freedom of play than the other games due to its simplicity in the rule set.

[damned]

Put the price up.

[JohnD]

Put the price up.

Indeed. Recent improvements and stated things to come make this ruleset an absolute slam dunk steal at $10.

[Andraax]

The items in Bold I feel are the more important additions the other items are simply quality of life improvements.

The reason they're not in the base ruleset is that it implements mostly the base rules. All of those are part of the "optional" rules or automation for things that can be handled with modifiers / effects.

But, like I said, they are in the works.

[Talyn]

I agree the ruleset is worthy of a higher price point (so is Savage Worlds).

I'll add a second vote to the right-click to add stuff, too. FG has pretty much trained us to right-click all the time, so that's an expected function at this point in time.

[Andraax]

Please add damage for spells with damage types so spells can be used more efficiently.

Forgot to mention this: create an entry for the spell on the combat tab so that damage can be easily targeted / rolled. If you put the word "[HEAL]" in the spell name on the combat tab, it will heal rather cause damage (for clerics). Also, for those spells that require a "ranged touch" or "touch" attack for use, put the word "Touch" in the name on the combat tab, and an attack rolled with that entry will compare the roll against the "touch" AC rather than the regular AC.

[Frankison]

Forgot to mention this: create an entry for the spell on the combat tab so that damage can be easily targeted / rolled. If you put the word "[HEAL]" in the spell name on the combat tab, it will heal rather cause damage (for clerics). Also, for those spells that require a "ranged touch" or "touch" attack for use, put the word "Touch" in the name on the combat tab, and an attack rolled with that entry will compare the roll against the "touch" AC rather than the regular AC.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've tried several times to add a way to Heal. I can get the Touch action to work but it only seems to want to do damage when I type in Heal, I've also tried adding it as an attack in the CT, Upper Case, Lowercase, nothing works. The only way I have found that healing works is by rolling the dice and right clicking the result and changing it to a negative value then dragging the result to the target.

[Andraax]

Did you put it in brackets?

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/Healing.JPG

[Frankison]

Oh the issue was that it wasn't at the end of the weapon name. With Touch it works at the beginning of the string so I assumed it would be the same, I did try it with brackets. Also where are these types of commands listed? I went to the FG user guide for C&C and could not find a reference for the Heal command.

[Andraax]

Yeah, that's a little trick I learned by digging into the code. It leverages some code that is in CoreRPG to support 5E.

The wiki is out of date, but I don't have access to be able to update it.

BTW, putting at the beginning works for me as well.

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/Healing2.JPG

[damned]

Yeah, that's a little trick I learned by digging into the code. It leverages some code that is in CoreRPG to support 5E.

The wiki is out of date, but I don't have access to be able to update it.

BTW, putting at the beginning works for me as well.


I can update the Wiki if you let me know exactly what you need to have in there.

[Frankison]

Yeah I see it works It has to be in all caps as well.

[goodmanje]

I wholeheartedly support this thread!! I will pay more to get a version of the C&C ruleset that has been taken to 11. I like the idea of the Pathfinder style spell options. Right click to choose between cast, heal, damage and effects.

Something i would like to see in all the rulesets is the ability to add effects to weapons. I believe the latest Savage Worlds release allows that to an extent but i haven't played with it much.

[Segin]

Also where are these types of commands listed? I went to the FG user guide for C&C and could not find a reference for the Heal command.

This.
I'm amazed. You have a product that can do such things, yet it is hidden in forums that it's possible.
My wishlist item is a clear list of options for effects. Just found the option defenseless by reading the Players Guide and trying it out in effects. It's not in the Wiki which leads me to think there may be more options we don't know.
My second wishlist item is to create a hidden set of ability scores that mirror the ones on the character sheet. These hidden ability scores can be used/modified by the effect 'adjust saving throw by +1'. Final part would be the actual rolling of the ST (which would ping the hidden (and possibly adjusted) abilities). Currently it is my understanding that ST's can not be adjusted other than adjusting the roll.

Adjust the price as you will. I chose this ruleset because of the price however. Perks and such would certainly constitute a raise in price. I'm not sure basic functionality (of effects for example) do, but I'm not going to stand on any soapbox about it. But I had never heard of CnC and when someone mentioned it to me as an alternative, the price is what tipped the scales for me buying it.

Segin

CT Attack info--> "Bainfoe" Longsword +4 (1d8+4) or Touch [HEAL] (1d8)
This is awesome. I can click the first part of 'Touch [HEAL] (1d8)' and get a touch attack or if I just want to heal I just click the (1d8) (as long as I have a target specified). This is sweet.
24302

[Andraax]

Defenseless was just added in version 3.3.5, IIRC.

[Talyn]

What's this "defenseless" stuff?

[Andraax]

If you add "Defenseless" as an effect, it applies a -10 to the AC.

[Segin]

While others like lower elevation and attacker mounted penalties to hit are examples of things not coded, those things are minor. Defenseless is easily set by 'Defenseless;AC:-10' without it being a coded one word effect, for example.

