5e Questions - Magic Setup...

[HoloGnome]

A couple of quick questions:

1. What is the point of the "magic" radio button in the cast spell effect setup in the 5e client? 5e does not have SR and the magic circle does not automatically include the "magic" damage type when applying damage from that effect. Also, when I put IMMUNE:magic on the target, the target did not reject the cast, even though the "magic" circle was checked. It looks like the only way to achieve magic resistance is to explicity note "magic" in the damage type of the damaging effect like: "4d8 necromantic,magic" and to explicity include RESIST:magic on the target. So, does the magic radio button have any function? My expectation was that if I checked it that there would be an automatic magic tag added to any cast I use or damage I apply.

2. Why doesn't the FG spell block setup sheet in the 5e client have entry fields for the ATTACK/SAVE type and the DAMAGE/EFFECT type? For example, as in the spell Acid Arrow. There is nowhere to enter the text for those extra fields, except in the main description. The setup that FG uses does not match the typical 5e spell descriptor block and these fields should probably be present/added.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30731&stc=1&d=1575804976

The missing fields in the FG setup make it harder to see at a glance what the spell is supposed to do.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30732&stc=1&d=1575805289

[damned]

The fields are not missing according to the Players Handbook. If you look at the hardback version and the FG version they are represented almost identically
FG parses the 5e spell descriptions which use a consistent way of describing the spells, and builds the actions from that

[HoloGnome]

True. I just looked at my PHB. But, it's not really optimal, makes things harder for the GM, and doesn't match the newer digital resources at dndbeyond. It might be worth considering a change to improve usability and match the sanctioned online tool.

[mattekure]

Uh, FG is every bit as sanctioned as D&D Beyond. They are different products, and both try to present the info in a way that is consistent with the source and useful.

[damned]

HoloGnome are you new to 5E on FG?
Add a spell to your Actions tab and check it out.
Edit some values on the spell and then right click it and choose reparse.

[Nickademus]

True. I just looked at my PHB. But, it's not really optimal, makes things harder for the GM, and doesn't match the newer digital resources at dndbeyond.

You are more than welcome to contact Wizards of the Coast and request that they add the fields that D&D Beyond uses to their hardcovers so that the PHB is optimal.

[notrealdan]

I’m not sure what help “Attack/Save: Ranged” is when it already says the spell’s range is 90 ft. I’d really like to know what the added benefit is there.

The damage type is clear where it says “4d4 acid damage” in the spell description. FG parses that text and handles the damage type appropriately.

Both seem redundant to me.

[notrealdan]

It just occurred to me how these fields could be useful, and are used this way on DDB: filtering.

Say you wanted to find all spells that do acid damage at range. Those categories could be useful for filtering the spells to show just ones that match that.
30741

I don't know a way to do the same search in FG.

[Zacchaeus]

As regards your first question all of the spells in 5e are explicitly magic; in other words when you make a spell attack FG knows that this is a magical attack.

There is no such thing as immunity to magic in the 5e ruleset. Some creatures have resistance to magic which allows them advantage on any saving throw against magic. Such creatures will have a trait called Magic Resistance and FG knows to make any saving throws with advantage when such a creature is subjected to a spell attack that allows a saving throw. You can add this as an effect to a player character as well which will do the same thing.

Whilst there is no immunity to magic there is immunity (and resistance) to damage types. So, whilst a creature might not be able to resist a fireball just because it is magic they can certainly be immune to fire damage. In your example there is no such thing as necromantic damage. There is however necrotic damage which would likely be the damage type favoured by necromancers.

The magic tick box is there so that items such as weapons and armour can be classed as magic items. Weapons with the magic box ticked automatically do magic damage in addition to their normal damage.

[HoloGnome]

"The magic tick box is there so that items such as weapons and armour can be classed as magic items. Weapons with the magic box ticked automatically do magic damage in addition to their normal damage."

Thanks - appreciate it. I will try it out. My initial expectation was that it would add the magic damage type to spells and then reduce by half, but that's not really a thing in 5e, as you say. Otherwise, I think there are some cases of immunity to magic in 5e, but I believe it was working in the CT, as far as I could tell. I will check the advantage on saves for the magic radio check. I didn't think of that and am still digesting rules. I just started looking at the PHB. I will also check the weapons - thanks for the pointers.

