Token Visibility LOS - Major update/BUG

[eporrini]

Last session I played (Thursday) LOS did not reveal a token unless 50% of the token was visible. Now, an update has made tokens visible is even the tiniest fraction of the square can be seen. This is a VERY BAD update as it creates WAY TOO MUCH visibility for players and almost breaks LOS as far as I am concerned. I hope this is just a glitch and not a "FIX". Note the player in the hallway with the tiniest sliver of square visibility seeing the "hidden" mummy.

41417

[LordEntrails]

I've duplicated this as well.
Version 4.0.2
D&D 5E
No extensions or themes

[Moon Wizard]

AFAIK, with regards to D&D, line of sight on creatures is from any corner on source to any corner on target. The number of corners determines cover/concealment amount.

Also, visibility is not something that can be done in percentages in any sort of efficient manner; it is done using point-based logic (center, corner). It was center to center; but that causes problems with large tokens, pillars, etc. It is currently source center to any target corner.

Regards,
JPG

[Paperclipkiller]

AFAIK, with regards to D&D, line of sight on creatures is from any corner on source to any corner on target. The number of corners determines cover/concealment amount.

Also, visibility is not something that can be done in percentages in any sort of efficient manner; it is done using point-based logic (center, corner). It was center to center; but that causes problems with large tokens, pillars, etc. It is currently source center to any target corner.

Regards,
JPG

This is correct, sight is based on corners. So this update is in line with 5e D&D at least. If anything, would it be possible for tokens to have multiple sources for their sight? Large tokens and bigger still only have the center of their token determining their sight, so they can't see someone around a corner but someone can see them. Center source is still important for stuff like doors, adding token corner sight sources would be helpful for the corners of walls.

I only ask it here since it would be weird to make an entire thread saying "it's weird and not necessarily a bug but kinda an issue that Large and bigger tokens can't see creatures around corners now but other creatures that are smaller can see them."

This update was one of many things I was looking for and a big selling point of Unity at least for me.

[Kelrugem]

Yeah, I also prefer the new update :) See the dynamic LoS as an auxiliary tool for determining line of sight and not as "physical visibility". Physical visibility is difficult to simulate in general: Just think about dragons; in most rulesets their occupied squares are just their squares in sense of determining LoS etc. (that is what the effectively block and occupy), but their wings and tails have often so big sizes that they span to other squares, too, just not mechanically important most of the time :)

But I understand of course where the confusion comes from. The mummy of the screenshot may hide in their square such that one could argue that mechanical LoS should not result into visibility of the token to surprise players, or because the mummy is very thin which is basically the physical-opposite of my dragon example and then my argument of above applies (i.e. full simulation of physical visibility is difficult); in that case I would make the mummy's token permanently invisible (right-click on the token to change its visibility, or make the mummy invisible in the CT). But normally many rulesets handle tokens as "very dynamic", so, the mummy does not stand still there, so, the players may get a glimpse from time to time which is why the players know where the mummy is. In 3.5e for example the mummy would still have total concealment to reflect that bad visibility (when I am not mistaken)

[LordEntrails]

DMG (5E) > Chapter 8 > Areas of Effect > Line of Sight

To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.


So Center to corner seems a good solution for now. Esp considering other rulesystems undoubtedly have other rules.

Edit: also not that LOS does not determine cover, there are other rules for that :)

[eporrini]

My point was not at all about cover, it was about party members being able to see and act on that sight with in essence zero visibility. LOS allows one to not only see what's there but take actions against it. Many spells and abilities require only the need to see the target. I much prefer the center to center LOS that was in place prior and am of the mind that how it works now makes it almost useless. Even with my manually hiding the visibility on tokens, as soon as I reveal the token it becomes apparent to all what the creature is and where it's located. I do admit with larger creatures LOS was not perfect prior, but seeing a sliver of any size creature and calling it visible is not the fix.

If there is a break from the player community in what people want, then I suggest making this a toggle switch that I can set (center to center or center to corner) so I at least have the option to run the game the way me and my players prefer. I am also happy with other, better options for visibility that don't break the purpose of what LOS is meant to add to the game.

I had one additional thought I wanted to share. By the center to corner definition, a rogue would be unable to hide in that completely obscured area the zombie resides in during combat from the party member 25' down the hall, or pretty much anywhere on either side of the chamber due to the sliver of visibility and remaining seen. I can't see how that would be considered working.