More to the point I was making though, I already came across one that wasn't on the wiki: ABIL:# was not on the wiki list. This I accidentally came across and it adds the # to all abilities when no qualifier like STR or DEX were used. So defenseless was the second modifier/condition I had thought I come across. Hence, my wishlist of all possible tools that we had to work with be given to us. That still stands even if Defenseless wasn't one. (note, I managed over a period of time, to convince ABIL:# to be added to the wiki.)

My second wishlist was concerning ST's where there is no current way to adjust. I gave a possible coding work around, without any coding knowledge to know if it's possible. Seems like the current code really sucks, else more effects would be available to CnC.

The other thing I commented on was the [HEAL] and touch, both awesome capabilities, that FG CnC has, that I had to forum dive to find out about.

I thought all three were things that I thought would be a help to the product (information on available modifiers, a ST fix, and something so that great current abilities were more visible to the average user to use.

I put my two cents on the pricing of CnC as well. I bought it because of the resonable pricing and consider things like my suggestions basic functionality, not really cool additional perks.

Segin

[Andraax]

Your suggestion for saving throws won't work, because there is no difference between a saving throw and any other Siege Check.

[Andraax]

More to the point I was making though, I already came across one that wasn't on the wiki: ABIL:# was not on the wiki list. This I accidentally came across and it adds the # to all abilities when no qualifier like STR or DEX were used. So defenseless was the second modifier/condition I had thought I come across. Hence, my wishlist of all possible tools that we had to work with be given to us. That still stands even if Defenseless wasn't one. (note, I managed over a period of time, to convince ABIL:# to be added to the wiki.)

BTW, I went all the way back to 2014-05-23 using the Internet Archive, and the ABIL effect was on the CnC wiki page even back then.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140523002114/https://www.fantasygrounds.com:80/wiki/index.php/CnC_Effects

[Talyn]

Your suggestion for saving throws won't work, because there is no difference between a saving throw and any other Siege Check.

That being true, but is there a way to specifically trap if the roll is made from one of the Save buttons, and run the script from there?

[Andraax]

That being true, but is there a way to specifically trap if the roll is made from one of the Save buttons, and run the script from there?

The "Save buttons" are the same buttons as used for Siege Checks. Saves, in C&C, *are* Siege Checks. They are one and the same. To save against Divine Magic, you do a Wisdom Siege Check. To see if you notice that sound from down the corridor, you do a Wisdom Siege Check.

[Segin]

BTW, I went all the way back to 2014-05-23 using the Internet Archive, and the ABIL effect was on the CnC wiki page even back then.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140523002114/https://www.fantasygrounds.com:80/wiki/index.php/CnC_Effects

Sir, you should check your own link. Look real hard. Where on that link is Abil:2 <adds 2 to ALL abilitiy score> ? Look real close. Tell me if you see it. I believe you will find that it isn't there. The only option is to specifically add 2 to a certain ability. No where does the option to add 2 to all ability scores in one fell swope.

You guys are so focused on proving me wrong, you are not hearing what I am saying. You even say there is no way to effect ST's because of the Seige Engine after I gave you the formula. Maybe you should read my suggestion for that, instead of dismissing it out of hand. I told you. Create another set of hidden Ability scores (seperate from the ones used for Seige Checks). Hand the ST's use those not the Seige Check Ability scores. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, then I'll just nod my head with you, and say ok. No use arguing with you.

Segin

[Segin]

The "Save buttons" are the same buttons as used for Siege Checks. Saves, in C&C, *are* Siege Checks. They are one and the same. To save against Divine Magic, you do a Wisdom Siege Check. To see if you notice that sound from down the corridor, you do a Wisdom Siege Check.

And while I agree with you, to make a save you use the buttons for ability checks because its part of the Seige Engine, it wouldn't take a genius level person to come up with an alternative. This I knew all long would be the actual hard part, but for the sake of argument, knowing it would be too hard to work with, put a small box beside each existing box for use to access the hidden ability scores when making a ST roll, or where if you press SHIFT before you click on the current Ability scores to access the roll for ST's. I know that compared to the other part of my plan, (which is plain common sense and shame on FG for not fixing this) this is the one tricky part. I am not going to sit here and do it all. I am a newb, non programmer, and you guys are the pro's. But you want to dismiss a fundamental issue and always say because its part of the Seige Engine and it can't be done. That is bolox.

[Mortar]

My second wishlist was concerning ST's where there is no current way to adjust.

Put the total modifier in the modifier box bottom left corner of the screen. Having said that, a saving throw in C&C is an attribute check - so it's a Siege engine check. Having more effects already set up would be nice.

[Mortar]

You guys are so focused on proving me wrong, you are not hearing what I am saying. You even say there is no way to effect ST's because of the Seige Engine after I gave you the formula. Maybe you should read my suggestion for that, instead of dismissing it out of hand. I told you. Create another set of hidden Ability scores (seperate from the ones used for Seige Checks). Hand the ST's use those not the Seige Check Ability scores. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, then I'll just nod my head with you, and say ok. No use arguing with you.

