Kelrugem's extensions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swest

No worries, at all. I did not really avail myself of any current events before jumping into this.

I forget, is there any way to downgrade my FGU to a previous release? I'm not even sure I would want to try it, but I thought I'd ask. If not, I'll be happy to wait until everything is reconciled.

Thanks for the explanation.

Cheers,

- s.west

---

Sadly there is now way to downgrade :/ I try to fix that as soon as possible :) Maybe I can get to it earlier than anticipated :)

Hi all :)

I finally updated my extensions (the extended automation ones needed a small update) :) So, the extensions are now compatible with the newest FG version :)

@Swest: Does it now work for you again? I couldn't replicate your error but I hope the small update also fixes your error :)

Thanks for the notice. I'll be getting back to this on Sunday or Monday, and I'll let you know.
Cheers!

Twilight Sanctuary; AURASHAPE: circle; AURACOLOR: purple; AURA: 30 friend; Torin's Twilight Sanctuary; IF: FACTION(friend); TEMPO: 1d6+5

This was working a few weeks ago - failed to work tonight. Did the syntax change or do I need a patch from somewhere? If so, where can I get an update?


[Version dated at 10 January 2022. Adds TEMPO and ROLLON effect; for ongoing temporary hitpoints and rolling on a table at the beginning of the turn, respectively. Thanks to Scriedraven and Geokhan to make this extension compatible with Kent's ongoing save extension.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Farktopia

Twilight Sanctuary; AURASHAPE: circle; AURACOLOR: purple; AURA: 30 friend; Torin's Twilight Sanctuary; IF: FACTION(friend); TEMPO: 1d6+5

This was working a few weeks ago - failed to work tonight. Did the syntax change or do I need a patch from somewhere? If so, where can I get an update?


[Version dated at 10 January 2022. Adds TEMPO and ROLLON effect; for ongoing temporary hitpoints and rolling on a table at the beginning of the turn, respectively. Thanks to Scriedraven and Geokhan to make this extension compatible with Kent's ongoing save extension.]

---

Are you sure you are talking about this extension? I don't think any of the Conditions or Modifiers in your effect are in this extension.

It's possible - I searched for TEMPO and Kelrugem is the author. On page one it lists TEMPO as part of the package. If this is the wrong place - my apologies.
I sent a direct message to the mod author from the FORGE page.

Thanks.
G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Farktopia

Twilight Sanctuary; AURASHAPE: circle; AURACOLOR: purple; AURA: 30 friend; Torin's Twilight Sanctuary; IF: FACTION(friend); TEMPO: 1d6+5

This was working a few weeks ago - failed to work tonight. Did the syntax change or do I need a patch from somewhere? If so, where can I get an update?


[Version dated at 10 January 2022. Adds TEMPO and ROLLON effect; for ongoing temporary hitpoints and rolling on a table at the beginning of the turn, respectively. Thanks to Scriedraven and Geokhan to make this extension compatible with Kent's ongoing save extension.]

---

Is all the aura stuff working but the temp hitpoints are not?

Yes - the AURAS work fine. They appear on screen as expected. Things like the coding for SPIRIT GUARDIANS works fine. (AND TEMPO worked 2 weeks ago.)
AURACOLOR: red; AURA: 15 foe; Spirit Guardians; IF: FACTION(foe); SAVEO: WISDOM DC 14 (M)(H); SAVEDMG: 3d8 radiant; (C)
Pic shows Aura working - and SAVEO working - and Half on Save working - Concentration checks working. TEMPO not working.
I'm willing to admit I may have bad syntax - but it was working before.
-G

Attachment 59043

Also here: Thanks for the report :) Sorry, I am a bit busy (drowning in work right now), but I try to check it later this day :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelrugem

Also here: Thanks for the report :) Sorry, I am a bit busy (drowning in work right now), but I try to check it later this day :)

---

Appreciate it.

-G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Farktopia

Appreciate it.