On immunity, I just did some searching and I could only come up with 2 creatures in 5e that have magic immunity (limited). I thought there were others...but maybe just resistance which translates to ADV. The immune creatres are: the Rakshasa, which has limited immunity to spells lower than 7th level. The other is the Helmed Horror that, upon creation, is immune to specific spells (typically fireball, heat metal and lightning bolt). There may be others. But, I thought I saw IMMUNE:magic working in the CT. But, no way to add a level descriptor. It might be interesting if you could define an effect like IMMUNE:magic[level] for immunity to level 6 and lower spells or IMMUNE:magic[spellname]...but...definitely low utility with only 2 creatures. Another cool effect would be REFLECT:magic[spellname] to match the related 5e creature abilities. But again...corner cases that GMs can manage.


"There is however necrotic damage which would likely be the damage type favoured by necromancers."

Yeah, yeah - sorry - that was just a typo - I was in a hurry. I, of course, meant necrotic since I was setting up the spell effect for the "Toll the Dead" cantrip for a Wizard. There are some low-level spells in 5e that do a surprising amount of damage. Inflict Wounds, Catapult, etc. 3d10 for Inflict at 1st level - yikes!



"You are more than welcome to contact Wizards of the Coast and request that they add the fields that D&D Beyond uses to their hardcovers so that the PHB is optimal. "

Thanks, Nickademus. Not super-helpful in this particular discussion, but the 5e ruleset owners might want to do a usability review or just have a discussion to see if any improvements make sense, especially in a world where there may be future online competition vs. the dndbeyond solution, for example. I think they've declared an online 5e gaming client. So, in that kind of discussion, other than the time it takes to add a couple of fields, what is the downside to trying to improve the usability of the 5e spellbook for players and GMs, since a digital version is highly malleable/editable? Yeah...there's value in doing things exactly as they are done in the PHB, but what prevents adding digital usability improvements? The PHB also doesn't have hyperlink indexing, etc., but that's not a reason for them not to be there as usability aids. It just seems like a really useful addition. As a GM, I know I would certainly appreciate being able to glance at a spell block and see everything I need when trying to manage all the details of combat. If the ruleset owners don't want to do it, fine. The spell library can be exactly like the harder-to-use PHB and doesn't have to capitalize on the primary advantage of being a digital resource, which is the ability to have added flexibility and usability vs. printed material.


HoloGnome are you new to 5E on FG?

Yeah - I've just started looking at in the past couple of weeks to run a campaign with a friend. It's a little bit disorienting after all the PF, but getting used to it. There is a lot to like about it - very different approach to multiclassing and spell use, for example. I will do some more testing on the spell setup. I am just barely starting to get used to every positive or negative condition that PF handles differently offering ADV/DIS in 5e, respectively. Speaking of which, on the rules side, I probably would have preferred not to have all the specially named commands. It would have been easier crossover (for me) if the syntax were more like: ATK:ADV or SAVE:DIS - just associating ADV or DIS with the already existing base types...but I realize there are more complicated situations that can arise like GRANTADVATK, etc., where the effect might not map so well. Anyway...still getting used to it.

[Zacchaeus]

Yes, you are going to have to handle the edge cases like the Helmed Horror manually. there isn't a way to specify an exact immunity. Placing an effect of IMMUNE: magic on a player (or NPC) does indeed make them immune to magic damage. However the damage must specify that it is magic damage. Interestingly Cone of Cold specifies cold, magic damage whereas Fireball only mentions fire. I wonder why that is.

[HoloGnome]

When I was testing very early this morning, what I think I saw was that putting magic in the damage descriptor caused it to reduce by half (even though that's not the rule). I thought I saw IMMUNE work, and if magic is in Cone of Cold, then it may not work correctly against monsters that have magic resistance. I will do another quick test.