[Kelrugem]

My point was not at all about cover, it was about party members being able to see and act on that sight with in essence zero visibility. LOS allows one to not only see what's there but take actions against it. Many spells and abilities require only the need to see the target. I much prefer the center to center LOS that was in place prior and am of the mind that how it works now makes it almost useless. Even with my manually hiding the visibility on tokens, as soon as I reveal the token it becomes apparent to all what the creature is and where it's located. I do admit with larger creatures LOS was not perfect prior, but seeing a sliver of any size creature and calling it visible is not the fix.

If there is a break from the player community in what people want, then I suggest making this a toggle switch that I can set (center to center or center to corner) so I at least have the option to run the game the way me and my players prefer. I am also happy with other, better options for visibility that don't break the purpose of what LOS is meant to add to the game.

But whether or not you see someone in game mechanics is precisely given by the LoS, the LoS is basically the mechanical rule/definition about whether one can see the target to do actions against :) Yeah, may not always may make sense such that one may need to interfere, but that are the rules as written (cited for 5e above; I think it is about 5e for you?). Option would be indeed nice then, but I am not sure whether that is easily possible (at least as an option while the game is running)

[eporrini]

But whether or not you see someone in game mechanics is precisely given by the LoS, the LoS is basically the mechanical rule/definition about whether one can see the target to do actions against :) Yeah, may not always may make sense such that one may need to interfere, but that are the rules as written (cited for 5e above; I think it is about 5e for you?). Option would be indeed nice then, but I am not sure whether that is easily possible (at least as an option while the game is running)

Firstly, I love FGU and have been a FG customer for years. LOS was a major draw for me to re-buy licenses of FG and I have really been enjoying it. It creates a sense of immersion that both I and everyone in my campaign enjoy. 5e is a tabletop game that is now being heavily played virtually and the original designers were expecting the DM's to use common sense and best judgement when applying the rules. It's hard to imagine their intent was LOS as implemented here, even if by the letter of the law you are correct. I would also add that currently it has to be any corner to any corner (not center to corner) to get the severe angles being revealed. I hope others speak out with me, I am passionate about FGU and the game and this needs to be looked at and corrected. If you read though this thread, please add your comments and support.

41434
41435
41437

[Paperclipkiller]

I'll be honest it doesn't seem like a bug/issue to me. It being more accurate (at least for 5e) is a good thing. The way it was before was technically an issue since it wasn't as accurate. Heck, even right now it should reveal *more*, since the source of vision should technically be the entire square and not just the center. However that's not possible with a points based lighting system. Adding additional sources on the corners would be beneficial, however sometimes a token is partially in the wall and thus would be able to see through it. Plus the Large Tokens and bigger not having proper LoS if their vision is based on the center of their token and not center+corners.

Now a solution for that could be that the corner sources would only be active when the center source can see them. However I have no idea how LoS is coded and if that would be possible with the current system.

In your above exactly with the guy walking down a hallway and seeing the Huge token, in the old system the Medium token wouldn't even see it until it was basically in the room. That's an issue. With this update, this fixed that issue.

[LordEntrails]

I think of it this way, just because a PLAYER can see a creature, doesn't mean that the rules at the table mean that the CHARACTER can act on that creature.

They way it was, even a creature in half cover could not even be seen by the character, or player. Yet the rules clearly state that in such a case the player and character should be able to target such a creature. Heck, the rules even state that a player should be aware of invisible creatures that their character may not know the location of.

There is lots of metagame knowledge that players have and must use responsibly, to insure everyone has fun at the table.

[Jiminimonka]

I'll be honest it doesn't seem like a bug/issue to me. It being more accurate (at least for 5e) is a good thing. The way it was before was technically an issue since it wasn't as accurate. Heck, even right now it should reveal *more*, since the source of vision should technically be the entire square and not just the center. However that's not possible with a points based lighting system. Adding additional sources on the corners would be beneficial, however sometimes a token is partially in the wall and thus would be able to see through it. Plus the Large Tokens and bigger not having proper LoS if their vision is based on the center of their token and not center+corners.

Now a solution for that could be that the corner sources would only be active when the center source can see them. However I have no idea how LoS is coded and if that would be possible with the current system.

In your above exactly with the guy walking down a hallway and seeing the Huge token, in the old system the Medium token wouldn't even see it until it was basically in the room. That's an issue. With this update, this fixed that issue.

I posted this elsewhere (cos this is now a double thread) but if the token colours could be turned off (the red tile for enemies) then the token would not be visible - the red part of the square is what give away the position.

The other, easier, solution is to hide the token until the players are right on the corner.