-G

---

Hi :)

Sorry, I am still drowning in work, I hope I can look at that soon :) Sadly my life is just work and sleep right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelrugem

Sadly my life is just work and sleep right now

---

oh-noes! :-(

when you get around to it, a question -- (i think these are relevant from your extension? or maybe part of fg coding?):

i have this in npc "sq" box:

Code:

---

DR 5/magic and slashing; Resist fire 10; Immune cold, electricity, magicmissile, undead traits; Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4

---

when i drop npc into combat tracker, these populated:

Code:

---

Undead traits; IMMUNE: nonlethal; DR: 5 magic and slashing; RESIST: 10 fire; IMMUNE: cold; IMMUNE: electricity; DMGTYPE: magic; IFTAG: mindaffecting, death, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, fatigue, exhaustion, abilitydrain, energydrain; SIMMUNE

---

i can guess how some are rewritten and make sense, but a few don't look right -- e.g. why "dmgtype:magic"? and nothing about a) immunity to magic missile, and b) channel resistance (do these exist / work?)

thx

(hope you can adjust your work-life and gain a more balanced ratio)

DMGTYPE: magic from DR magic. its a rule in the bestiary. immunity to magic missiles i wouldn't know unless i saw the npc stat block in question. the channel resistance is pretty standard across higher level undead in PF too but they dont work automatically in FG

thx for explanation. still unclear on this one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

DMGTYPE: magic from DR magic. its a rule in the bestiary.

---

my understanding of "dmgtype: magic" is that it treats the creature's damage done to others as magical damage? how does it interact with "dr: 5 magic"?

i.e. "dr: 5 magic" just means creature has damage reduction 5, bypassed by magic... what does that have to do with whether the creature can inflict magical damage?

Shrugs. Its part of the damage reduction universal monster rules.

"Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/ru...-monster-rules under damage reduction

there are quite a few of things like this that are hidden in random parts of books under appendices that change a few things. Not all are well known. i always have to re check to make sure this ability or that ability doesnt have extra rules on it

.
thx for the reference text.

hm... it's odd, and i think it's a wording issue because it is about the attacker overcoming dr, not whether a targeted creature can do magical damage.

i think this bit "Such creatures’ natural weapons..." is causing confusion -- it sounds like it's referring to "Some monsters..." (first sentence, the target), whereas it should be referring to the weapon being used (by the attacker), further qualifying the second sentence.

"natural weapons" [if qualified as magic] of the attacker, not of "some monsters".

my conclusion why "dmgtype: magic" was added in fg is because it was interpreted that the "natural weapons" belong to "some monsters" -- thus the npc / monster gets to do magical damage, although it should not.

See, I read it the other way. The first sentence states that DR from the monster is broken by magic weapons. the second sentence reads that their natural attacks are treated as capable of breaking magic damage reduction. Just envision that monster fighting others of their kind. wouldnt make sense for them not to be able to hurt themselves or others of their kind in dominance issues so this grants them the ability to break their own DR if needed.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

The first sentence states that DR from the monster is broken by magic weapons.

---

that's clear. agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

the second sentence reads that their natural attacks are treated as capable of breaking magic damage reduction.

---

i don't interpret it like that.

there are 2 parties referenced in this sentence: the attacker ("any weapon") against the target ("these monsters" -- referring back to "some monsters" in first sentence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

Just envision that monster fighting others of their kind. wouldnt make sense for them not to be able to hurt themselves or others of their kind in dominance issues so this grants them the ability to break their own DR if needed.

---

although i see and understand your scenario, i think you're putting words into the rules that's not there, i.e. r.a.w.

if the creature's stat block does not say its natural attacks are magical, it cannot do magical damage. simply r.a.w.

to entertain the scenario you stated above, i would say if two creatures of same type want to duke it out for dominance, damage reduction stands (they're not immune to each other's attacks).

each creature would need to continual just do big damages to the other one, each hit reducing by (in this case) 5 and the rest of the damage goes through. it's gonna be a drawn out fight, but the one that happens to hits harder (luck of the dice) more often will win over -- and dominate.

We both agree the first sentence says what it says... the third sentence doesn't have a target other than the reference back to the first sentence. Such creatures' (referring to the monsters that have vulnerable to magic weapons) natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. nowhere in there does that sentence have a 2nd target. just says that DR magic monsters break DR magic. If you don't agree (and that's perfectly fine too) as a GM, don't use it.

Now should FG add that as a DMGTYPE. probably not. as it doesn't apply to weapons other than their own natural weapons. But I am not the original coder of the PF ruleset and i do not know what was going thru their head. Maybe they want to be more through. I do not know. Just means there is something you need to keep your eye on for any game that are ran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

If you don't agree (and that's perfectly fine too) as a GM, don't use it.

