Feedback Thread - D&D 5E (2024) Ruleset Updates

[superteddy57]

This thread is to provide feedback on the latest changes located in the beta Test channel. Please post any feedback/issues to this thread.

[SilentRuin]

This thread is to provide feedback on the latest changes located in the beta Test channel. Please post any feedback/issues to this thread.

Unbelievable. You guys did not even attempt to preserve extension calls and usages. You just blew away and renamed stuff as if they were not even in use. There is no way you can tell me you could not have preserved previous naming and added in new things to support the new 5E. Its code - it can be done. But no attempt was made. Another total breakage of who knows how much. I brought it up and instantly got errors across things that I KNOW could have been preserved. If any consideration of existing extension usage was taken into account. Which it was not. It was supposed to be a separate ruleset but I guess that was just tossed out the airlock for convenience? I did not try everything but OMG. I have no intention of blindly guessing my way through what changed and what is supposed to replace that code now. Tempted to just ditch my extensions at this point as no attempt what so ever is being made to preserve calls in a shared environment. Feel like changing something? Just do it. Damn the consequences to others. Tell you what - if you guys are going to just rename stuff because you can't be put out to preserve interfaces like any other shared environment for your 3rd parties - you can tell us exactly what to replace in our code so we don't have to spend multiple hours/days figuring it out on our own. If you need me to gift them let me know and YOU can spend tons of time figuring out what you changed and what needs to be changed in extensions now.

[Laerun]

Unbelievable. You guys did not even attempt to preserve extension calls and usages. You just blew away and renamed stuff as if they were not even in use. There is no way you can tell me you could not have preserved previous naming and added in new things to support the new 5E. Its code - it can be done. But no attempt was made. Another total breakage of who knows how much. I brought it up and instantly got errors across things that I KNOW could have been preserved. If any consideration of existing extension usage was taken into account. Which it was not. It was supposed to be a separate ruleset but I guess that was just tossed out the airlock for convenience? I did not try everything but OMG. I have no intention of blindly guessing my way through what changed and what is supposed to replace that code now. Tempted to just ditch my extensions at this point as no attempt what so ever is being made to preserve calls in a shared environment. Feel like changing something? Just do it. Damn the consequences to others. Tell you what - if you guys are going to just rename stuff because you can't be put out to preserve interfaces like any other shared environment for your 3rd parties - you can tell us exactly what to replace in our code so we don't have to spend multiple hours/days figuring it out on our own. If you need me to gift them let me know and YOU can spend tons of time figuring out what you changed and what needs to be changed in extensions now.

I understand your frustration. I have many new videos to redo, but I look at it as evolution. I do not think you are the only one who has to adjust to the changes. Almost anyone writing content or such will have to switch gears all over the industry...

Extensions and third party content does not set the agenda or the bar for Fantasy Grounds and Smiteworks development team, they do. We can only react. I think with the amount of energy put into this anger and the endless frustrations, you could/can have already had a good start on how to proceed from here. This is also still test, so it's that time to adapt or not.

Chasing changes and such with extensions is very disheartening at times, but it's worsened when you outright threaten to rage quit. There have been a half a dozen times when you have went out of your way to freak out and then realized you had it wrong. I do not pretend this is one of those moment, but taking a break might be helpful for now.

Testing and updating cycles are not always going to stick either, so there's that challenge too. Best of luck and do not let this stuff kill you, it's likely not worth the anger and blood pressure build up. Be good to yourself and let's see what happens, because there are likely many unforeseen changes and tweaks yet to come with this particular rule set, errata and all. There might have also been some challenges and newer things on the backend that we are not yet aware of too. We also do not know how this will work out in play yet either.

[ddavison]

Hello SilentRuin,

We are still working on this update to be ready for the release of 2024. It is taking us a lot longer to get in place than we had hoped and we had a shorter dev cycle than we would have liked for changes as significant as these. If you want to send a copy of any broken extensions to superteddy57 and to me, we can try to look at them if we have time and provide some additional insight. We can't make any promises at this point, but we will try our best to assist you.

[SilentRuin]

I understand your frustration. I have many new videos to redo, but I look at it as evolution. I do not think you are the only one who has to adjust to the changes. Almost anyone writing content or such will have to switch gears all over the industry...

Extensions and third party content does not set the agenda or the bar for Fantasy Grounds and Smiteworks development team, they do. We can only react. I think with the amount of energy put into this anger and the endless frustrations, you could/can have already had a good start on how to proceed from here. This is also still test, so it's that time to adapt or not.

Chasing changes and such with extensions is very disheartening at times, but it's worsened when you outright threaten to rage quit. There have been a half a dozen times when you have went out of your way to freak out and then realized you had it wrong. I do not pretend this is one of those moment, but taking a break might be helpful for now.

Testing and updating cycles are not always going to stick either, so there's that challenge too. Best of luck and do not let this stuff kill you, it's likely not worth the anger and blood pressure build up. Be good to yourself and let's see what happens, because there are likely many unforeseen changes and tweaks yet to come with this particular rule set, errata and all. There might have also been some challenges and newer things on the backend that we are not yet aware of too. We also do not know how this will work out in play yet either.

Ha. Rage quit :) I'm one of the few devs that have insured all my extensions are owned in FORGE by someone else who has written permission to take over the code if I disappear. Unlike others, I know nothing is forever :)

As I've still got 5E and SW5E games in progress for at least another year I'm sure I'll be forced to fix things. I just have no interest in doing it today or likely for the next week as I internally rage at the fact I have to do this every time a TEST drops out.

[SilentRuin]

Hello SilentRuin,

We are still working on this update to be ready for the release of 2024. It is taking us a lot longer to get in place than we had hoped and we had a shorter dev cycle than we would have liked for changes as significant as these. If you want to send a copy of any broken extensions to superteddy57 and to me, we can try to look at them if we have time and provide some additional insight. We can't make any promises at this point, but we will try our best to assist you.

Send me a drop box to send all my extensions and you can have them on record for when you run a test. Though I'd prefer a doc that said "this is old call you had - this is what you have to change it to - and this is what the new stuff does different from the old stuff". I assume you do this with rulesets already. I just have no patience to spend another set of days trying to guess my way past the diff of changes or wall of red that pop up in TEST every few months and try and figure out how I'm impacted. Though usually I just have to trial and error and see what is broken. Something I did in just coming up - and clicking one button in and extension. I HOPE this is an easy set of changes - but the last few TESTs I was told would just be change this to this and it was not.

A simple fix can take forever to figure out what is actually required. And that is the norm I find in SW updates.

[Laerun]

Ha. Rage quit :) I'm one of the few devs that have insured all my extensions are owned in FORGE by someone else who has written permission to take over the code if I disappear. Unlike others, I know nothing is forever :)

As I've still got 5E and SW5E games in progress for at least another year I'm sure I'll be forced to fix things. I just have no interest in doing it today or likely for the next week as I internally rage at the fact I have to do this every time a TEST drops out.

Great attitude, you've grown!

[damned]

I think the number of devs dropping out and/or not producing new code due to the constant cycle is greater than the number of new devs starting up.
The frustration and time sink is real.