[Ludd_G]

If the way it is working at the moment is Centre to Any Corner, I'd actually be hoping for a change in the opposite direction, as per the 5e rules, and push for Any Corner to Any Corner. But without doubt the best result would be to have a togglable option of Centre to Centre, Centre to Any Corner or Any Corner to Any Corner as this would please most everyone I think?

Cheers,

Simon

[Paperclipkiller]

If the way it is working at the moment is Centre to Any Corner, I'd actually be hoping for a change in the opposite direction, as per the 5e rules, and push for Any Corner to Any Corner. But without doubt the best result would be to have a togglable option of Centre to Centre, Centre to Any Corner or Any Corner to Any Corner as this would please most everyone I think?

Cheers,

Simon

Corner to Corner only would introduce a different kind of problem. Doors that are smaller then the token. While not a big issue for Medium sized tokens, it would be for Large+. Plus then if a token was partially in a wall, it could see anything inside.

With that said, a toggle for various versions of LoS would be nice if it could be implemented. However that means if there were LoS changes later, all iterations may need to be changed for an update.

Simple LoS: Center to Center.

Intermediate LoS: Center to Corners/Corner to Corner

Advanced LoS: Center and Corner to Center and Corners. Within own token, if Center can't see its own Corners, those Corners LoS capabilities are disabled to prevent seeing through a wall. When those Corners are disabled, other creatures also cannot see those Corners. This would be to prevent seeing Tokens that are partially in walls.

[Paperclipkiller]

Now that I think about it... If a token is partially in a wall, can another token on the other side of that wall see it now with this update? That could potentially be an issue with this update, and I can't check it currently.

[Ludd_G]

Although if we stick with Centre to Any Corner, there will be problems with reciprocal LoS not working correctly for larger creatures, no? I think both sides need to be measured from the same point (Centre to Centre or Corner to Corner) but I could be envisioning it wrong?

[Paperclipkiller]

That's an issue with this new current version yeah. It's why I really want the Advanced LoS I described. But I know that won't be feasible for awhile at least.

Having a toggle for the Basic and Intermediate ones I listed above in the mean time would be nice for that exact reason.

[Moon Wizard]

Copied from the other thread started by OP:

Every token has a "grid size" that denotes the footprint of the token on the map. This is independent of the displayed graphic size, which can actually be scaled independently. The colored box is what is called an underlay, that CoreRPG uses to show the "grid size" of the token. The grid size is what is used for all targeting and LoS calculations.

In the examples shown above, while the "graphic" shown for a token is not within the LoS, the "grid size" or actual size of the token according to the game rules IS within the LoS. It is following the rules defined by the D&D systems. (i.e. official rules are any corner to any corner equals visible) Even if you were using physical minis at a physical tabletop, you would calculate LoS by drawing an imaginary line from corner to corner to grid squares determine visibility and cover (not the actual physical mini, which is smaller than the grid squares).

This is working as intended and according to the rules as written by the D&D game designers.

One of the challenges with changing this to something else is that it becomes very subjective and different for every user. Most people want to say some custom X% should be used instead, where that X% is different for every person. (5%, 10%, 25%, ...) Also, percentages are very expensive to calculate vs. point to point. More likely we would need to look at some sort of contracted point, but again, the amount is subjective, depending on the user.

If you would like to "reduce" the visibility somehow, please put your thoughts into a feature request in my sig.

Also, think of this as the creature moving around within it's space, and the source token is seeing bits and pieces. If it's hiding around a corner, that's a different story, and the target token should be hidden.

Regards,
JPG

[Ludd_G]

Ah, so the change was actually to Any Corner to Any Corner, as 5e RAW? That's good to know and is the way I would've hope for. Thank you.

(is there anyway of using this info to automate cover calculations? Sorry for being greedy! :D )

[eporrini]

Copied from the other thread started by OP:

Every token has a "grid size" that denotes the footprint of the token on the map. This is independent of the displayed graphic size, which can actually be scaled independently. The colored box is what is called an underlay, that CoreRPG uses to show the "grid size" of the token. The grid size is what is used for all targeting and LoS calculations.

In the examples shown above, while the "graphic" shown for a token is not within the LoS, the "grid size" or actual size of the token according to the game rules IS within the LoS. It is following the rules defined by the D&D systems. (i.e. official rules are any corner to any corner equals visible) Even if you were using physical minis at a physical tabletop, you would calculate LoS by drawing an imaginary line from corner to corner to grid squares determine visibility and cover (not the actual physical mini, which is smaller than the grid squares).