Segin

With the way the C&C rules are written,WHY do you need to set up a hidden set of scores to act as saving throws? That's the part I think Andraax is not understanding - because I know I am not understanding your thinking behind this.

[Trenloe]

I'm coming from the outside in this discussion, but I think people need to calm down, take a deep breath and read what is being said.


Sir, you should check your own link. Look real hard. Where on that link is Abil:2 <adds 2 to ALL abilitiy score> ? Look real close. Tell me if you see it. I believe you will find that it isn't there.
I'm really confused with your statement. The ABIL effect is there in the page referenced by Andraax:

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24340


You guys are so focused on proving me wrong, you are not hearing what I am saying. You even say there is no way to effect ST's because of the Seige Engine after I gave you the formula. Maybe you should read my suggestion for that, instead of dismissing it out of hand. I told you. Create another set of hidden Ability scores (seperate from the ones used for Seige Checks). Hand the ST's use those not the Seige Check Ability scores. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, then I'll just nod my head with you, and say ok. No use arguing with you.
I think you need to calm down some and also read what the others in this post are trying to say. They're trying to tell you that Saving Throws aren't anything special requiring a different mechanic - saving throws are an attribute check, better known as a siege checks. If there are modifiers to be made to a saving throw ability check (siege check) you should apply it just like any other modifier.

From the "Saving Throws" section of the C&C PHB: "A saving throw is an attribute check. A player rolls a d20 and adds the character’s level and the appropriate attribute modifier. If the attribute related to the saving throw is a primary attribute, the challenge base is 12. If the attribute related to the saving throw is a secondary attribute, the challenge base is 18. The Castle Keeper determines the challenge level by such factors as the monster’s hit dice, the spell caster’s level or the level of the trap or poison. The Castle Keeper may also give bonuses or impose penalties due to circumstance and situation."

This is exactly the same as any other attribute check (siege check). This is why others are trying to tell you that there is no need for a completely separate mechanic for saving throws.

@Segin I'm sorry, but as a moderator I had to jump in here because you're coming across as overly aggressive - saying things "suck" and are "bolox", the example above of the ABIL effect and implying that people are stupid. Please moderate your tone and relax. You're having a discussion about something you'd like to be added into the ruleset and others are asking why this is needed as the RPG mechanic is covered already. Please discuss this civility and politely. Thanks.

[Talyn]

The "Save buttons" are the same buttons as used for Siege Checks. Saves, in C&C, *are* Siege Checks. They are one and the same. To save against Divine Magic, you do a Wisdom Siege Check. To see if you notice that sound from down the corridor, you do a Wisdom Siege Check.

Right you are! For some reason I was thinking there was a separate row of buttons to click, but it's just the saving throw text labels in their own column.

Also: thanks for stepping in @Trenloe!

[Andraax]

Everybody can stop this discussion. I am testing a solution that doesn't break anything currently, but gives @Segin what he wants. I will be pushing this to the test channel soon and it will be in the next release. I think we're now done discussing "saves".

[Segin]

Put the total modifier in the modifier box bottom left corner of the screen. Having said that, a saving throw in C&C is an attribute check - so it's a Siege engine check. Having more effects already set up would be nice.

LOL. I have mentioned that already. The only way to adjust ST's is to do it by hand. I've actually one upped your solution and put a Modifier in the Modifier's Table so that when I am under a spell effect I just click the modifier to adjust it. But I'm not sure that is any better than adjusting it manually.

And please read what I have written. I know it is an ability check, a siege check. If you read my solution you would see that I know this (by making a second hidden copy of the ability scores). <removed quark>

Yes it would. Also it would be nice to have the current tweaks known to us. I've been told that all the effects except for the one I found (the ability to modify all stats in one statement instead of many) have been given to us.
I have found another effect (not an effect) available on the 'Touch [HEAL] (1d8)' attack, though. Try this: '10Touch [HEAL] (1d8)' . I am really happy about this [HEAL] attack I learned on the forum. It's yummy.

Segin

[Segin]

I'm coming from the outside in this discussion, but I think people need to calm down, take a deep breath and read what is being said.


I'm really confused with your statement. The ABIL effect is there in the page referenced by Andraax:

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24340


I think you need to calm down some and also read what the others in this post are trying to say. They're trying to tell you that Saving Throws aren't anything special requiring a different mechanic - saving throws are an attribute check, better known as a siege checks. If there are modifiers to be made to a saving throw ability check (siege check) you should apply it just like any other modifier.

From the "Saving Throws" section of the C&C PHB: "A saving throw is an attribute check. A player rolls a d20 and adds the character’s level and the appropriate attribute modifier. If the attribute related to the saving throw is a primary attribute, the challenge base is 12. If the attribute related to the saving throw is a secondary attribute, the challenge base is 18. The Castle Keeper determines the challenge level by such factors as the monster’s hit dice, the spell caster’s level or the level of the trap or poison. The Castle Keeper may also give bonuses or impose penalties due to circumstance and situation."