[deer_buster]

Devil's Advocate: could probably do with less patronizing responses when people voice valid concerns

[rhagelstrom]

I don’t have the new book so I haven’t read the rules but any glaring deficiencies that you guys aren’t doing that devs might want to be aware of to fill in the holes? I’m sure everyone will figure them out pretty quickly and I can understand not saying it but it just makes everyone’s life easier

[rhagelstrom]

There isn't any documentation on this:

NPC Automation
Added "Summon" section to NPC sheets.
Setting spell Level/Attack/DC/Mod and Proficiency Bonus will adjust NPC stats when enabled.
New variables can be used in NPC action descriptions ([SLEVEL], [SATTACK], [SDC], [SMOD])

I haven't fired up test but I'm just reading code and trying to understand what you guys have done.
The second bullet it seems like what is in the code is related to summon not spell, or is this just verbiage? I don't know the new rule changes I don't have the book.
If summon and spell are two different things, maybe they aren't based on the intermixing on this change log, I'd suggest using SU instead of straight S as a prefix and here is why. It will conflict with BCE/G SDC, spell save DC, which is going to affect an entire grim press product line and cause everyone who is running Auras that isn't PF2 to change all their effects if BCE/G needs to yield to the conflict. Yes you don't cater to extensions but I'd argue the SDC tag is so prevalent with a lot of hardcore 5E FG fans it is going to leave a really bad taste in their mouth just for pets. Second I think S is more naturally thought of as a spell rather than summon so leaving S reserved for spell and SU for summons makes a lot of sense.

If spells and summons are now the same thing, BCE/G still conflicts but it should be expanded to PCs as well and just be done with it as it is desperatly needed and would be a great add. You can just have the code or if, because SW is so hyper-allergic to any 3rd party suggestions, I can tell you spots to do the work that has already been done.

I'd also suggest that instead of SLEVEL/SATTACK or SULEVEL/SUATTACK, it be SLVL/SULVL SATK/SUATK since ATK and LVL are already abbreviated in the effects and there is no good reason to mix.

All of this is an easy change now but after released is a nightmare.

Halfing luck, I don't know what 2024 says but 2014 it is a choice because of the word "may". I automate Halflng Luck in my game but I don't know if just blanket automating it is the right choice when it's not actually the rule. Maybe it is in 2024?

[Zacchaeus]

There isn't any documentation on this:

NPC Automation
Added "Summon" section to NPC sheets.
Setting spell Level/Attack/DC/Mod and Proficiency Bonus will adjust NPC stats when enabled.
New variables can be used in NPC action descriptions ([SLEVEL], [SATTACK], [SDC], [SMOD])

I haven't fired up test but I'm just reading code and trying to understand what you guys have done.
The second bullet it seems like what is in the code is related to summon not spell, or is this just verbiage? I don't know the new rule changes I don't have the book.
If summon and spell are two different things, maybe they aren't based on the intermixing on this change log, I'd suggest using SU instead of straight S as a prefix and here is why. It will conflict with BCE/G SDC, spell save DC, which is going to affect an entire grim press product line and cause everyone who is running Auras that isn't PF2 to change all their effects if BCE/G needs to yield to the conflict. Yes you don't cater to extensions but I'd argue the SDC tag is so prevalent with a lot of hardcore 5E FG fans it is going to leave a really bad taste in their mouth just for pets. Second I think S is more naturally thought of as a spell rather than summon so leaving S reserved for spell and SU for summons makes a lot of sense.

If spells and summons are now the same thing, BCE/G still conflicts but it should be expanded to PCs as well and just be done with it as it is desperatly needed and would be a great add. You can just have the code or if, because SW is so hyper-allergic to any 3rd party suggestions, I can tell you spots to do the work that has already been done.

I'd also suggest that instead of SLEVEL/SATTACK or SULEVEL/SUATTACK, it be SLVL/SULVL SATK/SUATK since ATK and LVL are already abbreviated in the effects and there is no good reason to mix.

All of this is an easy change now but after released is a nightmare.

Halfing luck, I don't know what 2024 says but 2014 it is a choice because of the word "may". I automate Halflng Luck in my game but I don't know if just blanket automating it is the right choice when it's not actually the rule. Maybe it is in 2024?
The referred to variables are for specifically created summoned NPCs; such NPCs are already in 5e (see Tasha's, and other recent books) and various things like their AC, attacks, spellcasting etc are tied to either the casters proficiency, spell attack modifier, level, or spell DC. The variables aren't effects as such but can be included in attack or other strings to signify the figures that should be used (For example Melee weapon attack: +[SATTACK] to hit. Hit: 1d8+3 +[SLEVEL] slashing damage). The figures themselves (that is spell level, spell attack, Spell DC, etc) can be added to the NPC in a new 'Summon' section of the NPC sheet.

[ddavison]

Yeah, there is a checkbox now to indicate that an NPC is a summoned creature. It's stats are then derived. See the example below from the PHB.

61876

[SilentRuin]

Here is a perfect example of being broken for "new naming". Previously I added generic actions subwindow and buttons to bottom of PC/NPC sheets. Previously all FGU code did this by columnanchor - but now they have changed all that to be based on a new template that invovles sub_content_top. Is there any clue to this? No - you have to see the error and then find it in the windiff listings (tons) and then go "now what?".

You then have to drill down into the actual template and figure out how can use this new anchor point without having to change all your internal references to the sheet by following them down their new rabbit hole of coding and renaming? Digging in and trial and erroring you find "contentanchor" is the new bottom of the sheets - or was always there and they never used it before - who knows as I followed them down their columnanchor definitions before.

Does any of this actually gain me anything besides breaking me for not bothering to try and preserve previous anchoring point naming? No it does not. Just wastes more of my time trying to keep my code working for changes that simply keep trying to make things "simpler" by disrupting all their previous "simpler" rules. I'm sure they will blow away this latest template fad as they have so often in the past.

THIS is why I'm frustrated. Changes for the sake of change. Anchor point servers no new "ability" or anything else. Just a new supposed shuffling of naming and functionality to make things easier.

Why is I have to insure I always play nice with other extensions by calling the original code on any overrides, insure I tack on to generically available anchor points, and all the other things to minimize my impact on others code - and SW simply does not bother?

If you don't need to change something - DO NOT. IF you want to change it to provide a more "simple" version PROVIDE legacy calls to keep previous things working.

I'm just starting digging into this so I'm sure I have lots more to find - and some things I simply won't find till they fail for someone. Things keep getting more and more complex for keeping extensions working and I have to assume for rulesets also.

Nutshell for other suffering my first discovery in TEST - if you used columnanchor to place things at bottom of page as SW did in the past - they tossed it out the airlock and used new templates which in the end use contentanchor. So replace columnanchor references with contentanchor and you might, might get lucky like I did on this first but likely not last of busted changes for what I consider unnecessary disruption of extension code.

[SilentRuin]

And I don't even know how to recover the actext anchor point reference that I used to attach to. I mean what is this logic here? The actext is still under some 2014 newly named thing - but I can't even fathom this if logic here. How am I supposed to attach to the previous anchor point "actext" in order to place my stuff?

61878



<windowclass name="npc_combat">
<script>
function onInit()
self.update();
end
function onVersionChanged()
self.update();
end
function update()
local nodeRecord = getDatabaseNode();
local bIs2024 = (DB.getValue(nodeRecord, "version", "") == "2024");
if bIs2024 then
sub_content.setValue("npc_combat_2024", nodeRecord);
else
sub_content.setValue("npc_combat_2014", nodeRecord);
end
WindowManager.callSafeControlUpdate(self, "sub_content", bReadOnly);
end
</script>


I mean how to I reference actext here?



