Which we did, of course. We were mostly confused about not finding the sight traits (low-light vision, darkvision) in the trait list to drop & drag to the character sheet. So we had to manually add the traits to the Abilities tab and then had to manually add them again in the Perception entry of the Main tab (as in typing the words in). No big deal, just unexpected compared to the rest of the character creation mechanics.
I'm pretty sure that these get added to the MAIN tab but not the ABILITIES tab. This is similar to how it works in the PF1 ruleset.
Not for Heritages, only for the Ancestries. That's why... see post #450!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackfoot
Hey folks,
So, I've looked through this thread, but I don't have time to delve deeply into 46 pages of information.
I've been getting this message in the chat box? Not sure of it's origin.
!!!Unable to set defense proficiencies - no armor proficiency data found
I'd love to know what the alert is for?
Is this the issue in RS2.084?
A little while ago Trenloe changed how the character sheet showed stuff (armor proficiencies) and a bit of code was written to convert old format characters. The old character doesn't have any proficiences listed or at least not in a format it understands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atreides Ghola
the conversion has failed.
See here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...nuary-7th-2020Quote:
Originally Posted by Atreides Ghola
Specifically the second bullet point in post #1, and post #2.
If you’re still building your PC, particularly if you haven’t added a class yet, you can ignore the warning. If you’ve fully built your PC then you’ll need to manually set your defense proficiencies in the combat tab.
We've recently decided to use FGU for our weekly game of Pathfinder Second Edition. We're still getting the hang of the tool, but one thing we noticed is that FGU automatically adjusts damage rolls for critical hits -- which is awesome! However, it doubles the number of dice instead of doubling the base result. Is there a way to change it to its proper setting?
See RS2.016 in the issue tracking thread linked in post #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolis
The way FG does it is not in an improper way. From the Core Rules: "The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for single-target attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll."
From this, we see that "roll one set of dice and double the result" is purely a convenience when playing with real dice - the game can slow down if a player had to find a lot of dice (especially at higher levels they have be roll 6 or more d8s, for example). In FG we don’t have this restriction.
Kinda, but the damage curve is completely different with doubling damage vs doubling damage dice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenloe
The game system is built around the balance concept of it doubling damage and there was a lot of effort put into the math expectations. While it certainly had its origins in making the system run faster it being core has had an impact on the math of the system and the variant was put in place as explicit permission for those who like rolling dice.
A good way of explaining this is with D4*2 vs 2d4 results
D4*2 has the following distribution
2 - 25%
4 - 25%
6 - 25%
8 - 25%
2d4 has the following distribution
2 6.25%
3 12.5%
4 18.75%
5 25%
6 18.75%
7 12.5%
8 6.25%
The minimums, averages and maximums stay the same. But the required rolls to reasonably hit minimums and maximums are increased dramatically. You are four times more likely to get a maximum or minimum roll with doubled damage than with doubled dice.
This is just with 2d4 though, the effect is more pronounced if you start rolling things like 5d6 or higher where it becomes 10 times less likely or greater.
I am not writing this to say that your personal preferences are wrong, more that it isn't just a matter of what is easy at a table vs VTT when it comes to making a variant rule core.
Matters little to me as it was easy to fix in an extension.
I will be adding the option into the ruleset at some point. The thing to keep in mind is that neither way is the wrong way or the proper way - the rules I quote above are very clear on that.