---

of course. i don't agree that "some creatures" get magical damage per this text. second and third sentence, to me, want to clarify the weapon against such creatures.

however, it's coded in fg to populate "dmgtype: magic" and i would have to remove it manually (a pain if there are lots of such npcs), or miss it completely if i don't pay attention when adding a bunch of npcs to combat tracker.

I cant find the section of code that auto adds that line or i could give you a quick fix for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tahl_liadon

of course. i don't agree that "some creatures" get magical damage per this text. second and third sentence, to me, want to clarify the weapon against such creatures.

---

Rules, though, mention it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

---

And also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD

Some monsters are vulnerable to chaotic-, evil-, good-, or lawful-aligned weapons. When a cleric casts align weapon, affected weapons might gain one or more of these properties, and certain magic weapons have these properties as well. A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature.

---

Altough "Rule 0" always wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asgurgolas

Rules, though, mention it: ...Such creature's natural weapons...

---

hold that thought...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asgurgolas

And also: Some monsters are vulnerable to chaotic-... A creature with an alignment subtype... can overcome this type of damage reduction...

---

thx for posting that, which helps to support my case: this is what i was referring to when i said the thing about r.a.w – the alignment is written in the creature's stats, so it make sense as well as being definitive that this particular aspect can overcome damage reduction.

the "Such creature's natural weapons..." line, where it's placed, is still awkward and ambiguous to me though:

"Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

it's as if i'm being asked to read it like this:

"Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." – 2nd sentence temporarily removed for continuity / clarity.

which from all feedback interpretations so far is saying "although it is not specifically stat'd that the creature's natural attacks is considered magical, but if it has dr: magic, it would then be indirectly stat'd to have magical natural attacks".

tl;dr
in other words, any creature stat'd with dr: [x] magic = it also by definition has natural attacks that do magic?

conclusion: i want to respect the original intent of this thread, and not continue to spam it. thx all for the feedback. feel free to start another thread if anyone wants to go into it further.

.
@kelrugem, confirming: there are advantage / disadvantage effects to atk, save, and init in your extension, correct?

i tested: skill and ability checks do not work, correct?

although advantage / disadvantage are 5e rules, they are perfect for pathfinder witch hexes. it would be great to have skill and ability checks work as well from your extension!

thx in advance

EDIT*** nevermind, did not know I needed to add a damage type to the weapon.*** works with slashing added


Hey there Kel, Know your busy so not a complaint or rush.

I believe your extended automations and overlays breaks DR. Attachment 59157 Attachment 59158

It says it is resisting damage but it doesn't block any damage

Morenu, does it block slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage? cause untyped damage isnt affected by DR. Dunno why it says resisted in that case tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

Morenu, does it block slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage? cause untyped damage isnt affected by DR. Dunno why it says resisted in that case tho

---

I did not know that. I tested it with No Extensions and DR worked with no damage type. I did not realize it was a feature added by Kel's extension... Attachment 59161 this shows with no extension, DR works without defining damage type.

Thanks, I thought I messed up the testing but I just didn't realize it added more specificity. and yes it worked when I added slashing

Hi :)

Sorry for my silence, had to work a lot in the last days :) Next week I am in South Korea to give a talk and for attending a conference and after that everything should hopefully be normal again :) Then I can also play Pen&Paper etc :)

Just to make sure I didn't miss anything: All questions are answered now? :) (thanks for helping each other :) )

(my current position is only a temporary position, and so I have to write applications at the moment and I tried to finish projects for my applications. Thus, I am very busy :) )

tahl_liadon had one for your extension about adv dis adv just a few posts back that never got answered but the rest got answered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phixation

tahl_liadon had one for your extension about adv dis adv just a few posts back that never got answered but the rest got answered

---

Ah, thanks, about to answer it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tahl_liadon

.
@kelrugem, confirming: there are advantage / disadvantage effects to atk, save, and init in your extension, correct?

i tested: skill and ability checks do not work, correct?

although advantage / disadvantage are 5e rules, they are perfect for pathfinder witch hexes. it would be great to have skill and ability checks work as well from your extension!

thx in advance

---

I actually think they work for all rolls, you can use keladvantage (expire on next roll or so) to get advantage to any roll :)

Soo, I finally get some life back, and I just wanted to check my extensions regarding compatibility, and... well, my laptop died :D Soon(TM) I push some updates, my laptop is already in repair :)