<windowclass name="npc_combat_top_2014">
<margins control="0,0,0,2" />
<script file="campaign/scripts/npc_main_top.lua" />
<sheetdata>
<anchor_content_top />

<sub_content_hidden_top name="sub_summary_fields">
<class>npc_combat_summary_fields</class>
</sub_content_hidden_top>
<summary_content_column name="summary" />

<line_content_top />

<label_content_column name="ac_label">
<static textres="armorclass" />
</label_content_column>
<number_content_column name="ac" />
<string_content_column_remainder name="actext">
<anchored to="ac" />
</string_content_column_remainder>
...


I'm not even sure its the same place it used to be - I hope it is - but I'm at a loss to know what this does. It used to be defined directly under "npc_combat" but now this wierd scripting logic has it going to 2014 version no matter what.

[superteddy57]

The control would have to be placed within the npc_combat_top_2014 windowclass for it to display. You can do a merge="join" to add controls to an already established windowclass. Using the insertafter or insertbefore flags will load the control at that point. An example below.



<windowclass name="npc_combat_top_2014" merge="join">
<sheetdata>
<templatename name="somecontrol" insertafter="actext" />
...

[SilentRuin]

What a shock that all parsePower calls or overrides are broken.

Previous code that is overriden and called in FGU 5E...



function parsePower(sPowerName, sPowerDesc, bPC, bMagic)


new call that breaks everything



function parsePower(tData)


I can't wait for an explanation on the pressing need to change arguments on something known to be used by 3rd parties. It must have been a truly pressing vital requirement of some kind - I'd like to know what it was and how to repair this to work.

[SilentRuin]

The control would have to be placed within the npc_combat_top_2014 windowclass for it to display. You can do a merge="join" to add controls to an already established windowclass. Using the insertafter or insertbefore flags will load the control at that point. An example below.



<windowclass name="npc_combat_top_2014" merge="join">
<sheetdata>
<templatename name="somecontrol" insertafter="actext" />
...


And the highlighted if statement that essentially does the same thing in the if and the else? That was more concerning to me. As if I do what you suggest and that else suddenly changes - I'm burned again.

[superteddy57]

It checks the version of the NPC to display. The version cycler at the bottom of the NPC will change the contents of the subwindow and that windowclass is set based on that boolean.

npc_combat_top_2014 = 2014 rules
npc_combat_top_2024 = 2024 rules

[SilentRuin]

It checks the version of the NPC to display. The version cycler at the bottom of the NPC will change the contents of the subwindow and that windowclass is set based on that boolean.

npc_combat_top_2014 = 2014 rules
npc_combat_top_2024 = 2024 rules

That's the exact same result - why do an else if you plan to only have one result? See that's my worry - that you plan on burning me in the else later down the line if I do this.



local bIs2024 = (DB.getValue(nodeRecord, "version", "") == "2024");
if bIs2024 then
sub_content.setValue("npc_combat_2024", nodeRecord);
else
sub_content.setValue("npc_combat_2014", nodeRecord);
end


Am missing something above? That looks like exact same result no matter what the boolean value is. And if you have it there - I suspect you plan to change it and burn me again - or else why have it at all?

Why check boolean at all? Now if you are saying its some unfathomable logic embedded in your cycler that requires it to have this written this way (I can't imagine what that could be) and it will not suddenly change

<windowclass name="npc_combat_top_2014" merge="join">

to some other name yet again - then fine I'll trust you and use this newly named windowclass.

[superteddy57]

It's not the same result. The one option is 2014 and the other is 2024. They are two separate windowclasses. They are not the same. So if the version is set to 2014, the 2014 controls within the npc_combat_2014 windowclass will appear and vice versa. They don't contain the same controls.

[SilentRuin]

It's not the same result. The one option is 2014 and the other is 2024. They are two separate windowclasses. They are not the same. So if the version is set to 2014, the 2014 controls within the npc_combat_2014 windowclass will appear and vice versa. They don't contain the same controls.

Yeah I said that wrong (and was stupid thinking one sheet for 2014/2024 instead of two) - what I should have said is why is the same exact sheet npc_combat now requiring two different anchor points to hook in my stuff? In other words, basically instead of overriding one npc_combat sheet I'm going to have to do 2014 (as I did before with actext) and a new 2024 sheet as yet undetermined anchor point to get the same data added into that sheet? And as I don't own that data and am not planning to own it anytime soon - what would that anchor point even be?

[superteddy57]

If the control is not there in the 2024 windowclass, then it's not part of that version's windowclass. This would be an example for it to be separated into two windowclasses to ensure only the correct fields are displayed. You would have to find a new anchor point in the 2024 windowclass for your new control to appear.

[SilentRuin]

If the control is not there in the 2024 windowclass, then it's not part of that version's windowclass. This would be an example for it to be separated into two windowclasses to ensure only the correct fields are displayed. You would have to find a new anchor point in the 2024 windowclass for your new control to appear.

Do you at least have an image of the old 2014 NPC data for something say "gnoll" vs the new 2024 NPC data sheet so I can see what I might attach to? For instance, 2014 looks like this...

61882

And is offeset off the actext field anchor point - so what does new 2024 sheet look like and how do I use the space in there (offset off what)?

See if you change stuff with data we don't have but expect it to be supported you have to supply this sort of information.

[superteddy57]

Since you are on Test, you can see the npc record by unlocking the record and clicking the version cycler at the bottom of the record to swap between the two versions of the NPC record. The code as well will display the controls within the npc_combat_2024 as well to find anchor points for your additional controls.

[SilentRuin]

For anyone having to delve into the tData argument changes for PowerManager.parsePower these are them...



-- Parse the description
local tData = {
sName = sName,
sDesc = sPowerDesc,
bMagic = false,
bPC = false,
};
sortedpowerdata = PowerManager.parsePower(tData);


With your own data of course.

[deer_buster]

For anyone having to delve into the tData argument changes for PowerManager.parsePower these are them...



-- Parse the description
local tData = {
sName = sName,
sDesc = sPowerDesc,
bMagic = false,
bPC = false,
};
sortedpowerdata = PowerManager.parsePower(tData);


With your own data of course.

LOL, so, they change the function's signature completely rather than make a different function that could pass the required information in to the old function? Genius. Good for the goose isn't good for the gander...

[SilentRuin]

Only 5 hours of questioning, delving, trial and erroring so far. Per usual tons of work/time to fix tiny things.

Generic Actions
Equipped Effects
Death Indicators

Extensions are (GA and EE will be when Grim Press delivers them sometime later today) in TEST with fixes per above (in this thread) painful journey. Note that Theme: Hearth extension somehow has definitions for Death Indicator fields (which I had to fix anchor points on) and notified current caretaker of it. You will see

[ERROR] window: Control (npc_importantdeath_label) anchoring to an undefined control (actext) in windowclass (npc_combat)

in console log until that extension removes DI definitions or fixes them. I'm just not using Hearth in TEST for now though it is my favorite theme. Death Indicator NPC sheet options will only be displayed and be set in 2014 version of sheet (though likely apply to both).