This is exactly the same as any other attribute check (siege check). This is why others are trying to tell you that there is no need for a completely separate mechanic for saving throws.

@Segin I'm sorry, but as a moderator I had to jump in here because you're coming across as overly aggressive - saying things "suck" and are "bolox", the example above of the ABIL effect and implying that people are stupid. Please moderate your tone and relax. You're having a discussion about something you'd like to be added into the ruleset and others are asking why this is needed as the RPG mechanic is covered already. Please discuss this civility and politely. Thanks.

Your wrong on all counts though. It is something that needs to be addressed. Your saying its an Ability score check for ST's therefore it doesn't need to be changed. The thing is it does, and your wrong.

When I change Ability scores, it doesn't just change ST's. It changes other things. Hence, there is no way to change ST's without messing up the character. I hope I am explaining this so you can understand it.

As far as the ABIL:2 str being in there, it is. So as it stood, if I wanted to raise multiple all my stats I would stype ABIL:2 Str; ABIL:2 DEX;ABIL:2 WIS; please don't make me type it all out. I found that if you type ABIL:2 with no descriptor that it raised ALL stats without having to type it in. This was unknown and was not described or given to us and therefore was not an option. If you say that it was there all along, then please tell me what else is there, that really isn't there, because I could use that info too.

So if there is something like, AC:2 1atk (AC:2 for 1 attacks <aka DODGE>) that is obviously there for all to use because AC is there and ATK is there, then please be so kind as to point it out to me because those are things that need to be known. The dodge AC:2 1ATK doesn't work, I tried it. But if it's so obvious to you about ABIL affecting all stats, then why wasn't it told to us, similiar to Dodge (if it worked). BTW, make that a wishlist item to make DODGE work like that.

[Segin]

With the way the C&C rules are written,WHY do you need to set up a hidden set of scores to act as saving throws? That's the part I think Andraax is not understanding - because I know I am not understanding your thinking behind this.

Ok, so there seems to be a lot of people not understanding why I need to change ST's when I can change the Ability that ST's are based on. Let me give an example, to help. Shield of Faith gives a bonus 2 to armor Class (AC:2) and it gives a bonus to ST's. I'm not sure, lets just say +120 just to make the example. If I changed the Ability scores by +120 then my melee attacks would be something fierce and also ranged attacks because to affect all ST's I would have to adjust ALL stats by using the nifty Effect I came up with (partially) by doing ABIL:+120 <no descriptor>. Therefore, I see no way to change a ST without affecting other things on my character. Now, if there is a way, then up to this point no one has told me how.

Segin

[Segin]

And I guess I do get defensive, when everything I said should be a simple request, yet everyone knocks it down like it is a silly idea. WHY would you want to affect ST's when you can change your Move Silently skills and melee attacks and range attacks and damage modifiers to get the ST effect your looking for. Not one person has said, hey that is a cool idea. And not one has said thanks for finding out that you can change all the ability scores without having to type them in one at a time. You've wen't waaay out of your way to prove me wrong on all counts. I guess all you pro's knew it already and just didn't think it was worth sharing. I don't know. But I've told it like I see it.

[Segin]

The only thing that would crumple my statements is if ST's are different than Ability score checks. I've asked repeatedly on different forum threads and I've been told WRONG if there is a ST that doesn't include ABILITY scores. IF there is a way to separate ST's from ABILITY scores, then I am the one that is wrong. I'll take the blame. But I've been told wrongly myself if that is the case.

[Segin]

You're having a discussion about something you'd like to be added into the ruleset and others are asking why this is needed as the RPG mechanic is covered already. Thanks.

I've come up with a solution. I quoted you, because reading between the lines gave me the idea. If I want Shield of Faith to affect ST's like the spell description and not affect everything else that Ability scores do, here is what I can do. Create an Ability in the Skills/Abilities Tab called, umm, Shield of Faith AC2 ST30. Adjust the manual adjuster of the ability up to 30 (or +2 or whatever). Then, when that actor is under the Shield of Faith;AC:2 effect and has to make a ST, then I can go to Abilities and adjust the ability to the one the ST needs (Str, dex whatever) and use the ability.

So there is a work around. I could actually put in ST adjustment + or minus 1-10 so that any time a ST is needed with an effect affecting just the ST and not the ability itself, I can just click an ability. At this point though, seriously think just adjusting the roll manually and saying it can't be done is the best option.

[JohnD]

Everybody can stop this discussion. I am testing a solution that doesn't break anything currently, but gives @Segin what he wants. I will be pushing this to the test channel soon and it will be in the next release. I think we're now done discussing "saves".

Perhaps this post has been missed.

I had been asking for initiative modifiers to be added and Andraax got them in, and that's not the only update that has been followed through on at the ruleset level, not to mention all the content updates that have been made so far in 2018 for C&C so overall the situation IMO is positive.