This is working as intended and according to the rules as written by the D&D game designers.

One of the challenges with changing this to something else is that it becomes very subjective and different for every user. Most people want to say some custom X% should be used instead, where that X% is different for every person. (5%, 10%, 25%, ...) Also, percentages are very expensive to calculate vs. point to point. More likely we would need to look at some sort of contracted point, but again, the amount is subjective, depending on the user.

If you would like to "reduce" the visibility somehow, please put your thoughts into a feature request in my sig.

Also, think of this as the creature moving around within it's space, and the source token is seeing bits and pieces. If it's hiding around a corner, that's a different story, and the target token should be hidden.

Regards,
JPG

You already have the code for center to center and possibly center to corner. LOS is the biggest listed feature with FGU. I can submit a request, but I worry it will be lost in the shuffle and not addressed. If you can (fairly easily) allow a customizable toggle it would allow us to get the most out of LOS for us individually. It's great that it's "working as intended" as per rules, but on the tabletop a DM would likely not allow sight for the fractional examples I have shown. In this case, it's automated so there is little choice. I would hate to see this not addressed as for me it's a major step backward. I didn't like large tokens being difficult to see, but having so much sight makes simply positioning enemies in rooms impossible as the party can see them from a mile away. Most creatures are not hiding, so making everyone hidden is contrary to what LOS provides. Additionally, so many abilities are based off of sight that even if I hide a monster until it's within close proximity, it does not change the fact that characters 35' down a hallway between other people can see. To be really accurate, LOS should also take into account other tokens, which is does not. I am personally surprised so many of you prefer this over what was there before, if we don't speak up now this will be what we have going forward.

[kevininrussia]

I vote keeping it the new way. This way the player can target the token and I can give concealment. Previously a token was 25% visible to in the GM map view, but not visible to the player because of the old LOS calculation. I would have to drag the token out to make it visible, have the player target it, then move it back.

[Weissrolf]

I agree that those literal "edge" cases can be too extreme, but overall I prefer the new implementation as it fits Pathfinder 2 (see everything that is not behind a solid barrier) and also more closely resembles Pathfinder 1 (lines from single edge to target edges).

For those edge cases in PF2 the GM can either keep the NPC invisible to the party or define the NPC as "hidden", even if said NPC did not actively try to hide.


A creature that’s hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space a hidden creature occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can’t determine an exact location.
...
When targeting a hidden creature, before you roll to determine your effect, you must attempt a DC*11 flat check. If you fail, you don’t affect the creature, though the actions you used are still expended—as well as any spell slots, costs, and other resources. You remain flat-footed to the creature, whether you successfully target it or not.
So the PCs got a glimpse of a large creature behind a corner, they can (try to) target the creature, but chances to hit anything are low (plus added cover, which I would define as "greater cover").

Knowing the NPC being there leads to different tactics, of course. But anyone not actively hiding around the corner is detectable, that's how vision works. On one of our encounter maps the change just caused the party of 5 PCs to all detect all three NPCs, whereas before only 2 PCs could do so. It changes the dynamic, especially for spellcasters, but the NPCs still got cover and can try to hide in it once their initiative comes up (the PCs rolled higher Perception than the Stealth DC of the NPCs, so hiding failed at the start of combat).

PS to Players: Prepare your Magic Missiles! ;)

[Paperclipkiller]

It was kind of mentioned above, but I wanted to get some visual representation. There are times where some tokens can see another token, but not vice versa. This is because the center of one token can see the corner of the other. But on the flipside, the center of the other token cannot see the corner of the 1st one. That is an issue with the new updated version. The included pics show what I mean.

[Jiminimonka]

It was kind of mentioned above, but I wanted to get some visual representation. There are times where some tokens can see another token, but not vice versa. This is because the center of one token can see the corner of the other. But on the flipside, the center of the other token cannot see the corner of the 1st one. That is an issue with the new updated version. The included pics show what I mean.

I dont see that as an issue. The bird is on the corner the wizard is 5 feet back from the edge.

Again its the colour of the square thats giving away the token not the picture of the aarakocra.

[Weissrolf]

I agree with Jiminimonka on this, especially after testing this in real-life on a corner of my apartment. When I stand in the center of a 5 ft. square that is 5 ft. back from an edge in my apartment then I can even see more of the 5 ft. square around the corner than what the Abjurer example is showing and I cannot see the other way around. The reason for the Abjurer seeing less than me in real-life is that the LoS lines do not align with the grid in the example, but with the protruding wall, else the Abjurer would see more of the Aras space.