Edit - Repeated testing. OK, similar to what I saw this morning, in the 5e client...:
1. If IMMUNE:magic is on the target and magic is in the damage descriptor, the target takes no damage, as might be expected, even if the damage type contains other descriptors.
2. If RESIST:magic is on the target and magic is in the damage descriptor, the target takes half damage (but that is not a thing in 5e).
3. If RESIST:magic;RESIST:cold is on the target and magic,cold is in the damage descriptor, the target takes half damage (so Cone of Cold would still work properly.)
4. When I drag Cone of Cold from the spell library, my effect only shows cold and not cold,magic. (By the way - really nice that spells auto-populate in the correct level slot!)
5. If RESIST:magic is on the target and the "magic" radio button is checked in the cast effect setup, there is no automatic advantage roll on the save. So maybe that is not working as intended?
6. IF ADVSAV is on the target, then it makes 2 saves on the cast, of course.
7. The same cases above are problems with the VULN effect (...and DISSAV is working properly when explicitly defined on the target, similar to #6).

So...maybe at least 2 bugs above, which are:
1. Checking the magic radio button on the cast effect setup should cause the target to save with ADVANTAGE on cast if they have the RESIST:magic effect active (and again, thanks)
2. Checking the magic radio button on the cast effect setup should cause the target to save with DISADVANTAGE on cast if they have the VULN:magic effect active (currently not working)

2 Caveats:
1. RESIST:magic halves weapon damage, so not a bug and spells MUST NOT have the magic descriptor if they do spell damage.
2. VULN:magic doubles weapon damage, so spells MUST NOT have the magic descriptor if they do spell damage.
I have to read some more on these 2 cases to understand how non-magical vs. magical weapon resistance might resolve. For example, if the creature is immune to normal bludgeoning damage and has magic resistance, it should take no damage from a normal bludgeoning weapon and half damage from a magical bludgeoning weapon, but I haven't done that test yet.

A quick test on the caveat case wasn't looking too good, but then I found the combination effect in the wiki - [damage type],!magic -- and that is working. And, if I set [damage type],!magic; RESIST:magic, then normal damage is blocked and magic weapon damage is halved (like for a creature that is immune to normal weapons and also has magic resistance). OK - I think I've got the syntax that works for weapons! :)

(Also...going back to my very first post, this behavior, in part, is why I posted, because I couldn't figure out what the magic radio button on the cast effect for a spell was supposed to do...but hadn't yet had the tip from Zacchaeus about ADV/DIS, etc.)

I would not say that IMMUNE:magic blocking spell damage is a problem, because that's what it should do and there are some creatures that it would benefit, like Rakshasa and Helmed Horror. So, it is working as it should and is defined in the 5e SRD.

[HoloGnome]

Zacchaeus - I can't seem to get the Incorporeal condition tag to work - have you tried it?

[Zacchaeus]

Zacchaeus - I can't seem to get the Incorporeal condition tag to work - have you tried it?

Incorporeal isn't a condition - so FG doesn't recognise it (see the Wiki for the list of conditions and what FG does with them (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/5E_Effects#Conditions)). This is something of a Theatre of the Mind thing rather than a condition really.

[HoloGnome]

Thanks - I see...so there's no longer any incorporeal subtype and the monsters just explicitly have specifically defined resistances. When I was reading through the 5e wiki, I saw it and thought that it was still used.

Anyway - the FG 5e wiki (which is what led to my above post), does, in fact, define Incorporeal as a 5e condition that aliases to: RESIST:all (which is not correct since the resistances of incorporeal undead are defined and may not include all forms...like cold and necrotic, which are usually immunities instead). And, I agree with you that FG doesn't recognize it, because it doesn't work, as above.

So, in that case, someone needs to remove it from the 5e wiki page condition table.

[Zacchaeus]

Thanks - I see...so there's no longer any incorporeal subtype and the monsters just explicitly have specifically defined resistances. When I was reading through the 5e wiki, I saw it and thought that it was still used.

Anyway - the FG 5e wiki (which is what led to my above post), does, in fact, define Incorporeal as a 5e condition that aliases to: RESIST:all (which is not correct since the resistances of incorporeal undead are defined and may not include all forms...like cold and necrotic, which are usually immunities instead). And, I agree with you that FG doesn't recognize it, because it doesn't work, as above.

So, in that case, someone needs to remove it from the 5e wiki page condition table.