[Andraax]

OK, here is a sample of the code I just pushed (I'll have Moon update the test system when he gets a chance).

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/Saves.jpg

You will note that the effect has "ABIL: 3 dexterity" and "SAVE: 1 strength". In the chat window, there are ability and save rolls for both dexterity and strength. The "ABIL" effect is added to the dexterity ability check, but not the save, and the "SAVE" effect is added to the strength save, but not the ability check. You designate a roll as a "save" by holding shift while double-clicking or dragging.

[Andraax]

Oh, and for @Segin, I think the point of disconnect with the "ABIL" documentation on the wiki is that descriptors in brackets are optional, and if left off, applies to "all". I think that's where you got lost.

[Segin]

Oh, and for @Segin, I think the point of disconnect with the "ABIL" documentation on the wiki is that descriptors in brackets are optional, and if left off, applies to "all". I think that's where you got lost.

It's not documented. Well it is now. But wasn't.

[Segin]

Before the update:
Ability of 19 Bonus +3
ABIL:5 Dexterity <changes bonus to +8>
DEX:5 <changes the score itself to 24, bonus to +6)

I was slightly confused about your sentence "The ABIL effect is added to the dexterity ability check, but not the save." But really I think it doesn't matter to someone who just wants to use it the same as always (for saves, and everything else, if they so choose to do so).

[Segin]

If you want to double click the bonus box for a save, you'd do it same as always. It says [ABILITY], but the user can use it for all the normal SEIGE checks as usual. The only real difference is if you want to specify saves and you do that by doing the shift doubleclick.

So really no change to anyone except the additional capability to specify a save by shift/double click, if I am understanding it right?

If that is true, that is awesome. Those that don't want it, nothing changes much. Those that want to be able to change saves without messing with the ability (melee attacks, walk silent, etc) can do that. That is a great solution to a real problem.

[Segin]

It took a while to get here, seemed so simple to start. Who knew the opposition I'd face. Thanks for coming up with a solution. The rules set is the better for your efforts.

[Andraax]

It took a while to get here, seemed so simple to start. Who knew the opposition I'd face. Thanks for coming up with a solution. The rules set is the better for your efforts.

Just remember the old saying about flies and honey in the future.

[Segin]

Just remember the old saying about flies and honey in the future.

I WANT EVERYONE to go back and READ tHIS THREAD. Where, WHERE was I out of line. I only responded minimally out of the realm of extreme niciety when I was called out again and again and again after explanation upon explantion and then told I was a lier about the EFFECTS and a picture drawn with 7 red lines and accused of being uncivil. Go back and read. Someone said that since I didn't know it, ability scores were tied to ST's. You posted a picture after much delving into back files to prove me wrong on Effects.

If a person is reading effects wiki they might not be a pro and know about no descriptor effects ALL and until I helped get the wiki changed it wasn't there. That is like saying DODGE AC:1 for 1 ATTACK should be known by everyone because AC was described and ATTACK was described. DODGE isn't a thing of course, but if it was, and it wasn't on the wiki, and I found the combination, you'd say I found nothing because AC and ATK was already on the wiki.

I've been told from the beginning that what I was asking was bolox. Not ONE PERSON has said that hey, dude was right after all and now the rule set is better. NOT ONE.

And I had just got through reading the UNITY thread where FG is going because the current code doesn't work like it needs to hence I thought that, along with a lot of basic functionality in effects for CnC was common knowledge that the current code sucks. I wasn't calling anyone out about the code. That is the only real thing that might have been taken as bad, but I thought with the UNITY conversation, that this was a common acceptance of how hard it was to make changes currently. I was actually giving you an excuse for not making the changes in CnC that should already have been in there.

[Segin]

I'm done. Trenloe wrote me a message telling me how rude I've been this entire thread. I dare you read back and see where I spent extreme's amount of time trying to explain and defend something that shouldn't have to have been defended. I explained it plainly in my second post. The one post that was out of the normal for me was the post replying to the guy that said I should do it by hand and that ST's were connected to Ability scores. I thought that combination of comments didn't deserve too much of a silver spoon response. I'm done. This is bordering on rediculous. Trenloe thinks I've won something. Crazy. Trenloe is made because he think's I've won. Won what? Some CnC functionality? Let someone else be the lamb for slaughter.

[Mortar]

Go back and read the posts you wrote before Andraax worked the coding and tell us where you explained WHY you wanted the extra coding. You told us WHAT you wanted. Big difference. Oh, and ignored.

[Andraax]

I WANT EVERYONE to go back and READ tHIS THREAD. Where, WHERE was I out of line. I only responded minimally out of the realm of extreme niciety

It started around here:


Seems like the current code really sucks, else more effects would be available to CnC.