To my surprise I even just found out that you cannot snap to grid LoS lines when you draw them.

Map LoS contributors need to watch out more how they draw LoS now, else something like this can happen:

https://i.imgur.com/6yzJ2AW.png

https://i.imgur.com/B5nGWvm.png

There is a projection on wall to the right side, still the PC can easier look around the right corner than the left corner. It should be the other side around.

Two inconveniences I noticed:

- Tokens not on the CT are not LoS visible even when set to "Mask visible".

- When tokens are moved without snap-to-grid (or via CTRL modifier) then LoS is only updated to half-grid during (mouse-)movement until the token is finally released. So only after being release the correct LoS is calculated from the center of the token instead of half-grid steps.

Some bugs I noticed:

- It happened repeatedly that a PC token added to the map from the CT did *not* reveal LoS to the player owning it (myself via localhost). So all the player got was a black window when LoS was enabled.

This happened with a map from a bought AP just the same as with one of the FG Battle Maps. I specifically loaded a test campaign with nothing (!) loaded but the single module including the map and it still happened.

"Revert changes" seems to have helped then. Next time it happens I will check simply removing the token and then adding it again might help, too.

- With different maps it happened that LoS lines were gone and inaccessible. Unlocking the map and opening the LoS tool displayed no lines at all then. Once I noticed that opening the Mask tool showed some crooked lines outside the house shown on the map. I think all pins were also missing.

Using "Revert changes" while the map was open made the crooked mask lines vanish, but and pins appeared at the lower right corner of the map (wrong places). I suspect this happened because I resized the map window to be smaller than in its original state. When I closed the map window and then revert changes again the map window could be opened at original size with all pins and LoS lines intact.

- Early at my testing it happened that my own GM controlled NPCs could not see each other even when they stood right in front of each other. What I mean is that PCs were revealed as being seen, but the other NPCs stays half-translucent even in plain sight.

- I recently tried an extension that allows to place spell tokens on a map. In one instance when I placed a 8x8 squares token on a map the token borders became LoS borders without any LoS lines showing up. Furthermore the PC that placed the token could not leave the token space anymore. Said extension does not (officially) meddle with LoS, so this should not have happened and usually does not happen (only this once yet).

[Ludd_G]

Can we just get an official statement that at the moment the new LoS is reciprocal Any Corner to Any Corner as per 5e RAW, cause PaperClipKiller's example above still seems to show Centre to Any Corner which is less than ideal?

[Weissrolf]

I tested this and LoS starts at the center of the token. You can test this yourself, draw a LoS box aligning with the grid, place the player token on the grid-line instead of the center. LoS will go straight from the center of the token along the grid/LoS line and then still straight where the box ends instead of going a bit around.

[Weissrolf]

- Tokens not on the CT are not LoS visible even when set to "Mask visible".
I wonder if this is a bug or intentional?

[Kelrugem]

I dont see that as an issue. The bird is on the corner the wizard is 5 feet back from the edge.

Again its the colour of the square thats giving away the token not the picture of the aarakocra.

As Moon Wizard wrote, the LoS is just about the corners/center of the occupied square, the token image does not matter for that :) (so, you're right, but as an official emphasis :D)

About the visibility thing: I like it :) Yes, maybe it is not RAW, but I prefer it that way, and I personally will use FG's LoS "rule" rather than RAW :) (and let's be honest, who of you was rigorously checking LoS when doing that stuff manually? :D I often did that very handwavy, so, for me no hurt when it is not always in alignment with RAW, especially when it is just about such deviations :D) Since it is also not just about 5e, it might be the best fit for among all rulesets :) (but when there can be an option, that would be nice of course)

[Kelrugem]

Can we just get an official statement that at the moment the new LoS is reciprocal Any Corner to Any Corner as per 5e RAW, cause PaperClipKiller's example above still seems to show Centre to Any Corner which is less than ideal?

Moon Wizard already wrote here, that it takes the center of the "seeing token" and checks the visibility of corners of the other tokens :) (or I completely confuse all the statements here now)

[Ludd_G]

I'm sorry, but he said corner to corner, not centre to corner on the previous page? This is why I was so surprised that the examples seem to contradict what Moon had just said.

"In the examples shown above, while the "graphic" shown for a token is not within the LoS, the "grid size" or actual size of the token according to the game rules IS within the LoS. It is following the rules defined by the D&D systems. (i.e. official rules are any corner to any corner equals visible) Even if you were using physical minis at a physical tabletop, you would calculate LoS by drawing an imaginary line from corner to corner to grid squares determine visibility and cover (not the actual physical mini, which is smaller than the grid squares)."