My apologies, I was mixing up ethereal and incorporeal and furthermore I didn't look at the wiki only the conditions in the PHB.

Incorporeal is indeed in the wiki and it does indeed work as the wiki suggests. However I'm not aware of any creatures which are actually incorporeal so it is perhaps redundant. It may be that incorporeal (like intoxicated) was a condition which only existed when 5e was D&D Next and was dropped before the final release. It's still a condition recognised by FG and it does work so I think I'll leave it in the Wiki.

[HoloGnome]

I don't think there are any icorporeal type creatures based on my previous check -- let's see: ghost, wraith (various types maybe), specter, etc. They just have incorporeal movement. The only point of equivocation might be in spells like gaseous form that refer to incorporeal creatures.

Anyway - up to you if you want to leave it. However, it provides misinformation when trying to learn valid conditions for 5e, so it might be a good idea to indicate that there is no such thing as an incorporeal type creature in 5e and the effect alias has no meaning.

Also, as in my earlier post, incorporeal was not being recognized by FG. If it works now, it was changed in a recent release. Yes - I just checked it and it is now working...so it was apparently updated.

However, the other bugs/issues relating to the magic radio button, etc., as noted above are still there.

[Zacchaeus]

There have been no recent client updates so I can only assume user error on the incorporeal front.

I’m not sure what bugs you are referring to. As I said before resistance to magic allows advantage on a saving throw. The RESIST keyword is used to half damage; that is damage from one if the damage types in the 5e ruleset. Magic is not a damage type per se; it is included in the ruleset so that magic weapons can overcome resistance and creatures with magic resistance get advantage on their saving throws. RESIST: magic is a non sequitur and will be ignored by FG as far as I am aware. Since FG doesn’t recognise the damage type it will ignore the magic bit and treat the effect as simply RESIST: which, without a recognised damage type will be treated as all. Hence any damage dealt will be halved. I haven’t tested that but that is my theory.

In summary you are trying to use the resistance and immune effects incorrectly with magic; hence the results you are seeing.

[HoloGnome]

There have been no recent client updates so I can only assume user error on the incorporeal front.

Wellll...no. I know what I saw when I was doing my testing, and I actually tested it multiple times and even double- and triple-checked it before posting above. Since then, there have been multiple updates. However, I didn't exactly watch what was being updated. But, previously, applying the condition "incorporeal" (as the only condition) had absolutely no effect in 5e when different types of damage were applied to that creature, as reported. Now, it does. So, either there was a change or update to Fantasy Grounds that is affecting this issue, or it was previously a Fantasy Grounds error (which is not necessarily an uncommon occurrence), but the latter also seems unlikely after multiple iterations (and I think I restarted the client at least once). So, that points to an update as the likely thing that changed.

Also, I respectfully suggest that if you leave incorporeal in the wiki without an explanation that it is not a legal condition, then it may potentially misinform cross-over/new ruleset users (such as me, for example) who don't (or didn't) realize that there is no incorporeal condition in 5e (despite being present in other rulesets)...only incorporeal movement. It's up to you, I guess -- leave an illegal condition in place in the docs without explanation and confuse people despite real-world user feedback...or take a moment to clarify it (a very simple task).


I’m not sure what bugs you are referring to. As I said before resistance to magic allows advantage on a saving throw. The RESIST keyword is used to half damage;

As carefully explained in my earlier post, per the 5e SRD, RESIST:magic should be conferring advantage (and community indications are that VULN:magic should be conferring disadvantage) on the saving throws for creatures that have those tags whenever magic is used against them.

Therefore, checking the "magic" radio button in the spell setup to, logically, indicate that it is magic (and not some other form of attack, etc.) and hitting the cast should activate either advantage (or disadvantage) on the automatic save that occurs in conjunction with casting a spell. And, that effect is absolutely not happening. Further, I have tested this problem numerous times with the same 100% reproducible result each time.


In summary you are trying to use the resistance and immune effects incorrectly with magic; hence the results you are seeing.

Nope. As above, the code does not implement the 5e SRD correctly and should likely add the opposite effect for vulnerability. Please read the full content of my earlier post (or this one) carefully and check the 5e SRD (see references below). These issues are FG 5E ruleset implementation gaps/bugs.