[Topdecker]

<Replied to a post that was far from current- apologies>

[Talyn]

I WANT EVERYONE to go back and READ tHIS THREAD. Where, WHERE was I out of line. I only responded minimally out of the realm of extreme niciety when I was called out again and again and again after explanation upon explantion and then told I was a lier about the EFFECTS and a picture drawn with 7 red lines and accused of being uncivil. Go back and read. Someone said that since I didn't know it, ability scores were tied to ST's. You posted a picture after much delving into back files to prove me wrong on Effects.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Buckle up, buttercup:


Sir, you should check your own link. Look real hard. [snip] Look real close. Tell me if you see it. I believe you will find that it isn't there. [snip]

You guys are so focused on proving me wrong, you are not hearing what I am saying. [snip] Maybe you should read my suggestion for that, instead of dismissing it out of hand. I told you. [snip] If you can't wrap your head around that concept, then I'll just nod my head with you, and say ok. No use arguing with you.


it wouldn't take a genius level person to come up with an alternative. [snip] I am not going to sit here and do it all. [snip] But you want to dismiss a fundamental issue and always say because its part of the Seige Engine and it can't be done. That is bolox.


LOL. I have mentioned that already. [snip] I've actually one upped your solution [snip]

And please read what I have written. I know it is an ability check, a siege check. If you read my solution you would see that I know this (by making a second hidden copy of the ability scores). duh.


Your wrong on all counts though. It is something that needs to be addressed. [snip] The thing is it does, and your wrong.


And I guess I do get defensive, when everything I said should be a simple request, yet everyone knocks it down like it is a silly idea. WHY would you want to affect ST's when you can change your Move Silently skills and melee attacks and range attacks and damage modifiers to get the ST effect your looking for. Not one person has said, hey that is a cool idea. And not one has said thanks for finding out that you can change all the ability scores without having to type them in one at a time. You've wen't waaay out of your way to prove me wrong on all counts. I guess all you pro's knew it already and just didn't think it was worth sharing. I don't know. But I've told it like I see it.

So, gee, I dunno. Some random dude on the internet starts snarking off in what could be (and obviously was) taken as a hostile manner saying "this is bolox" (you'll notice you're the only one who said that this entire thread) "Go back and read that page. Look real close. What do you see?" and "it doesn't take a genius, duh," and "I've already one-upped your solution" and finally "you're wrong on all counts" ooooh but then you switch into Victim Mode "you guys are so focused on proving me wrong."

This entire thread no one tried to prove you "wrong." Most of the thread you were not communicating why you wanted saving throws (which yes, was repeatedly pointed out saves are just plain ol' SIEGE checks) which was pointed out with the one single question to you:


With the way the C&C rules are written,WHY do you need to set up a hidden set of scores to act as saving throws? That's the part I think Andraax is not understanding - because I know I am not understanding your thinking behind this.

You'll notice the moment you clearly and concisely stated some specific examples of where it could be beneficial to check only for saves, that's when @Andraax understood what you meant and coded his solution which is nice and clean, and doesn't break any of the existing code/DLC. But sure, he's only out to prove you wrong. You're the victim. Here, have a cookie. JFC...

[Trenloe]

Trenloe thinks I've won something. Crazy. Trenloe is made because he think's I've won. Won what? Some CnC functionality? Let someone else be the lamb for slaughter.
My exact comment was "You may feel you've "won", but I'm guessing you've starting burning some bridges..." and that was in a direct response to you saying "It took a while to get here, seemed so simple to start. Who knew the opposition I'd face." Particularly the word "opposition".

My PMs to you were very clearly about pointing out that, right or wrong, you've been overly aggressive and you're alienating multiple long standing community members. I'm not mad in the slightest, to be perfectly honest I couldn't care less. I was purely trying to help you avoid annoying a bunch of people by advising you that you'd overstepped the mark in a lot or people's eyes. Take that advise or not. I see that you didnt... fair enough. Your choice and your loss. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Segin]

See my second Post. I stated clearly why. Later, I clearly stated it again, this time with a spell as an example. And yeah, I repeatedly had to explain it, defend it, was told I was lying, etc. Every one of my posts was in response to a post to me. So there ya go.

Segin


Ask, and ye shall receive. Buckle up, buttercup:











So, gee, I dunno. Some random dude on the internet starts snarking off in what could be (and obviously was) taken as a hostile manner saying "this is bolox" (you'll notice you're the only one who said that this entire thread) "Go back and read that page. Look real close. What do you see?" and "it doesn't take a genius, duh," and "I've already one-upped your solution" and finally "you're wrong on all counts" ooooh but then you switch into Victim Mode "you guys are so focused on proving me wrong."

This entire thread no one tried to prove you "wrong." Most of the thread you were not communicating why you wanted saving throws (which yes, was repeatedly pointed out saves are just plain ol' SIEGE checks) which was pointed out with the one single question to you:



You'll notice the moment you clearly and concisely stated some specific examples of where it could be beneficial to check only for saves, that's when @Andraax understood what you meant and coded his solution which is nice and clean, and doesn't break any of the existing code/DLC. But sure, he's only out to prove you wrong. You're the victim. Here, have a cookie. JFC...