I'm too tired to keep poking at levels of the extensions people can let me know if TEST has other broken stuff in my extensions if they wish.

[bwatford]

Can you please give us a tic box in the updater to not update the 5e ruleset before this forced crap is put out?

I mean, why are the ones that have many running paid 5e campaigns in process that aren't switching in mid campaign being forced into this mess?

The switch should be optional... period.

I also run A5e Level Up campaigns which run off the current 5e ruleset as an extension and won't be compatible with the 2024 rules.

What should we do in this situation? I am not forcing paid players to switch in mid campaign.

Do I need to find a different VTT?

[mccartysr]

Can you please give us a tic box in the updater to not update the 5e ruleset before this forced crap is put out?

I mean, why are the ones that have many running paid 5e campaigns in process that aren't switching in mid campaign being forced into this mess?

The switch should be optional... period.

I also run A5e Level Up campaigns which run off the current 5e ruleset as an extension and won't be compatible with the 2024 rules.

What should we do in this situation? I am not forcing paid players to switch in mid campaign.

Do I need to find a different VTT?

The changes are not replacing the 5E ruleset. The changes are adding options to the 5E ruleset, and you are not required to use said options.

[ddavison]

You will be able to use the 2014 version of all the data records inside your existing 5E campaign. There will be a new data field that sets the version and the default for old data without this field is to assume it is the 2014 version.

[bwatford]

You will be able to use the 2014 version of all the data records inside your existing 5E campaign. There will be a new data field that sets the version and the default for old data without this field is to assume it is the 2014 version.

Thanks for this clarification that core automation will not be forcing the new rules into older campaigns.

[LordEntrails]

You will be able to use the 2014 version of all the data records inside your existing 5E campaign. There will be a new data field that sets the version and the default for old data without this field is to assume it is the 2014 version.
I think the fear here (or at least the one I would have if I was currently running a game), is that existing 5E compatible extensions will not be compatible with the new code. So if a DM uses an extension that does not get updated to support the new ruleset code, then either they will have to stop using that extension, or not update FG at all for many months. (And with no ability to update, they won't be able to buy new content).

[ddavison]

There is always some concern with extensions breaking with new versions, or failing to maintain compatibility. The best thing you can do is test your favorite extensions in the TEST channel and report any found issues to the extension developer. Our team is availability to extension devs to help make adjustments if necessary.

[deer_buster]

There is always some concern with extensions breaking with new versions, or failing to maintain compatibility. The best thing you can do is test your favorite extensions in the TEST channel and report any found issues to the extension developer. Our team is availability to extension devs to help make adjustments if necessary.

Not "always some concern", seems to be a forgone conclusion over the last year or so.

[SilentRuin]

I foolishly thought I'd click on something else today - another wall of errors. There is no way I'm testing the bazillion bits and pieces I've added into my extensions over the last 4 years so it will be luck if this comes out of TEST not blowing up my extensions.

The latest wonder:

Windowclass "charsheet_inventory_contents" used to have the "currencylist" available to anchor onto. No longer. Another arbitrary reshuffle of UI tags makes it now in new "charsheet_inventory_currencies" where you have to insert after "header" and change your positional anchoring to fit any buttons on the Treasure header through trial and error.

One joy after another.

Map Parcels extension will now be updated in TEST at some point as clicking on any PC/NPC inventory tab will give you a raft of errors complaining about the above shift in UI anchor points.

I just have to say, these seem to change every 6 months as the mood strikes SW reeking havoc upon extension developers. QUIT CHANGING UNECESSARY FEEL GOOD NAMING when it does nothing for the actual functionality and you could KEEP the original naming.

7 hours and counting on this "make work" to keep stuff working that was working in this new TEST.

[deer_buster]

I foolishly thought I'd click on something else today - another wall of errors. There is no way I'm testing the bazillion bits and pieces I've added into my extensions over the last 4 years so it will be luck if this comes out of TEST not blowing up my extensions.

The latest wonder:

Windowclass "charsheet_inventory_contents" used to have the "currencylist" available to anchor onto. No longer. Another arbitrary reshuffle of UI tags makes it now in new "charsheet_inventory_currencies" where you have to insert after "header" and change your positional anchoring to fit any buttons on the Treasure header through trial and error.

One joy after another.

Map Parcels extension will now be updated in TEST at some point as clicking on any PC/NPC inventory tab will give you a raft of errors complaining about the above shift in UI anchor points.

I just have to say, these seem to change every 6 months as the mood strikes SW reeking havoc upon extension developers. QUIT CHANGING UNECESSARY FEEL GOOD NAMING when it does nothing for the actual functionality and you could KEEP the original naming.

7 hours and counting on this "make work" to keep stuff working that was working in this new TEST.

I presume that since your extensions are in the forge (and they have to be approved before they show up) that they have access to your extension code? Doug has offered the services of their developers to help sort this out. Have you heard anything from them outside of this thread?

[SilentRuin]

I presume that since your extensions are in the forge (and they have to be approved before they show up) that they have access to your extension code? Doug has offered the services of their developers to help sort this out. Have you heard anything from them outside of this thread?

I'm 100% sure they don't do searches on extension code bases before they decide to rename something. They just do it damned the torpedoes full speed ahead. I posted in another thread on my opinions on that.

And when I asked for dropbox got nothing so assumed I was on my own. Which is the safest assumption you can make when playing the "keep up with random FGU name changes" - takes less time than waiting for a response.

As far as I know (I laugh as I write this) I'm all working in TEST. (yes I'm a naive sucker in believing that)

[deer_buster]

I'm 100% sure they don't do searches on extension code bases before they decide to rename something. They just do it damned the torpedoes full speed ahead. I posted in another thread on my opinions on that.

And when I asked for dropbox got nothing so assumed I was on my own. Which is the safest assumption you can make when playing the "keep up with random FGU name changes" - takes less time than waiting for a response.

As far as I know (I laugh as I write this) I'm all working in TEST. (yes I'm a naive sucker in believing that)
True, I am fairly certain they don't search code-bases...however, they "shouldn't" need you to send your code in as they should already have it...

[ddavison]

Yes, we don't do code searches across the 435 or so Forge extensions. We do have access to pull these if needed to assist in troubleshooting something. A dropbox is not necessary.

You can contact us to ask questions about stuff and SilentRuin and many other devs know how to reach out directly. Superteddy57 is always on Discord and available for questions. Moon Wizard normally is as well but he is unavailable at the moment.

If you have a list of simple questions such as the one below, you could send those our way and someone will try to get back to you on it.
Q: 5E Ruleset: Windowclass "charsheet_inventory_contents" used to have the "currencylist" available to anchor onto. This is no longer available. What should I use as a replacement?

There is no limit to where you choose to anchor your content, so literally any change could impact you. I'm also not sure if this is actually a real question you would have or if you are simply venting your frustration that a change was made at all. I suspect you have no problem picking a new anchor control but you want to know if there is an anchor you can pick that is unlikely to change again in a future update. I can't really answer that. Currencies are now in their own separate windowclass. I don't know the reasons why Moon Wizard made that change, but he is often looking at content and development across multiple rulesets.