"Magic Resistance. The pseudodragon has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects."

Note that I do not specifically see any creatures in the MM with "Magic Vulnerability" listed in their stat blocks, but, as above, that concept does exist in various places in the 5e community/homebrew space, where the intended mechanic is obviously to offer disadvantage on saves vs. magic, as described above.

So...I hope that whoever is responsible for this code will make the appropriate changes so that saves work as expected when the "magic" radio button is checked. Thanks for reading!

[damned]

The only change I can see to incorporeal in the last year in the 5E code was the removal of the token_cond_incorporeal.png icon
Serious question - are you 100% sure you spelt it correctly every time... I know I dont.

Im not sure why you think Magic Resist is not working?
I put a Gold Dragon Wyrmling and a Pseudodragon in the CT and threw a Fireball and an Ice Storm at them and the Pseudodrgaon got advantage on every save and took hlaf damage on every save and the dragon took normal damage from the ice storm and none from the fireball.

[Zacchaeus]

You are ddealing with magic resistance incorrectly becasue you cannot use magic along with RESIST to achieve your purpose. FG keys on a trait called Magic Resistance on an NPC (or on a PC) to achieve the correct result. So if you apply an effect to any creature called Magic Resistance then you will get the correct result. Using RESIST: magic will not get the correct result. See the attached graphic.

I don't know what else to tell you but Incorporeal works and as far as I can tell always has. It has not been updated recently or even at all as far as I can tell.

[HoloGnome]

On incorporeal, I am pretty sure that I spelled it correctly and redid the test multiple times with the same result. Maybe it was some FG thing. I don't know. In the end, it doesn't matter, I guess. I won't be using that tag. It was just a point of confusion as I was trying to parse the ruleset quickly via the wiki. I should have just RTFM'd, but I thought I was by looking at the wiki.

Anyway - thanks, damned. I think I see the disconnect relating to testing vs. how the 5E ruleset works based on the description of your test.

1. When dragging over Pseuodragon from the SRD, it gets the literal effect "Magic Resistance" and NOT RESIST:magic (as I was using in my testing above). That was my key point of failure that was really not obvious to me. I was adding RESIST:magic to the creature in the CT. Instead, with the (correct-as-implemented) effect text "Magic Resistance" in place and checking the "Magic?" button in the spell setup, the target gets advantage on the save. Great! So there is no save/resistance bug when using the correct effect text.

So, then my remaining question is:
1. Given that the 5E ruleset is using "Magic Resistance" as its syntax for advantage, is it possible to add a "Magic Vulnerability" effect to roll disadvantage vs. magic? While not specifically in the MM SRD, it is used in the community and is a sensible addition as the direct opposite of the resistance case (and should probably work).

I guess I can see the rationale in using "Magic Resistance" to disambiguate vs. RESIST:magic (weapon damage), but it was non-obvious to me and I did not see "Magic Resistance" at the end of the wiki table. I must have just visually skipped over it.

Zacchaeus - sorry for the back-and-forth. I understand now why we were not aligning in our discussion and it was my fault. For future communication, it would have helped me to see something like: You must use the exact effect text "Magic Resistance" and not "RESIST:magic" in order to have advantage on saves when doing a targeted cast with the Magic? radio button checked. I really wasn't getting past the RESIST/VULN tags in trying to quickly adapt from Pathfinder to 5E. So - sorry about that.

[Trenloe]

You are ddealing with magic resistance incorrectly becasue you cannot use magic along with RESIST to achieve your purpose. FG keys on a trait called Magic Resistance on an NPC (or on a PC) to achieve the correct result. So if you apply an effect to any creature called Magic Resistance then you will get the correct result. Using RESIST: magic will not get the correct result. See the attached graphic.
Yep.

RESIST is used purely for damage resistance - it has no impact on making a saving throws.

In fact, the 5E FG ruleset has very little coding for adjusting saving throws based off the detailed subtypes of the saving throw (e.g. there's no automation for a saving throw specifically against poison, disease, etc.).