[Segin]

Burn bridges with people that want to argue instead of listening? umm, ok . I'll take that resolution. Because to me, everyone's post was a try to bash.
And so, at some point you want to say you finally understood. Then ok, where is the Wow, we understand now posts? Nowhere. The post came out like "to end this guy who won't stop ranting and raving, I'm going to change something so he will shut up" type of post.

Person finds it hard to 'rant and rave' if there isn't posts of opposition and people trying to go back in time to find evidence to prove me wrong.

If you can't take your own responsibility for this non-sense thread of schoolyard garbage, then what does it say about you? And that is what

I've found by these posts by supposed Admin grown ups. They like to point fingers and not take responsibility or give credit. They are more concerned about one up-manship. I've given FG much credit for things, and only kept posting here to keep trying to explain and defend, oops, I mean I only kept 'ranting and raving' here to respond to your words.

I see no point in responding more. You guys are childish or at least very insecure, trying to put all blame on me, when I gave explanation upon explanation and responded in kind to what I was given. I'm fine with the outcome, the burnt bridges. You've got a better product and if it doesn't meet my needs, I can spend my money elsewhere.

I tried to be banned from the forum, but they said the only way was to cancel my account, and I don't want that. It's hard not to respond to crap people post about you that is wrong, misguided and at least equally as childish and mean. But since I it's apparent the level of maturity I am dealing with, its going to be easier.

[Trenloe]

See my second Post. I stated clearly why.
Really? This is the *only* thing to do with Saving Throws in your second post in this thread: "My second wishlist was concerning ST's where there is no current way to adjust. I gave a possible coding work around, without any coding knowledge to know if it's possible. Seems like the current code really sucks, else more effects would be available to CnC."

Where does this "state clearly why" saving throws should be different to standard ability check (siege checks).


Later, I clearly stated it again, this time with a spell as an example.
This was the first time that you gave an example of why there was a need for a separate Saving Throw action. Prior to that there was nothing clear at all - you were just re-stating over and over the same thing. We asked you "why" but all you did was start to go off on one.


And yeah, I repeatedly had to explain it, defend it, was told I was lying, etc. Every one of my posts was in response to a post to me. So there ya go.
Your idea of repeatedly explaining it was just to keep saying the same thing, not give an example of why Saving Throws should be a different action. As part of this explaining repeatedly you started to get aggressive - I know *you* don't think you were, but the majority of people on these forums think you were - using the statements highlighted by Talyn above are aggressive, they are - even if you can't see it.

[Segin]

And of all the posts you snipped, I don't see any that isn't a worthy response except for one. And I mentioned it already - The guy who told me the solution was to do it by hand, and asked if I didn't realize that ST's were tied to Ability scores. I responded with a Duh, before, after like 6 minutes, I went back and edited it. For you to have clipped the one that had the Duh in it, means you spent a lot of time going back into some repository to bring out the Duh comment. That is how much you want to blame me. And to be honest, the response to what he accused me of wasn't that much out of line. But it is one post out of all of them that I would feel even the smallest amount of regret. Everything else was spot on.

As I explained above and in Private Message to Trenloe, the comment about code sucking was a misunderstanding I suppose. I thought everyone thought it sucked. The Unity engine, I thought, was being written because the current code was so hard to use. My mistake, but not apologizing for saying it, because it had no ill intent in it. I was actually given someone an excuse for not having more effects coded in.

So yeah, the snippits to me seem pretty tame compared to what I was responding too and everyone's continued flames against me.

[Segin]

OH, and since you want to threaten me with basically no support, why not just cancel my account, take the software back somehow, and refund the hundreds of dollars I've spent? Since I have used it (in an attempt to learn it), I'd accept a partial refund. I'd consider THAT a win.

[Trenloe]

...
losts of complete disilusioned babble...
...

I have to add that I'm finding your blinkered view and about-face statements really quite entertaining. I think the version of the thread you must have in your mind is a completely different one to that which resides in the real world.

As an example, I'll take just one of your statements that doesn't jibe with what has actually gone on in the thread that everyone else has read:


I've found by these posts by supposed Admin grown ups. They like to point fingers and not take responsibility or give credit. They are more concerned about one up-manship.
Nice to throw back at me something that I've already accused you of. I suppose that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - so I should thank you!

However, the only person who seems interested in one upmanship is.... wait for it...

LOL. I have mentioned that already. The only way to adjust ST's is to do it by hand. I've actually one upped your solution and put a Modifier in the Modifier's Table...

I could go on and on and on with pulling apart what you've said today. As much as you're entertaining and your antics are a bit-of-a-laugh, you're not worth my time. You actually have a completely upside down view of how you behaved in this thread and nothing I can say is going to change that. Continuing to pull apart your deluded statements would be easy - but I have better things to do. Continue to entertain us by all means! But I think I'll sit at the back eating my popcorn for a while... Good luck!