(and apologies for me not being able to run my own tests as I'm away from my FG computer)

[Kelrugem]

I'm sorry, but he said corner to corner, not centre to corner on the previous page? This is why I was so surprised that the examples seem to contradict what Moon had just said.

"In the examples shown above, while the "graphic" shown for a token is not within the LoS, the "grid size" or actual size of the token according to the game rules IS within the LoS. It is following the rules defined by the D&D systems. (i.e. official rules are any corner to any corner equals visible) Even if you were using physical minis at a physical tabletop, you would calculate LoS by drawing an imaginary line from corner to corner to grid squares determine visibility and cover (not the actual physical mini, which is smaller than the grid squares)."

(and apologies for me not being able to run my own tests as I'm away from my FG computer)

Ah, I think, that was meant as a general answer for tabletops, and that the graphic shown was in alignment with RAW :) (the bold things just are about the rules or physical minis, not directly regarded to FG. Though the sentence about following the rules of D&D is maybe a bit misleading then, but maybe I misunderstand it)

I referred to this answer: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?63931-Token-Visibility-LOS-Major-update-BUG&p=559425&viewfull=1#post559425 :)

[Ludd_G]

Ah, I see :D

But to me this seems to be directly contradicted by Moons second post, which I quoted above, as he states "This is working as intended and according to the rules as written by the D&D game designers" with reference to the in game example, which, if it is reading Centre to Corner is definitely not working according to the rules as written and is problematic for any larger creatures as it prevent reciprocal LoS which seems wrong (to my mind at least). Hence my asking for a definitive statement as Moons 2 posts in this thread seem to contradict each other as to what the present LoS mechanic is.

[Kelrugem]

Ah, I see :D

But to me this seems to be directly contradicted by Moons second post, which I quoted above, as he states "This is working as intended and according to the rules as written by the D&D game designers" with reference to the in game example, which, if it is reading Centre to Corner is definitely not working according to the rules as written and is problematic for any larger creatures as it prevent reciprocal LoS which seems wrong (to my mind at least). Hence my asking for a definitive statement as Moons 2 posts in this thread seem to contradict each other as to what the present LoS mechanic is.

Yeah, now I understand :) Hmm, yeah, difficult to say, I like the new approach, because the head/eyes are often rather in the centre of the token. So, a big creature can give away its shape to enemies while not seeing them yet, which makes sense for many humanoids (giants and stuff like that), but non-humanoids might be problematic (beholders with all the eyes everywhere); I think the former occurs more often.

Hm, indeed then maybe better just to stick to some RAW for the LoS then (so, changing it again); all type of visibility situations are then solved when FG is a 3d tabletop :D

[Daso]

So i'm testing my game for tonight's session and noticed all my tokens that are NOT on the combat tracker are invisible to LOS unless I make them always visible which ignores LOS and shows that token regardless of where it is on the map.

I use image tokens to populate maps (patrons in a bar for example, important NPCs that don't need to fight, etc).

anyway to fix this?

edit: PFRPG2 is the ruleset i'm using

[Kelrugem]

So i'm testing my game for tonight's session and noticed all my tokens that are NOT on the combat tracker are invisible to LOS unless I make them always visible which ignores LOS and shows that token regardless of where it is on the map.

I use image tokens to populate maps (patrons in a bar for example, important NPCs that don't need to fight, etc).

anyway to fix this?

edit: PFRPG2 is the ruleset i'm using

Did you try to make them mask-sensitive?

[Weissrolf]

I did. Or rather, they are still mask-sensitive by default and I switched to "always visible/invisible" just to make them "mask-sensitive" again. Did not help.

[Kelrugem]

I did. Or rather, they are still mask-sensitive by default and I switched to "always visible/invisible" just to make them "mask-sensitive" again. Did not help.

When there are any bugs, then one of you should maybe make a separate thread, in order to increase the visibility of the problem :) (because this thread was about something else initially) I didn't test the LoS at the moment :)

[Daso]

Did you try to make them mask-sensitive?

I did indeed. Always visible to mask sensitive, basically back and forth between all the options (even invisible to see if that reset anything). Added them from the assets directly, from the bestiary entry by dragging the token, delete and re-add them, etc...

The only way it actually worked is if I put them to always visible, but then they're always visible which isn't too great. I got by, but it wasn't ideal.