Short update for the 5e extension (TEMPO): It should still work, so the problem may come from an incompatibility with another extension :) (would be happy then if someone can test; though I will also ask in the corresponding 5E thread to avoid cluttering this one)

in a middle of a game and don't have time to scourged forum...

anyone know effects for spell focus? i have this one myself and doesn't seem to work:

Spell Focus; IFTAG: spell, necromancy; DC: 1;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tahl_liadon

in a middle of a game and don't have time to scourged forum...

anyone know effects for spell focus? i have this one myself and doesn't seem to work:

Spell Focus; IFTAG: spell, necromancy; DC: 1;

---

I use this for my character with Fire Domain:

IFTAG: spell; IFTAG: fire; CL:2

So, try:

Spell Focus; IFTAG: spell;IFTAG: necromancy; DC: 1

I did it with conjuration and it worked for me

comma in IFTAG is an OR logic. So you would have to do what Morenu said to get it to check illusion spells and not just all spells and anything with necromancy tag

Ok, I am trying to set up Smite Evil and have it work with the feat Adept Champion

Smite Evil I have working perfectly (thanks to an example I tweaked a bit) Attachment 59426 with the only issue being if the player is a multiclass paladin then LVL needs modified to CL (set CL to the paladin level and change all LVL to CL).

Adept Champion allows you to exchange the Smite Evil Damage to 1/2 the damage towards CMD for 1 round. this works as well: Attachment 59425 , except for the first successful hit on a Dragon, outsider or undead where smite evil doubles the damage on that one hit and hence would double the CMD if it is the first successful hit as well.-

I thought putting a custom tag on the smite evil target that gets applied on the first successful hit would be perfect, but I can't figure out.

This works for checking if the first successful attack against the smite target and that target is of the correct type, then apply more damage and then turn off

Quote:

---

Smite Evil First Hit Only bonus; IFT: ALIGN(evil); IFT: CUSTOM(Evil to Smite); IFT: TYPE(outsider, dragon, undead); DMG: [LVL]

---

I would like it to add a tag (part in bold) If that extra damage is applied like this:

Quote:

---

Smite Evil First Hit Only bonus; IFT: ALIGN(evil); IFT: CUSTOM(Evil to Smite); IFT: TYPE(outsider, dragon, undead); DMG: [LVL];First Attack Done

---

and then do the following any time they want to use adept champion (Bolded portion checks for the double damage on the first successful attack):

Quote:

---

Adept Champion; IFT: ALIGN(evil); IFT: CUSTOM(Evil to Smite); DMG: [-LVL]; CMB: [HLVL]; IFT: TYPE(outsider, dragon, undead); NIFT: CUSTOM(First Attack Done); CMB: [HLVL]

---

Any ideas? this is the most complicated I have gotten so far

Smite Evil First Hit Only bonus; IFT: ALIGN(evil); IFT: CUSTOM(Evil to Smite); IFT: TYPE(outsider, dragon, undead); DMG: [LVL]; EXPIREADD: First Attack Done

First Attack Done must be in the master effect list. make it expire on roll. should be exactly what you are looking for. tho that is an effect from Better combat and not Kels stuff ;)

i posted this in another thread... wondering if anyone can review and provide insight. thx

#####
hey, folks. can someone interpret this coding plz?
Shield of Faith;AC:2 [d6CL3], deflection
my pc is at level (cl) 5 and got ac: 3 when applied... that shouldn't be until 6th level for additional +1?
so is coding incorrect?

a response:
i tested your exact line and only get 2 with a CL 5 spell category. so either you have other effects or another extension is modifying it (odds are rounding up)
#####

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tahl_liadon

i posted this in another thread... wondering if anyone can review and provide insight. thx

#####
hey, folks. can someone interpret this coding plz?
Shield of Faith;AC:2 [d6CL3], deflection
my pc is at level (cl) 5 and got ac: 3 when applied... that shouldn't be until 6th level for additional +1?
so is coding incorrect?

a response:
i tested your exact line and only get 2 with a CL 5 spell category. so either you have other effects or another extension is modifying it (odds are rounding up)
#####

---

Hi :)

I see, I will also test it this weekend if I do not forget it :) Thanks for the report :) And thanks, Phixation, for answering Morenu's question :)

(general sorry that I am so busy right now)