Chat Window Entries

[Stargrove]

Can we have the option of setting things like combat entries in the chat window to be a single entry instead of spreading it across multiple lines. I think a combat entry is two lines right now, one for the roll and one for the result.

I want to use a module (Audio Overseer) more effectively at my table and having the Combat entries split up means LUA pattern matching is not as effective and this the module can't play the sound I want to include.

[Moon Wizard]

Typically, the results have to be on a separate line, because the results of the roll and the application of the roll are a two step process. While in some scenarios, you can assume a single roll per target; in other scenarios, many game systems allow you to make one roll for multiple targets (i.e. fireball in Pathfinder). I'm not sure how PF2 works, but this is why the general system works the way it does.

Regards,
JPG

[Stargrove]

Spells are easy as casting the spell has [CAST] and the spell name and is just one sound. But for a weapon the roll line is the only place where the weapon name is shown while the hit or miss is on the 2nd line. That is what makes it hard to do a proper sound for, say, a Longsword hitting (swoosh & thud) or a Longsword missing (swoosh) or a Longsword Critical Hit (swoosh & thud+splat).

Maybe it would be as easy just adding the weapon name from the first line to the second line as well so it can be parsed to activate the proper sound.

I assume this would be a Trenloe thing since he is the PF2e ruleset developer.

[Moon Wizard]

Or the sound extension could be enhanced to remember the first line, and apply to the next line for HIT/MISS?

JPG

[Trenloe]

Before April this year the result line contained all of the description information from the first line. I removed that, based off a user request so that they could more easily use chat sound triggers. Unfortunately I can't, with a brief search, find the original request - so I'm not sure exactly what their use case is, and I don't want to break their request to satisfy a different request.

I'll look into the possibility of just adding the weapon name to the result data, and hope it doesn't break the reason for the change back in April. I won't be implementing any change for a few weeks.

[Stargrove]

I already asked and he says it would be hard given that the two line thing is not consistent for everything.

I am not a developer, but adding the weapon name from the first line to the 2nd line seems easier. But what do I know?

[Stargrove]

Thanks Trenloe. I will keep an eye out for a possible change.