In the spell/ability use subwindow for a spell base action there is the "Magic?" check box - this sets is rAction.magic = true in the FG code, which adds [MAGIC] to the action description text. This [MAGIC] descriptor is also set if a NPC save action contains the word "magic" in the save text. Other than being a description in the chat text, the only thing this [MAGIC] descriptor does (as part of the save action) is to check for two specifically worded conditions and one trait: the "Magic Resistance" condition in the CT for all "[MAGIC]" tagged save actions. And for a intelligence, wisdom or charisma saves with "[MAGIC]" tagged, the save action code looks for a condition in the CT of "Gnome Cunning" or it checks for a trait of the same name. If any of these conditions or trait are found (and the other checks are true - for "[MAGIC]" and the specific save ability) then the save has advantage.

EDIT: The "Magic Resistance" condition is added to a NPC when it is added into the combat tracker if it has a power name of "magic resistance", as part of the parseNPCPower function.

So, to reiterate... RESIST: magic is for resisting damage with the "magic" damage type. A save type tagged as "[MAGIC]" in the save action text has limited automation - only looking for two specific conditions or one trait.

Details on 5E damage resistance here: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Damage_Resistance_and_Vulnerability

[HoloGnome]

Thanks for the additional replies and for the technical explanation. I appreciate it. As explained in my reply, I understand the distinction in the 5E ruleset now between "RESIST:magic" and "Magic Resistance", and I did not see the reply from Zacchaeus on page 3 before writing my last reply. The "Magic Resistance" text was the key point I needed to understand where I was going astray in trying to cross over to the 5E ruleset.

Hopefully, it might be possible to also add support for "Magic Vulnerability" so that creatures can have a saving disadvantage vs. magic. It seems to be a useful mechanic that would support additional homebrew/community needs, and it would be nice to have, even if it isn't specifically defined in the MM SRD.

[Nickademus]

Something you will come to understand for the 5e ruleset is that it is specifically made to interact with only the official rules, without a lot of room to accommodate house rules. Many of the systems in the ruleset are hard-coded to search for a specific set of words that appears in one of the WotC books instead of handling the mechanic internally and so you cannot deviate from this exact wording.

[HoloGnome]

Thanks, Nickademus. Yes - I appreciate that. For me, crossing over, some of it is a bit disorienting. Also, the dramatic reduction in detail in 5E takes some getting used to vs. Pathfinder. If it's not possible to do some of these things, then maybe it's a good case for extensions. Otherwise, maybe a "Vulnerability to Magic" effect is hypothetically a low-risk, easy add that may end up appearing in the future anyway. It's not likely to cause a conflict, and other non-SRD effects like "incorporeal," as above, already exist. I would put forward that something like "Vulnerability to Magic" is probably more useful and functionally closer to the existing rules than is "incorporeal." But, if not...maybe an extension at some point.

[GavinRuneblade]

Thanks, Nickademus. Yes - I appreciate that. For me, crossing over, some of it is a bit disorienting. Also, the dramatic reduction in detail in 5E takes some getting used to vs. Pathfinder. If it's not possible to do some of these things, then maybe it's a good case for extensions. Otherwise, maybe a "Vulnerability to Magic" effect is hypothetically a low-risk, easy add that may end up appearing in the future anyway. It's not likely to cause a conflict, and other non-SRD effects like "incorporeal," as above, already exist. I would put forward that something like "Vulnerability to Magic" is probably more useful and functionally closer to the existing rules than is "incorporeal." But, if not...maybe an extension at some point.

This does sound like what extensions are for. Dunno how to do this specific effect, but many extensions cover home rules.

[HoloGnome]

There is actually another bug here. FG does not correctly translate the NPC text "Magic Resistance" in the NPC Damage Resistances field when dragging the NPC to the combat tracker.

FG converts "Magic Resistance" to "RESIST:magic". It should leave the text "Magic Resistance" unchanged and be able to recognize the following forms: "Magic Resistance", "RESIST:magic" and the word "magic" on its own and do the right thing.

[LordEntrails]

There is actually another bug here. FG does not correctly translate the NPC text "Magic Resistance" in the NPC Damage Resistances field when dragging the NPC to the combat tracker.