[deer_buster]

Yes, we don't do code searches across the 435 or so Forge extensions. We do have access to pull these if needed to assist in troubleshooting something. A dropbox is not necessary.
You had asked him to send a copy of the extensions to you guys





You can contact us to ask questions about stuff and SilentRuin and many other devs know how to reach out directly. Superteddy57 is always on Discord and available for questions. Moon Wizard normally is as well but he is unavailable at the moment.


If you have a list of simple questions such as the one below, you could send those our way and someone will try to get back to you on it.
Q: 5E Ruleset: Windowclass "charsheet_inventory_contents" used to have the "currencylist" available to anchor onto. This is no longer available. What should I use as a replacement?


There is no limit to where you choose to anchor your content, so literally any change could impact you. I'm also not sure if this is actually a real question you would have or if you are simply venting your frustration that a change was made at all. I suspect you have no problem picking a new anchor control but you want to know if there is an anchor you can pick that is unlikely to change again in a future update. I can't really answer that. Currencies are now in their own separate windowclass. I don't know the reasons why Moon Wizard made that change, but he is often looking at content and development across multiple rulesets.


There is no simple place to start, based on the number of issues I have seen just from what SilentRuin has posted so far. Just take a look at any of his popular extensions and see the errors for yourself if you are honest about wanting to help.

[SilentRuin]

You had asked him to send a copy of the extensions to you guys







There is no simple place to start, based on the number of issues I have seen just from what SilentRuin has posted so far. Just take a look at any of his popular extensions and see the errors for yourself if you are honest about wanting to help.

As far as I know the errors are fixed. I'm more interested in not having to update my code EVER unless there is something that is actually a bug or a new feature. This constant time sink of fixing it just to keep it running "as it was" is wearing thin. As I'm sure people have grokked from my more vocal objections after every TEST extension buster release.

[damned]

The anchor points is not really the issue.
The items they are being anchored too are not going away - they are not changing the tab they appear on.
In many cases they appear in exactly the same lace to the user.
But they are moving into new windowclasses and this is purely a coding thing.
The reason that is given is it makes development easier but that really doesnt seem to be the case here.
The new code may well be easier for someone brand new to FG coding to pick up - but in 6 months when the next changes roll through they will be in teh same boat as everyone else.
Ive said it before and I dont want to harp on it but the number of people actively coding for FG is decreasing.

[ddavison]

You had asked him to send a copy of the extensions to you guys


Where exactly did I do this?

I said devs can ask a questions.

Edit. I did say devs can send a copy of broken extensions to superteddy and I and we would try to help if we were able.

[bwatford]

Ive said it before and I dont want to harp on it but the number of people actively coding for FG is decreasing.

It is to the point now it is highly noticeable. The amount of new extensions have slowed to a trickle, while old ones now break, and the original author no longer desires to fix them again and again. Other authors want to fix them but are struggling to have time for the constant fixes that seem to come every other week now. By the time they struggle to get one version fix another FG update has broke it again. Some are barely even functioning now, half patched by other coders that didn't even design the extension in the first place.

Just seems to be going backwards instead of forward, and all the development time spent changing the UI and adding 2.5 D that no one uses due to lack of resources, when a user still can't even save multiple game logins in the lobby area.

Makes little sense from a design perspective.

[deer_buster]

It is to the point now it is highly noticeable. The amount of new extensions have slowed to a trickle, while old ones now break, and the original author no longer desires to fix them again and again. Other authors want to fix them but are struggling to have time for the constant fixes that seem to come every other week now. By the time they struggle to get one version fix another FG update has broke it again. Some are barely even functioning now, half patched by other coders that didn't even design the extension in the first place.

Just seems to be going backwards instead of forward, and all the development time spent changing the UI and adding 2.5 D that no one uses due to lack of resources, when a user still can't even save multiple game logins in the lobby area.

Makes little sense from a design perspective.

Exactly...I've said as much in my signature. I've stopped supporting public extensions. Smiteworks has a developer relations problem (real or perceived) and they need to fix it.

[Jiminimonka]

Whingeing aside - Smiteworks maybe you could publish a list of the changes so SilentRuin, Damned and other actual extension/ruleset developers have a point of reference to work with.

So if something has been replaced or renamed, they don't have to hunt for it.

[deer_buster]

Whingeing aside
It may come across as whingeing to you, but it's something quite important to us.

[Jiminimonka]

That is why I put to one side. ;)

[SilentRuin]

I figure the only way I'm going to figure out what TEST has blown away (or any past TEST stuff I've missed which is not unheard of) is to create a campaign of all my normal stuff I use from scratch and test it out like I'm building a new campaign with all that involves.

So, first thing I encountered is this weirdness. Created campaign, made sure my bazillion of options are what I usually have set, added in my 5E usual modules and supplemental modules and map modules, went in to pick my favorite test map and... what the hell are those first two entries in those modules?

61895

[SilentRuin]

As I proceed in my new campaign I create a character wizard (modified by AdvantagesCW of course) and insure that it displays only one class choice for me to select - also insure if I have a local defined class that has the module priority (which is a thing as there can only be one selection for my players in a given campaign). All that is preamble to just show what I was doing... Selecting Wizard as a character class in character wizard and getting this error...

[ERROR] Script execution error: [string "5E:scripts/manager_char_build.lua"]:289: attempt to index global 'sText' (a nil value)

Which is nothing to do with my overrides (or should not have anything to do with them as they work in LIVE just fine and this is not my code). The AdvantagesCW overrides the list generated for class/etc. choices so there is only one choice based on module priorities so should not be impacting this at all.

[Plus just for chuckles I tried it without my extensions and got same error - no shocker there]

[superteddy57]

I figure the only way I'm going to figure out what TEST has blown away (or any past TEST stuff I've missed which is not unheard of) is to create a campaign of all my normal stuff I use from scratch and test it out like I'm building a new campaign with all that involves.

So, first thing I encountered is this weirdness. Created campaign, made sure my bazillion of options are what I usually have set, added in my 5E usual modules and supplemental modules and map modules, went in to pick my favorite test map and... what the hell are those first two entries in those modules?

61895

Those look like empty image records from those modules. If a clean/fresh load of the module produces them, then that is not related to the 5e update and an issue with the module. They would need to either be removed or updated by the module creator


As I proceed in my new campaign I create a character wizard (modified by AdvantagesCW of course) and insure that it displays only one class choice for me to select - also insure if I have a local defined class that has the module priority (which is a thing as there can only be one selection for my players in a given campaign). All that is preamble to just show what I was doing... Selecting Wizard as a character class in character wizard and getting this error...

[ERROR] Script execution error: [string "5E:scripts/manager_char_build.lua"]:289: attempt to index global 'sText' (a nil value)

Which is nothing to do with my overrides (or should not have anything to do with them as they work in LIVE just fine and this is not my code). The AdvantagesCW overrides the list generated for class/etc. choices so there is only one choice based on module priorities so should not be impacting this at all.

[Plus just for chuckles I tried it without my extensions and got same error - no shocker there]

The character wizard is still being worked on and is expected to not be working at this point. I am focusing on that feature myself and will be pushing an update once I have it ready.

[SilentRuin]

Those look like empty image records from those modules. If a clean/fresh load of the module produces them, then that is not related to the 5e update and an issue with the module. They would need to either be removed or updated by the module creator

Did you look at the modules? Those are the FGU WOTC modules if I'm not mistaken that I bought from SW.

