Tales of the Valiant Bug Report Thread

Tales of the Valiant games don't understand what keensense is. It's the ToV version of blindsight, should be easy to have it map "keensense" to "blindsight" in the extension, yes?

Right now where it shows up, in the combat tracker I have to change it manually so the token gets the right sight added to it, or edit the NPC when imported (or if it gets entered into a module with the proper ToV language).

pushed an update that adds keensense as a vision type

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superteddy57

pushed an update that adds keensense as a vision type

---

w00t!

So another annoying thing with the way FG deals with ToV NPC's that maybe the extension could fix.

In ToV a lot of attacks are printed as "Melee or Ranged Attack", meaning the same attack works without disadvantage while in melee. However, in the combat tracker, when these creatures get added, they only have a ranged attack. They don't have a melee version of it to use.

Lots of creatures in the Monster Vaults have this wording, and anything that gets imported will have this as well.

The fix is to make a copy of the creature you want to use (because the MV is read-only) and duplicate the attack, making one melee and one ranged. That is a pain in prep. Even more so when improvising on the fly during a session.

Is there a way the extension could recognize this wording and either remove the disadvantage from the attack when a creature is in melee range (I think that's default behavior and not some other extension doing that), or split the attack into two separate attacks on the combat tracker when it gets added? Either would work better than what we have to do today.

It's probably easier to duplicate the attack for melee and use the right one for the correct distance (since I do believe if you make a ranged attack with these attacks and another creature is in melee range, disadvantage still applies).

Might be better to have in the core rules, though, since technically all these beasties are supposed to be able to be used in a 5E or 5.5E game—just a thought.

example wording from MV2:

Patron's Gift
Melee or Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft. or range 60 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) fire damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 STR save or be pushed 10 feet away from the kobold and knocked prone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drempel

So another annoying thing with the way FG deals with ToV NPC's that maybe the extension could fix.

In ToV a lot of attacks are printed as "Melee or Ranged Attack", meaning the same attack works without disadvantage while in melee. However, in the combat tracker, when these creatures get added, they only have a ranged attack. They don't have a melee version of it to use.

Lots of creatures in the Monster Vaults have this wording, and anything that gets imported will have this as well.

The fix is to make a copy of the creature you want to use (because the MV is read-only) and duplicate the attack, making one melee and one ranged. That is a pain in prep. Even more so when improvising on the fly during a session.

Is there a way the extension could recognize this wording and either remove the disadvantage from the attack when a creature is in melee range (I think that's default behavior and not some other extension doing that), or split the attack into two separate attacks on the combat tracker when it gets added? Either would work better than what we have to do today.

It's probably easier to duplicate the attack for melee and use the right one for the correct distance (since I do believe if you make a ranged attack with these attacks and another creature is in melee range, disadvantage still applies).

Might be better to have in the core rules, though, since technically all these beasties are supposed to be able to be used in a 5E or 5.5E game—just a thought.

example wording from MV2:

Patron's Gift
Melee or Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft. or range 60 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) fire damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 STR save or be pushed 10 feet away from the kobold and knocked prone.

---

This can be corrected by the developer by splitting the attacks using wording like Melee Weapon attack: +5 to hit, reach 5ft, one target. Hit 10 (2d6+3) fire damage. Or Ranged Weapon Attack: etc This way both attacks will appear on the CT.

It's not a perfect fix because it disables other functionality that you might miss, but if you turn off enforce range in Options, those attacks won't be disadvantaged. I also find that with that option enabled, some fights involving large or huge tokens inappropriately give disadvantage to melee, because FG measures the distance as 10 ft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColoradoGM

It's not a perfect fix because it disables other functionality that you might miss, but if you turn off enforce range in Options, those attacks won't be disadvantaged. I also find that with that option enabled, some fights involving large or huge tokens inappropriately give disadvantage to melee, because FG measures the distance as 10 ft.

---

I don't have this so I don't know what you mean by enforced range. Melee attacks and ranged attacks are recognized by FGVTT and if a target is prone for example it automatically gives a ranged attack disadvantage. So by splitting the attacks line into melee and ranged both attack types will appear on the CT and you can then choose which attack you want to make rather than having only the one possibly incorrect option. Melee or Ranged attack is a common wording employed by WotC (on which the 5e parsing is based) but when developing I always split the attack into two for the very reasons that you are giving. Unless there's something weird in the ToV ruleset splitting the attacks should solve your problem.

I've drawn the developers attention to this thread.

"Range Limits/Advantages/Disadvantages applied" on/off, in Options. I thought it was part of vanilla SG but it comes from Generic Actions, so you might not have it. But if you turn it off, you can make ranged or melee attacks and FG doesn't consider token locations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drempel

So another annoying thing with the way FG deals with ToV NPC's that maybe the extension could fix.

In ToV a lot of attacks are printed as "Melee or Ranged Attack", meaning the same attack works without disadvantage while in melee. However, in the combat tracker, when these creatures get added, they only have a ranged attack. They don't have a melee version of it to use.

Lots of creatures in the Monster Vaults have this wording, and anything that gets imported will have this as well.

The fix is to make a copy of the creature you want to use (because the MV is read-only) and duplicate the attack, making one melee and one ranged. That is a pain in prep. Even more so when improvising on the fly during a session.

Is there a way the extension could recognize this wording and either remove the disadvantage from the attack when a creature is in melee range (I think that's default behavior and not some other extension doing that), or split the attack into two separate attacks on the combat tracker when it gets added? Either would work better than what we have to do today.

It's probably easier to duplicate the attack for melee and use the right one for the correct distance (since I do believe if you make a ranged attack with these attacks and another creature is in melee range, disadvantage still applies).

Might be better to have in the core rules, though, since technically all these beasties are supposed to be able to be used in a 5E or 5.5E game—just a thought.

example wording from MV2:

Patron's Gift
Melee or Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft. or range 60 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) fire damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 STR save or be pushed 10 feet away from the kobold and knocked prone.

---

This has been fixed as of last week.
Minx

In campaign builder: dungeons and ruins. All the spells have school and source mixed up. School should be things like evocation, transmutation. Source should be things like arcane, wyrd.

eg: Alter Aura, the School is "Arcane and Primordial", Source is "Transmutation". It should be that School is "Transmutation", and Source should be "Arcane, Primordial" (not even sure why "and" is even in there in the school mixup...).