[Segin]

And you prove my point. Childish. Is this how you think grownups act? How old are you? I will give you one point. I went back to Post #2, and it did not explain it like I thought it did. I have explained it very plainly in other threads I can quote you if I respected you at all, but you have no respect of mine. But you are right about post #2. Much to my chagrin. But you continue to flame me, and not take any responsibility. And so there we are.

Continue with your flames and bashing. You are the type of person I would deem a bully, certainly not a member of a business community. You are supposedly the pro, I've never claimed to be. Yet you sit and flame away. You go brother, have your fun.

[Trenloe]

OH, and since you want to threaten me with basically no support...
You will never get no support. If forum community members who feel that you've insulted them don't want to spend their time trying to help you (for free) then that is completely their prerogative and no one can blame them.

If you struggle to get answers to your satisfaction on these forums you can always get support from emailing [email protected]

[Trenloe]

And you prove my point. Childish.
Why should anyone, based off your behaviour in this thread, treat you like a mature adult? Take a good long look in the mirror fella...

[damned]

I tried to be banned from the forum, but they said the only way was to cancel my account, and I don't want that.

Hi Segin - if you click this link: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&t=44417 it should stop you getting notifications on replies to this thread. If you do subsequently reply you will be resubscribed again.

[Segin]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you didn't change the post yourself. I remember going back and reading Post #2 and having it mention Melee and Range effects in addition to ST's. But it isn't there. Did I make a mistake? Possibly. But considering the condition of your mentality, it wouldn't surprise me that you pulled an edit. That is how much I trust you or respect you. I most probably made a mistake, but I read post #2 yesterday and I could almost swear it mentioned melee and range attacks being effected. I don't expect you to own up to it if you did make a change and I'm sure you will put flames my way, but the more I think about it...

[Segin]

Damned, arrange a refund. Admin would get more respect from me there than anything you can do now. Take the software back.

[Segin]

Why should anyone, based off your behaviour in this thread, treat you like a mature adult? Take a good long look in the mirror fella...

I person doesn't just become this way in response to posts. You have it in you. This is you. I get defensive, you get flammy and immature.

[Andraax]

Damned, arrange a refund. Admin would get more respect from me there than anything you can do now. Take the software back.

Send an email to [email protected] and I'm sure they will arrange it.

[Segin]

Thank you!

[Segin]

Now, Trenloe, you can say I won.

[Trenloe]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you didn't change the post yourself. I remember going back and reading Post #2 and having it mention Melee and Range effects in addition to ST's. But it isn't there. Did I make a mistake? Possibly. But considering the condition of your mentality, it wouldn't surprise me that you pulled an edit.
And now you're accusing me of editing and falsifying your posts to support my claim that you have a deluded view. This just actually proves how deluded you are... and paranoid if you think that I'd stoop to editing your posts to refute your claims. Condition of *my* mentality? Really...

And, just to prove that I didn't edit any of your posts (because I always try to provide evidence when I make claims - unlike some I could mention), every time anyone makes an edit to a post (except the original poster editing their post in the first 5 minutes after posting), the forums indicate this at the bottom of the post with "Last edited by <username>; <date and time>." As you can clearly see, I have not edited any of your posts. I don't need to do that to support my claims and theories in this thread - you do that all by yourself.

[Trenloe]

Now, Trenloe, you can say I won.
You obviously didn't read what I said regarding "you probably think you've won..." - which is one of the major issues with you and your antics in this thread - not reading and digesting what people said to you.

And, how does you getting a refund make you a winner? You have some very, very strange ideas...

Like I said before - good luck to you. Hopefully some point in the future you can take an objective view of this and actually realise how your behaviour stepped over the mark. But, probably not. Enjoy wherever you go!

[Segin]

You obviously didn't read what I said regarding "you probably think you've won..." - which is one of the major issues with you and your antics in this thread - not reading and digesting what people said to you.

And, how does you getting a refund make you a winner? You have some very, very strange ideas...

Like I said before - good luck to you. Hopefully some point in the future you can take an objective view of this and actually realise how your behaviour stepped over the mark. But, probably not. Enjoy wherever you go!

nah, I read you loud and clear.

[Topdecker]

I could be wrong about this, but having the dragon category / age table linked up to the descriptive text would be helpful. Needing to go full reference to find it takes some extra time and I would appreciate having the table linked in and functional.

Top

[Andraax]

I could be wrong about this, but having the dragon category / age table linked up to the descriptive text would be helpful. Needing to go full reference to find it takes some extra time and I would appreciate having the table linked in and functional.

Huh? The table is in the NPC record.

https://s3.silent-tower.org/images/Dragons.JPG

[Talyn]

I did mention doing that back when I was doing the update but the feedback was don't bother. I still think I will eventually go in and do it anyway but it has not been a priority.

[Topdecker]

Yup, that is it... I guess that I was failing to 'see' that the age column was to be rolled and was instead treating it as a look-up table.

Top