That is you guys. Consider yourselves notified.

[superteddy57]

No, this is not the proper place for module reports as non-SmiteWorks employees convert modules and we direct them to monitor bug report threads for the ruleset.

I would place a report in this thread.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?80027-5E-Bug-Reports-(2024)/page25

[SilentRuin]

I'll leave that for someone else then I've got enough running through all this TEST stuff spending hours finding stuff that I should really not have to be finding. These entries I noted as a favor in case it was related to TEST, but I have intention of wasting time reporting in multiple threads as I run through TEST stuff on the chance its not directly related to TEST which I would have no way of knowing.

Currently I just got wacked by another aspect of Generic Actions buttons anchor point being changed - w.actions.subwindow.contents reference no longer works so I have to go find out what is going on with that UI change and find out what the correct reference is through trial and error.

Someone else can deal with reporting elsewhere as my patience is at the thin edge already going above and beyond in reporting stuff I run into and spending time delving into what now is busted.

[Zacchaeus]

I'll leave that for someone else then I've got enough running through all this TEST stuff spending hours finding stuff that I should really not have to be finding. These entries I noted as a favor in case it was related to TEST, but I have intention of wasting time reporting in multiple threads as I run through TEST stuff on the chance its not directly related to TEST which I would have no way of knowing.

Currently I just got wacked by another aspect of Generic Actions buttons anchor point being changed - w.actions.subwindow.contents reference no longer works so I have to go find out what is going on with that UI change and find out what the correct reference is through trial and error.

Someone else can deal with reporting elsewhere as my patience is at the thin edge already going above and beyond in reporting stuff I run into and spending time delving into what now is busted.

They are mistakes. Which you can report in the normal way.

[SilentRuin]

ARRRGHGHGHHHH!!!!

So latest blow up was because that somewhere (no idea where and don't intend on digging further) the previous reference of w.actions.subwindow.contents was changed to w.actions.subwindow.content...

Anyone doing references like this may want to keep their eye out as a critical need to change "contents" to "content" has come into TEST - though I can see other places still use contents - for now.

[damned]

Whingeing aside - Smiteworks maybe you could publish a list of the changes so SilentRuin, Damned and other actual extension/ruleset developers have a point of reference to work with.

So if something has been replaced or renamed, they don't have to hunt for it.

You could take the commentary in whatever way you choose.

Affected people have various options including -

carry on "whingeing"
start sniping about FG/SW
voice their opinions because they care about the FG/SW platform and want it to succeed
stop developing
move platforms

Im no longer angry, moved past that, just sad now.

[deer_buster]

Im no longer angry, moved past that, just sad now.

Yep

[Jiminimonka]

You could take the commentary in whatever way you choose.

Affected people have various options including -

carry on "whingeing"
start sniping about FG/SW
voice their opinions because they care about the FG/SW platform and want it to succeed
stop developing
move platforms

Im no longer angry, moved past that, just sad now.

Whingeing was the wrong word to use, so sorry about that. I was "sniping" at deer_buster with his dodgy signature. ;) I never see anything from Silent Ruin or yourself that is not constructive criticism, even if Silent Ruin does get a little heated, but that is his way and it is fine, since he gets frustrated with having to "fix" his fully working extensions.

I think Smiteworks have a tough job at the moment knocking out 2024 D&D in time and maintaining backward compatibility, and Doug offered to take a look at Silent Ruins extensions to help update them.

D&D 2024 is a huge project for Smiteworks, they HAVE to get it ready for launch and they don't have a team of 50 programmers to get it done in the tiny launch window they have.

After that is done, then maybe some more support for extension and ruleset developers will be on the cards from Smiteworks. I am sure the time restraints at the moment hinder making a comprehensive list of changes to put out for developers.

[SilentRuin]

FYI - Theme: Hearth has been fixed and updated in TEST by the current author and appears to be working again.

[Also jiminimonka - I assume they have access to my extensions - and since they turned down any desire to do simple searches on extension code to see what impact a name change has (as in do not do it or document it in detail) - its just quicker to deal with it myself. I've had experience of directly going to them with code and the "why are you doing this" or "you should do it this way if you want it future compatible" or "override these functions" (only to have them wiped out the very next release) - has me very jaded on spending time doing that. I'll stick to public questions in feed back thread as being more productive for me. Along with the hammering back for not keeping a stable set of naming when the actual UI and code is not really changing that much in 5E.]

Currently I appear to be working. But I'm waiting to see if the Character Wizard changes are stable changes - or wipe out stuff I was told to override in the past. I'm sure I'll have commentary if they are wiped yet again.

[Arghun]

Whingeing aside - Smiteworks maybe you could publish a list of the changes so SilentRuin, Damned and other actual extension/ruleset developers have a point of reference to work with.

So if something has been replaced or renamed, they don't have to hunt for it.

I believe the right solution would be to have a forum with invited persons (extension DEVs) and actually discuss things that are about to be changed (in a close discussion like a round table) and try and understand better how extension builders work.

A solution is only as good as its ecosystem. Once the ecosystem dies so does the application.

[SilentRuin]

I believe the right solution would be to have a forum with invited persons (extension DEVs) and actually discuss things that are about to be changed (in a close discussion like a round table) and try and understand better how extension builders work.

A solution is only as good as its ecosystem. Once the ecosystem dies so does the application.

I'd prefer simply keeping a stable platform that is unchanging where extensions/rulesets hook in - or at a minimum detailed docs on what names/args changes, why they changed, what replaces them now.

Another time sink of being involved in SW design would not be in anyone's interest IMHO. Except possibly for people who were interested in doing that.

I'm interested in just not being broken every single TEST release given I only use 5E and it should be super stable this many years down the road. Obviously, the decision to blend the 5E 2014 and 2024 code into one code set is yet another destabilizing factor. Though to be honest it seems every TEST release is a destablizing factor for me in 5E/CoreRPG land. I can't speak for other ruleset based extensions but mine are in constant turmoil.

[superteddy57]

As you have pointed out many times, your code is based on the design logic from many years ago. At least that is something you bring up with every update cycle as why it should work was due to the age of the design. We have mentioned over the past year, and with each update, that there is major design logic changes was being implemented. Most of the issues you have faced recently (at least with anchoring and subwindows) is due in part to that change. The standardization process has been ongoing since it was announced. Moon Wizard has been implementing it over the past year to give that standard, that others have asked for in the past. You are in that period of transition and it will be this way till all the parts have been put into place. As of right now I believe that the only things left with standardization is the character sheet.

As for the 5e changes, much of what you are seeing is a change that will be the foundation for other projects, many of which are requests from the feature request boards. I will not go into what those are here. Changing of functions is not done lightly by Moon, but when it is done, there is a purpose and I'll allow Moon to address those changes when he has returned.

If any developer runs into an issue with their code I would hope they know they can reach out to me anytime and I am more than glad to help them along. But I'm not seeing many questions being asked about how to fix things. I'm seeing more outward commentary than requests for help. I can't provide answers when it's just commentary. You might find it's a short fix if questions are asked. As evident with the couple you did ask. If you don't feel comfortable asking here, by all means reach out to me in discord and I'll try my best.