FG converts "Magic Resistance" to "RESIST:magic". It should leave the text "Magic Resistance" unchanged and be able to recognize the following forms: "Magic Resistance", "RESIST:magic" and the word "magic" on its own and do the right thing.
Why? What advantage would have multiple syntax's for the same thing provide? The 'proper' format in the CT for NPC is "RESIST:magic" so that's why FG converts the trait of "Magic Resistance" to that in the CT.

We have to remember that the more syntax's FG recognizes, the more of an adverse performance impact there is and the more overhead maintenance requires (i.e. slowing down improvements and decreasing overall quality).

[HoloGnome]

Why? What advantage would have multiple syntax's for the same thing provide? The 'proper' format in the CT for NPC is "RESIST:magic" so that's why FG converts the trait of "Magic Resistance" to that in the CT.

We have to remember that the more syntax's FG recognizes, the more of an adverse performance impact there is and the more overhead maintenance requires (i.e. slowing down improvements and decreasing overall quality).

As explained earlier in this thread, the explicit FG effect "Magic Resistance" is required in order for creatures to have advantage on saves vs. spells per the SRD (when the "magic" radio button is set up on the cast effect of the source). The 5E client is not working properly, since it is translating "Magic Resistance" (the explicit, required effect text) to "RESIST:magic" (a text effect that halves magic damage) in the combat tracker which, subsequently, DOES NOT provide the target advantage on saves vs. magic. It is a bug that needs to be fixed. Try it, and you will easily see what I'm talking about.

Edit: Never mind - I searched all the NPCs for one that has Magic Resistance and saw that it copied correctly. The solution is that it has be defined as a trait named "Magic Resistance". Doing it that way means that it copies to the CT correctly. However, we shouldn't have to use different fields when trying to do rapid NPC setup. If the 5e client sees "Magic Resistance" in the resistance field, it should probably copy it over as is (which is not the same as RESIST:magic or just the word magic).

[Trenloe]

There is actually another bug here. FG does not correctly translate the NPC text "Magic Resistance" in the NPC Damage Resistances field when dragging the NPC to the combat tracker.
AS I mentioned in post #23 above: "The "Magic Resistance" condition is added to a NPC when it is added into the combat tracker if it has a power name of "magic resistance", as part of the parseNPCPower function."

It doesn't work if Magic Resistance is in the NPC Damage Resistances field - because, having it in that field seems to suggest a resistance to damage, hence why it is parsed as RESIST:magic - which gives damage resistance to magic damage types, because the data is in the Damage Resistances field. Can you give examples of the creatures that have this possibly incorrect data placement?

[HoloGnome]

See my previous post. Yes, it works, but only if "Magic Resistance" is defined as a trait. I didn't realize that that was how it worked. From a usability standpoint, I made the (incorrect, but more usable) assumption that I could put resistance effects in the NPC resistance field and they would be copied or translated as needed. "Magic Resistance" is a key effect term, and when it is in the resistance field, it might be helpful if it were transferred directly to the CT unmodified, regardless of the fact that it is not a type of "damage resistance" (but rather conferring advantage on saves).

[LordEntrails]

Magic Resistance is somewhat unique. Just one of those things (like Spellcasting Trait) that you have to know how to use.

[HoloGnome]

I understand...but the parser could also easily recognize it as key text and just do the right thing.

[Trenloe]

The 5E parser is not generic across all data fields. The FG code has specific parser logic for specific fields within a record. It can’t possibly be coded to expect a bunch of key terms in incorrect places.

[HoloGnome]

The 5E parser is not generic across all data fields. The FG code has specific parser logic for specific fields within a record. It can’t possibly be coded to expect a bunch of key terms in incorrect places.

So...my suggestion wasn't for infinite flexibility, but even just using a sorted list/lookup with a single table, it would be a simple software engineering task and not overly slow on lookups. The list of effect keys is not that long. However, in this case, the suggestion was just to add recognition for "Magic Resistance" in the resistance field so it doesn't incorrectly convert it to RESIST:magic, which is a trivial fix/addition.

[LordEntrails]

Add it to the wishlist if it doesn't already exist. If it does, vote on it :)

[HoloGnome]

I wish that someone would take 10 seconds and add another key pair to the resistance field lookup. Otherwise, I know how it works now, so I will be using the trait name.