Feedback Thread - 2026-05 Ruleset Updates

I have a little report regarding negating IFT effects: One can for example write IFT: !CUSTOM(test); ATK: 2 to allow a +2 attack bonus as long as the target has not "test" as an effect.

Now, there is some matter of preference regarding logic: It works, however, if one has no target, then the effect is not applied either. In my extension I rewrote it in such a way that those effects are also applied if there is no target (so negated conditional returns true). It is a matter of preference for sure :) But some might argue that it is more logical to say that the negated conditional of "If there is a target with "test" as effect, then apply +2 ATK." is "If there is no target with "test" as effect, then apply +2 ATK.", and having no target at all "trivially" means that there is no target having an "test" effect so that the bonus should be applied
(but that is nitpicking on logic; most of the time it doesn't matter, but I still wanted to report it in case you actually have a preference :) )

(The version of a negated IFT allowing no targets was a bit nasty to code though, in particular I had to consider what happens if it is a drag&drop attack and stuff like that; but the new code may not have the problems I had back then :) )

EDIT: Even if one reads this as "If there is a target and it has no 'test' effect, then apply a +2 atk bonus", then one could argue that "no target" means one has actually a target, an "empty target" interpreted as "target" naturally satisfying to have no "test" effect, and so it should allow a +2 atk bonus :D (but that is now how we mathematicians approach logic, so really just nitpicking here :D)

What is the use case for that scenario? Did you actually come across a power that you had to code that way?

Thanks,
JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moon Wizard

What is the use case for that scenario? Did you actually come across a power that you had to code that way?

Thanks,
JPG

---

There is no real use case, I think, really just a preference because people will usually roll with a target. The only use case may be: Someone wants to roll their die and see how existing effects contribute. That someone may complain they would have expected that a roll without target is affected by such an effect. However, I am not sure whether one can pinpoint a common user expectation in this case :)

It may also matter if one is rolling without a target and then one wants to drag&drop the result from the chat onto the target; depending on what one defines as "standard" expectation, one may or may not want to apply such effects to such drag&drops. But such drag&drops already have in general the problem that IFT effects won't get accounted, so one could put that under the rug, too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moon Wizard

@Henix,

Just pushed an update to the Test channel that changes the default behavior of the "effect add ignore" code to also compare targets, not just name/init/duration.

Regards,
JPG

---

Thanks for considering my proposal! This will be a fantastic update!

I could see someone having a bonus against everything but holy, or orcs, or something. that this would be useful. But I don't know of any actual effects that would cause such.

Without a clear use case; I'm not sure that the issue is worth the complexity in the code it causes.
Currently, the ! operator (NOT) for tags applies to the result of the check.

If we see clear use cases pop up later, we can re-evaulate.

Regards,
JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moon Wizard

Without a clear use case; I'm not sure that the issue is worth the complexity in the code it causes.
Currently, the ! operator (NOT) for tags applies to the result of the check.

If we see clear use cases pop up later, we can re-evaulate.

Regards,
JPG

---

Thanks, makes sense :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

I could see someone having a bonus against everything but holy, or orcs, or something. that this would be useful. But I don't know of any actual effects that would cause such.

---

I agree with this in regard to some of the new damage effects as well. They seem neat and all but some of the combinations aren't even features in the 5e ruleset as far as I know. If there are what are they?

As the implementation that we have done mirrors implementations in existing extensions, and Kelrugem's extension differed from the other extensions that provided negative operator support, I picked the option that made the most sense based on existing use cases and code complexity/maintenance.

As I stated above, if we see a clear use case in the future, we will re-evaluate at that time.

Regards,
JPG

I could build the Battle Maneuver Goading Attack maybe like IFT !NAME(My Character); DISATK or something like that.
Sometimes I let my players roll attacks just into chat, i.e. if they want to attack "something" in the environment and we want to decide how well that works. So I don't have a token/NPC for that thing. Still I would expect any effect affecting attacks to work. Might still be an edge case.