[SilentRuin]

As you have pointed out many times, your code is based on the design logic from many years ago. At least that is something you bring up with every update cycle as why it should work was due to the age of the design. We have mentioned over the past year, and with each update, that there is major design logic changes was being implemented. Most of the issues you have faced recently (at least with anchoring and subwindows) is due in part to that change. The standardization process has been ongoing since it was announced. Moon Wizard has been implementing it over the past year to give that standard, that others have asked for in the past. You are in that period of transition and it will be this way till all the parts have been put into place. As of right now I believe that the only things left with standardization is the character sheet.

As for the 5e changes, much of what you are seeing is a change that will be the foundation for other projects, many of which are requests from the feature request boards. I will not go into what those are here. Changing of functions is not done lightly by Moon, but when it is done, there is a purpose and I'll allow Moon to address those changes when he has returned.

If any developer runs into an issue with their code I would hope they know they can reach out to me anytime and I am more than glad to help them along. But I'm not seeing many questions being asked about how to fix things. I'm seeing more outward commentary than requests for help. I can't provide answers when it's just commentary. You might find it's a short fix if questions are asked. As evident with the couple you did ask. If you don't feel comfortable asking here, by all means reach out to me in discord and I'll try my best.

My code is based on things from years ago - then from more recent stuff you guys tell me to switch to - which is then broken and I'm left to find what to switch to - then broken again and... so on.

I have the distinct feeling your not reading anything I'm telling you about needlessly renaming things (contents to content where plenty of things still use the word contents) and not documenting the changes or providing legacy calls. All I hear is "we are required to do changes". Fine - do them in a safe 3rd party conscious way with minimal impact. Just using the excuse of "we are required to make changes" does not fly with me. You are required to provide new features and new functionality - I did this for decades with a mind to who was still making use of my calls and UIs and did so in a way that minimally impacted them. And when it did I told them exactly what changed, why, and what they needed to replace the old UI/functions with.

YOU don't. That's my complaint. And has not changed at all based on what you just said - except confirming that you guys simply do not see - or want to see the issues 3rd parties are having keeping things afloat release to release.

[Vass_Dts]

I'm gonna sidetrack this conversation a bit to report a graphic glitch/bug/whatever in the Test build's character sheets.

The icon 'char_left_frame.png', used in the character sheet's header plates is misplaced in many (but strangely, not all) entries like in this 61915, whereas it should look like 61916 (note that both screenshots are from the same campaign, in TEST).

This affects all themes I've checked so far (Core, Core DARK, the new D&D theme, and my own theme).

[superteddy57]

Thanks for the report! I have noted it.

[rocketvaultgames]

Will new things like the following automatically choose the highest, or be left to be a manual process?

"Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you."

If it will be automated, i.e: pickup and drop the "Strength or Dexterity saving throw" text onto target and it picks the higher automatically, will it work for things like the bulette's deadly leap?

"If the bulette jumps at least 15 feet as part of its movement, it can then use this action to land on its feet in a space that contains one or more other creatures. Each of those creatures must succeed on a DC 16 Strength or Dexterity saving throw (target's choice) or be knocked prone and take 14 (3d6 + 4) bludgeoning damage + 14 (3d6 + 4) slashing damage. On a successful save, the creature takes only half the damage, isn't knocked prone, and is pushed 5 feet out of the bulette's space into an unoccupied space of the creature's choice. If no unoccupied space is within range, the creature instead falls prone in the bulette's space."


If it's easy, I'd love FG to auto-parse any combination of saving throws... this can help homebrew model Fortitude/Reflex/Will (or any combination of 2(+?)) scores from other editions.

I already submitted this as a feature request awhile back, but now I see the possibility of the 2024 rules requiring it, so I figured I'd ask here.

Thank you for all you do.

[Zacchaeus]

Will new things like the following automatically choose the highest, or be left to be a manual process?

"Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you."

If it will be automated, i.e: pickup and drop the "Strength or Dexterity saving throw" text onto target and it picks the higher automatically, will it work for things like the bulette's deadly leap?

"If the bulette jumps at least 15 feet as part of its movement, it can then use this action to land on its feet in a space that contains one or more other creatures. Each of those creatures must succeed on a DC 16 Strength or Dexterity saving throw (target's choice) or be knocked prone and take 14 (3d6 + 4) bludgeoning damage + 14 (3d6 + 4) slashing damage. On a successful save, the creature takes only half the damage, isn't knocked prone, and is pushed 5 feet out of the bulette's space into an unoccupied space of the creature's choice. If no unoccupied space is within range, the creature instead falls prone in the bulette's space."


If it's easy, I'd love FG to auto-parse any combination of saving throws... this can help homebrew model Fortitude/Reflex/Will (or any combination of 2(+?)) scores from other editions.

I already submitted this as a feature request awhile back, but now I see the possibility of the 2024 rules requiring it, so I figured I'd ask here.

Thank you for all you do.

No. At least not as written. If you reword it to The target must make a DC x Strength saving throw or the target must make a DC X Dexterity saving throw then it will parse both if it is an NPC; if it's a PC then wording it in that way should create the correct effects when you drag and drop the ability into the actions tab (or you can manually create it if it can't be drag and dropped).

[rocketvaultgames]

No. At least not as written. If you reword it to The target must make a DC x Strength saving throw or the target must make a DC X Dexterity saving throw then it will parse both if it is an NPC; if it's a PC then wording it in that way should create the correct effects when you drag and drop the ability into the actions tab (or you can manually create it if it can't be drag and dropped).

Thank you for the reply. My hope was to be able to drag one single line of text that would choose the better/best save automatically on a per-target basis.

[ddavison]

Just as a heads up, but we are planning to remove the item list from character wizard equipment screen and only show the initial character creation options where you select Starting Wealth or make the choices linked to your class. If you do anything with those controls in your extensions, then you will have to do something different there.

[SilentRuin]

Just as a heads up, but we are planning to remove the item list from character wizard equipment screen and only show the initial character creation options where you select Starting Wealth or make the choices linked to your class. If you do anything with those controls in your extensions, then you will have to do something different there.

The only thing I used in AdvantagesCW in character wizard are the functions that I was specifically told to use.

Currently the last functional calls I was told to override to do my stuff was...


buildRecords()

which build the lists of a variety of things (more than one of them).

As long as that hook I was told (the previous hook I was told to use was wiped out in an even earlier TEST) to use is preserved I'm good and will not have to bring out the hammer as I have in the past.

If in doubt here is the code - the only code - I override in recrod_charwizard_lists.xml...



<root>
<windowclass name="classspells_sub_spells" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllSpells());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="sub_charwizard_class_classselection" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllClasses());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="decision_sub_classfeat_choice" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllFeats());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="decision_sub_racefeat_choice" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllFeats());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="sub_charwizard_background_backgroundselection" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllBackgrounds());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="sub_charwizard_equipment_additems" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllRecords());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="sub_charwizard_equipment_currentinv" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllRecords());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
<windowclass name="sub_charwizard_race_raceselection" merge="join">
<script>
function buildRecords()
super.buildRecords();
if OptionsManager.isOption("FIRST_MATCH_IN_CHARWIZARD", "on") then
AdvantagesCWManager.ApplyModulePriorities(self.get AllRaces());
end
end
</script>
</windowclass>
</root>


As I went through considerable pain last time I was broken and told to go in this direction - I'd really like it not to go in some new direction yet again after being assured this was what I needed to override.

