CoreRPG (PFRPG,5E/etc): Token View Options (Hide bars/effects from PCs)

[celestian]

NOTE:


This extension is no longer supported and does not work. It's feature is now built into FG.


This is a simple feature I've had in AD&D Core for a bit and up until tonight while watching @rob2e I forgot 5E didn't actually have it.

With the recent changes to CoreRPG it seems they bar/dot/effects functionality was pushed into CoreRPG so... I've ported my tweaks into a CoreRPG compatible extension.

This extension will allow the DM to configure the view of token health and effects so that the DM can see the NPC health and effects and the PCs cannot. Without this extension your players will be able to see the NPC health bars/effect icons if you make them visible.

You can see PC and DM views here and the config panel with the "new" options.

https://i.imgur.com/UvOEuQX.png

Version 1.0 : Initial release. (Tested with 5e and PFRPG. Should work with any CoreRPG based ruleset that has these bars and effects).

Note: The AD&D ruleset has this built in. This will not work with the AD&D ruleset.

Update 2.0: Updated for FG 3.3.8.

Download here:

[Bidmaron]

Wow, Celestian. Another awesome one. Thanks.

[esmdev]

I thought about using this extension but then decided I don't really mind the players seeing the damage bar. It keeps me from having to verbalize the current damage status for every single swing and lets the players know if they are terminally screwed and might be in over their heads. Still, it is always nice to have the option. :)

[celestian]

I thought about using this extension but then decided I don't really mind the players seeing the damage bar. It keeps me from having to verbalize the current damage status for every single swing and lets the players know if they are terminally screwed and might be in over their heads. Still, it is always nice to have the option. :)

There is also the state in the CT they can see. The extension doesn't have anything to do with this but just FYI. You can use "simple" and view non-ally and then they can get an idea what state the creature is in w/o seeing the finer scale of the bar.

https://i.imgur.com/MxM1XN0.png

[Moon Wizard]

So, is the main change that the GM and the players have separate display options for token health/effects?

Thanks,
JPG

[damned]

So, is the main change that the GM and the players have separate display options for token health/effects?

Thanks,
JPG

Yes.

[celestian]

So, is the main change that the GM and the players have separate display options for token health/effects?

Thanks,
JPG

Would be great to have this in CoreRPG natively.

The changes are pretty simple all told.

I tried to setup different views for the name text but I just couldn't make that work due to how the things are setup right now.

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah, one of my main concerns is option explosion. The more options you have; the more possibilities for user confusion and being overwhelmed. Not everybody wants to fiddle with so many options. This increases the options, but not terribly. I wanted to make sure I understood what it did.

What were you trying to change for the name?

[Bidmaron]

MW, I understand your concern about option explosion, but perhaps the ability to offer an "Advanced" button for an option set will let SW and modders offer the most frequent options but give more control for advanced users. I 100% support Celestian's call here because I have long thought that health bars or health numbers visible to players were metagaming, because players should only be able to qualitatively assess the health of opponents (even allies, but I can live with that).

[shadzar]

the ability to offer an "Advanced" button for an option set

What do you mean you want the UI to change? :p

i have no idea where i just downloaded this to, but i grabbed it as fast as i could!

could this combine with the KEN idea of the bigger icons? Should you two team up and develop both into 1 extension? i have no idea how either ork, so that is a serious question. all i know is Ken rewrote a LOT of the ruleset to make his magic work...

[Bidmaron]

I was commenting on the proliferation of options. One common way to handle that is to present the most common options and then have an "Advanced..." button that lets you control to a lot finer detail. As an example associated with Celestian's extension, the standard Options window could offer only whether to use health bars, health numbers, or no indication for both GM and players. The Advanced could let users control the setting independently for GMs and users, for PCs, NPCs, and allies as a group.

[Moon Wizard]

I’ve been thinking of dividing them up; so that options specific to a region can be customized via a quick settings button on that object (such as chat output). Then, the main options window would become shortcut buttons to each group; like Languages.

Regards,
JPG

[celestian]

Yeah, one of my main concerns is option explosion. The more options you have; the more possibilities for user confusion and being overwhelmed. Not everybody wants to fiddle with so many options. This increases the options, but not terribly. I wanted to make sure I understood what it did.

What were you trying to change for the name?

It's been a while since I did the tests but it was basically a version of the ID/not-ID npc names before we had it. I wanted to be able to have the NPC names on tokens show "fully" for the DM and only show the "generic" name to the PCs.

If the NPC name was "Orc (Archer)" the generic name was just "Orc" the PCs would only see something like "Orc 1" instead of "Orc 1 (Archer)". In current vernacular it would show the ID'd name to the DM and the non-ID name to the PCs.

It seemed whatever was applied last is what everyone saw. I didn't want to re-write a lot of CoreRPG so backed off the idea once I figured this out.

[Moon Wizard]

I believe the token “name” that appears on tooltips has to be the unidentified name; because it is a token attribute synched across machines. But, I’d have to review to be sure.

I’m not sure what the current widget implementation does off the top of my head; but that could be done with them.

Regards,
JPG

[shadzar]

options specific to a region can be customized via a quick settings button on that object

a gear for the map/image window, a gear for the tokens window, a gear for the story window, etc? so each window has its own "controls" on the window itself so you know which "setting" affects which windowstate?

now THAT would be nicely intuitive for host, clients, etc!


How do I change my chat font size?


Click the little gear on the chat window and change it.

:)

[Moon Wizard]

Except that it requires rebuilding the OptionsManager script and windows; which several rulesets assume work a specific way. It all depends on whether it can be easily done without breaking existing script interfaces for rulesets.

JPG

[paladiusdarkhelm]

Hi, Celestian. I've been noticing a scripting error pop to my GM Console since the latest update for this extension. It took me a while to narrow it down. Loading the extension into a plane 5e game with just it going though shows this in the Console:

Script Error: [string "scripts/manager_token2.lua"]:9: attempt to call field 'addEffectTagIconConditional' (a nil value)

[paladiusdarkhelm]

...Duplicate post...

[paladiusdarkhelm]

I just wanted to check in on this. Is it trying to call something from another extension that I may not use?

[celestian]

I just wanted to check in on this. Is it trying to call something from another extension that I may not use?

I'm sorry, I missed the error report. I'll take a look at this when I can and see whats up. I had actually completely forgotten about this extension and it probably broke during one of the recent updates to FG.

[celestian]

Update 2.0
Updated for FG 3.3.8 changes.

[paladiusdarkhelm]

Thank you much, Celestian!

[dikdastard]

Just for info, this extension has issues with lighting effects applied to tokens in current build of FGU in case anyone wondering why its not working like I was.

[Szabtom]

This is a classic FG extension, I believe it does not support FGU.

[Kelrugem]

Do I overlook something? These options are in the meanwhile already implemented in FG, so, no need for the extension anymore, I think :) (hence, also not needed for FGU)

[celestian]

Do I overlook something? These options are in the meanwhile already implemented in FG, so, no need for the extension anymore, I think :) (hence, also not needed for FGU)

YEs, this extension is no longer needed I believe. It was something I wrote before FG had the feature.

[Kelrugem]

YEs, this extension is no longer needed I believe. It was something I wrote before FG had the feature.

Thanks for the confirmation :)

[Moon Wizard]

Closing thread, since this extension is no longer needed.

Regards,
JPG