[rhagelstrom]

61940

Script error rolling Init when char has Exhaustion condition

[superteddy57]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

[rhagelstrom]

Probably a little late in the game but noticed Exhaustion rules are now 2024 if you want them or not. I was hoping for a toggle to choose. So in the middle of campaign and force rule change? I dunno... but probably an unfortunate trend?

[bwatford]

Probably a little late in the game but noticed Exhaustion rules are now 2024 if you want them or not. I was hoping for a toggle to choose. So in the middle of campaign and force rule change? I dunno... but probably an unfortunate trend?

This is what I was afraid of, but was told, a toggle will give you the option to tun 2014.... doesn't look like it on some things. Really depressing.

[ddavison]

We will look into this. We still have a lot of changes in a dev branch we haven't rolled out yet, and one of those is a default rules toggle. We are going to look at interrogating that to determine how to handle exhaustion -- or may possibly just create two separate conditions. We will let you know which route we take once we decide. From Moon Wizard, he believes this was the only condition that was different between the versions. For spells, items, NPCs, classes, backgrounds, etc., these all have distinctly separate data records and you will choose which version you want to use.

[ddavison]

It looks like this is the change between the two versions:

Exhaustion in 5th Edition (2014 PHB):
Exhaustion Levels: There were 6 levels of exhaustion, and each level imposed increasingly severe penalties:


Disadvantage on ability checks.
Speed halved.
Disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws.
Hit point maximum halved.
Speed reduced to 0.
Death.



Cumulative Penalties: If a character became more exhausted, they accumulated penalties from all previous levels.

Recovery: A long rest reduced a character’s exhaustion level by 1, but only if they also ate food and drank water.

Exhaustion in the 2024 Rules (One D&D playtest or UA updates):
Exhaustion Levels. This condition is cumulative. Each time you receive it, you gain 1 Exhaustion level. You die if your Exhaustion level is 6.

While you have the Exhaustion condition, you experience the following effects.


D20 Tests Affected. When you make a D20 Test, the roll is reduced by 2 times your Exhaustion level.
Speed Reduced. Your Speed is reduced by a number of feet equal to 5 times your Exhaustion level.


Removing Exhaustion Levels. Finishing a Long Rest removes 1 of your Exhaustion levels. When your Exhaustion level reaches 0, the condition ends.

[ddavison]

I have a modified version of this in our dev branch and we will let you know once we push it to TEST. It checks the default rules setting you have set for your campaign and then applies the appropriate modifier or disadvantage based on the exhaustion level and what rule set you chose.

Looking at our logs, it doesn't look like we ever automated any of these exhaustion levels in the pre-2024 rules:

2. Speed Halved
4. Hit Point maximum halved
6. Death



The new version will do this for 2024 Exhaustion:

Add a -2 to all d20 rolls (attacks, actions, saves) for each level of exhaustion
Recover 1 level of exhaustion on a long rest
Adds an informational effect with Duration 1 for each exhaustion level showing the speed reduction
Adds an informational effect for Death when exhaustion level is 6 at the start of the characters turn



The Legacy rules will do this:

Apply disadvantage to ability checks for all levels of exhaustion
Apply disadvantage to attack rolls and saving throws for exhaustion at level 3 and higher
Adds an informational effect with Duration 1 for each exhaustion level that adjusts speed or max hp

[LordEntrails]

Thanks Doug, that sounds like a positive enhancement for the 2014 rules and a good way to handle the change.

[SilentRuin]

... It checks the default rules setting you have set for your campaign ...

Where is that?

[LordEntrails]

Where is that?
It's not on test yet. It's in an internal dev build. Doug said he would let us know when its on test.

[ddavison]

You will be able to access it like this:



local sOptionGAVE = OptionsManager.getOption("GAVE");
local bIs2024 = (sOptionGAVE == "2024");
if bIs2024 then
-- do something
end

[rhagelstrom]

61943

Theme Core and Theme Core Dark are throwing warnings. There maybe more of the pre-packaged that do the same

[rhagelstrom]

You will be able to access it like this:



local sOptionGAVE = OptionsManager.getOption("GAVE");
local bIs2024 = (sOptionGAVE == "2024");
if bIs2024 then
-- do something
end


I'm going to update a few exts with this. Any ETA on when we will see it on test so we can test?

[ddavison]

We are shooting for tomorrow. We are sorry it is so late. We are still working on some key elements for the character wizard.

Some new upcoming changes:


2024 Classes now include an item list for starting equipment
2024 backgrounds now include an item list for starting equipment and wealth
The old equipment fields are still there and are auto-populated based on the item lists
Legacy starting equipment remains the same
Character Wizard warnings for mixing and matching legacy and 2024 D&D rules


We are trying to put in some automation for the last item as well, but not sure if we will get that together in time.

[ddavison]

We just pushed out the latest 5E ruleset code to the TEST channel along with the D&D 2024 Free Rules module. Please let us know if you have any feedback on this and we will work on getting those issues fixed before the official launch next week.


Exhaustion update based on global setting
New version of parsePower(...) that should accept either the old call format or the new format that expects a table with the arguments inside
Character Wizard Updates
added warnings for cross-compatibility between 2024 and Legacy
added ASI and feat choice to legacy backgrounds when class is D&D 2024 (partially implemented)
blocked Species ASI from legacy records when class is from D&D 2024
D&D 2024 PHB and D&D 2024 Free Rules updates
Class Updates to list items for starting equipment
Background updates to list items for starting equipment

[Farratto]

Invisible Condition and init rolls: thank you for fixing the disadv -> adv. Another thing I noticed: It's giving advantage regardless of whether you have game option set to legacy or 2024. This would be a rare problem, but thought I'd let you know.

I've also noticed that the scroll bar is not present on character sheets. It's there for all the other places I've looked. You can still scroll to the bottom with the mouse wheel, but that can be slow if you're character sheet is pretty long.

Thanks again for all the hard work :-)

[superteddy57]

The character sheet itself doesn't have a global scrollbar. Can you give me more details on what you would expect to have a scrollbar with so I can check them over?

[Moon Wizard]

Just pushed a new build that limits the Invisible Advantage when game mode is set to 2024.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

Just pushed a new build that limits the Invisible Advantage when game mode is set to 2024.

Regards,
JPG

[Never mind - this was evidently not about attack advantage but the new initiative advantage - it was unclear from statements what was being discussed]

I was confused by this statement. What limits the invisible advantage in 2024 that would not limit it in 2014?

If something can see the invisible PC/NPC then it will not be effected by its advantages/disadvantages. For instance, something magical that detects invisibility like fairy fire or certain types of vision.

What are you guys talking about there that is different?

The only thing I could see was 2024 may specify some things that are supposed to be obvious in the "if seen" from the previous 2014 version. In which case, the same.

[Farratto]

The character sheet itself doesn't have a global scrollbar. Can you give me more details on what you would expect to have a scrollbar with so I can check them over?

Apologies for not being more clear. These screenshots should help: First is from live channel, Second is from test channel.
61980
61981

Oh, and thank you for the fast turnaround for the adv on initiative invisible condition 2024 stuff

[Moon Wizard]

Thanks for the additional information. I've pushed a fix to restore the scrollbar on that page.

Regards,
JPG